# Getting the Angle



## KPM (May 28, 2017)

Here is another good clip from Phil Redmond.  Posting because I just came across it after working on this very thing with my guys recently.   Good example of taking the blindside simply by stepping out and angling.


----------



## JP3 (May 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another good clip from Phil Redmond.  Posting because I just came across it after working on this very thing with my guys recently.   Good example of taking the blindside simply by stepping out and angling.


I couldn't get it to play... says outside of youtube disabled by owner request?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

To enter through your opponent's "side door", the simplest guideline can be:

1. Uniform stance - Move your back foot to line up with your opponent's both feet. You then move your leading foot.
2. Mirror stance - Move your front foot to line up with your opponent's both feet. You then move your back foot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I couldn't get it to play... says outside of youtube disabled by owner request?


You have to watch it on Youtube.


----------



## marques (May 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another good clip from Phil Redmond.  Posting because I just came across it after working on this very thing with my guys recently.   Good example of taking the blindside simply by stepping out and angling.


Hmm... For me it is never that simple. People pivot, specially when there is no arm control (which is not easy when the guard is close to the body). I feint to the wrong side before going where I want. I also go to the side I don't want (and cannot do much) just to be less predictable.


----------



## DanT (May 28, 2017)

Yes I like that strategy a lot and use it often... the problem is a lot of people just try to move in a circular manner around the opponent when the actual footwork is more like a spiral (you're still getting closer to the opponent despite going around him).

One combination that works well is after you step out to the outside gate and control the elbow, a nice roundhouse kick into the stomach.


----------



## KPM (May 28, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I couldn't get it to play... says outside of youtube disabled by owner request?



Just click the youtube icon at the bottom of the video frame.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

DanT said:


> the problem is a lot of people just try to move in a circular manner around the opponent when the actual footwork is more like a spiral (you're still getting closer to the opponent despite going around him).


You walk in circle to find opportunity to enter. If your opponent keeps turning with you, you may not find that opportunity and you have to keep your circle walking (or circle running). The moment that your opponent stops turning with you, the moment that you enter.


----------



## Martial D (May 28, 2017)

Lead foot to the outside. Shortens the distance and opens the angle by which you can hit him while lengthening and narrowing those same things for him. Western boxing 101.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Lead foot to the outside. Shortens the distance and opens the angle by which you can hit him while lengthening and narrowing those same things for him. Western boxing 101.


In uniform stance (both you and your opponent have same side forward), if you move your leading foot outside, you will "cross your legs" and give your opponent a chance to sweep you.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is another good clip from Phil Redmond.  Posting because I just came across it after working on this very thing with my guys recently.   Good example of taking the blindside simply by stepping out and angling.


------------------------------------------
Stepping to the blind side is a dogma


----------



## KPM (May 28, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------
> Stepping to the blind side is a dogma



Another drive-by one-liner liner with no explanation or real contribution to the thread?  

Fighting from the blindside when able is a concept found in TWC.  Does that make it "dogma"?   No more than the concept of operating on the centerline.  Is that a "dogma" as well?


----------



## KPM (May 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In uniform stance (both you and your opponent have same side forward), if you move your leading foot outside, you will "cross your legs" and give your opponent a chance to sweep you.



True John.  But I really think anyone would actually do that.  Unless they were doing it quickly as a way of setting the opponent up for a sweep!  Because it turns your center away from the opponent's center and violates the idea of good Wing Chun structure in a number of ways.


----------



## Vajramusti (May 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> Another drive-by one-liner liner with no explanation or real contribution to the thread?
> 
> Fighting from the blindside when able is a concept found in TWC.  Does that make it "dogma"?   No more than the concept of operating on the centerline.  Is that a "dogma" as well?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that hopping from video to video or style to style can result in a good understanding of concepts.
Going to a  side can necessary -depending on some variables- but it is not  a fundamental  concept.


----------



## Martial D (May 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In uniform stance (both you and your opponent have same side forward), if you move your leading foot outside, you will "cross your legs" and give your opponent a chance to sweep you.


 True, I am talking if you are mirrored. South to Orthodox. Probably should have included that


----------



## drop bear (May 28, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------
> Stepping to the blind side is a dogma



If they are hell bent on attacking the center line.  Then not being on that center line is going to be pretty advantageous.


----------



## KPM (May 28, 2017)

*
I don't think that hopping from video to video or style to style can result in a good understanding of concepts.*

---Is that supposed to be slam on me?

*Going to a  side can necessary -depending on some variables- but it is not  a fundamental  concept.*

---It is a fundamental concept in TWC.


----------



## drop bear (May 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> *I don't think that hopping from video to video or style to style can result in a good understanding of concepts.*
> 
> ---Is that supposed to be slam on me?
> 
> ...



Isolation from external ideas doesn't exactly help people understand concepts either.

If you look at the lomenchenko break down.  That guy is a master of moving laterally.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

KPM said:


> True John.  But I really think anyone would actually do that.  Unless they were doing it quickly as a way of setting the opponent up for a sweep!  Because it turns your center away from the opponent's center and violates the idea of good Wing Chun structure in a number of ways.


Bagua guys may do that. IMO, if you draw a line out of the center of your chest, that line should meet your opponent's body. This way, both of your hands can reach to your opponent. The "cross legs" posture just violate the basic MA guideline.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If they are hell bent on attacking the center line.  Then not being on that center line is going to be pretty advantageous.


Totally agree. I would let a Wing Chun practitioner have the center line all day.  If the center line is that important then I'll either move off the center line or move my center line. My opponent is forced to readjust, every time I move off the center line.  With that said there are techniques that can be successfully used against moving off center line, but I have never seen anyone use it before.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> there are techniques that can be successfully used against moving off center line, but I have never seen anyone use it before.


Someone just mentioned that when you are in your opponent's right side door, a right roundhouse kick toward your opponent's chest can be a good technique to meet that requirement.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone just mentioned that when you are in your opponent's right side door, a right roundhouse kick toward your opponent's chest can be a good technique to meet that requirement.


I have a hard time visualizing this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I have a hard time visualizing this.


If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:

You draw a line out of the center of your chest. When that line goes through your opponent, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".

By using this definition, that technique does meet the "WC centerline theory".

If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:

You draw a line out of the center of your opponent's chest. When that line goes through you, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".

By using this definition, that technique does not meet the "WC centerline theory".


----------



## Nobody Important (May 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:
> 
> You draw a line out of the center of your chest. When that line goes through your opponent, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".
> 
> ...


Hi John,
I understand what you are describing here, but wouldn't say that it is WC centerline theory by my definition. In my branch centerline is an imaginary line that divides the opponent left & right from center. What you describe is what we call the inside line and has more to do with distance & timing than flank or blind side. It's said whomever controls the inside line, controls the fight. In my branch centerline (which is an integral component of the motherline) has to do with back & front, power & balance, which are best controlled by flanking, though moving out of range (inside line) is also a way to achieve this. However, moving is only effective until distance is closed by you or opponent & can leave you vulnerable. Flanking can still align with opponents centerline and adds the advantage of opportunity to control their power or balance. Anyways, that's how I view centerline vs. insideline, others may have a different opinion.


----------



## Martial D (May 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:
> 
> You draw a line out of the center of your chest. When that line goes through your opponent, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".
> 
> ...


I was taught that there are actually 3 center lines.

The mother line, which is like a broomstick straight down your spine.

The central line, which is  the shortest distance between the mother line and the opponent.

The center line, which is the line down your own center, facing forward.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we define the "WC centerline theory" as:
> 
> You draw a line out of the center of your chest. When that line goes through your opponent, you are applying the "WC centerline theory".
> 
> ...


I mean I have a hard time visualizing the kick that is being used to counter someone moving off center.


----------



## wckf92 (May 28, 2017)

Centerline = attack his, don't let him attack yours.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 28, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I mean I have a hard time visualizing the kick that is being used to counter someone moving off center.


It's similar to this except using the right roundhouse kick.

- You move into your opponent's right side door.
- You use your left hand to push his right elbow joint to your right,
- You then use right hay-maker to strike on his chest.


----------



## DanT (May 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone just mentioned that when you are in your opponent's right side door, a right roundhouse kick toward your opponent's chest can be a good technique to meet that requirement.


That was me


----------



## DanT (May 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I mean I have a hard time visualizing the kick that is being used to counter someone moving off center.


Immagine if in the original video, Phil threw a right roundhouse kick into the opponents chest or stomach as the opponent moved to the left (and tried to circle around Phil).


----------



## drop bear (May 29, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I have a hard time visualizing this.



Ok.
I throw a right hand. 

You counter by slipping to the outside.

I counter by right kicking you in the face.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok.
> I throw a right hand.
> 
> You counter by slipping to the outside.
> ...





DanT said:


> Immagine if in the original video, Phil threw a right roundhouse kick into the opponents chest or stomach as the opponent moved to the left (and tried to circle around Phil).





Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's similar to this except using the right roundhouse kick.
> 
> - You move into your opponent's right side door.
> - You use your left hand to push his right elbow joint to your right,
> - You then use right hay-maker to strike on his chest.


Thanks for the examples.  The angle that I train wouldn't allow a kick which is why I was having difficulty in visualizing.  I looked at the OP's video after I read your comments and now I see what you guys are talking about.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I was taught that there are actually 3 center lines.
> 
> The mother line, which is like a broomstick straight down your spine.
> 
> ...



Exactly!  So ideally, you want to face an opponent such that your centerline is aligned directly at his motherline, without him doing the same!  For example.....you are behind him....your centerline is aimed at his motherline and he can't use his arms at all because he is facing the opposite direction!  Conversely, if you are standing directly in front of him (like doing Chi Sau) then you have your centerline aimed at his motherline, but he can do the same.  This is actually the least ideal situation because he has the opportunity to use both of his arms freely.  A better situation is to be on the "blindside" so that your center is facing his motherline but his center is facing away from you.  He then has to then pivot or move to be able to effectively use his rear hand.  Now, of course, he CAN do that!  He CAN move!  But then he is one step or beat behind you and you have the advantage.

"Getting the angle" like this can be done without stepping to the outside as well.  You can use your techniques to disrupt the opponent's balance or base and actually pivot or turn him in front of you.  This accomplishes the same thing.  So...you either move yourself with footwork to get an angle, or you make the opponent move.  This is far better than standing "toe to toe" with an opponent.    So why a Wing Chun guy would "poo poo" this idea and call it "dogma" is beyond me!


----------



## LFJ (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> A better situation is to be on the "blindside" so that your center is facing his motherline but his center is facing away from you.  He then has to then pivot or move to be able to effectively use his rear hand.  Now, of course, he CAN do that!  He CAN move!  But then he is one step or beat behind you and you have the advantage.



How come in the OP video he tells the guy "_you try to turn_", instead of "_try to counterpunch_"?

His attack is straight on and he doesn't step off until the guy turns.

But there is no reason for the guy to turn. He could just intercept with his own counterstrike.

The whole thing is based on the guy unnecessarily turning and not counterattacking directly.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

Dang!, there I go _agreeing with LFJ_ again. But he's absolutely right. If the guy Phil is attacking would just move forward and counterpunch following Phil's centerline, the whole equation would be changed. Instead he freezes, locking up his man-sau or tries to force it into a tan-sau. Either way he just gives Phil a handle to use to turn him and get an angle on him.

Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students).  It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counterpunches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.

Just to clarify, I totally support workingto get an angle. It's one of the foundation concepts of DTE Escrima that equally applies to WC/VT. But I see it happening as a by product of good WC/VT, of forward intent, tracking center, wedging, and good footwork. Not as a something you achieve through a couple of trick moves.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> Dang!, there I go _agreeing with LFJ_ again. But he's absolutely right. If the guy Phil is attacking would just move forward and counterpunch following Phil's centerline, the whole equation would be changed. Instead he freezes, locking up his man-sau or tries to force it into a tan-sau. Either way he just gives Phil a handle to use to turn him and get his angle.
> 
> Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students).  It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counterpunches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.


There's plenty in that clip I don't agree with. For starters, I don't see the need to establish a bridge on the Man Sau, nor a need for the Lat  Sau, a simple long robe step to the outside to flank while counter attacking with your right would be sufficient IMO, and negate his left counter, especially if you pivot (triangle step) to continue the attack with the left (higher percentage of achieving his back). That being said, everyone has a method that works for them. I can't speak to Mr. Redmond' s reasoning for the unnecessary (IMO) movements, but believe what he was trying to emphasize in that clip was attacking the right flank from a right sided attack. I see nothing wrong with the concept, only the means from which it was carried out. But to each their own, if it works at an acceptable percentage your OK with then good.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

A personal pet peeve. I really find it counterproductive to use so many confusing terms for what is, in fact, a very simple concept. I'm talking about terms like _mother-line, centre-line, central-line. father-line, brother-line, lower-littlle-sister-line, mother-in-law line, second-cousin-once-removed-line _and so forth.

My lineage, coming from WT uses very simple and direct terminology based on the X-Y-Z axis from geometry. Essentially we work with:

1. the _vertical mid-line _or Y-axis that runs from the top of your head vertically down through your body to the ground  sort of like the wick of a candle.

2. the _horizontal  mid-line _or X-axis that runs across the body intersecting the Y-axis at the base of the sternum, and...

3. the _centerline, _or Z-axis that extends directly forward from the intersection of the X and Y axis _(centerpoint)_ at the base of the sternum to intersect the opponent's vertical mid-line or Y-axis.

4. To this we add the concept of a _connecting-line _which is the line linking your _centerpoint _(intersection of the X,Y, and Z axis) to your opponent's center.

Please refer to the diagram below:






Now imagine the WC/VT practitioner's body standing with the Y axis running up the spine, the X axis running across at the level of the base of the sternum (parallel to the collarbones but lower)  and the man sau extending out like a "sensor" on the Z axis or centerline.

This Z axis _always _tracks your opponent's center. When you "get an angle" as KPM noted, you either step off-line, or wedge forward and turn you opponent off-line, so that your centerline tracks your opponent's center, but his centerline is turned aside. This gives you an advantage. Without such an angle, you often end up just _trading punches!_


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

*Dang!, there I go agreeing with LFJ again. But he's absolutely right. If the guy Phil is attacking would just move forward and counterpunch following Phil's centerline, the whole equation would be changed. Instead he freezes, locking up his man-sau or tries to force it into a tan-sau. Either way he just gives Phil a handle to use to turn him and get an angle on him.*

---But Phil is on the attack in this particular clip.  When they start neither is close enough to land a strike.  Phil is stepping in, getting the angle, and immobilizing the opponent's lead arm all in one beat.  His opponent has to reface Phil before he can launch any kind of attack, because...Phil has the angle! 

*Yes, this works against in a demo or against an inferior practitioner (I often use it on students).  It won't work on someone of equal or greater skill who follows center and counter-punches. Especially if they don't lock up their lead hand giving you a huge lever to turn them off-line.*

---Of course!  But in this example Phil is the aggressor.  He is moving before the opponent does and forcing him to react.  If the opponent then tried to follow Phil's center and counter-punch he is already a beat behind because Phil is angling off to the blindside, which is the most difficult area for an opponent to "re-face."  That's the whole point!    Really Steve, starting to think like LFJ is not at all an asset!      Given a longer clip and more time, Phil might have been facing off with his opponent and stepping out to the outside to circle his opponent watching for a reaction.  If the opponent doesn't react, and his "re-facing" is a bit slow, THEN Phil moves in with the technique in the clip as an attack.   Why does everyone always try and criticize a short video clip?  You can only show so much in a short clip.


*Just to clarify, I totally support workingto get an angle. It's one of the foundation concepts of DTE Escrima that equally applies to WC/VT. But I see it happening as a by product of good WC/VT, of forward intent, tracking center, wedging, and good footwork. Not as a something you achieve through a couple of trick moves.*

---Now you are sounding like Joy!  There are no "trick moves" here.  This is a basic and central concept in TWC.  Nothing Phil is doing in that clip is "tricky" or particularly difficult.  There is no WCK maxim that says you have to charge up the center!


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

BTW I just grabbed that diagram off Google Images. The term "sensor direction" on the Z axis was already there, and seemed appropriate enough to describe what man-sau does, but if I were making up my own diagram for WC/VT, I'd prefer to describe that axis as "direction of intent" or "direction of pressure".


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> ....Really Steve, starting to think like LFJ is not at all an asset!



Dang you to heck, Keith.  Now I have to wipe the coffee off my desk. 

Basically, I do like the concept of off-lining, like what Phil demonstrates. I'm just pointing out that it is possible to counter the movement as demonstrated by 1. letting the man-sau flex with the attack so that you are not turned aside, and 2. simultaneously counterpunching with the rear hand.

Yes, if Phil is the attacker, he will be a beat ahead, and you have to adjust to match his movement. That puts you a bit behind. But if you respond offensively with forward intent, striking at your attacker's center, you can recover and take over the offense. Or, like the guy in the demo, you can stiffen up, be turned aside, and end up a sitting duck.

Of the two, I prefer the first option. But actually, _I would prefer to be on the offense_, and let the other guy worry about trying to catch up!


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

One last thing. I get a good vibe from Phil's videos, as well as from his posts a long time back, on "that other forum". I don't get the same positive feelings from William Cheung's stuff.

Oh well, I know some great people teaching good stuff who, like me, learned from Leung Ting. And yet he has also put some crap material out there and gives off a bad vibe to many people. I guess it's kinda the same thing.

Heck even GM Yip was no saint and taught some people crap. Yet we owe him so much.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

Ironically, the inverse of the above seems to apply to the great WSL. He was a renowned fighter and beloved instructor. Great vibes there. Yet today many of his students behave like arrogant jerks! Law of opposites? Go figure!


----------



## LFJ (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> When they start neither is close enough to land a strike.  Phil is stepping in, getting the angle, and immobilizing the opponent's lead arm all in one beat.  His opponent has to reface Phil before he can launch any kind of attack, because...Phil has the angle!



Not really. Phil is coming straight on and doesn't step off until the guy turns.

In fact, he says as much right at the beginning;

"_I step in. I attack. He turns, and I step off._"



> He is moving before the opponent does and forcing him to react.  If the opponent then tried to follow Phil's center and counter-punch he is already a beat behind because Phil is angling off to the blindside, which is the most difficult area for an opponent to "re-face."  That's the whole point!



He didn't angle off to the blindside until the guy tried to turn.

The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.

Nothing is stopping the guy from cutting into Phil's timing with a direct counterstrike, either from the rear hand, or if he sees the attempt to grab the lead hand coming, by recycling the lead into a strike before he's able to grab it.

I do this all the time to WC guys who try to "seek the bridge" but end up grasping at air while getting punched in the face. Too much of the "sticky hand" game doesn't work when someone doesn't want you to touch their arms.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> ...The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack. Nothing is stopping the guy from cutting into Phil's timing with a direct counterstrike, either from the rear hand, or if he sees the attempt to grab the lead hand coming, by recycling the lead into a strike before he's able to grab it.



I see your point and concur. 



LFJ said:


> I do this all the time to WC guys who try to "seek the bridge" but end up grasping at air while getting punched in the face. Too much of the "sticky hand" game doesn't work when someone doesn't want you to touch their arms.



Now this comment seems to reinforce my point in post #42


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

*Dang you to heck, Keith.  Now I have to wipe the coffee off my desk. *

---

*Basically, I do like the concept of off-lining, like what Phil demonstrates. I'm just pointing out that it is possible to counter the movement as demonstrated by 1. letting the man-sau flex with the attack so that you are not turned aside, and 2. simultaneously counterpunching with the rear hand.*

----Sure.  Anything can be countered!  But #1 is difficult because the Pak is aimed as close to the elbow as you can get it, and the force is directed back into the opponent.  Not so simple to just fold at the elbow to avoid it.  And again, the whole point of "getting the angle is to make your #2 difficult.  Phil is moving to the opponent's outside and away from that rear hand.  The opponent has to re-face in order to throw any kind of effective strike from his rear hand.

*Yes, if Phil is the attacker, he will be a beat ahead, and you have to adjust to match his movement. That puts you a bit behind. But if you respond offensively with forward intent, striking at your attacker's center, you can recover and take over the offense.*

---But again, the point is that Phil has moved off-line.  The opponent's "forward intent" will be off-target unless he re-faces.  And the step to the blindside with the Pak close to the elbow makes re-facing difficult.  

* Or, like the guy in the demo, you can stiffen up, be turned aside, and end up a sitting duck*.

---You can second guess ANY demo!  Unless it is sparring footage, the partner is going to be allowing things to happen to some extent.  That does not change the validity or effectiveness of what Phil is doing.


----------



## LFJ (May 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> Now this comment seems to reinforce my point in post #42



It's just an observation that WC guys too often try to gain arm control that only happens in class.
The easiest way to beat that is to not give them your arms like their training partners would.

When their hands come to nothing their whole strategy falls through and they are thrown off their game.

Just things to look out for. 

Don't ever expect you are going to be able to control someone by their lead arm and base your strategy on that expectation. The arm may not be there when you go for it!


----------



## LFJ (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> Phil is moving to the opponent's outside and away from that rear hand.  The opponent has to re-face in order to throw any kind of effective strike from his rear hand.



Not with Phil's initial attack that can be directly intercepted.



> ---But again, the point is that Phil has moved off-line.  The opponent's "forward intent" will be off-target unless he re-faces.  And the step to the blindside with the Pak close to the elbow makes re-facing difficult.



Not until after the guy already turns for no reason and Phil steps off.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

*Not really. Phil is coming straight on and doesn't step off until the guy turns.

In fact, he says as much right at the beginning;

"I step in. I attack. He turns, and I step off."*

----No he isn't.  There is more than one step there.  Because you can't see his feet you missed it.  His initial step isn't "straight on", it is also towards the outside.  Then when the opponent reacts and turns to try and track him Phil takes another bigger step to the outside.  So even though he says "I step in" the "stepping in" is not straight.  It is still angling off to the outside a bit.  Then the "step off" is even more of an angle because you allow the rear foot to readjust.   If the guy kept trying to "re-face" Phil would just "step off" or use that angling step again.  Its just like a boxer throwing continuous jabs against the heavy bag while circling around it to the outside with footwork.  

*He didn't angle off to the blindside until the guy tried to turn.*

---He was angling off with the first step, and really took the blindside when the guy tried to re-face.  

*The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.*

---Not true.  With that initial step Phil was no longer directly in front of him.  That is WHY the guy "turned" to begin with!


----------



## LFJ (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> His initial step isn't "straight on", it is also towards the outside.  Then when the opponent reacts and turns to try and track him Phil takes another bigger step to the outside.



The initial step isn't any significant deviation to the side, and not enough to require a large step or turn from the opponent.

He's still practically right in front of the guy.

The guy's step is unnecessarily exaggerated. He doesn't need to take such a large step and turn to "track" Phil who hasn't gone off line but a hair.



> *The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.*
> 
> ---Not true.  With that initial step Phil was no longer directly in front of him.  That is WHY the guy "turned" to begin with!



Sorry, I can't agree. That is still practically right in front of him and he can intercept immediately without stepping and turning like that.

Why the guy turned to begin with is because Phil told him to.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

Up to your old tricks again?  I'm not going to argue with you.  You choose not to see what is happening in that video.  That's fine.  Its seems it always the same with you.  Not going to argue about it.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

Three basic principles from DTE MMA/Escrima that also inform my personal VT:

1. Get an angle.

2. Have forward intent

3. Diamondpoint (= pinpoint transition from technique to technique or in WC terms, minimum movement, maximum efficiency).

In WC/VT, these three are _not_ sequential, but_ simultaneous and synergistic_. By contrast, the student being demonstrated on in the video _doesn't apply any of them_, much less all three at once.

So rather than respond to Phil's angling by adjusting, he turns further away from center. Rather than press fluidly forward and taking the offense, he flinches, stiffening and pulling back, making it easier to turn him. And there is no _diamondpoint,_ _lin siu dai dar_, or _offensive response, _etc. to counter. --and that's OK. _It's a demo._ It's showing an idea, and that can be done best if the student responds awkwardly. Still, it is good to remember that _this is not the ideal response_. Perhaps _not even a likely response_, if your opponent isn't playing along.


----------



## Callen (May 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> Ironically, the inverse of the above seems to apply to the great WSL. He was a renowned fighter and beloved instructor. Great vibes there. Yet today many of his students behave like arrogant jerks! Law of opposites? Go figure!


 Unfortunately, there are many arrogant jerks in all lineages. Style has nothing to do with egotism, only the individual can be to blame.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

Callen said:


> Unfortunately, there are many arrogant jerks in all lineages. Style has nothing to do with egotism, only the individual can be to blame.



While this is indeed true, some lineages seem to have more than there fair share!


----------



## drop bear (May 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The initial step isn't any significant deviation to the side, and not enough to require a large step or turn from the opponent.
> 
> He's still practically right in front of the guy.
> 
> The guy's step is unnecessarily exaggerated. He doesn't need to take such a large step and turn to "track" Phil who hasn't gone off line but a hair.



All it has to be is a fist width to the side. Then their counter shot hits air.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

*In WC/VT, these three are not sequential, but simultaneous and synergistic. By contrast, the student being demonstrated on in the video doesn't apply any of them, much less all three at once.*

---But why would he?  First you guys talked simply about "forward intent" and just counter-attacking Phil straight-away.  Until I pointed out that Phil's very first step took him off the line.  Now you are expecting that his opponent should be applying your concept above?  
*
So rather than respond to Phil's angling by adjusting, he turns further away from center. *

---His reaction is pretty typical.  There is nothing "awkward" about it.  He is doing exactly what you could expect from an opponent in a sparring match.  You expect a demo of a basic concept and technique to be different?   Just watch the video that Drop Bear shared.  It features a high level boxer doing pretty much what Phil is showing in the OP video.  He is facing other high level boxers and they don't do any better at "re-facing" than Phil's partner in that video did.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> All it has to be is a fist width to the side. Then their counter shot hits air.



Exactly!  And all someone has to do is watch the video and Phil's left leg.  Each time he is stepping to the outside just enough to get off of the line....not straight in.  And once he is to the outside of the partner's lead arm, there is no way he is going to get hit by the guy's rear hand without him turning to re-face.


----------



## drop bear (May 29, 2017)

Ok another important element for just fighting in general when they are in an opposite stance is controling the angle off the bat or foot fighting.






This is basically what OP,s video hinges on. And what people seem to be missing as part of this discussion.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok another important element for just fighting in general when they are in an opposite stance is controling the angle off the bat or foot fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, easiest way to achieve the goal. Just simply step. Personally I think Mr. Redmond made it a little too complicated, this video breaks it down in simplest form. Hands are not the important part.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Exactly, easiest way to achieve the goal. Just simply step. Personally I think Mr. Redmond made it a little too complicated, this video breaks it down in simplest form. Hands are not the important part.



Phil's got the footwork right. But the video focuses on the hands. IMO Hands become more important as you close range, especially when you can pak/trap the elbow or upper arm. Then it's easier to disrupt the stance and turn your opponent.


----------



## KPM (May 29, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Exactly, easiest way to achieve the goal. Just simply step. Personally I think Mr. Redmond made it a little too complicated, this video breaks it down in simplest form. Hands are not the important part.



Hands are the important part in keeping the opponent from being able to "re-face" and bring the rear hand into play.  The criticism has essentially been "well, the guy would just follow him and punch him!".  Its that lead Pak that contacts the opponent's lead arm from the outside that makes it much harder from him to re-face.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> Hands are the important part in keeping the opponent from being able to "re-face" and bring the rear hand into play.  The criticism has essentially been "well, the guy would just follow him and punch him!".  Its that lead Pak that contacts the opponent's lead arm from the outside that makes it much harder from him to re-face.


As shown in the video by Drop Bear, the footwork alone can take you out of harms way and negate any initial counter. As Geezer said, only once the gap is closed & inertia slowed are hands necessary. A simple pivot once the pass is made gives you the opponents back. My only criticism from Mr. Redmond's video was the initial bridge contact and Lat Sau.  Even when initiating an attack this isn't necessary from the range they were at, the side step would have been sufficient. I understand what he was illustrating, but it is IMO low percentage unless the opponent actually freezes. There is no guarantee they will, or that their immediate knee jerk action won't be to lash out. If that happens, being so commuted to controlling an arm that is doing nothing can be a gamble from that head on charge, not enough angle to negate a secondary action. Side step with simultaneous strike is simpler & more effective IMO. That being said, I get what he was trying to illustrate, just isn't how I would go about it. To each their own.


----------



## geezer (May 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> Hands are the important part in keeping the opponent from being able to "re-face" and bring the rear hand into play.  The criticism has essentially been "well, the guy would just follow him and punch him!".  Its that lead Pak that contacts the opponent's lead arm from the outside that makes it much harder from him to re-face.



True. It is hard to "re-face". That's why we train against this a lot in drills, chi-sau, and sparring. For example, in one "lat-sau" drill we _let _the opponent pak/trap the arm across the body and attempt to shove us back and/or turn us aside so we can polish our response. If the guy pressing your arm across over commits or tries to hold it too long, you can slip the trap and really nail him! If he side-steps and doesn't turn you, it's even easier to re-orient and take the offense. Sure, he's a move ahead. but like the old WC/VT motto, you just start last and arrive first!

Now I admit, it ain't the easiest thing in the world to do. But I'm off to Austin next month to train, and there's a really old guy there named "Sifu Harry" ...in his mid 70s. One of my go to moves is off-lining and trapping the arm across, like what we are talking about. Harry suckers me in on this every time. I overcommit, he slips my trap and nails me hard. And he's freakin' strong for an old guy. But not this year! I'm growing up. I'm gonna be 62 in July, and I'm not gonna be slapped around like a kid anymore!!!


----------



## DanT (May 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Not really. Phil is coming straight on and doesn't step off until the guy turns.
> 
> In fact, he says as much right at the beginning;
> 
> ...


He already controlled the blindside before the opponent turned. When the opponent turned he had to reposition himself to stay on the blind side.

You fail to realize that the step to the outside could be a slip to avoid a straight punch, not just a step to deal with the opponent turning to face you.

You also fail to realize that Phil could be striking as he's moving to the blindside.


----------



## LFJ (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> I pointed out that Phil's very first step took him off the line.



But it didn't...

Looks like we have to pull out the GIFs again.

The attack:





Steps straight in, inside the guy's stance to slap then grab his arm. 
The initial attack is not within striking range. 
No reason the guy could not counterpunch directly with the rear hand or see the obvious attack on his guard coming and recycle it into a punch before it can be grabbed.
Instead he tenses up and allows himself to be pulled while his rear hand falls asleep.

The response to the counter (of stepping away and turning for no reason without attacking):




Again, steps straight in, inside the guy's lead leg to slap then grab his arm because the initial punch is out of range.
His foot is clearly not stepping to the outside of the guy's lead leg, nor is he using any sort of body method to move off line of a counterpunch similar to anything shown in drop bear's clip against southpaws.

The guy takes a large lateral step for no other reason than that he was told to.
Phil doesn't start moving off line until the guy steps away and turns, without attacking.

This works because the opponent supplies him with a strong-arm _taan-sau_ to pull on, steps away, and doesn't counterattack.

The entire strategy relies on their being a stiff arm to leverage against the opponent, but it may not be there when you go for it. 

Then you're unable to stop someone from turning by pressing on their arm that isn't there, but it wouldn't matter because you stepped straight in and attacked from out of range and could be directly counterpunched instead of scaring the guy off into a pointless sidestep.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> As shown in the video by Drop Bear, the footwork alone can take you out of harms way and negate any initial counter. As Geezer said, only once the gap is closed & inertia slowed are hands necessary. A simple pivot once the pass is made gives you the opponents back. My only criticism from Mr. Redmond's video was the initial bridge contact and Lat Sau.  Even when initiating an attack this isn't necessary from the range they were at, the side step would have been sufficient. I understand what he was illustrating, but it is IMO low percentage unless the opponent actually freezes. There is no guarantee they will, or that their immediate knee jerk action won't be to lash out. If that happens, being so commuted to controlling an arm that is doing nothing can be a gamble from that head on charge, not enough angle to negate a secondary action. Side step with simultaneous strike is simpler & more effective IMO. That being said, I get what he was trying to illustrate, just isn't how I would go about it. To each their own.



To me, Wing Chun is all about being efficient, but being safe at the same time.  How many times have you had to admonish a student to keep their Wu Sau hand in place as a backup defense?   Of course there is no guarantee the opponent isn't going to lash out.  But that lead Pak is already in play.  Phil isn't necessarily committed.  If the opponent suddenly yanked his lead arm back to try and throw the rear hand, Phil's defense is already up and that Pak just transitions to something else.  But NOT having that kind of defensive mindset and hand "in play" is less safe.  If the opponent was the one being the aggressor and was charging forward, then yeah...Phil would have probably just stepped out and struck low under that lead arm.  But remember, Phil is launching the  attack here.  Why wouldn't he reduce the chances of the opponent being able to respond by checking that lead arm with his Pak Sau?  That just seems like safe common sense to me.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

LFJ said:


> But it didn't...
> 
> .



As per your typical M.O.....out of the repetitions Phil had on that short clip you singled out the two where he doesn't quite get his foot outside of the opponent's foot and simply ignored the ones where he does.   I've told you what is happening in that clip.  You can put anything into slow motion and criticize it.  I'm not arguing with you.  You either choose to see what I'm talking about, or you choose to be argumentative.   You seem to always choose the later.


----------



## LFJ (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> As per your typical M.O.....out of the repetitions Phil had on that short clip you singled out the two where he doesn't quite get his foot outside of the opponent's foot and simply ignored the ones where he does.



There were only a couple other repetitions. Here they are.










Once again, Phil is moving straight in and doesn't get outside the guy's foot or move off line.

The guy is either unresponsive, or needlessly steps away and presents Phil with a stiff lever arm to pull, without counterattacking. (As he was told to do.)

Only in the first one here where the guy doesn't respond does Phil ever get into range to actually land a strike. Otherwise he's just slapping and pulling from out of range.



> I've told you what is happening in that clip.



You've told me what you think or hope is happening in the clip, but that doesn't match reality.



> You can put anything into slow motion and criticize it.



If he's actually stepping off line outside of the guy's lead foot, as you say, putting it in slow motion shouldn't change that!



> You either choose to see what I'm talking about, or you choose to be argumentative.   You seem to always choose the later.



No one can see what you're talking about, because you are imagining it.

He's standing right in front of the guy and moves straight in with his attack, as slow motion of each initial application shows.


----------



## Lobo66 (May 30, 2017)

It looks to me like he is 1) still out of range even after having advanced and 2) actually moving further away and out of range during the second strike attempt.  

If you're going to create angles using footwork, slipping or a combination of the two than you had better stay in range so your opponent doesn't have the opportunity to counter effectively (like in the boxing vid that someone posted).

In VT we try to cut off the opponent and disrupt his center while attacking - "smothering" him with our actions.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> To me, Wing Chun is all about being efficient, but being safe at the same time.  How many times have you had to admonish a student to keep their Wu Sau hand in place as a backup defense?   Of course there is no guarantee the opponent isn't going to lash out.  But that lead Pak is already in play.  Phil isn't necessarily committed.  If the opponent suddenly yanked his lead arm back to try and throw the rear hand, Phil's defense is already up and that Pak just transitions to something else.  But NOT having that kind of defensive mindset and hand "in play" is less safe.  If the opponent was the one being the aggressor and was charging forward, then yeah...Phil would have probably just stepped out and struck low under that lead arm.  But remember, Phil is launching the  attack here.  Why wouldn't he reduce the chances of the opponent being able to respond by checking that lead arm with his Pak Sau?  That just seems like safe common sense to me.


I always have a "safety first" mind set, and being out of range or not being on your opponents line of attack are the simplest things you can do to maintain it. No hands required but can be used to help augment coverage of vulnerable areas.

I understand he was initiating the attack, and I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to this, it was poorly executed. Attacking with his left side straight up the center, left his right side open and driving straight into opponents power side, there is no safety first measure here. His pak sau on the opponents man sau from that postion could have easily back fired by drawing the opponent into him, disrupting everything,. Simply adding a simultaneous kick to that action would have allowed for better penetration and control. His second move was a readjustment to take flank & seize his opponents balance because his first attack put him in a vulnerable position, IMO, this should have been his first move.

If Mr. Redmond was trying to show how to recover from a failed attack, then good job. If he was attempting to illustrate taking flank on an opponent, it was convoluted.

As I stated earlier, I have no issue with the concept, merely the execution, it wasn't efficient nor was it from a "Safety First" perspective. It was charge in and and see what happens, I'll adjust accordingly. Some people don't mind that approach, it can be pulled off, but I find it a risky strategy when simply slipping to the outside will achieve the same purpose more efficiently and at a much safer angle to opponent.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

Lobo66 said:


> It looks to me like he is 1) still out of range even after having advanced and 2) actually moving further away and out of range during the second strike attempt.
> 
> If you're going to create angles using footwork, slipping or a combination of the two than you had better stay in range so your opponent doesn't have the opportunity to counter effectively (like in the boxing vid that someone posted).
> 
> In VT we try to cut off the opponent and disrupt his center while attacking - "smothering" him with our actions.



Now this is probably the most valid criticism so far.  Phil is a little far out.  Probably because he is talking during  the demo and is just ensuring he isn't going to actually make contact with his punches.  Staying closer would allow him to turn or pin his opponent even better.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> I
> 
> If Mr. Redmond was trying to show how to recover from a failed attack, then good job. If he was attempting to illustrate taking flank on an opponent, it was convoluted.
> 
> .



You may be right!  We don't know the lead in to this short clip or what Phil have been teaching or talking about just prior.   At the 12 second mark he says something like  "people say if you do that I will just turn and....But I'm not going to just stand there.  I'm going to step off!"   So it could very well be that he was showing stepping to the blindside as a recovery option.  If I was doing it  (and the way I was showing my students to do it just recently), that first step would have been wider and more to the side while closing more distance, making the second step unnecessary.   In the very first example in the clip (where Phil is wearing a hat) he does step wider with the first step than he does with the following examples.  You can't see his feet, and LFJ chose not to "slo mo" that one.  But he gets a better angle right off the bat with that one.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> You may be right!  We don't know the lead in to this short clip or what Phil have been teaching or talking about just prior.   At the 12 second mark he says something like  "people say if you do that I will just turn and....But I'm not going to just stand there.  I'm going to step off!"   So it could very well be that he was showing stepping to the blindside as a recovery option.  If I was doing it  (and the way I was showing my students to do it just recently), that first step would have been wider and more to the side while closing more distance, making the second step unnecessary.   In the very first example in the clip (where Phil is wearing a hat) he does step wider with the first step than he does with the following examples.  You can't see his feet, and LFJ chose not to "slo mo" that one.  But he gets a better angle right off the bat with that one.


This is plausible and would actually explain a lot about what is going on in that clip.


----------



## LFJ (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> In the very first example in the clip (where Phil is wearing a hat) he does step wider with the first step than he does with the following examples. You can't see his feet, and LFJ chose not to "slo mo" that one.  But he gets a better angle right off the bat with that one.



No, he doesn't.

You think I'm misrepresenting things by showing 4 times he did it poorly instead of the 1 time he did it well? Okay.

You can't see their feet, but you can see their knees.

Phil is still stepping straight in, and does not get outside of the guy's stance, nor does he achieve any sort of angle on him until step 2, the pull and step off.

Again, absolutely unnecessary for the guy to step away and turn like that without attacking. 
He's just presenting his arm to be pulled.

Nothing at all to stop him from counterpunching with either hand before Phil gets a chance to grab him, which could well shut down the whole blindside attempt.

It's no different than the other repetitions.


----------



## Juany118 (May 30, 2017)

marques said:


> Hmm... For me it is never that simple. People pivot, specially when there is no arm control (which is not easy when the guard is close to the body). I feint to the wrong side before going where I want. I also go to the side I don't want (and cannot do much) just to be less predictable.



Yes and no.  For  few reasons.  First one of the principles in WC is that your attacks should disrupt your opponents center.  Whether it be by simply recoiling from the speed of the attack or an outright taking of their balance.  As an example the video I showed in the chuen sau thread...






The chuen sau, if applied correctly not only acts as a cover in the event the other hand comes at yeah, it takes the opponents balance so he can't effectively pivot/counter attack.

That of course is for the "no" of my premise.

For the "yes" your attack may indeed not be enough to take away their ability to pivot or counter attack and you need to be prepared for that.  There are some videos of Provisional Master Jerry Devone in a competition called "Man up, stand up".  He does on occasion try to get to the blindside but his opponents adapt and so he just goes straight in so it doesn't become a circular dance.  






There is a video of him fighting another opponent that shows what I see as a weakness of some WC lineages that don't teach any grappling however.  When Sifu Jerry really starts hammering the opponent goes for a clinch, which can end badly if you aren't prepared to deal with it (in a real fight).

Regardless, at least in my experience, for WC to work you have to go "all in" on the attack.  I actually apply an axiom we use at work to TWC.



> sometimes you have to be willing to let your butt hang out and risk it being shot off to get the job done.



This axiom seems to apply to other Ip Man sub-lineages as well.  I can't speak for non-Ip Man lineages though.


----------



## geezer (May 30, 2017)

Hey Keith, I know you and LFJ are _not _going to see eye to eye, but _those GIFs he put up were really helpful _in clarifying the situation. I still agree with him on this. As a demo, it's fine and probably better than most of the demos I do. But imagine if his student wasn't so stiff, tightening up his man-sau and trying to pull away. Then Phil would not have the same control and the guy would be able to counterattack.

Actually, I much preferred the clip of Keith Mazza that Juany provided. IMO his distancing (moving in close) and his forward pressure put him in a far better position to control his opponent.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

geezer said:


> Hey Keith, I know you and LFJ are _not _going to see eye to eye, but _those GIFs he put up were really helpful _in clarifying the situation. I still agree with him on this. As a demo, it's fine and probably better than most of the demos I do. But imagine if his student wasn't so stiff, tightening up his man-sau and trying to pull away. Then Phil would not have the same control and the guy would be able to counterattack.
> 
> .



Ok.  How do you see his opponent counter-attacking?  In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak.  That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand.  The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face.  So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him.  "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side.  This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch.   So just what do you see as the problem?


----------



## Phobius (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Ok.  How do you see his opponent counter-attacking?  In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak.



I have been away so long, decided training was more valuable than writing and got caught up here way too much.

Anyways, to the point. In the last slo-mo clip Phil was in fact initiating an attack  with a pak-sau. Also a downward angled pak-sau indicating that he was already from the start chasing hands. Not saying anything of it was right or wrong. But it was not a forward intent from the partner but rather a reaction to an incoming pak-sau. A problem most likely from videorecording a drill where people try to re-enact a drill. (Video recording a drill intentionally usually becomes reenactment rather than training drill)



KPM said:


> That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand.



Not only this, in that slo-mo clip he actually fired off a pak-sau a punch and a pull. At the same time his partner stiffed. Usually I find this very unrealistic in terms of drills to believe that you can do three movements not even counting footwork at the time your opponent/partner makes a single punch.



KPM said:


> The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face.



Actually it was the partner that tried to flank but also sadly not in an attempt to attack but rather to move away from his opponent. This seems to give Phil the possibility to flank without moving very much. All of this is just from that last clip of course. In addition when punching it seems as if Phil jumps with both feet to get into range while extending his arm.



KPM said:


> So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him.  "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side.  This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch.   So just what do you see as the problem?



I think at least for me the concern with this is that there is no forward intent whatsoever in the partner.

Not saying it is a bad drill but while recoding I see no forward intent. Also I agree and believe that a forward intent would cause for a counter-punch in this situation.

Lets not forget that if you can move twice, so can he.


----------



## drop bear (May 30, 2017)

I don't care if people suggest he may need to step out futher. On the way in. 

It is a valid observation.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 30, 2017)

Personally I think it all comes down to this.

If it's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas. 

What if scenarios will always pop up in the course of discussion and hindsight is always 20/20 when recounting a witnessed event. People are going to see what is relevant to them, and unfortunately defend that until the end when hypotheticals are added in. A good recipe for argument and moot points.

My advice, take it for what it is, a demo on a basic and simple concept. There is always room for improvement, so don't take anything as gospel just because someone else believed it to be. Explore for yourself.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> Ok.  How do you see his opponent counter-attacking?  In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak.  That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand.  The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face.  So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him.  "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side.  This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch.   So just what do you see as the problem?


For what it's worth, I can see several opotunities available for the defender to negate that attack, from a left punch, right bong sau to moving back with a right front kick, among others. All plausible because Mr. Redmond did not initially move the line and overextended himself. He's able to get away with it because it's a demo and the rigid opponent isn't really responding. He was just trying to illustrate a concept. IMO it could have been simplified, too much unnecessary interaction if flanking was the goal. But it is what it is, and arguing over hypothetical what if's is moot. Take what you want from it, good or bad. For me, at the end of the day it isn't going to affect how I do things.


----------



## geezer (May 30, 2017)

KPM said:


> The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face.  So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him.  "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side.  This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch.   So just what do you see as *the problem?*



More of a potential problem, or potential counter.

I wish I had a video to respond with but I don't. Anyway, in the VT I train, the response would be to let the lead arm yield or bend with the lop, while stepping forward and to the left ( going with the force) while simultaneously turning to face the opponent and firing a rear hand punch. We call this step-turn _falling-leaf step_. We train it against just such a hard, downward jerking lop-sau. For people that know the old WT curriculum, it's in the _Lat-sau section 3 _drills and in the_ Chi-sau section 2 _drills. Done right it uses the force of the opponent's lop to accelerate your counter.

...The basic idea is not to resist, stiffen and pull back, but to flow _with _the force, moving forward, and to _punch when the hand is free_ -- in this case the _rear _hand.


----------



## geezer (May 30, 2017)

Oh, and I agree with Nobody in that it's just a freakin' demo. Off-lining can be a great idea, but maybe there are some things about that demo that leave questions. ...that could allow for a counter. So what? Counters have counters too, and in all probability Phil would still come out on top. Or so I'd like to think. Being short myself, I consider him one of my people!


----------



## Juany118 (May 30, 2017)

geezer said:


> Actually, I much preferred the clip of Keith Mazza that Juany provided. IMO his distancing (moving in close) and his forward pressure put him in a far better position to control his opponent.



While I know of Sifu Redmond I have never studied under him.  However I have taken seminars under Sifu Mazza and study under Sifu Devone semi-regularly.  Those two, and I think Sifu Mazza's video illustrates it well, often go "outside" Wing Chun and will hold regular classes and/or seminars where using Wing Chun techniques in "generic" street fights and the like are used, so it's not always WC vs WC, even if it is we often avoid having your training partner leaving their arm out there etc.  Personally I think it starts with Sifu Keith.  He is a DOJ, DOD and Local NJ combatives instructor and I think he has passed this down to people who studied extensively under him like Sifu Jerry.

That isn't to say that Sifu Redmond is "lesser" only that teachers sometimes have different methods.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> Personally I think it all comes down to this.
> 
> If it's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
> 
> ...



I agree.  Kind of frustrating to try and share a vid illustrating a basic concept and different approach from a specific Wing Chun system and all people seem to want to do is criticize the details and turn it into an argument.  Doesn't make me want to try and keep sharing things like that.


----------



## KPM (May 30, 2017)

geezer said:


> More of a potential problem, or potential counter.
> 
> I wish I had a video to respond with but I don't. Anyway, in the VT I train, the response would be to let the lead arm yield or bend with the lop, while stepping forward and to the left ( going with the force) while simultaneously turning to face the opponent and firing a rear hand punch. We call this step-turn _falling-leaf step_. We train it against just such a hard, downward jerking lop-sau. For people that know the old WT curriculum, it's in the _Lat-sau section 3 _drills and in the_ Chi-sau section 2 _drills. Done right it uses the force of the opponent's lop to accelerate your counter.
> 
> ...The basic idea is not to resist, stiffen and pull back, but to flow _with _the force, moving forward, and to _punch when the hand is free_ -- in this case the _rear _hand.



You think the typical street brawler or boxer would do that?  You only train against other guys doing Wing Chun?  Sorry, but that is "Chi Sau mentality."  I train with the assumption that I WON'T be facing another Wing Chun guy if I ever have to use my skills.  I try to picture a good boxer instead.    Picture that same thing from LFJ's last slo mo but with a boxer throwing a jab, and Phil avoiding it while timing it and closing with his Pak Sau as it retracts to jam him up while angling to the side and launching his counter.  Same concept that is being shown....getting the angle while covering yourself defensively and then launching your own strikes from the blindside.  Heck, Phil's first move could have been a simple Pak Sau to deflect that jab, and THEN the "stepping out" to follow the arm in with a Pak Sau to jam and counter.  The idea is NOT to be in the same place where the cross would be aimed.

As Sifu Mazza is doing in Juany's video at 1:25:


----------



## LFJ (May 31, 2017)

KPM said:


> Ok. * How do you see his opponent counter-attacking?*  In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak.  That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand. The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face.  So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him.  "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side.  This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch.   *So just what do you see as the problem?*



What I see as the problem is that you're completely reinterpreting the video now.

The guy's hand went forward to present a stiff-arm lever for Phil to pull on, as he was told to do.
His hand went forward as he saw Phil's telegraphed attempt to come in and slap his arm, from out of range.

What could have been done instead is that his lead hand recycles into an intercepting punch, or is replaced by an intercepting punch from the rear hand before Phil is able to slap or grab anything.

Since Phil was moving straight in, the guy was not being flanked, and there'd be no need for him to pivot and reface.
His intercepting punch from either hand could cut Phil off and achieve angle on _him_, putting _him _in recovery mode straightaway.



KPM said:


> Kind of frustrating to try and share a vid illustrating a basic concept and different approach from a specific Wing Chun system and all people seem to want to do is criticize the details and turn it into an argument.  Doesn't make me want to try and keep sharing things like that.



If you want to provide a video of something you're talking about, wouldn't it make sense that what's shown in the video actually matches what you're saying?

I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost _every time_, in fact.

It's quite bizarre. I'm not sure if they're unable to execute their tactics as they explain them, or if they're unable to explain their tactics as they execute them. But in any case, they just don't match up.


----------



## KPM (May 31, 2017)

^^^^^ LFJ didn't have the satisfaction of getting someone to argue with him, so he had to resort to just out-right insulting people.


----------



## LFJ (May 31, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ LFJ didn't have the satisfaction of getting someone to argue with him, so he had to resort to just out-right insulting people.



Resort to what?

You can't really argue against what is clearly seen in slow-motion.
So, I wasn't looking for or expecting much argument on that.
It's posted so we're all looking at the same things as we comment on them.

My take on the counterattack possibilities here, and my observation on the disconnect between what you say and what is shown weren't insults.

I think I've been pretty objective and helpful. But, if that is your perspective, to take offense rather than try to have a look at things, what can I say?


----------



## KPM (May 31, 2017)

For the clueless amongst us, THIS is somewhat insulting!

*I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost every time, in fact.

It's quite bizarre. I'm not sure if they're unable to execute their tactics as they explain them, or if they're unable to explain their tactics as they execute them. But in any case, they just don't match up. *


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2017)

double post


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2017)

Lobo66 said:


> It looks to me like he is 1) still out of range even after having advanced and 2) actually moving further away and out of range during the second strike attempt.
> 
> If you're going to create angles using footwork, slipping or a combination of the two than you had better stay in range so your opponent doesn't have the opportunity to counter effectively (like in the boxing vid that someone posted).
> 
> *In VT we try to cut off the opponent and disrupt his center while attacking - "smothering" him with our actions.*



Yeah, upon re-reading this, I think _this_ is what was bothering me too. Also, I agree with the last comment, even though my VT doesn't come from WSL VT.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost _every time_, in fact.



Maybe you do feel that way about TWC guys. But generalizing like that comes pretty close to_ style bashing_ which isn't allowed on this forum. Why not continue to address the specifics of the issue rather than letting your disdain tor Keith, TWC, and most any WC/VT that is not what you do become the focus of the argument. Please.


----------



## Juany118 (May 31, 2017)

geezer said:


> Yeah, upon re-reading this, I think _this_ is what was bothering me too. Also, I agree with the last comment, even though my VT doesn't come from WSL VT.



Which is why I am glad my teachers studied under Sifu Keith Mazza.  The critique of LFJ doesn't apply and he is certainly smothering his opponent, taking their balance etc.  I have never studied under Sifu Redmond so I can't speak to what he actually teaches.  Often Youtube videos are about showing the picture perfect technique in a sterile environment so it looks pretty.

Others of course, as some people have said here (and we know of whom I speak) put intentional errors in their videos apparently.  So really the videos I take seriously are the "hey this was on my cell phone at a seminar" vs the polished ones.


----------



## Nobody Important (May 31, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Often Youtube videos are about showing the picture perfect technique in a sterile environment so it looks pretty.


This is something often forgot and I'm glad you brought it up. Several people, myself included, failed to take this into account before posting any comments. We need to remember it was just a demo illustrating a simple concept and not about the mechanics  and various principles involved to be overanalyzed with varying degrees of minutia. Agree or disagree with the manner of execution it doesn't devalue the concept of flanking, it is a valid method of strategy.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 1, 2017)

I like to stay neutral here. But if you post a video on a forum you should realize some people are going to see if completely differently and argue their point, even if it comes across as personally insulting. I mean it is a discussion forum on the internet.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 1, 2017)

geezer said:


> Maybe you do feel that way about TWC guys. But generalizing like that comes pretty close to_ style bashing_ which isn't allowed on this forum. Why not continue to address the specifics of the issue rather than letting your disdain tor Keith, TWC, and most any WC/VT that is not what you do become the focus of the argument. Please.



I have no "disdain" for Keith or any style, and I'm not generalizing from one or two specific cases.

It is literally every time I see a video of TWC posted and read a description of it that they don't match up.

This _is_ the issue, bigger than any specific technique.

I think pointing this out would perhaps help them take a closer look and figure out whether they mean to do what they say or what they actually do. It's hard to tell.

I'm not sure why they would find this insulting. 
They should be less sensitive and more analytical.

I'm just trying to be helpful.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Which is why I am glad my teachers studied under Sifu Keith Mazza.  The critique of LFJ doesn't apply and he is certainly smothering his opponent, taking their balance etc.



Actually, it does apply.

That is apparently your favorite clip, as you have posted it before and we had a look at things.

Now again:







We see how Mazza's feet are moving _backward_, _away_ from the opponent, actually affording the opponent space to recover.

His follow up _gaang-sau _only helps the guy reface him and adds momentum to the other arm to counterpunch with.

As he's punching to the guy's abdomen, that other punch would be whipping around to knock him flat out.

So, maybe his initial _cheun-sau_ pushes into the guy. But he is not at all smothering his opponent or taking his balance with the follow up.

It's in fact just the opposite. Not only is he allowing the guy to recover, he's actually _helping_ him recover.

This is a worse case of disconnect between say and do than anything I've seen from Phil, because he's doing the exact opposite of what you say!

I would suggest, after his initial _cheun-sau_ to _jat-da_, since he's already achieved flank, he should continue to pressure directly inward through the guy's core and not allow him to easily recover.

After doing all that work to get to an advantageous position, don't step away and take the pressure off!


----------



## KPM (Jun 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> .  So really the videos I take seriously are the "hey this was on my cell phone at a seminar" vs the polished ones.



And that is why people that have actually learned what was is being shown should be listened to and given a little credence when they explain what the person in the video was likely trying to demonstrate.   Rather than being told "No, you are wrong, just look at this slo mo video as I proceed to nick-pick every little detail!"


----------



## KPM (Jun 1, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I have no "disdain" for Keith or any style, and I'm not generalizing from one or two specific cases.
> 
> It is literally every time I see a video of TWC posted and read a description of it that they don't match up.
> 
> ...



^^^^^ Written by someone who apparently has total lack of any personal insight!


----------



## KPM (Jun 1, 2017)

*We see how Mazza's feet are moving backward, away from the opponent, actually affording the opponent space to recover.*

---Man, you never stop!   Just one response to this because I'm not letting you draw me into another of your long and pointless arguments.  Mazza is "getting the angle" just like we've been talking about on this thread.  Different approach than charging into the opponent as you would probably do.  That doesn't give the opponent space to recover because he is off-balancing the opponent or "breaking his base" at the same time.


*His follow up gaang-sau only helps the guy reface him and adds momentum to the other arm to counterpunch with.*

---No it doesn't. The guy's right foot is forward.  He is twisted and off-balance.  There would be no power in any counter-punch from that other arm.  And the angle and distance Mazza has created puts him in a place where he could deal easily with a punch from that arm if it did come.



*So, maybe his initial cheun-sau pushes into the guy. But he is not at all smothering his opponent or taking his balance with the follow up.*

---Again, realize this is a demo, Mazza is going relatively slow.  Slow enough that his partner has a chance to take a little step back to recover his balance.  At speed that wouldn't happen.



*This is a worse case of disconnect between say and do than anything I've seen from Phil, because he's doing the exact opposite of what you say!*

---No.  This is the worst case of nit-picking and being critical just because something doesn't match what you would do.

---Again, I'm not going to argue with you because it will do no good.  You can believe whatever you want.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> And that is why people that have actually learned what was is being shown should be listened to and given a little credence when they explain what the person in the video was likely trying to demonstrate.   Rather than being told "No, you are wrong, just look at this slo mo video as I proceed to nick-pick every little detail!"



I didn't say your method is wrong. But, you are demonstrably wrong when you say they're doing things that they clearly are not.



KPM said:


> Mazza is "getting the angle" just like we've been talking about on this thread...
> ...That doesn't give the opponent space to recover because he is off-balancing the opponent or "breaking his base" at the same time.



The opponent in the gif is not off-balanced or anything, he's just not responding.

His lead leg is being pulled back to reface Mazza.
If he went with the step to reface and fire from the other hand it would likely be a knockout at the same time Mazza is hitting low.



> The guy's right foot is forward.  He is twisted and off-balance.  There would be no power in any counter-punch from that other arm.



Not twisted at all. He's being opened up and turned toward Mazza, but he is just not going with it for sake of the demo.

The only thing stopping him from going with the force of Mazza's _gaang-sau_ and knocking him out is his unresponsiveness for sake of the demo.



> And the angle and distance Mazza has created puts him in a place where he could deal easily with a punch from that arm if it did come.



The punch would come around fast with added momentum from Mazza pulling him around at the same time Mazza is punching to the abdomen.

Most likely result is knockout, even if he lands a simultaneous body shot.



> ---Again, realize this is a demo, Mazza is going relatively slow.  Slow enough that his partner has a chance to take a little step back to recover his balance.  At speed that wouldn't happen.



At speed, he could go with the force and a throw a powerful strike from the other hand. You must be able to see this.



> ---No.  This is the worst case of nit-picking and being critical just because something doesn't match what you would do.



I don't have a problem with other MAs I don't train not doing what I do. I don't expect them to.

I'm just pointing out that, 1. he's not doing what you say he's doing, and 2. I don't think it's very practical.



> You can believe whatever you want.



You too, apparently, if you can even defend that gif as "smothering" and not clearly stepping backward, away from the guy.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> *We see how Mazza's feet are moving backward, away from the opponent, actually affording the opponent space to recover.*
> 
> ---Man, you never stop!   Just one response to this because I'm not letting you draw me into another of your long and pointless arguments.  Mazza is "getting the angle" just like we've been talking about on this thread.  Different approach than charging into the opponent as you would probably do.  That doesn't give the opponent space to recover because he is off-balancing the opponent or "breaking his base" at the same time.
> 
> ...


You pretty much covered everything I would have to regarding Sifu Keith's vid.  The only way for those two things to be corrected would be for Sifu Keith to be A. actually fighting and B. risking legit injury to his opponent.  I also found it interesting how the body mechanics if the student we're ignored when it came to the gaan.  Off balance, feet facing a different direction... As a matter of fact a number of grappling arts would use a technique the movement of which is similar to a gaan to actually flow into an armbar takedown right there because the opponent is so disadvantaged.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 1, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I also found it interesting how the body mechanics if the student we're ignored when it came to the gaan.  Off balance, feet facing a different direction... As a matter of fact a number of grappling arts would use a technique the movement of which is similar to a gaan to actually flow into an armbar takedown right there because the opponent is so disadvantaged.



Not ignored. It's because he's not responding.

Nothing here would be stopping him from going with the force that's pulling him to reface and counterpunch as Mazza is performing the _gaang-sau_. Mazza would be pulling a punch right into his face.

To do an armbar takedown, you'd want to move in tight, not step away and open up space to power striking range for the opponent.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 1, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I would suggest, after his initial _cheun-sau_ to _jat-da_, since he's already achieved flank, he should continue to pressure directly inward through the guy's core and not allow him to easily recover.



Agreed!


----------



## geezer (Jun 1, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Agreed!



^^^ That would also be my preferred follow-up. 

On the other hand some fighters work better with a little more space. What KPM said about the guy in the GIF above being twisted and off-balanced by Mazza's  gaun-sau rings true. My DTE coach does stuff like that to me. It might look like you could use the energy received to turn and punch in response, but the way my DTE coach does it, you are totally jacked up and such an instantaneous recovery simply isn't a possibility.


----------



## KPM (Jun 1, 2017)

geezer said:


> On the other hand some fighters work better with a little more space. What KPM said about the guy in the GIF above being twisted and off-balanced by Mazza's  gaun-sau rings true. My DTE coach does stuff like that to me. It might look like you could use the energy received to turn and punch in response, but the way my DTE coach does it, you are totally jacked up and such an instantaneous recovery simply isn't a possibility.



That's it exactly!  But LFJ hasn't trained this way or had it done to him, so he just refuses to see it.


----------



## geezer (Jun 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> That's it exactly!  But LFJ hasn't trained this way or had it done to him, so he just refuses to see it.



Ironic. He has acute vision, but such a narrow focus . It's like he views everything with VT blinders? Anyway, it seems that way to me.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> That's it exactly!  But LFJ hasn't trained this way or had it done to him, so he just refuses to see it.



It's simply that he's not twisted or off-balanced. He's purposefully unresponsive.

Geezer's DTE teacher probably does stuff that actually does that to you, but at this point he's just trying to save you some face.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 1, 2017)

geezer said:


> Ironic. He has acute vision, but such a narrow focus . It's like he views everything with VT blinders? Anyway, it seems that way to me.




Perhaps part of the issue is the lack of grappling that WSLVT/PB has?  Now I will admit that TWC grappling is basically basic to intermediate level when I look at my Judo and Aikido training, BUT the idea of using movements like a gaun-sau to unbalance an opponent is, in my experience, definitely part of grappling/mixed arts but alien to a "pure" striking art.  There the imbalance comes from strikes and counter strikes, not a "soft" movement like a gaun.  Ultimately that is what makes the gaun work after all.  It's not forward intent like a pak/tan/bong etc. it is rather a circular (soft) intent.  In a "pure" striking context that is often seen as something used to simply remove a barrier, if you do it and it hurts even better, but the idea of continuing to unbalance your opponent with the motion vs simply remove/hurt, is sometimes missing.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 1, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It's simply that he's not twisted or off-balanced. He's purposefully unresponsive.
> 
> Geezer's DTE teacher probably does stuff that actually does that to you, but at this point he's just trying to save you some face.



I tried to avoid this but here we go... again, that this is NOT a dynamic expression but a simulation for a seminar.  As I said earlier to do what would really happen would be on mats and not have as much "play by play".  The fact you acknowledge that @geezer 's DTE teacher can do that stuff says that you acknowledge it can be done.  As such I think, as others have said previously, you are basically engaging in a lineage attack, as passive aggressive as it may be.  

If you want to talk about the principles described cool.  You want to debate the benefits of "up the middle" vs flanking/blind side also cool.  But this clear nit picking over what are the natural by products of a step by step demonstration is simply counter productive to anything resembling a reasonable dialogue.


----------



## Lobo66 (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't know, guys.  I agree with LFJ's analysis of the video and I think  he's tried to remain neutral and technical.  Maybe I've missed something but I don't see any "lineage bashing."  My only experience with TWC (and I realize that one experience isn't statistically significant) jives with what LFJ has said, but that doesn't mean that I think TWC is worthless or bad as a style of WC.

Flanking and creating angles of attack is, of course, incredibly important in fighting and technical, detailed discussions on the subject are worth our while.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 2, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Perhaps part of the issue is the lack of grappling that WSLVT/PB has?



What does PB have to do with anything here?

WSLVT isn't a grappling art, but that doesn't mean anyone who trains it can't/doesn't also train legit grappling styles.



Juany118 said:


> As I said earlier to do what would really happen would be on mats and not have as much "play by play".



And the opponent would also be able to respond.



> The fact you acknowledge that @geezer 's DTE teacher can do that stuff says that you acknowledge it can be done.



"That stuff" being things that twist and unbalance someone in general.

That is _not_ an acknowledgment that what Mazza shows can be done without getting knocked out!



> I think, as others have said previously, you are basically engaging in a lineage attack,



Well, you're wrong.

If you post a video of someone doing the exact opposite of what you say, pointing that out is not a lineage attack.

If I think something is impractical and tell you exactly why and what I'd do differently, that is also not a lineage attack. It's constructive criticism.



> If you want to talk about the principles described cool.  You want to debate the benefits of "up the middle" vs flanking/blind side also cool.  But this clear nit picking over what are the natural by products of a step by step demonstration is simply counter productive to anything resembling a reasonable dialogue.



I don't expect much to get through to you yet, since you previously argued that he was stepping _into_ the opponent, and would not acknowledge that his feet are actually stepping _backward_, taking him _away_ from the opponent.

Just look at his dang feet. He's backing up toward the camera.

If you can't even see this much, of course you think the rest is nitpicking... 

...of course you can't see the opponent's stance being pulled to open up and reface, and what would happen if he went with the force and rotated with a punch from his left hand. That guy is a boxer after all, I'm sure he knows how to throw rotational punches quite well, and that would be his natural response.


----------



## KPM (Jun 2, 2017)

Lobo66 said:


> I don't know, guys.  I agree with LFJ's analysis of the video and I think  he's tried to remain neutral and technical.  Maybe I've missed something but I don't see any "lineage bashing."  My only experience with TWC (and I realize that one experience isn't statistically significant) jives with what LFJ has said, but that doesn't mean that I think TWC is worthless or bad as a style of WC.
> .



Generalizing negative comments to EVERYONE within a particular lineage, is "lineage bashing"!   As when LFJ said this:

*I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost every time, in fact.

It's quite bizarre. I'm not sure if they're unable to execute their tactics as they explain them, or if they're unable to explain their tactics as they execute them. But in any case, they just don't match up. 

*

That would be the same thing as me saying:

_"I just find this is a common problem coming from WSLVT guys.  They always take a negative view of anything that differs from what they do.  They come across on forums as rude, disrespectful and abrasive.  Almost every time, in fact!

It's quite bizarre.  I'm not sure if they're unable to think outside of their own system, if they are taught to be so narrow-minded and dogmatic or what.  But in any case, they just seem like pretty nasty and unfriendly people."_


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 2, 2017)

If's and but's.....


----------



## Lobo66 (Jun 2, 2017)

Nothing wrong with pointing out common problems.  Every system has its problems/weaknesses.  It's better to expose them and deal with them.

As long as we all stay technical and try not to get personal (or take things personally) it should be ok.


----------



## KPM (Jun 2, 2017)

Lobo66 said:


> Nothing wrong with pointing out common problems.  Every system has its problems/weaknesses.  It's better to expose them and deal with them.
> 
> As long as we all stay technical and try not to get personal (or take things personally) it should be ok.



And.....as pointed out....generalizing negative comments to EVERYONE in a lineage is not staying technical, is getting personal, and is "lineage bashing."


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 2, 2017)

New tenets of Wing Chun

1. Over-complicate Everything
2. Over-analyze Everything
3. Over-think Everything

The only martial art that is so worried about how the opponent will react to their attack that it borders on neurosis. That instead of focusing on the attack they actually focus on strategy to counter their own paranoia.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> And.....as pointed out....generalizing negative comments to EVERYONE in a lineage is not staying technical, is getting personal, and is "lineage bashing."



It wasn't to everyone in the lineage.

I was talking about TWC guys I see posting on forums, such as you, Juany, and Phil.

I pointed out a common disconnect I see almost every time one of you posts videos and describes what's happening.

Each time, I've stayed technical and even provided slow-motion gifs, diagrams, and such so we all know what we're looking at and talking about.

I haven't made any personal comments or insulted the TWC method. It is purely technical.

If you insist on taking offense to technical discussions, what can I say?
If you're only looking for agreement, there are probably TWC forums somewhere, Facebook maybe.


----------



## KPM (Jun 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It wasn't to everyone in the lineage.
> 
> I was talking about TWC guys I see posting on forums, such as you, Juany, and Phil.
> 
> ...



that's not what you said.  How about you try to actually not be such a xxxx all the time?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> that's not what you said.



It is.

I said it's a common problem I see from TWC guys. You guys are 3 independent examples.

Obviously I have not seen everyone in the lineage post videos and describe what is being done in them.
But when I have seen this, the disconnect between action and description has been common.

I try to point that out because sometimes an outside perspective is helpful, and the discrepancy cannot be ignored if we are to have a fruitful technical discussion.



> How about you try to actually not be such a xxxx all the time?



Now, this is an example of getting personal. How about we try not to go that route?


----------



## KPM (Jun 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I don't expect much to get through to you yet, since you previously argued that he was stepping _into_ the opponent, and would not acknowledge that his feet are actually stepping _backward_, taking him _away_ from the opponent.
> 
> Just look at his dang feet. He's backing up toward the camera.
> 
> ...




Ok, this is my last try. 

Mazza is a big guy, his feet move back because he is maintaining his distance while still being within range to strike.  He could kick at this point if he wanted to as well.  Because of the distance.  Let's look at his dang feet.  His rear foot moves towards the camera because he is adjusting the angle.  His lead foot stays at the same distance.  So he is not actually moving away from the opponent by any significant amount.  So yes, you are nit-picking. 

Note that Mazza is going slow enough that the opponent can take that small step back to recover his balance.  At speed that wouldn't happen, and the opponent would remain off-balance with his body somewhat twisted. His right foot is forward and his right arm is stretched back and he is in the process of falling backwards.  Its pretty hard to suddenly swing that rear hand around all the way to Mazza's new position on the blindside with any kind of effectiveness. And, as I pointed out before....if he did Mazza is ready and able to deal with it easily.  Because of the distance. 

If you can't or won't see these things.......what can I say??


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 2, 2017)

Lobo66 said:


> I don't know, guys.  I agree with LFJ's analysis of the video and I think  he's tried to remain neutral and technical.  Maybe I've missed something but I don't see any "lineage bashing."  My only experience with TWC (and I realize that one experience isn't statistically significant) jives with what LFJ has said, but that doesn't mean that I think TWC is worthless or bad as a style of WC.
> 
> Flanking and creating angles of attack is, of course, incredibly important in fighting and technical, detailed discussions on the subject are worth our while.


The problem is there is a difference between a seminar where you are explaining step by step and then actual light/full on sparring fighting.  That's one of the reasons I posted a video earlier with a TWC guy doing full on fighting where he knocks a guy out twice.  He traps, he uses a jamming bong to get an opening (as Sifu Mazza explains you can do instead on the cheun he physically demonstrates) etc.

Now without my experience in actual use of TWC and/or the video of the actual fight, I could say "okay maybe LFJ is being open minded and that is simply his take away." However since I have that experience and there are videos of TWC in real fights (would love to see one of WSLVT vis PB btw) I think we can safely say what he is complaining about is simply a product of the limitations a step by step demonstration.  Since that is clear it seems it's basically shots at lineage.

Now don't get me wrong.  I know Grand Master Cheung is unpopular in many quarters so this is bound to happen.  It is what it is though.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> His rear foot moves towards the camera because he is adjusting the angle.  His lead foot stays at the same distance.  So he is not actually moving away from the opponent by any significant amount.  So yes, you are nit-picking.



Both steps are moving away from the opponent.
The lead is stepping further away behind the guy.
The rear is withdrawing directly back toward the camera.
This opens space by at least a good foot or more.

It is not nitpicking if this is said to be stepping _into_ and smothering the opponent, when it's the exact opposite.



> Note that Mazza is going slow enough that the opponent can take that small step back to recover his balance.  At speed that wouldn't happen, and the opponent would remain off-balance with his body somewhat twisted. His right foot is forward and his right arm is stretched back and he is in the process of falling backwards.



Only if he's an action figure that can spin its body around independently, without the momentum being transferred to the legs.

The natural reaction of the human body is for the lead leg to be pulled back toward Mazza and for the torso to be turned to reface him. 

In fact, this is what happens in the video/gif, and it would only be fuller if the guy responded and went with the force to take a deliberate step and counterpunch with his left, with added momentum from being pulled around.

Since the gif seems too complicated, let's look at some stills.





Mazza has flank. The guy's stance is almost parallel to Mazza's, and his shoulders are turned away. We can see the logo on his back.




Mazza steps away to the opponent's rear and pulls his arm which begins rotating his shoulders toward Mazza.




The opponent's lower body now begins to react to the pull, which is to follow in the same rotational direction as his torso.




Mazza has stepped back opening space. Opponent's stance has now opened up to face almost perpendicular to Mazza's, and his shoulders have come around.

For sake of the demo he remains unresponsive and doesn't turn with it with an idea to punch, which just makes him stagger a bit with his left foot.

If instead at this point the opponent went with the momentum and turned fully with a deliberate right step at Mazza, nothing would stop him from throwing a powerful rotational left punch straight to Mazza's face while he's already looking and committed low.



> Its pretty hard to suddenly swing that rear hand around all the way to Mazza's new position on the blindside with any kind of effectiveness.



Usually, if he's flanked and refacing is barred, as he was and should have been kept, but not when his arm is pulled to rotate his front torso toward him when it was turned away. 

The rear hand comes right around with it.



> And, as I pointed out before....if he did Mazza is ready and able to deal with it easily.  Because of the distance.



The distance actually makes it possible for the opponent's stance to turn back toward Mazza, from the flanked position it was in, plus Mazza not having a lead leg to block it the guy's stance from coming around. 

Mazza actually helped him recover facing by opening up space and pulling him back around.

The punch would be swinging at his face at the same time he's pulling with one arm and punching low with the other.

It would be a miracle if he could "easily" deal with that by detecting the counter mid-attack, then abandoning the low punch he's already started to go cover high.

In conclusion, he had him in a good flanked position from the start. Why not keep him barred there and keep attacking to his core, affecting his balance from the flank? 

Opening the opponent back up like this when you already "had him" is super risky.

This is not an attack on the whole lineage or method, but obviously, I would strongly advise against this technique.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 2, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Now without my experience in actual use of TWC and/or the video of the actual fight, I could say "okay maybe LFJ is being open minded and that is simply his take away." However since I have that experience and there are videos of TWC in real fights...
> ...I think we can safely say what he is complaining about is simply a product of the limitations a step by step demonstration.  Since that is clear it seems it's basically shots at lineage.



This technique wasn't used in the fight video you posted, so the video is irrelevant.
There is no video of this particular technique in a fight. If there were, you'd surely have posted it by now.

Disagreeing with what you think you're seeing, and not being sold on the practicality of the technique doesn't make "shots at lineage".

This is purely technical discussion and constructive criticism.

You can consider my points and then reject them for whatever reason, but to cry foul is just ego talking, I'm afraid.


----------



## geezer (Jun 2, 2017)

Lobo66 said:


> Nothing wrong with pointing out common problems.  Every system has its problems/weaknesses.  It's better to expose them and deal with them.
> 
> As long as we all *stay technical and try not to get personal *(or take things personally) it should be ok.



You do this much better than LFJ. In your previous post you stated, _My only experience with TWC (and I realize that one experience isn't statistically significant) jives with what LFJ has said, but that doesn't mean that I think TWC is worthless or bad as a style of WC.
_
Now that's a modest and fair way to phrase your opinion. LFJ, by contrast has a way of stating things that comes off as condemning their entire lineage, and indeed any VT/WC lineage other than WSL VT. He may argue about this, but that's the general perception. For an articulate guy schooled in linguistics, as he is, I'd call that inexcusably poor communication. Covfefe?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 2, 2017)

Despite the constant negative lineage covfefe


----------



## KPM (Jun 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Mazza steps away to the opponent's rear and pulls his arm which begins rotating his shoulders toward Mazza.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You sure went to a lot of effort just for the sake of continuing an argument!     I've already pointed out....twice now...that this is a demo and Mazza was going slowly enough that the opponent was able to take a step back to recover his balance.  I think this is shown in your pics.  This wouldn't happen at speed.  Mazzo would be moving fast enough that the opponent wouldn't be able to recover his balance and wouldn't be able to just whip that rear hand around with a strike as easily and accurately as you seem to think.  Again, you've never had this done to you and felt what it does to your balance and control.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> You sure went to a lot of effort just for the sake of continuing an argument!     I've already pointed out....twice now...that this is a demo and Mazza was going slowly enough that the opponent was able to take a step back to recover his balance.  I think this is shown in your pics.  This wouldn't happen at speed.  Mazzo would be moving fast enough that the opponent wouldn't be able to recover his balance and wouldn't be able to just whip that rear hand around with a strike as easily and accurately as you seem to think.  Again, you've never had this done to you and felt what it does to your balance and control.


 
And whipping that rear hand around has other issues even if the balance isn't taken completely. 

1. If it's even just partially taken he can't reorient and has to reach across his body to punch.
2. If it's not taken he has to take time to reorient while Sifu Keith can simply continue his attack, even if it's just a split second while reorienting your balance is more vulnerable.
3. The entire point of using a cheun sau or bong sau to "jam" your opponent is that it is also a "cover" against that back hand coming in the event that you don't take the opponents balance.  Sifu Mazza even says that the other hand is coming, that "no one throws just one punch."

So really I don't even understand the argument that the other hand is coming, it's acknowledged in the initial premise as a certainty.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jun 2, 2017)

Can one of you guys get a sparring partner and just video yourselves doing it in real time?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 2, 2017)

dudewingchun said:


> Can one of you guys get a sparring partner and just video yourselves doing it in real time?



Earlier I posted a video of Sifu Jerry Devone in a real fight.  In it he uses a jamming bong, instead a cheun, to open a path to strike or to transition to lap then strike in real time resulting in a number of KO's.  Since it isn't sparring but a real fight it is a little messy and fast but the principles are illustrated and they work.  There are other videos on YouTube showing different angles of the fight I posted and another fight where his opponent keeps clinching on him to try and stop him from doing the same to him.  The opponent I posted studied Moy Yat WC.


----------



## KPM (Jun 2, 2017)

Here is another clip of Phil "getting the angle" on the opponent:


----------



## drop bear (Jun 2, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And whipping that rear hand around has other issues even if the balance isn't taken completely.
> 
> 1. If it's even just partially taken he can't reorient and has to reach across his body to punch.
> 2. If it's not taken he has to take time to reorient while Sifu Keith can simply continue his attack, even if it's just a split second while reorienting your balance is more vulnerable.
> ...



He has moved into that left hand. Or kind of moved the left hand in to him.  Moving into a punch is generally considered a no no because you reduce the time you have to react to it.

Then he has opened that side to striking by striking himself.

Personally If I i was going down  that route I would hit with my left because his cover hand is out of range.

If he wants to throw a maday left hook.  It is then covered by my guard.  And he is then turning into my left strike. Which sucks.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> He has moved into that left hand. Or kind of moved the left hand in to him.  Moving into a punch is generally considered a no no because you reduce the time you have to react to it.
> 
> Then he has opened that side to striking by striking himself.
> 
> ...



Are we watching the same video?  Sifu Keith's right hand is in a jamming guard position as he enters so, if he fails to take the opponents balance his guard is there to take the left cross.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> You sure went to a lot of effort just for the sake of continuing an argument!



Only took a minute, and it's important, because without it you can continue to say things are happening that are not.



> this is a demo and Mazza was going slowly enough that the opponent was able to take a step back to recover his balance.  I think this is shown in your pics.  This wouldn't happen at speed.  Mazzo would be moving fast enough that the opponent wouldn't be able to recover his balance and wouldn't be able to just whip that rear hand around with a strike as easily and accurately as you seem to think.



Can you count on that?

Lots of my training involves maintenance and recovery of balance, including capitalizing on momentum from people pulling in this way or that.

Plenty of guys are very good on their feet, like many boxers, and could maintain or recover their balance from this better than you might imagine.

It's just a wasted opportunity to have a guy turned away and completely flanked, but then open up space and pull him back around to face you.

And it's super risky to do this while punching low with the only hand that would be able to defend against a high left punch coming in at the same time.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And whipping that rear hand around has other issues even if the balance isn't taken completely.
> 
> 1. If it's even just partially taken he can't reorient and has to reach across his body to punch.



Doesn't have to. He was pulled around to reface by Mazza.

Just look at the last still, his stance is aimed at Mazza and his shoulders have come around.

Good for a punch if he went with it.



> 2. If it's not taken he has to take time to reorient while Sifu Keith can simply continue his attack, even if it's just a split second while reorienting your balance is more vulnerable.



Mazza already helped him reorient by pulling him around to face him. 
A left punch could come right around with it.



> 3. The entire point of using a cheun sau or bong sau to "jam" your opponent is that it is also a "cover" against that back hand coming in the event that you don't take the opponents balance.  Sifu Mazza even says that the other hand is coming, that "no one throws just one punch."
> 
> So really I don't even understand the argument that the other hand is coming, it's acknowledged in the initial premise as a certainty.



Yes, but the problem is he abandoned the strategy of keeping the opponent flanked and attacking his core.

He switches to pulling with the left hand, and punching low with the right hand - the only hand able to defend against a high left at that moment.

It just makes little sense that he should abandon his advantageous position, to do something so risky as to bring the guy back around to face him while punching low.



Juany118 said:


> Are we watching the same video?  Sifu Keith's right hand is in a jamming guard position as he enters so, if he fails to take the opponents balance his guard is there to take the left cross.



You keep wanting to go back to the entry and ignore the follow-up.

The follow-up is the important part because his entry is not striking or doing anything to take the guy out of the fight. Doesn't matter how good your entry is if you can't capitalize.

Yes, he gets to good flanked position and jams the guy, barring his facing, pressuring into his center...

But then he abandons this strategy completely by stepping away and pulling the guy back around to face him!

His _cheun-sau_ that was up to defend against a potential left strike has also been abandoned and went to strike low just as he's pulling the guy around that could be coming with a left punch up high.

Wasted opportunity.

Risky.



Juany118 said:


> Earlier I posted a video of Sifu Jerry Devone in a real fight.  In it he uses a jamming bong, instead a cheun, to open a path to strike or to transition to lap then strike in real time resulting in a number of KO's.  Since it isn't sparring but a real fight it is a little messy and fast but the principles are illustrated and they work.  There are other videos on YouTube showing different angles of the fight I posted and another fight where his opponent keeps clinching on him to try and stop him from doing the same to him.  The opponent I posted studied Moy Yat WC.



Irrelevant. None of those videos show this technique.


----------



## KPM (Jun 3, 2017)

*
Can you count on that?*

---There you go nit-picking again.  You can second guess and "if & but" all day long with ANY demo video!  Post some of WSLVT and we can do the same thing!  But oh wait....you never actively contribute to this forum by posting ANY videos or starting ANY threads on your own. 


*Plenty of guys are very good on their feet, like many boxers, and could maintain or recover their balance from this better than you might imagine.*

---Can you count on that?


*It's just a wasted opportunity to have a guy turned away and completely flanked, but then open up space and pull him back around to face you.*

---But Mazza is NOT pulling him back around to help him re-face.  The force is going behind the opponent to off-balance him.  How many times do I have to state that?  That's WHY his opponent took that step straight back and didn't just spin initially.  Again, if you felt what was happening you would understand what I'm saying.  

*And it's super risky to do this while punching low with the only hand that would be able to defend against a high left punch coming in at the same time.*

---No its not.  Relatively speaking the opponent's rear hand is far away at that point.  Mazza certainly has time to throw a fast body shot and bring that hand back quickly to defend.  Because of the distance.  You keep criticizing the fact that he hasn't charged straight into the guy.  You keep missing the fact that it is the distance and the angling that makes it work.  And after landing that body shot the opponent will have even LESS chance of getting the rear hand around for any kind of effective blow of his own.

----To sum it up:  Mazza has moved to the opponent's "blindside"....immobilizing his lead hand and creating distance and an angle from the guy's rear hand that makes it difficult for the opponent to reach him with that hand.  Mazza has unbalanced his opponent (evidenced by the guy stepping straight back), also causing him to be in a "twisted" position with his right leg forward and his right arm practically behind him.  Mazza has also struck the opponent in the exposed ribs while he is in this twisted and off-balanced position, making it even less likely that he can throw anything effective from his rear hand.  And Mazza still has his own rear hand easily in play to deal with anything that might come from the opponent's rear hand.  The distance his hand travels to punch the guy's ribs is easily a third of the distance that the guy's rear hand would have to travel to reach Mazza's head.  

---I only continue to respond to you because it's important.  Otherwise you can continue to nit-pick and say things are likely that simply are not.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---There you go nit-picking again.



It's not nitpicking when the percentage of risk is unnecessarily elevated like that.



> *Plenty of guys are very good on their feet, like many boxers, and could maintain or recover their balance from this better than you might imagine.*
> 
> ---Can you count on that?



Again, it's percentages. The risk run by Mazza here is much greater.



> ---But Mazza is NOT pulling him back around to help him re-face.  The force is going behind the opponent to off-balance him.  How many times do I have to state that?  That's WHY his opponent took that step straight back and didn't just spin initially.



Compare the opponent's position at the start and finish.

His stance has opened up to reface Mazza and his shoulders have come around so he can punch from the left.

The only reason he's not rotating more is because he's not going with the pull with the idea to punch, for sake of the demo.












> Mazza certainly has time to throw a fast body shot and bring that hand back quickly to defend.  Because of the distance.



In a demo, maybe.



> You keep criticizing the fact that he hasn't charged straight into the guy.



Because that's what Juany said he was doing. On another thread where he posted this favorite clip of his, he denied Mazza was obviously stepping _backward_, saying he was moving into the opponent the whole time.



> You keep missing the fact that it is the distance and the angling that makes it work.



No. I just don't believe you.

It's opening the distance that allows the opponent's lead leg to open back up toward Mazza.

If Mazza used a lead leg on his entry, instead of a parallel stance, he could have blocked the opponent's ability to step with the momentum of his pull. Could have made a possible throw out of it, or at least kept the guy's stance turned away.



> And after landing that body shot the opponent will have even LESS chance of getting the rear hand around for any kind of effective blow of his own.



Is he hitting him with a stun gun or something?



> ----To sum it up:  Mazza has moved to the opponent's "blindside"....immobilizing his lead hand and creating distance and an angle from the guy's rear hand that makes it difficult for the opponent to reach him with that hand.



Correction: Mazza _had_ blindside, but gave it up by pulling the guy around to where his rear hand can better reach him.



> Mazza has unbalanced his opponent (evidenced by the guy stepping straight back), also causing him to be in a "twisted" position with his right leg forward and his right arm practically behind him.



Lead leg actually swung open to the right toward Mazza, because Mazza stepped back allowing him the space to do so, and he's not twisted.








> Mazza has also struck the opponent in the exposed ribs while he is in this twisted and off-balanced position, making it even less likely that he can throw anything effective from his rear hand.



Not twisted or off-balanced. In much better position to counter now than he was initially.



> And Mazza still has his own rear hand easily in play to deal with anything that might come from the opponent's rear hand.  The distance his hand travels to punch the guy's ribs is easily a third of the distance that the guy's rear hand would have to travel to reach Mazza's head.



If both punches launch at the same time, Mazza is going to land a body shot then go back high to block the counterpunch? Is he The Flash?



> ---I only continue to respond to you because it's important.  Otherwise you can continue to nit-pick and say things are likely that simply are not.



You got the short end of the stick when it comes to the likelihood of things here.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Are we watching the same video?  Sifu Keith's right hand is in a jamming guard position as he enters so, if he fails to take the opponents balance his guard is there to take the left cross.



He is open when he punches.


----------



## KPM (Jun 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> He is open when he punches.



So you guys all think Mazza, who has been training martial arts for decades, is so SLOW that the wouldn't be able to make that short punch to the liver and bring his hand back to center fast enough to deal with a rear hand punch from an opponent who is off-balance and having to pivot around and make a large swing with his off-side arm in order to target him effectively?   That's really what all you guys believe????


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> So you guys all think Mazza, who has been training martial arts for decades, is so SLOW that the wouldn't be able to make that short punch to the liver and bring his hand back to center fast enough to deal with a rear hand punch from an opponent who is off-balance and having to pivot around and make a large swing with his off-side arm in order to target him effectively?   That's really what all you guys believe????



I don't understand why it appears that people can't tell the difference between step by step demonstration instruction and dynamic.  Or maybe they can and they just don't like it?  Or maybe they just have something against the lineage and so look for anything to nit-pick vs actually having a conversation about the principles and tactics being demonstrated.

As for the specific point you are mentioning.  Anytime you strike you will be creating an opening of some sort, big or small.  That said the entire point there is to take advantage of the off balanced opponent.  Since, in The scenario the opponent is off balance having that particular opening is acceptable because when one is that off balance they can't effectively retaliate.  If you note he says "so how do I get there?" If the opponent wasn't off balance you would not "get there."

It's all about context and what he is saying is as important as what you are seeing.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> So you guys all think Mazza, who has been training martial arts for decades, is so SLOW that the wouldn't be able to make that short punch to the liver and bring his hand back to center fast enough to deal with a rear hand punch from an opponent who is off-balance and having to pivot around and make a large swing with his off-side arm in order to target him effectively?   That's really what all you guys believe????



It is not about Mazza being fast slow or indifferent. The more you move towards a punch.  The less time you have to deal with it.  Which is why in general you don't move your head towards a free hand.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I don't understand why it appears that people can't tell the difference between step by step demonstration instruction and dynamic.  Or maybe they can and they just don't like it?  Or maybe they just have something against the lineage and so look for anything to nit-pick vs actually having a conversation about the principles and tactics being demonstrated.
> 
> As for the specific point you are mentioning.  Anytime you strike you will be creating an opening of some sort, big or small.  That said the entire point there is to take advantage of the off balanced opponent.  Since, in The scenario the opponent is off balance having that particular opening is acceptable because when one is that off balance they can't effectively retaliate.  If you note he says "so how do I get there?" If the opponent wasn't off balance you would not "get there."
> 
> It's all about context and what he is saying is as important as what you are seeing.



It looks like he is being off balanced into a left hand strike though. Not away from it.


----------



## KPM (Jun 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It is not about Mazza being fast slow or indifferent. The more you move towards a punch.  The less time you have to deal with it.  Which is why in general you don't move your head towards a free hand.



And just where did he do that????


----------



## drop bear (Jun 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> And just where did he do that????



When he was outside the other guys right arm. Gains control of that right arm and then positions towards the free left arm. then drops his right hand to punch.

Free left hand meets occupied right arm and so there is nothing in between the left hand and the face.


----------



## KPM (Jun 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> When he was outside the other guys right arm. Gains control of that right arm and then positions towards the free left arm. then drops his right hand to punch.
> 
> Free left hand meets occupied right arm and so there is nothing in between the left hand and the face.



Already explained.  Positioning, distance, angle....that has been the whole point of the discussion recently!  And.....again.....the distance that punch from the opponent's left hand would have to travel is pretty large because of all that.  Mazza has plenty of time to do that short strike to the liver and still have his right hand ready to defend.   I don't understand why everyone feels the need to nit-pick this so much.  Post any demo video like this that...when played at slow motion....doesn't also look like there are all kinds of openings and gaps that you could "what if" all day long!


----------



## drop bear (Jun 3, 2017)

KPM said:


> Already explained.  Positioning, distance, angle....that has been the whole point of the discussion recently!  And.....again.....the distance that punch from the opponent's left hand would have to travel is pretty large because of all that.  Mazza has plenty of time to do that short strike to the liver and still have his right hand ready to defend.   I don't understand why everyone feels the need to nit-pick this so much.  Post any demo video like this that...when played at slow motion....doesn't also look like there are all kinds of openings and gaps that you could "what if" all day long!


Not nit picking. Sharing different ideas. 

some people are scarier in slow motion.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> So you guys all think Mazza, who has been training martial arts for decades, is so SLOW that the wouldn't be able to make that short punch to the liver and bring his hand back to center fast enough to deal with a rear hand punch from an opponent who is off-balance and having to pivot around and make a large swing with his off-side arm in order to target him effectively?   That's really what all you guys believe????



No one is so FAST that they'd be able to land a body shot then race back up to defend high against a punch that launched at the same time as their body shot. You're just not thinking realistically.

The opponent's punch also doesn't have to be a "large swing", and he doesn't have to pivot.
His stance is actually being pulled by Mazza 90 degrees to reface him. He just needs to go with it.

A straight left could come right across that angle with added momentum of his shoulders being pulled around as well. And Mazza being committed low has no defense to his upper right. Very risky.



KPM said:


> Positioning, distance, angle....that has been the whole point of the discussion recently!  And.....again.....the distance that punch from the opponent's left hand would have to travel is pretty large because of all that.  Mazza has plenty of time to do that short strike to the liver and still have his right hand ready to defend.



The distance is actually no different than Mazza's punch.

Mazza is not only stepping away, but also pulling the guy around with/to him.

He's also not stepping out of range of the left punch, but _into_ power striking range for the opponent.

To think there is "plenty of time" to go low then high in the time it takes to throw one direct punch is just not being realistic.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 4, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I don't understand why it appears that people can't tell the difference between step by step demonstration instruction and dynamic.  Or maybe they can and they just don't like it?  Or maybe they just have something against the lineage and so look for anything to nit-pick vs actually having a conversation about the principles and tactics being demonstrated.



We _are_ talking about the principles and tactics being demonstrated.
This has been an entirely technical discussion. Nothing but.

Don't think disagreement on this technique is an attack on the lineage. That's a silly excuse.

"_You're only nitpicking because you have something against my lineage_".
No. I think it's been made very clear, technically, why some of us aren't feeling this technique. 
I'm doing so in this very comment.



> Since, in The scenario the opponent is off balance having that particular opening is acceptable because when one is that off balance they can't effectively retaliate.



The technique is putting oneself at great risk while relying entirely on the opponent being sufficiently off-balanced so as to be unable to attack.

The problem is, many guys are better on their feet than you might think, and there's no guarantee your technique is going to unbalance them. You're just pulling on their arm.

Personally, if I'm going to off-balance someone, I'll make sure I'm in a safe position to where I can protect myself in case they don't lose their balance as well as I intended.

In this technique, the risk of knockout from a left punch is extremely high, since he's pulling the punch into himself while punching low and relying on the hope that the guy is too off-balance to hit him.

Not worth the risk for a body shot, I'd say.



> If you note he says "so how do I get there?" If the opponent wasn't off balance you would not "get there."
> 
> It's all about context and what he is saying is as important as what you are seeing.



So, my question would be, why do you want to get there (body shot on the inside) when you had the guy perfectly flanked and could safely attack his face while keeping him turned away and off-balanced already?

What's the point of giving up flank by pulling the guy around to face you, just to give him a body shot on the inside and risk trading it for a knockout punch to the face?

It just boggles my mind that one would give up such an advantageous position to do something so risky.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not nit picking. Sharing different ideas.
> 
> some people are scarier in slow motion.




Ok.  Yeah.  Let's look at his slow motion.  Note how many times he is standing right in front of the opponent and the guy's rear hand is literally 4 inches from his face and he has no positive control of it....hasn't affected the guy's balance....hasn't stepped away from the rear hand in any fashion.   "Very risky!" to quote LFJ.  Why do you not make the same criticism of his video as you do of Mazza's????

Yeah.  No one criticizes a boxer for that kind of stuff.  But certainly want to criticize a Wing Chun guy that doesn't stand directly in front of the opponent.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> The distance is actually no different than Mazza's punch.
> 
> .



I don't even think we are looking at the same video anymore!   I've answered every one of your points already.  Some multiple times.   If you think the distance that Mazza's punch has to travel to land that liver shot is the same that his opponent's rear hand would have to travel to reach Mazza's head, well, that seems like evidence to me that you aren't even trying to be reasonable.  All you want to do is argue.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> Ok.  Yeah.  Let's look at his slow motion.  Note how many times he is standing right in front of the opponent and the guy's rear hand is literally 4 inches from his face and he has no positive control of it....hasn't affected the guy's balance....hasn't stepped away from the rear hand in any fashion.   "Very risky!" to quote LFJ.  Why do you not make the same criticism of his video as you do of Mazza's????
> 
> Yeah.  No one criticizes a boxer for that kind of stuff.  But certainly want to criticize a Wing Chun guy that doesn't stand directly in front of the opponent.



You can criticize him if you want. We neither have to be a carbon copy of lomachenko or Mazza.

Plenty of people criticize boxers. That is how they get better.

A whole boxing forum criticising the guy.
How good is Vasyl Lomachenko?

That is what a technical discussion is.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> I don't even think we are looking at the same video anymore!   I've answered every one of your points already.  Some multiple times.



I don't know that we ever were!

We went from video, to gif, to still images, and you still answer with very unrealistic ideas that don't match what's happening, or acknowledge the obvious risks.



> If you think the distance that Mazza's punch has to travel to land that liver shot is the same that his opponent's rear hand would have to travel to reach Mazza's head, well, that seems like evidence to me that you aren't even trying to be reasonable.  All you want to do is argue.



They're both rear hands. It's about the same distance if the opponent cuts straight across the 90 degree line he's being pulled into (see image), and the counter is accelerated by Mazza pulling it around.

Plus, Mazza is stepping _backward_ into the opponent's power range as he punches, while pulling the opponent toward him. Most likely event is that they land simultaneously. Opponent might get hurt, but Mazza gets knocked out.

_Unless_... the opponent's balance is so disrupted that he can't punch, but counting on that as your only safety net is foolish.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Plenty of people criticize boxers. That is how they get better.
> 
> A whole boxing forum criticising the guy.
> How good is Vasyl Lomachenko?
> ...



Right?

Some here have an aversion to constructive criticism.
I think ego gets in the way a lot of the time.

After years of dedication to a traditional art, no one wants to acknowledge potential flaws and fix them.

Traditional arts are unfailing, and sifus infallible.

Hence, any criticism is deemed "lineage bashing", because if one technique is criticised, the whole lineage is being insulted, they feel.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> We _are_ talking about the principles and tactics being demonstrated.
> This has been an entirely technical discussion. Nothing but.
> 
> Don't think disagreement on this technique is an attack on the lineage. That's a silly excuse.
> ...


I have mostly stayed out of this discussion so as to not offend anyone, but ........

I agree with LFJ.

This may be a hard pill for some to swallow, and I'm sure everyone knows by now that LFJ & I don't play very well together. That being said, I agree with all points he's made (aside from a few insinuated lineage put downs).

I understand what Redmond & Mazza are attempting to do, and IMO there are safer and more controlling ways to achieve it, I've hinted at this since the first video.

In the quoted portion LFJ lays it out plainly & simply. Now, am I going to relentlessly attack or defend Redmond or Mazza's decisions to do what they did? No, I'll disagree and move on because I know that at times we are all susceptible to a glass of freshly downed Kool Aid, especially when we are thirsty and there is nothing else to drink, and Kool Aid messes with our judgement.

It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.


----------



## geezer (Jun 4, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.



You can say that again.



Nobody Important said:


> It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It looks like he is being off balanced into a left hand strike though. Not away from it.



Not really, if the lack of balance is maintained in that direction the opponent has to initially reach across his body to try and do the left hand strike.  Then with the gan, trust me you may want to do a left hand strike and you are moving in that direction now BUT, again if done right, you are not in control of your bodies movement so the strike is going to be completely uncontrolled where as the person applying the gan on you is in complete control of himself.  When you roll that gan in such a situation it's actually similar to what some grappling arts do to roll the arm into an armbar takedown, which is actually what I would instinctively do in such a situation, Sifu Keith simply uses it to open a path for a strike.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Some here have an aversion to constructive criticism.
> l.



Nothing you've written is "constructive."   Its just argumentative.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

*I agree with LFJ.*

---Then you are missing the points I have made.  The primary one being that Mazza is NOT spinning the guy around towards him.  He is breaking his balance directly to the rear.  That's why the guy had to take a step.  Otherwise he would have just spun into or towards Mazza.  But he didn't.  He stepped straight back.  This is subtle and something that has to be felt to be appreciated.  But for some reason you guys don't want to see that or take mine and Juany's word for it. 

*
I understand what Redmond & Mazza are attempting to do*

---If that were true, then you wouldn't be agreeing with LFJ! 

*, and IMO there are safer and more controlling ways to achieve it, I've hinted at this since the first video.*

---That may well be so.  But that doesn't mean what is being shown doesn't work, which is  what LFJ has been saying, and evidently you agree with.


*In the quoted portion LFJ lays it out plainly & simply.*

---And I have layed out plainly and simply why what he has said is not entirely accurate.  And I have actually trained what is happening the those videos and LFJ has not.


*It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.*

----True.  But when someone's "ifs and buts" have been responded to, that should be the end of it.  But LFJ continues to speak ill of what is going on in those videos.  And others seem willing to pile on.   When I have to repeat the same technical response to the same technical critiques multiple times, what does that tell you?   If someone makes a technical criticism of something I presented and I give a technical response, shouldn't that just be the end of it?   It becomes an argument when the person making that critique feels the need to keep repeating it and expanding despite what has been said in answer to the initial criticism.  And that's what LFJ is good at!  And it seems others this time around chose to jump on the bandwagon!


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can criticize him if you want. We neither have to be a carbon copy of lomachenko or Mazza.
> 
> .



You missed my point!  My point was that the very thing you guys are criticizing Mazza of, is something that is even worse and done regularly by many high level boxers!


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> Then you are missing the points I have made.  The primary one being that Mazza is NOT spinning the guy around towards him.  He is breaking his balance directly to the rear.  That's why the guy had to take a step.  Otherwise he would have just spun into or towards Mazza.  But he didn't.  He stepped straight back.  This is subtle and something that has to be felt to be appreciated.  But for some reason you guys don't want to see that or take mine and Juany's word for it.



I'm not taking anyone's word, your's, Juany' s or LFJ. Mazza' s technique is low, low percentage and inefficient. He had flank, and could have easily slid to his left to take his opponents back. Taking the back is prime real estate in boxing or wrestling. To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb. Much easier to take balance from the back and opponent is way, way more exposed and vulnerable.

Now I'm not saying it couldn't work, I'm saying why even bother doing it, it doesn't make sense unless your trying to see if you can manipulate balance from an exposed angle. Even lifting his right hand up to strike the face would have been better. Mazza gave up prime position to hit his opponent in the liver & possibly get punched in the face, because to pull that move off it has to be absolutely perfect? If he would have just taken the back he could have done much, much more, and no I don't subscribe to the "He could easily defend himself from a blow to the head after he strikes crap" it's unrealistic. 

To think that by using that left guan sau  on anything but a fully locked arm is going to significantly disrupt an opponents balance is wishful thinking. Linking a move like that into an arm bar or throw generally requires isolation of the shoulder as well. It stabilizes and helps maintain control and opponents balance, Mazza does not do this.

If for some reason the back could not be taken and he had to return to the position he stated from, instead of doing guan sau, I personally, would have used a left sided leg sweep or instead of using a right palm to liver, I would have clotheslined him. Way less chance of of opponent countering, because when his *** hits the ground, I know for certain I took his balance.

Now you can carry on all you like, but in my opinion your defending flawed strategy. You simply don't give up prime position to to carry out what essentially boils down to a weak "Chi Trick".  Just simply agree to disagree and move on. I'm not here to reinforce or dispel your, or anyone else's beliefs, I call it like I see and understand it. When I'm wrong I admit it, others need to do the same.


----------



## Phobius (Jun 4, 2017)

Got to say I agree with LFJ as well. How crazy it may well sound.

There is nothing sound in the demo being presented by Mazza. Of course this is my own belief and I do not know if Mazza had the right mind but just got side-tracked trying to demonstrate a point for his students. Sometimes demonstration lets you "pass" crazy and stupid moves not because you ever would but because you are focusing so much on trying to demonstrate your point and forcing it too hard.

Now everything in that demo to me seems like he is forcing the "opponent" to take a step back but also in a normal case rotate his hip and shoulders putting his left fist straight to Mazza's head. You can off-balance someone in a demo situation but he does not seem to get that angle correctly since he would then have to force the shoulder upwards to lock it and cause the boxer to not rotate but being forced to continue backwards. I do not see this from happening nor would I think anyone should ever "plan" for that to occur in a fighting scenario. All it takes is for that arm to be moving a bit and you may very well miss and end up getting knocked out.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

* To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb.*

---And just where did he do that!  His opponent did NOT reface towards him.  LJF proposed that as a theoretical and now you are agreeing with him.  You aren't looking at this with an open mind or listening to what Juany or I have been saying any more than he has!!!

*
 Much easier to take balance from the back and opponent is way, way more exposed and vulnerable.*

---Maybe so.  But then that becomes grappling and not Wing Chun and Mazza was teaching a Wing Chun seminar.  We don't know...maybe in a later lesson he covered something about transitioning from Wing Chun to grappling.  But in this particular clip he is teaching Wing Chun.  Because....its...a....demo!


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

*Got to say I agree with LFJ as well. How crazy it may well sound.*

---Damn!  You too Phobius!  


*Now everything in that demo to me seems like he is forcing the "opponent" to take a step back*

----Uh, no.  How many times now have I stated that the opponent only was able to take a  step back because Mazza was going at "demo speed."   At full speed the guy would be tipping over backwards and struck before he ever had a chance to take a step to recover his balance.

* but also in a normal case rotate his hip and shoulders putting his left fist straight to Mazza's head.*

----Again, he would have been tipping over backwards and in no position to launch an effective strike.  He only looks stable and like he could throw that strike because, again, this is demo speed. 

* You can off-balance someone in a demo situation but he does not seem to get that angle correctly since he would then have to force the shoulder upwards to lock it and cause the boxer to not rotate but being forced to continue backwards.*

---Huh?  Imagine you are standing with your right leg forward and someone suddenly grabs your right arm and yanks it straight to the rear.  That is effectively what Mazza is doing.  No "shoulder locking" is required.  Now as you are falling backwards from the yank on your arm, how effective and accurate of a blow do you think you could throw?  And what if you were taking a solid shot to the liver AS you were tipping over backwards?  How would that affect your ability to throw that rear hand?

---I agree that this is not an optimal position that Mazza is in.  Its much better to be on the outside of the opponent's right arm.  But you can't always get there.  So if you find yourself on the inside because the opponent is throwing a wide punch with the right arm, rather than standing right in front of him, Mazza is showing how to move around to the side to "get the angle" and effectively get as far away from the opponent's rear hand as possible while controlling the lead hand.  If he stayed put right in front of the opponent, he would be in even MORE risk of getting hit by that rear hand. 

---I realize that this kind of angling is something that Wing Chun people outside of TWC don't do.  That's why I shared these videos.  But honestly, the reactions and flat denial of what I've been trying to explain just surprises me!


----------



## Phobius (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---Damn!  You too Phobius!



Well it was not intentional. The mind has a will of its own. 



KPM said:


> ----Uh, no.  How many times now have I stated that the opponent only was able to take a  step back because Mazza was going at "demo speed."   At full speed the guy would be tipping over backwards and struck before he ever had a chance to take a step to recover his balance.



You can however not yank an arm that had every intention of going in that direction.

Do not mean to sound confusing but what I mean is, if you relax and just understand that it is ok for you to have your arm move because your body will move with it. Things will take a whole new aspect. A very important thing to learn when doing any kind of tiger play.



KPM said:


> ---Huh?  Imagine you are standing with your right leg forward and someone suddenly grabs your right arm and yanks it straight to the rear.  That is effectively what Mazza is doing.  No "shoulder locking" is required.  Now as you are falling backwards from the yank on your arm, how effective and accurate of a blow do you think you could throw?  And what if you were taking a solid shot to the liver AS you were tipping over backwards?  How would that affect your ability to throw that rear hand?



We are actually doing training in similar situations more as a drilling not to be fight realistic but to allow us to move with the flow so to say. The key thing is that if you yank my arm, I just let my arm move, charging me up for a rotation perhaps, especially if I am permitted to maintain balance enough to move my feet.

My objections come perhaps not so much from WT however but more from my time in BJJ, Karate and also maybe pieces of MT.



KPM said:


> ---I agree that this is not an optimal position that Mazza is in.  Its much better to be on the outside of the opponent's right arm.  But you can't always get there.  So if you find yourself on the inside because the opponent is throwing a wide punch with the right arm, rather than standing right in front of him, Mazza is showing how to move around to the side to "get the angle" and effectively get as far away from the opponent's rear hand as possible while controlling the lead hand.  If he stayed put right in front of the opponent, he would be in even MORE risk of getting hit by that rear hand.



It was just not how I see it. I just saw it as him being in a good position then yanking that arm to give the opponent an angle at him rather than vice versa.



KPM said:


> ---I realize that this kind of angling is something that Wing Chun people outside of TWC don't do.  That's why I shared these videos.  But honestly, the reactions and flat denial of what I've been trying to explain just surprises me!



Angles and footwork is everything for us, and I do WT. At least an open-minded version of it should there exist a traditionalistic WT. One can never know in all these lineage wars.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> * To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb.*
> 
> ---And just where did he do that!  His opponent did NOT reface towards him.  LJF proposed that as a theoretical and now you are agreeing with him.  You aren't looking at this with an open mind or listening to what Juany or I have been saying any more than he has!!!
> 
> ...


He moved out of a position of control to a position of lesser control. Instead of moving right he could have went left, assuming total control and left the opponent oblivious to any action he took. It wasn't  a strategy I would recommend,  but to each their own.

Secondly, there is nothing in the Wing Chun rule book that states "taking the back is a grappling only maneuver", lots of unprotected striking targets there, if your Wing Chun only focuses on boxing. A kick to the back of the knee and balance is destroyed. Besides, many branches of Wing Chun have some grappling. Your statement is nothing more than trying to justify why Mazza does what he did, that my friend is myopic. Sticking to and defending your case, in spite of being presented with differing opinions that offer valid alternatives, is exactly what you accuse WSLVT practitioners of. We can't always be right, no one can. You can either accept valid criticism of others or not, but to continue arguing to convince others that what's shown is good application isn't being receptive to how others feel about it and is making you look foolish. No one has outright said anything negative about the lineage or practitioners, one individual has implied it. And your history with this individual makes you see anything but red.

I for one don't agree with the manner in which "control" was supposedly obtained. We aren't always going to agree. Leave it at that, no need for hurt feelings or spite. I have no ill will or malice for any lineage, nor will I blindly defend any lineage, my own included, if I am in disagreement with what is being said.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2017)

Nobody Important said:


> I'm not taking anyone's word, your's, Juany' s or LFJ. Mazza' s technique is low, low percentage and inefficient. He had flank, and could have easily slid to his left to take his opponents back. Taking the back is prime real estate in boxing or wrestling. To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb. Much easier to take balance from the back and opponent is way, way more exposed and vulnerable.
> 
> Now I'm not saying it couldn't work, I'm saying why even bother doing it, it doesn't make sense unless your trying to see if you can manipulate balance from an exposed angle. Even lifting his right hand up to strike the face would have been better. Mazza gave up prime position to hit his opponent in the liver & possibly get punched in the face, because to pull that move off it has to be absolutely perfect? If he would have just taken the back he could have done much, much more, and no I don't subscribe to the "He could easily defend himself from a blow to the head after he strikes crap" it's unrealistic.
> 
> ...


The only thing I would say is that gezzer said he had a teacher who did something very similar to him and it goes far beyond a cheap "chi trick".  Now if it was just one teacher, one MA school of thought I could see your point, but a different teacher from a different school of thought makes it work apparently.

As for tactics we PM'd a while ago and we agreed.  Why not take the back you said, I said, if I remember rightly, I would just transition to a take down and/or lock and break a joint.

I just think that tactics and techniques are two different conversations.  I am just talking the technique as being very functional and I THINK that is all KPM is talking about as well, though I can't speak for him.

Make sense?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> You missed my point!  My point was that the very thing you guys are criticizing Mazza of, is something that is even worse and done regularly by many high level boxers!



Depends on the boxer. I wouldn't do the sequence that Mazza does. I just don't really think it is safe.


----------



## geezer (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Depends on the boxer. I wouldn't do the sequence that Mazza does. I just don't really think it is safe.



...and would Mazza do it at full speed while sparring? People often do stuff demonstrating that doesn't match up perfectly with what happens sparring. At least I do, and sometimes my students call me out on that. Which is to their credit IMO. But then I like it when people think for themselves. Maybe if I were a _master _or _grandmaster_ I wouldn't.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

*He moved out of a position of control to a position of lesser control. Instead of moving right he could have went left, assuming total control and left the opponent oblivious to any action he took. It wasn't  a strategy I would recommend,  but to each their own.*

--- Watch the whole clip again, not LFJ's truncated version that he made to support his own points.   The part we have been discussing was simply the one scenario where Mazza was showing how to get to the body shot.  He showed several other scenarios as well.  The body shot was just one possibility, and maybe not the best.  But the overall concept of getting that angle and moving away form the rear hand was what he was teaching.  Its only because people have chosen to "nit pick" that one scenario...the body shot....amongst several possibilities that we have gone so far down this pathway.


*Secondly, there is nothing in the Wing Chun rule book that states "taking the back is a grappling only maneuver", lots of unprotected striking targets there, if your Wing Chun only focuses on boxing. *

---Sure. One other option among many!  Just not the option that Mazza chose to show at the time.  What was it you said about "ifs" and "buts"????

*
 Your statement is nothing more than trying to justify why Mazza does what he did, that my friend is myopic. *

----No its not.  I never said there might not be other or better options.  I have simply been trying to explain how what he did was a perfectly viable option and will work.  Everyone else has been second guessing what Mazza was doing and trying to say how wrong he was.  That, my friend, is nit-picking a demo video.  


*Sticking to and defending your case, in spite of being presented with differing opinions that offer valid alternatives, is exactly what you accuse WSLVT practitioners of. *

----And just where did I say that any alternatives were not valid??  I have simply been pointing that what he was doing in that one example (of several options he showed) is valid and have tried to explain how it works.  I've trained something very similar.  So I know it can work.  But none of you guys seem willing to believe me, or even try to understand what I have been saying.  You are all stuck on this idea of the guy pivoting around towards Mazza with a powerful punch.  I have explained multiple times that the direction of the force he is using, the angle he is taking, and the distance simply makes this very hard for the opponent to do.  I've  felt it.  But all of you seem to think you know it better than I do simply from watching a video.  


*You can either accept valid criticism of others or not,* 

----I have no problem with criticism.  But I do have a problem when people simply disregard my responses and not acknowledge my counter-points.  When someone just continues to repeat the same assertion over and over despite my having offered an answer that is legitimate......then that becomes an argument and not a technical discussion.  

*but to continue arguing to convince others that what's shown is good application isn't being receptive to how others feel about it and is making you look foolish. *


---From my perspective, the fact that people can't see what I have described so carefully, or choose not to see it....makes them look foolish.   Juany knows exactly what I have been  describing in that video and agrees with me.  Because he has studied TWC.  He has seen it and felt it.   I know it works.  He knows it works.  So how is trying to explain to others what they evidently aren't seeing accurately being "foolish"???


*No one has outright said anything negative about the lineage or practitioners, one individual has implied it. And your history with this individual makes you see anything but red.*

----He did more than imply it.   But I'm not sure what your point is with that statement.

*I for one don't agree with the manner in which "control" was supposedly obtained. *

----That's fine.  But to argue that from the position he was in he was at some kind of high risk of that rear hand punch is still failing to understand why he was getting the angle and distance that he had, and why it worked to his advantage.   That is a different issue from why he went from being in a better position to moving to the inside of the opponent's arm in order to do the body shot.  Again, that was just one option among several that he showed in that short clip.


----------



## KPM (Jun 4, 2017)

geezer said:


> ...and would Mazza do it at full speed while sparring? People often do stuff demonstrating that doesn't match up perfectly with what happens sparring. At least I do, and sometimes my students call me out on that. Which is to their credit IMO. But then I like it when people think for themselves. Maybe if I were a _master _or _grandmaster_ I wouldn't.



Now THAT, finally is a very valid criticism!  Would it work in hard sparring?  That is a big "maybe, maybe not!"  But isn't that true of about 80% of the Wing Chun drills and demos we see???


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> Now THAT, finally is a very valid criticism!  Would it work in hard sparring?  That is a big "maybe, maybe not!"  But isn't that true of about 80% of the Wing Chun drills and demos we see???



@ basically everyone nit picking the movement...stop for a moment.

Try and picture what happens if Sifu Keith jammed the opponent at full speed and then followed up with a full speed strike and a full speed gan, instead of what amounts to the stop motion we see.

Now I have, irl, done that.  The difference is that when I do he gan I am actually rolling it into a lock which I then use to take down the suspect.  

This is why I said I think people are confusing techniques with tactics.  I think here that is where the real debate lies.

1. should Sifu Keith have used the disruption to roll into a takedown?
2. should he have rolled to the rear of the opponent and really rocked the opponent from behind?
3. if the above two are better options by what degree, because back in the day getting rabbit punched (which is what Sifu Keith is doing) by someone who suckered me, brought me too my knees.  

I think, in  the end, 1 and 2 are more certain to be effective and that Sifu Keith, as many a teacher does, is showing the "ideal play by play" to hit a specific target.  He is very big on pressure points and hitting "weak points" FYI.  I didn't make that seminar but based on those I have attended I could see him having that scenario being about simply getting to the point where you can punch to the kidneys and drop the guy.  He can be that "focused", showing how to get to specific weak points so you don't get trapped in an idea of just "roll punch" to the center.    

He will actually do something I think many here would disagree with entirely.  He will say "there are other ways to get there".  Hell in every seminar he says "don't get trapped by dogma, I am just going to show you one way to get there" but he does show that one (or two) ways to get there so you understand the overall principle.  His point with seminars like this is to get you outside the drills and start thinking about practical application so you can then later apply it to sparring/real fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> Now THAT, finally is a very valid criticism!  Would it work in hard sparring?  That is a big "maybe, maybe not!"  But isn't that true of about 80% of the Wing Chun drills and demos we see???



Which is the difference with boxing and criticism. If something is working. There is a pretty good case that it works.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> @ basically everyone nit picking the movement...stop for a moment.
> 
> Try and picture what happens if Sifu Keith jammed the opponent at full speed and then followed up with a full speed strike and a full speed gan, instead of what amounts to the stop motion we see.
> 
> ...



Is the opponent allowed to go at full speed as well?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Is the opponent allowed to go at full speed as well?




Absolutely, otherwise similar techniques would not have worked for me arresting resisting suspects.  The point is this... IF you "get there" as Sifu Kieth said, you opponent is unbalanced to the point he either has to retreat completely  outside of physical contact range to recover or you actually shoved him several steps away.  Tbh I have done that, jammed so hard the bad guy stumbled 3-4 steps away, thus recovers, and I have to start from scratch.  Usually I just say "screw it" at that point and go for the taser.

If you don't "get there" then you don't do what Sifu Keith demonstrates.  That's why I said it is equally important to what he says, because if you "don't get there" then what he shows doesn't apply and you do something else.  As the video of Sifu Jerry I posted shows.  You don't get to the blind side Sifu Keith is showing because the bad guy adapts, some of the things Sifu Jerry illustrates are options and that's full speed knock out demo there.


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> *He moved out of a position of control to a position of lesser control. Instead of moving right he could have went left, assuming total control and left the opponent oblivious to any action he took. It wasn't  a strategy I would recommend,  but to each their own.*
> 
> --- Watch the whole clip again, not LFJ's truncated version that he made to support his own points.   The part we have been discussing was simply the one scenario where Mazza was showing how to get to the body shot.  He showed several other scenarios as well.  The body shot was just one possibility, and maybe not the best.  But the overall concept of getting that angle and moving away form the rear hand was what he was teaching.  Its only because people have chosen to "nit pick" that one scenario...the body shot....amongst several possibilities that we have gone so far down this pathway.
> 
> ...


I don't want to argue or defend my reasoning, because at this point we seem to be talking past each other. So this is the last I'll say about it.

I've watched the clip and the application in question (and being discussed throughout this thread) I don't feel it is a high percentage one. I've used it, had it used on me and can, from a place of experience say, that in real time it's sketchy at best. Not something I'd chose to do or teach at a seminar. My opinion you're free feel otherwise. It may very well be a common tactic in Cheung's WC, it violates strategic tactic in mine. You and Juany both state that it wasn't the best option so your vehement defense of it is kind of baffling.

At several points in this conversation you've had the opportunity to agree to disagree and move on. This thread is about getting the angle, not getting the angle and partially giving it up. You have to understand that you're just as guilty of if's and but's in this scenario as everyone else through your implications of what Mazza COULD do vs. their what he SHOULD have done. Its all opinion. Some were valid concerns as to the action, acknowledged, just not agreed upon. We don't know if Mazza's technique would have worked or not because the opponent isn't resisting. We don't know if the opponent could have hit him because he doesn't try. Its all speculation. And everyones responses are based on their practical experience. I don't take anyones word for it, prove it is my motto.

So at this point I'll let it go. You can continue to argue a point you believe I don't understand, but you'd be wrong, I do, I simply don't agree to the degree you do, that's all.

If you or Juany take offense to this or my reasoning, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention. I pointed out something I percieved as an egregious flaw. I would hope that others would do the same for me if I presented something sub-par as if there weren't better options and defended it to my last breath just to make a point..

The fact that you're being met with so much opposition from those that normally agree with what you have to say should give you concern for pause and reflection. It may not change your opinion, but could give you insight as to why they don't  agree.  Fair enough?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Absolutely, otherwise similar techniques would not have worked for me arresting resisting suspects.  The point is this... IF you "get there" as Sifu Kieth said, you opponent is unbalanced to the point he either has to retreat completely  outside of physical contact range to recover or you actually shoved him several steps away.  Tbh I have done that, jammed so hard the bad guy stumbled 3-4 steps away, thus recovers, and I have to start from scratch.  Usually I just say "screw it" at that point and go for the taser.
> 
> If you don't "get there" then you don't do what Sifu Keith demonstrates.  That's why I said it is equally important to what he says, because if you "don't get there" then what he shows doesn't apply and you do something else.  As the video of Sifu Jerry I posted shows.  You don't get to the blind side Sifu Keith is showing because the bad guy adapts, some of the things Sifu Jerry illustrates are options and that's full speed knock out demo there.



If you stay on the outside and your oponant re balances you are still in a good position.

If you go inside and keep that right hand up and your oponant re balances you are in a good position.

If you go inside drop your right hand and your opponent re balances you are looking at getting a left hook in the face.

If the oponant stays un balanced it does not effect any of the other positions. But to get this move you are relying on a very tenuous circumstance. 

It seems like you have put in a lot of work to unbalance your opponent then create a position to take advantage of that just to lose that position.

What exactly are you gaining. A liver punch?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you stay on the outside and your oponant re balances you are still in a good position.
> 
> If you go inside and keep that right hand up and your oponant re balances you are in a good position.
> 
> ...



The point is to think tactically.  If you get a solid kidney or liver punch in someone you will drop them, if they aren't a pro fighter and what are the chances of you running into that?

So we have a martial arts Master explaining how one can get, if it works, to a position where you can drop 99.9999...% of people if you know how to hit.

I think sometimes we assume everyone else is like us, breaking this **** down and working it.  We are mutants people.  When you accept that, then it may make more sense.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> Nothing you've written is "constructive."   Its just argumentative.



Well, that's unfortunately going to be your perspective as a grudge holder.

I've described potential flaws that you were unable or unwilling to see, and gave my take on alternatives.

That is not constructive because I don't just accept your counterpoints??
It's not being argumentative to simply not agree that your points are valid and accurate.



KPM said:


> *I agree with LFJ.*
> 
> ---Then you are missing the points I have made.







> when someone's "ifs and buts" have been responded to, that should be the end of it.



Not if the responses are invalid.



> But LFJ continues to speak ill of what is going on in those videos.  And others seem willing to pile on.   When I have to repeat the same technical response to the same technical critiques multiple times, what does that tell you?





KPM said:


> ---Damn!  You too Phobius!



What it should tell you is that no one sees your technical response as valid.

When unbiased members and several of my past "forum rivals" agree with me, what does that tell you?



> If someone makes a technical criticism of something I presented and I give a technical response, shouldn't that just be the end of it?



Only if you want people to spare your feelings and disregard the invalidity of your response.



> ---I agree that this is not an optimal position that Mazza is in.  Its much better to be on the outside of the opponent's right arm.  But you can't always get there.



_HE WAS ALREADY THERE_ but gave it up for what you agree is a much worse position!! 

That was the whole point! Why give up much better position at such high risk? It's just not intelligent fighting.



> So if you find yourself on the inside because the opponent is throwing a wide punch with the right arm, rather than standing right in front of him, Mazza is showing how to move around to the side to "get the angle" and *effectively get as far away from the opponent's rear hand as possible* while controlling the lead hand.  If he stayed put right in front of the opponent, he would be in even MORE risk of getting hit by that rear hand.



When he had flank upon entry, the guy couldn't punch from the rear.

Then he turned the guy around and stepped back into his power striking range, with his only safety net from a knockout punch being the tenuous hope that he sufficiently off-balances the guy by pulling on his arm.

Not a smart tradeoff, low percentage, high risk...

But at this point, it's clear ego is overpowering sensible thinking and you will only continue to deny the bloody obvious that everyone is pointing out to you, even though you just agreed he gave up much better position.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The point is to think tactically.  If you get a solid kidney or liver punch in someone you will drop them, if they aren't a pro fighter and what are the chances of you running into that?
> 
> So we have a martial arts Master explaining how one can get, if it works, to a position where you can drop 99.9999...% of people if you know how to hit.
> 
> I think sometimes we assume everyone else is like us, breaking this **** down and working it.  We are mutants people.  When you accept that, then it may make more sense.



So when we accept this Mazza guy can actually pull off what he says he can. Then accept that the liver punch will drop the guy and also accept that the person we are fighting won't be able to take advantage of a gift wrapped shot to my head.

The technique all makes perfect sense.


----------



## KPM (Jun 5, 2017)

*I don't want to argue or defend my reasoning, *

----But you are.

*You and Juany both state that it wasn't the best option so your vehement defense of it is kind of baffling.*

---Why is it baffling that when everyone says "this won't work" and yet Juany and I know it will....that we continue to try and point out how and why it will work?   Neither of us have said it was a "high percentage" move.  LFJ has asserted over and over again that Mazza is spinning the guy around so he is going to be easily clocked by his rear hand.  That simply is not true.  So, should we just sit back and let all of you guys believe it is?   Why do you all support his hypothetical, which isn't happening in the video.  And completely ignore Juany and I when we try to explain the direction of force being applied as well as the distance an angling....which is evident in the video.  LJF is convinced that the opponent's rear hand will travel the same distance to reach Mazza's head as Mazza's hand is traveling to do the body shot.  That simply isn't true.

*
At several points in this conversation you've had the opportunity to agree to disagree and move on.*

---And I tried.  And each time LJF simply reasserted the points I had already answered and had people agreeing with him.  Why are you not directing this same speech to LFJ?   More than once in this thread I tried to just drop it, and he kept it going.


*You have to understand that you're just as guilty of if's and but's in this scenario as everyone else through your implications of what Mazza COULD do vs. their what he SHOULD have done. *


----That's BS.  Each time I have simply tried to explain what was actually happening in that video clip.  The angle.  The opponent taking a step back because it was demo speed.  The distance from the guy's rear hand, etc.   What he SHOULD have done is nit-picking and an example of "ifs and buts" that you objected too earlier on.


* We don't know if Mazza's technique would have worked or not because the opponent isn't resisting. We don't know if the opponent could have hit him because he doesn't try. Its all speculation.*

---Because its a demo.  And you can second guess and nit-pick ANY demo clip in exactly the same way.  Will it work at speed in sparring?   Maybe not!  I've simply been explaining what Mazza was doing and the concepts he was teaching in that particular clip.  The angling, the distance, controlling one hand and zoning away from the rear hand, etc.  Yet everyone seems to think what I've said ISN'T what Mazza was doing and teaching in that clip.


.* I would hope that others would do the same for me if I presented something sub-par as if there weren't better options and defended it to my last breath just to make a point..*

---And neither of Juany or I EVER said there might not be better options.   We were simply trying to explain what was happening in that particular sequence.   And everyone else tried to tell us, "no, that's not what's happening"....which is strange because we've actually trained it and they haven't.   Yet you find that "baffling"?

*The fact that you're being met with so much opposition from those that normally agree with what you have to say should give you concern for pause and reflection. It may not change your opinion, but could give you insight as to why they don't  agree.  Fair enough?*

---I think you bought into what LJF has been saying too much without actually reading closely and considering what I have been saying.  Because you seem to have read a whole lot into what you think I have said that is inaccurate.  I've never said there weren't other or better options.  I've never said that this was "high percentage."  I've simply said that perceptions of what was happening in that video weren't accurate and that it CAN work.   Fair enough?


----------



## LFJ (Jun 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---Why is it baffling that when everyone says "this won't work" and yet Juany and I know it will....that we continue to try and point out how and why it will work?



Because no one believes you or buys your explanations, 
but you just keep expecting people to take your word for it.



> *At several points in this conversation you've had the opportunity to agree to disagree and move on.*
> 
> ---And I tried.  And each time LJF simply reasserted the points I had already answered and had people agreeing with him.  Why are you not directing this same speech to LFJ?   More than once in this thread I tried to just drop it, and he kept it going.



Why not just drop it now, since no one is sold on your technique?


----------



## KPM (Jun 5, 2017)

*Because no one believes you or buys your explanations, 
but you just keep expecting people to take your word for it.*

----Isn't that what happens with practically every PB clip?  You end up telling everyone that we don't understand what is happening because we don't train WSLVT.  Therefore we need to just take your word for it?  Isn't that what has happened with every clip that has appeared showing WSL teaching applications from the forms?  You end up saying "WSLVT doesn't teach applications" and expect everyone to just take your word for it, despite what is apparent in videos of WSL teaching?  Isn't that what happened when I showed multiple pics of WSLVT people standing in a Tan Da position?  You said "WSLVT doesn't do Tan Da!", and expected everyone to just take your word for it?  

*Why not just drop it now, since no one is sold on your technique?*

---Sure.  I'm willing to drop it if you are.  I've said that multiple times on this thread already.  But you did your best to keep the argument going.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> ----Isn't that what happens with practically every PB clip?  You end up telling everyone that we don't understand what is happening because we don't train WSLVT.  Therefore we need to just take your word for it?  Isn't that what has happened with every clip that has appeared showing WSL teaching applications from the forms?  You end up saying "WSLVT doesn't teach applications" and expect everyone to just take your word for it, despite what is apparent in videos of WSL teaching?  Isn't that what happened when I showed multiple pics of WSLVT people standing in a Tan Da position?  You said "WSLVT doesn't do Tan Da!", and expected everyone to just take your word for it?



No. Entirely different.

We're looking at a straightforward technique application from standard TWC here (an application-based style), that anyone can see and analyze for themselves. There are no unknowns.

Then, you can watch a clip of what you think is an application but which is not, or look at a still photo of a position and try to make guesses as to what it might be, but still be wrong.

These are not comparable.


----------



## KPM (Jun 5, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No. Entirely different.
> 
> We're looking at a straightforward technique application from standard TWC here (an application-based style), that anyone can see and analyze for themselves. There are no unknowns.
> 
> ...



And....you expect us to take your word for that??


----------



## LFJ (Jun 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> And....you expect us to take your word for that??



No. I honestly don't care. 

You are the one chasing me around with pictures you think you can learn the system from.

I just laugh at you.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So when we accept this Mazza guy can actually pull off what he says he can. Then accept that the liver punch will drop the guy and also accept that the person we are fighting won't be able to take advantage of a gift wrapped shot to my head.
> 
> The technique all makes perfect sense.


I think you again are missing the point.  The video is not about "this is how you fight" it's about "if you want to get to this particular target this a particular way to get there." No more and no less.  I think people are placing more meaning on that single thing than was intended.  His seminars run an entire day and cover lots of techniques and tactical applications, he just only allows a couple minutes of video to be posted so people actually pay for the seminar and show up instead of just waiting for the video to hit.

So if we break the video down we have him showing one way to get to the flank and take someone's balance and establish control (which I think we all agree is a good idea).  What you do from there CAN be what he does, or it can be to take the back like @Nobody Important says, or transition to an lock/takedown like I would do, or you could just nail the guy in the head, OR you could go for head control... etc etc etc.  Also, it's all about "if you get there" if you don't you do something else.  Just about every seminar I have gone to, from Sifu Keith to Guro Dan, works this way.

Somebody tried to make this about a "this is how you fight" video which it isn't and I think a bunch hopped on that train.


----------



## LFJ (Jun 5, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The video is not about "this is how you fight" it's about "if you want to get to this particular target this a particular way to get there."...
> ...Somebody tried to make this about a "this is how you fight" video which it isn't and I think a bunch hopped on that train.



Wanting to get to a particular target and the particular way you get there _is_ how you fight.

You are saying the same thing. Unless this is just playing and has no relation to how you fight with TWC.

But, the question was _why_ you would want to get there (risky low target on the inside) when you already have superior, relatively safe outside flank position from entry as shown. Just doesn't make sense to _want_ to go there.

Are you saying to yourself "_I wanna hit low inside_" before engaging, then setting it up by going to the outside first, then pulling the guy open to get to the inside? That's a lot of choreography work.

But then, you say this is not "how you fight". So, maybe it is choreography just for fun? I don't know. What's the point? Sounds like even more of a waste of time now.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I think you again are missing the point.  The video is not about "this is how you fight" it's about "if you want to get to this particular target this a particular way to get there." No more and no less.  I think people are placing more meaning on that single thing than was intended.  His seminars run an entire day and cover lots of techniques and tactical applications, he just only allows a couple minutes of video to be posted so people actually pay for the seminar and show up instead of just waiting for the video to hit.
> 
> So if we break the video down we have him showing one way to get to the flank and take someone's balance and establish control (which I think we all agree is a good idea).  What you do from there CAN be what he does, or it can be to take the back like @Nobody Important says, or transition to an lock/takedown like I would do, or you could just nail the guy in the head, OR you could go for head control... etc etc etc.  Also, it's all about "if you get there" if you don't you do something else.  Just about every seminar I have gone to, from Sifu Keith to Guro Dan, works this way.
> 
> Somebody tried to make this about a "this is how you fight" video which it isn't and I think a bunch hopped on that train.



What greater meaning that that sequence is a really risky way to hit that target do you think was placed on that video?


----------

