# "No Outside Game," or Another Thread About Hybrid Arts



## wingchun100

I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun? 

I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."

Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.


----------



## wckf92

IMHO, WC does have 'long bridge' and 'short bridge'. Now, some may prefer to emphasize one vs the other in some kwoons or families but it is there.


----------



## KangTsai

And Bruce Lee also said that he doesn't believe in styles. A long game is easy. The whole thing is about managing distance, which is easily the shallowest and simplest part of any martial art and fighting. So 'hybrid' fuss is honestly pointless. Fighting distance (standing) is not dependent on the style anyway — moreso the fighter themselves (or lineages or whatever one may identify with but I'll leave that discussion for another time).
So I have to disagree on wing chun having no 'outside game' because such thing is impossible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wckf92 said:


> IMHO, WC does have 'long bridge' and 'short bridge'. Now, some may prefer to emphasize one vs the other in some kwoons or families but it is there.


In your experience, which lineages have/don't have much emphasis on "long bridge"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> And Bruce Lee also said that he doesn't believe in styles. A long game is easy. The whole thing is about managing distance, which is easily the shallowest and simplest part of any martial art and fighting. So 'hybrid' fuss is honestly pointless. Fighting distance (standing) is not dependent on the style anyway — moreso the fighter themselves (or lineages or whatever one may identify with but I'll leave that discussion for another time).
> So I have to disagree on wing chun having no 'outside game' because such thing is impossible.


I've long thought Bruce Lee's comments about "no style" were overly philosophical to attempt to train from as a beginner. They are an end point - actually, a fairly common end point. Many long-term (let's say 20+ years) students of the arts I know have reached a point where, when attending a seminar, they look at each new technique, strategy, and principle they are taught and examine it for how it will work for them in regards to everything else they know. Those who do this become more dangerous to their training partners who don't, because they will find a version of a technique that fits nicely into their main art, but isn't really known there, and bring it back in. 

In the end, I think Lee's concept - at it's highest level - is not that uncommon. (Some of the principles within it might be - I'd need to go back and re-read his writings to think about that, and I'm sure there's stuff that was passed along that didn't make it into the books.) Basically, as I read it, he says that techniques aren't the key, principles are the key. So, though someone may study his techniques in JKD, they shouldn't be leashed to those in the long term. I don't think it's a viable approach for beginners - they need specific techniques to learn from and grow upon until they have the understanding to bridge principles beyond techniques. That's where the technical JKD has its place. 

Sometimes I think most instructors (maybe most students - I just don't know many long-term students who don't teach) eventually run into a problem. They are focusing themselves in one direction for learning, and must focus their teaching in another direction, because their students simply aren't at their level...unless they move to only teaching advanced students, where the gap isn't as large. When someone copies their thoughts at that stage - whether from writings, or by repeating their teaching methods (especially if it's how they taught to advanced classes), they may be teaching beyond the beginner's level from the start.

Back to your point (which I intended to stay on, really!). There's the other side of the aisle: long-term students of an art who work to keep an art pure. If you are trying to preserve some historical point in time (like maintaining some settler's village from the 16th century in America), then that's fine. But that's not the same IMO as continuing to practice it as a functional art. Those folks don't want to add or remove anything, which usually starts from the assumption that the art is wholly perfect, and that changing, adding, or removing will break it. That attitude assumes that some progenitor was an infallible genius, who created a perfect system. Such does not exist, IMO. If said progenitor did well, then they created a whole art that worked well for the time and circumstances in which they found themselves. That art should continue to evolve as the world around it does. That doesn't mean just anything can be brought into an art. As I said (I think) before, an art is a collection of principles, and needs some unifying bridges that let you move between parts of the art. Anything new that comes into the art must fit comfortably. So, for instance, there are strikes from Jow Ga, White Crane, and Long Fist traditions that simply don't look like good fits for NGA, so to me they are not NGA. There are strikes in Goju-ryu, Wing Chun, and Kali that do look like good fits for NGA, so to me they are NGA to anyone in NGA who knows how to use those strikes. The style is simply the set of principles and approaches that collects appropriate techniques and movements under itself.

(That's more writing than I'd planned to do. Whew!)


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.



I haven't seen a version of Wing Chun yet that demonstrated an actually effective "outside game."  Would love to see it if it exists!  But as far as your question....you hit on it above!  Bruce Lee recognized that Wing Chun typically doesn't have a good outside game and sought to fix that.  So JKD makes the perfect "hybrid" in that regard....giving Wing Chun an outside game.   I think this is one of the reasons Wing Chun typically looks like crap when sparring.  No real outside game.


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> I haven't seen a version of Wing Chun yet that demonstrated an actually effective "outside game."  Would love to see it if it exists!  But as far as your question....you hit on it above!  Bruce Lee recognized that Wing Chun typically doesn't have a good outside game and sought to fix that.  So JKD makes the perfect "hybrid" in that regard....giving Wing Chun an outside game.   I think this is one of the reasons Wing Chun typically looks like crap when sparring.  No real outside game.


 
Right, but then you never hear people critique how tae kwon do has no "inside game" because it favors kicks.

This is what I have always said: if I practice Wing Chun, then I am going to learn how to bridge the gap so I can be in the proper range. If I practice Tae Kwon Do and I would rather kick, then I am going to do what I have to in order to stay in THAT range.

My point is, I think the lack of outside game can be compensated for by learning entry techniques. Everyone has to learn how to make the opponent play THEIR game. (By this, I mean if you know you are fighting someone from a different style. Obviously in a TKD vs. TKD tournament, you won't have this problem.) A boxer has to get in punching range...a grappler has to get in grappling range...so on and so forth. Therefore, I am not sure learning another art that DOES have outside game is the answer. I think you can learn things that will get into the range where your style functions.

Then again, maybe I'm just trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. I have yet to prove or disprove this theory...well, for myself anyway.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> I've long thought Bruce Lee's comments about "no style" were overly philosophical to attempt to train from as a beginner. They are an end point - actually, a fairly common end point. Many long-term (let's say 20+ years) students of the arts I know have reached a point where, when attending a seminar, they look at each new technique, strategy, and principle they are taught and examine it for how it will work for them in regards to everything else they know. Those who do this become more dangerous to their training partners who don't, because they will find a version of a technique that fits nicely into their main art, but isn't really known there, and bring it back in.
> 
> In the end, I think Lee's concept - at it's highest level - is not that uncommon. (Some of the principles within it might be - I'd need to go back and re-read his writings to think about that, and I'm sure there's stuff that was passed along that didn't make it into the books.) Basically, as I read it, he says that techniques aren't the key, principles are the key. So, though someone may study his techniques in JKD, they shouldn't be leashed to those in the long term. I don't think it's a viable approach for beginners - they need specific techniques to learn from and grow upon until they have the understanding to bridge principles beyond techniques. That's where the technical JKD has its place.
> 
> Sometimes I think most instructors (maybe most students - I just don't know many long-term students who don't teach) eventually run into a problem. They are focusing themselves in one direction for learning, and must focus their teaching in another direction, because their students simply aren't at their level...unless they move to only teaching advanced students, where the gap isn't as large. When someone copies their thoughts at that stage - whether from writings, or by repeating their teaching methods (especially if it's how they taught to advanced classes), they may be teaching beyond the beginner's level from the start.
> 
> Back to your point (which I intended to stay on, really!). There's the other side of the aisle: long-term students of an art who work to keep an art pure. If you are trying to preserve some historical point in time (like maintaining some settler's village from the 16th century in America), then that's fine. But that's not the same IMO as continuing to practice it as a functional art. Those folks don't want to add or remove anything, which usually starts from the assumption that the art is wholly perfect, and that changing, adding, or removing will break it. That attitude assumes that some progenitor was an infallible genius, who created a perfect system. Such does not exist, IMO. If said progenitor did well, then they created a whole art that worked well for the time and circumstances in which they found themselves. That art should continue to evolve as the world around it does. That doesn't mean just anything can be brought into an art. As I said (I think) before, an art is a collection of principles, and needs some unifying bridges that let you move between parts of the art. Anything new that comes into the art must fit comfortably. So, for instance, there are strikes from Jow Ga, White Crane, and Long Fist traditions that simply don't look like good fits for NGA, so to me they are not NGA. There are strikes in Goju-ryu, Wing Chun, and Kali that do look like good fits for NGA, so to me they are NGA to anyone in NGA who knows how to use those strikes. The style is simply the set of principles and approaches that collects appropriate techniques and movements under itself.
> 
> (That's more writing than I'd planned to do. Whew!)


 
I have always thought this myself, meaning what you said in the beginning.

I believe you have to KNOW the rules before you can break them.

Back to the original thought I was expressing, you have the flip side of the coin, with a guy like Dom Izzo who posted a video one time saying, "If you don't think the art you're doing is the best, then get out of it. You have no business in it."

Like many things, in the end it is all personal preference, with no real right or wrong answer.


----------



## wingchun100

KangTsai said:


> And Bruce Lee also said that he doesn't believe in styles. A long game is easy. The whole thing is about managing distance, which is easily the shallowest and simplest part of any martial art and fighting. So 'hybrid' fuss is honestly pointless. Fighting distance (standing) is not dependent on the style anyway — moreso the fighter themselves (or lineages or whatever one may identify with but I'll leave that discussion for another time).
> So I have to disagree on wing chun having no 'outside game' because such thing is impossible.


 
I don't agree with it either, but the statement struck me as one that could start an interesting discussoion. Happily, I was proven right.


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> I haven't seen a version of Wing Chun yet that demonstrated an actually effective "outside game."  Would love to see it if it exists!  But as far as your question....you hit on it above!  Bruce Lee recognized that Wing Chun typically doesn't have a good outside game and sought to fix that.  So JKD makes the perfect "hybrid" in that regard....giving Wing Chun an outside game.   I think this is one of the reasons Wing Chun typically looks like crap when sparring.  No real outside game.


 
I just want to say though, that Bruce Lee recognized HIS Wing Chun training had no outside game. He left China long before he could complete the system. From what I have heard, I think he started Chum Kiu but might not have finished. When he went back to China for the movies, I think he asked to learn the wooden dummy form, but he did not get all of that either. (My memory of these things is admittedly a bit hazy, but it would be easy enough to refresh them. It is so cool to know people who trained with him!)

In any event, my point is we will never know what Bruce would have thought of the system if he had actually learned all of it.


----------



## Kickboxer101

Kickboxing would be a long range style as it uses only long range weapons kicks and punches and knees which normally are short range but in kickboxing you step in with them from a distance


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> In your experience, which lineages have/don't have much emphasis on "long bridge"?


 
From what I have seen of his videos, where he often has opponents who are MUCH further than arm's reach from him, Emin Boztepe includes a lot of long bridge stuff. Then again, judging by his chi sao videos, he is also good at short bridge. I like his balance. Also, I believe he is from the Leung Ting lineage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Right, but then you never hear people critique how tae kwon do has no "inside game" because it favors kicks.
> 
> This is what I have always said: if I practice Wing Chun, then I am going to learn how to bridge the gap so I can be in the proper range. If I practice Tae Kwon Do and I would rather kick, then I am going to do what I have to in order to stay in THAT range.
> 
> My point is, I think the lack of outside game can be compensated for by learning entry techniques. Everyone has to learn how to make the opponent play THEIR game. (By this, I mean if you know you are fighting someone from a different style. Obviously in a TKD vs. TKD tournament, you won't have this problem.) A boxer has to get in punching range...a grappler has to get in grappling range...so on and so forth. Therefore, I am not sure learning another art that DOES have outside game is the answer. I think you can learn things that will get into the range where your style functions.
> 
> Then again, maybe I'm just trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. I have yet to prove or disprove this theory...well, for myself anyway.


The theory is sound, at the very least. A boxer with short reach fighting a boxer with long reach cannot afford to let the long-armed opponent dictate the range. He must get inside. That means he has to find his entry techniques to get inside, where he can play his game. This is a sound theoretical approach.

Where it breaks down some is when you can't defend against the other's game. So, that same boxer facing a BJJ expert cannot simply afford to say he'll keep things at striking distance. The Gracies showed pretty clearly how many good strikers failed at that strategy. So, learning some methods for controlling and countering their techniques becomes necessary to staying in the striking game.

I don't think full hybridization is necessary. I think most people can be very well served by a single, solid art. If they want to defend against other arts, they may want a small amount of cross-training in counters.

Part of my view is that the entire idea of a "pure" art is theoretical. An art is originally only whatever parts the founder included at the time. What we today view as "hybrid" arts (like NGA) are only perceived as such because the source arts are visible to us. Every art was originally an amalgamation of techniques from different sources (what they saw others do, what they'd done by accident, what someone else taught them, etc.).


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> The theory is sound, at the very least. A boxer with short reach fighting a boxer with long reach cannot afford to let the long-armed opponent dictate the range. He must get inside. That means he has to find his entry techniques to get inside, where he can play his game. This is a sound theoretical approach.
> 
> Where it breaks down some is when you can't defend against the other's game. So, that same boxer facing a BJJ expert cannot simply afford to say he'll keep things at striking distance. The Gracies showed pretty clearly how many good strikers failed at that strategy. So, learning some methods for controlling and countering their techniques becomes necessary to staying in the striking game.
> 
> I don't think full hybridization is necessary. I think most people can be very well served by a single, solid art. If they want to defend against other arts, they may want a small amount of cross-training in counters.
> 
> Part of my view is that the entire idea of a "pure" art is theoretical. An art is originally only whatever parts the founder included at the time. What we today view as "hybrid" arts (like NGA) are only perceived as such because the source arts are visible to us. Every art was originally an amalgamation of techniques from different sources (what they saw others do, what they'd done by accident, what someone else taught them, etc.).


 
Yes, what you are saying is in perfect alignment with what I am thinking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Yes, what you are saying is in perfect alignment with what I am thinking.


I always laugh at myself a little when someone says "I agree with you" and I click "like". I like it when people agree with me.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I just want to say though, that Bruce Lee recognized HIS Wing Chun training had no outside game. He left China long before he could complete the system. From what I have heard, I think he started Chum Kiu but might not have finished. When he went back to China for the movies, I think he asked to learn the wooden dummy form, but he did not get all of that either. (My memory of these things is admittedly a bit hazy, but it would be easy enough to refresh them. It is so cool to know people who trained with him!)
> 
> In any event, my point is we will never know what Bruce would have thought of the system if he had actually learned all of it.



Bruce is said to have known up through the first section or two of the dummy.   Ip Man is often quoted as saying something along the lines of if his Chum Kiu level students couldn't hold their own, then there was a problem!   So while Bruce Lee was certainly no Wing Chun "master", I think he had a pretty grasp of the way the system functions.   And just a note, bridging in from the outside to get to an "in-fighting" range is not the  same thing as having an "outside game."   That's simply skipping past the "outside game."


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> Right, but then you never hear people critique how tae kwon do has no "inside game" because it favors kicks.
> y.


Have you visited the TKD forum?   It takes all kinds of hits (if you'll pardon the pun) for not having any kind of inside game.  

BJJ is criticised for its gaps as are every other style.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I always laugh at myself a little when someone says "I agree with you" and I click "like". I like it when people agree with me.


I agree with you?


----------



## Transk53

Kickboxer101 said:


> Kickboxing would be a long range style as it uses only long range weapons kicks and punches and knees which normally are short range but in kickboxing you step in with them from a distance



Yeah but surely with elbows, you couldn't consider kick boxing to solely long range?


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> Bruce is said to have known up through the first section or two of the dummy.   Ip Man is often quoted as saying something along the lines of if his Chum Kiu level students couldn't hold their own, then there was a problem!   So while Bruce Lee was certainly no Wing Chun "master", I think he had a pretty grasp of the way the system functions.   And just a note, bridging in from the outside to get to an "in-fighting" range is not the  same thing as having an "outside game."   That's simply skipping past the "outside game."


 
I've heard that myself...that he said, "If a student of mine has mastered Chum Kiu and then loses a fight, I'm going to go jump off a building!"


----------



## wingchun100

Steve said:


> Have you visited the TKD forum?   It takes all kinds of hits (if you'll pardon the pun) for not having any kind of inside game.
> 
> BJJ is criticised for its gaps as are every other style.


 
Never visited TKD. As for BJJ, all I ever hear about that are people saying how grappling styles are the only ones worth learning. I even asked a BJJ guy once, "Well, how would your grappling work if you were in a bar, and some alpha male and his three buddies confronted you? Are you going to grow three more sets of arms to deal with all 4 of them?"

He did not bother replying to my question.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> Never visited TKD. As for BJJ, all I ever hear about that are people saying how grappling styles are the only ones worth learning. I even asked a BJJ guy once, "Well, how would your grappling work if you were in a bar, and some alpha male and his three buddies confronted you? Are you going to grow three more sets of arms to deal with all 4 of them?"
> 
> He did not bother replying to my question.


That's because you see what you want or expect to see.  As I said, people are quick to criticize BJJ and every other style.  Shoot, you're actively relating an anecdote where you criticize BJJ while simultaneously saying it never happens. Lol.


----------



## Flying Crane

I just really feel like, pretty much any method ought to be useful at any range, if you have a good understanding of it.  Particularly if we are talking about a long striking range vs. a short striking range.  How does one make the distinction?  It is striking range, period.  So strike.

My own method is a very "long fist" method, but that is just a training mechanism.  I can use it at short striking range just as easily.  Our punching techniques are not functional at X distance but become non-functional at X-1 distance.  It just doesn't matter.  They work at X, or at X-10, or at X+10 assuming you can still reach and make contact.

I think you are over-thinking it.


----------



## wingchun100

Steve said:


> That's because you see what you want or expect to see.  As I said, people are quick to criticize BJJ and every other style.  Shoot, you're actively relating an anecdote where you criticize BJJ while simultaneously saying it never happens. Lol.


 
There is nothing I specifically "want or expect to see." I am one of the few people I know who has pointed it out. With Wing Chun, however, criticism is rampant. I mean, even here on a forum that is supposed to be mainly practitioners of the style (or people who at least appreciate it), there is always bashing going on. And I am not talking between lineages either; I'm talking about people who don't practice it at all and think it is worthless.


----------



## Flying Crane

wingchun100 said:


> There is nothing I specifically "want or expect to see." I am one of the few people I know who has pointed it out. With Wing Chun, however, criticism is rampant. I mean, even here on a forum that is supposed to be mainly practitioners of the style (or people who at least appreciate it), there is always bashing going on. And I am not talking between lineages either; I'm talking about people who don't practice it at all and think it is worthless.


What some uneducated schmuck on the internet thinks, is irrelevant.  What is said here on martialtalk does not change the world.


----------



## wayfaring

KPM said:


> Bruce is said to have known up through the first section or two of the dummy.   Ip Man is often quoted as saying something along the lines of if his Chum Kiu level students couldn't hold their own, then there was a problem!   So while Bruce Lee was certainly no Wing Chun "master", I think he had a pretty grasp of the way the system functions.   And just a note, bridging in from the outside to get to an "in-fighting" range is not the  same thing as having an "outside game."   That's simply skipping past the "outside game."



Well, there is a skillset in handing off from outside range to inside range that you can't discount by saying it is "skipping past" it.  Without that skillset developed wing chun looks like Asbel Cancio in the UFC.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> Have you visited the TKD forum?   It takes all kinds of hits (if you'll pardon the pun) for not having any kind of inside game.
> 
> BJJ is criticised for its gaps as are every other style.


This is why I had cross trained the WC system. My long fist system doesn't have a good inside game. If you ask a long fist guy, "How to protect your center from inside out?" He will not even understand what you are talking about.

The

- northern CMA is weak in "shrink".
- southern CMA is weak in "extend".


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I had cross trained the WC system. My long fist system doesn't have a good inside game. If you ask a long fist guy, "How to protect your center from inside out?" He will not even understand what you are talking about.
> 
> The
> 
> - northern CMA is weak in "shrink".
> - southern CMA is weak in "extend".


Umm...I dunno about that.

There is a difference between what you yourself may find useful, and what someone else may be able to do, even if you have a similar training background.  I just would not make that generalization.


----------



## wayfaring

wingchun100 said:


> There is nothing I specifically "want or expect to see." I am one of the few people I know who has pointed it out. With Wing Chun, however, criticism is rampant. I mean, even here on a forum that is supposed to be mainly practitioners of the style (or people who at least appreciate it), there is always bashing going on. And I am not talking between lineages either; I'm talking about people who don't practice it at all and think it is worthless.



Yes totally.  It disappoints me.  People criticize wing chun for all sorts of reasons.  Here.  On a forum where they are supposed to understand enough about it to be proponents of it.  

I am a brown belt who competes in BJJ, yet my primary art is wing chun.  I personally am being criticized here because I am sharing details about how my art is opening up to me by drilling my primary response to be striking in a clinch over a takedown focus.  How I am drilling my primary art, wing chun, as my main mindset, my main identity.  They tell me I don't understand hybridization.


----------



## wayfaring

wckf92 said:


> IMHO, WC does have 'long bridge' and 'short bridge'. Now, some may prefer to emphasize one vs the other in some kwoons or families but it is there.



Our family has long bridge short bridge.  But even more important is the handoff from long range to short range.


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> Never visited TKD. As for BJJ, all I ever hear about that are people saying how grappling styles are the only ones worth learning. I even asked a BJJ guy once, "Well, how would your grappling work if you were in a bar, and some alpha male and his three buddies confronted you? Are you going to grow three more sets of arms to deal with all 4 of them?"
> 
> He did not bother replying to my question.



Striking arts dont really have a solution to being bashed by a group of guys either.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> There is nothing I specifically "want or expect to see." I am one of the few people I know who has pointed it out. With Wing Chun, however, criticism is rampant. I mean, even here on a forum that is supposed to be mainly practitioners of the style (or people who at least appreciate it), there is always bashing going on. And I am not talking between lineages either; I'm talking about people who don't practice it at all and think it is worthless.


Poor baby.  Its so hard being a kung fu guy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Umm...I dunno about that.
> 
> There is a difference between what you yourself may find useful, and what someone else may be able to do, even if you have a similar training background.  I just would not make that generalization.


To say that

- northern CMA is strong in "extension" (or weak in "shrink"),
- southern CMA is strong in "shrink" (or weak in "extension"),

is similar to say that

- boxing is strong is punch (or weak in take down),
- wrestling is strong in take down (or weak in punch).

Of course there are always exceptions.

WC can make your arms to have the same reach. Long fist can make your arm to have maximum reach and you will end with one long arm and one short arm. One's PRO is the others CON and vise verse.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To say that
> 
> - northern CMA is strong in "extension" (or weak in "shrink"),
> - southern CMA is strong in "shrink" (or weak in "extension"),
> 
> is similar to say that
> 
> - boxing is strong is punch (or weak in take down),
> - wrestling is strong in take down (or weak in punch).
> 
> Of course there are always exceptions.


I dunno, I still would not make any such generalizations.  Choy Lay Fut and Hung Gar are both southern, and both have good extension.

I just think generalizations like that hold too many exceptions to the point where it falls apart altogether.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno, I still would not make any such generalizations.  Choy Lay Fut and Hung Gar are both southern, and both have good extension.
> 
> I just think generalizations like that hold too many exceptions to the point where it falls apart altogether.


I'm pretty sure that the Hung Gar system came from north. Not too sure about CLF. It was a combination of 3 different MA systems

- Choy Gar,
- Lay Gar, and
- Fut Gar,

during the modern time.

If you look at

- WC,
- southern preying mantis,
- white crane,
- Okinawa Karate,
- ...

you can pretty much see a generalization of "square shoulder (90 degree between arm and chest)" that you don't see in the northern CMA system. Because this "square shoulder", you can have strong defense (shrink). Also because this "square shoulder", you don't have maximum reach - outside game (extension).


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Striking arts dont really have a solution to being bashed by a group of guys either.



Well, since you're on your feet, you can bash an opening and then practice your Run-Fu. That's at least a little more difficult if you're on the ground.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, since you're on your feet, you can bash an opening and then practice your Run-Fu. That's at least a little more difficult if you're on the ground.


I'd love to see some real data on how likely that is to work.  It would be very interesting to see, because it sounds like wishful thinking to me.    Striker or grappler, if four guys are committed to beating the **** out of you, it's a bad day to be you.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> I'd love to see some real data on how likely that is to work.  It would be very interesting to see, because it sounds like wishful thinking to me.    Striker or grappler, if four guys are committed to beating the **** out of you, it's a bad day to be you.



I don't think there's any chance of finding statistics. I'll agree that 4:1 odds are always something to be avoided. Will you agree that it's easier to run if you're standing up?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I'd love to see some real data on how likely that is to work.  It would be very interesting to see, because it sounds like wishful thinking to me.    Striker or grappler, if four guys are committed to beating the **** out of you, it's a bad day to be you.


Well, that depends on where you are in the escalation.  I've done it.  Granted, my would-be assailants were hardly Jason Bourne, but there I was, on a dark and lonely street in a seedy side of town, the wind was howling and a distant siren cut the night air like a hot .45 slug through a bowl of my Aunt Ruby's marshmallow and lime jell-o fruit salad.  I was winding up a long day at work, just thinking about that hot meal and a beer waiting for me at home and how in the hell was I gonna make next month's rent??  and then it happened.  How they got there and from where they sprang I will never know, and that bothers me to this very day, sir, the realization that my placid daydreaming, or, twilight dreaming as it more accurately stands, lead me headlong into dangers of a kind hardly dreamt of!  But as I say, there I was, bad guys to the left of me...bad guys to the right of me...bad guys in front of me...threats and demands for a charity handout offending my sensibilities!  And I knew right then and there sir, that my very metal was to be tested to its utmost limits!  And I, sir, am no man to shrink from a challenge or a threat to my very being, no sir, not I!  And I steeled myself for the encounter that was sure to come, knowing that whatever the outcome, whatever they might wring from my dying grasp of my goods and chattels, that I would visit any hurt or offense to my person back upon their heads tenfold!!!

Well sir, the die was cast at that moment and what was to come was fate and unstoppable.  For the one of my many assailants, he reached forth and positioned his very body in such a dastardly way as to hinder my own advance!  And he did give me a push, a shove upon my own self, into an obstruction!  Well, I was not to stand for it, let me tell you sir, no I would not.  Rather, I pressed myself into an opening, a gap between my very assailants, and I did bolt for life and limb!  I dashed myself down the road and my devious and dastardly assailants gave chase.  I heard the one shout, "get the bag!" as I had slung about my shoulders a satchel known in the common parlance as a "duffle" bag.  And in my own mind my internal voice screamed, "oh thou shalt not!!!!!!" For within that satchel there lay one of the very few treasures that I owned to my very name, one of few luxuries that my wretched condition of employment allowed me in my time of dispair.  That satchel held a Walkman, purchased with hard-earned currency that very afternoon!  And I would not part with it for the cost of my soul!

Well I lead those fellows a merry chase and they did drop away after some time.  I feel some satisfaction in the thought that they were astounded that this fellow they chose to exercise their ruffianism upon, this man in a suit and tie, did outrun them in both speed and in distance, their shouts and howls of frustration fading in the distance as I put mileage between us.  For my conditioning was like that of the pronghorn of the plains!

And I did make it to safety, I will have you know, and am here to relate this tale of suspense and horror to you today, for your education and satisfaction.


----------



## wingchun100

Steve said:


> Poor baby.  Its so hard being a kung fu guy.



Poor baby? WTF? Is that even called for? Very mature reply. I guess you missed the sticky that the moderators put up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I agree with you?


Hmm...with the question mark, I can't decide whether to like or dislike...


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, since you're on your feet, you can bash an opening and then practice your Run-Fu. That's at least a little more difficult if you're on the ground.



So it is BJJ in a running race vs kung fu.  Well that is an interesting style vs style.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> So it is BJJ in a running race vs kung fu.  Well that is an interesting style vs style.



Well, I wasn't actually thinking style vs style. Only that it's easier to take off running from an upright position than from a prone.
Unless there's a BJJ hold that puts you in a position like the starters blocks for a sprint?


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, I wasn't actually thinking style vs style. Only that it's easier to take off running from an upright position than from a prone.
> Unless there's a BJJ hold that puts you in a position like the starters blocks for a sprint?



Turtle.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Turtle.



Aren't you kind of tangled up with another person at that point, though? Might make launching a little slower than ideal...


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Aren't you kind of tangled up with another person at that point, though? Might make launching a little slower than ideal...


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> Poor baby? WTF? Is that even called for? Very mature reply. I guess you missed the sticky that the moderators put up.


Dude, you're stuck in victim mode.  Whining and wringing your hands about how everyone is so mean to you.   Snap out of it.   You're seeing what you want to see, and when someone points it out to you, you whine and cry even more.   

yes.  It was called for.  I'm shocked you don't hear it from someone every day, if that's how you go through life.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Well, that depends on where you are in the escalation.  I've done it.  Granted, my would-be assailants were hardly Jason Bourne, but there I was, on a dark and lonely street in a seedy side of town, the wind was howling and a distant siren cut the night air like a hot .45 slug through a bowl of my Aunt Ruby's marshmallow and lime jell-o fruit salad.  I was winding up a long day at work, just thinking about that hot meal and a beer waiting for me at home and how in the hell was I gonna make next month's rent??  and then it happened.  How they got there and from where they sprang I will never know, and that bothers me to this very day, sir, the realization that my placid daydreaming, or, twilight dreaming as it more accurately stands, lead me headlong into dangers of a kind hardly dreamt of!  But as I say, there I was, bad guys to the left of me...bad guys to the right of me...bad guys in front of me...threats and demands for a charity handout offending my sensibilities!  And I knew right then and there sir, that my very metal was to be tested to its utmost limits!  And I, sir, am no man to shrink from a challenge or a threat to my very being, no sir, not I!  And I steeled myself for the encounter that was sure to come, knowing that whatever the outcome, whatever they might wring from my dying grasp of my goods and chattels, that I would visit any hurt or offense to my person back upon their heads tenfold!!!
> 
> Well sir, the die was cast at that moment and what was to come was fate and unstoppable.  For the one of my many assailants, he reached forth and positioned his very body in such a dastardly way as to hinder my own advance!  And he did give me a push, a shove upon my own self, into an obstruction!  Well, I was not to stand for it, let me tell you sir, no I would not.  Rather, I pressed myself into an opening, a gap between my very assailants, and I did bolt for life and limb!  I dashed myself down the road and my devious and dastardly assailants gave chase.  I heard the one shout, "get the bag!" as I had slung about my shoulders a satchel known in the common parlance as a "duffle" bag.  And in my own mind my internal voice screamed, "oh thou shalt not!!!!!!" For within that satchel there lay one of the very few treasures that I owned to my very name, one of few luxuries that my wretched condition of employment allowed me in my time of dispair.  That satchel held a Walkman, purchased with hard-earned currency that very afternoon!  And I would not part with it for the cost of my soul!
> 
> Well I lead those fellows a merry chase and they did drop away after some time.  I feel some satisfaction in the thought that they were astounded that this fellow they chose to exercise their ruffianism upon, this man in a suit and tie, did outrun them in both speed and in distance, their shouts and howls of frustration fading in the distance as I put mileage between us.  For my conditioning was like that of the pronghorn of the plains!
> 
> And I did make it to safety, I will have you know, and am here to relate this tale of suspense and horror to you today, for your education and satisfaction.


I love it. And I'm glad you still have the Walkman.   Was it one of the big, cassette tape ones?

And just to be clear, which martial art helped you?  Being serious, I'd like to see real data on crimes, or attempted crimes, whether the person trained something they believe helped them in the situation  (whether martial arts, parkour, crossfit or whatever) and if so, what.  My theory is that we would learn that training in any martial art, whether BJJ, tkd or whatever, has minimal real effect.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> So it is BJJ in a running race vs kung fu.  Well that is an interesting style vs style.


On the ground, I don't think I can move this fast as this guy did.


----------



## KangTsai

gpseymour said:


> I've long thought Bruce Lee's comments about "no style" were overly philosophical to attempt to train from as a beginner. They are an end point - actually, a fairly common end point. Many long-term (let's say 20+ years) students of the arts I know have reached a point where, when attending a seminar, they look at each new technique, strategy, and principle they are taught and examine it for how it will work for them in regards to everything else they know. Those who do this become more dangerous to their training partners who don't, because they will find a version of a technique that fits nicely into their main art, but isn't really known there, and bring it back in.
> 
> In the end, I think Lee's concept - at it's highest level - is not that uncommon. (Some of the principles within it might be - I'd need to go back and re-read his writings to think about that, and I'm sure there's stuff that was passed along that didn't make it into the books.) Basically, as I read it, he says that techniques aren't the key, principles are the key. So, though someone may study his techniques in JKD, they shouldn't be leashed to those in the long term. I don't think it's a viable approach for beginners - they need specific techniques to learn from and grow upon until they have the understanding to bridge principles beyond techniques. That's where the technical JKD has its place.
> 
> Sometimes I think most instructors (maybe most students - I just don't know many long-term students who don't teach) eventually run into a problem. They are focusing themselves in one direction for learning, and must focus their teaching in another direction, because their students simply aren't at their level...unless they move to only teaching advanced students, where the gap isn't as large. When someone copies their thoughts at that stage - whether from writings, or by repeating their teaching methods (especially if it's how they taught to advanced classes), they may be teaching beyond the beginner's level from the start.
> 
> Back to your point (which I intended to stay on, really!). There's the other side of the aisle: long-term students of an art who work to keep an art pure. If you are trying to preserve some historical point in time (like maintaining some settler's village from the 16th century in America), then that's fine. But that's not the same IMO as continuing to practice it as a functional art. Those folks don't want to add or remove anything, which usually starts from the assumption that the art is wholly perfect, and that changing, adding, or removing will break it. That attitude assumes that some progenitor was an infallible genius, who created a perfect system. Such does not exist, IMO. If said progenitor did well, then they created a whole art that worked well for the time and circumstances in which they found themselves. That art should continue to evolve as the world around it does. That doesn't mean just anything can be brought into an art. As I said (I think) before, an art is a collection of principles, and needs some unifying bridges that let you move between parts of the art. Anything new that comes into the art must fit comfortably. So, for instance, there are strikes from Jow Ga, White Crane, and Long Fist traditions that simply don't look like good fits for NGA, so to me they are not NGA. There are strikes in Goju-ryu, Wing Chun, and Kali that do look like good fits for NGA, so to me they are NGA to anyone in NGA who knows how to use those strikes. The style is simply the set of principles and approaches that collects appropriate techniques and movements under itself.
> 
> (That's more writing than I'd planned to do. Whew!)


But the thing is, distance is such a mundane and simple concept that 'purity' of a martial art is not at stake here. It's not do a 'long ________ ,' it's just do a '_______' from arms length.


----------



## yak sao

Flying Crane said:


> Well, that depends on where you are in the escalation.  I've done it.  Granted, my would-be assailants were hardly Jason Bourne, but there I was, on a dark and lonely street in a seedy side of town, the wind was howling and a distant siren cut the night air like a hot .45 slug through a bowl of my Aunt Ruby's marshmallow and lime jell-o fruit salad.  I was winding up a long day at work, just thinking about that hot meal and a beer waiting for me at home and how in the hell was I gonna make next month's rent??  and then it happened.  How they got there and from where they sprang I will never know, and that bothers me to this very day, sir, the realization that my placid daydreaming, or, twilight dreaming as it more accurately stands, lead me headlong into dangers of a kind hardly dreamt of!  But as I say, there I was, bad guys to the left of me...bad guys to the right of me...bad guys in front of me...threats and demands for a charity handout offending my sensibilities!  And I knew right then and there sir, that my very metal was to be tested to its utmost limits!  And I, sir, am no man to shrink from a challenge or a threat to my very being, no sir, not I!  And I steeled myself for the encounter that was sure to come, knowing that whatever the outcome, whatever they might wring from my dying grasp of my goods and chattels, that I would visit any hurt or offense to my person back upon their heads tenfold!!!
> 
> Well sir, the die was cast at that moment and what was to come was fate and unstoppable.  For the one of my many assailants, he reached forth and positioned his very body in such a dastardly way as to hinder my own advance!  And he did give me a push, a shove upon my own self, into an obstruction!  Well, I was not to stand for it, let me tell you sir, no I would not.  Rather, I pressed myself into an opening, a gap between my very assailants, and I did bolt for life and limb!  I dashed myself down the road and my devious and dastardly assailants gave chase.  I heard the one shout, "get the bag!" as I had slung about my shoulders a satchel known in the common parlance as a "duffle" bag.  And in my own mind my internal voice screamed, "oh thou shalt not!!!!!!" For within that satchel there lay one of the very few treasures that I owned to my very name, one of few luxuries that my wretched condition of employment allowed me in my time of dispair.  That satchel held a Walkman, purchased with hard-earned currency that very afternoon!  And I would not part with it for the cost of my soul!
> 
> Well I lead those fellows a merry chase and they did drop away after some time.  I feel some satisfaction in the thought that they were astounded that this fellow they chose to exercise their ruffianism upon, this man in a suit and tie, did outrun them in both speed and in distance, their shouts and howls of frustration fading in the distance as I put mileage between us.  For my conditioning was like that of the pronghorn of the plains!
> 
> And I did make it to safety, I will have you know, and am here to relate this tale of suspense and horror to you today, for your education and satisfaction.



Now that is funny.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Dude, you're stuck in victim mode.  Whining and wringing your hands about how everyone is so mean to you.   Snap out of it.   You're seeing what you want to see, and when someone points it out to you, you whine and cry even more.
> 
> yes.  It was called for.  I'm shocked you don't hear it from someone every day, if that's how you go through life.


A bit harsh, Steve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I love it. And I'm glad you still have the Walkman.   Was it one of the big, cassette tape ones?
> 
> And just to be clear, which martial art helped you?  Being serious, I'd like to see real data on crimes, or attempted crimes, whether the person trained something they believe helped them in the situation  (whether martial arts, parkour, crossfit or whatever) and if so, what.  My theory is that we would learn that training in any martial art, whether BJJ, tkd or whatever, has minimal real effect.


This is probably another of those circumstances where good statistics simply aren't going to be available. Given the relatively small number of multiple-attacker incidents, the relatively small number of martial artists (in the population), and the way such things are (and are not) reported, the best we can probably do is draw reasonable conclusions.

The primary reason for training against multiple attackers (at least in NGA) is to learn to navigate through and around them. If there are only 2 (as if that's an "only"), then a fighter may have a chance to defeat both if he/she outclasses each one individually or just gets lucky and finishes the first one very fast. Beyond that, if running is an option, then it's the best option. Since the defender will be fueled by the fear of death, they will probably have a larger adrenaline surge than the pursuers, which will be enough if he/she is reasonably fit, reasonably fast, and has somewhere to run to. If that "somewhere to run to" isn't an option, then fighting may be all that is left.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> But the thing is, distance is such a mundane and simple concept that 'purity' of a martial art is not at stake here. It's not do a 'long ________ ,' it's just do a '_______' from arms length.


I agree that it's not a question of purity. However, there are many _____ that don't belong at arm's length. An elbow blow can't happen at arm's length, nor can an Elbow Chop (mid-range NGA technique), nor a Slap to the side of the Head (close range NGA technique). You have to enter or draw your opponent in for each of those to be executed. To me, that entering/drawing movement is separate from the technique itself, and is part of controlling the distance. 

If an art's principles are built around power generation at square (this is a hypothetical art, though it might apply to some like Wing Chun...don't know), then strikes much beyond square would violate the principles of the art. If the power generation is entirely around square, extending the shoulder forward to gain reach (in any method) will destroy that power generation base and render a nearly useless strike. It's then time to examine whether that's a big enough hole that the art needs a change in principles. If not, then you leave it, and those folks who want those longer punches can learn them elsewhere. If the hole is too important, then you start adjusting the principles of the art to make room for some appropriate long-reach strikes.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I love it. And I'm glad you still have the Walkman.   Was it one of the big, cassette tape ones?
> 
> And just to be clear, which martial art helped you?  Being serious, I'd like to see real data on crimes, or attempted crimes, whether the person trained something they believe helped them in the situation  (whether martial arts, parkour, crossfit or whatever) and if so, what.  My theory is that we would learn that training in any martial art, whether BJJ, tkd or whatever, has minimal real effect.


Ah the Walkman!  Player of cassette tapes!  Bringer of tunes to lighten the soul!  I have such fond memories of that artifact from a bygone era.  That small bit of technology with which I was able to break the tedium of my day, that I purchased with the pennies and sheckels I managed to scrape together...that formidable tool with which I was able to stave off the creeping madness that threatened to overtake my existence!  Well it did serve me well but I am afraid it did die a noble death after a distinguished career.  It lays now at the bottom of a trash heap in some forgotten corner of some forgotten landfill.

My Nike Jitsu did show its prowess that fateful night, and opened the way for my newly-purchased Walkman, that faithful companion, to serve me so well in the days and months and years to come.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> A bit harsh, Steve.


But true.   Who can take all the whining?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is probably another of those circumstances where good statistics simply aren't going to be available. Given the relatively small number of multiple-attacker incidents, the relatively small number of martial artists (in the population), and the way such things are (and are not) reported, the best we can probably do is draw reasonable conclusions.
> 
> The primary reason for training against multiple attackers (at least in NGA) is to learn to navigate through and around them. If there are only 2 (as if that's an "only"), then a fighter may have a chance to defeat both if he/she outclasses each one individually or just gets lucky and finishes the first one very fast. Beyond that, if running is an option, then it's the best option. Since the defender will be fueled by the fear of death, they will probably have a larger adrenaline surge than the pursuers, which will be enough if he/she is reasonably fit, reasonably fast, and has somewhere to run to. If that "somewhere to run to" isn't an option, then fighting may be all that is left.


Would sure put a lot of myth to bed if we could get some actual information, instead of conjecture.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Would sure put a lot of myth to bed if we could get some actual information, instead of conjecture.



I have legitimately used multiple attackers against a lot of guys. 
That is one of the major dynamics that makes bouncing work. 

Otherwise you could test it.  You just spar a heap of guys.  Which i have also done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Would sure put a lot of myth to bed if we could get some actual information, instead of conjecture.


It would, but we'll probably have to settle for case studies, given the low population for statistical purposes.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> It would, but we'll probably have to settle for case studies, given the low population for statistical purposes.



Steve likes to be a bit grouchy. Doubt any answer would be sufficient


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Steve likes to be a bit grouchy. Doubt any answer would be sufficient


Meh, he's usually reasonable, but stubborn.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Meh, he's usually reasonable, but stubborn.



Yeah I guess  Actually I quite like him, an argument is a argument, but he does see reason. IMHO of course.


----------



## wingchun100

Transk53 said:


> Yeah I guess  Actually I quite like him, an argument is a argument, but he does see reason. IMHO of course.



Grumpy is one thing. Insulting and immature is another.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Bruce is said to have known up through the first section or two of the dummy.   Ip Man is often quoted as saying something along the lines of if his Chum Kiu level students couldn't hold their own, then there was a problem!   So while Bruce Lee was certainly no Wing Chun "master", I think he had a pretty grasp of the way the system functions.   And just a note, bridging in from the outside to get to an "in-fighting" range is not the  same thing as having an "outside game."   That's simply skipping past the "outside game."



The thing is WC has an outside game (at least mine does).  Much respect for Guro Dan but you need to remember his most formative time in terms of WC was with Bruce Lee.  Much respect for Bruce but as you said he never finished the system and I think much of what he added to Jun Fan Gung Fu and then JKD was to fill not so much the gaps in WC but the gaps in his training. You can have a solid basic understanding of a system and still have a perception their are "holes" in a particular area if you haven't learned the entire system.  I sometimes wonder if this is why Sigung Cheung put the kicks into TWC's Chum Kiu, so people saw the "long game" earlier. No I know there is mnore to the long game than kicks, but they are a big part of it. 

Now, that all said, is the long game as developed as other arts?  No, but the idea it is not there is what kinda drives me nuts.

Now this isn't to say that WC doesn't have some major holes.  I think the largely linear nature of the striking limits potential angles of attack a bit.  In a real fight, if your opponent is bobbing and weaving, having a more rounded (pun intended) ability to attack and defend can be useful.  Most notably imo, the ground game, and ground game defense more importantly, is pretty lacking.  If you are going to consider trying to hybrid anything, or as I prefer finding something that you can kinda "plug and play" in a modular fashion, I thinkl you want to start at the most notable hole and that, imo, is the ground game and ground game defense.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> Grumpy is one thing. Insulting and immature is another.


Poor, poor wingchun100.  Someone's always saying bad things about your style, and no one ever criticizes any other style.  

Except that this isn't true.  Every style is bashed around here, and for the most part, it's pretty well warranted.   Even BJJ.   I mean, really.   You sure showed your "friend" what for.   Made him look like a real dumbass. Didn't you?  But that's totally different, I'm sure.  

And I'm not grumpy.   I just have a low threshold for bs.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> This is probably another of those circumstances where good statistics simply aren't going to be available. Given the relatively small number of multiple-attacker incidents, the relatively small number of martial artists (in the population), and the way such things are (and are not) reported, the best we can probably do is draw reasonable conclusions.
> 
> The primary reason for training against multiple attackers (at least in NGA) is to learn to navigate through and around them. If there are only 2 (as if that's an "only"), then a fighter may have a chance to defeat both if he/she outclasses each one individually or just gets lucky and finishes the first one very fast. Beyond that, if running is an option, then it's the best option. Since the defender will be fueled by the fear of death, they will probably have a larger adrenaline surge than the pursuers, which will be enough if he/she is reasonably fit, reasonably fast, and has somewhere to run to. If that "somewhere to run to" isn't an option, then fighting may be all that is left.




My take.  First I think being attacked, in training, by multiple attackers, is simply to force people to fight against such odds.  Even if you are going to lose, and there is no avenue of escape, it is important (imo) to try and teach someone to not simply go into  metaphorical fetal position and take the beating.  Then we have what you note.

In so far as statistics on MA and self defense I think it would be a largely impossible experiment.  There are simply too many variables.  As an example we keep VERY good track of guns when used in the commission of a crime, or self defense and the effect of a gun when a bullet hits it mark is equally well understood and there are only so many ways one can actually fire a gun.  Even with all that we can't even come close to figuring out what is myth and what is real in terms of the overall effectiveness of gun ownership as it relates to self defense due to a host of issues..  

Now lets look at Martial arts.  Where a gun can be seen as the ultimate equalizer in terms of size/sex/strength differences, martial arts tend to exploit these rather than balance them out.  You have a myriad of training methods in various schools, even if you are talking about the same MA.  Then you have to come up with some way to account for the ability/experience of the practitioner (we all know the black belt who does the forms/katas like a dancer but can't spar to save their life, let alone fight)  As much as we may want to quantify the world around us, some things have too many variables to allow for any substantial conclusions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Poor, poor wingchun100.  Someone's always saying bad things about your style, and no one ever criticizes any other style.
> 
> Except that this isn't true.  Every style is bashed around here, and for the most part, it's pretty well warranted.   Even BJJ.   I mean, really.   You sure showed your "friend" what for.   Made him look like a real dumbass. Didn't you?  But that's totally different, I'm sure.
> 
> And I'm not grumpy.   I just have a low threshold for bs.


You are being a bit over-much on this one, Steve.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> The thing is WC has an outside game (at least mine does). .



Ah!  But "Traditional Wing Chun" is not "Ip Man Wing Chun."   TWC is not what Bruce Lee learned in Hong Kong.  No one ever saw TWC until after William Cheung was in Australia for several years.  TWC does indeed have more of a outside game than other versions of Wing Chun.  TWC has even been described at times in the past as a "long arm" version of Wing Chun.  I have been around Wing Chun for a long time and I can tell you that an "outside game" is not somehow hidden in the advanced levels as you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> I haven't seen a version of Wing Chun yet that demonstrated an actually effective "outside game."  Would love to see it if it exists!  But as far as your question....you hit on it above!  Bruce Lee recognized that Wing Chun typically doesn't have a good outside game and sought to fix that.  So JKD makes the perfect "hybrid" in that regard....giving Wing Chun an outside game.   I think this is one of the reasons Wing Chun typically looks like crap when sparring.  No real outside game.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO JKD does not add anything important to wing chun. Wing chun emphasizes plum blossom footwork in the range of direct attack and defense. You can walk or run ina balanced way until you reach the plum blossom range.Extensive footwork takes over  in the plum blossomrange.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Ah!  But "Traditional Wing Chun" is not "Ip Man Wing Chun."   TWC is not what Bruce Lee learned in Hong Kong.  No one ever saw TWC until after William Cheung was in Australia for several years.  TWC does indeed have more of a outside game than other versions of Wing Chun.  TWC has even been described at times in the past as a "long arm" version of Wing Chun.  I have been around Wing Chun for a long time and I can tell you that an "outside game" is not somehow hidden in the advanced levels as you seem to be suggesting.



Admittedly TWC is YM WC according to my Sifus though obviously there are some differences as well. While that is what I know best but every YM WC Sifu I have even just chatted with at tournaments and the like has always been annoyed by the YM WC vs Jun Fan/JKD debate because they don't see Bruce having added anything to make JF/JKD "longer" than WC and the brush it off as Bruce being a bit cocky and thinking he filled a gap that didn't really exist.  However the grappling game is another story entirely.

/Shrug


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> they don't see Bruce having added anything to make JF/JKD "longer" than WC ...


Bruce Lee brought the circular movements into WC such as: 

- hay-maker, and
- spin kick.


----------



## JP3

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one.



Getting late to this thread. Apologies.

Just Curious, why the final statement in the quoted bit, above? Is there a fundamental stance principle difference in WingChun vs. TKD? I've no idea, having never done WC myself. I mixed in the TKD with Muay Thai really easily, and blended that into... of all things, aikido/aikijutsu (talk about opposite ends of things). So, just wondering.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Bruce Lee brought the circular movements into WC such as:
> 
> - hay-maker, and
> - spin kick.




I know that but I don't see things like that as "making" or "breaking" an outside game.  Now don't get me wrong, it isn't the best outside game.  It basically exists so you can get to the inside game or find yourself trapped outside so it's not a "balanced" game.  I am just not a fan absolute statements unless truly necessary.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> IMO JKD does not add anything important to wing chun. Wing chun emphasizes plum blossom footwork in the range of direct attack and defense. You can walk or run ina balanced way until you reach the plum blossom range.Extensive footwork takes over  in the plum blossomrange.



That's one opinion.    I think JKD adds a lot to Wing Chun.  Otherwise Bruce Lee wouldn't have bothered to develop it.   And again, walking or running into "plum blossom range" is not the same thing as having an "outside game."


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Admittedly TWC is YM WC according to my Sifus though obviously there are some differences as well. While that is what I know best but every YM WC Sifu I have even just chatted with at tournaments and the like has always been annoyed by the YM WC vs Jun Fan/JKD debate because they don't see Bruce having added anything to make JF/JKD "longer" than WC and the brush it off as Bruce being a bit cocky and thinking he filled a gap that didn't really exist.  However the grappling game is another story entirely.
> 
> /Shrug



Ah!  But I don't think they knew what they were talking about if they had never actually studied JKD.    That would be the equivalent of talking to Ip Man Wing Chun Sifu about TWC.  Do you think any of them would say it was an improvement or added anything to Ip Man Wing Chun?    Bottom-line....everyone will think they are doing the best thing, otherwise they would be doing something else!


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Ah!  But I don't think they knew what they were talking about if they had never actually studied JKD.    That would be the equivalent of talking to Ip Man Wing Chun Sifu about TWC.  Do you think any of them would say it was an improvement or added anything to Ip Man Wing Chun?    Bottom-line....everyone will think they are doing the best thing, otherwise they would be doing something else!




wing chun does not exactly dominate the striking world. I can see why people would try to improve on it.


----------



## wingchun100

I can understand why people who don't practice a style would post on the board, but what I don't understand is why people who don't RESPECT a style post here. If you can't say anything other than short little jabs meant to annoy, then go post elsewhere.

Then again, the "ignore" button is always a handy little feature...so I digress. Carry on; I won't be able to see it anyway!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Ah!  But I don't think they knew what they were talking about if they had never actually studied JKD.    That would be the equivalent of talking to Ip Man Wing Chun Sifu about TWC.  Do you think any of them would say it was an improvement or added anything to Ip Man Wing Chun?    Bottom-line....everyone will think they are doing the best thing, otherwise they would be doing something else!



Thing is I do speak to my old Sifu on occassion (WSLVT via Gary Lam) we find that most of the differences (in practical application) comes from the blind side concept.  In short, while all YM WC (maybe all WC period?) Sees the opponent's centerline as something that can be accessed 360 degrees, TWC says "okay, if that is the case why charge into the fatal funnel in the first place then" and puts more emphasis on your half of the centerline plane and footwork to move out of the fatal funnel.

But I even know people who study Jun Fan and JKD and they say the curriculum is Wing Chun on steroids. (More though the Jun Fan though)

And note I am not saying Wing Chun has no room for improvement.  Even the striking game can use some improvements.  I am just saying focus on where the largest weakness is.  Ground game and more importantly ground game defense.

Think of it like a house.  Do you go about replacing floors in the living room when you find out the porch roof is about to collapse, or fix the porch?

That all said, I'll hit you up private side with some of the GL stuff that is on my first point.  Don't want to bore others


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> I can understand why people who don't practice a style would post on the board, but what I don't understand is why people who don't RESPECT a style post here. If you can't say anything other than short little jabs meant to annoy, then go post elsewhere.
> 
> Then again, the "ignore" button is always a handy little feature...so I digress. Carry on; I won't be able to see it anyway!



I can see why people think you are whiney.

Not a jab. An observation.


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> Thing is I do speak to my old Sifu on occassion (WSLVT via Gary Lam) we find that most of the differences (in practical application) comes from the blind side concept.  In short, while all YM WC (maybe all WC period?) Sees the opponent's centerline as something that can be accessed 360 degrees, TWC says "okay, if that is the case why charge into the fatal funnel in the first place then" and puts more emphasis on your half of the centerline plane and footwork to move out of the fatal funnel.
> 
> But I even know people who study Jun Fan and JKD and they say the curriculum is Wing Chun on steroids. (More though the Jun Fan though)
> 
> And note I am not saying Wing Chun has no room for improvement.  Even the striking game can use some improvements.  I am just saying focus on where the largest weakness is.  Ground game and more importantly ground game defense.
> 
> Think of it like a house.  Do you go about replacing floors in the living room when you find out the porch roof is about to collapse, or fix the porch?
> 
> That all said, I'll hit you up private side with some of the GL stuff that is on my first point.  Don't want to bore others


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wing Chun on steroids? Nonsense. Jun Fan & JKD- Bruce Lee's play and he left Hong Kong before going deeply into wing chun.
But  what he did learn gave him a good start.


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wing Chun on steroids? Nonsense. Jun Fan & JKD- Bruce Lee's play and he left Hong Kong before going deeply into wing chun.
> But  what he did learn gave him a good start.



That was their words.  I agree with you to an extent but I also understood what they meant.  

In terms of their reasoning it was like this.  They see the basic techniques and principles one will see up to a basic understanding Chum Kiu and this is the foundation of Jun Fan.  Then they see the other things that Bruce added to this foundation.  Now if Bruce had a full understanding would he have felt the need to add these other things on top of it?  I won't pretend to know what would have gone through the mind of a person dead for 3 decades and more but that is how it looks apparently to those standing inside the Jun Fan/JKD bubble.  They see the foundation not knowing the foundation is incomplete on it's own and then see what was layered on top.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> But I even know people who study Jun Fan and JKD and they say the curriculum is Wing Chun on steroids. (More though the Jun Fan though)
> 
> And note I am not saying Wing Chun has no room for improvement.  Even the striking game can use some improvements.  I am just saying focus on where the largest weakness is.  Ground game and more importantly ground game defense.
> 
> Think of it like a house.  Do you go about replacing floors in the living room when you find out the porch roof is about to collapse, or fix the porch?



If your striking is up to par then you have an easier time with grappling defence. Because at least you have one section than you can sit in and be ok at. BJJ for example gets away with sub par striking because their ground game is so good.

You want something to build off.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If your striking is up to par then you have an easier time with grappling defence. Because at least you have one section than you can sit in and be ok at. BJJ for example gets away with sub par striking because their ground game is so good.
> 
> You want something to build off.



Oh I agree, to a point, I see a complication in Wing Chun.  A lot of the striking, imo at least, is inside trapping range.  Even though we have other techniques "further out" in the more typical striking ranges I have found that striking in trapping range can be effective against other styles because they simply aren't expecting it, it is often (not always) outside their comfort zone/experience.  

The thing is though it's a two edged sword as you have a smaller margin for error when it comes to avoiding a ground game.  It doesn't take much to go from trapping to grappling.  So if Murphy comes along and taps you on the shoulder, or the other guy is an equally skilled striker but has a ground game, you can find yourself in trouble.

This isn't to say anything bad about WC, I find it to be not only logical but effective.  It's just that all Martial arts have a weakness somewhere, it's a matter of prioritizing.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Oh I agree, to a point, I see a complication in Wing Chun.  A lot of the striking, imo at least, is inside trapping range.  Even though we have other techniques "further out" in the more typical striking ranges I have found that striking in trapping range can be effective against other styles because they simply aren't expecting it, it is often (not always) outside their comfort zone/experience.
> 
> The thing is though it's a two edged sword as you have a smaller margin for error when it comes to avoiding a ground game.  It doesn't take much to go from trapping to grappling.  So if Murphy comes along and taps you on the shoulder, or the other guy is an equally skilled striker but has a ground game, you can find yourself in trouble.
> 
> This isn't to say anything bad about WC, I find it to be not only logical but effective.  It's just that all Martial arts have a weakness somewhere, it's a matter of prioritizing.



Yeah but that is also the fault of the striking. No outside game means you have no takedown defence.

How do I defend a double leg?


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah but that is also the fault of the striking. No outside game means you have no takedown defence.
> 
> How do I defend a double leg?



Simply because the preference is trapping range, doesn't mean the "outside game" isn't there.  The thing is in a real life self defense situation the chances of you knowing what the other guy is capable of isn't really there.  Example, sparring.  He has gotten better but my brother-in-law is a TKD guy.  If I get into trapping range with him I win.  Conversely, I spar with a guy at work who is a BJJ guy.  If I didn't have the Aikido and Judo to try and maintain the trapping game I would be staying "outside".  

On the street though I might be dealing with a complete gumby, a boxer, an MMA guy or, like last year a couple times a high ranked college wrestler who thought his scholarship and medals made it so the "rules" didn't apply to him (he is now doing state time after he pulled a Cosby at a party).  In a self defense situation you often wont have the opportunity to feel these things out and so, imo, you have two options.  1. Look at your art critically, find the biggest weakness, look for the most efficient way to plug that gap.  2. study the crap out of what you know and focus big time on the strengths to try and minimize the weaknesses.


----------



## Juany118

Late edit: as to my preference of the last two points, that is based solely on me.  I chose 1 because my Sifu also has a background in grappling and teaches an art, in parallel with a strong grappling component that includes a ground game.  

If I had simply walked in the door to a pure Wing Chun school with no prior experience I would likely focus on number 2 as it would be the most efficient under those particular circumstances.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Oh I agree, to a point, I see a complication in Wing Chun.  A lot of the striking, imo at least, is inside trapping range.  Even though we have other techniques "further out" in the more typical striking ranges I have found that striking in trapping range can be effective against other styles because they simply aren't expecting it, it is often (not always) outside their comfort zone/experience.
> 
> The thing is though it's a two edged sword as you have a smaller margin for error when it comes to avoiding a ground game.  It doesn't take much to go from trapping to grappling.  So if Murphy comes along and taps you on the shoulder, or the other guy is an equally skilled striker but has a ground game, you can find yourself in trouble.
> 
> This isn't to say anything bad about WC, I find it to be not only logical but effective.  It's just that all Martial arts have a weakness somewhere, it's a matter of prioritizing.



What is the trapping range?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> What is the trapping range?



The easiest way to explain it is to say between where you typically think of punching and when you start full on grappling.






This is just a link I found on the quick, and while only from a seminar of Gary Lam's, you are basically in a position where you can still strike, but close enough so that you can say control the opponent's arm to unbalance them, whether to open a way for you to strike, or to transition to takes downs etc.  Hop to 1:00 to see what I mean by the range.

WC really doesn't define ranges the way some other MA do but I have found the term useful on occassion.  Also I know other styles are capable of fighting at a similar range, just speaking to the importance in WC, in my experience.


----------



## KPM

^^^  Exactly!  Bruce Lee defined ranges as....Kicking range, punching range, trapping range, grappling range, and ground-fighting.   Punching range is where an extended punch (like a karate reverse punch or a boxer's extended jab) can land.  Trapping range is where a shorter punch (like a Wing Chun punch or boxer's hook/shovel hook/etc) can land and also where you can use typical Wing Chun tools like Pak, Tan, Lop, etc. to tie him up or "trap."  Grappling range should probably really be called "clinching range."  This is where you are body to body and can do sweeps, throws, takedowns, etc.   Obviously one range can overlap with another.   Another way to look at is it "long range", "medium range", and "close range....though most use this for weapons work.  "Trapping" would be part of medium range.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> ^^^  Exactly!  Bruce Lee defined ranges as....Kicking range, punching range, trapping range, grappling range, and ground-fighting.   Punching range is where an extended punch (like a karate reverse punch or a boxer's extended jab) can land.  Trapping range is where a shorter punch (like a Wing Chun punch or boxer's hook/shovel hook/etc) can land and also where you can use typical Wing Chun tools like Pak, Tan, Lop, etc. to tie him up or "trap."  Grappling range should probably really be called "clinching range."  This is where you are body to body and can do sweeps, throws, takedowns, etc.   Obviously one range can overlap with another.   Another way to look at is it "long range", "medium range", and "close range....though most use this for weapons work.  "Trapping" would be part of medium range.


I usually call those "hand distance", "elbow distance", and "kissing distance".


----------



## wayfaring

KPM said:


> ^^^  Exactly!  Bruce Lee defined ranges as....Kicking range, punching range, trapping range, grappling range, and ground-fighting.   Punching range is where an extended punch (like a karate reverse punch or a boxer's extended jab) can land.  Trapping range is where a shorter punch (like a Wing Chun punch or boxer's hook/shovel hook/etc) can land and also where you can use typical Wing Chun tools like Pak, Tan, Lop, etc. to tie him up or "trap."  Grappling range should probably really be called "clinching range."  This is where you are body to body and can do sweeps, throws, takedowns, etc.   Obviously one range can overlap with another.   Another way to look at is it "long range", "medium range", and "close range....though most use this for weapons work.  "Trapping" would be part of medium range.



There are overlaps in punching, clinching, and trapping ranges.

I've found different arts have different strategies and aims in these overlapping ranges.  This plays into the hybrid art discussion.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> The easiest way to explain it is to say between where you typically think of punching and when you start full on grappling.



I don't really understand- WSL Ving Tsun is mostly a punching style


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Trapping range is where a shorter punch (like a Wing Chun punch or boxer's hook/shovel hook/etc) can land and also where you can use typical Wing Chun tools like Pak, Tan, Lop, etc. to tie him up or "trap."



Another I don't really understand. In WSL VT the goal is to punch rather than to tie up. Pak is to help the punch. Laap is to regain position. As for Tan, well that is something really quite different in WSL VT!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Another I don't really understand. In WSL VT the goal is to punch rather than to tie up. Pak is to help the punch. Laap is to regain position. As for Tan, well that is something really quite different in WSL VT!



You do a Lop Da?  Technically that is a momentary "trap."  You can't do that from an extended punching range as I described above.  You can't do that if you are standing body-to-body with the opponent.  It is something done in "trapping range."


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't really understand- WSL Ving Tsun is mostly a punching style



First from some other debates we have discovered there really is no WSLVT.  Some claim that PB is more pure but the video I showed is Gary Lam, also a WSLVT Sifu, who likes kicks too.  With that said I really don't know how else to explain it, I thought the video was fairly self explanatory.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> You do a Lop Da?  Technically that is a momentary "trap."  You can't do that from an extended punching range as I described above.  You can't do that if you are standing body-to-body with the opponent.  It is something done in "trapping range."



Can you describe what is Lop Da please? I am not sure what you mean, sorry.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> First from some other debates we have discovered there really is no WSLVT.  Some claim that PB is more pure but the video I showed is Gary Lam, also a WSLVT Sifu, who likes kicks too.  With that said I really don't know how else to explain it, I thought the video was fairly self explanatory.



Gary Lam is Gary Lam wing chun, not WSL VT. His teacher was WSL, but he has added quite a lot of things I think.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Can you describe what is Lop Da please? I am not sure what you mean, sorry.



Bong Sau to Lop Sau and punch.   Phillip Bayer does it in every video I've ever seen of him.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> It's just that all Martial arts have a weakness somewhere, it's a matter of prioritizing.


MA may have weakness but you don't need to have weakness. This is why your view should be beyond your MA style's view. A MA style can only give you so much. If something you can't get from your MA style, you can always get from somewhere else.

Hybrid art is just "cross training".


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Bong Sau to Lop Sau and punch.   Phillip Bayer does it in every video I've ever seen of him.



This is a training drill. It is not fighting or something that is applied directly to fighting.


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> I usually call those "hand distance", "elbow distance", and "kissing distance".



During a seminar a couple of years ago, Kajukenbo SGM Angel García showed us three distances for the purpose of self-defense:

- correct distance: you're out of reach of the punch/stab so the attacker has to step in (guy can still kick but you're pretty ok)
- error distance: you're in range for a punch/stab
- stupidity distance: trapping/grabbing distance

His point being that you should be out of range when the guy decides to attack you, keeping you safeish while giving you more time to react and forcing the guy to step in to make contact (which makes him more vulnerable). When he attacks, you enter and chain blows/throws, keeping the pressure up until he's not a threat anymore.

He trained us to do the techniques also from "error distance" and "stupidity distance" but he said that if we're that close when feces hit the proverbial fan, we've made a mistake before.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> Gary Lam is Gary Lam wing chun, not WSL VT. His teacher was WSL, but he has added quite a lot of things I think.




Well, I'll just stick with what my Sifu, who studied under Gary Lam said, and what WSLVTNA 2017.

I would find it illogical that the Wong Shun Leung North America Organization would have someone that didn't teach WSLVT as a major participant/presenter.  It is also illogical to turn around and say the name change matters.  WSL said he taught YM VT BUT we call it WSLVT.  Call me silly I like logical consistency.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^  Exactly!  Bruce Lee defined ranges as....Kicking range, punching range, trapping range, grappling range, and ground-fighting.   Punching range is where an extended punch (like a karate reverse punch or a boxer's extended jab) can land.  Trapping range is where a shorter punch (like a Wing Chun punch or boxer's hook/shovel hook/etc) can land and also where you can use typical Wing Chun tools like Pak, Tan, Lop, etc. to tie him up or "trap."  Grappling range should probably really be called "clinching range."  This is where you are body to body and can do sweeps, throws, takedowns, etc.   Obviously one range can overlap with another.   Another way to look at is it "long range", "medium range", and "close range....though most use this for weapons work.  "Trapping" would be part of medium range.



First just wanted to comment on the last regarding weapon arts.  In the Kali I also study, "trapping rage" is considered close range.  In short if you can use your elbows on the enemy or control the elbow of the opponent you are "close".  Now I admittedly study Inosanto Kali.  The only other weapon form I studied was Foil and Saber Fencing where those range differences are far less relevant so other weapon heavy arts my define it differently 

There is also bleed over to grappling range.  Example, a Muay Thai Clinch is sometimes seen as "trapping range."  Also in the video you can see how a takedown can be launched from trapping range.  I think that at a certain point in the bleed over space between trapping and grappling the difference may be "what do you do?"  If you strike it's trapping, if you takedown/restrain it becomes grappling.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> MA may have weakness but you don't need to have weakness. This is why your view should be beyond your MA style's view. A MA style can only give you so much. If something you can't get from your MA style, you can always get from somewhere else.
> 
> Hybrid art is just "cross training".



I agree with you entirely.  The thing is some people may feel they don't have the time to "cross train".  Now I do, but that is due to 2 factors.  1 my school teaches two arts in parallel in such a way as to avoid confusion in terms of techniques and I also previous studied formally, and still practice, two other arts.  Without those dynamics I may say "don't have the time" and thus need to focus. /shrug


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> During a seminar a couple of years ago, Kajukenbo SGM Angel García showed us three distances for the purpose of self-defense:
> 
> - correct distance: you're out of reach of the punch/stab so the attacker has to step in (guy can still kick but you're pretty ok)
> - error distance: you're in range for a punch/stab
> - stupidity distance: trapping/grabbing distance
> 
> His point being that you should be out of range when the guy decides to attack you, keeping you safeish while giving you more time to react and forcing the guy to step in to make contact (which makes him more vulnerable). When he attacks, you enter and chain blows/throws, keeping the pressure up until he's not a threat anymore.
> 
> He trained us to do the techniques also from "error distance" and "stupidity distance" but he said that if we're that close when feces hit the proverbial fan, we've made a mistake before.


What he terms "correct distance" is what I usually refer to as "safe distance", for the same reasons you note. Inside that distance, you'd better be dismantling them.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> During a seminar a couple of years ago, Kajukenbo SGM Angel García showed us three distances for the purpose of self-defense:
> 
> - correct distance: you're out of reach of the punch/stab so the attacker has to step in (guy can still kick but you're pretty ok)
> - error distance: you're in range for a punch/stab
> - stupidity distance: trapping/grabbing distance
> 
> His point being that you should be out of range when the guy decides to attack you, keeping you safeish while giving you more time to react and forcing the guy to step in to make contact (which makes him more vulnerable). When he attacks, you enter and chain blows/throws, keeping the pressure up until he's not a threat anymore.
> 
> He trained us to do the techniques also from "error distance" and "stupidity distance" but he said that if we're that close when feces hit the proverbial fan, we've made a mistake before.



Yeah the reactionary gap. It is most of your defense. All the blocking and anti takedown stuff just supplements that.


----------



## Juany118

Did some editing to seperate points...

That said, back to the original point.  While just demonstration...






So maybe I just had bizarre luck.  I studied two forms of WC, both claiming YM descent, both with an outside game.  Could these be the only two?  Maybe, like I said maybe bizarre luck, it happens .  That said the outside game isn't the focus of course, a lot more work is done "inside". 

Thing is it's there because all the theory in the world about getting into close range sometimes fails and you are stuck outside.  Your options then are to have an outside game or no game.  Could these be modifications of YM WC by two of the better known living Wing Chun Sigungs?  Sure, but really that is kinda to my point.  I have never been a fan of universal statements on what a martial art, of such obvious variety, like Wing Chun has.  So I won't say "Bob's" Wing Chun has an outside game, but I can say the one I study and the one I used to study do. /shrug.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> This is a training drill. It is not fighting or something that is applied directly to fighting.



Thanks Guy.  We all realize that.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Thanks Guy.  We all realize that.


Is it just me or does it seem odd to have a training drill that builds muscle memory that somehow, miraculously never sees an application even in part?  Example on hand, lap da.  I think the video I showed previously of a real fight with Sifu Jerry (not demo, training, drill, etc) where such a lap leads to a straight up KO shows its efficacy.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Well, I'll just stick with what my Sifu, who studied under Gary Lam said, and what WSLVTNA 2017.
> 
> I would find it illogical that the Wong Shun Leung North America Organization would have someone that didn't teach WSLVT as a major participant/presenter



Nobody listed on the page you link to is teaching standard WSL VT. Both Gary Lam and WKL teach their own modified systems and openly acknowledge this.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Thanks Guy.  We all realize that.



If you realize that it is a training drill then your previous comment is not comprehensible in terms of the conversation up to this point:



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> You do a Lop Da? Technically that is a momentary "trap." You can't do that from an extended punching range as I described above. You can't do that if you are standing body-to-body with the opponent. It is something done in "trapping range."
> 
> Bong Sau to Lop Sau and punch. Phillip Bayer does it in every video I've ever seen of him.



I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> Nobody listed on the page you link to is teaching standard WSL VT. Both Gary Lam and WKL teach their own modified systems and openly acknowledge this.



Well first that's pretty arrogant and forces me to ask who defines "standard" WSLVT since he is dead, since apparently, according to you no one headlining the WSLVT NA gathering actually teaches WSLVT?

BTW I never said Gary Lam didn't add some of himself to WSLVT.  In reality this is what, imo, all true Martial Artists must do.  We are all different mentally, emotionally and physically.  This will color what we use in practice and what we use in practice will color what we teach, with some a small degree with others a large degree.  But who other than the dead in this case is to say "that is not consistent with my vision?"


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?



It has a huge relevance in fighting people irl. I showed that video to illustrate trapping range only.  WC/VT spends a lot of time in there.  The video, coincidentally, also shows what else can start in that range, grappling and takedowns.  WC/VT vs another striker?  This isn't a problem usually as the two parties just try to get to their preferred range to pound someone.  However if your WC is only about punching and so you have to be there and you do that to someone with a strong grappling background you are looking for trouble unless you have trained for it.

This is actually one of the issues with much of the modern TMA, including WC/VT training I have spoken of previously.  Many schools only train against "their" art and so they don't see the vulnerabilities their art can bring to the table.  If you have to rely on an overall principle of an art that is single minded to overcome it's disadvantages it can end badly, or in this case look silly if you are just good at ground fighting... thanks @Kung Fu Wang for the gif btw, it made me howl. 







      .


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Well first that's pretty arrogant and forces me to ask who defines "standard" WSLVT since he is dead, since apparently, according to you no one headlining the WSLVT NA gathering actually teaches WSLVT?



They teach modified WSL VT, which is fine, but it has additions compared to the original system that WSL learned from Yip Man. I don't see how it is arrogant to say this- it is something that both Gary Lam and Wan Kam Leung acknowledge openly.



> BTW I never said Gary Lam didn't add some of himself to WSLVT.  In reality this is what, imo, all true Martial Artists must do.  We are all different mentally, emotionally and physically.  This will color what we use in practice and what we use in practice will color what we teach, with some a small degree with others a large degree



Changing the system is changing the system. GL has chosen to do this, some others have not. No big deal.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> It has a huge relevance in fighting people irl.



You have responded to a post intended for KPM. KPM is arguing that trapping range is part of a particular drill and implying that it has some relevance to fighting. In fighting we do not attempt to initiate the bong laap drill with our opponent.



Juany118 said:


> I showed that video to illustrate trapping range only. WC/VT spends a lot of time in there. The video, coincidentally, also shows what else can start in that range, grappling and takedowns. WC/VT vs another striker? This isn't a problem usually as the two parties just try to get to their preferred range to pound someone



Again what is this trapping range? In fighting we move, we punch, we kick. The distance between two people who are fighting varies.



			
				Juany said:
			
		

> However if your WC is only about punching and so you have to be there and you do that to someone with a strong grappling background you are looking for trouble unless you have trained for it



Again I think quite a strange conception of how VT works.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Many schools only train against "their" art and so they don't see the vulnerabilities their art can bring to the table.



I don't understand. The YM/WSL VT system has testing as a structured and integral part of the learning process.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> They teach modified WSL VT, which is fine, but it has additions compared to the original system that WSL learned from Yip Man. I don't see how it is arrogant to say this- it is something that both Gary Lam and Wan Kam Leung acknowledge openly.
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the system is changing the system. GL has chosen to do this, some others have not. No big deal.




The point is, in my experience with MA's, especially in this marketing driven age, you can't tell the person who changed things and admitted it from the one who doesn't admit it.  I have at least watched a "student" of every first gen YM student "do their thing", at least in demo.  As such we can never know who does what YM intended.  This then carries down to someone like WSL.  If all the other first gen YM students do things a little (or sometimes a lot different) but most say "this is what YM taught me" my brain just says I have to apply this "down the lane" and be suspect of anyone who claims the "true" version of whatever as they all end up being different, whether subtle or gross.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> You have responded to a post intended for KPM. KPM is arguing that trapping range is part of a particular drill and implying that it has some relevance to fighting. In fighting we do not attempt to initiate the bong laap drill with our opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> Again what is this trapping range? In fighting we move, we punch, we kick. The distance between two people who are fighting varies.
> 
> 
> 
> Again I think quite a strange conception of how VT works.



First I raised the trapping range issue, hence why I responded.  It is a "danger zone" where both the striking game can be continued or the grappling game started.  Hence why I mentioned it.  Lap da is relevant here because that can be used in trapping range to start a grappling game if your WC lineage teaches it, or if you previously studied a grappling art.  As an example in Gary Lam's concept you will primarily use it to trap and clear the way for striking, however it easily leads into a Judo takedown if you have that background.  Hence the relevance in fighting.

NOTE:  to me fighting is just that, fighting...on the street...against a random person as that is my career.

Trapping range is thus that range in between. You can strike or start grappling in the same space and so it is the danger zone and you need to be able to adapt and deal with two entirely different games, if your idea is to use it on "the street."

As for my conception of VT, I was only referring to your prior comment about it being a "punching" art.  if you see it as more than that disregard the statement.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't understand. The YM/WSL VT system has testing as a structured and integral part of the learning process.



But is your testing going full on (in a safe sparring fashion) against a Judoka?  That is what I mean about "schools", different "schools of thought" in terms of martial arts.  So the WC/VT practitioner faces the Judoka or Aikidoka, (my prior experience) or FMA, BJJ or MMA guy etc.  

As an example.  My brother-in-law is going for 3rd dan in TKD and I give him a big bother just using WC, when I get into the "sweet spot" aka trapping range illustrated in the video.  Along the same vein I spar with a BJJ guy I work with.  If I didn't have the Judo and Aikido background I do, once I got into that range he can grapple. I would have issues then because it's not as easy as "just dropping back to kicking range" when you get into that space where two opposite strengths combine.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> They teach modified WSL VT, which is fine, but it has additions compared to the original system that WSL learned from Yip Man. I don't see how it is arrogant to say this- it is something that both Gary Lam and Wan Kam Leung acknowledge openly.
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the system is changing the system. GL has chosen to do this, some others have not. No big deal.



On your first point you avoid the students of YM who say they didn't change the system.  It is imo arrogant to say that only WSL did not change the system and yet it is different than that of YM's own sons.  That is the source of the issue and so when you say "changing the system is changing the system" in some fundamental way we come back to the question"who change the YM system?"  and again everything flows from that.

This is NOT to say the various systems don't work.  Only that we can't know what YM actually taught because of the variations among his own first gen students.  That then cascades through the students of those who studied directly under YM.  It is a hopeless argument and to avoid political arguments I prefer the following...

"so and so studied under YM..." or WSL etc.  "their WC works ergo unless the fundamental principles are broken it is YM WC" or WSL, because the nature of a personal expression (which any fighting system is) is that we bring a bit of ourselves to the table BUT the principles were taught to us by our teacher.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> The point is, in my experience with MA's, especially in this marketing driven age, you can't tell the person who changed things and admitted it from the one who doesn't admit it.



There is such a thing as believing the integrity of the person you learn from. WSL said he taught the system of YM- I believe him. My teacher says he teaches the system of WSL- I believe him. 

GL and WKL have both said that they teach modified systems. I believe them.



> I have at least watched a "student" of every first gen YM student "do their thing", at least in demo.  As such we can never know who does what YM intended.  This then carries down to someone like WSL.  If all the other first gen YM students do things a little (or sometimes a lot different) but most say "this is what YM taught me" my brain just says I have to apply this "down the lane" and be suspect of anyone who claims the "true" version of whatever as they all end up being different, whether subtle or gross.



I am only speaking for WSL VT. I can't comment on other wing chun.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> There is such a thing as believing the integrity of the person you learn from. WSL said he taught the system of YM- I believe him. My teacher says he teaches the system of WSL- I believe him.
> 
> GL and WKL have both said that they teach modified systems. I believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> I am only speaking for WSL VT. I can't comment on other wing chun.



The point is this in two parts.

1. WSL stated he taught what YM taught him.  All of the 1st Gen students of YM say the same and WSL VT according to many around here teaches something fundamemtally different than even YM's own sons.  So we need to look at what was also said about YM... that he taught to each student's strengths as a traditional Chinese teacher would.  So each will be different in what they teach yet speak truth.

2. So we look at all the various YM systems, including those from WSL, there are differences. Just under WSL, Philipp Bayer is different than David Peterson, both of which are different from Gary Lam and more.  Yet all say, to one degree or another, they teach WSL VT.  The cycle continues.

It doesn't question integrity, there can be differences...Or we have to say only one student of many speaks truth.  This is not believable if one thinks critically because we all bring a bit of ourselves to the Martial Art we study, it only becomes an issue on the degree of divergence which we can not determine for ourselves.

This is why I prefer simply saying the "WC/VT I learned" because all of the systems I have seen 2nd hand and the 2 I have trained, have differences.   Thus if the "father" is dead, and thus not here to call out "errors", it's a deconstructive vs a constructive argument.  No one here in my opinion can claim "this is what [insertname] taught" if they did not learn from [insertname].  All we can say is that "this is my understanding WC/VT from my teacher", or any art, along with how and when we have used it. 

If the above isn't accepted then we would have to say only one person alive has passed on YM WC and he would be a student who never studied under YM.  Does that make sense when more than a few who studied directly under YM still live?  Because that is how logic works. 

So in short, we all know the WC/VT our teacher taught us.  That and whether it has served us well is all we can prove.  Anything else is a source of deconstruction.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> First I raised the trapping range issue, hence why I responded.  It is a "danger zone" where both the striking game can be continued or the grappling game started.  Hence why I mentioned it.



I think that grappling can be initiated from any range that striking can be initiated.



> Lap da is relevant here because that can be used in trapping range to start a grappling game if your WC lineage teaches it, or if you previously studied a grappling art.  As an example in Gary Lam's concept you will primarily use it to trap and clear the way for striking, however it easily leads into a Judo takedown if you have that background.  Hence the relevance in fighting.



The Bong Laap drill is just a drill in WSL VT. It isn't something we use in fighting. I don't know what you mean by "trap and clear the way" or how you would use a training drill to accomplish any goal in fighting



> NOTE:  to me fighting is just that, fighting...on the street...against a random person as that is my career.



You are a professional street fighter? 



> Trapping range is thus that range in between. You can strike or start grappling in the same space and so it is the danger zone and you need to be able to adapt and deal with two entirely different games, if your idea is to use it on "the street."
> 
> As for my conception of VT, I was only referring to your prior comment about it being a "punching" art.  if you see it as more than that disregard the statement.



It is the conception of ranges that I am having trouble understanding. If you aren't standing close enough to someone then you can't hit them. So you move. The idea of standing statically in a place where the opponent can hit or grab me is not something I am familiar with. I don't see what benefit an idea of different ranges brings. I personally do not use it.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> But is your testing going full on (in a safe sparring fashion) against a Judoka?  That is what I mean about "schools", different "schools of thought" in terms of martial arts.  So the WC/VT practitioner faces the Judoka or Aikidoka, (my prior experience) or FMA, BJJ or MMA guy etc.
> 
> As an example.  My brother-in-law is going for 3rd dan in TKD and I give him a big bother just using WC, when I get into the "sweet spot" aka trapping range illustrated in the video.  Along the same vein I spar with a BJJ guy I work with.  If I didn't have the Judo and Aikido background I do, once I got into that range he can grapple. I would have issues then because it's not as easy as "just dropping back to kicking range" when you get into that space where two opposite strengths combine.



Testing can be anything you think is necessary in order to improve. If you are training properly and with care about the result then testing will be rigorous.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> On your first point you avoid the students of YM who say they didn't change the system.  It is imo arrogant to say that only WSL did not change the system and yet it is different than that of YM's own sons.  That is the source of the issue and so when you say "changing the system is changing the system" in some fundamental way we come back to the question"who change the YM system?"  and again everything flows from that.
> 
> This is NOT to say the various systems don't work.  Only that we can't know what YM actually taught because of the variations among his own first gen students.  That then cascades through the students of those who studied directly under YM.  It is a hopeless argument and to avoid political arguments I prefer the following...
> 
> "so and so studied under YM..." or WSL etc.  "their WC works ergo unless the fundamental principles are broken it is YM WC" or WSL, because the nature of a personal expression (which any fighting system is) is that we bring a bit of ourselves to the table BUT the principles were taught to us by our teacher.



Only very few people completed the system with Yip Man. Wong Shun Leung was one of these. Many versions of wing chun contain silly misunderstandings or obviously made up things that are pretty easy to spot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> If you realize that it is a training drill then your previous comment is not comprehensible in terms of the conversation up to this point:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?


It gives the distance in the way someone who's familiar with that drill would understand. It's like if I said, "it's the distance you stand to start the Classical form of Lift Up." That forms is no used in fighting, but anyone in NGA will know the distance I mean.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> The point is this in two parts.
> 
> 1. WSL stated he taught what YM taught him.  All of the 1st Gen students of YM say the same and WSL VT according to many around here teaches something fundamemtally different than even YM's own sons.  So we need to look at what was also said about YM... that he taught to each student's strengths as a traditional Chinese teacher would.  So each will be different in what they teach yet speak truth.
> 
> 2. So we look at all the various YM systems, including those from WSL, there are differences. Just under WSL, Philipp Bayer is different than David Peterson, both of which are different from Gary Lam and more.  Yet all say, to one degree or another, they teach WSL VT.  The cycle continues.
> 
> It doesn't question integrity, there can be differences...Or we have to say only one student of many speaks truth.  This is not believable if one thinks critically because we all bring a bit of ourselves to the Martial Art we study, it only becomes an issue on the degree of divergence which we can not determine for ourselves.
> 
> This is why I prefer simply saying the "WC/VT I learned" because all of the systems I have seen 2nd hand and the 2 I have trained, have differences.   Thus if the "father" is dead, and thus not here to call out "errors", it's a deconstructive vs a constructive argument.  No one here in my opinion can claim "this is what [insertname] taught" if they did not learn from [insertname].  All we can say is that "this is my understanding WC/VT from my teacher", or any art, along with how and when we have used it.
> 
> If the above isn't accepted then we would have to say only one person alive has passed on YM WC and he would be a student who never studied under YM.  Does that make sense when more than a few who studied directly under YM still live?  Because that is how logic works.
> 
> So in short, we all know the WC/VT our teacher taught us.  That and whether it has served us well is all we can prove.  Anything else is a source of deconstruction.



I'm not really interested in reconstructing history or in looking at systems that do not work. WSL taught YM's VT because he said so. Some of WSL's students obviously teach the same system and when asked about it they confirm this. Some others have obviously changed the system and when asked about it they also confirm (e.g. WKL, Gary Lam). There is no problem here, people are free to teach whatever they want. 

Some people do not fully understand the system and often they have changed it due to missing information. Sometimes these people do not acknowledge their lack of experience, any changes they have made, or any bits they have made up. This can be a problem because it is confusing for potential students. There are quite a few of this kind of teacher in WSL VT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I think that grappling can be initiated from any range that striking can be initiated.


Anything outside elbow distance is problematic for takedowns (unless you're including the entry movement, by which measure striking can be effected from a bit more than a long step away). If you're including wrist locks, then I'll agree with that.



> It is the conception of ranges that I am having trouble understanding. If you aren't standing close enough to someone then you can't hit them. So you move. The idea of standing statically in a place where the opponent can hit or grab me is not something I am familiar with. I don't see what benefit an idea of different ranges brings. I personally do not use it.


Ranges, like stances, are points of reference. You don't stay in one (usually), but being able to define them for discussion is still useful.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> It gives the distance in the way someone who's familiar with that drill would understand. It's like if I said, "it's the distance you stand to start the Classical form of Lift Up." That forms is no used in fighting, but anyone in NGA will know the distance I mean.



In fighting we move around and try to hit the opponent. I don't see what is special about the distance between 2 people doing the Laap Sau drill.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Anything outside elbow distance is problematic for takedowns (unless you're including the entry movement, by which measure striking can be effected from a bit more than a long step away). If you're including wrist locks, then I'll agree with that.
> 
> 
> Ranges, like stances, are points of reference. You don't stay in one (usually), but being able to define them for discussion is still useful.



Ranges are not something I have ever considered in this way in WSL VT. Either I can punch or not. If not then move and punch. Always move, don't stay in one place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> In fighting we move around and try to hit the opponent. I don't see what is special about the distance between 2 people doing the Laap Sau drill.


Nothing. It's a reference point. When a student is taught tehcniques and strategy, they are taught something about distance (whether implicitly or explicitly). Having a way to refer to some ranges is easy shorthand for helping a student (and ourselves) better understand where to move and why. So, I won't hang out at "elbow range" (I think about the same as Juany's "trapping distance"), but it's handy to be able to talk about what the options are for the point in time when I'm there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Ranges are not something I have ever considered in this way in WSL VT. Either I can punch or not. If not then move and punch. Always move, don't stay in one place.


If you were teaching a new student, one way of making it easier to understand when a given structure (be it block or strike) is useful, is to reference something they already know. You could use a structure they've already demonstrated competence in ("This is usually used at about the same distance as biu jee.") or you can use a shorthand terminology ("This is usually used at about flipper distance."), or you can use anatomical reference points ("This is usually used at about half an arm's length from your opponent."). It's not not a necessary approach, but it's a useful one in many cases, and can help students get a handle on the appropriate range for a given strike, for instance.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> If you were teaching a new student, one way of making it easier to understand when a given structure (be it block or strike) is useful, is to reference something they already know. You could use a structure they've already demonstrated competence in ("This is usually used at about the same distance as biu jee.") or you can use a shorthand terminology ("This is usually used at about flipper distance."), or you can use anatomical reference points ("This is usually used at about half an arm's length from your opponent."). It's not not a necessary approach, but it's a useful one in many cases, and can help students get a handle on the appropriate range for a given strike, for instance.



I believe that introducing a "trapping range" as discussed so far on this thread would not be helpful for new students, especially as referenced in terms of direct drill applications. I think that doing the drills at the right time and right order teaches the body fine. The nature of the punch determines how close we need to stand. I am still unsure about the difference between trapping and punching range- it looks like the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I believe that introducing a "trapping range" as discussed so far on this thread would not be helpful for new students, especially as referenced in terms of direct drill applications. I think that doing the drills at the right time and right order teaches the body fine. The nature of the punch determines how close we need to stand. I am still unsure about the difference between trapping and punching range- it looks like the same thing.


That's my point. It's not introducing a range. It's simply defining what that range is. As you said, the body learns from the drills. The "trapping range" terminology simply allows folks to reference that range later. Just as you refer to "punching range", which is a useful shorthand for a range that's also not static. I'm not certain of the differences, either, since they've been defined in WC terms. I think trapping range would be the shortest part of punching range.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> That's my point. It's not introducing a range. It's simply defining what that range is. As you said, the body learns from the drills. The "trapping range" terminology simply allows folks to reference that range later. Just as you refer to "punching range", which is a useful shorthand for a range that's also not static. I'm not certain of the differences, either, since they've been defined in WC terms. I think trapping range would be the shortest part of punching range.



I think Juany and KPM are talking about doing applications of the Laap Sau drill at a particular "trapping range" 

Since you are unfamiliar with wing chun (?), I will talk directly to those two, rather than talking to you about your interpretation of what they are trying to say to avoid confusion. No offence, just don't want to get bogged down in endless chat


----------



## wingchun100

I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.

It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"

That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.
> 
> It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"
> 
> That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.


I've posted several times in this thread, and I certainly contributed nothing related to the OP, Steve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I think Juany and KPM are talking about doing applications of the Laap Sau drill at a particular "trapping range"
> 
> Since you are unfamiliar with wing chun (?), I will talk directly to those two, rather than talking to you about your interpretation of what they are trying to say to avoid confusion. No offence, just don't want to get bogged down in endless chat


The discussion of range terminology is not specific to WC - the usage of such terminology is pretty consistent (though which terminology and what ranges is not) across arts.


----------



## KPM

*[If you realize that it is a training drill then your previous comment is not comprehensible in terms of the conversation up to this point*

---Sorry Guy.  I meant that  we are all familiar with your viewpoint by now.  

*I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?*

---And I answered about trapping range.  It has been explained now more than once.


----------



## wckf92

wingchun100 said:


> I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.
> 
> It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"
> 
> That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.



I'm not so sure Steve. I think it may be a simple matter of "your" WC not having an "outside" game (ie kicking)...which, I note, you did not specify in your OP but added to this post.
You should ask your Sifu to teach you some of WC's 'outside game/kicking' methods...?
Just my .02.....but haven't had much coffee yet this morning.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.
> 
> It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"
> 
> That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.



I answered it.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> I've posted several times in this thread, and I certainly contributed nothing related to the OP, Steve.


 
It's okay. I kind of set myself up for this. LOL


----------



## wingchun100

wckf92 said:


> I'm not so sure Steve. I think it may be a simple matter of "your" WC not having an "outside" game (ie kicking)...which, I note, you did not specify in your OP but added to this post.
> You should ask your Sifu to teach you some of WC's 'outside game/kicking' methods...?
> Just my .02.....but haven't had much coffee yet this morning.


 
I wasn't talking about the lineage I'm learning. I was talking about a blanket statement made by Dan Inosanto in a video, and I thought to myself, "If I were to assume that's true, what style would best fill the gap?"

Anyone who has learned past the first form has kicking in their Wing Chun. I don't know any lineages that teach Chum Kiu without kicks.


----------



## Vajramusti

Inosanto and his mentor Lee have/had very limited knowledge  of wing chun to make that comment on  wing chun's "outside game".


----------



## wingchun100

Vajramusti said:


> Inosanto and his mentor Lee have/had very limited knowledge  of wing chun to make that comment on  wing chun's "outside game".


 
Yes, but they aren't the only ones to have said it.

And not for nothing, but many people have said (about many different styles) that no one system has all the answers.

Therefore, I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. And not for nothing, but talking about what they did or did not know still doesn't address the thread's question. LOL


----------



## wingchun100

Also, in the same video, Dan Inosanto talks about how he has trained with a wide variety of Wing Chun people. (The only name I remember him dropping is Augustine Fong.) In other words, he still has that opinion of the system even after heavy exposure to it.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> Also, in the same video, Dan Inosanto talks about how he has trained with a wide variety of Wing Chun people. (The only name I remember him dropping is Augustine Fong.) In other words, he still has that opinion of the system even after heavy exposure to it.



Not Augustine, but Francis.  Inosanto has spent a lot of time with Francis Fong and studied at one point with Moy Yat.  And I agree.  I think Inosanto likely has a very good understanding of Wing Chun and what it can and can't do.


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> Not Augustine, but Francis.  Inosanto has spent a lot of time with Francis Fong and studied at one point with Moy Yat.  And I agree.  I think Inosanto likely has a very good understanding of Wing Chun and what it can and can't do.


 
Right. Well, it's been a while since I saw that video. Plus I have Augustine on the brain because that is who my current teacher learned from.


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"



I don't agree that VT lacks anything in terms of standing striking. It has an outside game. Adding kicks from TKD or some other system would not be possible because it has a completely different approach.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> *[If you realize that it is a training drill then your previous comment is not comprehensible in terms of the conversation up to this point*
> 
> ---Sorry Guy.  I meant that  we are all familiar with your viewpoint by now.



I think you have me confused with someone else. 



> *I am asking what is trapping range. You are answering that it is the distance between 2 people doing the bong laap drill. I don't see what relevance this has to fighting?*
> 
> ---And I answered about trapping range.  It has been explained now more than once.



Your answer so far is that trapping range is a place you stand in order to do direct fighting applications of the Laap Sau drill. Ok


----------



## wingchun100

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't agree that VT lacks anything in terms of standing striking. It has an outside game. Adding kicks from TKD or some other system would not be possible because it has a completely different approach.


 
I never said Wing Chun lacked anything in terms of standing striking. I never even said I AGREE that it lacks outside game. All I said was, "Let's say that was the truth. What long-range system COULD be added to fill the gap?"


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> I never said Wing Chun lacked anything in terms of standing striking. I never even said I AGREE that it lacks outside game. All I said was, "Let's say that was the truth. What long-range system COULD be added to fill the gap?"



None


----------



## wingchun100

Hazardi172 said:


> None


 
Well, some of us around here need to learn to agree to disagree.


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> Well, some of us around here need to learn to agree to disagree.



I'm happy if you think differently, I just can't think of a system that would integrate well with VT for kicking


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> I just can't think of a system that would integrate well with VT for kicking


If your opponent wants to punch you, he has to put weight on his leading leg, at that particular moment, if you sweep, or low roundhouse kick at his leading leg, you can interrupt his forward attack.

You don't have to integrate a MA system into WC. You can just integrate a "strategy" into WC. That "strategy" can be as simple as "Not to let your opponent to put enough weight on his leading leg".


----------



## Vajramusti

wingchun100 said:


> Right. Well, it's been a while since I saw that video. Plus I have Augustine on the brain because that is who my current teacher learned from.


----------------------------------------------
Who is your current teacher?


----------



## wingchun100

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------
> Who is your current teacher?


 
I'm kind of homeless right now. I mean, I train with a Sifu, but in his words, I don't "represent" him at this point. We haven't trained together long. In the past I trained with Russ Cichon, who is from the Ip Ching lineage.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I think Juany and KPM are talking about doing applications of the Laap Sau drill at a particular "trapping range"
> 
> Since you are unfamiliar with wing chun (?), I will talk directly to those two, rather than talking to you about your interpretation of what they are trying to say to avoid confusion. No offence, just don't want to get bogged down in endless chat



No we weren't.  We were simply noting a reference point in relation to the original point.  The idea of applying laap da was used to further illustrate this reference point.  Though admittedly some WC systems do trap in such a manner to facilitate a strike, that wasn't the original point of mentioning it .  I even specifically mentioned that I was never taught that terminology in my WC training.  I simply find it useful as a reference point in discussions like this.

All fighting is fluid as you say but every fighting system I know has a "sweet" spot. That sweet spot for WC/VT is what was referred to alternately as trapping range, elbow range and laap da range.  A sweet spot doesn't mean you can't fight in other ranges, other positions.  Yes we can kick, yes we can punch, we can use clever footwork to dance between such ranges but there is still that "sweet" spot.


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> I just realized how far from the original question this thread has gotten LOL.
> 
> It started with me asking, "If we take it as an indisputable fact that wing chun has no outside game, and learning another art is necessary to fill that gap, then what long-range (by that I mean KICKING) style would be a good match with it?"
> 
> That question was never answered, although it WAS briefly addressed when someone asked why I thought tae kwon do was out.



Well I answered it, though perhaps not in the way you expected.  I currently study one form of WC, studied another some time ago (I actually had to make some changes to the SLT I used to practice on moving to the new school).  Both of them teach me that WC has an outside game.  Since the premise of the OP is something I can't relate to I noted where I see the main gap being.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> No we weren't.  We were simply noting a reference point in relation to the original point.  The idea of applying laap da was used to further illustrate this reference point.  Though admittedly some WC systems do trap in such a manner to facilitate a strike, that wasn't the original point of mentioning it .
> 
> All fighting is fluid as you say but every fighting system I know has a "sweet" spot. That sweet spot for WC/VT is what was referred to alternately as trapping range, elbow range and laap da range.  A sweet spot doesn't mean you can't fight in other ranges, other positions.  Yes we can kick, yes we can punch, we can use clever footwork to dance between such ranges but there is still that "sweet" spot.




I disagree that there is any sweet spot that is worth differentiating from other positions. Either you can hit or you cannot. "Trapping" range, punching range, kicking range- why make these artificial distinctions? What is "trapping", and what differentiates it from regular hitting?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Not Augustine, but Francis.  Inosanto has spent a lot of time with Francis Fong and studied at one point with Moy Yat.  And I agree.  I think Inosanto likely has a very good understanding of Wing Chun and what it can and can't do.



The only thing I would say is this.  I know the video being discussed very well.  He is discussing how you can't understand JKD without understanding Wing Chun.  He also admits that he left WC behind some time ago and then came back to it, interning it wasnt to long ago.  

First let me preface I have HUGE respect for Guro Dan.  He is the father of the Kali System I also study.  That said, 

First, in the video he never actually says WC has not outside game.  He hedges and says (paraphrase) "for longer ranges maybe another structure would work BETTER.". The key word is better.  Think of some of the sideways stances you see from other systems, one could argue they are better for outside fighting BUT that's not the same as saying WC has NO outside fighting.

Second for 40 years he has operated, been trained and trained others with the idea that WC was "improved" upon by Bruce Lee first with Jun Fan and then JKD.  While I personally believe Guro Inosanto's passion right now lies more with the arts of South East Asia (he seems to focus his personal seminars on these arts of late) he has worked with, Silat, Kali etc, how easy would it be to say today "you know what?  I now think my best friend and teacher was wrong and that WC has a decent outside game."

That is why I think it very telling that he says "maybe another structure will be BETTER" vs saying "WC just doesn't have it."


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I disagree that there is any sweet spot that is worth differentiating from other positions. Either you can hit or you cannot. "Trapping" range, punching range, kicking range- why make these artificial distinctions? What is "trapping", and what differentiates it from regular hitting?



That's fine.  I will admit I am taught in a "combatives" manner, which means practical real world application vs theory.  So in that range you can use all of our tools for striking low kicks, knees, elbows, palms, fists.  Our defense is also stronger, vs striking, because being that close virtually forces the opponent to strike along the line where our defense is most potent.

Edit: again this doesn't mean I only use this range, only that every art has a place where it is strongest.  There is no art I know of that is equal in all circumstances.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> I will admit I am taught in a "combatives" manner, which means practical real world application vs theory. So in that range you can use all of our tools for striking low kicks, knees, elbows, palms, fists.



The main tool in VT is the punch. If you can punch then why do anything else?



Juany118 said:


> Our defense is also stronger, vs striking, because being that close virtually forces the opponent to strike along the line where our defense is most potent.



I don't think that standing in front of a striking opponent is a good idea. What is the line where your defense is most potent?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> The main tool in VT is the punch. If you can punch then why do anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that standing in front of a striking opponent is a good idea. What is the line where your defense is most potent?


On the first, because you need to attack as the fight dictates.  Sometimes a punch isn't as practical.  Maybe they have a tight defense to the punch at the moment and a kick to the knee will end the fight right there.  Maybe your body position means that the elbow has an immediate opening that can be exploited.

That all said I find that line of thought weird.  At one point you said it's about the punch.  I used that comment as part of an argument and you said "we can kick too." Now you are back to the punch?

As for the last, my WC actually says to always try and fight on the "blind side" so you tell me little I do not know. 

The thing is though in close, whether on a flank or center to center, the number of effective angles of attack get more limited.  It's simply not as easy to launch effective attacks around a guard because it can be more difficult to get your mass behind a round punch.  Additionally kicks need to be launched lower and thus it becomes an issue of hitting the right target as much as power as the power of the kick is often less.

These are the little things that testing against other martial arts systems teaches you.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hmmm....

Personally, I don't believe that a martial system is a way to fight. Rather, it is a way to train, and the training results in fighting skills.  But how you actually fight, can be just about anything.  The way in which you apply and utilize what you have trained, is up to you and cannot be dictated by system stylistics.

 But that's my opinion, and sometimes I'm a bit Hippie-Dippie.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> On the first, because you need to attack as the fight dictates.  Sometimes a punch isn't as practical.  Maybe they have a tight defense to the punch at the moment and a kick to the knee will end the fight right there.  Maybe your body position means that the elbow has an immediate opening that can be exploited.
> 
> That all said I find that line of thought weird.  At one point you said it's about the punch.  I used that comment as part of an argument and you said "we can kick too." Now you are back to the punch?



Able to punch? Punch. Not able to punch? Make a way to punch. Out of position/bad position? Recover position.

Kicking fits where it fits.



> The thing is though in close, whether on a flank or center to center, the number of effective angles of attack get more limited.  It's simply not as easy to launch effective attacks around a guard because it can be more difficult to get your mass behind a round punch.  Additionally kicks need to be launched lower and thus it becomes an issue of hitting the right target as much as power as the power of the kick is often less



The VT punch is straight. VT kicks are low. I still don't know what trapping is, or what the line of most potent defense is? Please let me know if you can describe. 



> These are the little things that testing against other martial arts systems teaches you.



Testing is a basic and central part of the learning process.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> It's okay. I kind of set myself up for this. LOL


What, by asking a question in the WC forum?


Hazardi172 said:


> I disagree that there is any sweet spot that is worth differentiating from other positions. Either you can hit or you cannot. "Trapping" range, punching range, kicking range- why make these artificial distinctions? What is "trapping", and what differentiates it from regular hitting?


Where you can hit most effectively and with most options is that sweet spot.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Where you can hit most effectively and with most options is that sweet spot.



No such place exists because staying in one place means one cannot hit effectively and retain options. Distance must always vary in fighting for any number of reasons.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> he has worked with, Silat, Kali etc, how easy would it be to say today "you know what?  I now think my best friend and teacher was wrong and that WC has a decent outside game."



Yeah, at this point it would be very easy for him to say that.  But he didn't.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> Personally, I don't believe that a martial system is a way to fight. Rather, it is a way to train, and the training results in fighting skills.  But how you actually fight, can be just about anything.  The way in which you apply and utilize what you have trained, is up to you and cannot be dictated by system stylistics.
> 
> But that's my opinion, and sometimes I'm a bit Hippie-Dippie.



A very key idea in military training is that one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> A very key idea in military training is that one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.



I have seen many martial arts schools where they will practice a self-defense application, but then the person defending stops their punch about an inch (sometimes more) away from their training partner. Those are schools I choose to not train in.

Maybe it is because we live in a litigious society. I still can't believe though, that people would join a martial arts class and not expect to get hit. I mean, it's going to happen out on the street...except there, the person who hit you won't stop to apologize like they do in class!


----------



## yak sao

KPM said:


> A very key idea in military training is that one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.




I think that these 2 ideas are not necessarily opposed to one another.
While I wholeheartedly agree that our response in a stressful encounter is going to revert back to the lowest common denominator of our training, in other words, the things that.happen automatically because we've practiced it thousands of times; there comes a point where our body just moves naturally as a result of our training, seeking the most economical solution to the problem.


----------



## wingchun100

Juany118 said:


> Well I answered it, though perhaps not in the way you expected.  I currently study one form of WC, studied another some time ago (I actually had to make some changes to the SLT I used to practice on moving to the new school).  Both of them teach me that WC has an outside game.  Since the premise of the OP is something I can't relate to I noted where I see the main gap being.



Honestly, I can't relate to it either. This whole thread was sort of a "devil's advocate" kind of thing, really. As in, "Let's say we agreed. What would fill the gap?"


----------



## wingchun100

Hazardi172 said:


> I disagree that there is any sweet spot that is worth differentiating from other positions. Either you can hit or you cannot. "Trapping" range, punching range, kicking range- why make these artificial distinctions? What is "trapping", and what differentiates it from regular hitting?



Trapping isn't hitting. It's more like blocking.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> A very key idea in military training is that one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.


That's an interesting opinion.

It actually is fighting the way you train.  Though perhaps a bit more abstract than some might present it.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Yeah, at this point it would be very easy for him to say that.  But he didn't.



I know he didn't, but he didn't say WC has no outside game either.  And that was the OPs point, the complete lack of an outside game.  I will never say WC has the best outside game, that would be just silly.  All I am saying is that Guro Dan's words infer an outside game exists, he just believes that other structure are better.  

So my point is, if we are talking about a matter of degrees, then aren't we better served, if hybriding is your goal, to look for the biggest gap to be filled?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> No such place exists because staying in one place means one cannot hit effectively and retain options. Distance must always vary in fighting for any number of reasons.


Nobody - literally nobody - said anything about staying in one place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> I have seen many martial arts schools where they will practice a self-defense application, but then the person defending stops their punch about an inch (sometimes more) away from their training partner. Those are schools I choose to not train in.
> 
> Maybe it is because we live in a litigious society. I still can't believe though, that people would join a martial arts class and not expect to get hit. I mean, it's going to happen out on the street...except there, the person who hit you won't stop to apologize like they do in class!


That's a fine practice for beginners. I get a bit annoyed when someone gives me an attack shy of contact now.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> That's a fine practice for beginners. I get a bit annoyed when someone gives me an attack shy of contact now.



Yes, I can see that. At advanced level though, it is a bit ridiculous.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> Nobody - literally nobody - said anything about staying in one place.



Not here anyway, although someone must have said it somewhere.

The reason I say that is because I just watched a video of an MMA fight where a Wing Chun guy got grounded and pounded bloody in less than a minute...because he basically just stood there while his opponent rushed him.

I wish we could get some decent representation in MMA. I mean, personally I know the system is worth studying, but damn it would be nice to have at least ONE champion! lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Not here anyway, although someone must have said it somewhere.
> 
> The reason I say that is because I just watched a video of an MMA fight where a Wing Chun guy got grounded and pounded bloody in less than a minute...because he basically just stood there while his opponent rushed him.
> 
> I wish we could get some decent representation in MMA. I mean, personally I know the system is worth studying, but damn it would be nice to have at least ONE champion! lol


There's a common issue with the idea that every good system would show up in MMA. MMA requires a certain mindset (a competitive one), that isn't what attracts everyone to MA. Some styles simply don't attract the kinds of folks who are well suited to MMA.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> There's a common issue with the idea that every good system would show up in MMA. MMA requires a certain mindset (a competitive one), that isn't what attracts everyone to MA. Some styles simply don't attract the kinds of folks who are well suited to MMA.



I hear you, but really? Out of the countless people who train in Wing Chun, it has drawn NO competitive people?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> No such place exists because staying in one place means one cannot hit effectively and retain options. Distance must always vary in fighting for any number of reasons.



Who said anything about staying in one place?  I am wondering if you are honestly not understanding the concept of a sweet spot or being purposefully obtuse?  Look at it like a punch. All targets have "sweet spots", places where a punch has maximum effect.  The existence of this sweet spot however doesn't mean that you only punch the sweet spots.  If the sweet spot isn't available you do what you have to do.  This fact of fighting doesn't make the sweet spot cease to exist however. 

The same applies to ranging during fighting.  Yes as the fight progresses you may find yourself dancing between ranges.  This fact, again, doesn't mean the sweet spot ceases to exist.


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> Honestly, I can't relate to it either. This whole thread was sort of a "devil's advocate" kind of thing, really. As in, "Let's say we agreed. What would fill the gap?"



Ah I see.



wingchun100 said:


> Trapping isn't hitting. It's more like blocking.



Yeah, trapping is sometimes seen as a close cousin of Chin-Na and sometimes goes so far as a very quick standing grappling.


----------



## wingchun100

Juany118 said:


> Ah I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, trapping is sometimes seen as a close cousin of Chin-Na and sometimes goes so far as a very quick standing grappling.



Well, trapping is even faster than Chin-Na (in my opinion) because in trapping we don't latch on or grab hold. Our hands merely touch the opponent so we can block their attack AND know where their energy is going.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> A very key idea in military training is that one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.



I have to agree on this point, to an extent.  My last response will clarify the "extent" bit.



wingchun100 said:


> I have seen many martial arts schools where they will practice a self-defense application, but then the person defending stops their punch about an inch (sometimes more) away from their training partner. Those are schools I choose to not train in.
> 
> Maybe it is because we live in a litigious society. I still can't believe though, that people would join a martial arts class and not expect to get hit. I mean, it's going to happen out on the street...except there, the person who hit you won't stop to apologize like they do in class!



Well I see a place for stopping short with new students from both sides.  The new student attacking likely doesn't know how to use speed without full power yet.  The one defending doesn't have the reactions or the ability to maintain the proper structure needed for a solid defense.



yak sao said:


> I think that these 2 ideas are not necessarily opposed to one another.
> While I wholeheartedly agree that our response in a stressful encounter is going to revert back to the lowest common denominator of our training, in other words, the things that.happen automatically because we've practiced it thousands of times; there comes a point where our body just moves naturally as a result of our training, seeking the most economical solution to the problem.



It all depends on the final part.  Do you "close" the deal with pressure testing.  There will never come a point where you move naturally through the techniques of your training without some sort of pressure testing and it's actually a scientific fact that has undergone a lot of study lately.  This Is Your Brain On War

A SUMMARY for those who don't want to read the whole article.

fight or flight kicks in the heart rate climbs due to a hormonal dump.  The heart rate soars and the higher it gets the more fine motor skills, and thus many TMA techniques, go right out the window.  The only way to stop this is a few things.

1. Control your breathing.  You can call it "tactical breathing", dantian breathing etc.  If you do this during moments of stress it actually helps to keep your heart rate down but you have to practice this breathing under stress, even if it's just while doing your daily run.  When you start this it will actually hurt because it's not what your body wants to do naturally.  Train it.

2. Figure out how to turn fear into something else.  Fear will actually exacerbate the physiological response of fight or flight.  If you can turn it into anger, focus, even compassion, loyalty to a cause.  The last two may seem odd but compassion for a victim can be the reason the fire fighter runs into the burning build and still can use his gear properly, even with that bulky bunker gear.  Loyalty to a cause?  Think of soldier after soldier who in the wars of old laid down their rifle to pick up the Flag and Battle Standard to guide the marching of their unit.  

The article covers other issues BUT if you do not pressure test you don't build tools equally important to the drilled techniques, the resistance to the inescapable effects of fight or flight.


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> Well, trapping is even faster than Chin-Na (in my opinion) because in trapping we don't latch on or grab hold. Our hands merely touch the opponent so we can block their attack AND know where their energy is going.



That is why I called it a "cousin".  What you describe here is what I call a "picture perfect" trap.  Sometimes though you may need to do full on laap da, even if but a moment, because you can see your opponent will be able to circle your trap.  I am not talking full on locks or anything like that for trapping, just that quick laap to make sure the hand stays there and disengage it almost as soon as your strike is launched.  I train with some squirrely SOBs and sometimes a simple gum sau isn't quite enough .


----------



## Dylan9d

KPM said:


> A very key idea in military training is that *one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight*.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.



I think the part that I highlighted in the quote is the main thing in any style or system, if you can't do that than what's the point of training it.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Nobody - literally nobody - said anything about staying in one place.



Then again, no such place exists


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> A very key idea in military training is that one should fight the way they train and train the way they fight.  To not do that is to be inefficient.   So if what you say above is true, it is simply an indicator of how far traditional martial arts have departed from their combative roots.



VT fist builds the body, movement, habits and reactions so that one fights as VT. Without long training this is impossible, since VT is difficult.

When this is achieved then testing is a required next step.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Who said anything about staying in one place?  I am wondering if you are honestly not understanding the concept of a sweet spot or being purposefully obtuse?  Look at it like a punch. All targets have "sweet spots", places where a punch has maximum effect.  The existence of this sweet spot however doesn't mean that you only punch the sweet spots.  If the sweet spot isn't available you do what you have to do.  This fact of fighting doesn't make the sweet spot cease to exist however.
> 
> The same applies to ranging during fighting.  Yes as the fight progresses you may find yourself dancing between ranges.  This fact, again, doesn't mean the sweet spot ceases to exist.



The best place to stand in order to attack the opponent varies depending upon what the opponent is doing. There is no sweet spot better than all others because in fighting things change always.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Yeah, trapping is sometimes seen as a close cousin of Chin-Na and sometimes goes so far as a very quick standing grappling.



Should I assume that standup grappling is the aim of your wing chun? This is something new to me.


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> Well, trapping is even faster than Chin-Na (in my opinion) because in trapping we don't latch on or grab hold. Our hands merely touch the opponent so we can block their attack AND know where their energy is going.



Why not just hit them instead?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> Should I assume that standup grappling is the aim of your wing chun? This is something new to me.


The term actually doesn't come from my current WC, it comes from Gary Lam's.  It just seemed to be the most simple reason to explain the idea of trapping.  That by pressure, you remove a limb from the game opening the path to strike.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> Then again, no such place exists



Sorry, I am going to be blunt but leave it at this.  Then you do not understand what a place is in a real fight.  Every place has a greater or lesser purpose.  The good fighter knows where their greatest strength lies.  They of course adapt and go where the fight forces them to go, but in a fight each fighter is seeking their sweet spot.

A kicker is trying to stay at kicking range.  A boxer where he can get maximum effect of his punches alone. A person who can punch elbow and kick wants to be in that sweet spot.  It's a chess game, trying to see who can get control of their optimum range.  Sometimes you need to settle because the opponent has initiative.  That doesn't mean the place that is your sweet spot ceases to exist, it only means reality dictated you can't get there at the moment.

This is what is sometimes called real life/3d combat vs theory in the school.


----------



## Dylan9d

Hazardi172 said:


> Should I assume that standup grappling is the aim of your wing chun? This is something new to me.



You haven't trained anything other than Ving Tsun? If not I would recommend looking further than your nose length. 



Hazardi172 said:


> Why not just hit them instead?



You can't always hit, I would refer to your first remark, try clinching with a kickboxer/muay thay guy, hell even we Silat guys can bring a mean clinch, from which we won't let you hit.



Juany118 said:


> *This is what is sometimes called real life/3d combat vs theory in the school*.


----------



## Transk53

wingchun100 said:


> I hear you, but really? Out of the countless people who train in Wing Chun, it has drawn NO competitive people?



Probably have. But I would venture that other arts are a focus as well, as apposed to someone who is happy just to practice WC as a life thing.


----------



## Juany118

Dylan9d said:


> You can't always hit, I would refer to your first remark, try clinching with a kickboxer/muay thay guy, hell even we Silat guys can bring a mean clinch, from which we won't let you hit.



I would only say that in the clinch, I can knee.  If I can't punch you are eating my elbow. That is my WC if not his. Beyond that at the same time I think we are speaking similar language because I don't only study Wing Chun, I also speak Guro Inosanto's Kali, which includes Silat, Kali, Kuntao etc.  Thing is while my Kali has a "closer game" no debate on that.  Just want to point all Wing Chun doesn't have the same rules.


----------



## Dylan9d

Juany118 said:


> I would only say that in the clinch, I can knee.  If I can't punch you are eating my elbow. That is my WC if not his. Beyond that at the same time I think we are speaking similar language because I don't only study Wing Chun, I also speak Guro Inosanto's Kali, which includes Silat, Kali, Kuntao etc.  Thing is while my Kali has a "closer game" no debate on that.  Just want to point all Wing Chun doesn't have the same rules.



Well people always think that VT is the superior art for close in fighting they forget about alot of other styles, like Kali/Eskrima/Arnis and Silat/Pukulan. We won't use our hands that much close in but we will elbows


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> The term actually doesn't come from my current WC, it comes from Gary Lam's. It just seemed to be the most simple reason to explain the idea of trapping. That by pressure, you remove a limb from the game opening the path to strike.



Opening a path to hit is VT that I am familiar with. Opening a path to grapple is not so much.


----------



## Juany118

Dylan9d said:


> Well people always think that VT is the superior art for close in fighting they forget about alot of other styles, like Kali/Eskrima/Arnis and Silat/Pukulan. We won't use our hands that much close in but we will elbows



Indeed but some here on the WC forum and not just myself, @geezer and @Danny T  among them, study WC along side FMA and we see where they come together.  .


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Sorry, I am going to be blunt but leave it at this.  Then you do not understand what a place is in a real fight.  Every place has a greater or lesser purpose.  The good fighter knows where their greatest strength lies.  They of course adapt and go where the fight forces them to go, but in a fight each fighter is seeking their sweet spot.



VT has quite a simple strategy which I prefer to follow rather than using ideas from other systems. 



> A kicker is trying to stay at kicking range.  A boxer where he can get maximum effect of his punches alone. A person who can punch elbow and kick wants to be in that sweet spot.  It's a chess game, trying to see who can get control of their optimum range.  Sometimes you need to settle because the opponent has initiative.  That doesn't mean the place that is your sweet spot ceases to exist, it only means reality dictated you can't get there at the moment



I think this is a naive oversimplification of what fighting entails. We wish to hit the opponent which we can do at a range of different distances. Hitting requires movement in order to create attacking opportunities. Therefore we are always moving, the distance between us and the opponent is always changing, and we are always hitting from different ranges. There is no particular distance from the opponent where we always aim to stand.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> Opening a path to hit is VT that I am familiar with. Opening a path to grapple is not so much.



For striking it's not "to grapple" as you seem to infer I think.  If I am not mistaken you are thinking of a grapple as a "lock".  In short we now wrestle.  That is not the case.  All, to my training at least, is "to grapple" means "to grab", even if but a millisecond.  What you do next the fight dictates.  If I mean to strike I release the "grapple" as I strike because I do not wish to be open for a counter.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> VT has quite a simple strategy which I prefer to follow rather than using ideas from other systems.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a naive oversimplification of what fighting entails. We wish to hit the opponent which we can do at a range of different distances. Hitting requires movement in order to create attacking opportunities. Therefore we are always moving, the distance between us and the opponent is always changing, and we are always hitting from different ranges. There is no particular distance from the opponent where we always aim to stand.




You may call it naive from your training in a school.  I call it reality because for the last 26 years I have fought in BDUs or in Blue.  A good fighter flows to their advantage.  If they are on the back foot (and I have been there) they have to accept somehow they were lacking.  The point of undeniable fact is that every style of fighting has a particular strength.  If they did not all styles would be the same and thes seperate forums would not even exist.  

All fighting is about flow but each fighter wants to flow where they are stronger.  Being a still skinny as hell 45 year old fighting to arrest kids half my age perhaps give me a unique perspective on this point.


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> You haven't trained anything other than Ving Tsun?



It is more that mixing other ideas into VT is detrimental. It is no longer a system if you add other things that overlap. I don't view VT as a system that is lacking anything in terms of striking. 

The main gap with VT is grappling. Since there is no overlap you can add something here if you like. But adding grappling you then need to decide which system is primary and which secondary. 



> You can't always hit, I would refer to your first remark, try clinching with a kickboxer/muay thay guy, hell even we Silat guys can bring a mean clinch, from which we won't let you hit.



Clinching is not a goal in VT


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> For striking it's not "to grapple" as you seem to infer I think.  If I am not mistaken you are thinking of a grapple as a "lock".  In short we now wrestle.  That is not the case.  All, to my training at least, is "to grapple" means "to grab", even if but a millisecond.  What you do next the fight dictates.  If I mean to strike I release the "grapple" as I strike because I do not wish to be open for a counter.



If you can punch why would you grab? This would be chasing of hands.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> I call it reality because for the last 26 years I have fought in BDUs or in Blue.



I don't know what this means. I think before you said you were some kind of pro streetfighter? Can you elaborate?



Juany118 said:


> The point of undeniable fact is that every style of fighting has a particular strength. If they did not all styles would be the same and thes seperate forums would not even exist.



I would agree- the particular strength of VT is striking. This is not the same thing as saying that there is an ideal place to stand in relation to the opponent, which is clearly naive in a fight. 



Juany118 said:


> All fighting is about flow but each fighter wants to flow where they are stronger.



I don't know what flow means. In VT we want to hit the opponent until they fall down. This is all it is really, quite simple.


----------



## Dylan9d

Hazardi172 said:


> It is more that mixing other ideas into VT is detrimental. It is no longer a system if you add other things that overlap. I don't view VT as a system that is lacking anything in terms of striking.
> 
> The main gap with VT is grappling. Since there is no overlap you can add something here if you like. But adding grappling you then need to decide which system is primary and which secondary.
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinching is not a goal in VT*



What about untrained folks? Or folks from other styles or systems, I know it's not the goal for VT, but do you think that other will clinch you? and what happens if they do? you freeze up because you never trained on it?

By the way, my question wasn't to put you on the spot or anything it was a serious question if you have trained or experienced other systems. 



Hazardi172 said:


> I don't know what flow means. In VT we want to hit the opponent until they fall down. This is all it is really, quite simple.



Ok but did you also trained the striking on a Kickboxer? Muay Thay guy? Judo guys? Or the streetbrawler? Or did you only trained VT vs VT?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't know what this means. I think before you said you were some kind of pro streetfighter? Can you elaborate?



What that means is that the History Teacher that said "no" to teaching became a Recon Scout in the US Army.  He then has spent 19 years as a police officer in a town/city where fighting with someone to effect an arrest is basically a weekly event.

BDU is the "old school" term for the US Army Uniform.  The Police in the US are the "thin blue line" between civilation and chaos.  That is my perspective.  Hence BDU and Blue.

Does this mean the way I fight is the best?  Nope. 

But I know how a fight progresses.  That I have sweet spots and weak spots.  Anyone who is planning on having to fight (and I hope most don't) need to think critically about those "spots" because that is how combat works.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> VT fist builds the body, movement, habits and reactions so that one fights as VT. Without long training this is impossible, since VT is difficult.
> 
> When this is achieved then testing is a required next step.



OK Guy.   But again, pretty much EVERY video of PB floating around on the internet features him doing a lot of Bong/Laap/Da kind of motions.   So if this has no direct application in real fighting, then his training must be pretty inefficient.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> OK Guy.   But again, pretty much EVERY video of PB floating around on the internet features him doing a lot of Bong/Laap/Da kind of motions.   So if this has no direct application in real fighting, then his training must be pretty inefficient.


So you noted the odd timing of the account creation as I did a bit ago?  Glad to know I am not solo.


----------



## KPM

yak sao said:


> I think that these 2 ideas are not necessarily opposed to one another.
> While I wholeheartedly agree that our response in a stressful encounter is going to revert back to the lowest common denominator of our training, in other words, the things that.happen automatically because we've practiced it thousands of times; there comes a point where our body just moves naturally as a result of our training, seeking the most economical solution to the problem.



I agree.  So to say that you are going to do thousands or reps of a Bong/Laap/Punch cycle in training....but to also say this is not applied or used in real fighting makes no sense.   And to train thousands of reps of a form that teaches you to draw your fist back to your hip repeatedly (which may get you killed in  real fight) also makes no sense.  This is why you should train the way you hope to fight.  If you are in-graining bad habits that could get you killed in a real encounter, that is a bad thing!  If you are training things that you are truly going to make a point of NOT doing in a real encounter, that is inefficient.  If you are spending lots of time training something that will never show up in a real encounter, then you are training a martial art but you are not training a fighting art.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> So you noted the odd timing of the account creation as I did a bit ago?  Glad to know I am not solo.



Yeah.  Guy gets banned and "Hazardi" shows up.  Hazardi hits on nearly every key point in an argument that Guy has used in the past.  Hazardi uses the same posting style...playing dumb to draw out comments that he can then pounce upon....as Guy.   Either WSLPB lineage really indoctrinates its people, or Guy has been resurrected!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> I hear you, but really? Out of the countless people who train in Wing Chun, it has drawn NO competitive people?


Likely those who are competitive trained in multiple arts, so you won't find a pure stylist from Wing Chun (or almost anything) in MMA. Since the good coaches are focused around a few styles that have a solid track record, anyone training for MMA is likely to get a fair amount of those styles. I also get the impression that Wing Chun doesn't favor heavy punches, opting instead to overwhelm. From what I see in MMA, heavy strikes are necessary if you're going to depend upon strikes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Then again, no such place exists


Entirely untrue. Every strike has a "best possible distance" for a given target. It can be used at a range of distances, but that one distance is where access and power are optimal. It exists every time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> The best place to stand in order to attack the opponent varies depending upon what the opponent is doing. There is no sweet spot better than all others because in fighting things change always.


That "best place" you just mentioned? That is the "sweet spot" in that moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> It is more that mixing other ideas into VT is detrimental. It is no longer a system if you add other things that overlap. I don't view VT as a system that is lacking anything in terms of striking.
> 
> The main gap with VT is grappling. Since there is no overlap you can add something here if you like. But adding grappling you then need to decide which system is primary and which secondary.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinching is not a goal in VT


It might not be in VT, but what if your opponent isn't playing your game?


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> OK Guy.   But again, pretty much EVERY video of PB floating around on the internet features him doing a lot of Bong/Laap/Da kind of motions.   So if this has no direct application in real fighting, then his training must be pretty inefficient.



I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I am not Guy. 

Video of Philipp Bayer on the internet mostly shows him doing chi sau, lap sau and other drills. The VT drills are very important in order to build and maintain the VT attributes and habits in the body. They are therefore not directly applicable to fighting, in that we don't try to initiate drills during fighting, but they are still essential to fighting. The difficult bit in VT is gaining and maintaining the skill set. Fighting is the simple bit. All VT entails testing (fighting) as an integral part of the development process.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> That "best place" you just mentioned? That is the "sweet spot" in that moment.



So, since it it is infinitely variable, no sweet spot exists.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I would agree- the particular strength of VT is striking. This is not the same thing as saying that there is an ideal place to stand in relation to the opponent, which is clearly naive in a fight.


You seem to be stuck on this idea of standing still, though several of us have corrected your assertion. It's not a matter of standing in one place ("an ideal place to stand"), but of the ideal range from which to execute a given strike. It's part of why you choose one strike over another - some strikes are better when you are close, while others are better when you are a bit farther away. You either select the right strike for the distance and situation, or you move to a good distance for a strike in the situation.  No standing still. Make sense?


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> It might not be in VT, but what if your opponent isn't playing your game?



In fighting the opponent trys to play their game and we play ours. Our game is about making the opponent dance to our tune.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> It's not a matter of standing in one place ("an ideal place to stand"), but of the ideal range from which to execute a given strike.



There is no ideal range from which to strike. Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns. Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us.


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> What about untrained folks? Or folks from other styles or systems, I know it's not the goal for VT, but do you think that other will clinch you? and what happens if they do? you freeze up because you never trained on it?
> 
> By the way, my question wasn't to put you on the spot or anything it was a serious question if you have trained or experienced other systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but did you also trained the striking on a Kickboxer? Muay Thay guy? Judo guys? Or the streetbrawler? Or did you only trained VT vs VT?



VT doesn't do grappling so if you are grappling then no longer the place for VT. Use something else if you have it, or use emergency techniques to regain VT. 

Testing should be against as many different people as possible. Variety and challenge is key. There is no sense in making it easy for yourself.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> What that means is that the History Teacher that said "no" to teaching became a Recon Scout in the US Army.  He then has spent 19 years as a police officer in a town/city where fighting with someone to effect an arrest is basically a weekly event.
> 
> BDU is the "old school" term for the US Army Uniform.  The Police in the US are the "thin blue line" between civilation and chaos.  That is my perspective.  Hence BDU and Blue.



Arresting is quite a bit different from fighting.



> Does this mean the way I fight is the best?  Nope.
> 
> But I know how a fight progresses.  That I have sweet spots and weak spots.  Anyone who is planning on having to fight (and I hope most don't) need to think critically about those "spots" because that is how combat works.



I don't think that perspectives from JKD are helpful in VT. VT is a much deeper system that JKD, much more comprehensive


----------



## Dylan9d

Hazardi172 said:


> VT doesn't do grappling so if you are grappling then no longer the place for VT. Use something else if you have it, or use emergency techniques to regain VT.
> 
> Testing should be against as many different people as possible. Variety and challenge is key. There is no sense in making it easy for yourself.



That's a bit of general answer, now please answer for yourself, did you test your VT against different people? Or only against your fellow VT practitioners?

Ohw and your first bit actually states that VT is a very limited art.......


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> I agree.  So to say that you are going to do thousands or reps of a Bong/Laap/Punch cycle in training....but to also say this is not applied or used in real fighting makes no sense.



It makes sense to me, and I have explained it above. It is about creating the skill set and attributes in the body for VT  



> And to train thousands of reps of a form that teaches you to draw your fist back to your hip repeatedly (which may get you killed in  real fight) also makes no sense.



Forms also build attributes and skill set, as well as define things like limits of movement, We don't fight as if we are doing a form.   



> This is why you should train the way you hope to fight.



I assume you are not a VT practitioner? The system contains testing as a major part of the learning method. We train fighting by fighting. We build and maintain attributes and skill set by training attributes and skill set. 



> If you are in-graining bad habits that could get you killed in a real encounter, that is a bad thing!  If you are training things that you are truly going to make a point of NOT doing in a real encounter, that is inefficient.  If you are spending lots of time training something that will never show up in a real encounter, then you are training a martial art but you are not training a fighting art.



I think this would only be a concern with VT if you didn't understand the purpose of the various training methodologies. The system creates people who are able to teach themselves and correct mistakes using various reference points and drills. Working on particular problems in isolation and then bringing them back into the whole for testing is how the method works.


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> That's a bit of general answer, now please answer for yourself, did you test your VT against different people? Or only against your fellow VT practitioners?



Yes I have tested my VT against different people.



> Ohw and your first bit actually states that VT is a very limited art.......



If you think so then that's ok . It doesn't include grappling, what can I say?


----------



## Dylan9d

Hazardi172 said:


> Yes I have tested my VT against different people.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think so then that's ok . It doesn't include grappling, what can I say?



Well it doesn't include alot of aspects according to you because it's simply only hitting, so that's not what I think but it's mainly what I conclude out of your previous messages.


----------



## wingchun100

Hazardi172 said:


> Why not just hit them instead?


 
If their punch is coming at your head?


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> That "best place" you just mentioned? That is the "sweet spot" in that moment.


 
Yes, sweet spots are fleeting things. It's kind of like that moment when you think the woman you really like would say "yes" if you ask her out, but if you don't do it in that split second, it's gone.

Just felt like injecting a little silliness there. Carry on!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I am not Guy.
> 
> Video of Philipp Bayer on the internet mostly shows him doing chi sau, lap sau and other drills. The VT drills are very important in order to build and maintain the VT attributes and habits in the body. They are therefore not directly applicable to fighting, in that we don't try to initiate drills during fighting, but they are still essential to fighting. The difficult bit in VT is gaining and maintaining the skill set. Fighting is the simple bit. All VT entails testing (fighting) as an integral part of the development process.




I wasn't talking about  doing an entire drill while fighting.  I was talking about the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle of technique.  Is that used in fighting or not?   Because your original statement suggested that it wasn't.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't think that perspectives from JKD are helpful in VT. VT is a much deeper system that JKD, much more comprehensive



Says someone that obviously has no concept of what JKD is!


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> Likely those who are competitive trained in multiple arts, so you won't find a pure stylist from Wing Chun (or almost anything) in MMA. Since the good coaches are focused around a few styles that have a solid track record, anyone training for MMA is likely to get a fair amount of those styles. I also get the impression that Wing Chun doesn't favor heavy punches, opting instead to overwhelm. From what I see in MMA, heavy strikes are necessary if you're going to depend upon strikes.


 
Not 100% true. (I know you don't train in the system, so I hope you know I did not mean that in an insulting way.) The previous school I was at taught a difference between a heavy punch and the flurry-style punches most people associate with Wing Chun.

Also, if there are really no pure styles in MMA, then it seems silly to me that so many people have latched on to the notion that Wing Chun is the only "pure" style that wouldn't work in the ring. If everyone gets a mix, then you could just as easily swap that out with ANY style name. Example: "Karate doesn't work in MMA."


----------



## KPM

*In fighting the opponent trys to play their game and we play ours. Our game is about making the opponent dance to our tune.  There is no ideal range from which to strik*e.

---These two statements certainly make it sound as if you have never done any hard sparring and no sparring against anyone other than a fellow Wing Chun classmate.


*Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns.*

---No, using a fighting strategy that only seeks to land a punch is one-dimensional.   Simple common sense says that there is an optimal distance or "sweet spot" to land a punch solidly and effectively on an opponent.  This is the distance that doesn't require you to over-reach, nor to be crowded in so that you cannot get good extension.  How are you going to land your Wing Chun punch from a distance at which you are at the end of the opponent's extended kicking leg?

*Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us.*

---How do you punch from "very far out"?


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> Well it doesn't include alot of aspects according to you because it's simply only hitting, so that's not what I think but it's mainly what I conclude out of your previous messages.



I can't think of many parts of fighting other than striking, grappling and weapons. VT has striking and weapons but not grappling. I wouldn't call it limited, but also wouldn't pretend that it covers areas it doesn't. If I wanted grappling I would look somewhere else.


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> If their punch is coming at your head?



In VT we do not block then hit- hitting provides cover


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> I wasn't talking about  doing an entire drill while fighting.  I was talking about the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle of technique.  Is that used in fighting or not?   Because your original statement suggested that it wasn't.



No, not used in fighting, it is a drill for teaching specific things. We also don't do dan chi sau, poon sau, and so on in fighting. These are training drills. Nobody will cooperate long enough in fighting to allow them to happen- they require a cooperating partner and are mutually beneficial


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Says someone that obviously has no concept of what JKD is!



Ah, a JKD practitioner I assume! 

From his writings I think Bruce Lee had a pretty low level understanding of VT.


----------



## wingchun100

Hazardi172 said:


> In VT we do not block then hit- hitting provides cover


 
Then why are there several techniques that are called "blocks?" I'm not following.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> These two statements certainly make it sound as if you have never done any hard sparring and no sparring against anyone other than a fellow Wing Chun classmate.



On the contrary, the normal process of testing VT has given me a lot of insight into and respect for the strategy of VT.



KPM said:


> No, using a fighting strategy that only seeks to land a punch is one-dimensional. Simple common sense says that there is an optimal distance or "sweet spot" to land a punch solidly and effectively on an opponent. This is the distance that doesn't require you to over-reach, nor to be crowded in so that you cannot get good extension.



Striking is not one dimensional because there are infinite variations and complexities. It is hard enough to get really good at one thing. Aiming too high might leave you good at nothing 

The VT punch is very flexible in that it requires no windup, automatically covers, and can operate close and far from the body. This is why we spend a lot of time training to get better at punching. The mechanics doesn't include upper body or arm momentum and so no sweet spot exists as would be the case with (for example) a boxing punch where it is critical for impact to occur at a particular point of the punching arc. 



KPM said:


> How do you punch from "very far out"?



VT punch is a punch with the body- so of course you move your body.


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> Then why are there several techniques that are called "blocks?" I'm not following.



Such as?


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> VT punch is a punch with the body- so of course you move your body.



You move your body?  As in "stepping in".....or to state it differently....changing the range/distance to find the "sweet spot" where your punch can land effectively?


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> From his writings I think Bruce Lee had a pretty low level understanding of VT.



Then you would be mistaken!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> No, not used in fighting, it is a drill for teaching specific things.



So what specific things does the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle teach you?


----------



## wingchun100

Hazardi172 said:


> Such as?


 
All right, I am not getting drawn into this anymore. I cannot believe someone could train in Wing Chun and not know a single block.


----------



## wingchun100

My apologies for that previous message. I need to learn to use that "ignore" button sooner.


----------



## wckf92

wingchun100 said:


> All right, I am not getting drawn into this anymore. I cannot believe someone could train in Wing Chun and not know a single block.



I think in some regard it is a matter of semantics/strategy/tactics/usage. For example, in my WC there are also no "blocks" per se. 
In your WC, I'm guessing/assuming that if you were to do what some call a "Tan Da" (for example)...you probably were taught that the one hand executing the 'tan' action is blocking...while the other hand punches...right? Others think of it as a secondary covering action as it attacks while their other limb(s) attack the opponents nearest target. Yet, others think / use Tan as an embedded defense.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> You move your body?  As in "stepping in".....or to state it differently....changing the range/distance to find the "sweet spot" where your punch can land effectively?



No, you punch with your body. Moving the body is part of the punch.


----------



## Hazardi172

wingchun100 said:


> All right, I am not getting drawn into this anymore. I cannot believe someone could train in Wing Chun and not know a single block.



I'm not trying to be difficult. The VT I leaned doesn't have blocks as in other systems


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Then you would be mistaken!



Each to their own, I am happy you have found something that suits you in JKD


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> So what specific things does the Bong/Laap/Punch cycle teach you?



I don't think worth covering here, there don't seem to be many VT practitioners around. I am sure that JKD has some good ideas for this drill


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> In fighting the opponent trys to play their game and we play ours. Our game is about making the opponent dance to our tune.


That doesn't address the issue. You said there's no clinch in VT. If your opponent is playing their own game, you may have to deal with a clinch, so dismissing it as something not in VT doesn't solve the problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> There is no ideal range from which to strike. Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns. Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us.


Not even close to true. Every kind of strike has a limited range, and within that range is a smaller subset that is the ideal range. That you can strike from any range from long to short doesn't change that you need a different strike for the longer range than the shorter range. You're dancing awfully hard to make it seem like you have a point. You don't. You even made the point about a best distance existing, and I pointed that out. Continuing to restate that things change in a fight (yes, they do, and that's immaterial to the point) and that you can strike from many ranges (doubtless you can, and that, too, is immaterial to the point) doesn't in any way counter the concept of an ideal distance for a given strike in a given situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Not 100% true. (I know you don't train in the system, so I hope you know I did not mean that in an insulting way.) The previous school I was at taught a difference between a heavy punch and the flurry-style punches most people associate with Wing Chun.
> 
> Also, if there are really no pure styles in MMA, then it seems silly to me that so many people have latched on to the notion that Wing Chun is the only "pure" style that wouldn't work in the ring. If everyone gets a mix, then you could just as easily swap that out with ANY style name. Example: "Karate doesn't work in MMA."


Wing Chun is certainly not the only style that gets that treatment. Folks say that about Aikido all the time, even when it's pointed out that (depending upon which style of Aikido you're talking about) there are actually quite a few techniques that fall within the bounds of "Aikido" that show up in MMA. They're not being delivered by someone who primarily studied Aikido, so folks argue it's not really Aikido. I'm sure there are other styles that get similar comments.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> I agree.  So to say that you are going to do thousands or reps of a Bong/Laap/Punch cycle in training....but to also say this is not applied or used in real fighting makes no sense.   And to train thousands of reps of a form that teaches you to draw your fist back to your hip repeatedly (which may get you killed in  real fight) also makes no sense.  This is why you should train the way you hope to fight.  If you are in-graining bad habits that could get you killed in a real encounter, that is a bad thing!  If you are training things that you are truly going to make a point of NOT doing in a real encounter, that is inefficient.  If you are spending lots of time training something that will never show up in a real encounter, then you are training a martial art but you are not training a fighting art.


If you watched me practice punching, you could recognize the system that I train, assuming you had seen it before.  There is a recognizable signature style to it.

If you saw me punch in a fight, you would not know what system I train.

The training and the practice methodology develop physical principles, and yes, technique is built on those principles.  But technique does not always need to look a certain way, as long as the principles are underneath it.  As a mechanism for building an understanding of the principles, training can include exaggerated movement.  Your example of the hip chamber when punching is a good example of this.  In fighting, that exaggeration goes away and the movement can look quite different and take on a lot of variety.

As a crane guy, I don't need to assume a certain stance or posture in order to fight, and my punch does not need to look a certain way.   It CAN, but does not have to.  But what I do is still crane.

As a wing chun guy, you should not need to assume a certain posture in order to fight, and likewise, your punch should not need to look a certain way.  It CAN, but it should not be mandatory.  But regardless, it is still wing chun.

Your training helps you develop skills.  But how you apply those skills should not be forced into a certain presentation.  How you apply those skills should be completely up to you, IF you understand the principles underneath your technique, and are not simply a technique-collector and are not limited by the presentation of the training approach.

So, does wing chun have an outside game?  Honestly I'm not even quite certain how that is defined.  But if the question really boils down to, "can skills developed through the practice of wing chun be applied creatively, in ways that are not immediately obvious from simply looking at the appearance of the training methodology?"  Well my god, I should certainly hope so.  If the answer is truly "no" then you've got a crappy system and I recommend you do something else instead.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't think worth covering here, there don't seem to be many VT practitioners around. I am sure that JKD has some good ideas for this drill


Why would you only answer that question to a VT practitioner, who would almost certainly already know the VT answer? Many folks here ask questions about systems - and even entire arts - they do not study. It's how we learn about what each other does.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> No, you punch with your body. Moving the body is part of the punch.



So you don't step in when you are too far away to land the punch?   And again, how do you punch from far away as you stated before?


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't think worth covering here, there don't seem to be many VT practitioners around. I am sure that JKD has some good ideas for this drill



Ok Guy.  No problem.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Every kind of strike has a limited range, and within that range is a smaller subset that is the ideal range.



As explained above, the VT punch doesn't have an ideal range. It is equally effective from close in to far out.This is becuse it doesn't rely upon rotation or other upper body momentum in order to work. It is as effective from almost zero extension to maximum extension. It lacks an ideal range by way of design.  



gpseymour said:


> That you can strike from any range from long to short doesn't change that you need a different strike for the longer range than the shorter range.



The VT punch can strike from close in to far out because the body movement is part of the punch. You don't need a different strike. This is why we work so hard to perfect the punch 

Of course we can also kick, faak, elbow, knee, palm. But the punch is the primary weapon in all situations!



gpseymour said:


> Continuing to restate that things change in a fight (yes, they do, and that's immaterial to the point) and that you can strike from many ranges (doubtless you can, and that, too, is immaterial to the point) doesn't in any way counter the concept of an ideal distance for a given strike in a given situation.



I hope I have helped to clear up your confusion and that you are now closer to understanding a bit about the VT system . Let me know if you need me to explain more.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Why would you only answer that question to a VT practitioner, who would almost certainly already know the VT answer? Many folks here ask questions about systems - and even entire arts - they do not study. It's how we learn about what each other does.



I think there is only so far we can go without some understanding of the basics. Since I am finding a lack of understanding of basic ideas, I think more complicated ones probably not a good idea at this point! We can always revisit later


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> So you don't step in when you are too far away to land the punch?   And again, how do you punch from far away as you stated before?



Movement of the body is part of the punch, as already discussed


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Ok Guy.  No problem.



I am not your friend Guy, very sorry


----------



## geezer

Hazardi172 said:


> The VT punch can strike from close in to far out. You don't need a different strike. This is why we work so hard to perfect the punch  ...the punch is the primary weapon in all situations!



_Hazard,_ I practice Yip Man VT ...but not the WSL lineage, so my perspective is a bit different. In the VT I train we work very hard at perfecting our punch, developing elbow power, and learning to punch with the body, not just the arm. But compared with long-bridge systems, our VT punch has a more specialized range. We are good at short-power, but since we do not extend our arm like long-bridge systems or blade our body like the JKD guys, we use our footwork to get into optimal range for punching.

At longer ranges, we use a longer range weapon, such as a kick to simultaneously attack and close. At very close , clinching ranges we often use elbows to simultaneously attack and create space for punches. The punching range is where we prefer to be, but I find your statement that you can punch from _any_ range ...without stepping(?) to be confusing. Please clarify!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> As explained above, the VT punch doesn't have an ideal range. It is equally effective from close in to far out.This is becuse it doesn't rely upon rotation or other upper body momentum in order to work. It is as effective from almost zero extension to maximum extension. It lacks an ideal range by way of design.



Actually, you just defined its ideal range. I assume that like any other strike it can be used just outside that range (by slight over-extension) or just inside that range (the "almost zero" you mentioned), where it will have less power than within its prime range. There will be other sacrifices in some of those cases (the over-extension also sacrifices some structure), so practitioners may not choose to use some of those ranges, and may instead choose to stick to that ideal range.



> The VT punch can strike from close in to far out because the body movement is part of the punch. You don't need a different strike. This is why we work so hard to perfect the punch
> 
> Of course we can also kick, faak, elbow, knee, palm. But the punch is the primary weapon in all situations!


The kick, faak, elbow, knee, and palm are the different strikes I spoke of. In some systems, they would also take that single punch and describe it as more than one, to discuss the differences in how it works at its extremes. That's semantics, only, but it may help to know that in future discussions. So, for instance, I may teach a "short vertical fist" and a "long vertical fist" to my students. They are the same strike, but different points can be emphasized at those extremes. There's no point along the continuum between the two where I could draw a line and say, "That's the long version there, and this is the short version here."



> I hope I have helped to clear up your confusion and that you are now closer to understanding a bit about the VT system . Let me know if you need me to explain more.


Those are informative points. Thank you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> The VT punch can strike from close in to far out because the body movement is part of the punch. You don't need a different strike. This is why we work so hard to perfect the punch


In order to strike "far out", your

- striking hand,
- striking shoulder,
- chest,
- back shoulder,

should all be lined up in a perfect straight line. The training is to rotate one arm forward while rotate the other arm backward at the same time in fast speed. You then switch sides. I don't know there is WC training like this.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Movement of the body is part of the punch, as already discussed



You didn't answer my questions.   Just like Guy...ask a lot of questions but answer very few!


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> You didn't answer my questions.   Just like Guy...ask a lot of questions but answer very few!


 
Oh, wait...do we think this is "Guy in disguise?"


----------



## Hazardi172

geezer said:


> _Hazard,_ I practice Yip Man VT ...but not the WSL lineage, so my perspective is a bit different. In the VT I train we work very hard at perfecting our punch, developing elbow power, and learning to punch with the body, not just the arm. But compared with long-bridge systems, our VT punch has a more specialized range. We are good at short-power, but since we do not extend our arm like long-bridge systems or blade our body like the JKD guys, we use our footwork to get into optimal range for punching.
> 
> At longer ranges, we use a longer range weapon, such as a kick to simultaneously attack and close. At very close , clinching ranges we often use elbows to simultaneously attack and create space for punches.



Hi Geezer, sounds great. Good to hear how your wing chun works.



> I find your statement that you can punch from _any_ range ...without stepping(?) to be confusing. Please clarify!



I didn't say to punch without stepping. The step is part of the punch, not to get into range to punch. The punch is with the moving body.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Actually, you just defined its ideal range. I assume that like any other strike it can be used just outside that range (by slight over-extension) or just inside that range (the "almost zero" you mentioned), where it will have less power than within its prime range. There will be other sacrifices in some of those cases (the over-extension also sacrifices some structure), so practitioners may not choose to use some of those ranges, and may instead choose to stick to that ideal range.



The punch works from elbow touching body, so no internal sub optimal range. Also no external sub optimal range as it ceases to function beyond maximum extension. However we are only talking about the arm movement here, not the punch. The punch also requires the momentum of the moving body, and the body is what you hit with rather than the arm. The step is part of the punch, meaning that it can be used from any meaningful range in fighting. 



gpseymour said:


> Those are informative points. Thank you.



Glad to share, thanks


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> The punch works from elbow touching body, so no internal sub optimal range. Also no external sub optimal range as it ceases to function beyond maximum extension. However we are only talking about the arm movement here, not the punch. The punch also requires the momentum of the moving body, and the body is what you hit with rather than the arm. The step is part of the punch, meaning that it can be used from any meaningful range in fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to share, thanks



Are you talking about boxing here or VT?

Sorry, WSLVT.


----------



## wtxs

Hazardi172 said:


> *Should I assume that standup grappling is the aim of your wing chun?* This is something new to me.


5086"]Yeah, trapping is _*sometimes*_ seen as a close cousin of Chin-Na and _*sometimes *_goes so far as a very *quick* standing grappling.[/QUOTE]

I think you are reading way to much into what Juany had said ... don't assume of what he meant.  By your assumption, what you had inferred is some type of grappling with striking art and not WC.

We need to get back on track with the OP subject.


----------



## geezer

Hazardi172 said:


> Hi Geezer, sounds great. Good to hear how your wing chun works. I didn't say to punch without stepping. The step is part of the punch, not to get into range to punch. The punch is with the moving body.



Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Before I thought you were talking just about the arm ...and the VT punch I know, delivered with the shoulders square to the target, is a shorter punch than used in many other systems which throw the shoulder into the punch. But, as you are talking about the punch *with stepping*, we are talking the same language after all.


----------



## Dylan9d

My last question @Hazardi172 

How long have you been training VT now? Just curious what your experience is.....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> The step is part of the punch, meaning that it can be used from any meaningful range in fighting.


Let's ignore the body rotation, just look at the footwork (step). In order to punch your right hand, you can step in your right leg into

1. bow arrow stance.
2. golden rooster stance.
3. stealing step (drop your golden rooster raising leg behind and forward your standing leg).

For the farther reach, 3 > 2 > 1

IMO, all 1, 2, 3 "strike far out" footwork are not emphasized in the WC system. In other words, compare WC to the other CMA systems, WC doesn't emphasize enough on "strike far out".


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> The step is part of the punch, meaning that it can be used from any meaningful range in fighting.




Sorry, that's just semantics.  You're still saying the same thing we have been saying.   You are moving in with footwork until close enough for the punch to land.  That punch isn't going to land from several feet away without you "moving your body" (stepping in with footwork) to the "sweet spot" where you are close enough for that punch to land.  That is still closing the distance or range.  If you start where you are close enough to land a kick but not close enough to land a punch without moving in (kicking range), then you are going to have to move into a range where you are close enough for the punch to contact (punching range).   That's just a simple fact of physics whether you want to use that terminology or not.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> It might not be in VT, but what if your opponent isn't playing your game?


This is the point.  Maybe we are odd balls but I study Martial Arts to defend myself and others.  If I was still the History teacher I would be pedaling my bicycle every hour available.


KPM said:


> Sorry, that's just semantics.  You're still saying the same thing we have been saying.   You are moving in with footwork until close enough for the punch to land.  That punch isn't going to land from several feet away without you "moving your body" (stepping in with footwork) to the "sweet spot" where you are close enough for that punch to land.  That is still closing the distance or range.  If you start where you are close enough to land a kick but not close enough to land a punch without moving in (kicking range), then you are going to have to move into a range where you are close enough for the punch to contact (punching range).   That's just a simple fact of physics whether you want to use that terminology or not.



I am currently going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't trolling.  That said it seems like he was programmed on a specific track and, it seems, to not actually breakdown how you fight in an analytical way for further study.

This works fine if you are always facing someone programmed in the same way.  In that case it comes down to who is mentally and physically superior along with who has the better programming.  It starts to breakdown however when you face someone who is programmed differently.  As an example, recognizing the existence of the sweet spots isn't just a matter of knowing where you are strong but it also lets you see where you are weak.  Heck, it's not even a matter of yourself.  In knowing sweet spots exist you can then see where your opponent's sweet spot and weak spots are, whether they be in the art itself or the psychology of the opponent.  Avoiding where your opponent is strong and striking where he is weak is Art of War 101.


----------



## Hazardi172

geezer said:


> Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Before I thought you were talking just about the arm ...and the VT punch I know, delivered with the shoulders square to the target, is a shorter punch than used in many other systems which throw the shoulder into the punch. But, as you are talking about the punch *with stepping*, we are talking the same language after all.



I am not sure I am talking the same language as everyone, since previous discussion was all about fighting at a "trapping range" where we can do things like direct applications of the Lap Sau drill and enter into grappling.

Also the punch *with stepping* is the punch. The step is part of the punch because it moves the body and this momentum is what is used against the opponent, i.e. we hit with our body. This integral step is why the VT punch is not range limited in terms of any realistic fighting range.


----------



## Hazardi172

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, all 1, 2, 3 "strike far out" footwork are not emphasized in the WC system. In other words, compare WC to the other CMA systems, WC doesn't emphasize enough on "strike far out".



Try WSL VT, you will see a lot of emphasis on stepping


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> My last question @Hazardi172
> 
> How long have you been training VT now? Just curious what your experience is.....



Hi Dylan, I have been training about 13 years now


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> Are you talking about boxing here or VT?
> 
> Sorry, WSLVT.



Hi Transk53, talking about WSL VT here


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I am not sure I am talking the same language as everyone, since previous discussion was all about fighting at a "trapping range" where we can do things like direct applications of the Lap Sau drill and enter into grappling.
> 
> Also the punch *with stepping* is the punch. The step is part of the punch because it moves the body and this momentum is what is used against the opponent, i.e. we hit with our body. This integral step is why the VT punch is not range limited in terms of any realistic fighting range.


As to your first point you are focusing myopically on the things other forms of WC do that yours do not at that range.  The term "trapping" is only used as a reference for the range.  Can you trap there?  Yes.  Can you initiate grappling there?  Also yes.  This is not the point of the range however.  The point is at that range you can use every tool in the arsenal.  You can kick to the lower extremities, knee, elbow and punch.  Also with the closer range of the "picture perfect" WSLVT punch, even PB, that appears to be the ideal range.  If you watch the following montage, more often than not the range I speak of is the range PB is working to get to. Over and over again PB has also referred to the ideal of the short range involved in the VT punch, which when we see the videos of him is what some call "trapping range".






As I said before the WC world doesn't use terms like "trapping" range.  However every WC system I have seen recognizes the significance of this "sweet spot" and even if you can't get there due to circumstances, it is still the sweet spot. In terms of simple training I think the best example is the mook jong.  It has three main purposes, in my experience.  The correct use of power and force, and synchronicity of action and the quickest route to a target.  The fact the mook is rigid, as we perform the drills, also forces us to maintain structure (Newton's laws and all of that.) The thing is what range are you at where you can do all these things?

That is the telling point, regardless of everything else.  If the majority of drills you do are in a specific space/range, those drills are telling you something about where your sweet spot is.

My hope is that the fact I used a non-WC term to describe the positioning of the sweet spot is causing the apparent confusion.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> You are moving in with footwork until close enough for the punch to land. That punch isn't going to land from several feet away without you "moving your body" (stepping in with footwork) to the "sweet spot" where you are close enough for that punch to land.  That is still closing the distance or range.



No, the momentum from the footwork is an essential part of the punch in VT 



> If you start where you are close enough to land a kick but not close enough to land a punch without moving in (kicking range), then you are going to have to move into a range where you are close enough for the punch to contact (punching range).   That's just a simple fact of physics whether you want to use that terminology or not.



If you are close enough to land a kick then you are also close enough to land  punch


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> No, the momentum from the footwork is an essential part of the punch in VT
> 
> 
> 
> If you are close enough to land a kick then you are also close enough to land  punch



On point one you don't address his point.  Of course footwork adds to the momentum of a punch because that isn't VT/WC, that's universal physics.

As for the last point.  A straight front kick can strike when a punch can not, that is simple  biomechanics and geometry.  However if you are talking about the range where both a low kick and punch can land, that is for the most part the "sweet spot" the rest of us have been talking about that you say doesn't exist but you just inadvertently acknowledged exists.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> As to your first point you are focusing myopically on the things other forms of WC do that yours do not at that range.  The term "trapping" is only used as a reference for the range.  Can you trap there?  Yes.  Can you initiate grappling there?  Also yes.  This is not the point of the range however.  The point is at that range you can use every tool in the arsenal.  You can kick to the lower extremities, knee, elbow and punch.  Also with the closer range of the "picture perfect" WSLVT punch, even PB, that appears to be the ideal range.  If you watch the following montage, more often than not the range I speak of is the range PB is working to get to. Over and over again PB has also referred to the ideal of the short range involved in the VT punch, which when we see the videos of him is what some call "trapping range".



I don't train with Philipp Bayer and so cannot speak for him, but you appear to have posted a clip showing a lot of training drills. I don't see what relevance these have to this discussion?



> As I said before the WC world doesn't use terms like "trapping" range.  However every WC system I have seen recognizes the significance of this "sweet spot" and even if you can't get there due to circumstances, it is still the sweet spot. In terms of simple training I think the best example is the mook jong.  It has three main purposes, in my experience.  The correct use of power and force, and synchronicity of action and the quickest route to a target.  The fact the mook is rigid, as we perform the drills, also forces us to maintain structure (Newton's laws and all of that.) The thing is what range are you at where you can do all these things?
> 
> That is the telling point, regardless of everything else.  If the majority of drills you do are in a specific space/range, those drills are telling you something about where your sweet spot is.
> 
> My hope is that the fact I used a non-WC term to describe the positioning of the sweet spot is causing the apparent confusion.



There is no idea of sweet spot in WSL VT . My understanding is that the idea came from JKD


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> On point one you don't address his point. Of course footwork adds to the momentum of a punch because that isn't VT/WC, that's universal physics.



The punch without the foorwork is not the VT punch. Footwork required 



Juany118 said:


> As for the last point. A straight front kick can strike when a punch can not, that is simple biomechanics and geometry.



In WSL VT the punch and kick land from the same range. We don't think "now we are in kicking range, we must kick, not we are closer we must punch, now closer still we must initiate the Lap Sau drill". Mostly we are attacking with punches from any and all ranges!

You wing chun may be different and that's ok with me 



Juany118 said:


> if you are talking about the range where both a low kick and punch can land, that is for the most part the "sweet spot" the rest of us have been talking about that you say doesn't exist but you just inadvertently acknowledged exists



There is no such sweet spot in WSL VT due to the nature of the punch. Other punches may differ


----------



## KPM

No, the momentum from the footwork is an essential part of the punch in VT 

---That doesn't make any difference.  I step with most punches as well.  But the bottom line is that, based on where you start from, you aren't going to land that punch WITHOUT stepping in.  If you are  starting from 3 feet  away from the opponent, then you may have to step more than once in order to be close enough for that punch to land.  So you are still changing the range or closing the distance.



If you are close enough to land a kick then you are also close enough to land  punch 

---Not necessarily.  Again, you obviously don't understand the concept of ranges of combat and are making no effort at all to see what we are saying.  A Tae Kwon Do guy is going to be able to land all kinds of kicks from a distance that would require you to step in before you could punch him.  That is kicking range.  If the TKD guy is good at controlling that range then he isn't going to let you step in with your punch without eating a hard kick.  You cannot punch him without moving in, but he can kick you without moving in, because his legs are longer than your arms.  That is kicking range.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> There is no idea of sweet spot in WSL VT . My understanding is that the idea came from JKD



No.  Again you comment on JKD but you obviously don't know much at all about it.  The concept of a "sweet spot" originated with western boxing.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I am currently going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't trolling.  That said it seems like he was programmed on a specific track and, it seems, to not actually breakdown how you fight in an analytical way for further study.
> 
> .



Yeah, if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this isn't Guy trying to pull a fast one on the moderators, then we have to assume that there must be a lot of indoctrination that goes on in parts of the WSLVT lineage.  Because Harardi has the same prejudices, narrow-minded views, and one-track thinking that Guy has.   Either that's one heck of a coincidence, or some people in WSLVT are being taught to think that way.  Because I haven't really encountered that in any other Wing Chun lineage.  Its that  whole attitude of not being willing to even consider or try to understand what someone else is saying.  The whole approach seems to be "My way is the only way....."


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> That doesn't make any difference. I step with most punches as well. But the bottom line is that, based on where you start from, you aren't going to land that punch WITHOUT stepping in.



WSL VT has footwork with all punches, not most punches. It isn't a punch without footwork because the power comes from the footwork. Where the arm motion reaches is irrelevant. 



KPM said:


> If you are starting from 3 feet away from the opponent, then you may have to step more than once in order to be close enough for that punch to land. So you are still changing the range or closing the distance



There is no changing the range to punch. The punch launches from distance with the push off the ground by the foot. This is the start of the punch and is the first link in the chain from ground to fist. Without the step the punch is not worth doing because it is just an arm punch. In separating step from punch it sounds like you are talking about stepping in and *then *doing an arm punch. We don't do that, the whole motion is part of the WSL VT punch 



KPM said:


> A Tae Kwon Do guy is going to be able to land all kinds of kicks from a distance that would require you to step in before you could punch him. That is kicking range.



In WSL VT that is no special range because the step is part of the punch and we can punch from any meaningful fighting range. We don't step in then punch, we just punch! I have no problem with you doing things another way in your JKD, and I am sure that your idea of ranges works for you. It just isn't an important consideration in WSL VT! To each their own way 



KPM said:


> You cannot punch him without moving in, but he can kick you without moving in, because his legs are longer than your arms. That is kicking range.



This sounds to me like a very artificial situation. Not something I would expect to be any problem in reality


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> No.  Again you comment on JKD but you obviously don't know much at all about it.  The concept of a "sweet spot" originated with western boxing.



Western boxing punches are completely unlike VT punches in that they do indeed have a point on the arc of the punch where it is best to hit the opponent. This is because they rely upon momentum and weight shift within the upper body of the puncher. A VT punch works in a very different way and doesn't have the same problem.


----------



## KPM

*WSL VT has footwork with all punches, not most punches. It isn't a punch without footwork because the power comes from the footwork. Where the arm motion reaches is irrelevant. *

---Again, that whole thing is irrelevant to the current discussion.



*There is no changing the range to punch. The punch launches from distance with the push off the ground by the foot. This is the start of the punch and is the first link in the chain from ground to fist. Without the step the punch is not worth doing because it is just an arm punch. In separating step from punch it sounds like you are talking about stepping in and then doing an arm punch. We don't do that, the whole motion is part of the WSL VT punch *

---And again, when you step in and THEN punch, you are changing the  range and entering the "sweet spot" where your punch can be effective whether you want acknowledge that fact or not



*In WSL VT that is no special range because the step is part of the punch and we can punch from any meaningful fighting range. We don't step in then punch, we just punch! I have no problem with you doing things another way in your JKD, and I am sure that your idea of ranges works for you. It just isn't an important consideration in WSL VT! To each their own way *

----This whole discussion did not start out referring specifically to WSLVT.  You did not start out by saying that "that's good, but we don't see it that way in WSLVT."   You started out simply by denying that the whole idea of ranges of combat was true or a "real thing."


*This sounds to me like a very artificial situation. Not something I would expect to be any problem in reality*

---Then you have obviously not done any hard sparring with people from other martial arts styles other than your own WSLVT.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Its that  whole attitude of not being willing to even consider or try to understand what someone else is saying.  The whole approach seems to be "My way is the only way....."



Hey, I am very happy to consider what you are saying for your martial arts that you do. Several of you have told me that you like to fight from a specific range, that you like to do direct applications from various drills at that range, that you use grappling and trapping. This is all okay with me! I like to learn about what other people do.

And I am answering from my own perspective in WSL VT, trying to tell you what we do. Obviously others have other ways which are not the WSL VT way


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Western boxing punches are completely unlike VT punches in that they do indeed have a point on the arc of the punch where it is best to hit the opponent. This is because they rely upon momentum and weight shift within the upper body of the puncher. A VT punch works in a very different way and doesn't have the same problem.



That doesn't matter.  It is still a valid concept.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> And again, when you step in and THEN punch, you are changing the range and entering the "sweet spot" where your punch can be effective whether you want acknowledge that fact or not



We don't step in and then punch 



KPM said:


> This whole discussion did not start out referring specifically to WSLVT. You did not start out by saying that "that's good, but we don't see it that way in WSLVT." You started out simply by denying that the whole idea of ranges of combat was true or a "real thing."



I can only speak from the perspective of WSL VT. Very sorry for any confusion in my language 



KPM said:


> -Then you have obviously not done any hard sparring with people from other martial arts styles other than your own WSLVT.



I have done plenty of sparring with people from plenty of other styles. Testing is part of the WSL VT way!


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> That doesn't matter.  It is still a valid concept.



Well, it is only a valid concept when we are talking about boxing or similar punches, but not when we are talking about WSL VT punches, as I have explained in detail 

I am talking about WSL VT punches!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Hey, I am very happy to consider what you are saying for your martial arts that you do. Several of you have told me that you like to fight from a specific range, that you like to do direct applications from various drills at that range, that you use grappling and trapping. This is all okay with me! I like to learn about what other people do.
> 
> And I am answering from my own perspective in WSL VT, trying to tell you what we do. Obviously others have other ways which are not the WSL VT way



Well then, let me point out that....just like  Guy....you need to consider how you come across in the forum when you post.  You need to examine your "style" of posting.   For example....this comment you made:

_There is no ideal range from which to strike. Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns. Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us_.

That makes it sound like you are disagreeing with what we were saying about ranges of combat.  You could have written instead...."I see what you are saying, but in WSLVT we do not think of it this  way.  We don't use any ideal range from which to strike...."   You are telling us that by thinking this way we are being "one dimensional" and "predicatable."  Which isn't at all true.  If you were really interested in what we were talking about you would have pointed out how you see it might be "predicatable" and asked what we do about it.   Instead you just keep saying we are describing is wrong.  You don't always qualify that by saying "from a WSLVT perspective."


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Well, it is only a valid concept when we are talking about boxing or similar punches, but not when we are talking about WSL VT punches, as I have explained in detail
> 
> I am talking about WSL VT punches!



Well, as was pointed out to Guy....this is not a WSLVT specific forum.  This is a general Wing Chun forum.  What we were talking about does apply to other versions of Wing Chun.  So stop making definitive statements without being clear that you are only talking about WSLVT.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Well then, let me point out that....just like  Guy....you need to consider how you come across in the forum when you post.



Hey, I don't know this Guy of yours. How many times do I need to reinforce the message to you? I am not Guy 



> You need to examine your "style" of posting.   For example....this comment you made:
> 
> _There is no ideal range from which to strike. Thinking of fighting in this way leads to one dimensional and predictable movement patterns. Range is variable and we strike from very close to far out. It depends what the opponent shows us_.
> 
> That makes it sound like you are disagreeing with what we were saying about ranges of combat.  You could have written instead...."I see what you are saying, but in WSLVT we do not think of it this  way.  We don't use any ideal range from which to strike...."   You are telling us that by thinking this way we are being "one dimensional" and "predicatable."  Which isn't at all true.  If you were really interested in what we were talking about you would have pointed out how you see it might be "predicatable" and asked what we do about it.   Instead you just keep saying we are describing is wrong.  You don't always qualify that by saying "from a WSLVT perspective."



Of course I am only talking about my own experience in WSL VT. I don't know anything about your martial arts experience in JKD and other types of systems. Very sorry for my ignorant Dutch. I will be careful not to cause offence in future


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Well, as was pointed out to Guy....this is not a WSLVT specific forum.  This is a general Wing Chun forum.  What we were talking about does apply to other versions of Wing Chun.  So stop making definitive statements without being clear that you are only talking about WSLVT.



I will reference WSL VT as often as possible in future posts 

Good day to you!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I am not sure I am talking the same language as everyone, since previous discussion was all about fighting at a "trapping range" where we can do things like direct applications of the Lap Sau drill and enter into grappling.
> 
> Also the punch *with stepping* is the punch. The step is part of the punch because it moves the body and this momentum is what is used against the opponent, i.e. we hit with our body. This integral step is why the VT punch is not range limited in terms of any realistic fighting range.


Every style I'm aware of has a punch that includes a step. They often teach it static at first, but that's just to isolate the arm and hip movement for learning purposes. The length of the step taken with the punch is to get the punch into proper range, as well as delivering additional power from the body's momentum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> As to your first point you are focusing myopically on the things other forms of WC do that yours do not at that range.  The term "trapping" is only used as a reference for the range.  Can you trap there?  Yes.  Can you initiate grappling there?  Also yes.  This is not the point of the range however.  The point is at that range you can use every tool in the arsenal.  You can kick to the lower extremities, knee, elbow and punch.  Also with the closer range of the "picture perfect" WSLVT punch, even PB, that appears to be the ideal range.  If you watch the following montage, more often than not the range I speak of is the range PB is working to get to. Over and over again PB has also referred to the ideal of the short range involved in the VT punch, which when we see the videos of him is what some call "trapping range".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before the WC world doesn't use terms like "trapping" range.  However every WC system I have seen recognizes the significance of this "sweet spot" and even if you can't get there due to circumstances, it is still the sweet spot. In terms of simple training I think the best example is the mook jong.  It has three main purposes, in my experience.  The correct use of power and force, and synchronicity of action and the quickest route to a target.  The fact the mook is rigid, as we perform the drills, also forces us to maintain structure (Newton's laws and all of that.) The thing is what range are you at where you can do all these things?
> 
> That is the telling point, regardless of everything else.  If the majority of drills you do are in a specific space/range, those drills are telling you something about where your sweet spot is.
> 
> My hope is that the fact I used a non-WC term to describe the positioning of the sweet spot is causing the apparent confusion.


I think it's probably a useful term to use within WC (though not on a regular basis - perhaps special training sessions or seminars?) to highlight what else you are exposed to at that range. In NGA, we don't clinch much, but I'll sometimes refer to "clinching range" to remind students that they can be clinched there if the attacker has clinching experience, which is doubleplus ungood.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> No, the momentum from the footwork is an essential part of the punch in VT
> 
> 
> 
> If you are close enough to land a kick then you are also close enough to land  punch


To clarify the semantics on this, I'd suggest an edit to your second sentence: "If you are close enough to kick, you are close enough to step in and punch." I realize the step is part of the punching dynamics (it is in NGA, as well), but the actual punch cannot be executed if your step only carries you into the edge of kicking range. In fact, if we include the step in the kick (which also often happens), then it is no longer true that we can punch anywhere we can kick. A long step and long kick will hit from further away than a long step and punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't train with Philipp Bayer and so cannot speak for him, but you appear to have posted a clip showing a lot of training drills. I don't see what relevance these have to this discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no idea of sweet spot in WSL VT . My understanding is that the idea came from JKD


There may be no "idea" of it, but the sweet spot actually exists. When you step with your punch, you are adjusting that step to put your punch into what is the ideal range for that punch in that situation. If that weren't true, you'd just always step some random distance, regardless of the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> WSL VT has footwork with all punches, not most punches. It isn't a punch without footwork because the power comes from the footwork. Where the arm motion reaches is irrelevant.


I'm curious, then, because this is an interesting dynamic. If the sole focus is getting the punch in, and you must step to punch, how do you punch once you have closed the distance? Do you open that distance back up so you can step in again?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Western boxing punches are completely unlike VT punches in that they do indeed have a point on the arc of the punch where it is best to hit the opponent. This is because they rely upon momentum and weight shift within the upper body of the puncher. A VT punch works in a very different way and doesn't have the same problem.


A VT punch also requires the momentum of the body. If the person is more than a step (and arm) away, you'd take two steps (the second being the step with the punch). If you punched on the first step, the momentum of the punch would be wasted before it got to the target. The boxing punch is more targeted in distance than what you're describing of the VT punch, but every punch will have a point beyond which the momentum runs out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> We don't step in and then punch


If you are two steps away, what then?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Very sorry for any confusion in my language


Your English is quite good. I wouldn't worry about that. You've hit a sore spot for some folks in here, because your approach is very much like that of someone who used to post in these forums, who was unable to accept others' views, and also unable to discuss concepts in any terms other than his own. Give folks a chance to get to know you, and they may soften up a bit.


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> Western boxing punches are completely unlike VT punches in that they do indeed have a point on the arc of the punch where it is best to hit the opponent. This is because they rely upon momentum and weight shift within the upper body of the puncher. A VT punch works in a very different way and doesn't have the same problem.



That's interesting. Would love to see a demonstration on that?


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious, then, because this is an interesting dynamic. If the sole focus is getting the punch in, and you must step to punch, how do you punch once you have closed the distance? Do you open that distance back up so you can step in again?



We use different footwork in WSL VT when closer to the opponent, but still footwork is essential


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> A VT punch also requires the momentum of the body. If the person is more than a step (and arm) away, you'd take two steps (the second being the step with the punch). If you punched on the first step, the momentum of the punch would be wasted before it got to the target. The boxing punch is more targeted in distance than what you're describing of the VT punch, but every punch will have a point beyond which the momentum runs out.



I would call distance beyond which we can step and punch safe distance, in that opponent cannot do anything and neither can we 

A punch in VT uses body momentum in a different way to boxing. There is no sweet spot in the path of the punching arm in VT because there is no upper body torque, weight shift, and momentum. The VT punch is very hard to jam or move away from for this reason. It is uniform along the arm path because upper body is cut out of the action.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> We use different footwork in WSL VT when closer to the opponent, but still footwork is essential


But what do you do when you're already as close as you can get? How do you get to where you can punch with that step?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I would call distance beyond which we can step and punch safe distance, in that opponent cannot do anything and neither can we


Your opponent could step and kick (as you could, assuming WSLVT has stepping kicks).


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Your English is quite good. I wouldn't worry about that. You've hit a sore spot for some folks in here, because your approach is very much like that of someone who used to post in these forums, who was unable to accept others' views, and also unable to discuss concepts in any terms other than his own. Give folks a chance to get to know you, and they may soften up a bit.



I accept your views! I can't tell you what you are doing in your martial arts, that is for you to tell me


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> But what do you do when you're already as close as you can get? How do you get to where you can punch with that step?



Footwork doesn't necessarily have to be stepping


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Your opponent could step and kick (as you could, assuming WSLVT has stepping kicks).



The distance beyond step and punch can't hit with kick. You can choose step and punch or step and kick. I prefer to punch when I can.


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> That's interesting. Would love to see a demonstration on that?



Will see if I can find for you a clip on Youtube


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Footwork doesn't necessarily have to be stepping


I realize that. I'm referring to your explanation that a VT punch must have a step. I know that punch can be used from a very short distance, but what's the tactic/footwork for when you're too close to step? My primary art is a grappling/striking art, so we don't have the same advantages and limitations. I'm interested in learning how other styles and arts solve some of the principle issues like this - what their most common approaches are.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I realize that. I'm referring to your explanation that a VT punch must have a step. I know that punch can be used from a very short distance, but what's the tactic/footwork for when you're too close to step? My primary art is a grappling/striking art, so we don't have the same advantages and limitations. I'm interested in learning how other styles and arts solve some of the principle issues like this - what their most common approaches are.



Not sure I said it must be a step. Must be footwork- yes, must be momentum not from upper body weight shift- absolutely


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> The distance beyond step and punch can't hit with kick. You can choose step and punch or step and kick. I prefer to punch when I can.


I disagree with that. The leg is longer than the arm, so there's a distance at which a step and leg will out-reach a step and arm. You won't find me kicking at that distance much, but someone from Tae Kwon Do absolutely will, as likely will someone from most styles of Karate. It's one of the strengths of a kick that it can be executed from outside punching distance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Not sure I said it must be a step. Must be footwork- yes


Ah! Okay, I think you did say it had to be a step (or I'm just mis-remembering), but it makes sense that you can carry that same power shift with other footwork when there's no room for the step. Any chance you're aware of a video that shows this other footwork? I'm starting to get a better picture of how the punch you're describing works.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I disagree with that. The leg is longer than the arm, so there's a distance at which a step and leg will out-reach a step and arm. You won't find me kicking at that distance much, but someone from Tae Kwon Do absolutely will, as likely will someone from most styles of Karate. It's one of the strengths of a kick that it can be executed from outside punching distance.



I think you would be quite surprised at the distance we can step and punch in WSL VT


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Ah! Okay, I think you did say it had to be a step (or I'm just mis-remembering), but it makes sense that you can carry that same power shift with other footwork when there's no room for the step. Any chance you're aware of a video that shows this other footwork? I'm starting to get a better picture of how the punch you're describing works.



We use linear momentum learned in the pole form for punching at a distance, angular momentum closer.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Footwork doesn't necessarily have to be stepping



Here is another word of advice to make you seem less like Guy.  Actually answer questions asked directly of you rather than giving vague responses that tell nothing.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I think you would be quite surprised at the distance we can step and punch in WSL VT



And a good kicker can land a kick from quite a distance as well!  But hey, if you don't want to acknowledge what everyone else here is trying to explain to you in terms of distance and ranges, that's Ok by me!


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Here is another word of advice to make you seem less like Guy.  Actually answer questions asked directly of you rather than giving vague responses that tell nothing.



Please see the post directly above yours for more detail! I was trying to keep up with postings from GPseymour which were coming very fast 

I don't have the advantage of knowing your friend Guy and so any idea of appearing similar is lost on me I am afraid


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> And a good kicker can land a kick from quite a distance as well!  But hey, if you don't want to acknowledge what everyone else here is trying to explain to you in terms of distance and ranges, that's Ok by me!



Okay, glad we can agree to disagree


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> We use linear momentum learned in the pole form for punching at a distance, angular momentum closer.



Sorry I am bit confused here. Are you saying that on the centre line delivering the punch, then rotate at the point of contact?


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> Sorry I am bit confused here. Are you saying that on the centre line delivering the punch, then rotate at the point of contact?



Sorry, I don't know what you mean? Can you explain further?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I think you would be quite surprised at the distance we can step and punch in WSL VT


It's the same distance anyone can step and punch: the longest structured step you can take, plus the length of your arm (at the appropriate extension for your punch). My point is that the same step distance can be paired with a kick. Since the leg is longer than the arm, the step-kick has a bit more range than the step-punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> We use linear momentum learned in the pole form for punching at a distance, angular momentum closer.


Ah! Again a bit of different semantics, as I'd refer to those as two different punches. That's only because I'd classify them by the principle of the momentum behind them. Obviously, since you guys classify them as the same punch, they must be pretty much the same other than that difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Please see the post directly above yours for more detail! I was trying to keep up with postings from GPseymour which were coming very fast
> 
> I don't have the advantage of knowing your friend Guy and so any idea of appearing similar is lost on me I am afraid


As you can see, there's a reason I have "top poster of the month" (which I usually refer to as "top postwhore of the month"). I tend to respond in short snippets as if we were actually having a conversation. Unfortunately, it breaks up the conversation a bit in forums. Thanks for keeping up!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> No, the momentum from the footwork is an essential part of the punch in VT
> 
> If you are close enough to land a kick then you are also close enough to land  punch


Do you have any WC clip that shows footwork training?

Leg is longer than the arm. This is why there is "kicking range" and "punching range".

All CMA styles emphasize on footwork. Some CMA systems use principle such as:

"You may not detect any opening on your opponent. You still keep moving and moving. When you are moving, soon or later, you will find opportunity to attack."

I have not seen this "principle" used in the WC system yet. I also have not seen the following footwork trained in the WC system.






When you train the form in the following clip, it will take you half of the basketball field to complete. This is what I'll call "emphasize on footwork training". IMO, compare to other CMA systems, WC doesn't emphasize footwork enough. Instead of moving around, WC guards his own space very well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> but you appear to have posted a clip showing a lot of training drills. I don't see what relevance these have to this discussion?


I know you did not address this to me. But if we are talking about WC "outside game", we have to compare the "outside game" used by other CMA systems as well. We cannot just close our WC door and discuss among ourselves. May be in your mind that WC system has enough "outside game". But from other CMA point of view, the WC "outside game" is far from enough.

IMO, it's better to put up clips as examples, otherwise the discussion is just too "abstract".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> If you are two steps away, what then?


There are 

- 1 step 1 punch,
- 1 step 2 punches,
- 1 step 3 punches,
- ...

There are also 

- 2 steps 1 punch,
- 3 steps 1 punch (running punch),
- ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I had a problem with one of my plugins and with the staging setup, and had to revert to a standard theme for now. I need to either figure out what that plugin doesn't like about your theme (happens sometimes even with commercial themes), or figure out how to recreate that design in the theme I'm using. The site looks decent, but has a ways to go, yet.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> It's the same distance anyone can step and punch: the longest structured step you can take, plus the length of your arm (at the appropriate extension for your punch). My point is that the same step distance can be paired with a kick. Since the leg is longer than the arm, the step-kick has a bit more range than the step-punch.



It is quite possible to do more than 1 step


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> It is quite possible to do more than 1 step



Also possible to do Zumba and swing your arms.


----------



## Hazardi172

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any WC clip that shows footwork training?
> 
> Leg is longer than the arm. This is why there is "kicking range" and "punching range".
> 
> All CMA styles emphasize on footwork. Some CMA systems use principle such as:
> 
> "You may not detect any opening on your opponent. You still keep moving and moving. When you are moving, soon or later, you will find opportunity to attack."
> 
> I have not seen this "principle" used in the WC system yet. I also have not seen the following footwork trained in the WC system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you train the form in the following clip, it will take you half of the basketball field to complete. This is what I'll call "emphasize on footwork training". IMO, compare to other CMA systems, WC doesn't emphasize footwork enough. Instead of moving around, WC guards his own space very well.



I don't have any clip of VT stepping training. We almost always do tui ma seung ma drills which is stepping with force (drill for power generation and imparting of momentum), plus isolated stepping drills (drill for imprinting of stepping pattern). We do these all of the time, it is a feature of every class.


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> Also possible to do Zumba and swing your arms.



Not sure what Zumba is?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> To clarify the semantics on this, I'd suggest an edit to your second sentence: "If you are close enough to kick, you are close enough to step in and punch." I realize the step is part of the punching dynamics (it is in NGA, as well), but the actual punch cannot be executed if your step only carries you into the edge of kicking range. In fact, if we include the step in the kick (which also often happens), then it is no longer true that we can punch anywhere we can kick. A long step and long kick will hit from further away than a long step and punch.



If you are discussing ranges,saftey distances and timing.  The step is considered a separate move. 

This is because if they have time to step.  Then you have time to step. 

This all effects what you can do defensively at what range.  Even simple things like when to get your hands up.  But people who are really good at making that range work can create really good opportunities for counter striking. 

As far as punching vs kicking. 

Take a bigger step.


----------



## Hazardi172

drop bear said:


> If you are discussing ranges,saftey distances and timing.  The step is considered a separate move.
> 
> This is because if they have time to step.  Then you have time to step.
> 
> This all effects what you can do defensively at what range.  Even simple things like when to get your hands up.  But people who are really good at making that range work can create really good opportunities for counter striking.
> 
> As far as punching vs kicking.
> 
> Take a bigger step.



Take a big step I agree!

But step not considered a separate move in WSL VT- is an integral part of the punch. Movement very important


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> Not sure what Zumba is?



Said it jest It is the fitness dance craze which actually is a good cardio workout, plus also a good coordination excercise. What ever art anybody practices, also good to have a sideline to aid keeping sharp.


----------



## geezer

OK -- i think I get_ Hazardi's_ point that the step/body movement and punch are united...that they are essentially o_ne and the same _if your punch is to be more than just "arm-power". I learned the same concept in our WC/VT and in Latosa Escrima as well -- although the mechanics in Escrima are very different. I will disagree with_ Hazardi_ on the issue of range, however.

There are limiting factors of r_each_ and _how far you can step_. These limitations are not the same for all individuals and all styles. Tall, lanky individuals who are athletically gifted can usually cover more ground than shorter limbed, heavier individuals. And there is the issue of long range weapons vs. short range weapons. Legs are longer than arms, and some kicks from other systems are much more extended than anything I've seen in VT/WC/WT.  All this means that all fighting arts. (including WSL-VT) must consider distance!

If _Hazardi _disagrees, that's fine.  ...but this is my understanding.

BTW, _Hazardi _--no worries about your English. I spent a few weeks in the Netherlands as a youth in the early 1970s, and even back then I found that many Dutch folk spoke better English than a good many Americans! Your English is fine, just try to keep an open mind about what others may have experienced. Let's not get bogged-down in battling over words when we may actually not be so very far apart in what we are saying. The poster "Guy," your WSL-VT predecessor on this forum, played such word games _deliberately_ and made a lot of enemies here out of people who otherwise have a lot of respect for the WSL-VT lineage. I'd hate to see that happen again!


----------



## Hazardi172

geezer said:


> OK -- i think I get_ Hazardi's_ point that the step/body movement and punch are united...that they are essentially o_ne and the same _if your punch is to be more than just "arm-power". I learned the same concept in our WC/VT and in Latosa Escrima as well -- although the mechanics in Escrima are very different. I will disagree with_ Hazardi_ on the issue of range, however.
> 
> There are limiting factors of r_each_ and _how far you can step_. These limitations are not the same for all individuals and all styles. Tall, lanky individuals who are athletically gifted can usually cover more ground than shorter limbed, heavier individuals. And there is the issue of long range weapons vs. short range weapons. Legs are longer than arms, and some kicks from other systems are much more extended than anything I've seen in VT/WC/WT.  All this means that all fighting arts. (including WSL-VT) must consider distance!
> 
> If _Hazardi _disagrees, that's fine.  ...but this is my understanding.



I don't disagree, but would add that more than 1 step is possible! 



> BTW, _Hazardi _--no worries about your English. I spent a few weeks in the Netherlands as a youth in the early 1970s, and even back then I found that many Dutch folk spoke better English than a good many Americans! Your English is fine, just try to keep an open mind about what others may have experienced. Let's not get bogged-down in battling over words when we may actually not be so very far apart in what we are saying. The poster "Guy," your WSL-VT predecessor on this forum, played such word games _deliberately_ and made a lot of enemies here out of people who otherwise have a lot of respect for the WSL-VT lineage. I'd hate to see that happen again!



Very kind your opinion on my English. I have no desire to make enemies here, just want to represent WSL VT


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> Said it jest It is the fitness dance craze which actually is a good cardio workout, plus also a good coordination excercise. What ever art anybody practices, also good to have a sideline to aid keeping sharp.



Okay, groet!


----------



## wingchun100

I have totally lost track of where this thread went. Then again, having ignored members is probably why I don't understand the sudden reference to Zumba. lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> It is quite possible to do more than 1 step


As it is with the kick. That's my point. You can use the same number of steps whether you are punching or kicking, so the difference in range is the difference in the reach of the limb. The hands are quicker and more stable, the legs are longer and often more powerful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> I have totally lost track of where this thread went. Then again, having ignored members is probably why I don't understand the sudden reference to Zumba. lol


No, the Zumba reference is quite sudden. Transk was having some fun, I think.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> The punch without the foorwork is not the VT punch. Footwork required



That is virtually a generic WC/VT principle in my experience, not WSLVT only.




> In WSL VT the punch and kick land from the same range. We don't think "now we are in kicking range, we must kick, not we are closer we must punch, now closer still we must initiate the Lap Sau drill". Mostly we are attacking with punches from any and all ranges
> 
> You wing chun may be different and that's ok with me



I'll try again.  First my point was that it is a biological fact that a leg is longer than an arm.  Ergo, in theory, a kick can land before a punch can.  Yes many WC forms only use low kicks but there was a reason I noted the issue.  "Sweet spots" transcend any particular system.  

A "sweet spot" is not tied to a specific punch, nor is it the only spot or required spot to fight in.  All fighting systems that are worth a darn have to trained to fight with the flow of the fight.  However from a purely style neutral, and analytical, point of view every fighting style has a place to fight that is "optimal" for the style in question.  My brother in law is a TKD guy.  TKD has punches, even some basic locks and takedowns in close but it's strength is the powerful kicks so it's optimal spot is kicking range.  I work with a BJJ guy.  His school actually adds a bit more striking than some others (the instructor is also a Muay Thai guy) but still my co-worker's optimal space is grappling and going to the ground.  
The same applies to WC/VT.  As you say where you can punch is also where you can kick.  This range, where we start to have the ability to use all of our tools, is our optimal range.  

That is all a "sweet spot" is.  Its not a fixed point where one must fight.  Fighting is a dynamic encounter where you have to be able to flow in response to every changing circumstances.  The "sweet spot"  is simply the place of maximum performance.  





> There is no such sweet spot in WSL VT due to the nature of the punch. Other punches may differ



I understand the nature of the WSLVT punch.  Everything you have described with regards to generating maximum power is consistent with my current and former WC.  I will acknowledge however that the major focus on the punch is certainly different than my currebt WC because we see the punch as a useful tool and the first you start with but, eventually, we tend to prefer palm strikes for a number of reasons (mostly biological, not strategic, in nature).  

Thing is, even if I didn't understand the WSLVT punch at all no functional punch can violate biomechanical laws or the laws of physics.  If you get too close, a straight punch, regardless of the source of power, has less strength.  Too far away, even if you can connect, the same. Force = mass * acceleration.  

The footwork and punch technique determines how you get the mass behind the punch and it's optimal acceleration.  Too close and first you don't get maximum acceleration (as that is a factor of distance traveled.  Closer still and the effective mass is also reduced due to restricted footwork.  This is where I say "thank God for knees and elbows."

To far and you risk overextending your punch.  This both reduced the effective mass and the velocity as you are on the deceleration side of the velocity curve.

The "sweet spot" for every punch, especially a straight punch, is that place where your footwork and technique allows for the maximum application of effective mass and the optimal extension of the arm for maximum velocity.  Thats physics and biomechanics.  It just so happens that because of the preferred kicking method in WC/VT this spot for maximum punch effectiveness is also a place where you can also kick, some styles trap, etc.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I know you did not address this to me. But if we are talking about WC "outside game", we have to compare the "outside game" used by other CMA systems as well. We cannot just close our WC door and discuss among ourselves. May be in your mind that WC system has enough "outside game". But from other CMA point of view, the WC "outside game" is far from enough.
> 
> IMO, it's better to put up clips as examples, otherwise the discussion is just too "abstract".



The OP did eventually say that it was more a devil's advocate kinda thing though. 

That said, indeed other CMAs have a "deeper" outside game.  I see that when I stop into the local Tien Shan Pai school on patrol.  That  said we have to look at each "game" as part of a hole imo.  Earlier I posted various kicks and even what some may even call a "long punch" from Sifu Gary Lam.  "No Outside Game," or Another Thread About Hybrid Arts So the game is there in the two WC forms I have studied. 

The reason others are deeper (and longer) I think has to do with the overall idea of WC/VT.  In WC the ideal position is to be able to attack and defend simultaneously with both hands (for among other reasons), so a more sideways stance that may provide for slightly longer range is something to be avoided.  So the "outside game" exists for when you find yourself forced there to get back into where you are strongest.  It is there, for a specific purpose.

IMO, if you are looking to fill a gap, as the OP suggests your first step is to look at your entire system in a holistic manner and see where the biggest gap is.  That is why I usually suggest, if someone is looking to add to their WC/VT I suggest an art with a deeper grappling game.  It doesn't have to be as grappling specific as say Judo and Aikido etc.  I think those would work well if you knew them before you came to WC.  If however you started in WC I would suggest something like this which exists in a number of FMA styles in one shape or another.





The general body mechanics, the basic practical concepts etc are not dissimilar to WC, though a little adaptation would be required (the specific punching method and body structure is obviously different but it's like looking at (and to me feels like) cousins vs aliens) and so you have what amounts to a ready made "plug in" transition from striking to full on grappling.  At least in my experience.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> In WC the ideal position is to be able to attack and defend simultaneously with both hands (for among other reasons), so a more sideways stance that may provide for slightly longer range is something to be avoided.


This is the main issue of this discussion. If you want to

- be able to punch your opponent with both hands, you can't have maximum reach with one long arm and one short arm.
- have the maximum reach with one hand, you can't reach your opponent with the other short hand.

IMO, the ability to be able to switch from one mode into another mode and back is important. Most WC guys only know one mode. Most long fist guy also only know one mode. This is why the "cross training" is a must.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the main issue of this discussion. If you want to
> 
> - be able to punch your opponent with both hands, you can't have maximum reach with one long arm and one short arm.
> - have the maximum reach with one hand, you can't reach your opponent with the other short hand.
> 
> IMO, the ability to be able to switch from one mode into another mode and back is important.



I am not saying that isn't important, it's a matter of prioritization.  Most people who study TMA's in my experience have "day jobs".  With the kind of time constraints that brings about, again just my opinion, you look at your art and say "this could be a little better, that a little better too BUT here I have something that needs to be A LOT better", it's the later I wish to focus on.  Is that a bit anal retentive?  Yepper, it's just how I am wired.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> As it is with the kick. That's my point. You can use the same number of steps whether you are punching or kicking, so the difference in range is the difference in the reach of the limb. The hands are quicker and more stable, the legs are longer and often more powerful.



Stepping and kicking is slower than stepping and punching, and step size is limited with kicking compared to punching. There is no difference in range in my experience, and punching with a step is faster


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> That is virtually a generic WC/VT principle in my experience, not WSLVT only.
> 
> First my point was that it is a biological fact that a leg is longer than an arm. Ergo, in theory, a kick can land before a punch can.



A punch is not the arm motion, it is the entire motion including the footwork 



> That is all a "sweet spot" is.  Its not a fixed point where one must fight.  Fighting is a dynamic encounter where you have to be able to flow in response to every changing circumstances.  The "sweet spot"  is simply the place of maximum performance



Because we can punch from the range that you feel is a range for kicking only, there is no "sweet spot" in WSL VT punching



> Thing is, even if I didn't understand the WSLVT punch at all no functional punch can violate biomechanical laws or the laws of physics.  If you get too close, a straight punch, regardless of the source of power, has less strength.  Too far away, even if you can connect, the same. Force = mass * acceleration.
> 
> The footwork and punch technique determines how you get the mass behind the punch and it's optimal acceleration.
> 
> Too close and first you don't get maximum acceleration (as that is a factor of distance traveled.  Closer still and the effective mass is also reduced due to restricted footwork.  This is where I say "thank God for knees and elbows."



Thanks for the physics lesson, but sounds a bit like you are confused between momentum, speed and acceleration in the WSL VT punch! Also sounds like you didn't take account of how momentum is generated at closer distances in WSL VT 

If it works this way in your wing chun then that's ok with me, but sounds wrong for WSL VT



> The "sweet spot" for every punch, especially a straight punch, is that place where your footwork and technique allows for the maximum application of effective mass and the optimal extension of the arm for maximum velocity.  Thats physics and biomechanics.  It just so happens that because of the preferred kicking method in WC/VT this spot for maximum punch effectiveness is also a place where you can also kick, some styles trap, etc.



We can punch from any effective distance in fighting. There is no "sweet spot" in WSL VT


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> A punch is not the arm motion, it is the entire motion including the footwork
> 
> 
> 
> Because we can punch from the range that you feel is a range for kicking only, there is no "sweet spot" in WSL VT punching
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the physics lesson, but sounds a bit like you are confused between momentum, speed and acceleration in the WSL VT punch! Also sounds like you didn't take account of how momentum is generated at closer distances in WSL VT
> 
> If it works this way in your wing chun then that's ok with me, but sounds wrong for WSL VT
> 
> 
> 
> We can punch from any effective distance in fighting. There is no "sweet spot" in WSL VT



First of course footwork is part of making a punch...Even Western Boxing does this, two parts, making a whole.  To make this sound like it is WSLVT exclusive is wrong in the extreme.

As for you part about confusion...Sorry not confused at all.  The power/strength of any strike is a result of the following equation... F=M*V.  Unless WSLVT is Harry Potter magic, which I know it is not, it obeys the same rules.  

The only difference between various martial arts is how the biomechanics make the equation work, but the equation remains and I even explained how it applies specifically to a WSLVT punch.  Sifu Gary Lam did not reinvent that punch in what he teaches.  The only thing he may have changed (since he is the only student of WSL whose WC/VT I have studied), in terms of the punch, is to do away with what I personally term "special sauce" dogma.  There is no "special sauce".  There is physics and biomechanics.  The reason why I first went to WSLVT, via Sifu Gary is because WSL called his VT a "Science" and not an art.  If however you wish to believe your WC/VT doesnt follow science, and is instead an esoteric art of some sort, well, good luck to you.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> As for you part about confusion...Sorry not confused at all.  The power/strength of any strike is a result of the following equation... F=M*V.  Unless WSLVT is Harry Potter magic, which I know it is not, it obeys the same rules



As I said my friend, please do spare me the amateur physics lesson. It is just going to be embarrassing  (you have your equation wrong above for example, plus are talking about the wrong thing). 



> The only difference between various martial arts is how the biomechanics make the equation work, but the equation remains and I even explained how it applies specifically to a WSLVT punch.



You haven't said anything that I recognise in terms of the WSL VT punch 



> Sifu Gary Lam did not reinvent that punch in what he teaches.  The only thing he may have changed (since he is the only student of WSL whose WC/VT I have studied), in terms of the punch, is to do away with what I personally term "special sauce" dogma.  There is no "special sauce".  There is physics and biomechanics.  The reason why I first went to WSLVT, via Sifu Gary is because WSL called his VT a "Science" and not an art.  If however you wish to believe your WC/VT doesnt follow science, and is instead an esoteric art of some sort, well, good luck to you.



Gary Lam wing chun is Gary Lam's, not WSL's. For how long did you study with Gary Lam?


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> As I said my friend, please do spare me the amateur physics lesson. It is just going to be embarrassing  (you have your equation wrong above for example, plus are talking about the wrong thing).
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said anything that I recognise in terms of the WSL VT punch
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Lam wing chun is Gary Lam's, not WSL's. For how long did you study with Gary Lam?


You just confirmed a suspicion with the first response.  Physics is physics.  That said I mean really trying to make it look like a student of WSL would reinvent the wheel, I mean the punch. There really is no point in debating under those circumstances since science can never defeat heart felt dogma. Kinda disappointing really.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> You just confirmed a suspicion with the first response.  Physics is physics.  That said I mean really trying to make it look like a student of WSL would reinvent the wheel, I mean the punch. There really is no point in debating under those circumstances since science can never defeat heart felt dogma. Kinda disappointing really.



Your last post said F = M x V

This is not correct. Plus you are trying to use the wrong equation I think


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> You just confirmed a suspicion with the first response.  Physics is physics.  That said I mean really trying to make it look like a student of WSL would reinvent the wheel, I mean the punch. There really is no point in debating under those circumstances since science can never defeat heart felt dogma. Kinda disappointing really.



Yeah but bad physics is also bad physics. And at best you judge punching by pounds per square inch not force. And even then that is not the whole story.

Whether or not the punch works or not is a different story.


----------



## drop bear

Hazardi172 said:


> Take a big step I agree!
> 
> But step not considered a separate move in WSL VT- is an integral part of the punch. Movement very important



You cant take a step every time you punch. If you did and were in close throwing combinations you would look like you were tap dancing.

From what I understand the idea is instead of reaching for the target. You walk into position. And then throw. Or throw at the same time, whatever.

I do bits of both but I have more than one method I may be applying at any given time.

Which is the whole point of hybridization in the first place.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah but bad physics is also bad physics. And at best you judge punching by pounds per square inch not force. And even then that is not the whole story.
> 
> Whether or not the punch works or not is a different story.



Lbs per square inch is a result of the force delivered.  The equation for force is m*a.  Yes you end up with the surface area of the area you are using to strike with, but the starting point is still f=m*a.

Body mechanics, of a specific type of punch, and range to target determine this. Being in the right place in space, in relation to the target, influences how the body mechanics succeed or fail in this regard.  That is all I am saying, if you didn't read all of the back and forth.

The view I was responding to is that your specific position in relation to the target doesn't matter, in essence there is no "too close" or "too far" from the target, the same exact kind of punch always hits with maximum effectiveness regardless of position according to the point I have been disputing.  

Few things I will say are just "wrong", but this is one of them, and the point I have been addressing.  Even a crap punch hits more weakly if too close or to far from the target.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Stepping and kicking is slower than stepping and punching, and step size is limited with kicking compared to punching. There is no difference in range in my experience, and punching with a step is faster



You really need to get out more and  see other martial arts.  Because that is simply not true!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> We can punch from any effective distance in fighting. There is no "sweet spot" in WSL VT



Please explain how you would punch an opponent that is standing in his fighting stance 5 feet away from you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Stepping and kicking is slower than stepping and punching, and step size is limited with kicking compared to punching. There is no difference in range in my experience, and punching with a step is faster


I'm not sure why you think step size has to be more limited for kicking. Any step I can use for a punch, I can use a similar one for a kick (and I'm not a kicking expert). And, yes, kicking is slower. I actually mentioned that ("hands are quicker). It's not a matter of preference of one over the other (I far prefer using my hands). If you want to see how big a step can be used with the kicks, look at some of the videos Jow Ga Wolf has posted in other threads; they can take some very deep steps and sweep off them. Or look at some of the big steps Tae Kwon Do practitioners use to lead into some of their kicks. And many of those long-stepping kicks end up being rear-leg kicks, which bring the rear hip forward, extending the reach even further.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> A punch is not the arm motion, it is the entire motion including the footwork


Here's where you're confusing the discussion, Hazardi. The footwork has two functions: weight transfer (momentum for the strike) and ranging. You've said that the footwork can be used to close the distance, or it can be a different footwork if there's no need to close distance. When you use that second type of footwork, it's because you're in the sweet spot for the strike. When you use a long entering step, it's because you're not in the sweet spot at the beginning of the movement. It doesn't matter that the footwork is integral to the punch - you're still using it in one case to change the range to something that makes the strike useful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Thanks for the physics lesson, but sounds a bit like you are confused between momentum, speed and acceleration in the WSL VT punch! Also sounds like you didn't take account of how momentum is generated at closer distances in WSL VT


Actually, he's just citing physics. That's the physics for all strikes, because it's physics. Force = Mass * Acceleration. To hit with maximum force for a given strike, you need as much mass as that strike can gather behind it (the reason an arm-only punch isn't useful), and you need that mass moving with as much speed as possible for that strike. The acceleration in the equation is how quickly the mass has to stop (which is mostly dependent upon how fast it is moving at the point of initial impact). If a strike is over-extended, it begins negative acceleration before contact (reducing speed, and therefore reducing the "acceleration" component in the force equation). Momentum is essentially an expression of stored potential force.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> As I said my friend, please do spare me the amateur physics lesson. It is just going to be embarrassing  (you have your equation wrong above for example, plus are talking about the wrong thing).
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't said anything that I recognise in terms of the WSL VT punch
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Lam wing chun is Gary Lam's, not WSL's. For how long did you study with Gary Lam?


Actually, the only thing he has wrong in his equation is that he's citing velocity, rather than acceleration. That's actually only a difference in timing (acceleration is a function of the velocity at the moment of initial impact). And if you don't recognize those physics in relation to your punch, then you don't understand your punch. There's no strike that is exempt from these basic biomechanics and physics.

You're getting condescending again ("it's going to be embarrassing").


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> The equation for force is m*a. Yes you end up with the surface area of the area you are using to strike with, but the starting point is still f=m*a.



Before you said it was F = M x V. You now say F = M x A? Are you sure now


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Please explain how you would punch an opponent that is standing in his fighting stance 5 feet away from you.



Punch!


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure why you think step size has to be more limited for kicking.



The kind of step used with punching from far out in VT loads the weights so that kicking impossible immediately. The step for a kick is shorter and more balanced


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> When you use that second type of footwork, it's because you're in the sweet spot for the strike.



I would say when we use the first footwork we are far out, and the second when close in. Neither is because we are in any "sweet spot" because the punch is not seperable from the footwork. We just punch as required


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> The kind of step used with punching from far out in VT loads the weights so that kicking impossible immediately. The step for a kick is shorter and more balanced


That doesn't change the fact that there are other steps that can be used to enter and kick from that range. You'll note that I never said anything about the kick or punch being specific to any style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I would say when we use the first footwork we are far out, and the second when close in. Neither is because we are in any "sweet spot" because the punch is not seperable from the footwork. We just punch as required


You're lost in the semantics. You use a bigger step because the shorter step leaves you outside the effective range of the strike.


----------



## wckf92

gpseymour said:


> You're lost in the semantics. You use a bigger step because the shorter step leaves you outside the effective range of the strike.



I'm not so sure he is lost...if I understand him correctly, he is using entirely different footwork pattern(s) when moving from far vs near etc. One is linear, one is more "triangular"...learned via the forms and drills. [not speaking for hazardi, just my .02 from my perspective.] thx.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wckf92 said:


> I'm not so sure he is lost...if I understand him correctly, he is using entirely different footwork pattern(s) when moving from far vs near etc. One is linear, one is more "triangular"...learned via the forms and drills. [not speaking for hazardi, just my .02 from my perspective.] thx.


I understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that which is chosen is driven by the need for the footwork to lead to an effective striking distance. His argument is that the step is so integral to the strike (actually true of strikes in many styles) that the range doesn't matter. That would imply that if he's far enough away to use a linear step, he should be able to take any length of step (at random) and deliver an equally effective strike, since range doesn't affect the strike.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't change the fact that there are other steps that can be used to enter and kick from that range. You'll note that I never said anything about the kick or punch being specific to any style.



The maximum step for any kick is going to be shorter than the equivalent maximum step for a punch, that's because kicking requires you stand on one leg and cannot commit weight as far as when you punch


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> Stepping and kicking is slower than stepping and punching,...


When you kick, if the distance is far, you have to step in your back leg (rooting leg) before you can kick out your front leg (attacking leg).






But when you step in your back leg, before you land your back foot down, you can kick your front foot out at the same time. It's called "jumping kick" that you combine your "step" and "kick" into 1 move instead of 2 separate moves.






If you do the same for the punch, I believe it's called "superman punch". Which one is faster? IMO, both can have the same speed.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> You're lost in the semantics. You use a bigger step because the shorter step leaves you outside the effective range of the strike.



The strike isn't separable from the footwork, footwork part of strike. You strike as required to hit what is there


----------



## Hazardi172

wckf92 said:


> I'm not so sure he is lost...if I understand him correctly, he is using entirely different footwork pattern(s) when moving from far vs near etc. One is linear, one is more "triangular"...learned via the forms and drills. [not speaking for hazardi, just my .02 from my perspective.] thx.



Thanks for being open to my point of view


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Please explain how you would punch an opponent that is standing in his fighting stance 5 feet away from you.





Hazardi172 said:


> Punch!


Hazardi, Your answer to KPM's question is too "abstract". IMO, that's not "sincere enough" for online discussion. Just 1 word "Punch", or "Bong" is just too short.

To respond to one of your posts, besides text, I have put up 2 clips and 1 picture.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Punch!



That is not an explanation Guy!   Please refer back to my previous word of advice!


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the only thing he has wrong in his equation is that he's citing velocity, rather than acceleration. That's actually only a difference in timing (acceleration is a function of the velocity at the moment of initial impact). And if you don't recognize those physics in relation to your punch, then you don't understand your punch. There's no strike that is exempt from these basic biomechanics and physics.



He did get his equation wrong, which doesn't make me confident he knows what he is talking about, or that it will bring any light to the situation we are discussing. I have seen people bring in the pseudo physics discussion on forums before and usually it isn't helpful because nobody is a physicist or engineer.

In this particular instance I would say that the F=ma equation is the wrong one to look at the problem. Momentum much more useful for colliding bodies problems


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> The kind of step used with punching from far out in VT loads the weights so that kicking impossible immediately. The step for a kick is shorter and more balanced



Only in WSLVT.  We are talking about facing people other than Wing Chun people.  Again, you repeatedly make it sound like you only spar with people within your own school also doing Wing Chun.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> That is not an explanation Guy!   Please refer back to my previous word of advice!



Please stop harassing me. I am not Guy


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> The maximum step for any kick is going to be shorter than the equivalent maximum step for a punch, that's because kicking requires you stand on one leg and cannot commit weight as far as when you punch



Again, totally wrong for any style other than Wing Chun.  As I said before, you really need to get exposure to martial styles other than Wing Chun.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Only in WSLVT.  We are talking about facing people other than Wing Chun people.  Again, you repeatedly make it sound like you only spar with people within your own school also doing Wing Chun.



Kicking requires a shorter step because of the need to kick after the step, simple reality of legs and weight


----------



## Hazardi172

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Hazardi, Your answer to KPM's question is too "abstract". IMO, that's not "sincere enough" for online discussion. Just 1 word "Punch", or "Bong" is just too short.



I have already explained in detail that the step is an integral part of the punch. So when I need to punch someone at greater distance I do not think "I must step and punch this person", I just punch them!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Please stop harassing me. I am not Guy



Then stop acting like Guy!  Several of us have already pointed out the problems with how you are posting that  were the same thing Guy did.  However, it appears that you have made no effort to change that pattern.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Kicking requires a shorter step because of the need to kick after the step, simple reality of legs and weight



What?  That makes not sense at all.   The kick is often PART of the step and moves in very quickly covering a lot of distance.  Someone often doesn't step and then kick, just as you have said that you don't step and then punch. 







This guy shows how he can kick with a single step from 8 feet out!


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I have already explained in detail that the step is an integral part of the punch. So when I need to punch someone at greater distance I do not think "I must step and punch this person", I just punch them!



And again, how does that work if you are standing 5 feet away from the opponent who is waiting in his fighting stance?   Are you going to make a huge leaping step while punching to cover that distance and hope he doesn't move out of the way in the meantime?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> I have already explained in detail that the step is an integral part of the punch. So when I need to punch someone at greater distance I do not think "I must step and punch this person", I just punch them!


Again, you did not give enough detail there.

With my right side forward, I can

1. step in my right leg and my left back leg follows (1/2 step).
2. step in my back leg to touch my front leg, I then step in my front leg (1 step).
3. step in my right leg, step in my back leg to touch my front leg, I then step in my front leg (1 and 1/2 step).
4. step in my back leg in front my front leg, I then step in my front leg (2 steps).
5. ...

Depending on the distance, I have to decide whether I should use 1, 2, 3, 4, or ... Do I have to think? Yes, I do.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> What?  That makes not sense at all.   The kick is often PART of the step and moves in very quickly covering a lot of distance.  Someone often doesn't step and then kick, just as you have said that you don't step and then punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy shows how he can kick with a single step from 8 feet out!



This is 2 steps, is stilted and slow, and second step length is limited by the need to kick. A 2 step punch is both faster and covers more distance


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Then stop acting like Guy!


I can still remember if you don't agree with Guy, he will say that you do not understand WC. That kind attitude make online discussion very difficult and not fun at all.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> And again, how does that work if you are standing 5 feet away from the opponent who is waiting in his fighting stance?   Are you going to make a huge leaping step while punching to cover that distance and hope he doesn't move out of the way in the meantime?



I don't consider 5 feet to be very far? As I said, punch with the integral footwork. It is faster than the kick shown in your video, which as a JKD guy I assume you think is ok?

Again I have no problem with your kick approach, to each their own. I just prefer to punch instead because faster and less obvious


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> This is 2 steps, is stilted and slow, and second step length is limited by the need to kick. A 2 step punch is both faster and covers more distance



It isn't two steps.  The front foot leaves the ground as the step begins and doesn't return to the ground until after the kick lands.  That is one step.   But what is a 2 step punch?  Didn't you say that you don't step and then punch....you just punch?  So what is a 2 step punch for you?


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Then stop acting like Guy!  Several of us have already pointed out the problems with how you are posting that  were the same thing Guy did.  However, it appears that you have made no effort to change that pattern.



I have no experience of your famous friend Guy and so do not know how I should behave in order to act more or less like him. You seem quite angry at him though and however I post, since I am not him, I do not deserve that anger. Please speak to Guy if you still have problems with him


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't consider 5 feet to be very far? As I said, punch with the integral footwork. It is faster than the kick shown in your video, which as a JKD guy I assume you think is ok?
> 
> Again I have no problem with your kick approach, to each their own. I just prefer to punch instead because faster and less obvious



So again, how are you covering that distance with a single step and punch?   And its fine if that is  what you prefer.  But you keep telling us  that we are wrong in what we are saying.  That is much different than simply stating that you prefer to do it differently.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I have no experience of your famous friend Guy and so do not know how I should behave in order to act more or less like him. You seem quite angry at him though and however I post, since I am not him, I do not deserve that anger. Please speak to Guy if you still have problems with him



Again, you have received several words of advice so  far as to how to post less like Guy.  But you seem to ignore that advice.  Why is that?


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> It isn't two steps.  The front foot leaves the ground as the step begins and doesn't return to the ground until after the kick lands.  That is one step.   But what is a 2 step punch?  Didn't you say that you don't step and then punch....you just punch?  So what is a 2 step punch for you?



It is 2 actions, step then kick, 2 steps or stages. A 2 step punch would be a step then a punch


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> So again, how are you covering that distance with a single step and punch?   And its fine if that is  what you prefer.  But you keep telling us  that we are wrong in what we are saying.  That is much different than simply stating that you prefer to do it differently.



5 feet can be covered with the footwork of a single punch


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> It is 2 actions, step then kick, 2 steps or stages. A 2 step punch would be a step then a punch



I don't know what video you are watching.  But you seem to be denying reality here.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> 5 feet can be covered with the footwork of a single punch




You still haven't explained it.  How about posting a video of it as  we have with the kicking?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> He did get his equation wrong, which doesn't make me confident he knows what he is talking about, or that it will bring any light to the situation we are discussing. I have seen people bring in the pseudo physics discussion on forums before and usually it isn't helpful because nobody is a physicist or engineer.
> 
> In this particular instance I would say that the F=ma equation is the wrong one to look at the problem. Momentum much more useful for colliding bodies problems


Momentum is a function of mass and velocity (which is probably why Juany put those in the equation). It's the same thing: momentum exists before the point of initial impact, while acceleration happens upon impact. They are not different approaches or views - simply different points in time. Momentum translates to force, dependent upon the time allowed for negative acceleration.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This is what I will call "2 step strike". You step in your back leg in front your front leg, you then step in your front leg.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I think I'm done trying to clear up the semantic differences here.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Again, you have received several words of advice so  far as to how to post less like Guy.  But you seem to ignore that advice.  Why is that?



My experience so far is that you seem quite angry at me whatever I say and are convinced that I am someone called Guy. I have said that I am not Guy several times but you still seem sure that I am, no matter whether I type longer or shorter answers. Short answers often all that I can manage since people are responding so quickly!

Other experiece of the forum so far is that very few wing chun people talking (I believe you are JKD, and other main person responding is GPSeymor who is I think aikido?). So quite hard to find common understanding. I am trying my best and don't feel hostile to either JKD or Aikido. Am very happy to hear and accept whatever you do in your own different martial arts


----------



## Hazardi172

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is what I will call "2 step strike". You step in your back leg in front your front leg, you then step in your front leg.



I would call any leg motion a step, regardless of length


----------



## KPM

*My experience so far is that you seem quite angry at me whatever I say and are convinced that I am someone called Guy. *

----I am not angry.  I just have very little patience for people who carry on in a discussion as you have. Guy has burned a lot of us out on that type of discussion.   Again, go back and read the  advice that has been given to you so far and give it some thought. 


*Other experiece of the forum so far is that very few wing chun people talking (I believe you are JKD,*

---I have studied Wing Chun for over 30 years.   I have trained Ip Man Wing Chun in the Augustine Fong lineage, William Cheung's "Traditional" Wing Chun, and I have an instructor rating in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun.  JKD is a more recent addition to my knowledge base and skill set.   So when I make comparisons between Wing Chun and JKD, I do know what I am talking about.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> I would call any leg motion a step, regardless of length


There is short step and there is long step. You can use 3 steps to cover just 5 feet. You can also use 3 steps to cover 15 feet. The difference is one of your steps can be a "jump".

In your WC system, do you include any "jump" footwork?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> Other experiece of the forum so far is that very few wing chun people talking ...


I have trained WC from Jimmy Kao (from YM) back in 1973. That was 43 years ago. But I like to look at WC from a general MA point of view instead of just from the WC point of view.

No moving around is not a bad thing. If you can guard your ground, no matter how strong attack that may land on you, you don't even move back 1 step, that will take a lot of skill and courage.

The WC "outside game" is like the WC "grappling". No matter how deep that you may look into it, IMO, it's still better to look somewhere else instead.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> I am not angry.  I just have very little patience for people who carry on in a discussion as you have. Guy has burned a lot of us out on that type of discussion.   Again, go back and read the  advice that has been given to you so far and give it some thought



Hey, I can see someone here asked me not to ask too many questions, I have been trying not to do this! Any other advies you can give will be much appreciated 

Again have no clue about Guy, what you personally like and don't like. You will need to let me know buddy, because I cannot read minds 



> I have studied Wing Chun for over 30 years.   I have trained Ip Man Wing Chun in the Augustine Fong lineage, William Cheung's "Traditional" Wing Chun, and I have an instructor rating in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun.  JKD is a more recent addition to my knowledge base and skill set.   So when I make comparisons between Wing Chun and JKD, I do know what I am talking about.



Great, good to know some other wing chun experience here. I was feeling quite alone


----------



## Hazardi172

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is short step and there is long step. You can use 3 steps to cover just 5 feet. You can also use 3 steps to cover 15 feet. The difference is one of your steps can be a "jump".
> 
> In your WC system, do you include any "jump" footwork?



Not jump, more like step of the shootfighter to cover distance fast.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The WC "outside game" is like the WC "grappling". No matter how deep that you may look into it, IMO, it's still better to look somewhere else instead.



I would advise to look into the WSL VT system. Good footwork, very practical, no problem with "outside game". Maybe a bit different to wing chun you have seen so far?


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I think I'm done trying to clear up the semantic differences here.



Nice to discuss with you. Come and check out WSL VT if you have the opportunity


----------



## O'Malley

Somone looks like he has something to sell... or he's trolling.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> I don't know what video you are watching.  But you seem to be denying reality here.



Advies slow it down and watch again, first footage from 0.0s. Kicker pushes off rear foot, strangely rear foot touches, then front foot touches, kicker flies through the air and rear leg touches again just before kick lands.So looking again appears to be 3 stage movement, 2 jumpy steps and then the kick.

I would call it a pretty different approach to punching in WSL VT, and would be slower and more telegraphed in my opinion. Not to say it wouldn't work, but not really doing the same thing


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> I would advise to look into the WSL VT system. Good footwork, very practical, no problem with "outside game". Maybe a bit different to wing chun you have seen so far?


I would love to if you can put up some clips.


----------



## Callen

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?



Interesting take. With a good understanding of Wing Chun, the "outside game" isn't a real issue. IMHO, there's no need to and separate the "zones" or "gates" etc.. into areas in which Wing Chun is effective or not. Our job as practitioners is to make the system work for us. If a Wing Chun practitioner has an issue with what do when "outside", then they should try and find the answers within the system.

Guro Dan once talked about the subject in regards to Bruce Lee's attitude towards Wing Chun in general. Bruce was not as good with the system as some of his classmates, such as Hawkins Cheung for instance, so Bruce liked to stay outside because he was not as comfortable on the inside.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The WC "outside game" is like the WC "grappling". No matter how deep that you may look into it, IMO, it's still better to look somewhere else instead.



Are you a Wing Chun practitioner?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> Are you a Wing Chun practitioner?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have trained WC from Jimmy Kao (from YM) back in 1973. That was 43 years ago.


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> Advies slow it down and watch again, first footage from 0.0s. Kicker pushes off rear foot, strangely rear foot touches, then front foot touches, kicker flies through the air and rear leg touches again just before kick lands.So looking again appears to be 3 stage movement, 2 jumpy steps and then the kick.
> 
> I would call it a pretty different approach to punching in WSL VT, and would be slower and more telegraphed in my opinion. Not to say it wouldn't work, but not really doing the same thing



Doesn't matter matter what art, traditional or otherwise, you are either blocked, trapped, or simply gone, if you telegraph a punch. Unless it is feint for a flurry, telegraph you are just gone. Not really doing the same thing is actually irrelevant, if there is no end product. Fighting instinct and actuall fighting, are not necessarily bound by art. Really wish I had more WSL VT experience, but never got on with Wing Chun per se, but would love to be able to shoot you down here down here in a  friendly way of course, but what I do know Guy/Hazardi172, you are probably going to get forum slaughtered here


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In CMA, there are 2 major categories:

- 长拳 long fist (such as northern Shaolin, Pi Qua, Tong Bei, CLF, ...)
- 短拳 short fist (such as WC, southern preying mantis, white eyebrow, Zimen, ...)

Since WC belongs to the "short fist" category,

the PRO are:

- fast multiple punches,
- strong defense,
- ...

The CON are:

- short reach,
- less power in each punch,
- ...

The "long fist" is like rifle that shot 1 bullet at a time. The "short fist" is like machine gun that shots many bullets. Both have value in battle field.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Advies slow it down and watch again, first footage from 0.0s. Kicker pushes off rear foot, strangely rear foot touches, then front foot touches, kicker flies through the air and rear leg touches again just before kick lands.So looking again appears to be 3 stage movement, 2 jumpy steps and then the kick.
> 
> I would call it a pretty different approach to punching in WSL VT, and would be slower and more telegraphed in my opinion. Not to say it wouldn't work, but not really doing the same thing



Watch the second video.  When done it really is smooth and fast and not multiple steps as you seem to think.  Please post a video of the comparable WSLVT punch from a long distance that you have been referring to.


----------



## KPM

O'Malley said:


> Somone looks like he has something to sell... or he's trolling.



Yes.  That seems to be what is happening.  If he is not Guy, then he is certainly cut from the same cloth!


----------



## wingchun100

Callen said:


> Are you a Wing Chun practitioner?




Yes.


----------



## Hazardi172

Callen said:


> Interesting take. With a good understanding of Wing Chun, the "outside game" isn't a real issue. IMHO, there's no need to and separate the "zones" or "gates" etc.. into areas in which Wing Chun is effective or not. Our job as practitioners is to make the system work for us. If a Wing Chun practitioner has an issue with what do when "outside", then they should try and find the answers within the system.



Great post! I agree


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Yes.  That seems to be what is happening.  If he is not Guy, then he is certainly cut from the same cloth!



I am not selling anything, merely suggesting that WSL VT might be a thing to try if you want to try a different way!

You also know I am not Guy, because I have told you many times. I can't really understand why you keep repeating it here? 

Best wishes


----------



## Callen

wingchun100 said:


> Yes.


My apologies wingchun100, I was asking Kung Fu Wang out of curiosity.


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> Doesn't matter matter what art, traditional or otherwise, you are either blocked, trapped, or simply gone, if you telegraph a punch.



Was talkiing about telegraphed kick in the video. WSL VT punches are as untelegraphed as it gets


----------



## wingchun100

Callen said:


> My apologies wingchun100, I was asking Kung Fu Wang out of curiosity.



Oh, I thought you were talking to me because my comment was quoted in that response.


----------



## Callen

wingchun100 said:


> Oh, I thought you were talking to me because my comment was quoted in that response.


I was responding to your initial post as well, just not the question directed towards Kung Fu Wang. The quote below was my response to you 


Callen said:


> Interesting take. With a good understanding of Wing Chun, the "outside game" isn't a real issue. IMHO, there's no need to and separate the "zones" or "gates" etc.. into areas in which Wing Chun is effective or not. Our job as practitioners is to make the system work for us. If a Wing Chun practitioner has an issue with what do when "outside", then they should try and find the answers within the system.
> 
> Guro Dan once talked about the subject in regards to Bruce Lee's attitude towards Wing Chun in general. Bruce was not as good with the system as some of his classmates, such as Hawkins Cheung for instance, so Bruce liked to stay outside because he was not as comfortable on the inside.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Again, you have received several words of advice so  far as to how to post less like Guy.  But you seem to ignore that advice.  Why is that?



I may


KPM said:


> Again, you have received several words of advice so  far as to how to post less like Guy.  But you seem to ignore that advice.  Why is that?



 I may as well mention this regardless of where i stand on the rest of the discussion. Because it is just irritating me. 

This tact you are taking is kind of insane. 

You have as much evidence that this poster is guy as i do that you murder puppies.

You cant accuse people of something that you have no evidence of. You are using a cheap tactic.


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> Was talkiing about telegraphed kick in the video. WSL VT punches are as untelegraphed as it gets



Rubbish.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> I may
> 
> 
> I may as well mention this regardless of where i stand on the rest of the discussion. Because it is just irritating me.
> 
> This tact you are taking is kind of insane.
> 
> You have as much evidence that this poster is guy as i do that you murder puppies.
> 
> You cant accuse people of something that you have no evidence of. You are using a cheap tactic.



You not noticed the bad grammar in general in what is not WSL VT, then suddenly becomes correct when it is WSL VT? Not to mention his sycophant LFJ who had seemingly disappeared.


----------



## Callen

Transk53 said:


> Rubbish.


It's true, proper WSLVT punches are indeed un-telegraphed. Most punching in the Wing Chun system in general should be more or less driven straight forward from the elbow and not the shoulder. We like to call this "the pocket".


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> You not noticed the bad grammar in general in what is not WSL VT, then suddenly becomes correct when it is WSL VT? Not to mention his sycophant LFJ who had seemingly disappeared.



Have you noticed you never see KPM around live puppies.


----------



## Transk53

Callen said:


> It's true, proper WSLVT punches are indeed un-telegraphed. Most punching in the Wing Chun system in general should be more or less driven straight forward from the elbow and not the shoulder. We like to call this "the pocket".



The pocket can be expansive or not as much as you like. A pocket is a response to overwhelming force, thus a response in defensive tactics in which to break out.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the only thing he has wrong in his equation is that he's citing velocity, rather than acceleration. That's actually only a difference in timing (acceleration is a function of the velocity at the moment of initial impact). And if you don't recognize those physics in relation to your punch, then you don't understand your punch. There's no strike that is exempt from these basic biomechanics and physics.
> 
> You're getting condescending again ("it's going to be embarrassing").



Thank you for that correction.  I got sidetracked and started talking velocity because of thinking, when over extended, of the times you can on the "wrong side" of the acceleration curve and I pictured the "peak" as maximum velocity vs acceleration due to lack of sleep .  It happens, especially when I just moved to the Vampire shift for 4 months on Jan 2.  45 years old doesn't adapt to that as easily as 25 did. Lol

But again you hit on my key points.  For any particular punch, whether it be on a straight line or an arch there is a spot where your footwork and body mechanics allow for optimal mass to be applied behind the punch and for the optimal extension of said striking limb for optimal acceleration.  That place is "the sweet spot."


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> Have you noticed you never see KPM around live puppies.



No lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> proper WSLVT punches are indeed un-telegraphed.


If you punch from a fighting stance, you are already telegraphed your punch. As far as I know, only the Zimen system trains how to punch from "hands drop next to the knees" position. The

- hand goes first,
- elbow chases the hand,
- shoulder chases the elbow,
- the body chases the shoulder.

In the following clip, you can see his hand doesn't punch from the

- waist (as long fist), or
- high chest (as WC).

Most strikes come from "hand drop below the knee" position. Since the Zimen system has no "fighting stance". It's the only CMA style that I know that has the minimum telegraphing during striking.

高安字门老八法残字_视频在线观看 - 56.com


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> You have as much evidence that this poster is guy as i do that you murder puppies.
> .



Hazardi showed up within a week of Guy being banned.  Hazardi is a WSLVT guy that has used many of the same arguments and said many of the same things that Guy has in the past.  Harardi has the same posting and discussion style as Guy.  Now all that may be a coincidence, but you have to admit that it is one heck of a coincidence!  Now, what evidence to you have that I murder puppies?


----------



## Callen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you punch from a fighting stance, you are already telegraphed your punch.


That's a bit of a stretch. If we're talking about "telegraphing", as in reading that the punch is going to happen... in the context of Wing Chun it's very hard to see a proper punch coming from any stance. Especially if the shoulders are square to the opponent as they should be.

Thanks for sharing the video. Great resource!


----------



## Juany118

Callen said:


> That's a bit of a stretch. If we're talking about "telegraphing", as in reading that the punch is going to happen... in the context of Wing Chun it's very hard to see a proper punch coming from any stance. Especially if the shoulders are square to the opponent as they should be.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the video. Great resource!



In terms of other punches WC telegraph's less but it still does.  The trick is this.  In general self defense and Combatives they tell you to watch the shoulders and hips.  In my WC they tell us to watch elbows and knees.  There is still less telegraphing there even then but it's still there, at least in my experience. 

As an example, footwork is very important to the punch.  Even before I see tell tale movement at the elbow, in watching the knees you can usually see movement there that indicates the footwork portion.  In my experience when people think of telegraphing they hop immediately to picturing Western Boxing.  There it's the head and shoulders that usually tell the tale.  Other portions of the body however can give indications as well though.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Hazardi showed up within a week of Guy being banned.  Hazardi is a WSLVT guy that has used many of the same arguments and said many of the same things that Guy has in the past.  Harardi has the same posting and discussion style as Guy.  Now all that may be a coincidence, but you have to admit that it is one heck of a coincidence!  Now, what evidence to you have that I murder puppies?



This is pretty much my take atm.  The only difference not only in terms of arguments but in the actual sentence structures and cadence is that after being very "guy like" he occassionally says something vaguely polite.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you punch from a fighting stance, you are already telegraphed your punch. As far as I know, only the Zimen system trains how to punch from "hands drop next to the knees" position. The
> 
> - hand goes first,
> - elbow chases the hand,
> - shoulder chases the elbow,
> - the body chases the shoulder.
> 
> In the following clip, you can see his hand doesn't punch from the
> 
> - waist (as long fist), or
> - high chest (as WC).
> 
> Most strikes come from "hand drop below the knee" position. Since the Zimen system has no "fighting stance". It's the only CMA style that I know that has the minimum telegraphing during striking.
> 
> 高安字门老八法残字_视频在线观看 - 56.com


That video produces an error in what I assume is Mandarin. I'd love to see it.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you punch from a fighting stance, you are already telegraphed your punch. As far as I know, only the Zimen system trains how to punch from "hands drop next to the knees" position. The
> 
> - hand goes first,
> - elbow chases the hand,
> - shoulder chases the elbow,
> - the body chases the shoulder.
> 
> In the following clip, you can see his hand doesn't punch from the
> 
> - waist (as long fist), or
> - high chest (as WC).
> 
> Most strikes come from "hand drop below the knee" position. Since the Zimen system has no "fighting stance". It's the only CMA style that I know that has the minimum telegraphing during striking.
> 
> 高安字门老八法残字_视频在线观看 - 56.com



I think when he speaks of telegraphing he means your stereotypical Western Boxing telegraph where the shoulder and/or head can telegraph that the punch is coming.  However if you look at different areas of the body, you can still see indications the punch is coming.  Now they tend to be more subtle, but the signs are there.


----------



## Juany118

Callen said:


> Interesting take. With a good understanding of Wing Chun, the "outside game" isn't a real issue. IMHO, there's no need to and separate the "zones" or "gates" etc.. into areas in which Wing Chun is effective or not. Our job as practitioners is to make the system work for us. If a Wing Chun practitioner has an issue with what do when "outside", then they should try and find the answers within the system.
> 
> Guro Dan once talked about the subject in regards to Bruce Lee's attitude towards Wing Chun in general. Bruce was not as good with the system as some of his classmates, such as Hawkins Cheung for instance, so Bruce liked to stay outside because he was not as comfortable on the inside.



That could well be part of the issue (your last point.)  That said I spar with people who study different arts and when you do that you see how simply trying to minimize the weakness of a single system and make what is work for you is dangerous.  If I didn't have a grappling back ground more than once I would have found myself in a spot of bother with the BJJ guy I work and spar with.  The only real defense against a takedown in WC is to pummel the guy hard enough that he can't get a grip.  Thing is WC has you doing that pummeling inside a range where grappling and takedowns are easily initiated.  So in short your only ground fighting defense amounts to "shock and awe" and that imo is something that is risky to rely on.  Now he is definitely better at grappling than I am but my previous experience is enough that, when combined with my WC, I can avoid "his game" and keep playing "mine"

On the flip side I am actually looking for a Muay Thai guy to spar with at this point because of my sparring with my brother in law to test something regarding long range.  My bro in law is a TKD guy.  He has no real inside game so once I get inside I am in control.  A Muay Thai guy though has a stand up inside game as well as outside.  I suspect my degree of control in stand up"inside" will be far less with a Muay Thai guy (or gal).  I would be a fool to stay outside against the much deeper outside/kicking game of Muay Thai so if I find such a person it will be interesting to find out if my stand up inside game is deep enough that it still maintains the initiative or if I am forced to go to takedowns, which my WC has.  If that doesn't work do I need to go full on grappling/ground game?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> where the shoulder and/or head can telegraph that the punch is coming.


When the 8 steps preying mantis master Wei Shao-Tang taught his class in the new park in Taipei, Taiwan back in 1980, one day 2 Zimen guys visited him.

- One Zimen guy bowed to him,
- Stepped in,
- Punched on Wei's chest, and
- Stepped back,

before Wei could even raise his arm to block that punch. The whole attack had no "telegraph". The "punch" and "bow" were integrated into 1 move. The punch started from both hands dropped next to the knees. That challenge made the Zimen system very famous in "speed" in Taiwan (the preying mantis system is famous in "speed"). That was why it pulled me into the Zimen system and caused a lot of problems (but that will be another story).


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you punch from a fighting stance, you are already telegraphed your punch. As far as I know, only the Zimen system trains how to punch from "hands drop next to the knees" position. The
> 
> - hand goes first,
> - elbow chases the hand,
> - shoulder chases the elbow,
> - the body chases the shoulder.
> 
> In the following clip, you can see his hand doesn't punch from the
> 
> - waist (as long fist), or
> - high chest (as WC).
> 
> Most strikes come from "hand drop below the knee" position. Since the Zimen system has no "fighting stance". It's the only CMA style that I know that has the minimum telegraphing during striking.
> 
> 高安字门老八法残字_视频在线观看 - 56.com



There is a sword fighting style of striking that goes hand then body.  And would be considered a non telegraphed punch. 

I know some guys who have played around with the concept.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> There is a sword fighting style of striking that goes hand then body.  And would be considered a non telegraphed punch.
> 
> I know some guys who have played around with the concept.


That's the "speed first, power later" approach. It's the only way that you can kill a mosquito when it flies in front of your. If you use "leg push body, body push arm" method, you will never be able to get that mosquito.

One time I pushed my shopping cart in parking lot. When I opened my trunk, the shopping cart slide away, I used this method to grab on that shopping cart before it could hit on somebody's car. I could felt my body was stretched forward big time.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> There is a sword fighting style of striking that goes hand then body.  And would be considered a non telegraphed punch.
> 
> I know some guys who have played around with the concept.



Just want to clarify, do you mean movement focus of the sword wielding limb or target priority for the blade?


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When the 8 steps preying mantis master Wei Shao-Tang taught his class in the new park in Taipei, Taiwan back in 1980, one day 2 Zimen guys visited him.
> 
> - One Zimen guy bowed to him,
> - Stepped in,
> - Punched on Wei's chest, and
> - Stepped back,
> 
> before Wei could even raise his arm to block that punch. The whole attack had no "telegraph". The "punch" and "bow" were integrated into 1 move. The punch started from both hands dropped next to the knees. That challenge made the Zimen system very famous in "speed" in Taiwan (the preying mantis system is famous in "speed"). That was why it pulled me into the Zimen system and caused a lot of problems (but that will be another story).



Not saying the punch was not telegraphed, but without seeing it myself I could think of the following reasons why it might appear so at first blush. 

1. I know few who would expect someone to integrate a bow with a strike.  So the appearance of a lack of telegraphing could be a result of surprise rather than the absence of observable movement.

2. Depending on your position relative to the striker and the relationship between their how and the strike, some cues could be concealed by the torso that would be visible from a different perspective.

3. Sometimes the cues are there, you know the strike is coming, so it was telegraphed BUT, action vs reaction being what they are, the strike was too quick to permit a proper reaction.

4. A combination of any of the above.

I'll use, as an example of a combination of number 2 and 1 a kick that exists in Hung Gar and Wing Chun.  It sometimes gets called, romantically, the shadowless kick.  What makes the kick appear untelegraphed involves a few things but the biggies are speed and distraction.  I had a Hung Gar guy tell me that basically you use a distraction from the hands, a grapple, feint etc., that causes the opponent to look up and then you kick low, which contributes to how quickly it hits after launch.   

WC is similar.  You distract.  Maybe a bil sau towards the eyes, a tempo or facing change that appears to be a set up for a different attack etc swapping to your strong side being the Wu hand often makes people think a punch is inc in my experience, especially if followed by a feint... then you kick, often simultaneously with the feint.

In either case if you were looking for the kick you would have seen it coming, a change in knee or foot orientation etc, but the distraction either completely masked it or, due to the speed of the kick, the distraction delayed your realization that the kick was coming to the point you couldn't react in time.  In the end though the signs were still there, you were just tricked so you missed em.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Just want to clarify, do you mean movement focus of the sword wielding limb or target priority for the blade?



Sword moves first then the body moves.  There is a video of it out there but i am on my phone and can't look for it. 

Be good for knife though.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Sword moves first then the body moves.  There is a video of it out there but i am on my phone and can't look for it.
> 
> Be good for knife though.



Gotcha.  Just asked because a principle of the Kali I study is "defang the snake" so you may target the hand before the body.

You are right though, it can be very useful with a knife, especially smaller blades where the amount of force you put behind the very sharp edge doesn't matter as much.  A 3 inch blade can only cut or puncture so deep and if it hits bone there isn't much it's going to do because the short length provides very little leverage.


----------



## Dylan9d

KPM said:


> Hazardi showed up within a week of Guy being banned.  Hazardi is a WSLVT guy that has used many of the same arguments and said many of the same things that Guy has in the past.  Harardi has the same posting and discussion style as Guy.  Now all that may be a coincidence, but you have to admit that it is one heck of a coincidence!  Now, what evidence to you have that I murder puppies?



And I had a private convo with the guy and it seems he is using Google Translate for his Dutch which is weird because he said he is from Holland and his teacher is Gert Jan Ketelaar for the last 13 years. You can't tell me that even if you only live 13 years in Holland your Dutch is that bad......


----------



## Juany118

Dylan9d said:


> And I had a private convo with the guy and it seems he is using Google Translate for his Dutch which is weird because he said he is from Holland and his teacher is Gert Jan Ketelaar for the last 13 years. You can't tell me that even if you only live 13 years in Holland your Dutch is that bad......



That is weird.  Especially since if I remember right in this thread he said English is his second language.  So my assumption, based on the posts, was that he was Dutch.  Curiouser and curiouser.

I know it's not a sure thing in this day and age but I wonder if they did an IP ban on a previously banned account if this current one would still be able to post?


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> And I had a private convo with the guy and it seems he is using Google Translate for his Dutch which is weird because he said he is from Holland and his teacher is Gert Jan Ketelaar for the last 13 years. You can't tell me that even if you only live 13 years in Holland your Dutch is that bad......



As I said in private convo, I am an immigrant. Reading and writing in Dutch not a strong point for me


----------



## Dylan9d

Hazardi172 said:


> As I said in private convo, I am an immigrant. Reading and writing in Dutch not a strong point for me



And you are in Holland for 13 years? wow....


----------



## Hazardi172

Dylan9d said:


> And you are in Holland for 13 years? wow....



Longer than 13! How you think I learn it?

And how is your Kurdish?


----------



## Hazardi172

drop bear said:


> I may
> 
> 
> I may as well mention this regardless of where i stand on the rest of the discussion. Because it is just irritating me.
> 
> This tact you are taking is kind of insane.
> 
> You have as much evidence that this poster is guy as i do that you murder puppies.
> 
> You cant accuse people of something that you have no evidence of. You are using a cheap tactic.



Thanks for your balanced point of view


----------



## Hazardi172

Callen said:


> That's a bit of a stretch. If we're talking about "telegraphing", as in reading that the punch is going to happen... in the context of Wing Chun it's very hard to see a proper punch coming from any stance. Especially if the shoulders are square to the opponent as they should be.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the video. Great resource!



Good post again!


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> Rubbish.



It is true, WSL VT punching is very hard to predict. Where do you live, maybe can suggest someone you could train with to try it out?


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> For any particular punch, whether it be on a straight line or an arch there is a spot where your footwork and body mechanics allow for optimal mass to be applied behind the punch and for the optimal extension of said striking limb for optimal acceleration.  That place is "the sweet spot."



There is no sweet spot in the WSL VT punch. Starting speed is emphasised so that we are travelling at a maximal velocity milliseconds from movement initiation and well before any strike impacts. The momentum of the moving body is imparted into the target via the fist without upper body involvement. It is the same movement you practice in pole form at a distance 

Rather than being an acceleration curve with a peak as you would see with something like a boxer's punch, where there certainly is a "sweet spot", WSL VT strike is more like cueing a pool ball with instantaneous initiation then momentum carried over the whole strike path regardless of where it hits 

At closer range path is different but same idea


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic. If you think a poster is someone evading a ban, report them and let the staff deal with it. Do not derail the thread.

Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> That could well be part of the issue (your last point.)  That said I spar with people who study different arts and when you do that you see how simply trying to minimize the weakness of a single system and make what is work for you is dangerous.



I think the problem here is that others see outside fighting as a weak point of wing chun. In WSL VT we do not see things this way


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> There is no sweet spot in the WSL VT punch. Starting speed is emphasised so that we are travelling at a maximal velocity milliseconds from movement initiation and well before any strike impacts. The momentum of the moving body is imparted into the target via the fist without upper body involvement. It is the same movement you practice in pole form at a distance
> 
> Rather than being an acceleration curve with a peak as you would see with something like a boxer's punch, where there certainly is a "sweet spot", WSL VT strike is more like cueing a pool ball with instantaneous initiation then momentum carried over the whole strike path regardless of where it hits
> 
> At closer range path is different but same idea


Actually, a pool ball does not have the same momentum throughout. If the energy is imparted entirely at the beginning of movement (as with a pool ball), then velocity starts to drop off immediately and continues to do so (on a negative acceleration curve if friction is involved). And the human body doesn't accelerate like a cue ball. There's far more elasticity and mobility (slack) in the human body than in a cue ball, so there is, in fact, an acceleration curve. The more mass there is, the more gradual the curve. Thus, an arm-only punch is the closest we can get to instantaneous velocity. When we add the body mass, we have a much more gradual curve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I think the problem here is that others see outside fighting as a weak point of wing chun. In WSL VT we do not see things this way


I think perhaps the problem is nobody has actually defined "outside". What you think of as the outside game may not be the same as others are thinking of. What I'd call the outside game for NGA is not the same things someone from TKD would think of as "outside".

And it's worth pointing out that the OP actually stated that this is more of a thought experiment. He used someone's quote and said, "If we assume this is true..." Thus, it doesn't matter if any of us think there's a weakness in the outside game for any type of WC or not, if we are following the original topic.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Actually, a pool ball does not have the same momentum throughout. If the energy is imparted entirely at the beginning of movement (as with a pool ball), then velocity starts to drop off immediately and continues to do so (on a negative acceleration curve if friction is involved).



Of course , but pool ball momentum remains relativeley constant, as does the momentum of the body in the WSL VT punch compared to other kinds of punch. 



> And the human body doesn't accelerate like a cue ball. There's far more elasticity and mobility (slack) in the human body than in a cue ball, so there is, in fact, an acceleration curve. The more mass there is, the more gradual the curve. Thus, an arm-only punch is the closest we can get to instantaneous velocity. When we add the body mass, we have a much more gradual curve.



In WSL VT the aim is to make the body accelerate like a cue ball. Training the pole form is the main way of doing this!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Of course , but pool ball momentum remains relativeley constant, as does the momentum of the body in the WSL VT punch compared to other kinds of punch.


Actually, that's the point. It doesn't. There's a huge range of application to a pool ball strike. But the power drops off dramatically after a point, so there is a sweet spot in a pool ball's travel. Where it is depends upon the amount of power you want to transfer to another ball. With striking, that answer is rarely "just a soft touch", so the sweet spot in the momentum of a strike is more limited than that of a pool ball.



> In WSL VT the aim is to make the body accelerate like a cue ball. Training the pole form is the main way of doing this!


Technique can shorten the curve, but it always remains a curve. Every style I am familiar with has principles and techniques for minimizing the curve, and some are more focused on that goal than others. But the human body's joints have too much play in them for that to ever really resemble the acceleration of a pool ball struck by the cue (or another pool ball). There are too many parts of they physics that work against us in that pursuit. There's too much mass (for the amount of muscle available) to allow for instantaneous acceleration. There are too many parts, joined together by flexible joints, which absorb some of the power and delay power transfer. Our muscles, themselves, are elastic and delay the transfer of power.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> In terms of other punches WC telegraph's less but it still does.  The trick is this.  In general self defense and Combatives they tell you to watch the shoulders and hips.  In my WC they tell us to watch elbows and knees.  There is still less telegraphing there even then but it's still there, at least in my experience.
> 
> As an example, footwork is very important to the punch.  Even before I see tell tale movement at the elbow, in watching the knees you can usually see movement there that indicates the footwork portion.  In my experience when people think of telegraphing they hop immediately to picturing Western Boxing.  There it's the head and shoulders that usually tell the tale.  Other portions of the body however can give indications as well though.



This isnt the best explaination of how the footwork works. But you can see hand then foot.


----------



## Transk53

Hazardi172 said:


> It is true, WSL VT punching is very hard to predict. Where do you live, maybe can suggest someone you could train with to try it out?



As I said in a previous post, already have.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> I think perhaps the problem is nobody has actually defined "outside". What you think of as the outside game may not be the same as others are thinking of. What I'd call the outside game for NGA is not the same things someone from TKD would think of as "outside".
> 
> And it's worth pointing out that the OP actually stated that this is more of a thought experiment. He used someone's quote and said, "If we assume this is true..." Thus, it doesn't matter if any of us think there's a weakness in the outside game for any type of WC or not, if we are following the original topic.


 
"Outside game" to me could mean being outside the range your particular style favors. Therefore, for a TKD person, "outside" their game would be if they were in grappling range. But with the way Guro Inosanto used it, I think he meant "outside" meaning kicking range.


----------



## wingchun100

In other words...like GP Seymour said, "outside game" can mean different things to different people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> "Outside game" to me could mean being outside the range your particular style favors. Therefore, for a TKD person, "outside" their game would be if they were in grappling range. But with the way Guro Inosanto used it, I think he meant "outside" meaning kicking range.


I'd favor Inosanto's definition. We could break distances into three basic ranges: inside range (where short strikes, grappling, etc. lives), intermediate range (where longer punches, short-ish kicks, and some locks live), and outside range (where extreme punches, longish kicks, etc. live). Beyond the outside range is a range that's not much used, except with weapons and flying/jumping attacks - let's call that "extreme range". In the extreme range, most styles will have footwork that's used to get back to whatever range is next for them, rather than any actual tools to be used at that range.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> This isnt the best explaination of how the footwork works. But you can see hand then foot.




Oh that gave me flashbacks (my first martial arts were foil and saber fencing).  The difference there however is that the energy for the thrust comes from the lunge.  Due to the range and the nature of the sword, two things typically happen.  

1. the sword must be extended first.
2. its happening in a straight line.

Punching in anything is a different because it has the option to be more dynamic due to the difference between a punch and a sword thrust al la a saber.  Lets actually just use boxing and not WC.  






You can actually not only see the angles of the lead knee and foot lining up but hear the instructor talking about the "cue" when to punch.  You can often see, if only a split second before, the foundation of a "solid" punch being established before the arm launches it, at least in my experience.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Technique can shorten the curve, but it always remains a curve. Every style I am familiar with has principles and techniques for minimizing the curve, and some are more focused on that goal than others. But the human body's joints have too much play in them for that to ever really resemble the acceleration of a pool ball struck by the cue (or another pool ball). There are too many parts of they physics that work against us in that pursuit. There's too much mass (for the amount of muscle available) to allow for instantaneous acceleration. There are too many parts, joined together by flexible joints, which absorb some of the power and delay power transfer. Our muscles, themselves, are elastic and delay the transfer of power.



This is especially true in a dynamic fight.  As an example...you can have close to a cue ball acceleration with Bruce Lee's 1 inch punch BUT he wasn't stepping into the target, he was planted and in essence lunging like one would thrusting a rapier (and with a stance much more similar to a fencer than WC allowing for maximum "thrust").  The "target" was equally static.  Either a board being held that broke or a person or fell over when facing square.  The one time the person was braced they didn't fall and Bruce had a rage fit according to witnesses. 

In a real fight you have two subjects moving dynamically with tactics and strategy in mind.  Then you have the elasticity of the one throwing the punch facing the elasticity of what is being punched.  On the other hand a pool stick is rigid, the cue ball (until struck) is rigid and static, the 8 ball (until struck) is equally rigid and static.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> It is true, WSL VT punching is very hard to predict.


Still like to see a clip for that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I think perhaps the problem is nobody has actually defined "outside".


To me, "outside game" include:

- body rotate,
- body lean,
- ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, "outside game" include:
> 
> - body rotate,
> - body lean,
> - ...


Yes, that punch fits where I'd consider "outside range", considering where it apparently started from. The "intermediate range" would be marked by where Ali's shoulder is at that point of impact. The "inside range" would be about where Ali's elbow is. I left out the "kissing range" I teach with my students, which is where you're close enough to snuggle up to the attacker (geez, I sound pretty creepy when I teach), and is the opposite end of the spectrum to the "extreme range" I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Technique can shorten the curve, but it always remains a curve. Every style I am familiar with has principles and techniques for minimizing the curve, and some are more focused on that goal than others. But the human body's joints have too much play in them for that to ever really resemble the acceleration of a pool ball struck by the cue (or another pool ball). There are too many parts of they physics that work against us in that pursuit. There's too much mass (for the amount of muscle available) to allow for instantaneous acceleration. There are too many parts, joined together by flexible joints, which absorb some of the power and delay power transfer. Our muscles, themselves, are elastic and delay the transfer of power.



Something else I just thought of, regarding your own elasticity, an example of which is actually part of WC/VT.  I'll start with defensive techniques to illustrate.  You have tan sau (what the right arm is doing)






and bong sau (again his right arm)






What allows these structures to deflect a strike and not collapse is the angle at the elbow.  At this angle the bones and tendons take up a lot of the load and so the structure is strong and thus more energy can be deflected and/or absorbed.  If they were at 90 degrees it would basically be all muscle, thus the structure is much more apt to collapse and/or you lose your center/balance.

Now look at the punch.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Same principle.  The closer the angle gets to 90 degrees the more likely you are to have energy feed back into the arm, collapsing the structure causing deceleration and less force being transmitted.  Too straight and you end up having something similar for two reasons.  1. the muscles again are doing a lot of the work keeping the arm "straight" thus a greater likelyhood of recoil in the arm itself.  2. if the arm doesn't recoil at the elbow energy gets transfered into the shoulder creating rotational force, again sending energy in the wrong direction.

How do you keep the proper angle of the elbow?  Being in the "right spot".  Aka the "sweet spot." All of this before you add the elasticity of the opponent into the equation.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Actually, that's the point. It doesn't. There's a huge range of application to a pool ball strike. But the power drops off dramatically after a point, so there is a sweet spot in a pool ball's travel. Where it is depends upon the amount of power you want to transfer to another ball. With striking, that answer is rarely "just a soft touch", so the sweet spot in the momentum of a strike is more limited than that of a pool ball.



Actually you can hit a pool ball such that no sliding frictional force develops, and the ball rolls for a long time with very little momentum loss, certainly negigible loss over the path of a pool shot. Ironically that pot is termed the "sweet spot" 



> Technique can shorten the curve, but it always remains a curve.



In WSL VT, there is no curve because we are loading the joints before motion, accelerating mass before motion, then moving weight in a way where frictional losses are negligable over the path of the strike. In effect, once in motion, the velocity of the body remains stable and we hit with constant momentum, which of course depends more on mass at slow speeds anyway 



> Every style I am familiar with has principles and techniques for minimizing the curve, and some are more focused on that goal than others. But the human body's joints have too much play in them for that to ever really resemble the acceleration of a pool ball struck by the cue (or another pool ball). There are too many parts of they physics that work against us in that pursuit. There's too much mass (for the amount of muscle available) to allow for instantaneous acceleration. There are too many parts, joined together by flexible joints, which absorb some of the power and delay power transfer. Our muscles, themselves, are elastic and delay the transfer of power.



I would say that western boxing does the opposite in that it seeks to provide a path with a distinct peak where impact is meant to be. If you have not seen styles that manage to make this idea work then I can only suggest you try WSL VT! Have you reached the pole form yet in your own wing chun?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Actually you can hit a pool ball such that no sliding frictional force develops, and the ball rolls for a long time with very little momentum loss, certainly negigible loss over the path of a pool shot. Ironically that pot is termed the "sweet spot"


There's still rolling friction, which felt provides a reasonable amount of. Using a bit of top "English" reduces the sliding friction, and can even introduce a bit of positive friction (forward spin). And the loss is relatively negligible for the first portion of the ball's path. The slower the ball gets, the more the rolling friction interferes (less momentum to overcome the frictional resistance). That has little to do with punching, but it's interesting to discuss.



> In WSL VT, there is no curve because we are loading the joints before motion, accelerating mass before motion, then moving weight in a way where frictional losses are negligable over the path of the strike. In effect, once in motion, the velocity of the body remains stable and we hit with constant momentum, which of course depends more on mass at slow speeds anyway


That's what many styles do to reduce the delay introduced by the elasticity of the joints and muscles. It cannot be entirely overcome, because the elastic length of those tissues depends upon the force (strain) placed upon them. Pre-loading can only place partial strain on them. Full strain can only be introduced when the full force is introduced when actually initiating the movement.



> I would say that western boxing does the opposite in that it seeks to provide a path with a distinct peak where impact is meant to be. If you have not seen styles that manage to make this idea work then I can only suggest you try WSL VT! Have you reached the pole form yet in your own wing chun?


That's a reasonable statement - some strikes are designed to deliver force over a narrower range, while others are designed to deliver over a larger range.

I don't train in Wing Chun. My interest in the WC forums here is academic, as I learn a lot from the principles and practices of arts besides my own.


----------



## Danny T

gpseymour said:


> I think perhaps the problem is nobody has actually defined "outside". What you think of as the outside game may not be the same as others are thinking of. What I'd call the outside game for NGA is not the same things someone from TKD would think of as "outside".
> 
> And it's worth pointing out that the OP actually stated that this is more of a thought experiment. He used someone's quote and said, "If we assume this is true..." Thus, it doesn't matter if any of us think there's a weakness in the outside game for any type of WC or not, if we are following the original topic.


I refer 'outside' or 'inside' in relation to the opponent's guard. Not as a distance from the opponent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Danny T said:


> I refer 'outside' or 'inside' in relation to the opponent's guard. Not as a distance from the opponent.


Interesting. I didn't think of that in reference to this thread. I use those terms that way in my normal training, too. My shorthand for distances is wrist-distance, elbow-distance, and kissing-distance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I left out the "kissing range" I teach with my students,


This is the kissing range.






IMO, when your opponent uses double hooks (or double hay-makers) on you, it's very difficult for you to use straight punches such as jab and cross on him. Your straight punch will be knocked side way and off your striking path. What's the solution here?

Does anybody has any clip to show how to use "straight punches" to deal with "circular punch"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> I refer 'outside' or 'inside' in relation to the opponent's guard. Not as a distance from the opponent.


What if your opponent just stands there with his hands drop next to his knee without any "guard"?

Are you talking about "inside (front door) - between your opponent's arms)" and "outside (side door) - outside of his both arms"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wingchun100 said:


> "Outside game" to me could mean being outside the range your particular style favors.


This is a better definition. IMO, as long as you are trying to hit your opponent with both hands, you are not playing the "outside game". 

"Sweet spot" to me means "effective range".


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent just stands there with his hands drop next to his knee without any "guard"?
> 
> Are you talking about "inside (front door) - between your opponent's arms)" and "outside (side door) - outside of his both arms"?


Then the guard is down, not up, or lowered. Still outside or inside.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> That's what many styles do to reduce the delay introduced by the elasticity of the joints and muscles. It cannot be entirely overcome, because the elastic length of those tissues depends upon the force (strain) placed upon them. Pre-loading can only place partial strain on them. Full strain can only be introduced when the full force is introduced when actually initiating the movement



I will take your word for it - I have never seen any other style punch the way as WSL VT. I wouldn't be so sure about the punch mechanism and joint loading in WSL VT, suggest you try before reaching a conclusion 

Full loading is initiated before the feet move, which is aided by the way ground is contacted, path of force, and weight movement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the kissing range.


Yes. Yes it is.



> IMO, when your opponent uses double hooks (or double hay-makers) on you, it's very difficult for you to use straight punches such as jab and cross on him. Your straight punch will be knocked side way and off your striking path. What's the solution here?
> 
> Does anybody has any clip to show how to use "straight punches" to deal with "circular punch"?


A haymaker won't necessarily intersect a straight punch. The haymaker starts wider, and doesn't come in until it's near the shoulder, so a straight punch can come inside it all the way. In theory, the straight punch is also faster, so if both are released at the same time, the round attack may not even connect. It's even less of an intersection if both are right hands (so opposite sides from each other).

An uppercut could be problematic for a straight punch. A hook (by my definition) is a shorter version of the haymaker. It may, in fact, be problematic for the same-side straight (so, right hook vs. left cross, for instance), depending upon timing. If the straight enters first, it may deflect the round, just as the round may deflect the straight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I will take your word for it - I have never seen any other style punch the way as WSL VT. I wouldn't be so sure about the punch mechanism and joint loading in WSL VT, suggest you try before reaching a conclusion
> 
> Full loading is initiated before the feet move, which is aided by the way ground is contacted, path of force, and weight movement.


I'm not addressing the WSL VT punch - I'm addressing the mechanics of the human body. There are realities we have to acknowledge to get the most out of the machine we're working with. Without introducing excessive tension (including opposing tension, which kills speed and power), you can't fully load a static joint. The loading has to happen in a dynamic situation, so though the limb may not be moving, the muscles and other tissues are moving to load the joint, until it reaches a level of tension that exceeds what's holding it back, then it fires. But that firing is not like a rubber band - you still have to keep activating the muscles to continue to accelerate the limb, which can draw more on the elasticity of the joint tissues.


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I'm not addressing the WSL VT punch - I'm addressing the mechanics of the human body. There are realities we have to acknowledge to get the most out of the machine we're working with. Without introducing excessive tension (including opposing tension, which kills speed and power), you can't fully load a static joint. The loading has to happen in a dynamic situation, so though the limb may not be moving, the muscles and other tissues are moving to load the joint, until it reaches a level of tension that exceeds what's holding it back, then it fires. But that firing is not like a rubber band - you still have to keep activating the muscles to continue to accelerate the limb, which can draw more on the elasticity of the joint tissues.



Before feet move =/= a static joint


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> A haymaker won't necessarily intersect a straight punch. The haymaker starts wider, and doesn't come in until it's near the shoulder, ...


You can make your hay-maker into a very small circle.

In the following spear circle clip, you will find that in order for your straight line attack spear (like a jab) to be able to stab at your opponent's chest, your spear has to pass his

- spear head,
- front part of the spear,
- middle part of the spear, and the
- back part of the spear.

In other words, when your opponent uses hay-maker to block your jab, he is not using just 1 contact point. he is using his entire arm instead. 

In stead of calling it hay-maker, I prefer to call it "spear strategy".


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think perhaps the problem is nobody has actually defined "outside". What you think of as the outside game may not be the same as others are thinking of. What I'd call the outside game for NGA is not the same things someone from TKD would think of as "outside".
> 
> And it's worth pointing out that the OP actually stated that this is more of a thought experiment. He used someone's quote and said, "If we assume this is true..." Thus, it doesn't matter if any of us think there's a weakness in the outside game for any type of WC or not, if we are following the original topic.



And the outside game would not really be trying to get inside. That would still be inside game.

It would be staying outside.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. Yes it is.
> 
> 
> A haymaker won't necessarily intersect a straight punch. The haymaker starts wider, and doesn't come in until it's near the shoulder, so a straight punch can come inside it all the way. In theory, the straight punch is also faster, so if both are released at the same time, the round attack may not even connect. It's even less of an intersection if both are right hands (so opposite sides from each other).
> 
> An uppercut could be problematic for a straight punch. A hook (by my definition) is a shorter version of the haymaker. It may, in fact, be problematic for the same-side straight (so, right hook vs. left cross, for instance), depending upon timing. If the straight enters first, it may deflect the round, just as the round may deflect the straight.



Provided nobody is moving. If you cut angles then you can take advantage of the gaps straight lines posses.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I'm not addressing the WSL VT punch - I'm addressing the mechanics of the human body. There are realities we have to acknowledge to get the most out of the machine we're working with. Without introducing excessive tension (including opposing tension, which kills speed and power), you can't fully load a static joint. The loading has to happen in a dynamic situation, so though the limb may not be moving, the muscles and other tissues are moving to load the joint, until it reaches a level of tension that exceeds what's holding it back, then it fires. But that firing is not like a rubber band - you still have to keep activating the muscles to continue to accelerate the limb, which can draw more on the elasticity of the joint tissues.



And this was largely my point, with the photos of WSL.  How often in that other thread, when the WSL people we saying "you never punch above your head" did they also speak of the "triangle" the arm becomes when you punch.  The photos I posted we simply to illustrate that (regardless of reason) those triangles are all over the form.  These triangles are there to reduce the elasticity (in theory.)  Both the bong and tan are based on forwarding energy.  You don't swing them in front of you like a block, you slide them in front of you, like spreading peanut butter.  The angle becomes important because the more support structures of the human body you bring into play the more firm (less elastic) the structure becomes. 

So if your arm is in one position you use primarily muscle, another position primarily bone and tendon, a third position you recruit more generally from all three.  Which is the stronger structure?  To achieve that stronger structure you must be in the correct place in space in relation to the target.

You can see the same principle when a weight lifter does aclean and jerk.  It is about explosive power BUT it is also about getting everything to line up right from the feet, through the legs, all the way up.  The bones and tendons aren't lifting as they provide no strength on their own but without making sure all of them line up in a "sweet spot" arrangement the muscles can't support the weight either.  The weight either doesn't rise high enough, or the lifter over balanced forward and the weight never hits the apex, or over balances backward after hitting the apex.  How does it hit the apex and stay?  Because he/she aligned the structures of the body in unison to minimize elasticity.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> Then the guard is down, not up, or lowered. Still outside or inside.




That is fine but you are not exactly defeating the method by doing that as you are just going to ge punched in the face.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Before feet move =/= a static joint


I'm not sure which part of the body you're referring to here. There are at least 6 joints, plus the entire spine, between the base of the foot and the fist. Most have capsules of some sort that cannot be compressed to full-load by simple tension. There are some points where you can reduce the number of elastic points by "stacking bones" (putting the bones in perfect alignment), and that will help so long as you aren't going to bend that joint at any point during the movement (at which point you reintroduce the problem of elasticity). This isn't possible with hips, shoulders, elbows (during a punching motion). And it still doesn't overcome the elastic movement of all the mass that you're moving when you put bodyweight behind a punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can make your hay-maker into a very small circle.
> 
> In the following spear circle clip, you will find that in order for your straight line attack spear (like a jab) to be able to stab at your opponent's chest, your spear has to pass his
> 
> - spear head,
> - front part of the spear,
> - middle part of the spear, and the
> - back part of the spear.
> 
> In other words, when your opponent uses hay-maker to block your jab, he is not using just 1 contact point. he is using his entire arm instead.
> 
> In stead of calling it hay-maker, I prefer to call it "spear strategy".


That's a different approach. The spear is crossing the centerline during the movement (base is on his right, tip crosses to the left), which allows it to effectively occupy that space. A forehand punch won't cover your own centerline, so maybe the "haymaker" referenced isn't the American haymaker (big forehand round punch)?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> That's a different approach. The spear is crossing the centerline during the movement (base is on his right, tip crosses to the left), which allows it to effectively occupy that space. A forehand punch won't cover your own centerline, so maybe the "haymaker" referenced isn't the American haymaker (big forehand round punch)?


Your

- right shoulder is on the right side of your chest.
- left shoulder is on the left side of your chest.

When you move either arm, your arm will cross your center line. In other words, you draw 2 small circles. Any straight line attack will have to go through these 2 circles.

The difference between using a spear to block another spear vs. a Karate hard block, The 1st is a "line intersect another line with very small angle". The 2nd is usually a 90 degree intersection with a vertical line contact a horizontal line.


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I have never seen any other style punch the way as WSL VT. I wouldn't be so sure about the punch mechanism and joint loading in WSL VT, suggest you try before reaching a conclusion
> 
> t.



Why don't you post a video illustrating this WSLVT punch that you keep talking about?  That would really help everyone see what you mean.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your
> 
> - right shoulder is on the right side of your chest.
> - left shoulder is on the left side of your chest.
> 
> When you move either arm, your arm will cross your center line. In other words, you draw 2 small circles. Any straight line attack will have to go through these 2 circles.
> 
> The difference between using a spear to block another spear vs. a Karate hard block, The 1st is a "line intersect another line with very small angle". The 2nd is usually a 90 degree intersection with a vertical line contact a horizontal line.


Ah. Definitely not the same punch I was picturing. Do you happen to know of a video that's a good example of that as a punch?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Ah. Definitely not the same punch I was picturing. Do you happen to know of a video that's a good example of that as a punch?


I don't have a clip to use it for offense yet.

If you use it for

- offense, the circle can be big.
- defense, the circle can be small.

You can also use it to set up

- under hook,
- waist surrounding,
- bear hug,
- single leg,
- double legs,
- ...

It's a very important move in wrestling that you can "separate your opponent's arms" with 2 downward circles.


----------



## DanT

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.


List of long range techniques:
-side kick
-front kick
-hook kick 
-round house kick
-jab (body or head)
-cross
-chop
-backfist
-biu Sao (to bridge)
-man Sao (to bridge)
-Jong Sao (to bridge)

I've listed 11 techniques that can be applied from a distance, I'm sure there's many more. I do northern shaolin in addition to wing chun, but not because I need to "fill in any gaps in my wing chun", instead, I do it because I love Kung fu.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Why don't you post a video illustrating this WSLVT punch that you keep talking about?  That would really help everyone see what you mean.



I already showed one of Philipp Bayer himself where through the montage you see him constantly moving to a "sweet spot".  That doesn't matter.  We have the following as well, which I am sure will be dismissed he was the first Canadian and, to my knowledge, his school is still the only school in Canada that has  "Recognized Organization Status" from the Wong Shun Leung Students Association BUT since Dwight Hemmings studied under Sifu Gary Lam and was awarded instructor status by DP, I am sure somehow he, or all three, will be accused of reinventing the punch.  Why?  Not only can you see him seek the same sweet spot as PB did in the earlier montage I posted, he actually comes right out and speaks about the importance of the elbow angle on impact, which in order to maintain, and not come up too short or shoot tool long, requires specific ranging... aka the sweet spot.






both videos are also very consistent with this one...






That one will be dismissed because he didn't study under WSL and the fact all three videos are consistent will be dismissed as well.  Apparently PB stages his videos and everyone else reinvented the punch, in the exact same "wrong" way.  In my experience the only thing consistent across all of YM WC, even if you debate whether or not TWC belongs there, is the mechanics of the punch.  Footwork and proper ranging, so you can get proper extension and thus maximum energy tranfer to the target.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> That is fine but you are not exactly defeating the method by doing that as you are just going to ge punched in the face.


???
In answering the question as to what is inside or outside I stated: 
"I refer 'outside' or 'inside' in relation to the opponent's guard. Not as a distance from the opponent."

I was then asked:
"What if your _opponent_ just stands there with his hands drop next to his knee without any "guard?
Are you talking about "inside (front door) - between your opponent's arms)" and "outside (side door) - outside of his both arms"?

Hence my answer was to being inside or outside the opponent's guard whether it is up, lowered, or down.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> "I refer 'outside' or 'inside' in relation to the opponent's guard. Not as a distance from the opponent."


By using your definition, is this "inside (front door)"?







Is this outside (side door)?


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.



I briefly "back yard" trained in Savate in high school.  I grew up in a 5000 square foot Victorian house.  Next door was a similar house turned into apartments.  A Frenchman lived there who was on the tail end of his graduate studies at a nearby University and he would practice in the back yard.  He saw me practicing my fencing in the backyard and invited me one day to train.

It is similar to Kick-Boxing but with a view differences (in competition, street savate is apparently a different animal.)  First Savate is much more heavily weighted towards kicks.  I could punch you square three times in a row and it is only 1 point.  It includes shin kicks and toe kicks.  Savate started as street fighting and so took boots into account.  They still do the toe kicks and between them and the shin kicks you needed to wear "authorized boots" in competition to prevent additional injury to your opponent (concealed or tapped lacing, no protruding heel or reinforced toe etc.)  That is about where my knowledge ends.  I finally "clicked" with my neighbor only 3 months before he returned to France. 

Since it was only 3 months I usually don't put this on my Martial Arts resume'.  But think about the fencer and track kid whose legs were stronger than most of those on the football team (tested in a track team vs football team leg press contest) but the upper body of the kid in the add in the back of comics getting sand kicked in his face at the beach.  

A kicking focused art was intriguing.  Plus, I forgot, the footwork at times is similar to fencing footwork because pre-competition Savate included cane fighting which was founded in fencing.  Damn I need to look for Savate in my area... thanks, not like WC and Kali aren't enough


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using your definition, is this "inside (front door)"?


Inside and outside? Yes.
Front door or side door as shown? Not so much
Can be side door and still be inside. 1/4 line to 90 degrees is side door for us. Being inside the 1/4 lines would be what you call front door.


----------



## Juany118

Nvm


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> And this was largely my point, with the photos of WSL.  How often in that other thread, when the WSL people we saying "you never punch above your head" did they also speak of the "triangle" the arm becomes when you punch.  The photos I posted we simply to illustrate that (regardless of reason) those triangles are all over the form.  These triangles are there to reduce the elasticity (in theory.)  Both the bong and tan are based on forwarding energy.  You don't swing them in front of you like a block, you slide them in front of you, like spreading peanut butter.  The angle becomes important because the more support structures of the human body you bring into play the more firm (less elastic) the structure becomes.
> 
> So if your arm is in one position you use primarily muscle, another position primarily bone and tendon, a third position you recruit more generally from all three.  Which is the stronger structure?  To achieve that stronger structure you must be in the correct place in space in relation to the target.
> 
> You can see the same principle when a weight lifter does aclean and jerk.  It is about explosive power BUT it is also about getting everything to line up right from the feet, through the legs, all the way up.  The bones and tendons aren't lifting as they provide no strength on their own but without making sure all of them line up in a "sweet spot" arrangement the muscles can't support the weight either.  The weight either doesn't rise high enough, or the lifter over balanced forward and the weight never hits the apex, or over balances backward after hitting the apex.  How does it hit the apex and stay?  Because he/she aligned the structures of the body in unison to minimize elasticity.



I am sorry, I don't think I have seen the other thread you are talking about. In the above however you seem to be talking about the punch as an arm motion only, which in WSL VT it is not


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure which part of the body you're referring to here. There are at least 6 joints, plus the entire spine, between the base of the foot and the fist. Most have capsules of some sort that cannot be compressed to full-load by simple tension. There are some points where you can reduce the number of elastic points by "stacking bones" (putting the bones in perfect alignment), and that will help so long as you aren't going to bend that joint at any point during the movement (at which point you reintroduce the problem of elasticity). This isn't possible with hips, shoulders, elbows (during a punching motion). And it still doesn't overcome the elastic movement of all the mass that you're moving when you put bodyweight behind a punch.



Please see the relevant parts below:



			
				I said:
			
		

> Full loading is initiated *before the feet move*, which is aided by the way ground is contacted, path of force, and weight movement



Then



			
				GPSeymour said:
			
		

> I'm not addressing the WSL VT punch - I'm addressing the mechanics of the human body. There are realities we have to acknowledge to get the most out of the machine we're working with. Without introducing excessive tension (including opposing tension, which kills speed and power), *you can't fully load a static joint*. The loading has to happen in a dynamic situation, so though the limb may not be moving, the muscles and other tissues are moving to load the joint, until it reaches a level of tension that exceeds what's holding it back, then it fires. But that firing is not like a rubber band - you still have to keep activating the muscles to continue to accelerate the limb, which can draw more on the elasticity of the joint tissues.



To which I replied "before feet move doesn't equal a static joint". Hope this makes it clear


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> I already showed one of Philipp Bayer himself where through the montage you see him constantly moving to a "sweet spot".  That doesn't matter.  We have the following as well, which I am sure will be dismissed he was the first Canadian and, to my knowledge, his school is still the only school in Canada that has  "Recognized Organization Status" from the Wong Shun Leung Students Association BUT since Dwight Hemmings studied under Sifu Gary Lam and was awarded instructor status by DP, I am sure somehow he, or all three, will be accused of reinventing the punch.  Why?  Not only can you see him seek the same sweet spot as PB did in the earlier montage I posted, he actually comes right out and speaks about the importance of the elbow angle on impact, which in order to maintain, and not come up too short or shoot tool long, requires specific ranging... aka the sweet spot.



The video you posted of Philipp Bayer showed him doing some drills. Drills are drills, fighting is fighting. Don't see what relevance the range PB stands at during drilling has to punching in a fight, unles your aim is to initiate VT drills during fighting? 

The video of Dwight Hemmings looks ok to me. Elbows could be in more but no big problem. I didn't notice him saying anything about elbow angle, are you sure you didn't get confused again about what you saw, like you did in the thread about JKD? Despite DH not mentioning in the clip, I would agree that keeping elbow down is very important in WSL VT, and not sure why you feel this is a point of contention?

Most importantly in this clip, Hemmings shows some footwork integral to his punch which means that it can be delivered from any meaningful fighting range and is not reliant upon standing in some particular position relative to the opponent, which is just what I have been saying 



> both videos are also very consistent with this one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That one will be dismissed because he didn't study under WSL and the fact all three videos are consistent will be dismissed as well.  Apparently PB stages his videos and everyone else reinvented the punch, in the exact same "wrong" way.  In my experience the only thing consistent across all of YM WC, even if you debate whether or not TWC belongs there, is the mechanics of the punch.  Footwork and proper ranging, so you can get proper extension and thus maximum energy tranfer to the target.



Punching looks different in this clip. WSL VT style elbow control often lacking. Punch drawn back before throwing and hitting with upper body torque as a boxer. I wouldn't say it shares a lot with the Dwight Hemmings video


----------



## KPM

KPM said:


> Why don't you post a video illustrating this WSLVT punch that you keep talking about?  That would really help everyone see what you mean.



Hazardi.....why do you keep ignoring this request?


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Hazardi.....why do you keep ignoring this request?



I don't have one, sorry. The Dwight Hemmings video is ok for me though, as I mentioned above


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't have one, sorry. The Dwight Hemmings video is ok for me though, as I mentioned above



Ok.  So can you recap what you think is special about that punch that Hemmings is showing?  Because it looks like a pretty standard Wing Chun punch to me, and you have said no other styles punch like WSLVT.   And I'm still not seeing how this punch would be delivered from 5 feet or more away without taking more than one step.  Thanks!


----------



## geezer

Hazardi172 said:


> .... The Dwight Hemmings video is ok for me though, as I mentioned above



The fact that this video looks OK to you (and me too) clears up exactly what I think is at the root of your disagreement with _Juany_ and some others posting on this thread. I think it really boils down to a simple miscommunication revolving around whether you are talking about the distance covered by the _entire punch_ from initiation to completion, or are talking about the distance you are from your target _at the moment contact is made._

You seem to be saying that the punch can be initiated from any range, from near to far, since the punch and the body movement are _united as one totality_. So a punch from a _long_ distance will be united with an long, explosive step, while a very close punch will involve a powerful, but very small body movement. But close or far, both are the same punch. So, as you have been saying all along, the VT punch isn't restricted by distance to a "sweet spot".

I get this. In fact I think we all do. Where the miscommunication comes in to play is when _Juany_ and others are talking about the distance between the puncher's body and the target _when contact is made. _In all my experience, and in all the videos posted, there is plainly _an ideal distance between puncher and target at the moment of impact_. If you are too far away, or very much closer than this  distance when your fist impacts your target, you will not achieve maximum transfer of power, and your punch will not be optimal.

I believe we can all agree on this too. And I think this is basically what _Juany_ and _KPM_ have been saying all along. Unfortunately, for much of this thread, you guys have been talking past each other, each insisting that the other understand their terms in a very particular way. This was what the poster "Guy" often did to disrupt threads. You know, WC/VT/WT is hard enough to discuss with words to begin with. Let's all work a little harder to be flexible in our use of terminology and _actually communicate_ something meaningful!


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Ok.  So can you recap what you think is special about that punch that Hemmings is showing?  Because it looks like a pretty standard Wing Chun punch to me, and you have said no other styles punch like WSLVT.   And I'm still not seeing how this punch would be delivered from 5 feet or more away without taking more than one step.  Thanks!



Take a large step! 

It is possible to step much further punching than kicking because no need to kick standing on the landed leg, so can do something much closer to a shoot in with a punch than is possible with a kick.


----------



## Hazardi172

geezer said:


> The fact that this video looks OK to you (and me too) clears up exactly what I think is at the root of your disagreement with _Juany_ and some others posting on this thread. I think it really boils down to a simple miscommunication revolving around whether you are talking about the distance covered by the _entire punch_ from initiation to completion, or are talking about the distance you are from your target _at the moment contact is made._
> 
> You seem to be saying that the punch can be initiated from any range, from near to far, since the punch and the body movement are _united as one totality_. So a punch from a _long_ distance will be united with an long, explosive step, while a very close punch will involve a powerful, but very small body movement. But close or far, both are the same punch. So, as you have been saying all along, the VT punch isn't restricted by distance to a "sweet spot"



Exactly, and I think I made this pretty clear. In fact I have stated it several times in as much detail as I can manage, but still a lot of questions and criticism comes. I don't think I could have been a lot clearer about what I meant here 



> I get this. In fact I think we all do.



Well that's good to hear, thanks



> Where the miscommunication comes in to play is when _Juany_ and others are talking about the distance between the puncher's body and the target _when contact is made. _In all my experience, and in all the videos posted, there is plainly _an ideal distance between puncher and target at the moment of impact_. If you are too far away, or very much closer than this  distance when your fist impacts your target, you will not achieve maximum transfer of power, and your punch will not be optimal. I believe we can all agree on this too. And I think this is basically what _Juany_ and _KPM_ have been saying all along.



I couldn't really understand the issue with the disagreement, since while we wish to end up between min and max effective extension of arm at impact, this is both obvious and adds nothing in terms of insight, since we can punch (whole punch with footwork) from any effective fighting range

I also dismissed the above explanation since the discussion started by talking about a "trapping range" where we can stand which is the "sweet spot" for wing chun, where we can initiate punches, kicks, grappling, and drills like Lap Sau (for whatever reason!), and where (if we are not aware of grappling) we can be grappled...

What I think happened is that people were initially talking about this "trapping range", but then changed their argument after realising the point I was making. I don't know why anyone would do this, but it appears to me to be what happened? 



> Unfortunately, for much of this thread, you guys have been talking past each other, each insisting that the other understand their terms in a very particular way. This was what the poster "Guy" often did to disrupt threads. You know, WC/VT/WT is hard enough to discuss with words to begin with. Let's all work a little harder to be flexible in our use of terminology and _actually communicate_ something meaningful!



I think the idea that I am "Guy" made certain people act in a more hostile way than normal, and probably prevented them from being able to agree with my fairly basic point about punching with footwork. I don't believe that I have been disruptive here, and to be honest I have been quite shocked at the amount of hostility against quite a straight forward point of view. 

I can understand why people that think I am "Guy" might have done this. What I can't really understand is why people like yourself who don't think this didn't step in to end the witch hunt . I really have not experienced anything like this on a forum before


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Take a large step!
> 
> It is possible to step much further punching than kicking because no need to kick standing on the landed leg, so can do something much closer to a shoot in with a punch than is possible with a kick.



You didn't answer my question.   And I've already pointed out that you are very wrong in what you just said.  I posted a video showing someone delivering an explosive side kick from 8 eight away with a single step.  Can you launch your WSLVT punch from eight feet away with one step?  Please post a video of someone doing that as I have posted a video of someone do that with a kick.   Also please take note of what Geezer posted above about "actually communicating something meaningful."   You did not at all answer what I asked on my last post.  You are continuing to behave just like Guy despite people repeatedly pointing this out to you.  Why is that?


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> You didn't answer my question. And I've already pointed out that you are very wrong in what you just said. I posted a video showing someone delivering an explosive side kick from 8 eight away with a single step. Can you launch your WSLVT punch from eight feet away with one step? Please post a video of someone doing that as I have posted a video of someone do that with a kick.



The explanation for this is that they take more than one step. I think I already said this 

In your last post you asked me to explain how a punch like this could be done from 5 feet away. The answer is to take a large step, as I said.



> Also please take note of what Geezer posted above about "actually communicating something meaningful." You did not at all answer what I asked on my last post. You are continuing to behave just like Guy despite people repeatedly pointing this out to you. Why is that?



Not sure what you want here. The kicker takes more than 1 step, kicking is slower than punching, the step can be larger with punching. All of this means that no range advantage to kicking with a step or steps vs punching with a step or steps. This information is already typed out in more detail above if you have a look 

I don't know how "Guy" communicates, so hard for me to live up to this idealised person. Please take me as I am


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> Why don't you post a video illustrating this WSLVT punch that you keep talking about?  That would really help everyone see what you mean.



_*Déjà vu*_


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Please see the relevant parts below:
> 
> 
> 
> Then
> 
> 
> 
> To which I replied "before feet move doesn't equal a static joint". Hope this makes it clear


Ah, so you're referring to loading through body movement prior to foot movement, then?


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> The fact that this video looks OK to you (and me too) clears up exactly what I think is at the root of your disagreement with _Juany_ and some others posting on this thread. I think it really boils down to a simple miscommunication revolving around whether you are talking about the distance covered by the _entire punch_ from initiation to completion, or are talking about the distance you are from your target _at the moment contact is made._
> 
> You seem to be saying that the punch can be initiated from any range, from near to far, since the punch and the body movement are _united as one totality_. So a punch from a _long_ distance will be united with an long, explosive step, while a very close punch will involve a powerful, but very small body movement. But close or far, both are the same punch. So, as you have been saying all along, the VT punch isn't restricted by distance to a "sweet spot".
> 
> I get this. In fact I think we all do. Where the miscommunication comes in to play is when _Juany_ and others are talking about the distance between the puncher's body and the target _when contact is made. _In all my experience, and in all the videos posted, there is plainly _an ideal distance between puncher and target at the moment of impact_. If you are too far away, or very much closer than this  distance when your fist impacts your target, you will not achieve maximum transfer of power, and your punch will not be optimal.
> 
> I believe we can all agree on this too. And I think this is basically what _Juany_ and _KPM_ have been saying all along. Unfortunately, for much of this thread, you guys have been talking past each other, each insisting that the other understand their terms in a very particular way. This was what the poster "Guy" often did to disrupt threads. You know, WC/VT/WT is hard enough to discuss with words to begin with. Let's all work a little harder to be flexible in our use of terminology and _actually communicate_ something meaningful!


Absolutely correct.  I will admit to eventually getting frustrated and saying a bit of silliness because of it but the frustration was born of the fact that I was pretty explicit at one point that I was talking about the following.

1. The punch involves footwork.
2. When the punch hits there is an ideal distance that is determined, for each fighter, by the angle of the elbow. To acute or obtuse and you lose striking power.

I went so far as to eventually post photos showing how important angles are across the entire system. 

At this point the only answer I can come up with as to why the debate still rages, and if people think I am wrong correct me, there seems to be a belief that the straight punch in WSLVT is unique among YM WC/VT Lineages.  Perhaps if it hadn't been pointed out that, while there are differences, one of the things consistent across them is the straight punch the argument would not have persisted.  I don't know. /Shrug.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> The video you posted of Philipp Bayer showed him doing some drills. Drills are drills, fighting is fighting. Don't see what relevance the range PB stands at during drilling has to punching in a fight, unles your aim is to initiate VT drills during fighting?



In the montage there were periods where PB is shown, advancing on a retreating partner, punching repeatedly.  As he does so he makes sure his range to target, at the time of what would be impact, is consistent.



> The video of Dwight Hemmings looks ok to me. Elbows could be in more but no big problem. I didn't notice him saying anything about elbow angle, are you sure you didn't get confused again about what you saw, like you did in the thread about JKD? Despite DH not mentioning in the clip, I would agree that keeping elbow down is very important in WSL VT, and not sure why you feel this is a point of contention?



It's in the period from 1:00 to 1:20 when he says "bent elbow still." You use the footwork, as with every WC/VT style I have any familiarity with to get from "disconnected to connected." When you become "connected" however the preloaded arm was only unloaded at the optimal time so that you have the proper arm extension so that the elbow is neither too bent nor too straight.



> Most importantly in this clip, Hemmings shows some footwork integral to his punch which means that it can be delivered from any meaningful fighting range and is not reliant upon standing in some particular position relative to the opponent, which is just what I have been saying


 the use of footwork to cover distance, and to add power to the punch, as the entire body is used with the punch, was never in dispute.  The only contention that was ever made is that at the moment the fist connects to the target you can be too close, or too far.


----------



## KPM

*Exactly, and I think I made this pretty clear. In fact I have stated it several times in as much detail as I can manage, but still a lot of questions and criticism comes. I don't think I could have been a lot clearer about what I meant here *

---Uh.  No.  You have described a Wing Chun punch as all of us that have learned Wing Chun understand it.  Nothing unique about it at all despite your claim that no one other than WSLVT does it that way.  That is part of the contention here.  And you haven't given  good detail to really make that clear.  So to some extent we were trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and get you to explain better what you meant.  But if what you meant is what we see in that video from Dwight Hemming, then you don't have any special knowledge!  Everyone steps with the Wing Chun punch. Everyone uses body momentum behind their Wing Chun punch.  Everyone takes multiple steps to get into range where the punch will actually make contact.  And I do believe in the past you even stated that you DON'T take more than one step with the punch!  The rest of us have tried to explain that there is an optimal distance from the opponent at which a Wing Chun punch will land with the most effectiveness. This is the "sweet spot."  This is there whether you are stepping from 5 feet away or stepping from 1 foot away.  This is the thing that has been explicitly described to you multiple times but for some  reason you just refuse to see it.




*I couldn't really understand the issue with the disagreement, since while we wish to end up between min and max effective extension of arm at impact, this is both obvious and adds nothing in terms of insight, since we can punch (whole punch with footwork) from any effective fighting range*

---But again, the impact of that punch happens at a certain distance regardless of where you start from.  That has been described multiple times now.  That distance where the punch lands most effectively is the "sweet spot."   Range does matter.   I don't think anyone has really disagreed with what you have said about the mechanics of the Wing Chun punch.  It is you disagreeing with everyone that has tried to explain ranges and the "sweet spot" to you. 



*What I think happened is that people were initially talking about this "trapping range", but then changed their argument after realising the point I was making. I don't know why anyone would do this, but it appears to me to be what happened? *

---Oh?  What point were you making?  The conversation only shifted when you denied the idea of different combat ranges or the fact that some ranges were more effective for Wing Chun than others.



*I think the idea that I am "Guy" made certain people act in a more hostile way than normal, and probably prevented them from being able to agree with my fairly basic point about punching with footwork.*

---No.  It could be that you didn't make your point very well.  Didn't answer questions at times.  Provided no video to back up what you were saying, etc.


----------



## wtxs

Hazardi172 said:


> * I have never seen any other style punch the way as WSL VT*



Are you referring to other style of martial art?  Or other lineage of Wing Chun?



KPM said:


> ---Uh.  No.  You have described a Wing Chun punch as all of us that have learned Wing Chun understand it.  Nothing unique about it at all despite your claim that no one other than WSLVT does it that way.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ---But again, the impact of that punch happens at a certain distance regardless of where you start from.  That has been described multiple times now.  That distance where the punch lands most effectively is the "sweet spot."   Range does matter.   I don't think anyone has really disagreed with what you have said about the mechanics of the Wing Chun punch.  It is you disagreeing with everyone that has tried to explain ranges and the "sweet spot" to you.



I think there is another important reason for the importance of that "sweet spot" and if all you do is drills, forms and light sparring you miss something.  There will come a point in a fight where you won't have the opportunity to step with your punch.  Opponents can stand their ground and "take" a couple hits, especially if dealing with someone used to taking hits.  They can circle instead of retreat.  In either case the "sweet spot" is important to understand not just from the point of view of moving from being disconnected to connected, but in terms of maintaining the connect once established.

As DW said in that first video i posted, regarding your opponent, "...they move, they're flexible, they are going to bend and twist when you hit them.  They aren't going to just stand there and say "you know what wing chun is great I am just going to stand here while you beat me up"  This flexibility, if your opponent knows how to use it, means they don't have to give you the space to step after connection, they can circle, they can mount a very strong guard (I sometimes call this turtling, an old gamer term) they can use the close proximity to try and transition to grappling etc. 

In that case you need to still be able to strike because "resetting" yourself by backing up, to do that picture perfect step as you punch technique we all learn, is simply not an option.  As such you need to understand where that sweet spot is, that once the connection is made you still can act.  Maybe you go to the blind side, but the range remains the same.  Maybe you simply trap and keep striking.  Maybe you low kick or bil, this usually gets them to step back.  But you need to know that spot and how to use it otherwise you hit a wall.


----------



## Hazardi172

wtxs said:


> Are you referring to other style of martial art?  Or other lineage of Wing Chun?



Other martial art. WSL VT is the only wing chun I have tried. I was told by people here to refer to WSL VT rather than VT or wing chun because they disagreed with what I was saying. I don't know if other wing chun is different or the same.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> Uh. No. You have described a Wing Chun punch as all of us that have learned Wing Chun understand it. Nothing unique about it at all despite your claim that no one other than WSLVT does it that way. That is part of the contention here. And you haven't given good detail to really make that clear. So to some extent we were trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and get you to explain better what you meant. But if what you meant is what we see in that video from Dwight Hemming, then you don't have any special knowledge! Everyone steps with the Wing Chun punch. Everyone uses body momentum behind their Wing Chun punch. Everyone takes multiple steps to get into range where the punch will actually make contact. And I do believe in the past you even stated that you DON'T take more than one step with the punch!



I have been referring to WSL VT because I was told by someone that I should be specific and not generalise . I think it was either you or Juany that told me to do this.

I don't think I have commented on other wing chun at all, apart from the clip of a guy punching which was in the same post as the Dwight Hemmings clip (and was different). I am not claiming to have special knowledge. If you all punch in the same way as I do then extremely difficult for me to understand the level of hostility I have experienced on this thread 



KPM said:


> But again, the impact of that punch happens at a certain distance regardless of where you start from. That has been described multiple times now. That distance where the punch lands most effectively is the "sweet spot." Range does matter. I don't think anyone has really disagreed with what you have said about the mechanics of the Wing Chun punch. It is you disagreeing with everyone that has tried to explain ranges and the "sweet spot" to you.



The idea of sweet spot formulated as you describe is fairly meaningless in terms of the discussion as it was when I made my first post. Here is the post I was responding to when I entered the discussion:



Juany118 said:


> Oh I agree, to a point, I see a complication in Wing Chun.  *A lot of the striking, imo at least, is inside trapping range.*  Even though we have other techniques "further out" in the more typical striking ranges *I have found that striking in trapping range can be effective against other styles because they simply aren't expecting it*, it is often (not always) outside their comfort zone/experience.



In response I asked "what is trapping range". Here is the answer I got to my question:



Juany118 said:


> *The easiest way to explain it is to say between where you typically think of punching and when you start full on grappling.*
> 
> This is just a link I found on the quick, and while only from a seminar of Gary Lam's, *you are basically in a position where you can still strike, but close enough so that you can say control the opponent's arm to unbalance them, whether to open a way for you to strike, or to transition to takes downs etc*.  Hop to 1:00 to see what I mean by the range.
> 
> WC really doesn't define ranges the way some other MA do but I have found the term useful on occassion.  Also *I know other styles are capable of fighting at a similar range, just speaking to the importance in WC*, in my experience.



So initially the conversation appears to have been about a range where we stand and fight in wing chun, one unfamiliar to other martial arts stylists, closer than punching distance and further than grappling distance, close enough to strike and control limbs to unbalance the opponent, and to initiate takedowns. It is a particular range we fight at, and some other styles do as well, and this range is important in wing chun 

This is why I initially stated that WSL VT is not range limited in this way, does not involve standing at a particular range relative to the opponent, and is not characterised by grappling arms or "trapping" at a distance that other martial arts stylists do not expect. To demonstate this I used the fact that the (WSL) VT punch always involves footwork, and that punches can be initiated at any realistic fighting distance 

I think that most of you realised immediately that I was right about this, but did not want to admit it in case I was the terrible "Guy" you all seem to fear so much. This is why I think the argument moved on to a rather pointless discussion about there being some kind of limitation upon the possible distance between 2 people at the point of punch impact- an argument that is both completely obvious and utterly trivial 



KPM said:


> Oh? What point were you making? The conversation only shifted when you denied the idea of different combat ranges or the fact that some ranges were more effective for Wing Chun than others.



Please see above. I stand by the argument that theory of ranges, as understood in JKD, is not required or relavant to WSL VT because punching can be initiated from any realistic fighting distance, kicks are slow and telegraphed compared to punching, and any advantage in limb length via kicking is removed due to step length limitation and slower speed 



KPM said:


> No. It could be that you didn't make your point very well. Didn't answer questions at times. Provided no video to back up what you were saying, etc.



I'm sorry, I didn't have a video. I answered every question I could but sometimes it felt like a bit of an onslaught with many people commenting from different martial arts and not much friendliness. In future if people can be a bit more accomodating (and stop making these weird accusations that I am some mystery Guy they don't like) then maybe it will be easier to converse and we will ab be able to get along


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> There will come a point in a fight where you won't have the opportunity to step with your punch. Opponents can stand their ground and "take" a couple hits, especially if dealing with someone used to taking hits. They can circle instead of retreat. In either case the "sweet spot" is important to understand not just from the point of view of moving from being disconnected to connected, but in terms of maintaining the connect once established.
> 
> As DW said in that first video i posted, regarding your opponent, "...they move, they're flexible, they are going to bend and twist when you hit them. They aren't going to just stand there and say "you know what wing chun is great I am just going to stand here while you beat me up" This flexibility, if your opponent knows how to use it, means they don't have to give you the space to step after connection, they can circle, they can mount a very strong guard (I sometimes call this turtling, an old gamer term) they can use the close proximity to try and transition to grappling etc.
> 
> In that case you need to still be able to strike because "resetting" yourself by backing up, to do that picture perfect step as you punch technique we all learn, is simply not an option. As such you need to understand where that sweet spot is, that once the connection is made you still can act. Maybe you go to the blind side, but the range remains the same. Maybe you simply trap and keep striking. Maybe you low kick or bil, this usually gets them to step back. But you need to know that spot and how to use it otherwise you hit a wall.



I don't need to think about sweet spot at all! All I need to do is punch when close enough to punch (of course still with footwork, but different). We work the punch in so many ways that do not involve thinking at all that theorizing about where to stand seems just misconceived


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I have been referring to WSL VT because I was told by someone that I should be specific and not generalise . I think it was either you or Juany that told me to do this.
> 
> I don't think I have commented on other wing chun at all, apart from the clip of a guy punching which was in the same post as the Dwight Hemmings clip (and was different). I am not claiming to have special knowledge. If you all punch in the same way as I do then extremely difficult for me to understand the level of hostility I have experienced on this thread
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of sweet spot formulated as you describe is fairly meaningless in terms of the discussion as it was when I made my first post. Here is the post I was responding to when I entered the discussion:
> 
> 
> 
> In response I asked "what is trapping range". Here is the answer I got to my question:
> 
> 
> 
> So initially the conversation appears to have been about a range where we stand and fight in wing chun, one unfamiliar to other martial arts stylists, closer than punching distance and further than grappling distance, close enough to strike and control limbs to unbalance the opponent, and to initiate takedowns. It is a particular range we fight at, and some other styles do as well, and this range is important in wing chun
> 
> This is why I initially stated that WSL VT is not range limited in this way, does not involve standing at a particular range relative to the opponent, and is not characterised by grappling arms or "trapping" at a distance that other martial arts stylists do not expect. To demonstate this I used the fact that the (WSL) VT punch always involves footwork, and that punches can be initiated at any realistic fighting distance
> 
> I think that most of you realised immediately that I was right about this, but did not want to admit it in case I was the terrible "Guy" you all seem to fear so much. This is why I think the argument moved on to a rather pointless discussion about there being some kind of limitation upon the possible distance between 2 people at the point of punch impact- an argument that is both completely obvious and utterly trivial
> 
> 
> 
> Please see above. I stand by the argument that theory of ranges, as understood in JKD, is not required or relavant to WSL VT because punching can be initiated from any realistic fighting distance, kicks are slow and telegraphed compared to punching, and any advantage in limb length via kicking is removed due to step length limitation and slower speed
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't have a video. I answered every question I could but sometimes it felt like a bit of an onslaught with many people commenting from different martial arts and not much friendliness. In future if people can be a bit more accomodating (and stop making these weird accusations that I am some mystery Guy they don't like) then maybe it will be easier to converse and we will ab be able to get along




All I was saying is that the WC punch has an optimal range when contact is made.  Now admittedly I am a bit like a Mr. Spock and/or Data.  So from there I make other connections.  The point is the punch but some WC Lineages also "trap".  If you can trap you can initiate locks and grapples as well and that we thus need to be concerned about those consequences.  These come to my mind because my first Eastern TMA was Aikido and my next was Judo.  

I am sorry if making these tertiary connections derailed things but ultimately the point I was making was that when our fist is actually hitting the target, not before, not after, there is an optimal place for us to be when we connect.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> there seems to be a belief that the straight punch in WSLVT is unique among YM WC/VT Lineages. Perhaps if it hadn't been pointed out that, while there are differences, one of the things consistent across them is the straight punch the argument would not have persisted. I don't know. /Shrug.



I don't think I ever said this?

However the two videos you posted showed significant differences in punching method. I don't know why you don't see it, maybe look again? I don't know what type of wing chun is shown in the second clip and don't want to say anything negative about it, but is certainly not the same as Dwight Hemming's punch


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> All I was saying is that the WC punch has an optimal range when contact is made.  Now admittedly I am a bit like a Mr. Spock and/or Data.  So from there I make other connections.  The point is the punch but some WC Lineages also "trap".  If you can trap you can initiate locks and grapples as well and that we thus need to be concerned about those consequences.  These come to my mind because my first Eastern TMA was Aikido and my next was Judo



In WSL VT we keep moving, don't stay in one place. Because the opponent also tends to move . No grappling in WSL VT.



> I am sorry if making these tertiary connections derailed things but ultimately the point I was making was that when our fist is actually hitting the target, not before, not after, there is an optimal place for us to be when we connect.



I think there is a range of places for us to stand exactly at impact because the punch works from elbow close to elbow quite far out, as long as it stays down. I don't see a lot of value in analysing where the body needs to be for the punch to reach on impact because we practice it all of the time on wall bag and in other ways. Once you know the feeling, why think about it? Distance of the punch is via the footwork, not the length of the arm


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't need to think about sweet spot at all! All I need to do is punch when close enough to punch (of course still with footwork, but different). We work the punch in so many ways that do not involve thinking at all that theorizing about where to stand seems just misconceived




See with me it's not about theorizing.  It is about applying real life experience.  For 19 years this February (not all WC obviously) I will have been fighting people irl struggles on the street against everything from simply talented brawlers to people trained in different MA.  What happens in the school is theory.  Your instructor doing his or her best to have you train variations.  However like the video I posted said... "they move, they're flexible, they are going to bend and twist when you hit them. They aren't going to just stand there and say "you know what wing chun is great I am just going to stand here while you beat me up." and that creates near infinite possibilities.

Usually I have ended up on top, though as I get older that becomes less certain.  Sometimes I have ended up in hospital. The point being I don't talk about theory when I talk about being forced to hurt another human being.  I talk experience.  You opponent, believe it or not may not move, so if you move you must retreat, circle, or grapple.  Your opponent may only circle and not backup/retreat.  So you have the same three options. To assume you will still be able to step is fighting based on theory.

This is why I feel blessed with my current Sifu.  He can barely hear in one ear because of the shotgun he redirected before it blew his head off serving a search warrant.  He too knows what real fights on the street are like and trains us accordingly, within the limits of our WC.


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> See with me it's not about theorizing. It is about applying real life experience. For 19 years this February (not all WC obviously) I will have been fighting people irl struggles on the street against everything from simply talented brawlers to people trained in different MA. What happens in the school is theory. Your instructor doing his or her best to have you train variations. However like the video I posted said... "they move, they're flexible, they are going to bend and twist when you hit them. They aren't going to just stand there and say "you know what wing chun is great I am just going to stand here while you beat me up." and that creates near infinite possibilities.
> 
> Usually I have ended up on top, though as I get older that becomes less certain. Sometimes I have ended up in hospital. The point being I don't talk about theory when I talk about being forced to hurt another human being. I talk experience.



Congratulations for your long service in the police, it must be a difficult job!


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> Congratulations for your long service in the police, it must be a difficult job!



Actually it's only hard for those who see it as a job, but thank you.  It will sound corny but I see it as a calling.  I went from Highschool student considering the Priesthood (sorry liked girls too much), trained to be a teacher, was a soldier, then blue.  To do any of them if it feels like a job, time to get out.


----------



## KPM

*The idea of sweet spot formulated as you describe is fairly meaningless in terms of the discussion as it was when I made my first post.*

---See, here is where you create a problem.  It is not meaningless.  We have been telling you what it means.  You can choose not to use it in your understanding of Wing Chun.  But that does not make it "meaningless." Its just like your denying that someone was able to cover 8 feet quickly with a kick and only one step despite my posting a video of it.  Any hostility is simply frustration with the way you have been posting and failing to see or acknowledge points that people have gone to efforts to explain in pretty good detail.  That has been pointed out to you several times as well.  But you choose to ignore all of that.  Conversation is a two-way street.  You make points.  But you acknowledge other people's points as well.  Most people here feel like they have been banging their head against a wall trying to discuss this with you.  That was a very frequent problem with Guy! But Guy would do this on purpose just to see how many people he could irritate.  Is that your game as well?



*So initially the conversation appears to have been about a range where we stand and fight in wing chun, one unfamiliar to other martial arts stylists, closer than punching distance and further than grappling distance,*

---And again, that summary just proves you weren't really trying to understand what was being said, because that is not what was explained.




*This is why I initially stated that WSL VT is not range limited in this way,*

--And nobody said it was limited.  What was described was simply the distance at which Wing Chun functions the best.  You wouldn't remain at a distance of a leg's length away from the opponent and try to fight from there without closing in would you?  A Tae Kwon Do guy would.  That is kicking range.  But that doesn't mean the TKD guy is limited to that range.  It has already been explained that the various ranges indicate distance from the opponent and what kind of techniques can be used from that distance.  You may not use this in your Wing Chun.  But it is very useful to know when facing someone that doesn't do Wing Chun!



*I think that most of you realised immediately that I was right about this, but did not want to admit it in case I was the terrible "Guy" you all seem to fear so much.*

---Wow!  Like Guy, you seem to lack a lot of personal insight!!! 





*kicks are slow and telegraphed compared to punching, and any advantage in limb length via kicking is removed due to step length limitation and slower speed *

----Ok.  You just keep right on believing that.  But you may get a rude surprise if you ever actually try to spar with someone that is good at kicking!



* I answered every question I could but sometimes it felt like a bit of an onslaught with many people commenting from different martial arts and not much friendliness. In future if people can be a bit more accomodating (and stop making these weird accusations that I am some mystery Guy they don't like) then maybe it will be easier to converse and we will ab be able to get along *

---There is no race to immediately respond to every post.  There is no reason why you can't take time to provide a detailed answer when a question is asked rather than just typing out a one-liner that really explains nothing.  You have not answered every question asked of you.  You ignored several.  In the future, if you could actually try to understand and acknowledge what people are trying to explain to you rather than to continue to deny that they may know what they are talking about it might be easier to converse.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *The idea of sweet spot formulated as you describe is fairly meaningless in terms of the discussion as it was when I made my first post.*
> 
> ---See, here is where you create a problem.  It is not meaningless.  We have been telling you what it means.  You can choose not to use it in your understanding of Wing Chun.  But that does not make it "meaningless." Its just like your denying that someone was able to cover 8 feet quickly with a kick and only one step despite my posting a video of it.  Any hostility is simply frustration with the way you have been posting and failing to see or acknowledge points that people have gone to efforts to explain in pretty good detail.  That has been pointed out to you several times as well.  But you choose to ignore all of that.  Conversation is a two-way street.  You make points.  But you acknowledge other people's points as well.  Most people here feel like they have been banging their head against a wall trying to discuss this with you.  That was a very frequent problem with Guy! But Guy would do this on purpose just to see how many people he could irritate.  Is that your game as well?
> 
> 
> 
> *So initially the conversation appears to have been about a range where we stand and fight in wing chun, one unfamiliar to other martial arts stylists, closer than punching distance and further than grappling distance,*
> 
> ---And again, that summary just proves you weren't really trying to understand what was being said, because that is not what was explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is why I initially stated that WSL VT is not range limited in this way,*
> 
> --And nobody said it was limited.  What was described was simply the distance at which Wing Chun functions the best.  You wouldn't remain at a distance of a leg's length away from the opponent and try to fight from there without closing in would you?  A Tae Kwon Do guy would.  That is kicking range.  But that doesn't mean the TKD guy is limited to that range.  It has already been explained that the various ranges indicate distance from the opponent and what kind of techniques can be used from that distance.  You may not use this in your Wing Chun.  But it is very useful to know when facing someone that doesn't do Wing Chun!
> 
> 
> 
> *I think that most of you realised immediately that I was right about this, but did not want to admit it in case I was the terrible "Guy" you all seem to fear so much.*
> 
> ---Wow!  Like Guy, you seem to lack a lot of personal insight!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *kicks are slow and telegraphed compared to punching, and any advantage in limb length via kicking is removed due to step length limitation and slower speed *
> 
> ----Ok.  You just keep right on believing that.  But you may get a rude surprise if you ever actually try to spar without someone that is good at kicking!
> 
> 
> 
> * I answered every question I could but sometimes it felt like a bit of an onslaught with many people commenting from different martial arts and not much friendliness. In future if people can be a bit more accomodating (and stop making these weird accusations that I am some mystery Guy they don't like) then maybe it will be easier to converse and we will ab be able to get along *
> 
> ---There is no race to immediately respond to every post.  There is no reason why you can't take time to provide a detailed answer when a question is asked rather than just typing out a one-liner that really explains nothing.  You have not answered every question asked of you.  You ignored several.  In the future, if you could actually try to understand and acknowledge what people are trying to explain to you rather than to continue to deny that they may know what they are talking about it might be easier to converse.


Hell a WC guy can be good at kicking.  If they get good at using the hands as a distraction, which is actually a WC technique I am taught.  

My Sifu actually ocassionally makes jokes at me, more typically at the "unicorn" of our school.  We both like kicks.  I tend to keep low and let the guy guy know their instep, ankle of knee was just broken or use it to gain distance with the "Buffalo" of our school if I couldn't side step properly.  

The "unicorn"?  Remember the video I shared previously of Sifu Jerry in the unsanctioned "to KO" WC fight?  That's what the "unicorn" may do as well.  He can effectively go from what most see as WC, to "high kick" and back and that causes some people all sorts of bother.  In that video you can actually see how in one sequence the high kicks totally threw the other guy off to the point that he was completely open to "typical" WC attacks.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Hell a WC guy can be good at kicking. If they get good at using the hands as a distraction, which is actually a WC technique I am taught.



Anyone can be good at anything provided they understand the mechanics change when you move outside your own dynamics.

Or at least the emphasis on those mechanics.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Anyone can be good at anything provided they understand the mechanics change when you move outside your own dynamics.
> 
> Or at least the emphasis on those mechanics.



Indeed, but some people get sucked into, for lack of a better term, the dogma of the their specific teacher.  We all have personal strengths and weaknesses and it can be transferred from teacher to student.  My Sifu makes fun of thus who kick, not because we kick, but because he afraid others will kick too much.  I will PM you for the rest to avoid another senseless WC debate.


----------



## Dylan9d

drop bear said:


> Anyone can be good at anything provided they understand the mechanics change when you move outside your own dynamics.
> 
> Or at least the emphasis on those mechanics.



They call it improvising and I think that's what most martial artists are missing.


----------



## drop bear

Dylan9d said:


> They call it improvising and I think that's what most martial artists are missing.



In part.  It is also about training under different dynamics. So today i did shoot boxing. Which is kind of MMA but with boxing gloves.

Now it favors certain types of attacks while making other attacks more difficult. So i put emphasis on certain tactics. When i do BJJ tonight it will favor different attacks. And so I will focus more on those.

This idea that your whole style has to be at a certain range doing a certain method is very limiting.

And it seems some martial arts are very focused on this one method. And then the strict rules to defeat that method.


----------



## Dylan9d

drop bear said:


> In part.  It is also about training under different dynamics. So today i did shoot boxing. Which is kind of MMA but with boxing gloves.
> 
> Now it favors certain types of attacks while making other attacks more difficult. So i put emphasis on certain tactics. When i do BJJ tonight it will favor different attacks. And so I will focus more on those.
> 
> This idea that your whole style has to be at a certain range doing a certain method is very limiting.
> 
> And it seems some martial arts are very focused on this one method. And then the strict rules to defeat that method.



I really have the feeling that this is the case with WC/VT/WT, they train to defend against their specific rule set. Maybe I'm completly wrong but that's the feeling I had when I trained a couple of times at different Wing Chun / Ving Tsun school.

I do feel that it is an art that can be made effective.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> See, here is where you create a problem. It is not meaningless. We have been telling you what it means. You can choose not to use it in your understanding of Wing Chun. But that does not make it "meaningless.



In WSL VT it is a meaningless idea, or so trivial as to not be worth mentioning . It isn't a matter of my choice, just the way it is with the WSL VT system! I fully acknowledge that it might be a useful idea in other martial arts , including other wing chun, and that it might in fact be critical to your wing chun, JKD or whatever else you do. If you are into grappling with wing chun, trapping arms, standing close to the opponent and so on then I can see why it might be helpful to think in this way 



KPM said:


> Its just like your denying that someone was able to cover 8 feet quickly with a kick and only one step despite my posting a video of it.








Pic 1- start





Pic 2- kicker takes a step forward with back foot





Pic 3- kicker plants back foot (1 step)





Pic 4- kicker steps with front foot





Pic 5- kicker pushes off back foot and makes a small jump forward. Frame speed not fast enough to catch time in air but compare with next pic to see back foot advanced





Pic 6- kicker lands again on back foot, front foot still in the air (2 steps)





Pic 7- kicker lands on front foot, drags rear foot forward (3 or 4 steps, depending on whether you count the drag)





Pic 8- kicker fully airborne, feet cross





Pic 9- kicker lands rear leg after jump then impacts pad with front leg (4 or 5 steps). You could argue that he's doing a flying kick and impacting before grounding which would make 3 or 4 steps, but then impact much reduced. I mean we can also do superman punches, but we don't because it is not sensible .

Overall the lowest possible number of steps possible to count for this kick is 3, and so you are mistaken. This is why I argued against your point, and why posting the video not the same as looking carefully at it. It is a bit like the video Juany posted of Dwight Hemmings doing the VT punch, followed it with a video of someone else doing a different type of punch, and said they were the same .



KPM said:


> Any hostility is simply frustration with the way you have been posting and failing to see or acknowledge points that people have gone to efforts to explain in pretty good detail. That has been pointed out to you several times as well. But you choose to ignore all of that. Conversation is a two-way street. You make points. But you acknowledge other people's points as well. Most people here feel like they have been banging their head against a wall trying to discuss this with you. That was a very frequent problem with Guy! But Guy would do this on purpose just to see how many people he could irritate. Is that your game as well?



I acknowledge that people do things differently in different martial arts compared to WSL VT . I think I have said this several times . I don't really understand what else you want from me? Since I don't know JKD, Aikido and so on, it is very hard for me to say well done that's great, because I don't understand what you are trying to do in the first place! I can only speak from my own point of view which is WSL VT 

As for your bit of advice about acknowledging points, I think you could do well to take a bit of your own advice . None of the people arguing so strongly over this discussion have agreed with any of the basic and sensible points about the footwork that I have made!


----------



## KPM

Dylan9d said:


> I really have the feeling that this is the case with WC/VT/WT, they train to defend against their specific rule set. Maybe I'm completly wrong but that's the feeling I had when I trained a couple of times at different Wing Chun / Ving Tsun school.
> 
> I do feel that it is an art that can be made effective.



That is true for far too many Wing Chun schools.  Not all.  But a lot of them!  Too many don't spar at all, or when they do spar it is against fellow students from their school also doing Wing Chun.  Or a fellow Wing Chun student that will try and represent a boxer or a kicker and give the Wing Chun person a false sense of effectiveness because their fellow student isn't really very good at boxing or kicking!


----------



## KPM

*In WSL VT it is a meaningless idea, or so trivial as to not be worth mentioning . It isn't a matter of my choice, just the way it is with the WSL VT system! I fully acknowledge that it might be a useful idea in other martial arts ,*

---But you haven't acknowledged that is past posts!   In past posts you just seemed to deny that any of us knew what we were talking about.  THAT is what creates any animosity you are sensing.



*including other wing chun, and that it might in fact be critical to your wing chun, JKD or whatever else you do. If you are into grappling with wing chun, trapping arms, standing close to the opponent and so on then I can see why it might be helpful to think in this way *

---See. Here it is again.....here you are finally acknowledging what we have said, but then qualify it by implying that if we have to think that way in our Wing Chun, then there is probably something wrong with our Wing Chun!  That is exactly what Guy used to do.  He concluded that everyone's Wing Chun other than WSLVT was somehow "broken".    The little smiley faces you use don't cover over the fact that you post as if you think you are right and everyone else must be somehow wrong.







Pic 1- start

---Sorry.   My work computer won't let those pics come through.  I'll have to check it at home tonight.   But the kicker does acknowledge that he takes a little "stutter step" for the last two kicks, and even says at the beginning of the video that the goal is to kick without any kind of "running start" and this is hard to do.  But those little stutter steps for his last two kicks don't really add much other than getting his momentum going.  They are not really full steps, and there is no way he is taking 3 or 4 steps..  Look at all the kicks preceding the final two.   Here is the video again.  Does anyone else here think this guy is taking multiple steps to do this kick????







*As for your bit of advice about acknowledging points, I think you could do well to take a bit of your own advice . None of the people arguing so strongly over this discussion have agreed with any of the basic and sensible points about the footwork that I have made!*

---Really?  I suggest you go back and reread some posts.  Again, you weren't saying anything special.  People acknowledged that.


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> But you haven't acknowledged that is past posts!   In past posts you just seemed to deny that any of us knew what we were talking about.  THAT is what creates any animosity you are sensing



Maybe you missed it, or got angry thinking I was your enemy the "Guy" 

Please see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here

I hope this reassures you that I am very happy to accept that other understandings have value in other martial arts. I hope that you can extend the same courtesy to me and that we can avoid angry talk in future 

*



			including other wing chun, and that it might in fact be critical to your wing chun, JKD or whatever else you do. If you are into grappling with wing chun, trapping arms, standing close to the opponent and so on then I can see why it might be helpful to think in this way 

Click to expand...

*


> ---See. Here it is again.....here you are finally acknowledging what we have said, but then qualify it by implying that if we have to think that way in our Wing Chun, then there is probably something wrong with our Wing Chun!  That is exactly what Guy used to do.  He concluded that everyone's Wing Chun other than WSLVT was somehow "broken".    The little smiley faces you use don't cover over the fact that you post as if you think you are right and everyone else must be somehow wrong.



In the above I am seeing why it would be helpful to think in the way you are talking about if your wing chun does the things you have said it does. How could this possibly be taken as a criticism? 

I have to say that it looks like you are imagining criticism where there is none. You seem very sensitive for some reason? 



> My work computer won't let those pics come through.  I'll have to check it at home tonight.   But the kicker does acknowledge that he takes a little "stutter step" for the last two kicks, and even says at the beginning of the video that the goal is to kick without any kind of "running start" and this is hard to do.  But those little stutter steps for his last two kicks don't really add much other than getting his momentum going.  They are not really full steps, and there is no way he is taking 3 or 4 steps..  Look at all the kicks preceding the final two.   Here is the video again.  Does anyone else here think this guy is taking multiple steps to do this kick????



This is a different video. In this clip however, he is drawing up the back leg, then kicking- 2 step. Punch with footwork is a 1 step movement, first punch lands with first foot.

Also there is more than one prior step when he gets to beyond practical fighting range, while at longer fighting range he is doing a flying kick with consequent lack of power and extreme telegraphing due to the short step required to launch a kick.

This kind of kick might work well under JKD conditions, but in terms of WSL VT it would be pretty much useless, leaving the kicker exposed and helpless due to slowness, lack of power, full commitment without cover, and telegraphing.

The clip you actually posted from which I took the pictures has many steps before the kick so yes would be good if you have a look when you get home. 



> I suggest you go back and reread some posts.  Again, you weren't saying anything special.  People acknowledged that.



Please see posts above where I acknowledge that different ideas are relevant in different martial arts approaches. Acknowledging that someone is saying nothing special when it plainly and logically contradicts what was being talked about before is called bad temper and/or entrenched bias 

I hope you can manage to get over this in future, and that we can post productively together on the forum


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> The little smiley faces you use don't cover over the fact that you post as if you think you are right and everyone else must be somehow wrong.



I missed this bit. I use the faces to show what I am feeling for the infomation of others. This is why smiley faces, confused faces, sad faces, winks, and so on 

Again no idea how you could take offence at the idea someone is chatting with you and smiling  (now I am confused!)


----------



## geezer

Hazardi172 said:


> I missed this bit. I use the faces to show what I am feeling for the infomation of others. This is why smiley faces, confused faces, sad faces, winks, and so on
> 
> Again no idea how you could take offence at the idea someone is chatting with you and smiling  (now I am confused!)



_Hazardi_ -- as the discussion progresses, I think it's becoming pretty clear that you aren't "Guy", and that unlike him, you are actually interested in exchanging information.

Now regarding the whole "sweet-spot" thing. I personally think _range_ is a very important consideration in fighting, but if that mental construct isn't used in WSL-VT, that's fine with me. And it's no reflection on who's correct. WSL and some of his more accomplished students have proved that his system is effective. Different people look at things differently, and still get good results. So I thank you for your input.

Now, you made a different point regarding the two videos on WC/VT punching that I hope you can clarify. I believe that you stated that the first video featuring Dwight Hammonds (?) was essentially the same or similar to what you train, while the second video was quite a bit different. Could you please point out the key differences that make the punching in the second video different from your VT? 

(Note the Vulcan above: I'm trying to be logical here and look at the facts! )


----------



## Vajramusti

I find this whole thread to be quite messy.I quit reading it carefully.But some things are obvious. Hazardi is not Guy and his perspective
seems to be rooted in WSL wing chun
KPM continues his style of zigzagging through.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> I find this whole thread to be quite messy.I quit reading it carefully.But some things are obvious. Hazardi is not Guy and his perspective
> seems to be rooted in WSL wing chun
> KPM continues his style of zigzagging through.



And how do you know that if you did not read the thread carefully?  I haven't "zigzagged" anything.  My comments have been very consistent.


----------



## Dylan9d

Vajramusti said:


> I find this whole thread to be quite messy.I quit reading it carefully.But some things are obvious. Hazardi is not Guy and his perspective
> seems to be rooted in WSL wing chun
> KPM continues his style of zigzagging through.



Haven't really seen anyone zigzagging and I have been following this from the start


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> _Hazardi_ -- as the discussion progresses, I think it's becoming pretty clear that you aren't "Guy", and that unlike him, you are actually interested in exchanging information.
> 
> )



I think we have seen a shift in attitude since this thread began, so maybe Hazardi has been listening to our comments about "Guy-like" behavior.   When Dirty Dog posted his comment I PM'd him and asked him to check into this for us.  But he hasn't replied.

As I look back I will agree that I had some bias in my responses to  Hazardi because he was sounding so much like Guy.  Hazardi, I apologize for that!


----------



## wckf92

@Hazardi172 seems to post more info and detail than Guy I think...
Haven't seen Guy or LFJ lately so maybe they moved on or are under a temporary ban(?)


----------



## Transk53

For what's it worth, I too thought Guy had spoofed the MT joining system as it were. Apologies Hazardi.


----------



## O'Malley

Who cares if he's this "Guy" or not? If it's such an issue, an admin/mod can check out his IP.

What seems to be more of a problem is that if someone says "no in my lineage we don't need to consider this we do it differently" then is unable to convey a clear idea of why he makes such a claim it provides no basis for discussion.

And logic would require to dismiss that claim, as the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim.

My 1.5 cents.


----------



## wtxs

geezer said:


> ow, you made a different point regarding the two videos on WC/VT punching that I hope you can clarify. I believe that you stated that the first video featuring Dwight Hammonds (?) was essentially the same or similar to what you train, while the second video was quite a bit different. Could you please point out the key differences that make the punching in the second video different from your VT?



Just MHO.

!st video - elbow pointed down, arm almost perpendicular to ground.

2nd video - elbow not quite pointed "down" with arm flared slightly out to the side.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> That is true for far too many Wing Chun schools.  Not all.  But a lot of them!  Too many don't spar at all, or when they do spar it is against fellow students from their school also doing Wing Chun.  Or a fellow Wing Chun student that will try and represent a boxer or a kicker and give the Wing Chun person a false sense of effectiveness because their fellow student isn't really very good at boxing or kicking!



The same issue is raised with sport jujitsu by the way.


----------



## KPM

Ok.  I see.  I've checked out the photo captures on a computer that will actually show them. You chose to break down the first video.  I told you in post #421 that I was referring to the  2nd video because it was much smoother.   In the first video he does take a small advance step and then does the kick.  So, yeah.  In this instance he made it a very quick 2 step kick.  But the guy in the 2nd video was certainly doing a 1 step kick until he hit the 8 foot point where he put a little stutter in first.   And there is no way the guy in the first video is doing a 3 or 4 step kick.  From the time the front foot leaves the ground until it hits the ground again or strikes the target is one step.  I said this before.  When looking at gait biomechanics this is how it is done as well.....from one foot strike until the same foot strikes the ground again is one step.  You can disagree with that all you want, but that is how gait analysis is done.


----------



## KPM

wtxs said:


> Just MHO.
> 
> !st video - elbow pointed down, arm almost perpendicular to ground.
> 
> 2nd video - elbow not quite pointed "down" with arm flared slightly out to the side.



Hazardi also mentioned the rolling of the shoulders like a boxer, which the guy in the second video does do when punching to the kicking shield.  But the difference between the two videos was that the puncher in the first video was actually concentrating on teaching good form and mechanics while the puncher in the second video was just trying to impress the interviewer with how much power he could generate and wasn't concerned with maintaining perfect technique.  So it really isn't a very good comparison with which to criticize the guy in the second video.  In a different circumstance his punch may very well look exactly like the puncher in the first video!


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> @Hazardi172 seems to post more info and detail than Guy I think...
> Haven't seen Guy or LFJ lately so maybe they moved on or are under a temporary ban(?)



I'm not sure about LFJ, but I am pretty sure that Guy was fully banned....going by what Dirty Dog said earlier in this thread.


----------



## Juany118

.


KPM said:


> Hazardi also mentioned the rolling of the shoulders like a boxer, which the guy in the second video does do when punching to the kicking shield.  But the difference between the two videos was that the puncher in the first video was actually concentrating on teaching good form and mechanics while the puncher in the second video was just trying to impress the interviewer with how much power he could generate and wasn't concerned with maintaining perfect technique.  So it really isn't a very good comparison with which to criticize the guy in the second video.  In a different circumstance his punch may very well look exactly like the puncher in the first video!



Pretty much.  If you look in the second video when he shows how to train the punch he is much "cleaner." In terms of form.  Another point, I would argue, is that when punching the big bag at the range, and location he was, you will be forced to recruit different muscles to make contact with appreciable power.  That is the thing with any fighting art imo.  You have to keep the fundamental principles in mind while being capable of adapting to the circumstances of a dynamic situation.  If in your head you say "I must punch this way" but the fight doesn't permit it and you start trying to force that perfect punch,  you will find yourself in a spot of bother.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> he was sounding so much like Guy.


I was waiting for Hazardi to say the following:

- Your WC is not pure.
- This is against our WC principle.
- My WC doesn't do this.
- Why do you keep comparing WC to other MA?
- It doesn't matter how long you may have trained WC, you still don't know WC.
- ...

So far, he hasn't.


----------



## KPM

Here is another point that was questioned and never really got answered.   Hazardi said:

_We don't step in and then punch 
_
Which prompted my question of how WSLVT does a punch from 5 feet or more a way.  I believe the only answer really given was ..."just punch!"  So again, given the criticism leveled at the videos of the long range kick I posted, I would like Hazardi to explain how he does his WSLVT punch from an equal distance away with a single step without stepping in first. 

Hazardi?   Thanks!


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.



Now, to get back to the OP somewhat....I don't think we really ever defined what an "outside game" is, and this has likely caused some confusion and "cross talk."   To me, in this context, "outside" means that distance where you are going to have to take at least one step or more to get close enough for your punch to land, or you are just close enough to land an extended kick but the opponent is not close enough to land a punch. 

 I said this in the "Wing Chun & Jeet Kune Do" thread:

A real "outside game" allows you to stay and fight at the outside ranges if you so choose. Most Wing Chun kicks are designed to be delivered at closer range. A good outside game gives you options for controlling the distance and bridging the gap in various ways. If your primary strategy at long range is to stand and wait for the opponent to close with you, or to simply use a step-slide footwork to step into the opponent waiting to draw a response that you can then defend and work at close range....then this isn't really an "outside game." It is simply a way to transition to the "inside game". This is what I have seen from most Ip Man lineages. Heck, I have to admit that this is true of the Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun that I study as well.

From my experience with JKD, what is different is the extent of bridging used and the explicit "outside game" that is taught. JKD assumes that you are starting at long range, have to manage at long range, and then close in continue the fight. There is plenty of angular footwork to stay at long range if you choose, there are long range kicks if you choose to use them, and there are very specific ways to "close the gap" that Wing Chun simply does not have. Too often Wing Chun seems to assume you will stand in your ready stance and just wait for the opponent to attack and come into close range. TWC is the exception to this because TWC does have more footwork and bridging at long range than other Wing Chun. And I think that is by design....William Cheung put it there.  TWC has even been referred to at times as "long bridge" Wing Chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Now, to get back to the OP somewhat....I don't think we really ever defined what an "outside game" is, and this has likely caused some confusion and "cross talk."   To me, in this context, "outside" means that distance where you are going to have to take at least one step or more to get close enough for your punch to land, or you are just close enough to land an extended kick but the opponent is not close enough to land a punch.
> 
> I said this in the "Wing Chun & Jeet Kune Do" thread:
> 
> A real "outside game" allows you to stay and fight at the outside ranges if you so choose. Most Wing Chun kicks are designed to be delivered at closer range. A good outside game gives you options for controlling the distance and bridging the gap in various ways. If your primary strategy at long range is to stand and wait for the opponent to close with you, or to simply use a step-slide footwork to step into the opponent waiting to draw a response that you can then defend and work at close range....then this isn't really an "outside game." It is simply a way to transition to the "inside game". This is what I have seen from most Ip Man lineages. Heck, I have to admit that this is true of the Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun that I study as well.



I agree with that definition, except that I'd add that any step to a punch has to be small, or you're already "outside". An extreme step to get in is actually a n entry movement, not an outside attack. 

And the observation of a weak outside game is familiar. Arts that look to excel inside don't spend much time training distance (most WC, BJJ, NGA, Judo). Most of these have methods for getting inside to do what we do. If we don't work on having some outside moves, though, we end up with a quandary. In every style I know of, one part of the strategy is to not play the other person's game unless you are much better at it. So what do you do if you have someone who is your equal or better inside? Or what if they have good defenses against those entry moves. Having a valid (even if small) arsenal from a distance gives two new options: play the outside game if they are weak at it, or use the outside game to draw them into giving an openin for the inside game.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I agree with that definition, except that I'd add that any step to a punch has to be small, or you're already "outside". An extreme step to get in is actually a n entry movement, not an outside attack.
> 
> And the observation of a weak outside game is familiar. Arts that look to excel inside don't spend much time training distance (most WC, BJJ, NGA, Judo). Most of these have methods for getting inside to do what we do. If we don't work on having some outside moves, though, we end up with a quandary. In every style I know of, one part of the strategy is to not play the other person's game unless you are much better at it. So what do you do if you have someone who is your equal or better inside? Or what if they have good defenses against those entry moves. Having a valid (even if small) arsenal from a distance gives two new options: play the outside game if they are weak at it, or use the outside game to draw them into giving an openin for the inside game.



Also for @KPM , one of the things I will admit that I noticed is that TWC feels like it has more stepping than others I have taken.  As was said by another in the footwork thread, I shuffle but largely when I am putting on the brakes so to speak.  Also when others may "simply" pivot, for say a defense, we may perform a release step after a pivot or out right "t" step as part of our reorientation.


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> Now, to get back to the OP somewhat....I don't think we really ever defined what an "outside game" is, and this has likely caused some confusion and "cross talk."   To me, in this context, "outside" means that distance where you are going to have to take at least one step or more to get close enough for your punch to land, or you are just close enough to land an extended kick but the opponent is not close enough to land a punch.
> 
> I said this in the "Wing Chun & Jeet Kune Do" thread:
> 
> A real "outside game" allows you to stay and fight at the outside ranges if you so choose. Most Wing Chun kicks are designed to be delivered at closer range. A good outside game gives you options for controlling the distance and bridging the gap in various ways. If your primary strategy at long range is to stand and wait for the opponent to close with you, or to simply use a step-slide footwork to step into the opponent waiting to draw a response that you can then defend and work at close range....then this isn't really an "outside game." It is simply a way to transition to the "inside game". This is what I have seen from most Ip Man lineages. Heck, I have to admit that this is true of the Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun that I study as well.
> 
> From my experience with JKD, what is different is the extent of bridging used and the explicit "outside game" that is taught. JKD assumes that you are starting at long range, have to manage at long range, and then close in continue the fight. There is plenty of angular footwork to stay at long range if you choose, there are long range kicks if you choose to use them, and there are very specific ways to "close the gap" that Wing Chun simply does not have. Too often Wing Chun seems to assume you will stand in your ready stance and just wait for the opponent to attack and come into close range. TWC is the exception to this because TWC does have more footwork and bridging at long range than other Wing Chun. And I think that is by design....William Cheung put it there.  TWC has even been referred to at times as "long bridge" Wing Chun.


 
I like that definition as well.

William Cheung is the only person that I have seen do kicks during Biu Jee.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Which prompted my question of how WSLVT does a punch from 5 feet or more a way.


If you need to move in 2 steps to punch, you can hide your 1st step in another move (such a a foot sweep, or low roundhouse kick). You then execute your punch in your 2nd step.


----------



## wingchun100

Well, I am glad for this thread. It is the first long thread I have started that didn't wind up getting taken down due to attention wandering, atlhough there were moments when it came close.

Anyway, I think our "outside" game consists of getting to our "inside" game. There are a couple long bridge techniques (albeit using only the arms) in Sil Lum Tao. Then there are kicks and stepping in Chum Kiu. Last but not least there are a ton of long bridge techniques in Biu Jee and the pole form.

Granted, it takes a while to get to BJ and the pole, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Which prompted my question of how WSLVT does a punch from 5 feet or more a way.



» What I Have Learnt Through “Beimo” Ving Tsun Combat Science


> *2. GIVING THE ENEMY THE OPPORTUNITY TO STRIKE FIRST*
> To win or lose a fight often depends on who watches for his chance to attack the enemy first when both sides are fighting. As Sun Zi said, “When an invading force crosses a river in its onward march, it is best to let half the army get across, and then deliver your attack.” You will reap twice the result with half the effort if the attack is launched with such favourable timing as the opponent’s intention, developments and movements can all be readily determined. Should this strategy be applied, the opponent will find it especially difficult to co-ordinate his body, making advance or retreat virtually impossible and the loss of the fight by him inevitable. *A common error made by inexperienced Wing Chun practitioners is to throw their punches from too far away*, leaving a lot of distance between their opponent and themselves. As one can see from the pictures fig.7, fig.8 and fig.9, such a clumsy and rash move gives the enemy the opportunity to attack first.
> 
> Therefore, when engaged in combat with an opponent, *never be impatient*. *Do not launch an attack until there’s a distance of one step between you and your enemy*, then launch a sudden attack so as to force the enemy to be caught totally unprepared. Launching a sudden attack in this way, one gains the advantage of an extra step towards the enemy, making it extremely difficult for him to react in time, the result normally being a feeble attempt to move half a step to the right or left, or else retreat straight backwards. This makes it very easy to remain in contact with the enemy, maintaining control of the situation by affecting the enemy’s balance and positioning. You therefore avoid giving him the chance to attack first and take away his opportunity to manage the situation.


----------



## KPM

Just a note for those of you that have followed this thread through-out.   On Monday Dirty Dog took notice that we suspected Guy and Hazardi were the same person.  On that day I PM'd him and asked him to check into it for us.  He won't say one way or the other the result of his investigation.....but Hazardi has now not made an appearance here since Wednesday.  So, if he is just away from his computer and  shows up here later we were wrong.  But right now it sure is looking as if we were right!


----------



## T_Ray

...


----------



## Hazardi172

geezer said:


> _Hazardi_ -- as the discussion progresses, I think it's becoming pretty clear that you aren't "Guy", and that unlike him, you are actually interested in exchanging information
> 
> Now regarding the whole "sweet-spot" thing. I personally think _range_ is a very important consideration in fighting, but if that mental construct isn't used in WSL-VT, that's fine with me. And it's no reflection on who's correct. WSL and some of his more accomplished students have proved that his system is effective. Different people look at things differently, and still get good results. So I thank you for your input.



Thanks! Glad for your support. Yes all I want to do is represent the WSL VT way of doing things, not interested in challenging anyone else 



> Now, you made a different point regarding the two videos on WC/VT punching that I hope you can clarify. I believe that you stated that the first video featuring Dwight Hammonds (?) was essentially the same or similar to what you train, while the second video was quite a bit different. Could you please point out the key differences that make the punching in the second video different from your VT?
> 
> (Note the Vulcan above: I'm trying to be logical here and look at the facts! )



The second video looks very powerful, is just not showing the punch with step using momentum that the Hemmings video shows, which is what I was talking about in this thread . It looks like he is using some upper body torque for power, probably because he is standing close to the target.


----------



## Hazardi172

Vajramusti said:


> I find this whole thread to be quite messy.I quit reading it carefully.But some things are obvious. Hazardi is not Guy and his perspective
> seems to be rooted in WSL wing chun



Thanks! Yes WSL VT is my experience


----------



## Hazardi172

KPM said:


> I think we have seen a shift in attitude since this thread began, so maybe Hazardi has been listening to our comments about "Guy-like" behavior.   When Dirty Dog posted his comment I PM'd him and asked him to check into this for us.  But he hasn't replied.
> 
> As I look back I will agree that I had some bias in my responses to  Hazardi because he was sounding so much like Guy.  Hazardi, I apologize for that!



Thanks KPM, lets put this argument behind us. It is easy to get caught up in these things and I am sure I have been a bit biased as well


----------



## Hazardi172

Transk53 said:


> For what's it worth, I too thought Guy had spoofed the MT joining system as it were. Apologies Hazardi.



Thanks Transk53!


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> Another point, I would argue, is that when punching the big bag at the range, and location he was, you will be forced to recruit different muscles to make contact with appreciable power. That is the thing with any fighting art imo. You have to keep the fundamental principles in mind while being capable of adapting to the circumstances of a dynamic situation. If in your head you say "I must punch this way" but the fight doesn't permit it and you start trying to force that perfect punch, you will find yourself in a spot of bother.



I think possible to punch at close range using the same muscles. Think of the Lap Sau drill mentioned earlier in the thread for instance- what is it teaching you to do?


----------



## KPM

Hazardi172 said:


> Thanks KPM, lets put this argument behind us. It is easy to get caught up in these things and I am sure I have been a bit biased as well



Ah!  Hazardi!  Welcome back!  This confirms for everyone that you are indeed NOT Guy B.     Again my apologies for assuming you were!  Looking forward to future discussions!  I do believe that WSLVT is an excellent system and hope to learn more about its approach as we touch on various topics here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> I think possible to punch at close range using the same muscles. Think of the Lap Sau drill mentioned earlier in the thread for instance- what is it teaching you to do?


Could you find a video (or pair of them) showing the same punch from both ranges? I'd like to see the mechanics in that.


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> Just a note for those of you that have followed this thread through-out.   On Monday Dirty Dog took notice that we suspected Guy and Hazardi were the same person.  On that day I PM'd him and asked him to check into it for us.  He won't say one way or the other the result of his investigation.....but Hazardi has now not made an appearance here since Wednesday.  So, if he is just away from his computer and  shows up here later we were wrong.  But right now it sure is looking as if we were right!



He also said to stay on topic and not call out if we suspect one new member is a former banned member, hence why I have paid no mind. LOL


----------



## Hazardi172

gpseymour said:


> Could you find a video (or pair of them) showing the same punch from both ranges? I'd like to see the mechanics in that.



I can't find a video, sorry.

However the VT punch relies upon the momentum of the moving body weight. This is linear at a distance, often angular at close range, sometimes partial linear. All relies on footwork and short circuits the upper body musculature


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hazardi172 said:


> I can't find a video, sorry.


It's not that difficult to create a video by yourself. I have created over 1,000 videos on my computer. Almost all online discussion subjects, I can reference some videos for it.


----------



## Hazardi172

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not that difficult to create a video by yourself. I have created over 1,000 videos on my computer. Almost all online discussion subjects, I can reference some videos for it.



Ok feel free to post your video, I am sorry that I don't have


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hazardi172 said:


> Ok feel free to post your video, I am sorry that I don't have


He's not the WSL VT person. He's suggesting you could record one to show what you're talking about.


----------



## wingchun100

For some reason it struck me tonight to search for Emin Boztepe on YouTube. Now there is a guy who will make you realize you don't need to combine WC with anything else to handle business.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> For some reason it struck me tonight to search for Emin Boztepe on YouTube. Now there is a guy who will make you realize you don't need to combine WC with anything else to handle business.


Lol.... you ever see him fight William cheung?   They could both stand to learn grappling of some kind.


----------



## Eric_H

wingchun100 said:


> For some reason it struck me tonight to search for Emin Boztepe on YouTube. Now there is a guy who will make you realize you don't need to combine WC with anything else to handle business.



You're joking right? He's combined with a bunch of stuff.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Lol.... you ever see him fight William cheung?   They could both stand to learn grappling of some kind.




What was funny about that was Emin is/was a BJJ guy.  It's one of the things about the video that later made me laugh.  A BJJ guy charges a guy who said "no I won't fight with you but I will spar".  The target is wearing traditional "slick soled" traditional slippers on a polished floor and yet you still end up doing that?  

One good thing came from that maybe.  It seems that the "half a grappling game" (essentially novice to intermediate stuff you I learned in Judo and the like) in TWC was a result of that encounter.  All of the sources I can find regarding that is from sometime after that incident.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> What was funny about that was Emin is/was a BJJ guy.  It's one of the things about the video that later made me laugh.  A BJJ guy charges a guy who said "no I won't fight with you but I will spar".  The target is wearing traditional "slick soled" traditional slippers on a polished floor and yet you still end up doing that?
> 
> One good thing came from that maybe.  It seems that the "half a grappling game" (essentially novice to intermediate stuff you I learned in Judo and the like) in TWC was a result of that encounter.  All of the sources I can find regarding that is from sometime after that incident.



Actually, I think that exchange was well before BJJ was a "thing."  But Emin certainly had a wrestling background at that point.  I've always said that exchange between Cheung and Boztepe means nothing.  No Wing Chun was actually used.  Both went immediately to the ground on that slick floor and flopped around like a couple of school kids.


----------



## Steve

KPM said:


> Actually, I think that exchange was well before BJJ was a "thing."  But Emin certainly had a wrestling background at that point.  I've always said that exchange between Cheung and Boztepe means nothing.  No Wing Chun was actually used.  Both went immediately to the ground on that slick floor and flopped around like a couple of school kids.


It's an example of how if you don't pressure test your,skills, while you may be an expert in the style, your technique won't be there when you need it,


----------



## drop bear

did he fight anybody other than william cheung?

It is the only video I can find.


----------



## Dylan9d

KPM said:


> Actually, I think that exchange was well before BJJ was a "thing."  But Emin certainly had a wrestling background at that point.  I've always said that exchange between Cheung and Boztepe means nothing.  No Wing Chun was actually used.  Both went immediately to the ground on that slick floor and flopped around like a couple of school kids.



I always wondered why they didn't do some stand up fighting in that video.

They were both into Wing Chun at the time of the video.

Or was it exactly like I thought last time? That they didn't or rather couldn't apply their Wing Chun in a brawler type situation?

What's your take on that folks?


----------



## Juany118

.


Dylan9d said:


> I always wondered why they didn't do some stand up fighting in that video.
> 
> They were both into Wing Chun at the time of the video.
> 
> Or was it exactly like I thought last time? That they didn't or rather couldn't apply their Wing Chun in a brawler type situation?
> 
> What's your take on that folks?




The true story?  As I understand Emin was under Ting's organization at that time and was there by his own admission to challenge Cheung.  He challenged William Cheung to a "fight" before the Seminar and it was agreed to be a spar after.  During the seminar Emin challenged Cheung who said "no but I'll spar after the seminar." Emin got pissy, Cheung went back to teaching his seminar, Emin then bum rushed Cheung mid talk.  If you told people you were going to "challenge" someone, got rebuffed and then bum rushed them would you want the bum rush on film?  At the same time I could see someone with more than a little pride like Emin clearly has (broke with his master bitterly over $$$, then his master's master Leung Ting over the same, claimed to have come out unscathed and victorious from 370 street fights, including those where the other guy had a gun) would say "well a true master should be ready for anything!"

I base this not only on things said by various people but also some logic.  As far as I know that is the only video of the event that survives AND when it was first released it even had after the fact narration that amounted to  "Emin beats this guy!!!"  If someone was interested in releasing a true and full account we would have the whole thing.  If it was to be "full and true" why would one of the first released not only be edited footage but with partisan narration?

Now maybe it's a coincidence and the person who got a hold of it did all of that editing without Emin's knowledge but was an Emin fan.  I even read an interview with Emin in a magazine "back in the day" where he claimed the video was edited purposefully to make HIM look bad since it does give credence to the ambush claim itself, and it appears that he can't land a solid punch on another guy who is sliding in shoes not suited for a basketball court.  I don't find Emin's rationalization very likely however.

Now admittedly maybe my job makes me a bit more sensitive to such edited videos with narration to try and paint them to be something else.  Still remember one where a cop dropped rubber gloves he was trying to put on to render first aid to a suspect.   The "narrator", who was using his cellphone to film a YouTube video, to go on YouTube, was describing an obvious nitrile gloves flopping to the ground was a gun being dropped.

Edit:

My conclusion is Emin did ambush Cheung. What is up for debate is whether or not the video was released with Emin "in the loop" or not.  His later interview could be due to the fact that he knew it made him look at least as bad (if not worse than) Cheung to those who know martial arts.  It could also be him doing spin control upon hindsight finally kicking in and letting him no just how bad that video looks all around.  

That said one take away from the video we can all learn from.  Terrain is everything and wear footware appropriate to it if their may be a fight.


----------



## wingchun100

Eric_H said:


> You're joking right? He's combined with a bunch of stuff.



Not in the video I watched. He was doing strictly Wing Chun. He may be mixed, but he was doing nothing but WC.


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> Not in the video I watched. He was doing strictly Wing Chun. He may be mixed, but he was doing nothing but WC.



I'm not a fan of the guy but I have to agree with you.  Now there are times you can see other influences at times but the core is always WC from what I have seen.  

This may however bring us back to a debate we had before around these parts.  When WC stop being WC?


----------



## Hazardi172

Juany118 said:


> What was funny about that was Emin is/was a BJJ guy.  It's one of the things about the video that later made me laugh.  A BJJ guy charges a guy who said "no I won't fight with you but I will spar"



I find it difficult to believe that EB was a BJJ practitioner at the time of this fight, do you have anything to support it?


----------



## drop bear

Regardless Emin could aparently "Handle buisness" So lets look away from one fight and look at his other fights.

I mean we really should work off a collection anyway.


----------



## Juany118

Hazardi172 said:


> I find it difficult to believe that EB was a BJJ practitioner at the time of this fight, do you have anything to support it?



I made a mistake there.  As was pointed out that was before it was before "BJJ" was a thing he claimed to have been a wrestler, Judoka and amateur boxer with over 300 street fights under his belt, but somehow, in a country not famous for how well it treats immigrants of color, not a single documented arrest?

An Article from "Inside Kung-fu" on him back in the 1990's stated that he studied these, and a Karate style I can't recall atm, before moving onto WC in the Leung Ting organization, under Kernspecht, then we have the now infamous 1986 incident.  He then gets into a financial pissing match with Kernspecht, goes to study under Ting, then gets into a financial dispute with Ting and formed his own organization.  Why do I say "this is half the problem with the guy?"  It just smacks of so much ego.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Regardless Emin could aparently "Handle buisness" So lets look away from one fight and look at his other fights.
> 
> I mean we really should work off a collection anyway.



Back in the day there was supposed to be a fight between him and Rickson Gracie, that never happened.  Gracies claimed Emin punked out, Emin said he didn't that the "challenge" was initially made by Kernspecht and Ting (naming him) to make a name for their organization and then it gets all tied up in him breaking away from Ting's WT.  Beyond that we have the alleged 300 street fights in one of the best policed places in Europe.  He claimed to have faced people in these fights armed not only with knives but also guns.  He won everyone of em.  Now, I will NEVER say there aren't street fights we cops don't find out about but one guy participating in 300 street fights that he specifically stated were racially motivated and never one documented?  That stretches things a bit for me.

Beyond that I know of nothing other than his amateur boxing matches, which occurred prior to him starting WC so he was a teenager then.


----------



## Dylan9d

wingchun100 said:


> Not in the video I watched. He was doing strictly Wing Chun. He may be mixed, but he was doing nothing but WC.



I think people are referring to the video of a "fight" between him and William Cheung. Don't know if you watched the same.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> He then gets into a financial pissing match with Kernspecht, goes to study under Ting, then gets into a financial dispute with Ting and formed his own organization.  Why do I say "this is half the problem with the guy?"  It just smacks of so much ego.



But this seems to be a pretty common happening in the Leung Ting lineage.  Almost the same story is told by Sergio and others.  Not saying that Emin doesn't have a big ego, but I'd lay at least have the cause on Leung Ting himself!  ;-)


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> My conclusion is Emin did ambush Cheung. What is up for debate is whether or not the video was released with Emin "in the loop" or not.  His later interview could be due to the fact that he knew it made him look at least as bad (if not worse than) Cheung to those who know martial arts.  It could also be him doing spin control upon hindsight finally kicking in and letting him no just how bad that video looks all around.



What difference does it make? The question is why both of them looked so bad.

TWC is supposed to be for self-defense, innit? SD situations aren't always from a fair and square face-off.

So, Cheung got "bum rushed" and beaten up by someone who also appeared not to be able to use his WT. 

Emin looked bad too, but surely not worse, as he at least wasn't the one being used to mop the floor. Plus, I'm guessing the law would not have been on his side if he just went up and punched Cheung in the face.


----------



## wckf92

why wouldn't Cheung use an "emergency technique" from Bil Jee form to "recover" from being ambushed?


----------



## wingchun100

Juany118 said:


> I made a mistake there.  As was pointed out that was before it was before "BJJ" was a thing he claimed to have been a wrestler, Judoka and amateur boxer with over 300 street fights under his belt, but somehow, in a country not famous for how well it treats immigrants of color, not a single documented arrest?
> 
> An Article from "Inside Kung-fu" on him back in the 1990's stated that he studied these, and a Karate style I can't recall atm, before moving onto WC in the Leung Ting organization, under Kernspecht, then we have the now infamous 1986 incident.  He then gets into a financial pissing match with Kernspecht, goes to study under Ting, then gets into a financial dispute with Ting and formed his own organization.  Why do I say "this is half the problem with the guy?"  It just smacks of so much ego.


 
I know nothing about any of that other than the William Cheung incident and the Gracie stuff. All I know is that he is a very recognizable WC name...I watched his videos...liked what he saw.

If I worried about people's ego, there is so much I would not be able to enjoy, like the music of Smashing Pumpkins or the writings of Norman Mailer. Granted, some of you reading this may not like either of those, but that's not my point. The point is that it IS possible to admire someone's skill regardless of who they are. In certain instances it may be tougher than others. For example, I'm sure I would never like a MILLISECOND of any song written by Charles Manson.


----------



## Danny T

What the Emin/Cheung fight showed is fighting isn't pretty and can take any turn. It doesn't matter how good you are or how good you think you are a fight can quickly go into a realm you are not prepared for if your training doesn't include it.


----------



## wingchun100

I lost track of where someone said this...if it was on this thread or another, but I am guessing it was here because I mentioned Emin Boztepe.

Someone asked, "When does it stop being Wing Chun?" Oddly enough, I asked this on a different thread. (I think it was the one I created that wound up getting removed.) On that thread, I remember someone replying, "When you generate power in a different way."

I'm not sure how good of an answer that is, though. I would have to think about it.


----------



## Transk53

wingchun100 said:


> I lost track of where someone said this...if it was on this thread or another, but I am guessing it was here because I mentioned Emin Boztepe.
> 
> Someone asked, "When does it stop being Wing Chun?" Oddly enough, I asked this on a different thread. (I think it was the one I created that wound up getting removed.) On that thread, I remember someone replying, "*When you generate power in a different way."*
> 
> I'm not sure how good of an answer that is, though. I would have to think about it.



Guess that would fit if soley in Wing Chun mode. But wonder if generating power other ways, while in Wing Chun mode would be one of the same. Or really would Wing Chun be that liner.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Guess that would fit if soley in Wing Chun mode. But wonder if generating power other ways, while in Wing Chun mode would be one of the same. Or really would Wing Chun be that liner.


What would "Winch Chun mode" be?


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> What would "Winch Chun mode" be?


 
I don't even know how to begin figuring that out. If we are crosstrained in multiple styles, do we see the opponent's distance and say, "Now I have to be in Tae Kwon Do mode? Now Wing Chun mode? Now BJJ mode?" That seems like too much thinking to me. My guess is after a while, thought would be eliminated from the process.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> I know nothing about any of that other than the William Cheung incident and the Gracie stuff. All I know is that he is a very recognizable WC name...I watched his videos...liked what he saw.
> 
> If I worried about people's ego, there is so much I would not be able to enjoy, like the music of Smashing Pumpkins or the writings of Norman Mailer. Granted, some of you reading this may not like either of those, but that's not my point. The point is that it IS possible to admire someone's skill regardless of who they are. In certain instances it may be tougher than others. For example, I'm sure I would never like a MILLISECOND of any song written by Charles Manson.


The question here though is whether emin boztep has the skill.   Smashing pumpkins deliver.  In the only real evidence I am aware of, emin does not deliver.   His technique, which in a laboratory is impressive, was nowhere to be found when applied in actual contexr


----------



## wingchun100

Steve said:


> The question here though is whether emin boztep has the skill.   Smashing pumpkins deliver.  In the only real evidence I am aware of, emin does not deliver.   His technique, which in a laboratory is impressive, was nowhere to be found when applied in actual contexr


 
Which real evidence do you mean?

As for the Pumpkins and Mailer examples...I mean, maybe that was not the best comparison because then we are talking about matters of opinion. I can say the Pumpkins deliver, but the person next to me could say they suck because it is subjective, whereas in martial arts...either a technique works, or it doesn't.


----------



## LFJ

wingchun100 said:


> Which real evidence do you mean?



Seriously? You still don't know what everyone is talking about?


----------



## Dylan9d

LFJ said:


> Seriously? You still don't know what everyone is talking about?



This video always makes me laugh with the whole detailed analysis hahaha


----------



## wingchun100

I don't get it. If a member is on ignore, then why is it I get an email notification from Taptalk showing me what they said?

I don't care to read any replies from people who cannot be respectful. You know who you are.


----------



## Dylan9d

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get it. If a member is on ignore, then why is it I get an email notification from Taptalk showing me what they said?
> 
> I don't care to read any replies from people who cannot be respectful. You know who you are.



Yeah yeah whatever dude..... as if I care if you ignore me or not....

Oh and being disrespectful and telling someone the truth are 2 different things I tend to do the 2nd


----------



## wingchun100

Dylan9d said:


> Yeah yeah whatever dude..... as if I care if you ignore me or not....


 
Good, because I don't care if YOU don't care. And not for nothing, but (1) I wasn't talking about you, and (2) if you don't care, why even post that?


----------



## Dylan9d

wingchun100 said:


> Good, because I don't care if YOU don't care. And not for nothing, but (1) I wasn't talking about you, and (2) if you don't care, why even post that?



Whatever scrub.....


----------



## wingchun100

*yawn* I'm getting bored. Can someone start replying with some intelligence again, please?

By the way, not for nothing but I HAVE seen that video. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't possible that Steve was referring to a DIFFERENT video. Check out YouTube and you might notice they have more than one on there.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I lost track of where someone said this...if it was on this thread or another, but I am guessing it was here because I mentioned Emin Boztepe.
> 
> Someone asked, "When does it stop being Wing Chun?" Oddly enough, I asked this on a different thread. (I think it was the one I created that wound up getting removed.) On that thread, I remember someone replying, "When you generate power in a different way."
> 
> I'm not sure how good of an answer that is, though. I would have to think about it.



Don't know if that was me or not.  But I have long maintained, and written about many times.....that I think the biomechanics you use to generate power or send and receive force....the "engine" so to speak....is what identifies a martial art at the core level.  Once you stop using the "engine", then you are no longer doing that specific martial art.  That's why....even though many techniques and concepts are shared...Wing Chun and JKD are different arts.  They use a different power base.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> What would "Winch Chun mode" be?



Doing Wing Chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Seriously? You still don't know what everyone is talking about?


Ever think that maybe someone just wants to make sure they're talking about the same thing when they reply?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dylan9d said:


> Whatever scrub.....


Entirely unnecessary. Let's keep it civil.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Don't know if that was me or not.  But I have long maintained, and written about many times.....that I think the biomechanics you use to generate power or send and receive force....the "engine" so to speak....is what identifies a martial art at the core level.  Once you stop using the "engine", then you are no longer doing that specific martial art.  That's why....even though many techniques and concepts are shared...Wing Chun and JKD are different arts.  They use a different power base.


Interesting. Remind me, which arts do you have a background in, KPM? I'm noticing a difference in concept, and wondering if it comes from a different background.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Doing Wing Chun.


So, when you're doing Wing Chun, it's Wing Chun?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

gpseymour said:


> What would "Winch Chun mode" be?


I just noticed I referred to "Winch Chun". This sounds like a redneck version of Wing Chun, involving 4-wheel drive trucks.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> So, when you're doing Wing Chun, it's Wing Chun?



Sorry, you have to forgive me, I am a little bit of an idiot when trying to convey things. I was just thinking about the power generation in Wing Chun. Seems linear and inside the box. Generate power differently, step out the box and it is not Wing Chun power generation. I'm probably wrong on that, but thats how I saw the post by Wingchun100. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Sorry, you have to forgive me, I am a little bit of an idiot when trying to convey things. I was just thinking about the power generation in Wing Chun. Seems linear and inside the box. Generate power differently, step out the box and it is not Wing Chun power generation. I'm probably wrong on that, but thats how I saw the post by Wingchun100. Sorry for the confusion.


That makes more sense, my friend.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> Which real evidence do you mean?


In this case, I'm referring to the 'with my own eyes' evidence that the video of the altercation between William Cheung and Emin Boztep.  





> As for the Pumpkins and Mailer examples...I mean, maybe that was not the best comparison because then we are talking about matters of opinion. I can say the Pumpkins deliver, but the person next to me could say they suck because it is subjective, whereas in martial arts...either a technique works, or it doesn't.


Actually, I think it's a brilliant example, because it shines a spotlight on the distinction between objective and subjective evaluation of evidence.  I don't like the Smashing Pumpkins, in general.  But I can objectively determine that they create music... even if I don't personally enjoy that music.  I mean, sure, you can take it to the extreme (e.g., "That's not music; that's noise!")  But it's possible to create an objective metric with which to gauge whether it is a real demonstration of musical technique and the application of musicality.

In the same way, there can be an objective evaluation of writing skills, or any other skill.  Sure, there is an element of art to writing, but there is also a foundation of skill that can be demonstrated.  So, whether you like a particular poem or not subjectively, you can objectively evaluate the skill of the poet if you understand the medium well enough to apply the right metric.

And that leads to application of fighting technique.  In this video, we saw an actual fight between two very high level WC practitioners.  And in that video, we can objectively see very little application of fighting skill.  In fact, the performance is about what I would expect from two untrained people.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> *yawn* I'm getting bored. Can someone start replying with some intelligence again, please?
> 
> By the way, not for nothing but I HAVE seen that video. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't possible that Steve was referring to a DIFFERENT video. Check out YouTube and you might notice they have more than one on there.


Ummm ...  that's not very respectful, either, Steve.  Come on, man.  Walk the talk. 

To clarify (I'm not completely sure you're referring to me), the video to which I referred was the fight between Emin Boztep and William Cheung, which is the only example I'm aware of that is an actual demonstration of skill in the context of a fight, rather than a demonstration of what a fight might look like.


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> ...the video to which I referred was the fight between Emin Boztep and William Cheung, which is the only example I'm aware of that is an actual demonstration of skill in the context of a fight, rather than a demonstration of what a fight might look like.



Yeah Steve, what Steve says is correct. But that's not to fault Emin who definitely could fight. But Steve is quite right in saying that we don't have other videos available of Emin actually fighting. The problem is that there really is no accepted venue for testing WC/WT/VT.

Furthermore, building a rep and capitalizing on hero-worship is about the only way to make money in TCMA. Even if you are the real deal, in real fights or competition you are bound to lose eventually. That ruins your rep and your career. You can bet that was on Emin's mind back when the Gracie challenge was talked about. No purse to speak of, and if he lost, his whole career in WT shot. That's not a good business proposition at all. --Steve.

Hey, isn't it amazing how many smart guys named Steve are on this forum!


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Yeah Steve, what Steve says is correct. But that's not to fault Emin who definitely could fight. But Steve is quite right in saying that we don't have other videos available of Emin actually fighting. The problem is that there really is no accepted venue for testing WC/WT/VT.
> 
> Furthermore, building a rep and capitalizing on hero-worship is about the only way to make money in TCMA. Even if you are the real deal, in real fights or competition you are bound to lose eventually. That ruins your rep and your career. You can bet that was on Emin's mind back when the Gracie challenge was talked about. No purse to speak of, and if he lost, his whole career in WT shot. That's not a good business proposition at all. --Steve.
> 
> Hey, isn't it amazing how many smart guys named Steve are on this forum!



So we found another example of him fighting?


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get it. If a member is on ignore, then why is it I get an email notification from Taptalk showing me what they said?
> 
> I don't care to read any replies from people who cannot be respectful. You know who you are.



You should probably get that fixed.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. Remind me, which arts do you have a background in, KPM? I'm noticing a difference in concept, and wondering if it comes from a different background.



Primary foundation is Wing Chun.....I've studied Ip Man Wing Chun, Traditional Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, and Tang Yik Weng Chun.  The most depth in Pin Sun.  I've also done some FMA in the past...Panantukan and knife work.  JKD is the newest thing I am studying.  I had dabbled in some JKD here and there in the past but nothing in-depth until recently.  I'm finding that it actually messes the best with TWC.  So I have been going back and reviving those forms and past skills that I learned.  When you look across these things, there is definitely an identifiable "engine" that makes the different arts more distinct.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Primary foundation is Wing Chun.....I've studied Ip Man Wing Chun, Traditional Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, and Tang Yik Weng Chun.  The most depth in Pin Sun.  I've also done some FMA in the past...Panantukan and knife work.  JKD is the newest thing I am studying.  I had dabbled in some JKD here and there in the past but nothing in-depth until recently.  I'm finding that it actually messes the best with TWC.  So I have been going back and reviving those forms and past skills that I learned.  When you look across these things, there is definitely an identifiable "engine" that makes the different arts more distinct.


The reason I asked is that, though we talk about power generation in striking, I've never heard a JMA described through its primary method of power generation. When someone says that changing the "engine" changes the art, that's foreign to me. I could show you at least 4 different engines within the NGA I teach, because that's not what defines it. It's an interesting difference in concept - something I'd love to spend some time tinkering with. There's probably some "lightbulb" moments to be found in looking at things through the other concept.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> changing the "engine" changes the art, ...


If you are a WC guy and if you believe that you are not suppose to do

- boxing hook punch,
- prey mantis hay-maker,
- long fist back reverse punch,
- MT roundhouse kick,
- TKD side kick,
- wrestling single leg,
- Judo hip throw,
- BJJ side mount,
- ...,

there is something serious wrong there. The style of WC should be just a starting point. It should never be the ending point.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> The reason I asked is that, though we talk about power generation in striking, I've never heard a JMA described through its primary method of power generation. When someone says that changing the "engine" changes the art, that's foreign to me. I could show you at least 4 different engines within the NGA I teach, because that's not what defines it. It's an interesting difference in concept - something I'd love to spend some time tinkering with. There's probably some "lightbulb" moments to be found in looking at things through the other concept.



Just think how different the "engine" is between  Aikido and Karate.  That is where it is the most obvious.   Then think about "classical" Karate and its modern derivative...kickboxing.  Also very different.   Now, in a hybrid method as you have described your art as being...I can see there being more than one "engine" involved as you switch between distinctive aspects of your style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a WC guy and if you believe that you are not suppose to do
> 
> - boxing hook punch,
> - prey mantis hay-maker,
> - long fist back reverse punch,
> - MT roundhouse kick,
> - TKD side kick,
> - wrestling single leg,
> - Judo hip throw,
> - BJJ side mount,
> - ...,
> 
> there is something serious wrong there. The style of WC should be just a starting point. It should never be the ending point.


I like that view. That's how I view my own progression. I see things in terms of my primary art, and everything gets integrated toward those principles. If something doesn't fit with those principles or creates conflict/confusing against them, I probably won't integrate it. If I do integrate it, I'll eventually probably teach it to experienced NGA students.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Just think how different the "engine" is between  Aikido and Karate.  That is where it is the most obvious.   Then think about "classical" Karate and its modern derivative...kickboxing.  Also very different.   Now, in a hybrid method as you have described your art as being...I can see there being more than one "engine" involved as you switch between distinctive aspects of your style.


Here's the thing for me. In NGA, we use strikes that are derived primarily from Shotokan. We use a similar power generation in those strikes. And that's a very different method of developing power than we use in throws. For me, I can see at least 3 distinct methods of power generation within NGA's core. One is linear, one is circular, and one is from the ground up.


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> Yeah Steve, what Steve says is correct. But that's not to fault Emin who definitely could fight. But Steve is quite right in saying that we don't have other videos available of Emin actually fighting. The problem is that there really is no accepted venue for testing WC/WT/VT.
> 
> Furthermore, building a rep and capitalizing on hero-worship is about the only way to make money in TCMA. Even if you are the real deal, in real fights or competition you are bound to lose eventually. That ruins your rep and your career. You can bet that was on Emin's mind back when the Gracie challenge was talked about. No purse to speak of, and if he lost, his whole career in WT shot. That's not a good business proposition at all. --Steve.
> 
> Hey, isn't it amazing how many smart guys named Steve are on this forum!


 
I am not sure which Steve you mean. Maybe I should be referred to strictly as my user name or at least Steve-100.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> The reason I asked is that, though we talk about power generation in striking, I've never heard a JMA described through its primary method of power generation. When someone says that changing the "engine" changes the art, that's foreign to me. I could show you at least 4 different engines within the NGA I teach, because that's not what defines it. It's an interesting difference in concept - something I'd love to spend some time tinkering with. There's probably some "lightbulb" moments to be found in looking at things through the other concept.


 
One primary difference can be seen in one of Emin's videos. Again, I know many are not fans here, but he talks about karate punches being generated with the hip whereas in Wing Chun your mechanics involve generating from your roots all the way up.


----------



## wingchun100

For the record, since KPM mentioned his history...

I studied about 6 months of Judo many moons ago. While it was not that long, but it was long ago, I still remember quite a bit of the principles, mainly because I feel sometimes like Judo is like Wing Chun minus the hitting, but plus ground work.

After that I moved on to a school that taught both Kung Fu or Tai Chi...or said they did. Many years later I realized that what they really taught was Wushu. Back then, when I did not know as much as I know now, I thought it was impressive when  I saw the school's business card, and they claimed to teach at least 5 styles of Kung Fu (including animal styles) and just as many styles of Tai Chi. Now that I am older and wiser, I realize there is no way anyone could truly master THAT many styles well enough to teach them all. Many years later I had proof of this. One of my friends (who attended the school long after I had moved on to Wing Chun) told me that the Sifu at that school had a Praying Mantis Sifu visit from China. He came in to show them some techniques. A week after he left, the guy who ran the school was teaching the Praying Mantis stuff. Don't know how he mastered it in a week!

In January 1995, I moved on to Wing Chun. At the beginning, the Sifu had a partnership with Steven Lee Swift in Rochester. I believe he learned under Ip Chun. At some point there was a falling out between the two, and then the school became associated with Ip Ching. My attendance rose and fell over the years, sometimes due to financial issues...sometimes due to mental health issues. Last winter I had a major falling out with the Sifu (for reasons I have discussed on other threads). At the time I was already aware there was another gentleman in the area who taught Wing Chun. I also knew he was from a different lineage.

As you have all seen on this board, lineages are strongly defended. Switching lineages is frowned upon. However, I had a choice to make: either give up Wing Chun completely, or switch lineages. So I did the deed.

Anyway, in a nutshell...that's my martial arts history.


----------



## Steve

wingchun100 said:


> One primary difference can be seen in one of Emin's videos. Again, I know many are not fans here, but he talks about karate punches being generated with the hip whereas in Wing Chun your mechanics involve generating from your roots all the way up.


I am sure that I've read and heard many karateka say that power is generated in the root.  I just did a quick Google search to see how common this is and found several references to power generation coming from the root in various styles of karate.   

Point is, people say things all the time.  If we've learned one thing around here, it's that people like to speak with authority about styles in which they do not train.  Emin is certainly an authority on WC, but I'd recommend caution when he speaks with authority about other than WC (which includes BJJ, Karate or pretty much anything else).  Emin would have all the motivation in the world to over-simplify or misrepresent other arts in order to help him sell his own product.

Personally, in any of these videos, whether from a guy named Boztep or a guy named Gracie or anyone, treat them like infomercials.  Be skeptical of every claim.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Just think how different the "engine" is between  Aikido and Karate.


The "engine" is just a "trade off". In one situation, one "engine" may suit OK. In another situation, different "engine" may suit better.

If you compare

- riffle (such as the long fist, Zimen, ...),
- machine gun (such as prey mantis, WC, ...),
- grenade (such as Chan Taiji, Baji, XYLH, ...),

they serve different purpose on battle field. To learn just one single MA style (such as WC) is like to arm your soldiers with only one kind of weapon. You will not be able to fight a good battle.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I am sure that I've read and heard many karateka say that power is generated in the root.  I just did a quick Google search to see how common this is and found several references to power generation coming from the root in various styles of karate.
> 
> Point is, people say things all the time.  If we've learned one thing around here, it's that people like to speak with authority about styles in which they do not train.  Emin is certainly an authority on WC, but I'd recommend caution when he speaks with authority about other than WC (which includes BJJ, Karate or pretty much anything else).  Emin would have all the motivation in the world to over-simplify or misrepresent other arts in order to help him sell his own product.
> 
> Personally, in any of these videos, whether from a guy named Boztep or a guy named Gracie or anyone, treat them like infomercials.  Be skeptical of every claim.


I was thinking about that in relation to our strikes. Because ours are derived largely from Shotokan, we use a similar method for power. I could describe it as being hip-driven, leg-driven, root-driven, linear, or circular. And all would be accurate, depending upon how I describe them and which part I want the student to focus on. In fact, my focus changes when I talk to experienced students, because they can better understand the details without getting confused.


----------



## wingchun100

My apologies for generalizing.

I should have realized that on my own, from past experience.

It reminds me of when I watched a video called "Western boxing beats wing chun" or something like that. The boxing coach is talking about how "in Wing Chun they do this, but we can do that."

And as I'm watching, I'm thinking, "Yes, but in return...I could do THIS."

Like you said, people generalize or dismiss other arts. They see a couple seconds of how an art works, don't understand how it works, and think it doesn't, based on their training. I have done it myself.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "engine" is just a "trade off". In one situation, one "engine" may suit OK. In another situation, different "engine" may suit better.
> 
> If you compare
> 
> - riffle (such as the long fist, Zimen, ...),
> - machine gun (such as prey mantis, WC, ...),
> - grenade (such as Chan Taiji, Baji, XYLH, ...),
> 
> they serve different purpose on battle field. To learn just one single MA style (such as WC) is like to arm your soldiers with only one kind of weapon. You will not be able to fight a good battle.


I disagree.  Consistency in your methodology is important.  Training a bunch of different styles can get in the way, it interrupts the consistency and that is where you start having problems.

To go back to your analogy, it's like arming a soldier with a rifle, a machine gun, a pistol, and a grenade, but they are all just slung on his body, none of them ready to use.  Then, an enemy jumps up from behind a bush from 20 feet away and points his weapon at you. And you are fumbling around, trying to decide which weapon to grab and use.

Better to be armed with just a rifle, and be holding it at the ready when you are moving through enemy territory.  Let your squadmate deal with the machine gun. That's his territory.

Don't confuse and jumble your situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I disagree.  Consistency in your methodology is important.  Training a bunch of different styles can get in the way, it interrupts the consistency and that is where you start having problems.
> 
> To go back to your analogy, it's like arming a soldier with a rifle, a machine gun, a pistol, and a grenade, but they are all just slung on his body, none of them ready to use.  Then, an enemy jumps up from behind a bush from 20 feet away and points his weapon at you. And you are fumbling around, trying to decide which weapon to grab and use.
> 
> Better to be armed with just a rifle, and be holding it at the ready when you are moving through enemy territory.  Let your squadmate deal with the machine gun. That's his territory.
> 
> Don't confuse and jumble your situation.


I sit on both sides of this issue. I think there may be some individuality involved. Everyone's brain is different, so maybe more is actually better in some brains, while a tighter concept is better in others. Maybe it's the "literal" vs. "conceptual" brain type. Maybe it's "rule-based" vs. "idea-based". I don't know. But I do know some folks do better with mixed arts than ours. Some even thrive on a mixture as beginners, while others get worse when they mix things too early.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I sit on both sides of this issue. I think there may be some individuality involved. Everyone's brain is different, so maybe more is actually better in some brains, while a tighter concept is better in others. Maybe it's the "literal" vs. "conceptual" brain type. Maybe it's "rule-based" vs. "idea-based". I don't know. But I do know some folks do better with mixed arts than ours. Some even thrive on a mixture as beginners, while others get worse when they mix things too early.


I think it also depends on what systems get mixed.  Two striking arts that operate on different principles is problematic.  But a striking art with a grappling art operate in different arenas and are less likely to conflict.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Don't confuse and jumble your situation.


You have major styles and minor styles. Your minor styles are used to fill into the holes for your major styles. Your major styles are still your "bread and butter". There should be no confusion there.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have major styles and minor styles. Your minor styles are used to fill into the holes for your major styles. Your major styles are still your "bread and butter". There should be no confusion there.


See my prior post, #648


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I think it also depends on what systems get mixed.  Two striking arts that operate on different principles is problematic.  But a striking art with a grappling art operate in different arenas and are less likely to conflict.


This I will agree with you. I find it difficult (if not impossible) to mix 2 striking arts such as long fist and WC.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This I will agree with you. I find it difficult (if not impossible) to mix 2 striking arts such as long fist and WC.


Yeah, having multiple striking methods, that's really like slinging three different rifles over your back and then trying to decide which to use as a situation arises.

Now ok, a soldier might have his rifle as his primary, and that is at the ready.  But he also has a pistol and a knife, but those are for backup or for special circumstances.  That's like focusing on the striking art as the primary with a grappling knowledge as a special circumstance or backup.  There is sense to that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> a soldier might have his rifle as his primary, ...


This is why when a MA system emphasizes on

- "speed", their punch won't have maximum power.
- "power", their multiple punches are slow.

In the following clip, it takes about 2 second for him to generate each punch. His punch has power but his power generation method just can't be integrated with the "WC chain punches" method.

So you have to switch between "fast punches combo" and "1 punch kill". IMO, even if WC guys can "once in a while" uses Baji power generation for "1 punch kill".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I think it also depends on what systems get mixed.  Two striking arts that operate on different principles is problematic.  But a striking art with a grappling art operate in different arenas and are less likely to conflict.


This is part of what I'm thinking about. Some folks don't have a problem with that - they just never really integrate one of them into their "personal style". It somehow seems not to interfere. I would generally recommend against it, just as I'd normally recommend against someone starting two arts at the same time under different instructors. Nonetheless, I've seen folks do that effectively, too.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> This is part of what I'm thinking about. Some folks don't have a problem with that - they just never really integrate one of them into their "personal style". It somehow seems not to interfere. I would generally recommend against it, just as I'd normally recommend against someone starting two arts at the same time under different instructors. Nonetheless, I've seen folks do that effectively, too.


Well, I think that those who are truly skilled and capable with multiple systems and can utilize the different and possibly contradicting methodologies seamlessly are rare.  In most cases, the skill level is not as high as the person tends to believe it is.

Overall I recommend against it too.  However, there is some sense in training in several different methods in order to figure out which is best for you.  Then focus on that and excel.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> This is part of what I'm thinking about. Some folks don't have a problem with that - they just never really integrate one of them into their "personal style". It somehow seems not to interfere. I would generally recommend against it, just as I'd normally recommend against someone starting two arts at the same time under different instructors. Nonetheless, I've seen folks do that effectively, too.


Well, I think that those who are truly skilled and capable with multiple systems and can utilize the different and possibly contradicting methodologies seamlessly are rare.  In most cases, the skill level is not as high as the person tends to believe it is.

Overall I recommend against it too.  However, there is some s new in training in several different methods in order to figure out which is best for you.  Then focus on that and excel.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> This is part of what I'm thinking about. Some folks don't have a problem with that - they just never really integrate one of them into their "personal style". It somehow seems not to interfere. I would generally recommend against it, just as I'd normally recommend against someone starting two arts at the same time under different instructors. Nonetheless, I've seen folks do that effectively, too.


There are many successful examples:

*Kajukenbo* (Japanese: かじゅけんぼ Kajukenbo) is an American hybrid martial art. The name Kajukenbo is a portmanteau of the various arts from which its style is derived:

- KA for Karate and Tang Soo Do Korean Karate,
- JU for Judo and Jujutsu,
- KEN for Kenpo and
- BO for Western and Chinese Boxing.

There are also:

- Baji mantis,
- Taiji mantis,
- XingYi Lu He,
- ...


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This I will agree with you. I find it difficult (if not impossible) to mix 2 striking arts such as long fist and WC.



Wing Chun punches and boxing punches are mixed quite effectively in JKD.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> I disagree.  Consistency in your methodology is important.  Training a bunch of different styles can get in the way, it interrupts the consistency and that is where you start having problems.
> 
> To go back to your analogy, it's like arming a soldier with a rifle, a machine gun, a pistol, and a grenade, but they are all just slung on his body, none of them ready to use.  Then, an enemy jumps up from behind a bush from 20 feet away and points his weapon at you. And you are fumbling around, trying to decide which weapon to grab and use.
> 
> Better to be armed with just a rifle, and be holding it at the ready when you are moving through enemy territory.  Let your squadmate deal with the machine gun. That's his territory.
> 
> Don't confuse and jumble your situation.



You example ignore something, proper training.  If my rifle is slung in front of me and I am in a field I raise it to my eye and fire.  If the rifle jams I draw the pistol. 

If I am in a constricted hallway and a bad guy pops out if a door I may draw my pistol because the hallway was to fight for a rifle.  If it jams I then decide how to act, again based on my training.

In either case there is no confusion as a soldier.  The same thing happens at work as a LEO in the martial arts context.  I know when the Use of force continuum allows me to use empty hand or baton strikes and when it only permits empty hand control.  So I use the appropriate techniques.  Even if I am allowed to strike eventually I have to use control techniques.  So I may enter with WC bridging and striking to "set up" a take down where I may find myself using Aikido and Judo techniques I have trained in, not only in the take down but to control once down until cuffed.  There is no confusion, I do what is required, it just happens.

Now maybe @gpseymour is right and it's about how people are wired?  Maybe the WC I study just flows naturally into my grappling arts?  Maybe the fact I study Kali, which has more grappling than the WC I study under the same instructor along side it, allows me to make such connections easier?  I don't know.  I can only say "it works for me."


----------



## Juany118

Double post


----------



## Juany118

Double post.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> You example ignore something, proper training.  If my rifle is slung in front of me and I am in a field I raise it to my eye and fire.  If the rifle jams I draw the pistol.
> 
> If I am in a constricted hallway and a bad guy pops out if a door I may draw my pistol because the hallway was to fight for a rifle.  If it jams I then decide how to act, again based on my training.
> 
> In either case there is no confusion as a soldier.  The same thing happens at work as a LEO in the martial arts context.  I know when the Use of force continuum allows me to use empty hand or baton strikes and when it only permits empty hand control.  So I use the appropriate techniques.  Even if I am allowed to strike eventually I have to use control techniques.  So I may enter with WC bridging and striking to "set up" a take down where I may find myself using Aikido and Judo techniques I have trained in, not only in the take down but to control once down until cuffed.  There is no confusion, I do what is required, it just happens.
> 
> Now maybe @gpseymour is right and it's about how people are wired?  Maybe the WC I study just flows naturally into my grappling arts?  Maybe the fact I study Kali, which has more grappling than the WC I study under the same instructor along side it, allows me to make such connections easier?  I don't know.  I can only say "it works for me."


Oh I know, none of these analogies are perfect.  But I stand by my assessment.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> You example ignore something, proper training.  If my rifle is slung in front of me and I am in a field I raise it to my eye and fire.  If the rifle jams I draw the pistol.
> 
> If I am in a constricted hallway and a bad guy pops out if a door I may draw my pistol because the hallway was to fight for a rifle.  If it jams I then decide how to act, again based on my training.
> 
> In either case there is no confusion as a soldier.  The same thing happens at work as a LEO in the martial arts context.  I know when the Use of force continuum allows me to use empty hand or baton strikes and when it only permits empty hand control.  So I use the appropriate techniques.  Even if I am allowed to strike eventually I have to use control techniques.  So I may enter with WC bridging and striking to "set up" a take down where I may find myself using Aikido and Judo techniques I have trained in, not only in the take down but to control once down until cuffed.  There is no confusion, I do what is required, it just happens.
> 
> Now maybe @gpseymour is right and it's about how people are wired?  Maybe the WC I study just flows naturally into my grappling arts?  Maybe the fact I study Kali, which has more grappling than the WC I study under the same instructor along side it, allows me to make such connections easier?  I don't know.  I can only say "it works for me."


Oh I know, none of these analogies are perfect.  But I stand by my assessment.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I think that those who are truly skilled and capable with multiple systems and can utilize the different and possibly contradicting methodologies seamlessly are rare.  In most cases, the skill level is not as high as the person tends to believe it is.
> 
> Overall I recommend against it too.  However, there is some sense in training in several different methods in order to figure out which is best for you.  Then focus on that and excel.



If you have to deal with more than one striking system then you need to have more than one system in your own tool belt. 

Or to use your analogy. You pick up a weapon you should be able to shoot the thing. 

People who are capable with multiple systems are the product of training multiple systems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are many successful examples:
> 
> *Kajukenbo* (Japanese: かじゅけんぼ Kajukenbo) is an American hybrid martial art. The name Kajukenbo is a portmanteau of the various arts from which its style is derived:
> 
> - KA for Karate and Tang Soo Do Korean Karate,
> - JU for Judo and Jujutsu,
> - KEN for Kenpo and
> - BO for Western and Chinese Boxing.
> 
> There are also:
> 
> - Baji mantis,
> - Taiji mantis,
> - XingYi Lu He,
> - ...


An existing hybrid art is a different matter, normally. The techniques are (or, at least, should be) chosen because they fit together in some useful fashion. And the principles are taught in a way that incorporates all those pieces. I think where the confusion comes in is where the principles taught seem contradictory and conflicting. It may be that viewing them a different way would remove the contradictions, and that process should already be done with a hybrid art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> You example ignore something, proper training.  If my rifle is slung in front of me and I am in a field I raise it to my eye and fire.  If the rifle jams I draw the pistol.
> 
> If I am in a constricted hallway and a bad guy pops out if a door I may draw my pistol because the hallway was to fight for a rifle.  If it jams I then decide how to act, again based on my training.
> 
> In either case there is no confusion as a soldier.  The same thing happens at work as a LEO in the martial arts context.  I know when the Use of force continuum allows me to use empty hand or baton strikes and when it only permits empty hand control.  So I use the appropriate techniques.  Even if I am allowed to strike eventually I have to use control techniques.  So I may enter with WC bridging and striking to "set up" a take down where I may find myself using Aikido and Judo techniques I have trained in, not only in the take down but to control once down until cuffed.  There is no confusion, I do what is required, it just happens.
> 
> Now maybe @gpseymour is right and it's about how people are wired?  Maybe the WC I study just flows naturally into my grappling arts?  Maybe the fact I study Kali, which has more grappling than the WC I study under the same instructor along side it, allows me to make such connections easier?  I don't know.  I can only say "it works for me."



I half-mentioned another aspect of this earlier, and you actually deal with it. It's where two arts are taught by the same instructor. I've seen this done with many arts, and a good instructor tends to make it work for the students. I think this backs the notion that part of the obstacle to integrating different arts is the conceptual framework used to describe the principles. If I tried to use Wing Chun concepts to explain NGA, it would get confusing. However, if I knew both, I could probably make adjustments to my conceptual framework such that it could describe most of both arts without an issue. I think this applies to the Kali and Wing Chun you study. It applied, as best I recall, to the Shotokan and Judo I studied back in the mid-'80s under a single instructor.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Wing Chun punches and boxing punches are mixed quite effectively in JKD.


Both WC and boxing emphasizes on using both arms equally. Some CMA styles such as long fist and preying mantis emphasizes on using 

- 1 long arm for offense, and 
- 1 short arm for defense.

In the following punching combo, the 

- right hand is used to strike 3 times.
- left hand is used to block 3 times.

This is completely opposite to the WC chain punches strategy.


----------



## Flying Crane

As I have said in other threads, it is not difficult to hurt someone, and it should not take a long time to develop some reasonable fighting ability.  So even if people mix things in contradictory ways, they can still get results that support what they are doing. You don't need a superior method or amazing skills to be able to hurt someone or to fight.

This clouds the issue.  If what you do seems to work, there is little reason to doubt the approach.  And that's a fair assessment and is probably good enough.

However, if you want to really optimize what you are doing, then a consistent method is important.  That requires closer scrutiny on the methodology and an ability to recognize where some systems may be able to mix well, while others do not.  

There can be a tendency to always want to add to what you are doing.  But people need to be able to judge when they are better off not adding something, or even eliminating something from their collection.  Some things don't mix well, and some things, if put into a different context that does not include the foundation upon which that thing was built, lose much or all of its value.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Some things don't mix well, ...


Agree! The Chinese wrestling "circle running" and Bagua "circle walking" doesn't mix well.

Both systems like to move in circle. The difference is

- Chinese wrestling moves the back leg first.
- Bagua moves the front leg first.

If you are used to move the back leg first, you will feel very uncomfortable to move your front leg first. The other way around is also true.

In the following clip, it's easy to see that he moves his front leg first. The reason is to "twist the body".






In the following clip, he moves his back leg first. The reason is to "line up his back leg with opponent's legs".


----------



## wingchun100

Flying Crane said:


> As I have said in other threads, it is not difficult to hurt someone, and it should not take a long time to develop some reasonable fighting ability.  So even if people mix things in contradictory ways, they can still get results that support what they are doing. You don't need a superior method or amazing skills to be able to hurt someone or to fight.
> 
> This clouds the issue.  If what you do seems to work, there is little reason to doubt the approach.  And that's a fair assessment and is probably good enough.
> 
> However, if you want to really optimize what you are doing, then a consistent method is important.  That requires closer scrutiny on the methodology and an ability to recognize where some systems may be able to mix well, while others do not.
> 
> There can be a tendency to always want to add to what you are doing.  But people need to be able to judge when they are better off not adding something, or even eliminating something from their collection.  Some things don't mix well, and some things, if put into a different context that does not include the foundation upon which that thing was built, lose much or all of its value.


 
There is an article or post somewhere on here where they talk about how to mix Aikido and Wing Chun. From what I have seen, Aikido involves more circular motions. Wing Chun is more straight line. Also, it seems like a grappling art like Judo would be a better companion because that involves using an opponent's momentum/energy, which of course Wing Chun does as well.

I hope no one takes that as me saying Aikido is bad. I'm just using that as an example of what Flying Crane discussed.


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> There is an article or post somewhere on here where they talk about how to mix Aikido and Wing Chun. From what I have seen, Aikido involves more circular motions. Wing Chun is more straight line. Also, it seems like a grappling art like Judo would be a better companion because that involves using an opponent's momentum/energy, which of course Wing Chun does as well.
> 
> I hope no one takes that as me saying Aikido is bad. I'm just using that as an example of what Flying Crane discussed.



There is nothing stopping wing chun developing circular motions. It wont break wing chun. It would just mean that sometimes you would move in a circular motion and sometimes you would move in a straight line.

To cross train effectively at all you need to accept that there are limits to the concepts you are allready training. Otherwise you really aren't cross training. You are just doing the same style twice.

Seriously some people do my head in with this stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> There is an article or post somewhere on here where they talk about how to mix Aikido and Wing Chun. From what I have seen, Aikido involves more circular motions. Wing Chun is more straight line. Also, it seems like a grappling art like Judo would be a better companion because that involves using an opponent's momentum/energy, which of course Wing Chun does as well.
> 
> I hope no one takes that as me saying Aikido is bad. I'm just using that as an example of what Flying Crane discussed.


Actually, the movements in Wing Chun look like a good mix with the circles. In NGA, we use both circles and straight lines/angles. The WC movements would add a dimension to the Aikido movements, opening new opportunities for each art.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the movements in Wing Chun look like a good mix with the circles. In NGA, we use both circles and straight lines/angles. The WC movements would add a dimension to the Aikido movements, opening new opportunities for each art.


 
Maybe so. As I admitted, I haven't seen much Aikido. There is always more to explore.


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> An existing hybrid art is a different matter, normally. The techniques are (or, at least, should be) chosen because they fit together in some useful fashion. And the principles are taught in a way that incorporates all those pieces. I think where the confusion comes in is where the principles taught seem contradictory and conflicting. It may be that viewing them a different way would remove the contradictions, and that process should already be done with a hybrid art.



If my limited experience can help, I've trained in Kaju (sifu is a 5th dan under Angel García).

It is very linear and looks like it is mainly based off kenpo (for the hand movements and principles) and eskrima (for the footwork and some drills) which were the arts Sijo Emperado was trained in. They added some techniques from jujutsu (the art my sifu had previously trained in), judo, boxing (Western and Filipino), lua (even though I've only seen nasty pressure points), etc.

But they do them from a "kenpo" point of view. For example, there is ground work and they can train to do armbars but in kaju the preferred strategy when you take an opponent to the ground is to finish him quickly by striking his face and groin. Same thing when it comes to judo throws: the kaju stylist can do them but his primary strategy will be to strike the opponent kenpo-style and if he finds himself in a position where the throw can be attempted he might go for it. It's also possible that the techniques have been modified to suit the kenpo framework as I've noticed that kote gaeshi is very different from its aikido version.

Kaju is about putting constant forward pressure, striking as many times as possible until the guy's down, checking, etc. which would conflict with the principles of boxing, judo/jujutsu or even karate, right? I think the founder made a choice about which strategy to use in combat.


----------



## Darrencowan

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.



Tae Kwon Do can be very effective, it depends on the practitioner, not the style.  There is a guy in the UFC who is destroying the competition with his Tae Kwon Do.  Watch out for him, he recently destroyed BJJ legend and UFC hall of famer, BJ Penn.  He will be the next champion and will bring much glory to the art of Tae Kwon Do!


----------



## wingchun100

Darrencowan said:


> Tae Kwon Do can be very effective, it depends on the practitioner, not the style.  There is a guy in the UFC who is destroying the competition with his Tae Kwon Do.  Watch out for him, he recently destroyed BJJ legend and UFC hall of famer, BJ Penn.  He will be the next champion and will bring much glory to the art of Tae Kwon Do!


 
I never said TKD was not effective. I said it would not be a good hybrid with Wing Chun.


----------



## Darrencowan

wingchun100 said:


> I never said TKD was not effective. I said it would not be a good hybrid with Wing Chun.



Ok, sorry for my misunderstanding. Yes, I agree.


----------



## wingchun100

Then again, TKD could always be modified to be compatible with it. I guess that is the key. People might say, "Well, modify it too much and it isn't the same style." But if you are compiling it into a hybrid anyway, that becomes a moot point.


----------



## wingchun100

By "modifying" it, I mean things like leaving out any of the kicks that would disrupt your balance, like a sidekick to the head. Instead, you would modify it so that you kick no higher than the waist. Also, you would not want to do any spinning back kicks. Those can be powerful and really hurt like hell, but I personally would not use them unless my opponent was already really worn down. Same goes for the Wing Chun "straight blast," which so many people think is our "go to" move.


----------



## Darrencowan

Good point, Wing.  CGM was a black belt in five styles and he says it just messed him up.  I think taking the basics of another style is all you need if you're already an expert (can't ever know everything, always learning and growing) in another form.


----------



## wingchun100

I mean, some styles may need more modification than others. With TKD you would leave out high kicks. However, if you wanted to combine Wing Chun with Judo, I personally feel there would be little modification needed because both styles use an opponent's force against them instead of doing strength against strength.


----------



## Darrencowan

I kind of feel that way with Wing Chung and Sanchin Ryu, both very close distance striking.  Of course, there are some movements I really like and the philosophy, of as we've talked about, feeling energy.


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> By "modifying" it, I mean things like leaving out any of the kicks that would disrupt your balance, like a sidekick to the head. Instead, you would modify it so that you kick no higher than the waist. Also, you would not want to do any spinning back kicks. Those can be powerful and really hurt like hell, but I personally would not use them unless my opponent was already really worn down. Same goes for the Wing Chun "straight blast," which so many people think is our "go to" move.



You would shock the hell out of people if you suddenly whipped out a spinning kick as part of your chun though. 

Otherwise those sort of high deceptive kicks is where tkd is dominant in the striking world. So if you were going to use tkd.  Those kicks would be the ones you use.


----------



## Darrencowan

I can't do high kicks, maybe a front kick to the solar plexus.  I have hip problems.


----------



## Darrencowan

not to mention my muscles are all screwed up.  But that is the thing about Sanchin Ryu, it was designed for the common person.


----------



## Darrencowan

yeah, I would like to get at least one high kick in my rep


----------



## Bino TWT

I posted this on another forum the other day, so I'll post it here as well...

Saying that Wing Tsun doesn't have long range (or ground) game is silly. This just shows certain practitioners lack of understanding and application, their Sifu's lack of ability to teach, or their very flawed training methods.

Either you can fight, or you can't. Period. 

No concact
Kicking range
Punching range 
Trapping/clinch/stand up grappling range
Ground defense

We have an answer for all of that. 

I've seen a lot of schools that don't spar and only Chi Sao. They don't mingle with other schools/lineages and they don't cross train with other arts. Therefore they are only functional at that one range that they train. It's not that the system doesn't have it, it's that they don't have it.

Wing Tsun is a concept based art. It's all about how you train. Our lineage has always had ground defense. No competition sport grappling like BJJ, but solutions for dealing with an opponent on the ground and getting back to your feet, anti-grappling, takedown defense, etc. The idea is to not be on the ground, and if it does happen, to spend as little time as possible down there. A lot of this is neglected though in a lot of Kwoons.

I have a video in the WC forum on Fb where I went to the local Gracie Barra BJJ school and handled their instructors with WT on the ground, playing by their rules, so it can be done. Not advisable, but not impossible either.


----------



## Martial D

Bino TWT said:


> I posted this on another forum the other day, so I'll post it here as well...
> 
> Saying that Wing Tsun doesn't have long range (or ground) game is silly. This just shows certain practitioners lack of understanding and application, their Sifu's lack of ability to teach, or their very flawed training methods.
> 
> Either you can fight, or you can't. Period.
> 
> No concact
> Kicking range
> Punching range
> Trapping/clinch/stand up grappling range
> Ground defense
> 
> We have an answer for all of that.
> 
> I've seen a lot of schools that don't spar and only Chi Sao. They don't mingle with other schools/lineages and they don't cross train with other arts. Therefore they are only functional at that one range that they train. It's not that the system doesn't have it, it's that they don't have it.
> 
> Wing Tsun is a concept based art. It's all about how you train. Our lineage has always had ground defense. No competition sport grappling like BJJ, but solutions for dealing with an opponent on the ground and getting back to your feet, anti-grappling, takedown defense, etc. The idea is to not be on the ground, and if it does happen, to spend as little time as possible down there. A lot of this is neglected though in a lot of Kwoons.
> 
> I have a video in the WC forum on Fb where I went to the local Gracie Barra BJJ school and handled their instructors with WT on the ground, playing by their rules, so it can be done. Not advisable, but not impossible either.


Is there any way to see that video without joining Facebook?


----------



## Bino TWT

Martial D said:


> Is there any way to see that video without joining Facebook?



Yeah I'll see what I do. I was asked not to post it publicly, so it's posted in a private WC group. But I'll get it to where you can check it out.


----------



## Martial D

Bino TWT said:


> Yeah I'll see what I do. I was asked not to post it publicly, so it's posted in a private WC group. But I'll get it to where you can check it out.


Sweet, thanks. It isn't often I hear of TMA anti grappling solutions being tested(successfully) against trained grapplers. I want to anylize it.


----------



## drop bear

I will sign up on FB to see that. Which forum.


----------



## Bino TWT

Wing Chun Forum. There's a few of them, it's the big forum, like 70k members.


----------



## drop bear

Alright. signed up. where would I find the vid?


----------



## Bino TWT

drop bear said:


> Alright. signed up. where would I find the vid?


Did you join the forum?


----------



## drop bear

Bino TWT said:


> Did you join the forum?



Yep. and am trying to scroll though about a million posts right now. Can you link it or something?


----------



## Bino TWT

drop bear said:


> Yep. and am trying to scroll though about a million posts right now. Can you link it or something?



Lol what's your name on Fb? I'll tag you.


----------



## drop bear

Bino TWT said:


> Lol what's your name on Fb? I'll tag you.


Greg Saunders


----------



## Bino TWT

drop bear said:


> Greg Saunders


Tagged. Read the disclaimers in the description lol


----------



## Bino TWT

Ok, now you're tagged lol. There was another Greg Saunders in the group and I tagged the wrong guy at first.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Greg Saunders



Lol so u went with that super luxe gi in the end? Lookin good, did not realize it was a pic of you man!

I got teh honey badger!!


----------



## karatejj

Can someone post the vid here. I do not kown what forum you guys are talkin about. Thx kjj


----------



## drop bear

Bino TWT said:


> Ok, now you're tagged lol. There was another Greg Saunders in the group and I tagged the wrong guy at first.



Yeah. finally saw the video. The hand trapping did work but you did get mounted. 

I dont know.


----------



## karatejj

please someones link me teh forum so I can look the video? Thx, kjj


----------



## Bino TWT

drop bear said:


> Yeah. finally saw the video. The hand trapping did work but you did get mounted.
> 
> I dont know.



Yes, I did eventually. It was inevitable all things considered. Had I not been severely handicapped in the exchange, it would have went quite different.
They couldn't take me down from no contact, so we started from the clinch.
They couldn't handle me in the clinch, so we started on the ground.
They were overwhelmed with my strikes, so I was not allowed to strike.

So keep in mind this is me using WT against a BJJ practitioner, starting on the ground from contact and me not being able to strike. You often see where I would "park" my hand to let him know, "hey, that's a hit".

Not to mention my cardio has went to **** because I have torn ligaments in both knees so I was physically at a disadvantage as well.

To put in into perspective, it took him almost 4 minutes to get me before I gassed out and let him have it. He was wrapping up the purple and blue belts in under a minute.

Anybody that's doing 4 or 5 minute rounds with a Gracie Barra BJJ instructor on the ground is holding their own in my book, especially if they don't know BJJ... Any striking art like WT that can hold up under pressure in this situation without actually being able to strike is definitely effective in that range if applied properly.


----------



## Juany118

Bino TWT said:


> Yes, I did eventually. It was inevitable all things considered. Had I not been severely handicapped in the exchange, it would have went quite different.
> They couldn't take me down from no contact, so we started from the clinch.
> They couldn't handle me in the clinch, so we started on the ground.
> They were overwhelmed with my strikes, so I was not allowed to strike.
> 
> So keep in mind this is me using WT against a BJJ practitioner, starting on the ground from contact and me not being able to strike. You often see where I would "park" my hand to let him know, "hey, that's a hit".
> 
> Not to mention my cardio has went to **** because I have torn ligaments in both knees so I was physically at a disadvantage as well.
> 
> To put in into perspective, it took him almost 4 minutes to get me before I gassed out and let him have it. He was wrapping up the purple and blue belts in under a minute.
> 
> Anybody that's doing 4 or 5 minute rounds with a Gracie Barra BJJ instructor on the ground is holding their own in my book, especially if they don't know BJJ... Any striking art like WT that can hold up under pressure in this situation without actually being able to strike is definitely effective in that range if applied properly.



The dynamic you note is one of the things I often see when MA's from different methodologies meet.  One, or both, want things on "their terms" so the boxer wants no kicking and grappling.  The grappler wants to start from a contact at a minimum etc.  These kinda "rules" are not uncommon in exhibitions.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The dynamic you note is one of the things I often see when MA's from different methodologies meet.  One, or both, want things on "their terms" so the boxer wants no kicking and grappling.  The grappler wants to start from a contact at a minimum etc.  These kinda "rules" are not uncommon in exhibitions.



That is the point of cross training though. To explore different dynamics. 

I mean if I want to punch kick and grapple all at the same time, all the time. I would never leave my club. But then I would never get to train with specialists in their own fields. And therefore never gain those elements to add to my game.

Pure grappling for example is a will game. Bino lost that roll because he chose to. All the other could'a  would'a  should'a  doesn't change that one very important lesson

Those lessons are the reason why you put yourself into those circumstances. You learn how much you can take. Which is important if you want to use martial arts against someone.


----------



## KPM

Bino TWT said:


> Ok, now you're tagged lol. There was another Greg Saunders in the group and I tagged the wrong guy at first.



This is one of the reasons I dislike FB-based forums and prefer bulletin-board style forums like this one.   A FB forum is simply not very searchable, its easy to loose track of conversations, and hard to go back and find anything after it has rolled on down the page and disappeared.   I did a search and found your post on the FB forum where you noted your training session with the BJJ guys and had 3 pictures up, but no video.  My search did not turn up a video.  Is there any way to make this video available for others to watch?


----------



## karatejj

Bino TWT said:


> Yes, I did eventually. It was inevitable all things considered. Had I not been severely handicapped in the exchange, it would have went quite different.
> They couldn't take me down from no contact, so we started from the clinch.
> They couldn't handle me in the clinch, so we started on the ground.
> They were overwhelmed with my strikes, so I was not allowed to strike.
> 
> So keep in mind this is me using WT against a BJJ practitioner, starting on the ground from contact and me not being able to strike. You often see where I would "park" my hand to let him know, "hey, that's a hit".
> 
> Not to mention my cardio has went to **** because I have torn ligaments in both knees so I was physically at a disadvantage as well.
> 
> To put in into perspective, it took him almost 4 minutes to get me before I gassed out and let him have it. He was wrapping up the purple and blue belts in under a minute.
> 
> Anybody that's doing 4 or 5 minute rounds with a Gracie Barra BJJ instructor on the ground is holding their own in my book, especially if they don't know BJJ... Any striking art like WT that can hold up under pressure in this situation without actually being able to strike is definitely effective in that range if applied properly.



Uh dude, where is this video??


----------



## JowGaWolf

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.


I guess it will depend on how long your "long range" needs to be.  Because of what I focus on in training, footwork is highly important and will allow a fighter to overcome a long range fighter.  If you can manage  and dictate the distance then you shouldn't need another system.   In my opinion the majority of WC practitioners don't practice effective footwork.  Their footwork seems to only cover a limited space and doesn't go beyond the concept of a small side street.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> That is the point of cross training though. To explore different dynamics.
> 
> I mean if I want to punch kick and grapple all at the same time, all the time. I would never leave my club. But then I would never get to train with specialists in their own fields. And therefore never gain those elements to add to my game.
> 
> Pure grappling for example is a will game. Bino lost that roll because he chose to. All the other could'a  would'a  should'a  doesn't change that one very important lesson
> 
> Those lessons are the reason why you put yourself into those circumstances. You learn how much you can take. Which is important if you want to use martial arts against someone.



My issue is both sides should be willing to do so at the same time.  One side saying "nope my rules now and btw don't record when I don't do well" because that is the scenario here.  Starting from range, BJJ guy lost.  Starting from standing contact, here lost.  Starting from where they did basically played to the strengths of BJJ and it still took a LONG time for him to get mounted.  To me that isn't people cross training, rather that is one side looking for a scenario to be shown to the public where they come up on top to justify their methodology.  

Now if striking was at least allowed on the ground was allowed I wouldn't be as annoyed by this but, too me, cross training in this kind of style vs style thing resorting to the rules of one style isn't cross training, it's one side engaging in hubris requiring their strengths be served.  That just seems "off" to me.


----------



## Ironbear24

First off, why you do need an "outside game"? You just work on getting inside and improve on skills you already have.


----------



## Bino TWT

ok guys, i'm going to upload the video privately to my youtube channel and give you guys the link. I'll post it here for you, but please respect the fact that it's not for the "public", meaning it stays here.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> My issue is both sides should be willing to do so at the same time.  One side saying "nope my rules now and btw don't record when I don't do well" because that is the scenario here.  Starting from range, BJJ guy lost.  Starting from standing contact, here lost.  Starting from where they did basically played to the strengths of BJJ and it still took a LONG time for him to get mounted.  To me that isn't people cross training, rather that is one side looking for a scenario to be shown to the public where they come up on top to justify their methodology.
> 
> Now if striking was at least allowed on the ground was allowed I wouldn't be as annoyed by this but, too me, cross training in this kind of style vs style thing resorting to the rules of one style isn't cross training, it's one side engaging in hubris requiring their strengths be served.  That just seems "off" to me.



If you turn up to a BJJ club you are probably going to have to roll. Sorry that is just the way it works.

I turn up to karate sparring I dont face punch people. I go to boxing I dont double leg guys.

It is about approaching training with a proffesional attitude.

That is why people say if you want to prove your system or yourself jump in the cage. Because then you can kick punch and wrestle pretty much all you want. That is how you get to see if your ground and pund really does beat their submissions.

But then you have to risk getting bashed in front of 800 people.


----------



## Bino TWT




----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Good job Bino!


----------



## geezer

Bino TWT said:


>



"Bino" that clip _should _be made public. Probably the best "full-body chi-sau" I've seen. Talk it over with your sifu and the Gracie guy. I mean that's just good cross-training or cross style sharing. Didn't see any negatives, like excess of ego, etc. And the fact that eventually the Gracie guy got you in his mount? Well duh! That's what they are all about. And you did a very good job at displaying WT principles, even on the ground, even without striking. Well done all around.

On top of that it looked like _fun_. But then I'm a WT oddball who always liked grappling, so maybe that's just me....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Bino TWT said:


>


He wasn't doing much good at controlling you for the majority of that video. He was too patient, or too used to being patient, IMO.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> If you turn up to a BJJ club you are probably going to have to roll. Sorry that is just the way it works.
> 
> I turn up to karate sparring I dont face punch people. I go to boxing I dont double leg guys.
> 
> It is about approaching training with a proffesional attitude.
> 
> That is why people say if you want to prove your system or yourself jump in the cage. Because then you can kick punch and wrestle pretty much all you want. That is how you get to see if your ground and pund really does beat their submissions.
> 
> But then you have to risk getting bashed in front of 800 people.



What you say there is fine.  

It's was a seminar with what I see as a flawed progression that was described in this particular scenario.  "Okay we could not beat you starting without contact.  We couldn't beat you starting while standing at contact.  We could beat you here, with no striking whatsoever... and that's they only video you are allowed.". When I have crossed trained it has always been a mutual exchange.  Everyone learns, everyone acknowedging their weakness and they don't try to hide it.  Here we seem to be having a person at a seminar and a person at the seminar wanted to hide their weaknesses.  That's is half the problem we are dealing with in these threads.


----------



## Nobody Important

Bino TWT said:


>


Nice job Bino! @KPM @geezer & others when I talk about functional Chi Sau & how Yuen Chai Wan style performs double circling hands & waist bending in a manner more like pummeling, this video is very similar to what I'm talking about. Since Yuen family has heavy grappling emphasis & I do a little catch, drilling like this is common & IMO way more functional than traditional Chi Sau platform. Thanks again for sharing Bino, great job representing your art.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Good job Bino!


The best thing I like about that video is that he didn't abandoned his system and it worked out really well until he was put on his back.  I have a lot of respect for those who find a solution within their own system.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> The best thing I like about that video is that he didn't abandoned his system and it worked out really well until he was put on his back.  I have a lot of respect for those who find a solution within their own system.


You have to admit though, if he knew BJJ too that sweep would have never worked.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> "Bino" that clip _should _be made public. Probably the best "full-body chi-sau" I've seen. Talk it over with your sifu and the Gracie guy. I mean that's just good cross-training or cross style sharing. Didn't see any negatives, like excess of ego, etc. And the fact that eventually the Gracie guy got you in his mount? Well duh! That's what they are all about. And you did a very good job at displaying WT principles, even on the ground, even without striking. Well done all around.
> 
> On top of that it looked like _fun_. But then I'm a WT oddball who always liked grappling, so maybe that's just me....


Lol if we see it pop up in MMA then we will know where it came from.  Lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> You have to admit though, if he knew BJJ too that sweep would have never worked.


I didn't see a sweep.  I saw some one giving up the standing game willingly.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't see a sweep.  I saw some one giving up the standing game willingly.


Then maybe you should do a bit of BJJ  The BJJ guy swept him to get top by shifting his hips and rolling him. All he had to do was post to stop it.


----------



## wckf92

Martial D said:


> All he had to do was post to stop it.



Agree...and, he could have called it gum sau


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Then maybe you should do a bit of BJJ  The BJJ guy swept him to get top by shifting his hips and rolling him. All he had to do was post to stop it.


I saw that but that doesn't fit my definition of a sweep. If both people are on the ground (not standing) then sweeps can't exist.  I hope I'll get to see the WC answer for being on the bottom.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw that but that doesn't fit my definition of a sweep. If both people are on the ground (not standing) then sweeps can't exist.  I hope I'll get to see the WC answer for being on the bottom.



Well I would suspect, if he was allowed to use all of his took a biu sau to the eyes would help him recover .


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw that but that doesn't fit my definition of a sweep. If both people are on the ground (not standing) then sweeps can't exist.  I hope I'll get to see the WC answer for being on the bottom.



That's what a sweep is in BJJ (and judo and jjj etc).

 Taking someone's base away to get them off you.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> That's what a sweep is in BJJ (and judo and jjj etc).
> Taking someone's base away to get them off you.



Thanks for clarifying. Like many stand-up fighters I think of standing sweeps, taking somebody's feet out from under them.


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> Thanks for clarifying. Like many stand-up fighters I think of standing sweeps, taking somebody's feet out from under them.


Same idea, just from the ground.


----------



## Bino TWT

JowGaWolf said:


> hope I'll get to see the WC answer for being on the bottom.



The WC answer was I was just tired, sore, and out of gas lol. I did what I came to do, and I was exhausted. I was working as a bouncer at a niteclub, and I hadn't even been to sleep yet when I went and did this 5 hour seminar. And this was the second really good free roll with this guy. I was done before this one, but I realized my daughter was taking pics instead of filming so we had to go again. You see the sacrifices I make for you guy? lmao. 

I will say this too, those guys train hard and their cardio is amazing. This made me realize just how bad my cardio had declined since I tore the ligaments in my knees. I had knee braces on both legs when this was filmed and didn't really have any business out there anyway lol. I drown myself in Dit Da Jow for a week after that. 

But I did what I came to do and proved to myself what I wanted to see, so mission accomplished.


----------



## karatejj

Bino TWT said:


> The WC answer was I was just tired, sore, and out of gas lol. I did what I came to do, and I was exhausted. I was working as a bouncer at a niteclub, and I hadn't even been to sleep yet when I went and did this 5 hour seminar. And this was the second really good free roll with this guy. I was done before this one, but I realized my daughter was taking pics instead of filming so we had to go again. You see the sacrifices I make for you guy? lmao.
> 
> I will say this too, those guys train hard and their cardio is amazing. This made me realize just how bad my cardio had declined since I tore the ligaments in my knees. I had knee braces on both legs when this was filmed and didn't really have any business out there anyway lol. I drown myself in Dit Da Jow for a week after that.
> 
> But I did what I came to do and proved to myself what I wanted to see, so mission accomplished.



Awesome movez big dude!


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Lol if we see it pop up in MMA then we will know where it came from.  Lol



Hand fighting, basing and striking from inside guard does tend to pop up in MMA. So does grinding the forearm into the face.

I have no real issue with the inside guard tactics used. They are good tactics. (Exept for that foot going forwards one time. That could have ended him)


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw that but that doesn't fit my definition of a sweep. If both people are on the ground (not standing) then sweeps can't exist.  I hope I'll get to see the WC answer for being on the bottom.



hip bump sweep.





There is the answer for being on the bottom. If someone wants to call it something Chinese and make it the wing cun answer go nuts. 

If you are in guard on the bottom you do a technical stand up.





If you are in side control or half guard you do a hip escape into turtle and stand up.





If you are in mount. Knee push to half guard. Hip escape to turtle. Then stand up.





Basic high percentage escapes that should pretty much take you as far as you need your ground game to go.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well I would suspect, if he was allowed to use all of his took a biu sau to the eyes would help him recover .



Yes but if the guy on the bottom had two knives..............

Which is pretty much why you don't play that game. Unless you need the ego bolster.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yes but if the guy on the bottom had two knives..............
> 
> Which is pretty much why you don't play that game. Unless you need the ego bolster.



Well the context, as I read it, was "how would a Wing Chun guy deal with a situation where they have been mounted?" If we are talking about what my opinion of cross training is, where both parties can use all their tools they poking to the eyes, palm strikes to the nose of TMJ etc, are valid techniques. 

I only say this because to me there are two types of cross training. 

1. I am learning BJJ so I can integrate things into my WC.  
2. I am testing how my WC can deal with BJJ on it's own and that means being able to use all my tools.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well the context, as I read it, was "how would a Wing Chun guy deal with a situation where they have been mounted?" If we are talking about what my opinion of cross training is, where both parties can use all their tools they poking to the eyes, palm strikes to the nose of TMJ etc, are valid techniques.
> 
> I only say this because to me there are two types of cross training.
> 
> 1. I am learning BJJ so I can integrate things into my WC.
> 2. I am testing how my WC can deal with BJJ on it's own and that means being able to use all my tools.



OK then go out and roll with eye gouges and come back to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> OK then go out and roll with eye gouges and come back to me.


I have rolled with "eye touches", and it did change the other guy's game. If he was good enough, it didn't change the outcome, but if he had a moderate advantage, but hadn't played to protect his eyes before, it bought me what I needed to get away from his game and into mine. It's pretty easy to build a habit of dealing with that, though. A few times rolling with anything close to "eye touch" rules will cause simple adjustments that take away that advantage, since the defenses are close to strike and head control defenses.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> OK then go out and roll with eye gouges and come back to me.


  There is a difference between an eye gouge and a simple touch/thrust.  You can go at the eyes FAST but with control, kinda like a serious version of the "Three stooges" eye poke.  It's more about being a painful, but not debilitating, distraction that results in what @gpseymour notes, but also as he notes, because it is not an all out strike, once you are prepared for it and know how to deal with it, it's not overly difficult to deal with BUT that is the point, imo, of my "cross training" number 2. 

In that case the WC guy will learn that "yeah this sudden but little damaging tactic will work against the unprepared".  The BJJ guy overtime learns to be prepared.  The WC guy then learns not to be overly reliant on it.  Everyone learns something!

PS, unless you are practicing Iron palm training doing a thrust that is more than a "touch" will get your fingers jammed or broken fairly easily if the opponent tucks his jaw right and you hit his forehead. I know two people that practice Iron palm enough that they can slam their finger tips into their own foreheads repeatedly and you can hear the impact across the training room floor.  I don't even want to think of what they could do thrusting on any soft portion of the body tbh.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> That's what a sweep is in BJJ (and judo and jjj etc).
> 
> Taking someone's base away to get them off you.


oh I didn't know that BJJ and Judo defined it that way.  I'll keep that in mind from now on as it gives me a better understanding of the system perception of what they try to accomplish.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bino TWT said:


> The WC answer was I was just tired, sore, and out of gas lol. I did what I came to do, and I was exhausted. I was working as a bouncer at a niteclub, and I hadn't even been to sleep yet when I went and did this 5 hour seminar. And this was the second really good free roll with this guy. I was done before this one, but I realized my daughter was taking pics instead of filming so we had to go again. You see the sacrifices I make for you guy? lmao.
> 
> I will say this too, those guys train hard and their cardio is amazing. This made me realize just how bad my cardio had declined since I tore the ligaments in my knees. I had knee braces on both legs when this was filmed and didn't really have any business out there anyway lol. I drown myself in Dit Da Jow for a week after that.
> 
> But I did what I came to do and proved to myself what I wanted to see, so mission accomplished.


Your realization about your cardio is the same way I learned about mine.  I originally thought I had good cardio because normally I only compare myself with how long I last against my fellow classmates.  I went to another school and discovered a new meaning to the word exhausted.   Now I can't shake that feeling that I had years ago and I'm always seeking ways to push my cardio and maintain it.  It's like I'm afraid of being out of breath like that again.  It was the realization that once the gas is gone then there's nothing that can be done about the beating on the horizon.  It wasn't a good feeling for me to be exhausted like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bino TWT said:


> You see the sacrifices I make for you guy? lmao.


lol.. Much appreciated. Got anymore lol.  I've seen other WC people try to do the ground thing but it wasn't as practical.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> If you are in guard on the bottom you do a technical stand up.


  I'm familiar with that technique.  We use a different leg, but it's the same concept. 



Juany118 said:


> 2. I am testing how my WC can deal with BJJ on it's own and that means being able to use all my tools.


I like this one better because it requires the student to dig deeper into the things he or she already knows.  Just from watching the WC video, I'm starting to dig deeper into Jow Ga short range techniques to see if any of them can be applied in a similar situation.  Generating short range power while in a position like that may be more devastating than the Ground and Pound bombs that people throw in MMA.  Pulling the arm way back to throw power gives the person in the body time.  Being able to punch someone with power from a few inches is just going to be a series of surprises that one won't be able to see coming.  Best hope would be to sense similar to Chi Sao (sp?) or Tai Chi Push hands.  

Time for me to see if I can do a ground drill that covers that.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> There is a difference between an eye gouge and a simple touch/thrust.  You can go at the eyes FAST but with control, kinda like a serious version of the "Three stooges" eye poke.  It's more about being a painful, but not debilitating, distraction that results in what @gpseymour notes, but also as he notes, because it is not an all out strike, once you are prepared for it and know how to deal with it, it's not overly difficult to deal with BUT that is the point, imo, of my "cross training" number 2.
> 
> In that case the WC guy will learn that "yeah this sudden but little damaging tactic will work against the unprepared".  The BJJ guy overtime learns to be prepared.  The WC guy then learns not to be overly reliant on it.  Everyone learns something!
> 
> PS, unless you are practicing Iron palm training doing a thrust that is more than a "touch" will get your fingers jammed or broken fairly easily if the opponent tucks his jaw right and you hit his forehead. I know two people that practice Iron palm enough that they can slam their finger tips into their own foreheads repeatedly and you can hear the impact across the training room floor.  I don't even want to think of what they could do thrusting on any soft portion of the body tbh.



Well then go roll with whatever variation of eye gouge or eye jabs you want. It is not the point. If you want to roll that way go buck wild.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I have rolled with "eye touches", and it did change the other guy's game. If he was good enough, it didn't change the outcome, but if he had a moderate advantage, but hadn't played to protect his eyes before, it bought me what I needed to get away from his game and into mine. It's pretty easy to build a habit of dealing with that, though. A few times rolling with anything close to "eye touch" rules will cause simple adjustments that take away that advantage, since the defenses are close to strike and head control defenses.



If you roll with punches the dynamic of rolling does change a bit.


----------



## Nobody Important

drop bear said:


> If you roll with punches the dynamic of rolling does change a bit.


Agree 100%, even light pops here & there change the focus & dynamic tremendously, let alone all out bashing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Your realization about your cardio is the same way I learned about mine.  I originally thought I had good cardio because normally I only compare myself with how long I last against my fellow classmates.  I went to another school and discovered a new meaning to the word exhausted.   Now I can't shake that feeling that I had years ago and I'm always seeking ways to push my cardio and maintain it.  It's like I'm afraid of being out of breath like that again.  It was the realization that once the gas is gone then there's nothing that can be done about the beating on the horizon.  It wasn't a good feeling for me to be exhausted like that.


Just to be clear, when you both say "cardio", I assume you're actually talking about your "pulmo" , your ability to keep your breath regular. For me, my breath gives out long before my heartbeat reaches anything close to my target "max". I've gone back to running, and am focused on breathing. I run farther and my legs are less tired (very hilly where I live) when I control my breath properly. I look forward to that point when I can run a couple of miles again, without being out of breath. I'm hoping it only takes the few weeks it has taken in the past to get there.


----------



## Vajramusti

wingchun100 said:


> I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?
> 
> I don't see tae kwon do being one. In TAO OF JEET KUNE DO, Bruce Lee had some notes about savate, but I have never seen that style demonstrated so I can't say one way or the other. Lately I have been thinking that Muay Thai might be the best mix. It has long-range attacks, but it is also known as the "Art of 8 Limbs" because there are also elbow attacks. Plus Muay Thai fighters are also known for getting up close and personal by getting their opponents in "the clinch."
> 
> Anyway, it was just a thought I had about what long-range style would fit best with wing chun conceptually.


------------------
Dan imo is not an authority on wing chun.


----------



## wayfaring

Bino TWT said:


>



Hey Bino, I just saw this.  I do understand what you mean when you say from your perception you were giving the instructor trouble.  You were able to use some bridge skills to prevent his gripping game.  

However what I would like you to realize from that video, the instructor is going very very light.  I do not know that particular instructor or his A game or competition game or even if he competes, but what I see is someone going about 30-40%, and not caring too much about you messing with his gripping game, then adjusting distance and being a little dynamic on that sweep, then submitted you from mount with an arm triangle choke.

While I did see you fending off his gripping game, and yes that possibly could go on at a higher level of output to stall his game a little, but once he had a connection to you, he used that to sweep, get mount, and submit you.  Without a ton of effort.

check out this biker challenging Robson Moura...





And good job getting in there mixing it up and trying out your skills.   That's how it starts....


----------



## wayfaring

Bino TWT said:


> The WC answer was I was just tired, sore, and out of gas lol. I did what I came to do, and I was exhausted. I was working as a bouncer at a niteclub, and I hadn't even been to sleep yet when I went and did this 5 hour seminar. And this was the second really good free roll with this guy. I was done before this one, but I realized my daughter was taking pics instead of filming so we had to go again. You see the sacrifices I make for you guy? lmao.
> 
> I will say this too, those guys train hard and their cardio is amazing. This made me realize just how bad my cardio had declined since I tore the ligaments in my knees. I had knee braces on both legs when this was filmed and didn't really have any business out there anyway lol. I drown myself in Dit Da Jow for a week after that.
> 
> But I did what I came to do and proved to myself what I wanted to see, so mission accomplished.



Good job getting in there and mixing it up.  The cardio is different, and a bit training specific.  If you aren't used to rolling you will burn out while they are conserving energy.  May I ask what it is that you went there to see?  And what did you prove?  What mission was accomplished?

I'm asking because as a practitioner of both arts, I'm curious how some view both and the blend of them.

I kind of like pajama wrestling.  It is chill and helps me keep stress levels down.  But I most directly relate to wing chun, especially from a core identity perspective.

Peace.


----------

