# Anybody ever really spar on a table?



## geezer (Mar 12, 2012)

Guys, take a look at the following. It's an idea I posted on another forum, but I'd be interested in the responses of folks over here.

We've all heard about old school bouts in Hong Kong and on the mainland fought on top of tables. And of course there is the cool, if unrealistic, table top fight scene in the movie _Ip Man II_. Or the one in _Prodigal Son_. My old sifu spoke of training chi-sau that way, and from time to time we've all seen demos like that -- using strong square tables something like heavy-duty card tables, ....not tippy, round restaurant tables like in the _IP Man_ movie, of course. Well, reading the following bit on another forum got me wondering, "Why don't we set up actual competitions based on this?"

Quote:
_Originally Posted by Sean66 
Sifu *WKL*: Some parts of the Wing Chun style are very useful, while others are not ideally suited to certain situations. All styles have their benefits and disadvantage. Say, Wing Chun can be used with great effect when you only have small space or fight at close range. Like the predecessors, when they exchanged skills it was on a very small platform. So back then you could not step too much backwards, so the platform made you have to keep a close distance. _

Personally, I'd really like to see competitons set up like this. Set up a small, low platform about 5 ft. by 5 ft., or even a bit bigger, say 2 meters on a side,  and have opponents start from opposite corners. You could use kicking, punching, elbows, knees, throws, or grappling, but if you go over the side, you lose points. If both competitors go over, you'd reset on top. It could be done safely using low platforms ...perhaps  raised 18 inches  or 50 cm off a floor padded with mats. Having such a small floor-space with no ropes or netting to lean on would definitely change the fighting dynamics. It would be challenging and dramatic, and it would showcase the type of close fighting situation WC evolved to fight. 

Has anybody actually promoted open competitions anything like this? I'm thinking WC might earn some real respect if they did. Any thoughts?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

My other half, when younger did a Zulu Warrior on a table in the mess, he fell off taking his sock off and broke his nose, didn't realise till he sobered up.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 12, 2012)

geezer said:


> Personally, I'd really like to see competitons set up like this. Set up a small, low platform about 5 ft. by 5 ft., or even a bit bigger, say 2 meters on a side, and have opponents start from opposite corners. You could use kicking, punching, elbows, knees, throws, or grappling, but if you go over the side, you lose points. If both competitors go over, you'd reset on top. It could be done safely using low platforms ...perhaps raised 18 inches or 50 cm off a floor padded with mats. Having such a small floor-space with no ropes or netting to lean on would definitely change the fighting dynamics. It would be challenging and dramatic, and it would showcase the type of close fighting situation WC evolved to fight.
> 
> Has anybody actually promoted open competitions anything like this? I'm thinking WC might earn some real respect if they did. Any thoughts?



I think if you have to artifically constrain your fighting area in order to showcase your art you are probably going to earn less respect than if the same fighter participated in a more open competition.  I didn't think that Wing Chun was designed to fight in close quarters, but that close quarters were a range that could be used to neutralize bigger/stronger type fighters.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

I think the idea comes from certain films? If it's going to be a spectator sport however the idea of having competitors on a platform does make for easier viewing, other than that it would be no different from MMA/boxing/MT fights in rings and cages where the space available to fight is limited. However MMA and MT are also done on mats in some competitions, more likely amateur or interclubs comps. I can't see how WC would look any different from them?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 12, 2012)

Blindside said:


> I think if you have to artifically constrain your fighting area in order to showcase your art you are probably going to earn less respect than if the same fighter participated in a more open competition.  I didn't think that Wing Chun was designed to fight in close quarters, but that close quarters were a range that could be used to neutralize bigger/stronger type fighters.



Not necessarily on either count. Muat born, kempo, jujitsu, and plenty others Excel at close quarters.

And a big strong fighter trained in close quarters will still have quite an advantage.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Blindside (Mar 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Not necessarily on either count. Muat born, kempo, jujitsu, and plenty others Excel at close quarters.
> 
> And a big strong fighter trained in close quarters will still have quite an advantage.



No disagreement from me, I am just talking about the strategic reason why WC specializes in the range that it does.


----------



## HammockRider (Mar 12, 2012)

I don't think you would restrict any and all WC competitions to a small space. Just make it an additional competition. I think it would be fun.


----------



## geezer (Mar 12, 2012)

I think that having a close-quarters competition would be a really interesting experiment. It would definitely affect styles dependent on long range techniques. Other arts, like boxing and muay thai that have vicious close range techniques would probably do very well. However, having to reset if you go over the side would change the way grappling and throwing are applied. Those who want to take it right to the ground would have to really control their opponent to keep him from deliberately rolling off the platform and taking the point deduction to gain a re-set standing up. 

Heck, it's just an idea for a different rule-set. I'm not saying anything about eliminating weight classes, or that WC would dominate. Heck no, the best fighter under those conditions would dominate. It's just something I'd like to see. Another approach would be the classic fight "in a phone booth"... held in a "mini cage" about 5ft. x 5ft. square.

But don't mind me. I'd also like to see _full contact basketball!_


----------



## geezer (Mar 12, 2012)

Blindside said:


> No disagreement from me, I am just talking about the strategic reason why WC specializes in the range that it does.



I don't really know, but whenever I'm further out, I use more Escrima. Just feels natural.


----------



## Edgar (Mar 12, 2012)

This should be made a drill for Wing Chun classes! It will be great training. Here are 3 reasons why:

1. Closing the distance: We naturally tend to back away from an attack but in this training, we won't have space to step back and 

2. Stability: This would be great training for rooting ourselves down so that we can channel our energy better and create a balanced forward pressure without overdoing it (which can lead to overcommitting to an attack).

3. Shifting training: Like #1, I tend to rely on stepping back or to the side instead of shifting when I chi sao. I try to force myself to shift but I have bad habits. But being in a small space with nowhere to step back, I'm forced to shift.

These are my 3 reasons why it would be a cool training drill. What do you guys think?


----------



## WingChunIan (Mar 12, 2012)

I've never spared on a table but have done chi sau on a 2ft by 6ft table. Isn't whats being proposed simply a lei tai that was always traditionally used for san shou. I don't think it makes any odds whether its a platform, ring or cage, the only thing that restricting the space does is prevent stick and move type fighting and would play into the hands of grapplers more than close range strikers unless you adopt rules that allow striking of areas banned in most combat sports.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 12, 2012)

Wing Chun specialises at close quarters because it is a range where we can generate power , but typically most others cannot unless they draw their strikes back which wastes time.

Another factor for the fixation on close range is that Wing Chun makes extensive use of the bottom of the  forearms , they act as wedges to redirect incoming strikes off at various angles.

When controlling the opponents arms we have to be in close enough to get the proper arm contact so that we can have the leverage to force the opponents arms down ,  that way we can clear the way for more striking .

The bottom of the forearm will cut down on the opponents arms using the whole surface area of the arm somewhat like a type of sliding wedge , this type of power is called "elbow force"
This type of thing would require a fair bit of effort from further out 

Another reason for the close range , is with the Wing Chun stance the toes are pointed inwards , the potential force of the whole body is focused to a point on the centreline that is not too much further than the distance of our outstretched arm .

As long as our strikes are aimed on this centreline then they will contain the mass of the whole body.


----------



## Eric_H (Mar 13, 2012)

geezer said:


> But don't mind me. I'd also like to see _full contact basketball!_



Like this?


----------



## Buka (Mar 13, 2012)

Sigh.  I've sparred on a table. And dozens of other equally ridiculous surfaces/scenarios. We were teenagers and figured we wanted to be prepared and trained for every G.D. thing. We fell down a bunch, always trying to leap up with the proper Kiai and attitude.  We got hurt some. Maybe some of it helped our balance, but I don't really think so. But we were young, we thought we were bad and I suppose it was fun. But now I'm sixty and I've never been attacked on a table, never got robbed in a small bathroom, never got jumped in a swimming pool. I ain't never fought off bandits in the back of a van or the roof of a garage and the bad guys just never attacked in three feet of water at the beach. (Gotta love those beach classes)
I'm just glad we never broke our necks.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 13, 2012)

Speed will always overcome force. The practitioner who utilizes their art to this advantage will find themselves rarely defeated. 

It is true that force is always required, but your examples excel in close combat not because of stronger techniques, but rather those which carry the momentum through the target, rather than the normative into.

Kempo especially makes use of that small body/rotation torque. They don't need a big wind up. Simple movement combined with rotation always produce the most efficient uses of force in combat. To say otherwise is to have never been thrown by a small person taking two steps.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> Speed will always overcome force. The practitioner who utilizes their art to this advantage will find themselves rarely defeated.
> 
> It is true that force is always required, but your examples excel in close combat not because of stronger techniques, but rather those which carry the momentum through the target, rather than the normative into.
> 
> Kempo especially makes use of that small body/rotation torque. They don't need a big wind up. Simple movement combined with rotation always produce the most efficient uses of force in combat. To say otherwise is to have never been thrown by a small person taking two steps.



You can hit someone 100 times in 2 seconds with a feather or you can hit them 1 time with a brick


----------



## Nabakatsu (Mar 14, 2012)

I think proper positioning and good forward springy energy, which can seem like speed is more important!


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 14, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> You can hit someone 100 times in 2 seconds with a feather or you can hit them 1 time with a brick



Or you can have a decent stance and hit them 100 times in two seconds with a brick.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 14, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> You can hit someone 100 times in 2 seconds with a feather or you can hit them 1 time with a brick



While some punches are less strong than others, I think you find a person capable of moving with such speed also capable of delivering with great force as well.

I would always advertise master of technique, then speed of execution, then power. I understand if others would advise differently, but this has worked for me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> Or you can have a decent stance and hit them 100 times in two seconds with a brick.




True and I have no issue with that, it was was the "Speed over comes force" bit I was referring to. Speed is good but speed without force is not worth a whole heck of a lot.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> While some punches are less strong than others, I think you find a person capable of moving with such speed also capable of delivering with great force as well.
> 
> I would always advertise master of technique, then speed of execution, then power. I understand if others would advise differently, but this has worked for me.



Not saying they can't have both speed and force because I know they can. It was just the way you posted made it sound as if you were saying speed will overcome force and/or force was not necessary if yuo have speed.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh no, my apology. Speed can always be overcome with enough force. But the more speed, will require the more force of course. It's just physics at that point


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 14, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> True and I have no issue with that, it was was the "Speed over comes force" bit I was referring to. Speed is good but speed without force is not worth a whole heck of a lot.



 That's right , if you have a crappy stance then it doesn't really matter how fast you are .

Everything you do will lack power and you will probably just end up bouncing off the opponent.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 14, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> Oh no, my apology. Speed can always be overcome with enough force. But the more speed, will require the more force of course. It's just physics at that point



Uh...no, that's not physics-there's a German word for it, though:

_Gobbledygook._

F=ma.

"Force" is mass multiplied by acceleration. 

Increase mass, and force increases.

Increase acceleration-that speed that you're fond of-and you increase force.

You can't increase force without increasing either of these. 

You can't effectively increase your own mass without a weapon-though you can effectively increase the amount of force by mass delivered to a point, via hand or foot formation and delivery surface:knee, heel, palm heel, edge of hand, forefist-each is essentially changing the "mass part of the equation," but that remains constant for each weapon (and the mechanics of putting body weight behind it: structure or stance, which varies greatly from style to style)

Really, though,  the only thing you can _increase_ is acceleration.

More speed* is *more force. 

Period.

That said, though, a flying knee doesn't have to have more speed than say, a forefist strike-it just has to get there first-with far more mass behind it.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 15, 2012)

You may have mistook me, or I was not clear, my apologies. I mean that it requires more force to halt or interrupt the speed.


----------



## simplewc101 (Mar 15, 2012)

speed is velocity which is not acceleration. its F=ma , not v=rt. furthermore, J=delta p/t = m delta v/t, where J is impulse and p is momentum.
 you can hit me with as much force as you want, but if your m delta v = ma is too small, aka if your change in momentum is not large, it would feel like a wall pushing me very very slowly and i wouldn't care. it's very important to note the impulse which is how much momentum is applied over time. the last thing you should think about is P=F/A where P is pressure and A is area.. smaller area gives you more pressure.


----------



## simplewc101 (Mar 15, 2012)

never fought on a table, but i imagine its good for your game when you need to stand your ground, back against the wall, bunch of people behind you, and generally just being comfortable with fists flying at close range and dealing with what comes. you can't always take a step backwards


----------



## elder999 (Mar 15, 2012)

simplewc101 said:
			
		

> speed is velocity which is not acceleration. its F=ma , not v=rt. furthermore, J=delta p/t = m delta v/t, where J is impulse and p is momentum.
> you can hit me with as much force as you want, but if your m delta v = ma is too small, aka if your change in momentum is not large, it would feel like a wall pushing me very very slowly and i wouldn't care. it's very important to note the impulse which is how much momentum is applied over time. the last thing you should think about is P=F/A where P is pressure and A is area.. smaller area gives you more pressure.


, 
1) He started it with "force." I'm a physicist, but I'm an engineer first, and was just trying to keep it simple.

2) If that "wall" of force pushing you very slowly is, say, *Brock Lesnar*, _you might just care._ :lfao:


----------



## simplewc101 (Mar 16, 2012)

understandable, just trying to K.I.S.S. . I was just thinking that since we started talking about force and all that, that I would give all the pertinent info regarding the physics of a punch. 
If brock lesnar was pushing me very slowly with his fist i would do one of two things:
1):lfao:
2)RUN! its brock f king lesnar!!


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 16, 2012)

Force without momentum has no force, just as speed without force has no speed. They do not conflict, but impart power upon one another.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 16, 2012)

Zenjael said:
			
		

> ]Force without momentum has no force, just as speed without force has no speed. They do not conflict, but impart power upon one another.



View attachment 16194


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 16, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> Force without momentum has no force, just as speed without force has no speed. They do not conflict, but impart power upon one another.



More gobbledygook.  You can't use words to mean whatever you want, unless you don't want to communicate.  Force, momentum, and speed all have specific definitions as well as somewhat different "common use" definitions.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 16, 2012)

jks9199 said:
			
		

> More gobbledygook.  You can't use words to mean whatever you want, unless you don't want to communicate.  Force, momentum, and speed all have specific definitions as well as somewhat different "common use" definitions.




Indeed. Thus the _crepe de lepus._ :lol:

[SIZE=-1]Newton's 2nd Law tells us that force = mass x  acceleration  ( F = ma ).  Since acceleration is just how velocity  changes over time, we can write this as   

F = m * v/t 

Multiply both sides by time to arrive at 

F t = m v 



Thus we see that the momentum conferred by force is equal to that force multiplied by the time it is applied.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Momentum measures the 'motion content' of an object, and  is based on the product of an object's mass and velocity.  Momentum  doubles, for example, when velocity doubles.  Similarly, if two objects  are moving with the same velocity, one with twice the mass of the other  also has twice the momentum. 

Force, on the other hand, is the push or pull that is applied to an object to change its momentum.[/SIZE]

I sit here, though, with the rays of the morning sun, streaming through my window and onto my shoulder-a collection of photons that took around 8.5 minutes to arrive, traveling about as fast as anything can. They're thought by most physicists to have no mass, though, so do they have momentum? Or even force? 

I mean, I'm not being knocked out of my chair by sunlight, am I? :lfao:

Now, I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what all this has to do with striking in general, and "sparring on a table" in particular, but I'll leave it to those with a deeper understanding of wing chun (though not necessarily its physics) to hash on about.....though perhaps not those who clearly don't understand striking, physics or wing chun.....:lol:


----------



## yak sao (Mar 16, 2012)

I don't know if you can make heads or tails from the photos, but this is what we use in our group to train chi sau from time to time.
It is very useful if I have someone who wants to step back instead of pivot, also, it is good for making sure they have proper footwork as they step in to attack....( in our lineage we step in one foot behind the other)

Its an 8 foot 6X6 postthat I placed into 2 10 X10 blocks of wood.The blocks are moveable so it adjusts for different arm lengths of students.
 Also is great for training the CK and BT forms


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 16, 2012)

I've done something similar to help students visualize some relationships -- though only with tape on the floor.  The wooden structure is interesting...


----------



## yak sao (Mar 16, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> I've done something similar to help students visualize some relationships -- though only with tape on the floor. The wooden structure is interesting...



I've done the tape on the floor thing too. What I found is it's too easy to deviate from it.
By using the wooden beams, it forces you into proper footwork, plus it causes you to sink your weight down which makes you root your stance.
Plus, admit it....doesn't it look like something cool from the Shaolin Temple?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2012)




----------



## jks9199 (Mar 16, 2012)

yak sao said:


> I've done the tape on the floor thing too. What I found is it's too easy to deviate from it.
> By using the wooden beams, it forces you into proper footwork, plus it causes you to sink your weight down which makes you root your stance.
> Plus, admit it....doesn't it look like something cool from the Shaolin Temple?



Yep... very cool.  But in my style, I want them to step off the lines.  They just demonstrate the relative positions.


----------



## simplewc101 (Mar 16, 2012)

elder999 said:


> [SIZE=-1]
> [/SIZE]I sit here, though, with the rays of the morning sun, streaming through my window and onto my shoulder-a collection of photons that took around 8.5 minutes to arrive, traveling about as fast as anything can. They're thought by most physicists to have no mass, though, so do they have momentum? Or even force?
> 
> I mean, I'm not being knocked out of my chair by sunlight, am I? :lfao:



Surely you know about particle-wave duality and quantum physics elder!  asking questions about things you already know


----------



## simplewc101 (Mar 16, 2012)

yak sao said:


> I don't know if you can make heads or tails from the photos, but this is what we use in our group to train chi sau from time to time.
> It is very useful if I have someone who wants to step back instead of pivot, also, it is good for making sure they have proper footwork as they step in to attack....( in our lineage we step in one foot behind the other)
> 
> Its an 8 foot 6X6 postthat I placed into 2 10 X10 blocks of wood.The blocks are moveable so it adjusts for different arm lengths of students.
> Also is great for training the CK and BT forms



Not a bad idea!  you'll obviously know when you deviate from the centerline without even looking down.
Kinda gives the table effect a little bit, just much easier to get back on
When we do chi sau we sometimes mentally envision a wall behind us and strive to not give up one inch to the other person. We pretend there is a line between us that we WONT let you cross, that's OUR area biach!


----------



## yak sao (Mar 16, 2012)

I was considering putting the beams over a vat of acid or placing pointed stakes under it, but I don't have enough students as it is.
Plus, acid is expensive.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 16, 2012)

Depends on how you step back doesn't it.
In chi sau ,if the guy rushes forward I can take a step straight back to absorb that force , but I haven't really gained any advantage have I ?

I can attempt to pivot , but if there is quite a disparity in size then I will probably be still be rocked out of my stance and end up in a bad position.

The third option is what I do , I step back with one leg and pivot at the same time.
My stance remains stable and I end up having him at a centerline disadvantage.

Of course we should all strive and practice to be able to pivot on the spot and turn away any amount of force , but until you reach that level of skill , then pivoting back with one leg will get you out of trouble.


----------



## yak sao (Mar 16, 2012)

Early on in people's training, when they step back, they are doing just that...stepping back as opposed to yielding to the force of the attack, which only feeds the fire of the attacker by giving him space.
If they learn how to pivot and dissolve an attack by yielding to it, then if they are overwhelmed by their opponent's force, or caught off guard, then their step back will be yielding back, which still keeps them in close proximity to their attacker, as the opponent's attack is supplying the force of how much to step.
An active step back simply gives the attacker more space to do what he wants to do.


----------



## geezer (Mar 17, 2012)

yak sao said:


> Early on in people's training, when they step back, they are doing just that...stepping back as opposed to yielding to the force of the attack, which only feeds the fire of the attacker by giving him space.
> If they learn how to pivot and dissolve an attack by yielding to it, then if they are overwhelmed by their opponent's force, or caught off guard, then their step back will be yielding back, which still keeps them in close proximity to their attacker, as the opponent's attack is supplying the force of how much to step.
> An active step back simply gives the attacker more space to do what he wants to do.




So dissolve force by turning and if necessary ride the force back while always maintaining forward intent (spring).

Of course if you are tuning/pivoting ....moving "back" is actually moving diagonally or even laterally to your attacker's energy, so in fact you are side-stepping or "off-lining" and getting an angle on your opponent. And that's _very_ useful.

In our VT we call that "crab-step".


----------



## yak sao (Mar 18, 2012)

geezer said:


> So dissolve force by turning and if necessary ride the force back while always maintaining forward intent (spring).
> 
> Of course if you are tuning/pivoting ....moving "back" is actually moving diagonally or even laterally to your attacker's energy, so in fact you are side-stepping or "off-lining" and getting an angle on your opponent. And that's _very_ useful.
> 
> In our VT we call that* "crab-step*".



Ditto.

Well said as always


----------



## fighterman (Mar 22, 2012)

keep thinking of Donnie Yen everytime i see the title of this thread


----------



## WingChun (Jul 31, 2013)

Just Chi Sao.


----------



## Argus (Aug 2, 2013)

WingChun said:


> Just Chi Sao.



Chi-Sao is great, and one of our most important training exercises, but I don't think it alone is the answer to everything.

I think the biggest challenge for most Wing Chun practitioners is what to do out of contact. A lot of us just simply don't know how to get into proper range and stay there, because we've never practiced it. So we hesitantly lurk around in boxing range and get eaten alive.

That's my very limited experience, anyway. I thought geezer's idea was quite good for training - it would force participants to get comfortable fighting in close, and not dance around out of contact playing the distance game.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Aug 3, 2013)

geezer said:


> Guys, take a look at the following. It's an idea I posted on another forum, but I'd be interested in the responses of folks over here.
> 
> We've all heard about old school bouts in Hong Kong and on the mainland fought on top of tables. And of course there is the cool, if unrealistic, table top fight scene in the movie _Ip Man II_. Or the one in _Prodigal Son_. My old sifu spoke of training chi-sau that way, and from time to time we've all seen demos like that -- using strong square tables something like heavy-duty card tables, ....not tippy, round restaurant tables like in the _IP Man_ movie, of course. Well, reading the following bit on another forum got me wondering, "Why don't we set up actual competitions based on this?"
> 
> ...



Hey geezer I like putting people in corners sometimes during training to make them get used to feeling all situations and comfortable with themselves and their techniques in close quarters. You can see a difference when they move; they are more aware that they can't run away.. Like Sun Tzu said "Place your troops where they cannot retreat". That way they will fight harder and with more heart. If you can distill that fighting spirit into each student whether in a corner or not, you can really help them become a more level headed martial artist.

On the topic of promoting the open fighting like that. I would suggest using plexiglass barriers. Without actual walls, you will find you can not simulate that type of fighting. If people have the distance to move out of the designated area; they will. Just imagine those big open mats you see all the time at karate tournaments... those are at least 10'. And they run out of those all the time. So personally I think that if you would see many of the contestants running out of bounds; reguardless of point deduction.

Anyways Geezer; I would love to see a contest set up in this manner. It would be very insightful into all the branches of WC/WT to see exactly how that particular student follows the Wing Tsun theory.

Anyways sir,

All the best.


----------



## Domino (Aug 7, 2013)

Have trained in specific small areas and not to leave, fight in phonebox / tight spaces, also doesn't have to be tables and don't try to break it in half please.


----------

