[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1270829]Because a “jump head lock” is a 1)preferred 2)possible 3)plausible way to close distance?[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t have to end with a “head lock”. You can pull your opponent into your punch, or use the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270832]It doesn’t have to end with a “head lock”. You can pull your opponent into your punch, or use the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent.
[/QUOTE]
So I guess your answer would be 2) Possible. And yes, I’m aware of “you can pull your opponent into your punch…”. Lap sau is a very basic move in wing chun.
All I got to say regarding that first video with the jump head lock would be the same things my kids say when I dance in front of them “don’t ever do that again…”
Do you think the “jump head lock” is
- impossible?
- low successful rate?
- too risky to apply?
- …
If you have concern about your opponent right free arm, when you enter, you do have to jam it and then wrap it. You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. You can’t ignore your opponent’s free arm when you enter. The arm jamming and arm wrapping just wasn’t shown in that clip.
So, discussing the long range aspect, I understand from your perspective, John, that a major goal is getting in close as soon as possible and throwing.
Let’s say from a perspective of someone in a situation with a reach advantage who wishes to prolong time in long range striking and maximizing that advantage before moving in for the finish. It does not seem to me that Wing Chun is a long range art in this sense, though I certainly could be mistaken. This is not saying incomplete, just saying that that option seems limited to me.
Likewise in very close range, I will do a little background research, but it seems to me that in close, strikes or take downs both play a huge role. In regards to the types of strikes, I do not see this as an issue, but I again was under the impression that on throws and take downs, it is not a focus.
How do Wing Chun fighters deal with these issues, or, in what ways are these aspects included?
For instance, not are there throws, but is there sufficient throws to be considered well prepared for the realities of throwing and attempts at counter throws? Are there strikes that are sufficiently long range to deal with the opponent who keeps distance and uses reach using a system that does not adhere to center line approaches to striking, systems whose strikes enable more reach?
In regards to longer range fighting, the WC I practice has long range bridging strategies. It is part of our Cheurn Kiu Sau engagement tools. This can be used to bridge with an opponent as a means of keeping them out of mid-to-close range striking. Of course, it also would keep me from reaching my opponent with WC’s short range strikes, but that’s the point.
In a general sense, it’s intent is to intercept & engage with an opponent and fend them off to prior to closing the range into WC’s short range striking. This may be done as a means to feel the guy out a little before going into committing to striking, and generally works best against longer range attacks (jab/cross). When introducing these ideas to students, I use the analogy ‘touch the stone, cross the river’.
Of course fights are chaotic and the opponent might have other ideas about the range they want to fight at 
So while like anything else, it doesn’t always work out, but the idea is you’ve made contact sooner than later and have bought some time to react to their next move while covering centerline and getting a bead on their COG if bridge correctly.
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270839]The WC I practice has long range bridging strategies. It is part of our Cheurn Kiu Sau engagement tools. This can be used to bridge with an opponent as a means of keeping them out of mid-to-close range striking. Of course, it also would keep me out of that same range, but in a general sense, it’s intent is to intercept & engage with an opponent and fend them off to prior to closing the range into WC’s short range striking. This may be done as a means to feel the guy out a little before commiting to striking. When introducing these ideas to students, I use the analogy ‘touch the stone, cross the river’.
Of course, the opponent might have other ideas, so it doesn’t always work out and the range may be lost before it’s of any use. :)[/QUOTE]
This was what I understood to be the case. I guess I view it, in that sense, of being a style that has methods of dealing with long range, but not oriented towards long range offenses. Would this be accurate?
To clarify a bit, I mean a style that applies a long range defense intended to facilitate offenses on closing.
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270840]This was what I understood to be the case. I guess I view it, in that sense, of being a style that has methods of dealing with long range, but not oriented towards long range offenses. Would this be accurate?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270841]To clarify a bit, I mean a style that applies a long range defense intended to facilitate offenses on closing.[/QUOTE]
That is correct. It is a means of engaging long range without fully committing to short range fighting that is WC’s bread & butter
(just a note, I also editted my last post before seeing your reply)
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270836]Do you think the “jump head lock” is
- impossible?
- low successful rate?
- too risky to apply?
- …
If you have concern about your opponent right free arm, when you enter, you do have to jam it and then wrap it. You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. You can’t ignore your opponent’s free arm when you enter. The arm jamming and arm wrapping just wasn’t shown in that clip.
//youtu.be/FIV3yz8aVGI
[/QUOTE]
You previous video, not this one, shows using body to enter while jaming . That is the third arm. That is a good one.
Those who has no close strike training has not much defense in that 2 to 3 gate range.
For my lineage, one needs develop snake engine wigh SLT to do something similar to 4.38 in the following video. Seven bows handling is the beginner basic for thess type of close body handling. One needs the seventh bow to do the job. Thus, itis seven bows, not six joints as mention generaly.
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270814]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.[/QUOTE]
It’s all complete twaddle. There is no such thing as engine. Listening to people who don’t fight talk about fighting is a waste of time.
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270840]This was what I understood to be the case. I guess I view it, in that sense, of being a style that has methods of dealing with long range, but not oriented towards long range offenses. Would this be accurate?[/QUOTE]
I think looking at things from is it a long range art or short range art is looking at it wrong. Just my opinion. That’s not how things really work. I think how a person uses their wing chun training is very very dependent on the individual.
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270842]That is correct. It is a means of engaging long range without fully committing to short range fighting that is WC’s bread & butter
(just a note, I also editted my last post before seeing your reply)[/QUOTE]
Just read the edit. Thanks.
[QUOTE=tc101;1270845]It’s all complete twaddle. There is no such thing as engine. Listening to people who don’t fight talk about fighting is a waste of time.[/QUOTE]
The Chen style teacher I studied under in China trained the local sanshou champ, and he used that exact comparison to explain how power generation works in fighting with Chen style. Getting the waist involved is hugely important in old Chen style, not pivoting on a point like in boxing (because of the throwing element, among other things, in Chen), but pivoting around that point, in order to have power generation while doing this you have to always use certain practices that are basically analogous to an engine in that the abs and lower back muscles facilitate power in specific ways, and knowing how posture allows different expressions of it is comparable to axles and wheels. Without these practices, by pivoting around a point without knowing when to open and close the spine, you will tend to lean forward or back, and the spin will become unstable, stay upright without proper transition in the spine and you tend to dig in your stance instead of being mobile.
They used it in full contact fighting. An engine is just a metaphor, but it is a good one.
[QUOTE=tc101;1270847]I think looking at things from is it a long range art or short range art is looking at it wrong. Just my opinion. That’s not how things really work. I think how a person uses their wing chun training is very very dependent on the individual.[/QUOTE]
Boxing or long fist has longer reach punches for outside range than wing chun. I don’t see any practitioner changing this without simply adopting the same practices. This is not to say that wing chun does not address the long range, but I don’t see any techs in it that would allow staying at long range without simply being defensive.
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270849]The Chen style teacher I studied under in China trained the local sanshou champ, and he used that exact comparison to explain how power generation works in fighting with Chen style. Getting the waist involved is hugely important in old Chen style, not pivoting on a point like in boxing because of the throwing element, but pivoting around that point, in order to have power generation while doing this you have to always use certain practices that are basically analogous to an engine in that the abs and lower back muscles facilitate power in specific ways, and knowing how posture allows different expressions of it is comparable to axles and wheels. Without these practices, by pivoting around a point without knowing when to open and close the spine, you will tend to lean forward or back, and the spin will become unstable, stay upright without proper transition in the spine and you tend to dig in your stance instead of being mobile.
They used it in full contact fighting. An engine is just a metaphor, but it is a good one.[/QUOTE]
No it is a terrible metaphor. The body uses lots lots lots of different mechanics in martial arts. In boxing every single punch uses a different mechanic and often you can do the same punch many different ways.
Talking about getting the waist involved is academic talk. You show someone how to do it then they practice. Talk doesn’t help you do it.
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270850]Boxing or long fist has longer reach punches for outside range than wing chun. I don’t see any practitioner changing this without simply adopting the same practices. This is not to say that wing chun does not address the long range, but I don’t see any techs in it that would allow staying at long range without simply being defensive.[/QUOTE]
No completely wrong. A straight punch with your arm fully extended does’t get any longer lol. Wing chun is training for fights in stand up range if you want to call it that. Not short not middle not long they don’t exist except in academic talk.
No it is a terrible metaphor. The body uses lots lots lots of different mechanics in martial arts. In boxing every single punch uses a different mechanic and often you can do the same punch many different ways.
Sort of like a different engine perhaps?
Talking about getting the waist involved is academic talk. You show someone how to do it then they practice. Talk doesn’t help you do it.
Sign language perhaps?
[QUOTE=tc101;1270851]No it is a terrible metaphor.[/quote]
For older Chen style, it is an excellent metaphor. Your argument is that if it has more parts, it’s not an engine. I don’t think that’s a strong argument.
The body uses lots lots lots of different mechanics in martial arts.
Chen tends to seek to create a burst of kinetic energy from the torso in relation to leg motions. From there, the other mechanics are more about delivery(not constricting or stopping that energy by bad body position) than adding power, though they contribute some, but the bulk is from the initial burst. The criterion for how one produces this burst includes not preventing mobility so seeking a balance of power generation and mobility in order to benefit from positioning and speedily respond to conditions.
In boxing every single punch uses a different mechanic and often you can do the same punch many different ways.
I’ve not seen any coaches or major fighters say a substantially different way to do a jab or cross or hook or shovel hook or overhand. They are fairly consistent. Could you provide an example?
Talking about getting the waist involved is academic talk.
I’ve seen a coach explaining it to a full contact fighter, who was using it thereafter, so I beg to differ.
You show someone how to do it then they practice. Talk doesn’t help you do it.
I’ve yet to meet a mute coach.
[QUOTE=tc101;1270852]No completely wrong. A straight punch with your arm fully extended does’t get any longer lol. Wing chun is training for fights in stand up range if you want to call it that. Not short not middle not long they don’t exist except in academic talk.[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that wing chun sought to keep a punch in your own center line. Is this mistaken?
In other words, using boxing as an example, fully turning the shoulder, posturing forward, having the strike well out of your own center line, and having the rear heel raised all contribute extra reach that the arm alone cannot. I was not aware that wing chun did this. Same with a cross or a straight right.
This is not even considering systems with long range kicks, which I was not aware were present in Wing Chun.
[QUOTE=tc101;1270847]I think looking at things from is it a long range art or short range art is looking at it wrong. Just my opinion. That’s not how things really work. I think how a person uses their wing chun training is very very dependent on the individual.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with this. While yes, WC is mostly a shorter range striking style, I wouldn’t say wing chun is only a short range art as that is limiting. As I see WC being a principle-based art (lol, T will like that), not technique based, it has strategies/tactics/tools for all ‘ranges’, with different mechanics for the various ‘ranges’. It’s just that it mainly employs short range striking, so tends to get categorized as such.