Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[Faux Newbie]

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.

This was my assumption.

As for feints, WC as I understand doesn't really use them, nor does it buy into them from an opponent.

I would counter by saying that someone who is skilled at feints will succeed against someone who is not equally skilled at reading them, regardless of style choice.

The sayings 'you don't move, I don't move - you move, I get there first'

This concept is common, especially the second part, to many styles. It does not necessarily dismiss the effectiveness of feints. Getting an opponent to initiate a move by way of feint means the person who successfully feinted is already ahead of their opponent's game plan, and the opponent will have interrupt the response the feint elicited in order to even begin getting to an advantageous position, or work from the disadvantageous position, which means the feint was a success. Styles that feint also train working from such positions, so having a response does not necessarily take away from the effectiveness of feints and similar things, it demonstrates it.

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.

No stylists normal intent is to be caught by a feint. The problem is, training to respond to an attack ingrains responses that the feint is trying to bring out.

It's not dissimilar to sensitivity in bridging. Technique in bridging without sensitivity doesn't yield consistently good results. Pre-contact, technique without reading the opponent well doesn't, either.

Feints will only reveal what you are talking about if the WC fighter buys into them repeatedly and doesn't try closing the gap.

Again, if their opponent is of similar skill level, they will very likely be able to more than once find themselves at a greater distance, thus enabling more feints. Buying into them once is all that is necessary to gain advantage.

But that's true of any fighter and only shows a lack of skill IMO, not anything to do with the system.

Pro fighters of many levels use them against each other quite often, and train to read them. They occur in street fights, as well. Feinting is a skill. Someone with great skill in it will succeed in using it against someone who doesn't develop their ability to read it, less often if they do, but it is so consistently present in pro fights because, like anything, it is a useful tool in their arsenal.

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).

Agreed, I am not discussing staying at long range, but more dealing with the actual realities of this range. Closing is not guaranteed, and a fight may go in and out of this range, as, if both fighters are close to equal, then one fighter is not simply choosing how things go. If the opponent can influence which way you choose to close by forcing a response to something, their followup will be something that specifically works well against the response they were trying to elicit.

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

I've done some longfist, and my main art is called Taixuquan, it's a Southern internal style. And yes, I have a good friend who teaches wing chun, he and I studied Taixuquan at the same time.

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.

I agree, but I would suggest that the caveat is to do so at the right time. A feint is used to inspire the opponent to break this caveat.

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.

There are quite a few ways to feint. True, it has to be a potential threat, but even just the body shift that normally precedes the move can elicit a response, especially from an opponent whose ability to read is not as strong as one's ability to feint.

If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn't much of a feint!

See my comment above. Further, it is eliciting a response in order to capitalize on it. If the opponent responds that way, they are already one step behind the person who did the feint, as they will be feinting in order to move into the move that capitalizes on the response they got. There is more than one way to bridge, and each way is not right for every situation. Feints here are seeking to draw the opponent into a bridge that will then be moving into a move that bridge does not work for. If I feint a lead hand strike, and the opponent seeks to trap my lead hand into my body while I am doing an overhand type strike, their bridge will feed my overhand.

Wing Chun practitioners, like any kung fu stylist, have to pick the right bridge. If they can be made to choose the wrong one, then this tells the person feinting what to do and puts them at an advantage at that point.

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."

I think a better equivalent to chasing hands in the pre-contact stage is merely moving the hands around in a way that has not relevance to the opponent. A feint is relevant, because if they do not respond, and do not have defenses able to cut it off, it can be an attack, if they do respond and their response is a good one, the distance can still be maintained through footwork if one desires, if they start to respond but stop, you have an idea of how they respond, and if they don't bite, then you have an idea of their skill level at range. Each point yields a result.

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.

Which is a feint.

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.

If you don't do what they were trying to draw, or do it as a feint in and of itself, but you have be able to read your opponent and have a keep awareness of feints to do so. As I said before, one cannot count on technique without sensitivity in bridging, and one cannot count on technique without being able to read an opponent outside of bridging. They work the same way. Wing chun technique in bridging is predicated on sensitivity, striking, when not in bridge range, is predicated on reading your opponent. Training feinting is training reading an opponent, imo.

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.

Agreed, that is why feints require seeing the opponent's habits, testing them, seeing what they respond to. Some succesful feints are no more than a slight drop of the shoulder.

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?

First, the guy stepping back may have cover, too. Second, cover is not immunity. Feinting is going to capitalize on the nature of the response. No technique defends equally and absolutely.

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 don't care either, to each their own. I don't think feints are a sparring technique, but, as in all things, there will always be cases where driving in and shutting down is the only option, so they are a tool that sometimes will and sometimes won't come into play.

I'm not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things.

I'm not suggesting you do, but it is a reality of fighting, and if you are fighting an equal, you will not be the only one determining conditions.

You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.

This was actually my next question. This is my point. If you reflexively do only one of those multiple ways, you are never going to be immune to a feint taking advantage of you, because the opponent will follow the feint up with technique that specifically benefits from your choice. So it seems to me that, in order to manage that range, a wing chun fighter, who naturally is seeking to bridge and close and shut down their opponent, must routinely be able to respond to the same sorts of attacks in different ways, which will confound the value of feints, because even if they respond to the feint, the opponent cannot predict which response, and so cannot be a step ahead. If they do not do this, they will be susceptible to feints, imo.

[Faux Newbie]

****, that was a multi-post response from two different posts by two different people. I must have messed up the labels, sorry about that.

[JPinAZ]

Faux,

A lot of your response to what I said is more aimed at skill levels of practitioners more-so than the WC art itself, so not much for me to reply on. I agree with some of your points you are talking about based on differing skill levels. Sure, if someone is much more skilled than their opponent, then things will work out differently. But then, I assumed that was a given and we were talking about understanding and usage of the WC system itself (all skill levels aside).

As for your continued talking about feints, I hear ya - again, skill level. But regardless of skill level, wing chun deals with feints differently than what I've experienced when I trained in boxing, or training with people of different arts today. Different styles, different strategies & tactics, as well as different principles of fighting in general.

You mentioned you have a good friend that teaches wing chun, but you didn't mention if you've sparred with him when he's using his wing chun fighting methods? I ask because depending on how he views his WC, some of these questions you have asked could easily be answered if you and he had a go and see what happens much easier than what we can do here. Again, depends on his experience and how he approaches fighting from his WC perspective.
The discussion is still welcome, but since you have a friend that you train with that is a teacher of WC, it would make sense that you get his perspective first hand.

[Faux Newbie]

Faux,

A lot of your response to what I said is more aimed at skill levels of practitioners more-so than the WC art itself, so not much for me to reply on. I agree, a lot of what you are talking about now is based on differing skill levels. Sure, if someone is much more skilled than their opponent, then things will work out differently. But then, assumed that was a given and we were talking about understanding and usage of the WC system itself (all skill levels aside).

As for your continued talking about feints, I hear ya - again, skill level. But regardless of skill level, wing chun deals with feints differently than what I experienced when I trained in boxing. Different styles, different strategies & tactics, as well as different principles of fighting in general.

You mentioned you have a good friend that teaches wing chun, but have you sparred with him when he's using his wing chun fighting methods? I ask because depending on how he views his WC, some of these questions you have asked could easily be answered if you and he had a go and see what happens much easier than what we can do here. Again, depends on his experience and how he approaches fighing from his WC perspective.
But the discussion is still welcome

I am familiar with how he fights, but he also has trained other things. Additionally, we can read each other well. Regardless, different viewpoints can inspire different views on it for me.

As for skill level, when we discuss equals, in any style, it is no longer a matter of "I will just do X". Opponents alter circumstances, and that means that we cannot assume because our goal and our training aims for a certain comfort zone, we will automatically avoid other zones, we likely will not if our opponent takes their training as seriously and their methods are valid. Once an opponent succeeds, even in small ways, the likelihood of wanting to avoid what they did happening again increases, which can lead to greater susceptibility to feinting that attack to initiate another toward the opening.

My main point is that any one technique of bridging can be capitalized on, has counters. So, it one's long range offense is limited, and one is facing an equal, I am saying that it seems to me if a wing chun practitioner falls back on one particular bridge against a jab, for instance, then that is much more easy for an opponent to counter, or even to feint to draw it in, than if that practitioner has varied means of bridging, closing, and shutting down their opponent. Of course he would have to know how to counter that bridge, but if he knew, he could capitalize on it.

It is not a criticism of wing chun, but my outside observation of how I assume wing chun people have to deal with outside range in wing chun given limited offense. Idle speculation, but my friend varies his response, and it often works for him. Trapping has counters, so insofar as trapping my elbow, he has to take in mind that that is not the end. And if he traps at the time I want him to trap my lead elbow to do an overhand, he will feed the overhand, and at the extreme of it, my elbow will be free again due to the turn of my body, my head will tend to be below his strike, and my overhand will be stronger for his trapping. This has happened many times, but so have things he has done of advantage against me. They get much harder to do over the long haul, because we know each other's fighting methods fairly well. He does not fall back on that one trap versus that one response, because he knows that I can counter it. If I feint to get that response, it is worse for him because instead of me almost getting hit, I will be well clear of the strike and still he feeds my overhand.

Mind you, he and I haven't crossed hands in ages, so we're probably very different fighters than we once were.

If one responds at range to a jab one way always, and I suspect this is something you can agree with, then all one needs is know the counter to this. If one then feints, one can get to that counter. Otherwise, why does wing chun have more than one way to bridge versus the same attack?

[Faux Newbie]

Simpler version:

If a wing chun fighter has varied ways of bridging when confronted with the same attack, and can use them routinely, then they are less predictable.

Feints require some predictability.

At outside range these methods of getting in and bridging are almost the entirety of options of wing chun player has.

Therefore, to be protected from the possibility of feints drawing a response that the opponent can use, the wing chun player needs to use varied bridging techniques against the more common attacks.

[Faux Newbie]

Now I'm actually very curious how the pole punch fits in all this. What stance is it executed in?

[YouKnowWho]

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.

If your opponent moves in toward you, or stay stationary, when you block his punch, you may be able to punch him back at the same time. If he is moving side way, you may be able to block his punch, but your other hand may not be able to reach his body. To assume that you can "always" block and strike at the same time may not be realistic. This is why the TCMA divides the hand skill into the following categories.

1. Block first, strike after.
2. Block and strike at the same time.
3. Block and punch back with the same hand (this is called Ha Chuan).
4. Block, take over your block with the other hand, strike back with the same hand (this is called switch hands).
5. Dodge (without block) and strike back.

[HybridWarrior]

Now I'm actually very curious how the pole punch fits in all this. What stance is it executed in?

It is executed somewhat similar to these photos I found when searching the internet. There are minor differences in foot placement, weight distribution, etc. but you get the general idea...(?)

[YouKnowWho]

If the feint draws a response, ...

Agree that same respond to the same feint can be dangerous. Here is one example (in TCMA, it's called switch hands).

- You throw a jab, your opponent tries to block it.
- You throw another jab, your opponent tries to block it again.
- You throw the 3rd jab, when your opponent tries to block it, you use your other hand to push his blocking arm away (because you can predict where his blocking arm will be), and allow your jab to continue.

[Faux Newbie]

Agree that same respond to the same feint can be dangerous. Here is one example (in TCMA, it's called switch hands).

- You throw a jab, your opponent blocks with Tan Shou.
- You throw another jab, your opponent blocks with another Tan Shou.
- You throw the 3rd jab, when your opponent tries to use Tan Shou again, your other hand already push his Tan Shou arm away, and allow your jab to continue.

Exactly. I understand that for wing chun, they are seeking to close, but even in that case, if the close is predictable, then it can be capitalized on.

[Faux Newbie]

It is executed somewhat similar to these photos I found when searching the internet. There are minor differences in foot placement, weight distribution, etc. but you get the general idea...(?)

Thanks, that clears it up a bit for me. How is the weight distribution different?

[HybridWarrior]

Thanks, that clears it up a bit for me. How is the weight distribution different?

in left photo, he appears to be weighted more to his forward foot, etc.
in right photo, more of a 50/50 going by what I see.
range to target will dictate how far one carries the pole punch.

[HybridWarrior]

Thanks, that clears it up a bit for me. How is the weight distribution different?

If your WC friend knows the pole form, he may be able to show you / explain more, etc. Thx.

[YouKnowWho]

Exactly. I understand that for wing chun, they are seeking to close, but even in that case, if the close is predictable, then it can be capitalized on.

The guy who throws that long distance jab can just move around. This is called "fire" strategy that you can't predict where your opponent's body may be in next second.

Most of the knock down punch are either a log range punch, or your opponent runs into your punch. We don't see many short range punches used effective in the ring. Why?

[Faux Newbie]

If your WC friend knows the pole form, he may be able to show you / explain more, etc. Thx.

No problem, appreciate the help. I'm getting ready to move in a few weeks, I'm hoping to see him and others before I go, so I'll pick his brain.