WCK is attached fighting

[YungChun]

Doesn't that depend on where you are in relation to their hands/arms and where their hands/arms are in relation to their body?

Sure..

Still there is a rather large difference when:

1. Their arms are not holding the line.
2. You're target is a limb.. (distance)
3. IF you can break structure..

In my experience it is tough to break structure unless you are "energizing" their core.

To do THAT you need to be in "close range" and by that I mean generally close enough to hit their body with no step.

The default bridge mentioned in the kuit is their core IMO.

There may be some long bridge elements I am unfamiliar with... I've heard of something like this from Kenneth Cheung..

If it doesn't break structure or have the potential to do so then it is a lower % lead IMO..

[t_niehoff]

...I don't read Niehoff's posts anymore - but when others quote him, then I might - and this one from Terence Niehoff is absolutely amazing.

That makes great sense -- ignore me, unless someone else doesn't! Pure Victor at his best.

The stuff in Phil Redmond's vid that Terence says is pretty good and similar to what he (terence) now does is EXACTLY the kind of thing in the past that Niehoff would RIP APART as things that would never work. Just amazing!!!

I would not have ripped it apart although there is much in what Phil teaches that I would rip apart. BTW, I didn't say it was "pretty good", I said it's "not bad."

So when Jim (YungChun) wrote this, he was spot on:

"I am convinced reading this and other things from you that I have no idea what you are talking about... Much of what you write seems erratic..one day a little of this, the next a little of that..."
.............................

I understand that you guys just don't get it, so it is not surprising that you can't put various things I say together -- it's like I'm talking to guys who can't ride a bike and have no idea how to ride a bike. So when I say that you lean as you turn, you respond with "but you said that you turn by using the handle bars!"

***SO I FIRST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE DISENGENUOUS NATURE OF TERENCE NIEHOFF - THE GUY IS OBVIOUSLY "WINGING IT" FROM POST-TO-POST, WEEK-BY-WEEK, MONTH-BY-MONTH, YEAR-BY-YEAR...

and is just a flame thrower who really has no foundation to what he does as a wing chun guy/martial artist - and hence the constant changes and bombastic attitudes.
.................................

All I'm doing is giving an example -- Phil's bridging with his bong sao. As far as it goes, that's fine. But he's not hitting with his structure or breaking the opponent's structure with his hit. That's where from my perspective, we have a problem.

And now I want to address the specifics in his above post that he says Phil is lacking - and point out the errors in his (Niehoff's) approach to how to "fix" what Phil is allegedly doing wrong.

Niehoff assumes that he can break the opponent's structure by use of his own superior "body structure" - crashing the guy's punch into his chest through use of the bong sao (again, referring to the scenario covered in Phil's TWC clip)...

in other words, if the wing chun guy had only HIT THE GUY HARD ENOUGH and had done so WITH THE PROPER BODY STRUCTURE - then the bong sao and ensuing moves would have dominated the guy and beaten him easily.

THIS IS BULL5HIT.

Because as usual, it's a half-truth...which means the other half is a lie.

I can do this kind of thing often myself, and have done so (and so can you, reader) - if you're up against someone smaller or weaker than you. Or perhaps against someone the same size as you - or even a bigger guy who doesn't know how to fight.

No, you don't understand. You hit the opponent with your body structure. You don't have the body structure I'm talking about. So, you won't be able to do what I'm talking about.

The other thing is, while destroying our opponent's body structure on contact is an ideal, we don't always accomplish it (just like not every shoot results in a take down). That's why we follow it up by staying in contact, trying to control while striking.

Now referring back to my vids: how often do you think the Niehoff approach (THAT IS, THE NIEHOFF APPROACH OF TODAY - BECAUSE TOMORROW HE MIGHT BE 180 DEGREES AWAY FROM IT)....

Dude, I wrote an article http://www.w1ng.com/a-method-to-our-madness/ years ago on the WCK method.

how often could ANYONE do that against a much bigger and stronger opponent who does know how to fight. To reiterate once again: the guy in the vid with me stands 6'3" and weighs 210...

to my 5'10"/170.

How well you can do what I do depends on the quality of your training. In your case, you'd never be able to pull it off.

Niehoff shoud show us a vid of himself giving away 40 lbs. and 5 inches against a strong guy who knows how to fight - and doing what he says Phil Redmond should have done.

I do it every time I train. But sorry, Victor, no video!

[t_niehoff]

I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.

WCK has two aspects if you want to look at it that way -- "grappling" or control aspects and striking aspects. Sure you can just do striking and throw out the control. And maybe, just maybe, there is some tactical reason for that (like you stun the guy and just decide to throw the sink at him). But in doing so, you are eschewing a significant part of the WCK method. Particularly if you never really use those aspects.

The other issue is that the things that work well while attached, the tools, body structure, etc. aren't optimal for working while nonattached. The demands, problems, etc. in attached fighting are different than they are for detached fighting and NEED different tools, mechanics, structures, etc. Boxing and kickboxing structure, mechanics, etc. work great unattached but not as well when attached.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I did read up, HumbleGuy, and many of your comments were dead on. Was particularly impressed with this, btw:

"Other than his droning about sparring, you won't find consistency in his posts especially concerning the particulars concerning the precise practice of WC. If you want to find consistency, I recommend you look up Narcisstic personality disorder which will explain his attempts to seem superior, and look up commitment consistency...a phenomenon found in cults whereby people commit to things that they do not believe in. Check it out!"

***Oh yeah, Humble... you hit a home run with that one, alright.
................................

As for fighting a bigger, stronger man (and assuming he knows how to fight): in general what I try to do is work the "range" as you put it in an earlier post, by keeping it at a certain ("non-attached") distance in the beginnnig - because I want to see what he's about...

and start looking for ways to score punches and kicks that might either do damage on their own (because now, 5 years after those vids were made, I use a lot more boxing moves, punches, some longer range kicking and more aggession from the outside range)...

or to provide opportunities to bridge into closer range safely and go to work with wing chun hitting/checking, parrying...and yes...PRESSURE...

but as a crosstrainer...

it's here where my wing chun hat might come off again - since it could easily go to clinch or ground once you're in close, no matter who you are.

And in fact, I do agree with lots of mma thinking (and from streetfight experience) that quite often against a bigger opponent with skills - you want to take him down to the ground and go for some serious control over his "body structure"...with some combination of punches, palm strikes, elbows...maybe knees, and of course submission holds - and preferably from sort of top dominant pin down position.

As for the standup part of the fight against a bigger, stronger man: a few more things I'd like to mention: footwork, low kicks, and a good sense of non-attached distance are a must, yes...but the contact reflexes gained in chi sao and chi sao related drills help a great deal against superior size and strength...

and much of the TWC footwork also comes into play in this regard...since it entails quite a bit of work concerning evasion and not fighting force-against-force...

so as sanjuro and van have said in recent posts - it's about fighting long range and short range - and once in very close - there's no such thing as "always" going forward.

You get extremely aggressive only when the opportunity is there - or you've created the opportunity. Otherwise, and especially when you're the smaller man - you need to be cautious.

Ever see the Roberto Duran/Thomas Hearns fight?

Duran tried to fight the same exact close quarter, super aggressive brawling type fight he always did - but now up against someone with serious skills and with a tremendous reach advantage. Trouble.

I've always admired Duran - and will be very agressive also once I see/create the opportunity...but if this is all you've got in your standup - regardless of what style/system you do - forget it.

Sooner or later some big dude is going to mess you up.

[t_niehoff]

Doesn't that depend on where you are in relation to their hands/arms and where their hands/arms are in relation to their body?

I must admit I was a bit thrown by Terence's comment. I would have thought that attacks would be to the body and that any incidental bridge caused by limbs in the way must be capitalized upon, i.e. used to break the opponents structure and lead to more control, as he describes.

I suppose if you set up the situation so that these bridges occur more often than not then I guess you will be "making bridges".

Let me clear something up. Hitting an opponent's limbs (like a pak sao) is not chasing hands. Making contact with his arms is not chasing hands. Chi sao isn't chasing hands. We chase control. Control. Sometimes we can get control via the arms, sometimes not. When we play with the hands but without the objective of controlling the opponent, THEN we are chasing hands. Sticking just to stick is chasing hands. Sticking to control an opponent is chasing control.

If you step in and throw punches to his head/body, he can do that too. And boxers are much, much better at doing that. They have better tools for doing that. There's nothing wrong with it, but if that's what you want to do, then take up boxing.

But we in WCK have better tools for something else. That is getting in and controlling the opponent while striking. If his arms are in the way, we hit them to (1) stop them from being able to hit us (jeet), and (2) to break our opponent's structure. What does the kuit tell us? If there is no bridge, create one. How? By see form, hit form. So, our hand goes out (to hit) and stays out (to control). But I'm not restricted to only hitting his arms, I'll hit what gives me control.

This is all WCK 101.

[YungChun]

WCK has two aspects if you want to look at it that way -- "grappling" or control aspects and striking aspects.

IMO the real answer is that VT is both of these, not one or the other.. It all depends on the encounter..

VT, be it connected or not (what kind of contact) there is always contact, there is always a bridge, it's all dependent on what the opponent does.

Dead "beats" (moves that don't take something away) are liabilities no matter the version..

[YungChun]

Let me clear something up. Hitting an opponent's limbs (like a pak sao) is not chasing hands. Making contact with his arms is not chasing hands. Chi sao isn't chasing hands. We chase control. Control. Sometimes we can get control via the arms, sometimes not. When we play with the hands but without the objective of controlling the opponent, THEN we are chasing hands. Sticking just to stick is chasing hands. Sticking to control an opponent is chasing control.

If you step in and throw punches to his head/body, he can do that too. And boxers are much, much better at doing that. They have better tools for doing that. There's nothing wrong with it, but if that's what you want to do, then take up boxing.

But we in WCK have better tools for something else. That is getting in and controlling the opponent while striking. If his arms are in the way, we hit them to (1) stop them from being able to hit us (jeet), and (2) to break our opponent's structure. What does the kuit tell us? If there is no bridge, create one. How? By see form, hit form. So, our hand goes out (to hit) and stays out (to control). But I'm not restricted to only hitting his arms, I'll hit what gives me control.

This is all WCK 101.

Wow..

Okay 101...

So the premise as I read it is....

While we poor VT folks with limited striking capability (compared to boxers) can't afford to take chances, ala attacking the head... (because we could get hit while trying)

We VT folks must play it safer and target............wait for it...............an arm....!

Because by attacking an arm, (the fastest, most mobile, part of his body) we are safer...from getting hit..

The arm is the safe/correct target to strike....(with a pak)!!! Not the head nor the body...that's too dangerous...!

Wow!

And of course that's what "see form, hit form" means....

Here you go... Just attack his arm!!!! It's the "safer" thing to do!!! -- 101

(from the same guy who says outside entry with PakDa is low %)



Alrighty then...

[Frantic Planet]

Hello everyone,

I agree and disagree with Terence. I would consider my system of wing chun(jui wan) to be attached fighting. It's all about moving forward and destroying opponents structure as quickly as possible. I think thats where it works best. If your opponent is busy trying to catch his balance it's difficult for him to be hitting you, and if he does his power will be much less than normal. This has worked very well for me in a couple streetfight situations. Granted, they weren't trained fighters but they were big football player jock types. This whole stick and move and tit for tat type of sparring goes against the nature of what my system is all about.

Having said that, I think systems like TWC and HFY don't emphasize these structure destroying methods too much. They seem to me to be more concerened with mobility in footwork and keeping a little more distance. So the stick and move type sparring is more suitable for them. I could be wrong though. Obviously, there's different methods of training wing chun. Everyone is in their own reality bubble anyway. You all should really try to get along better and learn from each other... Lol... have a nice day!

[t_niehoff]

Wow..

Okay 101...

So the premise as I read it is....

While we poor VT folks with limited striking capability (compared to boxers) can't afford to take chances, ala attacking the head... (because we could get hit while trying)

Have you gone and trained with good boxers? No.

You see, boxing has many tools that WCK doesn't, not only strikes. If you don't understand that, then go spar with some good boxers and you will.

Our (WCK) method isn't to box, it isn't to fight from free-movement.

We VT folks must play it safer and target............wait for it...............an arm....!

Because by attacking an arm, (the fastest, most mobile, part of his body) we are safer...from getting hit..

No, it is to clinch or get attachment -- that's how we play it safe and avoid exchanging shots. Clinch. How do we set up a clinch? By striking him (as opposed to just reaching out to grab or something). Sometimes we hit the arm. Sometimes we don't.

The arm is the safe/correct target to strike....(with a pak)!!! Not the head nor the body...that's too dangerous...!

If you are shorter, for example, you need to step through his range to get into range to hit his body or head, but his arms (presumably they are in front of him) provide a closer target. Moreover, by hitting them, you stop them from being able to hit you. It's the same tactic as kicking his leg to stop him from being able to kick you. Some refer to the tactic as kuen siu kuen. Some learn the tactic with the turning punch or the pak da drill. And some, it seems, never figure it out.

Wow!

And of course that's what "see form, hit form" means....

Here you go... Just attack his arm!!!! It's the "safer" thing to do!!! -- 101

Yes, it is WCK 101.

(from the same guy who says outside entry with PakDa is low %)

No, I said that simultaneous blocking and striking (trying to pak da an opponent's punch, for instance) is very low %, but what I'm talking about isn't simul blocking and striking.

[duende]

Having said that, I think systems like TWC and HFY don't emphasize these structure destroying methods too much. They seem to me to be more concerened with mobility in footwork and keeping a little more distance. So the stick and move type sparring is more suitable for them. I could be wrong though. Obviously, there's different methods of training wing chun. Everyone is in their own reality bubble anyway. You all should really try to get along better and learn from each other... Lol... have a nice day!

Frantic,

I can't speak for TWC,

However in HFY our whole KIU SAU platform is designed towards destroying your opponents structure by way of contact control. Using our KIU SAU structural alignment and TIn YAN DEI body mechanics to create a strong bridge.

Yes we employ footwork that is mobile, and covers our lower gate at the same time.. But what you suggest is not only untrue, but completely ignorant of any HFY core methods whatsoever.

Read some of our posts here. We always destroy Sink/Destroy the bridge. This is our CHUM KIU. There many ways to do this, and describing them all here online is impossible. Your viewpoint here is waaaaay off target.

Do some research.

When the vast majority of the WC community was saying Chum Kiu meant only "seeking the bridge"... We were saying it meant "sink/destroy" the bridge.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Check out this Muay Thai training vid by ex-mma fighter Phil Baroni.

Amoungst other things, notice how he seeks to control range/distance - as well as including using neck tie's and knees at the simulated close range. This kind of training (and thinking)... imo, could bring a lot to the wing chun game - because with work, one can put centerline/central line principles into this as well...

along with simultaneous block and strike...good forward pressure...and yes...moves like pak, lop, garn, bong, lan, tan, bil, etc. can be put right into this at strategic moments...and strong use of wing chun body structure at the close ranges - including vertical, 45 degree angled, and horizontal wing chun type chain punching when the opportunity is there.

But from the longer ranges - check out Baroni's use of footwork, punches, push kicks off the lead leg, roundhouse kicks, and combos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftgl5wp05Ys

[YungChun]

No, it is to clinch or get attachment -- that's how we play it safe and avoid exchanging shots. Clinch. How do we set up a clinch? By striking him (as opposed to just reaching out to grab or something). Sometimes we hit the arm.

And what do you think he's going to be doing when you fire off your attack on his arm?

Depends.. I have advocated attacking the line when his arm is firing along the path.... That has a much better chance of gaining an attachment, again, IMO... But the target is still his body not his arm..

As far as actually attacking a guard arm, not my cup of tea...

[duende]

Most "guard" arms or wu sau structures you see in WC are a joke.

And even if it is strong, one should know how to crash it or neutralize it.

[YungChun]

Most "guard" arms or wu sau structures you see in WC are a joke.

And even if it is strong, one should know how to crash it or neutralize it.

I assume this was to me?

I (we) were discussing attacking his arm (non VT opponent)... If this means when the opponent is not attacking then I refer to his guarding arms.. Note picture above.. Those are the arms in question..

Otherwise not sure what you mean..

I am interested in breaking his structure on the lead.... And if some folks think that attacking a guarding arm is good, fine by me.. Keep the ideas coming...

And btw T I have sparred with a few boxers over the years.. Two of them I taught some VT to... One of the two sucks (IMO--he will no longer spar with me if I use that "grabbing $hit" lol) the others seemed pretty good..

[HumbleWCGuy]

I did read up, HumbleGuy, and many of your comments were dead on. Was particularly impressed with this, btw:

"Other than his droning about sparring, you won't find consistency in his posts especially concerning the particulars concerning the precise practice of WC. If you want to find consistency, I recommend you look up Narcisstic personality disorder which will explain his attempts to seem superior, and look up commitment consistency...a phenomenon found in cults whereby people commit to things that they do not believe in. Check it out!"

***Oh yeah, Humble... you hit a home run with that one, alright.

People think that I am kidding about Terrence suffering from a personality disorder but I am dead f-ing serious. There are a lot of people in martial arts who exaggerate their accomplishments and act as if they have a sense of entitlement. I believe that people with Narcissitic personality disorder are attracted to martial arts for some reason. I believe Dale is a sufferer as well.
http://allpsych.com/disorders/person...arcissism.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nar...CTION=symptoms

Besides commitment and consistency, Terrence is also searching for social proof. If he can convince others that his wing chun is good it must be. Only one problem, he is utterly clueless about Wing Chun fighting. Now if you want to spend time dissecting terminology and debating the finer points of the principles T. can provide you with some amusement in his cluelessness, but it really just isn't worth trying to discuss any particulars of fighting with him.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/br...washing20.html