# New Training Clip



## Lobo66 (Nov 23, 2016)

Here's a short clip of some recent training sessions :






Enjoy!


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 23, 2016)

Thanks. Sorry-not my cup of tea,


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Nov 23, 2016)

One thing I've noticed from wing chun and everything I've seen on it. Firstly Ive never trained it and I could be totally wrong here so no offence intended this is just my observation. The hands of wing chun guys look great but it's the kicks I feel look a bit off. I lnow wing chun isn't a kicking style mainly but what I do see a lot in training videos is wing chun guys throwing a front kick at to close a range. A kick is a long range weapon yet I see guys throwing it very close to their opponent and its not getting the full extension. I mean maybe its just the videos I've seen but just my take on it


----------



## HW1 (Nov 23, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> One thing I've noticed from wing chun and everything I've seen on it. Firstly Ive never trained it and I could be totally wrong here so no offence intended this is just my observation. The hands of wing chun guys look great but it's the kicks I feel look a bit off. I lnow wing chun isn't a kicking style mainly but what I do see a lot in training videos is wing chun guys throwing a front kick at to close a range. A kick is a long range weapon yet I see guys throwing it very close to their opponent and its not getting the full extension. I mean maybe its just the videos I've seen but just my take on it



The Wing Chun kick is mainly a supplemental technique rather than a damaging one. It's used to either distract, break opponent's structure, or create distance. At least that's the way I understood it.


----------



## Nobody Important (Nov 23, 2016)

HW1 said:


> The Wing Chun kick is mainly a supplemental technique rather than a damaging one. It's used to either distract, break opponent's structure, or create distance. At least that's the way I understood it.


I somewhat understand the thinking here & don't completely disagree.

However, it was always stressed to me, that the leg is twice as powerful as an arm. Anytime it is used it should do twice the damage and always use the weapon closet to the target. Arms & legs can both be used to assist in delivering the finishing blow.


----------



## KPM (Nov 23, 2016)

Lobo66 said:


> Here's a short clip of some recent training sessions :
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good clip!  Thanks for sharing!  Nice to see something other than the usual Chi Sau/Lop Sau drill.  But I have an honest question that I hope does not start another whole round of....well, you know what I mean.   So question for you Lobo....multiple times in the clip I see the guys passing through or assuming what sure looks to me like the usual Wing Chun  Man/Wu centerline guard.  But the other thread seemed to be saying WSLVT doesn't use this guard.  Can you clarify for us?  Thanks!


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 23, 2016)

@KPM 
Thanks for the feedback.  We use wu/man with the wu sau hand next to the man sau elbow.  We are also standing frequently in the pivoted stance before entering or moving back on slight angles.  This really doesn't come across well in the video because I flimed more of the upper body.  I think there are some other videos where this comes across better, I'll try to find one for you.


----------



## geezer (Nov 23, 2016)

Great clip, thanks for sharing. The close range, strongly forward pressing chi-sau and lap sau drills have a characteristic WSL flavor, otherwise I'd have to agree with KPM that that there isn;t anything I saw in the sparring/padwork that would have looked out of place in what I train. In fact, that's what_ I'd like to see more of_ in our group. Very nice.

A question about the rising elbow at 0:24. We also use that both as a strike and a cover  ...both in our VT and in the Escrima I practice. Is this typical in WSL-VT as well?


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 23, 2016)

Hi geezer,
Thanks as well for the feedback.  Appreciate the kind words  
No, the elbow cover/strike is definitely not typical in WSLVT.  But I find it very effective so I use it and teach it.

@KPM 
At the beginning of this video, the woman working on the wall bag is standing in the pivoted stance in wu/man position.  I think here you see more clearly the position as well as the "path" of the punch :


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 23, 2016)

Thanks for sharing this clip. Nice to see how you train.


----------



## KPM (Nov 23, 2016)

geezer said:


> A question about the rising elbow at 0:24. We also use that both as a strike and a cover  ...both in our VT and in the Escrima I practice. Is this typical in WSL-VT as well?



That's a standard thing in Pin Sun!  It is a variation on our Siu Nim Tao San Sik and is called "Sau Sau" or "cover hand."


----------



## KPM (Nov 23, 2016)

Lobo66 said:


> At the beginning of this video, the woman working on the wall bag is standing in the pivoted stance in wu/man position.  I think here you see more clearly the position as well as the "path" of the punch :



Another good clip!  I always have liked the footage from the guys in France.  They seem to be one of the only WSLVT groups that have ever posted anything that comes close to sparring.  Are you a part of the Lille group?

I love the way you guys incorporate basic evasive movements as well as the high cover and low cover as needed.  We do this in Pin Sun as well. 

Thanks for the clarification on the guard.  So follow up question.....how does holding the Wu hand closer to the Man Sau elbow enable you to counterpunch any better than holding the Wu hand on the centerline?  It seems to me it would take what....a split second?..... to move the Wu hand from the centerline to this position when needed.   Yet that seemed to be the crux of that other discussion!


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 23, 2016)

Lol, here in Lille we have three people who teach WSLVT.  There is Ivan Heretynski who is a student of Philipp, Akim (forget his last name) who is in the ABMVT group, and myself, a student of Michael Kurth.  

Regarding the wu/man position and counter punching, I did post something on the other thread but I think it must have gone unnoticed or perhaps was not clear enough.  

The important thing to develop is the "path" of the punch, so it can attack and defend simultaneously. 
In VT there are basically two paths depending on how the elbow travels : inside to outside (concept tan sau) and outside to inside (concept fook sau).  We have various drills to help develop both concepts.  It's important to remember that these are "system specific", and serve to develop attributes for both training partners. 

For example, the drill that I cited earlier. Both partners are in the pivoted stance in wu/man position.  One attacks with jut/punch and the other counter attacks with a straight punch (assume both are orthodox).  If the counter puncher doesn't start with his wu hand in the proper position and doesn't follow the right "path" for the punch, both partners will either hit each other simultaneously or smash their fists together.


----------



## KPM (Nov 23, 2016)

*Lol, here in Lille we have three people who teach WSLVT.  There is Ivan Heretynski who is a student of Philipp, Akim (forget his last name) who is in the ABMVT group, and myself, a student of Michael Kurth.  *

---Ah!  You must be Sean?   I always liked and appreciated your posts in that "other" forum.  

*Regarding the wu/man position and counter punching, I did post something on the other thread but I think it must have gone unnoticed or perhaps was not clear enough.  *

----Likely got lost in the "noise."  Sorry I missed it!


*The important thing to develop is the "path" of the punch, so it can attack and defend simultaneously.  In VT there are basically two paths depending on how the elbow travels : inside to outside (concept tan sau) and outside to inside (concept fook sau). *

---That makes sense.  So by holding the Wu close to the elbow you are betting on the opponent punching so that you can block and punch at the same time on the inside to outside line.  Good concept. But honestly I can do the same thing from a centerline position simply by moving my hand in 3 inches prior to punching.  However, if I don't see it coming in time I might not be able to do this, so I can see there is some advantage to this position.  But I don't see it as having near the importance or significance that someone else seemed to be giving it!      But how would this help you in the scenario you described on the other thread?.....someone smacking down the lead hand and throwing a fast hook with the same hand.  Seems to me that where your Wu Sau is positioned in this instance would be irrelevant.  


*For example, the drill that I cited earlier. Both partners are in the pivoted stance in wu/man position.  One attacks with jut/punch and the other counter attacks with a straight punch (assume both are orthodox).  If the counter puncher doesn't start with his wu hand in the proper position and doesn't follow the right "path" for the punch, both partners will either hit each other simultaneously or smash their fists together*.

----I can see that.  But could the person not also start a little wide of the centerline and counter with a punch on the outside to inside line?  Or could he not start on the centerline and adjust his Wu hand in either direction just before punching?

---- I notice how much better a discussion goes when someone just clearly states what they mean rather than playing the "guess what I'm thinking" game.     Thanks!


----------



## LFJ (Nov 23, 2016)

KPM said:


> But honestly I can do the same thing from a centerline position simply by moving my hand in 3 inches prior to punching.  However, if I don't see it coming in time I might not be able to do this, so I can see there is some advantage to this position.



In a close-quarters, high-speed fistfight, very unlikely. No time to think and be reactive like that. You will always be "in the past". The counterpunch must be instinctive and immediate, cutting the opponent off, one step ahead.



> But I don't see it as having near the importance or significance that someone else seemed to be giving it!



Let's not forget, in the scenario on the other thread dealing with a common straight punch (what every WC practitioner should be able to handle easily), every other WT/WC idea from center guard failed and ended up with everyone accepting they'd have to chase, cover, and likely just take the hit.

That's pretty significant, I'd say.

It's part of an important theme running through the entire system, the relationship between _taan_ and _fuk_. It is one of the first things introduced in SNT.

It is also one of those subtle things about free-fighting YM taught and few received, for obvious reasons. Every frontal shot of him with a rear _wu-sau_ clearly shows it offset and not stubbornly occupying center. Once you know this, you can see it in side shots too.



> But how would this help you in the scenario you described on the other thread?.....someone smacking down the lead hand and throwing a fast hook with the same hand.



That wasn't the scenario. It was dealing with simple straight punches. Hooks and looping punches of all sorts would be a different scenario.



> But could the person not also start a little wide of the centerline and counter with a punch on the outside to inside line?  Or could he not start on the centerline and adjust his Wu hand in either direction just before punching?



No. Because with a right _wu-sau_ wide of center the anatomical limit the elbow can travel is to the center line. It won't be able to defend straight line punches coming anywhere left of center, even slightly.

Again, adjusting your _wu-sau_ before punching takes registering the incoming line of attack relative to your own position, and deciding to move your hand outside that line to then cut back across it. Highly unlikely to work.

If we look at the diagram again, we'll see this second option represented by the green line. To react like this, and accurately, when a punch is already coming takes too long and too much conscious thought. And if held wide of center, you can see your elbow will not be able to obstruct those red attack lines at all. The only option is to chase the arm or get knocked out.

With _wu-sau_ already properly positioned, it needs only counterpunch directly, thoughtlessly once _man-sau_ is lost. The forearm will have cleared the space those lines are coming through, plus the center line itself and even slightly wide of center as the elbow expands off line while the fist punches straight to target.

Simple, direct, efficient... and most importantly, effective.

Of course there's no guarantee or perfect response in fighting. But it's a matter of percentages. This is certainly more effective and reliable than chase, cover, and take the hit.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 23, 2016)

KPM said:


> ----Likely got lost in the "noise."  Sorry I missed it!
> 
> ---- I notice how much better a discussion goes when someone just clearly states what they mean rather than playing the "guess what I'm thinking" game.     Thanks!



It was clearly stated on the other thread, at least twice.

You even replied to Lobo's post where he clearly gave counterpunch with automatic defense as an option, and even described how it's done, but you still chose option 1, to chase and cover.

That's the problem with holding grudges and being stuck in argue-anything-and-everything-they-say mode. You don't see clearly.

I mean, it was very simple. There are only three positions your _wu-sau_ can take in relation to the center line. If on center and wide of center both fail, what's 3 - 2? So, what's the last option?

I was certain you would come to it if you could just calm down and consider what could be changed about the center guard. There were at least three of you guys putting your heads together, after all.


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 24, 2016)

Regarding someone pulling down/controlling your lead man sau : When it's too late, when you've made a mistake or your opponent is a beat ahead of you then you just have to survive and try to recover position as fast as possible. This is not the scenario that LBF is talking about.  And you're right, in this particular scenario it doesn't matter where you hold your wu.  But it had better be able to protect your head!  Pak sau together with a shoulder shrug and tucking your chin is probably your best bet.  Perhaps I should not have introduced this in the other thread.  I think it just confused the issue.  Sorry guys.

In training VT, if you hold your (right) wu on the center line and then try to move it left before punching you'll more than likely be a beat behind the action.  The whole point is that the forward intent of wu is converted directly and instinctively into a punch that "cuts the way".

More generally, wu and man are concepts and not fixed positions.  Wu sau is the hand that protects when necessary but also the hand that is poised to attack with forward intent.  Man sau is the hand that "tests" the opponent...like a scout sent ahead of the troops.

In VT training, we adapt a fixed position for wu and man in order to develop certain attributes and strategies. It's developmental.  It makes no "system internal" sense to do it otherwise.  What does make sense is to apply these skills and strategies developed through training to different situations in order to "test" them.

This is why, in my opinion, sparring with other martial artists (for combat sport efficacy) and doing personal defense scenario training (for "street" readiness) is so important.  You have to "contextualize" your skills.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

Lobo66 said:


> And you're right, in this particular scenario it doesn't matter where you hold your wu.  But it had better be able to protect your head!  Pak sau together with a shoulder shrug and tucking your chin is probably your best bet.



Having your _wu-sau_ already on that side makes for quicker and easier protection like this too. That counts when we're talking nanoseconds you have in which to respond.

It also often discourages attacks on a well-guarded side, making likely incoming attack lines more predictable than sitting on center not knowing to go left or right. The given scenario (dealing with a simple straight punch) is not the only failing of the center guard, it often leads to superfluous two-arm actions and reactive arm chasing to every "gate" it creates, rather than direct counterpunching with automatic defense as the basic idea, because occupying center doesn't really control space.

Simply incorporating this idea into a strategy that doesn't support it might not help all that much, though. It works as one element of an overall strategy and in concert with other tactics toward the goal.

As these ideas are introduced starting in SNT, it's really impossible that the entire strategy could be reconceptualized into the existing actions of the forms without having to change anything if it were not the original interpretation. One would be better off creating a new MA from scratch.

We have already demonstrated to folks who have acknowledged the failings of the center guard. The system coherence and functionality, plus photos of YM showing this all suggest it is how YM's system was originally. It was not a WSL invention.

This is only relevant to YM derived VT though. Mainland systems appear to be entirely different, and no doubt have their method that works for them. As KPM and NI don't use the center guard, this should not be a problem to objectively recognize about YMVT.


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 24, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Having your _wu-sau_ already on that side makes for quicker and easier protection like this too. That counts when we're talking nanoseconds you have in which to respond.
> 
> It also often discourages attacks on a well-guarded side, making likely incoming attack lines more predictable than sitting on center not knowing to go left or right. The given scenario (dealing with a simple straight punch) is not the only failing of the center guard, it often leads to superfluous two-arm actions and reactive arm chasing to every "gate" it creates, rather than direct counterpunching with automatic defense as the basic idea, because occupying center doesn't really control space.



Yes.  This is the idea in WSLVT.


----------



## KangTsai (Nov 24, 2016)

HW1 said:


> The Wing Chun kick is mainly a supplemental technique rather than a damaging one. It's used to either distract, break opponent's structure, or create distance. At least that's the way I understood it.


I think not using kicks for primarily damage is pretty wasted. If you've ever taken a hard kick to the side of the knee... It just cripples you.


----------



## KPM (Nov 24, 2016)

*In training VT, if you hold your (right) wu on the center line and then try to move it left before punching you'll more than likely be a beat behind the action.  The whole point is that the forward intent of wu is converted directly and instinctively into a punch that "cuts the way".*

---Why would you be a "beat" behind?  If my Wu starts on center and I have trained the  drill you mention to make my response instinctive, then it takes a split second to move my Wu inward 2 inches prior to going forward with the punch.  That is much less than a "beat" given that the whole thing has been triggered by the opponent pushing down the Man Sau hand as he punches.  That takes much more time than me simply moving my Wu 2 inches prior to counterpunching.   Now I agree that starting with the Wu in that position is better.  But I don't think it has quite the significance that LJF has described.  Not keeping the Wu in that position does not mean that someone's Wing Chun is "broken."   You yourself said that Wu and Man are not fixed positions.  So how could holding the Wu on the center mean that this is "huge failing"?  It seems to be a pretty minor point to me.


*More generally, wu and man are concepts and not fixed positions.  Wu sau is the hand that protects when necessary but also the hand that is poised to attack with forward intent.  Man sau is the hand that "tests" the opponent...like a scout sent ahead of the troops.*

---Following the idea that Wu is not a fixed position, and Man is probing....it seems to me it would be better to keep both slightly in motion prior to any engagement.  Let them "float" a bit sometimes inside the centerline and sometimes outside the centerline.  This would be a little bit more unpredictable and confusing for the opponent.  I don't really hold the Man/Wu as a guard.  I use slightly closed fists held in a little closer rather than extending them like a Man Sau.  And I keep them in motion a bit.   This comes from sparring experience, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.


*This is why, in my opinion, sparring with other martial artists (for combat sport efficacy) and doing personal defense scenario training (for "street" readiness) is so important.  You have to "contextualize" your skills.*

---Absolutely agree!  So how could anyone claim someone else's system is "broken" simply because they don't hold the Wu Sau in the same place?

---I will point out again, that on that other thread the situation had been set up and described as a counter-punch being impossible without clearly saying why this was so.  This is what drove many of the responses from myself and others.  Had I realized that the reasoning was that the Wu Sau was thought to not be able to simply move 2 inches prior to counter-punching, then I would have never went down the road of doing a Pak Sau instead.  I would have simply said...."I don't think that's true and such a big deal.  I would simply move my Wu slightly and counter-punch!"  

---I'll make another point as well.  Even if I started with Wu on center and counter-punched straight, its not likely that I'm going to collide exactly with the opponent's incoming punch.  Its more likely I'll slide along one side of it or the other.  Not as predictable as holding the Wu near the Man elbow, but still deflects and strikes at the same time.  In the unlikely instance where I do collide directly with the opponent's punch, then neither of us has landed a strike and the exchange proceeds from there.   So again, while I see the advantages of holding the Wu near the man elbow at times (and I actually do this myself), I don't see it as a huge failing to have the Wu on center at times as well.


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 24, 2016)

In VT drills, when someone attacks with jut/punch you are voiding your man sau immediately and punching at the same time.  Your partner's jut/punch is also one action, coordinated with entering footwork.  With moving your hand from center to the left before punching you are adding an action.  The path of your punch is less direct, having two steps instead of one.  

All this becomes a huge failing within the WSLVT specific drills.  I think you would really have to experience it to understand properly.  And I don't mean that in a condescending way, I just think it's something that is best understood "live".


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---Why would you be a "beat" behind?  If my Wu starts on center and I have trained the  drill you mention to make my response instinctive, then it takes a split second to move my Wu inward 2 inches prior to going forward with the punch.



This would be reactively running around the incoming attack line, hoping you measured and timed it right. Of course it won't be as fast and thoughtless as just punching directly. 

It's not reliable either. To measure and time it right, you will have to register the incoming attack line in your consciousness, then react to it as the punch is well on its way, and get just far enough around it. It requires too much precision and under stress you'd probably end up running too wide and just trying to block. But it would already be too late anyway.

With the _wu-sau_ already poised to fire, it will mindlessly sweep any attack line through the large space it covers as soon as the _man-sau_ is compromised. At high speeds and elevated stress levels, we need something more automatic like this.



> So how could anyone claim someone else's system is "broken" simply because they don't hold the Wu Sau in the same place?



That is not the whole argument, of course. The _wu-sau_ concept is not just a position per se, but informs us of many strategic and tactical ideas. If even the position is wrong (in YMVT), we can bet the rest of it will be missing too.

Without it, the actions in the forms that introduce this information are just given application ideas, beginner _daan-chi-sau_ becomes about sticking, following, and blocking rather than developing mindless counter-striking abilities with built in defense. Never mind double _chi-sau_ and all the rest. The whole system will no longer be functional.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---I will point out again, that on that other thread the situation had been set up and described as a counter-punch being impossible without clearly saying why this was so.  This is what drove many of the responses from myself and others.  Had I realized that the reasoning was that the Wu Sau was thought to not be able to simply move 2 inches prior to counter-punching, then I would have never went down the road of doing a Pak Sau instead.  I would have simply said...."I don't think that's true and such a big deal.  I would simply move my Wu slightly and counter-punch!"



This is not true. It was made very clear.

The very first post where the scenario was given had a diagram clearly showing this tactic of moving the _wu-sau_ sideways to get to the outside of the incoming punch then tracking back to center in an attack. This was represented by the green line, and said to take too much time, which I think was agreed on by all.

The diagram and first post also showed how a counterpunch from center would not stop the incoming punch. Also agreed on by all. A chasing _paak_, represented in gray, was a last resort and really the only option left from the center guard. WC shouldn't fail this easily against a simple straight punch after losing _man-sau_.









> ---I'll make another point as well.  Even if I started with Wu on center and counter-punched straight, its not likely that I'm going to collide exactly with the opponent's incoming punch.  Its more likely I'll slide along one side of it or the other.  Not as predictable as holding the Wu near the Man elbow, but still deflects and strikes at the same time.



In the very common scenario, as you can see in the diagram, the incoming attack lines are left of center, where the _man-sau_ would be covering. A counterpunch from a right _wu-sau_ on center will not intersect those lines at any point. The best result to hope for is a double knockout.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> Even if I started with Wu on center and counter-punched straight, its not likely that I'm going to collide exactly with the opponent's incoming punch. Its more likely I'll slide along one side of it or the other. Not as predictable as holding the Wu near the Man elbow, but still deflects and strikes at the same time.



KPM - I don't think this would be correct(?) 
If your right hand Wu arm fires forward, and it is 'sliding along' the inside of the bad guys incoming right arm (essentially and "inside to inside" situation), how is it likely to deflect and strike at the same time given human anatomy and the way elbows bend, etc? 
I could be misinterpreting your post though(?)
Thx


----------



## KPM (Nov 24, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> KPM - I don't think this would be correct(?)
> If your right hand Wu arm fires forward, and it is 'sliding along' the inside of the bad guys incoming right arm (essentially and "inside to inside" situation), how is it likely to deflect and strike at the same time given human anatomy and the way elbows bend, etc?
> I could be misinterpreting your post though(?)
> Thx



As Sean described the drill used in WSLVT, both people are in a matched stance.  So I am picturing the attacker pushing down his partner's Man with his rear hand and punching with the lead hand.  The attacker would have to be punching with his rear hand to end up in an "inside to inside situation."   If he is doing this and is even a little bit wide of the centerline or coming in from more of an angle rather than straight, then it is going to be very difficult to get "behind" his punch to counter-punch it on the "Tan line" regardless of where you are holding your Wu Sau.    Maybe Sean can clarify for us.


----------



## KPM (Nov 24, 2016)

And I'll note again, that this whole scenario is assuming things happen as in the drill.  Typically in a real exchange you aren't standing there with your Man Sau arm extended just waiting for the opponent to knock it down and step in to hit you.  You should be moving around, have a more dynamic guard, and definitely not have your hand extended out as a target!    If he is close enough to smack your Man Sau hand, then you should already be moving and responding.  So this whole discussion ends up being a bit irrelevant.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> As Sean described the drill used in WSLVT, both people are in a matched stance.  So I am picturing the attacker pushing down his partner's Man with his rear hand and punching with the lead hand.  The attacker would have to be punching with his rear hand to end up in an "inside to inside situation."   If he is doing this and is even a little bit wide of the centerline or coming in from more of an angle rather than straight, then it is going to be very difficult to get "behind" his punch to counter-punch it on the "Tan line" regardless of where you are holding your Wu Sau.    Maybe Sean can clarify for us.



_Jat_ is done as an auxiliary action to open an obstructed line with the lead hand, perhaps to continue after an interrupted punch. It would not be thrown as a technique initiated from the rear hand.

You can look again at the diagram and imagine it being a lead _jat_ and rear punch. If the defender's _wu-sau_ is already in the correct position (the point of direction change for the green line), it will be able to cut the attacker's way. _Wu_ on center won't help.



KPM said:


> And I'll note again, that this whole scenario is assuming things happen as in the drill.  Typically in a real exchange you aren't standing there with your Man Sau arm extended just waiting for the opponent to knock it down and step in to hit you.  You should be moving around, have a more dynamic guard, and definitely not have your hand extended out as a target!    If he is close enough to smack your Man Sau hand, then you should already be moving and responding.  So this whole discussion ends up being a bit irrelevant.



Of course. We're talking close-quarters fist-fighting though. We aren't standing out at arms' length exchanging punches. It is very possible and common to have _man-sau_ compromised at that range as the distance is closed. That's why we need intelligent recovery options.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 24, 2016)

I learned all the positions base on the wrist position not the hand


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I learned all the positions base on the wrist position not the hand



Elbow is the important bit for us. Not the hand nor wrist.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 24, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Elbow is the important bit for us. Not the hand nor wrist.


Then why the discussion as to the hand positions?


----------



## KPM (Nov 24, 2016)

LFJ said:


> _Jat_ is done as an auxiliary action to open an obstructed line with the lead hand, perhaps to continue after an interrupted punch. It would not be thrown as a technique initiated from the rear hand.
> 
> You can look again at the diagram and imagine it being a lead _jat_ and rear punch. If the defender's _wu-sau_ is already in the correct position (the point of direction change for the green line), it will be able to cut the attacker's way. _Wu_ on center won't help.
> .



So then each person standing with a left Man and right Wu.  Attacker steps in and traps down with a lead left Jut and punches from his rear right hand.   I see the counter-punch working as long as the attacker's punch is nice and straight and traveling down the center.  But how does it work if the punch is coming towards center from a wider angle, as in your outer red line on the diagram?  How is the counter-punch going to get behind the  attacker's punch on a Tan line when the punch is not a nice straight punch down the center?   What if the attacker has pivoted a bit and his punch is coming in at an angle practically over the partner's shoulder?  This would be very common coming from an opponent that doesn't do Wing Chun, and fairly common even from those that do!


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Then why the discussion as to the hand positions?



It enables use of elbow ideas for simultaneous defense in our strikes. If we are not starting from the correct positions, these won't be possible. It will lead to thinking about wrists, and using wrists to control arms then strike, or using two arms superfluously.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> But how does it work if the punch is coming towards center from a wider angle, as in your outer red line on the diagram?



Right _wu-sau_ would start from the point of direction change on the green line, already wide of the incoming red lines.

Anything wider is basically shoulder or past. To get a line to the head from that angle would require a round punch. Already discouraged by the well-guarded left side, and defendable by the _paak_/shoulder shrug as described earlier if too late for other movement.



> What if the attacker has pivoted a bit and his punch is coming in at an angle practically over the partner's shoulder?



You might be exaggerating quite a bit? If the attacker is in front of us and just pivots with _jat-da_, they will not be able to get that far to the side, whether with lead leg or neutral stance.

Even if doing a toe pivot from a neutral stance, it wouldn't be wider than the outside red line, and they'd be giving up a lot of space, allowing us more freedom of movement, and weakening their punch by pivoting away from their attack line.

To get to a position to attack with a straight punch from the side like that, they'd have to take a big step around us while we stand still and don't keep facing...?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 24, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It enables use of elbow ideas for simultaneous defense in our strikes. If we are not starting from the correct positions, these won't be possible. It will lead to thinking about wrists, and using wrists to control arms then strike, or using two arms superfluously.


We use the elbow and wrist. Elbow is most important but we aren't concerned with the hands at all.


----------



## paitingman (Nov 24, 2016)

Lobo66 said:


> In VT there are basically two paths depending on how the elbow travels : inside to outside (concept tan sau) and outside to inside (concept fook sau).  We have various drills to help develop both concepts.  It's important to remember that these are "system specific", and serve to develop attributes for both



I was under the impression that Tan and Jum were the main elbow concepts  in WSLVT based on old postings. am I mistaken? 
Could you clarify for me and discuss differences in the Fook and Jum elbow concepts?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Nov 24, 2016)

*Right wu-sau would start from the point of direction change on the green line, already wide of the incoming red lines.*

----Then you seem to  be assuming the punch is coming significantly inside of your shoulder line if you are getting your Wu hand behind it.  Again, that is a relatively straight punch.   

*Anything wider is basically shoulder or past. To get a line to the head from that angle would require a round punch.* 

----No it wouldn't.   In Pin Sun we often approach "from side to center" rather than right up the middle. We would do a pivot step and throw a punch meant to travel on that outside red line and go just in front of the shoulder to contact the chin.  It would be very improbable that someone could get behind this to do a "Tan line" counter-punch regardless of where their Wu hand starts from.   Also, one of the favorite "sucker punches" used by street fighters is a slightly curved punch that goes right over the victim's shoulder to contact the chin. This is just on the edge of peripheral vision and hard to see.  It is relatively tight and there is no way you are going to counter-punch it.   A lot like the boxing example that Sean gave, but tighter. Its like turning a Bong Sau into a punch.  Not that "round" just not a perfectly straight angle.   


*Already discouraged by the well-guarded left side, and defendable by the paak/shoulder shrug as described earlier if too late for other movement.*

---But I thought in your scenario your Man has been taken off-line and therefore the left side is no longer well-guarded?  And I thought you dismissed using a Pak Sau as "inefficient" and "chasing hands"???



*You might be exaggerating quite a bit? If the attacker is in front of us and just pivots with jat-da, they will not be able to get that far to the side, whether with lead leg or neutral stance.*

---What makes you think that?  A slight step as you pivot and you are there.  Standard footwork in Pin Sun.  And not weak at all because the pivot is still powering the punch.  If someone has time to step in as they are doing that Jut Da, they certainly have time to step-pivot and come at an angle rather than straight up the middle.

*
To get to a position to attack with a straight punch from the side like that, they'd have to take a big step around us while we stand still and don't keep facing...?*

---Nope, not a big step at all.   And I'll ask again.....how is this going to work against someone not throwing a pretty standard straight punch?   Do you only train to go up against a fellow Wing Chun practitioner?  The way we train in our Pin Sun we try and avoid spending a lot of time on things that only apply to facing someone else doing Wing Chun.  This includes a lot of the fancy multi-step moves you see in some people's Chi Sau.  Like some of the complicated "Lat Sau" training in WT.  We don't do that kind of thing.  

---So if I've got this straight.... in the scenario as you have defined it, the only time having the Wu positioned next to the Man elbow becomes advantageous is when an incoming punch is relatively straight and on the centerline or just inside of it.  If it is not straight, you can't get behind it with the counter-punch.  If it is coming from the other side of the centerline, then whether your Wu is near the elbow or on the center doesn't really matter because you can easily get behind it with the counter-punch either way.   So really, the Wu next to the elbow is a good idea, but only really an advantage when facing another Wing Chun guy who is going to be throwing pretty straight punches right up the centerline.


----------



## dudewingchun (Nov 24, 2016)

Nice video. 

Was that feeding drills or sparring for you?


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 24, 2016)

Thanks dude. 
Those were just feeding drills to practice various counter attack concepts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 24, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> I think not using kicks for primarily damage is pretty wasted. If you've ever taken a hard kick to the side of the knee... It just cripples you.


Only wasted if they don't produce a useful result. There are many ways to use a kick that are helpful, but don't do the kind of damage you're thinking of. There's more than one workable approach to any given scenario.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I was under the impression that Tan and Jum were the main elbow concepts  in WSLVT based on old postings. am I mistaken?
> Could you clarify for me and discuss differences in the Fook and Jum elbow concepts?



_Jam_ is a punch using the _fuk_ concept, or as Lobo would say in French, _concept fuk_.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> *Right wu-sau would start from the point of direction change on the green line, already wide of the incoming red lines.*
> 
> ----Then you seem to  be assuming the punch is coming significantly inside of your shoulder line if you are getting your Wu hand behind it.  Again, that is a relatively straight punch.



The scenario was a straight punch.

For someone in front of me to straight punch me in the head, their punch has to be within the shoulder line, because my head is within the shoulder line and _wu_ guard. My head doesn't sit on one shoulder.



> *Anything wider is basically shoulder or past. To get a line to the head from that angle would require a round punch.*
> 
> ----No it wouldn't.   In Pin Sun we often approach "from side to center" rather than right up the middle. We would do a pivot step and throw a punch meant to travel on that outside red line and go just in front of the shoulder to contact the chin.



The outside red line is within the area covered by _wu_.



> *Already discouraged by the well-guarded left side, and defendable by the paak/shoulder shrug as described earlier if too late for other movement.*
> 
> ---But I thought in your scenario your Man has been taken off-line and therefore the left side is no longer well-guarded?  And I thought you dismissed using a Pak Sau as "inefficient" and "chasing hands"???



We were not talking about that scenario here. With _man-wu_ on one side it discourages round attacks there as it is obviously well-guarded.
_
Paak-sau_ against a straight punch as in the scenario we were discussing is indeed inefficient and chasing hands.



> *You might be exaggerating quite a bit? If the attacker is in front of us and just pivots with jat-da, they will not be able to get that far to the side, whether with lead leg or neutral stance.*
> 
> ---What makes you think that?  A slight step as you pivot and you are there.  Standard footwork in Pin Sun.  And not weak at all because the pivot is still powering the punch.  If someone has time to step in as they are doing that Jut Da, they certainly have time to step-pivot and come at an angle rather than straight up the middle.



Do you have any clip showing this? How are you able to step to perpendicular to me and straight punch me in the ear without me moving and facing too?

That's how far you'd have to go to get around the _wu-sau _with a straight punch. The outside red line, which you said is the line you take, is within the area covered by _wu_.



> So really, the Wu next to the elbow is a good idea, but only really an advantage when facing another Wing Chun guy who is going to be throwing pretty straight punches right up the centerline.



None of the red lines in the diagram were right up the center line.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 24, 2016)

HW1 said:


> The Wing Chun kick is mainly a supplemental technique rather than a damaging one. It's used to either distract, break opponent's structure, or create distance. At least that's the way I understood it.



Perhaps in your Lineage.  At some points you are correct but also, at least in TWC, if I kick I am doing my damnedest to hyper-extend/break a knee etc.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2016)

KPM said:


> And I'll ask again.....how is this going to work against someone not throwing a pretty standard straight punch?   Do you only train to go up against a fellow Wing Chun practitioner?



Well, here's the thing. I recall having discussed this strategy on here before. It is not that holding _wu-sau_ somewhere special is all that is needed to create a perfect defense. As I said, it needs to be part of a supporting strategy together with other tactics.

When we are holding _man-wu _it is prior to engagement. Having the guard on one side, as stated, discourages round attacks to that side as it is well-guarded. Our stance, footwork, and distance management also tend to draw straight line attacks, and from more a predictable angle using drawing and baiting tactics.

So, avoiding round attacks and drawing predictable straight line attacks we are poised to deal with enables a tactical entry on the opponent where we are able to turn them and attack a given flank. Once in, _man-wu_ become chained actions alternating between attack and controlling space for the next attack, drawing responses and closing options. Much of this can be seen in the OP video.


----------



## KangTsai (Nov 24, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Only wasted if they don't produce a useful result. There are many ways to use a kick that are helpful, but don't do the kind of damage you're thinking of. There's more than one workable approach to any given scenario.


But kicks generally do absolutely nothing without some force behind them, as opposed to what you can liberally do with your hands.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 25, 2016)

KangTsai said:


> But kicks generally do absolutely nothing without some force behind them, as opposed to what you can liberally do with your hands.


You can't easily make someone pay attention to their leg with your hands. A kick can do that quite easily, and doesn't have to have a lot of force behind it to accomplish that end.


----------



## KPM (Nov 25, 2016)

*When we are holding man-wu it is prior to engagement. Having the guard on one side, as stated, discourages round attacks to that side as it is well-guarded.* 

---Ok.  I agree with that.  I thought we were talking about your scenario where the lead hand is taken off-line.  But Ok.

*Our stance, footwork, and distance management also tend to draw straight line attacks, and from more a predictable angle using drawing and baiting tactics.*

----So what is about it that would make someone punch so straight?  I can see where the guard as described would effectively bait the opponent into attacking the other side, but the most clear way to strike into that apparent opening would be an angled strike like a boxer's cross.  So what is it about what you are doing that would dictate a perfectly straight Wing Chun-like strike?

*So, avoiding round attacks and drawing predictable straight line attacks we are poised to deal with enables a tactical entry on the opponent where we are able to turn them and attack a given flank. Once in, man-wu become chained actions alternating between attack and controlling space for the next attack, drawing responses and closing options. Much of this can be seen in the OP video.*

---Ok.  I follow what you are saying.  But again, how are you dictating nice straight punches?  In Sean's video they are Wing Chun guys training against fellow Wing Chun guys.  So of course they are throwing nice straight centerline punches.


----------



## KPM (Nov 25, 2016)

*The scenario was a straight punch.*

---I thought the scenario was having your Man Sau hand suddenly taken out and how to defend from the Wu hand when that happens.

*For someone in front of me to straight punch me in the head, their punch has to be within the shoulder line, because my head is within the shoulder line and wu guard. My head doesn't sit on one shoulder.*

----Maybe I didn't describe it very well.  I'm seeing that outside red line as going just in front of the shoulder when an opponent is standing with that side forward.  So the punch is traveling on a line from outside to inside that goes just in front of the shoulder without hitting it and slips past aimed at the chin.  The more square you are standing, the less likely it is to get in. 



*We were not talking about that scenario here. With man-wu on one side it discourages round attacks there as it is obviously well-guarded.*

---My theoretical street-fighter it just as likely to smack down a lead hand held up defensively and throw that tight curved punch just over the shoulder.  So it would work just like your Jut Da, just a curved punch instead of nice and straight well in front of your shoulder.   And since an encounter on the street is not likely to be with another Wing Chun guy throwing nice straight centerline punches.......
_
_
*Paak-sau against a straight punch as in the scenario we were discussing is indeed inefficient and chasing hands.*

----So its "chasing hands" to Pak a straight punch, but not "chasing hands" to Pak an angled punch?



*Do you have any clip showing this? How are you able to step to perpendicular to me and straight punch me in the ear without me moving and facing too?*

---No.  Do you have any clip showing this drill and the scenario you have designed?


*That's how far you'd have to go to get around the wu-sau with a straight punch. The outside red line, which you said is the line you take, is within the area covered by wu.*

---I guess we must be seeing that red line differently.  But its your red line, so Ok.  I'm talking about another line a little further out that would be traveling just in front of your shoulder and essentially would have the same relationship with your Wu hand as a centerline punch would if your Wu hand was held on the center.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 25, 2016)

KPM said:


> ----So what is about it that would make someone punch so straight?  I can see where the guard as described would effectively bait the opponent into attacking the other side, but the most clear way to strike into that apparent opening would be an angled strike like a boxer's cross.  So what is it about what you are doing that would dictate a perfectly straight Wing Chun-like strike?



Straight doesn't mean down the center. Angled punches, like the red lines on the diagram, are still straight. Not down the center, but still straight, and that's fine. That's what we want to deal with.

It's not the guard itself that draws straight attacks, though. It's more the footwork and distance management before closing. All these tactical elements have to work together in the overall strategy.

Staying just outside hooking range, with a parallel stance to avoid leg kicks, and staying very mobile, we can draw the opponent out to reach with straight punches, even overreach if done very well.

I'll give an example to illustrate, but remember this is not meant to be a play-by-play. Just to give an idea.

With our left lead _man-wu_, the opponent is already discouraged from throwing round punches to our well-guarded left, especially from out of range. If they are orthodox and we are out of range for their left hook, but in range for a right straight, it's this hand we can force. And because we are managing distance with footwork, drawing the punch out, the punch will not be able to come from much wider than that outside red line in our diagram. It will be more in front of us and within our _wu-sau_ line.

Once entered via either given flank, we pressure to control space, and disrupt the balance and facing of the opponent, closing options and forcing errors and responses.

So, ideally we are either out of range for round punches, or in close controlling space, balance, and facing, making it difficult for them to throw such attacks effectively if at all. This way we can deal with straight punches, which obviously for a VT practitioner should be more comfortable to face.

Last time we discussed this, I posted a link to a boxing article about how to bait and force all kinds of attacks you want in boxing; from the type of punch, to the specific arm, the specific angle, etc..

Baiting and Forcing Counters

I posted that because some thought this kind of thing was fantasy. But boxers do it all the time.

A few pertinent quotes:

"*Great fighters don’t wait for their opponents’ punches,
Great fighters FORCE their opponents punches!*"

"*The best fighters don’t wait for counters,
they force the counters.*"

"*Learn how to make your opponent throw the punches you want,
so you can land the counters you want.*"

The difference here is, we're using VT strategy and tactics which are obviously very different. We aren't trying to stay at arm's length and exchange punches. But with an intelligent strategy and tactics, we can bait, draw, and force in ways that work for us and our goal.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 25, 2016)

KPM said:


> ----Maybe I didn't describe it very well.  I'm seeing that outside red line as going just in front of the shoulder when an opponent is standing with that side forward.  So the punch is traveling on a line from outside to inside that goes just in front of the shoulder without hitting it and slips past aimed at the chin.  The more square you are standing, the less likely it is to get in.



We will _chiu-ying_, more square-shouldered, so that line is still within coverage of the _wu-sau_.



> ---My theoretical street-fighter it just as likely to smack down a lead hand held up defensively and throw that tight curved punch just over the shoulder.  So it would work just like your Jut Da, just a curved punch instead of nice and straight well in front of your shoulder.   And since an encounter on the street is not likely to be with another Wing Chun guy throwing nice straight centerline punches.......



_Chiu-ying_ and distance management as described above will help linearize those punches, unless it is some sucker punch we are caught too late with, in which case _paak_/shoulder shrug is the best bet if no other movement is possible.



> ----So its "chasing hands" to Pak a straight punch, but not "chasing hands" to Pak an angled punch?



It's chasing hands to _paak_ unnecessarily, when an intercepting counterpunch would be available if the _wu-sau_ were not wrong.

As an emergency cover, we're talking _Biu-ji_, which plays by different rules than core VT strategy. A WC practitioner shouldn't be forced to _Biu-ji_ survival mode against a straight punch just because their _man-sau_ was compromised. That's a big failure.



> ---I guess we must be seeing that red line differently.  But its your red line, so Ok.  I'm talking about another line a little further out that would be traveling just in front of your shoulder and essentially would have the same relationship with your Wu hand as a centerline punch would if your Wu hand was held on the center.



You'd have to get out pretty wide for that. The _wu-sau_ can be held at shoulder line. To perhaps be more precise, it can float between midclavicular to axillary line, higher or lower as needed. Next to the elbow as stated earlier, or bicep, is a good way to describe it because it works as a unit with the lead.

See YM's _wu-sau_ here. This is correct. It's a unit with the _bong-sau_, ready to punch through the opened line.







This is wrong. They are not a unit and the _wu-sau_ position is wrong.






This is wronger.


----------



## KPM (Nov 25, 2016)

Thanks LFJ!  Nice direct responses and clear illustrations.  I understand much better where you are coming from now!  This is how discussions should be done!


----------



## geezer (Nov 25, 2016)

Correct. Wrong. Wronger. can you show us_ Wrongest? _

@LFJ  ...I appreciate the more open dialogue. Now I too can clearly see where you are coming from on this. One point. Your use use of terms like _correct, wrong, wronger,_ and so forth reminds me much of the thinking in the old WT assn. I once belonged to, and indeed, to the thinking of many groups. Discussions of how "our way is right, and any other way is wrong" are bound to offend, elicit a hostile response, and get in the way of any meaningful exchange on the subject.

Instead of presenting things in terms of _right and wrong_, may I recommend taking something more along the lines of a _cost vs. benefit _approach. For example saying something like, "We find that holding the hands in such and such a position will offer a better angle to accomplish the stated objective, while reducing the risk of eating a punch," etc. etc.

This kind of discussion avoids the whole stylistic  superiority-inferiority issue that has been such a problem on this WC/WT/VT forum lately. And it really opens up the discussion, since everybody can relate.


----------



## geezer (Nov 25, 2016)

PS. From the perspective of my VT, I would agree that the photo of GM Yip posing a bong-wu-say posture _appears_ to be "more unified" with both hands aligned to offer better protection and that the wu-sau seems better placed to punch through, simultaneously deflecting and incoming strike and hitting.

But they are just photos showing a static pose. To really judge, I'd have to see how people actually apply the techniques against an opponent. In my VT the "ideal" position for bong-wu-sau is between somewhere these two versions, a bit more towards the positioning shown by GM YIp. The bong and wu work together to create a sort of V-shaped pocket to receive the incoming strike (on the back side of the wu-sau) facilitating deflection and punching through. Less margin of error perhaps, but very functional in my experience.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 25, 2016)

geezer said:


> Correct. Wrong. Wronger. can you show us_ Wrongest? _


----------



## geezer (Nov 25, 2016)

@LFJ: OK ....Now _that's_ hillarious.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 26, 2016)

geezer said:


> This kind of discussion avoids the whole stylistic  superiority-inferiority issue that has been such a problem on this WC/WT/VT forum lately. And it really opens up the discussion, since everybody can relate.



I get you, but I don't think it's a stylistic issue. I'm only discussing the VT system as taught by YM. If I take the cost vs benefit approach, it may cause less offense but it's also too subjective.

There is right and wrong in YMVT, both in reference to what he taught and what is functional. I've tried to make this more objective by illustrating problems that result from not getting it right, and all have acknowledged it. So, I think everyone can relate if we lay ego aside and take an honest look at things.

Everyone can test out the drill/scenario and see what works, how and why, and why alternatives fail so easily where one should not.

Also, looking at the photos I posted, even though they are still shots, with explanation it can be seen clearly that awareness of the VT strategy YM taught is missing in the latter two (three). If there is still doubt, any video or direct interaction will dispel that.

Since _wu-sau_ is only a small part of the whole, I think it may be a bit more obvious now that it wasn't a WSL invention. It is too cohesive with the rest of the system for this idea and strategy to have been reconceptualized into the existing actions of SNT for example, without changing anything.

If the actions are not changed, but explanation is given, then it will be evident what the original interpretation must be. Where there is strategic information represented in abstract actions meant to establish certain concepts, others have replaced this information/gap-filled with application ideas devoid of strategy.

The opening actions of SNT are a perfect example. Everyone sees blocks or strikes of all sorts, or training shapes for these types of things, or they have changed it to add rolling arms, introducing complicated double arm actions like _kwan-sau_ before even looking at the basic punch in the system. Very illogical learning progression and not a "little" idea.

When I look at it I see abstract concepts setting up an understanding of space and attack lines which we'll deal with when looking at the punch in the following _taan_ and _fuk_ section, which are also abstract pre-punch elbow training, not deflections and controlling arm actions. Each step of the form and indeed the rest of the system is built upon in logical progression this way.

If we look at other YM derived lineages, we wonder why all this information is missing and their systems are comparatively so disjointed and full of applications, not to mention failures we've discussed. We then look back at various student testimonials of YM's temperament (preferring to teach 1 good student over 10 lousy ones, and not wasting time on people he felt not worth it) and teaching style (having students go through the motions with little or no explanation), and the lack of fighting experience of most, and we can plainly see why their systems are the way they are.

If I tell a beginner this is _taan-sau_, it means spreading hand, but give no further detail, they will naturally assume it's for blocking. If I say to them this is _chi-sau_ practice, it means sticking hands, but give no further detail, they will assume it is for sticking to, feeling, and wrestling with an opponent's arms.

Why else would other YM lineages be missing all the information and what they do have is exactly what an uninformed beginner would come up with?

I know it's hard to avoid offense when talking about this, and I'm really not trying to insult anyone. But hopefully I am conveying to you just why I have the views I do. That they are based on an honest examination of the evidence (technical analysis and comparison of teachings and functionality; YM student testimonials and experience or lack thereof; photos of YM showing ideas no one else can explain), and not just "because I said so".


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 26, 2016)

question for LFJ/Guy/Lobo...
When you guys say that pak and jut are used to help in continuing the assault, how do you determine which one to use? Does it simply depend on which side of your counterpunch the opponents block or parry or whatever happens to be on?


----------



## guy b (Nov 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I get you, but I don't think it's a stylistic issue. I'm only discussing the VT system as taught by YM. If I take the cost vs benefit approach, it may cause less offense but it's also too subjective.
> 
> There is right and wrong in YMVT, both in reference to what he taught and what is functional. I've tried to make this more objective by illustrating problems that result from not getting it right, and all have acknowledged it. So, I think everyone can relate if we lay ego aside and take an honest look at things.
> 
> ...



Excellent post


----------



## LFJ (Nov 26, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> question for LFJ/Guy/Lobo...
> When you guys say that pak and jut are used to help in continuing the assault, how do you determine which one to use? Does it simply depend on which side of your counterpunch the opponents block or parry or whatever happens to be on?



We might say most often _paak_ is the rear helping the lead get through, while _jat_ is the lead helping the rear get through. But it depends on position. _Jat_ can be with either side after a punch has been interrupted from left, right, or below, to open the line for the next punch to continue. It's also used to capture space and cover as our next punch follows. So, it isn't necessarily contingent on arm contact, more on position. In this way it's part of chaining actions in a sustained attack, rather than just chaining punches which leaves space uncontrolled.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> We might say most often _paak_ is the rear helping the lead get through, while _jat_ is the lead helping the rear get through. But it depends on position. _Jat_ can be with either side after a punch has been interrupted from left, right, or below, to open the line for the next punch to continue. It's also used to capture space and cover as our next punch follows. So, it isn't necessarily contingent on arm contact, more on position. In this way it's part of chaining actions in a sustained attack, rather than just chaining punches which leaves space uncontrolled.



Ok. Thanks for posting.
IIRC, on another thread a while ago...you or Guy mentioned that using a Bong would be (obviously) situational, but that it ballistically clears the line from underneath...and that it was based on vision vs 'feeling'...is that a somewhat correct paraphrase?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 26, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Ok. Thanks for posting.
> IIRC, on another thread a while ago...you or Guy mentioned that using a Bong would be (obviously) situational, but that it ballistically clears the line from underneath...and that it was based on vision vs 'feeling'...is that a somewhat correct paraphrase?



It can certainly be proactive once our position has been compromised. We don't need to wait for the opponent to punch us. It is just like _paak_ from the elbow to clear the line when we can't use full range. Also, if our _man-sau_ has lost the line, depending on position, _bong+wu_ should be able to respond to that, as we train in _laap-sau_ drills. But again, it's not contingent upon arm contact or passive in fighting. The stimulus to act is our own bodily awareness of vulnerable position. We should act appropriately before our opponent does, or we will end up further "in the past".


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> The stimulus to act is our own bodily awareness of vulnerable position.



Very well put. 

Also if our punch (taan concept) is met with our training partner's jum (punch fook sau concept) and he does it well, i.e. the elbow toward our center, we can respond with bong wu to regain the line.  This is the _yi wei  _bong sau idea.  The opponent's force/direction of force provides the impetus.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Nov 27, 2016)

Lobo66 said:


> Here's a short clip of some recent training sessions :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


P.B. V.T. ? I noticed some M.T. mixed in


----------



## dudewingchun (Nov 28, 2016)

How would PB WSL handle someone who just puts their head down and throws uncontrollable and wild hooks? 

I play this fighting game tekken a lot and a noob can beat me just by mashing all the buttons together and just throwing random stuff everywhere. Reminds me that in a street fight, someone can throw a wild hook which could clip your chin and ko you even if you are more skilled.


----------



## Lobo66 (Nov 29, 2016)

Distance control and footwork are the key. Maintain safe distance and let the opponent over extend himself.  This is the moment to counter attack.


----------



## guy b (Nov 29, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> How would PB WSL handle someone who just puts their head down and throws uncontrollable and wild hooks?
> 
> I play this fighting game tekken a lot and a noob can beat me just by mashing all the buttons together and just throwing random stuff everywhere. Reminds me that in a street fight, someone can throw a wild hook which could clip your chin and ko you even if you are more skilled.



Fighting is dangerous and nobody is immune to losing..it's a numbers game. Increase the % of success, decrease % of failure. Train skills that can be used automatically under extreme pressure without thinking.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 29, 2016)

guy b said:


> Fighting is dangerous and nobody is immune to losing..it's a numbers game. Increase the % of success, decrease % of failure. Train skills that can be used automatically under extreme pressure without thinking.



This is a point that doesn't get made often enough.


----------

