Best Wing Chun KO in MMA - Iron Wolves Fighter Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun

[tc101]

I am saying that in the scenario you give, you are taking a defensive action to deal with something that has not yet occurred - so I am asking why take that strategy when another would serve the same purpose but also put you in a better position to initiate an attack pre-emptively too? Remember, at the point we're talking about, nothing has yet happened.

In both cases, the guard is not static - it doesn't remain fixed - but the defensive method in question has more limitations. E.g. with both hands by your head your arms are compressed, they are there to cover and protect only, and they have been placed at the furtherest distance from their target.

Of course, it works as a defence - but I'm asking why choose the purely defensive method without having had a reaction that requires it.

My question is about our use of the system before and after an exchange starts.

So Alan's use of the covering position when in close and the when the punches are flying makes perfect sense to me, and the way he uses it is the way we'd use it too (in LTWT). But that's because the punches are already coming.

Let me begin by pointing out that what they do works better for them than what you are doing works for you. That is unless you are fighting and beating pro fighters. Start from THAT premise. That is where they are coming from.

They have found through their sparring and fighting that this is what works best for them. Do you not get that? Now you can argue til the cows come home that you do not see why this is the case but it is a fact proved by their record. It works. Their perspective as fighters is if you think something else works or works better prove it by fighting. You don't prove what works better through verbal argument.

What they point out is no one is proving it. Yes yes yes everyone has opinions and thinks they know how things should work but no one is showing any body proving that their views even work.

[BPWT..]

They have found through their sparring and fighting that this is what works best for them. Do you not get that?

Yes. I get that. (you will not find a single post from me that suggests otherwise)

I am asking 'why' they found it works best for them (one alternative over another - as with the before and after of the covering position), and then I am asking them 'how that fits into their CSL Wing Chun' and I am also asking 'where' those methods can be found in YKS, HC Wing Chun, etc, as their CSL system comes from Robert Chu, and that is his WCK background.

Is that really too hard to understand?

This has nothing to do with their ability to win fights. After all, people win fights with Boxing, and Muay Thai, etc. Not about my Wing Tsun is better than your CSL Wing Chun.

So need need for people to insult with talk of 'low level', 'Walking Dead', 'being childish', etc. No need for this to be a ****ing match. No need for Alan or Chris to get all worked up. They are secure in the knowledge that they do well in MMA events, so no need for them to get all offended by me (someone who doesn't compete).

I have some questions. They can answer them politely, take the time to read what is being written, or they can choose to not do so... but then it makes no sense for them to keep replying to me.

[BPWT..]

Yes. Again, it is their way of being preemptive. Their wing chun preemptively places the appropriate hand/shape/tool in the space(s) where it is likely going to be the next area the adversary would attack. Nothing is 100%...but that is their approach. The part that may be somewhat confusing to some is that the 'cover' is/can be an attack if/as needed by the tactical situation.

That's interesting. Would you say their preemptive hand/shape/tool includes the position we see from Alan's guys in the light sparring video? (hands up by the side of the head)

If so, it would be a good example. What I've seen of Duncan Leung, his covering shapes look like Bong and Wu, or Man and Wu, etc, so typically Wing Chun shapes, as it were, with 'hands closer to target', but if you've seen something else/different - that's interesting and would be good to see too.

[chris bougeard]

BPWT, calm down with the expletives, no need to lose your rag.

I cannot believe you are so fixated about this cover idea. I'm sick of giving you explanations when you give nothing back other than passive aggressive comments.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't see lots of people backing your views, quite the contrary. You see sparring as just techniques , strategy and tactics is something you don't seem to grasp.

Seeing as you are so fond of analogies let me share one with you.

Let's base it on ancient times when people fought using shields and spears. If I carry a shield on my back and know I am going to be attacking archers who for sure are going to be shooting at me, am I going to advance towards them keeping my shield on my back? Of course not. I'm going to advance BEHIND that shield in the hope that it will absorb the incoming arrows until I can close where I can draw my sword.

You have seen this idea in application in some of the clips, it's a strategy, not a fixed in stone guard and it works. If I'm facing a better puncher and I want to close him down, going in behind a cover may stop me getting put on my backside. Do I do this myself? Yes if I feel it's necessary. Do I hold my hands in the position all the time? Of course not.

Now I have taken the time to explain from my standpoint the why of this "pre cover strategy", it works for me, my students and my brothers. If you don't like it well that's too bad. I would though be interested how you deal with this situation when you are sparring all these guys you claim. Maybe you can educate me, I'm always seeking to improve my skillset.

[Alan Orr]

If I understand you (your writing is not always that easy to understand, forgive me for saying it), you are saying you cover against punches before they come because you know they will come, and you would rather take a defensive position (hands by head) rather than a more proactive position.

I still do see why you would choose the first over the latter as a 'starting point.'



Okay, but it's pretty hard to have a conversation with someone if they are not aware of what's been said.

I never said that. We are proactive, that's why my fighter KOd his opponent


I don't need to read 20 pages of two people telling me my guys are not doing wing chun and asking questions which make no sense.

[Alan Orr]

Yes, if it fit the current situation and the need.



They typically cover large areas with things like Kwan sau, Gon sau, Bong/Wu etc yes.

I don't know anything about CSL wing chun; and not speaking at/for them...however if you are wondering about where those shapes come from, or how to reference them back to one of the forms...they come from 3rd form. I'm not saying that is where CSL WC gets it from or views it, just stating my very humble opinion.
I've never seen your lineages 3rd form but I'm guessing its there also. I think most folks struggle to connect these shapes because as you know, there are times in the forms where 1 hand/arm is used, sometimes 2 hands etc.

Yes correct many of these movements are in the forms and some are concepts from our wing chun principles.

[Alan Orr]

That's interesting. Would you say their preemptive hand/shape/tool includes the position we see from Alan's guys in the light sparring video? (hands up by the side of the head)

If so, it would be a good example. What I've seen of Duncan Leung, his covering shapes look like Bong and Wu, or Man and Wu, etc, so typically Wing Chun shapes, as it were, with 'hands closer to target', but if you've seen something else/different - that's interesting and would be good to see too.

I look forward to seeing your clips

[Alan Orr]

Yes. I get that. (you will not find a single post from me that suggests otherwise)

I am asking 'why' they found it works best for them (one alternative over another - as with the before and after of the covering position), and then I am asking them 'how that fits into their CSL Wing Chun' and I am also asking 'where' those methods can be found in YKS, HC Wing Chun, etc, as their CSL system comes from Robert Chu, and that is his WCK background.

Is that really too hard to understand?

This has nothing to do with their ability to win fights. After all, people win fights with Boxing, and Muay Thai, etc. Not about my Wing Tsun is better than your CSL Wing Chun.

So need need for people to insult with talk of 'low level', 'Walking Dead', 'being childish', etc. No need for this to be a ****ing match. No need for Alan or Chris to get all worked up. They are secure in the knowledge that they do well in MMA events, so no need for them to get all offended by me (someone who doesn't compete).

I have some questions. They can answer them politely, take the time to read what is being written, or they can choose to not do so... but then it makes no sense for them to keep replying to me.

What works best for us it what works at that time. I'm not hear to teach you our system or answer every detail of our applications.

The main points of it looking or being wc have all been answered.

I post weekly clips on my you tube channel, so you can watch that if you wish

[BPWT..]

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong.

I have never said you or Alan are wrong. I have simply asked you 'why'. It's like talking to a brick wall. You keep repeating what you think I am saying.

You see sparring as just techniques , strategy and tactics is something you don't seem to grasp.

I think you must be playing with me here, as what I've been talking about is obviously about strategy and tactics.

Regarding your analogy, you have quite spectacularly managed to miss the point for, perhaps, the 100th time.

Do you carry your shield in front of you before those archers are in range? If your said archers have run out of arrows, do you still keep your shield in front of you. When you get close enough to use your sword, do you still use your shield as though you're still facing those archers from range?

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm talking about range, and timeframe, and relevance - this is not just about a technique or a motion or a position, but the idea/concept/strategy that's behind it all.

Look at it this way. If I was standing in front of you and not moving (and unable to move), and you were not moving (and unable to move), and we were not in punching range, would you throw a punch at me that you knew would not reach me? What would be the strategy behind trying to hit me if you knew you couldn't? Now imagine that you do have the ability to move forward, but I don't have the ability move; I am rooted to the spot. Then you can use a strategy to attack and I will need to use a strategy to deal with that - I will need to employ a method to deal with something that 'is' happening. Range and timeframes have changed.

The archers, as it were, are now in range and the arrow is let loose.

Alan's instructional clip clearly shows a strategy of using covering when it is needed. In the light sparring clip, however, the fighter was using covering as a position to deal with something that had not yet occurred. It doesn't really matter I suppose, he can keep any type of guard he likes - but I asked why he would choose to use that rather than do something that allows him to at least have the option of using his 'sword' (mixing in your analogy)?

If I'm facing a better puncher and I want to close him down, going in behind a cover may stop me getting put on my backside.

Exactly. "Going in". Do you see what I am saying, here? Distance (range) and timeframe.

Now I have taken the time to explain from my standpoint the why of this "pre cover strategy", it works for me, my students and my brothers. If you don't like it well that's too bad.

You just gave an example of a "going in" approach and then later called it a "pre-cover strategy". It makes no sense at all. "Pre" and "Going In" are two different time frames. We are talking here about "before" and "after".

Like I said, I think you are quite deliberately playing around here. No one can mix up things this much and not be doing it on purpose to wind someone up. You are kinda winning, as I find this really unproductive. Probably this will be it from me on this thread, as I think you're not really here to talk and share.

I would though be interested how you deal with this situation when you are sparring all these guys you claim. Maybe you can educate me, I'm always seeking to improve my skillset.

"... when you are sparring all these guys you claim."

Nice. Set the tone by asking for me to explain something from my perspective and in the same breath insinuate that you don't think it is an honest discussion because you're assuming that I am lying to you. You're really something.

Regardless...

When not facing an incoming attack, I use a guard that is - at the least - an approximation of Man Sau and Wu Sau. Why? . Because the way I have learned, we want to start (if possible) from a position that offers us an initial line of protection that keeps the center line in mind, and also keeps the option of attacking in mind. Two layers - man sau's hand to elbow, and wu sau's hand to body, plus a least a basic covering of the gates - but most importantly keeping my hands in a potential position to attack and/or meet an attack, and in accordance with our system's use/position of the elbows (which of course is vital for us in both attacking/defending).

I say again... this is from a start position. As soon as I initiate an attack or if one comes to me, then of course the start position changes to something else (no one holds a guard position regardless of what is happening). But whether I attack first or I need to receive, I want the initial position of the arms to be placed such that I can use our system's ideas and methods for striking, intercepting and, if there is the opportunity, controlling.

I say "receiving" as from the initial start position (guard) I am talking about, I have the option to receive. (Loi Lau) I have asked you these continuing questions on this thread because from the cover position I saw in the sparring clip, the fighter can (IMO) only receive by taking the strike on the gloves, and his arms are compressed. To my way of thinking, that is not optimal, so I ask you questions to try and understand why your system would use what appears to me to be a more Western boxing method of covering to absorb a strike. This makes sense, for the boxer, as they are not looking to "receive" how we would in Wing Chun (in my opinion, of course).

Once there's been a clash, the distance has been shortened and we see a barrage of strikes, then I often find myself using the covering that Alan showed in the 'instructional clip'. This makes sense to me and is now relevant, as we are then not at a "before" timeframe and at some distance, but instead we are at the "during" timeframe and we're closer. We can see more compressed arms because our body is closer to the opponent's body. In short, we arrive at this point but we don't want to start from it.

This is what I try to apply when sparring with fellow WT guys, or people who have had some training in MT, Karate and boxing. I'm not claiming I can always make it work - its a learning experience - and I don't make the claim I do this with Pro fighters (I don't). But I try to make sure that the body motions and methods I use are supported by the concepts and the strategies of the system. The most important being Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jit Cheung.

So it is funny when people here say that I am looking at things from a technique point of view. The concepts and strategies go hand in hand with the body method, IMO.

Take it or leave it, believe it or not. I really don't care. I'm simply asking you guys why you do things the way you do them. Feel free to respond by saying that all of the above is BS, and that I am low level and a cast member of an AMC TV series.

[BPWT..]

I don't need to read 20 pages of two people telling me my guys are not doing wing chun and asking questions which make no sense.

Like I said to your student: like talking to a brick wall.

[chris bougeard]

You are incredibly patronising for someone who has shown no evidence whatsoever of any skill in fighting/sparring. I knew you would try to find holes in whatever I would say. I give a simple analogy then you over analyse trying to ensure you always "come out on top". I've been nice, I gave you some feedback and you choose to be insulting. It's no wonder wing chun is laughed at when there are so many guys like you who just want to split hairs and over analyse what other people are doing, when there own house is hardly in order.

[BPWT..]

You are incredibly patronising for someone who has shown no evidence whatsoever of any skill in fighting/sparring. I knew you would try to find holes in whatever I would say. I give a simple analogy then you over analyse trying to ensure you always "come out on top". I've been nice, I gave you some feedback and you choose to be insulting. It's no wonder wing chun is laughed at when there are so many guys like you who just want to split hairs and over analyse what other people are doing, when there own house is hardly in order.

This is why I am bowing out of this thread, Chris. Your response above is all you can offer in reply to me actually taking the time to explain to you what I mean.

[tc101]

I have never said you or Alan are wrong. I have simply asked you 'why'. It's like talking to a brick wall. You keep repeating what you think I am saying.

Regardless...

When not facing an incoming attack, I use a guard that is - at the least - an approximation of Man Sau and Wu Sau. Why? . Because the way I have learned, we want to start (if possible) from a position that offers us an initial line of protection that keeps the center line in mind, and also keeps the option of attacking in mind. Two layers - man sau's hand to elbow, and wu sau's hand to body, plus a least a basic covering of the gates - but most importantly keeping my hands in a potential position to attack and/or meet an attack, and in accordance with our system's use/position of the elbows (which of course is vital for us in both attacking/defending).

I say again... this is from a start position. As soon as I initiate an attack or if one comes to me, then of course the start position changes to something else (no one holds a guard position regardless of what is happening). But whether I attack first or I need to receive, I want the initial position of the arms to be placed such that I can use our system's ideas and methods for striking, intercepting and, if there is the opportunity, controlling.

I say "receiving" as from the initial start position (guard) I am talking about, I have the option to receive. (Loi Lau) I have asked you these continuing questions on this thread because from the cover position I saw in the sparring clip, the fighter can (IMO) only receive by taking the strike on the gloves, and his arms are compressed. To my way of thinking, that is not optimal, so I ask you questions to try and understand why your system would use what appears to me to be a more Western boxing method of covering to absorb a strike. This makes sense, for the boxer, as they are not looking to "receive" how we would in Wing Chun (in my opinion, of course).

Once there's been a clash, the distance has been shortened and we see a barrage of strikes, then I often find myself using the covering that Alan showed in the 'instructional clip'. This makes sense to me and is now relevant, as we are then not at a "before" timeframe and at some distance, but instead we are at the "during" timeframe and we're closer. We can see more compressed arms because our body is closer to the opponent's body. In short, we arrive at this point but we don't want to start from it.

This is what I try to apply when sparring with fellow WT guys, or people who have had some training in MT, Karate and boxing. I'm not claiming I can always make it work - its a learning experience - and I don't make the claim I do this with Pro fighters (I don't). But I try to make sure that the body motions and methods I use are supported by the concepts and the strategies of the system. The most important being Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jit Cheung.

So it is funny when people here say that I am looking at things from a technique point of view. The concepts and strategies go hand in hand with the body method, IMO.

Take it or leave it, believe it or not. I really don't care. I'm simply asking you guys why you do things the way you do them. Feel free to respond by saying that all of the above is BS, and that I am low level and a cast member of an AMC TV series.

All of that shows that you have the wing chun model down solid. Good for you. Seriously. But what if you went to a boxing gym and found that even after months of trying you could not really make things work like that? The way you describe the model sounds great and everything but that through sparring and fighting you find that things really do not work like that? Because quite honestly that is what you would find.

Here's the problem people can tell you things really don't work like you think they will but no amount of argument or explanation will change your mind. The only thing that can is experience. You need to experience it first hand. You can't explain or prove what works and what doesn't through words. As we say in boxing that argument happens in the ring. This is why CB asked about your sparring. Are you making how you think things should work really work against boxers?

You say you hit a wall with the Orr team but they have answered your question just it is not the answer you want to hear. Their answer is they do what they do because they have found through sparring and fighting what works best for them. Why do they use that guard, why do they use that body structure, why do they do this or that? All because they found those things work better for them. What more do you need?

In your questions you want to argue how you think things should work things like why cover before your partner throws a hook? The answer is because they found it worked better to do it that way. This is no surprise since many many many fighters have found the same to be true. It's almost universal. Honestly the only people who don't get it are people who don't spend much time with someone trying to punch them solidly in the head.

[BPWT..]

tc101,

The guys I spar with - they "are all trying to punch me in the head" when we spar. And the Muay Thai guy adds to the mix by trying (succeeding) to pulverise my legs. We train privately, but sure - I could head to a boxing gym... and I'm sure I'd have difficulties there. I spar purely to add some more live training to my regular Wing Tsun training. It is what it is. I make slow improvements doing what I do. I'm happy with that. If I wanted quicker improvements, I'd go train MMA like Alan's guys. Like I said - different goals.

If I take a pounding during the sparring sessions, you might say, "Well, that's because your method doesn't work under real pressure." But if I'm doing quite well, what then? "Well, your training partners aren't pro fighters." None of that means much to me, to tell you the truth. The only question I ask myself is whether I can see improvements in what I am doing, the way I am doing it.

Alan and his guys can use any method they like in the ring. If it works for them, that's great. If they came to the conclusion that Wing Chun's kicking methods just didn't work well for them, for example, and so they decided to train Muay Thai methods instead - good for them. They can still call it Wing CSL, I guess. Their system.

I asked "why do you do something in a particular way, how does that fit with your Wing Chun's concepts and methods, and which line/lineage of Wing Chun from Robert Chu does that come from?"

If they say that they do what they do because it works in the ring, okay. I don't think it really answers my questions, and so I don't know how to view what they do and understand how it is Wing Chun, but okay... I don't really care enough to continue asking beyond 26 pages.

The funny thing, is that even though I don't train in the PBVT method, if I watch Sean's sparring clips I don't need to ask these questions. Sean's guys are not competing in the way that Alan's are, but still... everything is pretty clear and their sparring looks like the methods their line teaches transfer well.

I'll happily watch Alan's instructional clips, but I've lost all interest in trying to better understand how they utilise their system. Alan's kinda petty with the school-boy insults. It was certainly an eye-opener talking to the man. :roll eyes:

[Wayfaring]

Wow BPWT is getting all twisted up over where you hold your hands before the fight initiates.

Where do Major League Baseball players hold their hands before swinging the bat? Thankfully they calculate batting averages on what happens in the strike zone.