# Differences in Wing Chun & 7 Star Mantis



## 7starmantis (Oct 31, 2005)

I know this is a very specific title, but I'm interested in discussing some of the differences between these two systems. Obviously I study 7*, but I'm curious about WC. I do not have alot of knowledge about WC, so I hope to learn alot here. 

First difference I see is the centerline theory. As I understand it, wing chun really focuses on attacking and moving through the centerline of the opponent. While 7* mantis focuses on circling and attacking at odd and different angles. First, is this true of WC? Second, could someone elaborate on the theory and idea behind this principle as opposed to angular attacks?

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2005)

Well, the way I understand the centerline theory in wing chun is not so much the centerline as defined by the line drawn straight up and down from the top of your head, between the eyes, and down the chest.  Rather, the centerline should be understood to be the "core" of the body, from the top of the head down thru the torso.  This isn't drawn on the surface of the body like the previous description, but rather goes thru the body's core.  Consequently, the centerline is attacked or manipulated no matter which direction the opponent may be facing.  We then use stepping and opponent manipulation that can develop angled attacks. The Wing Chun Centerline should not be misunderstood to mean we just attack straigh in from the front.

I was following the posts in the Kenpo section, and notice that you made reference to "Sticking" to the opponent.  We also do a similar thing in Wing Chun.  Once contact is made, we stick and follow the opponent's movements to work him into a trap, which is sort of like a stand-up grapple, that allows us to then deliver the decisive strikes once the hands have been tied up and nullified.

Hand strikes are delivered like a machinegun.  Very rapid, one after another, to overwhelm the opponent.  Kicks are more rare, and are kept low, definitely below the belt.  Kicks to the knees, shins, ankles, and the like are common.  These are typically front and side kicks.  You don't see flashy jumping or spinning kicks in wing chun.

The art doesn't focus a lot on movement.  Siu Nim Tau (set #1) doesn't move at all.  Chom Kiu (set #2) moves a bit laterally, but compared to other styles like White Crane or Capoeira, this movement is minimal.  Biu Gee (set #3) stays in the same place, but does pivot to face different directions to some degree.  However, I do know that some schools take these sets and practice them with added movement and sponteneity.  Movement in application, then, is short and quick, to set up the opponent for a decisive finish.  It just doesn't use a lot of space like many of the other systems.  You can practice the sets while taking a shower.  literally.

Physical conditioning is done thru striking the sandbags and the wooden dummy.  I have heard stories of wing chun people who have broken other people's arms by simply blocking their punch. The wooden dummy, if practiced consistently and properly, can give you forearms like iron.

Maybe this is enough to start.  more focused inquiries might bring out more detail...

michael


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 31, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> We then use stepping and opponent manipulation that can develop angled attacks. The Wing Chun Centerline should not be misunderstood to mean we just attack straigh in from the front.


So wing chun does not only use linear attacks, but also angled attacks such as a punch from say a 45 or 23 degree angle? I'm not trying to get so technical on the degree of the angle, just trying to be clear that I'm talking about an angled strike. From what I had been led to believe, wing chun didnt' neccessarily attack from the angles. Not that a wc person couldn't turn to an angle, but that the attacks were linear as based by the body.

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So wing chun does not only use linear attacks, but also angled attacks such as a punch from say a 45 or 23 degree angle? I'm not trying to get so technical on the degree of the angle, just trying to be clear that I'm talking about an angled strike. From what I had been led to believe, wing chun didnt' neccessarily attack from the angles. Not that a wc person couldn't turn to an angle, but that the attacks were linear as based by the body.
> 
> 7sm


 
I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by the punch from an angle.  I guess what I was describing is that as you tie up and manipulate your opponent, you also move and position yourself into an advantageous position which may mean that you pivot and turn and use stepping that moves you around your opponent, so you are coming in from an angle as opposed to just driving straight in from the beginning.

As far as the actual punch, it does tend to be straight from the center, but we also use uppercuts and knifehand techniques and such thrown to the side, rolling backfists that go over or under an opponent's guard, etc.  We don't tend to use things like the good oldfashioned haymaker, if that is what you are referring to.

As an example: say you and I are engaged in a combat.  In the course of the combat, I get your hands and arms tied up and actually pinned to my own chest, but I have pivoted so I am now facing sideways to you. The specific technique is probably something you aren't familiar with and I can't really describe without showing it so don't worry about the details.  I then fire out a knifehand to your throat, but it is thrown to the side, when compared to my body position.

If this is the kind of thing you are thinking about, then maybe this gives you an idea?  Otherwise, if you can clarify what you mean when you are referring to the angle of the punch, maybe I can give it a second shot.


----------



## dmax999 (Oct 31, 2005)

The WC I did, everything was straight lined to your centerline.  If the opponent moved 45 degrees to you, you would turn 45 so you still faced him square and continue attacking, also would angle upwards or downwards to face changed height of your opponents stances.

I never did 7*mantis, but I have done a lot of northern kung-fu (somewhat similar?).  The biggest differences:

1) Shoulders and hips keep square to your opponent, keep your centerline lined up with opponent's centerline.  This allows use of both hands with equal efficancy.

2) Once your attack starts in WC, you continue until the fight is over.  There is no "step back and see what the other guy does".  Once going, you continue attacking full speed, if the other guy retreats you follow at same speed, no lull in the action at all, no circling, no "testing out" your opponent.

I took a non-traditional WC that may be slightly different then others.  Ours required complete confidence that you can protect your centerline better, and that you can just overwhelm your opponent with well placed powerful strikes.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 1, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> The WC I did, everything was straight lined to your centerline. If the opponent moved 45 degrees to you, you would turn 45 so you still faced him square and continue attacking, also would angle upwards or downwards to face changed height of your opponents stances.


 Thats more of what I've heard and seen of WC. The ones I've fought with are great at those turns too!



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> The biggest differences:
> 
> 1) Shoulders and hips keep square to your opponent, keep your centerline lined up with opponent's centerline. This allows use of both hands with equal efficancy.


 This is very different from mantis, but I can see the benefit of this type of fighting. Does this mean that there are no or very few shoulder or elbow attacks to the side? What about sidekicks?



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> 2) Once your attack starts in WC, you continue until the fight is over. There is no "step back and see what the other guy does". Once going, you continue attacking full speed, if the other guy retreats you follow at same speed, no lull in the action at all, no circling, no "testing out" your opponent.


 This sounds very much like mantis actually. In fact as I understand it, it is one of the major focuses of mantis. Aggressive continued powerful attacking, but defined by your opponent. We do use "circling" but in the heat of attacking, and by no means creating distance with the circle, if anything, cloing the gap further with it.



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> I took a non-traditional WC that may be slightly different then others. Ours required complete confidence that you can protect your centerline better, and that you can just overwhelm your opponent with well placed powerful strikes.


 What happens if you can't or dont overwhelm them? Not trying to be rude or anything, but seriously, if thats its base and that doesn't happen, is there a "secondary" focus or anything?

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 1, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by the punch from an angle. I guess what I was describing is that as you tie up and manipulate your opponent, you also move and position yourself into an advantageous position which may mean that you pivot and turn and use stepping that moves you around your opponent, so you are coming in from an angle as opposed to just driving straight in from the beginning.
> 
> As far as the actual punch, it does tend to be straight from the center, but we also use uppercuts and knifehand techniques and such thrown to the side, rolling backfists that go over or under an opponent's guard, etc. We don't tend to use things like the good oldfashioned haymaker, if that is what you are referring to.


 I'm actually refering to a punch that basically crosses your centerline. If you had a line from head to toe in the center of your body, the punch might originate on the right side of the line, but connect on the left side. Is that any clearer? Also, redirecting is a big part of mantis. We use circular/hooking type "blocks" or redirects. This is not something used in WC is it?



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> As an example: say you and I are engaged in a combat. In the course of the combat, I get your hands and arms tied up and actually pinned to my own chest, but I have pivoted so I am now facing sideways to you. The specific technique is probably something you aren't familiar with and I can't really describe without showing it so don't worry about the details. I then fire out a knifehand to your throat, but it is thrown to the side, when compared to my body position.


 Heh, actually I'm quite familiar with this type of technique, we use it quite a bit even using it with joint locks, breaks, even sweeps and throws.That is something I didn't realize was used in WC however, especially the knife hand example. 


7sm


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 1, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So wing chun does not only use linear attacks, but also angled attacks such as a punch from say a 45 or 23 degree angle? I'm not trying to get so technical on the degree of the angle, just trying to be clear that I'm talking about an angled strike. From what I had been led to believe, wing chun didnt' neccessarily attack from the angles. Not that a wc person couldn't turn to an angle, but that the attacks were linear as based by the body.
> 
> 7sm


 
for the most part we do strike from our own center line into the opponents core, the line is mobile so yes those attacks can come from any angle and the footwork is key, even a 45 or 23 degree angle is possble in wing chun.  We do also have a fair ammount of attacks that don't travel on our center line.  First encountered is probably fak sau in the first form, this travels, or can travel to any point in a 180 degree arc (90 each arm) in front of you so that its end point without moving your feet is your shoulder line.  If center line theory is understood correctly then there should be understanding of the hows and whens the shoulder line becomes the center line. 







  not the best example of fak sao as its from second form.  This is all a lot easier to explain in person!!


Another technique that doesn't really restrict itself to linear trajectory is chung choy (often confused with lin wan kuen) it translates as battle fists and the best way to explain this is if you imagine the line you would use to hack someone with battle axes if they were of at a 45 degree angle from yourself, we still try to get a driving force behind the elbows but the line of the punch is hacking - it hits but will cut through the line and can result in a lapping effect with the punch.  In the second form there is more note of the fak sau and also the bong driving from one line to another travelling through 90 degrees, its still a center line attack but doesn't begin from the center line it ends up in.  Chum kui also introduces laterally moving elbow strikes. 


Later forms and application of them, bui tze for instance, introduces a lot more elbow lines which work all the way from coming down perfectly vertical and through another 180 degree semi circle until the elbow takes the line of coming up a verticle line.  Also as bui tze works off the line most of the techniques are used to regain the line and thus don't travel so linearly, in fact yip ching shows a good varient of the punch that follows the double lap in that form and its basically a driven uppercut from where your hands have finished the lap (about half a meter to the side of your body).  Baat cham dao (knives) come of the line with different stepping and this all translates back into empty hand use.

Wing chun is really tight with its lines but believe it or not it does have a lot of scope but the lines still look tight and because the feet do most of the work the hands don't seem as though they travel in much varience.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 1, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What happens if you can't or dont overwhelm them? Not trying to be rude or anything, but seriously, if thats its base and that doesn't happen, is there a "secondary" focus or anything?
> 
> 7sm


 
The saying goes:

if you learn sui lim tao and chum kui correctly you will never need bui tze

(bui tze is what happens if things go wrong)

But chum kui and sui lim tao both employ an understanding of regaining, controlling and changing that center line.  Bui tze only really works after that has failed and structure is lost.  The sensitivity training deals with that constant pressure, when you come up against strong lines the sensitivity training gets the arms and the body to work around that instead of using force against it you move yourself instinctively of the power line of the incoming force.  Here would also be where you may use angling to draw that energy into a hole where you aren't.  Again this makes more sense in person.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 1, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm actually refering to a punch that basically crosses your centerline. If you had a line from head to toe in the center of your body, the punch might originate on the right side of the line, but connect on the left side. Is that any clearer? Also, redirecting is a big part of mantis. We use circular/hooking type "blocks" or redirects. This is not something used in WC is it?


 
Yes that happens but although it crosses that original center line, that is no longer the center line.  Think of 3 basic lines the first is a core line where and imagine that your opponent is a cillinder, that core line is where you attack for the opponent to accept full force of your strike ( i know you understand that one.  Second a line like you suggest from head to toe in the center that you guard.  Third imagine a plane that connects you and your opponent, if you are squared up that line obviously resides on the second center line but as you move in relation to the opponent this line changes and with this mobility there will be times that you move from one line to another that will for an instant cross this center line number 2 but it moves as you move.  The game is to use one hand to deal with one side and the other with the other side as crossing your arms is something you don't want to do as to avoid traps etc.  And wing chun doesn't want to get tied up, its trapping is a principle that keeps you free to be mobile and not caught up in a vertical grapple.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Heh, actually I'm quite familiar with this type of technique, we use it quite a bit even using it with joint locks, breaks, even sweeps and throws.That is something I didn't realize was used in WC however, especially the knife hand example.
> 
> 
> 7sm


Wing chun has a lot of unusual lines that don't come through in the stereotypical sumeriasation of what the system intails but i'm sure thats the case with a lot of other arts too.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm actually refering to a punch that basically crosses your centerline. If you had a line from head to toe in the center of your body, the punch might originate on the right side of the line, but connect on the left side. Is that any clearer? Also, redirecting is a big part of mantis. We use circular/hooking type "blocks" or redirects. This is not something used in WC is it?
> 
> Heh, actually I'm quite familiar with this type of technique, we use it quite a bit even using it with joint locks, breaks, even sweeps and throws.That is something I didn't realize was used in WC however, especially the knife hand example.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I would see no problem with firing off a punch that crosses the centerline, I mean after all, ya gotta hit the target whereever it may be.  It might be accomplanied by a shifting pivot with the feet so that you end up straight on again anyway.  The pivot, of course, can add to the power behind the punch as well.  

Our blocking techniques, tend to be minimalistic in movement.  We don't do big looping blocks, but rather bump the incoming attack with our blocking techniques just enough to move them into a safe zone.  Of course these "bumps" can actually have quite an impact.  I mentioned earlier, I have heard of people breaking other peoples' arms with a solid bong sau.  Once we have made the necessary bump, we are going to stick to the arm just long enough to open a target for a machinegun punch attack.  This could happen right after the bump, or the bump may lead into a tie-up of his arms.

We do a defensive movement that involves pivoting to the side and using a taun sau to block an attack, accompanied simultaneously with a punch, but the punch is going out to the side, not crossing the centerline.  The knifehands to the side come directly from the Siu Nim Tau and Biu Gee sets.  

As far as the technique I described, it is just something I figured out in the heat of chi sau practice.  It seems to work for me pretty well, but not against everyone.  The more my classmates see it, of course, the less well it begins to work on them, but i've had some success with it.  I don't know that you could strictly call it "traditional" wing chun.  It may be something that happened spontaneously because of my kenpo background (a lot of joint manipulations there), but I don't think it is out of place in wing chun.  I actually find the two arts complement each other well.  I have had several "Ah-Ha!" moments during wing chun when we have worked a technique that I realized was very similar to something from kenpo, but suddenly it made more sense to me than before.  I have also had moments where I realized something from Kenpo could work very well in chi sau, or I simply found myself doing things that, after I thought about it later, I realized was from Kenpo.


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 1, 2005)

As I said before, I took a non-traditional WC, and I by no means learned all there was about it.

Whenever I crossed my centerline, at all, with my hands while sparring the teacher I was instantly beaten. There was absolutly no striking to your left side with your right hand, this included parrys/blocks as well. No side kicks, no elbows that ended up across the centerline. We also divided the body into upper middle and lower perimeters as well as left and right. The rule was you can't issue power in two places in the same perimeter. No block and strike in left or right. No straight puch with a high block, etc. It did allow punches with low blocks, or low kicks with high blocks, etc.

Another difference I just thought of, in WC we never "dodged" attacks, all were parried. Many parries were automatically paired up with strike, (Gong Sau was ALWAYS done with punch, I couldn't do it alone anymore). In northern kung-fu, an advanced "secret" is dodging the attack is quicker then blocking and then counter attacking (See boxers ducking a hook)

If you can't overwhelm your opponent, I guess you just lose. I can't imagine a fight with someone from my WC school lasting more then five seconds, most would probably last under three once it actually started. It was either completely devistate instantly or lose instantly (unless it ends up on the ground grappling). In my northern kung-fu, its easy to see how a fight would last over a minute.

I'm sure more advanced WC people don't follow as strict rules, or used techinques I didn't learn. But I didn't really see a need for any more then I had, it covered me completely and was a small amount of material which let me perfect few moves instead of being slopply at a bunch like I am at northern kung-fu now.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 1, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Whenever I crossed my centerline, at all, with my hands while sparring the teacher I was instantly beaten. There was absolutly no striking to your left side with your right hand, this included parrys/blocks as well. No side kicks, no elbows that ended up across the centerline. We also divided the body into upper middle and lower perimeters as well as left and right. The rule was you can't issue power in two places in the same perimeter. No block and strike in left or right. No straight puch with a high block, etc. It did allow punches with low blocks, or low kicks with high blocks, etc.


 Yeah, thats a great point and one that can't be ignored. We work heavily on "collapsing" or "yielding" from your centerline, so trapping is harder to do on you. Its curious that no punching while high blocking....do you know the reasoning behind that?



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> Another difference I just thought of, in WC we never "dodged" attacks, all were parried. Many parries were automatically paired up with strike, (Gong Sau was ALWAYS done with punch, I couldn't do it alone anymore). In northern kung-fu, an advanced "secret" is dodging the attack is quicker then blocking and then counter attacking (See boxers ducking a hook)


 Yes, one of our main concepts is "move rather than block". However, we rarely completely dodge without making some type of contact at some point on the body. Does WC focus on contact even beyond hands and arms, such as hips, legs, and such?



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> If you can't overwhelm your opponent, I guess you just lose. I can't imagine a fight with someone from my WC school lasting more then five seconds, most would probably last under three once it actually started. It was either completely devistate instantly or lose instantly (unless it ends up on the ground grappling). In my northern kung-fu, its easy to see how a fight would last over a minute.


 Yes, again thats a similarity I see with manits, we try to end it as quickly and devestatingly as possible. My sifu is allways saying, if the fight last longer than a few seconds, you are probably in big trouble. But then alot of our techniques are designed to work against people who have skill (especially in kung fu) so it does tend to go back and forth a bit more than it would on the street. 

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> As I said before, I took a non-traditional WC



What style/organization was it? I'd be curious to hear more (maybe in a different thread). What made it different?

I'm enjoying this thread--a comparison between these styles is most interesting. Thanks to all who are actively participating in it!


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

Another question. In mantis we use quite alot of chin na. Are these used in WC as well? Also, does WC practice sweeps and throws? They are a huge part of mantis.

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Another question. In mantis we use quite alot of chin na. Are these used in WC as well? Also, does WC practice sweeps and throws? They are a huge part of mantis.
> 
> 7sm


 
I would say yes to the chin na.  The Chi Sau drills that work into trapping can often flow naturally into a joint lock or manipulation of some kind.  Low sweeps are in there as well.  When you have the opponent's hands and attention tied up high, it is useful to sweep him low.

Based on my experiences, we did not have any rule saying no punches with high blocks, and we do have side kicks, but kept low, like the knee or lower.  These were comments you had made earlier.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 2, 2005)

Someone made a comment earlier that sparked some thoughts. It was basically to the idea that contact is made and maintained until an opening occurs for a barage of fast punches or attacks. Is this to say that contact is used to create the opening but once the attack begins, the contact is of less value?

7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Someone made a comment earlier that sparked some thoughts. It was basically to the idea that contact is made and maintained until an opening occurs for a barage of fast punches or attacks. Is this to say that contact is used to create the opening but once the attack begins, the contact is of less value?
> 
> 7sm


 
Not necessarily.  Contact (in the form of a block/defensive technique, for example) can create an immediate opening to fire the punches, but often the non-punching hand will maintain a control/trap on the opponent's hands (ideally pinning one hand beneath the other, so that control of both of his hands is maintained with just one of mine).  I may switch hands so that I can fire a rapid succession of punches, but also switching the control hand.

Other times, it may take a couple movements to manipulate the opponent into an effective trap, and then the punches get fired, but again control of his hands is maintained, altho often the hands get switched up.

Also, while contact and control is often desired, it is by no means a "rule" of any kind.  When there is an opening, we fire away.  This can happen without any prior contact being made.


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 2, 2005)

I took Wing Chun Do, which I am sad to say a worthless organization that kicked out an awsome teacher (At least in my opinion)

Never did ChiNas, throws, or side kicks. Did one kick above the waist, it was a forward thrust kick aimed to snap the pelvis at the pubic systhesis.

Can't make two moves in same perimeter at same time (Punch high while blocking high) because the body can't balance out the energy required to do both right, it will allow you to be thrown off balance a lot easier.

As for maintaining contact, we had a distance we wanted to fight at. Once you attacked, we maintained that distance right through the other guy trying to retreat. It wasn't feasable for someone to back up faster then I could keep on them punching. Also practice punching full power on moving targets, I could continue punching as they fell to the ground if needs be or no matter how they ducked and weaved. At full speed I was putting out 10 punches a second and wouldn't miss, even if I did miss one the other 9 would put someone out.

Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.

I learned a lot about "fighting theory" in my WC school. The teacher was a figher, and they are always better to learn from. Most of what I learned I didn't realize how good it was until years later, the more I learn the more I think WC is the ultimate striking art to use against other martial arts. I'm sure the same is true for anyone learning an MA from a good fighter teacher.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.


 
Yes, I think when it comes down to a real encounter, this is what actually gets results.  Many arts teach a lot of stuff that has good theory behind it, but I wonder how much of it really works when push comes to shove.  My White Crane sifu has taught me some amazing, beautiful, lengthy, and powerful forms, but he says when it comes to fighting, all you need is Chien Choi, Pau Choi, and Kup Choi (charging punch, cannon fist punch, and down raking punch), and the ability to throw them like lightning.


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 3, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Yes, I think when it comes down to a real encounter, this is what actually gets results. Many arts teach a lot of stuff that has good theory behind it, but I wonder how much of it really works when push comes to shove. My White Crane sifu has taught me some amazing, beautiful, lengthy, and powerful forms, but he says when it comes to fighting, all you need is Chien Choi, Pau Choi, and Kup Choi (charging punch, cannon fist punch, and down raking punch), and the ability to throw them like lightning.


 
This is the #1 reason I like WC so much. You would only work those couple moves that you would actually use in a fight. No time wasted working on scissor stance or elbow locks that can be easily escaped, or tons of crazy forms.

My WC class worked more like a boxing gym then MA class. Still had class, but most of it was physical training or sparring training, very little else once you learned the material.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 3, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> This is the #1 reason I like WC so much. You would only work those couple moves that you would actually use in a fight. No time wasted working on scissor stance or elbow locks that can be easily escaped, or tons of crazy forms.
> 
> My WC class worked more like a boxing gym then MA class. Still had class, but most of it was physical training or sparring training, very little else once you learned the material.



Thats what makes a good fighter, but its not exclusive to WC only.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Can't make two moves in same perimeter at same time (Punch high while blocking high) because the body can't balance out the energy required to do both right, it will allow you to be thrown off balance a lot easier.


 I would be interested in hearing more about this concept. Being thrown off balance is a process that includes many different operations. To throw someone off balance by using an apendage (say their arms from a punch) they must tighten and give you that control. We focus on relaxing and yielding. To move someone with their elbow requires that at some point (either at their elbow, shoulder, chest, waist, etc) they resist to a degree. If they completely yield with no tightening or resisting, you have no throw and cannot take their balance. I think to say its easier to get thrown off balance by making two moves in the same perimiter is relying on resistance. If you know how to "root" and drop your center, what your arms do _shouldn't_ affect your balance at all.

I would love to hear more on this concept if anyone wants to eleborate for me 



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> As for maintaining contact, we had a distance we wanted to fight at. Once you attacked, we maintained that distance right through the other guy trying to retreat. It wasn't feasable for someone to back up faster then I could keep on them punching. Also practice punching full power on moving targets, I could continue punching as they fell to the ground if needs be or no matter how they ducked and weaved. At full speed I was putting out 10 punches a second and wouldn't miss, even if I did miss one the other 9 would put someone out.


 This is something I've heard alot from WC guys. Its very true, its deffinitely not feasable to retreat faster than someone coming in. However, retreating to the side or around in a circular motion is very feasable. Thats a main differance I see between the two, we use very circular and angular movements instead of retreating backwards. Also, moving in even closer can many times shut down a barrage of punches. What would be the proper thing according to WC in that type of situation? If you moving forward and the opponent also moves forward? Also, the rapid punching is great and your right about making contact, but what about having those punches shut down by being trapped or something? Is that feasable? Also, what about endurance, is that something thats focused on in WC? I mean throwing 10 punches a second is taxing, how long would you train to keep that up?



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.


 So then WC would generally not place much stock in chin na or throws and such? Would you guys use elbows and knees much, or mainly punches?


7sm


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 4, 2005)

I never worried about someone moving closer, not many would with my kind of punches coming at them. If they were good enough to move in closer with confidence I am so outclassed it really doesn't matter what I do. As for moving around us, maybe, but we trained on that too. Many hours of following people around as they tried everything they could to lose the distance and angles from us.

I visited an MA school with a "fifth degree" MA black belt that told me how worthless WC was and showed me how he could stop me in an instant, I trapped him up completely and had a backfist on his nose within the first half second. Had it been a real fight, it was over before the first second, I was a WC yellow belt at the time. He was one of those move to the sides and up and down to not let you opponent know where you are coming from. I had no problem following his movements, funny thing is he did some of the crazy stuff we would train against that I had thought I would never see done in a fight.

As for how long could I punch full power at 10 a sec? Probably 15 to 20 seconds, maybe longer. Did tons of pushups, bag work, and threw a couple thousand practice punches every day. Its my main offense, and I made sure it was as strong as possible.

Trapping chain punches is a good question. Our "non traditional" chain punch only moved one hand at a time, wait until the first retreated completely before throwing the next one. This prevented both hands from being trapped at once, but lowered the number of punches a second we could do.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 4, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> I never worried about someone moving closer, not many would with my kind of punches coming at them. If they were good enough to move in closer with confidence I am so outclassed it really doesn't matter what I do. As for moving around us, maybe, but we trained on that too. Many hours of following people around as they tried everything they could to lose the distance and angles from us.


 Yes, we do alot of those same types of drills. So, if you were moved in on during the barrage, what exactly would you do? I mean, what type of techniques would be used in that situation at that close of a range?



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> As for how long could I punch full power at 10 a sec? Probably 15 to 20 seconds, maybe longer. Did tons of pushups, bag work, and threw a couple thousand practice punches every day. Its my main offense, and I made sure it was as strong as possible.


 My point wasn't strength or power of these punches, but endurance. If someone was to avoid getting hit or "taken down" by this barrage, what would be the next move or idea? You would get pretty tired and consequently slow having to throw several different sets of those punches, no? I'm just curious as to what would be the next logical technique or idea in a situation where the barrage failed?



			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> Trapping chain punches is a good question. Our "non traditional" chain punch only moved one hand at a time, wait until the first retreated completely before throwing the next one. This prevented both hands from being trapped at once, but lowered the number of punches a second we could do.


 So basically, trapping would effectively shut this down? What about being pulled off balance by one of the punches? If the punch missed and the attacker pulled on the punching arm, pulling you off balance? What would be the idea, set up again for the barrage?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2005)

I have surprised people in JKD who thought that the chain punch was unstoppable by using the basic FMA idea of stepping out to a 45 degree, parrying, and then wrapping the arms. (I know this idea is in many other arts too!) As with the stick, sometimes you can tie up both arms with just one.


----------



## mantis (Nov 5, 2005)

to me WC practitioners seem to extend their arms while they are pretty stiff. doesnt than give a handle to your opponent to manipulate your center of gravity and balance?


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 5, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> to me WC practitioners seem to extend their arms while they are pretty stiff. doesnt than give a handle to your opponent to manipulate your center of gravity and balance?


 
They really shouldn't have stiff arms the premise of the training should negate this.  And you are right, if they do have stiff arms then they will be open to manipulation.


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 5, 2005)

Anytime a limb was pulled in our WC class, we felt it, let it happen, and stepped forward with the same amount of pull while throwing a punch.  Its a bad idea to "fight" a grab and pull, just go with it and turn it to an advantage.  Conversly we never did any "grabs" because if the other guy was stronger he had a possibility to pull back harder.  Lop sau and fook sau (sp?) are not true grabs and an opponent actually pulling back will easily break free of them.

Yea, supposedly the standard chain punched can be trapped easily, but I never sparred a traditional WC guy to see for myself.  Lke I said we did it a little different to prevent that, not that it would be impossible.

All these ideas against a chain punch are fine, but the simple fact is they are as quick as jabs and about the power of a good cross.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 6, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.


I thought this might be relevent. This is a clip I posted way back when, but its some mantis applications at high speed. Its drills and such, so keep that in mind, but the speed and agressiveness of the attack is what I'm wanting to point out. This is the type of "three second fight" I'm refering to as well. Is this what your refering to?

http://www.mantismartialart.com/demofight-2.WMV

PS: Turn your sound down.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2005)

Meanwhile, just posted to Eskrima Digest (I don't know why):
http://www.garylamwingchun.com/movies/SifuLamDemonew_medium.mov

It definitely has some rapid exchanges!


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I would be interested in hearing more about this concept. Being thrown off balance is a process that includes many different operations. To throw someone off balance by using an apendage (say their arms from a punch) they must tighten and give you that control. We focus on relaxing and yielding. To move someone with their elbow requires that at some point (either at their elbow, shoulder, chest, waist, etc) they resist to a degree. If they completely yield with no tightening or resisting, you have no throw and cannot take their balance. I think to say its easier to get thrown off balance by making two moves in the same perimiter is relying on resistance. If you know how to "root" and drop your center, what your arms do _shouldn't_ affect your balance at all.
> 
> I would love to hear more on this concept if anyone wants to eleborate for me


 
One of the foundational things that the Sui Lum Tao should teach Wing Chun practicioners is how to disconnect the arms from the stance, by the use of "rooting" through the Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma (the stance) and by using the shoulder as a hinge. The power for the offensive/defensive moves arise from this rooting i.e. ground power, meaning that your arms are not utilising the muscular, therefore are relaxed and fluid, hence from where the Wing Chun hands gain their lightning speed, relaxation is essential in Wing Chun, for fast response and quick attack, and the more "rooting" you have the better. If the arms are tense then the opractioner is utilising the incorrect energy, meaning their ability to move with the ebb and floww of their oponant is greatly reduced, leaving them vulnerable. Also by utilising this tense energy they connect their arms with their stance and are able to have the oponant seek to control their centre of balance.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> This is something I've heard alot from WC guys. Its very true, its deffinitely not feasable to retreat faster than someone coming in. However, retreating to the side or around in a circular motion is very feasable. Thats a main differance I see between the two, we use very circular and angular movements instead of retreating backwards. Also, moving in even closer can many times shut down a barrage of punches. What would be the proper thing according to WC in that type of situation? If you moving forward and the opponent also moves forward?


 
As with any other way of fighting proper timing must be observed, as well as a solid foundation in fighting distance. Wing Chun doesnt work in centimetres, but millimeters, meaning you learn how to judge your oponants distance including his tools, hard to do at first but not impossible. The foot work at the basic level from Sifu Fung is very small, but eventually when you have trained in this foot work long enough you will find that you are quite speedy and able to evade your oponant quite proiciently. This type of foot work does 3 things, 1) it helps you to maintain the rooting of the stance even in motion 2) it creates a deception for the oponant, where you seem to be moving without moving 3) It helps to maintain energy, without waste.

There will be times when you need to rotateor sidestep this is reasonable, but it is always important to maintain the proper fighting distance from your oponant




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Also, the rapid punching is great and your right about making contact, but what about having those punches shut down by being trapped or something? Is that feasable? Also, what about endurance, is that something thats focused on in WC? I mean throwing 10 punches a second is taxing, how long would you train to keep that up?


 
Part of the Lesson of Chum Kiu is how to utilse leverage via the movement of the centre of gravity, this is usefull in times when your hands are trapped, hoever there is always the concepts of Bui Jee, whirpool energy etc. to utlise in such a situation, bui jee is useful if you have lost the centre and you need to regain it. As for the punching, it would only be taxing if the practioner has not yet learnt how to seperate the arms from the stance, once they can utilise a relaxed soft energy they can then punch as often as they want without the utlisation of excess energy.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> So then WC would generally not place much stock in chin na or throws and such? Would you guys use elbows and knees much, or mainly punches?
> 7sm


 
We pretty much would use whatever weapon was at our disposal, for example if I have been tied up by a BJJ guy and the only way out of the situation is a headbut across the bridge of the nose then I would do that, because such a move would be in harmony with the principals of efficiency, directness, and simplicity, which are the governing rules, there are also elbows contained in the Bui Jee form, in Wing chun 80% of the fighting is the hands 20% feet.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 6, 2005)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> As for the punching, it would only be taxing if the practioner has not yet learnt how to seperate the arms from the stance, once they can utilise a relaxed soft energy they can then punch as often as they want without the utlisation of excess energy.



I think I understand this practice, probably better than alot, but "excess energy" not being expended still doesn't mean energy is not expended at all. Punching that fast for any amount of time is going to be taxing. We practice very soft relaxed energy, but that amount of speed and power is going to be taxing. I'm not saying you can't train to increase your stamina, but its going to be taxing to some degee. In fact, that is one of the things we say about developing feel. If you fight someone much quicker and more powerful than yourself, you need your feel to at least be able to avoid getting hurt. If you can just yield and not get hurt, they will have to regroup eventually, thats when you can turn it on them. This isn't our strategy per se, but it sure works agasint someone much faster than yourself.

7sm


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 6, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think I understand this practice, probably better than alot, but "excess energy" not being expended still doesn't mean energy is not expended at all. Punching that fast for any amount of time is going to be taxing. We practice very soft relaxed energy, but that amount of speed and power is going to be taxing. I'm not saying you can't train to increase your stamina, but its going to be taxing to some degee. In fact, that is one of the things we say about developing feel. If you fight someone much quicker and more powerful than yourself, you need your feel to at least be able to avoid getting hurt. If you can just yield and not get hurt, they will have to regroup eventually, thats when you can turn it on them. This isn't our strategy per se, but it sure works agasint someone much faster than yourself.
> 
> 7sm


 
To give you an idea, at one sitting I can perform 1000 punches, now it starts to drag out at about 800, and this is because I still have some steps to go before I have fully realeased my shoulder, after some time in training you start to feel the resistance of each muscle, Yip Man didnt have an ounce of muscle on him, yet he could still deliver multiple, effective punches over continuous periods, now of course there is energy expended, but it shoud be, at least the aim, is to fully utilise the soft, pliable whipping energy, and loosing the tense, restrictive Iron Bar energy. This can only be done with proper utilsation of ground power, as your source of energy. More stance training = more power.


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 6, 2005)

good posts bcbernam


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 7, 2005)

I understand about the punches, I to spend time everyday in the bag room doing over 1000 punches and 1000 kicks in as fast a time as I can of course including jump rope and such. I think the main difference between the styles in this istance is "feel". I'm not saying WC doesn't utilize or train feel, but I think mantis relys more on it for the defense and setup of attacks, especially these types of "rush attacks". If you watch the video I posted you can see some speed drills we practice, these can and do go on much much longer than in the video. I think the difference in "blitz" attacks here is WC is using mainly punches and mostly the one main punch, while mantis tries to utilize many different types of punches as well as feet in the same blitz. 

One isn't necessarily better than the other, just different. This has become a very interesting thread.

7sm


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 7, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I understand about the punches, I to spend time everyday in the bag room doing over 1000 punches and 1000 kicks in as fast a time as I can of course including jump rope and such. I think the main difference between the styles in this istance is "feel". I'm not saying WC doesn't utilize or train feel, but I think mantis relys more on it for the defense and setup of attacks, especially these types of "rush attacks". If you watch the video I posted you can see some speed drills we practice, these can and do go on much much longer than in the video. I think the difference in "blitz" attacks here is WC is using mainly punches and mostly the one main punch, while mantis tries to utilize many different types of punches as well as feet in the same blitz.
> 
> One isn't necessarily better than the other, just different. This has become a very interesting thread.
> 
> 7sm


 

I dont quite understand what you mean by "feel", do you mean touch sensitivity, do you mean body feel, do you visual feel, can you clairfy?

As for Wing chun using one main punch, I can understand how an outsider would think this, however, every technique in Wing Chun share a simultaneous offensive/defensive capability, for example Tan Sau is more than just a block, it can be used as a knife edge to the throat, the Whu Sau, widely regarded as soley being defensive in purpose, can also be used as a piercing attack to the solar plexus, or attack to the underbridge of the nose, in fact the straight vertical fist can also be used for simultaneous offence/defense, by either including an attac or excluding attack, which is achieved through the correct structure, and positioning etc. Also Wing chun also utilises multiple strikes with kicks simultaneously, part of the purpose of Chum Kiu is to teach this principle, where all three limbs can be used in harmony and coordination to create an effective ans very hard to deal with offencive strategy.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 7, 2005)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> I dont quite understand what you mean by "feel", do you mean touch sensitivity, do you mean body feel, do you visual feel, can you clairfy?


 Well, its one of our fighting principles thats probably the hardest to explain. A WC person will understand it much better though. Basically its touch feel with all parts of the body, like body feel but taken past where most train it. It not visual at all, its trained to the point of feeling tension or energy and yielding to it in order to take the opponent off balance, trap, or move into a different attack. The way we train our feel is much like tai chi feel, we train to not only feel the tension or momentum but use that against them either by unbalancing them or attacking. Most of our techniques come off of feel (i.e. you punch, I ride the punch in, then as it empties I pluck and attack myself). Mantis uses alot of "plucking" where we allow your attack to fully extend and then continue its movement to take you off balance and bring you into an attack. 
Does that help expplain it a bit?



			
				bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> As for Wing chun using one main punch, I can understand how an outsider would think this, however, every technique in Wing Chun share a simultaneous offensive/defensive capability, for example Tan Sau is more than just a block, it can be used as a knife edge to the throat, the Whu Sau, widely regarded as soley being defensive in purpose, can also be used as a piercing attack to the solar plexus, or attack to the underbridge of the nose, in fact the straight vertical fist can also be used for simultaneous offence/defense, by either including an attac or excluding attack, which is achieved through the correct structure, and positioning etc. Also Wing chun also utilises multiple strikes with kicks simultaneously, part of the purpose of Chum Kiu is to teach this principle, where all three limbs can be used in harmony and coordination to create an effective ans very hard to deal with offencive strategy.


 No, I didn't mean that WC only uses one main punch, I meant that in the barage we were discussing, its usually the one main punch during that barage. While mantis attempts to barage with as many different techniques as possible, assuming the opponent sets them up. 

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 7, 2005)

Wing chun relies heavily on feel, sticking and bridging. I wont elaborate because you should know what I mean from your own descriptions of mantis.
People often see and talk about only the chain punch which is overhyped and overemphasized. A moderately skilled person would stick , follow the bridge and attack rapidly with a variety of strikes and low kicks as fast as chain punching or faster.
 In my opinion chain punching is just a training tool not the end product. But those damn magazine articles.......


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2005)

brothershaw said:
			
		

> A moderately skilled person would stick , follow the bridge and attack rapidly with a variety of strikes and low kicks as fast as chain punching or faster.
> In my opinion chain punching is just a training tool not the end product. But those damn magazine articles.......


 
yeah, i'd agree with this one too.


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 7, 2005)

Well, I overused the chain punch. It worked extremely well for me and was almost unblockable/unavoidable when done at full speed. I would do up to around 2000 punches at one time at the level I was at, but of course not full power, but it was at speed. It was a simple matter of making the most powerful/quickest single strike possible. Some boxers are the same way with jabs.

Another aspect, for our school at least, is you learn to use the blocks as strikes. If you pak sau someone a few times in a row, they will think twice about throwing another punch. All the blocks were like this. Your opponent would leave with very sore wrists. Of course conditioning made this unnoticable, but not many MA schools will condition against it.

BTW, good videos. The mantis video was similar to our sparring fights, just different techniques. We would spar like that constantly, you get to the point where no matter what attack comes in, the fight is over before you realize what is going on, pure reaction.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 7, 2005)

" It not visual at all, its trained to the point of feeling tension or energy and yielding to it in order to take the opponent off balance, trap, or move into a different attack. The way we train our feel is much like tai chi feel, we train to not only feel the tension or momentum but use that against them either by unbalancing them or attacking. Most of our techniques come off of feel (i.e. you punch, I ride the punch in, then as it empties I pluck and attack myself)."

This is the exact purpose of Chi Sau, many people mistakingly utilise Chi Sau as a form of sparring, but if chis sau was simply a form of sparring then you may as well just spar. The purpose of Chis sau is exactly the same, how to feel your oponants pooint of of tension, the flow of his own energy, not just in the hands but also in the stance, so that we can utilise that to make the oponant loose his centre, at least with Sifu Fung this how we train, in training Chis sau this way both the initiator and the reciepient have a chance to grow and develop their centre to develop a more strong and stable centre of gravity


As for the chain punch, it is simply one of the many tools at the WC practioners disposal, I would suggest aginst an oponant who is obviously not a trained fighter then it could be quite useful, but like any technique, if you overuse it you are in danger of your oponant being able to read the ebb and flow of your way of fighting, I dont know why WC people dont mix it up more, but as for me, I rarly use the chain punch, except in a situation where I want to regain control of the situation, or as a pshychological edge over the oponant, agin it has its uses just as Dai Jeung has its uses, it is always a case of what is the right tool for the job.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 8, 2005)

It seems the consensus is that the chain punch isn't to be used alone, however all WC players I've spent time with have used it almost exclusively during the barage. I'm not saying outside this barage, but during it. 

I would like to discuss a bit more the concept of unbalancing. We talked about this principles here:





			
				bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> ...how to feel your oponants pooint of of tension, the flow of his own energy, not just in the hands but also in the stance, so that we can utilise that to make the oponant loose his centre...


What method is used here to make the opponent loose his balance? Is it done through a series of attacks? In mantis we use "plucks" which are meant to extend the opponent off balance, but we also focus on using stances (i.e. shin to shin), and then we also use uprooting the feet (i.e. sweeping the lead foot, throws, etc.) Is this the same in WC?

Also, I want to go back to this:





			
				dmax999 said:
			
		

> Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.


Does this mean that during the barage we have been talking about that the goal is really not chin na or attacking the joints or even throws? Is the idea more straight full on attacks?

7sm


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 8, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Also, I want to go back to this:
> Does this mean that during the barage we have been talking about that the goal is really not chin na or attacking the joints or even throws? Is the idea more straight full on attacks?
> 
> 7sm


 
For me, yes. Don't control the opponent, don't slow down the opponent, strike until you break something so they can't fight. Many non-chain punch strikes I learned were intended to break bones(mostly low kicks), though I'm not entirely sure how successful they would be at that (Never used them "on the street"). Didn't learn a single joint lock or chin na my eitire time in WC.

Remember, I by far didn't learn all there was to WC, I just learned the bit I did know really really good. Quality over quantity.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 8, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems the consensus is that the chain punch isn't to be used alone, however all WC players I've spent time with have used it almost exclusively during the barage. I'm not saying outside this barage, but during it.


 
it is probably because of their lack of training or false hope that the chain punch is their salvation, speed must be in all techniques not just in Sao Kuen, so that any technique can be utlised at any time in any combination to get the job done quickly and efficiently. 



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> I would like to discuss a bit more the concept of unbalancing. We talked about this principles here:
> What method is used here to make the opponent loose his balance? Is it done through a series of attacks? In mantis we use "plucks" which are meant to extend the opponent off balance, but we also focus on using stances (i.e. shin to shin), and then we also use uprooting the feet (i.e. sweeping the lead foot, throws, etc.) Is this the same in WC?
> 7sm


 
ATTACKS: using multiple attacks as a constant barage can disturb your oponants center of gravity, quite effectivly

USE OF THE FEET: Yes this is also a vital part of controling the oponants centre of balance, controling the oponants feet, i.e. without a mans legs he has no position, control the legs, control the man.

USE OF THE ENERGY: each form in Wing Chun develops its own level of energy, building one upon another, Sui Lum Tao develops the simplistic forward energy, chum Kiu develops what is known as two way energy, then Bui Jee develops a third level of energy, by utilising the two way energy you are abel to control very easily your oponants balance and centre of gravity, adding the Bui Jee energy is the icing on the cake.

IN CLOSING: When you combine all of the above together you are able to more than effectivly control your opnonant, if the above is combined with timing, proper fighting distance, aliveness, and the ability to respond to broken rythym.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 8, 2005)

Yes but how is the control used against the opponent? How do you actually control them? I understand what your saying, but I'm interested in actual situations with techniques that might be used. Grant it, no one technique is ever going to work 100% of the time, but just for the sake of this thread. Controling the opponents center of gravity how? By trapping and pulling their arms downward, by pushing on their knee with you knee, etc?

7sm


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 8, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes but how is the control used against the opponent? How do you actually control them? I understand what your saying, but I'm interested in actual situations with techniques that might be used. Grant it, no one technique is ever going to work 100% of the time, but just for the sake of this thread. Controling the opponents center of gravity how? By trapping and pulling their arms downward, by pushing on their knee with you knee, etc?
> 
> 7sm


 
The majority of people utlise tense energy when employing their techniques, because of their tense energy they connect their arms with their centre of gravity, by controlling their arms you can control their centre of graivty by utlising the energy from your centre of gravity, because their shoulder is not loosened. Coyupled with the shoulder energy of Bui Jee you can direct their centre of gravity to control them. Does this make it clearer???


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Yes but how is the control used against the opponent? How do you actually control them?



One WC-based technique I see a lot in JKD is using your right arm to knock a right block out of the way, toward the outside of your opponent's body, in order to get in a left punch after your first attempt to do so has been stopped. With this action you shuffle in, possibly stepping on the opponent's foot but more to the point your right arm, parallel to the floor and to your chest, pushes right up against his chest. Your right hand is controlling his right hand, but your right forearm/elbow is controlling his left arm at about its elbow, and your forearm along his chest moves him just a little bit back and off-balance. That's a lot of control! 

As usual, it's hard to describe this but easy to demonstrate it. I've done it and had it done on me. It doesn't work for long--just long enough for a punch to get in. But then you follow that with another...


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 9, 2005)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> The majority of people utlise tense energy when employing their techniques, because of their tense energy they connect their arms with their centre of gravity, by controlling their arms you can control their centre of graivty by utlising the energy from your centre of gravity, because their shoulder is not loosened. Coyupled with the shoulder energy of Bui Jee you can direct their centre of gravity to control them. Does this make it clearer???



I understand the concept of controlling, I'm more aksing about what technique you use to perform it. Taking from this I would assume its done mainly from the arms of the opponent then?

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Can't make two moves in same perimeter at same time (Punch high while blocking high) because the body can't balance out the energy required to do both right, it will allow you to be thrown off balance a lot easier.


I wouldn't mind discussing this idea a little more. Why would this allow the body to be more easily taken off balance? In order to be controled you must resist at some point, if no resistance is given, then taking your body off balance will be much harder, no?

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 12, 2005)

Control either by striking which in addition to injury will off balance them, also getting thier access to rotate to the outside ( away from you), by pinning one or both arms while attacking( the pin may be temporary only for one or 2 of the strikes.
Leg attacks that will disrupt their balance and temporarily halt thier own attack
Control can be just making them move in a way that is benefecialto you either caused by chin na or strikes.
I have noticed alot of good jujitsu people also stick while doing thier joint lock techniques but not their striking


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 12, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I understand the concept of controlling, I'm more aksing about what technique you use to perform it.


 

Because of the energy development that should be in Wing Chun, you can utilise any technique, so then the focus is not technique but on actual energy (or force). However in Chum Kiu one of the most utilsed techniques is the Bong Sau, so many people will utilise the bong sau to tray and distrupt an opponaonts balance




			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Taking from this I would assume its done mainly from the arms of the opponent then?
> 
> 7sm


 
Not all the time, it can happen wherever there is contact, be it arms, legs or body.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> Because of the energy development that should be in Wing Chun, you can utilise any technique, so then the focus is not technique but on actual energy (or force). However in Chum Kiu one of the most utilsed techniques is the Bong Sau, so many people will utilise the bong sau to tray and distrupt an opponaonts balance


Excuse my ignorance, what are you refering to as Bong Sau?

Also, would it be accurate to say in WC you wouldn't normally step around to the side of your opponent or even behind your opponent?

7sm


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 14, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Excuse my ignorance, what are you refering to as Bong Sau?


 
It is what Yip Man is doing in my avatar, it is cantonese for Wing Arm.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Also, would it be accurate to say in WC you wouldn't normally step around to the side of your opponent or even behind your opponent?
> 
> 7sm


 
There is a misunderstanding, even amongst Wing Chun students that the goal is to hit your oponants centreline, and because of this 90% of attacks have to happen front on, also when people talk about chil yeung, they think is stands for facing the oponant front on, both the centreline and chil yeung (facing the sun) are in relation to the attackers line, not the oponants. To clarify, there is a concept called centreline advantage, I will give 3 examples:

1) A and B stand square on to each other, both have the same centreline placement so neither has the advantage, because they have the same centreline advantage both A and B can equally utilise their tools.

2) A stays where he is B rotates left 45 degrees, A now has the centreline advantage because his centreline is still facing his opponant, whilst B's centreline is not facing his oponate, therefore he cannot equally utilise his tools effectivly.

3) Again both A and B are squared of, A circles his opponant until he is Facing B from the rear, agin A has the centreline advantage because HIS centreline is facing the oponant, where as B's centreline is no where near the oponant.

to boil it down the further away your centreline is from the oponants the lower your centreline poisition and the greater his centreline advantage is.

So in Wing Chun you can step wherever you need to, remembering that both the side and the back contain vital points as well i.e. Temples, kidneys, the only guiding point is in stepping do I retain the centreline advantage. Now in saying all of that you can take take that same principle and apply it more subtly, by moving even a few centermentres one way or the other whilst yuo are facing the front, you still have centreline advantage, because now your centreline is facing him whilst his is slightly pointed away from your centreline.


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 14, 2005)

Another good post bcbernam, you have no idea how it makes me go nuts when people think the centerline means just up the center, not attacking the center from any angle on the circumference of the circle.

7star regarding wing chun attacking from the side or behind-
look at the wooden man with the arms in front and the leg especially there are some moves where you have to work around it  to the side while some moves are straight on.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 14, 2005)

So then we could agree that the major difference between Wing Chun and 7 Star Mantis would be the use and focus of the centerline? Keeping your centerline and attacking theirs.

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 15, 2005)

7star- does 7star mantis have any exlpicit opinions on the centerline? I know some of the wing chun center line stuff has to be implied in other systems mainly becuase some of it is just common sense stuff you might not think about.

I have a friend who did 7 star and wing chun I will ask him about his opinions on the differences. To my knowledge 7 star is a large,medium and short range system where as wing chun is primarily concerned with being in close. ALso from the very little 7star I saw the moves appear to be bigger without the elbow in, everything comeing from the center type of emphasis. Feel fre to comment or correct.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Excuse my ignorance, what are you refering to as Bong Sau?
> 
> Also, would it be accurate to say in WC you wouldn't normally step around to the side of your opponent or even behind your opponent?
> 
> 7sm


 
Being to the side or behind my opponent is definitely where i'd prefer to be, i don't want to opperate in the line of his main weapons.


----------



## ed-swckf (Nov 15, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So then we could agree that the major difference between Wing Chun and 7 Star Mantis would be the use and focus of the centerline? Keeping your centerline and attacking theirs.
> 
> 7sm


 
could you post some good 7star mantis sites that i could use for reference? to get a better idea of the art and to see what differences strike me when i compare the two.


----------



## dmax999 (Nov 16, 2005)

WC seemed very odd to me when I first took it.  After you get good enough at it, eveything else seems odd.  Yea, you can step around an opponent, but why bother when you can have him at total disadvantage in the time to take a step?  Also, you may not be able to move around an opponent without giving up centerline advantage or correct defenses.  The WC I leaned I couldn't "take a step to the side" following the "rules", but I could follow an opponent doing the same.  Of course the "rules" are meant to be followed for training, not for real fights.

I think WC was also designed for fighting in extremely small areas.  You could use WC in a closet to its full effect without hinderance, while Mizhong-Lohan would be useless in such confined areas.  The little bit of WC staff that I've seen is also useful in a tight hallway, while any other Kung-Fu staff form needs an open plain area almost.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 17, 2005)

brothershaw said:
			
		

> 7star- does 7star mantis have any exlpicit opinions on the centerline? I know some of the wing chun center line stuff has to be implied in other systems mainly becuase some of it is just common sense stuff you might not think about.


 No, not really. I would seperate "center" from "centerline". We tend to focus more on feeling it. We are not concerned with our centerline really as much as simply moving your center away from the attack, be it up, down, or either side or a combination of all of these. I'm sure alot of the using of the center is very similar, we just dont focus as much on centerline. We heavily focus on yielding and "Evading Full Force" so we tend to ignore the centerline, but only if you have enough feel and body control to feel when someone is taking your center and change it. In fact, really advanced guys will almost let you get a throw or such set up just to out feel you and move their center and take yours, thus throwing you instead.



			
				brothershaw said:
			
		

> I have a friend who did 7 star and wing chun I will ask him about his opinions on the differences. To my knowledge 7 star is a large,medium and short range system where as wing chun is primarily concerned with being in close. ALso from the very little 7star I saw the moves appear to be bigger without the elbow in, everything comeing from the center type of emphasis. Feel fre to comment or correct.


 I wouldn't consider mantis anything but close range. There are many people who misunderstand some of the principels and try to apply them to different ranges, but in my understanding, its all extremely close range. In fact, we allways here we should be able to do all our forms or techniques inside an elevator, or after 9/11 in the isle of an airplane. Because we focus so much on yielding and turning at the waist and colapsing any and all parts of the body to close the gap or create contact. A realy good mantis fighter would attempt to stay as closely conected to you with as many parts of the body as possible...we refer to it as "clinging". First you learn sticking, then clinging. We try to be so close that we use the analogy of "The drunk friend at the bar". Imagine a drunk friend barely able to stand leaning on yoru shoulders. As you move to push him off, the part of his body you push moves with your push and the other parts of his body stay "on top" of you. Very hard to explain. 

As to bigger movements, I think this may be another issue of an underskilled practitioner. At first we teach very big circles, large movements. but the advanced player should "tighten" or make those circles smaller, much smaller. We even say to make the circle as small as the diameter of a toothpick. We do use alot of elbow techniques and alot of moves keep the elbows in close to the cetner, again because we turn and yield the waiste so much. There are many techniques however with the elbows out, but mostly they are attacks or redirects with yielding. 

Any of that make sense?

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 17, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Any of that make sense?
> 
> 7sm


 
Yes it all did. I definitely have to try to get a look at 7 star again close up maybe at the next tourny. I have been doing wing chun for awhile so pretty much anything not southern close range ( mantis, wing chun, bai mei) tends to look big to me. I remember somebody posted some good clips on kung fu forum a couple years back.
7 star sounds very yielding like tai chi. I guess I will have an interesting convo with my sifu when I see him.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 17, 2005)

brothershaw said:
			
		

> 7 star sounds very yielding like tai chi. I guess I will have an interesting convo with my sifu when I see him.


Yes and may I add, I believe we focus more heavily on these types of principles than many 7* schools, so the way I (or those in my family) explain things may be a little different from other 7* mantis families.

7sm


----------



## brothershaw (Nov 18, 2005)

If you guys are incorporating tai chi like principles, it sound like you should have some good stuff training wise.


----------

