Wing Chun is not "attached" fighting

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007126]

You are doing what I call WCK kickboxing – using a kickboxing “structure” to apply your WCK tools. That doesn’t work, and it isn’t WCK’s method or “structure”. The method (faat) is basic level WCK, it is the organizing principle of everything in WCK, it is the map of how you put the pieces of the puzzle together. You seem to be missing some very large parts of the WCK curriculum.[/QUOTE]

Any legitimate WC will have that element to it. By your definition, you accept that WC has no vehicle by which to establish a bridge against a modern fighter. I am sorry, but that is just not the case. If you believe that the whole of WC is attached fighting that can demonstrated chi sao, You should spend some time at other WC schools.

22

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1007140]I hate bridges…
:wink:
Maybe it is too much left over from boxing and judo, but whne I think striking I think taking the guy out before he has a chance to get “attached” and when I think “attached” I think throw and submit.[/QUOTE]

There are various ways of attaching to an opponent, and they lend themselves to different things. WCK’s approach is more like dirty clinch boxing, or standing ground and pound.

A “bridge” is a term describing a solid connection to your opponent. You use that connection to control him.

In boxing it is almost impossible to stop your opponent from clinching with you. That’s why refs need to keep breaking boxers apart (the rules don’t permit attached striking - holding and hitting). In fact, in one of Tyson’s early fights his opponent was DQ’ed because all he did was keep clinching Tyson to stop from getting hit.

Muay thai’s method also involves controlling while striking.

23

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1007143]Any legitimate WC will have that element to it. By your definition, you accept that WC has no vehicle by which to establish a bridge against a modern fighter. I am sorry, but that is just not the case. If you believe that the whole of WC is attached fighting that can demonstrated chi sao, You should spend some time at other WC schools.[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen lots and lots of WCK (schools, etc.) and 99% of it is nonsense. You’re right though – most WCK people never learn the method and so try to stick their WCK tools on to the only structure they know - boxing/kickboxing. That’s a mistake. This is why they look like WCK when they do chi sao (which is attached) and then all their WCK movement goes out the window when they “spar” (which they do unattached).

WCK provides the tools (movement, tactics, etc.) to “establish a bridge” – just that WCK’s method isn’t like kickboxing/boxing.

You need to have WCK body structure (which is structure that permits you to fight while attached) BEFORE attachment. In that way, when you attach/make contact, you are already prepared. Boxing/kickboxing structure isn’t FOR and doesn’t work in attached/contact fighting.

The WCK method is in a nutshell to clinch (the WCK clinch), control, all the while striking your opponent. It provides the tools to do that. Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise that permits you to learn and practice those tools – but not in the way you will really need to use them.

24

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007145]There are various ways of attaching to an opponent, and they lend themselves to different things. WCK’s approach is more like dirty clinch boxing, or standing ground and pound.

A “bridge” is a term describing a solid connection to your opponent. You use that connection to control him.

In boxing it is almost impossible to stop your opponent from clinching with you. That’s why refs need to keep breaking boxers apart (the rules don’t permit attached striking - holding and hitting). In fact, in one of Tyson’s early fights his opponent was DQ’ed because all he did was keep clinching Tyson to stop from getting hit.

Muay thai’s method also involves controlling while striking.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it’s the judo background but, when I clinch, I think throw and follow up, not clinch hitting, at least not that much anyways.
I have used “clinch work” to get out of the clinch to strike but strking in the clinch was always “secondary” to throwing in the clinch.
When I did MT it was really hard to get into the “hit in the clinch mode” because I kept going for the take down or throw, when my opponent would clinch and try I knee I would sweep or throw, I have to really drill the hitting in the clinch thing to get in the mind set of it when I started competing.

25

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007150]I’ve seen lots and lots of WCK (schools, etc.) and 99% of it is nonsense. You’re right though – most WCK people never learn the method and so try to stick their WCK tools on to the only structure they know - boxing/kickboxing. That’s a mistake. This is why they look like WCK when they do chi sao (which is attached) and then all their WCK movement goes out the window when they “spar” (which they do unattached).

WCK provides the tools (movement, tactics, etc.) to “establish a bridge” – just that WCK’s method isn’t like kickboxing/boxing.

You need to have WCK body structure (which is structure that permits you to fight while attached) BEFORE attachment. In that way, when you attach/make contact, you are already prepared. Boxing/kickboxing structure isn’t FOR and doesn’t work in attached/contact fighting.

The WCK method is in a nutshell to clinch (the WCK clinch), control, all the while striking your opponent. It provides the tools to do that. Chi sao is an unrealistic exercise that permits you to learn and practice those tools – but not in the way you will really need to use them.[/QUOTE]

Then explain to us how wing Chun is supposed to work.

26

I believe that attaching as in grappling systems such as Muay Thai, wrestling, and Judo is a logical extension of WC principles especially for larger fighters. I believe that WC is at its best when these techniques are employed.

However, I agree with your general premise that WC isn’t attached fighting. I don’t think that referring to WC as attached fighting really represents what the art is even with the narrowest definition. I also am uncomfortable with the notion that trapping has come to represent what WC is to a lot of laymen. To me, WC is an art of kicking and punching like any other upright art with a few tweaks that give it a unique flavor. (HumbeWCguy)

***EXACTLY. There is no such thing as a wing chun clinch, for example. Its just not in the system, whatever the lineage. And yes, the Muay Thai clinch, wrestling, and judo are (can easily) be logical extensions of the wing chun idea about close quarter hitting. And the tools are already there for a hybrid marriage, ie.- whats learned in chi sao.

I hate bridges…
:wink:
Maybe it is too much left over from boxing and judo, but when I think striking I think taking the guy out before he has a chance to get attached and when I think attached I think throw and submit. (sanjuro/Paul)

***SEE the above response to HumbleWCguy, Paul. Some of what one learns in pummeling within wrestling/grappling is not that far away from some of what is learned in chi sao except that some close quarter striking (vertical fists/ palms, etc.) can be thrown inalong with elbow strikes (and of course Muay Thai uses elbows in close quarters also). As for knee shots from some sort of clinch mode, generally they can only be safely done when you’ve got some balance/structure control on the guy - otherwise you are open to be thrown/taken down.

So with that said, I can appreciate this other piece you wrote, Paul:

“I have used ‘clinch work’ to get out of the clinch to strike but strking in the clinch was always ‘secondary’ to throwing in the clinch.
When I did MT it was really hard to get into the ‘hit in the clinch mode’ because I kept going for the take down or throw, when my opponent would clinch and try I knee I would sweep or throw, I have to really drill the hitting in the clinch thing to get in the mind set of it when I started competing.”
…

***I THINK that YungChun/Jim put it well when he wrote this:

"Of course it depends on exactly what is meant by ‘attached’…Generally moves that lock up, prevent natural (economical) transition to continuous striking are outside the realm of VT…

Now, what the hell does ATTACHED mean? In VT there is precious little sustained sticking or attaching.. There are times when this could happen but then it’s because they are/were fighting for the line, interrupting our attack and then still each move only stays for a moment. Sustained energy issuing could result from hand replacement but even then it is a string of multiple short controls not a sustained attachment."

27

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1007160]Then explain to us how wing Chun is supposed to work.[/QUOTE]

The WCK faat describes what we are trying to do – which, in a nutshell, is to control the opponent while striking him. That’s how WCK is “supposed to work.”

28

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1007153]Maybe it’s the judo background but, when I clinch, I think throw and follow up, not clinch hitting, at least not that much anyways.
I have used “clinch work” to get out of the clinch to strike but strking in the clinch was always “secondary” to throwing in the clinch.
When I did MT it was really hard to get into the “hit in the clinch mode” because I kept going for the take down or throw, when my opponent would clinch and try I knee I would sweep or throw, I have to really drill the hitting in the clinch thing to get in the mind set of it when I started competing.[/QUOTE]

When you get on the inside, it invariably leads to a clinch. And when you are in a clinch, you can essentially do two things: put your opponent on the ground (throw/takedown) or control while striking. WCK’s method provides an organized strategic approach to dealing with this. There are other approaches, equally valid, equally good.

29

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007201]When you get on the inside, it invariably leads to a clinch. And when you are in a clinch, you can essentially do two things: put your opponent on the ground (throw/takedown) or control while striking. WCK’s method provides an organized strategic approach to dealing with this. There are other approaches, equally valid, equally good.[/QUOTE]

That’s a pretty spot on assessment.

30

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1007213]That’s a pretty spot on assessment.[/QUOTE]

So you think that being on the inside invariably leads to the clinch?

If so then VT can’t work because you’d be past VT’s range and use of tools..

Let’s see ANY video from ANYONE of VT “clinch work”.. AKA ADF..

It’s not that VT doesn’t control, it does, but it is not dirty clinch fighting.. Clinching means locking up and trapping your own hands by definition. Anyone who does that is not doing VT IMO.

31

What do you mean by ADF, Jim?

32

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1007228]What do you mean by ADF, Jim?[/QUOTE]

I added more there.. Actually I mean ADCF.. “Attached Dirty Clinch Fighting”…

33

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1007176]

***EXACTLY. There is no such thing as a wing chun clinch, for example. Its just not in the system, whatever the lineage. [/QUOTE]

Chi sao is like a “retarded” clinch. It’s like someone decided to take out most of the effective elements of the clinch and replace them with things that aren’t so effective.

34

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1007230]Chi sao is like a “retarded” clinch. It’s like someone decided to take out most of the effective elements of the clinch and replace them with things that aren’t so effective.[/QUOTE]

ChiSao can be done many different ways.. At some point depending on how you do it, you just have two people trying to get control and release power via taking the line and repeatedly hitting the partner despite his resistance..

This is the idea of the art, not to attach or clinch, but to use whatever bridge to issue force and (unclinch) gain momentary control and do damage. We are the unclinching or anti-clinching art.. :slight_smile:

Anyone who says VT is a ADCF art, okay, lets see ANY example of this type of VT then show us the VT techniques out of the forms in use.. Very easy to do if this is what VT is…

35

The clearest picture yet of your almost total lack of understanding and knowledge of what chi sao is all about, and what it’s meant to teach, Dale Frank.

You gotta love this guy; at least he’s consistent: always trolling, including about things he “thinks” he knows - but knows very little.

How about a Wing Chun/BJJ guillotine, Dale?

When was the last time you pulled that out of you bil jee hat? :rolleyes::cool::stuck_out_tongue:

36

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1007230]Chi sao is like a “retarded” clinch. It’s like someone decided to take out most of the effective elements of the clinch and replace them with things that aren’t so effective.[/QUOTE]

***THE CLEAREST PICTURE yet of your almost total lack of understanding and knowledge of what wing chun chi sao is all about, and what it’s meant to teach, Dale Frank.

You gotta love this guy; at least he’s consistent: always trolling, including about things he “thinks” he knows - but knows very little.

How about a Wing Chun guillotine, Dale? Do you know about that one?

When was the last time you pulled that out of your bil jee hat? :rolleyes::cool::stuck_out_tongue:

37

[QUOTE=YungChun;1007232]ChiSao can be done many different ways.. At some point depending on how you do it, you just have two people trying to get control and release power via taking the line and repeatedly hitting the partner despite his resistance..

This is the idea of the art, not to attach or clinch, but to use whatever bridge to issue force and (unclinch) gain momentary control and do damage. We are the unclinching or anti-clinching art.. :slight_smile:

Anyone who says VT is a ADCF art, okay, lets see ANY example of this type of VT then show us the VT techniques out of the forms in use.. Very easy to do if this is what VT is…[/QUOTE]

Personally, I think chi sao is the result of taking something that is very effective (fighting in clinch range), and training it in a manner that doesn’t resemble fighting. What you end up with is a retarded version of the real thing.

38

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1007238]Personally, I think chi sao is the result of taking something that is very effective (fighting in clinch range), and training it in a manner that doesn’t resemble fighting. What you end up with is a retarded version of the real thing.[/QUOTE]

Great theory…:o But VT doesn’t fight from the clinch… as stated.

39

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1007235]***THE CLEAREST PICTURE yet of your almost total lack of understanding and knowledge of what wing chun chi sao is all about, and what it’s meant to teach, Dale Frank.

You gotta love this guy; at least he’s consistent: always trolling, including about things he “thinks” he knows - but knows very little.

How about a Wing Chun guillotine, Dale? Do you know about that one?

When was the last time you pulled that out of your bil jee hat? :rolleyes::cool::p[/QUOTE]

I’m not concerned with what chi sao is “supposed” to teach. I’m more interested in the most effective method to develop inside/close distance functional fighting… that would be the clinch, a method common to all functional systems including boxing, Muay Thai, Greco Roman/folkstyle/freestyle wrestling, MMA, sub grappling, etc.

A wing chun guillotine? Yeah, right. That’s about as ludicrous as a BJJ spinning back kick.

40

[QUOTE=YungChun;1007239]Great theory…:o But VT doesn’t fight from the clinch… as stated.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, what it seems to do in the majority of cases, is to ignore the most effective methods for fighting in that range.