Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=KPM;1270508]For the record. I won’t argue with T in what you quoted either. Because for once he defined “sparring” as Sparring is nothing more than a process of taking your art whatever it is and practicing trying to use it against some one really fighting you back and from that developing better and better ability at using your art.

By that definition, the “progressive training” or “progressive sparring” I talked about elsewhere fits with what T is saying, whether either of you are willing to acknowledge it or not. This includes the scenario training I described from Krav Maga. But since you haven’t acknowledged anything I have had to say on the topic so far, I expect you will disagree with me. But I put it out there for anyone following along with any interest in the topic.[/QUOTE]

Does ‘acknowledge’ = ‘agree’ in your world? I didn’t realize I had to verbally ‘acknowledge’ everything you say when I read it, but Ok here ya go: I formally acknowledge what you said. lol, happy?
Guess what, I still don’t agree that your definition and his are the same, and wonder if he would either. As a matter of fact he doesn’t and he stated as such. The important question is, are you doing what he’s saying? No need to answer, I know you’ve already said you won’t answer it to me because I didn’t ask nicely enough for you. Maybe just ask and see if you’re being honest with yourself

Know what’s really funny in all of this? You talk about him more now that you have him on ‘ignore’ that you did to him before you started ‘ignoring’ him. Kinda defeats the purpose doesn’t it if you’re not really ignoring him at all? Actually, I think it’s worse because, while you won’t address his comments directly, now you just kinda talk behind his back about him without giving him the chance to reply…

22

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270522]You are not a master of all style but …[/QUOTE]

The term “you are the master of all styles” mean “you have freedom to train any style that you want to”.

If you request all WC guys have to use “snake engine, 6DFV, 7 bows, …”, that WC guy will never be able to throw a “roundhouse kick” in sparring because “that’s not WC.” Do you truly want to use “That’s not WC” to restrict yourself from doing something for the rest of your life? I’ll never allow that to happen to me.

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270522]You was train in SC to do SC type of sparring. Not a new born baby throw in the river.[/QUOTE]

In the following clip, do my guys spar like SC guys? They don’t spar like kick boxer either. They fight that way because they believe that way of fighting will give them some advantage. I’ll call that “rhino” style. Did I learned that from my SC teacher, or from my long fist teacher? I didn’t.

Not trying to bring SC into WC discussion. I just use this clip to indicate “you don’t have to fight like your style” and “you should fight anyway that you want to”.

//youtu.be/HTAd32BavQY

23

As an outside perspective.

The kicks in wing chun are fairly standard kung fu kicks, largely found in most styles. There are a sparing number of kicks in wing chun, but they are there.

When I see people attempting to fight looking like wing chun, they focus on chain punch and a couple of other things, and very sparingly on the kicks. (This is not unique to WC, I’ve seen people in my own style do this).

If your system has three kicks and a plethora of hand techniques (not specifically referring to WC on the actual numbers), say 5% of the techs are kicks, this does not mean that only 5% of the time, kicks will be performed. 100% of the instance where a kick is the best answer, the answer should be a kick. That’s why the kicks made it into the system.

It is often brought up that in certain venues, kickboxing is the best response, and so naturally, kickboxing will come out. Some traditionalists will say that their style focuses on other things, small circles or deadly techniques, this sort of answer.

I do not disagree that martial arts includes a lot of moves that you cannot safely train in sparring, because the harm they seek to inflict is beyond fair training practices. So sparring and competing (whether mma or san shou or chi sau) can only include what most of the time does not permanently harm the partner.

On the flip side, most martial arts include punches and kicks that fit in competitive venues. If one cannot use them in those venues, the idea that they can use more complex small circle or technical material in resisting practice is highly questionable.

Sparring and competition is a practice with limits, just as chi sao is. Different limits, but limits nonetheless. But the failure to translate one’s practice into it cannot be blamed on the style if the style has the techniques that are used in it. This would be like blaming chi sao for not allowing you to bring your broadsword into it. Failure is not being able to apply the techniques that are being trained in that practice, not in the venue or format of the training.

Lastly, kung fu styles are mma by definition. Otherwise, how does one explain that each kung fu system, at its origin, has a tremendous amount of technique from styles that came before is? This is true of every kung fu style one looks at. Same stances, same applications. Of course, there is some original work, but most of the material is influenced by the kung fu of its time. To look at a style as the only necessary one is to refute its founder’s grounding in previous kung fu without really understanding that previous kung fu. I cannot name a single lifelong martial artist who does just one style. Not one. I can name a plethora of 20-30 year olds who do, and tell others to do the same.

Lifelong martial artists enter into martial arts to attain skills, to become more than what they are. From there, they are often derailed in their goals by protecting lineage, by needing what they do to be the only right way. This is a disservice to the student. Truly traditional teachers are pleased with teaching experienced people, even if their experiences are different.

24

To add:

There is merit in knowing how your style responds to fighting.

There is no merit in not knowing how other styles respond to fighting.

There is merit in recognizing the realities of fighting based on what they are.

There is not merit on only recognizing the merits of fighting when they coincide with what your style recognizes based on what you’ve been told.

25

The term “you are the master of all styles” mean “you have freedom to train any style that you want to”.--------

Master of all styles and freedom to train any style is not the same.

Even those who is good in one style can train and integrate what they need into their practice .

If you request all WC guys have to use “snake engine, 6DFV, 7 bows, …”, that WC guy will never be able to throw a “roundhouse kick” in sparring because “that’s not WC.” Do you truly want to use “That’s not WC” to restrict yourself from doing something for the rest of your life? I’ll never allow that to happen to me. -------

Snake engine, 7 bows… Are just science of Wck handling, it doesn’t restrict one but support one to masters ones body.
Anyone can learn a roundhouse kick if they need one.

Sparring is to test ones skill and blind spot.
Got nothing to do with is or not WC.

Does my guys sparred like SC guys in this clip? They don’t fight like kick boxer either. They fight that way because they believe that way of fighting will give them some advantage. I’ll call that “rhino” style. Did I learned that from my SC teacher, or from my long fist teacher? I didn’t. ------

You are free to compose or create your own style.

However,
Your guys are not new born baby who is clueless and being throw into water.

Instead they are condition by your “Style.”

Not trying to bring SC into WC discussion. I just use this clip to indicate “you don’t have to fight like your style” and “you should fight anyway that you want to”. -------

My point is not about to fight like a style, but everyone needs to start from somewhere , similar to your guys with your style. And know exactly what they are doing.

Your guys is not being throw into sparring like a new born baby into water, to figure out what is going on and invent their response . But a conditioned baby who was taught to swim in a certain way by you.

It is like, one needs to know if one is using iPhone or android phone. Instead of go invent their own phone from scratch or new born baby.

26

[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270537]To add:

There is merit in knowing how your style responds to fighting.

There is no merit in not knowing how other styles respond to fighting.

There is merit in recognizing the realities of fighting based on what they are.

There is not merit on only recognizing the merits of fighting when they coincide with what your style recognizes based on what you’ve been told.[/QUOTE]

Why make life so difficult , find out what the style engine and strategy offer, find out how complete is the training combat scenarios cover . And work from there to expand further .

27

Here is a simple question.

Both you and your opponent have right side forward (uniform stance), In the middle of the sparring, your opponent suddenly switches sides and puts his left side forward. Will your left back leg just kick out as a “waist level roundhouse kick” without thinking (even if the roundhouse kick may not exist in your style)?

In TCMA, there is a principle that’s called “fill in the leak”. You attack when your opponent’s body is open for you. This is just common sense and has nothing to do with style.

28

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270541]Here is a simple question.

Bot you and your opponent have right side forward (uniform stance), In the middle of the sparring, your opponent suddenly switches sides and puts his left side forward. Will your left back leg just kick out as a waist level roundhouse kick without think (even if the roundhouse kick may not exist in your style)?[/QUOTE]

You are now talk about style.

There are many different counter or response can be.
And what is your goal of taking that move?

Why roundhouse kick?
Why not step in to destroy center axis via inner gate?
Why not front kick?
Why not side kick?
Why not step side capture outer gate?

29

When you and your opponent both have right sides forward, you can’t enter his “front door”. When he switches sides, you can enter his “front door” now. Your left back leg roundhouse kick will be the best tool to be used at that moment.

Both front kick and side kick are straight line attack. It works as a spear. The roundhouse kick is a circular attack, it works as a staff. When you have right side forward and your opponent has left side forward, the best angle to attack is a 45 degree angle from your left. Your straight line attack won’t work well from that angle.

30

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270546]When you and your opponent both have right sides forward, you can’t enter his “front door”. When he switches sides, you can enter his “front door” now. Your left back leg roundhouse kick will be the best tool to be used at that moment.[/QUOTE]

What is the different, instead of using left roundhouse kick but right leg step into between his leg? Which is faster? Less motion needed? And penetrating to destroy the structure?

31

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270547]What is the different, instead of using left roundhouse kick but right leg step into between his leg? Which is faster? Less motion needed? And penetrating to destroy the structure?[/QUOTE]

His left leading leg may still be in your advance path and prevent you from stepping in between his legs. Most people switch sides by pulling the leading leg back. This will increase the distance between you and your opponent. Since leg is longer than the arm, a kick is more proper than the punch at that moment.

32

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270548]His left leading leg may still be in your advance path and prevent you from passing his left leading leg.[/QUOTE]

Roundhouse kick might be too slow due to big movement.

One can knee his leg in the advance path while entering and still make damage to his structure.

You have a choice to get in via inner gate direct or outer gate via round house kick

depend on you style characteristics and footwork.

33

John,

Face it , there is no single solution.

In fact, if your style is close range strike, one move in.
If your style is long fist, you use roundhouse kick taking the outer gate path.

Boiled down to what do you used to.
That call for knowing ones own style one good at. It is not throwing new born baby into water. Never is the case.

34

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270549]Roundhouse kick might be too slow due to big movement.

One can knee his leg in the advance path and still make damage to his structure.[/QUOTE]

If you have to move your rooting leg and then attack, that will be 2 steps process. If you can use your leading right leg as your rooting leg, you can use your left attacking leg just as 1 step process. Whether you want to use your left knee to strike on his leading left leg, or to use your left foot instep to strike on his belly, that will be your choice. If you want to knock your opponent down ASAP, the instep roundhouse kick on his belly may be quicker.

35

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270551]If you have to move your rooting leg and then attack, that will be 2 steps process. If you can use your leading right leg as your rooting leg, you can use your left attacking leg just as 1 step process. Whether you want to use your left knee to strike on his leading left leg, or to use your left foot instep to strike on his belly, that will be your choice. If you want to knock your opponent down ASAP, the instep roundhouse kick on his belly may be quicker.[/QUOTE]

Depend on what you are good at in your style training.

If I use kyokushin I will use the roundhouse kick . If I use Wck I will step in

But
Throwing a new born baby into this type of sparring Vesus the experience will get hit by either move.

36

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270540]Why make life so difficult , 1) find out what the style engine and strategy offer, 2) find out how complete is the training combat scenarios cover . 3)And work from there to expand further .[/QUOTE]NUMBERS ADDED ABOVE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.

Number 2 is impossible without knowing something about other fighting methods one encounters. To know the completeness of one’s system, one is examining how complete it is against other techniques that exist or have existed or could exist.

Fighting is the combination of more than one person with other people, martial method is seeking to understand it within a framework that allows one to impose on that combination for favorable results, it is not ignoring the other person. What you describe requires what you refer to as making life difficult to fulfill it.

Know yourself, know your enemy. This requires familiarity with other systems. One does not need to train all methods, but there is no merit in avoiding knowledge of them.

Much of kung fu has similar engines, but how those engines can be applied require knowledge of what an opponent may do. I am not familiar of a single system developed worth mention that was not developed by someone who clearly had familiarity with other systems. To mimic the system and not the founder is to rely on that which the founder themselves found only partially reliable in their day, else they would not have honed a new system. If they were alive today, they would likely have expanded on the system based on new information, just as they did in life.

37

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270550]John,

Face it , there is no single solution.

In fact, if your style is close range strike, one move in.
If your style is long fist, you use roundhouse kick taking the outer gate path.

Boiled down to what do you used to.
That call for knowing ones own style one good at. It is not throwing new born baby into water. Never is the case.[/QUOTE]

Now you bring the word “style” into discussion. Why restrict yourself as “close range”? If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.

Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don’t even need to learn

  • MT to use roundhouse kick, or
  • CLF to use haymaker.
38

[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270553]NUMBERS ADDED ABOVE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.

Number 2 is impossible without knowing something about other fighting methods one encounters. To know the completeness of one’s system, one is examining how complete it is against other techniques that exist or have existed or could exist.

Fighting is the combination of more than one person with other people, martial method is seeking to understand it within a framework that allows one to impose on that combination for favorable results, it is not ignoring the other person. What you describe requires what you refer to as making life difficult to fulfill it.

Know yourself, know your enemy. This requires familiarity with other systems. One does not need to train all methods, but there is no merit in avoiding knowledge of them.

Much of kung fu has similar engines, but how those engines can be applied require knowledge of what an opponent may do. I am not familiar of a single system developed worth mention that was not developed by someone who clearly had familiarity with other systems. To mimic the system and not the founder is to rely on that which the founder themselves found only partially reliable in their day, else they would not have honed a new system. If they were alive today, they would likely have expanded on the system based on new information, just as they did in life.[/QUOTE]

IMHO

  1. No one has complete art

  2. Fujian white crane 1800 has general 48 scenerio
    Wck has 18

39

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270554]Now you bring the word “style” into discussion. Why restrict yourself as “close range”? If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.

Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don’t even need to learn

  • MT to use roundhouse kick, or
  • CLF to use haymaker.[/QUOTE]

Depend on your engine you develop.

40

Assuming one can control the fight assumes that one is not fighting an equal.

If one wishes to get close, they can step in. If their opponent wishes to stay outside, they can step out at an angle.

Training for fighting is rational, training for only one aspect of fighting assumes that one is always in full control. which means one is always fighting the less skilled. Equal skill means many things could happen. Ending up on the ground, long range, short range, all are very possible if both people are equal in skill and have different goals.

To train to get in close, or get in position for throwing, or to stay in long range when one has reach and wishes to use it, are rational. Expecting to always be in that range is not, it assumes one will never meet an equal, it is training to fight lessers. This is not method.