Simultaneous attack and defence is something that sets Wing Chun apart from most other martial arts. Many styles talk about it but still do block and counter type movements. For many the pause between defence and attack (or lack thereof) is a measure of ability with transition between defence and attack becoming smoother and faster with experience and seniority eventually approximating simultaneous action in high level practitioners.
However within Wing Chun there are two ways to achieve this simultaneous attack and defence (if we ignore the third (and imho superior) option of using footwork and angles to perform the defence entirely negating the need for defence with the arms at all); 1) using two arms simultaneously e.g. tan da, pak da, wu da etc where one hand intercepts and “defends” (although normally also doing something to disrupt the opponent’s posture, structure etc.) whilst the other strikes. 2) using the same arm to both intercept and attack e.g. intercepting with the punch, retaking the centre with a side palm, biu sao etc
There would appear to be a perception among some practitioners that method 2 i.e. intercepting and defending with the same hand is superior and demonstrates a higher level of skill. I wondered how the majority see this?
From a personal perspective I believe both have a place but use the single hand approach far more in emergencies and less as first choice due to the effect that the interception has of adding resistance to the strike thereby reducing its power, I would always rather hit with a free unobstructed hand than one that is slowed by friction through contact with an arm but its very much a personal view. What does everyone else think?
Lin sil di da is a basic level ability enabling each arm to strike and defend as it takes over the leading position. Da sao Jik siu sao is the hand in the leading attack is also defending. Angling and using the same lsdd idea IS basic level too.
Having to use two hands to fight one of the opponents is what vt is trying to overcome by this technical striking ability. It uses the centerline in motion to cut into opponents inability to match the same idea along with movement and angling.
A common error of vt students who don’t know this idea from day one will rely on over trapping hand contact to compensate for the lack of knowing. Iow two hands will be used to attack creating x’ed arms. Xing arms in vt is a major error because it means ONE arm of the opponent can stop us if they block and cut off the attacking arm. So the recycling action of our punching allows them to assist in continuous new attacking actions if the opponent defends. Angling and facing is not a hierarchical issue it is allowing us to attack and face while striking and recycling.
Wing chun Ian, your idea of striking with the same arm and " friction " losing force is implying you’re over contacting with the leading arm and not recycling it on interception. There is a simple reason for chain striking. If the leading arm uses the angle of the elbow developed by slt, it can both deflect the arm it contacts , turn the position of the opponent so they lose facing and strike them. 3 actions in one attacking arm. There is a tactical directive guiding the rational of this thinking too.
[QUOTE=wingchunIan;1238988]Simultaneous attack and defence is something that sets Wing Chun apart from most other martial arts. Many styles talk about it but still do block and counter type movements. For many the pause between defence and attack (or lack thereof) is a measure of ability with transition between defence and attack becoming smoother and faster with experience and seniority eventually approximating simultaneous action in high level practitioners.
However within Wing Chun there are two ways to achieve this simultaneous attack and defence (if we ignore the third (and imho superior) option of using footwork and angles to perform the defence entirely negating the need for defence with the arms at all); 1) using two arms simultaneously e.g. tan da, pak da, wu da etc where one hand intercepts and “defends” (although normally also doing something to disrupt the opponent’s posture, structure etc.) whilst the other strikes. 2) using the same arm to both intercept and attack e.g. intercepting with the punch, retaking the centre with a side palm, biu sao etc
There would appear to be a perception among some practitioners that method 2 i.e. intercepting and defending with the same hand is superior and demonstrates a higher level of skill. I wondered how the majority see this?
From a personal perspective I believe both have a place but use the single hand approach far
more in emergencies and less as first choice due to the effect that the interception has of adding resistance to the strike thereby reducing its power, I would always rather hit with a free unobstructed hand than one that is slowed by friction through contact with an arm but its very much a personal view. What does everyone else think?[/QUOTE]
In my wing chun we dont use taan da, bong da etc. We aim to hit and cover the angle as we proceed. I have never been able to apply taan da or bong sau etc while underpressure. The elbow must always be bent in order to cover and feel whats going on if there is a bridge…
[QUOTE=chaotic2k;1239014]In my wing chun we dont use taan da, bong da etc. We aim to hit and cover the angle as we proceed. I have never been able to apply taan da or bong sau etc while underpressure. The elbow must always be bent in order to cover and feel whats going on if there is a bridge…[/QUOTE]
Bong sao is part of an attacking action not a defensive retreat, just saying. Attacking with a punch that is bridged we recover the attack ASAP by wu sao striking as bong drops to recycle , etc…
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1239029]Bong sao is part of an attacking action not a defensive retreat, just saying. Attacking with a punch that is bridged we recover the attack ASAP by wu sao striking as bong drops to recycle , etc…[/QUOTE]
I get what your saying. Seen in laap sau drill. You reload punch by dropping elbow into bong. We do use sumilar but the bong is more used like lan sau to gaun, on opponents actual torso in order to cinnect with central mass then hit with stikes while controlling balance.
[QUOTE=chaotic2k;1239030]I get what your saying. Seen in laap sau drill. You reload punch by dropping elbow into bong. We do use sumilar but the bong is more used like lan sau to gaun, on opponents actual torso in order to cinnect with central mass then hit with stikes while controlling balance.[/QUOTE]
We use bong like a PAC sao. Wu sao has to be in the elbow of bong to strike as bong drops. Very fast actions.
We can use bong like a LAN but only if we want to push a little. Using bong to push is open to easy counter attacks so not a good idea as habit.
Our bong displaces arms laterally left or right not pushing forwards. Many use bong forwards to counter pressure fook , but this is arm chasing and will also happen in sparring.
@2:24 you see "displacing while facing " force of bong , knocks arms out of the way. Has to be fast up and down elbow and not pushing forwards. http://youtu.be/FQBhp-2nQ-E
Start 14.38 is the difficult part of inch power, that is where the snt development willow, rattan body, snake engine, yik kam transform.. Jin flow snake slide worm move…etc lots of boring long videos of mine trying to present. Without that type of development one cannot handle it. Without the coherence of body mind, that is very difficult to develop. It is a force line type of power generation. Certainly not the boxing or body type.
With that type of power generation , lat sau jek choong is not difficult. But most people has no patient to listen and learn what is those type of power generation . They will think boxing way or southern fist way is everything. Instead of knowing there are different type of power type.
[QUOTE=wingchunIan;1238988]Simultaneous attack and defence is something that sets Wing Chun apart from most other martial arts. Many styles talk about it but still do block and counter type movements. For many the pause between defence and attack (or lack thereof) is a measure of ability with transition between defence and attack becoming smoother and faster with experience and seniority eventually approximating simultaneous action in high level practitioners.
However within Wing Chun there are two ways to achieve this simultaneous attack and defence (if we ignore the third (and imho superior) option of using footwork and angles to perform the defence entirely negating the need for defence with the arms at all); 1) using two arms simultaneously e.g. tan da, pak da, wu da etc where one hand intercepts and “defends” (although normally also doing something to disrupt the opponent’s posture, structure etc.) whilst the other strikes. 2) using the same arm to both intercept and attack e.g. intercepting with the punch, retaking the centre with a side palm, biu sao etc
There would appear to be a perception among some practitioners that method 2 i.e. intercepting and defending with the same hand is superior and demonstrates a higher level of skill. I wondered how the majority see this?
From a personal perspective I believe both have a place but use the single hand approach far more in emergencies and less as first choice due to the effect that the interception has of adding resistance to the strike thereby reducing its power, I would always rather hit with a free unobstructed hand than one that is slowed by friction through contact with an arm but its very much a personal view. What does everyone else think?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1239031]We use bong like a PAC sao. Wu sao has to be in the elbow of bong to strike as bong drops. Very fast actions.
We can use bong like a LAN but only if we want to push a little. Using bong to push is open to easy counter attacks so not a good idea as habit.
Our bong displaces arms laterally left or right not pushing forwards. Many use bong forwards to counter pressure fook , but this is arm chasing and will also happen in sparring.[/QUOTE]
I have seen a clip of PB using his bong to tap away a punch then sending his own punch to take the position. Its all good. Faster than most wsl guys. I agree with what your saying about using bong like a laan. My bong is a *******ized laan. I only attack with it when im through the oppenets limbs on on the blind side (safe zone) on his actual torso or body. I wont block his punches etc with my bong . Thats just how i roll. As for using taan as a technique, i use it to train my punch and elbow. I have never pulled a taan of under pressure. Boy have i tried.
[QUOTE=T_Ray;1239052]Tan da doesn’t work in real life :)[/QUOTE]
Maybe not for you, I can’t comment on what or how you were taught but it has worked just fine for me in real situations on two occasions and works in sparring all the time.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1238995]Lin sil di da is a basic level ability enabling each arm to strike and defend as it takes over the leading position. Da sao Jik siu sao is the hand in the leading attack is also defending. Angling and using the same lsdd idea IS basic level too.
Having to use two hands to fight one of the opponents is what vt is trying to overcome by this technical striking ability. It uses the centerline in motion to cut into opponents inability to match the same idea along with movement and angling.
A common error of vt students who don’t know this idea from day one will rely on over trapping hand contact to compensate for the lack of knowing. Iow two hands will be used to attack creating x’ed arms. Xing arms in vt is a major error because it means ONE arm of the opponent can stop us if they block and cut off the attacking arm. So the recycling action of our punching allows them to assist in continuous new attacking actions if the opponent defends. Angling and facing is not a hierarchical issue it is allowing us to attack and face while striking and recycling.
Wing chun Ian, your idea of striking with the same arm and " friction " losing force is implying you’re over contacting with the leading arm and not recycling it on interception. There is a simple reason for chain striking. If the leading arm uses the angle of the elbow developed by slt, it can both deflect the arm it contacts , turn the position of the opponent so they lose facing and strike them. 3 actions in one attacking arm. There is a tactical directive guiding the rational of this thinking too.[/QUOTE]
Kevin, if you are recycling upon contact then you are not intercepting and hitting with the same arm and if you do intercept and hit with the same limb then any level of contact is going to add friction or negative momentum to the strike slowing it down.
[QUOTE=wingchunIan;1239090]Kevin, if you are recycling upon contact then you are not intercepting and hitting with the same arm and if you do intercept and hit with the same limb then any level of contact is going to add friction or negative momentum to the strike slowing it down.[/QUOTE]
Not going to write a right or wrong, easier hands on. I know ( not being mean ) you don’t know the method I am referring to. Maybe one day meet up with GH when he is back from Turkey. ?
[QUOTE=wingchunIan;1239090]Kevin, if you are recycling upon contact then you are not intercepting and hitting with the same arm and if you do intercept and hit with the same limb then any level of contact is going to add friction or negative momentum to the strike slowing it down.[/QUOTE]
Ian i dont think you get what kevster is saying. He means you have to change elbow position i.e bong sau into punch (bong to taan), which lowers the elbow and helps connect to the stance in order to generate alot of power EVEN if its the same hand you block with. All this is found in laap sau drill which should be bread and butter. This is why wsl guys keep the elbow lower than other branches. This maintains cinnection to the stance and allows for ballstic power as well as solid structure.
[QUOTE=wingchunIan;1238988] 1) using two arms simultaneously e.g. tan da, pak da, wu da etc where one hand intercepts and “defends” (although normally also doing something to disrupt the opponent’s posture, structure etc.) whilst the other strikes. 2) using the same arm to both intercept and attack e.g. intercepting with the punch, retaking the centre with a side palm, biu sao etc ..[/QUOTE]
The
1st method “block and attack at the same time” is 1 step process. You have to commit right way. It’s faster but you have to take more risk.
2nd method “switch hands” is 2 or even 3 steps process. You don’t have to commit until the 2nd step. It’s slower but take less risk.
3rd method, “dodge (without blocking) and attack” is the highest level. You just move your body outside of your opponent’s striking path and attack back.
1st method “block and attack at the same time” is 1 step process. You have to commit right way. It’s faster but you have to take more risk.
------- this has to taking consideration on the momentum collision , it is not a matter of risk but what happen at that collision right at the contact
2nd method “switch hands” is 2 or even 3 steps process. You don’t have to commit until the 2nd step. It’s slower but take less risk
----------This never work . Too late, always one step late.
3rd method, “dodge (without blocking) and attack” is the highest level. You just move your body outside of your opponent’s striking path and attack back.
--------------- doesn’t work , always one step late to move out and move back.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1239135]- 3rd method, “dodge (without blocking) and attack” is the highest level. You just move your body outside of your opponent’s striking path and attack back.
--------------- doesn’t work , always one step late to move out and move back.[/QUOTE]
To move out doesn’t mean that you move away.
When your opponent uses “haymaker” to hit your head. You dodge your head under his punch (you are still in your punching range), you then hit back.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1239136]To move out doesn’t mean that you move away.
When your opponent uses “haymaker” to hit your head. You dodge your head under his attack (you are still in your punching range), you then hit back.[/QUOTE]
True, but then this method really has little to due with WCK at this point, as it violates the first and most important WC principle of centerline.
