‘’ When striking, the limbs do not vibrate.‘’
The image that comes in my mind is : Strike a brick wall with a baseball bat and it will vibrate sending back energy in your arm and body. Now, strike the same wall with a whip or chain and the energy will be send without coming back at you.
“When striking, the limbs do not vibrate.”
What is the Cantonese phrasology for this English translation? Does anyone have access to the Chinese characters? Perhaps a native speaker could help make more sense of this if he/she saw it in the original.
It’s not a Kuen Kuit, if memory serves, just part of general instruction (like don’t cross your eyes and stick out your tongue while trying to remember the Jong set…)
Re: When striking, the limbs do not vibrate.
Originally posted by TwoManSaw
[B]Hello,
I was wondering how people interpret the following statement, and whether it is a common saying in their kwoons.
“when striking, the limbs do not vibrate”. Taken from 'Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie and Y.Wu.
Thankyou [/B]
I with Savi and Old Jong
To me it’s about releasing all of the energy into the opponent - energy left in the arm/body (tension) is energy that should have been released into the target.
Originally posted by reneritchie
…just part of general instruction (like don’t cross your eyes and stick out your tongue while trying to remember the Jong set…)
:eek:
uh-oh…
I uh… gotta go practice a bit more… yeah.
Hi Kathy, Rene,
the differences between WT and Ken Chung’s teaching of Leung Sheung’s method- there are probably a lot of things which conspire to make things look different here, possibly even actual difference. I think this bridge distance thing highlights one of them- we work with the idea that one should work at a distance in chi sao where one is not able to touch with an extended arm and the shoulder back, where body motion is required to get in. Hitting people in chi sao without someone moving is generally either a cheap shot (giving the shoulder or turning to exploit/create a hole in such a way that you’re leaving a hole), or playing to show holes, train the other person, or simply demo some flashy stuff, depending how it’s done.
This longer distance re-enforces our idea of chi sao as something which occurs during the close. If I touch your bridge on the way in, it should be in such a way that I have as much room, and commensurate time, to react as possible. I want to move through that distance, controlling, and safe, winding up where I can hit with good power and control, about where my elbow is a fist off my ribs.
The contraction thing- think about the step closing down. My present take is that interesting things happen powerwise when directions of force-expression change rapidly.
Hitting air- I think I understand what you’re saying about it being easier to let loose. Striking people brings up some of the psychological problems you mention (luckily, I’ve had some training partners I don’t much care for). For me, the most useful tool for working on my power has been a good training partner holding a couple of pads and giving me feedback on the quality of the shots. Moving from one to two to three stacked focus mits to make it through 20 minutes of playtime without making each other feel too sick has been quite statisfying. . . 
Andrew
Hi Andrew.
Thanks for your reply. What you write makes a lot of sense to me.
I am curious about one aspect of your chi sau at a wider distance, in particular the poon sau/luk sau rolling exercise. Are students in your classes also taught to practice poon sau/luk sau for long periods of time (sans explicit attacks) at this distance?
If so, I am interested to better understand what you perceive as some of the goals and benefits of doing luk sau in general, but more specifically at the wider distance. [I follow your earlier reasoning as it relates to bridging and closing; we deal with this as well of course, but typically during more extended variations of chi sau (e.g., gwar sau), and other exercises.] Also, are you primarily connected at or near the wrist then?
Perhaps there are some benefits in common with a closer range luk sau (e.g, maximizing use of forearm), and perhaps some different benefits. I realize everything has advantages and disadvantages.
I appreciate that there is a time burden to address such questions, and hope you don’t mind my curious probing. In any event, thanks for the exchange.
Regards,
Hi Kathy,
Good talking to you, and a pleasure to be able to answer some questions.
We practice poon sao at roughly the position I described earlier, sometimes for reasonably long periods (20-30 minutes). Some folks will work this way for about an hour. Leung Ting’s classic recommendation is about 2hrs of this a day (with at most simple attacks), but I think that’s excessive, and have never found a training partner with patience enough for it. Moreover, I think prolonged practice is a recipe for neurologic burnout and repetive motion injury. Short, sweet, and focused works way better for me.
As to distances, we aim for wrist to wrist contact at all times in basic poon sao, with the idea that if enough sliding occurs to break static friction and move over the pull of the skin, you’ve done something wrong, and are losing position. I will work this at even more extended distances than normal with very light force to improve ‘pressure’, as it seems hardest to get forward energy from the body into the arms at more extended positions where the extensor arm is alreadily heavily contracted. This working with very light forces at extended positions seems to refine one’s ability to ‘feel’ small forces.
Goals and benefits of poon sao- to me, all ability to change, and the core of all Wing Chun mechanics may be found in poon sao. At wider distances you must keep your shoulders back and down, and cannot get away with rotating on the central axis to ‘cheat’ and hit as easily. IMHO, just as there is a point at which the elbow gets near the body at which you must turn, there is a distance at which the elbow is away from the body where you step forward if you feel the way is free. This longer distance helps work both sides of this.
After thinking about this a good bit, I really think the biggest things about working from this place are an increased need for footwork, and the subsequent development of the ability to work while in motion.
Oh yeah- I think the longer distance gives me some play to absorb with the limbs, before I’m pushed into a place where I must absorb with my body rather than be collapsed. That being said, this shouldn’t be something you have to do, just sometimes something you can do if you need to.
BTW- what’s gwar sao? Anything to do with the Cuttlefish of Cthulhu and Slymestra Hymen? (As the strains of ‘Have you seen me lately?’ echo in my mind and fond memories of pits past dance in my head).
Later,
Andrew
ttt
If I May Put in a Word!
Hi Andrew,
Originally posted by AndrewS
the differences between WT and Ken Chung’s teaching of Leung Sheung’s method- there are probably a lot of things which conspire to make things look different here, possibly even actual difference. I think this bridge distance thing highlights one of them
One of which? A difference, I think. Wing Chun in Ken Chung’s interpretation of Leung Sheung is designed for a smaller, weaker person who we conceive of as a small woman. Not that a smaller weaker person will automatically excel in it or that a large person will be unable to learn it.
This being the case, the distance at which he/she needs to fight must be smaller than the distance of the larger opponent. Therefore we seek the inside. If you are small, a la Yip Man, you have to conserve your energy and receive the energy and use it. Your best position are the inside hands. You use your legs (or larger muscles) to accomplish what other styles do with their upper bodies. You uproot, not overpower. Divert, trap, or use our opponent’s energy whenever possible.
[B]
we work with the idea that one should work at a distance in chi sao where one is not able to touch with an extended arm and the shoulder back, where body motion is required to get in. Hitting people in chi sao without someone moving is generally either a cheap shot (giving the shoulder or turning to exploit/create a hole in such a way that you’re leaving a hole), or playing to show holes, train the other person, or simply demo some flashy stuff, depending how it’s done.
[/B]
I see similarities between us in most of this. But, I think we’re at somewhat different distances, with Ken’s lineage being as close as possible and still defensible.
[B]
This longer distance re-enforces our idea of chi sao as something which occurs during the close. If I touch your bridge on the way in, it should be in such a way that I have as much room, and commensurate time, to react as possible.
[/B]
We want to ensure that we are in control, so we need to be close and work to be so.
[B]
I want to move through that distance, controlling, and safe, winding up where I can hit with good power and control, about where my elbow is a fist off my ribs.
[/B]
Yes, but our emphasis is getting there and staying there. It sounds as if you are more concerned about closing the gap and less about just hanging out at the distance. Of course, there are similarities, but I’m highlighting the differences as I see them.
[B]
The contraction thing- think about the step closing down. My present take is that interesting things happen powerwise when directions of force-expression change rapidly.
[/B]
Yeah, please expand.
[B]
Hitting air- I think I understand what you’re saying about it being easier to let loose. Striking people brings up some of the psychological problems you mention (luckily, I’ve had some training partners I don’t much care for).
[/B]
LOL
[B]
For me, the most useful tool for working on my power has been a good training partner holding a couple of pads and giving me feedback on the quality of the shots. Moving from one to two to three stacked focus mits to make it through 20 minutes of playtime without making each other feel too sick has been quite statisfying. . .
[/B]
I’ll stick to the wall bag for now. More of an ideal positioning thing from my experience. But I may change my mind some day.
This thread has evolved a lot. It moved to this before I could comment on long range v. short power.
Regards,
Originally posted by AndrewS
[B]After thinking about this a good bit, I really think the biggest things about working from this place are an increased need for footwork, and the subsequent development of the ability to work while in motion.
Oh yeah- I think the longer distance gives me some play to absorb with the limbs, before I’m pushed into a place where I must absorb with my body rather than be collapsed. That being said, this shouldn’t be something you have to do, just sometimes something you can do if you need to.
[/B]
Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to further elaborate in such detail.
BTW- what’s gwar sao?
I am refering to an extension of chi sau beyond the basic luk sau exercise, which encompasses attacking and may even begin in a non-contact position. A.K.A. gor sau, gwor sau, or other spelling of your choice.
[B]
Anything to do with the Cuttlefish of Cthulhu and Slymestra Hymen? (As the strains of ‘Have you seen me lately?’ echo in my mind and fond memories of pits past dance in my head).[/Q]
Yikes! :eek: Not that I am aware of …
Regards,
Re: If I May Put in a Word!
Originally posted by John Weiland
[B]
One of which? A difference, I think. Wing Chun in Ken Chung’s interpretation of Leung Sheung is designed for a smaller, weaker person who we conceive of as a small woman. Not that a smaller weaker person will automatically excel in it or that a large person will be unable to learn it.
This being the case, the distance at which he/she needs to fight must be smaller than the distance of the larger opponent.
[/B]
Yes, but Andrew S. is combining grappling skill with WT, so these generalizations potentially apply to him as well. What he seems to be practicing is to start at an outside distance beyond bridge distance and working his way to the inside, whereas the previous states seemingly an assumption of starting at the close range of chi sao. 
[B]
Therefore we seek the inside. If you are small, a la Yip Man, you have to conserve your energy and receive the energy and use it. Your best position are the inside hands. You use your legs (or larger muscles) to accomplish what other styles do with their upper bodies. You uproot, not overpower. Divert, trap, or use our opponent’s energy whenever possible.
[/B]
This is fine and dandy, but this is not contradictory from a grappler’s perspective either. A small, skilled person can use leverage and a low center of gravity to overcome the strength and reach of a larger opponent. Heck, I’ve seen it done a lot.
[B]
I see similarities between us in most of this. But, I think we’re at somewhat different distances, with Ken’s lineage being as close as possible and still defensible.
[/B]
Yes, possibly, but where do you set the starting distance? Is it right to assume that fighting begins at chi sao range? :rolleyes:
[B]
We want to ensure that we are in control, so we need to be close and work to be so.
[/B]
This could as well be describing the grappler’s dilemma.
[B]
Yes, but our emphasis is getting there and staying there. It sounds as if you are more concerned about closing the gap and less about just hanging out at the distance. Of course, there are similarities, but I’m highlighting the differences as I see them.
[/B]
It’s possible the perceived differences would disappear in a hands-on comparison, but then again, maybe not.
Originally posted by Andrew S. [B]
The contraction thing- think about the step closing down. My present take is that interesting things happen powerwise when directions of force-expression change rapidly.
[/B]
[B]
Yeah, please expand.
[/B]
I wish Andrew would.
[B]
I’ll stick to the wall bag for now. More of an ideal positioning thing from my experience. But I may change my mind some day.
[/B]
There is a big difference between punching a wall bag and working out with a partner holding training bags who moves in and out, side to side, forcing you to adjust to changing distances in striking. :rolleyes:
[B]
This thread has evolved a lot. It moved to this before I could comment on long range v. short power.
[/B]
I’ve never heard any term like “short bridge” in a Ken Chung’s lineage discussion. As was previously expressed thread-wise, the term “long bridge energy” is not separable, IMO. I assume that short power is a manifestation of long bridge or elbow energy. Maybe someone has some thoughts on clarifying this for us.
Regards,
Hi John, Kathy, Grendel,
John-
smaller/weaker- ‘weaker’ is a disingenuous term. In reality, one wishes to maximize one’s strengths. If a set of body mechanics can allow someone 80-90lbs lighter than another person to throw the larger person around like a rag doll, they’re stronger, no matter who has the higher bench/squat/deadlift numbers.
inside hands- there are a couple of places I disagree with you here. It is of great advantage to be very close in, at the point your strength is maximized (again, if you hurl someone across the room, I consider you strong, whether you are a powerlifter, Wing Chun player, taiji man, or Bob Sapp). The ‘sweet spot’ for your power probably exists at each point along the body, with some mobility, compensatable by some torso stuff, so for purposes of this discussion, lets assume we’re primarily thinking about expressing power through the hand/wrist parallel to the sagitally plane. With these restrictions in mind, here is the obvious logical flaw to your argument- if one person has longer reach, is larger, they will not be operating at optimum position if they try to work inside the optimum position of a smaller person/ person with shorter reach. Good structure/ good mechanics/ relaxed body usage, all these can still operate on the outside, but I would argue that on someone smaller than you trying to force yourself to work inside can prove to be a disadvantage, especially when you now bring into consideration not only reach with arm length providing the hypotenueus of the triangle being used to wedge in, but the breadth, the distance from shoulder to shoulder, the base of a wedging triangle. While there are many other factors involved, looking solely at the upper body (not implying that this is the primary source of strength), the optimum angle for force delivery at a given limb length, probably changes with increasing broadness of the shoulders- as the base of the triangle gets wider. A more obtuse angle of arm to body seems to support force transmission better (I think this may be generalizable), hence the superiority of the elbow in position. At the same limb length and increasing shoulder breadth, two people will have different mechanical advantages at the same range and it will be to one person’s advantage to be closer (and I need to go dig out my Feynman’s and check the chapter on levers to figure out who this is).
Uh, long rambling on one of my present problems aside- the bottom line is that ‘inside’ is not the best place to be for every person at every instant. Unless you are Yip Man’s size, you will wind up treating larger and smaller opponents differently because of differing points of contact and mechanical advantage on contact (i.e. if you’re taller, you will tend to make contact on the outside, ‘fishing’ to get inside seem rather silly if you can crush them from where you are).
Closing the gap- yes, I have no problem saying that in WT we perceive that as a major issue, and handling problems during that is one thing for which we train chi sao. Once in, the ideal is to be **** close (elbow a fist-length or off the ribs, front leg pressing and active), but ideally not to be there unless the other person’s ability to strike back has been drastically curtailed.
Staying close and controlling- perhaps I’d view that more as a tertiary goal, focused on at a later phase of training. In an ideal world- someone thinks to attack, I hit first and attack until they’re incapacitated. In a less ideal world, they attack, I move and hit them, never contacting the attack or being in their line of fire. Less ideal, I must deal with the attack by bridging, and hitting, again destroying their ability to reply. Less ideal yet, I bridge, get close, and they can still reply, then I control and hit, until I can attack unanswered.
This last one, dealing with another Wing Chun player, is pretty low on my priority list, and I work this more against a covering boxer, kicker trying to break distance, or grappler closing for a tie-up (often off a punch or kick).
Through this I always wish to preserve the ability to move out should someone else come along.
Kathy,
if you want a laugh, check out <www.gwar.net>. The overlap of terms is oddly appropriate.
Grendel,
I’m not combining grappling skill with Wing Tsun- any application of rolling kneebar attempts, go-behinds to trips, arm-drags, or key-locks are purely for the education of my training partners. Purely.
More seriously, when I train WT, I do WT, not some hybrid art, and I feel compelled to state that up front. My grappling sucks worse than my Wing Chun, and I’d far prefer to rely on the latter than the former. All this being said, I train with a fairly profound awareness of the methods of other systems, particularily grappling, as we’ve had a healthy respect for grapplers in WT for longer than has been fashionable, and a number of my training partners have some mat time.
While Wing Chun likes to be close, grapplers like to be closer, and the ideal is to never play another’s game.
‘Starting in chi sao range’- I think this is one of WIng Chun’s great strengths- we do train a lot in places where fights happen- with someone close. That being said, if you’re training to fight you should probably train to deal with things starting **** near anywhere- from near/far, front/back/side, laying, sitting, etc with stress on the most likely scenarios and a lot of work on range management.
‘Changing distances’- I hear you on focus mitts occasionally being rather humbling (and a great learning tool). Boxing with a boxer- just exchanging blows- ain’t a great strategy, but I prefer to train to maximize my chance of first contact being collision of my fist and another’s face. Lop/pak/jut/tan/bong work much more nicely when being used to keep a covering opponent from being able to hit while inflicting damage.
BTW- a really cool place to work from is off-balance- having multiple partners checking, pulling, and tripping you, with you attack the pad held by the last attacker, hitting off a weight-drop being used to dissolve a push, etc.
The direction thing -I’ll try to come up with something coherent. I have some work to do and have rambled for a while. Basically, I think a modulator of power is when motion cycles turn over to make the vector of force expression change direction. If you step twice in succession, the change from drive off the back leg to weight drop and adduction as the legs drag up provides a crisp release of power, as should the subsequent change back to drive. Rapid direction changes allow for cessation of power expression with less muscular activity- less tension, and hence allow the next motion to be more explosive. By this thinking, immediate conversion of punch to jut or jut to punch should up the shocking character of the force of the first. This is just an idea I’m playing with, please don’t take it seriously. I remain convinced that the amount of time over which one applies force has serious effect on the resultant effects on the body, with shorter impulses proving more dangerous.
FWIW,
Andrew
LOL, AndrewS. This is one of those awkward moments when “Thanks for the link” seems somehow inadequate.
Regards,
Hi Andrew,
Originally posted by AndrewS
John-
smaller/weaker- ‘weaker’ is a disingenuous term. In reality, one wishes to maximize one’s strengths. If a set of body mechanics can allow someone 80-90lbs lighter than another person to throw the larger person around like a rag doll, they’re stronger, no matter who has the higher bench/squat/deadlift numbers.
Hmmm. This is only a metaphor for us. We don’t surgically alter our physical selves to achieve some puny, weak ideal. Another way we express our ideal of Wing Chun is that if a small woman cannot do it, it isn’t really Wing Chun, but if a small woman can use it to control a stronger person (with higher bench/squat/deadlift numbers), that is the ideal. Sandy Wong, Ben Der’s longest student, along with Ben himself, exemplify what Wing Chun can do for us.
[B]
inside hands- there are a couple of places I disagree with you here. It is of great advantage to be very close in, at the point your strength is maximized (again, if you hurl someone across the room, I consider you strong, whether you are a powerlifter, Wing Chun player, taiji man, or Bob Sapp).
[/B]
Strong is not in our lexicon.
[B]
The ‘sweet spot’ for your power probably exists at each point along the body, with some mobility, compensatable by some torso stuff, so for purposes of this discussion, lets assume we’re primarily thinking about expressing power through the hand/wrist parallel to the sagitally plane. With these restrictions in mind, here is the obvious logical flaw to your argument- if one person has longer reach, is larger, they will not be operating at optimum position if they try to work inside the optimum position of a smaller person/ person with shorter reach.
[/B]
This conclusion comes from the awkwardness of expression in this medium. Of course, for every individual, there is a different distance, but for the smaller person to work inside the ideal distance of the larger is an advantage. Obviously, the larger person will want to work at their own distance. So, if you’re picturing yourself against a larger person, where would your ideal position be? I might work inside or outside in this case, depending on the opponent or partner’s relative skill and style, but I train to be comfortable inside, which you won’t see much in other Wing Chun in my experience, although or because working inside requires the most skill and confidence in one’s hands. Fundamentally, we want to be in control and working at our distance.
[B]
Good structure/ good mechanics/ relaxed body usage, all these can still operate on the outside,
[/B]
No argument on that.
[B]
but I would argue that on someone smaller than you trying to force yourself to work inside can prove to be a disadvantage, especially when you now bring into consideration not only reach with arm length providing the hypotenueus of the triangle being used to wedge in, but the breadth, the distance from shoulder to shoulder, the base of a wedging triangle. While there are many other factors involved, looking solely at the upper body (not implying that this is the primary source of strength), the optimum angle for force delivery at a given limb length, probably changes with increasing broadness of the shoulders- as the base of the triangle gets wider. A more obtuse angle of arm to body seems to support force transmission better (I think this may be generalizable), hence the superiority of the elbow in position. At the same limb length and increasing shoulder breadth, two people will have different mechanical advantages at the same range and it will be to one person’s advantage to be closer (and I need to go dig out my Feynman’s and check the chapter on levers to figure out who this is).
[/B]
Don’t bother with Feynman for my sake. I agree that wider shoulders may give the larger person a better angle for working outside. I haven’t thought about whether it precludes working inside. I don’t envision it doing so in my mental chi sao. Another difference between Ken Chung’s teaching and some others, we don’t think in terms of triangles, but I see the utility in this analogy.
[B]
Uh, long rambling on one of my present problems aside- the bottom line is that ‘inside’ is not the best place to be for every person at every instant. Unless you are Yip Man’s size, you will wind up treating larger and smaller opponents differently because of differing points of contact and mechanical advantage on contact (i.e. if you’re taller, you will tend to make contact on the outside, ‘fishing’ to get inside seem rather silly if you can crush them from where you are).
[/B]
I’ll have to work this out on some likely victim when I return to class. I don’t agree that I/we are fishing for the inside; we just go there when it’s the thing to do. If I can crush my opponent from where I am, then that’s the most direct response. We don’t add movements or technique complications. We’re always looking the simplest response.
[B]
Closing the gap- yes, I have no problem saying that in WT we perceive that as a major issue, and handling problems during that is one thing for which we train chi sao. Once in, the ideal is to be **** close (elbow a fist-length or off the ribs, front leg pressing and active), but ideally not to be there unless the other person’s ability to strike back has been drastically curtailed.
[/B]
We don’t consider closing the gap to be a problem. We expect our opponent to do it for us in most cases, but once engaged, which can be from across a room, we work to find our ideal position. We step to bring our weapons close in. We don’t use so-called long-range weapons such as lunges or high kicks. The elbow position you describe is for us too, but we don’t have a front leg—both are legs are in a neutral side-to-side stance unless there is an opening to fill. A leading leg is a liability IMO, because one cannot defend equally on either side. Finally, we are comfortable close-in because we assume that we will be able to shut down an opponent’s offense before they can launch it.
[B]
Staying close and controlling- perhaps I’d view that more as a tertiary goal, focused on at a later phase of training. In an ideal world- someone thinks to attack, I hit first and attack until they’re incapacitated. In a less ideal world, they attack, I move and hit them, never contacting the attack or being in their line of fire. Less ideal, I must deal with the attack by bridging, and hitting, again destroying their ability to reply. Less ideal yet, I bridge, get close, and they can still reply, then I control and hit, until I can attack unanswered.
[/B]
I guess I consider the last to be the ideal. Not that I’d be doing chi sao on the street, but by controlling them and then striking, I’m not being greedy or afraid. Sometimes the urge to strike is based on fear of not being in control of the situation. Absorbing the opponent’s force and defusing their attacks, eating their hands—as Ken says—gives us the maximum security and the maximum offensive opportunity.
[B]
This last one, dealing with another Wing Chun player, is pretty low on my priority list, and I work this more against a covering boxer, kicker trying to break distance, or grappler closing for a tie-up (often off a punch or kick).
[/B]
This is another difference between us. Since Wing Chun has the best angle on the centerline and the most control, matching against Wing Chun gives me the biggest challenge.
[B]
Through this I always wish to preserve the ability to move out should someone else come along.
[/B]
What has your dating life got to do with it?
Regards,
Originally posted by AndrewS
[B]Grendel,
I’m not combining grappling skill with Wing Tsun- any application of rolling kneebar attempts, go-behinds to trips, arm-drags, or key-locks are purely for the education of my training partners. Purely.
[/B]
I find Wing Chun energy best lends itself to a Wing Chun response. When I find my partner using non-Wing Chun feeling energy, different applications come out just to see what they’ll do. What’s the definition of a “key lock”, btw?
[B]
More seriously, when I train WT, I do WT, not some hybrid art, and I feel compelled to state that up front. My grappling sucks worse than my Wing Chun, and I’d far prefer to rely on the latter than the former. All this being said, I train with a fairly profound awareness of the methods of other systems, particularily grappling, as we’ve had a healthy respect for grapplers in WT for longer than has been fashionable, and a number of my training partners have some mat time.
While Wing Chun likes to be close, grapplers like to be closer, and the ideal is to never play another’s game.
[/B]
Quite so. I like to play against other martial arts, but mostly in comparing “what-if” scenarios. Wing Chun principles are tough to defend against in most arts except by very skilled exponents of those arts. I wouldn’t want to have to fight a born and bred Thailand-raised Muay Thai fighter. They may all be washed up at 30, but up to that age, they can take tremendous punishment and keep coming. Personally, I don’t want to take any punishment. I want to play my game and keep it short and sweet.
[B]
‘Starting in chi sao range’- I think this is one of Wing Chun’s great strengths- we do train a lot in places where fights happen- with someone close. That being said, if you’re training to fight you should probably train to deal with things starting **** near anywhere- from near/far, front/back/side, laying, sitting, etc with stress on the most likely scenarios and a lot of work on range management.
[/B]
I agree. The range is important. Wing Chun range is all about taking away the opponent’s game.
[B]
‘Changing distances’- I hear you on focus mitts occasionally being rather humbling (and a great learning tool). Boxing with a boxer- just exchanging blows- ain’t a great strategy, but I prefer to train to maximize my chance of first contact being collision of my fist and another’s face.
[/B]
I like boxing, but I can’t always get a partner to just stand still while I hit him. And it’s also nice when he can’t hit me back. Truth to tell, I’d like to add it back into my training just for the fun of it.
[B]
Lop/pak/jut/tan/bong work much more nicely when being used to keep a covering opponent from being able to hit while inflicting damage.
[/B]
They work equally well for Chi Sao and Chi Sao-like street situations. Or, so I’ve been told.
[B]
BTW- a really cool place to work from is off-balance- having multiple partners checking, pulling, and tripping you, with you attack the pad held by the last attacker, hitting off a weight-drop being used to dissolve a push, etc.
[/B]
I don’t understand how you can drill that, exactly. Do you let them push and pull you, or does the drill let you attack as they do so?
[B]
The direction thing -I’ll try to come up with something coherent. I have some work to do and have rambled for a while. Basically, I think a modulator of power is when motion cycles turn over to make the vector of force expression change direction. If you step twice in succession, the change from drive off the back leg to weight drop and adduction as the legs drag up provides a crisp release of power, as should the subsequent change back to drive. Rapid direction changes allow for cessation of power expression with less muscular activity- less tension, and hence allow the next motion to be more explosive. By this thinking, immediate conversion of punch to jut or jut to punch should up the shocking character of the force of the first. This is just an idea I’m playing with, please don’t take it seriously. I remain convinced that the amount of time over which one applies force has serious effect on the resultant effects on the body, with shorter impulses proving more dangerous.
[/B]
I’ll await your next installment. I feel as KJ has said, that a lingering strike has the kind of force I want when the **** hits the fan.
Thanks.
So I take it that some lineages begin a Chi-Sao session with wrist to wrist while others start closer? How close? If so do those people who are training closer ever train further away? IMO at a certain distance past the wrist someone is already compromised if even to a small degree. At a very close range I would hypothesize that people may well be training recovery rather than precise control. In my experience the wrist to wrist beginning in Luk-Sao is a standard and it gets even further away as you advance in the system i.e. moving on to Long Arm Chi-Sao - where contact may begin using fingers/hands, and later on to doing no contact combat drills: Progression then being from inside to outside - not static.
Starting Chi-Sao at the wrists normally requires the use of footwork to close the gap. I’ve heard it said, even among various lines, that Wing Chun uses the hands and the feet/body together but also separately. Like a car’s suspension filling (seeking) dips in the road - when the bridge penetrates beyond a certain (minute) distance the whole body moves as a unit - like a car going down a hill - the suspension reacts first but with sufficient release (down a hill) causes the whole car to go down and move as a unit.
Likewise, the hands/arms at wrist to wrist distance use forward spring energy from the elbow to seek an opening or fault in the partner’s structure. In this case the arms are supported by the body but move independently of it. When the elbow energy begins to penetrate the opponent and you take a line this is when the hands and body are connected to form a single powerful energy issuing weapon to fill up and attack that crack originally sensed by the bridges.
Hello YungChun.
A few brief notes before becoming fully immersed in today’s cooking duties and visiting.
Originally posted by YungChun
So I take it that some lineages begin a Chi-Sao session with wrist to wrist while others start closer? How close?
As I mentioned previously, for our standard luk sau rolling:
Nominally, I am practicing at a distance close enough to my partner for penetrating a solid strike. With my “long and lasting,” “girl hand,” “long bridge energy.” Same or similar to my distance when tapping the sandbag.
If so do those people who are training closer ever train further away?
Sure, but not typically for the standard luk sau rolling. For example, my mention of gwar/gor/gwor/etc. sau. Obviously, more extended workouts or sparring would provide this kind of experience and opportunity as well (with Wing Chun or other stylists). We begin close, and move farther away at later stages.
[SIZE=1]It is annoying that I must manually diddle with the word "farther" each time I use it, LOL.[/SIZE]
IMO at a certain distance past the wrist someone is already compromised if even to a small degree. At a very close range I would hypothesize that people may well be training recovery rather than precise control.
That is one way to view it. Another view is that we work on elements of sensitivity at this range. This includes intense self-correction and perception of the partners errors (as AndrewS alluded in passing). It is an understatement to say that this work for sensitivity and minute precision is a very big deal for us. IMHO, this alone justifies the time spent in close work, even if other arguments appear less compelling.
In my experience the wrist to wrist beginning in Luk-Sao is a standard
I too have seen many families who practice something in this range as their standard or nominal distance. Good thing I don’t mind being different sometimes, LOL.
Naturally, there is some compensation and compromise in mutual distance when people of different heights/arm lengths are working together. Another case where many hands benefit, by offering an extended range of experience.
and it gets even further away as you advance in the system i.e. moving on to Long Arm Chi-Sao - where contact may begin using fingers/hands, and later on to doing no contact combat drills: Progression then being from inside to outside - not static.
If I understand you, yes. We too start close in (apparently closer than many or most), and extend the range of practice over time, dealing with wider ranges in terms of distance, footwork, hands, level of intensity, etc. Starting simple, growing in complexity as skill and knowledge builds makes enormous sense to me. And as it appears, we start closer in than many or most, though far away is probably common for all of us.
Starting Chi-Sao at the wrists normally requires the use of footwork to close the gap.
Yes, and this reasoning or supposition is a point of interest for me. For those who perform the standard luk sau/poon sau exercise exclusively at wider distances such that footwork is required (e.g., wrist to wrist contact), what does this imply about the chi sau training for those who do not yet have a well developed stance or footwork? Is the exercise postponed until footwork is sufficiently developed? Also, what relevance does the luk sau exercise play in helping to develop the stance at such wide distances, if any? Is there any notable impact on the tendency to resort to physical force (versus mechanics) or leaning at that range?
I’ve heard it said, even among various lines, that Wing Chun uses the hands and the feet/body together but also separately. Like a car’s suspension absorbing (seeking) bumps - when the bridge penetrates beyond a certain (minute) distance the whole body moves as a unit - like a car going down a hill - the suspension reacts first but with sufficient release (down a hill) causes the whole car to go down and move as a unit.
Thanks for the descriptor, and one I’ll add to my growing repertoire of metaphors and imagery. Some ways of thinking and viewing seem more or less useful to different types of learners, and at different stages of learning and development.
Likewise, the hands/arms at wrist to wrist distance use forward spring energy from the elbow to seek an opening or fault in the partner’s structure.
Uh oh, there goes that dreaded “spring” word again, LOL. I don’t mind the term, per se, but it has such a wide range of potential connotations that there is a good chance of talking past each other with it. While I might agree with a very limited perspective of “springiness” in our practice (e.g., the tendency to go forward to fill a hole when it presents itself), there are other connotations that would be distinctly inconsistent with how we aim our practice (e.g., springiness driven from large muscle groups).
In this case the arms are supported by the body but move independently of it.
Yes. To clarify slightly by restating from my perspective (which may or may not differ from yours), the body must be correct in order for the hands to be and operate correctly. At the same time, we must not allow our own body to become disturbed or upset by the work of the hands.
When the elbow energy begins to penetrate the opponent and you take a line this is when the hands and body are connected to form a single powerful energy issuing weapon to fill up and attack that crack originally sensed by the bridges.
Whether or not we would achieve this end by the same mechanism in practice, I can indeed agree with the words and description as written. IMHO, unity (in various levels of meaning and nuance) is key. In my current way of thinking (note the caveat, LOL), anything short of unity encompasses some form of recovery and correction.
Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Originally posted by kj
I too have seen many families who practice something in this range as their standard or nominal distance. Good thing I don’t mind being different sometimes, LOL.
Hey KJ,
Okay, just in an attempt to be clearer as it always seems that things could be so.
The key with the wrist to wrist thing is that this distance is a starting point only. The tools like the Tan and Fook fit together in this starting distance with a specific geometric symmetry allowing for mutual control 50/50 - of the Centerline with contact and energy - structural integrity for both to start.
Like two high pressure water hoses pointed at each other sharing the Centerline whoever moves first will get wet - best to start off dry. The two tools could be seen geometrically as two inverted triangles fitting together to form a rectangle sharing the Centerline space evenly at this distance - more or less may distort this shape.
Once a structural fault is detected and things start happening the distance is highly variable but starting at the wrist, to me, ensures that a reasonable spectrum was addressed and use of the horse was required - since both partners must engage their horses and move to deal with the dynamics of the exchange. Distance may start ‘outside’ (SLT-YJKYM) or suddenly get real close (Chum Kiu/Chi-Gerk) using elbows or anywhere in between. In any case both players start YJKYM parallel stances but then have to get in - seek the bridge - Chum Kiu.
One of the reasons that I have trouble with the past the wrist thing is that in my experience a small change can offer a huge advantage. With most of my partners I find, for example, that if my Tan passes the Fook’s wrist a bit (say 1-3 cm - is that passing the bridge?) that Tan can displace Fook. Under this condition I can often do a slow motion conversion to palm and despite great muscular effort to stop it - can go in like butter. Likewise it seems with other positions having an optimum balance point beyond which causes some kind of displacement, making initial integrity (control of the line) questionable for one or both players.
Originally posted by kj
For those who perform the standard luk sau/poon sau exercise exclusively at wider distances such that footwork is required (e.g., wrist to wrist contact), what does this imply about the chi sau training for those who do not yet have a well developed stance or footwork? Is the exercise postponed until footwork is sufficiently developed?
In my lineage the progression is: Stationary drills like Punches, Pak Sao, Pak Da, Lop Sao, Dan Chi-Sao, (note all at the wrist) etc., while the student is on SLT. Moving Chi-Sao (Toy Ma) begins only when the student is introduced to Chum Kiu - thus footwork development can happen naturally.
Originally posted by kj
Also, what relevance does the luk sau exercise play in helping to develop the stance at such wide distances, if any?
Well, YJKYM is used in Luk-Sao and at some point there is a transition to Chum-Kiu when the gap closes and we seek the bridge. Likewise the horse YJKYM must adapt at the Luk-Sao distance and maintain good SLT position without leaning since doing otherwise could result in a quick demise.
Originally posted by kj
Is there any notable impact on the tendency to resort to physical force (versus mechanics) or leaning at that range?
In Luk Sao, now that I think about it, perhaps it is since the range is ‘longer’ it forces the players to not rely on force since leverage is diminished and things are more ballistic further away it seems.
BTW: I’ve seen pics/vids of Sifu Wong Sheung Leung doing Chi-Sao and didn’t note anything odd about distance. He seemed to use more or less wrist to wrist Luk-Sao.
Happy Turkey Day!
Continuing on in this very enjoyable discussion. . .
John-
The ‘small woman’ thing- in reality, if you have two roughly equally trained and motivated practioners using your methods, (ignoring the gender thing) and one is 220lbs while the other is 130lbs, to whom does the advantage go?
Against a larger person, I tend to find myself on the inside. The folks much smaller than me who are better than me tend to wind up in on the inside on me, too. By the same token, at 6’1" and 240lbs, most people I work with are smaller than me. Getting underneath their hands puts me at mechanical disadvantage, and pursuing an inside position too aggressively will lead me to ignore holes which will be filled by the first to note them.
The wider shoulders thing is weird, and something I’m still puzzling about as I try to figure out optimum strategies for my build (which disturbingly resembles that of a white Tony Tubbs). My present take is that if I try to get inside on someone with much narrower shoulder girdle who keeps relatively good positions, then I’m almost trying to force my way in somewhere I don’t fit. Bad position, bad force, I’ll wind up inside relatively easily. Bigger guys, I get inside.
Closing the gap- letting the other person come to you is one way to do that. Not trying to be obnoxious, but how would a 5’2" person handle a 6’2" person with a decent jab without closing the gap? There are a lot of scenarios one can play out, but I do think there is great merit (if one is precontact) to being able to put forth the threat that one may be going in (if nothing else).
Leading leg- not able to defend to either side? With the legs? Or being able to shift side to side?
Matching against Wing Chun vs. against other systems. I won’t offer an opinion as to which would be the greater challenge on a theoretical basis. In reality, I’m far more likely to fight someone dangerous from another approach- boxing, wrestling, football, steroids and methedrine. . . Those folks move and present different positions from Wing Chun, and while there’s some excellent developmental overlap which allows us as an art to learn to solve things generally from training according to principle, specific work on such problems does provide great advantage in solving them.
As to my dating life- my priorities are diametrically opposed tom those in fighting where I’m actively trying to avoid engaging two people at the same time. . .
Grendel,
as I understand it, a keylock is one in which a limb is inserted at the junction of a joint which is then compressed. I’ve heard this used in reference to the elbow, knee, and ankle. By this definition a guillotine converted to a neck crank is actually a keylock. MP might be a better person to ask for an exact description.
‘What if’ and Wing Chun principles- sadly attacks don’t occur in theory- if they did, I’d be in Pride. As much of an advantage as Wing Chun offers, year for year, it’s by no means invincible. Aside from arts, I make a serious distinction between professionals and amateurs. A pro fighter, a national level competitor in any combat art/sport is a seriously different animal from a hard-working amateur.
I’ve never had formal boxing training, but a few of my peers have from amateur to pro level backgrounds, so I’ve gotten a good intro to some basics, and do a couple of rounds of light sparring a few times a week. Nothing deep, but it’s a hell of a lot of fun, and a great way to work on reading people.
That drill- you let them push and pull from whichever direction they choose. It’s a nice balance/mobility game, which very closely replicates what is often first contact. Loads of fun, too.
Yung and Kathy-
‘spring’ do we want to start another thread before getting into this one. . .
Andrew