Whipping Hand says this..

[S.Teebas]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Having a proper punch will uproot if you want it to. However, it also gives you the liberty of obtaining the result that you choose, which may not be to uproot.
[/quote]

Ok that other thread was getting pretty full so i'll contuinue our talk on punching here.

----------
So Whipping Hand...dont you agree that a proper punch will up-root all times?? (by up-root i mean when contact is made, the opponent is shaken so hard that he/she will loose balance and stability/grounding)

And what use is there for the punch other that to unload the maxium amount of force into the opponent?

My understanding of WHY im punching is to cause damage to the other guy, and with correct structure on and focusing etc... i believe that up-rooting will occur when i punch.

Any thoughts??

S.Teebas

[Duncan]

It would be Heaven indeed if every punch landed/reached target and heavily damaged.

Sometimes a punch can be used to open a guard - you can use the punch with intent, but know that in reality (perhaps as an initial attack) it will be stopped. Here the aim would be alter an opponents structure, open the guard and leave a passage through to a more open target.

Such an attack could even by implemented by the original attacking hand - if you were, for example, to slip the guard with a palm strike.

Just my opinion, I'm not Whipping Hand... but I'm working on it. :)

Talking of which... where is the Whipper?

*I just meet what I would be if I wasd a hot women attracted to me* - Unity (message on general Kung Fu forum)

*Fook the lot of 'em*

[[Censored]]

My understanding of WHY im punching is to cause damage to the other guy, and with correct structure on and focusing etc... i believe that up-rooting will occur when i punch.

You said it yourself. Uprooting is a method; not THE method, and certainly not the goal, which is to destroy the opponent.

[whippinghand]

Ok, Teebas. I misunderstood.

I agree, for the most part, the intention IS to uproot(by your definition). But not necessarily with the same result each time. That's what I meant about options... You want the ability to decide how the aggressor will be uprooted. I don't mean the method one will use to uproot. The method you CHOOSE will be based on the result that you want. The COMMON outcome of most of the results desired, will be the uprootedness.

Duncan, I don't think that punching with the expectation that it will be stopped, is a safe attitude to have. That's fine for chi sau, but in a realistic situation, there's more at stake.

[straight blast]

Once you're uprooted, you're ROOTED. Once you lose that strong structure you're almost inevitably going to start going backwards, and that is where you're going to start losing. I think if you can uproot someone with a punch then all the better...

[black and blue]

No fight is a safe situation, regardless of outlook. At some point you're probably going to get hit :)

I agree that you can't throw punches with the expectation of them all missing target (unless you're ****ed - ****ed=drunk in the UK):p

But... closing the gap, trying to bridge... your first strike, unless like lightening, will probably be stopped, deflected.

If this wasn't the case we'd be practising a "one strike" martial art. It usually takes more than "one" hit to down an opponent, and by the same token, one must expect not only to take a knock yourself, but also for some of your attacks to meet an obstacle (other than the intended target :D )

In this light, punches can be used open-up a target. God-**** the people we fight, they always get a guard up which we have to strip down.

Duncan - Previously "Black and Blue" before the new fangled site changes!

[whippinghand]

Originally posted by black and blue
No fight is a safe situation, regardless of outlook. At some point you're probably going to get hit :)
Yes, not safe for the aggressor, if you know what you're doing.

But... closing the gap, trying to bridge... your first strike, unless like lightening, will probably be stopped, deflected.
Why would YOU be trying to bridge the first strike?

If this wasn't the case we'd be practising a "one strike" martial art.
Most Wing Chun practitioners today ARE practising a "one strike" method in the guise of simultaneity that Wing Chun is supposed to be.

It usually takes more than "one" hit to down an opponent, and by the same token, one must expect not only to take a knock yourself, but also for some of your attacks to meet an obstacle (other than the intended target :D )
Because of what I wrote in my prior statement, this is true more than it should be.

[black and blue]

B'Jesus... I'm back to black and blue. Identity crisis breaking.

Whipping Hand... your post is more Canadian than you'll ever know:)

I think you understood my meaning of 'one hit', and it wasn't about offence and defense as one. :rolleyes:

Naturally, I wouldn't want to bridge if I could make the hit, which is, of course, what we're all aiming for. My point was that if our initial strike always hit target, the world would be a perfect place.

If it doesn't hit target, a bridge should be established, and we can benefit from the 'less than successful' strike by using it open up an opponents guard.

I stand by my comments regarding a 'safe situation'.:mad: ;)

Attacking or defending - neither is safe - none of us are Jackie Chan (not even Jackie Chan is Jackie Chan)

WH - Where do you train? Every now and then I pop over to Ontario to see friends in Toronto and Ottawa. Looking for a club to get bruised in when I'm over. Any suggestions?

[whippinghand]

Originally posted by black and blue
Whipping Hand... your post is more Canadian than you'll ever know:)
How so...?

I think you understood my meaning of 'one hit', and it wasn't about offence and defense as one.
Yes, that is what I understood. And I still maintain what I wrote: "Most Wing Chun practitioners today ARE practising a "one strike" method (as you meant it, black and blue) in the guise of the simultaneity that Wing Chun is supposed to be. "

Naturally, I wouldn't want to bridge if I could make the hit, which is, of course, what we're all aiming for. My point was that if our initial strike always hit target, the world would be a perfect place.
Proper timing and a different focus(a self-removal of the sparring mentality - full contact or light), would take care of that problem.

If it doesn't hit target, a bridge should be established, and we can benefit from the 'less than successful' strike by using it open up an opponents guard.
At that point there would be no need to open up an opponent's guard. But, basically, you're saying that the chain punch is pointless (is that this topic, or another...?)

I stand by my comments regarding a 'safe situation'.
Attacking or defending - neither is safe - none of us are Jackie Chan (not even Jackie Chan is Jackie Chan)
Proper timing and a different focus(a self-removal of the sparring mentality - full contact or light), would take care of the safety issue too.

Every now and then I pop over to Ontario to see friends in Toronto and Ottawa. Looking for a club to get bruised in when I'm over. Any suggestions?
Your friends are they Wing Chun people? E-mail me, if you do come...