Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
81

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270677]I just hate the following conversation.

A: This is my opinion …
B: You are right because …
A: You are wrong. You did not understand what I was trying to say.
B: :frowning:

Now I understand why there are so many argument in the WC threads.

When

  • I agree with you 50% and disagree with you 50%, I would like to talk about our agreement.
  • you agree with me 50% and disagree with me 50%, you would like to talk about our disagreement.

If you said that the WC is not your foundation art but you have focus on it for 11 years, I had cross trained the WC system since 1973 from one of Ip-man’s students Jimmy Kao (currently lives in Houston, Tx). WC has been my focus for 41 years.

Not trying to brag about my training time. But I’m not a beginner in the WC system. One of my students Paul Wayne Gerald was a WC instructor when he came to me 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, he has evolved himself from a “WC instructor” into a “Sanda coach”.

[/QUOTE]

For wcners who don’t know John.

Johns’ sifu late Gm Chang Dung Shen is one of the best top fighter in Chinese martial art in past 80 years until his passing, who’s expertise is SC.

So, John knows what he is talking about since he is train by Gm Chang himself. It is always honor to get John here to argue with me.

Johns’ rhino is close to Yik kam Wck with the different of yik kam Wck use a different stance for entery and range Thus, he and I have an exchange view on roundhouse kick versus step in yesterday .

image.jpg
image.jpg309×402 42.3 KB

82

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270677]I just hate the following conversation.

A: This is my opinion …
B: You are right because …
A: You are wrong. You did not understand what I was trying to say.
B: :frowning:

Now I understand why there are so many argument in the WC threads.

When

  • I agree with you 50% and disagree with you 50%, I would like to talk about our agreement.
  • you agree with me 50% and disagree with me 50%, you would like to talk about our disagreement.[/QUOTE]

John, I’m not trying to argue with you. We agree on some things, we disagree on others. When you make a point based on an assumption about me, it’s only fair to correct that assumption because yes, you were wrong. Not a big deal really, I took no offense by it. Actually, I’ve always appreciated your ‘common sense’ POV posts thru the years as in your previous post. I just don’t always agree with your ideas of what WC is or how a WC fighter operates.

As for your 50%/50% comment, I try to address both sides - the agreements and disagreements. This is how we learn from each other and leave the option open for me to say I’m wrong :wink: You have your preference of only focusing on the agreement, I have mine. There’s room for everyone here

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270677]If you said that the WC is not your foundation art but you have focus on it for 11 years, I had cross trained the WC system since 1973 from one of Ip-man’s students Jimmy Kao (currently lives in Houston, Tx). WC has been my focus for 41 years.

Not trying to brag about my training time. But I’m not a beginner in the WC system. One of my students Paul Wayne Gerald was a WC instructor when he came to me 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, he has evolved himself from a “WC instructor” into a “Sanda coach”.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate you sharing your experience and the fact that you aren’t trying to brag by stating it. I think we can both can agree that it’s not always the case that time in a system equals understanding. Example, LT has been doing WC a LOOONNNNGGG time and I rarely agree with what I see him doing. If it works for people that study his method, cool - more power too them. It’s just not for me :slight_smile: I don’t think you fall into he same category as him as I repsect your background and experience, just using it as an example

And, I wasn’t trying to slight you when I asked about your level of WC understanding. If you thought I was I appologize. I just wanted to know your background & your defenition of what WC is to forma baseline to discuss from. Also because when we met in Texas in I think 2007, you gave the distinct impression that you’ve while you’ve had wing chun training, it wasn’t your primary focus and that you hadn’t gone all the way thru the system. Maybe I had it wrong or that’s changed..

83

[QUOTE=tc101;1270645]Let me use an example Ronda is trained in judo right? When she fights she is not “doing judo” but fighting. She brings her judo training into her fights. That training developed certain tools tactics and strategies or skill set that helps make her a better fighter.[/QUOTE]

Same with Lyoto Machida, you can still see the essence of his Shodokan Karate training in the stand up portion of his MMA fights. He didn’t sell out to MMA and jump on the MMA band wagon of only muai thai, boxing, wrestling and BJJ works. That’s why I respect him! He follows his own path like myself. which is to implement your own game and not fall into playing his opponent’s game.

84

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270684]For wcners who don’t know John.

Johns’ sifu late Gm Chang Dung Shen is one of the best top fighter in Chinese martial art in past 80 years until his passing, who’s expertise is SC.

So, John knows what he is talking about since he is train by Gm Chang himself. It is always honor to get John here to argue with me.
[/QUOTE]

I doubt anyone here denies John’e experience & pedigree. But you defending him is a bit ironic when you, more than anyone else here, often imply that his posting or view doesn’t have a place in discussions because he’s not a WC person (your words) - usually when he’s proving you wrong.

85

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270687]I doubt anyone here denies John’e experience & pedigree. But you defending him is a bit ironic when you, more than anyone else here, often imply that his posting or view doesn’t have a place in discussions because he’s not a WC person (your words) - usually when he’s proving you wrong.[/QUOTE]

When John does a creat job in rhino using Wck concept. I praise him

86

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270685]when we met in Texas in I think 2007, you gave the distinct impression that you’ve while you’ve had wing chun training, it wasn’t your primary focus and that you hadn’t gone all the way thru the system. Maybe I had it wrong or that’s changed..[/QUOTE]
Where did we meet in Texas back in 2007? I don’t remember I had ever said that I had bad WC training.

Here is the ending part of the WC Biu Jee form that I had performed when I was still in my middle 20. Good or bad, it doesn’t matter. Just to prove that I was there.

//youtu.be/meq7j-MeG6M

87

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270690]Where did we meet in Texas back in 2007?[/QUOTE]

We met and had dinner at a tourney there. Me, you, Sifu Ashe Higgs, Sifu Eric, and others. It was a good time and I enjoyed hearing your stories and sharing your experiences with us.

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270690] I don’t remember I had ever said that I had bad WC training. [/QUOTE]

Who said anything about good or bad? If you’re wondering why discussions go south on this form, this is exactly the reason why imo. I never said good, bad or otherwise.

I tried to be civil and even admitted I could be wrong and offered an apology if I was. But I don’t appreciate when people twist my words or put words in my mouth that I never said. Maybe you are mistaken. I suggest you reread what I wrote, as I never said anything about the quality of any of your training:

“'And, I wasn’t trying to slight you when I asked about your level of WC understanding. If you thought I was I apologize. I just wanted to know your background & your defenition of what WC is to form a baseline to discuss from. Also because when we met in Texas in I think 2007, you gave the distinct impression that you’ve while you’ve had wing chun training, it wasn’t your primary focus and that you hadn’t gone all the way thru the system. Maybe I had it wrong or that’s changed..”

If you still believe I said that, then I have nothing more to say.

88

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270692]Who said anything about good or bad? If you’re wondering why discussions go south on this form, this is exactly the reason why imo. I never said good, bad or otherwise.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270685] while you’ve had wing chun training …[/QUOTE]

You are right! This is my fault. Please accept my apologize on this. Besides my bad Chiglish, my eyes are not very good sometime. I just had my 2nd glaucoma surgery a month ago.

When you said, “while you’ve had wing chun training.” I read as,“while you’ve bad wing chun training.” :frowning: :o

I just didn’t want to upset the person who introduced me into the WC system (incase he read this forum). Again, it’s my fault.

89

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270696]You are right! This is my fault. Please accept my apologize on this. Besides my bad Chiglish, my eyes are not very good sometime. I just had my 2nd glaucoma surgery a month ago.

When you said, “while you’ve had wing chun training.” I read as,“while you’ve bad wing chun training.” :frowning: :o

I just didn’t want to upset the person who introduced me into the WC system (incase he read this forum). Again, it’s my fault.[/QUOTE]

hah, no problem, mistakes happen! hope you are healing quickly!

90

To the topic, and out of general interest.

The thing with close range is that one needs a fairly comprehensive system of take downs, throws, strikes, and holds/seizing in that range.

The thing with long range is that reach is vital.

Where I am curious on how to view wing chun in this is that, in the close category, I am perhaps not familiar with the throwing and takedown repertoire, but the impression I had is that it was not a focus, and not seeking to be comprehensive.

On the long range, because of the center line thing, I was perhaps under the assumption that this requires that line to be on the opponent often in attacks, which reduces the overall range while for others one may face, they retain that range.

On the reach issue, stepping is only an answer if your opponent lacks the skill to also step in order to maintain a reach advantage.

I am curious what inaccuracies people others may think rest in these assumptions.

91

[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270720]The thing with long range is that reach is vital.[/QUOTE]
When you

  • step in, your opponent may step back.
  • touch your arm on your opponent’s arm, his arm may move away too.

If you try to depend on the “sticky” principle to

  • control distance, and
  • build bridge,

it may not be effective enough. The “sticky” principle is just too easy to be broken apart. Instead, the “hook” principle is much better solution. When you put a “hook” on your opponent’s body and if he moves back, he will pull your body with him.

In this clip, he puts 2 “hooks” on his opponent’s arms. He also applies “sticky leg” principle on his opponent’s leading leg.

//youtu.be/thoUoByrfME

92

[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270720]The thing with long range is that reach is vital.[/QUOTE]
A single “hook (not hook punch but hook principle)” may do most of the job too.

//youtu.be/t_Mo1bWGe1Q

93

Interesting. I’ll have to think about what I think of that in reference to dealing with long range attacks.

94

You only use this when you move in toward your opponent. If your opponent moves in toward you, you can by pass the 1st gate (wrist area) and enter direct into the 2nd gate (elbow area), or even the 3rd gate (shoulder/head area). In the single hook clip, you move from the 1st gate and jump directly into the 3rd gate. If your opponent is experienced, it’s safer to just move from the 1st gate to the 2nd gate, and then to the 3rd gate. The reason is simple, if you jump from the 1st gate to the 3rd gate, you may give your opponent enough time to escape.

95

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270554] 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]

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270557]Depend on your engine you develop.[/QUOTE]

I agree! generally these two types of techniques from MT and CLF use the body type engine, not the close range wck force line type short power generation

96

[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270720]To the topic, and out of general interest.

The thing with close range is that one needs a fairly comprehensive system of take downs, throws, strikes, and holds/seizing in that range.

The thing with long range is that reach is vital.

Where I am curious on how to view wing chun in this is that, in the close category, I am perhaps not familiar with the throwing and takedown repertoire, but the impression I had is that it was not a focus, and not seeking to be comprehensive.

On the long range, because of the center line thing, I was perhaps under the assumption that this requires that line to be on the opponent often in attacks, which reduces the overall range while for others one may face, they retain that range.

On the reach issue, stepping is only an answer if your opponent lacks the skill to also step in order to maintain a reach advantage.

I am curious what inaccuracies people others may think rest in these assumptions.[/QUOTE]

IMHO, there are different style strategy, range, and specialty. So that is the beauty of different arts.

In my Wck lineage if the type of technology and level as in the following video are not develop. It will be not likely to carry out or implement the strategy. The body and force handling just can’t do it properly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=jji2LOBAHHU

97

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270810]IMHO, there are different style strategy, range, and specialty. So that is the beauty of different arts.

In my Wck lineage if the type of technology and level as in the following video are not develop. It will be not likely to carry out or implement the strategy. The body and force handling just can’t do it properly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=jji2LOBAHHU[/QUOTE]

I love people who do not fight and have no fighting skills telling us all about fighting and strategy and ranges and so forth like they know what they are talking about. Put on some gloves until you do you have absolutely no idea.

98

[QUOTE=tc101;1270811]I love people who do not fight and have no fighting skills telling us all about fighting and strategy and ranges and so forth like they know what they are talking about. Put on some gloves until you do you have absolutely no idea.[/QUOTE]

Frankly, there is nothing in that video that I, as someone who spars and tries to train realistically with my kung fu, and people I know who fight mma using kung fu and other things, would really spend a lot of time disagreeing with.

I’ve had plenty of things I disagree with Hendrick on, this isn’t really one such thing.

For instance, my style has some common ground with wing chun from a Southern kung fu influence. But it also has a lot in common with Chen style. Changes in range, especially during contact, require subtle changes in posture that come from a particular, as Hendrick would put it, engine, and those are determined by the conditions. Nothing really controversial there.

99

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270753]You only use this when you move in toward your opponent. If your opponent moves in toward you, you can by pass the 1st gate (wrist area) and enter direct into the 2nd gate (elbow area), or even the 3rd gate (shoulder/head area). In the single hook clip, you move from the 1st gate and jump directly into the 3rd gate. If your opponent is experienced, it’s safer to just move from the 1st gate to the 2nd gate, and then to the 3rd gate. The reason is simple, if you jump from the 1st gate to the 3rd gate, you may give your opponent enough time to escape.[/QUOTE]

Great point!

100

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270743]A single “hook (not hook punch but hook principle)” may do most of the job too.
[/QUOTE]

Because a “jump head lock” is a 1)preferred 2)possible 3)plausible way to close distance?