Chain Punces New and Old thread

[rogue]

Some think that chain punching is the answer to many almost any fighting problem. But if chain punching is so effective how come it's not used more in Pride, UFC, K-1 or western boxing? It's not illegal in any of those events but I've never seen it used.

Signed,
Rogue, Soke and Senior Grandmaster of Southeast American Brazillian Bagua Combat Chi jitsu Kempo Karate Do and Choral Society.

The only tactical principle which is not subject to change; it is, “To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

Now I want you to remember that no ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country.

[azwingchun]

I was at a Rage in the Cage (NHB competition here in Phoenix) several months ago, there was a guy who if I am not mistaken studied Wing Chun (as well as a few other arts), I saw him use the chain punching and though it didn't seem to hurt the guy all that much, it did get the guy running backwards. The guy lost his balance and fell, the Wing Chun guy won right after that. ;)

[straight blast]

I don't understand why people think that chain punching is a fight ending technique :( I use it as a distraction that allows me to effectively employ my legs. I've never used it to win a fight, but most people tend to move backwards when you're throwing fists at their face. And then their legs are meat :cool:
One thing that illustrates this principle is something that one of my Muay Thai instructors used to do. Being 6'4 and weighing 110 kg he is a scary mofo. When he attacks, you have to commit fully to your guard or you get hammered. What he would do is suddenly leap up in the air and ROAR at you, then drop into a downwards elbow. Not a very smart technique (leaves you open) but it served its purpose: To unnerve you and send you scurrying backwards off balance. The chain punch does much the same thing.
It's not the soloution. But it's certainly an option to equalise the equation. :cool:

"Pain is merely weakness leaving the body"

[Nichiren]

I agree with SB. I have never seen a chain-punch knockout but I have seen WC guys set the opponent up with chain-punches and finish with e.g. an elbow to the head.

[bao]

rogue:

I am surprised at your question. I have seen Victor Belfort used the principle of linear punches to keep the pressure foward and keeping his foe off balance. In one UFC (number I don't remember), Victor ran up to his foe and jab straight like a hundred times knocking out his foe. It was kool, man, and Victor has been my champ since then. He is also the youngest champ of the UFCs.

rogue, what you defined as chain punches is definitely wing chun technique but also a wing chun concept of the shortest distant of two points is a "straight line." I am sure there are plenty of example in NHB fights, where fighters are using effective "straight line" strikes.


bao
punches.

[joy chaudhuri]

Chain punching is NOT a mechanical answer to every fighting problem.

[edward]

chain punching is low level wing chun.... you don't just blindly chain punch... you need to control and attack every single time....

[rogue]

Thanks guys, sometimes I hear WC people (lower level?) refer to chain punching as if it's a cure for what ever ails you.

Signed,
Rogue, Soke and Senior Grandmaster of Southeast American Brazillian Bagua Combat Chi jitsu Kempo Karate Do and Choral Society.

The only tactical principle which is not subject to change; it is, “To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

Now I want you to remember that no ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country.

[El_CLap]

Ahh the chain punch. Is there anything it can't do? Oh wait, that's what I say about WD-40. I chain punch when I'm trying to get closer. Sometimes when I'm getting pushed back. Sometimes when the guy just seems open. I prefer to use elbows though, and if I'm being mean, the fak sao. I cannot seem to get knockout quality punches from chain punches though, but you can bloody someone up pretty quickly with them. I have most luck with them when I'm not fighting someone with boxing experience.

[fa_jing]

What's a Fak sao? Is this what is called a Knifehand? -FJ

[jesper]

Actually chain punching is pretty effective when done properly. Sadly most student dont :(

I always use it when theres an oppening for my hands, or to create oppenings with my first strike followed immediatly by my second and third.
Another good thing, as said before, is that most people tend to focus on countering these punches so you can set them up for some really hard leg technic.

You should never think that its an universal tool though, as many people seem to do.
The most stupid thing I have seen in a while was this guy starting doing chain punches, before he got in range to strike. Needles to say he got wacked

[CerberusXXL]

Chain punching can be very effective if it is done in the right situation. However, chain punching or other techniques are never the solution to almost all fighting problem.

[Tongue_of_Colibob]

I've always found that chain punches are very combat effective when the punches contain a large amount of joint snapping power.

[whippinghand]

Yours or your opponents?

[whippinghand]

chain punching = low level WC

[Armin]

Hi!

For me, chain-punches is a kind of movement, that connects not only punches, but every possible movement, e.g. Punch - Ellbow - Fak - whatever. It's a kind of "connecting-principle".

The chain-punches in the 1st form, can be a powerful tool to knock someone out (compare the statements of Sifu Wong), or to bridge the gap, too. I think it's a multi-purpose-tool.


Armin.

[Jeff Liboiron]

I practice chain punching every day, it's a good speed excersise. But i wouldn't fight like that, i may throw four chain punches at a guys head, but not 15 :)

Edward is right, they must be controlled

The object is not to hurt someone else, but to stop them from hurting you

[Tongue_of_Colibob]

By joint snapping, im refering to the way to punch by using the strength of your elbow and wrist joints, instead of all muscle.

[jesper]

chain punching = low level WC

So if an opponent leaves an oppening, you dont give him two three quick chain punches.
I guess im just not that good at dropping people with one hit punches then.

I do agree that some people go over the top though, and starts blasting away with 10-15 chain punches in a row, and that is just plain silly, and a waste of energy.

[Steven Lamb]

Remember where the power of the punch comes from........ie, your opponent's own energy, rooting and stance, etc.

[joy chaudhuri]

"So if an opponent leaves an oppening, you dont give him two three quick chain punches."
------------------------------------------------
It could work against a very low level opponent.
Surely developing greater skills than chain punching are very important.

[S.Teebas]

Eventualy you will only need 2 punches to finish the fight. Proper stucture gives you this power.

S.Teebas

[whippinghand]

"So if an opponent leaves an oppening, you dont give him two three quick chain punches."

There are always openings. Chain punching is a low level approach to taking advantage of them.

[vingtsunstudent]

can someone just explain to me how that if there is an opening or a chance to use chain punching(ie 3-4-5 quick punches-maybe even only 2)to knock the opponent down or even just put him in a position for you to finish them that this is low level?
2 or 3 or 4 moves to finish an opponent sounds pretty efficient to me.
i can understand what you are all saying about it being low level(ie what you may teach a beginner if they have absolutely nothing else to use in a combat situation)but believe me when i say that if you think that chain punching is low level then you haven't tried to deal with someone who is skiled & can use them with power.
vts

[vingtsunstudent]

'So if an opponent leaves an oppening, you dont give him two three quick chain punches."
There are always openings. Chain punching is a low level approach to taking advantage of them.'
wanking hand
you have again out done yourself with dribble.
if there is an opening,(to which you say that there always are) can you give us a high level appraoch to taking advantage of them?
perhaps your master, wan-king fist could give you some ideas.
vts

[vingtsunstudent]

gee, you got me there.
vts
ps i noticed you have not been able to give even one answer to any of the questions asked of you?
boy am i surprised.

[jesper]

Bravo Sierra:
I was being ironic. Most people who has done WC for more than a couple of years knows how to drop opponents with single punch, given the right circumstances.
But in a fight you never have ideal conditions, and shouldnt expect to do "one punch, one down" technics

yuan fen:
Of course you need to develop greater skills, but why over complicate things. If you can drop him with 2-3 chain punches, why not just do that.
Remember the old saying; K.I.S.S
As for chain punches only working against low level opponents, thats a stupid statement.
I find that if you hit with your first punch, 70-80 % of the time you will hit with your second punch also.
This I have done again and again, against both WC and other fighters.
And so what if he blocks your second or third punch. Then you just switch to other technics to finish him of.

vts:
Whipping hand did answer.
Since chain punches are among the first technics you learn, they are beneath him to use in a fight.

[joy chaudhuri]

yuan fen:

As for chain punches only working against low level opponents, thats a stupid statement.
-------------------------------
yuan fen's reply: Stupid? Really?
And chain punching mechanically (except as a drill)
is really intelligent wing chun?

one of the first basic timing drills is pak sao drills against chain punching drills.

If the opportunity is there and an opponent-likely low level- just keeps moving back and losing his root- chain punching may be a beginners answer.Chain punching is a drill for learning flow,reducing tension and coordinating oneself. As tactics it has its limitations, including predictable timing. Of course in certain situations a very very accomplished wing chun person can just chain punch againsta dumb guy- may sometimes even just drag him down by the ear
if the ear is near his hand....
Also a boxer type would just sidestep and hit when one is chain punching, a grappler would just smother, pickup the person and take him down.
Chain punching lacks "adjustment" to what a good opponent can do.
As the great wc expert Forrest Gump once said about
chain punching- stupid is as stupid does.

[BoTsun]

for any given situation. there is no formula to fighting.

[joy chaudhuri]

True! :D

[mun hung]

The chain punch is just as important as any other WC technique. There's a time and place to use it just like everything else. My SiFu always tells me "all Wing Chun techniques are good".

The chain punch however is probably the most misunderstood of Wing Chun techniques because of all the misenterpretations of it's uses.

Saying that the chain punch is low level Wing Chun is like saying everything in Siu Nim Tau is low level Wing Chun.

*It takes effort to learn to do something effortlessly*

[vingtsunstudent]

again let me ask all the experts who are saying it is low level-'what is a high level technique that is more efficient when an opening presents itself.'
vts

[joy chaudhuri]

again let me ask all the experts who are saying it is low level-'what is a high level technique that is more efficient when an opening presents itself.'
-----------------------
A non expert's reply. Wing chun is not single technique bound for each situation. The best things are the ones that are most direct, simplest and most economical and has the best timing with least likelihood of losing control of yourself and over the other fellow. You began talking about chain punches- that's plural.
After one opening the the opening may or may not be there a micro second later--- so through timing, sensing,
feeling different combinations will emerge in good wing chun. Could be a pak punch combination
or many other things. Depends. Wong Shon Leung among several others reportedly pointed out that your opponent could help you pick your response-
that is different from mechanical chain punches irrespectuve of circumstances. :)

[vingtsunstudent]

seeing as though you want mention wong shun leung-
my sifu is one of wong's senior students & was trained in the 70's by wong to fight in challenge matches.
both he & wong used these low level techniques on more than one ocassion to win fights.
in fact it was said that quite often when wong fought it would take 2 punches & it was all over & that if you blinked you could have missed it.
yes the gap may only be there for a split second but again that is all takes to land a couple of quick & decisive blows.
again i am talking of chain punching when a gap arrives, why does this put just standing there & chain punching in everybodies mind.
how many people have had real fights here?not just one or two, how many against more than one opponent?
i am not saying i am a legend or anything but i have had to fight many times & sometimes against more than one(on 3 ocassions more than 4)
i can tell you also i have been hurt doing so & that some of them were boxers & not just your average joe's off the street.
chain punching is efficient & definitely not low level.
the only reason for saying this is that i think you youself may be low level.
vts

[vingtsunstudent]

sorry, i should add that i by no means am saying that chain punching is the be all & end all, odviously what you use to defeat an opponent will depend on the situation but i am just concerned by the fact that so many people don't even seem to understand the system that they are practicing.
vts

[This message was edited by vingtsunstudent on 11-17-01 at 03:36 PM.]

[joy chaudhuri]

chain punching is efficient & definitely not low level.
the only reason for saying this is that i think you youself may be low level
-----------------------------------------------
Wonderful:
you have demonstrated your own level.
Good luck in your version of imitating Wong Shon Leung. My level? Who knows. We haven't met. :p

[joy chaudhuri]

"When fighting, your opponent will be free to move
how he likes. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions.If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him." :D :p :D

[vingtsunstudent]

sorry yuan fen.
which part of this did you not understand to the piont that you think i am merely trying to imitate wong.
vts
'sorry, i should add that i by no means am saying that chain punching is the be all & end all, odviously what you use to defeat an opponent will depend on the situation'

[vingtsunstudent]

whoops yuan fen,
'Chain punching is a drill for learning flow,reducing tension and coordinating oneself'
and i am the one who has demonstrated my level.
yep, i'm only a begginer.
odviously the piont is mute but go back & read my posts & tell me where i said that there are not other options & that a fight could go anyway & that your techniques will not be dictated by the way in which your opponent moves.
if you want to give me a hard time that's fine but again i will state the chain punching is more than low level.
that is my opinion as you have yours(may i piont out if you want to talk low level, you mentioned pak punch combination-wow 2 moves that could be again simplified to 1, now there's some advanced stuff)

[This message was edited by vingtsunstudent on 11-17-01 at 05:20 PM.]

[vingtsunstudent]

'Good luck in your version of imitating Wong Shon Leung'
by the way you are the one who bought wong's name up.
i do not regurgitate sayings & the such so pull your head in & think for yourself.
vts

[vingtsunstudent]

'Wonderful:
you have demonstrated your own level.'
no, only that i am arrogant & believe that half of you are full of & have never used your wing chun in your life.
vts

[Gluteus Maximus]

What WSL said is worth listening to, because of the reality-testing he put WC through.

He said that the best way to knock someone out fast is two quick successive punches that make the brain hit one side of the skull then the other.

A quick knockout sounds like economy of motion to me!

Max

[joy chaudhuri]

VTS sez:no, only that i am arrogant & believe that half of you are full of & have never used your wing chun in your life.
----------------------------------------------
sic semper arrogance et arrogantia
:p
-----------------------------------------
GM sez:A quick knockout sounds like economy of motion to me!
--------------------------------------------------
Sure if the opportunity presents itself. But with a non cooperating opponent you have to both have your timing and have an extensive arsenal of options ready for any opportunity presented or made..

[Sharky]

vts stop wasting your time on these guys man

=================================
Sharky, I should expect this level of immaturity from you after seeing your post titled "Hm." regarding the woman that lives next door to you. I think everyone who unfortuneatly read that post is a bit more ignorant now for doing so. - Spectre

All i wanted was some RICE CAKES! Now? WE MUST BATTLE.

[vingtsunstudent]

hi sharky
i hardly find amusing myself as a waste of time.
i love responding to them & finding out whether they can actually clarify what they are saying.
i don't think that the pathetic little half sentence answers(or quotes from other people) that they try to justify themselves with are that good but i do find them comical.i also like the way they try to make out i am trying to imitate someone yet all my answers are in my own words, which is more than i can say for them.
vts

[whippinghand]

Wong Shon Leung was known for being a fighter, not a martial artist.

There's a vast difference.

[S.Teebas]

Whipping Hand...

Name some martial artists for us.

[whippinghand]

There are so few. I'll have to think about that...

[reysem]

The beauty of chain punches is that you can defend and attack at the same time. This is a good example of wing chun's economy of motion. When you execute chain punches, you don't worry about defending against your opponent because your punches is your defence. The chain punches occupies the centerline.

[whippinghand]

It seems that the focus of most people's training is to prepare for the average idiot street fighter.

Chain punch would not work on anybody who actually knows and understands the art that they train.

So why not raise your standards.

[whippinghand]

"The chain punches occupies the centerline."

What is the significance of that?

[vingtsunstudent]

'Chain punch would not work on anybody who actually knows and understands the art that they train.'
what a load of garbage.
even if you are against another wing chun man if you are in control he should have nothing to say about it.
do you understand what is meant by being in control? or is that why you asked about occupying(or controling) centre because you are finally letting us know that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
vts

[whippinghand]

The truth is I still know more about you then you'd like me to.

Keep writing... The more you do, the more of an idiot you show yourself to be.

The funny thing is that you think the same about me, but yet you're not sure, are you?

But I AM certain about you.

Keep writing.

[vingtsunstudent]

well seeing as though you talk in riddles & spew out sayings that you've heard elsewhere not to mention the fact that your use of wing chun is odviously limited, i'd say i have been treating you as a joke since the first post of yours i have read.
you have yet to offer any significant answers both reagarding wing chun or yourself.
most of us here have learnt to share our ideas & merely not just outright put down what everybody else has to say without giving a reason.
you are an ignorant fool & that alone speaks volumes as to what your understanding of wing chun must be.
please, without further insults my lineage is-
wong shun leung> barry lee> me.
now how about being real & giving me yours.
vts

[joy chaudhuri]

chain punching can be a tool sometimes. But there is so much more to wing chun.
But we seem to go round and round on this simple distinction.
Even Wong Shon Leung had palms and many other things and would not and did not depend only on chain punching.

[Dave Farmer]

I read an article once when WSL told how he had a student of his never lost a fight before he was introduced to other techniques than the straight punch.

regards

Dave F

'wing chun men do it with sticky hands'

[joy chaudhuri]

Constructively, I think it would help if you could explain Barry Lee's views on the usage of the chain punch- when, to what extent, exclusively,
non exclusively etc.... then we can get away from lineage and other issues and serious discuss transmissible aspects of wing chun knowledge.

[hunt1]

First elwhippo you are wrong.There are many martial artists of various skill levels but very ,very few true fighters.Most of the people play to the art few to the martial aspect.Most posts bare witness to this.
Chain punching may be simple but also often is effective.In a real fight simple techniques often rule the day.The best technique's are those you are most comfortable with.Nothing wrong with a chain punch it is very usefull when contact is lost.Yes chain punches are very simple to stop in training but with a real adversary I wonder how many could stop chain punches.

[vingtsunstudent]

wanking hand- i was actually trying to get constructive by adding my lineage so you could see where i was coming from, my hope was that you would do the same. If you want to keep arguing that is fine but you'll be doing it alone now as i have no further time to waste on someone who is bent on offering nothing to the conversation.
yuan fen-hi, it is good to see someone wants to talk constuctively.
chain punching when you reach a higher level should sound as if there is only one crack hitting the opponent. when my sifu's hands move they are not withdrawn more than an inch or two between strikes, as you produce a better punch the techniques will shorten.
as to when he uses it, well such is his skill that he can use it anytime without you having much to say about it(again this what you can do when you are in CONTROL of a situation) but that doesn't mean it's all he uses, as is the case with all fights, what you(he) will use in reality is whatever it takes, which is dependant on the way your opponent moves.
PLEASE, AGAIN LET ME STATE THAT CHAIN PUNCHING IS NOT THE BE ALL & END ALL IN THE WING CHUN ARSENAL,
HOWEVER IT IS MORE THAN JUST LOW LEVEL WING CHUN.
it has been said before & odviously it needs saying again, if there is a gap in your opponents defences(no matter what his skill level)& your hands are right there you should use whatever is the most economical of techniques, if that is 2 or 3 quick punches or a punch elbow combination or what ever then so be it.
by the way it is sort of ridiculas that we are talking about using specific techniques as we all know that with time your wing chun will just flow & you won't know what you've done til' its all over.
'IF YOU HAVE TO THINK-IT'S TOO LATE'
vts
ps i should state that none of these are barry's view pionts, only what i believe to be the realities of the chain punch.

[This message was edited by Sihing73 on 11-21-01 at 09:10 AM.]

[vingtsunstudent]

sorry wh, i forgot to reply to something you said about wong in an earlier post.
he was definetly known to be more than a fighter, in fact whether or not any of todays so-called masters will admit it or not, after yip mans death if there were any questions to be asked on things relating to wing chun technique they would all go & talk to wong.
shoot, after conversations with wong(which came about due to fight he had)yip man re-introduced the low block back into the form.
sounds to me like he was more than just someone who could fight but then again such is your disgraceful behavior regarding wing chun that you'll probably have something that will in no way furhter the art.
vts

[This message was edited by Sihing73 on 11-21-01 at 09:12 AM.]

[joy chaudhuri]

He seems to be a real gadfly at times- posing questions- getting discussions going....despite the brevity. What is wrong with that? Does it deserve personal attacks in return? Why not discuss subject matter. many folks on the list remain anonymous and just dropping lineage names
now and then. Lineage does not always rub off quality on everyone therein in equal proportion.
And the absence of a top pedigree does not necessarily take away from the individuals competence, efforts and practice and possibility of worthwhile views IMO.... even if briefly stated in the form of questions.

[vingtsunstudent]

'Does it deserve personal attacks in return?'
yes when he is being ignorant & quite odviously making his own little attacks at basically everyone(no matter how well he tries to hide them)
'many folks on the list remain anonymous and just dropping lineage names
now and then. Lineage does not always rub off quality on everyone therein in equal proportion.'
hm, i suppose this is aimed at me.
seems to me the only ones who don't let there lineage be known are the ones who have something to hide or are embarrassed by it(they also seem to be the ones who want to cause trouble)
true, coming from a good lineage does automatically mean you will have a better understanding but it is a definite head start.
vts

[mun hung]

IMHO - I think people are more careful about the things they say when there's a possibility that it might reflect badly on their instructor.

*It takes effort to learn to do something effortlessly*

[hunt1]

Glad I could help but you missed my point.Low level implies inferior.While I agree that chain punching may not be my personal answer it does not take away its effectiveness.According to some Bui Jee is high level yet only used when the more basic techniques have failed therefore along this line a WC fighter first uses basic (low level) techniques and only when needed uses the high level technique.If you say Bui Jee is for emergency use then this is the result.


Perhaps the level of the technique is determined by the user and all techniques themselves are the same level?!!

[jameswebsteruk]

We need to clarify what is meant by chain punching.

Wong Shun Leung often used to laugh at people who started machine-gun like flurries of punches before they were anywhere near their opponent.
This is a misconception of applying the 'practice' of chain punches in the forms to real situations, and is very easy for an opponent to deal with. Remember that the moves in the forms are not techniques to be slavishly followed, but concepts. If you want to do 4 punches at the end of SLT, or 400, it doesnt matter. The concept of several successive, rapidly executed punches is what is important.

If, however, you have opened your opponent up, are in range, and there is nothing obstructing your hands, then a series of punches to the head and body is a simple, direct and efficient way of ending the fight. This is what chain punching is, and to refer to it as low-level is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

But if your punches are diverted, then you need to do something else to regain control, to continue to blindly punch at that point would be foolish.

And, Whipping Hand, to refer to Wong Shun Leung as a fighter rather than a martial artist, would, I suspect, please him if he were alive today. He always referred to Wing Chun as an objective skill to be learned and mastered, not a subjective art.

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[vingtsunstudent]

sorry frank but from the way i read wanking hands words on wong he was basically saying he was good fighter but not a good teacher.
but again that is how i interpreted it & i may be wrong.
vts

[whippinghand]

"if there were any questions to be asked on things relating to wing chun technique they would all go & talk to wong."

Fighters use technique, martial artists do not. Stop disgracing your sigung, as you respect him so much.

"seems to me the only ones who don't let there lineage be known are the ones who have something to hide or are embarrassed by it"

If that's your belief, perhaps you should "hide" yours...

[rogue]

"Fighters use technique, martial artists do not."

Nice bumper sticker, care to elaborate?

Signed,
Rogue, Soke and Senior Grandmaster of Southeast American Brazillian Bagua Combat Chi jitsu Kempo Karate Do and Choral Society.

The only tactical principle which is not subject to change; it is, “To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

[whippinghand]

"Bui Jee is high level yet only used when the more basic techniques have failed"

Yes, this is the common understanding. But it is not so.

[whippinghand]

"And, Whipping Hand, to refer to Wong Shun Leung as a fighter rather than a martial artist, would, I suspect, please him if he were alive today"

You are probably right, and that would be great, for him.

However, I would like to think that we live in a society where we no longer strive for mediocrity.

[fmann]

Fighters use their technique in combat, but don't have to be the best martial artists to be the best fighters.

[whippinghand]

Don't have to be the best martial artists to be good fighters.

[jameswebsteruk]

>>However, I would like to think that we live in a society where we no longer strive for mediocrity <<

Care to explain what you mean by this?

I must assume that you don't have the temerity to label WSL as mediocre.

Perhaps you are suggesting that by aspiring to be a good wing chun fighter, this is somehow mediocre?

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[popsider]

Whipping Hand is just a wind up merchant - he may or may not know wing chun - but he chooses to troll this forum rather than share what he does know or learn from those that know more. It's a shame as you can get some useful input from experienced wing chun people on here - but the more people like him get involved the less likely it is anyone with any ability would contribute.

He took the same approach in this thread as he did in the one on facing square on - criticise the views of others without ever providing an alternative let alone an argument. He should be kicked off because he contributes feck all.

[Merryprankster]

I know nothing of wing chun. Don't particularly care to.

But I sure know a schmoe/troll when I see one!

Whipping Hand fits the discription nicely.

[jameswebsteruk]

Im aware of his trolling habits, and have refrained on jumping in on multiple occaisons when he does his one line answers, putting others down, yet never offering anything substantial to qualify, as just occaisonally you can glimpse that maybe he does know a bit more than he lets on.

However, I draw the line at an inference that aspiring to be a good fighter in Wing Chun is somehow mediocre. That is just blatant krap. Troll or not, that deserves an answer.

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[joy chaudhuri]

I know nothing of wing chun. Don't particularly care to.
-----------------------------------------------
Then why are you here?
Also to several others- why focus on WH's brevity?
Asking questions is a well known way (among others) to give information and hold a position
and learn and share. Personally-- I find terms like *****, wanking hand etc directed at WH far
more offensive. Troll? Not.
Popsider- while I dont agree with you in this round, i found your(?) past post on turning on the "center" of the foot informative, clear and "correct". Best to light a candle than curse the appearance of darkness.

[Merryprankster]

Well, I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody, except possibly whipping hand, if he considers being called a troll offensive.

I agree: Aspiring to being a good WC fighter is not mediocre.

I don't even understand why that would be posted, it really doesn't make much sense to me...

Let me clarify: I personally do not take Wing Chun, and probably never will. I am interested in all martial arts.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Forgive me for not addressing this sooner. :p

It seems that this topic has strayed from a constructive discussion of the Chain Punch and into more of a post of various slights directed between a few individuals. I would ask that everyone refrain from continuing with personal slights and focus instead on the subject at hand. If someone offends you then it is best to ignore them. If you have something to offer this discussion then offer it without the addition of personalities.

Having said all of that allow me to offer the following:

This topic has addressed the idea of a chain punch and the possibility of it being a low level technique. Now to some the concept of the chain punch would be the rapid firing of multiple punches at an opponent. This would be a fairly accurate description. But, there are circumstances which need to be considered. If one simply fires off a barrage of chain punches in the hopes of hitting a target then that is indeed, IMHO, "Low Level". However, if one applies the concept of forward force and striking when the way is clear to unleash a flurry of chain punches then that does not need to be low level.

One of the things I was taught was to attack with a sequence of techniques. This does not mean that I would use a predetermined pattern but that I would not rely on one punch or technique to end the fight, but rather that I would attack with several techniques in a continuous barrage until the attacker is defeated or unable to continue. This continuous attack could include chain punches, elbows, kicks palms or whatever. The key is to keep the pressure on until the opponent can not fight back. Chain punching is a good way to train this type of attack. It prepares the body and the mind to unleash a sustained attack. Now, in reality it is highly unlikely that you would ever unleash a flurry of 10-12 punches on someone, however, to attack with a series of 3-4 punches is quite possible and will work, if applied properly whether the opponent is skilled or a street thug. Although some "street thugs" can be quite formidable ;)

Consider this, I have been quite successful in applying the concept of the sustained forward attack, taught with basic chain punching, against several opponents. The idea, for me at least, is to overload the opponents senses and take away any opportunity for him/her to regroup and get their bearings. By continuing to attack and pressing that attack I have been fortunate. This is a concept stressed and taught with the "lowly" chain punch which carries over to other techniques, again think elbows, kicks, palms etc.
In some other arts this might be considered "flow". The idea is also taught in Chi Sau where one may attack a certain way and then modify your approach depending on the energy givent o you by the opponent.

I find it kind of funny that some would make distinction and consider the Chain Punch a low level technique. When applied properly one can use the chain punch to exclude and include an opponents punches. One can also attack very aggressively giving the opponent little chance to recover and respond. When done properly, the opponent will need to step and attack from a different angle in order to defeat the chain punch. The Pak Sau drill against chain punches is a good drill, but it relies on being defensive in nature. If you change the dril to a Pak Da you will find that the continuing chain punches can deflect the punch and continue to rain in. Of course, there are ways to deal with this as well, no one technique is undefeatable. But the idea is that the flow and aggressiveness developed can and will carry over to more "advanced" techniques. Consider the concept of using Bui Tze in succession, is'nt this just like doing chain punching only using a different attacking weapon??

Finally, consider the fact that many "champions", although capable of a full range of techniques, will focus on a few basic ones to get the job done. They will have refined these "basic" techniques to such a high degree that the higher levels become secondary and only needed in the rare instance when the basics fail.

Besides, I recall a saying about how the movements of the Bui Jee could be countered with those of the Siu Nim Tau and vice versa. What is wrong with low level or basic as long as it gets the job done. Rather do one thing well rather than 100 not so well.

I don't expect total agreement and I am willing to accept that I could be wrong but let's at least discuss the subject rather than the personalities.

Peace,

Dave

[rubthebuddha]

i'll have to agree with sihing73 on this one. one reason we learn the chain punch so early is that it's an incredibly important and effective technique. another reason? the sooner we learn it, the more time we have to perfect it and make it our own formidable weapon.

as far as knowing many techniques but sticking to a few well-trained ones that will virtually always work, i think that goes hand in hand with one of wing chun's foremost principles -- simplicity. all in all, we learn a half-dozen forms. in the time i've been studying WT, i've learned a whopping two forms, but i feel quite confident in my ability to defend myself against someone from a different style who has spent a similar amount of time stretching themselves across a dozen or more different forms.

honestly, just find something that works and works well in many different circumstances, and train the heck out of it.

-rtb

[Shadowboxer]

Is chain punching "low-level" technique? Who cares and does it matter? It is simple/direct and consistent with WC principles.

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sihing73:
What is wrong with low level or basic as long as it gets the job done. Rather do one thing well rather than 100 not so well.
[/quote]

Again, it's the difference between a fighter and a martial artist.

[whippinghand]

let's return to the subject at hand.

There are FAR more sophisticated techniques, and just as simple, than the chain punch.

[rubthebuddha]

wh - you're darn right, but i don't think any of them could be as simple or as universally offensive and defensive, nor as quickly repeatable as the chain punch. i know bunches of individual techniques, but i find myself occasionally trying to force these techniques, almost like i was thinking of what to do instead of just doing. this may be nice on the training floor, but in a real fight, i'm not going to have time to think, "hm, i bet it'd be neat to do so-and-so technique to this chump." i'd much rather just punch first, let my bong/tan/jum/kau sau take over if they need to and then just flow until i get an opening.

of course, we can't forget the simple speed of a good chain punches. i'd really like to see someone fak sau 8 times per second. now where's william cheung when you need him? ;)

-rtb

[chu yun]

The chain punch is like a tool for a specific job. Just as all techniques are tools. Right tool for right job. make sense? Is a screwdriver inferior or a low level tool compared to a ratchet even though a ratchet is more complicated? No, it is'nt because a screwdriver can still do things a ratchet can't. There's a purpose and reasoning for every tool.

[Merryprankster]

Interesting post Sihing... I rather liked it.

wh, what IS the difference between a fighter and a martial artist, in your eyes?

[joy chaudhuri]

Broken telephone again? Sloppy thinking in many parts of the thread from then on IMO. Note Rogue's original start up
thread statement where the context was:"Some think that chain punching is the answer to many almost any fighting problem."
To that statement ed I think said it was low level
and I agreed and still agree. Low level does not mean ineffective.Given any motion in the right context and opponent things can work. It simply means that beginners depend on it more because they have not developed a full repertoire of skills.The chain punching has its role 1. when people are not expecting it and 2. when an opening remains there for a long time. Those two
conditions are not always present when there is a real dangerous opponent who wants to do real harm.
IMO...dealing with bar patrons or regulated TV affairs are not what I mean.
When after learning chain punching one learns skills where the two hands are doing different things- you develop control over the other fella while punching or whatever- less riskier routes.
Wing chun is not about exchanging blows its about causing maximum damage with minimal harm to oneself. That's enough for me on this thread.
Good luck on chain punching-best to get some insurance with other skills in case the other fella is competent.

[whippinghand]

RTB, a valid point you make about the offensiveness and defensiveness of the chain punch... At a lower level, this is true.

However, a chain punch would not work against me, in ANY situation. The point being, you cannot train only to fight the average joe, as yuen fan suggested.

And that is the difference, Merryprankster, to answer your question, between a fighter and a martial artist.

[jameswebsteruk]

Define the chain punch which would not work on you.

I would agree that someone blindly punching before they have contact or an opening is easily defeated. However, if someone has the line on you, and strikes once or more, are you saying that this wouldnt work?

Or would you get hit by the first, but not subsequent ones? Or do you never get hit?

Please clarify.

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank Exchange:
Define the chain punch which would not work on you.

...if someone has the line on you, and strikes once or more, are you saying that this wouldnt work?
[/quote]

Would not work. If someone "had the line on me", they would not have it for very long.

[Merryprankster]

Ok whipping hand, we actually agree on one thing:

Don't train to defeat the average joe. You don't know what's coming your way, so you need to train to defeat skilled opponents, yah?

However, I can play your little game too w/regards to "wouldn't work on me..."

That wing chun stuff you do? Wouldn't work on me. If you try and hit me, I'll just follow your strikes in, clinch and lift.

See how silly that sounds?

[jameswebsteruk]

>> Would not work. If someone "had the line on me", they would not have it for very long. <<

A good wing chun person doesn't need to have it for very long.

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merryprankster:
However, I can play your little game too w/regards to "wouldn't work on me..."

That wing chun stuff you do? Wouldn't work on me. If you try and hit me, I'll just follow your strikes in, clinch and lift.

See how silly that sounds?[/quote]

:rolleyes: another one who missed the point.

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank Exchange:

A good wing chun person doesn't need to have it for very long.
[/quote]

Another low-level mentality. Keep thinking about the average joe...

[joy chaudhuri]

A good wing chun person doesn't need to have it for very long.
------------------------------------------
True. But a competent person wont stand still.Chain punching is good for flow practice
or if you already have the guy going backwards..
but without aim, variety or timing or control
or footwork
can present problems. Advanced skills do take those variables into account.

you punch me once shame on you!
You punch me twice shame on me!

[Merryprankster]

My dear sir,

You would fail any history or philosophy course if you wrote for them, the way in which you write for us. Your lack of exposition makes us all, as readers, continually ask WHAT you are talking about. The extreme frequency with which we must ask this question suggests that the fault is with the writer rather than the reader.

You need to improve your writing Kung-Fu.

As for the rest; I believe I clearly understand your point:

The chain punch is a "low-level technique," taught early on.

It is not the technique itself that requires the mastery, rather the concepts behind it.

Once the concepts are understood, you open up to "higher level techniques."

Those who focus on perfection and use of the chain punch vice the principles are in error and will remain low-level, having missed the forest for the trees.

Those who have mastered the concepts will apply them in the form of higher level techniques.

Those who are as enlightened as you are have nothing to fear from the chain punch, as your mastery of the concepts, and higher level techniques quickly defuse what danger there is.

Well, the jab is a "low-level technique," but boxers use it constantly. Nobody ever claims "they've got nothing to fear," from the jab because it won't work on them.

Uchi-mata is one of the first throws you learn in Judo. It's also one of the highest scoring in elite judo.

Techniques are not low-level. The application might be, but not the technique itself, and certainly not the concepts behind them.

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merryprankster:
You would fail any history or philosophy course if you wrote for them, the way in which you write for us.
[/quote]

There is a difference between writing philosophy and living it. I prefer to live it. I apologize if my goals, with respect to Kung Fu, do not entail essay writing. Plans to write articles and/or books, I do not have, and never will. Training only is my interest.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Your lack of exposition makes us all, as readers, continually ask WHAT you are talking about. The extreme frequency with which we must ask this question suggests that the fault is with the writer rather than the reader.
[/quote]Do you blame your instructors for your lack of improvement in the martial arts?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You need to improve your writing Kung-Fu.
[/quote]
You need to improve your Kung-Fu.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for the rest; I believe I clearly understand your point:
The chain punch is a "low-level technique," taught early on.
[/quote]
The chain punch should not be taught at all.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It is not the technique itself that requires the mastery, rather the concepts behind it.
[/quote]
Not exactly.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Once the concepts are understood, you open up to "higher level techniques."
[/quote]
Not exactly


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Those who focus on perfection and use of the chain punch vice the principles are in error and will remain low-level, having missed the forest for the trees.
[/quote]
I think at this point, the chain punch has been given too much attention, when it is not worthy of it.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Those who have mastered the concepts will apply them in the form of higher level techniques.
[/quote]
Not exactly.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Those who are as enlightened as you are have nothing to fear from the chain punch, as your mastery of the concepts, and higher level techniques quickly defuse what danger there is.
[/quote]
Not exactly.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, the jab is a "low-level technique," but boxers use it constantly. Nobody ever claims "they've got nothing to fear," from the jab because it won't work on them.
[/quote]
Boxing is a sport. Are we talking about sport or martial art?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Uchi-mata is one of the first throws you learn in Judo. It's also one of the highest scoring in elite judo.
[/quote]
The chain punch is not one that applies to your analogy.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Techniques are not low-level. The application might be, but not the technique itself, and certainly not the concepts behind them.
[/quote]
I don't think you know what you're saying in the above. In addition, the chain punch is not a technique.

You're expoundin

[joy chaudhuri]

By passing the merrypranksters' attempt at an
ENG. 101 lecture, in order to comment on the substance. Yes the boxers jab is pretty fundamental. Few do it well and it takes much to hone it. Yes, a judo throw may be so fundamental that it is relevant for the elite. But the analogy of the jab and the throw does not excatly match the role of the chain punch in wing chun- even though that like anything else has to be done well.

[whippinghand]

Yuenfan, I'll have to give that an F.

...So what does it feel like from the other end?

[joy chaudhuri]

re-write, re-submit?

[Merryprankster]

I do blame them if they have not provided proper guidance. Rock management is a similar concept.

And you are right; I know little of wing chun. Educate me on why the chain punch should not be taught. Why is what I wrote above not similar? I'm not asking out of a challenge, I would like to know why.

Sport, martial art, doesn't matter, in this particular example. There is a reason why you tackle the way you tackle in football. The technique is practiced, but the underlying principles are the true goal.

Secondly, my progress in the martial arts is just fine, thank you. I am not in a position to judge your progress; I certainly don't think you are in any position to judge mine.

[joy chaudhuri]

merryprankster-(ultimately the list members)
Again- you misunderstand many things about the wc discussions. Sure we have had "debates" on this thread.But for me it is NOT an issue of whether
multiple punches should be practised. Many wing chun folks throw enormous number of punches for
development purposes.More than chain punching. Some things are for development- their application would vary. The discussion in part was about the relative importance of chain punching.The reason why your analogies dont hold is that you are using sports analogies.A boxer boxes and the jab is an important boxing technique.The boxing action would be stopped if a boxer picks up and slams his opponent down. A judoka is interested in throws. The match would be stopped if he gets his opponent to the ground with a left hook. A football tackle would be penalised if his tackling includes spearing with his helmet. But in good kung fu systems the sporting objectives are not there. Naturally I think that wc subjectively atleast is the best-otherwise I wouldnt be doing it.Originally wing chun was really a rebel /unorthodox war art. Within the boundaries of the law and morality that flavor should be maintained. Ergo--a good wing chun person does NOT commit himself to a technique 100%.The best avilable martial info is always needed and chi sao is a source of related training.
In the way to a punch the character of the contact should immediately and automatically dictate whether punching should change to something else.With development each wing chun motion can serve a variety of functions. A punch
need not end up as a punch in function or execution. BTW I am not unaware of atleast part of the logic of some of the sports that you mention because I have been around and close to first rate exponents
of each (i,e. boxing, wrestling and football).
But the wing chun world is a very uneven world since the art has spread rapidly and not always with sustained good instruction or practice. So there is sometimes more noise than information

[joy chaudhuri]

Below is a comment to me by an experienced and knowledgeable wing chun person from a major well respected linesge other than mine-on chain punching:
------------------------------------------------

Chain punching, as I understand it, have
>practiced it (in the past), have had it explained to me and seen it used, is
>a rapid series of punches following the same (or very close to it) line of
>attack on the same target. At the risk of appearing facetious, it seems to
>work really well on opponents that stand still with their arms down. One
>thing to practice a repetitive punching

>action quite another to use it in application. I think it a mistake both
>tactically and mechanically, and believe that, though it may work to some

>degree against a poor fighter, it is not the most efficient way to win a
>fight. I recently saw video of two WC men pawing away at one another, in
>what was a tape of a real incident, little wonder many from outside of our
>system think it an ineffective fighting method.

[Wei Sui]

I just wanted to get in this thread..lol :) *jk*

But seriously... similar to WH's mentality...my sifu thinks chain punches are not needed. My old kwoon lived by chain punches..now w/ my new sifu (who doesn't really teach using it), I notice more advantageous (safer and effective ways to take openings). Although I am at not yet at the mook jong stage, by observing and listening to what my sifu does/says...I can tell many answers about the non-necessity of the use of chain punches are there.

*************************
Dai yut tow dai :)

[rubthebuddha]

what about using chain punching to further development of centerline, especially for newer students?

honestly, giving chi sau to someone who's still scrubbing the green off him or herself is an exercise in futility, but taking steps to refine students' perception and command of centerline early on is important.

i'll agree on the point that the chain punch is a tool. so's a fak sau, tan sau, huen gerk, etc. and for simply dealing with your average jacka** former highschool football player who finds the need to pick a fight with you in a bar after pounding too many bud lights, the chain punch can be a really effective tool, especially when you don't know yet how to deal with our drunken friend in a more safe or restraining method. honestly, most of the participants here sound like they'd be able to deal with such a situation in a manner that kept him or herself safe while not needing to cause too much harm to our opponent. but for early students, just stepping in and punching like heck seems like one of the best ways to deal with such a dirty bastage.

again, i agree, it's a tool. we may have the skill to take a single step, have this oppenent flanked and in a really nasty position. but in that case, we have access to more effective tools for the situation.

d@mn. why does it seem to me, after writing my short novella, that i just agreed with whipping hand and everyone else that's posted in that last few days all at once. :rolleyes:

-rtb

[jameswebsteruk]

>> True. But a competent person wont stand still.Chain punching is good for flow practice
or if you already have the guy going backwards..
but without aim, variety or timing or control
or footwork can present problems. Advanced skills do take those variables into account. <<

Agreed. Which is why I have already said that robotically punching many times without awareness or flow is easy to defeat. Its something that beginners are regularly taught. If this is what you all think of as chainpunching, then I am with you 100%.

However, if you have the line, and can hit, then surely the best thing to do is to follow the hit with another?

I was talking earlier about the concept of chain punching, which is what I believe is important. Whether you punch once, then follow with another punch, or instead a palm strike, or a tan or po-pai is largely irrelevant. It is the concept of uprooting, forwardness and overwhelming the opponent that is important. This is in no way low level, it is fundamental, and I would like someone to explain why it should be any different if you are in conflict with an 'average joe' or a more experienced fighter.


The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[joy chaudhuri]

Whether you punch once, then follow with another punch, or instead a palm strike, or a tan or po-pai is largely irrelevant. It is the concept of uprooting, forwardness and overwhelming the opponent that is important
-------------------------------------------------
If you include tan etc it is technically not what is meant by chain punching usually: a different ball of wax. You have to have somethimg to tan.
My comments on chain punching did not apply to
youe examples. We are using differnt definitions.

[Merryprankster]

Fair enough Yuan Fen,

Thanks for the input; bits I disagree with, but certainly not important from this discussions perspective.

You note that the first instant of contact dictates the next and so and and so forth. Can't argue with that; quite common to all combat arts/sports.

However, Frank Exchange says that the concept behind chain punching is the important thing to grasp.

You note that you are both working from different definitions.

How would you describe the purpose of chain punching?

Does it have a purpose?

Should it be taught?

If not, why not, and if so, why?

Lastly, I've failed to provide background, and I apologize for that. I'm curious about this because somebody I sparred with tried to chain punch me and I did a "bodylock and lift." Please don't say "he didn't do it right," as the answer. That may be true, I don't know. I'm trying to get a feel for what his probable objective was.

[jameswebsteruk]

>> If you include tan etc it is technically not what is meant by chain punching usually: a different ball of wax. You have to have somethimg to tan. <<

Yep, perhaps tan was a bad example.

>> My comments on chain punching did not apply to
youe examples. We are using differnt definitions. <<

I think we are. The way I see it, if you have a line on the opponent, for whatever reason, the first strike you do will usually give you room for a second or third, in quick succession. Lut Sao Jit Chung. If there is nothing to stop you, then why do anything else?

HOWEVER, you obviously you have to be aware and able to flow from one move to another, so if your second is blocked you have to deal with that situation and regain the line rather than simply continuing to blast away with a third or fourth punch.

Again, I would stress that this sort of blind hammering regardless of the situation, is not what I would define as chain punching. It is certainly not taught like that in my school. You punch when and only when you have a line to do so, and when you are in range.

As Wong Shun Leung liked to say, when you jump off a diving board, you dont start swimming till you hit the water!

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[joy chaudhuri]

RE;Lut Sao Jit Chung. Sure if there is no obstruction you attack with whatever is direct and effective. If there is time and the opening remains you can go to the same spot with the other hand. But unless the opponent is unskilled or incapcitated IMO the second hit should follow a different line.
RE;WSL- I do have a small sense and feel about WSL..
not just hearsay. I have met him and chatted with him and rolled with him briefly during his visit to the US-late eighties.But of course I am not in his line but I respect(ed) him.Sad about his passing.
Re: Teaching chain punching.If one means one punch after another as a drill. OFCOURSE, Thats a fundamental wing chun training exercise. You "conquer" muscle tension, straighten out the path of your punch, link one hand with another,...
lots of other goodies. As a technique it has its uses- if you get inside a kicker's leg and the center is right there you can hammer away before the kicker recovers his balance. But against good hands folks- mechanical chain punching is a mistake. Against grappler types... you will get jammed and lifted and or put down... something like the merryprankster;'s description. Against a boxer type unless you have developed very good wing chun footwork ...just punching away could get you sidestepped and hooked. Again =wrong choice.
Frank and I as was noted were working with different definitions of chain punching. As to why someone was chain punching the prankster- I dont know- wasnt there. Could be 1. his particular school primarily depends on chain punching or 2. he was a beginner who didnt know what he was doing.
Cheers

[Merryprankster]

Thanks Yuan Fen. I realize that not being there prohibits you from commenting on exactly what was going on.

It sounds as though chain punching is both a mechanical exercise, and possibly a close-in technique used to keep pressing the attack, but, as you point out, not necessarily the best way to close with the opponent, nor the cure all.

[joy chaudhuri]

correct in clarification and summary.
BTW curious-from a different forum-

I realise that you are not in wc...but

how do YOU handle someone who has mounted you if the weight difference is vast? Of course best not to get into that predicament but stuff happens.

[chu yun]

Chain punch should not be taught at all? Ha! You people are still missing the point. There are no low level techniques. Only low level people using it who don't understand it.
Chain punch is just one idea in little imagination. There are no low level thinking in SLT. All ideas is good and just as important as next one.

[whippinghand]

"what about using chain punching to further development of centerline, especially for newer students?"

The only thing that chain punching does is develop a misconception of what the centreline is and how to use it.

"but taking steps to refine students' perception and command of centerline early on is important."

The chain punch is the worst way to do this.

[whippinghand]

"However, if you have the line, and can hit, then surely the best thing to do is to follow the hit with another?"

This is the perfect example of how the practise of chain punching develops misconceptions about of centreline. Your concept of "having the line" is a delusion.

"It is the concept of uprooting, forwardness and overwhelming the opponent that is important. This is in no way low level, it is fundamental"

You do not punch to uproot. This isn't Batman and Robin, the cartoon. This is Wing Chun, a scientific method of hurting people. Key word: scientific.

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chu yun:
Chain punch is just one idea in little imagination. There are no low level thinking in SLT. All ideas is good and just as important as next one.[/quote]

Did you ever think that, perhaps, 3 consecutive punches does not mean chain punch?

[S.Teebas]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You do not punch to uproot [/quote]

True, but a proper punch WILL uproot the opponent.


S.Teebas

[rubthebuddha]

love the feedback, but would you please explain, in as much detail as you're able to give, why you feel chain punches are a negative influence on our wing chun? admittedly, they're not flawless, but why do you feel that the benefits of chain punch training are outweighed by the detriments?

basically, i'm just asking for the reasons behind what you think, not trying to badger you.

-rtb

[chu yun]

okay, so how many punches are in a chain punch?

[fmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whipping Hand:
Quote: "Originally posted by chu yun:
Chain punch is just one idea in little imagination. There are no low level thinking in SLT. All ideas is good and just as important as next one."

Did you ever think that, perhaps, 3 consecutive punches does not mean chain punch?[/quote]

Perhaps 3 punches is all that's necessary. If your opponent is unskilled, then 3 punches might be enough to knock him out. If your opponent is skilled, chances are he's done something by your 3rd punch, if not earlier. Hence, you shouldn't go any further than three...

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chu yun:
okay, so how many punches are in a chain punch?[/quote]

Any number greater than 1.

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.Teebas:
True, but a proper punch WILL uproot the opponent.
S.Teebas[/quote]

Not necessarily. Having a proper punch will uproot if you want it to. However, it also gives you the liberty of obtaining the result that you choose, which may not be to uproot.

[whippinghand]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fmann:
Perhaps 3 punches is all that's necessary. If your opponent is unskilled, then 3 punches might be enough to knock him out. If your opponent is skilled, chances are he's done something by your 3rd punch, if not earlier. Hence, you shouldn't go any further than three...[/quote]


Who are you training for? If your opponent is unskilled, do you think that you should be engaging in punches at all?

[jameswebsteruk]

>> If your opponent is unskilled, do you think that you should be engaging in punches at all? <<

What would you recommend? Baking him a cake, perhaps?

The chalice from the palace has the pellet with the poison,
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

[fmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>originally from WH:
Who are you training for? If your opponent is unskilled, do you think that you should be engaging in punches at all?
[/quote]

The unskilled opponent can be very dangerous since he/she doesn't have the control developed in training and therefore will have a rough, unpredictable method of attack, with reckless and careless abandon. Therefore, he/she still has to be handled very carefully... probably with more advanced techniques that can take control of the situation more quickly and effectively...

I see the point now.

[whippinghand]

If the guy is unskilled, why use any techniques at all? Don't you think it would be a waste of your time. Is Wing Chun not about efficiency?

[vingtsunstudent]

when you first step up to fight you may not & should expect that he is unskilled.
wanking hand-'Is Wing Chun not about efficiency?'
yes. and whether you want to admit it or not, one of the most efficient ways of knocking a man down when a gap appears is a series of 2-3-4 qiuck punches in what is generally less than a second.
it seems to me that with that statement on efficiency you have fuked your own arguement against it, although i am sure you have somehting very insightful to share with a pure beginner like me.
vts

[whippinghand]

yes, yes, yes. That is a popular mentality, vts... one that I've heard many times. Can YOU tell ME something new and insightful?

[vingtsunstudent]

only that basics will win you over 90% of your fights.
vts
sorry to be such a beginner in the presence of you our lord.

[Frank Exchange]

Just because its a popular mentality doesnt make it untrue.
If you disagree with it, please explain why?

[fmann]

Originally posted by whippinghand
If the guy is unskilled, why use any techniques at all? Don't you think it would be a waste of your time. Is Wing Chun not about efficiency?

While it is true that in the situation of an avoidable confrontation with someone that I can perceive is completely unskilled, the use of no technique may be appropriate.

However, in an unavoidable altercation with someone unskilled or skilled, though, what should be used then? If not something defined as "technique," that is, something technical and refined as opposed to raw uncontrolled aggression, then what?

If punching is not efficient enough by your standards, and if higher-level control (e.g., chin na, and the like) is not to your standards, then what is?

[whippinghand]

Originally posted by vingtsunstudent
whether you want to admit it or not, one of the most efficient ways of knocking a man down when a gap appears is a series of 2-3-4 qiuck punches in what is generally less than a second.
vts

It is the least efficient. If you have to use that many punches to put a man down, a change in approach to training is in order.

Wing Chun is a scientific method of fighting, don't forget...

[black and blue]

Three or four punches is fairly efficient, but not as sharp and clean as a fak sau to the throat.

If they're still standing after you've crushed the windpipe... run, boy, run!!!

[red5angel]

What do you guys think of chain punches? Do you train in them often? Do you believe they have a valuable application? I have heard a lot of things about the chain punch since my short time in Wing Chun and am wondering how valuable they really are.

Red5angel

[rogue]

You may want to read this thread that we had going not too long ago.

Chain punch thread (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=7111)

[Cyborg]

Try digging back into the archives on this topic.

I personally am not as impressed as many are with it. But then, I'm not a WC player either. I'd rather hit harder and not more often when there's an opening.

They work fine against newbies IMO but not good opponents.

Good luck!

[IronFist]

Bump because I can't believe I just read this whole thing :)

Iron

[Frank Exchange]

It is the concept of chain punches that is important. The idea that one punch may not necessarily end the fight, but two or three may do the job.

This is often misinterpreted into the idea that hundreds of rapid fire punches is the answer to everything, for bridging, defence and offence.