Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[Wayfaring]

Put in a self defense situation, closing and having it go to the ground does not seem like something a wing chun fighter would benefit from, either.

Would it be more beneficial to hang out in TKD kicking range?

[Wayfaring]

Obviously you must have fell a sleep when Johnny Rhodes landed the spinning back kick on Levicki centerline, news for you, that's a long range power generation technique. lol you're making yourself look stupider with every post you make perhaps it a good idea, not post on any of my threads anymore like you mentioned earlier. you are clearly getting outwited. LOL

So I guess kff is now awake and has actually watched the clip. Tell me since you posted it, which one is the "long fist style fighter" ???? LOL. you are right - with so much laying in guard not defending punches, I might have missed a kick while I was sleeping through most of the 2 rounds Levicki was losing on his back.

how about you add up the total time they spent in guard and post it here, then talk some more about "long fist style fighters"? Oh, fyi, Rhodes is a kickboxer, not a northern long fist CMA practitioner. I know they are real hard to tell apart, especially when they get into all their long range power generation techniques and all.

starting at 0:22 into this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv8PUayb1E4, OHHHH! see the Bridge control for an instant! like you mentioned in your post above that HFY does

I see there that Levicki is no better defending the takedown there against Rickson than he was against Rhodes. I saw him reach for a bridge (chasing hands) then try to punch over the top, I mean Rickson didn't have to do ANYTHING to get the clinch. And from there of course it's Rickson doing the Rickson.

I don't quite get what you mean regarding how that relates to bridge control for an instant. In my quote I wasn't talking about chasing hands trying to initiate a bridge for a second, then trying to punch over the top in a clinch scenario resulting in getting Ricksoned. I was talking about the fleeting nature of control on the bridge.

I also don't get the "that HFY does" part of your post there little mousey mousey other than it seems that you have a keen interest in making HFY look bad on the internet by trying to associate our WCK lineage with undesirable things like Levicki getting pounded on. Don't know what your issues are there don't care.

I mean Levicki studied WCK somewhere, don't know where. He had a real short fight career - we've already seen 2/3 of it on this thread. Short career probably because he could never defend a takedown if you ask me.

[Wayfaring]

Sometimes we need to realize that we don't HAVE to do anything.
If the person is not in our "sphere of influence" they are not a threat.
There are indeed so many ways to "enter" into an opponent, it truly is a personal preference thing and, as you mentioned, dictated by the circumstances ( ring, street, possibility of weapons, multiple people, etc).
What is important to realize is that we should NOT force "getting into the phone booth" any more than we should "chase hands" because then the opponent is dictating to us and then we are being reactive instead of proactive even though it may SEEM the opposite.

This is a good point too. Would be a shame for it to get lost in the kerfluffle.

[JPinAZ]

Sometimes we need to realize that we don't HAVE to do anything.
If the person is not in our "sphere of influence" they are not a threat.
There are indeed so many ways to "enter" into an opponent, it truly is a personal preference thing and, as you mentioned, dictated by the circumstances ( ring, street, possibility of weapons, multiple people, etc).
What is important to realize is that we should NOT force "getting into the phone booth" any more than we should "chase hands" because then the opponent is dictating to us and then we are being reactive instead of proactive even though it may SEEM the opposite.

Agreed 100%. This is why I don't really look at stand up fighting in terms of 'ranges' (for the most part). Yes, we all use the term 'range' to describe different 'ranges' of techniques (long kicking, jabs/crosses, short range punches, grappling). But from what you're saying above, and to me, WC just sees things as there's either contact range, or there isn't. And if you're not in contact range, there is no 'immediate' threat, so need to go rushing in to find one needlessly.

And I think this also points to a general misunderstanding I see with some people's ideas of what WC's chase & pursue concept really is in the past couple pages. It's obvious from the conversation about the Rhodes/Lewicki fight, that some people see WC's concept of chase and pursue to literally mean you chase and pursue them around the ring/bar/da str33t until you catch them and get into 'short range'. This is IMO a low level understanding of WC, and has nothing to do with WC's ideas of chase/pursue.

Again, my understanding of WC's chase & pursue concepts are about once you are already in WC's preferred distance for striking with both hands equally from a facing and positional advantage and how to maintain it - not about how to get there.

[JPinAZ]

This is a good point too. Would be a shame for it to get lost in the kerfluffle.

haha, I guess I was thinking the same thing!

[sanjuro_ronin]

The "chase and pursue" concept means that once we make contact, we don't break contact until it is over.
You "chase and pursue" the incapacitation of your opponent.
One of the key principles in all southern hand ( WC being no exception) is that we "offer" the opponent a chance either to fight or run, it's his choice BUT then after he makes it, we finish it for him.
We "seek" the bridge in the sense that we "look" for the opportunity to make contact ( even a non-physical contact), we do not force it but let it "come to us".
That doesn't mean being reactive since we are actively "looking for it", it means we play our game rather than play theirs.
How do we "close the gab"?
We don't, we let it be closed for us because, until that happens there is NO fight.

[Grumblegeezer]

The "chase and pursue" concept means that once we make contact, we don't break contact until it is over.
We "seek" the bridge in the sense that we "look" for the opportunity to make contact (even a non-physical contact)...

Could you clarify what you mean by "non-physical contact". I'm not sure I understand.


Now speaking of not understanding:

How do we "close the gab"? ...We don't, we let it be closed for us...

When I read this, all I could think about were some of those silly threads here where people argue on and on until somebody thankfully shuts them down!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Could you clarify what you mean by "non-physical contact". I'm not sure I understand.


Now speaking of not understanding:


When I read this, all I could think about were some of those silly threads here where people argue on and on until somebody thankfully shuts them down!

LOL, I mean gap of course
A bridge isn't always made with physical contact, sometimes it is enough for them to cross "over the bridge" into your "sphere of influence" OR you can make an "intentional bridge" in which you are able to read his intent and preempt.

[Faux Newbie]

And I think this also points to a general misunderstanding I see with some people's ideas of what WC's chase & pursue concept really is in the past couple pages. It's obvious from the conversation about the Rhodes/Lewicki fight, that some people see WC's concept of chase and pursue to literally mean you chase and pursue them around the ring/bar/da str33t until you catch them and get into 'short range'. This is IMO a low level understanding of WC, and has nothing to do with WC's ideas of chase/pursue.

I actually don't see wing chun's goals this way. The video is an example of closing not necessarily giving the results you want. This, in my view, is the problem many styles have with a principle level understanding, but not technique level. Unless the close makes sense given the circumstances, a fighter is just closing to close, but will not get good results consistently. Some bridges are the wrong choice at any one time.

The video demonstrates, to a limited degree, the reality that sometimes it's the wrong time to close, and either you are stuck outside in someone else's strong area, or entering for no good effect.

My first assumption is that a wing chun fighter has no choice at non-contact range but to wait/create the opening to enter, not that they just enter. But when a lot of responses in this thread have been "they deal with long range by closing and bridging and shutting down", it suggests that there is an assumption that closing and bridging trump other things, and that pre-contact range cannot be forced on them. I accept that that may not be what the posters meant, so further discussion and illustrations certainly help hone that part of the conversation.

My second assumption is that, to deal with outside range and have a chance, that a technique level understanding of a relatively large variety of bridges needs to be entrained in order to maximize the opportunity to succeed at closing, bridging, and shutting down from a range in which the wing chun fighter does not have any other offensive focus or technique than footwork, bridging, and closing.

[Faux Newbie]

Would it be more beneficial to hang out in TKD kicking range?

If my number one goal were to close with the intent of shutting down, I would be seeking to do so when it would work, not just any time. If I have to close, then I rob myself of this opportunity. Closing is only gaining initiative if it's not something you're stuck doing. Otherwise, it is the other guy forcing my actions.

[JPinAZ]

I actually don't see wing chun's goals this way. The video is an example of closing not necessarily giving the results you want. This, in my view, is the problem many styles have with a principle level understanding, but not technique level. Unless the close makes sense given the circumstances, a fighter is just closing to close, but will not get good results consistently. Some bridges are the wrong choice at any one time.

No argument there. IME, WC doesn't typically close just to close. That is why I was in agreement with SR's post. WC has a kuit "You don't move, I don't move. You move, I get there first". This is about understanding the proper time to engage with your opponent and how to do it so the WC fighter ends up in an advantageous position (at least that's the intent). HAs nothing to do with "you move backwards, I'll continue to chase you around"

The video demonstrates, to a limited degree, the reality that sometimes it's the wrong time to close, and either you are stuck outside in someone else's strong area, or entering for no good effect.

I agree. But then, I don't see the video as being representative of how a WC fighter would engage an opponent. And surely not how it would be done from a HFY perspective as kff continues to try imply.

My first assumption is that a wing chun fighter has no choice at non-contact range but to wait/create the opening to enter, not that they just enter. But when a lot of responses in this thread have been "they deal with long range by closing and bridging and shutting down", it suggests that there is an assumption that closing and bridging trump other things, and that pre-contact range cannot be forced on them. I accept that that may not be what the posters meant, so further discussion and illustrations certainly help hone that part of the conversation.

To me, that's still somewhat of a vague assumption IMO as it really depends on the situation.

In HFY we have 1/2 point concept along with 6-gate heaven/human/earth concepts for engaging with an opponent at a longer range (non contact-to-contact). But, depending on the distance, if the opponent isn't in striking range and makes no effort to be in that space, they really aren't a threat - so no real need to do anything ("you don't move, I don't move"). IMO SJ's recent posts touch on this, even if he didn't do it from the WC kuit perspective.

So I guess it depends on how one defines non-contact range and the given distance of the situation. Your opponent could be 10 feet or 30 feet or a mile. If they are no threat they are not threat. Of course, there are situations where you may chose to (or be forced to) do something. At that time, your best option is to cover your gates high/middle/low with good structure as you close the gap, given the opponent isn't 10 feet away. But running around after someone constantly running away from you as shown in the clip doesn't really play into an WC strategy/tactics I've heard of.

And, I'm not sure I understand what "and that pre-contact range cannot be forced on them." means or how one goes about doing that? You either have contact, or you don't. You're either in range to make contact or you're not. I'm not sure how someone can force non-contact when there is already no contact...

My second assumption is that, to deal with outside range and have a chance, that a technique level understanding of a relatively large variety of bridges needs to be entrained in order to maximize the opportunity to succeed at closing, bridging, and shutting down from a range in which the wing chun fighter does not have any other offensive focus or technique than footwork, bridging, and closing.

I'm a little lost on your first point. Are you suggesting a WC fighter needs a large list of techniques to deal with longer range attacks or bridging? Or that they need them to be able to close the gap if their opponent isn't doing it? Either case, I'm not sure I fully agree with you.

Here's my take from a WC principle POV:
Ignoring distance/range for a moment, a WC fighter should first simply look to just occupy space on CL with good structure and fwd intent and not focus on 'technique' for bridging/engagement. Once/if a physical bridge is created because you are in proper contact range, then from that point it's really about position, point of contact, leverage, pressure on the bridge, etc to tells us what to do - not choosing what technique to pull out of a bag of 'large variety of techniques' at a given time. This is typically where WC Chi Sau (and also Kiu Sau for HFY) and using things like gate/box theories, loi lau hoi sung, etc come into play.

Of course, there are always an endless multitude of 'technique-oriented' ways for doing anything. But if one's focus becomes too much of "I'm going to enter in on my opponent with my WC pak da regardless what they are doing", well then, you just shot your chances of success way down.

[Wayfaring]

Agreed 100%. This is why I don't really look at stand up fighting in terms of 'ranges' (for the most part). Yes, we all use the term 'range' to describe different 'ranges' of techniques (long kicking, jabs/crosses, short range punches, grappling). But from what you're saying above, and to me, WC just sees things as there's either contact range, or there isn't. And if you're not in contact range, there is no 'immediate' threat, so need to go rushing in to find one needlessly.

Watching Samart MT highlights lately was an education regarding range: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKdA4yAti4

And I think this also points to a general misunderstanding I see with some people's ideas of what WC's chase & pursue concept really is in the past couple pages. It's obvious from the conversation about the Rhodes/Lewicki fight, that some people see WC's concept of chase and pursue to literally mean you chase and pursue them around the ring/bar/da str33t until you catch them and get into 'short range'. This is IMO a low level understanding of WC, and has nothing to do with WC's ideas of chase/pursue.

Exxxaaaaaaccccctttttllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Entering in to strike initially is vastly different than when you are already in, have an advantageous angle and are pursuing to finish.

Again, my understanding of WC's chase & pursue concepts are about once you are already in WC's preferred distance for striking with both hands equally from a facing and positional advantage and how to maintain it - not about how to get there.

100% correct.

In our HFY technology, we have Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying, or the 5 elemental arrays for facing and pursuit that deal with this concept. Baai Jong, setup, or the wood element, maintains structure and position while identifying those of the opponent according to time and space. Then Jit Kiu, intercepting and redirecting, or the water element, is penetration in all directions, absorbs and steers and opponent's energy to gain an advantage. Next Chum Kiu, Sinking, or the fire element is for burning everything, destroying an opponents techniques, structures, and ability to fight back. . And Jeui Ying, pursuing, or the metal element is for cutting down structure and hacking it to pieces, continually chases and dominates from a superior position.

I have noticed good fighters instinctively develop aspects of this in every category.

[GlennR]

That's a huge difference. In self defense, if an opponent runs away I'm letting him go unless it's like a gang member messenger going to alert friends to kill my family or something. In a sporting event, if an opponent is on his bicycle running away from me, I'm probably going to have to chase him hard, and try to anticipate his counters.

And that's the whole bridging-chasing argument in that line there.
If its self defense, and he runs away.......... you win!

If its a ring thing plenty of fighters can back pedal, fight of the back foot etc and win fights. Mayweather and Hopkins are two good examples of this in boxing.
But youd hardly use their styles, especially Mayweathers, in a SD situation

Its context gents........ all about the context

wing chun isn't bad. but if you charge in on someone in a straight line with no head movement and can't sprawl or defend a takedown then you are dumb.

In a ring sure..... in a SD situation you might just pull it off

[Faux Newbie]

And, I'm not sure I understand what "and that pre-contact range cannot be forced on them." means or how one goes about doing that? You either have contact, or you don't. You're either in range to make contact or you're not. I'm not sure how someone can force non-contact when there is already no contact...

This is in reference to being at outside range for the wing chun fighter, which would still be in range for a number of other styles. And more in reference to posts that suggest dealing with that issue by closing, bridging, and shutting down. The point being not that this is impossible, but that it is not a given, that distance can be maintained by the opponent. So not necessarily 10', given that even a boxing jab is longer than wing chun hand strikes. Going further, since, at that range, facing a variety of strikes means that some bridging is higher percentage versus some attacks, and some better versus others, it seems like a vital element at that range, when an opponent is still able to strike without the "pure" wing chun fighter having the same reach, to have a well trained bridge regimen where they have understood which bridges work best against which attacks, and entrained it, since such bridging and footwork is all they have at that range. Otherwise, they would HAVE to close ASAP, not be able to choose to close when it is best.

In other words, if the wing chun fighter does not have the capability to stay in outside range, they have less opportunity to choose how they enter. Really any fighter, not just wing chun.

The self defense issue is another matter, which may or may not allow for escape. The odds of one person attacking me is slim, so if I'm in a self defense situation, it is likely that I will have more factors to consider than just entering or leaving.

I'm a little lost on your first point. Are you suggesting a WC fighter needs a large list of techniques to deal with longer range attacks or bridging? Or that they need them to be able to close the gap if their opponent isn't doing it? Either case, I'm not sure I fully agree with you.

At long range, it's pretty much bridging and footwork, unless there is long range attacks I'm not aware of. Since each specific bridge tends to have what it works well against, and what it doesn't, if it is the one option, one would need to have entrained those bridges against those kinds of attacks.

So, if in my style, I wish to enter and throw in order to cut off a piece of ground with one person, how I bridge is heavily dependent on what the person I seek to bridge is doing. The wrong bridge is sometimes worse than no bridge, because all bridges cut both ways. So it requires a repertoire of bridges, and knowledge of that repertoire trained so that it is routine. Since, at long range, for the sort of wing chun fighter we have been discussing, this is one of the only options, this need for technique based understanding is greater than otherwise, whereas solely principle based approaches would not be as advisable, since choosing the right bridges, not just any, is so vital given the lack of other options ("choosing" here meaning expressing naturally from long practice against similar circumstances).

Here's my take from a WC principle POV:
Ignoring distance/range for a moment, a WC fighter should first simply look to just occupy space on CL with good structure and fwd intent and not focus on 'technique' for bridging/engagement. Once/if a physical bridge is created because you are in proper contact range, then from that point it's really about position, point of contact, leverage, pressure on the bridge, etc to tells us what to do - not choosing what technique to pull out of a bag of 'large variety of techniques' at a given time. This is typically where WC Chi Sau (and also Kiu Sau for HFY) and using things like gate/box theories, loi lau hoi sung, etc come into play.

Of course, there are always an endless multitude of 'technique-oriented' ways for doing anything. But if one's focus becomes too much of "I'm going to enter in on my opponent with my WC pak da regardless what they are doing", well then, you just shot your chances of success way down.

That last sentence is exactly what I'm getting at. But to escape that issue ("Now I'm going to pak da"), one has to have experience bridging different attacks with various different bridges.

This is really working technique, not working principle, and only through this does one end up expressing the principle consistently, imo.

Using my style as an example, there are what are called the eight hands, half resemble a lot of wing chun handwork, half do not. They have a lot to do with how we bridge.

Practitioners who approach it on a principle level tend to have what they have found to work over time, whereas those who approach it on a technique level tend to have what has worked for them over time, and what has worked for them under very specific testing that is constantly done, and, since others approaching it on a technique level work out what to do against it, they tend to get a feel for when it is about to be capitalized on as well. It's not identical to sticky hands, as no specific direction of pressure is always focused on, but it has points of similarity.

Obviously, after a point, it is entrained, and one is no longer really doing technique, but expressing principle. But technique is a better

[Faux Newbie]

On the self defense issue, related to my last post.

If I have the option in self defense, I am going to seek to enter in a way that gives me a strong advantage, and avoid entering at other times if I can.

If I cannot, I will roll the dice, but it is hardly an ideal situation.

Regardless, I will train both ways, use the second if I have to, the first every chance I can.