# Are there major flaws in wing chun?



## kehcorpz (May 18, 2016)

I watched a video (unfortunately not in english) where bus rutten talks about
proper stance when punching and so on.
In the video you see a ring fight between a wing chun person and somebody else who looks like he does boxing or mma. The boxer
knocks him out. What struck me is how the wing chun guy moves. It looks odd and inappropriate for such a fight. 

Look at it here, it's at 3:23.






To me it looks pretty obvious that with such a stance he can easily be blown away. Is this guy just doing it wrong or is this
how you're supposed to stand in wing chun?! 

In the same video there's a wing chun teacher who says that some people claim that the force comes from the ground but that
this is nonsene. This basically means that the stance plays no role and it makes no difference in punching power wether both
feet are parallel or wether you have 1 foot in front and the other one behind the body.
This would be like saying it doesn't matter if a sprinter starts from a starting block or if he starts in a standing position.
I'm really confused by that.
If I went to a teacher who seriously believes that the feet don't matter this would be a red flag.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2016)

When the other guy is using circular footwork, the WC guy should not just turn with him and be forced into defense mode. Instead, the WC guy should cut in front of his opponent, stop his opponent's circular footwork, and take his control back. This strategy is very important in MA. But not too many people train and make it effective.

When your opponent tries to circle around you, he may expect you just to turn with him. If you suddenly move in and cut in front of him, you will make him to feel very uncomfortable. Your WC "forward pressure" spirit should be used right at this moment.

The WC guy B's correct footwork should be as shown in the following picture.


----------



## Eric_H (May 18, 2016)

Personally, I feel there are huge holes in Ip Man derived WC. It's why I ended up switching out of it and why I think you see the guys doing arguably the best with it have had to mix it with other styles.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 18, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> I watched a video (unfortunately not in english) where bus rutten talks about
> proper stance when punching and so on.
> In the video you see a ring fight between a wing chun person and somebody else who looks like he does boxing or mma. The boxer
> knocks him out. What struck me is how the wing chun guy moves. It looks odd and inappropriate for such a fight.
> ...


Watch better quality videos with better information. The world is full of stupid people so try to avoid them


----------



## LFJ (May 19, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> I watched a video (unfortunately not in english) where bus rutten talks about
> proper stance when punching and so on.
> In the video you see a ring fight between a wing chun person and somebody else who looks like he does boxing or mma. The boxer
> knocks him out. What struck me is how the wing chun guy moves. It looks odd and inappropriate for such a fight.
> ...



Leung Ting = The feet don't matter guy
Wing Tsun = His made up version of the system
LTWT = Leung Ting Wing Tsun
EWTO = European Wing Tsun Organisation

Avoid these like the plague.


----------



## wckf92 (May 19, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Personally, I feel there are huge holes in Ip Man derived WC. It's why I ended up switching out of it and why I think you see the guys doing arguably the best with it have had to mix it with other styles.



I'd be interested to hear your views on this if you care to share? 
For context...how long did you train YM WC before moving away from it? And how long have you been training in your current system (HFY correct?)


----------



## Phobius (May 19, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Leung Ting = The feet don't matter guy
> Wing Tsun = His made up version of the system
> LTWT = Leung Ting Wing Tsun
> EWTO = European Wing Tsun Organisation
> ...



Full of it again? Ever since the 90's as far as I am aware footwork is key to WT. 

Taking things out of context and make a video of it is not a very good base for discussion. 

He did not say stance does not matter. Just that power does not come from ground. You have to generate power or your opponent does. The ground only acts as a surface to reflect force if need be. 

Granted I do not remember the video it was taken from. 

But LFJ, I believe WT as I know it holds more footwork than what I have heard from other lineages. Then again that does not mean anything. 

Stop being full of crap.


----------



## geezer (May 20, 2016)

If there are reasons to avoid those organizations, it has nothing to do with "feet not mattering". Leung Ting is very demanding when he trains footwork. I know since he was my Sifu for many years.

That silly-looking jumping-punching demo was something I saw LT do here in Arizona too. Back in the 80s. It was his way of refuting the teachings of another well known sifu who claimed that you couldn't hit without rooting into the ground. Sure rooting helps, but LT was showing that a good WC man can release powerful force e_ven in the least advantageous position imaginable_ -- namely when he is in the air and his feet aren't even touching the ground. And he was _right._

Now, you _could_ make a case against LTWT and also the EWTO based on disagreements about lengthy curriculum, costly tuition, or other business practices. There is another forum that is dedicated to that kind of thing. _Here_ we don't do "system bashing" or "fraud-busting". For what it's worth I reported that post (#5).


----------



## kehcorpz (May 20, 2016)

Can somebody tell me if this arguing about which lineage is best and which lineage sucks is only in wing chun or is it the same problem
in all martial arts?
I find this stuff very discouraging. It's like everybody thinks that his wing chun is best and all others suck.
I also often read stuff like "there are secret techniques which nobody knows or only very few know cause ip man only taught them to select people".
If this is true then why even bother with wing chun?! why try to learn something where important stuff is missing cause the inventor of it wanted to
keep it secret? Seriously, this upsets me. 

Maybe it's also true that in wing chun there are only very few styles or teachers which are good and the rest sucks.
But if this is so then why waste time with it? I'd want to learn something which I know is good and which I know works
and not have to worry about wether the stuff which I learn is good or not. 

To me it seems as if everybody tries to separate himself from the rest.
For example one school which I checked out online also says that they changed stuff from traditional wing chun and that
they improved certain things. Maybe it's true or maybe their stuff sucks as much as the rest and they simply try to make it
appear better by changing a few things but if it really works or not could only be found out by directly testing it to other
martial arts but who actually does this?
Which wing chun instructor invites other martial artist into his school and then they all fight against each other to see
who's best?! Does anyone do this and risk losing his reputation?

I mean as long as they all stay among each other and do their drills every week they can feel like their stuff is totally awesome
but it can as well totally suck. This is like a basketball team which practices every week and they only play against each other
and try to improve their techniques and in reality they have no idea how good other teams are cause they never played against
any of them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 21, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Can somebody tell me if this arguing about which lineage is best and which lineage sucks is only in wing chun or is it the same problem in all martial arts?


 So far I've only seen this conflict in Wing Chun. People in other martial art systems recognize, accept, and embrace the fact that different lineages may have different perspectives and approaches about their fighting system. Jow Ga from my lineage is slightly different from the Jow Ga in Virginia and it's slightly different from the Jow Ga in Australia.  This is only natural as Sifu's will be drawn to different aspects of Kung Fu. Some may like kicks more than another school so their system has more kicks in it.  Some may like certain applications within Jow Ga and as a result tend to have forms that have that application in it, but it is all still Jow Ga.

The Wing Chun community at least in Martial Talk seem to have this purist perspective about their art. If things aren't done exactly their way then it's not "real" Wing Chun.



kehcorpz said:


> why try to learn something where important stuff is missing cause the inventor of it wanted to
> keep it secret?


 I don't think the important stuff is necessarily missing it's just that the practitioner has to be willing to understand their system beyond the Purist Mentality. I'm only saying this from the perspective of how Jow Ga is. We have techniques in our form that aren't clear until additional information is giving about the application. I can literally show a technique in one of my forms that is missing the beginning and I think this was done to keep it a secret from outsiders.  If the technique is applied as shown in the form then it will never work.  If one small adjustment is made then it will work in application.  If I explain to you what the application does then you can most likely figure it out if you take the time to do it and actually test it out in an effort to make it work.  If you keep an Purist mindset then that technique will always be a "secret."  This is where it seems that some Wing Chun students get into trouble.  A recent discussion earlier this year about "Force flow" described a concept that other martial arts systems understood, but some Wing Chun practitioners are just now understanding. As a result they thought they discovered something new, but in reality they hadn't.



geezer said:


> Sure rooting helps, but LT was showing that a good WC man can release powerful force e_ven in the least advantageous position imaginable_ -- namely when he is in the air and his feet aren't even touching the ground. And he was _right._


As someone who practices techniques of not being on the ground when hitting, I can tell you that it's not about "powerful force" of the punch.  If you slow the video down you can see that he jumps into the punch. When you jump forward into a punch you are no longer hitting with the power of the punch. Forward motion when punching = hitting with the mass of your body.  This is a concept that seems to be difficult to explain to some Wing Chun practitioners.  It's the same concept that Boztepe showed when he shoulder bumped that guy in the video.  

Wing Chun Practitioners seem to always take the weakest stances for receiving a punch to the chest which makes it look more powerful than what it is.  If the guy in the video was in a bow stance, when the other guy was jumping in the air then, he wouldn't have moved back like he did. If the guy hadn't jumped forward then that punch would have been as weak.


----------



## wckf92 (May 21, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Can somebody tell me if this arguing about which lineage is best and which lineage sucks is only in wing chun or is it the same problem
> in all martial arts?.



If you are interested in learning WC then why care about other MA's infighting and bickering?




kehcorpz said:


> "there are secret techniques which nobody knows or only very few know cause ip man only taught them to select people"..



Rumor has it that since its inception, only two people from each generation are taught everything from A to Z.



kehcorpz said:


> but if it really works or not could only be found out by directly testing it to other
> martial arts but who actually does this?



Correct. Application is the only way to verify the truth. And if you want to train ANY style or system...then YOU MUST DO THIS to answer your own questions about whether the stuff you are learning 'works' or not.


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> The Wing Chun community at least in Martial Talk seem to have this purist perspective about their art. If things aren't done exactly their way then it's not "real" Wing Chun.
> 
> .



Who here, other than our 2 resident WSLVT "true believers", has displayed that attitude?


----------



## Dylan9d (May 21, 2016)

KPM said:


> Who here, other than our 2 resident WSLVT "true believers", has displayed that attitude?



It's weird because here in Holland the WSLVT practitioners I have met and trained with were very open-minded and the opposite of those 2 purists you are refering to KPM........weird that within the same branch attitudes can differ so much.


P.S. I'm eating Chinese food while typing this


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 21, 2016)

KPM said:


> Who here, other than our 2 resident WSLVT "true believers", has displayed that attitude?


I've seen more than just the 2 you are referring to.  It's just not as bad as those 2 who tend to take up the spotlight lol.   Those 2 know how to beat a dead horse.


----------



## Dylan9d (May 21, 2016)

This is the guy I had a couple of sessions with, a very good teacher and a very nice and open minded guy, he practices over 25 years now (the bald guy).

It's just that WC/VT/WT doesn't go that well with my Silat....


----------



## KPM (May 21, 2016)

What Silat do you practice?


----------



## Dylan9d (May 21, 2016)

KPM said:


> What Silat do you practice?



Mix, as all Silat styles 

I studied with the Fam. Ingram, and mainly Jim Ingrams son Raymond, from Amerindo, and I did some Eskrima here in Holland, some private one on one training.

Then went to Krav Maga for a couple of years and started teaching a mix of all that under my own, and current name, Ilmu Buka Beladiri.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 21, 2016)

The biggest flaw in WC is lack of proper sparring against a resisting opponent. Period.

Also frankly looking at that video, the issue to me seems less to do with WC guy's footwork and more to do with how he wasn't even protecting his face, but maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. 

Imo the WC "guard" position ought not be used as an on-guard position but only to make a bridge when the opportunity arises.


----------



## geezer (May 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> So far I've only seen this conflict in Wing Chun. People in other martial art systems recognize, accept, and embrace the fact that different lineages may have different perspectives and approaches about their fighting system.




Apparently you have moved in some pretty positive and enlightened martial arts circles, because I've seen and experienced the same kind of extreme factionalism you mentioned in many other martial arts besides Wing Chun. For example, back in grad school, a friend of mine from New Orleans was working on his black belt test in Japanese Shotokan under some famous old Japanese sensei named Nakayama or something. To keep up his training while in school here in Arizona, he attended a dojo run by another famous old Japanese sensei named Koyama. When one sensei found out that he was training with the other (I forget which was which --this was back in the 80s) he was asked to leave the dojo! I've seen similar feuds in Kempo, TKD, ...even Tai Chi and Aikido for goodness sake. 

So it really depends on _the people_ involved. We've got a lot of good people on this forum. We shouldn't let a few contentious individuals ruin this forum. Just ignore them and keep contributing in a positive way. 



JowGaWolf said:


> Wing Chun Practitioners seem to always take the weakest stances for receiving a punch to the chest which makes it look more powerful than what it is.  If the guy in the video was in a bow stance, when the other guy was jumping in the air then, he wouldn't have moved back like he did. If the guy hadn't jumped forward then that punch would have been as weak.



No argument really. What you see is, after all, _a demo! _ It's a showy attempt designed to illustrate a concept through _exaggeration_, not to teach a specific technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2016)

Most people may only pay attention on the WC inward stance YJKYM. Actually, whether your toes should point inward or outward depend on your opponent's foot sweep (or low roundhouse kick) direction. If your opponent sweep (or low roundhouse kick) your foot

- between your legs, you should point your toes inward.
- outside of your legs, you should point your toes outward.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Can somebody tell me if this arguing about which lineage is best and which lineage sucks is only in wing chun or is it the same problem in all martial arts?


In the Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system,

- Some people use "hip bouncing" in hip throw. Some people use "waist lifting" in hip throw.
- Some people sweep with the "edge of the foot". Some people sweep with the "bottom of the foot".
- Some people use their "upper leg" to bounce on their opponent's upper leg. Some people use their "lower leg" to bounce on their opponent's upper leg.
- Some people use "shin bite" on their opponent's lower leg. Some people use "scoop" on their opponent's ankle.
- ...

In SC, people believe that dragon has 9 sons. They all look different. One of it's son looks like turtle.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Personally, I feel there are huge holes in Ip Man derived WC.


There are holes in many MA systems. The traditional format such as to use:

- non-resistance "partner drill" for skill developing,
- full resistance "sparring/wrestling" for skill testing.

is not that easy to develop any individual skill. There is a training step missing between "partner drill" and "sparring/wrestling".


----------



## yak sao (May 21, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Personally, I feel there are huge holes in Ip Man derived WC. It's why I ended up switching out of it and why I think you see the guys doing arguably the best with it have had to mix it with other styles.



What do you see as its shortcomings?
Do you think it was just in his HK teaching or even with Fotshan era as well?


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (May 21, 2016)

No style can be everything.... And those that try are going to lose something. 

My view on does wing chun have holes (in at least its stand up approach) is that it depends what your wing chun focus is. If you look at wing chun as an engine of force generation concepts and ideas, as I tend to do, then you can be very flexible in the way you apply the techniques. My own view is that wing chun was never meant to be this system of moves against different moves. It is a principle based system. You are not meant to jump into a cage with it and hold your man sau wu out with a straight arm while standing still. 

One of my teachers is a lady that has never done any grappling before. I have a blue belt in BJJ but haven't practiced for years. As a bluebelt, you can pretty much have your way with whitebelts or people that haven't trained in grappling before. Even guys with a huge weight advantage. We put the mats down and decided to have a roll. And while I was able to tap her a lot, I was shocked at how hard I had to work considering she had no grappling experience. Some moves didn't work like they would on most people and she seemed to be learning and adapting quickly to what I was doing. My sense was that if she learned BJJ she would pick it up super quickly. In chi sao she has an incredibly strong structure and is very hard to do anything with. This is the benefit of taking a force approach to wing chun. It has cross over value into other scenarios and arts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2016)

MA not only include what kind attack that you will use on your opponent, it also includes how you will deal with your opponent's attack.

If you ask a boxer how will he deal with a foot sweep, he may not have answer for it. This is why we should look at fighting from all different angles and not just from an angle from one particular style.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> Apparently you have moved in some pretty positive and enlightened martial arts circles, because I've seen and experienced the same kind of extreme factionalism you mentioned in many other martial arts besides Wing Chun. For example, back in grad school, a friend of mine from New Orleans was working on his black belt test in Japanese Shotokan under some famous old Japanese sensei named Nakayama or something. To keep up his training while in school here in Arizona, he attended a dojo run by another famous old Japanese sensei named Koyama. When one sensei found out that he was training with the other (I forget which was which --this was back in the 80s) he was asked to leave the dojo! I've seen similar feuds in Kempo, TKD, ...even Tai Chi and Aikido for goodness sake.
> 
> So it really depends on _the people_ involved. We've got a lot of good people on this forum. We shouldn't let a few contentious individuals ruin this forum. Just ignore them and keep contributing in a positive way.
> 
> ...





geezer said:


> When one sensei found out that he was training with the other (I forget which was which --this was back in the 80s) he was asked to leave the dojo!


What you see is, after all, _a demo! _ It's a showy attempt designed to illustrate a concept through _exaggeration_, not to teach a specific technique.  Ahhh got ya.  Either way he was still right and he just made same adjustments that other systems make, which is to add forward movement.  Striking in the air requires that the strike uses either forward, upward, or circular movement in order to pull of the strike while in the air.


----------



## geezer (May 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> ...Either way he was still right and he just made same adjustments that other systems make, which is to add forward movement.  Striking in the air requires that the strike uses either _forward, upward, or circular movement_ in order to pull of the strike while in the air.



Yeah. In the air ...on the ground. Different situations, but the same laws of physics apply.

In one of his clips, I believe Alan Orr stated that punching power comes from _dropping, rising, pressing forward, or turning_.  Or, I might add, a _combination_ of the above. So dropping _and _falling = downward diagonal force, rising _and _turning = upward spiraling force, etc. Pretty simple really. And pretty universal. I find that works for what I do in _Escrima_ as well. I imagine it should work fo _Jow Ga_ too?


----------



## Chester Wright (May 21, 2016)

If you are referring to the problems of Wing Chun as a Combat Art these are my thoughts.

 We have several people in our dojo that have backgrounds in Wing Chun. A lot of great concepts, however concepts don't win fights. Practicing forms and Chi Sau doesn't prepare you for actual combat.
 There are several videos on YouTube of Wing Chun practitioners that stepped into MMA Cages only to find that they were very ill prepared for a fight, one of the most famous videos was of a Wing Chun Practitioner in my area that took on a guy that smoked him inside of a minute. 




 Even while sparring the guys in my dojo that have a heavy Wing Chun background they get tagged a lot and taken down even more, in fact the Wing Chun disappears almost entirely from them.
There are several Martial Arts out there that their primary focus of training is self perfection, this is a far cry different than those that train for self preservation, and different still from sporting martial arts. Wing Chun follows along the line of self perfection.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2016)

No matter how good striker you are, what can you do if you are taken down and never have chance to even throw your first punch?

The question are, how much training time have you spent on

1. not to be taken down? You will need to train some take down resistance skill.
2. after be taking down, you will have ability to get back up? You will need to train some ground skill.

But again, everything that can be said has already been said in "WC anti-grappling" threads. There is no need to repeat that again.


----------



## geezer (May 21, 2016)

Chester Wright said:


> There are several Martial Arts out there that their primary focus of training is self perfection, this is a far cry different than those that train for self preservation, and different still from sporting martial arts. *Wing Chun follows along the line of self perfection.*



Some Wing Chun. Perhaps most these days. Not a bad thing, but that was certainly *not* the intent of it's developers over the generations.

Wing Chun _can_ be a very useful art for "self-preservation", and if trained in a more pragmatic and aggressive way than is the rule these days, (with plenty of sparring) it can be a useful component in MMA training. Alan Orr's boys and others have shown that. But it isn't the whole package. You need to cross-train and be good at long range and on the ground too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 22, 2016)

The 1st day when I learned the "hip throw", I asked my teacher, when I use my right arm to wrap around my opponent's waist, how can I prevent him from using his left hand to punch on my head?

From a striker point of view, the grappling art also has flaws in it. This is why when I use "hip throw", I like to use under hook instead. If I have never looked at this issue from a striker point of view, I will never appreciate the power of the "under hook" that I can use it to disable my opponent's striking ability.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 22, 2016)

geezer said:


> Yeah. In the air ...on the ground. Different situations, but the same laws of physics apply.
> 
> In one of his clips, I believe Alan Orr stated that punching power comes from _dropping, rising, pressing forward, or turning_.  Or, I might add, a _combination_ of the above. So dropping _and _falling = downward diagonal force, rising _and _turning = upward spiraling force, etc. Pretty simple really. And pretty universal. I find that works for what I do in _Escrima_ as well. I imagine it should work fo _Jow Ga_ too?


I agree with Alan Orr. Generating punching power from dropping, rising, pressing forward, and turning are basic foundations for Jow Ga as a fighting system is very mobile. The main punches makes use of dropping or rising, pressing forward, and turning all together at the same time. All of the punches would be weak if we aren't able to tie those actions into the strike.  I can't think of one punching or kicking technique that doesn't use any of those methods.


----------



## wckf92 (May 22, 2016)

geezer said:


> ...punching power comes from _dropping, rising, pressing forward, or turning_.  Or, I might add, a _combination_ of the above. So dropping _and _falling = downward diagonal force, rising _and _turning = upward spiraling force, etc. Pretty simple really. And pretty universal.



All of which are in the forms!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (May 22, 2016)

Look at those two guys though. Was there any question who would win? Seasoned and athletic MMA fighter from Russia verses random wing chun dude.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (May 22, 2016)

Yep to the above. But the sinking, rising, and turning etc doesn't always have to be visible. 
In CST when we do the punch structure test from SNT, we need to think of all the force vectors in mind which includes the intention of turning. You can intend all those things without physically doing them and it adds to the power of your punch.


----------



## LFJ (May 23, 2016)

Looks like your standard Wing Chun guy to me. Goes running straight in. 

Has all the nifty techniques. No fighting strategy.


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

Lineage means little (unless your instructor points to the Yip Man videos, of a guy on his death bead, as a way to do things.)

What matters is mind set and skill.  There are a few ways to handle what the video shows us.  If your instructor teaches you to be locked in a straight line from your center to the opponent's center then flood that freaking center balls out.  Say "I can be touched but if I move swiftly and viciously enough I will overwhelm." I don't prefer this method BUT I know some teachers teach it and it is the mind set I know is the only way to make it work... 100% commitment to charging into that center.

The other way has ready been answered, zoning.  I picture a triangle on the ground.  I am at the point, my opponent at the base, he is coming in to the point and I move in but either on an angle to the left or right, always striking from my center to the opponent's but, again, if I commit and move swiftly, I am not inside his center.


----------



## LFJ (May 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The other way has ready been answered, zoning.  I picture a triangle on the ground.  I am at the point, my opponent at the base, he is coming in to the point and I move in but either on an angle to the left or right, always striking from my center to the opponent's but, again, if I commit and move swiftly, I am not inside his center.



That sounds like a Boxing Triangle Theory.

VT Triangle Theory is opposite; working from base to point, as the training stance establishes and the dummy form trains. This way we are cutting in and cutting off the opponent's ability to face, rather than just evading them.


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That sounds like a Boxing Triangle Theory.
> 
> VT Triangle Theory is opposite; working from base to point, as the training stance establishes and the dummy form trains. This way we are cutting in and cutting off the opponent's ability to face, rather than just evading them.



Thing is, as a point of physics they are the same.  If I see myself as the point and move to the side in this scenario, the opponent still moved towards me as well as they are attacking, the gap is closed.  Who is at the point and the base is a matter or semantics really.  In the end the gap is closed, the attacks are unleashed and you are not in the "kill zone" of the opponent but they are still in yours.

Two theories ending in the same result because biomechanics and fight dynamics are independent of the theories of the various Martial Arts styles.  Each style simply comes up with a different way to address the same dynamics.  If my opponent doesn't charge in the way I am the triangle stops being a equilateral triangle and becomes "tighter" because I am still closing, the actual type of triangle it's not set in stone.  

Your enemy may close the gap, he may retreat.  In seeing myself as the "point" or fulcrum, for my mind at least it is easier to adapt to his movement.  He is planted or closing, it works in my mind.  He retreats because his main goal is to not be arrested, the "base" of the triangle becomes a lot narrower because I am still closing the gap.  He is moving iinto attack, I have an equilateral triangle.  I suspect you see the exact same dynamic using  your concept because in the end all martial arts reach the same conclusion, the difference is symantics.

PS what you tied to it modern Boxing it is used by many Martial Arts, some Wing Chun teachers have taught it forever. Kali used it to kill Magellan etc.  Biomechanics and fight dynamics are what they are... Modern Boxing is simply the latest to apply the same principles bipedal life forms have since time immemorial.  In the end, regardless of what way you point the triangle, the result is the same IF you apply the correct mind set.


----------



## LFJ (May 23, 2016)

Moving forward but evading out along an angle is obviously different from moving forward and cutting in along an angle. The direction of body mass momentum and the resulting position and effect on the opponent aren't the same.

Simply moving out of the opponent's "kill zone" does nothing to stop them from refacing. VT tactics are to cut into the opponent's attacks and cut off their ability to reface while sustaining attack on them. Triangle footwork on the dummy cuts directly in from the flanks, baseline to point, with full body mass behind the attacks.


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Moving forward but evading out along an angle is obviously different from moving forward and cutting in along an angle. The direction of body mass momentum and the resulting position and effect on the opponent aren't the same.
> 
> Simply moving out of the opponent's "kill zone" does nothing to stop them from refacing. VT tactics are to cut into the opponent's attacks and cut off their ability to reface while sustaining attack on them. Triangle footwork on the dummy cuts directly in from the flanks, baseline to point, with full body mass behind the attacks.



They are the same, perhaps I am explaining it poorly.  Let me try again.

My Sifu teaches us to see ourselves as the "point" simply because every person has to start combat from where they are standing. We are still moving in from the flank, hence my explaining that the dimensions of the triangle, can change as your actions and the actions of the opponent dictate via their synergy.  The shape of the triangle itself isn't fixed, it can be quite "skinny" (for lack of a better term) as you move in, now from a flank, that "point" is simply to visualize where your movement from in a dynamic combat situation, nothing more

The purpose you explain and the purpose my Sifu explains are identical in practice.  You are still cutting in from the flanks, you still have full body mass behind your attacks.  You are not simply dancing around your opponent as you seem to infer.  Simply because he teaches we are at the point doesn't change any of these practical principles you also speak of. The only difference is how the two of you visualize the triangle to achieve the same goal.


----------



## KPM (May 23, 2016)

I understood what you are saying fine Juany118.    What you are really both saying is that you have a triangle with you at one point, with the opponent at another point, and the third point of the triangle is lateral to both of you.  So you are going to step out along one side of the triangle to that lateral point, and then back in along the other side of the triangle into the point where the opponent is standing.  So essentially, you were both not quite right, but still saying the same thing!


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

KPM said:


> I understood what you are saying fine Juany118.    What you are really both saying is that you have a triangle with you at one point, with the opponent at another point, and the third point of the triangle is lateral to both of you.  So you are going to step out along one side of the triangle to that lateral point, and then back in along the other side of the triangle into the point where the opponent is standing.  So essentially, you were both not quite right, but still saying the same thing!



Maybe (tired, landscapers just woke me up lol)  I am taught I always at the pinnacle of the triangle, the opponent at the foundation but only to start.  This is essentially how you visualize opening the encounter.  

Since your opponent is not a fixed point, they will always be moving once the fight starts, the triangle's shape will change and their position on the triangles will also change. 

Maybe the fight dictates I suddenly need to step across rather than in (say because he made his knee vulnerable and I want to take that out with a kick).  I always however am stepping off from a point to visualize it.  This photo doesn't quite explain it (a little to basic and static obviously) but I picture me starting at the bottom point of the white triangle, the opponent at the "flat top" of the triangle.  The dynamics of the fight then spin out from there, but you are always keeping your centerline to the opponent from the point you are on. Maybe you use a yellow triangle instead of he white next because of what the opponent dictated?  So be it, but you are always are on a starting point.


----------



## LFJ (May 23, 2016)

That seems an undue convolution of the theory, but if you say it's the same, alright. After all, no one thinks about moving triangles when fighting.

For me, the Triangle Theory and footwork is as on the dummy. We are moving laterally along the baseline, then cutting in toward the point with the appropriate lead leg once the flank to enter from is determined. Simples.


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That seems an undue convolution of the theory, but if you say it's the same, alright. After all, no one thinks about moving triangles when fighting.
> 
> For me, the Triangle Theory and footwork is as on the dummy. We are moving laterally along the baseline, then cutting in toward the point with the appropriate lead leg once the flank to enter from is determined. Simples.



The difference may be that my Sifu is teaching things from a "combative" angle.  When we do these drills we aren't on the dummy, it's two students facing off, each sees the other in the "opponents" position.  For the purposes of the foot work drill (and safety) he limits us to specific maneuvers we apply of course.  This creates a different dynamic than using the dummy in the way you describe.


----------



## anerlich (Jun 20, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Can somebody tell me if this arguing about which lineage is best and which lineage sucks is only in wing chun or is it the same problem in all martial arts?



Kyokushin Karate went through some rocky times after Mas Oyama's death.

Where I live, there are several splinter organisations, I have friends in two of them. One claims that the 6th dan who heads the other organisation is a fraud. The other claims that the 9th dan who heads that org (and has been running Kyokushin here since the 1960s) and a counterpart in Japan each agreed to promote the other from 8th to 9th dan, and that both are basically ancient cripples who can't train. Both organisations have excellent karateka within them.

TKD here went through some weird times about 20 years ago too.

Arts that compete tend to have less overt shenanigans going on, though in MMA here a number of the principals have enormous problems coexisting in the same room. And TKD and Koykushin compete. However, their claims tend not to become too grandiose as regular competition tends to show quite uneqivocally whose stuff works and whose doesn't work as well. People tend to get to know each other and make friends across organisational boundaries, which also calms it all down.

Wing Chun has lineage disputes going back to the 1960s that most would be aware of, but the bickering only really started its exponential increase with the advent of internet forums.


----------



## KPM (Jun 20, 2016)

^^^^  Hey Andrew!  Welcome to the forum!


----------



## anerlich (Jun 20, 2016)

Thanks! Glad to be here? Too soon to tell


----------



## Nobody Important (Jun 20, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> I watched a video (unfortunately not in english) where bus rutten talks about
> proper stance when punching and so on.
> In the video you see a ring fight between a wing chun person and somebody else who looks like he does boxing or mma. The boxer
> knocks him out. What struck me is how the wing chun guy moves. It looks odd and inappropriate for such a fight.
> ...


Wing Chun guy's stance was back weighted and hands in a low Man Sau expecting to handle & receive the incoming force. That was a bad decision. The other guy was using more of a 50/50 weight distribution & forward pressure. He basically steam rolled the Wing Chun fellow. Poor choice of stance. Seems to me that the Wing Chun guy went in with a defensive mind set and was expecting to play Chi Sau once he received force. That's a big problem in the Wing Chun community. Chi Sau does not translate to boxing, especially from a distance. Until this is realized more Wing Chun people will continue to get knocked out due to defensive mind set and reliance on Chi Sau to handle opponent.


----------



## geezer (Jun 20, 2016)

That was just another pathetic case of a guy with no ring experience trying to be Donnie Yen in the IP Man Movie. Wing Chun is Chinese _Boxing _for god's sake. That's why I respect what guys like Alan Orr are trying to do. His guys may not always show as much WC as I would like to see, but they know how to make things work in real competition. 

BTW  ....WC/WT/VT was never meant to be passive and defensive. This clip was a satirical parody of Leung Ting, Keith Kernspecht, and the EWTO. I have no contact with the EWTO, but Leung Ting always taught that the best defense was offense, and that in fighting you keep it simple and aggressively take the fight to the opponent. Sure didn't see that here.


----------



## Eric_H (Jun 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Maybe (tired, landscapers just woke me up lol)  I am taught I always at the pinnacle of the triangle, the opponent at the foundation but only to start.  This is essentially how you visualize opening the encounter.
> 
> Since your opponent is not a fixed point, they will always be moving once the fight starts, the triangle's shape will change and their position on the triangles will also change.
> 
> Maybe the fight dictates I suddenly need to step across rather than in (say because he made his knee vulnerable and I want to take that out with a kick).  I always however am stepping off from a point to visualize it.  This photo doesn't quite explain it (a little to basic and static obviously) but I picture me starting at the bottom point of the white triangle, the opponent at the "flat top" of the triangle.  The dynamics of the fight then spin out from there, but you are always keeping your centerline to the opponent from the point you are on. Maybe you use a yellow triangle instead of he white next because of what the opponent dictated?  So be it, but you are always are on a starting point.



If I follow your image: when in doubt... use the triforce?


----------



## Eric_H (Jun 20, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Thanks! Glad to be here? Too soon to tell



Hendrik has already flamed out here, and you were smart enough to miss it. If that doesn't bring a smile to your face, I'm not sure we can help you


----------



## sgraves (Jun 20, 2016)

there are holes in every martial art but with wing chun people fell to realize that speed in wing chun is a very big part of what needed that is a major factor of it


----------



## geezer (Jun 20, 2016)

sgraves said:


> there are holes in every martial art but with wing chun people fell to realize that speed in wing chun is a very big part of what needed that is a major factor of it



Wing Chun is well known for fast hands. 

Personally I think speed is often overemphasized. Some of my kung-fu brothers have very fast hands, but I am more impressed when someone disrupts your stance, takes over centerline and then punches you so ...._slowly_ ... that you see it coming but you are so jacked up that you can't stop it.


----------



## sgraves (Jun 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> Wing Chun is well known for fast hands.
> 
> Personally I think speed is often overemphasized. Some of my kung-fu brothers have very fast hands, but I am more impressed when someone disrupts your stance, takes over centerline and then punches you so ...._slowly_ ... that you see it coming but you are so jacked up that you can't stop it.


it is but that comes from practice but people think thatto just into wing chun and then everything works instead seeing you have to really develop hand speed for the art and really work on things like any martial art


----------



## geezer (Jun 20, 2016)

sgraves said:


> *....and really work on things like any martial art[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Yep.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> Wing Chun is well known for fast hands.
> 
> Personally I think speed is often overemphasized.


Agree! Besides the WC system, the preying mantis system and the Zimen system are also famous in "speed".

One day a 8 steps preying mantis master Wei Shao-Tang was sitting on his chair and watched his students in training in a Taipei park in Taiwan. 

- A Zimen guy bowed to him,
- stepped in, 
- attacked his fingers at Wei's chest, 
- stepped back, 
- bowed again, and 
- left. 

The preying mantis system has very fast hand, but the Zimen system is even more famous by it's fast hand. When you train your Zimen system "通三关(Tong San Guan) - break through 3 joints", you need to swing your arms around your body so fast that you can't even see your own hands.

After I have cross trained the Zimen system. One day I challenged a TKD guy for sparring. I used the Zimen "乱抽麻(Luan Chou Ma) - pull threads out of a fabric" and attacked his chest with my fingers before he could block it. He looked at me and asked me what I was doing that for.

In the real world, it's not like if you can touch your opponent's body first, you win and he loses. Unless you can hold a knife and use speed to stab it into your opponent's chest, or attack your fingers at your opponent's eye balls with speed, speed without power is useless.


----------



## sgraves (Jun 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> Wing Chun is well known for fast hands.
> 
> Personally I think speed is often overemphasized. Some of my kung-fu brothers have very fast hands, but I am more impressed when someone disrupts your stance, takes over centerline and then punches you so ...._slowly_ ... that you see it coming but you are so jacked up that you can't stop it.


yea i does suck ive had my grandmaster do that to me


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> That was just another pathetic case of a guy with no ring experience trying to be Donnie Yen in the IP Man Movie. Wing Chun is Chinese _Boxing _for god's sake. That's why I respect what guys like Alan Orr are trying to do. His guys may not always show as much WC as I would like to see, but they know how to make things work in real competition.
> 
> BTW  ....WC/WT/VT was never meant to be passive and defensive. This clip was a satirical parody of Leung Ting, Keith Kernspecht, and the EWTO. I have no contact with the EWTO, but Leung Ting always taught that the best defense was offense, and that in fighting you keep it simple and aggressively take the fight to the opponent. Sure didn't see that here.



Yeah I think that is simply proof of what I have heard before, though I can't remember the one who coined the saying, "WC is becoming a Chi Sau culture, fighting is not Chi Sau."


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> Wing Chun is well known for fast hands.
> 
> Personally I think speed is often overemphasized. Some of my kung-fu brothers have very fast hands, but I am more impressed when someone disrupts your stance, takes over centerline and then punches you so ...._slowly_ ... that you see it coming but you are so jacked up that you can't stop it.



Yeah I think people sometimes get a little over blown because the confabulate actual hand speed with the fact the stance naturally put you closer to the target, and the punch are straight, result in a fast strike regardless of hand speed.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 20, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> If I follow your image: when in doubt... use the triforce?


I totally did not make the connection it was just the first such triangle photo I found lol


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> For me, the Triangle Theory and footwork is as on the dummy. We are moving laterally along the baseline, then cutting in toward the point with the appropriate lead leg once the flank to enter from is determined. Simples.



Yep. Same here. Though, the lateral bit is somewhat different. I learned the lateral; but also learned to go laterally but also forward with that same stepping foot. Either way, to me, the cutting in is where the fun stuff lives!


----------



## LFJ (Jun 22, 2016)

Of course though the dummy can't move, so... There will obviously be more dynamic interplay against a live opponent or with a training partner. As you both move, so too will the angle of the "triangle", base and point. Dummy training simply establishes the basic idea of chasing center and cutting flanks.


----------

