Wing Chun defense against powerful hooks.

[Hardwork108]

I would like to know what your preferences are as far as using WING CHUN techniques against powerful hooks that are strong enough to break your structure if you are unsuccessful.

Furthermore, I have seen comments in the past here in the forum about using bong with wu sao( double handed) against hooks. Who amongst you prefers to use this technique and why?

[Paul T England]

Biu sau works well.

I show Tan first then biu later both work and you can't beat if if the structure is good.

I also like the idea of Tan and Pak to shoulder...

The bottom line is that you should strike at same time so your "blocking/covering" arm does not do all the work (eggs in one basket)

Paul
www.moifa.co.uk

[LSWCTN1]

its a difficult question to answer....

for the point of giving an answer, I will presume you mean you are both facing each other

if you mean a wild haymaker like an average drunk street fighter may use, then stepping in quickly with an uplifting palm to the chin can work,

alternatively, the forward Wu Sau after the Tan in SNT, coupled with a pivot and strike will

A) move you away from the strike
B) attack the attackers arm (and hurt them like hell - I, unfortunately, speak from experience)
C) strike them

all the best

david

[RGVWingChun]

I usually show the tan sao first, but then explain that if the opponent is taller that the tan sao has a small void in the tan sao structure that a taller opponent can exploit. For taller opponents I prefer the Biu Sao or the Wu Sao

All the best,

Moses

[golgo]

I find this a bit interesting as this is the kind of stuff I am getting into right now at class.

It was my understanding that for a higher hook, the biu sao is better than the tan sao in terms of structure, but the tan may be better if you have less time to react. This seems to hold true for me in drills, as the biu sau seems to be my most natural reaction even though I have trained the tan much more (through the SLT & drills, etc.).

Last night was my first real work with the bong sau and I believe that Sifu said that it shouldn't be used against a hook. I can't remember why though (perhaps the angle of the punch would go over top/around the bong sao?) It may have just been that he didn't want us using it for the specific drill we were doing.

[RGVWingChun]

yeah....bong sao is a mid level deflection that is used for straight line attacks. It has no energy that goes out to stop a hook attack at all. Definitely NOT a defense for outside gate attacks

Moses

[jet64]

actually it is not that difficult, try to understand this.

in order for your opponent to do that is to come closer...
if your opponent can hit you w/ a hook that means you can hit him w/ a jab or straight punch.

and if you understand WC verywell you'll know that at that distance you will land first.

its offense, become defense.

timing and speed is WC advantage




peace to all

[m1k3]

Isn't trying to block a hook falling into the trap of chasing hands?

Punch with the hand on the same side as the hook and use a pak close your face with the opposite hand as a cover. If the punch connects is should diffuse the hook, if it doesn't the pak will eat most of the force.

[t_niehoff]

Here's a different perspective . . .

I think the very question itself expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and method of WCK. WCK isn't an "outside", free-movement, stand-up fighting method (like boxing, kickboxing) although that is how many/most appraoch it. Only in that domain does this sort of question make sense. When people ask these sorts of questions, their base assumption is that WCK is a form of boxing or kickboxing. In my view, as we don't fight in the boxer's or kickboxer's range, we don't to deal with their weapons. (To me, this is sort of like asking how WCK deals with the staple guard pass. Answer: it doesn't.).

My perspective is that you don't deal with or defend against powerful hooks. Just like you don't deal with jabs or crosses or kicks. That's not our game. Our game is to not permit the opponent to throw these things in the first place.

In stand-up, you are either going to be in an opponent's range or out of his range. If we are out of his range, he can't hit us so we don't need to block or parry or whatever. We just need to maintain that range (and look to set up our entry). However, anytime I am in an opponent's striking range I am in contact, actively controlling his bridges (weapons). If his bridges are under control, he can't hook or jab or cross or kick. Traditionally, the WCK strategy/method is to dap (join with and ride the bridges) and jeet (cut-off or close down his offense).

This is why asking a greco-roman guy how he deals with a hook would get the same sort of answer.

FWIW, if bil saos and tan saos and those sorts of movements worked in boxing/kickboxing range, boxers and kickboxers would be already using those movements. They don't work with any consistency on the outside. And when you are able to pull one off, it just exposes you to #2.

[taojkd]

I was shown in a muay thai class to punch the shoulder of the hooking arm and raise your punching arm so it covers your face. I can see either doing a Punch with Pak Sao or Biu Tze. Also, stepping away from the power of the punch. If I can do that with boxing gloves on and diffuse the hook's power, then open hand for the street should work fine.

Also, I have seen muay thai use a biu tze, stepping away from the hook, and then with the biu hand they overhook the elbow of the hooking arm and pull the opponent into a knee or elbow strike. They exploit the centrifugal force of the hook punch to pull their opponent off balance, kinda like a lop sau with boxing gloves.

[t_niehoff]

I was shown in a muay thai class to punch the shoulder of the hooking arm and raise your punching arm so it covers your face. I can see either doing a Punch with Pak Sao or Biu Tze. Also, stepping away from the power of the punch. If I can do that with boxing gloves on and diffuse the hook's power, then open hand for the street should work fine.

Also, I have seen muay thai use a biu tze, stepping away from the hook, and then with the biu hand they overhook the elbow of the hooking arm and pull the opponent into a knee or elbow strike. They exploit the centrifugal force of the hook punch to pull their opponent off balance, kinda like a lop sau with boxing gloves.

What the muay thai guys are doing is not a biu sao.

Is what the thai's do how you learned the biu sao? Is it how you practice the movement in the WCK drills? Of course not.

I could show you that BJJ guys can defend the staple pass by pushing the passing leg with the palm and say that looks like a gum sao -- but it's not a gum sao.

[golgo]

Here's a different perspective . . .

I think the very question itself expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and method of WCK. WCK isn't an "outside", free-movement, stand-up fighting method (like boxing, kickboxing) although that is how many/most appraoch it. Only in that domain does this sort of question make sense. When people ask these sorts of questions, their base assumption is that WCK is a form of boxing or kickboxing. In my view, as we don't fight in the boxer's or kickboxer's range, we don't to deal with their weapons. (To me, this is sort of like asking how WCK deals with the staple guard pass. Answer: it doesn't.).

My perspective is that you don't deal with or defend against powerful hooks. Just like you don't deal with jabs or crosses or kicks. That's not our game. Our game is to not permit the opponent to throw these things in the first place.

In stand-up, you are either going to be in an opponent's range or out of his range. If we are out of his range, he can't hit us so we don't need to block or parry or whatever. We just need to maintain that range (and look to set up our entry). However, anytime I am in an opponent's striking range I am in contact, actively controlling his bridges (weapons). If his bridges are under control, he can't hook or jab or cross or kick. Traditionally, the WCK strategy/method is to dap (join with and ride the bridges) and jeet (cut-off or close down his offense).

This is why asking a greco-roman guy how he deals with a hook would get the same sort of answer.

FWIW, if bil saos and tan saos and those sorts of movements worked in boxing/kickboxing range, boxers and kickboxers would be already using those movements. They don't work with any consistency on the outside. And when you are able to pull one off, it just exposes you to #2.

Please excuse my ignorance/inexperience, but isn't this a bit "idealistic?" By this I mean, that while this may be a core principle - limiting and controling your opponent's actions, it would seem that if you are dealing with a skilled opponent who throws big hooks you are going to eventually have to deal with his hooks.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Isn't trying to block a hook falling into the trap of chasing hands? (m1k3)



***NO, not blocking the hook (preferably with a bil-lop motion near/at the inside cruk of his elbow) falls into the trap of possibly getting knocked out.

[t_niehoff]

Please excuse my ignorance/inexperience, but isn't this a bit "idealistic?" By this I mean, that while this may be a core principle - limiting and controling your opponent's actions, it would seem that if you are dealing with a skilled opponent who throws big hooks you are going to eventually have to deal with his hooks.

You will need to deal with his hooks if you are in that range (boxing/kickboxing range). And if you are in that range, you will find that you need to do what boxers and kickboxers do -- they've figured it out since they've spent so much time there. My point is that we don't work in that range, we avoid that range. WCK's method is an attached fighting method; it works when we are in close, in contact, actively trying to control an opponent. Look at it this way, if you are not in contact, you can't be doing WCK.

[LSWCTN1]

Isn't trying to block a hook falling into the trap of chasing hands?

Punch with the hand on the same side as the hook and use a pak close your face with the opposite hand as a cover. If the punch connects is should diffuse the hook, if it doesn't the pak will eat most of the force.

a la Joe Louis? or Philly Shell? thats the name i was taught for what i think your trying to say in boxing

however blocking the hook is a necessity, its not chasing hands - IMHO its covering

for example if you use the wu sau i mentioned earlier, you wouldnt carry it forward all the way to the attacking hand if the hook aborts, or your strike gets there first (as it should) and gets the knockout, you would put it as far out as necessary to cover without breaking out of your own structure

of course, i think we are all presuming that you are talking about facing the attacker