The importance of "techniques"...

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

is often downplayed, overlooked, or outright put down by a whoooole lot of people in the wing chun world. Because wing chun is a “concept-based” art, we’re told. It’s not about techniques, we hear. It’s about concepts and principles. Attacking his center. Simultaneous attack and defense. Returning to the center via bil jee moves when you’re off-center. Just covering areas (gates). His hand comes - detain…if it withdraws - follow.

Don’t chase hands…just the image. Always move in and penetrate his space.

Etc.

GREAT.

And also bull5hit.

It’s great because all of the above principles and concepts are good, solid, points. Bad because the sweeping generalizatons that such concepts cover - all by themselves - do not do…

ENOUGH.

In my experience, and in the experience of many people in other arts, what’s been found is that one needs both concepts and techniques.

For example, take a simple headlock. You better have at least two-or-three different headlock escape TECHNIQUES (and their variations) in your arsenal that have been drilled hundreds of times if you want to be taken seriously, ie.- if you make the claim (even if it’s in your own head) that you’re good at escaping them.

The same with dealing with hook punches, multiple hooks, uppercuts, stiff leads and big rear crosses, hooks off jabs, rear roundhouse kicks to the back of your thigh, when up against the bull rush - or dealing with more sophisticated single and double leg shoots, etc. The same with unarmed self defense moves you might practice against various different types of knife or stick attacks.

Specific TECHNIQUE responses you’ve drilled countless times.

Can you imagine defending against a knife attack with the “concepts” mindset - and nothing else?

“Yeah, I’ll just sweep the area and attack his center.”

(No you won’t. You’ll just go to the nearest hospital emergency room while your loved ones pray to God that you recover).

Now of course you have to be able to adapt, adjust, modify, interrupt, change, abort, etc. some specific “technique” you use if need be. That goes without saying. You have to flow with the circumstances as they change.

You can’t have a rigid, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to techniques.

“If he throws a cross - I will always do this or that.”

Of course not.

But you still need the specific techniques.

There, and ready to be used and adapted without even thinking.

2

Hello Victor,

You make a good point, however the danger of being technique based is the same as many other things; you become trapped in the structure and shape of the technique.

Of course one must have techniques, they are the letters of the alphabet for any system. How the techniques are put together form the sentences and paragraphs. How the techniques are applied are the rules of grammer.

Just like in writing though, if one truly understands the concepts behind the system then one can expand beyond the simple technique A versus Technique B and even step outside of the box for exceptional application. Just as many of the litereray greats ignored some of the “rules” of grammer. Did they change the letters of the alphabet? No, they simply went outside of the box and used the same letters as everyone else in a different way.

Techniques are the foundation upon which we build. Understanding the concepts behind application allows us to utilize the same techniques in different ways.

I remember a discussion I once had with someone regarding how many Taun Saus are in the SNT. I have heard different people say different things, 2,3 etc. My response was there was one Taun Sau with slight variations in the energy with which it was applied. Taun is a single technique but it can be applied in dfferent ways, rising, splitting etc. Still, IMHO, at it’s core it remains the same Taun just diifers in application.

3

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872573]is often downplayed, overlooked, or outright put down by a whoooole lot of people in the wing chun world. Because wing chun is a “concept-based” art, we’re told. It’s not about techniques, we hear. It’s about concepts and principles. Attacking his center. Simultaneous attack and defense. Returning to the center via bil jee moves when you’re off-center. Just covering areas (gates). His hand comes - detain…if it withdraws - follow.

…[/QUOTE]

I think I follow you, but in all honestly your aproach to Wing Chun is different than myn. It is true that we like to say we fight by ideas, concepts.. but what does that mean?
You and I can agree that something logically makes sense, yet can you apply it? can I ? why are all the applications so vastly differnt? Why does all the fancy moves go out the window when pressure comes? what happened to the application?

in my opinion it goes back to learning the theory, and then learning the practicality. A few specific examples(your going to see how different my thoughts are very quick)..

I see allot of people try and cut angles and jam punches in in a attempt to crash, get thier faster ect.. it seems logical all those rules and ideas fit right? wrong.
I have been shown and I have tested, and proved to myself that this approach only works in a small situation. You say always move in, penetrate space..
for me this isn’t a real smart idea. Again this is how I learned Wing Chun and what I proved to myself from testing it out.

another basic idea pak da, block and punch same time to the center. great idea.. but how do you apply it? just standing still and trying to jam the punch with a pak doesn’t mean you will get it right.

you mentioned not chasing hands. What does that mean? In my school of thought it comes from the idea of covering. the same as I boxer or a grappler is able to anticipate the next move, you must aswell and cover the whole.
great idea but how do you do it?

I have never been introduced to these rigid rules, and cookie cutter mentality that your describing until i talked to other Wing Chun students and schools. For me the idea of fitting to the situation was introduced at day one.

again theory vrs application.

I hate to say it but JKD in many ways has better wing chun than most schools.
JMO

4

I wouldn’t say that JKD has better wing chun - but I would bet that many JKD schools have more “functional” wing chun in it’s arsenal than many wing chun schools…precisely because of the “drill-the-technique” approach taken by JKD - as well as the concepts that they teach.

5

Good topic! Not sure I agree with you and will give a more full response when I have more time.
But for now, could you please clarify something for me, as it seems to me that these two quoes somewhat contradict each other:

First:
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872573]…You better have at least two-or-three different headlock escape TECHNIQUES (and their variations) in your arsenal that have been drilled hundreds of times if you want to be taken seriously, ie.- if you make the claim (even if it’s in your own head) that you’re good at escaping them.

The same with dealing with hook punches, multiple hooks, uppercuts, stiff leads and big rear crosses, hooks off jabs, rear roundhouse kicks to the back of your thigh, when up against the bull rush - or dealing with more sophisticated single and double leg shoots, etc. The same with unarmed self defense moves you might practice against various different types of knife or stick attacks.

Specific TECHNIQUE responses you’ve drilled countless times.[/QUOTE]

Then:
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872573]You can’t have a rigid, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to techniques.

“If he throws a cross - I will always do this or that.”

Of course not.[/QUOTE]

How can you have the first thinking but still the second?The first quote seems to come from a technique-only POV yet the second seems to be starting down the ‘concepts/principals’ road… :slight_smile:

Or is the second quote simply implying having a bag of techniques to draw from and not just one single technique response?

6

Of course, anyone can train a big bag full of various techniques and become a pretty good fighter - no doubt about it! Fast hands, a bunch of A, B, C moves and good timing and you can get a pretty decent fighting skill. But what is the end result? As I see it, it’s a guy that fights with the mentality of “He throws punch A, I use block C or D”, or “he uses technique F so I use escape A, B or C”. Will work of course, and over time, the reactions will come out instinctively if drilled enough, but this is still just a technique-oriented fighter.

After training WC for many years, I would never want to go back to my technique-oriented style of fighting. I never want to lose my “concept fighter” mentality I have today. What makes WC so unique IMO, is the concepts/principals/theories behind it. This is what gives birth to the techniques, or more simply, allow them to exist.

Basically, if one wants to focus on just training the technique responses to various attacks, say Biu Sau vs. hook punch, sure, they will learn the mechanics of the biu sau and how to use it. Sifu can say “put your hand here, put your elbow over there, step like this, face this way etc.” and you’ll start to get results - but it’s still technique oriented fighting with sound mechanics.

But what really drives the ‘biu sau’ reaction to a hook? It’s the principals/concepts behind that one is operating under. It’s the gate theory, Center line (or 5-line) theory, etc. What actually gives it its structure? Is it because “Sifu said do it like this?”, or is it driven by specific reference points in space and placing your parts in the correct position because of human anatomy and laws of nature tell us so?

Also, why not just punch the guy when he punches me? Why ‘biu sau’ at all? Or, why not Tan? Because of the concepts again tell guide us to the correct answer. Gate theory, occupying space with strong structure, CL, etc. And, in WC I train, there’s also Heaven/human/earth concepts, 1/2 point concept, box theory, Dui Ying/Juie Ying facing concept, etc. So much more than the technique. This is what tells us ‘taan sau’ vs ‘biu sau’ vs ‘tiu sau’. Not because ‘Sifu says’ or becuase I prefer ‘this over that’.

Of course, all of this has to be tested and drilled countless times so we get the proper timing, range, facing, structure etc. And also so we can prove it for ourselves. But are we really drilling just a bunch of technique responses, or are we drilling into our bodies an understanding of the concepts/principles behind them? I’m thinking the second… without those, all you have is a bunch of ‘whats’ and maybe ‘hows’, but you’d be missing the ‘whys’. The ‘whys’ are what sets us apart. The ‘whys’ are what drives everything we do. Do we need to understand the ‘whys’ to fight? Nope. But can they greatly increase our chances if we understand then and fight by them? yup!

Without the whys, all I have is what ‘Sifu says’, or I have to figure it out myself. I’m going to train to understand the whys. It’s what gives us our effectiveness and efficiency/economy of motion in the first place, not the technique - that’s only just the tool. The technique is just the expression of the proper understanding of the concepts.

One could just enter the fight and start out jabbing my way in, or I could just occupy space with proper structure supported by gate theroy and CL. The second sound much safer to me :slight_smile:

Jonathan

7

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872573]… one needs both concepts and techniques.[/QUOTE]Nuff said.

[QUOTE=Sihing73;872576]You make a good point, however the danger of being technique based is the same as many other things; you become trapped in the structure and shape of the technique. …[/QUOTE]What’s more to the point and more my prob with tech in chun is that you become trapped in the structure and shape of your opponent’s attack. If not physically, then certainly in a reactive mindset. You’re only as good as your opponent’s attack in this way of practising.

8

“Or is the second quote simply implying having a bag of techniques to draw from and not just one single technique response?” (JP)

***YES, that’s what I meant.

9

“Of course, anyone can train a big bag full of various techniques and become a pretty good fighter - no doubt about it! Fast hands, a bunch of A, B, C moves and good timing and you can get a pretty decent fighting skill. But what is the end result? As I see it, it’s a guy that fights with the mentality of ‘He throws punch A, I use block C or D’, or ‘he uses technique F so I use escape A, B or C’. Will work of course, and over time, the reactions will come out instinctively if drilled enough, but this is still just a technique-oriented fighter.” (JP)

***YES, but he’s headed in the right direction.

…

“After training WC for many years, I would never want to go back to my technique-oriented style of fighting.” (JP)

***YOU don’t have to go back to it - just add to it. Add what?

The concepts - and the drills that fine tune the concepts (like chi sao, kiu sao, bong sao-lop sao, pak sao-pak da, etc.)

…

I never want to lose my “concept fighter” mentality I have today. What makes WC so unique IMO, is the concepts/principals/theories behind it. This is what gives birth to the techniques, or more simply, allow them to exist." (JP)

***AS mentioned, there’s nothing to lose and much to gain. As for your other point, guess what?

MANY other fighting styles also emphasize concepts as the birth channel to more refined, new, and better techniques. Take a close look at catch wrestling, BJJ, and sambo, for example. Even boxing and kickboxing use certain principles and concepts that are like a “well” that some people have gone back to to find newer waters (ie.- techniques, footwork, strategies, etc.) to swim in.

Look how guys like Ali, Marciano, Dempsey, and Tyson revolutionized their “art” - yet it was all built upon the basic conceptual foundations of “boxing”.

…

“Basically, if one wants to focus on just training the technique responses to various attacks, say Biu Sau vs. hook punch, sure, they will learn the mechanics of the biu sau and how to use it. Sifu can say ‘put your hand here, put your elbow over there, step like this, face this way etc.’ and you’ll start to get results - but it’s still technique oriented fighting with sound mechanics.” (JP)

***TRUE, but again, when a thorough understanding of the principles behind those techniques and their proper mechanics are introduced into the instruction - the student can take a quantum leap forward.

You’ve given him a fish - and you’ve explained how he can also continue fishing for himself.

10

Concepts can be in the head. Techniques have to be in the hands.

11

I agree with what Victor is saying. The way I see things working…first you learn or teach technique. But right alongside of technique you teach the concept behind the technique and why it is done that way. Then the student learns how to vary the technique and still be within that conceptual framework. For instance…you teach how to do the ideal Tan Sao. You teach that Tan means “to spread” and that the technique works by deflecting and “spreading” outward. Then the student begins to understand than you can do the ideal and spread forward at a 45 degree angle from the basic centerline at approximately throat or chin level…or you can spread while retracting…spread at nipple level…spread at eye level…etc. Then later he comes to understand that you can do the same “spreading” motion with the pole, knives, or a stick. Concepts are good, but you have to have concrete examples or they are pointless.

12

I see what you mean. Techniques are important and the concepts with them should be understood. I also think the intermediate between techniques and concepts is structure and power. You can know the technique and been shown concepts by many people, but every wing chun technique has correct structure and power. If someone throws a straight punch and you do a tan sau and it hits you, it just means you don’t have structure. You used the correct technique and you had the concept. Something was just missing though. With correct structure then power will naturally come.

13

tan never leaves the centerline…:wink: theres one for you :smiley: its a 1/2 punch , as is jum…
techniques to attack with, using a concept to guide us, as we maneuver tactically.
VT techniques all allow this attacking idea in full flow.

btw the ELBOW of the tan spreads off the line while the fist stays on the line …the tan sao in SLT doesnt chase things by spreading at the wrist, offline.
Tan sao is just a name , nothing to do with the ‘hand’.

14

[QUOTE=k gledhill;872703]tan never leaves the centerline…:wink: theres one for you :smiley: its a 1/2 punch , as is jum…
techniques to attack with, using a concept to guide us, as we maneuver tactically.
VT techniques all allow this attacking idea in full flow.

btw the ELBOW of the tan spreads off the line while the fist stays on the line …the tan sao in SLT doesnt chase things by spreading at the wrist, offline.
Tan sao is just a name , nothing to do with the ‘hand’.[/QUOTE]

I believe allot of these “rules” someone with allot of time or no experience fighting made them up.. tan never leaves center line… I have never heard of that one.

15

I agree. In TWC we use five lines:

  1. the main centerline
  2. the left chest line
  3. the left shoulder line
  4. the right chest line
  5. the right shoulder line

…and TAN could be used on any one of them.
So could pak, or bong, or bil, or jut, or garn, and so on.

16

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872724]I agree. In TWC we use five lines:

  1. the main centerline
  2. the left chest line
  3. the left shoulder line
  4. the right chest line
  5. the right shoulder line

…and TAN could be used on any one of them.
So could pak, or bong, or bil, or jut, or garn, and so on.[/QUOTE]

wow so many lines.. can you actually remmber all that when you are sparring?

17

not many have heard that one , your very right :wink:

Basic training positions for our technique, tan / jum
…as a concept we attack with the idea that this will make the opponent defensive. Fight to make a 10 second encounter , 9 seconds of us attacking and the opponent defends for 9…concept.
Techniques to achieve this goal are contained in the system, all the strikes are to incorporate an attacking action/s. At the root level the system teaches us to have an arm that can achieve 2 actions , alone. Strike along the centerline, and defend along the centerline. Simultaneously , lin sil di da in its infancy. The first sections of SLT contain a xing along a line and a simple punch follows along it. Simple so far ? :smiley:
Then we train to isolate the 1st 1/2 of the ‘launch area’ centerline strikes and defensive perimeters forming an isosceles triangle , the centerline dividing it, the wrists xing this line in and out , seamlessly transferring one strike to the other ‘threading’ the line with strikes that are also meeting anything along the line with …our arm.
Now to make this idea function we have to maneuver it . Like any fight we have to angle and shift to the opponent. We look for attacking actions /force , to give us an entry line…stay with what comes is about sticking to your perimeter …hold the lines !
but avoid the brunt of the force face on…so we adopt TACTICS, guided by concept fulfilled by techniques to achieve this as a complete goal. simple . very simple and very effective if done properly with the required attributes ..

if we have moved to a side of a person [ tight cutting counter angle] bare handed …we remove the of having to face 2 arms flailing at us from the front , as a person would wail on a heavy bag…IF we shift last second to the entry [ combat no fore knowledge of tactics] we can catch opponents and stay with them to prevent them refacing or allow over facing to turn before us as we attack them.
Because we moved to the side we need to strike them …each arm is delivering trained aligned strikes , with elbow angles held to both defend our own head as we attack the opponent …each arm has to be able to , at a basic level, infantry of an army…that strike alone then transfer the next strike to the other without stopping the attacking beat[ 9out of 10 seconds ..]..to allow a counter strike or give a chance for the opponent to ‘breath’ . We train the primary actions of attacking to be done along our centerlines , to a flanked individuals …this flanking can be a perpetual thing simply allowing them to re x our line in futile attempts to stop our attacking line that simply ‘faces’ them, but not front and center like chi-sao drills.
So if your on a side striking like a 2 handed fighter , why would you use a tan sao [ 1/2 arm extension] to stand somewhere , tactically & % bad for you ? to do a magic moment :smiley:
Bil gee has arm chasing actions done at full extension and fast to deal with hands coming from either side , it also teaches us how to recover a flank/arm position , a grabbed wrist , preventing us from threading our strikes, an arm raised to stop us using the basic striking ideas of SLT…
MAny , Me included have been introduced to less efficient ways of fighting that are making us fight with less bullets so to speak, than the other guy simply wailing in on us

in a nut shell if you fight with a line that is trained to cut across another line with 2 fast moving arms versus one incapable of being utilized to its full potential, in the first few seconds of a fight …we see that the main ideas are to develop strong structures , that can shift quickly to deliver this idea, and have strong short punches that both cover and strike using movement , like a boxer , to gain defensive attacking positions , relative to the reality before them…not a preset block in the air adopting position ‘stand like a statue’ , while you allow the opponent the freedom to try to throw flanking shots at you, like your a heavy bag with a tan sao block …
If you fight like a heavy bag with an attitude that doesn’t like to be hit and hits back…you change the guys raining ways of moving around a stationary object that suddenly shifts , striking into ‘space’ and only using contact moves because they are required …not because you stood still and put your arm in the air …

Don’t get me wrong, you can and should do anything , but its good to know more about a tan sao [ tanned sow , love that !] :smiley:

When we attack the sides of the dummy ..the tan & Jum [elbow in side palm] are to align either one [ we don’t know which will lead..striking] so we train to deliver either a strike that the elbow spreads off the line [ from one flank] or the other strike that strikes along the line with the elbow NOT leaving …add the 2 in rotation along a flank and we have 2 strikes in fast rotation capable of doing 2 actions , shutting down the side by delivering force from the forearms leaving and then holding the line , STRIKING…

leaving , holding , leaving , holding [always striking]…threading along the line we attack on…they change sides on us , or overturn we simply strike the same way to shut down counters or attempts to reface …all the while steaming into them with all hands on deck…straight low kicks if we lose fist striking ability, short powerful shoves [po-pai] to regain striking space if they try to simply cover up before us or turn away to give us no strikes…momentum of the attacking direction is maintained and perpetuated to a swift end…the goal is driven by concept…the techniques we train allow this idea to be delivered without thinking…
any changes to it and bil gee licks in to recover the little idea we started with…
:smiley:

I love this system !

I am following an idea that was proven very successful…:smiley:

I meant 1/2 of a full punch as is jum sao…the 1st critical 1/2 after they leave the line they simply strike and come back to the line is rotation…the later sections of SLT contain the ideas for 2 handed recovery to keep the 9-10 sec idea unbroken.]

18

[QUOTE=monji112000;872747]wow so many lines…can you actually remember all that when you are sparring?[/QUOTE]

***IT’S not a question of remembering. It’s simply a question of looking. If I see a straight punch coming in toward the left side of my chest, for example - that’s where the tan goes…

assuming I didn’t move in time to block it on my centerline.

Which is not necessarily a “mistake” - for all that matters is that the block/parry/redirection stopped his attack and puts me in a position to immediately put him on defense…

regardless of which line I placed the tan on.

19

Perhaps that last post could serve as a segway - so here’s a list of some wing chun techniques vs. various attacks that I use:

tan on the inside of a straight punch that attacks between the solar plexus and the head…

tan on the outside of a backfist or spinning backfist…

pak on the outside of a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach…

bong from underneath (and to the outside of) a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach…

bil against round/hook punches that attack from the head to the solar plexus…

garn against a low round/hook punch attacking anywhere from the solar plexus on down to the groin area…

pak/jut against a straight punch that attacks from the solar plexus down to the groin…

to name a few.

20

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872762]***IT’S not a question of remembering. It’s simply a question of looking. If I see a straight punch coming in toward the left side of my chest, for example - that’s where the tan goes…

assuming I didn’t move in time to block it on my centerline.
[/QUOTE]
wow so you use tan sao in a sparring/free fight for straight punches.. interesting. Although in theory and chi sao its perfectly fine, I wouldn’t do that.

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;872764]Perhaps that last post could serve as a segway - so here’s a list of some wing chun techniques vs. various attacks that I use:

tan on the inside of a straight punch that attacks between the solar plexus and the head…

tan on the outside of a backfist or spinning backfist…

pak on the outside of a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach…

bong from underneath (and to the outside of) a straight punch attacking anywhere from the head to the stomach…

bil against round/hook punches that attack from the head to the solar plexus…

garn against a low round/hook punch attacking anywhere from the solar plexus on down to the groin area…

pak/jut against a straight punch that attacks from the solar plexus down to the groin…

to name a few.[/QUOTE]

Again this is what I mean about theory and practice. HOnestly I"m not calling you out, but when someone is really punching can you tell were is going that well? If your lucky or have the experience you should be able to tell if its high or low, if its a hook or a straight punch but thats about it. This is from my experience and talking to fighters.

really it depends on the situation. In theory I can pak hooks and body shots, straight punches. In reality I keep things very simple… JMO
pak straight punches only. but I also kick and setup for other things.
hooks I tan da, and I have a high rate of pulling this off. Thats if I see the hook if not I just shell up. (boxing 101) then counter.
body shots in theory I should garn sao and punch.. but I don’t really like this it commits you too much. I don’t know the name of the technique but I use my elbow to cover and my foot work. (its similar to a boxers shell).
back fist.. thats tricky.. I have used a tan sao, but I have also used a qwan. I like the qwan becouse you can elbow the guy.. but I often don’t have the reaction to do that.

again in my experience Its very hard to tell exactly were he will punch and when.. so I just cover the area.

I have had allot of success with gun sao , gua sao, and WC round kick(so gerk) against stright punches.

but everything is in foot work, not just hand movements. Footwork, timing, setup ect..

one thing I’m figuring out is that if your sparring you can’t constantly commit, becouse people will use that against you.

JMO your welcome to shoot me for it.