block uppercut sow choy

[green_willow]

if he thinks it takes great skills to block a boxers jab then that indicates where his skill levels are, or indicates how good i am.

Is this the part where you underestaimate your opponent and get cleaned out?

did this kid just see the effin light? and why is trying teach us anything when most of us have devoted our lives to gung fu?

Boxers have spent their lives perfecting their jabs. A lot of good boxers are street fighters in the past. What they lack in formal training they have gained the same level of understanding if not more through experience.

[TenTigers]

no, I suspect that Green Willow has done quite a bit of sparring, but perhaps in a point-fighting, or kickboxing scenerio. Gung-Fu sparring is like streetfighting-meaning, there is usually no setting up your opponent, no feeling him out, there are no gaps, no time to see his footwork, which leg is forward, etc. Once it's on, it's on, and it doesn't stop until it's over. Gung-Fu is all about being totally relentless. There is no stick and move, shuck and jive in Gung-Fu. Ok, not to contradict myself, but yes, you can stick and move and then open up a barrage-which then becomes relentless. When two people are doing this, it looks like total slop, which is why people say that even when Masters fight, it does not look pretty.That is unless a master is fighting a beginner. THEN it looks cool as heck!

[hskwarrior]

agreed .....

[green_willow]

no, I suspect that Green Willow has done quite a bit of sparring, but perhaps in a point-fighting, or kickboxing scenerio. Gung-Fu sparring is like streetfighting-meaning, there is usually no setting up your opponent, no feeling him out, there are no gaps, no time to see his footwork, which leg is forward, etc. Once it's on, it's on, and it doesn't stop until it's over. Gung-Fu is all about being totally relentless. There is no stick and move, shuck and jive in Gung-Fu. Ok, not to contradict myself, but yes, you can stick and move and then open up a barrage-which then becomes relentless. When two people are doing this, it looks like total slop, which is why people say that even when Masters fight, it does not look pretty.That is unless a master is fighting a beginner. THEN it looks cool as heck!

That's an interesting take on Kung fu. Don't get me wrong - I don't do point sparring but at the same time I try to set up the opponent best way possible. I agree with you to be as relentless as possible but at the same time be as flexible as possible. Yes I do care about which leg is forward - because it affect body movement / leverage / distancing etc.

If you just go in - how do you know you're not walking into a trap? If you can bait your opponent how do you know your opponent is not baiting you?

[hskwarrior]

thats what choy lee fut was made for stupid ass.

see you shouldn't talk about gung fu if you got no gung fu background. at atll, so if anyones being a troll its your bumlin' ass.

[green_willow]

thats what choy lee fut was made for stupid ass.

see you shouldn't talk about gung fu if you got no gung fu background. at atll, so if anyones being a troll its your bumlin' ass.

It is the fighter who makes the fight not the style. At least it shouldn't be anyway. Maybe you jsut can see the broader picture of how to use your techniques.

But if that is truely rep. of your style the bigger guy will most likely win. pretty crap to be the smaller guy ha?

[htowndragon]

chu chuan bu liu ching, liu ching bu chu chuan

strike then dont have mercy, have mercy then dont strike

[htowndragon]

green willow, i understand what you mean by weight in the backfoot, but you need to listen to people who've used it.

the problem with the backfoot is that if u have ur intent on the backfoot, u will be driven back, you will lose your root, and you will be downed.

if your weight is in the front foot you become immobile. and slower. the transition from back foot weight to front foot weight generates power. weight on front foot also means risking gettin swept.

i use the 60/40 stance, with my intent FORWARD, as the opening stance. when in striking range i use gong bu. in gong bao tians ba gua, we train gong bu as our main "horse".

and ya im 18, and i train to fight, i know what im talkin about.

[Infrazael]

both Hung Kuen and CLF likes to crash guards, CLF even moreso if I may say. I say this because it appears, from all of the Hung Kuen I've seen (both real life and in sparring videos), they like to "bridge" and then work their way from there. . . . . it doesn't necessarily have to be "attacking" the guard. Also, alot of times when they attack they'll stick to you and push through that way, like a bulldozer.

CLF on the other hand, will just crash into your guard from the get-go. It's noted that all Gwa, Sau and Kup choys are indeed "bridges" they are not anything that sticks; you strike, knock his limbs away, and attack. There is no adhering or sticking, unlike Hung Kuen or Wing Chun.

[green_willow]

green willow, i understand what you mean by weight in the backfoot, but you need to listen to people who've used it.

the problem with the backfoot is that if u have ur intent on the backfoot, u will be driven back, you will lose your root, and you will be downed.

if your weight is in the front foot you become immobile. and slower. the transition from back foot weight to front foot weight generates power. weight on front foot also means risking gettin swept.

i use the 60/40 stance, with my intent FORWARD, as the opening stance. when in striking range i use gong bu. in gong bao tians ba gua, we train gong bu as our main "horse".

and ya im 18, and i train to fight, i know what im talkin about.

Yes I know what you mean - I've also played around with the backfoot weight but intent forward idea.

But I prefer frontfoot weighted + forward intent. I don't find that I lose mobility - in fact it improves mobility going forward or back. I would need to go back if there is an obstuction from going forward otherwise there is no need to go back.

Therefore the opponent provides the need to go back... not me.

both Hung Kuen and CLF likes to crash guards, CLF even moreso if I may say. I say this because it appears, from all of the Hung Kuen I've seen (both real life and in sparring videos), they like to "bridge" and then work their way from there. . . . . it doesn't necessarily have to be "attacking" the guard. Also, alot of times when they attack they'll stick to you and push through that way, like a bulldozer.

CLF on the other hand, will just crash into your guard from the get-go. It's noted that all Gwa, Sau and Kup choys are indeed "bridges" they are not anything that sticks; you strike, knock his limbs away, and attack. There is no adhering or sticking, unlike Hung Kuen or Wing Chun.

You can attack and stick or stick without attacking or attacking without sticking. I would have thought they are all variations of bridging (if that's waht you want to call it). Why doesn't CLF want to stick? In some situations it helps to gain control.

[Infrazael]

Yes I know what you mean - I've also played around with the backfoot weight but intent forward idea.

But I prefer frontfoot weighted + forward intent. I don't find that I lose mobility - in fact it improves mobility going forward or back. I would need to go back if there is an obstuction from going forward otherwise there is no need to go back.

Therefore the opponent provides the need to go back... not me.



You can attack and stick or stick without attacking or attacking without sticking. I would have thought they are all variations of bridging (if that's waht you want to call it). Why doesn't CLF want to stick? In some situations it helps to gain control.

Two different styles, two different methods of attack. CLF prefers to overwhelm and strike from all sorts of odd angles, slip between guards with pantherfists, and "invade" forcefully through your "gates."

We don't "stick" because by sticking, we are not able to constantly launch a barrage of attacks or combinations. However I'm sure some of the more Senior CLF people will tell you that we also have alot of "sticking" techniques, grabs, holds, throws, and sweeps.

BTW about the back-front leg weight distrubition; I find it if I was just playing around, Muay Thai defensive kicking stance is best as I can just kick and kick without actually hurting them (not seriously, just pain). But if I had to fight for real, I'd use my CLF-Boxing stance, about 60-40 leaning forward. I use a very loose, mobile horse-ish stance.

[green_willow]

Two different styles, two different methods of attack. CLF prefers to overwhelm and strike from all sorts of odd angles, slip between guards with pantherfists, and "invade" forcefully through your "gates."

We don't "stick" because by sticking, we are not able to constantly launch a barrage of attacks or combinations. However I'm sure some of the more Senior CLF people will tell you that we also have alot of "sticking" techniques, grabs, holds, throws, and sweeps.

Sounds good. It seems CLF does have sticking depending on one's preference - maybe at a more advance level from how you described it.

Would you think that if you stick and gain control from the bridge you can open up even more angles for your other strikes? because it makes it harder to defend agaisnt a strike when taken off balanced or trapped.

Another possibility is to go in hard as you describe but stick & control on the way out. It's effective, do you do it?

But if I had to fight for real, I'd use my CLF-Boxing stance, about 60-40 leaning forward. I use a very loose, mobile horse-ish stance.

Yes I like that position as well and leaning slightly forward.

[Ou Ji]

green_willow
Wow. After reading this thread I take back what I said on the other one. You are being civilized.

I see that it's not your preferred way to fight but others find it useful. There are pros and cons to every stance, technique and strategy so you find what works for you and train from there.

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

[TenTigers]

Years ago, people trained as some do in present times. They got together with Martial Artists of various systems and exchanged techniques. In other situations, they fought other Martial Artists of different styles. This eventually led to the formulation of specific tactics to deal with the prevalent fighting techniques. Many Southern styles-prefer to stick to the bridge, therefore to combat these people, a different approach was neccesary. Choy Li fut, pesessing the same long arm striking methods, developed the anti-bridge appraoch-if you attempt to stick to a CLF stylist, he will shift and withdraw the bridge and replace it with a strike from another angle. (followed by another, and another...) This is why many Hung Kuen practitioners also studied CLF, and vice-versa. This may also explain styles like Jow-Ga-Hung Tao/Choy Mei-Head of Hung, Tail of Choy. In the line of Hung Kuen I practice, the past few generations had also studied both, as did I. This is why I personally relate to both Hung Kuen and Choy Li Fut.

[Infrazael]

Green Willow, another reason why I study western boxing to compliment my Choy Lay Fut striking.

Since we are the "non-sticking" oddball of the Southern Fist family, learn the striking pattern of boxing doesn't have any negative impacts with the style. All I see it is as adding some extra punches to our arsenal, like shovel uppercuts, overhands, hooks, and power crosses mostly.

The footwork and theory of rooting vs. pivoting for me is NOT a "static" one. . . . . meaning you don't have to "only use one" in a real-world fighting situation. Rooting or Pivoting (boxing) IMO are to be used depending on the technique, situation, distance, etc.

If they are far away and open up, I'm going to give them a hard right cross or overhand, meaning I'll pivot for the extended reach and power. If I were do use a Kup Choy, I'd root and sink as I strike. All three punches (cross, overhand, kup choy) are long-range attacks, and I'll have to pick depending on the angle of his opening, my body positioning relative to his, etc.

Hope that makes sense.