# Pads work in wing chun



## guy b. (Dec 24, 2015)

Yes or no?

Why and how do you use them in a VT specific way?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 24, 2015)

Are you specifically asking about focus mitts work? Or ANY pads in general?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 24, 2015)

Any pads. Personally I like Thai pads and body shields which can be used to train chase and hit centre of mass, but I have also seen some interesting focus mit drills on youtube, especially from VT Lille and from Ernie Barrios.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 24, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Yes or no?
> 
> Why and how do you use them in a VT specific way?



Yes, at times.

Why? mostly to train a drill or action that otherwise would severely injure the training partners after one rep.

How? For example, we train in regular everyday street clothes and shoes...kicking or getting kicked to the shin bone really sucks; so, we'll pad up that area and train harder/longer...etc. We try not to go overboard with the padding though.

Thai pads and body shields would be another example. These are just so the WC guy can really unleash on the 'live dummy' and not worry about injuring them. I think these sort of training sessions are good once in awhile just so the WC guy can know/understand their own power levels.

But other than this, we mostly just train as we are.


----------



## geezer (Dec 24, 2015)

I use focus mitts for a lot of drills, but not the way boxers do. Some of the Escrima guys I work with have a strong boxing foundation, and they have raised pad work to a real art. But it's an art based on building boxing attributes. What we do in our WC group is basic by comparison, but geared to WC attributes.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 25, 2015)

I use focus mitts and kicking shields. Shield for (wait for it) kicks! And knees as well.
Focus mitts for gates drilling and counter-attacks. The pad feeder is not only feeding but is learning to angle their attacks at the basic feeding level. At the intermediate level of feeding they are learning countering timing & at the advanced level they have the counter attacking angles, timing, range awareness & control.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

How do you make focus pad drills that don't de-train wing chun attributes?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> How do you make focus pad drills that don't de-train wing chun attributes?


How? By thinking outside the box. By punching with one pad while holding the other on your chest to be punched. The puncher has to intercept and counter using proper form, structure, and positioning or they get hit.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Danny T said:


> How? By thinking outside the box. By punching with one pad while holding the other on your chest to be punched. The puncher has to intercept and counter using proper form, structure, and positioning or they get hit.



That sounds like a good approach, thanks. Do you tend to do one step stuff with this, or do you free form?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 26, 2015)

We start by doing specific single attacks then develop into specific combos and finally free flow.
We also develop into elbows, knees, & kicks as well as having to defend against them.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Sounds good. Do you have any clips?


----------



## Danny T (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Sounds good. Do you have any clips?


Clips?
Are you asking about video? If so no. I haven't gotten on the video train as yet.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Yes I mean video. There are not many good clips of wing chun pad work around. I think that used like boxing pads it has the potential to de-train wing chun


----------



## Danny T (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Yes I mean video. There are not many good clips of wing chun pad work around. I think that used like boxing pads it has the potential to de-train wing chun


Agreed. We use a method that is different from boxing.


----------



## geezer (Dec 26, 2015)

I'd like to see a good videoclip too. Good drills and training routines that are not lineage-specific could be very useful. Unfortunately, I get the impression that Danny is about as likely to getting around to making clips as I am. There's so much to do, and it's just not a priority ...especially since I'm not computer savvy and have never posted a clip.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)




----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


>



The main problem I see with these (and most wing chun pad work) is that they promote the idea of block then hit, they train blocking from and hitting to different distances, they don't train core wing chun punching method due to wrong distance, and they train wrong stepping.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

Wing Chun must function at more than one distance to be relevant to real fighting.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Wing Chun must function at more than one distance to be relevant to real fighting.



The way many of these are doing it they train blocking the hand then punching the hand. They don't appear to train wing chun punching as a padded up person can.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

No one likes to get punched full force to the head, even when wearing protective gear.  So the hand-held pads make a good substitute.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> No one likes to get punched full force to the head, even when wearing protective gear.  So the hand-held pads make a good substitute.



Not a good substitute if they de-train wing chun. Better to do nothing.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

That's your opinion.  Other's don't see it as "de-training" Wing Chun.


----------



## ShortBridge (Dec 26, 2015)

I teach with focus mitts, thai pads and some protective gear.Just as frequently or maybe more we train without it. Depends on what we're working on. You have to know that you can deliver with force. If control or principles slip, then we slow things down and go back to empty hands.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> That's your opinion.  Other's don't see it as "de-training" Wing Chun.



This video demonstrates how the VT trainer should draw the trainee to chase center of mass and triangulate force. We don't use rotational punches like Western Boxing, and over-rotation is something we are constantly trying to train out of our habits in _chi-sau_/_gwo-sau_ practice. If the trainer is using focus mitts incorrectly, for our purposes, it will indeed potentially de-train VT behaviors. I think this is a great way to use focus mitts for VT, if they are to be used at all.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 27, 2015)

^ I would agree that Ernie Barrios has some of the best clips on wing chun specific pad work that are available. He has obviously thought quite a bit about it.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 27, 2015)

guy b. said:


> ^ I would agree that Ernie Barrios has some of the best clips on wing chun specific pad work that are available. He has obviously thought quite a bit about it.


That video is the much more like what we do as to mitt work.


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 28, 2015)

Yes, we use focus mitts, hitting pads, shields, etc. They are a great way to train timing, reflexes, structure testing, space occupation & power delivery. We also do not do them like bolted-on boxing drills (ie, we don't work present numbered combinations as in boxing mitt drills once past beginners learning stage) & they are geared directly towards building & testing WC skills (Centerline occupation, gate theories, whole body structural alignment, footwork, facing & refacing, simultaneous offense/defense, etc).
This is typically done by using one mitt to simulate an attack (straight/round/hook, high/low), with the other setup for receiving a punch. This is done in a progressive manner starting with single attacks and working up to random free flow. A little like what Ernie is doing, but also different in that is we typically don't hold the pads off to the sides for the trainee to chase & hit. While I understand why he does this, we try to gear everything towards having the person being drilled aiming for the mitt holder's COM vs. chasing a target (mitt). It takes a bit of a learning curve for the mitt holder to get things right in the free flow stage, but IMO gives a good overall feel for WC application.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Dec 28, 2015)

Practicing punching with power can always be done on a heavy bag or a wall bag, but mitt training does allow you to combine footwork with punching power, having to re-face an opponent moving both laterally and forward / back, and focus on linking the elbow with your step (or adduction for WT folks), so for that reason is a good training tool in my opinion. This would mean holding a mitt over the centerline, or possibly slightly higher, but centered never the less. Holding mitts out to the left or right of center of mass makes sense for boxing punch mechanics I suppose, but not WC/WT/VT.


----------



## KPM (Dec 28, 2015)

Holding mitts on the centerline...holding mitts to the side....I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  If a person can hit a wall bag and imagine that are driving into the center of an opponent, why can't they hit mitts held out to the side and imagine they are driving into the center of an opponent?


----------



## PiedmontChun (Dec 28, 2015)

KPM said:


> Holding mitts on the centerline...holding mitts to the side....I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  If a person can hit a wall bag and imagine that are driving into the center of an opponent, why can't they hit mitts held out to the side and imagine they are driving into the center of an opponent?


If they want to stand perfectly still and hold a mitt to the side, then it doesn't matter. But you might as well hit a wall bag for that kind of static training.
I am putting myself in the shoes of one being trained, so just my opinion here on why I said what I did: 1) It can be a bit disorienting to punch a moving target without focusing on center of mass. Your eyes seeing a person move but instead of your body moving / aligning with that moving target of a person, focusing on striking a small arbitrary object way out in left (or right) field instead? Seems counterproductive for an art that strives to chase center of mass and not hands.
2) A trainer holding the mitt firmly and centered means a more solid target. I am envisioning chain punching, not necessarily rapid, but nonetheless one punch after another in some form. Practically speaking, hitting a mitt repeatedly with any real power makes it move around, and if its held out to the side it would require you to constantly adjust in an artificial way to where the mitt is.  There have been times I've hit a mitt and if the trainer was not squared behind it, it was easy to glance off. Holding it tight and centered just avoids that.


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 28, 2015)

Agree with what Piedmont said above. If you are training solo, hit something stationary. Or something moving like double end bag if that's your thing (I personally don't see much use for training to hit moving targets like that in WC though).
But, if you have someone to train mitts with with, it's bad practice to not train to hit COM of the live person you are training with and go off-center chasing a target mitt. Because in WC, we don't to chase hands/targets (or shouldn't), so why train those bad habits with the mitts?

Disclaimer for those that might assume I'm talking in absolutes, this is all 'IMO' of course LOL


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> Or something moving like double end bag if that's your thing (I personally don't see much use for training to hit moving targets like that in WC though).



Double end bag (or other elasticated target) trains hand eye coordination without connection of body. 



> But, if you have someone to train mitts with with, it's bad practice to not train to hit COM of the live person you are training with and go off-center chasing a target mitt. Because in WC, we don't to chase hands/targets (or shouldn't), so why train those bad habits with the mitts?



I think better worked with body pads and gloves on the target, because then you are chasing the actual person with real stepping and they are actually hitting back, albeit lightly. 

In the clip Ernie is trying to get the guy to step in and punch and I think a reasonable way to do so with pads, assuming before that he is in throwing shots to dodge or block with the pads, then drawing the guy to step and punch. 

What I really don't like with focus pads though is that they encourage a hit for hit, tit for tat mentality that is not wing chun, or only of limited use to wing chun. But I think in context that clip is fine for what it does.


----------



## Bkouba (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> How do you make focus pad drills that don't de-train wing chun attributes?


I like to also use 16 ounce gloves in place of focus mitts so the person punching can still strike a padded surface while I can then counter without worrying about potentially cutting my opponent with a focus mitt while offering a realistic counter. It means the person primarily striking works their attack and covering up afterwards while the person with the gloves works their countering, distance and timing. Of course keeping the gloves/mitts as close to your head as possible is a must so the striker gets actually used to striking the intended target - seen countless people drilling pads with the hands way apart which then results in people training to punch either side of the head!


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 1, 2016)

Havent really read the  replies before I typed this. But In Chu sau lei wing chun we have pad work. Well Sifu Alan does atleast, not sure if Robert chu does. I think it helps. My first school made us chain punch the pads still, then moving and then while doing triangle stepping while punching pads but it wasnt consistent and we didnt get taught how to hold pads properly so I didnt get too much benefit out of it.  I prefer CSL way. The body mechanics develop alot of power, and It trains how I would punch in a fight, not just standing in yjkym and doing straight chain punches. I see a few people comment on Alans videos who have never actually  met him and been explained to the theory of what he does..they all see to think its not wing chun theory or application..it is very much wing chun, you quickly understand that when learning from him. Of all the Wing chun people iv met he is the best hands down.


----------



## geezer (Jan 1, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> .... Of all the Wing chun people iv met he is the best hands down.



Dang! I'll bet he's even better with his hands up!  


...Seriously though, I've never met him, or anybody whose trained with him, but I follow what he posts on Youtube and really respect what he's doing.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> HI prefer CSL way. The body mechanics develop alot of power, and It trains how I would punch in a fight, not just standing in yjkym and doing straight chain punches. I see a few people comment on Alans videos who have never actually  met him and been explained to the theory of what he does..they all see to think its not wing chun theory or application..it is very much wing chun, you quickly understand that when learning from him. Of all the Wing chun people iv met he is the best hands down.



Can you elaborate of the CSL approach? How do you feel the power generation fiffers from other lines of wing chun? 

I have some experience of this system but it would be interesting to hear why you feel it is a more complete approach that others since you train it and I don't.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Can you elaborate of the CSL approach? how do you feel the power generation fiffers from other lines of wing chun?
> 
> I have some experience of this system but it would be interesting to hear why you feel it is a more complete approach that others since you train it and I don't.



Im not the best expert on it as I have only recently just started training CSL. I used to do Ip ching style. The main difference is that CSL incorporate using your body to complement each hand structure when doing the forms. Like when doing the tan sau going out in the 1st section of Siu nim tao. Most wing chun there body stays still whille the tan sao goes out. In CSL your body is rising while going out- sinking while coming in. And Im not good enough to explain why.. but it just seems much more effective then anything I learned at my old school. When I visited Alans school for the first time.. All his students had better structure then me and theyd only been there for a maximum of 2 years.. was quite a revealing experience. Too me it seemed like most wing chuns think that chi sao/fighting is done with your arms/elbow and your body only turns. Chu sau lei is your whole body is powering your arms.. your elbow and hip connect. I never got taught that in my old school. Its similar to CST but not at the same time. CST has the best structure apart from CSL people from my experience. But its a different way of doing things ( not nim tao, tai gung etc). Its like learning to control pressure by inches. Hard to explain.. also Iv only really experienced a few flavours of wing chun.

It took me a little bit to get used to the way that they do things.. and it may not seem like wing chun to some people. But when you start learning it in person and get it explained to you and shown in person it makes a whole lot of sense. Then when you start sparring you can actually defend yourself. Trust me.. I reckon most wing chun people would just crumble going to that school and sparring. Alan & his students spar almost everyday. Not cooperatively. Compared to everyone I met since I started Ip ching.. left and spent a few months going round meeting some people from WSL & CST plus just other stuff.. I can say that Alan is the most skilled by far. Not that other people are not good. WSL & CST guys are actually really good most the time. But one thing that is super clear is since I started training with Alan.. I can actually spar with a mate who does boxing/muay thai and can match his pace and not look like a retard like most wing chun videos. My mate started boxing like a month or two before I left my main school, a little while in we started sparring.. and it didnt take long at all for me to start getting owned/not been able to catch up with his hands..if I had stayed I know for a fact that each week I would be staying the same while he got better in real combat, I realised the limits of what I was learning ( plus lots of issues with a crazy teacher) and eventually left and spent a while researching different lineages and opening my mind up andthen eventually visited Alans school and now I have dedicated to relearning the system under CSL ( and Cst but not bothered to explain that). CSL simply has made me be able to fight alot better then I ever could.. and this is only from a few months learning.. I still have soo much to learn now. I dont think any wing chun that has all its weight in the heels has any structure power now though.

When I watch Alans videos I see all the body structure/general wing chun principles in Chu sau lei and it makes sense. Looking at his videos from your own wing chun's lineage point of view may not make sense as they have different reasons for doing things.. All the reasons of doing things in CSL is because its been proven to be more effective/work then some other ways. Like our lan sao is mid sternum height instead of being shoulder height. I just personally think it works better for myself and I can use it better then other stuff I have learnt. Other people may not have the same experience. Excuse my poor grammar lol But this is just my personal experience with Chu sau lei.. I love it, its great and it works for me. Alan is tough as nails and hits like a truck. Watching him just waste my mate who doesnt do wing chun was awesome.. Finally get to meet a Sifu who can fight for real.  I did Ip ching from when I was 11 till I was 20 ( just the usual 2- 4 classes a week for 2 hours a class type deal , plus an hour a day at home..).. I went there and got sassed by students of 2 years or less.. showed me that without body structure you really have no substance to your hand techniques.. Been able to relax and link/delink your joints at the right time is a very useful skill.. Sorry this ended up being way longer then I intended. Hopefully you can get a little insight. Alan himself is a really nice dude & good teacher. He also cares about his students and they have a good atmosphere at the school. It just doesnt look like ip man movie wing chun.. but its 100% wing chun.. all the standup is wing chun.

What is your experience ?


----------



## geezer (Jan 2, 2016)

_Dude_ -- that was a really useful post explaining how specific aspects of Alan Orr's CSL such as body and hip engagement, linking and de-linking, daily sparring, etc. have helped your WC improve. Noticeably absent was any attitude of superiority or that CSL is the best and only true lineage. Thank you for an honest and informative post.

BTW -- although there no Alan Orr people around here to check out, I do pay attention to his online stuff and have noticed that a good deal of it seems to corroborate things I'm discovering through the DTE/MMA Escrima people I train with --especially the rising and sinking body engagement and the strong, yet balanced forward pressure from the hips (that casual observers wrongly dismiss as leaning). If Mr. Orr ever presents a seminar in this area, I would be very interested in attending. Don't imagine he gets too many old guys like me, though!


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Dude_ -- that was a really useful post explaining how specific aspects of Alan Orr's CSL such as body and hip engagement, linking and de-linking, daily sparring, etc. have helped your WC improve. Noticeably absent was any attitude of superiority or that CSL is the best and only true lineage. Thank you for an honest and informative post.
> 
> BTW -- although there no Alan Orr people around here to check out, I do pay attention to his online stuff and have noticed that a good deal of it seems to corroborate things I'm discovering through the DTE/MMA Escrima people I train with --especially the rising and sinking body engagement and the strong, yet balanced forward pressure from the hips (that casual observers wrongly dismiss as leaning). If Mr. Orr ever presents a seminar in this area, I would be very interested in attending. Don't imagine he gets too many old guys like me, though!



Allgood. Think I went a bit overboard on the reply though. Yea I just think it works great for me. But I still respect every other lineage around. Yes thats one thing alot of people think .. that we are leaning. We arent leaning we are projecting our COG forward ( I think). Im still wrapping my head around it all. Alan actually knows escrima aswell Im pretty sure. Ahh hes in the uk right now doing some seminars. So if you were around there then you may be able to catch one.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Dude_ -- that was a really useful post explaining how specific aspects of Alan Orr's CSL such as body and hip engagement, linking and de-linking, daily sparring, etc. have helped your WC improve. Noticeably absent was any attitude of superiority or that CSL is the best and only true lineage. Thank you for an honest and informative post.



There is plenty in there that points to the fact that dudewingchun thinks CSL is superior to other approaches. For example "most wing chuns think that chi sao/fighting is done with your arms/elbow and your body only turns". This is normal for anyone training any system. 

I think that you are happy to tolerate this and not get offended (as any normal person would) because it is not coming from a WSL VT person. I think that you must be heavily biased against WSL VT because of the arguments you experienced on the other forum. Please attempt to forget these and to move forward with a positive attitude to discusion.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Im not the best expert on it as I have only recently just started training CSL. I used to do Ip ching style. The main difference is that CSL incorporate using your body to complement each hand structure when doing the forms. Like when doing the tan sau going out in the 1st section of Siu nim tao. Most wing chun there body stays still whille the tan sao goes out. In CSL your body is rising while going out- sinking while coming in. And Im not good enough to explain why.. but it just seems much more effective then anything I learned at my old school. When I visited Alans school for the first time.. All his students had better structure then me and theyd only been there for a maximum of 2 years.. was quite a revealing experience. Too me it seemed like most wing chuns think that chi sao/fighting is done with your arms/elbow and your body only turns. Chu sau lei is your whole body is powering your arms.. your elbow and hip connect. I never got taught that in my old school. Its similar to CST but not at the same time. CST has the best structure apart from CSL people from my experience. But its a different way of doing things ( not nim tao, tai gung etc). Its like learning to control pressure by inches. Hard to explain.. also Iv only really experienced a few flavours of wing chun.
> 
> It took me a little bit to get used to the way that they do things.. and it may not seem like wing chun to some people. But when you start learning it in person and get it explained to you and shown in person it makes a whole lot of sense. Then when you start sparring you can actually defend yourself. Trust me.. I reckon most wing chun people would just crumble going to that school and sparring. Alan & his students spar almost everyday. Not cooperatively. Compared to everyone I met since I started Ip ching.. left and spent a few months going round meeting some people from WSL & CST plus just other stuff.. I can say that Alan is the most skilled by far. Not that other people are not good. WSL & CST guys are actually really good most the time. But one thing that is super clear is since I started training with Alan.. I can actually spar with a mate who does boxing/muay thai and can match his pace and not look like a retard like most wing chun videos. My mate started boxing like a month or two before I left my main school, a little while in we started sparring.. and it didnt take long at all for me to start getting owned/not been able to catch up with his hands..if I had stayed I know for a fact that each week I would be staying the same while he got better in real combat, I realised the limits of what I was learning ( plus lots of issues with a crazy teacher) and eventually left and spent a while researching different lineages and opening my mind up andthen eventually visited Alans school and now I have dedicated to relearning the system under CSL ( and Cst but not bothered to explain that). CSL simply has made me be able to fight alot better then I ever could.. and this is only from a few months learning.. I still have soo much to learn now. I dont think any wing chun that has all its weight in the heels has any structure power now though.
> 
> ...



Thanks for reply.

I would say that in wing chun power comes mostly from the leg bypassing most of the body via elbow hip connection as you say. Pole specifically trains the elbow stance connection, centredness, and synchroneity for this on a single side of the body. For this reason tain both sides. Heel is down to recruit particular leg muscle usage, also trained initially in SNT. Upper body force of the waist is also trained by the pole via the connected hands.

From my experience CSL wing chun is geared towards prolonged contact in terms of chi sau and the "wing chun" part of the system. In many ways what CSL does is very like what Hakka arts with 3 step arrow sanchin like forms do. I personally don't think that wing chun should work that way; it is much more mobile. I don't see a huge amount of consistency in terms of the wing chun bit of CSL and the fighting bit. Fighting wise it is quite good, but I think this is mostly due to regular sparring rather than any particular genius in conception. I don't think it is a bad form of wing chun compared to many others.

Experience is sparring with Alan's guys at an MMA school where they visited. Some of his guys were very good at fighting, not so good at wing chun (in my opinion only).


----------



## geezer (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I think that you are happy to tolerate this and not get offended (as any normal person would) because it is not coming from a WSL VT person. I think that you must be heavily biased against WSL VT because of the arguments you experienced on the other forum. Please attempt to forget these and to move forward with a positive attitude to discusion.



Nah. It's not personal towards you, Guy, ...or your lineage. I respect WSL VT. I just get majorly annoyed when _some_ WSL students say that other branches are wrong, missing essential basics, and have no coherence as a system. And to be honest, I don't recall _you _being the person saying this stuff most of the time. And it's not just WSL folks. Frankly there have been plenty of people posting here over the years from other WC branches with the same kind of "attitude problem". 

Besides the WSL group (especially the Philip Bayer followers) we've had some other arrogant and opinionated "true believers" claiming to be from the William Cheung lineage. And, some of the worst "true believers" I've ever met come from _my own_ LT lineage. Fortunately they don't seem to be interested in posting here. 

BTW I have met some really decent 'chunners from each of these branches. Both decent as martial artists and as people, that is.


----------



## geezer (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Thanks for reply.
> 
> From my experience CSL wing chun is geared towards prolonged contact in terms of chi sau and the "wing chun" part of the system. In many ways what CSL does is very like what Hakka arts with 3 step arrow sanchin like forms do. *I personally don't think that wing chun should work that way;* it is much more mobile. I don't see a huge amount of consistency in terms of the wing chun bit of CSL and the fighting bit. Fighting wise it is quite good, but I think this is mostly due to regular sparring rather than any particular genius in conception. I don't think it is a bad form of wing chun compared to many others.
> 
> Experience is sparring with Alan's guys at an MMA school where they visited. *Some of his guys were very good at fighting, not so good at wing chun (in my opinion only).*



Guy!!! ...Good post. You see what a little _tact _(as KPM phrased it) can do. Check out the way you _qualified_ your opinions in the bolded sections above. I would be the last person to say that people shouldn't express strong opinions, but phrasing things with humility and tact makes a huge difference. And if you put things a little more gently like this, I truly believe people will pay more attention to your opinions as well. At least _most_ people.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> You see what a little _tact _(as KPM phrased it) can do. Check out the way you _qualified_ your opinions in the bolded sections above. I would be the last person to say that people shouldn't express strong opinions, but phrasing things with humility and tact makes a huge difference. And if you put things a little more gently like this, I truly believe people will pay more attention to your opinions as well. At least _most_ people.



Ok, no problem, I will take care to qualify in future if that will help to encourage discussion.

Guy


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> Nah. It's not personal towards you, Guy, ...or your lineage. I respect WSL VT. I just get majorly annoyed when _some_ WSL students say that other branches are wrong, missing essential basics, and have no coherence as a system. And to be honest, I don't recall _you _being the person saying this stuff most of the time. And it's not just WSL folks. Frankly there have been plenty of people posting here over the years from other WC branches with the same kind of "attitude problem".



Fair enough, although I think most people got annoyed with me about historical pole theories rather than WSL VT concepts, which does seem an odd thing to get hot under the collar about, but not a problem as long as animosity towards me doesn't kill the forum.

Please let me know if people are abstaining from discussion because I am participating so that I can stop posting before ruining your forum.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> If people are abstaining from discussion because I am participating then I will stop posting to prevent this place turning into a wasteland like KFM



Don't do that dude...
I find you and LFJ's views on WSL VT interesting, whether I agree or disagree with them...keep posting!


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Thanks for reply.
> 
> I would say that in wing chun power comes mostly from the leg bypassing most of the body via elbow hip connection as you say. Pole specifically trains the elbow stance connection, centredness, and synchroneity for this on a single side of the body. For this reason tain both sides. Heel is down to recruit particular leg muscle usage, also trained initially in SNT. Upper body force of the waist is also trained by the pole via the connected hands.
> 
> ...



Iv spent like 10 minutes trying to think of the right way to explain but cant get the words. We just keep our weight on the k1 point mainly. Iv only just finished Siu nim tao though in CSL so not sure on everything. I got upto the end of dummy in Ip ching.. and still got rekt like a noob at Alans.. but thats a combination of them being good and my old teachers teachings being quite mediocre for real life. 

Thats all cool. Im not familiar with hakka styles or sanchin so I cannot comment sorry. I am quite new in CSL wing chun so I hope I have not misrespresented the theories taught in the lineage. But everything we do in sparring ( standup) is  our ( CSL) wing chun. Maybe doesnt conform to WSL/ LT/ HKM/DL ways of application.. but thats there way and I respect them all but I prefer CSL personally as it works well for my body type and way of thinking. I also practice a bit of Chu shong tin which I love for health/structure and just learning to be mindful. I really enjoy both. I do notice at Alans schools alot of the people there are there for mma training and do wing chun because Alan teaches it in almost everything he does. I wish more Wing chun would do regular sparring though.. you quickly find out what works and what doesnt. We do what we do because of that. I am by no means an expert on CSL or an authority on it and my wriiting skills are not good enough to articulate my experience properly so take this all with a grain of salt !


----------



## KPM (Jan 3, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Iv spent like 10 minutes trying to think of the right way to explain but cant get the words. We just keep our weight on the k1 point mainly.



The weight moves dynamically across the whole sole of the foot, but the "center point" is at K1.  The hips are not "locked in place" as in some WCK lineages.  Rather the Kwa is kept relaxed and allowed to "float" to some degree.  So power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link.  The elbow is "coupled" to the hip.  This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip.  The body is not by-passed.  The spine is also actively engaged.  The shoulders are engaged, etc.  Nothing is static.  The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything.  The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau."  One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance.  Then you can hit him at will.  While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them.  CSL is nothing like the "sanchin like forms" of the Hakka arts.  The CSL forms incorporate much more "internal work" in a relaxed fashion without any "sanchin like" tensing.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> The weight moves dynamically across the whole sole of the foot, but the "center point" is at K1.  The hips are not "locked in place" as in some WCK lineages.  Rather the Kwa is kept relaxed and allowed to "float" to some degree.  So power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link.  The elbow is "coupled" to the hip.  This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip.  The body is not by-passed.  The spine is also actively engaged.  The shoulders are engaged, etc.  Nothing is static.  The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything.  The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau."  One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance.  Then you can hit him at will.  While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them.  CSL is nothing like the "sanchin like forms" of the Hakka arts.  The CSL forms incorporate much more "internal work" in a relaxed fashion without any "sanchin like" tensing.



Thank you for articulating that for me. Spot on from what I understand.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Iv spent like 10 minutes trying to think of the right way to explain but cant get the words. We just keep our weight on the k1 point mainly. Iv only just finished Siu nim tao though in CSL so not sure on everything. I got upto the end of dummy in Ip ching.. and still got rekt like a noob at Alans.. but thats a combination of them being good and my old teachers teachings being quite mediocre for real life.
> 
> Thats all cool. Im not familiar with hakka styles or sanchin so I cannot comment sorry. I am quite new in CSL wing chun so I hope I have not misrespresented the theories taught in the lineage. But everything we do in sparring ( standup) is  our ( CSL) wing chun. Maybe doesnt conform to WSL/ LT/ HKM/DL ways of application.. but thats there way and I respect them all but I prefer CSL personally as it works well for my body type and way of thinking. I also practice a bit of Chu shong tin which I love for health/structure and just learning to be mindful. I really enjoy both. I do notice at Alans schools alot of the people there are there for mma training and do wing chun because Alan teaches it in almost everything he does. I wish more Wing chun would do regular sparring though.. you quickly find out what works and what doesnt. We do what we do because of that. I am by no means an expert on CSL or an authority on it and my wriiting skills are not good enough to articulate my experience properly so take this all with a grain of salt !



I have been shown the foot position, SNT form, and some structure tests from CSL wing chun. I understand what the aim of this is because it is quite similar to what things like white crane and southern praying mantis do. I have done quite a bit of SPM and it is a style reknowned for power generation mechanics and short power in particular. I just personally don't think this way is best (or could say compatible) with wing chun. It does work in a way though. But is would change the movement, balance and power chain of wing chun in quite a fundamental way. Similarly I think that K1 foot positioning (as the ultimate position) can work in some systems but not so good for wing chun due to the way that it puts the balance in turning and where it directs power. If you are pulling rather than punching it is optimal to be K1 weighted, judo and wrestling would weight here. Obviously wing chun with _*all of the weight*_ _*all of the time *_on the heels is a parody of heel down/heel as ultimate position and doesn't lend itself to natural movement very well.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> The weight moves dynamically across the whole sole of the foot, but the "center point" is at K1.  The hips are not "locked in place" as in some WCK lineages.  Rather the Kwa is kept relaxed and allowed to "float" to some degree.  So power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link.  The elbow is "coupled" to the hip.  This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip.  The body is not by-passed.  The spine is also actively engaged.  The shoulders are engaged, etc.  Nothing is static.  The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything.  The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau."  One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance.  Then you can hit him at will.  While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them.  CSL is nothing like the "sanchin like forms" of the Hakka arts.  The CSL forms incorporate much more "internal work" in a relaxed fashion without any "sanchin like" tensing.



Thanks for more detailed explanation.

Elbow is coupled with hip in all decent wing chun including WSL VT, but there is no spinal engagement that I have experienced. No shoulder engagement in WSL VT. Breaking balance then hitting not a primary way of attacking in WSL VT.

There is no tensing in genuine Hakka som bo gin and other similar basic power forms. This is a corruption of the idea found in karate. What I saw of CSL was indeed very like SPM. How much experience of SPM, White Crane, Bak Mei or Lung Ying do you have?


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Thank you for articulating that for me. Spot on from what I understand.


 
Here's another point worth mentioning Sean, while we are on the subject of CSLWCK.   Why is control such a central thing to CSL?  CSL has a Chin Na aspect.  Pin Sun has a Chin Na aspect.  Tang Yik Weng Chun has a Chin Na aspect.  However, some Ip Man lineages do not.  I've always thought that putting such a big emphasis on the punch was a bit "one dimensional."  Wing Chun is more than punching the opponent!  What if the opponent is your drunk uncle Ed wanting to "test your Kung Fu!" and messing with you?  Are you going to punch him the nose?  How about a good Chin Na armlock to convince him to calm down instead?   CSL sees a lot of Chin Na in the forms as a "second level" or deeper application of some of the moves.  Of course, a version of Wing Chun that does not believe in "applications" wouldn't see that.  But this is why the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want.  You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc.  If all a system teaches to do is punch the opponent, I guess this approach wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Similarly I think that K1 foot positioning (as the ultimate position) can work in some systems but not so good for wing chun due to the way that it puts the balance in turning and where it directs power. If you are pulling rather than punching it is optimal to be K1 weighted, judo and wrestling would weight here. Obviously wing chun with _*all of the weight*_ _*all of the time *_on the heels is a parody of heel down/heel as ultimate position and doesn't lend itself to natural movement very well.


 
I disagree 100%.  But that's a topic for a different discussion.   Just consider that  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point.  It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> [snip] ..power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link.  The elbow is "coupled" to the hip.  This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip.  The body is not by-passed.  The spine is also actively engaged.  The shoulders are engaged, etc.  Nothing is static.  The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything.  The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau."  One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance.  Then you can hit him at will.  While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them.



Except for the kwa and k1 stuff (which while giving a better reference in discussion, isn't really needed for WC training), what is described above is what any decent WC does, or should be doing. This is basic WC Body Mechanics 101.


----------



## geezer (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> I disagree 100%.  But that's a topic for a different discussion.   Just consider that  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point.  It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.





KPM said:


> I disagree 100%.  But that's a topic for a different discussion.   Just consider that  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point.  It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.



Leung Ting's "WT" (coming from Yip Man WC) also places the weight on the center of the foot (aprox. the "K1" point). Possibly this has roots in his early training under Leung Sheung? Anyway, FYI center-of-the-foot turning_ is_ present in the Yip Man  lineage.


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

geezer said:


> Leung Ting's "WT" (coming from Yip Man WC) also places the weight on the center of the foot (aprox. the "K1" point). Possibly this has roots in his early training under Leung Sheung? Anyway, FYI center-of-the-foot turning_ is_ present in the Yip Man  lineage.


 
Yeah, I'm aware Steve!  That's why I said a "later" change "within" the Ip Man lineage.  I've always wondered how that came about.


----------



## geezer (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> Yeah, I'm aware Steve!  That's why I said a "later" change "within" the Ip Man lineage.  I've always wondered how that came about.



It might have been there all along. I do not know if the Leung Sheung guys turn that way, but if so, it would suggest that this was something that Yip Man taught early on and not just to LT who trained with GM Yip near the end of his life.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 4, 2016)

Food for thought.
I learned 3 different pivots. Ball of the Foot, Center of the foot, and Heels.
Jiu Wan was a wing chun brother of Ip Man and when moving to HK trained and taught with Ip Man for about 6 months until he got settled. They continued to be friends and I feel they shared their thoughts about wc with each other.
In speaking with my Sifu he stated he learned all 3 training under Jiu Wan at different times during his training. Most of his training was center of the foot but says use what is needed when it is needed. He also said sometimes Jiu Wan would have some students training one pivot or other actions and others training a different pivot or actions yet doing the same drills. It was a very traditional type of training where it was frowned on for asking questions from teachers until getting to high level status wise in the school. So he'd ask his senior brothers about the different students doing different footwork or other different actions. He came away with sense that different people had different skills and abilities so they were trained for those differences. Over the years there have been a number of changes he has given me that he says you need to do it this way, not your students but you. Some have been profound some have been subtle, some have given greater understanding, some have given more options. One of his teaching philosophies is; give your students what they need to perform for themselves. If stepping makes them better ok teach them to step. If pivoting makes them better teach them to pivot. If they don't have speed give them something to do instead of speed. We teach individuals using the system Wing Chun.
Is appears Ip Man taught different people different things or in different manners. We do know he said something along the lines of don't believe what I say or give you. Go try it out (test it) see if it works for you or not.


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

geezer said:


> It might have been there all along. I do not know if the Leung Sheung guys turn that way, but if so, it would suggest that this was something that Yip Man taught early on and not just to LT who trained with GM Yip near the end of his life.



Leung Sheung must have pivoted on K1 because his students I have seen pivot that way.  If you look at the footage of Ip Man shortly before his death, Ip Man seems to be pivoting across the sole of his feet rather indistinctly, but certainly doesn't seem to be back on his heels.  On those videos near the end of his life, it sure looks to me like he is pivoting just as Leung Ting pivots.  So maybe Danny is right, and for certain people Ip Man taught to pivot on the heels for  some specific reason.   My point was only that this does not seem to be the "standard" for Wing Chun in general across many versions out there.  I


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> Here's another point worth mentioning Sean, while we are on the subject of CSLWCK.   Why is control such a central thing to CSL?  CSL has a Chin Na aspect.  Pin Sun has a Chin Na aspect.  Tang Yik Weng Chun has a Chin Na aspect.  However, some Ip Man lineages do not.  I've always thought that putting such a big emphasis on the punch was a bit "one dimensional."  Wing Chun is more than punching the opponent!  What if the opponent is your drunk uncle Ed wanting to "test your Kung Fu!" and messing with you?  Are you going to punch him the nose?  How about a good Chin Na armlock to convince him to calm down instead?   CSL sees a lot of Chin Na in the forms as a "second level" or deeper application of some of the moves.  Of course, a version of Wing Chun that does not believe in "applications" wouldn't see that.  But this is why the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want.  You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc.  If all a system teaches to do is punch the opponent, I guess this approach wouldn't be necessary.



This was my impression of CSL wing chun- the immediate focus is on control of the body of the opponent rather than on hitting them, i.e. it is more akin to a grappling centric approach which would explain the wrestling-style balance point. Unfortunately I think there are better grappling approaches, for example wrestling or judo. Why not just learn these if you wish to grapple? The niche that CSL wing chun aims for is pretty narrow; that is hitting off grappling. And there is a huge amount of knowledge about doing just that in MMA already.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> I disagree 100%.  But that's a topic for a different discussion.   Just consider that  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point.  It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.



Quite possibly. Many Chinese MA stress the K1 point, Hakka systems among them


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> This was my impression of CSL wing chun- the immediate focus is on control of the body of the opponent rather than on hitting them, i.e. it is more akin to a grappling centric approach which would explain the wrestling-style balance point. Unfortunately I think there are better grappling approaches, for example wrestling or judo. Why not just learn these if you wish to grapple? The niche that CSL wing chun aims for is pretty narrow; that is hitting off grappling. And there is a huge amount of knowledge about doing just that in MMA already.



I dont think you understand CSL at all sorry


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> I disagree 100%.  But that's a topic for a different discussion.   Just consider that  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point.  It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.



Pivoting and moving are two different things. Feet operate naturally by shifting balance point forward when fully committing body weight in one direction, while weight is shifted backward as stance becomes more upright or torque is being applied. Pivoting point does not dictate a point of permanent weighting unless you want it to (which I guess you do?). Pivoting further forward on the foot necessitates a greater knee bend if you are to maintain the vertical axis which I think is impractical for striking. Raising the heel also limits power chain completion potential. 

A tennis player is on the balls of the feet as they wait poised to receive serve and move their whole lowered mass in an unknown direction, but goes down on the heels at the moment they contact the ball during the forehand in order to complete the power chain to ground. Wrestling requires constant forward balance point because it is dealing with unexpected body weight size forces which are relatively slow compared to striking, while own centre of gravity is kept very low with knees very bent. Olympic weightlifting requires heel to ground because power chain completion is paramount. 

In wing chun we are moving and striking and so need to be relatively upright, while generally completing power chains with a large rotational component very often. Weight distribution varies as required.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I dont think you understand CSL at all sorry



I was only agreeing with KPM who stressed the CSL focus on control before strike. From what I have seen of it I agree with this assessment (that is the wing chun part of it). Some of the fighters they have/had in UK were very good, e.g. Neil Broadbent. Last time I saw it was quite a while ago so who knows, could be different now. 



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want. You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I was only agreeing with KPM who stressed the CSL focus on control before strike. From what I have seen of it I agree with this assessment (that is the wing chun part of it). Some of the fighters they have/had in UK were very good, e.g. Neil Broadbent. Last time I saw it was quite a while ago so who knows, could be different now.



Sorry I may have misunderstood your reply. My bad.

Forums are not a good medium to explain different kung fu lineages ideas.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Sorry I may have misunderstood your reply. My bad.
> 
> Forums are not a good medium to explain different kung fu lineages ideas.



What other medium is there really? If you go and see then unless you lie about prior experience or future intentions you are not likely to see a lot. Other than that you are waiting for chance meetings.


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Sorry I may have misunderstood your reply. My bad.
> 
> .



Don't apologize Sean, because he doesn't understand CSL at all! 

Guy said:
_This was my impression of CSL wing chun- the immediate focus is on control of the body of the opponent rather than on hitting them, i.e. it is more akin to a grappling centric approach which would explain the wrestling-style balance point. Unfortunately I think there are better grappling approaches, for example wrestling or judo. Why not just learn these if you wish to grapple? The niche that CSL wing chun aims for is pretty narrow; that is hitting off grappling. And there is a huge amount of knowledge about doing just that in MMA already._

First, CSL does not have a "wrestling-style balance point."  Second, CSL is not a "grappling approach", it is Wing Chun!  Third, CSL is not about "hitting off grappling."  Fourth, an approach that puts all its emphasis on punching the opponent has a much more "narrow niche" than CSL, don't you think?  So Guy didn't really understand what I wrote before at all.


----------



## KPM (Jan 4, 2016)

A tennis player is on the balls of the feet as they wait poised to receive serve and move their whole lowered mass in an unknown direction, but goes down on the heels at the moment they contact the ball during the forehand in order to complete the power chain to ground.

---They are only on their heels for a brief moment.  When they are moving, pivoting, angling, going for the ball....they are much closer to the K1 point.   And I never said that any of the approaches of Wing Chun I mentioned were exclusively on the K1 point.  They will also put weight back on the heels at the proper moment of complete a power connection.  Just like the Tennis player.

 Wrestling requires constant forward balance point because it is dealing with unexpected body weight size forces which are relatively slow compared to striking, while own centre of gravity is kept very low with knees very bent.

----And they keep their weight near the K1 point.  Hardly ever over the heels.

 Olympic weightlifting requires heel to ground because power chain completion is paramount.

---And weightlifting involves applying force upward...in a vertical direction.  Not forward....as into an opponent.

---Let's look at other sports, since you brought it up.  Track sprinters?  Weight near the K1 point, never on the heels.  Boxers?  Weight back on the heels is considered a good way to get knocked down.  A batter in baseball?  Weight near K1 point.  Can you imagine trying to hit a fast pitch while pivoting on your heels???  Volleyball?  Weight near K1 to be very mobile.  Almost every sport that involves being very mobile and agile on the feet puts the weight back over the heels as little as possible, and when moving around they pivot near the K1 point.   Weight-lifting is the only sport where they spend a significant amount of time with their weight back over their heels, and this is because they are applying force straight up in a vertical direction, not forward as we do in Wing Chun.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> First, CSL does not have a "wrestling-style balance point."



Done much wrestling? I have



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> Second, CSL is not a "grappling approach", it is Wing Chun!



Control before hit is a grappling then hitting approach, i.e. a grappling centric approach. You place control above hitting in the heirarchy of importance as you outline in the following quote:



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want. You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc.



I agree with you, this was my experience of CSL wing chun. There is nothing wrong with this and I am not attacking you. I am merely agreeing with what you wrote because it tallied with what I experienced.



> Third, CSL is not about "hitting off grappling."



This is untrue. What I was shown of CSL wing chun in the UK focused a lot on hitting off grappling and disrupting balance before hitting (with grappling, there is not other way). There is nothing wrong with grappling. I currently practice bjj and think it is essential.

Another thing CSL focuses a lot on is power chain. I don't agree with CSL ideas here and believe it to be tacked on from somewhere else, but if it works for you who cares?



> Fourth, an approach that puts all its emphasis on punching the opponent has a much more "narrow niche" than CSL, don't you think?



Disengaged striking is a 1/3 part of ring fighting. Clinching, throwing, tripping and standing hitting off grappling is another 1/3 part. Ground grappling is the third 1/3. CSL wing chun focuses on a part of the second part and I believe is not as optimised for disengaged striking as some other wing chuns I have seen because of the focus on control first. But of course that is only my opinion based on what I have seen and felt. 



> So Guy didn't really understand what I wrote before at all.



I fully understand and agree with what you wrote, and have also experienced it in person from some of their better fighters when I was training MMA. CSL has produced some great fighters in the UK. I think it is/was a good place to train. I don't understand why you hate the thing that differentiates you from other wing chun? You should celebrate this difference, and so far it has brought a lot of success.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

KPM said:


> They are only on their heels for a brief moment.



The moment they express power and link the chain to ground. When do you think WSL VT is on the heels? 



> When they are moving, pivoting, angling, going for the ball....they are much closer to the K1 point.



Lol, all wing chun moves balance point forward as required, even the worst versions I have seen. You can't really move around without moving balance point as required. When pivoting what are you generally doing? 



> And I never said that any of the approaches of Wing Chun I mentioned were exclusively on the K1 point.  They will also put weight back on the heels at the proper moment of complete a power connection.



So just like WSL VT. What are you usually doing when you are pivoting by the way?



> And they keep their weight near the K1 point.  Hardly ever over the heels.



Wresting keeps it on K1, this was my point. No ballistic limb movement because no hitting, a lot of pushing and pulling.



> And weightlifting involves applying force upward...in a vertical direction.  Not forward....as into an opponent.



Which direction does tennis apply force in?



> Track sprinters?  Weight near the K1 point, never on the heels.



Moving a body weight non ballistically 



> Boxers?  Weight back on the heels is considered a good way to get knocked down.



Have a look at Marciano's heel.



> A batter in baseball?  Weight near K1 point.



Front foot completely flat, back foot completely raised on toes. They are rotating round the front hip like a left hook in boxing and are almost 100% front weighted at contact. Front weight down on heel. 



> Can you imagine Almost every sport that involves being very mobile and agile on the feet puts the weight back over the heels as little as possible, and when moving around they pivot near the K1 point.



Nope, almost every sport puts the heel to ground when completing a ballistic power chain because doing so minimises power leakage and maximises ground force. Every single physical activity in the world including all wing chun moves the balance point around the foot as required during normal body weight movement. We are talking about pivot point remember? Not moving around 100% of the time point.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Done much wrestling? I have
> 
> Another thing CSL focuses a lot on is power chain. I don't agree with CSL ideas here and believe it to be tacked on from somewhere else, but if it works for you who cares?
> .


I do bjj but not wrestling but I know Alan is a bjj black belt and has done catch wrestling for a long time. So that would obviously influence his teachings a bit I would imagine. 

Just curious as why you dont agree with the body mechanics ? The linking / delinking ?  Where do you think they got the ideas from ?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I do bjj but not wrestling but I know Alan is a bjj black belt and has done catch wrestling for a long time. So that would obviously influence his teachings a bit I would imagine.
> 
> Just curious as why you dont agree with the body mechanics ? The linking / delinking ?  Where do you think they got the ideas from ?



I don't agree because I think they are taken from a different Southern Chinese system. All of the terms and most of the body methods (minus some) are exactly what you would hear and see in (for example) SPM. It appears to lack the power building methods though, e.g. grinding arm, analgous to poon sau in wing chun, but of course different because a different power chain based on sam bo gin/sanchin.

Where do I think it came from? If I had to guess I would say white crane:


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2016)

Done much wrestling? I have

 --Then please describe what you see as a "wrestling-style balance point." 


Control before hit is a grappling then hitting approach, i.e. a grappling centric approach. You place control above hitting in the heirarchy of importance as you outline in the following quote:

---Who said anything about control BEFORE hitting?  You can control WHILE hitting.  It is not necessarily a two step process.  It can be and often is very direct.  Controlling an opponent is not "grappling centric."   Another art that includes even more "Chin Na element" than CSL is Hapkido.  I've never seen anyone called Hapkido a "grappling approach" or say that it is "grappling centric." 



I agree with you, this was my experience of CSL wing chun. There is nothing wrong with this and I am not attacking you. I am merely agreeing with what you wrote because it tallied with what I experienced.

--Well, I guess it is my turn to say you don't really agree like you say you do!  ;-)



Another thing CSL focuses a lot on is power chain. I don't agree with CSL ideas here and believe it to be tacked on from somewhere else, but if it works for you who cares?

---What do you see as CSL ideas on the power chain?



Disengaged striking is a 1/3 part of ring fighting. Clinching, throwing, tripping and standing hitting off grappling is another 1/3 part. Ground grappling is the third 1/3. CSL wing chun focuses on a part of the second part and I believe is not as optimised for disengaged striking as some other wing chuns I have seen because of the focus on control first. But of course that is only my opinion based on what I have seen and felt.

---What makes you think CSL doesn't do disengaged striking?


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2016)

The moment they express power and link the chain to ground. When do you think WSL VT is on the heels?

---When pivoting or shifting 



Lol, all wing chun moves balance point forward as required, even the worst versions I have seen. You can't really move around without moving balance point as required. When pivoting what are you generally doing?

---I have learned to pivot to change the angle, to move the opponent and break his structure, to evade, as part of a deflection when appropriate, and at times to generate power.  When I plant the heel as part of the power chain, my foot is not in motion.  That would break a portion of the power chain and decrease overall stability to an extent. 




Which direction does tennis apply force in?

---Forward!  Serving the ball or returning a serve goes forward.   Can you imagine a tennis player serving the ball while pivoting on the heels?   Can you imagine a baseball player swinging a bat while pivoting on the heels?  Can you imagine a football quarterback throwing a pass while pivoting on the heels?  Does a Boxer throw a cross by pivoting on the heels?


Moving a body weight non ballistically

---You don't think Sprinters move ballistically?   Did you ever watch them come off the blocks when the starter gun goes off!  And they darn sure aren't on their heels!!!




Front foot completely flat, back foot completely raised on toes. They are rotating round the front hip like a left hook in boxing and are almost 100% front weighted at contact. Front weight down on heel.

---Front foot stationary....as in not moving.  Rear foot pivoting near the K1 point.   No one is back on the heels WHILE the foot is moving! 



Nope, almost every sport puts the heel to ground when completing a ballistic power chain because doing so minimises power leakage and maximises ground force.

---Absolutely!  And their foot is NOT moving at the time!  Moving the foot while completing the power chain is not the optimal way to minimize power leakage and maximize ground force.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> please describe what you see as a "wrestling-style balance point."



Front foot weighted




> Who said anything about control BEFORE hitting?



Nobody. You stressed hierarchy of importance with control above hitting. Nothing wrong with this approach if that's what you want to do. 



> Well, I guess it is my turn to say you don't really agree like you say you do



Well that's a bit silly. I don't bear grudges against people I have never met. I think CSL is probably the second best wing chun available in the UK, in practical if not conceptual terms. Is that ok?



> What do you see as CSL ideas on the power chain?



I don't think there is any original CSL idea on the power chain. It is all the usual link/delink, rise/fall, sink/float, swallow/spit rotate centre stuff that you see in many other systems. I don't think it grafts particularly well to wing cun because body alignment is different and wing chun is far more a momentum and alignment based system than these others. Obviously some attempt has been made to address this by forward weighting the stance, seemingly permanently, but then you still have the wing chun forms and don't have the SPM drills. It is a bit of a mixture as far as I can tell. 



> What makes you think CSL doesn't do disengaged striking?



Stressing control of body over hitting means disengaged hitting will not be optimal. Concepts


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> I have learned to pivot to change the angle, to move the opponent and break his structure, to evade, as part of a deflection when appropriate, and at times to generate power.  When I plant the heel as part of the power chain, my foot is not in motion.  That would break a portion of the power chain and decrease overall stability to an extent.



As long as contact is present at the moment of impact the ground force is expressed up the body from the heel. Just as in tennis or any other hitting sport. Mike Tyson was about the most heel down boxer in history. Did he hit hard?



> Can you imagine a tennis player serving the ball while pivoting on the heels?



Serving is full body weight committed, it is not a ground force ballistic action. Forehand return plants heel at point of impact



> Can you imagine a baseball player swinging a bat while pivoting on the heels?



Front foot which they rotate on is planted flat at point of impact



> Can you imagine a football quarterback throwing a pass while pivoting on the heels?



Throw is not a ballistic action, it takes too long.



> Does a Boxer throw a cross by pivoting on the heels?



Power chain in western boxing is through the front foot, which is heel down at impact.



> You don't think Sprinters move ballistically?



No



> Did you ever watch them come off the blocks when the starter gun goes off!  And they darn sure aren't on their heels!!!



That's because they aren't moving ballistically.



> Front foot stationary....as in not moving.  Rear foot pivoting near the K1 point.   No one is back on the heels WHILE the foot is moving!



Back foot is pushing in boxing, either from toes or further back right to heel depending on preference. Body rotates around front foot. Front foot rotates more the harder the punch, always with heel down (lead left hook always has heel down pivot for example). Heel down for power, heel up for mobility.



> And their foot is NOT moving at the time!



Well yes it is actually, for example in racquet sports, baseball and boxing.  



> Moving the foot while completing the power chain is not the optimal way to minimize power leakage and maximize ground force.



Completely untrue. Did you ever do any combat sports?


----------



## geezer (Jan 5, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think there is any original CSL idea on the power chain. It is all the usual *link/delink, rise/fall, sink/float, swallow/spit* rotate centre stuff that you see in many other systems. I don't think it grafts particularly well to wing chun



_@Guy, KPM et al._

OK, I'm on the outside of this discussion since I only know about Alan's  CSL from watching his Youtube videos. That is to say I find his efforts intriguing, but in fact I know nothing.







Now regarding the bolded section above. _Linking and de -linking_ is not something that I've seen _identified _in the WC I've trained, but it certainly seems useful the way Alan demonstrates it. And he does seem to use the standard Southern Chinese _Fou Jum Tun Tou_ or Float, Sink, Swallow, Spit energies, which again were never identified as such by my WC teachers. Does anyone here teach these energies as part of WC? Are these desirable or to be avoided?


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2016)

geezer said:


> _@Guy, KPM et al._
> 
> Now regarding the bolded section above. _Linking and de -linking_ is not something that I've seen _identified _in the WC I've trained, but it certainly seems useful the way Alan demonstrates it. And he does seem to use the standard Southern Chinese _Fou Jum Tun Tou_ or Float, Sink, Swallow, Spit energies, which again were never identified as such by my WC teachers. Does anyone here teach these energies as part of WC? Are these desirable or to be avoided?


 
You are absolutely right Steve!  Those things are common in southern Chinese martial arts.  Since Wing Chun is a southern Chinese martial art, these things are also common in the older mainland versions of Wing Chun.  Robert Chu hasn't "grafted on" anything.  Once again, Guy simple doesn't know what he is talking about.  Pin Sun Wing Chun uses these same concepts, Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun uses these same concepts, and Tang Yik Weng Chun uses these same concepts.  They may not name them or label them the  same, but this body dynamic is still there.  If it is now in Robert Chu's interpretation of Ip Man Wing Chun, then it is likely because it came from his study of Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun.   Ip Man dropped use of the "key words" and other "classical" stuff, while Yuen Kay Shan did not.


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2016)

Nobody. You stressed hierarchy of importance with control above hitting.

 ---Just because something is stressed doesn't mean a system is not good at something else as well!  Its called being "well-rounded."  Believe me, CSL is "well-rounded." 


Well that's a bit silly. I don't bear grudges against people I have never met. I think CSL is probably the second best wing chun available in the UK, in practical if not conceptual terms. Is that ok?

---It was a joke.  Obviously you don't have much of a sense of humor.  ;-) 


  I don't think it grafts particularly well to wing cun because body alignment is different

---See my response to Steve.


Stressing control of body over hitting means disengaged hitting will not be optimal.

---It means no such thing!  That is a huge assumption on your part.  Again, just because something is a key concept, doesn't mean it is the ONLY concept utilized.  I assure you CSL if very good at "disengaged hitting"!!!


Did you ever do any combat sports?

---Did you ever study biomechanics?  Because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> I disagree 100%.  But that's a topic for a different discussion.   Just consider that  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point.  It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer the Ip Man way and not the YKS way.
I don't know the game on this long  thread. Who is on first?


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 5, 2016)

Would prefer to stop talking about CSL to be honest. We can all just agree to disagree . Although im pretty sure that those theories are in other mainland styles of wing chun.

My teacher did mention that he thinks Ip man has better application but Yuen kay san has more comprehensive techniques and the reason the application isnt as good is more to do with this generation of YKS people then his skill himself.

Vajramusti have you ever been in a fight or sparred with someone who doesnt do wing chun and is actually trying to punch you in the face and win? Not saying that in a rude way. Just curious. Actually who has and who hasnt ?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

> Robert Chu hasn't "grafted on" anything. Pin Sun Wing Chun uses these same concepts, Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun uses these same concepts, and Tang Yik Weng Chun uses these same concepts. They may not name them or label them the same, but this body dynamic is still there. If it is now in Robert Chu's interpretation of Ip Man Wing Chun, then it is likely because it came from his study of Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun. Ip Man dropped use of the "key words" and other "classical" stuff, while Yuen Kay Shan did not.



If it wasn't in Robert Chu's wing chun until he looked elsewhere then he has indeed grafted it on. But lets stop for a minute and look at what actually is in YKS wing chun according to the article written by among others Robert Chu, Hendrik Santos and Jim Roselando (as unbiased a bunch as you could get I'm sure when it comes to this topic). Faat of YKS says that it contains, among 9 other methods, chen, tou and tun.

Given this, how then does CSL wing chun manage to derive its body method which looks just the same as white crane as far as it goes, and also similar to pak mei, spm etc, etc, from the methods of YKS wing chun? Even these guys failed to find method number 4, which I can assure you Alan Orr shows as part of his wing chun.

Also looking at video clips of YKS wing chun it looks absolutely nothing like these others. In fact it looks just like wing chun. Why is this, if it happens to be based on the same core principles as the white crane, bak mei, SPM etc? They look very different to YKS wing chun,but very similar to CSL body method demos.


----------



## KPM (Jan 5, 2016)

You yourself identified control as being more important than striking in CSL wing chun. I don't really understand why you are arguing against this now

---Actually, what I said was:
_One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance. Then you can hit him at will. While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them._

Which is not the same as saying control is more important than striking.  You either have a reading comprehension problem, or keep jumping to unnecessary conclusions to support your preconceived notions.  I wonder which it is?  ;-)


You: I insult you!

Me: That's a bit weird.

You: I was only joking, you humourless fool!

----And yet you thought nothing of insulting me in exactly the same way on another thread!  I turn it back on you to try and lighten things up bit and you take offense.  Geez!



If it wasn't in Robert Chu's wing chun until he looked elsewhere then he has indeed grafted it on.

---Elsewhere being another version of Wing Chun.  That isn't exactly "grafted on."  Its all Wing Chun!



Given this, how then does CSL wing chun manage to derive its body method which looks just the same as white crane as far as it goes, and also similar to pak mei, spm etc, etc, from the methods of YKS wing chun? Even these guys failed to find method number 4, which I can assure you Alan Orr shows as part of his wing chun.

---I'm not discussing anything with you anymore.  You turn everything into an argument.  You make it confrontational by saying things like "Have you ever wrestled?"  and "Have you ever studied a combat art?"  You took things downhill starting at post #75, where it became clear to me that you weren't even trying to understand what I was saying. You twist things that I have written around to try and say things that I haven't said.  That is not exactly trying to actually understand someone else's viewpoint!    You just go one believing anything you want.  You seem to have all the answers you need already.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 5, 2016)

[QUOTE="dudewingchun, post: 1739369, member: 32677 

Vajramusti have you ever been in a fight or sparred with someone who doesnt do wing chun and is actually trying to punch you in the face and win? Not saying that in a rude way. Just curious. Actually who has and who hasnt ?[/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------Yes !


----------



## LFJ (Jan 6, 2016)

@KPM

I seem to remember not so long ago on the other forum, you were telling Alan he wasn't doing Wing Chun at all, just boxing or MMA. I must have missed when you became a convert. Been through all his DVDs and started studying biomechanics?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---Actually, what I said was:
> _One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance. Then you can hit him at will. While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them._



No actually what you said was this:



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want. You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc.



i.e. you place control above hitting in the hierarchy of importance- "controlling rather than just hitting"



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> -I'm not discussing anything with you anymore.



It's entirely up to you. Interesting point to duck out though


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> @KPM
> 
> I seem to remember not so long ago on the other forum, you were telling Alan he wasn't doing Wing Chun at all, just boxing or MMA. I must have missed when you became a convert. Been through all his DVDs and started studying biomechanics?



Still a bit of studying to do I would say. 

Does KPM train with Robert Chu, Hendrik or one of those people?


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Still a bit of studying to do I would say.
> 
> Does KPM train with Robert Chu, Hendrik or one of those people?



I personally train with Alan.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I personally train with Alan.



You are probably better off.

Did Alan move to New Zealand or somewhere like that?


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You are probably better off.
> 
> Did Alan move to New Zealand or somewhere like that?



What do you mean by that ?

Yea he did. Have you touched hands with Alan ? He is without a doubt in my mind the best here in NZ and Iv met quite a few people in wing chun around here.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> What do you mean by that ?
> 
> Yea he did. Have you touched hands with Alan ? He is without a doubt in my mind the best here in NZ and Iv met quite a few people in wing chun around here.



I mean you are probably better off with Alan than with those others, reason being that it is grounded in contact sport

I have touched hands with Alan; he was very strong


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I mean you are probably better off with Alan than with those others, reason being that it is grounded in contact sport
> 
> I have touched hands with Alan; he was very strong



Oh yea. It is good. When I get to go down there, there is a ton of sparring. Unfortunately I live like 2 1/2 hours away from his gym so cant go everyday. I go and travel down for a like 5 days as much as possible. Im going to move there asap.

Yea but its not just his strength. His skill is very good. I think people are mistaken by thinking hes only good because he appears strong. He just knows how to perfectly use his body in the methods hes learnt pretty much and its really effective. How long ago was it that you touched hands with him ?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Oh yea. It is good. When I get to go down there, there is a ton of sparring. Unfortunately I live like 2 1/2 hours away from his gym so cant go everyday. I go and travel down for a like 5 days as much as possible. Im going to move there asap.
> 
> Yea but its not just his strength. His skill is very good. I think people are mistaken by thinking hes only good because he appears strong. He just knows how to perfectly use his body in the methods hes learnt pretty much and its really effective. How long ago was it that you touched hands with him ?



It was 6 or 7 years ago

I have had more contact with some of his guys than with him though


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> @KPM
> 
> I seem to remember not so long ago on the other forum, you were telling Alan he wasn't doing Wing Chun at all, just boxing or MMA. I must have missed when you became a convert. Been through all his DVDs and started studying biomechanics?


 

I didn't "start studying biomechanics."  I have studied biomechanics pretty extensively in the past and my job requires me to understand and deal with biomechanics on a  daily basis.   Yeah, Alan and I had a go at it when some of his MMA clips didn't look much like Wing Chun to me.  And we worked it out.  Enough that I subscribed to his mentor program and have been part of it for the past year.  Seeing his coursework, getting direct feedback, talking to others in the program....I've learned quite a bit about CSL since then!  Certainly enough to know that Guy doesn't understand CSL like he thinks he does.  And Sean has been studying directly with Alan and can vouch for what I have been saying about CSLWCK.


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> i.e. you place control above hitting in the hierarchy of importance- "controlling rather than just hitting"


 
And I also said you can control WHILE hitting.   But you just go on believing whatever you want.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> I didn't "start studying biomechanics."  I have studied biomechanics pretty extensively in the past and my job requires me to understand and deal with biomechanics on a  daily basis.   Yeah, Alan and I had a go at it when some of his MMA clips didn't look much like Wing Chun to me.  And we worked it out.  Enough that I subscribed to his mentor program and have been part of it for the past year.  Seeing his coursework, getting direct feedback, talking to others in the program....I've learned quite a bit about CSL since then!  Certainly enough to know that Guy doesn't understand CSL like he thinks he does.  And Sean has been studying directly with Alan and can vouch for what I have been saying about CSLWCK.



So you've had a short and initially grumpy correspondence course with Alan, and I've sparred with quite a few of his guys in MMA and discussed their wing chun with them in person, albeit a while ago. Why do the facts here make me want to smile? I honestly don't have anything against CSL wing chun and the fighters they had that first generation were good. I do find Alan's marketing techniques, NLP and so on a bit lol, but whatever, he has to make a living doesn't he? Maybe I will discuss the creation of CSL wing chun with someone else, it is obviously a bit of a touchy subject for you in your quest for the real wing chun.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> And I also said you can control WHILE hitting.   But you just go on believing whatever you want.



Body control and hitting together means that control either has to be established before hitting or exactly simultaneously with it, since hitting is over in a split second.

Your own words implicitly suggest that control is more important than "just" hitting



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important



I was only agreeing with what you said based on experience. You appear to have lost perspective and I think even Alan would probably be arguing against your position here; he is all about affecting the other person with his body after all.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Yeah, Alan and I had a go at it when some of his MMA clips didn't look much like Wing Chun to me.  And we worked it out.  Enough that I subscribed to his mentor program and have been part of it for the past year.  Seeing his coursework, getting direct feedback, talking to others in the program....I've learned quite a bit about CSL since then!



Cool.

I still see a large disconnect between all that controlling stuff they do in their _chi-sau_ and their actual fights though. None of that linking/de-linking, or "sink, press, rise" stuff seems to come out. How do you work that out?

I think the effectiveness of their fighters is due mainly to the fact that they spar hard and often, but we really just see disengaged striking and BJJ when it comes to the cage. But they do use Wing Chun power generation and elbow as I can see. Not the same strategy as WSLVT, but that's the only stuff from the "Wing Chun side" of things that appear to carry over into their actual fights. I think they'd probably be more successful if they didn't waste their time on things that don't contribute to their fights, and emphasized the stuff that does.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I think the effectiveness of their fighters is due mainly to the fact that they spar hard and often, but we really just see disengaged striking and BJJ when it comes to the cage. But they do use Wing Chun power generation and elbow as I can see. Not the same strategy as WSLVT, but that's the only stuff from the "Wing Chun side" of things that appear to carry over into their actual fights. I think they'd probably be more successful if they didn't waste their time on things that don't contribute to their fights, and emphasized the stuff that does.



Sadly I don´t think you or I are the correct people to judge this. Problem when breeding MMA fighters are that they even if using WC as base will still need to handle circular motions as well as ground fighting. This means boxing or similar and BJJ. I do not believe WC was intended to be a system limited to straight lines but rather trained by those who already mastered the simpler basics of regular power generation such as in chinese boxing.

As such it is very hard to say that yes or no in WC being a base of their MMA fighters. Techniques are not pure WC but then again WC is a concept fighting system, not the techniques it contains. Techniques are to me ways to visualize and follow the concepts but if you can hit with a hook, by god Hit with that hook.

Same as controlling your opponent, if the way is free you still attack. I dont think there is any WC lineage that state controlling is better than hitting when way is free. Only that if way is blocked, rather than trying to go through some emphasize the priority of getting in control of your opponent. Others think it is better to hit and remove any obstacles along the way. And then there are more... as well as those who are more open minded and say you better be the type that suits you. So first understand yourself.


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> So you've had a short and initially grumpy correspondence course with Alan, and I've sparred with quite a few of his guys in MMA and discussed their wing chun with them in person, albeit a while ago. Why do the facts here make me want to smile? .


 
You have no idea what his mentorship program consists of.  So just fxck off and stop addressing me.


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Cool.
> 
> I still see a large disconnect between all that controlling stuff they do in their _chi-sau_ and their actual fights though. None of that linking/de-linking, or "sink, press, rise" stuff seems to come out. How do you work that out?
> 
> I think the effectiveness of their fighters is due mainly to the fact that they spar hard and often, but we really just see disengaged striking and BJJ when it comes to the cage. But they do use Wing Chun power generation and elbow as I can see. Not the same strategy as WSLVT, but that's the only stuff from the "Wing Chun side" of things that appear to carry over into their actual fights. I think they'd probably be more successful if they didn't waste their time on things that don't contribute to their fights, and emphasized the stuff that does.


 
I'd have to agree with you to an extent LFJ.   MMA seems to be its own beast!  Alan will tell you that their Wing Chun training is what they are using.  But sometimes it isn't so obvious and they look like any other MMA fighter.


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Same as controlling your opponent, if the way is free you still attack. I dont think there is any WC lineage that state controlling is better than hitting when way is free. Only that if way is blocked, rather than trying to go through some emphasize the priority of getting in control of your opponent. Others think it is better to hit and remove any obstacles along the way. And then there are more... as well as those who are more open minded and say you better be the type that suits you. So first understand yourself.


 
Good points!  But just by way of further explanation....as with a lot of things in Wing Chun, "controlling" is a concept.  You can control while hitting.  Disengaged striking does not necessarily give up that controlling element.  All Wing Chun does this...you don't just close with an opponent throwing a barrage of punches willy nilly....you pick an angle that cuts off a possible response from the opponent, or you use a "cutting punch" that essentially contacts and controls his arm as you are punching him, or you do a body punch into his center that breaks his structure, etc.  Putting this emphasis on a "controlling" concept means that when you meet an obstacle, rather than just removing it so you can continue hitting, you do something that breaks the opponent's balance or structure AS you remove the obstacle and keep hitting.   What it does NOT mean, is that someone is going to charge in like a wrestler and engage in a grapple until they can gain the advantage and have the opponent under complete control before striking them.  That would be like an MMA fighter charging in for a double leg takedown, then gaining the mount and starting his ground & pound.  That is not what CSL means by the idea of "controlling while hitting."  The control element simply provides options.  If, in the process of removing the obstacle to my hitting I have used some control and broken the opponent's balance, then this may open things up for a joint-lock or a sweep, etc in addition to a punch.  Options that may have not been there otherwise.  From a CSL perspective, that's what good Wing Chun is about...not just hitting!


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> If it wasn't in Robert Chu's wing chun until he looked elsewhere then he has indeed grafted it on. But lets stop for a minute and look at what actually is in YKS wing chun according to the article written by among others Robert Chu, Hendrik Santos and Jim Roselando (as unbiased a bunch as you could get I'm sure when it comes to this topic). Faat of YKS says that it contains, among 9 other methods, chen, tou and tun.
> 
> Given this, how then does CSL wing chun manage to derive its body method which looks just the same as white crane as far as it goes, and also similar to pak mei, spm etc, etc, from the methods of YKS wing chun? Even these guys failed to find method number 4, which I can assure you Alan Orr shows as part of his wing chun.
> 
> Also looking at video clips of YKS wing chun it looks absolutely nothing like these others. In fact it looks just like wing chun. Why is this, if it happens to be based on the same core principles as the white crane, bak mei, SPM etc? They look very different to YKS wing chun,but very similar to CSL body method demos.



Do you know the whole system of CSL ? Then how do you know if the other methods are not present ? Tun is present n CSL.. Chi and mor etc.. I really dont know enough about Yuen Kay San wing chun to comment. I thought Yong Chun White Crane was an ancestor art to wing chun ? I remember reading that Lo Kwai ( a direct leung jan lineage ? ) wing chun history states White crane as one of the ancestors arts.. Can anyone confirm that ? 

Yea Alan teaches for a living.. People have to make money and to sell stuff you need to be able to market it. But the stuff he is selling is good ****. I couldn't spar with my mate  who only started boxing like 2 months ( beggining of 2015) before we started sparring without getting overwhelmed after doing years and years of wing chun at typical wing chun school in Ip ching / Lo man kam lineage.. I had a huge realisation.. Started getting into mma and doing less wing chun.. Met Alan.. went down for a few days and I was already better at sparring and defending and got  into Wing chun training for mma fighting.. Just using CSL way of Pak , Tan/Tun , Wu .. and the body mechanics.. Sink/Press/Rise  Link/Delink. So for me personally I can use what I learn. Maybe some people might find CSL isnt for them..  But it enables to me fight effectively against anyone.. not just other wing chun guys.. and also I dont just pause and go blank if I get hit.. 

I know I use the stuff when I fight. Trying to explain why they are using CSL in the mma fights even if its just body mechanics is too hard.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 7, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Do you know the whole system of CSL ? Then how do you know if the other methods are not present ?



They aren't all present in Yik Kam wing chun, if that is where CSL wing chun derived them from as KPM says. More importantly what we have in these other wing chuns are non specific lists of methods that would fit almost any southern Chinese system in some way or other, or any striking MA in some cases. In contrast what you have in this group of other Chinese MA is systems entirely built around the principles of float sink, swallow spit. Most wing chun is not this way, including footage of Yik Kam wing chun, yet CSL wing chun shows an approximation of it it in chi sau and demos. Why? As someone else said, these don't appear in fighting. I think that the reason is obvious if you have a look at how Hakka systems work in practice and how they are moving when they are using the body methods. To me it looks like someone wanted to put these into wing chun based on something else they saw or did before and went looking for a reason to do so. No other wing chun looks like this.



> Tun is present n CSL.. Chi and mor etc.. I really dont know enough about Yuen Kay San wing chun to comment. I thought Yong Chun White Crane was an ancestor art to wing chun ? I remember reading that Lo Kwai ( a direct leung jan lineage ? ) wing chun history states White crane as one of the ancestors arts.. Can anyone confirm that ?



Probably about as well as they can confirm stories about Red Boats and Shaolin Nuns.



> Yea Alan teaches for a living.. People have to make money and to sell stuff you need to be able to market it. But the stuff he is selling is good ****. I couldn't spar with my mate  who only started boxing like 2 months ( beggining of 2015) before we started sparring without getting overwhelmed after doing years and years of wing chun at typical wing chun school in Ip ching / Lo man kam lineage.. I had a huge realisation.. Started getting into mma and doing less wing chun.. Met Alan.. went down for a few days and I was already better at sparring and defending and got  into Wing chun training for mma fighting



You don't need the Chinese MA tacked on in order to be able to do this though, you just need to train MMA. This is why Alan produces decent fighters



> I know I use the stuff when I fight. Trying to explain why they are using CSL in the mma fights even if its just body mechanics is too hard.



Why not have a try?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> C]I think they'd probably be more successful if they didn't waste their time on things that don't contribute to their fights, and emphasized the stuff that does.



Almost certainly, but then the business enterprise might be less successful


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 7, 2016)

I think this discussion has hit a standstill. I withdraw myself from it. Just because I cant explain properly and im not doing Alan or CSL justice in my explanations. 

Cheers


----------



## geezer (Jan 7, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I think this discussion has hit a standstill. I withdraw myself from it. Just because I cant explain properly and im not doing Alan or CSL justice in my explanations.  ...Cheers



_Dude_, you are not alone feeling this way. Read my last post (#126) on the _Ho Kam Ming WC _thread.


----------



## KPM (Jan 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> They aren't all present in Yik Kam wing chun, if that is where CSL wing chun derived them from as KPM says.


 
I didn't say that.  Again, your reading comprehension skills need some work.


----------

