# Wing Chun grappling



## futsaowingchun (Dec 29, 2014)




----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

In concept hand fighting does work. Which he is basically trying to do there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2014)

When you use "double neck ties (MT clinch)" to control your opponent's head, if he pins one of your arms on his chest, wraps your other arm along with your head, since both of your arms will be locked inside of his arms, it can give you a helpless feeling. IMO, to apply this move on your opponent when his both arms are still free is not a good idea.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Dec 30, 2014)

agree with Kung Fu Wang...not a good idea. In fact, none of these are a good idea. I used to really enjoy learning the chin na aspects of various martial arts. Then I learned wing chun. Much simpler to just strike!!! 
I can see Futsao's ideas having value if perhaps you are a bouncer or a police officer...but...that's about it.


----------



## Reeksta (Dec 30, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use "double neck ties (MT clinch)" to control your opponent's head, if he pins one of your arms on his chest, wraps your other arm along with your head, since both of your arms will be locked inside of his arms, it can give you a helpless feeling. IMO, to apply this move on your opponent when his both arms are still free is not a good idea.


Another good counter to the muay thai plum is to link your arms around their waist in a gable grip and drive forward while pushing your head into their collar area to unbalance them. This is a variation on a common takedown in greco-roman wrestling and I've seen it used in Thai boxing matches quite a few times


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

The very last, I see what that achieves. They were both going towards the deck. In my mind, they were towards submission. Don't quite see the following move.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

Bump "don't"


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

These seem to be early, early defenses against someone who doesn't really know how to apply the techniques effectively in the first place.

(Mind you, you're very, very unlikely to ever be mugged by someone trying to execute a standing wristlock on you. The best reason for wanting to learn the counters to these techniques is that you want to learn how to apply them effectively and you need to learn the counters that you are going to beat.)



Kwan Sau said:


> I used to really enjoy learning the chin na aspects of various martial arts. Then I learned wing chun. Much simpler to just strike!!!
> I can see Futsao's ideas having value if perhaps you are a bouncer or a police officer...but...that's about it.



Futsao is trying to show how to _counter_ these joint locks, not apply them. I doubt most cops or bouncers* have to worry too much about a suspect or unruly patron trying to wristlock them. Maybe if they were trying to arrest Steven Seagal ...

*(Sorry -  "doormen" for you UK members of that profession. I saw in another thread that some folks had an aversion to the term "bouncers.")



Reeksta said:


> Another good counter to the muay thai plum is to link your arms around their waist in a gable grip and drive forward while pushing your head into their collar area to unbalance them. This is a variation on a common takedown in greco-roman wrestling and I've seen it used in Thai boxing matches quite a few times



Yeah, the body lock can neutralize the head control - and the head control can counter the body lock. It all depends on which fighter can control the distance and the structure.



Transk53 said:


> The very last, I see what that achieves. They were both going towards the deck. In my mind, they were towards submission. Don't quite see the following move.



By controlling the head, he killed the control for the armlock. They're still entangled at an awkward angle and possibly headed for the ground, but there's no submission.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> them. I doubt most cops or bouncers* have to worry too much about a suspect or unruly patron trying to wristlock them. Maybe if they were trying to arrest Steven Seagal ...
> .


Or other cops that run up to the pile and just grab a limb and start cranking on it before they realize its mine....or the wrong person


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Or other cops that run up to the pile and just grab a limb and start cranking on it before they realize its mine....or the wrong person



 Friendly fire armlock! I suppose it's better than the other kind of friendly fire.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> by controlling the head, he killed the control for the armlock. They're still entangled at an awkward angle and possibly headed for the ground, but there's no submission.[/QUOTE
> 
> Okay, thanks for insight.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Futsao is trying to show how to _counter_ these joint locks, not apply them.



Yep, I know. My comment was also about countering.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, the body lock can neutralize the head control - and the head control can counter the body lock. It all depends on which fighter can control the distance and the structure.


Agree that the "distance" and "structure" are the key.

If your opponent's body leans forward, your arms may not be able to reach to his body and lock on it. If your opponent has strong body structure, it will be hard to crash his body structure by using body lock.

The "body weakness" and "body angle" are also important here.

Since the neck is much weaker than the body, it doesn't take much force to twist on your opponent's neck than to twist on his spine. If your opponent's body is facing side way (his chest and your chest are in a 90 degree angle), it will be harder to use your body lock to bend his spine side way. IMO, the human spine is much stronger side way then forward and backward.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 30, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> agree with Kung Fu Wang...not a good idea. In fact, none of these are a good idea. I used to really enjoy learning the chin na aspects of various martial arts. Then I learned wing chun. Much simpler to just strike!!!



I'm sorry but this is an incredibly naive mindset to have. I'm not trying to be Mr. MMA "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the answer to everything," but in a real self-defense situation, somebody's gonna be trying to grab you at some point, and if you don't know how to break a grab, you're screwed.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I'm sorry but this is an incredibly naive mindset to have. I'm not trying to be Mr. MMA "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the answer to everything," but in a real self-defense situation, somebody's gonna be trying to grab you at some point, and if you don't know how to break a grab, you're screwed.


Trying to grab you, yes. Trying to apply a wrist lock on you, probably not.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Trying to grab you, yes. Trying to apply a wrist lock on you, probably not.


We practice wrist locks quite often and the biggest reason is to understand them; not to be able to apply them, to be able to counter them. The thing about wrist locks is the counters are easier than the wrist lock.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Dec 31, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I'm sorry but this is an incredibly naive mindset to have. I'm not trying to be Mr. MMA "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is the answer to everything," but in a real self-defense situation, somebody's gonna be trying to grab you at some point, and if you don't know how to break a grab, you're screwed.



Ok, apparently my writing skills suck because folks don't seem to understand my view on this. Let me try again in a simpler way: I agree with you Marnetmar...one must know how to "break a grab". My point is/was: I won't waste my time attempting to counter-grab when I have tools available that could problem solve much faster (ie I just simply strike you). If you guys see value in trying to break grabs with other grabbing techniques then good for you... my view / opinion is just strike the guy. Period.


----------



## wtxs (Dec 31, 2014)

I will stand with you on this Kwan Sau.  You have put forth one of the basic core concept of WC ... which is KISS!


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 31, 2014)

wtxs said:


> I will stand with you on this Kwan Sau.  You have put forth one of the basic core concept of WC ... which is KISS!


--------------------------------
Yup. Simplicity.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Dec 31, 2014)

Thanks WTXS and Vajramusti! I'm glad some agree with me on this.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 31, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Ok, apparently my writing skills suck because folks don't seem to understand my view on this. Let me try again in a simpler way: I agree with you Marnetmar...one must know how to "break a grab". My point is/was: I won't waste my time attempting to counter-grab when I have tools available that could problem solve much faster (ie I just simply strike you). If you guys see value in trying to break grabs with other grabbing techniques then good for you... my view / opinion is just strike the guy. Period.



No thats understandable. Why counter grab when you could punch him straight in the face. Or even a counter trap and kick them. That would work wouldn't it?


----------



## wtxs (Dec 31, 2014)

... so the story goes like this ...

Student:  Master, what do I do if he/she grab me with their right hand?
Master:  Hit.
Student:  What if it's the left hand?
Master:  Hit.
Student:  What if I was grabbed by both hands?
Master:  Hit.


----------



## Reeksta (Dec 31, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Ok, apparently my writing skills suck because folks don't seem to understand my view on this. Let me try again in a simpler way: I agree with you Marnetmar...one must know how to "break a grab". My point is/was: I won't waste my time attempting to counter-grab when I have tools available that could problem solve much faster (ie I just simply strike you). If you guys see value in trying to break grabs with other grabbing techniques then good for you... my view / opinion is just strike the guy. Period.


While I largely agree with this, sometimes you have to take whatever's there. For instance, the other week we were doing a drill on the mook where we struck with a palm heel and then (assuming that the strike has missed or that the opponent was stupid enough to leave his head in the same place afterward) grab the back of their head/neck as you retract the arm in order to break their structure or possibly pull them on to another strike.
It's also worth considering context. Statistically most of us are more likely to have to restrain a drunk pal who's a bit out of control than defend ourselves against a determined attacker who genuinely wants to do us harm. In this instance I wouldn't want to smash their face to a pulp


----------



## Danny T (Dec 31, 2014)

Reeksta said:


> While I largely agree with this, sometimes you have to take whatever's there. For instance, the other week we were doing a drill on the mook where we struck with a palm heel and then (assuming that the strike has missed or that the opponent was stupid enough to leave his head in the same place afterward) grab the back of their head/neck as you retract the arm in order to break their structure or possibly pull them on to another strike.


This I feel is one of the most important aspects of WC in its simplicity. EVERY movement should be doing something to the opponent. WC is about hitting. You should be dedicated to the strike; but not dedicated to any one particular strike. When the arm goes out and it doesn't contact anything it should be doing something to the opponent on the recovery or the return cycle.


----------



## Reeksta (Dec 31, 2014)

Danny T said:


> This I feel is one of the most important aspects of WC in its simplicity. EVERY movement should be doing something to the opponent. WC is about hitting. You should be dedicated to the strike; but not dedicated to any one particular strike. When the arm goes out and it doesn't contact anything it should be doing something to the opponent on the recovery or the return cycle.


Agreed. Something our sifu constantly reiterates is the idea of never wasting a movement. If you've kicked someone in the knee don't just put your foot down after, scrape it down their shin and stomp their toes while you do it. If you miss a punch, grab a hold of something on the way back


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 31, 2014)

wtxs said:


> ... so the story goes like this ...
> 
> Student:  Master, what do I do if he/she grab me with their right hand?
> Master:  Hit.
> ...


Agree! Sometime it may be easy to say but hard to do. You (general YOU) have to understand why your opponents wants to grab your wrist in the 1st place.

1st - the wrist area has the smallest diameter compare to the rest of your arm (easy to hold).
2nd - by holding on your wrist, your hand can be a nice handler to secure his grip (easy to pull).

It's so easy to break that grip, why your opponent still wants to do so? Most of the time when your opponent grabs on your wrist, he will have a "plan" in his mind. He may want to:

- shake you downward.
- drag you in circle.
- borrow the counter force to pull him toward you.
- use your leading arm to jam your back arm.
- set up a trap and wait for you to punch him with the other arm. When you punch, he comb his hair and then enter.
- the wrist grab is only the 1st step, the elbow grab will be the 2nd step, and the neck choke will be the 3rd step.
- draw your attention on that wrist grip.
- ...

If he uses his hand to grab on your right wrist, he will be on your "right side door". If you try to punch him with your left hand, all he needs is to use his hand to pull your right arm across your body. His arm pulling force (move your body to your left) will counter your back left arm punching force (move your body to your right).

Since when and how your opponent will pull your arm will be up to him, he will always be 1 step ahead of you and your punch will always be 1 step behind. IMO, it's better to break that grip first. The easiest way to do is just rotate your arm in the direction to against his thumb (1 finger). When you do that, you can grab on his wrist and put him in defense mode instead.

A striker and a grappler may look at "wrist grab" from different angles. But it's better to understand why a grappler may want to grab your wrist in the 1st place. It may not be as simple as you may think, "If you grab my right wrist, I'll punch you with my left fist".


----------



## geezer (Jan 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Sometime it may be easy to say but hard to do. You (general YOU) have to understand why your opponents wants to grab your wrist in the 1st place.
> 
> 1st - the wrist area has the smallest diameter compare to the rest of your arm (easy to hold).
> 2nd - by holding on your wrist, your hand can be a nice handler to secure his grip (easy to pull).
> ...




_All good points_. And all are part of the WC training we do. We still teach that the most practical response to most grabs is a punch. Seems simple. But simplicity is often very subtle and complex, and it can be hard to pull off against an experienced grappler.


----------



## Buka (Jan 1, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Or other cops that run up to the pile and just grab a limb and start cranking on it before they realize its mine....or the wrong person



Bwahaha! Yeah, me too.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> _All good points_. And all are part of the WC training we do. We still teach that the most practical response to most grabs is a punch. Seems simple. But simplicity is often very subtle and complex, and it can be hard to pull off against an experienced grappler.



Would you just not headbut or something?


----------



## wtxs (Jan 1, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Would you just not headbut or something?



... and risk of having your eyes poked by an Bil Sao, you better be good and fast with your Wu Sau like Curly of the three stooges ...


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Reeksta said:


> Another good counter to the muay thai plum is to link your arms around their waist in a gable grip and drive forward while pushing your head into their collar area to unbalance them. This is a variation on a common takedown in greco-roman wrestling and I've seen it used in Thai boxing matches quite a few times



 collar tie escape. For the same reason you do the collar tie escape. You can do forearm in throat to give yourself a bit of time.

hip bump works ok as well.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

wtxs said:


> ... and risk of having your eyes poked by an Bil Sao, you better be good and fast with your Wu Sau like Curly of the three stooges ...



Oh okay


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> hip bump works ok as well.



Do you do Zumba in MMA these days then


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Do you do Zumba in MMA these days then



well you need something for the walk out.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> well you need something for the walk out.



Lol, guess so.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> No thats understandable. Why counter grab when you could punch him straight in the face. Or even a counter trap and kick them. That would work wouldn't it?



you are trying to free your arms he is trying to tie them up. So counter grabbing and hitting are kind of the same thing. Otherwise a hockey fight is not a place you want to go unless you have a head like a brick.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)




----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> you are trying to free your arms he is trying to tie them up. So counter grabbing and hitting are kind of the same thing. Otherwise a hockey fight is not a place you want to go unless you have a head like a brick.



Yes I have a head like a brick. Briefly played European style hockey, but got banned from the school team.

What scenario are you thinking of above?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Yes I have a head like a brick. Briefly played European style hockey, but got banned from the school team.
> 
> What scenario are you thinking of above?



yeah. They grab you hit. They hit. Both of you smash each others heads into hamburger untill one of you drops.

which i would try to avoid. To be honest.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> yeah. They grab you hit. They hit. Both of you smash each others heads into hamburger untill one of you drops.
> 
> which i would try to avoid. To be honest.



Wow, I thought Koalas were quite cuddley  Yeah so would I tbh.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> collar tie escape.


No need to escape a "collar tie". If your opponent wants to tie your collar, you just tie his arms.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No need to escape a "collar tie". If your opponent wants to tie your collar, you just tie his arms.



What would you maybe do then after. Hook his knee, sweep the ankle, or smash a low kick through it. Headbut would seem obvious?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> What would you maybe do then after. Hook his knee, sweep the ankle, or smash a low kick through it. Headbut would seem obvious?


Since my opponent's contact points can also give me some free contact points, to break away his contact points seems to be a big waste. If he wants to bend his arms to control my head, I would help him to bend his arms more than he would like to. If my opponent uses his arms to wrap around my body, it gives me a chance to use my arms to wrap around his arms along with his body. To me, this is called the "octopus strategy".

This is what I will do.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No need to escape a "collar tie". If your opponent wants to tie your collar, you just tie his arms.



i cant find the escape but you wind up with a good arm control from it.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since my opponent's contact points can also give me some free contact points, to break away his contact points seems to be a big waste. If he wants to bend his arms to control my head, I would help him to bend his arms more than he would like to. If my opponent uses his arms to wrap around my body, it gives me a chance to use my arms to wrap around his arms along with his body. To me, this is called the "octopus strategy".
> 
> This is what I will do.



Yes nice takedown. I would probably not do that though. Going to submission straight away is boring. Just my own personal opinion, yours is very relevant


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

the arm control from a head grab


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since my opponent's contact points can also give me some free contact points, to break away his contact points seems to be a big waste. If he wants to bend his arms to control my head, I would help him to bend his arms more than he would like to. If my opponent uses his arms to wrap around my body, it gives me a chance to use my arms to wrap around his arms along with his body. To me, this is called the "octopus strategy".
> 
> This is what I will do.



i think if you were fighting for that you would find he has better structure. And might even win that throw.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> the arm control from a head grab



It won't play. You need a head guard, you are in trouble mate. Don't let them get near you're head. There is know need


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> It won't play. You need a head guard, you are in trouble mate. Don't let them get near you're head. There is know need



sorry what are you getting at?


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> sorry what are you getting at?



Sorry fella and no disrespect, I probably mistook the term. What I meant was the not getting near the head in the first place.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> i think if you were fighting for that you would find he has better structure. And might even win that throw.


The "structure" is the key. During a "clinch", If

- you can crash your opponent's structure, you win.
- your opponent can crash your structure, he wins.

When you try to take your opponent down in one direction, if you feel that his resistance is too strong, you should borrow his force, and try to take him down toward the opposite direction. IMO, all take down should be trained in pairs and in reverse directions.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Sorry fella and no disrespect, I probably mistook the term. What I meant was the not getting near the head in the first place.



that is what i thought but i wanted to be sure. You are concerned that the head is open to a butt or a bite?

one of the methods to avoid a strike is to create space. Another is to deny space. With my head under their chin like that i win the head fight. I can butt and from a wrestling point of view i can control his head.

if he wants to take a bite out of my forehead then it will end worse for him.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> that is what i thought but i wanted to be sure. You are concerned that the head is open to a butt or a bite?
> 
> one of the methods to avoid a strike is to create space. Another is to deny space. With my head under their chin like that i win the head fight. I can butt and from a wrestling point of view i can control his head.
> 
> if he wants to take a bite out of my forehead then it will end worse for him.



The headbut really, they are not nice, but seem worse the older you get lol.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 3, 2015)

I just wanted to chime in. I read earlier in the thread...
Some lineages of wing chun are teaching very dogmatically that "wing chun" is pure striking.

However this is historically inaccurate. There are many linages that preserve their Wing Chun Chin Na. Red Boaters were almost like mma in technique proliferation. They simply chose to keep things that integrated well with the Kuen Kuit doctrines.

But you would be surprised how much Chin Na is in the Wing Chun forms.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 3, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


>


Thanks for the video. I starting to think the founder of Jow Ga ran into a lot of Wing Chun practitioners.  The way that we grab and apply chi na isn't the same way that you are showing.  This isn't a comment on the effectiveness of what you are showing, just a realization about my fighting system that I'm starting to see.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 3, 2015)

Kwan Sau said:


> I used to really enjoy learning the chin na aspects of various martial arts. Then I learned wing chun. Much simpler to just strike!!!


  The thing about Chin Na is that you have be conditioned to use it.  A lot of it will be useless to you if you don't have the finger and grip strength to apply it.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Mind you, you're very, very unlikely to ever be mugged by someone trying to execute a standing wristlock on you. The best reason for wanting to learn the counters to these techniques is that you want to learn how to apply them effectively and you need to learn the counters that you are going to beat.)


  Agree. Which leads back to my statement that China requires condition and strengthening in order to use.  Even within the martial arts world very people spend time to do so.



Kwan Sau said:


> My point is/was: I won't waste my time attempting to counter-grab when I have tools available that could problem solve much faster (ie I just simply strike you)


 For the most part this is probably correct right up until the opponent is someone who does Bjj, judo, or wrestling.  BJJ has proven time and time again the value of being able to get out of a grab or better yet prevent it from happening.  Striking can't punch out of everything.  This guy fails to prevent the grab, then fails to escape from the grab.  It's up to you on how you want to fight just understand where you are weak (skills aren't developed) and prevent your opponent from fighting where you are weak.





This WC guy actually tries to keep it simple, by punching a grab.  The fact that Chin Na exists shows an understanding within kung fu that every attack cannot be solved with a punch.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 6, 2015)

By no means do I have expertise in grappling, but in both of those videos- I saw no attempt to draw the supporting leg backward making the grappler's hold on it more difficult, nor any attempt to push down on the head. That would possibly be my go-to as a non-grappler.
That second video the guy was trying to hook under the other guys arms.... Are they allowed to at least push on the back of the head even if they can't strike it in these rulesets?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 6, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> By no means do I have expertise in grappling, but in both of those videos- I saw no attempt to draw the supporting leg backward making the grappler's hold on it more difficult, nor any attempt to push down on the head. That would possibly be my go-to as a non-grappler.
> That second video the guy was trying to hook under the other guys arms.... Are they allowed to at least push on the back of the head even if they can't strike it in these rulesets?


Pushing on the back of the head is permitted and a component of certain takedown defenses. Of course you need to be in proper position to do that effectively and the gentlemen being taken down in those videos were out of position to do so.

Drawing your legs back i.e. sprawling is another very important element of takedown defense. However it works a lot better if you start *before* your opponent has firm control of both your legs.

Basically, neither of the guys being take down in those two videos seemed to have any clue about takedown defense and that's not really something you can make up on the fly against a skilled wrestler.


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 6, 2015)

Is it me or do a good chunk of these WC guys that get in the ring seem to have no clue grappling even exists in the first place? That poor Malaysian sap literally walked right into a double leg. I thought it was basic common sense that grapplers _aren't_ going to be trying to play hands with you.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Is it me or do a good chunk of these WC guys that get in the ring seem to have no clue grappling even exists in the first place? That poor Malaysian sap literally walked right into a double leg.



Chun trained traditionally is a bit crap for grappling. Doing mma the rule of avoiding grapplers is not to stand close firing off long combinations of strikes.


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Chun trained traditionally is a bit crap for grappling. Doing mma the rule of avoiding grapplers is not to stand close firing off long combinations of strikes.



Of course WC wasn't designed for grappling, but shouldn't it be basic common sense that, regardless of which style you're studying, you should get a sense for what your opponent is actually trying to do before making a move? This is something I learned from day one.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Of course WC wasn't designed for it grappling, but shouldn't it be basic common sense that you should get a sense for what your opponent is actually trying to do before charging in? This is something I learned from day one.


 
It is not something I would do. But people have had success with things like flying knees off the touch glove. So mabye he had some plan there that just didn't work out.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 6, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Of course WC wasn't designed for grappling, but shouldn't it be basic common sense that, regardless of which style you're studying, you should get a sense for what your opponent is actually trying to do before making a move? This is something I learned from day one.



Sifu Robert Chu says there is a Kuen Kuit that says "don't let their system or style show". Wing chun is about interrupting the actions of an opponent before they get their stuff working. So no wc doesn't really try to understand, it tries to swarm and smother the opponent's hands and deliver enough fast and powerful attacks to end the fight.


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 6, 2015)

Chu is one of my favorite sifus and I agree with him, but I didn't see the guy trying to interrupt anything. He seemed to have the novice "chase him around with chainpunches and everything will be okay" mentality, when there is really much more to it than that.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 6, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Chu is one of my favorite sifus and I agree with him, but I didn't see the guy trying to interrupt anything. He seemed to have the novice "chase him around with chainpunches and everything will be okay" mentality, when there is really much more to it than that.


Something hawkins chueng said:
These students wanted wing chun techniques and feeling. To me, the wing chun techniques are of secondary importance. Techniques can be learned from any wing chun teacher. However, without body connection and physical development, the techniques become useless.

*Trained to fight*

Back in the 195Os, Yip Man trained us to fight, not be technicians. Because we were so young, we didn’t understand the concepts or theories. As he taught us, Yip Man said, “*Don’t believe me, as I may be tricking you. Go out and have a fight. Test it out.”* In other words, Yip Man taught us the distance applications of wing chun. First he told us to go out and find practitioners of other styles and test our wing chun on them. If we lost, we knew on what we should work. We would go out and test our techniques again. We thought to ourselves, “Got to make that technique work! No excuses!” We learned by getting hit. When you are in a real fight, you find out what techniques are good for you. Just because your technique may work for one person doesn’t guarantee it will work for you. When you test your techniques on someone you don’t know, you experience a different feeling than when training with your friends. If you discover through your own experience, it’s much better than relying on another’s experience. In this way, you won’t be in his trap.

For this reason, physical and strong tool development are more important than the techniques. 


To this. . Not enough fighting is a problem for many wc players


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 6, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> Something hawkins chueng said:
> These students wanted wing chun techniques and feeling. To me, the wing chun techniques are of secondary importance. Techniques can be learned from any wing chun teacher. However, without body connection and physical development, the techniques become useless.
> 
> *Trained to fight*
> ...



Nice post dude. 
It resembles a little how I was trained at first. Long bridge, entry strategies, crash-in-the-door WC, physical training, and strong tool development, conditioning etc. Not much on theory or concepts...just learn the basics and drill them until you are blue in the face then drill them even more until they are "subconsciously competent"...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 6, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> *Go out and have a fight. Test it out ...* Not enough fighting is a problem for many wc players


The problem is there were not that many wrestlers in Hong Kong back then for those WC guys to test their skill on. MA training is to solve problems. Today we are facing different kind of problems. Our training should be modified.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 6, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Nice post dude.
> It resembles a little how I was trained at first. Long bridge, entry strategies, crash-in-the-door WC, physical training, and strong tool development, conditioning etc. Not much on theory or concepts...just learn the basics and drill them until you are blue in the face then drill them even more until they are "subconsciously competent"...



Ditto


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 9, 2015)

There's no such thing as anti-grappling. You're either grappling or striking. That's it. So is rolling teaching striking or grappling or both? I have no frickin clue . It just looks cool. JK I know what it teaches. But do you???


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 9, 2015)

By the way, I haven't read this whole thread. I just clicked on video and the words anti-grappling appeared. So since nature was calling, I thought I'd check into this forum. It's been awhile. Hopefully I have been missed? I didn't think so!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 9, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Is it me or do a good chunk of these WC guys that get in the ring seem to have no clue grappling even exists in the first place? That poor Malaysian sap literally walked right into a double leg. I thought it was basic common sense that grapplers _aren't_ going to be trying to play hands with you.


Sometimes people make the mistake of playing a fight out in their mind about what their first move is going to be and how the fight is going to be.  Some times it works and sometimes it doesn't.  He probably thought he was going to overwhelm his opponent with WC punches and was so focused on making it happen that he failed to identify his opponents game plan. The low crouching should have been a warning.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 9, 2015)

Simple check on "whether your system truly train anti-grappling."

- How do you prevent your opponent from getting an "under hook" on you?
- After your opponent has "under hook" on you, how will you handle it?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 9, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> There's no such thing as anti-grappling. You're either grappling or striking. That's it. So is rolling teaching striking or grappling or both? I have no frickin clue . It just looks cool. JK I know what it teaches. But do you???


 There are some grappling escapes that don't require for me to punch or grab my opponent in order to break his hold.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 9, 2015)

If the bridge you form with the opponent can't survive even the first challenge - be it grab, punch, kick, headbutt, whatever... how good of a bridge is that really?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 10, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is there were not that many wrestlers in Hong Kong back then for those WC guys to test their skill on. MA training is to solve problems. Today we are facing different kind of problems. Our training should be modified.


 I don't think it's so much a different kind of problem as it is that many schools have become too specialized in certain techniques which causes other techniques to fade or be totally removed.  Olympic style TKD is a perfect example of the specialization of techniques.  Grappling is the most basic kind of fighting and I can't see anyone developing a fighting system that didn't address someone wanting to take me to the ground.  It's most likely that certain techniques were forgotten or removed from the forms as a result of customization on what Sifus thought were more important or were really good at.  For example, I'm awesome with sweeps and fighting in a low stance so if I become a Sifu then those are 2 aspects that will be heavy in any forms customization.

If you look up Jow Ga Sei Ping then you'll see that the form it's not uniform across different schools each Sifu adds and removes certain parts as they see fit.  I often look at Sei Ping forms from other Jow Ga schools to be aware of other techniques that are part of the system but may not be taught in my school or taught at the current level I'm at.  This customization means that some things will be lost and some things will be retained.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 10, 2015)

William Cheung lineage sifu Eric Oram teaches some antigrappling... shoot defense.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> William Cheung lineage sifu Eric Oram teaches some antigrappling... shoot defense.


Whats demonstrated in that video isn't a defense against a wrestling takedown.  It's defense against a wing chun guy trying to mimic a wrestling takedown.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2015)

Steve said:


> Whats demonstrated in that video isn't a defense against a wrestling takedown.  It's defense against a wing chun guy trying to mimic a wrestling takedown.


It's a perfectly cromulent defense against an untrained football tackle. As long as they don't claim it's effective against a trained wrestler, I have no problem with it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's a perfectly cromulent defense against an untrained football tackle. As long as they don't claim it's effective against a trained wrestler, I have no problem with it.


I would have no problem with it either, but the video isn't purporting to teach a defense against a untrained football tackle.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2015)

Steve said:


> I would have no problem with it either, but the video isn't purporting to teach a defense against a untrained football tackle.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In fairness, he doesn't specify that it's a counter for a wrestler. He just says "takedown" and an untrained football tackle is a common takedown attempt, although not a skilled one.

It's quite possible that he _meant_ it as a counter for a wrestler's double leg, but the video doesn't explicitly say that.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 10, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's a perfectly cromulent defense against an untrained football tackle.


cromulent [sic] ??? 

Also I agree that Oram, in the video, doesn't say anything about defending vs a wrestler but he does use the term 'shoot'. He doesn't use the term anti-grappling either he says "take his balance and prevent the grappling situation" which is a grappling situation in of its self. And that example was a terrible example of a committed shoot for a takedown or tackle.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2015)

Cromulent.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2015)

Danny T said:


> And that example was a terrible example of a committed shoot for a takedown or tackle.


I've seen white belts with poor wrestling skills get overexcited in sparring and perform shoots that bad. The video shows pretty much what you do to show them why they need to improve their takedown technique.

(Assuming you want to keep it standing and not just sprawl on them.)


----------



## Danny T (Nov 10, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Cromulent.


Ah, a made up word for humor. Thanks.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 10, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> William Cheung lineage sifu Eric Oram teaches some antigrappling... shoot defense.


finally a WC guy that understands.  Control the head. He's the only one that I've seen who didn't suggest punching the shoot.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 10, 2015)

Steve said:


> Whats demonstrated in that video isn't a defense against a wrestling takedown.  It's defense against a wing chun guy trying to mimic a wrestling takedown.


There are videos of wrestlers doing same or similar technique.  It works against wrestlers too and they use it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> There are videos of wrestlers doing same or similar technique.  It works against wrestlers too and they use it.


I have no way of knowing that.  I am commenting on what was posted, which was a defense against a wing chin guy doing a poor double leg takedown.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, he doesn't specify that it's a counter for a wrestler. He just says "takedown" and an untrained football tackle is a common takedown attempt, although not a skilled one.
> 
> It's quite possible that he _meant_ it as a counter for a wrestler's double leg, but the video doesn't explicitly say that.


The video title I saw said wrestler.  If I'm mistaken, my bad, but I'm pretty sure I'm not inventing that.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 10, 2015)

Steve said:


> The video title I saw said wrestler.  If I'm mistaken, my bad, but I'm pretty sure I'm not inventing that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just double-checked. It says Wing Chun Kung Fu Takedown Counter. No mention of wrestling.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 10, 2015)

I don't think it would fly against these guys. 
But against an unskilled opponent on the street, yes.

If they brought in some top tier judoka and practiced a lot, with them, it would work more than it wouldnt.


----------



## Steve (Nov 10, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just double-checked. It says Wing Chun Kung Fu Takedown Counter. No mention of wrestling.


Alright.  I feel better then. If we are talking about techniques against untrained people, what the heck.  Everything's on the table.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 10, 2015)

Steve said:


> I have no way of knowing that.  I am commenting on what was posted, which was a defense against a wing chin guy doing a poor double leg takedown.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The biggest problem is that there is no one size fits all technique for those types of scenarios. 
That technique only works when there is an opportunity to seize the back of the neck. The technique works but it's going to be rare that a person will be able to recognize the opportunity fast enough before the opponent changes position making the technique  useless. 
The opportunity to use this technique increases as the opponent becomes tired.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 10, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> I don't think it would fly against these guys.
> But against an unskilled opponent on the street, yes.
> 
> If they brought in some top tier judoka and practiced a lot, with them, it would work more than it wouldnt.


correct. It wouldn't  work on those techniques. The technique that he shows is only effective against someone who hasn't  closed the distance. It's not a one size fits all technique.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 10, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> That technique only works when there is an opportunity to seize the back of the neck. The technique works but it's going to be rare that a person will be able to recognize the opportunity fast enough before the opponent changes position making the technique  useless.



Agreed. One of the purposes of forms is to drill techniques until they are installed into the autonomic subconscious neural level. Instinctively reactive with muscle memory. The subconscious recognizes and the body reacts as trained.

The force of repetition is what makes tricky things doable in a real fight.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 11, 2015)

My thought is that everyone doing WC should mix in training defense against some thug-like tackles, so even if you have no intent to grapple - as a WC guy you don't freeze up when someone shoots in and you are trying to punch thin air in a super rigid upright stance like some of these competition videos show. 
Sprawl or drive the rear leg back, drive your jum sau forearm into their collar bone region to keep them further away from your legs if possible, alternatively control the back of their head and drive them downward if they've gotten in, or redirect and transition into a better position. Might be crude compared to training in a grappling art but its a start and useful in a lot of self defense scenarios.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 11, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's a perfectly cromulent defense against an untrained football tackle. As long as they don't claim it's effective against a trained wrestler, I have no problem with it.



Sprawl underhook crossface works against a football tackle as well.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 11, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've seen white belts with poor wrestling skills get overexcited in sparring and perform shoots that bad. The video shows pretty much what you do to show them why they need to improve their takedown technique.
> 
> (Assuming you want to keep it standing and not just sprawl on them.)



If you want to be Barry stand up.  You also need to know how to force the other guy into commiting bad takedowns. 

Forward pressure and long combinations of strikes make takedowns easier.  Mostly.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Sprawl underhook crossface works against a football tackle as well.


Yep. If I want to stay close and dominate the grappling range I'll do that. If I want to keep my distance and strike, the defense shown works against untrained tackles.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 11, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> There are some grappling escapes that don't require for me to punch or grab my opponent in order to break his hold.


Let me clarify. You're either grappling striking or you're Houdini 'The Master of Escapes'. Better?


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 11, 2015)

drop bear said:


> If you want to be Barry stand up.  You also need to know how to force the other guy into commiting bad takedowns.
> 
> *Forward pressure *and long combinations of strikes make takedowns easier.  Mostly.


Like only moving forward? Cause.... Forward intent as is constant pressure with out a barrage of strikes but instead a fight for positioning makes takedown attempts go away for me. With that recipe I collapse or like my teacher says "crumble" the takedown'iers structure and stop it dead in its tracks. He likes to say we don't break your structure we crumble it. It's wrasslerr an jujitsu tested. Boneified takedowns. Not pretend. Does this mean I can't be taken down? No. I might go down with your arm though. Cause that's my arm and I'm breaking things as we  go down. I purposely didn't use the S word. But the sprawl is essentially what I mean. WC has this body mechanic. Its just not surface layer stuff. Its a few layers in and missed by most.... Think about it, a MA that doesn't have an answer for the shoot? Sounds ludicrous too me! The sprawl is in the first form of WC. I was just shown this. This is why I post here now to spread the gospel ( really just to pay homage to my teacher and his teaching)..I just learned this last week. Ok really last month but same same. Cause it's COMBAT WING CHUN SUCKERS !!!! Haha


----------



## geezer (Nov 11, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> *The sprawl is in the first form of WC.* I was just shown this. This is why I post here now to spread the gospel ( really just to pay homage to my teacher and his teaching)..I just learned this last week. Ok really last month but same same.



Excuse me? The _sprawl_ is in SNT form? That's crazy? _Who_ told you that??? Was it Jeff ...or Martin? And besides doesn't it tick you off that those guys, neither of whom are 'Chunners, can teach you all this crazy stuff about WC?

...And what's more, you learned this sometime in the_ last month_, ...precisely when I've been too far behind at work to make the 30 mile drive (each way) to work out with you guys. I find that _very _ suspicious. Fortunately, this next Saturday is the big FMA gathering in Phoenix, at Encanto Park. Martin and Jeff are both on the list of instructors demonstrating. Tiny will probably be there too. _And so will I_. So anyway, _*Bub, *_you can bet I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. I don't care if it's WC, DTE, or the freakin' Iluminati. 

Oh and how's this strike you: _The inner Jake revealed!

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...er_Jake.png/revision/latest?cb=20120825091319_


----------



## Danny T (Nov 11, 2015)

geezer said:


> Excuse me? The _sprawl_ is in SNT form? That's crazy? _Who_ told you that??? Was it Jeff ...or Martin? And besides doesn't it tick you off that those guys, neither of whom are 'Chunners, can teach you all this crazy stuff about WC?
> 
> ...And what's more, you learned this sometime in the_ last month_, ...precisely when I've been too far behind at work to make the 30 mile drive (each way) to work out with you guys. I find that _very _ suspicious. Fortunately, this next Saturday is the big FMA gathering in Phoenix, at Encanto Park. Martin and Jeff are both on the list of instructors demonstrating. Tiny will probably be there too. _And so will I_. So anyway, _*Bub, *_you can bet I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. I don't care if it's WC, DTE, or the freakin' Iluminati.
> 
> ...


Whoa...
I am a rather open-minded person when it comes to the concepts in WC but the sprawl in SNT is a stretch... a long stretch. So long that I have a lot of difficulty seeing it... so much so that I don't see it at all. Even with all the sinking of the body... nope I don't see the sprawl in SNT.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 12, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> But the sprawl is essentially what I mean. WC has this body mechanic. Its just not surface layer stuff. Its a few layers in and missed by most....The sprawl is in the first form of WC.



Heck yeah it is! Nice post Jake. And quite correct. When you eliminate lineal thinking, WC opens up wide. I learned this 1st form jewel many years ago. 
Keep posting Jake!


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 12, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Whoa...
> I am a rather open-minded person when it comes to the concepts in WC but the sprawl in SNT is a stretch... a long stretch. So long that I have a lot of difficulty seeing it... so much so that I don't see it at all. Even with all the sinking of the body... nope I don't see the sprawl in SNT.


I dunno about SNT, but I see a potential "sprawl" application from the Chum Kiu step practiced in the front kick / double tan / double low bong portion of the form.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 12, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> I dunno about SNT, but I see a potential "sprawl" application from the Chum Kiu step practiced in the front kick / double tan / double low bong portion of the form.



Just the whole concept of CK would not rule out a sprawl as a last ditch maneuver to avoid a take down.
SNT teaches body unity...among other things of course, whereas CK teaches how to move the unified body through space, whether to nullify force from an incoming attack or to multiply your own force into an attack


----------



## Danny T (Nov 12, 2015)

Spraw potential in CK and in BJ; agreed.


----------



## geezer (Nov 12, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Spraw potential in CK and in BJ; agreed.



Personally I think it's "a stretch" to find the sprawl in any of the forms. On the other hand, the IMO a sprawl  is the "last best hope" to counter a shoot, and I feel it is a logical extension of basic WC principles and structure, especially maintaining forward intent and pressure though the stance and hips. And this is at the core of SNT.

So to summarize: SNT teaches forward pressure from pelvis/hips. A sprawl uses this same kind of pressure downwards, towards an opponent's center. So to me that means the sprawl is consistent with WC. It does not mean that the sprawl is literally in our forms. As you said, the _potential_ is there.

Now _Jake_... if I'm wrong, get back on here and set me straight!


----------



## geezer (Nov 12, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> When you eliminate lineal thinking..



Wait... do me_ linear_ thinking? 'Cause people tell me I moved beyond linear thinking ages ago.

OK, actually they tell me I'm totally random and make no sense, but I think it sounds better the way I phrased it.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 12, 2015)

geezer said:


> Personally I think it's "a stretch" to find the sprawl in any of the forms. On the other hand, the IMO a sprawl  is the "last best hope" to counter a shoot, and I feel it is a logical extension of basic WC principles and structure, especially maintaining forward intent and pressure though the stance and hips. And this is at the core of SNT.
> 
> So to summarize: SNT teaches forward pressure from pelvis/hips. A sprawl uses this same kind of pressure downwards, towards an opponent's center. So to me that means the sprawl is consistent with WC. It does not mean that the sprawl is literally in our forms. As you said, the _potential_ is there.
> 
> Now _Jake_... if I'm wrong, get back on here and set me straight!


Ok, I'll give in on that when knowing other parts of the system and viewing SNT as an all encompassing reference for the system as a whole, then yes sprawl potential is there. The concept or idea of using what one learns within SNT about intent and pressure through the hips and the leg positioning in the stance can be utilized for numerous applications but that sprawl is in SNT alone... I don't see it. As to applications being literally within the forms... my opinion is there there are far more not shown than that are. The practitioner with a openness to experiment must play with their ideas of what is applicable and when is it applicable. There are far more uses of the movements and positions than what many see or know of.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 12, 2015)

Danny T said:


> y opinion is there there are far more not shown than that are. The practitioner with a openness to experiment must play with their ideas of what is applicable and when is it applicable. There are far more uses of the movements and positions than what many see or know of.


 I agree 100%


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 13, 2015)

geezer said:


> ...it is a logical extension of basic WC principles and structure...
> ...So to me that means the sprawl is consistent with WC. It does not mean that the sprawl is literally in our forms. As you said, the _potential_ is there.



Correct. 

I think most WC'ers would agree that having to be in a situation where we sprawl isn't desirable; but reacting with a sprawl is consistent with WC's basic idea of not fighting force against force, etc. 

The forms and ideas within, when used either on your back, on your face, or on your side, are quite interesting and deserve to be explored.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 13, 2015)

I find the tenant of not fighting force with force to be a good one, but for myself I don't view it as an absolute.

WC stipulated not to train to fight force against force because the opponent maybe stronger and that would work against you.

WC also doesn't gamble, and is pretty conservative.

And while this is true *no force vs force* equals ideal path, sometimes, if you are significantly stonger, and force vs force is the shorter route to ending the fight. 

I place a caveat that force vs force is viable when two conditions are present.

1. Strength mismatch in your favor.
2. Ability to successfully misdirection, and deceptive subterfuge are present.

If one is stronger then the opponent,  and fools the opponent in believing the opposite is true... well lets just say the application is wide and deep.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 13, 2015)

geezer said:


> Excuse me? The _sprawl_ is in SNT form? That's crazy? _Who_ told you that??? Was it Jeff ...or Martin? And besides doesn't it tick you off that those guys, neither of whom are 'Chunners, can teach you all this crazy stuff about WC?
> 
> ...And what's more, you learned this sometime in the_ last month_, ...precisely when I've been too far behind at work to make the 30 mile drive (each way) to work out with you guys. I find that _very _ suspicious. Fortunately, this next Saturday is the big FMA gathering in Phoenix, at Encanto Park. Martin and Jeff are both on the list of instructors demonstrating. Tiny will probably be there too. _And so will I_. So anyway, _*Bub, *_you can bet I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. I don't care if it's WC, DTE, or the freakin' Iluminati.
> 
> ...


I won't ... I'm signed up with my lovely wife to assist with the WipeOut run in Phoenix. So Sorry
I will not see you tomorrow Steve....Martin FWIW!!! I'm going to tell him you said he's not a chunner. You better be in disguise tomorrow.. Hahaha!  He'll probably take it as a compliment? He is a MA genius IMO. Thanks for turning me onto DTE STEVEY!... For reals, he showed me where SLT has the sprawl.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 13, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Spraw potential in CK and in BJ; agreed.


I think it's potentially in multiple places. Although I've only been shown where it's in the first form.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 13, 2015)

geezer said:


> Personally I think it's "a stretch" to find the sprawl in any of the forms. On the other hand, the IMO a sprawl  is the "last best hope" to counter a shoot, and I feel it is a logical extension of basic WC principles and structure, especially maintaining forward intent and pressure though the stance and hips. And this is at the core of SNT.
> 
> So to summarize: SNT teaches forward pressure from pelvis/hips. A sprawl uses this same kind of pressure downwards, towards an opponent's center. So to me that means the sprawl is consistent with WC. It does not mean that the sprawl is literally in our forms. As you said, the _potential_ is there.
> 
> Now _Jake_... if I'm wrong, get back on here and set me straight!


You're wrong dang it!! You're almost 60 right? Didn't you're generation used to say. " Open you're mind man" " free you're mind brother". You must of not smoked enough weed in the 70's? It's never to late lol... It's about idea's Steve. The first form is full of little idea's... Pull back the layers  buddy...Pulling back the layers. That's what it's all about. Have fun tomorrow. I want to make one of those gatherings eventually.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 13, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Ok, I'll give in on that when knowing other parts of the system and viewing SNT as an all encompassing reference for the system as a whole, then yes sprawl potential is there. The concept or idea of using what one learns within SNT about intent and pressure through the hips and the leg positioning in the stance can be utilized for numerous applications *but that sprawl is in SNT alone... I don't see it.* As to applications being literally within the forms... my opinion is there there are far more not shown than that are. The practitioner with a openness to experiment must play with their ideas of what is applicable and when is it applicable. There are far more uses of the movements and positions than what many see or know of.


The idea is. Maybe it's just that, an idea, IDK? But, like I said, I was shown where it IS or can be.

I know all the forms. But there is something interesting to me about the first form. It always draws me back to it for reference. I'll be shown something and I'll have a lightbulb, aww hah moment. It always seems to lead me back to  SLT/SNT? I can't really  explain it?


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 16, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> The idea is. Maybe it's just that, an idea, IDK? But, like I said, I was shown where it IS or can be.
> 
> I know all the forms. But there is something interesting to me about the first form. It always draws me back to it for reference. I'll be shown something and I'll have a lightbulb, aww hah moment. It always seems to lead me back to  SLT/SNT? I can't really  explain it?



I have trouble seeing a sprawl in WC's SNT as is violates self centerline/center of gravity principles, but I'd like to see it before I make any final call on it. Is there a vid explaining the linkage anywhere?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 16, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> But there is something interesting to me about the first form. It always draws me back to it for reference. I'll be shown something and I'll have a lightbulb, aww hah moment. It always seems to lead me back to  SLT/SNT? I can't really  explain it?


SNT is the beginner form and as one learns other parts of the system when returning to SNT it is referenced there. After learning and gaining a understanding of the whole system one should realize SNT is the most advanced form for it is the reference book for the whole system.


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 16, 2015)

Correct


----------



## JPinAZ (Nov 19, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> Agreed. One of the purposes of forms is to drill techniques until they are installed into the autonomic subconscious neural level. Instinctively reactive with muscle memory. The subconscious recognizes and the body reacts as trained.
> 
> The force of repetition is what makes tricky things doable in a real fight.



I agree with the first part on it's own. And maybe it was just an oversight or I misread you, but there is a significant difference between solo form drilling and application drilling. If you only do form drilling, yes the mechanics and positions are ingrained in the body, but they won't come out instinctively/'body reacts' unless extensively against outside stimulus via partner drilling.


----------



## geezer (Nov 19, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> I agree with the first part on it's own. And maybe it was just an oversight or I misread you, but there is a significant difference between solo form drilling and application drilling. If you only do form drilling, yes the mechanics and positions are ingrained in the body, but they won't come out instinctively/'body reacts' unless extensively against outside stimulus via partner drilling.



Yep. You can try to imagine an opponent's force when you do a form, but it is all just in your head, and your muscles can't respond the way they will to _actual physical pressure_, unpredictable timing, changing angles, and so forth. That's why drilling, and especially,_ chi-sau_ is so important in WC training. Most other systems have some form of training to address this, such as _push hands_ in taijiquan, _kakie_ in Goju, and _hubud_ in FMA, etc.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 23, 2016)

Just some notes out of streetfighting. If the attack is waist or below, boot to the face. Higher then the waist, flow with the attack, grab them by the shoulders, fall back, tuck your knees kick 'em in the stomach. Against the standing grapple? Do you usually just let your opponant just do whatever they want? Control the arms, then strike. What are they going to do, fall on you? Grapple with their teeth? Aside from the anti-tackle falling down, I've seen all of the rest of this in wing chun you tube videos. If a wing chun guy, can't boot a guy in the face, ehh, I guess I understand. But if he can't control the arms... he's just plain screwing around.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 23, 2016)

Lameman said:


> Just some notes out of streetfighting. If the attack is waist or below, boot to the face. Higher then the waist, flow with the attack, grab them by the shoulders, fall back, tuck your knees kick 'em in the stomach. Against the standing grapple? Do you usually just let your opponant just do whatever they want? Control the arms, then strike. What are they going to do, fall on you? Grapple with their teeth? Aside from the anti-tackle falling down, I've seen all of the rest of this in wing chun you tube videos. If a wing chun guy, can't boot a guy in the face, ehh, I guess I understand. But if he can't control the arms... he's just plain screwing around.



All situations are different, but as a rule I wouldn't kick a guy who is coming in to take me down.
You are giving him your leg which can become a handle/lever used to take you down, you are on one leg so his takedown will be easier, and you have reduced your mobility.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 23, 2016)

yak sao said:


> All situations are different, but as a rule I wouldn't kick a guy who is coming in to take me down.
> You are giving him your leg which can become a handle/lever used to take you down, you are on one leg so his takedown will be easier, and you have reduced your mobility.


--------------------------
Good point-yak sao


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2016)

Cross-face

Overhook.

Sprawl.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 24, 2016)

As a personal rule, kicking is only used defencively, against an opponant, who cannot defend against it. I have used all of the above in actual fights. Like a quick jab, a quick, straightforward kick against a distracted opponant will often get through and is hard to attack. Further, The leg is, typically, stronger then the arm. If they do grab, you can usually pull it away. But if they are diving in, their focus is elsewhere, they have too much forward momentum to dodge, its an odd grabbing angle, and they are probably not going to be able to stop it even if they do grab it. Getting kicked in the face can be very distracting. Now, not recomending this against a close fighter, control the arms and then strike. Mainly, you are talking about grappling a grappler. First, my strength against their weakness. Second, my weakness against their weakness. Third, my strength against their strength. And only out of desperation, my weakness against their strength. Don't play his game, make him play yours.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2016)

Lameman said:


> As a personal rule, kicking is only used defencively, against an opponant, who cannot defend against it. I have used all of the above in actual fights. Like a quick jab, a quick, straightforward kick against a distracted opponant will often get through and is hard to attack. Further, The leg is, typically, stronger then the arm. If they do grab, you can usually pull it away. But if they are diving in, their focus is elsewhere, they have too much forward momentum to dodge, its an odd grabbing angle, and they are probably not going to be able to stop it even if they do grab it. Getting kicked in the face can be very distracting. Now, not recomending this against a close fighter, control the arms and then strike. Mainly, you are talking about grappling a grappler. First, my strength against their weakness. Second, my weakness against their weakness. Third, my strength against their strength. And only out of desperation, my weakness against their strength. Don't play his game, make him play yours.



Not really. 
You are trading a high percentage defence for a low percentage one on the theory that nobody will expect you to kick.

There is a reason nobody expects you to kick. That is because it is one of the worst choices you could do.

Now if you were a gun grappler and knew what you were doing you could get away with all sorts of unpredictable stuff like kicking or whatever. But for everyone else you are better off learning the basics that work the best.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 24, 2016)

In street fighting there are 4 things you never do. You never needlessly escalate a situation. You never go to ground. You never commit to a grapple. ( I almost exclusivly use open handed, pressure based grappling and if I do grab, I grab thumb up, only with the four fingers) You never kick. The trumping rule is, most of the time, if you are fighting intelligently, you win because you catch your opponant off guard. We are talking about pico seconds. You are fighting against their instincts. If they don't have a preprogrammed responce to something, fireing from the nervous system... they are a sitting target. I'm not saying go out and do something you don't know what you are doing. I'm sure wing chun has plenty of options. But if a grappler wants to grapple, he's on his home turf, playing his own game. Betting limited skill against someone who knows what they are doing, you are probably going to lose. Don't get into a situation thinking, one or two techniques, will defeat their years of experience and training. Its a bad gamble either way. You are better off, crossing your fingers, doing something unexpected, and sticking to what you know. Attack his weaknesses, not his strengths.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 24, 2016)

Sorry for the double post, I assume the sprawl is the guy on top? He is in a very volnerable posistion, especially if his opponant isn't fighting fair. From there, you grapple? Make 'em piss blood? Hope that your grappling is better then his, like he hasn't trained for this? When you have options to simply not grapple. Maybe instead of pitting your weaknesses against his strengths, you put your strengths against his weaknesses.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 24, 2016)

Lameman said:


> Sorry for the double post, I assume the sprawl is the guy on top? He is in a very volnerable posistion, especially if his opponant isn't fighting fair. From there, you grapple? Make 'em piss blood? Hope that your grappling is better then his, like he hasn't trained for this? When you have options to simply not grapple. Maybe instead of pitting your weaknesses against his strengths, you put your strengths against his weaknesses.



Problem being that your strengths are your weaknesses. You think kicking someone going in for a takedown is a strength of yours, it is rather your weakness because just like you assume you are a better kicker/boxer than them, they assume they are a better grappler than you. As such they will assume you counter their grappling with kicks or punches.

If A) They are not such good grapplers, so you can suprise them with kicks. Then you can also defeat them by using basics of grappling. However if B) They are experienced grapplers, they will know how to handle those kicks and punches. You will go down to the floor hard if not learning what they do and how to counter it properly.

So you have an option where you hope they are not experienced so you can kick them, taking chances. Rather than doing a sound move and assume that against all odds your opponent actually knows what to do.

Not saying you need to play a grappling game. There are other things one can do, such as keeping distance forcing them to charge or stretch in order to reach you. This will be another game in itself.


----------



## geezer (Mar 24, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Cross-face
> 
> Overhook.
> 
> Sprawl.



I learned this when I was a kid. It stuck with me all these years and it still works for me. IMO it's something every WC guy should know.


And they should practice the "street: versions... i.e. forget what the coach in the video says about placing the cross-face "...gently across the nose..." . No, in self defense, that crossface is a forearm _strike_. It should move his nose across his face like Daffy Duck's beak!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 24, 2016)

Phobius said:


> kicking someone going in for a takedown...


IMO, a kick can be a free gift to an experienced wrestler. A wrestler may have to try very hard to get your leg. Now you just give your leg to him for free. He only have to perform 1/2 of his task this way.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 24, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, a kick can be a free gift to an experienced wrestler. A wrestler may have to try very hard to get your leg. Now you just give your leg to him for free. He only have to perform 1/2 of his task this way.


------------------------------
Correct


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 24, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, a kick can be a free gift to an experienced wrestler. A wrestler may have to try very hard to get your leg. Now you just give your leg to him for free. He only have to perform 1/2 of his task this way.



Conversely, since they are an experienced _*wrestler*_, they may well have little or no experience coping with strikes. An experienced striker ought to be able to deliver kicks that are not all that easy to catch.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 24, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Conversely, since they are an experienced _*wrestler*_, they may well have little or no experience coping with strikes. An experienced striker ought to be able to deliver kicks that are not all that easy to catch.



Perhaps, but as a striker you should also know potential downsides to using a particular technique in a given circumstance.
As an example, a chi na master is not able to execute every single technique at will, instead he knows from countless repetition when it is the proper time to execute the given technique


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 24, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Conversely, since they are an experienced _*wrestler*_, they may well have little or no experience coping with strikes. An experienced striker ought to be able to deliver kicks that are not all that easy to catch.


I like to

- kick a boxer, and
- punch a wrestler.

- Boxer like to use high stance with hands near their faces that's good at dealing with punches.
- Wrestlers like to use low stance with hands near their knees that's good at dealing with kicks.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> Conversely, since they are an experienced _*wrestler*_, they may well have little or no experience coping with strikes. An experienced striker ought to be able to deliver kicks that are not all that easy to catch.



Not from there.  As the high percentage defence from a kick is to take people down. So he can still just do what he is comfortable doing. 

Kicks from other positions work.  But judt not to stuff a take down.

You are actually helping the guy.


----------



## Lameman (Mar 24, 2016)

I have used it successfully in fights against experienced wrestlers. I've even used it in friendly contests where they knew it was coming and the only thing they had to do was catch or counter. Then again, we are not talking about just going out an doing this, at that time I had had over a decade daily practice. Let me throw out a story. Sometimes, I like to fall to my back, use my shoulders as a base, and then kick. Great when it works... One fight, I wasn't thinking. I was fighting a wrestler, but we were boxing. Or close there to. Anyway, I'm not making any headway, so I figured try and catch him off guard. Dropped to my back kicked him in the stomach and the next thing I know, I'm in an ankle lock. He got a black eye for his trouble, but my ankle has never been the same since. No matter what you do in a fight. You are going to take some risk. If you are thinking about what you are doing, you know your opponant, and you know your own capapbilities. You are probably going to be okay. Not taking the fight seriously, screwing around, not paying attention, you are going to get injured for life.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 24, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, a kick can be a free gift to an experienced wrestler. A wrestler may have to try very hard to get your leg. Now you just give your leg to him for free. He only have to perform 1/2 of his task this way.



Wow that was a weird quoting you did of what I said. Completely out of context and it became a meaning that I never wrote in the first place. Good job.


----------

