Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[kung fu fighter]

Here is sifu Michael Mcilwrath demonstrating his approach to "getting into the phone booth" from long range http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnDXFTnDEgc

[sanjuro_ronin]

18:03 into this clip http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjg0MTMwMjA4.html is illustrating what happens when you pursue/chase a long fist type fighter with forward pressure, you know like you say you HFY WCK fighters.



Thanks for the reply! I agree! I think most fighters who have practical experienced in the ring or on the street will pretty much come to the same conclusion. The only difference I found between ring fighting and real world self defence is how I adjust my distance to get into the "phone booth".

Indeed. quite correct.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is sifu Michael Mcilwrath demonstrating his approach to "getting into the phone booth" from long range http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnDXFTnDEgc

Sometimes we need to realize that we don't HAVE to do anything.
If the person is not in our "sphere of influence" they are not a threat.
There are indeed so many ways to "enter" into an opponent, it truly is a personal preference thing and, as you mentioned, dictated by the circumstances ( ring, street, possibility of weapons, multiple people, etc).
What is important to realize is that we should NOT force "getting into the phone booth" any more than we should "chase hands" because then the opponent is dictating to us and then we are being reactive instead of proactive even though it may SEEM the opposite.

[Wayfaring]

18:03 into this clip http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNjg0MTMwMjA4.html is illustrating what happens when you pursue/chase a long fist type fighter with forward pressure, you know like you say you HFY WCK fighters.

18:03 into that clip is the fight between Johnny Rhodes (a kickboxer) and Dave Lewicki (a WCK practitioner). Lewicki is larger and chases Rhodes around the ring until Rhodes goes up against the cage, then Rhodes gets a body lock, takes Lewicki down and the entire rest of the round is Rhodes in Lewicki's guard trying to punch.

So you are trying to say Rhodes is a "long fist type fighter" and Lewicki chasing him around the ring is "illustrating what happens when you pursue/chase a long fist type fighter with forward pressure, like you HFY WCK fighters"??????

[kung fu fighter]

So you are trying to say Rhodes is a "long fist type fighter" and Lewicki chasing him around the ring is "illustrating what happens when you pursue/chase a long fist type fighter with forward pressure, like you HFY WCK fighters"??????

What you wrote below sounds alot like what David Levicki was attempting to do to Johnny Rhodes if you ask me, but of coarse you won't admit to that since you want to argue. lol

when you own centerline you are supposed to pursue and finish. However, with pressure on the bridge, you never "truly control the opponent". You only control them with pressure for an instant in time. Outside of that instant they are free to move. This is why pursuit is necessary, because you need to chain those instants together.

[Wayfaring]

What you wrote below sounds alot like what David Levicki was attempting to do to Johnny Rhodes if you ask me, but of coarse you won't admit to that since you want to argue. lol

I must be watching a different fight. I see nothing of Levicki trying to control the opponent with pressure on the bridge. Levicki is 6'5" 275 and he pushes forward punching until Rhodes is backed up against the cage. Then Rhodes gets an s grip body lock and does like the worst wrestling high dive ever, but takes Levicki to his back but Rhodes goes into guard. Then basically Rhodes GNP's him from guard. Same thing next round. Then Rhodes wins.

Now I'm sure in there has to be something I won't admit to, but I'm not exactly sure what that would be. Since I want to argue.

But please, enlighten me and all of us on the lessons for WCK people fighting "long fist type people". I mean there's a bunch of "you HFY fighters" out there that are waiting to learn something.

[Faux Newbie]

One of the things I see in that fight is that the pursuer, in the need to pursuit, far oversteps his base. It doesn't matter that he is punching coming in, because his footing is so far behind where he is punching at that the blows are not going to have the effect hoped for.

It is valid as a demonstration that pursuit is not, in and of itself, always the way to go. His opponent's retreat was ahead of his advance: instead of biding time for a more fruitful pursuit, he continued on one that put him in grappling range with his base compromised.

The main similarity (with fighting a long range fighter) is an opponent keeping things at a certain distance. Closing is something everyone does, but not all moments are good for closing. It is not a solution to all problems.

[Wayfaring]

One of the things I see in that fight is that the pursuer, in the need to pursuit, far oversteps his base. It doesn't matter that he is punching coming in, because his footing is so far behind where he is punching at that the blows are not going to have the effect hoped for.

It is valid as a demonstration that pursuit is not, in and of itself, always the way to go. His opponent's retreat was ahead of his advance: instead of biding time for a more fruitful pursuit, he continued on one that put him in grappling range with his base compromised.

The main similarity (with fighting a long range fighter) is an opponent keeping things at a certain distance. Closing is something everyone does, but not all moments are good for closing. It is not a solution to all problems.

This gets better and better - kind of like a white knight fail. His footing is "so far behind where he is punching that the blows are not going to have the effect hoped for". So his fists are outrunning his feet?

And apparently his opponent can run backwards must faster than he can run forwards. Sure sounds plausible.

And this quote:

The main similarity (with fighting a long range fighter) is an opponent keeping things at a certain distance. Closing is something everyone does, but not all moments are good for closing. It is not a solution to all problems.

really does take the cake. so the main similarity (with fighting a long range fighter) is an opponent keeps things at a certain distance. Oh, you mean like Johnny Rhodes, who backed up against the cage, then clinched, took the guy down, and did GNP in guard most of the fight? Riiiiiigggght, because he was completely at long range inside guard.

and "closing is something everyone does, but not all moments are good for closing" . I can't tell if you are a martial artist here or a real estate agent.
I have no idea who in the clip you are referring to, or what action you are referring to.

It actually probably would be better if kff left this alone, but no, you guys have to enlighten us with all your vast sparring knowledge on this thread.

[Faux Newbie]

This gets better and better - kind of like a white knight fail. His footing is "so far behind where he is punching that the blows are not going to have the effect hoped for". So his fists are outrunning his feet?

You apparently cannot see the footage. By the time he catches up with his opponent, he is stuck pummeling from above before all striking is out the window. Closing certainly did not help him strike in any comprehensive way.

And apparently his opponent can run backwards must faster than he can run forwards. Sure sounds plausible.

His opponent retreats faster than he advances EVERY TIME in that clip. Every time. With his footwork more stable. Every time, on video.

really does take the cake. so the main similarity (with fighting a long range fighter) is an opponent keeps things at a certain distance. Oh, you mean like Johnny Rhodes, who backed up against the cage, then clinched, took the guy down, and did GNP in guard most of the fight? Riiiiiigggght, because he was completely at long range inside guard.

Apparently no one ever taught you the word context. It's patently obvious if, in a discussion that is talking about longer range, and you look at a fight clip someone is using to illustrate a point, whether you agree with the point or not, the only relevant part of the clip would be the part that is at range. Your entire reply is merely a non sequitor.

and "closing is something everyone does, but not all moments are good for closing" . I can't tell if you are a martial artist here or a real estate agent.
I have no idea who in the clip you are referring to, or what action you are referring to.

The part where the wing chun guy tries to force things into a range to close and strike, and then never gets to really effectively strike?

[Wayfaring]

You apparently cannot see the footage. By the time he catches up with his opponent, he is stuck pummeling from above before all striking is out the window. Closing certainly did not help him strike in any comprehensive way.

Levicki chases Rhodes around the ring. Initially, when Rhodes backs up against the cage, Levicki is landing some shots. In the midst of all that Rhodes clinches, gets a body lock, takes down to guard, and GNP's.

And what you get out of this is "closing certainly did not help him strike in any comprehensive way".

OK. What would you have done?

His opponent retreats faster than he advances EVERY TIME in that clip. Every time. With his footwork more stable. Every time, on video.

You mean for 4 steps until his back is against the cage. Then all of a sudden he isn't faster any more and is getting hit.

Apparently no one ever taught you the word context. It's patently obvious if, in a discussion that is talking about longer range, and you look at a fight clip someone is using to illustrate a point, whether you agree with the point or not, the only relevant part of the clip would be the part that is at range. Your entire reply is merely a non sequitor.

And apparently you think you can remove 10 sec of a fight from it's context, ignore the rest of the fight, and instruct WCK people on how to spar against someone on a clip that we aren't even sure which fighter it is (long fist type fighter). Because that's going to help them in a fight.

Hey but your rhetoric in internet debates is a lot better. I mean you are using the term non sequitor.

The part where the wing chun guy tries to force things into a range to close and strike, and then never gets to really effectively strike?

Yes Levicki chased Rhodes around the ring at the beginning. He initially started to land a little bit, but since he has like zero wrestling defense training, he got taken to his back quickly with a poorly executed technique. Since he has no guard, he gets beat up in guard. Then he loses.

And what you get out of this is "don't close the distance??" Not "learn to sprawl like a middle schooler and how to do a technical standup or use the cage to stand up?"

OK.

[Wayfaring]

The part where the wing chun guy tries to force things into a range to close and strike, and then never gets to really effectively strike?

If I focus on this statement, and give more weight to the words FORCE THINGS, then there might be something to discuss here. What consists of forcing things? When an opponent is running backwards how fast do you run forwards?

Answers get different self defense vs. I signed a contract to beat this guy also.

[Faux Newbie]

If I focus on this statement, and give more weight to the words FORCE THINGS, then there might be something to discuss here. What consists of forcing things? When an opponent is running backwards how fast do you run forwards?

Answers get different self defense vs. I signed a contract to beat this guy also.

He advances three times, and three times his opponent outpaces him. When he does close, the options open to him are not to be found in the descriptions in the context of this thread of bridging and striking. Since the clip was brought up to demonstrate the issues that face a wing chun fighter who expects to close, bridge, and strike as a solution to the range issue, it is pertinent. It's not extensive, of course, since the standup is so brief, but it is pertinent, since some of the discussion here has been centered around the idea of QUICKLY shutting down an opponent from outside range by bridging and striking.

As for your straw man argument that I said never to close, please provide my quote where I say that.

The idea that approaching that as self defense would not have made a huge difference there, imo, other than that he wouldn't have been caught chasing. But even approaching it as a sportive venue, the other guy was also contracted to beat him up, he chose to chase, and landing a few blows (not wing chun ones) did little to stop his opponent, because they were not effective in doing so, and ended up in a disadvantageous position in that exchange.

Since so much of the discussion here has been based on how the answer to long range is closing and bridging, a clip that shows the difficulty of that, clearly not used to discredit the idea, but stress the difficulties of pulling it off, is perfectly reasonable. Interpret it any way you like, he was contracted to fight, but probably more motivated to win, and since his core style was wing chun, that seems likely to be what he would have liked to have used to do so, and was most prepared to use. That this did not work out does not mean his wing chun was bad, or that wing chun is bad, but that circumstances and his opponent made that not as simple as some like to think it is.

[Faux Newbie]

Put in a self defense situation, closing and having it go to the ground does not seem like something a wing chun fighter would benefit from, either.

[Wayfaring]

He advances three times, and three times his opponent outpaces him. When he does close, the options open to him are not to be found in the descriptions in the context of this thread of bridging and striking. Since the clip was brought up to demonstrate the issues that face a wing chun fighter who expects to close, bridge, and strike as a solution to the range issue, it is pertinent. It's not extensive, of course, since the standup is so brief, but it is pertinent, since some of the discussion here has been centered around the idea of QUICKLY shutting down an opponent from outside range by bridging and striking.

Yes options are open to him but when an opponent clinches you have to have the skill to fend off the clinch so you don't get taken down like Levicki did. If people say "I'm not going to talk about that" regarding fending off the clinch, and don't discuss it, evaluate it, develop skills in it, then they are going to lose every encounter with a wannabe UFC fighter in a Tapout shirt in many countries in the world today because that person will be trying to take them down and may actually have been to a mma class or two.

The idea that approaching that as self defense would not have made a huge difference there, imo, other than that he wouldn't have been caught chasing. But even approaching it as a sportive venue, the other guy was also contracted to beat him up, he chose to chase, and landing a few blows (not wing chun ones) did little to stop his opponent, because they were not effective in doing so, and ended up in a disadvantageous position in that exchange.

That's a huge difference. In self defense, if an opponent runs away I'm letting him go unless it's like a gang member messenger going to alert friends to kill my family or something. In a sporting event, if an opponent is on his bicycle running away from me, I'm probably going to have to chase him hard, and try to anticipate his counters.

Since so much of the discussion here has been based on how the answer to long range is closing and bridging, a clip that shows the difficulty of that, clearly not used to discredit the idea, but stress the difficulties of pulling it off, is perfectly reasonable. Interpret it any way you like, he was contracted to fight, but probably more motivated to win, and since his core style was wing chun, that seems likely to be what he would have liked to have used to do so, and was most prepared to use. That this did not work out does not mean his wing chun was bad, or that wing chun is bad, but that circumstances and his opponent made that not as simple as some like to think it is.

wing chun isn't bad. but if you charge in on someone in a straight line with no head movement and can't sprawl or defend a takedown then you are dumb.

[kung fu fighter]

really does take the cake. so the main similarity (with fighting a long range fighter) is an opponent keeps things at a certain distance. Oh, you mean like Johnny Rhodes, who backed up against the cage, then clinched, took the guy down, and did GNP in guard most of the fight? Riiiiiigggght, because he was completely at long range inside guard.

Obviously you must have fell a sleep when Johnny Rhodes landed the spinning back kick on Levicki's chest, news for you, Last time I checked that's a long range power generation technique. lol you're making yourself look stupider with every post perhaps it a good idea to take your own advice and not post on any of my threads anymore. you are clearly getting outwited. LOL

However, with pressure on the bridge, you never "truly control the opponent". You only control them with pressure for an instant in time. Outside of that instant they are free to move. This is why pursuit is necessary, because you need to chain those instants together. I see nothing of Levicki trying to control the opponent with pressure on the bridge.

starting at 0:22 into this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv8PUayb1E4, OHHHH! see the Bridge control for an instant! like you mentioned in your post above that HFY does

It is valid as a demonstration that pursuit is not, in and of itself, always the way to go. His opponent's retreat was ahead of his advance: instead of biding time for a more fruitful pursuit, he continued on one that put him in grappling range with his base compromised.

Bingo, Warfaring is too brainwashed to see this!