GM of Hadaka Korosu
This is how I "roll":Originally Posted by sihing
Me too.....
You a grappler?
We grapple
YOu a MT fighter?
We do MT.
WC?
We do wc.
I have found that getting beat up by someone in their speciality may not be "realistic"m but its the best way to learn about that system.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !
Banned
"It seems when I was training in TWC, and when I view TWC material, written or video, they emphazise blindside fighting and stepping away most of the time. Even in those recent Cheung video's you posted, with him and Sayah, usually he moves away from Joe when he is attacked, not into him effecting his balance and centerline. e.g.
1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4qKtjk6JHk
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=162NkojmIvI
both instances he steps away from Joe on most occasions, whether attacking or defending. To me when defending and stepping away, you are using distance and space to defend, not structure or feeling, plus it is more movement to move back then have to move in again to regain position. WC is close quarters, why go in & out of range?" (James)
***INTERESTING comments, James...and worthy of a serious answer - especially since you studied TWC for a number of years.
Now I can tell you unequivocally that William Cheung is indeed schooled in moving into his opponent when attacked, thereby affecting his opponent's balance. I've seen him do it - and I've felt him do it to me personally on a number of occasions.
What people seem to forget is that the reputation he acquired as a top notch fighter within Yip Man's Hong Kong circles back in the day was WITH the same concepts, principles, and strategies that WSL used, or anyone else we'd care to mention.
Come in and take his space and balance away when you attack - and blast him with a barrage of punches every chance you have as you're coming in on him. Protect your centerline, attack his center, etc.
If you really want to understand what's going on you need to entertain the following:
THE TWC BLINDSIDE ATTACKING APPROACH - ALONG WITH ITS CORRESPONDING FOOTWORK....AND THE ATTACK THE OPPONENT'S CENTER OF MASS APPROACH BY CONSTANTLY TAKING HIS SPACE AWAY...
are really just two sides of one coin.
Think of the TWC methods as another way to get in safely from longer range - which may or may not be continued to the finish using the TWC stratgey - or (given the changing circumstances) - you switch completely to the COM attack with lots of space taking/unbalancing forward energy and blasting once you've gained very close quarters safely.
William Cheung obviously chose to EMPHASIZE the TWC slightly-longer-range blindside approach with it's corresponding central lines and footwork since this was virtually unheard of in wing chun circles when he did it (back in the early 80's internationally - and within his own Australian school immediately after Yip Man's death in the early 70's)...
and because it makes so much sense from longer ranges - and into the close ranges as well.
You, James...now have a very similar opportunity that I did - since you're now studying the WSL com approach. (With me it was Moy Yat). The day may come when you will take another long look at TWC and synthesize it with the WSL approach.
Last edited by Ultimatewingchun; 11-15-2007 at 12:29 PM.
詠春係一個家庭
We train in both defensive and offensive tactics. You see offensive in the Lei Tai fights.Off course you have to be able to fight in any position, the question is, if you have a choice, do you step in a mirrored position and away from your opponents center axis, or into his center axis x-armed? It seems when I was training in TWC, and when I view TWC material, written or video, they emphazise blindside fighting and stepping away most of the time. Even in those recent Cheung video's you posted, with him and Sayah, usually he moves away from Joe when he is attacked, not into him effecting his balance and centerline. e.g. 1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4qKtjk6JHk
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=162NkojmIvI
both instances he steps away from Joe on most occasions, whether attacking or defending. To me when defending and stepping away, you are using distance and space to defend, not structure or feeling, plus it is more movement to move back then have to move in again to regain position. WC is close quarters, why go in & out of range?
I agree Phil, that this stuff could be shown in person to one another much easier than here, that is why we are limited in our discussions here, even if video is involved
James
Banned
It may not have been in other wing chun circles, but very much so in these arts “Shaolin Kung Fu”, “Choy Li Fot”, “Tai Chi”, “Kali” and many, many other arts as well as sword play, keeping the correct distances so his or her sword can have room too move from position too position same as in “kali…
Mark 19 and 118…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN_pP4OjQ8Y
Ali Rahim.
Registered User
Good post Victor, and I appreciate the way you handled my difference of opinion, by sharing your own views on the how's and why's behind Cheung's ways and his TWC method. Before I go further, the idea in Sigung's WSL system is not to attack the CENTER OF MASS, but rather the CENTER AXIS, there is a difference, and there was a discussion about this just recently on a WSL forum. Now, regarding William Cheung, what I find interesting is that at times I do see him attacking the Center Axis, or something similiar and not the step away and come back in method from time to time in his vids. IMO, Cheung can or could get away with using his preferred method due to his speed and control of technique, the guy is fast and was very athletic in his day. TWC is definetly a Longer Triangle (to borrow a term someone shared with me) WC system, meaning since TWC fights from a longer range, you need more mobility, and less stability. My understanding thru personal experience and what I have been taught, is that the closer you get inside someone's space, the less mobility you will need, with more stability needed in the stance and the need to deflect and keep the center axis still, while attacking your opponents center axis, taking the balance away from them(medium/short triangle fighting). The thing is, in my experience, the further you are away from someone, the easier it is for them to escape or counter what you are doing, simply for the reason that you cannot effect their balance to their core as well far away, you can only move their wrist or arm out of the way, chasing hands persay, which is contrary to standard WC principles.
For me, I will never forget what my first Sifu taught me, and those methods are engrained within my system till the day I die, but now I have further skills to assist me when closer in, and my thoughts today are that more realistic fighting scenerioes happen when you are closer to your opponent, while being more able to take him out and be safe at the sametime
James
FB page Inclusive Ving Tsun
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Inclu...16835268370570
Registered User
Nice positive discussion, and if I may... I would like to add my .02 from a HFY perspective.
I find Victor's statement of calling TWC "blindside" attack and TWC COM attack as two sides of the same coin interesting. As in HFY this clearly would not be the case, and in fact would clearly contradict our principle of economy of motion. Demonstrating once again, that any opinion of TWC and HFY being the same, can only come from a superficial understanding of one or both of these two WC systems.
In HFY we do not have a "blindside" attack. Instead we have Deui Ying and Jeui Ying facings. And they do not have an either/or, "other side of the coin" relationship, but rather a co-existing interdependance in amongst themselves.
In WC, many share the understanding of not moving unless you have to. In HFY, this directly translates into: we do not move unless energy dictacts that we move.
From my learning, it is paramount that a Deui Ying nature/front facing/egagement be first established. This holds true even if attacked from behind, from the shadow or what we refer to as Fau Kiu Bridging.
A HFY practioner must first bring the engagement from "outside the box" to "inside the box" so that gate/zone relationships come into focus and structure/positioning can be relied on. Anotherwards, having the the system's advantages of TSE on your side.
Furthermore, as energy is alive, it is only during this process, that a Jeui Ying facing/positioning can be born. That is... only if the oncoming energy so dictates upon engagement. To be clear, personal preference has no role here... only to restore harmony with the natures of the energies present. (what we call the "Ng Loon Ying Jong Faat" )
THEREFORE.... HFY Jeui Ying and Deui Ying are in fact both on the same side of the coin. AND.... what is on the otherside of the coin is actually "outside the box", meaning outside of our core system's principles.
To put it simply, from a HFY perspective, to imediately take a blindside attack against an opponant would not only be unwarranted energy-wise... but quite possibly dangerous if your attacker knows how to trace your energy and positioning.
Last edited by duende; 11-15-2007 at 07:54 PM.
Banned
"Good post Victor, and I appreciate the way you handled my difference of opinion, by sharing your own views on the how's and why's behind Cheung's ways and his TWC method." (J)
***COOL.
...............................
"Before I go further, the idea in Sigung's WSL system is not to attack the CENTER OF MASS, but rather the CENTER AXIS, there is a difference, and there was a discussion about this just recently on a WSL forum." (J)
***WOULD like to hear more about what you think this means, as it is not clear from your posts what the difference is.
....................................
"Now, regarding William Cheung, what I find interesting is that at times I do see him attacking the Center Axis, or something similiar and not the step away and come back in method from time to time in his vids." (J)
***WHICH is what I was saying in my previous post.
.................................
"IMO, Cheung can or could get away with using his preferred method due to his speed and control of technique, the guy is fast and was very athletic in his day." (J)
***I FAIL to see how speed has much to do with it. Control over the opponent? Yes.
.............................
"TWC is definetly a Longer Triangle (to borrow a term someone shared with me ) WC system, meaning since TWC fights from a longer range, you need more mobility, and less stability." (J)
***FALSE reasoning, James... Of course you need stability from longer range - because it still will include contact (bridge) range. TWC works with going from long to short range in stages, ie.- what TWC calls going from non contact stage - to contact stage - to exchange stage.
And at the contact stage - but still not close enouch to land or exchange punches to hard targets - it's here that one needs stability AND the collapsible structure that bends but doesn't break - and TWC specific footwork is often a part of this.
......................................
"My understanding thru personal experience and what I have been taught, is that the closer you get inside someone's space, the less mobility you will need...." (J)
***CAN'T DISAGREE strongly enough. You always need mobility - no matter where you are. There's no such thing as always holding your ground with no fallback position. If he's 250 lbs. and 6' 5" - you better have mobility working for you at all times, my friend!
......................................
"The thing is, in my experience, the further you are away from someone, the easier it is for them to escape or counter what you are doing, simply for the reason that you cannot effect their balance to their core as well far away, you can only move their wrist or arm out of the way, chasing hands persay, which is contrary to standard WC principles." (J)
***IT'S NOT ALWAYS about affecting their balance from close STRIKING range...it could be simply about affecting their general health form a longer range punch or kick landing on a hard target - or from affecting their balance from a very close clinch range where strikes aren't going to be a factor. (Or perhaps even from on the ground).
Confining oneself to a strategy and core principles that basically only serve the needs of one side of the standing striking/kicking coin (very close infight hand striking range)...
IS NOT ENOUGH.
Last edited by Ultimatewingchun; 11-15-2007 at 08:04 PM.
詠春係一個家庭
Registered User
attacking someones "blind side" or dead side is just common sense. The question is can you do it, he may not let you. Its like when you roll, you may not get a chance to take his back... so you should be flexible. Everyone knows about dead side, so people adjust and prevent you just like taking the back or mount.
Its just plain common sense why stand infront of the guy( so he can punch and kick you with both limbs). Most people will make it hard for you to get a side position... but if you set it up you can do it just fine.
Some people are very good at fighting in the center... you've got to be that much better.
Registered User
[B***COOL.[/B]
So far so good
***WOULD like to hear more about what you think this means, as it is not clear from your posts what the difference is.
The COM is slightly below a person's belly button, which is nearly the geometric center of a person, whereas the central axis on the other hand is a vertical plane passing through the mass about which the body rotates (in regards to WSL thinking). Attack the COM, and you are attacking the abdomen, attack the Central Axis and you are attacking their balance and structure, thereby in essence controling them while attacking them (thx KevB
***I FAIL to see how speed has much to do with it. Control over the opponent? Yes.
Speed in relation to trying to take someone's flank. If I move straight in on someone, that is closer and faster (economy of motion), than moving to the side of them and still trying to be in range to hit them, so speed is a factor. Cheung was lightning fast in his prime, so therefore he was more able to use this tactic and succeed with it. Not all possess his speed or abilities, so for some it is not as useful. I disagree regarding the "Control" you have from that position. You may have a temporary positional advantage (your 2 hands vs his 1), and you can obtain control of the elbow point from this position, but because you are positioned the way you are (with your opponent virtually in a side on stance facing you), you have less control than being in between his stance and effecting his Central Axis. I've learned that only controlling the elbow (as the elbow is only 1 of the 6 power points), is not always good enough and that there are easy ways out of this type of control, one of which is in the SNT form. All of this I am saying from trying it out of people. I am not saying it is something useless, just low % and less effective than some more simiplier tactics.
***FALSE reasoning, James... Of course you need stability from longer range - because it still will include contact (bridge) range. TWC works with going from long to short range in stages, ie.- what TWC calls going from non contact stage - to contact stage - to exchange stage.
And at the contact stage - but still not close enouch to land or exchange punches to hard targets - it's here that one needs stability AND the collapsible structure that bends but doesn't break - and TWC specific footwork is often a part of this.
I'm familiar with the 5 stages of contact (pre contact, contact, exchange, pursuit, retreat) and the strategies/tactics involved. TWC (as Cheung taught it at his 50th BDay celebration and in most every video and book I have read) advocates not stepping deep inside someone stance or gate, but rather staying closer to his lead foot, slightly inside of it on X arm, and even more outside of his lead foot when parallel/mirror sided. Maybe he's changed his methods or picked up on something from his previous training in "Modified WC", in the last few years I don't know. View this vid to see what I mean, here he is sparring with a boxer and exclusively using mirrored footwork constantly moving to the outside trying to get the flank, by which the boxer adjusts, forcing the two of them to travel in a cirlce, and never into one another's Center or Central Axis, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG1WC...eature=related . I know this is not the be all end all of TWC concept and application, but it is a true representation of what is taught and done allot in TWC. Now, concerning what you said, I did use the word "MORE" to differentiate the emphasize on Mobility and Stability. Of course you need mobility when really close in, I never said you didn't, I just said you need LESS when closer in, than if you are further away. The is always a time to adjust and react accordingly to what is going on. IMO if you already have the close in position secured, you also have control of the Central Axis, which means the other guy is recovering balance and position, not you, at least that is how I understand what I am learning now is about. With TWC, even though we did get in close, it is not nearly as close as I am doing now, as the structure is not built into the system to do that, as the facing concepts between the two arts are different (TWC vs WSL WC), in relation to hip positioning and how the feet move (WSL pivoting, TWC stepping/lifting of the feet off the ground with no pivots involved).
***CAN'T DISAGREE strongly enough. You always need mobility - no matter where you are. There's no such thing as always holding your ground with no fallback position. If he's 250 lbs. and 6' 5" - you better have mobility working for you at all times, my friend!
See above, I never said you don't need Mobility when in really close, just less, Stability and ability to use your structure and mechanics to influence your opponents Central Axis, while being able to move is built into the WSL system, not so in TWC, at least I didn't see it in my 17yrs training and researching it. I was taught that controlling the elbow (for upper body strikes) controls the balance of an opponent. Since then, I've learned there are a few more areas or points on the body that do the same thing in differing cirrcumstances.
***IT'S NOT ALWAYS about affecting their balance from close STRIKING range...it could be simply about affecting their general health form a longer range punch or kick landing on a hard target - or from affecting their balance from a very close clinch range where strikes aren't going to be a factor. (Or perhaps even from on the ground).
Confining oneself to a strategy and core principles that basically only serve the needs of one side of the standing striking/kicking coin (very close infight hand striking range)...
IS NOT ENOUGH.
I agree it doesn't always have to be about unbalancing the opponents Central Axis, or using any of the WSL concepts/principles I have discussed here, as WSL WC is a training system, and something you use, not the other way around, with it using you. WSL said don't be a slave to the system. To me that means use what you need of it and no more, which translates in my mind as the true definition of "Economy of Motion". When I fight, I fight, not some system or style that I practice. WC has only given me the engine to use as I see fit. Does the tail wag the dog or the dog wagging the tail? Some have it backwards at times
Good chat and discussion.....
James
Last edited by sihing; 11-15-2007 at 10:46 PM.
FB page Inclusive Ving Tsun
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Inclu...16835268370570
Registered User
I agree, in the end it is not about how you did it that counts, it is the fact that you did it. The thing is as teachers of the art, we can't always teach exclusively what works just for us, because not everyone has our attributes or abilites, or are built the same way as us. We have to teach them things that generally are effective for most people. After they have learned it, they are responsible for testing it out and making the necessary adjustments according to their abilities, understanding, body make up, and intention with the art.
James
FB page Inclusive Ving Tsun
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Inclu...16835268370570
Banned
Duende wrote this:
"In HFY we do not have a 'blindside' attack. Instead we have Deui Ying and Jeui Ying facings. And they do not have an either/or, 'other side of the coin' relationship, but rather a co-existing interdependance in amongst themselves."
***FIRST OF ALL, when I speak of two sides to the same coin I AM talking about a co-existing interdependence in and amoungst themselves. And I'm surprised that you would think than I meant something different than that - given what I said in my two previous posts on this thread.
IT'S ALL THE SAME COIN.
Secondly, the last time I heard the term "Deui Ying" was back in my Moy Yat days - by which he simply meant FACING your centerline to the opponent's center.
(William Cheung has always used English terms to describe this - like I just did).
As for Jeui Ying facing - perhaps you should translate/explain that in English. I suspect that I already know the meaning and the application of the concept using different words - but I'm not familiar with that particular "Chinese" term.
..............................................
And James, by COM I mean THE CENTRAL AXIS VERTICAL PLAIN as you now describe/label it.
I never meant the point just below the navel.
In other words, when I use the term COM I'm referring to a vertical line - not a horizontal one.
Last edited by Ultimatewingchun; 11-15-2007 at 11:02 PM.
Banned
"Speed in relation to trying to take someone's flank. If I move straight in on someone, that is closer and faster (economy of motion), than moving to the side of them and still trying to be in range to hit them, so speed is a factor. Cheung was lightning fast in his prime, so therefore he was more able to use this tactic and succeed with it. Not all possess his speed or abilities."(J)
***IT'S NOT REALLY a question of speed, James. I will still move "straight in" when attacking my opponent's flank (as in mirrored leads). But just slightly to the outside of his lead leg with my lead leg. Hardly noticable. No "big" attempt to get to his flank - not yet anyway. And I'm moving in like that as part of WORKING toward being able "to hit them" WHILE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE MY CHANCES OF NOT GETTING HIT BACK.
In other words, I'm looking to "come in" on this guy by playing a Position strategy game as a means of gaining Control over the fight (and his body) that ends with attacks on hard targets - and not simply chasing hands/limbs.
Instead of just attacking right into his COM and thereby inviting blows from virtually any limb he has without making it at least harder for him to hit me with some of those limbs...which is...
THE WHOLE ESSENCE OF THE BLINDSIDE FLANKING STRATEGY.
Last edited by Ultimatewingchun; 11-15-2007 at 11:07 PM.
GM of Hadaka Korosu
For a "japanese" view of blind spit fighting, you can look up Ashihara Karate, on off-shot of kyokushin that "lives" in the blind spot.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !
Banned
Some may say to themselves that they are going in on a straight line when so-called flanking or attacking, but the legs go in one direction and the hands goes in another, hence cutting your center of gravity in half, compared to the one who's feet follows the same line all together as one (Feet follow the hands)...
It works well with weapons (flanking) but not with the hands because one does not control one's balance as in most sword play, just room too swing the weapon not taking one’s balance… Remember; how can one effectively fight you if he’s fighting for his balance…
Other wise where does the flank happens; the feet or the hands, can’t be both because one feels as if they're going in a straight line, but insisted that one is flanking …
Flanking sounds real good, kinda like when a grown man hear's the word “panties”…
Better does not comply with more or extra movements in any wing chun system that I know of…
Ali Rahim.
Last edited by Ali. R; 11-16-2007 at 08:07 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote