# Grappling and Wing Tsun.



## jeff_hasbrouck

Okay, so I've been doing WT just shy of a decade, but I've been wrestling for 20 years.

I've noticed more and more that many WT/WC guys and gals just do not care about or understand ground/fighting or grappling.

So my question is, what are you doing to make up for this? Are you cross-training? Do you teach your students anti-grappling techniques? Do you incorporate grappling techniques into your curriculum? Or is this something that you aren't doing anything about, but want to? And lastly, what grappling techniques in particular are you utilizing or do you find useful?

Would love to see where this topic goes ya'll!

All the best,

Jeff (Sifu Panda)


----------



## WC_lun

My sifu is a holds black belts in Judo and JuiJitsu.  A kuen brother is also a black belt in juijutsu and owns his own successful Juijitsu school.  So to ignore the grappling aspect of fighting really wasn't an option  .  The more we got into it the more we realized Wing Chun basics such as structure, force direction, timing, etc all where equally important in grappling.  While the range and base (ground) might have changed, if we stuck to the framework we already knew, we'd be okay.  None of us purposefully take anything to the ground, but we are familiar enough with it that we are not helpless.  I think that unless you have some of that type of training, you can be well training as a self defense person.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

Seriously lucky of you for having so many valuable resources to train with!


----------



## WC_lun

There are other students in school that have different but equally high level training in other martial arts, including myself.  While I agree it is fortunate that we have such resources in the school, it wasn't purely luck.  The instructor wanted other high level martial artist in the school and wasn't worried about his Wing Chun in comparison to other systems. For my part, I did the research to find an instructor and school that fit what I wanted when I had decided I was no longer getting what I wanted out of the school I had been attending.


----------



## yak sao

We take the anti grappling approach, which is to say, we try to remain standing if possible, and if we end up on the ground, we fight to regain our feet.

Our group is lucky in that we have several with grappling experience: high school wrestlers, catch wrestlers, BJJ, Judo,
plus kung fu guys with throwing and chin na experience,
It's one thing to prevent a throw or takedown from someone who doesn't really know what they're doing, but these guys keep us honest.


----------



## Domino

I find it quite the opposite, we have no ground work experts but are always looking at 'what if' scenario or random take down attempts.


----------



## yak sao

Domino said:


> I find it quite the opposite, we have no ground work experts but are always looking at 'what if' scenario or random take down attempts.



Good point. It's not always going to be textbook. It may be totally unorthadox from someone with little or no training.


----------



## blindsage

Since most chinese styles, including Wing Chun have some grappling in them, you should specify if you mean strictly ground work.


----------



## WC_lun

True blindsage.  I don't think I've seen a Chinese system yet that doesn't have chin na and includes throws.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

blindsage said:


> Since most chinese styles, including Wing Chun have some grappling in them, you should specify if you mean strictly ground work.



I said specifically "Grappling". Which means everything from stand up, clinch, takendown, and ground. Grappling is an all inclusive term. If I wanted ground work, I would have said such.

I want to know what you do utilize, if any grappling techniques at all. 

Examples include: From top/and clinch- hand fighting, locks, joint manipulations, holds, submissions, throws, and take-downs.

From bottom- locks, joints manipulations, subs, hand fighting, anti-grap's anything.

I mean any and everything that you do that doesn't exclusively involve striking.


----------



## yak sao

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> I said specifically "Grappling". Which means everything from stand up, clinch, takendown, and ground. Grappling is an all inclusive term. If I wanted ground work, I would have said such.
> 
> I want to know what you do utilize, if any grappling techniques at all.
> 
> Examples include: From top/and clinch- hand fighting, locks, joint manipulations, holds, submissions, throws, and take-downs.
> 
> From bottom- locks, joints manipulations, subs, hand fighting, anti-grap's anything.
> 
> I mean any and everything that you do that doesn't exclusively involve striking.




I'm sorry. I responded to your OP thinking you asked about how we deal with grappling, not what type of grappling we do, if any. If I may start over.
As stated above, if our opponent is grappling us, we use an anti grappling approach, but there are a few locks and throws that we use as well, given the opportunity.
My sifu trained with Leung Ting in HK, and he remarked to me that Leung Ting could throw like a judo master, but that he didn't show much of it outside of his advanced students.
We do some basic chin na, in the form of wrist locks, elbow cranks, shoulder locks, etc, but not many. Same with throws. A few of the basic sweep/throws, hip throws and that sort of thing.

I think WC as a whole tends to neglect grappling, whether it be throws or locks, (even though so many of these movements are found in our forms) in favor of striking.

I don't know if it's always been this way in WC, or if it's something that came along from the HK period of Yip Man's teaching.


----------



## WC_lun

The WC I train actually does have a LOT of throws, chin na, and anti grappling.  Of course, my sifu's original Wing Chun and best teacher was Pao Hua WC, and anything white crane is going to involve a lot of chin na.  I think it might just be different lineages focus on different things.  Also, schools of even the same lineage tend to be a bit different as well.  The only thing we don't focus on a lot is submissions.  We aren't a sport school and tend to concentrate on just ending the situation through whatever means neccessary in a given situation.  Nothing wrong with submissions.  We may not appreciate them enough <shrugs>


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

My old Sifu is a student of LT, and whenever he came back from hk, he would always have new stuff to show us. The problem I see with LTWT, is the utter lack of knowledge and training around the world with grappling/anti-grappling. Of course we want anti-grappling before we use a remedial approach. And LT can throw like a boss. I've touched hands with him a few times at seminar's and he is very very good. His technique is truley masterful, I went at him full force (at his request) and he just kinda threw me around, never hurting me, just gently reminding me that I had no chance in hell lol... Sorry, just remembering the good ole days there... back to the point.

Even having a sifu who travelled to HK, bulgaria and all over, he still didn't know **** about grappling. And I've been grappling since I was a little kid, so it kinda irks me that someone who claims to be a master of any system doesn't understand basic concepts of grappling. If your a master, apparently you not only have skill in your art, but you are versed in other types of fighting as well. Or at least understand the concepts of other martial arts. It's like "country" girls who have never been on a horse but wear big *** belt buckles... We call them buckle bunnies. Well same thing with a Sifu who can't do basic grappling or understand the concepts, to me he is pretty worthless from a self-defense standpoint.

There are a few things that most people overlook when dealing with wrestlers/grapplers. Most people have this vision in their mind of a huge muscle bound guy that isn't very fast... Not true, grapplers are trained to choke, break, and manipulate joints very quickly. Grapplers train full-contact 100% of the time. They train like they fight. They are very dangerous opponents. When I was a kid, I was wrestling this guy (in a school tournament), and I was trying to throw him in a "Head and arm"; Well this guy was very tall and skinny, and when I finally did throw him (after a great fight!) I threw him so hard, my feet came off the ground and I literally slammed my body on top of his. I broke 4 of his ribs on contact and he was spitting up blood instantly. They carted him off in the ambulance immeadiately. I was scared out of my mind that I had just seriously injured this kid. It really opened my eyes to the dangers of grappling, even on a technique that is relatively safe.

Anyways thanks for all the replies, and yes I am looking for specific techniques that ya'll find work particularly well in certain situations. I'm just trying to get all of us to see the possibility of new and innovative ideas for training grappling.


----------



## chinaboxer

there is no such thing as "anti grappling", you have to learn "grappling" concepts and principles in order to stay on your feet against a grappler trying to take you down. this is why i always say that wing chun fighters are really grapplers in disguise, but our objective is to use the grappling concepts of how to handle pressure to stay on our feet and knock them out rather than take the person down to submit them.

all wing chun is on a conceptual level is "how to handle pressure" and "problem solving". this is the exact same concept for grapplers. but if you focus on "techniques" and stray away from "concepts", this is IMO where people get confused and don't see the two being the same thing.


----------



## yak sao

chinaboxer said:


> there is no such thing as "anti grappling", you have to learn "grappling" concepts and principles in order to stay on your feet against a grappler trying to take you down. this is why i always say that wing chun fighters are really grapplers in disguise, but our objective is to use the grappling concepts of how to handle pressure to stay on our feet and knock them out rather than take the person down to submit them.
> 
> all wing chun is on a conceptual level is "how to handle pressure" and "problem solving". this is the exact same concept for grapplers. but if you focus on "techniques" and stray away from "concepts", this is IMO where people get confused and don't see the two being the same thing.



I don't disagree with any of this, in fact, I consider chi sau concepts as useful against a grappler as I do a striker. As you said, it's all about handling pressure.
When I use the term "anti-grappling", I don't mean that it is a bunch of self defense techniques. It is conceptual. I use the term to develop a mindset of not wrestling against them, but instead, fight them. Use WC/WT/VT concepts to overcome them.

The downfall of many who go up against a grappler is they try to out wrestle them.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

chinaboxer said:


> there is no such thing as "anti grappling", you have to learn "grappling" concepts and principles in order to stay on your feet against a grappler trying to take you down. this is why i always say that wing chun fighters are really grapplers in disguise, but our objective is to use the grappling concepts of how to handle pressure to stay on our feet and knock them out rather than take the person down to submit them.
> 
> all wing chun is on a conceptual level is "how to handle pressure" and "problem solving". this is the exact same concept for grapplers. but if you focus on "techniques" and stray away from "concepts", this is IMO where people get confused and don't see the two being the same thing.



Really? No such thing as anti-grappling? I don't usually go for the throat after one post, but I think your gonna have to get a knowledge bomb dropped on you before you understand this.

Grappling is real yes? Anti is a real word yes? So anti-grappling would be techniques that make you a hard target by not giving the grappler an opprotunity to employ grappling tactics against you. 

I AM a grappler, and WT doesn't use grappling techniques. We don't make a point to grab and hold anything. That is grappling's core. Yes we share some same principals, like the centerline theory and angle of attack, but thats about it. Grapplers work off 3 different levels (head, body legs), there are no ranges, and is all about submissions, there is no striking in grappling. Just dynamic holds. I think your theoretcial analysis of "How to handle pressure" and "Problem Sovling" is incorrect as well. What WT and grappling has in common is that we know how to not get stuck, we keep moving forward untill something works. We don't need to do the same thing twice. We don't back up, we don't give up, and we are always on the offensive.

WT Anti-grappling is a very real thing. Starting from the way we utilze our stance. We keep both our feet parallel so as to not invite a take-down to either leg. Our hands are held in front of us in a triangle (man-sau/wu-sau) and we stand erect. All of these things are a physical deterrent to a grappler. As a grappler, I am looking for an opening, and really the only free and clear opening is the leg, which WT would combat with chain punches, a remedial technique would be head control, and an elbow/and or leg technique. Our chain-punching and chain-kicking is about all the anti-grappling we really need. The rest is almost all completely remedial techniques.

Anti-grappling is how you stay on your feet; Grappling is the remedial techniques employed after we are already being grappled. Plain and simple.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

yak sao said:


> I don't disagree with any of this, in fact, I consider chi sau concepts as useful against a grappler as I do a striker. As you said, it's all about handling pressure.
> When I use the term "anti-grappling", I don't mean that it is a bunch of self defense techniques. It is conceptual. I use the term to develop a mindset of not wrestling against them, but instead, fight them. Use WC/WT/VT concepts to overcome them.
> 
> The downfall of many who go up against a grappler is they try to out wrestle them.



Yak,

Anti-grappling is employing techniques and principles like chi-sau against a grappler. I agree with what your saying not to boxer a boxer, wrestler a wrestler or kick a kicker. Anti anything is the antidote. Utilizing the same technique that is being employed against us is the same as, I.E. grappling against a grappler is not smart, but utilizing WT techniques, theories and principles is anti-grappling.

Thanks again for all your posts! Sometimes, just by reading your posts, I understand better what other people are saying. Damn I wish I could have just a week of your time to pick your brain! You seem to really understand the concepts of WT/WC.

Your the best man!

All the best,

Jeff


----------



## Steve

Hey, if anyone wants to try out any anti-grappling with me, I'd be game.  I make no claims to being a bad *** (anything but), but I do like grappling, and I'd be curious to see how a different approach pans out on the mats.


----------



## yak sao

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> Yak,
> 
> Anti-grappling is employing techniques and principles like chi-sau against a grappler. I agree with what your saying not to boxer a boxer, wrestler a wrestler or kick a kicker. Anti anything is the antidote. Utilizing the same technique that is being employed against us is the same as, I.E. grappling against a grappler is not smart, but utilizing WT techniques, theories and principles is anti-grappling.
> 
> Thanks again for all your posts! Sometimes, just by reading your posts, I understand better what other people are saying. Damn I wish I could have just a week of your time to pick your brain! You seem to really understand the concepts of WT/WC.
> 
> Your the best man!
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Jeff




I'm sure that would be 6 1/2 days more than necessary, but thanks just the same.


----------



## yak sao

Steve said:


> Hey, if anyone wants to try out any anti-grappling with me, I'd be game. I make no claims to being a bad *** (anything but), but I do like grappling, and I'd be curious to see how a different approach pans out on the mats.



I like getting together with guys from other MA systems. Approached with the right attitude it doesn't have to be a pecker measuring contest and everyone comes away having learned something.
I wish you were not on the oppositte side of the country.


----------



## Woodenman

I did judo for a while before learning wing chun. I noticed applying the wc principles to ground work improves the effectiveness of what I previously learned in judo. Plus wing chun dog leg training helps with dealing with grapplers. Not many sifus seem to teach dog legs anymore.


----------



## Steve

Woodenman said:


> I did judo for a while before learning wing chun. I noticed applying the wc principles to ground work improves the effectiveness of what I previously learned in judo. Plus wing chun dog leg training helps with dealing with grapplers. Not many sifus seem to teach dog legs anymore.



What's dog legs?  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> Hey, if anyone wants to try out any anti-grappling with me, I'd be game. I make no claims to being a bad *** (anything but), but I do like grappling, and I'd be curious to see how a different approach pans out on the mats.




Steve-- that's a great offer, and if I lived closer, I'd take you up on it except that I've sworn off grappling since I blew out my back last year. Now I'm like half a martial artist ...afraid to go at it with any gusto. I can only hope I will recover more with time. But as to your offer, that's exactly what people need to do. You want to work "anti-grapling? Then find a friend whose good at a grappling art and work on it!!! Besides, it's fun. Really beats getting punched anyway.

Regarding "anti-grappling" I see two legitimate things going on, or if you prefer, two aspects or stages.

The first stage is _preventative anti-grappling._ Since WC works in close, you are an attractive target for a grappler. The WC guy needs to be aware of how a good grappler sets you up and has to learn how to use his structure and techniques not to get taken down. 

The second stage is _recuperative anti-grappling. _That's learning how to use escapes and reversals to recover your WC stand-up game.

What anti-grappling is not: It's_ not_ another method of fighting the grappler at his own game.


----------



## Danny T

Wing Chun has a strong grappling element to it. The first few moves on the wooden dummy is a clinch situation. Clinch is grappling, the action of trapping has a very strong grappling element. The control of the opponent's limbs is grappling. Most Wing Chun practitioners simply do not train full clinch or the ground aspect, some of us do.


----------



## Eric_H

Danny T said:


> Wing Chun has a strong grappling element to it. The first few moves on the wooden dummy is a clinch situation. Clinch is grappling, the action of trapping has a very strong grappling element. The control of the opponent's limbs is grappling. Most Wing Chun practitioners simply do not train full clinch or the ground aspect, some of us do.



Laap Geng Sau is not a clinch, thought it is a grab... to we can punch the guy in the face harder or attack the legs if done from the outside.

Wing Chun bridges, we don't grapple. There's a big difference. If your bridging cannot deny grappling entry, then it's not very effective wing chun.


----------



## WC_lun

Have to agree with Eric H on this.  If someone has come all the way through your structure be in a clinch, you failed to do your job as a Wing Chun man.  Of course everyone make mistakes and when we do, we must understand where that mistake put us and how to get out of it.  This is where training with grapplers can be very helpful.


----------



## Eric_H

WC_lun said:


> training with grapplers can be very helpful.


+1000


----------



## KCO

if someone is shooting low i would knee him in the face as he was shooting, otherwise you can spread your legs wide to take away his targets....
if they do grapple me to the ground, first of all you failed....but i will pound the back of his head or go for his eyes.... grapplers don't practice against eye thrusts.


----------



## WC_lun

KCO said:


> if someone is shooting low i would knee him in the face as he was shooting, otherwise you can spread your legs wide to take away his targets....
> if they do grapple me to the ground, first of all you failed....but i will pound the back of his head or go for his eyes.... grapplers don't practice against eye thrusts.



With respect KCO, this shows you do not train with grapplers.  If you lift your knee, you are on one foot now, facing a person who is trying to take you off your feet.  You're energy is coming forward and if your timing is perfect you might make solid contact with the person's head. This doesn't gaurantee they stop coming either.  However, if you miss or to not stop thier momentum backed by thier entire body weight, you are in a terrible position because you have no base and no time to sprawl. You are stuck trying to recover while the grappler is putting you on your back. If you are on your back to the ground and he is pummeling you, its probably not the time to try for eye gouges and such.  You must recover and preferably get back to your feet. Probably not going to happen if you don't have at least some REALISTIC training on how to do that. This highlights perfectly what I said about training with trained grapplers so you know what happens when you mess up, and how to keep them from doing what they want to do.


----------



## KCO

that's a lot of "if's" in your reply.....there's no way to know what i would do in a fight situation....it depends on everything.....but it will be my fight, i'm not going to wrestle you....the bottom line is one of us will get hurt-i'm going to do Everything i can to make sure that's you and not me.....the one thing most grapplers don't get is this aint MMA....there are no rules in my fight.


----------



## WC_lun

KCO said:


> that's a lot of "if's" in your reply.....there's no way to know what i would do in a fight situation....it depends on everything.....but it will be my fight, i'm not going to wrestle you....the bottom line is one of us will get hurt-i'm going to do Everything i can to make sure that's you and not me.....the one thing most grapplers don't get is this aint MMA....there are no rules in my fight.



If you give up your base and structure, you will be taken down and you will be in serious trouble, regardless of your intentions to "wrestle" or not.  That is called probabilty and understanding.


----------



## mook jong man

I don't recommend trying to knee strike them in the face either , there are ways to shield the face with the arms and then quickly hook the leg which you have so graciously given them with your attempted knee strike.

We have to accept that there may not be any target available for striking , so a better option would be to control their head by placing downward pressure on it so that it slows there forward drive and takes the head out of alignment with the rest of the body which will reduce there ability to generate power.

At the same time you are doing this you also want to be lowering your center of gravity and getting your legs and hips back out of reach , from this control position then you can apply some type of downward strike to the base of his skull or neck.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> I don't recommend trying to knee strike them in the face either , there are ways to shield the face with the arms and then quickly hook the leg which you have so graciously given them with your attempted knee strike.
> 
> We have to accept that there may not be any target available for striking , so a better option would be to control their head by placing downward pressure on it so that it slows there forward drive and takes the head out of alignment with the rest of the body which will reduce there ability to generate power.
> 
> At the same time you are doing this you also want to be lowering your center of gravity and getting your legs and hips back out of reach , from this control position then you can apply some type of downward strike to the base of his skull or neck.


All of this is sound advice.  It is also, for what it's worth, a good example of sound grappling technique.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

KCO said:


> if someone is shooting low i would knee him in the face as he was shooting, otherwise you can spread your legs wide to take away his targets....
> if they do grapple me to the ground, first of all you failed....but i will pound the back of his head or go for his eyes.... grapplers don't practice against eye thrusts.



Just for the record - I'm a grappler and I _have _practiced dealing with eye pokes. (Both deliberate simulated eye pokes for training purposes and accidental real ones) I've also practiced delivering them.

Eye pokes, groin shots, throat grabs, etc are all valid techniques, but they are secondary to having solid delivery mechanisms. Once you are on the ground, the person who can control the position is going to have a huge advantage in both delivering and defending against such "dirty fighting" methods. If you are on the ground with a grappler and can't stop him from mounting you, then your attempts at poking his eyes are likely to provoke a (much more effective) retaliation in kind from on top.

(I won't get into the discussion of takedown defense, since my takedowns are pretty mediocre at best.)


----------



## mook jong man

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just for the record - I'm a grappler and I _have _practiced dealing with eye pokes. (Both deliberate simulated eye pokes for training purposes and accidental real ones) I've also practiced delivering them.
> 
> Eye pokes, groin shots, throat grabs, etc are all valid techniques, but they are secondary to having solid delivery mechanisms. Once you are on the ground, the person who can control the position is going to have a huge advantage in both delivering and defending against such "dirty fighting" methods. If you are on the ground with a grappler and can't stop him from mounting you, then your attempts at poking his eyes are likely to provoke a (much more effective) retaliation in kind from on top.
> 
> (I won't get into the discussion of takedown defense, since my takedowns are pretty mediocre at best.)



Not to mention you trying to reach up to his face to poke his eyes is just going to give him the opportunity to apply arm bars or push your arm to the side and apply a choke.

The wheel has already been invented , all the work has already been done , just use the grappling concepts to get into a position of control and apply your Wing Chun from there.


----------



## Eric_H

mook jong man said:


> I don't recommend trying to knee strike them in the face either , there are ways to shield the face with the arms and then quickly hook the leg which you have so graciously given them with your attempted knee strike.
> 
> We have to accept that there may not be any target available for striking , so a better option would be to control their head by placing downward pressure on it so that it slows there forward drive and takes the head out of alignment with the rest of the body which will reduce there ability to generate power.
> 
> At the same time you are doing this you also want to be lowering your center of gravity and getting your legs and hips back out of reach , from this control position then you can apply some type of downward strike to the base of his skull or neck.



Knee strikes can work, but only if the grappler leads with the head. Most experienced dudes aren't going to do this.

Standard TCMA response is to work the head and neck. I'm reminded of a story about Vince Black from the Tang Shou Tao (spelling?) assoc who had a wrestling system guy challenge him, clapped the guy on the ears which KO'd him when the guy went for takedown. 

Specific to WC I've worked a lot of manipulating the head (usually with a wu sao, low gahn or kiu sao) and dividing one of the arms simultaneously. We use knee strikes, but only to hack at the legs once you've checked the grappler's gravity/momentum.


----------



## mook jong man

Eric_H said:


> Knee strikes can work, but only if the grappler leads with the head. Most experienced dudes aren't going to do this.
> 
> Standard TCMA response is to work the head and neck. I'm reminded of a story about Vince Black from the Tang Shou Tao (spelling?) assoc who had a wrestling system guy challenge him, clapped the guy on the ears which KO'd him when the guy went for takedown.
> 
> Specific to WC I've worked a lot of manipulating the head (usually with a wu sao, low gahn or kiu sao) and dividing one of the arms simultaneously. _*We use knee strikes, but only to hack at the legs once you've checked the grappler's gravity/momentum*_.



That's how we do them too , once we control the head and one of the arms .
Usually a Fook Sau on the back of the  head or neck and a low gahn sau to control his closest arm.


----------



## WC_lun

I think one of the main things that some people do not understand is the momentum of someone shooting in.  It must be addressed.  Glad you guys said that.


----------



## Eric_H

WC_lun said:


> I think one of the main things that some people do not understand is the momentum of someone shooting in.  It must be addressed.  Glad you guys said that.



It's one of the easiest things to underestimate unless you've dealt with it in a live setting. For me, I had to go do NHB grappling for a few months until I understood the single/double leg better as my WC brothers weren't well trained in those kind of takedowns.


----------



## chinaboxer

you cannot "technique" your way out of a "pressure" situation


----------



## geezer

chinaboxer said:


> you cannot "technique" your way out of a "pressure" situation



Jin, could you explain this a little? I've dropped in and out of this thread, so maybe I just missed something.


----------



## Danny T

mook jong man said:
			
		

> ...
> We have to accept that there may not be any target available for striking , so a better option would be to control their head by placing downward pressure on it so that it slows there forward drive and takes the head out of alignment with the rest of the body which will reduce there ability to generate power.
> 
> At the same time you are doing this you also want to be lowering your center of gravity and getting your legs and hips back out of reach , from this control position then you can apply some type of downward strike to the base of his skull or neck.





			
				Eric_H said:
			
		

> ...
> Specific to WC I've worked a lot of manipulating the head (usually with a wu sao, low gahn or kiu sao) and dividing one of the arms simultaneously. We use knee strikes, but only to hack at the legs once you've checked the grappler's gravity/momentum.





			
				mook jong man said:
			
		

> That's how we do them too , once we control the head and one of the arms .
> Usually a Fook Sau on the back of the  head or neck and a low gahn sau to control his closest arm..



Like I said there is a strong grappling element within Wing Chun. Every one of these positions, postures, and controls are grappling moves, positions, postures and controls.


----------



## mook jong man

Danny T said:


> Like I said there is a strong grappling element within Wing Chun. Every one of these positions, postures, and controls are grappling moves, positions, postures and controls.



That's right mate , the "Three Seeds" are pretty versatile tools.
Fook Sau for example , can be used to hook over an arm to pull it down as we more commonly see, or as we are discussing here in grappling it can be used to wedge it into a grapplers neck and collarbone to stop them getting to your waist or legs.


----------



## WC_lun

The concepts don't change when grappling.  The range and base changes, but Wing Chun concepts still work within grappling, even the ground.  However, if you never work on these things with people that are good at grappling, you never get a chance to make that part of your Wing Chun effecient, tightening it up.  Lots of Wing Chun guys are very good at striking and throwing, because the system is good and they get a chance to train those things a lot.  Not as many are competent on the ground.  Not because they are bad, just inexerienced in ground work.


----------



## Eric_H

Danny T said:


> Like I said there is a strong grappling element within Wing Chun. Every one of these positions, postures, and controls are grappling moves, positions, postures and controls.



No, no they are not. It's what we do instead of a wrestling response (ie sprawling).

EDIT: 
I should probably add more detail to this:

The way wrestling systems work is to apply body power to the opponent, they either constrict the space inside the wc range or divide the body to apply crashing energy. 

Ogoshi (standard hip throw in judo/jujitsu) is a great example of using a crashing body to divide/throw your opponent. 
Hapkido outside armbar is a great example of dividing the body to apply body power.
Single leg is a great example of crashing momentum and dividing the body.

We don't apply the leverage from the body (san) we apply it through the bridge (kiu) that's why I say it's not grappling. Additionally we play the body differently (centerline body vs animal style body) which is another big difference.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If "anti-grappling" exists, it's not WC chi sau.

When a striker fights against a grappler, the striker should try to stay outside of the clinch range. To move like a butterfly and refuse to build any arm bridge. If your grappler opponent can't touch your body, he can't take you down. 

The WC chi sau will just give your grapper opponent the clinch range that he needs. It's just like a shark tried to play with an octopus's arms, it won't be to that shark's advantage. You should spend 75% of your effort not to let your opponent to touch your body. You then spend the 25% of your effort to throw punches at his head and hope you can knock him down before he gets a chance to get hold on you.


----------



## Eric_H

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If "anti-grappling" exists, it's not WC chi sau.
> 
> When a striker fights against a grappler, the striker should try to stay outside of the clinch range. To move like a butterfly and refuse to build any arm bridge. If your grappler opponent can't touch your body, he can't take you down.
> 
> The WC chi sau will just give your grapper opponent the clinch range that he needs. It's just like a shark tried to play with an octopus's arm, it won't be to that shark's advantage. You should apend 75% of your effort not to let your opponent to touch your body. You then spend the 25% of your effort to throw punches at his head and hope you can knock him down before he gets a chance to get hold on you.



In part, that's what Kiu Sao is for. We want to maintain control through the single arm because, you are right, two arms gives a grappler easier access to the body.


----------



## Steve

One arm's plenty for a competent grappler.  A common... very common, technique is called the arm drag.  First part of this video shows pretty clearly how quickly a wrestler will close the distance as well as get to your side:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> One arm's plenty for a competent grappler.  A common... very common, technique is called the arm drag.



Agree! "Anti-grappling" is very difficult to do if not impossible. If you can "bouncing" your opponent's arms away and "always keep a distance between your arms and your opponent's arm", you may have a chance. When your grappling opponent puts a "hook" on your body, it's pretty hard to remove it.

It's better to learn grappling than to learn anti-grappling.


----------



## Danny T

Eric_H said:


> No, no they are not. It's what we do instead of a wrestling response (ie sprawling).



Sir, I stated 'grappling'. I did not say Wrestling. Wrestling is a form of grappling but not all grappling is wrestling. I do understand control and leverage through the bridge and agree with you on that.


----------



## mook jong man

Wing Chun chi sau and close range striking is anti grappling.
If you can develop sensitivity to not being trapped why would you think that you can't feel someone trying to grab you?
It does not make sense.
If I can deflect a Tan Sau to the side of my neck from a skilled and fast Wing Chun man who doesn't telegraph one iota , then why couldn't I redirect a simple grab for my neck from someone with less speed?

Apart from sensitivity developed by chi sau a constant barrage of 'continuous punch' also makes quite a formidable barrier to anyone trying to clinch.

The centerline is closed off and denies any access to the neck , to get to the neck he has to go around which means his own center line is open and he will be eating punches to the face.

The sheer speed of the 'continuous punch' and the piston like action also make it quite difficult for any grabs or arm drags to be applied , if you manage to even grab one arm you will be pulled in by that arm and struck with the other arm.
It's a bit like trying to walk in and grab a meat grinder.
Did I mention we also have elbows , one of my old instructors could have his elbow inches from a man's sternum and send that man rocketing back with barely a perceptible movement.

Forget trying to clinch against a skilled Wing Chun man , if I was forced to use grappling against a clone of myself , I would stay away from my arms and attack very, very low maybe diving down for the ankles.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When a good striker meets a good grapplier, who is going to win? If we have the answer, we won't need "cross training". Onething for sure is if one trains both striking art and grappling art, he will have better chance to deal with those who only trains striking art or grappling art. At least, he can think the same way as the other guy thinks.


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When a good striker meets a good grapplier, who is going to win? If we have the answer, we won't need "cross training". Onething for sure is if one trains both striking art and grappling art, he will have better chance to deal with those who only trains striking art or grappling art. At least, he can think the same way as the other guy thinks.



I agree that if you are going to cross train, then that should be the thinking behind it. Know what the other guy is trying to achieve so that you are able to stop it from happening.
Where I tend to disagree with cross training, is when someone tries to stitch together some sort of hybrid, all-inclusive "personal style".
If I were to cross train grappling with the mindset that I would use it to out wrestle my opponent who is also grappling, then I am setting myself up for a fall....no pun intended.
Hitting the mats a few times a week as a sideline is never going to match the person who gives their full attention to grappling training.
Same as boxing. A few boxing sessions a week will never make you able to outbox a boxer who does nothing but focus on boxing.
Better to train with those guys (boxers, grapplers, kickers, etc.) and pick their brain and see what you need to do to make sure you are able to efectively use WC against them
.
I said it so many times, here and in training, WC will not make you immune to going to the ground, but trained correctly, a grappler is going to have a hell of a time getting you there.


----------



## hunt1

I would like to point out to Steve and Wang in particular but everyone else as well. The comments tend to show a lack of understanding and the fault in making general assumptions about wing chun. Not all wing chun is the same.  The arm drag video is both very good and is teaching the arm drag in a very similair way to the way it is taught in our Wing Chun. Our wing chun  includes many take down to finish methods. We want to get close, up the opponents shirt so to speak.


----------



## mook jong man

The problem with the arm drag as it is shown in the video is that from the outset he is trying to force the guys arm off the centerline , if it was a Wing Chun guy that will result in him 'running palms' and hitting the guy.

The other problem is that due to the triangular nature of the YJKYM stance it is very resistant against trying to be dragged off at an angle , the force tends to go down to the opposite leg which acts like a brace.
One of the benefits of the unique Wing Chun stance.

In my experience in using it in chi sau only beginners will be easily dragged to the side , the experienced  will come straight into your sternum with an elbow strike.

A good Wing Chun man will also keep that optimum angle in his arm and will not let it be pulled straight , which allows some of that dragging force to be absorbed by the stance.

It can be done , but you have to be aware that as soon as you drag on his arm , that elbow strike will be on its way in , not only with the power generated from his stance but also the power he has borrowed from you trying to drag him in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mook jong man said:


> A good Wing Chun man will also keep that optimum angle in his arm and will not let it be pulled straight , which allows some of that dragging force to be absorbed by the stance.


The arm dragging is just one form of the arm guidding, it doesn't have to be dragging, it can be pushing as well. When a grappler applies "&#24341;(Yin) - arm guiding" that guid your arm into a temporary position that will be to his advantage. It doesn't matter whether he can drag your body toward him, or he can drag his own body toward you. The main purpose is to connect both bodies as one.

We can change the title of this thread to grappling and Taiji, grappling and Karate, grappling and boxing, ... The discussion won't be any different. The striking art is strong in striking. The grappling art is strong in grappling. Trying to discuss whether "&#24341;(Yin) -arm guiding" will work in striking environment or not, I don't think we can come up any agreement on that. Whether you can knock your opponent down, or your opponent can take you down, it's your skill against your opponent's skill which has nothing to do with styles.


----------



## Steve

No keyboard, so it will be short.  There are a couple of concepts in grappling that are relevant here. First is something called a dead angle.  The takedown or sweep is going to work to the direction where your base is weak, not strong.  Regardless of how you're oriented, there is an angle where your base is compromised. 

Second is a general concept that if I need to get to your side, I won't move you.  Rather, I will block you from turning and move myself.  I might not be able to pull you to my side, but I can move to yours while keeping you from recovering.  That's the key to the arm drag, for example.  If you look again at the video, he's not pulling.  He clears the arm and quickly moves in to fill the void, only using the tricep t the very last moment.   So, the goal isn't to pull you off balance with an arm drag.  The goal is to move to your side and prevent you from recovering.  And from your side, there are a number of things to do.  

And to be clear, I don't allege to know the first thing about wing chun, but I know a little about the mechanics of grappling.  That's what I'm speaking to.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## geezer

Steve said:


> * ...if I need to get to your side, I won't move you.  Rather, I will block you from turning and move myself.*  I might not be able to pull you to my side, but I can move to yours while keeping you from recovering...
> 
> And to be clear, I don't allege to know the first thing about wing chun, but I know a little about the mechanics of grappling.  That's what I'm speaking to.



Maybe you don't know WC, Steve, but it's a great point. People who _do_ know Wing Chun should be very familiar with this concept. For example, you don't move the Wooden Dummy. You move around it.


----------



## mook jong man

There is a thing in Wing Chun called mentally 'projecting' or 'focussing' force to the centerline.
This is always switched on , which means no matter what position you go to they will always be going for your centerline.
Whether you move them or you try to get to the side is irrelevant they will always be trying to face you , it is a basic of the system and one of the reasons we use pivoting.

The point is Wing Chun people are very used to having someone trying to manipulate their arms in chi sau , this is what we do.
You could argue that chi sau is a type of grappling , it is grappling with the opponents arms so that I can get them out of the way and hit him.

By the time someone has logged a few thousand hours in chi sau they will have experienced every type of force imaginable on their arms , from being latched , pulled , dragged , pushed in a myriad of directions.

That is what chi sau is for , it is learning how to deal with the various types of forces without having your stance destabilized and being sure to have your body correctly orientated to your opponents body at all times whether he moves or not.


----------



## mook jong man

Steve said:


> No keyboard, so it will be short.  There are a couple of concepts in grappling that are relevant here. First is something called a dead angle.  The takedown or sweep is going to work to the direction where your base is weak, not strong.  Regardless of how you're oriented, there is an angle where your base is compromised.
> 
> Second is a general concept that if I need to get to your side, I won't move you.  Rather, I will block you from turning and move myself.  I might not be able to pull you to my side, but I can move to yours while keeping you from recovering.  That's the key to the arm drag, for example.  If you look again at the video, he's not pulling.  He clears the arm and quickly moves in to fill the void, only using the tricep t the very last moment.   So, the goal isn't to pull you off balance with an arm drag.  The goal is to move to your side and prevent you from recovering.  And from your side, there are a number of things to do.
> 
> And to be clear, I don't allege to know the first thing about wing chun, but I know a little about the mechanics of grappling.  That's what I'm speaking to.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



The way Wing Chun works is that it tends to nip things in the bud so to speak , when the attack is still in it's infancy.
The arm drag is a great technique and I use variations of it in some of my knife defence stuff.

But the way he initiates it means that he will immediately be hit , because he is trying to clear the arm away from the centerline.

Wing Chun guys are like a baby with a toy , it's my centerline mine mine mine and your not having it.
So with a simple flip of the wrist he will go around that arm that's trying to clear and hit the guy , it is a technique called running palms.

On very skilled practitioners you maybe not able to move there arm at all off the center line , their force and focus can be that great.
Because to us if we allow our arms to deviate off the centerline it can be more costly than just having your arm captured , it can mean having various parts of your neck attacked which is not very pleasant.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> There is a thing in Wing Chun called mentally 'projecting' or 'focussing' force to the centerline.
> This is always switched on , which means no matter what position you go to they will always be going for your centerline.
> Whether you move them or you try to get to the side is irrelevant they will always be trying to face you , it is a basic of the system and one of the reasons we use pivoting.
> 
> The point is Wing Chun people are very used to having someone trying to manipulate their arms in chi sau , this is what we do.
> You could argue that chi sau is a type of grappling , it is grappling with the opponents arms so that I can get them out of the way and hit him.
> 
> By the time someone has logged a few thousand hours in chi sau they will have experienced every type of force imaginable on their arms , from being latched , pulled , dragged , pushed in a myriad of directions.
> 
> That is what chi sau is for , it is learning how to deal with the various types of forces without having your stance destabilized and being sure to have your body correctly orientated to your opponents body at all times whether he moves or not.



Okay.  You're right and I'm wrong.  Don't know what I was thinking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you come from a striking art and if you want to have a taste of the grappling art, you should try the following game.

- Both kicking and punching are allowed.
- Whoever can get a "&#29872;(Huan) &#8211;head lock", "&#22280;(Quan)&#8211; under hook", "&#25220;(Chao)-  over hook", he wins that round. 

Try this for 15 round daily, in 6 months, you will have a good understanding of grappling. It's fun and safe game which can add something new into your training.


----------



## mook jong man

Steve said:


> Okay.  You're right and I'm wrong.  Don't know what I was thinking.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



That is the thing , you are not wrong.

It depends on the skill level in chi sau that the practitioner has attained.
You can make almost anything work on the inexperienced , I regularly put them in arm bars , standing head and arm chokes , guillotines etc.

These things can and do work , but if I try them against someone who is quite savvy , I will get several rapid whacks in the head for my trouble.

So I am not right and you are not wrong , as with most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## mook jong man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you come from a striking art and if you want to have a taste of the grappling art, you should try the following game.
> 
> - Both kicking and punching are allowed.
> - Whoever can get a "&#29872;(Huan) &#8211;head lock", "&#22280;(Quan)&#8211; under hook", "&#25220;(Chao)-  over hook", he wins that round.
> 
> Try this for 15 round daily, in 6 months, you will have a good understanding of grappling. It's fun and safe game which can add something new into your training.



We already have elements of this in chi sau, with the neck grabbing hand etc.

If I want to practice body to body grappling I will mostly just practice the basic pummeling exercise or work on striking from the various clinch positions.


----------



## chinaboxer

i really like this thread, because i have spent many many years, 26 to be exact, doing both wing chun and grappling, so i see both sides of this. and here's my opinion on the subject...

BJJ Steve and Mook are both right. but if you haven't spent many many years doing both, it's hard to understand the other person's perspective. the difference in opinion comes from not understanding the other side of the "coin".

Wing Chun is about developing a "body structure", connecting it to your elbows, and using your forearms to constantly uproot and hit your opponent while your mind chases their center. Mook is right when he says, that if someone trys to armdrag you out of position, you are in actuality trying to drag a chunners entire "body structure" out of position. and if the body, mind, spirit are focused together, the armdrag actually pulls the chunner not sideways but right into your center. but as Mook knows, if the opponents "body structure" is better than yours, it is the chunner that will get pulled out of position. you also have to realize that in order to get this type of "effect" (being pulled into someones center), you must have someone use FORCE.

What chunners have to realize is that BJJ Steve is ALSO correct, because a grappler doesn't PULL your arm, in other words, he doesn't FORCE your arm out, he controls your elbow at the center with grips (think of it as a pak sau) and then PUNCHES you with his "body structure" (which is also straight spine). in other words, a grappler PUNCHES with their "body structures" exactly like a chunner connects their "body structure" to their elbows and release that energy out the hand.

in wing chun, we do chi sau which is wrist to wrist, forearm to forearm. in grappling, they do chi sau which is "body structure" to "body structure". but in essence it is exactly the same. it's just that chunners extend their structure into their elbows.

so a proper armdrag is EXACTLY like a pak sau and punch. except a grappler replaces the punch with their "body structure". this is why i always say that wing chunners are actually grapplers in disguise, but the goal of the chunner is to use the "body structure" into the elbows and shoot that energy out the forearm and out the fist to knock out their opponent, while a grappler uses their "body structure" to get into an opponent's body structure and take them down to submit them.

the goal is the same for both, which is to get the power generated from the "body structure", and without using "physical" force, get it to your opponent's centerline and/or center of balance and release it.

Jin


----------



## WC_lun

chinaboxer said:


> i really like this thread, because i have spent many many years, 26 to be exact, doing both wing chun and grappling, so i see both sides of this. and here's my opinion on the subject...
> 
> BJJ Steve and Mook are both right. but if you haven't spent many many years doing both, it's hard to understand the other person's perspective. the difference in opinion comes from not understanding the other side of the "coin".
> 
> Wing Chun is about developing a "body structure", connecting it to your elbows, and using your forearms to constantly uproot and hit your opponent while your mind chases their center. Mook is right when he says, that if someone trys to armdrag you out of position, you are in actuality trying to drag a chunners entire "body structure" out of position. and if the body, mind, spirit are focused together, the armdrag actually pulls the chunner not sideways but right into your center. but as Mook knows, if the opponents "body structure" is better than yours, it is the chunner that will get pulled out of position. you also have to realize that in order to get this type of "effect" (being pulled into someones center), you must have someone use FORCE.
> 
> What chunners have to realize is that BJJ Steve is ALSO correct, because a grappler doesn't PULL your arm, in other words, he doesn't FORCE your arm out, he controls your elbow at the center with grips (think of it as a pak sau) and then PUNCHES you with his "body structure" (which is also straight spine). in other words, a grappler PUNCHES with their "body structures" exactly like a chunner connects their "body structure" to their elbows and release that energy out the hand.
> 
> in wing chun, we do chi sau which is wrist to wrist, forearm to forearm. in grappling, they do chi sau which is "body structure" to "body structure". but in essence it is exactly the same. it's just that chunners extend their structure into their elbows.
> 
> so a proper armdrag is EXACTLY like a pak sau and punch. except a grappler replaces the punch with their "body structure". this is why i always say that wing chunners are actually grapplers in disguise, but the goal of the chunner is to use the "body structure" into the elbows and shoot that energy out the forearm and out the fist to knock out their opponent, while a grappler uses their "body structure" to get into an opponent's body structure and take them down to submit them.
> 
> the goal is the same for both, which is to get the power generated from the "body structure", and without using "physical" force, get it to your opponent's centerline and/or center of balance and release it.
> 
> Jin



Very nice post.  The only thing I would add is that a Wing Chun player must keep the structure strong so that the power is delivered effeciently and the opponent's structure is not stronger or inside of your own. This means the elbows connected to the hips connected to the feet. If the opponent's structure is stronger or they get on the inside of your structure, that puts the Wing Chun person in recovery mode and if not familiar with the processes of grappling can do exactly the wrong thing and the right time.  Wing Chun does have the tools to successfully take on any kind of fighter.  However, if you don't have much experience against a certain type of fighter, it can put a hitch into your repsonses...especially if put in unfamiliar territory.  Wing Chun principles are equally valid in any setting, grappling or striking, or something in between.  But just like you must work on your stand up to understand that and be sensitive to what an opponent would be doing, you must put some time in to those other areas.


----------



## chinaboxer

mook jong man said:


> There is a thing in Wing Chun called mentally 'projecting' or 'focussing' force to the centerline.
> This is always switched on , which means no matter what position you go to they will always be going for your centerline.
> Whether you move them or you try to get to the side is irrelevant they will always be trying to face you , it is a basic of the system and one of the reasons we use pivoting.
> 
> The point is Wing Chun people are very used to having someone trying to manipulate their arms in chi sau , this is what we do.
> You could argue that chi sau is a type of grappling , it is grappling with the opponents arms so that I can get them out of the way and hit him.
> 
> By the time someone has logged a few thousand hours in chi sau they will have experienced every type of force imaginable on their arms , from being latched , pulled , dragged , pushed in a myriad of directions.
> 
> That is what chi sau is for , it is learning how to deal with the various types of forces without having your stance destabilized and being sure to have your body correctly orientated to your opponents body at all times whether he moves or not.


if you replace the word "wing chun" with "grappler" in the post, everything in it would still be 100% true.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

WC_lun said:


> However, if you don't have much experience against a certain type of fighter, it can put a hitch into your repsonses...especially if put in unfamiliar territory.


This is why you need to think as a grappler does. When your opponent applies "arm dragging" like the following clip, he may lead you into a territory that you are not familiar with.


----------



## mook jong man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you need to think as a grappler does. When your opponent applies "arm dragging" like the following clip, he may lead you into a territory that you are not familiar with.



By the same token grapplers need to think of what type of response their attack will invoke and which of their own targets will be exposed as they attack.

The video shows the grappler attacking with what we would call a 'latch' in our lineage , a typical reaction would be to roll into a low Bong Sau trap the arm and strike them in the throat with the edge of the hand/forearm.
So the arm drag would not be able to put on in the first place as he would have already been hit in the throat.

But I will concede there is nothing wrong with cross training in grappling , keeps you enthusiastic about training , and quite a bit of my knife defence work contains a very large grappling component.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you need to think as a grappler does. When your opponent applies "arm dragging" like the following clip, he may lead you into a territory that you are not familiar with.



Not familiar? Actually, many people from the _WT_ lineages who'd trained the Biu Tze Chi-sau sets will be _very familiar_ with dealing with that kind of circular arm-dragging. At least if the arm-drag/hook punch sequence is still being taught (it was Biu Tze Chi-Sau, "Section III" back in the late 80's when I learned it).

Personally, I think training against a good wrestler's arm-drag is more practical.


----------



## Steve

Guys.  That isn't an arm drag.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

On a keyboard, so I can post some complete sentences now.  What I meant by the last post is that there are some major differences between the arm drag video I posted and the one posted above by Kung Fu Wang.  A proper arm drag isn't intended to pull you in a circle.  It's really not intended to pull you anywhere, although it can.  The idea is to get to your opponent's side and then attack their middle.  Call it the centerline or your opponent's center of gravity or their hips or whatever, but that's the idea.

As I said before, a proper arm drag is really just to keep an opponent from turning back into you only long enough for you to fill the space.

You'll notice in the video I posted, the person executing the arm drag isn't skirting around the outside of his opponent.  He's not pulling his opponent in circles or even really focusing on the arm at all.  He's blocking his opponent from turning as he drives straight through his opponent.  In Judo, the same principle is called Kuzushi.  Regardless of what you call it, the entire point of it is to disrupt one's opponent's stance and compromise their base.  

From conversations with people who train in WC, I undersatnd that you focus on a stable stance and attacking the centerline.  I get that you train for this.  I'm simply trying to point out that competent grapplers are training specifically to disrupt a stable stance and to obstruct an opponent's ability to attack the centerline.  

Am I saying that a competent WC guy is defenseless?  No.  I have no way of knowing.  I do know, though, that the theory is similar, and the relative skill of the people involved will play a big part.  I also believe that if you haven't dealt with a skilled wrestler, it's eye opening.  I'm not a great wrestler.  The explosiveness, strength and fluidity of the attacks are pretty awesome.  

I will also say that having trained with skilled judoka, the specific techniques are a little different, but the results are the same.  The judo player will attack the center.  It's called kuzushi, which usually precedes being hit with the Earth by about a second.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> there are some major differences between the arm drag video I posted and the one posted above by Kung Fu Wang.



The clip that you posted is used to guide your opponent's arm under your armpit so you can have 2 points control on his arm (control his elbow by your hand, and control his wrist by your armpit). You can use it to enter from your opponent's front door into his side door, or the other way around.

The clip that I posted is called "&#25749;(Si) -Tearing". It's used to drag your opponent's body circular or linear. The purpose is to move toward your opponent's blind site to let his leading arm to jam his back arm. You also force him to either fight against you, or yield into you. In either cases, you try to borrow his force to against him.

Here is an example of linear drag.






Unless you can prevent your opponent from grabbing your arm. The moment that he grabs your arm and apply "&#25749;(Si) -Tearing" on you, it will mess up your plan. As long as you try to block (deflect) your opponent's jab, back fist, or upper cut, your arm will touch his arm. That will give him the chance he needs.


----------



## mook jong man

I will try to explain what will happen , as simply as I can what can happen if you try to get to the side of a decent Wing Chun person.
They will pivot , this pivot is done with the entire mass of the whole body as one unit.
Think of the Wing Chun persons body as a heavy revolving cylinder.
So even if you have a hold of their elbow , it is debatable to whether you will be able to stop them pivoting to face you , and then you will be back to square one with them right in front of you again , except now they will be hitting you.
The whole body pivoting of Wing Chun can be extremely powerful , because the upper and lower body is locked and turns as one unified mass.


----------



## chinaboxer

mook jong man said:


> I will try to explain what will happen , as simply as I can what can happen if you try to get to the side of a decent Wing Chun person.
> They will pivot , this pivot is done with the entire mass of the whole body as one unit.
> Think of the Wing Chun persons body as a heavy revolving cylinder.
> So even if you have a hold of their elbow , it is debatable to whether you will be able to stop them pivoting to face you , and then you will be back to square one with them right in front of you again , except now they will be hitting you.
> The whole body pivoting of Wing Chun can be extremely powerful , because the upper and lower body is locked and turns as one unified mass.


come on mook, you know better. you are basically saying that a chunner can "adjust" their body structure as one unit to keep a grappling "technique" at bay. but a grappler is not stupid, he will do EXACTLY the same thing, "adjust" their body structure to continue attacking an opponent's centerline and/or center of balance to uproot them. once again, you can replace the word "wing chun" with "grappler" in your post and it would be 100% correct.

you cannot compare "apples" to "oranges". you can't compare a grappling "technique" versus a wing chun "concept", that just isn't fair at all. that's like saying if a wing chunner uses a  (insert any single wing chun "technique" here) a grappler will drive their body structure into their center and then cut the corner to take the chunner down.

Jin


----------



## chinaboxer

WC_lun said:


> Very nice post.  The only thing I would add is that a Wing Chun player must keep the structure strong so that the power is delivered effeciently and the opponent's structure is not stronger or inside of your own. This means the elbows connected to the hips connected to the feet. If the opponent's structure is stronger or they get on the inside of your structure, that puts the Wing Chun person in recovery mode and if not familiar with the processes of grappling can do exactly the wrong thing and the right time.  Wing Chun does have the tools to successfully take on any kind of fighter.  However, if you don't have much experience against a certain type of fighter, it can put a hitch into your repsonses...especially if put in unfamiliar territory.  Wing Chun principles are equally valid in any setting, grappling or striking, or something in between.  But just like you must work on your stand up to understand that and be sensitive to what an opponent would be doing, you must put some time in to those other areas.


this is why i say wing chun boils down to two things..
1. learn to handle "pressure"
2. problem solve

but like all things in the pursuit of artistry of any kind, "simple does not mean easy".

Jin


----------



## chinaboxer

i also like to use "anti striking" against wing chunners. :wuguns:

"there are two ways to be fooled. one is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true." - soren kierkegaard


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

mook jong man said:


> They will pivot ,



What's the maximum angle that you can turn by your "pivot"? 45 degree? 90 degree? What if you need to turn more than 90 degree? Do you need to move your left leg forward (assume your opponent drags your right arm)? You may find out that even if you pivot and face your opponent, your opponent may still drag your body forward. Whether you will yield of resist after that, your opponent may just borrow you commitment (this is what grapplers do the best) .

I strongly suggest you to get a training partner. Allow him to drag your arm like shown in the "linear drag" clip. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy6j9rwcahA

Try your solution 10 times and record your success/failure rate. There is nothing better than to draw conclusion all by yourself.


----------



## mook jong man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the maximum angle that you can turn by your "pivot"? 45 degree? 90 degree? What if you need to turn more than 90 degree? Do you need to move your left leg forward (assume your opponent drags your right arm)? You may find out that even if you pivot and face your opponent, your opponent may still drag your body forward. Whether you will yield of resist after that, your opponent may just borrow you commitment (this is what grapplers do the best) .
> 
> I strongly suggest you to get a training partner. Allow him to drag your arm like shown in the "linear drag" clip.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy6j9rwcahA
> 
> Try your solution 10 times and record your success/failure rate. There is nothing better than to draw conclusion all by yourself.



The maximum angle you would pivot and still be stable would be 45 degrees.
If you had to pivot more than that , you would just move one leg back to re-adjust the stance to face the opponent.
Assuming the right arm is being controlled , the left leg may remain in the one spot and the right hip and leg will go back.

In Wing Chun the posture is such that it is not committed in any direction , the body is perfectly upright at all times , the body weight remains centralised.
I watched the video and all I was able to glean was that young guy didn't have a decent stance , was leaning forward and susceptible to being dragged around anyway.
Old guy then turned the corner and gave him his back.

Anyway I think I have just about exhausted my input into this topic and rather than risk becoming repetitive and boring I will bid you all _adieu._
I really have enjoyed the debate with you gentlemen , it has been very interesting so far , with viewpoints expressed intelligently and in a civil manner.

As we are all aware these type of topics can all too quickly degenerate into a state of general rancor , which can be a shame , because they often contain quite a few gems of knowledge as well.


----------



## Steve

chinaboxer said:


> come on mook, you know better. you are basically saying that a chunner can "adjust" their body structure as one unit to keep a grappling "technique" at bay. but a grappler is not stupid, he will do EXACTLY the same thing, "adjust" their body structure to continue attacking an opponent's centerline and/or center of balance to uproot them. once again, you can replace the word "wing chun" with "grappler" in your post and it would be 100% correct.
> 
> you cannot compare "apples" to "oranges". you can't compare a grappling "technique" versus a wing chun "concept", that just isn't fair at all. that's like saying if a wing chunner uses a  (insert any single wing chun "technique" here) a grappler will drive their body structure into their center and then cut the corner to take the chunner down.
> 
> Jin


I want to point out that the arm drag wasn't intended to be the entire conversation.  I meant it to be an example of some of the principles that a competent grappler will bring to bear.  The principles are similar, mook jong man, to what you talk about.  The grappler uses his entire body as one unit.  Again, using the arm drag as an example, the control on the tricep isn't to pull you off balance.  Rather, it's to create a window of opportunity.  Wrestlers use a variety of techniques to create these opportunities.   This is just one.  

The principles, however, are the same.  It's to use their entire body as one unit to deny you the space you need to execute your technique.  

I understand that in WC you place a lot of emphasis on the strength and stability of your stance.  I get that.  But grappling is also grounded in solid bio-mechanical principles.  If you don't understand that, you could truly be in trouble the first time you encounter it.   

As I said before, if we're just talking about it, we could go on for days.  It will ultimately boil down to which person is more effective at imposing the principles of his style on his opponent.


----------



## WC_lun

I think some people get into the mind set of this or that.  Steve, you stated grappling is "grounded in solid bio-mechanical principles."  This also true of good Wing Chun as well.  I believe this is true of any decent martial arts training.  It is also key in being able to appreciate what a person from another martial art, or perspective, is doing to work thier system.  If a person's structure is weak, it will be taken advantage of by a good grappler, striker, whatever.  It is refreshing that our discussion in this thread has mostly started from that understanding.


----------



## Eric_H

Steve said:


> One arm's plenty for a competent grappler.  A common... very common, technique is called the arm drag.  First part of this video shows pretty clearly how quickly a wrestler will close the distance as well as get to your side:



I'm catching back up from 3 pages ago, there's been a lot of good discussion since I last checked in!

Our Kiu Sao Chi Sao platforms (not tan/bong/fook) are meant to deal with exactly these kind of challenges (as well as executing them too). FWIW, what is being demoed here isn't vastly different from animal style kung fu tactics. 

All in all, if you can read the leverage of the arm in a superior way to your opponent, you will be able to apply your chosen technique and strategy, be it punch, pull, or bridge.


----------



## hjb wing chun

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> Okay, so I've been doing WT just shy of a decade, but I've been wrestling for 20 years.
> 
> I've noticed more and more that many WT/WC guys and gals just do not care about or understand ground/fighting or grappling.
> 
> So my question is, what are you doing to make up for this? Are you cross-training? Do you teach your students anti-grappling techniques? Do you incorporate grappling techniques into your curriculum? Or is this something that you aren't doing anything about, but want to? And lastly, what grappling techniques in particular are you utilizing or do you find useful?
> 
> Would love to see where this topic goes ya'll!
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Jeff (Sifu Panda)



I think this is a necessary area for all modern Wing Chun guys to learn. Especially since grappling and MMA is so common now. My background taught us not to go to the ground for multiple reasons. Do I like to grapple? Man, it's a blast, it's just not WC. From the ground, you can't fight 2 or more people, it's not consistent with using less to do more, etc. All this said, I try to work WC against takedowns on a regular basis. In fact, I now teach a proper fighting stance by trying to grab the students torso (grappler takedown to the waist) while they keep their hands in place. From there, after they learn some basics, I not only teach them to use basics against punching, but against kicks, as well as the grappling takedown. I think it is unrealistic to only train against punches around the four corners area. Much better, in my opinion, to teach someone early how to counter a wide variety of moves, i.e. boxing, kickboxing, grappling, etc. 

Another one of my opinions is that a great deal of "WC versus" moves are unrealistic. Only teaching someone to tan da against a jab is going to get them beat up. The same applies when using WC against a grappler. Each engagement is different, I think it is just the most important that you work against a realistic attack. Sure, start with the slow, stiff zombie punch to let them learn the move, but definitely pick up the heat to force the hands to be correct under pressure. Teaching someone to immediately close distance and engage centerline without telegraph is a much better concept to teach first, and have tan da as one of many tools to use. What I see a lot of guys do is teach moves instead of concepts. I think it's much wiser to teach them basics, and then just come after them, including the grappling takedown, and allow them to use what works for them. People are usually afraid that their instructor is going to get mad if they don't do sissy hits, so I just keep telling them to hit harder and engage more until they are neutralizing my attack.

I do, however, think that even if you're taken to the ground, there is still plenty you can do. If someone has me in the mount, first thing I am going for is the groin, and when they guard that, they're going to get multiple bil tzes and sats to the throat. The guard, for me, is just bringing their centerline real close so I can pound on it. Still don't understand why this concept is not brought up more. I guess cause so many think that MMA is the only real fighting realm now. The reason we don't see strikes to the groin and throat while the attacker is in the mount is because it's illegal in MMA. Why? Because you can really hurt someone; and that's why I would do it. But WC is not a tournament sport, it's me stopping someone who is in the wrong, i.e. home invader at night, rapist, etc. 

Going to post some videos soon to explain concepts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

hjb wing chun said:


> I think this is a necessary area for all modern Wing Chun guys to learn. Especially since grappling and MMA is so common now. My background taught us not to go to the ground for multiple reasons. Do I like to grapple? Man, it's a blast, it's just not WC. From the ground, you can't fight 2 or more people, it's not consistent with using less to do more, etc. All this said, I try to work WC against takedowns on a regular basis. In fact, I now teach a proper fighting stance by trying to grab the students torso (grappler takedown to the waist) while they keep their hands in place. From there, after they learn some basics, I not only teach them to use basics against punching, but against kicks, as well as the grappling takedown. I think it is unrealistic to only train against punches around the four corners area. Much better, in my opinion, to teach someone early how to counter a wide variety of moves, i.e. boxing, kickboxing, grappling, etc.
> 
> Another one of my opinions is that a great deal of "WC versus" moves are unrealistic. Only teaching someone to tan da against a jab is going to get them beat up. The same applies when using WC against a grappler. Each engagement is different, I think it is just the most important that you work against a realistic attack. Sure, start with the slow, stiff zombie punch to let them learn the move, but definitely pick up the heat to force the hands to be correct under pressure. Teaching someone to immediately close distance and engage centerline without telegraph is a much better concept to teach first, and have tan da as one of many tools to use. What I see a lot of guys do is teach moves instead of concepts. I think it's much wiser to teach them basics, and then just come after them, including the grappling takedown, and allow them to use what works for them. People are usually afraid that their instructor is going to get mad if they don't do sissy hits, so I just keep telling them to hit harder and engage more until they are neutralizing my attack.
> 
> I do, however, think that even if you're taken to the ground, there is still plenty you can do. If someone has me in the mount, first thing I am going for is the groin, and when they guard that, they're going to get multiple bil tzes and sats to the throat. The guard, for me, is just bringing their centerline real close so I can pound on it. Still don't understand why this concept is not brought up more. I guess cause so many think that MMA is the only real fighting realm now. The reason we don't see strikes to the groin and throat while the attacker is in the mount is because it's illegal in MMA. Why? Because you can really hurt someone; and that's why I would do it. But WC is not a tournament sport, it's me stopping someone who is in the wrong, i.e. home invader at night, rapist, etc.
> 
> Going to post some videos soon to explain concepts.



If I'm mounted on someone with a low mount there's really no way for them to reach my groin.  If I'm mounted on someone with a high mount and they try attacking my groin I'm not going to even attempt guarding my groin - I'm just going to give them a concussion.  From the mount the top person has a much better angle on smashing the bottom person's head than the bottom person has for attacking the groin.

In general, I'm a fan of attacking the groin and the throat, but the bottom of the mount is not the best place to try it.

BTW - the ban on groin attacks in MMA is relatively recent.  The early UFCs allowed groin shots.  So did early Brazilian vale tudo matches.  So did many, many Gracie challenge matches and street fights.  Check the footage. You won't find any examples of someone escaping the mount with groin shots, and it's not because all those guys were too stupid to know that getting hit in the groin can hurt.

None of this is commenting on the general applicability of Wing Chun to self-defense.  I'm just saying that countering the mount with groin or throat strikes from the bottom is a decidedly sub-optimal tactic and will not pay off well as often as you might think.


----------



## hjb wing chun

Sorry, brother, but I respectfully disagree. Also, I am not calling anyone's technique stupid. I just think the mount has weaknesses that are usually not exploited. The farther you lean over in the mount, the more your groin is protected, but the closer you bring the throat and face in to be hit. Today, the mount is a position taught primarily for sport fighting. My premise is not based with sport fighting in mind, but fighting to stay alive. I am friends with an MMA fighter who is healing from a bout who said he would work with me to see if what I am saying is right or wrong. I just think that most MMA grappling trains with rules in mind; similar to boxing. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same when you consider eye exposure, throat exposure, groin exposure, etc. If my buddy proves me wrong, so be it; maybe we will both learn something. Also, if you're elbow is up to crush the top of my head, then it's not defending your throat. 

I hope you understand I am not trying to dog out anyone's art, I have spend hours wrestling, boxing, and so forth, but Wing Chun is my favorite. And what I have noticed is that most people have learned against specific styles, and have not had a chance to defend against techniques unorthodox to what they know by someone who knows what they're doing. I would include Wing Chun guys in this, too. Most Wing Chun guys don't train against real hooks and uppercuts, just the stiff zombie punch, etc. Likewise, the few guys I have worked with that know grappling are typically surprised when I do something they haven't trained against, i.e. eye, throat, groin.

On the subject of groin shots in the UFC, we used to watch UFC's on pay-per-view when the UFC's were still in single digits. Two of my instructors met Dan Severn. I am familiar with Royce, Shamrock, Abbott, Kimo, etc, etc, etc. We used to go over what they did, what was good, bad, and so forth. Also, the early UFC fights allowed groin shots, but gave fines for them. They didn't end the match, you just didn't want to pay the money. If you watch Joe Son get beat by Keith Hackney in one of the early UFC's, you can hear the referee fine him. So Hackney won after punching Son in the groin a few times, but he had pay; so that's not good business. So they really didn't want you to do it. The UFC was created to showcase grappling, which it did a great job of. But when you take away groin, eye, and throat shots, that's the majority of what we train in Wing Chun, not to mention that they use gloves. Bare-knuckles hurt a lot worse.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Let us know how your experiments with your MMA friend turn out.  I'm very much in favor of that sort of open-minded experimentation.

I do agree that grapplers who train only for sport can be taken by surprise when an opponent steps outside of those confines.  I train for self-defense, so I've tried to explore how eye pokes, groin attacks, hair pulling, head butts, biting, and so on can affect my technique.  I will say that it forces you to play a much tighter game compared to what you can get away with in a sportive context.


----------



## mook jong man

It's a lot safer to do a bridge and roll rather than stuff around trying to get someone in the groin.
To hit them in the groin you have to take your hands away from defending your head and leaving you open to headbutts , elbows and God knows what.


----------



## WingChunIan

having read the thread through from start to finish, I would say that it shows why wing chun loses 90% of the time when matched with grappling. Its because wing chun guys train with compliant partners and have wonderful theories about "i'd simply do this, or i'd simply do that" truth is you won't simply do anything because the other fella isn't going to let you. To be able to use wing chun against grappling you have to practise wing chun against grappling. Trying to knee someone who is shooting for a single or double leg takedown is asking to be dumped on your backside, it can work but it is a very low percentage move. If it was so easy all of the karate and MT guys would have done it in the early UFC matches. Wing Chun isn't inferior or superior to grappling arts it is simply a different approach but it is the way that it is trained in 90% of classes across the world that makes a difference. If two proponents train with equal intensity then the match becomes a question of individual skill (and a bit of luck) and if the fight starts standing then the Wing Chun practitioner has an advantage, but one that can disappear rapidly and once it goes to the ground the grappler has a huge advantage.

*percentages are only to illustrate the point I'm not claiming that they are accurate.


----------



## hjb wing chun

Tony: I will plan on posting a video (or videos). May be teaching at a gym soon, and I want teach stand up vs grappling (and visa versa on request, if necessary) as part of my curriculum. Am also interested in taking some grappling so I can talk about it with hands on knowledge. i am comfortable on the ground, but have never taken Ju-Jitsu before; so i'm looking forward to that

I would agree with that, Ian. I watched numerous MMA fighters who were considered the best takedown artists; they always shoot when the other guy is off balance/in recovery (i know i would). i think that teaching someone to knee someone in the face while someone else is shooting has a very small margin of error. when i shoot with firearms, i go for center mass; i do the same with fighting. any punch, kick, etc, that is completely negated if it's off by 2 inches is not a good one to throw, in my opinion. i worked out with a friend, and we tried to shoot on each other; what we came up with as most effective was to drive your jon tau (fighting stance hand) into the space between their neck and shoulder, and as the shoot moves forward, moot sau (some call it gum sau, i think) to the back of the head. this ends up pushing their face toward the ground. for anyone wanting a translation: push the guy's head toward the ground with a stiff arm as he shoots; his body is not as fast as your hand...don't care how fast anyone is. my buddy is brand new to wing chun, and when he saw how effective this was against my shooting at him, he thought i was joking. but i explained to him that if i didn't bring both hands in front of me as he pushed my face toward the ground that my nose was going to get smashed. 

i am trying to take the idea to step 2 and 3 and figure out which strikes are most effective once the shoot is negated. i have some ideas, like: bottom of fist to back of the head, once slowing him down push his chin against his chest, step on his back, etc. we will continue working this regularly. there is also an opening for head manipulation, but we didn't really learn that when i trained wing chun. i was always told, we don't teach any groundfighting because we don't go to the ground. i think it's one of the first things someone should learn to fight against, though


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> "anti-grappling",


If you can run faster than your opponent, nobody will be able to throw you. Nobody will be able to strike you either. The fast running is "anti-everything".

The problem for "anti- ..." is for the rest of your life, you will only be good at "anti- ..." and you will never be good at "...".


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can run faster than your opponent, nobody will be able to throw you. Nobody will be able to strike you either. The fast running is "anti-everything".
> 
> The problem for "anti- ..." is for the rest of your life, you will only be good at "anti- ..." and you will never be good at "...".



I would say just the opposite. By learning to use WT/WC/VT against what your opponent is trying to do, rather than fight the way he is dictating, you *will* be good at "....."


----------



## yak sao

BTW, "anti" means to oppose or go against. Doesn't this approach sound more logical than trying to juggle a half dozen different training methods?
If I spend a couple of hours in a boxing gym every week and then try to outbox a golden gloves boxer....I lose.
Same as if I try to outwrestle a BJJ guy or even a high school wrestler....they win.
Better to stick to what you do best and use it to your advantage.


----------



## Danny T

yak sao said:


> BTW, "anti" means to oppose or go against. Doesn't this approach sound more logical than trying to juggle a half dozen different training methods?
> If I spend a couple of hours in a boxing gym every week and then try to outbox a golden gloves boxer....I lose.
> Same as if I try to outwrestle a BJJ guy or even a high school wrestler....they win.
> Better to stick to what you do best and use it to your advantage.


Absolutely!! Now stop it. It makes too much sense.

Learn their game to know and understand it; Not to play it.


----------



## geezer

Danny T said:


> Absolutely!! Now stop it. It makes too much sense. Learn their game to know and understand it; Not to play it.



Do whatever you feel like, just be honest with yourself about your limitations. The widespread emergence of "anti-grappling" programs in WC is proof that WC is vulnerable to grappling. In an _ideal_ world, all WC guys could also be expert grapplers, and expert long range kickers, expert marksmen, really good at quantum physics, and maybe do brain surgery on the side. Maybe we could broker world peace too.

In the real world, there is only so much most of us can and choose to do. If WC is your main thing and you don't have the time or inclination to get that BJJ black belt, then anti grappling may be the best solution at hand. Just don't drink the kool-aid and start believing that with just that you can take on anybody!


----------



## WingChunIan

geezer said:


> Do whatever you feel like, just be honest with yourself about your limitations. The widespread emergence of "anti-grappling" programs in WC is proof that WC is vulnerable to grappling. In an _ideal_ world, all WC guys could also be expert grapplers, and expert long range kickers, expert marksmen, really good at quantum physics, and maybe do brain surgery on the side. Maybe we could broker world peace too.
> 
> In the real world, there is only so much most of us can and choose to do. If WC is your main thing and you don't have the time or inclination to get that BJJ black belt, then anti grappling may be the best solution at hand. Just don't drink the kool-aid and start believing that with just that you can take on anybody!



Fair comments, but if you do go and spend time getting that BJJ black belt so that you have a first rate ground game don't ***** and moan when you get sparked standing up because you haven't honed your Wing Chun sufficiently. It's swings and roundabouts. The only definite is if you never practise fighting from the ground against a resisting opponent and / or if you never train to defend takedowns, whatever approach you choose you are asking for trouble.


----------



## Steve

WingChunIan said:


> Fair comments, but if you do go and spend time getting that BJJ black belt so that you have a first rate ground game don't ***** and moan when you get sparked standing up because you haven't honed your Wing Chun sufficiently. It's swings and roundabouts. The only definite is if you never practise fighting from the ground against a resisting opponent and / or if you never train to defend takedowns, whatever approach you choose you are asking for trouble.


A couple years of earnest training in BJJ wouldn't get you a black belt, but it would certainly provide a solid foundation, and sufficient context to do what you guys seem to be trying to do.


----------



## Vajramusti

WingChunIan said:


> Fair comments, but if you do go and spend time getting that BJJ black belt so that you have a first rate ground game don't ***** and moan when you get sparked standing up because you haven't honed your Wing Chun sufficiently. It's swings and roundabouts. The only definite is if you never practise fighting from the ground against a resisting opponent and / or if you never train to defend takedowns, whatever approach you choose you are asking for trouble.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically agree with Ian....with some twists. 
Important to develop the right structural integrity in wing chun ,  which can defeat the take downs while attacking .
If you do end up on the ground a good sense of wing chun structure and dynamics can get you out of trouble.
Of course it depends on proper instruction, practice and conditioning.

I know that there are skeptics on this kind of thinking- but there are skeptics on almost anything on the net.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

chinaboxer said:


> there is no such thing as "anti grappling", you have to learn "grappling" concepts and principles in order to stay on your feet against a grappler trying to take you down. this is why i always say that wing chun fighters are really grapplers in disguise, but our objective is to use the grappling concepts of how to handle pressure to stay on our feet and knock them out rather than take the person down to submit them.
> 
> all wing chun is on a conceptual level is "how to handle pressure" and "problem solving". this is the exact same concept for grapplers. but if you focus on "techniques" and stray away from "concepts", this is IMO where people get confused and don't see the two being the same thing.



When you said "No such thing as anti-grappling", I honestly think that statement is a little more than silly. Anti-(anything) is the counter action of the "thing". Anti-grappling would be considered striking. And basically by ignoring this information and valuable way of looking at things, your curbing your own process and ability to learn in my opinion. But hey, ya'll do as you please, I am by no means a master, but from a personal point of view I try not to discount anything, no matter how rediculous it seems.

And if you wouldn't mind explaining "IMO", as I have no clue to what you are referring.

All the best in your training,

Jeff


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

KCO said:


> if someone is shooting low i would knee him in the face as he was shooting, otherwise you can spread your legs wide to take away his targets....
> if they do grapple me to the ground, first of all you failed....but i will pound the back of his head or go for his eyes.... grapplers don't practice against eye thrusts.



No but they practice against getting pummeled, knee'd, kicked and everything else under the sun. When are the collective WT/WC families get their heads outta their asses and learn that Grapplers are our MOST dangerous opponents!?


----------



## Flying Crane

mook jong man said:


> We have to accept that there may not be any target available for striking , so a better option would be to control their head by placing downward pressure on it so that it slows there forward drive and takes the head out of alignment with the rest of the body which will reduce there ability to generate power.



I know I'm late to the discussion here, and not a wing chun guy.  I trained for a few brief years, several years ago, but no longer.  

Anyway, the comment you make above, here's something to think about:  if you can control the head by placing downward pressure on it, then the head is an available target for a strike.  Drive an elbow straight down into the back of the head or back of the neck.  or punch down to the back of the head.  Or strike the side of the head with a hooking punch or horizontal elbow.  Or...

make sense?


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

mook jong man said:


> The way Wing Chun works is that it tends to nip things in the bud so to speak , when the attack is still in it's infancy.
> The arm drag is a great technique and I use variations of it in some of my knife defence stuff.
> 
> But the way he initiates it means that he will immediately be hit , because he is trying to clear the arm away from the centerline.
> 
> Wing Chun guys are like a baby with a toy , it's my centerline mine mine mine and your not having it.
> So with a simple flip of the wrist he will go around that arm that's trying to clear and hit the guy , it is a technique called running palms.
> 
> On very skilled practitioners you maybe not able to move there arm at all off the center line , their force and focus can be that great.
> Because to us if we allow our arms to deviate off the centerline it can be more costly than just having your arm captured , it can mean having various parts of your neck attacked which is not very pleasant.



Mook, I believe this is the only time I disagree with you. Let me just clue you into the grappling world real quick:

GRAPPLER-I don't care what obstruction is in my way, I will clear it or move on to the next opprotunity; And there is ALWAYS a next opprotunity.

You seem to have this fantastic idea in your head that WT can overcome all, it can't. Wrestlers are just the same as WT guys as they don't ever try to "force" an entry, they "creat an angle" of attack. And yes I know that in WT we follow our opponent like a turret with our stance, but this doesn't change the fact that I have successfully taken down many many WT/WC guys with a arm-drag to a singel/double leg. Don't get me wrong, I am a full believer in WT chi-sau. After I learned the dummy chi-sau, my eyes were opened to new realms of possiblity. But that doesn't change the fact that a wrestler can slip our guard just as easily as we can punch them.

I'm speaking from practical experience. Now I'm not saying Leung Ting WT is the best out there, but I trained it for a number of years and it is definately a legitimate branch of WT. I still have never had a single problem taking a LTWT guy down ever. Chi-sau is not going to save you from a take-down. Ya, sure you will know whats happening and you will formulate a quick and decisive response and it might even work out for you, once or twice. 

The crux of the matter is, wrestlers (and some grapplers) are just as good (or better in some cases) as adapting to new variables just as quick as a WT man is. This effectually negates your entire comment about chain-punching saving your *** from an arm-drag. I've had it happen to me on multiple occasions. All I did was level change, and utilize a snatch single. Then I used a lift and sweep (like a Lau-sau/huen-bo for us WT guys). And then Sifu Bad-*** hits the ground.

I'm not trying to be abrasive, or mean. I'm just letting you know that you have no clue what you are talking about. And honestly, I don't have sugar coat it for you. You need to realize that grappling is so fast, and deceptive. Yes grapplers move the arm out of their way, but that is the most basic of ways to take someone down. Grapplers utilize the centerline all the time, and are just as good as controlling it as we are.

And im assuming that "So with a simple flip of the wrist he will go around that arm that's trying to clear and hit the guy , it is a technique called running palms." you mean huen-sau or Kau-sau (Circling hand, and plucking hand for the non-wt people viewing this).

Well again, all a wrestler has to do is a level change and since you were so nice as to move your arms out of the equation for him, he/she switches to a take-down. 

I swear I need to start posting vids about just how flipin easy it is for a grappler to slip past our guard, because too many of us WT folks are so woefully ignorant of grappling it is embaressing. The guys I trained with for years hadn't the faintest idea of how to deal with a simple take-down; and had I known I would have showed them every solution there is. It opened my eyes to how many holes we have in our "perfect little system"... Anyways, eat it up grapplers, thats the only time im going to defend your asses in an arguement against WT. 

So the thick and the vieny of this little dietraub is that, actually go grapple people before opening your mouth. Because honestly WT/WC people, your ignorance is starting to offend me.

Respectfully yours,

Jeff (Das Panda).


----------



## Steve

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> When you said "No such thing as anti-grappling", I honestly think that statement is a little more than silly. Anti-(anything) is the counter action of the "thing". Anti-grappling would be considered striking. And basically by ignoring this information and valuable way of looking at things, your curbing your own process and ability to learn in my opinion. But hey, ya'll do as you please, I am by no means a master, but from a personal point of view I try not to discount anything, no matter how rediculous it seems.


I think the idea is that "anti-grappling" is actually just grappling.  If you are being grappled, to escape or counter, you are also grappling (by definition.)  So, the term "anti-grappling" has taken on some baggage.  There are different approaches to grappling.  I think that the label causes problems, though.  It implies things that people disagree with.


> And if you wouldn't mind explaining "IMO", as I have no clue to what you are referring.


IMO = In My Opinion.  Typically makes it clear that someone is knowingly posting an opinion as opposed to stating a fact.


----------



## mook jong man

Flying Crane said:


> I know I'm late to the discussion here, and not a wing chun guy.  I trained for a few brief years, several years ago, but no longer.
> 
> Anyway, the comment you make above, here's something to think about:  if you can control the head by placing downward pressure on it, then the head is an available target for a strike.  Drive an elbow straight down into the back of the head or back of the neck.  or punch down to the back of the head.  Or strike the side of the head with a hooking punch or horizontal elbow.  Or...
> 
> make sense?



That's exactly what you would do , _*after you have stopped their forward momentum.*_


----------



## Flying Crane

mook jong man said:


> That's exactly what you would do , _*after you have stopped their forward momentum.*_



I think yes and no.  It depends on how fast and well the guy comes in, how much you are surprised by it, etc.  But if you can control the head, I'd say you could just go ahead and hit it.  Why take an intermediate step?  Again, it depends.


----------



## mook jong man

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> Mook, I believe this is the only time I disagree with you. Let me just clue you into the grappling world real quick:
> 
> GRAPPLER-I don't care what obstruction is in my way, I will clear it or move on to the next opprotunity; And there is ALWAYS a next opprotunity.
> 
> You seem to have this fantastic idea in your head that WT can overcome all, it can't. Wrestlers are just the same as WT guys as they don't ever try to "force" an entry, they "creat an angle" of attack. And yes I know that in WT we follow our opponent like a turret with our stance, but this doesn't change the fact that I have successfully taken down many many WT/WC guys with a arm-drag to a singel/double leg. Don't get me wrong, I am a full believer in WT chi-sau. After I learned the dummy chi-sau, my eyes were opened to new realms of possiblity. But that doesn't change the fact that a wrestler can slip our guard just as easily as we can punch them.
> 
> I'm speaking from practical experience. Now I'm not saying Leung Ting WT is the best out there, but I trained it for a number of years and it is definately a legitimate branch of WT. I still have never had a single problem taking a LTWT guy down ever. Chi-sau is not going to save you from a take-down. Ya, sure you will know whats happening and you will formulate a quick and decisive response and it might even work out for you, once or twice.
> 
> The crux of the matter is, wrestlers (and some grapplers) are just as good (or better in some cases) as adapting to new variables just as quick as a WT man is. This effectually negates your entire comment about chain-punching saving your *** from an arm-drag. I've had it happen to me on multiple occasions. All I did was level change, and utilize a snatch single. Then I used a lift and sweep (like a Lau-sau/huen-bo for us WT guys). And then Sifu Bad-*** hits the ground.
> 
> I'm not trying to be abrasive, or mean. I'm just letting you know that you have no clue what you are talking about. And honestly, I don't have sugar coat it for you. You need to realize that grappling is so fast, and deceptive. Yes grapplers move the arm out of their way, but that is the most basic of ways to take someone down. Grapplers utilize the centerline all the time, and are just as good as controlling it as we are.
> 
> And im assuming that "So with a simple flip of the wrist he will go around that arm that's trying to clear and hit the guy , it is a technique called running palms." you mean huen-sau or Kau-sau (Circling hand, and plucking hand for the non-wt people viewing this).
> 
> Well again, all a wrestler has to do is a level change and since you were so nice as to move your arms out of the equation for him, he/she switches to a take-down.
> 
> I swear I need to start posting vids about just how flipin easy it is for a grappler to slip past our guard, because too many of us WT folks are so woefully ignorant of grappling it is embaressing. The guys I trained with for years hadn't the faintest idea of how to deal with a simple take-down; and had I known I would have showed them every solution there is. It opened my eyes to how many holes we have in our "perfect little system"... Anyways, eat it up grapplers, thats the only time im going to defend your asses in an arguement against WT.
> 
> So the thick and the vieny of this little dietraub is that, actually go grapple people before opening your mouth. Because honestly WT/WC people, your ignorance is starting to offend me.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> Jeff (Das Panda).



First off , I am not W.T. 
My  Wing Chun is from Tsui Seung Tin lineage.

I didn't say you would use chain punching against an arm drag , for a start he has hold of one of your arms , how are you going to chain punch ?
What I would have said is that you may pivot 45 degrees as he tries to get to the side and  use a barring arm to keep him off of you as you hit him with your other hand , but there are many variables with this , you may have to go into a semi sprawl position if he is going pretty low.

I am not ignorant to the ways of grappling either , I was primarily trained in grappling by two guys who used to fight in shootfighting competitions in Japan.
We don't  live in a bubble over here in Australia you know , we actually have big tough Rugby League players who will try and tackle you to the ground and dump you on your **** as well as quite a few grapplers getting around the joint.

Along with chi sau I use quite a few grappling concepts to defend against take downs , If they change levels then we will partially change levels too and get the legs and hips back into a semi sprawl , we don't stand there completely upright as a guy is trying to wrap his arms around our legs or waist.
We actually train a lot of our take down defenses from within chi sau itself as well as from further out.

Of course a grappler can take a Wing Chun guy down if the Wing Chun person is not familiar with that type of attack.
But doesn't that hold true for everything , it's like if you don't know how to defend against chain punching with Tan/ Bong you are going to get your face smashed in.
It's self evident , it's not rocket science.


----------



## mook jong man

Flying Crane said:


> I think yes and no.  It depends on how fast and well the guy comes in, how much you are surprised by it, etc.  But if you can control the head, *I'd say you could just go ahead and hit it.  Why take an intermediate step?  Again, it depends*.



Your going to be trying to hit something as you are being picked up and  driven backwards at a vast rate of knots , not an easy proposition.
Any strikes you do are likely to glance off the side of his skull , as well as that he might be shielding his head as he comes in.
Another possibility is that both your arms might be out of position due to him smacking them upwards or to the side as he comes in.

Ideally we try to step off the line of attack if we have time and control his nearside arm and strike down on the back of the occipital lobe with a Fook Sau in one movement , but usually this is only possible from long range and when its telegraphed.
But again there are a lot of variables with this , in a Rugby tackle the head will be down because they don't have to worry about guillotine chokes , but a skilled grapplers head will be up.


----------



## geezer

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> So the thick and the vieny of this little dietraub is that, actually go grapple people before opening your mouth. Because honestly WT/WC people, your ignorance is starting to offend me.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> Jeff (Das Panda).



Relax Jeff. You aren't the only WT/WC guy on here that was raised wrestling before you even heard of Wing Chun. And yes it's true that a lot of traditionally trained WC guys don't have realistic experience dealing with good grapplers. But that is changing. All the work different groups are doing with "anti-grappling" programs is, at least recognizing that there's a problem. And the one thing about grappling, is it can be safely tested. WC techniques that fail the test will change. The system will grow and evolve. It already is.


----------



## Flying Crane

mook jong man said:


> Your going to be trying to hit something as you are being picked up and  driven backwards at a vast rate of knots , not an easy proposition.
> Any strikes you do are likely to glance off the side of his skull , as well as that he might be shielding his head as he comes in.
> Another possibility is that both your arms might be out of position due to him smacking them upwards or to the side as he comes in.
> 
> Ideally we try to step off the line of attack if we have time and control his nearside arm and strike down on the back of the occipital lobe with a Fook Sau in one movement , but usually this is only possible from long range and when its telegraphed.
> But again there are a lot of variables with this , in a Rugby tackle the head will be down because they don't have to worry about guillotine chokes , but a skilled grapplers head will be up.



sure, valid issues.  As I say, it depends.  But I wouldn't assume it's out of the question.  Seems to me that people assume it's gonna be impossible.  I just don't think so.


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Relax Jeff. You aren't the only WT/WC guy on here that was raised wrestling before you even heard of Wing Chun. And yes it's true that a lot of traditionally trained WC guys don't have realistic experience dealing with good grapplers. But that is changing. All the work different groups are doing with "anti-grappling" programs is, at least recognizing that there's a problem. And the one thing about grappling, is it can be safely tested. WC techniques that fail the test will change. The system will grow and evolve. It already is.



personally, I think that if he believes wrestling/grappling has such a clear advantage over wing chun, then he should stop wasting his time with wing chun and just train wrestling/grappling.  If he believes that works best, then that's what he should do and not worry about what others are doing.


----------



## Vajramusti

Much depends on the school and the instructor. If you do enough good wing chun- you learn how to control a grappler for your purposes- not the grappler's.

An individual's learning and skill are the keys imo.


----------



## Argus

Flying Crane said:


> sure, valid issues.  As I say, it depends.  But I wouldn't assume it's out of the question.  Seems to me that people assume it's gonna be impossible.  I just don't think so.



I can't help but agree with mook here. It's neigh impossible. Consider this; when someone gets up underneath you like that, you have lost your connection to the ground. You cannot generate any real power this way, and the skull, and even the back of the head, neck, and body are quite tough. You're not likely to do any real damage in that circumstance.

I train occasionally with a guy who does Judo. One thing that I found to work against a tackle - at least the one time that we tried it, is to use your tuima to get off the line of attack, covering the closest arm with gan-sau, and coming to the side of the neck with gum-sau (pressing it sideways, off of the line, and not down, so you still have power from the ground. Also, in general, keep the hands lower than you normally would, and sink into your stance.) The important thing is not to let him get underneath you, and to keep the ground underneath any method of striking or controlling that you use.

That's all just in my very limited experience, though. I'd like to do some more grappling and really get a feel for it.


----------



## Flying Crane

Argus said:


> I can't help but agree with mook here. It's neigh impossible. Consider this; when someone gets up underneath you like that, you have lost your connection to the ground. You cannot generate any real power this way, and the skull, and even the back of the head, neck, and body are quite tough. You're not likely to do any real damage in that circumstance.
> 
> I train occasionally with a guy who does Judo. One thing that I found to work against a tackle - at least the one time that we tried it, is to use your tuima to get off the line of attack, covering the closest arm with gan-sau, and coming to the side of the neck with gum-sau (pressing it sideways, off of the line, and not down, so you still have power from the ground. Also, in general, keep the hands lower than you normally would, and sink into your stance.) The important thing is not to let him get underneath you, and to keep the ground underneath any method of striking or controlling that you use.
> 
> That's all just in my very limited experience, though. I'd like to do some more grappling and really get a feel for it.



again, valid points.  But, why not hit him before he can settle in and grasp you and uproot you?  Hit him while he's coming in.  

If you "receive" him as a grappler, then you are playing his game even if just for a few moments.  You've handed him the advantage.  Hit him before that happens.

wanted to edit to add:  the back of the head and neck are actually quite vulnerable.  Especially the back of the neck, following the spine from the base of the skull downward.  If you drive an elbow down into the spine/vertebra, you can do some serious damage, instantly.


----------



## mook jong man

Flying Crane said:


> again, valid points._*  But, why not hit him before he can settle in and grasp you and uproot you?  Hit him while he's coming in. *_
> 
> _*If you "receive" him as a grappler, then you are playing his game even if just for a few moments.*_  You've handed him the advantage.  Hit him before that happens.
> 
> wanted to edit to add:  the back of the head and neck are actually quite vulnerable.  Especially the back of the neck, following the spine from the base of the skull downward.  If you drive an elbow down into the spine/vertebra, you can do some serious damage, instantly.



It depends on at what phase you detect the attack , if he is coming in from quite a distance as someone that is unskilled might do then by all means step off at an angle and give  him a wack on the back of the neck or if his head is up then elbow strike him in the face.

But skilled people start in from much closer and before you know it the grab is already on , we like to prepare for that by training to counter the take downs from within chi sau range where you have minimal time to counter.

As far as receiving him as a grappler is concerned , you could argue that Wing Chun already contains elements of grappling , we grapple with peoples arms every time we are doing chi sau.


----------



## Argus

Flying Crane said:


> again, valid points.  But, why not hit him before he can settle in and grasp you and uproot you?  Hit him while he's coming in.
> 
> If you "receive" him as a grappler, then you are playing his game even if just for a few moments.  You've handed him the advantage.  Hit him before that happens.
> 
> wanted to edit to add:  the back of the head and neck are actually quite vulnerable.  Especially the back of the neck, following the spine from the base of the skull downward.  If you drive an elbow down into the spine/vertebra, you can do some serious damage, instantly.




Well, that is a good point. It is always preferable to hit; turn that gum-sau that I described into a palm or fist. But I think you had still better move off of the line and cover with one arm.

One point, though. The spine is actually pretty tough. No doubt that you can cause some serious damage there with a good strike, but if the back of the neck is already in proximity to your elbow, I don't know how you are going to deliver one; isn't he already underneath you at that point? Moreover, even if you can deliver an effective strike, that's using lethal force. I'd prefer not to rely on that answer.


----------



## Flying Crane

mook jong man said:


> It depends on at what phase you detect the attack , if he is coming in from quite a distance as someone that is unskilled might do then by all means step off at an angle and give  him a wack on the back of the neck or if his head is up then elbow strike him in the face.
> 
> But skilled people start in from much closer and before you know it the grab is already on , we like to prepare for that by training to counter the take downs from within chi sau range where you have minimal time to counter.
> 
> As far as receiving him as a grappler is concerned , you could argue that Wing Chun already contains elements of grappling , we grapple with peoples arms every time we are doing chi sau.



yup, and again, this is why I keep saying, "it depends".  I think people are quick to concede the advantage to the grappler, and in doing so they end up playing the grappler's game.  If you yourself are not a grappling specialist, you will never beat him at his own game.  Make him play your game, or at least make him play his game against your game.  But don't play his game too.  I am familiar enough with WC to recognize that it does contain elements of grappling so yeah, I'm with you there.  In that context, using WC's methodology, including it's variant of grappling, would be consistent.  But don't let it turn into a game of trying to out-perform a specialist in his own game.  Look for ways to use your method against him, no matter what he is trying to do to you.

Here's where I think a lot of the problem resides.  Grappling got a lot of attention in the UFC and other mixed martial arts venues.  At least within the context of those venues, everyone perceived it as something that strikers were not prepared or capable of dealing with.  That sort of became the conventional wisdom and I think now people don't question that wisdom, it's been accepted as gospel.  I think it's not true, tho, and I openly question that wisdom.  I don't accept it.   I think the problem is really with the training methodology of grappling vs. striking, and admittedly there are some training advantages that grappling has. 

The nature of grappling techniques is such that it is easy to really develop those skills because they are easier to use in the training hall.  In the training, you get to really use those grappling techniques, and you can pull back the intensity so that *nobody gets injured in the process*, while still using the techniques with a lot of realism.  That is a definite advantage when it comes to training.  So a grappler has a better chance at developing a real comfort level and subsequently a real confidence in his techniques.

In a striking method, you cannot do that.  You cannot dial back the intensity and still make the techniques work.  If you hit someone for real, you injure him and maybe he even goes to the hospital.  You run out of training partners very quickly if that's how you go about training.  So if you dial it back, then the strikes are not effective and your partners needs to "acknowledge" them and pretend like they were effective, whether or not they would have been had they been real.  This is a real disadvantage in training.  You never get to really try it out on a live person and it can lead to questions or doubts about the ability to use them effectively.  It resides to some degree in the realm of theory, and you need to be able to bridge that gap into reality when the fit hits the shan.  That is a disadvantage in training, because you cannot practice doing it with absolute realism.  But nevertheless, the potential is there and obviously there are ways to help bridge that gap, like hitting heavy bags, working on the dummy, etc., but it's still an approximation.

So when we see a matchup between a "grappler" and a "striker", when it's a competition type match the grappler has an automatic advantage: he can use his techniques for real, while a striker, in that context of a match cannot, and has some reluctance to even try.  He ends up using less decisive strikes, because the goal of the match is not life-or-death.  In the end, everyone wants to go home in more or less one piece.  But given the nature of grappling techniques, the grappler doesn't have that same limitation. As I said earlier, the grappler can actually use his techniques, they are still effective, even if he dials it back so that there is no true injury, just push to the point of submission.  It's much more difficult to dial back a strike "to the point of submission".  So when the grappler drives in for the engagement, the striker sort of freezes up, doesn't use his strikes the way they were meant to be used, and ends up trying to grapple with the grappler.  He gets taken down and tied up in a way that it becomes impossible to use his techniques effectively, and it's too late.  

I say, you gotta use your strikes how they were meant to be used, and that means brutally and immediately.  But that doesn't work for a competition type engagement.

This is why I say, use the strikes to their full potential, and don't, even for a moment, play the other guy's game.  If he is shooting in to grapple and take you down, he should be receiving about three solid blows in the face while attempting to do that.  If he grabs you, don't try to grapple him off, because you are playing his game.  Hit the hell out of him instead and get him to let go that way.

If a grappler doesn't also have striking skills, he's not going to try to box against a boxer, or kick against a TKD guy.  He's gonna try to engage and grapple against them.  A striker should approach the encounter with the same mindset: no matter what the enemy does, you strike him.


----------



## Flying Crane

Argus said:


> Well, that is a good point. It is always preferable to hit; turn that gum-sau that I described into a palm or fist. But I think you had still better move off of the line and cover with one arm.



sure!  set yourself up so you can hit him and don't end up grappling with him.



> One point, though. The spine is actually pretty tough. No doubt that you can cause some serious damage there with a good strike, but if the back of the neck is already in proximity to your elbow, I don't know how you are going to deliver one; isn't he already underneath you at that point? Moreover, even if you can deliver an effective strike, that's using lethal force. I'd prefer not to rely on that answer.



you drive the point of the elbow straight down, into the spine.  It could be the back of the head, the back of the neck, between the shoulder blades, or wherever you can strike it.  Sink your body as you do it to get maximum effect.  And yes, this could very well be lethal, so context matters a lot.  I don't have much of any interest in competition of any kind, so this is the kind of thing to use when the threat to yourself or your loved ones is high enough to justify it.  

But that's what a striking art is, or should be:  immediately decisive.  End the damn situation RIGHT NOW.  This isn't a game.  Don't go for complex strategies that might be useful in an agreed-upon competition that could last for several minutes.  In a real fight you don't have time for that, you need to just END IT.

You should also be able to use a less lethal variant.  You don't need to drive the point of the elbow into the spine.  You could use the blade of the elbow, the bone on the forearm right below the actual elbow joint, and drop it into the spine.  That will have less chance of actually breaking the vertebra or rupturing the spinal cord, while still getting a serious effect on the bad guy.  But my point is, if you are a striking specialist, look for opportunities to strike.  Don't grapple against the grappler.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

Steve said:


> I think the idea is that "anti-grappling" is actually just grappling.  If you are being grappled, to escape or counter, you are also grappling (by definition.)  So, the term "anti-grappling" has taken on some baggage.  There are different approaches to grappling.  I think that the label causes problems, though.  It implies things that people disagree with.
> IMO = In My Opinion.  Typically makes it clear that someone is knowingly posting an opinion as opposed to stating a fact.



Thank you for the clarification! I just didn't understand where you were coming from on that point.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

mook jong man said:


> First off , I am not W.T.
> My  Wing Chun is from Tsui Seung Tin lineage.
> 
> I didn't say you would use chain punching against an arm drag , for a start he has hold of one of your arms , how are you going to chain punch ?
> What I would have said is that you may pivot 45 degrees as he tries to get to the side and  use a barring arm to keep him off of you as you hit him with your other hand , but there are many variables with this , you may have to go into a semi sprawl position if he is going pretty low.
> 
> I am not ignorant to the ways of grappling either , I was primarily trained in grappling by two guys who used to fight in shootfighting competitions in Japan.
> We don't  live in a bubble over here in Australia you know , we actually have big tough Rugby League players who will try and tackle you to the ground and dump you on your **** as well as quite a few grapplers getting around the joint.
> 
> Along with chi sau I use quite a few grappling concepts to defend against take downs , If they change levels then we will partially change levels too and get the legs and hips back into a semi sprawl , we don't stand there completely upright as a guy is trying to wrap his arms around our legs or waist.
> We actually train a lot of our take down defenses from within chi sau itself as well as from further out.
> 
> Of course a grappler can take a Wing Chun guy down if the Wing Chun person is not familiar with that type of attack.
> But doesn't that hold true for everything , it's like if you don't know how to defend against chain punching with Tan/ Bong you are going to get your face smashed in.
> It's self evident , it's not rocket science.



Mook, I believe your tone is getting a little hostile lol. If you mean something, then explain it. Don't leave it to the imagination. I've been working on some anti-grappling/remedial techniques for armbars after the recent discussion. I've found that a gaun-dar (splitting arm/punch for those who don't know) with a juen-ma (turned stance for those who don't know) is a good way if you catch it soon enough. But you can utilize a fook-sau with an arm bar, or just use some wrestling anti-takedown manuevers. I'm gonna make some short video's one of these days, and I think if we all made some shorts of how we personally like to deal with a certain situation so everyone can see, we could really give each other some great ideas.... Maybe name it "Defense of the Week"/"Anti-grap technique of the week" or something like that where we all post our replies. 

Anyways, best of luck!


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

geezer said:


> Relax Jeff. You aren't the only WT/WC guy on here that was raised wrestling before you even heard of Wing Chun. And yes it's true that a lot of traditionally trained WC guys don't have realistic experience dealing with good grapplers. But that is changing. All the work different groups are doing with "anti-grappling" programs is, at least recognizing that there's a problem. And the one thing about grappling, is it can be safely tested. WC techniques that fail the test will change. The system will grow and evolve. It already is.



Thanks Geezer!

I suppose I just get a little "over" worked up over stupid stuff. I'm still young and full of piss and vinegar. I just hear and see so much negativity towards the grappling aspect of WT/WC/VT that it's literally making me sick to my stomach. The Leung Ting ***. in the USA or "NAS" section is notorious for this. I trained with them for about 7 years and all I kept hearing from my "seniors" is how awesome WT was and they couldn't back any of it up. As soon as I would start my takedowns their "precious" techniques would dissapate into a huge ***-whoppin lol.

I just see so much potential and hate when people under-utilize it.

Thanks for the calming words sir; again I always apperciate your contributions to my (and anyone else's that I read) threads!

All the best!


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

Flying Crane said:


> personally, I think that if he believes wrestling/grappling has such a clear advantage over wing chun, then he should stop wasting his time with wing chun and just train wrestling/grappling.  If he believes that works best, then that's what he should do and not worry about what others are doing.



The "clear advantage" is that wrestlers/grapplers don't delude themselves into thinking they are invincible. I worry about what ya'll *******s do because you can talk as much **** as you want about grappling, yet you DON'T EVEN TRY to find out why they can beat you within 30 seconds. It's pathetic. I AM a wing tsun man, and a good one. You say "waste my time worrying about WT and what others do?" I don't consider it a waste of time to study my enemy. Or other disciplines of martial arts. I consider all that don't woefully ignorant. And please correct me if i've mistaken what you were trying to say; But from what I understand, you think that I am bashing WT? Not in the slightest. But i'll gladly call you an idiot for saying it isn't an intelligent thing to train against the opponents that are most dangerous. Yes I take the wrestlers sides when they are right. Right about WT not having any ground game, because honestly, you DON'T see it in MMA. Whether or not we actually have it, there is no exposure except for what people see in the ring. So before you go toting that "He's not good enough to be in our system" ****, why don't you check yourself before you wreck yourself. Stop assuming that you have all the answers and that me, by validating some grapplers point of view (which is by my reckoning spot on) should be condenmed on the spot. Again with the WT/WC/VT ignorance.

Geezer I'm sorry, but this is the kinda funky-chicken stuff i'm talking about.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck

I suppose i've done it again. Let me again apologize folks. I get a little up in arms about my Wing Tsun, and sometimes I'm not as tactful or diplomatic as I should be whist replying to some of ya'll. 

I'm a little ashamed I lose my cool over words sometimes. I suppose it just comes from I have so much passion for the art and I get amped over this stuff. I just need a big chill pill.

So all BS aside, sorry for getting on peoples cases. I'll try to use a more diplomatic approach in my responses when things get a little heated.

All the best!

Jeff


----------



## Vajramusti

So before you go toting that "He's not good enough to be in our system" ****, why don't you check yourself before you wreck yourself. Stop assuming that you have all the answers and that me, by validating some grapplers point of view (which is by my reckoning spot on) should be condenmed on the spot. Again with the WT/WC/VT ignorance.

Geezer I'm sorry, but this is the kinda funky-chicken stuff i'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to get excited and no need to paint all wing chun people with the same brush. This topic comes up often.
The individuaL'S KILL AND DETERMINATION ARE IMPORTANT VARIABLES.sorry for the unintennded caps. Hit the wrong keys. Wing chun folks and grapplers vary in their skill in their own activity.

I play my own wing chun game-against grapplers or other stylists. I dont do wt or vt- doa particular line of wc. I have not seen the need for taking grappling or jj lessons.

In these discussions many folks put all wing chunners in one box or all grapplers in one box.


----------



## geezer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Vajramusti said:


> ...No need to get excited and no need to paint all wing chun people with the same brush. ...In these discussions many folks put all wing chunners in one box or all grapplers in one box.



Joy, I don't get by to visit your class often enough, but I do remember from one of the times  that I have stopped by that one of your students was a very strong and athletic young man, probably in his early to mid-twenties. I commented to you that he had the look of a professional athlete, and I believe you replied that he had been a _nationally ranked competitive wrestler_. A wrestler of that level of skill and experience wouldn't be training with you if he didn't think that WC had a lot to offer a grappler. I think Joe might benefit from this observation!


----------



## mook jong man

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> I suppose i've done it again. Let me again apologize folks. I get a little up in arms about my Wing Tsun, and sometimes I'm not as tactful or diplomatic as I should be whist replying to some of ya'll.
> 
> I'm a little ashamed I lose my cool over words sometimes. I suppose it just comes from I have so much passion for the art and I get amped over this stuff. I just need a big chill pill.
> 
> So all BS aside, sorry for getting on peoples cases. I'll try to use a more diplomatic approach in my responses when things get a little heated.
> 
> All the best!
> 
> Jeff



No worries mate , you don't have to change your debating style.
We're not delicate little flowers around here.

I've been known to get a bit fired up too on occasion , we probably all have at some stage.
Everybody except Geezer I think , nothing seems to phase that dude , I reckon he must be some sort of Taoist priest lol.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Flying Crane said:


> The nature of grappling techniques is such that it is easy to really develop those skills because they are easier to use in the training hall. In the training, you get to really use those grappling techniques, and you can pull back the intensity so that nobody gets injured in the process, while still using the techniques with a lot of realism. That is a definite advantage when it comes to training. So a grappler has a better chance at developing a real comfort level and subsequently a real confidence in his techniques.
> 
> In a striking method, you cannot do that. You cannot dial back the intensity and still make the techniques work. If you hit someone for real, you injure him and maybe he even goes to the hospital. You run out of training partners very quickly if that's how you go about training. So if you dial it back, then the strikes are not effective and your partners needs to "acknowledge" them and pretend like they were effective, whether or not they would have been had they been real. This is a real disadvantage in training. You never get to really try it out on a live person and it can lead to questions or doubts about the ability to use them effectively. It resides to some degree in the realm of theory, and you need to be able to bridge that gap into reality when the fit hits the shan. That is a disadvantage in training, because you cannot practice doing it with absolute realism. But nevertheless, the potential is there and obviously there are ways to help bridge that gap, like hitting heavy bags, working on the dummy, etc., but it's still an approximation.
> 
> So when we see a matchup between a "grappler" and a "striker", when it's a competition type match the grappler has an automatic advantage: he can use his techniques for real, while a striker, in that context of a match cannot, and has some reluctance to even try. He ends up using less decisive strikes, because the goal of the match is not life-or-death. In the end, everyone wants to go home in more or less one piece. But given the nature of grappling techniques, the grappler doesn't have that same limitation. As I said earlier, the grappler can actually use his techniques, they are still effective, even if he dials it back so that there is no true injury, just push to the point of submission. It's much more difficult to dial back a strike "to the point of submission". So when the grappler drives in for the engagement, the striker sort of freezes up, doesn't use his strikes the way they were meant to be used, and ends up trying to grapple with the grappler. He gets taken down and tied up in a way that it becomes impossible to use his techniques effectively, and it's too late.


 
Michael, I think you have a partial truth here.
I believe a more accurate statement would be "_some _strikers dial their techniques back to an unrealistic level in training, so that their skills are more theoretical when it comes to knowing how to fight against tough, skilled opponents."
Let's take a look at one of the best strikers in the world, Anderson Silva.  His skills are not theoretical.  He can hit you standing or on the ground.  He can hit you whether you are trying to punch him or take him down.  He can hit you brutally from any angle.  He can even knock you out while he is moving backwards.
The reason he can do all this is because of how he trains.  He trains with boxers, so he knows what they can do.  He trains with wrestlers, so he knows what they can do. He doesn't assume his strikes are too deadly to practice realistically and instruct his training partners to "acknowledge" them according to some theory of how they should react.  He throws them hard enough in training so that his training partners naturally respond realistically.  (That doesn't mean that he is trying to knock out his sparring partners any more than he is actually trying to break their arms when he practices an armbar.)

I get the feeling that you have not been following MMA much in recent years.


Flying Crane said:


> Grappling got a lot of attention in the UFC and other mixed martial arts venues. At least within the context of those venues, everyone perceived it as something that strikers were not prepared or capable of dealing with. That sort of became the conventional wisdom and I think now people don't question that wisdom, it's been accepted as gospel.


Case in point: there are plenty of successful strikers in MMA these days and no one thinks they are incapable of dealing with grapplers.


Flying Crane said:


> If he grabs you, don't try to grapple him off, because you are playing his game. Hit the hell out of him instead and get him to let go that way.


Another case in point.  There are literally hundreds of examples showing that this approach doesn't work very well.  The reason is not that the strikers were "hesitant to throw their strikes for real."  The reason is that once the grappler has hold of you he is a) smothering your strikes and b) taking away your base and therefore your power.
What does work is having enough grappling skill to stop the immediate take down, make space and _then _hit the hell out of him.  What also works is having enough grappling skill to immediately bounce back to your feet after you are taken down and _then _hit the hell out of him.  What's even better is being so good at these tactics that your attacker is hesistant to even try shooting in on you because he knows your defence is so sharp.  Then you can just play your own game and pick him apart with your strikes.  Watch fights with Anderson Silva, Lyoto Machida, or Chuck Lidell for good examples of these strategies.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> What does work is having enough grappling skill to stop the immediate take down, make space and _then _hit the hell out of him.  What also works is having enough grappling skill to immediately bounce back to your feet after you are taken down and _then _hit the hell out of him.  What's even better is being so good at these tactics that your attacker is hesistant to even try shooting in on you because he knows your defence is so sharp.  Then you can just play your own game and pick him apart with your strikes.  Watch fights with Anderson Silva, Lyoto Machida, or Chuck Lidell for good examples of these strategies.


Great points, Tony.  There are several very good examples of excellent strikers who create opportunities for their striking by also be excellent grapplers.

Lyoto Machida is a striker who is also a black belt in BJJ.  Anderson Silva is a black belt in BJJ.  Chuck Lidell was an excellent wrestler.  Going down the list in MMA, pretty much every featured striker is also a competent grappler.  It's not what they know.  They know the same things that other grapplers know.  It's how they choose to use their skills that distinguishes them from others.  Instead of looking for a takedown, they defend takedowns.  They're not looking to smother their opponents in the clinch.  Rather, they use the same skillset to protect themselves in the clinch until they have an opportunity to create space.


----------



## geezer

mook jong man said:


> I've been known to get a bit fired up too on occasion , we probably all have at some stage. Everybody except Geezer I think , nothing seems to phase that dude , I reckon he must be some sort of Taoist priest lol.



Thanks! Maybe that all that _anger management training_ I've been through is paying off! :uhyeah:


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Joy, I don't get by to visit your class often enough, but I do remember from one of the times  that I have stopped by that one of your students was a very strong and athletic young man, probably in his early to mid-twenties. I commented to you that he had the look of a professional athlete, and I believe you replied that he had been a _nationally ranked competitive wrestler_. A wrestler of that level of skill and experience wouldn't be training with you if he didn't think that WC had a lot to offer a grappler. I think Joe might benefit from this observation!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve- you (not a universal you)are welcome to visit again. Different students show up on different days-their choice. What you noticed was correct. One of my students who now has finished with me is Joshua Santobianco now a Second Lieutenant in the US Army
and undergoing special training at Ft Benning, Ga. He has an All American medallion for Greco- Roman at his weight. When he first took up wing chun with me he was a High School wrestler from Delaware and then wrestled at Arizona State U.
He would not make the kind of statement that Jeff has made here. Josh  knows that a well trained good wing chun person with the right structure and dynamics can hold their own against a grappler or a boxer or a Thai boxer.
All depends on who has received what kind of training and how much wing chun they understand  and practice.
See snap shots at:
http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/chum_kiu_form.pdf
Good wing chun structure and  dynamics can adjust to low level grappler attacks as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> The "clear advantage" is that wrestlers/grapplers don't delude themselves into thinking they are invincible. I worry about what ya'll *******s do because you can talk as much **** as you want about grappling, yet you DON'T EVEN TRY to find out why they can beat you within 30 seconds. It's pathetic. I AM a wing tsun man, and a good one. You say "waste my time worrying about WT and what others do?" I don't consider it a waste of time to study my enemy. Or other disciplines of martial arts. I consider all that don't woefully ignorant. And please correct me if i've mistaken what you were trying to say; But from what I understand, you think that I am bashing WT? Not in the slightest. But i'll gladly call you an idiot for saying it isn't an intelligent thing to train against the opponents that are most dangerous. Yes I take the wrestlers sides when they are right. Right about WT not having any ground game, because honestly, you DON'T see it in MMA. Whether or not we actually have it, there is no exposure except for what people see in the ring. So before you go toting that "He's not good enough to be in our system" ****, why don't you check yourself before you wreck yourself. Stop assuming that you have all the answers and that me, by validating some grapplers point of view (which is by my reckoning spot on) should be condenmed on the spot. Again with the WT/WC/VT ignorance.
> 
> Geezer I'm sorry, but this is the kinda funky-chicken stuff i'm talking about.



i'm not even a wing chun guy myself, so....meh.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tony Dismukes said:


> Michael, I think you have a partial truth here.
> I believe a more accurate statement would be "_some _strikers dial their techniques back to an unrealistic level in training, so that their skills are more theoretical when it comes to knowing how to fight against tough, skilled opponents."
> Let's take a look at one of the best strikers in the world, Anderson Silva. His skills are not theoretical. He can hit you standing or on the ground. He can hit you whether you are trying to punch him or take him down. He can hit you brutally from any angle. He can even knock you out while he is moving backwards.
> The reason he can do all this is because of how he trains. He trains with boxers, so he knows what they can do. He trains with wrestlers, so he knows what they can do. He doesn't assume his strikes are too deadly to practice realistically and instruct his training partners to "acknowledge" them according to some theory of how they should react. He throws them hard enough in training so that his training partners naturally respond realistically. (That doesn't mean that he is trying to knock out his sparring partners any more than he is actually trying to break their arms when he practices an armbar.)
> 
> I get the feeling that you have not been following MMA much in recent years.
> 
> Case in point: there are plenty of successful strikers in MMA these days and no one thinks they are incapable of dealing with grapplers.
> 
> Another case in point. There are literally hundreds of examples showing that this approach doesn't work very well. The reason is not that the strikers were "hesitant to throw their strikes for real." The reason is that once the grappler has hold of you he is a) smothering your strikes and b) taking away your base and therefore your power.
> What does work is having enough grappling skill to stop the immediate take down, make space and _then _hit the hell out of him. What also works is having enough grappling skill to immediately bounce back to your feet after you are taken down and _then _hit the hell out of him. What's even better is being so good at these tactics that your attacker is hesistant to even try shooting in on you because he knows your defence is so sharp. Then you can just play your own game and pick him apart with your strikes. Watch fights with Anderson Silva, Lyoto Machida, or Chuck Lidell for good examples of these strategies.



first of all, yes, SOME strikers...and you are correct, I've not followed MMA in recent years, nor ever, to be honest.  While I've caught a handful of fights on TV over the years, it was more by accident and the fact that there was nothing else to watch at the moment.  I've simply never been interested in it.

I've never held MMA competitions to be THE yardstick against which all things must be measured.  They have their valid issues, but are in no way universal in making a comparison or a judgement over what may or may not work.

When you've got two highly trained individuals agreeing to meet for a competition style combat, it creates its own reality.  Within that context, it both allows for things and disallows for other things.  There is a certain amount of caution and "feeling out" of the other guy, there is time to invest in strategies that may take several minutes to play out to fruition because the fight is scheduled to go that long, stuff like that.  In an encounter on the street, there is no time for that.  It is more likely to be full committment from the first moment, there is no time to invest in longer strategies, and it is likely to be over in seconds, well under half a minute.

So, I get what you are saying, and I appreciate what MMA competition offers in terms of example and experience.  I never intend to diminish that.  But I do not view it as THE answer, or THE yardstick, for what all may come and how everything works.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> i'm not even a wing chun guy myself, so....meh.



Ha! Crane, it sounds like you've mastered anger-management too! LOL


----------



## Steve

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve- you (not a universal you)are welcome to visit again. Different students show up on different days-their choice. What you noticed was correct. One of my students who now has finished with me is Joshua Santobianco now a Second Lieutenant in the US Army
> and undergoing special training at Ft Benning, Ga. He has an All American medallion for Greco- Roman at his weight. When he first took up wing chun with me he was a High School wrestler from Delaware and then wrestled at Arizona State U.
> He would not make the kind of statement that Jeff has made here. Josh  knows that a well trained good wing chun person with the right structure and dynamics can hold their own against a grappler or a boxer or a Thai boxer.
> All depends on who has received what kind of training and how much wing chun they understand  and practice.
> See snap shots at:
> http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/chum_kiu_form.pdf
> Good wing chun structure and  dynamics can adjust to low level grappler attacks as well.


The techniques would be interesting to explore in real life.  The three panels (4-a, b and c) where Joy is defending against a low, single leg, has some good points.

In 4-a, I have a couple of comments.  First, it's actually refreshing to see relatively good body positioning from Josh.  His head is up and it looks as though he actually changed levels through his legs, rather than bending over at the waist (a common mistake).  The one minor issue is that the wrestler would typically look for the single leg after setting it up. 

In 4-b, there are a lot of good things going on.  Joy's hips are back, his legs are wide, giving him a solid base.  He's also pushing down on the head.  Keeping it low.  At this point, the easiest defense would be to neutralize the shoot by simply stepping back to clear the left foot while continuing to push the head down and away to create space.

I have questions about 4-c.  It's difficult to see what's going on.  It looks like Joy actually allows Josh to close, which would be problematic.  Would you please explain a little more what is happening in this picture?

Edit:  I just re-read your post, and realized that you are Joy.  It's nice to meet you.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Flying Crane said:


> first of all, yes, SOME strikers...and you are correct, I've not followed MMA in recent years, nor ever, to be honest.  While I've caught a handful of fights on TV over the years, it was more by accident and the fact that there was nothing else to watch at the moment.  I've simply never been interested in it.
> 
> I've never held MMA competitions to be THE yardstick against which all things must be measured.  They have their valid issues, but are in no way universal in making a comparison or a judgement over what may or may not work.
> 
> When you've got two highly trained individuals agreeing to meet for a competition style combat, it creates its own reality.  Within that context, it both allows for things and disallows for other things.  There is a certain amount of caution and "feeling out" of the other guy, there is time to invest in strategies that may take several minutes to play out to fruition because the fight is scheduled to go that long, stuff like that.  In an encounter on the street, there is no time for that.  It is more likely to be full committment from the first moment, there is no time to invest in longer strategies, and it is likely to be over in seconds, well under half a minute.
> 
> So, I get what you are saying, and I appreciate what MMA competition offers in terms of example and experience.  I never intend to diminish that.  But I do not view it as THE answer, or THE yardstick, for what all may come and how everything works.



I actually agree with you in general.  There are some important differences between MMA competition and other situations of real-life violence and therefore there are implications for training in how you prepare.  (I've been meaning to write a post on the subject to start some more constructive discussion than we aften have on the issue.) There are also important similarities and those also have implications. It seems that we have a disagreement on which category this falls under.

In my opinion, the concept that "to stop a competent grappler who has got ahold of you from taking you down, it works much better to apply grappling principles to stop the takedown and _t__hen _hit him than to just try to stop the takedown _by _hitting him" is one of the lessons that applies to a street self-defense situation just as much as to a UFC match.  This is supported by various fights I have witnessed over the years outside of competition, as well as experimentation in my own training.  Perhaps your experiences suggest otherwise. 

As I said, MMA is not perfectly representative of all forms of "real world violence."  (Actually many forms of real world violence are distinctly different from each other, so the differences and similarities may vary depending on what you are comparing it to.)  Still, if you want to claim that a given lesson from MMA doesn't apply to real life then I think it's useful to explain why _that particular _lesson doesn't carry over rather than just generalize about how MMA isn't a perfect representation of a street fight.


----------



## geezer

Tony Dismukes said:


> In my opinion, the concept that "to stop a competent grappler who has got ahold of you from taking you down, it works much better to apply grappling principles to stop the takedown and _t__hen _hit him than to just try to stop the takedown _by _hitting him"...



Good point. A very basic example of this against an attempted double-leg would be to sprawl, crossface, and rotate behind to control your opponent. Sprawling stops or at least slows the attempted takedown, and a crossface is not just leverage to drive against the head so you can break the grip on your legs, it's a _hard strike_. At least the way I was taught it...

When I was a little kid of about 10 or 11, some Okie guy named Glenn McMinn told me something like this: _If yer crossface don't move his nose over next to his ear, it ain't a good crossface._ Then he showed us how to kinda corkscrew your wrist as you drive your arm across your opponent's face so it would bust him up real good. Of course he held back from telling us the rough stuff. _That_ was for the older kids. 

*Glenn McMinn Sr. 
Wrestling / 1965-1967/ **Inducted 1986*
Sun Devil wrestling's first All-American, McMinn earned an NCAA record for most wins in three years of competition, while compiling a record of 104-11-1, with 23 tournament victories. Glenn was a two-time member of the East-West All-Star team (1965-66). While posting a 35-3-0 record in career dual meets, he won two Western Athletic Conference Championships (1965-66) and once was runner-up (1967). McMinn placed second and third in the NCAA Championships in 1965 and 1967, with his only losses coming from wrestlers who went on to win World Championships. He was also second in the USA-AAU National Championships in 1967. McMinn was selected to the Arizona Wrestling Hall of Fame in 1976.


----------



## K-man

Flying Crane said:


> i'm not even a wing chun guy myself, so....meh.


Nor am I, but they do have have one or two good ideas occasionally.


----------



## Flying Crane

K-man said:


> Nor am I, but they do have have one or two good ideas occasionally.



oh yeah, I'm not nocking it.  I did train for a few years, but it's been another few years since those days.


----------



## Vajramusti

Steve said:


> The techniques would be interesting to explore in real life.  The three panels (4-a, b and c) where Joy is defending against a low, single leg, has some good points.
> 
> In 4-a, I have a couple of comments.  First, it's actually refreshing to see relatively good body positioning from Josh.  His head is up and it looks as though he actually changed levels through his legs, rather than bending over at the waist (a common mistake).  The one minor issue is that the wrestler would typically look for the single leg after setting it up.
> 
> In 4-b, there are a lot of good things going on.  Joy's hips are back, his legs are wide, giving him a solid base.  He's also pushing down on the head.  Keeping it low.  At this point, the easiest defense would be to neutralize the shoot by simply stepping back to clear the left foot while continuing to push the head down and away to create space.
> 
> I have questions about 4-c.  It's difficult to see what's going on.  It looks like Joy actually allows Josh to close, which would be problematic.  Would you please explain a little more what is happening in this picture?
> 
> Edit:  I just re-read your post, and realized that you are Joy.  It's nice to meet you.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Steve- I work on not letting people set up.Sharp wing chun timing can catch people between motions.
On 4c - I jam him with a subtle wing chun step turn coordinating with instantaneous two handed wing chun based  twisting of his head affecting the head body connection.


----------



## Steve

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Steve- I work on not letting people set up.Sharp wing chun timing can catch people between motions.
> On 4c - I jam him with a subtle wing chun step turn coordinating with instantaneous two handed wing chun based  twisting of his head affecting the head body connection.


I'm a visual guy and can't visualize it.  Maybe I'll have an opportunity to see it some day.


----------



## Vajramusti

Good wishes Steve-back in the 50s doing summer cannery  and farm jobs I lived in 
Dayton-Walla Walla , Kemt-Seattle in Washington and had some boxing matches in Dayton and Seattle.

good wishes.


----------

