WCK is attached fighting

[t_niehoff]

If you look at Victor's post on the "WCK is not attached fighting thread", http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...63&postcount=1, you'll see that he, characteristically, makes lots of assertions but offers no reasons to support his view.

WCK is attached fighting BECAUSE historically that is what it is. And you can see that as:

The faat (the method) tells us so. The faat is, either implicitly or explicitly, found across WCK lineages. Rene writes about it in his book on YKS WCK. It is in Gu Lao. It is in YM WCK. In a nutshell, WCK's approach is to control while striking -- and most of the time you can't control without some sort of attachment.

The kuen kuit tells us so. Almost all of the the kuit only make sense when viewed from a contact/attached perspective, from the famous Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung to the illustrative Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma. There is even the explicit Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu.

But what if you never learn the faat or kuit? What if you or your teacher are missing these aspects of the WCK curriculum? Then, I think it is very difficult to make headway since the faat is the "map" or organizing principle of WCK, and the kuit provide direction (it's a compass) to our practice (to keep us on the road as we follow the map). Without the faat and kuit, you are lost in the woods without knowing where you are going and no guidance to get there!

The WCK terminology tells us so. Who talks about "bridging the gap" or "entering" but grapplers? Boxers and kickboxers don't. What are you "bridging" to? What are you trying to "enter"? You're trying to enter into a contact/attached situation (not striking range). Why "forward pressure" if there is no contact (how can you press on something if you aren't in contact)? Fook sao (controlling hand), bik ma (pressing step), etc. We have an entire form, chum kiu (SEEK THE BRIDGE or USE THE BRIDGE TO DESTROY HIS STRUCTURE - depending on your lineage, though both are correct), that explicitly refers to having a bridge. WCK does NOT use terms like block or parry or redirect -- it talks about bridge hands. Tan, bong, fook, gaun, etc. are bridge hands. The YJKYM, or parallel stance, which is the most fundamental horse in WCK -- do you see parallel stances in boxing or kickboxing? No. Do you see it in grappling? Yes. I could go on and on.

The WCK drills tell us so. The WCK exercises are, for the most part, contact/attached drills/exercises. Chi sao is the WCK signature drill/exercise. Attached. Lop sao or rollling bong is another signature drill/exercise. Attached. Why do mainly attached drills to fight unattached? Does that make any sense? Boxers and kickboxers don't even do attached drills, let alone have attached drills as their signature drill yet develop the highest levels of noncontact fighting skills, beyond anything any WCK person has. What are you practicing when you do chi sao? Using your WCK tools while attached (in contact) to try and control your opponent while you strike him.

Application tells us so. Anyone who spends any decent amount of time fighting on the inside (remember WSL's tape, 'The Science of In-Fighting'?) will find that they NEED to control their opponent -- after all you are in range and without controlling him he is free to move. That means, you have very little time to react and he can do just about anything. By controlling him, you significantly restrict what things he can do and you slow him down.

Now, as WCK has both controlling and striking aspects, can you get away with sometimes not controlling? Sure. WCK provides a skill set and game plan for using those skills, but you can use or not use whatever you like. If your opponent is a scrub, you may get away with simply running over him with lien wan chois (straight blast) as we see in the"Rooftop fights." But, this is low-level WCK and only works against low-level opposition.

Of course, I could be wrong. But as Yip Man advises us, "Go out and see test it for yourself, I may be tricking you." If you just get some training partners, start in contact, and fight, and put in some significant time, you'll see for yourself. If you won't give yourself this experience, you can't ever know.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wing Chung became attached fighting so that instructors could bilk droves of students out of money by teaching them endless non-contact (light hitting) chi sao drills. I have a pretty narrow definition of what Wing Chun is, but to call it attached fighting is just silly. Clinching, trapping, and otherwise arresting an opponent's movement are important aspects of solid wing chun but they do not represent the whole of wing chun.

You keep asserting that one can't kickbox wing chun style yet you haven't offered up any expiation for how bridges are supposed to occur how Wing chun is supposed to work when an opponent has an answer for your attaching.

To be honest, I sense quite a bit of confusion in you about what WC is. You have vacillated back and forth on what Chi Sao is.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good WC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ftHkJClhQ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=win-6R7_JrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJVV2k2pIU

I have difficulty calling that full-contact sparring. Why are they wearing all the protective gear when both guys are using much less than full power? Moreover, you can tell that Victor's partner isn't even genuinely fighting back in some instances. And why does the fighting stop and restart? That is play fighting.

But, you do see ALL kinds of outside fighting bad habits, including reaching for punches, little-to-no head movement, off-balance punching, etc. A good boxer (or good fighter) would chew these guys up. If they are going to box, they should go train at a good boxing gym and learn how.

All the "I saw a bil sao!" aside, this is precisely what I mean by "WCK kickboxing" -- kickboxing and tossing in every now and then a WCK movement. Is this what you train to do? Is this WCK's approach to fighting? Do you even need to learn and practice WCK to do THAT? Of course not. You'd be better off just going to a good kickboxing gym and learning how to kickbox well.

A lot of us have done time in mma and it has improved our WC. It seems to have just confused you. Oy! Write your definition of WC on some notebook paper and stick with it.

[t_niehoff]

Wing Chung became attached fighting so that instructors could bilk droves of students out of money by teaching them endless non-contact (light hitting) chi sao drills. I have a pretty narrow definition of what Wing Chun is, but to call it attached fighting is just silly. Clinching, trapping, and otherwise arresting an opponent's movement are important aspects of solid wing chun but they do not represent the whole of wing chun.

I never said it is the whole of WCK -- I said controlling WHILE striking.

You keep asserting that one can't kickbox wing chun style yet you haven't offered up any expiation for how bridges are supposed to occur how Wing chun is supposed to work when an opponent has an answer for your attaching.

Look at your "question" -- "how is Wing chun supposed to work when an opponent has an answer for your attaching?" That's like asking "how is GNP supposed to work when your opponent has an answer to your taking him down?" The answer is you need to be better skilled at "attaching" (or taking him down) than he is at stopping you. This is true for EVERYTHING. How is boxing supposed to work when your opponent has an answer for your punching?!!!

To be honest, I sense quite a bit of confusion in you about what WC is. You have vacillated back and forth on what Chi Sao is.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

Everything I've said is consistent. Where is there anything in that "montage" that isn't?

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching.

Victor wasn't "doing WCK" -- where is the WCK movement? He was doing poor boxing/kickboxing.

Ask yourself, do you NEED WCK training to do what Victor was doing? You could learn THAT at a boxing, kickboxing gym -- and learn it much, much better.

Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries.

No, it doesn't. There are no "parries" in WCK. Tan sao, bong sao, pak sao, etc.. aren't parries -- they are bridge hands (the terms themselves tell you that).

As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good WC.

Man sao, bil sao, etc. aren't parries. Fighting from the outside (your "maintaining range") isn't a hallmark of good WCK. WCK is in-fighting.

A lot of us have done time in mma and it has improved our WC. It seems to have just confused you. Oy! Write your definition of WC on some notebook paper and stick with it.

Yes, some of us have put in the time training with MMA fighters, but you aren't one of them. I can tell by the things you say.

Nor, have you, it seemed, learned the WCK curriculum.

And, it's interesting that you, like Victor, can't offer up an reasons to support your view, but only assertions.

[k gledhill]

Wrong Terence... as mentioned your chasing your ideas of what YOU can make of it. YOU can only make it function by adopting an attached idea. Its called controlling hands that will hit you if you stop sticking to them
I can see what your missing from your posts. Its up to you to open doors, guys arent going to open them for you. Just because you as a teacher have a dvd series and books proclaiming otherwise still wont change the facts your marketing YOUR idea, let it be, dont try to ram it down our throats,

sparring will show it in a few seconds...while you try to 'attach' yourself. its called arm chasing and can be explained hands on really quick as you get hit. Using a 'rolling bong' or a lop also shows your low level of understanding.

yes we use parries ...to displace bridges for the fractions of a second we combine our parries strikes and movement....we want to prevent the opponent from making 'attachments' .....they can use feeling against us, if we displace them and make them lose contact we can strike ..our thinking is to make relentless pressure from attacks further causing them to try to stop our hands by making 'attachments'...only we dont let them. its like letting go of a rope you hold out for someone to use all their force against , then suddenly letting go, moving it, angling away so the holder of the rope is no longer facing where they directed their force ....the drills develop this ...but you wont develop if you have only been shown square on facing stages of the drills with 2 arms extended...we dont fight with 2 arms extended as the drills.

it relies on the scientific approach to using 3 things at once to make one sound..momentum, timing, structure all come into play as we attack. So we focus on fighting resisting opponents who offer arms to stop our entry ..we dont seek to stick or control the arms for any other reason.
By attaching your self you lose the dynamics of motion, momentum and strikes that may or may not be coupled with sharp displacing energy, all in the ONE moment of the timing ...using the momentum of motion coupled with the sharp displacing ballistic force of a pak or a bong. Coupling structure of the hips generating force to coincide with the elbows we develop this ability to make explosive small movements that are very difficult to deal with.

ballistic force generated to a point of contact to remove 'attachments' open a small hole to strike into. We only need small openings.

We do use controlling actions as a last resort in Bil Gee, when we have to regain things the opponent has stopped us doing..but this is an idea that we use to 'regain' the fighting 'bubble, so to speak.

The skill of the system is being able to show this ability in close quarters without regressing to trying to hold the opponents hands.

VT is attacking with mobility and aggressiveness as you put the opponent under pressure of sustained attacking or having the ability to make counter moves that are attacking ...iow defensive actions that all incorporate an attacking action.

this is taught at the early stages in dan chi sao...and not to roll with the bong feeling energy carp.


We train to maintain our fighting distances intuitively so we can generate KO force as you come we stay in our striking distances but have to angle to a flank to avoid facing you square on as we do drills...


the system is taught in abstract methods to develop certain traits..sadly those who dont understand this try to make the abstract forms, drills, dummy, the 'way'...

[duende]

Hey Terence...

If WC is attached fighting as you propose. Then it brings up a few questions that need answering.

Can you:

1. Show us how you think this should be expressed visually? How much of straight-up clinching is in your methodolgy.

2. Explain how this system could ever have been created or developed by a woman?? As "clinch" range, is arguably the worst range for a female with inherantly weaker strength to be in.

3. Explain the body method so often seen in both YKS and YM with their leaning back
shoulders and long fully extended straight punch. Two physical traits that are serious handicaps in clinch range???

BTW... I agree with much that you have written here. But how one EXPRESSES these concepts is key.

WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system.

WC is not a body to body system. We may have effective tools for that range, but they are only for use when we've been caught off guard and our other tools have been bypassed or have otherwise failed.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system...WC is not a body to body system" (Duende)

***CORRECT.
..........................................

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good wing chun. (HumbleWCGuy)

***THANKS. And one of the most important things about keeping range is to help prevent "attachment". Some limb-to-limb contact and manipulation (and some body balance manipulation) does exist in wing chun, per se...but wing chun is first and foremost about hitting - and having both arms free to do that at all times.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Terence...

If WC is attached fighting as you propose.

Can you:

1. Show us how you think this should be expressed visually? I'm curious as to how much of straight up clinching is in your methodolgy.

What is "straight up clinching"? Contact is clinching.

2. Explain how this system could ever have been created or developed by a woman?? As "clinch" range, is arguably the worst range for a female with inherantly weaker strength to be in.

You do understand that the origin story is an allegory, right?

But to answer your question, the clinch is where you want to be if you are the smaller, weaker fighter. By getting in (contact) you take away any reach advantage, you smother any strikes. By learning to use leverage, and by breaking an opponent's structure you take away an opponent's strength. Isn't this the same in judo (clinch)?

3. Explain the body method so often seen in both YKS and YM with their leaning back
shoulders and long fully extended straight punch. Two physical traits that are serious handicaps in clinch range???

The leaning back "posture" doesn't work ANYWHERE, let alone the inside. It is, I think, an unfortunate derivation of the wan wun.

BTW... I agree with much that you have written here. But how I will say, how one expresses these concepts is key.

There are no "concepts".

WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system.

I have never said they were -- I have said that WCK's method is to control while striking. If you do "pure" grappling, your methodology and tools will, of course, differ.

WC is not a body to body system. We may have effective tools for that range, but they are only for use when we've been caught off guard and our other tools have been bypassed or have otherwise failed.

That's not entirely accurate. WCK does have body-to-body contact as part of its methodology but not in the same way or to the extent that, for instance, greco does.

[t_niehoff]

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good wing chun. (HumbleWCGuy)

***THANKS. And one of the most important things about keeping range is to help prevent "attachment". Some limb-to-limb contact and manipulation (and some body balance manipulation) does exist in wing chun, per se...but wing chun is first and foremost about hitting - and having both arms free to do that at all times.

You continue to prove that you really have no basic-level grasp of WCK.

[t_niehoff]

Wrong Terence... as mentioned your chasing your ideas of what YOU can make of it. YOU can only make it function by adopting an attached idea. Its called controlling hands that will hit you if you stop sticking to them
I can see what your missing from your posts. Its up to you to open doors, guys arent going to open them for you. Just because you as a teacher have a dvd series and books proclaiming otherwise still wont change the facts your marketing YOUR idea, let it be, dont try to ram it down our throats,

sparring will show it in a few seconds...while you try to 'attach' yourself. its called arm chasing and can be explained hands on really quick as you get hit. Using a 'rolling bong' or a lop also shows your low level of understanding.

yes we use parries ...to displace bridges for the fractions of a second we combine our parries strikes and movement....we want to prevent the opponent from making 'attachments' .....they can use feeling against us, if we displace them and make them lose contact we can strike ..our thinking is to make relentless pressure from attacks further causing them to try to stop our hands by making 'attachments'...only we dont let them. its like letting go of a rope you hold out for someone to use all their force against , then suddenly letting go, moving it, angling away so the holder of the rope is no longer facing where they directed their force ....the drills develop this ...but you wont develop if you have only been shown square on facing stages of the drills with 2 arms extended...we dont fight with 2 arms extended as the drills.

it relies on the scientific approach to using 3 things at once to make one sound..momentum, timing, structure all come into play as we attack. So we focus on fighting resisting opponents who offer arms to stop our entry ..we dont seek to stick or control the arms for any other reason.
By attaching your self you lose the dynamics of motion, momentum and strikes that may or may not be coupled with sharp displacing energy, all in the ONE moment of the timing ...using the momentum of motion coupled with the sharp displacing ballistic force of a pak or a bong. Coupling structure of the hips generating force to coincide with the elbows we develop this ability to make explosive small movements that are very difficult to deal with.

ballistic force generated to a point of contact to remove 'attachments' open a small hole to strike into. We only need small openings.

We do use controlling actions as a last resort in Bil Gee, when we have to regain things the opponent has stopped us doing..but this is an idea that we use to 'regain' the fighting 'bubble, so to speak.

The skill of the system is being able to show this ability in close quarters without regressing to trying to hold the opponents hands.

VT is attacking with mobility and aggressiveness as you put the opponent under pressure of sustained attacking or having the ability to make counter moves that are attacking ...iow defensive actions that all incorporate an attacking action.

this is taught at the early stages in dan chi sao...and not to roll with the bong feeling energy carp.


We train to maintain our fighting distances intuitively so we can generate KO force as you come we stay in our striking distances but have to angle to a flank to avoid facing you square on as we do drills...


the system is taught in abstract methods to develop certain traits..sadly those who dont understand this try to make the abstract forms, drills, dummy, the 'way'...

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

[k gledhill]

wow very technical rebuttal....shows your depth of knowledge...post aerosmith clip...

technical rebuttal NOT....you dont understand what Im talking about do you ?
enough for me.

[duende]

What is "straight up clinching"? Contact is clinching.

I think for many people here, including myself. Ussage of the term clinch inherantly implies "locking up" and fully committed body to body time frame grappling.

One can make contact, achieve control, and strike without falling into the above.

You do understand that the origin story is an allegory, right?

I was just curious to see where you stood on the matter.

But to answer your question, the clinch is where you want to be if you are the smaller, weaker fighter. By getting in (contact) you take away any reach advantage, you smother any strikes. By learning to use leverage, and by breaking an opponent's structure you take away an opponent's strength. Isn't this the same in judo (clinch)?

Yes, leverage and breaking structure are key, how ever compromising of range, as in a body to body clinch, leaves little room for an exit strategy. A strategy that must always be in consideration. Especially if you are a woman where the possibiltiy of having your structure and leverage crashed through by a stronger opponent is a real concern.

The leaning back "posture" doesn't work ANYWHERE, let alone the inside. It is, I think, an unfortunate derivation of the wan wun.

Interesting. I'm still curious to hear a full explanation for it. But so much is lost over time.

Btw, we don't lean back because it goes against our Human triangle structure principle. Leaning back effectively destroys our Heaven gate structure and imobilizes our Earth gate/footwork at the same time. But that's Tin Yan De body mechanics 101.

Not some personal interpretation or derivation of the core understanding.

There are no "concepts".

oh right... Sorry I forgot.

I have never said they were -- I have said that WCK's method is to control while striking. If you do "pure" grappling, your methodology and tools will, of course, differ.

cool. Not trying to put words in your mouth. Only get clarification.

That's not entirely accurate. WCK does have body-to-body contact as part of its methodology but not in the same way or to the extent that, for instance, greco does.

Yeah, I know it does, as I said above. But it's function and placement in our over-all WC strategy is different.

[t_niehoff]

I think for many people here, including myself. Ussage of the term clinch inherantly implies "locking up" and fully committed body to body time frame grappling.

I don't have any idea what "time frame grappling" is - but clinch isn't just body locking. MT has clinch, judo has clinch, dirty boxing is clinch, etc.

One can make contact, achieve control, and strike without falling into the above.

Yes.

Yes, leverage and breaking structure are key, how ever compromising of range, as in a body to body clinch, leaves little room for an exit strategy. A strategy that must always be in consideration. Especially if you are a woman where the possibiltiy of having your structure and leverage crashed through by a stronger opponent is a real concern.

Body-to-body doesn't always need NEED an exit strategy. For example, when you have an opponent's back.

Interesting. I'm still curious to hear a full explanation for it. But so much is lost over time.

Btw, we don't lean back because it goes against our Human triangle structure principle. Leaning back effectively destroys our Heaven gate structure and imobilizes our Earth gate/footwork at the same time. But that's Tin Yan De body mechanics 101.

Not some personal interpretation or derivation of the core understanding.

Concepts are nonsense. Typically we don't lean back since in doing so we compromise our ability to maximally use our body (to lift, press, pull, hit, etc.). You don't need "concepts" when you know what is going on. Can you jump when you are leaning back? Do you need a "concept" to tell you that?

[Knifefighter]

Yes, leverage and breaking structure are key, how ever compromising of range, as in a body to body clinch, leaves little room for an exit strategy. .

There are plenty of "exit strategies" from the clinch. Any of the clinch transitions allow you to work either to obtain a better control position, set up a takedown or strike, or to get out out of the clinch completely.

The clinch actually give you more options than a more outside range.

[duende]

There are plenty of "exit strategies" from the clinch. Any of the clinch transitions allow you to work either to obtain a better control position, set up a takedown or strick, or to get out out of the clinch completely.

The clinch actually give you more options than a more outside range.

Understood. But the context of my post was based on a woman being physically dominated by a man. If say a Nun was grabbed by a soldier and physically restrained... Which is highly plausible in clinch range... My money would be on the soldier.

So with this in mind, the notion that WC was created by a woman is ridiculous. Not being sexist, just being realistic.

[t_niehoff]

Understood. But the context of my post was based on a woman being physically dominated by a man. If say a Nun was grabbed by a soldier and physically restrained... Which is highly plausible in clinch range... My money would be on the soldier.

So with this in mind, the notion that WC was created by a woman is ridiculous. Not being sexist, just being realistic.

What kind of reasoning is that? You imagine some soldier grabs nun scenario, mistakenly assume that the soldier will win (and what if the nun is much more highly skilled in the clinch than the man?), and from that conclude that WCK couldn't be created by a woman! WTF?

ALL WCK origin tales are merely legends, they are not true. At best the are allegories, trying to impart some "lesson", at worst, well, I won't go there.