The basic WCK punch

[chusauli]

Seriously? You know my take on your opinion here dude. You talk from lack of weaponry experience imho. Perhaps taught by someone who wants you to separate the ideals, for fear of you realizing they do not know what they're talking about when they put a knife in their hand

And:

I don't think Robert could even talk with my Sifu as he would be 'too proud' to answer some simple questions.

Spencer,

I consider that a passive aggressive swipe at me. Keep your conversation between you and Terence.

Also, what makes you think I'm "too proud" to talk to anyone, including your Sifu? He's a "Wah Kiu", as I am. I'm sure we'd have a lot to chat about. This assumption is something you are pulling out of your arse. I am a balanced person, I can have conversation with anyone I please.

Only ones I don't do well with are a-holes, passive- aggressive/bi-polar, and mentally unbalanced, and those that need psychiatric medication.

[m1k3]

What about those that simply enjoy psychiatric medicine?

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Interesting. But your point? It's a great piece of advice, but what I'm saying is not everyone will have that ability or intent, especially beginners.

Ideals for WCK are fine. But we are all human, so this punch that you think should hit doesn't. Now you're over-comitted and eaten by a little snake

Regarding your point, I agree that it can happen AND that Moy Yat warns about it when he says "don't when you mustn't."

Regarding my point, I'm saying that it's a trainable concept similar to "position before submission" (I use the term because it effectively illustrates the idea.)

As I see it, if one does not have control/initiative over an opponent's timing and structure/balance, one should be wary of hitting because there is always the chance that your point above will come true.

Likewise, if the opponent has control/initiative, hitting them is not the first priority; such hits are rarely effective (read "hail mary" or "low percentage.") Rather, the priority is to find an opportunity to regain control by at least getting to a neutral point of control/initiative first. Preferably while not getting hit, because:

Hitting when one has control/initiative means hitting whilst one has the upper hand. This is the "when you should hit-hit" time.

As an example, consider falling. Let's say you and I are sparring (no head shots) and you manage to make me stumble, perhaps even fall. Now, my mind is very much on regaining my balance or if unable to do so, absorbing the fall as best I can. Suppose that, AS I'm falling, you hit me with a decent (structured) basic WCK punch to the head (you're not being mean - for the sake of the example, I changed the rules )

This punch of yours will be vastly more effective than if you were ever to hit me in the head while I was structured for the "boxing" zone (expecting to get hit, so to speak) because, in the moment when my mind is on structuring for regaining my balance or falling safely, it is NOT on structuring for safely taking a punch. As such, being structured while hitting someone who is unstructured is one of the things to train for.

That said, it sometimes happens that we feel we have the opportunity to land something, in both an attached (sticking) and unattached (kickboxing) state, when we really can't. Happens to everyone. You know who it happens less to, though? People who have trained against resisting partners and who have the control/initiative before hitting.

It's funny that within all of Moy Yats chops it also states " beginners must not use strength" which supports another point I was trying to say to T. All this force against force training, and dangerous intent is not productive and can actually be very detrimental to the beginner.

My understanding of this Kuit comes from watching beginners "jamming" against each other AND THEN muscling their way through, or beginners being pulled by Lop or having their arms dropped by Lan and resisting instead of capitalizing on their opponent's commitment. It's not so much about being gentle with one another (although respect should always be maintained during training) as it is about not falling into technical traps or bad habits.

I therefore feel that beginners should quickly have access to simple sparring drills/games; and that it is up to the instructor to make sure they are on a track which makes their training progressively more real (and doesn't start from way off in left field, such as tightrope walking.)

Did you sign a waiver of liability form when you started training? If you teach, do you require your students to sign one?

[t_niehoff]

^ Good post.

[chusauli]

"Cho Hok, Mo Yung Lik"

"In the beginning, don't use strength." - It doesn't exactly mean "Beginners", but at the "beginning of learning".

Its a subtle distinction that can guide you with everything. For example, if for the first time using a bow and arrow, don't just muscle it, but look for the correct grip, posture, etc.

That's how I interpret the Kuen Kuit.

[Knifefighter]

No. It's not a myth. Just something that needs proper insight and tuition. I don't think you would agree with me if we just spent time physically in the same room with eachother for a very short while! I don't think I could take a full day of this type of mind set! Your opinion is not shared by everybody here T, and I used to think the way you do too Then I met a Sifu that knew his weaponry and understood it's place in Martial Arts training.

I could prove to you in less than 3 minutes total that weapons fighting and unarmed fighting are completely different.

[free2flow]

I could prove to you in less than 3 minutes total that weapons fighting and unarmed fighting are completely different.

Could you please describe a little bit and if you don’t mind give one specific example in what way they are “completely different”? I also believe they are different, though not completely. Are you also implying that, for instance in my case, whatever I learn in WC will not be useful when I do FMA? My intention here is not to start an argument, we got a lot of it here already in 90% of the threads. I’m really just trying to get the bigger picture and understand what you are trying to convey and educate myself.

Thanks in advance.

[anerlich]

Okay. Put an average BJJ player in fron of me with a pair of knives and we will see who ****es themselves first!

A number of the "average BJJ players" I train with have black belts in Arnis. The "average BJJ player" Knifefighter is not exactly untrained in weaponry either.

Though such an encounter will never happen and yours is a straw man argument, you'd want to wear a daiper, maybe two, just to be safe should it ever occur.

Somehow you seem to be trying to argue that cross trainers train everything but learn nothing, but at the same time don't train in what you regard as a sufficiently broad range of skills.

You seem to want to have it both ways, but sorry, you can't have either.

[martyg]

Only ones I don't do well with are a-holes, passive- aggressive/bi-polar, and mentally unbalanced, and those that need psychiatric medication.

LOL, that leaves out half the people on this discussion board.

"Cho Hok, Mo Yung Lik"

"In the beginning, don't use strength." - It doesn't exactly mean "Beginners", but at the "beginning of learning".

Its a subtle distinction that can guide you with everything. For example, if for the first time using a bow and arrow, don't just muscle it, but look for the correct grip, posture, etc.

That's how I interpret the Kuen Kuit.

I would think "In the beginning" is also a pretty generic prhasing, which can lend itself to a multiple levels/depth of understanding (as with most Kuen Kuit) beyond the beginning of learning part. "In the beginning don't use strength" could also refer to not cutting yourself off from your opponent's energy when establishing the kiu for instance, i.e. the "beginning" of interaction.

[sihing]

Regarding your point, I agree that it can happen AND that Moy Yat warns about it when he says "don't when you mustn't."

Regarding my point, I'm saying that it's a trainable concept similar to "position before submission" (I use the term because it effectively illustrates the idea.)

As I see it, if one does not have control/initiative over an opponent's timing and structure/balance, one should be wary of hitting because there is always the chance that your point above will come true.

Likewise, if the opponent has control/initiative, hitting them is not the first priority; such hits are rarely effective (read "hail mary" or "low percentage.") Rather, the priority is to find an opportunity to regain control by at least getting to a neutral point of control/initiative first. Preferably while not getting hit, because:

Hitting when one has control/initiative means hitting whilst one has the upper hand. This is the "when you should hit-hit" time.

As an example, consider falling. Let's say you and I are sparring (no head shots) and you manage to make me stumble, perhaps even fall. Now, my mind is very much on regaining my balance or if unable to do so, absorbing the fall as best I can. Suppose that, AS I'm falling, you hit me with a decent (structured) basic WCK punch to the head (you're not being mean - for the sake of the example, I changed the rules )

This punch of yours will be vastly more effective than if you were ever to hit me in the head while I was structured for the "boxing" zone (expecting to get hit, so to speak) because, in the moment when my mind is on structuring for regaining my balance or falling safely, it is NOT on structuring for safely taking a punch. As such, being structured while hitting someone who is unstructured is one of the things to train for.

That said, it sometimes happens that we feel we have the opportunity to land something, in both an attached (sticking) and unattached (kickboxing) state, when we really can't. Happens to everyone. You know who it happens less to, though? People who have trained against resisting partners and who have the control/initiative before hitting.



My understanding of this Kuit comes from watching beginners "jamming" against each other AND THEN muscling their way through, or beginners being pulled by Lop or having their arms dropped by Lan and resisting instead of capitalizing on their opponent's commitment. It's not so much about being gentle with one another (although respect should always be maintained during training) as it is about not falling into technical traps or bad habits.

I therefore feel that beginners should quickly have access to simple sparring drills/games; and that it is up to the instructor to make sure they are on a track which makes their training progressively more real (and doesn't start from way off in left field, such as tightrope walking.)

Did you sign a waiver of liability form when you started training? If you teach, do you require your students to sign one?

That's a good post

We have attachment and prolonged contact drills in VT for a couple of reasons: 1) pressure is needed to develop structure, sensitivity, self awareness, opponent awareness, 2)there is a high chance of attachment during inclose fighting exchanges, therefore one needs to be comfortable in that environment and know what to do.

Now in my experience, it is much harder to deal with someone pressuring my body than no pressure on my body. If he's throwing boxing punches at me, I can always turn away and run, as that type of attack is non controlling, one is relying on the speed of the delivery and quick entry to succeed, that's why boxers retire at a young age, they lose these abilities physically because it's based on speed, and a high degree of timing. So for me I'd rather deal with a boxer than a wrestler.

If you can learn a method that controls while striking (which has to be done at a closer range, you can't control someone from kicking range per say), it allows you a easier time to hit, since you have momentary control. Of course this is all reliant on 2 things, your skills vs. the skills of your opponent, if his is higher than yours it doesn't matter what you do, your chances of success are less, and visa versa. But one has to start somewhere, you can't learn how to strike effectively if you are always practicing takedowns, and you can't learn to takedown if your always punching at him, learn one method well, make it your base, then add on later if you choose (unless you have unlimited training time like a semi pro or pro, talking average joe interest and time commitment here).

I choose to learn the controlling striking method as I'm not getting any younger, and it is a surprising tactic, most are not used to it being applied upon them. The cool thing is, you can still function in a less attached manner if that is your wish or preference. The structure is still there and developed, you just choose less connection in your application, this works well if you are faster and more skilled than your opponent, you just keep on hitting, if your not faster the control factor will automatically kick in as a back up to slow your opponent down a bit and allow easier hitting for you.

Our method of attachment is different from a wrestlers though, as we are not takedown specialists. Also, attachment can be at bridge on bridge contact or body on center axis contact (you hit with no obstructions, therefore you enter into his center axis even more as you continue hitting).

Question? Why chi sau, laap sau, dan chi, pak drill, practice in close, and not attach (even for a bit) in fighting??

James

[t_niehoff]

Question? Why chi sau, laap sau, dan chi, pak drill, practice in close, and not attach (even for a bit) in fighting??

Yes, exactly. And why think that those sorts of drills will be of any use if what you want to do is charge in with strikes or kickbox?

Consider the chi gerk, not just the drill (which is unique to Yip Man) but the method -- using the legs/horse to disrupt an opponent's base, to prevent his movement, etc -- which is a basic part of the WCK core curriculum (it is in YM, YKS, Gu Lao, Pan Nam, etc.). To use the chi gerk methods, you need to be close, very close (almost body to body in many cases) before you can even think about using them. It is an attached, contact method. And it is to break an opponent's structure so that we can control him.

[shawchemical]

No, that is what boxers and kickboxers are trying to do. All you have to do is look at the WCK punch and see that the mechanics doesn't support that type of power. Take the punch from the forms (bring fist into chest, thrust out along the centerline, etc.) -- do you really think that will KO anyone?

And if you look at the training boxers and kickboxers do, it focuses on developing KO type power (not structure breaking power).

What is always ironic is that the WCK guys who talk about KOing and injuring their opponent via punching can never do it!



I believe it because that is the approach/method of WCK. I am sorry that you never learned it.



Oh, that's great . . . and do you think he will just let you hit him at will? How do you set up your strikes, how do you deal with what he is trying to do (hit you, control you, etc.)?

WCK provides an organized approach to all of that, with your control being your defense, your control setting up your strikes, etc. WCK "comes with" a battle plan.



If you hit someone and don't break their structure, they can hit you back -- with a broken structure, they not only don't have an offense, but don't have a defense.

Charging in with punches, trying to just "hit the guy" is easy to deal with. That is caveman WCK, a low level expression of the art. You don't need chi sao -- our signature drill -- to practice doing that.

Point in fact, that you are an incoherent moron without the intellectual capability to see reality through your own bullsh.it clouded vision.

[t_niehoff]

Point in fact, that you are an incoherent moron without the intellectual capability to see reality through your own bullsh.it clouded vision.

To translate: I can't really offer anything substantive to argue so I will just resort to name-calling.

[YungChun]

It's funny that within all of Moy Yats chops it also states " beginners must not use strength" which supports another point I was trying to say to T. All this force against force training, and dangerous intent is not productive and can actually be very detrimental to the beginner.

It's detrimental period...but it's really about energy--speed/power.

In the beginning, (early classical training), especially ChiSao--the amount of energy and force one uses will very simply be a limiting factor.. The bottom line on this is seen if you look at weaker students Vs. stronger students and see how they develop in ChiSao.. Even with good intentions the stronger person will rely on strength while the weaker person simply does not have that option.

Since the training emphasizes timing and position over power and speed the results you get from the training, the skill you develop will be a product of your focus... So the more you rely on strength the more you will have to rely on it later.

I tell, especially beginning students to try not to use more than 50% of their total power... The problem then becomes a contest between ego and control. The bigger the ego, the more power will be needed and then less will be their gung-fu... Such is life.

[shawchemical]

To translate: I can't really offer anything substantive to argue so I will just resort to name-calling.

Guess it's ok for you to do it, but you throw a tantrum when it happens back.

As for the substantive measure, if you are standing still and punching someone, it's going to be pretty hard to KO them regardless of how you hit them.

The power comes from the waist and from movement, especially in VTK. Your analogy is incorrect, and thus your point moot. The goal of VTK is to KO the man. It is not to punch to break structure. This idea would encourage hand chasing nonsense, and is thus wrong. Regardless of what the punch actually achieves with reference to forcing your opponent to adjust to your movement, if there is no need to deal with their arms to hit them, why would you complicate matters by trying first to "punch" to break structure rather than just hitting and hurting them???
The dynamics of the VTK punch are similar to an uppercut in boxing. It moves upwards and forwards, driving the head upwards and backwards. Yes this breaks the opponent's desired structure, however it is not the primary goal but a consequential result.

The goal is to hit the man, resulting in an unfavourable situation for them.