How to strike a wing chun strike?
This is a question I read from other forum.
A simple question which is very profound. It relates to Indoor Hand and Outside door hand, It relates to Long bridge, Medium Bridge, Short Bridge. It relates to what type of Jing. It relates specifically to detail and detail of power generation…
How do you look at it? I am very interested to understand how one view this in details.
No offense but…
this type of convoluted malarky is a big reason why all my friends who do western martial arts are all better than those who do chinese arts.
Re: No offense but…
Originally posted by Kuen
this type of convoluted malarky is a big reason why all my friends who do western martial arts are all better than those who do chinese arts.
Great opinion,
But do you understand what is it about before you reply?
If you do, give us a detail reason to the topic to enlightent us how to strike a wing chun strike.
If you don’t then no wonder all your friends do western martial arts.
my friends who do western martial arts are all better than those who do chinese arts
With that attitude, I’m surprised you have any friends.
Though the “convoluted malarky” comment is not that wide of the mark.
But do you understand what is it about before you reply?
If I had said “no” would you, or more to the point would you be able, to elucidate?
Originally posted by anerlich
[B]
If I had said “no” would you, or more to the point would you be able, to elucidate? [/B]
We then starts with ask those who understand Noi Moon Sau and Oei Moon Sau for help to explain what are they.
Phenix, I’ll take that answer as a “NO” to my question.
Chum Kil and several dummy sets have “strike the strike” applications, which would work as well on WC strikes as any other. Also, bil sao can work well - a disbeliever who thought it would not stop a committed haymaker broke his ulna on William Cheung’s Bil Sao while experimenting, witnessed by my Sifu.
Most of the butterfly sword strategy also involves “striking the strike”.
The answers don’t have to be cloud-cuckoo-land esoterica, as much as some seem to prefer them to be so for whatever reason. Any of you more pragmatic types want to step up to the plate?
Sorry my post should’ve read:
this type of convoluted malarky is a big reason why all my friends who do western martial arts are all better than those FRIENDS who do chinese arts.
So it was meant as an observation not a blanket condemnation of CMA. Now, I’m sure you’ll say the guys I know who do WC and other CMA’s aren’t any good or had bad teachers, etc. but I have a realist view of martial art. I don’t look to Wong Shun Leung or Rickson Gracie…I look to see how the average person does with the art. If a person has to be a mystic sage, superbeing or muscle thug to make the art work, well, that will be an art soon piled on the trash heap of yesterday. As for why I have friends who do Western Martial Arts? Just re-read your post.
As for my explaing the WC punch, I probably couldn’t in text but I know that even though my punch isn’t the fastest or hardest (it’s quite dainty actually 
) it has worked every time I really needed it to work and that’s pretty much all I need. Now you seem to enjoy dangling your esoteric knowledge like a worm before us poor forum fish…take care you don’t get wet, now ya hyear.
Kuen-
Firstly Anerlich is far from “esoteric”.
Secondly— defining an art by seeing the “average” from your perspective- is error filled. The difference between a well trained sniper and the average gun toting macho is considerable.
Wing chun was never intended as a mass production art.
Regarding “esoterica”… apart from problems in language or even
indirectedness… there are different cultural roots involved in
communications on wing chun. Some esoterica is inescapable imo—though necessary degrees can vary.
FWIW- I came to wing chun AFTER being fairly good at several western arts.
There can be different languages for different functions- classic distinctions between connotation and denotation… among others.
The languages of pure, applied, engineering, varying philosophies, sports, art, two person communications, multi person communications, intuitive insights—can have different nuances.
I often wonder if “Punch like arrow” refers more to penetrating power of the arrow or a bullet for instance. It makes a world of difference when correctly done. One can punch with very soft power, but it just goes right through a person like a nail. And yes it really hurts! Perhaps Hendrik can discuss more on how he can do this.
Regards,
PH
1, The post starting with a question on some WCK concept. It is very straight forward specific WCK Term. Where is the convoluted malarky from ?
Analogously, how can one look into a chinese painting without understand the angle and terms which the art means? There are depth in every art that can be understand only if certain perspective of the art is understood.
2, The post is about how to delive a strike the WCK way. What is the principle behind it. since it is WCK, The strike must be following the WCK way or principle or specifics. what is it so difficult if one be able to listern to observe to understand instead of rejecting anything if it is not the way expected it to be?
3, why is this topic essential? Because it deal with Delay of power generation. And that delay while striking might be one of the elements why one has no chance to do a multiple or even a strike when the grapper move in.
How can one claim to master or know a thing , an art without fully investigate and understood what is the elements of an art about?
Not to meantion with a mental attitude of rejecting?
In 1930 era, The creator of Yee Chuan GM Wang Xiang-Zai critic some CM system are just very surface with lots of show business moves. Wang himself oftern defeat fighters from various style, oriental or western with one strike. Just one strike.
WCK is a precise and consice elegant art in design, very similar to Yee Chuan. Without depth understanding about it will end up to be those show businese moves martial art system. Similar to Wang, when the ancestors of WCK can finish a job with a strike. today, One might becomes using dozen of moves and strikes but no big effect yield. not only that, it creates delays and gaps for others stylist to take advantage on. so is it that the art doesnt work or is it that one is “Average” which translate to surface. So, is the topic about convoluted malarky?
or it is about to discuss the implementation of that one strike which do the job?
if some love to stay at AVerage , That is fine. It is a free will world. But the world is vast and deep.
Just some thought
Here is a maxim of WCK I am not totally sure of.
The staff does not strikes twice
Now this is where WC can get confusing, technical, philosophical, esoteric, etc.
Does it refer to the 6 1/2 pole? Does it mean the same fist should not strike twice, you should switch hands when striking? Does it mean you yourself should not get hit twice by the same attack? Does it mean your technique should be trained solid so you should not need to strike twice? Do different lineages have different answers to this maxim?
So what is a WC strike? That is a broad question that has many answers. Any answer could be debated till the sun bursts as well. When we get caught up in the myth of things we forget what the thing was really about. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus Christ existed does it? No, I think what is written and known about what he did is most important. We should not debate about his existance but take the “myth” of what happened and apply it for better use. Now, I just used Jesus Christ as an example no religous debate intended here. Did Ng Mui train Yim Wing Chun kung fu, or was that just a code name for some secret art? It doesn’t matter.
Does getting caught up in the philosiphy and mythology of WCK help the art? No, not really, but there is merit to it. These stories are here for a reason myth or not. They are here to teach us lessons, remind us of certain things.
Therefore whatever answer anyone gives on what a WCK strike is, would, or should be is not correct nor is it incorrect. I think the basic idea behind a WCK strike is effeciency.
On a side note, to some the history, myth, legend, and esoteric knowledge are an interest to some. I, myself must admit that the history of kung fu (myth or not) perks my deepest interest at times.
Pual,
1,Penetration is one thing.
2,How fast the strike can be accelarate is another,
3,what range the target of the strike cover will be , a point, an area, is another thing,
4,How effortless thus the strike can have a fast repetition freely is another thing,
ofcorse these above are non linear. one required a non linear even oppose conventional logic thinking…
lots of stuffs. it is just not about watching a video go to a class and just striking.
If BJJ is a Grapping art and WCK is a striking art in general.
Then, when BJJ trains hundreds of ways to take down, choke, grap… WCK better masters hundreds of way of doing strike. otherwise one end up wrestler the wrestler. There is no WCK.
Just some thoughts
Originally posted by Gangsterfist
[B]
Therefore whatever answer anyone gives on what a WCK strike is, would, or should be is not correct nor is it incorrect. I think the basic idea behind a WCK strike is effeciency.
[/B]
I agree on efficiency but not on “not correct nor is it incorrect”
However, effeciency is an adjective.
there areas of effecient need to be define clearly, and how to implement them are a question which is very specifics.
otherwise, one is empty inside not tangible at all because everything is just too general.
Grandfather Gracie cannot just tell his sons just rush in and grap effeciently.
BTW, efficient is not precise. effective and efficient add up are more like it.
The biggest problem WCK has now a day is it get too general and tooo logical. as leonardo davinci said something like " too big a room create chaos, small room good for focus"
Just some thought
Originally posted by Phenix
…If BJJ is a Grapping art and WCK is a striking art in general.
Then, when BJJ trains hundreds of ways to take down, choke, grap… WCK better masters hundreds of way of doing strike. otherwise one end up wrestler the wrestler. There is no WCK…
Interesting point. There are many ways to throw a straight punch, or even chain punch. There are many different palm strikes, wrist strikes, punches, kicks, finger jabs etc etc. I think its not the strike but the principal and concept behind it is what makes it WCK.
To a lot of people WCK at first glance looks like a linear art, but infact its not. There are lots of circles in WCK they are just compact and effecient. Which is a big part of WCK. So if the concept is there then it could be considered a WCK strike. For example, I have never seen a head but or strike with the head in WCK. However, one of the concepts of WCK is a human bodies 13 weapons. One of which is the head. So WCK does consider the head to be a weapon. It does not really have any type of head but move in the form (except for maybe the end of bui gee form depending on lineage). One day while sparring with a brother I got trapped and my arms collapsed against my body. He was going to proceed to strike me in my face. I head butted him right away and knocked him off balance and created space to no longer be trapped. My sifu stopped us and asked why I did that. My only response I could think of is that it was my closest and most available weapon. So I applied the concept of striking with the closest weapon. Was it a pure WCk strike? Probably not I would say, but the WCK concept was there.
So what I meant to say is no answer is really incorrect if you can apply a WCK concept to it.
Gangsterfist,
true about lots of ways to strikes.
But there are more then that.
there are ways to strikes, angle to strike, target domain of strike,
and intensity of strike.. ect.
It is similar to Sonny’s Cell phones. there are red one, blue one, with camera, with sim card, with flipping cases…single band…dual bands… all one can think about cell phone.
And all these link direct to the SLT and its still platform. Thus, I always disagree with concept claim originality which based on kiu sau type of reasoning and equavalent to other styles ect because they have more kiu sau…wck copy them…or same soft kiu sau…
There are depth in SLT which are not discussed in public. Kiu Sau stuffs is not the core of WCK and the concept is not accord to WCK.
why?
wck is about continous analog, not discrete action. That is why SLT was said to be easy to learn but difficult to master. because it is continous analog, the transitions or transtient within the continous can cover both continous and discotinous. it is like a machine continously on and monitor/ adaptation keep going and never stops. That while monitor/adaptation continously needs to master all posible changes or transients of the feedback—or strike generation, target, intensity… otherwise , the system dont work .
WCK is a striking art. Mastering every ways of striking in the latetal and vetical understanding is the key. It is about energy management not about shape.
In addition, why do we fear about take down if we are the master of strikes? we supporse to master all sorts of energy generation and neutralization in any time any place dont we? 
are we still WCK? Yayaya, WCK is expert in neutralizing force with simultaneous striking.
Are we still that WCner or lost ourself in chain punch, tan sau, time, space…his-story… .within our own cyber space while the BJJ people learning and training 100’s of take down, grapping… in all direction? when it is time to match them go learn thier art but preseve WCK’s title.
if we dont address it and get back what we have rest rusty then we better filing Chapter 11.
Forgive me for my wacky thoughts
If I may add to your post, Hendrik, one does not have to strike continuously or chase the opponent aggressively with his attacks. Often it is better to wait for the opportunity to come to you or to set up the opportunity for the finishing touch yourself. Skilled or professional fighters often play, parry, evade and then suddenly bombard you with a few precise and powerful strikes calculated to knock you out very quickly and efficiently.
Regards,
PH
Pual,
If I may add to your post,----P
Certainly, this is a discussion. everyone is free to speak thier view.
Often it is better to wait for the opportunity to come to you or to set up the opportunity for the finishing touch yourself. ------ P
IMHO, there are something to watch out here. This sound logically correct.
but next time when you face an inrush opponent similar to ERNIE and when he comes in you step back.
after that step back, wait for say 0.5 second and strike back. See if you can still strike back immideately or you feel it is very difficult to get yourself accelerate to the state you need?
There is your gap. and oftern you cannot get back due to this delay… he might come in an finished you…
WAtch out for thinking logic that doesnt simulate realistic situation.
Skilled or professional fighters often play, parry, evade and then suddenly bombard you with a few precise and powerful strikes calculated to knock you very quickly and efficiently. ----
Those are well train. There are lots of components within thier moves. Not a time, space, energy thinking can oversimpified explaining the situation.
don’t believe me? Trying to write a procedure steps teaching kid how to use a telephone.
and then,
Try to write a computer program on how to catch a based ball.
A oversimplify flow chart with timing, distance,… sound great
but when you get into the wind spead, the road fictions, the variety of the vector force of the incomming based ball, your innertial speed… and all cases. It is next to impossible.
and, the easy way is to go to the field, explain a little to the kid, and in no time they will running around catching based ball. Those flow chart on the program will oftern screw the kids out leading them to confuse because of missing links , different uncover situation.
So, why don’t just let the kid experience, then discuss each subject while come out. set the mind on goal and let the human nature take care of the procedure naturally accord to the situation.
Back to the strike, if one put all one’s mind in the process of this Kiu Sau or Tan Sau or Chain punch. When is the guy going to catch a ball? not to mention the ball can rotate with different direction. His mind is not in the Goal. It will not work. Have you think about how to steel your car before you drive it? have you think about how to move driving steel 2 inch here, 4 inch there, or you just think I want to go to LA? and that 2 inch or 4 inch is about how to adaptively adjust to the track to get to LA.
ofcorse one needs to KNow /feel the 2 inch shift of the driving steel with the wheel and based on what speed one goes. Which direction to steel, how much is enought, how much is the correction… and one dont trying to pull hand brake thinking to reverse the car… Same with Striking, IMHO, lots have to be address and experience…
Just some thought.
Phenix-
You are correct there are many strikes in WCK. If the concept of WCK can be applied to the strike, then its a WC strike.
You asked what we thought a WCK strike was. Its simple if you think about it. If you can apply a concept or maxim to the strike, then its wing chun. If its effecient then its wing chun.
Phenix you wrote:
…true about lots of ways to strikes
But there are more then that.
there are ways to strikes, angle to strike, target domain of strike,
and intensity of strike.. ect…
.
Agreed there are unlimited ways to strike someone. If the concept of Wing chun can be applied to the strike then it can be considered a wing chun strike.
Your analogies of writing computer programs make a good point. The thing is there is no exact science or concept to fighting or combat. There are way too many variables to account for. Its pretty much total chaos. However, there can be science behind the concepts and techniques you execute. There is a reason you execute moves in forms. You don’t do it to look pretty. There is concept and science behind the movements, and the form breaks it down so it can be analyzed. So if an attack is in one of the WCK forms (and each is different depending on lineage) or you can apply a wing chun concept or maxim to it, then in fact its wing chun. This can be viewed this way or from maybe a more purist person can be argued as well.
If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck. Then probably more than likely its a duck.
Hello,
WCK is a precise and consice elegant art in design, very similar to Yee Chuan. Without depth understanding about it will end up to be those show businese moves martial art system. Similar to Wang, when the ancestors of WCK can finish a job with a strike. today, One might becomes using dozen of moves and strikes but no big effect yield. not only that, it creates delays and gaps for others stylist to take advantage on. so is it that the art doesnt work or is it that one is “Average” which translate to surface. So, is the topic about convoluted malarky?
or it is about to discuss the implementation of that one strike which do the job?
This is a very good issue! An old art I used to do called themselves Gu Yee Kuen (old noble boxing). Well, later I found out that this was a generic term for most south fist/kung fu. One of the reasons for the term Old Noble was so that the pupil would get the correct idea that crude fighting was not the goal! As we mature in MA is it our goal to achieve a level where we need to pund someone with chain punches and then mount him to finish the job? Or! Would it be our goal to achieve a highly refined skill and finish the job within 3 actions? Certainly we know the answer to that.
Basing all our skill of the one energy or Chain punch/linking energy in everything will not help us grow. A gradual refinement of everything should be what we want. As we grow we should shrink and shoot for the ability to generate more with less versus making everything larger or gross. We should also know everything thats going on inside our body and how to loosen/strengthen that way our insides power our outside without hesitation.
So, how can we achieve the level of our ancestors without full body knowledge/connection and refinement as one of our goals? Are we close to their level? Do we represent the stylistic info. in ourselves or are we just the shell/surface of the past?
Just some thoughts
Regards,