Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[KPM]

The ONLY "Engine" and the ONLY "concept" need is that of a quick and devastating response or action to the intended threat of violence! No Snakes, no Emei just do it or are you going to ask your attacker to refrain while you work out which "Engine" your going to use .... Jeez!

Your "engine" is simply the basis for the way you move. It is in-grained by your training from day 1. You don't have to "work out" anything. At a certain level of experience it should be second nature. Isn't that the reason for training?

[Paddington]

Maybe you can point me to one just one one one one wing chun fighter that is using simultaneous offense and defense the way you think it works.

Yes simultaneous offense and defense is ONE concept or tactic in wing chun but that is not what wing chun is about as you put it. If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.

My perspective is looking at a demo type clip and then discussing whether or not it shows something you might do in wing chun is idle speculation. If you want to see how wing chun fighters do things just look at wing chun fighters and see. START with the wing chun guy fighting start with that and go from there.

I'll try to dig up some mma clips, UFC actually, where this occurs. Granted, I would hold back saying it was 'wing chun' per se or even saying it was performed by a wing chun fighter.

[KPM]

Man! He attacks you respond .... Simple!

Yes! Simple! But its HOW you respond that counts. Are you going to winch and cover up and get pounded? Or are you going to use the martial art you have been training?

[KPM]

Hendrik wrote:

The different between chasing hand and threaten center axis ( I don't use the term forward pressure because that is Ipman Wck term and not completely the same with what I am describe) is that threaten the center axis means threaten or disrupt the next move of the opponent momentum. While chasing hand doesn't have that effect.

I follow what you are saying and agree. I like that phrase..."threaten center axis." That is a good way of looking at it. This is essentially the same idea as BJJ's "breaking the opponent's base." It is also closely connected to the idea of controlling the opponent's balance. The thing that actually "threatens" the opponent's center axis is the fact that you have disrupted his base or balance. Even a good Kum Na/Chin Na technique should do this. You don't just throw on a wrist lock and let the opponent stand there. With the wrist lock you also have to make him step off balance, bend over, turn, etc. so that he doesn't have the opportunity to use his other hand. But I think John would agree with this. He is just doing it in a little different way.



That is why snake engine is important because at close sticking range one needs the power . This also made the different between your propose of roundhouse kick and I prefer step in. Because you are using a forward stance while I am using a back stance as in our salutation photo where shooting into the opponent crush his structure is one of the goal.


Another good point. When I kick my goal is to "kick through" the opponent as if it was a step in. From the kick I put my foot down as I move in rather than snapping it back. This is easy to do with a front kick or oblique kick, but harder to do with a round kick.

[tc101]

I'll try to dig up some mma clips, UFC actually, where this occurs. Granted, I would hold back saying it was 'wing chun' per se or even saying it was performed by a wing chun fighter.

My point is people go about this the wrong way or from the wrong direction. If you want to talk about how wing chun fighters do things START there and see. It would be like asking is this how a boxer would do something and never looking at what boxers really do lol. If you want to know if boxers do something look at boxers don't listen to arm chair guys who don't box tell you how they would box.

[JPinAZ]

Maybe you can point me to one just one one one one wing chun fighter that is using simultaneous offense and defense the way you think it works.

While I appreciate your offer, I'm not interested in tracking down a video of a 'WC fighter' doing what I say to prove my case. I've proven it to myself thru years of training, hard work and proving what works/doesn't work with live pressure testing. But if you think someone like that Obasi is an example of a 'wing chun fighter' we should all watch and learn from, well then nothing I show you is going to make much sense since that guy has nothing to do with wing chun IMO.

Yes simultaneous offense and defense is ONE concept or tactic in wing chun but that is not what wing chun is about as you put it. If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.

I never implied that's 'all wing chun' is or that it was the only concept tactic. You're just arguing with yourself there Tere- oops- I mean 'counselor'

And yes, in a lot of cases the defense sets up the offense. And no, if looking at something like tan da, simultaneous offense/defense doesn't actually happen exactly simultaneously, but the timing is so closely connected together that the term is safe to apply. Anyone that argues the they aren't simultaneous is just arguing semantics.

But there are different actions that do both at once in one single motion/move, like a 2-line punch/wu sau cutting into an attackers punch. That's one beat, one move, and simultaneous offense defense at the exact same time!

My perspective is looking at a demo type clip and then discussing whether or not it shows something you might do in wing chun is idle speculation. If you want to see how wing chun fighters do things just look at wing chun fighters and see. START with the wing chun guy fighting start with that and go from there.

It's far from idle except, well yeah, I am sitting in my chair while I type. What do you do, jumping jacks while you post here thru out the day?

I only speak from my own personal experience that I've gained thru years of trial and error and seeing what works or doesn't work for me. I don't speculate and I don't need to look at other 'wing chun fighters' to validate what I do. I actually go and do the work myself.
Since you suggest I go watch what other people do, is that what you do - sit around and watch 'real fighters' doing and then come here and talk from their experience? Sounds similar to a guy that used to post here who went to WC workshops, sat on the sidelines and refused to touch hands with anyone, yet still thought he knew enough to come tell everyone here how 'wrong' these people were that he was watching - that's idle speculation! I hope you aren't to have me believe you are as dense as that guy? I gave you more credit than that

In any case, if you've forgotten, we are on an internet forum. Unless you know some way we can all magically teleport to the same location and get together to physically train with each other, that's all ANYONE can do here - discuss. If you don't like discussing wing chun then this should be your last post here...

[Faux Newbie]

Does anyone know other names to the pole punch? I'm having difficulty finding an example. Is it a lead hand punch?

[Faux Newbie]

Man! He attacks you respond .... Simple!

I think one of the things that comes up, I'll use long range as an example (while acknowledging that it is not a discrete and separate range in reality, using it just as describing conditions where the only options are long range attacks or closing), is that at long range, as far as I understand it, wing chun has a limited number of strikes. The kicks are generally shorter range kicks, and the pole punch.

If facing someone from a style like boxing, muay thai, long fist, etc, they have a larger number of offenses they can make at this further distance. You are correct, to each of these, there may be a response.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing. So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Would you say this is accurate?

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

To make it simple and general,


Long fist art is fighting in the range of 40cm away in front of the body . One close gap so that one strike other. Is western boxing. Hitting target to damage is the basic focus.

Short strike art is fighting in the range body touching the body and different part of contact of the body can do strike. One enter the body to get to that range. Ie bjj. Damage center line axis or based is the basic focus.

Two distinctive concept, technics, power generation or engine needed.
Wck is specialize in short strike.



IMHO, martial art is not a random spray, but a calculate predict snip short. Those who is good at it is a snipper. Thus. One needs to know ones specialty and develop the engine. For no one and no art is ever complete. And a snipper don't need to know all weapons.




Why do I keep put the following video up?
Because everything has pro and con and level of development.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=jji2LOBAHHU

IMHO,

Wck is not taiji, not hung gar, not white crane from fujian, not emei, not western boxing, not CLF. It has it s characteristic and sweat spot and engine.

Even different lineages of Wck evolve differently today.

I think one of the things that comes up, I'll use long range as an example (while acknowledging that it is not a discrete and separate range in reality, using it just as describing conditions where the only options are long range attacks or closing), is that at long range, as far as I understand it, wing chun has a limited number of strikes. The kicks are generally shorter range kicks, and the pole punch.

If facing someone from a style like boxing, muay thai, long fist, etc, they have a larger number of offenses they can make at this further distance. You are correct, to each of these, there may be a response.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing. So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Would you say this is accurate?

[Faux Newbie]

To make it simple and general,


Long fist art is fighting in the range of 40cm away in front of the body . One close gap so that one strike other. Is western boxing.

Short strike art is fighting in the range body touching the body and different part of contact of the body can do strike. One enter the body to get to that range. Ie bjj.

Two distinctive concept, technics, power generation or engine needed.
Wck is specialize in short strike.

I understand this. My point was more, at long range, if a wing chun practitioner always uses one technique to counter a long jab, one to counter a long punch, one for each long kick, feints will reveal some of this, and the opponent will have an advantage. So my assumption is that a wing chun stylist would then choose to have more than one response to each, or else they are at a disadvantage against someone good at feints.

So that it is not just a matter of one person attacking and the WC person responding, but the wing chun person having a variety of responses to the same attack in order not to be compromised.

Mainly, I was asking if this is the case.

[Hendrik]

I understand this. My point was more, at long range, if a wing chun practitioner always uses one technique to counter a long jab, one to counter a long punch, one for each long kick, feints will reveal some of this, and the opponent will have an advantage. So my assumption is that a wing chun stylist would then choose to have more than one response to each, or else they are at a disadvantage against someone good at feints.

So that it is not just a matter of one person attacking and the WC person responding, but the wing chun person having a variety of responses to the same attack in order not to be compromised.

Mainly, I was asking if this is the case.

IMHO,

One cannot think of Wck as a long fist logic.

The ability of enter the body ( definition in the previous post) 入身，埋身 in Chinese, is the most important and have many many variations. Which ancient wcners are good at it. Because Wck is close strike art. Ie. Bjj response and take down

Also, Wck is an offensive art, the response it using the opponent momentum to against him while enter the body.


Today Wck has evolved away from enter the body into long fist art , nothing good or bad, so, with those type of evolution, one is subject to play the game of long fist which is very dynamic in changing location to have or keep that 40cm of space or clearance infront of the body to play and strike the opponent.

While ancient Wck is playing within the 0 to 10cm within the 40cm. It is very different to generate power in that 0 to 10cm range , it is like stick to a wall or in this case the woodern dummy and play. Instead of always have to keep 40cm away from the dummy in order to change and accelerate or generate power. This where different engine matter. And also Wck snt doesn't do Chen taiji roller hip.


Wck Playing inner gate means playing at 0 to 10cm of the center axis. To take advantage of the 40cm clearance out side door play. But if one doesn't have the engine, no ability on enter the body. It cannot be done. One default to the long fist art and subject to long fist art rule of game.


Just my five cents

[kung fu fighter]

If you are referring to lien siu die da as I learned the concept is to use your defense to set up your offense.

I agree Terrence opps i mean tc lol, this may of applying lien siu die da is much more advance than the old using 2 hands working as one to deflect with one hand while striking with the other simultaneously as in tan da. and is much faster and economical in real time, however beginners have to start with techniques such as tan da to learn the timing involved before learning chain linked offence with defence in chi sao.

[JPinAZ]

In my experience, while WC does have technologies & tools to bridge/engage from a longer range against longer range attacks, it isn't really an art that looks to also strike from that range. While WC operates in all ranges (any range you can make contact), WC's goal is that of a shorter range striking method where you can preferably strike with both hands (and feet) equally with WC body structure and without have to do much shifting. In long range striking arts, you can only reach with one limb at a time and typically have to turn your body to gain the reach, giving up centerline as well as equal reach with both sides of the body.

As for feints, WC as I understand doesn't really use them, nor does it buy into them from an opponent. The sayings 'you don't move, I don't move - you move, I get there first' as well as loi lau hoi sung applies to committed attacks and feints alike. And I'm not saying a WC fighter can't get caught by them either, just saying it's not the normal intent to.

My point was more, at long range, if a wing chun practitioner always uses one technique to counter a long jab, one to counter a long punch, one for each long kick, feints will reveal some of this, and the opponent will have an advantage. So my assumption is that a wing chun stylist would then choose to have more than one response to each, or else they are at a disadvantage against someone good at feints.

So that it is not just a matter of one person attacking and the WC person responding, but the wing chun person having a variety of responses to the same attack in order not to be compromised.

Feints will only reveal what you are talking about if the WC fighter buys into them repeatedly and doesn't try closing the gap. But that's true of any fighter and only shows a lack of skill IMO, not anything to do with the system. Again, In my experience a WC fighter isn't looking to trade at long range but to close the distance to where all of their tools are available for striking and defense equally. Staying at long range is only playing half the game (defense).

Curious, what art do you study and have you sparred with any WC people?

[KPM]

I agree with what Hendrik said above. Let me see if I can add to it and make sense.

at long range, as far as I understand it, wing chun has a limited number of strikes. The kicks are generally shorter range kicks, and the pole punch.

Correct. IMHO Wing Chun was designed to operate at close distance, not at a longer distance.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

I was taught there there is no such thing as a "feint." The goal in my Wing Chun is to move in on the opponent. If he throws something meant as a feint, it doesn't make much difference because we will still use that opportunity to bridge or close with the opponent. If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn't much of a feint! On the flip side, we don't throw many feints ourselves exactly because it can be an opportunity for the opponent and is no better than "chasing hands." The closest thing to an feint is to throw a strike that you expect the opponent to see and react to, knowing that this will establish a "bridge" and allow you to flow into something else to close with the opponent. If he doesn't react to it, it doesn't matter because you are going to keep going forward with the strike and use it as an opportunity to move in or to actually hit him.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

Not if the response is a good one! The idea is not to exchange tit for tat...block for blow. The idea is to cover and attack at the same time while moving in. Done well, this can negate whatever the opponent was setting up for his feint. But again...the feint has to be a good one...a real threat. Otherwise you just ignore it and its not really a good feint. Someone doing something like pumping repeated short wimpy jabs out of range doesn't count.


My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

But a good response will be covering while closing so it doesn't matter if they are striking while stepping back. And who has the advantage? The guy stepping back, or the guy stepping in with cover?


I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing.

I don't think that way, because I don't consider my Wing Chun to be a sparring method. I'm going to catch all kinds of flack and heavy criticism for that comment, but I don't care. I'm not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things. I have a narrow set of strike from that range, because I am going to stay at the range for as short a time as possible. That range is not Wing Chun's forte. As far as responses to his strikes from that range, that is still wide open. You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.


So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Not really. Because the goal (my goal at least) is NOT to stand at long range and exchange tit for tat. That is what I mean when I say I don't think of Wing Chun as a "sparring method." The goal (my goal at least) is to bridge in from longer range to closer range where Wing Chun works best. Then make contact with the opponent in order to manipulate him in some way to hurt him or destroy his base. I'm not worried about "if he does X, then I will do Y, and if he counters with Z, then I do A." That's a sparring mentality. The idea is constant forward movement or pressure, not exchanging. The opponent is only able to capitalize on my responses if I do them poorly and have not gained control of the opponent in the process. If I am doing my job properly as a Wing Chun fighter, I should be shutting down the opponent and not giving him the opportunity to set up responses to my actions.

Now I know the responses that are coming....."idle speculation!!!" But this is how I was taught that Wing Chun was intended to work. Short range power. Simultaneous attack and defense, covering and controlling motions, dominating the opponent. Not a "tit for tat" exchange of blocks and strikes. Sparring helps develop portions of this strategy, but other training methods are also needed. Sparring too easily falls back into the "tit for tat" mode and can develop bad habits from a Wing Chun perspective. It can be over-emphasized, just as it can be neglected as a training method. And reiterate so that everyone is perfectly clear....I am NOT saying that sparring is unimportant. It is a valuable training method. One of many.

That's it! Now JP and T are free to rip into me again. I won't see it anyway!

[kung fu fighter]

[QUOTE=KPM;1271027]Hendrik wrote:

( I don't use the term forward pressure because that is Ipman Wck term and not completely the same with what I am describe) is that threaten the center axis means threaten or disrupt the next move of the opponent momentum.

I follow what you are saying and agree. I like that phrase..."threaten center axis." That is a good way of looking at it. This is essentially the same idea as BJJ's "breaking the opponent's base." It is also closely connected to the idea of controlling the opponent's balance. The thing that actually "threatens" the opponent's center axis is the fact that you have disrupted his base or balance. Even a good Kum Na/Chin Na technique should do this. You don't just throw on a wrist lock and let the opponent stand there. With the wrist lock you also have to make him step off balance, bend over, turn, etc. so that he doesn't have the opportunity to use his other hand.

BUT, this also means that they have a larger number of moves to feint, whereas an easier ability to read the feints from the wing chun practitioner, because they only really have to concern themselves with a small number of moves at that range.

I was taught there there is no such thing as a "feint." The goal in my Wing Chun is to move in on the opponent. If he throws something meant as a feint, it doesn't make much difference because we will still use that opportunity to bridge or close with the opponent. If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn't much of a feint! On the flip side, we don't throw many feints ourselves exactly because it can be an opportunity for the opponent and is no better than "chasing hands." The closest thing to an feint is to throw a strike that you expect the opponent to see and react to, knowing that this will establish a "bridge" and allow you to flow into something else to close with the opponent. If he doesn't react to it, it doesn't matter because you are going to keep going forward with the strike and use it as an opportunity to move in or to actually hit him.

If the feint draws a response, then the wing chun practitioner may be in position for what the feint is trying to set up.

Not if the response is a good one! The idea is not to exchange tit for tat...block for blow. The idea is to cover and attack at the same time while moving in. Done well, this can negate whatever the opponent was setting up for his feint. But again...the feint has to be a good one...a real threat. Otherwise you just ignore it and its not really a good feint. Someone doing something like pumping repeated short wimpy jabs out of range doesn't count.


My point being, response is not always the answer. Even closing at that range may be walking into someone stepping back while striking.

But a good response will be covering while closing so it doesn't matter if they are striking while stepping back. And who has the advantage? The guy stepping back, or the guy stepping in with cover?


I'm not saying that wing chun practitioners do not train to read feints, but that, at long range, a strict wing chun stylist has a narrow set of strikes, and narrow sets of responses are quicker for an opponent to read, remember, and capitalize on knowing.

I don't think that way, because I don't consider my Wing Chun to be a sparring method. I'm going to catch all kinds of flack and heavy criticism for that comment, but I don't care. I'm not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things. I have a narrow set of strike from that range, because I am going to stay at the range for as short a time as possible. That range is not Wing Chun's forte. As far as responses to his strikes from that range, that is still wide open. You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.


So it seems to me that a wing chun stylist would need not only to respond, but make sure not to respond by always shutting down a particular long range strike one particular way, but a diverse number of ways, so that it is harder for another to read them and capitalize on their trained responses to know what areas will be opened because of the response.

Not really. Because the goal (my goal at least) is NOT to stand at long range and exchange tit for tat. That is what I mean when I say I don't think of Wing Chun as a "sparring method." The goal (my goal at least) is to bridge in from longer range to closer range where Wing Chun works best. Then make contact with the opponent in order to manipulate him in some way to hurt him or destroy his base. I'm not worried about "if he does X, then I will do Y, and if he counters with Z, then I do A." That's a sparring mentality. The idea is constant forward movement or pressure, not exchanging. The opponent is only able to capitalize on my responses if I do them poorly and have not gained control of the opponent in the process. If I am doing my job properly as a Wing Chun fighter, I should be shutting down the opponent and not giving him the opportunity to set up responses to my actions.

Now I know the responses that are coming....."idle speculation!!!" But this is how I was taught that Wing Chun was intended to work. Short range power. Simultaneous attack and defense, covering and controlling motions, dominating the opponent. Not a "tit for tat" exchange of blocks and strikes. Sparring helps develop portions of this strategy, but other training methods are also needed. Sparring too easily falls back into the "tit for tat" mode and can develop bad habits from a Wing Chun perspective. It can be over-emphasized, just as it can be neglected as a training method. And reiterate so that everyone is perfectly clear....I am NOT saying that sparring is unimportant. It is a valuable training method. One of many.

I agree, this is also how i was taught to apply wing chun as well