the concept of covering

[mthandz]

Originally posted by yuanfen
if the attacker is on your so called blind side- you have made a mistake already- ...

Sometimes the other guy is more skillfuly and then I am in a bad situtatiation.

[churn-ging]

The concept of covering doesn't equal protecting the centerline.

In wing chun we should always be protecting our centerline. But there are times when your centerline just isn't directly facing your opponent due to you making a mistake, your opponent having better footwork than you, are whatever. These are the times when "covering your open gates" is used more often. I don't know about you, but I'm human and will probably make a mistake in a fight. And when I do make a mistake, I would rather cover my open gates and minimize the damage that is done to me than to have to take a full power strike. Now, when I'm covering if I make contact with the strike on my arm, I'm not just going to stand there, I'm going to go and launch an attack of my own. If I don't make contact with my arms, then I'm just going to launch an attack of my own, no questions asked.

Seems like some of you don't practice this concept and some of you do. That's fine by me, just try to keep the hostililty down and converse in a friendly manner. That's all I ask.

[Sabu]

I really don't understand the need to practice covering... If you've lost your position, it takes the same amount of time to regain it as is does to "cover" it. Why waste motions and training time?

[S.Teebas]

I would rather cover my open gates and minimize the damage that is done to me than to have to take a full power strike.

Yep, so would i if they were the only 2 options avaliable. But i think what everyone here is trying to get at....is there are better options avaliable.

Rather than a strictly defensive movement, it is possible to attack at this moment, while staying safe.

[Mr Punch]

I don't understand the semantics of this argument...

If you need to regain your position because you've made a mistake and your structure is poor, then you are covering automatically while taking your opponent's centreline and striking...? Surely, it's all the same as basic centreline theory?

The 'cover' is a 'regain' is a 'block/trap' is a 'strike/centreline disruption'! What's the difference? Your centreline should be covered by your strikes (= your gates should be covered as you move...)

[yuanfen]

churn jing: no hostility. Trying to have a serious discussion.

Mat: Covering up is not the same as attacking. Look at the picture
that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Looked more like cowering. The person was still far away and the kick was still not near landing.You have a jammed up kwan sao and a knee up- waiting for the kick to land.A recipe for disaster.

I can understand covering when punches are really raining down on you. thats a differnt scenario. I dont se how "covering" is a significant general concept. At the most it is something that you do when you dont have a choice and things are already raining on you. Preposterous to call it a general concept. Of course I could be wrong. No hostility churn jing. Just frankness.

[Mr Punch]

Joy: sorry, I've checked the whole thread again, and I can't find the pic link, or ref. So, I'm working on my own visualisation...

Hate to nitpick, but I didn't say covering was the same as attacking, I said it was the same as striking... I don't like to use 'attacking' as a conceptual tool: it detracts from the automatic unthinking response of feeding into a space with the nearest weapon.

I didn't put it very well anyway (sorry!), but let's try an example: someone turns a (left) bong into an elbow strike, flowing into downward elbow energy, crushing back through your centreline, trapping both of your arms AND you lose your balance and structure going backwards (terrible I know! How could this happen!? )

SO, you step back and sideways a little, let his energy come through (hopefully overextending him a little) and send out a man sau whilst pivoting back towards your right to regain your centreline and connect to his... The man covers your centreline, but of course, he is very close so you employ a little extra energy to disrupt HIS centreline. SO, a covering man becomes an uprooting man if he is too heavy with his pressure. If his arms are too light, or his structure is still weak, he will lose his centreline and your man becomes a strike to his head. At no point do you lose contact: you just change the nature of that contact.

This is just one example of a great many off the top of my head, but one which illustrates (sorry if a little clumsily) what I thought everyone meant by covering. It is not meant to illustrate a technique, but is using the description of a technique to suggest 'sending out the feelers' and turning those 'feelers' into the weapons they should be, for the sake of efficiency of movement: ie the basic centreline principle, and striking with the nearest weapon.

[Mr Punch]

Bah! Too much theory! Somebody just fight me!

[mun hung]

We can debate till we're all dead, and we still would'nt be able to prove any points from this medium. (internet) Until you can meet with someone in person who has a good grasp of what "covering" is and can demonstrate it's efficiency and effectiveness - you will not understand it.

For those of you who are attending the New York City Wing Chun gathering - I could give a demonstration of it there.

[mthandz]

I found this, on covering. imo It is very well written and to the point.

is qi sau covering exist in other branches of shaolin systems

mthandz

[vingtsunstudent]

'For example, in fighting, when I throw a punch with my lead hand and someone does a pak sau on my outside arm (or snaps my arm down) instead of fighting against the force as in blocking I will let my forearm go down with him and my elbow will rise up to become a bon sau and jam forward as a first defense. With my other arm, automatically I will cover my open area with a tan sau behind the bon sau as the secondary defense (cover). In other words you have two covers. I am covering the space that I could possibly get hit (the upper part of my body). Because he is knocking my hand down he is not going to hit me low. If he knocks my hand down and does punch me my arm will stop his attacking hand and if he does not punch, my hand is there covering the space anyway. All this training is basically from chi sau.'
THIS IS CHASING HANDS.

'If he knocks my hand down and does punch me my arm will stop his attacking hand and if he does not punch, my hand is there covering the space anyway'

if he doen't punch, well you should have already hit him

my hand is there covering the space anyway, what are you waiting for? are you waiting for him to strike

my hand is there covering the space anyway. the free hands should be attacking not waiting just in case

i'm truely sorry if i offend anyone here but i think you need a hell of a lot better reasons than those given to justify what you call covering when there are odviously wasted movements.
vts

[Sabu]

Originally posted by mun hung
Until you can meet with someone in person who has a good grasp of what "covering" is and can demonstrate it's efficiency and effectiveness - you will not understand it.

Perhaps there is nothing to understand, worthy of discussion or demonstration.

[yuanfen]

we may have covered the subject unless red5angel or others add an angle that folks may have missed.

[mthandz]

Originally posted by Sabu


Perhaps there is nothing to understand, worthy of discussion or demonstration.

Then again, perhaps Galileos copernican experiments wernt worthy of discussion with his peers. who knows

\^o^/
mthands
(heretic)

[Sabu]

Hardly a comparison.