Effective strategies against VT

[KPM]

Then why continue with Wing Chun? Personally, I would give it up for something better.

If you have better Wing Chun than what you described, I think that's what this thread is about; your best Wing Chun and what works best against it.


---I've studied Ip Man Wing Chun, TWC, and Pin Sun Wing Chun. Not long ago I got my ass kicked in sparring by a good boxer. He literally knocked me on my ass! In the past I hadn't had much opportunity to spar with someone like that. Like a lot of Wing Chun guys, most of my sparring was against fellow Chunners. I was doing a lot of what I described above in this thread. So I did a serious appraisal of the approach I had learned. I spent a lot of time going through Wing Chun sparring clips on-line and "Wing Chun vs. X" clips. The guys that were doing the best in sparring while still doing obvious Wing Chun were TWC guys. And that is because they included strategies other than charging up the center with chain punches, or standing right in front of a good boxer and expecting to come out on top. I started to revisit the "blindside strategy" and use of angles from TWC as well as some of the "pre-contact phase" strategies. I essentially went back to my TWC training, although what I do still has something of a Pin Sun "flavor" to it. And my sparring abilities improved a lot as a result.



No. I didn't say I couldn't defend, but that defense like that is not necessarily in line with VT strategy.

---Ok. I can see that. But then that might be a flaw....limiting your VT to just that one strategy.




I didn't say that. I'm talking about letting up because it is a "friendly spar".
This allows them to do things that otherwise would be shut down with "unfriendly" force.

---If you are controlling their center, off-balancing them to destroy their base, or trapping/tying them up then this shouldn't be an issue. If your strategy is to rely on over-whelming punches to knock them out, then yeah....it might be an issue.



I don't count on that. This just highlights the problem with a friendly spar and the negative effects it can have on VT.
In such an exchange, I'm not going to blast on them until they're out.

---But you can blast on them until the are off-balanced or falling can't you?




VT is not a defensive martial art. I didn't say I can't defend myself, though.
VT not working optimally as it should due to holding back does not mean I get beat up.

It just means I'm not using VT as it is intended and am sometimes forced to become too defensive because I'm being too friendly.


---I can see that. I guess that's why I feel that TWC works better in a sparring situation. It seems to have more strategies for the fight. That's not to say that it is more effective than WSLVT, just maybe more suited for an artifical sparring situation.

[LFJ]

And my sparring abilities improved a lot as a result.

Have you faced the same boxer with the different approach?

WSLVT also uses flanking tactics, just very different from TWC.

Certainly, either would be better than WC with no idea of angling or tactical footwork whatsoever.

---Ok. I can see that. But then that might be a flaw....limiting your VT to just that one strategy.

It's not a flaw that VT doesn't work optimally when not used as intended.

I have experience in other styles better suited to the friendly exchange.

---If you are controlling their center, off-balancing them to destroy their base, or trapping/tying them up then this shouldn't be an issue. If your strategy is to rely on over-whelming punches to knock them out, then yeah....it might be an issue.

---But you can blast on them until the are off-balanced or falling can't you?

VT is not so friendly, and you can't "blast on" someone softly.

When going softly, unless you completely outclass someone, much of this won't work.

---I can see that. I guess that's why I feel that TWC works better in a sparring situation. It seems to have more strategies for the fight. That's not to say that it is more effective than WSLVT, just maybe more suited for an artifical sparring situation.

TWC has much that from a WSLVT point of view is too defensive and even (not intended to insult) arm-chasing.

[Happy Tiger]

Although I guess it has already been suggested, VT fighters only real weakness is loathe to fall down. Since I grew up playing Hapkido this is not an issue for me. Still, a fighter in this day must be comfortable fighting from any position or orientation.Yet even on the ground VT has value .
The only other weakness I can think of is VT fighters can be flat footed and stubborn to their structure.

[KPM]

Have you faced the same boxer with the different approach?

---Unfortunately, not yet! He and I haven't been back to sparring sessions at the same time. It is an open group inviting anyone that wants to spar to show up, and not a school specific group.


WSLVT also uses flanking tactics, just very different from TWC.

---Ok. Now that sounds like it would be a good topic for discussion! I haven't seen anyone write about flanking tactics in WSLVT before.





VT is not so friendly, and you can't "blast on" someone softly.

---Gloves and headgear goes a long way towards "softening" the blast! No offense, but how you are talking is starting to sound no different from the guys that say "we don't spar because our style is too deadly!"




TWC has much that from a WSLVT point of view is too defensive and even (not intended to insult) arm-chasing.

---Yeah, I can agree with that. When putting an emphasis on getting to the blindside there are sometimes extra movements and beats put in. Some of it I just ignore from the curriculum and don't do for that reason.

[Happy Tiger]

Have you faced the same boxer with the different approach?

---Unfortunately, not yet! He and I haven't been back to sparring sessions at the same time. It is an open group inviting anyone that wants to spar to show up, and not a school specific group.


WSLVT also uses flanking tactics, just very different from TWC.

---Ok. Now that sounds like it would be a good topic for discussion! I haven't seen anyone write about flanking tactics in WSLVT before.





VT is not so friendly, and you can't "blast on" someone softly.

---Gloves and headgear goes a long way towards "softening" the blast! No offense, but how you are talking is starting to sound no different from the guys that say "we don't spar because our style is too deadly!"




TWC has much that from a WSLVT point of view is too defensive and even (not intended to insult) arm-chasing.

---Yeah, I can agree with that. When putting an emphasis on getting to the blindside there are sometimes extra movements and beats put in. Some of it I just ignore from the curriculum and don't do for that reason.

Boxers can have amazing finesse and can be brutal fustigators. On of the toughest fighters I know is a South African bare knuckle boxer. This ****er always keeps me on my toes.He's hard as rock and not afraid to be hit hard.also
Something I can't always say of VT fighters.

[KPM]

Is there any flanking being used here? Because this looks like the "charging up the center with punches" and "standing right in front of the opponent" that I mentioned before. Maybe I'm missing something? Or is the clip just too short and doesn't show much?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axLY4vi8NTs


Or how about here? Any flanking being used here?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-gvvrBdrk


In contrast, here is some light drilling that demonstrates one way in which a TWC guy would seek to "flank" a boxer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWCht6jcgCU&t=23s

[Happy Tiger]

Flanking is a strategy that needs finesse. Flat footed foot work won't work on my side of the street.

[LFJ]

---Unfortunately, not yet!

Would be best to note any improvement in sparring due to strategy change against the same competition that bested you last time.

WSLVT also uses flanking tactics, just very different from TWC.

---Ok. Now that sounds like it would be a good topic for discussion! I haven't seen anyone write about flanking tactics in WSLVT before.

I have talked about it many, many times.

---Gloves and headgear goes a long way towards "softening" the blast!

Which also changes the effect of VT.

If you dial back the aggressiveness to be friendly, plus add gloves and headgear, it will allow things to happen that would not happen full on and bareknuckled.

No offense, but how you are talking is starting to sound no different from the guys that say "we don't spar because our style is too deadly!"

Why? VT is simply designed to be used aggressively and is not suited the a light and friendly exchange.

You have already agreed with this here;

VT is really not suited to "friendly" sparring. If you dial back the aggressiveness to accommodate this type of exchange it will reduce the effectiveness of VT.

---Yes. That is a good point.

So, why now the mocking tone against a "good point" you have agreed with?

Is there any flanking being used here? Because this looks like the "charging up the center with punches" and "standing right in front of the opponent" that I mentioned before. Maybe I'm missing something? Or is the clip just too short and doesn't show much?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axLY4vi8NTs


Or how about here? Any flanking being used here?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-gvvrBdrk

If you don't know, why not just ask instead of going on your mission to disprove?

People are more willing to discuss with you when you enter discussion without a clear agenda.

In contrast, here is some light drilling that demonstrates one way in which a TWC guy would seek to "flank" a boxer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWCht6jcgCU&t=23s

No comment.

[KPM]

I have talked about it many, many times.

---Sorry. I must have missed it.




So, why now the mocking tone against a "good point" you have agreed with?

---Really not trying to be "mocking." You had a good point, but like most of your points you tend to "over-state" them or take them to an extreme. Yes, Wing Chun is an aggressive system that is not really meant for a "friendly exchange." But that does not mean that you can't put on gloves and headgear and maintain a good amount of the aggressiveness and "unfriendliness" and still train it well in sparring.



If you don't know, why not just ask instead of going on your mission to disprove?


---I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was asking YOU! And I provided some examples I could to see if you would point out where they may be using a flanking tactic. Are you now saying they are not? That's Ok if true, because I couldn't really see it myself. Do you have some clips you can share that show WSLVT guys using some flanking moves? I'm truly interested in how you approach this and how prominent a tactic it is in WSLVT.



People are more willing to discuss with you when you enter discussion without a clear agenda.

---I don't know how I could have asked the question any more clearly without you assuming I had an agenda. I thought providing some video clips would give us some common ground for discussion.

[LFJ]

Yes, Wing Chun is an aggressive system that is not really meant for a "friendly exchange." But that does not mean that you can't put on gloves and headgear and maintain a good amount of the aggressiveness and "unfriendliness" and still train it well in sparring.

I also didn't say that.

I simply said I've been least pleased with my performance whenever I have not been as assertive as I normally would for the sake of friendliness.

---I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was asking YOU! And I provided some examples I could to see if you would point out where they may be using a flanking tactic.

You didn't ask anything before you went to grab videos and say look, there's no flanking unlike like this TWC guy walking circles around an apparently blind opponent.

If you want to tell me what's what about VT, then you don't need comments from me.

Are you now saying they are not? That's Ok if true, because I couldn't really see it myself.

Obviously, you are not very observant.

[KPM]

You didn't ask anything before you went to grab videos and say look, there's no flanking unlike like this TWC guy walking circles around an apparently blind opponent.

If you want to tell me what's what about VT, then you don't need comments from me.


Geez! Do you really feel the need to turn EVERYTHING into an argument???


I said this:

Now that sounds like it would be a good topic for discussion! ----And I apologize because I really didn't give you time to respond. So in my enthusiasm I said this:

Is there any flanking being used here? Because this looks like the "charging up the center with punches" and "standing right in front of the opponent" that I mentioned before. Maybe I'm missing something? Or is the clip just too short and doesn't show much?

I thought I was inviting you to discuss flanking tactics and providing some video as a "jumping off" point to make a comparison with what TWC does. I guess you interpreted that differently. Sorry if it came across as antagonistic.

[LFJ]

I thought I was inviting you to discuss flanking tactics and providing some video as a "jumping off" point to make a comparison with what TWC does. I guess you interpreted that differently. Sorry if it came across as antagonistic.

If you don't know what you're looking for, randomly selecting videos to say you don't see what you think you're looking for is probably not the best way to start, and does come across as antagonistic, as opposed to genuine interest. But, alright, forget about it.

There is no "charging up the center with punches" unless as an error by an inexperienced practitioner.

There is also no "standing right in front of the opponent" unless for a particular reason in a drill, in which case there is no opponent, only a training partner.

VT flanking tactics are much more subtle than TWC.

VT uses tight angles to "cut in" along the side of an isosceles triangle to center, capturing space and taking up the opponent's position, in the process disrupting their balance and facing, and stifling their ability to effectively recover and counter.

A major difference is that to get to the "blindside" we are not taking wide, circular, evasive steps literally around the opponent, which is what TWC attempts in my view, and leaves too much space and focuses on trapping the one arm more than directing force and body mass through the opponent's core. Even if you are in a position poised to deal with the next shot, in my view, it affords the opponent too much space and freedom of movement to do so, as opposed to imposing pressure actually closing options to them.

I know you may not agree with my view of TWC's strategy and tactics, but this is how it is in relation to what I do.

In other words, to achieve flank, we are not turning ourselves around an opponent, but either turning them by "cutting the way" or allowing them to turn themselves by taking advantage of rotational punches, or forcing the error of overshooting. To the untrained eye, it may look as if we are staying in front of the opponent at times, but we are in fact always attacking to one presented flank or another. Our goal is to have our "two poles" directed at the opponent, while forcing theirs to face away by cutting in and taking space/closing options. Should they be able to come back the other way, we let them and take the other flank. So, they are always fighting to recover facing to get an effective counterattack in, while we are avoiding head-on confrontation always attacking the flanks.

This is one clip you've seen before, often used as an example because it is one of the more dynamic videos that shows this done very skilfully, including in a bit of sparring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI1Q1j-d80

Of course it is VT vs VT, but while we're on the topic of effective counterstrategies, though I have faced many different styles, VT remains the most difficult to deal with despite facing it in training all the time. One would think familiarity might make it easier, but no. Other styles that have large, loose motions in comparison seem wide open compared to VT and are easier to land on since they like to exchange, whereas good VT will completely shutdown the attacks of other VT. There is no exchanging. One just bests the other. It is very demoralizing to face a skilled VT fighter.

[KPM]

If you don't know what you're looking for, randomly selecting videos to say you don't see what you think you're looking for is probably not the best way to start, and does come across as antagonistic, as opposed to genuine interest. But, alright, forget about it.

---Those were the best clips of WSLVT that featured "gloved up" more realistic training/drilling that I could find that weren't Chi Sau.



A major difference is that to get to the "blindside" we are not taking wide, circular, evasive steps literally around the opponent, which is what TWC attempts in my view, and leaves too much space and focuses on trapping the one arm more than directing force and body mass through the opponent's core.

---Wide, circular evasive steps....yes. The space left is used to advantage and is not a drawback. The purpose of trapping one arm is to prevent the opponent from being able to turn back towards you AND can be used to "rock" their core balance.


Even if you are in a position poised to deal with the next shot, in my view, it affords the opponent too much space and freedom of movement to do so, as opposed to imposing pressure actually closing options to them.

---As I have already described, the whole point is to move to their side and keep them from being able to re-face. They are not afforded the "freedom of movement" to turn back on you and deliver that next shot. Their options are closed to them by the trap preventing them from pivoting back towards you again, or the "jarring" their core to unbalance them, or converting to a Lop Sau that suddenly yanks them forward to off-balance amongst other options.



In other words, to achieve flank, we are not turning ourselves around an opponent, but either turning them by "cutting the way" or allowing them to turn themselves by taking advantage of rotational punches, or forcing the error of overshooting.

----This is also something done in CSL Wing Chun....they teach to stand your ground and turn the opponent, rather than turning around the opponent. Robert Chu says "a shift is a gift"....meaning that if the opponent tries to shift or pivot in front of you it is pretty easy to take their center and make them "over shift."


To the untrained eye, it may look as if we are staying in front of the opponent at times, but we are in fact always attacking to one presented flank or another.

---I see what you're saying....you're driving a wedge, just from slightly off-center rather than straight up the middle.


Our goal is to have our "two poles" directed at the opponent, while forcing theirs to face away by cutting in and taking space/closing options. Should they be able to come back the other way, we let them and take the other flank.

---This is the difference I think with TWC. TWC seeks to flank them so completely that they don't have the ability to "come back the other way." As I said above, the whole goal is to get to their "blindside" and prevent them from being able to turn back towards you easily. But that does involve a deeper step and being more completely to their side rather than "wedging" in from an angle. Just different tactics.


So, they are always fighting to recover facing to get an effective counterattack in, while we are avoiding head-on confrontation always attacking the flanks.

This is one clip you've seen before, often used as an example because it is one of the more dynamic videos that shows this done very skilfully, including in a bit of sparring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI1Q1j-d80

---Yes, I was picturing this as I was reading your description. Now, not to split hairs, but one could argue that simply turning the opponent a bit so you are coming in at an angle just off of the center it not quite flanking. Flanking typically means to take the opponent at their side.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...F-8#q=flanking

---You are not technically getting to their side. You are talking about still coming from the front, just off-center at a bit of angle. But I can see that what you are describing is accomplishing a similar purpose.


Of course it is VT vs VT, but while we're on the topic of effective counterstrategies, though I have faced many different styles, VT remains the most difficult to deal with despite facing it in training all the time. One would think familiarity might make it easier, but no. Other styles that have large, loose motions in comparison seem wide open compared to VT and are easier to land on since they like to exchange, whereas good VT will completely shutdown the attacks of other VT. There is no exchanging. One just bests the other. It is very demoralizing to face a skilled VT fighter.

---Good summary! Thanks!

[LFJ]

---Wide, circular evasive steps....yes. The space left is used to advantage and is not a drawback. The purpose of trapping one arm is to prevent the opponent from being able to turn back towards you AND can be used to "rock" their core balance.

I'm aware of the purpose. I'm saying from my point of view, it is a drawback. You may like it.

the whole point is to move to their side and keep them from being able to re-face. They are not afforded the "freedom of movement" to turn back on you and deliver that next shot. Their options are closed to them by the trap preventing them from pivoting back towards you again, or the "jarring" their core to unbalance them, or converting to a Lop Sau that suddenly yanks them forward to off-balance amongst other options.

In the heat of a fist fight, it is a bit optimistic to get all the way to someone's side and control them by their arm like that.

---I see what you're saying....you're driving a wedge, just from slightly off-center rather than straight up the middle.

As trained on dummy.

TWC seeks to flank them so completely that they don't have the ability to "come back the other way."

Circling all the way around to flank a reasonably skilled and uncooperative opponent so completely and keep them from turning back is probably nigh impossible, unless grappling; arm drag, body clinch.

Achieving similar orientation to the opponent while keeping distance and controlling from their arm with one hand while striking with the other is something I've been looking for in the many TWC clips and fight videos. Never seen it actually happen uncooperatively against a reasonably skilled opponent.

As I said above, the whole goal is to get to their "blindside" and prevent them from being able to turn back towards you easily. But that does involve a deeper step and being more completely to their side rather than "wedging" in from an angle.

It is no easy task to turn back toward us either, once we have cut in and taken up their balance and position.
We just don't fight force with force, and will at times let it go to take the other flank.

It's much more probable that you'll be able to take an angle by cutting them off and turning them to achieve close to chest-to-shoulder orientation, than to do so by circling around them. And really, all you need is that their weapons are not facing you while both of yours are attacking.

Now, not to split hairs, but one could argue that simply turning the opponent a bit so you are coming in at an angle just off of the center it not quite flanking. Flanking typically means to take the opponent at their side.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...F-8#q=flanking

---You are not technically getting to their side. You are talking about still coming from the front, just off-center at a bit of angle. But I can see that what you are describing is accomplishing a similar purpose.

Cutting in on one side or the other of the opponent's "triangle" is flanking, as opposed to fighting up the middle, point to point.
Getting to 90 degrees on in a fist fight and maintaining it for continuous attack is extremely optimistic.
If you can pull it off, more power to you. I would really love to see it, though.

[KPM]

I'm aware of the purpose. I'm saying from my point of view, it is a drawback. You may like it.

---Fair enough!



In the heat of a fist fight, it is a bit optimistic to get all the way to someone's side and control them by their arm like that.

---If you are picturing a boxer darting in and out, then maybe. But "in the heat of a fist fight", plenty of people come charging straight in and it becomes relatively easy!



Circling all the way around to flank a reasonably skilled and uncooperative opponent so completely and keep them from turning back is probably nigh impossible, unless grappling; arm drag, body clinch.

---Not really. As you have said about WSLVT....if you have actually trained it you start to appreciate better how it can work.



Achieving similar orientation to the opponent while keeping distance and controlling from their arm with one hand while striking with the other is something I've been looking for in the many TWC clips and fight videos. Never seen it actually happen uncooperatively against a reasonably skilled opponent.

---But the same could be said of all the WSLVT clips. I haven't seen your version of flanking being used against an uncooperative skilled opponent either. Its always against a fellow VT student. At least in that earlier clip of Rahsun he was showing it against an actual boxer, even though the guy wasn't trying to stop him.




It's much more probable that you'll be able to take an angle by cutting them off and turning them to achieve close to chest-to-shoulder orientation, than to do so by circling around them. And really, all you need is that their weapons are not facing you while both of yours are attacking.

---I think there is a time and place for both. TWC should work more on the approach you are talking about and not limit the "blindside" strategy to just the one approach.



Cutting in on one side or the other of the opponent's "triangle" is flanking, as opposed to fighting up the middle, point to point.

---As I pointed out before, that could be debated as you aren't really taking the flank by definition. But no big deal. I would call that "cutting the angle" rather than flanking. But as already noted, it is accomplishing similar things.