What type approach do members here use against wing chun practitioners? I practice with one guy who’s very good at his wing chun. I find that footwork is my best friend in sparring with him, as he puts up a very solid defense. However, constant repositioning seems to enable me to bypass his defenses.
At the same time, his best case scenario seems to be to get me in the position where I think I’ve bypassed his defenses, only to discover I’m mired in them.
There’s a rhymed formulae in Wing Chun Kuen which states (translated), “When an enemy moves, their balance they already lose”. So, if skill levels are proximate, moving around a lot and constantly reposition plays into the WCK strategy.
Well, if you were to ask me, I won’t tell you. Each MA style (including wing chun) have their own strengths and weaknesses. If I were to tell my opponent what my weaknesses are, they might use it against me.
“We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.” – Aesop
No!..First, you have to block his punches with your face then…You assume the open guard position on your back and invite him to fight on the ground!..Sounds easy to me!..
I agree, the style does have sufficient form to cover 360 degrees. I was just noting a tactic that seemed to work well when sparring him and some of his classmates. That being said, his teacher could probably kick my butt.
RD,
Yes. The style I practice utilizes mainly pa kua and hsing yi footwork, with a smattering of mantis in there.
reneritchie,
I haven’t heard that song. However, it doesn’t seem to me that moving equates to losing balance. When I reposition, its not a bunch of pointless moves, each step is part of an offensive, and, when I’m doing my kung fu correctly, I am balanced.
As an aside, my friend and I have compared the ways we do certain footwork, and the basics are very similar. The difference seems to be that, in my style, the footwork is a constant assault, whereas his footwork goes back and forth from offensive to defensive, which seems to me in keeping with wing chun principles. Neither is better or worse, they just create different opportunities for both the stylist and any opponents. His allows him to seemlessly regain his defense and keep his centerline focused on attacking me, mine allows me to press the offensive and disrupt his centerline by attacking his structure with feet, hands, hips, whatever. All in all, I’d say I like both styles.
Balance and stability are relative. At some point, if you’re lifting a leg to step and reposition, (unless you have years and years and years more strength and balance in your horse), there will be moments where applying force to you breaks your structure more easily than it would if you had both feet rooted on the ground. And, there will likely also be moments where your momentum can be added to or subtracted from, to enhance this.
In Western terms, an object at rest tends to stay at rest, and object in motion tends to stay in motion. It takes the act of considerable force to alter one state to another, but only small amounts of force to add to or subract from existing motion.
In a relative world, however, you only need to be moving less than an opponent to take advantage of this (turn into their turn, step into their step, as this is a shorter, shaper movement that plays into the old saying “the opponent moves first, I arrive first”.
In general, WCK follows the proverb (which comes, in part, from the 36 Strategies) (translated) “Use stillness to overcome movement. Rest while the opponent fatigues”
