Page 17 of 29 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 425

Thread: Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    My example wasn't to imply it's the best or only way to teach, just to give a POV of 'principle'-based fighting from a teaching perspective where you can teach someone to use WC effectively and never once mention technique by focusing on proper mechanics, position, point of contact, leverage, centerline, etc..
    There are many other classes where the focus is simply on a technique and it's use/application, say 'pak sau'
    Yes I understood that was what you were trying to explain.

    What's the difference? I thought I was pretty clear what I thought the difference was and explained it several times. But I will reiterate again, just for you 'T'

    No, I didn't think simply described the action of tan sau in my second example. From the first example of 'just do a tan sau' you could do a tan sau as I described but step the wrong way and get hit, or not step at all and get hit by the free hand. Or try doing the shape but have the wrong facing, or the wrong energy. Tan sau is the 'what', my second example is the how, what and why. The first, you only take away an application for a technique, the second applies to other areas as well as it's concept-focused perspective - regardless the technique or application
    Let me just stop you here. Maybe it's terminology maybe not but as I learned wing chun the actions like tan sau or bong sau or whatever are generic actions that most often can be used to do several different things. This is one of the things I like about the art. So the same generic action can be used as a strike or a block or to open a line or to escape a grab and so forth. Depending on what you are doing with the tool or action you may have to tweak it for example use a different energy as you say. I think here we are on the same line of thinking. This is taking the generic action and making it a technique or way to do something. Shape really doesn't enter into that unless by shape you mean the generic action. For me shape is the reference to the generic action not the action itself.

    Here's the deal this technique you teach with the stepping is a fine way to teach how the tan sau action MIGHT be used as an escape from a grab and the stepping is a fine way to teach various things like coordinating what you do in upper and lower gates or being mindful of his the opponents free hand and so forth but that as a combative technique simply won't work. This is what I have pointed out before. This is not application this is teaching various elements of wing chun you are not teaching what to really do in fighting. You see in fighting the opponent is not going to simply grab your arm and stand there while you do a tan sau with a step but is going to be already moving and throwing the other hand or other wise doing something to you. I know I know you will tell me it can be done and I will say show me someone doing it in sparring. My point is no one is doing that in sparring. So what you teach as application is stuff no one really does and calling it application.

    Again I think that what you are teaching is fine but it is not application and it misleads people into thinking this is how we do things in fighting.

    The difference is, there are many many ways to do a 'tan sau', and we see arguments about the right and wrong way to do a technique here all the time. By focusing only on the technique, you will find a way, but that doesn't always mean it's the way that fits in with WC's ideas/goals of economy of motion, maximum efficiency (I don't care if you don't like the term, so please ignore 'maximum' if it suites you), and effectiveness. You will not necessarily learn to do tan sau that fits these concepts just by practicing it, or if you happen to, it may take a long long time. But if I teach an application based on the concepts, the technique could be anything. For instance, in my example, there are otherways to break the grab without using tan sau. But if I just showed you to 'do tan sau' you will miss this
    I think there are many ways of doing the same technique. There is no one right or best way. The thing is you have to find out what works best for you.

    I understand what you are saying about concepts teaching the larger picture, for example the concept of breaking the grab at the thumb. That's a useful concept for sure. My perspective is it is all a part of one package and that the concept is not the basis of everything it is just a part like everything else. You need concepts but also technique and they go hand in hand. You need all the parts. Since you need all the parts no one part is the basis.

    Focusing only on technique you may be right, but the time frame for the learning process could be muuucccchhh longer. Now, I'm not advocating that you can simple tell someone the principle/concept and they got it. Far from it. they still have to put in the work and make it work for themselves. If you just want to see technique only, that's fine - because physically, that's all you really can see. But there's also the flip side of when you see someone trying a tan sau and it isn't working, is it because they are using the wrong technique? Or is it because they are using the technique wrongly? The concepts/principles are the guide for answering this. And by watching someone perform a technique, it is usually pretty easy to see if they understand them or not.
    I am in complete agreement with you about the process. Let me try to make this as clear as I can. For me concept technique movement energy and so forth are intertwined as a whole and you need it all to make what you do work. I do not think this is in any way unique to wing chun it is just the reality of learning a combative art.

    The other thing is many times you will see very very very good athletes who perform very very very well and can't explain or verbalized how they are able to do what they do so well. They may not understand it but they can do it. I do not think understanding is a basis of performance and our every day experience shows us that. That's not to say concepts can't help us perform.

    I respect your view, but have a difficult time agreeing. One 'E' by itself, sure. 2 EE's, less-so. But IMO, when looking at EEE (all 3 together), there is a lot less room for personal interpretation - period.
    That's like saying that there are different ways to say the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. You can argue otherwise and say the shortest distance between 2 points that are and inch apart is a huge zig zag spiral circle that is a mile long, and from some extreme physics examples you might prove your case, but the general idea of straight line is excepted as a common truth. But if someone says a jumping, spinning back fist is more EEE than a straight jab for hitting a stationary target with your at arm's length that is right in front of you with your fist, I'd reply that you're probably just arguing to argue. Put all 3 EEE together, and there is little room for arguing among rational people in that example.
    My only argument is that human beings and performance and fighting does not work like geometry lol. Yes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but I may not want to use the straight line even if it is there. Remember the Orr fighter who was doing chain punches with hooks and knocked his opponent out? He was not using straight punches intentionally. He was intentionally choosing not to use the shortest distance lol. He was not a slave to the system and was not stuck trying to conform to some self imposed limitations. He used what his experience taught him was the best way FOR HIM to get the KO in that situation.

    The trouble with your way of thinking is it fails to take into account the reality of fighting, the individual differences, and your opponent. Yes a straight jab might hit him but he may be looking for it while a spinning back fist may catch him by surprise. How do you know when to do one or the other? I think that comes from experience.
    Last edited by tc101; 06-18-2014 at 12:41 PM.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    Yes I understood that was what you were trying to explain.
    By your responses it doesn't appear that you did.

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    Yes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line
    Ok

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    but I may not want to use the straight line even if it is there.
    That's great and you can do what you want. But now you're just arguing with yourself because I didn't say anything about having to use a straight line or not. Like I said, it was just a simple example of a WC principle, nothing more. Funny, this discussion is feeling ssooooo familiar to the many 'discussions' I've had with another T that used to post here. I say one thing, he/you argues about something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    You see in fighting the opponent is not going to simply grab your arm and stand there while you do a tan sau with a step but is going to be already moving and throwing the other hand or other wise doing something to you. I know I know you will tell me it can be done and I will say show me someone doing it in sparring.
    No, I won't. Again, it was just another dam example, and I was pretty clear about that. Yet you go on for 2 paragraphs and somehow you still turn it into I don't know what happens in a real fight, you know what I'll tell you next, how what I teach is misleading and not application (like you have any idea what or how I teach) etc. Seems like there is little need for me to continue the discussion as you seem to be able to talk for both of us and you apparently know me sooo well.

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    The trouble with your way of thinking is it fails to take into account the reality of fighting, the individual differences, and your opponent.
    The trouble I have with discussing anything with you "T" is, you end up looping back to the same ol' same ol', arguing about things people don't even say like the same broken record. Assuming, like you have for years, that I don't take into account the 'reality of fighting', or that I don't 'do these things in sparring because they won't work in sparring', 'next you'll say', pointing back to your hero Alan, blah blah blah. Same thing as always & dragging good discussions down to the same narrow focus arguments in the process. You'd think you would have learned a little from the 'old T' and why he was banned in the first place and switch it up a little..

    I tried to have an honest technical discussion with you, but once you start making these same stupid assumptions about what I do and don't do the conversation is over. Not only are you wrong, you're insulting. And that's where I bow out 'Terry'
    Last edited by JPinAZ; 06-18-2014 at 04:58 PM.
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    Are you assuming WC only has a few techniques at any given range? Or that Wc fighters try to match technique vs technique? Either way, I have never agreed with this line of thinking, as, for me, WC isn't about how many or what techniques it has. This would be a very limiting view of WCK IMO.

    To give an example of what I mean, last night I taught a san sau class (san sau meaning more geared toward sparring applications vs. straight system training/drilling) that had a range of skill levels between the students. There were several guys that have been training for 2-4 years, some 1-2 year students, 2 beginners of only a few weeks, and 1 first-timer doing a trial class that came in with a decent amount of MMA training. I chose this exact topic of feints and long range attackes to train the more seasoned guys, as well as introduce WC's principle-based fighting concepts to the newer people.

    Besides showing and labeling the attacks we would be defending against (single straight lead/jab, jab/cross and Jab/hook), I didn't mention one WC technique they would use to defend against them. I had them first get comfortable with the long range attacks so they had some familiarity with them by hitting pads. Most have already done this type of training, but it was a good warm up and essential for the 2 newbies due to their low coordination and having never really thrown a punch in their lives.

    Then, I started them into defending against just the single lead/jab. The motion they were using was a biu-type shape engaging the jab from the outside-to-in while maintaining good fwd structure & pressure on center. I didn't label the shape as it wasn't necessary. Instead I focused on the concepts of centerline and space occupation, how do dominate that center space which drives the initial attack offline, and the body mechanics necessary to make it work - moving out to in with the arm, proper 6-gate footwork with the arm extended but elbow still sunken slightly so it can connect with the same side hip & knee, proper arm contact & fwd energy to connect with opponent's COG, etc. At no time did I give the 'technique' a name, even when asked. I also had the punchers vary the attack from feints, touch-and-go probing, as well as more committed punches.

    Each time I had them do the same motion regardless of the commitment:
    1. If it was a feint, cover the space and then move in if proper range to do so. Or, just stand your ground if little to no contact was made or the range was too far out (I explained you don't move, I don't move - you move I get there first here)
    2. For the touch-and-go probing-type jabs, same thing - cover the space and then, if proper range is there, follow the withdraw of the punch with footwork and what some might call trapping & hitting (I explained the general idea of loi lau hoi sung here)
    3. For committed attacks, this gave them more test to their overall body structure, elbow/knee/hip connection and fwd intent/pressure. From there, they were more in range to sink and hit.

    Some were better at this than others of course, but everyone was able to demonstrate an ability to pull it off and feel comfortable with the safety in the action without have to reply mainly on strength and size, as well as the offensive options you have afterwards. While the newer people just worked on that, I then had the more seasoned guys defend against more random 1-2 attacks I listed before and learned that the follow up punches weren't as much of a threat when done properly.
    At the end, everyone seemed to understand what I meant form a principle-based WC POV and weren't focused on what tools they used or how amny/few I had given them. The seniors had a better appreciation for the ideas they already knew, and the new people were left with a good appreciationg with how simple it worked once you learned the mechanics and were successful at applying the idea. And the new MMA guy was a bit surprised how well it worked for being something so foreign to him and was excited to try it out against his training partners at the MMA gym. Very cool

    Anyway, the point is - WC isn't about having 1 or 5 or 10 different response for a given attack, it's about being able to apply the same principle-based concepts and ideas physically against a variety of attacks. Regardless the shape you used to get there, the focus and intended outcome should be the same. (of course, skill levels and luck of the day always plays a part!).
    I like this approach to a class. It is functionally based. It has some live movement and contact. And it reinforces principles. A good option for a class that's something different.

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    North London, England
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    In regards to long and medium range sparring, I believe after years of investigation in various kung fu systems, western fencing and boxing Bruce Lee came to this conclusion as well. So we don't have to re invent the wheel, he has already done the ground work for us. Wing chun sparring doesn't have to look like kickboxing if you know how to use your footwork with angling with proper awareness of timing and distancing.
    I haven't read through all of this thread, but do remember seeing a few things here that I feel are worth mentioning again.

    As far as this 'Bruce did all the work for us' type idea, please. He struggled to get over the true simplicity of Siu Lim Tau, and so had to throw everything into the mix to help him make sense of things he could have grasped if he had only stayed with Ip Man and trained more Wing Chun.

    As far as I am aware, Ip Man Wing Chun (if we can call it that?) has frontal, slanted and side body methods, and due to his HK era influences what we see today tends to reflect much more frontal and slant body methods rather than full side body training. This isn't to say the information is not there within our forms and subsets though! I remember reading here mention on 'Battle Punches' and 'Arrow Punces', which are a basic side body drill related to the mechanics of the pole. Slant body methods are within Chum Kiu and side body within Biu Jee too. If your family doesn't have this type of training, maybe the Sifu have not been well versed enough in their forms and weaponry?

    There was an old saying I heard many years ago about our "empty hand methods face the enemy at close range, pole methods keep the enemy at distance and knife methods pass through the enemy" and if you can imagine what that type of saying is implying, it is almost like we have close, mid and long range fighting methods consistently trained and revised throughout our forms and set drills.

    This is basic Wing Chun?!
    Last edited by LoneTiger108; 06-19-2014 at 01:49 AM.
    Ti Fei
    詠春國術

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, canada
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneTiger108 View Post
    There was an old saying I heard many years ago about our "empty hand methods face the enemy at close range, pole methods keep the enemy at distance and knife methods pass through the enemy" and if you can imagine what that type of saying is implying, it is almost like we have close, mid and long range fighting methods consistently trained and revised throughout our forms and set drills.
    I like that old saying!

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayfaring View Post
    I like this approach to a class. It is functionally based. It has some live movement and contact. And it reinforces principles. A good option for a class that's something different.
    Thanks! Yeah, I like this approach too. I typically split my teaching method to about 50%/50%. One day is WC system focus training (forms & solo drills along with fixed & skill challenge partner drilling) and then the next day are 'san sau' classes (as I outlined in my example here) and sparing. Seems to be a great mix: learn it - test it - repeat. Lately I'm finding that my focus is slipping more towards the second method and forms aren't playing as big of a focus once they start getting some skill, except maybe for WC Formula and Dip Gwat Gung SLT. Did you ever get a chance to see the DGG (Bone Grinding) SLT form?
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    Thanks! Yeah, I like this approach too. I typically split my teaching method to about 50%/50%. One day is WC system focus training (forms & solo drills along with fixed & skill challenge partner drilling) and then the next day are 'san sau' classes (as I outlined in my example here) and sparing. Seems to be a great mix: learn it - test it - repeat. Lately I'm finding that my focus is slipping more towards the second method and forms aren't playing as big of a focus once they start getting some skill, except maybe for WC Formula and Dip Gwat Gung SLT. Did you ever get a chance to see the DGG (Bone Grinding) SLT form?
    Not yet on the DGG. I'll hit you up and come train next time I'm out.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    I'm not saying this is the best example of Wing Chun, but in this video the Wing Chun player uses the basic strategy of immediately closing with the opponent. So his opponent hardly ever has a chance to get off any kicks. If the Wing Chun guy had spent any time at long range, he would have ended up eating a lot more of the TKD guy's kicks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBzTo07oS4

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    I'm not saying this is the best example of Wing Chun, but in this video the Wing Chun player uses the basic strategy of immediately closing with the opponent. So his opponent hardly ever has a chance to get off any kicks. If the Wing Chun guy had spent any time at long range, he would have ended up eating a lot more of the TKD guy's kicks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBzTo07oS4
    Mislabeled as a street fight IMO. It was a street point tournament fight. Everyone kept stopping the action and they reset in the middle. Out of curiosity what do most think would happen if action was not stopped but was unrestricted? Anyway yes the WCK used a good strategy against a TKD guy - don't hang out at full kicking range - close the distance. I'm sure that strategy also would be good against a long range - Muhammed Ali style boxer.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, canada
    Posts
    964
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    I'm not saying this is the best example of Wing Chun, but in this video the Wing Chun player uses the basic strategy of immediately closing with the opponent. So his opponent hardly ever has a chance to get off any kicks. If the Wing Chun guy had spent any time at long range, he would have ended up eating a lot more of the TKD guy's kicks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBzTo07oS4

    The wing chun guy is chasing his TKD opponent, which can get you into trouble if the TKD opponent kew how to circle like a boxer with his footwork

    not the best, but here is a better example starting at 0:44 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU8B6eNm2zs

    When i close the distance, i can do it in one step and completely shut the opponent down and distroy his body structure to the point where he is off balance and can't move or step away. it's not check, it's check mate, but you have to have very good timing to be able to pull it off.

    Starting at 2:29 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3eW0hfy0U was the closest I could find on youtube to the timing I am referring to, except I don't necessarily stand still and wait or step directly down the centerline, I wait for the opponent to come at me, I can bring the fight to the opponent, or I can cut the opponent off by being proactive. The secret is to take the inner gate centerline as Hendrik has mentioned on here before.
    Last edited by kung fu fighter; 06-25-2014 at 10:20 AM.

  11. #251
    Great post!

    For me,
    These stuffs is belong to the momentum element of the six core elements as Robert share in this issue 18 of WCI. One level deeper then the move such as tan da , lap da, or forward pressure, or taking angle. But dynamic stuffs which sometimes people refer it to as test under pressure. And test under pressure has many areas. Such as momentum, force flow, mind level, and how fluent is ones technics handling.

    Different art has different unique momentum play based on its engine.
    Wck inner gate center line play is a beauty .



    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    The wing chun guy is chasing his TKD opponent, which can get you into trouble if the TKD opponent kew how to circle like a boxer with his footwork

    not the best, but here is a better example starting at 0:44 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU8B6eNm2zs

    When i close the distance, i can do it in one step and completely shut the opponent down and distroy his body structure to the point where he is off balance and can't move or step away. it's not check, it's check mate, but you have to have very good timing to be able to pull it off.

    Starting at 2:29 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3eW0hfy0U was the closest I could find on youtube to the timing I am referring to, except I don't necessarily stand still and wait or step directly down the centerline, I wait for the opponent to come at me, I can bring the fight to the opponent, or I can cut the opponent off by being proactive. The secret is to take the inner gate centerline as Hendrik has mentioned on here before

  12. #252
    [QUOTE=Hendrik;1271717]Great post!

    For me,
    These stuffs is belong to the momentum element of the six core elements as Robert share in this issue 18 of WCI. One level deeper then the move such as tan da , lap da, or forward pressure, or taking angle. But dynamic stuffs which sometimes people refer it to as test under pressure. And test under pressure has many areas. Such as momentum, force flow, mind level, and how fluent is ones technics handling.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Navin's post was simple and understandable without any gobbledygook.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    The wing chun guy is chasing his TKD opponent, which can get you into trouble if the TKD opponent knew how to circle like a boxer with his footwork [...]
    I agree, I've been caught by boxers good at circling and boxers with good footwork more generally. I agree with tc101 here in that one needs more familiarity with people from different disciplines.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    I agree, I've been caught by boxers good at circling and boxers with good footwork more generally. I agree with tc101 here in that one needs more familiarity with people from different disciplines.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Good wing chun has plenty of good footwork imo

    Ip Man had great footwork and kicks.Those who did chi sao with him is said to have had glimpses of his kicking ability.
    Because wing chun uses both sides- good footwork can be more versatile than that of boxers.
    Last edited by Vajramusti; 06-22-2014 at 12:30 PM.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    When i close the distance, i can do it in one step and completely shut the opponent down and distroy his body structure to the point where he is off balance and can't move or step away. it's not check, it's check mate, but you have to have very good timing to be able to pull it off.
    Can we see this phenomenal check mate stuff where you close the distance, and in one step completely shut down the opponent and destroy his body structure? Or are you like talking in your mind's eye this is what is happening?

    Starting at 2:29 into this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3eW0hfy0U was the closest I could find on youtube to the timing I am referring to, except I don't necessarily stand still and wait or step directly down the centerline, I wait for the opponent to come at me, I can bring the fight to the opponent, or I can cut the opponent off by being proactive. The secret is to take the inner gate centerline as Hendrik has mentioned on here before
    Around 2:29 all I saw was Emin doing some kind of a demo where a guy flinched like he was going to throw a punch and Emin charged him. But that technique would never hold up on da street. Why? Because if you bull rush every person who flinched at you, you would wind up smacking some little old lady who would press charges then you would wind up in a jail cell with 3 large gentlemen all named Bubba. See? Not street efficient.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •