Central Line Bong Sau vs. Center Line Bong Sau [Archive]

KPM

03-19-2017, 04:40 AM

I just don't like how TWC stays out at the end of the opponent's punches and tries to block everything where it's most powerful.

If the opponent throws that second punch, which they will, you have to suddenly abandon your plan of entering, and change your footwork to stay out, circling away, keeping distance, and blocking again.

It doesn't matter that you're throwing a punch with the wu, because you're stepping backward taking power away from your point of force.

Well, Phil clearly states in that video that he is using forward pressure. He is stepping in. He is only engaging from further out first because that is where he happens to be when the punch comes. He clearly says in the video that you have to be prepared for that second punch, which is why you Lop forward and not downward and why you keep the Wu ready to defend. And he isn't stepping backward, he is angling to the side. In the video, when the second punch comes, he doesn't move away.

But as an overall strategy I see what you are saying. TWC will often place more emphasis on flanking the opponent to get to their "blind side" over driving right into their center. The idea is that if you only have to effectively deal with one arm at a time, you are in a safer and superior position. In contrast, driving into the center seeks to disrupt the opponent's balance to making it harder for them to land a good strike, even if both arms are still in play. Just different approaches.

LFJ

03-19-2017, 07:20 AM

Well, Phil clearly states in that video that he is using forward pressure. He is stepping in.

I usually watch what they do, more than listen to what they say, because it often doesn't match up.

The only time he steps in is when the partner pulls his punch back without throwing a second and he is caused to fully extend his reach during an attempt to contact and trap that retracting arm. Bit of an arm-chase, I'd say. Dangerous to chase like that when you know a second punch is likely coming.

he isn't stepping backward, he is angling to the side. In the video, when the second punch comes, he doesn't move away.

Watch the feet when he circles out. They are moving away.

The lead foot circles off to the side. The rear foot follows the heel stepping backward, with reference to his own body.

This is moving away from the incoming right round punch, and backward along the perimeter of the circle.

The result is he's affording the opponent ample space to adjust and continue attacking, while he moves away and has to put up some sort of block, while also taking body mass in the opposite direction of where he's intending to put force in his own punch.

I always see this exact same footwork in any TWC video. If you watch the feet they are always stepping out and backward, where their heels point, while circling around. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Round and round. Never forward into the opponent, leaving a big gap.

TWC will often place more emphasis on flanking the opponent to get to their "blind side" over driving right into their center. The idea is that if you only have to effectively deal with one arm at a time, you are in a safer and superior position. In contrast, driving into the center seeks to disrupt the opponent's balance to making it harder for them to land a good strike, even if both arms are still in play.

The idea is not a bad one. The thing is though, if you allow so much space, you're not really in a much safer or superior position. The opponent is still easily able to adjust and continue throwing power shots at that distance. As you continue to block and circle away, it's just a matter of time. If you don't affect their balance or facing, just slapping at that one arm isn't going to keep you safe.

Now, getting to the "blind side" and driving right up the center aren't the only options. It is possible to shut down the one arm and disrupt balance and facing, effectively getting to the same "blind side" to avoid retaliation from the other arm while driving body mass into the center. It just takes a different angling footwork and skill set.

KPM

03-19-2017, 11:13 AM

The only time he steps in is when the partner pulls his punch back without throwing a second and he is caused to fully extend his reach during an attempt to contact and trap that retracting arm. Bit of an arm-chase, I'd say. Dangerous to chase like that when you know a second punch is likely coming.

---I'd say it is chasing center. He defends from the outer range as he steps off the line and then when the opponent naturally retracts his arm Phil steps and follows it in to attack into the center. He's just covering the arm on the way in.

Watch the feet when he circles out. They are moving away.

---No. His lead foot stays planted as his rear foot moves up to it in a "T step". This moves his body off the attacking line and his body appears to shift back a bit. But his lead foot stays planted. Then the lead foot steps forward and towards the opponent.

The lead foot circles off to the side. The rear foot follows the heel stepping backward, with reference to his own body.

---The lead foot may step off to the side during the "T step" for better angling. But it is not moving back away from the opponent and giving up distance.

This is moving away from the incoming right round punch, and backward along the perimeter of the circle.

---You do realize, that since the perimeter is circular and in front of the opponent, one side of your body can move back as the other side moves forward?

The result is he's affording the opponent ample space to adjust and continue attacking,

---Possibly. But the whole point in flanking like this is to reach a position where it is easy for you to continue to attack but hard for the opponent to continue to attack. Just look at the awkward position his opponent would have to attack from. And one advantage to leaving this space, is that it allows space to kick, or to further adjust the angle with footwork if needed, etc.

while he moves away and has to put up some sort of block, while also taking body mass in the opposite direction of where he's intending to put force in his own punch.

---You pointed out yourself that the perimeter and therefore the way he is moving is circular. So if his body mass appears to swing back at one point, it is on a circular arc and is coming around to power the punch. That's how you use a "T step."

I always see this exact same footwork in any TWC video. If you watch the feet they are always stepping out and backward, where their heels point, while circling around. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Round and round. Never forward into the opponent, leaving a big gap.

---Again, that's the T step. Its not the only step used. But it is a good footwork to use when flanking. And that big gap that you are seeing is very difficult for the opponent to take advantage of. And one should immediately "fill the gap" with a counter attack.

, if you allow so much space, you're not really in a much safer or superior position. The opponent is still easily able to adjust and continue throwing power shots at that distance.

--I guess that's a matter of opinion! Most TWC people would disgree with you!

As you continue to block and circle away, it's just a matter of time. If you don't affect their balance or facing, just slapping at that one arm isn't going to keep you safe.

---True. But again, you don't just keep blocking and circling away. That is just to set up the opponent for your counter.

Now, getting to the "blind side" and driving right up the center aren't the only options. It is possible to shut down the one arm and disrupt balance and facing, effectively getting to the same "blind side" to avoid retaliation from the other arm while driving body mass into the center. It just takes a different angling footwork and skill set.

---True! And I will agree that most TWC guys don't make as much use of that tactic as they should! That is the "take their space and smash their face" philosophy! TWC sometimes seems to put an over-emphasis on staying out at that middle punching range rather than just "running over" the opponent and dominating them completely! That tactic is the aspect I like about CSL Wing Chun! So when I do TWC, I'm not really a "purist." I tend to mix in other things I've learned as well. But its all still Wing Chun!

Happy Tiger

03-19-2017, 01:36 PM

Yup, the best world is one that you can switch seamlessly between these ideas with no predudice. This also includes side body or center body. The situation will create the effect. Any attachments to one way or another will limit the deal. If I feel any hang ups in my oponent, particularly because of the ' beliefs' of their house I get an instant advantage.

LFJ

03-20-2017, 01:10 AM

---I'd say it is chasing center. He defends from the outer range as he steps off the line and then when the opponent naturally retracts his arm Phil steps and follows it in to attack into the center. He's just covering the arm on the way in.

The problem I was getting at was that in attempting to cover the arm on the way in, he fully extended his arm and was quite committed to following that arm back.

If suddenly a second punch comes, his response is to switch up everything entirely mid-action, including the direction he's moving.

Once body mass is already committed in one direction, with outstretched arms, it will be difficult to change footwork and everything to another direction in time.

Easy when done slowly and relaxed.

---The lead foot may step off to the side during the "T step" for better angling. But it is not moving back away from the opponent and giving up distance.

Not back away, but to the side away, which does give up distance.

This is moving away from the incoming right round punch, and backward along the perimeter of the circle.

---You do realize, that since the perimeter is circular and in front of the opponent, one side of your body can move back as the other side moves forward?

If his lead foot is at the center point of the circle, and rear foot along the perimeter, as he steps his lead foot to the side, and slides his rear foot backward, the whole circle, his body mass, is actually being moved away from the opponent.

---You pointed out yourself that the perimeter and therefore the way he is moving is circular. So if his body mass appears to swing back at one point, it is on a circular arc and is coming around to power the punch. That's how you use a "T step."

He's not pivoting and using rotational force, but stepping away with both feet, taking his body mass in the opposite direction of the straight punch. Meaning it's all arm.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/backstep_zpsppeu04za.gif

The result is he's affording the opponent ample space to adjust and continue attacking,

---Possibly. But the whole point in flanking like this is to reach a position where it is easy for you to continue to attack but hard for the opponent to continue to attack. Just look at the awkward position his opponent would have to attack from. And one advantage to leaving this space, is that it allows space to kick, or to further adjust the angle with footwork if needed, etc.

Here's the 1-2.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/GiveEmALeft_zps2xdgpac9.pnghttp://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/AndARight_zpsjka5oi1j.png

Doesn't look awkward or difficult to attack from at all. It's a power stance with hips directed straight at him. It's more awkward for Phil to do anything from the position he put himself in, moving backward all duck footed waiting to be taken over.

If either of them are to kick, the attacker is the one with the better angle, stance, momentum, and obvious target to kick.

If the ideal is to get further around the opponent, well, it didn't even work too well in a slow demo.

And that big gap that you are seeing is very difficult for the opponent to take advantage of. And one should immediately "fill the gap" with a counter attack.

What's to stop the opponent from taking advantage of it? He has not been affected in any way.

If he kept both hands up, they'd still at best be at equal advantage, or he'd be at more advantage.

, if you allow so much space, you're not really in a much safer or superior position. The opponent is still easily able to adjust and continue throwing power shots at that distance.

--I guess that's a matter of opinion! Most TWC people would disgree with you!

He's either able to, or he isn't. And he is, so it's not really a matter of opinion.

As you continue to block and circle away, it's just a matter of time. If you don't affect their balance or facing, just slapping at that one arm isn't going to keep you safe.

---True. But again, you don't just keep blocking and circling away. That is just to set up the opponent for your counter.

But as we see, nothing has been done to set the opponent up. His facing, balance, arms, or anything has not been affected. He's able to continue just the same.

TWC sometimes seems to put an over-emphasis on staying out at that middle punching range rather than just "running over" the opponent and dominating them completely!

Which is obviously the main problem I have with it.

KPM

03-20-2017, 03:28 AM

If suddenly a second punch comes, his response is to switch up everything entirely mid-action, including the direction he's moving.

---Watch the video. He doesn't have to switch up everything when the second punch comes. He is planning on the second coming!

Once body mass is already committed in one direction, with outstretched arms, it will be difficult to change footwork and everything to another direction in time.

---No it's not. Because he is moving off the line of that second punch. Again, watch the video. Phil isn't having any problems.

Not back away, but to the side away, which does give up distance.

---No it doesn't! Just look at the **** video! If you are following the perimeter of a circle you are not moving further away from the center. The opponent is at the center.

If his lead foot is at the center point of the circle, and rear foot along the perimeter, as he steps his lead foot to the side, and slides his rear foot backward, the whole circle, his body mass, is actually being moved away from the opponent.

---The opponent is at the center of the circle. BOTH of Phil's feet are on the perimeter of the circle.

He's not pivoting and using rotational force, but stepping away with both feet, taking his body mass in the opposite direction of the straight punch. Meaning it's all arm.

---Nope. Are we watching the same video? Look at his lead hip. The lead hip moves towards the opponent as he punches.

Doesn't look awkward or difficult to attack from at all. It's a power stance with hips directed straight at him. It's more awkward for Phil to do anything from the position he put himself in, moving backward all duck footed waiting to be taken over.

---Again....the whole point of the T step is that you are moving off the line of the original attack. Look at the images you posted. Phil is NOT where the opponent expected him to be and his punch is off-target. For him to redirect that second punch he would have to change his balance and shift his body, which is more difficult to do.

If either of them are to kick, the attacker is the one with the better angle, stance, momentum, and obvious target to kick.

---Geez! Look at the picture you posted! After that initial punch Phil is no longer standing in front of the opponent. The opponent is no longer facing towards Phil. Again, I get the distinct impression here you are just trying to argue for arguments sake alone!

He's either able to, or he isn't. And he is, so it's not really a matter of opinion.

---You are always so certain of your opinions. Unwilling to see the other side of things. That's why nearly every discussion with you turns into an argument. So you just go on believing whatever you want to believe. We seem to be looking at two different videos. :rolleyes:

LFJ

03-20-2017, 07:15 AM

He doesn't have to switch up everything when the second punch comes. He is planning on the second coming!

He first shows his intention is to enter while trapping the lead arm, stepping in toward the opponent.

That's against a single shot.

When the 1-2 comes, he no longer steps in toward the opponent, but to the side away from the opponent.

Yes, that is a big change. He cannot move his feet faster than a punch, especially to change directions by the time the incoming punch registers when his intent and body mass was moving forward.

Works fine in slow-mo.

Once body mass is already committed in one direction, with outstretched arms, it will be difficult to change footwork and everything to another direction in time.

---No it's not. Because he is moving off the line of that second punch. Again, watch the video. Phil isn't having any problems.

He's not having any problems because it's a very slow demo and he knows what is coming.

Not back away, but to the side away, which does give up distance.

---No it doesn't! Just look at the **** video! If you are following the perimeter of a circle you are not moving further away from the center. The opponent is at the center.

You have not understood me.

I said a circle of his own footwork, with the lead foot being the center point. This is in reference to his own feet and body, not the opponent.

Whenever he moves the lead foot, it moves his circle about, and the rear foot adjusts facing like a rudder.

Whenever he moves both feet off to the side, that moves his body away from the opponent, and gives up space.

You can see this by watching where his spine goes in space. The body follows the feet. It is away from the opponent.

If he had a colored circle beneath him like the active player on Madden NFL or something, you'd clearly see him moving away from the opponent.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/backstep_zpsppeu04za.gif

If his lead foot is at the center point of the circle, and rear foot along the perimeter, as he steps his lead foot to the side, and slides his rear foot backward, the whole circle, his body mass, is actually being moved away from the opponent.

---The opponent is at the center of the circle. BOTH of Phil's feet are on the perimeter of the circle.

You have redefined the circle I was using to illustrate my point.

He's not pivoting and using rotational force, but stepping away with both feet, taking his body mass in the opposite direction of the straight punch. Meaning it's all arm.

---Nope. Are we watching the same video? Look at his lead hip. The lead hip moves towards the opponent as he punches.

We might not be! Or you're not following my explanation.

His body mass is moving away from the opponent, because both feet are stepping away.

---Again....the whole point of the T step is that you are moving off the line of the original attack. Look at the images you posted. Phil is NOT where the opponent expected him to be and his punch is off-target. For him to redirect that second punch he would have to change his balance and shift his body, which is more difficult to do.

The second one was a bit of a round punch, and it wasn't off-target. It was just blocked.

The opponent's balance and facing were not at all compromised. He can easily continue chasing Phil who is running away backward and duck footed.

If either of them are to kick, the attacker is the one with the better angle, stance, momentum, and obvious target to kick.

---Geez! Look at the picture you posted! After that initial punch Phil is no longer standing in front of the opponent. The opponent is no longer facing towards Phil.

Not really a big change in position. Still in front of him. Wouldn't take much adjustment to speak of.

Right kick to the cojones would be an easy follow up while Phil is busy stepping duck footed backward and blocking arms.

He's either able to, or he isn't. And he is, so it's not really a matter of opinion.

---You are always so certain of your opinions. Unwilling to see the other side of things. That's why nearly every discussion with you turns into an argument. So you just go on believing whatever you want to believe. We seem to be looking at two different videos. :rolleyes:

Are you telling me if you threw a 1-2 combo at someone and they sidestepped ever so slightly off center, that would totally throw you off and you wouldn't be able to easily adjust and continue throwing power shots given the space and range the opponent has afforded you??

The guy has not been affected in any way whatsoever beyond having his opponent a couple degrees left of where he was. What's the big difficulty?

Happy Tiger

03-20-2017, 09:34 AM

He first shows his intention is to enter while trapping the lead arm, stepping in toward the opponent.

That's against a single shot.

When the 1-2 comes, he no longer steps in toward the opponent, but to the side away from the opponent.

Yes, that is a big change. He cannot move his feet faster than a punch, especially to change directions by the time the incoming punch registers when his intent and body mass was moving forward.

Works fine in slow-mo.

He's not having any problems because it's a very slow demo and he knows what is coming.

You have not understood me.

I said a circle of his own footwork, with the lead foot being the center point. This is in reference to his own feet and body, not the opponent.

Whenever he moves the lead foot, it moves his circle about, and the rear foot adjusts facing like a rudder.

Whenever he moves both feet off to the side, that moves his body away from the opponent, and gives up space.

You can see this by watching where his spine goes in space. The body follows the feet. It is away from the opponent.

If he had a colored circle beneath him like the active player on Madden NFL or something, you'd clearly see him moving away from the opponent.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/backstep_zpsppeu04za.gif

You have redefined the circle I was using to illustrate my point.

We might not be! Or you're not following my explanation.

His body mass is moving away from the opponent, because both feet are stepping away.

The second one was a bit of a round punch, and it wasn't off-target. It was just blocked.

The opponent's balance and facing were not at all compromised. He can easily continue chasing Phil who is running away backward and duck footed.

Not really a big change in position. Still in front of him. Wouldn't take much adjustment to speak of.

Right kick to the cojones would be an easy follow up while Phil is busy stepping duck footed backward and blocking arms.

Are you telling me if you threw a 1-2 combo at someone and they sidestepped ever so slightly off center, that would totally throw you off and you wouldn't be able to easily adjust and continue throwing power shots given the space and range the opponent has afforded you??

The guy has not been affected in any way whatsoever beyond having his opponent a couple degrees left of where he was. What's the big difficulty?
Interesting that the word believe has been used. This is all very good tech but what has been your experience? People here are so often long on reading their manuals out loud but don't share enough what happened when they did it...Or tried it.Every one here is exceptionally well trained yet seem loathe to share their experiences. Do any of us actually Frikin fight???

LFJ

03-20-2017, 07:41 PM

Interesting that the word believe has been used.

Not in my post.

This is all very good tech but what has been your experience? People here are so often long on reading their manuals out loud but don't share enough what happened when they did it...Or tried it.Every one here is exceptionally well trained yet seem loathe to share their experiences. Do any of us actually Frikin fight???

Maybe you don't.

I don't have any reason to make assumptions about people I don't know because they post on forums.

I just don't use this method for the various flaws I see with it, which I've tried to share my thoughts on. So?

KPM

03-21-2017, 03:14 AM

I just don't use this method for the various flaws I see with it, which I've tried to share my thoughts on. So?

The problem is that you are not accurately describing what is actually happening in the video we are talking about. That seems a bit...shall we say..."dishonest"??? :p

LFJ

03-21-2017, 06:06 AM

The problem is that you are not accurately describing what is actually happening in the video we are talking about. That seems a bit...shall we say..."dishonest"??? :p

The problem is you haven't understood half of what I said. But, oh well.

Happy Tiger

03-21-2017, 08:33 AM

Not in my post.

Maybe you don't.

I don't have any reason to make assumptions about people I don't know because they post on forums.

I just don't use this method for the various flaws I see with it, which I've tried to share my thoughts on. So?no, no... That's totally cool. All I'm asking is pepper the science with ancidot. I read everything you guys write. It's always special when the information is shared with a tru life reference. Including fail. I like to fight. There's no shame in loosing a fight. We chunners are often not to keen on investing in combat lose. That, iny opinion is the main weakness of VT today. Unlike or ancestors who seemed to gleefully wade in to combat and win or loose there's something to share

Sihing73

03-21-2017, 09:00 AM

Hello,

I think that the reality of todays world makes fighting more dangerous in many ways and often represents a lose-lose no matter what.
In todays world you are likely to face multiple opponents and often a weapon. Also, even if you win you can be sued and still lose even if you were not the aggressor. When you consider that a person can break into your home and sue you if they injure themselves, fighting often offers similar potential issues.

To me it seems the smarter avenue is to avoid confrontation when at all possible.

Now as to making something work in a real situation; my opinion is that it is often not the technique or the skill of the person which is the determining factor but the mental aspect. Kind of like the old saying that "it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog".

Many of us today may practice our art for recreation or part time, I highly doubt that most people are training with the expectation of needing to use their skills in real life. When I used to train Pekiti there were some really scary dudes and I told them if I thought I would be facing them on the street for real I would train differently. I did train for reality, at least I think I did, and have had one or two occasions to use what I trained as a Police Office and a Correctional Officer before that, but not as much as some people think.

You want to know what helped me?? Being able to take a hit. I would say that is one of the biggest failings most martial artists have. It is also one reason that Boxers are so good at "fighting" they are used to taking punishment and working through that to continue onward.

Much of what I do in Silat will not work if you do not apply it fully. No, I am not saying it is too dangerous for the street or that type of crap. What I am saying is that if you do not train to fully apply your techniques then they often will not work. The difference between applying a lock and taking someone to the ground and stopping halfway. Also, if you train halfway you will fight halfway. This does not mean you need to be hurting each other in training but you have to train to endure some pain.

I know Phil and he has fought and trained some others to fight as well. I also do not do things the same way he does but he has found some viable approaches that work for him and those he has trained. I think that in person he may do things a little differently than in a demo.

I think that if one trains to crowd your opponent while keeping structure you can make a lot of things work. Having said that, you will need to be able to take some punishment and keep on going if you opt to go that route. A lot of things can go wrong if your opponent knows what they are doing but if you can drive in and disrupt their balance and keep the pressure on...............................

Of course it is easy to type something and say it can work and I understand the desire to validate theory with actual application. However, in many cases that actual application is not needed or desired and can result in criminal charges even when you act in self defense. Just throwing that out there for what it's worth.

KPM

03-21-2017, 03:20 PM

The problem is you haven't understood half of what I said. But, oh well.

And I could say the exact same thing of you! At least I actually understand what Phil is doing in that video. Which you obviously don't by your comments.

KPM

03-21-2017, 03:26 PM

H
I know Phil and he has fought and trained some others to fight as well. I also do not do things the same way he does but he has found some viable approaches that work for him and those he has trained. I think that in person he may do things a little differently than in a demo.

.

Good points Dave. And I really took Happy Tiger to mean sparring more than all-out kick ass fighting. But I could be wrong! But absolutely TWC, and Phil in particular, have trained guys that have done very well in sparring competitions. While some seem to want to criticize the footwork in TWC, it works in sparring situations! Not all Wing Chun lineages can claim the same successes. Keeping that distance that LFJ commented on is not a vulnerability when done correctly and can actually help avoid a shoot and takedown. Now some will argue that "sparring is not fighting." But as you pointed out, it's much better to avoid "real fights" and few of us training our marital arts are ever going to be in a "real fight". But sparring is something everyone could and should be doing. Its just rather surprising that some lineages of Wing Chun can talk all about how great they are and better than everyone else, while at the same time having very very little sparring footage out on the internet to actually show how effective they are.

Happy Tiger

03-21-2017, 07:46 PM

no, no... That's totally cool. All I'm asking is pepper the science with ancidot. I read everything you guys write. It's always special when the information is shared with a tru life reference. Including fail. I like to fight. There's no shame in loosing a fight. We chunners are often not to keen on investing in combat lose. That, iny opinion is the main weakness of VT today. Unlike or ancestors who seemed to gleefully wade in to combat and win or loose there's something to shareas a for instance. Bruce Lee had a love hate relationship with bong Sau. I'm one turn he would call it his secret weapon but if you actually study JKD it's plain that past the Seattle years bong sau..
Complicated, sophiscated is almost,.Non existent in JKD

LFJ

03-21-2017, 10:35 PM

And I could say the exact same thing of you! At least I actually understand what Phil is doing in that video. Which you obviously don't by your comments.

Well, like most TWC guys, there is a large disconnect between what you all say you're doing, and what you're actually doing.

It is very plain to see in the slow-mo gif I provided, that he's not circling around the opponent, but taking linear sidesteps away from him perpendicular to the his advances.

He's not arriving at any blind side or superior position, and he's moving body mass in a separate direction from his punch.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/sidestep_zpsavosu6gf.gif

Keeping that distance that LFJ commented on is not a vulnerability when done correctly and can actually help avoid a shoot and takedown.

It may or may not be a vulnerability. Depends on the opponent. I think it has more cons than pros, though, and is quite open to a shoot and takedown, since he's moving backward in a parallel, duck footed stance while the opponent is closing in.

KPM

03-22-2017, 03:18 AM

Well, like most TWC guys, there is a large disconnect between what you all say you're doing, and what you're actually doing.

It is very plain to see in the slow-mo gif I provided, that he's not circling around the opponent, but taking linear sidesteps away from him perpendicular to the his advances.

He's not arriving at any blind side or superior position, and he's moving body mass in a separate direction from his punch.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/sidestep_zpsavosu6gf.gif

It may or may not be a vulnerability. Depends on the opponent. I think it has more cons than pros, though, and is quite open to a shoot and takedown, since he's moving backward in a parallel, duck footed stance while the opponent is closing in.

Wow! You are working so hard at arguing with me and what's in that video that you can't even see your own markings accurately! Geez! :rolleyes:

When Phil does his Bong his lead foot is well behind your red/green cross-hatch. When he does his punch his lead foot is in front of that red/green cross-hatch. As I said. Both his feet are on the perimeter of a circle, with the opponent standing near the center of that circle. He is not taking linear sidesteps. He is stepping along the perimeter of the circle as your own illustration clearly shows. When he makes the second part of the step after the Bong, his hips are moving forward with the punch as his body mass moves around the perimeter of the circle. Again, just look at your own illustration. When starts his Bong his lead hip is at your back green line. When he does his punch his rear hip is clearly closer to your front green line. Nice illustration. Is supports what I have been saying. You are just working hard to deny what is actually happening in the video just for the sake of arguing.

And I would like to point out the NUMEROUS times people have commented on things they see in Phillip Bayer's videos, to which you have replied things like "you don't study the system so you don't know what you are looking at", and "you don't know WSLVT, so you cannot comment on what is going on in the video", and "you aren't seeing what's really happening in the video".....I'm paraphrasing, of course. ;)

GlennR

03-22-2017, 03:24 AM

LFJ

03-22-2017, 04:24 AM

When Phil does his Bong his lead foot is well behind your red/green cross-hatch. When he does his punch his lead foot is in front of that red/green cross-hatch.

Precisely because he sidestepped across the incoming red attack line.

Both his feet are on the perimeter of a circle, with the opponent standing near the center of that circle. He is not taking linear sidesteps.

The green lines mark the paths his feet take. They are not circular. They are straight out to the side, perpendicular to the opponent's line of attack.

When he makes the second part of the step after the Bong, his hips are moving forward with the punch as his body mass moves around the perimeter of the circle.

He adjusts facing ever so slightly, because he has stepped away and wouldn't be able to reach anymore otherwise.

But his steps and body mass are going perpendicularly away from the target, not around a circle.

When starts his Bong his lead hip is at your back green line. When he does his punch his rear hip is clearly closer to your front green line.

WTF? No, it's not.

I should have extended the lines further, or added another for his hips, so your brain could handle it.

His feet are stepping directly sideward along those lines. His hips and spine are going where his feet take him.

He is not moving forward toward the opponent at all, nor around a circle.

LFJ

03-22-2017, 04:24 AM

Looks ok to me, hes made an angle and his rear hand is ready to go, albeit with a step in close the range....... the TWC guys fight at a longer range than most of WC styles.... hes just doing his thing

Exactly. The thing is not what they say it is, though.

They always claim to be stepping forward on an angle while closing distance, but videos show they usually step sideways away from the opponent and drag their rear feet backward while maintaining distance.

I don't doubt someone can make this work some time. I just don't prefer it, due to the flaws I've outlined.

zuti car

03-22-2017, 06:13 AM

I wasted almost 7 years on TWC , I cannot describe how much I regret that.

Happy Tiger

03-22-2017, 06:28 AM

Hey, I never thought of that. I live in Canada. Possibly the last contry on earth were you can get into a hard fight without likely getting your head blown off...Here or maybe Russia.they seem to enjoy a good fight followed by comradary

Happy Tiger

03-22-2017, 06:52 AM

I wasted almost 7 years on TWC , I cannot describe how much I regret that.
I'm sure it was no waste. If your house comes from Ip Man, he knew it before you. Master Ip Man had no hang ups what so ever in the use of wing chun. Breaks my heart when I think of all those babies being thrown out with the bath water ��

wckf92

03-22-2017, 09:50 AM

This thread is all about 'truth is in the eye of the beholder' hahaha

YouKnowWho

03-22-2017, 03:30 PM

At 0.53, he used a right Bong to deal with his opponent's right punch. That is wrong.

KPM

03-22-2017, 05:32 PM

At 0.53, he used a right Bong to deal with his opponent's right punch. That is wrong.

Looked to me like he was just doing that for the camera angle to show the "centerline" Bong.

KPM

03-22-2017, 05:34 PM

Precisely because he sidestepped across the incoming red attack line.

The green lines mark the paths his feet take. They are not circular. They are straight out to the side, perpendicular to the opponent's line of attack.

He adjusts facing ever so slightly, because he has stepped away and wouldn't be able to reach anymore otherwise.

But his steps and body mass are going perpendicularly away from the target, not around a circle.

WTF? No, it's not.

I should have extended the lines further, or added another for his hips, so your brain could handle it.

His feet are stepping directly sideward along those lines. His hips and spine are going where his feet take him.

He is not moving forward toward the opponent at all, nor around a circle.

You are clearly just arguing for argument's sake alone now! Your own illustration proved you wrong and you won't even acknowledge it!

LFJ

03-22-2017, 10:21 PM

You are clearly just arguing for argument's sake alone now! Your own illustration proved you wrong and you won't even acknowledge it!

No. The illustration makes his linear sidesteps perpendicular to the incoming attack line undeniably clear to anyone with normal brain-power.

KPM

03-23-2017, 03:11 AM

No. The illustration makes his linear sidesteps perpendicular to the incoming attack line undeniably clear to anyone with normal brain-power.

All while showing him following the perimeter of a circle without moving further away from the opponent. Funny how that works. :cool:

Please keep this exchange in mind the next time someone explains what they don't like about a Phillip Bayer video and you start down the line of "you clearly don't know what you are looking at because you don't know WSLVT"!!!

LFJ

03-23-2017, 04:02 AM

All while showing him following the perimeter of a circle without moving further away from the opponent. Funny how that works. :cool:

It doesn't work.

A straight line does not follow the perimeter of a circle.

He is moving away from the opponent, but the opponent is advancing toward him.

Happy Tiger

03-23-2017, 09:21 AM

Ya know what's so Frikin cool about bong sau.? It's its position in the VT periodic table. It is a kind of interchange structure. The likes of which are both subtle and gross. I've known bong sau to be as a puff of smoke. Or a fork lift of total structure domination.

Happy Tiger

03-23-2017, 09:27 AM

I can't think of another VT structure as mesmerizing and dividing

KPM

03-23-2017, 03:15 PM

A straight line does not follow the perimeter of a circle.

.

And....going by the illustration that you provided....Phil is not moving in a straight line! Geez LFJ, just admit you don't know what you're talking about. Its OK, really!

LFJ

03-23-2017, 08:43 PM

And....going by the illustration that you provided....Phil is not moving in a straight line!

You mean the illustration of the two straight lines his feet are following?!

Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming, unless you are seriously lacking the brain-power to comprehend an extremely simple illustration.

KPM

03-24-2017, 03:12 AM

You mean the illustration of the two straight lines his feet are following?!

Your cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming, unless you are seriously lacking the brain-power to comprehend an extremely simple illustration.

Man! You are really something. His feet are clearly NOT following the illustrations you provided. I pointed that out already. Yet you are so set in your opinions that you can't even admit that! :rolleyes: But again, you just go on believing whatever you want!

Sihing73

03-24-2017, 04:57 AM

Sorry but I see Phils feet moving in a straight line as shown by the green lines in the clip.
I do not however see any movement backwards.
From the clip it appears that Phil is stepping off to one side while the opponent advances or steps forward.
Phils position remains relatively the same with the exception of stepping to the side.
He does not retreat but the opponent does step forward which lessens the distance which is offset by the side step.
I also think it is a bit of a reach to say Phil is using circling in the example. The clip would seem to indicate that his feet remain relatively the same using the two green lines in the clip. He moves side-wards but does so in a straight line.

LFJ

03-24-2017, 05:31 AM

wckf92

03-24-2017, 05:31 AM

Gotta say...I see what LFJ is depicting.

KPM

03-24-2017, 07:29 AM

Gotta say...I see what LFJ is depicting.

This is what I wrote before:

When Phil does his Bong his lead foot is well behind your red/green cross-hatch. When he does his punch his lead foot is in front of that red/green cross-hatch. As I said. Both his feet are on the perimeter of a circle, with the opponent standing near the center of that circle. He is not taking linear sidesteps. He is stepping along the perimeter of the circle as your own illustration clearly shows. When he makes the second part of the step after the Bong, his hips are moving forward with the punch as his body mass moves around the perimeter of the circle. Again, just look at your own illustration. When starts his Bong his lead hip is at your back green line. When he does his punch his rear hip is clearly closer to your front green line. Nice illustration. Is supports what I have been saying. You are just working hard to deny what is actually happening in the video just for the sake of arguing.

Look at Phil's lead foot. You guys honestly don't see this????

Sihing73

03-24-2017, 08:02 AM

This is what I wrote before:

When Phil does his Bong his lead foot is well behind your red/green cross-hatch. When he does his punch his lead foot is in front of that red/green cross-hatch. As I said. Both his feet are on the perimeter of a circle, with the opponent standing near the center of that circle. He is not taking linear sidesteps. He is stepping along the perimeter of the circle as your own illustration clearly shows. When he makes the second part of the step after the Bong, his hips are moving forward with the punch as his body mass moves around the perimeter of the circle. Again, just look at your own illustration. When starts his Bong his lead hip is at your back green line. When he does his punch his rear hip is clearly closer to your front green line. Nice illustration. Is supports what I have been saying. You are just working hard to deny what is actually happening in the video just for the sake of arguing.

Look at Phil's lead foot. You guys honestly don't see this????

I do not see him moving along a "circle" although I guess you could argue that nothing is fully linear or circular.
When you throw a "straight" punch there are circles involved and you can point to the body having circular moving as all of the joints are circular.
Looking at the clips and the lines it looks pretty clear that his feet remain fairly constant on them so to my way of thinking if he moved in a circle his feet would have to go off of the lines. Does that make any sense??

KPM

03-24-2017, 09:04 AM

I do not see him moving along a "circle" although I guess you could argue that nothing is fully linear or circular.
When you throw a "straight" punch there are circles involved and you can point to the body having circular moving as all of the joints are circular.
Looking at the clips and the lines it looks pretty clear that his feet remain fairly constant on them so to my way of thinking if he moved in a circle his feet would have to go off of the lines. Does that make any sense??

Of course that makes sense! And that's what I'm saying....his lead foot does move off of the line that LFJ drew. It moves forward. This is not as clear an example of the TWC T step as could be shown, because Phil's opponent is moving towards him. So he doesn't have to move forward very much. But he is definitely not simply stepping straight to the side. He is angling. I'll try and find a better example of the T step.

Happy Tiger

03-24-2017, 09:15 AM

Ok... Normally I don't weigh in on **** like this but I think the issue, over is the deployment of The T Step. Ya'll are actually really picking up on the value of inertia. The T step puts in a tough spot. If your limbic system can't handle it then I guess you don't get to play with it yet.,😀

KPM

03-24-2017, 09:26 AM

Happy Tiger

03-24-2017, 09:31 AM

Every time a great master. Has a well meaning student.hide their flaw,their folly every one sufferes

Sihing73

03-24-2017, 12:22 PM

Here is a better example that clearly shows that the stepping is on the perimeter of a circle and not directly sideways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0HV1mat18

And here is another example. Clearly not a linear step:

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

As I said, LFJ has been criticizing something he knows nothing about. Which is something that he has come down on other people for numerous times in the past!

While I will agree that it is angular I would not necessarily agree that it is circular.
If pressed for a geometric shape I would tend to lean more towards a triangle rather than a circle.
Think of the steps in the beginning of the wooden dummy where you step off the line and come in at an angle. Would you consider that to be circular?
The T-Step seems seems similar to the Bong, it is transitional and in my opinion angular rather than circular.

I recall a drill I used to train where from the YJKM I would step forward into a Bic Bo and the goal was to drive into the opponent following a straight line from you to them. While the leading leg did follow a circular path to go from horse to Bic Bo or Front stance, it was not a "circular" step.

Thoughts????

KPM

03-24-2017, 06:14 PM

While I will agree that it is angular I would not necessarily agree that it is circular. If pressed for a geometric shape I would tend to lean more towards a triangle rather than a circle.

---But you will agree it most certainly is not a linear step to the side??!!! I agree that it is angular. That is the whole point!....getting an angle on the opponent rather than facing him "straight on." And now that you have seen a better example, would you agree that Phil is stepping at an angle and not straight to the side? Phil is actually closer to stepping on the circle than the other examples I posted. Its all a matter of degree. Phil is not closing because his opponent is coming towards him. In the other videos the opponent is stationary and they are moving in. So they are angling inward from the circle. Conceptually you see the opponent as standing in the center of a half circle with yourself standing on the periphery. That way every point on the half circle is equidistant from the opponent and is therefore a gauge of your distance. You never step away from the opponent, you step along that circle unless you close with the opponent. Then you step in at an angle off of the circle.

Think of the steps in the beginning of the wooden dummy where you step off the line and come in at an angle. Would you consider that to be circular?

---We see the movement around the dummy in the same way. The dummy is at the center and you are moving around the half circle in front of it. At times you angle into the dummy on the 45 degree line. But in the TWC dummy form, you also stay with "feet parallel" to the dummy on that same 45 degree line at times.

The T-Step seems seems similar to the Bong, it is transitional and in my opinion angular rather than circular.

---Absolutely the T step is transitional! If you paused in the middle when your feet are close together you might be in trouble! It is a very quick "two stage" step. A circle is simply lots of angles combined together. If the angle of the T step is relatively shallow, it stays on the circle. If the T step is deeper and more towards the opponent then it cuts in at an angle. The whole point is to flank the opponent so you are not meeting him "head on." It most certainly is not a step directly to the side that takes you away from the opponent....unless you are trying to get away from him and that is your intent!

I recall a drill I used to train where from the YJKM I would step forward into a Bic Bo and the goal was to drive into the opponent following a straight line from you to them. While the leading leg did follow a circular path to go from horse to Bic Bo or Front stance, it was not a "circular" step.

---Yes, that's a different step. Sometimes called a "Biu Ma" or "thrusting horse" because the intent is to drive into the opponent's center as you stated. But the T step is designed to move you off the line of attack and form a new line with opponent before he can readjust. So you end up aimed at his center while he is aimed away from yours. You can see that clearly in each of the videos, including the one of Phil! It isn't driving into the opponent's center. It is flanking the opponent.

LFJ

03-25-2017, 06:10 AM

his lead foot does move off of the line that LFJ drew. It moves forward.

The straight line starts at mid-foot and ends at mid-foot directly to the side of where it started, and perpendicular to the incoming attack line. He didn't step forward or angle on anything.

This is not as clear an example of the TWC T step as could be shown, because Phil's opponent is moving towards him. So he doesn't have to move forward very much. But he is definitely not simply stepping straight to the side.

He's stepping to the side. If his intention was to step forward, it was obviously cut off by the opponent adjusting his direction on the second attack. Phil was unable to get around him, what's likely to happen when you stop fighting mannequins.

Here is a better example that clearly shows that the stepping is on the perimeter of a circle and not directly sideways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0HV1mat18

And here is another example. Clearly not a linear step:

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

As I said, LFJ has been criticizing something he knows nothing about.

Like this step is difficult to comprehend, lol! Too bad that's not at all what Phil did!

---But you will agree it most certainly is not a linear step to the side??!!!

And now that you have seen a better example, would you agree that Phil is stepping at an angle and not straight to the side?

lol, seriously? A better example doesn't change Phil's steps.

You can't say look at these two guys taking sharp corners; now do you believe Phil's linear sidestep is also taking a corner?

Of course not! — doesn't stop being — because you show us L.

KPM

03-25-2017, 11:53 AM

Like this step is difficult to comprehend, lol! Too bad that's not at all what Phil did!

.

Its all a T step. Just watch the first 10 seconds of Phil's clip again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRgnPZzRLHU&feature=youtu.be

guy b.

03-26-2017, 02:20 AM

KPM

03-26-2017, 03:53 AM

Why are you so keen to get people to share in your wrongness?

Its not wrong. But how would you know? You've never studied TWC and, like LFJ, your only exposure is watching a few youtube videos. Most people are here to discuss and share what they know about Wing Chun. What are you here for??

guy b.

03-27-2017, 02:52 AM

Its not wrong. But how would you know? You've never studied TWC and, like LFJ, your only exposure is watching a few youtube videos

It isn't necessary to study TWC to see what happens in the clip. It simply is what it is. You need to make a different argument because the clip clearly shows a step to the side.

This is not analagous to someone watching a clip of PB doing chi sau and assuming it is application when it is not. The TWC sequence here is clearly application.

What I don't understand is why you find it important to plead for support and make things personal all the time. It is as if facts matter less than popularity to you? Not something I really understand and was just commenting because a particularly clear example of it here.

Please carry on.

KPM

03-27-2017, 03:16 AM

It isn't necessary to study TWC to see what happens in the clip. It simply is what it is. You need to make a different argument because the clip clearly shows a step to the side.

This is not analagous to someone watching a clip of PB doing chi sau and assuming it is application when it is not. The TWC sequence here is clearly application.

What I don't understand is why you find it important to plead for support and make things personal all the time. It is as if facts matter less than popularity to you? Not something I really understand and was just commenting because a particularly clear example of it here.

Please carry on.

What I don't understand is why you and LFJ feel the need to turn everything into an argument. I have clearly explained that the T step is a two stage step. The rear foot moves laterally to come up behind the lead foot, then the lead foot steps out. It can step straight forward to "cut the circle" and move in, or it can step out along the perimeter of the circle to maintain the same distance. But the T step as a whole is not a step directly to the side. And that should be clear to anyone watching those videos that doesn't already have a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

guy b.

03-27-2017, 05:00 AM

What I don't understand is why you and LFJ feel the need to turn everything into an argument. I have clearly explained that the T step is a two stage step. The rear foot moves laterally to come up behind the lead foot, then the lead foot steps out. It can step straight forward to "cut the circle" and move in, or it can step out along the perimeter of the circle to maintain the same distance. But the T step as a whole is not a step directly to the side. And that should be clear to anyone watching those videos that doesn't already have a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

I guess you should have chosen a better example to start your discussion of this, because in the first clip you posted the step is to the side.

KPM

03-27-2017, 06:02 AM

I guess you should have chosen a better example to start your discussion of this, because in the first clip you posted the step is to the side.

Still arguing?? :rolleyes:

Sihing73

03-27-2017, 06:23 AM

I have clearly explained that the T step is a two stage step. The rear foot moves laterally to come up behind the lead foot, then the lead foot steps out. It can step straight forward to "cut the circle" and move in, or it can step out along the perimeter of the circle to maintain the same distance. But the T step as a whole is not a step directly to the side. And that should be clear to anyone watching those videos that doesn't already have a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

I am sorry but the clip, with the lines drawn to illustrate the step would seem to indicate that the lead foot does not step forward but does indees step to the side. Just watch the clip and see where both the front and rear legs are in relation to the green lines. It seems pretty obvious that neither foot steps forward but move parallel along the same lines to the side. The opponent steps forward and closes the distance.

I agree that the T Step is a two step process but you yourself have said the foot can step along the perimter of a circle, which would include stepping to the side as an option.

I do not see the necessity of continuing in this vein as Phil could still be using a T Step if he is stepping to the side. Although it may be better if he angled forward off to the side, still the point of the demo, as I see it is regarding the Bong Sau and not the step.

Perhaps a better discussion would be whether the Bong Sau provides the needed structure to deal with the incoming energy of the punch???

guy b.

03-27-2017, 06:46 AM

Still arguing?? :rolleyes:

I don't think that describing reality could be honestly characterised as "turning everything into an argument".

LFJ

03-27-2017, 07:39 AM

What I don't understand is why you and LFJ feel the need to turn everything into an argument.

Actually, I started my first post by saying "I just don't like how..."

I think I'm allowed to express an opinion on an open forum.

It became an "argument" when you tried to tell me and convince everyone else that something other than what is happening is being done in that video.

a pre-determined opinion and a subconscious need to see anything that is different from WSLVT as being "wrong" or somehow "broken." Because there is a particularly clear example of that here.

No one has mentioned WSLVT or said anything shown by Phil is wrong or broken.

All I'm saying is "I just don't like how..." Has nothing to do with right or wrong or other systems.

KPM

03-27-2017, 09:59 AM

It became an "argument" when you tried to tell me and convince everyone else that something other than what is happening is being done in that video.

---Actually no. It became an argument when you said: I always see this exact same footwork in any TWC video. If you watch the feet they are always stepping out and backward, where their heels point, while circling around. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Round and round. Never forward into the opponent, leaving a big gap.

---You generalized to every TWC video you've ever seen. Then I posted two other TWC videos that clearly prove that your statement was wrong. But you continue to stick to your original conclusion no matter what. That is arguing just for argument's sake alone.

No one has mentioned WSLVT or said anything shown by Phil is wrong or broken.

---Uh...Guy said: Why are you so keen to get people to share in your wrongness? And I pointed out that the response from you and Guy to see everything that is different from WSLVT as "wrong" or "broken" is likely some kind of subconscious thing. It doesn't have to be stated. It just seems to be the underlying theme whenever either of you are involved in any discussion.

All I'm saying is "I just don't like how..." Has nothing to do with right or wrong or other systems.[/QUOTE]

---Ok, fine. Then why have you gone to such efforts to say what I have been describing is wrong??

Sihing73

03-27-2017, 11:12 AM

Hello,

I am not trying to stoke the fires but here is my take on what this thread has become:

One person (names have been omitted to protect the innocent :D ) seems to be of the opinion that the clip shows someone stepping in a circular fashion and advancing slightly on their opponent.

Someone superimposed a set of green and red lines to provide a reference in relation to the position of the feet as they transition.

While the clip with the imposed lines would seem to show clearly that the feet do not advance but rather move to the side essentially along the same line, some continue to argue what appears to be clearly shown. The opponent does advance which lessens the distance.

No one seems to be saying that the T Step cannot be effective or that it is wrong. Some have indicated they would not do it this way and that they do see some deficiencies which is why they would not use it.

To me, it seems that this thread has become an argument about whether the step is circular or not and whether it advances or does more of a sidestep.

To me it seems pretty obvious, based on the clip with the lines, that this represents more of a sidestep but that is only my opinion so take that for what it's worth, if worth anything at all.

KPM

03-27-2017, 01:06 PM

To me it seems pretty obvious, based on the clip with the lines, that this represents more of a sidestep but that is only my opinion so take that for what it's worth, if worth anything at all.

Well yeah, it is a sidestep. Its just not a lateral step. I thought the second two clips I provided to clarify that fact showed it pretty clearly. And the first 10 seconds of the first clip shows that pretty clearly as well. LFJ just chose the least obvious example to draw his lines on. And recall, LFJ was referring to the T step in general. He said: I always see this exact same footwork in any TWC video. So I am talking about the T step in general as well and provided extra clips to clarify. So disregard that short section with the lines that LFJ created and look at the other examples. You don't see them advancing towards the opponent????

YouKnowWho

03-27-2017, 01:18 PM

Moving into your opponent's side door has 3 advantages:

1. His back hand can't reach you.
2. His leading arm will jam his own back arm.
3. If you attack his leading leg, no matter how he may step, his leading leg will always be in your attacking range.

The question is in mirror stance (you have right leg forward while your opponent has left leg forward), when you try to move into your opponent's left side door (to your right), should you move your leading right leg first, or should you move your back left leg first? If you move your back leg first, you may cause a "cross stance" that will give your opponent a chance to sweep you, or run you down. IMO, it's better to move your leading leg first.

guy b.

03-27-2017, 02:31 PM

[B]---Uh...Guy said: Why are you so keen to get people to share in your wrongness? And I pointed out that the response from you and Guy to see everything that is different from WSLVT as "wrong" or "broken" is likely some kind of subconscious thing. It doesn't have to be stated. It just seems to be the underlying theme whenever either of you are involved in any discussion.

The clip with Phil shows him taking a step to the side. You seem to be arguing against this observable factual thing that we can all see with our own eyes. It is in this respect that you are wrong. You seem keen for others to join you in this.

I haven't given any opinion about TWC, or compared it to WSL VT, or said that TWC is wrong or broken. All I am saying is that you are claiming something happened in the video clip that actually didn't. That's all.

KPM

03-27-2017, 05:02 PM

I haven't given any opinion about TWC, or compared it to WSL VT, or said that TWC is wrong or broken. All I am saying is that you are claiming something happened in the video clip that actually didn't. That's all.

Did you bother to look at the other examples?

LFJ

03-27-2017, 11:33 PM

It became an argument when you said: I always see this exact same footwork in any TWC video. If you watch the feet they are always stepping out and backward, where their heels point, while circling around. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Round and round. Never forward into the opponent, leaving a big gap.

---You generalized to every TWC video you've ever seen. Then I posted two other TWC videos that clearly prove that your statement was wrong.

The other videos also leave a big gap while trying to move around the opponent.

No one has mentioned WSLVT or said anything shown by Phil is wrong or broken.

---Uh...Guy said: Why are you so keen to get people to share in your wrongness? And I pointed out that the response from you and Guy to see everything that is different from WSLVT as "wrong" or "broken" is likely some kind of subconscious thing.

As Guy just told you, he wasn't saying TWC is wrong, only that you are wrong about what's happening in the video. Still has nothing to do with WSLVT.

All I'm saying is "I just don't like how..." Has nothing to do with right or wrong or other systems.

---Ok, fine. Then why have you gone to such efforts to say what I have been describing is wrong??

It's your description that is wrong, not what you're describing.

Well yeah, it is a sidestep. Its just not a lateral step.

Side = lateral.

I thought the second two clips I provided to clarify that fact showed it pretty clearly. And the first 10 seconds of the first clip shows that pretty clearly as well.

So disregard that short section with the lines that LFJ created and look at the other examples. You don't see them advancing towards the opponent????

Did you bother to look at the other examples?

All irrelevant.

That's what happens when your demo dummy just stands there and lets you walk around them.

As soon as they are allowed freedom to move, they adjust direction when you take that first side step with the rear foot, then cut you off so you can't advance and you have to take another sidestep with the lead foot.

Exactly what happened to Phil here against the 1-2, and the problem with this footwork. It moves away from the opponent and gives up space, allowing them to continue facing and pressing the attack while you're taking blind steps to the side/rear.

KPM

03-28-2017, 03:16 AM

As Guy just told you, he wasn't saying TWC is wrong, only that you are wrong about what's happening in the video. Still has nothing to do with WSLVT.

---Still arguing??? I am not wrong about what is happening in the video. You just can't see it. You don't know TWC.

Side = lateral.

--A "sidestep" is not always purely lateral. And in the case of TWC, is hardly ever purely lateral.

All irrelevant.

---All very relevant, given that you generalized your disagreement to include every TWC video you've ever seen!

As soon as they are allowed freedom to move, they adjust direction when you take that first side step with the rear foot, then cut you off so you can't advance and you have to take another sidestep with the lead foot.

---But they are not allowed the freedom to move. That is why you maintain distance and don't move away. That is why you typically are still in contact with them to prevent them for turning back towards you. This was shown very well in the video of William Cheung.

---But why am I even bothering to respond to you? You don't care what I say. Your mind is already made up. You just want to argue. You've shown that time and time again.

LFJ

03-28-2017, 03:35 AM

As Guy just told you, he wasn't saying TWC is wrong, only that you are wrong about what's happening in the video. Still has nothing to do with WSLVT.

---Still arguing??? I am not wrong about what is happening in the video. You just can't see it. You don't know TWC.

We're past that. Just defending false charges now.

All irrelevant.

---All very relevant, given that you generalized your disagreement to include every TWC video you've ever seen!

And what I said applies equally to those videos, too.

As soon as they are allowed freedom to move, they adjust direction when you take that first side step with the rear foot, then cut you off so you can't advance and you have to take another sidestep with the lead foot.

---But they are not allowed the freedom to move. That is why you maintain distance and don't move away. That is why you typically are still in contact with them to prevent them for turning back towards you. This was shown very well in the video of William Cheung.

Right. The demo dummy in his video was not allowed to move while he stepped around him.

KPM

03-28-2017, 03:51 AM

Right. The demo dummy in his video was not allowed to move while he stepped around him.

Yeah. Just like PB's demo dummy's aren't allowed to hit back! :rolleyes:

LFJ

03-28-2017, 04:13 AM

Yeah. Just like PB's demo dummy's aren't allowed to hit back! :rolleyes:

I've never seen a video of PB walking around a guy doing 3 things to his posed punching arm before throwing the first counterstrike, all as part of a suggested free-fighting application.

But of course, you are continuing to deflect.

Sihing73

03-28-2017, 05:13 AM

LFJ

03-28-2017, 07:37 AM

Okay, then, to get back to my point.

The TWC method is to step out and circle around to the blindside, if possible. Call it a T-step or whatever, it maintains distance from the opponent by first stepping off to the side, away from them. This gives up space without physically affecting the opponent's ability to adjust with you in any way.

As seen demonstrated by Cheung himself, his first reaction is to pull the rear foot backward, taking his body off to the side away from the opponent while intercepting the arm with a block.

From there, he intends to step his front foot out and around, advancing to the blindside. However, at this point absolutely nothing prevents the opponent from chasing center and cutting this step off while continuing to press the attack with another strike.

This would cause Cheung to have to sidestep again with the front foot, having crossed his legs and being unable to advance around the opponent, as happened to Phil in his clip. Having turned as he withdraws, the steps end up being blind steps to his own rear.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/cheung_zpshogy1idk.gif

But, of course, in order to pull this next step off, the demo dummy has to freeze. No more stepping, no more attacking.

Cheung also makes 3 defensive actions on the posed punching arm and takes more steps before finally firing a return shot against this single punch.

In reality, that arm will not be there after the first block, and the opponent won't just stand there. Another step and shot would be coming before Cheung takes his second step, interrupting this entire idea of getting around to the blindside like this.

It reminds me of those fantasy vs reality knife defense videos. This of course being the fantasy application.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/cheung2_zpstysaegjd.gif

Happy Tiger

03-28-2017, 09:25 AM

Happy Tiger, for one, is happy

KPM

03-28-2017, 09:54 AM

The TWC method is to step out and circle around to the blindside, if possible. Call it a T-step or whatever, it maintains distance from the opponent by first stepping off to the side, away from them. This gives up space without physically affecting the opponent's ability to adjust with you in any way.

---It does not. The initial part of the step is laterally...the rear foot moving behind the lead foot....but that does not involve moving back away from the opponent. The lead shoulder and hip actually rotate towards the opponent.

As seen demonstrated by Cheung himself, his first reaction is to pull the rear foot backward, taking his body off to the side away from the opponent while intercepting the arm with a block.

---Just watch your own slo mo. Cheung is not increasing the distance between himself and the opponent with his step. He is only moving backwards some because his opponent is advancing towards him. This maintains his distance with the opponent. Then he steps forward and towards the opponent with his counter-attack.

From there, he intends to step his front foot out and around, advancing to the blindside. However, at this point absolutely nothing prevents the opponent from chasing center and cutting this step off while continuing to press the attack with another strike.

---Wrong again. His Pak Sau on the opponent's elbow is what prevents the opponent from turning to re-face his center with another strike. He then does a Lop Sau that uses his opponent's own forward momentum to throw him off-balance which definitely makes re-facing difficult!

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/cheung_zpshogy1idk.gif

---Interesting how you have edited this to suit your own conclusion. You cut it just before Cheung did the Pak Sau on the opponent's elbow that prevents him from tracking Cheung's step.

But, of course, in order to pull this next step off, the demo dummy has to freeze. No more stepping, no more attacking.

---Watch the video! He froze for a second because this is teaching clip. But that makes no difference. It works just as well at speed as it does in "teaching mode." Mazza threw a committed punch and his forward momentum was still carrying him forward. This wouldn't work against a fast and uncommitted jab, but that's not what Mazza was doing. And then Cheung did the Pak Sau and a Lop Sau that off-balanced him and that kept him from turning or re-facing easily. Look how Mazza is bent forward. And Cheung has zoned away from the second punch. Of course you edited all of that out of your version of the video. Just watch the actual video again:

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

Cheung also makes 3 defensive actions on the posed punching arm and takes more steps before finally firing a return shot against this single punch.

---Yes. There are more steps involved. But you trade a few more movements done quickly that put you in a much safer relationship with the opponent compared to fewer movements that leave you standing in front of the opponent and still dealing with both of his arms. Just different tactics.

In reality, that arm will not be there after the first block, and the opponent won't just stand there. Another step and shot would be coming before Cheung takes his second step, interrupting this entire idea of getting around to the blindside like this.

--You are wrong. The opponent simply doesn't have time to pull that off. He has forward momentum to deal with, Cheung has moved completely away from his other punching arm, and Cheung is pressing his elbow with his Pak Sau to encourage his momentum to carry him in the and original direction and even turn him a bit. Its all in the video for anyone that cares to actually try and see what is happening.

KPM

03-28-2017, 10:06 AM

Guys,

Enough of the senseless bickering.
This thread is not about anyones ego.
Let's simply agree that we do not agree and move on.
If you wish to discuss something other than who sees what please do so.

From this point onward any posts which simply continue the argument of who sees what will be deleted.

Sorry Dave. I get frustrated dealing with these guys because I've banged my head against this wall before. I only continue to respond with the thought that others reading along with the thread may be paying attention and benefiting.

LFJ

03-28-2017, 06:45 PM

The initial part of the step is laterally...the rear foot moving behind the lead foot....but that does not involve moving back away from the opponent. The lead shoulder and hip actually rotate towards the opponent.

He rotates slightly as he pulls away to the left of the screen, making the step to his own rear.

The rotation is not bringing him closer. His entire body is in fact being pulled away from the opponent.

Cheung is not increasing the distance between himself and the opponent with his step. He is only moving backwards some because his opponent is advancing towards him. This maintains his distance with the opponent.

So, he is moving backward. This gives up space allowing the opponent to remain at power striking range.

Then he steps forward and towards the opponent with his counter-attack.

Out and around. If it were towards the opponent, the distance would not be maintained.

From there, he intends to step his front foot out and around, advancing to the blindside. However, at this point absolutely nothing prevents the opponent from chasing center and cutting this step off while continuing to press the attack with another strike.

---Wrong again. His Pak Sau on the opponent's elbow is what prevents the opponent from turning to re-face his center with another strike. He then does a Lop Sau that uses his opponent's own forward momentum to throw him off-balance which definitely makes re-facing difficult!

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/cheung_zpshogy1idk.gif

---Interesting how you have edited this to suit your own conclusion. You cut it just before Cheung did the Pak Sau on the opponent's elbow that prevents him from tracking Cheung's step.

There is nothing preventing the opponent from retracting that punch and throwing another. Cheung blocks, and then immediately comes off it.

No one is going to hold their arm out for you to block it on one side, then step around and slap it a couple more times on the other side!

He froze for a second because this is teaching clip. But that makes no difference. It works just as well at speed as it does in "teaching mode."

That's what those guys in the fantasy knife defense videos think.

Mazza threw a committed punch and his forward momentum was still carrying him forward.

His step was actually pretty steady. The first block stopped the punch.

But nothing is to stop him from then stepping and punching with the next arm while retracting that one.

And then Cheung did the Pak Sau and a Lop Sau that off-balanced him and that kept him from turning or re-facing easily. Look how Mazza is bent forward. And Cheung has zoned away from the second punch. Of course you edited all of that out of your version of the video.

I highlighted the part where Cheung blocks and then comes completely off it.

There is absolutely nothing holding the guy's arm there while Cheung steps around it to slap it a couple more times before countering.

Cheung also makes 3 defensive actions on the posed punching arm and takes more steps before finally firing a return shot against this single punch.

---Yes. There are more steps involved. But you trade a few more movements done quickly that put you in a much safer relationship with the opponent compared to fewer movements that leave you standing in front of the opponent and still dealing with both of his arms. Just different tactics.

The problem, though, is that it requires the opponent to completely stop moving. If they take a second step and another punch, it cuts off this circle tactic, as happened to Phil, even in a demo!

In reality, that arm will not be there after the first block, and the opponent won't just stand there. Another step and shot would be coming before Cheung takes his second step, interrupting this entire idea of getting around to the blindside like this.

--You are wrong. The opponent simply doesn't have time to pull that off. He has forward momentum to deal with, Cheung has moved completely away from his other punching arm, and Cheung is pressing his elbow with his Pak Sau to encourage his momentum to carry him in the and original direction and even turn him a bit.

The opponent doesn't have time to throw a second punch, but Cheung has time to run around his arm blocking it on both sides with 3 moves before counterpunching??

The opponent was the first to move and only has the punch blocked, then freed. Nothing prevents him from throwing that right hand straight to center.

In reality, Cheung would not have the slightest chance of even getting around to his paak-sau step before meeting the second punch. That is pure fantasy. He would paak the air and get punched in the face.

I only continue to respond with the thought that others reading along with the thread may be paying attention and benefiting.

LMAO!

KPM

03-29-2017, 02:49 AM

---As usual, you don't seem to be paying attention to what I am writing and I end up repeating my same points over and over.

So, he is moving backward. This gives up space allowing the opponent to remain at power striking range.

---He is moving backwards slightly only because the opponent is coming forwards. The step is flexible in that way.

Out and around. If it were towards the opponent, the distance would not be maintained.

---The distance is not maintained once he launches his counter-attack. He steps in and towards the opponent at this flank, closing the distance.

There is nothing preventing the opponent from retracting that punch and throwing another. Cheung blocks, and then immediately comes off it.

---Mazza' forward momentum of a committed punch prevents it, Cheung's positioning prevents it, Cheung's Pak to Lop prevents it. Are you paying attention?

The first block stopped the punch.

---Not really. Against a committed punch that first Biu Sau was meant to only slow it down and make contact. Cheung then briefly releases that contact as the momentum of the punch keeps coming so he can Pak the elbow on the other side. That takes only a split second. He wants the opponent to "punch through" so his momentum is still affecting him. If he had meant to actually stop that punch he would have used a different footwork.

But nothing is to stop him from then stepping and punching with the next arm while retracting that one.

---Already addressed above. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

There is absolutely nothing holding the guy's arm there while Cheung steps around it to slap it a couple more times before countering.

--Again, already addressed above. You seem to be focusing on this aspect. You are wrong. And you are wrong because you have never trained TWC to experience how it works. You think you know it all from watching a few youtube clips. You don't. Sound familiar??

The problem, though, is that it requires the opponent to completely stop moving. If they take a second step and another punch, it cuts off this circle tactic, as happened to Phil, even in a demo!

---Already addressed above. And it didn't happen to Phil.

The opponent doesn't have time to throw a second punch, but Cheung has time to run around his arm blocking it on both sides with 3 moves before counterpunching??

----Yes. The opponent is off-balance and stretched forward. The momentum of his committed punch has carried through and actually been accentuated by Cheung's Lop Sau. Is that so hard to see???

---But I'm done trying to explain something to someone who is really not interested in undestanding how others do things. So you go on believing whatever you want!!!

LFJ

03-29-2017, 07:30 AM

---He is moving backwards slightly only because the opponent is coming forwards. The step is flexible in that way.

It's actually a full step backward with his rear leg.

---The distance is not maintained once he launches his counter-attack. He steps in and towards the opponent at this flank, closing the distance.

The step is around to the outside of the opponent, not toward, and still leaves quite a gap.

There is nothing preventing the opponent from retracting that punch and throwing another. Cheung blocks, and then immediately comes off it.

---Mazza' forward momentum of a committed punch prevents it, Cheung's positioning prevents it, Cheung's Pak to Lop prevents it. Are you paying attention?

I'm paying attention, but I don't believe you.

Nobody throws a punch like that where they're falling over themselves and can't step or throw another.

Cheung's position after the punch has ended is still at power striking range and moving backward off to the side away from the opponent.

It is impossible for him to smack the same punch on one side of the arm, and then twice more on the other side as he steps around it.

If you believe it is possible, this shows your inexperience. You have never had someone punch at you before.

The first block stopped the punch.

---Not really. Against a committed punch that first Biu Sau was meant to only slow it down and make contact. Cheung then briefly releases that contact as the momentum of the punch keeps coming so he can Pak the elbow on the other side.

The punch stopped when it met his arm.

Either way, the biu sounds pointless. Why wish to slow it down and make contact, then let it go without having affected the opponent's ability to change?

Why not step out and let it pass, helping it along with the paak?

He wants the opponent to "punch through" so his momentum is still affecting him.

Then slowing it down would work against his goal.

There is absolutely nothing holding the guy's arm there while Cheung steps around it to slap it a couple more times before countering.

--Again, already addressed above. You seem to be focusing on this aspect. You are wrong. And you are wrong because you have never trained TWC to experience how it works. You think you know it all from watching a few youtube clips. You don't.

The TWC bit is not at all difficult to understand. It is just a fantasy application.

You're telling me the biu stuns the guy so he can't move anymore, or puts him into slow-motion as you dance around his frozen arm and do a couple more things to it while it's hanging out. Yeah right, buddy!

The problem, though, is that it requires the opponent to completely stop moving. If they take a second step and another punch, it cuts off this circle tactic, as happened to Phil, even in a demo!

---Already addressed above. And it didn't happen to Phil.

Phil didn't have the room to step forward around the guy, because the guy's second step and punch were redirected to chase him and cut his path off, as happens when you're fighting a live human.

The opponent doesn't have time to throw a second punch, but Cheung has time to run around his arm blocking it on both sides with 3 moves before counterpunching??

----Yes. The opponent is off-balance and stretched forward. The momentum of his committed punch has carried through and actually been accentuated by Cheung's Lop Sau. Is that so hard to see???

No. His step ended steady before the punch was finished. There was no momentum of a committed punch. Everything came to a halt.

He was also not at all off-balance or stretched forward until Cheung started pulling on his arm after he had been posing the punch for a minute allowing Cheung to walk around him.

---But I'm done trying to explain something to someone who is really not interested in undestanding how others do things.

I understand it perfectly. It's pretty straightforward. Anyone can see what he's doing. It is only that I don't believe it's realistic, because I know how people really punch.

guy b.

03-29-2017, 12:15 PM

Even KPM can't believe in this frozen position stuff. Must be trolling

zuti car

03-30-2017, 05:38 AM

The TWC bit is not at all difficult to understand. It is just a fantasy application.

This is a key point , TWC is designed to look attractive , like an art from old HK movies , there is no concept of body structure , no power generation , no principles , just countless application on the "blind side" .How TWC works in reality can be seen here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVXCftOuk2o
I don't want to post Cheung vs Turkish guy video , everyone seen that already

KPM

03-30-2017, 05:17 PM

This is a key point , TWC is designed to look attractive , like an art from old HK movies , there is no concept of body structure , no power generation , no principles , just countless application on the "blind side" .How TWC works in reality can be seen here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVXCftOuk2o
I don't want to post Cheung vs Turkish guy video , everyone seen that already

Well, that's an odd thing to say. I learned plenty of principles when I studied TWC. Both "standard" principles common to all Wing Chun as well as some unique to TWC. Plenty of body structure and power generation as well. Makes me wonder what kind of "TWC" you studied!

Here is a clip of a TWC guy NOT getting knocked out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WSCcj6PbLo&t=80s

And another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrjID6IdxWk

And another:

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

LFJ

03-30-2017, 09:07 PM

Well, that's an odd thing to say. I learned plenty of principles when I studied TWC. Both "standard" principles common to all Wing Chun as well as some unique to TWC. Plenty of body structure and power generation as well. Makes me wonder what kind of "TWC" you studied!

Here is a clip of a TWC guy NOT getting knocked out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WSCcj6PbLo&t=80s

And another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrjID6IdxWk

And another:

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

Almost 12 minutes of video, and not a single circle step or blindside was taken...!

The opponent in the 1st clip obviously had 0 experience.

Nothing TWC even appeared in the entire 5 minutes of the 2nd clip, besides his fighting pose a few times.

Again, no recognizable TWC in the last clip either.

This just shows that your circle step to the blindside strategy doesn't work in fighting.

zuti car

03-31-2017, 01:39 AM

Well, that's an odd thing to say. I learned plenty of principles when I studied TWC. Both "standard" principles common to all Wing Chun as well as some unique to TWC. Plenty of body structure and power generation as well. Makes me wonder what kind of "TWC" you studied!

Here is a clip of a TWC guy NOT getting knocked out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WSCcj6PbLo&t=80s

And another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrjID6IdxWk

And another:

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

I studied the original one . Maybe Cheung learned a thing or two in later years , but still, his forms , stances , chi sao... in his seminars when he just started teaching he was strongly against "modified" body structure , he simply did't know it and didn't understand it , his books and early seminars videos are the proof of that . His "prnciples" are not really that , his art is superficial at best and it is hardly can be considered as wing chun .

KPM

03-31-2017, 02:38 AM

Almost 12 minutes of video, and not a single circle step or blindside was taken...!

The opponent in the 1st clip obviously had 0 experience.

Nothing TWC even appeared in the entire 5 minutes of the 2nd clip, besides his fighting pose a few times.

Again, no recognizable TWC in the last clip either.

This just shows that your circle step to the blindside strategy doesn't work in fighting.

How about you post some sparring clips of WSLVT, if you want to be so critical? Let's see all the Bong/Lop things from PB's demo dummy clips in a sparring situation! Heck, let's see ANYONE from WSLVT (other than Jai Harmon) winning a sparring match! Heck, let's see a clip of Jai Harmon actually doing something everyone would recognize as WSLVT!

And once again, you have just proven that you don't know what you are talking about. The guy in the last clip does a great job of maintaining his TWC structure. And he does do a quick short version of the T step several times! You either don't know what you are looking at, or you are ignoring it and still just arguing for argument's sake alone. Which is it???

KPM

03-31-2017, 02:44 AM

I studied the original one . Maybe Cheung learned a thing or two in later years , but still, his forms , stances , chi sao... in his seminars when he just started teaching he was strongly against "modified" body structure , he simply did't know it and didn't understand it , his books and early seminars videos are the proof of that . His "prnciples" are not really that , his art is superficial at best and it is hardly can be considered as wing chun .

Well, I don't know what he was teaching early on and I don't know what you were taught. But I have all of his books as well as Eric Oram's book. They lay out Wing Chun principles pretty well and describe them as good as any other book on the market. I will admit that since I have an extensive background in other Wing Chun, I don't do TWC exactly like Cheung. I don't use the parallel feet YGKYM and I likely put more body dynamic for power generation into it than most TWC guys. As far as "hardly can be considered Wing Chun".....TWC is clearly just a variant. It still has lots of overlap with Ip Man Wing Chun and some of the mainland styles. In fact, it probably has more commonalities with Weng Chun than Ip Man Wing Chun does!

LFJ

03-31-2017, 03:00 AM

How about you post some sparring clips of WSLVT, if you want to be so critical? Let's see all the Bong/Lop things from PB's demo dummy clips in a sparring situation! Heck, let's see ANYONE from WSLVT (other than Jai Harmon) winning a sparring match! Heck, let's see a clip of Jai Harmon actually doing something everyone would recognize as WSLVT!

That's an awful lot of deflecting!

Asking to see "Bong/Lop things" in sparring is retarded, and you've been told this.

But, maybe WSLVT sucks and no one can fight with it. Okay, that doesn't help your case for TWC tactics being realistic.

And once again, you have just proven that you don't know what you are talking about. The guy in the last clip does a great job of maintaining his TWC structure. And he does do a quick short version of the T step several times!

No, he doesn't. And even if he did so several times, he never once made it to the blindside in the whole match, so it failed miserably.

zuti car

03-31-2017, 04:26 AM

Well, I don't know what he was teaching early on and I don't know what you were taught. But I have all of his books as well as Eric Oram's book. They lay out Wing Chun principles pretty well and describe them as good as any other book on the market. I will admit that since I have an extensive background in other Wing Chun, I don't do TWC exactly like Cheung. I don't use the parallel feet YGKYM and I likely put more body dynamic for power generation into it than most TWC guys. As far as "hardly can be considered Wing Chun".....TWC is clearly just a variant. It still has lots of overlap with Ip Man Wing Chun and some of the mainland styles. In fact, it probably has more commonalities with Weng Chun than Ip Man Wing Chun does!

I don't know who is that Eric guy but William's books , at least those early ones I had are insult to intelligence . His principles are superficial , not well explaind, he tires to make a connection to traditional chinese medicine and Taoism , uses too many words , like some one other erson we all know today to explain simplest things , repacking and renaming something all have and know very well. Everything he does in his books is talking crap about Leung Ting's WT constantly poining out how his system is superior .

KPM

03-31-2017, 02:51 PM

No, he doesn't. And even if he did so several times, he never once made it to the blindside in the whole match, so it failed miserably.

He does. Not my fault if you don't know what you are looking at. And the T step is used for more than just going to the blindside. Showing that, once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You need to stop being so critical of something you know only from watching a few youtube clips.

KPM

03-31-2017, 02:57 PM

I don't know who is that Eric guy but William's books , at least those early ones I had are insult to intelligence . His principles are superficial , not well explaind, he tires to make a connection to traditional chinese medicine and Taoism , uses too many words , like some one other erson we all know today to explain simplest things , repacking and renaming something all have and know very well. Everything he does in his books is talking crap about Leung Ting's WT constantly poining out how his system is superior .

Zuti, you obviously had a very negative experience of TWC and have a heavy bias against it. I hope you have now found something that suits you better. All I can tell you is that when I studied it I did not find what you have been describing. The principles taught were no more "superficial" than any other version of Wing Chun I have been exposed to. Cheung isn't the only one that tries to connect their Wing Chun to TCM and Taoism. Gary Lam also uses TCM 5 element theory in explanations of his Wing Chun. Wayne Belonoha put a lot of TCM stuff in his book on Moy Yat Wing Chun.

Eric Oram is one of Cheung's senior students in the US. He is Robert Downey Jr's instructor.

LFJ

03-31-2017, 11:38 PM

He does. Not my fault if you don't know what you are looking at. And the T step is used for more than just going to the blindside.

Everything you've shown for it so far— Phil and Cheung's demos— has been about getting to the blindside.
That's what TWC is all about. It's endless application to and on the blindside.

Yet, in 12 minutes of fighting no one managed to get to the blindside even once! Not even in the first terribly mismatched fight.

In the last video, the only time he tries a T-step is when he's several feet away from the opponent, trying to be clever and sneak to his outside, but then launches his attack from several feet away and takes a kick to the gut for it.

The rest of the time all he's doing is rushing straight in with chain punches, none of which land, and he mostly catches hooks for his trouble.

So, at what timestamp does he use a T-step that accomplishes anything for him?

I know what I can expect the answer to be.

You need to stop being so critical of something you know only from watching a few youtube clips.

I've seen TWC in person, too. It's all the same thing as on YT, all about blindside applications; keeping distance and attacking the arm as you try to circle around.

What more you know is from books you've read, and it's nothing different either.

KPM

04-01-2017, 03:58 AM

Everything you've shown for it so far— Phil and Cheung's demos— has been about getting to the blindside.
That's what TWC is all about. It's endless application to and on the blindside.

Yet, in 12 minutes of fighting no one managed to get to the blindside even once! Not even in the first terribly mismatched fight.

In the last video, the only time he tries a T-step is when he's several feet away from the opponent, trying to be clever and sneak to his outside, but then launches his attack from several feet away and takes a kick to the gut for it.

The rest of the time all he's doing is rushing straight in with chain punches, none of which land, and he mostly catches hooks for his trouble.

So, at what timestamp does he use a T-step that accomplishes anything for him?

I know what I can expect the answer to be.

I've seen TWC in person, too. It's all the same thing as on YT, all about blindside applications; keeping distance and attacking the arm as you try to circle around.

What more you know is from books you've read, and it's nothing different either.

I'll say it again....you don't know what you are talking about. But you go on believing whatever you want to believe. It is pretty clear that you don't care what I have to say. There is obviously nothing I can say that will change your opinion because you are just looking for something to argue about.

LFJ

04-01-2017, 08:26 AM

So, at what timestamp does he use a T-step that accomplishes anything for him?

I know what I can expect the answer to be.

And of couse, the answer is no answer at all!

I don't think you believe yourself either, but you already went too far endorsing this stuff to admit it now.

KPM

04-01-2017, 08:53 AM

And of couse, the answer is no answer at all!

I don't think you believe yourself either, but you already went too far endorsing this stuff to admit it now.

Still arguing?? :rolleyes:

Happy Tiger

04-01-2017, 03:43 PM

Still not getting the basic ideas here? These technology cannot be valued in a vacuum.their value is cooperative!!!. They must be weighted in the heat of the moment. .T step, for instance, has certain value with a trade off. Every one talks about VT like they took it at a goddam seminar
Wing Chun is currently an ADDITIVE PROSESS. FEW HAVE EARNED The right to reduce.
Reduced cannot happen with out through , not just understanding but complete respect of what is already been transferred...Oh and actual Experience!!!!!!!.

Happy Tiger

04-01-2017, 04:18 PM

I know there are many who aren't from HK Ip Man VT.So for the most part I can only address Honger Kung Fuers... Think of Ip Man. Every thing you know and have been endlessly arguing about came from the same mind..The same soul. You really don't get it???

Happy Tiger

04-01-2017, 05:03 PM

C'mon it's a Chinese thing.

zuti car

04-01-2017, 05:53 PM

zuti car

04-01-2017, 05:55 PM

Zuti, you obviously had a very negative experience of TWC and have a heavy bias against it. I hope you have now found something that suits you better. All I can tell you is that when I studied it I did not find what you have been describing. The principles taught were no more "superficial" than any other version of Wing Chun I have been exposed to. Cheung isn't the only one that tries to connect their Wing Chun to TCM and Taoism. Gary Lam also uses TCM 5 element theory in explanations of his Wing Chun. Wayne Belonoha put a lot of TCM stuff in his book on Moy Yat Wing Chun.

Eric Oram is one of Cheung's senior students in the US. He is Robert Downey Jr's instructor.

Well , if you were exposed to WCK no better that TWC then you really have no luck .

LFJ

04-01-2017, 10:56 PM

Every thing you know and have been endlessly arguing about came from the same mind.

What an insult to YM and his VT!

Happy Tiger

04-01-2017, 11:21 PM

This is awesome!!!! Your passion is genuine. Just think... Every thing from Ip Man wing Chun comes from Ip Man.We didn't change it. It is how he transmitted it in the first place.Its like a puzzle.

Happy Tiger

04-01-2017, 11:31 PM

What an insult to YM and his VT!
And, if you are insulting my respect of my house, What do you say???

LFJ

04-01-2017, 11:36 PM

Every thing from Ip Man wing Chun comes from Ip Man.We didn't change it. It is how he transmitted it in the first place.Its like a puzzle.

TWC did not come from YM.

And, if you are insulting my respect of my house, What do you say???

No idea what you're talking about.

LFJ

04-01-2017, 11:38 PM

Still arguing?? :rolleyes:

I think we're done, now that your argument has come to the end of its road.

guy b.

04-02-2017, 01:20 AM

I don't think you believe yourself either, but you already went too far endorsing this stuff to admit it now.

Exactly right. It looks like KPM started this support of TWC because he wanted to show you criticising "something you didn't understand", like he certainly does when talking about WSL VT. The problem is that TWC is so ridiculously basic and simple to understand in terms of its application based approach, that KPM just ends up defending something that is clearly nonsense while inferring hidden depths that do not exist.

guy b.

04-02-2017, 01:24 AM

I'll say it again....you don't know what you are talking about. But you go on believing whatever you want to believe. It is pretty clear that you don't care what I have to say. There is obviously nothing I can say that will change your opinion because you are just looking for something to argue about.

If you say something sensible then people will care. If not then...

I am surprised you picked this variant of wing chun to use in an attempt to make LFJ look bad. It is a very straight forward application based approach and there is nothing here that is difficult to interpret.

KPM

04-02-2017, 04:02 AM

I think we're done, now that your argument has come to the end of its road.

Its only to the end of its road because I'm done trying to discuss something with someone who really doesn't care what I have to say!

KPM

04-02-2017, 04:17 AM

Exactly right. It looks like KPM started this support of TWC because he wanted to show you criticising "something you didn't understand", like he certainly does when talking about WSL VT. The problem is that TWC is so ridiculously basic and simple to understand in terms of its application based approach, that KPM just ends up defending something that is clearly nonsense while inferring hidden depths that do not exist.

Let me point out that I started this thread to show an interesting clip illustrating two approaches to the Bong Sau. Then LFJ criticized the footwork on the clip. So I tried to explain the T step and LFJ turned it into an argument (as usual). So I provided other clips to try and clarify what I was saying. So then LFJ criticized the hand techniques being used by Cheung and turned that into an argument as well. It struck me that he was doing EXACTLY the same thing he accuses others of doing when they criticize clips of Phillip Bayer. So I pointed that out. Its not like I had some nefarious plot to discredit LFJ! You two are quite the pair!!! :rolleyes:

It should be clear to anyone following along, then neither of you really care to talk about Wing Chun, learn about other systems, and share what you do. You are clearly here simply to citicize and tear down anything that is different from your own Wing Chun. I asked LFJ to start another thread on a topic I thought people would find interesting and that would generate some traffic here and he refused.

So you just go on believing whatever you want to believe. You certainly are never going to listen to me!!!

Happy Tiger

04-02-2017, 07:26 AM

TWC did not come from YM.

No idea what you're talking about.
Yes, of course you are right. TWC didn't come from Ip Man. However, most from HK who Trace their line by Ip Man who learned this variety must realize lp Man was well schooled in it. Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��

Happy Tiger

04-02-2017, 07:58 AM

Yes, of course you are right. TWC didn't come from Ip Man. However, most from HK who Trace their line by Ip Man who learned this variety must realize lp Man was well schooled in it. Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��my little soap box I've been on lately is that the older masters didn't bicker on Kung Fu tech the way we do now. GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

LFJ

04-02-2017, 08:18 AM

LFJ criticized the footwork on the clip.

Actually, I was talking about the whole strategy.

LFJ turned it into an argument (as usual)...
...and turned that into an argument as well.

Realize nothing would turn into an argument if you didn't deny the blatantly obvious.

It struck me that he was doing EXACTLY the same thing he accuses others of doing when they criticize clips of Phillip Bayer. So I pointed that out.

Not the same thing at all. As I had to tell your twin on the other forum;

One can usually look at videos of TWC and know what's going on because it's a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

But since WSLVT is not, you can't often just look at videos of it and know what's going on if you aren't familiar with the system.

When someone like Phil R. does a video saying 'this is how you do this movement in the TWC form, and this is how you apply it against this attack', we can take him at his word. There's nothing else to see. Unless he is lying.

When, however, you look at chi-sau videos from WSLVT, without explanations, you can assume nothing. Actually you assume a lot, but you are always entirely off the mark, because WSLVT isn't the application-based system you're familiar with.

wckf92

04-02-2017, 08:30 AM

...GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

This is an interesting comment. Would perhaps make an interesting thread topic?
How do you know this?
And what do you mean by "local street versions"?
And how did one man come to inherit all these versions? (perhaps through that Dai Duk Lan alley?)

Just curious. Thanks for any input Happy Tiger

LFJ

04-02-2017, 08:32 AM

Its not like I had some nefarious plot to discredit LFJ!...
...I asked LFJ to start another thread on a topic I thought people would find interesting and that would generate some traffic here and he refused.

Sure, there was no such plot at the start of this thread, but there's no other reason to start up the same topic that already went 30+ pages on another forum where you tried your hardest to discredit me by dishonestly rewriting my position with absolute absurdities I never made.

And you're surprised I refused to have you do that again here?

Besides, that topic is wholly irrelevant to almost everyone else's current Wing Chun, and I don't really care what anyone else's opinion of it might be.

LFJ

04-02-2017, 08:34 AM

TWC didn't come from Ip Man. However, most from HK who Trace their line by Ip Man who learned this variety must realize lp Man was well schooled in it. Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��

YM never had anything to do with TWC. Cheung quite obviously invented the style, copying superficial bits and pieces from others.

GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

Come on, you're just making sh!t up now.

KPM

04-02-2017, 09:03 AM

my little soap box I've been on lately is that the older masters didn't bicker on Kung Fu tech the way we do now. GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

And just what makes you think that??? Sounds like a topic for another thread!

KPM

04-02-2017, 09:07 AM

One can usually look at videos of TWC and know what's going on because it's a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

But since WSLVT is not, you can't often just look at videos of it and know what's going on if you aren't familiar with the system.

.

Ok. I've studied Ip Man Wing Chun under Augustine Fong. I've studied Pin Sun Wing Chun under Henry Mui. And I've studied TWC. None of the three was either more or less "application based" than the others. I'm not quite sure what distinction you are really making between WSLVT and everthing else that is "application based." It sounds like a good topic for a different discussion. So how about you start another thread detailing what you see as the difference between "application based" Wing Chun and WSLVT?? Zuti jumped on that idea as well. So he would likely have something to contribute to the thread. So please start another topic thread so we can explore this idea.

KPM

04-02-2017, 09:13 AM

Sure, there was no such plot at the start of this thread, but there's no other reason to start up the same topic that already went 30+ pages on another forum where you tried your hardest to discredit me by dishonestly rewriting my position with absolute absurdities I never made.

And you're surprised I refused to have you do that again here?

Besides, that topic is wholly irrelevant to almost everyone else's current Wing Chun, and I don't really care what anyone else's opinion of it might be.

Well no. In that thread on the other forum your theory seemed to morph and change somewhat as the discussion went on. You were somewhat evasive and non-specific in many of your responses. So I assumed the theory is a little better developed in your head now and you would be able to give a nice detailed synopsis of it...which is something you never did in the other forum. And given that the majority of people study Ip Man based Wing Chun, why would you assume your theory of Ip Man Wing Chun's origins would be "irrelevant to everyone else's current Wing Chun"??? I think people would find it interesting! The fact that you don't want to put it out there again suggests to me that you really don't have that much belief in the theory yourself. Or you really aren't interested in sharing ideas on these forums and are only here to criticize and tear down others. Which is it?

LFJ

04-02-2017, 09:37 AM

So how about you start another thread detailing what you see as the difference between "application based" Wing Chun and WSLVT??

There's really not that much to it.

It's just; here's this move from a form, and here's how you apply it against this attack.

WSLVT doesn't do that. TWC does.

given that the majority of people study Ip Man based Wing Chun, why would you assume your theory of Ip Man Wing Chun's origins would be "irrelevant to everyone else's current Wing Chun"???

Current being the operative word. Most YM derived WC no longer functions in a way that would make this relevant to them.

I think people would find it interesting! The fact that you don't want to put it out there again suggests to me that you really don't have that much belief in the theory yourself. Or you really aren't interested in sharing ideas on these forums and are only here to criticize and tear down others. Which is it?

In this case, I really don't care what anyone else's opinion of it is if they don't even train something remotely similar.

So yeah, I'm not interested in sharing that idea. I only brought it up on the other forum because someone was trying to say YM invented his own pole form, which is demonstrably false.

Happy Tiger

04-02-2017, 10:19 AM

This is an interesting comment. Would perhaps make an interesting thread topic?
How do you know this?
And what do you mean by "local street versions"?
And how did one man come to inherit all these versions? (perhaps through that Dai Duk Lan alley?)

Just curious. Thanks for any input Happy Tiger
Well
..One of GM Ip Man earliest students was a big talented pugilist known as Leung Shung. One of his last was a so called closed door student which we know as sigong Leung Ting. If you take a moment to view it from a anthropological perspective you will likey see they Were/ are doing VT in pretty well exactly the same way. Now I never had the honor of studying Pin Sun but it seems to have many of the points that define it to be it.

LFJ

04-02-2017, 10:33 AM

Well
..One of GM Ip Man earliest students was a big talented pugilist known as Leung Shung. One of his last was a so called closed door student which we know as sigong Leung Ting. If you take a moment to view it from a anthropological perspective you will likey see they Were/ are doing VT in pretty well exactly the same way.

LS was LT's teacher.

Now I never had the honor of studying Pin Sun but it seems to have many of the points that define it to be it.

And it is entirely different from TWC, as is WT.

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:35 AM

LFJ

04-02-2017, 10:43 AM

I've used this in full contact matches.

What matches?

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:45 AM

I usually watch what they do, more than listen to what they say, because it often doesn't match up.

The only time he steps in is when the partner pulls his punch back without throwing a second and he is caused to fully extend his reach during an attempt to contact and trap that retracting arm. Bit of an arm-chase, I'd say. Dangerous to chase like that when you know a second punch is likely coming.

Watch the feet when he circles out. They are moving away.

The lead foot circles off to the side. The rear foot follows the heel stepping backward, with reference to his own body.

This is moving away from the incoming right round punch, and backward along the perimeter of the circle.

The result is he's affording the opponent ample space to adjust and continue attacking, while he moves away and has to put up some sort of block, while also taking body mass in the opposite direction of where he's intending to put force in his own punch.

I always see this exact same footwork in any TWC video. If you watch the feet they are always stepping out and backward, where their heels point, while circling around. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Lead foot out, rear foot back. Round and round. Never forward into the opponent, leaving a big gap.

The idea is not a bad one. The thing is though, if you allow so much space, you're not really in a much safer or superior position. The opponent is still easily able to adjust and continue throwing power shots at that distance. As you continue to block and circle away, it's just a matter of time. If you don't affect their balance or facing, just slapping at that one arm isn't going to keep you safe.

Now, getting to the "blind side" and driving right up the center aren't the only options. It is possible to shut down the one arm and disrupt balance and facing, effectively getting to the same "blind side" to avoid retaliation from the other arm while driving body mass into the center. It just takes a different angling footwork and skill set.
I was demonstrating a static drill from my students. I understand your concern but I know what I'm doing and how to make it work real time. With regard to my footwork it's called a T step and used to get offline. If you're a large guy and your opponent is smaller you can simply charge down the middle. I wouldn't recommend that for a woman or smaller man.

LFJ

04-02-2017, 10:48 AM

With regard to my footwork it's called a T step and used to get offline. If you're a large guy and your opponent is smaller you can simply charge down the middle. I wouldn't recommend that for a woman or smaller man.

They are not the only two options.

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:54 AM

The problem I was getting at was that in attempting to cover the arm on the way in, he fully extended his arm and was quite committed to following that arm back.

If suddenly a second punch comes, his response is to switch up everything entirely mid-action, including the direction he's moving.

Once body mass is already committed in one direction, with outstretched arms, it will be difficult to change footwork and everything to another direction in time.

Easy when done slowly and relaxed.

Not back away, but to the side away, which does give up distance.

If his lead foot is at the center point of the circle, and rear foot along the perimeter, as he steps his lead foot to the side, and slides his rear foot backward, the whole circle, his body mass, is actually being moved away from the opponent.

He's not pivoting and using rotational force, but stepping away with both feet, taking his body mass in the opposite direction of the straight punch. Meaning it's all arm.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/backstep_zpsppeu04za.gif

Here's the 1-2.

http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/GiveEmALeft_zps2xdgpac9.pnghttp://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/AndARight_zpsjka5oi1j.png

Doesn't look awkward or difficult to attack from at all. It's a power stance with hips directed straight at him. It's more awkward for Phil to do anything from the position he put himself in, moving backward all duck footed waiting to be taken over.

If either of them are to kick, the attacker is the one with the better angle, stance, momentum, and obvious target to kick.

If the ideal is to get further around the opponent, well, it didn't even work too well in a slow demo.

What's to stop the opponent from taking advantage of it? He has not been affected in any way.

If he kept both hands up, they'd still at best be at equal advantage, or he'd be at more advantage.

He's either able to, or he isn't. And he is, so it's not really a matter of opinion.

But as we see, nothing has been done to set the opponent up. His facing, balance, arms, or anything has not been affected. He's able to continue just the same.

Which is obviously the main problem I have with it.

Opinions differ. Also, I actually teach students to stand in place while a partner wearing forearm pads throws full power round punches at them. It's not all arm. It's also stance. Anyone who has trained with me knows that. I don't believe I let myself be drawn into this by someone who has never met me in person to see/feel what I do. No disrespect intended.

LFJ

04-02-2017, 10:59 AM

I actually teach students to stand in place while a partner wearing forearm pads throws full power round punches at them. It's not all arm. It's also stance.

Okay? That has nothing to do with your counter punch, which was done moving body mass in the opposite direction.

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 11:00 AM

We all can't look alike and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. That's why I stay away from criticizing things I see in videos without understanding the whole picture. I have better things to do. I'm a former full contact competitor who had successfully used Wing Chun in the ring. If it doesn't work, I won't teach it. Back to "doing" Wing Chun.

LFJ

04-02-2017, 11:10 AM

I'm a former full contact competitor who had successfully used Wing Chun in the ring.

Where? ....

Happy Tiger

04-02-2017, 11:17 AM

LS was LT's teacher.

And it is entirely different from TWC, as is WT.
Yes that's my point!!!! They were both taught by Ip Man.... Get it????

Happy Tiger

04-02-2017, 11:21 AM

Where? .... this is fun😊

Happy Tiger

04-02-2017, 11:31 AM

LS was LT's teacher.

And it is entirely different from TWC, as is WT.
Sigh for the first knowledge. Kudos for the latter. You are bringing my next point

LFJ

04-02-2017, 11:40 AM

Get it????

Sorry, I don't speak Hippie.

KPM

04-02-2017, 04:02 PM

There's really not that much to it.

It's just; here's this move from a form, and here's how you apply it against this attack.

WSLVT doesn't do that. TWC does.

Current being the operative word. Most YM derived WC no longer functions in a way that would make this relevant to them.

In this case, I really don't care what anyone else's opinion of it is if they don't even train something remotely similar.

So yeah, I'm not interested in sharing that idea. I only brought it up on the other forum because someone was trying to say YM invented his own pole form, which is demonstrably false.

So it sounds like your answer is "no, I am not going to share anything about my Wing Chun" and "yes, I am only here to criticize and tear down others"!!!!

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 07:52 PM

So it sounds like your answer is "no, I am not going to share anything about my Wing Chun" and "yes, I am only here to criticize and tear down others"!!!!
The guy said that we stay wher the power is. That's not the case. Seeing some demos doesn't mean a person knows what's really going on. It would be great to see some of his applications. I cool with sharing mine because they've been tested. We have monthly amateur full contact fights at my L.A. school. Anyone is welcome to fight. Btw Keith, I'm doing a BJD seminar in N.Y. May 7. You're very welcome to come.

zuti car

04-02-2017, 09:01 PM

Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��
That is not true , it is actually the opossite .

zuti car

04-02-2017, 09:04 PM

YM never had anything to do with TWC. Cheung quite obviously invented the style, copying superficial bits and pieces from others.

Exactly , and making it look attractive , like kung fu from old movies

LFJ

04-02-2017, 09:38 PM

So it sounds like your answer is "no, I am not going to share anything about my Wing Chun" and "yes, I am only here to criticize and tear down others"!!!!

I already shared it for anyone to read.

Anyone has the right to comment on things freely posted to a public forum.

Don't like other opinions? Don't post.

LFJ

04-02-2017, 09:44 PM

The guy said that we stay wher the power is. That's not the case. Seeing some demos doesn't mean a person knows what's really going on.

There is no secret to TWC, no imperceptible level.

It's very plain to see where you're standing in relation to the opponent and what blocks you're using.

It would be great to see some of his applications.

I don't do applications.

I cool with sharing mine because they've been tested. We have monthly amateur full contact fights at my L.A. school. Anyone is welcome to fight.

Those are your fights you're talking about? At your own school?

I saw some pretty mismatched amateur fights, but still no one getting to the blindside.

Any video where this TWC strategy you guys are always on about actually works?

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:32 PM

There is no secret to TWC, no imperceptible level.

It's very plain to see where you're standing in relation to the opponent and what blocks you're using.

I don't do applications.

Those are your fights you're talking about? At your own school?

I saw some pretty mismatched amateur fights, but still no one getting to the blindside.

Any video where this TWC strategy you guys are always on about actually works?
All fights don't have to be blindside and amateur fights are better than none at all. Any vids of you out there? With regards to applications there are many on the Jong.

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:35 PM

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:41 PM

I really believe what Wing Chun needs is full contact events. I can host in L.A. and I can find other venues as well. Just contact me on FB messenger. We need to stop the BS posturing and trash talking and fight to see what works and what doesn't. That way we can make the art we love better.

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:48 PM

There is no secret to TWC, no imperceptible level.

It's very plain to see where you're standing in relation to the opponent and what blocks you're using.

I don't do applications.

Those are your fights you're talking about? At your own school?

I saw some pretty mismatched amateur fights, but still no one getting to the blindside.

Any video where this TWC strategy you guys are always on about actually works?

Yes, there are fights at my own school. People from other schools come to fight monthly. But we also had fights at the Manup Standup in NY. Here's my grand student's first fight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP05PC3ReW0

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:53 PM

In this video you'll see a drill against a jab, uppercut, hook,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7uQcWZ8IMk

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 10:57 PM

This fight isn't Wing Chun but these are some of the guys that come to my school to fight. The guy with the long hair also does MMA.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmHHmDsw8EE

Phil Redmond

04-02-2017, 11:05 PM

The guy with the black shin guards is Wing Chun. It's late now but I have lots of footage of our fights. Please share yours as well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxR__isNEBQ I even have a clip of one of our guys doing a trap during a full contact match. But I don't have time to waste showing things to people. I'm done. I'm easy to find. It's always better in person.

Happy Tiger

04-03-2017, 12:10 AM

That is not true , it is actually the opossite .

Yes!!!! That's what I've always known.Again, he learned from Ip Man Sijo. So he knew

guy b.

04-03-2017, 12:47 AM

Ok. I've studied Ip Man Wing Chun under Augustine Fong. I've studied Pin Sun Wing Chun under Henry Mui. And I've studied TWC. None of the three was either more or less "application based" than the others.

Bad news for Augustine Fong and Pin Sun Wing Chun :-(

Unless maybe you just failed to notice what was going on? Doesn't leave many other options

Happy Tiger

04-03-2017, 12:52 AM

Bad news for Augustine Fong and Pin Sun Wing Chun :-(

Unless maybe you just failed to notice what was going on? Doesn't leave many other options
Only for the lack of fighting. My own Sigong Wong Shun Leung got his ass handed to him in one of the only competitions he ever entered

LFJ

04-03-2017, 02:30 AM

All fights don't have to be blindside

But the thing is, just about every application in TWC is about getting to the blindside.

So, I'm just wondering why we never see anyone do any blindside stuff in any fights.

With regards to applications there are many on the Jong.

Of course there are in TWC. It's an application-based system.

Which begs the question why we never see those blindside applications...applied.

Yes, there are fights at my own school. People from other schools come to fight monthly. But we also had fights at the Manup Standup in NY.

You mean when you say "I am a former full contact competitor" you're talking about in your own school?

In other words, there's no way to verify that you've applied blindside applications in quality full contact fights?

I don't want to doubt you, but the time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence for it.
I've just never seen TWC's T-step to the blindside with 3-4 blocks on the same punch actually work for real.

In this video you'll see a drill against a jab, uppercut, hook,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7uQcWZ8IMk

And what were they supposed to be doing?

I even have a clip of one of our guys doing a trap during a full contact match.

You mean this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WSCcj6PbLo

They were terribly mismatched in skill and experience.
The opponent was scared and had no idea what he was doing.

He kept putting his head down and his hands out to avoid getting hit in the face.
Doesn't take much skill to grab someone's arms when they give them to you like that.

But since TWC is all about trapping arms and getting to the blindside, you'd think we'd see him at least get to the blindside once in such a mismatched fight, or that we'd see more regular trapping than just this one instance from this one guy against a very inexperienced and scared opponent.

KPM

04-03-2017, 03:27 AM

In other words, there's no way to verify that you've applied blindside applications in quality full contact fights?

.

Is there any way to verify that your Wing Chun works in quality full contact fights?? Is there any video showing your "deep level", "non-application-based" WSLVT working in any kind of fight???

KPM

04-03-2017, 03:47 AM

The new rumor is the William Cheung learned a Triad version of Wing Chun. The main point here is that I don't care where it comes from. It's been working for me. If yours works for you then I'm happy for you. I would never throw shade on what you do because it's different.

Very commendable attitude Phil and I agree with you. But that is certainly not true of LFJ and Guy B. As is apparent in this thread and has been proven time and again in the past.

Now one thing that occurs to me is that most good ring fighters will tell you that they have a small number (maybe 5 or 6) techniques or "applications" that they are very good at and that they use in nearly every fight as their "go to" moves. LFJ seems to use the term "application-based" in a derogatory fashion. But I see nothing wrong in a fighting method being rather simple and straight-forward. Its the "simple and straight-forward" that is going to work under pressure. He talks about WSLVT being "non-application" based and implies there is this deep theory behind its use that you can't see in video clips. To me that really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation. But he declined to start and thread and discuss what he really means by it being "non-application" based. So its hard to say.

Personally, I see every Wing Chun version I have encountered as being a mix of application and theory/concept. The theory/concepts are what drives the understanding of various applications. They certainly have not been a "tit for tat"...."if you do this move I will always do X" kind of thing. But the minute you perform a technique to defend against what an opponent is doing, that becomes an "application." So I really don't understand what LFJ is on and on about.

guy b.

04-03-2017, 04:40 AM

Very commendable attitude Phil and I agree with you. But that is certainly not true of LFJ and Guy B. As is apparent in this thread and has been proven time and again in the past.

Very happy for anyone else to do whatever they like. It is really only your constant trolling that brings these questions to the surface again and again. I personlly would not practice TWC because I disagree with the approach but I am sure there are many people for whom it is a good fit and I have no desire to argue with those people unless they wish to argue with me. You KPM are a person who wishes to argue a lot, you play silly political games trying to drag others into your 1-man crusade, and you go on forever, while never understanding anything that anyone tells you. It appears to offend you if people don't pat you on the head and tell you that you are great. I am sorry but I am not going to do that. But happy to leave you alone if you can manage to stop trolling.

He talks about WSLVT being "non-application" based and implies there is this deep theory behind its use that you can't see in video clips. To me that really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation. But he declined to start and thread and discuss what he really means by it being "non-application" based. So its hard to say.

It has been discussed many times in great detail. This difference in approach appears to make you so angry that you can't shut up about it. All I can suggest to cure your problem is that you go and give VT a try. Then you will see how it works. This will be more productive that trolling about it on forums which just makes innocent people like Phil sad and people like me bored to tears.

Personally, I see every Wing Chun version I have encountered as being a mix of application and theory/concept. The theory/concepts are what drives the understanding of various applications. They certainly have not been a "tit for tat"...."if you do this move I will always do X" kind of thing. But the minute you perform a technique to defend against what an opponent is doing, that becomes an "application." So I really don't understand what LFJ is on and on about.

As above, there is only one way for you to understand. Up to you what you do about it.

LFJ

04-03-2017, 04:57 AM

Is there any way to verify that your Wing Chun works in quality full contact fights?? Is there any video showing your "deep level", "non-application-based" WSLVT working in any kind of fight???

As I said, this deflection does not help your case. Go ahead and assume my stuff sucks and doesn't work.

Okay, now, where has this blindside application stuff TWC is all about ever worked?
It's almost all they ever talk about in all their application videos, but we never see it in their fights.

Just wondering...

LFJ seems to use the term "application-based" in a derogatory fashion.

Nothing derogatory about it. Most MA's work like that. I'm just saying it's pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

It's just that we often see the techniques of other application-based styles in action all the time.

Never seen TWC's blindside stuff work, though.

He talks about WSLVT being "non-application" based and implies there is this deep theory behind its use that you can't see in video clips. To me that really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation.

Never said "deep". It's extremely simple. You are making an assessment from ignorance.

Personally, I see every Wing Chun version I have encountered as being a mix of application and theory/concept.

Realize you have not encountered all.

If it bothers you that much that you have to bring VT up in every conversation, do as Guy suggests and go find out about it, rather than cry about it on forums year after year.

KPM

04-03-2017, 07:39 AM

You KPM are a person who wishes to argue a lot, you play silly political games trying to drag others into your 1-man crusade, and you go on forever, while never understanding anything that anyone tells you. It appears to offend you if people don't pat you on the head and tell you that you are great. I am sorry but I am not going to do that. But happy to leave you alone if you can manage to stop trolling.

.

Geez! Like I said before, you two are quite the pair! Batman and Robin! :D I wasn't the one that starting arguing on this thread. I am not the one that keeps trying to perpetuate the arguing. I've said multiple times you are free to think whatever you want, but you guys still come back with criticisms and negative comments about what someone else is doing. That's certainly not "trolling" on MY part!

KPM

04-03-2017, 07:41 AM

Never said "deep". It's extremely simple. You are making an assessment from ignorance.

.

You called TWC "superficial". I can only assume that is because you consider what you do to be "deep" in contrast. But you won't discuss it, so who knows?? :rolleyes:

LFJ

04-03-2017, 07:48 AM

You called TWC "superficial". I can only assume that is because you consider what you do to be "deep" in contrast.

It's an observation, not a comparison.

...As I told you last time you said this.

You are always trying to pit what I do against things to start some sort of pointless lineage war where there is none.

Phil Redmond

04-03-2017, 08:15 AM

Just because you personally haven't seen blindside applications doesn't mean that the concept isn't valid. Also, you don't really know what we mean by blindside/side body/Pin San. You can be blindside on the inside. But you wouldn't know the nuances of it because you haven't been exposed to it. To the general public blindside could mean many things. The guy without the headgear is TWC, (btw, I don't prefer the acronym TWC because I feel all Wing Chun is traditional). When we fight we're not trying to look like a choreographed Yip Man movie. WSL won a fight using a knee and someone said that wasn't WC. He said he used the closest weapon to the closest target. He got what we call the blindside here. Now if you don't see it it's because you don't understand it. and I understand that you don't understand. I will say one thing. It would be great if you could share what you do with us so that we can all be better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXb7YXntv6E

Phil Redmond

04-03-2017, 08:19 AM

This is a little example of what we attempt to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2o_7miDnTg

Phil Redmond

04-03-2017, 08:42 AM

. . . . . . And what were they supposed to be doing? The fact that you had to ask me that says a lot. Don't you recognize a jab, rear hand uppercut and hook? It was a repetitive drill to develop reflexes. It's like a musician playing scales over and over. Even pro musicians have to do it. Boxers/kick boxers, etc., do drills over and over as well. That's how you get better. Also, what is the point of your constant negativity? I presumed we were all adults here who can respectfully discuss things. At the present I don't feel the need to respond to any of your negativity anymore. It's not really worth my time. The funny thing is that when I've met people in person they are usually way different from their online personality. You're probably a cool guy in person. Who knows? Have a great day my Wing Chun brother.

LFJ

04-03-2017, 08:58 AM

you don't really know what we mean by blindside/side body/Pin San. You can be blindside on the inside. But you wouldn't know the nuances of it because you haven't been exposed to it.

You make assumptions as easily as KPM.

The guy without the headgear is TWC,

I would not even show this video. The scared and defenseless opponent looks like he has never had a punch thrown at him before in his life. I would be ashamed to fight a guy like that.

This is a little example of what we attempt to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2o_7miDnTg

Yeah, I understand the strategy and tactics of TWC just fine. I just don't think it is realistic against an even decently skilled opponent, and I have only been shown drastic mismatches, or complete failures to apply this stuff.

The fact that you had to ask me that says a lot.

I ask because the defender is just moving straight back and swatting at every punch. Is that what he's supposed to do?

Don't you recognize a jab, rear hand uppercut and hook? It was a repetitive drill to develop reflexes.

If it was just to show punches, I'm not sure what your point is in showing the video.

Also, what is the point of your constant negativity?

I'm just interested in seeing TWC's strategy actually work against anyone who also knows how to fight.

It should be positive. This can only be taken negatively if it in fact doesn't work, or at least there's no video of it.

Thanks for trying, though.

Happy Tiger

04-03-2017, 09:45 AM

YM never had anything to do with TWC. Cheung quite obviously invented the style, copying superficial bits and pieces from others.

Come on, you're just making sh!t up now. this just don't follow what we now know of VT history.

LFJ

04-03-2017, 09:54 AM

this just don't follow what I now know of VT history.

I think that's what you meant to say.

guy b.

04-03-2017, 10:09 AM

guy b.

04-03-2017, 10:10 AM

Actual match

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98HjtTzje-o

guy b.

04-03-2017, 10:15 AM

Can this 3 stage block and slow step around work in that kind of venue? Seems unlikely..

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

guy b.

04-03-2017, 10:29 AM

There's nothing wrong with straight forward, even application based. But if you are going to go that route then there isn't room for superfluous stuff, redundant actions, impractical or untested material. And you need to be very strong, incredibly fast, and very very tough. What's stupid is being application based and predictable but also thinking you have something that is going to avoid you having to trade punches and be hit a lot.

Phil Redmond

04-08-2017, 06:52 PM

Here's a karate style that focuses on blind side attacks. They make it work by use of the gi to hold the opponent where they want them. Even then it happens infrequently in their tournaments with evenly matched competitors and mostly it looks like regular knockdown karate. By contrast TWC looks nowhere near as robust and practical.

Highlights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5rJd2maDKU
Yep, the Wing Chun that I used to win in fights really sucks. Would you please teach me how to win correctly? I'll learn anything that works regardless of where it comes from.

Phil Redmond

04-08-2017, 07:02 PM

Omt, guy b. Do you have any videos of you doing Wing Chun online? It'd be great to see how Wing Chun should be properly done

LFJ

04-08-2017, 11:42 PM

Yep, the Wing Chun that I used to win in fights really sucks. Would you please teach me how to win correctly? I'll learn anything that works regardless of where it comes from.

Omt, guy b. Do you have any videos of you doing Wing Chun online? It'd be great to see how Wing Chun should be properly done

Where are the videos of you winning fights?

Do you think if guy b. doesn't post videos, or can't do better, that your stuff is automatically assumed realistic?

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way!

guy b.

04-09-2017, 01:50 AM

Omt, guy b. Do you have any videos of you doing Wing Chun online? It'd be great to see how Wing Chun should be properly done

You put it out there, so it is fair game to comment. If you find comment to be difficult to handle then suggest you don't post content on youtube.

TBH though, I would never normally comment on TWC because it doesn't interest me. Do whatever you like. The reason for comment is to answer trolling by KPM who is using your system as a device to stir

KPM

04-09-2017, 03:59 AM

You put it out there, so it is fair game to comment. If you find comment to be difficult to handle then suggest you don't post content on youtube.

TBH though, I would never normally comment on TWC because it doesn't interest me. Do whatever you like. The reason for comment is to answer trolling by KPM who is using your system as a device to stir

You are so full of crxP that I can smell you from here! :rolleyes:

LFJ

04-09-2017, 04:05 AM

You are so full of crxP that I can smell you from here! :rolleyes:

Nice troll comment defending your totally non-trolling behavior.

KPM

04-09-2017, 04:18 AM

Nice troll comment defending your totally non-trolling behavior.

So tell me, when did I "troll" anyone to make them comment on TWC as Guy B. claims?

LFJ

04-09-2017, 04:26 AM

So tell me, when did I "troll" anyone to make them comment on TWC as Guy B. claims?

Perhaps as you continued to argue against the obvious, basically this whole thread.

If anyone is to take you seriously, they must believe you are a complete MA newb.

KPM

04-09-2017, 04:51 AM

Perhaps as you continued to argue against the obvious, basically this whole thread.

If anyone is to take you seriously, they must believe you are a complete MA newb.

So tell me again, who is the one "trolling" here? With that comment, it certainly isn't me!

I tried to explain how the T step works to you, and provided multiple examples. But you wouldn't see any of it, despite the fact that you have never actually studied the T step in TWC. So then you switched it around to turn it into an argument about Cheung's hand techniques. When Phil chimed in to say he had used the T step in sparring matches effectively you refused to take him at his word. Yet you say I have been "trolling" through-out this whole thread? :rolleyes: Dude, you are really something!

LFJ

04-09-2017, 05:27 AM

I tried to explain how the T step works to you, and provided multiple examples. But you wouldn't see any of it,

I understand how the T-step works. It's not rocket science. Phil didn't accomplish it that time.

When Phil chimed in to say he had used the T step in sparring matches effectively you refused to take him at his word.

Why should I or anyone else? Skepticism is trolling in your world? Makes sense.

guy b.

04-09-2017, 06:00 AM

So tell me, when did I "troll" anyone to make them comment on TWC as Guy B. claims?

All recent threads on this forum?

You lie, you conveniently forget things, you stir, you intentionally misunderstand anything you are told, and you dishonestly use trojan horses like TWC as an arguing device, upsetting people like Phil in the process.

The only other viable option is that you are a particularly stupid person. In which case my condolences.

Don't see much point in continung discusion either way.

guy b.

04-09-2017, 06:03 AM

Why should I or anyone else? Skepticism is trolling in your world? Makes sense.

Everything is equal, all must have prizes, there is no reality. So KPM = complete moron or trolling ****. Why bother talking to him?

KPM

04-09-2017, 11:32 AM

All recent threads on this forum?

You lie, you conveniently forget things, you stir, you intentionally misunderstand anything you are told, and you dishonestly use trojan horses like TWC as an arguing device, upsetting people like Phil in the process.

The only other viable option is that you are a particularly stupid person. In which case my condolences.

Don't see much point in continung discusion either way.

Well, let's see. I started a thread showing how the TWC Chum Kiu form can also be done with the knives and on the dummy and asked if anyone else tried training that way. Trolling? Stirring? Lying? I don't think so.

I started a thread on a cool wooden dummy design. Trolling? Stirring? Lying? I don't think so.

I started a thread on two interpretations of the Bong Sau. LJF made it about the footwork. So I did my best to explain the T step. Then LFJ turned it into an argument. Trolling? Stirring? Lying? I don't think so.

I started a thread on "application-based" vs. "non-application based" training. I knew it would be a controversial topic with you guys, but thought it would be intereting and get others involved in the discussion. Trolling? Stirring? Lying? I don't think so.

However, you are a guy that got permanently banned from MT. Then you came back twice (maybe 3 times) under a faked identity and lied to everyone on the forum about who you were just so you could continue to cause trouble. Trolling? Stirring? Lying? Yes indeed!

So maybe you shouldn't be lecturing others! ;)

Marnetmar

04-10-2017, 07:07 PM

zuti car

04-10-2017, 09:51 PM

KPM

04-11-2017, 03:52 AM

I'm not trying to be that guy and I don't have sound at the moment so I could be missing something, but the way TWC uses Bong and Wu kind of bothers me. Wouldn't that be really easy to collapse? And wouldn't using pak sau accomplish the same thing?

When might one want to use that technique as opposed to this:

.

I think distance is a factor. In the clip that started this thread Phil is standing a bit further away from his partner. Another factor is the starting angle with the opponent. If his punch is essentially crossing your bridge (coming from more of an outside angle) then it makes sense to Bong. If his punch is coming nice and straight down the center and your guard is already a bit wide, then it makes more sense to use a Pak Sau.

I also think that the Bong/Wu aligned on the central-line rather than center-line as Phil is showing in the original clip is actually a bit more structurally strong and less likely to collapse. The rotator cuff muscles can work more efficiently to stabilize the shoulder from that angle compared to having the elbow closer to the center-line. Also, being right in front of the opponent may leave you "meeting force" more directly which is also more likely to collapse the Bong compared to stepping off of the line as Phil is doing in both clips so that the Bong is truly more of a deflecting action.

Now could Phil have used the Pak Sau or the Cheun Sau in that first clip as you suggest? I think so! Always good to have multiple options available! ;)

That clip you shared is another good example of the "flanking strategy" in TWC. Too bad we can't see his footwork! :D

LFJ

04-11-2017, 07:55 AM

I think distance is a factor. In the clip that started this thread Phil is standing a bit further away from his partner.

All the more reason to not need bong-sau as a first response.

KPM

04-11-2017, 08:18 AM

All the more reason to not need bong-sau as a first response.

Your hands are low, the opponent is closing in, and his angle of attack is essentially crossing your bridge....that much at least can justify Bong as a first response in my opinion.

LFJ

04-11-2017, 08:43 AM

Your hands are low, the opponent is closing in, and his angle of attack is essentially crossing your bridge....that much at least can justify Bong as a first response in my opinion.

That doesn't describe the situation in the original video.

Sihing73

04-11-2017, 10:37 AM

Hello,

To my way of thinking Bong is not a move which you present, rather Bong is the shape which is the result of the incoming energy from the opponent.

I was always taught to accept what the opponent gives me and to form a response based on that.
The only time I would try to present or go with a specific movement would be if I were going to crash or try to overwhelm my opponent. Although, using that methodology I would probably use Silat to attack.

KPM

04-11-2017, 10:41 AM

Hello,

To my way of thinking Bong is not a move which you present, rather Bong is the shape which is the result of the incoming energy from the opponent.
.

Ah! But then the question becomes.....does the "incoming energy" have to be actual physical contact, or can that energy already be influencing your response prior to contact?

Sihing73

04-11-2017, 10:50 AM

Ah! But then the question becomes.....does the "incoming energy" have to be actual physical contact, or can that energy already be influencing your response prior to contact?

To form a technique, which is physical, then the action must be physical contact.
This is one of the main reasons to practice Chi Sau as it trains one to be sensitive and react to the energy given.
If you form movements/shapes without contact then you can be faked out and also could result in chasing hands.

There are indeed mental aspects of any conflict. A truly gifted fighter can influence the mind of his opponent and perhaps get them to react in a certain way. However, the actual physical response should be a result of actual physical contact, imho.

KPM

04-11-2017, 11:03 AM

To form a technique, which is physical, then the action must be physical contact.
This is one of the main reasons to practice Chi Sau as it trains one to be sensitive and react to the energy given.
If you form movements/shapes without contact then you can be faked out and also could result in chasing hands.

.

In TWC there is a "pre-contact" phase. This is the "reading the opponent" part or even the "setting up the opponent" part. I agree with what you are saying as applying in a self-defense situation where you are surprised by an attack. But if you are "squared off" with someone and an exchange is inevitable, I think there is room to read what the opponent is doing and respond before any contact is made. Boxers and kickboxers do this all the time. For instance, you have time to see a wide loopy blow coming and so you respond with a Biu before any contact is made. Or you see a very straight punch coming up the center and you respond with a Pak before any contact is made. And in both cases you might already be using specific footwork as part of the response. So IMHO, I think one can be sensing and reading the energy from an opponent prior to any contact.

I think this idea of Chi Sau teaching everything, and not responding until contact is made, is one of the reasons that Wing Chun is sometimes criticized as having no "long-range or outside game."

Sihing73

04-11-2017, 11:18 AM

In TWC there is a "pre-contact" phase. This is the "reading the opponent" part or even the "setting up the opponent" part. I agree with what you are saying as applying in a self-defense situation where you are surprised by an attack. But if you are "squared off" with someone and an exchange is inevitable, I think there is room to read what the opponent is doing and respond before any contact is made. Boxers and kickboxers do this all the time. For instance, you have time to see a wide loopy blow coming and so you respond with a Biu before any contact is made. Or you see a very straight punch coming up the center and you respond with a Pak before any contact is made. And in both cases you might already be using specific footwork as part of the response. So IMHO, I think one can be sensing and reading the energy from an opponent prior to any contact.

I think this idea of Chi Sau teaching everything, and not responding until contact is made, is one of the reasons that Wing Chun is sometimes criticized as having no "long-range or outside game."

I never said Chi Sau teaches everything, it helps to train attributes which can be useful in fighting. However, Chi Sau is not fighting and is not even needed to be a good fighter.

I think that the idea of pre contact is valid, however trying to set up your response to what you believe the opponent will do can be a dangerous game.
In Silat we will often mirror our opponent in training and we will utilize various fakes to draw them out. However, once contact is made it is a different story.

To me, it does not matter what the opponent does as they have to enter one of my gates in order to attack.
If you position yourself properly then you minimize the avenues open to attack and thus limit what the opponent can actually do.
Think of a military tactic where you funnel the enemy and make them attack in a certain way and place. This is what the proper presentation of the Wu and Man and stance will accomplish. It will help to limit how the opponent can reach you.
Of course, nothing is perfect and a skilled fighter can draw one out.

Keep in mind that for your opponent to harm you they have to get to you. To do this they have to enter one of your gates.
So, whether you respond with a Pak, Bong or whatever will depend on what is presented, after your gate is entered. If you train to respond prior to your gate being breached then, imo, you could fall into the trap of chasing hands.

As to a wide looping blow coming in, my preferred response would be to move in and hit the opponent and not worry so much about the looping incoming blow. Same with jamming a kick, by moving in and attacking you not only will often nuetralize the attack but also harm the attacker.

I remember once asking Leung Ting the best way to deal with one of my Pekiti Tirsia training partners. His response was "no worry just hit them in the nose". If you train to attack and drive forward you may find you can beat even those more "technically" skilled than yourself.

Of course, this is just my opinion based on my training and experiences. Does not mean it is right for anyone or everyone else. :D

KPM

04-11-2017, 11:57 AM

Sihing73

04-11-2017, 12:56 PM

I never said Chi Sau teaches everything, it helps to train attributes which can be useful in fighting. However, Chi Sau is not fighting and is not even needed to be a good fighter.

---Didn't mean to imply that you did! But we do find this attitude in too many schools that seem to only train Chi Sau and forms.

I think that the idea of pre contact is valid, however trying to set up your response to what you believe the opponent will do can be a dangerous game.
In Silat we will often mirror our opponent in training and we will utilize various fakes to draw them out. However, once contact is made it is a different story.

---Why wouldn't the same apply to Wing Chun?

Certainly can be applied using Wing Chun. I always liked using a Bic Bo to step deeply into my opponent and drive them back disrupting their structure. I just like Silat and using multiple lines, upper and lower

To me, it does not matter what the opponent does as they have to enter one of my gates in order to attack.
If you position yourself properly then you minimize the avenues open to attack and thus limit what the opponent can actually do.

--And I would posit that this is part of reading the opponent's energy or intention prior to any contact.

Perhaps, but to me it does not matter what the opponent does prior to contact. It is only after contact that I care what the opponent does. You can dance around me all day and unless I choose to attack you first my response will only be decided upon contact.

So, whether you respond with a Pak, Bong or whatever will depend on what is presented, after your gate is entered. If you train to respond prior to your gate being breached then, imo, you could fall into the trap of chasing hands.

---I don't necessarily agree with that. It is a possibility, but not one that good training can't overcome. And rather than standing and waiting for the opponent to enter one of your gates, you can moving and to some extent dictate what gate he enters. You might read his energy or intent in the pre-contact phase and adjust your position to make it more favorable for you given what you sense is about to come at you! Or you might use it to draw a specific response that will be easier for you to deal with. But I think this is pretty much what you are saying above, but maybe limiting it to your Silat? I'm just saying that this fits the idea of responding or reacting before contact is made.

But by presenting a strong posture you are limiting the options of entering any gate. In essence you force them to attack in a certain way. Going back to very basic gate theory: With a right Man Sau and Left Wu sau; The opponent has to cros your arms to attack your center and with proper facing/shifting or stance turning, you can force them to enter. If the opponent comes from the outside of your front arm, depending on the energy presented you could react with a Tuan or Bong. If the attack is to the inside or palm side you can use any of the Fook seeds. If the attack is outside the shoulders then it does not matter as he cannot make contact until he enters your space. If you use proper facing then it does not matter if he attacks with a hook, etc as your positioning will provide protection. Of course this relies on you using proper facing so it is not perfect. As I have said before, it is the person and their level of skill which dictates success or failure more than the particular system. Although, some systems provide a better framework than others.

As to a wide looping blow coming in, my preferred response would be to move in and hit the opponent and not worry so much about the looping incoming blow. Same with jamming a kick, by moving in and attacking you not only will often nuetralize the attack but also harm the attacker.

---Nothing wrong with that. I'd probably do the same, but still use the Biu to cover as insurance. But again, are you not responding to what you see coming prior to any contact?

The problem with trying to respond prior to contact is that you really don't know anything. How strong is the attack for example? My approach is to utilize body position and facing to minimize the need to try and anticipate what the opponent is going to do. If they enter my space and attack they need to cross one of my gates. In doing so they make contact and that is what makes my reaction, that contact.

When I was going to the PA State Police Academy they trained boxing. One of my favorite things was to throw a punch which I wanted to be blocked or parried at the wrist area. Once that happened I would rotate my elbow and hit the opponent with a backfist. Now even though everyone knew what I was doing I was able to score just about every time. Mainly because they did not have the sensitivity to change the line once they punched or parried. Still, for this to work I needed to make contact as it was their energy in the block or parry that drove my elbow rotation. Had they blocked or parried in a different way my response would have been different due to the different energy presented.

You can see this in demos where what looks like the same attack is responded to in different ways. It is the energy upon contact which drives the response. So without contact there is no real response only a shadow of what may be. (Wow that takes me back to those old Kung Fu episodes on TV)

guy b.

04-11-2017, 01:04 PM

Perhaps, but to me it does not matter what the opponent does prior to contact. It is only after contact that I care what the opponent does. You can dance around me all day and unless I choose to attack you first my response will only be decided upon contact.

Your wing chun is based upon reacting to contact :confused:?

Sihing73

04-11-2017, 01:17 PM

Your wing chun is based upon reacting to contact :confused:?

Unless I am attacking first, yes.
I prefer contact as the opponent then tells me how to respond.
My opponent shows me how to beat them.

However, I have been thinking of taking up the approach your group seems to promote.
I am going to consult a physic the next time I get into a fight.
That should work just as well as having no "applications" :p

guy b.

04-11-2017, 01:35 PM

Unless I am attacking first, yes.
I prefer contact as the opponent then tells me how to respond.
My opponent shows me how to beat them.

However, I have been thinking of taking up the approach your group seems to promote.
I am going to consult a physic the next time I get into a fight.
That should work just as well as having no "applications" :p

If you don't know something then it is probably better to ask than to guess.

Sihing73

04-11-2017, 01:49 PM

If you don't know something then it is probably better to ask than to guess.

Yet you do not need to "know" in order to be able to respond.
I have been in situations where I was attacked without warning, it was because I did not "know" or have to think that I am still around. That and the Grace of God.

It is pretty hard to explain but it goes to awareness.
When I was younger I started out with Judo and some Karate.
When I was around 12 or 13 I was walking home and going down an alley.
I was not paying particular attention to anything and was kind of zoned out, daydreaming while heading home.
The next thing I knew there was a guy laying on the ground to my side with a board next to him.
He had come up on me and apparently swung the board which I think was a 2X4 or something like that.
I do not even remember seeing him or hitting him but apparently I sensed the threat and responded and dropped him.
He turned out to be a friend of mine playing a joke on me.

I don't try to guess at what my opponent might do, chances are I will get it wrong on be too busy trying to figure it out to respond accordingly.
I find that if I cover an area and try to make any attacks come in a certain area then the attack has to make contact with me and if positioned properly allows me to respond. I also believe strongly in the idea of constant forward energy. Once engage the attack continues until the threat is eliminated.

Of course it is easy to say this on an online forum.
For all you know I could be either a 10 year old girl or the proverbial 90 pound weakling.
Does not mean I know anything even if I can spin it well.

One of my saying is that "knowledge is never wasted".

KPM

04-11-2017, 03:54 PM

When I was going to the PA State Police Academy they trained boxing. One of my favorite things was to throw a punch which I wanted to be blocked or parried at the wrist area. Once that happened I would rotate my elbow and hit the opponent with a backfist. Now even though everyone knew what I was doing I was able to score just about every time. Mainly because they did not have the sensitivity to change the line once they punched or parried. Still, for this to work I needed to make contact as it was their energy in the block or parry that drove my elbow rotation. Had they blocked or parried in a different way my response would have been different due to the different energy presented.

I follow what you are saying Dave. But consider this.....is it not possible to have good timing and sensitivity so that you throw your punch, see the expected block coming, and rotate with the backfist just before contact, actually avoiding contact? Isn't this a "pre-contact" sensitivity to the opponent's energy?

KPM

04-11-2017, 03:56 PM

U

However, I have been thinking of taking up the approach your group seems to promote.
I am going to consult a physic the next time I get into a fight.
That should work just as well as having no "applications" :p

Watch out Dave. I'm sure that comment is considered "trolling" by some here! ;)

guy b.

04-11-2017, 04:03 PM

Watch out Dave. I'm sure that comment is considered "trolling" by some here! ;)

Please stop trolling

Sihing73

04-12-2017, 02:40 AM

I follow what you are saying Dave. But consider this.....is it not possible to have good timing and sensitivity so that you throw your punch, see the expected block coming, and rotate with the backfist just before contact, actually avoiding contact? Isn't this a "pre-contact" sensitivity to the opponent's energy?

Sorry, but I do not believe this is possible and certainly not on a consistent basis in actual combat.
When you throw a punch, unless deliberately throwing a fake, the punch should be real and make contact unless it is intercepted in some way. To throw a punch without doing so fully with the idea of reacting pre contact is not something I view as realistic or practical.

The reason the backfist in my example worked is reliant on the energy given by the opponent once contact was made.

KPM

04-12-2017, 03:29 AM

Sorry, but I do not believe this is possible and certainly not on a consistent basis in actual combat.
When you throw a punch, unless deliberately throwing a fake, the punch should be real and make contact unless it is intercepted in some way. To throw a punch without doing so fully with the idea of reacting pre contact is not something I view as realistic or practical.

.

JKD guys train this fairly regularly. It is part of the "swinging gate" drill. Bruce Lee talked about using Chi Sau skills "pre-contact." It really is no different from a Boxer that throws a jab knowing it will be parried in order to set the opponent up for a cross. If his timing is good, he can snap the jab back before the parry makes contact and then the opponent is even more open for the cross.

"Baiting" the opponent to move in a certain direction or leave an opening is also part of the "pre-contact" phase. That may involve presenting a punch that isn't intended to land, or leaving an opening on purpose to draw a strike in a specific gate, etc. This is all part of effective sparring or "squared off" fighting, and not really part of reactive self defense. So I realize that not everyone trains this way.

Sihing73

04-12-2017, 05:22 AM

JKD guys train this fairly regularly. It is part of the "swinging gate" drill. Bruce Lee talked about using Chi Sau skills "pre-contact." It really is no different from a Boxer that throws a jab knowing it will be parried in order to set the opponent up for a cross. If his timing is good, he can snap the jab back before the parry makes contact and then the opponent is even more open for the cross.

"Baiting" the opponent to move in a certain direction or leave an opening is also part of the "pre-contact" phase. That may involve presenting a punch that isn't intended to land, or leaving an opening on purpose to draw a strike in a specific gate, etc. This is all part of effective sparring or "squared off" fighting, and not really part of reactive self defense. So I realize that not everyone trains this way.

You are welcome to do this if it works for you.
There are certainly times when you would throw a fake to draw the opponent into a specific reaction or position.
I guess the difference is that I was taught that if I throw an attack it is real. If the opponent fails to intercept the attack then they get hit.

As to JKD using this, all I will say is I used to spar with some JKD guys when I was in Philly.
I found them to be disconnected when they sparred. Now they may not have been that good so I try not to judge JKD based on them.
However, I was not that impressed with them.

I guess the difference between what we are talking about is that you seem to be working off the premise of throwing things and then trying to adjust your attack based on the opponents reaction before contact is made. You are hoping to be able to adjust and change mid attack.

I am saying I throw an attack and it will change only if the opponent intercepts it and gives me energy to change into something else. If his interception, for lack of a better word, is weak I may just continue along the same line and hit them. If his energy is stronger than mine then I will change my attack based on what is given. This is why I was doing using the backfist example. Which by the way could end up in several other responses depending on the energy received.

I try not to think when I fight. I train to attack and mold my responses based on what I get back from the opponent.
Of course this is easy to say but kind of hard to explain on an online forum. What I do is based on feeling what the opponent gives me, not what I think I should be doing.

The reality as I see it is that you are far more unlikely to be able to change mid attack with the amount of training that the average person can devote to training today. There is a far greater likelihood of success if you train to respond to contact and the energy you get, plus you can utilize that energy to fuel your response.

I won't say that what you are advocating is not possible, just highly unlikely to work consistently in a real fight.

KPM

04-12-2017, 07:31 AM

I am saying I throw an attack and it will change only if the opponent intercepts it and gives me energy to change into something else. If his interception, for lack of a better word, is weak I may just continue along the same line and hit them. If his energy is stronger than mine then I will change my attack based on what is given. This is why I was doing using the backfist example. Which by the way could end up in several other responses depending on the energy received.

---I don't disagree with that at all. I'm just pointing out that there is room for working in the "pre-contact" phase rather than waiting passively for an opponent's attack to come, or charging in with your own attack. And in my experience, it isn't as hard to "time" a response as you seem to think.

I try not to think when I fight. I train to attack and mold my responses based on what I get back from the opponent.
Of course this is easy to say but kind of hard to explain on an online forum. What I do is based on feeling what the opponent gives me, not what I think I should be doing.

---Again, I think you are hitting on the difference between a "reactive self defense" mindset and a "sparring" or "squared off fighting" mindset. During the actual exchange someone should definitely be responding and reacting without thinking. This is the value of training Chi Sau. But in the "pre contact" phase there is room to apply a strategy that increases your chance of success. This might be positioning a piece of furniture between you and an armed opponent. Or subtly stepping and angling to his blindside as you both move around and jockey for position. Or switching your stance to either match or mis-match with his. Or presenting what appears to be a weakness or opening to bait him into attacking to a certain area or in a certain way, etc. I'll bet when you spar you do some of these kinds of things without really thinking about them as part of your Wing Chun. In TWC and in JKD this area is actually trained more specifically as part of the system.

Sihing73

04-12-2017, 07:48 AM

[B]But in the "pre contact" phase there is room to apply a strategy that increases your chance of success. This might be positioning a piece of furniture between you and an armed opponent. Or subtly stepping and angling to his blindside as you both move around and jockey for position. Or switching your stance to either match or mis-match with his. Or presenting what appears to be a weakness or opening to bait him into attacking to a certain area or in a certain way, etc. I'll bet when you spar you do some of these kinds of things without really thinking about them as part of your Wing Chun. In TWC and in JKD this area is actually trained more specifically as part of the system.

I do not disagree with what you said, however this would, to my thinking be different than throwing an attack and changing said attack prior to contact.
Strategy such as environmental awareness would be a totally different aspect to my mind.

Tactics are one thing but relying on be able to modify your attack which has been launched in relation to what the opponent does after said launch is another thing entirely.

Certainly there are ways to fake out or feint the opponent to make them position themselves for your benefit. Shoot, stepping to the side and into an opponent is a tactic which can be used to accomplish this. But, to throw a punch and change it in mid swing is another matter and that is what you were describing, unless I missed something.

LFJ

04-13-2017, 01:27 AM

Sorry, but I do not believe this is possible and certainly not on a consistent basis in actual combat.
When you throw a punch, unless deliberately throwing a fake, the punch should be real and make contact unless it is intercepted in some way. To throw a punch without doing so fully with the idea of reacting pre contact is not something I view as realistic or practical.

Good. It surprises me to hear this on a Wing Chun forum!

I often hear Wing Chun guys say they will throw out a taan-sau, and if unimpeded, it will continue it into a punch!

That means they don't have the intent to punch until almost fully extended, then they have to make the split-second decision to change hand shapes and intent.

An effective punch needs to be thrown with intent from the start.

Same thing with rolling one punch into another type of punch to detour around a defense you see come up after you've already launched. It's fantasy. Fighting doesn't happen in slow-motion allowing you to make such fine and perfectly timed adjustments.

Throwing a setup punch and transitioning into a real punch you intend to make count is a different story from throwing a punch you intend to land and expecting to make a reactive detour with it mid-attack.