Thinking outside the box

[Airdrawndagger]

It seems as though alot of WCers aproach sparring/fighting in the same sorta ways. What I mean is-When one is sparring an apponent, why does one more times than not, charge forward and chain-punch when one is attacked?
Of course this is ONE basic way to handle an attack, but there are many more ways to counter/attack/defend. And charging forward is often times over commiting(especially when chain punching).

Wing Chun is conceptually based. Its contents within the forms and train methodologies are to be expanded upon and to be interprited in many more ways other than what is literally "shown" within these methodologies. Example: In the Siu Nin Tao form we perform the tan in a very slow, diliberate, and presise mannor. This is how the form is comprised, however in actual combat/sparring you will probably never perform the tan in this manner. There are many ways to execute the tan sao but we are merly shown this one way to understand the concept of it.

The same can be said with just about every "move" within the system.

It appears as though many WCers dont understand this concept of thinking in regards to Wing Chun practice- to not take what is in the forms as the absolute.

Rushing forward and chain punching is a prime example of this. The practitioner has taken from the forms the literal, and has made it the absolute.

A great way to over-come this dilemma is Visualization/Meditation. When you visualize a fight senario think of the moves you will perform. Concentrate on why the tan should be one way and not another. Experiment on what is more direct/effecient/simple and why. After you have visualized a senario, try it.
Understand why the forms are the way they are and why you perform them the way you do.
This sorta approach to Wing Chun is necessary in interpreting the "way" and will bring you one step closer to understanding the depth of our wonderful art.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Airdrawndagger:

I just resurrected a thread that I started about a year and a half ago for you to take a look at - since it's almost the same exact title (and subject matter) as this one. Perhaps you'll find it interesting.

[Airdrawndagger]

Victor,

Sorry it took me so long to write back, but when you work a professional job are married with 2 kids... nevermind :p

I read most of what your original tread was about and although the heading is almost the same, the rest is dramatically different from the point I was trying to make.

Your point is by thinking out side of the "wing chun" box, you explore other arts to find the "answers" to questions that may not be solved using wing chun in regards to fighting/training.

My point is totally different.

The point I was trying to make was that the forms/drills that are taught are only the surface of a vast tunnel of knowlege within the wing chun system itself.

For example the forms are only a guidline to follow, a blue print or foundation in which to build from.

I was reading a post by someone who calls himself Mannie stating that he trains boxers and allows people to come in and spar with his boxers on occasion. He says what he sees time and again is when the Wing Chun guy is attacked, he sees what is in my opinion, the vary typical, basic, and redamentary fight response of rushing forward and chain punching towards an attacker.

I can only believe that these practiconers are missing the point of what they are being taught, are amatur, or simply are not looking deeper within the system for anwers to these questions. Of course you can make the argument that they are being taught wrong but Wing Chun has much to learn as far as inner interpretation.

This system has so many "hidden" secrets to it that many do not find/discover them and will result in a lack of understanding and poor understanding of the system or seek to find answers from outside influences. i.e.-- other systems of martial arts simply because they did not dig deep enough.

Now when I say "hidden" secrets I dont mean secret one touch death moves, or secrets that can only be revealled to you if you Mop up William Chungs floors for 10 years in order to prove you are worthy enough to accept them. I mean things that are apparent within the system only after you have put some real deep thought into "WHY" you are doing the moves you are doing. "WHY" does a tan sau work this way and not that way? "WHY" is the 2nd part of Chum kiu performed that way and not this way?
What I mean by thinking out side of the box is to not take the forms/drills as litteral but only as a "way" to easily communicate what is a very complicated martial art in the most efficent and efficent "way".

[clutchpan]

chain punches are preconditioned motions...not sensitivity. thus making one a slave to the system...how is change apparent if one goes through the motions mechanically...i attack with a chain punch because the system says so...not the best choice. fighting has to be natural...sparring should acquaint an individual with timing, distance, speed and changing so one can become relaxed during a real battle...otherwise you become a rigid handle throwing chain punches that your opponent can then manipulate...sparring in wc usually becomes force on force...until one experiences change and relaxation.

my humble experience...

best
>C

[Liddel]

Clutchpan says "chain punches are preconditioned motions"
this is true for me...
"not sensitivity" this is not true for me.
My running punch can have sensitivity also, if someone either punches at the same time as me or puts their hands up i then have the touch...or...chi Sao...Sticking hands...i dont just keep punching i change my action all the time.....
If you just punched non stop without reacting to whats going on in a fight hoping to hit the target this is "making one a slave to the system" as you say.
So really it depends on how and when you've been taught to use it.
Thats my experience.

[anerlich]

I can only believe that these practiconers are missing the point of what they are being taught,

that's possible, though arguably that is the fault of the teacher or teaching method.

are amatur,

Are YOU a pro?

or simply are not looking deeper within the system for anwers to these questions. Of course you can make the argument that they are being taught wrong but Wing Chun has much to learn as far as inner interpretation.

At least a significant, if not major, part of this is the responsibility of the teacher or teaching method. I'd argue that in many ways the traditional teaching method *discourages* people from enquiry and criticism. The stereotypical picture of the teacher cuffing the student who asked a "stupid" question, per Enter the Dragon, signifies to me all that is wrong with the traditional way of teaching MA. Too often people are DISCOURAGED from rhinking for themselves, because the only true interpretation was allegedly set by some "master" who croaked centuries ago.

seek to find answers from outside influences. i.e.-- other systems of martial arts simply because they did not dig deep enough.

But an inquiring mind would seek out as many sources of knowledge as possible. As for digging deep, not every hole contains buried treasure. Digging further may uncover something valuable, or may just get you mired deeper in worthless dirt. Some of the "treasures" of WC are IMO things that are fairly basic to other arts or disciplines. TCMA practitioners IMO are notorious for making mountains out of molehills.

I laugh at the condescending attitude of people who assume that because I train in several arts I've given up inquiring and exploring any single one of them. I could turn it around and say that you're intellectually and physically lazy, or fell victim to the propaganda, if one art is all you have time for or interest in.

[Edmund]

The point I was trying to make was that the forms/drills that are taught are only the surface of a vast tunnel of knowlege within the wing chun system itself.

For example the forms are only a guidline to follow, a blue print or foundation in which to build from.

I was reading a post by someone who calls himself Mannie stating that he trains boxers and allows people to come in and spar with his boxers on occasion. He says what he sees time and again is when the Wing Chun guy is attacked, he sees what is in my opinion, the vary typical, basic, and redamentary fight response of rushing forward and chain punching towards an attacker.


I believe it was a generalized statement aimed at making a point about teaching boxing not a criticism of WC guys. Mannie's teaching people how to box not how to do WC. He's not concerned with how well they apply WC.

Wouldn't you expect WC guys to practice their chain punching and try to apply chain punching during sparring? (If that's what they were taught.) Sparring is meant to help them practice and improve their techniques. Probably the best place to learn stuff, right? If they can move forward and hit their target with nice chain punches, you would be praising their abilities. So how are they supposed to gain those skills if they never practice them during sparring?

It's just a case of "anyone can do it, but can they make it work?".
Chain punching is one of many basic WC techniques. Anyone can do them in the air but applying it in sparring is another matter.



I can only believe that these practiconers are missing the point of what they are being taught, are amatur, or simply are not looking deeper within the system for anwers to these questions. Of course you can make the argument that they are being taught wrong but Wing Chun has much to learn as far as inner interpretation.

This system has so many "hidden" secrets to it that many do not find/discover them and will result in a lack of understanding and poor understanding of the system or seek to find answers from outside influences. i.e.-- other systems of martial arts simply because they did not dig deep enough.


I guess that would be true of any system. If all that was needed was performance of forms and drills and your own contemplations, the role of the teacher would be quite minor.

Actually teaching a student some applicable skill is where the hands-on interactive instruction becomes valuable. Otherwise a master could just tape it all and sit on their butts.

Regardless of the number of secrets WC has, it doesn't mean that every secret found is going to be the best answer in a fight. WC has it's strengths and weaknesses as does every art.

[macaulay]

The "box " is an artificial construct. There is no box - no need to think outside of it. Let things be what they are - don't try to fit them into any preconceptions.

Just my two cents worth...

[Airdrawndagger]

that's possible, though arguably that is the fault of the teacher or teaching method.



Are YOU a pro?

I never implied I was a pro, however I did imply that a practicioner who only attacks using change punches is amatur in the Wing Chun approch.

At least a significant, if not major, part of this is the responsibility of the teacher or teaching method. I'd argue that in many ways the traditional teaching method *discourages* people from enquiry and criticism. The stereotypical picture of the teacher cuffing the student who asked a "stupid" question, per Enter the Dragon, signifies to me all that is wrong with the traditional way of teaching MA. Too often people are DISCOURAGED from rhinking for themselves, because the only true interpretation was allegedly set by some "master" who croaked centuries ago.

You would sermise "that all is wrong with the traditional way of teaching MA." based on Enter the Dragon? Hmm...

But an inquiring mind would seek out as many sources of knowledge as possible. As for digging deep, not every hole contains buried treasure. Digging further may uncover something valuable, or may just get you mired deeper in worthless dirt. Some of the "treasures" of WC are IMO things that are fairly basic to other arts or disciplines. TCMA practitioners IMO are notorious for making mountains out of molehills.

This is a matter of opinon in which I respect your views, however my opinon is that if you put all that extra time into something you owe yourself the peice of mind to eplore and understand as much as possible. To not do everything you can in this regard is in my opinion, a waste of valuable time.

I laugh at the condescending attitude of people who assume that because I train in several arts I've given up inquiring and exploring any single one of them. I could turn it around and say that you're intellectually and physically lazy, or fell victim to the propaganda, if one art is all you have time for or interest in.

We are now both laughing, but for apposing reasons...

[Airdrawndagger]

I believe it was a generalized statement aimed at making a point about teaching boxing not a criticism of WC guys. Mannie's teaching people how to box not how to do WC. He's not concerned with how well they apply WC.

Yeah, I understand Mannie to be a boxing coach as well, but his point was that he sees this approch alot and rightfully sees error in this approach which is why he has brought it to our attention....

Wouldn't you expect WC guys to practice their chain punching and try to apply chain punching during sparring? (If that's what they were taught.) Sparring is meant to help them practice and improve their techniques. Going to a foreign boxing gym to spar a boxer with unknown skill is in my opinon not the best place to practice the chain punch! That is what kwoons are for. Probably the best place to learn stuff, right? If they can move forward and hit their target with nice chain punches, you would be praising their abilities. So how are they supposed to gain those skills if they never practice them during sparring?To me when a WC guy is chain punching he either has nothing left and is giving the fight a last ditch effort, or is supremly dominating the fight and so chooses to chain punch. Mannie was eluding to the latter and so am I because I have witnessed the same.



It's just a case of "anyone can do it, but can they make it work?".
Chain punching is one of many basic WC techniques. Anyone can do them in the air but applying it in sparring is another matter.




I guess that would be true of any system. If all that was needed was performance of forms and drills and your own contemplations, the role of the teacher would be quite minor.

Actually teaching a student some applicable skill is where the hands-on interactive instruction becomes valuable. Otherwise a master could just tape it all and sit on their butts.At the same time, a teacher can only teach so much...it is also the responsibility of the student to learn on there own. You can lead a man to a pool of water but it is up to him how much he wishes to drink.

Regardless of the number of secrets WC has, it doesn't mean that every secret found is going to be the best answer in a fight. WC has it's strengths and weaknesses as does every art.

True, every fight is different, ever response is different. As a cumlative whole, you should be able to handle most situations in a fight if you properly prepare yourself mentally to except defeat.

[anerlich]

You would sermise "that all is wrong with the traditional way of teaching MA." based on Enter the Dragon? Hmm...


I used ETD as a sterotypical example, not the sole basis of my POV. As would be obvious to those not looking for a cheap shot because they lack the intellectual capacity to address the actual point I made.


We are now both laughing, but for apposing reasons...


And now I'm laughing because, unlike you, I can spell "opposing" ... :D "Apposing" means in proximity, juxtaposed ... in which case you would be agreeing with me.

[Airdrawndagger]

Well Im glad to see you know what Apposing means, and yes I did spell it correct because that is what I meant to say. You see we are laughting at the same thing only im laughing at you. :p

[Edmund]

To me when a WC guy is chain punching he either has nothing left and is giving the fight a last ditch effort, or is supremly dominating the fight and so chooses to chain punch. Mannie was eluding to the latter and so am I because I have witnessed the same.


Then you aren't thinking outside the box since you can't see how to apply the basic chain punch in any other way than what you have witnessed (i.e a technique for those with "nothing left").

If that's the only way you've been taught how to use it, you will need to think outside the box to find a better use.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Even a good fighter might be taken by surprise, if they've never seen the move before - so a chain punching blitz might work once...

but the only time, imo, when it's a high percentage move on a consistent basis is AFTER you've already opened up a line with a hit on your opponent, and you're close enough to continue striking on that same line.

This takes work. Work that has nothing to do with chain punching. Chain punching comes after the initial work is done.

[Airdrawndagger]

Then you aren't thinking outside the box since you can't see how to apply the basic chain punch in any other way than what you have witnessed (i.e a technique for those with "nothing left").

If that's the only way you've been taught how to use it, you will need to think outside the box to find a better use.

Thanks for the reply edmund but I do believe your missing the point...


If I am to face off with a boxer for example, I already know the following:
1. He has fast hands
2. He will not be kicking
3. He will test my defense using a jab
4. He will be looking to set up a combo.
5. He can time a prolonged offensive to counter relativly quick- such as a chain punch.
6. If he had his way, he would probably prefer that I do open with chain punches so he can easily counter it.

Personally, I don't like to use the chain punch to much in an all out offensive, its a great weapon to have at your disposal but more times than not im not going to open a fight with only chain punches.


Now thinking outside the box in regards to the chain punch- There are several ways change the chain punch into a more effective offensive move.
Instead of just chain punching from the center in a full charge, I might throw a couple of straight punches-to lap da, switching my angle of attack and proceed with more chain punches.
Or straight punch a few times and feel what kind of energy im getting and react accordingly.
Or straight punch a few times with more forward energy and wait for a counter-to react to it using sticking hands-than perhaps a pak da opens him up then I proceed to chain punch to finish.

A boxer is most likely to be conditioned, fast, ducking and weaving, and timing an attack so why would I just launch 10 consecutive chain punches straight down the middle on a boxer? Your basically giving him a great reason to clock you with a hook.

These are a few examples of different approaches using a chain punch set up and is more of what I was getting at when talking about thinking outside the box with Wing Chun. Does anyone have any other examples of how to take something in wing chun at face value and apply it effectivly in a fight/sparring?

[Edmund]

Seems like you've already come up with a lame application of the chain punch as a strawman argument to demonstrate why you don't like it.

Liddel probably stated it best when he said you would be a slave to the system if you just punched as quick as you could without taking into account what was going on. Doing that would be misinterpreting the system.

By it's nature, the basic chain punch is demonstrating the concept of the asking hand and guarding hand. The attacking hand is probing and the rear hand protecting you from the opponent's attack and in a position to attack next. If you just flailed away, you would be doing none of those things.

In Wing Chun, there is the simple concept of linking techniques into combinations based on reacting to the opponent not ignoring what the opponent does and punching like crazy and running forward.

[anerlich]

You see we are laughting at the same thing only im laughing at you.

Dude, that was a pretty lame comeback, and what's this "laughting" crap? Laugh away, though you'd probably laugh much harder in front of a mirror.

however my opinon is that if you put all that extra time into something you owe yourself the peice of mind to eplore and understand as much as possible. To not do everything you can in this regard is in my opinion, a waste of valuable time.

LOL at the absurdity of being lectured to about "wasting valuable time" on that Mt Everest of timewasters, an internet forum.

"opinon"? "piece of mind to eplore"? Where will it end? :rolleyes:

[Airdrawndagger]

Seems like you've already come up with a lame application of the chain punch as a strawman argument to demonstrate why you don't like it.

You know what Edmund, I was simply trying to engage in a simple conversation on a open forum regarding a topic of interest for me, if all you want to do is take stabs at what im saying then dont participate with the conversation.

Liddel probably stated it best when he said you would be a slave to the system if you just punched as quick as you could without taking into account what was going on. Doing that would be misinterpreting the system.



By it's nature, the basic chain punch is demonstrating the concept of the asking hand and guarding hand. The attacking hand is probing and the rear hand protecting you from the opponent's attack and in a position to attack next. If you just flailed away, you would be doing none of those things.

In Wing Chun, there is the simple concept of linking techniques into combinations based on reacting to the opponent not ignoring what the opponent does and punching like crazy and running forward.

Really? No kidding? Why that seems to be exactly what im talking about. Thank you for pointing out the obvious genius.

[Airdrawndagger]

Dude, that was a pretty lame comeback, and what's this "laughting" crap? Laugh away, though you'd probably laugh much harder in front of a mirror.

Oh, sorry "dude" I didn't know this was a ****ing contest... Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation other than snide remarks you fat headed old troll? The only thing that is absurd are your stupid comments meant to de-rail this thread. Why is this a lecture? Why is this not a topic of discussion on a platform meant for topics of discussion, i.e.- The wing chun forum.

LOL at the absurdity of being lectured to about "wasting valuable time" on that Mt Everest of timewasters, an internet forum.

Then why are you "wasting valuable time" trolling on this forum oh sage of useless trolling? The absurdity lies in derogatory comments meant to derail a thread to put yourself on a pedistal. I guess this is the way you "get back" at the people in the martial arts world. You probably get owned in class and take it out on people on this forum when there views do exactly match your own. Yeah, thats real absurd if you ask me.

"opinon"? "piece of mind to eplore"? Where will it end? :rolleyes:

Don't worry about it, just keep getting owned in class and maybe eventually you might be humbled with a little bit of knowledge.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Anerlich is far from being a troll, Airdrawndagger...

he's contributed some very valuable information and insights on this forum time and again. And as for constantly getting owned by the others in his school - I doubt it.

Why don't you guys trade punches (snide remarks) like men :p ...and stop the little boy routine!

What exactly is your point about chain punches, anyway?

[Airdrawndagger]

Thats great that he has made contributions in the past but he is clearly trolling my thread...

I dont know why everyone is getting so bent on chain punches... they were merely an EXAMPLE of how a tech. taken from the forms is made litteral in fighting. My point is that the forms are a guide to follow and although you can litterally chain punch your way to victory, looking deeper into the system you'll find other uses of the straight punch other than chain punches.
The same can be said with a merid of other techs. within the system.
The bong sau is another great example.
In the first form you perform the bong in a neutral horse stance, on the center line.
In fighting application you perform it very differently- shifting, redirecting, raising it above centerline, below center line, footwork plays a big role, etc...

Because the form is the way it is much is left up to the practicioner to interprit the meanings of the movements within the form other than what is shown.
So I was asking anyone if they have found any nifty discoveries within the system that they have found to be useful in either fighting or practice.

[anerlich]

Thanks, Victor.

The statement I took issue with originally was this old, derivative, unoriginal, piece of pomposity:

seek to find answers from outside influences. i.e.-- other systems of martial arts simply because they did not dig deep enough

I seem to have touched the nerve I wanted to, and the argument's now got to an intellectual level so lame that there is little point continuing. SO:

Because the form is the way it is much is left up to the practicioner to interprit the meanings of the movements within the form other than what is shown.

My Sifu's opinion is that the forms are designed to be tinkered with, and modified. I do them all sorts of different ways, add and replace movements and sections, etc. etc. All TCMA forms are pretty much the same with multiple applications. They are handbooks, not stone tablets from some Lost Ark.

So I was asking anyone if they have found any nifty discoveries within the system that they have found to be useful in either fighting or practice.

Yes. I think real discoveries about the system come when one dispenses with WC tunnel vision and looks for connection with apparently unrelated disciplines. Not just digging deeper but prospecting in new areas. Lateral thinking - surely no one has a problem with that?

FWIW I wrote an article for Rene's site on my opinion of "Secrets" some time ago:

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/why/columns/nerlich/mirror05_secrets.html

Not bad for a fat headed old troll who gets pwn3d (spelling! it's 133tsp3ak!) in class :p :p :p

[Ultimatewingchun]

Excellent post, and excellent article, Andrew. :cool:

I feel the same way about learning counters before reaching a strong level of performance with the technique itself...very counter-productive.

[Edmund]

Really? No kidding? Why that seems to be exactly what im talking about. Thank you for pointing out the obvious genius.

Well you stated the chain punch is the the last ditch resort for WC people with nothing left which seems to be quite the opposite to the description that I gave. You also stated it was an all out attack, something you wouldn't open with and so forth.

I can only go off what you present and my impression was that you gave the wrong application and concept of chain punching to start with. If it was obvious, you should have stated it yourself and you shouldn't be suprised if someone is going to point it out when you don't!

[anerlich]

In the first form you perform the bong in a neutral horse stance, on the center line.
In fighting application you perform it very differently- shifting, redirecting, raising it above centerline, below center line, footwork plays a big role, etc...

Most of the "fighting application" stuff here is worked in greater detail in the second form, and the dummy.

No one ever said you couldn't do the first form in different stances, and experimenting with footwork, etc.

My academy has largely dispensed with the neutral stance in forms and applications, mainly because nobody moves or fights like that.

[Airdrawndagger]

Most of the "fighting application" stuff here is worked in greater detail in the second form, and the dummy.

No one ever said you couldn't do the first form in different stances, and experimenting with footwork, etc.

My academy has largely dispensed with the neutral stance in forms and applications, mainly because nobody moves or fights like that.


Aside from the most of the other bull**** you wrere talking this part I find interesting. This is a great example. Thanks for the info. What other modifications have you made that helped more in regards to fighting application than what others might considered "standard" means of practice?

[Airdrawndagger]

Well you stated the chain punch is the the last ditch resort for WC people with nothing left which seems to be quite the opposite to the description that I gave. You also stated it was an all out attack, something you wouldn't open with and so forth.

I can only go off what you present and my impression was that you gave the wrong application and concept of chain punching to start with. If it was obvious, you should have stated yourself and you shouldn't be suprised if someone is going to point it out when you don't!

Those were merely examples NOT to be taken litterally, but to help support my initial topic. Sorry for this miscomunication. Do you now see where im going with this thread?

[anerlich]

What other modifications have you made that helped more in regards to fighting application than what others might considered "standard" means of practice?

It's about your turn to represent.

As, unlike me, you haven't been wasting time on BJJ or similar deluded diversions because you've been staying constant and true with the system, you should have a plethora of insights that us heretics will have missed.

There's an old saying, and I paraphrase: "Every Wing Chun practitioner thinks that 90% of WC practitioners are spoonfed unthinking chain punchers, but that they belong to the other 10%". Your posts smack more than a little of this attitude, and as such snide comebacks are to be expected. You don't get to the top of the heap by pushing others down, you don't gain kudos by creating straw men who just chain punch and do nothing else.

BTW, that orange type on yellow background is difficult to read.

So this ain't all criticism: there's much to be gained by looking at principles of modern sport speed, and skill training, to improve one's performance of WC. Do you agree, and whatever the answer, why? If you agree, how do you implement this?

[Edmund]

Those were merely examples NOT to be taken litterally, but to help support my initial topic. Sorry for this miscomunication. Do you now see where im going with this thread?

Unfortunately you are going to have to explain your examples a bit more... What do you mean by having your bong sao above and below your centerline?

My definition of the centerline is that it's vertical hence impossible to be above or below.

[Airdrawndagger]

Unfortunately you are going to have to explain your examples a bit more... What do you mean by having your bong sao above and below your centerline?

My definition of the centerline is that it's vertical hence impossible to be above or below.


I don't know how you perform the bong sau in the FIRST FORM, but we line up our wrist bone with the center of our body, lined up slightly higher than our sternum. Is this how you perform your bong sau in the first form? If you do not than I understand the confusion, but as far as I have seen most of the different lineages perform the bong in this mannor so I assumed that there would be no differences in intereptation of how it is performed. If yes then do you see a difference as to why in sparring it is not uncommon to adjust your bong sau differently then what is presented in the form?
If so then this is merely an example as to the difference between the form and application.

[Airdrawndagger]

It's about your turn to represent.

As, unlike me, you haven't been wasting time on BJJ or similar deluded diversions because you've been staying constant and true with the system, you should have a plethora of insights that us heretics will have missed.

Well thank god I don't waste time with that nonsense. LOL

There's an old saying, and I paraphrase: "Every Wing Chun practitioner thinks that 90% of WC practitioners are spoonfed unthinking chain punchers, but that they belong to the other 10%". Your posts smack more than a little of this attitude, and as such snide comebacks are to be expected. You don't get to the top of the heap by pushing others down, you don't gain kudos by creating straw men who just chain punch and do nothing else.

I dont really see where I have come across as that at all. I made an observation based on what i have seen and by no means have made that gospel but have eluded to my observations and have brought up something of interest to me in regards to the interpretation of wing chun. Why are you being so defensive? Straw men? WTF are you talking about? I made a comment based on my own personal observations.

BTW, that orange type on yellow background is difficult to read.

FINE how is blue.

So this ain't all criticism: there's much to be gained by looking at principles of modern sport speed, and skill training, to improve one's performance of WC. Do you agree, and whatever the answer, why? If you agree, how do you implement this?

Sorry man, you lost me at modern sport speed...but as far as skill training well that can mean anything you do in wing chun so yes there is tons to learn there. I look at the principles of what I am being taught and try to find more than what meets the eye as far as the meaning behind the drill or lesson. You can always expand on a drill or lesson by going home and meditating on what the meaning of the drill is and how you can apply t he principles within the drill to other facets of training.

[anerlich]

Why are you being so defensive?

I was attacking, not defending. Well, maybe counterattacking.

you lost me at modern sport speed

You would agree perception and movement speed will assist your WC performance? The fastest humans on the planet are sprinters, are they not? Is there anything A WCer could learn by following the ways they train? For example with resistance training (running with weighted vests, sleds, etc.) or overspeed (google is your friend if you don't know what this is). Is there a way to employ such principles to improve your performance from a WC perspective?

Would you like to become faster? Why not?

As for drills, drills should have a specific purpose. The drill itself should not become the purpose. To quote Hock Hochheim, "we want to become fighting experts, not drill experts." Is there a time during development of a student when a specific drill may become a hindrance rather than a help?

[Edmund]

I don't know how you perform the bong sau in the FIRST FORM, but we line up our wrist bone with the center of our body, lined up slightly higher than our sternum. Is this how you perform your bong sau in the first form? If you do not than I understand the confusion, but as far as I have seen most of the different lineages perform the bong in this mannor so I assumed that there would be no differences in intereptation of how it is performed. If yes then do you see a difference as to why in sparring it is not uncommon to adjust your bong sau differently then what is presented in the form?
If so then this is merely an example as to the difference between the form and application.

Well as it was presented to me in the first form, the height of the bong sao is relative to the height of the opponent. Because their fully extended punch forms a line from their shoulder towards your head, if they can't see your shoulder due to your bong sao their punch can't reach your head (basic geometry).

In Chum Kiu there are bong sao's of various heights depending on the application.
Other lineages such as Pan Nam's, performs 3 different heights of bong saos in the first form. The wooden dummy also has bong saos of various heights.

So from my perspective, I don't see where the forms are presenting things one way and the applications are presenting it another. There should be a certain degree of consistency between the two.

Having said that, performing like it's done in the form for the sake of "looking correct" is not a goal either. I wouldn't call it a case of the practitioner needing to interpret the form for "hidden" meaning. I would call it applying the techniques as they are conceptually described instead of just mirroring the visual shape.

[Airdrawndagger]

I was attacking, not defending. Well, maybe counterattacking.



You would agree perception and movement speed will assist your WC performance? The fastest humans on the planet are sprinters, are they not? Is there anything A WCer could learn by following the ways they train? For example with resistance training (running with weighted vests, sleds, etc.) or overspeed (google is your friend if you don't know what this is). Is there a way to employ such principles to improve your performance from a WC perspective?


Would you like to become faster? Why not?

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]While I use to practice sprinting, the drills where for the most part geared towards emphasising fast twich muscle fibers. Fast twitch muscle fibers are the muscle fibers that govern speed or fast reactions. "Olympic sprinters have been shown to possess about 80% fast twitch fibers while those who excel in the marathon may have 80% slow twitch fibers. "

My sifu always says "If two people are evenly matched in skill then who ever is the quickest will win."
As for drills, drills should have a specific purpose. The drill itself should not become the purpose. To quote Hock Hochheim, "we want to become fighting experts, not drill experts." Is there a time during development of a student when a specific drill may become a hindrance rather than a help?

I agree

Do you practice spinting or something that you feel suppliments your training? You are probably going to say BJJ, right?

[Airdrawndagger]

Well as it was presented to me in the first form, the height of the bong sao is relative to the height of the opponent. Because their fully extended punch forms a line from their shoulder towards your head, if they can't see your shoulder due to your bong sao their punch can't reach your head (basic geometry).

In Chum Kiu there are bong sao's of various heights depending on the application.
Other lineages such as Pan Nam's, performs 3 different heights of bong saos in the first form. The wooden dummy also has bong saos of various heights.

So from my perspective, I don't see where the forms are presenting things one way and the applications are presenting it another. There should be a certain degree of consistency between the two.

Having said that, performing like it's done in the form for the sake of "looking correct" is not a goal either. I wouldn't call it a case of the practitioner needing to interpret the form for "hidden" meaning. I would call it applying the techniques as they are conceptually described instead of just mirroring the visual shape.


Thats great! I see the forms as such 2. It took a while to see other applications with in the forms and WC in general. I am still a beginer in this regard but I always try to look at training as a constant exploration of self realization. How long have you been training and who is your sifu/lineage?

[Edmund]

Thats great! I see the forms as such 2. It took a while to see other applications with in the forms and WC in general. I am still a beginer in this regard but I always try to look at training as a constant exploration of self realization. How long have you been training and who is your sifu/lineage?

I've been training a bit over 8 years now with Felix Leong, a student of Yip Chun.

[anerlich]

I think there is a great deal to learn from a sprinter but if you use this sort of philosopy then you could probably look at all sorts of different sports and take specific drills from them to assist with speed, conditioning, hand eye coordination, and focus.
For example if you take a sport such as free diving and look at how they handle breathing and controling there heart rate through focus and meditation, you can apply these principles to Wing Chun too.

Exactly, but here were you saying looking outside of WC is a waste of valuable time.

Do you practice spinting or something that you feel suppliments your training? You are probably going to say BJJ, right?

Trail, stair and track work, pyometrics, skipping, etc. I was alluding more to increasing the speed of punches or kicks through the use of resistance bands, for either resistance training for more explosiveness. or overspeed training.

BJJ is not a supplement to my training. It is an integral part. It addresses combat strategies and situations that WC does not cover well or at all.

If you dug deep enough, you could probably make WC work in a restraint or groundfighting situation, but that would be pretty dumb if the Brazilians and other grapplers already had four lane highway tunnels open which led to the same destination.

[Airdrawndagger]

"Exactly, but here were you saying looking outside of WC is a waste of valuable time."

Never in my posts did I say that looking outside of WC was a waste of time. What I did say is: "This system has so many "hidden" secrets to it that many do not find/discover them and will result in a lack of understanding and poor understanding of the system or seek to find answers from outside influences. i.e.-- other systems of martial arts simply because they did not dig deep enough."


"BJJ is not a supplement to my training. It is an integral part. It addresses combat strategies and situations that WC does not cover well or at all.

If you dug deep enough, you could probably make WC work in a restraint or groundfighting situation, but that would be pretty dumb if the Brazilians and other grapplers already had four lane highway tunnels open which led to the same destination."

And this is where we differ from POV's, and is why I have written this thread to begin with. I applaud anyone who wishes to cross-train, but I feel it is unnessarry to do so especially when you are practicing WC. IN MY OPINION it is a complete system and IN MY OPINION many people do not dig deep enough into the system to find the answer.
In fact, I believe that this stretches past wing chun and reaches all of Kung fu as a whole. Kung fu is dying more and more as the years go by because of a general lack of attention to the arts.

Follow this link and read this story...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=591

[Edmund]

And this is where we differ from POV's, and is why I have written this thread to begin with. I applaud anyone who wishes to cross-train, but I feel it is unnessarry to do so especially when you are practicing WC. IN MY OPINION it is a complete system and IN MY OPINION many people do not dig deep enough into the system to find the answer.


What makes you think the WC answer found via digging is better than answers that other systems have?

I think you could dig all you like and come up with something pretty much the same.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I applaud anyone who wishes to cross-train, but I feel it is unnessarry to do so especially when you are practicing WC. IN MY OPINION it is a complete system and IN MY OPINION many people do not dig deep enough into the system to find the answer. " (Airdrawndagger)


***And this is where I will line up squarely with Anerlich, as there is NO EVIDENCE anywhere, at any time, in any place...that substantiates the claim that wing chun is a complete system (ie.- not only the claim that it has all the defenses and counters one could ever need against a grappler - in terms of stopping takedowns, fighting in the very close clinch, and when on the ground)...

but neither does wing chun have all the answers EVEN TO A STANDUP FIGHT against a skilled opponent (ie.- quality boxers, kickboxers, and Thai boxers) who can keep the fight at the longer range wherein the wing chun contact/deflection/trapping game is basically useless.

Hint: Mixing boxing with wing chun to bridge such gaps (along with certain aspects of very mobile footwork and longer range entry kicking techniques) can go a LONG WAY toward making wing chun highly functional in today's world...which it clearly is NOT in it's more conventional state.

Have you ever fought/sparred a really good boxer or grappler using JUST wing chun - with success?

If so...tell us about it.

[anerlich]

Follow this link and read this story...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezi...php?article=591

Like you, another guy entitled to HIS OPNION. I don't exactly have nostalgia for the days where you were under threat of constant attack with weapons, YMMV. Kung fu might be dying, but if so it is because its practitioners won't adapt it to modern conditions, and avoid looking at what the wider spectrum of martial artists (and everybody else) do.

If you're concerned about "combat reality", learn to use guns, tanks, fighter-bombers. Don't take butterfly swords to a car bombing.

If environmental conditions change, species have three choices: adapt, migrate, or die. Until space travel and terraforming become commonplace, KF is stuck with options 1 or 3.

WC itself is an eclectic system (unless you do a pre Wong Wa Bo lineage that has no 6.5 point pole, and even then it was a supposed distilllation of Shaolin systems, according to some histories). Talk of requirements for systemic purity is based on marketing, not history.

[Airdrawndagger]

http://wingchunkungfu.cn/2004mb/2084.htm

Case and point. I guess Duncan Leung doesn't see the big picture either and should take up grappling also...He obviously doesn't know anything about WC (erupting with sarcasim).

The truth of the matter is that because you practice the way you do then you believe the way you practice is the right way. More power to you, but don't try to discredit my beliefs and impose your way on me simply because you train the way you do.

What you want out of martial arts is up to you to get. What I want out of martial arts I will also persue. But our goals are different so our path to acheive these goals are also going to be different. No one is absolutely right or wrong-just different.

[sihing]

"Exactly, but here were you saying looking outside of WC is a waste of valuable time."

Never in my posts did I say that looking outside of WC was a waste of time. What I did say is: "This system has so many "hidden" secrets to it that many do not find/discover them and will result in a lack of understanding and poor understanding of the system or seek to find answers from outside influences. i.e.-- other systems of martial arts simply because they did not dig deep enough."


"BJJ is not a supplement to my training. It is an integral part. It addresses combat strategies and situations that WC does not cover well or at all.

If you dug deep enough, you could probably make WC work in a restraint or groundfighting situation, but that would be pretty dumb if the Brazilians and other grapplers already had four lane highway tunnels open which led to the same destination."

And this is where we differ from POV's, and is why I have written this thread to begin with. I applaud anyone who wishes to cross-train, but I feel it is unnessarry to do so especially when you are practicing WC. IN MY OPINION it is a complete system and IN MY OPINION many people do not dig deep enough into the system to find the answer.
In fact, I believe that this stretches past wing chun and reaches all of Kung fu as a whole. Kung fu is dying more and more as the years go by because of a general lack of attention to the arts.

Follow this link and read this story...

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=591

I agree Airdrawndagger, I've been preaching this to these guys for a year now, but it's all on deaf ears, so don't bother. They believe WC is in incomplete, and is in need of outside sources and no matter what you say to them to disclaim this, they will come back with some sorry excuse, so save your energy bro. Good Post and I agree 100%...

James

[Airdrawndagger]

What makes you think the WC answer found via digging is better than answers that other systems have?

I think you could dig all you like and come up with something pretty much the same.

Analogy: If my job is to cut down trees than it would be in my best interest to use a gas powered saw. I could probably use a machette, an axe, or a knife but the job wouldn't get done as quickly and efficiently as using the gas powered saw.

[Airdrawndagger]

I agree Airdrawndagger, I've been preaching this to these guys for a year now, but it's all on deaf ears, so don't bother. They believe WC is in incomplete, and is in need of outside sources and no matter what you say to them to disclaim this, they will come back with some sorry excuse, so save your energy bro. Good Post and I agree 100%...

James


I know we have similar views about Wing Chun James and Im glad to see you chime in. Thanks. My thread started out witht the best intentions and baM! Im back to defending Wing Chun on a Wing Chun forum... as usual....sad really.

[anerlich]

Well the forum's not without value then. ADD and James both made a new friend.

Everybody say "AAHHHH..."

Is Wing Chun the gas-powered saw? or is Wing Chun the plastic knife you get with the airline food? How many dozen brands of gas-powered saw are there in the world today? Some from China, some from Brazil in all probability.

I guess Duncan Leung doesn't see the big picture either

The big picture? We're discussing details of part of a fairly small picture, which you seem to be implying is the only picture worth looking at, when all around you are other magnificent works of art.

I never said anything about Duncan Leung. You're trying to put words in my mouth now and losing your temper. I'm sure DL is a nice man and good at what he does. Just like Rickson Gracie, whose opinions no doubt differ. I'm sure each would respect the other's POV.

Why does Wing Chun need defending? Why are you the right guy for the job?

[canglong]

What you want out of martial arts is up to you to get. What I want out of martial arts I will also persue. But our goals are different so our path to acheive these goals are also going to be different. No one is absolutely right or wrong-just different. Airdrawndagger,
Well said as sihing states that line was drawn around here a while ago and there is no sign of it disappearing any time soon. There are those that understand Wing Chun to be complete and those that disagree. There is no substitute for experience so arguing the point on an internet forum is pointless.

[Edmund]

Analogy: If my job is to cut down trees than it would be in my best interest to use a gas powered saw. I could probably use a machette, an axe, or a knife but the job wouldn't get done as quickly and efficiently as using the gas powered saw.

Interesting analogy. I'd agree with it (provided I'm following your reasoning correctly).

But I think I was more making the point that since we are all humans with the same basic physiological limitations, it would be difficult to discover something radically different to other arts deep within the WC forms.


My thread started out witht the best intentions and baM! Im back to defending Wing Chun on a Wing Chun forum... as usual....sad really.

And a bit unnecessary since we all do WC. If anything it's just YOUR perception that you are "defending WC" as if the art was being attacked. But no one's renouncing WC here.

[Tom Kagan]

If you dug deep enough, you could probably make WC work in a restraint or groundfighting situation, but that would be pretty dumb if the Brazilians and other grapplers already had four lane highway tunnels open which led to the same destination.

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

-- "The Road Not Taken" excerpted from the book: Mountain Interval, by Robert Frost, 1920

[Airdrawndagger]

Well the forum's not without value then. ADD and James both made a new friend.

Everybody say "AAHHHH..."



Is Wing Chun the gas-powered saw? or is Wing Chun the plastic knife you get with the airline food? How many dozen brands of gas-powered saw are there in the world today? Some from China, some from Brazil in all probability.

{ADD shaking his head as he stairs at the jumbo jet flying over anerlich's head....


The big picture? We're discussing details of part of a fairly small picture, which you seem to be implying is the only picture worth looking at, when all around you are other magnificent works of art.

{....And yet again another plane goes wizing by....

I never said anything about Duncan Leung. You're trying to put words in my mouth now and losing your temper. I'm sure DL is a nice man and good at what he does. Just like Rickson Gracie, whose opinions no doubt differ. I'm sure each would respect the other's POV.

No, im very humored. I share the same POV as Duncan Leung in which you are so eagarly trying to find fault. Why is it that you feel WC is incomplete and Duncan Leung does not? We are not discussing Rickson Gracie or BJJ or TKD or Karate.

Why does Wing Chun need defending? Why are you the right guy for the job?
Because my thread was highjacked and has gone from looking deeper into our beautiful system for answers- to how our system is incomplete. Why is it that it always turns out this way? Why can we not discuss a topic without trying to derail it?

[Airdrawndagger]

Interesting analogy. I'd agree with it (provided I'm following your reasoning correctly).

But I think I was more making the point that since we are all humans with the same basic physiological limitations, it would be difficult to discover something radically different to other arts deep within the WC forms.

This is a good point. You could probably make the arguement that you might find similar answers digging deeper within a different system. True "we are all humans with the same basic physiological limitations" but there are people who are better than others. Why is it that there are masters and novice practitioners? Pro's and amatures? Because people have different motivations which drive them to different ends. You can play tennis your whole life and never become a world class tennis pro.


And a bit unnecessary since we all do WC. If anything it's just YOUR perception that you are "defending WC" as if the art was being attacked. But no one's renouncing WC here.

I wan't really referring to you as much as the others. In fact, I think you have made some good points.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Instead of going the usual route into personalities (ie.- "Duncan Leung, for example, was terrrific in his day - do you doubt that"?..."Do you not believe him when he says the system is complete?"...to which someone could answer..."Yes, but did you see what happened to one of Duncan's wing chun students who entered one of the earliest UFC events?")...

and then we could use the "doubting" of Wong Shun Leung's abilities and beliefs about the completeness of wing chun...and then William Cheung, and so on.

Instead of going that route - let's go this way, Airdrawndagger:

Tell us what in your opinion is the wing chun answer to a single leg takedown? Or a double leg takedown?...When it's done from two feet away - after the "grappler" set it up with a punch, or a feint punch, or a kick - to gain some distance?

And the same with an upper body clinch, that transitions into a front bearhug takedown, or a suplex, or into a hip throw?

And once on the ground - what is the wing chun answer to the cross chest position hold down - into a top wristlock or double wristlock?

Or the wing chun answer to the full mount (top saddle position) into a choke or ground and pound?

And the wing chun answer to the up-on-his-toes footwork, broken rhythms, boob and weave jabs, hooks, crosses, etc. of a Muhummad Ali/Sugar Ray Leonard style of boxing...or the Marciano or Tyson peek-a-boo hold-the-hands-back-and-don't-lead-with-jabs style of boxing?

Let's go that route, shall we?

[anerlich]

Why is it that you feel WC is incomplete and Duncan Leung does not?

I can't speak for DL. Why do other high level practitioners like Rick Spain and Victor feel a need to crosstrain? In any case this is a poor argument .... Appeal to authority is a well known logical fallacy, generally dragged out when people cannot support their POV logically.

We are not discussing Rickson Gracie or BJJ or TKD or Karate.

This is not "your" discussion or "your" thread or "your" forum. Discussion goes where it goes. Don't like it? Start your own forum.

The thread's title is Thinking outside the box, so I think the wide range of subject matter is to be expected.

WC should be able to deal with the combat situations Victor mentioned. Dig deep, grasshopper, show us the treasures hidden down there.

[Edmund]

This is a good point. You could probably make the arguement that you might find similar answers digging deeper within a different system. True "we are all humans with the same basic physiological limitations" but there are people who are better than others. Why is it that there are masters and novice practitioners? Pro's and amatures? Because people have different motivations which drive them to different ends. You can play tennis your whole life and never become a world class tennis pro.

Essentially the tennis pro is doing the same techniques as the amateur player. So how are WC answers going to be different and better compared to answers in another system?

And if they are not different and better, why is it important to "stick within the WC system"?

[Airdrawndagger]

Instead of going the usual route into personalities (ie.- "Duncan Leung, for example, was terrrific in his day - do you doubt that"?..."Do you not believe him when he says the system is complete?"...to which someone could answer..."Yes, but did you see what happened to one of Duncan's wing chun students who entered one of the earliest UFC events?")...

and then we could use the "doubting" of Wong Shun Leung's abilities and beliefs about the completeness of wing chun...and then William Cheung, and so on.

Instead of going that route - let's go this way, Airdrawndagger:

Tell us what in your opinion is the wing chun answer to a single leg takedown? Or a double leg takedown?...When it's done from two feet away - after the "grappler" set it up with a punch, or a feint punch, or a kick - to gain some distance?

What would happen? What "move" would I do? Come now, wing chun is not compromised of : If he does A, B,C then you do D moves. Each manuver is governed by that particular moment when it happens. The most rudamentary responses would be based on striking the closest available target and not being hit. A grappler has more to worry about when a barrage of unchained, fast, instictual attacks are bearing down on his face.

And the same with an upper body clinch, that transitions into a front bearhug takedown, or a suplex, or into a hip throw?

Don't get grabbed.

And once on the ground - what is the wing chun answer to the cross chest position hold down - into a top wristlock or double wristlock?

See above answer

Or the wing chun answer to the full mount (top saddle position) into a choke or ground and pound?

And the wing chun answer to the up-on-his-toes footwork, broken rhythms, boob and weave jabs, hooks, crosses, etc. of a Muhummad Ali/Sugar Ray Leonard style of boxing...or the Marciano or Tyson peek-a-boo hold-the-hands-back-and-don't-lead-with-jabs style of boxing?

Wing Chun is based on quickness. Every mans abilities are different.

Let's go that route, shall we?

These examples are set up so that we can discuss move for move til we are blue in the face. What benifits are there to trying to match a move for a move. Wing Chun is spontanious. 2 fighters can perform the same "moves" 100 different ways becuase humans are not robots and different factors such as the environmnet, lighting, physical ability, mindset, fear , determination, speed, accuracy and power also play a role in determining an outcome.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"What would happen? What 'move' would I do? Come now, wing chun is not compromised of : If he does A, B,C then you do D moves. Each manuver is governed by that particular moment when it happens." (ADD)


***This is a FALLACY, my friend. Like any other system of fighting, wing chun needs certain responses to certain situations if it is to be successful. If someone throws a backfist, my response should be bil or tan, for example. A hook requires a bil/lop kind of response (more often than not)...a straight punch requires pak, or perhaps bong, and so on.

Which is not to say that these are the only possible responses - but they are clearly better choices than other moves...ie.- I wouldn't do garn sao against a high hook punch, now would I?

You're avoiding the issues, ADD.

.....................

"The most rudimentary responses would be based on striking the closest available target and not being hit." (ADD)


***One can't SIMPLY try to strike the head of a grappler shooting in with a single leg takedown, to use just one example - just because that's the closest "target". That's a nice formula for landing on your back with him on top of you.

Why? Because his forward momentum is so strong, and so fast, and so pinpointed to go low and THROUGH you, and because his entire body is involved in the process of taking you down (his hips, both legs, both arms, his head, his lead shoulder, etc.)...and because good grapplers know how to hide their most vulnerable head and face targets while coming in, and because they "turn the corner" as they start to complete the move (change their direction slightly)...

...that the odds of scoring a "knockout blow" in the little time you have against this kind of attack are slim to none.

I just don't find your arguments convincing, ADD.

[anerlich]

What benifits are there to trying to match a move for a move.

So you don't do any two person drills then? If they have no benefit, then you don't practice them?

Wing Chun is spontanious.

Like every other martial art, or competitive sport, performed at all but the lowest levels of skill. Spontaneous application of *sound techniques* makes for top performance, IMO. If you can't articulate how to deal with an attack when you have time to think about it, you sure as hell won't be able to do it spontaneously (your word, though spelt incorrectly).

2 fighters can perform the same "moves" 100 different ways becuase humans are not robots and different factors such as the environmnet, lighting, physical ability, mindset, fear , determination, speed, accuracy and power also play a role in determining an outcome.

So technique is unimportant, and it's all up to factors unrelated to technique? Or just luck?

Just like your gas-powered saw is my butter knife, those jumbo jets of yours look a lot like houseflies from down here. Mildly annoying, but ultimately irrelevant.

[Airdrawndagger]

"What would happen? What 'move' would I do? Come now, wing chun is not compromised of : If he does A, B,C then you do D moves. Each manuver is governed by that particular moment when it happens." (ADD)


***This is a FALLACY, my friend. Like any other system of fighting, wing chun needs certain responses to certain situations if it is to be successful. If someone throws a backfist, my response should be bil or tan, for example. A hook requires a bil/lop kind of response (more often than not)...a straight punch requires pak, or perhaps bong, and so on.

Which is not to say that these are the only possible responses - but they are clearly better choices than other moves...ie.- I wouldn't do garn sao against a high hook punch, now would I?

You're avoiding the issues, ADD.
I am avoiding the tit for tac arguments that are annoying.
.....................

"The most rudimentary responses would be based on striking the closest available target and not being hit." (ADD)


***One can't SIMPLY try to strike the head of a grappler shooting in with a single leg takedown, to use just one example - just because that's the closest "target". That's a nice formula for landing on your back with him on top of you.

Why? Because his forward momentum is so strong, and so fast, and so pinpointed to go low and THROUGH you, and because his entire body is involved in the process of taking you down (his hips, both legs, both arms, his head, his lead shoulder, etc.)...and because good grapplers know how to hide their most vulnerable head and face targets while coming in, and because they "turn the corner" as they start to complete the move (change their direction slightly)...

...that the odds of scoring a "knockout blow" in the little time you have against this kind of attack are slim to none.

I get annoyed with the tit or tac kind of discussions because they are not specific enough. Are we talking about a fight? A UFC match? A sparring competition? Just two buds putting on pads and going at it? Because of the nature of grappling i.e. "forward momentum is so strong, and so fast, and so pinpointed to go low and THROUGH you, and because his entire body is involved in the process of taking you down (his hips, both legs, both arms, his head, his lead shoulder, etc.)..., I would
1. Be very mobile
2. Use alot of shifting, blocking, sticking, and striking simutaniously.
3. Attack his set up and crowd him with attacks of my own.

I know that:
1. He needs to grab me to control me.
2. He uses his whole body to create leverage.
3. He uses 2 hands to grab.

The nature of the face off will also play a major role as to the intensity of my attacks. For instance if this was a sparring match I would probably avoid the attack with feints and try to counter with non-lethal attacks, such as sweeps, face and head shots, body attacks.
If this was a street fight then my attacks will be more agressive. Chops, eye gauges, kicks to the joints, etc...

I just don't find your arguments convincing, ADD.

I dont find your examples to be specific enough, Victor.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I get annoyed with the tit or tac kind of discussions because they are not specific enough." (ADD)

***WON'T even bother telling you what I think about your "annoyance", as it will invite more "personality" issues (which is simply another avoidance tactic) and less actual evidence to back up your views.

Very strange response, ADD...as I was VERY specific about how to handle various types of punches - as a means to explain how WRONG you are about wing chun somehow being the exception to the "if he does A,B,C, or D...my response should be this, that, or the other move" gameplan...(with spontaneity always being part of the "plan" as a well). And very specific about the grappler's attack as well.

............................

"Are we talking about a fight? A UFC match? A sparring competition? Just two buds putting on pads and going at it? " (ADD)


***I ALWAYS talk about reality streetfight scenarios (not interested in debating about sparring matches that use "rules" - although UFC and Pride, to their credit, do come closer to reality fighting than any other venues).

.................................

"...the nature of grappling i.e. 'forward momentum is so strong, and so fast, and so pinpointed to go low and THROUGH you, and because his entire body is involved in the process of taking you down (his hips, both legs, both arms, his head, his lead shoulder, etc.)..., I would
1. Be very mobile
2. Use alot of shifting, blocking, sticking, and striking simutaniously.
3. Attack his set up and crowd him with attacks of my own." (ADD)


***OKAY...so you're mobile, you shift alot, and you try to attack and crowd him - with blocking, sticking, ans simultaneous striking...great...but trying to crowd him and hit him is exactly what he wants you to do - because HE DOES HAVE TO GRAB YOU in order to grapple you (ie.- take you down)...which means he wants you to come close to him...

and when he shoots for your leg from 2-3 feet away (or perhaps closer than that)...as you try to "stick" and "hit"...

what makes you think that these hits (of which there may only be one - not multiple hits)...will stop him BEFORE he grabs you?

Have you tried this against a good grappler?

..............................

"I know that:
1. He needs to grab me to control me." (ADD)

***ALREADY addressed that.

..............................

"If this was a street fight then my attacks will be more agressive. Chops, eye gauges, kicks to the joints, etc..." (ADD)

***AND so will the grappler and MMA type...he'll ge doing all of the above as well.
But it's the one with the CONTROL over their opponent that is more likely to be successful with such moves. (And by the way---trying to kick the knee joints of a grappler going for a single leg takedown is a disaster waiting to happen - as you are "giving" him the leg he wants to grab).

And you still haven't been convincing as to how you would control him using JUST wing chun.

[anerlich]

I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

The difference being that you had much less chance of being able to deal with a grappler or fight on the ground.

Is "the road less travelled" in this case sticking to the WC rut or taking the scenic route through several MA?

[Airdrawndagger]

Youve conviced me, Ima be a grappler now. Its the best martial art in the world. Every wing chun man and woman better trade in there sashes for a pair of tights. There simply is no stopping a grappler when he is going for a double leg take down. :p

Sorry, but you really haven't proved anything to me about grappling other than the fact that you sweat it so everyone else should sweat it too.

Ive never been able to understand why people want everybody else to except what they do as being the right way when they don't even know what the right way is....

[Edmund]

1. Be very mobile
2. Use alot of shifting, blocking, sticking, and striking simutaniously.
3. Attack his set up and crowd him with attacks of my own.


One thing I tend to notice is that these ideas are pretty much the same as a wrestling defence to takedowns (aside from the striking). So it's not like WC is incongruent with wrestling in this case.

[Tom Kagan]

The difference being that you had much less chance of being able to deal with a grappler or fight on the ground.

Is "the road less travelled" in this case sticking to the WC rut or taking the scenic route through several MA?

You missed the playfulness and double-entendre of the poem. That would have made all the difference here, too. ;)

Mr. Frost was quite the plum pixie. It is possible he would have enjoyed your spine stiffening from the trap he wrote. :)

[BTW, almost by definition, a rut is a well travelled road. Also, it seems as if the scenic route of which you speak has been awfully crowded with tourists and lookie-loos for quite some time now. ;)]

[Airdrawndagger]

One thing I tend to notice is that these ideas are pretty much the same as a wrestling defence to takedowns (aside from the striking). So it's not like WC is incongruent with wrestling in this case.

I would like to think that a wrestler would be less mobile and more excepting to being grappled because that is their comfortzone. Going to the ground is what a wrestler wants to do. I would prefer to stay on my feet.

[Ultimatewingchun]

One thing I tend to notice is that these ideas are pretty much the same as a wrestling defence to takedowns (aside from the striking). So it's not like WC is incongruent with wrestling in this case.

Edmund: Not incongruent at all - just incomplete. Because when you add sprawls, crossfaces, and other wrestling takedown defenses into the mix - along with the wing chun sticking, angling, and striking while blocking moves - now you've definitely got something EXTRA to work with against the typical wrestler/grappler takedown attacks.


But as to why Airdrawndagger would like to think that "grapplers are less mobile" than wing chun fighters - there's really no cause for him to be thinking that...as some grapplers are lightening quick.

Really tends to beg the question again: Has he ever used wing chun exclusively against a quality grappler in a real fight/rough sparring match...successfully?

I would tend to suspect that there answer is "no".

Wing Chun is a beautiful thing - and can definitely be used to do some serious damage in the RANGE that it excels in (ie.-close quarter, limb-to-limb contact standup striking/kicking range)...but it does not have all the necessary answers in other ranges.

That's my whole point.

[sihing]

Edmund: Not incongruent at all - just incomplete. Because when you add sprawls, crossfaces, and other wrestling takedown defenses into the mix - along with the wing chun sticking, angling, and striking while blocking moves - now you've definitely got something EXTRA to work with against the typical wrestler/grappler takedown attacks.


But as to why Airdrawndagger would like to think that "grapplers are less mobile" than wing chun fighters - there's really no cause for him to be thinking that...as some grapplers are lightening quick.

Really tends to beg the question again: Has he ever used wing chun exclusively against a quality grappler in a real fight/rough sparring match...successfully?

I would tend to suspect that there answer is "no".

Wing Chun is a beautiful thing - and can definitely be used to do some serious damage in the RANGE that it excels in (ie.-close quarter, limb-to-limb contact standup striking/kicking range)...but it does not have all the necessary answers in other ranges.

That's my whole point.

WRONG, especially on the last paragraph. WC has a complete arsenal against ALL types of attacks, just because some here cannot apply it or do not understand it doesn't mean it isn't there. You all talk like grappler attacks are unbeatable or uncounterable. It's all about mobility. Yeah of course if you present a stationary or close to stationary target you will be taken to the ground, that is given. But when the target is moving and in a UNORTHODOX way, then you have something. The basic WC stance (Neutral Stance) alone makes it more difficult to grapple with, because the grappler has to get in closer to grab any leg or body part, therefore if one is using this stance and gets taken down then it is THEIR fault, not the systems, so therefore more practice and understanding is required. I don't have time right now to go into everything that can be done against the grappler. Not that there are every any 100% guarantee's, as no one can claim that, us nor the grapplers, but there definetly are effective ways to deal with them using WC, especially when they no nothing about you, whereas in competitions this is never the case.

James

[Airdrawndagger]

Edmund: Not incongruent at all - just incomplete. Because when you add sprawls, crossfaces, and other wrestling takedown defenses into the mix - along with the wing chun sticking, angling, and striking while blocking moves - now you've definitely got something EXTRA to work with against the typical wrestler/grappler takedown attacks.


But as to why Airdrawndagger would like to think that "grapplers are less mobile" than wing chun fighters - there's really no cause for him to be thinking that...as some grapplers are lightening quick.

Victor there are always exceptions to the rule and by MIS quoting what I have said you have put words into my mouth to try to discredit what I said.
What I said was "a wrestler would be less mobile and more excepting to being grappled because that is their comfortzone"
What is wrong with this statement? Do you know how to read or do you only read what you want to see?

Really tends to beg the question again: Has he ever used wing chun exclusively against a quality grappler in a real fight/rough sparring match...successfully?

I would tend to suspect that there answer is "no".

I think you "tend to suspect" to much Victor. I also think you down play alot of what other people think or say when it is not exactly what you think. You have no idea of my abilities and to assume so much about me or anyone else on this forum only shows a lack of respect for me and others.


Wing Chun is a beautiful thing - and can definitely be used to do some serious damage in the RANGE that it excels in (ie.-close quarter, limb-to-limb contact standup striking/kicking range)...but it does not have all the necessary answers in other ranges.

That's my whole point.

So Victor, when was the last time you got into a fight with a grappler? By the way you talk you must have racked up several fights to share with all of us. Sparring doesn't count because according to you "***I ALWAYS talk about reality streetfight scenarios (not interested in debating about sparring matches that use "rules" - although UFC and Pride, to their credit, do come closer to reality fighting than any other venues)."
SO I WILL RE-ASK MY QUESTION: HOW MANY REAL FIGHTS HAVE YOU BEEN IN WITH A GRAPPLER???????

[Ultimatewingchun]

"WC has a complete arsenal against ALL types of attacks, just because some here cannot apply it or do not understand it doesn't mean it isn't there." (James)


***SPOKEN by someone who has how much experience actually fighting/sparring against good grapplers?

Oh, I see...little to no experience.

Okay. Yeah...right! :rolleyes:

..............................


Airdrawndagger:

I DID NOT misquote you - for starters...it's YOU who's playing games with words.

Once had a real streetfight that resulted in a broken nose for my opponent, very badly gouged eyes for me - and an arrest for assault...as he was trying to build a civil lawsuit for $1,000,000. against my employer. I was the manager of an Aamco Transmission Repair shop at the time - and the fight took place in front of the building.

Happened during my earlier days in wing chun (I was still a student of Moy Yat)....I had already broken his nose (as I found out later) with some chain punching type of attacks when he faked a high haymaker sucker punch and shot in for a double leg takedown (he was a semi-pro football player, as it turns out, and knew how to take people to the ground much the same way that wrestlers do)...and then he mounted me and proceeded to gouge my eyes very badly.

Luckily for me, I had some catch wrestling experience for a few years (before I began wing chun) and managed to escape his mount and got back to my feet - using a wrestling escape.

The man was was about an inch taller than me but probably outweighed me by at least 80 lbs. (he was well over 200 lbs.) and in those days I weighed about 140 soaking wet. (I weigh 170 now).

He then literally walked away and called the police to have me arrested (the charges were thrown out when it came to trial, as he was so much bigger than me, and I had never been arrested before, and by a wild stroke of coincidence - the lawyer my boss hired to defend me had once DEFENDED THIS GUY on a charge of him attacking a court reporter during one of HIS trials...(the guy had actually once served jail time for burglary).

And as far as sparring against grapplers - including in recent years - have done it many times.

But the point is....the man already saw the close infight short range punching game I was playing and survived the first flurry of attacks by me, had tried to come back with a haymaker round punch of his own that resulted in another straight punch landing on his face...and then did the fake punch and down under for the takedown routine - which totally circumvented the wing chun mode (and way of thinking that I was in)...and he got the takedown and the mount.

NOW....WISEA55...how about finally answering the question:

Have you ever fought (or even sparred) against a good grappler and used wing chun exclusively and successfully???

[Knifefighter]

I agree with ADD... a grappler will normally be less mobile than a striker. Strikers can exploit this to their advantage, but most don't really know how to do so (as ADD demonstrates in his response to the theoretical "grappler attack" scenario).

I also partially agree with James. The neutral stance (or square stance in wrestling terms) is the best defensive posture for takedown prevention. However, it also limits your ability to strike effectively, makes it easier for your opponent to strike you, and is renderered pretty much inneffective if you use it with your toes pointed inward and your upper body erect. You will see a lot of wrestlers use a square stance in wrestling competitions, but they pretty much throw it out when they enter MMA competitions.

[Airdrawndagger]

"WC has a complete arsenal against ALL types of attacks, just because some here cannot apply it or do not understand it doesn't mean it isn't there." (James)


***SPOKEN by someone who has how much experience actually fighting/sparring against good grapplers?

Oh, I see...little to no experience.

Okay. Yeah...right! :rolleyes:

..............................


Airdrawndagger:

I DID NOT misquote you - for starters...it's YOU who's playing games with words.

You did mis quote me....

Once had a real streetfight that resulted in a broken nose for my opponent, very badly gouged eyes for me - and an arrest for assault...as he was trying to build a civil lawsuit for $1,000,000. against my employer. I was the manager of an Aamco Transmission Repair shop at the time - and the fight took place in front of the building.

Happened during my earlier days in wing chun (I was still a student of Moy Yat)....I had already broken his nose (as I found out later) with some chain punching type of attacks when he faked a high haymaker sucker punch and shot in for a double leg takedown (he was a semi-pro football player, as it turns out, and knew how to take people to the ground much the same way that wrestlers do)...and then he mounted me and proceeded to gouge my eyes very badly.

Luckily for me, I had some catch wrestling experience for a few years (before I began wing chun) and managed to escape his mount and got back to my feet - using a wrestling escape.

The man was was about an inch taller than me but probably outweighed me by at least 80 lbs. (he was well over 200 lbs.) and in those days I weighed about 140 soaking wet. (I weigh 170 now).

He then literally walked away and called the police to have me arrested (the charges were thrown out when it came to trial, as he was so much bigger than me, and I had never been arrested before, and by a wild strike of coincidence - the lawyer my boss hired to defend me had once DEFENDED THIS GUY on a charge of him attacking a court reporter during one of HIS trials...(the guy had actually once served jail time for burglary).

And as far as sparring against grapplers - including in recent years - have done it many times.

But the point is....the man already saw the close infight short range punching game I was playing and survived the first flurry of attacks by me, had tried to come back with a haymaker round punch of his own that resulted in another straight punch landing on his face...and then did the fake punch and down under for the takedown routine - which totally circumvented the wing chun mode (and way of thinking that I was in)...and he got the takedown and the mount.

NOW....WISEA55...how about finally answering the question:

Have you ever fought (or even sparred) against a good grappler and used wing chun exclusively and successfully???

Successfully sometimes... Yes, I have fought some grapplers, some of which were WELL versed in Wing Chun as well, in fact there form of wing chun was a little different than what I have been used too. I had an incounter that took place between me and 3 musclar dudes. The biggest one approached me and I fired off a straight punch tthat partially landed because he started to duck and go for A Double Leg takedown as it would ironically seem. He managed to grab me and I gave into his energy and we began to go backwards. I was about to do a reverse throw when the two others jumped on top of me as we fell to the ground. They were holding me down. NOT TO MUCH YOU CAN DO in a situation like that. I was blocking a lot of shots, kicks and such when my brother rushed them and knocked them off. I managed to punch one of them pretty hard then they got a bat and hit my brother in the head which messed him up bad. We left, the cops came but nothing became of the situation. In my mind I definetly lost because I allowed him to get close enough to grab me. I know SEVERAL ways to avoid a grapple of that nature but adrenaline took over an I was unable to control my rage which is why I "lost".
I am glad It happened because I feel that I have learned volumes because of It. I know that I am not the best but I know myself and I know how to learn from my mistakes. I will NEVER allow someone to get that close to me to be able to grab me without PAYING severly for trying.
There is a guy who trains with us now and has about 7 years WC exp. and grappling exp. we have experimented alot and he can transition from chi sao to grappling moves pretty good. I try to feel when he will attempt a move and try to anit grapple his manuvers. Sometimes he gets me, sometimes he does not, but we do not go "ALL OUT" so I cannot say what kind of outcome we would have. I can say that I am VERY aware of the strengths of grapplers and make it a point to study there style so I can educate myself as to what to expect.

Some seak answers out side the system and I do not fault them for that. That is there way. I follow my own path and I don't really care who believes me or not, I know what im doing is what is best for me. If I lose a fight then it is my fault because of something I have done wrong and not because the system is lacking or incomplete. I will always believe that Wing Chun will provide the answers to your questions if you truely search yourself and the wing chun you possess.

My intentions are good. My articulation in typing are nominal. But, what I do value are opinions that are true to heart that only serve to provide me with ideas to further my studies. We all can learn from one another so instead of trying to prove each other wrong, lets respect each others opinions and back grounds and agree that we probably do not have all the answers and we might be able to learn from one another if we open our hearts as well as our minds. :cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

ADD:

What can I say? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But I don't believe that it's ALWAYS possible to keep someone form grabbing you by just using wing chun principles, strategy, and techniques. Is it possible to do quite a bit, in this regard, using wing chun sensitivity training and so forth? Yes.

But will it always be successful? I really don't think so. (And I'm not talking about sneak attacks as just being the exception to the rule, either).

And this issue becomes more and more clear as each day passes by, imo...because MMA fighters (especially) are getting better and better as STRIKERS (and kickers)...and therefore can now play a better-than-ever-before game of bridging the gap to the grab and takedown grappling range...by using more and more sophisticated setups (ie.- explosive footwork, kicks, striking, fakes, etc.)

Try this one on for size: picture the day when a really good up-on-his-toes boxer type who can hook off the lead jab with the best of them...now trains to follow that with a clinch...a grapplers clinch (not a boxer's clinch)...and then he puts on his wrestling hat and does a Greco-Roman backdrop or some other takedown.

In order to stop this type of attack and "grab"...one's reflexes and chi sao sensitivity would have to be off the charts, imo. Literally picture perfect 100% of the time. Who could honestly count on that?

No...I believe crosstraining is the answer.

[canglong]

No...I believe crosstraining is the answer. -- Ultimatewingchun
Parlati Sifu,
1. Have you asked the questions you posed to ADD to Grand Master Cheung? 2. What is Grand Master Cheung's position on the subject of TWC being complete?

[anerlich]

You missed the playfulness and double-entendre of the poem.

I studied this poem in high school.

Try to be a bit less patronising in future, please.

Robert Frost was crap at WC.

[anerlich]

What is Grand Master Cheung's position on the subject of TWC being complete?

GM Cheung is I think pretty happy with TWC the way it is. Victor has his own opinions as how best to train, and his ability to practise them is a credit to his teacher's flexibility of mind.

At a seminar I attended with Gm Cheung - mind you, this was about ten years ago - he demonstrated a couple of responses to the shoot - one was a pak sao while angling off to the side, which has some similarities to a wrestling counter to the EARLY stages of the shot, except the wrestler would use a forearm and look to control the head. This will only work in the early stages, while the level change is still happening, unless the shot is really poor. After that, you need to either use your hip to block, and/or sprawl.

He also showed a type of sprawl against a shooter, but wrapped his arms around the guy's torso from above, which I now know to be a basic error as it sets the shooter up for an elbow shuck or sitout from which he can get the top position and the defender's back.

This was a long time ago, and I would expect GM Cheung as the consummate martial artist he is to have learned more about these types of attack and defense against them, as no doubt most of us have in that period of recent history.

Victor has done that too, by learning catch wrestling.

Hopefully Tony, you too are allowed to have your own opinions and experiment with your own strategies in HFY, rather than just thinking the way Messrs Meng and Gee tell you to.

[anerlich]

Every wing chun man and woman better trade in there sashes for a pair of tights.

I actually wear a gi, or board shorts and a rash guard, but if you really want those tights, far be it from me to stand in your way.

[canglong]

GM Cheung is I think pretty happy with TWC the way it is. Victor has his own opinions as how best to train, and his ability to practise them is a credit to his teacher's flexibility of mind. As a TWC practitioner yourself your opinion could differ from Victor's which is precisely why the question ask for facts derived from GM Cheung and not another opinion. "I think pretty happy with TWC the way it is" doesn't address the question of whether GM Cheung himself describes the system as either complete or incomplete.

[anerlich]

If you want to be a really pedantic ****, Tony, you probably should ask GM Cheung himself as Victor's relating of his opinion would be hearsay.

I'm relating my impressions, based on six years of training in his organisation, with, at the time one of his longest serving students, with whom I gained my instructor qualification while still a member of the WWCKFA, and I gave my qualifications based on it being nearly a decade ago.

I'd hope in that time I'd have got some idea.

I thought it *might* be somewhat illuminating, I didn't realise you were asking for evidence admissable in a court of law.

why the question ask for facts derived from GM Cheung and not another opinion

Why do you need to know this?

[canglong]

Tony, you probably should ask GM Cheung himself as Victor's relating of his opinion would be hearsay. Do you have the email address?I thought it *might* be somewhat illuminating, I didn't realise you were asking for evidence admissable in a court of law. Not bringing Victor's or your own experience in to question just trying to balance them against those of the Grand Master of the System.

[stricker]

I got really bored about halfway through reading this thread, but guys, i think some of you seriously need to just get over it. Wing chun, wrestling, boxing, mma what's the big deal??? We're all different probably best to leave it at that.

What i think about this whole deal is that wing chun IS a complete system whatever that means. I don't know that there's much in the way of ground fighting i've only been showed a couple of things and that was more of a "street" approach than say judo or sub wrestling so it's apples and oranges. But what i have found is that all the principles and general understanding of body mechanics geometry pressure sensetivity definitely does apply on the ground. Same with wrestling stand up. I think wing chun is basically more stand up wrestling than striking anyway, that's what chi sao looks like anyway.

So basically if youre sh*T hot at wing chun you should be able to fight pretty much anyone but you probably need the experience of other martial arts to get there, that's why i do mma as well which is basically thai boxing, greco wrestling and judo/sub wrestling. Definitely a good wing chun fighter should be able to handle a good muay thai fighter or boxer, only thing is does the wing chun fighter train to that level, or do they just train with fake attacks? In wing chun class i know if anyone who hasn't boxed before attacks me with boxing attacks i can deal with it ok, not get hit, and beat them, but... i'd never dare even try it at the moment with the muay thai guys i train with but that's not because wing chun sucks, it's because i suck at wing chun and they're all f-ing good.

So yeah i think you should look outside the box even though i dont think there really is a box in wing chun. So, just get over it guys, why do you care what someone else chooses to do with their free time?

[Ultimatewingchun]

GM Cheung is I think pretty happy with TWC the way it is. Victor has his own opinions as how best to train, and his ability to practise them is a credit to his teacher's flexibility of mind.

At a seminar I attended with Gm Cheung - mind you, this was about ten years ago - he demonstrated a couple of responses to the shoot - one was a pak sao while angling off to the side, which has some similarities to a wrestling counter to the EARLY stages of the shot, except the wrestler would use a forearm and look to control the head. This will only work in the early stages, while the level change is still happening, unless the shot is really poor. After that, you need to either use your hip to block, and/or sprawl.

He also showed a type of sprawl against a shooter, but wrapped his arms around the guy's torso from above, which I now know to be a basic error as it sets the shooter up for an elbow shuck or sitout from which he can get the top position and the defender's back.

This was a long time ago, and I would expect GM Cheung as the consummate martial artist he is to have learned more about these types of attack and defense against them, as no doubt most of us have in that period of recent history.

Victor has done that too, by learning catch wrestling.

Hopefully Tony, you too are allowed to have your own opinions and experiment with your own strategies in HFY, rather than just thinking the way Messrs Meng and Gee tell you to.


***EXCELLENT post by Anerlich. Yes, I remember those two shoot defenses very well that GM Cheung taught about 10 years ago. And Andrew's analysis about the move wherein "a type of sprawl was used against a shooter, by wrapping his arms around the shooter's torso from above"....was quite accurate - including the weakness inherent in the move.

But consider this, Tony (canglong): even though I'm sure William Cheung wouldn't openly admit it....Why do you think he was actually teaching such a move (since it's clearly not wing chun) - if he really thought the TWC system was complete?

But as Andrew alluded to, William Cheung does have something of an open mind about working out moves into fighting scenarios that don't necessarily come from wing chun. He simply coopts a few things here and there without actually labeling it for what it really is (ie.- the above technique described was clearly a grappling/wrestling move). :rolleyes:

[sihing]

I agree with ADD... a grappler will normally be less mobile than a striker. Strikers can exploit this to their advantage, but most don't really know how to do so (as ADD demonstrates in his response to the theoretical "grappler attack" scenario).

I also partially agree with James. The neutral stance (or square stance in wrestling terms) is the best defensive posture for takedown prevention. However, it also limits your ability to strike effectively, makes it easier for your opponent to strike you, and is renderered pretty much inneffective if you use it with your toes pointed inward and your upper body erect. You will see a lot of wrestlers use a square stance in wrestling competitions, but they pretty much throw it out when they enter MMA competitions.

Yes I would agree too if I did advocate pigeon toed stances, but I don't. Our Neurtral stance either has the feet pointed 45 deg left or right (depending on the lead guard) with the feet a little wider than shoulder width apart, so lateral mobility is very easy from this stance, see this mag article for more details http://www.kickstartmag.ca/online_magazine/ page 17, my Sihing wrote it. As for striking this is the defensive posture only, used outside kicking range, forward type stances are used once contact has been made to strike with and advance forward. Also once trained with and understood, it is just as easy to defend strikes as when in a forward type stance.

James

[sihing]

"WC has a complete arsenal against ALL types of attacks, just because some here cannot apply it or do not understand it doesn't mean it isn't there." (James)


***SPOKEN by someone who has how much experience actually fighting/sparring against good grapplers?

Oh, I see...little to no experience.

Okay. Yeah...right! :rolleyes:

..............................


Well from your last presentation of Vids, your philosophy hasn't helped you either Vic. SO GO GET YOUR SHINE BOX!! lol..

James

[canglong]

But consider this, Tony (canglong): even though I'm sure William Cheung wouldn't openly admit it....Why do you think he was actually teaching such a move (since it's clearly not wing chun) - if he really thought the TWC system was complete? In your mind what are the distinctions that seperate techniques that are "clearly" wing chun and those that are not.

[Airdrawndagger]

Martial arts are very individualistic. You cannot rely on anyone other than yourself when you are in a fight. That being said, how can I rely on what 1,2, or 3 people say about a system of kung fu when personal performance is ultimately responsible for the outcome of a situation?
Sure, that person can have "experience" in fighting say a grappler, but if that person losses the fight then is the method in which he choses to fight the reason for failure, or does it have to do with one or many ways in which he practices that method of fighting?
Even if I lose 10 times in a row to different grapplers is it because my style of fighting is not apted enough to handle grappling as a art, or am I doing something wrong? Am I not fully understanding the system? Am I not practicing enough to hone my skills? Am I not in shape enough? Did I handle the "fear" factor in a way which hindered my abilities? Did I underestimate my apponent? Was my timing off? Was I not quick enough?
These type of questions have more to do with an outcome of a situation then "Well I lost because Wing Chun is not a complete system". There needs to be some accountability for ones actions.

[unkokusai]

?
Even if I lose 10 times in a row to different grapplers is it because my style of fighting is not apted enough to handle grappling as a art, or am I doing something wrong? Am I not fully understanding the system? Am I not practicing enough to hone my .


What if ten WCers lose ten times in a row? What would you conclude then?

[Airdrawndagger]

What if?

Do we really want to go down the "what if" road?
What if 100 grapplers lost to 1 wing chun man?
What if 100 grapplers fought 100 WC'ers?
What if I caught a bullet between my teeth?



Not to much else I care to comment on about that...

[unkokusai]

What if?

Do we really want to go down the "what if" road?
...


Well you sure don't. It would seem that you don't want to ever entertain the notion that your WC ain't gettin' it done, no matter what evidence may come.

[sihing]

In your mind what are the distinctions that seperate techniques that are "clearly" wing chun and those that are not.

This is a good question Tony. When people start saying things like "Oh, that is definetly not a WC move" what exactly does that mean. There are all kinds of movements that can be contrived from the system that do not resemble Tan, Bon or Fok Sao, lol.

We address shoots, mounting positions and all that kinda of stuff totally using WC movements, and concepts/techniques, so to say that they are not there or that one has to go outside the system, is just afraid to admit they lack total knowledge of the system they claim to teach and fight with.

As for GM Cheung and his ways of dealing with things, let me put it this way, sometimes not all things are exposed to those that pay for a seminar, or another way sometimes all know Grandmasters do not know it all or the right way of things. Some of the reasons we do things differently than the TWC way is simply things where not being done as per the concept of the system taught by the
GM himself, sloppiness if you ask me and a preoccupation with business instead of quality is the reason for this. Just my opinion, take it or leave it.


James

[Airdrawndagger]

Well you sure don't. It would seem that you don't want to ever entertain the notion that your WC ain't gettin' it done, no matter what evidence may come.

No I sure dont. Asking such arbitrary questions as "what if" requires an arbitrary answer that is neither substantial nor is it a practical means to support a point. So what sort of "evidence" do you wish to bring to the table other than your thought provoking "what if" banter? "WC ain't gettin' it done" .........Zzzzz thats a real convincing argument you got there lil' tiger.

[unkokusai]

No I sure dont. Asking such arbitrary questions as "what if" requires an arbitrary answer that is neither substantial nor is it a practical means to support a point. So what sort of "evidence" do you wish to bring to the table other than your thought provoking "what if" banter? "WC ain't gettin' it done" .........Zzzzz thats a real convincing argument you got there lil' tiger.


Your defensiveness speaks volumes. I wasn't making any "argument" other than to point out your unreasonable bias.

It seems that there is nothing that would shake your belief that WC is all you need. Yes or no?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"But consider this, Tony (canglong): even though I'm sure William Cheung wouldn't openly admit it....Why do you think he was actually teaching such a move (since it's clearly not wing chun) - if he really thought the TWC system was complete?" (Victor)


"In your mind what are the distinctions that seperate techniques that are "clearly" wing chun and those that are not." (Tony)


***A man shoots for your lead leg, and wraps his arms around it, but before he can pull it up and keep on driving forward to unbalance you - and take you to the ground - you push your weight completely forward (100%) to the front leg that he's grabbing...while bending over him and wrapping both your arms around his torso. This is the move that William Cheung taught that Anerlich was alluding to.

Now Tony, YOU TELL ME where in that move you see any wing chun?

.......................

And in a related post about this...the following was mentioned:

"As for GM Cheung and his ways of dealing with things, let me put it this way, sometimes not all things are exposed to those that pay for a seminar, or another way sometimes all know Grandmasters do not know it all or the right way of things. Some of the reasons we do things differently than the TWC way is simply things where not being done as per the concept of the system taught by the
GM himself, sloppiness if you ask me and a preoccupation with business instead of quality is the reason for this. Just my opinion, take it or leave it." (James)


***WHAT hypocrisy!!! The same man who makes this statement also admits that he doesn't spar with the students who attend his sifu's school - who he helps teach; and he has also told us (in the past) that his sifu doesn't spar with the students either - and in fact discourages it. And of course the same for crosstraining. THESE FACTS ARE ABOUT "BUSINESS" ALSO!!! ;)

For some people - it's not good for "business" (if the goal is to have a McDojo) to spar with students (or do some crosstraining either)...since the result might be that the students begin to see that the "sihing" and the "sifu" aren't untouchable martial art wizards after all.

Perhaps it would be better to stick to the prearranged two man sparring drills as a demo in the neighborhood shopping mall. :p

.........................


And finally, there's this:

"Sure, that person can have 'experience' in fighting say a grappler, but if that person losses the fight then is the method in which he choses to fight