Wing Chun Attack/Defend Lines

[KPM]

Hey Bill!

I just want to say that my comments reflect my own point of view. It's not a question of I'm right or he's wrong. The point of a forum is to present opinions.

---Exactly! That's what makes for good discussions!



I call it chasing hands because the tan and the main body motion is directed at the wrist of the incoming hook. It's not the tan da or biu da per se that's the issue. It's where and how it's being applied. You need to determine if you're going to go in and attack directly or stay more to the outside.

---I still don't follow you. Responding to an attack with a simultaneous block and strike is Wing Chun 101. Phil was basically just showing one thing to illustrate his explanation. He didn't show the follow up. Maybe he would have moved in on the next beat, maybe he would have kicked, etc.



In the demo where the hook is overpowering the tan, then you need to change the hand to something else,

---Of course! If you have time! But why not position with good biomechanics so that the Tan is not overpowered? That was what Phil was illustrating.



for example an inside lap or whatever else feels correct given your perception of the incoming force, rather than try to apply more force to the tan. Tan, or any hand for that matter, is not a static position. For optimum effectiveness it should be dynamic. Once you freeze and try to add force to hold it, you're dead.

---Who said anything about applying extra force to hold a position? Of course Tan is dynamic. Again, Phil only showed step 1 of what would likely be a multi-step response. I'm sure he would have flowed right into the next move and his Tan then wouldn't appear to be static.




On one hand you're asking me to take things with a grain of salt because it's a demo ( I'm happy to do that), but you want me to believe that he delivered enough power in that strike to hurt the opponent., because the guy flinched or winced or made some other facial expression. Sorry...

---Well, you said you didn't think the punch would have landed because of the distance. I pointed out that the guy "winced" on several occassions. I don't think that would have happened if the guy didn't think he had the potential of being hit. Therefore Phil's distance must have been closer than you think. How much power he would have produced is hard to say. My point was that he was close enough to land, or the guy wouldn't have winced! I'm not going to twist your arm to make you believe me. But it seems kind of common sense to me!




Yes, the biomechanics are better, if you're going to chase the hand. I'm saying you should not be standing there in the first place.

---That easy to say. For that matter, we shouldn't be fighting in the first place! But what happens when someone surprises you and you turn suddenly to see that big looping punch headed right at your head? You don't always have a choice in your positioning. If you respond with bad structure, it could be the end.

---But you still haven't explained how you see the attacking and defending lines.......

[KPM]

Hi Kevin!

---No offense intended, and its probably just me....but I don't follow about half of what you write.

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along.

---Just a training position? No value as a defensive technique in and of itself?


Same as jum sao , the inside of the arm is used to hold the line while striking in unison with the tan/striking arm.

---You said this before on the other thread and it made no sense to me. You said the Tan and the strike were the same thing. Now I can see a Tan structure with a closed fist being used to strike. But your comment above makes no sense to me.



Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you.

---I would move in and divert the water spout!



Try thinking your fighting an armed man when doing your training , one knife in each hand.

---OK. So in Phil's example.....the opponent is swinging wide with a sword/club/etc, I turn and meet it with a Bue Do that cuts into the oncoming forearm or oncoming weapon at the same time that I am thrusting with the other knife into his face/throat/chest. Seems like the same thing to me!


Same in chi-sao ..I stab you , you stab me , you step in to stab me I angle angle stab you back, test repeat 1,000,000 times. I try to stab over your arm you do bong I recover my ability to stab again by dropping my bong to tan . You use inward jum sao stabs to deflect an inside gate attack.

---The idea of thinking of the hands as knives is a good one. But it has limitations as well. You can apply damage with a blade much more easily than with an empty hand. So you often need to have better structure and more power output when empty-handed than when using the knives.




If your caught in the center then you can duck by all means ; ) use a knife to do whatever the hell it need s to but beware the flood , escape to the outside or take the wild swing after it has passed over , allowing the opponents flankign energy to go over and past...

---Phil will probably get a chuckle out of that one. Flanking is one of TWC's key strategies. And one that they sometimes catch criticism for as "chasing hands."



the knives teach the hands, guiding the way up, not SLT up blind to the path before it.

---Then why don't most train with the knives right from the beginning? I do. But most don't!

[Matrix]

Hey Keith,

---I still don't follow you. Responding to an attack with a simultaneous block and strike is Wing Chun 101. Phil was basically just showing one thing to illustrate his explanation. He didn't show the follow up. Maybe he would have moved in on the next beat, maybe he would have kicked, etc.

Yes, simultaneous attack and and defense is a basic concept - the point I'm trying to make is that it needs to be in the correct direction. To go after the attacking hand (chasing hands) weakens your attack and your position. You've mentioned a follow up, and that makes the orginal position even more important. The more you stray from keeping square to the center of mass of the opponent, the more time, energy and movement you will require for the followup action.

---Of course! If you have time! But why not position with good biomechanics so that the Tan is not overpowered? That was what Phil was illustrating.

More often then not you will have time. Certainly in the context of the demo it didn't look like some kind of sucker punch so I'm assuming there's more than enough time.

---Who said anything about applying extra force to hold a position? Of course Tan is dynamic. Again, Phil only showed step 1 of what would likely be a multi-step response. I'm sure he would have flowed right into the next move and his Tan then wouldn't appear to be static.

Maybe so, that's why I asked for elaboration on my initial post to this thread. We can what-if this thing forever.

---Well, you said you didn't think the punch would have landed because of the distance. I pointed out that the guy "winced" on several occassions. I don't think that would have happened if the guy didn't think he had the potential of being hit. Therefore Phil's distance must have been closer than you think. How much power he would have produced is hard to say. My point was that he was close enough to land, or the guy wouldn't have winced! I'm not going to twist your arm to make you believe me. But it seems kind of common sense to me! .......

When I hit someone, I don't want to make them wince, or even just touch them. I want to hit through the target. I just don't feel that a powerful blow would have resulted from that action. I'm just trying to say that I think there is more efficient and effective ways of dealing with this. I think (but I may be wrong) that we are all trying to figure out ways improve on what we know - or think we know. One way to do this is to be critical of our own understanding of things. So I like to stretch things out from time to time, just for fun.

---That easy to say. For that matter, we shouldn't be fighting in the first place! But what happens when someone surprises you and you turn suddenly to see that big looping punch headed right at your head? You don't always have a choice in your positioning. If you respond with bad structure, it could be the end........

I just think that the footwork needs to support, even drive the structure. Static structure is death. As for not having a choice with positioning, I would say at the very least there are superior and inferior options in any given situation. I just feel that there's a better option here. That's one of the main reasons why we train, to be able to quickly and efficiently determine the best course of action in just this time of scenario.

As for attacking and defending lines, I like your description - that's why I didn't comment further. I would only add that that the tan 'sweeps' across the line as the result of the movement of the body/hip as a whole unit, not from moving the arm/hand as a separate independent entity. I know you didn't say otherwise. I just wanted to add that little bit of detail if I may.

Cheers,
Bill

[k gledhill]

Hi Kevin!

---No offense intended, and its probably just me....but I don't follow about half of what you write.

many havent heard this way of explanation

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along.

---Just a training position? No value as a defensive technique in and of itself?

it is primarily to train an elbow angle,using the outside of the arm

Same as jum sao , the inside of the arm is used to hold the line while striking in unison with the tan/striking arm.

---You said this before on the other thread and it made no sense to me. You said the Tan and the strike were the same thing. Now I can see a Tan structure with a closed fist being used to strike. But your comment above makes no sense to me.

tan is a loaded gun , once the bullet goes it returns to elbow in , tan IS A STRIKE the first 1/2 of the strike a 2 part punch that starts from tan ...
Jum is elbow in ,using the inside of the arm ..following the tans outside arm, jum inside striking, each creates a 'continous deflection' line alternating from each arm to the other , either side..

Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you.

---I would move in and divert the water spout!

thats an option too but remember the % you can get wet too , so can I .



Try thinking your fighting an armed man when doing your training , one knife in each hand.

---OK. So in Phil's example.....the opponent is swinging wide with a sword/club/etc, I turn and meet it with a Bue Do that cuts into the oncoming forearm or oncoming weapon at the same time that I am thrusting with the other knife into his face/throat/chest. Seems like the same thing to me!

this is 'sh&t happens' we cant stop a situation but we know what we want and where to be what to avoid for %


Same in chi-sao ..I stab you , you stab me , you step in to stab me I angle angle stab you back, test repeat 1,000,000 times. I try to stab over your arm you do bong I recover my ability to stab again by dropping my bong to tan . You use inward jum sao stabs to deflect an inside gate attack.

---The idea of thinking of the hands as knives is a good one. But it has limitations as well. You can apply damage with a blade much more easily than with an empty hand. So you often need to have better structure and more power output when empty-handed than when using the knives.


add space and time , we adopt random attack counter to make it instinctive to move to certain places and not "oh can you take the knife out i made a mistake , thanks?"
blades require more space than hands 2 different footwork in one system. Cutting intersecting lines for bare hands , wide angles for knives .



If your caught in the center then you can duck by all means ; ) use a knife to do whatever the hell it need s to but beware the flood , escape to the outside or take the wild swing after it has passed over , allowing the opponents flankign energy to go over and past...

---Phil will probably get a chuckle out of that one. Flanking is one of TWC's key strategies. And one that they sometimes catch criticism for as "chasing hands."


VT/WSL always has been flanking in the system, from knife tactics % the key idea. wonder why twc shares the idea ? remember with the knives we attack the arms first , this done with empty hands can seem like hand chasing..it is if the knife distances are used when fighting empty handed....2 different ranges ..hands are close using close line cutting across arms to body ..ergo the idea of strikes that are holding deflections as the attack goes in....with knives we cut arms and retreat big steps ..cut the body and retreat, we arent doing traps just killing and evading a dying mans last actions.


the knives teach the hands, guiding the way up, not SLT up blind to the path before it.

---Then why don't most train with the knives right from the beginning? I do. But most don't!

the knife THINKING , THE IDEA in woids how to think about using the various modules and not get lost in the quagmire of redundant chi-sao .

[couch]

Hi Kevin!

---No offense intended, and its probably just me....but I don't follow about half of what you write.

tan sao is just a training position for developing a strike , it can be used in short bridge work for whatever idea makes you survive ..but the basic idea is it is a method to develop an elbow position relative to the strike lines we move along.

---Just a training position? No value as a defensive technique in and of itself?


Being in the path of a potential flood , what tactic would you adopt ? would you try to plug up the shots from random spots , turning this way then that, then back again, all the while disregarding the potential crash of water flooding before you.

---I would move in and divert the water spout!

Hey Keith,

Kevin's hard to follow sometimes. I tried having an e-mail discussion with him and thought I should leave it up to just visiting him someday. I'm really interested in his approach!

Kevin talks a lot about never standing in front of the attack, because just like a bucket of water thrown on you, there's a chance you may get wet. So he advocates the blind-side all the time, so that you always get off the line of attack and never get wet.

I understand what he's preachin' however I believe there are two 'doors' in WC. There's the front door (crash down the centre) and the side/blind-side (get off the line - what Kevin is talking about). IMO, it really depends on two things: what's the attack and what's the distancing.

After watching Tony Blauer's sucker punch drill on Youtube that he teaches to Law Enforcement, etc, my WC doesn't seem all that different. I think WC, for the most part, is designed for that phone-booth fight...that '3-feet of personal space' attack. The sucker punch, basically. So, because of this distancing, I lean more to practicing crashing down the middle.

It takes a lot of heart and guts to fight at this range and I love it.

Best,
Kenton

[k gledhill]

additional to the last post..

the dan chi teaches the 2 stage development of tan ->strike in fighting we just strike.
the tan develops alignment to stike while the elbow spreads off /leaves the line developing lateral force in the direction the elbow leaves from..then returns to do it again. This why I say the tan never leaves the line , because its training the elbow positions for a strike along the line...the tan elbow spreads off the line the tan fist goes to the nose/jaw etc..this idea only works from tada the flanks ,, why ? : )

Jum sao 2 stage punch in training [unless the wrist is being redundantly used] the 1st 1/2 of the deflecting strike is by moving the elbow into thew line using the pectoralis contraction, while pointing at the head, then we strike , the 2nd 1/2 of a 1strike inside deflection ...

when we do , say, the left tan striking it takes an arm say a left arm offline by the elbow spreading off the centerline , while the fist still goes to the guys head , from a flanked side...this is the way we fight sides ..then the jum strike , developed earlier idn dan chi-sao , with tan strike, follows [if needed] to hold the left arm 'shut down' as we sidle in still striking but able to retract the tan strike back to re fire , because the jum took over along the line .Each strike performs 2 actions independently of the other arm
allowing us to overwhelm the 1 weak sided arm. with ourn2 free [in rotation along our centerline] using one lead [mansao] and the rear [ vu-sao] to perpetually feed strikes in regardless of the lead hand being stopped or disrupted..not using lopsao unless we have a bad position or we need to change the direction of the water hose ; )

chi-sao becomes simpler than we think. Its a next stage of moving closer and now hitting and deflecting , using the roles of attack/counter attack. we have sensitivity , what we need is correct reactions timing further development of the initial attacking abiloity using the arms independantly of the other...or we fight one arm with our 2 in unison ALWAYS [ping]

it will make you faster because you arent wasting time with one arm doing chasing blocks that is reserved for bil gee.

in dan chi-sao the tan trains the jum, the jum trains the tan...then the jum is deflected by bong sao, fook is to recover an errant elbow to a neutral [not tan or jum] before cycling again.

after a few times I ask the student to simply punch me and deflect my strike while being able to hit me...then we see the angles need to change to allow each arm to reach doing facing as the dummy entry angles...only in the dummy we use each arm , not to attack like this tan sidplam aka jum sao
but to make sure the lines are correct and one can reach to hit with either one...testing not application.

simultaneous blocking/deflecting strikes is VT 101..... not one arm blocks while the other strikes , thats bil gee..

subtle change of words that leads to 2 different ends

the primary coaching involves developing this simple idea , using jut sao;pak sao;bong sao to remove the lead or simply strike into the available space before us ..it isnt as easy at it sounds ergo
dan chi,,,chi-sao without arm chasing or arm wasting by 'over-fighting ' one arm on its own flanked with 2 of ours together...what skill is it to fight 1 arm with 2 ? but have 1 arm acting like its 2 against 1 ...! thats the goal of basic arm strikes.

[k gledhill]

Hey Keith,

Kevin's hard to follow sometimes. I tried having an e-mail discussion with him and thought I should leave it up to just visiting him someday. I'm really interested in his approach!

Kevin talks a lot about never standing in front of the attack, because just like a bucket of water thrown on you, there's a chance you may get wet. So he advocates the blind-side all the time, so that you always get off the line of attack and never get wet.

I understand what he's preachin' however I believe there are two 'doors' in WC. There's the front door (crash down the centre) and the side/blind-side (get off the line - what Kevin is talking about). IMO, it really depends on two things: what's the attack and what's the distancing.

After watching Tony Blauer's sucker punch drill on Youtube that he teaches to Law Enforcement, etc, my WC doesn't seem all that different. I think WC, for the most part, is designed for that phone-booth fight...that '3-feet of personal space' attack. The sucker punch, basically. So, because of this distancing, I lean more to practicing crashing down the middle.

It takes a lot of heart and guts to fight at this range and I love it.

Best,
Kenton

you just may see them one day, your own kidding why train one way then fight another..all that changes are the distances from hands to knives but always seeking the relative safety of the weakside of a jabbing entry a front kick,stabbing knife hand , facing off to a guy we dont know how he will enter so we adopt side turning shifting stances,....we can all do the kamikazee centerline airpunch blast from 4 ft away ; )

[Matrix]

After watching Tony Blauer's sucker punch drill on Youtube that he teaches to Law Enforcement, etc, my WC doesn't seem all that different.

Hey Kenton,
Thanks for bringing up Tony Blauer. I did a Youtube search and found this clip which I feel may help Keith understand what I'm getting at with my previous comments. Yes, there may some minor variations but I like the direction of the action and the intensity, etc. There's no chasing hands - it's direct and to the point.

Peace,
Bill

[couch]

There's no chasing hands - it's direct and to the point.

Peace,
Bill

Also, the 'testing' he's done in regards to how the muscles contract (bicep) when the fist is clenched (forearm tense), I find interesting. I look at how us WC people use open handed 'blocks' and I see similarities as well.

Here's the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ_DdP85Qvw

Best,
Kenton

[k gledhill]

T Blauer has good ideas, The elbows lifting on taller guy's can be a vt correction simply by elbow control. Elbows low for a reason...what is that ? Its our way of deflecting energy off our arms while they go in to strike , using the acute angles created by SLT training , the arms leave from such tight angles that they naturally deflect force along flanking angles we adopt for % fighting.
It takes no strength due to the fact that the smaller person is avoiding force by angling to its inward path , while striking with deflecting , naturally stalemating arm angles, that don't need to leave the centerline to 'block' in the classic sense.
Why YM kicked butt, he wasn't using block's that left the line , he pointed the line at angles that worked his idea, the rest is history He would put guys in funny positions because they 'chased' his leading arm to miss or overturn trying to use blocking force on wrong lines , by allowing this and following with the rear vu he could simply feed his next straight line in and deflect the preceding line away so you looked like a human pretzel. He didn't have to hit you... he just let you move and show him how to work you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have always liked Tony's stuff, simple effective and applicable to all.
Canucks are the uber-cool in terms of MA.

[KPM]

Hey Kenton,
Thanks for bringing up Tony Blauer. I did a Youtube search and found this clip which I feel may help Keith understand what I'm getting at with my previous comments. Yes, there may some minor variations but I like the direction of the action and the intensity, etc. There's no chasing hands - it's direct and to the point.

Peace,
Bill

Hi Bill!

Yes! I've seen that Tony Blauer clip before. Its a good one! He's basically just doing a double Biu Sao. I see the point you are making and don't disagree. I think we've just been look at things differently. I've been addressing Phil's example directly and see nothing wrong with it for illustrating the point he was trying to make. I still see it as a legitimate "quick" response to a surprise attack. I think you're approaching it from the angle of considering the optimal response. I agree that moving in on his attack and disrupting his structure and balance is a better choice than standing in place and meeting his force "head on" so to speak. I also now see what you mean when you are using the term "chasing hands." Its obviously a term with multiple connotations.

Its interesting...... Tony Blauer comes up with a good "gee ****" response that people like and that works well and it turns out to be a common WCK technique. Similarly Mark Denny of "Dog Brothers" fame developed a initial response to a knife attack that he has been teaching in seminars alongside Gabe Suarez and that he calls the "Dog Catcher." Turns out its a WCK "gan/jum" technique.

[KPM]

Hey Kenton!

Kevin's hard to follow sometimes.

---You mean its not just me!?

I tried having an e-mail discussion with him and thought I should leave it up to just visiting him someday. I'm really interested in his approach!


So he advocates the blind-side all the time, so that you always get off the line of attack and never get wet.

---You'd sure have to have some good fast footwork and reaction time to avoid the water that's already left the bucket and is arcing its way towards you in order not to get wet!!!



I understand what he's preachin' however I believe there are two 'doors' in WC. There's the front door (crash down the centre) and the side/blind-side (get off the line - what Kevin is talking about). IMO, it really depends on two things: what's the attack and what's the distancing.

---I agree with you. There's a time and place for both. I tend to really emphasize the "forward pressure" concept in my WCK and so am almost always moving in on the opponent. But not necessarily from directly in front of him! To me, using the knives as the primary strategy behind your empty-hand methods wouldn't put an emphasis on forward pressure, but rather on evasive movement. That's not the primary characteristic of my WCK.


I think WC, for the most part, is designed for that phone-booth fight...that '3-feet of personal space' attack. The sucker punch, basically. So, because of this distancing, I lean more to practicing crashing down the middle.

---I agree. Move in and disrupt his balance/structure! Take his space and smash his face!!

[k gledhill]

I just prattle on about an idea I heard about dont mind me ; )

[Phil Redmond]

My PM isn't disabled. I just got one from couch.
Also, I don't think any WC school teaches chasing hands. That's against WC principles. When all WC people do the pak sao in SLT they aren't chasing hands. They're covering a gate. When I did that demo it was just to show structure. I always teach that there are X factors in a fight. Your opponent can do this or that when you do this or that. It's like a game of chess. The man with the best strategy wins.