# Long and short range Tan Sao



## futsaowingchun (Sep 21, 2015)

In this video I show how the Tan Sao is applied in long and short ranges, and the concept of the short and long range Tan Sao as used in Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer (Sep 21, 2015)

Thanks for the video and explanation. Basically I have no problem with what I saw. In our branch of VT we may use something similar, but the concept and explanation would differ. Allow me to elucidate:

We don't have long and short tan sau in Chum Kiu. And even when we do perform the "seeds": tan, bong, fook, etc. in different positions or levels such as our high tan sau (ko tan sau) in SNT and double low bong sau (sheung dai bong sau) in CK, the understanding is that _there are not really many tans or bongs_, but just many positions that our opponent's energy may bend our arm into. Basically there is only "loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung"  ....just a strike on centerline that is intercepted and pressed or bent into a deflecting position.

On the other hand, you could just as easily, and correctly say that there are an infinity of tans and bongs. It really amounts to the same thing. Maintain forward intent, follow your opponent's center and make your arms press out like springs.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Sep 21, 2015)

geezer said:


> Thanks for the video and explanation. Basically I have no problem with what I saw. In our branch of VT we may use something similar, but the concept and explanation would differ. Allow me to elucidate:
> 
> We don't have long and short tan sau in Chum Kiu. And even when we do perform the "seeds": tan, bong, fook, etc. in different positions or levels such as our high tan sau (ko tan sau) in SNT and double low bong sau (sheung dai bong sau) in CK, the understanding is that _there are not really many tans or bongs_, but just many positions that our opponent's energy may bend our arm into. Basically there is only "loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung"  ....just a strike on centerline that is intercepted and pressed or bent into a deflecting position.
> 
> On the other hand, you could just as easily, and correctly say that there are an infinity of tans and bongs. It really amounts to the same thing. Maintain forward intent, follow your opponent's center and make your arms press out like springs.




I think what your staying in the end is no different. We might only have different ways of explaining them the same thing. Some sifu's say there is only 1 tan sao.Som say 3 but like you said " There is an infinity"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 21, 2015)

I like your long Tan Shou principle. It's very similar to

- the "rhino guard" concept,







- the "zombie arms" concept.






- the "stiff arm" concept.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 22, 2015)

John, I am not following and have to disagree. IMO, you are showing more of a stiff-arm static 'pressing' structure, where the 'action' of tan sau is typically to spread/dissipate energy on the kiu/bridge. 

TBH, I'm not even sure what the 'zombie arms' is representing here as there is not bridge at all (?)


----------



## yak sao (Sep 22, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> TBH, I'm not even sure what the 'zombie arms' is representing here as there is not bridge at all (?)



Dead structure ?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 22, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> I'm not even sure what the 'zombie arms' is representing here as there is not bridge at all (?)







At 0.42, if he use his left hand to push on his opponent's right arm to free his own right arm, since his right hand is already so close to his opponent's face, his right hand can strike on his opponent's face with very short distance.

The "zombie arms (or octopus arms)" is similar to the Tan Shou. Instead of putting your "long Tan Shou" hand close to your opponent's face, you use "zombie arms" to move your hands close you your opponent's wrists.

You extend both of your arms and move both of your hands next to your opponent's wrists. Your hands may touch on your opponent's wrists, or may just stay few inches away from it. This way when your opponent intends to do something, your hands can interrupt his action during the early stage.

To me, the concept of Tan Shou is to more than just a "bridge" used to block an incoming punch. If I can extend my

- left arm between my opponent's right arm and his head.
- right arm between his left arm and his head,

I can "separate" both of his arms away from his body and "occupy his center".

- To "occupy my opponent's center" is my goal.
- The double Tan Shou can help me to reach to my goal.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 22, 2015)

John,

While I agree, the 'lonag taan sao' has the hand already close to the face and you probably _could_ 'hit' him from there - but will it have much effect? And what do you give up? 
Speaking purely from WC principle and mechanics POV, the reason I say this is:
1. The arm is already extended probably further than it should be to have proper WC structure/connection to the rest of the body. So, there will be little-to-no energy generated if striking from there since it's 'sao' has already 'fired it's shot' leaving little distance left for the elbow to travel to generate necessary power to do anything. And if you do, you are creating a pretty big distortion for still having 2 hands operating as one with equal reach (losing duie yeng or juei yeng facing)
2. the opponent's shoulder is in the way 

As for your zombie arms explanation, I'm not sure we're talking WC 'dispersing hand' at this point (?). So why not just discuss Taan Sao vs. mixing in non-WC techniques to describe WC-specific concepts?

In my experience, taan sao does not typically bridge on the wrist. That is using the tool at the wrong contact/leverage point and range per WC gate & box theories. Which is why my lineage also has Taan Kiu for when the leverage point is incorrect or range is wrong, but that's another subject


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 22, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Speaking purely from WC principle and mechanics POV,..


I like to look at this from general MA point of view instead. The WC Tan Shou and WC Bong Shou (you can hide your head next to it to avoid a head punch during clinch) have much more application potential than you may think.



JPinAZ said:


> While I agree, the 'lonag taan sao' has the hand already close to the face and you probably _could_ 'hit' him from there - but will it have much effect? And what do you give up?


You can use your Tan Shou as part of your punch (or just finger jab at your opponent's eyes which doesn't need much power). You use it to "deflect" whatever that may be in your striking path. This way you start to generate your punching power during your initial Tan Shou stage. The way you change your Tan Shou into a punch is more like a "spiral punch".

You use your Tan Shou to penetrate your opponent's guard. You then get to his head. Your Tan Shou can be just like a giant drill machine that can drill a hole through your opponent's strong defense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 22, 2015)

Here is an example that your Tan Shou (bridge) has been changed into a punch. This kind of "switch hand" is quite unique in CMA.


----------



## geezer (Sep 22, 2015)

I'd call that a spring-loaded man-sau being released with a rear-hand pak-sau. But then man-sau, tan-sau, bong-sau are all just bent springs, as is your body and stance/steps. Although this example is actually JKD, the principles are still WC. "When the hand is freed, thrust forward" _...Lat-sau jik chung_.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> I'd call that a spring-loaded man-sau being released with a rear-hand pak-sau. But then man-sau, tan-sau, bong-sau are all just bent springs, as is your body and stance/steps. Although this example is actually JKD, the principles are still WC. "When the hand is freed, thrust forward" _...Lat-sau jik chung_.


Yep, what is shown isn't a tan sao.
Also when one extends their arm as shown in the "rhino" simply jut or jum.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2015)

Lee's posture looks quite like the Tan Shou to me.

- His elbow is in the center of his chest.
- His hand is pointing at his opponent's head.
- His center line is covered by his right arm.
- He guards his center from inside out.
- His arm is making a "bridge" with his opponent's arm.

The only missing part is Lee's right palm is facing side way instead of facing up. But that should not matter. The arm shape is important. The palm shape is not.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 23, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Lee's posture looks quite like the Tan Shou to me.
> 
> - His elbow is in the center of his chest.
> - His hand is pointing at his opponent's head.
> ...



Except that tan sau is not a technique but a movement. Tan sau, as used in our lineage, is a momentary disruption of our attack as it seeks the center.
The structure is there because it creates the optimal angle for being able to disperse an attack.
Once it has served its purpose it springs back out. The structure is something that is flown _through_ not _to. _
In fact, the tan sau structure may not fully materialize at all, but only a small portion of it may be all that is needed to release the arm back on its original mission.
Put another way, the tan sau is not a noun but a verb.


----------



## geezer (Sep 23, 2015)

yak sao said:


> Except that tan sau is not a technique but a movement. .



I agree. It's not a technique or hand position. It's about movement and how you handle the energy you receive. So you can perform the _function_ of tan ...or jum. jut, pak etc. even wearing gloves while the hand is held in a fist.

Alan Orr shows this in his gloved training. This may actually  be more "advanced" and difficult to do, but more applicable in sparring. Another fighter, Emin used to prefer teaching the basic WT lat-sau drills with the hands held as fists for the same reason.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 23, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to look at this from general MA point of view instead. The WC Tan Shou and WC Bong Shou (you can hide your head next to it to avoid a head punch during clinch) have much more application potential than you may think.



While it's good to compare and contrast with other arts, I like to look at WC-specific techniques & application from WC-specific principle/concept - it's always much simpler that way. IMO, if we have to start talking about WC-specific ideas from a general MA's POV, then we start moving away from WC principle. At that point, are we really talking about WC anymore?
You even said yourself that Taan Sao was unique to WC, so why would we muddy the waters by trying to talk about it from outside a WC principle-based perspective?

For your Bruce Lee example, I'd agree with the others that this isn't what I'd call WC taan sau (taan sau, while having a specific 'WC shape' is typically viewed more as an action). I'd say this appears to be more just Lee's idea of Bai Jong ready position. I'd go further and call it more of a jong sau hand shape, but since his body alignment and facing don't fit within what I would view as WC structure, facing and gate theories to correctly support that shape, it's probably better not to use his JKD ideas to discuss WC. Which brings me back to my point, why not just discuss WC ideas from WC POV?


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 23, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can use your Tan Shou as part of your punch (or just finger jab at your opponent's eyes which doesn't need much power). You use it to "deflect" whatever that may be in your striking path. This way you start to generate your punching power during your initial Tan Shou stage. The way you change your Tan Shou into a punch is more like a "spiral punch".



Thanks for your further clarification. I'm not sure your idea of what _wing chun _taan sau and what mine is is the same. Maybe this is because you look at it from a general MA pov vs. wc principle pov?

For me, Tan sau is often used as part of WC 4-gate defense strategies. As such, the taan hand is not typically pointing at the opponent as it "deflects/'disperses' the energy away from the A-to-B centerline to the corner of the gate upper. What you are talking about wouldn't work in that regard. While we can surely strike from that position, the taan would have to change to something else as it comes back to center. But typically in the instance of 4-gate, it would be much easier to then attack with the wu sau backup hand, which is supported by HFY's ideas of 2-line/simultaneous offence/defense.

I do like your idea of the tan sao into fwd spiral punch. This is more inline with our Taan Kiu energetics I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2015)

[





JPinAZ said:


> if we have to start talking about WC-specific ideas from a general MA's POV, then we start moving away from WC principle.


I'm not talking about other CMA systems here because other CMA systems don't have Tan Shou. To me, Tan is a straight line that shoots out from the center of my chest.

At this point of my life, I only care about how to "use different tools to achieve my goal". My tools may come from many different CMA systems such as WC. Since I'm using WC principle to meet my need. I believe I'm still talking about WC here.



JPinAZ said:


> I do like your idea of the tan sao into fwd spiral punch.


I want to move my arms in 2 straight lines and separate my opponent's arms from his head so I can get a "head lock" on him. The WC "double Tan Shou" can be used as those 2 straight lines that both starts from the center of my chest and go toward my opponent.


----------



## paitingman (Sep 23, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The arm shape is important. The palm shape is not.



I think you're right about that. but you cannot turn your palm without rotating the forearm. just a subtle difference


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 23, 2015)

This a "long Tang Shou". You can see how easy that his fingers can attack his opponent's eyes.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 23, 2015)

Since taan sau is a lot more than just a static shape or technique, who knows! It's only a snap shot in time and doesn't tell the whole story of how he got there.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 23, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to look at this from general MA point of view instead.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not talking about other CMA systems here because other CMA systems don't have Tan Shou.



Well which is it??
Besides the obvious contradiction above, every picture you've posted and many of your references having little-to-nothing to do with WC. Sorry, but I'm not sure if you're being serious or just having a go at this point.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, Tan is a straight line that shoots out from the center of my chest.



If that's all it is to you, I won't argue. But we are clearly on 2 totally different ideas of what WC is to continue this discussion further. (not to mention I am not 100% sure you are being fully genuine in this discussion per the first 2 quotes above) Thanks for sharing anyway!


----------



## geezer (Sep 23, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This a "long Tang Shou". You can see how easy that his fingers can attack his opponent's eyes.



Good picture. In our branch we probably wouldn't consider this a "tan sau", regardless of the hand position. Now it may have been tan sau a moment before, but at this point it appears to be freed from compression and is _springing forward to strike._ At this point the hand could of course gouge the eyes, slip aside and strike as a spade-palm, rotate into a palm strike or close into a fist. What weapon you put on the end of your arm is not as important as the energy behind the weapon.

Even Mr. Han realized, perhaps too late ...that the weapon on the end of your arm is not as important as what you can do with that arm!  
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140618030006/villains/images/c/c3/HAN.jpg


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 24, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> every picture you've posted and many of your references having little-to-nothing to do with WC.


If your both arms are inside of your opponent's both arms, you can do many different things. Are you saying the following situations have nothing to do with WC?


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 24, 2015)

Do that have'nothing to do with WC'? I don't know because I don't even know what you're really talking about at this point. But they surely have nothing to do with WC taan sau (which is the subject - or was), and I'm pretty sure you're just taking the piss, so I have nothing more to say.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 25, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Do that have'nothing to do with WC'? I don't know because I don't even know what you're really talking about at this point. But they surely have nothing to do with WC taan sau (which is the subject - or was), and I'm pretty sure you're just taking the piss, so I have nothing more to say.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agree


----------



## guy b. (Sep 25, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Do that have'nothing to do with WC'? I don't know because I don't even know what you're really talking about at this point. But they surely have nothing to do with WC taan sau (which is the subject - or was), and I'm pretty sure you're just taking the piss, so I have nothing more to say.



I think he wants to talk about how wing chun relates to grappling opportunites, or how it is the same as other chinese ma. Have to say I don't really understand the point either...


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 28, 2015)

WC doesn't relate to grappling opportunities - grappling and WC are 2 different trains-of-thought in terms of fighting strategy, body methods and ranges. WC's goal is to _negate_ grappling to allow for controlled striking with a very specific ranges, facing and structural alignments. To use it as a 'tool' to grapple with is really missing the point of WC IMO.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 28, 2015)

Why are you telling me about it? I agree


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 28, 2015)

was more-or-less agreeing with you more in-depth/beyond just hitting the like/agree button


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Why are you telling me about it? I agree



I think I agree too. On the other hand we do some simple sweeps and throws. But that's not really grappling.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 28, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> WC doesn't relate to grappling opportunities - grappling and WC are 2 different trains-of-thought in terms of fighting strategy, body methods and ranges. *WC's goal is to negate grappling *to allow for controlled striking with a very specific ranges, facing and structural alignments. To use it as a 'tool' to grapple with is really missing the point of WC IMO.




Do you mean *_Gasp*,  _Anti-Grappling???
Let the onslaught begin.....


----------



## Jake104 (Sep 28, 2015)

geezer said:


> I think I agree too. On the other hand we do some simple sweeps and throws. But that's not really grappling.


Just depends on ones interpretation of what grappling means? The definition that google found for me was,

*1grap·ple*

\ˈgra-pəl\_noun_
1
a *:*the act or an instance ofgrappling

b *:*a hand-to-hand struggle

c *:*a contest for superiority or mastery

Personally my interpretation is when contact or a bridge is made, that's grappling. It doesn't necessarily mean that then we wrestle. Maybe I fight for positioning to punch the crap out of you? I don't know? Depends on how I'm feeling that day?


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Just depends on ones interpretation of what grappling means? The definition that google found for me was,
> 
> *1grap·ple*
> 
> ...



I think wing chun is not grappling because the intention is always to hit. If you are struggling or contesting hand against hand as per your definition then you are grappling I agree. But in a wing chun context this means that grappling is chasing hands. 

Wing chun only seeks to move hands so that it can hit; it never contests space. 

Wing chun only upsets balance so that it can hit; it never contests balance.

Wing chun is hitting first and being able to keep hitting.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Sep 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I think wing chun is not grappling because the intention is always to hit. If you are struggling or contesting hand against hand as per your definition then you are grappling I agree. But in a wing chun context this means that grappling is chasing hands.
> 
> Wing chun only seeks to move hands so that it can hit; it never contests space.
> 
> ...



At best, I think what you are saying is an oversimplification. What does Wing Chun do when the hands are tied up? What does Wing Chun do when being locked or pinned? What does Wing Chun do when an attacker grabs and tries to take to the ground? The goal is to hit, but WC/WT/VT has tools for all the above when hitting is either not possible or efficient.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 29, 2015)

WC looks to free up the hands when bound, grabbed, tied-up etc using WC tools with the goal of hitting. So if WC's goal is to hit unrestrained, we look to 'negate grappling' using WC tools and body methods to remove one's-self from that grappling timeframe and not resorting to wrestling or grappling methods (of course, it doesn't always go as planned! lol)
To use grabbing techniques against grabs for example would be committing to 'grappling'. If I look to lock up with my opponent, it is counter to WC's goal of striking and ties my hands up voluntarily. 

** And if 'negate grappling' doesn't float your boat, fill in 'negate' with whatever term you like


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> At best, I think what you are saying is an oversimplification. What does Wing Chun do when the hands are tied up? What does Wing Chun do when being locked or pinned? What does Wing Chun do when an attacker grabs and tries to take to the ground? The goal is to hit, but WC/WT/VT has tools for all the above when hitting is either not possible or efficient.



You are basically asking "what does wing chun do when wing chun fails". 

If your hands are tied up (not sure what that means exactly) then you look to clear the way for hitting or hit along another line using wing chun methods.

If you attacker attempts to grab then basically you enter and hit and finish it asap. You cut the way, you remove any obstruction, you turn him and upset his balance, you crash his stance, but above all you do these things so that you can hit him and knock him out quickly. You do not tolerate sustained arm or body contact that is not helping you to hit. You don't play his game. You connect your fist repeatedly with his chin and end the fight. 

If you are on the ground being locked or pinned then sorry your wing chun failed. Bad luck. Time to hope you trained bjj.

Wing chun is not invincible, but just because you find yourself in a bad position it doesn't suddely become about grappling. Wing chun is about hitting. That is all.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Sep 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You are basically asking "what does wing chun do when wing chun fails".
> 
> If your hands are tied up (not sure what that means exactly) then you look to clear the way for hitting or hit along another line using wing chun methods.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the hypotheticals... I'll remember to make sure to enter and hit a guy before he tries to grab me, that strategy never occurred to me  To be fair, I didn't even use the word "grappling".


----------



## johnsimmons (Sep 29, 2015)

I think our wing chun is different than others based on what I read here. We do not differentiate between boxing and grappling.  The goal and practice to to close range and get up their shirt. Kicks,to punch to elbow to sweep/ throw . We drive through the opponent. We do not try to maintain a punching range. We do not want to let someone move away and maintain range. The ground is our friend. I want to either have the back of the opponents head or the front hit the ground as violently as possible. We also will lock a leg and used a standing choke if that is what is called for.

 In my experience you get grabbed when close. People with skill will throw you in some fashion. Only in sport have I had the luxury of staying at boxing range. Yes when fighting the untrained you can overwhelm them with punches but that is not what will happen when facing trained and or real people set on hurting or killing you.

You also do not want to close the gap and have the other person move away. Closing the gap is the most dangerous time in a fight the less you do it the better . If they are able to move away then the fight takes longer opening you up to more trouble.

So you may call it grappling or anything else. name doesn't matter but fact is you must be able to deal with close range both being grabbed,held or throw/sweep attempts and you must also be able to keep the opponent  close. This means you must understand how to control your balance ,break the opponents balance and finish with throw/sweep.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2015)

Your opponent can always jump on you from behind. You may not use "bear hug from behind", but since you can't prevent your opponent from using it, you have to know how to deal with it.

Sometime the grappling just cannot be avoided.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> ** And if 'negate grappling' doesn't float your boat, fill in 'negate' with whatever term you like



I like good old anti grappling. It has a nice early 90s vibe to it and it pisses everyone off if you say it


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Thank you for the hypotheticals... I'll remember to make sure to enter and hit a guy before he tries to grab me, that strategy never occurred to me  To be fair, I didn't even use the word "grappling".



You asked a load of questions that I answered. I take it you didn't like the answers? Hitting is wing chun stategy. Grappling is not. Make of that what you will.

Wing chun is a specialised tool for a particular job. It is a very good tool, maybe the best. But it isn't a multi tool that can do everything. If you try to use it in that way then you are kidding yourself. Your standing joint lock applications will look ridiculous against a decent grappler. Your throws will be weak. Your grip fighting will be pathetic. You will be destroyed because you will be playing someone else's game instead of your own.

If you find yourself grappling with someone, especially on the floor, then it is not the time for wing chun. That time has passed and your wing chun failed. Timescale of wing chun is sub 20 seconds, preferably sub 5 seconds. It is hitting and not letting up until the opponent falls down, all the while making it almost impossible to avoid being hit. It is a horrible thing to happen to a person, and it is very good at what it does.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

johnsimmons said:


> So you may call it grappling or anything else. name doesn't matter but fact is you must be able to deal with close range both being grabbed,held or throw/sweep attempts and you must also be able to keep the opponent  close. This means you must understand how to control your balance ,break the opponents balance and finish with throw/sweep.



Grabbed? Punch to face

Held? Punch to face

Throw and sweep attempts? Don't allow these to happen. If they do then you are too late for wing chun. Maybe wing chun can resume if they fail, but you need to be fast

Wing chun does break balance but only with the intention of hitting, if just hitting is not an option. It is always about hitting. Finishing with a throw is not wing chun.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent can always jump on you from behind. You may not use "bear hug from behind", but since you can't prevent your opponent from using it, you have to know how to deal with it.
> 
> Sometime the grappling just cannot be avoided.




Lol

What if your opponent gets the jump on you and you wake up with your hands tied together in the trunk of a car that is filling with water? Which wing chun moves to use?


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 29, 2015)

johnsimmons said:


> So you may call it grappling or anything else. name doesn't matter but fact is you must be able to deal with close range both being grabbed,held or throw/sweep attempts and you must also be able to keep the opponent close. This means you must understand how to control your balance ,break the opponents balance and finish with throw/sweep.



Agreed, except the underlined part isn't a requirement or a 'must' - just your personal preference and a nice added bonus for most.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 29, 2015)

Wing chun is a thing that needs to happen really fast and not let up. I can't see how you end up throwing unless your wing chun fails

And if you do want to throw and grapple, why on earth look to wing chun for that skill? There are a million better places to look.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 29, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent can always jump on you from behind. You may not use "bear hug from behind", but since you can't prevent your opponent from using it, you have to know how to deal with it.
> 
> Sometime the grappling just cannot be avoided.



Duh - thanks for stating the obvious lol
I don't believe anyone said grappling isn't going to happen, we've just been discussion different views on how Wing Chun deals with grappling. Any thoughts on that from a _WC_ perspective?


----------



## johnsimmons (Sep 29, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Agreed, except the underlined part isn't a requirement or a 'must' - just your personal preference and a nice added bonus for most.


Actually in our wing chun it is all part of the system not personal preference. Lo Kwai's notes are very clear. Our wing chun contains a large amount of close body work with many sweeping and throwing methods. I realize that this is not emphasized in more modern forms of wing chun but was and is most definitely part of Leung Jan's teaching as passed to Lo Kwai.


----------



## johnsimmons (Sep 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Wing chun is a thing that needs to happen really fast and not let up. I can't see how you end up throwing unless your wing chun fails
> 
> And if you do want to throw and grapple, why on earth look to wing chun for that skill? There are a million better places to look.



 Um, in the real world everything happens fast.  I can assure you  based on years of military and contract security work , training with the best special ops in the world and being in very close quarters with the enemy in Iraq ,Yemen, Ukraine and Belarus among others if you think you can punch out when you are grabbed it is best if you stay in your school. A trained man can throw you upon contact. It happens just as fast if not faster than you can punch.
 Personally I have trained in Sambo and JJ for about 20years and my Kwai family wing chun close range skills have saved my life more than once.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 30, 2015)

johnsimmons said:


> Actually in our wing chun it is all part of the system not personal preference. Lo Kwai's notes are very clear. Our wing chun contains a large amount of close body work with many sweeping and throwing methods. I realize that this is not emphasized in more modern forms of wing chun but was and is most definitely part of Leung Jan's teaching as passed to Lo Kwai.



@johnsimmons I haven't heard of Lo Kwai before...who is he? Does he/his lineage have any schools in the US? Thx


----------



## PiedmontChun (Sep 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You asked a load of questions that I answered. I take it you didn't like the answers? Hitting is wing chun stategy. Grappling is not. Make of that what you will.
> 
> Wing chun is a specialised tool for a particular job. It is a very good tool, maybe the best. But it isn't a multi tool that can do everything. If you try to use it in that way then you are kidding yourself. Your standing joint lock applications will look ridiculous against a decent grappler. Your throws will be weak. Your grip fighting will be pathetic. You will be destroyed because you will be playing someone else's game instead of your own.
> 
> If you find yourself grappling with someone, especially on the floor, then it is not the time for wing chun. That time has passed and your wing chun failed. Timescale of wing chun is sub 20 seconds, preferably sub 5 seconds. It is hitting and not letting up until the opponent falls down, all the while making it almost impossible to avoid being hit. It is a horrible thing to happen to a person, and it is very good at what it does.


Dude, you are fighting a straw man. You are imagining arguments that frankly, I was not making. No one here is talking about Wing Chun being "grip fighting" or trying to out-grapple a grappler, and I never even mentioned ground fighting like you are bringing up. If someone throws a punch and my strike intercepts it, but they don't retract it, they are giving me an opportunity to possibly grab and control while I continue to strike. That might be prolonged contact, but that is Wing Chun. A headlock applied from the side can be countered with a over the arm fak sau movement to the opponent's face for example, but that is more than a strike. Its applying pressure to their head while simultaneously trying to step into their stance and uproot them, disrupting their grab. If I were opponent facing and hit the head but my other hand is blocked from replacing with another punch, why not dissipate my original punch and grab the back of their neck on its route back in order to disrupt? My descriptions might be lacking, but my point is that Wing Chun gives you options.
Its reductionist to look at the WC forms and say "this is all just to move an obstruction and hit, nothing more" like you appear to be saying.
In a potentially dangerous self defense situation, I'm glad my wing chun (as I am learning it) has tools to sweep or throw if the opportunity is there, so I can possibly strike the back of the head on the way down or stomp on them before practicing my run-fu to get the heck out of there, not hang around and punch until they are knocked out. Have you ever knocked anyone out? I'd like to think I could if I needed to , but I don't want my entire training to fail just because I have to knock them out to succeed.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Wing chun is a thing that needs to happen really fast and not let up. I can't see how you end up throwing unless your wing chun fails
> 
> And if you do want to throw and grapple, why on earth look to wing chun for that skill? There are a million better places to look.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wing chun is not limited to punching/hitting... sheesh


----------



## Danny T (Sep 30, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wing chun is not limited to punching/hitting... sheesh


Maybe his is limited to punching/hitting but the wing chun I have been exposed to certainly isn't.


----------



## geezer (Sep 30, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> At best, I think what you are saying is an oversimplification. What does Wing Chun do when the hands are tied up? What does Wing Chun do when being locked or pinned? What does Wing Chun do when an attacker grabs and tries to take to the ground? The goal is to hit, but WC/WT/VT has tools for all the above when hitting is either not possible or efficient.



Good points, but Guy b is correct in that all that we do is ultimately directed at striking. What is our best defense against a wrist grab? Not huen sau/circle hand, not tut sau/freeing arm. The first, most efficient response is ...a punch!

I guess I've been thinking more about WC's focus lately. Just this last Sunday I drove up to Sedona to meet with an old friend (definitely old, about 73 or something) who is a highly ranked WC sifu (with WT roots like me). As  a youth he was a power lifter, a boxer and a high level TKD guy who was on Jhoon Rhee's demo team. Now, with two artificial knees he sticks to WC and Escrima.

On a break from training he commented that as much as he loves WC and believes it to be effective, he feels that _WC really does have NO ground game_, that most WC schools don't spar enough, underestimate boxers, and seriously underestimate how damaging good, old-school TKD kicks can be. He felt that cross-training WC, a good long range kicking art, and some good grappling would be ideal. After a moment, he also added Escrima and tactical firearms training to the list (he does both). ...Smart old guy IMO.


----------



## geezer (Sep 30, 2015)

BTW ...the previous post is a bit delayed and out of context. I wrote it yesterday but by some glitch it didn't post until today. Still worth sharing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> I don't believe anyone said grappling isn't going to happen, we've just been discussion different views on how Wing Chun deals with grappling. Any thoughts on that from a _WC_ perspective?


That is the question that I would like to ask you. When someone gets you into a "bear hug" from behind, first, you will need to break that "hug". Which WC principle will you use to achieve that?

IMO, what you will do after you have broken that "hug" may be different between style to style (You may punch him if you are a striker. You may take him down if you are a grappler.) But how to break that "hug" is a general MA issue which will have nothing to do with "_WC_ perspective".


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 30, 2015)

Answering a question with a question? sorry, not going to play that game. But yes, you can break a bear hug with WC principle/methods, given you aren't already lifted off the ground or fully locked down.

To be frank, while it's always good to know how 'the other side' does thing, I'm not really interested in discussing basic generalities with you (as it seems you always steer discussions). I'd rather stick to the current topic and discuss from WC perspective. So, if that interests you, let's hear what you have to say regarding how_ you _deal with grappling from a _WC _perspective?


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That is the question that I would like to ask you. When someone gets you into a "bear hug" from behind, first, you will need to break that "hug". Which WC principle will you use to achieve that?
> 
> IMO, what you will do after you have broken that "hug" may be different between style to style (You may punch him if you are a striker. You may take him down if you are a grappler.) But how to break that "hug" is a general MA issue which will have nothing to do with "_WC_ perspective".



There is no effective wing chun response to a bear hug. If you are bear hugged then it is not time for wing chun.

There are wing chun "responses" to bear hugs, but mostly they are stupid and unworkable and based on a misunderstanding of what grappling entails. If you find yourself in a bear hug your best bet is to have trained bjj, the most effective grappling method available.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wing chun is not limited to punching/hitting... sheesh



What is more simple, direct and efficient than punching someone in the face?


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

PiedmontChun said:


> Dude, you are fighting a straw man. You are imagining arguments that frankly, I was not making. No one here is talking about Wing Chun being "grip fighting" or trying to out-grapple a grappler, and I never even mentioned ground fighting like you are bringing up. If someone throws a punch and my strike intercepts it, but they don't retract it, they are giving me an opportunity to possibly grab and control while I continue to strike. That might be prolonged contact, but that is Wing Chun. A headlock applied from the side can be countered with a over the arm fak sau movement to the opponent's face for example, but that is more than a strike. Its applying pressure to their head while simultaneously trying to step into their stance and uproot them, disrupting their grab. If I were opponent facing and hit the head but my other hand is blocked from replacing with another punch, why not dissipate my original punch and grab the back of their neck on its route back in order to disrupt? My descriptions might be lacking, but my point is that Wing Chun gives you options.
> Its reductionist to look at the WC forms and say "this is all just to move an obstruction and hit, nothing more" like you appear to be saying.
> In a potentially dangerous self defense situation, I'm glad my wing chun (as I am learning it) has tools to sweep or throw if the opportunity is there, so I can possibly strike the back of the head on the way down or stomp on them before practicing my run-fu to get the heck out of there, not hang around and punch until they are knocked out. Have you ever knocked anyone out? I'd like to think I could if I needed to , but I don't want my entire training to fail just because I have to knock them out to succeed.



As a non-grappler you are not fighting to your strengths in grabbing someone. Why would you do that? Why chase hands? Why not punch them instead?

Non retracted punches are a fantasy by the way. Doesn't happen in reality

You cannot rely on countering anything that a good grappler does with a fak sau to the face. If you want to grapple then learn the optimised methods of grappling from grappling MA, and ignore the pitiful grappling applications that people insist on dragging from the wing chun forms. It is literally insane to grapple with wing chun.


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

johnsimmons said:


> Um, in the real world everything happens fast.  I can assure you  based on years of military and contract security work , training with the best special ops in the world and being in very close quarters with the enemy in Iraq ,Yemen, Ukraine and Belarus among others if you think you can punch out when you are grabbed it is best if you stay in your school. A trained man can throw you upon contact. It happens just as fast if not faster than you can punch.
> Personally I have trained in Sambo and JJ for about 20years and my Kwai family wing chun close range skills have saved my life more than once.



This is why it is advisable to cross train. Wing chun is not grappling- it is hitting. If you find yourself grappling then you had best be doing something that is useful for grappling. Wing chun is blatantly not


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

It is hilarious that people think they can survive in a grappling situation using wing chun. It is too late for that. You lost. If your opponent knows anything about grappling then they will laugh in the face of your wing chun applications as they proceed to hurt you. Grappling requires randori to work. There is none of this in wing chun. It is like koryu vs bjj. Funny and sad at the same time. This is the anti grappling that causes wing chun to be laughed at.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 30, 2015)

guy b. that last post is using a very broad brush and is far to general of a statement to be taken seriously. If you're talking about on-your back with someone on top of you 'grappling', then yeah. But if you're talking about someone grabbing your arm, or trying to get your back or a take down when you have favorable space, posture and position, then you're just wrong - WC very much has answers for preventing that.
 It depends on the situation and what you're referring to when you use the term 'grappling'.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> This is why it is advisable to cross train. Wing chun is not grappling- it is hitting. If you find yourself grappling then you had best be doing something that is useful for grappling. Wing chun is blatantly not


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our wing chun apparently are quite different from each other.
Hitting is only part of wing chun. Who did you learn wing chun from>


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> if you're talking about someone grabbing your arm, or trying to get your back or a take down when you have favorable space, posture and position, then you're just wrong - WC very much has answers for preventing that.



But in those situations you are not yet grappling. Of course wing chun can work very well


----------



## guy b. (Sep 30, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Our wing chun apparently are quite different from each other.
> Hitting is only part of wing chun. Who did you learn wing chun from>



Maybe, or perhaps we are just not understanding each other very well. I learned wing chun from several different wing chun teachers of the WSL method.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Maybe, or perhaps we are just not understanding each other very well. I learned wing chun from several different wing chun teachers of the WSL method.





guy b. said:


> Maybe, or perhaps we are just not understanding each other very well. I learned wing chun from several different wing chun teachers of the WSL method.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several different...? zig zag


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

I'm in the UK at the moment. Options are limited. Shouldn't be hard to work it out.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Grappling requires randori to work. There is none of this in wing chun.


You are correct. First randori is a Japanese term. Wing Chun is chinese. 
Randori is free exercising meaning free movement and action. (sparring)
If your wing chun training is lacking free movement and action (sparring) that is a lacking within 'your' training. My training and instruction includes a lot of free movement and action (sparring). 
I agree that for the most part that most wing chun training is dedicated to stand up striking with some lineages also doing standing grappling and a few work some ground grappling aspects. I believe within the principles and concepts developed within the wing chun system there are grappling actions. Problem is few train and practice them. That said there are other systems that are much better in developing ground fighting skills than wing chun but that doesn't remove the fact that wing chun doesn't have within its framework some grappling components. Most simple do not train it or understand it from a ground fighting perspective.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

Where is the ground fighting in wing chun? Where is the standing grappling?


----------



## geezer (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Where is the ground fighting in wing chun? Where is the standing grappling?



There are Wing Chunners who can grapple and can use some WC principles in their grappling. But I have not seen evidence of a ground game as being part of traditional approaches to WC.

Oh we have some clinch moves, a few locks and throws, ways to use YGKYM or "goat riding stance"  and gwai ma or "kneeling stance" to pin and control a downed opponent while we strike him. And there are some escape moves to help you get free and back to your standing, striking game. But a real, effective ground game? Haven't seen it.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I'm in the UK at the moment. Options are limited. Shouldn't be hard to work it out.



Why all the secrecy? Unless you're embarrassed or have something to hide (both of which seem pretty silly), wouldn't it be easier to just tell who your teachers?

You often pose some pretty interesting/strong views on what is/isn't WC. I've always found it interesting to see who people learned from for better insight into their background and why they think the way they do. I wouldn't think it would be such a big deal to share who we learned from.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Where is the ground fighting in wing chun? Where is the standing grappling?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe whoever you learned from did not know or teach you.Grappling does not mean that you wlil use collegiate wrestling, and ground fighting does not mean only bjj.


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Hitting is wing chun stategy. Grappling is not. Make of that what you will.
> 
> Wing chun is a specialised tool for a particular job. It is a very good tool, maybe the best. But it isn't a multi tool that can do everything. If you try to use it in that way then you are kidding yourself. Your standing joint lock applications will look ridiculous against a decent grappler. Your throws will be weak. Your grip fighting will be pathetic. You will be destroyed because you will be playing someone else's game instead of your own.
> 
> If you find yourself grappling with someone, especially on the floor, then it is not the time for wing chun. That time has passed and your wing chun failed. Timescale of wing chun is sub 20 seconds, preferably sub 5 seconds. It is hitting and not letting up until the opponent falls down, all the while making it almost impossible to avoid being hit. It is a horrible thing to happen to a person, and it is very good at what it does.


When I was younger and healthier, I would of agreed with you 100%. I'm getting old my back is jacked. So my WC has changed. Im getting lazy. Why chase you around and try punching you when I can keep you in one spot, punch choke and slam your face in the ground? Maybe it's not technically WC strategy?  I don't know. But it's my strategy. Good for me bad for you.


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> There are Wing Chunners who can grapple and can use some WC principles in their grappling. But I have not seen evidence of a ground game as being part of traditional approaches to WC.
> 
> Oh we have some clinch moves, a few locks and throws, ways to use YGKYM or "goat riding stance"  and gwai ma or "kneeling stance" to pin and control a downed opponent while we strike him. And there are some escape moves to help you get free and back to your standing, striking game. But a real, effective ground game? Haven't seen it.


What I want to say is going to throw this thread into a tail spin. So I'll just agree with you Steve. You and I see each other on the reg. So I think we are pretty much on same page... I'll just say even on your back there are some principles that overlap. I'll just leave it that, otherwise it turns into a 50 page WC vs grappling crap fest.


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 1, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe whoever you learned from did not know or teach you.Grappling does not mean that you wlil use collegiate wrestling, and ground fighting does not mean only bjj.


Yes yes and yes!!!!!


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Why all the secrecy? Unless you're embarrassed or have something to hide (both of which seem pretty silly), wouldn't it be easier to just tell who your teachers?
> 
> You often pose some pretty interesting/strong views on what is/isn't WC. I've always found it interesting to see who people learned from for better insight into their background and why they think the way they do. I wouldn't think it would be such a big deal to share who we learned from.



Ving Tsun in the UK is pretty small. I don't want to burn any bridges because I am here for a while. It isn't really possible for me to identify myself, but you can narrow who I am currently learning from to a very low number of people and get a good idea of the emphasis of the approach


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> What I want to say is going to throw this thread into a tail spin. So I'll just agree with you Steve. You and I see each other on the reg. So I think we are pretty much on same page... I'll just say even on your back there are some principles that overlap. I'll just leave it that, otherwise it turns into a 50 page WC vs grappling crap fest.



Using wing chun in this way is not simple direct or efficient. There are many more efficient (and simply better) ways to approach the problem. Why metaphorically chase hands? Discard that


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> When I was younger and healthier, I would of agreed with you 100%. I'm getting old my back is jacked. So my WC has changed. Im getting lazy. Why chase you around and try punching you when I can keep you in one spot, punch choke and slam your face in the ground? Maybe it's not technically WC strategy?  I don't know. But it's my strategy. Good for me bad for you.



I am happy that you are happy with what you do, genuinely. You seem like a nice honest guy


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 1, 2015)

"Using wing chun in this way is not simple direct or efficient. There are many more efficient (and simply better) ways to approach the problem. Why metaphorically chase hands? Discard that"



Yes it is. The D in DTE stands for direct. So it's direct. Plus Geezer knows how direct it is . So, sorry two against one. We win!.... Sorry geezer for dragging you into this but you were my DTE sponsor before I got patched in...


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I am happy that you are happy with what you do, genuinely. You seem like a nice honest guy


Ditto


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe whoever you learned from did not know or teach you.Grappling does not mean that you wlil use collegiate wrestling, and ground fighting does not mean only bjj.



Panic stations. Maybe I didn't get the real wing chun?

Again I feel that you are doing the equivalent of making a hot drink using a chocolate tea pot in trying to fit wing chun into that box. it just isn't a good use of anyone's time and effort, and the end result is not optimised. I would ask, why do it?


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Ving Tsun in the UK is pretty small. I don't want to burn any bridges because I am here for a while. It isn't really possible for me to identify myself, but you can narrow who I am currently learning from to a very low number of people and get a good idea of the emphasis of the approach



Uh, yeah, that really doesn't make any sense. Why would you burn bridges by saying who you study with (unless you aren't being truthful about something?) Or maybe you're hiding out from the law? lol

Anyway, I'm not so interested that I would go thru the hassle to start finding who teaches WSL method and then make guesses. But since you want people to guess - I know the last time you mentioned you studied under someone, they didn't seem to know who you were you. Maybe this is why you're hesitant. Anyway, no big deal Mr. Mystery!


----------



## guy b. (Oct 1, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Uh, yeah, that really doesn't make any sense. Why would you burn bridges by saying who you study with (unless you aren't being truthful about something?) Or maybe you're hiding out from the law? lol



I would burn bridges because I have been offensive to some people I shouldn't have, and because my views are at odds with some of those I train with. 



> Anyway, I'm not so interested that I would go thru the hassle to start finding who teaches WSL method and then make guesses. But since you want people to guess - I know the last time you mentioned you studied under someone, they didn't seem to know who you were you. Maybe this is why you're hesitant. Anyway, no big deal Mr. Mystery!



I don't want anyone to guess. I just can't say on a forum.


----------



## Jake104 (Oct 1, 2015)

Can I guess? Does the first name start with a P? Does the last name start with a B? Am I getting warm? Switzerland?
Did he is translate for WSL?


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Ving Tsun in the UK is pretty small. I don't want to burn any bridges because I am here for a while. It isn't really possible for me to identify myself, but you can narrow who I am currently learning from to a very low number of people and get a good idea of the emphasis of the approach





guy b. said:


> Ving Tsun in the UK is pretty small. I don't want to burn any bridges because I am here for a while. It isn't really possible for me to identify myself, but you can narrow who I am currently learning from to a very low number of people and get a good idea of the emphasis of the approach





guy b. said:


> Ving Tsun in the UK is pretty small. I don't want to burn any bridges because I am here for a while. It isn't really possible for me to identify myself, but you can narrow who I am currently learning from to a very low number of people and get a good idea of the emphasis of the approach


-----------------------------------
I am  nota WSL guy- though I respect him. But he just visited the Uk several times.
In any case,  wing chun  involves control of one's "united "body  for self defense-attack or defense

You dont have to nor should you chase hands in close quarters work or on the ground.

The view that wing chun is only for hitting is a very very  limited one... but of course everyone has an opinion

In a private courtyard lesson- Ip Man threw good kickers all over the place. And in well known challenge match in Fatshan-
Ip man defended against a Northern mantis master. IM had his back to the audience and on the stage he threw the mantis master with lop sao and thhe mantis guy went flying- clashing onto  and breaking a tea table.

Quite a few of Augustine Fong proteges in Tucson and Phoenix can handle themselves on the  ground or deal with grapplers.
One should be careful about over generalizations.

While wing chun has spread- good wing chun  remains a rare  art.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 1, 2015)

[QUOTE="Vajramusti, post: 1727064, member: 22174
*While wing chun has spread- good wing chun  remains a rare  art*.[/QUOTE]

Do you ever see a renaissance taking place or will WC simply fade away in the coming generations as we get further away from the era of Ip Man and his ilk?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2015)

Jake104 said:


> Why chase you around and try punching you when I can keep you in one spot, punch choke and slam your face in the ground? Maybe it's not technically WC strategy?  I don't know. But it's my strategy. Good for me bad for you.


Agree! The moment that your hand grab on your opponent's arm, you are  entering that grappling door.

Here are examples:


----------



## Danny T (Oct 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Maybe I didn't get the real wing chun?


"The Real Wing Chun"
What specifically is the real wing chun?
Yours, your instructor, his instructor? Are they all exactly the same, no differences, no variances?
Yip Man's wing chun was quite different from many of his students and many differences within the different students. Why? Why so many differences? What is the Real wing chun?


----------



## geezer (Oct 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> "The Real Wing Chun"
> What specifically is the real wing chun?
> Yours, your instructor, his instructor? Are they all exactly the same, no differences, no variances?
> Yip Man's wing chun was quite different from many of his students and many differences within the different students. Why? Why so many differences? What is the Real wing chun?



I think Guy was joking. Anyway @Guy: I fully understand why you might want to keep your identity under wraps. Some WC people are so hypersensitive that just honestly speaking your mind on a forum like this can get you blackballed. I've been in that situation. Now I'm old and my current Assn. tolerates me carrying on like this. They probably figure no one who matters is listening.

Anyway, unlike that_ other_ forum, we don't really care about the details of who trained with. It is useful to know that it was WSL lineage, and that you have trained with several people. Just so we know where you're coming from. Beyond that, who gives a rat's behind. Please, carry on....


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 1, 2015)

yak sao said:


> [QUOTE="Vajramusti, post: 1727064, member: 22174
> *While wing chun has spread- good wing chun  remains a rare  art*.



Do you ever see a renaissance taking place or will WC simply fade away in the coming generations as we get further away from the era of Ip Man and his ilk?[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------------
IMO wing chun is not fading away, there  are good people to carry it forward.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 2, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------
> I am  nota WSL guy- though I respect him. But he just visited the Uk several times.



Lol, are you saying from the perspective of Arizona that the UK lacks any decent WSL VT?

There were 3 reasonably available people in the UK that claimed to have learned directly from WSL (that I know of). There are now also infuences from elsewhere.



> You dont have to nor should you chase hands in close quarters work or on the ground.



Simply being on the ground is either failure or hand chasing, as I see it. Using wing chun on the ground is...not the best use of that tool.



> The view that wing chun is only for hitting is a very very  limited one... but of course everyone has an opinion



I don't see much in wing chun that is not about hitting. I would be genuinely interested to hear your views on what the different stages of learning are teaching so that I can understand where you are coming from.



> In a private courtyard lesson- Ip Man threw good kickers all over the place. And in well known challenge match in Fatshan- Ip man defended against a Northern mantis master. IM had his back to the audience and on the stage he threw the mantis master with lop sao and thhe mantis guy went flying- clashing onto  and breaking a tea table.



In lessons and events people do things that are non-optimal for a variety of reasons. Were you in Fatshan or the private courtyard when YP showed the power of wing chun grappling, or is it a story you heard?



> Quite a few of Augustine Fong proteges in Tucson and Phoenix can handle themselves on the  ground or deal with grapplers. One should be careful about over generalizations.



Good for them, although I can think of several easier and more effective ways to become proficient at ground fighting, if that is your aim. All of wing chun should be able to "deal with" grapplers or anyone else. I think that it does this best by preserving the ability to hit in situations where most other approaches would fail, not by playing to the desires of the person trying to stop you hitting them. Keeping hitting is what wing chun does above all else.



> While wing chun has spread- good wing chun  remains a rare  art.



How true


----------



## guy b. (Oct 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> I think Guy was joking. Anyway @Guy: I fully understand why you might want to keep your identity under wraps. Some WC people are so hypersensitive that just honestly speaking your mind on a forum like this can get you blackballed. I've been in that situation. Now I'm old and my current Assn. tolerates me carrying on like this. They probably figure no one who matters is listening.
> 
> Anyway, unlike that_ other_ forum, we don't really care about the details of who trained with. It is useful to know that it was WSL lineage, and that you have trained with several people. Just so we know where you're coming from. Beyond that, who gives a rat's behind. Please, carry on....



Thanks for that


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 2, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The moment that your hand grab on your opponent's arm, you are  entering that grappling door.



Maybe, but depends on what you mean by 'grab'. If one means grab=hold, then WC doesn't look to 'grab'in that sense. Even in the case of lap sau, while some could define this as a grab, it's different as you are typically not involving the thumb. And it's only temporary - we aren't looking to hold - so no real grappling IMO. But you can hold if you want, but when you do you start moving away from WC's primary functions.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here are examples:



Yes, I agree, these are examples of grabbing and moving into grappling. But IMO both are perfect examples of what I'm talking about as bad examples of WC technique & principle because they are holding, collapsing their structures, pulling their opponent into their space and creating long/short reach problems.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 2, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Simply being on the ground is either failure or hand chasing, as I see it. Using wing chun on the ground is...not the best use of that tool.



I can agree with that first part. And maybe you used the wrong term, but looking at WC as a tool is missing the point of the system IMO.

While yes many of the techniques (tools) of WC don't translate to 'the ground', as well as many body methods (for obvious reasons), many WC the principles, concepts, strategy/tactic, etc do still apply to ground figting. Not all of course, but some do translate easy enough. And many that even parallel what we would find in more ground-based arts (physics is still physics and the human body is still the human body whether we're upright or on the ground).
And I'm not advocating that WC is better than say BJJ for on the ground, but if we look at WC as a system of principles/concepts, then yeah it applies to all aspects of fighting.

So, WC doesn't cease to exist simply because we've lost our range or upright posture, even if some of it's tools have.



guy b. said:


> I don't see much in wing chun that is not about hitting. I would be genuinely interested to hear your views on what the different stages of learning are teaching so that I can understand where you are coming from.



I'd suggest you may change this view as you experience more WC lineages. It's not a cave man art. In WC, we don't just look to hit willy-nilly (what a silly term!). We typically look to hit when we have a superior position and some disruption of our opponent's facing/COG. So how do we achieve this? by simply throwing a punch and hoping it lands? Of course now. WC's chi sau technologies are how we achieve that (along with applicable theories  like loi lau hoi sung, 2 lines offense/defense, 2 hands working as one, dui yeng/jui yeng facing principles, etc)


----------



## guy b. (Oct 2, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> IWe typically look to hit when we have a superior position and some disruption of our opponent's facing/COG. So how do we achieve this? by simply throwing a punch and hoping it lands? Of course now. WC's chi sau technologies are how we achieve that (along with applicable theories  like loi lau hoi sung, 2 lines offense/defense, 2 hands working as one, dui yeng/jui yeng facing principles, etc)



Lol, I would agree mostly. Not sure what you are arguing about?

loi lau is engage centre, hoi sung is capitalise on errors, take up surrendered space. In short pressure the centre with structure and eat space. 

But why did you neglect the second part of the maxim; lat sau jik chung? Surely that is the most important bit, since it is all about capitalising on the situation you have imposed and winning the fight wing chun style?



> And I'm not advocating that WC is better than say BJJ for on the ground, but if we look at WC as a system of principles/concepts, then yeah it applies to all aspects of fighting.



Well obviously wing chun is much much worse than bjj for the ground. This goes without saying. But I think you may also be wrong about the principles applying on the ground. Lat sau jik chung for example will just get you armlocked or triangled on the ground against a competent grappler. It also isn't possoible to move and control as it is standing. The wing chun power generation via hip and elbow is regularly nullified, and so on. I think that while in a survival situation with no other knowledge you might have no choice but to think wing chun on the ground, in the modern world it is at best negligent to assume it will suffice. It is at very best a third rate ground system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Pulling their opponent into their space and creating long/short reach problems.


What long/short reach problems are you talking about?

The major difference between CMA and boxing is CMA guys like to pull your opponent into your punch. Since boxers have gloves on, it's hard to "pull".

When your opponent

- moves back, your punching power will be A - B < A.
- is static, your punching power will be A = A.
- moves forward, your punching power will be A + B  > A, a perfect head on collision effect.


----------



## guy b. (Oct 3, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The major difference between CMA and boxing is CMA guys like to pull your opponent into your punch.



This is the main difference? Are you sure?


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 3, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What long/short reach problems are you talking about?



Long/short reach problem with the hands. Basic WC acing principles.
Interesting though that you cherry picked my reply ignoring most of it...



Kung Fu Wang said:


> The major difference between CMA and boxing is CMA guys like to pull your opponent into your punch. Since boxers have gloves on, it's hard to "pull".



Again, right back to non-WC generalities  Since you posted on a WC subject on a WC forum with WC pictures, I was hoping we could continue the discussion in that regards for at least one post.
WC does not pull the opponent into their own personal space for reasons I mentioned in my previous post (which you didn't reply to). To better understand you, were you saying the 2 pictures you posted represent your understanding of WC lap sau, 'pulling' and range/structure considerations? Did you want to discuss that - otherwise, why post them?


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 4, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Lol, I would agree mostly. Not sure what you are arguing about?



you said "I don't see much in wing chun that is not about hitting. " - I was disagreeing and pointing out that there is a LOT more to WC then being being 'about hitting'! And, I was giving examples. Without WC bridging technology, how do you guarantee the 'hit' from a position of advantage? surely not just hoping you're faster/luckier than the next guy!
But at least we agree now that it is surely about more than hitting if you agree with my reasoning 



guy b. said:


> loi lau is engage centre, hoi sung is capitalise on errors, take up surrendered space. In short pressure the centre with structure and eat space.
> 
> But why did you neglect the second part of the maxim; lat sau jik chung? Surely that is the most important bit, since it is all about capitalising on the situation you have imposed and winning the fight wing chun style?



I left out a lot of things to keep the list short. no big deal.
But no, lat sau jik chun is not the most important part. It all goes hand-in-hand. You can't have yin without yang. And in this case, you can't focus on basting fwd and hitting without also knowing how to receive/escort incoming energies/obstacles. Without first being able to deal with our opponent's attack/bridge/energy, we can't reliably hit safely - all you have is cave man punching. This is simple wing chun fighting 101.



guy b. said:


> Well obviously wing chun is much much worse than bjj for the ground. This goes without saying. But I think you may also be wrong about the principles applying on the ground. Lat sau jik chung for example will just get you armlocked or triangled on the ground against a competent grappler. It also isn't possoible to move and control as it is standing. The wing chun power generation via hip and elbow is regularly nullified, and so on. I think that while in a survival situation with no other knowledge you might have no choice but to think wing chun on the ground, in the modern world it is at best negligent to assume it will suffice. It is at very best a third rate ground system.



Like I already said some apply, some don't. You will surely pick 5 that don't, but I can also point to 5 that do. But it seems you are only interested in arguing the negative, so no point in going further.[/QUOTE]


----------



## guy b. (Oct 4, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> you said "I don't see much in wing chun that is not about hitting. " - I was disagreeing and pointing out that there is a LOT more to WC then being being 'about hitting'! And, I was giving examples. Without WC bridging technology, how do you guarantee the 'hit' from a position of advantage? surely not just hoping you're faster/luckier than the next guy! But at least we agree now that it is surely about more than hitting if you agree with my reasoning



From what you wrote it is stll all about hitting. The end goal is hitting. Loi lau hoi sung: pressure centre, eat space, capitalise on errors. And the goal of loi lau hoi sung? Lat sau jik chung. This is why we loi lau hoi sung. 



> I left out a lot of things to keep the list short. no big deal.
> But no, lat sau jik chun is not the most important part. It all goes hand-in-hand. You can't have yin without yang. And in this case, you can't focus on basting fwd and hitting without also knowing how to receive/escort incoming energies/obstacles. Without first being able to deal with our opponent's attack/bridge/energy, we can't reliably hit safely - all you have is cave man punching. This is simple wing chun fighting 101.



Loi lau hoi sung (pressure centre, capitalise on errors) so that you can lat sau jik chung (pull the trigger without hesitation when the situation arises due to pressure you are imposing). The first part is pointless without the second, while the second is much less likely to work without the first. They do work together but the end goal is to hit, not to impose pressure and control. You pressure and control in order to hit. 



> Like I already said some apply, some don't. You will surely pick 5 that don't, but I can also point to 5 that do. But it seems you are only interested in arguing the negative, so no point in going further.



The point I was trying to make is that wing chun doesn't traslate whole (principle wise) to the ground (never mind the lack of usable techniques there, and the non applicability of wing chun biomechanics in many positions). You need to alter wing chun principles to be groundfighting effectively, maybe allowing some while ruling others out. This is because it isn't a ground fighting art! If you end up there, and especially if you are on top, then sure you may be able to use some of what you know from wing chun to pressure and hurt your opponent. But you aren't going to win any grappling competitions with it, and frankly, in any but the most biased view, there are better options.


----------



## JPinAZ (Oct 5, 2015)

guy b. said:


> From what you wrote it is stll all about hitting. The end goal is hitting. Loi lau hoi sung: pressure centre, eat space, capitalise on errors. And the goal of loi lau hoi sung? Lat sau jik chung. This is why we loi lau hoi sung.



No, that's what you are choosing to hear. WC is not 'all about hitting'. WC is about ending the fight as efficiently and effectively as possibly. You can accomplish that wihtout hitting and KO'g someone. While I agree it is a primary focus in most cases, it's not what WC is 'all about'. IMO, that's a very limited and/or beginner POV. I see a lot of beginners that focus mostly on the hitting and quickly ignore all the steps it takes to get there safely and set yourself up to be able to do it from a position of advantage. And then wonder why stuff isn't working and they keep getting hit lol



guy b. said:


> Loi lau hoi sung (pressure centre, capitalise on errors) so that you can lat sau jik chung (pull the trigger without hesitation when the situation arises due to pressure you are imposing). The first part is pointless without the second, while the second is much less likely to work without the first. They do work together but the end goal is to hit, not to impose pressure and control. You pressure and control in order to hit.



I think we're saying the same thing for the most part. It's seems you may be getting hung up on a chicken/egg issue. In a fight, if you aren't able to end it quickly, you will find yourself going back and forth between LLHS & LSJC a lot - and fast.
Really, I you can't separate the two, or place value on one over the other or you're going to cause more issues in the long run. I prefer to look at LLHS/LSJC as a whole, not 2 separate halves (but for discussion purposes you can split them for to make things more simple went focusing one part or the other).



guy b. said:


> The point I was trying to make is that wing chun doesn't traslate whole (principle wise) to the ground (never mind the lack of usable techniques there, and the non applicability of wing chun biomechanics in many positions). You need to alter wing chun principles to be groundfighting effectively, maybe allowing some while ruling others out. This is because it isn't a ground fighting art! If you end up there, and especially if you are on top, then sure you may be able to use some of what you know from wing chun to pressure and hurt your opponent. But you aren't going to win any grappling competitions with it, and frankly, in any but the most biased view, there are better options.



I never said it did translate whole to the ground and agree with you for the most part so not sure your point. Arguing with yourself here? 
And I hope you aren't putting words into my mouth and think I'm advocating WC was designed to win grappling competitions against ground fighting arts - that's just stupid. More arguing with yourself?


----------

