# Does your WC use an upward elbow?



## geezer (Oct 29, 2015)

Does your WC use an upward elbow? You know, the kind that rises up vertically in front, with your hand moving almost like you are combing your hair and hitting either with the forearm or the elbow point.

Just as an illustration, here's "Master Wong" doing his version. His body dynamics are not at all typical of WC, but it does show the kind of elbow I'm referring to:

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feExofrJ8rc

Anyway, do you use _anything_ of this nature either to strike, cover, or block? And if so, do you find this movement anywhere in your forms?


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 29, 2015)

geezer said:


> Does your WC use an upward elbow? You know, the kind that rises up vertically in front, with your hand moving almost like you are combing your hair and hitting either with the forearm or the elbow point.
> 
> Just as an illustration, here's "Master Wong" doing his version. His body dynamics are not at all typical of WC, but it does show the kind of elbow I'm referring to:
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------------------
yes-but not in the wong way


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 29, 2015)

yes-but not in the wong way


----------



## KPM (Oct 30, 2015)

Yes!  In Pin Sun it has dual application.  Its not only applied as an upward elbow, but the motion is also used as a high cover, somewhat like western boxing.   It is part of one version of the 2nd short set, and so considered very basic to the system.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 30, 2015)

Hey geezer, check out these guys. They seem to be an offshoot of EWTO.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Oct 30, 2015)

Disclaimer: I am a Chum Kiu level student, and do not study the 3rd empty hand form and all of the elbow applications that come from it.

However, I do know that in my school (WT roots) there is a movement taught whereby the hand follows a path almost like slicking your hair back so similar in appearance, while keeping the elbow tight in front of you. Ours is passive in the sense that its generally when contact has already been made, it follows the opponent's force and guides opponent around you while protecting the head. Its really only as a response to someone who tried to pin that arm but their vector was too wide.

What Wong is doing before stepping in with the elbow reminds more of a common Krav Maga technique for protecting the head from circular strikes, and in some kickboxing.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 30, 2015)

We do have use the movement of the elbow as shown however it is not applied in the manner shown by the comical master wong.


----------



## geezer (Oct 30, 2015)

yak sao said:


> Hey geezer, check out these guys. They seem to be an offshoot of EWTO.



Yeah, ...a pretty_ far-off_ shoot from what I can see. They certainly deviate from center a lot, ..even when they don't have to.
So where in the WT forms would you find something like that vertical elbow?


----------



## geezer (Oct 30, 2015)

Here's another video with _Alan Orr_ using the vertical forearm/rising elbow defensively as a cover/deflection/block at punching range. He explains it as a practical adaptation to man/wu sau or equally of tan sau (explanation starting at about 2:30 in the clip).






Personally, his explanation seems very sensible and practical to me. After getting nailed with hooks trying to use the very classical "training" versions of tan sau, etc., I started moving toward this type of movement, all the while feeling a bit guilty about it.  Then I came across Alan's stuff and thought Aha! _Validation!_

Like Alan demonstrates in the video, it flows very naturally functioning as a man/wu sau or tan sau and then back into strikes. Closer in, it both covers/deflects and makes a powerful _ding jarn _(butting elbow) to the chest or chin _without violating stance and structure the way Wong does_, and when someone shoots on you, the forearm strike combined with a sprawl makes a good _offensive _defense.

So any of you guys using stuff like this?


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> Here's another video with _Alan Orr_ using the vertical forearm/rising elbow defensively as a cover/deflection/block at punching range. He explains it as a practical adaptation to man/wu sau or equally of tan sau (explanation starting at about 2:30 in the clip).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




3rd form...no big deal. Use the letters as one sees fit.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 30, 2015)

I'm not a Wing Chun guy but so this is just insight from outside of WC.  If you use your forearm to block like that then I'm going to crush it with punches.  What he explains makes sense when using those gloves, but doesn't work the same with smaller gloves or without gloves, especially without the gloves where the knuckles have a greater depth of impact. 

I use a similar fighting stance with my arm bent like that but at an angle so punches don't land solid .  I a






The only time my arm like in the OP's original video is when I'm trying to break someone's hand.  Even when Wong showed the elbow it didn't look like it had much force behind it for that type of attack.  But for breaking the hand of an incoming jab there is more than enough force in that elbow to do that.  Just a perspective from a different fighting system, I think too many people think use the elbow to strike the body or head. Using the elbow to break the hand would seem to me to be more natural with the movements of Wing Chun then trying to use it elbow to attack the body like Wong showed.

Just a thought from "someone on the outside looking in".


----------



## geezer (Oct 30, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a Wing Chun guy but so this is just insight from outside of WC...
> 
> I think too many people think use the elbow to strike the body or head. Using the elbow to break the hand would seem to me to be more natural with the movements of Wing Chun then trying to use it elbow to attack the body like Wong showed.




_WC_ is primarily a close range system, and strikes _mainly target the head and body_ along it's central axis. We don't attack the weapon (arms and hands) we attack the weapon wielder, the "central command" and shut it down at the source if you will.

Now _Escrima_ (my other art) begins at a longer range, and often we do target the hands since typically they are the first target you can reach. And you are quite right, elbows can be murder on your opponent's bare fists. But weapons are even nastier on the fists. Even a cellphone, pocket flashlight or ring of keys, for example, can really mess with an opponent's incoming jabs.


----------



## KPM (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> So any of you guys using stuff like this?


 
Yeah, but in Pin Sun it is not considered an "adaptation."  It is considered a basic technique.  We call it "Sao Sau" or "cover hand."  In Pin Sun terminology, a Tan Sau that moves back instead forward is called a "Tun Sau" or "swallow hand."   So, the natural progression of a Tun Sau that is deflecting while moving back is to rise up to cover the head.  If I see something coming and start to raise my hand to meet it as a Tan or Tun and realize that there is no time to stop it, the motion naturally flows upward to cover the head as a Sao Sau. 

Also of note, this is a common feature of Tang Yik Weng Chun as well.  The basic form from Tang Yik Weng Chun has the hands swinging up and past the sides of the head and then forward as a back-knuckle strike in multiple places in the form.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 30, 2015)

I've seen my Si-fu use tan in a number of different ways, rather than adhering to rigid structure, his arms seem to mold themselves around the attack.

As for where the upward elbow is in the forems, I don't really consider it a stretch to assume that if we can pull the elbow back into a tight chambered position, can we not do the reverse of that and allow the arm to swing back forward from the shoulder using the elbow / forearm as our striking surface?


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> Here's another video with _Alan Orr_ using the vertical forearm/rising elbow defensively as a cover/deflection/block at punching range. He explains it as a practical adaptation to man/wu sau or equally of tan sau (explanation starting at about 2:30 in the clip).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Alan is using a VERY liberal and loose definition of wu sau he is applying his rhino guard technique. IMO this is not WC wu sau as it ignores WC body structure, range and gate/box theories for proper wu sau application. Same goes for some of his ideas on tan sau application. If it works for him, fine. I'm just not seeing it as WC wu sau/tan sau as it deviates too far from many of the principle/concept that give rise to those ideas..

As for taan sau against hooks, I'd say your problem was more likely using the wrong tool for the task


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> _WC_ is primarily a close range system, and strikes _mainly target the head and body_ along it's central axis. We don't attack the weapon (arms and hands) we attack the weapon wielder, the "central command" and shut it down at the source if you will.
> 
> Now _Escrima_ (my other art) begins at a longer range, and often we do target the hands since typically they are the first target you can reach. And you are quite right, elbows can be murder on your opponent's bare fists. But weapons are even nastier on the fists. Even a cellphone, pocket flashlight or ring of keys, for example, can really mess with an opponent's incoming jabs.



Weird...your WC is backwards from mine and your Escrima is spot on! haha


----------



## geezer (Oct 30, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> ....As for taan sau against hooks, I'd say your problem was more likely using the wrong tool for the task



Judging by the results... I quickly came to the same conclusion. 


A tight hook is tough. Now against a looping _roundhouse punch_ or haymaker, I have had decent results with _tan_, and better with a aggressive palm-down _fook-sau_ (or what the TST guys apparently call _dai-sau_), especially if I get my angle right (a DTE thing), and either jam it or "fade" away, moving with it and out of the power-arc.


----------



## geezer (Oct 30, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Weird...your WC is backwards from mine and your Escrima is spot on! haha



You attack the hands and arms with your WC? Could you elaborate a little?


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> A tight hook is tough. Now against a looping _roundhouse punch_ or haymaker, I have had decent results with _tan_, and better with a aggressive palm-down _fook-sau_ (or what the TST guys apparently call _dai-sau_), especially if I get my angle right (a DTE thing), and either jam it or "fade" away, moving with it and out of the power-arc.



For the looping roundhouse punches, from my experience with 4-gate defense strategies, a biu sau is much more suited to dealing with and cutting off the hooking punch than a taan sau. From a technique POV, taan sau lets the punch get too close and intercepts too late . The hook is allowed to generate it's full power and can swing right around the taan and still hit you. With a longer biu sau from center to the corner of the gate, you can cut the hook off before it generates full power, keep it further away AND even allow you to get slightly on top of it. What Alan shows with his rhino guard 'wu sau' defense, he's too late for any of these things and has no simultaneous offense/defense - it's really just a covering block.

But I agree, tight hooks are tough. _Really_ tight hooks even more-so. But IMO, you'd either have to have done a lot wrong to allow someone into that super-close range to throw/land one, they were really good or the confrontation just started that close. At that point, none of the 4-gate defense tools would really work since you are out of space/timing for them to function both structurally or from a leverage pov (taan, biu, or otherwise). Elbows and emergency space/facing recovery tools come into play at that point.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> Judging by the results... I quickly came to the same conclusion.
> 
> 
> A tight hook is tough. Now against a looping _roundhouse punch_ or haymaker, I have had decent results with _tan_, and better with a aggressive palm-down _fook-sau_ (or what the TST guys apparently call _dai-sau_), especially if I get my angle right (a DTE thing), and either jam it or "fade" away, moving with it and out of the power-arc.



Agree with the tight hook. I would use a Bil Sau...but against a roundhouse / haymaker...Tan is unbeatable IME.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 30, 2015)

geezer said:


> You attack the hands and arms with your WC? Could you elaborate a little?



Kind of. I was actually commenting on your italicized words from your post 12. 
But, if you think about how WC uses the Pole and Knives...your Escrima statement holds true (just, for me, from a WC aspect). 
As for unarmed: I was taught and trained that every hand is an attack. So, if you throw me a (for example) roundhouse/haymaker to the head...I'm not just thinking "block and counter"...to me that is not WC. I'm going to attack that incoming limb with my tan while simultaneously counter attacking with a punch (or whatever) strike to your head or whatever target I want. 
Of course, one could chaulk this up to a matter of how we each define certain terms, but I wanted to respond to your question.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 30, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> But I agree, tight hooks are tough. _Really_ tight hooks even more-so. But IMO, you'd either have to have done a lot wrong to allow someone into that super-close range to throw/land one, they were really good or the confrontation just started that close.



All going points...


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 30, 2015)

Sure I guess. Once you're past your opponent's structure you can do whatever you like IMO.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 30, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> But I agree, tight hooks are tough. _Really_ tight hooks even more-so. But IMO, you'd either have to have done a lot wrong to allow someone into that super-close range to throw/land one, they were really good or the confrontation just started that close.


  Not really Tyson used to launch and land tight hooks from a distance. 





The problem with hooks is that there is more than one way to throw them and there's no one hook defense that defends all hooks.  The other problem is the area targeted. Hooks aren't just thrown to the face, not all hooks are telegraphed.  Some are hidden and others follow a bait.  Things like arm reach also affect defenses against hooks. Some who has a longer arm reach can land hooks further out. Body movement such as slips and hooks can also present problems for defenses.
Long reach vs short reach challenges.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 30, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> As for unarmed: I was taught and trained that every hand is an attack. So, if you throw me a (for example) roundhouse/haymaker to the head...I'm not just thinking "block and counter"...to me that is not WC. I'm going to attack that incoming limb with my tan while simultaneously counter attacking with a punch (or whatever) strike to your head or whatever target I want.


  I think this is a lost perspective in many martial arts styles because it requires conditioning of the forearms, hands, and elbows.  Very few martial arts schools around me condition these body parts.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 31, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think this is a lost perspective in many martial arts styles because it requires conditioning of the forearms, hands, and elbows.  Very few martial arts schools around me condition these body parts.



You are correct. Lots of conditioning for the forearms/elbows/hands/fingers; and a deep understanding of how and when to exert power.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 31, 2015)

Also, the lifting punch in CK shares the same type of body mechanics as the upward elbow if you allow it to continue on its path


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> You are correct. Lots of conditioning for the forearms/elbows/hands/fingers; and a deep understanding of how and when to exert power.



I believe this approach to be valid, but it is not equally emphasized in all WC branches. My old Chinese sifu felt that the conditioning drills like iron palm and _saam sing_ arm conditioning (that I had learned with a previous instructor) were unnecessary, and even counterproductive in his "WT" branch. He felt that our regular two man drills, our chi-sau, wall bag hitting, and later-on, the dummy training, was more than sufficient. He felt that too much hard training trying to make the arms hard like weapons reduces your elasticity or "springiness" and sensitivity as required in his soft concept of "WT".

_Now as to the rising elbow in the forms,_ we do not have it _literally _expressed in the forms as I learned them, but the energy is definitely there. Especially if you look at the wide range of applications that emerge from each movement. For example, the pivoting double lan-sau in Chum Kiu can hit both coming and going. Pivoting forward, you can strike with the outside edge of the hand, the forearm, the front of the elbow, or the point of the elbow. Equally, pivoting back, you can hit with the upper arm, the back or the point of the elbow, the forearm and the edge of the hand. It is all the same, just depending on your position and distance relative to your opponent. Similarly, you can fold your hand into a palm-down fist, and the forward pivoting lan-sau becomes a hook-punch, much like the more whipping hook-like movement learned later in Biu Tze.

Well, if the energy learned in the pivoting lan-sau can be all of the above, then i can certainly see the rising elbow strike as a natural extension of the energy expressed in the "lifting punch" in our version of Chum Kiu (coming from "WT"). Just as lan-sau and bong-sau can fold into kup, gwai, and pai or ding jarn, so can the lifting punch continue upwards and fold into a rising ding-jarn. You can see this movement as I learned it in the clip below at 1:02 -1:05, and in close-up at 1:15-1:18.






BTW here is the _whipping "hook-punch" sequence_ from the old 1980s "WT" version of the Biu Tze form. I've seen the energies expressed in this sequence: hook -  downward vertical elbow - reverse biu tze strike applied a wide range of applications. The "hook" can be a punch, a cutting elbow, a "clothes-line" sort of strike with the inside of the forearm or bicep muscle,  and even a throw. The downward elbow can also be a downward backfist, rebounding upward into a short lifting punch, or a more extended reverse biu-tze or throat spear, and so on. As this downward elbow "rebounds" up _...it can fold back into the rising elbow_ just as easily as extending into a strike. See blow, fro, about 1:40-1:48.






Now, some might say that I am reading too much into these sequences. To that I would respond, not at all. One of the reasons that a style as complex as WC only has three comparatively short empty-handed forms is that the forms are very dense. They do not teach mere application, but as others have said, they are the alphabet that underlies our _martial language_. They teach concepts and principles, structures, movement, and energy dynamics. It is _up to us_ to expand this core into nearly infinite variations as needed in application.


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2015)

Dang, just wasted like an hour this Saturday morning putting together that last post when, as my wife just pointed out, I could have been doing something _productive _like doing the dishes and cleaning out the cat litter boxes.  Gosh, I don't know where my priorities are these days!


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2015)

yak sao said:


> Also, the lifting punch in CK shares the same type of body mechanics as the upward elbow if you allow it to continue on its path



See, while I was wasting all that time looking at old LT clips and trying to get all eloquent, you said the same thing in one short line. _Harumph! ..._I guess I'll just start those dishes now.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> Dang, just wasted like an hour this Saturday morning putting together that last post when, as my wife just pointed out, I could have been doing something _productive _like doing the dishes and cleaning out the cat litter boxes.  Gosh, I don't know where my priorities are these days!



Geezer, I don't want you to panic because I may simply be overreacting, but I think you and I are married to the same woman!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> _WC_ is primarily a close range system, and strikes _mainly target the head and body_ along it's central axis. We don't attack the weapon (arms and hands) we attack the weapon wielder, the "central command" and shut it down at the source if you will.
> 
> Now _Escrima_ (my other art) begins at a longer range, and often we do target the hands since typically they are the first target you can reach. And you are quite right, elbows can be murder on your opponent's bare fists. But weapons are even nastier on the fists. Even a cellphone, pocket flashlight or ring of keys, for example, can really mess with an opponent's incoming jabs.



Isnt trapping by definition attacking the limb.  Not to hurt it but to at least open it?

As far as i am concerned a parry is a strike because it uses that bit of time and space.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a Wing Chun guy but so this is just insight from outside of WC.  If you use your forearm to block like that then I'm going to crush it with punches.  What he explains makes sense when using those gloves, but doesn't work the same with smaller gloves or without gloves, especially without the gloves where the knuckles have a greater depth of impact.
> 
> I use a similar fighting stance with my arm bent like that but at an angle so punches don't land solid .  I a
> 
> ...


You are unlikley to come worse off if you are meeting punches dead on with a forearm. 

That cover is traditionally used for elbows in thai.  The space protects you from the elbow slipping and cutting you


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 31, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Isnt trapping by definition attacking the limb.  Not to hurt it but to at least open it?



Hmmm...interesting tidbit, though to me and my WC, there are no such things as "WC trapping". To me, a 'trap' instead means a momentary (i.e. very very brief) immobilization of a key joint.
Not to derail the topic of this thread but what most WC'ers think of as the dreaded ultimate WC skill of 'trapping' equates to a lack of understanding WRT wing chun principles and footwork.


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Hmmm...interesting tidbit, though to me and my WC, there are no such things as "WC trapping". To me, a 'trap' instead means a momentary (i.e. very very brief) immobilization of a key joint.
> Not to derail the topic of this thread but what *most WC'ers* think of as the dreaded ultimate WC skill of 'trapping' equates to a lack of understanding WRT wing chun principles and footwork.



Not sure if I agree ...or not. I guess don't know that many other WCers. But a lot of the guys on this forum, guys like you, Danny, Yak, Argus, KPM, Piedmont, Vajramusdi...to name a few, _don't _view trapping that way. In fact, a lot of the people caught up with the whole _trapping mystique_ probably don't know squat about WC. IMHO that obsession with trapping combinations in which trapping becomes an end in itself rather than a momentary by-product of good position, footwork and forward intent (lat sau jik chung) is a result of some of the JKD stuff ...which really isn't WC at all.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> Not sure if I agree ...or not. I guess don't know that many other WCers. But a lot of the guys on this forum, guys like you, Danny, Yak, Argus, KPM, Piedmont, Vajramusdi...to name a few, _don't _view trapping that way. In fact, a lot of the people caught up with the whole _trapping mystique_ probably don't know squat about WC. IMHO that obsession with trapping combinations in which trapping becomes an end in itself rather than a momentary by-product of good position, footwork and forward intent (lat sau jik chung) is a result of some of the JKD stuff ...which really isn't WC at all.



Not sure what you are saying Geez...though I may not have explained myself very well. So, perhaps to clarify further on this trapping weirdness...I do not believe in 'trap'...

IME, most WC people think they can 'trap' their opponents limbs and then chain punch them into oblivion. Most videos one sees are of a super sifu (dare I say...Master) 'trapping' a poor helpless (and totally compliant) "adversary" and pummeling them into extinction.

Simple (and basic) footwork and knowledge of how to properly train and employ correct elbow position will nullify this dreadful WC tactic.


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2015)

Basically I'm trying to say the same thing.

It's hard when the trick-or-treaters keep ringing the door bell and interrupting my fragile train of thought.

Anyway, my experience is that with good WC, sometimes trapping happens but it is not our objective. In other words, as you penetrate your opponent's guard and attack, often his arms get caught and fouled up for an instant. But _trying_ to trap hands first to enable an attack is putting the cart before the horse. And, if I remember correctly pretty much everybody else on here who does serious WC has said something similar at some point.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 31, 2015)

WC is not about trapping although trapping is a huge part of the training. Trapping happens because of proper positioning and line control. We move not to trap but to strike; 'if' in the process of striking there is a barrier we either remove the barrier, go around the barrier, or if the angle is proper simply strike through the barrier. Sometimes we trap and often the opponent traps themselves. When that happens finish it, just remember to tell them thank you.


----------



## geezer (Oct 31, 2015)

Danny T said:


> WC is not about trapping although trapping is a huge part of the training. Trapping happens because of proper positioning and line control. We move not to trap but to strike; 'if' in the process of striking there is a barrier we either remove the barrier, go around the barrier, or if the angle is proper simply strike through the barrier. Sometimes we trap and often the opponent traps themselves. When that happens finish it, just remember to tell them thank you.



OK, _that_ was expressed well. Thank you. Now I'm back to answering the door and eating candy.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 31, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Hmmm...interesting tidbit, though to me and my WC, there are no such things as "WC trapping". To me, a 'trap' instead means a momentary (i.e. very very brief) immobilization of a key joint.
> Not to derail the topic of this thread but what most WC'ers think of as the dreaded ultimate WC skill of 'trapping' equates to a lack of understanding WRT wing chun principles and footwork.





geezer said:


> Not sure if I agree ...or not. I guess don't know that many other WCers. But a lot of the guys on this forum, guys like you, Danny, Yak, Argus, KPM, Piedmont, Vajramusdi...to name a few, _don't _view trapping that way. In fact, a lot of the people caught up with the whole _trapping mystique_ probably don't know squat about WC. IMHO that obsession with trapping combinations in which trapping becomes an end in itself rather than a momentary by-product of good position, footwork and forward intent (lat sau jik chung) is a result of some of the JKD stuff ...which really isn't WC at all.



For me I am thinking about trapping from a boxing perspective. Where it is an attack.

But a momentary byproduct of good positioning is also consistant.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> For me I am thinking about trapping from a boxing perspective. Where it is an attack.


That certainly can be and is a form of trapping. It can be performed as a tactic however, this form of trapping is not aligned with the strategies of WC. We may contact the limbs but to attack the limb vs the body or head is not within the confines of economy of motion or being simple and direct though we may attack through the limb.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> That certainly can be and is a form of trapping. It can be performed as a tactic however, this form of trapping is not aligned with the strategies of WC. We may contact the limbs but to attack the limb vs the body or head is not within the confines of economy of motion or being simple and direct though we may attack through the limb.



So as far as I can tell you are adamantly opposed to taking two dips at the arm. 

So if you do a philipino or knifish style there are generally two dips.






The chun has one dip.





Elbows for me can get a bit of both depending on what I am trying to get.


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

In regards to the above videos....... This is a matter of range and control.   Notice in the WCK video that Anthony STEPS first....he closes the range and then uses a simultaneous deflection and strike followed by another strike.  In the FMA video the action starts from a little further out....so there are two parries on the attacking arm rather than just one.  One parry would happen AS the stepping in to close the distance.   I do that with my Wing Chun sometimes as well.  I consider it as "closing with some control and protection."   I see it in those cases as increased efficiency from a safety perspective, not decreased efficiency as some might say because I have used an extra "beat".  

 Secondly, remember that in FMA everything is referenced around weapons combat.  The empty-hand methods essentially derive from dealing with a knife.  If someone is trying to slash or cut you with a knife you want to maximize your protection by deflecting and controlling the knife-wielding limb as you close in.  This is why you see multiple beat defenses as well as even strikes to the knife-wielding limb itself.  The sharp pointing thing is the main threat you have to deal with BEFORE you can do to the torso or head with your own strikes. This makes the strategies in FMA empty-hand a bit different that those in WCK.  In WCK we just worry about getting past the striking hand.   In FMA that striking hand is assumed to be holding a knife, so you can't just  "get past it", you have to take it completely out of the game....either by immobilizing it or trapping it.  

Third....FMA movements are often centered around the idea of "flow."  This comes from the double stick work.  Here the idea is that of using patterned movement that can be applied in multiple ways.  You can do the same motions with double stick, single stick, knife, and empty hand.  This makes learning much easier.  You set the pattern in motion....some parts may pick up the attack and some might not.  It doesn't matter, you still just "flow."  If all motions connect and work...great!  If one or two aren't that effective you are still covered by the rest of the pattern.  Its like having a backup or "fail safe" built into the technique.  To WCK eyes this looks very inefficient with too much wasted motion.  But it happens so fast that FMA guys don't see it that way.  To FMA eyes WCK often looks somewhat "jerky" and "mechanical" without much "flow."   To each his own!  ;-) 

I'm surprised Joy hasn't chimed it.   Many years ago Augustine Fong wrote an article for one of the magazines titled  "Trapping:  The Heart of Wing Chun."    Fong Sifu talked a lot about "trapping."  Trapping the hands, trapping the stance, even trapping the "emotions."   ;-)


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...   In FMA that striking hand is assumed to be holding a knife



In WC too! Thought everyone trained like this, but I guess not. 
(at least that's how one should be training)


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> In regards to the above videos....... This is a matter of range and control.   Notice in the WCK video that Anthony STEPS first....he closes the range and then uses a simultaneous deflection and strike followed by another strike.  In the FMA video the action starts from a little further out....so there are two parries on the attacking arm rather than just one.  One parry would happen AS the stepping in to close the distance.   I do that with my Wing Chun sometimes as well.  I consider it as "closing with some control and protection."   I see it in those cases as increased efficiency from a safety perspective, not decreased efficiency as some might say because I have used an extra "beat".
> 
> Secondly, remember that in FMA everything is referenced around weapons combat.  The empty-hand methods essentially derive from dealing with a knife.  If someone is trying to slash or cut you with a knife you want to maximize your protection by deflecting and controlling the knife-wielding limb as you close in.  This is why you see multiple beat defenses as well as even strikes to the knife-wielding limb itself.  The sharp pointing thing is the main threat you have to deal with BEFORE you can do to the torso or head with your own strikes. This makes the strategies in FMA empty-hand a bit different that those in WCK.  In WCK we just worry about getting past the striking hand.   In FMA that striking hand is assumed to be holding a knife, so you can't just  "get past it", you have to take it completely out of the game....either by immobilizing it or trapping it.
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct on Master Fong. But many including JKD folks mean somewhat different things by "trapping".
"Control" is the most appropriate referrent


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So as far as I can tell you are adamantly opposed to taking two dips at the arm.
> Elbows for me can get a bit of both depending on what I am trying to get.



"adamantly opposed" -  Not willing to change one's opinion, purpose, or principles; unyielding.
Not really. 
The spatial relationship between the opponents becomes a deciding factor on how one responds.
I did use the term tactic as well as strategy. There is a difference.



wckf92 said:


> In WC too! Thought everyone trained like this, but I guess not.
> (at least that's how one should be training)


I believe WC is all about defending against a bladed weapon.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I believe WC is all about defending against a bladed weapon.



Heck yeah it is.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 1, 2015)

If a Sifu were to say to his students "Ok now we are going to learn some trapping" as if they were _teaching_ trapping as its _own_ thing or concept, I think I might head for the door and not waste my time. To agree with Geezer and a couple others here, I don't think that's the norm for WC/WT/VT though really. I think you would see that more in JKD circles where trapping can be seen as technique(s) and not an extension of everything else.

Trapping happens, but it should naturally follow your forward pressure and other principles at work. You can control a limb after removing it from your path without chasing it; simply having forward pressure / intent can allow you to  keep contact with that limb instinctively without overcommitting to trapping that limb. The various Gum Sau movements from SNT and also Pak come to mind as often morphing into a trap when an opponent gives the opportunity. Why not take it? Plenty of experienced strikers won't give you the opportunity though.

On that note, the multiple pre-arranged chi-sau sections found in WT often are criticized as overly elaborate "trapping scenarios", but its really more individual responses being trained and concepts within being explored, just in a pattern that makes it easy to transmit between teacher / student and student / student .


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> In WC too! Thought everyone trained like this, but I guess not.
> (at least that's how one should be training)



No.  That is not at all typical for Wing Chun. And it makes no sense.  How would Chi Sau allow for the idea that the other guy is holding a knife?


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> "
> 
> 
> I believe WC is all about defending against a bladed weapon.



Huh?  Where does that come from? Because I can tell you, from an FMA perspective, using the same Wing Chun methods and techniques you use against an unarmed attacker....against a knife-wielding attacker will get you killed quick!  But maybe a topic for another thread??


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> Huh?  Where does that come from? Because I can tell you, from an FMA perspective, using the same Wing Chun methods and techniques you use against an unarmed attacker....against a knife-wielding attacker will get you killed quick!  But maybe a topic for another thread??





KPM said:


> No.  That is not at all typical for Wing Chun. And it makes no sense.  How would Chi Sau allow for the idea that the other guy is holding a knife?


Chi Sao is but a drilling platform.
Maybe you should do so vs a knife. Actually is a great learning experience. Do you have and BDJ experience and if so besides the form. Single vs empty hand, single vs single, single vs double, double vs double. We do quite a bit of it. 
I also have over 25 years experience in Pekiti-Tirsia kali and have a very good understanding of close quarter blade work. Though some of the methodology is different the positions and pressure are very much the same.
You may have a different understanding and use by from my experience, training, and perspective wc is very much about bladed weapon defense.


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 1, 2015)

Chi sao is not fighting but it is an important IP Man wc  method for developing one's body and mind for martial purpose.
You don't throw common sense out of the window or good judgment about the context of an encounter.


----------



## JPinAZ (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> In regards to the above videos....... This is a matter of range and control.   Notice in the WCK video that Anthony STEPS first....he closes the range and then uses a simultaneous deflection and strike followed by another strike.



Not to go too far off subject, but I also notice Anthony has a (bad?) habit of always moving off centerline when he steps before or during engagement. So I'd argue he's not_ exactly_ closing range if he is also giving up position by moving off centerline line when he does. I'd say he's 'sorta' closing range


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Not to go too far off subject, but I also notice Anthony has a (bad?) habit of always moving off centerline when he steps before or during engagement. So I'd argue he's not_ exactly_ closing range if he is also giving up position by moving off centerline line when he does. I'd say he's 'sorta' closing range



Probably just semantics, but I'd say he is stepping off and creating a NEW centerline.  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> In WC too! Thought everyone trained like this, but I guess not.
> (at least that's how one should be training)



Why?


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

Chi Sao is but a drilling platform.

---And if you did the standard Ip Man Chi Sau with me while I had a knife in my hand, I would be slicing you to pieces.  ;-)

 Do you have and BDJ experience and if so besides the form. Single vs empty hand, single vs single, single vs double, double vs double. We do quite a bit of it.

---Ah!  Maybe that is the disconnect?  I am talking about a tactical folder, not Wing Chun Short swords/knives.  But then how in the world would you do Chi Sau while holding two short swords?????

I also have over 25 years experience in Pekiti-Tirsia kali and have a very good understanding of close quarter blade work. Though some of the methodology is different the positions and pressure are very much the same.

----Then let's please take this to the other thread I started.  Sounds like a good foundation for an interesting discussion!


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> Chi Sao is but a drilling platform.
> 
> ---And if you did the standard Ip Man Chi Sau with me while I had a knife in my hand, I would be slicing you to pieces.  ;-)


Not under Ip Man. We may practice differently but really don't believe so.



KPM said:


> ---Ah!  Maybe that is the disconnect?  I am talking about a tactical folder, not Wing Chun Short swords/knives.  But then how in the world would you do Chi Sau while holding two short swords?????


We use pocket folders, combat tactical knives, bowie type knives, curved blades etc. Try it you may gain a different perspective.


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> ----Then let's please take this to the other thread I started.  Sounds like a good foundation for an interesting discussion!



Great idea. KPM, my initial response was to agree with you that basic WC (not Bart Cham Dao) does not directly translate to blade work. In fact, I feel a lot of WC guys look clueless about knife work, and their standard approach to fighting leaves them  pretty vulnerable. Then Danny (who is _not _one to say dumb things)  re-affirms his position and brings up his considerable _Pekiti _experience. Frankly intrigued to hear more on the subject. Please go ahead and start that new thread.


----------



## JPinAZ (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> Probably just semantics, but I'd say he is stepping off and creating a NEW centerline.  ;-)



I hear ya, but how many does he need?? haha
When talking A-to-B centerline for engagement (which what I mean here by 'centerline'), it only really exists if one point, in the case A, is stationary. You can't really have a usable A-to-B centerline if both points are always moving.

If we can deal with the incoming attack where we are, there is no reason to even 'create a new centerline' as you suggest. And sure, there are plenty of times we will have to move. But this is typically AFTER there is a bridge. And if we fail to deal with initial the attack on the original CL, sure, we move as necessary to maintain proper range & structure, gain superior position and/or as our opponent leads us to. And we won't this unless we at least_ try _to deal with what's coming on the original CL yeah?
In the clip provided, from what I see Anthony isn't even _trying _to do this - in most cases he's immediately running away from the original centerline/attack by stepping off before he even makes contact. What's he so afraid of? lol

Ok, different approach I guess, but I think we can both at least agree that this doesn't exactly coincide with WC's ideas of maximum efficiency yeah? (given that's an excepted goal of WC's principle fighting methods)

And you keep winking at me, people are going to start to talk! haha


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Ok, different approach I guess, but I think we can both at least agree that this doesn't exactly coincide with WC's ideas of maximum efficiency yeah? (given that's an excepted goal of WC's principle fighting methods)


 
Maybe your idea of what is WCK and what isn't is a bit more rigid than mine.  Because stepping off the line to avoid a strong attack and establish a new centerline that is more to one's advantage is an accepted part of any Wing Chun system I have studied.  "Flanking" is one term that is sometimes used and is found in both TWC as well as Pin Sun. 

Maybe in the video demo Anthony wouldn't have HAD to step off like he did, but it was a demo and he was illustrating a point.


----------



## JPinAZ (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> Maybe your idea of what is WCK and what isn't is a bit more rigid than mine.



I agree there are many approaches to WC application. When I'm talking centerline, I don't feel it's about being rigid or not, it's about what gives rise to WC's ideas of maximum efficiency. Maybe some approaches are more efficient than others (?)



KPM said:


> Because stepping off the line to avoid a strong attack and establish a new centerline that is more to one's advantage is an accepted part of any Wing Chun system I have studied.  "Flanking" is one term that is sometimes used and is found in both TWC as well as Pin Sun.



I hear ya, but how does anyone know if the incoming attack is strong or otherwise if they are moving_ prior_ to contact?

If we are talking about losing our structure, position or personal space due to a strong bridge or overwhelming force _after_ or _upon_ engagement, then sure, we move as we have to! I think I eluded to that in my last post. And I'm not saying implying we stand our ground at all costs, that would be quite silly!

But in WC, IMO we don't look 'avoid' anything (maybe just semantics) - we react to we get form our opponent. This is where loi lau hoi sung comes into play. From what I see, he isn't moving in the clip because he feels overwhelmed upon engagement - he's moving away from Centerline _prior_ to engagement. Hopefully you can see the point  

Regarding 'flanking', I do understand and agree with setting ourselves up during Bai Jong to give ourselves a slight edge or positional advantage over our opponent (I guess this could be called flanking), and I surely understand we always seek to gain the superior position. Maybe it's a different focus, but I also learned very early on we don't move when we don't have to, And in my experience we don't give up centerline when we don't have to. No centerline = no wing chun. If this is 'rigid' thinking, then guilty as charged! haha



KPM said:


> Maybe in the video demo Anthony wouldn't have HAD to step off like he did, but it was a demo and he was illustrating a point.



Possible! Maybe I missed it,  but what point is he trying to make by giving up centerline before engagement? (no dig here, honest question)


----------



## dudewingchun (Nov 20, 2015)

geezer said:


> Here's another video with _Alan Orr_ using the vertical forearm/rising elbow defensively as a cover/deflection/block at punching range. He explains it as a practical adaptation to man/wu sau or equally of tan sau (explanation starting at about 2:30 in the clip).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Has anyone here actually trained with Alan ?? I have and his skill is extremely good. If you havent trained with him you have no idea. I didnt from watching his videos. His structure is very good and he can move your body around so easily in chi sao. He can fight too.. very good and he hits like a truck. I doubt any wing chun . The ideas he uses work, his students are all very very good too. I literally have nothing bad to say about it. I visited him and now I dont want to train with anyone else. His body stucture ideas make perfect sense when he explains them too.


----------



## geezer (Nov 20, 2015)

dudewingchun said:


> Has anyone here actually trained with Alan ?



KPM, who posts here from time to time, was doing Alan's online program. I don't know if he has worked with Alan in person though. As for myself, I would jump at the opportunity, except Alan is in New Zealand isn't he? It's a bit of a drive from Arizona. Especially the watery stretches!

As far as his skills go, of course you have to "cross-bridges" to really _experience_ someone's level of ability, but from what I've seen of the way he moves his sparring partner's bodies around, controlling their balance _even when they are totally non-compliant _is impressive. As is the fact that his students can apply their stuff in the ring.


----------

