Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[kung fu fighter]

I started this thread from the "On why I think Hendrik is on to something." thread in order to get away from bashing one another and get back to some real productive discussion on training aspects of the wck system. If I was Gene Ching, I would have two separate wing chun sub forums. One on wck politics and wck agendas and the other one on productive wck training aspects discussion.


I don't feel that sparring is the "be all and end all" that some make it out to be. I DO believe that sparring is an important part of a training program and everyone should take part at times. But, like Chi Sau, I also think sparring can be over-done and over-emphasized. Some important aspects of Wing Chun just aren't going to come out in a sparring scenario. So if someone is over-emphasizing sparring and not really training their Wing Chun as it was designed to be trained, then they are going to be missing a lot of elements.

I agree! Both sparring and chi sao develop different attributes which contributes to overall self defense training. The main goals of Wing chun sparring should should focus on developing awareness of controlling distance and timing. While the main goals of chi sao should focus on controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance.


What works in sparring is kickboxing. Its has been my experience that the more emphasis and time spent on sparring the more and more the people doing it start to look like kickboxing. This is because basic kickboxing is what works! So people begin to naturally adapt what they are doing to be more and more like kickboxing...whether they are doing it consciously or not. Their structure and technique starts to change if they are not really working to train their Wing Chun and retain it. Heck, just look at just about any classic martial art that puts on the gloves and steps into the ring. Where are all the cool techniques from their forms? Why is it you can't tell the Hung Ga guy from the TKD guy? Its because they all resort to some adaptation of kickboxing. Because THAT is what works in THAT scenario!

In regards to long and medium range sparring, I believe after years of investigation in various kung fu systems, western fencing and boxing Bruce Lee came to this conclusion as well. So we don't have to re invent the wheel, he has already done the ground work for us. Wing chun sparring doesn't have to look like kickboxing if you know how to use your footwork with angling with proper awareness of timing and distancing.

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

You need the follow as a prerequisite for your discussion

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67727-Hendrik-is-on-to&p=1270352#post1270352

[Grumblegeezer]

IMHO,

You need the follow as a prerequisite for your discussion

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67727-Hendrik-is-on-to&p=1270352#post1270352

...Or you could just shoot me. Please.

[GlennR]

...Or you could just shoot me. Please.

Make sure there is a spare bullet for me...........

[tc101]

I agree! Both sparring and chi sao develop different attributes which contributes to overall self defense training. The main goals of Wing chun sparring should should focus on developing awareness of controlling distance and timing. While the main goals of chi sao should focus on controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance.

I do not like the term self defense training because that is not what we are doing. Yes you can use the skills and conditioning that you get from training in a martial art in self defense situations but what you are doing is learning a martial art or fighting method and it is up to you how you use it or don't. This idea what we do is only for street is BS and comes from the people afraid to spar.

The objective of sparring in any striking type art is to practice using your art against someone fighting you back since when you really fight in self defense or in sport or in the gym or whatever you will use that developed ability called skill. Awareness distance timing and all the rest come from trying to use your art against some one fighting you back.

Every martial art has drills and exercises outside of sparring to practice and sharpen the tools of that art. Chi sau is both to learn and sharpen our tools. Sharpening and using the tool are two different things.

Here's the thing any person who has gone through the process of training to fight will KNOW what sparring is for how important it is and so forth. You do not see on a boxing forum or a bjj forum people arguing about whether to spar or how useful it is or why you do it and so forth because everyone in those arts is DOING it and they know.




In regards to long and medium range sparring, I believe after years of investigation in various kung fu systems, western fencing and boxing Bruce Lee came to this conclusion as well. So we don't have to re invent the wheel, he has already done the ground work for us. Wing chun sparring doesn't have to look like kickboxing if you know how to use your footwork with angling with proper awareness of timing and distancing.

Try looking at it this way there is no such thing as wing chun sparring in the first place. There is only sparring or to put it another way you trying to use your skills against someone fighting you back.

You think this should look a certain way. Why? Is it because you are sparring and not with wing chun guys this is critical and it looks a certain way or because you have an academic arm chair idea you would like to believe?

I think what the people who gave trained in wing chun and who spar with non wing chun people will tell you is that how sparring looks will depend on what you permit or exclude in the sparring and not the art you use. If you only allow stand up fist fighting it will look like boxing, if you allow punches and kicks it will look like kick boxing, if you allow punches kicks and clinch it will look like Muay Thai, if you allow punches and kicks and clinch and ground it will look like mma. It does not depend on your art. That is the reality of fighting.

[tc101]

While the main goals of chi sao should focus on controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance.
.

I agree that one of the main things you want to do in chi sau is try to control and disrupt your partners cog. We do this in YKS wing chun. The thing is we are not going to control or disrupt our opponents cog in fighting so why do we practice doing it in chi sau? I learned the answer and it goes back to what I said chi sau is for that is to sharpen our skills. By having our partner constantly trying to disrupt and control our structure or cog we sharpen our structure and get better at maintaining it no matter what our opponent does. So the purpose of doing that in chi sau is to sharpen our structure. Is it surprising that having some one press pull jerk twist and so forth you would give you better structure than some one who isn't used to that?

[kung fu fighter]

Thanks for the reply T,


The objective of sparring in any striking type art is to practice using your art against someone fighting you back since when you really fight in self defense or in sport or in the gym or whatever you will use that developed ability called skill. Awareness distance timing and all the rest come from trying to use your art against some one fighting you back.

Yes I agree, I refer to this as resistance training. This is absolutely crucial to make your skills functional and alive in real time. Everything is my training is done with resistance training after the basics are mastered whether it is chi sao or full contact sparring.


If you only allow stand up fist fighting it will look like boxing, if you allow punches and kicks it will look like kick boxing, if you allow punches kicks and clinch it will look like Muay Thai, if you allow punches and kicks and clinch and ground it will look like mma. It does not depend on your art. That is the reality of fighting.

I disagree! Maybe this applies to the way how you spar, but it does not necessarily applies for every wck practioner. For example When i spar whether it's with a boxer, muai thai fighter or MMA fighter, One can still see the principles and tools of wing chun being applied. but more importantly wck way of adjusting distance with intercepting timing (jeet), even though it might not look like doing chi sao, one can clearly see the basics being applied. I used my wck game to shut down my opponent's game, i don't play the same game as him because he would have the advantage. And I am not the only one who can do this, one of my kung fu brother used it very successfully in international championship level full contact fighting as well as myself and a couple of my students.

[KPM]

I disagree! Maybe this applies to the way how you spar, but it does not necessarily applies for every wck practioner. For example When i spar whether it's with a boxer, muai thai fighter or MMA fighter, One can still see the principles and tools of wing chun being applied. but more importantly wck way of adjusting distance with intercepting timing (jeet), even though it might not look like doing chi sao, one can clearly see the basics being applied. I used my wck game to shut down my opponent's game, i don't play the same game as him because he would have the advantage. And I am not the only one who can do this, one of my kung fu brother used it very successfully in international championship level full contact fighting as well as myself and a couple of my students.

I agree with you Navin. Even though T accuses everyone else of "idle speculation" I think it is pretty obvious that he is the one speculating here. (At least going by what you quoted. I have him on "ignore" status) Because if he trained his Wing Chun effectively and spent less time sparring, he could retain his Wing Chun in sparring and it wouldn't just look like kickboxing.

[tc101]

I disagree! Maybe this applies to the way how you spar, but it does not necessarily applies for every wck practioner. For example When i spar whether it's with a boxer, muai thai fighter or MMA fighter, One can still see the principles and tools of wing chun being applied. but more importantly wck way of adjusting distance with intercepting timing (jeet), even though it might not look like doing chi sao, one can clearly see the basics being applied. I used my wck game to shut down my opponent's game, i don't play the same game as him because he would have the advantage. And I am not the only one who can do this, one of my kung fu brother used it very successfully in international championship level full contact fighting as well as myself and a couple of my students.

When I see Orr or Obasi or Rick Spain fight I see wing chun also.

I'd love to see what you do. Why don't you put it up?

[Grumblegeezer]

When I see Orr or Obasi or Rick Spain fight I see wing chun also. I'd love to see what you do. Why don't you put it up?

Your comments here and earlier on this thread seem to relate to something I posted yesterday on one of Hendrick's threads regarding "convergent evolution". Basically, the idea is this -- large predatory fish fighting for survival in the ocean end up looking something like this:
http://www.destinationspoint.com/wp-...lciformis-.jpg


Now let some furry, air-breathing mammals move into the same ocean for millions or years, competing for survival and they end up looking like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...he_Red_Sea.jpg

In other words, they look pretty darned similar.

So, by the same token if you put a kick-boxer, a Muay Thai fighter or a WC guy in the same environment i.e. a ring with the same rule-set, the survivors will evolve to look pretty darned similar. And that's exactly what we see when we watch Alan Orr's guys, like Josh Kaldani fight.

But if you look a bit deeper, beneath the superficial appearances, a shark is a cartilaginous fish with gills and a dolphin is an air breathing mammal. If you look with a discerning eye, their different origins are obvious. The same is true of the few WC guys who have adapted to the ring or cage. Under the surface, they still show many WC attributes. In other words, the dolphin is still a mammal no matter how it looks.

Then there are those who say "No way!. If I don't see fur, and at least legs for gawd's sake, it ain't no mammal in my book!"

[Wayfaring]

I agree with you Navin. Even though T accuses everyone else of "idle speculation" I think it is pretty obvious that he is the one speculating here. (At least going by what you quoted. I have him on "ignore" status) Because if he trained his Wing Chun effectively and spent less time sparring, he could retain his Wing Chun in sparring and it wouldn't just look like kickboxing.

I have one thing to contribute here. We were discussing the live rolling styles of a couple of famous BJJ practitioners lately - Jeff Glover, and Saulo Ribeiro. Both approach the game differently. Different philosophy, different strategy, different things they look for in setups. However, to a beginner watching them compete or train, they would probably conclude they trained together coming up. Why? Because aspects of how they flow rolling look very similar in a live scenario. Of course they never trained together coming up, and have different styles upon investigation.

My point is if what you are focused on is only external shapes, you will miss everything beneath those shapes.

[KPM]

Your comments here and earlier on this thread seem to relate to something I posted yesterday on one of Hendrick's threads regarding "convergent evolution". ]

Good analogies GG. The environment leads to convergent evolution. I noted in another thread that if you are in a competitive sparring situation in a ring, what works for survival is some sort of kickboxing. So if your main focus in training is that sparring environment, then your method is going to evolve into a version of Wing Chun kickboxing. So if you want to retain as much of your original Wing Chun as possible and not end up with a form of kickboxing, then one has to make sure your training doesn't over-emphasize competitive ring sparring and still has plenty of classical Wing Chun training elements. That's my position. I'm not saying that sparring is not valuable or important. Just that it can be over-emphasized. Again, if the main environment you are preparing for is a competitive ring with protective gear and rules, then "convergent evolution" is going to produce a martial art adapted for that environment. And that martial art, while effective in that environment, may not be the Wing Chun that you started with. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But that's also not necessarily "classical" Wing Chun because classical or traditional Wing Chun was not designed for or developed within that environment. And not all of us see our Wing Chun as primarily intended for that environment. And those that do, should not look down their noses at those of us that don't and call us "idle speculators." I spar. But I don't not see my Wing Chun as primarily a "sparring art." Nor is my particular Wing Chun well-adapted to being a "sparring art" for that reason. Nor do I feel the need to adapt it to that environment. And, anticipating the responses this is going to get, I will say that the "combative" or "self defense" environment is NOT the same as that "sparring environment." Skill and attributes developed in the sparring environment will certainly cross over to a combative environment, but sparring is not the "be all and end all" gold standard for my Wing Chun. Maybe it is for someone else's. But not for mine. But that's just my opinion, and I express it again here simply because I liked your analogies and thought they were very appropriate. But lest I be compared to the mantra man, I will leave this topic now that I have described my position on more than one thread recently.

[tc101]

Good analogies GG. The environment leads to convergent evolution. I noted in another thread that if you are in a competitive sparring situation in a ring, what works for survival is some sort of kickboxing. So if your main focus in training is that sparring environment, then your method is going to evolve into a version of Wing Chun kickboxing. So if you want to retain as much of your original Wing Chun as possible and not end up with a form of kickboxing, then one has to make sure your training doesn't over-emphasize competitive ring sparring and still has plenty of classical Wing Chun training elements. That's my position. I'm not saying that sparring is not valuable or important. Just that it can be over-emphasized. Again, if the main environment you are preparing for is a competitive ring with protective gear and rules, then "convergent evolution" is going to produce a martial art adapted for that environment. And that martial art, while effective in that environment, may not be the Wing Chun that you started with. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But that's also not necessarily "classical" Wing Chun because classical or traditional Wing Chun was not designed for or developed within that environment. And not all of us see our Wing Chun as primarily intended for that environment. And those that do, should not look down their noses at those of us that don't and call us "idle speculators." I spar. But I don't not see my Wing Chun as primarily a "sparring art." Nor is my particular Wing Chun well-adapted to being a "sparring art" for that reason. Nor do I feel the need to adapt it to that environment. And, anticipating the responses this is going to get, I will say that the "combative" or "self defense" environment is NOT the same as that "sparring environment." Skill and attributes developed in the sparring environment will certainly cross over to a combative environment, but sparring is not the "be all and end all" gold standard for my Wing Chun. Maybe it is for someone else's. But not for mine. But that's just my opinion, and I express it again here simply because I liked your analogies and thought they were very appropriate. But lest I be compared to the mantra man, I will leave this topic now that I have described my position on more than one thread recently.

This is sort of throw back thinking. There is no such thing as a sparring art or street fighting art. That sort of thinking has been shown through the Gracie challenges and early vale tudo and early UFC to be mistaken.

Sparring is nothing more than a process of taking your art whatever it is and practicing trying to use it against some one really fighting you back and from that developing better and better ability at using your art. The only people who still argue against it are the throw backs who refuse to spar.

Sparring is not the end all be all in boxing and it isn't in wing chun. That's like saying practice is the end all be all. The thing is sparring is the means not the end.

[JPinAZ]

This is sort of throw back thinking. There is no such thing as a sparring art or street fighting art. That sort of thinking has been shown through the Gracie challenges and early vale tudo and early UFC to be mistaken.

Sparring is nothing more than a process of taking your art whatever it is and practicing trying to use it against some one really fighting you back and from that developing better and better ability at using your art. The only people who still argue against it are the throw backs who refuse to spar.

Sparring is not the end all be all in boxing and it isn't in wing chun. That's like saying practice is the end all be all. The thing is sparring is the means not the end.

For all of repetition and 'mantra' beating people accuse you of (my self included at times haha), it's hard to argue with what you are saying above. :) Maybe those that dislike hearing the above statements are the most threatened by it as it goes against the beliefs they've built for themselves?

[KPM]

For all of repetition and 'mantra' beating people accuse you of (my self included at times haha), it's hard to argue with what you are saying above. :) Maybe those that dislike hearing the above statements are the most threatened by it as it goes against the beliefs they've built for themselves?

For the record. I won't argue with T in what you quoted either. Because for once he defined "sparring" as Sparring is nothing more than a process of taking your art whatever it is and practicing trying to use it against some one really fighting you back and from that developing better and better ability at using your art.

By that definition, the "progressive training" or "progressive sparring" I talked about elsewhere fits with what T is saying, whether either of you are willing to acknowledge it or not. This includes the scenario training I described from Krav Maga. But since you haven't acknowledged anything I have had to say on the topic so far, I expect you will disagree with me. But I put it out there for anyone following along with any interest in the topic.

[Hendrik]

Sparing and chi sau is like production test and limit test for iPhone.

If the iPhone is not design and produce accordingly.

No matter how you test it , it will never give you the function and the quality which is not design in and build

You can only test what you have designed in and build

If you want to improve your function you need to know your design and production and then test for the limit or bind sport.


If one practice wck dont one wants to clearly know what is the engine and what it is for?

[tc101]

Sparing and chi sau is like production test and limit test for iPhone.

If the iPhone is not design and produce accordingly.

No matter how you test it , it will never give you the function and the quality which is not design in and build

You can only test what you have designed in and build

If you want to improve your function you need to know your design and production and then test for the limit or bind sport.


If one practice wck dont one wants to clearly know what is the engine and what it is for?

A martial art is not like an iPhone.

Here is a big red flag that tells you the speaker really really really does not know what they are talking about but is simply doing arm chair idle speculation. That red flag is arguing by analogy or metaphor.

[Hendrik]

A martial art is not like an iPhone.

Here is a big red flag that tells you the speaker really really really does not know what they are talking about but is simply doing arm chair idle speculation. That red flag is arguing by analogy or metaphor.


A martial art is a technology which based on a concept, platform, and building block similar to an iphone.

It is designed to do what it suppose to do.

Otherwise,

It is like trying to race a car without knowing is it a truck, a bicycle, a ponny cart......etc
it is a superticious believe.

A sparring based on a superticious believe is just a random spray based on blind faith.

[YouKnowWho]

You should ask yourself a simple question. Is your goal to be good in

- fighting, or
- presenting your style?

My goal is very clear. I care about how good that I can fight. I don't care about whether I can fight like my style or not.

Sparring is like to throw a new born baby into the river. That new born baby has to learn how to "float" first before that baby should worry about "how to swim perfectly".

There are 2 different ways to train MA.

1. You learn a style. You then try to spar by using that style (you learn how to swim perfectly on the dry land, you then jump into water).
2. You spar. Find out what tools that you need. You then go to fill up your toolbox (you jump into water, learn how to float. You then find a coach to teach you how to swim perfectly).

If you use the

- 1st approach, you will become the slave of your style.
- 2nd approach, you will become the master of all styles. If a coach can't teach everything that you want to know, you can go to another coach.

[Hendrik]

You should ask yourself a simple question. Is your goal to be good in

- fighting, or
- presenting your style?

My goal is very clear. I care about how good that I can fight. I don't care about whether I can fight like my style or not.

Sparring is like to throw a new born baby into the river. That new born baby has to learn how to "float" first before that baby should worry about "how to swim perfectly".

There are 2 different ways to train MA.

1. You learn a style. You then try to spar by using that style (you learn how to swim perfectly on the dry land, you then jump into water).
2. You spar. Find out what tools that you need. You then go to fill up your toolbox (you jump into water, learn how to float. You then find a coach to teach you how to swim perfectly).

If you use the

- 1st approach, you will become the slave of your style.
- 2nd approach, you will become the master of all styles. If a coach can't teach everything that you want to know, you can go to another coach.


That is your theory.

In reality,

You are not a master of all style but a good suai chiao player.

Also,

You was train in SC to do SC type of sparring. Not a new born baby throw in the river.






The same problem can be solved with MT, BJJ, WCK, SC...boxing .....but one need to know what one is train and good at.

In reality,
How effective is the re invent the wheel on glapling compare to go study glapling art? As a new born baby in the water which have big chance to drown?

[YouKnowWho]

You are not a master of all style but ...

The term "you are the master of all styles" mean "you have freedom to train any style that you want to".

If you request all WC guys have to use "snake engine, 6DFV, 7 bows, ...", that WC guy will never be able to throw a "roundhouse kick" in sparring because "that's not WC." Do you truly want to use "That's not WC" to restrict yourself from doing something for the rest of your life? I'll never allow that to happen to me.


You was train in SC to do SC type of sparring. Not a new born baby throw in the river.

In the following clip, do my guys spar like SC guys? They don't spar like kick boxer either. They fight that way because they believe that way of fighting will give them some advantage. I'll call that "rhino" style. Did I learned that from my SC teacher, or from my long fist teacher? I didn't.

Not trying to bring SC into WC discussion. I just use this clip to indicate "you don't have to fight like your style" and "you should fight anyway that you want to".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAd32BavQY

[Faux Newbie]

As an outside perspective.

The kicks in wing chun are fairly standard kung fu kicks, largely found in most styles. There are a sparing number of kicks in wing chun, but they are there.

When I see people attempting to fight looking like wing chun, they focus on chain punch and a couple of other things, and very sparingly on the kicks. (This is not unique to WC, I've seen people in my own style do this).

If your system has three kicks and a plethora of hand techniques (not specifically referring to WC on the actual numbers), say 5% of the techs are kicks, this does not mean that only 5% of the time, kicks will be performed. 100% of the instance where a kick is the best answer, the answer should be a kick. That's why the kicks made it into the system.

It is often brought up that in certain venues, kickboxing is the best response, and so naturally, kickboxing will come out. Some traditionalists will say that their style focuses on other things, small circles or deadly techniques, this sort of answer.

I do not disagree that martial arts includes a lot of moves that you cannot safely train in sparring, because the harm they seek to inflict is beyond fair training practices. So sparring and competing (whether mma or san shou or chi sau) can only include what most of the time does not permanently harm the partner.

On the flip side, most martial arts include punches and kicks that fit in competitive venues. If one cannot use them in those venues, the idea that they can use more complex small circle or technical material in resisting practice is highly questionable.

Sparring and competition is a practice with limits, just as chi sao is. Different limits, but limits nonetheless. But the failure to translate one's practice into it cannot be blamed on the style if the style has the techniques that are used in it. This would be like blaming chi sao for not allowing you to bring your broadsword into it. Failure is not being able to apply the techniques that are being trained in that practice, not in the venue or format of the training.

Lastly, kung fu styles are mma by definition. Otherwise, how does one explain that each kung fu system, at its origin, has a tremendous amount of technique from styles that came before is? This is true of every kung fu style one looks at. Same stances, same applications. Of course, there is some original work, but most of the material is influenced by the kung fu of its time. To look at a style as the only necessary one is to refute its founder's grounding in previous kung fu without really understanding that previous kung fu. I cannot name a single lifelong martial artist who does just one style. Not one. I can name a plethora of 20-30 year olds who do, and tell others to do the same.

Lifelong martial artists enter into martial arts to attain skills, to become more than what they are. From there, they are often derailed in their goals by protecting lineage, by needing what they do to be the only right way. This is a disservice to the student. Truly traditional teachers are pleased with teaching experienced people, even if their experiences are different.

[Faux Newbie]

To add:

There is merit in knowing how your style responds to fighting.

There is no merit in not knowing how other styles respond to fighting.

There is merit in recognizing the realities of fighting based on what they are.

There is not merit on only recognizing the merits of fighting when they coincide with what your style recognizes based on what you've been told.

[Hendrik]

The term "you are the master of all styles" mean "you have freedom to train any style that you want to".--------

Master of all styles and freedom to train any style is not the same.

Even those who is good in one style can train and integrate what they need into their practice .





If you request all WC guys have to use "snake engine, 6DFV, 7 bows, ...", that WC guy will never be able to throw a "roundhouse kick" in sparring because "that's not WC." Do you truly want to use "That's not WC" to restrict yourself from doing something for the rest of your life? I'll never allow that to happen to me. -------


Snake engine, 7 bows.... Are just science of Wck handling, it doesn't restrict one but support one to masters ones body.
Anyone can learn a roundhouse kick if they need one.

Sparring is to test ones skill and blind spot.
Got nothing to do with is or not WC.






Does my guys sparred like SC guys in this clip? They don't fight like kick boxer either. They fight that way because they believe that way of fighting will give them some advantage. I'll call that "rhino" style. Did I learned that from my SC teacher, or from my long fist teacher? I didn't. ------


You are free to compose or create your own style.

However,
Your guys are not new born baby who is clueless and being throw into water.

Instead they are condition by your "Style."





Not trying to bring SC into WC discussion. I just use this clip to indicate "you don't have to fight like your style" and "you should fight anyway that you want to". -------


My point is not about to fight like a style, but everyone needs to start from somewhere , similar to your guys with your style. And know exactly what they are doing.

Your guys is not being throw into sparring like a new born baby into water, to figure out what is going on and invent their response . But a conditioned baby who was taught to swim in a certain way by you.



It is like, one needs to know if one is using iPhone or android phone. Instead of go invent their own phone from scratch or new born baby.

[Hendrik]

To add:

There is merit in knowing how your style responds to fighting.

There is no merit in not knowing how other styles respond to fighting.

There is merit in recognizing the realities of fighting based on what they are.

There is not merit on only recognizing the merits of fighting when they coincide with what your style recognizes based on what you've been told.



Why make life so difficult , find out what the style engine and strategy offer, find out how complete is the training combat scenarios cover . And work from there to expand further .

[YouKnowWho]

Here is a simple question.

Both you and your opponent have right side forward (uniform stance), In the middle of the sparring, your opponent suddenly switches sides and puts his left side forward. Will your left back leg just kick out as a "waist level roundhouse kick" without thinking (even if the roundhouse kick may not exist in your style)?

In TCMA, there is a principle that's called "fill in the leak". You attack when your opponent's body is open for you. This is just common sense and has nothing to do with style.

[Hendrik]

Here is a simple question.

Bot you and your opponent have right side forward (uniform stance), In the middle of the sparring, your opponent suddenly switches sides and puts his left side forward. Will your left back leg just kick out as a waist level roundhouse kick without think (even if the roundhouse kick may not exist in your style)?

You are now talk about style.

There are many different counter or response can be.
And what is your goal of taking that move?



Why roundhouse kick?
Why not step in to destroy center axis via inner gate?
Why not front kick?
Why not side kick?
Why not step side capture outer gate?

[YouKnowWho]

When you and your opponent both have right sides forward, you can't enter his "front door". When he switches sides, you can enter his "front door" now. Your left back leg roundhouse kick will be the best tool to be used at that moment.

Both front kick and side kick are straight line attack. It works as a spear. The roundhouse kick is a circular attack, it works as a staff. When you have right side forward and your opponent has left side forward, the best angle to attack is a 45 degree angle from your left. Your straight line attack won't work well from that angle.

[Hendrik]

When you and your opponent both have right sides forward, you can't enter his "front door". When he switches sides, you can enter his "front door" now. Your left back leg roundhouse kick will be the best tool to be used at that moment.


What is the different, instead of using left roundhouse kick but right leg step into between his leg? Which is faster? Less motion needed? And penetrating to destroy the structure?

[YouKnowWho]

What is the different, instead of using left roundhouse kick but right leg step into between his leg? Which is faster? Less motion needed? And penetrating to destroy the structure?

His left leading leg may still be in your advance path and prevent you from stepping in between his legs. Most people switch sides by pulling the leading leg back. This will increase the distance between you and your opponent. Since leg is longer than the arm, a kick is more proper than the punch at that moment.

[Hendrik]

His left leading leg may still be in your advance path and prevent you from passing his left leading leg.


Roundhouse kick might be too slow due to big movement.


One can knee his leg in the advance path while entering and still make damage to his structure.



You have a choice to get in via inner gate direct or outer gate via round house kick


depend on you style characteristics and footwork.

[Hendrik]

John,

Face it , there is no single solution.

In fact, if your style is close range strike, one move in.
If your style is long fist, you use roundhouse kick taking the outer gate path.


Boiled down to what do you used to.
That call for knowing ones own style one good at. It is not throwing new born baby into water. Never is the case.

[YouKnowWho]

Roundhouse kick might be too slow due to big movement.

One can knee his leg in the advance path and still make damage to his structure.

If you have to move your rooting leg and then attack, that will be 2 steps process. If you can use your leading right leg as your rooting leg, you can use your left attacking leg just as 1 step process. Whether you want to use your left knee to strike on his leading left leg, or to use your left foot instep to strike on his belly, that will be your choice. If you want to knock your opponent down ASAP, the instep roundhouse kick on his belly may be quicker.

[Hendrik]

If you have to move your rooting leg and then attack, that will be 2 steps process. If you can use your leading right leg as your rooting leg, you can use your left attacking leg just as 1 step process. Whether you want to use your left knee to strike on his leading left leg, or to use your left foot instep to strike on his belly, that will be your choice. If you want to knock your opponent down ASAP, the instep roundhouse kick on his belly may be quicker.

Depend on what you are good at in your style training.


If I use kyokushin I will use the roundhouse kick . If I use Wck I will step in

But
Throwing a new born baby into this type of sparring Vesus the experience will get hit by either move.

[Faux Newbie]

Why make life so difficult , 1) find out what the style engine and strategy offer, 2) find out how complete is the training combat scenarios cover . 3)And work from there to expand further .NUMBERS ADDED ABOVE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.

Number 2 is impossible without knowing something about other fighting methods one encounters. To know the completeness of one's system, one is examining how complete it is against other techniques that exist or have existed or could exist.

Fighting is the combination of more than one person with other people, martial method is seeking to understand it within a framework that allows one to impose on that combination for favorable results, it is not ignoring the other person. What you describe requires what you refer to as making life difficult to fulfill it.

Know yourself, know your enemy. This requires familiarity with other systems. One does not need to train all methods, but there is no merit in avoiding knowledge of them.

Much of kung fu has similar engines, but how those engines can be applied require knowledge of what an opponent may do. I am not familiar of a single system developed worth mention that was not developed by someone who clearly had familiarity with other systems. To mimic the system and not the founder is to rely on that which the founder themselves found only partially reliable in their day, else they would not have honed a new system. If they were alive today, they would likely have expanded on the system based on new information, just as they did in life.

[YouKnowWho]

John,

Face it , there is no single solution.

In fact, if your style is close range strike, one move in.
If your style is long fist, you use roundhouse kick taking the outer gate path.


Boiled down to what do you used to.
That call for knowing ones own style one good at. It is not throwing new born baby into water. Never is the case.

Now you bring the word "style" into discussion. Why restrict yourself as "close range"? If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.

Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don't even need to learn

- MT to use roundhouse kick, or
- CLF to use haymaker.

[Hendrik]

NUMBERS ADDED ABOVE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.

Number 2 is impossible without knowing something about other fighting methods one encounters. To know the completeness of one's system, one is examining how complete it is against other techniques that exist or have existed or could exist.

Fighting is the combination of more than one person with other people, martial method is seeking to understand it within a framework that allows one to impose on that combination for favorable results, it is not ignoring the other person. What you describe requires what you refer to as making life difficult to fulfill it.

Know yourself, know your enemy. This requires familiarity with other systems. One does not need to train all methods, but there is no merit in avoiding knowledge of them.

Much of kung fu has similar engines, but how those engines can be applied require knowledge of what an opponent may do. I am not familiar of a single system developed worth mention that was not developed by someone who clearly had familiarity with other systems. To mimic the system and not the founder is to rely on that which the founder themselves found only partially reliable in their day, else they would not have honed a new system. If they were alive today, they would likely have expanded on the system based on new information, just as they did in life.


IMHO

1. No one has complete art

2. Fujian white crane 1800 has general 48 scenerio
Wck has 18

[Hendrik]

Now you bring the word "style" into discussion. Why restrict yourself as "close range"? If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.

Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don't even need to learn

- MT to use roundhouse kick, or
- CLF to use haymaker.

Depend on your engine you develop.

[Faux Newbie]

Assuming one can control the fight assumes that one is not fighting an equal.

If one wishes to get close, they can step in. If their opponent wishes to stay outside, they can step out at an angle.

Training for fighting is rational, training for only one aspect of fighting assumes that one is always in full control. which means one is always fighting the less skilled. Equal skill means many things could happen. Ending up on the ground, long range, short range, all are very possible if both people are equal in skill and have different goals.

To train to get in close, or get in position for throwing, or to stay in long range when one has reach and wishes to use it, are rational. Expecting to always be in that range is not, it assumes one will never meet an equal, it is training to fight lessers. This is not method.

[Faux Newbie]

IMHO

1. No one has complete art

2. Fujian white crane 1800 has general 48 scenerio
Wck has 18

I understand your view in this sense.

[YouKnowWho]

Throwing a new born baby into this type of sparring Vesus the experience will get hit by either move.

It's very popular in US to let a new born baby to learn how to float. That baby may even learn how to swim like a dog (Chinese call that doggy style) without a teacher.

[Faux Newbie]

It's very popular in US to let a new born baby to learn how to float. That baby may even learn how to swim like a dog (Chinese call that doggy style) without a teacher.

We call it dog paddle, and yes, there are some things one does almost naturally, when they are also part of the overall method, it is good for the teacher to get out of the way and let nature teach. Some teachers don't like not being the source for all things. I think it was Mengzi who said the problem with people is that they are too fond of acting as teacher. I may be mistaken on that.

[Hendrik]

It's very popular in US to let a new born baby to learn how to float. That baby may even learn how to swim like a dog (Chinese call that doggy style) without a teacher.

If you are geneous, it works, if not, better study a style to learn how to deal with the situation before take things on ones own.

That is the reason of education is needed

[JPinAZ]

For the record. I won't argue with T in what you quoted either. Because for once he defined "sparring" as Sparring is nothing more than a process of taking your art whatever it is and practicing trying to use it against some one really fighting you back and from that developing better and better ability at using your art.

By that definition, the "progressive training" or "progressive sparring" I talked about elsewhere fits with what T is saying, whether either of you are willing to acknowledge it or not. This includes the scenario training I described from Krav Maga. But since you haven't acknowledged anything I have had to say on the topic so far, I expect you will disagree with me. But I put it out there for anyone following along with any interest in the topic.

Does 'acknowledge' = 'agree' in your world? I didn't realize I had to verbally 'acknowledge' everything you say when I read it, but Ok here ya go: I formally acknowledge what you said. :)
Guess what, I still don't agree that your definition and his are the same, and wonder if he would either. As a matter of fact he doesn't and he stated as such. The important question is, are you doing what he's talking about? No need to answer, I know you've already said you won't answer it to me because I didn't ask nicely enough for you. Maybe just ask/see if you're being honest with yourself

Know what's really funny in all of this? You talk about him more now that you have him on 'ignore' that you did to him before you started 'ignoring' him. Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it if you're not really ignoring him at all? Actually, I think it's worse because, while you won't address his comments directly, now you just kinda talk behind his back about him without giving him the chance to reply....

[Paddington]

NUMBERS ADDED ABOVE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.

Number 2 is impossible without knowing something about other fighting methods one encounters. To know the completeness of one's system, one is examining how complete it is against other techniques that exist or have existed or could exist.

Fighting is the combination of more than one person with other people, martial method is seeking to understand it within a framework that allows one to impose on that combination for favorable results, it is not ignoring the other person. What you describe requires what you refer to as making life difficult to fulfill it.

Know yourself, know your enemy. This requires familiarity with other systems. One does not need to train all methods, but there is no merit in avoiding knowledge of them.

Much of kung fu has similar engines, but how those engines can be applied require knowledge of what an opponent may do. I am not familiar of a single system developed worth mention that was not developed by someone who clearly had familiarity with other systems. To mimic the system and not the founder is to rely on that which the founder themselves found only partially reliable in their day, else they would not have honed a new system. If they were alive today, they would likely have expanded on the system based on new information, just as they did in life.

A great post, as are the others you have made in this thread. Where have you been all my life?

[Faux Newbie]

A great post, as are the others you have made in this thread. Where have you been all my life?

Kansas. :D

[JPinAZ]

Now you bring the word "style" into discussion. Why restrict yourself as "close range"? If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.

Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don't even need to learn

- MT to use roundhouse kick, or
- CLF to use haymaker.

Your train of thought only holds water if you ignore WC principles. For example, WC's idea of maximum efficiency.

A person can us any technique they want. And given the POV, most any technique can be labeled as 'effective'. But, if you are fighting with WC's maximum efficiency/effectiveness & economy of motion concepts to drive what you do, then the answer is clear. Rarely do I see a roundhouse kick, spinning back fist or haymaker type of attack that fits these ideals, nor do they really fit within wing chun's centerline principle for starters.

Again, people can do whatever they want, but there comes a point where if you aren't even following even the most basic principles of wing chun, then most likely you are not really 'doing wing chun' (haha, let the flames begin on that last statement)

[JPinAZ]

A great post, as are the others you have made in this thread.

Agreed. I'm enjoy reading Faux Newbie's posts and am glad he's here sharing

[YouKnowWho]

fit within wing chun's centerline principle ..
A + B > A

My teacher was a Chinese wrestling master.

- Onetime he got into a fight in an office, he used his "elbow" to knock his opponents down one by one.
- In another bus station fight, he grabbed a "chair", stood next to the stair, and knock his opponents down one by one when they came down that stair to get him.

In both fights, he did not apply any of his Chinese wrestling principle. Instead, he used "elbow" and "chair".

You fight the way that can help you to get the best result which should not be limited by your "style". If any BJJ guy has to depend on his ground skill in all his fight, he may be killed in his first fight when dealing with multiple opponents.

[JPinAZ]

Again, all sorts of things work. I see your point, but it's not really relevant to what I'm talking about.

[YouKnowWho]

Again, all sorts of things work. I see your point, but it's not really relevant to what I'm talking about.

After you have developed your solid foundation from one system, you should set yourself free and expand from there. If I have stayed all my training in the

- long fist system, I won't be able to learn any grappling skill.
- SC system, I won't be able to learn any striking skill.

Why do I have to restrict myself like that?

In the following clip, you can see the WC

- double Tan Shou principle,
- protect your center from inside out principle.

Is it WC, or is it not WC? If it works, do you care?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAd32BavQY

[tc101]

A martial art is a technology which based on a concept, platform, and building block similar to an iphone.

It is designed to do what it suppose to do.

Otherwise,

It is like trying to race a car without knowing is it a truck, a bicycle, a ponny cart......etc
it is a superticious believe.

A sparring based on a superticious believe is just a random spray based on blind faith.

That is all wrong. I do not think you know the first thing about real martial art. You always talk analogies or metaphors never about reality because you can't.

How many videos and how many hours of video have you made? In all those hours upon hours how much time showing you using wing chun? Zero. To me that says it all. You don't show because you can't. It is all talk all iPhone race car silliness. You are the ultimate wing chun arm chair idle speculation guy.

JPinAZ said he would visit you and tape where all this information has taken you. Why don't you meet up and do a bit of sparring and show the world how you can handle momentum and other such things that only your original Yik Kam SLT has? How about it? If he is far from you I bet we can take up a collection for his travel. I know I'd contribute. So what do you say? Will you show everyone you are not the fraud we all think you are?

[Hendrik]

Here I reply you once for all.


That is all wrong. I do not think you know the first thing about real martial art. You always talk analogies or metaphors never about reality because you can't.

How many videos and how many hours of video have you made? In all those hours upon hours how much time showing you using wing chun? Zero. To me that says it all. You don't show because you can't. It is all talk all iPhone race car silliness. You are the ultimate wing chun arm chair idle speculation guy.


You are always free to have your view.



JPinAZ said he would visit you and tape where all this information has taken you. Why don't you meet up and do a bit of sparring and show the world how you can handle momentum and other such things that only your original Yik Kam SLT has? How about it? If he is far from you I bet we can take up a collection for his travel. I know I'd contribute. So what do you say? Will you show everyone you are not the fraud we all think you are?



I have been working in depth in realistic martial art with sifu Robert Chu the founder of CSLWCK and many other Wck sifus including Kung fu fighter who starts this threat , since the past decade.

So, thanks but no thanks for your offer. I have no interest.

[YouKnowWho]

to get away from bashing one another and get back to some real productive discussion on training aspects of the wck system.

I believe the OP has no interest in personal argument/attack in this thread. Can we stay that way?

[JPinAZ]

After you have developed your solid foundation from one system, you should set yourself free and expand from there.

If I have stayed all my training in the

- long fist system, I won't be able to learn any grappling skill.
- SC system, I won't be able to learn any striking skill.

Why do I have to restrict myself like that?

I assume when you say 'you should' you are referring to yourself. Besides a more-rounded ground game that involves submissions (of which I'm not totally interested at the moment), I have no issue/restrictions with what I've been training. But that's for sharing your experience. For me, WC has everything I need for a stand up art, with some concepts that translate to the ground.

So we are on the same page and I understand your view more, maybe you could define what Wing Chun means to you?


In the following clip, you can see the WC

- double Tan Shou principle,
- protect your center from inside out principle.

Is it WC, or is it not WC? If it works, do you care?

Is it fair to assume they wouldn't really fight like this (I hope not) and are just demoing an idea? On occasion I've demoed something similar for new students as a way of showing WC triangular theory. I've even had them drill it for 5 or 10 minutes to get the idea, and then I move on. But I surely wouldn't suggest they fight like that.

Just to share my POV, what I see is someone with both arms equally extended and hands locked together - not good from a wc perspective, or any fighting perspective for that matter (imo). From a WC perspective, I there's too much wrong - no 2-line offense/defense, or simultaneous offense/defense, no gate thoery, etc. I personally wouldn't even call that tan sau principle as I understand it. But everyone has a different opinion of things and if this is wing chun to you, I'm not going to argue.
Again, all sorts of things 'work'. But just because it works doesn't necessarily make it WC, even if you use a 'wing chun technique'. And no, I don't really care if it's WC or works or not. If they like it, cool. It's just not something I would do. :)

[YouKnowWho]

maybe you could define what Wing Chun means to you?

Is it fair to assume they wouldn't really fight like this (I hope not) and are just demoing an idea?

To me, WC are:

- protect center from inside out.
- block and strike at the same time.
- centerline chain punches.

but I don't want to be restricted by the WC principles only. I want to apply principles from other styles too (such as to protect my center from outside in).

I train my guy to fight exactly like this. The "rhino" strategy will change into "octopus" strategy during their opponent's punches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPcIIRoBWo

[Hendrik]

To me, WC are:

- protect center from inside out.
- block and strike at the same time.
- centerline chain punches.

but I don't want to be restricted by the WC principles only. I want to apply principles from other styles too (such as to protect my center from outside in).

I train my guy to fight exactly like this. The "rhino" strategy will change into "octopus" strategy during their opponent's punches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPcIIRoBWo


Great fusion!

Good job!

[JPinAZ]

To me, WC are:

- protect center from inside out.
- block and strike at the same time.
- centerline chain punches.

Thanks for your view. I see we have very different levels of understanding, which is, well , understandable being that WC has been my focus for over 11 years and you have mentioned you haven't studied it very long. So I can see why you may think the way you do.


but I don't want to be restricted by the WC principles only. I want to apply principles from other styles too (such as to protect my center from outside in).

WC has many tools, strategies and tactics for engagement from the out side in (at least mine does). We call defending out-to-in 'going nowhere to somewhere'. WC has methods for when you get surprised when your hands are down to your side as well. I guess it's all in the time you spend in the system.


I train my guy to fight exactly like this. The "rhino" strategy will change into "octopus" strategy during their opponent's punches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rPcIIRoBWo

Cool. I wouldn't call this call this wing chun at all, but it looks very usable.

[YouKnowWho]

I see we have very different levels of understanding, which is, well , understandable being that WC has been my focus for over 11 years and you have mentioned you haven't studied it very long. So I can see why you may think the way you do.

You are right! WC is your primary art. You had developed your foundation from WC. I had my foundation developed from the long fist system. WC is only one of my cross training arts. We have different feeling about WC, that's understandable.

[Faux Newbie]

Your train of thought only holds water if you ignore WC principles. For example, WC's idea of maximum efficiency.

A person can us any technique they want. And given the POV, most any technique can be labeled as 'effective'. But, if you are fighting with WC's maximum efficiency/effectiveness & economy of motion concepts to drive what you do, then the answer is clear. Rarely do I see a roundhouse kick, spinning back fist or haymaker type of attack that fits these ideals, nor do they really fit within wing chun's centerline principle for starters.

Again, people can do whatever they want, but there comes a point where if you aren't even following even the most basic principles of wing chun, then most likely you are not really 'doing wing chun' (haha, let the flames begin on that last statement)

I view maximum effectiveness as determined by the combination of the fighters, not the technique of one alone.

I think, in training a system, one does need to train it on its own terms if one seeks to be expert at it.

However, I think that, in fighting, one seeks to survive. In traditional China, I'm willing to bet the originators of Wing Chun, finding themselves in a situation where they needed to fight armed people, and where there were weapons, but not butterfly knives or staffs, would adjust to the situation and not worry so much about authenticity. In fact, many of them likely trained more than one art, as was often common.

The problem with applying the "jack of all trades, master of none" paradigm to people who train martial arts is that fighting is the trade, not bjj or wing chun or longfist or what have you. The amount of common ground is far greater than the differences, especially between Chinese systems. Style is a tool of the trade, not the trade itself, imo.

[Hendrik]

I think, in training a system, one does need to train it on its own terms if one seeks to be expert at it.

However, I think that, in fighting, one seeks to survive. In traditional China, I'm willing to bet the originators of Wing Chun, finding themselves in a situation where they needed to fight armed people, and where there were weapons, but not butterfly knives or staffs, would adjust to the situation and not worry so much about authenticity. In fact, many of them likely trained more than one art, as was often common.

The problem with applying the "jack of all trades, master of none" paradigm to people who train martial arts is that fighting is the trade, not bjj or wing chun or longfist or what have you. The amount of common ground is far greater than the differences, especially between Chinese systems. Style is a tool of the trade, not the trade itself, imo.


It is all about the technology and level or mile stone of handling , authenticity is meaningless

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jji2LOBAHHU&feature=youtube_gdata

[Minghequan]

authenticity is meaningless

??? So being "authentic" is meaningless but being fake, posting made up "His-Story" is okay???

[Faux Newbie]

Frankly, that statement is true in relation to fighting, imo. Authenticity is irrelevant, the only relevant things are what you are doing in the fight, what he refers to as technology. If your method of power generation generates sufficient power without messing with balance, if stance provides the ability to be mobile and the ease of being stable, etc. And if your structure and posture allow you to keep aware of your opponent's actions and able to always respond efficiently. Things like this.

This is not in reference to the history comment. Solely the martial aspect of that he said. That said, I've never hit anyone with my history.

[YouKnowWho]

the only relevant things are what you are doing in the fight,

Agree with you 100% there. Here is a perfect example.

When a fly flies in front of your face, you use both hands to slap it. When you do that, are you following the 7 bows WC principle, or do you just let your hands move and your body followed? I assume the WC 7 bows principle is the opposite of the "hand goes first, the body followed" principle.

[Hendrik]

Agree with you 100% there. Here is a perfect example.

When a fly flies in front of your face, you use both hands to slap it. When you do that, are you following the 7 bows WC principle, or do you just let your hands move and your body followed? I assume the WC 7 bows principle is the opposite of the "hand goes first, the body followed" principle.


1. 7 bows is for beginner . Advance deal with force flow and momentum direct.

Adult don't think how to put a spoon in ones mouth when eating. But if the baby not train properly, they can't do it .


2. Hand goes first the body follow is a hit. Body moves and hand doesn't have to move is issuing force flow.
Unless one knows the 7 bows handling, one is not clear in this.
However, it a fight. No one thinking seven bows. One hit or issue as needed.

[tc101]

1. 7 bows is for beginner . Advance deal with force flow and momentum direct.

Adult don't think how to put a spoon in ones mouth when eating. But if the baby not train properly, they can't do it .


2. Hand goes first the body follow is a hit. Body moves and hand doesn't have to move is issuing force flow.
Unless one knows the 7 bows handling, one is not clear in this.
However, it a fight. No one thinking seven bows. One hit or issue as needed.

Idle speculation from some one who cannot do it himself.

[tc101]

Your train of thought only holds water if you ignore WC principles. For example, WC's idea of maximum efficiency.

A person can us any technique they want. And given the POV, most any technique can be labeled as 'effective'. But, if you are fighting with WC's maximum efficiency/effectiveness & economy of motion concepts to drive what you do, then the answer is clear. Rarely do I see a roundhouse kick, spinning back fist or haymaker type of attack that fits these ideals, nor do they really fit within wing chun's centerline principle for starters.

Again, people can do whatever they want, but there comes a point where if you aren't even following even the most basic principles of wing chun, then most likely you are not really 'doing wing chun' (haha, let the flames begin on that last statement)

Here's the thing I do not think maximum efficiency exists in reality. Now it may be an ideal to strive for though I doubt that also. I do not think that way of thinking is really helpful. I think it was Bruce Lee who said efficiency is anything that scores. If your opponent is OPEN to a round house or whatever how is it not efficient or not even smart to use it to hit your opponent and instead just let that opportunity go because your ideal is not to use that type of movement?

The basic principles of wing chun as I learned them is not a rule book that you must follow forever and that limits what you can do but is a guide for a beginner to help them develop certain tools tactics and strategies or to put it another way a skill set to make you a better fighter. I think the idea that you are "doing wing chun" is the wrong way to look at it. The training helps you develop certain skills that you can use in fighting.

Let me use an example Ronda is trained in judo right? When she fights she is not "doing judo" but fighting. She brings her judo training into her fights. That training developed certain tools tactics and strategies or skill set that helps make her a better fighter.

[Minghequan]

Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
1. 7 bows is for beginner . Advance deal with force flow and momentum direct.

Adult don't think how to put a spoon in ones mouth when eating. But if the baby not train properly, they can't do it .


2. Hand goes first the body follow is a hit. Body moves and hand doesn't have to move is issuing force flow.
Unless one knows the 7 bows handling, one is not clear in this.
However, it a fight. No one thinking seven bows. One hit or issue as needed.


TC101 wrote:

Idle speculation from some one who cannot do it himself.

Have to agree totally!

Why are people even entertaining the idea of listening to a guy who has never really used his art in any real practical way and talks nothing but endless theory?

Faux Newbie? YouKnowWho? Hendrik? Your thought on this?

[JPinAZ]

You are right! WC is your primary art. You had developed your foundation from WC. I had my foundation developed from the long fist system. WC is only one of my cross training arts. We have different feeling about WC, that's understandable.

Actually you're wrong in your assumption. I started in boxing and unfortunately defending myself in street fights when I was younger. So that would technically be my foundation. Only now, I apply wing chun theory, concept, strategy & tactic to my fighting. It's not that I've cross trained or mixed WC into what I already knew, because for me WC is a principle based system of fighting that can apply to any situation.

For example, you see wing chun as only defending from in-to-out. I see it as being applicable in all ranges, facing, positions, setups/no setups, etc and no just something I 'swtich' on an off.

[JPinAZ]

Here's the thing I do not think maximum efficiency exists in reality. Now it may be an ideal to strive for though I doubt that also.

Agree, maximum efficiency is an absolute - pretty difficult to obtain. But it is the idea I see the founders having strived for when the system was created


I do not think that way of thinking is really helpful. I think it was Bruce Lee who said efficiency is anything that scores. If your opponent is OPEN to a round house or whatever how is it not efficient or not even smart to use it to hit your opponent and instead just let that opportunity go because your ideal is not to use that type of movement?

That's fine, people find different things useful. If you ask me about the efficiency of a round house, when throwing a roundhouse (punch or kick) you tend to leave yourself open as well as turning your center away from your opponent giving up equal use of both hands & facing to a degree. While it can be 'efficient' from a certain POV, there are most likely more efficient options that also work within WC's ideas of economy of motion. If someone chooses not to work under these guidlines, that's their choice - who am I to say what other people should do.

As a counter point, in a fight, most of the time the top of a person's head is somehwhat open. I've seen in silly point sparring tourneys where people jump up and tap the head top of the head for a 'point' - but I rarely would suggest targeting that in a real fight just because it's open. Efficient doens't alway mean the best option.


The basic principles of wing chun as I learned them is not a rule book that you must follow forever and that limits what you can do but is a guide for a beginner to help them develop certain tools tactics and strategies or to put it another way a skill set to make you a better fighter. I think the idea that you are "doing wing chun" is the wrong way to look at it. The training helps you develop certain skills that you can use in fighting.

I never implied wing chun was a rule book you must follow forever and I agree with your definition of the basic principles of wing chun. And, I figured someone (most likely you) would nibble on that last bit about 'doing wing chun' which is why I mentioned 'let the flames begin'. To be honest, if someone's fighting strategy is to drop down into a turtle shell posture and then only attack by jumping in the air with spinning backfists, I would say they aren't 'doing wing chun', even if some think it's a silly term to say.

[Wayfaring]

Here's the thing I do not think maximum efficiency exists in reality.

You know what I think about maximum efficiency? It's like hiking with a partner in bear country. You don't have to be Usain Bolt. You just have to be faster than your hiking partner ;)

[JPinAZ]

You know what I think about maximum efficiency? It's like hiking with a partner in bear country. You don't have to be Usain Bolt. You just have to be faster than your hiking partner ;)

No no no, that's just attribute & technique-only way of thinking. If you are a principle based fighter, you would trip your partner first protecting your aft centerline, and then run!

[KPM]

You know what I think about maximum efficiency? It's like hiking with a partner in bear country. You don't have to be Usain Bolt. You just have to be faster than your hiking partner ;)

Now that's an old one! :)

[Faux Newbie]

Have to agree totally!

Why are people even entertaining the idea of listening to a guy who has never really used his art in any real practical way and talks nothing but endless theory?

Faux Newbie? YouKnowWho? Hendrik? Your thought on this?

I'll be as tactful as possible on this.

I like discussing nuts and bolts and theory because sometimes it gives me ideas on my own system and on drills I can work on in my system. Of course, I don't do a style that others here do, it has a lot in common with Chen style, but when discussing theory or the nuts and bolts, it sometimes does. So, if a train of thought is productive toward this goal, or may be productive, I will pursue it and discuss it, and I am not concerned about the source, because the only testing that counts toward my training is done by me in reality, not here, so the source is not an issue.

The second half, which requires tact, is that I am not a wing chun person, so I am not focused on legitimacy or history in that field, only technical fighting matters and a reasonable amount of friendly discussion, even banter. I do not hear someone bad mouth or misuse and authority and base anything off that, I read what people say about fighting and that's about that. On that end, if I did involve myself in such matters, I would try to be selective, and, in fairness, if the Wing Chun community needs me to be involved in such disputes, they are going to need to be waaaaaaaay more selective on what constitutes a real dispute.

Not my circus, not my monkey.

There are two local teachers that always badmouth one teacher I trained under, from a distance. Coincidentally, a close friend of mine who has no affiliation with any of the three saw one of them try to get my teacher to show him how to do a particular fajin some years back. My teacher and myself do not make a big point about this. Sometimes we shake our heads, that's about it. We are not competing for the same students, what they say has no bearing on what we do. Even my teacher and I have different approaches, he uses a hybrid of shaolin and Taixuquan, I am highly focused on Taixuquan, there is not issue of the "true expression", he readily admits that in regards to Taixuquan, I make use of a lot of the style's approaches, I like that when we spar, his hybridity makes interesting challenges. We consider each other equals at this point, and I credit this to training usage, not training a need to defend the honor of our reputation or a authenticity that is always based on the viewer's own views on that authentic is.

I have yet to become a better martial artist or a more genuine expression of kung fu by these kinds of arguments, and so I don't take part in them. And that is how I feel one defends the honor of one's teacher, by seeking to know the style. Thus, discussions of theory and of practice are useful, history and lineage fights and internet statements have yet to yield anything for me.

I joined martial arts to be good at martial arts, and nothing will defend those who taught me better than being a testament to their teaching, not an advocate or an advertisement.

I look for the usefulness of the discussion over the character of those making the statements. I do not discount the character, but I will not act as the internet's quality control, because that's not why I'm here.

Outing martial dishonesty on the internet has a dismal record of actually changing a thing.

I guess that's my view, but key to that is, if the Wing Chun forum wants me to take part in the Wing Chun communities' online conflicts, and I can say "could you reduce this list to the most important fifty," this will only result in heated and angry debate on who is number 1. So I avoid the issue. If, amongst yourselves, you wish to narrow the list to five for me, I would certainly consider it. :D

Some people have legitimate gripes, and some people have a hobby of arguing on the internet. A lot of people. Some think they can have both, but you really can't. Either one is hurt, or one is having fun. I suppose there are masochists, but I digress.

I can't reasonably be expected to do all the legwork to determine who is who in that list, if one has a reasonable gripe, they should also recognize if they are in a forum where a ton of people like to argue and have crusades, and not place an unreasonable burden on visitors to take up arms for them.

I do not state this to pick on anyone, if you like the way the Wing Chun forum is, that's fine, I am just a visitor.

Is there a number of threads that the same argument can carry across that is too many? At what point, assuming a member was wronged and is carrying that argument across a number of threads, has the wronged member also wronged members who reasonably expected a capacity for discussion on a discussion forum about the topic of the thread? Should they then pursue that member across threads? I am not saying that argument cannot happen, I am asking if there is a limit that one should self impose in order to allow the forum to still be a forum over becoming the personal platform of very, very small factions.

[YouKnowWho]

There may be a WC principle, but there is a general TCMA principles (I call it "common sense") that should be above all styles, and that is to attack whatever that your opponent may open for you.

For example, when your opponent stands behind you, you can use your "spinning back fist" to knock him down. You can also spin your body, and use your straight punch to knock him down. Since to spin your body and throw a 'spinning back fist" can be integrated as 1 move. To spin your body and use straight punch are considered as 2 moves. The "spinning back fist" is more efficient in that situation.

[YouKnowWho]

You are right! WC is your primary art. You had developed your foundation from WC.


Actually you're wrong in your assumption. I started in boxing and unfortunately defending myself in street fights when I was younger.
I just hate the following conversation.

A: This is my opinion ...
B: You are right because ...
A: You are wrong. You did not understand what I was trying to say.
B: :(

Now I understand why there are so many argument in the WC threads.

When

- I agree with you 50% and disagree with you 50%, I would like to talk about our agreement.
- you agree with me 50% and disagree with me 50%, you would like to talk about our disagreement.


WC has been my focus for over 11 years and you have mentioned you haven't studied it very long.
If you said that the WC is not your foundation art but you have focus on it for 11 years, I had cross trained the WC system since 1973 from one of Ip-man's students Jimmy Kao (currently lives in Houston, Tx). WC has been my focus for 41 years.

Not trying to brag about my training time. But I'm not a beginner in the WC system. One of my students Paul Wayne Gerald was a WC instructor when he came to me 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, he has evolved himself from a "WC instructor" into a "Sanda coach".

8655

[Faux Newbie]

YKW has flt out stated that he is a hybrid fighter. If his outside in or inside out sometimes is flat out Wing Chun, then it is from Wing Chun.

Also, there was a previous comment about round kick being open to attack, which I agree with. The problem is, everything is open for attack in some way, that is the basis of a lot of kung fu, including wing chun, being at the opening at the right time instead of being closed off from it.

Two practitioners being equal, things will happen that are not things the style says to have happen. The style takes that approach for training purposes, so that, in training, you can avoid the worst position difficulties as much as possible, but in the fight, those things will often happen against an equal or better. It is not the premise of style to then ignore the reality or blame the practitioner for what they have to do to get back into a zone where they can use what they are best at.

If two people who do wing chun fight, and one has trained it well against many methods, and the other has trained it well against wing chun, and the first recognizes that his wing chun is not getting through, but also recognizes that his opponent is vulnerable to a roundhouse kick because they are not accustomed to it, the first person, by using the roundhouse at the right time shows a better understanding of his opponent's wing chun and his own. To not do so while being able to in order to be "more wing chun" is denying his knowledge based in wing chun.

[YouKnowWho]

Here is a good example that it's better to add "roundhouse kick" into your "chain punches" when your opponent uses "rhino" strategy on you.

A combo of

- jab,
- cross,
- roundhouse kick,

will change the whole situation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAd32BavQY

[KPM]

I just hate the following conversation.

A: This is my opinion ...
B: You are right because ...
A: You are wrong. You did not understand what I was trying to say.
B: :(

Now I understand why there are so many argument in the WC threads.

When

- I agree with you 50% and disagree with you 50%, I would like to talk about our agreement.
- you agree with me 50% and disagree with me 50%, you would like to talk about our disagreement.

]


Huh. Someone else having a problem with the way JP participates in discussions. And here I thought it was just me! I have him on "ignore" status for a reason John. ;)

[Hendrik]

I just hate the following conversation.

A: This is my opinion ...
B: You are right because ...
A: You are wrong. You did not understand what I was trying to say.
B: :(

Now I understand why there are so many argument in the WC threads.

When

- I agree with you 50% and disagree with you 50%, I would like to talk about our agreement.
- you agree with me 50% and disagree with me 50%, you would like to talk about our disagreement.


If you said that the WC is not your foundation art but you have focus on it for 11 years, I had cross trained the WC system since 1973 from one of Ip-man's students Jimmy Kao (currently lives in Houston, Tx). WC has been my focus for 41 years.

Not trying to brag about my training time. But I'm not a beginner in the WC system. One of my students Paul Wayne Gerald was a WC instructor when he came to me 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, he has evolved himself from a "WC instructor" into a "Sanda coach".

8655




For wcners who don't know John.

Johns' sifu late Gm Chang Dung Shen is one of the best top fighter in Chinese martial art in past 80 years until his passing, who's expertise is SC.

So, John knows what he is talking about since he is train by Gm Chang himself. It is always honor to get John here to argue with me.






Johns' rhino is close to Yik kam Wck with the different of yik kam Wck use a different stance for entery and range Thus, he and I have an exchange view on roundhouse kick versus step in yesterday .

[JPinAZ]

I just hate the following conversation.

A: This is my opinion ...
B: You are right because ...
A: You are wrong. You did not understand what I was trying to say.
B: :(

Now I understand why there are so many argument in the WC threads.

When

- I agree with you 50% and disagree with you 50%, I would like to talk about our agreement.
- you agree with me 50% and disagree with me 50%, you would like to talk about our disagreement.

John, I'm not trying to argue with you. We agree on some things, we disagree on others. When you make a point based on an assumption about me, it's only fair to correct that assumption because yes, you were wrong. Not a big deal really, I took no offense by it. Actually, I've always appreciated your 'common sense' POV posts thru the years as in your previous post. I just don't always agree with your ideas of what WC is or how a WC fighter operates.

As for your 50%/50% comment, I try to address both sides - the agreements and disagreements. This is how we learn from each other and leave the option open for me to say I'm wrong ;) You have your preference of only focusing on the agreement, I have mine. There's room for everyone here


If you said that the WC is not your foundation art but you have focus on it for 11 years, I had cross trained the WC system since 1973 from one of Ip-man's students Jimmy Kao (currently lives in Houston, Tx). WC has been my focus for 41 years.

Not trying to brag about my training time. But I'm not a beginner in the WC system. One of my students Paul Wayne Gerald was a WC instructor when he came to me 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, he has evolved himself from a "WC instructor" into a "Sanda coach".

I appreciate you sharing your experience and the fact that you aren't trying to brag by stating it. I think we can both can agree that it's not always the case that time in a system equals understanding. Example, LT has been doing WC a LOOONNNNGGG time and I rarely agree with what I see him doing. If it works for people that study his method, cool - more power too them. It's just not for me :) I don't think you fall into he same category as him as I repsect your background and experience, just using it as an example

And, I wasn't trying to slight you when I asked about your level of WC understanding. If you thought I was I appologize. I just wanted to know your background & your defenition of what WC is to forma baseline to discuss from. Also because when we met in Texas in I think 2007, you gave the distinct impression that you've while you've had wing chun training, it wasn't your primary focus and that you hadn't gone all the way thru the system. Maybe I had it wrong or that's changed..

[kung fu fighter]

Let me use an example Ronda is trained in judo right? When she fights she is not "doing judo" but fighting. She brings her judo training into her fights. That training developed certain tools tactics and strategies or skill set that helps make her a better fighter.

Same with Lyoto Machida, you can still see the essence of his Shodokan Karate training in the stand up portion of his MMA fights. He didn't sell out to MMA and jump on the MMA band wagon of only muai thai, boxing, wrestling and BJJ works. That's why I respect him! He follows his own path like myself. which is to implement your own game and not fall into playing his opponent's game.

[JPinAZ]

For wcners who don't know John.

Johns' sifu late Gm Chang Dung Shen is one of the best top fighter in Chinese martial art in past 80 years until his passing, who's expertise is SC.

So, John knows what he is talking about since he is train by Gm Chang himself. It is always honor to get John here to argue with me.


I doubt anyone here denies John'e experience & pedigree. But you defending him is a bit ironic when you, more than anyone else here, often imply that his posting or view doesn't have a place in discussions because he's not a WC person (your words) - usually when he's proving you wrong.

[Hendrik]

I doubt anyone here denies John'e experience & pedigree. But you defending him is a bit ironic when you, more than anyone else here, often imply that his posting or view doesn't have a place in discussions because he's not a WC person (your words) - usually when he's proving you wrong.


When John does a creat job in rhino using Wck concept. I praise him

[YouKnowWho]

when we met in Texas in I think 2007, you gave the distinct impression that you've while you've had wing chun training, it wasn't your primary focus and that you hadn't gone all the way thru the system. Maybe I had it wrong or that's changed..
Where did we meet in Texas back in 2007? I don't remember I had ever said that I had bad WC training.

Here is the ending part of the WC Biu Jee form that I had performed when I was still in my middle 20. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. Just to prove that I was there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meq7j-MeG6M

[JPinAZ]

Where did we meet in Texas back in 2007?

We met and had dinner at a tourney there. Me, you, Sifu Ashe Higgs, Sifu Eric, and others. It was a good time and I enjoyed hearing your stories and sharing your experiences with us.


I don't remember I had ever said that I had bad WC training.

Who said anything about good or bad? If you're wondering why discussions go south on this form, this is exactly the reason why imo. I never said good, bad or otherwise.

I tried to be civil and even admitted I could be wrong and offered an apology if I was. But I don't appreciate when people twist my words or put words in my mouth that I never said. Maybe you are mistaken. I suggest you reread what I wrote, as I never said anything about the quality of any of your training:

"'And, I wasn't trying to slight you when I asked about your level of WC understanding. If you thought I was I apologize. I just wanted to know your background & your defenition of what WC is to form a baseline to discuss from. Also because when we met in Texas in I think 2007, you gave the distinct impression that you've while you've had wing chun training, it wasn't your primary focus and that you hadn't gone all the way thru the system. Maybe I had it wrong or that's changed.."

If you still believe I said that, then I have nothing more to say.

[YouKnowWho]

Who said anything about good or bad? If you're wondering why discussions go south on this form, this is exactly the reason why imo. I never said good, bad or otherwise.


while you've had wing chun training ....

You are right! This is my fault. Please accept my apologize on this. Besides my bad Chiglish, my eyes are not very good sometime. I just had my 2nd glaucoma surgery a month ago.

When you said, "while you've had wing chun training." I read as,"while you've bad wing chun training." :( :o

I just didn't want to upset the person who introduced me into the WC system (incase he read this forum). Again, it's my fault.

[JPinAZ]

You are right! This is my fault. Please accept my apologize on this. Besides my bad Chiglish, my eyes are not very good sometime. I just had my 2nd glaucoma surgery a month ago.

When you said, "while you've had wing chun training." I read as,"while you've bad wing chun training." :( :o

I just didn't want to upset the person who introduced me into the WC system (incase he read this forum). Again, it's my fault.

hah, no problem, mistakes happen! hope you are healing quickly!

[Faux Newbie]

To the topic, and out of general interest.

The thing with close range is that one needs a fairly comprehensive system of take downs, throws, strikes, and holds/seizing in that range.

The thing with long range is that reach is vital.

Where I am curious on how to view wing chun in this is that, in the close category, I am perhaps not familiar with the throwing and takedown repertoire, but the impression I had is that it was not a focus, and not seeking to be comprehensive.

On the long range, because of the center line thing, I was perhaps under the assumption that this requires that line to be on the opponent often in attacks, which reduces the overall range while for others one may face, they retain that range.

On the reach issue, stepping is only an answer if your opponent lacks the skill to also step in order to maintain a reach advantage.

I am curious what inaccuracies people others may think rest in these assumptions.

[YouKnowWho]

The thing with long range is that reach is vital.
When you

- step in, your opponent may step back.
- touch your arm on your opponent's arm, his arm may move away too.

If you try to depend on the "sticky" principle to

- control distance, and
- build bridge,

it may not be effective enough. The "sticky" principle is just too easy to be broken apart. Instead, the "hook" principle is much better solution. When you put a "hook" on your opponent's body and if he moves back, he will pull your body with him.

In this clip, he puts 2 "hooks" on his opponent's arms. He also applies "sticky leg" principle on his opponent's leading leg.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thoUoByrfME

[YouKnowWho]

The thing with long range is that reach is vital.
A single "hook (not hook punch but hook principle)" may do most of the job too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Mo1bWGe1Q

[Faux Newbie]

Interesting. I'll have to think about what I think of that in reference to dealing with long range attacks.

[YouKnowWho]

You only use this when you move in toward your opponent. If your opponent moves in toward you, you can by pass the 1st gate (wrist area) and enter direct into the 2nd gate (elbow area), or even the 3rd gate (shoulder/head area). In the single hook clip, you move from the 1st gate and jump directly into the 3rd gate. If your opponent is experienced, it's safer to just move from the 1st gate to the 2nd gate, and then to the 3rd gate. The reason is simple, if you jump from the 1st gate to the 3rd gate, you may give your opponent enough time to escape.

[kung fu fighter]

If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.

Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don't even need to learn

- MT to use roundhouse kick, or
- CLF to use haymaker.


Depend on your engine you develop.

I agree! generally these two types of techniques from MT and CLF use the body type engine, not the close range wck force line type short power generation

[Hendrik]

To the topic, and out of general interest.

The thing with close range is that one needs a fairly comprehensive system of take downs, throws, strikes, and holds/seizing in that range.

The thing with long range is that reach is vital.

Where I am curious on how to view wing chun in this is that, in the close category, I am perhaps not familiar with the throwing and takedown repertoire, but the impression I had is that it was not a focus, and not seeking to be comprehensive.

On the long range, because of the center line thing, I was perhaps under the assumption that this requires that line to be on the opponent often in attacks, which reduces the overall range while for others one may face, they retain that range.

On the reach issue, stepping is only an answer if your opponent lacks the skill to also step in order to maintain a reach advantage.

I am curious what inaccuracies people others may think rest in these assumptions.



IMHO, there are different style strategy, range, and specialty. So that is the beauty of different arts.


In my Wck lineage if the type of technology and level as in the following video are not develop. It will be not likely to carry out or implement the strategy. The body and force handling just can't do it properly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=jji2LOBAHHU

[tc101]

IMHO, there are different style strategy, range, and specialty. So that is the beauty of different arts.


In my Wck lineage if the type of technology and level as in the following video are not develop. It will be not likely to carry out or implement the strategy. The body and force handling just can't do it properly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=jji2LOBAHHU

I love people who do not fight and have no fighting skills telling us all about fighting and strategy and ranges and so forth like they know what they are talking about. Put on some gloves until you do you have absolutely no idea.

[Faux Newbie]

I love people who do not fight and have no fighting skills telling us all about fighting and strategy and ranges and so forth like they know what they are talking about. Put on some gloves until you do you have absolutely no idea.

Frankly, there is nothing in that video that I, as someone who spars and tries to train realistically with my kung fu, and people I know who fight mma using kung fu and other things, would really spend a lot of time disagreeing with.

I've had plenty of things I disagree with Hendrick on, this isn't really one such thing.

For instance, my style has some common ground with wing chun from a Southern kung fu influence. But it also has a lot in common with Chen style. Changes in range, especially during contact, require subtle changes in posture that come from a particular, as Hendrick would put it, engine, and those are determined by the conditions. Nothing really controversial there.

[Hendrik]

You only use this when you move in toward your opponent. If your opponent moves in toward you, you can by pass the 1st gate (wrist area) and enter direct into the 2nd gate (elbow area), or even the 3rd gate (shoulder/head area). In the single hook clip, you move from the 1st gate and jump directly into the 3rd gate. If your opponent is experienced, it's safer to just move from the 1st gate to the 2nd gate, and then to the 3rd gate. The reason is simple, if you jump from the 1st gate to the 3rd gate, you may give your opponent enough time to escape.


Great point!

[Wayfaring]

A single "hook (not hook punch but hook principle)" may do most of the job too.


Because a "jump head lock" is a 1)preferred 2)possible 3)plausible way to close distance?

[YouKnowWho]

Because a "jump head lock" is a 1)preferred 2)possible 3)plausible way to close distance?
It doesn't have to end with a "head lock". You can pull your opponent into your punch, or use the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXEX-1FTuSY

[Wayfaring]

It doesn't have to end with a "head lock". You can pull your opponent into your punch, or use the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent.


So I guess your answer would be 2) Possible. And yes, I'm aware of "you can pull your opponent into your punch...". Lap sau is a very basic move in wing chun.

All I got to say regarding that first video with the jump head lock would be the same things my kids say when I dance in front of them "don't ever do that again......"

[YouKnowWho]

Do you think the "jump head lock" is

- impossible?
- low successful rate?
- too risky to apply?
- ...

If you have concern about your opponent right free arm, when you enter, you do have to jam it and then wrap it. You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. You can't ignore your opponent's free arm when you enter. The arm jamming and arm wrapping just wasn't shown in that clip.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIV3yz8aVGI

[Faux Newbie]

So, discussing the long range aspect, I understand from your perspective, John, that a major goal is getting in close as soon as possible and throwing.

Let's say from a perspective of someone in a situation with a reach advantage who wishes to prolong time in long range striking and maximizing that advantage before moving in for the finish. It does not seem to me that Wing Chun is a long range art in this sense, though I certainly could be mistaken. This is not saying incomplete, just saying that that option seems limited to me.

Likewise in very close range, I will do a little background research, but it seems to me that in close, strikes or take downs both play a huge role. In regards to the types of strikes, I do not see this as an issue, but I again was under the impression that on throws and take downs, it is not a focus.

How do Wing Chun fighters deal with these issues, or, in what ways are these aspects included?

For instance, not are there throws, but is there sufficient throws to be considered well prepared for the realities of throwing and attempts at counter throws? Are there strikes that are sufficiently long range to deal with the opponent who keeps distance and uses reach using a system that does not adhere to center line approaches to striking, systems whose strikes enable more reach?

[JPinAZ]

In regards to longer range fighting, the WC I practice has long range bridging strategies. It is part of our Cheurn Kiu Sau engagement tools. This can be used to bridge with an opponent as a means of keeping them out of mid-to-close range striking. Of course, it also would keep me from reaching my opponent with WC's short range strikes, but that's the point.

In a general sense, it's intent is to intercept & engage with an opponent and fend them off to prior to closing the range into WC's short range striking. This may be done as a means to feel the guy out a little before going into committing to striking, and generally works best against longer range attacks (jab/cross). When introducing these ideas to students, I use the analogy 'touch the stone, cross the river'.

Of course fights are chaotic and the opponent might have other ideas about the range they want to fight at :) So while like anything else, it doesn't always work out, but the idea is you've made contact sooner than later and have bought some time to react to their next move while covering centerline and getting a bead on their COG if bridge correctly.

[Faux Newbie]

The WC I practice has long range bridging strategies. It is part of our Cheurn Kiu Sau engagement tools. This can be used to bridge with an opponent as a means of keeping them out of mid-to-close range striking. Of course, it also would keep me out of that same range, but in a general sense, it's intent is to intercept & engage with an opponent and fend them off to prior to closing the range into WC's short range striking. This may be done as a means to feel the guy out a little before commiting to striking. When introducing these ideas to students, I use the analogy 'touch the stone, cross the river'.
Of course, the opponent might have other ideas, so it doesn't always work out and the range may be lost before it's of any use. :)

This was what I understood to be the case. I guess I view it, in that sense, of being a style that has methods of dealing with long range, but not oriented towards long range offenses. Would this be accurate?

[Faux Newbie]

To clarify a bit, I mean a style that applies a long range defense intended to facilitate offenses on closing.

[JPinAZ]

This was what I understood to be the case. I guess I view it, in that sense, of being a style that has methods of dealing with long range, but not oriented towards long range offenses. Would this be accurate?


To clarify a bit, I mean a style that applies a long range defense intended to facilitate offenses on closing.

That is correct. It is a means of engaging long range without fully committing to short range fighting that is WC's bread & butter
(just a note, I also editted my last post before seeing your reply)

[Hendrik]

Do you think the "jump head lock" is

- impossible?
- low successful rate?
- too risky to apply?
- ...

If you have concern about your opponent right free arm, when you enter, you do have to jam it and then wrap it. You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. You can't ignore your opponent's free arm when you enter. The arm jamming and arm wrapping just wasn't shown in that clip.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIV3yz8aVGI



You previous video, not this one, shows using body to enter while jaming . That is the third arm. That is a good one.



Those who has no close strike training has not much defense in that 2 to 3 gate range.

For my lineage, one needs develop snake engine wigh SLT to do something similar to 4.38 in the following video. Seven bows handling is the beginner basic for thess type of close body handling. One needs the seventh bow to do the job. Thus, itis seven bows, not six joints as mention generaly.

http://youtu.be/nf12hKWEby8

[tc101]

Frankly, there is nothing in that video that I, as someone who spars and tries to train realistically with my kung fu, and people I know who fight mma using kung fu and other things, would really spend a lot of time disagreeing with.

I've had plenty of things I disagree with Hendrick on, this isn't really one such thing.

For instance, my style has some common ground with wing chun from a Southern kung fu influence. But it also has a lot in common with Chen style. Changes in range, especially during contact, require subtle changes in posture that come from a particular, as Hendrick would put it, engine, and those are determined by the conditions. Nothing really controversial there.

It's all complete twaddle. There is no such thing as engine. Listening to people who don't fight talk about fighting is a waste of time.

[tc101]

This was what I understood to be the case. I guess I view it, in that sense, of being a style that has methods of dealing with long range, but not oriented towards long range offenses. Would this be accurate?

I think looking at things from is it a long range art or short range art is looking at it wrong. Just my opinion. That's not how things really work. I think how a person uses their wing chun training is very very dependent on the individual.

[Faux Newbie]

That is correct. It is a means of engaging long range without fully committing to short range fighting that is WC's bread & butter
(just a note, I also editted my last post before seeing your reply)

Just read the edit. Thanks.

[Faux Newbie]

It's all complete twaddle. There is no such thing as engine. Listening to people who don't fight talk about fighting is a waste of time.

The Chen style teacher I studied under in China trained the local sanshou champ, and he used that exact comparison to explain how power generation works in fighting with Chen style. Getting the waist involved is hugely important in old Chen style, not pivoting on a point like in boxing (because of the throwing element, among other things, in Chen), but pivoting around that point, in order to have power generation while doing this you have to always use certain practices that are basically analogous to an engine in that the abs and lower back muscles facilitate power in specific ways, and knowing how posture allows different expressions of it is comparable to axles and wheels. Without these practices, by pivoting around a point without knowing when to open and close the spine, you will tend to lean forward or back, and the spin will become unstable, stay upright without proper transition in the spine and you tend to dig in your stance instead of being mobile.

They used it in full contact fighting. An engine is just a metaphor, but it is a good one.

[Faux Newbie]

I think looking at things from is it a long range art or short range art is looking at it wrong. Just my opinion. That's not how things really work. I think how a person uses their wing chun training is very very dependent on the individual.

Boxing or long fist has longer reach punches for outside range than wing chun. I don't see any practitioner changing this without simply adopting the same practices. This is not to say that wing chun does not address the long range, but I don't see any techs in it that would allow staying at long range without simply being defensive.

[tc101]

The Chen style teacher I studied under in China trained the local sanshou champ, and he used that exact comparison to explain how power generation works in fighting with Chen style. Getting the waist involved is hugely important in old Chen style, not pivoting on a point like in boxing because of the throwing element, but pivoting around that point, in order to have power generation while doing this you have to always use certain practices that are basically analogous to an engine in that the abs and lower back muscles facilitate power in specific ways, and knowing how posture allows different expressions of it is comparable to axles and wheels. Without these practices, by pivoting around a point without knowing when to open and close the spine, you will tend to lean forward or back, and the spin will become unstable, stay upright without proper transition in the spine and you tend to dig in your stance instead of being mobile.

They used it in full contact fighting. An engine is just a metaphor, but it is a good one.

No it is a terrible metaphor. The body uses lots lots lots of different mechanics in martial arts. In boxing every single punch uses a different mechanic and often you can do the same punch many different ways.

Talking about getting the waist involved is academic talk. You show someone how to do it then they practice. Talk doesn't help you do it.

[tc101]

Boxing or long fist has longer reach punches for outside range than wing chun. I don't see any practitioner changing this without simply adopting the same practices. This is not to say that wing chun does not address the long range, but I don't see any techs in it that would allow staying at long range without simply being defensive.

No completely wrong. A straight punch with your arm fully extended does't get any longer lol. Wing chun is training for fights in stand up range if you want to call it that. Not short not middle not long they don't exist except in academic talk.

[GlennR]

No it is a terrible metaphor. The body uses lots lots lots of different mechanics in martial arts. In boxing every single punch uses a different mechanic and often you can do the same punch many different ways.


Sort of like a different engine perhaps?


Talking about getting the waist involved is academic talk. You show someone how to do it then they practice. Talk doesn't help you do it.

Sign language perhaps?

[Faux Newbie]

No it is a terrible metaphor.

For older Chen style, it is an excellent metaphor. Your argument is that if it has more parts, it's not an engine. I don't think that's a strong argument.


The body uses lots lots lots of different mechanics in martial arts.

Chen tends to seek to create a burst of kinetic energy from the torso in relation to leg motions. From there, the other mechanics are more about delivery(not constricting or stopping that energy by bad body position) than adding power, though they contribute some, but the bulk is from the initial burst. The criterion for how one produces this burst includes not preventing mobility， so seeking a balance of power generation and mobility in order to benefit from positioning and speedily respond to conditions.


In boxing every single punch uses a different mechanic and often you can do the same punch many different ways.

I've not seen any coaches or major fighters say a substantially different way to do a jab or cross or hook or shovel hook or overhand. They are fairly consistent. Could you provide an example?


Talking about getting the waist involved is academic talk.

I've seen a coach explaining it to a full contact fighter, who was using it thereafter, so I beg to differ.


You show someone how to do it then they practice. Talk doesn't help you do it.

I've yet to meet a mute coach.

[Faux Newbie]

No completely wrong. A straight punch with your arm fully extended does't get any longer lol. Wing chun is training for fights in stand up range if you want to call it that. Not short not middle not long they don't exist except in academic talk.

I was under the impression that wing chun sought to keep a punch in your own center line. Is this mistaken?

In other words, using boxing as an example, fully turning the shoulder, posturing forward, having the strike well out of your own center line, and having the rear heel raised all contribute extra reach that the arm alone cannot. I was not aware that wing chun did this. Same with a cross or a straight right.

This is not even considering systems with long range kicks, which I was not aware were present in Wing Chun.

[JPinAZ]

I think looking at things from is it a long range art or short range art is looking at it wrong. Just my opinion. That's not how things really work. I think how a person uses their wing chun training is very very dependent on the individual.

I can agree with this. While yes, WC is mostly a shorter range striking style, I wouldn't say wing chun is only a short range art as that is limiting. As I see WC being a principle-based art (lol, T will like that), not technique based, it has strategies/tactics/tools for all 'ranges', with different mechanics for the various 'ranges'. It's just that it mainly employs short range striking, so tends to get categorized as such.

[Faux Newbie]

I can agree with this. While yes, WC is mostly a shorter range striking style, I wouldn't say wing chun is only a short range art as that is limiting. As I see WC being a principle-based art (lol, T will like that), not technique based, it has strategies/tactics/tools for all 'ranges', with different mechanics for the various 'ranges'. It's just that it mainly employs short range striking, so tends to get categorized as such.

From an outside(of Wing Chun, not outside range) perspective, this sounds pretty accurate.

And of course, range is a momentary thing at times, but being able to determine the range at the moment is a definite skill. Distance (as in timing and distance) is probably a better description, I suppose.

[YouKnowWho]

A straight punch with your arm fully extended does't get any longer lol.

Since long fist is my primary foundation art, I can answer this question. If you keep your chest and arm in a 90 degree angle, you can punch with both arms at the same time but you won't have maximum reach. To turn your body and make your punching arm, chest, and back shoulder in a perfect straight line will give you the maximum reach. If you also lift your back leg into a golden roster stance, lean your body forward, that will give you even more reach.

8675

[Faux Newbie]

Since long fist is my primary foundation art, I can answer this question. If you keep your chest and arm in a 90 degree angle, you can punch with both arms at the same time but you won't have maximum reach.



Precisely, I don't know of a punch in wing chun like this.

[HybridWarrior]

Precisely, I don't know of a punch in wing chun like this.

are you saying you don't know of a WC punch "with both arms at the same time" as YKW says? Or you don't know of a WC punch i.e. long range etc as he described?

[Faux Newbie]

are you saying you don't know of a WC punch "with both arms at the same time" as YKW says? Or you don't know of a WC punch i.e. long range etc as he described?

I meant where you "turn your body and make your punching arm, chest, and back shoulder in a perfect straight line will give you the maximum reach." I thought the wing chun straight was with the hand still in line with your own center line. Keep in mind I am not a wing chun practitioner.

This was not to say this makes it incomplete, merely in relation to discussion of distance fighting and wing chun(long range) and different strategies based off of the reach of attacks.

Oh, I see my error. I pasted the wrong part of his text. My mistake.

[HybridWarrior]

I meant where you "turn your body and make your punching arm, chest, and back shoulder in a perfect straight line will give you the maximum reach." I thought the wing chun straight was with the hand still in line with your own center line. Keep in mind I am not a wing chun practitioner.

This was not to say this makes it incomplete, merely in relation to discussion of distance fighting and wing chun(long range) and different strategies based off of the reach of attacks.

Oh, I see my error. I pasted the wrong part of his text. My mistake.

no worries.
yes, WC has a "pole punch" (sometimes referred to by other names) which is very similar to what YKW described in his post.
Thx.

[Faux Newbie]

no worries.
yes, WC has a "pole punch" (sometimes referred to by other names) which is very similar to what YKW described in his post.
Thx.

Thanks! I hadn't heard that term before, nice.

[JPinAZ]

no worries.
yes, WC has a "pole punch" (sometimes referred to by other names) which is very similar to what YKW described in his post.
Thx.

Agreed. In my experience this is typically thrown to cover the space between yourself and an opponent when you've lost facing and there's a 'hole' between you and your opponent. Surely a strike, but more of an emergency technique because you lost facing vs a strategy form when you have facing IMO.
Only difference I can see from what JW said and this is that you still would want to keep your COG/self CL intact and both feet on the ground for any of the cases I can think of where you would use this.

[YouKnowWho]

Precisely, I don't know of a punch in wing chun like this.

A long fist guy would stretch his body to the maximum during the beginner training stage. Here is the most basic long fist form Tan Tui training.

Look at the

- front arm,
- upper body,
- back arm,

on a straight line training. You don't see this kind of training outside of the long fist system.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt83nvRwq-4

This posture is the trade mark of the long fist system.

8676

Believe it or not, when I started my UT Austin informal Kung Fu class back in 1973, there were 2 TCMA instructors, Jeffery Law (from Ip Men) who taught the 1st hour WC class. I (from Li Mao-Ching) taught the 2nd hour long fist class. After 1 month, all students were confused big time. We had to separate 2 systems after that. IMO, a cross training between WC and long fist is very difficult in the beginner stage. But after you have a solid foundation from one system, to add principles from another system (but still use your original system as your base) is quite possible.

http://ymaa.com/articles/grandmaster-li-mao-ching

[Hendrik]

John,

In 1848 red boat era Wck, there are long distance strike which is the sword finger. As in the photo.

The technic is used because it is light and fast, an emei technic use for super fast probing , faster then biu Jee, and three inch longer the fist, since Wck is different compare to long fist, the long fist technic such as in CLF is slower and have a different combat strategy. Wck and clf making use on different types of momentum It is like the different in speed using arm compare with leg.


I study both Wck and clf within The Cho family, and we have set which is a hybrid where one switch between WCK and CLF. It is very difficult to get this type of training right, because it is difficult to switch between the snake engine of emei and the flying gyros engine of CLF. Most people I know end up default to CLF and the set become a CLF type with Wck posture.


In this closing salutation of the long set SLT, the bong elbow is short strike the sword finger is long fist strike. Hero is the synonym of the anti Qing. The posture is a symbol presenting the identity of opera sect anti Qing of yik kam Wck lineage

[KPM]

I meant where you "turn your body and make your punching arm, chest, and back shoulder in a perfect straight line will give you the maximum reach." I thought the wing chun straight was with the hand still in line with your own center line. Keep in mind I am not a wing chun practitioner.

.

Both Pin Sun WCK and Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun WCK have a "Pin Sun Da" or "Side Body Strike" that is essentially what you describe.

[tc101]

I just want to clear up a couple of things I've said from my perspective.

When I say that Hendrik's views are idle speculation I mean his ideas do not come from his practice but from some other source and is therefore not trustworthy. I've seen this on a boxing forum also some guy who doesn't box and never boxed will quote various sources including valid sources and put together in his head in an academic way a understanding of boxing but his understanding is in a word hogwash. It doesn't work like that.

I think there is lots lots lots of misinformation in wing chun and Chinese martial arts generally. I think it comes from people like Hendrik and others who repeat things they have heard and not fron experience. Then this misinformation is passed along as wisdom to a new bunch of Hendriks.

This long medium short range stuff is some of this information. The real world does not work like that. Instead of listening to the Hendriks look for yourself with your own eyes even if you aren't doing it for yourself look at people who are. Look at the Orr team, Obasi, rick Spain or the other prominent wing chun fighters and do you see any or all of them just or mainly fighting at close range? No. You see them fighting in long medium and short range or to put it another way you see them fighting in stand up range. That is the reality of fighting.

The other factor here is the individual. How you put things together for yourself through sparring will be individual. If you are a lanky 6'4" how you make your training work will be different than someone who is 5'6" and stocky. Individually you may PREFER the inside but maybe you will PREFER the outside. By prefer I do not mean in your head but that you naturally excel there. You may begin thinking I want to fight on the inside and find you are not very good there but are a natural for the outside. You see this is why you can't figure it out intellectually but can only see from experience doing it.

[kung fu fighter]

I think there is lots lots lots of misinformation in wing chun and Chinese martial arts generally. I think it comes from people like Hendrik and others who repeat things they have heard and not fron experience. Then this misinformation is passed along as wisdom to a new bunch of Hendriks.
I would be honored and proud to be called a new Hendrik! the man has mad skills.


When I say that Hendrik's views are idle speculation I mean his ideas do not come from his practice but from some other source and is therefore not trustworthy.This is pure speculation, Have you met the man or touched hands with him? I have!


This long medium short range stuff is some of this information. The real world does not work like that. Instead of listening to the Hendriks look for yourself with your own eyes.

I have, I've sparred and rolled with some of the top pro MMA fighters in Canada, my wing chun before meeting Hendrik and learning his snake engine worked very well, in fact I dominated the stand up sparring component with my wck. Pro MMA fighters were unsuccessful with taking me down in fact they often commented on what a good base I have, which they weren't expecting from a traditional martial artist especially from a kung fu guy.They even suggested that I compete in MMA, but I am too old now. However when I decided to cooporate and play their game of BJJ Rolling or Wrestling to get some training in, their ground game was much more superior to mine . I think wck throws their timing off.
So I've done my share of full contact sparring and believe me I've looked for myself with my own eyes. For the last 10 years i've been a journey man in Wck researching every possible linage of the art that i could find (Yip Man wc, Kulo PSWC, YKS/sum nungWC, Buddha Hand wc, Vietnamese WC, Yiu Choi wc, ). The WCK technology that Hendrik showed me was on a different level to what I was doing before.


Even if you aren't doing it for yourself, look at people who are, Look at the Orr team, Obasi, rick Spain or the other prominent wing chun fighters and do you see any or all of them just or mainly fighting at close range? No. You see them fighting in long medium and short range or to put it another way you see them fighting in stand up range. That is the reality of fighting.That's because they are using the wck art in a sparring context verses a real world self defense scenero with no rules. I've worked as a full time Bouncer for over 16 years, and i have compted in full contact tournaments. I can assure yoy i know what the difference is between the two.

[Wayfaring]

I would be honored and proud to be called a new Hendrik! the man has mad skills.

This is pure speculation, Have you met the man or touched hands with him? I have!

I have, I've sparred and rolled with some of the top pro MMA fighters in Canada, my wing chun before meeting Hendrik and learning his snake engine worked very well, in fact I dominated the stand up sparring component with my wck. Pro MMA fighters were unsuccessful with taking me down in fact they often commented on what a good base I have, which they weren't expecting from a traditional martial artist especially from a kung fu guy.They even suggested that I compete in MMA, but I am too old now. However when I decided to cooporate and play their game of BJJ Rolling or Wrestling to get some training in, their ground game was much more superior to mine . I think wck throws their timing off.
So I've done my share of full contact sparring and believe me I've looked for myself with my own eyes. For the last 10 years i've been a journey man in Wck researching every possible linage of the art that i could find (Yip Man wc, Kulo PSWC, YKS/sum nungWC, Buddha Hand wc, Vietnamese WC, Yiu Choi wc, ). The WCK technology that Hendrik showed me was on a different level to what I was doing before.

That's because they are using the wck art in a sparring context verses a real world self defense scenero with no rules. I've worked as a full time Bouncer for over 16 years, and i have compted in full contact tournaments. I can assure yoy i know what the difference is between the two.

Not sure if serious.......

[Faux Newbie]

Thanks for clearing up your overall view tc101. I'll be clear, I don't care about the Hendrick part of it, but the main points in relation to Wing Chun and usage and range I found useful, concise, and on topic.

Which topic being, for anyone who may forget, is "Wing Chun long, medium, or short range sparring?":D

[Faux Newbie]

no worries.
yes, WC has a "pole punch" (sometimes referred to by other names) which is very similar to what YKW described in his post.
Thx.

Is this also called the "battle punch"?

[HybridWarrior]

Is this also called the "battle punch"?

Hmmm. Dunno...I've never heard of that term before.

[Faux Newbie]

Hmmm. Dunno...I've never heard of that term before.

When I looked up wing chun pole punch on you tube, a number of videos came up like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pVE4_WUhAA

Most say it's prepatory for long pole, so I wasn't sure this was the same thing.

[YouKnowWho]

Here is an example by using "double downward haymakers" to "protect your center from outside in". Is this principle used in the WC system?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSpFrnAkBPg

[Hendrik]

Here is an example by using "double downward haymakers" to "protect your center from outside in". Is this principle used in the WC system?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSpFrnAkBPg



John ,

IMHO, you are slapping hand defensible instead of Wck attack the center line offensively. This is chasing hands

[YouKnowWho]

John ,

IMHO, you are slapping hand has no action toward center line.

Your opponent use straight punches such as jab and cross to hit your face, you use double downward haymakers to deflect both punches. Is that to "protect your center"?

[Hendrik]

Your opponent use straight punches such as jab and cross to hit your face, you use double downward haymakers to deflect both punches. Is that to "protect your center"?

IMHO, you are slapping hand defensively instead of Wck attack the center line offensively target the structure. Your technic is chasing hands

[YouKnowWho]

IMHO, you are slapping hand defensively instead of Wck attack the center line offensively target the structure. Your technic is chasing hands

In that clip, it was used 100% for defense. Because the offense after that was cut off from that clip on purpose. You can use WC Tan Shou to set up something. You can also use downward haymaker to set up something.

[Hendrik]

In that clip, it was used 100% for defense. Because the offense after that was cut off from that clip on purpose. You can use WC Tan Shou to set up something. You can also use downward haymaker to set up something.

IMHO,

This is one step late and putting one is defensive position. There is no significant effect on the opponent. He is free to do his next attack, while you will be busy trying to defense it . He is in control of the situation.

[HybridWarrior]

When I looked up wing chun pole punch on you tube, a number of videos came up like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pVE4_WUhAA

Most say it's prepatory for long pole, so I wasn't sure this was the same thing.

One is preparatory, the other is applied. That's all. I have done the exercise in the video you posted (though slightly different) and it is basically a power and conditioning exercise one can do before learning pole. The application of the pole punch is quite different. Thx.

[HybridWarrior]

Is this principle used in the WC system?

Yes, though I'm sure it most likely lineage specific.

[YouKnowWho]

IMHO,

This is one step late and putting one is defensive position. There is no significant effect on the opponent. He is free to do his next attack, while you will be busy trying to defense it . He is in control of the situation.

You started with your arms away from your center. When your opponent punches at you, you then use double haymakers (Chinese spear technique) that not only deflect (press down) your opponent's punches, it also moves your arms between your opponent's arms (this is the main goal). This way, you can enter his "front door". The effect is shown a bit later.

You may argue, "Why don't you keep your arms in your center to start with?" Sometime you may like to

- use hook punches to hit on the side of your opponent's head.
- open your center, invite your opponent to come in.
- ...

Since your arms are outside and your opponent's arms are inside. By using this strategy, you will have your arms to be inside of your opponent's arms. This is why I call it to "protect your center from outside in".

This is the rest of that clip (still not the whole thing - the rest of the move has nothing to do with this discussion). This is a good example that you use "spiral" to deal with "straight line".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i-y6DJsLRU

[JPinAZ]

IMHO, you are slapping hand defensively instead of Wck attack the center line offensively target the structure. Your technic is chasing hands


This is one step late and putting one is defensive position. There is no significant effect on the opponent. He is free to do his next attack, while you will be busy trying to defense it . He is in control of the situation.

Never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with carzy ol hendrik on this. I think it's great that John posts clips to give a better visual of what he's talking about, IMO the video posted, while a totally acceptable defense application, is more out-to-out, chasing hands and pure defensive in nature from a WC perspective.

WC is about simultaneous offense/defense. I didn't see this in the clip as there is no fwd pressure toward center, no fwd connection to your opponent and no 2 hands working as one. 'Protecting center' and 'occupying center with fwd intent' are 2 different things. For it to fit with my understanding of WC's 'out-to-in', you should be going from a place where you have no structure on the A-to-B center to a place where you do occupy A-to-B centerline with structure and fwd intend (simply put). While you are very well going to find instances where you will have to engage with your hands starting at your sides (out) and cannot set up and initial bai jong position (whether you were caught off guard ot chose not to for tactical/strategic reasons) , you should cover the centerline when engaging (in) for it to be WC's out-to-in IMO.

[YouKnowWho]

I didn't see this in the clip as there is no fwd pressure toward center, no fwd connection to your opponent and no 2 hands working as one.
That's not a fair statement. In the following full clip you can see that:

1. no fwd pressure toward center - he takes over his opponent's original position.
2. no fwd connection to your opponent - his right leg springs (connect) his opponent's left leg, and bounce his opponent's left leg off the ground.
3. no 2 hands working as one - his right hand is under his opponent's right shoulder, his left hand is behind his opponent's neck. He use both hands to push his opponent's upper body down.

At the end, he takes over his opponent's position. He "forces" his opponent to have his original position. If that's not "forward pressure" then I don't know what "forward pressure" is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtIXgZu9OcQ

[Hendrik]

John,

Thanks for the details explaination.

IMHO, what you present is an outer gate play.




You started with your arms away from your center. When your opponent punches at you, you then use double haymakers (Chinese spear technique) that not only deflect (press down) your opponent's punches, it also moves your arms between your opponent's arms (this is the main goal). This way, you can enter his "front door". The effect is shown a bit later.

You may argue, "Why don't you keep your arms in your center to start with?" Sometime you may like to

- use hook punches to hit on the side of your opponent's head.
- open your center, invite your opponent to come in.
- ...

Since your arms are outside and your opponent's arms are inside. By using this strategy, you will have your arms to be inside of your opponent's arms. This is why I call it to "protect your center from outside in".

This is the rest of that clip (still not the whole thing - the rest of the move has nothing to do with this discussion). This is a good example that you use "spiral" to deal with "straight line".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i-y6DJsLRU

[JPinAZ]

That's not a fair statement. In the following full clip you can see that:

1. no fwd pressure toward center - both of his arms are between his opponent's arms (his opponent's front door),
2. no fwd connection to your opponent - his right leg springs his opponent's left leg back (this destroy his opponent's structure).
3. no 2 hands working as one - his right hand is under his opponent's right shoulder, his left hand is behind his opponent's neck (he can use his left hand to reinforce his right hand if he wants to).

I don't know, I thought it was fair - you posted a clip and asked opinions of whether people thought it represented a a specific WC principle. I gave mine that I didn't think it did and even backed it up with wing chun principle and examples, what's not fair about that? If you think it does, that's fine, not everyone sees WC the same way and everyone is free to have their opinion :)

to address your points:
1. no, I didn't see what I would call fwd pressure toward/on center, more of a circling and downward motion. You even admitted the haymaker defense techniques were being thrown downward, not fwd. To me, if ignoring not going to center which isn't always mandatory, it looked like only the first part of loi lau hoi sung - just the loi lau. Without going to center and no hoi sung, then it could be viewed as chasing hands.

2. No I didn't see it in those first 2 motions, which was all that were shown in the first clip where you asked the question) I was only referring to the 2 hooking defense technique used against the 2 punches. The rest was not in that clip.

3. again, wasn't in the original clip you asked the question of. But even looking at the longer clip where he enters in on his opponent, from a wing chun perspective I still don't see the things I mentioned in my earlier post.

Again, I think it's cool you are willing to post clips to give a visual of what you're talking about, and it was a nice clip showing a good defensive to offensive application. It just doesn't fit with my understanding of wing chun principle or application.

[JPinAZ]

John, to give a bit more of my perspective, we do something a little similar to what you are doing with our noi gwa sau, which is part of out Cheurn Kiu Sau/long range bridging engagement tools. The difference here is, instead of standing in directly in front of our opponent and engaging both hands, we would employ our 6-Gate Heaven/Human/Earth footwork while engaging the initial punch/jab with our engaging kiu covering from shoulder-line (out) to center (in) in somewhat similar fashion to what you are doing, only feeding it offline and then covering the A-to-B center with fwd energy in one motion via loi lau hoi sung, so as to take out some of the timing off the second punch coming in.

Of course in application things don't always work out like you'd like :) But the point of covering center after 'receiving' the energy form the first punch (loi lau hoi sung) is to take the sails out of the first punch and set up a strong angle & position so as the second punch comes in, you are in a better spot to deal with it.

[YouKnowWho]

You even admitted the haymaker defense techniques were being thrown downward, not fwd.

I think we are clear on all the other comments. I didn't say this clip is using the WC principle. I just ask people's opinion on whether WC guys will use "Chinese spear" strategy. By using the Chinese spear, you will move your spear in circle to press down your opponent's attacking spear. you then stab (this the fwd that you are talking about). The downward is the 1st part, the forward is the 2nd part. Together it creates a 3D "spiral".

Sorry that I didn't start with the complete clip. I thought by using partial clip, we can concentrate our discussion on "Chinese spear" strategy. By showing the whole clip, other people may think that I try to discuss non-WC subject in a WC thread (may be that's exactly what I'm doing :D).

[JPinAZ]

No problem John! Maybe I missed the spearing question, the question you asked that I was answering was "Here is an example by using "double downward haymakers" to "protect your center from outside in". Is this principle used in the WC system?".

What you are describing in your last post about the spiral is somewhat along the line what I am talking about, only I don't think I focus on the downward as you may, and the 'spiral' comes form the outside and spirals off line and then back to center. The main difference being, the application in the video does not represent what I'm talking about and I wouldn't call what you are doing the same as what I define as Noi Gwa Sau, which is more of a crane wing arm signature and plays more horizontally vs down and then fwd. But I do understand and appreciate your analogy as well!

While I agree what you are saying with the spear analogy and it is a viable application of actual spear fighting, Biu ('Chinese spearing') techniques as I understand them from my lineage's perspective are typically for bridging on center, to the the inside of the opponent's lead arm and moving in a more up and forward motion on center for the most part, not down and in as in your video. Again, just different understanding of the terms and applications?

So while we do use use Biu/Spearing hand to engage, it is more a flip side of the coin of out-to-in. Instead of using Noi Gwa Sau to cover out-to-in in our long range Churn Kiu Sau, we use Loi Lap Sau to cover in-to-out for long range engagement. The initial engagement shape is very much a spearing motion that we call Biu Jong Sau/spearing structure hand. But, it is spearing fwd from and on center/'in' and making contact on the kiu/arm (outside of my forearm with the inside of his forearm) before we go 'out' to open up our opponent for striking. Loi Lap Sau is the complete action for the full loi lau hoi sung cycle, where the biu/spear is the first part of engagement and centerline domination. But, as I described in my earlier post about noi gwa sau, we use 6-gate H/H/E footwork when engaging with loi lap sau as well vs dealing with both opponent's hands head on as in your clip. For that, we use something else entirely ;)

(lol, hope all of this makes sense)

[KPM]

Here is an example by using "double downward haymakers" to "protect your center from outside in". Is this principle used in the WC system?



Kinda sort of. I learned to protect from "outside in" by using a "cutting' or "excluding" punch that is similar to your video but with the elbow down and not a "haymaker." It cuts into the center to deflect or "exclude" the opponent's punch with the forearm as you are punching. The deflecting is downward while moving forward, while at the same time the punch is forward while moving downward with a slight up-turn at the end, so something of a "spiral" as you mention.

[YouKnowWho]

with the elbow down and not a "haymaker." It cuts into the center to deflect or "exclude" the opponent's punch with the forearm as you are punching. The deflecting is downward while moving forward, while at the same time the punch is forward while moving downward with a slight up-turn at the end, so something of a "spiral" as you mention.
I understand exactly what you are talking about. Your "spiral" starts while your elbow is still (or almost) in your center line. You then apply Bong Shou (without raising your elbow that much), deflect your opponent's punching arm, and enter. This move is also commonly used in the long fist system.

[KPM]

I understand exactly what you are talking about. Your "spiral" starts while your elbow is still (or almost) in your center line. You then apply Bong Shou (without raising your elbow that much), deflect your opponent's punching arm, and enter. This move is also commonly used in the long fist system.

Not exactly what I am thinking of John. No Bong Sau motion. Its actually a Chum Sau motion into a straight punch.

[Faux Newbie]

John, would it be fair to say that, in that video, unlike what others are describing as the wing chun approach, which, if I'm understanding correctly, here is oriented around shutting down the opponent's limb and taking the center, in what you do, since throws and take downs are your goal, you want to continue (instead of shut down) their momentum to use in a throw, thus affecting their center (versus taking it)?

[YouKnowWho]

shutting down the opponent's limb and taking the center,...
You are correct. Instead of using the WC "shut down" principle, you "redirect" your opponent's arms away from your moving path (as long as his arms won't bother you). Since most of the body contact throws have to use your back to touch your opponent's chest, to "take the center" is quite proper.

When you enter, you have to consider your own safety. So not only you want to touch both of your arms on your opponent's arms, you also want to touch your leading leg on your opponent's leading leg. This way you will know exactly where your opponent arms and leg are. This concept is exactly the same as the WC "sticky hands", but you want more. You may call this "chasing arms". It is "chasing arms" because when you can use your arms to touch your opponent's arms, you can easily use your arms to touch his body or head after that.

The "sticky hand" and "clinch" are very similar. One has striking in mind. The other has grappling in mind.

[Hendrik]

You are correct. Instead of using the WC "shut down" principle, you "redirect" your opponent's arms away from your moving path (as long as his arms won't bother you). Since most of the body contact throws have to use your back to touch your opponent's chest, to "take the center" is quite proper.

When you enter, you have to consider your own safety. So not only you want to touch both of your arms on your opponent's arms, you also want to touch your leading leg on your opponent's leading leg. This way you will know exactly where your opponent arms and leg are. This concept is exactly the same as the WC "sticky hands", but you want more. You may call this "chasing arms". It is "chasing arms" because when you can use your arms to touch your opponent's arms, you can easily use your arms to touch his body or head after that.

The "sticky hand" and "clinch" are very similar. One has striking in mind. The other has grappling in mind.



John,

IMHO, clinch and sticky hand are similar. And what you say on touch , track , and consider safety is completely agree. Same with the teaching in my lineage of Wck.

The different between chasing hand and threaten center axis ( I don't use the term forward pressure because that is Ipman Wck term and not completely the same with what I am describe) is that threaten the center axis means threaten or disrupt the next move of the opponent momentum. While chasing hand doesn't have that effect.

What you are demo is an outside gate technic. Different from inner door capturing. In outside gate technic, one pull the Opponent to threaten his center axis instead of forward pressure to make it overkill and disrupt its momentum. Your demo doesn't do this.


Your demo is mostly an action force type, where Wck I understood is an action and reaction force play, at every step, make use of the opponent to jam or disrupt his own momentum, no matter it is long fist range or stick clinch range , that is capture center axis or not chasing hand .

That is why snake engine is important because at close sticking range one needs the power . This also made the different between your propose of roundhouse kick and I prefer step in. Because you are using a forward stance while I am using a back stance as in our salutation photo where shooting into the opponent crush his structure is one of the goal.


What I describe above is the different, not who is better.

[Minghequan]

Man! He attacks you respond .... Simple!

[YouKnowWho]

The "chasing hands" is like the "fly fishing" that you try to throw your fishing hook to where the fish are (your fishing hook chases the fish). Before you can use your arms to wrap around your opponent's body, you have to touch your arms on his arms first. Otherwise when you try to use your arms to wrap his body, his fists will land on your head. From a grappler's point of view, if you can wrap your opponent's arms, you can take his striking tools away. If you then try to wrap his body, it will be much safer after that.

[Hendrik]

The "chasing hands" is like the "fly fishing" that you try to throw your fishing hook to where the fish are. In order to wrap your opponent's body, you have to wrap his arms first. From a grappler's point of view, if you can wrap your opponent's arms, you can take his striking tools away.

That is perfectly fine.

But WCK I know doesn't make that type of big move because wck is 以靜制動。like a spider wait with small move.

In Wck I know point of view, every gate of the body can issue force . So it is not a striking only art.

Issuing is faster then striking because issuing is issue at contact. Not always need to moving the limbs to strike.


So, different concept and engine needed.

[Minghequan]

The ONLY "Engine" and the ONLY "concept" need is that of a quick and devastating response or action to the intended threat of violence! No Snakes, no Emei just do it or are you going to ask your attacker to refrain while you work out which "Engine" your going to use .... Jeez!

[tc101]

The ONLY "Engine" and the ONLY "concept" need is that of a quick and devastating response or action to the intended threat of violence! No Snakes, no Emei just do it or are you going to ask your attacker to refrain while you work out which "Engine" your going to use .... Jeez!

You see that is what you get when academic speculators get an arm chair round table going on WHAT THEY WOULD DO. It's simply amazing. If you want to know how it's really done its simple look at the guys really doing it like Orr Obasi Spain and so forth there it is. Oh yeah the problem is that what you see real wing chun fighters doing does not match their idle speculations. No matter just ignore the evidence.

[tc101]

Never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with carzy ol hendrik on this. I think it's great that John posts clips to give a better visual of what he's talking about, IMO the video posted, while a totally acceptable defense application, is more out-to-out, chasing hands and pure defensive in nature from a WC perspective.

WC is about simultaneous offense/defense. I didn't see this in the clip as there is no fwd pressure toward center, no fwd connection to your opponent and no 2 hands working as one. 'Protecting center' and 'occupying center with fwd intent' are 2 different things. For it to fit with my understanding of WC's 'out-to-in', you should be going from a place where you have no structure on the A-to-B center to a place where you do occupy A-to-B centerline with structure and fwd intend (simply put). While you are very well going to find instances where you will have to engage with your hands starting at your sides (out) and cannot set up and initial bai jong position (whether you were caught off guard ot chose not to for tactical/strategic reasons) , you should cover the centerline when engaging (in) for it to be WC's out-to-in IMO.

Maybe you can point me to one just one one one one wing chun fighter that is using simultaneous offense and defense the way you think it works.

Yes simultaneous offense and defense is ONE concept or tactic in wing chun but that is not what wing chun is about as you put it. If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.

My perspective is looking at a demo type clip and then discussing whether or not it shows something you might do in wing chun is idle speculation. If you want to see how wing chun fighters do things just look at wing chun fighters and see. START with the wing chun guy fighting start with that and go from there.

[KPM]

The ONLY "Engine" and the ONLY "concept" need is that of a quick and devastating response or action to the intended threat of violence! No Snakes, no Emei just do it or are you going to ask your attacker to refrain while you work out which "Engine" your going to use .... Jeez!

Your "engine" is simply the basis for the way you move. It is in-grained by your training from day 1. You don't have to "work out" anything. At a certain level of experience it should be second nature. Isn't that the reason for training?

[Paddington]

Maybe you can point me to one just one one one one wing chun fighter that is using simultaneous offense and defense the way you think it works.

Yes simultaneous offense and defense is ONE concept or tactic in wing chun but that is not what wing chun is about as you put it. If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.

My perspective is looking at a demo type clip and then discussing whether or not it shows something you might do in wing chun is idle speculation. If you want to see how wing chun fighters do things just look at wing chun fighters and see. START with the wing chun guy fighting start with that and go from there.

I'll try to dig up some mma clips, UFC actually, where this occurs. Granted, I would hold back saying it was 'wing chun' per se or even saying it was performed by a wing chun fighter.

[KPM]

Man! He attacks you respond .... Simple!

Yes! Simple! But its HOW you respond that counts. Are you going to winch and cover up and get pounded? Or are you going to use the martial art you have been training?

[KPM]

Hendrik wrote:

The different between chasing hand and threaten center axis ( I don't use the term forward pressure because that is Ipman Wck term and not completely the same with what I am describe) is that threaten the center axis means threaten or disrupt the next move of the opponent momentum. While chasing hand doesn't have that effect.

I follow what you are saying and agree. I like that phrase..."threaten center axis." That is a good way of looking at it. This is essentially the same idea as BJJ's "breaking the opponent's base." It is also closely connected to the idea of controlling the opponent's balance. The thing that actually "threatens" the opponent's center axis is the fact that you have disrupted his base or balance. Even a good Kum Na/Chin Na technique should do this. You don't just throw on a wrist lock and let the opponent stand there. With the wrist lock you also have to make him step off balance, bend over, turn, etc. so that he doesn't have the opportunity to use his other hand. But I think John would agree with this. He is just doing it in a little different way.



That is why snake engine is important because at close sticking range one needs the power . This also made the different between your propose of roundhouse kick and I prefer step in. Because you are using a forward stance while I am using a back stance as in our salutation photo where shooting into the opponent crush his structure is one of the goal.


Another good point. When I kick my goal is to "kick through" the opponent as if it was a step in. From the kick I put my foot down as I move in rather than snapping it back. This is easy to do with a front kick or oblique kick, but harder to do with a round kick.

[tc101]

I'll try to dig up some mma clips, UFC actually, where this occurs. Granted, I would hold back saying it was 'wing chun' per se or even saying it was performed by a wing chun fighter.

My point is people go about this the wrong way or from the wrong direction. If you want to talk about how wing chun fighters do things START there and see. It would be like asking is this how a boxer would do something and never looking at what boxers really do lol. If you want to know if boxers do something look at boxers don't listen to arm chair guys who don't box tell you how they would box.

[JPinAZ]

Maybe you can point me to one just one one one one wing chun fighter that is using simultaneous offense and defense the way you think it works.

While I appreciate your offer, I'm not interested in tracking down a video of a 'WC fighter' doing what I say to prove my case. I've proven it to myself thru years of training, hard work and proving what works/doesn't work with live pressure testing. But if you think someone like that Obasi is an example of a 'wing chun fighter' we should all watch and learn from, well then nothing I show you is going to make much sense since that guy has nothing to do with wing chun IMO.


Yes simultaneous offense and defense is ONE concept or tactic in wing chun but that is not what wing chun is about as you put it. If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.

I never implied that's 'all wing chun' is or that it was the only concept tactic. You're just arguing with yourself there Tere- oops- I mean 'counselor' ;)

And yes, in a lot of cases the defense sets up the offense. And no, if looking at something like tan da, simultaneous offense/defense doesn't actually happen exactly simultaneously, but the timing is so closely connected together that the term is safe to apply. Anyone that argues the they aren't simultaneous is just arguing semantics.

But there are different actions that do both at once in one single motion/move, like a 2-line punch/wu sau cutting into an attackers punch. That's one beat, one move, and simultaneous offense defense at the exact same time!


My perspective is looking at a demo type clip and then discussing whether or not it shows something you might do in wing chun is idle speculation. If you want to see how wing chun fighters do things just look at wing chun fighters and see. START with the wing chun guy fighting start with that and go from there.

It's far from idle except, well yeah, I am sitting in my chair while I type. What do you do, jumping jacks while you post here thru out the day?

I only speak from my own personal experience that I've gained thru years of trial and error and seeing what works or doesn't work for me. I don't speculate and I don't need to look at other 'wing chun fighters' to validate what I do. I actually go and do the work myself.
Since you suggest I go watch what other people do, is that what you do - sit around and watch 'real fighters' doing and then come here and talk from their experience? Sounds similar to a guy that used to post here who went to WC workshops, sat on the sidelines and refused to touch hands with anyone, yet still thought he knew enough to come tell everyone here how 'wrong' these people were that he was watching - that's idle speculation! I hope you aren't to have me believe you are as dense as that guy? I gave you more credit than that

In any case, if you've forgotten, we are on an internet forum. Unless you know some way we can all magically teleport to the same location and get together to physically train with each other, that's all ANYONE can do here - discuss. If you don't like discussing wing chun then this should be your last post here...

[Faux Newbie]

Does anyone know other names to the pole punch? I'm having difficulty finding an example. Is it a lead hand punch?

[Faux Newbie]

Man! He attacks you respond .... Simple!

I think one of the things that comes up, I'll use long range as an example (while acknowledging that it is not a discrete and separate range in reality, using it just as describing conditions where the only options are long range attacks or closing), is that at long range, as far as I understand it, wing chun has a limited number of strikes. The kicks are generally shorter range kicks, and the pole punch.

If facing someone from a style like boxing, muay thai, long fist, etc, they have a larger number of offenses they can make at this further distance. You are correct, to each of these, there may be a response.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing. So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Would you say this is accurate?

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

To make it simple and general,


Long fist art is fighting in the range of 40cm away in front of the body . One close gap so that one strike other. Is western boxing. Hitting target to damage is the basic focus.

Short strike art is fighting in the range body touching the body and different part of contact of the body can do strike. One enter the body to get to that range. Ie bjj. Damage center line axis or based is the basic focus.

Two distinctive concept, technics, power generation or engine needed.
Wck is specialize in short strike.



IMHO, martial art is not a random spray, but a calculate predict snip short. Those who is good at it is a snipper. Thus. One needs to know ones specialty and develop the engine. For no one and no art is ever complete. And a snipper don't need to know all weapons.




Why do I keep put the following video up?
Because everything has pro and con and level of development.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=jji2LOBAHHU

IMHO,

Wck is not taiji, not hung gar, not white crane from fujian, not emei, not western boxing, not CLF. It has it s characteristic and sweat spot and engine.

Even different lineages of Wck evolve differently today.



I think one of the things that comes up, I'll use long range as an example (while acknowledging that it is not a discrete and separate range in reality, using it just as describing conditions where the only options are long range attacks or closing), is that at long range, as far as I understand it, wing chun has a limited number of strikes. The kicks are generally shorter range kicks, and the pole punch.

If facing someone from a style like boxing, muay thai, long fist, etc, they have a larger number of offenses they can make at this further distance. You are correct, to each of these, there may be a response.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing. So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Would you say this is accurate?

[Faux Newbie]

To make it simple and general,


Long fist art is fighting in the range of 40cm away in front of the body . One close gap so that one strike other. Is western boxing.

Short strike art is fighting in the range body touching the body and different part of contact of the body can do strike. One enter the body to get to that range. Ie bjj.

Two distinctive concept, technics, power generation or engine needed.
Wck is specialize in short strike.

I understand this. My point was more, at long range, if a wing chun practitioner always uses one technique to counter a long jab, one to counter a long punch, one for each long kick, feints will reveal some of this, and the opponent will have an advantage. So my assumption is that a wing chun stylist would then choose to have more than one response to each, or else they are at a disadvantage against someone good at feints.

So that it is not just a matter of one person attacking and the WC person responding, but the wing chun person having a variety of responses to the same attack in order not to be compromised.

Mainly, I was asking if this is the case.

[Hendrik]

I understand this. My point was more, at long range, if a wing chun practitioner always uses one technique to counter a long jab, one to counter a long punch, one for each long kick, feints will reveal some of this, and the opponent will have an advantage. So my assumption is that a wing chun stylist would then choose to have more than one response to each, or else they are at a disadvantage against someone good at feints.

So that it is not just a matter of one person attacking and the WC person responding, but the wing chun person having a variety of responses to the same attack in order not to be compromised.

Mainly, I was asking if this is the case.


IMHO,

One cannot think of Wck as a long fist logic.

The ability of enter the body ( definition in the previous post) 入身，埋身 in Chinese, is the most important and have many many variations. Which ancient wcners are good at it. Because Wck is close strike art. Ie. Bjj response and take down

Also, Wck is an offensive art, the response it using the opponent momentum to against him while enter the body.


Today Wck has evolved away from enter the body into long fist art , nothing good or bad, so, with those type of evolution, one is subject to play the game of long fist which is very dynamic in changing location to have or keep that 40cm of space or clearance infront of the body to play and strike the opponent.

While ancient Wck is playing within the 0 to 10cm within the 40cm. It is very different to generate power in that 0 to 10cm range , it is like stick to a wall or in this case the woodern dummy and play. Instead of always have to keep 40cm away from the dummy in order to change and accelerate or generate power. This where different engine matter. And also Wck snt doesn't do Chen taiji roller hip.


Wck Playing inner gate means playing at 0 to 10cm of the center axis. To take advantage of the 40cm clearance out side door play. But if one doesn't have the engine, no ability on enter the body. It cannot be done. One default to the long fist art and subject to long fist art rule of game.


Just my five cents

[kung fu fighter]

If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.
I agree Terrence opps i mean tc lol, this may of applying lien siu die da is much more advance than the old using 2 hands working as one to deflect with one hand while striking with the other simultaneously as in tan da. and is much faster and economical in real time, however beginners have to start with techniques such as tan da to learn the timing involved before learning chain linked offence with defence in chi sao.

[JPinAZ]

In my experience, while WC does have technologies & tools to bridge/engage from a longer range against longer range attacks, it isn't really an art that looks to also strike from that range. While WC operates in all ranges (any range you can make contact), WC's goal is that of a shorter range striking method where you can preferably strike with both hands (and feet) equally with WC body structure and without have to do much shifting. In long range striking arts, you can only reach with one limb at a time and typically have to turn your body to gain the reach, giving up centerline as well as equal reach with both sides of the body.

As for feints, WC as I understand doesn't really use them, nor does it buy into them from an opponent. The sayings 'you don't move, I don't move - you move, I get there first' as well as loi lau hoi sung applies to committed attacks and feints alike. And I'm not saying a WC fighter can't get caught by them either, just saying it's not the normal intent to.


My point was more, at long range, if a wing chun practitioner always uses one technique to counter a long jab, one to counter a long punch, one for each long kick, feints will reveal some of this, and the opponent will have an advantage. So my assumption is that a wing chun stylist would then choose to have more than one response to each, or else they are at a disadvantage against someone good at feints.

So that it is not just a matter of one person attacking and the WC person responding, but the wing chun person having a variety of responses to the same attack in order not to be compromised.

Feints will only reveal what you are talking about if the WC fighter buys into them repeatedly and doesn't try closing the gap. But that's true of any fighter and only shows a lack of skill IMO, not anything to do with the system. Again, In my experience a WC fighter isn't looking to trade at long range but to close the distance to where all of their tools are available for striking and defense equally. Staying at long range is only playing half the game (defense).

Curious, what art do you study and have you sparred with any WC people?

[KPM]

I agree with what Hendrik said above. Let me see if I can add to it and make sense.

at long range, as far as I understand it, wing chun has a limited number of strikes. The kicks are generally shorter range kicks, and the pole punch.

Correct. IMHO Wing Chun was designed to operate at close distance, not at a longer distance.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

I was taught there there is no such thing as a "feint." The goal in my Wing Chun is to move in on the opponent. If he throws something meant as a feint, it doesn't make much difference because we will still use that opportunity to bridge or close with the opponent. If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn't much of a feint! On the flip side, we don't throw many feints ourselves exactly because it can be an opportunity for the opponent and is no better than "chasing hands." The closest thing to an feint is to throw a strike that you expect the opponent to see and react to, knowing that this will establish a "bridge" and allow you to flow into something else to close with the opponent. If he doesn't react to it, it doesn't matter because you are going to keep going forward with the strike and use it as an opportunity to move in or to actually hit him.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

Not if the response is a good one! ;) The idea is not to exchange tit for tat...block for blow. The idea is to cover and attack at the same time while moving in. Done well, this can negate whatever the opponent was setting up for his feint. But again...the feint has to be a good one...a real threat. Otherwise you just ignore it and its not really a good feint. Someone doing something like pumping repeated short wimpy jabs out of range doesn't count.


My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

But a good response will be covering while closing so it doesn't matter if they are striking while stepping back. And who has the advantage? The guy stepping back, or the guy stepping in with cover?


I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing.

I don't think that way, because I don't consider my Wing Chun to be a sparring method. I'm going to catch all kinds of flack and heavy criticism for that comment, but I don't care. I'm not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things. I have a narrow set of strike from that range, because I am going to stay at the range for as short a time as possible. That range is not Wing Chun's forte. As far as responses to his strikes from that range, that is still wide open. You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.


So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Not really. Because the goal (my goal at least) is NOT to stand at long range and exchange tit for tat. That is what I mean when I say I don't think of Wing Chun as a "sparring method." The goal (my goal at least) is to bridge in from longer range to closer range where Wing Chun works best. Then make contact with the opponent in order to manipulate him in some way to hurt him or destroy his base. I'm not worried about "if he does X, then I will do Y, and if he counters with Z, then I do A." That's a sparring mentality. The idea is constant forward movement or pressure, not exchanging. The opponent is only able to capitalize on my responses if I do them poorly and have not gained control of the opponent in the process. If I am doing my job properly as a Wing Chun fighter, I should be shutting down the opponent and not giving him the opportunity to set up responses to my actions.

Now I know the responses that are coming....."idle speculation!!!" But this is how I was taught that Wing Chun was intended to work. Short range power. Simultaneous attack and defense, covering and controlling motions, dominating the opponent. Not a "tit for tat" exchange of blocks and strikes. Sparring helps develop portions of this strategy, but other training methods are also needed. Sparring too easily falls back into the "tit for tat" mode and can develop bad habits from a Wing Chun perspective. It can be over-emphasized, just as it can be neglected as a training method. And reiterate so that everyone is perfectly clear....I am NOT saying that sparring is unimportant. It is a valuable training method. One of many.

That's it! Now JP and T are free to rip into me again. I won't see it anyway! ;)

[kung fu fighter]

Hendrik wrote:

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1271007]( I don't use the term forward pressure because that is Ipman Wck term and not completely the same with what I am describe) is that threaten the center axis means threaten or disrupt the next move of the opponent momentum.


I follow what you are saying and agree. I like that phrase..."threaten center axis." That is a good way of looking at it. This is essentially the same idea as BJJ's "breaking the opponent's base." It is also closely connected to the idea of controlling the opponent's balance. The thing that actually "threatens" the opponent's center axis is the fact that you have disrupted his base or balance. Even a good Kum Na/Chin Na technique should do this. You don't just throw on a wrist lock and let the opponent stand there. With the wrist lock you also have to make him step off balance, bend over, turn, etc. so that he doesn't have the opportunity to use his other hand.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

I was taught there there is no such thing as a "feint." The goal in my Wing Chun is to move in on the opponent. If he throws something meant as a feint, it doesn't make much difference because we will still use that opportunity to bridge or close with the opponent. If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn't much of a feint! On the flip side, we don't throw many feints ourselves exactly because it can be an opportunity for the opponent and is no better than "chasing hands." The closest thing to an feint is to throw a strike that you expect the opponent to see and react to, knowing that this will establish a "bridge" and allow you to flow into something else to close with the opponent. If he doesn't react to it, it doesn't matter because you are going to keep going forward with the strike and use it as an opportunity to move in or to actually hit him.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

Not if the response is a good one! ;) The idea is not to exchange tit for tat...block for blow. The idea is to cover and attack at the same time while moving in. Done well, this can negate whatever the opponent was setting up for his feint. But again...the feint has to be a good one...a real threat. Otherwise you just ignore it and its not really a good feint. Someone doing something like pumping repeated short wimpy jabs out of range doesn't count.


My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

But a good response will be covering while closing so it doesn't matter if they are striking while stepping back. And who has the advantage? The guy stepping back, or the guy stepping in with cover?


I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing.

I don't think that way, because I don't consider my Wing Chun to be a sparring method. I'm going to catch all kinds of flack and heavy criticism for that comment, but I don't care. I'm not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things. I have a narrow set of strike from that range, because I am going to stay at the range for as short a time as possible. That range is not Wing Chun's forte. As far as responses to his strikes from that range, that is still wide open. You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.


So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Not really. Because the goal (my goal at least) is NOT to stand at long range and exchange tit for tat. That is what I mean when I say I don't think of Wing Chun as a "sparring method." The goal (my goal at least) is to bridge in from longer range to closer range where Wing Chun works best. Then make contact with the opponent in order to manipulate him in some way to hurt him or destroy his base. I'm not worried about "if he does X, then I will do Y, and if he counters with Z, then I do A." That's a sparring mentality. The idea is constant forward movement or pressure, not exchanging. The opponent is only able to capitalize on my responses if I do them poorly and have not gained control of the opponent in the process. If I am doing my job properly as a Wing Chun fighter, I should be shutting down the opponent and not giving him the opportunity to set up responses to my actions.

Now I know the responses that are coming....."idle speculation!!!" But this is how I was taught that Wing Chun was intended to work. Short range power. Simultaneous attack and defense, covering and controlling motions, dominating the opponent. Not a "tit for tat" exchange of blocks and strikes. Sparring helps develop portions of this strategy, but other training methods are also needed. Sparring too easily falls back into the "tit for tat" mode and can develop bad habits from a Wing Chun perspective. It can be over-emphasized, just as it can be neglected as a training method. And reiterate so that everyone is perfectly clear....I am NOT saying that sparring is unimportant. It is a valuable training method. One of many.


I agree, this is also how i was taught to apply wing chun as well

[Faux Newbie]

In my experience, while WC does have technologies & tools to bridge/engage from a longer range against longer range attacks, it isn't really an art that looks to also strike from that range.

This was my assumption.


As for feints, WC as I understand doesn't really use them, nor does it buy into them from an opponent.

I would counter by saying that someone who is skilled at feints will succeed against someone who is not equally skilled at reading them, regardless of style choice.


The sayings 'you don't move, I don't move - you move, I get there first'

This concept is common, especially the second part, to many styles. It does not necessarily dismiss the effectiveness of feints. Getting an opponent to initiate a move by way of feint means the person who successfully feinted is already ahead of their opponent's game plan, and the opponent will have interrupt the response the feint elicited in order to even begin getting to an advantageous position, or work from the disadvantageous position, which means the feint was a success. Styles that feint also train working from such positions, so having a response does not necessarily take away from the effectiveness of feints and similar things, it demonstrates it.


as well as loi lau hoi sung applies to committed attacks and feints alike. And I'm not saying a WC fighter can't get caught by them either, just saying it's not the normal intent to.

No stylists normal intent is to be caught by a feint. The problem is, training to respond to an attack ingrains responses that the feint is trying to bring out.

It's not dissimilar to sensitivity in bridging. Technique in bridging without sensitivity doesn't yield consistently good results. Pre-contact, technique without reading the opponent well doesn't, either.


Feints will only reveal what you are talking about if the WC fighter buys into them repeatedly and doesn't try closing the gap.

Again, if their opponent is of similar skill level, they will very likely be able to more than once find themselves at a greater distance, thus enabling more feints. Buying into them once is all that is necessary to gain advantage.


But that's true of any fighter and only shows a lack of skill IMO, not anything to do with the system.

Pro fighters of many levels use them against each other quite often, and train to read them. They occur in street fights, as well. Feinting is a skill. Someone with great skill in it will succeed in using it against someone who doesn't develop their ability to read it, less often if they do, but it is so consistently present in pro fights because, like anything, it is a useful tool in their arsenal.


Again, In my experience a WC fighter isn't looking to trade at long range but to close the distance to where all of their tools are available for striking and defense equally. Staying at long range is only playing half the game (defense).

Agreed, I am not discussing staying at long range, but more dealing with the actual realities of this range. Closing is not guaranteed, and a fight may go in and out of this range, as, if both fighters are close to equal, then one fighter is not simply choosing how things go. If the opponent can influence which way you choose to close by forcing a response to something, their followup will be something that specifically works well against the response they were trying to elicit.


Curious, what art do you study and have you sparred with any WC people?

I've done some longfist, and my main art is called Taixuquan, it's a Southern internal style. And yes, I have a good friend who teaches wing chun, he and I studied Taixuquan at the same time.


I was taught there there is no such thing as a "feint." The goal in my Wing Chun is to move in on the opponent.

I agree, but I would suggest that the caveat is to do so at the right time. A feint is used to inspire the opponent to break this caveat.


If he throws something meant as a feint, it doesn't make much difference because we will still use that opportunity to bridge or close with the opponent.

There are quite a few ways to feint. True, it has to be a potential threat, but even just the body shift that normally precedes the move can elicit a response, especially from an opponent whose ability to read is not as strong as one's ability to feint.


If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn't much of a feint!

See my comment above. Further, it is eliciting a response in order to capitalize on it. If the opponent responds that way, they are already one step behind the person who did the feint, as they will be feinting in order to move into the move that capitalizes on the response they got. There is more than one way to bridge, and each way is not right for every situation. Feints here are seeking to draw the opponent into a bridge that will then be moving into a move that bridge does not work for. If I feint a lead hand strike, and the opponent seeks to trap my lead hand into my body while I am doing an overhand type strike, their bridge will feed my overhand.

Wing Chun practitioners, like any kung fu stylist, have to pick the right bridge. If they can be made to choose the wrong one, then this tells the person feinting what to do and puts them at an advantage at that point.


On the flip side, we don't throw many feints ourselves exactly because it can be an opportunity for the opponent and is no better than "chasing hands."

I think a better equivalent to chasing hands in the pre-contact stage is merely moving the hands around in a way that has not relevance to the opponent. A feint is relevant, because if they do not respond, and do not have defenses able to cut it off, it can be an attack, if they do respond and their response is a good one, the distance can still be maintained through footwork if one desires, if they start to respond but stop, you have an idea of how they respond, and if they don't bite, then you have an idea of their skill level at range. Each point yields a result.


The closest thing to an feint is to throw a strike that you expect the opponent to see and react to, knowing that this will establish a "bridge" and allow you to flow into something else to close with the opponent. If he doesn't react to it, it doesn't matter because you are going to keep going forward with the strike and use it as an opportunity to move in or to actually hit him.

Which is a feint.


Not if the response is a good one! ;) The idea is not to exchange tit for tat...block for blow. The idea is to cover and attack at the same time while moving in. Done well, this can negate whatever the opponent was setting up for his feint.

If you don't do what they were trying to draw, or do it as a feint in and of itself, but you have be able to read your opponent and have a keep awareness of feints to do so. As I said before, one cannot count on technique without sensitivity in bridging, and one cannot count on technique without being able to read an opponent outside of bridging. They work the same way. Wing chun technique in bridging is predicated on sensitivity, striking, when not in bridge range, is predicated on reading your opponent. Training feinting is training reading an opponent, imo.


But again...the feint has to be a good one...a real threat. Otherwise you just ignore it and its not really a good feint. Someone doing something like pumping repeated short wimpy jabs out of range doesn't count.

Agreed, that is why feints require seeing the opponent's habits, testing them, seeing what they respond to. Some succesful feints are no more than a slight drop of the shoulder.


But a good response will be covering while closing so it doesn't matter if they are striking while stepping back. And who has the advantage? The guy stepping back, or the guy stepping in with cover?

First, the guy stepping back may have cover, too. Second, cover is not immunity. Feinting is going to capitalize on the nature of the response. No technique defends equally and absolutely.


I don't think that way, because I don't consider my Wing Chun to be a sparring method. I'm going to catch all kinds of flack and heavy criticism for that comment, but I don't care.

I don't care either, to each their own. I don't think feints are a sparring technique, but, as in all things, there will always be cases where driving in and shutting down is the only option, so they are a tool that sometimes will and sometimes won't come into play.


I'm not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things.

I'm not suggesting you do, but it is a reality of fighting, and if you are fighting an equal, you will not be the only one determining conditions.


You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.

This was actually my next question. This is my point. If you reflexively do only one of those multiple ways, you are never going to be immune to a feint taking advantage of you, because the opponent will follow the feint up with technique that specifically benefits from your choice. So it seems to me that, in order to manage that range, a wing chun fighter, who naturally is seeking to bridge and close and shut down their opponent, must routinely be able to respond to the same sorts of attacks in different ways, which will confound the value of feints, because even if they respond to the feint, the opponent cannot predict which response, and so cannot be a step ahead. If they do not do this, they will be susceptible to feints, imo.

[Faux Newbie]

****, that was a multi-post response from two different posts by two different people. I must have messed up the labels, sorry about that.

[JPinAZ]

Faux,

A lot of your response to what I said is more aimed at skill levels of practitioners more-so than the WC art itself, so not much for me to reply on. I agree with some of your points you are talking about based on differing skill levels. Sure, if someone is much more skilled than their opponent, then things will work out differently. But then, I assumed that was a given and we were talking about understanding and usage of the WC system itself (all skill levels aside).

As for your continued talking about feints, I hear ya - again, skill level. But regardless of skill level, wing chun deals with feints differently than what I've experienced when I trained in boxing, or training with people of different arts today. Different styles, different strategies & tactics, as well as different principles of fighting in general.

You mentioned you have a good friend that teaches wing chun, but you didn't mention if you've sparred with him when he's using his wing chun fighting methods? I ask because depending on how he views his WC, some of these questions you have asked could easily be answered if you and he had a go and see what happens much easier than what we can do here. Again, depends on his experience and how he approaches fighting from his WC perspective.
The discussion is still welcome, but since you have a friend that you train with that is a teacher of WC, it would make sense that you get his perspective first hand.

[Faux Newbie]

Faux,

A lot of your response to what I said is more aimed at skill levels of practitioners more-so than the WC art itself, so not much for me to reply on. I agree, a lot of what you are talking about now is based on differing skill levels. Sure, if someone is much more skilled than their opponent, then things will work out differently. But then, assumed that was a given and we were talking about understanding and usage of the WC system itself (all skill levels aside).

As for your continued talking about feints, I hear ya - again, skill level. But regardless of skill level, wing chun deals with feints differently than what I experienced when I trained in boxing. Different styles, different strategies & tactics, as well as different principles of fighting in general.

You mentioned you have a good friend that teaches wing chun, but have you sparred with him when he's using his wing chun fighting methods? I ask because depending on how he views his WC, some of these questions you have asked could easily be answered if you and he had a go and see what happens much easier than what we can do here. Again, depends on his experience and how he approaches fighing from his WC perspective.
But the discussion is still welcome

I am familiar with how he fights, but he also has trained other things. Additionally, we can read each other well. Regardless, different viewpoints can inspire different views on it for me.

As for skill level, when we discuss equals, in any style, it is no longer a matter of "I will just do X". Opponents alter circumstances, and that means that we cannot assume because our goal and our training aims for a certain comfort zone, we will automatically avoid other zones, we likely will not if our opponent takes their training as seriously and their methods are valid. Once an opponent succeeds, even in small ways, the likelihood of wanting to avoid what they did happening again increases, which can lead to greater susceptibility to feinting that attack to initiate another toward the opening.

My main point is that any one technique of bridging can be capitalized on, has counters. So, it one's long range offense is limited, and one is facing an equal, I am saying that it seems to me if a wing chun practitioner falls back on one particular bridge against a jab, for instance, then that is much more easy for an opponent to counter, or even to feint to draw it in, than if that practitioner has varied means of bridging, closing, and shutting down their opponent. Of course he would have to know how to counter that bridge, but if he knew, he could capitalize on it.

It is not a criticism of wing chun, but my outside observation of how I assume wing chun people have to deal with outside range in wing chun given limited offense. Idle speculation, but my friend varies his response, and it often works for him. Trapping has counters, so insofar as trapping my elbow, he has to take in mind that that is not the end. And if he traps at the time I want him to trap my lead elbow to do an overhand, he will feed the overhand, and at the extreme of it, my elbow will be free again due to the turn of my body, my head will tend to be below his strike, and my overhand will be stronger for his trapping. This has happened many times, but so have things he has done of advantage against me. They get much harder to do over the long haul, because we know each other's fighting methods fairly well. He does not fall back on that one trap versus that one response, because he knows that I can counter it. If I feint to get that response, it is worse for him because instead of me almost getting hit, I will be well clear of the strike and still he feeds my overhand.

Mind you, he and I haven't crossed hands in ages, so we're probably very different fighters than we once were.

If one responds at range to a jab one way always, and I suspect this is something you can agree with, then all one needs is know the counter to this. If one then feints, one can get to that counter. Otherwise, why does wing chun have more than one way to bridge versus the same attack?

[Faux Newbie]

Simpler version:

If a wing chun fighter has varied ways of bridging when confronted with the same attack, and can use them routinely, then they are less predictable.

Feints require some predictability.

At outside range these methods of getting in and bridging are almost the entirety of options of wing chun player has.

Therefore, to be protected from the possibility of feints drawing a response that the opponent can use, the wing chun player needs to use varied bridging techniques against the more common attacks.

[Faux Newbie]

Now I'm actually very curious how the pole punch fits in all this. What stance is it executed in?

[YouKnowWho]

applying lien siu die da is much more advance than the old using 2 hands working as one to deflect with one hand while striking with the other simultaneously as in tan da. and is much faster and economical in real time, however beginners have to start with techniques such as tan da to learn the timing involved before learning chain linked offence with defence in chi sao.

If your opponent moves in toward you, or stay stationary, when you block his punch, you may be able to punch him back at the same time. If he is moving side way, you may be able to block his punch, but your other hand may not be able to reach his body. To assume that you can "always" block and strike at the same time may not be realistic. This is why the TCMA divides the hand skill into the following categories.

1. Block first, strike after.
2. Block and strike at the same time.
3. Block and punch back with the same hand (this is called Ha Chuan).
4. Block, take over your block with the other hand, strike back with the same hand (this is called switch hands).
5. Dodge (without block) and strike back.

[HybridWarrior]

Now I'm actually very curious how the pole punch fits in all this. What stance is it executed in?

It is executed somewhat similar to these photos I found when searching the internet. There are minor differences in foot placement, weight distribution, etc. but you get the general idea...(?)
86928693

[YouKnowWho]

If the feint draws a response, ...

Agree that same respond to the same feint can be dangerous. Here is one example (in TCMA, it's called switch hands).

- You throw a jab, your opponent tries to block it.
- You throw another jab, your opponent tries to block it again.
- You throw the 3rd jab, when your opponent tries to block it, you use your other hand to push his blocking arm away (because you can predict where his blocking arm will be), and allow your jab to continue.

[Faux Newbie]

Agree that same respond to the same feint can be dangerous. Here is one example (in TCMA, it's called switch hands).

- You throw a jab, your opponent blocks with Tan Shou.
- You throw another jab, your opponent blocks with another Tan Shou.
- You throw the 3rd jab, when your opponent tries to use Tan Shou again, your other hand already push his Tan Shou arm away, and allow your jab to continue.

Exactly. I understand that for wing chun, they are seeking to close, but even in that case, if the close is predictable, then it can be capitalized on.

[Faux Newbie]

It is executed somewhat similar to these photos I found when searching the internet. There are minor differences in foot placement, weight distribution, etc. but you get the general idea...(?)
86928693

Thanks, that clears it up a bit for me. How is the weight distribution different?

[HybridWarrior]

Thanks, that clears it up a bit for me. How is the weight distribution different?

in left photo, he appears to be weighted more to his forward foot, etc.
in right photo, more of a 50/50 going by what I see.
range to target will dictate how far one carries the pole punch.

[HybridWarrior]

Thanks, that clears it up a bit for me. How is the weight distribution different?

If your WC friend knows the pole form, he may be able to show you / explain more, etc. Thx.

[YouKnowWho]

Exactly. I understand that for wing chun, they are seeking to close, but even in that case, if the close is predictable, then it can be capitalized on.

The guy who throws that long distance jab can just move around. This is called "fire" strategy that you can't predict where your opponent's body may be in next second.

Most of the knock down punch are either a log range punch, or your opponent runs into your punch. We don't see many short range punches used effective in the ring. Why?

[Faux Newbie]

If your WC friend knows the pole form, he may be able to show you / explain more, etc. Thx.

No problem, appreciate the help. I'm getting ready to move in a few weeks, I'm hoping to see him and others before I go, so I'll pick his brain.

[Hendrik]

It is executed somewhat similar to these photos I found when searching the internet. There are minor differences in foot placement, weight distribution, etc. but you get the general idea...(?)
86928693


Wck has three facing : square , Angle, side. This pic is a side facing.



1.
Look at the picS

This can be an evolution.

But does this fit into Wck?

2.
I would say the momentum doesn't make sense if this two pics is a single strike

[HybridWarrior]

Look at the picS

This can be an evolution.

But does this fit into Wck?

It doesn't "fit into" WCK...it is WCK.
The WC I know has a pole form. That form, like all the forms, contains our "letters" to our WC alphabet. If yours does not, that's your issue, not mine. Thanks.

[Faux Newbie]

The guy who throws that long distance jab can just move around. This is called "fire" strategy that you can't predict where your opponent's body may be in next second.

Most of the knock down punch are either a log range punch, or your opponent runs into your punch. We don't see many short range punches used effective in the ring. Why?

Punching in close is almost half clinch of some sort, half punch. I've seen certain ones used, but they seem more about wearing down the opponent.

Additionally, I think in close, if someone is striking, the rules almost reverse. Further out, the lead hand tests for openings for the rear. In close, the rear hand has to effect the opponent to make room for a lead hand strike. Hit them with the rear hand, while their head or body is still back but returning, lead hand strike.

My opinion, though I've used this idea often in training and sparring.

[Hendrik]

It doesn't "fit into" WCK...it is WCK.
The WC I know has a pole form. That form, like all the forms, contains our "letters" to our WC alphabet. If yours does not, that's your issue, not mine. Thanks.

I am asking a technical question on how to justify if it is Wck?


Also,
I would say the momentum doesn't make sense if this two pics is a single strike



Which Wck lineage are you from?

[HybridWarrior]

Wck has three facing : square , Angle, side. This pic is a side facing.

1.
Look at the picS

This can be an evolution.

But does this fit into Wck?

2.
I would say the momentum doesn't make sense if this two pics is a single strike



I'm not sure if the pics are a single strike or not. I just wanted to find a pic or two to help Faux out with his question. Thanks Hendrik.

[Hendrik]

I'm not sure if the pics are a single strike or not. I just wanted to find a pic or two to help Faux out with his question. Thanks Hendrik.

Is these Wck photos?

Which lineage are you from?

[YouKnowWho]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pVE4_WUhAA

This clip bothers me a lot.

- His back foot points 45 degree backward.
- His back hand punch with his arm only without using his body (may be he use this drill to train his pole skill).

Your thought?

[Faux Newbie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pVE4_WUhAA

This clip bothers me a lot. I don't like his back foot pointing 45 degree backward. Your thought?

Yeah, I sort of randomly picked that one when I put it up, there were others of...varying quality.

I do not know wing chun, but yes, I was weirded out by it as well.

[Hendrik]

This is wck.

I am not sure the momentum of the above two photos and video are the same type.

[Hendrik]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pVE4_WUhAA

This clip bothers me a lot.

- His back foot points 45 degree backward.
- His back hand punch with his arm only without using his body (may be he use this drill to train his pole skill).

Your thought?



IMHO, his lower three bows are totally screw up

[HybridWarrior]

Is these Wck photos?

Which lineage are you from?

Hendrik,
Yes, the photos are WC
I am from the Yip Man---Duncan Leung lineage.
Thx.

[Grumblegeezer]

This is wck.

I am not sure the momentum of the above two photos and video are the same type.

Hendrick, do you mean to say that you reject the use of a deep horse-stance in Wing Chun pole training (including battle punches) in favor of YGKYM?

[HybridWarrior]

This is wck.

I am not sure the momentum of the above two photos and video are the same type.

Hendrik,
Different lineage. And it would appear the photo you posted is of someone doing a form(?)...which as you know is quite different from applying it. Thanks.

[YouKnowWho]

IMHO, his lower three bows are totally screw up

No matter which style that you train, your back foot should always point to the direction that you are going to move into (or the direction that you are going to punch). To me, this is the body unification 101.

I even have problem with this picture.

8695

[Hendrik]

Hendrik,
Yes, the photos are WC
I am from the Yip Man---Duncan Leung lineage.
Thx.



Great!
Thanks!

[Hendrik]

Hendrick, do you mean to say that you reject the use of a deep horse-stance in Wing Chun pole training (including battle punches) in favor of YGKYM?


1.
No.

The momentum or the move of mass of the two photo do not seems follow the law of physics. Look at the strike, body mass, timing, and foot work of the two pics. It doesn't seem to add up.


2. Deep horse stance is actually violating ancient Wck concept of others walk bow I walk string mobility. Wide stance is slow in mobility in General, pole can afford to use that for its reason but arm strike timing is a different game. But today's evolution everyone is free to have their version of Wck. No comment.


3.
For me , Pole is pole. Short strike art is short strike art. Type don't mix due to different engine.
But, no comment on today's evolution since it is a free creation world.

[Hendrik]

No matter which style that you train, your back foot should always point to the direction that you are going to move into (or the direction that you are going to punch). To me, this is the body unification 101.

I even have problem with this picture.

8695



When things violate simple biomechanics and law of physic , we know it doesn't likely to work

[Faux Newbie]

The deep version of it, if approached as a technique for striking (so I'm circumventing for this thread whether or not it is a spear practice), is in many styles, and is comparable to in boxing when one ducks and jabs at the mid section, only, in ideal circumstances, may involve a grab. I think the power generation on this is often more from dropping in and the expectation that you are ducking something, so that the opponent's body is moving in as the strike comes in, so I don't see the rear footing as a crucial issue, but I could be wrong.

This is generally done in medium to close range.

The first is pretty much comparable to a jab, it leans in, has the rear heal lifted, all the things that give the jab extra length.

[JPinAZ]

If a wing chun fighter has varied ways of bridging when confronted with the same attack, and can use them routinely, then they are less predictable...

....Therefore, to be protected from the possibility of feints drawing a response that the opponent can use, the wing chun player needs to use varied bridging techniques against the more common attacks.

Are you assuming WC only has a few techniques at any given range? Or that Wc fighters try to match technique vs technique? Either way, I have never agreed with this line of thinking, as, for me, WC isn't about how many or what techniques it has. This would be a very limiting view of WCK IMO.

To give an example of what I mean, last night I taught a san sau class (san sau meaning more geared toward sparring applications vs. straight system training/drilling) that had a range of skill levels between the students. There were several guys that have been training for 2-4 years, some 1-2 year students, 2 beginners of only a few weeks, and 1 first-timer doing a trial class that came in with a decent amount of MMA training. I chose this exact topic of feints and long range attackes to train the more seasoned guys, as well as introduce WC's principle-based fighting concepts to the newer people.

Besides showing and labeling the attacks we would be defending against (single straight lead/jab, jab/cross and Jab/hook), I didn't mention one WC technique they would use to defend against them. I had them first get comfortable with the long range attacks so they had some familiarity with them by hitting pads. Most have already done this type of training, but it was a good warm up and essential for the 2 newbies due to their low coordination and having never really thrown a punch in their lives.

Then, I started them into defending against just the single lead/jab. The motion they were using was a biu-type shape engaging the jab from the outside-to-in while maintaining good fwd structure & pressure on center. I didn't label the shape as it wasn't necessary. Instead I focused on the concepts of centerline and space occupation, how do dominate that center space which drives the initial attack offline, and the body mechanics necessary to make it work - moving out to in with the arm, proper 6-gate footwork with the arm extended but elbow still sunken slightly so it can connect with the same side hip & knee, proper arm contact & fwd energy to connect with opponent's COG, etc. At no time did I give the 'technique' a name, even when asked. I also had the punchers vary the attack from feints, touch-and-go probing, as well as more committed punches.

Each time I had them do the same motion regardless of the commitment:
1. If it was a feint, cover the space and then move in if proper range to do so. Or, just stand your ground if little to no contact was made or the range was too far out (I explained you don't move, I don't move - you move I get there first here)
2. For the touch-and-go probing-type jabs, same thing - cover the space and then, if proper range is there, follow the withdraw of the punch with footwork and what some might call trapping & hitting (I explained the general idea of loi lau hoi sung here)
3. For committed attacks, this gave them more test to their overall body structure, elbow/knee/hip connection and fwd intent/pressure. From there, they were more in range to sink and hit.

Some were better at this than others of course, but everyone was able to demonstrate an ability to pull it off and feel comfortable with the safety in the action without have to reply mainly on strength and size, as well as the offensive options you have afterwards. While the newer people just worked on that, I then had the more seasoned guys defend against more random 1-2 attacks I listed before and learned that the follow up punches weren't as much of a threat when done properly.
At the end, everyone seemed to understand what I meant form a principle-based WC POV and weren't focused on what tools they used or how amny/few I had given them. The seniors had a better appreciation for the ideas they already knew, and the new people were left with a good appreciationg with how simple it worked once you learned the mechanics and were successful at applying the idea. And the new MMA guy was a bit surprised how well it worked for being something so foreign to him and was excited to try it out against his training partners at the MMA gym. Very cool :)

Anyway, the point is - WC isn't about having 1 or 5 or 10 different response for a given attack, it's about being able to apply the same principle-based concepts and ideas physically against a variety of attacks. Regardless the shape you used to get there, the focus and intended outcome should be the same. (of course, skill levels and luck of the day always plays a part!).

[Hendrik]

The deep version of it, if approached as a technique for striking (so I'm circumventing for this thread whether or not it is a spear practice), is in many styles, and is comparable to in boxing when one ducks and jabs at the mid section, only, in ideal circumstances, may involve a grab. I think the power generation on this is often more from dropping in and the expectation that you are ducking something, so that the opponent's body is moving in as the strike comes in, so I don't see the rear footing as a crucial issue, but I could be wrong.

This is generally done in medium to close range.

The first is pretty much comparable to a jab, it leans in, has the rear heal lifted, all the things that give the jab extra length.

Imho,

These are what in general name as the body type of power generation , the yang type, the action force type , of hitting.

Close strike art has force line type of power generation or issuing instead of hitting typ which is moving the body or limbs to accelerate which needs that 40cm clearance to play.


There are many different technology comes with different ancient arts

[KPM]

Simpler version:

If a wing chun fighter has varied ways of bridging when confronted with the same attack, and can use them routinely, then they are less predictable.

Feints require some predictability.

At outside range these methods of getting in and bridging are almost the entirety of options of wing chun player has.

Therefore, to be protected from the possibility of feints drawing a response that the opponent can use, the wing chun player needs to use varied bridging techniques against the more common attacks.

I can agree with those statements Faux. There ARE multiple ways to bridge in Wing Chun. One should never be predictable. The problem is, to me, this is still a "sparring" mentality to some extent. Talk of "routine use" of something implies that the attacker then knows and can predict what you are going to do. Unless he is a regular sparring partner, or an opponent that has studied you fighting in the ring in the past, how is he going to be familiar with your "routine" techniques? An attacker on the street won't know you do Wing Chun and will have no idea what your "routine" techniques are at all!

[KPM]

Now I'm actually very curious how the pole punch fits in all this. What stance is it executed in?

From my learning and training experience, this "pole punch" was meant to be a training and conditioning exercise that is used in preparation for learning the pole. It is not a fighting technique used when empty hand. It is done in a deep horse stance, just as the pole is done in a horse stance. So to reference it as a long range punch in Wing Chun is not accurate for the Wing Chun I have learned. Just look at the video of this that was posted. There is no way that is an example of a realistic punching method for fighting.

The Pin Sun Da that I noted earlier, is similar to the picture that Hendrik posted, but done from a pivoted stance rather than straight out to the side. Imagine someone standing in their YGKYM stance with the fists up by the sides of the chest, and then doing a large pivot or shift with an extended punch straight out in front of them so that the line of the arm and shoulders is a straight line and the rear arm stays at the side of the chest but is angled back so that it forms a 90 angle with the punching arm. This is an exaggerated Wing Chun straight punch that is meant to be used from a longer range and more as a finishing move. Obviously it is a very committed punch and is used sparingly.

[KPM]

If your opponent moves in toward you, or stay stationary, when you block his punch, you may be able to punch him back at the same time. If he is moving side way, you may be able to block his punch, but your other hand may not be able to reach his body. To assume that you can "always" block and strike at the same time may not be realistic. This is why the TCMA divides the hand skill into the following categories.

1. Block first, strike after.
2. Block and strike at the same time.
3. Block and punch back with the same hand (this is called Ha Chuan).
4. Block, take over your block with the other hand, strike back with the same hand (this is called switch hands).
5. Dodge (without block) and strike back.

Good summary John. This applies to my Wing Chun as well.

[Hendrik]

From my learning and training experience, this "pole punch" was meant to be a training and conditioning exercise that is used in preparation for learning the pole. It is not a fighting technique used when empty hand. It is done in a deep horse stance, just as the pole is done in a horse stance. So to reference it as a long range punch in Wing Chun is not accurate for the Wing Chun I have learned. Just look at the video of this that was posted. There is no way that is an example of a realistic punching method for fighting.

The Pin Sun Da that I noted earlier, is similar to the picture that Hendrik posted, but done from a pivoted stance rather than straight out to the side. Imagine someone standing in their YGKYM stance with the fists up by the sides of the chest, and then doing a large pivot or shift with an extended punch straight out in front of them so that the line of the arm and shoulders is a straight line and the rear arm stays at the side of the chest but is angled back so that it forms a 90 angle with the punching arm. This is an exaggerated Wing Chun straight punch that is meant to be used from a longer range and more as a finishing move. Obviously it is a very committed punch and is used sparingly.


Imho,

I agree on the pole punch. Also, i dont think that type of conditioning will aid short strike but get one evolve into hung gar type of long fist art. It is just slow and too extreme. If one strike is missed, one is open and difficult to recover. Look at biu jee set. See does it offer a solution for these type of punch as in the above picture and video? If not, then one knows what is the deal.

[YouKnowWho]

If one strike is missed, one is open and difficult to recover. ...
All long fist guys will share the same concern as you have described. This is why the praying mantis system had evolved from the long fist system in order to fix this issue. This is also why most of the long fist guys cross train the PM system. When a PM guy punches, his back hand is always next to his front arm elbow area. This way, he can switch both hands easily. This is the same principle as WC guys would like both hands to have the same reach.

The long fist is like the riffle. The PM is like the machine gun.

The following drills was the PM master Brendan Lai's most favor combo. He didn't teach this drill to me but I stole this from him. In this clip, it's easy to see that the difference between long fist and short fist are no longer black and white but grey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6AD7OzL7rM

[Hendrik]

All long fist guys will share the same concern as you have described. This is why the praying mantis system had evolved from the long fist system in order to fix this issue. This is also why most of the long fist guys cross train the PM system. When a PM guy punches, his back hand is always next to his front arm elbow area. This way, he can switch both hands easily. This is the same principle as WC guys would like both hands to have the same reach.

The long fist is like the riffle. The PM is like the machine gun.

The following drills was the PM master Brendan Lai's most favor combo. He didn't teach this drill to me but I stole this from him. In this clip, it's easy to see that the difference between long fist and short fist are no longer black and white but grey.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6AD7OzL7rM


Imho

1. That is why i dont want to say much on the pole punch add in to wck. It is classical trouble . Enough people dont like me.

2. The clip still a long fist because it needs to keep a 40cm clearance for acceleration.

3. This pm technic can be broken by rhino.destroy the center axis. And split the center axis

[KPM]

Imho,

I agree on the pole punch. Also, i dont think that type of conditioning will aid short strike but get one evolve into hung gar type of long fist art..

I agree that it won't help develop "short power." But I don't think that is the intent. I think it may have been more a way to get students started working on some of the dynamics for using the long pole in a group setting where there wasn't a pole available for everyone to use.

Not to stray off topic, but maybe some will find this an interesting data point. In Pin Sun WCK we do not use a long heavy pole and do not use a deep horse stance. We use a shorter lighter pole and work from the YGKYM, just as in the empty hand methods. This leads to "snappier" waste movements with a little smaller amplitude. In my experience, this DOES help develop "short power" better than the typical version of the pole. To me, this represents the pole better adapted to Wing Chun mechanics than the way most do the longer heavier pole....which is still very "Hung Ga-like" with its deep stances. Just my opinion, for what its worth.

[kung fu fighter]

I agree that it won't help develop "short power." But I don't think that is the intent. I think it may have been more a way to get students started working on some of the dynamics for using the long pole in a group setting where there wasn't a pole available for everyone to use.

Not to stray off topic, but maybe some will find this an interesting data point. In Pin Sun WCK we do not use a long heavy pole and do not use a deep horse stance. We use a shorter lighter pole and work from the YGKYM, just as in the empty hand methods. This leads to "snappier" waste movements with a little smaller amplitude. In my experience, this DOES help develop "short power" better than the typical version of the pole. To me, this represents the pole better adapted to Wing Chun mechanics than the way most do the longer heavier pole....which is still very "Hung Ga-like" with its deep stances. Just my opinion, for what its worth.

Here is footage of Eddie Chong Performing the pole form from Leung sheung linage, they also use a higher stance as in PSWC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaSqWhYjVMk

[kung fu fighter]

The importance of hidden concepts within wing chun symbols such as the Plum blossom and bagua in relation to long medium and close range sparring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5jtY_BcXU

[tc101]

While I appreciate your offer, I'm not interested in tracking down a video of a 'WC fighter' doing what I say to prove my case. I've proven it to myself thru years of training, hard work and proving what works/doesn't work with live pressure testing. But if you think someone like that Obasi is an example of a 'wing chun fighter' we should all watch and learn from, well then nothing I show you is going to make much sense since that guy has nothing to do with wing chun IMO.


Can we just be honest? There is no wing chun fighter including you or any one you know who can use simultaneous blocking and punching like you say. The reason is how fights really work. It's rare when you can do it. That's why we rarely see it. You see whatever it is I want to do like use simultaneous block and punch the reality is it only works if my opponent gives me repeat gives me the right conditions that allow me to pull it off. They rarely do so I can rarely use it. We can see this for ourselves just by looking at fights.

I do not know what this so called live pressure testing is but I do know what sparring and fighting is.

Obasi has nothing to do with wing chun,Kev? Well he's a wing chun guy and could beat the snot out of you right? So he is better at wing chun than you. If he is better at wing chun then doesn't he have a better understanding than you or do you think your understanding doesn't translate into skill?



And yes, in a lot of cases the defense sets up the offense. And no, if looking at something like tan da, simultaneous offense/defense doesn't actually happen exactly simultaneously, but the timing is so closely connected together that the term is safe to apply. Anyone that argues the they aren't simultaneous is just arguing semantics.

But there are different actions that do both at once in one single motion/move, like a 2-line punch/wu sau cutting into an attackers punch. That's one beat, one move, and simultaneous offense defense at the exact same time!


Can you point me to a wing chun person fighting that is using this 2 line punch? Or is this another case of I know it works only I've never seen it really happen?



I only speak from my own personal experience that I've gained thru years of trial and error and seeing what works or doesn't work for me. I don't speculate and I don't need to look at other 'wing chun fighters' to validate what I do. I actually go and do the work myself.


You know that's fine but any one can say they can do anything. I can beat bjj bb's by biting them. I know it works. Trust me. I have lots of experience. Any one can use that line to defend whatever they say. Hendrik can argue that. I am just asking if this is so true why is there no evidence? It's always secret evidence that no one will share lol.

So what do I believe? Do I believe my own eyes and look at what real and we know they are real wing chun fighters can do by seeing the fights of Orr Obasi Spain and so forth or do I listen to the secret pressure testers saying the real fighters can't do it but I can? Why is it that when ever the camera is running no one can do these things but when you switch it off every one can?

[tc101]

The importance of hidden concepts within wing chun symbols such as the Plum blossom and bagua in relation to long medium and close range sparring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5jtY_BcXU

Isn't that called projection when you project your ideas onto something?

[YouKnowWho]

Here is footage of Eddie Chong Performing the pole form from Leung sheung linage, they also use a higher stance as in PSWC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaSqWhYjVMk

I don't think we should allow our open hand training to put any restriction on our weapon training. If a WC guy has to use a long sword or Guan Dao in battle field, his main goal is to cut his opponent's head off. If low stance can help him to achieve that goal, he should use it.

I believe a WC guy will swing his sword the same way as a long fist guy does. After you have cut your opponent's head off, you can stand on his dead body with you

- WC YJKYM to prove that you are a WC guy, or
- long fist low horse stance to prove that you are a long fist guy,

if that will make you to feel more loyalty to your art.

[Faux Newbie]

Isn't that called projection when you project your ideas onto something?

A lot of that is more mnemonics than projection. Like some "animal" sets (xingyi comes to mind) are not mimicking animal movement, but using the concept of how that animal is viewed to give an idea of the goals of the movements.

[Hendrik]

Let's made life simple


In ancient china martial art terms:


Yin yang means changes state

Bagua means direction or angling

[JPinAZ]

Can we just be honest?

You're asking me about honesty?? when you can 'be honest' about who you are, then we can talk. I noticed, just like 'the old T', in your reply you purposely avoided all the comments I made about 'who you are' and only repeated the same exact rhetoric almost word-for-word that 'he' did. No one is fooled. Until you can be 'honest', maybe you should pick a different word, eh 'T'? ;)

[tc101]

A lot of that is more mnemonics than projection. Like some "animal" sets (xingyi comes to mind) are not mimicking animal movement, but using the concept of how that animal is viewed to give an idea of the goals of the movements.

I agree with you that many ideas are expressed in TMAs through forms terminology and so forth. What I mean is I think often people are not sharing those things they were taught but their interpretations of those things. So then what you get is them projecting their ideas on to the form or terminology or whatever. Using your example an animal might be used to represent some concept but if you did not learn what that is and you come up with your own ideas you may be very very wrong. Then you teach others your interpretation and things get messier.

[tc101]

You're asking me about honesty?? when you can 'be honest' about who you are, then we can talk. I noticed, just like 'the old T', in your reply you purposely avoided all the comments I made about 'who you are' and only repeated the same exact rhetoric almost word-for-word that 'he' did. No one is fooled. Until you can be 'honest', maybe you should pick a different word, eh 'T'? ;)

I took all that stuff out since it wasn't related to the topic just your paranoia lol. I do not think I share the views of anyone here although the closest I think would be Sanjuro's. I have a certain perspective which comes from my background.

For what it's worth I agree with many many many of your views there are only a few things I don't. One is your idea that wing chun is principle based which I do not see how that is even possible. I think principles and concepts are very important and are useful and necessary but without techniques and tactics and strategies and so forth you would be unable to do anything. Same if you had techniques without concepts.

So our systems give us all these necessary things the principles the concepts the techniques the tactics the strategies and so forth but the system cannot teach you as an individual how to put the art together for yourself. No fighting art can be reduced to a fixed formula because people are individuals with very very very individual strengths weaknesses preferences abilities attributes and so forth. You see this plain as day in boxing. I think it is true for all fighting arts. I think when people spar they very quickly see this. You also see from sparring that nothing is chiseled in stone and that it is up to you to use not use or modify what you have been taught. I was taught the base wing chun strategy of dominating the centerline but depending on the situation my experience may lead me to do something else. That is not abandoning wing chun that is not being a slave to the system.

I am interested very very interested to hear how different people put things together for themselves in sparring. I am interested in seeing it also. This is not what people are sharing almost all of the time when they talk about application they are talking about how they think things will work. I think that is worse than useless. So I agree with you that simultaneous blocking and striking is a tactic in wing chun. It's one that we can only use in certain situations. I am interested to hear when you can really use it in sparring.

I'll tell you when I find that I can use it most successfully in sparring. In the upper/mid gate I like to use it when I have already established contact with one of his arms so I can anticipate him throwing the other hand. I find for me that trying to use it when both his arms are free is very difficult in sparring. I think you do not see this tactic used much in the wing chun fights because that sort of situation does not happen very often usually both arms are free. Now this is not what I was taught or told or is some concept it is what I have observed for myself in sparring about how things work for me.

[Faux Newbie]

Are you assuming WC only has a few techniques at any given range?

No, only at long range. In fairness, even systems associated with long range have less long range techniques than medium range, just the nature of the beast.


Or that Wc fighters try to match technique vs technique? Either way, I have never agreed with this line of thinking, as, for me, WC isn't about how many or what techniques it has. This would be a very limiting view of WCK IMO.

I tend to view it this way: without understanding technique, principles cannot come into play. Technique enables them, but one cannot be too reliant on technique, just as one cannot be too reliant on principles. This is in reference to fighting. We train the techniques and the principles, and by training them well, are not reliant on either. This is just my view, of course. All styles have techniques, more developed styles have principles.

As for matching technique against technique, this is obviously an ideal that one might train for, but cannot count on. However, I think, in fighting, no matter the style, the superior fighter is acting in a way that takes advantage of what their opponent is doing.


To give an example of what I mean, last night I taught a san sau class (san sau meaning more geared toward sparring applications vs. straight system training/drilling) that had a range of skill levels between the students. There were several guys that have been training for 2-4 years, some 1-2 year students, 2 beginners of only a few weeks, and 1 first-timer doing a trial class that came in with a decent amount of MMA training. I chose this exact topic of feints and long range attackes to train the more seasoned guys, as well as introduce WC's principle-based fighting concepts to the newer people.

Besides showing and labeling the attacks we would be defending against (single straight lead/jab, jab/cross and Jab/hook), I didn't mention one WC technique they would use to defend against them. I had them first get comfortable with the long range attacks so they had some familiarity with them by hitting pads. Most have already done this type of training, but it was a good warm up and essential for the 2 newbies due to their low coordination and having never really thrown a punch in their lives.

Sounds like a good approach.


Then, I started them into defending against just the single lead/jab. The motion they were using was a biu-type shape engaging the jab from the outside-to-in while maintaining good fwd structure & pressure on center. I didn't label the shape as it wasn't necessary. Instead I focused on the concepts of centerline and space occupation, how do dominate that center space which drives the initial attack offline, and the body mechanics necessary to make it work - moving out to in with the arm, proper 6-gate footwork with the arm extended but elbow still sunken slightly so it can connect with the same side hip & knee, proper arm contact & fwd energy to connect with opponent's COG, etc. At no time did I give the 'technique' a name, even when asked. I also had the punchers vary the attack from feints, touch-and-go probing, as well as more committed punches.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was assuming would be an important way to train this range for wing chun. By having ample opportunity to work against feints, etc, the ability to read the opponent is worked. Also, by having ample time to act as the person doing a feint, they become accustomed and better at doing it, so that their partners will hopefully not be training against only poor feints.


Each time I had them do the same motion regardless of the commitment:
1. If it was a feint, cover the space and then move in if proper range to do so. Or, just stand your ground if little to no contact was made or the range was too far out (I explained you don't move, I don't move - you move I get there first here)

Here's where I think sometimes it is worth it to, after a certain stage, have the feint be followed by the actual intended attack. Cover is always a relative thing, all areas covered does not often equate to all areas covered will. By having the feint have a followup (after a certain stage in training) it becomes more important how one covers, because the feint is designed to draw a response and capitalize on it. Not a critique of your drill, it is a totally valid drill. But not all entries are always equally valid considering the circumstances, so having a followup can show that and force the person working entries against this to use more awareness of their opponent, imo.


2. For the touch-and-go probing-type jabs, same thing - cover the space and then, if proper range is there, follow the withdraw of the punch with footwork and what some might call trapping & hitting (I explained the general idea of loi lau hoi sung here)

Nice.


3. For committed attacks, this gave them more test to their overall body structure, elbow/knee/hip connection and fwd intent/pressure. From there, they were more in range to sink and hit.

Understood.


At the end, everyone seemed to understand what I meant form a principle-based WC POV and weren't focused on what tools they used or how amny/few I had given them. The seniors had a better appreciation for the ideas they already knew, and the new people were left with a good appreciationg with how simple it worked once you learned the mechanics and were successful at applying the idea. And the new MMA guy was a bit surprised how well it worked for being something so foreign to him and was excited to try it out against his training partners at the MMA gym. Very cool :)

It's always fun when a lesson works out well.

I would say that, when I say technique, I am not always meaning heavily involved or complex moves. Most won't be this way. So I view the biu type guard as a fundamental technique in many styles. In my experience, it's mostly throws and chin nas that are more complex than that, but they also fall into rather simple categories when looked at in light of footwork, where the footwork only moves so many ways, and tends to create pressure (positive or negative, for lack of a better term) in those ways. I think we all work technique, AND principle. Without both, in my view, there are a lot of traps one can fall into.

Sole reliance on technique tends to make a fighter who can only prosper when they can force their technique on the opponent. Principles alone tend to make people who interpret form into any technique they can see, but not look at each technique in terms of consistency of application. I tend to view interpretations of form as just fine, but those interpretations still need to be judged, an interpretation that is useful only when fighting someone who is not as good is less useful than one that applies well in a narrow circumstance. When looked at in terms of what is consistently useful, I have rarely seen more than two valid applications of something from form, and often just one.

[JPinAZ]

No, only at long range. In fairness, even systems associated with long range have less long range techniques than medium range, just the nature of the beast.

I tend to view it this way: without understanding technique, principles cannot come into play. Technique enables them, but one cannot be too reliant on technique, just as one cannot be too reliant on principles. This is in reference to fighting. We train the techniques and the principles, and by training them well, are not reliant on either. This is just my view, of course. All styles have techniques, more developed styles have principles.

Sure. Many ways to look at it. I've heard it said "It's all technique, then it's no technique, and then it's all technique again" What this means is, in the beginning, shape is all you have. Then, as you internalize the principle-based concepts of the system, the idea of technique doesn't matter so much as you are really just 'occupying space with strong structure on the centerline (for one example), regardless the technique. Then, once that is fully internalized, then you go back to the idea of using technique as the concepts are ingrained in your body so-to-speak.


Sounds like a good approach.

Thanks.


This is exactly the sort of thing I was assuming would be an important way to train this range for wing chun. By having ample opportunity to work against feints, etc, the ability to read the opponent is worked. Also, by having ample time to act as the person doing a feint, they become accustomed and better at doing it, so that their partners will hopefully not be training against only poor feints.

Yeah, that's the point - you're only really able to be as good as your training partners!


Here's where I think sometimes it is worth it to, after a certain stage, have the feint be followed by the actual intended attack. Cover is always a relative thing, all areas covered does not often equate to all areas covered will. By having the feint have a followup (after a certain stage in training) it becomes more important how one covers, because the feint is designed to draw a response and capitalize on it. Not a critique of your drill, it is a totally valid drill. But not all entries are always equally valid considering the circumstances, so having a followup can show that and force the person working entries against this to use more awareness of their opponent, imo.

No worries, and I fully agree! Actually, this is also what I had the senior guys doing as well, feint and then throw the punch a slight second afterwards to see they can catch each other 'sleeping'. It's a true test of whether or not they are buying into the feint or not and teaches them the hard way the consequences of being duped by people that feint. IMO these is where the fun begins and the fight skill actually starts being developed.


I would say that, when I say technique, I am not always meaning heavily involved or complex moves. Most won't be this way. So I view the biu type guard as a fundamental technique in many styles. In my experience, it's mostly throws and chin nas that are more complex than that, but they also fall into rather simple categories when looked at in light of footwork, where the footwork only moves so many ways, and tends to create pressure (positive or negative, for lack of a better term) in those ways. I think we all work technique, AND principle. Without both, in my view, there are a lot of traps one can fall into.

Sole reliance on technique tends to make a fighter who can only prosper when they can force their technique on the opponent. Principles alone tend to make people who interpret form into any technique they can see, but not look at each technique in terms of consistency of application. I tend to view interpretations of form as just fine, but those interpretations still need to be judged, an interpretation that is useful only when fighting someone who is not as good is less useful than one that applies well in a narrow circumstance. When looked at in terms of what is consistently useful, I have rarely seen more than two valid applications of something from form, and often just one.

I can agree with what you are saying here. and yes, there is always 'techninque'. When I say 'principle-based fighting', I guess I'm trying to stress the importance of what gives way to the WC goals of efficiency, effectiveness & economy of motion in fighting (if one sees WC that way of course). If only looking at technique, then people can argue back and forth all day why one is better than the other. Or some can argue that certain moves are low percentage moves, and sometimes rightly so. But when you look at WC principle/concept, the answer should be much more simple and clear to a point where the idea of technique doesn't really matter much. Still, to do anything, you need a shape, and to teach that shape you need to label it. But if you teach fighting methods from a principle-based WC system method as in the example I gave from my class, I didn't have to mention one technique to get the point across. Sure, no harm in telling them the names. But the point was to focus on the why and how - not the what. And this method can be used in any class, even chi na, throws, etc. Because, IMO it's not the technique that makes things work, it's the position, leverage point and point of contact that makes things work (the mechanics).

For example, if I want to show someone a simple self defense technique for a low grab to a wrist, I could say something like:
1. "Step to the side and use a tan sau to break the grip".

Or, if I'm not teaching someone from a WC background who doesn't understand what a tan sau is, I could say:
2. "Step to the side away from the attackers non-grabbing hand, and raise your grabbed hand up to your nose height in front of your face with the elbow down and in while keeping your wrist straight and pressing fwd away from you. This will help break the grip, move you to a safer position, as well as put up a strong structure while connecting to your opponent's COG so you can read their next move". (and before someone argues that this won't work, there's a better way, etc - it's only an example lol)

The first method is technique-only focus. The second is concept & mechanics focused. Both can work, but one leaves a lot open to interpretation. And maybe that's good in the beginning, let them wander a bit and try things out. But, does the first really work at a high percentage if the person doesn't have a decent idea of the second - even if they know what a taan sau looks like? They might figure it out, they might not. Doesn't meet with WC's ideas of efficiency, effectiveness or economy of motion without the second. This is why IMO, regardless if people say otherwise, wing chun is a principle-based conceptual art at it's core and not just taan/bong/fook.
So in the beginning, it's all shape/technique. But, after one gets past that and starts learning the when/why/how - the general ideas of wing chun's main principles/concepts (no technique) - then yeah, like I said before - it's all technique again :)

[tc101]

I can agree with what you are saying here. and yes, there is always 'techninque'. When I say 'principle-based fighting', I guess I'm trying to stress the importance of what gives way to the WC goals of efficiency, effectiveness & economy of motion in fighting (if one sees WC that way of course). If only looking at technique, then people can argue back and forth all day why one is better than the other. Or some can argue that certain moves are low percentage moves, and sometimes rightly so. But when you look at WC principle/concept, the answer should be much more simple and clear to a point where the idea of technique doesn't really matter much. Still, to do anything, you need a shape, and to teach that shape you need to label it. But if you teach fighting methods from a principle-based WC system method as in the example I gave from my class, I didn't have to mention one technique to get the point across. Sure, no harm in telling them the names. But the point was to focus on the why and how - not the what. And this method can be used in any class, even chi na, throws, etc. Because, IMO it's not the technique that makes things work, it's the position, leverage point and point of contact that makes things work (the mechanics).

For example, if I want to show someone a simple self defense technique for a low grab to a wrist, I could say something like:
1. "Step to the side and use a tan sau to break the grip".

Or, if I'm not teaching someone from a WC background who doesn't understand what a tan sau is, I could say:
2. "Step to the side away from the attackers non-grabbing hand, and raise your grabbed hand up to your nose height in front of your face with the elbow down and in while keeping your wrist straight and pressing fwd away from you. This will help break the grip, move you to a safer position, as well as put up a strong structure while connecting to your opponent's COG so you can read their next move". (and before someone argues that this won't work, there's a better way, etc - it's only an example lol)

The first method is technique-only focus. The second is concept & mechanics focused. Both can work, but one leaves a lot open to interpretation. And maybe that's good in the beginning, let them wander a bit and try things out. But, does the first really work at a high percentage if the person doesn't have a decent idea of the second - even if they know what a taan sau looks like? They might figure it out, they might not. Doesn't meet with WC's ideas of efficiency, effectiveness or economy of motion without the second. This is why IMO, regardless if people say otherwise, wing chun is a principle-based conceptual art at it's core and not just taan/bong/fook.
So in the beginning, it's all shape/technique. But, after one gets past that and starts learning the when/why/how - the general ideas of wing chun's main principles/concepts (no technique) - then yeah, like I said before - it's all technique again :)

My experience is if you start by learning technique through using it you find out the how's and whys pretty quickly.

I really do not think your two examples are different. In the first you say tan sau and in the second you simply describe the action of a tan sau so what is the difference? The first just assumes that the person already knows what the term tan sau describes. When you teach technique aren't you teaching an action not a shape?

Technique is a learned way of doing something better so that naturally means you are doing it more effectively more economically more efficiently otherwise it would not be technique lol. Technique by it's very nature is doing that. I don't know anyone who trains to learn worse ways of doing something.

My experience is that efficienient effective and economical is an individual thing as is technique in that what is EEE for you may not be what is EEE for me and that this is not something unique to wing chun.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We learn and retain and find out what works best for us BY DOING.
I think that for most the "ideal" way is to learn the technique, DO IT and then learn the principles of how and why it works and then go from there.
Kind of like that do in pretty much every physical activity.
I've seen some pretty good boxers that really don't have a very good understanding of the principles of boxing BUT they DO IT very well.
Of course to be a good teacher you need more than just being able to "do it".

[Faux Newbie]

We learn and retain and find out what works best for us BY DOING.
I think that for most the "ideal" way is to learn the technique, DO IT and then learn the principles of how and why it works and then go from there.
Kind of like that do in pretty much every physical activity.
I've seen some pretty good boxers that really don't have a very good understanding of the principles of boxing BUT they DO IT very well.
Of course to be a good teacher you need more than just being able to "do it".

A good teacher can make someone a good fighter who fights and shows all the principles of their system without that student necessarily being able to explain the same things. And do so with different people who end up fighting differently.

A good teacher has to know what works for them AND what works for others. There's one throw in my system that is commonly done here in the U.S. one way. In China, it is generally done differently. The difference is that the way it is done here works if the person you are throwing is substantially larger than you, as was the case between the teacher who brought it here and his students. The way it is done in China is also useful when there is not a size difference. The version here does not work well if you are equal height or taller than your opponent. If a teacher doesn't know this, then only their short students will appear skilled with that throw, but this is not what is happening.

[Wayfaring]

We learn and retain and find out what works best for us BY DOING.
I think that for most the "ideal" way is to learn the technique, DO IT and then learn the principles of how and why it works and then go from there.
Kind of like that do in pretty much every physical activity.
I've seen some pretty good boxers that really don't have a very good understanding of the principles of boxing BUT they DO IT very well.
Of course to be a good teacher you need more than just being able to "do it".

"The mind understands; the body knows..." Garrett Gee

I don't do the quote thing often at all but here it fits too perfect.

[JPinAZ]

My example wasn't to imply it's the best or only way to teach, just to give a POV of 'principle'-based fighting from a teaching perspective where you can teach someone to use WC effectively and never once mention technique by focusing on proper mechanics, position, point of contact, leverage, centerline, etc..
There are many other classes where the focus is simply on a technique and it's use/application, say 'pak sau' :)


I really do not think your two examples are different. In the first you say tan sau and in the second you simply describe the action of a tan sau so what is the difference? The first just assumes that the person already knows what the term tan sau describes. When you teach technique aren't you teaching an action not a shape?

What's the difference? I thought I was pretty clear what I thought the difference was and explained it several times. But I will reiterate again, just for you 'T' :)

No, I didn't think simply described the action of tan sau in my second example. From the first example of 'just do a tan sau' you could do a tan sau as I described but step the wrong way and get hit, or not step at all and get hit by the free hand. Or try doing the shape but have the wrong facing, or the wrong energy. Tan sau is the 'what', my second example is the how, what and why. The first, you only take away an application for a technique, the second applies to other areas as well as it's concept-focused perspective - regardless the technique or application

The difference is, there are many many ways to do a 'tan sau', and we see arguments about the right and wrong way to do a technique here all the time. By focusing only on the technique, you will find a way, but that doesn't always mean it's the way that fits in with WC's ideas/goals of economy of motion, maximum efficiency (I don't care if you don't like the term, so please ignore 'maximum' if it suites you), and effectiveness. You will not necessarily learn to do tan sau that fits these concepts just by practicing it, or if you happen to, it may take a long long time. But if I teach an application based on the concepts, the technique could be anything. For instance, in my example, there are otherways to break the grab without using tan sau. But if I just showed you to 'do tan sau' you will miss this


Technique is a learned way of doing something better so that naturally means you are doing it more effectively more economically more efficiently otherwise it would not be technique lol. Technique by it's very nature is doing that. I don't know anyone who trains to learn worse ways of doing something.

Focusing only on technique you may be right, but the time frame for the learning process could be muuucccchhh longer. Now, I'm not advocating that you can simple tell someone the principle/concept and they got it. Far from it. they still have to put in the work and make it work for themselves. If you just want to see technique only, that's fine - because physically, that's all you really can see. But there's also the flip side of when you see someone trying a tan sau and it isn't working, is it because they are using the wrong technique? Or is it because they are using the technique wrongly? The concepts/principles are the guide for answering this. And by watching someone perform a technique, it is usually pretty easy to see if they understand them or not.


My experience is that efficienient effective and economical is an individual thing as is technique in that what is EEE for you may not be what is EEE for me and that this is not something unique to wing chun.

I respect your view, but have a difficult time agreeing. One 'E' by itself, sure. 2 EE's, less-so. But IMO, when looking at EEE (all 3 together), there is a lot less room for personal interpretation - period.
That's like saying that there are different ways to say the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. You can argue otherwise and say the shortest distance between 2 points that are and inch apart is a huge zig zag spiral circle that is a mile long, and from some extreme physics examples you might prove your case, but the general idea of straight line is excepted as a common truth. But if someone says a jumping, spinning back fist is more EEE than a straight jab for hitting a stationary target with your at arm's length that is right in front of you with your fist, I'd reply that you're probably just arguing to argue. Put all 3 EEE together, and there is little room for arguing among rational people in that example.

[JPinAZ]

A good teacher can make someone a good fighter who fights and shows all the principles of their system without that student necessarily being able to explain the same things. And do so with different people who end up fighting differently.

I completely agree! And this can be the difference from teaching fighters and teaching people that will also be teachers (as well as being fighters).
To reiterate, I think you can teach someone completely with technique and instill some of the principles of the system and make a very good fighter. But like you said, they will all probably end up doing things differently in the end or be able to explain things the same. This is what I term as 'style'. Nothing wrong with that either. But then years later, if these people then go out and start teaching, are they passing on the complete WC system, or only their own stylized version based only on what they were taught and the experience they gained? And there is a pretty big difference IMO

I think this is the main example for why there are so many different 'versions' and takes on the WC system today, and why there is so much arguing about who's right/wrong. Just take Yip Man's students and the various sub-lineages that stemmed from them. LT does things very differently than WSL, in almost every aspect - footwork, stance weighting, angling, etc. That's just one example. Then look at the variations that stemmed from just those 2 guys and the sub-sub-lineages that sprung up underneath just LT or WSL. You can look at the top WSL lineage guys today, and see it again.
Now, compare all the different variations from the Yip Man lineages to the non-YM lineages and we see the same thing once more. Most can agree that WC has to come from the same common source at one point (my logical guess is prior to the major split of 1850's). But IMO it's the various ways of teaching fighting apps to people based on what the teacher thought they needed to succeed in fighting and then the fighter's personal preference that causes so many different 'styles' of WC today.


A good teacher has to know what works for them AND what works for others. There's one throw in my system that is commonly done here in the U.S. one way. In China, it is generally done differently. The difference is that the way it is done here works if the person you are throwing is substantially larger than you, as was the case between the teacher who brought it here and his students. The way it is done in China is also useful when there is not a size difference. The version here does not work well if you are equal height or taller than your opponent. If a teacher doesn't know this, then only their short students will appear skilled with that throw, but this is not what is happening.

Agreed! And that is where I feel a sound understanding of the system's principle-based concepts plays a big part.
The flip side is, the teacher may just prefer one way over the other and teach it only that way regardless of size (even if it doens't relaly 'work' as well). If his 'preference' then gets passed down when his student's start teaching, then the other way gets lost - at least for that sub lineage. I think we see this happen all the time in many arts.

[tc101]

My example wasn't to imply it's the best or only way to teach, just to give a POV of 'principle'-based fighting from a teaching perspective where you can teach someone to use WC effectively and never once mention technique by focusing on proper mechanics, position, point of contact, leverage, centerline, etc..
There are many other classes where the focus is simply on a technique and it's use/application, say 'pak sau' :)


Yes I understood that was what you were trying to explain.



What's the difference? I thought I was pretty clear what I thought the difference was and explained it several times. But I will reiterate again, just for you 'T' :)

No, I didn't think simply described the action of tan sau in my second example. From the first example of 'just do a tan sau' you could do a tan sau as I described but step the wrong way and get hit, or not step at all and get hit by the free hand. Or try doing the shape but have the wrong facing, or the wrong energy. Tan sau is the 'what', my second example is the how, what and why. The first, you only take away an application for a technique, the second applies to other areas as well as it's concept-focused perspective - regardless the technique or application


Let me just stop you here. Maybe it's terminology maybe not but as I learned wing chun the actions like tan sau or bong sau or whatever are generic actions that most often can be used to do several different things. This is one of the things I like about the art. So the same generic action can be used as a strike or a block or to open a line or to escape a grab and so forth. Depending on what you are doing with the tool or action you may have to tweak it for example use a different energy as you say. I think here we are on the same line of thinking. This is taking the generic action and making it a technique or way to do something. Shape really doesn't enter into that unless by shape you mean the generic action. For me shape is the reference to the generic action not the action itself.

Here's the deal this technique you teach with the stepping is a fine way to teach how the tan sau action MIGHT be used as an escape from a grab and the stepping is a fine way to teach various things like coordinating what you do in upper and lower gates or being mindful of his the opponents free hand and so forth but that as a combative technique simply won't work. This is what I have pointed out before. This is not application this is teaching various elements of wing chun you are not teaching what to really do in fighting. You see in fighting the opponent is not going to simply grab your arm and stand there while you do a tan sau with a step but is going to be already moving and throwing the other hand or other wise doing something to you. I know I know you will tell me it can be done and I will say show me someone doing it in sparring. My point is no one is doing that in sparring. So what you teach as application is stuff no one really does and calling it application.

Again I think that what you are teaching is fine but it is not application and it misleads people into thinking this is how we do things in fighting.



The difference is, there are many many ways to do a 'tan sau', and we see arguments about the right and wrong way to do a technique here all the time. By focusing only on the technique, you will find a way, but that doesn't always mean it's the way that fits in with WC's ideas/goals of economy of motion, maximum efficiency (I don't care if you don't like the term, so please ignore 'maximum' if it suites you), and effectiveness. You will not necessarily learn to do tan sau that fits these concepts just by practicing it, or if you happen to, it may take a long long time. But if I teach an application based on the concepts, the technique could be anything. For instance, in my example, there are otherways to break the grab without using tan sau. But if I just showed you to 'do tan sau' you will miss this


I think there are many ways of doing the same technique. There is no one right or best way. The thing is you have to find out what works best for you.

I understand what you are saying about concepts teaching the larger picture, for example the concept of breaking the grab at the thumb. That's a useful concept for sure. My perspective is it is all a part of one package and that the concept is not the basis of everything it is just a part like everything else. You need concepts but also technique and they go hand in hand. You need all the parts. Since you need all the parts no one part is the basis.



Focusing only on technique you may be right, but the time frame for the learning process could be muuucccchhh longer. Now, I'm not advocating that you can simple tell someone the principle/concept and they got it. Far from it. they still have to put in the work and make it work for themselves. If you just want to see technique only, that's fine - because physically, that's all you really can see. But there's also the flip side of when you see someone trying a tan sau and it isn't working, is it because they are using the wrong technique? Or is it because they are using the technique wrongly? The concepts/principles are the guide for answering this. And by watching someone perform a technique, it is usually pretty easy to see if they understand them or not.


I am in complete agreement with you about the process. Let me try to make this as clear as I can. For me concept technique movement energy and so forth are intertwined as a whole and you need it all to make what you do work. I do not think this is in any way unique to wing chun it is just the reality of learning a combative art.

The other thing is many times you will see very very very good athletes who perform very very very well and can't explain or verbalized how they are able to do what they do so well. They may not understand it but they can do it. I do not think understanding is a basis of performance and our every day experience shows us that. That's not to say concepts can't help us perform.



I respect your view, but have a difficult time agreeing. One 'E' by itself, sure. 2 EE's, less-so. But IMO, when looking at EEE (all 3 together), there is a lot less room for personal interpretation - period.
That's like saying that there are different ways to say the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. You can argue otherwise and say the shortest distance between 2 points that are and inch apart is a huge zig zag spiral circle that is a mile long, and from some extreme physics examples you might prove your case, but the general idea of straight line is excepted as a common truth. But if someone says a jumping, spinning back fist is more EEE than a straight jab for hitting a stationary target with your at arm's length that is right in front of you with your fist, I'd reply that you're probably just arguing to argue. Put all 3 EEE together, and there is little room for arguing among rational people in that example.

My only argument is that human beings and performance and fighting does not work like geometry lol. Yes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but I may not want to use the straight line even if it is there. Remember the Orr fighter who was doing chain punches with hooks and knocked his opponent out? He was not using straight punches intentionally. He was intentionally choosing not to use the shortest distance lol. He was not a slave to the system and was not stuck trying to conform to some self imposed limitations. He used what his experience taught him was the best way FOR HIM to get the KO in that situation.

The trouble with your way of thinking is it fails to take into account the reality of fighting, the individual differences, and your opponent. Yes a straight jab might hit him but he may be looking for it while a spinning back fist may catch him by surprise. How do you know when to do one or the other? I think that comes from experience.

[JPinAZ]

Yes I understood that was what you were trying to explain.

By your responses it doesn't appear that you did.


Yes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line

Ok


but I may not want to use the straight line even if it is there.

That's great and you can do what you want. But now you're just arguing with yourself because I didn't say anything about having to use a straight line or not. Like I said, it was just a simple example of a WC principle, nothing more. Funny, this discussion is feeling ssooooo familiar to the many 'discussions' I've had with another T that used to post here. I say one thing, he/you argues about something else.


You see in fighting the opponent is not going to simply grab your arm and stand there while you do a tan sau with a step but is going to be already moving and throwing the other hand or other wise doing something to you. I know I know you will tell me it can be done and I will say show me someone doing it in sparring.

No, I won't. Again, it was just another dam example, and I was pretty clear about that. Yet you go on for 2 paragraphs and somehow you still turn it into I don't know what happens in a real fight, you know what I'll tell you next, how what I teach is misleading and not application (like you have any idea what or how I teach) etc. Seems like there is little need for me to continue the discussion as you seem to be able to talk for both of us and you apparently know me sooo well.


The trouble with your way of thinking is it fails to take into account the reality of fighting, the individual differences, and your opponent.

The trouble I have with discussing anything with you "T" is, you end up looping back to the same ol' same ol', arguing about things people don't even say like the same broken record. Assuming, like you have for years, that I don't take into account the 'reality of fighting', or that I don't 'do these things in sparring because they won't work in sparring', 'next you'll say', pointing back to your hero Alan, blah blah blah. Same thing as always & dragging good discussions down to the same narrow focus arguments in the process. You'd think you would have learned a little from the 'old T' and why he was banned in the first place and switch it up a little..

I tried to have an honest technical discussion with you, but once you start making these same stupid assumptions about what I do and don't do the conversation is over. Not only are you wrong, you're insulting. And that's where I bow out 'Terry'

[Wayfaring]

Are you assuming WC only has a few techniques at any given range? Or that Wc fighters try to match technique vs technique? Either way, I have never agreed with this line of thinking, as, for me, WC isn't about how many or what techniques it has. This would be a very limiting view of WCK IMO.

To give an example of what I mean, last night I taught a san sau class (san sau meaning more geared toward sparring applications vs. straight system training/drilling) that had a range of skill levels between the students. There were several guys that have been training for 2-4 years, some 1-2 year students, 2 beginners of only a few weeks, and 1 first-timer doing a trial class that came in with a decent amount of MMA training. I chose this exact topic of feints and long range attackes to train the more seasoned guys, as well as introduce WC's principle-based fighting concepts to the newer people.

Besides showing and labeling the attacks we would be defending against (single straight lead/jab, jab/cross and Jab/hook), I didn't mention one WC technique they would use to defend against them. I had them first get comfortable with the long range attacks so they had some familiarity with them by hitting pads. Most have already done this type of training, but it was a good warm up and essential for the 2 newbies due to their low coordination and having never really thrown a punch in their lives.

Then, I started them into defending against just the single lead/jab. The motion they were using was a biu-type shape engaging the jab from the outside-to-in while maintaining good fwd structure & pressure on center. I didn't label the shape as it wasn't necessary. Instead I focused on the concepts of centerline and space occupation, how do dominate that center space which drives the initial attack offline, and the body mechanics necessary to make it work - moving out to in with the arm, proper 6-gate footwork with the arm extended but elbow still sunken slightly so it can connect with the same side hip & knee, proper arm contact & fwd energy to connect with opponent's COG, etc. At no time did I give the 'technique' a name, even when asked. I also had the punchers vary the attack from feints, touch-and-go probing, as well as more committed punches.

Each time I had them do the same motion regardless of the commitment:
1. If it was a feint, cover the space and then move in if proper range to do so. Or, just stand your ground if little to no contact was made or the range was too far out (I explained you don't move, I don't move - you move I get there first here)
2. For the touch-and-go probing-type jabs, same thing - cover the space and then, if proper range is there, follow the withdraw of the punch with footwork and what some might call trapping & hitting (I explained the general idea of loi lau hoi sung here)
3. For committed attacks, this gave them more test to their overall body structure, elbow/knee/hip connection and fwd intent/pressure. From there, they were more in range to sink and hit.

Some were better at this than others of course, but everyone was able to demonstrate an ability to pull it off and feel comfortable with the safety in the action without have to reply mainly on strength and size, as well as the offensive options you have afterwards. While the newer people just worked on that, I then had the more seasoned guys defend against more random 1-2 attacks I listed before and learned that the follow up punches weren't as much of a threat when done properly.
At the end, everyone seemed to understand what I meant form a principle-based WC POV and weren't focused on what tools they used or how amny/few I had given them. The seniors had a better appreciation for the ideas they already knew, and the new people were left with a good appreciationg with how simple it worked once you learned the mechanics and were successful at applying the idea. And the new MMA guy was a bit surprised how well it worked for being something so foreign to him and was excited to try it out against his training partners at the MMA gym. Very cool :)

Anyway, the point is - WC isn't about having 1 or 5 or 10 different response for a given attack, it's about being able to apply the same principle-based concepts and ideas physically against a variety of attacks. Regardless the shape you used to get there, the focus and intended outcome should be the same. (of course, skill levels and luck of the day always plays a part!).

I like this approach to a class. It is functionally based. It has some live movement and contact. And it reinforces principles. A good option for a class that's something different.

[LoneTiger108]

In regards to long and medium range sparring, I believe after years of investigation in various kung fu systems, western fencing and boxing Bruce Lee came to this conclusion as well. So we don't have to re invent the wheel, he has already done the ground work for us. Wing chun sparring doesn't have to look like kickboxing if you know how to use your footwork with angling with proper awareness of timing and distancing.

I haven't read through all of this thread, but do remember seeing a few things here that I feel are worth mentioning again.

As far as this 'Bruce did all the work for us' type idea, please. He struggled to get over the true simplicity of Siu Lim Tau, and so had to throw everything into the mix to help him make sense of things he could have grasped if he had only stayed with Ip Man and trained more Wing Chun.

As far as I am aware, Ip Man Wing Chun (if we can call it that?) has frontal, slanted and side body methods, and due to his HK era influences what we see today tends to reflect much more frontal and slant body methods rather than full side body training. This isn't to say the information is not there within our forms and subsets though! I remember reading here mention on 'Battle Punches' and 'Arrow Punces', which are a basic side body drill related to the mechanics of the pole. Slant body methods are within Chum Kiu and side body within Biu Jee too. If your family doesn't have this type of training, maybe the Sifu have not been well versed enough in their forms and weaponry?

There was an old saying I heard many years ago about our "empty hand methods face the enemy at close range, pole methods keep the enemy at distance and knife methods pass through the enemy" and if you can imagine what that type of saying is implying, it is almost like we have close, mid and long range fighting methods consistently trained and revised throughout our forms and set drills.

This is basic Wing Chun?!

[kung fu fighter]

There was an old saying I heard many years ago about our "empty hand methods face the enemy at close range, pole methods keep the enemy at distance and knife methods pass through the enemy" and if you can imagine what that type of saying is implying, it is almost like we have close, mid and long range fighting methods consistently trained and revised throughout our forms and set drills.

I like that old saying!

[JPinAZ]

I like this approach to a class. It is functionally based. It has some live movement and contact. And it reinforces principles. A good option for a class that's something different.

Thanks! Yeah, I like this approach too. I typically split my teaching method to about 50%/50%. One day is WC system focus training (forms & solo drills along with fixed & skill challenge partner drilling) and then the next day are 'san sau' classes (as I outlined in my example here) and sparing. Seems to be a great mix: learn it - test it - repeat. Lately I'm finding that my focus is slipping more towards the second method and forms aren't playing as big of a focus once they start getting some skill, except maybe for WC Formula and Dip Gwat Gung SLT. Did you ever get a chance to see the DGG (Bone Grinding) SLT form?

[Wayfaring]

Thanks! Yeah, I like this approach too. I typically split my teaching method to about 50%/50%. One day is WC system focus training (forms & solo drills along with fixed & skill challenge partner drilling) and then the next day are 'san sau' classes (as I outlined in my example here) and sparing. Seems to be a great mix: learn it - test it - repeat. Lately I'm finding that my focus is slipping more towards the second method and forms aren't playing as big of a focus once they start getting some skill, except maybe for WC Formula and Dip Gwat Gung SLT. Did you ever get a chance to see the DGG (Bone Grinding) SLT form?

Not yet on the DGG. I'll hit you up and come train next time I'm out.

[KPM]

I'm not saying this is the best example of Wing Chun, but in this video the Wing Chun player uses the basic strategy of immediately closing with the opponent. So his opponent hardly ever has a chance to get off any kicks. If the Wing Chun guy had spent any time at long range, he would have ended up eating a lot more of the TKD guy's kicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBzTo07oS4

[Wayfaring]

I'm not saying this is the best example of Wing Chun, but in this video the Wing Chun player uses the basic strategy of immediately closing with the opponent. So his opponent hardly ever has a chance to get off any kicks. If the Wing Chun guy had spent any time at long range, he would have ended up eating a lot more of the TKD guy's kicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBzTo07oS4

Mislabeled as a street fight IMO. It was a street point tournament fight. Everyone kept stopping the action and they reset in the middle. Out of curiosity what do most think would happen if action was not stopped but was unrestricted? Anyway yes the WCK used a good strategy against a TKD guy - don't hang out at full kicking range - close the distance. I'm sure that strategy also would be good against a long range - Muhammed Ali style boxer.

[kung fu fighter]

I'm not saying this is the best example of Wing Chun, but in this video the Wing Chun player uses the basic strategy of immediately closing with the opponent. So his opponent hardly ever has a chance to get off any kicks. If the Wing Chun guy had spent any time at long range, he would have ended up eating a lot more of the TKD guy's kicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBzTo07oS4


The wing chun guy is chasing his TKD opponent, which can get you into trouble if the TKD opponent kew how to circle like a boxer with his footwork

not the best, but here is a better example starting at 0:44 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU8B6eNm2zs

When i close the distance, i can do it in one step and completely shut the opponent down and distroy his body structure to the point where he is off balance and can't move or step away. it's not check, it's check mate, but you have to have very good timing to be able to pull it off.

Starting at 2:29 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3eW0hfy0U was the closest I could find on youtube to the timing I am referring to, except I don't necessarily stand still and wait or step directly down the centerline, I wait for the opponent to come at me, I can bring the fight to the opponent, or I can cut the opponent off by being proactive. The secret is to take the inner gate centerline as Hendrik has mentioned on here before.