The Key

[t_niehoff]

From my perspective, the key to WCK is breaking the opponent's structure. That is the thing around which everything else revolves.

And it is the thing I look for in determining how good someone's WCK is (andin, for example, determining how well I am doing).

When we break the opponent's structure, we take away his strength and his speed, we take away his offense and his defense. If you've ever had your structure broken by someone who knows what they are doing, you feel like you are being tossed around like a rag doll. What breaking the opponent's structure provides is control (and safety).

If you don't break an opponent's structure, then he is free to use all his strength, all his speed, free to attack you -- and you have to deal with all of that.

So how can we break an opponent's structure and keep it broken? You can do that through striking him in certain ways. Is striking alone enough? Rarely. But, you can also push, pull, press, lift, jerk, etc. him, using leverage and momentum, to break and keep his structure broken.

What do you need to be able to push, pull, press, jerk,etc., to use leverage and momentum, against your opponent? You need a couple fundamental things. First, you need a solid connection, a good handle. What in WCK we call "a bridge". This isn't a momentary, fleeting connection (like a block) but one that is solid enough (the so-called "iron bridge") and which lasts long enough for you to perform the action, to lift, to press, to pull, etc. In other words, sustained contact in such a way as to provide that connection (bridge).

Second, you also need a certain body structure or way of using your body, one that not only makes it difficult for you to have your structure broken (that withstands being directly pushed, pulled, jerked, etc.) but that can you can use to push,pull, jerk, lift, press, etc. Because you don't do those things with your arm (localized muscle), you do them with your body. The bridge provides the connection, but it is the body that does the action (press with your body, pull with your body, lift with your body, etc.).

And, btw, this strategy of breaking the opponent's structure isn't unique or special to WCK -- you see it in judo (kazushi), you see it in MT clinch, you see it in wrestling, etc. How it is implemented in those various arts differs since their approaches differ.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.

[t_niehoff]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.

Sure it CAN (didn't I say so?).

The issue is whether breaking your opponent's structure is your aim (your objective) or what you hope will be the by-product of your striking. Because when it is your aim, it changes things (how you hit, how you set up your strike, etc.). And, you may come to realize that it is just one tactic among many to accomplish breaking structure -- often, for example, it is much simpler to pull to break structure than to strike to break structure.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hitting people really hard breaks their structure really well, amongst other things.

***YOU said a mouthful, right there...

Breaking the opponent's structure (ie.- unbalancing him, setting him back on his heels, or in retreat) - is all well and good...

but not necessary in order to win a fight.

You can drop a man with several well placed punches, knee strikes, elbow strikes, kicks, etc. - and it's over.

The breaking of structure comes as he hits the floor.

Simple, direct, efficient. Sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit !!!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sure it CAN (didn't I say so?).

The issue is whether breaking your opponent's structure is your aim (your objective) or what you hope will be the by-product of your striking. Because when it is your aim, it changes things (how you hit, how you set up your strike, etc.). And, you may come to realize that it is just one tactic among many to accomplish breaking structure -- often, for example, it is much simpler to pull to break structure than to strike to break structure.

Being brought up in a "one hit, one kill" MA - Hung Kuen, then kyokushin- and taking that view into boxing and beyond, I never viewed the "goal" of any strike to be anything other than "to compromise the opponent" ( That was borrowed from my first boxing coach in Portugal), a strike MUST make the opponent "compromise" himself, either by the effect of the hit, or what he must do NOT to get hit.
If you wanna view that as "structural compromise" great.
Now, "one hit,one kills" are rarer than a Virgin after prom night, but the core principle is very valid and, in my view, a bit neglected nowadays.
Hitting in a way that every strike MUST be taken seriously by your opponent, IE: no 10 year old girl slaps.

[chusauli]

What Terence is speaking about here is the method that I teach.

Even in Hung Kuen, you have the concept of continual striking (Lien Wan Da Faat), along with "one punch kill".

You have to continue to do Bik Ma to smother the opponent and isolate his resources, of course, controlling the center of gravity is also slowing the opponent's reaction time, thereby allowing you to strike him multiple times.

There is no disagreement in using striking tools.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What Terence is speaking about here is the method that I teach.

Even in Hung Kuen, you have the concept of continual striking (Lien Wan Da Faat), along with "one punch kill".

You have to continue to do Bik Ma to smother the opponent and isolate his resources, of course, controlling the center of gravity is also slowing the opponent's reaction time, thereby allowing you to strike him multiple times.

There is no disagreement in using striking tools.

I totally disagree.





Just kidding
LOL !

I am probably the least "bridge orientated" southern kung fu guy you will find !
Probably all that pesky boxing I did.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And the boxing approach is good. As is breaking the man's structure.

You do whatever it takes, based upon the opportunities he gives you or those you create yourself.

That's THE KEY.

[LoneTiger108]

From my perspective, the key to WCK is breaking the opponent's structure. That is the thing around which everything else revolves...

... And, btw, this strategy of breaking the opponent's structure isn't unique or special to WCK -- you see it in judo (kazushi), you see it in MT clinch, you see it in wrestling, etc. How it is implemented in those various arts differs since their approaches differ.

It's all good coining a phrase, but surely this can be explained further. FWIW Within what I have studied there is a key area of training that develops this 'body structure' and it would be cool to compare notes. Also, from what I've seen from Alan Orrs clips we have similar structural tests/tricks too.

So what is the WCK body structure exactly? Where does the practise draw it's origins?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Reducing WC to standing grappling is just missing the boat in my opinion. It is a part of WC but it isn't even close to being the sum of WC. Generally speaking though, a little clinching knowledge goes a long way, but like in MT, you really only want to start clinching when your strikes aren't working for you and/or you are sure that you have the upper hand in the clinch.

[t_niehoff]

***YOU said a mouthful, right there...

Breaking the opponent's structure (ie.- unbalancing him, setting him back on his heels, or in retreat) - is all well and good...

but not necessary in order to win a fight.

You can drop a man with several well placed punches, knee strikes, elbow strikes, kicks, etc. - and it's over.

The breaking of structure comes as he hits the floor.

Simple, direct, efficient. Sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit !!!

Funny, "sounds like a wing chun kuen kuit"! TWC doesn't have the kuit -- apparently Cheung never learned them or, if he did, never understood their significance.

Of course breaking structure isn't necessary to win a fight. Many arts, the noncontact ones particularly (boxing, kickboxing, etc.), don't focus on breaking structure. But all arts that involve sustained contact while standing, call it clinch or whatever, do. And there is a reason they do. So it makes sense that if you see WCK as some sort of kickboxing, then breaking structure wouldn't be important to you.

It makes me wonder what people are learning since the chum kiu form pertains to the skills for breaking structure (the name of the form tells you that), or that chum is one of the faat mun, or that our signature exercise is an attached one (chi sao) -- which provides the conditions (sustained contact) to permit practice of breaking an opponent's structure . . . . Oh, well.

[t_niehoff]

It's all good coining a phrase, but surely this can be explained further. FWIW Within what I have studied there is a key area of training that develops this 'body structure' and it would be cool to compare notes. Also, from what I've seen from Alan Orrs clips we have similar structural tests/tricks too.

So what is the WCK body structure exactly? Where does the practise draw it's origins?

Robert's structure tests are just a way to help beginners find how to use their body.

The practice draws from function: how can I use my body successfully while attached fighting? In that situation, your opponent will be pressing you, pulling you, jerking you, etc. trying to break your structure. So, you need your body to be able to instantly adjust to those forces and maintain its integrity while at the same time be able to successfully strike, pull, press, push, jerk, lift, etc, him using your body (and not localized muscle). That's WCK body structure in a nutshell.

[t_niehoff]

What Terence is speaking about here is the method that I teach.

Exactly. The focus of your teaching is breaking the opponent's structure and what you need to do that -- and that's because you recognize it is one of the fundamentals of WCK.

But this isn't just something you came up with, it is a part of YM WCK, it is a part of YKS WCK, it is a part of Gu Lao WCK, etc. What you've done with your curriculum/teaching is IMO to make these things explicit and to teach them in a clear cut way.

Even in Hung Kuen, you have the concept of continual striking (Lien Wan Da Faat), along with "one punch kill".

You have to continue to do Bik Ma to smother the opponent and isolate his resources, of course, controlling the center of gravity is also slowing the opponent's reaction time, thereby allowing you to strike him multiple times.

There is no disagreement in using striking tools.

Of course not. As I have repeatedly (as I am often reminded) said, WCK is controlling WHILE striking -- it is not, like some knuckleheads keep misrepresenting, standing grappling. It is pushing, pulling, pressing, lifting, sinking, etc. WHILE you strike. The striking is continually going on. But the objective is not just to strike, it is to keep hi structure broken so that we can continue to strike in safety.

[bennyvt]

i was always taught ck was seeking the bridge. Meaning instead of slt when the guy is in front and you can control the centre, its when they are at angles and how to block and attack. Bridge meaning a point of reference on your opponent be that a punch or a block. Not grabbing to hit but blocking and facing or blocking and facing with strike or just striking at the angle.

[t_niehoff]

i was always taught ck was seeking the bridge. Meaning instead of slt when the guy is in front and you can control the centre, its when they are at angles and how to block and attack. Bridge meaning a point of reference on your opponent be that a punch or a block. Not grabbing to hit but blocking and facing or blocking and facing with strike or just striking at the angle.

The older terminology is "bridge sinking", or sinking with the bridge (using your bridge to destroy an opponent's structure). Yip changed it to "seeking bridge", or the objective of your bridge (what your bridge is seeking to do), but it doesn't change the meaning -- both are describing the same thing, seeking (your objective) to destroy an opponent's structure with your bridge.

This is why it is important not to be limited to our own little lineage or branch but to look at WCK from a broad perspective (the art).

A punch or a block isn't a "bridge". Momentary touching is not "bridging".

SNT pertains to getting a solid connection to your opponent (so uses longer bridges), and the CK uses shortened bridges to destroy his structure (since they provide better body leverage).