Footwork or retreat?

[WoodenYummy]

Hi All,

I am currently studying TWC for about a year now, though I have a couple years experience in some modified wing chun as well. I have posted this question before, but was not satisfied with the "answers" I got. Perhaps this is my own fault, (i.e. I wasn't clear about what I was asking...) In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch. And as for "off the line" I mean that we immediately try to step to the flank of the opponent entering in on us. Now I am NOT suggesting that we step so far back that we are no longer in contact with the opponent, just far enough to keep them in the "contact" stage, and not let "them" for us into the exchange stage. I have seen this done by GM Cheung, so I know it is not something my current Sifu just made up. However, I know that some other schools of Wing Chun stress to step in immediately upon attack. (i.e., its all about timing & intercepting). So is this ultimately all about how comfortable you are with your own skills vs. your opponent? Do other TWC schools stress this "back & off the line" concept (possibly using different terminology)? I don't question the concept, as it certainly makes sense to me anyway. There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately if they were coming at me. Perfect timing or not, some people would tear right through you if you just stepped in on them mid-punch. I would like to hear all of your thoughts on this. Initially, I thought perhaps this was something that was just taught to FNG's so they don't lose their teeth during the learning process, but now I think there is more validity to it. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it. Thanks in advance for any & all replies.

[Liddel]

I feel that essentially you have answered your own question

It depends on the situation -

There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately

Exactly.

Its all Depending on what you are doing/ or want to do at the time.

If your looking to counter you must still be in RANGE, so a half step is what i use.. wether its a triangle straight back whatever.... this means that im not reaching nor am i losing that elbow space by being too close. Stay in the pocket somewhat.

If your weathering a storm/flurry of attacks you need space to regather your tools so terrain permitting you want that bigger step back or larger triangle step cutting the angle on the heavy cross etc.Or your getting close and clinching up...style appropriate

If your are instigating and timing an attack its essential you take thier space, so moving foward in the right way offers you positional advantage and adds momentum to force in attacking actions.

So is this ultimately all about how comfortable you are with your own skills vs. your opponent?

IMO Yes. Ive sparred guys way slower with heavy hands and way faster with no power....i approached each with a differnt method... same result .

I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it

I agree... timing is everything so.....

DREW

[Graychuan]

Hi All,
In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch. And as for "off the line" I mean that we immediately try to step to the flank of the opponent entering in on us. Now I am NOT suggesting that we step so far back that we are no longer in contact with the opponent, just far enough to keep them in the "contact" stage,

In the Woo system we are taught to ‘attack the attack’ which I understand is contrary to what you are explaining but I have to ask….how are you able to be in ‘contact range’ if you have already stepped back to be out of ’contact range’ as you put it here,

either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch.

Do other TWC schools stress this "back & off the line" concept (possibly using different terminology)
…..I don't question the concept, as it certainly makes sense to me anyway. There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately if they were coming at me.

But are you not eventually going to HAVE to step in to control and end the fight?

If your looking to counter you must still be in RANGE, so a half step is what i use.. wether its a triangle straight back whatever.... this means that im not reaching nor am i losing that elbow space by being too close. Stay in the pocket somewhat…If your weathering a storm/flurry of attacks you need space to regather your tools .

I can agree with this. That’s why I was asking WoodenYummy about the stepping back. It is ok to take a half-step or step back to create space for proper bridging and interception but the Woo System stresses forward energy(bridging, jamming, wedging, kune su kune) and CROWDING SPACE. This will not happen if you are moving back.

Perfect timing or not, some people would tear right through you if you just stepped in on them mid-punch…. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it. Thanks in advance for any & all replies.

IF you understand ‘bridge-walking’, maintaining a proper defensive structure and not deviating from that idea(SLT/CK) then you should have no problem doing this. So don’t just step in mid-punch. Step in, bridge, let their forward energy be redirected( man, pak, biu, lop, wu, garm...etc.) I’ve said it before that Chi-Sao answers all of these questions.

If your are instigating and timing an attack its essential you take thier space, so moving foward in the right way offers you positional advantage and adds momentum to force in attacking actions.

This is why we have the three hand forms and wooden man, to learn 'how to move forward the right way'.

I agree... timing is everything so.....
DREW

I disagree…there is timing, forward sensitivity, and structure. This is also true of defense(attacking the attack).

CHRIS

[WoodenYummy]

Sorry, I should have clarified, in TWC the "Contact range" is where your hands can reach their hands, but neither can make contact with the body, "exchange range" is where both parties can be hit. So while we do step back as they come in, we do not lose contact. But if we did not move at all then they would come right into exchange range on their own terms, instead of on ours. That was my point.

[edseas2]

We don't like to step back and I'm unable to think up a situation where I would ever choose to step backwards. Obviously, it is possible for me to be driven backwards but this would be because I didn't shift properly or messed up my footwork or for some other reason that was an error on my part.

We like to say that we want to rush forward towards the opponent and let the hands take care of themselves - clearly, it is a bit more complicated than that but through learning all of the forms (and practicing a lot of chi sao) we end up with a unified weapon that serves to be dangerous from head to toe encompassing everything from head butts (Randy Williams) to ankle/shin kicks (Gary Lam) should the student choose to use these techniques (I personally avoid head butts).

I think that the jong is awfully good at teaching automatic footwork/arrow stepping that would serve advanced students well in combat.

[Phil Redmond]

I feel that essentially you have answered your own question

It depends on the situation - DREW

You're right on. TWC doesn't teach to ALWAYS step away. When possible it's better to interrupt an attack by putting pressure on your opponent ASAP.

[Phil Redmond]

Sorry, I should have clarified, in TWC the "Contact range" is where your hands can reach their hands, but neither can make contact with the body, "exchange range" is where both parties can be hit. So while we do step back as they come in, we do not lose contact. But if we did not move at all then they would come right into exchange range on their own terms, instead of on ours. That was my point.

If you're a member of the WWCKFA please go here: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/TWCKF/
There are videos there that can explain TWC concepts for you.
You can also go here: http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/history.asp
and click on the streaming martial arts thumbnail and watch live streaming Traditional Wing Chun classes, BJJ classes and other martial arts.

[Liddel]

the Woo System stresses forward energy(bridging, jamming, wedging, kune su kune) and CROWDING SPACE. This will not happen if you are moving back.

Gray, ive heard a few people put foward this idea before but through more and more experience with sparring different styles i now disagree with the BOLD part of the quote.

I believe in the concept and application of Foward energy that most VT lineages stress. Where our opinions begin to part ways is that i believe you can have foward energy in your hand tools while your horse is moving back...

It depends though on the relationship between you and the opponent...

IE If the distance between you is constant, like If hes moving foward and your moving back so the distance between you remains the same during said movement, you can issue foward power and control position with the right Chum Kiu waist movement and stepping/grounding.

Having the right slide lines as my sifu puts it (the correct angles) in your tools is what makes or breaks them IMO while retreating. Foward energy while preferable is not a requisite of being able to handle yourself in retreat anyway.

Ive also found through my own experience that the foward movement of the opponent can lend itself to your actions (in a foward energy sence) when you yourself are actually static....

Aint VT great.

DREW

[WoodenYummy]

Thanks for eveybody's input, and thank you Sifu Redmond for the website recommendations, I have thoroughly checked out your site and seen all the videos. I guess my initial concern was from my original post which seemes to get pretty negative replies. I was wondering if my school was the only one teaching this "back & off the line" stuff. We are not taught to "always" do this, situations are all different. It is taught more as a safe(r) response, so that you can engage on your own terms instead of theirs. I watched the GM Cheung video with Sifu Eric Oram and didn't see or hear any mention of it so I was curious. I agree with the majority of the thoughts posted, bridging is essential, but ultimately I was wondering about if the rest of you really do "attack the attack" regularly, or if this is just the ideal? Like I said, there are some big fellas out there, there is one in particular at my school who bounced for many years, you do not want to step in front of his round punch! Which is not to say no one can, but rather there is always a bigger fish in the sea. And as WC is ideally suited for smaller opponents to have a fair chance against larger ones, it seems this "stepping right in" mentality would destroy alot of smaller people. Maybe I'm getting too hypothetical about this, but it seems a little contradictory to me.... Just a thought. I mean the Fut sao is essentially a retreating move, isn't it?

[Phil Redmond]

Everything in a fight is relative. Don't live in a box. You definitely don't want to charge down the middle of an extremely larger opponent though.

[Graychuan]

Gray, ive heard a few people put foward this idea before but through more and more experience with sparring different styles i now disagree with the BOLD part of the quote.

I believe in the concept and application of Foward energy that most VT lineages stress. Where our opinions begin to part ways is that i believe you can have foward energy in your hand tools while your horse is moving back...

It depends though on the relationship between you and the opponent...

I can agree with this because I mentioned the same thing about stepping back to create space...but not crowding space. And you will not be in as much control If you are moving back. The opponent should be struggling for thiers. Half-step...one step at most. As I think we both said. And what you described should be happening in that half or one step back...but then its back on.

IE If the distance between you is constant, like If hes moving foward and your moving back so the distance between you remains the same during said movement, you can issue foward power and control position with the right Chum Kiu waist movement and stepping/grounding.

There is turning...and Trin Ma and there is leway for a half step or a step back...as we both mentioned. We even have videos up of Chi Sao and Kui Sao footwork forward and backwards but this is to learn the continuity of technique. However Yummy specifically said

... In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch.

In the Woo System(as I cant speak of any other WCK) none of the 3 hand forms have any stepping backward. Chum Kui has a change of direction to face the attacks but not a step backward.

Ive also found through my own experience that the foward movement of the opponent can lend itself to your actions (in a foward energy sence) when you yourself are actually static....

Good for you, mane. We dont stand still when there is forward energy put on us in the Woo system ...if this is what you mean by static. But Im with you on using the forward energy of your opponent. Thats why we Attack the Attack.

Aint VT great.

Yup.

[Lee Chiang Po]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All,

I am currently studying TWC for about a year now, though I have a couple years experience in some modified wing chun as well. I have posted this question before, but was not satisfied with the "answers" I got. Perhaps this is my own fault, (i.e. I wasn't clear about what I was asking...) In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch. And as for "off the line" I mean that we immediately try to step to the flank of the opponent entering in on us. Now I am NOT suggesting that we step so far back that we are no longer in contact with the opponent, just far enough to keep them in the "contact" stage, and not let "them" for us into the exchange stage. I have seen this done by GM Cheung, so I know it is not something my current Sifu just made up. However, I know that some other schools of Wing Chun stress to step in immediately upon attack. (i.e., its all about timing & intercepting). So is this ultimately all about how comfortable you are with your own skills vs. your opponent? Do other TWC schools stress this "back & off the line" concept (possibly using different terminology)? I don't question the concept, as it certainly makes sense to me anyway. There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately if they were coming at me. Perfect timing or not, some people would tear right through you if you just stepped in on them mid-punch. I would like to hear all of your thoughts on this. Initially, I thought perhaps this was something that was just taught to FNG's so they don't lose their teeth during the learning process, but now I think there is more validity to it. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it. Thanks in advance for any & all replies.
__________________

You have it pretty much right I think. I am only 5'4" tall. I was taught by people that were sometimes shorter than myself. In the US most people are going to be much taller than me, so I have used this step and side shift a lot. What I am doing is not moving out of range, but maintaining the range as the opponent moves in on me. Whether or not he realizes it, he is coming right up his own center line at me, and by my moving back to keep the same range I also shift to the side, his dead side usually, and violate his center line. I would then immediately attack and move right on into what you are calling exchange range. I can usually control that side of him and deliver a number of hard punches.
The idea that I could simply meet him head on and wear him out is really taking far too much for granted. I have had to deal with people that even though they were not trained in some form of MA, they could beat you to death given half the chance. The whole idea is to not meet power with power. You simply move from it's path and send it on it's way. The only power you deal with is your own when you fire your weapons at him.
Being short, and by some standards small, I have always felt that a mistake on my part could be fatal. I have always taken advantage of all the moves and techniques that were less likely to place me in danger of making that fatal mistake. View every antagonist as though he were 6'4" and 250 pounds. Be kind to yourself.

Chiang

[Graychuan]

Well here is a guy who moves forward..allows for a one step or half step back the most. And it also looks like the big guy is actually on the run. He also stays in he middle.

[Phil Redmond]

Well here is a guy who moves forward..allows for a one step or half step back the most. And it also looks like the big guy is actually on the run. He also stays in he middle.

That demo is in a controlled environment. It wouldn't look the same if some really big guy was bent on hurting the smaller guy. We have guys here who can do many reps with 100lb barbells in each arm. During the adrenalin in a fight they could take the smaller guys punches and simply pick him up and body slam him if he stays in the middle.

[bennyvt]

I must agree that stepping into a big guy would be bad. The problem comes from the fact that everyone thinks of VT as beating a bigger guy. Now this is true to a point. I can make my power, speed and timing increase by using VT. But if it say makes me 3 times as strong, this is great unless I fight a guy who is four times stronger then me. I always use the idea of, You are fighting the hulk, he throws a wide punch, you step forward with a tan sao and punch. Now you have perfect technique and structure so techically it should work right? WRONG. If you did that your arms would brake and your head would be in the next planet. VT is great but not indestructable. Sometimes the force is so great you must go back to relieve the force.
We teach the step after poon sao. We step into the centre and through the partner at 45 degrees. The partner steps back at 45 to releive the pressure while staying in range ( by this I mean elbow a fist and thumb away from the body and arms in normal chi sao range). This teaches that when too much force is against you , you step back to disolve the force. Barry always says "one step back, two steps forward. The step back is taught first then the step forward. This is because it is always better to be able to do the defence well. Wong shun leung brought this exercise forward as before it used to be taught with the dummy but he felt it was too important to fighting. The idea is to be able to step back only enough to release the pressure so you can still hit them. When your elbow gets pushed back further then the fist and thumb you have no option but to step or get hit. Yip man used to say " Iron arms, tofu belly and a glass head". Better to step back then have your head taken off.
David peterson teaches an interesting exercise which is using this princible. Partner A stands with both hand togeather and in the centre, Partner B pushes on his hands. Partner a steps back to relieve the force but still keeps contact. This is a simple exercise to give people the feeling.