What are your favorite WC techniques?

[Phil Redmond]

Ok, I give the credit to this thread to Andrew aka anerlch. I got the idea from him.
But it would be nice to see each others approaches to various situations. I'll post my ideas to certain situations in some clips real soon.

[Vajramusti]

Favorite? Depends on context....
Isn't that so?

joy

[YouKnowWho]

The WC Tan Shou is simpliar to Taiji Peng. The WC Fu Shou is simpliar to Mantis Diao. Both can be used in many different ways.

[Phil Redmond]

Favorite? Depends on context....
Isn't that so?

joy

Fighters do have favorite techniques for certain situations. I know I do. Now that doesn't mean the certain situations will be available all the time. But all humans have a favorite something.

[Graham H]

The Ving Tsun punch of course!!!!;)

[couch]

I find myself using a few top tool in sparring:
Punch
Pak
Jum
Bong

[Saboi Osmosis]

turning punch and the kicks

[stonecrusher69]

I don't believe I have a favorite technique. I don't really think in those terms. I just use whatever I need at that moment. I like them all..

[PalmStriker]

"Little cannon".:)

[k gledhill]

The right punch... like the man said , when i started VT a punch was just a punch, then i discovered there was a lot more to it and a punch wasn't a simple punch anymore, after a reprogramming, training, sweat, it became a simple punch again :D

[IRONMONK]

chain punch with step

I know some call it Caveman(low level) wing chun but it has saved me a few times in street attacks

[YungChun]

The one that fits in with the moment.

[LSWCTN1]

tok/palm or jin choi

[Phil Redmond]

How about we go with certain attacks? Let's start with a jab, hook/round punch to the head from the opponent's lead arm.

[chusauli]

The ones that land and shut off an opponent's delivery base are the best techniques.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Low cross kick to the inside of the knee.

[LoneTiger108]

Low cross kick to the inside of the knee.

Can you use that in competition? ;) And that is a signature dish of basic Wing Chun imho! I like to follow this with our low side kick to the inside of the other knee while covering the top with quansau :D

Something for the MMA crowds to think about.

[Vajramusti]

Something for the MMA crowds to think about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That will only bring about a MMA response? Why say that?

joy chaudhuri

[Eric_H]

That will only bring about a MMA response? Why say that?


I'm with Joy on this one.

Unless you're snapping leg bone strength twigs with your kicks, probably not an attack thats going to do a lot. (Yes i know its ideally to the side of the knee which is weaker in many instances).

[CFT]

It is easier to blow a joint than snap a bone. But they have to be bearing weight on that limb.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Can you use that in competition? ;) And that is a signature dish of basic Wing Chun imho! I like to follow this with our low side kick to the inside of the other knee while covering the top with quansau :D

Something for the MMA crowds to think about.

Can you use it?
Yes of course, where low kicks are legal.
I have and with some degree of effectiveness, but it is a kick that truly lends itself to shoes/boots, the difference is quite astounding.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It has nothing to do with snapping or breaking a bone or joint, though that should be the "intent" be hind it.
Just like hooking the ribs or right cross to the jaw has nothing to do with breaking those parts, though that should be the intent.

[LoneTiger108]

That will only bring about a MMA response? Why say that?

I was in a confrontational mood lasy night Joy! But I'm sure most guys here will be fine with the comment, MMA peeps or not.


Can you use it?

I would like to think so, but I'm pretty out of shape at the moment. :o


I have and with some degree of effectiveness, but it is a kick that truly lends itself to shoes/boots, the difference is quite astounding.

Agreed. Nothing like a pair of British DMs to add weaponry to the feet :D

[Phil Redmond]

The ones that land and shut off an opponent's delivery base are the best techniques.
You and your logic....:D

[YungChun]

Can you use that in competition? ;) And that is a signature dish of basic Wing Chun imho! I like to follow this with our low side kick to the inside of the other knee while covering the top with quansau :D

Something for the MMA crowds to think about.

Using leg kicks while covering passively with both hands/arms? On the inside?

Not a signature of VT IMO.

The MMA guys would say something like this: "Yes of course you do..."

[chusauli]

You and your logic....:D

That's what WCK did to me.

Yip Man's secret was that WCK made him smarter.

[LoneTiger108]

Using leg kicks while covering passively with both hands/arms? On the inside?

Not a signature of VT IMO.

Quansau with a low side kick is not signature of Wing Chun? I beg to differ. ;)

Having/holding posture while applying legwork is a must imo, as each posture compliments the leg. Some work better than others imo and may be a reason that a kicking set/form was developed, to express this idea.


The MMA guys would say something like this: "Yes of course you do..."

And I would listen to MMA guys tell me about my Wing Chun because... ?

[YouKnowWho]

One of my favor WC technique that I like is similiar to the Taiji "cross leg - reverse side kick". Instead of kicking 45 degree into your opponent's knee, you use the inside of your foot edge to slide down along your opponent's shin bone.

[YungChun]

Quansau with a low side kick is not signature of Wing Chun? I beg to differ. ;)

Having/holding posture while applying legwork is a must imo, as each posture compliments the leg. Some work better than others imo and may be a reason that a kicking set/form was developed, to express this idea.


The posture compliments the leg... Well it depends on how she moves I guess...

In VT if we are in close we will be using our tools to break him down and strike him while we use our legs not simply covering....

The invisible kick, when we kick we have three legs on the ground, etc... That's VT.



And I would listen to MMA guys tell me about my Wing Chun because... ?


If you were sparring with them I am sure they could tell you all kinds of useful things.... Sadly not the case... But in any event you brought it up.

[LoneTiger108]

The posture compliments the leg... Well it depends on how she moves I guess...

In VT if we are in close we will be using our tools to break him down and strike him while we use our legs not simply covering....

The invisible kick, when we kick we have three legs on the ground, etc... That's VT.

Man, what is your issue with my posts these days? :(

I simply responded to sanjuro's fav tech and you jump on my use of quansau and how MMA guys would just dismiss the idea and now you're trying to teach me what your VT is??!! I applaud your enthusiasm for your VT, but it's pretty obvious we're on different sides of the coin.


If you were sparring with them I am sure they could tell you all kinds of useful things.... Sadly not the case... But in any event you brought it up.

Sorry, but if and when I do spar there definitely is no talking. You threw the MMA towel at me because you took the bait Joy identified, but hey! Each to their own.

[Vajramusti]

No one for a wing chun version of monkey steals peaches?

[CFT]

Would that be a variation of/combo with "gwai ma" (kneeling horse)?

[LoneTiger108]

That'll be Gwaima Biusau Cum Na Sik!!! :D With a roll off to finish...

[CFT]

Drum roll or bacon roll? :p

Must be lunchtime if I'm posting about food.

[LoneTiger108]

Bacon every time dude. But that's breakfast! Lunchtime is for wimps :D

[Frost]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That will only bring about a MMA response? Why say that?

joy chaudhuri

i would just like to point out that no one from the MMA crowd took the bait...although that still didnt stop people argueing about MMA on this thread :D

[LoneTiger108]

Arguments about MMA?? You must be reading a different thread :confused:

Just a difference of opinion between me and Yung Chun, who seems to approach his training with mainly sparring in mind. No biggie

[Graham H]

Arguments about MMA?? You must be reading a different thread :confused:

Just a difference of opinion between me and Yung Chun, who seems to approach his training with mainly sparring in mind. No biggie

In my lineage everything is a precursor to sparring. Sparring with the hands, with the long pole and with the knives. This is very important!!! Without it you have a system that cannot function under pressure. Prove me otherwise!!!

There are certain systems of WC that put more emphasis on forms and tradition but from my experience its the same as driving a car on the PS3 then thinkng you can drive a real car on the roads!!!

End of!!

GH

[Vajramusti]

i would just like to point out that no one from the MMA crowd took the bait...although that still didnt stop people argueing about MMA on this thread :D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MMA has it's own forum..except for Lone Tiger's comment there has been little discussion of mma on this thread - if memory serves.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

In my lineage everything is a precursor to sparring. Sparring with the hands, with the long pole and with the knives. This is very important!!! Without it you have a system that cannot function under pressure. Prove me otherwise!!!

Yes, I practised like that too although we always refer to sparring as an 'interaction'. Set by set in the early days and more freestyle as you gain confidence. We 'sparred' one against two with the pole until someone had their eyelid torn out and we realized there must be a 'safer' alternative.

You should put up some of this weaponry sparring for us to see what you mean. I think you're a bit keen to come across as a competent fighter when actually you're just playing around with sticks. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And your lineage is Sifu Bayer is it not?

[YungChun]

Just a difference of opinion between me and Yung Chun, who seems to approach his training with mainly sparring in mind.

Like anything else it should be about function and functionality...

This like saying so and so approaches his ping pong training with playing in mind. Yes that's what you do if you want to be good at ping pong, you focus on playing ping pong.

Instead of the theory of ping pong, the form of ping pong how great so and so's ping pong teacher was; how rarefied one's training of ping pong is; how powerful one's ping pong terms are; the best ping pong drills; how many years you should drill ping pong before actually playing it; what you would do if you actually had to play ping pong, etc..

[chusauli]

That's why I say, "Let function rule over form" and "Let application be your guide".

I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to "interpret" it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.

[Sihing73]

That's why I say, "Let function rule over form" and "Let application be your guide".

I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to "interpret" it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.

I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words. While one needs the words, the alphabet and rules of grammer are necessary in order for the individual letters to be combined in an understandable format to form words, sentences and paragraphs. Our techniques are like the alphabet and our forms are like the sentences and paragraphs which allow them to make sense and be useful and understanable to others, imho.

I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. Also once one truly understands the form then one can go outside of the box, much like some writers can ignore the rules of grammer and yet compose a bestseller. They are still using the same letters, but have made the expression their own.

[Phil Redmond]

Some may not like this but I've used it in full contact matches and I'd do it again if the situation was right to use it. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YsawCZ-MaA

[Phil Redmond]

I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words. While one needs the words, the alphabet and rules of grammer are necessary in order for the individual letters to be combined in an understandable format to form words, sentences and paragraphs. Our techniques are like the alphabet and our forms are like the sentences and paragraphs which allow them to make sense and be useful and understanable to others, imho.

I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. Also once one truly understands the form then one can go outside of the box, much like some writers can ignore the rules of grammer and yet compose a bestseller. They are still using the same letters, but have made the expression their own.
Not bad for an ex-cop from Philly.

[Phil Redmond]

I posted this clip before and someone said that we should try that at a boxing gym. Well, it is in a boxing gym with a former amateur boxer/WC Sifu throwing the punches. There's also a PROFESSIONAL boxer in the background coaching so we keep it real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4dzwaBeKxs&feature=related
Notice I teach not to chase hands. ;)

[Nite Templar]

Originally Posted by chusauli
That's why I say, "Let function rule over form" and "Let application be your guide".

I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to "interpret" it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.



I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words. While one needs the words, the alphabet and rules of grammer are necessary in order for the individual letters to be combined in an understandable format to form words, sentences and paragraphs. Our techniques are like the alphabet and our forms are like the sentences and paragraphs which allow them to make sense and be useful and understanable to others, imho.

I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications. Also once one truly understands the form then one can go outside of the box, much like some writers can ignore the rules of grammer and yet compose a bestseller. They are still using the same letters, but have made the expression their own.

I agree with this entirely. You learn the forms and then you try to interpret what's in the form through application. But forms don't come from application. That assumes that you already know what to apply, and then you make a form out of it. Now that's what I would call assbackwards. How could you already know? You learn the form first, you've probably been given some idea or explanation of how to apply what's in the form, but then it's up to you to try and apply what's in the form and see for yourself what works based upon what happens.

[anerlich]

Forms come from application, not vice versa.


I'm not sure I go along with that either.

Just about everyone says about the forms and dummy something like "you hardly use any of this the way it looks like you do." Some of the sequences in the forms make no sense from an application POV and if taken literally (if that's the right word) arguably violate other WC principles. And most people do SLT in a stance they say they would never use in a fight.

If WC forms came from application, IMO someone was smoking too much locoweed at the time.

IMO the best advice I was given about forms is they give you a vocabulary of techniques for solo practice. Don't try to read too much more into them than that.

We could discuss (yet again) whether forms have any value or not, but it appears some have felt the mention of the deadly cross kick side kick quan sao knee annihilator combo has "scared off the MMA crowd" or put them all in a trance of introspective crisis, and I wouldn't want to spoil that illusion .. :rolleyes:

[T.D.O]

I agree with the above...


Form's are just a way of practicing technique, not an application in sight.

[Vajramusti]

We have gone over issues related to the importance of forms many times before. Not likely to change many minds by debating.

Forms over time can add layers of skills- one upon another. Of course endless varieties of applications can be operationally discovered in the forms.
In application against objects or persons motions wont exactly look like their origins in the forms, because you are adjusting the motions to the structures and timings of the person(s) you face.

Forms. applications and experience are all important in learning wing chun IMO- though wing chun
is not the only game that is possible.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

That's why I say, "Let function rule over form" and "Let application be your guide".

I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to "interpret" it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.

I would agree with this in regards to other TCMA or Shaolin based forms, but not with Wing Chun imho.

I also speak and see a lot of teachers out there who use this motto "let function rule over form" & "let application be your guide" and can understand that in the right contaxt ie. you have already mastered your art and are now pursuing a competitive approach to training. But these terms again should not apply to Wing Chun, as we are not JKD or MMA.

Every form (of the commonly seen 3) is very specific in its intention and purpose. They assist us to build the foundation to our expression. Unlike the SaapYeeSik or Sansau approach many Sifu prefer to use.

And this thread really was intended for such 'technique' based discussion no? So let's see some names at least of common Wing Chun techniques instead of discussing the purpose of forms :D

Looking at the 108, Tan Da is repeated a few times, along with gaan, jut, tok, jum and toi sau so these should be common among us all imho.

[LoneTiger108]

We could discuss (yet again) whether forms have any value or not, but it appears some have felt the mention of the deadly cross kick side kick quan sao knee annihilator combo has "scared off the MMA crowd" or put them all in a trance of introspective crisis, and I wouldn't want to spoil that illusion .. :rolleyes:

Not my intention at all. Spoil all you like! I just added to a simple combo that works in any environment, like many more basic Wing Chun techniques imho. So then please share your favourites...

[YungChun]

I posted this clip before and someone said that we should try that at a boxing gym. Well, it is in a boxing gym with a former amateur boxer/WC Sifu throwing the punches. There's also a PROFESSIONAL boxer in the background coaching so we keep it real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4dzwaBeKxs&feature=related
Notice I teach not to chase hands. ;)

You realize that no boxer leads with a "round punch" or uppercut right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMVOTZ2bpk

Hooks and esp uppercuts are inside tools.

Let's see even one example of anyone in any actual fighting "blocking" using the same moves.

[YungChun]

I would need to disagree with this in part: The form should provide the guide or reference for the application. While the application needs to be present, you need a starting point or frame of reference for that application. This reference is found in the form. Much like each writen language has to have a common reference of letters with which to form words.


Yes that's right forms are like the alphabet...



I think that as one explores the forms and begins to understand them on a deeper level than one will be able to dsicover new and different applications.

But this is backwards for the same reason why skilled authors don't study the alphabet or grammar "more deeply" to learn how to write better books, they write and read to learn how to write better.

Just like one doesn't study ping pong form to get a deeper understanding of ping pong one plays ping pong to do that.

[GlennR]

[QUOTE=YungChun;1078086]You realize that no boxer leads with a "round punch" or uppercut right?

Wrong

[YungChun]

[QUOTE=YungChun;1078086]You realize that no boxer leads with a "round punch" or uppercut right?

Wrong
Very insightful.

Care to elaborate?

Are you saying that hooks and esp uppercuts are often outside leads?

Got clip? Let's see all those outside uppercuts in use!

[GlennR]

[QUOTE=GlennR;1078088]
Very insightful.

Care to elaborate?

Are you saying that hooks and esp uppercuts are often outside leads?

Got clip? Let's see all those outside uppercuts in use!

No less insightful than "never leads with..... "

Watch this hack lead with left hook after left hook.

Oh, and the scrub he's fighting actually does the same thing at a few points

[YungChun]

[QUOTE=YungChun;1078089]

No less insightful than "never leads with..... "

Watch this hack lead with left hook after left hook.

Oh, and the scrub he's fighting actually does the same thing at a few points

What are you talking about? What scrub? What hack? What is your point?

[GlennR]

[QUOTE=GlennR;1078090]

What are you talking about? What scrub? What hack? What is your point?

Sorry, forgoet to paste.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUlL8UyvWnU

[YungChun]

No uppercuts were thrown from the outside.. Proper hooks are tight and also not thrown from the outside..

Curvy long round shots are not proper hooks in my book and most boxers will set up hooks and uppercuts and they will normally come from the inside..

While some boxers might use footwork to get inside to throw a lead hook (Tyson) it will not happen from outside..nor will an uppercut..

The point is that these tools are mainly inside tools and blocking them is very low %, reaching for any punch will leave you open..

[GlennR]

No uppercuts were thrown from the outside.. Proper hooks are tight and also not thrown from the outside..

Curvy long round shots are not hooks in my book and most boxers will set up hooks and uppercuts and they will normally come from the inside..

While some boxers might use footwork to get inside to throw a lead hook (Tyson) it will not happen from outside..nor will an uppercut..

The point is that these tools are mainly inside tools and blocking them is very low %, reaching for them will leave you open..

No, you are just plain wrong and wont even acknowledge the video.

You said Lead, which in boxing means initial strike. How many times did Frazier have to do that in that video to show you that??

And "your book" has got nothing to do with actual boxing technique. Left lead hook is a fundamental technique which can be done at close to long range.
I suggest you google "left lead hook" and see for yourself.

Uppercuts are rarer and harder to use as a lead but can be effective against a shorter opponent that bobs & weaves.

Id suggest you re-examine your knowledge of boxing

[Phil Redmond]

No uppercuts were thrown from the outside.. Proper hooks are tight and also not thrown from the outside..

Curvy long round shots are not proper hooks in my book and most boxers will set up hooks and uppercuts and they will normally come from the inside..

While some boxers might use footwork to get inside to throw a lead hook (Tyson) it will not happen from outside..nor will an uppercut..

The point is that these tools are mainly inside tools and blocking them is very low %, reaching for any punch will leave you open..
First of all to say never isn't a good thing unless you've been in the fighting game personally and have seen all fighters. Also what we were doing was isolation drills starting from different points in time. We may start from a takedown even though takedowns are usually done after setups. Like I said before. Our guys do fight and are willing to test our skills against others especially in the NY area.
But, since you say that no uppercuts were thrown in that clip. Look at Ali around 2:44. Frazier did one around 2:50 ;)
What part of there was a PRO boxer in the background coaching did you not understand? We will be having another full contact event real soon. Your students are welcome to participate. It'd be good for all of us to see what works and what doesn't under pressure. It's amazing that people will say something never happens when I've seen it happen.

[YungChun]

No, you are just plain wrong and wont even acknowledge the video.

You said Lead, which in boxing means initial strike. How many times did Frazier have to do that in that video to show you that??

And "your book" has got nothing to do with actual boxing technique. Left lead hook is a fundamental technique which can be done at close to long range.
I suggest you google "left lead hook" and see for yourself.

Uppercuts are rarer and harder to use as a lead but can be effective against a shorter opponent that bobs & weaves.

Id suggest you re-examine your knowledge of boxing

We were discussing hooks and uppercuts...

Hooks..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4J45kF-mI

Are not normally used as a lead...

They are not really an outside entry tool and therefore not normally a lead. I don't care who does what. I never said no one ever did it or that scrubs don't do it or that so and so couldn't make it work, it can't happen, no, I didn't mean to make it black and white or say it never could happen..

The uppercut is certainly not a lead or outside tool as I said, again I don't care who does what. I never said it was never done but in general boxers don't do it, why because it's an inside tool.

However this is about blocking them and blocking them is low % especially inside where you can't see them.

[Phil Redmond]

Hmmm . . Lead hand uppercut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsKpxtOyyNA

[YungChun]

Hmmm . . Lead hand uppercut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsKpxtOyyNA

Like I said Phil I am not saying it can't, never was done, etc.. (if that was an UC) Is the exception the rule now?

You won't find many boxing coaches that would say an uppercut is an outside tool or lead...especially as classically taught...

Jab/Cross and variations are long tools, hooks middle range and upper cuts and shovel hooks are closer range.. The closer range tools are going to be seen less as leads..pretty simple.

And of course this has nothing to do with VT blocking them.

Yes you got me I shouldn't have said "never"... Never should apply to training passive VT blocking and hand chasing...

[GlennR]

We were discussing hooks and uppercuts...

Hooks..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4J45kF-mI

Are not normally used as a lead...

They are not really an outside entry tool and therefore not normally a lead. I don't care who does what. I never said no one ever did it or that scrubs don't do it or that so and so couldn't make it work, it can't happen, no, I didn't mean to make it black and white or say it never could happen..

The uppercut is certainly not a lead or outside tool as I said, again I don't care who does what. I never said it was never done but in general boxers don't do it, why because it's an inside tool.

However this is about blocking them and blocking them is low % especially inside where you can't see them.

You said.......

You realize that no boxer leads with a "round punch" or uppercut right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMVOTZ2bpk

Hooks and esp uppercuts are inside tools.

See the bit "no boxer leads"?

And as for your above nonsense

PLENTY of boxes lead with hooks and uppercuts. Do most of them? No.... but plenty do........ Plenty means lots, numerous etc

Not as many but still quite a few will happily lead with uppercuts as well

You dont make sense. You say "i dont care who does what", thats ridicolous.
Especially when you get put on your arse by a lead hook.

And then you say they are hard to stop on the inside?
Well maybe if you dont know what you are doing. Shall i post a 12 round fight thats been an "inside war" where theres a thousand blocks on the inside


So i assume that at your School you dont train against inside lead hooks?

[GlennR]

You said.......

You realize that no boxer leads with a "round punch" or uppercut right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMVOTZ2bpk

Hooks and esp uppercuts are inside tools.

See the bit "no boxer leads"?

And as for your above nonsense

PLENTY of boxes lead with hooks and uppercuts. Do most of them? No.... but plenty do........ Plenty means lots, numerous etc

Not as many but still quite a few will happily lead with uppercuts as well

You dont make sense. You say "i dont care who does what", thats ridicolous.
Especially when you get put on your arse by a lead hook.

And then you say they are hard to stop on the inside?
Well maybe if you dont know what you are doing. Shall i post a 12 round fight thats been an "inside war" where theres a thousand blocks on the inside


So i assume that at your School you dont train against inside lead hooks?

Sorry.... lead left hooks

[YungChun]

Very good Glenn you got me..

I shouldn't have implied that no one ever did it...

That was not the point...

This was:


Do most of them? No.... but plenty do........ Plenty means lots, numerous etc

Not as many but still quite a few will happily lead with uppercuts..l


So to recap.. MOST DON'T....

Nothing like dragging out and hanging onto minutia that skirts the issue..

Oh, ahem, the issue was where are we seeing people blocking these things in actual fights?



So i assume that at your School you dont train against inside lead hooks?


If you mean unrealistic drills that train blocks that never actually happen in real fighting then no...

[GlennR]

Very good Glenn you got me..

I shouldn't have implied that no one ever did it...

That was not the point...

This was:


So to recap.. MOST DON'T....

Nothing like dragging out and hanging onto minutia that skirts the issue..

Oh, ahem, the issue was where are we seeing people blocking these things in actual fights?

All cool Jim.... im just in an argumentative mood ;)

But ill bring up one point (from an old time Chunner who mainly boxes/mt's now)
I constantly score with a left lead hook against WCers, regardless of lineage.

Id say its almost the best boxing shot against a WC guy

So i think Phils clip has merit as most WC folks really struggle against round punches.... particularly at range as its outside their effective defensive and atttacking techniques (tan, fook, WC punch etc)

Whats your take on it if you dont like Phils? (no, im not being a stirrer anymore :0 0

[YungChun]

So i think Phils clip has merit as most WC folks really struggle against round punches.... particularly at range as its outside their effective defensive and atttacking techniques (tan, fook, WC punch etc)

Whats your take on it if you dont like Phils? (no, im not being a stirrer anymore :0 0

The reason what you describe may well be effective is because too many VT people train this kind of stuff to defend against X where X is whatever attack.. They train to block X and not only does it not work most of the time but you'd be hard pressed to find any example anywhere of it working in a live exchange...

VT's method is to break them down....to attack their structure with yours in order to prevent the opponent from being in a position to get off these attacks... There are different ways to do that but drilling tan/da (or whatever) from the outside over and over has shown to yield the kind of results you report--poor ones.

[GlennR]

The reason what you describe may well be effective is because too many VT people train this kind of stuff to defend against X where X is whatever attack.. They train to block X and not only does it not work most of the time but you'd be hard pressed to find any example anywhere of it working in a live exchange...

VT's method is to break them down....to attack their structure with yours in order to prevent the opponent from being in a position to get off these attacks... There are different ways to do that but drilling tan/da from the outside over and over has shown to yield the kind of results you report--poor ones.

Yes, i get all that Jim, but tell me how you are going to deal with the angles created by the round punches (with foot work) on your way in to break his structure?

Personally, i like Phils clip... it gives him cover and gets him in to WC range.
Its drills like these that prepare you for the real thing

[YungChun]

Yes, i get all that Jim, but tell me how you are going to deal with the angles created by the round punches (with foot work) on your way in to break his structure?

Personally, i like Phils clip... it gives him cover and gets him in to WC range.
Its drills like these that prepare you for the real thing

You want a fixed (do this) answer.. This is the problem.. It's a sign of the problem..

And you show it here.. You just said it's drills like these that prepare you for the real thing and yet I challenge you to find 1 (one) clip of anyone making this work in a real sparring/fighting situation. Can you?

[GlennR]

You want a fixed (do this) answer.. This is the problem.. It's a sign of the problem..

And you show it here.. You just said it's drills like these that prepare you for the real thing and yet I challenge you to find 1 (one) clip of anyone making this work in a real sparring/fighting situation. Can you?

A sign of what problem?
Reality?

Yes i do want an answer to the lead hook question?

And FWIW i do something fairly similar to Phils clip against a lead hook... tan da will get you killed a million times over.

Youve rubbished Phils clip so id like to know how you'd deal with a lead hook.
If youre gonna bagf it..... have an otion of your own

Enlighten us ;)

[YungChun]

A sign of what problem?
Reality?

Apparently...

Since you completely side stepped my challenge to find a single example of what you term "preparation for the real thing" (when you happily did so to prove your boxing semantics) you have no interested in reality...



Yes i do want an answer to the lead hook question?

Then learn the method and go spar and find out...

Asking for a if they do X we do Y answer only tells me you don't get it.

Go to a gym and ask what they do to "defend" against a hook.. Or how do you take someone down?

Do you think there is some special answer? The answer is: it depends...

The only constants in VT is the method, the tools and how you use them depends on the moment, the distance, the timing, the person, the skill of the people... I could tell you any number of things that could happen but you don't see the reality that there is no fixed answer to that kind of question beyond what our core tactics and tools offer and how we learn to apply them in the moment...

IOW you won't know until it happens and that assumes you know the VT method..

And I am not "trashing" Phil I am simply saying that I don't agree with training blocking which has not shown itself to be useful.

[GlennR]

Apparently...

Since you completely side stepped my challenge to find a single example of what you term "preparation for the real thing" (when you happily did so to prove your boxing semantics) you have no interested in reality...


Then learn the method and go spar and find out...

Asking for a if they do X we do Y answer only tells me you don't get it.

Go to a gym and ask what they do to "defend" against a hook.. Or how do you take someone down?

Do you think there is some special answer? The answer is: it depends...

The only constants in VT is the method, the tools and how you use them depends on the moment, the distance, the timing, the person, the skill of the people... I could tell you any number of things that could happen but you don't see the reality that there is no fixed answer to that kind of question beyond what our core tactics and tools offer and how we learn to apply them in the moment...

IOW you won't know until it happens and that assumes you know the VT method..

And I am not "trashing" Phil I am simply saying that I don't agree with training blocking which has not shown itself to be useful.

Oh please..... you showed poor knowledge of some fundamental boxing, i called you on it and you (sort of) acknowledged it.

Now when i stick up for Phils clip, you want to "VT method" me to death....
Do you really think i was looking for a special technique??
No i asked you as an adult, and someone who has had experience in this, what your take on it is and you come back with "go to a gym'

Id suggest i "go to a gym" 3-4 times a week and come from a level of experience in using WC against boxers that youd dream about

Next time i want a simple answer to a simple question ill ask someone else

[m1k3]

As someone with a little (very little) boxing experience but a long time fan/student of the sweet science the correct answer to this, and almost every question in boxing :), is the jab. It doesn't even have to land. Jab to make them cover, jab to throw off the timing, jab to intercept the attacking punch and to take up space.

Lots of comments about Frazier and Tyson but both of them had excellent jabs which they used to create space so they could get close and launch those awesome left hooks.

I think the bigger question is who are you training to fight? If you go on youtube and look up the east coast street fight vids you will see lot's of punches being thrown exactly the same way as in Phil's clip. You should almost never see a well training boxer throwing punches like that. If you do it usually means he's gassed or lost control of his emotions. Either way his good training has gone out the window.

IMHO, the correct answer to that attack is (YMMV):

1. As a grappler cover your head, change levels and enter his space for either a shot or a clinch.
2. As a striker step in while firing a cover shot, let loose a series of body shots and upper cuts. Of course I prefer infighting and shovel hooks.

Where you go after achieving the above depends on your style, personal likes, the size of the opponent and a whole bunch of other things. What you have done though is taken that particular attack and turned it into an advantage for yourself for at least a small amount of time.

I will also point out that I didn't do WC look enough for a lot of people on this forum and therefore my answer is obviously wrong and should be spit on before being summarily discarded. :eek:

I also have to point out that while I am not a fan of cookie cutter response they are a valid training methodology for introducing a new skill set and should be discarded as soon the the trainee is comfortable with the skill.

[LoneTiger108]

Wow! I didn't realize that I invited all this 'Non Wing Chun' banter myself until I re-read my last post.


And this thread really was intended for such 'technique' based discussion no? So let's see some names at least of common Wing Chun techniques instead of discussing the purpose of forms.

Is that all it takes for you guys to start spewing over a decent Wing Chun thread about your favourite Wing Chun technique?? I know, let's talk about boxing... :o

[Vajramusti]

Wow! I didn't realize that I invited all this 'Non Wing Chun' banter myself until I re-read my last post.

((You did))


Is that all it takes for you guys to start spewing over a decent Wing Chun thread about your favourite Wing Chun technique?? I know, let's talk about boxing... :o

(Let's not...?)))

Joy chaudhuri

[Phil Redmond]

. . . .I challenge you to find 1 (one) clip of anyone making this work in a real sparring/fighting situation. Can you?
Does something have to be on youtube to be valid nowadays? If so, that's sad. There's a whole world of non youtube events that exist. In my fight with the kickboxer Jonas Nunez I tried it twice.The first time I stopped the uppercut but was too late for the round punch. I got hit so hard that I heard the audience go oooo. I got my bearings back front kicked him and broke by big toe. He tried it again and I was on it with perfect timing. It worked for me so I pass in on. I had Sifu Louie fake with the uppercut then round punch so that the student didn't over compensate (chase hands) like I did when I got hit. The bottom line is that I was able to apply the jut from the simple dan chi sau exercise in real time at least once.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue but to share my experiences and learn from others.

[GlennR]

Wow! I didn't realize that I invited all this 'Non Wing Chun' banter myself until I re-read my last post.



Is that all it takes for you guys to start spewing over a decent Wing Chun thread about your favourite Wing Chun technique?? I know, let's talk about boxing... :o

Back to Chi Sao it is.........

[anerlich]

Nothing like dragging out and hanging onto minutia that skirts the issue..


That describes 98% of the posts on the forum.

[LoneTiger108]

That describes 98% of the posts on the forum.

:o Now you're just being mean!

[chusauli]

That's why I say, "Let function rule over form" and "Let application be your guide".

I think its assbackwards when you learn a form and try to "interpret" it. Forms come from application, not vice versa.

For you who disagree -

What I mean when I say that "Forms come from application, not vice versa" is that the creators of every TCMA system had mastererd application first before creating their forms. For example, if there was an "Ng Mui" or "Yim Wing Chun", she doesn't create 3 forms, a jong set, and 2 weapons sets and say, "I think I'll call this WCK!"

Think about it... we learned assbackwards!

[sanjuro_ronin]

For you who disagree -

What I mean when I say that "Forms come from application, not vice versa" is that the creators of every TCMA system had mastererd application first before creating their forms. For example, if there was an "Ng Mui" or "Yim Wing Chun", she doesn't create 3 forms, a jong set, and 2 weapons sets and say, "I think I'll call this WCK!"

Think about it... we learned assbackwards!

Yep, pretty much spot on there.
Though there is something to be said about training forms and using forms, they should be taught AFTER a solid core is developed through drills and sparring.

[chusauli]

Yep, pretty much spot on there.
Though there is something to be said about training forms and using forms, they should be taught AFTER a solid core is developed through drills and sparring.

My point exactly! Instead of your whole life chasing forms and their alleged applications, why not learn how to issue power first with your whole body, learn a few basic tools, then apply these, then worry about the system's inner workings.

Anyone want to learn a Screwdriver kata first to use a screwdriver? How about my secret Hammer set to teach you how to use a hammer?

Who's assbackwards now?

[YouKnowWho]

Yep, pretty much spot on there.
Though there is something to be said about training forms and using forms, they should be taught AFTER a solid core is developed through drills and sparring.

I think the best approach is to use:

- 2 men drills to "develop" skill.
- sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
- equipment training and solo drills to "enhance" skill.
- solo form to "record" skills.

The only usage of the form is for "recording" purpose. No more and no less. Also one has to "develop" a skill first before he can "enhance" it.

[jesper]

Anyone want to learn a Screwdriver kata first to use a screwdriver? How about my secret Hammer set to teach you how to use a hammer?


Show them on youtube or they dont exist:p

[anerlich]

What I mean when I say that "Forms come from application, not vice versa" is that the creators of every TCMA system had mastererd application first before creating their forms.

But then, they created forms which obfuscate the learning of application, to the point of including movement sequences and stances which aren't used in fighting and would likely get your a$$ kicked if they were. Why?

I used to fool around with making up forms after I had been training for only a year. Is there any historical basis for your assertion that all TCMA form creators had mastered application? Did the Abbot of Shaolin make them sign legal contracts that they wouldn't do it until an authority gave them an "Application Mastery" certificate?


Think about it... we learned assbackwards!

We were taught movement sequences which have little to do with fighting developed in ther same way and with the same rationale (exactly the wrong word, but anyway) by the "original gangstas". If we were taught assbackwards, their fault. As Mr Miyagi said, "No such thing as poor student, only poor teacher".

Why were we taught that way? What went wrong, or more importantly, what was the motivation?

[sihing]

IMHO, forms have little to do with application, since they are dead activities and done solo. It's like shadow boxing or fighting by yourself, it means nothing since there is no real threat or pressure coming upon you.

I look at it in the way that doing forms are a way to self correct. Without proper movement/structure/mechanics then how can one even attempt to make use of VT in a fight? You can't because if those things are incorrect, the VT is not being expressed naturally thru you. It's all about correcting mistakes in one's movement, natural bad habits that either people are not aware of, or just plain errors when it comes to movement in fighting. Yes, there are all kinds of ways to fight and strike, but one cannot learn all of them as time is limited for us, and to do so would cause muscle/movement confusion. Do I keep my elbow in or allow my elbow to float when striking? If you strike with elbow in while at kicking or boxing range, it won't work, and if you allow your elbow to float while on the inside your at risk.

We have chi sau to bring the forms alive. Dan chi sau is a SNT level drill, it brings alive tan/fok & bong, and teaches us the how's, when's and why's for each shape. Dan chi with stepping is the next step, which adds footwork & distance control to the drill, a step closer to the real application which is not about "sticking" or "prolonged contact" like chi sau is. When a mechanical error is apparent (e.g. - my elbow slips off centerline in dan chi), I can fix it by concentrating on the aspect during SNT practice, self correcting, then testing it again in dan chi sau. This process is continous throughtout the system, and when one reaches a level of skill within the training regemend, they put it to the test in sparring, which exposes strengths & weakness, the weakness are examined and fixed in the previous drills.

One is the training and development of the tools (Vt training curriculum), the other is the application of the tools (individual evaluation/expression), two seperate things. The whole idea in the end is that the training has somehow improved your striking abilities, making them more simple, direct and effective. One is not looking to express VT shapes or signatures, but rather to KO the opponent in front of them.

I personally don't have any favorite techniques. I have drills that I like to do in training, laap sau drill is one of them. What I find pleasureable is the feeling when the skill set is expressing itself in my movements naturally and with ease, the right things are coming out in response the pressure being applied.

Just my loonies worth (which right now is worth more than a US dollar):)

James

[chusauli]

But then, they created forms which obfuscate the learning of application, to the point of including movement sequences and stances which aren't used in fighting and would likely get your a$$ kicked if they were. Why?

I used to fool around with making up forms after I had been training for only a year. Is there any historical basis for your assertion that all TCMA form creators had mastered application? Did the Abbot of Shaolin make them sign legal contracts that they wouldn't do it until an authority gave them an "Application Mastery" certificate?



We were taught movement sequences which have little to do with fighting developed in ther same way and with the same rationale (exactly the wrong word, but anyway) by the "original gangstas". If we were taught assbackwards, their fault. As Mr Miyagi said, "No such thing as poor student, only poor teacher".

Why were we taught that way? What went wrong, or more importantly, what was the motivation?

When you look at founders of TCMA and their histories, you know they studied many martial arts, got inspired, then created their own forms. For example, Wang Lang learned many systems, fought with his senior, and always lost. He got inspired by a Mantis, and created 3 sets, and then soundly thrashed his senior. He put together sets after he mastered application, and used the sets to immortalize his movements. Chan Heung, founder of Choy Lay Fut, also studied many systems, then put together his own art, but at least gave his descendants a clue with 10 seeds to make use of the art. This 10 seeds were all application based.

Chinese have always had Confucianism which made them revere that which was passed down from previous generations... when time passed, this caused confusion and people forgot the meaning of the sets, mnemonic devices, poems, two man sets, etc., or people were withheld knowledge because of not being "worthy" enough, not paid enough, not in the inner circle of trust, not a "disciple", etc. these are all known reasons of watering down once effective systems.

The result is every few generations, the martial art has to be reformed to make it relevant again or refocus on application.

[EternalSpring]

I've been lurking around for a bit and it seems most people here have been in the Kung Fu world for 2-3 or more times longer than I have, so it's always a bit strange throwing in my opinion from the noob standpoint lol. With that said, as far as favorite Ving Tsun techniques go, my favorites would include good ol' Tan, Bong, Fook, Huen, and Wu Sao, and also the Dim Gerk, which I love so much I sometimes call it the "Ving Tsun Gerk" in my mind.

And just to throw in my two cents on all the form and application talk, I personally thing it can work both ways. Practicing form definitely can help with application, at least imho. Noticing how things flow from one movement to another can teach huge things in application, at least by teaching a concept. At the same time, learning how to apply something from experience can also teach how to improve one's form. It's kind of like one of my first lessons learned from Siu Nim Tao, or as some like to call it..."Little Thinking head/Little Imagination/Little Idea." Once the mind has been started up it can find applications in form and it can also put the same energies found from experience into a form. I guess it's all up to the person. Some people look at something like "Siu Nim Tao" and think "hey that could never be used for fighting," while others train it and use it to win.

Now while my Ving Tsun comes passed down through Yip Man lineage, it's not through the WSL line so I hope I dont offend anyone when I mention this, but supposedly WSL was a great fighter by using his form and going out and fighting (and he may have been a natural). But the time he supposedly got knocked out by a kick that hit him in the back of his head, he eventually went back to Yip Man and did some work on his form. Now at least this is what I've heard and talked about with my family, but it seems like an instance of a person who was able to use form effectively in fighting, but also did things to his form when his experiences guided him to do so. (Sorry if this story is considered a lie to people, but if it does hold some truth I think it applies to the topic of form and application)

[Phil Redmond]

IMHO, forms have little to do with application, since they are dead activities and done solo. It's like shadow boxing or fighting by yourself, it means nothing since there is no real threat or pressure coming upon you. . . . James
Yet fighters/boxers do shadow box. So it means something. Also, in TMA forms are applications most of the time.

[backyard1]

I confess I havent read the whole thread..just page 1 and page 7. But what seems to be the norm (amongst those actually answering the question about your favorite WC techniques) seems to be too simplistic..like tan sau is my favorite. I think what we need is a 'because' in our replies. Personally i like bon sau because it defends a large area and I can easily get to the outside from it. I can also larp over it, grab and pull into a chop/punch..

[backyard1]

If we ever get over the bs we should all have a party when we realise that we are all talkng about FIGHTING. Its really quite simple

[mjw]

My favorite are turning punch, whipping punch, the basic punch from underneath, pak/parry da at the same time is another favorite and chain punching but that is always over done.....

[bennyvt]

WSL got kicked just above his nuts, he knocked the guy out but stepped out of the ring. Although the other guy had done it several times WSL was disqualified. He then dropped to the ground and needed to be stretchered off. He tried to jum sao it but it was too low. Story goes he learnt the garn off wah but leung bik did the jum as it was more direct could intantly punch etc. Yip had taken it out but WSL and his other stuedents wanted to put it back in. Most have different ways in the form but most have garn and jum sao.
Never got knocked out by a kick to head.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Honestly, I like the kicking a lot especially when I have shoes on and groin kicks are allowed. I know that everyone is in love with the heavy kicking (Thai kicks) these days, but there is something to be said for fast accurate kicking with shoes on that still allows you to be in position to use the hands. Heavy kicks are great, but they are often eliminated in various environments.

I suppose that it is the overall principles associated with the kicking rather than just any particular kick.

[bennyvt]

but if you want to use the kicks when not using shoes, like sparing (except you can get wrestling shoes that are a little better). you better do some kick training without shoes. likt kicking the dummy leg, heavy bags etc. Even with that unless you get something good you tend to hurt your foot just as much and then you have to step with it.

[LoneTiger108]

Even with that unless you get something good you tend to hurt your foot just as much and then you have to step with it.

If you like to use your footwork and kicking techniques and have not drilled these through the wooden man alone (barefoot) you're beginning to rely on your shoes like some of us rely on weaponry! ;)

Many injuries can be avoided by correct practise, so don't take this post as advice to start pounding the wooden man with your bare feet any way you like because that would be rather silly imho! If you have the kicking methods you should be fine. I find many do not.

In any case, if you want to use said techs in a sparring format or competition I think you will find yourself disqualified :o

[Grumblegeezer]

If you like to use your footwork and kicking techniques and have not drilled these through the wooden man alone (barefoot) you're beginning to rely on your shoes like some of us rely on weaponry! ;)

Sounds good to me. I'm pretty crippled up from congenitally fused ankle joints, old skiing fractures, and just getting older. I can't even walk right without orthotics in my shoes. Thank god I finally got them. I never go barefoot any more. If shoes are my weapons... so be it. Weapons are good, right? If I get worse, I may start carrying a cane. Then I can benefit from all that time spent in eskrima as well. Someday I'll be that grumpy old guy with a mean stick. Ha!

[jesper]

here you go
http://www.swordsdirect.com/sword_canes.html

[shaolin_allan]

my favorite wing chun techniques is just using tan or gan sao and moving straight in their center while punching. its simple and works well. Grumblegeezer taught me that :)

[shaolin_allan]

I was just glad to finally get back to training today after some months off so at the moment all the techniques are my favorite.

[Vajramusti]

I was just glad to finally get back to training today after some months off so at the moment all the techniques are my favorite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan- good to hear that you are back in training with "Grumblegeezer". The key is not only going to classes but practicing regularly.
Good wishes.

Joy Chaudhuri

[shaolin_allan]

Thanks Joy I completely agree with you. I have a lot of learning to make up but plan on doing so in the near future.

[Wu Wei Wu]

"Any technique, however worthy and desirable, becomes a disease when the mind is obsessed with it." Bruce Lee

[Phil Redmond]

I'm not "obsessed" with this. But I used it in full contact events and it worked for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m8UEV1zQZ4