# Paak-da chi-sau entry



## LFJ (Jul 14, 2015)

Came across these videos on _paak-da_, I assume a common _chi-sau_ entry in most lineages. Wondering what the consensus here is on what is shown. Do you all agree with it? Is this how you do it? 

He shows two timings. Personally, I think both timings, the _paak_, and the punch are all wrong. I'll explain why and what I think is more optimal if someone else doesn't come up with it first. Done properly, it would make his simple counter much more difficult to pull off.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 15, 2015)

Ok...I'll bite. No, not how I do it.
1) why pak if your partner doesn't feed you the energy to do so? (ok, I get it, its a skill learning drill...so lets move on) 
2) why roll down from bong to tan before launching the punch? 

Video 1:
- IMHO - As his high fook sao is coming down to the low fook sao position...and as his tan is pressing upwards/forwards towards his partners face...that (if you were to do this "drill") would seem to be a little better scenario. So his left hand would have more of a Jum punch energy...while his right hand would have more of a tan / rising punch energy.
- He could also move forward into his partner while doing what I just described.
- He could also just rotate his horse to the right; use his low fook sao to sink a jum / punch over the guys tan, collapsing his elbow...while maintaining pressure with his right hand to keep partner in check.

Video 2:
- I'll just say that the guy in blue, I don't agree with what his right hand does (rolling backwards, underneath, and coming up ).
- I'm ok with using footwork, Wu sao, etc...but I suppose there are many different ways of training and responses to something like this. For example: you can deal with the pak punch chi sau by staying put and lop'ing the guy.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 15, 2015)

I do it a bit differently but the info is generally good.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 15, 2015)

It's a very detailed explanation of the mechanics for the technique he is demonstrating. Unfortunately, when going off these 2 clips, this technique-focused approach to chi sau is a very basic/limited view of what WC is and IMO can be what leads others in the MA's community to not take WC seriously as a fighting art. 

To clarify since that might sound a bit harsh lol - When in this type of squared-up, 2 hands connected configuration you should only go forward to enter your opponent's space when there is a distortion in their structure/energy, timing or facing. There was no mention of any WC concepts that drive the action, or, even more importantly, why he's even doing the motion in the first place - which if only going off of these 2 clips, gives me the impression that they view chi sau as simply a bunch of combinations, tricks & attempted lucky techniques (ie, I do a move, they do a move, etc). From my experience, WC is a lot more than moves and counters and this is really missing the mark on what WC is (chi sau or otherwise).


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 15, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> It's a very detailed explanation of the mechanics for the technique he is demonstrating. Unfortunately, when going off these 2 clips, this technique-focused approach to chi sau is a very basic/limited view of what WC is and IMO can be what leads others in the MA's community to not take WC seriously as a fighting art.
> 
> To clarify since that might sound a bit harsh lol - When in this type of squared-up, 2 hands connected configuration you should only go forward to enter your opponent's space when there is a distortion in their structure/energy, timing or facing. There was no mention of any WC concepts that drive the action, or, even more importantly, why he's even doing the motion in the first place - which if only going off of these 2 clips, gives me the impression that they view chi sau as simply a bunch of combinations, tricks & attempted lucky techniques (ie, I do a move, they do a move, etc). From my experience, WC is a lot more than moves and counters and this is really missing the mark on what WC is (chi sau or otherwise).


---------------------------------------------- 
His comments seem to be based on fut sao wing chun-though he just labels his multiple postings in atleast 3 iternet forums as"wing chun"


----------



## Danny T (Jul 15, 2015)

In 1st video some of his basic premise is good. The attack in the manner he presents is not how we would do it. The counter in the 2nd video is something we would not do. His statement of going with the force is on the 2nd move not the first. Where is the counter or yielding of the force on the pak movement. We would stick and roll into a low bong sao turning in the opposite direction. Shutting down his pak. If he attempted a rt punch my left fook prevents his attack. If he forces the punch I jum and counter punch with the left or Biu with the rt as a counter punch.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 15, 2015)

I watched the videos with sound off. But my counter for 1st would be to slip in under his fook and choke him out with an arm in choke. Second video I'd slip in under his fook and choke him out with an arm in choke. And there would be nothing he could do about it


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 15, 2015)

The guy in the video usually has good explanations of things. He and I just kind of got into it on youtube about sparring. He tried to insult me so I checked him. Besides that I like some of there videos. I like the lineage. Its just like JPinAZ said, most is very basic.


----------



## Callen (Jul 15, 2015)

The Windy City Wing Chun guys usually post informative videos with a technical approach to their explanations. They are direct students of Augustine Fong.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 15, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> 1) why pak if your partner doesn't feed you the energy to do so? (ok, I get it, its a skill learning drill...so lets move on)



Right, as JPinAZ said, there was no mention of why and when. But even if he got that part right, his timing was still off. So, we look at that...



> 2) why roll down from bong to tan before launching the punch?



Precisely because his timing was wrong. 

It's a bad idea to start a punch from that _bong_ position. The hand is near the partner's opposite shoulder and the elbow high. The elbow follows a quarter-circle to get back into alignment for the punch, which is a huge movement easily detected by the partner, even by sight, if initiated from _bong_, giving them all kinds of reaction time, so any response could shut it down before the punch even gets into alignment.

Both of his timings were punching off the _bong_; one at the apex of the motion during the roll (reversing the path) and one when the action stops, giving the partner even more physical and mental preparation. Both wrong for these reasons. There is no reason this should not be shut down every single time.



> Video 1:
> - IMHO - As his high fook sao is coming down to the low fook sao position...and as his tan is pressing upwards/forwards towards his partners face...that (if you were to do this "drill") would seem to be a little better scenario. So his left hand would have more of a Jum punch energy...while his right hand would have more of a tan / rising punch energy.



Exactly. That is one good timing, because the right punching arm will already be in alignment ready to shoot forward when released. The partner's arms will also be almost parallel and he will be mid-action, physically and mentally.

The second timing would be coming down from _bong_ as your hand is pointed at their face and your elbow in good punching alignment. In these two timings, your hand will literally be inches from their face, so when it shoots forward (may use palm for safety), there will be very little time for it to be detected and shut down.

One of the main reasons for _chi-sau_ drilling is to develop usable fighting attributes like timing, speed, reaction time, and appropriate response. It's a mutual development drill. If you use the wrong timing, you are doing a disservice to your partner who is not under much pressure. If your timing is correct, your partner must react fast with an appropriate response or be hit. So, this drill should be used to improve their reaction time and response just as much as your timing and speed. As done in these clips, neither partner is improving anything useful for fighting, only technique vs technique ideas with _chi-sau._


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 16, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Right,







LFJ said:


> Precisely...







LFJ said:


> Exactly...


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 16, 2015)

Callen said:


> The Windy City Wing Chun guys usually post informative videos with a technical approach to their explanations. They are direct students of Augustine Fong.


Seminar students I believe? There videos have gotten better over the years. I actually like Sifu Fong's WC. In this video you can see he has good control of the centerline structure and energy awareness.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 16, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Seminar students I believe? There videos have gotten better over the years. I actually like Sifu Fong's WC. In this video you can see he has good control of the centerline structure and energy awareness.


-------------------------------------------------------------
He does and his better  students do too


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 16, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------
> He does and his better  students do too


I kind of figured that.  You can only get so much from seminars. I'm not knocking those guys. But having a teacher year round makes things that much easier. I spend about 10 hrs a week with mine and what difference it's made.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 16, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I actually like Sifu Fong's WC. In this video you can see he has good control of the centerline structure and energy awareness.



Really? That was an incredibly painful video to watch. All it shows is poor Wing Chun and lack of instruction. That's why the guy thinks it's "superior blocking".

The guy's problem is that he's too focused on his hands and giving himself these pointless energy riddles to solve instead of clearing to hit, and when he tries to hit it's at the wrong time and in the wrong way. Of course he's getting blocked. 

Then his frustration turns into an attitude of master-worship, and all Fong can say as to why it's not working for him is "because I'm me" and "get better", and never answers any of his questions in a way that he learns anything. I would stop immediately and tell him his entire approach is wrong.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 17, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Really? That was an incredibly painful video to watch. All it shows is poor Wing Chun and lack of instruction. That's why the guy thinks it's "superior blocking".
> 
> The guy's problem is that he's too focused on his hands and giving himself these pointless energy riddles to solve instead of clearing to hit, and when he tries to hit it's at the wrong time and in the wrong way. Of course he's getting blocked.
> 
> Then his frustration turns into an attitude of master-worship, and all Fong can say as to why it's not working for him is "because I'm me" and "get better", and never answers any of his questions in a way that he learns anything. I would stop immediately and tell him his entire approach is wrong.


The video isn't a lesson? It's just a light hearted demo showcasing Sifu Fong's skill. I'd imagine that's not how he teaches? IDK, cause he's not my teacher.

I have grown a bit in my martial arts journey. In the past i'd look at a video like that one and probably have the same opinion as you. Now I can see what he's trying to demonstrate. He's demonstrating controlling the line and using full body structure. What the student is doing, I really could give two sheets about.

Now you posted a video of PB previously? So I'm assuming this is how you do chi sao? I noticed he likes to bump people out of chi sao range? Which he's very good at IMO. And it looks like really good full body structured chi sao? I actually have a habit of doing this also. Problem for me is when I bump a non WC guy. Let say MMA guy or kick boxer. I bump them into there power range and I end up chasing after them. Guess what? It doesn't workout very well for me. Now I'm nowhere near PB skill level. So maybe that's it? What does work, is forcing them to stay in my chi sao range. Which is also there grappling range. (Sigh) grappling range so scary? Actually that's where I like to be nowadays. Take this post however you like? I have respect for all parties involved in this post and take no responsibility   for offending anyone.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 17, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> The video isn't a lesson? It's just a light hearted demo showcasing Sifu Fong's skill. I'd imagine that's not how he teaches? IDK, cause he's not my teacher.
> 
> I have grown a bit in my martial arts journey. In the past i'd look at a video like that one and probably have the same opinion as you. Now I can see what he's trying to demonstrate. He's demonstrating controlling the line and using full body structure. What the student is doing, I really could give two sheets about.
> 
> Now you posted a video of PB previously? So I'm assuming this is how you do chi sao? I noticed he likes to bump people out of chi sao range? Which he's very good at IMO. And it looks like really good full body structured chi sao? I actually have a habit of doing this also. Problem for me is when I bump a non WC guy. Let say MMA guy or kick boxer. I bump them into there power range and I end up chasing after them. Guess what? It doesn't workout very well for me. Now I'm nowhere near PB skill level. So maybe that's it? What does work, is forcing them to stay in my chi sao range. Which is also there grappling range. (Sigh) grappling range so scary? Actually that's where I like to be nowadays. Take this post however you like? I have respect for all parties involved in this post and take no responsibility   for offending anyone.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct-the Fong sifu video is light hearted piece of play-it's not an instructional video and it is not put on you tube by him.
His control is exceptional and he does know how to apply his skills.
ThePB roll and push seems to be done by many wsl followers.Some like Gary Lam have a mattress ona wall used for shoving people. I don't do it that way-but if that helps someone-ok by me.
The wing chun world is quite diverse.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 17, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Problem for me is when I bump a non WC guy. Let say MMA guy or kick boxer. I bump them into there power range and I end up chasing after them.


You can punch and you can throw, but after some CMA system invented "push", other CMA systems added "push" into their training. IMO, unless you can "push" your opponent off the cliff, or into a heavy traffic, it has no combat value. Old saying said, "Keep your friend close but keep your enemy closer".

When you do fishing, you will use hook to pull the fish toward you, you will not push that fish away and then start to chase it. Why did people invent "push" in the 1st place is totally unlogical.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 17, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I*MO, unless you can "push" your opponent off the cliff, or into a heavy traffic, it has no combat value. *Old saying said, "Keep your friend close but keep your enemy closer".
> 
> When you do fishing, you will use hook to pull the fish toward you, you will not push that fish away and then start to chase it. Why did people invent "push" in the 1st place is totally unlogical.


You are right! I'd practice that technique if I could find training partners and we had one of these suits. Man vs truck @ 1.38. Falling off cliff @ 1.45. This guy is cool! He's like a superhero!


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 17, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> It's a very detailed explanation of the mechanics for the technique he is demonstrating. Unfortunately, when going off these 2 clips, this technique-focused approach to chi sau is a very basic/limited view of what WC is and IMO can be what leads others in the MA's community to not take WC seriously as a fighting art.
> 
> To clarify since that might sound a bit harsh lol - When in this type of squared-up, 2 hands connected configuration you should only go forward to enter your opponent's space when there is a distortion in their structure/energy, timing or facing. There was no mention of any WC concepts that drive the action, or, even more importantly, why he's even doing the motion in the first place - which if only going off of these 2 clips, gives me the impression that they view chi sau as simply a bunch of combinations, tricks & attempted lucky techniques (ie, I do a move, they do a move, etc). From my experience, WC is a lot more than moves and counters and this is really missing the mark on what WC is (chi sau or otherwise).



I agree on several of your points,but I think this video is not ment to show the why? but the how. It is geared more for the beginner not someone who has a lot of experience. I like the video even though I do it a bit different.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 18, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> The video isn't a lesson? It's just a light hearted demo showcasing Sifu Fong's skill. I'd imagine that's not how he teaches? IDK, cause he's not my teacher.



Without trying to imagine or assume anything about it, I just see a student trying to figure things out, getting frustrated and asking his teacher many questions, but not getting much of a response; certainly nothing useful anyway...



> He's demonstrating controlling the line and using full body structure. What the student is doing, I really could give two sheets about.



In his demonstration, if that's what this is, I see him exhibiting many of the same mistakes as the student. But then, my lineage never plays with these kind of armwrestling logic riddles, which I think are entirely useless for fight training. We're obviously training very different systems though, so it may well be "right" and "good" according to theirs. So, just never mind my opinion I guess.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 18, 2015)

> Now you posted a video of PB previously? So I'm assuming this is how you do chi sao?



I don't know. I didn't post a video of him doing _chi-sau_, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.



> I noticed he likes to bump people out of chi sao range? Which he's very good at IMO. And it looks like really good full body structured chi sao? I actually have a habit of doing this also. Problem for me is when I bump a non WC guy. Let say MMA guy or kick boxer. I bump them into there power range and I end up chasing after the



It wasn't _chi-sau_ at all. I think the video you saw was just a drill about initially getting one's bearings by pulling back to _wu_ and checking with _man_, then finding a tactical entry into ideal striking range through interception, and repeating. So there was attacking, pulling back, and attacking again. That's why the range was expanding and contracting. Because the drill was repetitive, not because that's a fighting strategy.


But anyhow, VT is a striking system. _Chi-sau_ is just a training method. There is no "_chi-sau_" range in free fighting; you're either in ideal striking range for the system, or you're not. And that is neither grappling range nor a kickboxer's power range in my system.

When we use pushing it is to keep the opponent within our ideal striking range while disrupting their balance and facing as we press forward with a ceaseless flow of attacks. It is not to push them beyond ideal striking range, and definitely not into a kickboxer's power range. That would certainly be a mistake. Although, some times in training that may be done just to reset. Some times people see this and mistakenly take it for a strategy.


As far as pushing _away_, as someone like Gary Lam seems obsessed with, that would be something I'd only use in situations where there are multiple attackers, for example, and they can be pushed into each other and attacked, or I can escape while they're falling over each other; or in more life-threatening situations where an assailant is armed with a deadly weapon and there is a handy wall nearby. Otherwise, launching someone's skull into a brick wall, or tossing them down a flight of stairs is a quick way to get a prison sentence. And I agree, pushing them _away_ for no apparent reason so that you can no longer hit them is pretty stupid.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Without trying to imagine or assume anything about it, I just see a student trying to figure things out, getting frustrated and asking his teacher many questions, but not getting much of a response; certainly nothing useful anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> In his demonstration, if that's what this is, I see him exhibiting many of the same mistakes as the student. But then, my lineage never plays with these kind of armwrestling logic riddles, which I think are entirely useless for fight training. We're obviously training very different systems though, so it may well be "right" and "good" according to theirs. So, just never mind my opinion I guess.





LFJ said:


> Without trying to imagine or assume anything about it, I just see a student trying to figure things out, getting frustrated and asking his teacher many questions, but not getting much of a response; certainly nothing useful anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> In his demonstration, if that's what this is, I see him exhibiting many of the same mistakes as the student. But then, my lineage never plays with these kind of armwrestling logic riddles, which I think are entirely useless for fight training. We're obviously training very different systems though, so it may well be "right" and "good" according to theirs. So, just never mind my opinion I guess.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 18, 2015)

Opinions--and you have yours. Ok to have different opinions.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 18, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I don't know. I didn't post a video of him doing _chi-sau_, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find bumping and pushing causes momentary pauses in forward energy that I can exploit? In free fighting ranges change and usually end up in the clinch. How do you maintain that "ideal striking range"? What if your opponent pushes the clinch? What if he changes levels and shoots in while you're seamlessly attacking him? Do you think your striking alone will stop him from taking you down or throwing you?

If VT is a striking system and chi sao is only a training method. What exactly are you training? Why bridge? Bridging would seem pointless in free fighting if you can maintain that perfect striking range? Just strike then. It would seem to me a better training method would be to spar and train footwork and combinations ? Like the way every other striking system trains on the planet? Why train one way and fight a completely different way?

Chi sao is what makes WC special. It took me awhile to figure that riddle out. Like Joy said WC is very diverse. To each it's own.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 18, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Bridging would seem pointless in free fighting if you can maintain that perfect striking range?


When you punch at your opponent, your opponent may

1. dodge your punch,
2. block your punch,
3. wrap your punching arm,

In the 1st case, the striking range is maintained. In both the 2nd and 3rd cases, the "bridge" is built and the clinch range is established. You can either try to

- take advantage on it, or
- avoid it.

IMO, to "take advantage on it" is better than to "avoid it".


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 18, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you punch at your opponent, your opponent may
> 
> - block your punch (defensive approach),
> - wrap your punching arm (offensive approach),
> ...


That's also what I'd do. I'd take advantage of it.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 18, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you punch at your opponent, your opponent may
> 
> 1. dodge your punch,
> 2. block your punch,
> ...


This is my point. In fighting your opponent has options too. Chances are you're not going to maintain that perfect striking range. Once you're caught in the clinch. You will need to know the clinch. This is where controlling the line structure and whatever else I said earlier in my previous post Sifu Fong was demonstrating.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 18, 2015)

I trained today with one of our MMA wrestler/grappler guys. From the clinch we were training single leg takedowns. They are relentless. Wing Chun guys who think they are going to punch or elbow them to stop the take down are lying to themselves. They keep coming and will blow through that with ease. This is where chi sao and controlling COG and all the rest of that good stuff comes in. If you know how to use it properly? So today I had to solve that riddle. A real life reality riddle.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 18, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I trained today with one of our MMA wrestler/grappler guys. From the clinch we were training single leg takedowns. They are relentless. Wing Chun guys who think they are going to punch or elbow them to stop the take down are lying to themselves. They keep coming and will blow through that with ease. This is where chi sao and controlling COG and all the rest of that good stuff comes in. If you know how to use it properly? So today I had to solve that riddle. A real life reality riddle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------Yep-spot on-you cannot under estimate determined grapplers bent on taking someone down.Lots of wing chunners don't train for this and try to graft bjj or bits of other systems.
But those who understand integrated wing chun structure and motion
can counter and disturb grappling structures and use wing chun attack principles in the process.
I have practiced this against real grapplers and best students and kung fu brothers can do this too.
Learning a little bjj is no defense against a real competent grappler.
The problem is deep because lots of wing chun people even teachers do not sufficiently develop their wing chun structure and the relationship between stability and mobility.
In my second JAMA article on my website there a set of pictures showing me and an all American Greco roman wrestler.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 18, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------Yep-spot on-you cannot under estimate determined grapplers bent on taking someone down.Lots of wing chunners don't train for this and try to graft bjj or bits of other systems.
> But those who understand integrated wing chun structure and motion
> can counter and disturb grappling structures and use wing chun attack principles in the process.
> I have practiced this against real grapplers and best students and kung fu brothers can do this too.
> ...


Yes yes and yes! I really get it now. My current teacher does multiple arts. But he teaches me using my WC principles. Like today using Chum sao  idea or energy for single leg defense. Using it to collapse structure right off the get go. And before the grapplers jump in and say my training partner probably wasn't doing a single leg right. Well he was. Grappling is his art. That was part of the lesson also. Doing a single leg from a clinch properly.

He showed us how if done improperly certain grappling counters will work. But if done right even a sprawl won't. The difference was guy going for single goes for right leg with right arm while controlling left overhook and pulling down on that arm. Which collapses hips and not allowing sprawl. In demos a lot of times the left overhook gets neglected

. But for me, like I said. He teaches me how to use my WC energy and structure properly to achieve same thing. That's what I see in Sifu Fong's video.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 18, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Yes yes and yes! I really get it now. My current teacher does multiple arts. But he teaches me using my WC principles. Like today using Chum sao  idea or energy for single leg defense. Using it to collapse structure right of the get go. And before the grapplers jump in and say guy probably wasn't doing a single leg right. Well he was. Grappling is his art. That was part of the lesson also. Doing a single leg from a clinch properly.
> 
> He showed us how if done improperly certain grappling counters will work. But if done right even a sprawl won't. The difference was guy going for single goes for right leg with right arm while controlling left overhook and pulling down on that arm. Which collapses hips and not allowing sprawl. In demos a lot of times the left overhook gets neglected. Wing Chun when done pr works. But for me, like I said. He teaches me how to use my WC energy and structure properly to achieve same thing. That's what I see in Sifu Fong's video.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that your teacher and you are on the right track.
Good wishes.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 18, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I think that your teacher and you are on the right track.
> Good wishes.


Thank you!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 19, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I find bumping and pushing causes momentary pauses in forward energy that I can exploit?



Whoever's doing it to you is doing it wrong then; at the wrong time and in the wrong way.



> How do you maintain that "ideal striking range"?



We use tactics to turn the opponent or let them overshoot and turn themselves so we fight their flanks, taking away some of their weapons, disrupting their balance, and preventing them from recovering their facing and countering so effectively.



> Do you think your striking alone will stop him from taking you down or throwing you?



Am I coming off that stupid or amateur to you in my posts? There is a lot more to VT than simple chain punching.



> If VT is a striking system and chi sao is only a training method. What exactly are you training?



Coordination, balance, distancing, fluidity of action and reflexes.

The name "sticking hands" is merely visual. From an outside perspective, it may look like we're sticking to each other's arms. And indeed, many have run with that idea and made all sorts of fighting theories out of it. Really, we are exchanging force with a partner to help each other develop the above attributes into our own behaviors. It's not about fighting each other yet at that stage.



> Why bridge?



I don't share your definition of bridge and I don't do what you call bridging. It's not a verb in Chinese either. It refers to the quickest and most direct line to the target. Like taking a bridge to cross a river, rather than walking all the way around it. At times a bridge will appear, and we'll cross it (taking advantage of open attack lines). Other times there is no bridge, so we create it ourselves (cutting the way, creating superior angles).



> Why train one way and fight a completely different way?



The VT system is a training progression. Forms > _chi-sau_ > _gwo-sau_ > _gong-sau_ (free sparring and fighting).

When we find errors revealed under pressure in free sparring and fighting, we drop back to an earlier stage to iron things out, then return to free fighting. At higher skill levels, most training time is spent in _gwo-sau_, closer to free fighting, but still mutual to train out our mistakes. Sparring and fighting are mostly done outside of training time, but the system is self-corrective so we will recognize our errors when they are made and know which stage to go to in training in order to fix them.

Back in the YM / WSL school days, not a lot of guys went out to test their skills, so their training really didn't have much of a reference point, and _chi-sau_ become an experimental lab of sorts where people with no fighting experience came up with all sorts of sticky-hand theories. But that generally leads to disaster when one focuses on trying to establish arm contact to feel and sense and so on while the other guy is just focusing on knocking your head off.

We don't take _chi-sau_ into fighting because it's a mutual development drill that can't be done with a non-compliant enemy. But then, you and I apparently have entirely different ideas about what _chi-sau_ training is for, and what is taken from it, so from your point of view that might sound crazy. We train different systems.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 19, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Whoever's doing it to you is doing it wrong then; at the wrong time and in the wrong way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you post some free fighting videos of you or your students please? I'm still learning and I'd like to see maybe what I might be missing? I'm very visual. So it's hard for me to understand what you mean without actually seeing it? Otherwise for me it's just words and I may interpret it in the wrong way. I think a video will help me see what you are explaining. I'd really appreciate it. Specifically free sparring starting from a realistic distance and not from crossing hands or rolling? Thank you.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 19, 2015)

"Am I coming off that stupid or amateur to you in my posts? There is a lot more to VT than simple chain punching."

Of coarse not. But I have no idea who you are? I don't know your background, experience or skill level? I'd like too? You seem like a nice person.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 20, 2015)

I don't teach and don't make videos myself, but I think some of what I'm talking about can be seen in, for example, that _gwo-sau_ video I posted on the other thread, reposted below for easy reference. You may have to use the play speed feature to slow it down and see exactly what's happening, but you will notice things I mentioned like cutting off attacks, turning them, disrupting their balance and facing, etc., all while striking.

Granted this is only a drill, and the partner always comes in with _paak-da_ on the lead arm to start. But I think you can see what I refer to. These are skills and tactics that get carried over into free fighting, and maybe you can imagine how. You will notice no attempt to stick or feel– things there are no time for at speed– only interception and sudden displacement of limbs to clear the way for striking. That's good and usable VT in my opinion.






Another clear example of "cutting the way" to reduce their weapons, and prevent recovery and effective countering. It's a well-developed tactical striking system, not sticking, grappling, or energy riddle solving. You'll never see them standing around holding each other's arms and thinking about how to deal with each other's energy as in the Fong video. I don't think that has any value for fight training. At least, it's not my cup of tea.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ and Jake104...you guys are actually discussing the same thing; however...
1) it depends on ones definition of the term "chi sau / sticking hands", and also
2) your interpretation of what that drill does for the WC/VT'er.
For example: imho the "drill" of "chi sau'ing" teaches one (ones ENTIRE body) how to manage forces/pressures/energies from his training partner. Yes, everyone knows (or should know) that the classical two arm chi sau drill is NOT fighting. However, that drill (when trained properly and with the right mindset and training methodology) is supposed to ingrain into the WC/VT practitioner the skill of how to manage forces he (his arms/body/structure) is receiving.
3) bayer's clip: watch what happens at the :18 - :19 second mark. bayer, at that moment, IS DOING chi sau. His left arm get's Pak'd (ie a force or pressure is applied to his left arm near the elbow. He interprets that pressure on his arm (note: this is the moment that the dreaded "sticking" or "energy riddle" happens)...then uses footwork to manage that pressure and get a different angle...all while bringing up a secondary hand (in this case Wu sau) to cover his opponents incoming punch. He continues to use chi sau in the next few seconds because he enters in and punches to his opponents face...he "feels" something pressuring his punch offline...he interprets that pressure and his punching hand becomes a pulling hand to clear that obstacle out of the way.
It's all chi sau. I think the PB folks take such an issue with the "sticking" part because they define the period of time in a literal fashion when this is not the case at all. Bayer did have an energy riddle to solve at the 18-19 second mark...at his skill level it only took him nanoseconds to solve, but it (the momentary connection of limbs/"stick") was there...on PB's elbow.
Now, Jake104 uses his interpretation of the skill of chi sau in the clinch. Well, all a clinch is is simply the two armed chi sau platform collapsed slightly and at much closer distance. It's all chi sau.
sorry for the long post...


----------



## LFJ (Jul 20, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> 3) bayer's clip: watch what happens at the :18 - :19 second mark. bayer, at that moment, IS DOING chi sau. His left arm get's Pak'd (ie a force or pressure is applied to his left arm near the elbow. He interprets that pressure on his arm (note: this is the moment that the dreaded "sticking" or "energy riddle" happens)...then uses footwork to manage that pressure and get a different angle...all while bringing up a secondary hand (in this case Wu sau) to cover his opponents incoming punch.



I think this is quite a reach. It is nothing like what the guys were doing in the Fong video before. In fact, one could react to that slap on the arm in a similar manner and not even know VT. It's just stepping out, shifting and checking the punch. Relating this to energy-riddle type _chi-sau_ is reaching.



> He continues to use chi sau in the next few seconds because he enters in and punches to his opponents face...he "feels" something pressuring his punch offline...he interprets that pressure and his punching hand becomes a pulling hand to clear that obstacle out of the way.



Interesting how you know what he feels. In fact, the opposite is happening. It's his punch that is intercepting and cutting his partner's punch off the line. The _jat_+punch follow up is to further prevent recovery and capacity to counter while continuing his own attack, as opposed to just chain punching into the gap made by the first punch, leaving the partner space to bring his arms up to recover position and stop the flow of incoming attacks.



> Bayer did have an energy riddle to solve at the 18-19 second mark...at his skill level it only took him nanoseconds to solve, but it (the momentary connection of limbs/"stick") was there...on PB's elbow.



The definition of "stick" is to remain attached by adhesion. The guy just slapped his arm away. Nothing stuck, and PB didn't do any sticking. By your definition, punching someone in the face could be called sticking. But any form of contact is not sticking. Not even the terminology works in this theory... 

What the guys in the Fong video were doing was sticking and trying to solve energy riddles, because they were remaining attached to each others arms and thinking about how to deal with the energy in order to divert and get through. That is not seen in the PB clip. And even in _chi-sau_ drilling, the sticking merely happens because partners have mutually agreed to exchange force in such a format, but not for the sake of sticking and feeling energy and doing things with it.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I think this is quite a reach. It is nothing like what the guys were doing in the Fong video before. In fact, one could react to that slap on the arm in a similar manner and not even know VT. It's just stepping out, shifting and checking the punch. Relating this to energy-riddle type _chi-sau_ is reaching.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 20, 2015)

Video watching "interpretations"-missing part of the time.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 20, 2015)

A lot of the discussion since the OP is hard to follow, but my take on the video in OP is: The elbow seems much too high to initiate the punch from if done from full bong sau. Trying to punch straight without the elbow actually behind it seems weak and easily deflected and therefore not correct / optimal. I had to stop and think about how I or my sifu / si-hings do it, but I believe we initiate the pak as our fook sau rises, not from dead bottom, and the timing of the punch is as the bong is flipping back to tan, it is here that momentarily the arm / hand is perfectly aligned with the training partner's center without any extra movement. The pak simply releases your partner's arm so your punch can spring forward. Essentially it is all happening mid-roll. It is also less telegraphed this way. If movements in chi-sau arent subtle and efficient as possible, then I would imagine it robs you and your partner of gaining sensitivity.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 20, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> A lot of the discussion since the OP is hard to follow, but my take on the video in OP is: The elbow seems much too high to initiate the punch from if done from full bong sau. Trying to punch straight without the elbow actually behind it seems weak and easily deflected and therefore not correct / optimal. I had to stop and think about how I or my sifu / si-hings do it, but I believe we initiate the pak as our fook sau rises, not from dead bottom, and the timing of the punch is as the bong is flipping back to tan, it is here that momentarily the arm / hand is perfectly aligned with the training partner's center without any extra movement. The pak simply releases your partner's arm so your punch can spring forward. Essentially it is all happening mid-roll. It is also less telegraphed this way. If movements in chi-sau arent subtle and efficient as possible, then I would imagine it robs you and your partner of gaining sensitivity.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you are referring to the Windy City video.I did not listen to the audio and I didn't watch the full video.
Opinion? I understood what he was trying to show. Pak da is fairly basic.
When practiced it's all one motion and timing. The bong can turn into an inside whipping punch with pak being part of the control.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 20, 2015)

To add to the above, I'm not saying punching from Bong Sau is wrong. I imagine if the partner's fook sau pressure was weak or their force vector wrong, your bong would likely creep forward from underneath, and then you can easily pak from bottom if you wish to transition it into a punch. The video appears to show a bong sau under legitimate pressure; if anything it seemed a bit collapsed already... even worse for trying to straight punch from.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 20, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I agree on several of your points,but I think this video is not ment to show the why? but the how. It is geared more for the beginner not someone who has a lot of experience. I like the video even though I do it a bit different.



TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.

If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 20, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.
> 
> If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.


------------------------------------------------------------
I always try to understand the key concepts. I don't pay much attention to videos or the you tube. But I am lucky- my good sifu and sihings have been accessible over the years.


----------



## Callen (Jul 20, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------
> I always try to understand the key concepts. I don't pay much attention to videos or the you tube. But I am lucky- my good sifu and sihings have been accessible over the years.



That's the key, being lucky enough to have access to a knowledgable source. Many practitioners simply don't have that option.



JPinAZ said:


> TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.
> 
> If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.



These are some very good points. However, what if the Windy City video was simply illustrating a break-down of one technique, as opposed to an overarching approach to Chi Sau? Eventually, all reactions in Chi Sau stem from learned technique. If a student is starting to get a grasp on the "why" of things, and he has properly learned pak-da in drills, it stands to reason he may want to see it explained from the perspective of Chi Sau. Just a thought... There are so many ways to interpret a video like this.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 20, 2015)

True- but listening is an art. Folks are often too fast in giving knee jerk reactions.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 20, 2015)

Callen said:


> These are some very good points.



Thanks, any in particular you would care to discuss further? 



Callen said:


> However, what if the Windy City video was simply illustrating a break-down of one technique, as opposed to an overarching approach to Chi Sau? Eventually, all reactions in Chi Sau stem from learned technique. If a student is starting to get a grasp on the "why" of things, and he has properly learned pak-da in drills, it stands to reason he may want to see it explained from the perspective of Chi Sau. Just a thought... There are so many ways to interpret a video like this.



I think it's better (and easier) to skip the what-ifs and just discuss the clip as it's is presented. I thought it was pretty clear. The very first words the presenter utters: "...the first attack.... _in chi sau_ _that I teach_... simply, the pak punch....", which sounds like step one in his process. And then in the second clip as he goes on to step two saying "the basic block to the pak punch", which sounds like step two.
Sounds like this is how they approach teaching their chi sau and this is a nicely detailed explanation on the first few steps in that method - not just isolating a given technique in WC and showing it from a chi sau perspective.

On a side note, I disagree that all reactions in chi sau stem from learned technique. That could be one approach, but I argue it'sa  misunderstanding of the end-goal of principle-focused WC. In the end, all actions/reactions in any 'good wing chun' (as Joy likes to often say) should stem from proper understanding of WC principle, space and timing along with position, leverage & contact points and pressure/energetics understanding. It all depends on the how you approach and understand WC


----------



## Callen (Jul 20, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Thanks, any in particular you would care to discuss further?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A well written response, thank you. I also agree with these points as well.

My apologies, my intention wasn't to exclude the concepts of structure, space, timing and physics involved in Chi Sau (or Wing Chun for that matter); it was really to simply offer an alternative to thinking that Ken (the guy in the Windy City video) has only a technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. You're right, the end-goal of principle-focused WC should not be ignored. Although, solid technique will always come to the surface. In 'good Wing Chun' there is a very fine boundary between technique and space, timing, position, leverage and physics. In fact some believe the best Wing Chun is the perfect blend of all those elements.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I don't teach and don't make videos myself, but I think some of what I'm talking about can be seen in, for example, that _gwo-sau_ video I posted on the other thread, reposted below for easy reference. You may have to use the play speed feature to slow it down and see exactly what's happening, but you will notice things I mentioned like cutting off attacks, turning them, disrupting their balance and facing, etc., all while striking.
> 
> Granted this is only a drill, and the partner always comes in with _paak-da_ on the lead arm to start. But I think you can see what I refer to. These are skills and tactics that get carried over into free fighting, and maybe you can imagine how. You will notice no attempt to stick or feel– things there are no time for at speed– only interception and sudden displacement of limbs to clear the way for striking. That's good and usable VT in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Both videos show a compliant partner throwing slow punches with no intent. Both participants are agreeing to feed each other in a WC striking way. You'll never see anybody on the street throw punches like that. After each punch the attacker pauses to eat a sandwich. That's why it looks like it'll work.

NOBODY PUNCHES LIKE THAT in real life! Even in the PB video, in real life. Either a over hand or a cross is coming right as the first punch is launched. But his attacker throws a typical choreographed  half baked punch like seen in most all WC demos.

Boxers or just the average pissed off novice striker who wants to take your head off. Will most likely blow throw that.

At each one of these moments a cross or overhand would be at PB face in real life.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

The last one the attacker drops his hands. That's not going to happen in real life. A cross would be connecting at that point.
Or maybe he's sticking/ sticky/ pressing him into that position?? I watched video in slow motion. After each punch there is a pause. Why? Why can't feeder just feed random punches with intent? Maybe he's demonstrating a skill and both parties agreed for the sake of the demonstration to do it this way? Kind of like what Sifu Fong and Ed are doing? Both agreed to play a game for the sake of learning or showcasing a particular skill set? Either way the videos you posted are not free fighting. At least not what I'd consider too be.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I assume that you are referring to the Windy City video.I did not listen to the audio and I didn't watch the full video.
> Opinion? I understood what he was trying to show. Pak da is fairly basic.
> When practiced it's all one motion and timing. The bong can turn into an inside whipping punch with pak being part of the control.


So if elbow is too high you transition into something else? What a awesome concept. One of those things chi sao with energy teaches? Like In Sifu Fong's video?


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Trying to punch straight without the elbow actually behind it seems weak and easily deflected and therefore not correct / optimal.


Not true. Just takes different body mechanics then a WC elbow down punch. Hardest punch Ive ever experienced was a vertical fist boxers/ WC/ hook/ straight hybrid punch with elbow up kinda... I'm not sure what to really even call it. I've seen Alan Orr punch kind of like it.

It was through a focus mitt on my chest. I have been hit hard in my life and KO'd for a second from a sucker punch. But this "demonstration" punch at maybe 50% power knocked the fight/ life right out of me. It was a chest punch that rattled my whole body from head to toe. Happened just recently. It was freaking cool!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Both videos show a compliant partner throwing slow punches with no intent. Both participants are agreeing to feed each other in a WC striking way. You'll never see anybody on the street throw punches like that.



I thought I'd made it clear it was a VT drill and the partner was only feeding _pak_+punch to initiate and then repeating. Not sure why you would expect to see boxing punches thrown in _gwo-sau_, or _chi-sau_ drills. Wrong training stage for that kind of thing.



> Either way the videos you posted are not free fighting.



Nor were they presented as such. They were used merely to illustrate things like attack lines. I see everything I said has been lost on you, even with video. I must not be writing clearly enough. Never mind then.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Not true. Just takes different body mechanics then a WC elbow down punch. Hardest punch Ive ever experienced was a vertical fist boxers/ WC/ hook/ straight hybrid punch with elbow up kinda...



He didn't say "elbow up". Elbow up doesn't mean the elbow won't be "behind the punch". There is still alignment, just not Wing Chun alignment. Punching straight from _bong-sau _with a squared body, there is poor alignment and body mechanics. So, as P said, it's both weak and easily deflected.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> These are skills and tactics that get carried over into free fighting, and maybe you can imagine how. You will notice no attempt to stick or feel– things there are no time for at speed– only interception and sudden displacement of limbs to clear the way for striking. That's good and usable VT in my opinion.





LFJ said:


> There is no "_chi-sau_" range in free fighting; you're either in ideal striking range for the system, or you're not.





LFJ said:


> The VT system is a training progression. Forms > _chi-sau_ > _gwo-sau_ > _gong-sau_ (free sparring and fighting).





Jake104 said:


> Can you post some free fighting videos of you or your students please? I'm still learning and I'd like to see maybe what I might be missing? I'm very visual. So it's hard for me to understand what you mean without actually seeing it? Otherwise for me it's just words and I may interpret it in the wrong way. I think a video will help me see what you are explaining. I'd really appreciate it. Specifically free sparring starting from a realistic distance and not from crossing hands or rolling? Thank you.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

So let's see some free fighting gong sao? I guess i got my gwo sao and gong sao's mixed up? I'd like to see these tactics carried over into free fighting? I'd like to see some "good useable VT"


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> He didn't say "elbow up". Elbow up doesn't mean the elbow won't be "behind the punch". There is still alignment, just not Wing Chun alignment. Punching straight from _bong-sau _with a squared body, there is poor alignment and body mechanics. So, as P said, it's both weak and easily deflected.


Punches should have full body behind not just not elbow.. What about a whipping punch? That's not VT? Body mechanics change but I think WC body mechanics are used? If I'm squared to my opponent and have a bong out. Why can't I change into a full body punch and adjust body? I think I've seen this in Sifu Fong's lineage. The bong sao corks into a punch? I have a whipping punch from my Original lineage that I call huen choi. Elbow isn't behind it but full body is though. Fighting needs to me fluid. Not static. You can't always drop your elbow to punch. Reality doesn't always allow this.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Jul 20, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> TBH, I missed that it was for 'beginners'. Even so, if a beginner is only learning to 'do moves' and not understand why, then to borrow my point from another thread is that technique-orientated is still leading down a much longer road then necessary. While I enjoy their technical explanations, this clip gives a good impression that they are approaching teaching chi sau/WC as 'I do step one', then 'partner does step two', etc. this is clearly technique/combo/move-orientated approach to WC. While that is fine and can build skill, it is starting the new student's journey on a much longer path needlessly IMO.
> 
> If in the other hand, a student (new or otherwise) is taught from a principle/concept approach and to understand the 'why' of things from the start (ie. to think! vs. play 'sifu says'), then the 'what', 'how' and 'when' will be much easier to understand - even to the point the student can learn to find those answers on their own. It's a difference of being spoon fed vs. teaching someone to hunt/fish, cook and eat on their own from the start.



I like to see you hit someone with a principle/concept only..


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I see everything I said has been lost on you, even with video. I must not be writing clearly enough. Never mind then.


No, I'm using mental sticky hands in my posts. I'm making you stick to my post and reply.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I like to see you hit someone with a principle/concept only..


I can? I write a principle or concept on a baseball bat with a sharpie. Then I swing away! Duh! That's the literal way. But I can do the figuratively way too!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 20, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> So let's see some free fighting gong sao? I'd like to see these tactics carried over into free fighting? I'd like to see some "good useable VT"



I don't have free fighting videos, as I'm sure most people posting here don't. Not even the ones posting up clips of themselves do. I'm not trying to convince you anyway, just discussing concepts. If you can't see how these concepts can be used, then it will take hands-on experience.



Jake104 said:


> Punches should have full body behind not just not elbow..



And if your elbow isn't behind a straight punch, neither is the rest of your body.



> What about a whipping punch? That's not VT?



A whipping punch starting with the elbow up and coming down to cut in from the outside? That's not the same as trying to do a straight punch on the inside from a _bong-sau_.



> If I'm squared to my opponent and have a bong out. Why can't I change into a full body punch?



Maybe you can, but it is a large movement at the elbow easily detected even by sight, not to mention from contact points in _chi-sau_. There is really no reason that shouldn't be shut down every time, unless the person is terribly unskilled.



> I have a whipping punch from my Original lineage that I call huen choi. Elbow isn't behind it but full body is though.



I don't want to doubt you without seeing it, but I would think biomechanical principles of how your joints link to deliver full body force would disagree that your elbow is not behind it.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 20, 2015)

LFJ said:


> If you can't see how these concepts can be used, then it will take hands-on experience.


I agree! This can go on for days. I wish there were some PB or WSL people in the phoenix Az area? I'm always up for feeling or experiencing different points of view. I meet up with locals or at least I try to. So if there are any from that lineage or anybody that would like to train. I'm a friendly and respectful dude.

 JK


----------



## LFJ (Jul 20, 2015)

I'm American, but live on the other side of the world now. The closest to you is probably Gary Lam lineage, but what they do is quite different. He has created a lot of techniques and sequences to fill out the levels of his curriculum, which I am not a fan of.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 21, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Not true. Just takes different body mechanics then a WC elbow down punch. Hardest punch Ive ever experienced was a vertical fist boxers/ WC/ hook/ straight hybrid punch with elbow up kinda... I'm not sure what to really even call it. I've seen Alan Orr punch kind of like it.
> 
> It was through a focus mitt on my chest. I have been hit hard in my life and KO'd for a second from a sucker punch. But this "demonstration" punch at maybe 50% power knocked the fight/ life right out of me. It was a chest punch that rattled my whole body from head to toe. Happened just recently. It was freaking cool!


I suppose I could have specified that trying to throw a WC STRAIGHT PUNCH without the elbow behind it is weak. I thought that was certainly implied given the drill in the video being discussed. When you punch a certain way 90% of the time and generally keep elbow low to cover center and feel incoming force, then all of a suden abandon that for a drill...... its less than optimal and appears to be wrong to me eyes. That was my point.  Like Vajramusti pointed out, there are other WC options from that point like the whipping punch he refers to. My school calls it a jumping punch but I believe its the same. For for the purpose of the drill theres no reason for that if the timing of a punch is just done correctly and the punch can spring forward with the elbow behind it.

Regarding "punching with the whole body"..... I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you. If attacked in the street or in sparring, its silly to rely on only arm and elbow. In drills where you are learning and building reaction / sensitivity, you would break your partner down real fast with that mentality though. I did some free chi-sau with my si-hing yesterday for nearly an hour; if we tried to hit each other with our "whole body" the whole time I think we would have got tired of it real fast. Just saying. You can always ramp up or spar and test stuff under pressure, but if you don't strive for sensitivity in drills that call for it then you are robbing the potential of that exercise.


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2015)

I've been out of town (at a VT seminar in Austin) and just finished catching up on this thread. A couple of quick thoughts:

First, although I find "right" and "wrong" comments unproductive in a discussion, I can appreciate what LFJ says regarding too much emphasis on what he called "energy riddles". Some of the guys I worked with in Austin are masters at that stuff. Mixing it up with their better students was frustrating ...as long as I allowed myself to play that game.

On the other hand, if I just concentrated on putting my fist on their nose (or chest) things went very well.  One guy commented that I was beating his "best techniques" with nothing but straight punches. Yeah. That's the whole point!

BTW Don't get me wrong. Personally I _still_ think that "energy riddles" can be useful in training. It's a matter of keeping perspective and not forgetting that what really matters is _ hitting the other guy._

Now back to the OP. Am I the only one so far to have an issue with using _jum-sau counter to pak-da,_ as shown in the second clip? If you attack with a good _strong_ pak, you will totally free your tan-sau to punch forward. Having lost contact with your punching arm, it will be _very_ difficult for your opponent to defend himself with jum-sau as shown.

And furthermore,  if you attack _stepping in _with your punch, not only will your punch be backed up by your body, but the forearm on your pak-sau arm will become a lan-sau, pinning your opponent's other arm against his chest and (at least momentarily) controlling his center. He certainly cannot turn against the force of your pak to use jum-sau as shown. At least this is my experience.


OK. I Just went back and watched the clip again. Maybe you _can_ use jum-sau to counter if the attacker tries to throw the punch from bong-sau _and_ has a weak pak. Bad timing (as you guys already pointed out).


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 21, 2015)

futsaowingchun said:


> I like to see you hit someone with a principle/concept only..



Lol, yet another snippy comment that adds nothing to the conversation I see!
Ignoring your increasing troll-like behavior, this is the type of response I would expect from someone coming from a technique-focused approach to WC. While I'd be _more_ than happy to show you as it's pretty easy to do, I think the lesson would be lost on you.

Which is why you are probably resorting to these butt-hurt type responses when people share views regarding WC principle - you have yet to be able to discuss or demonstrate _anything _from a WC concept/principle POV, even when asked directly to do so on several occasions on this forum. But that not a valid excuse for acting this way towards those that do..


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 21, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> I did some free chi-sau with my si-hing yesterday for nearly an hour; if we tried to hit each other with our "whole body" the whole time I think we would have got tired of it real fast. Just saying. You can always ramp up or spar and test stuff under pressure, but if you don't strive for sensitivity in drills that call for it then you are robbing the potential of that exercise.


I still believe you can always use full body mechanics without hurting or tiring yourself out, if relaxed. My mechanics stay the same. Intensity can be ramped up or kept very controlled. My mechanics stay the same. Meaning my body is always behind everything I do. I just might limit it to 20-30% for safe training.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jul 21, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I still believe you can always use full body mechanics without hurting or tiring yourself out, if relaxed. My mechanics stay the same. Intensity can be ramped up or kept very controlled. My mechanics stay the same. Meaning my body is always behind everything I do. I just might limit it to 20-30% for safe training.



I agree. If you are getting tired out, it's possible you are not relaxing enough and using too much muscle/tension.
Or, maybe you're training hard and the shots you are giving/taking are wearing you down (kudos if so!)
Or, you could simply be out of shape! lol


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 21, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Lol, yet another snippy comment that adds nothing to the conversation I see!
> Ignoring your increasing troll-like behavior, this is the type of response I would expect from someone coming from a technique-focused approach to WC. While I'd be _more_ than happy to show you as it's pretty easy to do, I think the lesson would be lost on you.
> 
> Which is why you are probably resorting to these butt-hurt type responses when people share views regarding WC principle - you have yet to be able to discuss or demonstrate _anything _from a WC concept/principle POV, even when asked directly to do so on several occasions on this forum. But that not a valid excuse for acting this way towards those that do..


This is not to act like I'm all that. Although it will probably come off that way to some?

I see more and more that many people talk about WC in terms of principles and concepts. But IMO they fail to really get or understand those same principles? It's like they get the elbow in, center line and economy of motion part and the rest of the art is techniques. Opponent does technique A, and I counter with either ABC or 123 techniques. I guess I'm just fortunate that I was never taught in that way. I get it. Maybe not all of it, but I get it. It seems some people will never.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 21, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Or, you could simply be out of shape! lol


 Being in half decent shape really does make a difference. Unless your a trained one strike killer.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 21, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> This is not to act like I'm all that. Although it will probably come off that way to some?
> 
> I see more and more that many people talk about WC in terms of principles and concepts. But IMO they fail to really get or understand those same principles? It's like they get the elbow in, center line and economy of motion part and the rest of the art is techniques. Opponent does technique A, and I counter with either ABC or 123 techniques. I'm just fortunate to never have been taught in that way. I get it. Maybe not all of it, but I get it. It seems like some people will never.


----------



## Jake104 (Jul 21, 2015)

Oops trying to edit post and re-posted.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> Personally I _still_ think that "energy riddles" can be useful in training. It's a matter of keeping perspective and not forgetting that what really matters is _ hitting the other guy._



Useful in what way? So, you get good at solving energy riddles with a partner trying to do the same thing, but another guy comes along just focussing on hitting you (still in _chi-sau_), and suddenly you're not so good at it anymore. Isn't that exactly what you did to those guys? And this is supposed to work when someone is throwing blinding punches from no pre-contact in free fighting? There's simply no chance to "play that game" anymore. So, I don't see the usefulness. 

In fact, at many points in the Fong video posted the student should have just been clearing to hit, but was instead concentrating on his hands. Not that he would have been very successful against his sifu, but it's no wonder he was getting frustrated just concentrating on his hands and solving those energy riddles.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 22, 2015)

> OK. I Just went back and watched the clip again. Maybe you _can_ use jum-sau to counter if the attacker tries to throw the punch from bong-sau _and_ has a weak pak. Bad timing (as you guys already pointed out).



Yup, as I mentioned in the OP, if done with correct timing that response would be very difficult if not impossible. It's also a matter of _pak_ placement on the arm. Too low and they may still be able to drop their arm on top like that, but maybe not if the _pak _is strong enough.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 22, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> I still believe you can always use full body mechanics without hurting or tiring yourself out, if relaxed. My mechanics stay the same. Intensity can be ramped up or kept very controlled. My mechanics stay the same. Meaning my body is always behind everything I do. I just might limit it to 20-30% for safe training.


I can agree with this. I might have assumed or interpreted a different meaning with your initial "punch with the whole body" comment.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 6, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I don't teach and don't make videos myself, but I think some of what I'm talking about can be seen in, for example, that _gwo-sau_ video I posted on the other thread



Hang on, why are you giving me so much grief on the kfm forum over not posting a clip of my training if you are exactly the same?


----------



## geezer (Sep 6, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Hang on, why are you giving me so much grief on the kfm forum over not posting a clip of my training if you are exactly the same?



Hey _Guy!_ Welcome to MartialTalk. It's great that you decided to join us over here ...but please leave those old arguments back on that other forum. Disagreements? Strong opinions? It's all good, and makes for good discussion. But don't carry a grudge or follow people, hounding them from thread to thread to make a point. Keep the attitude respectful and positive and you'll like it here.

So for starters, tell us a bit about yourself. A few of us know you a little from the other forum, but the rest could use an intro. We've got a dept. called "Meet and Greet" ...it's a great place to start. -- Steve aka "Geezer" (Grumblegeezer).


----------



## guy b. (Sep 7, 2015)

No intention to hound anyone, was just surprised to read this. No reply expected or desired


----------



## LFJ (Sep 7, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Hang on, why are you giving me so much grief on the kfm forum over not posting a clip of my training if you are exactly the same?



We are not "exactly" the same. Geezer, Vajramusti, and others don't post videos of themselves either, yet I don't ask them for videos. You know why? Because they talk sense, even if I don't agree with their methods. They don't tell everyone else their training is unrealistic and more harm than good, and meanwhile make extraordinary claims of taking full contact bareknuckle face shots as a part of normal training without providing extraordinary evidence (actual footage). So, yeah... the same? Not exactly.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 7, 2015)

I happen to think that training with headgear (and body shields) is detrimental. Many conventional boxers, never mind wing chun people, agree with me. It blatantly throws off timing and targeting.

I also happen to think that training with gloves is detrimental for the same reason- why would it not be after all? 

Another issue with protected sparring is that it encourages a sports sparring mindset, moving in and out, no rush, plenty of time, feeling each other out, i.e. not a fight. This is anathema to wing chun. I want to train for fighting, not for ring sports. 

The difficult truth is that wing chun is not very good as a ring sport. It is quite predictable given the time and space to figure it out. But that is also its strength given no time and no space. Look at Alan Orr's wing chun- it barely resembles the martial art that most of us are doing. It has some power chain elements, some forward intent, but not much else. Even the stepping is gone- they move like boxers.

I train mostly bare handed light contact or controlled target full contact. As often as I can I train bare knuckle full contact. This is not an extra ordinary claim given what I believe. Videos posted of actual bare knuckle fights show that it generally isn't that damaging, bar some cuts, which is my experience of it. Maybe I have just been lucky but until that changes I intend to continue doing it and advocating it to other people. 

Let me ask you a question- do you think Yip Man and WSL got good at wing chun by donning boxing or mma gloves and slugging it out in training? If not then why should we do it? Or don't you think they were any good?



> You know why? Because they talk sense, even if I don't agree with their methods. They don't tell everyone else their training is unrealistic and more harm than good, and meanwhile make extraordinary claims of taking full contact bareknuckle face shots as a part of normal training without providing extraordinary evidence (actual footage). So, yeah... the same?



You are all telling each other all of the time that each others training is a waste of time. And you all make extraordinary claims of efficacy and competence. This is what wing chun people do, lol


----------



## geezer (Sep 7, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I happen to think that training with headgear (and body shields) is detrimental ...I also happen to think that training with gloves is detrimental...
> 
> I train mostly bare handed light contact or controlled target full contact. As often as I can I train bare knuckle full contact.



That's pretty hardcore. I really don't think gloves and headgear are detrimental if you are concerned for your health and your longevity in the art. Maybe it's different for a young guy, especially if you plan to get involved in street fights. I'm not young, and I have no intention of getting into fights. That's just me.

Anyway, it would be great if you posted some videos of what you see as proper training. Like that video of Jerry sparring on that other forum. That was pretty controlled. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you?


----------



## guy b. (Sep 7, 2015)

geezer said:


> That's pretty hardcore. I really don't think gloves and headgear are detrimental if you are concerned for your health and your longevity in the art. Maybe it's different for a young guy, especially if you plan to get involved in street fights. I'm not young, and I have no intention of getting into fights. That's just me.
> 
> Anyway, it would be great if you posted some videos of what you see as proper training. Like that video of Jerry sparring on that other forum. That was pretty controlled. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you?



I don't make videos. Light contact similar to the clip of Jerry is something I do every time I train. Harder contact usually looks less hard than the bare knuckle fights I posted because we don't hate each other, but it does result in cuts and bruises. We wear gum shields to minimise damage to teeth. 

I don't honestly think it is hard core to train without gloves. For Chinese MA it is absolutely normal.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 8, 2015)

guy b. said:


> No intention to hound anyone, was just surprised to read this. No reply expected or desired



And then goes on to drag in a topic from another thread from another FORUM. 
If you want to hash out that lame argument why not just do it over there vs. recreating it here?
At least make a new thread and stop derailing this one.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm happy to stop talking about it.


----------



## geezer (Sep 8, 2015)

Or you could start a thread and talk about whatever you want. Sheesh, some people are really judgemental, If talking about lame topics was a crime, I'd have been locked up a long time ago.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 8, 2015)

My wife thinks anything to do with WC is lame.


----------



## Jake104 (Sep 14, 2015)

yak sao said:


> My wife thinks anything to do with WC is lame.


So does mine. She likes to say what I do is yoga. Funny thing is, she started WC with me in 93' but only did it for a year..


----------



## yak sao (Sep 14, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> So does mine. She likes to say what I do is yoga. Funny thing is, she started WC with me in 93' but only did it for a year..



A year??!! I could make fun of her and call her a quitter, but a year???. My wife wouldn't come near WC if you paid her, or even if it were endorsed by Oprah Winfrey and Rachel Ray.


----------



## Jake104 (Sep 15, 2015)

yak sao said:


> A year??!! *I could make fun of her and call her a quitter, but a year??*?. My wife wouldn't come near WC if you paid her, or even if it were endorsed by Oprah Winfrey and Rachel Ray.


You could, but I can't, cause I still live with her. Matter fact that's the key to a successful marriage of going on 18 years. Ive learned to keep my mouth shut. Or else


----------



## geezer (Sep 15, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> You could, but I can't, cause I still live with her. Matter fact that's the key to a successful marriage of going on 18 years. Ive learned to keep my mouth shut. Or else



_True that_. I've never met your wife, but knowing you, she must be a patient woman!  Now, my wife also has zero interest in WC, and a good thing too. Just from watching me practice (usually with some visible annoyance) she picked up a nasty vertical fist punch which she used on me once about twenty-some years ago. Ouch!!! Then, even worse... she sent _me _off for anger management sessions since "she never got mad like _that_ and hit anybody till she met me, so clearly it was _my_ problem!

So like you, I gradually learned how to shut my fat mouth. Most of the time, anyway. Now we are going on 27 years of marriage. Ain't life grand!


----------

