# What is wrong with wing chun



## DaveB (Jul 21, 2017)

What precisely is wrong with wing chun?

I'm not posting a style bashing thread, if you don't have specifics don't post. If you can't back it up please don't post.

My aim is analytical, to see if the endless criticism of this style has something behind it other than YouTube videos.

What are the unrealistic techniques?
Which tactics don't work?
What is wrong with its body mechanics?

And most importantly, why?

If you don't know why, don't post.

I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong with wing chun. I think any maist who wants to fight other styles needs to train away from his art and spend time working out how to counter that which is unfamiliar.

The wc losses I have seen were usually down to being overly rigid and not understanding the impact of body movement. Both pretty easy mistakes That come with a lack of experience and neither are things that are style specific to my knowledge.

But it seems that there are a significant number who feel that the art is fundamentally flawed. I would like to understand this.


----------



## VPT (Jul 21, 2017)

I personally think two things implicitly stated in much critique are 1) over-reliance of bridging and 2) insufficient amount of entropic training (the infamous "patty-cake" quip). Fortunately, both of these are issues in poor programming of training rather than inherent flaws of the system.

By over-reliance of bridging I mean training too much in chi sau and doing training that begins in an assumed position where a bridge has been established. The main question in all striking (and much of self defense when de-escalation has failed) is "how you stop the first punch?". If you have your hands crossed most of the time and only start there you are not addressing and developing enough effective skills of receiving. I also think that a chi sau situation where both hands are touching is actually very rare to occur, and the possible effects you get out of it are limited if your own skill of establishing a bridge through your _own initiative _are not good. No normal person will give you a bridge voluntarily unless they seek it themselves.

By entropic training I mean simply "alive" training, where you are by default reliant only on sensory identification of the attack and not any kind of prior conduct, i.e. "attacker assumes a left hook from a predefined distance". This includes sparring and any kind of tactical or technical goal-oriented testing, i.e. "attacker assumes free movement and launches unscripted lefts, rights or 1-2s towards the defender, who must attempt to ward them of with techniques A and B". This kind of training has a virtue of eliminating rigidity and faulty, unnatural or inefficient movement and technique and develop bad habits into better ones.

These are not only personal opinions towards Wing Chun per se, but rather a general line of critique that I hold towards practice regimes sustained in many traditional arts that also often applies to Wing Chun.

On a more personal level, I have two peeves. One is a memetic habit of turning your face away when you are in the position of attacker and a flurry of counter-punches are thrown at you (I say memetic since this is very probably a learned cultural habit transmitted throughout the training community very much like the hopping in Cheng Man Ching's lineage of taiji). This is likely done to represent an untrained attackers reaction in the face of such techniques, but is also a counter-productive and harmful habit that you are likely to internalize in your other conduct of training. It also fails the defender to assume such thing would always happen, but what if the original attacker shrugs them off? That is also likely to happen. No head-turning and exposing the neck, please!

The other thing I personally don't like much, coming from a Bak Mei perspective, is the power generation from a strictly squared hips and static spine. It is possible to generate power through the Wing Chun posture, but is very, very intricate and easy to misunderstand. A friend of mine likes to call out those Wing Chun practicioners who have "a dead back". (He also trains the Dan Harden aiki system so he know about how you use your spine properly.) I don't believe that simply charging your bodyweight forward with stepping is enough to power your punches, instead you need to transmit force from your whole body to the punch to get the maximum power. By comparison: in a boxing cross 40 % of power comes from legs, 40 % from the torso and only 20 % comes from the hand. How much of power comes from the legs in a Wing Chun punch, and how you transmit it?

All this said, I've trained strict Wing Chun only twice, but did sparring with a Wing Chun fella a few times and have had some chats with others on different occasions.


----------



## swhitney222 (Jul 21, 2017)

VPT said:


> He also trains the Dan Harden aiki system so he know about how you use your spine properly



Hi VPT, nice post. I also had the opportunity to  trained with Dan Harden for a few years, the power that guy can generate is supernatural. This guy is top notch and is not style specific. He works the body the way it is designed to work to generate lots of power. Using the whole body and applying soft relaxed power correctly can be applied in all styles. This guy (dan harden) definitely knows how to show it and teach it.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 21, 2017)

DaveB said:


> What precisely is wrong with wing chun?


I guess that depends on your perspective. For a guy like me that views all classical styles as a 'grab bag' of potentially integratable techniques, nothing is 'wrong' with it persay.



[QuoteMy aim is analytical, to see if the endless criticism of this style has something behind it other than YouTube videos.

What are the unrealistic techniques?
Which tactics don't work?
What is wrong with its body mechanics

And most importantly, why?[/quote]
The answer to these three questions is 'nothing' granted you start using it from extremely close range. Once a man is 'in your face' or has a grip on your shirt or jacket, or wants to play the shoving game.

Much the same as how BJJ is only at it's best on the ground.





> I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong with wing chun. I think any maist who wants to fight other styles needs to train away from his art and spend time working out how to counter that which is unfamiliar.


However, as a 'system' or 'style'(ie that's all you have) it's problematic. No head or body movement, stiff footwork, all the strikes are short range, and the biomechanics favour speed and volume at the expense of range and power.(which is problematic unless the fight starts at breath smelling range)

Not to mention the guard pre bridge (ip man statue pose) relys on your reaction time being faster than your opponents strikes, as the arms aren't really protecting anything.



> The wc losses I have seen were usually down to being overly rigid and not understanding the impact of body movement.


Because in WC the body and head are static, which is fine if you are already inside(provided the guy you are in there with isn't good at takedowns), but turns you into a living BOB from any other range.


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2017)

I appreciate VPT's critical analysis and agree with much of it ...but not all.

First, his critique of "over-reliance on bridging" makes strong point. In the system of VT I train, this is absolutely the case. There is an absolute obsession with chi-sau and an excessively complex curriculum of chi-sau sections that can become a fascinating chess-game of "energy exchanges" with a like-minded partner, but at the same time is far removed from the realities of live sparring or combat. This is similarly the case with many other VT/WC/WT branches. Now there is certainly an appeal for this kind of training, especially among the over 60 crowd like myself, but if we want to train effective and well-rounded martial artist we need to be honest with ourselves regarding this. Chi-sau is not sparring, and cannot replace it.

As VPT suggested, one answer to the above is to provide a balanced with more "alive" training, including both sparring and free, or unscripted drilling. I would add that we need to work constructively competent representatives of other systems to realistically test our responses. This is not something that comes easily to WVT/WT with its traditions of exclusivity in which even training with members of other WC branches is frowned upon.

Now, I would have to _disagree _with what VPT described as his two "pet peeves" -- not because I support the characteristics he describes. To the contrary, I agree that they are detrimental traits, but have to add that they are _not _traits taught in the VT I train.

_First,_ VPT describes the habit of _turning the face away_ from your opponent when engaging in a close range flurry of techniques. You will also see this bad habit in some free chi-sau exchanges:










In the branches of WC/VT/WT I've trained, you are taught to face your opponent's center, chasing center and not hands according  the mottos, "Fight nose to nose, not nose to fist!" and "Chase center, not hands."

_Secondly, _regarding p_ower generation_, I believe _good_ Wing Chun should (and does) incorporate the _entire body._ This may be held back at the beginning (probably not a good idea) but by the time a student is working on Biu Tze, the steps and turns, the legs, hips, torso and spine, shoulders, elbows and wrist all work in an elastic kinetic linkage to deliver power. Alan Orr, although coming from a different branch than my own, have made some good points on this with their ideas of using the "seven bows" and a "floating kwa". Or from another perspective, check out Emin Boztepe's breakdown of the punch, especially regarding the contribution of the _spine_ in power generation:


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2017)

BTW, re the Randy Williams clip above: As a friend of mine commented upon viewing this, "Only a Butt-Head would start throwing Head-Butts in a supposedly_ friendly_ chi-sau exchange like that!"


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2017)

Martial D said:


> ...For a guy like me that views all classical styles as a* 'grab bag' of potentially integratable techniques,* nothing is 'wrong' with it persay.
> 
> ...However, as a _*'system'*_ or 'style'(ie that's all you have) it's problematic. No head or body movement, stiff footwork, all the strikes are short range, and the biomechanics favour speed and volume at the expense of range and power...



Here's where I differ with you (and I think it is mostly a matter of semantics, not substance). If you can effectively_ integrate_ techniques, you don't have a _grab bag_ (random bag of tricks) any more, you now have a _system _...*a way of moving,* of defending and attacking, of generating power, in short: of _fighting_.

Good Wing Chun is just that. Not a collection of _techniques_. Those can be added or subtracted as needed. It is system, a way of _moving._ And, as you pointed out, one that works best as a close range stand-up, striking art favoring speed and continuous, swarming attacks.

At other ranges -- either at long range, or grappling on the ground, you better have familiarity with other systems, or _other ways of moving. _Merely adding more techniques to your grab bag will not make you a competent grappler, or long range fighter!


----------



## DanT (Jul 21, 2017)

There's nothing wrong with MY Wing Chun and the Wing Chun that MY Sifu learned, there are issues with certain styles of Wing Chun that I have seen and have experienced in sparring them. They are as follows:

1. Utter lack of dynamic footwork
2. Lack of adequate take down defence
3. Lack of power and snap in strikes
4. Terrible Kicks (no power, no speed)
5. Lack of sparring
6. Horrendous body conditioning
7. Dismal body and head movement
8. Failure in developing Deun Ging
9. Failure in developing Jian Dai Lik
10. Lack of heavy bag training


----------



## VPT (Jul 21, 2017)

I am absolutely supportive of everything that geezer has to say about my comment. I'm not part of the Wing Chun community so I don't know which exact lineage trains what and how. The Wing Chun guy I trained with had been for years at the level SLT, whereas in my Bak Mei I have learnt eight of the ten forms (one is missing since I haven't had the need to learn yet, for the other one I'm not ready yet). Also, good martial arts and artists use their full body. Bad martial arts and artists, be they Wing Chun, Bak Mei or wrestlers more often than not don't.

However, I disagree with Botztepe's use of the shoulder on the video. His spine action is also good, but I've learned from the very beginning to bend the other way. Just a different flavour, I guess.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 21, 2017)

geezer said:


> Here's where I differ with you (and I think it is mostly a matter of semantics, not substance). If you can effectively_ integrate_ techniques, you don't have a _grab bag_ (random bag of tricks) any more, you now have a _system _...*a way of moving,* of defending and attacking, of generating power, in short: of _fighting_.
> 
> Good Wing Chun is just that. Not a collection of _techniques_. Those can be added or subtracted as needed. It is system, a way of _moving._ And, as you pointed out, one that works best as a close range stand-up, striking art favoring speed and continuous, swarming attacks.
> 
> At other ranges -- either at long range, or grappling on the ground, you better have familiarity with other systems, or _other ways of moving. _Merely adding more techniques to your grab bag will not make you a competent grappler, or long range fighter!


Yes, purely semantics. When I say 'grab bag' I mean things I can potentially graft onto my 'system'(which is no system) to improve my skills at a given range. WC has given me a nice set of short range tools for a certain(extremely common) situation. 

The vast majority of street altercations I have found myself in(I know I know...I was a dumb kid that fought alot...) have followed a certain, almost predictable pattern;bunch of **** talking and bravado, distance closed, sometimes shoving, sometimes not, usually a shirt grab, more **** talking. All this is at WC range.


----------



## Buka (Jul 21, 2017)

As an observer - I think all the in fighting and anger amongst practitioners of the style, albeit from different training arenas/lineages, does nothing but stymie it.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 21, 2017)

Buka said:


> As an observer - I think all the in fighting and anger amongst practitioners of the style, albeit from different training arenas/lineages, does nothing but stymie it.


I know right! Back in the 90s when I trained in WC those years I didn't even know the scope of it. Sure I knew there were different schools teaching different ways, but the whole lineage thing wasn't something that was ever talked about.

Knowing myself and my partisan nature I'm kind of glad no issue was ever made of it, although for acedemic reasons and curiosity I wouldn't mind knowing exactly where MY wc came from. I'm still not totally sure.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 21, 2017)

Most of the derision for Wing Chun is historically based.

A number of prominent practitioners claimed Wing Chun to be the deadliest style on the planet, and that they could beat just about anybody. For PR and marketing purposes, obviously.

MMA basically showed these claims to be pretty much hot air in the eyes of the public at large. Wing Chun, with a few exceptions, fared very badly in this arena. Emin Boztepe challenged the Gracies at one stage, but this went nowhere. Some observers viewed this as him creating publicity for himself but backing out before the rubber hit the road. Neither side of the argument (which was all it was) acquitted themselves well here. I've been involved in both WC and BJJ for close to 20 years and have no dog in that fight.

The lack of Wing Chun related corpses and of practitioners doing hard time for manslaughter or murder didn't help the "deadliest style on the planet" cause much either. The fight between Emin and William Cheung, allegedly two of the best practitioners in the deadliest style on earth, resulted in nothing more than a black eye and some ego damage. Emin "won" this "fight" to the adulation of some. He fared less well in a later encounter with an actual bada$$, Jon Bluming.

Most of the WC/WT/VT "anti-grappling" stuff shown most prominently by WT in the 1990s is rightly scorned by the grappling fraternity. It generally shows a lack of understanding of basic grappling techniques, tactics and strategy, and almost all the demonstrations of its "effectiveness" online were performed against people that couldn't grapple. If you are worried about being beaten by a grappler, spend a couple of nights a week at a wrestling or BJJ class  for a couple of years and get to BJJ blue belt level. You'll be better at grappling and defending against it than 95-99% of the people on the planet.. It ain't that hard, unless your ego gets in the way.

Of course these criticisms can be levelled at many TCMAs. I've yet to see a really successful MMA fighter who claims a base in Bak Mei, Northern Praying Mantis, Baguazhang, or for that matter Aikido, effective use of relaxed power or no. And whether MMA success is the final arbiter of stylistic effectiveness (for what?) is debatable. There are, however, fewer more public and verifiable ways of comparing broad martial art skills that won't have you thrown in gaol.

The untrained and uninformed (which is not to say stupid) public look to the winners. And so they choose MMA, BJJ, wrestling, boxing, or Muay Thai. More obscure styles with less obvious records of success are looked at more suspiciously.

The "rules don't favour our deadly techniques" and "our style can't fight in gloves" excuses don't wash either. A number of Wing Chun practitioners have succeeded in competitive arenas despite these supposed handicaps. My own instructor had 37 pro and over 100 amateur kickboxing matches, and among my sidais are a former WKA world kickboxing champion, and successful MMA fighters. Alan Orr and others have also had successes here. But all these people cross trained in other arts, and underwent specialised competition training as well. Going to your local kwoon and doing chi sao, dummy work, forms and a bit of semicontact sparring a  few times a week aren't going to prepare you for a competition match. London to a brick you will get your a$$ kicked up between your shoulder blades.

The "too deadly" excuse begs the question of where all the corpses are hidden.

The style's own internecine squabbles don't exactly give it a great reputation, either. Boztepe/Cheung, and the later long public spat and ultimate "fight" between Andrew Draheim and Keith Mazza, were immature and highly unimpressive. Both Boztepe (in an Australian martial arts magazine) and Draheim (on KFO) both later admitted that their seniors had commanded them to do this. What are you, children?

The feud between various WC substyles continues to this day, on this forum and elsewhere. People look at stuff like this and see people who never fight talking about whose approach to this non-fighting is the most conceptually sound and why everyone else is clueless. Impressive, huh?

An outsider looking in thinks, "do I want to be involved with these w@nkers?" and often goes elsewhere.

Every style has weaknesses. If you can't find any, you aren't trying. It comes down to pressure testing your art constantly, being honest with yourself, and being prepared to throw out or change stuff that doesn't work for you. Adherence to ideologies is dangerous.


----------



## geezer (Jul 21, 2017)

anerlich said:


> ...Adherence to ideologies is dangerous.



True that.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 21, 2017)

Bruce Lee was once quoted as having said (and this was in the 70s) that most of the CMA that came to America is bullsh#t, and that even the vast majority of Hong Kong and mainland Chinese ma was likewise bullsh#t...but there is still a tiny fraction teaching the REAL sh#t. The deadly Kung Fu of yor.

It's hearsay of course(it was recounted by someone that knew him), but I want it to be true. I hold out a romantic hope that it exists, because I want it to.

Not that they would teach an old gwai lo like me anyway, but I prefer a world with real deadly Chinese wushu in it.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> There's nothing wrong with MY Wing Chun and the Wing Chun that MY Sifu learned, there are issues with certain styles of Wing Chun that I have seen and have experienced in sparring them. They are as follows:
> 
> 1. Utter lack of dynamic footwork
> 2. Lack of adequate take down defence
> ...


Yes.Very true. But I can bet that even in your own WC,there are  limited hand strikes and leg strikes. For example no fu jow, ying jow, charp chui, pek chui, sow chui, spinning back fist, kup chui, uppercut, phoenix eye strikes. You will need to have those in your arsenal just in case the fight doesn't go as planned.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Yes.Very true. But I can bet that even in your own WC,there are  limited hand strikes and leg strikes. For example no fu jow, ying jow, charp chui, pek chui, sow chui, spinning back fist, kup chui, uppercut, phoenix eye strikes. You will need to have those in your arsenal just in case the fight doesn't go as planned.


Fighting isn't about a breadth of techniques, it's about knowing how to hit with what you've got.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Fighting isn't about a breadth of techniques, it's about knowing how to hit with what you've got.


Having more hand moves in your arsenal makes it easier for you to face ANY situation. Let's say you chain punch or biu jee or palm strike and the guy ducks, then how do you use WC to get him?Chain punch lower?Maybe do a downward thrust and biu jee his eyes? No .You follow up with a pek chui,sow chui or a kup chui to the top of the head. Hitting with only "what you've got" is a limitation. The limitations of only having a few hand moves can be broken by having more hand strikes at your disposal.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Having more hand moves in your arsenal makes it easier for you to face ANY situation. Let's say you chain punch or biu jee or palm strike and the guy ducks, then how do you use WC to get him?Chain punch lower?Maybe do a downward thrust and biu jee his eyes? No .You follow up with a pek chui,sow chui or a kup chui to the top of the head. Hitting with only "what you've got" is a limitation. The limitations of only having a few hand moves can be broken by having more hand strikes at your disposal.



How is the strike you said better than the wing chun options?


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DaveB said:


> How is the strike you said better than the wing chun options?


Chain punching the top of the head doesn't do damage. Try it for yourself. You will feel awkward.
 Biu jiing the eyes works but you have to pull back after doing a palm strike . Crane beak doesn't penetrate the top of head unless you have iron fingers. Snake hand strike after doing a palm strike which was hangin in the air wouldn't hurt the top part of the head either. Elbowing the top of the head works but you have to curve your arm. The best few moves that would be faster after the chain or palm strike that hangs in the air(and needs to move downward) is a pek chui or a kup choi. I made a mistake here by suggesting sow chui. Sow chui requires a pulling back action so it's not fast enough here.

My point is to have varied options to use at your disposal. Somebody who is unfortunate to have learnt only limited hand techniques,say pek chui and kup choi etc and not knowing chain punching, biu jee, snake hand ,crane beak and elbow is also at a disadvantage.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Chain punching the top of the head doesn't do damage. Try it for yourself. You will feel awkward.
> Biu jiing the eyes works but you have to pull back after doing a palm strike . Crane beak doesn't penetrate the top of head unless you have iron fingers. Snake hand strike after doing a palm strike which was hangin in the air wouldn't hurt the top part of the head either. Elbowing the top of the head works but you have to curve your arm. The best few moves that would be faster after the chain or palm strike that hangs in the air(and needs to move downward) is a pek chui or a kup choi. I made a mistake here by suggesting sow chui. Sow chui requires a pulling back action so it's not fast enough here.
> 
> My point is to have varied options to use at your disposal. Somebody who is unfortunate to have learnt only limited hand techniques,say pek chui and kup choi etc and not knowing chain punching, biu jee, snake hand ,crane beak and elbow is also at a disadvantage.



Hitting the top of the head?! 

You do know the top of the head can take serious damage? Ever tried running into a steel bar at full speed? It hurts but it does not knock you down (yea I did get quite dizzy after a while when it sank in what I just did). Now imagine if your skull can handle a steel bar, how well would those knuckles take it?


----------



## DanT (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Yes.Very true. But I can bet that even in your own WC,there are  limited hand strikes and leg strikes. For example no fu jow, ying jow, charp chui, pek chui, sow chui, spinning back fist, kup chui, uppercut, phoenix eye strikes. You will need to have those in your arsenal just in case the fight doesn't go as planned.


I don't understand, Wing Chun doesn't have a tiger claw because it doesn't fit the snake crane engine of the system. There isn't any attack that I can think of that you would need a tiger claw or an eagle claw to defend against, Wing Chun techniques will work fine. This is coming from someone who also practices and trains tiger claw. 

Charp chui, Pec Chui, Sow Chui, Spinning Backfist, and uppercuts are Wing Chun techniques.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> I don't understand, Wing Chun doesn't have a tiger claw because it doesn't fit the snake crane engine of the system. There isn't any attack that I can think of that you would need a tiger claw or an eagle claw to defend against, Wing Chun techniques will work fine. This is coming from someone who also practices and trains tiger claw.
> 
> Charp chui, Pec Chui, Sow Chui, Spinning Backfist, and uppercuts are Wing Chun techniques.



I wouldn't worry about it too much...he (knapf) didn't study WC very long and then left for whatever he is learning not (CLF?). So, I don't think he has a full understanding of WC like you may have.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> I don't understand, Wing Chun doesn't have a tiger claw because it doesn't fit the snake crane engine of the system. There isn't any attack that I can think of that you would need a tiger claw or an eagle claw to defend against, Wing Chun techniques will work fine. This is coming from someone who also practices and trains tiger claw.


WC techniques will work fine until you meet an opponent who "introduces"  a new technique to you.



> Charp chui, Pec Chui, Sow Chui, Spinning Backfist, and uppercuts are Wing Chun techniques.


Don't lie to yourself. They are NOT Wing Chun techniques. Tiger claw doesn't fit into the snake crane style but charp chui(leopard) is a WC technique? Yup. I can bet that the SLT,CK and BJ forms have penetrating/leopard fist and large right hooks. You even swing your body around while in yee ji kim yeung ma stance in order to do the spinning backfist.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> I wouldn't worry about it too much...he (knapf) didn't study WC very long and then left for whatever he is learning not (CLF?). So, I don't think he has a full understanding of WC like you may have.


The full understanding of getting beaten up.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Hitting the top of the head?!
> 
> You do know the top of the head can take serious damage? Ever tried running into a steel bar at full speed? It hurts but it does not knock you down (yea I did get quite dizzy after a while when it sank in what I just did). Now imagine if your skull can handle a steel bar, how well would those knuckles take it?


What's your point? That the top of the head is quite though? A proper pek chui can deal with the top of the head easily.


----------



## DanT (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> WC techniques will work fine until you meet an opponent who "introduces"  a new technique to you.
> 
> 
> Don't lie to yourself. They are NOT Wing Chun techniques. Tiger claw doesn't fit into the snake crane style but charp chui(leopard) is a WC technique?Oh please. As for Sow Chui,there is no video in the universe where  it is shown that WCnners use a large right hook


I don't understand, there are only so many angles of attack that the opponent can strike me from, I don't care about the formation of his hand. Wing Chun techniques are enough to deal with these angles of attack. Charp Chui is launched in a whipping motion in the Biu Jee form in certain lineages (which I assume you never learned). Sow Chui I learned in SLT, as a long hooking motion, after double Jaam Sao (AKA Fak Sao), double Sow Chui, double Lan Sao, double Chum Sao... you never learned Wing Chun properly, you never completed the system, yet you are telling ME what's in it or not?


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> I don't understand, there are only so many angles of attack that the opponent can strike me from, I don't care about the formation of his hand. Wing Chun techniques are enough to deal with these angles of attack. Charp Chui is launched in a whipping motion in the Biu Jee form in certain lineages (which I assume you never learned). Sow Chui I learned in SLT, as a long hooking motion, after double Jaam Sao (AKA Fak Sao), double Sow Chui, double Lan Sao, double Chum Sao... you never learned Wing Chun properly, you never completed the system, yet you are telling ME what's in it or not?






Yeah right. Plenty of sow chuis. And you still haven't answered why tiger claw doesn't fit in but leopard fist does


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 22, 2017)

@DanT ... for context....


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> @DanT ... for context....
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 20894


You act as if not learning the entire  system is some kind of handicap .  I can see that you are taking things personally?


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> You act as if not learning the entire  system is some kind of handicap .  I can see that you are taking things personally?



Not at all...just offering @DanT some context...as I stated. 

...carry on!


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Not at all...just offering @DanT some context...as I stated.
> 
> ...carry on!


----------



## DaveB (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> You act as if not learning the entire  system is some kind of handicap .  I can see that you are taking things personally?


If you want to discuss the content of the art it is.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DaveB said:


> If you want to discuss the content of the art it is.


Unless the art is *censored*


----------



## Phobius (Jul 22, 2017)

Knapf said:


> What's your point? That the top of the head is quite though? A proper pek chui can deal with the top of the head easily.



My point is that I have no clue what you are talking about because it seems like a silly scenario. If the guy ducks so you hit the top of his head... that means he is not low enough so you can not hit the entire area of his face. Thinking that my aim will be to somehow try and strike through the skull bone is just strange.

The guy ducked, he will recover and move. If he ducks to low. Kick him. If not, punch him.

What you are talking about are just attacks that might not be part of WC curriculum. Does not mean that you have any clue all the amount of punches that are available when training WC. Not saying this to somehow defend. Just that I do not see why an art needs to have pek chui punch. It serves only purpose for your art. You would for instance not see it in MT. Does not mean they are inferior in punching.

As a tip, in WC it is not a "here we have the punching techniques". And to think that you mention chain punching which in fact is not even a "technique" but rather several different methods to generate power in a single "exercise".

I think your problem is that you wish to state what an art is after being a beginner at it, while trying to match that with an art that you have better understanding of.

It is like someone that drew a picture as a child tries to give a lession to an artist that copied Mona Lisa on what painting techniques there are. (Shitty reference but I know less about artists and painters than I care to admit)

Perhaps a gentler approach or just lets not talk about what is wrong with an art we do not study.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

Phobius said:


> My point is that I have no clue what you are talking about because it seems like a silly scenario. If the guy ducks so you hit the top of his head... that means he is not low enough so you can not hit the entire area of his face. Thinking that my aim will be to somehow try and strike through the skull bone is just strange.
> 
> The guy ducked, he will recover and move. If he ducks to low. Kick him. If not, punch him.


Seems like this can only be solved through a real life demonstration


> What you are talking about are just attacks that might not be part of WC curriculum. Does not mean that you have any clue all the amount of punches that are available when training WC.


It should be part of the curriculum but it doesn't. Too bad


> It is not a "here we have the punching techniques". And to think that you mention chain punching which in fact is not even a "technique" but rather several different methods to generate power in a single "exercise".
> 
> I think your problem is that you wish to state what an art is after being a beginner at it, while trying to match that with an art that you have better understanding of.
> 
> It is like someone that drew a picture as a child tries to give a lession to an artist that copied Mona Lisa on what painting techniques there are.


Wouldn't someone who drew a picture as a child have more experience?That's a good compliment I might say.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 22, 2017)

If you are going to stand within arms reach of a guy and trade. You had quite simply better be a tough MF. (Martial Fan)

If you are going to leave your head in one spot. Which just happens to be directly down the middle of their firing line. You had better be a tough MF.

If you have no exit strategy if the exchange does not go the way you want. Well guest what you had better be.

If you are not training to be a tough MF you probably won't be in a fight.

And all off this is trying to be achieved with chain punches which have less power, less range and offer less protection than straight jab cross combinations. That is pretty much filling the same role.

Now if you were on a rooftop and some dude gave you the stink eye. Nailing him with four or five hard straight shots should work well. 
(This is pretty much what I do in a street fight)

If you are doing your first two or three ring fights. Good straight punching and good cardio will generally win you the fight.

But as your opponent's skills increase and they become competent with head movement and 3 dimensional fighting you will get picked apart relying on the same old tricks.

If takedowns are involved. Sitting there throwing long combinations in arms reach is basically asking them to put you on your back.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 22, 2017)

I don't know about you guys, but there is nothing wrong with my WC system (If I don't say this, soon or later someone will.).

All 3 WC forms do not involve with any footwork training. Why? One form that I have learned from the long fist system will require me to run across half of the basket ball field. When your opponent is standing still, I'll put my money on the WC guys. When your opponent is moving around, I'll put my money on other CMA systems.






This is my favor footwork training.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 22, 2017)

DanT said:


> I don't understand, there are only so many angles of attack that the opponent can strike me from, I don't care about the formation of his hand. Wing Chun techniques are enough to deal with these angles of attack. Charp Chui is launched in a whipping motion in the Biu Jee form in certain lineages (which I assume you never learned). Sow Chui I learned in SLT, as a long hooking motion, after double Jaam Sao (AKA Fak Sao), double Sow Chui, double Lan Sao, double Chum Sao... you never learned Wing Chun properly, you never completed the system, yet you are telling ME what's in it or not?


What happened? You only Dislike my comment but you don't answer. You afraid to reply cause people can see that you are lying about all those non WC moves?


----------



## Phobius (Jul 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to stand within arms reach of a guy and trade. You had quite simply better be a tough MF. (Martial Fan)



Trading punches is not any intent in WC. Of course this does happen in all arts if rules enforce it or the fighters don't know what they do. 



drop bear said:


> If you are going to leave your head in one spot. Which just happens to be directly down the middle of their firing line. You had better be a tough MF.



This is a major problem not in WC but in people's perceived notion of what WC should be like. Not only from those with opinions but more often from those learning WC. 

If you take a short range weapon to think movement of body and feet are not a major priority such as having good footwork then you have a strange understanding of fighting. 

I would like to see someone being so cold to stand still when someone attacks with a sharp knife.



drop bear said:


> If you have no exit strategy if the exchange does not go the way you want. Well guest what you had better be.
> 
> If you are not training to be a tough MF you probably won't be in a fight.



WC I agree might often lack an exit strategy. While I have offensive retreat there is maybe a whole world of exit strategies that could be explored more..



drop bear said:


> And all off this is trying to be achieved with chain punches which have less power, less range and offer less protection than straight jab cross combinations. That is pretty much filling the same role.



Chain punching is not a technique. In fact it is probably not at all what you think. See it more like different ways to generate power that may be drilled or used as you like.

What is wrong with WC here is that many who even study WC seems to think chain punching is a method to hit your opponent in a "devastating" way.




drop bear said:


> Now if you were on a rooftop
> and some dude gave you the stink eye. Nailing him with four or five hard straight shots should work well.
> (This is pretty much what I do in a street fight)
> 
> ...



Tricks are what people use that can not fight. WC has head, body and feet movement. It is the goal to master footwork and angles so you never need to move in the first place but we as in almost all of us are not there. 

We move quite a bit.

As for our older masters movement has become limited with age but then the problem is that us younger students see them on YouTube and think this is what we need to be.

Problem is that too much information before we know enough means we know less than before. 



drop bear said:


> If takedowns are involved. Sitting there throwing long combinations in arms reach is basically asking them to put you on your back.



Well this I personally believe is a major issue. WC might have the answer but it does not matter because noone can do proper takedowns so it can't be drilled under pressure. 

This is why cross training for instance BJJ might be a good idea.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

One thing that often seems unmentioned in discussions about wing chun is the wooden dummy form.

As I've said I'm no expert, but the chuner doing wooden dummy is almost never still. The whole form seems to be footwork and escaping to range to kick and re-enter.

Are these skills not routinely extrapolated for longer range fighting.

Coming from interpreting karate kata, a principle of evasion such as the side stepping used in wooden dummy should translate to any sort of evasion including head movement and weaving.

In karate at least this isn't just tacking on other ideas. There's a 3 stage process for deciphering forms:
Bunkai - literal analysis of the forms.
Henka - application of the form
Oyo - application of the ideas but letting go of the pattern given by the form.

Now karate came out of southern kungfu so I imagine there is supposed to be a similar process at work in arts like wing chun.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know about you guys, but there is nothing wrong with my WC system (If I don't say this, soon or later someone will.).
> 
> All 3 WC forms do not involve with any footwork training. Why? One form that I have learned from the long fist system will require me to run across half of the basket ball field. When your opponent is standing still, I'll put my money on the WC guys. When your opponent is moving around, I'll put my money on other CMA systems.
> 
> ...



so in the WC you learned...you learned only 3 forms...all of which you stand there like a post?


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Just that I do not see why an art needs to have pek chui punch. It serves only purpose for your art. You would for instance not see it in MT. Does not mean they are inferior in punching.


Just saw you edited your post. Lol You are comparing the complete martial art of MT to the *censored* WC?
If we are talking about MT fighters of course they don't need pek chui.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Just saw you edited your post. Lol You are comparing the complete martial art of MT to the *censored* WC?
> If we are talking about MT fighters of course they don't need pek chui.



You are talking about WC as if it is a partial martial art? You do know it is very big but at the same time simplified with short forms and more compact trade of information by concepts. 

So MT and WC are both very much complete arts just like so many others. 

Also you contradict yourself. First you claim limited punching to hit someone one the top of the head. Then you say MT don't need any. 

To me this sounds like a narrow view of arts and perhaps you should decide to learn the art or just not speak about what it is. 

Of course this is all up to you. 

Still the scenario you described sounds whacky to me so care to elaborate? Why do you want to have iron fingers and hitting someone on top of the head? It sounds quite fictional so I must misunderstand you somehow.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

Phobius said:


> You are talking about WC as if it is a partial martial art? You do know it is very big but at the same time simplified with short forms and more compact trade of information by concepts.
> 
> So MT and WC are both very much complete arts just like so many others.





> Also you contradict yourself. First you claim limited punching to hit someone one the top of the head. Then you say MT don't need any.


I didn't contradict myself. You must have not understood the situation I was referring to. The *WC * guy attacks with a palm strike or a chain punch then while his fist or palm is _in the air_ after guy ducks you need to shift it to a pek chui or a kup chui to knock his head. Of course if you don't like this example there should be many other variations of situations.
However if it was a Muay Thai guy he wouldn't chain punch or use a palm strike in the first place .If he used a punch and missed and the guy ducks he can just follow up with an uppercut. No pek chui needed.



> To me this sounds like a narrow view of arts and perhaps you should decide to learn the art or just not speak about what it is.


No need to complete learning the art in order to comment on it. If somebody said the same thing about Hung Ga,I wouldn't say "You haven't learnt enough". I would ask what it was in the first few forms that made you quit?



> Of course this is all up to you.
> 
> Still the scenario you described sounds whacky to me so care to elaborate? Why do you want to have iron fingers and hitting someone on top of the head? It sounds quite fictional so I must misunderstand you somehow.



My point at first with the example is to show that you need to be familliar with all sorts of different hand and leg moves.That was in reply to the comment


> Fighting isn't about a breadth of techniques, it's about knowing how to hit with what you've got.


So I  gave the example. Like I said if you don't like the example there would be others. MT and HG though wouldn't need to learn more varied techniques cause they are already complete martial arts.
 Maybe you can give your own example/situation on how a WCnner would handle a situation and then we can discuss it?


----------



## DanT (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Yeah right. Plenty of sow chuis. And you still haven't answered why tiger claw doesn't fit in but leopard fist does


I mentioned how the motion can be found in the double Fak Sao to double Lan Sao. The leopard fist (gerng choi in Wing Chun (ginger fist)) uses a whipping motion with the elbow fixed in place combined with the hips. If someone wants to use a "tiger claw" then that is cool, but tiger style motions, energy, timing, rhythm, is different than wing chun's. I'm not talking about forming a kitty paw and hitting people with it. I'm talking about using tiger style MOTIONS in Wing Chun contrasts with the nature of the art. The Gerng Choi motion uses Wing Chun mechanics, if could be replaced with any other hand formation and it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

DanT said:


> I mentioned how the motion can be found in the double Fak Sao to double Lan Sao. The leopard fist (gerng choi in Wing Chun (ginger fist)) uses a whipping motion with the elbow fixed in place combined with the hips. If someone wants to use a "tiger claw" then that is cool, but tiger style motions, energy, timing, rhythm, is different than wing chun's. I'm not talking about forming a kitty paw and hitting people with it. I'm talking about using tiger style MOTIONS in Wing Chun contrasts with the nature of the art. The Gerng Choi motion uses Wing Chun mechanics, if could be replaced with any other hand formation and it wouldn't matter.


Even if you do have sow chui and charp chui,it isn't enough.
You may need the tiger claw to have a larger arsenal even if it is not "in nature" with the art. Bak Mei and Hung Ga use all the 5 animals instead of focusing on just 2. Yes, they both have 2 major animals but they still utilize everything. Feel free to disagree. WC guys might not even need to learn all the 5 animals of other arts but hopefully they can supplement with something else


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> You act as if not learning the entire  system is some kind of handicap .  I can see that you are taking things personally?


If you haven't studied the entire curriculum of an art, claiming to know what is NOT in it, is foolish. You readily admit to not having learned the whole system, yet are certain of what was/was not in the parts you didn't get to.

And before you decide that's someone reacting to you insulting WC, I have exactly zero experience or investment in WC.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If you haven't studied the entire curriculum of an art, claiming to know what is NOT in it, is foolish. You readily admit to not having learned the whole system, yet are certain of what was/was not in the parts you didn't get to.
> 
> And before you decide that's someone reacting to you insulting WC, I have exactly zero experience or investment in WC.


Come on. It is the one of the top two if not the TOP martial art that the _other_ forum bashes all the time. There must be a large amount of truth in it. Everybody takes notice of such things due to the WC failures.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to stand within arms reach of a guy and trade. You had quite simply better be a tough MF. (Martial Fan)
> 
> If you are going to leave your head in one spot. Which just happens to be directly down the middle of their firing line. You had better be a tough MF.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of the sentiments but I'm not sure if these suppositions represent what one is supposed to be doing when using the chun.

I mentioned the wooden dummy form and how it showcases more movement than I've ever seen in a wing chun fighter on YouTube.

Another thing I think chun fighters are probably supposed to do more of is to take advantage of head movement. 

Head movement came out of boxing, but when you are fighting with kicks and grappling any body lean fixes your feet in place and leaves you vulnerable from the waist down. 

My sifu was quite clear that we were to try and remain upright for this reason and was good at exploiting body lean. That's not to say we should get hit rather than weave, but moving the feet was preferable. 

I'm sure any day now mma fighters will start routinely taking advantage of those with boxing backgrounds.
 .


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Come on. It is the one of the top two if not the TOP martial art that the _other_ forum bashes all the time. There must be some truth in it. Everybody takes notice of such things due to the WC failures.



As I pointed out this is not a style bashing thread. The aim is to analyse the art and the arguments against it to find out what if any truth there is in the criticisms. 

If a person doesn't know what they're talking about their contribution should really be based around analysing or questioning the words of those that do.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> As I pointed out this is not a style bashing thread. The aim is to analyse the art and the arguments against it to find out what if any truth there is in the criticisms.
> 
> If a person doesn't know what they're talking about their contribution should really be based around analysing or questioning the words of those that do.


I didn't say this was a style bashing thread. If you feel I don't know what I'm talking about perhaps I can show it to you in person? But.....of course you're not gonna pay for the ticket.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Come on. It is the one of the top two if not the TOP martial art that the _other_ forum bashes all the time. There must be a large amount of truth in it. Everybody takes notice of such things due to the WC failures.



Wow.
Ummm...ok. Soooooo....let's recap shall we? 
1. You were barely into WC's SLT and decided to quit because you apparently got some sort of premonition or divine foreknowledge that if you stayed you wouldn't learn the real stuff or that WC is lacking...
2. You bash on WC
3. Your adamant WC needs more and more striking options in case the bad guy does something other than what the WC knows or trains.
4. You come to a WC forum to inform us of how incomplete our WC is... because, .....wait for it......some other forum told you so.... 
Seems.....ummm....legit 
Team.....have I missed anything!?!?


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Wow.
> Ummm...ok. Soooooo....let's recap shall we?
> 1. You were barely into WC's SLT and decided to quit because you apparently got some sort of premonition or divine foreknowledge that if you stayed you wouldn't learn the real stuff or that WC is lacking...
> 2. You bash on WC
> ...


Nope.You didn't get anything wrong. Congratulations!  Now can you guess which forum that is, if you are very clever?


----------



## Phobius (Jul 23, 2017)

Ignore Knapf and move on. A martial artist cares not for opinions of others but of their own experience. 

Ignorance is not a good reason to start a fight. Some day his cup will become less full hopefully but it is not today.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

Phobius said:


> Ignore Knapf and move on. A martial artist cares not for opinions of others but of their own experience.
> 
> Ignorance is not a good reason to start a fight. Some day his cup will become less full hopefully but it is not today.


"Ignore so and so" are the words of those who can't hold their own in a discussion.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> "Ignore so and so" are the words of those who can't hold their own in a discussion.



You can't discuss with a child. Noone can except children themselves. 

It all depends on who you discuss things with as it is a two way street.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

Phobius said:


> You can't discuss with a child. Noone can except children themselves.
> 
> It all depends on who you discuss things with as it is a two way street.


You mean you're the child?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Come on. It is the one of the top two if not the TOP martial art that the _other_ forum bashes all the time. There must be a large amount of truth in it. Everybody takes notice of such things due to the WC failures.


And what, if anything, does that comment have to do with the fact that you've admitted to not knowing the entire curriculum, yet claim confidently to know what's not in it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> "Ignore so and so" are the words of those who can't hold their own in a discussion.


Not really.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And what, if anything, does that comment have to do with the fact that you've admitted to not knowing the entire curriculum, yet claim confidently to know what's not in it?


You don't want to believe me even though I had some experience in it so I point you to a credible forum where people who also haven't any experience(and maybe also those who do have some experience in it) "bash" it .


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not really.


If he could hold his own ,he wouldn't need to act all holy.Of course if you don't like what I say try complaining to the mods about me. Explain to them about him calling me a child first


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> You don't want to believe me even though I had some experience in it so I point you to a credible forum where people who also haven't any experience(and maybe also those who do have some experience in it) "bash" it .


I didn't say I don't believe you. I said there's no credibility in your claim. Pointing to other people with no experience who bash it does not add any credibility.

"I've never studied advanced physics - just what I learned in high school and college - but it doesn't really cover how isotopes decay."

_"You are certain of that, even though you've only studied the rudiments?"_

"Yes. And a bunch of people on the Philosophy forum say the same thing, so it must be true."​


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> If he could hold his own ,he wouldn't need to act all holy.Of course if you don't like what I say try complaining to the mods about me. Explain to them about him calling me a child first


Saying someone is not worth arguing with is not "all holy". That's pretty hyperbolic.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't say I don't believe you. I said there's no credibility in your claim. Pointing to other people with no experience who bash it does not add any credibility.
> 
> "I've never studied advanced physics - just what I learned in high school and college - but it doesn't really cover how isotopes decay."
> 
> ...


I was pointing out that you don't have to be a member of WC to question it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> I was pointing out that you don't have to be a member of WC to question it.


Agreed. But to make a claim that something isn't in there, when you haven't experienced the full curriculum is ludicrous.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Saying someone is not worth arguing with is not "all holy". That's pretty hyperbolic.


That's what people who have holier than thou attitude behave. They can't dispute you. So they tell others to ignore you and then start mumbling to themselves


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. But to make a claim that something isn't in there, when you haven't experienced the full curriculum is ludicrous.


Like I said before, if someone doesn't believe me, perhaps I can demonstrate to them then they can decide if I have credibility or not. But we both know no one's gonna pay for the airfare.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Like I said before, if someone doesn't believe me, perhaps I can demonstrate to them then they can decide if I have credibility or not. But we both know no one's gonna pay for the airfare.


So why say it?

Anyone can question another art, but you didn't question it, you argued you knew it better than those who study it.

The fact you don't know wing chun invalidates your opinion about what it contains or how you would use the art in a given situation.

The fact that you then tried to argue your view invalidates the benefit of the doubt most people would be inclined to give you.



Phobius said:


> Ignore Knapf and move on. A martial artist cares not for opinions of others but of their own experience.
> 
> Ignorance is not a good reason to start a fight. Some day his cup will become less full hopefully but it is not today.



I posted some on topic stuff but the discussion breezed past it.
Hopefully we'll return to topic soon.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> so in the WC you learned...you learned only 3 forms...all of which you stand there like a post?


Can you show me the 4th WC solo form that has footwork in it?


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can you show me the 4th WC solo form that has footwork in it?



I don't know what you mean by "4th WC solo form"

But footwork is contained in CK, BJ, MYJ, and both weapons forms.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can you show me the 4th WC solo form that has footwork in it?







This what I was referring to.


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> This what I was referring to.


thats why people laugh at wc, man beats up coat rack


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> This what I was referring to.


Even the wooden dummy training, it doesn't include how to move in fast while your opponent moves back fast not just 1 step, not just 2 steps, but many steps.


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even the wooden dummy training, it doesn't include how to move in fast while your opponent moves back fast not just 1 step, not just 2 steps, but many steps.


if they put the coat rack on wheels it would make it more realistic, that way when he kicks hr can chase it across the room


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even the wooden dummy training, it doesn't include how to move in fast while your opponent moves back fast not just 1 step, not just 2 steps, but many steps.



Perhaps you are interpreting things too literally. 
IME, rapid footwork is in the weapons forms.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I agree with most of the sentiments but I'm not sure if these suppositions represent what one is supposed to be doing when using the chun.
> 
> I mentioned the wooden dummy form and how it showcases more movement than I've ever seen in a wing chun fighter on YouTube.
> 
> ...







Three dimentional movement. Moving in and out. Powering punches from the hip rather than from magic.

The punches are still straight line so you get nailed in a counter punch. And the defensive system is over complicated.

Chunners really need to box. At the very least to understand why they are doing those movements in the form.

And stop fighting like this.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Perhaps you are interpreting things too literally.
> IME, rapid footwork is in the weapons forms.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 23, 2017)

It's interesting that wing chun has a staff form at all. 
Is there a reason why one could not reinterpret the movements as empty hand techniques for use at range?


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Three dimentional movement. Moving in and out. Powering punches from the hip rather than from magic.
> 
> The punches are still straight line so you get nailed in a counter punch. And the defensive system is over complicated.
> 
> ...


hahahaha love it. both fly in with bicycle punchesnon stop. nothing screams more WC then this match


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> It's interesting that wing chun has a staff form at all.
> Is there a reason why one could not reinterpret the movements as empty hand techniques for use at range?



Different weapon. Different delivery system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 23, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Like I said before, if someone doesn't believe me, perhaps I can demonstrate to them then they can decide if I have credibility or not. But we both know no one's gonna pay for the airfare.


So, your ability to kick someone's butt stands in stead for your knowledge of WC?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 23, 2017)

You know, I was sparring with a couple guys today and in the midst of it all it occurred to me what exactly the problem is with wc.

Being on the centerline(ie upright and available) is the absolute worst place to be. You always want your head moving one way or the other if you don't like the taste of leather(or knuckle). WC does everything from the last place I want to be.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 23, 2017)

Martial D said:


> You know, I was sparring with a couple guys today and in the midst of it all it occurred to me what exactly the problem is with wc.
> 
> Being on the centerline(ie upright and available) is the absolute worst place to be. You always want your head moving one way or the other if you don't like the taste of leather(or knuckle). WC does everything from the last place I want to be.


Being on your opponent's centerline is not where you want to be. Try being on an angle instead. Using good shifting footwork will give you the angle. Don't enter on the opponent's centerline.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Being on your opponent's centerline is not where you want to be. Try being on an angle instead. Using good shifting footwork will give you the angle. Don't enter on the opponent's centerline.View attachment 20895



Yeah but you are still there punch for punch. You shoot your punch from your center line. If I shoot mine from off my centerline. Your punch hits air.

You can still angle off and not sit there and get nailed. But you will loose that exchange.

One does not just walk off center. You have to fix them to a position first then walk off center. That first excange breaks your ability to angle off.

Lomenchenko is still the best example of these wing chun ideas finnessed into exeptional boxing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Perhaps you are interpreting things too literally.
> IME, rapid footwork is in the weapons forms.


IMO, to wait until the weapon form to train "rapid footwork" may be too late.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, to wait until the weapon form to train "rapid footwork" may be too late.



I agree. But, didn't say one has to wait...just said it's in there.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 23, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> I agree. But, didn't say one has to wait...just said it's in there.



I don't know if you can be physically as mobile if you are flat footed. So regardless of the foot work. They will be a beat behind there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I don't know if you can be physically as mobile if you are flat footed. So regardless of the foot work. They will be a beat behind there.


IMO, mobility is a "habit" that should be built up during the early training stage. Some MA systems do treat "mobility" very seriously.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So why say it?
> 
> Anyone can question another art, but you didn't question it, you argued you knew it better than those who study it.


I do


> The fact you don't know wing chun invalidates your opinion about what it contains or how you would use the art in a given situation.


I am very familliar with their strategies


> The fact that you then tried to argue your view invalidates the benefit of the doubt most people would be inclined to give you.


Arguing is just part of discussing





> I posted some on topic stuff but the discussion breezed past it.
> Hopefully we'll return to topic soon.


If you don't like what I say perhaps you can complain to the mods? Or make a police report?


----------



## Knapf (Jul 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, your ability to kick someone's butt stands in stead for your knowledge of WC?


Well,if I know their weaknesses........


----------



## Martial D (Jul 24, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Being on your opponent's centerline is not where you want to be. Try being on an angle instead. Using good shifting footwork will give you the angle. Don't enter on the opponent's centerline.View attachment 20895


Well, yes, but that's not what I meant. It's not the center line that's the problem, but the mother line. I understand gate theory and flanking, but the WC biomechanics leave the head upright and imoble to work, and this is a serious flaw.


----------



## Phobius (Jul 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, yes, but that's not what I meant. It's not the center line that's the problem, but the mother line. I understand gate theory and flanking, but the WC biomechanics leave the head upright and imoble to work, and this is a serious flaw.



A stick when straight does not have to point straight to the sky. Bend your knees and head will follow.

I have been taught that head moves out of the way. Optimally by changing position but it never remains where the punch will be unless there is no other way. 

Also I think withholding rapid footwork as you say from intermediate practitioners is wrong.

Weapons form we introduce early on, of course beginners have hard time reading them but they will benefit from moving the legs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Well,if I know their weaknesses........


That still doesn't mean you know their curriculum. It doesn't even necessarily mean anything about their system. If two equally adaptable and usable systems are deployed, the better fighter generally wins. The loser's system isn't suddenly flawed because of that.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 24, 2017)

Phobius said:


> A stick when straight does not have to point straight to the sky. Bend your knees and head will follow.


Which leaves you a little higher or lower, but there is only so much range of motion to a straight, upright spine. Still right there to be hit. 


> I have been taught that head moves out of the way. Optimally by changing position but it never remains where the punch will be unless there is no other way.


And without bobbing, slipping,and weaving doing that becomes easier said than done. Sure. You have shifting to the left or right. But if your opponent can box well you better have fast hands for all dem 'sau' techniques. 


> Also I think withholding rapid footwork as you say from intermediate practitioners is wrong.


It wasn't withheld from me, I can move around pretty fast in a WC stance. Still not as fast as I can with dynamic footwork however. You can only do so much with all of your weight planted on the back foot and the spine held completely upright. So you sacrifice mobility (head and feet) for biomechanics, or biomechanics for mobility. Ne'er the two shall meet.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If two equally adaptable and usable systems are deployed, the better fighter generally wins.


But they are not equal.


> The loser's system isn't suddenly flawed because of that.


Like you said before,you don't _know _Wing Chun. 

Anyway, you come from one of the  two systems that gets criticized on that other forum. So it's not surprising you would come to this sort of thinking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2017)

Knapf said:


> But they are not equal.


Irrelevant to the example. Your ability to beat someone in a fight doesn't do anything to illustrate that you know their system. It shows, at best, that you know how to fight the weaknesses in that system, not that you know the techniques contained therein.



> Like you said before,you don't _know _Wing Chun.


Like you said before, you don't _know _the WC curriculum. 



> Anyway, you come from one of the  two systems that gets criticized on that other forum. So it's not surprising you would come to this sort of thinking.


That's not a valid argument, given that you don't seem to know what NGA is. And you may note that I have not defended anything about WC. I've only pointed out the logical issues with your argument.

EDIT: I should also point out that's an _ad hominem_ attack, and has nothing to do with my statements.


----------



## Knapf (Jul 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Irrelevant to the example. Your ability to beat someone in a fight doesn't do anything to illustrate that you know their system. It shows, at best, that you know how to fight the weaknesses in that system, not that you know the techniques contained therein.
> 
> 
> Like you said before, you don't _know _the WC curriculum.
> ...


That has all to do with it .Someone from a questionable system would think the same way as you. I would love to discuss this further but I would have gotten reported twice already. Bye then.


----------



## DanT (Jul 24, 2017)

Knapf said:


> Even if you do have sow chui and charp chui,it isn't enough.
> You may need the tiger claw to have a larger arsenal even if it is not "in nature" with the art. Bak Mei and Hung Ga use all the 5 animals instead of focusing on just 2. Yes, they both have 2 major animals but they still utilize everything. Feel free to disagree. WC guys might not even need to learn all the 5 animals of other arts but hopefully they can supplement with something else


Honestly, Wing Chun's striking aresenal contains enough weapons to deal with all incoming angles of attacks, and delivers attacks along all angles once you learn all the techniques. You mentioned before about people ducking under a straight punch. Wing Chun has uppercuts (just like MT), and Gum Sao (pressing down hand) which could be used to hit the back of the head), as well as a knee to the face. Perhaps we should stop disliking each others posts and just start talking openly. I like Choi Lee Fut, and if I had the time I would learn it (I study 6 different systems). What other situations do you feel that Wing Chun could not counter against? I will give you an open answer.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, yes, but that's not what I meant. It's not the center line that's the problem, but the mother line. I understand gate theory and flanking, but the WC biomechanics leave the head upright and imoble to work, and this is a serious flaw.


So a western boxer or kickboxer dropping their chin a bit (in comparison to more upright head in a WC stance) somehow makes it more mobile? Its really the body movement that makes the difference, not how upright the head alone is. I think the uber stiff, upright, and narrow stance WC fighter people readily think of is more common at very low student grades and experience, not truly representative of the art. I've touched hands with biu jee level students that had excellent head / body movement and used springy WT footwork without being rigid. 
It will always be different than western boxing "bob and weave" type tactics, for sure. WC is not designed to dance around and trade punches with someone (no disrespect to boxing). WC is designed to leak in and smother an attacker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2017)

Knapf said:


> That has all to do with it .Someone from a questionable system would think the same way as you. I would love to discuss this further but I would have gotten reported twice already. Bye then.


So, it takes someone from what you claim without knowledge to be a "questionable system" to believe that you cannot claim to know all that's in a curriculum you didn't finish?

And upon what basis are you referring to NGA as a "questionable system"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2017)

Knapf said:


> That has all to do with it .Someone from a questionable system would think the same way as you. I would love to discuss this further but I would have gotten reported twice already. Bye then.


You seem absorbed with being reported. I'm not sure what that's about - doesn't happen all that often here on MT.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 24, 2017)

PiedmontChun said:


> So a western boxer or kickboxer dropping their chin a bit (in comparison to more upright head in a WC stance) somehow makes it more mobile? Its really the body movement that makes the difference, not how upright the head alone is. I think the uber stiff, upright, and narrow stance WC fighter people readily think of is more common at very low student grades and experience, not truly representative of the art. I've touched hands with biu jee level students that had excellent head / body movement and used springy WT footwork without being rigid.
> It will always be different than western boxing "bob and weave" type tactics, for sure. WC is not designed to dance around and trade punches with someone (no disrespect to boxing). WC is designed to leak in and smother an attacker.


In order for WC power generation to 'work', the spine must be upright and the shoulders down and loose. If you are going to angle your body and raise your shoulders your WC movements will be gimped.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Different weapon. Different delivery system.



That's the point though.

TMA works off the idea behind the form rather than just the form.

The pole form teaches an entirely different (to my eyes) stance and movement specifically for longer range combat. So move like that without the pole.

Where you would thrust the staff thrust a fist and practice transitioning between this ranged approach and the close footwork/posture. 

Are there any 2-man staff sets? Most weapons can be reinterpreted as hand techniques as it's just about the direction of the energy in use.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> In order for WC power generation to 'work', the spine must be upright and the shoulders down and loose. If you are going to angle your body and raise your shoulders your WC movements will be gimped.


Do any of the wing chun beat down clips show this weakness being exploited?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Do any of the wing chun beat down clips show this weakness being exploited?


I would say yes. It's generally a WC guy leaping in square and straight to do... assumedly WC stuff, and getting caught on the way in like a big undefended target.  I do think JKD solved this problem though.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> That's the point though.
> 
> TMA works off the idea behind the form rather than just the form.
> 
> ...



Yeah. But with that sideways stance you cant access your rear hand. And you give up your blind side.

All not an issue with a ten foot piece of wood sticking out in front of you.

They just need to make the unarmed footwork more dynamic. Get up on that back toe. And pop into the lower stance just before they strike.

Considering they are generating pretty much all their power from moving into position. It will only increase their ability to fight.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Do any of the wing chun beat down clips show this weakness being exploited?








His head is basically on a stalk. It is a crap way to eat punches. People don't get that when punches are coming at you they are really hard to counter. This is why everyone who faces hard punches pretty much has a cover system.

Yiu use the wing chun concept of trapping when you are comfortable with what they are throwing.

Otherwise it is chin down hands tight.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That still doesn't mean you know their curriculum. It doesn't even necessarily mean anything about their system. If two equally adaptable and usable systems are deployed, the better fighter generally wins. The loser's system isn't suddenly flawed because of that.



Better fighters create better systems. The loosers system is flawed from loosing fights.

This is why you go to better fighters to gain knowledge


----------



## wingchun100 (Jul 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> BTW, re the Randy Williams clip above: As a friend of mine commented upon viewing this, "Only a Butt-Head would start throwing Head-Butts in a supposedly_ friendly_ chi-sau exchange like that!"



My first Sifu met him at a seminar in the midwest somewhere, many moons ago in the mid-90's...said they nearly got into a "chi sao fight."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> His head is basically on a stalk. It is a crap way to eat punches. People don't get that when punches are coming at you they are really hard to counter. This is why everyone who faces hard punches pretty much has a cover system.
> 
> Yiu use the wing chun concept of trapping when you are comfortable with what they are throwing.
> 
> Otherwise it is chin down hands tight.


IMO, this is one of the areas where TMA end up not "looking like" themselves when facing a different style. In many TMA (including the one I train in), much of the focus is on the period when you are delivering technique, and you can afford different structure in those moments, if you are in complete control. The rest of the time, you need to be able to cover, as you say. I've been working on getting more "cover" into the control areas, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Better fighters create better systems. The loosers system is flawed from loosing fights.
> 
> This is why you go to better fighters to gain knowledge


Not from a single fight, it isn't. The point is that being able to beat one guy doesn't necessarily prove anything about a system. If I beat a Muay Thai guy, I'd assume there was a disparity of skill, because it would be more than difficult to argue that I won because of major weaknesses in his system.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not from a single fight, it isn't. The point is that being able to beat one guy doesn't necessarily prove anything about a system. If I beat a Muay Thai guy, I'd assume there was a disparity of skill, because it would be more than difficult to argue that I won because of major weaknesses in his system.



Remember MMA guy vs Aikido guy?

I don't think it takes thousands of fights to see the holes in a persons game.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> IMO, this is one of the areas where TMA end up not "looking like" themselves when facing a different style. In many TMA (including the one I train in), much of the focus is on the period when you are delivering technique, and you can afford different structure in those moments, if you are in complete control. The rest of the time, you need to be able to cover, as you say. I've been working on getting more "cover" into the control areas, too.



It is more than that. But I get your point.

You need to create the circumstances for your style to work.

Even solid grapplers don't just walk up to you and take you down. They create an opportunity where the takedown is viable. And to do that is generally everything but grappling.

I learned the value of using control from a place of safety from security. It is sorely underrated.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> His head is basically on a stalk. It is a crap way to eat punches. People don't get that when punches are coming at you they are really hard to counter. This is why everyone who faces hard punches pretty much has a cover system.
> 
> Yiu use the wing chun concept of trapping when you are comfortable with what they are throwing.
> 
> Otherwise it is chin down hands tight.


Yeah...this shows what happens (and it happens a lot) when one is under trained and/or has trained only vs other wing chun type practitioners. The poor fellow didn't understand so didn't know how to handle the other's tactics. Great example of why we train and spar vs boxers, nak muays, wrestlers, bjjers, other martial art practitioners, and not just wing chunners.

You don't learn to fight practicing drills and forms, you learn to fight by pressure testing with fighting actions and sparring. Having the ability to control range, angles, timing, power, attacking lines, defending, counter-attacking in a fight happens by sparring...vs a lot of different type of fighters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Remember MMA guy vs Aikido guy?
> 
> I don't think it takes thousands of fights to see the holes in a persons game.


True enough, but the MMA guy probably doesn't claim he knows better than someone training Aikido what techniques aren't in the Aikido curriculum, which is a claim that was made in this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It is more than that. But I get your point.
> 
> You need to create the circumstances for your style to work.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on that. And this is something that is sometimes missed in some TMA training. If the focus is too much on the technique, to the exclusion of understanding how to get to it (or recognize the opportunity to get to it), then you have a very good technique you might never be able to pull off. And, of course, you need solid tactics for what you do when opportunities for your techniques aren't showing up (for a Judoka who is being hit, rather than grabbed, for instance, or an Aikidoka who isn't getting the commitment of weight).


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with you on that. And this is something that is sometimes missed in some TMA training. If the focus is too much on the technique, to the exclusion of understanding how to get to it (or recognize the opportunity to get to it), then you have a very good technique you might never be able to pull off. And, of course, you need solid tactics for what you do when opportunities for your techniques aren't showing up (for a Judoka who is being hit, rather than grabbed, for instance, or an Aikidoka who isn't getting the commitment of weight).



Yeah. I think I will be using this meme a bit to explain it.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> His head is basically on a stalk. It is a crap way to eat punches. People don't get that when punches are coming at you they are really hard to counter. This is why everyone who faces hard punches pretty much has a cover system.
> 
> Yiu use the wing chun concept of trapping when you are comfortable with what they are throwing.
> 
> Otherwise it is chin down hands tight.



This fight didn't seem to be an issue of how he was holding his head. It seemed more a case of trying to go right up the middle against a kicker and fast striker that had actual footwork. My very first few classes of WT we were taught to move in fast, and also angle offline if trying to "catch" a kick, otherwise you're just eating the kick and the grab becomes pointless. Its risky, so you either smother the range of the strike or you get out of the way. WC doesn't make you invincible where you should just walk right up the middle, even if striking along the center *is* desirable. A lot of WC training assumes you are being attacked by a committed assailant too, not a competitive fight where someone is timing their entry to outmaneuver you. Different tactics.

But bottom line, in my opinion - you can be a *lot* more mobile than the guy in this video without abandoning WC footwork or the essence of the stance / guard.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 26, 2017)

PiedmontChun said:


> But bottom line, in my opinion - you can be a *lot* more mobile than the guy in this video without abandoning WC footwork or the essence of the stance / guard.


Or, one can be naturally mobile. Using whatever footwork is needed 'when' it is need. Stances are fleeting; they are but snapshots in time. Move naturally. Settle into your required footwork or stance when needed.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with you on that. And this is something that is sometimes missed in some TMA training. If the focus is too much on the technique, to the exclusion of understanding how to get to it (or recognize the opportunity to get to it), then you have a very good technique you might never be able to pull off. And, of course, you need solid tactics for what you do when opportunities for your techniques aren't showing up (for a Judoka who is being hit, rather than grabbed, for instance, or an Aikidoka who isn't getting the commitment of weight).


All of which takes us back to my thread on strategy that I can never drum up much interest in.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 26, 2017)

PiedmontChun said:


> This fight didn't seem to be an issue of how he was holding his head. It seemed more a case of trying to go right up the middle against a kicker and fast striker that had actual footwork. My very first few classes of WT we were taught to move in fast, and also angle offline if trying to "catch" a kick, otherwise you're just eating the kick and the grab becomes pointless. Its risky, so you either smother the range of the strike or you get out of the way. WC doesn't make you invincible where you should just walk right up the middle, even if striking along the center *is* desirable. A lot of WC training assumes you are being attacked by a committed assailant too, not a competitive fight where someone is timing their entry to outmaneuver you. Different tactics.
> 
> But bottom line, in my opinion - you can be a *lot* more mobile than the guy in this video without abandoning WC footwork or the essence of the stance / guard.


Which sits as testament to the point that training makes the fighter not the style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Which sits as testament to the point that training makes the fighter not the style.


The style matters (has to use effective technique and tactics), but the training methods and the person in the fight matter more. There's some overlap between training and style, though. How you train is part of delivering tactics and even strategy, so changing the training methods can alter the way the style operates. If boxing were trained entirely on a heavy bag, it would quickly lose the footwork and head movement that are part of the style. Is it still boxing then, or is it something derived from boxing? That's a question whose answer depends how we define the style. The same would be true of WC. If a different kind of movement training were incorporated (that didn't mess up the mechanics of power delivery, etc.), WC might look quite different - is that still WC? If forms weren't used to train the movements, but they were trained to the same end, is that still WC (I saw at least one person state recently it's not WC without the forms)?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> All of which takes us back to my thread on strategy that I can never drum up much interest in.



Because nobody does it. You should see my thread on deescalation. Nobody has a system for it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, to wait until the weapon form to train "rapid footwork" may be too late.


This is the "rapid footwork" that I'm talking about.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The style matters (has to use effective technique and tactics), but the training methods and the person in the fight matter more. There's some overlap between training and style, though. How you train is part of delivering tactics and even strategy, so changing the training methods can alter the way the style operates. If boxing were trained entirely on a heavy bag, it would quickly lose the footwork and head movement that are part of the style. Is it still boxing then, or is it something derived from boxing? That's a question whose answer depends how we define the style. The same would be true of WC. If a different kind of movement training were incorporated (that didn't mess up the mechanics of power delivery, etc.), WC might look quite different - is that still WC? If forms weren't used to train the movements, but they were trained to the same end, is that still WC (I saw at least one person state recently it's not WC without the forms)?



That person didn't understand forms. Of course it's still chun without forms. FIGHTING style not training style. How you fight makes the difference.
This is IMO one of TMA's biggest problems. People get good at doing their art, ie going to class and performing forms and drills and exercises and forget that those things are the means to an end not the end it's self.

If the principles used are the same the style is the same.
As I've said before, if small variations changed a style there wouldn't be so many brands of wing chun to argue with each other.  But they all stick to mostly the same principles of mechanics and tactics and strategy. Hence they are all wing chun.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> That person didn't understand forms. Of course it's still chun without forms. FIGHTING style not training style. How you fight makes the difference.
> This is IMO one of TMA's biggest problems. People get good at doing their art, ie going to class and performing forms and drills and exercises and forget that those things are the means to an end not the end it's self.
> 
> If the principles used are the same the style is the same.
> As I've said before, if small variations changed a style there wouldn't be so many brands of wing chun to argue with each other.  But they all stick to mostly the same principles of mechanics and tactics and strategy. Hence they are all wing chun.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Because nobody does it. You should see my thread on deescalation. Nobody has a system for it.


I think the systems are there but people pay lip service to it rather than make it a living breathing part of their art.

When you only train against your own the need to branch outside of core strategy can seem quite urgent because you have to get around what "everyone" is doing.
But then outside of your style everything is a seeing contest. Do you know how often Okinawan karate stylists felt the need to expound on Shotokan's lack of circular pmovement and it's use of force against force. 

So naturally people want their style to be "gapless" which means mastering every obscure movement variation rather than actually deeply specialising in the strengths of the style.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the "rapid footwork" that I'm talking about.


I doubt he ever actually trained that. 
Run and punch tends to happen quite naturally.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I think the systems are there but people pay lip service to it rather than make it a living breathing part of their art.
> 
> When you only train against your own the need to branch outside of core strategy can seem quite urgent because you have to get around what "everyone" is doing.
> But then outside of your style everything is a seeing contest. Do you know how often Okinawan karate stylists felt the need to expound on Shotokan's lack of circular pmovement and it's use of force against force.
> ...


The issue with deescalation is that it cannot be trained with any "aliveness". You can role play a bit, but you never actually get to work with any level of real resistance in class. So, most of us teach a few bits on it here and there, at most. Folks like DB and Juany have occupations that give them a chance to practice those techniques, and most of us get a chance a few times a year to use them, but that's about it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 28, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I doubt he ever actually trained that.
> Run and punch tends to happen quite naturally.


I don't know about him, but there is a training called "running punch".

You start with

1. 1 step 3 punches,
2. 1 step 2 punches,
3. 1 step 1 punch,
4. 2 steps 1 punch,
5. 3 step 1 punch.

Since you will need to coordinate your breathing with your punches, it does require training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know about him, but there is a training called "running punch".
> 
> You start with
> 
> ...


Yup, but I don't worry so much about coordinating the breathing.  What is more important is the biomechanics to use that body rotation on each step, to drive the next punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 28, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yup, but I don't worry so much about coordinating the breathing.  What is more important is the biomechanics to use that body rotation on each step, to drive the next punch.


The body rotation is important. IMO, the more that you can pull your punch back, the harder that your punch can be. 

There is a "sections breathing" training that you

- inhale fully, exhale fully.
- inhale 1/2, inhale another 1/2, exhale 1/2, exhale another 1/2.
- ...
- inhale 1/8, inhale another 1/8, ... exhale  1/8, exhale another 1/8, ...

This training can help those who like to throw "chain punches" big time.


----------



## geezer (Jul 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I There is a "sections breathing" training that you- inhale fully, exhale fully.
> - inhale 1/2, inhale another 1/2, exhale 1/2, exhale another 1/2.
> - inhale 1/8, inhale another 1/8, ... exhale  1/8, exhale another 1/8, ...
> This training can help those who like to throw "chain punches" big time.



Standard practice in WC/WT/VT is to breathe freely and naturally, disconnecting the breathing from punching.

--However, when sparring, etc. I still prefer to exhale with my punches. As I tend to deliver punches in clusters or 3-shot combinations, chain-punches, etc. I use the method you describe, exhaling a _fraction_ of my breath with each punch in the chain or combination.


----------

