WCK Strategies

[chusauli]

Without having to resort to personal attacks, I'd like a discussion of WCK strategies amongst all lineages.

For example, I use structure and breaking structure. As in the thread of breaking structure, I define structure as breaking your anatomical position as well as controlling your COG. It is being put in extreme offbalance, being peppered with strikes that have the full body structure behind them, not just striking with the arm. When controlling the COG and offsetting the opponent's anatomical position extremely, it sets him up to whatever I want to do: strike, kick, throw, jointlock, takedowns, etc.

That is one strategy.

I also use a strategy of sliding in, and striking. Intercepting, thwarting all attacks through strikes, using strikes rather than defensive tools of tan, fuk, bong, jut, huen, etc. This would be akin to a fencer's method of using epee - one stabs at all times anywhere, but not use any covering, but also peppered in with my structure breaking methods.

That is another strategy.

Another method I use is taking the back. Whatever the opponent does, I take his back. And when I use breaking body structure methods and take the back, they can lead to all sorts of strikes, kicks, and grappling methods.

Yet, another strategy.

Another way I adopt is to look like some other system and hide my WCK. Maybe I stand in a boxing stance or Muay Thai stance, Hung Ga, or Lama methods, but when I get into range, I do my WCK. Perhaps this is what Soo Hut Yee was teaching Wong Fei Hung - deception. When I get in range, WCK takes over, or I transition to grappling.

I hope you get my point.

As you might notice, it always uses the breaking body structure which remains a consistent theme. Largely because it takes a long time to develop WCK from head to toe and a trained body, rather than just an arm based WCK. But "long time" is realtive. Most people only have "Chien Bei Sao" and never "Hou Bei Sao", probably the term is even alien to most WCK people.

Perhaps we can proceed without resorting to the same old personal, speculative, imaginary attacks?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I also use a strategy of sliding in, and striking. Intercepting, thwarting all attacks through strikes, using strikes rather than defensive tools of tan, fuk, bong, jut, huen, etc. This would be akin to a fencer's method of using epee - one stabs at all times anywhere, but not use any covering, but also peppered in with my structure breaking methods." (RC)
.......................

***Thwarting all attacks through strikes, huh? No defensive tools to be used like blocks and parries, huh?

That's pretty good, Robert.

And highly unlikely against a truly skilled opponent who is at least your size, imo.

Not a personal attack, just an observation.

[chusauli]

I agree - only striking cannot always be done, in fact, none of the strategies work all the time. That's why personal attachment to one method is just silly.

As I said they're just strategies. One doesn't work, you switch to the next.

What strategies do you use?

[YungChun]

Attacking their structure is a hell of lot more practical than blocking is going to be...

Blocking doesn't take anything away from the opponent, it causes hand chasing, relies on hand speed, keeps you behind the timing and is not VT's method...

VT's simplest and most basic method of entry is to attach their attack, to attack their structure in a single action that is both offensive and defensive....breaks their structure and steals the timing..

More complex actions are not easier or simpler...

[Ultimatewingchun]

I agree - only striking cannot always be done, in fact, none of the strategies work all the time. That's why personal attachment to one method is just silly.

***SOUNDS LIKE JKD !!! :D :cool:

As I said they're just strategies. One doesn't work, you switch to the next.

What strategies do you use?

I use a mixture of various strikes (and some kicks) to get in close - and those strikes (leads, crosses, overhands, rounds, vertical fist wing chun punches) are meant to either hit a hard target or to force a bridge - by striking somewhere on the vertical line running down his left side (his shoulders on down) with my right fist...and the same applies to his right side with my left.

So the initial strategy is to put him on defense with strikes aimed at making him play defense or he takes a hit to the body or head - by covering what I'll refer to as TWO DIFFERENT vertical centerlines running vertically down from his shoulder lines....I'm making use of the shortest distance between two points idea - but with two epees, if you will.

And always ready to use tan, bil, pak, lop, garn, lan, bong, etc. BOTH as blocks and parries AND as a bridge to cross in order to gain a very close quarter advantage...

And yes, "taking his back" is also very big - a big reason why I use the TWC emphasized parallel leg/parallel arm matched leads very often - as getting behind his lead leg is usually easier from there.

And the object of all of this is to get in close with this kind of striking strategy or to score some damaging blows from longer range - which ever comes first.

At which point I too am now working to break his structure by upsetting his balance and his COG - and to deliver blows from very close range, using pak, lop, gum, lan, etc. - resulting in either a knockout (via punches, elbows, knees)....or the opportunity to take him down. And yes, to use the Alan Orr vid example - that kind of drill right through his balance with deep penetration (and with my main centerline facing his point of mass) is also a big part of what I'm trying to do....

and of course, doing this with my whole body behind it - not just arms.

If this is thwarted and it becomes a very close infight of the clinch mode variety - then the strategy is to control him, break his stucture and unbalance him and land damaging blows by EITHER using neck ties with knee and elbow stikes - OR - if another strategy is forced upon me due to the depth of the clinch mode: wrestling/grappling....as the "dirty boxing clinch range" if you will - can easily turn into a very deep clinch leading to trips, sweeps, single and double leg takedowns, etc.

So I don't disagree about the importance of breaking the man's structure, which I'm defining as taking his balance away from him and upsetting his COG so that I can really control his body - making it easier to deliver damaging blows, a damaging takedown or throw - or finishing with a submission.

[Hendrik]

I agree - only striking cannot always be done, in fact, none of the strategies work all the time. That's why personal attachment to one method is just silly.

As I said they're just strategies. One doesn't work, you switch to the next.

What strategies do you use?


I dont think that is a personal attachment and only striking work well for those who are good at it. Take a look at WXZ the Yee Chuan founder's case -- Everything is a strike; advance MA is dealing with the contact point. no one has time to waste time but use the best tool to end it. It is not a shaws brother movie.

As it said, half step of Peng Chuan walking around the whole china. just a single strike.


IMHO,
Those Tan Bong Fook stuffs are just for practice and drill, in the real life it is how to deal with each contact point and each contact point is not fix but similar to flowing water.

In Yik Kam WCK as we know all the stuffs are condense into the four circles and the four circles are later condense into Pu Chao Pu Jia Tze seh Yee sia -- just one strike.

[Wayfaring]

My strategy is if I know the opponent I try to work to his weakness.

If I don't know the opponent I make little test runs which are a question and answer session determined to learn information about my opponent. Then I proceed with above strategy.

If my "Q&A" test sessions don't turn up anything that leaves me confident, I migrate to my own strong areas and work from there.

[t_niehoff]

WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him. So you can say that there are two aspects to WCK, a defensive aspect (controlling) and and offensive aspect (striking).

Typically, we link our defense (controlling actions) to bring in striking (offensive actions) -- lien siu die da. How you individually put those aspects together for yourself can/will depend on the situation, including your natural strengths, etc..

Tactically or strategically, I can decide, for example, to use very little control and use mainly offensive striking in an enounter. And, there are times -- very limited situations -- when that offensive striking can also act as defense. This is a risky strategy, but sometimes it is appropriate and you pull it off.

You can also decide to, for example, to use very little offensive striking and use mainly controlling actions.

Those are the two extremes.

There is flexibility in the method, but that doesn't alter what that method is. And, obviously, the better rounded you are in WCK, the more flexible you can be in your tactical/strategic choices. If you can't control your opponent, then you are "stuck" only using the offensive game, whether it is appropriate or not.

But, if you are not using the WCK tools, you can't be using WCK. If you are throwing jabs, crosses and hooks, for example, you are not doing WCK. If you are kickboxing, you are not doing WCK.

[Paul T England]

great topic, reminds me of old wing chun forum.

From non contact I like using the wing chun blocks/shapes as covers while hitting

From contact, attack and control strucutre/centre striking and unbalancing opponent

I like the lien wan/ linked idea (aka chain punching) but I think of it as half beat rather than together.

Paul

[LoneTiger108]

I agree, this seems to be a great topic Robert and it's good to see everyones ideas on strategies are very similar indeed.

Personally, I like weaponry training and so employ certain strategies from there. An example is the pole saying 'no second sound' which transfers to the hands easily, meaning I like to touch once, then control and attack from that initial contact. Yes, I too believe that one touch is enough for a skilled practitioner to control a novice and I always aim to be able to do this whatever my partners skill level.

To support whatever strategy I initiate in a combat scenario (in my head as I spar/fight very little these days!) I am a true believer in having strong fundamental Wing Chun training that must cover accuracy, speed and power drills or you may find that a said strategy (especially among the kuit) just will never work when you want it too ;)

[chusauli]

I use a mixture of various strikes (and some kicks) to get in close - and those strikes (leads, crosses, overhands, rounds, vertical fist wing chun punches) are meant to either hit a hard target or to force a bridge - by striking somewhere on the vertical line running down his left side (his shoulders on down) with my right fist...and the same applies to his right side with my left.

So the initial strategy is to put him on defense with strikes aimed at making him play defense or he takes a hit to the body or head - by covering what I'll refer to as TWO DIFFERENT vertical centerlines running vertically down from his shoulder lines....I'm making use of the shortest distance between two points idea - but with two epees, if you will.

And always ready to use tan, bil, pak, lop, garn, lan, bong, etc. BOTH as blocks and parries AND as a bridge to cross in order to gain a very close quarter advantage...

And yes, "taking his back" is also very big - a big reason why I use the TWC emphasized parallel leg/parallel arm matched leads very often - as getting behind his lead leg is usually easier from there.

And the object of all of this is to get in close with this kind of striking strategy or to score some damaging blows from longer range - which ever comes first.

At which point I too am now working to break his structure by upsetting his balance and his COG - and to deliver blows from very close range, using pak, lop, gum, lan, etc. - resulting in either a knockout (via punches, elbows, knees)....or the opportunity to take him down. And yes, to use the Alan Orr vid example - that kind of drill right through his balance with deep penetration (and with my main centerline facing his point of mass) is also a big part of what I'm trying to do....

and of course, doing this with my whole body behind it - not just arms.

If this is thwarted and it becomes a very close infight of the clinch mode variety - then the strategy is to control him, break his stucture and unbalance him and land damaging blows by EITHER using neck ties with knee and elbow stikes - OR - if another strategy is forced upon me due to the depth of the clinch mode: wrestling/grappling....as the "dirty boxing clinch range" if you will - can easily turn into a very deep clinch leading to trips, sweeps, single and double leg takedowns, etc.

So I don't disagree about the importance of breaking the man's structure, which I'm defining as taking his balance away from him and upsetting his COG so that I can really control his body - making it easier to deliver damaging blows, a damaging takedown or throw - or finishing with a submission.

Very good!

WRT to "sounds like JKD", Hawkins showed me the stuff Bruce shared with him in HK. I think its fine, but it is heavily dependent upon your timing, skill, and your physical attributes.

No matter what the strategy, all WCK people share overlaps. Maybe some emphasize more than others. Its good to have this forum to discuss.

WCK is not a complete fighting art encompassing throws, joint locks, takedowns, grappling, nor long range kicks, or long range strikes but has its favored specialty.

[chusauli]

But, if you are not using the WCK tools, you can't be using WCK. If you are throwing jabs, crosses and hooks, for example, you are not doing WCK. If you are kickboxing, you are not doing WCK.

Agreed. Kickboxing or boxing are not WCK, they don't share the same mechanics or toolset.

[chusauli]

I dont think that is a personal attachment and only striking work well for those who are good at it. Take a look at WXZ the Yee Chuan founder's case -- Everything is a strike; advance MA is dealing with the contact point. no one has time to waste time but use the best tool to end it. It is not a shaws brother movie.

As it said, half step of Peng Chuan walking around the whole china. just a single strike.


IMHO,
Those Tan Bong Fook stuffs are just for practice and drill, in the real life it is how to deal with each contact point and each contact point is not fix but similar to flowing water.

In Yik Kam WCK as we know all the stuffs are condense into the four circles and the four circles are later condense into Pu Chao Pu Jia Tze seh Yee sia -- just one strike.

Yes, striking is the key objective of WCK, and the training just gets one comfortable in front of an opponent. The four circles of Yik Kam have a lot of merit, they can take any incoming force and disperse and strike.

Thank you for sharing.

[chusauli]

I agree, this seems to be a great topic Robert and it's good to see everyones ideas on strategies are very similar indeed.

Personally, I like weaponry training and so employ certain strategies from there. An example is the pole saying 'no second sound' which transfers to the hands easily, meaning I like to touch once, then control and attack from that initial contact. Yes, I too believe that one touch is enough for a skilled practitioner to control a novice and I always aim to be able to do this whatever my partners skill level.

To support whatever strategy I initiate in a combat scenario (in my head as I spar/fight very little these days!) I am a true believer in having strong fundamental Wing Chun training that must cover accuracy, speed and power drills or you may find that a said strategy (especially among the kuit) just will never work when you want it too ;)

The tactics that apply to the hand also apply to the knives and pole.

[chusauli]

My strategy is if I know the opponent I try to work to his weakness.

If I don't know the opponent I make little test runs which are a question and answer session determined to learn information about my opponent. Then I proceed with above strategy.

If my "Q&A" test sessions don't turn up anything that leaves me confident, I migrate to my own strong areas and work from there.

This is the use of the WCK "Mun Sao" (Asking hand) - many look at it as a specific technique, but it is a tool of our system. Which hand is real, which hand is fake?

You can also apply Mun Sao as "if I face you like this, or use these other tools, what would you do?" Then you don't have to use WCK tools.

[TenTigers]

when you speak of controlling, do you mean actually trapping, or breaking structure specifically, or do you feel that with the hand touching, if it is alive and maintaining good position and structure, it is enough to listen and respond? I know I am speaking probably more form a SPM POV, but I was wondering if WCK overlaps here as well.

[KPM]

Wow! We can have a "civil" discuss here! :) Good thread so far!

[chusauli]

when you speak of controlling, do you mean actually trapping, or breaking structure specifically, or do you feel that with the hand touching, if it is alive and maintaining good position and structure, it is enough to listen and respond? I know I am speaking probably more form a SPM POV, but I was wondering if WCK overlaps here as well.

Rik,

When you control, you have many options - you can lightly touch and neutralize your opponent when they move, you can seal off his bridges (aka "trapping" or "jamming" people), or you can break their physical alignment, destroying their delivery system.

Listening and responding can be fine for playing and training, but may not be good enough for fighting.

Of course, Sun Zi put it best:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle."

How can you know everyone?

Remember, even some systems like Lama were created to not stick. Boxing also follows that.

[TenTigers]

I often wondered why boxing does not use lan-sao, or jamming or combinations of both. I have found it to be very effective, but I also didn't box proffessionally, so I am not familiar with the ruleset. Does the ruleset rule this out?
I would also be interested in others' experiences against a boxer using WCK principles/techniques. It has been said that Bruce Lee was pretty successful in several amature boxing bouts using WCK.

[t_niehoff]

I often wondered why boxing does not use lan-sao, or jamming or combinations of both. I have found it to be very effective, but I also didn't box proffessionally, so I am not familiar with the ruleset. Does the ruleset rule this out?


It depends on how you use it.



I would also be interested in others' experiences against a boxer using WCK principles/techniques. It has been said that Bruce Lee was pretty successful in several amature boxing bouts using WCK.

I have put in some time working against/with boxers. IMO Bruce was successful using his WCK against boxers because he boxed. That is the key -- and it also helps explain some of the usefulness to cross-training. If you want to develop the skill to not be taken down, the best way is to train takedowns; if you don't want to be submitted on the ground, practice submissions; etc. Learn what they do, and you can work out how to counter it.

[t_niehoff]

Recognize anyone?

[t_niehoff]

Or, how about now?

[chusauli]

Funny, doesn't look like WCK to me...just some flailing about. ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I use a mixture of various strikes (and some kicks) to get in close - and those strikes (leads, crosses, overhands, rounds, vertical fist wing chun punches) are meant to either hit a hard target or to force a bridge." (Victor Parlati)

Robert's response:

"Very good!"

……………………………….

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
"But, if you are not using the WCK tools, you can't be using WCK. If you are throwing jabs, crosses and hooks, for example, you are not doing WCK. If you are kickboxing, you are not doing WCK."

Robert's response:

"Agreed. Kickboxing or boxing are not WCK, they don't share the same mechanics or toolset."

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

***YOU GOTTA LOVE IT! :D

But it is a good thread. :cool: ;)

[imperialtaichi]

Speed.

If I cannot be stronger than my opponent(s), I have to be faster than them to achieve the steps/sequence of actions I need to achieve; be it breaking structure, trapping and/or striking.

But speed is not achieved just by moving physically faster (although it helps), but by being more efficient. Steps/sequence of actions does not need to be rushed or complex, but must not give the opponent(s) opportunities to fight back or it will fail.

For example, striking your opponent's head is a good way to end the fight, but only if it is done hard enough, and must pass through all his guards and his attacks. So the direct route may not be all that efficient.

However, if I take steps to achieve the final goal, it may be more feasible. For example (example ONLY! Real fights there are many many variables.)
1. cover his elbows and knees, which are closer to me and quicker to get to, which also controls his movements.
2. control his balance, taking away his power, with not breaks in between. Which is easy once the elbows and knees are covered.
3. move in close enough to elbow him across the face, with as much power and momentum as you can; while his arms and legs are controlled and balance broken.
All done as quickly as possible without breaks in between.

Another example is knife works, instead of going for the kill with the first strike, it may be easier to first destroy the weapon arm first, THEN move in for the kill, IF necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgjGtcBPr8c

[tigershorty]

has cheating been mentioned? cheating is the most effective strategy.

[chusauli]

"I use a mixture of various strikes (and some kicks) to get in close - and those strikes (leads, crosses, overhands, rounds, vertical fist wing chun punches) are meant to either hit a hard target or to force a bridge." (Victor Parlati)

Robert's response:

"Very good!"

……………………………….

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
"But, if you are not using the WCK tools, you can't be using WCK. If you are throwing jabs, crosses and hooks, for example, you are not doing WCK. If you are kickboxing, you are not doing WCK."

Robert's response:

"Agreed. Kickboxing or boxing are not WCK, they don't share the same mechanics or toolset."

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

***YOU GOTTA LOVE IT! :D

But it is a good thread. :cool: ;)

Vic, I have not said anything contradictory.

From Chinese martial arts standards what is the base?

If the delivery system (i.e. body structure) is using a boxing or kickboxing platform, it's not WCK. WCK is very specific - YJKYM, kua/hips/pelvis power the arms to strike the target. Any raised heel, jumping dancing shuffle used in boxing or Muay Thai, its not WCK. It has a different signature.

JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not.

Do you disagree?

Look at my reason: I think your tactic is sound in fighting, but its not WCK, its a delivery system (a trojan horse, if you will...) to get you into WCK, but that is not WCK. We have to have some criteria in which to define it.

[kung fu fighter]

Hawkins showed me the stuff Bruce shared with him in HK. I think its fine, but it is heavily dependent upon your timing, skill, and your physical attributes.

Hey Robert,

What strategies did Bruce share with Hawkins in HK?

[chusauli]

Hey Robert,

What strategies did Bruce share with Hawkins in HK?

You can read all about it here:

http://www.chusaulei.com/martial/articles/index.html

Newbies like you make me feel real old....

[Ultimatewingchun]

Vic, I have not said anything contradictory.

From Chinese martial arts standards what is the base?

If the delivery system (i.e. body structure) is using a boxing or kickboxing platform, it's not WCK. WCK is very specific - YJKYM, kua/hips/pelvis power the arms to strike the target. Any raised heel, jumping dancing shuffle used in boxing or Muay Thai, its not WCK. It has a different signature.

JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not.

Do you disagree?

Look at my reason: I think your tactic is sound in fighting, but its not WCK, its a delivery system (a trojan horse, if you will...) to get you into WCK, but that is not WCK. We have to have some criteria in which to define it.

***What I disagree with is the "very good" when I give my "wing chun" strategies that include leads, crosses, overhands, and rounds combined with wing chun punches - but it's no longer a compatible tool set with wing chun when Niehoff calls it out. I find that to be very hypocritical, Robert.

OF COURSE IT'S COMPATIBLE. I'm using wing chun centerline principles along his shoulder lines, as I explained - and my elbows can drop down into the basic positioning for wing chun vertical punches in the blink of an eye.

Think about the whole tan-to-bong and bong-to-tan chi sao motions as shapes that can be used as strikes and launched at any point along the continuum...and you may (should) get my drift.

Now put that together with a side body front stance as it's used in TWC and you have leads, crosses, overhands, etc. Very similar to boxers.

I had a very interesting conversation about this with a trainor from Gleason's gym, in fact, some years ago. And the most interesting part of the conversation was how to use the boxing punches, push offs from the raised heel, and shoulder torque in ways that aren't as typically "boxing" committed - so as to stay close to the wing chun framework of coming in to control (or trap) an arm, break structure and COG balance, square up the main centerline to his center of mass, and continue hitting with the vertical punches from the inside....

as I explained to him that I wanted to stay out of the boxing "clinch", the boxing rules that don't allow kicks, knees, elbow strikes, etc. - as well as NOT over-committing punches that a wrestler/grappler could take advantage of with a shoot or bodylock.

You might want to rewatch some of Alan and his guys mma fight vids again - as they sometimes do similar shapes and motions with their punches as they are coming in. They are not always using the "elbow down and in position" and throwing typical wing chun punches either, not by a long shot. Many of their punches look like boxing rounds from longer ranges, which is fine, whatever Alan choses to call it. He likes to call it "wing chun" punches. The bottom line is that it works.

Nonetheless, like I said, it's a good thread. :cool:

[couch]

Very good!

WRT to "sounds like JKD", Hawkins showed me the stuff Bruce shared with him in HK. I think its fine, but it is heavily dependent upon your timing, skill, and your physical attributes.

No matter what the strategy, all WCK people share overlaps. Maybe some emphasize more than others. Its good to have this forum to discuss.

WCK is not a complete fighting art encompassing throws, joint locks, takedowns, grappling, nor long range kicks, or long range strikes but has its favored specialty.

I don't understand when you say that JKD is "heavily dependent upon your timing, skill, and your physical attributes."

Simply, isn't ALL fighting (and finding your personal expression in it all) about timing, skill and personal physical attributes?

[k gledhill]

Wow! We can have a "civil" discuss here! :) Good thread so far!

give it time ;)

[LoneTiger108]

Speed.

If I cannot be stronger than my opponent(s), I have to be faster than them to achieve the steps/sequence of actions I need to achieve; be it breaking structure, trapping and/or striking.

We must be on similar pages here as I too rely on speed 80% of the time. Also, if you read what I wrote, the rest of what you mention highlights what I said too. FIRST you must have accuracy, THEN speed before power can be developed correctly. Ofcourse, how do we drill accuracy? For me, it's on my wooden man and through weaponry drills.


Another example is knife works, instead of going for the kill with the first strike, it may be easier to first destroy the weapon arm first, THEN move in for the kill, IF necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgjGtcBPr8c

Good clip, but it's a shame you didn't demo the combos with a 'proper knife' instead of the poor excuse for a blade you used! No offence intended here, but you do use a standard wing chun blade in kulo don't you? If so, why not show that instead?

[LSWCTN1]

Remember, even some systems like Lama were created to not stick. Boxing also follows that.

Just wanted to raise a query around this point, Robert.

If most southern tcma's have a sticking principle then it makes sense that an art used to fight against it must also have sticking principles too.

lets take wing chun...

do you not feel that, at least in the western world, boxing (or a poor imitation of it) is what you are going to face on the street? therefore shouldnt the art be modified for use and the striking elements, more akin to what i see coming from Bayer et al, be more heavily emphasised than the sticking elements?

I know how to stick to a boxer and tie them up too. but most wing chun guys (probably myself included) are three second fighters. we train to enter and bang. hard. not stopping till the opponent is down. that IMHO is more the reason that there are few successful competition fighters using wing chun... fitness levels.

just some musings of mine, may not even make sense to anyone else???

[t_niehoff]

Speed.

If I cannot be stronger than my opponent(s), I have to be faster than them to achieve the steps/sequence of actions I need to achieve; be it breaking structure, trapping and/or striking.

But speed is not achieved just by moving physically faster (although it helps), but by being more efficient. Steps/sequence of actions does not need to be rushed or complex, but must not give the opponent(s) opportunities to fight back or it will fail.


Yes, and another way is to slow the opponent down. That is what breaking structure does.



For example, striking your opponent's head is a good way to end the fight, but only if it is done hard enough, and must pass through all his guards and his attacks. So the direct route may not be all that efficient.


Very true.



However, if I take steps to achieve the final goal, it may be more feasible. For example (example ONLY! Real fights there are many many variables.)
1. cover his elbows and knees, which are closer to me and quicker to get to, which also controls his movements.
2. control his balance, taking away his power, with not breaks in between. Which is easy once the elbows and knees are covered.
3. move in close enough to elbow him across the face, with as much power and momentum as you can; while his arms and legs are controlled and balance broken.
All done as quickly as possible without breaks in between.


You are describing WCK's method.



Another example is knife works, instead of going for the kill with the first strike, it may be easier to first destroy the weapon arm first, THEN move in for the kill, IF necessary.

Using the knife to "explain" WCK's strategy is not a bad idea.

[t_niehoff]

Just wanted to raise a query around this point, Robert.

If most southern tcma's have a sticking principle then it makes sense that an art used to fight against it must also have sticking principles too.


I don't think that is true. I think what really matters is who can impose their game on the other.



lets take wing chun...

do you not feel that, at least in the western world, boxing (or a poor imitation of it) is what you are going to face on the street? therefore shouldnt the art be modified for use and the striking elements, more akin to what i see coming from Bayer et al, be more heavily emphasised than the sticking elements?


So, are you suggesting that if my opponent wants to fight in free-movement (the outside) that I should do so too -- that I beat him at his own game? That I let him dictate how the fight goes?

As I said, IMO you want to IMPOSE your game.



I know how to stick to a boxer and tie them up too. but most wing chun guys (probably myself included) are three second fighters. we train to enter and bang. hard. not stopping till the opponent is down. that IMHO is more the reason that there are few successful competition fighters using wing chun... fitness levels.


The problem is that (the 3 second thingy) is not generally how a fight will go (unless you are a) very lucky, b) facing someone very poorly skilled/conditioned or c) you sucker punch him!). Even when the opponent goes down, the fight isn't over -- sometimes it is just beginning.

The reason there are so few successful WCK fighters is that most people in WCK don't really train to be fighters. It seems to me for most people a TMA is like being a member of the SCA! You know, those guys at the park who dress up like knights and playfight with swords and bucklers,etc. Why don't you see them at fencing competitions? ;)

It's great that you know how to stick to a boxer -- but that doesn't mean you will be able to or do it against all boxers. If you can do it, you can do it AT A CERTAIN LEVEL (your skill level) -- that's the critical thing to remember. You may know how to pass the guard too -- but at what level can you consistently pull it off? If the boxer is better skilled than you are, you won't be able to tie him up; just like if the grappler is better skilled than you, you may not be able to pass his guard. You develop skill by doing it and by doing it against better people.

[t_niehoff]

***What I disagree with is the "very good" when I give my "wing chun" strategies that include leads, crosses, overhands, and rounds combined with wing chun punches - but it's no longer a compatible tool set with wing chun when Niehoff calls it out. I find that to be very hypocritical, Robert.


Robert and I are both saying that YOUR strategy of leads, crosses, overhands, and rounds combined with wing chun punches may be "very good" (Robert) but is NOT WCK since your leads, crosses, overhands, etc. uses a different delivery system.



OF COURSE IT'S COMPATIBLE.


Whether or not it is "compatible" (and IMO it is not), the point is that it is NOT WCK. The mere fact that you talk about compatibility admits that you know it is not WCK.



I'm using wing chun centerline principles along his shoulder lines, as I explained - and my elbows can drop down into the basic positioning for wing chun vertical punches in the blink of an eye.


There is more to it than that.

[free2flow]

Using the knife to "explain" WCK's strategy is not a bad idea.

As a practitioner of Filipino MA that specializes in close range fighting, this short statement carries a lot of meaning. This is one instance wherein the two arts really complement each other.

[chusauli]

I don't understand when you say that JKD is "heavily dependent upon your timing, skill, and your physical attributes."

Simply, isn't ALL fighting (and finding your personal expression in it all) about timing, skill and personal physical attributes?

All martial arts certainly depend upon your "timing, skill, and your physical attributes." What I am referring to is in order to intercept 100% and beat your opponent to the punch you have to be completely better in timing, skill, and physical attributes".

If you look at it another way, even Bruce Lee knew you couldn't intercept all the time. You can if you're fighting scrubs.

Try to intercept all the time next time you spar.

[chusauli]

Just wanted to raise a query around this point, Robert.

If most southern tcma's have a sticking principle then it makes sense that an art used to fight against it must also have sticking principles too.

lets take wing chun...

do you not feel that, at least in the western world, boxing (or a poor imitation of it) is what you are going to face on the street? therefore shouldnt the art be modified for use and the striking elements, more akin to what i see coming from Bayer et al, be more heavily emphasised than the sticking elements?

I know how to stick to a boxer and tie them up too. but most wing chun guys (probably myself included) are three second fighters. we train to enter and bang. hard. not stopping till the opponent is down. that IMHO is more the reason that there are few successful competition fighters using wing chun... fitness levels.

just some musings of mine, may not even make sense to anyone else???

I do feel that boxing or pseudo boxing is the most encountered skill/lack of skill you face on the street. My strategy when I am sticking is shutting down the delivery base and destroying structure. I have already nullified any offensive tools (except for hidden weapons). There is no pseudo-boxing. And most have not cultivated the same base WCK has, so it will collapse easier when under the pressure of sticking with the body as we advocate.

I am not saying a good fighter could not win, or use other tactics (like staying out of range) but I am explaining our strengths against the opponent's weakness.

I have not seen Bayer do what WCK does - destroy the base by extremely off centering, unbalancing or disabling structure. WCK's strategy is to use the body base to smother incoming attacks, and IMO, similar to BJJ, where they take you down and then can submit you or GNP you. If it works for him, and others, that's fine. To each their own.

As for many Southern fist arts yes, they do involve sticking - the short hand systems.

As for fitness levels and 3 seconds, its fine for "streetfighting" where you want to just get away and act in "self-defense". Not everyone has to be a ring fighter. But if you want to compete, conditioning is number 1.

Hope I answered your musings.

[chusauli]

Victor,

Without getting into a p!ssfest, I'll state it simply.

Using a "Trojan Horse" method is not WCK. You are getting in to then use WCK, its fine for fighting. But don't call the "Trojan Horse" WCK.

For example, if I use a ruse that I am drunk (a la Drunken Fist), and fall into you and then use WCK, is the "drunken fist" WCK?

You know the answer.

Please note I am not saying you are not skilled, or can't use that, or say that it won't work, or attacking your ego in anyway nor saying anything about TWC. I am just calling a "Trojan Horse" a "Trojan Horse".

[Wayfaring]

JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not.


I do not understand WCK's tendency towards drawing imaginary box lines around the art.

Functional arts don't do that. BJJ? H3ll no. Someone brings in a sambo footlock - "yes my fren. zhoo zhitsoo has had de footlock since de beginning - Helio taught dat me in 1976 fren. dat eddie bravo guy - he be teachin de techniques I do since purple belt - he just smoka de pot and namea dem de crazy names".

Which is complete BS, but illustrates the mindset.

WCK's mindset?

You just got 2nd place in a street fight, and the guy that beat you down leans over and says "Very nice. You stayed true to your WCK".

I mean OMG - he DARED to break out of the horse and let the goat out from between his knees.

[t_niehoff]

I do not understand WCK's tendency towards drawing imaginary box lines around the art.


I don't understand the tendency to try to make WCK anything and everything.



Functional arts don't do that. BJJ? H3ll no. Someone brings in a sambo footlock - "yes my fren. zhoo zhitsoo has had de footlock since de beginning - Helio taught dat me in 1976 fren. dat eddie bravo guy - he be teachin de techniques I do since purple belt - he just smoka de pot and namea dem de crazy names".


So, go put a spinning backfist in boxing, a functional martial art. You will be told that isn't boxing. That's not to say that it won't work -- but it isn't a boxing tool (historically) and it doesn't use boxing's delivery system (body mechanics).

However, that's not to say that functional arts don't have room for GROWTH -- BJJ is a great example of an art that does. So does boxing. But the growth in those arts MAINTAIN that art's delivery system (mechanics) and method.



Which is complete BS, but illustrates the mindset.

WCK's mindset?

You just got 2nd place in a street fight, and the guy that beat you down leans over and says "Very nice. You stayed true to your WCK".


Really? You think it a poor idea to take the things in your art and focus on making them work?

[chusauli]

I do not understand WCK's tendency towards drawing imaginary box lines around the art.

Functional arts don't do that. BJJ? H3ll no. Someone brings in a sambo footlock - "yes my fren. zhoo zhitsoo has had de footlock since de beginning - Helio taught dat me in 1976 fren. dat eddie bravo guy - he be teachin de techniques I do since purple belt - he just smoka de pot and namea dem de crazy names".

Which is complete BS, but illustrates the mindset.

WCK's mindset?

You just got 2nd place in a street fight, and the guy that beat you down leans over and says "Very nice. You stayed true to your WCK".

I mean OMG - he DARED to break out of the horse and let the goat out from between his knees.

Boxlines are just people's ways of organizing to teach a syllabus.

For fighting, functionality rules.

When you fight, its just you and the opponent at that moment.

[KPM]

All martial arts certainly depend upon your "timing, skill, and your physical attributes." What I am referring to is in order to intercept 100% and beat your opponent to the punch you have to be completely better in timing, skill, and physical attributes".

If you look at it another way, even Bruce Lee knew you couldn't intercept all the time. You can if you're fighting scrubs.

Try to intercept all the time next time you spar.

This is true! And Dan Inosanto himself said essentially the same thing on his "Definitive JKD" series of videos in 2000. He said that Bruce had physical skills far ahead of most people and that his final form of JKD was meant to make maximum use of those skills. But not all of us are born with the natural ability that Bruce had!

[Wayfaring]

I don't understand the tendency to try to make WCK anything and everything.

That of course is the other extreme and really downplays the realistic tendency in WCK that is fairly evident by the number of "that's not WCK" comments in response to sparring video.



So, go put a spinning backfist in boxing, a functional martial art. You will be told that isn't boxing. That's not to say that it won't work -- but it isn't a boxing tool (historically) and it doesn't use boxing's delivery system (body mechanics).

No but it's in MT and used infrequently there.


However, that's not to say that functional arts don't have room for GROWTH -- BJJ is a great example of an art that does. So does boxing. But the growth in those arts MAINTAIN that art's delivery system (mechanics) and method.

I don't know about that. There's plenty of traditional BJJ schools that wouldn't know the mechanics of leglocks if it jumped up and bit them in the @$$ - the ones that do many have crosstrained.

The nature of GROWTH is to enhance and expand the core delivery system (mechanics) and methods. The opposite of that is to place the existing system on a pedestal never to be deviated from. That is called STAGNATION. At least in the Western mindset - the Eastern has a lot of attachment to the ancestors that causes that viewpoint to be completely foreign.



Really? You think it a poor idea to take the things in your art and focus on making them work?

No I think it is a poor idea to take the things in your art that don't work and try to force-feed them into areas they don't belong in an effort to call your art a "complete" art. Like anti-grappling in WCK for example.

[m1k3]

So, go put a spinning backfist in boxing, a functional martial art. You will be told that isn't boxing. That's not to say that it won't work -- but it isn't a boxing tool (historically) and it doesn't use boxing's delivery system (body mechanics).



Wrong. Boxing doesn't use a spinning backfist because it is outside the rules. The same with any combat sport, the rules define what can and can't be used. When the boxing rules changed the techniques changed to take advantage of those rules.

<delete>So unless you are saying that WC as an art has been defined and will never change because it reflects a particular style at a particular point in time then I don't believe your argument holds water.</delete>

This doesn't have anything to do with my initial argument but does reflect my thoughts on WC and some of the Japanese traditional systems that can trace their lineage back to a particular family at a particular point in time and the style will never change. But these people realize that primary focus of their art is the maintenance of the art from a historical perspective. I don't believe WC falls into that category because of all the lineages grand masters and back biting over who has the real WC

[Wayfaring]

Boxlines are just people's ways of organizing to teach a syllabus.

For fighting, functionality rules.

IMO this is very mixed up in the average WCK student's head due to overemphasis on the syllabus and lack of emphasis on any out of the box functionality.

[tigershorty]

but wayfaring..how many people are actually fighting with their wing chun? what do most students hope to really get out of their classes? let's be honest. people are confusing learning an art/hobby and calling it fighting..but never actually wanting to fight. this it the ultimate hang up in TMA in america.

its pretty easy to stay out of a fight even for self defense reasons if you're aware.

[YungChun]

let's be honest. people are confusing learning an art/hobby and calling it fighting..but never actually wanting to fight. this it the ultimate hang up in TMA in america.


I don't agree that this is the case for "TMAs".. It is the case for certain TMAs like VT for example because VT's curriculum is outside the realm of fighting where fighting means fighting non VT... IMO this is especially problematic for VT because it is so specialized.. VT students who want to fight must go fight non VT people in order to develop..

What some VT people are missing is that the VT curriculum was intended to train the method so you can go and then develop your fighting outside the core/basic training.. Many people just keep repeating/doing the basic training, like doing high school over and over again, never heading off to college..

[t_niehoff]

Wrong. Boxing doesn't use a spinning backfist because it is outside the rules.


Yes, it is outside the rules. But why? Boxing has grown a great deal in the past 100 years.

There is a reason that they hit only with the front of the fist (no backfists or hammer fists). The "rules" preserve the mechanics and method.



The same with any combat sport, the rules define what can and can't be used. When the boxing rules changed the techniques changed to take advantage of those rules.


I agree. But the rules aren't arbitrary -- there is a reason for the rules. Why does boxing allow certain sorts of punches and not others? Because the punches they do allow use a certain delivery system (mechanics).

It's the same for judo. And BJJ.



<delete>So unless you are saying that WC as an art has been defined and will never change because it reflects a particular style at a particular point in time then I don't believe your argument holds water.</delete>


Not a particular style, but a certain delivery system and method. That is the base, the foundation of the art. You can call it the root. From that root, you can have various limbs, leaves, etc. but they all grow out of that root.

Same with boxing -- there is a certain, specific delivery system, its root. And things can and have grown from that root.



This doesn't have anything to do with my initial argument but does reflect my thoughts on WC and some of the Japanese traditional systems that can trace their lineage back to a particular family at a particular point in time and the style will never change. But these people realize that primary focus of their art is the maintenance of the art from a historical perspective. I don't believe WC falls into that category because of all the lineages grand masters and back biting over who has the real WC

Yes, I agree that you can preserve something for historical purpose. But what I am talking about is that there is a functional base or delivery system that is at the root of WCK -- and without that base or delivery system, you no longer have WCK.

[t_niehoff]

That of course is the other extreme and really downplays the realistic tendency in WCK that is fairly evident by the number of "that's not WCK" comments in response to sparring video.


The simplest answer is, I think, are you using the WCK tools? If so, then you are using WCK. If you are using boxing's tools, then you are boxing. If you are using MT's tools, then you are using MT.

As you pointed out, it is not uncommon for arts to incorporate innovations, including things from other arts. But when you do that, I think the issue is whether or not that innovation maintains the core method/approach or not.



The nature of GROWTH is to enhance and expand the core delivery system (mechanics) and methods. The opposite of that is to place the existing system on a pedestal never to be deviated from. That is called STAGNATION. At least in the Western mindset - the Eastern has a lot of attachment to the ancestors that causes that viewpoint to be completely foreign.


Here is what I am talking about. Boxing uses a certain mechanics/delivery system. Its tools work within that delivery system. You can add things to that delivery system that are consistent with it. But, if you try adding things to your boxing that are inconsistent with a boxing delivery system -- that use mechanics that are contrary to boxing mechanics -- then you don't get growth, you get failure. And that's because then you have two competing ways of trying to use your body.

This has nothing to do with putting boxing on a pedestal -- it is simply looking at it from a functional perspective.



No I think it is a poor idea to take the things in your art that don't work and try to force-feed them into areas they don't belong in an effort to call your art a "complete" art. Like anti-grappling in WCK for example.

I agree with that 100%. But some would call your view "drawing imaginary box lines around the art." And that's my point -- WCK IS a certain thing, it is not whatever the hell we want it to be.

[chusauli]

IMO this is very mixed up in the average WCK student's head due to overemphasis on the syllabus and lack of emphasis on any out of the box functionality.

This is unrealistic expectation based on the student's ignorance, or instructor's ignorance.

Look at Hawkins' thinking way back in HK (excerpted from http://www.chusaulei.com/martial/articles/articles_brucelee3.html) :

"To understand Bruce and his martial art, you have to look at his mother art, wing chun. Wing chun in the 1950s was a popular fighting system because of its reputation in challenge fights with other gung-fu Systems. Wing chun was noted for its simple, direct, economical movement and non-classical style.

Many joined and wanted to learn how to fight. Because of the reputation of wing chun, Bruce and I joined. The thing about wing chun is once you start the first form, you feel frustrated. We questioned, "Why do we have to learn this? How can you fight like this?" Everyone wanted to learn the siu nim tao quickly, so they could move onto the sticking hands exercise. The dan chi sao (single sticking hand) exercise was no fun, so the younger students wanted to get through that even quicker. When you finally learned the double sticking hands exercise, we felt excited and thought, "I can fight now! I know wing chun now!" We liked to copy the seniors. If you could land a punch on your opponent, you felt very excited. "I can beat him now," was our first thought. So everyone wanted to beat his partner first so he could be the top dog. "

Probably Yip Man was saying to himself, "What a bunch of egotisical a$$holes!" LOL! :)

[Wayfaring]

but wayfaring..how many people are actually fighting with their wing chun?

Few.


what do most students hope to really get out of their classes? let's be honest.

Well, what are they being sold? Self defense, confidence to handle fight type scenarios, fitness, peace, etc. That probably is what they hope to get out of it, right? To be like Bruce Lee? That's what is marketed.


people are confusing learning an art/hobby and calling it fighting..but never actually wanting to fight. this it the ultimate hang up in TMA in america.

Well most fighters are hobbyists. The confusion lies between what is sold and what actually happens. And both parties to the transaction are probably partially responsible for the delusion. No they won't be like Bruce Lee. And no, they mostly will not be able to handle self defense scenarios with people bigger, stronger or more athletic than they are. But thinking they can can be dangerous. Also, the art/hobby training of slow motion compliant drills, little cardio, and lots of concepts also probably shortchanges people on the fitness side of things.


its pretty easy to stay out of a fight even for self defense reasons if you're aware.
That depends on where you live, work, play. If you take a paycheck as a doorman at a club, probably not. Or if you live in a bad section, or choose to play in rougher areas. Also in self defense situations where you are with a spouse/girlfriend and children. But in urban America yes. Actually the safest place in America to fight is in a school that trains fighters.

[YungChun]

Too much generalization..IMO..

Not all schools are equal.. Some are technically better, some are technically poor, some spar harder some don't spar, some will spar outside their own school, style, etc..

Not all students are the same, some are gifted, some are of low aptitude for whatever reason, some will want to take their fighting further etc..

VT is not one thing to all people and not all people have the same ability or desire..

IMO a good classical program should be producing people with some level of skill above "scrub"..

A good TMA program in general should be producing some reasonable level of skill above "scrub".. Some TMArtists are actually good fighters...

I also don't think it's fair to refer to all/most TMA as non fighting scrubs because there are lots of folks in TMArts that do spar hard and spar as a core part of training...

[Wayfaring]

The simplest answer is, I think, are you using the WCK tools? If so, then you are using WCK. If you are using boxing's tools, then you are boxing. If you are using MT's tools, then you are using MT.

Over-simplification. These criticisms are leveled at Alan Orr and his fighters that they don't use WCK tools. Yet he propounds to teach WCK alone. The next argument are what are tools? The most obvious outer forms? Tan, bong, fuk? Or more? If you say the strategies and approaches, we're getting more ethereal here.


As you pointed out, it is not uncommon for arts to incorporate innovations, including things from other arts. But when you do that, I think the issue is whether or not that innovation maintains the core method/approach or not.

And stupidity connected to that issue is pretty standard. i.e. why BJJ schools outlaw leg locks at lower levels. There really are no different core fundamentals there. But somebody made a judgement call. Is is "core" or not? Is it "pure water" or not? Is it "authentic" or not? And those judgement calls almost invariably contribute to the watering down of the effectiveness of the art.



Here is what I am talking about. Boxing uses a certain mechanics/delivery system. Its tools work within that delivery system. You can add things to that delivery system that are consistent with it. But, if you try adding things to your boxing that are inconsistent with a boxing delivery system -- that use mechanics that are contrary to boxing mechanics -- then you don't get growth, you get failure. And that's because then you have two competing ways of trying to use your body.

The minute your measurement turns from functional effectiveness to "internal consistency" now you're doing choreography, not a functional fighting art. And you are making a subjective judgement that may or may not be valid.


This has nothing to do with putting boxing on a pedestal -- it is simply looking at it from a functional perspective.

Sure it does. A subjective judgement on consistency is a value judgement. As such that limits it's evaluation on a functional or objective basis alone.


I agree with that 100%. But some would call your view "drawing imaginary box lines around the art." And that's my point -- WCK IS a certain thing, it is not whatever the hell we want it to be.
Hey if someone has skill, I'm all for learning the skill exactly as a change could dilute the effectiveness of the skill.

However, I think you're going in the wrong direction with all of the "core curriculum" across lineages mantra you've latched on to this round. If everyone is doing the same thing, then many times that's the indication they're wrong. Sure there are real core fundamentals, like sticking, centerline, horse, don't chase hands. But beyond that it falls apart.

It's like my footlock example. A training partner of mine just won his GQ division
with 4 straight footlocks and a final. That's ridiculous. He can't come close to doing that at home.

[chusauli]

Long ago, I asked why we had to keep the elbows in so tightly and drop the elbows as we did.

An answer that one of my seniors said was, "in combat, people are stressed and have a tendency to flare out their elbows where they lose cover. Because in regular training we emphasize elbow placement so tightly, in fighting situations, we will not overly open up. This is also why in fighting WCK doesn't look like WCK."

As I reflect now, there is truth to that statement.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chusauli
"JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not."




I do not understand WCK's tendency towards drawing imaginary box lines around the art.

Functional arts don't do that. BJJ? H3ll no. Someone brings in a sambo footlock - "yes my fren. zhoo zhitsoo has had de footlock since de beginning - Helio taught dat me in 1976 fren. dat eddie bravo guy - he be teachin de techniques I do since purple belt - he just smoka de pot and namea dem de crazy names".

Which is complete BS, but illustrates the mindset.

WCK's mindset?

You just got 2nd place in a street fight, and the guy that beat you down leans over and says "Very nice. You stayed true to your WCK".

I mean OMG - he DARED to break out of the horse and let the goat out from between his knees.

***THIS. :D :cool: ;)

And to make matters worse, some of the same people who talk about wing chun purity are also adding things from other systems of fighting and call it wing chun. Like the "wing chun guillotine", for example. You know the one - where the entry into the guillotine comes out of the last section of biu jee ???!!!

It is all about functionality, Wayfaring. But wing chun politics often gets in the way of that.

[chusauli]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chusauli
JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not.

***THIS. :D :cool: ;)

So according to your one word post and putting up Wayfaring's post, "Robins are birds, and all birds are robins"? (A Rene Ritchie quote) :)

Is that logical?

[LSWCTN1]

A little reply to some comments, and the title of the thread.

The Lee Shing system, as I know it, has lots of breaks and i guess chin-na in it. As i have learnt my families version of wing chun I have noticed that its all about not just a coverage of the elbow and knee (as imperial mentioned) but also a trapping of those points too. as the body is being uprooted and torqued away. this creates a move that sees your opponent eith allow the initial advances or have his knee blown out, for example. Torquing the opponent seems to be a major attribute in LS WC

I personally dont like the compliance holds that I have learnt. I still use them, but not as compliance holds. If it became real and I was to use them it would be in the good ol' Lancashire tradition of tearing it outta place rather than holding them there to give up. thats just me.

I also think that when wing chun was first openly taught in the west in 1971 it attracted the ruffians of the day. One of CTS's former students made a great point that 'Ging in gung fu and gung fu is ging' i read recently. this is what i have tried to say for years, but put infinitely more simply


Long ago, I asked why we had to keep the elbows in so tightly and drop the elbows as we did.

An answer that one of my seniors said was, "in combat, people are stressed and have a tendency to flare out their elbows where they lose cover. Because in regular training we emphasize elbow placement so tightly, in fighting situations, we will not overly open up. This is also why in fighting WCK doesn't look like WCK."

As I reflect now, there is truth to that statement.

I see that in not just the dropping of the elbows, but in everything we do. we train the smallest tightedt moves possible and when our gross motor movements kick in we are that littel bit tighter and better eqipped than we would have been

[Ultimatewingchun]

...is a great case for MOVING OUTSIDE THE BOX that has been labelled "PURE" wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun/TWC/HFY....take your pick....

And get modern and focus on FUNCTIONALITY.

And all your "strategy" should be based around that. You need to make your wing chun (however you choose to spell it and whatever lineage) functional if you're taking this as a serious martial art and not just as a hobby.

But some people are total purists.

Others put what are clearly elements of other arts into their wing chun but still want to call it "just wing chun".

Others will crosstrain and call it that: a mixed martial art approach to wing chun.

And of course there are others who don't give a 5hit about any of this. :D

But as I see it, the only real "wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun/TWC/HFY" issue is whether or not you can make it work - and against whom?

Just how functional is it? Not how "pure"...(whatever that is).

But how Functional.

[YungChun]

A VT person may end up adding all kind of things into their fighting.... They may cross train, they may mix and match moves and tools..

But that doesn't change or have anything to do with what VT is..

[Ultimatewingchun]

And you know what I have to say to that: SO WHAT?

Oh, and btw....you just talked about only one system: VT.

There are other systems of the art.

But so what?

[YungChun]

An answer that one of my seniors said was, "in combat, people are stressed and have a tendency to flare out their elbows where they lose cover. Because in regular training we emphasize elbow placement so tightly, in fighting situations, we will not overly open up. This is also why in fighting WCK doesn't look like WCK."

As I reflect now, there is truth to that statement.

I'm not seeing the logic there..

The first part sounds like they are talking about chain punch fighting...

Do we use the VT punch to "minimize flailing"? I mean that's what it sounds like.. No, we use VT strikes to use VT methods...

VT elbow position is key to VT inside fighting, control and structure.

[YungChun]

And you know what I have to say to that: SO WHAT?

Oh, and btw....you just talked about one system of "wing chun":

VT.

There are other systems.

So what?
Buttons?

The simple point is that what so and so does (some person) has nothing to do with what a particular art is...

[Ultimatewingchun]

But you're talking about a specialized art. And the more functional you try to make that art - the more you're going to deviate from the "original" plan. (And again - whatever that was?) Time moves on.

Where were the great western boxers, MT fighters, karate fighters, wrestlers, grapplers, kickboxers, mma fighters when wing chun was being developed?

Nowhere to be found.

[YungChun]

But you're talking about a specialized art. And the more functional you try to make that art - the more you're going to deviate from the "original" plan. (And again - whatever that was?) Time moves on.

Where were the great western boxers, MT fighters, karate fighters, wrestlers, grapplers, kickboxers, mma fighters when wing chun was being developed?

Nowhere to be found.

It doesn't matter...

Where were the great CMA fighters later on?

VT is VT... It has a basic core method and tools.. Use what you want/can from it and use what you can from something else...

Whatever you use from VT, whatever you use from Boxing, whatever you use from Greco... It doesn't change what those arts are...

[Ultimatewingchun]

It doesn't matter...

Where were the great CMA fighters later on?

VT is VT... It has a basic core method and tools.. Use what you want/can from it and use what you can from something else...

Whatever you use from VT, whatever you use from Boxing, whatever you use from Greco... It doesn't change what those arts are...

***Never said that it did. But what I am saying is that if you can crosstrain other arts - and put them together with your wing chun very seamlessly - then you are ahead in the game. Because you're now a more complete fighter, as wing chun (any wing chun) has its limitations.

And just to reiterate, ONE WAY to do a very seamless merge is this:

"Think about the whole tan-to-bong and bong-to-tan chi sao motions as shapes that can be used as strikes and launched at any point along the continuum...and you may (should) get my drift.

Now put that together with a side body front stance as it's used in TWC and you have leads, crosses, overhands, etc. that are very similar to boxers.

I had a very interesting conversation about this with a trainor from Gleason's gym, in fact, some years ago. And the most interesting part of the conversation was how to use the boxing punches, push offs from the raised heel, and shoulder torque in ways that aren't as typically 'boxing' committed - so as to stay close to the wing chun framework of coming in to control (or trap) an arm, break structure and COG balance, square up the main centerline to his center of mass, and continue hitting with the vertical punches from the inside....

as I explained to him that I wanted to stay out of the boxing 'clinch', the boxing rules that don't allow kicks, knees, elbow strikes, etc. - as well as NOT over-committing punches that a wrestler/grappler could take advantage of with a shoot or bodylock."

[bennyvt]

so when victor freely admits to adding boxing hooks etc, he isn't doing vt but when alan's guys do it it is vt. So you and alan are either full of crap or you justify why his guys don't do vt by making up lies. When i asked alan he said there were hooks in his and your vt bodi just didn't know vt properly. You said that really any fighting is vt. And about bayer, i have never seen your guys breaking their opponents structure unless its alan throwing someone smaller them him. Or you with someone smaller. All muscle and size. No skill that you can see. Well you better tell alan that what his guys do isn't vt so stop claiming it is. Thanks for fixing up the confusion.

[Wayfaring]

Long ago, I asked why we had to keep the elbows in so tightly and drop the elbows as we did.

An answer that one of my seniors said was, "in combat, people are stressed and have a tendency to flare out their elbows where they lose cover. Because in regular training we emphasize elbow placement so tightly, in fighting situations, we will not overly open up. This is also why in fighting WCK doesn't look like WCK."

As I reflect now, there is truth to that statement.

Actually this kind of thing I have no issue with at all. This is a disciplined approach to function. I wouldn't use the words "combat" personally as it's kind of a misnomer, but people do open up a lot more when they are pressured - techniques get wider, more open. Someone consistently on you to stay tight and contained when you're tired is a good thing for the functional application of an art.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Careful here, because what can happen with this (and often does)....they're going to hook, round punch, or overhand around your tight stucture, bypass your defense, and beat on you before you can make your "shortest distance between two points is a straight line" approach work its magic on them.

It's about distance.

If you're really in close quarter striking range...oh yeah, elbows down and in close to the sides, absolutely.

If you're not - you're inviting trouble if you limit yourself to such narrow lines and real estate coverage. And if his reach is longer than yours, and it's not close striking range - then you're really inviting trouble.

Remember, in "pure" wing chun, there's no bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes broken rhythm footwork....because it's all about keeping the wing chun "structure and body alignment" intact.

And a good boxer can give you a hell of a lot of trouble if your arms are always held in the tight elbows down and in close to the sides position when not at very close striking range. He knows where they are, he knows where you head always is, he sees that your strikes and other arm motions are all basically very straight, and you become very predictable.

[YungChun]

It's about distance.

And timing...and tactics..



If you're really in close quarter striking range...oh yeah, elbows down and in close to the sides, absolutely.


This is VT's range.. Not outside..



If you're not - you're inviting trouble if you limit yourself to such narrow lines and real estate coverage. And if his reach is longer than yours, and it's not close striking range - then you're really inviting trouble.

Which is why VT attacks his structure..ASAP.



Remember, in "pure" wing chun, there's no bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes broken rhythm footwork....because it's all about keeping the wing chun "structure and body alignment" intact.

The footwork does use a kind of weaving, like a zig/zag...



And a good boxer can give you a hell of a lot of trouble if your arms are always held in the tight elbows down and in close to the sides position when not at very close striking range. He knows where they are, he knows where you head always is, he sees that your strikes and other arm motions are all basically very straight, and you become very predictable.

You will be very predicable if you stick to VT and also stay on the outside trying to use VT to box..

VT folks need to learn how to enter... To use timing, distance and movement as weapons to set up a real entry and bridge---NOT chase the opponent around with chain punches, which is commonly seen...

[jesper]

Well no battleplan survives the first bullet.

That being said I usually "simply" just step into him with a punch, trying to gain control and break structure. Then when im on the inside I will work his upper body while at the same time use small steps and shifts to keep him on the defensive.

Funny thing is when I was younger I would use all kinds of feints and elaborate steps to get to his inside, but tbf now I dont really bother that much with it.
Guess it comes with the knowledge that your going to get hit no matter what so better get to MY comfort zone asap.

[t_niehoff]

...is a great case for MOVING OUTSIDE THE BOX that has been labelled "PURE" wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun/TWC/HFY....take your pick....


I don't see it as an issue of "purity" but of identity (hey, am I beginning to sound like a HFY guy?). WCK is what it is -- and it has a method and tools that come from our ancestors. It's not whatever we want it to be. And if you haven't learned that method and those tools, how can you even begin to have a discussion about making it, your WCK, functional?

Whatever you are making "functional" isn't WCK if you aren't using the method and the tools of WCK.



And get modern and focus on FUNCTIONALITY.


Functionality comes from how you TRAIN what you do.



And all your "strategy" should be based around that. You need to make your wing chun (however you choose to spell it and whatever lineage) functional if you're taking this as a serious martial art and not just as a hobby.


Functionality has to do with how you train.



But some people are total purists.


If someone wanted to make their boxing "functional", and pointed out that "adding" nonboxing to it was not how to do that -- but how you trained was -- and that those "additions" were not even boxing (historically or by method), would that person be labeled a "purist"?

In that case, everyone who trained poorly or who never learned how to box in the first place, would be "moving outside the box" mistakenly believing that this was the answer to THEIR shortcomings.



Others put what are clearly elements of other arts into their wing chun but still want to call it "just wing chun".

Others will crosstrain and call it that: a mixed martial art approach to wing chun.


MMA is not an "approach" but a ruleset. When you fight, you are going to use what skills you have, and if you cross train, you will have a greater skill set to draw from.



And of course there are others who don't give a 5hit about any of this. :D

But as I see it, the only real "wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun/TWC/HFY" issue is whether or not you can make it work - and against whom?

Just how functional is it? Not how "pure"...(whatever that is).

But how Functional.

This makes absolutely no sense.

To make X functional, you need to know and start with X. When you ask "how functional is it?", what exactly is the "it" you are talking about? Is it whatever you can make functional? Or, is "it" that method and tools that have passed down to us from the Red Boat and is known by the name of wing chun kuen?

If I went to a boxing gym to learn to box and the trainer taught me his own amalgam of boxing, MT, etc. and called it "boxing", I would think he was dishonest -- and also think that he really didn't know what he was doing. Same for WCK.

[KPM]

All this talk about making WCK more functional....about crosstraining...about adding other elements to your fighting skills to fill in some of the gaps in WCK.....Bruce Lee would be saying..."Hey guys! Been there! Done that!" :)

[m1k3]

Wasn't VT a tool that was develop at a particular place and time to deal with a particular problem?

Now using that tool in a different place and time to deal with a different problem could lead to either adding more tools to your toolbox or modifying your current tool.

The strategies remains the same, breaking structure and infighting, but how you use the tool or the design of the tool may need to change.

So, either VT is frozen, in that the "ancients" laid down the rules and they can't be deviated from or the art evolves to fight into its new environment.

Hmm sounds like a conservative vs. liberal debate. Red state, blue state VT. :p

This thread is getting interesting. :D

[Frost]

How can a system be a close range fighting system with a basic premise of always breaking your opponent’s structure if it doesn’t include clinching and throwing methods and how to counter them?

Because if it didn’t include them back in the old days when most southern arts didn’t throw or clinch, it sure as h*ll better include them now because that IS what you will face at that range these days

[m1k3]

How can a system be a close range fighting system with a basic premise of always breaking your opponent’s structure if it doesn’t include clinching and throwing methods and how to counter them?

Because if it didn’t include them back in the old days when most southern arts didn’t throw or clinch, it sure as h*ll better include them now because that IS what you will face at that range these days

That's the conservative-moderate-liberal thing. You either accept the art as it, cross train in another art to fill the gaps or modify the art to make it relevant to current times and conditions.

If pay attention to peoples responses you can see which camp they are in.

[Frost]

That's the conservative-moderate-liberal thing. You either accept the art as it, cross train in another art to fill the gaps or modify the art to make it relevant to current times and conditions.

If pay attention to peoples responses you can see which camp they are in.

Yep I have read the thread, I love all this infighting cr*p, only in wing chun lol

But I still don’t get how anyone can argue wing chun is still relevant in this day and age as an infighting system without taking into account how to train and fight in the clinch, its what’s going to happen to you at that range 9 times out of 10, you aren’t going to fight a bak mei or hung gar guy, its going to be someone who is either trained in MMA or seen it and try’s to emulate it

And for those (read T) who say they have made it work against thai and MMA guys please post clips, because Alan Orr or is the only one was has clips out there of his guys in MMA and using wing chun and it sure looks like they use the clinch and wrestling at that range along with hooks and uppercuts which look a lot like boxing (note I don’t think this is a ad thing but I also note its not wing chun as we know it)

[Vajramusti]

That's the conservative-moderate-liberal thing. You either accept the art as it, cross train in another art to fill the gaps or modify the art to make it relevant to current times and conditions.

If pay attention to peoples responses you can see which camp they are in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that you really do not do wing chun ..neither does Frost. And there is a lot judging by seeing what is on You tube.

Much of wing chun lacks quality control. But for those who seriously investigate and pursue the art
it can be as close quarters as you can get and effective - for moving in and out, and for throwing, breaking and control.

Arguing with frequent posting nay sayers is a waste of time.

Happy new year to all including the bay sayers.

joy chaudhuri

[TenTigers]

That's the conservative-moderate-liberal thing. You either accept the art as it, cross train in another art to fill the gaps or modify the art to make it relevant to current times and conditions.

If pay attention to peoples responses you can see which camp they are in.

all arts should evolve. If you're not evolving and growing, then you 're stagnating and dying. When you crosstrain, pick up new tools and add them to your toolbox, it becomes your system, your WCK, your Gung-Fu.
All systems do this, and have done this from the beginning. Why do you think there are so many different versions of WCK? Too many people say, "That's not WCK." Rather, the response should be,"That's not our WCK."
-granted, if you are just throwing in things that don't blend well with your system,or contradict it rather than enhance it, or don't take the time to develop methods so that they do fit in, then of course, the opposing argument stands.

[goju]

How can a system be a close range fighting system with a basic premise of always breaking your opponent’s structure if it doesn’t include clinching and throwing methods and how to counter them?

Because if it didn’t include them back in the old days when most southern arts didn’t throw or clinch, it sure as h*ll better include them now because that IS what you will face at that range these days

i thought all kung fu was supposed to have throwing in it

[Wayfaring]

You will be very predicable if you stick to VT and also stay on the outside trying to use VT to box..

VT folks need to learn how to enter... To use timing, distance and movement as weapons to set up a real entry and bridge---NOT chase the opponent around with chain punches, which is commonly seen...

Yes - we have the whole bai jong concept which deals with efficiency in motion outside of contact ranges and the entry point. Also the cheurn kiu sau which is dealing with the longer range bridge.

But definitely probably the worst place to get caught in WCK is to be flat-footed in no-man's land just outside your effective range against someone with decent hands like a good boxer.

Elbows down also doesn't mean leaving your upper gate open - this is not even unique to WCK. Good MT teaches an elbow down more contained tighter punching approach in front of you. For that matter good boxing too.

[Wayfaring]

But I still don’t get how anyone can argue wing chun is still relevant in this day and age as an infighting system without taking into account how to train and fight in the clinch, its what’s going to happen to you at that range 9 times out of 10, you aren’t going to fight a bak mei or hung gar guy, its going to be someone who is either trained in MMA or seen it and try’s to emulate it


What you're not getting is that the advantage to WCK is that good control of the bridge is a form of the clinch in many ways. That's supposedly what all the chi sau stuff is supposed to teach. People should not be able to arm drag you or collar tie you or enter into a MT plum if you have skilled hands on the bridge. You should be able to move from the bridge to manipulating your opponent's center of gravity and keeping him off balance, which leads to your ability to strike him while he is off balance.

I will personally add in that good bridge control also leads to your ability to clinch with him from an advantageous position. For those who have trained grappling fundamentals it is not a far stretch to move from bridge control to an arm drag taking someone's back or from bridge control upsetting their balance moving into a single or double-leg takedown. But this last paragraph is certainly not the WCK identity we're discussing here.

[TenTigers]

Elbows down also doesn't mean leaving your upper gate open - this is not even unique to WCK. Good MT teaches an elbow down more contained tighter punching approach in front of you. For that matter good boxing too.
never quite understood why so many boxers punch with their elbows up-all shoulder. Even Dempsey kept his elbows down, and behind the punch.
(Dempsey also threw yat ji choy, rather than rotating his jab-cool)

[m1k3]

Boxers are taught to punch with their elbows down. I used to work out with a couple of boxers back when I was in the Marines and they always referred to bringing the elbow up as chicken winging. It was not a good term.

Oh, wait, I shouldn't posting that as I am not a real chunner.:p

You're right, boxers don't know squat about keeping their elbows down. They're just dumb thugs.

[t_niehoff]

Wasn't VT a tool that was develop at a particular place and time to deal with a particular problem?

Now using that tool in a different place and time to deal with a different problem could lead to either adding more tools to your toolbox or modifying your current tool.

The strategies remains the same, breaking structure and infighting, but how you use the tool or the design of the tool may need to change.

So, either VT is frozen, in that the "ancients" laid down the rules and they can't be deviated from or the art evolves to fight into its new environment.

Hmm sounds like a conservative vs. liberal debate. Red state, blue state VT. :p

This thread is getting interesting. :D

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

As I see it, WCK is about doing a particular thing (the method/approach). To do that thing, certain tools have been developed. As long as you are doing that thing, you are IMO doing WCK; when you stop doing that thing, you are no longer doing WCK. Can you develop/incorporate other "techniques" to do that thing? Sure. In fact, the various branches/lineages of WCK have done just that.

Some Gu Lao WCK have 12 points, some 22, some 36, some 40. But all those points are directed to teaching you and doing that "thing." How many points does it take for you to learn how to do that "thing"?

[chusauli]

all arts should evolve. If you're not evolving and growing, then you 're stagnating and dying. When you crosstrain, pick up new tools and add them to your toolbox, it becomes your system, your WCK, your Gung-Fu.
All systems do this, and have done this from the beginning. Why do you think there are so many different versions of WCK? Too many people say, "That's not WCK." Rather, the response should be,"That's not our WCK."
-granted, if you are just throwing in things that don't blend well with your system,or contradict it rather than enhance it, or don't take the time to develop methods so that they do fit in, then of course, the opposing argument stands.

Rik,

You should know better than posting reason and logic here on this forum. I may have to punish you like Paul (Sanjuro) and have you post some pictures of Grace Park, or some other hottie.

Join the other socially inept, misanthropic, cantankarous neaderthals and start slinging mud. :)

[chusauli]

How can a system be a close range fighting system with a basic premise of always breaking your opponent’s structure if it doesn’t include clinching and throwing methods and how to counter them?

Because if it didn’t include them back in the old days when most southern arts didn’t throw or clinch, it sure as h*ll better include them now because that IS what you will face at that range these days

Frost,

I agree, you will face that increasingly these days. Southern Fist in general, has many anti seizing and anti-throw methods.

Most systems of WCK have throwing and clinching methods, and even the forms and tactics reek of them. All Chinese TMA's had a smattering of strike, kick, control, and throw... but alas, the groundfighting was a cultural norm that was not as emphasized (perhaps not enough paved roads, or that Chinese typically spit on the ground and was considered too dirty) although dog fist and Dei Tong systems do ground fighting.

Nowadays it is important to know all 5 areas of fighting.

[chusauli]

I'm not seeing the logic there..

The first part sounds like they are talking about chain punch fighting...

Do we use the VT punch to "minimize flailing"? I mean that's what it sounds like.. No, we use VT strikes to use VT methods...

VT elbow position is key to VT inside fighting, control and structure.


The story reflects an overtendency to train one way to overcome an inherent risk when stressed. Take it with a grain of salt and don't over-analyze it.

[chusauli]

Actually this kind of thing I have no issue with at all. This is a disciplined approach to function. I wouldn't use the words "combat" personally as it's kind of a misnomer, but people do open up a lot more when they are pressured - techniques get wider, more open. Someone consistently on you to stay tight and contained when you're tired is a good thing for the functional application of an art.

You got it - hence the "truth" of the story.

[chusauli]

All this talk about making WCK more functional....about crosstraining...about adding other elements to your fighting skills to fill in some of the gaps in WCK.....Bruce Lee would be saying..."Hey guys! Been there! Done that!" :)

Its not gaps, but finding the proper use of the skill you developed. How to make it work for today. That is our generation's responsibility.

[chusauli]

I also think that when wing chun was first openly taught in the west in 1971 it attracted the ruffians of the day. One of CTS's former students made a great point that 'Ging in gung fu and gung fu is ging' i read recently. this is what i have tried to say for years, but put infinitely more simply


LOL! I was that former student of Chan Tai Shan, and I was the one who put that quote to print!

Ging is gung fu and gung fu is ging!

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1068287&postcount=149

[Frost]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that you really do not do wing chun ..neither does Frost. And there is a lot judging by seeing what is on You tube.

Much of wing chun lacks quality control. But for those who seriously investigate and pursue the art
it can be as close quarters as you can get and effective - for moving in and out, and for throwing, breaking and control.

Arguing with frequent posting nay sayers is a waste of time.

Happy new year to all including the bay sayers.

joy chaudhuri

oh no not the you dont know real wing chun and its not on the net arguement.........lol it always amazes me that so many wing chun sifu and master will post videos of sets, chi sao, or appear in magazines showing themselves poseing with butterfly knifes but somehow they wont posr clips of sparring or fighting because its beneath them :rolleyes:

[Frost]

i thought all kung fu was supposed to have throwing in it

you would have thought so...but then there are those that would argue what yip man taught wasn't a complete chinese art (paging david ross :) )

[YouKnowWho]

i thought all kung fu was supposed to have throwing in it
A: Do Taiji guys train hip throw?
Taiji master: What's hip thorw?
A: Hip throw is ...
Taiji master: The hip throw is against the Taiji principles.
A: Why?
Taiji master: In Taiji training, your head should be "vertical", your body should not lean past your knee, and your heels should not come off the ground.

The moment that you put style principles above your combat need, the moment that you become the "slave" of your own style.

[jesper]

Frost,

I agree, you will face that increasingly these days. Southern Fist in general, has many anti seizing and anti-throw methods.

Most systems of WCK have throwing and clinching methods, and even the forms and tactics reek of them. All Chinese TMA's had a smattering of strike, kick, control, and throw... but alas, the groundfighting was a cultural norm that was not as emphasized (perhaps not enough paved roads, or that Chinese typically spit on the ground and was considered too dirty) although dog fist and Dei Tong systems do ground fighting.

Nowadays it is important to know all 5 areas of fighting.

Dont recall any of the older combat arts that have groundfighting as such. could have something to do with the fact that sprawling around on the ground really isnt productive in mass fighting where any minute another man can kick your head in or stab you.

The older wrestling styles you have are mainly for sport or entertainment like mongolian wrestling etc.

And yes I know that a modern wrestler can end a fight pretty quickly on the ground and today where everyone and his mother watch or train some form of wrestling its mandatory to practice it yourself.

[Ultimatewingchun]

How can a system be a close range fighting system with a basic premise of always breaking your opponent’s structure if it doesn’t include clinching and throwing methods and how to counter them?

Because if it didn’t include them back in the old days when most southern arts didn’t throw or clinch, it sure as h*ll better include them now because that IS what you will face at that range these days

***Quite right. And what some people have told you on this thread subsequent to your post is that wing chun does have throwing and clinching methods; but what they neglected to mention is that the little that is there in not that functional against wrestlers/grapplers/mma fighters of today. Hence the crosstraining that goes on.

Who's going to win that clinch, throw, and takedown battle if you're just relying on wing chun?

Even Andreas Hoffman, current Grandmaster of WENG CHUN (which, although it contains punches, kicks, chi sao, etc. was once decribed to me by Andreas as PRIMARILY a system that featured standing armlocks - and which has more throws and sweeps than wing chun - and it does, as I once sparred with one of his top guys).....

even he saw fit to start getting involved in BJJ not too many years ago. How far can you take standing armlocks?

The fact that wing chun means close quarter striking and structure breaking therefore means that INDEED IT CAN TURN into a wrestling/grappling clinch and takedown game in a heart beat.

And once you're on the ground - just how many answers does wing chun have as to what to do next?

[Sihing73]

Hello,

This thread was/is about strategies and as such we can discuss the "strategies" in WC. While it is all well and good to discuss the need to change those strategies in order to deal with new situations and the changing times. I do not see this as a need to change this into a groundfighting thread.

FWIW, I used to be a Police Office and also worked Corrections for a while and had the opportunity to apply my WC in various situations. In Law Enforcement you are frowned upon if you have to beat up the person you are arresting, though sometimes they may deserve it :p

I can honestly say that WC, as I was taught, had plenty of Chin Na type of applications and throws, or methods of taking someone to the ground. The CK form is filled with throws and takedowns if you open your eyes.

Having said that, if you try to fight your opponents game, no matter what they train, grappling, boxing etc, then you will most likely lose. Joe Lewis (the kickboxer) advocated training his strong side forward and working the techniques of his style very hard. He did not believe that it was worth it to try and train other things as his time was better spent getting good at his chosen system/approach. While it is good to cross train if you are so inclined, much of our problems in applying WC is that many of us, myself included ;), do not put in the time/sweat/effort to really get good at our chosen approach. Do not blame the system for lacking when it is the one training the system who is to blame.

The key to the WC strategy, IMHO, is to enter and bring the opponent into your range and play your game not theirs.

[chusauli]

***Quite right. And what some people have told you on this thread subsequent to your post is that wing chun does have throwing and clinching methods; but what they neglected to mention is that the little that is there in not that functional against wrestlers/grapplers/mma fighters of today. Hence the crosstraining that goes on.

Who's going to win that clinch, throw, and takedown battle if you're just relying on wing chun?

even he saw fit to start getting involved in BJJ not too many years ago. How far can you take standing armlocks?

The fact that wing chun means close quarter striking and structure breaking therefore means that INDEED IT CAN TURN into a wrestling/grappling clinch and takedown game in a heart beat.

And once you're on the ground - just how many answers does wing chun have as to what to do next?

In fighting, you win with what you have.

Standing armlocks' efficacy is based on striking and breaking structure.

Much of WCK is given to self defense, which is defined as stopping the initial attack and exiting, not dueling or matching.

Striking can nullify grappling, grappling can nullify striking.

WCK is not ground grappling, and for that you should crosstrain and at least learn the basics and be in good condition.

[goju]

you would have thought so...but then there are those that would argue what yip man taught wasn't a complete chinese art (paging david ross :) )

thats quite possible i was reading an Eagle Claw book from Leung Sheum and he noted it was common in chinese ma for masters to hold back pieces from their students. Problem is every generation did that so the further down the line it went the more it was lacking.:mad:

[Ultimatewingchun]

And I agree with both of the above posts from Dave and from Robert. You want to play your game, and in wing chun, that's a standup game at close range. And yes, there are some chin na armlocks and a few sweeps within wing chun that can work, including against a good opponent.

And no, I'm not looking to turn this into a ground fighting thread.

But my point is that trying to stay within "a box" is okay, but being prepared to go outside that box is smart. And to look upon that attitude as some sort of disloyalty or failure to make what's in the box work at all times is foolish.

And in today's world going outside the box is not so difficult to do, given all the crosstraining and interaction that goes on between various martial artists and various styles today, including the willingness to accept people from other styles into your school, the ease of which it's possible to see the inner workings of what other styles do - even through such things as video, you tube, mma televised fights)....

there is much more available now than when a guy like Joe Lewis, for example, was doing his thing back in the 60's and 70's. There is hardly any secrcecy anymore (outside of wing chun? :D)

...about what a given style of fighting does.

My point: Take advantage of it. Keep your game (ie.- wing chun) as the SUN around which everything else you do revolves - but don't miss all the rest of that heavenly glory, as a certain someone once told us. :)

[KPM]

But my point is that trying to stay within "a box" is okay, but being prepared to go outside that box is smart. And to look upon that attitude as some sort of disloyalty or failure to make what's in the box work at all times is foolish.



I certainly wouldn't argue with that logic! :)

[Sihing73]

But my point is that trying to stay within "a box" is okay, but being prepared to go outside that box is smart. And to look upon that attitude as some sort of disloyalty or failure to make what's in the box work at all times is foolish.

My point: Take advantage of it. Keep your game (ie.- wing chun) as the SUN around which everything else you do revolves - but don't miss all the rest of that heavenly glory, as a certain someone once told us. :)

Hello,

I agree that it is okay to think outside of the box and I believe that Wing Chun would not exist if not for that very thinking. What I disagree with is those who do not get a firm foundation or understanding of the art and then mix and match things in a hodge podge of whatever. IMO WC is a conceptual system and that leaves the door open to a lot of potential exploration and incorporation of other arts, provided you build upon the WC base.

I have said this before and will say it again, an excellent resource for this kind of thinking is the book; Living the Martial Way. I feel it provides an excellent overview of the proper mindset and way to intergrate other arts into ones own core system.

[Frost]

Hello,

This thread was/is about strategies and as such we can discuss the "strategies" in WC. While it is all well and good to discuss the need to change those strategies in order to deal with new situations and the changing times. I do not see this as a need to change this into a groundfighting thread.

. [/B]

who mentioned ground fighting, i said clinch and throwing, and i have a hard time seeing any art working at close range in modern times unless it takes into account level changes, underhooks, overhooks, the plum etc and as far as i can tell wing chun doesn't have this in its arsenal and some of the things it does leads straight into a clinch or takedown, forward movement, no real level change fairly straight posture etc

As for a this comment

Originally Posted by Wayfaring


What you're not getting is that the advantage to WCK is that good control of the bridge is a form of the clinch in many ways. That's supposedly what all the chi sau stuff is supposed to teach. People should not be able to arm drag you or collar tie you or enter into a MT plum if you have skilled hands on the bridge. You should be able to move from the bridge to manipulating your opponent's center of gravity and keeping him off balance, which leads to your ability to strike him while he is off balance.

I will personally add in that good bridge control also leads to your ability to clinch with him from an advantageous position. For those who have trained grappling fundamentals it is not a far stretch to move from bridge control to an arm drag taking someone's back or from bridge control upsetting their balance moving into a single or double-leg takedown. But this last paragraph is certainly not the WCK identity we're discussing here.

please show this at work because i have never seen any TCMA person, including wing chun guys stop the clinch in any way shape or form, people normally blow straight through that range in MMA (hell you dont even see any real hand fighting when strikes are concerned its straight into the full clinch and once in it hand, bicep and wrist control come into play), so i would love to see anyone control a grappler with these skills at a range outside the clinch but closer than normal non attached striking

and this one
ten tigers


never quite understood why so many boxers punch with their elbows up-all shoulder. Even Dempsey kept his elbows down, and behind the punch.
(Dempsey also threw yat ji choy, rather than rotating his jab-cool)

you need to actually do some boxing

[m1k3]

Frost, you are not a chunner and should not be posting your nonsense here. Everyone KNOWS that boxers throw nothing but wild elbow up roundhouse punches and the only way a grappler can take you can you down is from 10 feet away duck their head and charge at you with out stretched arms like a drunken bull.

Victor you are making some very good points. If you keep this up you will be forced to turn in you WC decoder ring( showing my age there).

[Ultimatewingchun]

Oh no, Mike...please don't make me do that !!! :eek:

[m1k3]

Victor, your age is showing also. :D

[t_niehoff]

I agree that it is okay to think outside of the box


If by "outside the box" you mean that WCK doesn't prepare you for everything you many encounter in fighting, then I agree.



and I believe that Wing Chun would not exist if not for that very thinking.


I don't think that "thinking" had anything to do with WCK's development. I think what happened is that some person or, more likely, some group found that they were successful using a certain approach to fighting that they had "developed" over time, so they "organized" it into the WCK curriculum.



What I disagree with is those who do not get a firm foundation or understanding of the art and then mix and match things in a hodge podge of whatever.


As I see it, there are two different, albeit related, issues here. The first -- which is being discussed here-- is what IS WCK. And as I see it, WCK is a certain, specific approach to fighting. And to use that approach requires that you have certain, specific tools, mechanics, etc. This was organized by our ancestors into a curriculum. In my view, most WCK practitioners don't even know what that approach is.

The second is how to develop proficiency using that method. And that pertains to how you train.



IMO WC is a conceptual system and that leaves the door open to a lot of potential exploration and incorporation of other arts, provided you build upon the WC base.


WCK isn't a "conceptual system" -- people like to believe that because they like to drop the "c-word" ("concept") and believe that they have superior theory. However, 9 cases out of 10, when people use the c-word it is because they are simply intellectually lazy and use the word "concept" in place of what really is at issue. So, instead of "tactic" they say "concept". Instead of "method", they say "concept". And so on. WCK is a skill-based method/approach. But when you can't teach skills, what do you teach? Concepts.

WCK does provide a framework on which you can build. But this is true of every other functional martial art. You can have boxing as your base, wrestling as your base, BJJ as your base, MT as your base, etc. and build around it.



I have said this before and will say it again, an excellent resource for this kind of thinking is the book; Living the Martial Way. I feel it provides an excellent overview of the proper mindset and way to intergrate other arts into ones own core system.

The "proper way" is to find out for yourself. This is what I keep trying to tell Victor.

No one can tell YOU what you need. Do you need to go train a ground game? Should you train X? What about cross-training? No one can tell you. And you shouldn't listen to anyone. YOU need to find out for yourself. If you do it because I say so or Victor says so or Joy says so or some book says so, then you are putting your trust, your development, etc. in someone else's hands. YOU are responsible for your own development, no one else is. If you really want to know because you really want to develop, then you will do the work to find out. You will go see for yourself. And all anyone can do for you it to point you in that direction. But YOU need to do that work yourself.

[KPM]

WCK isn't a "conceptual system" -- people like to believe that because they like to drop the "c-word" ("concept") and believe that they have superior theory. However, 9 cases out of 10, when people use the c-word it is because they are simply intellectually lazy and use the word "concept" in place of what really is at issue. So, instead of "tactic" they say "concept". Instead of "method", they say "concept". And so on. WCK is a skill-based method/approach. But when you can't teach skills, what do you teach? Concepts.

.

Gee Terence, you really are into semantics! :rolleyes: Tactics...methods...approaches....these are all concepts. The tactic or approach of controlling while striking and breaking structure are "concepts", otherwise we wouldn't even be able to discuss them with each other. "Concepts" is a general term that can encompass many things. I know....that's not precise enough for you! And I think I see why you don't like the term. The "JKD Concepts" guys have sometimes misused the term and made it appear that by basing things on "concepts" your martial art can be just about anything you want it to be. Which is not true. But that doesn't mean there aren't many essential "concepts" within the WCK method! All of these strategies being discussed fall under the umbrella of "concepts."

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I don't think that 'thinking' had anything to do with WCK's development. I think what happened is that some person or, more likely, some group found that they were successful using a certain approach to fighting that they had 'developed' over time, so they 'organized' it into the WCK curriculum." (TN)
.......................

***That's pretty amazing. They developed a system of fighting without thinking about it. Thinking had nothing to do with it.

Whooa...

[hunt1]

The key to the WC strategy, IMHO, is to enter and bring the opponent into your range and play your game not theirs. [/QUOTE]




This may be a goal of wing chun strategy . It is not the key,. Just as controlling their center of gravity, breaking their structure,taking their back. These are goals not a strategy.. A strategy is the means you will employ to attain your goals.

Its nice to say I am going to enter ,break their structure etc etc. How are you going to do this when the other person is skilled and is moving and is trying to enforce his will upon you? A boxer will not sit their within range not moving a wrestler will not sit their within range not moving. They have strategies and goals they are working for too and want to do these things to you.

[hunt1]

If by "outside the box" you mean that WCK doesn't prepare you for everything you many encounter in fighting, then I agree.


It is not the " JOB" of WC to prepare you for everything you may encounter. This is the joint job of your teacher and you. In the end it is up to you the person to prepare yourself. Hence the need for more than one teacher and for testing your skills against others looking to test and improve their skills.

[t_niehoff]

Gee Terence, you really are into semantics! :rolleyes: Tactics...methods...approaches....these are all concepts. The tactic or approach of controlling while striking and breaking structure are "concepts", otherwise we wouldn't even be able to discuss them with each other. "Concepts" is a general term that can encompass many things. I know....that's not precise enough for you! And I think I see why you don't like the term. The "JKD Concepts" guys have sometimes misused the term and made it appear that by basing things on "concepts" your martial art can be just about anything you want it to be. Which is not true. But that doesn't mean there aren't many essential "concepts" within the WCK method! All of these strategies being discussed fall under the umbrella of "concepts."

I see, everything is a concept!

Tell me, why is it do you think that boxing, wrestling, etc., ALL THE FUNCTIONAL MARTIAL ARTS, not to mention basically any other sports, do not pride themselves on being "conceptually based" arts, nor do they really make much ado about "concepts"? In all the time I spent doing BJJ, boxing, judo, Mt, etc., and in all the sports that I have played over the years, I have probably heard my instructors/coaches (all of them) use the word "concept" a handful of times.

I guess they were all "into semantics" too? ;)

To call something a "concept" is to be so vague as to be essentially bullsh1t. Actually, its worse than bullsh1t, it is pretentious bullsh1t.

Concepts don't help you. They only get in the way of your development. The more concepts you have, the more bullsh1t you have.

PS -

Try this at home: every time you hear/read someone in WCK use the words "concept", "principle", or "theory", replace it with the word "bullsh1t." That will give you an accurate sense for what they are really talking about.

For example, "Most people in WCK only the the center line bullsh1t, but we have better bullsh1t, we have the central line bullsh1t."

Or, "To deal with punches, you use the four/six/put in your own number gate bullsh1t in conjunction with the simultaneous block and strike bullsh1t . . . "

[k gledhill]

Try this too, every time you read a post by Terence replace Terence with confused....:D

[bennyvt]

Hey Terrence you said before that there's no hooks. When victor was talking about stuff you said that it was not VT. Robert (your teacher agreed with you). You use alan Orr as your reference when anyone asks you stuff. In a previous talk with him he has said that there are hooks in VT (also a flying arm bar on the dummy?) and the biu jee headlock. He seemed to make reference that maybe my VT was lacking as his had all this and mine didn't.
So do you think that all these things are actually VT or just stuff from other styles that slightly look like VT so people therefore claim it is so their is some how special. This is the problem with mixing things. If you mix boxing, catch, bjj then it is a mix of all those styles. It would be like a boxer learning BJJ and tried to say that boxing has a kimura.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Oh I can't wait to read this answer. Get your popcorn and B.S. deodarizer out.

[HumbleWCGuy]

WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him. So you can say that there are two aspects to WCK, a defensive aspect (controlling) and and offensive aspect (striking).

Typically, we link our defense (controlling actions) to bring in striking (offensive actions) -- lien siu die da. How you individually put those aspects together for yourself can/will depend on the situation, including your natural strengths, etc..

Tactically or strategically, I can decide, for example, to use very little control and use mainly offensive striking in an enounter. And, there are times -- very limited situations -- when that offensive striking can also act as defense. This is a risky strategy, but sometimes it is appropriate and you pull it off.

You can also decide to, for example, to use very little offensive striking and use mainly controlling actions.

Those are the two extremes.

There is flexibility in the method, but that doesn't alter what that method is. And, obviously, the better rounded you are in WCK, the more flexible you can be in your tactical/strategic choices. If you can't control your opponent, then you are "stuck" only using the offensive game, whether it is appropriate or not.

But, if you are not using the WCK tools, you can't be using WCK. If you are throwing jabs, crosses and hooks, for example, you are not doing WCK. If you are kickboxing, you are not doing WCK.

This is Water Boy style strategy. I start to punch at someone unless they punch at me; in which case, I use a defensive move. LOL

[t_niehoff]

Hey Terrence you said before that there's no hooks.


That's right.



When victor was talking about stuff you said that it was not VT. Robert (your teacher agreed with you).


OK.



You use alan Orr as your reference when anyone asks you stuff.


No, I don't always "use" him as my reference. I have used his videos to explain a point. And as an example of what any of us must do if we want to develop our skill (fighting skill) in WCK: he has gone out, found good skilled people, and trained/sparred with them.



In a previous talk with him he has said that there are hooks in VT (also a flying arm bar on the dummy?) and the biu jee headlock. He seemed to make reference that maybe my VT was lacking as his had all this and mine didn't.


Really? Why don't you point me to where he said that? I'm sure that if he did, you can give me the link to the post.

There is no "hook" in WCK. There is a "diagonal punch" (for example, in the BJ form) but the facing is square-on (unlike the hook where the facing is with the side and the power transfer is very different) that some mistake for a "hook." There is also a "wrapping arm" action (for example, in the CK form) that can be used to wrap the head to break structure.

BTW, it's funny how many in WCK talk about "the hook" (like Victor in his video of how to deal with a hook) and then what they demo isn't even a hook (its a swing)!

Flying armbar?I don't think so.



So do you think that all these things are actually VT or just stuff from other styles that slightly look like VT so people therefore claim it is so their is some how special. This is the problem with mixing things. If you mix boxing, catch, bjj then it is a mix of all those styles. It would be like a boxer learning BJJ and tried to say that boxing has a kimura.

WCK is in a nutshell a very specific approach (method) to fighting. And, to do that approach, you need certain specific tools. Those basic tools are provided to us in the forms and/or the san sik. As I have said, that is not to say that you can't add to your toolbox or that WCK is stagnant (can't grow or evolve), only that your innovations need to fit in with the overall approach -- otherwise what you are doing is not WCK.

[k gledhill]

confused ;)

[Graham H]

There is a "diagonal punch" (for example, in the BJ form) but the facing is square-on (unlike the hook where the facing is with the side and the power transfer is very different) that some mistake for a "hook." There is also a "wrapping arm" action (for example, in the CK form) that can be used to wrap the head to break structure.
.

Is there really???? Diagonal punch??? :D Wrapping punch???:D

More nonsense from a misinterpreted TN WCK system!!! :D:D

GH

[CFT]

^^
"Wrapping arm" action. How can you misquote when you actually quote his post? Even you must admit there is more to VT than "just" punching?

[t_niehoff]

^^
"Wrapping arm" action. How can you misquote when you actually quote his post? Even you must admit there is more to VT than "just" punching?

http://www.ystwingchun.com/en/system_3.php

"On another occasion, when a man told him he didn’t believe wing chun should contain any throwing movements, Sum made use of the wrapping arm from the chum kiu set to flip the man up and over onto his head."

[CFT]

Terence, which part of the CK set is that action in?

[t_niehoff]

Terence, which part of the CK set is that action in?

In our (CSL WCK) set, it is the movement from the bong sao to the "bouncing punch" (or some call it the drilling punch or WCK "uppercut") -- some people move directly from the bong sao to the punch, and some move the bong sao 'outward' in a wrapping action before moving into the punch itself.

[CFT]

I can't really picture how moving the bong sau outward would constitute a wrapping action.

[LoneTiger108]

Wow! The thread has gone from strategy to interpretations of forms in one fell swoop! :D

FWIW I do believe there are hooks in WCK, uppercuts and crosses too. We have anything a boxer would have and more imho and its all within the forms if you look in the right place with the right mind.

As for some wrapping arm stuff, I done all my wrapping over Christmas :D :confused:

[HumbleWCGuy]

Just looking through a lot of these posts, I am not seeing anything much on strategy really. Wedging in, ducking, slipping, offense, and defense are techniques, and ways of grouping techniques. Strategy is about when and where to employ techniques.

A strategy is a plan for a portion of a fight to the whole fight based on clear reasoning as to why a particular set of techniques or a specific implementation of techniques gives one the best chance to win.

[LoneTiger108]

A strategy is a plan for a portion of a fight to the whole fight based on clear reasoning as to why a particular set of techniques or a specific implementation of techniques gives one the best chance to win.

I agree. And I feel that the best strategies of Wing Chun are reflected in the classic Kuen Kuit commissioned by Moy Yat. Although now everything seems to be online here with other interpretations and additions...

http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.KuenKuit

[shawchemical]

That's right.



OK.



No, I don't always "use" him as my reference. I have used his videos to explain a point. And as an example of what any of us must do if we want to develop our skill (fighting skill) in WCK: he has gone out, found good skilled people, and trained/sparred with them.



Really? Why don't you point me to where he said that? I'm sure that if he did, you can give me the link to the post.

There is no "hook" in WCK. There is a "diagonal punch" (for example, in the BJ form) but the facing is square-on (unlike the hook where the facing is with the side and the power transfer is very different) that some mistake for a "hook." There is also a "wrapping arm" action (for example, in the CK form) that can be used to wrap the head to break structure.

BTW, it's funny how many in WCK talk about "the hook" (like Victor in his video of how to deal with a hook) and then what they demo isn't even a hook (its a swing)!

Flying armbar?I don't think so.



WCK is in a nutshell a very specific approach (method) to fighting. And, to do that approach, you need certain specific tools. Those basic tools are provided to us in the forms and/or the san sik. As I have said, that is not to say that you can't add to your toolbox or that WCK is stagnant (can't grow or evolve), only that your innovations need to fit in with the overall approach -- otherwise what you are doing is not WCK.

You're floundering terrence. There is NO headlock whatsoever in chum kiu.

[HumbleWCGuy]

You're floundering terrence. There is NO headlock whatsoever in chum kiu.

Aces in their places.

[CFT]

The kuen kuit in and of itself is not a strategy. Some of it, in the right context and the right time perhaps.

[t_niehoff]

You're floundering terrence. There is NO headlock whatsoever in chum kiu.

There is a wrapping arm in CK. I pointed to a reference that Sum Nung made of it (Sum, the "grandmaster" of YKS WCK, must have been "foundering" too). You can "wrap" your opponent's arm, his head, etc. The objective of the wrapping action if to provide a handle (to the opponent) for breaking the opponent's structure.

[t_niehoff]

Wow! The thread has gone from strategy to interpretations of forms in one fell swoop! :D

FWIW I do believe there are hooks in WCK, uppercuts and crosses too. We have anything a boxer would have and more imho and its all within the forms if you look in the right place with the right mind.

As for some wrapping arm stuff, I done all my wrapping over Christmas :D :confused:

Only people who haven't learned WCK "interpret" the forms. They are not for "interpretation."

And if you haven't learned the "wrapping arm" action of WCK, then perhaps it might do you well to find a competent WCK instructor to teach you rather than argue from ignorance.

[Hendrik]

There is one strange thing here.

One can keep talk about yes this or no that or strategy....etc.
However, how could one talk about strategy without talk about the power generation or handling?

It is like talking war strategy without knowing what is the weapon and the weapon capablility.


WCK today has different lineages and it has evolve to the point that there are different type of power generation. Thus, strategy cant be the same with all and also some of others strategy will not be useful one.

The bottom line is your power generation type and ability bound your strategy.

Does WCK has hook sure, Hook is just a transformation of Huen at some circumstances using Huen type of momentum. So why not?

[chusauli]

Many grappling applications in WCK are hidden in plain view.

If you go with only the premise of "Sifu sez...", you may close your mind off to other possibilities.

A Jum Sao from SNT can be a strike, an arm bar, elbow break, etc. Gum Sao from the ending section of Chum Kiu can be an arm bar, low palm strike, disarm, etc. Lan Sao can be a cross face, RNC, Sleeve choke, elbow strike, forearm strike, etc. WCK teaches you the tools (hand shapes) - its for you to discover the strength from that structural shape and applying that tool. Maybe we need to have a new thread on grappling and throwing applications?

I certainly don't have to teach you experts "Kum Na" (Mandarin: Qin Na). You should already know it especially if you claim to have crosstrained or learned grappling. Look at the WCK footwork and BJJ Guard passing. There are definitely overlaps. There is only one human body, and it can only move so many ways. All movements in a form can have a component of the TCMA "Strike, Kick, Control, Throw"...if not, well, I may have to take a tip from Spencer, Victor and Kevin and start rolling eyes.

When we're hearing these applications being trashed, its just evident some people have not trained these in this manner. Its irresponsible for WCK instructors to be so close minded like this. Its not that these do not exist in WCK proper, but they should exist in the realm of application. These are just movements, the interpretation (within reason) depends on the context. Applying it is dependent on your skill. And again, the skill of striking and breaking structure is dependent upon all of these.

A call for reason gentlemen, lest this thread simply deteriorate. All of you are educated and reasonable men, I take, and to close the mind off is a sad state of affairs for WCK. You are WCK. But are you a close minded WCK?

[Sihing73]

[QUOTE=chusauli;1071699]A Jum Sao from SNT can be a strike, an arm bar, elbow break, etc. Gum Sao from the ending section of Chum Kiu can be an arm bar, low palm strike, disarm, etc. Lan Sao can be a cross face, RNC, Sleeve choke, elbow strike, forearm strike, etc. WCK teaches you the tools (hand shapes) - its for you to discover the strength from that structural shape and applying that tool. Maybe we need to have a new thread on grappling and throwing applications?QUOTE]

Robert,

Careful,

Sounds like you could be talking concepts which allow many interpretations to what some view only as techniques. ;)

[t_niehoff]

Careful,

Sounds like you could be talking concepts which allow many interpretations to what some view only as techniques. ;)

No, he's not talking "concepts" -- he's talking about the multifaceted aspect of many of the actions in WCK. The same action can do different things depending on the context/situation. This is not unique to WCK; you see the same thing in other arts, including BJJ, for example.

[Sihing73]

No, he's not talking "concepts" -- he's talking about the multifaceted aspect of many of the actions in WCK. The same action can do different things depending on the context/situation. This is not unique to WCK; you see the same thing in other arts, including BJJ, for example.

Of course the same thing can be used to do many different things. However, there must be an underlying principle or "concept" needed to be understood in order to make that a truth :D

You hate the term concept but it is these very concepts which form the basis for a foundation on which to build. Without an understanding of the core principle or "concept" there is no flexibility with which to apply ones techniques. ;)

Definition of a Concept:

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept"

[shawchemical]

There is a wrapping arm in CK. I pointed to a reference that Sum Nung made of it (Sum, the "grandmaster" of YKS WCK, must have been "foundering" too). You can "wrap" your opponent's arm, his head, etc. The objective of the wrapping action if to provide a handle (to the opponent) for breaking the opponent's structure.

Pointless, inefficient nonsense.

[YouKnowWho]

There is a wrapping arm in CK.
The Wing Chun is a striking art system and not a throwing art system. Arm wrapping is commonly used in the throwing art but not in the striking art.

It's the training method that define a system. If you wrestle everyday, you will become a wrestler. If you spar everyday, you will become a striker. 1 or 2 moves hidden in the form is not sufficient to define a system, it's what you do daily.

[shawchemical]

Only people who haven't learned WCK "interpret" the forms. They are not for "interpretation."

And if you haven't learned the "wrapping arm" action of WCK, then perhaps it might do you well to find a competent WCK instructor to teach you rather than argue from ignorance.

It could also be said that if your teacher teaches that sort of nonsense, it would make sense to leave them and to find a competent teacher who will improve your training effectiveness.

[t_niehoff]

Of course the same thing can be used to do many different things. However, there must be an underlying principle or "concept" needed to be understood in order to make that a truth :D


No there doesn't.

I have a hammer. I can do all kinds of things with it. How is it that I am able to use it flexibly? Because of some "concept"? No, because I know the properties of the hammer (what it is good for, what it isn't good for, etc.).

It's the same with the WCK tools.



You hate the term concept but it is these very concepts which form the basis for a foundation on which to build. Without an understanding of the core principle or "concept" there is no flexibility with which to apply ones techniques. ;)


I don't like reference to "concepts" because typically that is a symptom of fuzzy thinking (at best) and self-delusion (at worst).

You don't need "concepts". There are no "core principles". These are imaginary things people make up.

The development of physical skill -- whether riding a bike, surfing, boxing, etc. or WCK -- does not rest on "concepts" or "core principles".



Definition of a Concept:

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept"

Yeah, a concept is "an idea". Do you think that what makes someone a better bike rider or that he is able to learn to ride a bike comes down to having "an idea"?

[t_niehoff]

The Wing Chun is a striking art system and not a throwing art system. Arm wrapping is commonly used in the throwing art but not in the striking art.

It's the training method that define a system. If you wrestle everyday, you will become a wrestler. If you spar everyday, you will become a striker. 1 or 2 moves hidden in the form is not sufficient to define a system, it's what you do daily.

WCK is not a "striking art system" (over 90% of the actions in the forms are NOT strikes! doesn't that tell you something?) -- who makes this sh1t up?. WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him. As such, it contains both controlling actions and striking actions.

The "wrapping arm" action is a controlling action, used, as I previously indicated, to provide a handle to the opponent so that we can break his structure. You can also use that handle, in some instances, to throw. In the "old days", putting the opponent on the ground, via throw or takedown, was very common.

[YouKnowWho]

All CMA systems use the principle "control the opponent while striking him". Such as:

- Mantis "Gou Lou Cai Shou",
- Taiji "fetching arm""
- Longfist "Cai Da",
- XingYi "Pi Chuan",
- Zimen "Cha Zhang",
- ...

It still doesn't make those styles "throwing art" system.

Again, if you

- wrestle everyday, you will become a wrestler.
- spar everyday, you will become a striker.
- perform everyday, you will become a performer.

It doesn't matter whether your style is a striking art system or a throwing art system, it's you who define your system by your daily training.

[Sihing73]

No there doesn't.

I have a hammer. I can do all kinds of things with it. How is it that I am able to use it flexibly? Because of some "concept"? No, because I know the properties of the hammer (what it is good for, what it isn't good for, etc.).

It's the same with the WCK tools.



I don't like reference to "concepts" because typically that is a symptom of fuzzy thinking (at best) and self-delusion (at worst).

You don't need "concepts". There are no "core principles". These are imaginary things people make up.

The development of physical skill -- whether riding a bike, surfing, boxing, etc. or WCK -- does not rest on "concepts" or "core principles".



Yeah, a concept is "an idea". Do you think that what makes someone a better bike rider or that he is able to learn to ride a bike comes down to having "an idea"?

So T,

Exactly what do you build upon? There are concepts/principles to riding a bike, surfing and boxing. There is a specific core upon which you need to build. You can't just jump into Surfing and expect to be good at it unless you understand all about balance, riding the wave or whatever. Same with boxing you have a set number of techniques which are to be thrown within a certain framework, else it is no longer boxing. Why is it that one can have a Jab or a Cross in MT yet they are not considered "boxing"? The technique may be the same or similar but the way they are applied is based on different concepts on how to apply the same technique in a different manner. :)

[t_niehoff]

So T,

Exactly what do you build upon? There are concepts/principles to riding a bike, surfing and boxing. There is a specific core upon which you need to build. You can't just jump into Surfing and expect to be good at it unless you understand all about balance, riding the wave or whatever.


That's bullsh1t. What you build on is DOING it. You get on the board and try to surf. You fall off. You try again. You fall off again. You keep doing it until YOUR BODY works it out. It isn't an intellectual process -- you don't "understand" balance for Christ's sake! You DEVELOP your balance through DOING it.



Same with boxing you have a set number of techniques which are to be thrown within a certain framework, else it is no longer boxing. Why is it that one can have a Jab or a Cross in MT yet they are not considered "boxing"? The technique may be the same or similar but the way they are applied is based on different concepts on how to apply the same technique in a different manner. :)

"Based on different concepts"? Seriously, what in the hell does that even mean? It's nonsense-speak!

[LoneTiger108]

Only people who haven't learned WCK "interpret" the forms. They are not for "interpretation."

Hey T! Don't throw your handbag at the messenger. I was just saying what I was seeing.


And if you haven't learned the "wrapping arm" action of WCK, then perhaps it might do you well to find a competent WCK instructor to teach you rather than argue from ignorance.

And the canton term for 'wrapping arm' is what exactly? And as for ME interpreting the forms, I agree with you that they are not up for interpretation! But someone else seems to like their own ideas here, unless Robert was actually taught this stuff... which is quite spot on imhho!


A Jum Sao from SNT can be a strike, an arm bar, elbow break, etc. Gum Sao from the ending section of Chum Kiu can be an arm bar, low palm strike, disarm, etc. Lan Sao can be a cross face, RNC, Sleeve choke, elbow strike, forearm strike, etc. WCK teaches you the tools (hand shapes) - its for you to discover the strength from that structural shape and applying that tool. Maybe we need to have a new thread on grappling and throwing applications?

I will say this though. I agree here that SLT will have these applications because all SLT is ultimately is that little idea for our head to recite. How we put these ideas into action is governed by our foundation practises and understanding of CK & BJ as they are far more specific in 'how' and 'when' they should be applied.


WCK is not a "striking art system" (over 90% of the actions in the forms are NOT strikes! doesn't that tell you something?) -- who makes this sh1t up?.

I would say this. If I had trained and drilled through the wooden man and with equipment and weaponry, pretty much everything can be a strike! Or at least it will 'feel' like a strike to my opponent. This is what I believe the greats like WSL tapped into and passed on. Just as everything can search and manipulate too imho but that depends on how you view the seed of Wing Chun.

I think it may be you T who needs to hold up on the ignorance sometimes.

[t_niehoff]

All CMA systems use the principle "control the opponent while striking him". Such as:

- Mantis "Gou Lou Cai Shou",
- Taiji "fetching arm""
- Longfist "Cai Da",
- XingYi "Pi Chuan",
- Zimen "Cha Zhang",
- ...

It still doesn't make those styles "throwing art" system.

Again, if you

- wrestle everyday, you will become a wrestler.
- spar everyday, you will become a striker.
- perform everyday, you will become a performer.

It doesn't matter whether your style is a striking art system or a throwing art system, it's you who define your system by your daily training.

Your comment makes no sense.

Controlling while striking is not a "principle" -- it is the fighting approach of WCK: it is what we are doing when we fight. And, WCK has its particular way of doing that (actions that control, actions that strike, and some that do both). So what we practice in WCK is controlling our opponent while striking him.

I don't know what you are talking about with your "throwing art system" comment. WCK has *some* throws. So what?

[Sihing73]

That's bullsh1t. What you build on is DOING it. You get on the board and try to surf. You fall off. You try again. You fall off again. You keep doing it until YOUR BODY works it out. It isn't an intellectual process -- you don't "understand" balance for Christ's sake! You DEVELOP your balance through DOING it.

"Based on different concepts"? Seriously, what in the hell does that even mean? It's nonsense-speak!

Ah, I see you learn by doing with no understanding of what you are doing :rolleyes:

There is no underlying principle to understand, you just go out and do whatever it is that you want to learn. I am sure you can learn this way but it takes a lot longer than if you actually understand the why and how.

I sure am glad you are not a teacher. I can just see you teaching a grade school class wirting or mathematics. Just keep adding or subracting those numbers sooner or later, more luck than anything else you'll get it. Just put letters onto a blank paper, eventually you'll write something that makes sense :D

Just go get into a Boxing ring and don't worry about understanding anything just keep plugging away, you're sure to learn from being beat to a pulp. Sooner or later you will be able to box.

This type of approach is rather primitive, imho and rarely produces desired results as quickly as building upon a foundation and an understanding of the........there's that word again:p........concepts. :D

Tell me T, does the practice of law follow any concepts or is it just a shot in the dark?

[t_niehoff]

Ah, I see you learn by doing with no understanding of what you are doing :rolleyes:


Oh, the dreaded "rolls eyes"! LOL!

Try to "understand" this -- developing a skill isn't based on "understanding". Take a simple skill like riding a bike. There is nothing to "understand" or work out intellectually -- you are shown how it is done, and you try to do it. And you keep trying until you work it out. Skill is based on performance.



There is no underlying principle to understand, you just go out and do whatever it is that you want to learn. I am sure you can learn this way but it takes a lot longer than if you actually understand the why and how.


There is NEVER an "underlying principle." That is a fantasy. There are often lots of things you need to learn to do something, but they aren't "principles". People call them that because, as I indicated, they have fuzzy thinking (so they call whatever it is a "concept" instead of saying what it really is) and/or delusion.



I sure am glad you are not a teacher. I can just see you teaching a grade school class wirting or mathematics. Just keep adding or subracting those numbers sooner or later, more luck than anything else you'll get it. Just put letters onto a blank paper, eventually you'll write something that makes sense :D


Mathematics, writing, etc. are -- pay attention -- intellectual pursuits, skills NOT physical skills. You are comparing apples to oranges. We learn/develop intellectual skills differently than we do physical skills.



Just go get into a Boxing ring and don't worry about understanding anything just keep plugging away, you're sure to learn from being beat to a pulp. Sooner or later you will be able to box.


No. You are taught to box -- you learn the skill -- from a trainer (that includes the mechanics, the actions, the tactics, etc.). IOWs, this is what you want to do, this is how to do it, etc. Then you practice using that skill. And through practice, you get better.



This type of approach is rather primitive, imho and rarely produces desired results as quickly as building upon a foundation and an understanding of the........there's that word again:p........concepts. :D


Are you referring to the approach that you made up? LOL!



Tell me T, does the practice of law follow any concepts or is it just a shot in the dark?

Sure, law, being an intellectual discipline, has lots of concepts. But, as I told you, an intellectual discipline is different in kind than a physical discipline.

[Sihing73]

There is NEVER an "underlying principle." That is a fantasy. There are often lots of things you need to learn to do something, but they aren't "principles". People call them that because, as I indicated, they have fuzzy thinking (so they call whatever it is a "concept" instead of saying what it really is) and/or delusion.

Mathematics, writing, etc. are -- pay attention -- intellectual pursuits, skills NOT physical skills. You are comparing apples to oranges. We learn/develop intellectual skills differently than we do physical skills.

But, as I told you, an intellectual discipline is different in kind than a physical discipline.

Now I understand, the way you do WC does not involve thinking :eek: Also, I am apparently guilty of the dread condition called "fuzzy thinking". I guess it is a good thing I now live in the Peach State.............just in case you missed it T, Peaches are fuzzy :p

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Perhaps you should write a book and title it: Wing Chun for Dummies :D

[shawchemical]

Oh, the dreaded "rolls eyes"! LOL!

There is NEVER an "underlying principle." That is a fantasy. There are often lots of things you need to learn to do something, but they aren't "principles". People call them that because, as I indicated, they have fuzzy thinking (so they call whatever it is a "concept" instead of saying what it really is) and/or delusion.



Mathematics, writing, etc. are -- pay attention -- intellectual pursuits, skills NOT physical skills. You are comparing apples to oranges. We learn/develop intellectual skills differently than we do physical skills.

.

Ah. NO. There is Always an underlying principle. YOu clearly have such a little understanding of how as humans, we learn differently from individual to individual. Just like physical skills, intellectual skills are learned first through an understanding of what to do, and then repetition to refine the skill set. How we gain that understanding differs from person to person, but it is a critical section of the learning process, for without it you cannot learn to be self critical and further direct your own learning without the presence of someone to tell you when you do it wrong..

Without that initial understanding of what is to be done, "the concept" of the task, the person will not progress quickly at all.

[KPM]

No. You are taught to box -- you learn the skill -- from a trainer (that includes the mechanics, the actions, the tactics, etc.). IOWs, this is what you want to do, this is how to do it, etc. Then you practice using that skill. And through practice, you get better.

.

Let's picture two guys that go to your trainer to learn to box. Bob is kind of mentally slow. He rode the short bus to school as a kid. Fred works as a stock-broker and graduated first in his class. Bob does everything the trainer tells him to do and is good a copying his movements. So he slowly learns how to box through the experience of doing it and having it "programmed" into his muscle memory. Fred follows the same route. But rather than just knowing the "how" he also picks up on the "why". He gets good at the strategies and ringmanship needed to win fights. Now what separates these two fighters? Both would have the same trainer and the same training experience.........I would say that it was the grasping and understanding of underlying concepts that make Fred a superior boxer to Bob. So sure, developing physical skills is different from developing intellectual understanding. But intellectual understanding can certainly improve your application of those physical skills. To me, it just seems silly that someone would argue that concepts are unimportant to something as complex and developed as WCK. But that's just me! I'll do ;) instead of :rolleyes:

[k gledhill]

Just looking through a lot of these posts, I am not seeing anything much on strategy really. Wedging in, ducking, slipping, offense, and defense are techniques, and ways of grouping techniques. Strategy is about when and where to employ techniques.

A strategy is a plan for a portion of a fight to the whole fight based on clear reasoning as to why a particular set of techniques or a specific implementation of techniques gives one the best chance to win.


my sentiments....in WWI the Germans would set up machine guns on either end of a trench, so they could cut down any line of attacks coming at them. The idea was to isoalte either end of an advancing line [ 2 arms] from the other, by firing at the isolated ends of soldiers. The main body couldnt fire on the machine guns because they couldnt turn and face quickly enough...either side...if the Germans had set up directly in front and pivoted side to side they would be firing on 1 1/2 while the other 1/2 remained unoccupied with bullets and could easily fire back regardless of what side the MG aimed...all the while the line advanced upon the machine guns positions , resulting in getting run over [ grappled/ shoot] .


Imagine VT as having this idea . to allow the advance but adopt a counter [MG] on the side that extended or came first...iow we didvide the body in 1/2 by a line and train to respond to the side that comes at us first, to isolate its partners ability to reach us with sufficient force to make it a worry.

Now we have more to use than simple shifting and firing, we can grab and turn the line physically so it cant face us, we can feint to draw movement to a position we no longer maintain, due to the force generated to do this the ability to stop momentum and reface us is too slow and we gain advantages...

following me T ? I know all fantasy WWI never happened , and 1000's of guys never died from this simple idea ...

Its called a Tactic, starts with T like Terence the confused....

theres more detail to VT but its late and Im back from training and old and tired :D

If we use chi-sao as role playing with the potential for tan sao to be this 'leading extension of force' and step...we can use it to move at certain angles, as it happens so we develop reactions to lines of force from left or right...we later make it random so each player can deliver or respond to attacking entry or counter attacking entry, with balance shifting in motion using distance to strike, parrying, timing, all in unison with...tactical ideas.
We can add the movement to encompass lateral shifts to entry, angles, etc..making the players respond instinctively to random entry retreat etc..while attempting to maintain optimal positions for our tactics.
If the entry fails we can adopt facing 'trenches' and hurl abuse back and forth ....; )

oddly enough the VT knives adopt this tactical flanking idea, several 100 years before WWI ..go figure.

[YungChun]

Conrolling while striking is fine but not exclusive to VT...

To me the core VT strategy that binds most other VT's tactics (C&S) together with a common thread is simply VT's "Centerline Theory" for lack of a better term as well as Forward Spring Energy... The use of the centerline (different names and uses among different lineages) runs through most of VT's tactics and techniques as spatial reference point and comes to life when you apply VT's forward spring energy from the core VT mechanics.

[t_niehoff]

Let's picture two guys that go to your trainer to learn to box. Bob is kind of mentally slow. He rode the short bus to school as a kid. Fred works as a stock-broker and graduated first in his class. Bob does everything the trainer tells him to do and is good a copying his movements. So he slowly learns how to box through the experience of doing it and having it "programmed" into his muscle memory. Fred follows the same route. But rather than just knowing the "how" he also picks up on the "why". He gets good at the strategies and ringmanship needed to win fights. Now what separates these two fighters? Both would have the same trainer and the same training experience.........I would say that it was the grasping and understanding of underlying concepts that make Fred a superior boxer to Bob. So sure, developing physical skills is different from developing intellectual understanding. But intellectual understanding can certainly improve your application of those physical skills. To me, it just seems silly that someone would argue that concepts are unimportant to something as complex and developed as WCK. But that's just me! I'll do ;) instead of :rolleyes:

Keith, the "why" isn't "a concept" -- again, this is just fuzzy thinking at work. You guys WANT to believe in "concepts" as though by having your concepts you have some advantage. But "concepts" are a fantasy. There are no "underlying concepts" -- so how can you "know" them? You are only fooling yourself.

Concepts are part of the theoretical nonfighter mentality.

WCK is no more complicated than wrestling, and they don't use "concepts" to teach wrestling. They show you what to do, how to do it, explain why it works (hint: leverage, momentum, timing, etc.), etc.

[t_niehoff]

Now I understand, the way you do WC does not involve thinking :eek: Also, I am apparently guilty of the dread condition called "fuzzy thinking". I guess it is a good thing I now live in the Peach State.............just in case you missed it T, Peaches are fuzzy :p

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Perhaps you should write a book and title it: Wing Chun for Dummies :D

WCK does involve thinking, only in its proper place.

There is a skill development cycle. You begin with DOING it, performance, trying to accomplish the task. Then you get feedback in various forms. Next you reflect on that feedback. Then you try DOING it again. And the cycle continues.

[k gledhill]

T is confused :D

[t_niehoff]

Conrolling while striking is fine but not exclusive to VT...


Nothing in fighting is exclusive to any art. WCK has its own approach, that's all.



To me the core VT strategy that binds most other VT's tactics (C&S) together with a common thread is simply VT's "Centerline Theory" for lack of a better term


Tell me clearly what that "centerline theory" is.



as well as Forward Spring Energy...


I would say that to control an opponent (the WCK way) we need to use a certain, specific type of body mechanics, where the body axcts very much like a spring.



The use of the centerline (different names and uses among different lineages) runs through most of VT's tactics and techniques as spatial reference point and comes to life when you apply VT's forward spring energy from the core VT mechanics.

How do you "use" the centerline? Do you also use "the left"? And "the right"? ;)

[t_niehoff]

T is confused :D

I am confused why so many people believe that they need imaginary "concepts" to learn or develop skill in WCK.

[Graham H]

I am confused why so many people believe that they need imaginary "concepts" to learn or develop skill in WCK.

Correct Terence!!!!.......you are confused and this is because you haven't been in contact with certain other methods of Ving Tsun so how can you possibly understand????:cool:

GH

[YungChun]

Tell me clearly what that "centerline theory" is.


It relates to owning the shortest path to his core... Of course we've discussed this off-line and you pretty much know, or I think you do, where I am at.. This was always a core part of the method for me.

For me all or most of the techniques, in addition to "qualities" like the spring, all connect to this method of owning this path to energize his core, to attach to it, to coin a phrase.. ;)

For training purposes it works very well IMO... Most all the techniques use the line, leave the line, return to the line, in different ways allowing us to connect/energize/break down and destroy his core..



How do you "use" the centerline? Do you also use "the left"? And "the right"? ;)

:p

Well I want to own the centerline... Where centerline refers to a 3D area of space between myself and my opponent's core or COM.. Again most VT tools and techniques occupy this position, leave and return to this location which of course is a direct path to his core..

The Kuit does reference the centerline as you know as well.. Moreover most other arts do not use/emphasize this line/area of attack like VT does, it's all over the place..... VT often attacks using this path to his center even if guarded, even if not open to, as you would say, gain an attachment like few other arts do.

I can't think of a more direct and simple and accurate way to reference what most of the techniques are doing other than saying we own the center... In training it makes things very intuitive that might otherwise not be...

This means using that space that path to get directly to his core... The spring energy goes directly into his COM..

Resistance to this attack will typically "leave" this path, which accounts for a multitude of actions, more than "left theory" could cover.. ;) The techniques make use of that resistance, which "leaves" to control him while going with or borrowing his radial power as we keep our power and attacks focused and vectored to his COM, hammer the nail, etc... (little bit of snake there? lol)

It's what I do...

[t_niehoff]

Correct Terence!!!!.......you are confused and this is because you haven't been in contact with certain other methods of Ving Tsun so how can you possibly understand????:cool:

GH

As I and others have told you and Kevin, what Bayer teaches is just one aspect of WCK -- yes, it is PART of the overall method. But what you don't want to accept is that it is not the ONLY part. There is more to WCK.

[KPM]

Keith, the "why" isn't "a concept" -- again, this is just fuzzy thinking at work.

---The "why" doesn't involve intellectual analysis? The "why" doesn't involve a ability to reason and extrapolate and come up with new applications based on that "why"? Isn't Fred a better boxer than Bob because he can analyze and adapt what he has been taught to "make it his own" while Bob just copies his trainer and takes his lumps? Doesn't all of this require thinking and therefore the use of "concepts"?



WCK is no more complicated than wrestling, and they don't use "concepts" to teach wrestling. They show you what to do, how to do it, explain why it works (hint: leverage, momentum, timing, etc.), etc.

----Does not explaining to someone the use and application of leverage, momentum, timing, etc. involve the use of language and thinking and therefore.....concepts?

[Graham H]

As I and others have told you and Kevin, what Bayer teaches is just one aspect of WCK -- yes, it is PART of the overall method. But what you don't want to accept is that it is not the ONLY part. There is more to WCK.

OK. If you say so.

GH

[t_niehoff]

It relates to owning the shortest path to his core... Of course we've discussed this off-line and you pretty much know, or I think you do, where I am at.. This was always a core part of the method for me.


Do you see a problem when you can tell me what the theory "relates too", but you can't tell me succinctly and precisely what the theory is?

If you want to drive a nail into a board with a hammer, do you need a "centerline" theory to tell you how to do that? I bet you can tell me exactly what you need to do to drive the nail (align the nail, hit the nail on center, etc.) directly from your experience driving nails.



For me all or most of the techniques, in addition to "qualities" like the spring, all connect to this method of owning this path to energize his core, to attach to it, to coin a phrase.. ;)


You can't drive the nail without "owning" the path of the hammer to the nail, can you?



For training purposes it works very well IMO... Most all the techniques use the line, leave the line, return to the line, in different ways allowing us to connect/energize/break down and destroy his core..


So what you are saying is that to drive the nail, you need to hit on the line between the hammer and the nail?



Well I want to own the centerline... Where centerline refers to a 3D area of space between myself and my opponent's core or COM.. Again most VT tools and techniques occupy this position, leave and return to this location which of course is a direct path to his core..


Ok, so the centerline is the line between our centers.

How is that a theory or concept? Isn't that just a reference?



The Kuit does reference the centerline as you know as well.. Moreover most other arts do not use/emphasize this line/area of attack like VT does, it's all over the place..... VT often attacks using this path to his center even if guarded, even if not open to, as you would say, gain an attachment like few other arts do.


Instead of thinking of this as a "theory" or "principle" or "concept", let's look at it from a practical POV. What do you want to do? Hit his center with your center, right? Why? Because that will break his structure. And why do you want to do that? To get control. And what do you need to do to hit his center with your center? You need certain tools, a certain body structure, etc. It's all very straightforward.



I can't think of a more direct and simple and accurate way to reference what most of the techniques are doing other than saying we own the center... In training it makes things very intuitive that might otherwise not be...


Why not just say "this is what you want to do", "this is how you do it", etc.?



This means using that space that path to get directly to his core... The spring energy goes directly into his COM..

Resistance to this attack will typically "leave" this path and the techniques make use of that resistance, which "leaves" to control him by keeping our power focused and vectored to his COM, while going with or borrowing his power, etc...

It's what I do...

So, what you are saying is that WCK's method focuses on hitting and controlling the opponent's center with your center, and that you use a certain spring-like mechanic as a basis for powering that striking and control?

[YungChun]

Do you see a problem when you can tell me what the theory "relates too", but you can't tell me succinctly and precisely what the theory is?

Just take out "relates to"... and replace it with it means...



If you want to drive a nail into a board with a hammer, do you need a "centerline" theory to tell you how to do that?

But the board does not resist... A good deal of the usefulness of the centerline whatever you want to call it is to allow us to see what the opponent does, how he resists in relation to this space..and energy.. He leaves... We help him leave, etc..



I bet you can tell me exactly what you need to do to drive the nail (align the nail, hit the nail on center, etc.) directly from your experience driving nails.

Sure but when the opponent resists then all kinds of things can happen... It is in part this dynamic interaction that is being addressed... How can I deal with this kind of resistance? Etc.. Is addressed wrt the center...



You can't drive the nail without "owning" the path of the hammer to the nail, can you?

Nope.



So what you are saying is that to drive the nail, you need to hit on the line between the hammer and the nail?

Yes but more, we are looking at how to deal with and use resistance when that line is not open or they attempt to close it, etc...



Ok, so the centerline is the line between our centers.

How is that a theory or concept? Isn't that just a reference?

Yes you could say VT uses a centerline reference and come to think of it--it does sound less goofy...



So, what you are saying is that WCK's method focuses on hitting and controlling the opponent's center with your center, and that you use a certain spring-like mechanic as a basis for powering that striking and control?

Yes in part.

[t_niehoff]

OK. If you say so.


Not because I say so, but because anyone can see it for themselves if they bother to look.

[TenTigers]

if a student understands the concepts, then he can make his own adjustments and corrections in his training, without the teacher having to keep making the same corrections. Once you get the why's and the how's of something, you have an understanding of it, and can develop on your own. Sure, you can develop as a fighter through mindless repetition, but how far?

[Graham H]

Not because I say so, but because anyone can see it for themselves if they bother to look.

I have looked in many places over many years and many Sifu. Didn't I already say that before???

GH

[hunt1]

[To me the core VT strategy that binds most other VT's tactics (C&S) together with a common thread is simply VT's "Centerline Theory" for lack of a better term


No this is not a strategy. It is a principal you attempt to employ and a goal you strive to obtain through the use of a strategy. It is not a strategy in and of itself .

[chusauli]

oddly enough the VT knives adopt this tactical flanking idea, several 100 years before WWI ..go figure.

This was all described in Sun Zi's Art of War long before Germans and VT.

Even the Blitzkrieg methods of which the Germans used in 1939-1941 against Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and France were also in Sun Zi.

Blitkrieg tactics interestingly, did not work against Britain and Russia. Britain used a strong defense and Germany didn't have enough resources to overtake the Brits. Russia made Germany keep chasing them and in the end, they overextended themselves.

These are good methods to learn and apply in one on one combat.

[chusauli]

I will say that Terence's use of terminology is very precise and has merit.

And when he says things are "BS", there is some merit in that, too. It makes you think that overall attachment to the concepts is not better than training hard, applying what you learn at the moment. In this way, actions are better than words.

I have been one to use the terms "concepts", "principles", "theory" in the past. But I do see logic in what he says of his careful use of terminology.

[shawchemical]

This was all described in Sun Zi's Art of War long before Germans and VT.

Even the Blitzkrieg methods of which the Germans used in 1939-1941 against Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and France were also in Sun Zi.

Blitkrieg tactics interestingly, did not work against Britain and Russia. Britain used a strong defense and Germany didn't have enough resources to overtake the Brits. Russia made Germany keep chasing them and in the end, they overextended themselves.

These are good methods to learn and apply in one on one combat.

No. Blitzkreig did work. Unfortunately, rather than finishing one foe off before attacking another, hitler decided to fight russia.

[chusauli]

No. Blitzkreig did work. Unfortunately, rather than finishing one foe off before attacking another, hitler decided to fight russia.

Yes, it would have worked if his forces were not divided.

[Wayfaring]

No. Blitzkreig did work. Unfortunately, rather than finishing one foe off before attacking another, hitler decided to fight russia.

So the defense to Blitzkreig is to open the front door of your house, the back door of your house, and step aside to let them blow right through, right? :D

[TenTigers]

I will say that Terence's use of terminology is very precise and has merit.

And when he says things are "BS", there is some merit in that, too. It makes you think that overall attachment to the concepts is not better than training hard, applying what you learn at the moment. In this way, actions are better than words.

I have been one to use the terms "concepts", "principles", "theory" in the past. But I do see logic in what he says of his careful use of terminology.

I think it's more that some people get wrapped up in discussing "theory," "concepts" and "principles," preferring to intellectualize about it, rather than getting in there and doing the actual sweating, bruising and bleeding.
Sort of like posting on an internet forum...
um..ok,
I'll shut up now...:o

[KPM]

Hi Robert!


I will say that Terence's use of terminology is very precise and has merit.

---Up to a point...I agree. But Terence tends to take things a little "overboard." He wants everything to be black and white in a gray world. Martial arts and fighting have too many human variables to be as black and white as T wants to make it.


It makes you think that overall attachment to the concepts is not better than training hard, applying what you learn at the moment. In this way, actions are better than words.

---That's true. But that's not the same as saying that there are NO concepts involved and that concepts are not useful or necessary!


I have been one to use the terms "concepts", "principles", "theory" in the past. But I do see logic in what he says of his careful use of terminology.

---I do as well, but again, only up to a certain point. To try to argue that there are no "concepts" in WCK just seems silly to me.

[jesper]

Blitkrieg tactics interestingly, did not work against Britain and Russia. Britain used a strong defense and Germany didn't have enough resources to overtake the Brits. Russia made Germany keep chasing them and in the end, they overextended themselves.


Eh not correct but this isnt the right forum to discus this

[Sihing73]

Russia made Germany keep chasing them and in the end, they overextended themselves.
These are good methods to learn and apply in one on one combat.

Hello Robert,

I was always under the impression that the Russian Winter was what gave Hitler the most trouble. Now if we could only harness the weather to aide our Wing Chun ;)

[Vajramusti]

Hello Robert,

I was always under the impression that the Russian Winter was what gave Hitler the most trouble. Now if we could only harness the weather to aide our Wing Chun ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Zhukov and others were great- but the USSR paid a very heavy price in loss of man power.''much more so than the other Allies.

joy chaudhuri

[k gledhill]

agreed, Britain had the English channel as a natural barrier, the Russians had human bodies as a natural barrier...

[shawchemical]

So the defense to Blitzkreig is to open the front door of your house, the back door of your house, and step aside to let them blow right through, right? :D

That's kind of the point isn't it. There was no defence which the brits could mount which woudl realistically prevent the blitzkreig.

The only reason england survived was a terribly poor choice by the opposing commander.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The reason why the Brits survived was the same reason why the Russians survived. They were up against a mad man who decided to ignore all of successful military history and fight two wars simultaneously on two fronts - each of which bordered his country on the east and the west. Is there any bigger formula for potential disaster? And while completely underestimating the United States - which history should have told him was bound to enter the war on the side of the Allies and attack from the west.

Hitler was akin to a barking, vicious, rabid dog - seriously dangerous but ultimately doomed to annihilation.

[chusauli]

Getting back to strategies, there are more.

- Progressive destruction - in this method, you injure the limbs (particularly the legs), so the opponent cannot move or dance, and you have broken down his mobility

- Use of environment - This strategy is to use the environment to aid you in shutting down the opponent - guide him into walls, corners, lamp posts, hydrants, so they obstruct or trip your opponent, then close in and get to work.

Anyone else?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I like the strategy in my sig, everything I do leads to it or stems from it.
I call it the "Moore/Marciano/Tyson" approach to combat :D

[m1k3]

Weapons of opportunity. I think this is different than environment but it is similar.

When I was in the Marines, almost as long ago as Phil, this was one of the main things they taught. You are surrounded by potential weapons that can be thrown, enhance you reach or use as a force multiplier or even distract.

Your voice can be used the same way. Remember diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" while looking for a rock.

[chusauli]

There was a bar scene in Ong Bak where the guy was a master of that! I loved that!

[TenTigers]

has anyone read, "Shibumi?"

[sanjuro_ronin]

has anyone read, "Shibumi?"

I once killed a man with a drinking straw too, but you don't see me writing books about it !

[TenTigers]

you can kill a man with a raisin too.




-of course you need to first tape it to the bumper of a truck...

[sanjuro_ronin]

you can kill a man with a raisin too.




-of course you need to first tape it to the bumper of a truck...

Wow, just like I did with the drinking straw, who would have thought !

[chusauli]

Drinking straw? That's nothing. I can do it with a sheet of paper...

[Niersun]

Vic, I have not said anything contradictory.

From Chinese martial arts standards what is the base?

If the delivery system (i.e. body structure) is using a boxing or kickboxing platform, it's not WCK. WCK is very specific - YJKYM, kua/hips/pelvis power the arms to strike the target. Any raised heel, jumping dancing shuffle used in boxing or Muay Thai, its not WCK. It has a different signature.

JKD is not WCK, although it borrows many tools from WCK. A look at the horse (or lack of one) and we know it is not.

Do you disagree?

Look at my reason: I think your tactic is sound in fighting, but its not WCK, its a delivery system (a trojan horse, if you will...) to get you into WCK, but that is not WCK. We have to have some criteria in which to define it.

Believe it or not, i was taught TWC with a raised rear heel with my rear foot pointing forward and to be on the balls of your feet (still 50/50), very different to others around me at my Kwoon, even when doing footwork training, others would look at me and i knew what they were thinking "Why is his feet like that".

The TWC i was taught has shuffling, this is a half step.

As you know the common term is horse, we are taught to step like a horse (You ever see those olympic horse riding sports where the horse trotts, well thats how i was taught). Like anything, It takes training in this to become fluid and turn it to shuffling.

The argument is Wing Chun is not kickboxing vice versa, but what is kickboxing. Competition fighting using kicks and punches. You dont have to be a orthodox kickboxer to be under the banner of Kickboxer and to compete.

I guess i was taught differently as my intentions were different to others.

[Niersun]

In addition, i think when you start too add grappling, i.e. BJJ and wrestling, then thats where it stops being WCK.

WCK is supposed to be simplistic, not to oppose force with force and has an a aim to shut down your opponent and end the fight as quick as possible.

When you start grappling, then this defeats the purpose of Chi Sao and your then fighting force with force. I beleive your student Terence advocates that Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense.

Just my 2 cents. Please debunk anything i write as to open up eyes to what Terence has stated.

[jesper]

In addition, i think when you start too add grappling, i.e. BJJ and wrestling, then thats where it stops being WCK.

WCK is supposed to be simplistic, not to oppose force with force and has an a aim to shut down your opponent and end the fight as quick as possible.

When you start grappling, then this defeats the purpose of Chi Sao and your then fighting force with force. I beleive your student Terence advocates that Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense.

Just my 2 cents. Please debunk anything i write as to open up eyes to what Terence has stated.

two things

1) although im still very much a beginner in bjj I have met very little of fighting force with force. if anything you try and use skills to overcome your opponent very much like in WCK

2) have you tried using WCK on the ground against good grapplers lately and please tell me how you fared. So why not take something that works in that enviroment instead of reinventing the wheel

[anerlich]

When you start grappling, then this defeats the purpose of Chi Sao and your then fighting force with force. I beleive your student Terence advocates that Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense.


BJJ is not about fighting force with force. BJJ is about the use of leverage to overcome brute strength, and using your opponent's reactions against them.

Fighting effectively without using force against force is the goal but is not always possible in practice. I think the most effective use of force is what we are trying to do.

Terence would have been incorrect on this occasion if that's exactly what he said. He has been wrong about other things.

I agree that the goals of wrestling/BJJ and chi sao are not the same.

[Nite Templar]

Wing Chun is wing chun, bjj is bjj, wrestling is wrestling, boxing is boxing, mt is mt. And chi sao is not grappling or wrestling, as someone has said.There may be similarities, but they are essentially different, it seems to me.

If you want to grapple or wrestle, then study that. If you want to put it together with your wing chun later, okay. But to look for grappling or wrestling within your chi sao is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't make any sense, I don't think.

[Niersun]

two things

1) although im still very much a beginner in bjj I have met very little of fighting force with force. if anything you try and use skills to overcome your opponent very much like in WCK

2) have you tried using WCK on the ground against good grapplers lately and please tell me how you fared. So why not take something that works in that enviroment instead of reinventing the wheel

How am i reinventing the wheel? Please explain.

I could answer your questions but i cant be bothered really.

[m1k3]

How am i reinventing the wheel? Please explain.

I could answer your questions but i cant be bothered really.

He was confused with your previous post and so was I. It could be read as WC has grappling in it or WC does not have grappling in it.

Going in the same vein is chin-na part of WC or is it a separate skill that is added on?

[chusauli]

In addition, i think when you start too add grappling, i.e. BJJ and wrestling, then thats where it stops being WCK.

WCK is supposed to be simplistic, not to oppose force with force and has an a aim to shut down your opponent and end the fight as quick as possible.

When you start grappling, then this defeats the purpose of Chi Sao and your then fighting force with force. I beleive your student Terence advocates that Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense.

Just my 2 cents. Please debunk anything i write as to open up eyes to what Terence has stated.

Niersun,

I didn't realize you were addressing this to me.

Basically, if you want to understand Terence's perspective, then you should train WCK for 30 years and spend ten of that trying to make your WCK work in MMA -- by training at MMA and MT gyms. Then you might begin to understand him.

Terence has repeatedly stated he was not that good, just that he trains against resisting opponents with a realistic POV. He has also stated on this forum that he has on many occasions, gotten his ass kicked, which is very real and honest. I have not seen him post here that "Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense".

[KPM]

I have not seen him post here that "Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense".

I agree. I believe Terence has said that Wing Chun IS grappling....but not in the BJJ/wrestling sense. I think he meant that Wing Chun is about controlling the opponent via attaching to him. So in a basic sense, this is grappling. But it is not ground-fighting like BJJ or throwing and pinning like wrestling.

[anerlich]

Basically, if you want to understand Terence's perspective, then you should train WCK for 30 years and spend ten of that trying to make your WCK work in MMA -- by training at MMA and MT gyms. Then you might begin to understand him.

Been there, done that. So has my instructor and a number of my training buds. T's no unique and beautiful snowflake either, nor is he any sort of pioneer.


Terence has repeatedly stated he was not that good, just that he trains against resisting opponents with a realistic POV. He has also stated on this forum that he has on many occasions, gotten his ass kicked, which is very real and honest.

Real and honest perhaps, exceptional not. You don't learn if you're beating all your training partners, and need to seek out people better than you to grow. Not that this is revelatory. I was told I would "learn by losing" at my first BJJ class.


I have not seen him post here that "Wing Chun is grappling in BJJ/Wrestling sense".

I don't think he actually said that either.

[chusauli]

Been there, done that. So has my instructor and a number of my training buds. T's no unique and beautiful snowflake either, nor is he any sort of pioneer.



Real and honest perhaps, exceptional not. You don't learn if you're beating all your training partners, and need to seek out people better than you to grow. Not that this is revelatory. I was told I would "learn by losing" at my first BJJ class.



I don't think he actually said that either.


Whereas I don't think T's ever defined himself as a "unique and beautiful snowflake" or "pioneer" either, what he was advocating was using an approach of entering, merging with opponent's COG, displacing/controlling opponent's COG, and striking with WCK tools, as opposed to MT, kickboxing, or boxing tools. And going back to this thread, described above is a WCK strategy.

Finally, I don't speak for him, nor did he for me.

[YouKnowWho]

Is WC a grappling art? There was a thread in another forum discuss "the definition of grappling."

http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10867&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=definition+of+grappling

[anerlich]

Finally, I don't speak for him

LOL, you just did in post #202.


Is WC a grappling art? There was a thread in another forum discuss "the definition of grappling."

http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10867&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=definition+of+grappling

That forum looks even worse than this one at debating nonessential minutae and the obvious to absurd levels.

[YouKnowWho]

That forum looks even worse than this one at debating nonessential minutae and the obvious to absurd levels.

I don't know which one is worse?

- snake engine, 6 directions force vector, levitate, huajing, ...
- animal energies, dantien rotation, hiding the center, tuck and untuck the cocyx, ...

[YungChun]

Well, thank God the uber unpopular Terence was banned.. Now everyone can post about what they think he would have said, or meant, ad infinitum and why... Good thing no one was interested in his opinions since repeatedly posting about him now might qualify him for inclusion in the unique and beautiful banned snowflake society..

Let's see if the Mods will be consistent with their trusty delete key as thread after thread goes off topic now.. Or perhaps only dog posts and specific topics/content/posters get that reaction... :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

repeatedly posting about him now might qualify him for inclusion in the unique and beautiful banned snowflake society

I can send you a membership form if you want ...

[chusauli]

LOL, you just did in post #202.



Andrew,

You seem more ornery than usual. You forget in post 202, I was addressing Niersun.

I wasn't speaking for T, but saying that if someone wanted to know his perspective, they would need to put in the same work he did.

I think you secretly miss him and you want to argue with him. :) Here's his email address:

tniehoff@gmail.com

[anerlich]

You seem more ornery than usual.

Nah, about the same.


think you secretly miss him and you want to argue with him. Here's his email address:

tniehoff@gmail.com

You are incorrect about what I want. However, Jim might want the address, so it's good you posted it.

[YungChun]

I love the irony here.. Actually I have his email address as do several people here who have discussed things off-line with him... Shocking isn't it?