# chain-punching damagewise.



## Zephyor (Sep 26, 2016)

Chain punchign seems like the most popular offensive move of wing chun. but i was wondering just how hard does it feel? Could the damage be compered to something? if so, with what?
Let's consider the sternum area as a target.
A chain punch ( done well by a skilled person) would deal as much dmg as?
- a strong jab, a cross?  
- a flying knee ?
- a front kick?
u name it


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Sep 26, 2016)

In any fight ring fight or street it's not about what does the most damage it's about what works a spinning back kick Is often called the most powerful kick but in a street fight it's not a good idea to use it. Why do you think any style would bother with a jab if it's all about damage jabs don't have huge power but that's one of the most important punches in any fighters arsenal


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 26, 2016)

YouTube videos are the worst thing that ever happened to ANY martial art. There are a lot of so-called WC guys out there (or people who like to mix in what they THINK are WC principles to their own "systems") saying chain punching is our bread and butter, which it is NOT. In my opinion, chain punching is our equivalent of the spinning back kick: I wouldn't use it unless my opponent was already out of it. Then again, by that point in a self-defense situation, you are supposed to leave because the threat has been dissolved.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 26, 2016)

You will also see a lot of WC videos where people are going at each other with super duper rapid fire hands, but guess what? There isn't as much force behind their attacks as you might think because their mechanics suck. While WC does use motions that are hpothetically "faster," speed is not our main goal either.

A fast-handed martial artist does not a good WC practitioner make.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Sep 26, 2016)

What defines "chain punching" though? Anytime more than 2 successive strikes are quickly directed thru the centerline? Or a flurry of punches attempting to be used like a battering ram thru an opponent's defenses?
I was taught chain punching as more of a concept than a technique. It teaches you to recycle / replace the prior punch, striking when the way is clear, and leaking in via constant pressure, but its all dependent upon the opponent and can morph as needed..... not a battering ram. A lot of chain punching out there seems to be bad mechanics and bad strategy; i.e. pulling back the punch too early before replacing with the next, blindly walking in with chain punches like its some foolproof technique, etc.


----------



## yak sao (Sep 26, 2016)

The way it was explained to me is a better term is not so much chain punching but perpetual punching.
 When you step in with your initial punch and strike it should be very powerful . And just like a link on a chain where each one is the same as the next, the following punch should be just as powerful as the initial punch and the third pujch should be just as powerful as the second punch.......

A flurry of fast punches with no stopping force behind them is the equivalent of a boxer using nothing but jabs. Yeah they might break your nose and bloody your lip but they're not going to really stop you.

 Chain punching is a good tactic to teach beginners because it teaches the strategy of relentless attack while at the same time providing a tactic to do so.
 But just like every other martial art in existence, beginners try to do things too fast too soon and end up with flawed, ineffective techniques.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 26, 2016)

High speed chain punching is a drill utilized for several different reasons.
Indiscriminate high speed punching flurries is not one of the reason.
But it looks good to the unknowing and therefore used for demos, marketing, and television/movies.

Quick, properly timed, powerful, sequential or as yak sao stated "perpetual punching" is far more important.


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2016)

People have covered the topic pretty well IMO. One thing I might add is that if the question is how powerful the WC vertical fist or "sun-fist punch" is, I believe it can be quite powerful when properly executed.

Chain punching is just a linked series of sun-fist punches. The problem is that often the desire to throw out "more punches faster" compromises the quality of each individual punch. So while on the one hand, chain punching puts a lot of punches out there, sometimes they tend to ...well, suck!

I personally prefer to use three-punch combinations. Throw out three, then reset and unload three more. Linking more than that doesn't work so well for me. Range, focus/targeting, and power all suffer.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 26, 2016)

The other bad thing about chain punching is that if the person blocks that first punch well, then they can pretty much block them ALL well. (It happened to me when I was a beginner and sparred against an experienced Kenpo guy.)

Also, when people go in committed to those chain punches, they don't consider other factors, like the opponent ducking or bobbing and weaving. Then you throw a flurry of punches where either most or all of them hit empty air...because they were so focused on hitting the spot where their opponent's head USED to be.


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 26, 2016)

The sternum is not a great target for a chain punch. Why in the world would you measure damage by that?

Reading the OP, I just can't figure what you're getting at.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 26, 2016)

It is easier for someone to move their head and dodge your punch than it is if you are in close-range and you strike at their sternum.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2016)

IMO, the chain punches helps you to train

- pull your previous punch back, and
- send your next punch out.

In other words, when you pull your previous punch back, it will help your body to "rotate" and that will help you to send the next punch out. The "body rotation" is the key here.

For beginners, it's always good to spend 3 years in "1 step 3 punches". Your investment will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

Always be ready for a hook punch (or hay-maker) that may come to the side of your head when you throw "chain punches".


----------



## yak sao (Sep 26, 2016)

When stepping in for the initial contact, the hands move forward at the same time.
The lead hand makes first contact, followed immediately by the rear hand, not so much because of speed but because they were sent out at the same time. This adds your body mass into 2 very rapid fire punches. Then, it's simply a matter of getting proficient at adding a 3rd punch and now the WC fighter has a very powerful 3 punch combo that has hit in the time where most fighters would have thrown one punch.


----------



## Phobius (Sep 26, 2016)

Chain punching also can teach you 3 different punching techniques. Not gonna detail this for you, it is what one should figure out for him/her self.

So I believe chain punching is a concept. It teaches us something and if the opponent does not resist taking that first punch then maybe a chain-punching may even have fighting application. Lets be honest, that never happens. If nothing else an opponent will flinch or other ways move already on the first hit. This means that the second punch will have less impact than the first.

It works for drills and demo though, I prefer to get each punch clean if it is a drill however. Does that mean I can get 2 punches clean I will do it, but the moment my opponent stops reacting there is just no lesson in continuing those punches for show, they wont be correct anyway.

This is all my own opinion. We study to learn from experience and think for ourselves so sometimes we may be off but then we notice when it is shown to us.


----------



## KPM (Sep 27, 2016)

geezer said:


> I personally prefer to use three-punch combinations. Throw out three, then reset and unload three more. Linking more than that doesn't work so well for me. Range, focus/targeting, and power all suffer.



I agree 100%!  This is a concept I picked up years ago from FMA training.  If you are doing a specific technique or working a specific angle for more than a 3 count, then you need to change it!  By the time you reach a 3 count typically your opponent as either been knocked away, has moved away, has blocked you, or has launched his own counter-attack.  When doing punching drills in the air I teach my guys the continuous punching only to teach technique and get them to relax into it and use less muscle.  When we do punching in the air more for application purposes we do either a 2 count starting from the lead hand or a 3 count starting from the rear hand.   We would use the 3 count punching only if the way was completely clear.  The idea of a 3 count to the face/head is that the first punch knocks his head back, and the second or third punch catches him as his head is recoiling...producing more of a "whiplash" effect.  This should be seen as Wing Chun's version of a "power punch" or a "finishing move" and so ends up being more of the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 27, 2016)

geezer said:


> People have covered the topic pretty well IMO. One thing I might add is that if the question is how powerful the WC vertical fist or "sun-fist punch" is, I believe it can be quite powerful when properly executed.
> 
> Chain punching is just a linked series of sun-fist punches. The problem is that often the desire to throw out "more punches faster" compromises the quality of each individual punch. So while on the one hand, chain punching puts a lot of punches out there, sometimes they tend to ...well, suck!
> 
> I personally prefer to use three-punch combinations. Throw out three, then reset and unload three more. Linking more than that doesn't work so well for me. Range, focus/targeting, and power all suffer.


 

I agree. Quality over quantity.


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 27, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> In any fight ring fight or street it's not about what does the most damage it's about what works a spinning back kick Is often called the most powerful kick but in a street fight it's not a good idea to use it.


A spinning back kick comes out the same speed as a push kick for me, and it puts me in a position I can balance easier, so it really depends how good you are at throwing one.


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 27, 2016)

Chain punching should realistically be used as a finishing move. Like sprinting for the finish line in a marathon. It's all common sense, though: if you have the opportunity to fire off multiple punches in an effective manner, do it. If not, don't.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 29, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> Chain punching should realistically be used as a finishing move. Like sprinting for the finish line in a marathon. It's all common sense, though: if you have the opportunity to fire off multiple punches in an effective manner, do it. If not, don't.


 

Exactly, but there are a lot of people out there who think chain punching is WC's go-to opening move. These are the same people who think Chi Sao is about chasing the hands or "playing paddy cake."


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 29, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Exactly, but there are a lot of people out there who think chain punching is WC's go-to opening move. These are the same people who think Chi Sao is about chasing the hands or "playing paddy cake."


I think a lot of people can blame Ip Man for that misconception


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Chi Sao is about chasing the hands ...


There is nothing wrong about "chasing the hands." In wrestling, that's called "grip fight".

In fighting, you will have 2 options.

1. striking method - use your hand to meet your opponent's face and knock him down.
2. grappling method - use your hands to control your opponent's arms so his hands/arms can't reach to your body.

Sometimes you don't want to break your opponent's nose. You just want him to stop attacking you. The 2nd approach is a much more civilized methods (less problem in court). It does require you to step into the grappling area.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2016)




----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2016)

The best "chain punches" that I have seen.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 29, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The best "chain punches" that I have seen.


Funny that his opponent made such a basic beginner mistake. The mistake was not taking an angle.


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 29, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is nothing wrong about "chasing the hands." In wrestling, that's called "grip fight".
> 
> In fighting, you will have 2 options.
> 
> ...


Doing both at the same time is the best method. Standup grip fighting rewards whoever breaks the grip fight e.g. falling over foot-to-belly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Funny that his opponent made such a basic beginner mistake. The mistake was not taking an angle.


When your body start to lean back too much that your center is outside of your base, the gravity will pull your body backward, it's difficult to lean your body sideway again.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> Doing both at the same time is the best method. Standup grip fighting rewards whoever breaks the grip fight e.g. falling over foot-to-belly.


From a

- wrestler's point of view, you want to use your left arm to control your opponent's right arm, and use your right arm to control his left arm. This way, his hands cannot touch your body and he can't take you down.
- striker point of view, you want to punch on your opponent's head before he can punch on your head.

Which way is better? IMO, you don't have to break your opponent's nose to end a fight.

By definition, this Aikido guy is "chasing hands" which is a good strategy - if you can control your opponent's arms, he can't punch you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your body start to lean back too much that your center is outside of your base, the gravity will pull your body backward, it's difficult to lean your body sideway again.


That wasn't the problem that he had.  He regained his balance at 0:07 in which 1 punch misses and the other hits his upper chest near the shoulder. At 0:08 he starts his forward lean but instead of landing to take a forward 45 degree angle, side movement, or drop for a take down,  he just continues the backwards movement as he tries to block punches.  He loses balance twice.


----------



## Buka (Sep 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> From a
> 
> - wrestler's point of view, you want to use your left arm to control your opponent's right arm, and use your right arm to control his left arm. This way, his hands cannot touch your body and he can't take you down.
> - striker point of view, you want to punch on your opponent's head before he can punch on your head.
> ...



I wonder why the guy is wearing gloves. At no time did he have any intent in using them. Cold hands, maybe?


----------



## KangTsai (Sep 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> From a
> 
> - wrestler's point of view, you want to use your left arm to control your opponent's right arm, and use your right arm to control his left arm. This way, his hands cannot touch your body and he can't take you down.
> - striker point of view, you want to punch on your opponent's head before he can punch on your head.
> ...



For a wrestler, wrist grips are only distractions or setups for takedowns, which, in a self defence situation is considered a fight-ender. Maintaining distance and trying to control the arms only gets you so far.
I think that demonstration's pretty bad because the 'boxer' assuming the role of an uke is barely doing anything (much like a normal aikido uke) and so doesn't prove much about anything.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 30, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I think a lot of people can blame Ip Man for that misconception


 

Yes, especially that ridiculous fight with Hurricane in 2 when Hurricane has his gloves up, and Ip chain punches them. I rolled my eyes countless times at that one.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


>


 

I mean no disrespect when I ask this, but I am genuinely curious because the camera angle kind of sucks...but is that guy leaning his torso forward as he chain punches?


----------



## Danny T (Sep 30, 2016)

Buka said:


> I wonder why the guy is wearing gloves. At no time did he have any intent in using them. Cold hands, maybe?


Nah...his isn't a boxer but they wanted it to 'Look' like a boxer so he is wearing boxing gloves.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> By definition, this Aikido guy is "chasing hands" which is a good strategy - if you can control your opponent's arms, he can't punch you.


What do you define as "chasing hands".
Look closely and you'll see the aikido man directed his arms straight toward the "boxer's" core. Even as the aikido man moved he still directed his arms toward the opponents core but remained out of range of being hit. Once contact was made then he adhered with positive control by grabbing the limb. For the most part the "boxer" gave the aikido man his arms. (but then really he isn't a boxer)


----------



## geezer (Sep 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Nah...his isn't a boxer but they wanted it to 'Look' like a boxer so he is wearing boxing gloves.



Demos like this are so obviously unrealistic as to be counterproductive. Any boxer watching this would be just shaking his head.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 30, 2016)

Buka said:


> I wonder why the guy is wearing gloves. At no time did he have any intent in using them. Cold hands, maybe?



I agree. I think this should be called "Aikido vs Aikido student wearing boxing gloves."

But, the problem is in the posturing of the video rather than the training they are doing, which appears to me to be good training. The aikido practitioner is good and appears to me to be drilling something specific, rather than "fighting a boxer" or trying to prove something. But, YouTube videos on martial arts are always held up as evidence of something, so it doesn't come off that way.

Of course, I can't really speak to their motives, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 30, 2016)

geezer said:


> Demos like this are so obviously unrealistic as to be counterproductive. Any boxer watching this would be just shaking his head.


 

Kind of like all the wing chun versus boxer videos. The only one I saw that seemed real was when Dom Izzo brought in two guys he knew who boxed, and he went toe to toe with each of them on camera. Some people think he is arrogant, but hey...at least he tests his wing chun against other people who really practice those styles instead of asking one of his wing chun students to pretend to be a boxer, grappler, etc.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 30, 2016)

Yeah, but again, it's training. I have my students do a lot of things that look and are unrealistic, because I'm training them. If those segments of our training showed up on YouTube (which they won't), they'd get lots "lol, try that against Anderson Silva!" comments. 

Someone said this week in one of these threads that YouTube is the worst thing to ever happen to Martial Arts. That's a bit extreme, but he has a point. Show a boxer doing speed bag work and no one posts "Oh sure, I'd like to see you try that against x". You have to train, if that's what the Aikido guy was doing or trying to demonstrate to his students, then good on him. His mistake is letting it end up on-line where people will do exactly what we're doing with it.

wingchun100, I think it was you that is starting to teach on your own, congrats. You'll struggle with this, as we all do. There are a lot of steps between teaching people si lim tao and bringing in Golden Gloves Champions for them to spar with. Keep us posted on how it's coming along.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 30, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> Yeah, but again, it's training. I have my students do a lot of things that look and are unrealistic, because I'm training them. If those segments of our training showed up on YouTube (which they won't), they'd get lots "lol, try that against Anderson Silva!" comments.
> 
> Someone said this week in one of these threads that YouTube is the worst thing to ever happen to Martial Arts. That's a bit extreme, but he has a point. Show a boxer doing speed bag work and no one posts "Oh sure, I'd like to see you try that against x". You have to train, if that's what the Aikido guy was doing or trying to demonstrate to his students, then good on him. His mistake is letting it end up on-line where people will do exactly what we're doing with it.
> 
> wingchun100, I think it was you that is starting to teach on your own, congrats. You'll struggle with this, as we all do. There are a lot of steps between teaching people si lim tao and bringing in Golden Gloves Champions for them to spar with. Keep us posted on how it's coming along.


 

Yes I am the one who started teaching, and I am also the one who made the YouTube comment.

You are right about one thing though: no one ever questions how other styles would handle wing chun, but they are always wondering how wing chun would work against every other style in the world...and then saying it would NOT work, with no proof otherwise.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Sep 30, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> You are right about one thing though: no one ever questions how other styles would handle wing chun,


 I think people ask this question because they are Wing Chun practitioners who want to know how to deal with Wing Chun.   Jow Ga Kung fu seems to have answers for Wing Chun attacks.  If you do wing Chun then I can tell you that attacking my center line will be difficult because in Jow Ga we always move it.  So if that's the only game plane then the Wing Chun will fail.

You'll discover that the most evasive boxers are the ones who learn how to move off center.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people ask this question because they are Wing Chun practitioners who want to know how to deal with Wing Chun.   Jow Ga Kung fu seems to have answers for Wing Chun attacks.  If you do wing Chun then I can tell you that attacking my center line will be difficult because in Jow Ga we always move it.  So if that's the only game plane then the Wing Chun will fail.
> ...



Yeah, but the problem is that is not our only game plan, just like earlier in this thread it was stated that the significance of chain punching in Wing Chun has been highly over stated.

Wing Chun has the advantage and the curse of being popular and have spread more broadly than most any other Chinese system, including Jow Ga (which I would love to know more about). But, a bunch of people put a bunch of stuff out there and that's just not the whole story.

On the original question, I think the power and impact of Wing Chun's straight punch (chain or otherwise) varies greatly by a number of factors, most importantly range. The same punch, with the same force is more or less effective based on the range from which it is thrown. With chain punching a lot of what I see posted is from way too far out to be effective from a damage standpoint, but I suppose it serves a different purpose in that context.


----------



## wingchun100 (Sep 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people ask this question because they are Wing Chun practitioners who want to know how to deal with Wing Chun.   Jow Ga Kung fu seems to have answers for Wing Chun attacks.  If you do wing Chun then I can tell you that attacking my center line will be difficult because in Jow Ga we always move it.  So if that's the only game plane then the Wing Chun will fail.
> 
> You'll discover that the most evasive boxers are the ones who learn how to move off center.


 

No, I see this question posed by a bunch of internet warriors who say, "Yeah right, that wouldn't work against XYZ style." I see people who study it for 3 months because they heard it was "Easier" to "master" wing chun than other systems who say, "I tried using WC when sparring with other martial arts friends, and it didn't work."


----------



## Buka (Sep 30, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> I agree. I think this should be called "Aikido vs Aikido student wearing boxing gloves."
> 
> But, the problem is in the posturing of the video rather than the training they are doing, which appears to me to be good training. The aikido practitioner is good and appears to me to be drilling something specific, rather than "fighting a boxer" or trying to prove something. But, YouTube videos on martial arts are always held up as evidence of something, so it doesn't come off that way.
> 
> Of course, I can't really speak to their motives, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.



I completely understand (and rather enjoy) demo tapes showing various parts of various arts.I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, too. And I'm one of those people who really like Aikido. Just a couple days ago a buddy snatched me in a wristlock from Aikido. I'm still massaging the damn thing, it hurts.

Had that vid showed a skilled boxer against a guy playing the role of an Aikido man, I'd have disliked it just as much.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 30, 2016)

Buka said:


> ...
> 
> Had that vid showed a skilled boxer against a guy playing the role of an Aikido man, I'd have disliked it just as much.



Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just trying to make the point that maybe this wasn't in the real world "Aikido vs Boxer" maybe the person with the gloves (who I'm convinced was Aikido student based on how he falls) was simply assisting with a drill in which someone stands and circles and allows the Aikido-ka to move in and apply his wrist lock instead of doing it to someone pretending to attack with a Samurai sword (which is the traditional way for them). So, giving them that benefit of the doubt, maybe I don't have any problem with this video. 

Maybe the internet turned it into Aikido vs boxing.

I don't know, I have no reason to defend this guy or his style, I'm just bantering on the internet.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 30, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> Yeah, I agree with you. I'm just trying to make the point that maybe this wasn't in the real world "Aikido vs Boxer" maybe the person with the gloves (who I'm convinced was Aikido student based on how he falls) was simply assisting with a drill in which someone stands and circles and allows the Aikido-ka to move in and apply his wrist lock instead of doing it to someone pretending to attack with a Samurai sword (which is the traditional way for them). So, giving them that benefit of the doubt, maybe I don't have any problem with this video.
> 
> Maybe the internet turned it into Aikido vs boxing.
> 
> I don't know, I have no reason to defend this guy or his style, I'm just bantering on the internet.



He had gloves on. Punch Akido guy in the face untill he either catches the punch and Akidos it. Or he works out some other system of making that stuff work.

The biggest issue is that people think that if you pop your instructor in the mouth in this situation you have somehow broken their martial art.

And it it actually when you don't.

That is the biggest difference between a good martial artist and a not so good one. so if you are top of his game GSP you get fighters in who can make you look foolish. You activly seek them out.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 30, 2016)

Okay


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2016)

Danny T said:


> What do you define as "chasing hands".


Instead of to move your hand toward your opponent's face, you move your hands toward his wrists (or arms) instead. Your hands will follow wherever your opponent's hands may go. It's a commonly strategy used by wrestler who tries to change a striking game into a wrestling game ASAP.

IMO, there are 3 levels of chasing hands.

1. Offensive approach - Move your hands toward your opponent arms while his arms is on guard.
2. Bating - Throw a punch, when your opponent blocks it, you chase his hand.
3. Defensive approach - When your opponent punches at you, you block his punch, and then chase his hand.

Here is an example of "offensive approach".


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 30, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> No, I see this question posed by a bunch of internet warriors who say, "Yeah right, that wouldn't work against XYZ style." I see people who study it for 3 months because they heard it was "Easier" to "master" wing chun than other systems who say, "I tried using WC when sparring with other martial arts friends, and it didn't work."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.Very few people understand wing chun well. It takes good teaching, learning and practice and it takes time to learn.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 30, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yes.Very few people understand wing chun well. It takes good teaching, learning and practice and it takes time to learn.


I agree and with the above one begins to understand what is applicable and when is it applicable.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 30, 2016)

If you train chain punches, do you also train counters for chain punches? What will that be?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 30, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train chain punches, do you also train counters for chain punches? What will that be?



Keeping your head off line.


----------



## KPM (Oct 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train chain punches, do you also train counters for chain punches? What will that be?



"Chain punching" is a relatively committed attack.  That's why I wrote that I wouldn't throw more than 3 punches without changing it up.  Going past three punches and making it a "blast" makes it more likely that the opponent can:

1. simply move off the line of the  attack
2. back up a step or two to avoid damage and then simply block the rest of your punches
3. disrupt your structure/turn you on your first punch so that the rest of your "flurry" is negated


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Keeping your head off line.





KPM said:


> "Chain punching" is a relatively committed attack.  That's why I wrote that I wouldn't throw more than 3 punches without changing it up.  Going past three punches and making it a "blast" makes it more likely that the opponent can:
> 
> 1. simply move off the line of the  attack
> 2. back up a step or two to avoid damage and then simply block the rest of your punches
> 3. disrupt your structure/turn you on your first punch so that the rest of your "flurry" is negated



Do you train such drill daily? Any clip available?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 1, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I mean no disrespect when I ask this, but I am genuinely curious because the camera angle kind of sucks...but is that guy leaning his torso forward as he chain punches?


 It looks like it to me. Being that it's kung fu, would I be wrong that leaning forward in WC is also frowned upon? He looks like he has some boxer in him so it might be from that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> would I be wrong that leaning forward in WC is also frowned upon?


What's wrong with leaning forward?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 1, 2016)

Leaning forward when punching can be exploited in Kung Fu.  In kung fu the power of a punch can be multiplied by punching an opponent that is moving forward,  It's like a head on collision.  Just recently one of the most brutal knee strikes in UFC fractured a man's skull all because he over extended (forward lean) of his punch.

The other problem with leaning forward is that it causes a weaker root which makes it possible to pull a person forward and to throw them off balance.  In Jow Ga classes students work on a technique where we blend with a punch and pull the person off balance.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 1, 2016)

Re "chain punching"-we have "linked" punches for development. In application-punch when you sense an opening-followed by punches or palms or other techniques.Chain ponches can be countered.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train chain punches, do you also train counters for chain punches? What will that be?



Circular defeats straight...straight defeats circular


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you train such drill daily? Any clip available?


What drill are you referring to? I didn't see a drill listed in either of those posts you quoted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Leaning forward when punching can be exploited in Kung Fu.  In kung fu the power of a punch can be multiplied by punching an opponent that is moving forward,  It's like a head on collision.  Just recently one of the most brutal knee strikes in UFC fractured a man's skull all because he over extended (forward lean) of his punch.
> 
> The other problem with leaning forward is that it causes a weaker root which makes it possible to pull a person forward and to throw them off balance.  In Jow Ga classes students work on a technique where we blend with a punch and pull the person off balance.


I more and more want to experience some of the Jow Ga movement. You even use some of the same terminology we do, so there is almost certainly some good sharing to be had.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Circular defeats straight...straight defeats circular


And a circle can be overrun by an overlapping circle that is better rooted. I suspect there's a similar statement to be made about straight vs. straight, but I can't think of it at the moment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> What drill are you referring to? I didn't see a drill listed in either of those posts you quoted.


Drills such as:

- use circular movement to deal with straight line movement,
- use kick to interrupt punches.
- block your opponent's punches from outside in,
- block your opponent's punch from inside out,
- side way footwork,
- side way head movement,
- ...

If chain punch is considered as a powerful attack, proper defense and counter should be drilled too. Same argument as if you train "leg shooting", you should also train "how to deal with leg shooting".

Here is one example.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Drills such as:
> 
> - use circular movement to deal with straight line movement,
> - use kick to interrupt punches.
> ...


That video comes up as "private", so I can't view it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I more and more want to experience some of the Jow Ga movement. You even use some of the same terminology we do, so there is almost certainly some good sharing to be had.


I can add you to the schools newsletter if you like.  It'll have some of the concepts that are use in Jow Ga. For example, I spent 20 minutes today talking about how to do a shin kick, the difficulties of it, what stance height is best for the kick, how to generate the power for the kick, the mechanics of the kick, the timing of the kick, and how to use it in a self defense situation.  In the past I thought I would use something like this in sparring competition, but after shin kicking a 100lb heavy bag across the floor today I don't think this kick would be a good thing to use for competitive sparring, but it would be excellent for self defense.

The shin kick that I'm talking about is the one that this guy is doing wrong lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That video comes up as "private", so I can't view it.


It should work now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I can add you to the schools newsletter if you like.  It'll have some of the concepts that are use in Jow Ga. For example, I spent 20 minutes today talking about how to do a shin kick, the difficulties of it, what stance height is best for the kick, how to generate the power for the kick, the mechanics of the kick, the timing of the kick, and how to use it in a self defense situation.  In the past I thought I would use something like this in sparring competition, but after shin kicking a 100lb heavy bag across the floor today I don't think this kick would be a good thing to use for competitive sparring, but it would be excellent for self defense.
> 
> The shin kick that I'm talking about is the one that this guy is doing wrong lol.


Please do. I think Jow Ga will be part of my ongoing "watch for principles to talk about" reading/watching.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> And a circle can be overrun by an overlapping circle that is better rooted. I suspect there's a similar statement to be made about straight vs. straight, but I can't think of it at the moment.


 
One of the things we were working on in my old wing chun school was a straight vs. straight attack, where our punch could be used to "cut across" the opponent's attack. Kind of hard to explain in words...but I cannot find a visual aid at the moment.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 3, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Leaning forward when punching can be exploited in Kung Fu.  In kung fu the power of a punch can be multiplied by punching an opponent that is moving forward,  It's like a head on collision.  Just recently one of the most brutal knee strikes in UFC fractured a man's skull all because he over extended (forward lean) of his punch.
> 
> The other problem with leaning forward is that it causes a weaker root which makes it possible to pull a person forward and to throw them off balance.  In Jow Ga classes students work on a technique where we blend with a punch and pull the person off balance.


 

That is what I was getting at.  Leaning forward like that destroys structure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> One of the things we were working on in my old wing chun school was a straight vs. straight attack, where our punch could be used to "cut across" the opponent's attack. Kind of hard to explain in words...but I cannot find a visual aid at the moment.


We don't use that in my art, but I've trained it before. We use the concept with many of our blocks, when combined with movement. letting the straight line intersect the attacking arm (whether it's a punch or a grip) and interrupt its path.

(Touching on a separate thread recently started, this would be a "deflection".)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> That is what I was getting at.  Leaning forward like that destroys structure.


That's a weakness that many arts take advantage of. If you watch most aiki arts (Aikido, NGA, etc.), you'll see a demonstrably upright stance is our norm, because we train so much taking advantage of a forward lean. I see some of those same habits when I watch WC videos.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 3, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> One of the things we were working on in my old wing chun school was a straight vs. straight attack, where our punch could be used to "cut across" the opponent's attack. Kind of hard to explain in words...but I cannot find a visual aid at the moment.


Sound like a technique that we have.  Where both punches are straight and direct, but one punch is done at a slight angle by moving the body off center (I guess in wing chun it would be that pivot that is done on both feet.) which "shaves" the incoming punch which moves the punch.  If the first punch is straight at the face and if the second punch is straight at the face so that it's shaving the first punch, then first punch will miss and the second punch will land.

If this is the same technique then conditioned forearms are a must.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 3, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Exactly, but there are a lot of people out there who think chain punching is WC's go-to opening move. These are the same people who think Chi Sao is about chasing the hands or "playing paddy cake."


I can see them being useful tactically as a distraction for different maneuvers such as; low kicks (especially to the knee) being easier to apply because they are concerned about the fists coming at their head, to distract as you are closing and maneuvering for a take down etc.

Sometimes strike don't need to be "the end" they can be the means to another end.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 4, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> A spinning back kick comes out the same speed as a push kick for me, and it puts me in a position I can balance easier, so it really depends how good you are at throwing one.



Are you talking power or time to target?


----------



## KangTsai (Oct 4, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Are you talking power or time to target?


Both, although a spinning back kick should be way more powerful.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's a weakness that many arts take advantage of. If you watch most aiki arts (Aikido, NGA, etc.), you'll see a demonstrably upright stance is our norm, because we train so much taking advantage of a forward lean. I see some of those same habits when I watch WC videos.



Untill you get punched in that nicely poking out chin which is keeping your back straight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Untill you get punched in that nicely poking out chin which is keeping your back straight.


It's a trade-off of risks. People who train mostly grappling tend toward stances that mostly defend throws and takedowns. Even boxers maintain a fairly upright posture until they step into a barrage of punches. We certainly expose our chins a bit more - the field of view is our advantage in trade for the momentary exposure - but we don't wade in like a Seagal movie. When we enter without control of the attacker, things close up for protection.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It's a trade-off of risks. People who train mostly grappling tend toward stances that mostly defend throws and takedowns. Even boxers maintain a fairly upright posture until they step into a barrage of punches. We certainly expose our chins a bit more - the field of view is our advantage in trade for the momentary exposure - but we don't wade in like a Seagal movie. When we enter without control of the attacker, things close up for protection.



Ok.  But chun is striking and akido is grappling. So they should be exibiting contrary mechanics. More importantly chun is striking from the pocket which is where that barrage of punches makes its home. And chun don't even effectively kick (as in KTFO kick. ) which is the major advantage of an upright stance. 

If you are going to compromise you need to know what the compromise actually  is.


----------



## guy b (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But chun is striking and akido is grappling. So they should be exibiting contrary mechanics. More importantly chun is striking from the pocket which is where that barrage of punches makes its home. And chun don't even effectively kick (as in KTFO kick. ) which is the major advantage of an upright stance.
> 
> If you are going to compromise you need to know what the compromise actually  is.



Aikido doesn't work, no point in using it as a data point

VT doesn't fight "in the pocket"

VT does have effective kicks


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> Aikido doesn't work, no point in using it as a data point
> 
> VT doesn't fight "in the pocket"
> 
> VT does have effective kicks



Mabye you are confused with sanda.

Anyway. the reason people generally stay upright ,chin high, hands low. (and because this is something to watch in all martial arts unless you actually do have a reasonable compromise).

Is because it is easier. So after an hour or training you are generally pretty sick of holding a good defensive position and you start to cheat.

chain punching rewards this by being a bit harder and faster from a center of the chest position.






So boxersise people naturally develop the same mechanics.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Untill you get punched in that nicely poking out chin which is keeping your back straight.


I personally risk my chin before my stance than my stance which affects my structure. You can see me do this in my free sparring videos over and over. A compromised structure means that everything that is born from that structure will be weak.  If I blend with my opponent's punch, then I can pull my opponent off balance. When this happens  my opponent's second punch will either not fire or will be weak as his body makes regaining balance a priority over punching. Is there a risk of getting hit on the chin? Yes but the penalty for being off balance is greater


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I personally risk my chin before my stance than my stance which affects my structure. You can see me do this in my free sparring videos over and over. A compromised structure means that everything that is born from that structure will be weak.  If I blend with my opponent's punch, then I can pull my opponent off balance. When this happens  my opponent's second punch will either not fire or will be weak as his body makes regaining balance a priority over punching. Is there a risk of getting hit on the chin? Yes but the penalty for being off balance is greater



Good luck with that. I spar guys who will punch my head off my shoulders if I tried that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But chun is striking and akido is grappling. So they should be exibiting contrary mechanics. More importantly chun is striking from the pocket which is where that barrage of punches makes its home. And chun don't even effectively kick (as in KTFO kick. ) which is the major advantage of an upright stance.
> 
> If you are going to compromise you need to know what the compromise actually  is.


Many Wing Chun practitioners make the mistake of not relaxing, making everything rigid. Those who are able to be relax will kick like mules.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Many Wing Chun practitioners make the mistake of not relaxing, making everything rigid. Those who are able to be relax will kick like mules.



Generally not fight ending so I can just leave my hands down kicks though. You are not going to change your whole body shape so you can do an oblique kick to the knee. The point of that kick is so you can do it from an akward body shape.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Good luck with that. I spar guys who will punch my head off my shoulders if I tried that.


Next time you spar with them, knock them off balance, and when they off balance hit them until they regain balance.  If you do sweeps then do one to keep them off balance.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Generally not fight ending so I can just leavy my hands down kicks though. You are not going to change your whole body shape so you can do an oblique kick to the knee. The point of that kick is so you can do it from an akward body shape.


I'll make a video of me doing a kung fu shin kick so you can see a practical application of it.  I'll  use it during free sparring and then I'll use it full force on a heavy bag. I think you would like it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But chun is striking and akido is grappling. So they should be exibiting contrary mechanics. More importantly chun is striking from the pocket which is where that barrage of punches makes its home. And chun don't even effectively kick (as in KTFO kick. ) which is the major advantage of an upright stance.
> 
> If you are going to compromise you need to know what the compromise actually  is.


I'm not an expert on WC, so I can't speak to all the reasons they use that posture. What I do understand is that they watch for and take advantage of some of the same front-weight openings grapplers like Aikidoka do, so it makes sense they'd share some stance characteristics with them. The rest of the reasons for their trade-off are beyond my ken.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> Aikido doesn't work, no point in using it as a data point
> 
> VT doesn't fight "in the pocket"
> 
> VT does have effective kicks


Doesn't work for what, precisely?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll make a video of me doing a kung fu shin kick so you can see a practical application of it.  I'll  use it during free sparring and then I'll use it full force on a heavy bag. I think you would like it.



I have some southpaw fighters in my gym. You want shin pain, spar those guys.

(Ok. just to explain here. becaue we are all goofy footed up either you kick their kick. Or you allways meet a cross check. both of which can break your leg. So it is just a matter of time before you both leg clash in some sort of horrible way.)


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I have some southpaw fighters in my gym. You want shin pain, spar those guys.
> 
> (Ok. just to explain here. becaue we are all goofy footed up either you kick their kick. Or you allways meet a cross check. both of which can break your leg. So it is just a matter of time before you both leg clash in some sort of horrible way.)


I think there is some confusion.  There is little risk to me and no risk of me clashing shins.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 4, 2016)

guy b said:


> Aikido doesn't work, no point in using it as a data point
> 
> VT doesn't fight "in the pocket"
> 
> VT does have effective kicks




First point only shows utter ignorance.  There is actually a divide in Aikido.  Side 1. they believe it is primarily for spiritual cultivation.  Side 2 (among them Tenshin Aikido schools) believes Aikido should should be a practical TMA and so holds a bit closer to the Aiki-Jujutsu roots.  BUT since you believe "your" VT is the only WC that works... I am not surprised the myopia is extended to other MAs


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not an expert on WC, so I can't speak to all the reasons they use that posture. What I do understand is that they watch for and take advantage of some of the same front-weight openings grapplers like Aikidoka do, so it makes sense they'd share some stance characteristics with them. The rest of the reasons for their trade-off are beyond my ken.




Wing Chun uses an upright posture because, as I said in the other thread, it is about keeping your weight behind the punch.  In order to do a WC straight punch, with minimal body English, "from the heart" with power starting from the ground, you need a "straight" structure.  This also applies to defense.  

Picture the hips as a "choke point".  If you are bent at the waist and turning the hips to execute a punch, then the punch really starts at the waist/hips.  In terms of defense, if an incoming attack is blocked and/or deflected and you are leaning forward from the waist/hips, the energy gets tied up at that same choke point and so throws you off balance and you lose your center.  However, if you have what amounts to a straight line to the ground, the entire body strikes with a WC "straight punch", like the video I posted in the other thread.  In defense the incoming energy goes to the ground so you have a better chance of maintaining balance.     

Also, if you know what you are doing, you do NOT stay in the pocket.  In my school we have 3 main axioms for WC.

1. Simultaneous attack and defense.
2. Never meet force with force (there are no blocks, they are deflections accompanied by relief and/or t-steps to further dissipate energy)
3. Attack from the BLIND side.

3 In terms of # 3, If you see two people who actually know WC it is dizzying because each is constantly trying to attack from a flank and so they will both essentially be walking in circles as they fight (though if you actually watch the foot work, its all angles.)


----------



## KPM (Oct 5, 2016)

^^^^^ Very similar to Pin Sun Wing Chun.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> and when they off balance hit them until they regain balance.



What?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Doesn't work for what, precisely?



I think he might be having a crack at me there with my comments in the Akido for self defence thread.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Untill you get punched in that nicely poking out chin which is keeping your back straight.


 
Poking out chin? If your chin is poking out, then your structure is compromised...no matter how straight your back is. Leading with the chin is never a good idea.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But chun is striking and akido is grappling. So they should be exibiting contrary mechanics. More importantly chun is striking from the pocket which is where that barrage of punches makes its home. And chun don't even effectively kick (as in KTFO kick. ) which is the major advantage of an upright stance.
> 
> If you are going to compromise you need to know what the compromise actually  is.


 
I Am not sure what you mean by punching "from the pocket."

Also, what do you mean by WC does not effectively kick? If I kick someone in the shin or groin and it causes enough pain where I go on to win the fight, that is pretty effective to me. Might not be a boot to the head like in Tae Kwon Leap, but you don't need to kick high to be effective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Wing Chun uses an upright posture because, as I said in the other thread, it is about keeping your weight behind the punch.  In order to do a WC straight punch, with minimal body English, "from the heart" with power starting from the ground, you need a "straight" structure.  This also applies to defense.
> 
> Picture the hips as a "choke point".  If you are bent at the waist and turning the hips to execute a punch, then the punch really starts at the waist/hips.  In terms of defense, if an incoming attack is blocked and/or deflected and you are leaning forward from the waist/hips, the energy gets tied up at that same choke point and so throws you off balance and you lose your center.  However, if you have what amounts to a straight line to the ground, the entire body strikes with a WC "straight punch", like the video I posted in the other thread.  In defense the incoming energy goes to the ground so you have a better chance of maintaining balance.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I see some significant parallels with the principles I teach in NGA. 

1. The simultaneous attack and defense is found in several arts, and each seems to take a different approach to it, a different way they evolve the principle in practice (for us, it's usually most obvious in us stealing the balance or structure in the process of defending). 
2. While I do teach meeting force with force early (because they're going to mess up and do it, anyway, so I give them tools there), that principle holds true, and the force-on-force is only seen in experienced students as a recovery from a blown movement.
3. Blind side is where most of our best work lives, and I like to get close. I refer to this as hiding behind their shoulder. I'm a very creepy teacher sometimes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I Am not sure what you mean by punching "from the pocket."
> 
> Also, what do you mean by WC does not effectively kick? If I kick someone in the shin or groin and it causes enough pain where I go on to win the fight, that is pretty effective to me. Might not be a boot to the head like in Tae Kwon Leap, but you don't need to kick high to be effective.


Some folks have a different approach to kicks. I rarely view kicks as finishing moves, and have a view similar to yours. However, I know some folks who won't break out a kick unless they expect it to do actual damage, perhaps ending the fight. They just don't like the trade-off of being on one leg and slowing movement unless there's that level of payoff. Fairly sound logic on both sides of that debate.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Some folks have a different approach to kicks. I rarely view kicks as finishing moves, and have a view similar to yours. However, I know some folks who won't break out a kick unless they expect it to do actual damage, perhaps ending the fight. They just don't like the trade-off of being on one leg and slowing movement unless there's that level of payoff. Fairly sound logic on both sides of that debate.


 
I would avoid kicks in a fight for two reasons:

1) My balance is already pretty poor. If I am unknowningly fighting someone who is good at grappling (or even someone who is "bad" at it), I don't need to give them half my balance.

2) I am smaller than most people. I don't want to sacrifice my rooted stance. Why win the battle just to lose the war?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 5, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I Am not sure what you mean by punching "from the pocket."
> 
> Also, what do you mean by WC does not effectively kick? If I kick someone in the shin or groin and it causes enough pain where I go on to win the fight, that is pretty effective to me. Might not be a boot to the head like in Tae Kwon Leap, but you don't need to kick high to be effective.


Or my favorite target, knees.  Hyperextend the knee or even shear the knee cap and the fight is over.  However my WC (TWC) has high kicks, though they are admittedly situational.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Or my favorite target, knees.  Hyperextend the knee or even shear the knee cap and the fight is over.  However my WC (TWC) has high kicks, though they are admittedly situational.


 
 Yes. Knees, shin, groin, and one of my favorites (although an unusual target): the inner thigh. It's almost comical to watch the leg buckle outward when you hit there. LOL


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 5, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Yes. Knees, shin, groin, and one of my favorites (although an unusual target): the inner thigh. It's almost comical to watch the leg buckle outward when you hit there. LOL


Outer thigh, common perennial nerve works to but that usually needs to be a knee or toe kick.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 5, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. I see some significant parallels with the principles I teach in NGA.
> 
> 1. The simultaneous attack and defense is found in several arts, and each seems to take a different approach to it, a different way they evolve the principle in practice (for us, it's usually most obvious in us stealing the balance or structure in the process of defending).
> 2. While I do teach meeting force with force early (because they're going to mess up and do it, anyway, so I give them tools there), that principle holds true, and the force-on-force is only seen in experienced students as a recovery from a blown movement.
> 3. Blind side is where most of our best work lives, and I like to get close. I refer to this as hiding behind their shoulder. I'm a very creepy teacher sometimes.



We also prefer to be that close as well, this way you can "control the elbow and you control the opponent."


----------



## ShortBridge (Oct 5, 2016)

- Without feet, there are no hands.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 5, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What?


 If you and I were sparring or fighting.  I wold pull you off balance and while you are trying to regain your balance I would punch and kick you and I wouldn't stop until you have successfully regain your balance.  The body's natural desire to keep balance is so strong that when you are off balance, the body will make it the highest priority to regain balance to the point where you can't return punches or block while off balance.  In a fighting context this means that the body is completely defenseless while it tries to regain balance.  Your "attack and defense systems" don't come back online until you have regained balance.  When you consider that more than 4 punches can be thrown in less than 2 seconds, having your attack and defense capabilities shut down can be a big problem.

So the next time you spar and you knock your opponent off balance, then hit him.  Don't just stand there and let him regain balance unchallenged. Hit him.  Just keep in mind that you only have .5 -2 seconds to get your strikes in before they regain balance.  This is why some of the TMA will intentionally pull the opponents punching hand of a person leaning forward.  This means I get decide when and where the person will be off balance making it easier for me to get my strikes in.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 5, 2016)

ShortBridge said:


> - Without feet, there are no hands.


Dang skippy!  

"No feet...no fight"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> We also prefer to be that close as well, this way you can "control the elbow and you control the opponent."


That's awfully thoughty of you. I mostly just like being creepy.


----------



## guy b (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Mabye you are confused with sanda



No I'm not confused. VT does not fight "in the pocket", and it does have effective kicks. Are you confused?



> Anyway. the reason people generally stay upright ,chin high, hands low. (and because this is something to watch in all martial arts unless you actually do have a reasonable compromise).
> 
> Is because it is easier. So after an hour or training you are generally pretty sick of holding a good defensive position and you start to cheat.
> 
> chain punching rewards this by being a bit harder and faster from a center of the chest position



Not sure what this has to do with VT


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I Am not sure what you mean by punching "from the pocket."
> 
> Also, what do you mean by WC does not effectively kick? If I kick someone in the shin or groin and it causes enough pain where I go on to win the fight, that is pretty effective to me. Might not be a boot to the head like in Tae Kwon Leap, but you don't need to kick high to be effective.



Not a kick that you would compromise your ability to throw good hands for.  If you kick someone in the shin or the groin and they counter with strikes. 

Tae kwan leap will do all sorts of mechanical compromises to make that head kick work.  Honestly you cant afford to with a groin kick.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> No I'm not confused. VT does not fight "in the pocket", and it does have effective kicks. Are you confused?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what this has to do with VT



So VT fights more on the back foot and engages with power kicks?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> you knock your opponent off balance, then hit him.


This does not make sense. When your opponent is moving

- forward and you hit him (head on collision), that's A + B > A.
- backward and you hit him (rear end collision), that's A - B < A.

When your opponent's is moving forward, one good punch will knock him down. When your opponent is moving backward, you may need to throw many punches instead.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Next time you spar with them, knock them off balance, and when they off balance hit them until they regain balance.  If you do sweeps then do one to keep them off balance.



Well I think part of the problem is he is working under the assumption a boxing/MMA stance is the only proper stance for striking.  Many MA's use a far more "straight up" structure and their techniques (both offense and defense) are designed around this different structure.  In Wing Chun, the lazy guy is the one who starts to lean forward.  As an example a _tan_ relies on the upright WC structure to stop a strike, if you were leaning forward (and were not clearly stronger than the person striking) you would almost inevitably find yourself recoiling at the waist, disturbing your structure.  However with the proper (more "upright") structure what force the application of the _tan _itself doesn't address doesn't get "choked" in the hips but passes down into your legs and thus into the ground. 

Same goal, different principles to achieve said goals.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This does not make sense. When your opponent is moving
> 
> - forward and you hit him (head on collision), that's A + B > A.
> - backward and you hit him (rear end collision), that's A - B < A.



You don't have to strike to disturb balance however.  You can, as an example, apply a _lap_ after they attack and press, disturbing their balance and then strike.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well I think part of the problem is he is working under the assumption a boxing/MMA stance is the only proper stance for striking.  Many MA's use a far more "straight up" structure and their techniques (both offense and defense) are designed around this different structure.  In Wing Chun, the lazy guy is the one who starts to lean forward.  As an example a _tan_ relies on the upright WC structure to stop a strike, if you were leaning forward (and were not clearly stronger than the person striking) you would almost inevitably find yourself recoiling at the waist, disturbing your structure.  However with the proper (more "upright") structure what force the application of the _tan _itself doesn't address doesn't get "choked" in the hips but passes down into your legs and thus into the ground.
> 
> Same goal, different principles to achieve said goals.



There is no consistent boxing/MMA stance. Different people use different stances.


----------



## Phobius (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not a kick that you would compromise your ability to throw good hands for.  If you kick someone in the shin or the groin and they counter with strikes.
> 
> Tae kwan leap will do all sorts of mechanical compromises to make that head kick work.  Honestly you cant afford to with a groin kick.



At least how I train there are different types of kicks. Those within pocket and those from outside.

Inside pocket the kicks are generally targetting areas such as knees or shin. And without compromise how you deal with strikes. A kick and a punch may occur at same time without any compromise in power when "inside pocket" if I understand that term correctly.


Now to lowering hands, WC does not invite such behavior any more than all martial arts including MMA does. Everyone that is training, getting tired and not being shown a reason to keep hands high will eventually learn to drop them.

You can be taught through sparring, repetition, or just putting your hands to your chin in guard between punches initially to learn keeping them up. Sensation of hands touching chins are a good way to remind yourself of need to raise hands constantly. Once this is taught properly a different guard can be used easily and still maintain hands high.


All stances have weaknesses. It is just about learning what those are and being ready to shift.


----------



## guy b (Oct 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So VT fights more on the back foot and engages with power kicks?



Posing "in the pocket" or "more on the back foot" as an either/or is an example of false dilemma, a dishonest arguing tactic when used intentionally

VT certainly has effective kicking methods that can end a fight


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

guy b said:


> Posing "in the pocket" or "more on the back foot" as an either/or is an example of false dilemma, a dishonest arguing tactic when used intentionally
> 
> VT certainly has effective kicking methods that can end a fight



Centerline/forward momentum and the pocket are basically the same thing. 

And i am sure you have tons of fight finishing kicks.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2016)

Phobius said:


> At least how I train there are different types of kicks. Those within pocket and those from outside.
> 
> Inside pocket the kicks are generally targetting areas such as knees or shin. And without compromise how you deal with strikes. A kick and a punch may occur at same time without any compromise in power when "inside pocket" if I understand that term correctly.
> 
> ...



Yeah.  You don't actually need to be upright to make any of that work. If you were doing thai for example you may need to stay upright because you want quick access to kicks.  But that is because they are bigger kicks. You hang back with an upright posture and punt a guy in the head with your foot. 

You want to enter and finish with hand strikes that means you need to close every single opening that the other guy can utilise. So what you need there is to hunch forward and cover your chin. 

If you do one while trying to set your body for the other.  You are going to have a bad day. There is just a lot of risk involved in that method.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Centerline/forward momentum and the pocket are basically the same thin



VT doesn't fight "in the pocket". It sounds like you don't know what VT entails and are just guessing?



> And i am sure you have tons of fight finishing kicks.



VT has effective kicking methods that can end a fight


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  You don't actually need to be upright to make any of that work. If you were doing thai for example you may need to stay upright because you want quick access to kicks.  But that is because they are bigger kicks. You hang back with an upright posture and punt a guy in the head with your foot.
> 
> You want to enter and finish with hand strikes that means you need to close every single opening that the other guy can utilise. So what you need there is to hunch forward and cover your chin.
> 
> If you do one while trying to set your body for the other.  You are going to have a bad day. There is just a lot of risk involved in that method.



So basically we are judging on similarity to MT or boxing, without any understanding of VT strategy? Lol


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> So basically we are judging on similarity to MT or boxing, without any understanding of VT strategy? Lol



No basic elements of striking. As removed from stylistic concerns. It is a non ideological approach.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> VT doesn't fight "in the pocket". It sounds like you don't know what VT entails and are just guessing?
> 
> 
> 
> VT has effective kicking methods that can end a fight



Nope pretty sure that is still Sanda. we are talking about Ving Tsun.
So this .





Not this.





this is the pocket.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Centerline/forward momentum and the pocket are basically the same thing.
> 
> And i am sure you have tons of fight finishing kicks.


So, when you say "in the pocket", that's as opposed to getting off-line and working from the sides?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, when you say "in the pocket", that's as opposed to getting off-line and working from the sides?



Not really. because if you can wrangle your way to someones blind side you are going to do it. It would be madness not to. It is inside his and your punching range. I threw a late edit video in an above post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not really. because if you can wrangle your way to someones blind side you are going to do it. It would be madness not to. It is inside his and your punching range. I threw a late edit video in an above post.


Ah, so it refers to fighting while staying inside striking range?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so it refers to fighting while staying inside striking range?



Yeah. pretty much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. pretty much.


Thanks! Always love to pick up new terminology for discussions with other aficionados of pain.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> we are talking about Ving Tsun



You are not talking about VT because your opinion of VT strategy is not actual VT strategy



> So this .



Do you think this is an example of fighting with VT?



> this is the pocket.



VT does not fight "in the pocket"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are not talking about VT because your opinion of VT strategy is not actual VT strategy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Instead of just saying "nuh-uh", try giving some counter-examples. Descriptions, explanations, and example videos go a long way to making your point. Saying "not so!" doesn't do much to help anyone understand what you mean.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Instead of just saying "nuh-uh", try giving some counter-examples. Descriptions, explanations, and example videos go a long way to making your point. Saying "not so!" doesn't do much to help anyone understand what you mean.



Why help drop bear hate VT better? Drop bear makes a criticism of VT which is based on an obvious misunderstanding of VT (because he doesn't do VT). Pointing out that asumptions are wrong invites DB to explore further if he likes. Usually this doesn't happen because people hate to admit they don't know what they are talking about.

DB seems to think that VT walks up the middle and stands in punching range. This would be funny if he was sincere and honest. It is just derisory when he continues to flap on about it despite not actually knowing


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> Why help drop bear hate VT better? Drop bear makes a criticism of VT which is based on an obvious misunderstanding of VT (because he doesn't do VT). Pointing out that asumptions are wrong invites DB to explore further if he likes. Usually this doesn't happen because people hate to admit they don't know what they are talking about.


Your statement assumes that DB is the only one involved in the discussion. Even if I accept that premise (and I don't know enough of his view of VT to judge that), many others will read this thread, and would like to hear an informed rebuttal of his points.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Your statement assumes that DB is the only one involved in the discussion. Even if I accept that premise (and I don't know enough of his view of VT to judge that), many others will read this thread, and would like to hear an informed rebuttal of his points.



Getting into a detailed discussion with a person who refuses to admit error is a waste of time for me and for anyone reading because arguments will just drift, mistakes will be conveniently forgotten or ignored, and it will become yet another troll thread that goes nowhere. I think better just to point out the mistake and move on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> Getting into a detailed discussion with a person who refuses to admit error is a waste of time for me and for anyone reading because arguments will just drift, mistakes will be conveniently forgotten or ignored, and it will become yet another troll thread that goes nowhere. I think better just to point out the mistake and move on.


And yet, here I am, reading the interchange, and have none of your insight to work with. It would not be a waste of time for me to read your rebuttals, but I don't get the chance. And there are likely others who would also read them, if they existed.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 6, 2016)

Most people see only the "in game" of wing chun because that is how it is different from most martial arts. People never get around to showing the pole form and how certain techniques within that form can add to wing chun's "outside game." It isn't all about close-range fighting because not all fights will begin in the range where most of wing chun takes place. However, if you train right, then you will train to get into the range you need...just like grapplers train to get into grappling range, boxers train to get into punchin range, kickers train to get in kicking range.

And if you are fighting someone who is comfortable in one of those other ranges, then you try to get into YOUR range while keeping them OUT of theirs.

Every martial art trains that way...or at least, they should.

I don't know why people assume wing chun has this narrow training methodology where we fight only "in the pocket" or only at trapping range or whatever other misconception they have about it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Most people see only the "in game" of wing chun because that is how it is different from most martial arts. People never get around to showing the pole form and how certain techniques within that form can add to wing chun's "outside game." It isn't all about close-range fighting because not all fights will begin in the range where most of wing chun takes place. However, if you train right, then you will train to get into the range you need...just like grapplers train to get into grappling range, boxers train to get into punchin range, kickers train to get in kicking range.
> 
> And if you are fighting someone who is comfortable in one of those other ranges, then you try to get into YOUR range while keeping them OUT of theirs.
> 
> ...


From my seat in the audience, it looks like fighting in the pocket is the sweet spot for Wing Chun - the place you'd prefer to be, all things being equal. Is that an accurate observation?


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> From my seat in the audience, it looks like fighting in the pocket is the sweet spot for Wing Chun - the place you'd prefer to be, all things being equal. Is that an accurate observation?


 
It is preferred, but that doesn't mean we live in a bubble where we think that is how everyone else in the world fights. You need to know how to deal with other ranges, and keeping people OUT of those other ranges, to get into YOUR range. That goes for any art, not just wing chun. If I study judo and I want to grapple, but I happen to be confronted by a tae kwon do practitioner and don't know how to get past his kicks, I am in trouble.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are not talking about VT because your opinion of VT strategy is not actual VT strategy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey Drop Bear and I rarely agree, but his term for "pocket" is multi-part it appears.

1. Striking range.
2. What we call centerline 
3. what we call our centerline plane.

So it appears people are getting lost in semantics.  Even I did at first as I assumed he meant staying "nose to nose" with the opponent, which indeed WC doesn't do.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> It is preferred, but that doesn't mean we live in a bubble where we think that is how everyone else in the world fights. You need to know how to deal with other ranges, and keeping people OUT of those other ranges, to get into YOUR range. That goes for any art, not just wing chun. If I study judo and I want to grapple, but I happen to be confronted by a tae kwon do practitioner and don't know how to get past his kicks, I am in trouble.


Agreed. My personal preference is to stay out of "the pocket" - we maintain distance and close quickly to get to grappling distance. That changes, however, by circumstance. If I'm facing a grappler, I may prefer to work in the pocket, where I may have more weapons than them. If I'm facing a striker (especially one with kicks), I may prefer to stay close and deal with the hands in a compressed range (and no power feet there), where I have more tools than they do.

In the words of one of my instructors, "If they want to grapple, I'll box. If they want to box, I'll grapple."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Hey Drop Bear and I rarely agree, but his term for "pocket" is multi-part it appears.
> 
> 1. Striking range.
> 2. What we call centerline
> ...


I've found that many of my disagreements with DB came down to semantics. If either one of us accepted the other's vocabulary for the length of a discussion, we could talk sensibly about more things.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 6, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> Most people see only the "in game" of wing chun because that is how it is different from most martial arts. People never get around to showing the pole form and how certain techniques within that form can add to wing chun's "outside game." It isn't all about close-range fighting because not all fights will begin in the range where most of wing chun takes place. However, if you train right, then you will train to get into the range you need...just like grapplers train to get into grappling range, boxers train to get into punchin range, kickers train to get in kicking range.
> 
> And if you are fighting someone who is comfortable in one of those other ranges, then you try to get into YOUR range while keeping them OUT of theirs.
> 
> ...


On your last point, one name...Bruce Lee.

He never learned the entire system (I don't think he actually ever learned all 3 empty hand forms) as he studied for less than three years, largely taught by YMs teenage students as he was uncomfortable teaching a Eurasian.

So he comes to the US, and after a Fight far longer with Wong Jack Man than a certain movie suggests he starts working on Jeet Kun Do saying "Wing Chun is limited in these ways" the problem is it was his limited understanding of Wing Chun that made it so.

Not to diminish JKD in anyway incidentally, just speaking to what I see as the origin that WC somehow has no long game etc.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> On your last point, one name...Bruce Lee.
> 
> He never learned the entire system (I don't think he actually ever learned all 3 empty hand forms) as he studied for less than three years, largely taught by YMs teenage students as he was uncomfortable teaching a Eurasian.
> 
> ...


 
I doubt Bruce learned even half of Chum Kiu, which means he definitely did not get to Biu Jee, which is where the majority of long bridge techniques are taught. Then again, there are some long bridge moves even in Sil Lum Tao.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> You are not talking about VT because your opinion of VT strategy is not actual VT strategy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So sifu cliff doesn't understand VT?

Does anybody understand VT?


----------



## Phobius (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So sifu cliff doesn't understand VT?
> 
> Does anybody understand VT?





guy b said:


> To be honest you can learn VT and understand not very much of how it works. The method is mostly about entraining particular behaviors. To teacj it you need to understand it, but to do you just do.


----------



## guy b (Oct 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So sifu cliff doesn't understand VT?



Do you think it is an example of fighting?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2016)

guy b said:


> Do you think it is an example of fighting?



Do they fight anyone?


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Do they fight anyone?



I don't see a fight happening there, so I would say not. This leads me to wonder why you posted it as an example of VT fighting "in the pocket"?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

guy b said:


> I don't see a fight happening there, so I would say not. This leads me to wonder why you posted it as an example of VT fighting "in the pocket"?



Do they ever fight anyone? That is probably as good as we are going to get.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Do they ever fight anyone?



You would have to ask Cliff Au Yeung. I do know that within the group I train public sharing of sparring footage is discouraged



> That is probably as good as we are going to get.



It is merely a training drill, completely irrelevant to the question of how they fight. Is this the kind of footage you base your opinion of VT on?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

guy b said:


> You would have to ask Cliff Au Yeung. I do know that within the group I train public sharing of sparring footage is discouraged
> 
> 
> 
> It is merely a training drill, completely irrelevant to the question of how they fight. Is this the kind of footage you base your opinion of VT on?



So there is no sparring footage. No fighting footage. That is the best example we will get?

Then we may as well stick with that.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So there is no sparring footage. No fighting footage.



There is a great deal of footage. I think that it is a good idea not to share such things with people who are not committed to the system, especially those who take an interest in criticising it.



> Then we may as well stick with that.



Doing so would be pointless, since it isn't footage of VT fighting. It would be like watching footage of a boxer skipping or throwing a medicine ball and concluding that boxing isn't effective from that. Just demonstrates ignorance


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

guy b said:


> There is a great deal of footage. I think that it is a good idea not to share such things with people who are not committed to the system, especially those who take an interest in criticising it.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing so would be pointless, since it isn't footage of VT fighting. It would be like watching footage of a boxer skipping or throwing a medicine ball and concluding that boxing isn't effective from that. Just demonstrates ignorance



This fighting that nobody ever sees. The footage that is never shown. But definitely happens?

And It was a demonstration that VT fights in the pocket. People train sparring to represent their fighting. That is how sparring works. So is perfectly valid. Unless you can show otherwise.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> This fighting that nobody ever sees. The footage that is never shown. But definitely happens?



The footage is shown widely, but usually not to people who hate VT on the internet. There is much better footage out there if you have a look, some of which gives an idea of how VT looks in practice. 



> It was a demonstration that VT fights in the pocket. People train sparring to represent their fighting. That is how sparring works. So is perfectly valid. Unless you can show otherwise.



Lol, it isn't sparring either. Completely unsuitable for showing how VT fights anywhere, including "in the pocket"


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

Lets move on from this fruitless discussion Drop Bear. I have said what I want to say


----------



## LFJ (Oct 7, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would punch and kick you and I wouldn't stop until you have successfully regain your balance.



I mean, it sounds like you're not successfully taking advantage and then laying off.



> So the next time you spar and you knock your opponent off balance, then hit him.  Don't just stand there and let him regain balance unchallenged. Hit him.



Yeah, I'm with you there. That's what VT is all about. But capitalize and keep the pressure on until the threat is neutralized.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 7, 2016)

While I may not be a student of his anymore, y'all should check out Russ Cichon's YouTube channel, as well as his student (and my WC brother) on The Phil Up. They go into so much depth. Also, while Phil does not have footage of full-blown sparring, he DOES go into how it would work on the street , versus MMA, etc.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 7, 2016)

I agree with Drop Bear on one thing: how you spar will in fact be how you fight because THAT is what you are engraining in muscle memory.

Does this mean NO ONE'S martial art will really work? It is impossible to say unless you go slug it out in the streets every day, which I would not recommend because I hear jail is no fun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So there is no sparring footage. No fighting footage. That is the best example we will get?
> 
> Then we may as well stick with that.


Except that using that as an example is like using a video of a boxer working on the speed bag. It's just a drill, not an example of their fighting tactics.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so it refers to fighting while staying inside striking range?


Typically it refers to staying in that (non-clinched) range where you can punch with both hands without having to move your feet to do so. If your opponent retreats then you would have to step forward to stay in the pocket. Fighting in the pocket offers lots of offensive options and puts psychological pressure on the opponent, but requires that your striking defense be very good, because (obviously) your opponent is also in range to hit you.

"Fighting In the pocket" is used as an alternative to the common practice of moving in and out of range.

I'm curious about what guy b objects to in the assertion that VT  tends to fight in the pocket. The overwhelming majority of WC/WT/VT practitioners that I've seen specialize in that range. There are long bridge techniques in the system, but they generally seem to be tools for getting the practitioner into that close range. I've never seen a WC/WT/VT practitioner advocate hopping in and out of range and sniping from a distance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> This fighting that nobody ever sees. The footage that is never shown. But definitely happens?
> 
> And It was a demonstration that VT fights in the pocket. People train sparring to represent their fighting. That is how sparring works. So is perfectly valid. Unless you can show otherwise.


But that's not sparring.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 7, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Typically it refers to staying in that (non-clinched) range where you can punch with both hands without having to move your feet to do so. If your opponent retreats then you would have to step forward to stay in the pocket. Fighting in the pocket offers lots of offensive options and puts psychological pressure on the opponent, but requires that your striking defense be very good, because (obviously) your opponent is also in range to hit you.
> 
> "Fighting In the pocket" is used as an alternative to the common practice of moving in and out of range.
> 
> I'm curious about what guy b objects to in the assertion that VT  tends to fight in the pocket. The overwhelming majority of WC/WT/VT practitioners that I've seen specialize in that range. There are long bridge techniques in the system, but they generally seem to be tools for getting the practitioner into that close range. I've never seen a WC/WT/VT practitioner advocate hopping in and out of range and sniping from a distance.


 
It definitely does put psychological pressure on them because if someone lunges at you with a hook punch, they don't expect you to GO INTO THEM. They expect you to retreat. And if you know how to take advantage of that moment where their mind is too busy saying "holy sh*t, what's going on," then you will most likely win the fight.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 7, 2016)

Tony, you are also right in that the long bridge tools help us get into the appropriate range, much like there are tools you use in BJJ to get into grappling range.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> But that's not sparring.



Best i could find.


----------



## guy b (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Best i could find.



Category error. Not sparring


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

guy b said:


> Category error. Not sparring



Yeah.  But I just saw a bunch of sparring.  And it still proved my assessment.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So there is no sparring footage. No fighting footage. That is the best example we will get?
> 
> Then we may as well stick with that.


Well I showed you a video a few months ago of Sifu and Provisional Master Jerry Devone not sparing but straight up fighting in WC in MUSU a few years ago and even though most WC practitioners would say, "that was WC" even though you know little about it you kept saying it wasn't WC so whats the point?  You even went looking for other videos of the same fight, and when I pointed out frame by frame that it was WC you still protested.  What's the point then.  If it looks like real fighting or sparring to you it isn't WC.  If it doesn't look "real" to you it morphs into WC.  So we get you have something against WC, let it lie.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Best i could find.


That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.

Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.
> 
> Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.



Example... 




Here is a WC fight.  Sifu Jerry visits my school regularly and in TWC he is the "real deal." I see the WC in what he does, but others say "that can't be WC" because it...works.

PS, won't say Sifu Jerry didn't have this guy overmatched.  There is another fight from the same event that is far more even.  Just wanted to share this to prove a point


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well I showed you a video a few months ago of Sifu and Provisional Master Jerry Devone not sparing but straight up fighting in WC in MUSU a few years ago and even though most WC practitioners would say, "that was WC" even though you know little about it you kept saying it wasn't WC so whats the point?  You even went looking for other videos of the same fight, and when I pointed out frame by frame that it was WC you still protested.  What's the point then.  If it looks like real fighting or sparring to you it isn't WC.  If it doesn't look "real" to you it morphs into WC.  So we get you have something against WC, let it lie.



But ok. you dont tell the full story. This was on a discussion on how wing chun have a unique method of punching that do not require any wind up.

 That was the punches he wasn't winding up on.  But just looked like he did. Because wing chun has a completely different method of generating force to every body else?

And where you just started making any old thing up to fit your own script?

Was it that video?

And yes I just looked at the video. That was the video.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.
> 
> Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.



It was the closest anyone could find. Bear in mind there was no example to counter that.

None.

So it is still the best example.

Now if you showed a video of bjj butt flopping and i can't make a case on my own evidence.

Then they butt flop.  It is not because you hate BJJ.

And wing chun do fight in the pocket. So i was right in that assesment.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> But ok. you dont tell the full story. This was on a discussion on how wing chun have a unique method of punching that do not require any wind up.
> 
> That was the punches he wasn't winding up on.  But just looked like he did. Because wing chun has a completely different method of generating force to every body else?
> 
> ...


I never said that they had a completely different method.  What I said was that the strikes follow a premise of "keeping" weight behind the punch vs "throwing" various arts do both at the same time, WC in this regard is rather specific however.
To say the above only says WC follows a particular path because my posting of the video was to challenge you when you said WC doesn't work.  I showed the theories did in the ring and you struggled to show it didn't.

Regardless.  Videos exist that show WC/VT do work but, for some reason, ever since I have joined this forum as soon as WC effectiveness comes in question you charge in like a knight in armor to say it doesn't and, as you lack zero experience with the art, I am confused as to why.

I can even say it works for me dealing with street crime.  I would never say what you study fails in your job BUT with no knowledge of one of my arts you are arrogant enough to say it doesn't work?  Seems odd to me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I never said that they had a completely different method.  What I said was that the strikes follow a premise of "keeping" weight behind the punch vs "throwing" various arts do both at the same time, WC in this regard is rather specific however.
> To say the above only says WC follows a particular path because my posting of the video was to challenge you when you said WC doesn't work.  I showed the theories did in the ring and you struggled to show it didn't.
> 
> Regardless.  Videos exist that show WC/VT do work but, for some reason, ever since I have joined this forum as soon as WC effectiveness comes in question you charge in like a knight in armor to say it doesn't and, as you lack zero experience with the art, I am confused as to why.
> ...



As I said in your case you make stuff up.  I catch you out you just make up more stuff. 

That isn't arrogant. That is just being honest.


----------



## Steve (Oct 7, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't make it appropriate. If I showed you a video of a BJJ guy practicing shrimping across the mats and said, "That's all I could find, so I'm using it as evidence of the fact that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat," that would be insane.
> 
> Just because it's the closest you could find to what you think WC fighting is, that doesn't make it a valid example of WC fighting.


it would be insane to suggest this about BJJ precisely because there is ample evidence to the contrary.

It's not insane in the absence of any more credible evidence.

Actually, reading your post again, it's actually true that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat.   Mostly.  The drill creates the muscle memory and I can provide a lot of video examples of how that drill translates to sparring and into application in competition.   And what's cool is that it actually looks like shrimping at every stage.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> As I said in your case you make stuff up.  I catch you out you just make up more stuff.
> 
> That isn't arrogant. That is just being honest.


Well if I actually make stuff up a multitude here on the forum can call me out yet you are the only one to say such... Occam's Razor thus says the invention is in your mind and not reality, unless you believe you know more than everyone else.  Everytime you have challenged me I have stated fact.  Pointed out videos and then you simply say "that isn't WC", when you have never actually learned WC.

Hell you tried to call out FMA and how it doesn't work and I linked historically documented battles in bonafide Wars where FMA was used...  But I am the one who makes stuff up?  The guy who can show videos of real fights and documented history is the one making stuff up vs the one who simply calls BS and makes fiat statements with no supporting evidence?  Rofl.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It was the closest anyone could find. Bear in mind there was no example to counter that.
> 
> None.
> 
> ...


It might have been the best example you could find of WC technique, but since it's not an example of WC fighting, it's NOT the best example of that. Just because you don't have a Toyota handy, you don't grab a Ford and say, "Well, that's the best example of a Toyota we could find."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2016)

Steve said:


> it would be insane to suggest this about BJJ precisely because there is ample evidence to the contrary.
> 
> It's not insane in the absence of any more credible evidence.
> 
> Actually, reading your post again, it's actually true that BJJ fights on its side and squirms across the mat.   Mostly.  The drill creates the muscle memory and I can provide a lot of video examples of how that drill translates to sparring and into application in competition.   And what's cool is that it actually looks like shrimping at every stage.


It would be accurate to say that's an aspect of BJJ, but to say that's how BJJ fights would be incorrect. There's a lot more to it that can't possibly be seen in a shrimping exercise, and trying to use that exercise to demonstrate how they fight would be silly. Now, if I used it as an example of movement used during a fight, that would be okay, since that's what it's a drill for, but I'd still have to acknowledge that it'll be different in the fight, because they have an opponent to work off of, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It was the closest anyone could find. Bear in mind there was no example to counter that.
> 
> None.
> 
> ...


You know, this points out a major inconsistency in your arguments, Drop Bear. You won't use anecdotal evidence (case studies as relayed by the people involved) of self-defense as the evidence it is because you don't like the kind of evidence it is and the fact that it's not 100% trustable.

Then you turn around and take that video and try to use it as evidence IT IS NOT. You claim to want to take a "clinical" approach, yet what you're doing with that video is misuse of evidence to support a conclusion you've already drawn.

You claim to be a strict adherent to evidence (using only your own definition of evidence, which your statements seem to imply must be 100% verifiable and accurate to be useful at all), yet you have no problem using sideways evidence and claiming it to be what it isn't, so long as it suits your argument.

Remember that confirmation bias you mentioned a few posts ago?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It might have been the best example you could find of WC technique, but since it's not an example of WC fighting, it's NOT the best example of that. Just because you don't have a Toyota handy, you don't grab a Ford and say, "Well, that's the best example of a Toyota we could find."



Yeah but that was still VT training to fight in the pocket. Just because they never actually fight shouldn't invalidate their training. 

Training to fight is technically what we are discussing.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You know, this points out a major inconsistency in your arguments, Drop Bear. You won't use anecdotal evidence (case studies as relayed by the people involved) of self-defense as the evidence it is because you don't like the kind of evidence it is and the fact that it's not 100% trustable.
> 
> Then you turn around and take that video and try to use it as evidence IT IS NOT. You claim to want to take a "clinical" approach, yet what you're doing with that video is misuse of evidence to support a conclusion you've already drawn.
> 
> ...



That method is inevitable with him though.  He applies different rules to others than he follows and then uses that as proof he caught someone out.  Well it's easy to make such claims when you change the rules to your benefit and have moving goal posts in an argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but that was still VT training to fight in the pocket. Just because they never actually fight shouldn't invalidate their training.
> 
> Training to fight is technically what we are discussing.


Okay, used that way, it's a valid example of training to fight in the pocket (not the same as saying it's evidence they regularly do so). It's arguable whether we can use that as significant evidence that they regularly do so (I actually get the impression they do, by yours and Tony's definitions, but I'm a spectator to that style, so my judgment is not great evidence there), since it's just an exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, used that way, it's a valid example of training to fight in the pocket (not the same as saying it's evidence they regularly do so). It's arguable whether we can use that as significant evidence that they regularly do so (I actually get the impression they do, by yours and Tony's definitions, but I'm a spectator to that style, so my judgment is not great evidence there), since it's just an exercise.



It could be solved by anybody coming up to the plate and suggesting how they do fight if it was different. You know an actual counter argument.

Surprised that did not happen 20 posts ago.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> That method is inevitable with him though.  He applies different rules to others than he follows and then uses that as proof he caught someone out.  Well it's easy to make such claims when you change the rules to your benefit and have moving goal posts in an argument.



So when you suggest this.

*A WC punch is weird though. It's not about throwing your weight behind it, it's more about keeping your weight behind it. So a lot of the body "english" you use in other punches isn't there. Now there are stronger punches out there no doubt, but in a crush it can still be viable. Now there are limits of course but there is a reason some people describe WC as being an art one can use in a bathroom stall. Here is a video that I think illustrates the nature of the punching fairly well.*







Is technically different to any other punch. It is me changing the goal posts.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So when you suggest this.
> 
> *A WC punch is weird though. It's not about throwing your weight behind it, it's more about keeping your weight behind it. So a lot of the body "english" you use in other punches isn't there. Now there are stronger punches out there no doubt, but in a crush it can still be viable. Now there are limits of course but there is a reason some people describe WC as being an art one can use in a bathroom stall. Here is a video that I think illustrates the nature of the punching fairly well.*
> 
> ...


That is Lui Ming Fai- a Ho Kam Ming protégé.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It could be solved by anybody coming up to the plate and suggesting how they do fight if it was different. You know an actual counter argument.
> 
> Surprised that did not happen 20 posts ago.


It could, and the fact that those who seem to actually understand the style haven't leads me to believe they don't disagree.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> That is Lui Ming Fai- a Ho Kam Ming protégé.



I have no issue with his punching. Good punching is good punching.  What he is doing there is contrary to juanny,s description. In that he is using pretty standard hip rotation and shoulder movement to get power.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It could, and the fact that those who seem to actually understand the style haven't leads me to believe they don't disagree.



Which was an attempt at having a normal conversation about striking before i basically became part of a shaggy song.



To be a true player you have to know how to play
If she say a night, convince her say a day
Never admit to a word when she say and if she claims
And you tell her baby no way

But she caught me on the counter (It wasn't me)
Saw me bangin' on the sofa (It wasn't me)]
I even had her in the shower (It wasn't me)
She even caught me on camera (It wasn't me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn't me)
Heard the words that I told her (It wasn't me)
Heard the scream get louder (It wasn't me)


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 8, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So when you suggest this.
> 
> *A WC punch is weird though. It's not about throwing your weight behind it, it's more about keeping your weight behind it. So a lot of the body "english" you use in other punches isn't there. Now there are stronger punches out there no doubt, but in a crush it can still be viable. Now there are limits of course but there is a reason some people describe WC as being an art one can use in a bathroom stall. Here is a video that I think illustrates the nature of the punching fairly well.*
> 
> ...



No because you don't always move goal posts but simply because someone doesn't always do something doesnt by definition mean "never" either.  However here you are putting words in my mouth, something else you do (along with taking things out of context.)

I said the punch was "weird", that is different than saying "unique" but even if i had used that word it would not be entirely inaccurate.

The way the punch is applied; elbow down, fist vertical, little body english is what I said, no twisting of the wrist/ elbow as it travels to the target, rotation at the waist, the punch coming "from the heart" along the centerline, relaxing the striking limb immediately on impact.  There are other nuances but these are the most obvious.  Then you have the idea behind it, "keeping" your weight behind it, unlike others where by leaning into, or the body english already noted above have the practitioner "throwing" their weight behind it.

Also btw I NEVER said "no" shoulder rotation, you need shoulder rotation for a punch to have power.  What you don't do is jack back, load, whatever that arm, the way you do with say a strong boxing punch. Part of that of course is due to the elbow position and straight nature of the punch limiting the amout of shoulder movement but I am really trying to figure out how you got specific rotations out of the term "body english."

Other arts have similar punches, but the key word is "similar", which doesn't mean identical.  The differences are in all those little details being in the same place.  Various arts do share traits with the WC punch but I challenge you to find an art whose punch shares ALL of the traits.  If there isn't one then, according the Webster's, that makes it unique, though I prefer the term weird since there are ones that are similar.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 8, 2016)

Double post.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 8, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It could, and the fact that those who seem to actually understand the style haven't leads me to believe they don't disagree.



Like I said earlier, I think the issue was not defining "the pocket" in the beginning.  Initially to me it meant staying in the opponents centerline plane, which we always want to get out of. 

Once I realized that this was NOT what was meant, I agree WC/VT fights in the pocket (I think @Tony Dismukes gave the best definition.  In my school we have "Rules of Engagement", the last one is "maintain constant contact." Once you enter combat you don't want to dance in and out of range, you wish to maintain pressure.  Your opponent retreats you follow.  The only time you back off is when you are getting overwhelmed and need to reset, and if that happens you are in trouble.

As it is taught to me (and remember even though my WC claims YM lineage, many do and yet are different) the reasons are as follows.  The art is designed, in theory, to maximize striking and defense potential for a smaller person to address a larger person.  The strikes are about keeping your weight/mass behind them far more than using muscle you might not have to "throw" the weight behind.  Defenses like the _tan sau_ and _bong sau_ are designed (via the angles of your arms) to deflect, not primarily with muscle but primarily with the skeleton and tendons as the supporting structure.  One of the ways though that a smaller opponent needs to make use of to attack a larger opponent, is to go "all in" with the intent to end the fight ASAP.  The longer a fight lasts against even a less skilled, but larger, opponent the lower your chances of winning because you get worn down by the opponent.


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 8, 2016)

Okay this isn't VT, its TWC but this video imo confirms (yes @drop bear I will give credit where credit is due) the "pocket" to a large degree... (picked this one because this is my Sifu's Sifu but know it is a seminar about techniques and not "training" or sparring.  I just felt the verbal explanations regarding moving in and "jamming" them up were relevant).  It's about "jamming" the other person up so you can end it as quickly as possible, and "jamming" them up means staying in the pocket.  To make stuff like this easier in the future maybe we need individual glossaries posted somewhere


----------



## Argus (Oct 11, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> The other bad thing about chain punching is that if the person blocks that first punch well, then they can pretty much block them ALL well. (It happened to me when I was a beginner and sparred against an experienced Kenpo guy.)
> 
> Also, when people go in committed to those chain punches, they don't consider other factors, like the opponent ducking or bobbing and weaving. Then you throw a flurry of punches where either most or all of them hit empty air...because they were so focused on hitting the spot where their opponent's head USED to be.



I think the way to think of it is not as a "technique" (chain punches) but a result of centerline theory and directness as a concept, and expressed by means of our most fundamental technique. Punches in succession happen as a result of the way being open, not as a conscious decision to engage a particular technique.

Example: I often use punches in quick succession (usually just two) against Karate practitioners and inexperienced people who tend to over-commit with their blocks and "push away" my first punch as opposed to just occupying the line. As soon as I feel my first hand moved far enough offline, my rear hand fires in before the opponent can recover. Linked punches happened in succession, but it was my opponent's decision to create the circumstances for them to happen, not mine. Had the opponent remained on center and not pushed past it, there would be no reason to launch the second hand, much less a third.

Chaining punches is one of the most basic ways you can apply centerline theory; learning to replace hands, chase center, and yield to someone who over commits / regain the line. It's a concept to be applied, and a very pragmatic and applicable one; not a technique.

Edit: Woops. Just realized this thread is 10 pages long, and I commented on something from page 1. Oh well. It's still on topic, if not on subject, right?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> No because you don't always move goal posts but simply because someone doesn't always do something doesnt by definition mean "never" either.  However here you are putting words in my mouth, something else you do (along with taking things out of context.)
> 
> I said the punch was "weird", that is different than saying "unique" but even if i had used that word it would not be entirely inaccurate.
> 
> ...



Ammy boxers do that style of punching. Which then gets used for MMA under certain conditions.


----------



## lansao (Nov 29, 2016)

yak sao said:


> The way it was explained to me is a better term is not so much chain punching but perpetual punching.
> When you step in with your initial punch and strike it should be very powerful . And just like a link on a chain where each one is the same as the next, the following punch should be just as powerful as the initial punch and the third pujch should be just as powerful as the second punch.......
> 
> A flurry of fast punches with no stopping force behind them is the equivalent of a boxer using nothing but jabs. Yeah they might break your nose and bloody your lip but they're not going to really stop you.
> ...



Very well said!

~ Alan, Wing Chun Student


----------

