Circling Your Opponent

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

Circling Your Opponent
If you know what handed your opponent is, being left or right handed, you need to circle your opponent in the direction away from their power hand. For example, if your opponent is right handed, circle to his left because his right hand will be his power hand. This will keep you out of his power range and keep you from getting knocked out.

It’s the same concept as hitting and moving. You don’t want to be in front of your opponent where he can inflict the most damage to you. It also goes along with head movement. A moving target is harder to hit. Sugar Ray Leonard beat Marvin Hagler this way. He was always a step ahead of Marvin and never allowed Marvin to post up on him.

When you circle your opponent, keep on the balls up your feet. Never rest on your heels, because if you receive a solid blow you will be knocked backwards or even down. Keeping on the balls of your feet will help you maintain your balance. And remember to not cross your feet.

What do you guys think of this advice? Ok, so this obviously a boxers perspective, but what would you say about this advice coming from a WC perspective?

2

i wouldnt say wing chun circles much, but instead the footwork allows us to zone off to an opponents weak side. for example, if their right foot is in the front, we can zone off such that the opponent would have to retract their right foot to shift to face us, as opposed to the other side where the opponent would be facing us without moving. in other words, our opponents right foot is forward, so we step forward to their right side (our left), with our left foot forward. if needed, the right foot can then follow using the somewhat arcing step found in the dummy, cutting off their right foots route of retreat, and giving us their back.

we go for the center, however the center can be attacked using the easiest entry route :wink:

as to defense against the circle, i’d say wing chuns so called “advanced” SLT stance allows us to have no weak side per se, because chum kiu shifting allows us to face the full 180 degrees that our opponent could come in on us from and still use both our hands optimally.

3

there is a lot you can do if you understand positioning while out of range. Its the difference between pre-fight, out of range strategy, and in fight, in range tactics.

4

If your apponet throws apunch I would not move to this left because he could hit you with his other hand.I would move to his right side which is much safer position as TJD pointed out.

5

It might be a sparring solution but…As we are in Wing Chun,we should not spar the guy.We should be preying on him and HE should be forced to fall back on this kind of strategy.Wing Chun is for attack!

6

We’re actually doing the same thing as the boxer, but for different reasons -
They circle away from the power hand, which is on the same side as their rear foot. So they end up going to the outside of the front foot.
We’d just go their because it makes it more difficult for them to follow & exposes their center better.

7

I think the principle is similar, but I’ve never been taught to assume the power hand of my opponent. I HAVE been taught to flank the opponent so I am always coming in at them head on, but they are never fully facing me, and they always have to adjust their facing first to really threaten me. Sometimes I end up flanking on the side of their “power hand,” sometimes not. But they never have two hand and two feet within threat range of me at the same time, so I always have greater numbers and superior position.

-Levi

8

I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

9

circling vs. angling

TjD writes:
> i wouldnt say wing chun circles much, but instead the footwork
> allows us to zone off to an opponents weak side.

I’m going agree with TjD, who choses the verb “zone off” vs. other people who use more vague terminology such as “move” (how does one “move”? lots of ways…). That is to say, as someone bigger comes in (lol, more vague terminology), I will, for example, from YJKYM step forward with one foot to meet him and let the other foot (now the “back foot”) readjust so that I am on his blind side. Assuming the opponent’s stance is such where one hand becomes the “feeler” and the second hand becomes the “power hitter,” he will be forced to readjust his body positioning so that his “strongside” hand can reach you. In all actuality, going the other direction (i.e., the non-blindside) also puts an opponent who uses a lot of torso rotation to generate power at a disadvantage (like WC’s idea of “chao xing”-- front facing front); however, both of his weapons can still reach you (though maybe not the way he wants). Either way, it is still direct and efficient since you are still essentially going forward.

Either way, I think the key is that this kind of movement is passive- that is to say, it is a reaction to someone elses action. If I try to side step first, then my opponent can adjust so that he is still facing the way he wants to face me. And then, I have just wasted energy. On the other hand, if he moves forward, then my angling is an adjustment to his motion.

While boxing employs both passive and active circling, the latter, from my WC point of view is a waste of energy (though a boxer certainly won’t tire from it if he has even the slightest about of conditioning!), and goes against the idea of “economy of motion.” That is not to invalidate it, though, since there are many styles (like Ba Gua, Ba Ji, Liu He Ba Fa, etc) that employ it.

Anyway, this is all nice theory, which definitely takes time and diligence to hardwire into the system. It is nice to say you want to attack someone’s blind side; it is whole other thing to try and execute it against someone who is also in motion.

r5a predictably says:
> I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right
> down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

Definitely, if I have a size advantage over my opponent. However, give it a try against someone bigger with a little boxing training, and see how it works. I have seen many a WC person get caught with a circling jab or hook when trying.

10

Red,

Enjoy getting hit.

A lot.

11

Originally posted by red5angel
I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

…that’s why advancing directly ahead figures so prominently in WC forms;)

12

MP, Aelward - I think partially its a matter of how you train, if you train to circle then you are going to be more comfortable and more proficient at it. Same with taking your opponent head on. MP, it actually surprises me you would express that. Circling takes more time and energy, and against a trained opponent can be hard to pull off. Atleast against a trained opponent and attacking straight in, you are not wasting energy trying to get to his side or outside.
In theory it sounds great, all I have to do is swing to his blindside and then I can destroy him, but like Aelward said, its different when you face an opponent in motion as well.

Let me ask you guys this, do you think you have as much of a chance hitting your oponent trying to get to his blindside as you do taking him straight on?

13

to flank or not to flank…

>>from red5angel…

 >>Let me ask you guys this, do you think you
 >>have as much of a chance hitting your oponent
 >>trying to get to his blindside as you do taking
 >>him straight on?

Probably yes, but head on he has the exact same opportunity to hit me as I have to hit him, which means I’m not playing Wing Chun, I’m playing “who’s faster.” Which also means that when I get older and slower, my Wing Chun gets less and less effective.

Rather than hit him as FAST as I can, I’d rather hit him as SAFELY as I can. My number one goal is not to hit, but to be in control of the situation, and THAT entails more than hitting. When I have him flanked he has (at max) one hand and one leg to my two of each, and I can unload on him with strikes, kicks, and forward energy while he struggles to face me again. I’m already ahead of game, and suddenly who’s faster is a moot point.

Of course, this is all IMHO.

-Levi

14

Straight in or Circle?

r5a writes:
> I think partially its a matter of how you train, if you train to
> circle then you are going to be more comfortable and more
> proficient at it.

In our school, we train both. It is not a matter of comfort, but of common sense. To engage much bigger straight on is like a bicycle playing chicken with a Mack truck. Read one story about Yip Man, who faced a challenger during Japan’s occupation of Foshan-- he engaged from the side, locked legs, and sent the guy to the ground.

> Circling takes more time and energy, and against a trained
> opponent can be hard to pull off.

I have to disagree. Passive angling (once again, not the boxer dancing around you, but intercepting at an angle) takes no more energy or effort than going straight in. It embodies the concept of feng sao (enveloping hands), only extrapolated to include the body-- in essense, you are “trapping” the body.

> Let me ask you guys this, do you think you have as much of a
> chance hitting your oponent trying to get to his blindside as
> you do taking him straight on?

See above. Yes, it is just as easy, maybe even easier depending on how your opponent is positioned as either you or he enters.

taltos writes:
> but head on he has the exact same opportunity to hit me as I
> have to hit him, which means I’m not playing Wing Chun, I’m
> playing “who’s faster.” Which also means that when I get older
> and slower, my Wing Chun gets less and less effective.

I am going to agree in that engaging head-on becomes a matter of who is faster-- however, I think you have to look at both physical speed and structural speed-- Our speed should be coming from good position - whether that is body positioning (from flanking) or hand position (when going straight in). So hopefully, as you get older and physically slower, your wing chun structure will be getting better and structurally faster and stronger (saying you are still training). Did they not say that Yip Man at 70 was still untouchable when he wanted?

> Rather than hit him as FAST as I can, I’d rather hit him as
> SAFELY as I can. My number one goal is not to hit, but to be in
> control of the situation,

I agree 100% here-- my sifu always emphasized that safety comes first-- his example: even a 2-year old can hit someone, pull their hair, poke eyes, etc-- so offense comes quite naturally; attacking safely, however, is much harder and takes training.

15

variants of speed

aelward, I agree 100% with you comments on speed. I was stumbling over saying that, and you clarified it nicely. thanks.

Our Sifus are in agreement about safety. I’ve always been taught that step one is PROTECT YOURSELF. Then worry about everything else.

Also, as aelward pointed out, taking a better flanking position upon/during interception really take no more energy at all. And if you have properly set up upon the outset of the conflict (with your foot to the outside of the opponents leading foot, or through several other means), then it actually becomes the shortest distance. That’s the beauty (and simplicity) of making your opponent go around your structure… they have to break structure somewhere (hands, feet, facing) to do so, and you start out one step ahead.

-Levi

16

safety first = fear of being hit?

I can predict that this thread may soon tangent into the issue of “safety first” vs “offense as the best defense.” Just to clarify, “safety first” does not mean not being offensive. It means being cautiously offensive, that is, your attack should take into consideration hand and body position so as to minimize risk to yourself and maximize potential damage to your opponent.

btw Taltos, what lineage do you come from?

17

lineage…

I study both Yip Man Wing Chun (through the VT Museum and Moy Yat family for 5 years now) and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun (for 2.5 years now).

It all boils down to efficiency in its totality. The point you’re striving for in a physical engagement is to end it as quicky as possible with as little harm to yourself as possible. In order to end it quickly, you must be assertive and aggressive (and relentless in your attack and pursuit). In order to minimize your potential for harm, you must recognize position and structure, and be able to identify the immidiate threats (if any). Efficiency is about finding that perfect balance between the two: the point where nothing can be added OR taken away before you loose advantage OVERALL.

-Levi

18

Originally posted by red5angel
I say dont worry so much about circling as just cutting right down the middle, its more direct and more efficient!

have you ever even sparred at your current school? circling in wing chun may be bad, but charging in like a bull throwing chain punches is a great way to get hit, unless your sparring with a punching bag

19

Moving to the outside / blind side is one of the basic tenets of TWC strategy. It is not always possible or even easy, but if the opportunity is there, taking it will put you in a strategically superior position.

20

Anerlich and Old Jong are correct.

Im trying to work out if this guy is talking about constantly circling away from your opponents power hand or what?

The reason i posted this is to see if circling away is really that good of an idea. Would anyone step into the direction of the power arm?

Surley the entire body mass of the WC person can overpower the arm? (and throw in a bit of 2 way force)