[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1271066]In my experience, while WC does have technologies & tools to bridge/engage from a longer range against longer range attacks, it isn’t really an art that looks to also strike from that range.[/quote]
This was my assumption.
As for feints, WC as I understand doesn’t really use them, nor does it buy into them from an opponent.
I would counter by saying that someone who is skilled at feints will succeed against someone who is not equally skilled at reading them, regardless of style choice.
The sayings ‘you don’t move, I don’t move - you move, I get there first’
This concept is common, especially the second part, to many styles. It does not necessarily dismiss the effectiveness of feints. Getting an opponent to initiate a move by way of feint means the person who successfully feinted is already ahead of their opponent’s game plan, and the opponent will have interrupt the response the feint elicited in order to even begin getting to an advantageous position, or work from the disadvantageous position, which means the feint was a success. Styles that feint also train working from such positions, so having a response does not necessarily take away from the effectiveness of feints and similar things, it demonstrates it.
as well as loi lau hoi sung applies to committed attacks and feints alike. And I’m not saying a WC fighter can’t get caught by them either, just saying it’s not the normal intent to.
No stylists normal intent is to be caught by a feint. The problem is, training to respond to an attack ingrains responses that the feint is trying to bring out.
It’s not dissimilar to sensitivity in bridging. Technique in bridging without sensitivity doesn’t yield consistently good results. Pre-contact, technique without reading the opponent well doesn’t, either.
Feints will only reveal what you are talking about if the WC fighter buys into them repeatedly and doesn’t try closing the gap.
Again, if their opponent is of similar skill level, they will very likely be able to more than once find themselves at a greater distance, thus enabling more feints. Buying into them once is all that is necessary to gain advantage.
But that’s true of any fighter and only shows a lack of skill IMO, not anything to do with the system.
Pro fighters of many levels use them against each other quite often, and train to read them. They occur in street fights, as well. Feinting is a skill. Someone with great skill in it will succeed in using it against someone who doesn’t develop their ability to read it, less often if they do, but it is so consistently present in pro fights because, like anything, it is a useful tool in their arsenal.
Again, In my experience a WC fighter isn’t looking to trade at long range but to close the distance to where all of their tools are available for striking and defense equally. Staying at long range is only playing half the game (defense).
Agreed, I am not discussing staying at long range, but more dealing with the actual realities of this range. Closing is not guaranteed, and a fight may go in and out of this range, as, if both fighters are close to equal, then one fighter is not simply choosing how things go. If the opponent can influence which way you choose to close by forcing a response to something, their followup will be something that specifically works well against the response they were trying to elicit.
Curious, what art do you study and have you sparred with any WC people?
I’ve done some longfist, and my main art is called Taixuquan, it’s a Southern internal style. And yes, I have a good friend who teaches wing chun, he and I studied Taixuquan at the same time.
[QUOTE=KPM;1271067]I was taught there there is no such thing as a “feint.” The goal in my Wing Chun is to move in on the opponent.[/quote]
I agree, but I would suggest that the caveat is to do so at the right time. A feint is used to inspire the opponent to break this caveat.
If he throws something meant as a feint, it doesn’t make much difference because we will still use that opportunity to bridge or close with the opponent.
There are quite a few ways to feint. True, it has to be a potential threat, but even just the body shift that normally precedes the move can elicit a response, especially from an opponent whose ability to read is not as strong as one’s ability to feint.
If the move is such that we are unable to use it in that way, then it wasn’t much of a feint!
See my comment above. Further, it is eliciting a response in order to capitalize on it. If the opponent responds that way, they are already one step behind the person who did the feint, as they will be feinting in order to move into the move that capitalizes on the response they got. There is more than one way to bridge, and each way is not right for every situation. Feints here are seeking to draw the opponent into a bridge that will then be moving into a move that bridge does not work for. If I feint a lead hand strike, and the opponent seeks to trap my lead hand into my body while I am doing an overhand type strike, their bridge will feed my overhand.
Wing Chun practitioners, like any kung fu stylist, have to pick the right bridge. If they can be made to choose the wrong one, then this tells the person feinting what to do and puts them at an advantage at that point.
On the flip side, we don’t throw many feints ourselves exactly because it can be an opportunity for the opponent and is no better than “chasing hands.”
I think a better equivalent to chasing hands in the pre-contact stage is merely moving the hands around in a way that has not relevance to the opponent. A feint is relevant, because if they do not respond, and do not have defenses able to cut it off, it can be an attack, if they do respond and their response is a good one, the distance can still be maintained through footwork if one desires, if they start to respond but stop, you have an idea of how they respond, and if they don’t bite, then you have an idea of their skill level at range. Each point yields a result.
The closest thing to an feint is to throw a strike that you expect the opponent to see and react to, knowing that this will establish a “bridge” and allow you to flow into something else to close with the opponent. If he doesn’t react to it, it doesn’t matter because you are going to keep going forward with the strike and use it as an opportunity to move in or to actually hit him.
Which is a feint.
Not if the response is a good one! 
The idea is not to exchange tit for tat…block for blow. The idea is to cover and attack at the same time while moving in. Done well, this can negate whatever the opponent was setting up for his feint.
If you don’t do what they were trying to draw, or do it as a feint in and of itself, but you have be able to read your opponent and have a keep awareness of feints to do so. As I said before, one cannot count on technique without sensitivity in bridging, and one cannot count on technique without being able to read an opponent outside of bridging. They work the same way. Wing chun technique in bridging is predicated on sensitivity, striking, when not in bridge range, is predicated on reading your opponent. Training feinting is training reading an opponent, imo.
But again…the feint has to be a good one…a real threat. Otherwise you just ignore it and its not really a good feint. Someone doing something like pumping repeated short wimpy jabs out of range doesn’t count.
Agreed, that is why feints require seeing the opponent’s habits, testing them, seeing what they respond to. Some succesful feints are no more than a slight drop of the shoulder.
But a good response will be covering while closing so it doesn’t matter if they are striking while stepping back. And who has the advantage? The guy stepping back, or the guy stepping in with cover?
First, the guy stepping back may have cover, too. Second, cover is not immunity. Feinting is going to capitalize on the nature of the response. No technique defends equally and absolutely.
I don’t think that way, because I don’t consider my Wing Chun to be a sparring method. I’m going to catch all kinds of flack and heavy criticism for that comment, but I don’t care.
I don’t care either, to each their own. I don’t think feints are a sparring technique, but, as in all things, there will always be cases where driving in and shutting down is the only option, so they are a tool that sometimes will and sometimes won’t come into play.
I’m not going to stand in the outside range and try to throw things.
I’m not suggesting you do, but it is a reality of fighting, and if you are fighting an equal, you will not be the only one determining conditions.
You can bridge in from his strikes in multiple ways.
This was actually my next question. This is my point. If you reflexively do only one of those multiple ways, you are never going to be immune to a feint taking advantage of you, because the opponent will follow the feint up with technique that specifically benefits from your choice. So it seems to me that, in order to manage that range, a wing chun fighter, who naturally is seeking to bridge and close and shut down their opponent, must routinely be able to respond to the same sorts of attacks in different ways, which will confound the value of feints, because even if they respond to the feint, the opponent cannot predict which response, and so cannot be a step ahead. If they do not do this, they will be susceptible to feints, imo.
