Banned
Well, someone has to talk some sense, and there are a few of us here, so that the MMA knuckleheads don't completely take over this forum.....Originally Posted by couch
And it does seem that many people are not familiar with this rather basic kung fu concept.....
Registered User
he tends to circle away rather than step straight back, as a rule moving back in a straight line is never a good idea, but angling off and is as you say chuck did this well, but i am probably just argueing for the sake if it lol
Registered User
Using Body Physics
Have to agree with you.
Registered User
Those that take the notion that gung fu / wing chun "doesn't step back" in a literal sense are probably the same people that take the bible as literal fact.
The only way you're not stepping back in a fight is when you're the superior fighter...period. And fighting is fighting is fighting. The whole notion of styles and systems is merely preference in fighting strategy, tactics, and tools...the absolutes or universal truths are dictated by the realities of fighting, not some doctrine.
Can you step back in a fight? Sure. Should you do so in a straight line as someone is throwing consecutive attacks? No. Why? Because you'll get hit most times.
Can you step back to stabilize and change angles? Sure. Can you step back without disengaging the bridge? Why yes you can!
Does stepping back make your gung fu "bad"?? No. To think this way is just ego stroking. I know NO ONE...not a friend, teacher, coach, pro, amateur, colleague....no one...that doesn't step back in some form or fashion in a full contact fight. Why? Because it's simply a statistical reality that it will happen.
But more to the original post, I think it can be either leading depending in the context of ones perspective.
Mechancally, the hand can lead the body with a straight punch because the hand moves first and the body and feet move second, but all landing simultaneously. Yet the body can lead the hands when throwing a hook for example because it's your body torque that is providing the power, the shoulders and hips actually point past the contact point.
One may also conceptualize it and say the body leads the hands in that you need the body to get power to the hands.
Last edited by SAAMAG; 10-02-2010 at 04:33 PM.
"I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.
It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."
Banned
IMHO, it all depends on how you train. If one spends the extra time and effort to stick to the principle of not going back (except in emergencies), then I believe that your afforts will bare fruit.
However, if one attempts this principle once or twice, and then thinks it as "unnatural" and go back to the usual hopping in and out of range, together with a going back in angles mindset, then they will never understand the wisdom of this principle!
Last edited by Hardwork108; 10-01-2010 at 08:34 PM.
Registered User
I get what you're saying...the goal is to learn to apply your gung fu in such a way that you wouldn't need to step back. That said--the only way that will occur is when your gung fu skill or fighting skill is noticeably better than your opponent's.
Tell me what's better in a fight:
...to sidestep with no contact and counter strike?
...or to stand your ground, bridge / redirect and counter strike?
Is there really a right answer? Does one give a better result than the other? Both ended with the same outcome. So if the ending is the same, is there more wisdom in one version over the other?
Because "control" can be had without bridging, IMO.
"I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.
It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."
Banned
I believe that the idea of it all is that, once you master the "art of not stepping back", you DO become noticeably better than your opponent.
For example, if most people step or go back if they are attacked, then you are the one who doesn't do that, then imagine the surprise factor. Imagine your counter attack position, when you are always in your opponent's face, hitting him and tying him up .
Of course, this is easier said than done, but I believe that it is well worth the effort to master this aspect of kung fu fighting, as this is one area that is lacking from many of the so called "kung fu" fighters of today.
Well, I was also taught to side step, because that is not really going back. Also, at higher level WC, one is not meant to even make a bridge when attacked (not that I have reached this stage), so it would in theory be ok to side step with no contact.
Well, in the Wing Chun that I have been taught, it is not really about standing your ground, as that would suggest offering physical resistance against superior force, which is also against the principles, the way I was taught.
So, what happens is that you can side step on a horizontal line (depending on the type of attack), or you can side step 45 degrees into the opponent, while you have already bridged him. I hope that makes sense, in writing...
Well, there is still the chance that once mastered, one method will be superior to the other. Also, it is good to keep in mind that if a given style recommends that you don't go back, as many kung fu styles do, then if you do, you are in danger of missing some of the fighting wisdom inbedded within that style.
IMHO, that happens a lot today, because we are flooded with MA information, hence some of us just píck and choose, so it becomes more "natural" to go back and counter attack; It is more "natural" to "bounce" like some sports fighters; it becomes more "natural" to put the shoulders into certain strikes, and so on, where in the end we loose our kung fu in favor of something else, which may certainly work for us, but cannot be classified as a TCMA, because it has lost the ESSENCE that give these Chinese fighting arts their special and in some cases superior qualities.
It is all about have one's given art operates and functions in combat. However, the most important factor is to first understand the principle, including its advantages and relevance to one's art, and then practice and repeat so much that the "unnatural" becomes NATURAL.
Last edited by Hardwork108; 10-01-2010 at 11:44 PM.
Registered User
you are infrazael on the other MA forum, right?
Registered User
I'd have to say again that I use the term retreat, it's in our basic literature and normally paired with toksau/munsau.
Sometimes, giving space is required to enable your opponent to make their own mistake. Like I said, it's a trapping mentality, I'm not suggesting that you give the fighter a free reign!
Have you used ideas like snake and crane in your training? Snakes don't retreat, but cranes do
And I do understand the notion of not retreating too, it is what chum kiu is for; standing your ground, but that's not the same as biu jee; darting in and out. I also coach this on the plum flower wooden man, how to enter, do the damage, and get out as quickly as possible. It's even indicated in the 108
Ti Fei
詠春國術
Banned
You can't retreat and use a tok sao (you won't have the body leverage to lift).
Mun sao isn't a technique (or shape) but a tactic of asking (to force the opponent to react to your action) and retreating isn't a wise way to do it (you can't force someone by backing away).
To give up control so that your opponent MAY make a mistake is a poor tactic since your opponent may not make a mistake and instead take advantage of your lack of control.Sometimes, giving space is required to enable your opponent to make their own mistake. Like I said, it's a trapping mentality, I'm not suggesting that you give the fighter a free reign!
Good WCK is based on control, poor and low-level WCK is based on avoidance.
I don't base what I do on animal-fantasy.Have you used ideas like snake and crane in your training? Snakes don't retreat, but cranes do
No, the chum kiu, as the name indicates, contains the aspects pertaining to how to break an opponent's structure with your bridges.And I do understand the notion of not retreating too, it is what chum kiu is for;
standing your ground,
The biu jee is not concerned with darting in and out. Where do you get these ideas?but that's not the same as biu jee; darting in and out.
I have no idea what the "plum flower wooden man" is. The muk yan jong is a learning device (and also not concerned with darting in and out).I also coach this on the plum flower wooden man, how to enter, do the damage, and get out as quickly as possible. It's even indicated in the 108
WCK is an inside, close range fighting method, and its approach is controlling while striking -- ideally to get inside (enter), get control and while maintaining that control continually pound you. There is no "in and out" to it. If I go out, it means that I have failed.
Registered User
Have to agree with Terrence here. Once you commit yourself you go all the way, if you cannot you have failed.
Wether you can pick up the pieces and still win is another matter
Registered User
So that would mean that EVERY fighter that has ever been fails to do their job numerous times throughout a fight. Because I don't believe there's a fighter out there that can accomplish this feat 100% of the time.
Looks like you guys are SOL then as far as achieving your goals.
"I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.
It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."
Registered User
When have you ever met the perfect fighter ?
Usually its the guy doing the least mistakes that wins. If they are equally paired
Registered User
The point is you guys are citing that "wing chun doesn't step back" and that "if you do then you're a failure." Or even broader that stepping back in a fight / disengaging regardless of "system" is also failure.
Then you concede that fighters aren't perfect and that stepping back is going to happen.
So then if you know that it's going to happen...why not learn to fight knowing the fact that it will happen? Why not learn tactics to fight WHILE in back step? Why not incorporate strategies and tactics that allow one to step back or disengage intelligently?
There are lot's of fighters that do it successfully and don't beat themselves up over it. Why? Because they're fighters. They fight. They understand the fight today dictates the rules not a 400 year old document of opinion.
There is nothing wrong with stepping back. It's a segment of defense. Always has been always will be. In my group we did a round robin of sparring last night, each of us fought every other person taking turns "being in the middle". Each of us stepped back, leaned away, sidestepped, covered, pressured, circled, got hit, gave hits, block hits. A couple guys got jacked pretty good with knees, some with kicks in the face, some with kicks to the body, some with kicks to the legs. It's all part of the game. Some folks got punched pretty good too.
The point is that disregarding a valid part of fighting due to preference doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's bad.
Last edited by SAAMAG; 10-03-2010 at 10:18 AM.
"I don't know if anyone is known with the art of "sitting on your couch" here, but in my eyes it is also to be a martial art.
It is the art of avoiding dangerous situations. It helps you to avoid a dangerous situation by not actually being there. So lets say there is a dangerous situation going on somewhere other than your couch. You are safely seated on your couch so you have in a nutshell "difused" the situation."
Registered User
I think the point in WCK of not stepping back is that it is not part of the strategic approach. There certainly is the idea of recovering center or position when you lose it. So I would say that the idea is not to give ground when you have it or to give up your center when you have it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote