your striking methods?

[jesper]

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.

Nothing wrong with stepping back, circle or whatever as long as you maintain contact in order to finish the fight as quickly as possible.

Ofcourse there will be times when your forced to break contact due to various circumstances but it will always be because either you did something wrong or your opponent was simply better then you. either way you failed in that brief incounter.
Whether your able to still win is another matter.

Btw Vancuen its not an attack on you, because as you rightly say **** happens all the time in fights.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

My impression of stepping back was that it was done under pressure. In other words if your opponenet is too strong or aggressive you fall back as a result of his pressure. You keep your forward pressure so that if there is a lull you can then explode back into them.

IOW's you do not step back for the sake of stepping back. IMHO WC does not dart in and out like a boxer, but once comitted to the attack continues to attack whether that be from the sides or straight ahead etc. Again, if the opponent is able to meet our incoming force with greater force/pressure, we give way and allow that pressure to move us back or in my preference to the side.

Heck, even in practice we learn to step back; consider a drill where one partner is punching and the other is using Pak or whatever. If one is advancing than the other has to be stepping back. However, even the one stepping back is doing so in a manner to maintain contact with their partner. Sure this is only a drill but it should point the way to application.

Just a rant on a Sunday afternoon.

[SAAMAG]

Nothing wrong with stepping back, circle or whatever as long as you maintain contact in order to finish the fight as quickly as possible.

Ofcourse there will be times when your forced to break contact due to various circumstances but it will always be because either you did something wrong or your opponent was simply better then you. either way you failed in that brief incounter.
Whether your able to still win is another matter.

Btw Vancuen its not an attack on you, because as you rightly say **** happens all the time in fights.

Contact does not equate or even lead to "winning" nor does forward pressure. That's the whole problem with this debate.

A single element of fighting like not stepping back, or maintaining of contact, or continuing forward pressure or striking isn't an indicator of success or failure. You could be giving forward pressure and hitting all day long but if it's not wearing him down or making solid contact what good is it? You save the barrage for when it is scoring...and doing damage.

Contact, pressure, footwork and the like are elements of the fight that change to support a general strategy or more specific tactic, nothing more. Bad and good are dictated by the result of the action.

...and nothing personally taken. I just like discussing fighting as much as do the practice of it.

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

Striking methods of a style is based on the style's application strategy and power generation. It cant be isolated.

The issue then is what is WCK's striking methods instead of what is "Your striking methods?'

i saw some qouting the " feet lead the hand, the hand lead the leg....ect but these all are up to intepretation. Everything intepretation is right.

However, that is doesnt answer if it is WCK or not and also it doesnt answer what that striking do and could do.

IE a CLF swing is using the dynamic moving momentum and the hammering power is heavy, but the speed is compremise.... so one needs to keep moving to make the best use of it.....etc.


WCK's is an art of the power follow the "sensing". power needs to be able to accelerate and generate power in as short time and discharge to any location as possible adapt to the "sensing".

How to do it? The key is SLT if practice properly. Again, it is not wishfull words. it is specific.

The SLT practically has two major type of power which could be used as individual or fuse together, the full body heavy power or the partial lite sharp power. The full body heavy power is analogy as a hammer and nail. The partial lite sharp power as a rubber band snap. these cover a full range of power requirements.

In Yik Kam lineage, the full body heavy power is deliver with "Shrink, release, shoot out, and bounce." four key words. The lite sharp power is deliver with "bounce snap". two key words.

Notice I dont talk about footwork here, with footwork it widern the subject more or expand the two basic power types.

[Hardwork108]

Contact does not equate or even lead to "winning" nor does forward pressure. That's the whole problem with this debate.

True, but to have a chance of winning, one would need to aim for contact.

A single element of fighting like not stepping back, or maintaining of contact, or continuing forward pressure or striking isn't an indicator of success or failure. You could be giving forward pressure and hitting all day long but if it's not wearing him down or making solid contact what good is it? You save the barrage for when it is scoring...and doing damage.

Contact, pressure, footwork and the like are elements of the fight that change to support a general strategy or more specific tactic, nothing more. Bad and good are dictated by the result of the action.

...and nothing personally taken. I just like discussing fighting as much as do the practice of it.

It is just this subject area involves the principle of "not going back", unless in emergencies. I have come across this concept in other TRADITIONALY taught kung fu styles, including Chow Gar, which I have also trained. So, it is not an isolated thing.

So I guess, if you train with this mindset from day one, then you will be more familiar with the longer term benefits of this approach.

[Hardwork108]

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.

The way I was taught, you take ONE step back in an emergency, recuperate your central line and resume.

It is a matter of training one's mindset as well as the body.

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?

Again, that is one way of doing it, but the Wing Chun (and other kung fu) way, is also valid.

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.

IMHO, assuming that a "400 year old document of opinion" is wrong because one does not fully comprehend it, based on a different training background, is rather unfair.

And again, it will be useful to consider that this strategy is not just limited to Wing chun, but also Chow Gar, and at least a variety of Shaolin Arts.

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.

Was this in a Traditional kung fu class?

I ask because, each methodology will have its merits. Except that authentically trained kung fu, at least some styles, teach you not to go back, unless it is an emergency, and even then you do so by only a single step.

I believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding about Traditional kung fu, because nowadays people pick and choose the aspects they "like", when it comes to TCMAs. As a result, some may "miss" the 'not stepping back strategy', together with potent Iron Palm training; Internals, including the development of hyper softness and "listening" abilities, as well as related body unity, and so on.

Then they may turn around and wonder why their kung fu is half baked, and in need of additions from other none-TCMA methodologies.

I am saying this just to illustrate that "not stepping back" is a basic concept, hammered into me from almost day one, and there are people here with "decades" of experience, who have not heard of it, or cannot comprehend the validity of such an approach.

Of course, this not by any means mean that other approaches, including using going back, as a fighting strategy, are not valid, but wether they can classified as TCMA methodologies within a given kung fu style, is another story, IMHO.

[SAAMAG]

I understand it just fine. I just don't agree that the idea of stepping back is "bad" or reasons given.

When you've got two guys who "don't step back" trying to go at it, moving like robots instead of using their brains--what you get are all the YouTube vids of "gung fu" and wing chun. Folks bouncing into each other over and again without any intelligent analysis of what they're doing. So they continue to keep doing the two freight trains coming at each other thing an it ends up being gibberish.

[Hardwork108]

I understand it just fine. I just don't agree that the idea of stepping back is "bad" or reasons given.

When you've got two guys who "don't step back" trying to go at it, moving like robots instead of using their brains--what you get are all the YouTube vids of "gung fu" and wing chun. Folks bouncing into each other over and again without any intelligent analysis of what they're doing. So they continue to keep doing the two freight trains coming at each other thing an it ends up being gibberish.

There are hardly any YouTube videos out there that reflect the concept of not going back, and that is because the Youtube material represents the Mcdojo phenomenon more than anything else.

The concept has nothing to do with straight line forward steping by both sides, which would equate it to the "freight train" analogy that you made. That has nothing to with Wing Chun fighting principles, nor those of many other styles of kung fu, where incoming force is "absorbed" and returned, using various TCMA methodologies.

In Wing Chun, one is not expected to use force against force, so that leaves us the bridge, and the stance that would discipate force, by "rolling", and/or moving forward, at an angle, and if the opponent happens to block and counter-attack, then you remain "sticky" and angle again, HIT AGAIN!

Once, one practices this way, he begins to see the wisdom, behind this kind of prinicples and the techniques that go with them. This is when one's kung fu begins to leave the all "fighting looks like kickboxing" one.

It is obvious that this is one of the prinicples that has been "forgotten" by modern Wing Chun, as well as other TCMA "sifus", but thank god for forums such as this one where we can all discuss the lesser known, but fundamental principles, and learn from each other.

[YungChun]

A lot of folks are speaking in generalities..

It all depends on what is meant by stepping back... There is pre-engagement and post contact engagement..

If you have contact then it seems we are talking about disengagement.. Momentary release of forward pressure/energy is fine, you can pull them, lop them change lines..

Completely disengaging and backing up is called running away.... That can be advantageous as well so long as you can out run them... lol

[LSWCTN1]

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.

qft...

i think Wayfaring has it in one

[LoneTiger108]

You can't retreat and use a tok sao (you won't have the body leverage to lift).

So with that comment you don't seem to understand what single leg stance is?

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).

Retreating is sometimes the BEST way to do this imo. And toksau is used to ask

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.

Good WCK is based on control, poor and low-level WCK is based on avoidance.

I would say good WCK is flexible. Rigid WCK is robotic and unwise.

I don't base what I do on animal-fantasy.

So you have disbanded from your Shaolin roots? Not a problem really, but you have to understand where I'm coming from. Snake and Crane is a major part of WCK understanding. Fantasy or not, it has it's place.

No, the chum kiu, as the name indicates, contains the aspects pertaining to how to break an opponent's structure with your bridges.

Nowhere does it say that chum kiu is for breaking bridges, if there is a line you know please share! Chum Kiu is a power building form, designed to create stable fighters. Hence my 'standing ground' comment.

The biu jee is not concerned with darting in and out. Where do you get these ideas?

Okay now you're just being silly! How I learnt the forms is obviously VERY different from yourself. Our hand dart in and out all the time, and can be referred to as jin wan (expand/contract or encircle). In Bui Jee the WHOLE BODY does this. There is a famous WCK step/stance called Biu Ma AND Tang Ma which Bui Jee also works on. Who taught YOU Biu Jee?

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).

Which would really mean, to me, you have no idea what I'm talking about We obviously have totally different ideas as to what the wooden man even is this week T! It's for far more than just learning and until you're willing to just look past your own views we will always be at a stale mate.

Where you recommend everyone to just go to a MMA gym and spar with decent folks, I would recommend that you find the heart of WCK by training with more affluent and accomplished practitioners, especially if it's Lee Shings way you're interested in.

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.

YOUR WCK does this, and prefers this. Pls see above comment

[Hendrik]

I understand it just fine. I just don't agree that the idea of stepping back is "bad" or reasons given.

When you've got two guys who "don't step back" trying to go at it, moving like robots instead of using their brains--what you get are all the YouTube vids of "gung fu" and wing chun. Folks bouncing into each other over and again without any intelligent analysis of what they're doing. So they continue to keep doing the two freight trains coming at each other thing an it ends up being gibberish.

0, ideally, WCK always step to seal off the in coming momentum. be it the step is in any direction. WCK doesnt stepping back because of stepping back.

1, there is nothing wrong with stepping back. in fact, in the Yik Kam's 4 section slt. there is a section on stepping back application. This is accord with the Wing Chun's application philosophy " comes and retain" . similar with BJ concept of other lineage, stepping back is another tool.

2, however, does one practicing Wing Chun? if the stepping back is not accord to the Wing Chun's application philosophy then that is the issue no matter what type of technics one is applying. because that is not WCK.

[t_niehoff]

My impression of stepping back was that it was done under pressure. In other words if your opponenet is too strong or aggressive you fall back as a result of his pressure. You keep your forward pressure so that if there is a lull you can then explode back into them.

That is actually the worst possible time to try to step back -- you will be run over.

IOW's you do not step back for the sake of stepping back. IMHO WC does not dart in and out like a boxer, but once comitted to the attack continues to attack whether that be from the sides or straight ahead etc. Again, if the opponent is able to meet our incoming force with greater force/pressure, we give way and allow that pressure to move us back or in my preference to the side.

No. It's not being committed to "the attack" but rather that we get in the phone booth and stay there because that is where our tools/method works. If you try to back out of the phone booth and your opponent isn't a scrub, he will run over you. (particularly if he is giving your pressure).

WCK's method of dealing with pressure is to "stay as it comes", not "give way" to it. The point is to learn how to use his pressure to our advantage.

Heck, even in practice we learn to step back; consider a drill where one partner is punching and the other is using Pak or whatever. If one is advancing than the other has to be stepping back. However, even the one stepping back is doing so in a manner to maintain contact with their partner. Sure this is only a drill but it should point the way to application.

If you are steeping back in your drills, then you are drilling mistakes -- training to fail.

[kung fu fighter]

WCK's method of dealing with pressure is to "stay as it comes", not "give way" to it. The point is to learn how to use his pressure to our advantage.

That is only one method of WCK application, there are many others such as jao sao ( running hands), why limit the system, and more importantly yourself

Stepping back is not necessarily retreating, it can be used at times to set the opponent up with good timing and body structure to catch the opponent's timing as he is coming forward

[t_niehoff]

So with that comment you don't seem to understand what single leg stance is?

What are you talking about?

Retreating is sometimes the BEST way to do this imo. And toksau is used to ask

Tok sao is lifting hand -- you are lifting him (his arm, etc.). You don't have body leverage to lift something when you back away from it (you want to move into it). Whether you use it as a mun (asking) sao or not doesn't change that.

I would say good WCK is flexible. Rigid WCK is robotic and unwise.

Who is talking about being rigid or robotic? The reality of the inside determines what things you need to do and what things you need to avoid doing. If I said you don't want to turn your back on your opponent, is that being rigid and robotic?

So you have disbanded from your Shaolin roots? Not a problem really, but you have to understand where I'm coming from. Snake and Crane is a major part of WCK understanding. Fantasy or not, it has it's place.

'
Shaolin, snake and crane, etc. are STORIES, myths, legends. They play no part in "understanding" WCK. Understanding in WCK, like any martial art, only comes from skill.

Nowhere does it say that chum kiu is for breaking bridges, if there is a line you know please share! Chum Kiu is a power building form, designed to create stable fighters. Hence my 'standing ground' comment.

I didn't say the chum kiu was concerned with breaking bridges (read what I wrote) but about using your bridges to break the opponent's structure. That is what the name of the form -- chum kiu -- refers to. Chum means to sink/destroy (the older term) or to seek (Yip's term) and kiu means bridge. Chum kiu means either bridge seeking or bridge sinking -- and both referto the same thing: using our bridges to destroy the opponent's structure (what your bridges are seeking to do).

Chum kiu isn't a "power building form." The body structure of WCK and its power is found in the YJKYM which is why that is taught first.

Okay now you're just being silly! How I learnt the forms is obviously VERY different from yourself. Our hand dart in and out all the time, and can be referred to as jin wan (expand/contract or encircle). In Bui Jee the WHOLE BODY does this. There is a famous WCK step/stance called Biu Ma AND Tang Ma which Bui Jee also works on. Who taught YOU Biu Jee?

The kuit tells us Chut Kuen Mo Fan Lai - When the fist goes out, it does not return. It doesn't tell us that our fist is darting in and out.

Which would really mean, to me, you have no idea what I'm talking about We obviously have totally different ideas as to what the wooden man even is this week T! It's for far more than just learning and until you're willing to just look past your own views we will always be at a stale mate.

Where you recommend everyone to just go to a MMA gym and spar with decent folks, I would recommend that you find the heart of WCK by training with more affluent and accomplished practitioners, especially if it's Lee Shings way you're interested in.

WCK is WCK, and its method is what it is. The kuit tells us what the dummy trains: Muk Yan Jong Lien Ging Lik Gung - The wooden man training is to develop our power. More specifically, it is to learn to express our body leverage through our bridges.

YOUR WCK does this, and prefers this. Pls see above comment

WCK is WCK. The method of WCK comes from the ancestors and isn't specific to me or my "lineage" but is a part of all the older, legitimate WCK lineages. If you haven't learned it, then maybe you should look past Lee Shing (maybe he didn't learn it).