# A different video...



## geezer (Aug 10, 2013)

Check out this video. It's been on Youtube for a couple of years, but I hadn't seen it before:


----------



## Takai (Aug 11, 2013)

I hope that I can be that active and alert when I reach 90. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## hunt1 (Aug 11, 2013)

Great this is what I was trying to get to with my questions about the Izzo video on the other great vid thread. His comments about fook and huen and how to do tan da show a very limited understanding of wing chun. Fung Chun shows something different.  The problem with the Izzo vid is that he thinks wing chun is a boxing art like western boxing done at a distance . Wing Chun is a stand up grappling not boxing. WC was designed to get in close from distance capture the center drive through your opponent and finish with a throw that breaks a limb or lands the opponent on their head. Fook huen gum jut etc are methods of dealing with being grabbed allowing us to clear away obstructions gain control of the opponents COG while controlling our own COG simultaneously and continuously striking until we are in position to finish. If we achieve a knock out great but we keep driving through until the finish throw. One purpose of Chi Sao is to train so that we react to energy contact to our arms in a reflexive manner. We dok think huen ,jut etc we train until we just do.

Fung Chun talks of this when he shows fook and huen and about getting close and always staying close. Also there are no blocks in WC. Blocking is chasing hands. We fill the area's of space where we are open to attack with the cover hand as we attack. the continuous attack keeps changing the attacking and cover/control hand. This is why we need a flexible structure so we can keep responding to changes in force and energy that we receive.

 Good vid find,thanks.


----------



## Argus (Aug 11, 2013)

hunt1 said:


> Great this is what I was trying to get to with my questions about the Izzo video on the other great vid thread. His comments about fook and huen and how to do tan da show a very limited understanding of wing chun.


How so, specifically? In essence, I think he was making the point that the "techniques" (for lack of a better word) in Wing Chun are merely expressions of the principles and concepts the system is built on, as opposed to the other way around. He also asserted that we should be thinking about chasing center with an attack, and not doing some specific technique like Tan-da or Pak-da. His thinking lines up very well with the principles of the system (and from watching many of his videos now, I suspect is heavily influenced by Wong Shun Leung's philosophy on WC).



> Fung Chun shows something different.  The problem with the Izzo vid is that he thinks wing chun is a boxing art like western boxing done at a distance . Wing Chun is a stand up grappling not boxing.


Eh, I can't agree here. There are some elements of grappling, and some resemblance to the way grapplers fight with Wing Chun, but Wing Chun is not grappling. Nor is it boxing. It's inbetween the two. Boxers work with distance and timing, and stay out of contact. Grapplers grab, control, throw, and submit. Wing Chun is only concerned with attacking an opponent's core. We don't need to grab, control, or wrestle to do that. We work off of the simplest, most basic, and most efficient way to attack; simply punch down the center. Everything that happens from there is "just in case," if you will. If something gets in the way of that punch, and you have to get past it, that's where your chisau might come into play, but your goal isn't to chisau with the opponent. In just the same way, if there's a chance to off balance or throw an opponent, sure, you can do that. If you wind up in a position where you can get a lock in, go for it. But you shouldn't be going in with the intent of making a throw or submission.



> WC was designed to get in close from distance capture the center drive through your opponent...


I agree with this part.



> ...and finish with a throw that breaks a limb or lands the opponent on their head.


- until this part. There's no need to "finish." You don't know how a fight is going to finish. It's fantasy at best to think that you can overwhelm an opponent and then break out some kind of finishing move. If you're thinking about getting in a throw to break a limb or land an opponent on their head, you're focusing on a very narrow solution to the fight. How will you respond correctly to your opponent if you already have a solution?



> Fook huen gum jut etc are methods of dealing with being grabbed allowing us to clear away obstructions gain control of the opponents COG while controlling our own COG simultaneously and continuously striking until we are in position to finish. If we achieve a knock out great but we keep driving through until the finish throw.


Too narrow. Fook, huen, gum, and jut, along with other movements that we do, can be used to deal with grabs. But they're merely general movements that can allow us to respond to all sorts of things naturally, whether they be punches, kicks, grabs, shoves, locks, or what have you. And, well, you know what I'm going to say about the idea of "finishing."



> Fung Chun talks of this when he shows fook and huen and about getting close and always staying close. Also there are no blocks in WC. Blocking is chasing hands. We fill the area's of space where we are open to attack with the cover hand as we attack. the continuous attack keeps changing the attacking and cover/control hand. This is why we need a flexible structure so we can keep responding to changes in force and energy that we receive.


This part I can agree with!

To sum it up, I don't actually disagree with throwing your opponent or controlling his COG. I think being able to apply that is a good thing. But I think your approach to combat, at least for Wing Chun's methods, is too narrow.


----------



## hunt1 (Aug 12, 2013)

Argus have you ever been in a real fight? Have you ever fought all out against another trained fighter? 

The most basic response to getting hit a response that everyone from grade school has seen is the person being hit attempts to grab. Wing chun operates close. This is grappling range. A wrestler or judo player etc will most certainly grapple you in this range. Boxers do it via underhooks and tie ups. Muey Thai certainly train clinch and other grappling. Wing chun was not designed by dreamers or idiots. When you get close you will be grappled so must know how to deal with those situations as a reflex. Wing Chun operates here and this is where wing chun is most effective, as stand up grappling. The fact that you may be seeking to strike rather than submit doesn't make it any less of grappling range.

As to a finish how do you finish a fight. If you both don't walk away or the fight is broken up. There is a knockout from a punch. a submission or a debilitating throw. That's all there is. Wing Chun leans to knock out or throw. High level wing chun finishes with a throw. we do not try to trade punches.  Are fook chum tok jut etc strikes ? Yes everything in wing chun is designed to strike into the center if no resistance is encountered but there is so much more to the art than striking.


----------



## hunt1 (Aug 12, 2013)

How will you respond correctly to your opponent if you already have a solution?

If you don't understand the solutions before you get into a fight you will always be working off the opponents timing. Wing Chun is very clear clear on this point. "My opponent moves but I move first" . When you get into my range I will attack. your stance tells me how to attack from that point on I could care less what you do. If I pay attention to you then I am always behind you. When I move I know which gates are safe and which are open to attack. I fill the open space . I do not try to block your attack I am in the space before you get there. Tan da. one hand attacks the other fills vulnerable gate. If my reflexes are well trained when i encounter your energy I will be able to respond to it without thought. If you have to think in a fight you are in trouble. you will be to slow. Everything must be a reflex. 

When I fight I already have the conclusion only if you are better than I am will that conclusion not come to pass.  If you are good then I will just move from one solution to the next until I win or am stopped The opponent must stop me I am never trying to stop them.


----------



## Argus (Aug 12, 2013)

High-level Wing Chun is nothing more than really good basics. Not trying to execute fancy throws and/or finish moves.

Should we not be striving to use as few tools as possible? There is no need to theorize and reinvent Wing Chun's approach to combat. It already has a long history of "real fights." Not that we shouldn't put it to the test ourselves, but we can learn from those who already have. Let's take Wong Shun Leung, for example; perhaps the most famous fighter in WC's history, if not all of mid-20th century Hong Kong. He won most of his fights within three punches. He spent an incredible amount of time in his own practice just practicing and refining the most basic fundamentals of the system - structure, stepping, and punching. Anything that happens from there is, as you say, reflex - preemptively covering, striking, and responding to pressure. As an aside, he also didn't advocate grabbing, much less intentionally grappling, but that's beside the point.

In any case, this is in stark contrast to having planned out the fight in advance. It's not that you should always be reacting to your opponent - you should be proactive. But that doesn't mean going in, expecting to overwhelm your opponent, and then going for some finishing move. If you're trying to go for that finishing throw, you're too concentrated on one narrow objective, and you're likely to try, for example, to go for a throw that isn't there, or to wait for one or forcibly try to set your opponent up for one when your focus should be elsewhere. If there are any throws, they should just happen, and not be "finishing moves" that you "breakout" to "end the fight".


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 13, 2013)

if throwing is so important to Wing Chun why is it not referenced in any of the kuit kuen or present in any of the forms except possibly (depending upon your definition of a throw) Biu jee? I only have limited exposure to the Gulo village stuff but i've not seen throwing feature heavily in any of their short sets that they do in place of the forms either. Seems like a big omission for something that is allegedly core.


----------



## wtxs (Aug 13, 2013)

WingChunIan said:


> if throwing is so important to Wing Chun why is it not referenced in any of the kuit kuen or present in any of the forms except possibly (depending upon your definition of a throw) Biu jee? I only have limited exposure to the Gulo village stuff but i've not seen throwing feature heavily in any of their short sets that they do in place of the forms either. Seems like a big omission for something that is allegedly core.



I'm with you on this one.  If the main purpose of using WC is to end an fight efficiently and quickly, throwing or taking down your opponent would slow that process and only serve to contradict that goal, never mind you done give your opponent another chance of trying to taking you out again.  Just MHO ...


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 13, 2013)

There are no throws or at least what most people would describe as a throw in the Wing Chun I am familiar with.
They are usually a pull or strike to the upper body while tripping , kicking or leg locking the opponents lower body.

The opposing forces act in unison to cause the opponent to hit the ground quite hard , I can understand that to the uninitiated , when they witness the techniques done at full speed it may look as though the person has been thrown ,but they haven't really , not in the sense that most people would think of as a throw.
Easiest example I can think of is what we used to call the 'elbow strike and sweep' which is just an elbow strike to the sternum and a simultaneous Huen Bo to the back of the opponents ankle , that one can certainly send people violently  crashing to earth.

The results are the same , the person hits the ground hard , but the methods of accomplishing it are vastly different to the various grappling arts.
I don't know what you would call our method , maybe not being 'thrown' but 'ballistically off balanced' might be a more accurate description.


----------



## Nabakatsu (Aug 13, 2013)

Sounds about right in accordance to my lineage mook.


----------



## hunt1 (Aug 13, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> There are no throws or at least what most people would describe as a throw in the Wing Chun I am familiar with.
> They are usually a pull or strike to the upper body while tripping , kicking or leg locking the opponents lower body.
> 
> The opposing forces act in unison to cause the opponent to hit the ground quite hard , I can understand that to the uninitiated , when they witness the techniques done at full speed it may look as though the person has been thrown ,but they haven't really , not in the sense that most people would think of as a throw.
> ...




 Amazing ! Truly Amazing the willful ignorance shown by you and others on this board truly is astounding.
By the way I have many hours of tapes of my training directly with TST. It is hard to comprehend not only your ignorance of martial arts as a whole but how you are so ego driven that rather than understand what the various family of throws are you have to come up with your own name  to describe a family of throws.

There are several families or types of throws. Wing Chun uses a specific sub set of throws and and joint locks that stay within wing chun principals. What you described are throws from a specific subset of throwing techniques. I suggest you go spend some time with someone that knows Chinese wrestling.  The only one uninitiated  is you you ignorant twit. Ballistically off balanced? What do you think throwing is?


----------



## hunt1 (Aug 13, 2013)

WingChunIan said:


> if throwing is so important to Wing Chun why is it not referenced in any of the kuit kuen or present in any of the forms except possibly (depending upon your definition of a throw) Biu jee? I only have limited exposure to the Gulo village stuff but i've not seen throwing feature heavily in any of their short sets that they do in place of the forms either. Seems like a big omission for something that is allegedly core.




 Amazing no wonder the world laughs at wing chun. We don't even understand whats in our own forms. The very first thing you learn ,stance opening is a method of locking and breaking a knee when used in conjunction with pulling or pushing the upper body throwing them to the ground so the knee breaks. What do you think throws are? Every form of wing chun is full of sweeping,tripping reaping action of the lower body combined with pushing or pulling the upper body with the one goal of throwing a person to the ground in a violent manner that you cannot break fall. Wing Chun uses a specific subset of TCMA throwing methods. A throw does not require one to turn their back using their hip as a fulcrum. 

 Do you think the folks in Gulo have shown their entire method on a few videos on you tube? Most only have in depth experience with a version of Yip man wing chun. He is known for simplifying and removing certain material. Have you been shown the kneeling horse in your Yip Man wing chun? He taught it to only a few of his first group yet in Fatshan they still tell stories of Yip Man using kneeling horse in fights and winning with it. The fact that it has not been taught in most Yip Man families doesn't mean it's not important. Yip thought it important enough to train and win fights with. Wing Chun was developed to truly fight which meant being able to deal with and counter all manner of attacks including all the various types of throws. Older styles of wing chun contain far more than is taught in most Yip Man groups. If you see read the full list of Leung Jan Kuit wing chun throwing methods are indeed covered


----------



## hunt1 (Aug 13, 2013)

Realy ,you want to base you rargument for effective wing chun on the exploits of a man in hong kong 60 years ago. What evidence do you have of his fights? What skill level were is opponents? Any manes of who he beat? Any footage?  Have you seen the available footage of these incredible roof top fights?

What we know is that WSL had 12 to 18 months of boxing under his belt and when he was 17 he started challanging CMA people to fight . he learned wing chun and fought the same kind of folks again. So your telling me that your understanding and method of wing chun fighting is comparable to someone with 12 to 18 months of boxing! WSL did fine against the standard of skill of his day but today I highly doubt that standard is higher than set by 12 to 18 months of MMA traing at best

 Do you have any evidence to support that this method is viable against skilled MMA types? Let's see you of the PHIL Bayer Bong lap hop dance vid's that are all the rage but where is the vid against a trained resiting opponent? Gary Lam, he's good and skilled yet the only vid of him close to real with a non cooperative person shows him one getting cleanly hit and two when he applies his wing chun he comes out of his stance ,chases and has a hell of a time maintaining a bridge. I wonder what would have happened if it had broken into a fight.

Every vid of what you think of as wing chun showing a person against a skilled non cooperative persones ends with the wing chun guy getting his *** handed to him. Perhaps its time to expand one's understanding of wing chun had how it's applied in the real world


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 13, 2013)

hunt1 said:


> Amazing ! Truly Amazing the willful ignorance shown by you and others on this board truly is astounding.
> By the way I have many hours of tapes of my training directly with TST. It is hard to comprehend not only your ignorance of martial arts as a whole but how you are so ego driven that rather than understand what the various family of throws are you have to come up with your own name  to describe a family of throws.
> 
> There are several families or types of throws. Wing Chun uses a specific sub set of throws and and joint locks that stay within wing chun principals. What you described are throws from a specific subset of throwing techniques. I suggest you go spend some time with someone that knows Chinese wrestling.  The only one uninitiated  is you you ignorant twit. Ballistically off balanced? What do you think throwing is?



Jeez man , you need to take a friggin chill pill.
What's with all the name calling crap?

You can't intelligently argue your case without resorting to that BS ? I thought you were better than that.
It's exactly this sort of stuff that reminds me why I can't be bothered posting much on here anymore.


----------



## Argus (Aug 14, 2013)

Oh boy.



hunt1 said:


> Realy ,you want to base you rargument for effective wing chun on the exploits of a man in hong kong 60 years ago. What evidence do you have of his fights? What skill level were is opponents? Any manes of who he beat? Any footage?  Have you seen the available footage of these incredible roof top fights?
> 
> What we know is that WSL had 12 to 18 months of boxing under his belt and when he was 17 he started challanging CMA people to fight . he learned wing chun and fought the same kind of folks again. So your telling me that your understanding and method of wing chun fighting is comparable to someone with 12 to 18 months of boxing! WSL did fine against the standard of skill of his day but today I highly doubt that standard is higher than set by 12 to 18 months of MMA traing at best
> 
> ...



You're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. But you shouldn't be so disrespectful towards great contributors to our art, or to these forums.

Edit: I feel really bad that we've kind of hijacked geezer's thread so severely...

Edit: Decided to use my better judgement and remove a somewhat provocative comeback to an argument that isn't worth arguing...


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 14, 2013)

hunt1 said:


> Amazing no wonder the world laughs at wing chun. We don't even understand whats in our own forms. The very first thing you learn ,stance opening is a method of locking and breaking a knee when used in conjunction with pulling or pushing the upper body throwing them to the ground so the knee breaks. What do you think throws are? Every form of wing chun is full of sweeping,tripping reaping action of the lower body combined with pushing or pulling the upper body with the one goal of throwing a person to the ground in a violent manner that you cannot break fall. Wing Chun uses a specific subset of TCMA throwing methods. A throw does not require one to turn their back using their hip as a fulcrum.
> 
> Do you think the folks in Gulo have shown their entire method on a few videos on you tube? Most only have in depth experience with a version of Yip man wing chun. He is known for simplifying and removing certain material. Have you been shown the kneeling horse in your Yip Man wing chun? He taught it to only a few of his first group yet in Fatshan they still tell stories of Yip Man using kneeling horse in fights and winning with it. The fact that it has not been taught in most Yip Man families doesn't mean it's not important. Yip thought it important enough to train and win fights with. Wing Chun was developed to truly fight which meant being able to deal with and counter all manner of attacks including all the various types of throws. Older styles of wing chun contain far more than is taught in most Yip Man groups. If you see read the full list of Leung Jan Kuit wing chun throwing methods are indeed covered


I have a bit more exposure to Gulo than a few videos but I dont profess to know their entire system inside and out so it is possible that I am missing something. I'd be very interested to see a translation of what you refer to as the full list of Leung Jan Kuit Kuen, to see how it differs from the version that I am familiar with. 
As for not understanding the forms, I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree. I understand the forms that I do very well indeed. I presume that you must open your YGKYM in the way that I would do so for Biu Jee as opposed to the way in which we teach beginners to open their stance. The foot movements at the start of Biu jee are indeed an unbalancing action and a sweep, a throw - I don't think so but we may just be talking semantics. The way that beginners are taught to open their stance i.e the way my lineage opens it for SNT has nothing whatsoever to do with throwing and is simply a very precise way of ensuring the correct distance between the feet. 
As far as "kneeling horse" I presume that you are referring to something akin to the posture shown by Rene Ritchie on the cover of his book about YKS Wing Chun. I'm very glad to say that it is not part of the art that I study. They tell a lot of stories in Fatshan not all of them are true.......


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 14, 2013)

hunt1 said:


> Realy ,you want to base you rargument for effective wing chun on the exploits of a man in hong kong 60 years ago. What evidence do you have of his fights? What skill level were is opponents? Any manes of who he beat? Any footage?  Have you seen the available footage of these incredible roof top fights?
> 
> What we know is that WSL had 12 to 18 months of boxing under his belt and when he was 17 he started challanging CMA people to fight . he learned wing chun and fought the same kind of folks again. So your telling me that your understanding and method of wing chun fighting is comparable to someone with 12 to 18 months of boxing! WSL did fine against the standard of skill of his day but today I highly doubt that standard is higher than set by 12 to 18 months of MMA traing at best
> 
> ...


I don't train in WSL lineage (although I do have some first hand experience of some of their approaches), I've never met PB or any of his top guys but I would suggest that the trolls who infest online forums in his name are probably not the best representatives of the man or his teaching, as for GL I have never met him either and some of what he teaches doesn't sit with me, but he has real experience of fighting both inside the ring and outside the ring and so deserves respect, yes the clip taht you refer to doesn't do him any favours but I gave up believing in the invincible kung fu master a long long time ago.
The standard of fighter WSL fought is something that is often debated as are the results of the fights, but to claim that he used 18 months of boxing to beat everyone he fought is basically saying that all the martial arts in HK at the time were truly awful. I strongly suspect that what the 18 months of boxing gave WSL was an appreciation of what being hit is like , what real sparring is like and what BS doesn't work when people throw "punches in bunches" as the saying goes. That combined with the simple direct no nonsense approach of Ip Man's wing chun would have made him a real handful for his TCMA opponents. As you have decided to use youtube footage as the yardstick for measuring other lineages it would be good if you could provide some footage of your lineage in action against a non co-operative opponent so that we have a yard stick to judge by.


----------

