Structure or Stickiness etc.

[Han Man]

I posted this on the end of the Alan Orr / Body Structure thread but decided to take advice and start a new thread with the questions:-


Hello all,

I've never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I've trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

1. Chi Sau helped develop 'stickiness' so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

2. Consequently a 'bridge' is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant's attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it's way too slow.

I'd be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I'm not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman

[Vajramusti]

((Han sez..))Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

((IMO all the way-development of good structure is very important in what I do.Some lineages have different ways to insure sound structure. I wouldnt say "nothing to do"- but its not just about deliberately sticking))jc

7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

((Problem in context...meaning of "seeking"..English translations of wing chun principles can be very misleading. "Chasing hands"" again -the importance of context... where are the hamds??)) )))jc

8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

((Absolutely- too strong a word.Basically- forms are important for development- not a bag of memorized techniques))jc

9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

((Dont beat up on the wall bag. Power comes from structure, control of motion and intent. Properly developed- wing punches can be sufficiently powerful and explosive))jc

10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant.

((Sometimes there may not be choice- the key is sensing what to do to have and get back optimum structure if lost .))jc

((Good wishes, gotta do some wing chun rather than keyboarding for a while. Where do you practice? Thought your questions deserve some comments and decent discussion ))jc

joy chaudhuri

[Han Man]

Hello Joy,

Thanks for your reply.

I train in London in Philipp Bayer's WSL 'Lineage'. Not directly with him though.

Please note though, I'm the most junior guy in the class at the mo...these are my very junior thoughts! Every lesson I seem to need correcting!!



Cheers,

Phil

[k gledhill]

I posted this on the end of the Alan Orr / Body Structure thread but decided to take advice and start a new thread with the questions:-


Hello all,

I've never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I've trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

1. Chi Sau helped develop 'stickiness' so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

NO

2. Consequently a 'bridge' is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

NO

3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

NO

4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

1 part in a chain of events we train to deliver in a 1 count beat

5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant's attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

NO

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

YES

7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

ABSOLUTELY BAD

8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

CORRECT

9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

YES

10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it's way too slow.

YES

I'd be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I'm not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman


I train in Philipp Bayer WSL thinking in NYC ;)

WSL won most of his matches within 3 moves ;) everyone was busy with his hands while he just aimed and fired ...:D

[tjwingchun]

I posted this on the end of the Alan Orr / Body Structure thread but decided to take advice and start a new thread with the questions:-


Hello all,

I've never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I've trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

1. Chi Sau helped develop 'stickiness' so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

2. Consequently a 'bridge' is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant's attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

I would say you are not too far away from the essence of Chi Sau, in my view it is more about being a vehicle to develop understanding of the correct body behaviour/alignment etc, it is more about SENSITIVITY than sticky-ness

To understand when you are in a position to hit or be hit and respond appropriately, creating learned responses that in time become almost 'reflexes' without the need for 'thinking'.

Time is a vital factor in fighting, the less time you spend thinking the less time your opponent has to react to the change in circumstances preventing a technique being successful.

Chi Sau is the key to gaining experience of the variations of how an opponent will react to changing energies, giving you the 'time' in training to think, analyse and perfect techniques that when you need them will emerge instinctively.

7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

Not if you are applying the concepts of 'entry techniques' properly, the idea of 'seeking' I think is a mis-understanding, I focus on the Ding Sau, being more of an offensive Fook Sau, like the Man Sau from Biu Gee.

When 'entering/seeking' contact, the Ding/Man sau should be relaxed and have the intent of striking the opponent, if the opponent defends the strike, you have the contact responses via Chi Sau to control the arm and fire a second Ding/Man Sau out again aiming to strike your opponent. If they are successful in preventing the hit landing, you are now in a two arm contact situation and depending on your Chi Sau skill you should be looking to control the opponent to prevent them opening lines of attack while you create the gap to hit without being hit in return.

The important sequence is understanding how to get from no contact to one arm contact then from one to two arm contact, but each of the Ding/Man Sau entries should be 'feeling'/'asking' if there is nothing before the strike they change to a striking technique, if an arm is contacted preventing the strike they become controlling techniques.

8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

I am with you on this one 100% the forms are just a catelogue of the different ways the body can be used to create different directional energies and how the can be linked throughout the body at the moment of contact/use to maximise effect.

9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

I think Wing Chun's punch matches the power of any punching system, I use Jack Dempsey's Championship Fighting book to illustrate this, it is almost pure Wing Chun when related to the mechanics of punching.

10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it's way too slow.

Again I will agree, this is an area that I disagree with Yip Chun as he manitains that the hips only turn through 90 degrees when the shoulders go through 180, I understand the contention that if you do the 180 turn you feel weak and in the earlly stages unbalenced, but to me it is a pure training exercise to help develop extremes of movement, no I would never turn the way I do in Chum Kiu, but I use the knowledge gained in the turning of Chum Kiu in everything I do in Wing Chun.

I'd be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I'm not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman

Be as cheeky as you like, knowledge is power, the bliss of ignorance is not for me, lol:D

[t_niehoff]

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.


Chi sao is an exercise and/or platform, and depending on how we do/perform that exercise, we can learn/develop different things. And, your focus can cahnge over time based on where you are at in your development.


7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.


WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent's center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.


8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.


I don't know what you mean by "self defense moves." If you mean techniques that are used in fighting, then I disagree with you. The linked sets represent the tools of WCK, which include the techniques. Imagine someone put together a liked set for tennis -- it would include examples of the various tools of tennis (serve, forehand, backhand, drop shot, etc.).


9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.


Power, other than localized muscle, comes from body mechanics. The lien wan choi (linked chain punches) is many things. And like most things in WCK, our understanding of them is dependent upon our skill level, and so changes with our skill level.


10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it's way too slow.


As I said, like most things in WCK, our understanding of them is dependent upon our skill level, and so changes with our skill level.

[Han Man]

Thanks for replies. So no stickyness per se yet then?

TJWingChun

Could you expand on what you mean by sensitivity with regards to point 6. I'm not sure if I was too simplistic in my stance:-

"6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement."

I've seen somebody else post on another thread, words to the effect of "Chi Sau is to train the attibutes you need for fighting". I hear a phrase to this effect often in my class, the problem is that it can be interpreted to mean anything. I'm thinking it means specifically the attributes of power through structure, and how to react (and maintain structure) when someone exerts force upon you.


T Niehoff (Terrence?)

In your answer about point 7:-

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent's center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn't this a similar view to Victor Parlatti's (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?


Also, I'd like to add another question - a hypothetical one-

If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend's head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama:)) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn't we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this 'being a slave to Wing Chun'?

Just thinking aloud, and I don't mean to p*ss anyone off, but if you can't use it in all ranges, and you can't use it to develop a highly powerful punch, then wouldn't your time be better spent studying something else?


Kevin,

Hello from London - I'm taught by Des and funnily enough, also used to attend the association you were affiliated with prior to your meeting Philipp Bayer!

Cheers,

Phil

[Matrix]

WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent's center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body. This is a KEY distinction, IMO. I like to use the term "center of mass" that I picked up from David Peterson's book, since it has a very 3-dimensional aspect to it that I find appealing.
Other than that I think Terence has answered all of the questions very well.

Just thinking aloud, and I don't mean to p*ss anyone off, but if you can't use it in all ranges, and you can't use it to develop a highly powerful punch, then wouldn't your time be better spent studying something else?First of all, if someone gets p*ssed off by your questions, I would say that is more a reflection of a problem that they have, rather than anything much to do with your question.
While I cannot answer for Terrence, I don't think that what he said is equivalent to Victor's position on this issue. IMO, Wing Chun is effective at all ranges, but we strive to get in close to bring the fight to its proper conclusion.

[jesper]

Also, I'd like to add another question - a hypothetical one-

If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend's head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class


e. Smash his kneecap with a front/side kick

[YungChun]

I've seen somebody else post on another thread, words to the effect of "Chi Sau is to train the attibutes you need for fighting". I hear a phrase to this effect often in my class, the problem is that it can be interpreted to mean anything. I'm thinking it means specifically the attributes of power through structure, and how to react (and maintain structure) when someone exerts force upon you.

Or when you exert force on him.... And when he resists..

Arm to arm bridges are incidental.. Hitting your opponent isn't...


If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend's head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama:)) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn't we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this 'being a slave to Wing Chun'?

No...IMO...

You attack him... What does that mean? It means you hit, keep hitting, kick keep kicking, elbow, keep elbowing, knee, keep kneeing, choke, keep choking... If you get my meaning..

And punches are not the end all be all of most martial arts.. Of all the strikes in WCK what percentage of them are punches? Ask yourself why...

On Chi Sao.. Something I wrote a while ago.. I think I still agree with most of it.. :)

================
Chi Sao and related material are DRILLS.. The drills are how WCK folks work on attribute development as it relates to WCK--Chi Sao is not fighting. The purpose of any of this kind of training is developing attributes FOR WCK fighting and for SELF DEFENSE, which is NOT always the same thing.

It cultivates attributes and skills like:

Contact Reflexes

Meaning a sensitivity to various conditions that can and will exist when fighters "clash", meaning forceful contact with the arms, legs and body happens, something that happens often enough in real fighting—forceful contact.

Awareness to position and range

Conditions that WCK trains to be sensitive to relate to body and bridge position and energy. This translates into how, as it applies to energy/force, the opponent's resistance manifests <how he leaves the line> and how to use this resistance depending on what position you find yourself in to gain an advantage in order to apply an effective attack.

Why Sensitivity Training?

In order to:

Speed up our timing

Just as grapplers use feeling to determine how to control the opponent using the concepts and moves in their system WCK emphasizes relying on feeling as much as possible because responding to feeling is several times faster than is relying on sight--due to reaction delay..

WCK in it's simplest form is about learning how to control the center space through adapting to the opponent's energy and position, just as a grappler does, except in this case using WCK techniques, structure and concepts..

More over these kinds of drills re-enforce and ingrain a myriad of key system concepts into the body, like:

General Center Space theory
Hand Unity
Hand Replacement
Bi-Directional Energy
Using the opponent's energy against him
Leaving and Returning to the line
Body Unity
Body Alignment
WCK Structure
Economy of Motion
WCK Power generation and release
Freed Hand Attacks the Line
Attacking Hand Defends
Facing and Following
Hand Hits from where it is..
Fan Sao--or Continuity of Attack
Making Three movements at once
Combining attack and defense

And on and on...

These drills, when taught and trained the right way may not be a "cure all" but they represent a highly evolved training platform for cultivating several key system components via a PROGRESSIVE TRAINING method. The method addresses the majority of WCK concepts and integrates them as a whole that can be trained against progressive resistance and internalized..

The progression is an ingenious method of cultivating in a cohesive manner most of WCK's key attributes in a format that can be completely unrehearsed and free, or it can be broken down into parts for students to focus on where they may need work. These dynamic sensitivity drills form the basic training of the system and provide a context for each tool, technique and concept and the opportunity to work them in a kind of WCK laboratory where our attributes, techniques and concepts can be cultivated with progressive resistance--ideally they become a natural part of us.

What is good about movement A and what is bad about movement A is a gross over-simplification; It all depends on the conditions that exist in the moment. Each tool has a use and time it is best applied.. There is no guarantee, however, that any training move or technique will ever be needed since this all depends on what the opponent does or fails to do.. Indeed some WCK moves will NEVER be needed, but this does not invalidate training to adapt to the opponent's energy and position, since this is at the heart of what ANY MA system or method of training is trying to do, the only question is how one goes about it and what methods one wishes to train and cultivate..

WCK emphasizes training feeling and kinesthetic awareness as it relates to controlling our "center space" and center <CG> of the opponent. At close quarter combat range sight is almost useless, and deceptive as well, so other senses are cultivated in these drills. We train to use energy, ours and his, the given position, leverage and our system's concepts to take control of the opponent by the most economic means possible--and that is the study made here in the drills..

No doubt that folks can get carried away by this large area of focus. So folks need to also work on Visual Sensitivity and working from the outside, non contact ranges, how to read the opponent, etc. And these things must be addressed in Sparring drills and sparring that involves MAINLY IMO sparring folks that DO NOT do WCK...

So, these drills form what is the base and core of WCK theory and how that is internalized... Don't get confused by the "fancy moves" in these drills--don't take the training so literally—look beyond petty technique--it is about the underlying lessons and concepts that are being taught.

The drilling is finally about a study of energy and position, through feeling and kinesthetic awareness and how to become sensitive enough to this resistance to adapt, naturally, economically and with superior timing and position. The objective of this drilling is to train the student how to use WCK concepts and internalize them in order to take control and finish the opponent.

In the end the training is the training, don’t confuse the Finger for the Moon, this stuff is all about using less not more, to become simpler, not more complicated and, as with any art you get out of it what you put into it—train harder and smarter and the result will be better.

[Matrix]

Do anything but "c. Chain punch as fast as possible."

[t_niehoff]

T Niehoff (Terrence?)

In your answer about point 7:-

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent's center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn't this a similar view to Victor Parlatti's (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?


From what I read of Victor's views, they are not similar to mine. IME WCK is not "just for" very close range fighting -- but our method is a contact fighting method, where we are attached to the opponent (which results in us being very close). The method provides us with the tools and skills to get contact and what to do once we're there -- isn't this all ranges of stand-up? But if someone wanted to stay on the outside, in free-movement range, then IMO they'd be better off doing something besides WCK. WCK kickboxing is IMO just poor kickboxing.


Also, I'd like to add another question - a hypothetical one-

If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend's head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama:)) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn't we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this 'being a slave to Wing Chun'?


In that scenario, I'd pick up a weapon (a brick, a stick, whatever) and hit him with that. Seriously. But if I had to fight him standing up, I'd do what I do best.

I am a strong believer in that what you learn, how you train it, and what you do in fighting should correspond 1 to 1 to 1 (which, btw, is not the traditional model of training).

A huge problem with these sorts of hypotheticals is the underlying assumption that there is a "one best answer." There's not. It always comes down to the individual. How (and when, where, why, etc.) an individual can use the WCK punch, or any technique for that matter, will depend on that person and their development at that time. So, for example, if a person doesn't have"knock out power" with their punch, what would be the point of trying to knock the guy out with a punch? Learning to fight (well) involves taking your tools, your talent, your tendencies, your likes and dislikes, your strengths and weaknesses, etc. and crafting them in a way to best suit you.


Just thinking aloud, and I don't mean to p*ss anyone off, but if you can't use it in all ranges, and you can't use it to develop a highly powerful punch, then wouldn't your time be better spent studying something else?


If you want to learn to kickbox, yes, you'd be better off doing muay thai. If you want to learn to groundfight, you'd be better off doing BJJ.

As I see and practice WCK, the punch mainly serves one purpose: to destroy the opponent's structure. If it knocks him out, that's gravy for the goose. But in terms of finishing, the punch is secondary. When you are in close and attached, punching packs a lot less wallop than elbows and knees for instance.

[Edmund]

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn't we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this 'being a slave to Wing Chun'?




None of the above.

If you run over and blindside someone, you are basically asking anyone else who happens to be standing around to do the same to you. It happens all the time.

The big bloke can have friends or even some strangers who takes offence at you just suckerpunching somebody while he's pre-occupied.

There's a massive difference between stepping in the way to stop a beating and just cracking someone.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Previously I've trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

1. Chi Sau helped develop 'stickiness' so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

AND THAT'S STILL ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CHI SAO TEACHES. (The key word here is "one").

2. Consequently a 'bridge' is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

***IF THERE'S A TARGET TO HIT...without putting yourself at risk of being hit back on another line - then you forget arm-to-arm contact and go for the hit on the target. Otherwise you seek a bridge if his arm(s) are occupying a critical LANE. And if he's a good fighter than he'll be covering/occupying critical lanes more often then not - so expect bridges to occur often.

3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

***CORRECT.


4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

***YES, BUT DON'T FORGET about power also coming from the lower body structure of driving with the legs and some torque coming from the hips - which could be straight forward or a turning motion. And proper breathing (ie.- exhalation). And a bent knee, knees-in, and hips locked forward structure.


5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant's attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to release or redirect their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu.


***YES, BUT AGAIN, don't forget about other things as well, such as using your wing chun arm and hand motions which may or may not require a pivot away from the force, ie.- jut, bong, tan, huen, chuen, pak, etc...And besides the basic pivot there are also sinking, spring loading, releasing, and redirecting motions that may not require you to pivot at all. And last - but certainly not least...there's actual footwork, ie.- full side steps, half sidesteps, back steps, etc. that can be used to avoid, release, or help redirect his powerful force or penetration into your space.


Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.


***NO, CHI SAO still has to do with stickiness (at times)...but now it seems that you've learned more about what chi sao also offers. :) ;)


7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.


***IF HIS HANDS/ARMS occupy a critical LANE - then it's not bad - it's still good. (Unless, of course, you enjoy getting hit). :p


8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.


***COMPLETELY FALSE ASSUMPTION...you were right the first time, long ago - in a galaxy far, far away. The forms contain/teach many things, including some specific self defense and combat moves/techniques - along with wing chun's famous CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES.


9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it's a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.


***WRONG. Don't expect to end a fight with one single wing chun punch. That's a myth. Expect to throw multiple wing chun punches to knock someone out - or maybe finish him with a rear cross. Don't be shy. :cool:


10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it's way too slow.

***WRONG AGAIN. Expect to turn the hips when using bong sao in real fighting against punches - unless the other guy has no power at all. But don't put your eggs in that basket.

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

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent's center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn't this a similar view to Victor Parlatti's (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?"


***sounds like a similar view, yes. And therefore, a correct view. :D And I reccommend supplementing wing chun with some boxing hands from longer range (straight stiff leads and rear crosses - and catch wrestling when the fight gets even closer). But there are other good choices in grappling range as well. And don't forget about some nice Thai boxing double neck/collar ties and knee strikes from very close range also.

NOW LET ME SAY A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS: Since wing chun requires the centerline to face the opponent's center of mass while throwing strikes and thereby allows you to use two hands simultaneously to the same distance - it is by definition a short arm short range striking/kicking system. There's no getting around that fact. It is what it is.

So when up against an opponent with serious boxing or kickboxing skills - AND ESPECIALLY IF HIS REACH IS LONGER BECAUSE HE'S TALLER...then the limitations of wing chun become very apparent - since his boxing striking structure (ie.- boxing footwork and horizontal punches with shoulder torque) enables him to reach longer than you with his attacks. I use boxing moves to counter this possible problem as a means of getting close enough to square up my shoulders and go to wing chun work. And it works very well. I intend to post a vid of this sometime this summer against a boxer who's 200 lbs. and 6' tall (I'm 5' 10" - 170 lbs).

And as to the hypothetical you asked about - your first answer is the best:

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.

Because a big rear cross or hook with lots of body torgue are power punches that can easily be fight-enders.

And there's only one "T" in my last name.

Good questions, good thread. :)

[Matrix]

NOW LET ME SAY A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS: Since wing chun requires the centerline to face the opponent's center of mass while throwing strikes and thereby allows you to use two hands simultaneously to the same distance - it is by definition a short arm short range striking/kicking system. There's no getting around that fact. It is what it is.

So when up against an opponent with serious boxing or kickboxing skills - AND ESPECIALLY IF HIS REACH IS LONGER BECAUSE HE'S TALLER...then the limitations of wing chun become very apparent - since his boxing striking structure (ie.- boxing footwork and horizontal punches with shoulder torque) enables him to reach longer than you with his attacks. I use boxing moves to counter this possible problem as a means of getting close enough to square up my shoulders and go to wing chun work. And it works very well. I intend to post a vid of this sometime this summer against a boxer who's 200 lbs. and 6' tall (I'm 5' 10" - 170 lbs).
Victor,
I fail to see how switching to your opponents style, that is box a boxer, would give you any advantage. In fact, if he has "serious boxing skills" then I think you're just playing into his game since by definition you are playing into his strengths. I figure he will just pick you apart like a long range sniper.

I also disagree that Wing Chun is strictly short-arm and short-range. Yes, that's where we want to end up, inside the eye of the hurricane, but you need the footwork and striking skills to get you there.

[t_niehoff]

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent's center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn't this a similar view to Victor Parlatti's (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?"

***sounds like a similar view, yes. And therefore, a correct view. :D And I reccommend supplementing wing chun with some boxing hands from longer range (straight stiff leads and rear crosses - and catch wrestling when the fight gets even closer). But there are other good choices in grappling range as well. And don't forget about some nice Thai boxing double neck/collar ties and knee strikes from very close range also.


I think that while we may agree that WCK works at close range, I believe that is about as far as our agreement goes.

In my view, WCK gives us the skills/tools to to deal with long range and get into contact (close range) safely. However, there's nothing wrong with learning to box, and it can be a great asset in your training and can give you a good (potent) outside (free movment) game.

My experience is that WCK provides the skills/tools to deal with an opponent "when the fight gets even closer" -- as I see WCK as essentally a clinch/dirty boxing method (and so involves grappling). My WCK has double neck collar ties (double neck pulling hand) and knees.


NOW LET ME SAY A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS: Since wing chun requires the centerline to face the opponent's center of mass while throwing strikes and thereby allows you to use two hands simultaneously to the same distance - it is by definition a short arm short range striking/kicking system. There's no getting around that fact. It is what it is.


WCK is a contact/attached fighting method that combines grappling and striking (the kuit even tells us this, btw), and that is why we face the opponent and want to use both hands "simultaneously" (as does anyone in the clinch).


So when up against an opponent with serious boxing or kickboxing skills - AND ESPECIALLY IF HIS REACH IS LONGER BECAUSE HE'S TALLER...then the limitations of wing chun become very apparent - since his boxing striking structure (ie.- boxing footwork and horizontal punches with shoulder torque) enables him to reach longer than you with his attacks. I use boxing moves to counter this possible problem as a means of getting close enough to square up my shoulders and go to wing chun work. And it works very well. I intend to post a vid of this sometime this summer against a boxer who's 200 lbs. and 6' tall (I'm 5' 10" - 170 lbs).


You should say that the limitations of your WCK becomes apparent. As I said, in my view WCK provides us with the tools/skills to deal with this situation. If you don't have those skills/tools, then you need to substitute them with something else.

[anerlich]

I also disagree that the forms are all about "concepts" and have no self defense applications.

If the "concept" has no practical application then it is a useless concept.

The mistake made with forms is the notion that an entire sequence of moves in the form will lend itself to a single realistic response. One or maybe two moves is probably the limit - too much is going on unless the opponent is a statue, totally compliant, or totally clueless.

I also disagree that boxing is only useful at long range. Good close hooks, uppercuts, and overhand rights are effective close range techniques and can be quite difficult for a WC person used to blocking WC straight punches with pak and larp saos to defend against.

Assuming you necessarily have an advantage with WC at close range because the other guy is a boxer is about as fallacious as assuming that chi sao will give you the edge in sensitivity over a grappler.

[Liddel]

I totally agree with Andrew on this one....

I also disagree that the forms are all about "concepts" and have no self defense applications.

If the "concept" has no practical application then it is a useless concept.


My forms only contain actions that have direct application to certain situations and/or specific purpose for training energies/abilities of the body. If it has no use then i get rid of it.

This is why i have disagreed with those that see the differences between schools forms as differences in flair and choreography.
At the very least these differences are in purpose and energy. No right or Wrong.

Also, i believe the idea that VT is only a close range fighting system to be false IME.

Mainly because all the actions from VT i use are preformed in my personal space.
Attack or defensive.....

If you want to strike me with long range punches or kicks. You have to (or your weapon, hand or foot) enter this space.
I also believe that if you whole heartedly perscibe to the idea that VT is only for close range..... then your punching and footwork needs work. ;)

With this idea in mind, i def side with Andrew on the Boxing range also.....

[Matrix]

I also disagree that boxing is only useful at long range.
Andrew,
The point was not that boxing is only useful at long ranges, at least not as far as I'm concerned. In the context of the discussion, Victor seems to want to use boxing at long range and switch to wing chun at short range. I just think it's a mistake to try an out box a boxer. Besides, I don't see the need for switching at all. Play your own game.

[anerlich]

The point was not that boxing is only useful at long ranges

You're right. I was trying to say that to assume boxing isn't useful in close is wrong. My instructor's whacked quite a few WC purists with short hooks over the years.

[Han Man]

Hello Again

Firstly:-

Victor,
If I could play Devil’s advocate for a while – if Wing Chun doesn’t teach you how to deal with people from a longer range, would it not be a more efficient use of time to train in Thai Boxing, which most certainly does have both longer and shorter (pre-contact and in-contact) methods?

Secondly

With regards to punching power, I’m now thinking that Wing Chun can be used to develop a very strong punch and that this is a primary objective since a central concept to the system is to punch first. If a system of defence has the idea of landing a punch as the key concept within the system, then surely developing a strong punch should be the most important part of the system? Hence my thinking on what Chi Sau is for i.e.:-

1. To generate forward force from pushing off the ground, through hips and elbow, and into the fist. Force generated via the structure / alignment and the correct training methods should create as powerful a ‘forward’ punch as any other forward punching technique.

2. To enable the ability via structural awareness / force, to deal with incoming force (assailant’s arms etc) to be able to divert incoming force without needing to pivot or compromise the concept of facing. Hence being more likely to deliver another punch quicker than an assailant should the need be, as well as having the opportunity to match your two hands against your assailant’s one hand.

Furthermore I’d like to expand on the question about whether the forms teach concepts and exercises for training concepts or actual applications. For example in SNT when you Bong and then use the upward palm strike, is this:-

1.A sequence that forms a fighting application that works. I.e. Somebody attacks you in some way and your response involves use of the Bong followed by upward palm, just as in the form.

2. Simply two techniques demonstrated one after the other – i.e. a demonstration of a Bong followed by a demonstration of a different type of strike.

3. An exercise designed to ensure that your elbow always returns to the downward position after using a Bong and before / as part of you next strike (which should be a punch). If a punch was used here in the form instead of an upward palm, then over time people would start the punch before returning the elbow to the correct position, consequently an upward palm (which has to have the elbow in the correct position – other wise it would start to look like a diagonal palm) is used.

Cheers,

Phil

[t_niehoff]

Hello Again

Firstly:-

Victor,
If I could play Devil’s advocate for a while – if Wing Chun doesn’t teach you how to deal with people from a longer range, would it not be a more efficient use of time to train in Thai Boxing, which most certainly does have both longer and shorter (pre-contact and in-contact) methods?


In my view, it wouldn't make much sense to have a contact (short range) method of fighting that doesn't provide you with the tools/skills to get there.


Secondly

With regards to punching power, I’m now thinking that Wing Chun can be used to develop a very strong punch and that this is a primary objective since a central concept to the system is to punch first. If a system of defence has the idea of landing a punch as the key concept within the system, then surely developing a strong punch should be the most important part of the system? Hence my thinking on what Chi Sau is for i.e.:-


In my view the "reason" the focus is on developing the punch in WCK is because that is a means of developing our body structure or body mechanics that will, in turn, be used in just about everything we do. The punch isn't some isolated thing, and it can't be developed independent of the body mechanics. In fact, the punch is merely a conduit or extension of that mechanics/structure. So, of course, the development of the punch (body mechanics/structure) will tie in to everything else we do.


1. To generate forward force from pushing off the ground, through hips and elbow, and into the fist. Force generated via the structure / alignment and the correct training methods should create as powerful a ‘forward’ punch as any other forward punching technique.


No, it won't. An overhand right, for example, thrown "correctly" is much more powerful. The WCK punch, in my view, is for attached striking. And if you are not attached and want to remain in free movement, the WCK punch doesn't make good sense to me. There are better ways to strike. But when we are attached to the opponent, certain demands and limitations are placed upon us (for example, we must maintain facing, keep our balance, etc.). Good WCK body mechanics/structure provides the optimum balance between meeting those demands and producing power. Besides, the objective of the punch is to destroy the opponent's structure, not necessarily as a finishing technique.


2. To enable the ability via structural awareness / force, to deal with incoming force (assailant’s arms etc) to be able to divert incoming force without needing to pivot or compromise the concept of facing. Hence being more likely to deliver another punch quicker than an assailant should the need be, as well as having the opportunity to match your two hands against your assailant’s one hand.


The structure of the punch does permit us to receive incoming pressure and destroy his structure (the other side of the coin). But it's not a matter of "speed" -- being able to punch more quickly than the opponent.


Furthermore I’d like to expand on the question about whether the forms teach concepts and exercises for training concepts or actual applications. For example in SNT when you Bong and then use the upward palm strike, is this:-

1.A sequence that forms a fighting application that works. I.e. Somebody attacks you in some way and your response involves use of the Bong followed by upward palm, just as in the form.

2. Simply two techniques demonstrated one after the other – i.e. a demonstration of a Bong followed by a demonstration of a different type of strike.

3. An exercise designed to ensure that your elbow always returns to the downward position after using a Bong and before / as part of you next strike (which should be a punch). If a punch was used here in the form instead of an upward palm, then over time people would start the punch before returning the elbow to the correct position, consequently an upward palm (which has to have the elbow in the correct position – other wise it would start to look like a diagonal palm) is used.

Cheers,

Phil

The linked sets (forms) are in many ways like ink blots -- people read into them what they want to. And that projection depends upon their level of skill (which determines their level of understanding of how to apply WCK).

[k gledhill]

The system is for close range , granted. Why ? because it will minimize our chances of injury by attacking at the constant distances of chisao. Not sticking to arms but striking in 'our' trained distances using short shuffling steps to harness an unbroken line of leg force as we do driving off the rear heel [not step 'n' drag as some see the ink blot :D]....we stay with what comes because its to our advantage...we follow as it tries to regain its 'advantage' and trap/hit as we advance relentlessly.

We test ourselves by delivering inch punches to show correct or incorrect distance at the critical period of countering an incoming limb [seung ma toi ma] by the test we can 'check' our structure is capable of delivering a ging shot by simply driving the heel and fist apart in a short sharp shock ...if the recipient of the test moves with sufficient ease , one can rest assured that if delivered full force in the correct timing angles etc... the end results will be effective...:D

No contact needs to be maintained while hitting in this manner, but if a strike is interupted we train to remove and simultaneously hit with the rear vu position, basic thinking. More often than not 1 punch is all it takes, to me anyway . IN reality nobody is prepared for your 'shot' they dont know you do VT , let alone any MA. Its hiding a concealed weapon and pulling it at the last second. Like surprise attacks , they rarely fail same with flanking responses to head on charges, flank to soon and the charge just comes at you, to late and your overwhlemed head on, sounds like chisao, all good sound military directives, overwhelm with superior forces yadayadayada.:D

ink blots are just ink blots unless your being told what to see by some who were told as well....what do you see ? I see unconsious people. :D

[t_niehoff]

The system is for close range , granted. Why ? because it will minimize our chances of injury by attacking at the constant distances of chisao. Not sticking to arms but striking in 'our' trained distances using short shuffling steps to harness an unbroken line of leg force as we do driving off the rear heel [not step 'n' drag as some see the ink blot :D]....we stay with what comes because its to our advantage...we follow as it tries to regain its 'advantage' and trap/hit as we advance relentlessly.


I don't know if there is a "why" about it. BJJ is for the ground. Why? Because that's where its tools work. WCK's tools work in contact. If you are in close range and not in contact (which can provide control over an opponent), it is equal -- both sides can do anything. The contact permits us to limit what the opponent can do.

In my view, we don't want to stay and won't be able to stay in "chi sao range" for any length of time, because it is very difficult to maintain control in that range and because if the opponent is good, he'll go right through that range. Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise; it doesn't represent the reality of a fight. We can maintain contact but no certain range.


We test ourselves by delivering inch punches to show correct or incorrect distance at the critical period of countering an incoming limb [seung ma toi ma] by the test we can 'check' our structure is capable of delivering a ging shot by simply driving the heel and fist apart in a short sharp shock ...if the recipient of the test moves with sufficient ease , one can rest assured that if delivered full force in the correct timing angles etc... the end results will be effective...:D


Inch (short range) power is in everything we do in my view, and if we are in contact, we should be able to use it. There is no"correct" and "incorrect" distance. Our performance of something, even if done properly, is no guarantee of effectiveness (the result we want).


No contact needs to be maintained while hitting in this manner, but if a strike is interupted we train to remove and simultaneously hit with the rear vu position, basic thinking. More often than not 1 punch is all it takes, to me anyway . IN reality nobody is prepared for your 'shot' they dont know you do VT , let alone any MA. Its hiding a concealed weapon and pulling it at the last second. Like surprise attacks , they rarely fail same with flanking responses to head on charges, flasnk to soon and the charge just comes at you to late and your overwhlemed head on, sounds like chisao, all good sound military directives, overwhelm with superior forces yadayadayada.:D


Yes, people can get into close range and just punch (without contact). But that's a risky strategy IME -- because if the other guy is any good and has any skills, he'll be hitting you too. My WCK is to be low risk and high percentage. If anyone believes "all it takes" is "1 punch", they don't have much experience IMO. Trained people, and even a lot of untrained people - particularly if they are larger than yourself - can take many good shots and keep coming.


ink blots are just ink blots unless your being told what to see by some who were told as well....what do you see ? I see unconsious people. :D

And how do you know what you were told was accurate or that your interpretation of what you were told is correct or that you can even do it the way you were told to or that there isn't a better way or . . . ? There is theory (this is what I was told or believe) and there is experience (this is what I do and have done). People have all kinds of beliefs - like "1 punch is all it takes". The problem is our understanding of WCK is limited by and determined by our skill -- what we can really do. If you can't do it in fighting, your theory ("1 punch is all it takes") is worthless. So in my view, instead of being concerned with what the ink blot "means" (the theory of what we believe about WCK), just be concerned with what you can do (evidence of actual results).

[k gledhill]

I have personal experience, over 10 years of bar bouncing :D its not all about the ring or hitting 'experienced' people is it ? I dont fight to compete, thats my reality. In my experience guys come in protecting but unaware of the direct shot coming at them ...its not so complicated as it seems . a simple end result, by the same token Ive trapped palmed, kicked, elbowed, eye jabbed, etc... as well, so its not just a 'punch'.... hitting bags like any good training will develop your striking capabilities regardless of the name you do 'it' under...I hit a lot of heavy bags not air in my training . The results are usually a guy falling over , sometimes when fighting 2 guys I can only eye jab one so I can hit another before he gets me , 1st come 1st served....:D structure of facing an angle to deliver the force in the right distances , while avoiding yourself being injured but always striving to be in your distances , nobody said it was easy...Ive gone to the ground a few times as well, relying on my judo, that worked to :D, but in a nighclub fighting unknown numbers its best to watch hands for knives and hit whoever gets to close for comfort.
Dont forget that in a street /bar/club/ train encounter there is no preparation or training for it like a ring , a guy starts cursing you or your girl and ...its off and runing and you have to be ready, set, go,... not ooops , ouch .VT is about minmizng the ooops factor.

[YungChun]

Yes, people can get into close range and just punch (without contact). But that's a risky strategy IME -- because if the other guy is any good and has any skills, he'll be hitting you too.

Which is why you are supposed to be drving into him with body power... Indeed if his center is open and you are hitting him you ARE taking his balance and releasing power.. I wonder what else you are advocating doing in the way of control?

Also wondering what if any value you ascribe Chi Sao, since you seem to advocate "controlling" even if the opponent isn't occupying the line.

[YungChun]

I have personal experience, over 10 years of bar bouncing :D its not all about the ring or hitting 'experienced' people is it ? I dont fight to compete, thats my reality. In my experience guys come in protecting but unaware of the direct shot coming at them ...its not so complicated as it seems . a simple end result, by the same token Ive trapped palmed, kicked, elbowed, eye jabbed, etc... as well, so its not just a 'punch'

A good and refreshing perspective.... Indeed I have also found that the system can "work just fine" despite whatever problems some have had.

As a person using the system from a bouncer's perspective, I wonder, what is your feeling about the traditional training? Chi Sao, and so on..

Victor and others have mentioned how important being "fearless" can be when fighting.. With so many layers upon layers of doubts and over analysis that is tossed around this board it is a wonder any WCK person who agrees with the myriad limitations exposed here on a moment to moment basis has much if any fearlessness left to spare.. I've rarely heard any grapplers agonizing over and over, day after day, year after year, over how to 'enter' on their opponents...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Pictures (videos) are worth 1,000 words, as the saying goes. And so when I post a vid or two what I'm trying to say will become more apparent.

But for now, let me say this: I've posted numerous times on different threads about using some boxing hands and footwork married to TWC centraline principles - wherein I'm throwing straight leads and rear crosses on certain lines (but actually the word LANE is more appropriate)...

as a means of getting in. And not only does it work - but it works quickly. I can get to close quarter wing chun range very quickly with this method.

So I'm not boxing like a boxer.

I'm using some boxing to get in close - there's a difference.

And I agree with Andrew Nerlich that at times using some boxing hooks, uppercuts, overhands, etc. from close quarters will work nicely.

As will an occasional rear cross to a hard target from longer range.

And as for the idea that I do this (use some boxing) because my wing chun skills are lacking, great...now show me what you can do, whoever you are (and you know who you are)...

on a vid against a good boxer who knows how to use his longer reach against you, ie.- hooks around your straight punches - or perhaps he uppercuts or overhands as you do that...or maybe he keeps his hands back close to his body (or his side) - and then hooks, uppercuts, overhands, or rear crosses on a different line when you come in close, or by using long leads and crosses to keep you at bay, and then kicks (in combination with hands) from that range as you come in - or maybe he hooks or uppercuts off his lead as you come in - even though you're thinking that you've now got him on defense after blocking, redirecting, or avoiding his longer/straighter punches - and you follow him back in, etc.

Oh, you can't or won't do that?

Okay...then show me any vid of any wing chun guy against such a quality boxer (or kickboxer)...with a longer reach. Not interested in training vids or still pictures. Show us a vid of a real match up.

[YungChun]

Clips are out there, have been posted..

The problem is that as soon as the "boxer" starts to take hits or appears to loose the exchanges, etc.. The boxer is no longer a "quality" boxer whatever that means..

Likewise, as soon as the WCK guy starts to loose or looses the exchanges *he* is no longer a quality WCK guy...

IOW, it's all relative... In the end its about the fighters themselves and what they do with what they have... I have said it before and will continue to say.. Timing, Distance Awareness, power and heart have more to do with success than any of this technique/system superiority crap... Attributes--*the fighter*, is what wins or looses fights not systems, not name brands....

[Ultimatewingchun]

What clips are you talking about?

Against someone trained/skilled in boxing.

[YungChun]

What clips are you talking about?

Against someone trained/skilled in boxing.

It's the same thing...

If they start loosing they are no longer "skilled" in boxing..

If boxing is better for some folks or in the opinion of some folks then I fail to see why they simply don't just do Boxing like 99% of most folks..

-----------------------------------------------------------------

There are quite a few clips of boxing types sparring WCK types.. The most common one was of that WT guy sparring two different boxing types in a large gym....

But I know they weren't skilled.... Oye..

This one seemed fitting to post right now.. Despite a lack of any real contact...

I know he isn't skilled or whatever the problem was... Still there's your teacher Victor in a clip I have never seen before..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi-e3a2tw90

[Ultimatewingchun]

"If they start loosing they are no longer "skilled" in boxing.."


***I DON'T BUY THIS ARGUMENT, Jim.

Is Mirko Cro Cop a bad kickboxer because he was brought to the ground and beaten by Fedor, or submitted by Nog?

Is Royce Gracie a bad jiu jitsu fighter because he was kicked relentlessly by Sakuraba?

[YungChun]

"If they start loosing they are no longer "skilled" in boxing.."


***I DON"T BUY THIS ARGUMENT, Jim.

Is Mirko Cro Cop a bad kickboxer because he was brought to the ground and beaten by Fedor, or submitted by Nog?

Is Royce Gracie a bad jiu jitsu fighter because he was kicked relentlessly by Sakuraba?

It's not my argument and you need not buy it..

It's what folks will say, have said, when the boxing type looses the exchanges OR when the WCK guy looses.. We all have reps to protect after all. :rolleyes:

In these kinds of amateur clips we are not talking about nor seeing champion fighters who have made a name in world class competitions or who have international recognition and so that type of comparison does not apply..

[Ultimatewingchun]

Granted we're not going to see MMA "champions" on such vids - and I see your point about "what some people will say"...

But come on, there's got to be something out there wherein the trained boxer looks good but he still was bested by a skilled wing chun guy. Or vice versa. Or maybe it looks kind of even between the two of them. No?

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

And that clip of William Cheung and Rafael is a perfect example of what I'm not talking about.

William is taller and has a longer reach than Rafael Ramos. I'm talking about the reverse.

(And yes, Raphael is a skilled boxer. He was trained in Cus D'mato's peek-a-boo boxing style by trainers at the boxing gym owned by former Light Heavyweight Champion Jose Torres, and Rafael has fought professionally himself back in the day).

[YungChun]

Granted we're not going to see MMA "champions" on such vids - and I see your point about "what some people will say"...

But come on, there's got to be something out there wherein the trained boxer looks good but he still was bested by a skilled wing chun guy. Or vice versa. Or maybe it looks kind of even between the two of them. No?

I think that kind of stuff is out there but again what are the levels of such players and how does it matter in terms of evaluating an art?

Even comparing boxers and WCK folks is comparing apples and oranges..

Most guys who box go in for full contact they WANT to fight--HARD... They DO fight in the ring.. They're level of training hard is at a different point than most TMA and most WCK folks...

The average TMA and WCK student does NOT want to fight and doesn't or does as little as possible... IOW they don't train nearly as hard or as realistically.. We see this in some of the comments made here.. You can tell they have never been in the FIRE because you can't put out a fire with a squirt gun, as some seem to advocate..

As a result of light training they are lacking the hard core attribute development found in those who train at these higher levels..

And that's okay.. Everyone is entitled to train at the level they wish.. This unfortunately or not becomes the perceived reflection of the system they train.........

[Ultimatewingchun]

And as for this, Jim...

"Victor and others have mentioned how important being "fearless" can be when fighting.. With so many layers upon layers of doubts and over analysis that is tossed around this board it is a wonder any WCK person who agrees with the myriad limitations exposed here on a moment to moment basis has much if any fearlessness left to spare.. I've rarely heard any grapplers agonizing over and over, day after day, year after year, over how to 'enter' on their opponents..."


***Part of where fearlessness comes from is the experience of seeing that what you do works + the Faith that it will continue to work in the future against those you don't know.

And at this point - after much experience of fighting/sparring skilled guys (like boxers and kickboxers) with heavy contact to face/head, body, and legs (with gear on)...I have quite a bit of faith in what I'm doing now...mixing some boxing with wing chun and wrestling.

The same taller, heavier boxer who constantly picked me off (or held me pretty much even) in the past is now relatively easy to get in on, for example...when sparring full contact and using thin, semi-fingerless gloves. And he rarely hits me at this point. Not with any solid shots, anyway. And he rarely stops or counters me from getting to him once the fight goes to the wing chun space.

That's a serious confidence builder.

And the same with two other bigger guys who trained in kickboxing. My success rate aginst them now (in hard contact sparring) is way beyond what it was in the past, ie.- they rarely hit or kick me with any power and have a hell of a time stopping me from hitting them with wing chun attacks from close range.

So I believe I'm on a good track. Better than any other track I've been on before.

And against guys who are my size or smaller - wing chun pure and simple works a lot more than it does against the bigger guys. So why is that? Do the math.

[YungChun]

And as for this, Jim...

"Victor and others have mentioned how important being "fearless" can be when fighting.. With so many layers upon layers of doubts and over analysis that is tossed around this board it is a wonder any WCK person who agrees with the myriad limitations exposed here on a moment to moment basis has much if any fearlessness left to spare.. I've rarely heard any grapplers agonizing over and over, day after day, year after year, over how to 'enter' on their opponents..."


***Part of where fearlessness comes from is the experience of seeing that what you do works + the Faith that it will continue to work in the future against those you don't know.

And at this point - after much experience of fighting/sparring skilled guys (like boxers and kickboxers) with heavy contact to face/head, body, and legs (with gear on)...I have quite a bit of faith in what I'm doing now...mixing some boxing with wing chun and wrestling.

The same taller, heavier boxer who constantly picked me off (or held me pretty much even) in the past is now relatively easy to get in on, for example...when sparring full contact and using thin, semi-fingerless gloves. And he rarely hits me at this point. Not with any solid shots, anyway. And he rarely stops or counters me from getting to him in the wing chun space.

That's a serious confidence builder.

And the same with two other bigger guys who trained in kickboxing. My success rate aginst them now (in hard contact sparring) is way beyond what it was in the past, ie.- they rarely hit or kick me with any power and have a hell of a time stopping me from hitting them with wing chun attacks from close range.

F'in aye.. I think that's great man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looking forward to the clips..!

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm waiting for one of my students to return to class. She's the camera/editing/internet master. Hope to see her by no later than sometime in September - if not sooner.

[k gledhill]

I have had a real fight with a boxer once who oddly resorted to a double wrist grab charge in a nightclub.:D silly man. like a pre-fight press brawl ;) I turned him using chum kil & toi ma then broke the grip as he went past using lan sao and in a flowing action slammed him hard into a wall ,while other security guys joined in to eject him...once outside he pulled a knife on everyone , then left yelling at us, been drinking and started swearng at a manageress of a bar I worked at....... I later met up with him again outside the bar I worked in the area , I didnt say a word just pak sao/ trapped him on the outside right elbow and shuffled quickly following him as he tried to escape the arm trap and as he backed into a wall I punched him in the head ,He took the shot and made a strange face before I backed off ...he apologized for the previous nights brawl and all was forgiven...and we lived happily ever after :D
Another boxer was a friend of a fellow student who was brought to class just to spar, he didnt look much, but had some weird low body away / arm in shots to midsection that took some blocking with low gaun sao...his wrist developed a 'mouse' from the bone strike of gaun sao on his arm so we stopped.
we always sparred in a random manner after vt class & weekends doing anything so we never had a certain style or 'way' coming at us. we trained charging wrist grabs , very common in real encounters ...fighting pointfighters who feint hi & lunge low for IPPON ! :D I always got the point till everyone got used to it... wild spinning back fists etc... random is better than a particular 'sporting' encounter imo just so you expect anything and everything always. We would double up on one guy etc.. wrestle / grapple ...
we had full face helmets with wire mesh over the eyes to train against eye jabs etc...the helmets restricted ones vision so you would get hit on occasion just by having blind spots...not good :D always scrappy looking fights . reality is so much easier , nobdy knows whats coming :D

[JPinAZ]

There are quite a few clips of boxing types sparring WCK types.. The most common one was of that WT guy sparring two different boxing types in a large gym....

But I know they weren't skilled.... Oye..

This one seemed fitting to post right now.. Despite a lack of any real contact...

I know he isn't skilled or whatever the problem was... Still there's your teacher Victor in a clip I have never seen before..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi-e3a2tw90

You know what I like about this video, not once did you see GM WC have to use a jab or cross on the outside to close the distance. All 'looks' like good'ol WC being used to bridge and close the distance :)

-- IMO opinion, space is space. From what I learned in WC, I first just occupy MY space with proper sturcture, and either a bridge will come to me, or I will find myself in the range to strike - the height/reach difference between me and my opponent should matter less if I have the right focus, gate theory, space awareness etc. my opponent still has to get his arm past my arms to strike my face right? If I stick to my WC 'game', There should be a bridge before he reaches my face - so there ya go, we just entered the 'WC range'. I used to box, and after training WC, I really don't see a time when I need any of those 'techniques' anymore. The principles & concepts of WC have showed me they are not necessary.

IMO, if I still felt I needed to use the less-structured attacks from boxing, that would tell me there are holes in the WC I am learning (or that my understanding just isn't there yet).
Also, IMO, people cross train because they find hole in what they are learning. This is what MMA is all about. So far, from what I found in WC, it has the answers to deal with a boxer. At least from my previous experience.

JP

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ah listen, JP....won't comment on your assessment of William Cheung's use or non-use of leads and crosses, as I have already explained my position on that particular exchange between those two particular people (William Cheung and Rafael Ramos).

But tell me this:

How much of what you saw William Cheung do on that vid reflects what you would expect to see from a HFY wing chun practitioner against a man fighting/sparring like Rafael Ramos?

50% ?

70% ?

85% ?

100% ?

[YungChun]

Also, IMO, people cross train because they find hole in what they are learning. This is what MMA is all about. So far, from what I found in WC, it has the answers to deal with a boxer. At least from my previous experience.

IMO cross training can help us circumvent our limitations... Imagine, if you knew you were going to fight someone *highly skilled* in Wing Chun in a year or so.. What would you do/train? Would you train harder in WCK or add something different to your skillset?

All arts have limitations.. It's the nature of specializing... By going outside one's art and experiencing other arts one can broaden their horizons and options...

In fact, there are so many areas that one can study that relates to martial arts... When you take into consideration all there is to learn out there and all that one might need or use... you begin to get a real sense of how little time there is to train and how little we really ‘know’... Still, being a well rounded martial artist while maintaining your preferred focus of study is IMO what MMA is really all about, and can be invaluable..

[Ultimatewingchun]

"IMO cross training can help us circumvent our limitations... Imagine, if you knew you were going to fight someone *highly skilled* in Wing Chun in a year or so.. What would you do/train? Would you train harder in WCK or add something different to your skillset?

All arts have limitations.. It's the nature of specializing... By going outside one's art and experiencing other arts one can broaden their horizons and options."


***THIS IS a very good point. If I knew that one year from now I was going to have an all-out encounter against a another skilled wing chun guy...besides training my own wing chun heavy duty - I would also spend plenty of time training hooks, uppercuts, overhands, and takedowns.

A serious and well timed hook punch that comes out of nowhere can really change the world-perspective of the typical wing chun fighter who has (by definiton) a penchant for straight line short range vertical punch attacks.

The same with a nicely set up (and close quartered) takedown, be it a body lock takedown or a shoot to the legs.

Does this mean that wing chun has no defenses against such things?

No.

But these are examples of where some of wing chun's potential weaknesses lie.

[JPinAZ]

Ah listen, JP....won't comment on your assessment of William Cheung's use or non-use of leads and crosses, as I have already explained my position on that particular exchange between those two particular people (William Cheung and Rafael Ramos).

Good, because I can read, and already read it :)
But a wrote a lot more than just an assesment of what was on the video..


But tell me this:

How much of what you saw William Cheung do on that vid reflects what you would expect to see from a HFY wing chun practitioner against a man fighting/sparring like Rafael Ramos?

50% ?
70% ?
85% ?
100% ?

I don't know, because I don't know the conditions they set up for what looked like a 'drill'. From what I saw, it looked like GM Cheung was working on both counters (using what I might call gate theory) and entries against the boxer, but then broke away every time - I am guessing, to reset and start again. So, not really sure what your question is asking, since I don't know the true context of the video. If they were demoing true 'sparring', I wouldn't advise the breaking away and restarting, once he was in, he would most likely finished the job and took the boxer down. So, I guess this was just a drill.

Besides, this is just 'visual'. I can't tell what he truely was doing by watching a video. Was he working under the guidlines of given concepts and principles? Was he just working techniques? Was he using gate theory or not? This is the problem with a video, it doesn't tell you any of these things - you only see the results. It tells nothing of intention or what's driving the actions.
So, to compare what I 'see' someone else do and what I would expect from a HFY guy is a rather silly question IMO. Why would you ask something like that in the first place?

JP

[JPinAZ]

IMO cross training can help us circumvent our limitations... Imagine, if you knew you were going to fight someone *highly skilled* in Wing Chun in a year or so.. What would you do/train? Would you train harder in WCK or add something different to your skillset?

Not sure what 'our limitations' means.. are you speaking for everyone, or yourself?

I would just train what I currently train - WC. Maybe harder because sometimes I get a little lazy with conditioning. I am not sure I understand the point of this question, why train something else if I feel what I already train works for me.

All arts have limitations.. It's the nature of specializing... By going outside one's art and experiencing other arts one can broaden their horizons and options...

I can agree with the second part...

In fact, there are so many areas that one can study that relates to martial arts... When you take into consideration all there is to learn out there and all that one might need or use... you begin to get a real sense of how little time there is to train and how little we really ‘know’... Still, being a well rounded martial artist while maintaining your preferred focus of study is IMO what MMA is really all about, and can be invaluable..

You're right, there is a LOT of MA's out there! I feel there is a downside to practicing/training a 'little' or 'some' of everything, and not really getting deep into any 'one' thing - maybe if one goes deeper in something, they might see they need to cross-train less.. Perhaps this is why one might feel there are limitiations in what they do?

JP

[JPinAZ]

***THIS IS a very good point. If I knew that one year from now I was going to have an all-out encounter against a another skilled wing chun guy...besides training my own wing chun heavy duty - I would also spend plenty of time training hooks, uppercuts, overhands, and takedowns.

A serious and well timed hook punch that comes out of nowhere can really change the world-perspective of the typical wing chun fighter who has (by definiton) a penchant for straight line short range vertical punch attacks.

The same with a nicely set up (and close quartered) takedown, be it a body lock takedown or a shoot to the legs.

Does this mean that wing chun has no defenses against such things?

No.

But these are examples of where some of wing chun's potential weaknesses lie.

I have a question regarding this: Why train your Wc, if you plan to use a bunch of techniques that are outside of the principles/concepts of WC? Why not just train the other stuff if that's what you intend to use?

Also, do you feel your WC can defend against these hooks, jabs, etc? If so, why would you think they would work against another WC guy, unless you were just hopeing you get lucky in the fight?

Maybe the weaknesses are in the individual, and not the system used? (not saying YOU in particular, but I keep reading 'limitations' and 'weaknesses' in this thread, and maybe don't understand the context of why this is said)

JP

[YungChun]

Not sure what 'our limitations' means.. are you speaking for everyone, or yourself?

Well I guess you don't feel you have any limitations...?

Most folks realize that both people and systems, because of a particular focus, have LOTS of limitations..

Nothing wrong with specializing so long as you don't get tunnel vision....

Self Defense... Can mean a million different things... Take a look at what LEO trainers work on... What professional security folks work on...

And there are tons of things that can/should be studied that have nothing to do with plain vanilla classical WCK, no matter the family.

[JPinAZ]

Well I guess you don't feel you have any limitations...?

Most folks realize that both people and systems, because of a particular focus, have LOTS of limitations..

Nothing wrong with specializing so long as you don't get tunnel vision....

Self Defense... Can mean a million different things... Take a look at what LEO trainers work on... What professional security folks work on...

And there are tons of things that can/should be studied that have nothing to do with plain vanilla classical WCK, no matter the family.

haha, of course I have personal limitations - I'm human right?

The rest just seems like personal opinion, not necessarily facts. And sure, there is nothing wrong with learning whatever one wants too! But that doesn't mean that everyone feels the need, or that everyone should train many things.. maybe, SOME people find what they train DOES work for them and don't feel the need to go find something else..

A lot of boxers just train boxing, and are probably realy good fighters. A lot of grapplers just train grappling. Sure there are TONS of things one can study, and some do - AND they can just study what the prefer or what works for them - even if it's just one thing... nothing wrong with that either. Still do not see your point (?)

[YungChun]

nothing wrong with that either. Still do not see your point

I don't think you want to see any point..

WCK or any fighting system is one tiny part of what is Self Defense, the core of what is Martial Arts...

Indeed Self Defense is not all about a "Duel" or even fighting as in sport there are a million facets to this thing called martial art..

Most folks don't realize this, case in point here, seeing only what is on their plate..and so may find themselves limited in situations they had not previously considered..

Cross training in any number of outside areas is generally beneficial not detrimental.. That's the point..k?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I first just occupy MY space with proper structure, and either a bridge will come to me, or I will find myself in the range to strike - the height/reach difference between me and my opponent should matter less if I have the right focus, gate theory, space awareness etc. my opponent still has to get his arm past my arms to strike my face right? If I stick to my WC 'game', There should be a bridge." (JP)

***I'M AFRAID NOT, WATSON. your conclusions are erroneous. If his reach is longer - he can hook around your arms and hit your face no matter how good your structure is, gate theory, focus, etc. HE CAN GO AROUND YOUR ARMS.

Based upon the way you describe your strategy/technique.

No bridge will help here if you just limit yourself to the above strategy you outlined. (Assuming you even get bridge contact). You will probably eat a punch to the face or side of the head. He steps in and straight punches and immediately hooks with the same arm as you go for pak, bong, tan, bil, or whatever structure you care to use. There are defenses against this - but if you think that, and I'm quoting you now, "either a bridge will come to me or I will find myself in range to strike" is all you need against a taller man with a longer reach doing what I just said - without you getting hit in the face...LOL.

YOU might have no choice but to go find the bridge - before you simply "find yourself" in range to land a meaningful straight strike - without going one-for-one. (Trading punches). How? By using some long range weaponry of your own - such as punching with your matched lead (horizontally, not vertically - and with some shoulder torque) into the LANE he needs...toward body targets that correspond to where his ELBOW is (approximately)....either hitting a body target (ie. - a shoulder joint or nearby) or getting the bridge contact with his arm...before he's close enough to make you pay with his hook...

that is, pay for simply being there - in his zone - with your shorter arms (and doing short range vertical fist motions with your centerline facing his body). And if he does hook from there - you now have more time (ie.- enough time) to turn and face your centerline to his body or possibly even the elbow of his hooking arm and do the wing chun simultaneous block and hit thing.

(Because, unlike the "boxer", you don't commit total shoulder/body torque when throwing the matched lead, ie.- your turning motion is less than the typical straight stiff boxing lead meant to hit a hard target with power. Power and hard targets are not what you're shooting for here - you've simply made a MANUEVER to help set up your wing chun artillery against a man with a longer reach).

And if he's keeping his elbows waaay out - then throw the punch kinda like the way Alan Orr and his guys like to throw them - almost a bit rounded; but unlike Alan, STILL MORE HORIZONTAL THAN VERTICAL - thereby throwing longer reaching punches - so as to be in position to intercept (bridge) near his elbows if he attacks from the waaay out position....before he can hook or overhand with any efficiency because he's too far away for that.

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


(Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun) But tell me this: How much of what you saw William Cheung do on that vid reflects what you would expect to see from a HFY wing chun practitioner against a man fighting/sparring like Rafael Ramos?

50% ?
70% ?
85% ?
100% ?"


"I don't know, because I don't know the conditions they set up for what looked like a 'drill'. From what I saw, it looked like GM Cheung was working on both counters (using what I might call gate theory) and entries against the boxer, but then broke away every time - I am guessing, to reset and start again. So, not really sure what your question is asking, since I don't know the true context of the video. If they were demoing true 'sparring', I wouldn't advise the breaking away and restarting, once he was in, he would most likely finished the job and took the boxer down. So, I guess this was just a drill." (JP)


***NOT A DRILL AT ALL. "Hey Rafael, let's do some light sparring for the camera, Okay?" So of course he broke away - this wasn't about landing punches with no gloves on someone's face.


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


"Besides, this is just 'visual'. I can't tell what he truely was doing by watching a video. Was he working under the guidlines of given concepts and principles? Was he just working techniques? Was he using gate theory or not? This is the problem with a video, it doesn't tell you any of these things - you only see the results. It tells nothing of intention or what's driving the actions." (JP)


***SPOKEN like someone with very little sparring experience...because anyone with lots of sparring experience (both hard and soft) would know what spontaneous light sparring looks like, instead of getting bogged down in wondering whether or not (or which) concepts, principles, and gates theories were being used. Answer? All of the above. BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE VIDEO TO SEE. There's the Blindside Strategy: by never changing from the southpaw position - thereby maintaining the matched leads - the best position to be in to possibly get a two-on-one arm advantage; blocking high and low as required (gates); simultaneous block and hit; straight line striking on the shortest line between them, etc. (Go back and look at the video).


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


"So, to compare what I 'see' someone else do and what I would expect from a HFY guy is a rather silly question IMO. Why would you ask something like that in the first place?" (JP)


***WHY DO YOU THINK, SHERLOCK? (Take a guess).

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



(Ultimatewingchun)***THIS IS a very good point. If I knew that one year from now I was going to have an all-out encounter against a another skilled wing chun guy...besides training my own wing chun heavy duty - I would also spend plenty of time training hooks, uppercuts, overhands, and takedowns.A serious and well timed hook punch that comes out of nowhere can really change the world-perspective of the typical wing chun fighter who has (by definiton) a penchant for straight line short range vertical punch attacks.The same with a nicely set up (and close quartered) takedown, be it a body lock takedown or a shoot to the legs.Does this mean that wing chun has no defenses against such things?No.But these are examples of where some of wing chun's potential weaknesses lie."


"I have a question regarding this: Why train your Wc, if you plan to use a bunch of techniques that are outside of the principles/concepts of WC? Why not just train the other stuff if that's what you intend to use?Also, do you feel your WC can defend against these hooks, jabs, etc? If so, why would you think they would work against another WC guy, unless you were just hoping you get lucky in the fight?Maybe the weaknesses are in the individual, and not the system used? (not saying YOU in particular, but I keep reading 'limitations' and 'weaknesses' in this thread, and maybe don't understand the context of why this is said." (JP)

***THE BEST DEFENSES I have ever seen against hook punches come from William Cheung. But that doesn't change the danger of hooks against the "conventional" use of wing chun when up against a good boxer who can hook off his straight lead when his arms are longer. William is taller than Rafael, and he's the one with the longer reach. I thought you weren't going to make me repeat that? :p


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


"Quote:Originally Posted by JPinAZ Not sure what 'our limitations' means.. are you speaking for everyone, or yourself?"


***I'M TALKING ABOUT ALL WING CHUN. It's a short arm short range standup striking/kicking system with a few sweeps and a few armlocks.

[JPinAZ]

I don't think you want to see any point..

WCK or any fighting system is one tiny part of what is Self Defense, the core of what is Martial Arts...

Indeed Self Defense is not all about a "Duel" or even fighting as in sport there are a million facets to this thing called martial art..

Most folks don't realize this, case in point here, seeing only what is on their plate..and so may find themselves limited in situations they had not previously considered..

Cross training in any number of outside areas is generally beneficial not detrimental.. That's the point..k?

I understand this is you view, but you treat it as fact. I am not going to appologize if I do not see things the same way. It has nothing to do with me 'wanting' to see anything.

I totally respect your views (even if it seems you have none for mine). I just don't agree that one HAS to delve into many different MA's to properly defend themselves. And certainly not because 'there are so many options, I should look at as many as I can'. Different strokes for different folks. I say if something works for you stick with it. If you find it doesn't work, either try harder, or look somewhere else - no big deal.
And yes, I can see where it can be greatly benificial. But if we are talking 'self defense', then I can also see where practicing 10 good techniques over and over until they are perfected could also possibly be a good method of self defense.

JP

** "there are a million facets to this thing called martial art.. " I thought a bit more on this, and I say there a million thing that could happen in a fight, and we should be ready for them all. But I don't think we have to make things over complicated by delving into a million MA's looking for the answer.

[JPinAZ]

Vic,

I think we are looking at things from 2 very different perspectives. I was referring to actions being driven by concept and theory. It sounds like you are speaking from techniques point of view - so while neither is right/wrong depending on the perspective, we just look at thing VERY differently and I am seeing that you won't ever see what I am trying to say.

VIC - "***I'M AFRAID NOT, WATSON. your conclusions are erroneous. If his reach is longer - he can hook around your arms and hit your face no matter how good your structure is, gate theory, focus, etc. HE CAN GO AROUND YOUR ARMS."

This is all hypothetical, but you are forgeting the defences against these things can involve footwork, positioning, STICK, structure, gate theory, etc to defend themselves against these types of things. Something called Chi Kiu comes to mind in this situation. I'm not just going to stand there while he turns his jab (which I would most likely made a bridge with) into a hook. It sounds like you are describing a lucky time frame of fighting - ie, you swing, I defend, you switchup, I counter - loop.

BTW, vic, my name's not 'watson', not 'sherlock' - this sounds kinda childish to me, but whatever :rolleyes:

RE: "No bridge will help here if you just limit yourself to the above strategy you outlined."

No kidding - who said anything about limiting myself? I simply gave a very brief idea of how one could defend against your long range boxing god based on concepts/principals vs. techniques. If you think that the short list I gave is all there is, then you are mistaken.

You advise I use long range weponry of my own against a taller person with a longer reach - he's obviously going to win that one if he's got longer reach than me and I am trying to play his game. That sounds like trading punches (lucky fighting) to me! BTW, this sounds much like clasic boxing, which I do have experience with. I know what you're talking about, and I'm telling you, I've found a much more effective and efficient way of dealing with these things.

Besides, you are speaking from YOUR perspective and assuming mine is the same. How can we even have a conversation like that?

VIC: "***SPOKEN like someone with very little sparring experience...because anyone with lots of sparring experience (both hard and soft) would know what spontaneous light sparring looks like, instead of getting bogged down in wondering whether or not (or which) concepts, principles, and gates theories were being used. Answer? All of the above. BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE VIDEO TO SEE. There's the Blindside Strategy: by never changing from the southpaw position - thereby maintaining the matched leads - the best position to be in to possibly get a two-on-one arm advantage; blocking high and low as required (gates); simultaneous block and hit; straight line striking on the shortest line between them, etc. (Go back and look at the video)."

Whatever - you know nothing about me. I know what light sparring looks like, and that's what I see on the video - I thought I said that already? Maybe you see and can identify what is being used because he's from TWC and you're from TWC. And that's cool.
But I could only 'assume' what is going on in his mind. Sure, I see what you call the blind-side theory. I see what I might call gate thoery, but that doesn't mean he's working under those guidlines (not saying he isn't either, but unless I spoke with him, I wouldn't know what he's using - maybe he would say he was just slap boxing and not using WC - could I argue?)

Vic, like I said already: "You know what I like about this video, not once did you see GM WC have to use a jab or cross on the outside to close the distance. All 'looks' like good'ol WC being used to bridge and close the distance "
What's the problem here?? Because I said I didn't see him using what you claim HAS to be used against a taller, longer reach boxer? (yes, I understand, GM WC was the taller man, but I don't think that's why he stuck with WC in the video)
I am NOT going to go technique for technique against anyone, no matter what you say. If that works for you, or you can't find an answer in WC, then fine - I'm not going to argue that - use what works for you!
But don't tell me you know what's going to happen to me if I use my WC in a fashion you can't seem to make work. And I don't mean anything personal by this. But you really don't know anything about me, nor the WC I practice.

Let me ask you this, and it's a quite simple direct question: Do you think GM WC would have had to resort to jabs and crosses against the boxer if he was taller and had longer reach than him? Or do you think his WC would stand up?

JP

[YungChun]

I thought a bit more on this, and I say there a million thing that could happen in a fight
See this is what you don't seem to get.. It's not all about "a fight"..... Especially not all about a "duel type" fight..

The study starts with, your body and how it can be used.. <styles/systems, basic training>

The study continues with the Mental, Spiritual, how to gain control over one's emotions.. <meditation, adrenal stress conditioning>

The study continues with how to use the mind to gain control over your body...
<meditation, adrenal stress conditioning, scenario training, hard sparring>>

The study continues with understanding how the adrenal stress response changes how our bodies work and the differences between something called "high road" and "low road" responses...

The study continues with mindset training and learning to fight/react even when you feel like you're on the edge of death and can go no further... When the threat seems so ominous that resistance seems futile..
<meditation, adrenal stress conditioning, cardio, scenario training, mindset conditioning>

The study continues with how to defeat an opponent who is unarmed....
<combative training, de-escalation, scenario training, hard sparring>

The study continues with how to defeat an opponent in a sport environment...
<Understanding using the rule set, cross training, combative training, system adaptation, conditioning, hard sparring>

The study continues with how to control a threat without engaging him <<adrenal stress conditioning, scenario training, tactical awareness training, de-escalation>...

The study continues with how to defeat an opponent when your life is threatened..
<meditation, adrenal stress conditioning, combative training, de-escalation, scenario training, hard sparring>

The study continues with how to defeat an opponent when your loved one's life is threatened..
<adrenal stress conditioning, combative training, de-escalation, scenario training, tactical training>

The study continues with something called the force continuum, where one's learns to be prepared to bring as much force to the encounter as is needed, or adapt/improvise the use of greater force/weapons-- starting with verbal self defense all the way up to the use of deadly force...
<<adrenal stress conditioning, scenario training, tactical awareness training, combative weapons training, firearm use training, de-escalation>...

The study continues with how to defeat multiple opponents/threats when your life and/or others is threatened..
<meditation, adrenal stress conditioning, combative training, de-escalation, scenario training, multiple opponent hard sparring, Force Continuum>

The study continues with how to defeat an armed opponent and disarm him..
<adrenal stress conditioning, defensive weapons training, de-escalation, scenario training, tactical training, weapons sparring/training, Force Continuum>

The study continues with how to defeat an opponent armed with an edge weapon..
<adrenal stress conditioning, combative weapons training, de-escalation, scenario training, tactical training, weapons sparring/training, Force Continuum>

The study continues with how to identify who your opponent is, threat identification...
<adrenal stress conditioning, scenario training, tactical awareness training, body language awareness trainining, use of "The Fence">

The study continues with tactical awareness and how to use your surroundings to both indentify possible threats and control those threats..
<scenario training, tactical awareness training>...

The study continues with the use and application of different weapons you may choose to carry..

The study continues with understanding the laws and liability of using force in different situations in order to protect us from legal and civil penalties when we must use such force..

OR

You could just play Chi Sao until your arms fall off.. :D

No matter...

There is a whole world of things that is IN FACT what "martial arts" in the real world means..

That's not my opinion, that's reality and a short list of it at that...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Won't say any more about GM Cheung, other than that he's an awesome wing chun fighter and I've learned a great deal from him through the years.

But I will refer once again to this:

PICTURES ARE WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.

So hopefully I'll be able to post a vid or two in the near future about all of this - against a taller/heavier man trained in boxing and with a serious left hook.

[JPinAZ]

Jim,

I 'see' your point, but what are you really saying with all of this? To me, a fight is a fight. Someone is either trying to hurt me or someone I care about and I am trying to defend them or myelf.
That's quite a long list (and sure, it could be much longer), and it makes perfect sense. But really, why are you telling me all this? (which I assume it is directed toward me since you are addressing my quote) Are you assuming I do not take any of these things into account in my training? What part of that list are you assuming I do not get?
Also, are you saying one must train many many MA's to cover all of these things, and that one cannot find these various cultivations is one or just a few of them?

BTW, a lot of these things can be grouped together to greatly shorten the list. Aside for the legal ramifictaions (which a many good schools will cover in some detail), a lot of good MA training covers multitudes of these things at once - strategy, tactics, cardio, meditation, phylosophy, etc

Vic,

I figured as much :)
Fair enough though, I'll wait to see your video. I have a questoin regarding the video you are going to make - will it be a 'sparring demo' like in GM WC's, or something else? (and not passing judgement, just curious what angle you will be taking in it)

Jonathan

[Ultimatewingchun]

Totally spontaneous heavy contact sparring with protective gear (ie.- thin semi-fingerless gloves, headgear, etc.) With punches, kicks, elbows, knees that land with power.

[YungChun]

Totally spontaneous heavy contact sparring with protective gear (ie.- thin semi-fingerless gloves, headgear, etc.) With punches, kicks, elbows, knees that land with power.

Sounds good Victor..

What about takedowns? Will the opponent attempt them, or clinch work?

Will you be mainly attempting to stay up or will it only be standup?

Also, how much taller is the boxer than you?

[JPinAZ]

Totally spontaneous heavy contact sparring with protective gear (ie.- thin semi-fingerless gloves, headgear, etc.) With punches, kicks, elbows, knees that land with power.

Sounds good, should be interesting.
Are you plannig to just roll film and go, or will there be 'takes'? I am assuming by 'spntaneous' it will be the first.

JP

[Ultimatewingchun]

At this point I'm thinking about two vids, both to be filmed with the same guy. I have 6 very senior students, and he's one of them. Rich Alvarado. He started with me in 1991. As you know, people's lives change and they go through their phases. He hasn't come to class for 16 years straight, but has probably about 12 years or so of active training with me by this point. And he's in one of his "phases" wherein he comes to class 2-3 Saturday's per month at the present time.

I have other guys, one of whom started even before him, in 1989 - and still lives here in NYC - but his attendance is very spotty at the moment due to personal family issues...and some others who only come very rarely at this point - as their lives and geographical locations have also changed.

So Rich is the perfect candidate for the vid - and especially so for yet another reason. He was trained as a boxer before he ever met me by his cousin, a former Golden Gloves boxer.

And he's been invaluable through the years for all of us, ie.- myself and the other senior students - precisely because he has real boxing skills. And the others have brought other things to the table as well...being trained before they met me in other arts like wrestling, karate, and kickboxing. (And one of the six was just a plain ol' dangerous streetfighter type).

Five of them are 6' tall or more, and three of them are 200 lbs. or more. Rich stands exactly 6' and weighs 200 lbs. AND HE CAN BOX, believe me. (Btw...I stand 5' 10 and weigh 170).

So for the first vid I'm going to ask Rich to just go 100% boxer - and let the camera roll. No takes.

For the second, I'll ask him to do whatever he wants - so you'll probably see him combine boxing with wing chun on that vid. (Or maybe 100% wing chun, I don't know. That's up to him).

And yes, I suspect that it could go to clinch and possible takedown mode at some point.

But it also depends heavily on yet another old student to make this happen - as I am a computer/internet dummy. She has access to all kinds of camera, video, editing, and internet equipment (and know-how)...so I'm hoping to get her there to film and take care of things. Her life is also very unpredictable at the moment - but she says that it's possible she'll have some time later on this summer.

So we'll see.

[Lee Chiang Po]

I have watched this thread from the outset. What I have noticed is that most people here do not have faith in their Wing Chun, and some are actually teaching it. Doing a lot of talking, but not saying a ****ed thing really. When you are making a point, why not put it into prain Engrish for the rest of us? And please, what the heck is a rear cross?
The whole idea of a straight vertical punch is that it has the potential for being extremely powerful because it is fast and has the entire body behind it. It is also a fact that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. A hook can not reach around your defenses or your punch. Any time you hook or curve your arm it loses it reach. It becomes shorter. The more hook, the shorter it gets. Besides, it is hard to throw a hook when you have a fist in your face. Especially when it is too short to reach the target. Otherwise you would have to have one heck of a long arm.
Also, When you throw a roundhouse punch, it reaches it top speed and power almost immediately. It loses this momentum as it moves toward the target, and as it strikes the target, should it actually do so, it will have spent a great deal of the power it generated in the beginnin. However, since it does not have the full body weight behind it, there is not as much power generated like you would think. The vertical punch has the entire body weight behind it, and it reaches it's top speed and power just as it contacts the target. Simple speed will not equate to power. You have to have your weight behind it if you intend to generate maximum power. Knowing all this stuff about time and space and issueing force and recieving it and all that other stuff, I would have expected most of you to already know this stuff too. You have your minds too clogged up with this sparring and ring fighting stuff. Why not study Wing Chun instead?

[drleungjohn]

I have read your post and would like to add a few things here-

First-a hook and roundhouse are two ENTirely different weapons and animals-Martial arts guys usually throw roundhouses and call them hooks-
A boxer's hook looks NOTHING like a martial art guys

Second-while I agree with your concept of how can a hook land,when there is a straight punch in your face-the issue is one of range-A hook can very easily go around a punch,or lead hand-all it takes is a slip,tap or weave from the opponent-
while you might say that there is no ONE Punch in WCK- in which I would agree-we need to train against real practitioners of other arts,or as close as possible-to see how our WCK stands up-not to water it down with other systems since we feel it is lacking somewhere-

But I agree that too many of our brethren have