Traditional Wing Chun- getting the blindside

[guy b.]

TWC is a martial art style based loosely upon VT. It is a technique based style and one of the main stated approaches is attempting to attain the blind side using arm engagement and stepping around while maintaining distance.

For example:


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

This approach in TWC appears more concerned with maintaining distance than attacking centre. It is heavily focused on arm contact.

[guy b.]

Superficially the TWC approach is similar to the Sabaki method used in Enshin and Ashihara karate, which are Kyokushin offshoots.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-aV5SnnENM

The main difference is that Sabaki works to achieve blind side in real time vs resisting opponents (albeit Kyokushin opponents with limited lateral movement), whereas videos of TWC never show this happening. The reason for this difference is that Sabaki stresses a sleeve grip on the gi to prevent the opponent re-facing, has much deeper and more effective stepping patterns, and is not focused on playing with the arms. Sabaki type karate styles also utilise standard karate type rotational hitting whereby the sleeve grip loads up the other side to strike, allowing a strong kuzushi to effect the opponent's balance, while TWC appears more concerned with arm play which does not affect the opponent.

In conclusion the TWC approach appears more a way of maintaining distance and avoiding the opponent than of attacking via the blindside.

Thoughts?

[LFJ]

In conclusion the TWC approach appears more a way of maintaining distance and avoiding the opponent than of attacking via the blindside.

A couple videos from the man himself I hadn't seen before show this rather clearly.

Lots of predictable circling around and around at arms' length while swatting at the arms and never moving in to attack center.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndhjwSXTrz4

[LFJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG1WC982Ma8
..........

[guy b.]

A couple videos from the man himself I hadn't seen before show this rather clearly.

Lots of predictable circling around and around at arms' length while swatting at the arms and never moving in to attack center.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndhjwSXTrz4

Hmm, yes he doesn't really engage centre at all. He steps back to maintain distance in fact. Working at this range, and with this approach, the only way to affect the opponent's balance and movement is to grab his sleeve as in the Sabaki karate clip. Messing with arms that can withdraw at any time does nothing.

[LFJ]

Hmm, yes he doesn't really engage centre at all. He steps back to maintain distance in fact. Working at this range, and with this approach, the only way to affect the opponent's balance and movement is to grab his sleeve as in the Sabaki karate clip. Messing with arms that can withdraw at any time does nothing.

Correct. It's trading punches at arms' length. Not something to suggest against a good boxer.
The constant circling to outside the opponent's lead leg gets very predictable, very soon, too.

The whole strategy can be shut down with lateral movement to cut his circle off and keep him in front of the boxer.
If you want to then maintain distance and swat at every punch, the boxer is the puppeteer pulling your strings and will set you up.

[Sihing73]

Curious, could you guys post something showing you engaging with a Boxer so we can see how it should be done.
Funny how you always put down TWC but they have people who have actually fought both on the street and in the ring.
Who have you fought again?? :rolleyes:

Also funny how you seem to imply that TWC is "loosely" based on VT yet William Cheung studied under Yip Man.
TWC also has the centerline and motherline theories as well as the forms and core techniques like Taun, Fook and Bong. While you may not agree with the approach, your lack of agreement with how TWC, or any other lineage, does something does not make it wrong or in any way inferior to your approach.

[LFJ]

Curious, could you guys post something showing you engaging with a Boxer so we can see how it should be done.
Funny how you always put down TWC but they have people who have actually fought both on the street and in the ring.
Who have you fought again?? :rolleyes:

Criticism is not valid unless the critic can do and has done better, and can demonstrate it on video.
Otherwise, no need to even consider the criticism, right?

Can we say ad hominem?


Also funny how you seem to imply that TWC is "loosely" based on VT yet William Cheung studied under Yip Man.

Why is that funny? He obviously didn't receive much, or has greatly changed what he received to now only be loosely based on YMVT. It is undeniably very different.


While you may not agree with the approach, your lack of agreement with how TWC, or any other lineage, does something does not make it wrong or in any way inferior to your approach.

That has clearly not been claimed here.

TWC methods have been considered on their own, and criticisms have been purely technical.

[Sihing73]

LFJ,

Your criticism of TWC is based on your perception of what would or would not work.
As there are people who have shown an ability to make TWC work for them, whether or not you agree, I would propose that the issue is less with TWC and more with your inability to understand and make their approach work for you.

Now that does not mean there is something wrong with you or you are in any way less than someone who can use TWC. It simply means you are unable to utilize their approach. Could be a myriad of reasons such as:
1) Not knowledgeable of the system or approach to make it work.
2) Lack of coordination
3) Poor muscle memory
4) Just not smart enough to grasp the concepts.
I could list others but I think you get the idea.

Is TWC perfect, I highly doubt it but then again it is not the approach I train.
However, as I have said on many occasions, each approach has someone who can make it work for them.

Based on the seemingly hard wired need for you and Guy to consistently attack TWC and KPM, I am kind of wondering if this is some kind of love triangle where you got burned. :eek:

[LFJ]

Further ad hominem...

There is no evidence online that anyone can get this method to work, as it is not seen even in the many available fight videos online.

There could be someone getting it to work who has not been caught on film, I suppose, but that is unverifiable, and I don't even know who this person is to investigate.

[Sihing73]

Further ad hominem...

There is no evidence online that anyone can get this method to work, as it is not seen even in the many available fight videos online.

There could be someone getting it to work who has not been caught on film, I suppose, but that is unverifiable, and I don't even know who this person is.

While I am not a TWC guy these people have been known to have fought and also produced fighters;

Phillip Redmond
Rick Spain

I am sure there are more but I do not have the inclination to find more.

My position is that if you want to constantly attack something as not working you should be able to provide examples of yourself or your approach working.

The real question is does anyone other than yourself and guy really care?? Me included ;)

[LFJ]

While I am not a TWC guy these people have been known to have fought and also produced fighters;

Phillip Redmond
Rick Spain

Doesn't mean they used the blindside method. I've never seen it happen on any fight video from TWC.

Also, I know Phil likes to brush people off by telling them he used to fight competitively, but he would never answer when asked for verification, and I've not been able to find any record of it.


My position is that if you want to constantly attack something as not working you should be able to provide examples of yourself or your approach working.

If you close your eyes and ignore the possibly valid criticism if the person pointing it out doesn't show themselves, this is just an ad hominem.


The real question is does anyone other than yourself and guy really care?? Me included ;)

If you don't care, don't post. Sounds like you're wasting your time on something you don't care about?

[Sihing73]

If you don't care, don't post. Sounds like you're wasting your time on something you don't care about?

I am just kind of bored today and this is something to do.
Plus, I always disliked bullies and trolls who always attack others they do not like.

[LFJ]

I am just kind of bored today and this is something to do.
Plus, I always disliked bullies and trolls who always attack others they do not like.

Who have I attacked that I don't like?

Kind of seems like that's what you're doing with all the ad hominems in response to a technical discussion.

[guy b.]

I always disliked bullies and trolls who always attack others they do not like.

Critically discussing something is not bullying or trolling.

[Bino TWT]

I will say that the TWC approach is very... different than what we do. But if they make that work for them, then more power to them.

Yes, the TWC method is very different than what Yip Man taught (every lineage is different in some way). There are reasons for this, depending who you ask. If you ask William Cheung, he'll tell you that it's because Yip Man wanted him to be his successor and only taught him the complete authentic "traditional" Wing Chun, and taught everyone else the watered down commercial version. If you ask any of Yip Man's other students, they'll tell you that he was just a kid and only trained with Yip Man for a few years before he left Hong Kong, then kinda made it up as he went along, and filled in the gaps with bits and pieces of Wing Chun from other non-Yip Man branches before coming out and claiming to be the "best in the world" with the "only real Wing Chun".

All lineage politics and mudslinging aside (because they all have something bad to say about everyone else lol), the fact remains that his system is very different for whatever reason.

I personally do not subscribe to the way they do things, but a lot of people swear by it. Just another path up the same mountain, I suppose.

[Wayfaring]

Curious, could you guys post something showing you engaging with a Boxer so we can see how it should be done.
Funny how you always put down TWC but they have people who have actually fought both on the street and in the ring.
Who have you fought again?? :rolleyes:

Also funny how you seem to imply that TWC is "loosely" based on VT yet William Cheung studied under Yip Man.
TWC also has the centerline and motherline theories as well as the forms and core techniques like Taun, Fook and Bong. While you may not agree with the approach, your lack of agreement with how TWC, or any other lineage, does something does not make it wrong or in any way inferior to your approach.

This.

William Cheung himself says that he learned TWC from Yip Man later on in his life.

We believe him.