WCK's "operating system"

[t_niehoff]

Van's response, taken from another thread . . .



So while it shows up, Wing Chun mainly works for a specific range and situation...and as such I tend to use MY wing chun when I'm within arm's length or closer. It doesn't make sense to use wing chun at longer ranges then that--so while it CAN be used at ****her ranges--it wasn't built for that based on my understanding of it. Opinions obviously vary on that part.


. . . is exactly right -- this is WCK's "operating range" (what we call "the phone booth"): you NEED to be at that range or closer for the WCK tools to operate/work.

But that's only part of WCK's operating system. From my training with Robert, I came to see that WCK has four elements/aspects to its "operating system". These are things that need to be in place in order to make your WCK work.

First is WCK body structure, What that means is that you can use your body like a spring, to "receive" pressure without moving/collapsing, etc. The kuit "Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung" (As he comes, receive; if he leaves, escort. Charge in upon loss of contact with your opponent's hand) describes this body structure and how it responds to pressure. You also need to be able to strike with this body structure (which doesn't involve rotation).

Second is facing (the square-on facing of our opponent).

Third is range (that we are within arm's reach of our opponent's body).

Fourth is WCK bridge structure (that our arms are between our body and the opponent's body and that are elbows are down and in - inside our body line). Some call this "the fixed elbow principle".

When you deviate from these four elements, your ability to use your WCK tools or movement or actions will be greatly compromised.

And, Robert showed me that if you look at the first several points of all three empty hand forms, you see that these elements are emphasized -- the first point in all forms is the opening of the horse or bai jong, assuming body structure; the second point in all the forms is the sup jee sao, the crossed arms which points to the square-on facing (and with that, the ability to use both equally hands at the same time -- which you will need to do); the next point is the opening punches, the jik chung choi which points to the range (you must be within an arm's length of your opponent); and, in all of these, your arms are between you and your opponent and your elbows are down and in (which connects your bridges to your body structure - the elbow-down power). Everything that follows, with only few exceptions, require these elements to be in place.

So, in terms of "application", if you don't have body structure, it doesn't matter what else you do, your WCK won't work. The form -- a living textbook -- "tells" you that if you want your WCK to work then assuming structure (bai jong) is your first priority. And everything else that follows depends on that structure being in place. Next is the facing. Once you have body structure in place, you need to face your opponent properly (square on). If your facing is off, you won't be able to use the WCK tools to their fullest. And everything else that follows depends on that body structure and facing being in place. Next is range, being within an arm's length of your opponent. If you are at a greater range you won't be able to use the tools (your body leverage decreases, etc.). And everything else that follows depends on that body structure, facing, and range being in place. Finally, you need to have your arms between you and your opponent with your elbows down and in.

For me, this is WCK on its most basic level: are these four aspects in place and always operating - in your drills and in your application?

[Pacman]

and as such I tend to use MY wing chun when I'm within arm's length or closer. It doesn't make sense to use wing chun at longer ranges then that

how is this unique to WC? in what fighting style can you use your arms when your target is ****her away than your arms reach? at this point its up to your footwork and other techniques for setting up and engaging to get you within striking distance. again, not unique to WC.

[Dave McKinnon]

T-Man
1. Body Structure
2. Facing
3. Range
4. Bridge Structure

D-Man: The main tools or 4 essential areas are
1. Body Alignment - Facing and creating the body Spring
2. Body Structure - Linking Body and Bridge to act as the Spring as well as the Hammer and Nail
3. The Wing Chun Fist and Kick - Facing and proper mechanics, all tools are derived from the WC striking method.
4. Footwork - Also facing as well as range and the all important timing of the application.

Very good man! I like it succinct and to the point.

Dave McKinnon

[Eric_H]

1. Body Structure
2. Facing
3. Range
4. Bridge Structure

D-Man: The main tools or 4 essential areas are
1. Body Alignment - Facing and creating the body Spring
2. Body Structure - Linking Body and Bridge to act as the Spring as well as the Hammer and Nail
3. The Wing Chun Fist and Kick - Facing and proper mechanics, all tools are derived from the WC striking method.
4. Footwork - Also facing as well as range and the all important timing of the application.



Dave,

I think we'd probably disagree on how to form the body structure, but the software and logic flow are in agreement, good post. :cool:

[t_niehoff]

how is this unique to WC? in what fighting style can you use your arms when your target is ****her away than your arms reach? at this point its up to your footwork and other techniques for setting up and engaging to get you within striking distance. again, not unique to WC.

What you are describing is what all boxers and kickboxers do -- move in and out of "striking range". In WCK, we don't "enter" into striking range, we enter into the phone booth, to the inside, and most often into direct attachment (clinch). Not only does this range permit us to strike but it permits us to use all our other (non-striking) tools for controlling our opponent (tan, bong, fook, biu, pak, etc.).

[shaolin_allan]

One thing that I hear from others about wing chun is with the correct body posture at least in my system we keep our chins back instead of tucked in like a boxer. People don't seem to understand that we're not leaving ourselves open to get knocked out and that the head is far enough back with our arms in guard position that even if a boxer swings a hook with a slight reach advantage you should still be able to defend it easily. I could be wrong just my two cents :)

[Dave McKinnon]

Thanks Eric

I really don't care how anyone forms the body structure.
Shift on your toe or heel - I don't care
Have body structure or not - I don't care
Straight or Side body - I don't care
Shaolin or Red boat - Don't care

I am at a point where I look at the result, or what I call "same result."
If there three families of Wing Chun A, B, and C and they all are trying to achieve the same goal X. And say X is to intercept an attack and follow through against a resisting opponent then if A = X, B = X and C = X then all achieve the same result. All are good.

Say A prefers to shift and Tan Da but then cannot follow through then A does not equal X, A = Sucky Wing Chun. If B shifts and follows through then B = Good Wing Chun. If C doesn't shift and follows through well then C is also = Good Wing Chun.

I look more at people who can use Timing, Distance, Position, and Mechanical Advantage to Face, Change, Break and Control the opponents center through Directly Striking or Intercepting the attack and Regain the center when lost as having decent Wing Chun.

Then I care. Because that is good WC whether from China, Hong Kong, Istanbul or San Diego.

To wordy? I don't care :P

Dave McKinnon

[SAAMAG]

how is this unique to WC? in what fighting style can you use your arms when your target is ****her away than your arms reach? at this point its up to your footwork and other techniques for setting up and engaging to get you within striking distance. again, not unique to WC.

I agree that in order to actually hit someone you have to be within punchig range. But no one said it was unique to wc, and no one talked about punching only. Whats being discussed is the application of wc in its entirety from a proper range.

So can you apply wc outside the pocket? Sure! Is it truly wing chun at that moment though? Not if you're not applying all the elements that define wing chun.

[shaolin_allan]

exactly the principles can be applied while in other ranges but wing chun was designed as a close ranged system to be used in it's entirety. I am perfectly fine with that since most real fights take place close range.

[shawchemical]

I agree that in order to actually hit someone you have to be within punchig range. But no one said it was unique to wc, and no one talked about punching only. Whats being discussed is the application of wc in its entirety from a proper range.

So can you apply wc outside the pocket? Sure! Is it truly wing chun at that moment though? Not if you're not applying all the elements that define wing chun.

But it is not applying all of the elements all of the time that makes good VT or bad. It is applying things in circumstances where they are not applicable that makes it bad.

Timing, facing, structure, angle shifting can all apply on the outside. If you are still using the nearest weapon, nearest target in the shortest distance possible, it is still VTK.

[kung fu fighter]

how is this unique to WC? in what fighting style can you use your arms when your target is ****her away than your arms reach? at this point its up to your footwork and other techniques for setting up and engaging to get you within striking distance. again, not unique to WC.

I agree 100%, for any fighting to take place both participants have to be within range regardless of styles. That's why I don't like the whole "wing chun only works in a phone booth" analogy. That kind of limited thinking restricts the use of the system. I prefer to say "wing chun works really well any time you are in range to be hit"

[t_niehoff]

But it is not applying all of the elements all of the time that makes good VT or bad. It is applying things in circumstances where they are not applicable that makes it bad.


The problem is that UNLESS you do all these things, you can't apply WCK in any circumstances.



Timing, facing, structure, angle shifting can all apply on the outside. If you are still using the nearest weapon, nearest target in the shortest distance possible, it is still VTK.

Ah, no. WCK isn't "using the nearest weapons to hit the nearest target" -- this is Bruce's "concept" from JKD. And this is a great example of how people "integrate" other things into WCK and call it WCK, teach it as WCK, and then their students go forth spreading the gospel. And it just takes us further away from WCK.

"Timing", "facing", "structure", "angle shifting" are simply words/terms. WCK has a very specific body structure, a very specific way of facing, a very specific bridge structure, etc. It's not whatever the hell you want to do (nearest weapon to nearest target) -- as I tried to illustrate, the forms and drills, and kuit to some respect, provide the specifics.

[t_niehoff]

I agree 100%, for any fighting to take place both participants have to be within range regardless of styles. That's why I don't like the whole "wing chun only works in a phone booth" analogy. That kind of limited thinking restricts the use of the system. I prefer to say "wing chun works really well any time you are in range to be hit"

Lots of people say that WCK can be used on the outside -- the problem is that we never SEE that. As soon as you see people spar (100% intensity) on the outside, you see the WCK movement go out the window. And that's because, as I pointed out in my post, WCK movement is "designed" for a certain, specific range - when you are inside the phone booth - and when you try to use it outside that range, it doesn't work particularly well.

You have to move very differently on the outside than you do on the inside to be effective, the body structure is different, the facing is different, the movement is different, how you generate power is different, etc. For example, on the outside it is more effective to have your elbows outside of your body line and this facilitates throwing punches from the outside in (like boxers). On the inside, it is more effective to have your elbows inside your body line and this facilitates throwing punches differently.

[LSWCTN1]

Ah, no. WCK isn't "using the nearest weapons to hit the nearest target" -- this is Bruce's "concept" from JKD. .

i would disagree, kinda...

WSL was ridiculed for using knees to the head of a bowed opponent, until he pointed out to his classmates that this was the closest weapon to his target.

i would suggest that we do use the closest weapon, just not necessarily in the straight line to the target that is often talked about :eek:

[t_niehoff]

I am at a point where I look at the result, or what I call "same result."


Very good point.

When you are result-oriented, then you are looking at things from a skill perspective -- as "skill" is defined as your ability to bring about a desired RESULT with max certainty and min time/effort.

[t_niehoff]

i would disagree, kinda...

WSL was ridiculed for using knees to the head of a bowed opponent, until he pointed out to his classmates that this was the closest weapon to his target.


So what? Was his knee closer than his elbow, closer than his hip, closer than his hand? It has nothing to do with how close a "weapon" is. If WSL's knee was an inch from his opponent's head, would it still have been the best choice? Many times the nearest weapon to the nearest target will have little effect.



i would suggest that we do use the closest weapon, just not necessarily in the straight line to the target that is often talked about :eek:

Both are silly in my view. There is much more involved in your choice of striking than merely what is your closest weapon and what is his nearest target (and begs the question what makes something a weapon and something a target). And the "straight line is the shortest distance" has nothing to do with it either. When you perform an elbow down strike, how can you not punch in a straight line?

One factor is getting maximum benefit from your strike (a knee to the face typically produces pretty good results -- much better than chain punching him to the back of his head like I've seen some WCK people do in videos).

[SAAMAG]

But it is not applying all of the elements all of the time that makes good VT or bad. It is applying things in circumstances where they are not applicable that makes it bad.

Timing, facing, structure, angle shifting can all apply on the outside. If you are still using the nearest weapon, nearest target in the shortest distance possible, it is still VTK.

True...but I wasn't talking about good or bad persay. Someone can use what is perceived to be wing chun form on the outside, and use it successfully. My view point is just that though, a viewpoint. I don't feeeeel like I'm using wing chun truly unless I'm in the pocket, bridged, reinforced by my structure, and flowing with the energy given as I strike as much as possible to end the confrontation--using the wing chun maxims to the best of my ability.

Otherwise, I'm using nothing but regular ol' punching and kicking and blocking that could be from just about any other system, because timing, facing, and structure doesn't equate to wing chun.

[SAAMAG]

I agree 100%, for any fighting to take place both participants have to be within range regardless of styles. That's why I don't like the whole "wing chun only works in a phone booth" analogy. That kind of limited thinking restricts the use of the system. I prefer to say "wing chun works really well any time you are in range to be hit"

Well, my thing is that it CAN be used outside the pocket--but not in it's entirety. You can use wing chun hand forms, you can face, you can use the simultaneous attack and defense--but it works BEST when you're "inside the pocket", "in the phone booth", "within punching range", or whatever you want to call it.

[SAAMAG]

i would disagree, kinda...

WSL was ridiculed for using knees to the head of a bowed opponent, until he pointed out to his classmates that this was the closest weapon to his target.

i would suggest that we do use the closest weapon, just not necessarily in the straight line to the target that is often talked about :eek:

As I recall, the maxims talk about economy of motion, following the straight line to achieve the shortest distance possible between weapon and target. So using the closest weapon to the nearest target simply follows that guideline.

When someone is hunched over, **** skippy I'm probably going to knee them in the face as well...not because it's the closest thing...but because it's a fight ender.

[kung fu fighter]

Well, my thing is that it CAN be used outside the pocket--but not in it's entirety.

I agree, but the same can be said for inside the phone booth as well.

My thing is that Leung Jan or any of the wing chun fighters of his time didn't have to combine wing chun with thai boxing or boxing outside structure to make it work. they used wing chun in any range, Wing chun has both long or close range applications, but prefers to fight in close when possible

[t_niehoff]

As I recall, the maxims talk about economy of motion, following the straight line to achieve the shortest distance possible between weapon and target. So using the closest weapon to the nearest target simply follows that guideline.


Where in the kuen kuit are there references to "economy of motion" or "the shortest distance between two points. . . " or any other such nonsense?

[SAAMAG]

I agree, but the same can be said for inside the phone booth as well.

My thing is that Leung Jan or any of the wing chun fighters of his time didn't have to combine witn chun with thai boxing or boxing outside structure to make it work. they used wing chun in any range, Wing chun has both long or close range applications, but prefers to fight in close when possible

Well no one is saying that you have to combine anything with anything. You can fight with wing chun just the same. But do we really know how they fought? The answer is no.

I could just as easily say that while those individuals only used wing chun, it truly wasn't implemented until they got on the inside. Even the maxims say to enter and create a bridge...no? THAT'S when wing chun is being applied.

Is there a way to prove that? Nope. Just my theory.

[t_niehoff]

My thing is that Leung Jan or any of the wing chun fighters of his time didn't have to combine witn chun with thai boxing or boxing outside structure to make it work.
they used wing chun in any range, Wing chun has both long or close range applications, but prefers to fight in close when possible

How do you KNOW how Leung Jan or other WCK fighters used their WCK? Did you see it? How do you know that they used it "in any range"? Did you see it?

No, of course you didn't. You are just making it up. It's a case of using made up evidence to support your view.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I agree, but the same can be said for inside the phone booth as well.

My thing is that Leung Jan or any of the wing chun fighters of his time didn't have to combine wing chun with thai boxing or boxing outside structure to make it work. they used wing chun in any range, Wing chun has both long or close range applications, but prefers to fight in close when possible

I would be VERY surprised of they DIDN'T "combine" their WC with something else.
Why?
Because the vast majority of MA did just that.

[kung fu fighter]

How do you KNOW how Leung Jan or other WCK fighters used their WCK? Did you see it? How do you know that they used it "in any range"? Did you see it?

No, of course you didn't. You are just making it up. It's a case of using made up evidence to support your view.

The Evidence is in the system that they passed down, and since Leung Jan was Undefeated in over 300 fights against other trained fighters, it makes sense to believe that his sh!t worked

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Evidence is in the system that they passed down, and since Leung Jan was Undefeated in over 300 fights against other trained fighters, it makes sense to believe that his **** worked

Dude, anecdotes, they carry only so much weight.
How many trained fighters did his STUDENTS beat?

[Frost]

Dude, anecdotes, they carry only so much weight.
How many trained fighters did his STUDENTS beat?

or more to the point how many are the wing chun crowd beating now?

[Xiao3 Meng4]

the crowd is beating ITSELF.

Then there's a few outliers who are beating others.

[Pacman]

What you are describing is what all boxers and kickboxers do -- move in and out of "striking range". In WCK, we don't "enter" into striking range, we enter into the phone booth, to the inside, and most often into direct attachment (clinch). Not only does this range permit us to strike but it permits us to use all our other (non-striking) tools for controlling our opponent (tan, bong, fook, biu, pak, etc.).

not all WC teaches to do that. if thats what you learned then you will have difficulties doing that.

[Pacman]

Lots of people say that WCK can be used on the outside -- the problem is that we never SEE that. As soon as you see people spar (100% intensity) on the outside, you see the WCK movement go out the window. And that's because, as I pointed out in my post, WCK movement is "designed" for a certain, specific range - when you are inside the phone booth - and when you try to use it outside that range, it doesn't work particularly well.

You have to move very differently on the outside than you do on the inside to be effective, the body structure is different, the facing is different, the movement is different, how you generate power is different, etc. For example, on the outside it is more effective to have your elbows outside of your body line and this facilitates throwing punches from the outside in (like boxers). On the inside, it is more effective to have your elbows inside your body line and this facilitates throwing punches differently.

what do you define as WC movement

[chusauli]

I would be VERY surprised of they DIDN'T "combine" their WC with something else.
Why?
Because the vast majority of MA did just that.

For once, I'm glad there is open discussion.

The Chinese martial artists of old crosstrained regularly. The Opera group certainly had their crosstraining in many arts of that time.

When you learned from your Sifu, he wanted you to get your own experience, too, and would send you off as a "journeyman" to learn the specialty of another Sifu. Its still fairly common this day in traditional MA groups. WCK's pole training is a result of learning from the "outside".

This thought of "stylistic purity" is more of a modern overboard loyalty, probably brought on by American servicemen who later opened up McDojo's here or by rigid minded students.

Even the Okinawans all learned from each other, perhaps learning a kata here from one sensei, then a kobudo weapon from another. If your sensei didn't know a certain thing, they'd refer you to another teacher, if they wanted that student to grow.

[chusauli]

Personally, I never knew Leung Jan to have been undefeated in over 300 fights. Sounds like a more impressive record than Rickson Gracie. :)

[HumbleWCGuy]

Well no one is saying that you have to combine anything with anything. You can fight with wing chun just the same. But do we really know how they fought? The answer is no.

I could just as easily say that while those individuals only used wing chun, it truly wasn't implemented until they got on the inside. Even the maxims say to enter and create a bridge...no? THAT'S when wing chun is being applied.

Is there a way to prove that? Nope. Just my theory.

It really just depends on what WC you are used to seeing. Counter fighters will often develop their WC so that it can be used on the outside a bit more. Bigger or more rugged guys will prefer the clinch. In either case, the distinct characteristics of WC are maintained. However, if you are only used to "inside WC," you might not recognize the characteristics of "outside WC." Where WC isn't viable is in boxing range. WC does not box it skips over that range by staying on the outside or by using it's entry system to get on the inside.

WC at low levels is always go forward, clinch, off balance, and so on. However, that is pretty much the case with any fighting art at a low level boxing, MT, savate, TKD.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Personally, I never knew Leung Jan to have been undefeated in over 300 fights. Sounds like a more impressive record than Rickson Gracie. :)

Rickson (like many Gracies) hand picked his fights typically. LJs record, even if inflated, is probably still more impressive.

[SAAMAG]

It really just depends on what WC you are used to seeing. Counter fighters will often develop their WC so that it can be used on the outside a bit more. Bigger or more rugged guys will prefer the clinch. In either case, the distinct characteristics of WC are maintained. However, if you are only used to "inside WC," you might not recognize the characteristics of "outside WC." Where WC isn't viable is in boxing range. WC does not box it skips over that range by staying on the outside or by using it's entry system to get on the inside.

WC at low levels is always go forward, clinch, off balance, and so on. However, that is pretty much the case with any fighting art at a low level boxing, MT, savate, TKD.

Id' be careful with the "low level" stuff. An advanced practicitioner is merely someone who has mastery over the "low level stuff" or fundamentals if you will.

But I understand what you're saying...wing chun...like any fighting art...can be adapted to the individual. That said, it also has specific, inherent, and inseperable characteristics that define it and make it distinctly different than other striking arts. Knowing what these are is paramount to understanding and using wing chun at its greatest potential.

[SAAMAG]

Where in the kuen kuit are there references to "economy of motion" or "the shortest distance between two points. . . " or any other such nonsense?

Not in the kuit, but something that's been verbally passed on and agreed upon by every single wing chun person I've come across. Why do you believe it's nonsense to be economical?

Think about it...when you're in that phone booth you're talking about, if someone used a strike by pulling back and loading up, wouldn't you just hit them straight on? Loading up a punch, especially at short range is only a recipe for getting hit before you've been able to make your attack. At least that's the time I typically hit people.

Additionally, if you were in that phone booth, and looking to strike the knee...wouldn't the kick be more intelligent than trying to punch the knee?

That's the basic idea behind those guidelines...to make intelligent decisions on what tools to use to maximize the efficacy of your efforts.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . .This thought of "stylistic purity" is more of a modern overboard loyalty, probably brought on by American servicemen who later opened up McDojo's here or by rigid minded students.
Exactly, yet some people say they don't see a perfect technique during a fight with a resisting opponent.



. . . Even the Okinawans all learned from each other, perhaps learning a kata here from one sensei, then a kobudo weapon from another. If your sensei didn't know a certain thing, they'd refer you to another teacher, if they wanted that student to grow.
I studied Shorinryu in Okinawa from Eizo Shimabuku (Shimabukuro).
Eizo's brother Tatsuo taught Issinryu in the base gym at Camp Hanson. Eizo complained that his brother used a vertical fist and that we shouldn't even watch his class. Which of course I used to do. I guess Tatsuo didn't care for "stylistic purity"

[HumbleWCGuy]

Id' be careful with the "low level" stuff. An advanced practicitioner is merely someone who has mastery over the "low level stuff" or fundamentals if you will.
It would be hard to argue that the strategy, "always gain ground." isn't low low-level. The key being "always." Always, do anything from a strategic standpoint isn't very high-minded. When weight classes get thrown out the window, one must be much more inventive with strategy. When you start teaching people, you have to start somewhere. Pretty much what gets taught is just move forward and hit hard. It takes a bit more training and coordination to get people to use and take advantage of angles.




But I understand what you're saying...wing chun...like any fighting art...can be adapted to the individual. That said, it also has specific, inherent, and inseperable characteristics that define it and make it distinctly different than other striking arts. Knowing what these are is paramount to understanding and using wing chun at its greatest potential.

I am not sure that you buy the notion that WC is adaptable. You seem to be caught up in the idea that you have to get in and stay in. Rather than WC provides the opportunity to fight on the outside, hit and run (counter fighting), or pressure fight. Telling 150 lbs that clinching 250 lbs will work is completely irresponsible. However, there are lots of things within the WC arsenal, that allow for 150 lbs to fight off 250 lbs.

Also, I don't really care that much if people prefer elements of the WC arsenal that aren't distinct. Style points, only count on WC forums.

[t_niehoff]

Not in the kuit, but something that's been verbally passed on and agreed upon by every single wing chun person I've come across.


There are good reasons they aren't in the kuit. Lots of crap gets passed on -- like a lot of things Bruce wrote. ;)

BTW, some "maxims" being commonly held among poorly skilled and bad fighters (99% of WCK people) doesn't provide much in the way of proof of validity; in fact, I think just the opposite argument carries more weight.



Why do you believe it's nonsense to be economical?


Because quite simply that isn't a concern and it is a false pursuit.



Think about it...when you're in that phone booth you're talking about, if someone used a strike by pulling back and loading up, wouldn't you just hit them straight on? Loading up a punch, especially at short range is only a recipe for getting hit before you've been able to make your attack. At least that's the time I typically hit people.


It depends -- there are many things I might do, depending on what else is going on, who my opponent is, the situation, etc.

Let's use a different example. Let's say you are mounted. What is your concern? Being economical? Or escaping the mount? ONCE you can do that consistently, THEN you may begin to take out wasted motion -- the real and only significant need for economy (since wasted movement creates holes). But making something economical is a second or third order issue, not a primary one.



Additionally, if you were in that phone booth, and looking to strike the knee...wouldn't the kick be more intelligent than trying to punch the knee?


Even if arguably I wanted to do that, economy wouldn't be a factor in my decision -- there are more important factors (what would do the most damage, etc.).



That's the basic idea behind those guidelines...to make intelligent decisions on what tools to use to maximize the efficacy of your efforts.

Most of these sorts of guidelines are silly, repeated mindlessly (without thinking them through), and are routinely refuted through practice.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Let's use a different example. Let's say you are mounted. What is your concern? Being economical? Or escaping the mount? ONCE you can do that consistently, THEN you may begin to take out wasted motion -- the real and only significant need for economy (since wasted movement creates holes). But making something economical is a second or third order issue, not a primary one.


Arguing that economy of motion isn't a historical part of WC is one thing. Arguing that it is bad general advice is just ridiculous. Assuming that two methods are equally effective economy is better. Part of the economy debate by anyone who has given iT sincere thought is how effective something is given an amount of energy expenditure. Economy of motion also gets into the refinement of technique and reducing wasted motion. As a rule of thumb, economy of motion is pretty sound.

[t_niehoff]

I am not sure that you buy the notion that WC is adaptable.


Perhaps not adaptable in how you mean it.



You seem to be caught up in the idea that you have to get in and stay in.


This is HISTORICALLY WCK's method. WCK is a close range, in-fighting approach. The forms, the drills, the kuit all point to that.



Rather than WC provides the opportunity to fight on the outside, hit and run (counter fighting), or pressure fight.


No, it doesn't. When WCK people fight on the outside, all the WCK goes out the window and they kickbox. You don't need WCK training to do that.



Telling 150 lbs that clinching 250 lbs will work is completely irresponsible. However, there are lots of things within the WC arsenal, that allow for 150 lbs to fight of 250 lbs.


Like what? Finger strikes, strikes to the throat, and other nonsense? Where is the evidence of ANY WCK fighter beating someone 100 lbs heavier? I see, there isn't any. This is just YOUR theory.

[t_niehoff]

Arguing that economy of motion isn't a historical part of WC is one thing. Arguing that it is bad general advice is just ridiculous. Assuming that two methods are equally effective economy is better. Part of the economy debate by anyone who has given iT sincere thought is how effective something is given an amount of energy expenditure. Economy of motion also gets into the refinement of technique and reducing wasted motion. As a rule of thumb, economy of motion is pretty sound.


Economy of motion is never much of a concern in skill development -- in fact, it tends to be a natural by-product of doing the skill itself (do you think basketball players, baseball players, etc. spend loads of time thinking about being economical?). And as I said, the only time it really becomes much of an issue is in eliminating wasted motion so that you don't create openings.

You guys over-intellectualize the process of skill development.

[t_niehoff]

what do you define as WC movement

The movement/actions we see in the classical WCK forms (or points), the classical dummy, the classical drills, etc.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Like what? Finger strikes, strikes to the throat, and other nonsense? Where is the evidence of ANY WCK fighter beating someone 100 lbs heavier? I see, there isn't any. This is just YOUR theory.
In a non-ring situation, the point isn't to win. One only has to not lose for long enough to escape. Running up and clinching an opponent 100lbs heavier is a strong formula for a loss.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Economy of motion is never much of a concern in skill development -- in fact, it tends to be a natural by-product of doing the skill itself (do you think basketball players, baseball players, etc. spend loads of time thinking about being economical?). And as I said, the only time it really becomes much of an issue is in eliminating wasted motion so that you don't create openings.

You guys over-intellectualize the process of skill development.

So not it isn't that economy of motion isn't a good rule of thumb, it is over intellectualizing? I see economy of motion as boiling down to a few specific training goals and not endless hours of theoretical musings, but whatever.

Yes, athletes in other sports think about refining their movements. I played basketball and I can tell you that there is a lot of emphasis on having a short (economical) shooting motion. Do you actually watch baseball? How much time is discussed talking about swings? Are guys lauded for having big over exaggerated swings or tight compact ones?

Every year around NFL draft time, QBs are down-graded for having long throwing motions.

[shawchemical]

The problem is that UNLESS you do all these things, you can't apply WCK in any circumstances.



Ah, no. WCK isn't "using the nearest weapons to hit the nearest target" -- this is Bruce's "concept" from JKD. And this is a great example of how people "integrate" other things into WCK and call it WCK, teach it as WCK, and then their students go forth spreading the gospel. And it just takes us further away from WCK.

"Timing", "facing", "structure", "angle shifting" are simply words/terms. WCK has a very specific body structure, a very specific way of facing, a very specific bridge structure, etc. It's not whatever the hell you want to do (nearest weapon to nearest target) -- as I tried to illustrate, the forms and drills, and kuit to some respect, provide the specifics.

Actually NO, it wasn't bruce's concept. It is VTK through and through. Bruce used VTK as the inspiration for jeet kun do for a good reason. The further he moved away from it, the closer he actually got to its essence.

Its plain for all to see you're a hypocritical incompetent T, I suggest that for your own personal development you find a mirror and think about why you're such a failure in life.

[shawchemical]

Lots of people say that WCK can be used on the outside -- the problem is that we never SEE that. As soon as you see people spar (100% intensity) on the outside, you see the WCK movement go out the window. And that's because, as I pointed out in my post, WCK movement is "designed" for a certain, specific range - when you are inside the phone booth - and when you try to use it outside that range, it doesn't work particularly well.

You have to move very differently on the outside than you do on the inside to be effective, the body structure is different, the facing is different, the movement is different, how you generate power is different, etc. For example, on the outside it is more effective to have your elbows outside of your body line and this facilitates throwing punches from the outside in (like boxers). On the inside, it is more effective to have your elbows inside your body line and this facilitates throwing punches differently.

this point just cements the fact that you don't know what you're talking about T. Your lack of knowledge is apparently boundless. And yet you attempt to persuade us through your inane drivel that you are some sort of sage whose martial knowledge is limitless and plentiful.

It also highlights the fact you have no idea about fighting, and little to no idea about VTK. NOTHING is ever done while standing still. You are either going backwards or going forwards with every technique.

If anyone around here is a theoretical non-fighter it is you, for you fail to understand the simplest of concepts time after time.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually NO, it wasn't bruce's concept. It is VTK through and through. Bruce used VTK as the inspiration for jeet kun do for a good reason. The further he moved away from it, the closer he actually got to its essence.

I agree there. A lot of people feel that Bruce really reinvented the wheel in a lot of ways due to his incomplete WC training.




Its plain for all to see you're a hypocritical incompetent T, I suggest that for your own personal development you find a mirror and think about why you're such a failure in life.

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a failure in life, but he certainly projected his dissatisfaction with his WC training on to every other WC practitioner.

[shawchemical]

True...but I wasn't talking about good or bad persay. Someone can use what is perceived to be wing chun form on the outside, and use it successfully. My view point is just that though, a viewpoint. I don't feeeeel like I'm using wing chun truly unless I'm in the pocket, bridged, reinforced by my structure, and flowing with the energy given as I strike as much as possible to end the confrontation--using the wing chun maxims to the best of my ability.

Otherwise, I'm using nothing but regular ol' punching and kicking and blocking that could be from just about any other system, because timing, facing, and structure doesn't equate to wing chun.

It does equate to vt.

I would prefer to just punch people int he head very hard. but it is only if you are forced to use the other things you have that you ever need to.

That does not mean that you are not doing VT.

To my mind, it simply means that you are significantly better than your opponent because you have applied the most simple and effective tool against them to which they have had no response.

[k gledhill]

Van's response, taken from another thread . . .



. . . is exactly right -- this is WCK's "operating range" (what we call "the phone booth"): you NEED to be at that range or closer for the WCK tools to operate/work.

But that's only part of WCK's operating system. From my training with Robert, I came to see that WCK has four elements/aspects to its "operating system". These are things that need to be in place in order to make your WCK work.

First is WCK body structure, What that means is that you can use your body like a spring, to "receive" pressure without moving/collapsing, etc. The kuit "Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung" (As he comes, receive; if he leaves, escort. Charge in upon loss of contact with your opponent's hand) describes this body structure and how it responds to pressure. You also need to be able to strike with this body structure (which doesn't involve rotation).

Second is facing (the square-on facing of our opponent).

Third is range (that we are within arm's reach of our opponent's body).

Fourth is WCK bridge structure (that our arms are between our body and the opponent's body and that are elbows are down and in - inside our body line). Some call this "the fixed elbow principle".

When you deviate from these four elements, your ability to use your WCK tools or movement or actions will be greatly compromised.

And, Robert showed me that if you look at the first several points of all three empty hand forms, you see that these elements are emphasized -- the first point in all forms is the opening of the horse or bai jong, assuming body structure; the second point in all the forms is the sup jee sao, the crossed arms which points to the square-on facing (and with that, the ability to use both equally hands at the same time -- which you will need to do); the next point is the opening punches, the jik chung choi which points to the range (you must be within an arm's length of your opponent); and, in all of these, your arms are between you and your opponent and your elbows are down and in (which connects your bridges to your body structure - the elbow-down power). Everything that follows, with only few exceptions, require these elements to be in place.

So, in terms of "application", if you don't have body structure, it doesn't matter what else you do, your WCK won't work. The form -- a living textbook -- "tells" you that if you want your WCK to work then assuming structure (bai jong) is your first priority. And everything else that follows depends on that structure being in place. Next is the facing. Once you have body structure in place, you need to face your opponent properly (square on). If your facing is off, you won't be able to use the WCK tools to their fullest. And everything else that follows depends on that body structure and facing being in place. Next is range, being within an arm's length of your opponent. If you are at a greater range you won't be able to use the tools (your body leverage decreases, etc.). And everything else that follows depends on that body structure, facing, and range being in place. Finally, you need to have your arms between you and your opponent with your elbows down and in.

For me, this is WCK on its most basic level: are these four aspects in place and always operating - in your drills and in your application?


So how do you develop this elbow down and in thing ? :D oh wait , I remember now, you haven't got a clue.

[SAAMAG]

It would be hard to argue that the strategy, "always gain ground." isn't low low-level. The key being "always." Always, do anything from a strategic standpoint isn't very high-minded. When weight classes get thrown out the window, one must be much more inventive with strategy. When you start teaching people, you have to start somewhere. Pretty much what gets taught is just move forward and hit hard. It takes a bit more training and coordination to get people to use and take advantage of angles.

I see. What you are considering low level is basic strategic heuristics and one's ability to determine when to use what strategy as something higher level. I agree that in teaching you have to build from the bottom up, strategy and the ability to discern one's environment and how to react to that environment are either innate or learned through experience.



I am not sure that you buy the notion that WC is adaptable. You seem to be caught up in the idea that you have to get in and stay in. Rather than WC provides the opportunity to fight on the outside, hit and run (counter fighting), or pressure fight. Telling 150 lbs that clinching 250 lbs will work is completely irresponsible. However, there are lots of things within the WC arsenal, that allow for 150 lbs to fight off 250 lbs.

Also, I don't really care that much if people prefer elements of the WC arsenal that aren't distinct. Style points, only count on WC forums.

I think people adapt their styles to their liking, but that doesn't mean that the definable characteristics of the original system changed because of it. Someone can clinch when they box, and call it boxing. But is it really? It uses boxing elements, but it's changed because now it's punching along with clinching. So yea it's boxing but obviously deviates from what the original idea of boxing is and thus is described as a different entity..ala "dirty boxing".




BTW, some "maxims" being commonly held among poorly skilled and bad fighters (99% of WCK people) doesn't provide much in the way of proof of validity; in fact, I think just the opposite argument carries more weight.

Because quite simply that isn't a concern and it is a false pursuit.

So you're saying that striving to be economical would not provide noticeable benefits to a fighter? I would say that in any human endeavor striving for economy in one's efforts is a worthwhile pursuit when results are what count. Let's take a look at your question about getting out of the mount....



Let's use a different example. Let's say you are mounted. What is your concern? Being economical? Or escaping the mount? ONCE you can do that consistently, THEN you may begin to take out wasted motion -- the real and only significant need for economy (since wasted movement creates holes). But making something economical is a second or third order issue, not a primary one.
My concern on getting out of the mount is to get out of the mount. HOW I do that is part of that concern. Because I can get out of it a number of different ways and the end result isn't always the same...there are some ways that are better than others because some are more economical.



One method is when you are flat on your back. You isolate one arm and the leg on a chosen side, arch the back over to the side that you've isolated. You end up in the other guy's guard most of the time.

Another method is you attempt to shrimp out alternating one side to the other until you're able to get one leg out and then the other, ending with them in your guard.

Another method is to shoulder walk backwards quickly until you can get your legs out, whereby you can try to scramble or put them in your guard.

Another method is to turn sideways before they get the full mount, so that they are mounting your hip, THEN shrimping out to end with them in your guard.


Many ways to do it, but is it better to use the one that puts you in a less advantageous position or the more advantageous position? Is it better to use the one that expends more energy to have them end up in your guard or the one that expends less energy? What good is getting out of a mount when afterwards you're too gassed to do anything further?



It does equate to vt.

I would prefer to just punch people int he head very hard. but it is only if you are forced to use the other things you have that you ever need to.

That does not mean that you are not doing VT.

To my mind, it simply means that you are significantly better than your opponent because you have applied the most simple and effective tool against them to which they have had no response.

I don't think it does. You said timing, facing, and structure right? Timing is necessary in all fighting arts. Facing the opponent is necessary in all fighting arts (though the type of facing will vary), and structure is necessary in all fighting arts to facilitate all that the style comprises of. Nothing unique to wing chun, unless I'm misunderstanding your intent with that statement.

The rest I can concede to. Just because you're not having to use all of wing chun doesn't mean it's not wing chun. You may have only need to punch someone one time and the fight be over.

I'm just saying that assuming you're fighting someone of the same level of skill, if you're choosing to use wing chun...choose to USE WING CHUN...not a pseudo version of it. Anyone can use what looks to be a tan sao to block a strike, but is tan sao a block? Really? If I tan sao'd a punch at its apex and then counter punched in a 1-2 beat...and then hopping back out of range is it wing chun? Or would a wing chun maneuver be more likened to stepping into the punch early with the tan-da and flowing with 2 more punches be more wing chun? They both are using tan sao's and punches...but only one is incorporating the maxims along with it.

This is more of a rhetorical than anything else, because I already know the answer will vary...since we know someone people already believe that one can use kickboxing type strategies using wing chun type hand forms. But it's just to help understand the mindset as to WHY the dichotomy of thought exists.

[YungChun]

Just because Chun is a close range art doesn't mean it doesn't address getting there from the outside--it does.. Therefore there must be outside elements in the art..

Economy of motion is a big part of Chun.. Chun attempts to use position and timing to overcome speed and strength.. Economy of motion is part of using good positioning in a dynamic and alive way to overcome raw speed--to beat them to the punch, to beat them to the point of issuing energy and force. This is why economy, listed in the kuit or not, is a key part of having good Chun skills..

Longest weapon to nearest target IMO is not generally a part of Chun it's JKD..

Terence doesn't even seem to acknowledge the importance of the centerline in Chun which is at the very core of the art.. IMO without the centerline you don't have Chun or a very good understanding of what Chun is and how it uses position, timing and energy to get the job done.

To me it's clear that Chun is a close range art. I agree once you close you stay closed, or at least you are trying to...in order to issue energy and do maximum damage. But that doesn't mean Chun tools and footwork don't address the outside, it must because you (often) have to start outside and get inside.

The idea that doing something "all the time" means it's low level is silly. Styles specialize and specializing means doing something specific and doing that specific thing as a regular part of whatever that specialty is.. In the case of Chun that means closing to close range..

[shawchemical]

Just because Chun is a close range art doesn't mean it doesn't address getting there from the outside--it does.. Therefore there must be outside elements in the art..

Economy of motion is a big part of Chun.. Chun attempts to use position and timing to overcome speed and strength.. Economy of motion is part of using good positioning in a dynamic and alive way to overcome raw speed--to beat them to the punch, to beat them to the point of issuing energy and force. This is why economy, listed in the kuit or not, is a key part of having good Chun skills..

Longest weapon to nearest target IMO is not generally a part of Chun it's JKD..

Terence doesn't even seem to acknowledge the importance of the centerline in Chun which is at the very core of the art.. IMO without the centerline you don't have Chun or a very good understanding of what Chun is and how it uses position, timing and energy to get the job done.

To me it's clear that Chun is a close range art. I agree once you close you stay closed, or at least you are trying to...in order to issue energy and do maximum damage. But that doesn't mean Chun tools and footwork don't address the outside, it must because you (often) have to start outside and get inside.

The idea that doing something "all the time" means it's low level is silly. Styles specialize and specializing means doing something specific and doing that specific thing as a regular part of whatever that specialty is.. In the case of Chun that means closing to close range..

Longest weapon maybe, but not closest weapon.

[t_niehoff]

Actually NO, it wasn't bruce's concept. It is VTK through and through. Bruce used VTK as the inspiration for jeet kun do for a good reason. The further he moved away from it, the closer he actually got to its essence.

Its plain for all to see you're a hypocritical incompetent T, I suggest that for your own personal development you find a mirror and think about why you're such a failure in life.

You are doing what "kungfufighter" did -- making things up and then asserting those things to prove your point.

Economy of motion isn't WCK "through and through" -- which is why you can't find it mentioned anywhere in the kuit. It's a "concept" that has been tacked on to WCK,like many other (shortest distance between two point, using closest weapon to strike the nearest target. etc.).

Economy of motion is a part of ANY skill, not just WCK. It comes with practicing any skill since our bodies naturally try to do things with minimal effort/movement. But this is part of the refinement of a skill and not its chief concern -- and that's why I said it is a secondary or tertiary factor.

Why this matters is because focusing on these sorts of things only gets in the way of focusing on the things that really matter.

Oh, and thanks for throwing in the personal attack ("such a failure in life"). Once again, you make up sh1t and assert it as though it was true. Seems to be your standard operating procedure. I guess that's all you can do.

[Frost]

Rickson (like many Gracies) hand picked his fights typically. LJs record, even if inflated, is probably still more impressive.

Bull rickson royce and royler all have recorded fights with what were considered good fighters in the day and these were full contact limited rules events.

If you have proof they actually hand picked fighters for the early UFCs please post it, and how did they hand pick the fighters in japan for the early valetudo events? Rickson simply went and beat all those they put in front of him, he had no say in who took part.

As they became more famous they looked for better pay days and specific rules, which were basially no time limit rules as they were used to fighting under, what fighter doesnt loo for the best pay day or the best rules for them?name me any wing chun fighter that has a record like this we can actually look at?

And Renzo fought anyone anywhere under any rules any videos of Emin, or any of the others doing this?

[t_niehoff]

Just because Chun is a close range art doesn't mean it doesn't address getting there from the outside--it does.. Therefore there must be outside elements in the art..

Economy of motion is a big part of Chun.. Chun attempts to use position and timing to overcome speed and strength.. Economy of motion is part of using good positioning in a dynamic and alive way to overcome raw speed--to beat them to the punch, to beat them to the point of issuing energy and force. This is why economy, listed in the kuit or not, is a key part of having good Chun skills..

Longest weapon to nearest target IMO is not generally a part of Chun it's JKD..

Terence doesn't even seem to acknowledge the importance of the centerline in Chun which is at the very core of the art.. IMO without the centerline you don't have Chun or a very good understanding of what Chun is and how it uses position, timing and energy to get the job done.

To me it's clear that Chun is a close range art. I agree once you close you stay closed, or at least you are trying to...in order to issue energy and do maximum damage. But that doesn't mean Chun tools and footwork don't address the outside, it must because you (often) have to start outside and get inside.

The idea that doing something "all the time" means it's low level is silly. Styles specialize and specializing means doing something specific and doing that specific thing as a regular part of whatever that specialty is.. In the case of Chun that means closing to close range..

I agree with much of this (WCK provides us the tools for getting in and staying in).

But you moving the goal posts by redefining "economy of motion." Good positioning and timing is not economy of motion nor do they rely on economy of motion.

Look, why in a certain situation do I do X and not Y? Because I know from experience (not theory) that X works better, gets better results in that situation, than Y. Not because it is more economical in movement (there may be lots of things other than X -- and you can always find something that uses less movement -- that use less movement but don't get the results). When people see what they interpret as economical movement, like on the inside where you must be tight in your movement or you will create openings, they wrongly conclude that economy of movement is some guiding force -- it's not. Results guide you.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Bull rickson royce and royler all have recorded fights with what were considered good fighters in the day and these were full contact limited rules events.

If you have proof they actually hand picked fighters for the early UFCs please post it, and how did they hand pick the fighters in japan for the early valetudo events? Rickson simply went and beat all those they put in front of him, he had no say in who took part

As they became more famous they looked for better pay days and specific rules, which were basially no time limit rules as they were used to fighting under, what fighter doesnt loo for the best pay day or the best rules for them?name me any wing chun fighter that has a record like this we can actually look at?

And Renzo fought anyone anywhere under any rules any videos of Emin, or any of the others doing this?

The last sentence makes this post, especially, makes it read like childish whining. Grow up ... seriously. Where was the Gracie king of pancrase? Plain and simple... They were not that good so hand pick a few fights that make them look good and move on. Renzo does have an impeccable record as far as I know which is why I said, "many" and not "all."

[t_niehoff]

So you're saying that striving to be economical would not provide noticeable benefits to a fighter? I would say that in any human endeavor striving for economy in one's efforts is a worthwhile pursuit when results are what count. Let's take a look at your question about getting out of the mount....


I'm saying it isn't a PRIMARY concern. The other issue is that you can't determine what is or is not the most economical way of doing anything.



My concern on getting out of the mount is to get out of the mount. HOW I do that is part of that concern. Because I can get out of it a number of different ways and the end result isn't always the same...there are some ways that are better than others because some are more economical.


Here you jump to a conclusion -- X is better because it is more economical. No. Why is being more economical better? Other than because you want to say so?

There are situations in tennis, like when hitting a backhand in tennis may be more economical (since the ball is coming to my backhand side) but I run around it to hit a forehand (since my forehand driver is better and I get a better angle).

Tightening up your movement, getting rid of excess movement, etc. is just a part of skill development -- but it is a secondary or tertiary concern (you first need the skill to be able to start cutting out wasted movement). And economy of movement isn't a concern in tactics or choice of weapons/tools.



Many ways to do it, but is it better to use the one that puts you in a less advantageous position or the more advantageous position? Is it better to use the one that expends more energy to have them end up in your guard or the one that expends less energy? What good is getting out of a mount when afterwards you're too gassed to do anything further?


There are lots of tactical factors to consider -- but the least important is which one uses the least movement.

[t_niehoff]

this point just cements the fact that you don't know what you're talking about T. Your lack of knowledge is apparently boundless. And yet you attempt to persuade us through your inane drivel that you are some sort of sage whose martial knowledge is limitless and plentiful.


So why don't you provide your reasons for why I am wrong? Or evidence?

I don't consider myself an expert or sage, just a WCK practitioner.



It also highlights the fact you have no idea about fighting, and little to no idea about VTK. NOTHING is ever done while standing still. You are either going backwards or going forwards with every technique.


Sorry, but where did I say that in fighting you aren't moving? I said HOW you need to move is different on the inside than on the outside.

WCK's method and tools "avoid" going backwards like the plague-- and for good reason: when you are on the inside and you back up, you expose yourself, you lose any leverage, you lose the timing, etc. Going backwards is typically a cardinal error in WCK.

BTW, where is the backward step in your forms?



If anyone around here is a theoretical non-fighter it is you, for you fail to understand the simplest of concepts time after time.


I understand the "concept" of economy of motion" -- but as I point out, it is essentially a meaningless "concept" tacked on to WCK.

[k gledhill]

economy of motion , incorporating more than one action in a strike , iow drilling to create punches with an ability to also deflect/intercept along the line ,if, the opponents arm is met along the attacking line, using low inward elbows along the centerline. Adding the timing of body weight in motion to coincide with strikes and any parries along the centerline...not 1step into target, 2 parry/jut etc..3 strike.
The dan chi develops basic 101 level striking elbow positions, later becoming redundant to sparring use, iow not done in a 1-2 beat, becoming 1 beat strike with duality of forces in an economical strike.
Just because you are unaware of the process doesn't make it fantasy.

Vt distance is the fist to touch the jaw, with a bent arm to extend past the jaw...getting there starts from outside. Strategy is involved, footwork ,feinting, movement like any fighter, tactics apply.

see graham h clip as a good idea to the striking process in development with distances to reach jaw with punch, maintaining centerline positions to intercept or strike when openings are present ....

[m1k3]

Rickson (like many Gracies) hand picked his fights typically. LJs record, even if inflated, is probably still more impressive.

LOFL! The documented and filmed fights of a family vs. the unsubstantiated tales of someone fighting. H3ll, even if they were fighting drunken bums it the facts that it was filmed gives it more weight.


I think I have found a new definition for Wing Chun. It means "Wall of Text".

[t_niehoff]

economy of motion , incorporating more than one action in a strike , iow drilling to create punches with an ability to also deflect along the line


"Deflecting" is another of those "tacked on concepts". Where in the kuit is "deflecting" mentioned? WCK doesn't deflect or knock away force, it RECEIVES it (lai lao hoi soong - stay as the force comes, escort it as it goes).

And, when we "incorporate more than one action in a strike" it isn't to be economical, it is because IN THAT SITUATION doing that provides the best results.



using low inward elbows along the centerline. Adding the timing of body weight in motion to coincide with strikes and any parries along the centerline...


"Parries" is another tacked on "concept". Where is the term "parry" in WCK? It's one of those things that comes from Bruce -- and fencing. Tan, bong, fook, chum, etc. aren't "parries", they are BRIDGE HANDS (kiu sao).



The dan chi develops basic 101 level striking elbow positions, later becoming redundant to sparring use, iow not done in a 1-2 beat, becoming 1 beat strike with duality of forces in an economical strike.
Just because you are unaware of the process doesnt make it fantasy.


I see . . . you learn and practice certain movements that you later will throw out. Yes, that's sound training. ;)



Vt distance is the fist to touch the jaw, with a bent arm to extend past the jaw...getting there starts from outside. Strategy is involved, footwork ,feinting, movement like any fighter, tactics apply.

The WCK "range" is the phone both, and is when you can put your hands on your opponent's body (which includes his jaw). Not all fights start from the outside range; many do begin on the inside. But I do agree that WCK provides some tools to move from the outside to the inside. But WCK doesn't teach us "movement like any fighter" -- it teaches us a very specific way of moving, a very specific method (strategic approach), etc.

[k gledhill]

Terence Im training a guy who also learned CSL method, so i know the ideas your on about....

the idea of striking in a 1-2 beat is to INTRODUCE the elbow down and in as it strikes, dan chi.
Lok sao/poon sao introduces the 1 beat /deflection strike in a mutual strike versus strike drill. you strike against my tan that constantly strikes forwards as it reaches its position, versus you jum strike, resting in fok until it does...each arm strikes its opposite, FACING.
We than add movement, seung ma - toi ma, iow we become role players the tan step is the attack entry, the toi ma the counter attacking angling relative to the side extending to attack...ie a jab , grab, line of force coming at us..to instill intuitive movement relative to the tactics guiding our fighting methods of isolating each arm from the other iow NOT allowing facing equally ;)
We can do this aggressively with lop or simply play an opportunistic fight game like any fighter who takes advantage of mistakes as they are made....

you are missing the strike defection ideas...and using body smothering while trying to trap the opponent, hand chase etc...its a way to fight, and works but not against VT ideas of striking as I mention.


you will say the same words as many when you are introduced to this method of VT fighting, lost in the misuses of chi-sao drills.

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOFL! The documented and filmed fights of a family vs. the unsubstantiated tales of someone fighting. H3ll, even if they were fighting drunken bums it the facts that it was filmed gives it more weight.


I think I have found a new definition for Wing Chun. It means "Wall of Text".

Filmed bs is still bs. You guys always talk about testing your stuff against strong resisting opponents, well where were all the resisting opponents in early UFCs? As soon as the strong, resisting opponents came along the Royce made a quick exit.

[LoneTiger108]

Terence Im training a guy who also learned CSL method, so i know the ideas your on about....

Well, all I can add is that T's 'interpretation' of this simple line of kuit seems incomplete as Loi Low Hoi Song Lut Sau Jiik Chung means something more.

I never hear anyone refer to the 'free hand' which this kuit is talking of. It's not only about receiving what comes, it's about charging straight when you have a free hand. In other words, no jab when you square off beacause no contact is made. Just charge straight through the opponent and see if he can receive what YOU do!! :D

Obviously, this is what you would also do if an attack is deflected no? :confused:


The WCK "range" is the phone bo(o)th, and is when you can put your hands on your opponent's body (which includes his jaw).

I hate this analogy as it's designed for people that think they're Superman :D

I will always agree that this 'close' range is a 'speciality' of Wing Chun BUT it should NEVER be considered as THE range of Wing Chun. :rolleyes:

[YungChun]

WCK's method and tools "avoid" going backwards like the plague-- and for good reason: when you are on the inside and you back up, you expose yourself, you lose any leverage, you lose the timing, etc. Going backwards is typically a cardinal error in WCK.

BTW, where is the backward step in your forms?


It's not about "going backwards" but if the opponent is over extended structurally and exerting great pressure there is nothing wrong with helping him to release that pressure by pulling him forward, while you take a small step back, often with a small flank. Then you may go forward again to continue to issue your attack and generate power, which btw you can combine with that 'release'.

The dummy has you going in and out and changing angles.

[m1k3]

Filmed bs is still bs. You guys always talk about testing your stuff against strong resisting opponents, well where were all the resisting opponents in early UFCs? As soon as the strong, resisting opponents came along the Royce made a quick exit.

You can be so cute when you say stupid stuff like this.

Dan Severn
Wrestling

Severn has a long history in Greco-Roman and freestyle judo-hensho wrestling. He was a four time All-American at Arizona State University, the original Sunkist Kid of the Sunkist Kids[1], and a wrestling coach at both his alma mater Arizona State and Michigan State. He has wrestled in Turkey, Japan, Cuba, Hungary, Canada, and France as well as the U.S.A..

Severn failed to win in Olympic trials in 1984 and 1988 (he was a finalist in the trials). In his long career, he has held many national and international titles. He was often introduced to the UFC Octagon as holding more than 100 in total. Severn also held the US national record for victories by pin from 1976 to 1992.

Kenneth Shamrock (born Kenneth Wayne Kilpatrick February 11, 1964) is an American mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter, a UFC Hall of Famer and also a professional wrestler. Shamrock emerged as one of the biggest stars in the history of mixed martial arts, headlining over 15 main events and co-main events in the Ultimate Fighting Championship and Pride Fighting Championships during the course of his career and set numerous pay per view records with his drawing power.[4][5] Shamrock is widely considered to be a legendary figure and icon in the sport of mixed martial arts.[6]

Shamrock was the first UFC Superfight Champion; the title was eventually renamed the UFC Heavyweight Championship when weight categories were introduced to the UFC.[7] He was also the first MMA Heavyweight Champion in Japan, winning the title of King of Pancrase. During his reign as the UFC Superfight Champion, he was widely considered the #1 mixed martial artist in the world.[8] Shamrock was also ranked by Inside MMA as one of the top 10 greatest mixed martial arts fighters of all time.[9]

Not the greatest by today's standards but still pretty good.

But that's ok, keep believing in your legendary fighters and their awesome awesomeness.
:D

I forgot, even though he lost Royce fought Matt Hughes one of the greatest welterweight MMA champions ever. Yeap, he sure cut and ran.

[k gledhill]

just 'charging in' is not the idea developed in training.
side stances allow us to shift and face iow move around along uncommited entry....once the opponent is turned we can enter lead leg as Graham H show in the clip he posted....
no pre-fight lead leg makes thai leg kicks less of an issue.
no lead leg makes a leg grab takedown harder, making lateral movement and evasive shifting possible to gain tactical advantages ...

[HumbleWCGuy]

But that's ok, keep believing in your legendary fighters and their awesome awesomeness.
.

I am not sure what you think that I believe. Check some of my posts. I am convinced that pretty much all of WC history is fantasy. Just like the belief that the Gracies are much more than Mid-level mmaists is a fantasy.

[m1k3]

I am not sure what you think that I believe. Check some of my posts. I am convinced that pretty much all of WC history is fantasy. Just like the belief that the Gracies are much more than Mid-level mmaists is a fantasy.

No argument on the mid-level mma skills by today's standards.

But here is the series of posts where you say Leung Jan's 300 wins are more impressive than Rickson and the Gracies.

You really should learn to keep your lies straight. :p


The Evidence is in the system that they passed down, and since Leung Jan was Undefeated in over 300 fights against other trained fighters, it makes sense to believe that his sh!t worked



Rickson (like many Gracies) hand picked his fights typically. LJs record, even if inflated, is probably still more impressive.

[HumbleWCGuy]

No argument on the mid-level mma skills by today's standards.

But here is the series of posts where you say Leung Jan's 300 wins are more impressive than Rickson and the Gracies.

You really should learn to keep your lies straight. :p
My lies? Didn't I say that LJ record was inflated? I should realize by now that a lot of you grapplers derive a sense of toughness and superiority from your lineage rather than any actual sense of accomplishment of your own so a slight to the lineage is a big deal.

FYI, Gracies were mid-level mmaist by yesterdays standards as well. Where is the Gracie king of pancrase? I guess Rickson's big mma wins over Dave Lavecki should count for for more lol.

[m1k3]

My lies? Didn't I say that LJ record was inflated? I should realize by now that a lot of you grapplers derive a sense of toughness and superiority from your lineage rather than any actual sense of accomplishment of your own so a slight to the lineage is a big deal.

FYI, Gracies were mid-level mmaist by yesterdays standards as well. Where is the Gracie king of pancrase? I guess Rickson's big mma wins over Dave Lavecki should count for for more lol.

Your not much at humor are you? Sarcasm just isn't part of your vocabulary. I take it you didn't notice the ":p" at the end of the keep your lies straight line.

BTW my linage (wrestling) goes back to Milo of Croton.

Milo of Croton (Greek: Μίλων; gen.: Μίλωνος) was a 6th century BC wrestler from the Magna Graecian city of Croton in southern Italy who enjoyed a brilliant wrestling career and won many victories in the most important athletic festivals of ancient Greece.[1][2][3] In addition to his athletic victories, Milo is credited by the ancient commentator Diodorus Siculus with leading his fellow citizens to military triumph over neighboring Sybaris in 510 BC.

Milo was said to be an associate of Pythagoras. One story tells of the wrestler saving the philosopher's life when a roof was about to collapse upon him, and another that Milo may have married the philosopher's daughter Myia. Like other successful athletes of ancient Greece, Milo was the subject of fantastic tales of strength and power, some, perhaps, based upon misinterpretations of his statues. Among other tales, he was said to have carried a bull on his shoulders, and to have burst a band about his brow by simply inflating the veins of his temples.

When it comes to fantasy skill all I have to say is Leung who? :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

Your not much at humor are you? Sarcasm just isn't part of your vocabulary. I take it you didn't notice the ":p" at the end of the keep your lies straight line.

BTW my linage (wrestling) goes back to Milo of Croton.

Milo of Croton (Greek: Μίλων; gen.: Μίλωνος) was a 6th century BC wrestler from the Magna Graecian city of Croton in southern Italy who enjoyed a brilliant wrestling career and won many victories in the most important athletic festivals of ancient Greece.[1][2][3] In addition to his athletic victories, Milo is credited by the ancient commentator Diodorus Siculus with leading his fellow citizens to military triumph over neighboring Sybaris in 510 BC.

Milo was said to be an associate of Pythagoras. One story tells of the wrestler saving the philosopher's life when a roof was about to collapse upon him, and another that Milo may have married the philosopher's daughter Myia. Like other successful athletes of ancient Greece, Milo was the subject of fantastic tales of strength and power, some, perhaps, based upon misinterpretations of his statues. Among other tales, he was said to have carried a bull on his shoulders, and to have burst a band about his brow by simply inflating the veins of his temples.

When it comes to fantasy skill all I have to say is Leung who? :D

Okay Okay I guess that I didn't catch the sarcasm. Yes Greco is easily the superior fantasy art. Although those Iron palm guys tell some tails.

I will say, that I see Greco as superior to Japanese based ground fighting in many ways. I would take some good ole ground and pound over some BJJ any day of the week in a bar fight. IMO, I just don't think that enough can be said about holding someone down and controlling that top position in a real situation.

[m1k3]

Okay Okay I guess that I didn't catch the sarcasm. Although, I will say, that I see Greco as superior to Japanese based ground fighting in many ways. I would take some good ole ground and pound over some BJJ any day of the week in a bar fight.

Actually I agree. What I get from my BJJ (no-gi) is how to reverse positions if I'm on the bottom and how to maintain position when I'm on top. Neither are as easy as they look. And it's something we work on on a regular basis since the school I go to also trains MMA and looks at the no-gi BJJ as part of the MMA game.

[LoneTiger108]

just 'charging in' is not the idea developed in training.

Really? The direct appraoch is always preferred, as I only use the flanks if I can't break through the centre... :rolleyes:

[chusauli]

Who are the 300 that Leung Jan fought? The Spartans? :)

And how does that affect your personal skill?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Who are the 300 that Leung Jan fought? The Spartans? :)Who are you talking to?




And how does that affect your personal skill?

That's what I am saying. Too many people try to stand on the shoulders of their associates and pretend as if that gives them credibility above someone of similar personal accomplishment level.

[SAAMAG]

I'm saying it isn't a PRIMARY concern. The other issue is that you can't determine what is or is not the most economical way of doing anything.


Why can't you? Economy is simply the efficient, sparing, or concise use of something: an economy of effort; an economy of movement., and economy of motion is simply a reduction in body motion to produce the same desired results. I also look at it as doing the least amount of work to achieve my results. So if my goal is to get out of the mount as you stated...I'm going to try and use the one that uses the least amount of energy, with the least amount of "steps" to achieve my goal.



Here you jump to a conclusion -- X is better because it is more economical. No. Why is being more economical better? Other than because you want to say so?

Do I? Or is it just staring you in the face and you fail to admit it because you're a lawyer and don't like to admit when you're wrong?

One way is better in terms of the end result, and in terms of the energy expended, and in terms of the steps involved. You should be fully capable of seeing that, having done the work.

In the BJJ gym I was at there was always talk about doing things better with less energy expansion. Why wrestle to get out of a move when you can technique out of a move with less effort?



There are situations in tennis, like when hitting a backhand in tennis may be more economical (since the ball is coming to my backhand side) but I run around it to hit a forehand (since my forehand driver is better and I get a better angle).

Soo you're saying that if someone is sprinting to the left to hit a hard angled shot they're going to try a right-handed forehand instead of a backhand??? Sort of goes against all the tennis training I've seen. The only time that would happen is when it's a shot that is still relatively down the middle and not so fast that the player would have the time to do it.

Taking it back to fighting, there are times when being economical is the ONLY way to go, and when someone has options. However being economical in general isn't a BAD thing.




Tightening up your movement, getting rid of excess movement, etc. is just a part of skill development -- but it is a secondary or tertiary concern (you first need the skill to be able to start cutting out wasted movement). And economy of movement isn't a concern in tactics or choice of weapons/tools.

There are lots of tactical factors to consider -- but the least important is which one uses the least movement.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you learn a gross wasted movement and then refine it after the fact instead of learning the better method from the get-go? That's simply not logical.

Unless what you're saying is that inherently a person's movement will be gross and wasted because it's a new movement and through muscle memory the body becomes better at performing the movement as it becomes subconscious in effort. Which is just the natural learning process.

I have to say though...the chosen weapon makes a difference. Look back the mount examples. Why bring a knife to a gunfight?

[chusauli]

Who are you talking to?




That's what I am saying. Too many people try to stand on the shoulders of their associates and pretend as if that gives them credibility above someone of similar personal accomplishment level.


It's rhetorical... I am speaking to no one in general, yet this is a question I am asking aloud...

We are in agreement. A person may know a curriculum, but not have any "gung fu" or "personal skill" or "game". Just because famous ancestor may have been good, it does not necessarily mean that descendant is good, it all depends on your personal skill.

[kung fu fighter]

Just because Chun is a close range art doesn't mean it doesn't address getting there from the outside--it does.. Therefore there must be outside elements in the art..

That's what I am saying



Personally, I never knew Leung Jan to have been undefeated in over 300 fights. Sounds like a more impressive record than Rickson Gracie. :)

Check this out "Leung Jan won the title “Wing Chun Kuen Wong” or The Fighting King of Wing Chun Fist. This was earned over the cource of 300 challenges, in which he went undefeated. He was also the first to beat a wide range of styles using the Wing chun Fist methods." http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.LeungJan

Here is another "The Sigung of the Famous grandmaster Ip(yip) Man, Sifu to Lee Jun Fan (Bruce Lee), Made wing Chun famous with his many Victories in Challange Matches (said to be over 300)." http://scarfamilyditdajow.com/DitDaJow_LeungJan_WingChun_DitDaJow_WholeHerbKit_I ronPalm_IronFist.htm

here is another " Pin Sun Wing Chun stems from the fighting and teaching experiences of first generation holder of the Pin Sun Wing Chun Linage, Leung Jan. Leung Jan refined his Wing Chun knowledge into a conceptual art which still retained the core essence of Wing Chun. The movements and combinations are simple and direct, both strait and circular, primarily in keeping with the Pin Sun methods and were the skills and concepts he utilized to win over 300 challenge matches." http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89540

here is another "Leung Jan earned himself the title "Wing Tsjun Kung Fu Wong" or "The King of Wing Tsjun Kung Fu" after he had defeated over 300 challengers. He was the first to defeat, with his Wing Tsjun, fighters from different martial arts." http://www.wingtsjun.com/History.1611.0.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

Anecdotes. nothing more.
No names of who he fought or defeated, is there even a description of him at all?

[kung fu fighter]

Anecdotes. nothing more.
No names of who he fought or defeated, is there even a description of him at all?

Wong Fei Hung

[m1k3]

That's what I am saying


Check this out "Leung Jan won the title “Wing Chun Kuen Wong” or The Fighting King of Wing Chun Fist. This was earned over the cource of 300 challenges, in which he went undefeated. He was also the first to beat a wide range of styles using the Wing chun Fist methods." http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.LeungJan



Interesting research. The same article says he was born somewhere between 1816 and 1826, he had between 1 and 5 sons and there are even disputes about the name of his pharmacy. Hmmm, makes me wonder bout those 300 hundred fights.

[Jim Roselando]

Navin & Mr. T wrote:


How do you KNOW how Leung Jan or other WCK fighters used their WCK? Did you see it? How do you know that they used it "in any range"? Did you see it? Mr T

No, of course you didn't. You are just making it up. It's a case of using made up evidence to support your view. Mr T

The Evidence is in the system that they passed down, and since Leung Jan was Undefeated in over 300 fights against other trained fighters, it makes sense to believe that his sh!t worked. Navin

***

A Few Thoughts:

Both of you are correct.

I think most would be surprised as to how open our Wing Chun ancestors were to training and using what was useful for them in the real world. Why wouldn't they? They were more open than most of us are today (believe it or not) haha JR

The thing that seemed to be clear was that they all seemed to prefer to focus or concentrate on Wing Chun as their art to master and pass on to others no matter what else they were training (or trained). So, I guess it all depends on how much time you have and what is your goal. Perhaps they would rather not be mediocre at a bunch of stuff when they could be pretty good at one thing???? Perhaps they just liked WC better??? Perhaps perhaps perhaps????? No matter how you cut it the evidence is clear that they stuck with and passed on WC. JR

***

Info. regarding Leung Jan from Kulo shows this to be the case:

When he (Leung Jan) was young he studied many kinds of martial art, but after learning from Wong Wah Bo, HE CONCENTRATED ONLY ON WING CHUN



A few translated from the texts inside his family estate in Kulo where the above comes from:


Leung Jan had two Wing Chun masters; Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai, but as a youth, he also trained long bridge Shaolin Boxing. When he was young he studied many kinds of martial art, but after learning from Wong Wah Bo, HE CONCENTRATED ONLY ON WING CHUN. So he could use long bridge and short bridge in fighting. He could use powerful Shaolin attacks with Wing Chun "Soft Power" in defense. And so he always prevailed against others in boxing. Most Kulo people recognized Dr. Leung for three reasons; he was very powerful in attack and defense and excelled in Pole fighting.


***


Enjoy the info..


Peace,

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wong Fei Hung

There are pictures and descriptions and the vast majority of hung Ga guys take the stories of his fights as just that, stories and we do not base the merit of our system on what he MAY have done.
What WFH did or didn't do is irrelevant and anecdotal.

[kung fu fighter]

Navin & Mr. T wrote:


How do you KNOW how Leung Jan or other WCK fighters used their WCK? Did you see it? How do you know that they used it "in any range"? Did you see it? Mr T

No, of course you didn't. You are just making it up. It's a case of using made up evidence to support your view. Mr T

The Evidence is in the system that they passed down, and since Leung Jan was Undefeated in over 300 fights against other trained fighters, it makes sense to believe that his sh!t worked. Navin

***

A Few Thoughts:

Both of you are correct.

I think most would be surprised as to how open our Wing Chun ancestors were to training and using what was useful for them in the real world. Why wouldn't they? They were more open than most of us are today (believe it or not) haha JR

The thing that seemed to be clear was that they all seemed to prefer to focus or concentrate on Wing Chun as their art to master and pass on to others no matter what else they were training (or trained). So, I guess it all depends on how much time you have and what is your goal. Perhaps they would rather not be mediocre at a bunch of stuff when they could be pretty good at one thing???? Perhaps they just liked WC better??? Perhaps perhaps perhaps????? No matter how you cut it the evidence is clear that they stuck with and passed on WC. JR

***

Info. regarding Leung Jan from Kulo shows this to be the case:

When he (Leung Jan) was young he studied many kinds of martial art, but after learning from Wong Wah Bo, HE CONCENTRATED ONLY ON WING CHUN



A few translated from the texts inside his family estate in Kulo where the above comes from:


Leung Jan had two Wing Chun masters; Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai, but as a youth, he also trained long bridge Shaolin Boxing. When he was young he studied many kinds of martial art, but after learning from Wong Wah Bo, HE CONCENTRATED ONLY ON WING CHUN. So he could use long bridge and short bridge in fighting. He could use powerful Shaolin attacks with Wing Chun "Soft Power" in defense. And so he always prevailed against others in boxing. Most Kulo people recognized Dr. Leung for three reasons; he was very powerful in attack and defense and excelled in Pole fighting.


***


Enjoy the info..


Peace,

Jim, thanks for the info,
Are you saying that leung jan used both shaolin long bridge combined with wing chun short bridge in fighting?

[SAAMAG]

Anecdotes. nothing more.
No names of who he fought or defeated, is there even a description of him at all?

Not only that but even if we have names...and it's proven that he had x amount of fights...how would it be relevant because it still wouldn't prove the method by which his wck was used?

[chusauli]

Wong Fei Hung? LOL! That's the Au story perversed with Wong Fei Lung...

In Hung Ga circles, they would say that WFH beat Leung Jan! LOL!

Everyone knows WFH was unbeatable, as was Leung Jan. :) Since both of these men were my ancestors, I do not accept any nonsense claims of the two having fought.

Anyway, WFH was known to have said humbly, "I'm just a doctor...".

[chusauli]

Not only that but even if we have names...and it's proven that he had x amount of fights...how would it be relevant because it still wouldn't prove the method by which his wck was used?


All this proves is he was a good fighter.

It would not prove he was using WCK or not - it just shows in the moment, he was able to apply what fit, with timing and power, against such an opponent.

Let's imagine this theoretical scenario - one is trapping his opponent and dazed him with a flurry of strikes, and as a coup de grace chooses to throw a jumping spinning back kick which finishes the blow - bystanders talk about the kick for generations, but it was the trapping and control which did the job...LOL!

[Jim Roselando]

Jim, thanks for the info,

Are you saying that leung jan used both shaolin long bridge combined with wing chun short bridge in fighting?

***

Navin,

All I am saying is the ancestors were not slaves (if that is a good way to put it) to only using Wing Chun when fist fighting. Almost all them had other Martial Art training/experience. I am sure he was able to mix things up "if" the situation called for it! This would be normal for anyone with this kind of experience.

With regards to the Long & Short discussion... Keep in mind at some point the long range guy has to enter into the short range guys area to hit him. Same goes for the opposite theory. So, a good "short" guy can beat a lousy "long" and vice versa so when the ancestors decided to concentrate on one art (WC) it would have to be so they could be better at their game than the other guy etc...... Specialize at something....

Without a doubt it was the Wing Chun Boxing that he loved and taught his entire life and the reason he had a lot of challenge matches was to promote his medicinal clinic/kung fu club. The more people he beat, the more popular his club would get!


When Kulo folks say:

When he (Leung Jan) was young he studied many kinds of martial art, but after learning from Wong Wah Bo, HE CONCENTRATED ONLY ON WING CHUN


We hold this to be true. He dumped the other arts to devote himself to WCK and his teaching from Futshan & Kulo reflects this info.. JR



Peace,

[HumbleWCGuy]

Jim, thanks for the info,

Are you saying that leung jan used both shaolin long bridge combined with wing chun short bridge in fighting?

***

Navin,

All I am saying is the ancestors were not slaves (if that is a good way to put it) to only using Wing Chun when fist fighting. Almost all them had other Martial Art training/experience. I am sure he was able to mix things up "if" the situation called for it! This would be normal for anyone with this kind of experience.

With regards to the Long & Short discussion... Keep in mind at some point the long range guy has to enter into the short range guys area to hit him. Same goes for the opposite theory. So, a good "short" guy can beat a lousy "long" and vice versa so when the ancestors decided to concentrate on one art (WC) it would have to be so they could be better at their game than the other guy etc...... Specialize at something....

Without a doubt it was the Wing Chun Boxing that he loved and taught his entire life and the reason he had a lot of challenge matches was to promote his medicinal clinic/kung fu club. The more people he beat, the more popular his club would get!


When Kulo folks say:

When he (Leung Jan) was young he studied many kinds of martial art, but after learning from Wong Wah Bo, HE CONCENTRATED ONLY ON WING CHUN


We hold this to be true. He dumped the other arts to devote himself to WCK and his teaching from Futshan & Kulo reflects this info.. JR



Peace,

I have mentioned this before, specifically to you KFF. My family/lineage legend says that Chan wah shun in used a side body system to fight long range. It resembles Jun Fan kickboxing in a sense. Although, by my estimation jkd lacks some of the sophistication. Anyway, we still practice it. The legend says that Chan taught Leung his sidebody in exchange for the front.

I see that most systems use Jun sun ma but few practitioners seem to understand that standing sideways or bladed is a long range tactic.

Althouth, I still maintain that the front body can be used to fight long range as well. It just requires an understanding of angles and WC kicking strategies which I am not sure that a lot of people get early on in WC.

[shaolin_allan]

Humblewcguy my sifu also teaches us the a side stance for long range which also resembles jun fan. I agree that the regular stance can be used to fight long range but we get taught this just to take a different look and get different perspectives on how principles of wc can be used in that type of stance, just in case we ever need it.

[Pacman]

Anecdotes. nothing more.
No names of who he fought or defeated, is there even a description of him at all?

Leung Jan's record was actually given to him by Yuen Kay San, via the historian au sui jee, YKS did it to avoid notoriety. Some of the records can be found in Fatshan city hall

[Pacman]

the different "sau" (tan, bong, etc) can be used in a variety of ways. bridging is just one. deflecting is another (like using bong sau to parry, then collapsing to deflect and turning into a backfist). bong sau can even be used for attacking.


"Deflecting" is another of those "tacked on concepts". Where in the kuit is "deflecting" mentioned? WCK doesn't deflect or knock away force, it RECEIVES it (lai lao hoi soong - stay as the force comes, escort it as it goes).

And, when we "incorporate more than one action in a strike" it isn't to be economical, it is because IN THAT SITUATION doing that provides the best results.



"Parries" is another tacked on "concept". Where is the term "parry" in WCK? It's one of those things that comes from Bruce -- and fencing. Tan, bong, fook, chum, etc. aren't "parries", they are BRIDGE HANDS (kiu sao).

[Pacman]

The movement/actions we see in the classical WCK forms (or points), the classical dummy, the classical drills, etc.

what do you think the 12 san sik are for?

[k gledhill]

the different "sau" (tan, bong, etc) can be used in a variety of ways. bridging is just one. deflecting is another (like using bong sau to parry, then collapsing to deflect and turning into a backfist). bong sau can even be used for attacking.

bong sao dont back fist...too slow.;)

[LSWCTN1]

bong sao dont back fist...too slow.;)

of course it does, lap sao... :p

i agree - its more of a cutting uppercut in BOTH my lineages

[Jim Roselando]

I see that most systems use Jun sun ma but few practitioners seem to understand that standing sideways or bladed is a long range tactic.

The legend says that Chan taught Leung his sidebody in exchange for the front.



***

The story from Kulo of the Side method was that it comes from Leung Jan's study with Leung Yee Tai and the Straight method was from his study with Wong Wah Bo. With regards to Side being for long range and Straight being for short I have to agree and disagree.

Yes, you do add length to your offense when Sideways. No Straight does not suite closer body fighting. If you actually want to use Close Body methods you need to turn Sideways. Shoulder/Hip/Body (3rd hand) contact will not happen if you are Straight Facing. So, the main purpose for Side is we specialize in the closest of the close body WC arts.

Watch Old Fung for an example of the Close Body purpose of his Side art:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPGa2wrSiAk



Back to lurk mode!


Peace,

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just forget about what the old masters MAY have done and focus on what YOU can do.
LJ was undefeated in 300 fights? VS WHO?
Look at Rickson, his record was every match he ever had, local, in house, distrcit, VS scrubs, etc etc.
heck, not to toot my own above average sized horn :D, IF I was to count ALL the fights I ever had and of course, only focus on the victories, it would easily be over 100 fights, of course I only count the fights VS trained fighters and those in the ring, the ones that actually put up a fight and deserve the honour of facing my deadly and feared Sha Jia Quan !!!
:p

[HumbleWCGuy]

I see that most systems use Jun sun ma but few practitioners seem to understand that standing sideways or bladed is a long range tactic.

The legend says that Chan taught Leung his sidebody in exchange for the front.



***

The story from Kulo of the Side method was that it comes from Leung Jan's study with Leung Yee Tai and the Straight method was from his study with Wong Wah Bo. With regards to Side being for long range and Straight being for short I have to agree and disagree.

That could very well be the case because in the end pin sun looks a good bit different than what I do. I think that the only take home might be that there was an exchange; however, who really knows what was incorporated.



Yes, you do add length to your offense when Sideways. No Straight does not suite closer body fighting. If you actually want to use Close Body methods you need to turn Sideways. Shoulder/Hip/Body (3rd hand) contact will not happen if you are Straight Facing. So, the main purpose for Side is we specialize in the closest of the close body WC arts.

You guys do things a bit differently. I can't say that you are wrong because I really know nothing of that method.

[t_niehoff]

the different "sau" (tan, bong, etc) can be used in a variety of ways. bridging is just one. deflecting is another (like using bong sau to parry, then collapsing to deflect and turning into a backfist). bong sau can even be used for attacking.

The "sao" is really short-hand for "kiu sao", bridge hand. So tan sao is really tan kiu sao, bong sao is really bong kiu sao, etc. They are not used for *bridging* but are in fact bridges, i.e., solid connections to our opponent.

Parrying, deflecting are tacked on "concepts" -- they are not a part of WCK. WCK does not have a "backfist" either (the hanging punch isn't a backfist).

All the bridges are attacks-- they are used to attack and disrupt an opponent's structure, permitting us to control them.

[LoneTiger108]

The "sao" is really short-hand for "kiu sao", bridge hand. So tan sao is really tan kiu sao, bong sao is really bong kiu sao, etc. They are not used for *bridging* but are in fact bridges, i.e., solid connections to our opponent.

Parrying, deflecting are tacked on "concepts" -- they are not a part of WCK. WCK does not have a "backfist" either (the hanging punch isn't a backfist).

All the bridges are attacks-- they are used to attack and disrupt an opponent's structure, permitting us to control them.

Another great 'misinterpretation' T :p If tan is to be a kiu sau then we would refer to it as tan kiu sau! There's enough 'slamg' terms already without you now saying that 'actually this is just short-hand for this'!

In fact if you want to explain it the way I think you are then it's better to use the 'arm' meaning for sau as it does translate either way. So, instead of a tan hand it's a tan arm. This is much more accurate imho as the whole arm is tweaked for each seed, so it makes sense to me.

You of all people must understand that a bridge exists ONLY on contact. :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

Why can't you? Economy is simply the efficient, sparing, or concise use of something: an economy of effort; an economy of movement., and economy of motion is simply a reduction in body motion to produce the same desired results. I also look at it as doing the least amount of work to achieve my results. So if my goal is to get out of the mount as you stated...I'm going to try and use the one that uses the least amount of energy, with the least amount of "steps" to achieve my goal.


As one of my training partners likes to say, so many people want to go right to enlightened warrior monk stage and can't even get out of a headlock. "Economy of movement" MAY, and I stress may, be an issue once you can get out of a headlock -- though I think the very process of developing that skill will take care of most of that -- but developing the skill itself is primary.

I've done athletics all my life. And never did I hear a coach talk about "economy of motion" -- it simply isn't an issue. When you roll in BJJ and try to escape the mount, you're not focusing on "what is the most economical way of doing this" -- you're focusing on getting posture, protecting your neck and arms, feeling where his weight is, is he grape-vined or not, is he sitting up or crouched, etc. You don't have the time to even think about economy.



Do I? Or is it just staring you in the face and you fail to admit it because you're a lawyer and don't like to admit when you're wrong?


I'm wrong all the time. I am constantly learning. And I constantly question everything, including my own views.

It's just that much of this stuff, like "economy of motion" is simply meaningless dribble that distracts us from the important things.



One way is better in terms of the end result, and in terms of the energy expended, and in terms of the steps involved. You should be fully capable of seeing that, having done the work.


You have it backwards. By doing the work, for example, by doing lots of rolling and developing a mount escape game, you will automatically develop economy in your action -- it is a natural by-product of developing skill. It's not something you need to give much concern to, and. in fact, if you focus on it, it will interfere with your skill development -- because you can't know ahead of developing the skill how much movement you will need.



In the BJJ gym I was at there was always talk about doing things better with less energy expansion. Why wrestle to get out of a move when you can technique out of a move with less effort?


Technique is of course to do something with less effort, more efficiently, etc. But do you see that just by developing your technique (skill in action), you will automatically develop the ability to use less effort, move more effectively, etc.?

When you learn to ride a bike, are you focused on how to pedal with less movement, how to minimize your action? Of course not. You focus on just being able to get the bike to move without falling off. Eventually, you will automatically begin to use less movement, to become more efficient in your movement, etc. This is simply a natural part of the skill development process.



Soo you're saying that if someone is sprinting to the left to hit a hard angled shot they're going to try a right-handed forehand instead of a backhand??? Sort of goes against all the tennis training I've seen. The only time that would happen is when it's a shot that is still relatively down the middle and not so fast that the player would have the time to do it.


Then you should watch some world-class players play -- they often run around backhands to hit forehands, etc. This is common in all sports. Because the focus isn't on doing what is most economical but doing what will produce the best result in the moment, and that often is NOT doing the most economical thing.



Taking it back to fighting, there are times when being economical is the ONLY way to go, and when someone has options. However being economical in general isn't a BAD thing.


Being economical isn't an issue -- doing what produces the best result in the moment (and in the whole game context) is the only issue.



If I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you learn a gross wasted movement and then refine it after the fact instead of learning the better method from the get-go? That's simply not logical.


Well, that more or less is how we learn and develop physical skills. When we are taught a physical skill, we learn by doing, and our initial performance will have all kinds of poor movement, including wasted movement -- because if we didn't have that, we could already perform the skill. As we go through the process of developing that skill, our bodies will refine our action, which involves eliminating movement that doesn't help us perform the skill. But it is the performance of the skill, over and over again, that teaches us (our bodies) what precisely we have to do or not do to get the result.



Unless what you're saying is that inherently a person's movement will be gross and wasted because it's a new movement and through muscle memory the body becomes better at performing the movement as it becomes subconscious in effort. Which is just the natural learning process.

I have to say though...the chosen weapon makes a difference. Look back the mount examples. Why bring a knife to a gunfight?

Your analogy is flawed. The appropriate weapon (skill) isn't dependent on "economy of action" but rather what will get you the best result in the moment.

[m1k3]

You of all people must understand that a bridge exists ONLY on contact. :rolleyes:

Actually what I get from T's posts is that once contact is established you want to maintain it. The techniques that you are using to maintain contact/control are not static and will change as you react to you opponent and try to impose your will on him.

Of course I'm just one of those silly grapplers who thinks getting and maintaining contact is a good thing. :D

[t_niehoff]

Another great 'misinterpretation' T :p If tan is to be a kiu sau then we would refer to it as tan kiu sau! There's enough 'slamg' terms already without you now saying that 'actually this is just short-hand for this'!


No misinterpretation.

How can you spread (tan) something without being in contact (bridge) with it (or do you believe in telekinesis)?



In fact if you want to explain it the way I think you are then it's better to use the 'arm' meaning for sau as it does translate either way. So, instead of a tan hand it's a tan arm. This is much more accurate imho as the whole arm is tweaked for each seed, so it makes sense to me.


Sao does mean arm/hand -- the whole thing.



You of all people must understand that a bridge exists ONLY on contact. :rolleyes:

Of course it does. This is why tan sao is a bridge hand/arm -- it only exists when you are in contact. Which only supports what I was saying: tan sao is tan kiu sao.

[SAAMAG]

The "sao" is really short-hand for "kiu sao", bridge hand. So tan sao is really tan kiu sao, bong sao is really bong kiu sao, etc. They are not used for *bridging* but are in fact bridges, i.e., solid connections to our opponent.

Parrying, deflecting are tacked on "concepts" -- they are not a part of WCK. WCK does not have a "backfist" either (the hanging punch isn't a backfist).

All the bridges are attacks-- they are used to attack and disrupt an opponent's structure, permitting us to control them.

I've never heard that before. Intersting. Where did you get that information from?

[LoneTiger108]

No misinterpretation. How can you spread (tan) something without being in contact (bridge) with it (or do you believe in telekinesis)?

Sorry T I don't use the term 'spread' so this may be where we're criss-crossing? Spreading isn't the only purpose of tan sau. And how you maintain contact or bridge attachment with a tan is something completely different.

I wasn't really concerned with the tan, I was concerned at you saying that tan sau is short hand for tan kiu sau, when it is not. (IMHO!)

[duende]

.

I wasn't really concerned with the tan, I was concerned at you saying that tan sau is short hand for tan kiu sau, when it is not. (IMHO!)

Actually it is short for Tan Kiu Sau... At least at our school.
:)

[duende]

I've never heard that before. Intersting. Where did you get that information from?

This is where Terence and I agree

The bridge is the attack and defense. It is the control point. This is one part of where the concept simultaneous attack and defense stems from.

Parrying etc.. Is simply another form of looping which is not what we do in WCK imo

There is much discussion on kiu sau and how it's intent and purpose differs from rolling hand chi sau on hfy108. Take a look sometime if your interested.

[t_niehoff]

Sorry T I don't use the term 'spread' so this may be where we're criss-crossing? Spreading isn't the only purpose of tan sau. And how you maintain contact or bridge attachment with a tan is something completely different.

I wasn't really concerned with the tan, I was concerned at you saying that tan sau is short hand for tan kiu sau, when it is not. (IMHO!)

"Tan" literally means "to spread". It is an action, not a shape. More specifically, a tan sao is a bridge hand that is spreading, just like a fook sao is a bridge hand that is controlling. You can use that spreading action in many ways. If you are not "spreading" then you are not using a tan sao -- you're then DOING something else and calling it a tan sao (which unfortunately goes on all the time).

Tan sao is short for tan kiu sao, as tan sao is a kiu sao (you can't tan without a bridge). It is "understood" that it is a bridge hand so there is no need to be explicit (although it is explicit in "older" versions of WCK that retain things like the keywords).

[t_niehoff]

I've never heard that before. Intersting. Where did you get that information from?

What part? Not to be a smart ass, but this is basic level WCK -- and it is some of the stuff that I also didn't learn in my first 17 years of practicing WCK (until I began training with Robert). I learned it from Robert, Rene, Hendrik, etc. And then I validated it for myself through my practice.

[SAAMAG]

This is where Terence and I agree

The bridge is the attack and defense. It is the control point. This is one part of where the concept simultaneous attack and defense stems from.

Parrying etc.. Is simply another form of looping which is not what we do in WCK imo

There is much discussion on kiu sau and how it's intent and purpose differs from rolling hand chi sau on hfy108. Take a look sometime if your interested.

What is this Looping that you speak of?

[t_niehoff]

What is this Looping that you speak of?

I don't know what "looping" refers to, but from a WCK perspective, we don't "parry" -- we dap (join/ride), the first step in our method (faat mun).

[kung fu fighter]

Yes, you do add length to your offense when Sideways. No Straight does not suite closer body fighting. If you actually want to use Close Body methods you need to turn Sideways. Shoulder/Hip/Body (3rd hand) contact will not happen if you are Straight Facing. So, the main purpose for Side is we specialize in the closest of the close body WC arts.

I agree! shaolin Weng chun also uses the Shoulder/Hip/Body similarly for close range fighting

[t_niehoff]

View Post
Yes, you do add length to your offense when Sideways. No Straight does not suite closer body fighting. If you actually want to use Close Body methods you need to turn Sideways. Shoulder/Hip/Body (3rd hand) contact will not happen if you are Straight Facing. So, the main purpose for Side is we specialize in the closest of the close body WC arts.


I agree! shaolin Weng chun also uses the Shoulder/Hip/Body similarly for close range fighting

Actually, you don't add "length" to your offense while "sideways" -- just the opposite (you can only use "sideways" facing when very, very close, i.e., body-to-body).

In the overwhelming majority of cases, if you give your opponent your side/flank, you are at a distinct and serious disadvantage.

Straight body facing does suit close body fighting (just look at all grapplers who use close body fighting all the time). You can use "straight body facing" and use WCK close body methods, just most of the time you do it from your opponent's flank (my chest facing, and often in contact, with his side/flank, for example). "Side body" in WCK does not just refer to facing with our side/flank but to facing our opponent's side/flank.

But there are a very limited number of situations where facing the opponent with our side/flank is advantageous.

[k gledhill]

tan sao 'elbow' spreads...you do this in chi sao when you strike from tan to a palm strike....your striking against the partners opposite ' elbow in and down' jum sao.
we attack cycling tan jum etc....

simple once your introduced to it.

it easily defeats the 'spreading hand off the line....takes a few seconds of sparring to prove this.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually, you don't add "length" to your offense while "sideways"


Elaborate on this please...

[Jim Roselando]

Quick response to Mr. T:


Actually, you don't add "length" to your offense while "sideways" -- just the opposite T

All boxing arts (western, thai etc) that have been proven methods of combat face sideways. Lets use some Mr. T logic to help this discussion:

If standing square would benefit Boxing arts range/safety they would have adopted it by now. No doubt you add length to your offense and you give less targets so it protects your body. JR

Test: Stand square facing and extend your fist out so at its longest point it touches a wall. Now, in the same spot just turn side face. Your fist will go thru the wall. JR

(you can only use "sideways" facing when very, very close, i.e., body-to-body). T

Yes & No. Yes, we are a very very close body art (I said that earlier) and that is the 3rd hand of Pin Sun (shoulder/body/etc.). The 1st is (fist) and 2nd is (elbow). So, your wrong when you say it is only for close body. JR

In the overwhelming majority of cases, if you give your opponent your side/flank, you are at a distinct and serious disadvantage. T

No sh*t Sherlock. Doh ;) JR

Straight body facing does suit close body fighting (just look at all grapplers who use close body fighting all the time). T

Sure. Nobody is saying you can't fight close but you yourself acknowledged that:

(you can only use "sideways" facing when very, very close, i.e., body-to-body)

This is an important concept for the closest of close body methods which can only happen when "sideways". So, yes straight body can function close and side body can also serve this purpose but also function at the extreme close.. JR


You can use "straight body facing" and use WCK close body methods, just most of the time you do it from your opponent's flank (my chest facing, and often in contact, with his side/flank, for example). T

I appreciate your Jung Sein square facing theory but I hate to tell you can spin and flank someone in the same way a square guy can! I know this may be a sensitive subject since the number TWO item in your "operating systems" is:

Second is facing (the square-on facing of our opponent).

I hate to break the news to you but both work (straight & side) JR

But there are a very limited number of situations where facing the opponent with our side/flank is advantageous. "Side body" in WCK does not just refer to facing with our side/flank but to facing our opponent's side/flank.

Lets re-phrase that: According to the straight body wc schools this is a purpose of the term "side body" but not the only purpose.... Your one size fits all facing theory WC info is good for straight body arts but not all arts........ Turning/flanking your opponent is part of Side WC amigo but it is not just about facing from the side. JR


Back to lurk mode!


Appreciate the chat.


Peace,

[t_niehoff]

Quick response to Mr. T:

Actually, you don't add "length" to your offense while "sideways" -- just the opposite T

All boxing arts (western, thai etc) that have been proven methods of combat face sideways. Lets use some Mr. T logic to help this discussion:

If standing square would benefit Boxing arts range/safety they would have adopted it by now. No doubt you add length to your offense and you give less targets so it protects your body. JR


No. WCK fights from the inside -- you are in the phone booth -- so why would you even want "more length to your offense"? Giving an opponent your flank on the inside is in most cases a very bad mistake.

Also, your "logic" isn't correct. Facing the opponent with your side doesn't present less targets (your opponent can strike to your side as easily has he can your front).



Test: Stand square facing and extend your fist out so at its longest point it touches a wall. Now, in the same spot just turn side face. Your fist will go thru the wall. JR


Sure. But I think you are confusing shifting/turning with facing. Facing is when you stay there.



(you can only use "sideways" facing when very, very close, i.e., body-to-body). T

Yes & No. Yes, we are a very very close body art (I said that earlier) and that is the 3rd hand of Pin Sun (shoulder/body/etc.).


It is the third hand of WCK. I'm happy to hear that Pin Sun has it too. ;)



The 1st is (fist) and 2nd is (elbow). So, your wrong when you say it is only for close body. JR


WCK has shifting/turning when not body-to-body, but you only have "sideways" facing -- where you stay in a sideways relationship -- at close body. And even then, only in a few very specific situations.



In the overwhelming majority of cases, if you give your opponent your side/flank, you are at a distinct and serious disadvantage. T

No sh*t Sherlock. Doh ;) JR


Since you seem to appreciate this, then you may want to reconsider giving an opponent your flank by facing him sideways.



Straight body facing does suit close body fighting (just look at all grapplers who use close body fighting all the time). T

Sure. Nobody is saying you can't fight close but you yourself acknowledged that:


Ah, we weren't just talking about fighting close. Didn't you say, "Shoulder/Hip/Body (3rd hand) contact will not happen if you are Straight Facing"?

My response was that yes it can -- if you have square-on facing from your opponent's flank (and even sometimes, albeit rarely, when he is facing you squarely).



(you can only use "sideways" facing when very, very close, i.e., body-to-body)

This is an important concept for the closest of close body methods which can only happen when "sideways". So, yes straight body can function close and side body can also serve this purpose but also function at the extreme close.. JR


If I have your side, I can put my chest against your body -- how much closer do you think we can get? Is there a more "extreme close" than body-to-body contact?



You can use "straight body facing" and use WCK close body methods, just most of the time you do it from your opponent's flank (my chest facing, and often in contact, with his side/flank, for example). T

I appreciate your Jung Sein square facing theory


Hardly a theory since both the WCK forms, the WCK drills, and the WCK kuit ALL teach it as fundamental. For example, in chi sao we use square-on facing. Try doing chi sao while maintaining a sideways facing and see how far you get. :)



but I hate to tell you can spin and flank someone in the same way a square guy can!


Again, you don't seem to appreciate the difference between turning (to turn or spin your opponent) and facing. They are not the same thing.



I know this may be a sensitive subject since the number TWO item in your "operating systems" is:

Second is facing (the square-on facing of our opponent).

I hate to break the news to you but both work (straight & side) JR


Again, I think you are mixing turning/shifting with facing. To use an extreme example, if I latch onto your head with both my hands (double neck pulling hands), I can shift/turn 90 degrees to severely break your structure but I am not using side-on facing but rather turning. I won't stay there so I am not using side-on facing.



But there are a very limited number of situations where facing the opponent with our side/flank is advantageous. "Side body" in WCK does not just refer to facing with our side/flank but to facing our opponent's side/flank. T

Lets re-phrase that: According to the straight body wc schools this is a purpose of the term "side body" but not the only purpose.... Your one size fits all facing theory WC info is good for straight body arts but not all arts........ Turning/flanking your opponent is part of Side WC amigo but it is not just about facing from the side. JR


There is not straight body WCK and side body WCK -- there is just WCK. Turning your opponent and flanking the opponent is pure, simple, basic WCK.

[YungChun]

Many will elect to use more of a side facing from the outside...then square up as they close... There may be cases when you will be side facing without choice in the moment... The kuit makes mention of these cases..

Economy of motion is both something the human machine adapts to (improving in a skill) at it is also part of what makes Chun work (or not)..

As the level in Chun improves movements and actions will become more economical in use of both energy and motion.. This is not limited to Chun and is a natural part of motor coordination getting more efficient..

However, economy is also key to what makes Chun work (or not).. So Chun starts with relatively small movements and actions from the beginning.. As the student improves these "relatively" small actions will become smaller still, and more economical--and therefore faster requiring less time to execute and less energy as well ..

In Chun's method of close range fighting there is even less time to play with, so actions and movements as seen in the forms are relatively short motions and actions to start with (not all arts use small motions/actions).. No you can't plan to use the smallest motion to start with but you can realize this is the goal and keep getting more efficient mindfully. This is what much of the core training does, when done right. Economy is ultimately an important goal of the student since much of Chun's tactics depend on use of good positioning and use of structure, where motion represents changing from one position to another with minimal loss of time and energy.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I dislike the term "economy of motion." I prefer the term "optimal action." To me, Wing Chun is about optimal action in a given circumstance.

Optimal action may or may not be in line (pardon the pun) with "economic motion" as it is often described in Wing Chun via "straightline theory," "midline theory," etc.

If, however, "economy of motion" relates not to economic actions such as the JKD approach of "closest target, closest weapon" but refers instead to economy of motion as a whole, ie smallest amount of actions/time needed to win a fight (meaning no messing around with style or showboating, etc.), then it is more in line with the idea of "optimal action" and I agree with it in that sense.

[YungChun]

I dislike the term "economy of motion." I prefer the term "optimal action." To me, Wing Chun is about optimal action in a given circumstance.

Optimal action may or may not be in line (pardon the pun) with "economic motion" as it is often described in Wing Chun via "straightline theory," "midline theory," etc.

If, however, "economy of motion" relates not to economic actions such as the JKD approach of "closest target, closest weapon" but refers instead to economy of motion as a whole, ie smallest amount of actions/time needed to win a fight (meaning no messing around with style or showboating, etc.), then it is more in line with the idea of "optimal action" and I agree with it in that sense.

If the idea is to use minimal motion mechanics I fail to see the logic here--everything is trying to be optimal, Chun is a minimalist art.

Longest weapon to nearest target may sound economical until you start thinking about fansao (or what comes next).

[Xiao3 Meng4]

If the idea is to use minimal motion mechanics I fail to see the logic here--everything is trying to be optimal, Chun is a minimalist art.

Longest weapon to nearest target may sound economical until you start thinking about fansao (or what comes next).


Minimal and optimal are two different things in my mind. I look at optimal action as referring to "the most efficient action available to regain/maintain the initiative." Sure the action might be a minimalist set of moves which disables the opponent immediately a la Donnie Yen in Ip Man, but it can also mean going absolutely berserk, leaving chaos and collateral damage in your wake. I would rather find a middle ground; instead of "straightline theory," I like to explore "straightest line theory."

[duende]

Parrying leads to more parrying.. hence the looping comment.

Kiu Sau bridging, is contact/control via control of COG and occupation/domination of space. Not exchange, but intercepting, destroying and crossing WCK bridge.



Side body, leads to limbs being stretched out which makes you highly vulnerable to grappling submissions as well as long arm/short arm of weapons.

Center facing isn't simply squaring off. There is much more of a dynamic range involved. But this requires what we call Big Wheel body mechanics and knowing oneself/knowing one's box. That way, one is aware of what point they have gone a "bridge to far".

[kung fu fighter]

In the overwhelming majority of cases, if you give your opponent your side/flank, you are at a distinct and serious disadvantage.

Pien san wck does not expose your side/flank to the opponent, it allows you to expose theirs:)


Try doing chi sao while maintaining a sideways facing and see how far you get. :)

There are many platforms of doing chi sao in wing chun, the luk sao platform commonly seen in yip man wck is not the only version, there is also sheung huen sao platform, as well as pien san chi sao platform :)

[Pacman]

The "sao" is really short-hand for "kiu sao", bridge hand. So tan sao is really tan kiu sao, bong sao is really bong kiu sao, etc. They are not used for *bridging* but are in fact bridges, i.e., solid connections to our opponent.

Parrying, deflecting are tacked on "concepts" -- they are not a part of WCK. WCK does not have a "backfist" either (the hanging punch isn't a backfist).

All the bridges are attacks-- they are used to attack and disrupt an opponent's structure, permitting us to control them.

what you said about kiu sao is wrong. you said you learned sum nung wing chun and you are an expert in this right? since all WCK is the same you know all about it right? well then you should know there are 4 types of bong sau--used to block, parry and attack

not sure why you said there is no backfist. its in the forms and in the 12 san sik

[Jim Roselando]

Mr. T,


You seem to be confused on a few things. Let me help out a bit:

1) The so-called Kuen Kuit you are talking about is an adaption of white crane's san chin to our art and not specifically wck. Most of the Kuen Kuit we find in today's lists are things that have been picked up and fused over the years. So, while you may think your #2 of Facing Square is an important key to fighting with WC, anyone who has researched Kuen Kuit with an open mind would have noticed there is no mention of this in Yik Kam's kuen kuit and other lineages like Kulo village. So, one may say it was adapted later by some schools but not all. I tend to think Wong Wah Bo was the source of the Straight Body art but more research needs to be done.

2) If facing square was so I important for fighting then real fighters would have adopted this platform/theory to their art. Name one professional mma or Thai or anyone who fights pro level who faces their opponent square facing?? The entire belief that you can take someones flank so easily only happens in lala land (fantasy fu) or against an un-trained scrub.

Perhaps you can post an example or two of someone (anyone) who can do what you
say against a skilled and resisting opponent for everyone to see??? Notice I didn't ask you to show yourself in action. I wouldn't dare ask you to demo anything. haha Everyone knows that is taboo.... ;) :eek:


Wing Chun is not a slave to Jung Sein or Pin Sein. It has the ability to utilize both as we are an adaptive art!


Gotta run and thanks for the chat.


Peace,

[YungChun]

Any way you slice the art, facing is a key part of making it work and can be seen in the forms, seen and felt in the training.. I can't imagine how anyone could do the classical training and not see how vital facing is..

In Chun both hands and body, often even the legs all need to assist each other and work together.. Without facing when in close range this can't happen and certainly not in a timely fashion..

A similar component is seen in not only other Southern arts but in any art where people use the hands to assist each other, like grappling and even some boxers face. It's also something many or most of Yip's students have passed down as well as being in the Kiut.

[k gledhill]

the dummy is a good example of facing and shifting as you attack side to side or shift/pivot to face changing lines of engagement, using body weight in motion to coincide with arms cycling attacking /defending/attacking..etc...hips are engaged in short pivoting facing actions too...
If you stop thinking of the main wooden body as your target it helps to stop thinking your standing in front of a guy, then turning away from the opponent, then refacing :o...where your centerline points the 'guns' fire.;)

[Knifefighter]

2) If facing square was so I important for fighting then real fighters would have adopted this platform/theory to their art. Name one professional mma or Thai or anyone who fights pro level who faces their opponent square facing?? The entire belief that you can take someones flank so easily only happens in lala land (fantasy fu) or against an un-trained scrub.

Pretty much everyone does this once they get into clinch range.

[taojkd]

2) If facing square was so I important for fighting then real fighters would have adopted this platform/theory to their art. Name one professional mma or Thai or anyone who fights pro level who faces their opponent square facing?? The entire belief that you can take someones flank so easily only happens in lala land (fantasy fu) or against an un-trained scrub.

Um, pretty much every MT, MMA instructor i have heard of takes a front face stance with the lead shoulder raised slightly. Also, wrestlers are largely front facing even when applied to MMA. BJJ sometimes will sometimes turn their bodies and place their rear hand on the front lapel of the GI, but that is to prevent a grip on the front collar and is usually only used for BJJ GI Tourneys. Most NO-GI tourneys you will be front facing with a low wrestlers stance.

Most MT, MMA do step around or to the side/flank to stay away from their opponents power hand but they are front facing. And I will agree that it is easier said than done to get to the outside of an opponent as their job is to do the exact same thing to you.



Pretty much everyone does this once they get into clinch range.


Agreed.

[Frost]

Um, pretty much every MT, MMA instructor i have heard of takes a front face stance with the lead shoulder raised slightly. Also, wrestlers are largely front facing even when applied to MMA. BJJ sometimes will sometimes turn their bodies and place their rear hand on the front lapel of the GI, but that is to prevent a grip on the front collar and is usually only used for BJJ GI Tourneys. Most NO-GI tourneys you will be front facing with a low wrestlers stance.

Most MT, MMA do step around or to the side/flank to stay away from their opponents power hand but they are front facing. And I will agree that it is easier said than done to get to the outside of an opponent as their job is to do the exact same thing to you.




Agreed.

true if you dont stand square its hard to do alot of things, like sprawl, and in the clinch you have to square up to your opponent or get thrwon or hit

[Jim Roselando]

Hey guys,


I am just giving Mr. T's a taste of what he likes to dish out. So, asking him to show one example of anyone doing it against a decent fighter is only fair. Still waiting BTW. Muay Thai and most boxing arts are not square facing. They always have a shoulder/hip slightly back. Muay Thai usually has less angle to their body tho.

For me, Wing Chun has both methods and it can be seen in all wing arts. Side does not mean you must fully side face. As soon as one shoulder/hip is not square you fall into the side facing method. The amount of Side or Straight body used will depend on the situation.


A few examples of how both is found in all :

Pin Sun: First set is Jut Choi which is trained in Kim Yeung Ma frontal facing. Square
facing is the first thing taught in the Side art. Second set uses Side facing.

Yeun Kay San: In their sup yee sic have the Ji Ng Choi which is front facing and the Pin San Choi which is Side Facing.

Yip Man: In their Chum Kiu they have times when they turn with double Lan Sao and the head faces that direction so it is front facing and in the same set they have the 3 shifting bong's which is Side facing.

Etc...


Without a doubt both aspects have always been a part of Wing Chun. Perhaps the reason Wong Wah Bo's line tend to focus more on frontal facings because of how he taught the art which would be based around his size/attributes. Leung Jan's nephew, Wong Wah Sam, was only 4' 11" tall and was about 95lbs. This is more likely the reason Leung Jan taught him a to utilize the Side element more...


Today's collections of the so-called Kuen Kuit are largely mish mashed stuff collected over the years and not specifically wing chun. We need to be careful as we do not want to be a slave to any theory. The one theory that is universal in Wing Chun is loi lao hoi sung etc... It doesn't say loi lao square or loi lso side hahaha.... Side Body is not about always being fully sideways no matter what is going on and Straight Body should not be slaves of their method. Utilizing two hands together is found in both methods so keep in mind you do not need to fully square off to accomplish this concept.


I have to get running. Appreciate the chats!



Peace,

[HumbleWCGuy]

Mr. T,
You seem to be confused on a few things.

It would be easier to list what he isn't confused about.


Let me help out a bit:

Are you a psychiatrist?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Today's collections of the so-called Kuen Kuit are largely mish mashed stuff collected over the years and not specifically wing chun. We need to be careful as we do not want to be a slave to any theory.

Of course... This Kuen Kuit crap has been bubbling for a while. T. has made a huge push over the last week to use it to set himself up as a wc authority. I wonder what scheme this nut will cook up next. Perhaps he will throw in his lot with VTM and jump on board with the next newest oldest lineage?

[YungChun]

Hey guys,


I am just giving Mr. T's a taste of what he likes to dish out. So, asking him to show one example of anyone doing it against a decent fighter is only fair. Still waiting BTW. Muay Thai and most boxing arts are not square facing. They always have a shoulder/hip slightly back. Muay Thai usually has less angle to their body tho.

For me, Wing Chun has both methods and it can be seen in all wing arts. Side does not mean you must fully side face. As soon as one shoulder/hip is not square you fall into the side facing method. The amount of Side or Straight body used will depend on the situation.


This makes no sense to me whatsoever.. Any art when operating in close range faces... To find such a clip all you need to do is find someone fighting in clinch or close range and bang you'll see facing..

If you can find a clip of someone not facing in close range fighting they will likely be the one losing.

[SAAMAG]

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.. Any art when operating in close range faces... To find such a clip all you need to do is find someone fighting in clinch or close range and bang you'll see facing..

If you can find a clip of someone not facing in close range fighting they will likely be the one losing.

Clinching is done with angles as well.

[Knifefighter]

I am just giving Mr. T's a taste of what he likes to dish out. So, asking him to show one example of anyone doing it against a decent fighter is only fair. Still waiting BTW. Muay Thai and most boxing arts are not square facing. They always have a shoulder/hip slightly back. Muay Thai usually has less angle to their body tho.,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0vl6iTlC4


Same with pretty much every boxer and MT fighter once they get into close range.

At least when T asks for evidence, it usually isn't on pretty much any clip you can find out there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Pretty much every "inside" boxer or fighter ends up fighting square...

[HumbleWCGuy]

Pretty much every "inside" boxer or fighter ends up fighting square...

There is a sideways game that you can play in the clinch, but yea... Generally speaking, I agree that it is far better to be square. As far as inside boxing, I could not imagine what could be done sideways.

[Jim Roselando]

Knifefighter:

At least when T asks for evidence, it usually isn't on pretty much any clip you can find out there.

***

Perhaps you are having trouble following the discussion. ;) haha I am asking to see something that is so often talked about by Square facing WC people but never seen done in competition.... Not so easy in reality. Read below!


I wrote:

The entire belief that you can take someones flank so easily only happens in lala land (fantasy fu) or against an un-trained scrub.

Perhaps you can post an example or two of someone (anyone) who can do what you say against a skilled and resisting opponent for everyone to see???

****

I'll say it again before I go. Side & Square are both useful elements of the WC art! Anyone who says the art doesn't have both is being one sided!


Gotta run!


Adios!

[m1k3]

There is a sideways game that you can play in the clinch, but yea... Generally speaking, I agree that it is far better to be square. As far as inside boxing, I could not imagine what could be done sideways.

Could you show an example of that? Not trying to be a smarta$$ but you lost me with the sideways clinch game. :confused:

[SAAMAG]

Side diagonal grip, can get you a head and arm and/or knees.

[t_niehoff]

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.. Any art when operating in close range faces... To find such a clip all you need to do is find someone fighting in clinch or close range and bang you'll see facing..

If you can find a clip of someone not facing in close range fighting they will likely be the one losing.

That's exactly it -- ANYONE who fights on the inside (clinch) will be using square-on facing -- if not, they will be getting both pounded and controlled. So look at just about any video of people fighting on the inside and you will see that.

And, if we look at our forms we are using square-on facing in every one, more square-on facing with the dummy, even more square-on facing with the drills (chi sao, lop sao, etc.).

Oh, and the kuit. For example, chiu meen jui ying som jiu chai doh (Face the opponent directly as you move in. Execute three moves together).

[t_niehoff]

Pien san wck does not expose your side/flank to the opponent, it allows you to expose theirs:)


Side-on facing is when you face the opponent with your side (maintain that relationship). That is, by definition, exposing your flank.

As I explained to Jim, pien san can also mean being on your opponent's flank (he is facing you with his side).



There are many platforms of doing chi sao in wing chun, the luk sao platform commonly seen in yip man wck is not the only version, there is also sheung huen sao platform, as well as pien san chi sao platform :)

Yes, I know and have practiced both. And both use square-on facing.

[m1k3]

Side diagonal grip, can get you a head and arm and/or knees.

Van, can you show me an example of this? I can see having one foot or the other forward or even using one shoulder to pin someone to a wall or cage but I can't picture me being sideways to someone and still having an effective clinch.

Best I can come up with is getting the underhook and then backstepping into them for the throw. But the point I am sideways there is transitional and I am no longer involved in clinch fighting.

[t_niehoff]

Yeun Kay San: In their sup yee sic have the Ji Ng Choi which is front facing and the Pin San Choi which is Side Facing.

Yip Man: In their Chum Kiu they have times when they turn with double Lan Sao and the head faces that direction so it is front facing and in the same set they have the 3 shifting bong's which is Side facing.


You have continually mixed up turning/shifting with facing.

Facing is how we "face" our opponent, that is the relationship we MAINTAIN (not momentarily deviate from) -- and in WCK that is square-on, so that we can always use both are hands. If I have my opponent's flank or even his back, I face him square-on (with my chest directly facing him so as to have use of both of my hands). When I am facing him squarely, I may turn/shift to, for example, turn him to break his structure. That is what you do with the shifting bong sao. The shifting is to break the opponent's structure. Same as if I face you squarely, grab your head with both hands, and turn/shift.

Side-on facing is when your shoulder/side faces your opponent and you MAINTAIN that relationship.



Without a doubt both aspects have always been a part of Wing Chun. Perhaps the reason Wong Wah Bo's line tend to focus more on frontal facings because of how he taught the art which would be based around his size/attributes.


Another example of a made-up story.

WCK has square-on facing because that is what you NEED when on the inside and/or clinched. It is a "universal" element of all close range fighting.

In fact, the four "points" (ya dim) of the "operating system" of WCK coincide, not coincidentally, with what anyone fighting on the inside/clinch NEEDS to do. You see those same points in all contact, close-range arts.

The other thing is when you do fight close in, most of the time your opponent will also face you squarely (unless he has been mis-trained not to), as he will track you with his facing, will fight to regain that facing, etc. since he will intuitively know that not facing you squarely is to be at a great disadvantage.

These things are not "stylistic" as you seem to believe.

And, btw, Wong Wah Bo is probably the creator of WCK (if there was one creator). Yip Man, YKS, Leung Jan, Pan Nam, etc. all descend from WWB.



Leung Jan's nephew, Wong Wah Sam, was only 4' 11" tall and was about 95lbs. This is more likely the reason Leung Jan taught him a to utilize the Side element more...


What you NOW seem to be calling side-body WCK is getting to the opponent's flank and not facing with your side. That agrees with my previous posts. If you appreciate the importance of square-on facing on the inside, then it follows that you will, if possible, not want your opponent to have square-on facing on the inside. It's just that this is not so easy to achieve or maintain.



Today's collections of the so-called Kuen Kuit are largely mish mashed stuff collected over the years and not specifically wing chun. We need to be careful as we do not want to be a slave to any theory. The one theory that is universal in Wing Chun is loi lao hoi sung etc... It doesn't say loi lao square or loi lso side hahaha.... Side Body is not about always being fully sideways no matter what is going on and Straight Body should not be slaves of their method. Utilizing two hands together is found in both methods so keep in mind you do not need to fully square off to accomplish this concept.


WCK itself is a mish-mash. There is a common, core kuit that you see across most legitimate branches of WCK. And these things were taught by our ancestors, including Leung Jan, Yip Man, YKS, Sum Nung, Pan Nam, etc.

To use the kuit is not being a "slave to theory" anymore than using the forms or drills is being a "slave to theory." The kuit is just as integral to WCK as the forms or drills. They point us in the right direction with our practice (just as the forms and drills do).

And fwiw, loi lao hoi sung is part of that "mish mash" as it is a kuit for many different arts, from weng chun to white crane to SPM to etc.

[Frost]

Van, can you show me an example of this? I can see having one foot or the other forward or even using one shoulder to pin someone to a wall or cage but I can't picture me being sideways to someone and still having an effective clinch.

Best I can come up with is getting the underhook and then backstepping into them for the throw. But the point I am sideways there is transitional and I am no longer involved in clinch fighting.

try a duck under whilst sliding your other arm up to there neck ( from 50/50 duck under their right arm whilst allowing your right over hook to slide up around their neck........ you can now trap their right arm between your neck and theres and pull their head towards you with your right arm, lock it up for either a palm to palm grip or an arm triangle and knee the ribs or sweep for a take down

another way into it is of the plum, make a frame with your right arm over there arms and across their neck ( grab the opposit trap), now push into them and drive their head back and straighten their arm as you use your left hand to pop their extended right arm over your head.

You now have both there arms trapped the ouside of your head, again lock up the clinch or escape and hit

not sure if that sounds logical ill try to find a video later on (at work right now)

[m1k3]

Frost, what you're saying makes sense but again what your describing is the transition from clinch fighting to a control or takedown position.

I could be wrong but the way I was reading some of the "side position" posts is that you were doing clinch/grip/hand fighting from a side position, your shoulders are NOT square to your opponents. You might as well be wearing a sign that says go ahead and take me down, the single leg is right there for you. (James Toney)

I am far from a top level grappler but I have experience in no-gi bjj and folkstyle wrestling. I just can't see it working. I can see it happening but it will not turn out well for the one who's shoulders aren't squared. That's why as a grappler you spend so much time working on turning the corner. In TWC terms getting to the blind side.

[Frost]

Frost, what you're saying makes sense but again what your describing is the transition from clinch fighting to a control or takedown position.

I could be wrong but the way I was reading some of the "side position" posts is that you were doing clinch/grip/hand fighting from a side position, your shoulders are NOT square to your opponents. You might as well be wearing a sign that says go ahead and take me down, the single leg is right there for you. (James Toney)

I am far from a top level grappler but I have experience in no-gi bjj and folkstyle wrestling. I just can't see it working. I can see it happening but it will not turn out well for the one who's shoulders aren't squared. That's why as a grappler you spend so much time working on turning the corner. In TWC terms getting to the blind side.

you are right its a control position not actually clinch fighting, and hell even in the position i would personally perfer to turn in on the opponent, just offering a description of what i thought he was talking about :)

[YungChun]

That's exactly it -- ANYONE who fights on the inside (clinch) will be using square-on facing -- if not, they will be getting both pounded and controlled. So look at just about any video of people fighting on the inside and you will see that.

And, if we look at our forms we are using square-on facing in every one, more square-on facing with the dummy, even more square-on facing with the drills (chi sao, lop sao, etc.).

Oh, and the kuit. For example, chiu meen jui ying som jiu chai doh (Face the opponent directly as you move in. Execute three moves together).

Terence what is your interpretation of the kuit that mentions the side facing?

I took that one to mean in the moment where there is not time to square up..

[SAAMAG]

you are right its a control position not actually clinch fighting, and hell even in the position i would personally perfer to turn in on the opponent, just offering a description of what i thought he was talking about :)

Correct Frost. That's exactly the stuff I was taking about. I see m1k3's point too and also agree with him there in terms of the likely result when you just are standing in range with a side stance.

The reason I say clinching has angles is because while it is a control position, it is part of the clinching game...it's all part of the clinching game. There is constant vying for position, pummeling / swimming amidst all the positions. So it's all transitioning in my book. No one clinches with no goal in mind right?

[Frost]

Correct Frost. That's exactly the stuff I was taking about. I see m1k3's point too and also agree with him there in terms of the likely result when you just are standing in range with a side stance.

The reason I say clinching has angles is because while it is a control position, it is part of the clinching game...it's all part of the clinching game. There is constant vying for position, pummeling / swimming amidst all the positions. So it's all transitioning in my book. No one clinches with no goal in mind right?

I think you are both right, and whilst angles can be used they are a low percentage of the overall game and what ever position you are in, face on, flank, behind you normally look to square up to your opponent, but its fluid and sh*t happens and even monkeys fall out of trees so we cant always be facing him :)

[m1k3]

Correct Frost. That's exactly the stuff I was taking about. I see m1k3's point too and also agree with him there in terms of the likely result when you just are standing in range with a side stance.

The reason I say clinching has angles is because while it is a control position, it is part of the clinching game...it's all part of the clinching game. There is constant vying for position, pummeling / swimming amidst all the positions. So it's all transitioning in my book. No one clinches with no goal in mind right?

Beginners. :D

[t_niehoff]

Terence what is your interpretation of the kuit that mentions the side facing?

I took that one to mean in the moment where there is not time to square up..

Do you mean, Juk Sun Ye, Bok Wai Ng - Facing with side, shoulder is center?

Yes, I agree. WCK action begins/moves from our center. So when, for example, the opponent has our flank there are times when it is more advisable to move from there rather than to try to regain facing. These situations all involve being at very close range.

[LoneTiger108]

Do you mean, Juk Sun Ye, Bok Wai Ng - Facing with side, shoulder is center?

Yes, I agree. WCK action begins/moves from our center. So when, for example, the opponent has our flank there are times when it is more advisable to move from there rather than to try to regain facing. These situations all involve being at very close range.

Interesting line of kuit, and this is what I have been an advocate of since starting to post here. I just feel it's all a waste on you T :rolleyes:

[CFT]

Do you mean, Juk Sun Ye, Bok Wai Ng - Facing with side, shoulder is center.Just to be pedantic (and why not?) your comma is in the wrong place.

Juk Sun, Ye Bok Wai Ng

This relates to the pole though right? But of course can be applied when appropriate.

[t_niehoff]

Interesting line of kuit, and this is what I have been an advocate of since starting to post here. I just feel it's all a waste on you T :rolleyes:

Everything you say is essentially "a waste".

[t_niehoff]

Just to be pedantic (and why not?) your comma is in the wrong place.

Juk Sun, Ye Bok Wai Ng

This relates to the pole though right? But of course can be applied when appropriate.

Thanks, typing quickly I often make those mistakes. :)

Yes, it relates to the pole, and to empty hand.

[shawchemical]

Everything you say is essentially "a waste".

pot, kettle, black anyone???

[LoneTiger108]

Everything you say is essentially "a waste".

Maybe true for most who read my rambles, but especially for you as you seem hell bent on being an a$$. Your 'bullying' tactic, along with your teachers, seems to be quite evident on here when it comes to me and the family I originate from.

Tell me, what have YOU done for the wider Wing Chun family?

Can't even, put, a comma, in the , right place :D;)

[HumbleWCGuy]

Maybe true for most who read my rambles, but especially for you as you seem hell bent on being an a$$. Your 'bullying' tactic, along with your teachers, seems to be quite evident on here when it comes to me and the family I originate from.

Tell me, what have YOU done for the wider Wing Chun family?

Can't even, put, a comma, in the , right place :D;)

If we are lucky, someone will put a coma in the right place.... Right upside T.'s head.