Structure or Stickiness etc.

I posted this on the end of the Alan Orr / Body Structure thread but decided to take advice and start a new thread with the questions:-

Hello all,

I’ve never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I’ve trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

  1. Chi Sau helped develop ‘stickiness’ so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

  2. Consequently a ‘bridge’ is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

  3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

  4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

  5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant’s attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

  1. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

  2. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

  3. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

  4. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it’s a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

  5. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it’s way too slow.

I’d be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I’m not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman

Comments to Hanman in brackets

((Han sez..))Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

  1. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

((IMO all the way-development of good structure is very important in what I do.Some lineages have different ways to insure sound structure. I wouldnt say “nothing to do”- but its not just about deliberately sticking))jc

  1. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

((Problem in context…meaning of “seeking”..English translations of wing chun principles can be very misleading. “Chasing hands”" again -the importance of context… where are the hamds??)) )))jc

  1. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

((Absolutely- too strong a word.Basically- forms are important for development- not a bag of memorized techniques))jc

  1. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it’s a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

((Dont beat up on the wall bag. Power comes from structure, control of motion and intent. Properly developed- wing punches can be sufficiently powerful and explosive))jc

  1. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant.

((Sometimes there may not be choice- the key is sensing what to do to have and get back optimum structure if lost .))jc

((Good wishes, gotta do some wing chun rather than keyboarding for a while. Where do you practice? Thought your questions deserve some comments and decent discussion ))jc

joy chaudhuri

Hello Joy,

Thanks for your reply.

I train in London in Philipp Bayer’s WSL ‘Lineage’. Not directly with him though.

Please note though, I’m the most junior guy in the class at the mo…these are my very junior thoughts! Every lesson I seem to need correcting!!

Cheers,

Phil

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]I posted this on the end of the Alan Orr / Body Structure thread but decided to take advice and start a new thread with the questions:-

Hello all,

I’ve never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I’ve trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

  1. Chi Sau helped develop ‘stickiness’ so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

NO

  1. Consequently a ‘bridge’ is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

NO

  1. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

NO

  1. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

1 part in a chain of events we train to deliver in a 1 count beat

  1. If your arm has made contact with an assailant’s attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

NO

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

  1. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

YES

  1. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

ABSOLUTELY BAD

  1. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

CORRECT

  1. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it’s a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

YES

  1. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it’s way too slow.

YES

I’d be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I’m not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman[/QUOTE]

I train in Philipp Bayer WSL thinking in NYC :wink:

WSL won most of his matches within 3 moves :wink: everyone was busy with his hands while he just aimed and fired …:smiley:

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]I posted this on the end of the Alan Orr / Body Structure thread but decided to take advice and start a new thread with the questions:-

Hello all,

I’ve never posted here but this topic particularly interests me, consequently I have some questions that pertain (albeit vaguely in some instances) to this thread.

Previously I’ve trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

  1. Chi Sau helped develop ‘stickiness’ so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

  2. Consequently a ‘bridge’ is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

  3. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

  4. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

  5. If your arm has made contact with an assailant’s attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to re-direct their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

  1. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.[/QUOTE]

I would say you are not too far away from the essence of Chi Sau, in my view it is more about being a vehicle to develop understanding of the correct body behaviour/alignment etc, it is more about SENSITIVITY than sticky-ness

To understand when you are in a position to hit or be hit and respond appropriately, creating learned responses that in time become almost ‘reflexes’ without the need for ‘thinking’.

Time is a vital factor in fighting, the less time you spend thinking the less time your opponent has to react to the change in circumstances preventing a technique being successful.

Chi Sau is the key to gaining experience of the variations of how an opponent will react to changing energies, giving you the ‘time’ in training to think, analyse and perfect techniques that when you need them will emerge instinctively.

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]7. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.[/QUOTE]

Not if you are applying the concepts of ‘entry techniques’ properly, the idea of ‘seeking’ I think is a mis-understanding, I focus on the Ding Sau, being more of an offensive Fook Sau, like the Man Sau from Biu Gee.

When ‘entering/seeking’ contact, the Ding/Man sau should be relaxed and have the intent of striking the opponent, if the opponent defends the strike, you have the contact responses via Chi Sau to control the arm and fire a second Ding/Man Sau out again aiming to strike your opponent. If they are successful in preventing the hit landing, you are now in a two arm contact situation and depending on your Chi Sau skill you should be looking to control the opponent to prevent them opening lines of attack while you create the gap to hit without being hit in return.

The important sequence is understanding how to get from no contact to one arm contact then from one to two arm contact, but each of the Ding/Man Sau entries should be ‘feeling’/‘asking’ if there is nothing before the strike they change to a striking technique, if an arm is contacted preventing the strike they become controlling techniques.

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]8. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.[/QUOTE]

I am with you on this one 100% the forms are just a catelogue of the different ways the body can be used to create different directional energies and how the can be linked throughout the body at the moment of contact/use to maximise effect.

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]9. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it’s a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.[/QUOTE]

I think Wing Chun’s punch matches the power of any punching system, I use Jack Dempsey’s Championship Fighting book to illustrate this, it is almost pure Wing Chun when related to the mechanics of punching.

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]10. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it’s way too slow.[/QUOTE]

Again I will agree, this is an area that I disagree with Yip Chun as he manitains that the hips only turn through 90 degrees when the shoulders go through 180, I understand the contention that if you do the 180 turn you feel weak and in the earlly stages unbalenced, but to me it is a pure training exercise to help develop extremes of movement, no I would never turn the way I do in Chum Kiu, but I use the knowledge gained in the turning of Chum Kiu in everything I do in Wing Chun.

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]I’d be really interested in which statements people think are correct (ish)and which are wrong (ish). Hope I’m not being cheeky being a noob and all.

Cheers,

Hanman[/QUOTE]

Be as cheeky as you like, knowledge is power, the bliss of ignorance is not for me, lol:D

[QUOTE=Han Man;774708]Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

  1. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.
    [/QUOTE]

Chi sao is an exercise and/or platform, and depending on how we do/perform that exercise, we can learn/develop different things. And, your focus can cahnge over time based on where you are at in your development.

  1. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent’s center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

  1. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

I don’t know what you mean by “self defense moves.” If you mean techniques that are used in fighting, then I disagree with you. The linked sets represent the tools of WCK, which include the techniques. Imagine someone put together a liked set for tennis – it would include examples of the various tools of tennis (serve, forehand, backhand, drop shot, etc.).

  1. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it’s a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

Power, other than localized muscle, comes from body mechanics. The lien wan choi (linked chain punches) is many things. And like most things in WCK, our understanding of them is dependent upon our skill level, and so changes with our skill level.

  1. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it’s way too slow.

As I said, like most things in WCK, our understanding of them is dependent upon our skill level, and so changes with our skill level.

Thanks for replies. So no stickyness per se yet then?

TJWingChun

Could you expand on what you mean by sensitivity with regards to point 6. I’m not sure if I was too simplistic in my stance:-

“6. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.”

I’ve seen somebody else post on another thread, words to the effect of “Chi Sau is to train the attibutes you need for fighting”. I hear a phrase to this effect often in my class, the problem is that it can be interpreted to mean anything. I’m thinking it means specifically the attributes of power through structure, and how to react (and maintain structure) when someone exerts force upon you.

T Niehoff (Terrence?)

In your answer about point 7:-

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent’s center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn’t this a similar view to Victor Parlatti’s (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?

Also, I’d like to add another question - a hypothetical one-

If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend’s head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama:)) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn’t we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this ‘being a slave to Wing Chun’?

Just thinking aloud, and I don’t mean to p*ss anyone off, but if you can’t use it in all ranges, and you can’t use it to develop a highly powerful punch, then wouldn’t your time be better spent studying something else?

Kevin,

Hello from London - I’m taught by Des and funnily enough, also used to attend the association you were affiliated with prior to your meeting Philipp Bayer!

Cheers,

Phil

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;774737]WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent’s center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body. [/QUOTE]This is a KEY distinction, IMO. I like to use the term “center of mass” that I picked up from David Peterson’s book, since it has a very 3-dimensional aspect to it that I find appealing.
Other than that I think Terence has answered all of the questions very well.

First of all, if someone gets p*ssed off by your questions, I would say that is more a reflection of a problem that they have, rather than anything much to do with your question.
While I cannot answer for Terrence, I don’t think that what he said is equivalent to Victor’s position on this issue. IMO, Wing Chun is effective at all ranges, but we strive to get in close to bring the fight to its proper conclusion.

Also, I’d like to add another question - a hypothetical one-

If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend’s head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

e. Smash his kneecap with a front/side kick

[QUOTE=Han Man;774769]
I’ve seen somebody else post on another thread, words to the effect of “Chi Sau is to train the attibutes you need for fighting”. I hear a phrase to this effect often in my class, the problem is that it can be interpreted to mean anything. I’m thinking it means specifically the attributes of power through structure, and how to react (and maintain structure) when someone exerts force upon you.
[/QUOTE]
Or when you exert force on him… And when he resists..

Arm to arm bridges are incidental.. Hitting your opponent isn’t…

[QUOTE=Han Man;774769]
If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend’s head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama:)) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn’t we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this ‘being a slave to Wing Chun’?
[/QUOTE]
No…IMO…

You attack him… What does that mean? It means you hit, keep hitting, kick keep kicking, elbow, keep elbowing, knee, keep kneeing, choke, keep choking… If you get my meaning..

And punches are not the end all be all of most martial arts.. Of all the strikes in WCK what percentage of them are punches? Ask yourself why…

On Chi Sao.. Something I wrote a while ago.. I think I still agree with most of it.. :slight_smile:

================
Chi Sao and related material are DRILLS.. The drills are how WCK folks work on attribute development as it relates to WCK–Chi Sao is not fighting. The purpose of any of this kind of training is developing attributes FOR WCK fighting and for SELF DEFENSE, which is NOT always the same thing.

It cultivates attributes and skills like:

Contact Reflexes

Meaning a sensitivity to various conditions that can and will exist when fighters “clash”, meaning forceful contact with the arms, legs and body happens, something that happens often enough in real fighting—forceful contact.

Awareness to position and range

Conditions that WCK trains to be sensitive to relate to body and bridge position and energy. This translates into how, as it applies to energy/force, the opponent’s resistance manifests <how he leaves the line> and how to use this resistance depending on what position you find yourself in to gain an advantage in order to apply an effective attack.

Why Sensitivity Training?

In order to:

Speed up our timing

Just as grapplers use feeling to determine how to control the opponent using the concepts and moves in their system WCK emphasizes relying on feeling as much as possible because responding to feeling is several times faster than is relying on sight–due to reaction delay..

WCK in it’s simplest form is about learning how to control the center space through adapting to the opponent’s energy and position, just as a grappler does, except in this case using WCK techniques, structure and concepts..

More over these kinds of drills re-enforce and ingrain a myriad of key system concepts into the body, like:

General Center Space theory
Hand Unity
Hand Replacement
Bi-Directional Energy
Using the opponent’s energy against him
Leaving and Returning to the line
Body Unity
Body Alignment
WCK Structure
Economy of Motion
WCK Power generation and release
Freed Hand Attacks the Line
Attacking Hand Defends
Facing and Following
Hand Hits from where it is..
Fan Sao–or Continuity of Attack
Making Three movements at once
Combining attack and defense

And on and on…

These drills, when taught and trained the right way may not be a “cure all” but they represent a highly evolved training platform for cultivating several key system components via a PROGRESSIVE TRAINING method. The method addresses the majority of WCK concepts and integrates them as a whole that can be trained against progressive resistance and internalized..

The progression is an ingenious method of cultivating in a cohesive manner most of WCK’s key attributes in a format that can be completely unrehearsed and free, or it can be broken down into parts for students to focus on where they may need work. These dynamic sensitivity drills form the basic training of the system and provide a context for each tool, technique and concept and the opportunity to work them in a kind of WCK laboratory where our attributes, techniques and concepts can be cultivated with progressive resistance–ideally they become a natural part of us.

What is good about movement A and what is bad about movement A is a gross over-simplification; It all depends on the conditions that exist in the moment. Each tool has a use and time it is best applied.. There is no guarantee, however, that any training move or technique will ever be needed since this all depends on what the opponent does or fails to do.. Indeed some WCK moves will NEVER be needed, but this does not invalidate training to adapt to the opponent’s energy and position, since this is at the heart of what ANY MA system or method of training is trying to do, the only question is how one goes about it and what methods one wishes to train and cultivate..

WCK emphasizes training feeling and kinesthetic awareness as it relates to controlling our “center space” and center <CG> of the opponent. At close quarter combat range sight is almost useless, and deceptive as well, so other senses are cultivated in these drills. We train to use energy, ours and his, the given position, leverage and our system’s concepts to take control of the opponent by the most economic means possible–and that is the study made here in the drills..

No doubt that folks can get carried away by this large area of focus. So folks need to also work on Visual Sensitivity and working from the outside, non contact ranges, how to read the opponent, etc. And these things must be addressed in Sparring drills and sparring that involves MAINLY IMO sparring folks that DO NOT do WCK…

So, these drills form what is the base and core of WCK theory and how that is internalized… Don’t get confused by the “fancy moves” in these drills–don’t take the training so literally—look beyond petty technique–it is about the underlying lessons and concepts that are being taught.

The drilling is finally about a study of energy and position, through feeling and kinesthetic awareness and how to become sensitive enough to this resistance to adapt, naturally, economically and with superior timing and position. The objective of this drilling is to train the student how to use WCK concepts and internalize them in order to take control and finish the opponent.

In the end the training is the training, don’t confuse the Finger for the Moon, this stuff is all about using less not more, to become simpler, not more complicated and, as with any art you get out of it what you put into it—train harder and smarter and the result will be better.

Do anything but “c. Chain punch as fast as possible.”

[QUOTE=Han Man;774769]T Niehoff (Terrence?)

In your answer about point 7:-

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent’s center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn’t this a similar view to Victor Parlatti’s (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?
[/QUOTE]

From what I read of Victor’s views, they are not similar to mine. IME WCK is not “just for” very close range fighting – but our method is a contact fighting method, where we are attached to the opponent (which results in us being very close). The method provides us with the tools and skills to get contact and what to do once we’re there – isn’t this all ranges of stand-up? But if someone wanted to stay on the outside, in free-movement range, then IMO they’d be better off doing something besides WCK. WCK kickboxing is IMO just poor kickboxing.

Also, I’d like to add another question - a hypothetical one-

If you walked out of a bar to find some huge bloke kicking your best friend’s head in whilst your friend lay unconscious on the floor (just building up the drama:)) and, since your approaching from the side of the altercation, you have a totally free shot at the assailant who is within punching range of you, in order to hit him with your most powerful punch would you:-

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn’t we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this ‘being a slave to Wing Chun’?

In that scenario, I’d pick up a weapon (a brick, a stick, whatever) and hit him with that. Seriously. But if I had to fight him standing up, I’d do what I do best.

I am a strong believer in that what you learn, how you train it, and what you do in fighting should correspond 1 to 1 to 1 (which, btw, is not the traditional model of training).

A huge problem with these sorts of hypotheticals is the underlying assumption that there is a “one best answer.” There’s not. It always comes down to the individual. How (and when, where, why, etc.) an individual can use the WCK punch, or any technique for that matter, will depend on that person and their development at that time. So, for example, if a person doesn’t have"knock out power" with their punch, what would be the point of trying to knock the guy out with a punch? Learning to fight (well) involves taking your tools, your talent, your tendencies, your likes and dislikes, your strengths and weaknesses, etc. and crafting them in a way to best suit you.

Just thinking aloud, and I don’t mean to p*ss anyone off, but if you can’t use it in all ranges, and you can’t use it to develop a highly powerful punch, then wouldn’t your time be better spent studying something else?

If you want to learn to kickbox, yes, you’d be better off doing muay thai. If you want to learn to groundfight, you’d be better off doing BJJ.

As I see and practice WCK, the punch mainly serves one purpose: to destroy the opponent’s structure. If it knocks him out, that’s gravy for the goose. But in terms of finishing, the punch is secondary. When you are in close and attached, punching packs a lot less wallop than elbows and knees for instance.

[QUOTE=Han Man;774769]

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.
b. Hit him with one of the above, but adjusted to encorporate WCK structure.
c. Chain punch as fast as possible.
d. Just hit with the same WCK punch you practise in class

Shouldn’t we all be striving for point d. to be case - or would you call this ‘being a slave to Wing Chun’?

[/QUOTE]

None of the above.

If you run over and blindside someone, you are basically asking anyone else who happens to be standing around to do the same to you. It happens all the time.

The big bloke can have friends or even some strangers who takes offence at you just suckerpunching somebody while he’s pre-occupied.

There’s a massive difference between stepping in the way to stop a beating and just cracking someone.

"Previously I’ve trained in various Wing Chun schools with the following assumptions:-

  1. Chi Sau helped develop ‘stickiness’ so that my arms would move to the optimum position for defence and counter attack once a 'bridge had been established.

AND THAT’S STILL ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CHI SAO TEACHES. (The key word here is “one”).

  1. Consequently a ‘bridge’ is often sought - by this I mean arm to arm contact.

***IF THERE’S A TARGET TO HIT…without putting yourself at risk of being hit back on another line - then you forget arm-to-arm contact and go for the hit on the target. Otherwise you seek a bridge if his arm(s) are occupying a critical LANE. And if he’s a good fighter than he’ll be covering/occupying critical lanes more often then not - so expect bridges to occur often.

  1. Although concept driven, Wing Chun still contains some self defense applications within the forms (such as a bear-hug escape).

***CORRECT.

  1. Power was derived from tensing at the end of the punch, or locking out the elbows.

***YES, BUT DON’T FORGET about power also coming from the lower body structure of driving with the legs and some torque coming from the hips - which could be straight forward or a turning motion. And proper breathing (ie.- exhalation). And a bent knee, knees-in, and hips locked forward structure.

  1. If your arm has made contact with an assailant’s attacking arm and they have a lot of power, then you may need to pivot away from the assailant in order to release or redirect their force - as per the turns in Chum Kiu.

***YES, BUT AGAIN, don’t forget about other things as well, such as using your wing chun arm and hand motions which may or may not require a pivot away from the force, ie.- jut, bong, tan, huen, chuen, pak, etc…And besides the basic pivot there are also sinking, spring loading, releasing, and redirecting motions that may not require you to pivot at all. And last - but certainly not least…there’s actual footwork, ie.- full side steps, half sidesteps, back steps, etc. that can be used to avoid, release, or help redirect his powerful force or penetration into your space.

Where I train now, my thinking is thus:-

  1. Chi sau has nothing to do with stickiness but about developing power through structure via the correct body behaviour / alignment / elbow / hip movement.

***NO, CHI SAO still has to do with stickiness (at times)…but now it seems that you’ve learned more about what chi sao also offers. :slight_smile: :wink:

  1. Seeking a bridge is chasing hands - bad.

***IF HIS HANDS/ARMS occupy a critical LANE - then it’s not bad - it’s still good. (Unless, of course, you enjoy getting hit). :stuck_out_tongue:

  1. Absolutely no self defense moves in the forms - only behaviours / attributes / and exercises for helping with these.

***COMPLETELY FALSE ASSUMPTION…you were right the first time, long ago - in a galaxy far, far away. The forms contain/teach many things, including some specific self defense and combat moves/techniques - along with wing chun’s famous CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES.

  1. Power derived through legs, hips and elbow alignment. I used to think Wing Chun had a weak punch and thus needed chain punches. Now I think it’s a powerful punch and chain punching is just and exercises I perform slowly on a wall bag.

***WRONG. Don’t expect to end a fight with one single wing chun punch. That’s a myth. Expect to throw multiple wing chun punches to knock someone out - or maybe finish him with a rear cross. Don’t be shy. :cool:

  1. Rarely (if ever) turn hips away from assailant. Turns in Chum Kiu are exercises / concepts regarding facing rather than about turning away. Bong for example should always work without a pivot, otherwise it’s way too slow.

***WRONG AGAIN. Expect to turn the hips when using bong sao in real fighting against punches - unless the other guy has no power at all. But don’t put your eggs in that basket.

"WCK is in my view a method of fighting while in contact with an opponent. IOWs, while I am touching him/attached to him. That attachment is the bridge. Thus, seeking a bridge is not chasing hands; seeking the bridge is seeking a connection with the opponent’s center. That connection can be through his limbs or via direct contact with his body.

Isn’t this a similar view to Victor Parlatti’s (sp?) - about Wing Chun just being for very close range fighting. Do you advocate different methods for different ranges in relation to stand-up fighting?"

***sounds like a similar view, yes. And therefore, a correct view. :smiley: And I reccommend supplementing wing chun with some boxing hands from longer range (straight stiff leads and rear crosses - and catch wrestling when the fight gets even closer). But there are other good choices in grappling range as well. And don’t forget about some nice Thai boxing double neck/collar ties and knee strikes from very close range also.

NOW LET ME SAY A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS: Since wing chun requires the centerline to face the opponent’s center of mass while throwing strikes and thereby allows you to use two hands simultaneously to the same distance - it is by definition a short arm short range striking/kicking system. There’s no getting around that fact. It is what it is.

So when up against an opponent with serious boxing or kickboxing skills - AND ESPECIALLY IF HIS REACH IS LONGER BECAUSE HE’S TALLER…then the limitations of wing chun become very apparent - since his boxing striking structure (ie.- boxing footwork and horizontal punches with shoulder torque) enables him to reach longer than you with his attacks. I use boxing moves to counter this possible problem as a means of getting close enough to square up my shoulders and go to wing chun work. And it works very well. I intend to post a vid of this sometime this summer against a boxer who’s 200 lbs. and 6’ tall (I’m 5’ 10" - 170 lbs).

And as to the hypothetical you asked about - your first answer is the best:

a. Hit him with boxing style right cross / hook / swing / other non WCK punch.

Because a big rear cross or hook with lots of body torgue are power punches that can easily be fight-enders.

And there’s only one “T” in my last name.

Good questions, good thread. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;774814]NOW LET ME SAY A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS: Since wing chun requires the centerline to face the opponent’s center of mass while throwing strikes and thereby allows you to use two hands simultaneously to the same distance - it is by definition a short arm short range striking/kicking system. There’s no getting around that fact. It is what it is.

So when up against an opponent with serious boxing or kickboxing skills - AND ESPECIALLY IF HIS REACH IS LONGER BECAUSE HE’S TALLER…then the limitations of wing chun become very apparent - since his boxing striking structure (ie.- boxing footwork and horizontal punches with shoulder torque) enables him to reach longer than you with his attacks. I use boxing moves to counter this possible problem as a means of getting close enough to square up my shoulders and go to wing chun work. And it works very well. I intend to post a vid of this sometime this summer against a boxer who’s 200 lbs. and 6’ tall (I’m 5’ 10" - 170 lbs).
[/QUOTE]Victor,
I fail to see how switching to your opponents style, that is box a boxer, would give you any advantage. In fact, if he has “serious boxing skills” then I think you’re just playing into his game since by definition you are playing into his strengths. I figure he will just pick you apart like a long range sniper.

I also disagree that Wing Chun is strictly short-arm and short-range. Yes, that’s where we want to end up, inside the eye of the hurricane, but you need the footwork and striking skills to get you there.

I think that while we may agree that WCK works at close range, I believe that is about as far as our agreement goes.

In my view, WCK gives us the skills/tools to to deal with long range and get into contact (close range) safely. However, there’s nothing wrong with learning to box, and it can be a great asset in your training and can give you a good (potent) outside (free movment) game.

My experience is that WCK provides the skills/tools to deal with an opponent “when the fight gets even closer” – as I see WCK as essentally a clinch/dirty boxing method (and so involves grappling). My WCK has double neck collar ties (double neck pulling hand) and knees.

NOW LET ME SAY A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS: Since wing chun requires the centerline to face the opponent’s center of mass while throwing strikes and thereby allows you to use two hands simultaneously to the same distance - it is by definition a short arm short range striking/kicking system. There’s no getting around that fact. It is what it is.

WCK is a contact/attached fighting method that combines grappling and striking (the kuit even tells us this, btw), and that is why we face the opponent and want to use both hands “simultaneously” (as does anyone in the clinch).

So when up against an opponent with serious boxing or kickboxing skills - AND ESPECIALLY IF HIS REACH IS LONGER BECAUSE HE’S TALLER…then the limitations of wing chun become very apparent - since his boxing striking structure (ie.- boxing footwork and horizontal punches with shoulder torque) enables him to reach longer than you with his attacks. I use boxing moves to counter this possible problem as a means of getting close enough to square up my shoulders and go to wing chun work. And it works very well. I intend to post a vid of this sometime this summer against a boxer who’s 200 lbs. and 6’ tall (I’m 5’ 10" - 170 lbs).

You should say that the limitations of your WCK becomes apparent. As I said, in my view WCK provides us with the tools/skills to deal with this situation. If you don’t have those skills/tools, then you need to substitute them with something else.

I also disagree that the forms are all about “concepts” and have no self defense applications.

If the “concept” has no practical application then it is a useless concept.

The mistake made with forms is the notion that an entire sequence of moves in the form will lend itself to a single realistic response. One or maybe two moves is probably the limit - too much is going on unless the opponent is a statue, totally compliant, or totally clueless.

I also disagree that boxing is only useful at long range. Good close hooks, uppercuts, and overhand rights are effective close range techniques and can be quite difficult for a WC person used to blocking WC straight punches with pak and larp saos to defend against.

Assuming you necessarily have an advantage with WC at close range because the other guy is a boxer is about as fallacious as assuming that chi sao will give you the edge in sensitivity over a grappler.

POV and Experience differs

I totally agree with Andrew on this one…

[QUOTE=anerlich;774931]I also disagree that the forms are all about “concepts” and have no self defense applications.

If the “concept” has no practical application then it is a useless concept.
[/QUOTE]

My forms only contain actions that have direct application to certain situations and/or specific purpose for training energies/abilities of the body. If it has no use then i get rid of it.

This is why i have disagreed with those that see the differences between schools forms as differences in flair and choreography.
At the very least these differences are in purpose and energy. No right or Wrong.

Also, i believe the idea that VT is only a close range fighting system to be false IME.

Mainly because all the actions from VT i use are preformed in my personal space.
Attack or defensive…

If you want to strike me with long range punches or kicks. You have to (or your weapon, hand or foot) enter this space.
I also believe that if you whole heartedly perscibe to the idea that VT is only for close range… then your punching and footwork needs work. :wink:

With this idea in mind, i def side with Andrew on the Boxing range also…

[QUOTE=anerlich;774931]I also disagree that boxing is only useful at long range. [/QUOTE]
Andrew,
The point was not that boxing is only useful at long ranges, at least not as far as I’m concerned. In the context of the discussion, Victor seems to want to use boxing at long range and switch to wing chun at short range. I just think it’s a mistake to try an out box a boxer. Besides, I don’t see the need for switching at all. Play your own game.

The point was not that boxing is only useful at long ranges

You’re right. I was trying to say that to assume boxing isn’t useful in close is wrong. My instructor’s whacked quite a few WC purists with short hooks over the years.