Methods to deal with Attacks.

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

In my opinion one of the strengths of WC is that it trains one to be flexible and adaptable. One may start a certain way, but is able to change based on what the opponent does or gives you. This is what I feel is the value of Chi Sau training, learning the ability to change as needed depending on what one encounters.

Of course, if one simply gos through the basics exercises without learning to open the mind to new things one will be a robot and simply mimic what others do. The art will not be a part of you and you will be quite predictable.

I believe that every art, at the higher levels, exhibit this adapatability. This is one reason why high level people seem to all look similar in application whether they be karate or Tai Chi.

Consider this as food for thought:

[B]There are only three ways to deal with any attack:

  • Avoid the attack
  • Evade the attack
  • Intercept the attack
[/B] Does anyone havr another way to deal with an attack? If so I would be interested in discussing.
2

There are only three ways to deal with any attack:
Avoid the attack
Evade the attack
Intercept the attack. ----------

There are more ways:
dissolve, make use of, or destroy the attack. But needs advance training.

To dissolve needs huajin capability. Similar to water dam to dilute it
To make use of needs Sen hua capability. Similar transfer the momentum to do desire things
To destroy needs short distance fajin capability similar to patriot missile

3

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1084507]There are only three ways to deal with any attack:
Avoid the attack
Evade the attack
Intercept the attack. ----------

There are more ways:
dissolve, make use of, or destroy the attack. But needs advance training.

To dissolve needs huajin capability. Similar to water dam to dilute it
To make use of needs Sen hua capability. Similar transfer the momentum to do desire things
To destroy needs short distance fajin capability similar to patriot missile[/QUOTE]

Hendrick,

I stand by what I said, each of the ways you mention is simply a variation of one of the three I mentioned. If you believe that not to be the case then please explain, in detail, what makes them different.

4

Imho,
I am not challenge anyone but just comments on things from different angle

WCK has four ways of dealing with attack spontaneously. These are

Or

Turn the attack into power something one desire.
Destroy the attack
Control the attack
Dissolve/dilute the attack

Run away or avoid is not mention here because the name of the game is to proactively leading the change and not being force out or force into defensive position.

Thus, the kuen kuit says, comes accept goes return… It is a spontaneous proactive leading not a defensive passive taking.

To do the above four action one needs to be able to handle various types of momentum and action Patterns Such as if one needs to hijack the nuclear rocket or destroy in on air or make it a power generator…etc one needs different technology to do it. It is beyond shape or sau fat or hand technics. It is from the sau fat one attain the handling.

Ie. Pak sau is a using small effort to destroy big momentum deal. It is not the shape but the momentum handling effect.

5

In the CLF case one needs to manage what in front of one spontaneously instead of something far away or waiting defensively. One needs to response to the ball immediately otherwise one lost timing or distance. Trying to travel a distance to a changing center is both impratical and dangerous.

Once the CLF build up it’s snow balling, it is difficult to deal with in term of timing and momentum. If one can cut it cut it at start. Otherwise try to both avoid and attack does work.

IMHO

Of cause this is just away in this limitless way world.

6

Be the attacker.

Suki

7

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1084519]In my opinion one of the strengths of WC is that it trains one to be flexible and adaptable. One may start a certain way, but is able to change based on what the opponent does or gives you. This is what I feel is the value of Chi Sau training, learning the ability to change as needed depending on what one encounters.

Of course, if one simply gos through the basics exercises without learning to open the mind to new things one will be a robot and simply mimic what others do. The art will not be a part of you and you will be quite predictable.

I believe that every art, at the higher levels, exhibit this adapatability. This is one reason why high level people seem to all look similar in application whether they be karate or Tai Chi.

Consider this as food for thought:

[B]There are only three ways to deal with any attack:

  • Avoid the attack
  • Evade the attack
  • Intercept the attack
[/B] Does anyone havr another way to deal with an attack? If so I would be interested in discussing.[/QUOTE]

Another way would be to forsee the attack and get there first, without the need to intercept. This relates to the "if you don’t move, I don’t move, if you move, I first move.

8

[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;1084527]Be the attacker.

Suki[/QUOTE]
That’s the best approach.

  • Attack if you are ready.
  • Control the distance between you and your opponent otherwise.

There are just too many variables to response to your opponent’s attack. It not only puts you in defense mode, it also forces you to fight the way that your opponent wants you to fight which is not good IMO.

9

There are good people in other systems.

But IMO -learning good wing chun involves learning a considerable array of timing
and they are used for different functions-best shown rather than just describe.

Chi Sao among other things is a lab. All kinds of timing van be experimented with in various kinds of chi sao in good Ip Man systems.

When one sharpens timing lots of techniques can be adapted and one does not depend
on fixed answers to specific attacks.
With good timing you can gain a step on others.
joy chaudhuri

10

Okay, let’s define the methods and then discuss them and see whether or not there are indeed other methods.

Avoid an attack=means to be in a position where the attack cannot strike you or reach you. However, you are also in a position where you cannot initiate an attack wihtout movement into the attacker.

An example would be to step away or off the line from an attack but not closing any distance. Essentially you would be in the same position as you were before with no advantage or disadvantage. Running away or not putting yourself into a position where you could be attacked would also be examples of avoidance.

Evade an attack=means to put yourself into a position whereby you cannot be hit without the opponenet moving to another position, however you are in a position where you can reach or strike your opponent.

An example of this would be, for example, a Taun Sau or similar where you either step to the outside or turn or shift in response to the opponents incoming force/energy. The structure of the Taun, in this example, will deflect the attack and your turn or step will put you in a position where you can strike them. However they will be unable to strike you without changing their position.

Another example of an evasion would be to step off the line so an attack cannot hit you, however by using body position you put yourself in a position where you can strike the opponent but they would need to move in order to strike you. For example an opponent punches but you step off at an angle and end up to his side or perhaps even to his rear. However you are close enough to hit them but they need to move in order to hit you.

Intercept an attack=means that you are in a superior position and can meet the opponents incoming attack and by means of superior strength or structure can crash through the attack and hit the opponent. It is also the way one would attack the attack as you would seek to injure or destroy the attacking weapon.

An example of this would be an including or excluding punch, although to be fair both could also be evasions if done properly. However, another example could be Pak Sau followed by imediately moving forward and striking the opponent, again depending on how it is done. A Gaun Sau can also be an interception if it seeks to harm the attacking limb.

Oh, being the attacker could be an example of interception, you just do it first. :wink:

Perhaps the best example of an interception would be the Pak/Jarn Sau from the CK form or Guntung from FMA.

My opinion is that WC relies more on evasion, however the other methods are also encountered as nothing works all of the time.

Now please feel free to discuss any other approaches and explain how they either fit into what is described above or how they do not fit into one of the catagories or methods above. I only ask that one provide clear examples and explanations, not vague references.

11

Responding to an attack is not that obvious if one doesn’t know the door opening method or responding without open the opponent’s door will do no good for it does nothing to disrup or has counter possibility. When one decide to attack the center line the door got to be open first. Rushing into no door or uncertain door is trouble.

Thus, can avoid open the opponent’s door? Can avert? Can intercept?

IMO this is never simple. WCK today is just too over simplify. IMHO.

And one sometimes make use of others attack as it is without intercep to accelerate one’s momentum, and one sometimes destroy the attack like a patriot missile … Sometimes one needs to walk two steps , sometimes one just wait…

12

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1084552]Responding to an attack is not that obvious if one doesn’t know the door opening method or responding without open the opponent’s door will do no good for it does nothing to disrup or has counter possibility. When one decide to attack the center line the door got to be open first. Rushing into no door or uncertain door is trouble.

Thus, can avoid open the opponent’s door? Can avert? Can intercept?

IMO this is never simple. WCK today is just too over simplify. IMHO.

And one sometimes make use of others attack as it is without intercep to accelerate one’s momentum, and one sometimes destroy the attack like a patriot missile … Sometimes one needs to walk two steps , sometimes one just wait…[/QUOTE]

Hendrick,

Please explain, in detail, what you mean by “opening the door”. Like I said, I am interested in a discussion which actually offers explanations rather than vague references and innuendos. While it is of benefit for the student to learn by experience and exploration, oftentimes, the inability to give detailed explanations sometimes means the person offering such vague explanations doesn’t know either. :wink:

Not saying that is the case with you, but I would like to hear your explanation in simple, clear and consise language.

13

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1084558]Hendrick,

Please explain, in detail, what you mean by “opening the door”. Like I said, I am interested in a discussion which actually offers explanations rather than vague references and innuendos. While it is of benefit for the student to learn by experience and exploration, oftentimes, the inability to give detailed explanations sometimes means the person offering such vague explanations doesn’t know either. :wink:

Not saying that is the case with you, but I would like to hear your explanation in simple, clear and consise language.[/QUOTE]

In all Chinese Martial art, different style has different ways of Open up the opponents before entering or attacking the core. Open Door Meaning remove the hinderance on your entering to his center path.

IE:

In WCK, comes accept goes return is an opening the door method.

and the above 4 methods I post previously

Or

Turn the attack into power something one desire.
Destroy the attack
Control the attack
Dissolve/dilute the attack

are the methods of dealing with the momentum before one could open the door and enter.

For CLF, the round snow balling momentum is the door, one needs to open that door to get into the core. So, in the previous post, I suggest, damage one of the door, so one can go in.
entering without aware of the snow balling momentum is suicide.

These are straight forward TCMA basics.

If one follow these basic, it is always clear. but if one doesnt think accord to the line of TCMA then one could be lost.

IMHO,
Dealing with attack in TCMA is never as over simplified as Avoid, Avert, and Intercept.

One can do all the Avoid, Avert, and Intercept, if the door of the opponent is not open up. Then one still out side the door. That do nothing much at all dealing with the attack.

Trying to intercept and enter with Brute force will end up like what Gary Lam says " you use Tan DA, lucky he is my student, otherwise I get hit already; who fast? me or him? he fast because he has started the…"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u63OJRXyq68&feature=related

also, Gary doesnt go for the center line right away. he let it passed first. meaning he open the door via Dissolve/dilute the attack. but he is not just pure avoid or avert. it is a dissolving momentum open door act. So, it is not true that WCK always going for center line. WCK goes for the center line only after the path is clear.

Just some thoughts out of millions of thoughts.

14

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1084519]
[B]There are only three ways to deal with any attack:

  • Avoid the attack
  • Evade the attack
  • Intercept the attack
[/B] Does anyone havr another way to deal with an attack? If so I would be interested in discussing.[/QUOTE]

Why try to quantify which is unquantifiable. A response to an attack is never black and white, so why limit yourself to three black and white approaches.

If you’re trying to intellectualize it, consider that stating the obvious isn’t food for thought at all. Avoid/Evade/Intercept are too broad to be of any value, to anyone. Might as well say there’s only one way to deal with an attack: Move. It means the same thing to someone, and isn’t food for thought for anyone.

15

[QUOTE=AdrianK;1084570]Why try to quantify which is unquantifiable. A response to an attack is never black and white, so why limit yourself to three black and white approaches.

If you’re trying to intellectualize it, consider that stating the obvious isn’t food for thought at all. Avoid/Evade/Intercept are too broad to be of any value, to anyone. Might as well say there’s only one way to deal with an attack: Move. It means the same thing to someone, and isn’t food for thought for anyone.[/QUOTE]

Depends on whether your mind is locked into techniques or open to concepts.

If you are coming from a technique approach then there may indeed be more than those listed. However, I would say that every technique would fall into one of the three listed when approached from a conceptual approach.

Would you not agree??

16

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1084571]Depends on whether your mind is locked into techniques or open to concepts.

If you are coming from a technique approach then there may indeed be more than those listed. However, I would say that every technique would fall into one of the three listed when approached from a conceptual approach.

Would you not agree??[/QUOTE]

Its really the opposite, you state that:

  • Coming from a technique approach there may be more than those listed

but then go on to say that:

  • every technique should fall into one of the three listed when approached from a conceptual approach.

Wouldn’t they fall into any of those three even when approached from the standpoint of techniques?

As far as a conceptual approach goes, well you need to throw out the idea that any engagement is a singular of those three. Those aren’t approaches to dealing with an attack, those are singular responses, and during a fight you have a blend of all of them, as well as responses that have to be made because of circumstances beyond your control.

I don’t want to argue semantics, approach vs response, so let me clarify:

Basically what I’m saying is you’re focusing on intellectualizing the wrong part here, then sticking it in a box and saying approaches to an attack can only be one of those three. Who cares if it can only be one of those three, when those three are just base explanations and can only describe a method in the broadest, least complex way?

Its a pointless observation that has no place in a “conceptual” approach to Wing Chun.

17

AdrianK,

Fair enough, then please provide an example which does not fall into one of those three catagories. I mean it should be that simple if those three are not the only methods to deal with an attack no matter how broad the catagory.

As to intellectualizing, what is wrong with understanding things more deeply?

Besides, this does not result in;

When A does B you use C type of thing. Rather it opens the possibilities to respond to A doing B in any manner of methods.

Consider Chi Sua for example; The basic Dan Chi exercise is based on three hand positions on each side. However, proper practice does not limit one to those three hand positions but provides a framework on which to build in relation to the energy being experienced. Thus is allows one many more options than Taun/Bong/Palm or Fook/Jum-Jut/Punch. The concept taught is more important than the specific technique, imo. Although you need to start somewhere.

Consider the three methods I posted to be like the idea of covering. If one understands how to cover or utilize angles like in FMA. Then one does not need to worry about the specific attack. If it comes into a line covered by a specific angle than one defends in pretty much the same way as one will cover the area of that angle.

This is the same as the gate theory. WC has several gates and in a Wu Sau/Man Sau each arm would provide coverage for an area of that gate. One will adapt to what comes into that gate and respond accordingly, but as long as you are defending or dealing with one gate you have a certain range with which to utilize.

In my mind WC should be simple and direct. How much simpler than to break soemthing down into universal concepts which can be applied no matter what technique is encountered. If there truly are only three ways to deal with any attack then understanding those three ways or concepts, gives one a very broad base on which to build. It also means that one does not need to think about how to respond to an attack and go through hundreds of possible responses. You would simply evade, avoid or intercept depending on your position and what was needed.

Considering that WC has only three empty hand forms and the rest of the systems structure in training, it seems to me that WC is about simplicity and efficiency.

What is more efficient; to approach things from a broad and universally applicable mindset or to complicate and over analyze every movement possible? In what I am suggesting there is no need to over analyze, you deal with an attack in one of three ways and that is it. Yes it may be broad, but then again how many ways are there to really throw a punch or kick? Yet there are many variations.

Consider this, human movement can be broken down into the following:

  • Sitting
  • Standing
  • Crawling
  • Walking
  • Running

Anything else, to include punching and or kicking, would fall into one of the above catagories. Or would you not agree with this thinking?

What I am seeking is someone who is able to say that by doing this one falls outside of one of the three catagories I mentioned. So far I have not heard anything which shows that there are more or that those three are not inclusive.

However, if there are only three methods, than ones approach to combat can be based on expanding based on them as a core.

So here is a question for you and everyone else;

What catagory of the three I suggest would a shoot or take down be considered? Or if it is outside of the three please explain how and what apparoach it would represent.

18

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1084582]

What catagory of the three I suggest would a shoot or take down be considered? Or if it is outside of the three please explain how and what apparoach it would represent.[/QUOTE]

One can catagorized shoot or take down as any of the three for sake of arguement.

and that is exactly why the three is not a good way to catagorize things,

because it doesnt tell what is it but having those “gray” reason to argue " it include everything".

so, it is telling something but telling nothing.

For me, this is similar to those " keep training and you will get there " stuffs. it really goes no where but lots of good arguements and sound deep.

But then, I do see your idea on trying to make things simple. That is nothing wrong with that. the question is how good is that model work out.

Just some thoughts.

19

What’s the difference between avoid and evade to you?

20

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1084663]What’s the difference between avoid and evade to you?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, avoid means hitting the opponent when you know he is about to hit you. That would be avoiding. Also, if you walk away from a potentially explosive situation, then you may be successful in avoiding an exchange of blows.

I guess that evading only applies when the strike has been launched.