# Cheun Sau



## KPM (May 10, 2017)

Do other lineages outside of TWC have Cheun/Tseun Sau?  It translates as "threading hand." 

While it can look like a Biu Sau, Cheun Sau is actually something separate in the TWC system.  It is used to transition safely from one side of an opponent's arm to the other, or just to close in while maintaining control of the opponent's arm. 

Here are some examples from Phil Redmond:
















I've seen other Wing Chun lineages do something similar, but they usually just consider it Biu Sau.  Just curious if any other lineages break it out and gives it the emphasis that TWC does.   Anyone?


----------



## wingchun100 (May 10, 2017)

I can see how it would be taken as Biu Sao. Personally I would like to see more of how it would get used in a chi sao/sparring type of situation.


----------



## DanT (May 10, 2017)

We use it quite frequently but call it Biu Sao.


----------



## DanT (May 10, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> I can see how it would be taken as Biu Sao. Personally I would like to see more of how it would get used in a chi sao/sparring type of situation.


Opponent throws a left straight punch, you respond with a right biu sao inside of his arm, then you use your left biu sao quickly to transition to the outside gate. The switch has to be quick otherwise the arm wont be there.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 10, 2017)

DanT said:


> Opponent throws a left straight punch, you respond with a right biu sao inside of his arm, then you use your left biu sao quickly to transition to the outside gate. The switch has to be quick otherwise the arm wont be there.


 
That is what I was thinking too, but I was having trouble visualizing it.


----------



## LFJ (May 10, 2017)

DanT said:


> Opponent throws a left straight punch, you respond with a right biu sao inside of his arm, then you use your left biu sao quickly to transition to the outside gate. The switch has to be quick otherwise the arm wont be there.



To do this transition quickly enough before the punch is retracted, you must have had the idea to go to the outside from the start, otherwise there's no time to make such a decision and act.

So, why not just go to the outside first? What's the point of trying to do a two-step, two-arm, inside-outside thing to a single punch?


----------



## ShortBridge (May 10, 2017)

I concur with some of the other comments, this hand is familiar to us, but I've not heard that term before.


----------



## Callen (May 10, 2017)

KPM said:


> Do other lineages outside of TWC have Cheun/Tseun Sau? It translates as "threading hand."


I've never heard of this term. The first two videos show the same concept, looking much like a Biu Sau, while the third video seems slightly different in application.


----------



## KPM (May 10, 2017)

Here is another example:






You'll notice this time that it looks like Phil is just doing a Lop Sau.  This is because the Cheun Sau is a transition move.  If you Cheun and then extend the arm, it becomes a Biu.  If you Cheun and keep it tight it can become a Lop or a Fook.  Cheun means "threading"....you are threading one arm past the other to change the line or gain control of the opponent's arm.  

I think this is why it is considered a separate technique in TWC and given its own name.  It isn't specifically a Biu Sau, as you see in this example.  It isn't specifically a Lop Sau either.  It is the hand switch or transition that changes the line.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 10, 2017)

KPM said:


>


That's called "switching hands".

- You use right arm to block your opponent's punch.
- Use your left arm to take over that blocking.
- Free your right arm.
- You then strike your right hand again.

If you then

- Change your right striking hand into a blocking hand, and
- Punch your left hand.

that will be called "double switching hands".

This hand skill exist in almost all the CMA systems such as WC, long fist, preying mantis, Baji, Taiji, Bagua, ...


----------



## wckf92 (May 10, 2017)

Seems odd he emphasizes to "not let go" during this chuen sao transition, yet he does so when he does his lop'ing & pak'ing & stepping, etc


----------



## DanT (May 10, 2017)

LFJ said:


> To do this transition quickly enough before the punch is retracted, you must have had the idea to go to the outside from the start, otherwise there's no time to make such a decision and act.
> 
> So, why not just go to the outside first? What's the point of trying to do a two-step, two-arm, inside-outside thing to a single punch?


You're right, you should just go to the outside first, but this technique is assuming you make a mistake and need to quickly transition to the outside gate.


----------



## DanT (May 10, 2017)

LFJ said:


> To do this transition quickly enough before the punch is retracted, you must have had the idea to go to the outside from the start, otherwise there's no time to make such a decision and act.
> 
> So, why not just go to the outside first? What's the point of trying to do a two-step, two-arm, inside-outside thing to a single punch?


Opponent fakes a right punch so you do a right Biu Sao, but then opponent punches with their left hand, you wind up on the inside gate, and then use your left Biu Sao to transition to the outside.


----------



## DanT (May 10, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Seems odd he emphasizes to "not let go" during this chuen sao transition, yet he does so when he does his lop'ing & pak'ing & stepping, etc


Those techniques are more for skill development, in application you just hold the lap or pak, you don't keep switching.


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2017)

DanT said:


> You're right, you should just go to the outside first, but this technique is assuming you make a mistake and need to quickly transition to the outside gate.





DanT said:


> Opponent fakes a right punch so you do a right Biu Sao, but then opponent punches with their left hand, you wind up on the inside gate, and then use your left Biu Sao to transition to the outside.



I can see why outside would be preferable, but why is it a mistake to be on the inside of the opponent's left with your right?

If you avoid the inside for whatever reason, and jump in to out with defensive action after defensive action, trying to get to a better position while the opponent is focused on raining punches, the percentages are not going to be in your favor.


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another example:



Seems this _cheun-sau_ transition to whatever can only be used when the arm is posed for you.
Most people tend to retract punches like in the latter bit.

His emergency "_bong_ punch" requires him to react late after he's already launched his punch, and lean his body over to take cover and roll the incoming punch away from target, but it looks like it might still land.

Not to mention, the opponent's second punch is likely to cut right through his attack before he can respond like this, anyway. Risky.

I think the problem starts with the entry, blocking a punch and returning low, then following the retracted punch straight in already puts him in a disadvantageous position, as it doesn't address the danger of the other hand.

An awkward late reaction of leaning over and flaring the arm while still trying to punch effectively seems a weak defense, the result of a strategic failure from the get-go.


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

^^^^^^ Trying to start another argument?  Go away Troll!!!


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2017)

I'm allowed to express my observations on a public forum. You don't have to agree or argue.


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I'm allowed to express my observations on a public forum. You don't have to agree or argue.



It's your typical M.O.  You never start posts on your own or freely share information.  You look for things to criticize.  If I respond to your criticisms to try and explain what is happening from at TWC perspective, you will refuse to see what I am saying, ignore the points that I make, and turn the whole thing into a convoluted argument.  That's exactly what you did on the other forum.  I'm not going to play your game this time.  Go away.


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

DanT said:


> Opponent fakes a right punch so you do a right Biu Sao, but then opponent punches with their left hand, you wind up on the inside gate, and then use your left Biu Sao to transition to the outside.



Also note the second video...the one on the beach.   There Phil is in a cross-arm Chi Sau situation, feels pressure from his opponent, and uses Cheun Sau to transition to the inside.    It can go either way.


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Seems odd he emphasizes to "not let go" during this chuen sao transition, yet he does so when he does his lop'ing & pak'ing & stepping, etc



If you are referring to the two Chi Sau application videos, that is because his opponent has moved his arm off the line with a Pak Sau  and Phil uses the Cheun Sau to recapture the line and regain some control.  A little different situation.  Like John pointed out, the concept here is an exchange or "switching" of hands.  You "thread" the second hand through and try to keep it as tight as possible, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

DanT said:


> You're right, you should just go to the outside first, but this technique is assuming you make a mistake and need to quickly transition to the outside gate.



Or that the distance and angling are just not favorable for you to go directly to the outside.  So using the Cheun Sau allows you to get to the outside more safely than trying to go there directly from a less than favorable position.


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> It's your typical M.O.  You never start posts on your own or freely share information.  You look for things to criticize.  If I respond to your criticisms to try and explain what is happening from at TWC perspective, you will refuse to see what I am saying, ignore the points that I make, and turn the whole thing into a convoluted argument.  That's exactly what you did on the other forum.  I'm not going to play your game this time.  Go away.



It's just discussion. You're not obligated to engage, but nor am I obligated to "see what you're saying" if I don't agree with it.

If you're looking for only agreement or validation, maybe post on a private forum.


----------



## DanT (May 11, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I can see why outside would be preferable, but why is it a mistake to be on the inside of the opponent's left with your right?
> 
> If you avoid the inside for whatever reason, and jump in to out with defensive action after defensive action, trying to get to a better position while the opponent is focused on raining punches, the percentages are not going to be in your favor.


Depends on the style of wing chun you study. Many wing chun systems prefer to fight on the outside gate and will accordingly use a single transition to the outside. If you stay in the middle and the opponent is raining punches on you, you'll probably wind up trading blows anyways. Thus many systems see the value of finding a method to escape to the outside (a safer position).


----------



## DanT (May 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> Or that the distance and angling are just not favorable for you to go directly to the outside.  So using the Cheun Sau allows you to get to the outside more safely than trying to go there directly from a less than favorable position.


True


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2017)

DanT said:


> Depends on the style of wing chun you study. Many wing chun systems prefer to fight on the outside gate and will accordingly use a single transition to the outside.



The VT system I train also prefers outside, but we must know how to fight on the inside.
Often, the opportunity to take the outside line with a direct attack will present itself.

Unless a mistake like crossing oneself has been made (e.g. right inside right) requiring immediate switch, there is no reason to jump from defensive action on the inside to another defensive action on the outside, like _biu biu _against the same arm, and even when switching it will preferably be with an attacking action.



> If you stay in the middle and the opponent is raining punches on you, you'll probably wind up trading blows anyways. Thus many systems see the value of finding a method to escape to the outside (a safer position).



It's just that in your example, right _biu_ to the inside of the opponent's left punch, from my perspective you are not in a particularly poor position that needs escaping from. In may be the very next punch that takes you to the outside line.

Worrying about this gate or that gate and how to escape unnecessarily from here to there with this hand or that hand technique in the heat of a fight is highly problematic. 

The problem being thinking and the time gap between registering options, decision and action.
For this reason, in my approach, we work direct from where we are and try not to make gate jumps except via attack. 

That means an intuitive method that cuts back on things that require thinking and decision making when there is little to no time for that.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 11, 2017)

Ah the eternal "inside versus outside" debate.

INSIDE: You have more targets, but the opponent can reach you with more attacks.

OUTSIDE: You have closed them off so they can attack only from one side. (Attacks from the other side would be ridiculously telegraphed.) However, you have also limited your number of targets.

Which is better? In my opinion that depends on your skill level. Higher skill means you can handle yourself just fine on the inside gate. However, if you feel you are a little shaky on the defense, then outside would be better.


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Which is better? In my opinion that depends on your skill level. Higher skill means you can handle yourself just fine on the inside gate. However, if you feel you are a little shaky on the defense, then outside would be better.



For me, outside is preferred simply from a standpoint of percentages.

But you absolutely have to know how to fight on the inside, too, and shouldn't avoid training it or resort to escapes to the outside when your position is not necessarily compromised. You could end up in worse position for changing/ trying to change!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 11, 2017)

LFJ said:


> To do this transition quickly enough before the punch is retracted, you must have had the idea to go to the outside from the start, otherwise there's no time to make such a decision and act.
> 
> So, why not just go to the outside first? What's the point of trying to do a two-step, two-arm, inside-outside thing to a single punch?


The situation can be changed by your opponent. You intend to enter through his 'front door". But situation has changed and make that difficult.

IMO, you switch from the "front door" into the "side door" may have the following reasons:

1. Your opponent's left punching arm puts pressure on your right blocking arm. It moves your right arm to your left and force your right leading right arm to jam your left back arm. You then borrow his force, use "switch hand" and help his left arm to move to your left more than he wants to.

2. Your opponent's leading left leg moves to your left. This makes your "front door" entry difficult. You then decide to enter through his "left side door" instead.


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

*INSIDE: You have more targets, but the opponent can reach you with more attacks.

OUTSIDE: You have closed them off so they can attack only from one side. (Attacks from the other side would be ridiculously telegraphed.) However, you have also limited your number of targets.*

---I agree with this part Steve.

*Which is better? In my opinion that depends on your skill level. Higher skill means you can handle yourself just fine on the inside gate. However, if you feel you are a little shaky on the defense, then outside would be better.*

---This part....I think it is more a matter of fighting smart than whether someone has good defensive skill or not.  If you are on the inside and "going up the middle" you are going to have to deal with both of the opponent's arms.  Sure, you have more targets, but then so does he!  And its just the law of percentages....the more shots he gets off, the more likely that some are going to land regardless of your defensive skill level!  Working on the outside when possible is just a safer place to be.  And the targets aren't that limited...unless all you do is a Wing Chun chain punch!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> If you are on the inside and "going up the middle" you are going to have to deal with both of the opponent's arms.


The major concern in that position is not to let your opponent's arm to wrap around your waist.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> *INSIDE: You have more targets, but the opponent can reach you with more attacks.
> 
> OUTSIDE: You have closed them off so they can attack only from one side. (Attacks from the other side would be ridiculously telegraphed.) However, you have also limited your number of targets.*
> 
> ...


 
Hey now, don't mock the Wing Chun chain punch. Don't you know that's the unbeatable technique???


----------



## DanT (May 11, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The VT system I train also prefers outside, but we must know how to fight on the inside.
> Often, the opportunity to take the outside line with a direct attack will present itself.
> 
> Unless a mistake like crossing oneself has been made (e.g. right inside right) requiring immediate switch, there is no reason to jump from defensive action on the inside to another defensive action on the outside, like _biu biu _against the same arm, and even when switching it will preferably be with an attacking action.
> ...


Biu can also be a strike, and I agree, you can fight on the inside, this movement provides you with the choice to move to the outside if you want to. The more options the better right?


----------



## KPM (May 11, 2017)

DanT said:


> Biu can also be a strike, and I agree, you can fight on the inside, this movement provides you with the choice to move to the outside if you want to. The more options the better right?



And as I pointed out before, you can also use Cheun Sau to move to the inside line!


----------



## DanT (May 11, 2017)

KPM said:


> And as I pointed out before, you can also use Cheun Sau to move to the inside line!


Yup you could


----------



## Callen (May 11, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Which is better? In my opinion that depends on your skill level. Higher skill means you can handle yourself just fine on the inside gate. However, if you feel you are a little shaky on the defense, then outside would be better.


If you need to go outside, then go outside. If the situation dictates that you move to the inside, then do so. The system prepares us to be adaptive and implement intuitive actions from where we are. IMO proper training should reflect this concept.


----------



## ShortBridge (May 11, 2017)

I was teaching this hand last week moving from outside to other outside. Gaan Sao the first hand, when the second one comes, one of the things we did was this and step/shift across to the other side. (Holding first punch static not required) 

It was one of several things from that position.

Outside = good
Inside = different good, but much more urgent


----------



## DanT (May 11, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The VT system I train also prefers outside, but we must know how to fight on the inside.
> Often, the opportunity to take the outside line with a direct attack will present itself.
> 
> Unless a mistake like crossing oneself has been made (e.g. right inside right) requiring immediate switch, there is no reason to jump from defensive action on the inside to another defensive action on the outside, like _biu biu _against the same arm, and even when switching it will preferably be with an attacking action.
> ...


You have to train the response to be immediate so you won't worry about "this gate or that gate", you just go with whatever happens.


----------



## LFJ (May 12, 2017)

DanT said:


> You have to train the response to be immediate so you won't worry about "this gate or that gate", you just go with whatever happens.



Ideally. I think everyone would agree. But this is the problem with setting up a whole gate theory.

Sitting with a guard on center and mentally dividing space into 2, 4, or 6 gates times inside or outside just leads to thinking and hesitation when you have nanoseconds to respond with the correct hand technique to the correct gate, even if you've trained responses to each gate a billion times.

Even if you aren't thinking about this gate or that gate when fighting, it's the fact that you're open from all sides and can't predict what the opponent is going to do.

No amount of training will make center guard + gate theory an intuitive method.


----------



## KPM (May 12, 2017)

^^^^^ Its not supposed to be.  It's a training method.  Like Dan said, you go with whatever happens.  If the opportunity and timing is right to move to the outside, then do so.  It's safer.  If there is no time or opportunity, then work on the inside until the there is, or until the opponent is down.   But if you haven't trained these kinds of transitions so that they are smooth and natural, then they aren't going to happen when the stress is on.  This is one reason TWC defines Cheun Sau as its "own thing", names it, trains it specifically, and even puts it in the forms.


----------



## DanT (May 12, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Ideally. I think everyone would agree. But this is the problem with setting up a whole gate theory.
> 
> Sitting with a guard on center and mentally dividing space into 2, 4, or 6 gates times inside or outside just leads to thinking and hesitation when you have nanoseconds to respond with the correct hand technique to the correct gate, even if you've trained responses to each gate a billion times.
> 
> ...


You don't think about and try to remember theory during a fight. Yes I can protect all of my gates simultaneously because I'm quick enough to.


----------



## geezer (May 12, 2017)

One thing in this discussion that resonates with me is when LFJ criticized linking defensive actions rather than maintaining offensive pressure. So if I find myself on the inside with a biu sau (we don't isolate "chuen-sau" as a separate entity), I would rather press the attack rather than "thread" the hand defensively and try to switch to the outside.

Unlike Dan T above, I'm_ not_ that fast!


----------



## DanT (May 12, 2017)

geezer said:


> One thing in this discussion that resonates with me is when LFJ criticized linking defensive actions rather than maintaining offensive pressure. So if I find myself on the inside with a biu sau (we don't isolate "chuen-sau" as a separate entity), I would rather press the attack rather than "thread" the hand defensively and try to switch to the outside.
> 
> Unlike Dan T above, I'm_ not_ that fast!


The Biu Saos still are offensive and pressuring the opponent, they are not purely defensive actions.


----------



## ShortBridge (May 12, 2017)

Attack and defense are both the same.


----------



## LFJ (May 12, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Its not supposed to be.  It's a training method.  Like Dan said, you go with whatever happens.  If the opportunity and timing is right to move to the outside, then do so.  It's safer.  If there is no time or opportunity, then work on the inside until the there is, or until the opponent is down.   But if you haven't trained these kinds of transitions so that they are smooth and natural, then they aren't going to happen when the stress is on.  This is one reason TWC defines Cheun Sau as its "own thing", names it, trains it specifically, and even puts it in the forms.



Well, good luck then.



DanT said:


> I can protect all of my gates simultaneously because I'm quick enough to.



lmao! Alright. I guess I don't have to wish you good luck then.


----------



## KPM (May 12, 2017)

geezer said:


> One thing in this discussion that resonates with me is when LFJ criticized linking defensive actions rather than maintaining offensive pressure. So if I find myself on the inside with a biu sau (we don't isolate "chuen-sau" as a separate entity), I would rather press the attack rather than "thread" the hand defensively and try to switch to the outside.
> 
> Unlike Dan T above, I'm_ not_ that fast!



Well, the problem with the other strategy is that you are pretty much assuming you can overwhelm the opponent with your onslaught of chain punches.  What if you can't?  If you aren't prepared to go on the defense (even if just briefly), then how are you going to recover the initiative if you happen to lose it during an exchange?  So if you aren't linking in defense to your offensive strategy, then you might find yourself in a bad spot!  

What if you are on the inside and that wide punch is blasting through your Biu Sau?  Rather than try to match the force, its better to be ready and able to pass it and transition to the outside if necessary.  In the process you might very well cause the attacker to over-rotate with his punch and send him off-balance a bit.  That's the idea with the Cheun Sau.  It isn't purely defensive.  It is a transition, but one that can affect the opponent in an offensive way at times.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 13, 2017)

In my opinion this technique is fantasy. It wont work the way that first video is showing.


----------



## LFJ (May 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> Well, the problem with the other strategy is that you are pretty much assuming you can overwhelm the opponent with your onslaught of chain punches.  What if you can't?



Why is that "the other strategy"?

If these are the only two options you know of, I would consider looking into some other systems or different styles completely.


----------



## KPM (May 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> If these are the only two options you know of, I would consider looking into some other systems or different styles completely.



If this is the only way you can read a discussion, then I would consider looking into some other forums rather than this one.  Because that comment is clearly just trolling for another argument.  Go away.


----------



## KPM (May 13, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> In my opinion this technique is fantasy. It wont work the way that first video is showing.



Why do you say that?  That first video actually shows what several here would call a use of Biu Sau and they have already said they have it in their lineages as well.  It seems to be pretty common.   And Phil is going slow for the camera.  In real use it is very fast.


----------



## LFJ (May 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> That first video actually shows what several here would call a use of Biu Sau and they have already said they have it in their lineages as well.  It seems to be pretty common.



Argumentum ad populum.


----------



## KPM (May 13, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Argumentum ad populum.


 
Go away Troll.


----------



## ShortBridge (May 13, 2017)

To me, this is a very simple technique and I have never had any doubt about it's usefulness in my bag o' tricks. Drills can appear and even be, very contrived and seem unrealistic. Sometimes they are, but sometimes, they're just a learning mechanism. If we insist on arguing about these things, I think it's an important distinction if we're arguing about the technique, the drill, the person in the video, or even something broader.

In practice, this technique is not really an outlier in the system(s), your elbow is in and down, you take center with forward intent and either bridge/intercept with something along the way or continue into a strike because center was open. The end. There are a great many hands in Wing Chun that work in fundamentally the same way, each maybe better in some circumstances than others, but they are all tools at the disposal of the practitioner. 

The notion of reasoning or engineering your way through an assault is misguided, whether you're talking about this hand or another one. It all comes down to flow, just like it does in any effective system. These are our tools and I have always really liked this one, though I didn't have a Chinese name for it other than Biu Sao. As for moving from inside to outside, that's really a different consideration than whether this hand is legit or not. In my worldview it is and I've used it in drills not dis-similar to these and also training with non-compliant opponents. It flows very well sometimes, when it doesn't, I don't assume it's the technique's fault, that's just something that happens in training.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 13, 2017)

I don't think transitioning between two hands and crossing something over like that will work in real time. Maybe Cheun sao will work as a parry but I can't see how you can catch with one hand, feel you can't take it, then quickly switch hands and cross to the other side all within a split second as the punch comes in then retracts and the other hand comes around.


----------



## KPM (May 13, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> I don't think transitioning between two hands and crossing something over like that will work in real time. Maybe Cheun sao will work as a parry but I can't see how you can catch with one hand, feel you can't take it, then quickly switch hands and cross to the other side all within a split second as the punch comes in then retracts and the other hand comes around.



Haven't you ever done the basic Chi Sau technique where, during the roll, you shoot your Fook hand up under your Bong hand to Lop his Fook hand and bring down as you punch with your Bong hand?  It's essentially the same thing.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> Haven't you ever done the basic Chi Sau technique where, during the roll, you shoot your Fook hand up under your Bong hand to Lop his Fook hand and bring down as you punch with your Bong hand?  It's essentially the same thing.



Yea but it's different than real fighting. I just don't see how you can cross over a full speed punch like that. You have to do 2-3 movements as fast as your opponent does 1. Also chi sao you are already in contact so that changes things already, you can react much faster than trying to see a punch and doing this movement then feeling the energy and changing to a different movement.


----------



## geezer (May 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> Haven't you ever done the basic Chi Sau technique where, during the roll, you shoot your Fook hand up under your Bong hand to Lop his Fook hand and bring down as you punch with your Bong hand?  It's essentially the same thing.



I'm with the Dude on this one. Chi sau is one thing, sparring is another. I think this is a low percentage movement. Especially at the longer range of fighting with no arm connection. The non WC/VT people I've sparred ...if they are good... with tend to retract their hands very quickly. ...or maybe _I'm_ just getting slower.

OK, make that _definitely_. I'm definitely getting slower!


----------



## ShortBridge (May 13, 2017)

I agree that chi Sao is not fighting and I agree that this is not a good choice from out of range.


----------



## DanT (May 13, 2017)

I should also add that the second Biu (even the first) could turn into a lap or punch.


----------



## KPM (May 13, 2017)

Shortbridge and Dan have it right.  It's all about range and timing. You aren't doing this by standing and waiting for a punch just so you can Cheun Sau around it. Did you miss the part where Phil states "I already have contact with his arm."??   And, man, if you are going to dismiss this basic technique in Chi Sau as irrelevant to real fighting, then you should just throw Chi Sau out completely.


----------



## wckf92 (May 13, 2017)

KPM said:


> And, man, if you are going to dismiss this basic technique in Chi Sau as irrelevant to real fighting, then you should just throw Chi Sau out completely.



Ok, wasn't going to chime in on this...but if I understand this chuen sao in chi sao thingy  correctly...to my understanding,  this 'basic technique' (KPM' s term) would be a mistake. However, perhaps KPM could post a video to further clarify (?)


----------



## KPM (May 13, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Ok, wasn't going to chime in on this...but if I understand this chuen sao in chi sao thingy  correctly...to my understanding,  this 'basic technique' (KPM' s term) would be a mistake. However, perhaps KPM could post a video to further clarify (?)



I think it's pretty much "Wing Chun 101."

The very first part here, that Sifu Spain is countering:






Also explained below:











And again....those are just one simple example of this transition or "hand switch" that the Cheun Sau teaches.  And this isn't so different than what Phil is doing in the very first video, or what Phil shows in the other videos when he is working defensively within Chi Sau.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> Shortbridge and Dan have it right.  It's all about range and timing. You aren't doing this by standing and waiting for a punch just so you can Cheun Sau around it. Did you miss the part where Phil states "I already have contact with his arm."??   And, man, if you are going to dismiss this basic technique in Chi Sau as irrelevant to real fighting, then you should just throw Chi Sau out completely.



Wel how did he get to the position of already being in contact with his arm? unless its grapplings that dude punched him and he " caught it". It doesnt look like it was in grappling range and in that first video that guy is just holding his arm out straight for him, then Phil says "if he punches" then does the demo. He catches it, says feels the vibration and switch over hands. Am I missing something? It looks like he was waiting for the right time to " cheun sao" and if it's too strong the aim is to transition over. 

I'm just saying against a strong punch that's fast, trying to catch it then feeling the energy while you're in contact and then switching over hands won't work. Maybe if you are in the clinch/close range already and you can feel it.


----------



## anerlich (May 14, 2017)

I see the threading arm as more of an upward strike than a movement to move the arm from inside to the outside. You use a bil or pak to stop the strike from hitting you then throw a separate bil or side palm strike under it and upward along the centreline. You may knock the arm out of the way and hit the guy in the head with the side palm if his structure is weak, or under the armpit / brachial plexus with the forearm if not. If his structure is strong and his arm gets in the way the threading arm lifts his elbow instead, creating an opening to the floating rib for a strike from the other hand. It works in three dimensions, not just one.

You are not thinking about pushing the arm across, but striking along the centre and slightly upwards. Unrelenting offensive forward pressure, not multiple defensive movements, not trying to manipulate the punch from one side to the other, though that still might happen.



dudewingchun said:


> I'm just saying against a strong punch that's fast, trying to catch it then feeling the energy while you're in contact and then switching over hands won't work.



I'm just saying that against a strong punch that's fast and retracted quickly, any attempt to catch it using wing chun hands won't work. As for "feeling the energy", the punch IMO can move faster than the sensation. Try to seek a bridge on a boxer with a quick jab. You see some limitations with some Wing Chun hands, I see a lot more limitations with a lot more hands than you.


----------



## LFJ (May 14, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> I'm just saying against a strong punch that's fast, trying to catch it then feeling the energy while you're in contact and then switching over hands won't work.



Many such ideas are born from playing around in _chi-sau_ and assuming you can get the same things to work in a fist fight.

Many things can be done when you've entered mutual contact in an artificial setup like _chi-sau_, but will not work against someone who _doesn't want you to touch their arms_ while they hit you.

Same goes for the idea of "_I will throw out a biu-sau (taan-sau, etc.), then it may turn into a punch if the way is free_".

This requires altered intention and hand shape after having already launched the hand defensively, which will likely result in a stutter fart and very weak punch.

An effective punch needs to have intent to hit from go.

Better, I think, to throw a real punch that can accomplish what _biu-sau_ does while being a full strike.


----------



## wckf92 (May 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> I think it's pretty much "Wing Chun 101."
> 
> The very first part here, that Sifu Spain is countering:
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting.
Yup, that is what I thought you were talking about.


----------



## KPM (May 14, 2017)

*Wel how did he get to the position of already being in contact with his arm? unless its grapplings that dude punched him and he " caught it". *

---Of course!  How does any other Wing Chun "block" work?  You make contact in some way.  Maybe the guy threw a punch and you intercepted it.  Maybe you are in grappling or Chi Sau range and made contact that way.

*It looks like he was waiting for the right time to " cheun sao" and if it's too strong the aim is to transition over.*

---Do you "wait for" the right time to Bong Sau?  Or Pak Sau?  Or Tan Sau?  This is no different!  And its a demo!  So of course he set it up so he could show the technique.


*I'm just saying against a strong punch that's fast, trying to catch it then feeling the energy while you're in contact and then switching over hands won't work. *

---As Andrew pointed out, MOST of your Wing Chun "blocks" aren't going to work against a strong fast punch that is retracted quickly.....except maybe Pak Sau.  Bong/Lop transitions aren't going to work under those conditions either!  But in a real exchange, not everyone is a skilled boxer.  And even if they where, that skilled boxer isn't going to be able to cook off fast punches the whole time.  Cheun Sau, like any other Wing Chun defensive technique, is only done when the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## LFJ (May 14, 2017)

KPM said:


> How does any other Wing Chun "block" work?  You make contact in some way.  Maybe the guy threw a punch and you intercepted it.



With a _biu-sau_ that paralyzes his arm like an electric shock and makes it stick to your arm, so you have time to _biu_ again to the other side of the same arm.  



> ---As Andrew pointed out, MOST of your Wing Chun "blocks" aren't going to work against a strong fast punch that is retracted quickly.....except maybe Pak Sau.  Bong/Lop transitions aren't going to work under those conditions either!  But in a real exchange, not everyone is a skilled boxer.  And even if they where, that skilled boxer isn't going to be able to cook off fast punches the whole time.



So, you're saying Wing Chun fails against trained punches.
It's only good for slow punches that don't get retracted quickly.

Good to know for anyone considering this method.


----------



## KPM (May 14, 2017)

^^^^^^ Go away Troll.   Everything you post is argumentative.


----------



## geezer (May 14, 2017)

I'm glad to see that LFJ is exhibiting a sense of humor!  Now as far as moving from the inside to the outside with either this chuen sau/ "threading hand", or bong-lap-sau, I think it makes a lot more sense closer in when you are responding to strong pressure.

Check out the difference between "neutral" or chi-sau range and close, clinch range in the Alan Orr clip below from about 4:30 to 5:45. BTW I never trained Alan's stuff personally. I just picked Alan's clip because he trains his WC in an MMA/boxing context more than most.






BTW Keith, do you still train Alan's material, or are you "all in" with TWC now?


----------



## anerlich (May 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Better, I think, to throw a real punch that can accomplish what _biu-sau_ does while being a full strike.



I know what you mean, but I quite like side palms myself. To my mind, bil sau and side palm are pretty much the same thing. Palm strikes tend to be a lot more forgiving on the hands than punches, plus the elbow position/energy is different. Just my take on it.


----------



## anerlich (May 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> So, you're saying Wing Chun fails against trained punches.
> It's only good for slow punches that don't get retracted quickly.



More accurate to say that "chasing hands" fails under such conditions.

The intention should be more constant attack up the centre with forward pressure. If you meet an obstacle, remove the obstacle and keep up the constant attack up the centre with forward pressure. 

If the opponent doesn't want to engage, then you don't need to engage him. If he's trying to draw a response, don't take the bait.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Wel how did he get to the position of already being in contact with his arm? unless its grapplings that dude punched him and he " caught it". *
> 
> ---Of course!  How does any other Wing Chun "block" work?  You make contact in some way.  Maybe the guy threw a punch and you intercepted it.  Maybe you are in grappling or Chi Sau range and made contact that way.
> 
> ...



I only mentioned that because you said they aren't just going to be waiting for the punch to come.


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

anerlich said:


> To my mind, bil sau and side palm are pretty much the same thing. Palm strikes tend to be a lot more forgiving on the hands than punches, plus the elbow position/energy is different. Just my take on it.



What do you mean by side palm?

For me, elbow can function the same whether striking with fist or palm.

The only difference is elbow actions can form either horizontal or vertical palms.



anerlich said:


> More accurate to say that "chasing hands" fails under such conditions.
> 
> The intention should be more constant attack up the centre with forward pressure. If you meet an obstacle, remove the obstacle and keep up the constant attack up the centre with forward pressure.
> 
> If the opponent doesn't want to engage, then you don't need to engage him. If he's trying to draw a response, don't take the bait.



I would agree with everything but "up the centre".

Doesn't seem TWC strategy agrees with that either?


----------



## JPinAZ (May 15, 2017)

Interesting discussion!



KPM said:


> Here is another example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We do something sorta similar to this, but we call it Tiu Sau because of the lifting/rising motion. IMO, this is different than the other examples you provided of TWC 'cheun sau' that are more of a spearing fwd while lifting biu sau-type shape.



KPM said:


> I think it's pretty much "Wing Chun 101."
> 
> The very first part here, that Sifu Spain is countering:



IMO, what the girl is doing as the initial 'cheun' won't work in this application _if _Sifu Spain has proper fwd energy & position with the bong hand (which are 2 things I've heard Sifu Redmond talk about repeatedly as being a major focus during TWC chi sau rolling). The only time I do see this as working at higher percentage is if Sifu Spain's bong violated this concept by crossing over center.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The VT system I train also prefers outside, but we must know how to fight on the inside.
> Often, the opportunity to take the outside line with a direct attack will present itself.
> 
> Unless a mistake like crossing oneself has been made (e.g. right inside right) requiring immediate switch, there is no reason to jump from defensive action on the inside to another defensive action on the outside, like _biu biu _against the same arm, and even when switching it will preferably be with an attacking action.
> ...



In general, I agree with this premise! 
We have a saying "WC lives & dies on the CL" . We only move offline when we have to - ie. the opponent forces us to or presents the opportunity (by crossing center for example). Otherwise, if you can maintain your reference point and  receive what comes, escort what goes without giving up position, there's no reason to move - that sounds maximally efficient to me me 



LFJ said:


> Ideally. I think everyone would agree. But this is the problem with setting up a whole gate theory.
> 
> Sitting with a guard on center and mentally dividing space into 2, 4, or 6 gates times inside or outside just leads to thinking and hesitation when you have nanoseconds to respond with the correct hand technique to the correct gate, even if you've trained responses to each gate a billion times.
> 
> ...



Actually, this doesn't make much sense and I completely dissagree. I don't think anyone is trying to 'think' about applying gate theory during application. Like anything else we do in WC, all of these responses can most surely be drilled into our reactions thru drilling and then sparring later on whether it's line theory, gate theory or box theory. In the end, these are just labels given to categorize different facing, range, position and leverage points - within a given a strategy and tactic. If you've done the proper homework, once things touch off the responses will come out pretty much on autopilot. IMO, whether one agrees with it or not, this is true even if your objective/preference is to always try to go to the blind side.


----------



## KPM (May 15, 2017)

*We do something sorta similar to this, but we call it Tiu Sau because of the lifting/rising motion. IMO, this is different than the other examples you provided of TWC 'cheun sau' that are more of a spearing fwd while lifting biu sau-type shape.*

---Cheun Sau means "threading hand", and conceptually anytime one hand "threads" past the other one to replace it this can be considered as a Cheun Sau.  But you are right that the most common way it is seen is the "spearing forward" motion, like doing a Biu Sau.

*IMO, what the girl is doing as the initial 'cheun' won't work in this application if Sifu Spain has proper fwd energy & position with the bong hand (which are 2 things I've heard Sifu Redmond talk about repeatedly as being a major focus during TWC chi sau rolling). The only time I do see this as working at higher percentage is if Sifu Spain's bong violated this concept by crossing over center.*

---I agree.  The best use for this in Chi Sau is when the opponent is crossing over center or even just trying to stay right on center.  But lots of people tend to do that in Chi Sau!    Sometimes it is because they have been taught to roll that way, and sometimes it is because they are being lazy or not paying attention.  Either way, its a good technique to be familiar with!


----------



## anerlich (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> What do you mean by side palm?
> 
> For me, elbow can function the same whether striking with fist or palm.
> 
> The only difference is elbow actions can form either horizontal or vertical palms.



I'm talking about striking with the little finger side of the palm with the palm facing down.





LFJ said:


> I would agree with everything but "up the centre".
> 
> Doesn't seem TWC strategy agrees with that either?



Didn't realise I had to be that pedantic to make a simple point.


----------



## anerlich (May 15, 2017)

"No amount of training will make center guard + gate theory an intuitive method."

Semantics, but theory and intuition to my mind are different things. The theory serves as a basis for effective technique, which is drilled until the reactions become preconscious.


----------



## LFJ (May 16, 2017)

JPinAZ said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to 'think' about applying gate theory during application. Like anything else we do in WC, all of these responses can most surely be drilled into our reactions thru drilling and then sparring later on whether it's line theory, gate theory or box theory. In the end, these are just labels given to categorize different facing, range, position and leverage points - within a given a strategy and tactic. If you've done the proper homework, once things touch off the responses will come out pretty much on autopilot.





anerlich said:


> "No amount of training will make center guard + gate theory an intuitive method."
> 
> Semantics, but theory and intuition to my mind are different things. The theory serves as a basis for effective technique, which is drilled until the reactions become preconscious.



I did say; "_Even if you aren't thinking about this gate or that gate when fighting, it's the fact that you're open from all sides and can't predict what the opponent is going to do._"

No matter how automatic you train your actions to be, it is still a reactive method because you cannot predict the opponent's actions. 

Opponent pulls the string on the upper right gate, and you shoot out your right _biu-sau_. 
Opponent pulls the string on the lower left gate, and you shoot out your left _gaang-sau_.


----------



## anerlich (May 16, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I did say; "_Even if you aren't thinking about this gate or that gate when fighting, it's the fact that you're open from all sides and can't predict what the opponent is going to do._"
> 
> No matter how automatic you train your actions to be, it is still a reactive method because you cannot predict the opponent's actions.
> 
> ...



Forgive me for not reading your posts more avidly and not more carefully inspecting each jewel of wisdom you deign to bestow.

I guess we want to get ahead of the action ASAP to avoid remaining reactive. But if you are attacked and don't react / be reactive at least initially, you'll be meditating in a horizontal position.


----------



## LFJ (May 16, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I guess we want to get ahead of the action ASAP to avoid remaining reactive. But if you are attacked and don't react / be reactive at least initially, you'll be meditating in a horizontal position.



I don't use center guard + gate theory, so I don't have to react to what strings the opponent pulls.


----------



## anerlich (May 16, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I don't use center guard + gate theory, so I don't have to react to what strings the opponent pulls.



Congrats.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 16, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I don't use center guard + gate theory, so I don't have to react to what strings the opponent pulls.


You're a living miracle. Are your real initials JC?


----------



## LFJ (May 17, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Congrats.



Thanks.



JPinAZ said:


> You're a living miracle. Are your real initials JC?



What?


----------



## geezer (May 17, 2017)

_JC_ is the Romanized abbreviation for Yeshua of Nazareth, a well known teacher, miracle worker, and healer living some two thousand years ago in Israel. You may have heard of him?

Anyway, I believe this was either a reference to your _miraculous_ skill or perhaps your _healing ability_ ...after not reacting to a strong and well-timed offense by your opponent.

Of course I could be wrong...


----------



## LFJ (May 18, 2017)

geezer said:


> _JC_ is the Romanized abbreviation for Yeshua of Nazareth, a well known teacher, miracle worker, and healer living some two thousand years ago in Israel. You may have heard of him?
> 
> Anyway, I believe this was either a reference to your _miraculous_ skill or perhaps your _healing ability_ ...after not reacting to a strong and well-timed offense by your opponent.
> 
> Of course I could be wrong...



It's sad that not using a reactive center guard where you're open on all sides is deemed miraculous.

Many other TCMAs use guard tactics similar in theory to mine. 

It's just common, intelligent kung fu not to put the ball completely in the opponent's court.


----------



## geezer (May 18, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It's just common, intelligent kung fu not to put the ball completely in the opponent's court.



Well Gee! I didn't realize that Andrew was advocating that!!! I somehow thought he was saying that _just _being offensive and not being able to react defensively to the unexpected was not, by itself, enough.


----------



## anerlich (May 19, 2017)

I think LFJ may have taken an uncharitable interpretation of some parts of my posts and run with them.

I've probably done the same with many of his ... but out of necessity. For some reason I'm finding it hard to draw many positives.

I can't really be bothered trying to make my prose so bulletproof that some linguistic and conceptual acrobat can't pull something negative I didn't actually say out of it.

Had a good jiu jitsu class today and did well against some tough opponents including a seniors black belt world champion. Playing word twister on forums with snarky keyboard warriors isn't really much of a challenge or provide much satisfaction in comparison. Guess I need to review my priorities.


----------



## anerlich (May 19, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It's sad that not using a reactive center guard where you're open on all sides is deemed miraculous.



No one actually advocated using a reactive center guard where you're open on all sides.

You are responding to phantom posters or posts.

"I refuted something none of you actually said, so I'm smarter than all of you."

That would make make you at best intellectually dishonest, though a less cultured and erudite person might just say it made you a d*ck.


----------



## LFJ (May 19, 2017)

geezer said:


> LFJ said:
> 
> 
> > It's just common, intelligent kung fu not to put the ball completely in the opponent's court.
> ...





anerlich said:


> No one actually advocated using a reactive center guard where you're open on all sides.



We were talking about center guard + gate theory, which does essentially that.

Center guard _is open on all sides_ and results in reacting to the strings the opponent pulls.

TWC side stance has the guard on the central line, in the middle, aimed at the opponent. Same thing.



> I somehow thought he was saying that _just _being offensive and not being able to react defensively to the unexpected was not, by itself, enough.



And who was advocating _that_?

What I had suggested was a more intelligent guard strategy and if in range to throw a _biu-sau_ to block a punch then _biu_ to the other side, to instead use a punch that accomplishes the same task while also being a strike.

But if you're obsessed with occupying center and shooting arms out to block in whichever direction, it's very difficult to have any sort of strategy that is not arm-chasing.


----------



## anerlich (May 19, 2017)

We seem to be talking past each other. Not intentionally in my case, LFJ I couldn't say that about for sure.

Getting out of here before a string is pulled that I end up garotting someone with.


----------



## KPM (May 19, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I think LFJ may have taken an uncharitable interpretation of some parts of my posts and run with them.
> 
> I've probably done the same with many of his ... but out of necessity. For some reason I'm finding it hard to draw many positives.
> 
> ...




That's his typical M.O.


----------



## KPM (May 19, 2017)

LFJ said:


> We were talking about center guard + gate theory, which does essentially that.
> 
> Center guard _is open on all sides_ and results in reacting to the strings the opponent pulls.
> 
> ...



I see a "center guard aimed at the opponent" in evidence throughout this clip that Sean shared.  Do you not do the same "VT" as Sean???


----------



## LFJ (May 19, 2017)

KPM said:


> I see a "center guard aimed at the opponent" in evidence throughout this clip that Sean shared.  Do you not do the same "VT" as Sean???



No, you don't. His VT isn't reactive center guard + gate theory either. 
This has been explained to you before. Not sure why you keep forgetting.


----------



## KPM (May 19, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No, you don't. His VT isn't reactive center guard + gate theory either.
> This has been explained to you before. Not sure why you keep forgetting.



Yes, I do.  Multiple times the person in the video pauses or "resets" during the drill into a center guard aimed directly at his partner.  Not sure why you continually refuse to see what is pretty obvious in videos when it doesn't match what you believe.


----------



## geezer (May 19, 2017)

KPM said:


> Yes, I do.  Multiple times the person in the video pauses or "resets" during the drill into a center guard aimed directly at his partner.  Not sure why you continually refuse to see what is pretty obvious in videos when it doesn't match what you believe.



I think the key issue here isn't the man-sau and wu-sau positioning so much as are you being defensively "reactive" as compared to pre-emptively "proactive". I certainly get that. Unfortunately, some others may not want to acknowledge that _anyone_ else has a clue.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 19, 2017)

In the fight I had, I was caught off guard. Thought I had pretty decent reactions and was doing good in sparring, but the fight was way different. Alot of times I only saw the guys kick, when it landed and already hit me. Point is, can't rely on thinking you will react when he does x or y


----------



## KPM (May 19, 2017)

geezer said:


> I think the key issue here isn't the man-sau and wu-sau positioning so much as are you being defensively "reactive" as compared to pre-emptively "proactive". I certainly get that. Unfortunately, some others may not want to acknowledge that _anyone_ else has a clue.



LFJ equated "center held guard directed at the opponent" with "_open on all sides_ and results in reacting to the strings the opponent pulls".....which is an indictment of the guard position used in ALL Wing Chun, not just TWC.  And something that is obviously wrong!  And yet somehow he tries to deny that a center held guard directed at the opponent is being used by the VT guys in Sean's video.  

But I sense an argument ensuing, which is exactly what LFJ wants, so I should probably just keep quite!


----------



## JPinAZ (May 19, 2017)

WC's Bai Jong guard position is about maximum efficiency. It's not about leaving the 'sides open', it's about closing centerline down giving your opponent 2 options - try to break thru center, or take the long way around. In either case it puts time on your side and gives you the advantage before contact is even made . So really, it's about you pulling the strings right from the get go - LJF has it completely a55 backwards.

Anyone who can't see the usefulness of this, or doesn't understand this simple principle, still has a lot to learn about WC system. This is really basic stuff, not even worth my time dis
cussing further.


----------



## LFJ (May 20, 2017)

KPM said:


> And yet somehow he tries to deny that a center held guard directed at the opponent is being used by the VT guys in Sean's video.



Sean himself has explained to you the VT guard and the theory behind it.

Not sure why you are unable to see it throughout that video.


----------



## LFJ (May 20, 2017)

JPinAZ said:


> WC's Bai Jong guard position is about maximum efficiency.



Its efficiency is still submaximal.



> It's not about leaving the 'sides open', it's about closing centerline down giving your opponent 2 options - try to break thru center, or take the long way around.



That's 3 options. Left, right, or center. Multiplied by high or low.
So, at least 6, depending on how you define gates.

And you have to react at the right time, with the right arm and right action, to the right gate.

That's quite a lot to worry about and get right.



> Anyone who can't see the usefulness of this, or doesn't understand this simple principle, still has a lot to learn about WC system.



For most lineages, it's WC101. Of course, I'm familiar with the theory.

I just disagree that it "_puts time on your side or gives you the advantage_", because every gate is open as you sit at the center and have to reactively move to close them at the right time, with the right arm and right action, to the right gate, usually with two arms to deal with one. Submaximal efficiency.

As dudewingchun just said, many times in his fight he didn't even see kicks until they landed, and kicks are a lot more conspicuous than hooks coming in a barrage of punches all in your face.

So, to say them having to take the long way 'round "_puts time on your side_" is wishful thinking.
And having to be reactive with two arms defending to 6 areas is not much of an "_advantage_".

Actual fist fighting is not as easy as your theory makes it out to be. 
This theory in fact complicates things far more than need be.


----------



## geezer (May 20, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Its efficiency is still submaximal.



As always, LFJ does a good job breaking down and explaining the problem. And as always, he neglects to give a short and to-the-point explanation of what _he_ does differently.

If past experience serves, next he will either say that he has "already explained that many times", or treat us to a series of enigmatic statements and questions, but shooting down any response given.

The thread will devolve into pointless bickering that drags on for a couple of pages, eventually KPM will totally lose it and get banned for a week, and the thread will be locked with absolutely nothing being resolved. 

Have fun, I've got to get back to grading exams....


----------



## KPM (May 20, 2017)

geezer said:


> The thread will devolve into pointless bickering that drags on for a couple of pages, eventually KPM will totally lose it and get banned for a week, and the thread will be locked with absolutely nothing being resolved.
> 
> .



Not this time!  I vowed to avoid LFJ's BS games.  

But you absolutely nailed it when you said:

*next he will either say that he has "already explained that many times", or treat us to a series of enigmatic statements and questions, but shooting down any response given.*


----------



## dudewingchun (May 20, 2017)

I got to agree with what LFJ is saying on this thread.


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> I got to agree with what LFJ is saying on this thread.



So you don't use a "center held"  Man Sau/Wu Sau guard?  What kind of guard do you use?


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)




----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)




----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)




----------



## LFJ (May 21, 2017)




----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)

LFJ said:


>



You said this, and chose not to elaborate or explain your alternate viewpoint.  As per your usual way in which you start and string out an argument.  Because if you were to just state what you actually believe and how you see things in one nice concise post, that would be too easy.  

*Center guard is open on all sides and results in reacting to the strings the opponent pulls.

TWC side stance has the guard on the central line, in the middle, aimed at the opponent. Same thing.
*
Just like Geezer said:  

_As always, LFJ does a good job breaking down and explaining the problem. And as always, he neglects to give a short and to-the-point explanation of what he does differently.

_
So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??  Because you were the one that equated this with being "reactive" and "chasing hands."    Don't argue.  Just clarify and explain.


----------



## LFJ (May 21, 2017)

KPM said:


> So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??  Because you were the one that equated this with being "reactive" and "chasing hands."



No, I don't.

And a guard itself is not reactive and chasing hands. It's the gate theory that usually accompanies it.

That's why I kept saying "center guard + gate theory".


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> And a guard itself is not reactive and chasing hands. It's the gate theory that usually accompanies it.
> 
> That's why I kept saying "center guard + gate theory".



Thank you for the detailed explanation and elaboration.


----------



## DanT (May 21, 2017)

I usually don't use the "Yip Man" style guard when fighting, I prefer a more typical guard (Sanda like) as it allows me to throw more Shaolin techniques from it. Even when training my Wing Chun techniques I don't really use that position except for Mai San Jong.


----------



## geezer (May 21, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> I got to agree with what LFJ is saying on this thread.



I kinda think I do too... but to be honest I'm not sure. It would help if he would explain exactly how and what h_e_ prefers to do instead!

Not likely though. I fully expect he will get sidetracked into a big argument with KPM and I will never know exactly what he advocates.


----------



## geezer (May 21, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No, I don't.
> 
> And a guard itself is not reactive and chasing hands. It's the gate theory that usually accompanies it.
> 
> That's why I kept saying "center guard + gate theory".



So it's _not _the center-line positioning of the man-sau and wu-sau guard that you are objecting to. It's the reactive "gate theory" that many groups adhere to?

Please elaborate.


----------



## LFJ (May 21, 2017)

geezer said:


> I kinda think I do too... but to be honest I'm not sure. It would help if he would explain exactly how and what h_e_ prefers to do instead!



You need to know what I prefer to know if you agree with the points made about something else??

Even if I had no alternative beyond changing styles completely, the problems still exist.



geezer said:


> So it's _not _the center-line positioning of the man-sau and wu-sau guard the you are objecting to. It's the reactive "gate theory" that many groups adhere to?



Well, both. I've discussed with diagrams failings of the center guard, too, that everyone acknowledged.


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)

geezer said:


> I kinda think I do too... but to be honest I'm not sure. It would help if he would explain exactly how and what h_e_ prefers to do instead!
> 
> Not likely though. I fully expect he will get sidetracked into a big argument with KPM and I will never know exactly what he advocates.



LFJ is not very clear or concise on what he means.  He equated a center held guard directed at the opponent as being bad.  But like you, I kind of think he was actually referring to the "gate theory" as what he believes leads to this "reactive strategy" and "chasing hands" (which I also disagree with).  However, in typical fashion, he would rather argue than explain and elaborate. 

Several have said they don't use a "center held guard."  But you don't have to have the classic Man Sau/Wu Sau position with arms extended to have a "center held guard directed at the opponent".  There really are only two options when it comes to guards.  You either have your guard occupying the center so that the opponent is more likely to go around and come in at somewhat of an angle, or you have your hands held wide of center so that the opponent is more likely to strike down the middle between them.  The best example of the first option is obviously Wing Chun.  The best example of the second option is Muay Thai.  There are western boxing versions of both, depending on the fighter.   For sparring Alan Orr teaches to keep the hands held back closer in, but they are still in front of the face and on the centerline.   So unless you are holding your hands wide like a Thai boxer, you are likely using a "center held guard" that is a variation of the classic Wing Chun "Man Sau/Wu Sau" position. 

And gate theory does not make you reactive and "chase hands."  It simply defines quadrants through which an attack is likely to come.  Heck, you don't have to block at all if you don't want to!  But if you can identify that an attack is coming thru a particular quadrant you can angle or move away from it and chain punch to your heart's content!     By having your hands occupying the center, the opponent is more likely to be punching around at an angle.  And since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, you have a chance of hitting him before he can hit you simply because you will be punching straighter than him.  If you are holding your hands away from the centerline, that means you will have to either punch at an angle rather than straight, or bring your hands back to centerline as you punch.  Either way this is not as direct as having your hands on the centerline when you start the punch.  This is Wing Chun 101.

Additionally, by using the gate theory you train and recognize the optimal hand techniques to defend a particular gate or quadrant.  So in instances where you don't have the angle, distance or timing to simply move in and punch, you know which hand technique to use without thinking about it.  And that hand technique may simple by insurance to make sure you don't get hit by him AS you are moving in and punching.  Duncan Leung teaches to cover, not to think about blocking.  Gate theory + center held guard gives you the structure to cover while hitting quickly and effectively.  Nothing is "chasing hands" about it, unless understood or used improperly. 

So all you guys that say you do Wing Chun without a "center held guard directed at the opponent" I would love hear what you are actually doing! 

I'll point out that on that video that Sean shared, not only are the students using a center held guard directed at the opponent, but at times they are being "reactive"!  At several points the partner threw a wide loopy punch and the student used a high cover rather than just stepping in and punching.


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)

And just so it is clear to everyone before LFJ starts to try and back-pedal on his statements, I asked:

*So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??* 

To which LFJ answered:

*No, I don't.*

Which is why I provided pictures of WSL and PB standing in a center held guard.


----------



## geezer (May 21, 2017)

KPM said:


> And just so it is clear to everyone before LFJ starts to try and back-pedal on his statements, I asked:
> 
> *So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??*
> 
> ...



KPM, at this point it is clear that you and LFJ are talking past each other. You are talking in general terms that apply broadly to  different lineages of WC/WT/VT and to pugilistic arts in general.

I believe that LFJ is focusing on the minutia that differentiates the WSL VT guard from every other branch of VT/WC and indeed every other form of pugilism in the world. Although the pictures of WSL-VT you posted appear to show a centerline guard in the broad sense, LFJ's reference to his previously provided geometric diagrams on another thread certainly seem to suggest that he sees this VT guard differently.

Anyway, I'm for just letting it all go. Attitudes like LFJ's are why some really competent fighters I know through the DTE circle think that all WC guys are idiots. Ahh the burden we must bear. [/QUOTE]


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2017)

^^^^^^ Even the variation of the guard that LFJ has described in the past still qualifies as "center held directed at the opponent" as far as I'm concerned.  Because, as I pointed out above, the alternative is a wide guard that leaves the center open.  If he is trying to split hairs without explanation, then that's on him!  

But I agree that any continued discussion with LFJ is not likely to be productive.  Better to just drop it at this point.


----------



## LFJ (May 22, 2017)

KPM said:


> LFJ is not very clear or concise on what he means.  He equated a center held guard directed at the opponent as being bad.  But like you, I kind of think he was actually referring to the "gate theory" as what he believes leads to this "reactive strategy" and "chasing hands" (which I also disagree with).  However, in typical fashion, he would rather argue than explain and elaborate.



I've been repeatedly saying it's "_center guard + gate theory_".

This gate theory comes from center guard and leads to said problems.



> There really are only two options when it comes to guards.  You either have your guard occupying the center so that the opponent is more likely to go around and come in at somewhat of an angle, or you have your hands held wide of center so that the opponent is more likely to strike down the middle between them.  The best example of the first option is obviously Wing Chun.  The best example of the second option is Muay Thai. There are western boxing versions of both, depending on the fighter.



Those may be the only two options _you_ know, but not all that exist.

Not even all western boxing guards are one or the other, like the various forms of cross arm guards.

TCMA styles are even more unorthodox, with different types of "shields" and baiting guards that do not fall into either of your two categories.



> By having your hands occupying the center, the opponent is more likely to be punching around at an angle.  And since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, you have a chance of hitting him before he can hit you simply because you will be punching straighter than him.



Straight lines can come at you at angles other that right up the center, and have better chances of cutting off your straight line stubbornly holding center.



> If you are holding your hands away from the centerline, that means you will have to either punch at an angle rather than straight, or bring your hands back to centerline as you punch.  Either way this is not as direct as having your hands on the centerline when you start the punch.  This is Wing Chun 101.



You can punch straight to the target from any position.
You don't need to be on the centerline to throw a direct, straight line attack.



> I'll point out that on that video that Sean shared, not only are the students using a center held guard directed at the opponent, but at times they are being "reactive"!  At several points the partner threw a wide loopy punch and the student used a high cover rather than just stepping in and punching.



Their guard hands are not on the center when engaging opponents, and covering from inside a round punch is not comparable to standing at distance and throwing _biu_ to the inside, then _biu_ to the outside of the same posed punch.



KPM said:


> And just so it is clear to everyone before LFJ starts to try and back-pedal on his statements, I asked:
> 
> *So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??*
> 
> ...



Try as you may, you cannot learn VT from pictures of people posing for the camera.


----------



## LFJ (May 22, 2017)

geezer said:


> I believe that LFJ is focusing on the minutia that differentiates the WSL VT guard from every other branch of VT/WC and indeed every other form of pugilism in the world.



Although tactically different, YMVT guard strategy has a lot in common conceptually with many TCMA styles.



> Attitudes like LFJ's are why some really competent fighters I know through the DTE circle think that all WC guys are idiots.



Attitude?

All I've done is pointed out some flaws in the center guard + gate theory, which have been acknowledged in the past by the very people arguing against them and agreeing with your post right now.

So, if someone disagrees with your method and points out perceived flaws with it, they are having an attitude?

If WC guys are idiots, I would say it's because of this aversion to criticism and possible insight from an outside perspective.


----------



## KPM (May 22, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I've been repeatedly saying it's "_center guard + gate theory_".
> 
> This gate theory comes from center guard and leads to said problems.
> 
> ...



And once again, despite prompting several times from two different people you choose to NOT to simply summarize your own belief and practice so we all know exactly what you are talking about.  Either state your case or go away.  No one is going to participate in one of your long and drawn-out arguments where you criticize everything anyone else has to say while avoiding simply laying out your own approach and understanding in one concise post.


----------



## LFJ (May 22, 2017)

KPM said:


> you choose to NOT to simply summarize your own belief and practice so we all know exactly what you are talking about.



I'm not talking about my practice.

What I do is irrelevant to the problems of center guard + gate theory.

We should take things one step at a time.



> No one is going to participate in one of your long and drawn-out arguments where you criticize everything anyone else has to say while avoiding simply laying out your own approach and understanding in one concise post.



In other words, all criticism is invalid until an alternative is provided??

But in fact, you have acknowledged the failings I've demonstrated before.

You have also been given clear and concise explanations of what I do, to which you've responded;

"_Thanks LFJ! Nice direct responses and clear illustrations. I understand much better where you are coming from now!_"

So, what has changed? Amnesia or just trolling?

It seems, as in your last long post, you are still trying to rationalize the method that you previously acknowledged fails against even straight punches, because it's the best you've been able to learn so far.

If you are happy doing so, please continue. No need to worry about what I do. If you want to stick to that method and look for ways to plug the holes on your own, I wish you success.


----------



## KPM (May 22, 2017)

So further arguing it is?  Go away troll!  (sorry Jonathan  )


----------



## LFJ (May 22, 2017)

KPM said:


> So further arguing it is?



What?


----------



## Juany118 (May 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> We use it quite frequently but call it Biu Sao.


Two things, I think the second video @KPM posted better illustrates it.  Unlike a biu sau (to my understanding) the arm can be at ~90 degrees.  Here is another video illustrating how it can be used to "jam" the opponent up by Master Keith Mazza.






I think especially in this video the difference is better illustrated.  I am a big fan of it and use it in sparring and even real encounters quite a bit as it can be used as a cover during the entry because, as Master Mazza says, you know that other hand is coming and especially on the initial entry you can rarely, if ever, control/predict your opponent's action.


----------



## DanT (May 22, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Two things, I think the second video @KPM posted better illustrates it.  Unlike a biu sau (to my understanding) the arm can be at ~90 degrees.  Here is another video illustrating how it can be used to "jam" the opponent up by Master Keith Mazza.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah we use it the same way, but just call it Biu Sao.


----------



## Juany118 (May 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> Yeah we use it the same way, but just call it Biu Sao.


That's cool. The only thing I can think of as to why TWC they name them differently is that at least the way I am caught the angle of the elbow when you're performing a biu sau is very different.  So it may simply an educational construct just to ram home what a "proper" biu sau is.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## DanT (May 22, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> That's cool. The only thing I can think of as to why TWC they name them differently is that at least the way I am caught the angle of the elbow when you're performing a biu sau is very different.  So it may simply an educational construct just to ram home what a "proper" biu sau is.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


I think you're right. It's probably to distinguish  them.


----------



## KPM (May 24, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> That's cool. The only thing I can think of as to why TWC they name them differently is that at least the way I am caught the angle of the elbow when you're performing a biu sau is very different.  So it may simply an educational construct just to ram home what a "proper" biu sau is.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk



As noted earlier in the thread, I think Cheun Sau is more conceptual and was given its own name just to bring attention to the concept.  The idea is one hand threading past the other....usually to change the line.  You can "thread" into a Biu Sau, you can "thread" into a Fook Sau, or you can "thread" into a lifting guard position like a Man Sau.   Phil shows all three of  those variations in the videos that started this thread.


----------



## Martial D (May 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's called "switching hands".
> 
> - You use right arm to block your opponent's punch.
> - Use your left arm to take over that blocking.
> ...


I was taught "Replacing hand", but that was applicable to a variety of positions.  It's actually really cool when someone with good energy control does it to you, you don't even feel the switch. Some Houdini sh#t.


----------



## ShortBridge (May 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I was taught "Replacing hand", but that was applicable to a variety of positions...



Yeah, there is something that we do that I usually call "exchanging the bridge" which is more of a concept than a specific technique. This is perhaps under that umbrella.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> As noted earlier in the thread, I think Cheun Sau is more conceptual and was given its own name just to bring attention to the concept.  The idea is one hand threading past the other....usually to change the line.  You can "thread" into a Biu Sau, you can "thread" into a Fook Sau, or you can "thread" into a lifting guard position like a Man Sau.   Phil shows all three of  those variations in the videos that started this thread.


------------------------------------------------------Cheun sau/ Just a name used by some William Cheung folks


----------



## KPM (May 24, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------Cheun sau/ Just a name used by some William Cheung folks


 
Another drive-by one-liner post that contributes nothing?


----------



## Bino TWT (Aug 6, 2017)

Chuen (threading) refers more to the actual mechanical action of the hand than the hand itself. A Biu is a Chuen if it is threading through. Our version of the Laap Sao drill is called Jut Chuen because of the way it is mechanically performed.

Leung Ting Wing Tsun


----------



## geezer (Aug 8, 2017)

Bino TWT said:


> Chuen (threading) refers more to the actual mechanical action of the hand than the hand itself. A Biu is a Chuen if it is threading through. Our version of the Laap Sao drill is called Jut Chuen because of the way it is mechanically performed. ...Leung Ting Wing Tsun



Posting on Cantonese meaning? Yes this is how I understand the word as used in WT.  But....

 .... Jason, er ....you haven't met _LFJ _yet. He will test your ability to stay chill ...to the max. When he get's back, just be like a zen (chan) master. And remember there's one like that in every crowd.


----------



## Bino TWT (Aug 8, 2017)

Lmao can't wait...


----------



## KPM (Aug 9, 2017)

Bino TWT said:


> Lmao can't wait...



Just read this thread from the beginning and you'll see exactly what geezer is talking about!


----------



## Bino TWT (Aug 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> Just read this thread from the beginning and you'll see exactly what geezer is talking about!


 
I am skilled in counter-trolling as well. The guy seems pretty tame and harmless compared to what I'm used to dealing with on the facebook forums. And he brings up some valid points, mostly because the technique wasn't properly presented or explained from the beginning. 

Besides, I made Hendrik Santos block me, my Key Sao is amazing lmao


----------



## KPM (Aug 9, 2017)

^^^ I should also point out, that LJF was rather tame on this particular thread compared to past performances.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2017)

LFJ is ok, but I think he might be an Android. No matter what you say to him, there is never any inflection of emotional content in his replies.

On the other hand it can be quite exasperating to converse with him, as his opinions never change, and he never offers any data to support them.

Just take his word for it.

<3 LFJ


----------



## wayfaring (Aug 13, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------Cheun sau/ Just a name used by some William Cheung folks


Hi J, yes different term.  We would call this "jong sau", structure hand.  It could apply to either man sau or wu sau hand, and involves the skills of passing from one to the other with structure.  Been a minute.


----------

