your striking methods?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1043505]Of course boxers, kickboxers, etc. using stepping in and out all the time – that’s not the point. The point is that this is not WCK’s method, it is a different method.

WCK’s approach is to control the opponent while striking him. So, you need to look at everything in THAT context. Ask yourself: is what I am doing providing greater control over my opponent (or reducing my control) – and that includes lessening the opponent’s control. Does moving away, backing up, etc. provide more control? No. Generally, it reduces our ability to control our opponent and makes it easier for our opponent to control us. When we move away we can’t use body leverage against our opponent.[/QUOTE]

Well that what if one backs off from a punch at an angle and then reenters to sieze the elbow and push it into ones core thus taking their structure.

Sometimes you give an inch to gain a mile…

22

[QUOTE=Frost;1043485]i promised myself I’d not respond to you again, but really its not just a kung fu concept its a principle of fighting full stop you never want to move backwards and not in a straight line if you can help it.

But like all principles its not ingrained in law and when under pressure you sometimes fail and retreat away from the heat of battle.

Perhaps you could link to a few fights which you consider good kung fu men in action?[/QUOTE]

I did not say that other MAs didn’t use the no stepping back concept, however, in some TCMAs that concept is emphasised to a very high degree.

Of course, in “emergencies” one does step back to recover…

Also, when one watches sports fighting competitions, many fighters are going back, if not hopping back, all the time!!!

23

[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1043490]i disagree, your instructor stepped back a lot when i met him. not a problem or a bad point. it just ‘is’.[/quote]
Well, according to you, he did badly when an attending MMA-ist took him down, which is not true!

According to you his pressure point techniques did not work, because YOU did not feel anything, yet others at the seminare felt!

So, I don’t know how to take your latest…

However, I will say that if you are not fighting for real then instead of blasting through a visiting guest, you may take a step back…

Anyway, just to say again, not going back in kung fu, may be a new concept for some, but it is present in styles as diverse as SPM, Ngo Cho and Wing Chun, and no doubt many others…

That is one of the reasons many of these styles do not put a new student into a sparring situation earlier on, because the natural tendecy is to go back when you are attacked. So, it is always better to get this concept “sunk” in through other two men exercises, etc. before one is pressure tested.

Again, I will repeat, in emergencies one can take a step back to recover ones central line, but the mindset is to stick/take the opponent’s space…

24

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1043532]I think everyone is forgetting one simple thing, and just entertain me here for a moment:

Yim Wing Chun was a woman. Stepping back is not the same as retreating, as retreating implies that you have a strategy. Retreating draws the opponent into your trap. This is fundamental to Wing Chun imho especially when dealing with a stronger and maybe more capable opponent.

So, for once T I disagree this week! :smiley: Does moving away, backing up (retreating) provide more control? YES.[/QUOTE]

We don’t agree. Opening distance NEVER provides more control. If you step back, you will be run over if your opponent is worth squat.

25

[QUOTE=mjw;1043570]Well that what if one backs off from a punch at an angle and then reenters to sieze the elbow and push it into ones core thus taking their structure.

Sometimes you give an inch to gain a mile…[/QUOTE]

So your idea is to give up and lose control to then try and regain control? Not a good idea.

26

[QUOTE=mjw;1043570]Well that what if one backs off from a punch at an angle and then reenters to sieze the elbow and push it into ones core thus taking their structure.[/quote]
IMHO, you can do that by rolling, angling and then stepping forward, thus going through the opponent.

27

From jump street not rolling hands if I can make somebody miss with footwork then enter into an advantage position why not though that was just an example of stepping back to to move forward…

28

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1043624]So your idea is to give up and lose control to then try and regain control? Not a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Like in wrestling/ grappling sometimes if you don’t like the way you are engaged any you can safely disengage to reengage to a more favorable position why not?

29

[QUOTE=mjw;1043688]From jump street not rolling hands if I can make somebody miss with footwork then enter into an advantage position why not though that was just an example of stepping back to to move forward…[/QUOTE]

NO problem, but you are talking about different strategies and even different arts. I am merely illustrating the that many kung fu styles use a different strategy, and if one trains enough to make this work then it can really put an opponent off his stride when, you manage to be all over him, no matter what he does.

30

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1043695]NO problem, but you are talking about different strategies and even different arts. I am merely illustrating the that many kung fu styles use a different strategy, and if one trains enough to make this work then it can really put an opponent off his stride when, you manage to be all over him, no matter what he does.[/QUOTE]

It’s a good thing we have you here to tell us that Kung-Fu doesn’t step back.

31

[QUOTE=couch;1043729]It’s a good thing we have you here to tell us that Kung-Fu doesn’t step back.[/QUOTE]

Well, someone has to talk some sense, and there are a few of us here, so that the MMA knuckleheads don’t completely take over this forum…:smiley:

And it does seem that many people are not familiar with this rather basic kung fu concept…

32

[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1043490]i disagree, your instructor stepped back a lot when i met him. not a problem or a bad point. it just ‘is’.

Chuck liddel never did too badly from stepping back…

its a certain skill set, granted, but its crtainly l;egitimate…

think of a boxers jab. he flies in with it then springs back.[/QUOTE]

he tends to circle away rather than step straight back, as a rule moving back in a straight line is never a good idea, but angling off and is as you say chuck did this well, but i am probably just argueing for the sake if it lol

33

Using Body Physics

[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1042516]With the entire body like a loaded high tensile, high elasticity modulus steel spring. Which means the smallest movement/compression and generating/absorbing the highest amount of force. It’s a whole body thing.

The power is not “pushed” into the opponent but “released” into the opponent.[/QUOTE]

Have to agree with you.

34

Those that take the notion that gung fu / wing chun “doesn’t step back” in a literal sense are probably the same people that take the bible as literal fact.

The only way you’re not stepping back in a fight is when you’re the superior fighter…period. And fighting is fighting is fighting. The whole notion of styles and systems is merely preference in fighting strategy, tactics, and tools…the absolutes or universal truths are dictated by the realities of fighting, not some doctrine.

Can you step back in a fight? Sure. Should you do so in a straight line as someone is throwing consecutive attacks? No. Why? Because you’ll get hit most times.

Can you step back to stabilize and change angles? Sure. Can you step back without disengaging the bridge? Why yes you can!

Does stepping back make your gung fu “bad”?? No. To think this way is just ego stroking. I know NO ONE…not a friend, teacher, coach, pro, amateur, colleague…no one…that doesn’t step back in some form or fashion in a full contact fight. Why? Because it’s simply a statistical reality that it will happen.

But more to the original post, I think it can be either leading depending in the context of ones perspective.

Mechancally, the hand can lead the body with a straight punch because the hand moves first and the body and feet move second, but all landing simultaneously. Yet the body can lead the hands when throwing a hook for example because it’s your body torque that is providing the power, the shoulders and hips actually point past the contact point.

One may also conceptualize it and say the body leads the hands in that you need the body to get power to the hands.

35

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1043778]Those that take the notion that gung fu / wing chun “doesn’t step back” in a literal sense are probably the same people that take the bible as literal fact.

The only way you’re not stepping back in a fight is when you’re the superior fighter…period. And fighting is fighting is fighting. The whole notion of styles and systems is merely preference in fighting strategy, tactics, and tools…the absolutes or universal truths are dictated by the realities of fighting, not some doctrine.

Can you step back in a fight? Sure. Should you do so in a straight line as someone is throwing consecutive attacks? No. Why? Because you’ll get hit most times.

Can you step back to stabilize and change angles? Sure. Can you step back without disengaging the bridge? Why yes you can!

Does stepping back make your gung fu “bad”?? No. To think this way I’d just ego stroking. I know NO ONE…not a friend, teacher, coach, pro, amateur, colleague…no one…that doesn’t step back in some form or fashion in a full contact fight. Why? Because it’s simply a statistical reality that it will happen.[/QUOTE]

IMHO, it all depends on how you train. If one spends the extra time and effort to stick to the principle of not going back (except in emergencies), then I believe that your afforts will bare fruit.

However, if one attempts this principle once or twice, and then thinks it as “unnatural” and go back to the usual hopping in and out of range, together with a going back in angles mindset, then they will never understand the wisdom of this principle!

36

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1043779]IMHO, it all depends on how you train. If one spends the extra time and effort to stick to the principle of not going back (except in emergencies), then I believe that your afforts will bare fruit.

However, if one attempts this principle once or twice, and then thinks it as “unnatural” and go back to the usual hopping in and out of range, together with a going back in angles mindset, then they will never understand the wisdom of this principle![/QUOTE]

I get what you’re saying…the goal is to learn to apply your gung fu in such a way that you wouldn’t need to step back. That said–the only way that will occur is when your gung fu skill or fighting skill is noticeably better than your opponent’s.

Tell me what’s better in a fight:

…to sidestep with no contact and counter strike?

…or to stand your ground, bridge / redirect and counter strike?

Is there really a right answer? Does one give a better result than the other? Both ended with the same outcome. So if the ending is the same, is there more wisdom in one version over the other?

Because “control” can be had without bridging, IMO.

37

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1043803]I get what you’re saying…the goal is to learn to apply your gung fu in such a way that you wouldn’t need to step back. That said–the only way that will occur is when your gung fu skill or fighting skill is noticeably better than your opponent’s. [/quote]

I believe that the idea of it all is that, once you master the “art of not stepping back”, you DO become noticeably better than your opponent.

For example, if most people step or go back if they are attacked, then you are the one who doesn’t do that, then imagine the surprise factor. Imagine your counter attack position, when you are always in your opponent’s face, hitting him and tying him up .

Of course, this is easier said than done, but I believe that it is well worth the effort to master this aspect of kung fu fighting, as this is one area that is lacking from many of the so called “kung fu” fighters of today.

Well, I was also taught to side step, because that is not really going back. Also, at higher level WC, one is not meant to even make a bridge when attacked (not that I have reached this stage), so it would in theory be ok to side step with no contact.

Well, in the Wing Chun that I have been taught, it is not really about standing your ground, as that would suggest offering physical resistance against superior force, which is also against the principles, the way I was taught.

So, what happens is that you can side step on a horizontal line (depending on the type of attack), or you can side step 45 degrees into the opponent, while you have already bridged him. I hope that makes sense, in writing…

Well, there is still the chance that once mastered, one method will be superior to the other. Also, it is good to keep in mind that if a given style recommends that you don’t go back, as many kung fu styles do, then if you do, you are in danger of missing some of the fighting wisdom inbedded within that style.

IMHO, that happens a lot today, because we are flooded with MA information, hence some of us just píck and choose, so it becomes more “natural” to go back and counter attack; It is more “natural” to “bounce” like some sports fighters; it becomes more “natural” to put the shoulders into certain strikes, and so on, where in the end we loose our kung fu in favor of something else, which may certainly work for us, but cannot be classified as a TCMA, because it has lost the ESSENCE that give these Chinese fighting arts their special and in some cases superior qualities.

It is all about have one’s given art operates and functions in combat. However, the most important factor is to first understand the principle, including its advantages and relevance to one’s art, and then practice and repeat so much that the “unnatural” becomes NATURAL.

38

[QUOTE=Violent Designs;1042953]Excellent post, it is impossible to classify one system as doing “only” one thing.

In any system of martial art, say delivering a punch.

In CLF, we have strikes where the hand leads the body, and strikes where the body leads the hand.

I would even go as far as to say it is erroneous to say that something either has the hands or body leading the other.

We must look at the human body as one unit and everything must work in cohesion, a complete frame or structure, everything function as parts of a single unit.[/QUOTE]

you are infrazael on the other MA forum, right?

39

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1043621]We don’t agree. Opening distance NEVER provides more control. If you step back, you will be run over if your opponent is worth squat.[/QUOTE]

I’d have to say again that I use the term retreat, it’s in our basic literature and normally paired with toksau/munsau.

Sometimes, giving space is required to enable your opponent to make their own mistake. Like I said, it’s a trapping mentality, I’m not suggesting that you give the fighter a free reign!

Have you used ideas like snake and crane in your training? Snakes don’t retreat, but cranes do :wink:

And I do understand the notion of not retreating too, it is what chum kiu is for; standing your ground, but that’s not the same as biu jee; darting in and out. I also coach this on the plum flower wooden man, how to enter, do the damage, and get out as quickly as possible. It’s even indicated in the 108 :smiley:

40

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1043867]I’d have to say again that I use the term retreat, it’s in our basic literature and normally paired with toksau/munsau.
[/QUOTE]

You can’t retreat and use a tok sao (you won’t have the body leverage to lift).

Mun sao isn’t a technique (or shape) but a tactic of asking (to force the opponent to react to your action) and retreating isn’t a wise way to do it (you can’t force someone by backing away).

Sometimes, giving space is required to enable your opponent to make their own mistake. Like I said, it’s a trapping mentality, I’m not suggesting that you give the fighter a free reign!

To give up control so that your opponent MAY make a mistake is a poor tactic since your opponent may not make a mistake and instead take advantage of your lack of control.

Good WCK is based on control, poor and low-level WCK is based on avoidance.

Have you used ideas like snake and crane in your training? Snakes don’t retreat, but cranes do :wink:

I don’t base what I do on animal-fantasy.

And I do understand the notion of not retreating too, it is what chum kiu is for;
standing your ground,

No, the chum kiu, as the name indicates, contains the aspects pertaining to how to break an opponent’s structure with your bridges.

but that’s not the same as biu jee; darting in and out.

The biu jee is not concerned with darting in and out. Where do you get these ideas?

I also coach this on the plum flower wooden man, how to enter, do the damage, and get out as quickly as possible. It’s even indicated in the 108 :smiley:

I have no idea what the “plum flower wooden man” is. The muk yan jong is a learning device (and also not concerned with darting in and out).

WCK is an inside, close range fighting method, and its approach is controlling while striking – ideally to get inside (enter), get control and while maintaining that control continually pound you. There is no “in and out” to it. If I go out, it means that I have failed.