# WC Punch



## Kung Fu Wang

One basic WC training has bothered me for quite some time. In the following short clip, you can see when he throws a right punch,

- his body is not turning to his left.
- his right shoulder is not moving forward.
- he only uses his right arm to do that punch.

This training has contradicted to the general MA principle such as: All punching power should

- put your whole body behind your punch. This will require body rotation, hip, and shoulder movement.
- generate power by borrowing the counter force from the ground. This will require knee joint movement from bending to straight.
-  ...

What's your opinion on this?


----------



## Vajramusti

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One basic WC training has bothered me for quite some time. In the following short clip, you can see when he throws a right punch,
> 
> - his body is not turning to his left.
> - his right shoulder is not moving forward.
> - he only uses his right arm to do that punch.
> 
> This training has contradicted to the general MA principle such as: All punching power should come from the
> 
> - whole body rotation (put your whole body behind your punch).
> - bottom and then reach to the top (generate power by borrowing the counter force from the ground).
> -  ...
> 
> What's your opinion on this?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
i dont punch like that...neither do my kung fu brothers.


----------



## MAfreak

and there are people around here, who don`t believe, that a wing chun punch is weak.


----------



## yak sao

MAfreak said:


> and there are people around here, who don`t believe, that a wing chun punch is weak.



I see you are in Germany. Go in to any WT school there and ask for a demo of their punch, then come back and tell me how weak it is.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I've been watching a lot of wing chun videos and wing chun applications and it seems that when they practice the form, they don't practice the generation of power that goes with it.  I'm thinking that it's probably a way to show the system without worrying about someone "stealing" the techniques.  They show the movements but not how to generate the power. Someone can steal the forms and the technique but without knowledge of how to generate the power the technique would be weak.

I think Wing Chun has the most stationary forms out of all of the systems out there and I think that was done on purpose.  I learned today that Wing Chun and Jow Ga has a similar technique. The way that wing chun performs it in a form would never work in a real fight.   The way that it's perform in Jow Ga requires fast leg movement and the body doesn't stay forward facing. 

Many Wing Chun Practitioners that I've seen on youtube seem to think that they should fight forward facing like these guys










Fight wise there are tons of problems with fighting forward facing like this.  It leaves a lot of openings, more than what most people realize.  I think WC follows all of the other striking fighting systems, where a side stance is used which makes the person a smaller target. Squaring up only occurs during techniques that requires it.  If you watch this video then you will see what he says about taking a wide stance 14:43, but when you see him spar, he actually takes a wide stance 27:20.  

Ironically he was also misinformed about the side stance and the benefit of it, even though you see him use it. 28:38





I see some of the other Wing Chun lineages and they do exactly the same.  You can see Bruce Lee use Wing Chun in a similar manner. 

From what I've seen and have been able to understand by watching various Wing Chun practitioners and their forms.  I would have to say that some WC student's aren't getting the entire technique within the system.  If you are generating power with the punches then it shouldn't take 15 punches to the body to have a devastating effect.  

As far as the Video that the OP posted, I really think they just left power generation out of the form.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One basic WC training has bothered me for quite some time. In the following short clip, you can see when he throws a right punch,
> 
> - his body is not turning to his left.
> - his right shoulder is not moving forward.
> - he only uses his right arm to do that punch.
> 
> This training has contradicted to the general MA principle such as: All punching power should
> 
> - put your whole body behind your punch. This will require body rotation, hip, and shoulder movement.
> - generate power by borrowing the counter force from the ground. This will require knee joint movement from bending to straight.
> -  ...
> 
> What's your opinion on this?



I agree with you John.  That video of Ip Chun is just arm punching.  But maybe they were just trying to show the basic mechanics of the punch and not the power generation?  And what actually makes this work is driving the punch in with the forward step...the Bik Ma.

In Tang Yik Weng Chun the whole body is used for power generation...from the legs, through the Kua and out the arms in a coiling wave-like manner.  Ku Lo Pin Sun does this as well, though less emphasis overall and with a bit less of the coiling action through the arms from what I've seen.   

And JowGa Wolf....in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, the "Pin Sun" means "side body" because the system does make use of the "side on" stance.  There is even a "Pin Sun Choi" that is considered a power punch as a finishing move.  It is an extended punch from a lower stance in a "side on" position.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> But maybe they were just trying to show the *basic mechanics of the punch* and not the *power generation*?  And what actually makes this work is driving the punch in with the forward step...the Bik Ma.


If the "basic mechanics of the punch" does not equal to the "power generation", this can be a serious issue here.

My concern is if you have spent 6 months in solo form training like this without using "forward step", you may have develop some habit that later on you will need to change. It makes sense to me that the "forward step" and punch should be trained together during day one. IMO, even with "forward step", the body rotation will still be needed.


----------



## geezer

I would caution _Jow Ga_ not to make facile assumptions by comparing _similar appearing techniques_ between the WC and Jow-Ga systems. Appearances of movements can be misleading. When you look at a system like WC from the outside, it's easy to misconstrue the context of a movement. Good WC is a very tightly engineered system. Context is very important.

As to _fighting square_ to your opponent...  others outside of WC dislike that too. My _DTE Escrima_ instructor often chides me for that. Like you, he believes that it is better to fight with a turned or "bladed" orientation. I believe he has a valid point (which is why I train under him), but at the close range which is WC's forte, squaring up allows simultaneous use of both hands. Very useful. And as you proceed even closer into the clinch ...well, ever notice that wrestlers are also squared-up and use both hands?

Now _about the punch_ in the forms. The forms isolate and train certain aspects of punching. The punch in the form is not identical to the punch in fighting, and in my WC we do train punching with the whole body. But we don't necessarily generate force the same way as boxers, karatekas, or Jow Ga people do. About forms in WC... it's not that stuff was hidden, left out or lost. It's that our forms are not "shadow boxing" ...or choreographed fighting sequences against imagined opponents. They work differently, more like reciting an alphabet or learning the "times tables".

To understand how Wing Chun is trained, you have to remember that our training has four main components: forms, solo and paired drills (such as lat sau), chi-sau, and free sparring (guo-sau). All four areas work in a complementary fashion. If you look at our forms out of context, of course they will seem incomplete.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If the "basic mechanics of the punch" does not equal to the "power generation", this can be a serious issue here.
> 
> My concern is if you have spent 6 months in solo form training like this without using "forward step", you may have develop some habit that later on you will need to change. It makes sense to me that the "forward step" and punch should be trained together during day one. IMO, even with "forward step", the body rotation will still be needed.



I was all set to disagree _until_ I re-read this more carefully. You are absolutely right, John. And I think KPM would agree too. *Since *punching in WC (at least in my WC) gets its "body power from elastic movement of the joints, and is augmented by turning, stepping or, at the advanced levels, by "pulsing" the body (my term), then it *is *important to coordinate training in punching with steps and turns from the very beginning. This is, in fact, exactly what my instructor did. And he studied with Yip Man.


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> I would caution _Jow Ga_ not to make facile assumptions by comparing _similar appearing techniques_ between the WC and Jow-Ga systems. Appearances of movements can be misleading. When you look at a system like WC from the outside, it's easy to misconstrue the context of a movement. Good WC is a very tightly engineered system. Context is very important.
> 
> As to _fighting square_ to your opponent...  others outside of WC dislike that too. My _DTE Escrima_ instructor often chides me for that. Like you, he believes that it is better to fight with a turned or "bladed" orientation. I believe he has a valid point (which is why I train under him), but at the close range which is WC's forte, squaring up allows simultaneous use of both hands. Very useful. And as you proceed even closer into the clinch ...well, ever notice that wrestlers are also squared-up and use both hands?
> 
> Now _about the punch_ in the forms. The forms isolate and train certain aspects of punching. The punch in the form is not identical to the punch in fighting, and in my WC we do train punching with the whole body. But we don't necessarily generate force the same way as boxers, karatekas, or Jow Ga people do. About forms in WC... it's not that stuff was hidden, left out or lost. It's that our forms are not "shadow boxing" ...or choreographed fighting sequences against imagined opponents. They work differently, more like reciting an alphabet or learning the "times tables".
> 
> To understand how Wing Chun is trained, you have to remember that our training has four main components: forms, solo and paired drills (such as lat sau), chi-sau, and free sparring (guo-sau). All four areas work in a complementary fashion. If you look at our forms out of context, of course they will seem incomplete.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my senior wing chun brothers-one shot  to the right place is enough.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> I agree with you John.  That video of Ip Chun is just arm punching.  But maybe they were just trying to show the basic mechanics of the punch and not the power generation?  And what actually makes this work is driving the punch in with the forward step...the Bik Ma.
> 
> In Tang Yik Weng Chun the whole body is used for power generation...from the legs, through the Kua and out the arms in a coiling wave-like manner.  Ku Lo Pin Sun does this as well, though less emphasis overall and with a bit less of the coiling action through the arms from what I've seen.
> 
> And JowGa Wolf....in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, the "Pin Sun" means "side body" because the system does make use of the "side on" stance.  There is even a "Pin Sun Choi" that is considered a power punch as a finishing move.  It is an extended punch from a lower stance in a "side on" position.


Thanks for that additional information about Wing Chun and the name of the punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> it *is *important to coordinate training in punching with steps and turns from the very beginning.


I had learned the long fist punching method during the 1st week as the following.

- bend both legs in horse stance and face north.
- straight both legs.
- twist body to face "west".
- punch out "right" fist to the north with right fist, right shoulder, left shoulder in a perfect straight line.
- bend both legs in horse stance and face north.
- straight both legs.
- twist body to face "east".
- punch out "left" fist to the north with left fist, left shoulder, right shoulder in a perfect straight line.

The

- leg bending to leg strainght,
- body rotation,

are both in the basic training.

It's interested to compare WC punch and long fist punch to see the difference.

WC punch (please notice the 90 degree angle between his right arm and his chest).







long fist punch (please notice the straight line from his right arm to his chest).






When I taught the UT Austin Kung Fu informal class, the 1st hour was taught by a WC instructor Jeffrey Law (YM's student), the 2nd hour was taught by myself. When these 2 different punching methods were introduced to students, they all got confused big time.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I taught the UT Austin Kung Fu informal class, the 1st hour was taught by a WC instructor Jeffrey Law (YM's student), the 2nd hour was taught by myself. When these 2 different punching methods were introduced to students, they all got confused big time.
> 
> WC punch (please notice the 90 degree angle between his right arm and his chest).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> long fist punch (please notice the straight line from his right arm to his chest).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I taught the UT Austin Kung Fu informal class, the 1st hour was taught by a WC instructor Jeffrey Law (YM's student), the 2nd hour was taught by myself. When these 2 different punching methods were introduced to students, they all got confused big time.



I can see how that would happen. I have a couple of students who train both Escrima and Wing Chun with me. Our PCE Escrima program uses footwork similar to a boxer's while our Wing Chun is much more back weighted. Students have a very difficult time transitioning from one to the other. It's not impossible though. Most Americans are not bi-lingual either. Yet the world is full of multi-lingual people.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> I would caution _Jow Ga_ not to make facile assumptions by comparing _similar appearing techniques_ between the WC and Jow-Ga systems. Appearances of movements can be misleading. When you look at a system like WC from the outside, it's easy to misconstrue the context of a movement. Good WC is a very tightly engineered system. Context is very important.


 I'm 99.9% sure with the technique that I'm referring to is accurate.  The person that was doing Wing Chun referred to it as Wu Sao.  In Jow Ga we call it Ju Sao.  I saw the Wing Chun application of it and it's exactly the same function as what is in Jow Ga.  The only way I can be wrong is if the person who is teaching Wing Chun was wrong about the application.
If this is Wu Sao then Jow Ga has almost the same thing with a slight difference in hand position and stance but the function is the same












geezer said:


> As to _fighting square_ to your opponent... others outside of WC dislike that too. My _DTE Escrima_ instructor often chides me for that. Like you, he believes that it is better to fight with a turned or "bladed" orientation. I believe he has a valid point (which is why I train under him), but at the close range which is WC's forte, squaring up allows simultaneous use of both hands. Very useful. And as you proceed even closer into the clinch ...well, ever notice that wrestlers are also squared-up and use both hands?


 There is a misconception that you have to be squared up in order to use both hands simultaneously and that's not true at all. I do it all the time in practice and sparring without squaring up. You can see here as well notice the stance.





Wrestlers are squared up because they aren't getting punched, elbowed, or kicked in the face, they also don't have to avoid kung fu sweeps.  You have to keep in context why they are able to square up.



geezer said:


> To understand how Wing Chun is trained, you have to remember that our training has four main components: forms, solo and paired drills (such as lat sau), chi-sau, and free sparring (guo-sau). All four areas work in a complementary fashion.


Jow Ga training trains the same way.  Solo and Paired drills, sensitivity and bridging drills which would be like your chi-sau, we do free sparring as well.  We also do forms which are designed to train technique, mobility, endurance, and serves as a library of techniques, combinations of attacks, counters, and defenses and application use. In addition to the solo forms we do 2 man fighting sets which is part of application training.

I wish I could show you the Jow Ga Jiu Sao applications because I think you would have no problem in recognizing it nor would you have any problem in understanding it because it will remind you of Wu Sao.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For my senior wing chun brothers-one shot  to the right place is enough.


That's how it should be and how it often is when a punch comes in with a significant amount of power.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Geezer
Can you share how you generate the power for WC punches? I'm interested to know because many kung fu practitioners in general really have a difficult time in generating power.  Many just punch with the arms and it's clear when watching forms that there is no significant power in the punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Many just punch with the arms and it's clear when watching forms that there is no significant power in the punch.


The day when you can punch without using your arm (such as to put your hands behind your back), the day that you will understand the "power generation" principle. This training can force you to concentrate on your body movement and your footwork only. In CMA term, this is called "身法 (Shen Fa) - body method".


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> If this is Wu Sao then Jow Ga has almost the same thing with a slight difference in hand position and stance but the function is the same



The way you demoed it (that was you?) pressing out to the shoulder line would be considered chasing hands in VT.

For me, _wu-sau_ is primarily the next hit position. If my lead hand is compromised the rear punch comes out immediately from _wu-sau _as a punch-ready position, not to _wu-sau_ as a block.

This way the basic idea is to always hit. If interrupted it serves as defense but it is offensive. Not block then hit. Just hit.



> There is a misconception that you have to be squared up in order to use both hands simultaneously and that's not true at all. I do it all the time in practice and sparring without squaring up.



Sure, you can use both _hands_ simultaneously, but not both arms with simultaneous attack and defense functions in a single limb by using the elbows. Two arms with dual functions used together make faster attacks and provide more protection. It is as close to having four arms as we can get, so having a larger target doesn't matter if it's twice as hard to get to. Impossible in a side stance.


----------



## MAfreak

yak sao said:


> I see you are in Germany. Go in to any WT school there and ask for a demo of their punch, then come back and tell me how weak it is.


*facepalm* what do you expect of a punch without turning shoulder, hip and pushing you with the back-leg in? you're fools.


----------



## JowGaWolf

That's not me in the video.  other kung fu systems block and strike simultaneously they also can use both hands simultaneously without squaring up. Not sure why you would think that using both hands simultaneously defend and attack is a Wing Chun only ability. Other kung fu systems can do this without having to be squared up. Other systems have techniques that are simultaneous block and attack applications. For me the Wing Chun Stance isn't that deadly.  I only need to strike your limbs in order to be successful in getting pass your guard. Limbs get damaged just like faces.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure why you would think that using both hands simultaneously defend and attack is a Wing Chun only ability.



Because I didn't say using both hands simultaneously to defend and attack...

I said both arms in VT have dual functions. That is a single arm can defend and attack in one beat. Using two such arms in rotation allows for a sustained onslaught with automatic protections. Two dual-functioning arms are in effect like four. Much faster and safer, but to do this we need to have squared facing because it requires the use of elbows, and it can't be done when turned sideways where one arm is back.


----------



## yak sao

MAfreak said:


> *facepalm* what do you expect of a punch without turning shoulder, hip and pushing you with the back-leg in? you're fools.



All of those times I've slammed people into walls, drove them back 8 or 10 feet or knocked them down with my punch, not to mention all of the times those things happened to me from someone else's punch....I must be delusional.
Thanks for showing me the light.


----------



## MAfreak

hahaha i should have expected those fairy tales from wing chun guys...


----------



## yak sao

MAfreak said:


> hahaha i should have expected those fairy tales from wing chun guys...



Deny,deny,deny


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Because I didn't say using both hands simultaneously to defend and attack...
> 
> I said both arms in VT have dual functions. That is a single arm can defend and attack in one beat. Using two such arms in rotation allows for a sustained onslaught with automatic protections. Two dual-functioning arms are in effect like four. Much faster and safer, but to do this we need to have squared facing because it requires the use of elbows, and it can't be done when turned sideways where one arm is back.


This still can be done when turned sideways.

1. "*I said both arms in VT have dual functions*" - This is true in other kung fu systems
2. "*That is a single arm can defend and attack in one beat.*" This is true in other kung fu systems. A single Jow Ga Jiu Sao technique can defend, attack, and attack in one movement. I can defend against a punch, attack the punching hand, and attack the face with the same arm, same movement, and same technique of Jiu Sao. And this is done with one arm and one motion.  Other kung fu systems can do the same thing.
3."*Two dual-functioning arms are in effect like four*." Just because one arm is forward and one arm back doesn't mean the rear hand isn't functioning. This is the basic concept of Kung Fu where two hands are dual-functioning and it doesn't matter what stance you are in. I don't have to be squared off in order to use two arms.
4."*Much faster and safer*"  This is not always true. Faster is heavily dependent on the person.  If I'm faster than you then I can use one arm, to pin your arm and interfere with the other.  If I can read your attacks then I don't even have to be faster than you.

5. *but to do this we need to have squared facing because it requires the use of elbows, and it can't be done when turned sideways where one arm is back.*
I'm able to all of what you said above while being turned sideways where one arm is back and the other arm is forward. It may not be possible to do #1 - #4 with one arms is back but there are other kung fu styles where they do  1-4 with no problem while in a side stance.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> A single Jow Ga Jiu Sao technique can defend, attack, and attack in one movement. I can defend against a punch, attack the punching hand, and attack the face with the same arm, same movement, and same technique of Jiu Sao. And this is done with one arm and one motion.



That's a sweeping action from your opposite shoulder out? You can't do this effectively from the rear arm without squaring up first, can you? And you wouldn't sustain attack alternating this technique between arms, would you? Since they would be sweeping in opposite directions while keeping you squared. Would be kinda silly.



> Just because one arm is forward and one arm back doesn't mean the rear hand isn't functioning.



So how do you effectively strike and defend in one motion with the rear arm while staying turned sideways?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Other systems have techniques that are simultaneous block and attack applications.


Such as the XingYi "Pao Chuan".






Taiji "fair lady works at shuttles".






Praying mantis "belly punch".


----------



## MAfreak

simultanously blocking and countering is in many systems, i saw it in karate, taekwondo, krav maga....
and its even a good idea, especially against weapons. also it fits to the body movement. lets say the strike from the opponent comes from the left, so you block with your left arm to the outside and turn therefore your right half of the body with the strike in.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> 5. *but to do this we need to have squared facing because it requires the use of elbows, and it can't be done when turned sideways where one arm is back.*
> I'm able to all of what you said above while being turned sideways where one arm is back and the other arm is forward. It may not be possible to do #1 - #4 with one arms is back but there are other kung fu styles where they do  1-4 with no problem while in a side stance.



Just as a point of interest.......  I have admired Maha Guru Stevan Plinck for years.  He teaches Penjak Silat Serak and was the leading student of Pendekar Paul de Thours.   I have a video series he did nearly 10 years ago.  In that video series he did the Djurus (short forms) with primarily a "square on" orientation.  This is how they are still done in Bukti Negara. There were many similarities to Wing Chun.  I've seen more recent things from him and discovered that he has changed things around.  Now he does the Djurus with a "side on" orientation.  He made this change shortly after filming those videos.  It resulted from a trip to Holland where he trained with one of Paul de Thours uncles who was even more senior in the system.  Guru Plinck discovered that the older "Pukulan" systems used this "side on" orientation because combatively it keeps you safer by exposing fewer targets.  It effectively protects your center.  I asked Guru Plinck about this in a phone conversation recently and he  said you only "give your center" to the opponent when you are in close and have gained control.  Until you close and have control you protect your center by using the "side on" orientation.  Transitioning for "side" to "square" and use of both arms is done essentially as JowGaWolf describes it in Guru Plinck's Serak.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> Geezer
> Can you share how you generate the power for WC punches? I'm interested to know because many kung fu practitioners in general really have a difficult time in generating power.....



_@ Jow Ga_ --Sure. I've posted the following clip before, but I'll put it up again because I think it's a pretty decent and down-to-earth explanation of some of the elements that go into generating power with  _yat chi chung kuen _-- the typical WC front punch with the vertical fist.

_@ Kung Fu Wang_ -- John, I really liked your reference to testing your punching by not using your arm, "putting it behind your back" etc. It reminds me of my old wrestling coach, back when I was a a kid, who said that if you really mastered a takedown, you could do it with _no hands_, just using your body. And then he'd demonstrate it. He'd have us practice it too. ...I couldn't really pull it off , --but I got the point.

Anyway guys, check out when Emin punches with just his body, _no arm,_ at about 2:20 in the clip below. We call this "shoulder punch", and, when the moment was right, I _have_ pulled this off. A terrific close range technique. It can be very surprising, and shows that our punch involves the whole body, not just the arm.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> I asked Guru Plinck about this in a phone conversation recently and he  said you only "give your center" to the opponent when you are in close and have gained control.  Until you close and have control you protect your center by using the "side on" orientation.  Transitioning for "side" to "square" and use of both arms is done essentially as JowGaWolf describes it in Guru Plinck's Serak.



I think this is where some WC students are missing out greatly as well.

First of all, a squared stance gives you a shorter range so you will in most scenarios when not in close range allow your opponent to hit you without being able to hit back. This means you end up at a range where you have to chase your opponent or retreat, the later does not go well with WC, or move over to only kicking which means you become transparent.

Might not be a big problem if you have active footwork and can outperform your opponent in that area. Sadly the stationary forms make many think footwork comes secondary to WC which I do not believe is the case one bit for a short range system.

Now if you have a good understanding of long range punching which does require a side stance, or at least rotation of body, for proper power generation. This would make it obvious that WC is not hurt by learning to move from long to short range punching. I even think WSL was a chinese boxer (or boxer of some kind) before learning WC/VT.

What is the point of doing squared stance when you are out of reach. Just like there is no reason to overdo the side stance either. We have much we could learn from boxers before having closed the distance, and no I have not personally seen any issue in transition between the two despite the difference in power generation. Then again I was studying a long range MA prior to WC.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> if you really mastered a takedown, you could do it with _no hands_, just using your body.


Here is another good example. This is definitely can be called "high level" skill.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> _@_
> Anyway guys, check out when Emin punches with just his body, _no arm,_ at about 2:20 in the clip below. We call this "shoulder punch", and, when the moment was right, I _have_ pulled this off. A terrific close range technique. It can be very surprising, and shows that our punch involves the whole body, not just the arm.
> 
> []



Here at the 12:30 mark is my version of the "no arm" punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> That's a sweeping action from your opposite shoulder out? You can't do this effectively from the rear arm without squaring up first, can you?


Jiu Sao can be done as a sweeping motion or a jamming motion meaning that it can fly straight or at a 45 degree motion.  It just depends on where you hand is located when you initiate the Jiu Sao.  For example, it doesn't always have to be initiated with the lead hand.  Depending on what punch is coming at me, I can initiate it from the rear hand if required.  You have to keep in mind that the other Kung Fu systems don't have as much of linear focus on attacking the center line and as a result, these other systems create and utilizes angles that Wing Chun doesn't utilize.  Other systems also don't look at forward motion in the same way that some Wing Chun practitioners look at it.  Kung fu systems use baiting techniques and "give way" techniques (for example where we don't resist the punch but instead give to it.) The giving way or going with the flow is what Wing Chun people here have called "Force Flow,"  for everyone else it's just known as flowing with the energy of an attack as a defense or flowing with the energy as an attack. Circular kung  fu systems are known for flowing the energy from one technique to help power another technique.  I'm not sure about more linear systems like Karate.

Being able to attack and move in angles allows a single arm to cover a significant amount of area without the need of the other hand being next to it to defend or deliver punches. If you punch and I move 45 degrees while your first punch is extended then your second punch either, won't be able to hit me or it won't land strong.  Because I took the angle I still have 2 hand and 2 feet in which I can strike.  I don't have to be directly facing you in order to strike you which is different from some lineages of Wing Chun where the face  and body is always forward facing the opponent. 

This video isn't from my school but you can see in the first technique how the lead hand defends against a 1-2 jab combination.





The second technique is simultaneously blocking and striking, or redirecting and striking,  or striking and striking. The reason this varies is because that rising hand can be use to strike the opponents arms, block the punch, or redirect the punch.  The difference is in the amount of force put behind it and whether or not the person decides to rise or jam the punching arm.



LFJ said:


> So how do you effectively strike and defend in one motion with the rear arm while staying turned sideways?


Here's one example:











I've been able to pull this one off before. It's an old technique so many people don't use it or practice it anymore.

Here's one that is more popular.  Watch the 0:29 mark. the same technique is done with both hands. The forearms are blocking, redirecting or striking, the hands are striking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> _@ Jow Ga_ --Sure. I've posted the following clip before, but I'll put it up again because I think it's a pretty decent and down-to-earth explanation of some of the elements that go into generating power with  _yat chi chung kuen _-- the typical WC front punch with the vertical fist.
> 
> _@ Kung Fu Wang_ -- John, I really liked your reference to testing your punching by not using your arm, "putting it behind your back" etc. It reminds me of my old wrestling coach, back when I was a a kid, who said that if you really mastered a takedown, you could do it with _no hands_, just using your body. And then he'd demonstrate it. He'd have us practice it too. ...I couldn't really pull it off , --but I got the point.
> 
> Anyway guys, check out when Emin punches with just his body, _no arm,_ at about 2:20 in the clip below. We call this "shoulder punch", and, when the moment was right, I _have_ pulled this off. A terrific close range technique. It can be very surprising, and shows that our punch involves the whole body, not just the arm.


The video shows Boztepe using his shoulder which is what is similar in other systems of kung.  He says that the power is coming from his elbow but it really isn't.  I slowed down the video and was actually able to see the extended shoulder. The extension of the shoulder is similar to what other fighting systems do. You'll be amazed at how much distance an extended shoulder covers.  It covers more than double when you add a twist from the waist.  In the Video Boztepe starts at a relaxed position. Where his fist isn't touching the person.  He is then able to hit the person as a result of the extended shoulder.  After he makes contact, he relaxes the shoulder which brings his hand back to the relax state before the extension of the shoulder.  He probably gets a really fast return on his punches because the only thing he has to do is to relax in order to initiate a return, which is faster than putting the breaks on a forward movement and reversing direction in order to bring the fist back. Relaxing causes a natural return so to speak.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> The video shows Boztepe using his shoulder which is what is similar in other systems of kung.  He says that the power is coming from his elbow but it really isn't....
> 
> ...He probably gets a really fast return on his punches because the only thing he has to do is to relax in order to initiate a return, which is faster than putting the breaks on a forward movement and reversing direction in order to bring the fist back. Relaxing causes a natural return so to speak.



_Jow Ga_ -- I daresay you have a good eye for an "outsider" to WC, and I believe I agree with what you are saying. When we talk about the _elbow_ in WC, we are referring to it's _position_ (in front of us and downward-pointing and it's forward extension) and its _movement_--driving forward like a piston or push-rod.. Of course the actual power to shoot the elbow forward comes the triceps, the anterior deltoids, the larger muscles of the back., hips and even the legs ...a kinetic chain that goes all the way down to the ground. Of course, this linkage connecting our punch all the way to the ground is a universal concept in kung-fu, but Wing Chun accomplishes this in it's own _unique_ (or perhaps _peculiar_) way.

As far as using the shoulder, well yes there is an elastic component of the shoulder that propels the punch, especially as you move into the Biu Tze material. The hips, torso and shoulder do move with the punch (a very short distance) and then snap back, causing the arm to snap out like snapping a wet towel. You know how you have to give a sharp little tug back just as the towel extends to make it snap? We do something similar with our punch. And as you noted, simply _relaxing _allows it to rebound back to a ready position from which another punch can be launched.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> Here at the 12:30 mark is my version of the "no arm" punch.


Great video thanks.  It explains it the 90%  the way I was taught except we use our waist and not hips. I like this guy he's very practical with his explanations.  Even though he doesn't understand QI Gong beyond what he spoke of, but he understands enough of it to know how it helps him train. The way he touched the dummy and made it move is what I do to students when explaining it. I ask them to place a thick martial art pad for kneeing on their chest and I place my fist on it with an extended arm and I can knock them backwards a little. I don't do it as hard as that guy does because their really is a lot of power in what he was doing.  He refers to it as a pulse. I call it a jolt; but either way it's a sharp explosion of energy that suddenly hits.
The only difference is that in my system we use the waist he uses his hips.  I'm not sure if there is much different in power.

I just tried it the way that he stated by using the hips and what I noticed is that I have a lot more play in my knees than I'm used to. When the hips twist, the thighs twist and that causes some twisting on the knees.  I can only assume the system I train in teaches twisting from the waist to prevent wear and tear on the knees.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> _Jow Ga_ -- I daresay you have a good eye for an "outsider" to WC, and I believe I agree with what you are saying. When we talk about the _elbow_ in WC, we are referring to it's _position_ (in front of us and downward-pointing and it's forward extension) and its _movement_--driving forward like a piston or push-rod.. Of course the actual power to shoot the elbow forward comes the triceps, the anterior deltoids, the larger muscles of the back., hips and even the legs ...a kinetic chain that goes all the way down to the ground. Of course, this linkage connecting our punch all the way to the ground is a universal concept in kung-fu, but Wing Chun accomplishes this in it's own _unique_ (or perhaps _peculiar_) way.
> 
> As far as using the shoulder, well yes there is an elastic component of the shoulder that propels the punch, especially as you move into the Biu Tze material. The hips, torso and shoulder do move with the punch (a very short distance) and then snap back, causing the arm to snap out like snapping a wet towel. You know how you have to give a sharp little tug back just as the towel extends to make it snap? We do something similar with our punch. And as you noted, simply _relaxing _allows it to rebound back to a ready position from which another punch can be launched.


Thanks.  I try my best.  I'm just glad that there are people like you that don't mind sharing your knowledge and understanding of your own system because it really helps me to better understand mine.  Here's a training video of me teaching students how to generate what would be considered the first phase of generating power.  You refer to it as the "shoulder punch"  I call it "breaking the root".  From where I was standing in the video (I'm the the one with the stripe on the pants), I could have easily knocked the student into the window.  This video was taken months ago and these students still have trouble with the technique.  Their problem was that they were trying to generate power only with their arms, so I had them stop punching and made them do this exercise.  As you can see in the video he didn't get it right that day. These main problem for many students is that they would stop the flow of forward energy before contact. Doing this is like putting on the breaks before the punch lands so all of that forward energy would never be utilized in the punch.   I think maybe for some students, their mind is used to avoiding the crash of the bodies but with this technique, you allow the crash of bodies to happen without restriction.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Such as the XingYi "Pao Chuan".
> 
> Taiji "fair lady works at shuttles".
> 
> Praying mantis "belly punch".



All 3 of those are blocking with one arm and striking with another. They may be simultaneous, but they aren't done with a _single_ arm.



JowGaWolf said:


> This video isn't from my school but you can see in the first technique how the lead hand defends against a 1-2 jab combination.
> 
> The second technique is simultaneously blocking and striking, or redirecting and striking,  or striking and striking.



Again, I see blocking with the left hand, then punching with the right. That's using two arms and it's not simultaneous.



>



Yes. This is simultaneously blocking and punching in a single action with the rear arm, without squaring up... But, this is a one-off technique. It doesn't allow for sustained attack with automatic protection like this.

That is the strength of VT, the ability to sustain such attack, and it requires squared facing so that the arms can be alternated in rapid succession, striking with automatic protection in one beat.



> Here's one that is more popular.  Watch the 0:29 mark. the same technique is done with both hands. The forearms are blocking, redirecting or striking, the hands are striking.



And to be able to do it alternating both hands he has to remain relatively square on. He's not in a side stance. Plus, the main issue is whether or not we're talking about a one-off technique, or a strategy and tactic that allows sustained attack with automatic protection in each arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> All 3 of those are blocking with one arm and striking with another. They may be simultaneous, but they aren't done with a _single_ arm.


After I have cross trained the WC system, I liked to use

- Tang Shou to "bounce" my opponent's punching arm away, or
- Fu Shou to "redirect" my opponent's punching arm away.

I then punch with the same arm. For safety reason, I like to use the other Tang Shou to make sure my opponent's arm will not come back fast enough.

Here is another example that you block your opponent's punch with right arm, you then punch back with the same arm. Again, for safety reason, it will be better to use the left palm to push on your opponent's punching arm after your right arm blocking so his punching arm won't come back fast enough.






In both cases, you will end with to use one arm to block (even if it's a re-block) and use the other arm to punch. 

IMO, to use arm A to block and punch back with arm A is more risky then to use

- arm A to block, arm B to punch, or
- arm A to block, arm B to re-block, and punch with the arm A.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is another example that you block your opponent's punch with right arm, you then punch back with the same arm.



So now you've gone from simultaneous block and punch with two arms, to block then punch with one arm in two beats. Still not simultaneous attack and defense with a single arm in a single beat.



> IMO, to use arm A to block and punch back with arm A is more risky then to use
> 
> - arm A to block, arm B to punch, or
> - arm A to block, arm B to re-block, and punch with the arm A.



VT punching tactics are to use arm A to punch with automatic covering in one beat. Then follow with the same dual-function in arm B.

This is both faster and safer since you are punching with each beat while cutting off and controlling space to close recovery options for the opponent.

Requires squared facing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Again, I see blocking with the left hand, then punching with the right. That's using two arms and it's not simultaneous.


That's what the video was supposed to show.   The DC Jow Ga video shows the one arm blocking and striking, the arm is blocking and the hand is striking more specifically the fingers are striking the eyes.



LFJ said:


> But, this is a one-off technique. It doesn't allow for sustained attack with automatic protection like this.


Not everything has to be a sustained attack with the same technique.  The longer you sustain an attack with the same technique, the better I'll be at countering it.  If punch 1-2-3-4-5 is the same technique then 6 will most likely be the same.  If  punch 1-2-3-4, are the same then there is still good chance that 5 will be the same.  The common sustained attack is usually no more than 4 punches.  The brain starts to pick up patterns around 3 punches, so the 4th attack is usually something different.  It is also common to see the 3rd attack vary as well. The more continuous number of punches at the top, the longer the lower part of the bottom is open to attacks.

If your hands are continuously in a combination punch aimed at my face then your mind isn't not aware of anything else but to punch my head.  This mean I can attack low with little resistance.  The longer you sustain such an attack the more you'll be at risk for tunnel vision. 



LFJ said:


> Plus, the main issue is whether or not we're talking about a one-off technique, or a strategy and tactic that allows sustained attack with automatic protection in each arm.


 I don't do sustained attacks. Everything I do is a "one off" because it prevents my opponent from understanding any pattern of attack that I may choose to do. For example, each number is a technique and each set is a combination of techniques. 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3- ?  what is the next number. If your brain filled in 4 then you are right. Now try this. 1-4-2-2 ,  2-1-2-3-3,  2-2-2-3,  4-2-3-1, 3-2-1-?. Based on the combinations I threw, what does your brain think will come next after technique 1?  How many of the people in the room will think different numbers?  How many will think that I don't even have to throw a punch at all.
Did you even notice that  one combination set was longer than the others? How long did it take you to figure it out.


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Not everything has to be a sustained attack with the same technique.



I didn't say same technique. I'm talking about the same concept.



> The longer you sustain an attack with the same technique, the better I'll be at countering it...
> ...The common sustained attack is usually no more than 4 punches.



Again, not the same technique. Same concept of simultaneous attack and defense functions built into each arm. By VT principles, we train to sustain the flow of attack until the target is finished. We don't just do "combinations" then pause to admire, or rest while the opponent is given an opportunity to recover.



> If your hands are continuously in a combination punch aimed at my face then your mind isn't not aware of anything else but to punch my head.



No. For beginners maybe. It's called bodily/spatial awareness and thoughtless attacking principles.



> Based on the combinations I threw, what does your brain think will come next after technique 1?



I don't care. I'm not trying to anticipate and chase your techniques anyway.

I recently exchanged with a JKD guy who theoretically should be quite good at combos. But neither during the fight nor after could I tell you what combos he attempted, because I was not concerned with defending each move. My strategy is to cut the way and strike to target regardless of what he does. All I know is that his attacks were intercepted and I hit target. That's how VT works. It's thoughtless and aggressive.


----------



## guy b.

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't do sustained attacks. Everything I do is a "one off" because it prevents my opponent from understanding any pattern of attack that I may choose to do.



So if you don't do sustained attacking with automatic covering, and you don't lin siu dai da then it isn't really the case that "we do this too, nothing special", is it?

Your MA takes a completely different conceptual and strategic approach to VT. Ok with me.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I liked to use
> 
> - Tang Shou to "bounce" my opponent's punching arm away, or
> - Fu Shou to "redirect" my opponent's punching arm away.
> 
> I then punch with the same arm.



Not liu sin dai da


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b. said:


> So if you don't do sustained attacking with automatic covering, and you don't lin siu dai da then it isn't really the case that "we do this too, nothing special", is it?
> Your MA takes a completely different conceptual and strategic approach to VT. Ok with me.


My original comments were about Wu Sao and techniques that allow me to defend and strike with the same arm simultaneously.  I was never talking about trying to sustain an attack. Then when I made the statement. Trying to sustain an attack is a strategy and nowhere in any of my statements did I say that my system or any other systems sustains the attack.


----------



## guy b.

I don't think you have shown attack and defence simultaneously with the same arm. You showed blocking then hitting with one arm, and blocking with one arm and hitting with the other.

Wu isn't a block in VT, it is the next punch. VT is all about sustained attack. That is how it works; the attack is the defence.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I don't think you have shown attack and defence simultaneously with the same arm. You showed blocking then hitting with one arm, and blocking with one arm and hitting with the other.
> 
> Wu isn't a block in VT, it is the next punch. VT is all about sustained attack. That is how it works; the attack is the defence.



And again......VT here meaning WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general?  Because you seem to switch back and forth.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> And again......VT here meaning WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general?  Because you seem to switch back and forth.



I have no idea what you do in your martial art or what it is called. I can only speak of VT.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> And again......VT here meaning WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general?  Because you seem to switch back and forth.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not even that. It is guy and Lfj's interpretation of what they infer from Phillip Bayer-mostly videos.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I have no idea what you do in your martial art or what it is called. I can only speak of VT.



And again.....WSLVT or Wing Chun in general?  Because whether you realize it or not, like or not,....there are several varieties of Wing Chun.  Sum Nung Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun WIng Chun, Mai Gei Wong Wing Chun, etc.   You don't have the trademark on any particular spelling.  So....are you referring to Wing Chun as practiced within the WSL lineage, or are you speaking in more general terms?   Or are you still so arrogant as to think that WSLVT is representative of ALL Wing Chun?


----------



## guy b.

I'm talking about YM VT, as taught to WSL. Do you refer to your martial art as VT?


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> Not even that. It is guy and Lfj's interpretation of what they infer from Phillip Bayer-mostly videos.



I can't speak for LFJ, but I train with a group in the UK. I don't train with Philipp Bayer.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> Not liu sin dai da



This is the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) - block (or deflect) and strike at the same time" that I have learned from the YM WC system. I do think we have trained different WC systems.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> I didn't say same technique. I'm talking about the same concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not the same technique. Same concept of simultaneous attack and defense functions built into each arm. By VT principles, we train to sustain the flow of attack until the target is finished. We don't just do "combinations" then pause to admire, or rest while the opponent is given an opportunity to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> No. For beginners maybe. It's called bodily/spatial awareness and thoughtless attacking principles.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care. I'm not trying to anticipate and chase your techniques anyway.
> 
> I recently exchanged with a JKD guy who theoretically should be quite good at combos. But neither during the fight nor after could I tell you what combos he attempted, because I was not concerned with defending each move. My strategy is to cut the way and strike to target regardless of what he does. All I know is that his attacks were intercepted and I hit target. That's how VT works. It's thoughtless and aggressive.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) - block (or deflect) and strike at the same time" that I have learned from the YM WC system. I do think we have trained different WC system.


Thanks for the picture.  That's exactly the technique I'm talking about with the left hand.  If you turn that man's palm down. Then you would have a Jow Ga Jiu Sao  Jow  that is initiated from the rear hand with a strike at the same time.  If you switch the stance but keep the hands exactly where they are then you would have The only reason I know it's not a Jiu Sao is because the palm is up; that's the only difference.   If you change the man's stance and keep the hands in the same position then you wold have a Jow Ga Jiu Sao initiated from the lead hand.

Edit:  In addition that left hand Jui sao would have the option of actually striking that punch arm while in that position. In that scenario the left arm is both blocking and striking at the same time. In reality it's like being block and hit with 2 different hand strikes simultaneously.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> That's exactly the technique I'm talking about with the left hand.  If you turn that man's palm down. Then you would have a Jow Ga Jiu Sao.


This move is called "Chai Da" in the long fist system. A blocking arm will changed into a grabbing hand and pull your opponent's punching arm toward you. It's "block/grab/pull and strike at the same time". The bread and butter move used in the long fist system.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I'm talking about YM VT, as taught to WSL. Do you refer to your martial art as VT?



And again....there are more versions of Ip Man's Wing Chun than what is taught in the WSL lineage.   After all this time you haven't figured out that one way to avoid conflicts in discussions on any of these forums is to make it clear what you are talking about?  If you are talking about WSLVT (which is what you study) then say that.   Don't assume you can be talking about WSLVT and it applies to everyone else's Ip Man Wing Chun.  Again, that is just a very arrogant attitude.

And just to point out the obvious.  This was my original question above:

_And again......VT here meaning WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general? Because you seem to switch back and forth._

To which you could have simply said "I am referring to what I practice, which is WSLVT."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> And again....there are more versions of Ip Man's Wing Chun than what is taught in the WSL lineage.


When I learned WC from Jimmy Kao (YM's student) while I was a student in UT Austin, there were 2 other YM's students (Jeffery Law, Albert Law) who were also in UT Austin. I still remember that Bruce Lee's 1st movie "Fist of Fury" just came up. All 4 of us went to see that movie. They all said that they could not find any WC in that movie. That was many years ago.

All 3 of these YM's students had mentioned the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da)" as the following pictures. There is no way that all 3 can be wrong.






The Tang Shou may be considered as an attack on your opponent's arm. But the Fu Shou definitely is not.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I learned WC from Jimmy Kao (YM's student) while I was a student in UT Austin, there were 2 other YM's students (Jeffery Law, Albert Law) who were also in UT Austin. All 3 of these YM's students had mentioned the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da)" as the following pictures. There is no way that all 3 can be wrong.


Another great picture. If you close that left hand and make a fist then the picture would be a Jow Ga Chow Da.  (block punch).  The Chow Da can be turned into an advancing chain punch but alternating the technique from the left hand to the right hand.   If the person tries to punch using that left hand then the guy in the the picture would just do a Chow Da to the other side.  The idea execution of this technique would be to move into your opponent and advance forward while he's trying to back out of it.   Depending on the Chow Da is thrown and if any body weight was moving forward, there won't be any need for more than 3 or 4 additional attacks to finish the fight. The chain punching application is to keep the attacks coming while remaining close to the opponent.  After 3 or 4 attacks at the top to the face, the fighter would drop for a low attack as the defender would be anticipating another attack at the top.  If it's done with speed the defender won't even realize the person has dropped low until the attack lands.

You can see this similar technique in our flower fist form. at 0:55


----------



## JowGaWolf

I think that some may have the assumption that WC is 100% unique in all of it's applications and techniques.  While it's true that there are some things that are only in WC, there are also other techniques that shared and found across other fighting systems. 

This picture 





and this picture





  are the same concepts and use the same movement. The only difference is that the left hand is close and he's applying the technique to his opponents left arm.

This is what Chow Da looks like


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what Chow Da looks like



In the above picture, the guy on the left can use a 45 degree downward left hay-maker to hit on the back of his opponent's head. His left block is similar to general CMA "comb hair". It can end with a nice "head lock".

IMO, the "comb hair" is too conservative. Your hand is too close to your own head. I like the WC Tang Shou better. It's more aggressive and it's closer to your opponent's head instead.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the above picture, the guy on the left can use a 45 degree downward left hay-maker to hit on the back of his opponent's head. His left block is similar to general CMA "comb hair". It can end with a nice "head lock".
> 
> IMO, the "comb hair" is too conservative. Your hand is too close to your own head. I like the WC Tang Shou better. It's more aggressive and it's closer to your opponent's head instead.


That block is vicious.  If the elbow catches the punch the right way, it'll tear up the bicep big time.  I got to see my Sifu experience this first hand. He instantly stopped after it occurred and I saw him open and close his hands repeatedly while holding his bicep. He was in pain as well.  The following day look like someone soaked his bicep in blue dye.  He lost functional use of that arm for a few weeks and eventually had to go to a traditional doctor to help with the healing process.  Anything movement that required significant use of the bicep was painful for him.    We do the same block in our system and we can choose to move in close to it or brace for the impact.  It can be used to defend a hook in which you don't have time to advance because the footing may not be in a position to advance.  In our school we call the "oh sh_t technique" because it's what is done at the last moment when someone throws a punch that is noticed too late to do anything else other than putting the arm up like that. 

In the video that you posted you can tell that the guy throwing the punch is aware of the dangers of hitting his bicep on the elbow.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> I
> 
> This is what Chow Da looks like



Actually, that isn't really the same as your first picture.  In the first picture showing Wing Chun the defending arm is a Tan Sau.  The Tan Sau travels forward with a slight coiling action that diverts or deflects.  What is shown in the picture above is what Tang Yik Weng Chun calls "Fook Fu."  The defending arm is a "Chout", which actually snaps slightly rearward as well as outward.  It is a sharp action designed to "bounce" something away rather than smoothly deflect it like the Tan Sau does.  It is much like a Karate outward block as in your middle picture.  Tan Sau is different!  But it is still "simultaneous defense and attack"!!!


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) - block (or deflect) and strike at the same time" that I have learned from the YM WC system. I do think we have trained different WC systems.



I would agree, different systems


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> And again....there are more versions of Ip Man's Wing Chun than what is taught in the WSL lineage.   After all this time you haven't figured out that one way to avoid conflicts in discussions on any of these forums is to make it clear what you are talking about?
> 
> If you are talking about WSLVT (which is what you study) then say that.   Don't assume you can be talking about WSLVT and it applies to everyone else's Ip Man Wing Chun.  Again, that is just a very arrogant attitude.



I don't assume that other people practice the same system. But the VT of WSL is the VT of YM. I not telling anyone that they practice the same system or a different system; that is their business, not mine. 

_



			And again......VT here meaning WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general? Because you seem to switch back and forth.
		
Click to expand...

_


> To which you could have simply said "I am referring to what I practice, which is WSLVT."



There is no thing called WSLVT. There is VT, which I practice. Please feel free to call whatever it is that you practice whatever you wish to call it. I don't mind and I won't trouble you with my opinion on whatever name you choose to employ.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Actually, that isn't really the same as your first picture.  In the first picture showing Wing Chun the defending arm is a Tan Sau.  The Tan Sau travels forward with a slight coiling action that diverts or deflects.  What is shown in the picture above is what Tang Yik Weng Chun calls "Fook Fu."  The defending arm is a "Chout", which actually snaps slightly rearward as well as outward.  It is a sharp action designed to "bounce" something away rather than smoothly deflect it like the Tan Sau does.  It is much like a Karate outward block as in your middle picture.  Tan Sau is different!  But it is still "simultaneous defense and attack"!!!


When your opponent punches at your face, should you use

1. Tang Shou (travels forward) to deal with that punch so your Tang Shou hand will be closer to his head, or
2. comb hair (rearward as well as outward) to deal with that punch so your comb hair hand will be closer to your own head?

IMO, in situation

- 1, since my hand is too close to my opponent's face, it will be difficult to generate a knock down power, I prefer to use that arm to wrap my opponent's arm.
- 2, since my hand is further away from my opponent's head, I can use it to hay-maker on the back of his head with good knock down power.

I like to use 2 (travel forward) Tang Shou

- left Tang Shou travel between my opponent's right arm and his head.
- right Tang Shou travel between my opponent's left arm and his head.

This way, I can separate my opponent's arms outside of my arms, and occupy his center. I give it a name as "Chinese zombie arms".


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I don't assume that other people practice the same system. But the VT of WSL is the VT of YM. I not telling anyone that they practice the same system or a different system; that is their business, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no thing called WSLVT. There is VT, which I practice. Please feel free to call whatever it is that you practice whatever you wish to call it. I don't mind and I won't trouble you with my opinion on whatever name you choose to employ.



Again, the assumption that your version of Wing Chun is THE version of Wing Chun taught by Ip Man and the only thing worthy of being called Wing Chun (or Ving Tsun, which is the same thing) is the height of arrogance.   And you still wonder why discussions in which you participate here quickly go down the tubes!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> I would agree, different systems


I just can't believe that we don't even agree with the most basic WC principle, "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) - block (or deflect) and strike at the same time".

I like the concept that both blocking arm, and striking arm

- start to move at the same time , and also
- stop at the same time.

It takes courage and commitment to apply in combat. Sometime when a punch coming toward your face, you may just think about dealing with that punch and not think about punch back at the same time.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Again, the assumption that your version of Wing Chun is THE version of Wing Chun taught by Ip Man and the only thing worthy of being called Wing Chun (or Ving Tsun, which is the same thing) is the height of arrogance.



VT is the kung fu of YM. Other groups may also practice the kung fu of YM- that is their business. 



> And you still wonder why discussions in which you participate here quickly go down the tubes!



I believe I know why people don't like to discuss specifics. I'm not sure what your interest is to be honest.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It takes courage and commitment to apply in combat.



Exactly- it is non-optimal in terms of safety and efficiency. It requires following the actions of opponent to read when he will strike, rather than thoughtless imposition of a strategy- chasing centre, cutting the way, linking neutralisation with striking, not stopping until it is done.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> Actually, that isn't really the same as your first picture.  In the first picture showing Wing Chun the defending arm is a Tan Sau.  The Tan Sau travels forward with a slight coiling action that diverts or deflects.  What is shown in the picture above is what Tang Yik Weng Chun calls "Fook Fu."  The defending arm is a "Chout", which actually snaps slightly rearward as well as outward.  It is a sharp action designed to "bounce" something away rather than smoothly deflect it like the Tan Sau does.  It is much like a Karate outward block as in your middle picture.  Tan Sau is different!  But it is still "simultaneous defense and attack"!!!


Yes you have described the technique as correctly but that same technique for us can be hard or soft.

There's no one set rule that it has to be hard or has to be soft. If we use it as a soft redirect it is still called "chow da" The decision to use it as a hard strike or a soft redirect makes no difference. When we use Chow Da in a chain punch it redirects so it's a soft technique, if I don't use it in a chain motion then most likely I'm going to use it to damage the incoming attacking arm, in that scenario it's a hard technique.  The soft Chow Da makes it possible for us to be fast.  The hard Chow Da is quick in terms of doing it once, but if I tried to do another Chow Da in the other direction it would be considerably slower than the soft version.  If you look at the video of flower fist that I posted you can see that same technique being done with a soft chow which allows him to chain the technique. 

Jow Ga as well as many other fighting systems have both hard and soft techniques and sometimes those techniques are the same, but one is done soft and the other is done hard.  Jiu Sao is like this as well.  If I use it as soft technique then I can redirect the attacking arm and use that same arm to attack the face.  We have version where we do Chow as a hard block similar to karate and then with the same hand move forward and strike the face with the palm.  As soon as the palm hits the face we then try to catch the face and grab it as if we are trying to rip the face off.  If done correctly it should be possible to get the fingers to dig down into the eye sockets, and we'll pull on the zygomatic bone.  The palm and the grabbing would be considered tiger.    The Soft Jui Sao would be considered snake as it doesn't knock the arm away but softly redirects a punch and strikes forward.

Not saying you are wrong, just giving some more insight to Jow Ga.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> VT is the kung fu of YM. Other groups may also practice the kung fu of YM- that is their business.



Actually everyone practises VT here. Same as you and everyone practises WC.

Your system, and everyone else's system is named VT as well as WC. It is your lineage that is defined as WSLVT. To claim you do not have a lineage is wrong since you are very set on WSLPBVT is the only true VT. So the annoying part is not that you claim you practise YM VT, but making that statement is similar to someone saying "I train martial arts". What martial art they practise is important to those that are interested in a discussion.

There are many VT systems same as those are also WC systems. They are similar and many have an origin from YM. So this is why there is a need to define lineage or you make it impossible to discuss application, theory or techniques.

Another option is if you create your own style and name that style something special and trademark it. If you do, like for instance if VT is a trademarked name. In that case you can not call it VT and say it is what YM taught because YM did not own the trademarked name. In such a case you are training VT and it is not what YM taught because YM was not alive when the name was trademarked.

Life is easier for me, I train WT. It is not identical to what YM was teaching. It is a belief that it is an improvement in how to make WC/VT work for europeans. For bigger guys, and so on.

So your statement tries to imply that you got the secret juice from YM. Because your teachers teacher told you, as he was told by his teacher. Who in turn was learning from YM or perhaps told by his teacher who in turn read a quote from WSL and made interpretation as to what it must mean. It is rather funny but next time, add "WSL" for discussion purposes. Otherwise it is very hard to know if you are talking in generic terms about all lineages or specific to your WSLVT lineage or even WSLPBVT. And no they are not identical, there are quite a few interpretations already on WSLVT level.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> Because your teachers teacher told you, as he was told by his teacher. Who in turn was learning from YM ...


It makes no sense for guy b, the 3rd (or the 4th?) generation under YM to tell someone XYZ, the 2nd generation under YM that he is right and XYZ is wrong.

YM -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
YM -> ??? -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
YM ->??? -> XYZ

Do we have any forum member who is the 1st generation under YM?

YM -> you


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All 3 of these YM's students had mentioned the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da)" as the following pictures. There is no way that all 3 can be wrong.



Another Appeal to Majority? 

The majority of YM students didn't learn the free fighting aspect of VT.

The idea of LSDD has been repeatedly explained on this thread and it's still lost on you. You keep talking about using two arms against one, which is innefficient where the same goal can be achieved with one arm and is not a particularly special skill to learn.

打手亦是消手, the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm. LSDD means _simultaneous_, not block then punch. Put these together and it clearly means one arm, one beat, two functions.

Not our fault you never learned how to do that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It makes no sense for guy b, the 3rd (or the 4th?) generation under YM to tell someone XYZ, the 2nd generation under YM that he is right and XYZ is wrong.
> 
> YM -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
> YM -> ??? -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
> YM ->??? -> XYZ
> 
> Do we have any forum member who is the 1st generation under YM?
> 
> YM -> you


Does it matter if who is in which generation if the discussion is about a technique?  Techniques are techniques and sharing other applications of similar techniques should be a win for everyone.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> You keep talking about using two arms against one, which is innefficient


 I'll chop your arm off and we'll see how efficient you'll be with one arm.

Come to think of it, Wing Chun is the biggest user of 2 hands. Chi Sao





Vs Tai Chi Push hands 0:00 -0:46


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Does it matter if who is in which generation if the discussion is about a technique?  Techniques are techniques and sharing other applications of similar techniques should be a win for everyone.


If you have used a copy machine, you will know that if you copy A to A1, copy A1 to A2, copy A2 to A3, the quality of

A > A1 > A2 > A3


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> 打手亦是消手, the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm. LSDD means _simultaneous_, not block then punch. Put these together and it clearly means one arm, one beat, two functions.


You assume you can use 1 arm to deal with your opponent's 2 arms. In the following picture, you assume that your left arm can

- pass your opponent's left arm,
- pass his right arm, and
- hit on his face,

without using your other arm at all. Do you have any clip to show what you are talking about?






- When you punch,
- your opponent arm is in your striking path,
- you try to use your punching arm to neutralize your opponent's blocking arm.

2 situations can happen here.

1. force against force - Your opponent uses his left blocking arm to resist your left neutralized arm.
2. yield and borrow force - your opponent yields into your left neutralizing force, borrows your neutralizing force, add on his force, and use his back right arm to redirect your left punching arm away.

In both cases, to assume that you can only use your left arm to achieve neutralizing and striking, and also pass his left defense arm and right defense arm, it's not an easy task. The reason is simple. Your opponent can neutralize your neutralizing force too.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> VT is the kung fu of YM. Other groups may also practice the kung fu of YM- that is their business.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I know why people don't like to discuss specifics. I'm not sure what your interest is to be honest.



So again,.....you seem to be saying that when you write "VT", you are referring to WSLVT.  I've said it more than once, if you just took the effort to make 3 extra key strokes you would avoid a lot of conflict on these forums.  But then, you don't care, do you? You like stirring people up and causing problems, don't you??


----------



## KPM

_[Another Appeal to Majority?_

---You guys are really something!  Talk about arrogant!   John mentioned 3 different students of Ip Man who understood a Tan Da as expressing LSDD.   That certainly shows that SOMEONE taught them this concept this  way.   And they said it was Ip Man.  This is just as good as you saying that WSL said something specific so it must be the gospel truth.  Yet John has 3 saying the same thing.  So yes, it is an appeal to majority, and it is perfectly valid!


_The majority of YM students didn't learn the free fighting aspect of VT._

---Again, were you there?


_The idea of LSDD has been repeatedly explained on this thread and it's still lost on you. You keep talking about using two arms against one, which is innefficient where the same goal can be achieved with one arm and is not a particularly special skill to learn_.

---BS.  Nothing is being lost on John or anyone else here.  Everyone here but you and Guy just has a less narrow understanding of LSDD.  But because WSLVT doesn't have Tan Da (at least according to you), then a Tan Da cannot possibly use the concept of LSDD as far you are concerned. And a Tan Da does not use two arms against one.  It uses one arm against one while the other arm is striking through the opening created.  But I've got news for you.....more appeal to majority here.....both Pin Sun Wing Chun and Tang Yik Weng Chun have a Tan Da and consider it simultaneous attack and defense!   So just maybe the complete understanding of the concept is actually lost on you!  

_
Not our fault you never learned how to do that._

---John never said he didn't learn to do that.  He only said he has a wider understanding of how the concept can be applied than you do!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So yes, it is an appeal to majority, and it is perfectly valid!



lol



> _The majority of YM students didn't learn the free fighting aspect of VT._
> 
> ---Again, were you there?



Don't need to have been. Just look at what they teach.



> And a Tan Da does not use two arms against one.  It uses one arm against one while the other arm is striking through the opening created.



That's two arms to deal the opponent's one punch when one arm could do the same.



> But I've got news for you.....more appeal to majority here.....both Pin Sun Wing Chun and Tang Yik Weng Chun have a Tan Da and consider it simultaneous attack and defense!   So just maybe the complete understanding of the concept is actually lost on you!



That is simultaneous, but it's not a particularly special skill to develop. LSDD is referring to something more developed and unique to VT fighting tactics.



> ---John never said he didn't learn to do that.  He only said he has a wider understanding of how the concept can be applied than you do!



No. It's very clear he has never heard of it and has no idea how it might work.


----------



## KPM

_That's two arms to deal the opponent's one punch when one arm could do the same._

----Show me how you are going to defend and land a punch at the same time with the same arm against an opponent throwing a wide punch from the outside. 



_That is simultaneous, but it's not a particularly special skill to develop. LSDD is referring to something more developed and unique to VT fighting tactics._

----So let me get this right, because I can never tell with you guys.   Are you saying that in your WSLVT, defending with one arm while striking into the opening created at the same time with the other arm is something you don't do and don't consider LSDD?



_No. It's very clear he has never heard of it and has no idea how it might work._

---No.  The only thing becoming clear is that you have a very narrow view of what Wing Chun is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> That's two arms to deal the opponent's one punch when one arm could do the same.


When you use left Tang Shou to push your opponent's left arm to his right, his own leading left arm will also jam his own back right arm. So, you are using 1 arm to control your opponent's 2 arms (use his leading arm to jam his back arm). This give you a free right arm to strike through your opponent's "left side door" that he has no arm to deal with your strike.

Of course, since you are already on your opponent's "left side door", you can use your left hand to strike on his face. The problem is if your opponent change his left arm to Bong Shou, he can stop your left arm face punch. But if you use your right hand to push on his left elbow joint toward his right, it can free your left arm to strike on his face.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> No. It's very clear he has never heard of it and has no idea how it might work.


Through the online discussion, I try not to use words such as, "You don't know ...". I will never do this to others. I don't appreciate others do it to me. I don't know you and you don't know me. I don't know what you know and you don't know what I know.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> The only thing becoming clear is that you have a very narrow view of what Wing Chun is.


I'm not sure who this is referring to, but this is what I see when speaking to some people who do Wing Chun.  I've had discussions with people from other martial art systems and they are more willing to accept that there are variations in the applications of techniques.  By this I mean that one Wing Chun lineage may have a very squared off stance while another lineage may use the side stance more.  Instead of accepting that both are Wing Chun and that one lineage just uses a different stance to apply Wing Chun, the Wing Chun practitioners will get into a heated debate about what is "Real Wing Chun" 

One technique, One stance, One tactic, does not make or break a system, nor does it define one.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use left Tang Shou to push your opponent's left arm to his right, his own leading left arm will also jam his own back right arm. So, you are using 1 arm to control your opponent's 2 arms (use his leading arm to jam his back arm). This give you a free right arm to strike through your opponent's "left side door" that he has no arm to deal with your strike.
> 
> Of course, since you are already on your opponent's "left side door", you can use your left hand to strike on his face. The problem is if your opponent change his left arm to Bong Shou, he can stop your face punch. But if you use your right hand to push on his left elbow joint toward his right, it can free your left arm to strike on his face.


I give up.  People only see what they want them to see.  If LFJ's analysis of the illustration that you posted is limited then so will LFJ's martial art skill.  In honesty everyone should be seeing more than a simultaneous block and punch as the only available strike.  If a person is caught in that position, then it won't matter if that blocking hand strikes or not because there are so many other better options that can be done after those ribs are broken.lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> One technique, One stance, One tactic, does not make or break a system, nor does it define one.


As I have said, there are only 4 types of hand skills that exist on this planet among all MA systems. Those are:

1. Block with one arm and strike with another arm (either at the same time or one after another).
2. Strike with one arm, when your opponent block it, you use the other arm to re-block his blocking arm, free your striking arm, you then strike with the same arm (this is called "single switching hands" in general).
3. Use the same arm to block/deflect and strike.
4. Dodge and strike back without blocking.

All 4 methods have it's value.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> If a person is caught in that position, then it won't matter if that blocking hand strikes or not because there are so many other better options that can be done after those ribs are broken.lol.


It's always better to use 1 offense hand and 1 defense hand. For example, when you opponent throws a hook punch at your head. You dodge under it and then uppercut him. You are using 1 arm to deal with his 1 arm. The issue is, when you dodge his hook, since his elbow joint is free, he can elbow strike on the side of your head. In order to prevent this from happening, you can use your other hand to push on his elbow joint (now you are using 2 hands). If your opponent also use his other hand to push away your elbow pushing hand (now he also uses 2 hands), he can still elbow strikes at your head.


----------



## Eric_H

Very late to this party, but I wouldn't call what is demonstrated in the original video as a characteristic WC punch. I also don't believe teaching it that way in forms is helpful. 

Simultaneous offense and defense must be a possibility in both one hand and two hand engagements. Being able to play both roles on one bridge is a far more desirable, and harder to achieve skill wise IMO.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> _That's two arms to deal the opponent's one punch when one arm could do the same._
> 
> ----Show me how you are going to defend and land a punch at the same time with the same arm against an opponent throwing a wide punch from the outside.



I said _"when one arm could do the same"_. There is a right and wrong time for everything in VT. What I will never do, though, is let a _taan-sau_ run out to meet a punch, unless I want to get knocked out.



> ----So let me get this right, because I can never tell with you guys.   Are you saying that in your WSLVT, defending with one arm while striking into the opening created at the same time with the other arm is something you don't do and don't consider LSDD?



No. As I said, there is a right and wrong time for everything. We can use helping actions like _paak-da_ or _jat-da_, but these are generally secondary actions. And again, that's not a particularly special skill to develop. And so LSDD is not referring to such a common idea that doesn't need a maxim.

LSDD is the idea of _da sau jik si siu sau_, "the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm". This is a unique skill that takes a lot of work to develop and is what much of the VT system is focused on as central to the fighting strategy and tactics, hence the maxim.



> ---No.  The only thing becoming clear is that you have a very narrow view of what Wing Chun is.



I'm not the one that has a limited view of simultaneous attack and defense requiring two arms. I just don't do superfluous actions.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Through the online discussion, I try not to use words such as, "You don't know ...". I will never do this to others. I don't appreciate others do it to me. I don't know you and you don't know me. I don't know what you know and you don't know what I know.



I wouldn't presume to know what you know, but based on what you've presented in this thread I can see one thing you don't know. This is not a personal attack, and it's not your fault if you've never encountered the idea.

But you make the bold assertion below that only 4 types of hand skills exist on this planet among all MA systems, as if you've studied every style in existence.

But you have described #3 as non-simultaneous block _then_ strike. You are still missing simultaneous deflection and striking with a single arm in a single beat, and seem totally confused as to how that might be done.

Again, not a personal attack. You just demonstrate that you are unaware of this skill, but it exists.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> As I have said, there are only 4 types of hand skills that exist on this planet among all MA systems. Those are:
> 
> 1. Block with one arm and strike with another arm (either at the same time or one after another).
> 2. Strike with one arm, when your opponent block it, you use the other arm to re-block his blocking arm, free your striking arm, you then strike with the same arm (this is called "single switching hands" in general).
> 3. Use the same arm to block/deflect and strike.
> 4. Dodge and strike back without blocking.


----------



## Phobius

Be all of this as it may, the simultaneous attack and defend using a single arm. It is not rocket science but to be honest I do not give it my entire life to study it either in all the finest details like LFJ seems to do in his lineage.

Problem is that it sounds to me as if LFJ is only focusing on this one type of attack. It is this one sided devotion to a single aspect that should bother everyone. We can not learn just one thing in order to be good at what we do. We always need to switch up our game.

Of course for self defense it is correct I believe to focus on a single type of punch and just do it over and over again til you can name yourself master of it. Most often that will win you the fight, but if all we wanted was self defense we would not be on this forum calling ourselves martial artists.

So LFJ, how much focus do you put on other types of punches?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> It is not rocket science but to be honest I do not give it my entire life to study it either in all the finest details like LFJ seems to do in his lineage.
> 
> Problem is that it sounds to me as if LFJ is only focusing on this one type of attack. It is this one sided devotion to a single aspect that should bother everyone.



It is given priority because it is the most simple, direct, and efficient method. These are principles VT fighting strategy is based on.

But there is no one-sided devotion when facing reality. Everything else in the system is about when the core idea is interrupted.

Other lineages, from my point of view, put the cart before the horse by using secondary actions as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles.

But in many cases, they lack the primary idea altogether. Secondary ideas are all they have. Yet... I have the "narrow view" of VT.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> It is given priority because it is the most simple, direct, and efficient method. These are principles VT fighting strategy is based on.
> 
> But there is no one-sided devotion when facing reality. Everything else in the system is about when the core idea is interrupted.
> 
> Other lineages, from my point of view, put the cart before the horse by using secondary actions as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles.
> 
> But in many cases, they lack the primary idea altogether. Secondary ideas are all they have. Yet... I have the "narrow view" of VT.


Ok, then what is your secondary idea?


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> Ok, then what is your secondary idea?



Helping actions to open the way for continued striking.

This is where two arms may become necessary, rather than superfluous.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I don't know what you mean by helping actions. punches, kicks, sweeps, grabs? none of the above?


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know what you mean by helping actions. punches, kicks, sweeps, grabs? none of the above?



E.g. _paak-da _or _jat-da_.

VT fighting is very simple by design. In the majority of cases only three actions will be necessary; the dual-functioning punch, _paak_, and _jat_. The latter two open the way when the punch has been interrupted, and they are always accompanied with another punch. Most everything else is there if we've lost position and need to get back to the primary idea of... punching.


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> E.g. _paak-da _or _jat-da_.
> 
> VT fighting is very simple by design. In the majority of cases only three actions will be necessary; the dual-functioning punch, _paak_, and _jat_. The latter two open the way when the punch has been interrupted, and they are always accompanied with another punch. Most everything else is there if we've lost position and need to get back to the primary idea of... punching.


So what would be the response if I sweep you?


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> So what would be the response if I sweep you?



Who knows? It would depend entirely on the circumstance. Sweep is a pretty general term. Usually, by the time I'm close enough to sweep, the opponent is already too overwhelmed and not in a good position to sweep effectively anyway.

The last guy I fought tried to sweep me while fighting for a grab or control up top. Rather than tie up with him I just cleared to the outside and knocked him into the elliptical machine. Afterward he asked me why he was unable to sweep me and if I was using some rooting technique or something. But all I did was combine simple footwork and punching.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I'm not the one that has a limited view of simultaneous attack and defense requiring two arms. I just don't do superfluous actions.



No, it sounded like you were saying you wouldn't do two arms at once.  Like I said, sometimes its hard to tell with you guys because you just denounce what someone else is saying without really explaining where you are coming from.  But what is clear, is that you have a much narrower view of what "LSDD" refers to that everyone else here.  I see it as having several layers.  One of which is defending with one arm while striking with the other at the same time.  Another is defending and striking at the same time with the same arm.  Another is angling off-line with a strike at just the right moment so that you don't even engage the striking arm at all.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I
> But you have described #3 as non-simultaneous block _then_ strike. You are still missing simultaneous deflection and striking with a single arm in a single beat, and seem totally confused as to how that might be done.
> 
> .



I don't read it that way at all.   You are referring to John's #1.   John's  #3 actually says:

_3. Use the same arm to block/deflect and strike._

Just because he didn't include the qualifier..."at the same time", this  doesn't mean he is NOT referring to that.  He already has the "block then strike" covered in #1, so obviously #3 is block and strike at the same time....with the same arm.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I don't read it that way at all.   You are referring to John's #1.   John's  #3 actually says:
> 
> _3. Use the same arm to block/deflect and strike._
> 
> Just because he didn't include the qualifier..."at the same time", this  doesn't mean he is NOT referring to that.  He already has the "block then strike" covered in #1, so obviously #3 is block and strike at the same time....with the same arm.



No.

#1 is block and strike at the same time with two arms.

#3 is block then strike with the same arm.

He already described what he meant and it was not simultaneous.

See this post. 

"_3. block and punch back by using the same arm - Your opponent punch, you use right 扶手(Fu Shou) to block his punch. Redirect his punching arm to pass your face (sensing and manipulating arms). You then punch back with the same right hand._"


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> No, it sounded like you were saying you wouldn't do two arms at once.



When superfluous I would not.

Most WC, from my point of view, does secondary actions as a first response, violating all 3 of the core principles of VT fighting strategy.



> But what is clear, is that you have a much narrower view of what "LSDD" refers to that everyone else here.  I see it as having several layers.  One of which is defending with one arm while striking with the other at the same time.  Another is defending and striking at the same time with the same arm.  Another is angling off-line with a strike at just the right moment so that you don't even engage the striking arm at all.



Your 1st idea is simultaneous attack and defense, but LSDD refers to a single specific type of action that simultaneously displaces as it strikes. That is the unique skill and tactic of VT, hence the maxim, further spelled out by "_da sau jik si siu sau_". The striking arm is also the neutralizing arm. Can't get any clearer than that.

Even when using a helping action, the striking arm should still possess this dual function in case there is further obstruction along its path. That is LSDD still referring this quality in a single arm.

You call it narrow. I call it clearly defined VT strategy and tactics. You get that in a coherent system. Ambiguity in core concepts is for the confused.

Your 3rd idea doesn't work because _siu_ means to eliminate, to dispel, or to remove. This requires acting upon the limb. Dodging doesn't accomplish that.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Your system, and everyone else's system is named VT as well as WC. It is your lineage that is defined as WSLVT. To claim you do not have a lineage is wrong since you are very set on WSLPBVT is the only true VT. So the annoying part is not that you claim you practise YM VT



My system is called VT. It is the system taught by YM. There is no special different thing called WSLVT- there is only VT, and this is what I practice. It is your business if you also practice VT



Phobius said:


> Life is easier for me, I train WT. It is not identical to what YM was teaching. It is a belief that it is an improvement in how to make WC/VT work for europeans. For bigger guys, and so on.



Ok, so then you do not practice VT. That is fine. Why then are you worried if I do?


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It makes no sense for guy b, the 3rd (or the 4th?) generation under YM to tell someone XYZ, the 2nd generation under YM that he is right and XYZ is wrong.
> 
> YM -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
> YM -> ??? -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
> YM ->??? -> XYZ
> 
> Do we have any forum member who is the 1st generation under YM?
> 
> YM -> you



If we both claim to practice VT then coherence and non contradiction according to the defining ideas of the system are all that matters. Do you practice VT?


----------



## KPM

_My system is called VT. It is the system taught by YM. There is no special different thing called WSLVT- there is only VT, and this is what I practice._

---This is not true.  You don't know exactly what YM taught.  If you think WSL made no updates or adaptations or personal touches to his Wing Chun then you are delusional.  And plenty of people in your system refer to it as "WSLVT."   So what makes you so special that you think otherwise?

---And again....since you seem to continue to miss the point.....the "VT" spelling is not unique or special.  No one has a copyright on that spelling as specifically referring to Ip Man Wing Chun.  So for you to continue to use it as a very specific thing is wrong and is only going to continue to credit confusion and discord.  More people refer to Ip Man's system as "Wing Chun" than people that say "Ving Tsun."


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> If you think WSL made no updates or adaptations or personal touches to his Wing Chun then you are delusional.



Why would I choose to disbelieve what WSL said?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Why would I choose to disbelieve what WSL said?



Why would you choose to disbelieve what 3 people that were also Ip Man students told John Wang?   We've had this discussion in the past as well.


----------



## guy b.

JowGaWolf said:


> I've had discussions with people from other martial art systems and they are more willing to accept that there are variations in the applications of techniques.
> 
> One technique, One stance, One tactic, does not make or break a system, nor does it define one.



YM VT is a very tightly defined and coherent system. It is defined by the ideas that it is based upon. Contradict the fundamental conceptual base of the system and it is not the system any more. This is what a system is. 

Usually in Chinese MA when someone changes something they credit and rename the system after themselves, or a real or imaginary ancestor.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Why would you choose to disbelieve what 3 people that were also Ip Man students told John Wang?



I have no knowledge of John Wang or any of those three people. I do know what WSL said though. Why would I disbelieve him?


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> I have no knowledge of John Wang or any of those three people. I do know what WSL said though. Why would I disbelieve him?



You talk as if you were WSL's _todai_. And a very devoted one at that! 

...Did you ever even meet WSL?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> No.
> 
> #1 is block and strike at the same time with two arms.
> 
> #3 is block then strike with the same arm.
> 
> He already described what he meant and it was not simultaneous.
> 
> See this post.
> 
> "_3. block and punch back by using the same arm - Your opponent punch, you use right 扶手(Fu Shou) to block his punch. Redirect his punching arm to pass your face (sensing and manipulating arms). You then punch back with the same right hand._"



Do we agree that your arm has to deal with your opponent's

- leading arm,
- back arm,
- before your hand can reach to his face?

Do we also agree that your hand has to pass your opponent's

- wrist gate,
- elbow gate,
- before your hand can reach to his shoulder gate (face)?







In the previous 哈拳(Ha Chuan) example that I gave, I stated, "Use a hook punch toward your opponent's head, If he blocks, you then change your circular punch into a linear punch and use the same arm to punch on his chest. Just as the _扶手(Fu Shou) example, both are not linear. The reason is simple. Your opponent's arms in in your striking path and you have to deal with it first. If you use linear punch, you fist will hit on your opponent's arm instead._

If your opponent's arm is in your striking path, your striking arm has to block (or deflect, or neutralize, or ...) your opponent's arm first before your hand can reach to his face. It's in 1 strike but there is still one before the other.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Why would you choose to disbelieve what 3 people that were also Ip Man students told John Wang?   We've had this discussion in the past as well.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A broken telephone perhaps.
In any case...dropping Ip Man's name does not necessariyl capture I*p Man wing chun. There aere many people who attended Ip Man's group classes.
Relatively few were taught in detail personally by Ip Man extensively.Ho Kam Ming and WSL were. But there are some differencesw between them.


----------



## Phobius

There is also the funny belief here that YM taught everyone the same. That the system is so stale that it can not survive any change in teaching. So specific and vulnerable that any added drills would make it incoherent.

When I say I learn something different, I am simply stating that YM WC/VT was taught to his students. I am learning what my sifu is teaching me and he is not YM. Therefore I do not study YM WC/VT. I can not say what changes he made to the system that I would need because I can not be sure YM would teach me the same way my sifu does. He decides what path is best for me during development, my path is not the same as another and as such if the path he set me on is not the same that YM would set me on, I am not learning YM WC/VT.

Personally I think a system that needs to be taught exactly the same way to all people no matter their personalities, physical abilities, heights or other traits in order to be good, well I find that sad and quite honestly a little too close to fanatical. Not talking about our WSLVT devotees here but rather in general. If they claim their system needs to be so stale in order to be VT then that is their thought on the matter. I am sure there are other students in their classes that are taught differently or picks up different things during class.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent's arm is in your striking path, your striking arm has to block (or deflect, or neutralize, or ...) your opponent's arm first before your hand can reach to his face. It's in 1 strike but there is still one before the other.



This is absolutely correct, John. In our Yip Man VT we teach that _simultaneous defense and counter _(lin siu dai dar) uses two hands moving at precisely the same time to defend and attack, as with tan-da, gaun-da, pak-da, etc.

For us, _da sau jik si siu sau_ is usually associated with using one hand to defend and counter, as when your punch deflects your opponenent's punch and proceeds to hit. The deflection comes an instant before the strike hits it's target, so although extremely efficient, this is _not_ precisely _simultaneous._

Both are excellent illustrations of VT's efficiency. Both are good VT. So what the heck are we arguing about???


----------



## Danny T

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Relatively few were taught in detail personally by Ip Man extensively.Ho Kam Ming and WSL were. But there are some differences between them.


Whhhaaaatttttt!!!!
There are differences between them...That certainly can not be...surely you jest!


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> I am learning what my sifu is teaching me and he is not YM. Therefore I do not study YM WC/VT. I can not say what changes he made to the system



No changes have been made to what remains YM VT since YM. Therefore it is YM VT, not the VT of whoever is teaching it. If changes have been made then it is not YM VT. Simple.



Phobius said:


> He decides what path is best for me during development, my path is not the same as another and as such if the path he set me on is not the same that YM would set me on, I am not learning YM WC/VT.



Ok



Phobius said:


> Personally I think a system that needs to be taught exactly the same way to all people no matter their personalities, physical abilities, heights or other traits in order to be good, well I find that sad



The same training progression is used every time in VT because the timing and order are important parts of the attribute and skill development of the system


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> No changes have been made to what remains YM VT since YM. Therefore it is YM VT, not the VT of whoever is teaching it. If changes have been made then it is not YM VT. Simple.



Well for one thing, I'm told that Grandmaster Yip was very traditional and only taught Chinese. So the very fact that you are learning VT, and in a lineage that includes other non-Chinese instructors, teaching in foreign tongues is a major deviation from Yip Man's  teaching! How much else was changed?



guy b. said:


> The same training progression is used every time in VT because the timing and order are important parts of the attribute and skill development of the system



Grandmaster Yip used different training progressions and different versions of the forms at different periods of his life ...the Fo'shan period, early Hong Kong period, and the later period in Hong Kong. Yet it was all YM VT.

WSL best known followers apparently do things differently, yet they all practice WSL VT. And you continue to spout this stuff. Guy, you really have lost all credibility on this forum ...at least apart from your one co-religionist.

BTW are you still engaging in that regular full contact bare-knuckle sparring every couple of weeks that you used to talk about? If so I'd be careful about the head shots. Too many hard hits can cause a lot of problems, including a deterioration of reasoning capacity. We wouldn't want _that_ to happen.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Relatively few were taught in detail personally by Ip Man extensively.Ho Kam Ming and WSL were. But there are some differencesw between them.



Yes.  There are differences between them.  Ho Kam Ming's Wing Chun is not the same as Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun.  So by Guy's definition, HKM's Wing Chun is not Ip Man's "VT" at all.    So why are you encouraging him?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> No changes have been made to what remains YM VT since YM. Therefore it is YM VT, not the VT of whoever is teaching it. If changes have been made then it is not YM VT. Simple.



I think you are probably at least partially correct!  But that means that Ip Man Wing Chun died with Ip Man in 1972!  If you think that WSL was doing exactly what Ip Man was doing....again....you are delusional.   All you have to do is compare footage of WSL to that footage of Ip Man shot shortly before his death.   WSL maintained essentially a 50/50 weight distro.  Ip Man is clearly weighting more to one leg than the another in those videos.  So there is a difference right there!


----------



## LFJ

Ignoring KPM's trivial diversion...



geezer said:


> In our Yip Man VT we teach that _simultaneous defense and counter _(lin siu dai dar) uses two hands moving at precisely the same time to defend and attack, as with tan-da, gaun-da, pak-da, etc.
> 
> For us, _da sau jik si siu sau_ is usually associated with using one hand to defend and counter, as when your punch deflects your opponenent's punch and proceeds to hit. The deflection comes an instant before the strike hits it's target, so although extremely efficient, this is _not_ precisely _simultaneous._



The problem you have, as well as KPM and others, is that you use imperfect English translations to fit the terminology of VT to whatever you need it to say.

In English, we say "simultaneous attack and defense" or "simultaneous defense and counter" because we prefer a terse expression to match the maxim in Chinese. But English is not as expressive or exact in so few words as Chinese. _Lin siu daai da_ is in fact not saying "simultaneous" and not saying "defense" in general to allow for dodging to be a possible meaning.

I shall explain.

"_Lin... daai..._" is a common Chinese grammatical structure, and no part of it means "precisely simultaneous" or even just "simultaneous".

It means "_both... and..._", "_... as well as..._", "... _together with_...".

Literally, _lin_ means to link; continuous; in succession, and _daai_ means to lead; to bring along.

So what you get when you insert _siu_ (eliminate; dispel; remove) and _da_ (to hit; to strike) is an idea of deflection closely followed by a strike in one continuous action.

Not two arms acting at precisely the same time, not one arm with two separate actions/beats (block then punch), and definitely not just dodging which doesn't displace (_siu_) the limb.

It's one continuous action with two functions happening in such quick succession that we just call it simultaneous in English.

"_Da-sau jik si siu-sau_" spells it out for you. The same arm accomplishes both of the above. That's the unique skill of VT.

Using two arms in response to a single punch is not special. It actually violates simplicity, directness, and efficiency principles when it's possible to use just one arm for the task.

Even when using a simultaneous helping action (e.g. _paak-da_; _jat-da_), LSDD is still referring to the striking arm having this dual-functioning capability should further obstruction be on its path.

For example, I use _paak_ with a simultaneous punch. That punch displaces the opponent's rear arm as it strikes. LSDD is still referring to that striking arm which is also displacing, not both arms. The _paak_ is just auxiliary, done when my original punch has been interrupted or I'm out of position to use just one arm. Then I may return to my primary punching idea, rotating two arms that both have LSDD capabilities.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> done when my original punch has been interrupted ...


What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?

In the following situation, your original punch will not be interrupted.

- I use my right hand to punch at your face.
- You tries to use your right arm to block it.
- Before your right arm can make contact on my right arm, I use my left arm to interrupt your right blocking arm.
- This will leave me a free right arm to finish my punch on your face.

In the whole process, my right arm and your right arm have never made any contact.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?
> 
> In the following situation, your original punch will not be interrupted.
> 
> - I use my right hand to punch at your face.
> - You tries to use your right arm to block it.
> - Before your right arm can make contact on my right arm, I use my left arm to interrupt your right blocking arm.
> - This will leave me a free right arm to finish my punch on your face.
> 
> In the whole process, my right arm and your right arm have never made any contact.



I'm not a fan of all the scenarios you create. They assume you are so inhumanly fast that things are happening for you in slow-motion and you have time to respond quickly enough with the appropriate actions. Are you fighting in the matrix or something?

"_You're faster than this. Don't think you are. Know you are._"


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> If you think that WSL was doing exactly what Ip Man was doing....again....you are delusional.



I'm sorry KPM, but when it comes to believing what I hear from people who were there, vs believing what KPM says on a forum, there really isn't much hope that you are correct


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> So why are you encouraging him?



Because, like it or not, very few people learned VT from YM. I don't know about HKM's teaching because never seen it, but he is one of the more likely candidates besides WSL.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I'm sorry KPM, but when it comes to believing what I hear from people who were there, vs believing what KPM says on a forum, there really isn't much hope that you are correct



You're logic is all wrong here.   I am only stating obvious logical conclusions that anyone can and has reached.  You are relying on "sifu sez" and heresy.  I can assure you that I am not the only one here that has reached that conclusion, even if I'm the only one writing it on this forum.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Because, like it or not, very few people learned VT from YM. I don't know about HKM's teaching because never seen it, but he is one of the more likely candidates besides WSL.



I can assure you that what HKM does is very different from what PB does.  Therefore by your logic HKM must not do Ip Man Wing Chun. I think if Joy had been following this thread closer he would have realized that this is what you have now been saying in your most recent ramblings on this forum.


----------



## KPM

_Ignoring KPM's trivial diversion..._

---Not trivial at all, considering Guy's most recent assertions. 


_"Lin... daai..." is a common Chinese grammatical structure, and no part of it means "precisely simultaneous" or even just "simultaneous".

It means "both... and...", "... as well as...", "... together with...".

Literally, lin means to link; continuous; in succession, and daai means to lead; to bring along.

So what you get when you insert siu (eliminate; dispel; remove) and da (to hit; to strike) is an idea of deflection closely followed by a strike in one continuous action.

Not two arms acting at precisely the same time, not one arm with two separate actions/beats (block then punch), and definitely not just dodging which doesn't displace (siu) the limb._

---Thank your for the translation.  But even as I read your translation above, it could be  structured in English as "Dispel/eliminate together with striking"  or "Dispel/eliminate as well as striking" or "Remove/dispel together with striking."   None of that says it has to be done with a single arm.  That still allows for a Tan Da.



_
"Da-sau jik si siu-sau" spells it out for you. The same arm accomplishes both of the above. That's the unique skill of VT._

---Now here is an interesting point!   I'm sure you will say my education has been deficient.  But I learned the LSDD line, but not this line you say follows it. 

*---How about the rest of you reading along?  When you learned the Kuen Kuit did you learn this line as part of it?* 

--- I see two possibilities here.   First....this line of the Kuen Kit was dropped at some point as the teaching was passed on, either by accident or design.  If it was seen as too limiting, it may have been dropped by design.  The second possibility is that it might have been added later in order to make the concept more specific.  I will say that from my experience this idea that LSDD applies ONLY to one arm at a time is NOT found in Pin Sun Wing Chun or Tang Yik Weng Chun.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> *---How about the rest of you reading along?  When you learned the Kuen Kuit did you learn this line as part of it?*.



I learned the action, but not the KK.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I will say that from my experience this idea that LSDD applies ONLY to one arm at a time is NOT found in Pin Sun Wing Chun or Tang Yik Weng Chun.



Those appear to be different martial art systems. Other Southern CMAs also have the LSDD line, but they are not VT. What sets VT apart is its unique strategy and tactics. VT declares this by spelling out LSDD in context of the VT system as "_da-sau jik si siu-sau_".

Two arms at once in VT are secondary/auxiliary actions. Defining LSDD by such actions and basing fight strategy on them as primary actions is putting the cart before the horse.

Worse yet is placing remedial actions like _bong-laap_ before both secondary and primary actions as the first response!

Lots of confused Wing Chun out there...


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I am only stating obvious logical conclusions that anyone can and has reached.



Relying on flawed understandings of YM's system as evidence of varying equally valid interpretations is not logical. The best way to discern the system from the misunderstanding is to look at coherence. Since the system passed down to me is coherent and lacks contradicory understandings, I have no reason to doubt what WSL and others have said about it.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I can assure you that what HKM does is very different from what PB does.  Therefore by your logic HKM must not do Ip Man Wing Chun. I think if Joy had been following this thread closer he would have realized that this is what you have now been saying in your most recent ramblings on this forum.



I would be very happy to discuss the differences between HKM's teachings and VT, if such a difference exists. Please list some differences and we can investigate.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> WSL best known followers apparently do things differently, yet they all practice WSL VT. And you continue to spout this stuff. Guy, you really have lost all credibility on this forum ...at least apart from your one co-religionist.



The people who spent most time with WSL do things the same. Those who spent less or no time sometimes do things differently. 

I don't understand what is wrong in believing that WSL taught just what YM did- this is what he said after all. The coherence of the system passed down via WSL supports this conclusion. It is exceedingly unlikely that he created such a thing from a broken mess of contradiction. You and KPM seem to be asking me to disbelieve what has been said by WSL and my teachers, along with the evidence that my own mind perceives in the form of the system understanding, and to apply a broad brush "its all ok" relativistic approach to any interpretation of VT, no amtter how flawed. I am not telling anyone that they do not also practice VT, that is for them to decide. I am only stating that I do practice that system.


----------



## Phobius

Was it not already stated that there is a difference between DP and PB? Or you claim DP spent less time doing WSLVT than you?


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Was it not already stated that there is a difference between DP and PB? Or you claim DP spent less time doing WSLVT than you?



DP spent less time with WSL than PB.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> DP spent less time with WSL than PB.



And you spent less time with PB than DP spent with WSL.

Given how coherent it is, you are better at VT than DP? Given how you grasp all essence of VT when he could not?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> I'm not a fan of all the scenarios you create. They assume you are so inhumanly fast that things are happening for you in slow-motion and you have time to respond quickly enough with the appropriate actions. Are you fighting in the matrix or something?
> 
> "_You're faster than this. Don't think you are. Know you are._"





LFJ said:


> done when my original punch has been interrupted ...



I was trying to create a scenarios according your description. So in your scenarios, has your opponent's arm interrupted your punch yet? What if your opponent's interruption is a hard block that knock your punch away from your intentional striking path?

So 

- What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?
- If your punching arm is interrupted, what's the chance that you can "neutralize" it by using one arm only without the helping from your other hand?


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> #3 is block then strike with the same arm.
> 
> He already described what he meant and it was not simultaneous.
> 
> See this post.
> 
> "_3. block and punch back by using the same arm - Your opponent punch, you use right 扶手(Fu Shou) to block his punch. Redirect his punching arm to pass your face (sensing and manipulating arms). You then punch back with the same right hand._"





LFJ said:


> In English, we say "simultaneous attack and defense" or "simultaneous defense and counter" because we prefer a terse expression to match the maxim in Chinese. But English is not as expressive or exact in so few words as Chinese. _Lin siu daai da_ is in fact not saying "simultaneous" and not saying "defense" in general to allow for dodging to be a possible meaning.
> 
> I shall explain.
> 
> "_Lin... daai..._" is a common Chinese grammatical structure, and no part of it means "precisely simultaneous" or even just "simultaneous".
> 
> It means "_both... and..._", "_... as well as..._", "... _together with_...".
> 
> Literally, _lin_ means to link; continuous; in succession, and _daai_ means to lead; to bring along.
> 
> So what you get when you insert _siu_ (eliminate; dispel; remove) and _da_ (to hit; to strike) is an idea of deflection closely followed by a strike in one continuous action.





LFJ said:


> It's one continuous action with two functions happening in such quick succession that we just call it simultaneous in English.
> 
> "_Da-sau jik si siu-sau_" spells it out for you. The same arm accomplishes both of the above. That's the unique skill of VT.



Huh? You are not being coherent. First you state that it has to be simultaneous attack, since it is not it is not VT. Given that it is first block/deflect and then followed by a punch.

After that you state that it does in fact not say "simultaneous", instead it means "continuous" and linked such as following closely by.

Thirdly you state that we just call it simultaneous in English, when in fact you just state that it isnt but that you personally want to call it simultaneous. It is not by the true meaning of the word simultaneous.

So let me get this straight, someone says it is a block/deflect followed by a punch, you say they are wrong since it is not LSDD. Then you follow up by saying LSDD is a block/deflect followed by a punch in the very definition of it.

Oh, and we start training this to the beginners already at lesson two or in some cases even lesson one. Not very complicated, but takes time to perfect. I do not disagree with the block/deflect followed closely by a punch.

Simultaneous punch and deflect however is a rule that would weaken structure in many situations. Simply because it can force a chasing of the arm when in fact the way is already free and you should only attack.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...The problem you have, as well as KPM and others, is that you use *imperfect English translations* to fit the terminology of VT to whatever you need it to say.



_LFJ_, thanks for the clarification of the Cantonese phrases. I find that helpful. And, you know, I don't think we disagree here. Of course "simultaneous attack and defense" is never _precisely_ simultaneous. Poor choice of words on my part.

The other phrase "attacking hand is defending hand" does emphasize the role of a single hand deflecting and striking in a single beat. Perhaps that's where I'd differ from John Wang when he compares that same tactic as practiced in Karate and some other Kung Fu styles that do movements that may look  similar, but take two beats to accomplish.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> _LFJ_, thanks for the clarification of the Cantonese phrases. I find that helpful. And, you know, I don't think we disagree here. Of course "simultaneous attack and defense" is never _precisely_ simultaneous. Poor choice of words on my part.
> 
> The other phrase "attacking hand is defending hand" does emphasize the role of a single hand deflecting and striking in a single beat. Perhaps that's where I'd differ form John Wang when he compares that same tactic as practiced in Karate and some other Kung Fu styles that do movements that may look  similar, but take two beats to accomplish.



Steve, did you learn that second line of the Kuen Kit in your Wing Chun studies?


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> And you spent less time with PB than DP spent with WSL.



PB is not my teacher.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> So let me get this straight, someone says it is a block/deflect followed by a punch, you say they are wrong since it is not LSDD. Then you follow up by saying LSDD is a block/deflect followed by a punch in the very definition of it.



Lol no



geezer said:


> _LFJ_, thanks for the clarification of the Cantonese phrases. I find that helpful. And, you know, I don't think we disagree here. Of course "simultaneous attack and defense" is never _precisely_ simultaneous. Poor choice of words on my part.
> 
> The other phrase "attacking hand is defending hand" does emphasize the role of a single hand deflecting and striking in a single beat. Perhaps that's where I'd differ form John Wang when he compares that same tactic as practiced in Karate and some other Kung Fu styles that do movements that may look  similar, but take two beats to accomplish.



Yes, exactly


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Steve, did you learn that second line of the Kuen Kit in your Wing Chun studies?



Nope. LT gave us a lot of Kuen Kuit in English translation, and never went into much detail about the source of any of them. Some may have been traditional, some from Yip Man, heck, others he might have made up. I was a disciple then, so whatever he told us was really all we needed to know. It was the truth and everybody else was sadly misinformed and wrong. That's why I understand Guy so well!

So Keith ...what is the second part?


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> PB is not my teacher.



Oh. Who is?


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> So Keith ...what is the second part?



The line LFJ included in his prior post that he translated as "attacking hand is defending hand".  Did LT teach that part of the Kuen Kit?


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> The line LFJ included in his prior post that he translated as "attacking hand is defending hand".  Did LT teach that part of the Kuen Kit?



Yeah, I believe I heard it from him, although my memory ain't what it used to be. And it used to be pretty poor!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Do anybody know any clip to show what LFJ is talking about?


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do anybody know any clip to show what LFJ is talking about?



It would be nice to see a clip of a WSL guy doing what LFJ is talking about in a sparring match, wouldn't it?  But we have discovered that, even though sparring like this is such an important aspect of WSLVT training and testing, there seems to be surprising lack of any video footage showing it!


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> First you state that it has to be simultaneous attack, since it is not it is not VT. Given that it is first block/deflect and then followed by a punch.
> 
> After that you state that it does in fact not say "simultaneous", instead it means "continuous" and linked such as following closely by.
> 
> Thirdly you state that we just call it simultaneous in English, when in fact you just state that it isnt but that you personally want to call it simultaneous. It is not by the true meaning of the word simultaneous.



This is why this kind of maxim needs to be learned from someone who not only understands the language, but also knows its reference within a VT context.

TCMAs often take common Chinese expressions and adapt them to their fighting philosophies.

When "_lin_..._daai_..." is used with nouns, it means both together. Like "_lin_ old _daai_ young" would mean both old and young enjoyed the show, for example. Together at exactly the same time.

When used with verbs, while it doesn't say precisely simultaneous, it means the actions happen in such close succession as to be virtually simultaneous. Hence, people usually just translate it as "simultaneous".

By saying simultaneous, we are referring to it being a single action, just punching. Not block then punch in two beats. So for our intent and purpose, it is simultaneous in that we are doing one action with dual functions. Calling it something other than simultaneous is splitting hairs and missing the point.

When the VT punch is used, it may very well displace the opponents limb at precisely the same time as the punch lands. Much like a rimshot in percussion, where the shaft of the drumstick hits the rim at precisely the same time the bead strikes the drum skin.

It depends entirely on timing and distance.

Of course, in fighting we can't expect things to happen the same way all the time. If timing and distance are a little bit out, it may end up displacing the opponent's arm just a hair before landing the strike. That's actually most likely to happen at speed in the heat of a fight and it's just fine. And it coincides with the literal meaning of the phrase.



> So let me get this straight, someone says it is a block/deflect followed by a punch, you say they are wrong since it is not LSDD. Then you follow up by saying LSDD is a block/deflect followed by a punch in the very definition of it.



No. It means they are so closely linked as to be virtually simultaneous because they are in fact functions of a single action. Not two separate actions of block then punch. You'd have to watch it in 0.25 speed or slower to notice if the functions weren't precisely simultaneous. Really inconsequential if it's off by a nanosecond. It's still one and the same punch. Hence we call it simultaneous attack and defense.



> Simultaneous punch and deflect however is a rule that would weaken structure in many situations. Simply because it can force a chasing of the arm when in fact the way is already free and you should only attack.



No. We aren't even concerned with striking the opponent's arm. The deflection happens purely as a result of our punching structure and the path it takes to the target.

It is like running through an intersection. If nothing is in the path when we cross, it changes nothing. We go through and strike. If something is in the path, all the same, we go through and strike while automatically displacing the obstruction. We aren't intentionally looking to chase an arm and make contact. If it happens, it happens.

Of course, that is the ideal. If timing is a bit off or the obstruction is too strong, it may interrupt our punch. This is where secondary/auxiliary actions come into play.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent's interruption is a hard block that knock your punch away from your intentional striking path?



Depends entirely on the situation. Fighting is unpredictable and things rarely happen as "planned". That's why it's not very useful to think in terms of scenarios. VT is to think in terms of simple concepts and principles of sustained attack.

Generally, _man_/_wu_ concepts mean if _man_ is compromised, _wu_ immediately takes over as another punch while _man_ is recycled to the next punching position. Or if just interrupted, it may become an auxiliary action to open the way for the next punch.



> - What's the chance that your original punch will not be interrupted?
> - If your punching arm is interrupted, what's the chance that you can "neutralize" it by using one arm only without the helping from your other hand?



A single arm neutralizing while striking is not interrupted since the obstruction is cleared from the path. 

Secondary/auxiliary actions are used when the primary action is interrupted, meaning unsuccessful in clearing the obstruction. They are always used with another punch. Hence "auxiliary".


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> It would be nice to see a clip of a WSL guy doing what LFJ is talking about in a sparring match, wouldn't it?  But we have discovered that, even though sparring like this is such an important aspect of WSLVT training and testing, there seems to be surprising lack of any video footage showing it!



Haha! You are a stubborn little guy, aren't you? You _have seen_ WSLVT sparring videos before and commented favorably on them!

You just don't like our views on the state of Wing Chun in general but can't refute technical points we make on the system. So you ignore everything you've seen and heard to remain antagonistic with us, and instead argue about use of abbreviations, terminology you don't understand, and trivial opinions on VT history. Seems to be out of frustration and jealousy.

Again, it's funny how you keep barking up this tree when you have seen sparring footage from our lineage and liked it, yet no one has _ever_ seen any from yours. You must not consider sparring and testing skills an important aspect of training in your lineage. That's fine. Funny you still go around with your nose in the air pointing fingers like this though. lol


----------



## KPM

_You have seen WSLVT sparring videos before and commented favorably on them!_

---Yes.  Jai Harmon.  But if I recall, Jai Harmon and his instructor, like Dave Petersen, are not on your "approved" list!  


_You just don't like our views on the state of Wing Chun in general but can't refute technical points we make on the system._

---What forum are you reading?  I refute your "technical points" all the time!  Including on this thread!



_ Seems to be out of frustration and jealousy._

---No. Its because I don't buy into your brand of BS that says you are right therefore everyone else must be wrong!


----------



## KPM

_By saying simultaneous, we are referring to it being a single action, just punching. Not block then punch in two beats. So for our intent and purpose, it is simultaneous in that we are doing one action with dual functions._

---And again, as I responded to this previously....this is only limited to one arm if you include the 2nd line of your version of the Kuen Kit.  If you use only the 1st line of the Kuen Kit, then there is nothing wrong with doing LSDD with two arms acting at the same time.  Personally, I did not learn that 2nd line.  So in all the Wing Chun I have studied, LSDD is applied with one arm as well as with both arms acting at the same time.



_When the VT punch is used, it may very well displace the opponents limb at precisely the same time as the punch lands._

---And how do you do this when the opponent is not punching along the centerline?  How does this apply to wide loopy punches, which are the majority of punches you are likely to face in a street confrontation?  What you are saying sounds great against another Wing Chun guy.  All of the demo footage we see of PB is always against another guy doing Wing Chun.  But how does this work against...say....a boxer?


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> ---And how do you do this when the opponent is not punching along the centerline?  How does this apply to wide loopy punches, which are the majority of punches you are likely to face in a street confrontation?  What you are saying sounds great against another Wing Chun guy.  All of the demo footage we see of PB is always against another guy doing Wing Chun.  But how does this work against...say....a boxer?



Just to add, a boxers jab also attacks on the centerline. It is a round attack due to its nature of power generation but still it is kept on centerline all the time.

My concern is more that if there is no attack, then it is no block/deflect. So what LFJ often talks about is just controlling centerline but he calls it blocking and deflecting, which is actually something different. However if you assume to block/deflect a punch while simultaneously punch then you either assume the attacking arm is frozen or collapsing by your force during your punch, otherwise that block/deflect will not be continued but rather a one time thing. Secondly I know of no way to punch and block/deflect at same time unless you are very close to your opponent or he attacks you after you punched him. Most often you first block/deflect and then punch, with your single arm. Reason being that his punch is moving towards you and so you will have to control his punch because when your punch lands, you can not make a move to deflect or block his punch with that same arm.

Saying this is near simultaneous is in my view wrong because it is clearly visible the time difference, despite being only part of a second. We are not talking about nano seconds because if we were you would have to be controlling the centerline prohibiting him from attacking along that line, which is not same as block/deflect move.

Could be that the control is what he is referring to, I honestly have no clue.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> _You have seen WSLVT sparring videos before and commented favorably on them!_
> 
> ---Yes.  Jai Harmon.



No. Several of Sean(from KFM)'s guys, Sean's teacher, PB...



> ---What forum are you reading?  I refute your "technical points" all the time!  Including on this thread!



You dodge and divert to trivial things like abbreviations and "tone" quite often.



KPM said:


> Personally, I did not learn that 2nd line.



Because you haven't learned VT. You do some other mainland style. LSDD is used by other Southern CMAs, but as I said, VT sets itself apart and defines its unique strategy and tactics by "that 2nd line".



> ---And how do you do this when the opponent is not punching along the centerline?  How does this apply to wide loopy punches, which are the majority of punches you are likely to face in a street confrontation?  What you are saying sounds great against another Wing Chun guy.  All of the demo footage we see of PB is always against another guy doing Wing Chun.  But how does this work against...say....a boxer?



Boxers don't throw linear punches? Sounds like if you've ever sparred a boxer you're walking straight up the middle and into the pocket. Poor strategy. I'm not going to go walking into wide loopy punches. VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. But regardless, this is not the only thing we can do.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> However if you assume to block/deflect a punch while simultaneously punch then you either assume the attacking arm is frozen or collapsing by your force during your punch, otherwise that block/deflect will not be continued but rather a one time thing. Secondly I know of no way to punch and block/deflect at same time unless you are very close to your opponent or he attacks you after you punched him. Most often you first block/deflect and then punch, with your single arm. Reason being that his punch is moving towards you and so you will have to control his punch because when your punch lands, you can not make a move to deflect or block his punch with that same arm.



Maybe so with your WT. We train different systems.



> Saying this is near simultaneous is in my view wrong because it is clearly visible the time difference, despite being only part of a second. We are not talking about nano seconds because if we were you would have to be controlling the centerline prohibiting him from attacking along that line, which is not same as block/deflect move.



A nanosecond is part of a second, and I don't need to occupy the center in order to control it like WT.


----------



## KPM

_No. Several of Sean(from KFM)'s guys, Sean's teacher, PB..._

---Ah!  True!  I had forgotten about Sean's guys from France.  I'll have to look those up again.  He is one of the very few PB guys actually willing to post videos.


You dodge and divert to trivial things like abbreviations and "tone" quite often.

---



_Because you haven't learned VT. You do some other mainland style. LSDD is used by other Southern CMAs, but as I said, VT sets itself apart and defines its unique strategy and tactics by "that 2nd line"._

---I learned from Joy Chaudhuri & Augustine Fong, who learned from Ho Kam Ming, who learned from Ip Man.   Is that "VT"?


_Boxers don't throw linear punches?_

---I didn't say that.  Of course boxers throw linear punches.  But boxers also throw a helluva lot more than just linear punches!   And I referenced a street encounter, where you will most certainly face more than just linear punches.


_VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. But regardless, this is not the only thing we can do._

---You didn't answer my question.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---I learned from Joy Chaudhuri & Augustine Fong, who learned from Ho Kam Ming, who learned from Ip Man.   Is that "VT"?



I'm not sure what Joy teaches. He has a very cryptic posting style. I see quite a few issues with things AF teaches, but no one is open to discussing it.



> ---You didn't answer my question.



You mean how to do something at the wrong time? I don't.


----------



## KPM

_I'm not sure what Joy teaches. He has a very cryptic posting style. I see quite a few issues with things AF teaches, but no one is open to discussing it._

---"VT" or not?  Again, you aren't answering my questions.  


_You mean how to do something at the wrong time? I don't._

---You chastise John for describing specific scenarios, but then you won't answer a more general question that doesn't describe a scenario.    So what do you want?    Ok, I'll be specific.  How would what you are saying work against a street thug with some boxing background that isn't throwing all linear punches?  How does it work  against this guy when he fakes a jab and throws a fast shovel-hook to the ribs off-center?  How does it work against the guy that times your step in and himself steps off-line with a loopy overhand punch aimed at your temple?  How does it work against a "bolo" punch that is coming up at your chin as the guy is leaning away from your own punch?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> "VT" or not? Again, you aren't answering my questions.



There is no way to tell without someone from HKM who is willing to discuss.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---"VT" or not?  Again, you aren't answering my questions.



I said I'm not sure.



> ---You chastise John for describing specific scenarios, but then you won't answer a more general question that doesn't describe a scenario.



Asking how I'd use a certain tactic against a certain type of attack is a scenario, and your scenario makes no sense.


----------



## Phobius

To be honest I think LFJ is just talking about the very foundation of WC, that the special punch that only exist in VT is the same punch as done by all lineages. Meaning control the centerline you prohibit the opponent from attacking you while you punch him. In some cases you control his elbow or his arm, in other cases you are simply keeping the area guarded that in case he tries to find an angle you can quickly deflect his attack.

VT are good with punches, I do not doubt that. And there are many aspects that make controlling the centerline more complex. But those are not aspects of a special system, they are aspects of putting focus at training punches for this specific purpose. The annoying part is that LFJ and guy seems unable to live with the fact that they do not train the one true system. In fact they just train a system like many other.

Perhaps there is a need to be training the one true system in order to prove something to themselves. If that is the case then sure thing, it may be important to them.

Me personally, as I said so many times in the past. I do not think the best WC/VT system is what was created by YM. Instead I believe what we have today is far better than what we had in the 90's, 80's and so on all the way back to and beyond YM.

Reason being, we are simply evolving the systems. Knowledge is shared a lot quicker these days. Evolution is not quick, nor is all evolution good. But evolution is change and it does lead to better things. At some point in time, life will be exactly as it was in Hong Kong around and after WWII but until that time is back, a system for that timeframe is not optimal for today.

Just look at evolution of MMA, old techniques are not decided to be crap and thus removed. It is simply that all have trained the counters to old techniques so that in order to meet those counters people have trained in other old techniques to counter them. As such system is evolved to something new, and it will continue to evolve.

Pass a law to forbid walking around without heavy gloves on the street, I assure you all systems would evolve to work with the new premises. Life is not the same anymore as it was, almost everyone we meet knows half assed boxing punches. Takedowns and fighting on the ground is information that is spreading on YouTube and UFC fans. It has spread into videogames and movies... eventually it will be a basic norm as well.

Things change all around us, remaining statical believing that there exists a single system that can handle any change whatever it is I find kind of foolish.


----------



## Phobius

Oh and bringing up an "coherent" as an argument is stupid. No offense intended.

You can not argue what is coherent in a fighting system. Especially not one as abstract as LFJ's and guy's WSLVT system. Coherent is only in the eyes of the beholder, for me personally what I heard I find my own system way more coherent than whatever I have heard from LFJ and guy.

This will of course not be accepted as a coherent system in their point of view because until this point they have been unable to describe what they mean by coherent in any other way than what most of us probably considers it to mean; A logical flow of information teaching a logical outcome/result through practise with a good foundation that is in all logical sense matching our own perceived expectations on a fight. Including techniques, concepts, reaction, strength and skill.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> To be honest I think LFJ is just talking about the very foundation of WC, that the special punch that only exist in VT is the same punch as done by all lineages. Meaning control the centerline you prohibit the opponent from attacking you while you punch him. In some cases you control his elbow or his arm, in other cases you are simply keeping the area guarded that in case he tries to find an angle you can quickly deflect his attack.



What do you mean by control the center line or keep the area guarded?



> Coherent is only in the eyes of the beholder, for me personally what I heard I find my own system way more coherent than whatever I have heard from LFJ and guy.



It's objective. Thousands have had the same realization which led to switching lineages.

What we talk about is incredibly simple. You can't imagine it because what you are taught is entirely different.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Asking how I'd use a certain tactic against a certain type of attack is a scenario, and your scenario makes no sense.



I asked how it was going to work against an opponent that is NOT using linear centerline punches.  How does that not make sense???


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It's objective. Thousands have had the same realization which led to switching lineages.
> 
> .



Really?  I thought you objected to.....what did you call it?.....an "appeal to majority"?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I asked how it was going to work against an opponent that is NOT using linear centerline punches.  How does that not make sense???



You're asking me to misapply a principle.

I said VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. It's a fighting strategy we impose on the opponent. 

You can be their puppet and walk into round punches with _taan-sau_ all you want.



KPM said:


> Really?  I thought you objected to.....what did you call it?.....an "appeal to majority"?



Not an appeal to majority. It's an objective truth anyone can go experience for themselves. The number of people who have doesn't make it so, but it's an intriguing number.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---I learned from Joy Chaudhuri & Augustine Fong, who learned from Ho Kam Ming, who learned from Ip Man.   Is that "VT"?





LFJ said:


> I'm not sure what Joy teaches. He has a very cryptic posting style. I see quite a few issues with things AF teaches, but no one is open to discussing it.



To give you an example...

Is this something you learned? This guy appears to be from the HKM-AF lineage and is currently doing a Mastering the Fundamentals series on Youtube, and below is one of the 4 basic attacks he teaches from _laap-sau_.

Skipping past the issues with the basic _laap-sau_ cycles...

The first problem I see is that he's needlessly applying two arms to one (and downward!) by following the student's arm he's _laap-_ing down with a _gam-sau_. Then punching. It's overly complex, indirect, and inefficient. I would call this chasing the arm he's leading away himself, the dog chasing its own tail.

The second problem is with the student's response. His _wu-sau_ is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing. That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?

But the student's biggest problem is that his _wu-sau_ is unresponsive. As soon as his lead arm is _laap_-ed down his _wu_ should instinctively punch (LSJC). This would nail the teacher before he got his punch off, or effectively intercept the punch if he did.

This drill is just teaching hand-chasing ideas and de-training LSJC instincts, if any were ever trained. To improve it, both sides of the whole first part should be scrapped. The teacher should drop the redundant _gam-sau_ technique and just do his second idea of _laap-da_. This is simple and direct, and trains the student's _wu-sau_ to be alive and responsive at the loss of his lead arm.

Counter hitting should always be the basic idea in VT. Drills should constantly check for LSJC.


----------



## Vajramusti

LFJ said:


> To give you an example...
> 
> Is this something you learned? This guy appears to be from the HKM-AF lineage and is currently doing a Mastering the Fundamentals series on Youtube, and below is one of the 4 basic attacks he teaches from _laap-sau_.
> 
> Skipping past the issues with the basic _laap-sau_ cycles...
> 
> The first problem I see is that he's needlessly applying two arms to one (and downward!) by following the student's arm he's _laap-_ing down with a _gam-sau_. Then punching. It's overly complex, indirect, and inefficient. I would call this chasing the arm he's leading away himself, the dog chasing its own tail.
> 
> The second problem is with the student's response. His _wu-sau_ is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing. That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?
> 
> But the student's biggest problem is that his _wu-sau_ is unresponsive. As soon as his lead arm is _laap_-ed down his _wu_ should instinctively punch (LSJC). This would nail the teacher before he got his punch off, or effectively intercept the punch if he did.
> 
> This drill is just teaching hand-chasing ideas and de-training LSJC instincts, if any were ever trained. To improve it, both sides of the whole first part should be scrapped. The teacher should drop the redundant _gam-sau_ technique and just do his second idea of _laap-da_. This is simple and direct, and trains the student's _wu-sau_ to be alive and responsive at the loss of his lead arm.
> 
> Counter hitting should always be the basic idea in VT. Drills should constantly check for LSJC.


-----------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Lop Sao is an important timing development tool.

It will take too long to explain all this to video watching anonymous posters..

Cheers and bye.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> Good Lop Sao is an important timing development tool.



Keyword "good". Ironically, his timing is off too, but I skipped that.

So, "is this VT"? Well, you know I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I would say it appears someone who doesn't understand VT has made a drill to teach redundant _gam-sau_ and what this guy calls "_faak-sau_" techniques and violates multiple principles of VT in the process.



> It will take too long to explain all this to video watching anonymous posters..



lol, Because my username slows your ability to explain things and ad hominems are always faster.


----------



## SaulGoodman

How can you expect Joy to want to discuss his method with you when you have already began criticizing it before the man has said a word? Let's see YOU performing "VT" as you preach it so we can be as generous with our criticisms as you and your sidekick are. Not clips of Sean (who is a good, open minded practitioner) or PB, where you then say "this is an example of what we do therefore I don't have to post any clips". Come on, educate us as to what we are all doing wrong. But we all know this will NEVER happen right? And you know why? Because youre just as afraid of criticism as everyone else. The big difference is, some people still have the guts to put clips out there for people like you to "discuss"...


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> You're asking me to misapply a principle.
> 
> I said VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. It's a fighting strategy we impose on the opponent.



You are saying you can prevent your opponent from doing round attack by closing that as an option? 

I have to ask,  do you ever spar anyone not training VT? Those options are never closed with any VT principles. They are opening and closing pending the footwork of your opponent and to believe you will always have the better footwork is just talk made by people who don't understand fighting.


----------



## LFJ

SaulGoodman said:


> How can you expect Joy to want to discuss his method with you when you have already began criticizing it before the man has said a word?



He wasn't in the conversation. I was asked my opinion on the lineage, said I'm not sure. Was pressed again, so I pulled up an example to explain my view of what I saw. Can't help it if you don't like it.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You are saying you can prevent your opponent from doing round attack by closing that as an option?
> 
> I have to ask,  do you ever spar anyone not training VT? Those options are never closed with any VT principles. They are opening and closing pending the footwork of your opponent and to believe you will always have the better footwork is just talk made by people who don't understand fighting.



Never said anything about always, but if you don't know how to close options or draw responses, that's your problem.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Never said anything about always, but if you don't know how to close options or draw responses, that's your problem.



Draw responses has nothing to do with the subject, you cant expect to draw responses in such a way that opponent will not do round attacks.

Closing options is interesting, you honestly think you can close down the options of doing round attacks on you? Truly? And this without using footwork as a solution?

Well I do not believe in fairy tales and to be honest it does sound like it. If you keep your guard close as a boxer you might block the possibility of starting with a round attack but that is why most combos start with a jab anyways. Keep in mind that KPM just asked how you deal with round attacks and it seems you are claiming you dont worry about those because more often than not you have that option closed down.

It is not a matter of me wanting to know some secret information you might have, it is more of me having figured out and found out that I do not need such a koolaid.


----------



## Vajramusti

SaulGoodman said:


> How can you expect Joy to want to discuss his method with you when you have already began criticizing it before the man has said a word?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't may much attention to LFJ or Guy b.


----------



## KPM

_You're asking me to misapply a principle._

---Baloney.  I'm asking you to explain how you are using your LSDD with one arm only against non-linear, non-centerline punches.   After all, it is you who said this is what your version of Wing Chun emphasizes, your specialty.  You have  said you don't use a Tan Da.  You certainly make it sound like you use your punching response for everything unless it needs a "helper" hand.


_I said VT has tactics to draw certain types of attacks, or force certain types of responses by closing options. It's a fighting strategy we impose on the opponent. You can be their puppet and walk into round punches with taan-sau all you want._

---Really?  So you actually believe you can dictate to an opponent that they can't throw non-linear, non-centerline punches?  You can force them to throw only nice straight center-line punches?  Now THAT, I would like to see!  


_Not an appeal to majority. It's an objective truth anyone can go experience for themselves. The number of people who have doesn't make it so, but it's an intriguing number._

---I'm sure John could track down his three friends that were noted if he had to and get them to state what they said for the record.  How is that any less "objective" than your "thousands".   Do you have a record of each and every one of these "thousands"?


----------



## KPM

---I remember Brian Tufts!  But he looks very different today!  

_Is this something you learned?_

---Way back when, yes.  I haven't practiced that in many years.


_The first problem I see is that he's needlessly applying two arms to one (and downward!) by following the student's arm he's laap-ing down with a gam-sau. Then punching. It's overly complex, indirect, and inefficient. I would call this chasing the arm he's leading away himself, the dog chasing its own tail._

---Weren't you the one that was very big on things being all "abstract" in your "VT"?   And now you are essentially assuming everything done in this drill would be done this way in a fighting situation?   You can't look past the direct "application" of what they are doing?  The Gan Sau and punch can easily be seen as uses any time you are able to pin the opponent's arm momentarily in a low position and punch through.  The opponent then learns to counter this trap by using the Biu Sau or Fak Sau.  The Lop Da drill is just a training "platform" into which this is inserted for drilling purposes. 


_The second problem is with the student's response. His wu-sau is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing._

---Its a drill!


_ That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?_

---Says who?  Why should using a Fak Sau when your arms are trapped low be limited to Biu Gee level teaching.  Is that an Ip Man rule we don't know about?  Fak Sau is found in the Siu Nim Tau form!


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> It will take too long to explain all this to video watching anonymous posters..



It shouldn't take long. This is a good opportunity to explain the purpose of the drill. You can do it in general terms without giving away specifics if you like.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I'm asking you to explain how you are using your LSDD with one arm only against non-linear, non-centerline punches..



Strategy, positioning, imposition of game plan, closing options, forcing reaction


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Strategy, positioning, imposition of game plan, closing options, forcing reaction



In other words you have no answer?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> Never said anything about always, but if you don't know how to close options or draw responses, that's your problem.


How to punch your opponent is your business. How your opponent may block your punch will be his business.

When you punch at your opponent's face, your opponent uses hay-maker to knock your striking arm down, can you still be able to punch him with the same arm as 1 move?


----------



## SaulGoodman

So much for the "VEETEE"  "abstract drills", now they're all application based


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> In other words you have no answer?



That's the answer you will get, because you don't offer to engage in discussion. It is a correct answer, but detail is lacking.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you punch at your opponent's face, your opponent uses hay-maker to knock your striking arm down, can you still be able to punch him with the same arm as 1 move?



I think LFJ means that there are times when (given your example) that a secondary "clearing hand" (pak... jut... etc) is used to allow the punch to continue on its way.


----------



## guy b.

If the opponent is intent on making arm contact they won't fare too well vs VT


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> That's the answer you will get, because you don't offer to engage in discussion. It is a correct answer, but detail is lacking.



That was a "non-answer" if I ever saw one!  We've been engaging in discussion plenty here.  Kind of interesting that when the discussion isn't going your way then you are the one being evasive and not answering as you accuse others of doing.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> If the opponent is intent on making arm contact they won't fare too well vs VT


 
 How about when the opponent is intent on avoiding arm contact and isn't punching nice and straight down the center-line?  That's what I keep asking about that you guys don't seem to have an answer for.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> If the opponent is intent on *making arm contact *they won't fare too well vs VT



Kinda depends on what they are trying to do. Like most coming from a VT perspective, I prefer chasing center, not hands. But there are other ways to go as well.

I had an _Escrima_ student get into it with a co-worker on a construction site. the other guy threw a couple of punches at my student while he was standing holding his cell phone. My student stepped off-line, keeping range and made _arm contact._ _Hard _arm contact. A couple of times ...using a hammer-fist (#1 strike) with the corner of his cell phone right on the back of the other guy's fist and forearm each time he threw a punch.

It shut the guy down fast. And the guy was told to pick up his paycheck and clear out. Meanwhile, my student pocketed his phone and went back to work. Anyway that's his story.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> I prefer chasing center, not hands.


If your opponent's arms are in his center, to chase his center is to chase his arms. Here is an example.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> Kinda depends on what they are trying to do. Like most coming from a VT perspective, I prefer chasing center, not hands. But there are other ways to go as well.
> 
> I had an _Escrima_ student get into it with a co-worker on a construction site. the other guy threw a couple of punches at my student while he was standing holding his cell phone. My student stepped off-line, keeping range and made _arm contact._ _Hard _arm contact. A couple of times ...using a hammer-fist (#1 strike) with the corner of his cell phone right on the back of the other guy's fist and forearm each time he threw a punch.
> 
> It shut the guy down fast. And the guy was told to pick up his paycheck and clear out. Meanwhile, my student pocketed his phone and went back to work. Anyway that's his story.



That might make a pretty good cell phone commercial.
Kind of a variation on T imex's "takes a lickin and keeps on tickin"......how bout " gives a beatin and goes on tweetin"?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Draw responses has nothing to do with the subject, you cant expect to draw responses in such a way that opponent will not do round attacks.



If you don't know how to draw responses, that's your problem. Say _you_ can't.

Even some boxers are quite good at it in their own way. Mayweather's Philly Shell defense encouraged the same linear punches it was built to counter, with one side "exposed" it would bait and get opponents to overextend, then he'd counterpunch them and move out again.

This is not what I do, but it is an example of drawing a certain type of attack you are poised to deal with. 



> Closing options is interesting, you honestly think you can close down the options of doing round attacks on you? Truly? And this without using footwork as a solution?



Who the hell said without footwork? Why are you taking my footwork away?



> Keep in mind that KPM just asked how you deal with round attacks and it seems you are claiming you dont worry about those because more often than not you have that option closed down.



That's not what he asked. He specifically asked how I would use the same arm to deflect a round attack while striking in the same action (misapplying LSDD). It's a nonsensical question assuming that I'm walking into round punches where he would use _taan-da_.

Drawing responses and closing options is not fantasy. It's just that you and KPM are like most other WC practitioners. You can tell me all the glories of _taan-da_ and other techniques, but when we come to details of free fighting strategy and tactics you are wholly without a clue.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Weren't you the one that was very big on things being all "abstract" in your "VT"?   And now you are essentially assuming everything done in this drill would be done this way in a fighting situation?



I'm not assuming that. I don't care about your applications. I'm concerned with not violating multiple VT principles and not de-training core attributes in the course of drilling whatever it is you're drilling.



> You can't look past the direct "application" of what they are doing?  The Gan Sau and punch can easily be seen as uses any time you are able to pin the opponent's arm momentarily in a low position and punch through.  The opponent then learns to counter this trap by using the Biu Sau or Fak Sau.  The Lop Da drill is just a training "platform" into which this is inserted for drilling purposes.



It's not a feasible counter as it fails even in the drill. It doesn't have a chance of accomplishing anything against a live human with two arms. It's entirely pointless.

Plus, his _wu-sau_ is not trapped and should be trained to immediately counterpunch. Not doing so for "drilling purposes" is de-training LSJC. Poor trade!



> _The second problem is with the student's response. His wu-sau is just hanging out, serving no purpose whatsoever while his other arm is following the teacher's actions and extending fully straight in an elbow-out, upward swing._
> 
> ---Its a drill!



Exactly. And if LSJC is trained to be unresponsive even in beginner drilling, it will not be reliable under the pressures of free fighting either.



> _That's something that should never be done outside of perhaps emergency situations. Why is it in a beginner drill like this?_
> 
> ---Says who?  Why should using a Fak Sau when your arms are trapped low be limited to Biu Gee level teaching.  Is that an Ip Man rule we don't know about?  Fak Sau is found in the Siu Nim Tau form!



That is not a _faak-sau_ as done in SNT, and his "arms" are not trapped. He has a free but unresponsive _wu-sau_.

The way I have been trained, I would have to fight hard for my _wu-sau_ not to instinctively punch in that moment.

You did not even mention LSJC issues in your response. It's impossible you don't see this now that it has been pointed out to you. To defend the lineage, you must wilfully deny that this is obviously de-training LSJC.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you punch at your opponent's face, your opponent uses hay-maker to knock your striking arm down, can you still be able to punch him with the same arm as 1 move?



I will not go squaring off and exchanging punches like that.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> _Not an appeal to majority. It's an objective truth anyone can go experience for themselves. The number of people who have doesn't make it so, but it's an intriguing number._
> 
> ---I'm sure John could track down his three friends that were noted if he had to and get them to state what they said for the record.  How is that any less "objective" than your "thousands".   Do you have a record of each and every one of these "thousands"?



You would be asking us to take three guys at their word for something we can't personally verify.

I'm saying there is an enormous number of people who have gone and experienced something that you can go and directly experience for yourself too.

Yes. There are droves of former WT practitioners and others in Europe who would not go back to their former lineages if forced at gunpoint. You can go meet them, talk to them about their experience, and see for yourself what they saw.

Not an Appeal to Majority. Just an objective fact an intriguing number of people have experienced, but more importantly, that you can experience too.


----------



## LFJ

@Phobius @KPM

Since you guys think drawing responses and closing options is fantasy, here's an article I found for you to read.

It's 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

We have similar baiting and closing concepts in VT, only with our methods, not boxing. It's called fighting strategy and tactics. Not reactive _taan-da_ and other puppet techniques.

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.*"


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Since you guys think drawing responses and closing options is fantasy, here's an article I found for you to read.
> 
> It's 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 guess I need to tell you something. You can not prevent a round attack by drawing responses. If you watched boxing or trained in it you should know that doing baits all the time sets you up for receiving a beating because you become predictable.

This is the fantasy you seem to have, that you can avoid round attacks altogether using baiting and closing down options.

Baiting is not a defensive move, it is offensive. Besides you can't bait people to do something they are not thinking. Instead you read their play, figure out how to bait them and then wham.

What you were asked was defensive strategy on round attacks given LSDD being primary option.

Saying you use footwork instead in those cases would be an answer. But to say you bait and close options so people will not do round attacks on you just sounds silly and ignorant.

So thanks for that lesson, but it was a bit out of topic and not even close to related to what I was saying.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Plus, his _wu-sau_ is not trapped and should be trained to immediately counterpunch. He has a free but unresponsive _wu-sau_..



Yeah I caught that as well. That bit seemed a bit off, at least to how I am trained. If someone rips my bong sau out of position my wu sau explodes forward to strike. (and feet also if needed). To do otherwise, IMHO, is to cheat yourself and to rob your training partner of his ability to train the response to my incoming wu / punch...(in that drill).


----------



## Dylan9d

Just a question in general since I had 2 lessons of WSLVT in the past, very nice guys there.....

My question, does VT/WC/WT generally goes for the face ? Because thats the general tactic I see in movies etc.....


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> @Phobius @KPM
> 
> Since you guys think drawing responses and closing options is fantasy, here's an article I found for you to read.
> 
> It's 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
> 
> *.*"



Thanks.  Nice article.  But as I said to Guy on the other thread, you two seem to think of Wing Chun as a boxing style and are looking for an exchange of blows.  Your response above pretty much proves that.  But how is that going to help you against the street thug that has a wide loopy "haymaker" coming right at your temple as soon as you realize he is behind you and you turn to see him?  And, again as I said to Guy on that thread, if your WSLVT is such a vastly superior punching method compared to boxing, why aren't we seeing video footage of WSLVT guys easily handling boxers?  Why aren't we seeing WSLVT guys showing up in boxing matches or MMA matches? 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The way you two describe WSLVT sounds very "one-dimensional."   Now you seem to be saying you don't need to worry about non-linear, non-centerline punches because your fighting strategy can guarantee that the opponent won't be able to throw them.  You don't need things like Tan Da or Gan Da, etc because you can always counter with one arm while striking with the same arm using LSDD.  You don't need other kinds of attacks or Chin Na elements or any of that because all you need is the punch!


----------



## wckf92

Dylan9d said:


> Just a question in general since I had 2 lessons of WSLVT in the past, very nice guys there.....
> 
> My question, does VT/WC/WT generally goes for the face ? Because thats the general tactic I see in movies etc.....



can only speak for me and my wc as I learned it...and the answer is not really. We go for whatever is open, closest, most damage will be caused etc. Could be the face, could be the balls, ribs, shin, whatever.


----------



## Dylan9d

wckf92 said:


> can only speak for me and my wc as I learned it...and the answer is not really. We go for whatever is open, closest, most damage will be caused etc. Could be the face, could be the balls, ribs, shin, whatever.



Thanks for clarifying that....


----------



## SaulGoodman

There's a very, very simple way the "VT" guys can clarify their approach to how the deal with a non linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time. It's called video...


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Thanks.  Nice article.  But as I said to Guy on the other thread, you two seem to think of Wing Chun as a boxing style and are looking for an exchange of blows.  Your response above pretty much proves that.



Absolutely not. Pointing to that article is to show that baiting and forcing the type of attacks you want is not fantasy I just came up with.

I also clearly said I don't use these boxing methods. VT has its own unique strategy and tactics for accomplishing similar goals, imposing our fight on the opponent. But it is very different from boxing in both specific strategies and tactics.



> But how is that going to help you against the street thug that has a wide loopy "haymaker" coming right at your temple as soon as you realize he is behind you and you turn to see him?



By that time, realistically, anyone would already be clocked.

A thug is coming up to hit you from behind. You turn around, see the haymaker right before it lands... and you're gonna get your _taan-da_ up and out to shut it down? Talk about a fantasy!



> Now you seem to be saying you don't need to worry about non-linear, non-centerline punches because your fighting strategy can guarantee that the opponent won't be able to throw them.



Never said that. There are tactics of distance control and positioning that will make round attacks less likely and less practical, and easier to deal with if thrown. That doesn't include standing in the pocket and throwing out a reactive _taan-sau_, being the opponent's puppet.



> You don't need things like Tan Da or Gan Da, etc because you can always counter with one arm while striking with the same arm using LSDD.  You don't need other kinds of attacks or Chin Na elements or any of that because all you need is the punch!



Never said that either. I said (several times already) that two arms are never used _when one arm could do the task_. Secondary actions are used when the initial punch is interrupted. Auxiliary actions can be used when out of position to use one arm as the first response. _Taan-da_ is never the answer because it's redundant against linear punches and doesn't work against round punches. Kicks can be used in a variety of ways.


----------



## LFJ

SaulGoodman said:


> There's a very, very simple way the "VT" guys can clarify their approach to how the deal with a non linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time. It's called video...



We never said that is our approach. That's some stupid idea KPM came up with.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You can not prevent a round attack by drawing responses.



_You_ can't.



> This is the fantasy you seem to have, that you can avoid round attacks altogether using baiting and closing down options.



Never said that. But they can be made far less likely and much less effective through strategy and tactics.



> Besides you can't bait people to do something they are not thinking.



On the contrary, mental states can be manipulated and people can be baited into doing things if they think it's the clear choice or other options are closed to them.



> What you were asked was defensive strategy on round attacks given LSDD being primary option.



That's a stupid misapplication of the principle, for lack of fighting strategy.

You may go walking into round punches with _taan-da_ and wonder how I would do the same with one arm. But I wouldn't do that in the first place.



> Saying you use footwork instead in those cases would be an answer. But to say you bait and close options so people will not do round attacks on you just sounds silly and ignorant.



Tactical footwork is always a part of it. That's why I said you're clueless.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> _You_ can't.



Here is news for you. Your own response says you can not either. Read your response below saying goes you can not either.



LFJ said:


> Never said that. But they can be made far less likely and much less effective through strategy and tactics.



Which is what I said. So admitting I was right. Which leaves the question as to how you would deal with round attacks either unanswered or saying you will take that hit every now and then.



LFJ said:


> On the contrary, mental states can be manipulated and people can be baited into doing things if they think it's the clear choice or other options are closed to them..



Are you fighting beginners or trained fighters here? Sounds like you are fighting a beginner. A lot of hope your opponent does not have a game plan. 

Edit: given that your memory is not so strong at times. Baiting works, that is not a debate. But to have it as you main defense and with only a single goal to prevent round attacks and never to bait a round attack...  That is what is being questioned. A one sided bait is not gonna work for you. 





LFJ said:


> That's a stupid misapplication of the principle, for lack of fighting strategy.
> 
> You may go walking into round punches with _taan-da_ and wonder how I would do the same with one arm. But I wouldn't do that in the first place.



You are the one talking about taan-da. That is your view, I have never said anything of that kind. Stop putting words in peoples mouths when you know too little.




LFJ said:


> Tactical footwork is always a part of it. That's why I said you're clueless.



You never answered the question. I was the one saying footwork. You talked about closing options and baiting.

So focus on answering the question or ignore it if too hard. Just helps if you stop being insulting.


----------



## Phobius

It is okay LFJ that you do not have an answer to round attacks. Many clubs focus mostly just on VT/WC attacks or hooks. Some miss that there are round attacks as well at distance.

I am not the one asking the question initially either, was just interested in hearing your answer but given the keywords you throw as a response and how you go out of your way to be insulting as a response I can understand I might have pressured you.

Sorry if that is the case. I can drop the question.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> So admitting I was right. Which leaves the question as to how you would deal with round attacks either unanswered or saying you will take that hit every now and then.



You are wrong. If an opponent is not in position to effectively throw a round attack, and is instead forced to use linear attacks, the round attack has been prevented.



> Baiting works, that is not a debate. But to have it as you main defense and with only a single goal to prevent round attacks and never to bait a round attack...  That is what is being questioned. A one sided bait is not gonna work for you.



When did I say that is my single goal and why would I bait a round attack? Not sure what you're talking about.



> You are the one talking about taan-da. That is your view, I have never said anything of that kind. Stop putting words in peoples mouths when you know too little.



KPM was and you hopped in behind him to push his nonsensical question of how to deflect a round punch while striking with the same arm.



> I was the one saying footwork. You talked about closing options and baiting.



And how the hell do you think I'd do any of that without footwork? You think you're so clever that only you know to use footwork? lmao



> It is okay LFJ that you do not have an answer to round attacks.



The question assumes I'd try to use one arm where KPM would use _taan-da_, i.e. standing between the opponent's arms trying to block a round punch. That's retarded.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> We never said that is our approach. That's some stupid idea KPM came up with.



Read a bit closer.  Saul just said you can clarify your approach and prove I have a "stupid" impression about what it is, simply by posting a  video showing what you mean.  You haven't done a very job so far communicating what your "approach" really is.  You say I've got it all wrong.  So show us.  How hard is that?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> KPM was and you hopped in behind him to push his nonsensical question of how to deflect a round punch while striking with the same arm.
> 
> .



And I never said I would do a Tan Da in that situation.  I only pointed out that you have said in the past that your system does not have the Tan Da, where the rest of the Wing Chun world acknowledges the Tan Da as using the principle of LSDD.  I'd probably actually do a Biu Da.  But regardless, everything you have been saying so far leads us to believe that your "VT" would not do two-handed actions like a Tan Da, Biu Da, Gan Da, etc and would stick to the whole "blocking and striking with the same arm" approach.  THAT is why we keep asking about non-centerline, non-linear attacks, because THAT  approach will not  work in that situation.  But you are too big-headed to concede this and acknowledge that you would  actually use something like Biu Da when required.  Of course I'm sure you also see something wrong with Biu Da as well!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> you can not prevent a round attack by drawing responses.


Agree!

When a 45 degree downward hook (or hay-maker) comes toward you, it can knock down all your straight punches. If you try to attack after that hook (or hay-maker), the comeback hook (or hay-maker) can still hit you and "reverse head lock" on you.

This is why in ancient Chinese spear technique, people use circular movement to deal with straight line spear stabbing. Please notice that you can move your spear in clockwise direction. You can also move it in counter-clockwise direction. Both can be used to "deflect" a straight line spear stabbing.






This strategy can be applied in open hand and I like to call it "double spears" strategy.





[/QUOTE]


----------



## SaulGoodman

At the end of the day, the majority of us Wing Chun mortals seem to agree that insofar as basic strategies are concerned :
Attacks down the center line (straight) can be pretty easily dealt with by simply engaging with a straight punch of your own, then simply keep recycling those hands in whatever way necessary until the job is done. Not rocket science, not exclusive to "VT" and a WC 101 that every lineage I've trained in has espoused.

Circular blows, if telegraphed we simply punch through the open line.
If it's a little cuter and perhaps a tight overhand hook then you cant risk that strategy as you're likely to trade and it comes down to who has the hardest chin (not a great approach). In that situation covering and hitting or covering THEN hitting are probably the only sane option. Anyone who has been in either real violence or heavy sparring will note that when in the mix it's hard enough just covering that shot when it missiles in from outside your peripheral vision.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Many CMA systems use "chain punches". It's usually called "1 step 3 punches".


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Read a bit closer.  Saul just said you can clarify your approach and prove I have a "stupid" impression about what it is, simply by posting a  video showing what you mean.



No. You read a bit closer. He said we can clarify our approach of "_how to deal with a non-linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time_".

I have no approach remotely like that. It is the nonsensical approach you are attempting to fit me with and have me explain. I can't explain that in writing or video.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But regardless, everything you have been saying so far leads us to believe that your "VT" would not do two-handed actions like a Tan Da, Biu Da, Gan Da, etc and would stick to the whole "blocking and striking with the same arm" approach.



I quite clearly said we have secondary, auxiliary, and remedial actions that use two arms, but they have a time and place. Most Wing Chun uses them at the wrong time and out of place.



> THAT is why we keep asking about non-centerline, non-linear attacks, because THAT  approach will not  work in that situation.  But you are too big-headed to concede this and acknowledge that you would  actually use something like Biu Da when required.  Of course I'm sure you also see something wrong with Biu Da as well!



I will not concede using something equally as stupid as _taan-da_.

In response to round attacks, I've explained that we have strategy and tactics to diminish the likelihood and effectiveness of them.

Out of range, distance control will prevent round attacks and draw linear ones. When distance is closed, positioning and spatial dominance will greatly reduce the ability of the opponent to throw round attacks and weaken their effectiveness if attempted.

This is the answer to dealing with round attacks in general. It starts from fighting strategy, not a resort to remedial actions for the lack of intelligent strategy. The specific tactics used to accomplish this have been purposefully omitted.

In most circumstances, I will not be found in the position you probably find yourself in often. That is, walking straight-line in between the opponent's arms, thinking you must "occupy center" and then need to block round attacks left and right like Whack-A-Mole.

If I were to screw things up so royally as to be stood there like that, _biu-da_ would be as bad an answer as _taan-da_.

The last thing I would want to do when standing between an opponent's arms facing a round punch coming at me, would be to reactively reach my arm out after it, chasing arms, and leaving my head exposed.

At close range, and in such a bad position, a blinding barrage of punches can come fast and having your arms outstretched like a zombie reactively chasing arms is _going to_ get you knocked out.

We had this discussion months ago. You obviously haven't been pressure testing your theory against serious punchers, or you would have come back with a broken face and a changed perspective.

A much safer and provenly effective method would be a _wu-sau_ adaptation for cover closer to the head while counter striking. In this case, we need a remedial action to fix our screw up of position.

You are using the wrong remedial action as part of your general strategy in a position you shouldn't be letting yourself get into. This is why imposition of intelligent fighting strategy is more important than reactive techniques to deal with this or that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> _Taan-da_ is never the answer because it's redundant against linear punches and doesn't work against round punches.


Have to disagree with you on this. The Tan Da can be considered as to extend both of your arms outward from your boxing guard.

In "boxing guard", your arms are close to your own head (too conservative).







In "Tan Da", your arms are away from your head and close to your opponent's head (more aggressive). 

IMO, Tan Da > boxing guard






If you use Tan Da to move in through your opponent's front door, you are using both of your arms to "separate" your opponent's arms from inside out. You are occupying his center right at this moment.

- Your left Tan can be used to deal with his right arm,
- Your right Da can be used to deal with his left arm.
- You can use both arms to punch on your opponent's head. You can even use both hands to choke on his throat if you want to.

You can also use Tan Da to deal with a hay-maker because

- You can hide your head behind your both Tan Da arms. It functions just like the boxing guard.
- your 2 arms are stronger than your opponent's single hay-maker arm.

Just move into your opponent and extend your

- Tan arm between his right arm and his head,
- Da arm between his left arm and his head,

you will see that you can disable both of your opponent's arms right at that moment. When you apply Tan Da, you try to hug and kiss your opponent. That's how aggressive you are.


----------



## LFJ

Neat theory, but walking straight in between a boxer's arms and standing in the pocket with both your arms outstretched like a zombie is setting yourself up. Face a half decent boxer and find out.

Redundant against linear punches. Doesn't work against round punches.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> No. You read a bit closer. He said we can clarify our approach of "_how to deal with a non-linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time_".
> 
> I have no approach remotely like that. It is the nonsensical approach you are attempting to fit me with and have me explain. I can't explain that in writing or video.


 
And THIS is why it is so difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you!  If I was stating something that you do NOT do (even though you kept giving the impression that you did) why did you not post immediately to clarify my misconception and tell us what you actually do in that situation?   Rather than just keep posting leading responses and drawing things out, when I asked the very first time what you do against non-linear, non-centerline punches you could have simply say... "you are correct, in that situation LSDD with one arm does not apply.  We would do....."   But you didn't.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And THIS is why it is so difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you!  If I was stating something that you do NOT do (even though you kept giving the impression that you did) why did you not post immediately to clarify my misconception and tell us what you actually do in that situation?   Rather than just keep posting leading responses and drawing things out, when I asked the very first time what you do against non-linear, non-centerline punches you could have simply say... "you are correct, in that situation LSDD with one arm does not apply.  We would do....."   But you didn't.



I most certainly did. 

Your question was a leading one that was asking me to expound on an impossible method I don't use, and I did in fact state repeatedly that that is a nonsensical misapplication of the principle and not my method!

You revealed in the last post that your goal was to get me to concede using some technique similar to yours. But the alternative is not some other reactive technique. It's fighting strategy first and foremost, and that's what I explained.


----------



## KPM

_Out of range, distance control will prevent round attacks and draw linear ones. When distance is closed, positioning and spatial dominance will greatly reduce the ability of the opponent to throw round attacks and weaken their effectiveness if attempted_.

---And again.  THAT I would like to see.  Because I do not think that works reliably in all situations.  Because, despite what you may think, I have sparred with good people.  Non-Wing Chun people.  Many would just keep throwing their non-linear punches despite any kind of baiting or positioning simply because that's the main punch they know!


_This is the answer to dealing with round attacks in general. It starts from fighting strategy, not a resort to remedial actions for the lack of intelligent strategy. The specific tactics used to accomplish this have been purposefully omitted._

---Right...."purposefully omitted."   Didn't you two jump on me at one point because you thought I was not answering YOUR questions?


_In most circumstances, I will not be found in the position you probably find yourself in often. That is, walking straight-line in between the opponent's arms, thinking you must "occupy center" and then need to block round attacks left and right like Whack-A-Mole._

---If you aren't finding yourself in that position, then you must not be sparring any people that are very good.  And I don't walk straight-line up the middle either!


_If I were to screw things up so royally as to be stood there like that, biu-da would be as bad an answer as taan-da_

---See, there it is.  I knew that was coming!  


_The last thing I would want to do when standing between an opponent's arms facing a round punch coming at me, would be to reactively reach my arm out after it, chasing arms, and leaving my head exposed._

---Well, if you see your system as a punching method for exchanging blows, then yeah it would be a bad idea for you.  When you see your system as a way of gaining control and affecting the opponent's balance and structure, its not so bad!


_At close range, and in such a bad position, a blinding barrage of punches can come fast and having your arms outstretched like a zombie reactively chasing arms is going to get you knocked out._

---Right!  And you actually think that "blinding barrage of punches" will only come in this situation and will include no non-linear, non-centerline punches because you have used your "intelligent fighting strategy" to guarantee this????



_A much safer and provenly effective method would be a wu-sau adaptation for cover closer to the head while counter striking. In this case, we need a remedial action to fix our screw up of position_.

---Sure.  As he weaves out of the path of your counter strike and drives a shovel hook into your ribs.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You revealed in the last post that your goal was to get me to concede using some technique similar to yours. But the alternative is not some other reactive technique. It's fighting strategy first and foremost, and that's what I explained.



No.  You didn't explain.  Evidently you "purposefully omitted."


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Many would just keep throwing their non-linear punches despite any kind of baiting or positioning simply because that's the main punch they know!



Throwing round punches when out of range for it would be stupid and ineffective.



> ---Well, if you see your system as a punching method for exchanging blows, then yeah it would be a bad idea for you.  When you see your system as a way of gaining control and affecting the opponent's balance and structure, its not so bad!



I don't exchange blows, nor do I attempt to control people with zombie arms.



> ---Right!  And you actually think that "blinding barrage of punches" will only come in this situation and will include no non-linear, non-centerline punches because you have used your "intelligent fighting strategy" to guarantee this????



That situation, standing between someone's arms with both of yours outstretched will definitely invite all manner of punches. I wouldn't do that.



> ---Sure.  As he weaves out of the path of your counter strike and drives a shovel hook into your ribs.



Ooh, a scary "what-if" scenario! But if he does that, I'll do this and then what's he gonna do? Huh?



KPM said:


> No.  You didn't explain.  Evidently you "purposefully omitted."



I explained the strategy in general terms, omitting specific tactics. A Wing Chun guy should know what to do from there.


----------



## KPM

Ok, I give up.  Once again, it has become abundantly clear that discussions like this go nowhere with you.  You obfuscate points, don't explain what you mean, and just keep talking in circles.  I know, you'll probably say the same thing about me.  And you'll also think once again that you right and everyone else is wrong simply because you are more persistent.  But I have been accused of being the source of these arguments simply because I call you on things that don't make sense.  So I'm done.  Say whatever you want.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Throwing round punches when out of range for it would be stupid and ineffective.



Just had to involve myself here again, if you are out of range for round punches does this mean you look at VT as being long range boxing? Or if you consider it close range, you jump in and out of range? Or putting all bets you will finish the fight quickly once you're within range? (The later is of course a given for all but many want not to bet their life on it)

Found it curious that you consider staying out of range for round punches because given the WC/VT punches with squared body means you to will be out of range at that point.



LFJ said:


> I don't exchange blows, nor do I attempt to control people with zombie arms.



There is more things other than "zombie arms" and "punching". Many styles including boxing will have other methods as well. Not a fan of zombie arms, nor sure anyone does that given how quickly one should figure out that having arms stretched out in front of you is just gonna hurt.




LFJ said:


> That situation, standing between someone's arms with both of yours outstretched will definitely invite all manner of punches. I wouldn't do that.



Nobody wants that, I think he meant it rather as **** happends kind of situation. We don't always pick how a fight starts.



LFJ said:


> Ooh, a scary "what-if" scenario! But if he does that, I'll do this and then what's he gonna do? Huh?



The what-ifs can be good for understanding a discussion or a question, not sure in this case and dont care. It was just part of the quote so figured I say that it can be good adding what-ifs to increase understanding of an argument sometimes.



LFJ said:


> I explained the strategy in general terms, omitting specific tactics. A Wing Chun guy should know what to do from there.



I think you were a bit vague. A Wing Chun guy has his own ways of doing it, but that means a vague term as "tactics", "strategy" and so on can not be understood because it says nothing. You have to consider that if all your questions were answered that way where you were requested to fill in the gaps the end result would be you having no clue what the heck they were talking about. Good or bad.

Might already be how you feel people do towards you, heck would I know. But vague terms are not understandable, because they can mean you are doing crazy stuff, logical stuff, weird stuff... heck your strategy could be to throw sand in their eyes, scream out loud Leeeroy and then run straight into them with your head first and upon contact scream out "I AM A FLOWERPOT!". That would be a strategy, effectiveness could be discussed of course.

EDIT: Which is why I find the answer of footwork to be a good answer, it seems like it is the answer you wanted to give.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But I have been accused of being the source of these arguments simply because I call you on things that don't make sense.



You "called me on" something stupid I never said I do and repeatedly said I don't do.

Post #158
"_You mean how to do something at the wrong time? I don't._"

Post #167
"_You're asking me to misapply a principle._"

Post #205
"_We never said that is our approach. That's some stupid idea KPM came up with._"

Post #206
"That's a stupid misapplication of the principle, for lack of fighting strategy."

Post #209
"..._nonsensical question of how to deflect a round punch while striking with the same arm_."

"_The question assumes I'd try to use one arm where KPM would use taan-da, i.e. standing between the opponent's arms trying to block a round punch. That's retarded._" (Now you said you would use _biu-da_, but all the same.)

Post #215
"_I have no approach remotely like that. It is the nonsensical approach you are attempting to fit me with and have me explain._"



Then finally, after all that... You ask me why I didn't just come out immediately and say that's not what I do and explain what I'd do instead, when that's exactly what I've been doing this entire time!  FFS man!

You were just waiting around for me to throw out an alternative technique, but VT doesn't work like that.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Just had to involve myself here again, if you are out of range for round punches does this mean you look at VT as being long range boxing? Or if you consider it close range, you jump in and out of range? Or putting all bets you will finish the fight quickly once you're within range? (The later is of course a given for all but many want not to bet their life on it)



I don't jump out of range, but I don't jump in either. We have strategy and tactics for both since it's all part of a fight, and our goal is to safely enter and aggressively attack until finished.



> Found it curious that you consider staying out of range for round punches because given the WC/VT punches with squared body means you to will be out of range at that point.



When out of range for round punches, linear punches may still be in range. That's in part how linear punches can be drawn from the opponent, and VT has methods of entry and counter striking to deal with it, which involves tactical footwork, angling, positioning and spatial dominance, etc..



> having arms stretched out in front of you is just gonna hurt.



And that is exactly what _taan-da_ or _biu-da_ against a round punch is.



> I think you were a bit vague. A Wing Chun guy has his own ways of doing it, but that means a vague term as "tactics", "strategy" and so on can not be understood because it says nothing.



Distance control, spatial dominance, tactical footwork... These should all mean something to any WC practitioner.



> EDIT: Which is why I find the answer of footwork to be a good answer, it seems like it is the answer you wanted to give.



Footwork should be assumed in all things. Nothing happens without footwork.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I don't jump out of range, but I don't jump in either. We have strategy and tactics for both since it's all part of a fight, and our goal is to safely enter and aggressively attack until finished.



Okay.



LFJ said:


> When out of range for round punches, linear punches may still be in range. That's in part how linear punches can be drawn from the opponent, and VT has methods of entry and counter striking to deal with it, which involves tactical footwork, angling, positioning and spatial dominance, etc..



It is not a big difference in range between a rounded attack and a linear. So small window to operate in. Also when entering on a linear punch you have to move and be prepared for combos. Which takes you into range of rounded attack. You put no worry to this during entry?

This point is that they may likely start doing fake jabs and follow up with round attacks after moving small step or luring you in with the fake. 




LFJ said:


> And that is exactly what _taan-da_ or _biu-da_ against a round punch is.



Depends, if you attack with it or if it was already there catching an attack. Close range after all. Problem is people and you seem to discuss this from long range where you probably would not like such movements. 




LFJ said:


> Distance control, spatial dominance, tactical footwork... These should all mean something to any WC practitioner.



They do,  but words like tactics, strategy,  drawing punches and closing options don't. Can mean too much. 




LFJ said:


> Footwork should be assumed in all things. Nothing happens without footwork.



Here I was thinking you know much about YouTube wing chun. Footwork which should by logic be one of the most important things for close range seems like it is forgotten completely by many. Probably people think they should copy SLT and don't know it's meaning.


----------



## SaulGoodman

I still maintain that LFJ is doing nothing different to what the majority of WC practitioners would do vs a circular attack. This onus on terms like "tactical footwork TM " and "remedial hands" is simply smoke and mirrors to disguise what is a very basic and ordinary approach to dealing with round attacks. And then saying he is deliberately muddying the waters so we don't get to see this "groundbreaking approach", now that's just plain silly....


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> It is not a big difference in range between a rounded attack and a linear. So small window to operate in. Also when entering on a linear punch you have to move and be prepared for combos. Which takes you into range of rounded attack. You put no worry to this during entry?



On the edge of kicking range, people tend to come forward with their longest range linear attacks. When distance is managed very well, just on the very edge, they can be made to overreach and even lose balance, which makes for safer entries and easier counters.

Even closer in boxing range, as I mentioned earlier, Mayweather was very good at managing distance and baiting linear punches with his use of the Philly Shell guard that presented an illusory range. He could easily get people to overextend and his shoulder roll would take them further off line, open them up, and unbalance them. Then he could counter at will and duck out of range again before they knew what happened. And these were professional boxers.

Again, this is not what I do with VT, but is an example of drawing the attacks you want and forcing mistakes, even before entry. Of course, once in, VT stays in and its bread & butter is forcing mistakes and taking up balance and facing while controlling space and unleashing assault on the opponent.













> This point is that they may likely start doing fake jabs and follow up with round attacks after moving small step or luring you in with the fake.



Not a big problem if you aren't too eager or jumpy, or reaching out with reactive _taan-sau_'s and _biu-sau_'s.



> Footwork which should by logic be one of the most important things for close range seems like it is forgotten completely by many. Probably people think they should copy SLT and don't know it's meaning.



I gave you and KPM the benefit of the doubt here.


----------



## LFJ

SaulGoodman said:


> to disguise what is a very basic and ordinary approach to dealing with round attacks.



What I do is very simple. Nothing special. But the "ordinary approach" is reactive _taan-da_ or _biu-da_. I don't do that.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Also when entering on a linear punch you have to move and be prepared for combos. Which takes you into range of rounded attack. You put no worry to this during entry?



To be clear, what I'm saying is you don't just jump in. You have to find or make the right timing through control of distance and position, and drawing. It's a skill to develop. A lot of WC I've seen has no idea how to do this. That's why they get eaten up before they even get a chance to get into their range.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> To be clear, what I'm saying is you don't just jump in. You have to find or make the right timing through control of distance and position, and drawing. It's a skill to develop. A lot of WC I've seen has no idea how to do this. That's why they get eaten up before they even get a chance to get into their range.



With this and previous post to me I think provides good answer to the question. 

What I mean with footwork is also closely dependant on good timing to enter. Sometimes I  might missread and walk into wrong punch and use body yield to reposition/realign myself and attack. 

Whatever my arms does depends on if they are caught by a rounded attack or not. They do not chase anything but I have had them caught which leads me to move them according to how opponent attack in order to deflect.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> With this and previous post to me I think provides good answer to the question.



Good we got somewhere then.



> Whatever my arms does depends on if they are caught by a rounded attack or not. They do not chase anything but I have had them caught which leads me to move them according to how opponent attack in order to deflect.



Right. I just think it is a bad idea to start reaching out with techniques like _taan-sau_ or _biu-sau_ when surprised with a round shot. Extending both arms far from your head in such situations is a dangerous flinch habit. Better to protect the head close, and that is provenly effective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> I just think it is a bad idea to start reaching out with techniques like _taan-sau_ or _biu-sau_ when surprised with a round shot. Extending both arms far from your head in such situations is a dangerous flinch habit. Better to protect the head close, and that is provenly effective.


When you straight your arms out, your head is well protected by your arms. It's your opponent who has to worry about his head.


----------



## LFJ

If your opponent attacks like that, I guess so.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> If your opponent attacks like that, I guess so.


When your opponent punches, you can dodge and move back.






You can also block/deflect and move in.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> If your opponent attacks like that, I guess so.



I think I saw an attack like that on The Walking Dead once. Jk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> I think I saw an attack like that on The Walking Dead once. Jk


Except zombie won't be able to use his leg like this.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent punches, you can dodge and move back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also block/deflect and move in.



This is very true John!  But when someone sees their Wing Chun as being all about the punch and oriented towards exchanging blows, then closing in that close to control and affect the opponent's structure and balance doesn't occur to them.  All they know to do is to try and punch the opponent out!


----------



## SaulGoodman

Not sure about circular attacks, this is fast becoming a circular discussion


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When you punch at your opponent's face, do you try to step in your leading leg as far as you can between his legs? In CMA, it's called "入马(Ru Ma) - enter horse". This way, you can take over your opponent's center. I believe this is also a very important WC principle.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Because I do not think that works reliably in all situations. Because, despite what you may think, I have sparred with good people. Non-Wing Chun people. Many would just keep throwing their non-linear punches despite any kind of baiting or positioning simply because that's the main punch they know!



If people are throwing looping punches from long range they are unlikley to hit and lilely to be easy to hit. This is why boxers begin by learning to hit straight. 

If your main objection to VT is that it doesn't have a counter to standing inexplicably in range of a moron throwing untrained looping punches at any and all ranges then I don't think we have much to worry about.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> This is very true John!  But when someone sees their Wing Chun as being all about the punch and oriented towards exchanging blows, then closing in that close to control and affect the opponent's structure and balance doesn't occur to them.  All they know to do is to try and punch the opponent out!



VT isn't grappling. It is in fact about the worst grappling platform imaginable. MMA hitting from the clinch much more useful for this eventuality.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Ok, I give up. Once again, it has become abundantly clear that discussions like this go nowhere with you



Great, glad to hear it. Discussion will be easier without trolling


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:
			
		

> I just think it is a bad idea to start reaching out with techniques like _taan-sau_ or _biu-sau_ when surprised with a round shot. Extending both arms far from your head in such situations is a dangerous flinch habit. Better to protect the head close, and that is provenly effective



Agree. It isn't just a bad idea, it is asking to be knocked out. It is what untrained people do. Training that as a response is just mind boggling.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> Agree. It isn't just a bad idea, it is asking to be knocked out. It is what untrained people do. Training that as a response is just mind boggling.


The best way to protect your head is to put your head in a position that your opponent's fists cannot reach it. Both

- Tan Da, and
- double Tan Shou,

can achieve that.

How can your opponent be able to knock you out if he can't even reach to your head? Again, it will be your opponent's head that he has to worry about.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> This is very true John!  But when someone sees their Wing Chun as being all about the punch and oriented towards exchanging blows, then closing in that close to control and affect the opponent's structure and balance doesn't occur to them.  All they know to do is to try and punch the opponent out!



Jeezus! Still beating up on that same straw man?

No one has said "dodging and moving back" or staying out and "exchanging blows" is their method in Wing Chun.

So who and what are you talking about?


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The best way to protect your head is to put your head in a position that your opponent's fists cannot reach it. Both
> 
> - Tan Da, and
> - double Tan Shou,
> 
> can achieve that.
> 
> How can your opponent be able to knock you out if he can't even reach to your head? Again, it will be your opponent's head that he has to worry about.



_Taan-sau_ only works against round punches when you have a buddy throwing a weak punch to the space about two feet to the side of your head and acting stunned by your awesome technique.

It doesn't work against real, powerful round punches at all. Don't even dream about it.


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> In response to round attacks, I've explained that we have strategy and tactics to diminish the likelihood and effectiveness of them.
> 
> Out of range, distance control will prevent round attacks and draw linear ones. When distance is closed, positioning and spatial dominance will greatly reduce the ability of the opponent to throw round attacks and weaken their effectiveness if attempted.
> 
> This is the answer to dealing with round attacks in general. It starts from fighting strategy, not a resort to remedial actions for the lack of intelligent strategy. *The specific tactics used to accomplish this have been purposefully omitted. *



I could be wrong, I thought the main goal of this forum is to SHARE our ideas and knowledge.  Withholding information relative to subject of discussion is what led to the mess we are in.  If the specific tactics are Sooo secrets that you can't reveal to but a privileged few,  why are you here?


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> VT isn't grappling. It is in fact about the worst grappling platform imaginable...



Oh? Maybe you better tell this guy. He seems to think that he can move seamlessly from VT into shuai chiao. Clearly you should set him strait.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> VT isn't grappling. It is in fact about the worst grappling platform imaginable. MMA hitting from the clinch much more useful for this eventuality.


Both WC and Taiji are easier to integrate grappling because WC has sticky hands and Taiji has push hands. IMO, it's easier to add the grappling element into WC than to add into long fist, Baji, Zimen, XingYi, ...


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Both WC and Taiji are easier to integrate grappling because WC has sticky hands and Taiji has push hands. IMO, it's easier to add the grappling element into WC than to add into long fist, Baji, Zimen, XingYi



You do chi sau in such a way that it bears some relation to grappling?


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> You do chi sau in such a way that it bears some relation to grappling?



I think he is referring to the idea behind training chi sau. 
This one dude (BJJ'er) had me in full mount trying to work his game...I was lying comfortably...just stale-mating him every step of the way. 20min into it, he just gave, completely aggravated that none of his stuff was working. The skill ingrained during chi sau was what did it. I have rolled with Royce, for me, trying to "grapple" someone of his caliber...is like chi sau'ing. No biggie.


----------



## Eric_H

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you punch at your opponent's face, do you try to step in your leading leg as far as you can between his legs? In CMA, it's called "入马(Ru Ma) - enter horse". This way, you can take over your opponent's center. I believe this is also a very important WC principle.



No, in fact this would be considered a violation of Wing Chun's idea of spacial management. It would fall under what we describe in my line as "Chung" or crashing in. One of WC's purposes is to avoid grappling, this type of entry is to secure body-to-body grappling style leverage.


----------



## LFJ

wtxs said:


> I could be wrong, I thought the main goal of this forum is to SHARE our ideas and knowledge.  Withholding information relative to subject of discussion is what led to the mess we are in.  If the specific tactics are Sooo secrets that you can't reveal to but a privileged few,  why are you here?



Given a general strategy, experienced practitioners "should" know or be able to figure out what to do with it. I can't be expected to write out a step by step tutorial on something as unpredictable as fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> You do chi sau in such a way that it bears some relation to grappling?


The following training are very similar.

- WC Chi Shou,
- Taiji push hands,
- wrestling grip fight.

If you cross train WC, Taiji, and wrestling, it will be impossible that you don't consider "integration".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Eric_H said:


> One of WC's purposes is to avoid grappling, ...


It's very difficult to avoid grappling if you apply WC "forward pressure". You want to move in, but you don't want to move in too much. What kind of battle do you intend to fight?


----------



## dudewingchun

wckf92 said:


> I think he is referring to the idea behind training chi sau.
> This one dude (BJJ'er) had me in full mount trying to work his game...I was lying comfortably...just stale-mating him every step of the way. 20min into it, he just gave, completely aggravated that none of his stuff was working. The skill ingrained during chi sau was what did it. I have rolled with Royce, for me, trying to "grapple" someone of his caliber...is like chi sau'ing. No biggie.



What


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following training are very similar.
> 
> - WC Chi Shou,
> - Taiji push hands,
> - wrestling grip fight.
> 
> If you cross train WC, Taiji, and wrestling, it will be impossible that you don't consider "integration".



Chi sau bears no relation to grip fighting. This is because their purposes are diametrically opposed.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> Oh? Maybe you better tell this guy. He seems to think that he can move seamlessly from VT into shuai chiao. Clearly you should set him strait.



He's grappling with SC, not VT. This is because VT is about the worst grappling platform imaginable.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Under hooks/over hooks, whizzers, throws/sweeps, clinch work are in lots of WC application. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. And before you start the "well I've done a bit of mma etc" to justify your observations, I have plenty of catch/submission wrestling experience and can see the crossover.


----------



## guy b.

Where are the over hooks, whizzers, throws and clinch work in VT? How do they work with llhs lsjc without contradiction?

How do you integrate a grappling applications approach with the conceptual base and overall organisation of the system?


----------



## JPinAZ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you punch at your opponent's face, do you try to step in your leading leg as far as you can between his legs? In CMA, it's called "入马(Ru Ma) - enter horse". This way, you can take over your opponent's center. I believe this is also a very important WC principle.



** Edit, I didn't see Eric_H already touched on this
but I tend to agree with his 'stance' on this - In an open/mirrored stance, it is typically a very bad strategy to step in between your opponent's legs for reasons he already mentioned. Same goes for close stance really. Among many things, in simple terms you end up with decreased leverage & facing, giving access to your back.


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> Given a general strategy, experienced practitioners "should" know or be able to figure out what to do with it. I can't be expected to write out a step by step tutorial on something as unpredictable as fighting.



Your are correct on that matter.  However, if "we or I" express how it's done (because it work for us), you would give us that never failed "that's wrong, we don't do this, that violates WC concept and ..." anyway.

I have no problem with how you apply your VT, glade it is effective for you.    Being different size, shape and structure, what work for one individual would not work for the other.  Acknowledge the differences and move on already.

As I've said, this forum is built for sharing, if you can't or unwilling ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JPinAZ said:


> ** Edit, I didn't see Eric_H already touched on this
> but I tend to agree with his 'stance' on this - In an open/mirrored stance, it is typically a very bad strategy to step in between your opponent's legs for reasons he already mentioned. Same goes for close stance really. Among many things, in simple terms you end up with decreased leverage & facing, giving access to your back.


In mirror stance, it may be better to step in outside of your opponent's leading leg. You can jam his left leg, prevent him from moving toward your right, and then move to your back.






But in "uniform stance", to step in between your opponent's legs will be a good idea.


----------



## Eric_H

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's very difficult to avoid grappling if you apply WC "forward pressure". You want to move in, but you don't want to move in too much. What kind of battle do you intend to fight?



I think you and I have different understandings of what forward intent is. I can have forward intent without having forward body movement and vice versa.

And you've pretty much already said it, I intend to have a battle where I get close, but not *too* close


----------



## JPinAZ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In mirror stance, it may be better to step in outside of your opponent's leading leg. You can jam his left leg, prevent him from moving toward your right, and then move to your back.



From a general pov I agree with this.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> But in "uniform stance", to step in between your opponent's legs will be a good idea.



I can see how someone might think this is a 'good idea' - if they are a non-wc practitioner and/or if they are planning to do what is shown in your included pic/clip. While you may argue, what you are showing imo does _not_ generally show WC body methods, application, strategy, etc and surely not WC punching - it shows grappling/wrestling. So I don't think we're talking about the same thing any more.

Maybe it would be best to just stick to the subject, which is WC Punch and not other-art grappling


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JPinAZ said:


> Maybe it would be best to just stick to the subject, which is WC Punch and not other-art grappling


If you can push on your opponent's shoulder, you can punch on his face. The key point is you have taken your opponent's center and his center become your center. This is how you use your Tan Da through your opponent's front door and run him down.

I had a clip that a WC instructor (one of YM's Chinese students) also addressed this issue. I just can't find that clip right now. In the following picture, if you step in right leg as deep as you can between your opponent's legs, you will get that "run your opponent down" effect.






If you can make your opponent to lean back, it will be to your advantage.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Oh? Maybe you better tell this guy. He seems to think that he can move seamlessly from VT into shuai chiao. Clearly you should set him strait.


It's my belief that Shuai Jiao is the missing grappling component from kung fu systems.  For examples, all kung fu has 4 elements:

Striking and Kicking
Weapons
Chin Na
Grappling (shuai jiao)
Learning all 4 areas will give a more complete definition of any kung fu system.  The reason why I think Shuai Jiao is the missing component because the goal of Shuai Jiao is to put your opponent on the ground while remaining standing or at a very minimum in a dominant position.  By remaining standing anyone should be able to use any Kung Fu system to continue the strikes that are found with in the system. Being on the ground means that striking skill sets and technique will become void. Shuai Jiao however keeps you standing. If a person wants to fire off some hung gar strikes or Wing Chun strikes then standing up is requirement. 

That video shows just how fluid Shuai Jiao is with a striking art. A person trying to do BJJ and Kung Fu would not have the same fluid transition between striking and grappling.  We see evidence of this in MMA and UFC fights. Where there is no flow between striking and grappling.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> It's my belief that Shuai Jiao is the missing grappling component from kung fu systems.


If you can put your right hand on your opponent's throat, you can pull his leading leg by your left hand to take him down. Anybody can learn this technique within 5 minutes. The throwing art is not that hard to learn.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can put your right hand on your opponent's throat, you can pull his leading leg by your hand (or by your leg) to take him down. Anybody can learn this technique within 5 minutes. The throwing art is not that hard to learn.


Learning to escape that move takes less than 5 minutes.  Basic Chin Na applications address what you are describing. If someone grabs my throat, I'm breaking their wrist and or arm.


----------



## LFJ

wtxs said:


> However, if "we or I" express how it's done (because it work for us), you would give us that never failed "that's wrong, we don't do this, that violates WC concept and ..." anyway.



I've never said "that's wrong". I'm not your teacher.

I've said "we don't do this" if we don't. So?

And if it violates VT principles, what's wrong with pointing it out?


----------



## guy b.

wtxs said:


> Your are correct on that matter.  However, if "we or I" express how it's done (because it work for us), you would give us that never failed "that's wrong, we don't do this, that violates WC concept and ..." anyway.



Why would you care? Either you look at the point being made and respond or seriously consider what you are doing, or you dismiss it and continue on. I don't understand the response of hearing criticism and then just being sad about it but not doing anything. It appears some of you guys are mostly offended by language and perceived manners than by facts?



> I have no problem with how you apply your VT, glade it is effective for you.    Being different size, shape and structure, what work for one individual would not work for the other.  Acknowledge the differences and move on already.



VT is a concept and principle based system. It is adaptable to neary any size or shape beyond obvious extremes.


----------



## wtxs

guy b. said:


> Why would you care? Either you look at the point being made and respond or seriously consider what you are doing, or you dismiss it and continue on. I don't understand the response of hearing criticism and then just being sad about it but not doing anything. It appears some of you guys are mostly offended by language and perceived manners than by facts?
> 
> 
> 
> *VT is a concept and principle based system. It is adaptable to neary any size or shape beyond obvious extremes.*



Expected same old typical respond ... and tag teaming at that.  I'm honored.

Before you two take another shot, take an hard look at what does ADAPTABLE means.  This is what this whole mess of an thread is boiled down to.

Adaptation of Wing Chun concept &  principle and make it effective varies to suit each individual, there is no right way nor wrong way ... it is just the way.  Why do you feel the need to inject any criticism at anyone which do it different than you?

If you must, just explain how and why you do thing certain thing which is effective for you and be done with it.  Unless you get off in carrying on as being since day 1.   

I can bet one or both of you WILL throw more crap back, because that's what you live for,  but that only re-enforce the assessment we had of you.


----------



## SaulGoodman

wtxs said:


> Expected same old typical respond ... and tag teaming at that.  I'm honored.
> 
> Before you two take another shot, take an hard look at what does ADAPTABLE means.  This is what this whole mess of an thread is boiled down to.
> 
> Adaptation of Wing Chun concept &  principle and make it effective varies to suit each individual, there is no right way nor wrong way ... it is just the way.  Why do you feel the need to inject any criticism at anyone which do it different than you?
> 
> If you must, just explain how and why you do thing certain thing which is effective for you and be done with it.  Unless you get off in carrying on as being since day 1.
> 
> I can bet one or both of you WILL throw more crap back, because that's what you live for,  but that only re-enforce the assessment we had of you.



I believe you're wasting your time trying to have a discussion with these guys. Many have tried and given up, better to expend your energy on training.


----------



## guy b.

wtxs said:


> take an hard look at what does ADAPTABLE means. This is what this whole mess of an thread is boiled down to.
> 
> Adaptation of Wing Chun concept & principle and make it effective varies to suit each individual, there is no right way nor wrong way



It isn't a case of adapting the concepts of a system to fit the individual (or the individual problem). This has been discussed before and is referred to as gap filling. There is a right way and there is a wrong way according to the conceptual base of the system. To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice VT. It is not difficult. 

It is perfectly possible to practice coherent and non contradictory VT, adapted to physical difference, but aligned with the core ideas upon which the system is based. VT is not designed only for people of a particular age, shape, or physical capacity.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> It isn't a case of adapting the concepts of a system to fit the individual (or the individual problem). This has been discussed before and is referred to as gap filling. There is a right way and there is a wrong way according to the conceptual base of the system. To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice VT. It is not difficult.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to practice coherent and non contradictory VT, adapted to physical difference, but aligned with the core ideas upon which the system is based. VT is not designed only for people of a particular age, shape, or physical capacity.



To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice VT. It is not difficult.
To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice WC. It is not difficult.
To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice WT. It is not difficult.

To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice any other kind of spelling of WC.

Just figured I would change your statement to a more correct one. To avoid unnecessary fighting here.


----------



## wtxs

SaulGoodman said:


> I believe you're wasting your time trying to have a discussion with these guys. Many have tried and given up, better to expend your energy on training.



Thank you for reminding me of that.

Maybe we all should channel our energy on more positive areas than having keyboard war ... the fire will flame out when deprived of oxygen.


----------



## dudewingchun

I also do not think a typical Tan Sao will stop a proper hook.


----------



## SaulGoodman

dudewingchun said:


> I also do not think a typical Tan Sao will stop a proper hook.


What I would call a "square body" tan Sao vs a tight hook will result at best partially stopping the shot then the attackers fist will loop round and still tag you. Easy to prove, just glove up and enjoy! I


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dudewingchun said:


> I also do not think a typical Tan Sao will stop a proper hook.


YM's student Jeffery Law told me the following story.

In one HK tournament, a CLF guy used a "right hay-maker" on a WC guy's head. The WC guy used "left Tan Shou" to block it. That right hay-maker not only knocked down the WC guy's left Tan Shou, it also hit on the WC guy's head. After the tournament, the WC guy went back to YM and asked for solution. YM told him to use "right Tan Shou" to block "right hay-maker".

I have used "double Tan Shou" (plus body rotation) to stop make hay-maker before. Since "double Tan Shou" is the same as "boxing guard", it works quite well.


----------



## dudewingchun

Kung Fu Wang said:


> YM's student Jeffery Law told me the following story.
> 
> In one HK tournament, a CLF guy used a "right hay-maker" on a WC guy's head. The WC guy used "left Tan Shou" to block it. That right hay-maker not only knocked down the WC guy's left Tan Shou, it also hit on the WC guy's head. After the tournament, the WC guy went back to YM and asked for solution. YM told him to use "right Tan Shou" to block "right hay-maker".
> 
> I have used "double Tan Shou" (plus body rotation) to stop make hay-maker before. Since "double Tan Shou" is the same as "boxing guard", it works very nature.



What im confused. He said use right tan sao to block a right hook? How does that even work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dudewingchun said:


> What im confused. He said use right tan sao to block a right hook? How does that even work.


Rotate your body to your left and use your right arm to block a right hay-maker. You use your right arm to "cut" into your opponent's striking arm. It's pretty much like a Karate hard block.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Rotate your body to your left and use your right arm to block a right hay-maker. You use your right arm to "cut" into your opponent's striking arm. It's pretty much like a Karate hard block.


What happens when he throws a follow up left hook? In that scenario you are actually facing the inside of his right arm, he will connect with the left hand long before you change your angle of facing.


----------



## geezer

The best solution to a haymaker is not to be there when they throw it. What you do with your hands is an auxilary at best.

Now the problem with this advice is that you might be taken by surprise. You see a lot of that on Youtube. When I'm surprised, I flinch and cover-my head. Ducking the head, bringing the arms up covering my face and cheeks, hands grabbing the top -back of the head, elbows in front. This is a deeply rooted survival reflex, and no amount of training will totally eliminate it. So instead, _use_ it. Call it a_ highly compressed_ tan-sau with a simultaneous elbow strike, if you will.

When the punch comes go with your instincts, but aggressively. Against a right, cover-up and step i_nside_, turning left toward the punch. By moving explosively forward and inside, you evade the power arc of a haymaker, the nearest covering arm (left) jams the punch, and the other arm becomes a vertical elbow jamming into their face.

Now I know people are going to say that this won't work so well against a "proper hook". Yeah, _that's true._ Proper hooks knock trained boxers out. But covering and rolling with it can help blunt the blow. What really helps is moving-in and rolling into that vertical elbow strike. If you survive the hook, you can definitely give back some of the pain. 




OK I took a 2-minute look on Youtube and this is the first thing that caught my eye:







 This is the cover I'm talking about, except I use both hands to cover and guard, and step explosively forward,  turning a bit so that if the left covers, the right forearm or elbow hits hard. Anybody else like this?


----------



## SaulGoodman

I like this and employ a similar cover to deal with this type of blow. I've often felt that sometimes it's not always sage to fight the natural flinch but rather to "build" on it so your response still errs on the natural reaction but with some added "trained sophistication"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

SaulGoodman said:


> What happens when he throws a follow up left hook? In that scenario you are actually facing the inside of his right arm, he will connect with the left hand long before you change your angle of facing.


If your right Tan Shou can function as your "rhino guard", your head will be protect by your own arms.






Since your right hand is on the right side of your opponent's head, after you have blocked his right hay-maker, your right arm can apply "reverse head lock" on his head. This "reverse head lock" will disable his left hook.


----------



## KPM

Ok.  Silat overlap here.  Visualize that picture from the thumbnail for the vid  Steve posted.  But see it angled INTO the oncoming punch.  See it with the right hand against the forearm for reinforcement.   3 things will happen.  The punch collides forcefully with the point of the elbow...bad news for the puncher!  The punch skates "up the ramp" being deflected upward.   The punch skates "down the ramp".  The third is the least desirable outcome, but even then its force is blunted and you simply pivot back to the right with a "whizzer" that wrenches his elbow.  And you are flowing into your next response just as the punch meets your cover.  So you won't be exactly where he expects you to be if he is automatically throwing a left hook immediately after the right one.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

- Your opponent throw a right hay-maker (or hook), you use left hand to block on his wrist, use your right hand to push on his right shoulder.
- When he throws a left hay-maker (or hook), you use right hand to "wrap" his left arm, use your left arm to lock on his head, and take him down.

As long as you are in your opponent's "front door - between his arms", his right and left hay-makers (or hooks) will be a gift to you.


----------



## Nobody Important

SaulGoodman said:


> What happens when he throws a follow up left hook? In that scenario you are actually facing the inside of his right arm, he will connect with the left hand long before you change your angle of facing.


Then use right hacking elbow in bong sau fashion and wrap up.


----------



## dudewingchun

You guys realise how fast punches come right? I dont think crossing over your whole body to reach something on the other side of your body is efficient. Kind of confused that Ip man would even recommend that.

I remember before I started learning CSL, I thought things would deflect off the 'angle' of my sao's, but then I was sparring with a mate who just straight punched through my gaurd and made me punch my own face with my ' gaurd hands'. It also happened to me with a hook where I did a tan and it still hit me even though I got it with the tan and kind of hurt my shoulder from the force. That was Ip chun/ Lo man Kam hybrid application though. 






^ My obvious preffered way of dealing with those hooks.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> This is the cover I'm talking about, except I use both hands to cover and guard, and step explosively forward, turning a bit so that if the left covers, the right forearm or elbow hits hard. Anybody else like this?


This is as simialr block that is taught in Jow Ga Kung Fu.  You can actually see this block demonstrated in the kung fu forms.  The only difference is we cover that small opening that you see where the ear is exposed.

The way that the block is being demonstrated means that someone can land a hook right in that spot. We also don't open our hand to execute the block as if we are brushing our hair.  It's a valid blocking technique provided that the opening is closed and the ear isn't exposed.


----------



## Nobody Important

dudewingchun said:


> You guys realise how fast punches come right? I dont think crossing over your whole body to reach something on the other side of your body is efficient. Kind of confused that Ip man would even recommend that.
> 
> I remember before I started learning CSL, I thought things would deflect off the 'angle' of my sao's, but then I was sparring with a mate who just straight punched through my gaurd and made me punch my own face with my ' gaurd hands'. It also happened to me with a hook where I did a tan and it still hit me even though I got it with the tan and kind of hurt my shoulder from the force. That was Ip chun/ Lo man Kam hybrid application though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ My obvious preffered way of dealing with those hooks.


This is a standing elbow used high instead of in midsection as normally taught. Good when closing a gap. Use of a hacking elbow ( from elbow to shoulder) in outward fashion as if throwing an outer elbow strike is good for short hook when inside, both allow for wrapping up. Main difference is hacking elbow comes across to outside of body. The high standing elbow comes straight up on same side.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dudewingchun said:


> You guys realise how fast punches come right?


If you train with speed, you can handle speed. If you can feel that your eye balls are going to fly out of your eye sockets, you can understand what "lighting speed" is.

- Your opponent right hay-maker at your head.
- You use your left arm to wrap around his right arm, spin your body in lighting speed, use your right hay-maker to hit on the back of his head, get him a head lock, and take him down.


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train with speed, you can handle speed. If you can feel that your eye balls are going to fly out of your eye sockets, you can understand what "lighting speed" is.
> 
> - Your opponent right hay-maker at your head.
> - You use your left arm to wrap around his right arm, spin your body in lighting speed, use your right hay-maker to hit on the back of his head, get him a head lock, and take him down.


Very good. That is left hacking elbow applied to right hook and right covering elbow used to wrap neck, circle step used to set hip and throw. Concepts from Biu Jee applied in Sut Gow manner.


----------



## SaulGoodman

dudewingchun said:


> You guys realise how fast punches come right? I dont think crossing over your whole body to reach something on the other side of your body is efficient. Kind of confused that Ip man would even recommend that.
> 
> I remember before I started learning CSL, I thought things would deflect off the 'angle' of my sao's, but then I was sparring with a mate who just straight punched through my gaurd and made me punch my own face with my ' gaurd hands'. It also happened to me with a hook where I did a tan and it still hit me even though I got it with the tan and kind of hurt my shoulder from the force. That was Ip chun/ Lo man Kam hybrid application though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ My obvious preffered way of dealing with those hooks.



I agree 100%, I think there's a bit of wishful thinking going on with some of the applications suggested.

The demo clips are done with compliant partners in slow motion, I would be more convinced seeing the tecniques espoused performed real time when the "defender" doesn't know what attack is coming.
 I must be really slow or something but I believe the kind of timeframe we are talking about is way too tight to pull off some of this stuff. But at the end of the day if it works for these guys great, I've been in the mix plenty of times and know what works for me and turning to face a right hook and blocking it with my right hand then arm wrapping the guys neck with the SAME arm THEN converting that to a guillotene AND avoiding the left hand missiling at my head (not to mention a possible follow up kick/knee) is not a tactic I would attempt unless I was fighting a zombie.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

SaulGoodman said:


> I agree 100%, I think there's a bit of wishful thinking going on with some of the applications suggested.
> 
> The demo clips are done with compliant partners in slow motion, I would be more convinced seeing the tecniques espoused performed real time when the "defender" doesn't know what attack is coming.
> I must be really slow or something but I believe the kind of timeframe we are talking about is way too tight to pull off some of this stuff. But at the end of the day if it works for these guys great, I've been in the mix plenty of times and know what works for me and turning to face a right hook and blocking it with my right hand then arm wrapping the guys neck with the SAME arm THEN converting that to a guillotene AND avoiding the left hand missiling at my head (not to mention a possible follow up kick/knee) is not a tactic I would attempt unless I was fighting a zombie.


This clip will meet your requirement.

- He moves in with a "boxing guard" similar to WC double Tan Shou.
- His opponent throws a right hook at him.
- He use left WC Tan Shou to block and wrap it,
- uses his right Tan Shou to deal with his opponent's left hook.
- move into his opponent's "front door" between both arms,
- use his left arm to lock on his opponent's head, and
- right uppercut at his opponent.

His opponent's hook punches didn't look that fast in this clip at all. Why? Because he moves in and squeeze the space instead of move back.

Also his left arm has plenty of time to wrap around his opponent's head before he throws that "uppercut".






The closer that you and your opponent's body is, the slower that his punch will be. When your body and your opponent's body body are this close, his punch can be ignored. The faster that your opponent moves in toward you, the faster the space between you and your opponent will be squeezed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

SaulGoodman said:


> I would be more convinced seeing the tecniques espoused performed real time when the "defender" doesn't know what attack is coming.
> I must be really slow or something but I believe the kind of timeframe we are talking about is way too tight to pull off some of this stuff. But at the end of the day if it works for these guys great, I've been in the mix plenty of times and know what works for me and turning to face a right hook and blocking it with my right hand then arm wrapping the guys neck with the SAME arm THEN converting that to a guillotene AND avoiding the left hand missiling at my head (not to mention a possible follow up kick/knee) is not a tactic I would attempt unless I was fighting a zombie.


This clip will meet your requirement.

- He moves in with a "boxing guard" similar to WC double Tan Shou.
- His opponent throws a right hook at him.
- He use left WC Tan Shou to block and wrap it,
- uses his right Tan Shou to deal with his opponent's left hook.
- move into his opponent's "front door" between both arms,
- use his left arm to lock on his opponent's head, and
- right uppercut at his opponent.

His opponent's hook punches didn't look that fast in this clip at all. Why? Because he moves in and squeeze the space instead of move back.

Also his left arm has plenty of time to wrap around his opponent's head before he throws that "uppercut".


----------



## JPinAZ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Rotate your body to your left and use your right arm to block a right hay-maker. You use your right arm to "cut" into your opponent's striking arm. It's pretty much like a Karate hard block.



And then get knocked out by the follow up left since you've turned your facing and tools away from your opponent.... No Centerline, no WC.


----------



## JPinAZ

dudewingchun said:


> You guys realise how fast punches come right? I dont think crossing over your whole body to reach something on the other side of your body is efficient. Kind of confused that Ip man would even recommend that.



Agreed - and 'efficiency' is the key. 
AS far as if Ip Man recommended that or not matters little. The concepts/principles of the system will show us what is most efficient, not some story about who said what regarding a 'technique' over 50 years ago.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This clip will meet your requirement.
> 
> - He moves in with a "boxing guard" similar to WC double Tan Shou.
> - His opponent throws a right hook at him.
> - He use left WC Tan Shou to block and wrap it,
> - uses his right Tan Shou to deal with his opponent's left hook.
> - move into his opponent's "front door" between both arms,
> - use his left arm to lock on his opponent's head, and
> - right uppercut at his opponent.
> 
> His opponent's hook punches didn't look that fast in this clip at all. Why? Because he moves in and squeeze the space instead of move back.
> 
> Also his left arm has plenty of time to wrap around his opponent's head before he throws that "uppercut".



That's not showing the strategy of defending a right hook with a right tan Sao, then transitioning to a guillotene which you suggested earlier in the thread. The clip shows a couple of Thai boxers, nothing wrong with the strategy the guy employs, cover and clinch. I would consider the hand movement he used to defend the hook was more of a thrusting (biu) hand than tan though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

SaulGoodman said:


> That's not showing the strategy of defending a right hook with a right tan Sao, then transitioning to a guillotene which you suggested earlier in the thread.


For the sake of the discussion, let's see if you think the following is possible.

- Your opponent right hooks at your head, you use right Tang Shou to block it. Your opponent throw left hook at your head.
- You step in your left foot, spin your right foot behind your left foot, and move your body away from his left hand.
- You move your right hand on your opponent's neck, pull his neck and spin his body to your right.
- ...


----------



## nikthegreek_3

I  disagree. It depends on your purpose - so the punch of Wing Chun can use different concepts. There are many different kind of punches in Wing Chun, but all follow specific concepts. This is a perfect explanation of how to PUNCH, instead of using silly chain punches. (As also why Wing Chun people cannot punch).


----------

