# Empty Hand & Knife



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

On another recent thread it was stated that Wing Chun "is all about defending against a blade" and that Wing Chun assumes the striking hand is holding a knife.  I don't see it that way at all.  But would you guys care to elaborate?

This came out of my statement that FMA empty-hand methods were derived from defending against a knife and their techniques and strategies reflect that.  I don't see this in Wing Chun at all.

FMA starts with the weapons.  The empty-hand methods are secondary and derived from the weapons methods.  Wing Chun starts with empty hands and the Wing Chun double knife/sword methods are  said to be derived from the empty hand methods.  To me Wing Chun is designed to defend against another guy doing empty-hand fighting.  The directness reflects this.  Chi Sau reflects this.

If you look at FMA empty-hand methods, there is much more emphasis on striking and controlling the attacking limb, because it is always assumed that limb is holding a knife.  Hence you see "guntings" or "limb destructions."  You see multiple beat parries or deflections aimed at just one limb.  You see angling and really directing and controlling the attacking limb.

In contrast, Wing Chun is much more direct.  Once you have deflected a punch you go right in to strike the opponent.  Because a redirected punch that has spent its energy is no longer a threat.  Sure you might control at the elbow, use positioning, etc.  But we don't go out of our way to ensure that the attacking limb is immobilized.  Because, again, once a punch has spent its energy it is no longer really a threat.  However,  a hand holding a knife is entirely different because that knife can still cause major damage if it is not completely controlled.

So I would be interested in hearing how you guys see Wing Chun empty-hands as being all about defending against a knife!   Because, honestly, I've seen Wing Chun people show actual "empty-hand vs. knife" technique videos that would be pure suicide against anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of how to really use a knife.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2015)

Does any of it really work? If any situation demands escaping the situation unarmed on knife would be it.

Otherwise where do you think the weakness lies in the wing chun method of unarmed vs knife?


----------



## KPM (Nov 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Does any of it really work? If any situation demands escaping the situation unarmed on knife would be it.
> 
> Otherwise where do you think the weakness lies in the wing chun method of unarmed vs knife?



The weakness lies in people that don't know how to use a knife (and I'm talking about a tactical folder and not a Wing Chun short sword!) making up techniques that THEY think would work against a knife attacker.  You really need to train with a knife to understand how to realistically defend against a knife.


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

There is a conspiracy theory that the entire wing chun system is all about blades. It is not, obviously, for reasons stated above, and others. It has a double knives set. That is all.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> The weakness lies in people that don't know how to use a knife (and I'm talking about a tactical folder and not a Wing Chun short sword!) making up techniques that THEY think would work against a knife attacker.  You really need to train with a knife to understand how to realistically defend against a knife.


"The weakness of the wing chun method of unarmed vs knife is people that don't know how to use a knife."
That is not a weakness of the method that is a weakness of those people, their training, and how they practice.
Now I agree many of those I have encounter over the years in WC don't really understand bladed work. (_can also be said of most everyone I have encounter in all the martial arts_)
And to really understand bladed work you must train with a knife and train against persons who also know & understand edged weapons. And I'm talking about pocket folders, tactical blades, combat blades, bowies, and larger as well - straight and curved blades.


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> "The weakness of the wing chun method of unarmed vs knife is people that don't know how to use a knife."
> That is not a weakness of the method that is a weakness of those people, their training, and how they practice.
> Now I agree many of those I have encounter over the years in WC don't really understand bladed work. (_can also be said of most everyone I have encounter in all the martial arts_)
> And to really understand bladed work you must train with a knife and train against persons who also know & understand edged weapons. And I'm talking about pocket folders, tactical blades, combat blades, bowies, and larger as well - straight and curved blades.



It is ridiculous to suggest that wing chun is all about knives when knives are the last form, were added to the system late, and run counter to many of the methods and principles developed in the earlier part of the system.

If wing chun was a knife system then you would see knives early and often, not late and rarely. It is an empty hand system that takes a lot more from spear and pole than it does from knives.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> There is a conspiracy theory that the entire wing chun system is all about blades. It is not, obviously, for reasons stated above, and others. It has a double knives set. That is all.


"conspiracy theory"
That would be a theory and plan made up in secret by some people to do something harmful or illegal with the entire wing chun system. Notify the WC policy makers immediately!!


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

It is a theory apparently popular on internet forums where people can talk with no consequences but rarely or never seen in the real world. It is a conspiracy theory (real usage, not dictionary definition)


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> ... But would you guys care to elaborate?



Sorry, traveling today, but quickly...it is simply a training mindset, an awareness. 
And yes, I am also talking about knives other than the BJD...


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> It is ridiculous to suggest that wing chun is all about knives when knives are the last form, were added to the system late, and run counter to many of the methods and principles developed in the earlier part of the system.
> 
> If wing chun was a knife system then you would see knives early and often, not late and rarely. It is an empty hand system that takes a lot more from spear and pole than it does from knives.


Ok. 
There is a FMA system which is a bladed system that until being brought to the U.S. the bladed aspect wasn't taught until after learning most all of the footwork, having a high level of understanding of empty hand work, and most of the stick work. The master who brought it to the U.S. and since to many other areas of the world trained in the system under the head of the system for almost 10 years before using a blade. Based upon that his system is not about the blade. Yet it is.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

It is all about how you practice.


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> There is a FMA system which is a bladed system that until being brought to the U.S. the bladed aspect wasn't taught until after learning most all of the footwork, having a high level of understanding of empty hand work, and most of the stick work. The master who brought it to the U.S. and since to many other areas of the world trained in the system under the head of the system for almost 10 years before using a blade. Based upon that his system is not about the blade. Yet it is.



Stick work. Does wing chun have this?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Stick work. Does wing chun have this?


Did not say anything about wc having a stickwork component.
It was mentioned as a example of something being taught prior to edged weapons withing the FMA system I was referring to. It was in reference to your statement about wc not having an edged weapon component early and therefore was not about defense against knives. WC evolved as all good martial systems do. They will continue to evolve unless the practitioner masses refuse to evolve. Why were the pole and swords added to the system? Just because, was it an afterthought, or was it because the systems practitioners saw a need for it. They must have been encountering the pole or staffs and bladed weapons. I didn't say wc started out as an bladed system. I wasn't there but I am willing to bet that those who were using it found a need to protect themselves against objects other than just an opponent's fist and feet.
You and yours may train wc only against empty hands we train vs anything someone can put in their hands.


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

You are comparing a FMA system without early blade but with early stickwork, to wing chun with no early stick or knife work at all, ever. 

This doesn't seem like a good comparison in terms of the point you are trying to make about a FMA system without early blade work.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> The weakness lies in people that don't know how to use a knife (and I'm talking about a tactical folder and not a Wing Chun short sword!) making up techniques that THEY think would work against a knife attacker.  You really need to train with a knife to understand how to realistically defend against a knife.



Specifically?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

guy b. said:


> You are comparing a FMA system without early blade but with early stickwork, to wing chun with no early stick or knife work at all, ever.
> 
> This doesn't seem like a good comparison in terms of the point you are trying to make about a FMA system without early blade work.


What do you call early? He learned footwork for 3 years, then learned empty hand work for approx another 3 years. Said he had been training for almost 6 years before beginning his stickwork. My wc sifu trained for right at 6 years before leaving Hong Kong; had been through the pole and for most of the last year was training the knives. What is early?

Glad someone finds my post funny. Shows you have a sense of humor.


----------



## guy b. (Nov 1, 2015)

What's the system? Would you say it is representative of FMA, or unusual?


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2015)

KPM said:


> The weakness lies in people that don't know how to use a knife (and I'm talking about a tactical folder and not a Wing Chun short sword!) making up techniques that THEY think would work against a knife attacker.  You really need to train with a knife to understand how to realistically defend against a knife.



I agree that people shouldn't be teaching knife defense who don't have knowledge of knife-work. On the other hand, I don't think a person has to be highly trained in blade-work to present a very serious threat. 

I remember one seminar with Rene Latosa, where he took a mixed group of martial artists from diverse backgrounds and asked everybody who had previous knife training (of any kind) to go to one side of the room, and those who felt they were clueless _noobs r_egarding knives to go to the other side. He provided training knives only to the noobs, told them to pair up with the "experienced" guys, and try to seriously (but safely) attack them ...to cut and thrust, as many times as they could, any way that worked for them, and above all, not to surrender their knives, no matter what.

_Even_ with the caveat to work safely, with controlled force, and avoiding the face, you can imagine what happened. Let's put it this way: _if the knives had been real, every one of the self proclaimed "experienced" guys would have been cut up really bad, and maybe killed._ Maybe a few ultimately succeeded in controlling or disarming their attacker, but not before they would have sustained serious injuries. 

The point? All those FMA passing, controlling, and disarming drills are the last ditch option of a guy in a seriously "effed-up" situation. And a guy with his eyes open should be able to see that even working against an unskilled training partner, if the partner is being honest and non-compliant when he attacks.


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> .
> You and yours may train wc only against empty hands we train vs anything someone can put in their hands.



Danny, I do not know if you ever post videos of yourself or students, but if you do, I'd really appreciate seeing some of your basic WC drills with or against knives. If not, maybe a description?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> Danny, I do not know if you ever post videos of yourself or students, but if you do, I'd really appreciate seeing some of your basic WC drills with or against knives. If not, maybe a description?


I can attempt to. To be honest I don't know how post a video. I could e-mail it to you. I know how to do that. 
Get me your e-mail address and I'll get something to you in the next few days. How about that?


----------



## yak sao (Nov 1, 2015)

geezer said:


> Danny, I do not know if you ever post videos of yourself or students, but if you do, I'd really appreciate seeing some of your basic WC drills with or against knives. If not, maybe a description?



That would be interesting


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I can attempt to. To be honest I don't know how post a video. I could e-mail it to you. I know how to do that.
> Get me your e-mail address and I'll get something to you in the next few days. How about that?



Nope. We gotta figure out how to post it ....or else email it to somebody who knows how to and can do it for you. I mean, sure I'd like to feel special and all, getting it emailed just to me  but really it would be so much better if we could further this discussion, So ..._ *Listen up, y'all! *Who can help Sifu Danny post a video? PM him and help him out!!! _


----------



## Danny T (Nov 1, 2015)

LOL, I assume that means you don't know how either.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2015)

Danny T said:


> LOL, I assume that means you don't know how either.



I threw mine on YouTube last time and just linked it.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 2, 2015)

I can throw it up on my youtube channel if you can send me the file.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Ok.
> There is a FMA system which is a bladed system that until being brought to the U.S. the bladed aspect wasn't taught until after learning most all of the footwork, having a high level of understanding of empty hand work, and most of the stick work. The master who brought it to the U.S. and since to many other areas of the world trained in the system under the head of the system for almost 10 years before using a blade. Based upon that his system is not about the blade. Yet it is.


 
This may very well be true.  But then what he learned was DESIGNED to be a bladed system, he just learned it a bit differently.  That is not true for Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Sorry, traveling today, but quickly...it is simply a training mindset, an awareness.
> And yes, I am also talking about knives other than the BJD...


 
Mindset and awareness are not enough.  The techniques and concepts themselves have to be designed to deal with a blade.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

Danny T said:


> WC evolved as all good martial systems do. They will continue to evolve unless the practitioner masses refuse to evolve. Why were the pole and swords added to the system? Just because, was it an afterthought, or was it because the systems practitioners saw a need for it. They must have been encountering the pole or staffs and bladed weapons. I didn't say wc started out as an bladed system..


 
Ah!  So you are saying that YOUR Wing Chun has been "evolved" to be centered around dealing with weapons?  That is very different!  That is not the same as making a blanket statement that "Wing Chun is all about dealing with weapons."  A blanket statement implies ALL Wing Chun.  Or at least Wing Chun from its origins.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> Mindset and awareness are not enough.  The techniques and concepts themselves have to be designed to deal with a blade.



How about the concept of staying alive?


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> How about the concept of staying alive?


 
Nothing wrong with that!  But you can have the mindset of dealing with a weapon, but if you don't have the realistic techniques to back you up you are toast!  Just as described in Steve's post.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> This may very well be true.  But then what he learned was DESIGNED to be a bladed system, he just learned it a bit differently.  That is not true for Wing Chun.


This you assume. 
The system started off as a blunt object system utilized in close quarters. (hardwood sticks and pasok)
It evolved into a bladed art over the years. Flexible weapons have been added and since WWII firearms as well.



KPM said:


> Ah!  So you are saying that YOUR Wing Chun has been "evolved" to be centered around dealing with weapons?  That is very different!  That is not the same as making a blanket statement that "Wing Chun is all about dealing with weapons."  A blanket statement implies ALL Wing Chun.  Or at least Wing Chun from its origins.


I said wc evolved. Same as most all fighting systems do unless the mass of practitioners refuse to do so and there will always be individuals who will never evolve even as the system does. We know of examples of its evolving with the addition of the pole and swords. Now you can argue that 'some' factions have not evolved but the system wc has. Is the wc system you teach today the same system first taught and in the same manner when first designed. I ask again, Why was the pole added, why were the knives added? Just because? Just to have something extra. No.
Each part of the wc system is to be utilized within each other. They are not independent parts. As you already know there are many things one can get away with against an empty hand that simply doesn't work against a blade. In the wc system everything if presented properly will work against a blade. At least everything that I was taught will work vs a blade as well as an empty hand.


----------



## geezer (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ah!  So you are saying that YOUR Wing Chun has been "evolved" to be centered around dealing with weapons?  That is very different!  That is not the same as making a blanket statement that "Wing Chun is all about dealing with weapons."



Yeah, and who really knows about the "original" WC ... except, of course _You-know-who_ who used to post here . Can't say his name. It will jinx the thread. (hint: First name rhymes with Kendrick).

Anyway, my understanding of Wing Chun is evolving considerably due to my involvement in FMA, especially the DTE guys. Sometimes it takes somebody outside your system to help you find what is (at least potentially) inside the system.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> Nothing wrong with that!  But you can have the mindset of dealing with a weapon, but if you don't have the realistic techniques to back you up you are toast!  Just as described in Steve's post.



Opinions vary I guess. We'll have to agree to disagree. It appears my WC and it's training focus is more aligned with Danny in this instance. No biggie. 
People can train their WC for a variety of purposes. I'll stick to my way.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> Nothing wrong with that!  But you can have the mindset of dealing with a weapon, but if you don't have the realistic techniques to back you up you are toast!


Absolutely.
The thing is the techniques are there in the wc training system. Understanding that is important. More so you must apply them in a realistic manner against realistic attacks. 
Against empty handed attacks, short weapon attacks, combinations of both, and the same with longer weapons. Empty hands vs the pole, BJD vs the pole, pole vs pole, BJD vs BJD, Empty hand vs BJD, Shorter blades vs shorter blades, empty hand vs short blades. You've got to train it all to truly understand it and Apply it.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

OK, for Danny and wckf92, I'd be interested in hearing how your Wing Chun is different than everyone else's as far is its orientation around being for defending against a knife.   What is different about it?  What makes it "knife defense specific"?


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

I said wc evolved. Same as most all fighting systems do

---Ok.  But are you saying that YOUR Wing Chun has evolved specifically to be oriented around dealing with a knife-wielding attacker?  Because the 3 versions of Wing Chun I have studied certainly haven't.  That's not to say that the cannot work against a knife!  But they would need to train that specifically and change a few things to work well.  They wouldn't just do exactly the same thing against a slash with a knife that they would do against a swinging punch.  So the tools are there.  But the emphasis is not.

 Is the wc system you teach today the same system first taught and in the same manner when first designed.

---Probably not.   But I also don't think any of the ancestors had an emphasis on Wing Chun empty-hand being all about defending against the knife.  And as the versions of Wing Chun I have studied haven't either.  If someone in your lineage has chosen to evolve it in this direction, that's great!  But I still say that is much different than making a blanket statement about all Wing Chun.

 As you already know there are many things one can get away with against an empty hand that simply doesn't work against a blade.

---Absolutely!  That is why it takes a specific emphasis to be "blade oriented."  And I don't see that emphasis in most Wing Chun systems.  Most Wing Chun systems spend the majority of their training time working against a partner that is empty-hand and essentially doing the same techniques they are doing.  Most Wing Chun systems spend a lot of time doing Chi Sau...empty-handed.  This is because the original design of the Wing Chun system was to deal with an empty-handed opponent.  If that was not true, Wing Chun would look more like FMA empty-hand...with the characteristics that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread.  If that was not true, most Wing Chun systems would spend far more time actually training against a partner with a blade in hand.


In the wc system everything if presented properly will work against a blade. At least everything that I was taught will work vs a blade

---Really?  Tan Da?  Gan Da?  Are you going to Pak Sau fast snipping thrusts?  Like I said, I'd really like to hear about what you are doing differently with your Wing Chun that changes it into this "knife defense" emphasis.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

This is pretty good.  But note that Wong is doing a specific knife defense.  This is NOT how he would have countered the same motion if it was a straight punch.  He has created a SPECIFIC technique:


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

Here's another one that has adapted Wing Chun technique SPECIFICALLY against the knife.  Again, this is not the same thing he would do against someone throwing a straight punch instead of a thrust with a knife:





 

As you troll through youtube you will find that the vast majority of videos of "Wing Chun defenses against knife attacks" are of this nature.  Someone has taken the tools of Wing Chun and specifically ADAPTED them to a knife defense.  They end up doing things very differently than what they typically do against empty-hand attacks.   They have to change what they would normally do, to make the technique specific for a knife defense.   So what they normally do cannot be said to be "all about defending against the knife."


----------



## Danny T (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM


KPM said:


> This is pretty good.  But note that Wong is doing a specific knife defense.  This is NOT how he would have countered the same motion if it was a straight punch.  He has created a SPECIFIC technique:





KPM said:


> Here's another one that has adapted Wing Chun technique SPECIFICALLY against the knife.  Again, this is not the same thing he would do against someone throwing a straight punch instead of a thrust with a knife:
> 
> As you troll through youtube you will find that the vast majority of videos of "Wing Chun defenses against knife attacks" are of this nature.  Someone has taken the tools of Wing Chun and specifically ADAPTED them to a knife defense.  They end up doing things very differently than what they typically do against empty-hand attacks.   They have to change what they would normally do, to make the technique specific for a knife defense.   So what they normally do cannot be said to be "all about defending against the knife."



Have you trained against the pole and the BJD?
Do you defend against them in the exact specific way as you do an empty hand? 
Movement is the technique, how one applies the movement is what is important.

Master Wong, hmm, he is comical. Like Joy I don't do the Wong way and from what I have read of your post I you don't either.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2015)

KPM said:


> This is pretty good.  But note that Wong is doing a specific knife defense.  This is NOT how he would have countered the same motion if it was a straight punch.  He has created a SPECIFIC technique:



The difference being he stripped the knife and held the arm?

Or have I missed something?


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 2, 2015)

Folks often misunderstand wing chun. And also they go cherry picking going fro rather than going deep with a good system.
Wing chun is nota collection od techniques  Good wing chun trains and unites the body and mind. And there
a steps to go from principles and adjusting in applications to what is at hand. It would be foolish to apply empty hand  techniques  to facing knives. You have to have a sense of the shape and size of the knives.

WT guys including Steve use escrima  to supplement their wing chun. I don't but I can use non wing chun knives and sticks using wing chun trained body unification.

Lots of folks just go through the movement of the forms and don't have the structural details and dynamics

WSL actually used bjd in a challenge encounter against a fencer and came out well.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 2, 2015)

I'm beginning to think he believes there should be absolutely no difference in the moves and the placement of the move on the opponent's body. That is why I asked about going against the pole the techniques (the moves) can be the same but the application will be different simply because of range. At 9 feet away one could qua sao the pole but never get near the body to attack it without using completely different footwork vs someone in punching range.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

Danny T said:


> KPM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I have trained against the pole and the short swords.  I have even trained against the western Longsword, and tactical folders, and sword & buckler, and machete, etc.   And no, it was not the same technique as I do empty hand.  That has been my point!!!!   If I was doing a system that was specifically designed to defend against these weapons, then the technique WOULD HAVE been almost the same as my empty hand technique.  That is the point I have been trying to make.  

Wing Chun was not SPECIFICALLY designed with defending against a knife in mind.  It was designed to fight against an unarmed opponent.  Can it be adapted to defending against a knife, or any weapon for that matter?  Of course it  can!  But that is not the same as saying that it is "all about defending against the knife."   How can I make that point any clearer?  

Heck, it can be adapted for defending against a handgun as well.  Does that mean that "Wing Chun is all about defending against handguns"???


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The difference being he stripped the knife and held the arm?
> 
> Or have I missed something?



Yes.  Watch any of Wong's other videos that don't involve a knife.  He won't mess around with controlling the attacking arm.  He'll just deflect the attack and go right to striking to the head and/or body.   Like I pointed out at the start of this thread, empty-hand methods that are designed to face a knife will have multiple beat parries to ensure that the knife-wielding arm is controlled.  They will often use joints locks or limb destructions and often use angling footwork to get off of the line of attack.  You typically find all of this as key elements of FMA empty-hand methods, because that is how the empty-hand methods first developed...as ways to defend yourself when you have dropped your own weapon or been disarmed in combat.


----------



## geezer (Nov 2, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> WT guys including Steve use escrima  to supplement their wing chun. I don't but I can use non wing chun knives and sticks using wing chun trained body unification.



Actually Joy, I never felt WC/WT _needed_ FMA,  I just had a _personal_ fascination with Eskrima going back to the 70s. I was the one who got Rene Latosa to connect with our US branch of LT's WT ...and I admit that I was being a little cagey, banking on the fact that Latosa had a strong relationship with the EWTO to persuade my old sifu to permit me (as his disciple) to openly study a second art. As I predicted, he wasn't happy about it, but because of his previous relationship with Rene in Europe, ...he allowed it.

Anyway, what I learned after enough time in Rene's PMAS system, then in DTE and my own PCE group, is that there comes a point where I'm expressing the same concepts in both arts. In other words, it isn't a case of using Eskrima to prop up _deficiencies _in WT, but rather expressing the same forward intent, springy-energy and efficiency to make both arts work better. If we can ever get together again, I'll buy breakfast at Harlow's and afterwards see if I can't demo what I'm talking about. Assuming I don't eat too much.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2015)

This is how I started this thread:
"On another recent thread it was stated that Wing Chun "is all about defending against a blade" and that Wing Chun assumes the striking hand is holding a knife. I don't see it that way at all. But would you guys care to elaborate?"

I'm still waiting for some "elaboration" other than "sifu sez."   I have explained why I don't see it that way.  But wckf92 and Danny, neither of you have said why you DO see it that way....other than just repeating that this is how you see it.

Hopefully you are following my logic.   I'll try one more time.

In most traditional FMAs, you can learn a knife drill sequence back and forth with a partner.  Then one partner can drop the knife and do pretty much the exact same sequence without his blade but rather as an empty hand defense against the knife.  Now the second partner can drop his knife and throw an empty hand strike instead and the sequence will still work pretty much the same.  To another art, like Wing Chun, this may appear to be inefficient because it seems to contain extra beats or extra control methods.  The Wing Chun guy might say "why are you do all that extra motion?  Just hit him!!!"  I've seen this response from Wing Chun guys more than once!  But this is because the majority of FMA empty hand methods truly assume that the attacking limb is holding a knife.   Even Panantukan, which is more modern evolution that has blended western boxing methods with traditional FMA empty-hands, will still have a lot of these features that goes back to the weapons.

For an even more modern example....Michael Janich's "Martial Blade Concepts" system starts with the knife.  But he also has an empty-hand method called "Counter Blade Concepts."  This is all empty-hand against the knife.  Can it work against an unarmed attacker?  Sure it can!  But anyone that knows the knife would look at it applied against an empty-hand attacker and know right away that this method was truly "all about defending against a blade."

So the logic here is simple.  Any empty-hand martial art that is "all about defending against the knife" and that assumes the striking hand is holding a knife will have key features and characteristics.  These key features and characteristics will still be recognizable when the method is used against empty-hand attacks.  I've listed the key features multiple times already.  These systems will also spend just as much or more time training to use the knife as they do empty-hands and typically see their empty-hand methods as secondary to the weapons training.  I don't see any of this in Wing Chun.  If you train your  Wing Chun this way, then great!  I want to hear more about it!  But you would be a special case and not at typical of Wing Chun in general.

It is somewhat frustrating to try and discuss something if people are unwilling to follow logical points and seek to counter or refute those points with logical reasoned discussion of their own.  So unless someone has something of value to say, I'm done.


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 3, 2015)

geezer said:


> Actually Joy, I never felt WC/WT _needed_ FMA,  I just had a _personal_ fascination with Eskrima going back to the 70s. I was the one who got Rene Latosa to connect with our US branch of LT's WT ...and I admit that I was being a little cagey, banking on the fact that Latosa had a strong relationship with the EWTO to persuade my old sifu to permit me (as his disciple) to openly study a second art. As I predicted, he wasn't happy about it, but because of his previous relationship with Rene in Europe, ...he allowed it.
> 
> Anyway, what I learned after enough time in Rene's PMAS system, then in DTE and my own PCE group, is that there comes a point where I'm expressing the same concepts in both arts. In other words, it isn't a case of using Eskrima to prop up _deficiencies _in WT, but rather expressing the same forward intent, springy-energy and efficiency to make both arts work better. If we can ever get together again, I'll buy breakfast at Harlow's and afterwards see if I can't demo what I'm talking about. Assuming I don't eat too much.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yup Steve-
will be happy to do the Harlow's and post Harlow thing.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 3, 2015)

KPM,

I am not in a contest with you sir.

I have stated my position. You disagree, fine.

I have stated that many of the moves and positions in wing chun are the same moves and positions utilized in the FMA I train in. Most of the principles within both of them are identical. Most of the concepts are identical. The applications of some of the movements and positions are different (in the FMA I am studying and teaching). 

Nuances make some differences however they are minor simply because of range. My follow ups may be tweaked because the knife is there same as if the BJD were there. In the FMA I train we move the centerline, make contact with the attacking limb and strike the core. In wing chun we move the centerline if that is the best thing to do at the time make contact and strike the core. If another punch is coming it is addressed by the proper arm movement and positioning. If it were a knife we would do the same thing. You asked if I would use a tan sao or a gong sao… yes ‘if’ it were the appropriate action for what the attacker is giving me.

You are comparing wing chun to the FMA as a whole and that can be a good comparison when look at from a single perspective. The FMA is not the absolute and definitive standard for knife defense though it is excellent. And wc is also an excellent knife defense system in my opinion. Using your standard of FMA for knife defensive systems what about those stick only systems and their grabbing of the stick. Yeah those FMA systems are great for the fingers and arms. And yet, yes they are when trained as a bladed system.

You disagree with my assessment of the wc system, Ok.
Continue to train in the manner you train with your mindset of wing chun being a striking system
I will continue to train in the manner I train with my mindset of wing chun being a bladed weapon defensive system.

It’s all good on my end.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 3, 2015)

Danny T said:


> KPM,
> 
> I am not in a contest with you sir.
> 
> ...



A nice wrap-up.


----------



## KPM (Nov 3, 2015)

That's fine Danny.  Just be careful about blanket statements, because someone will ask you to back it up!  ;-)  And be careful about implying that your Wing Chun has "evolved" while others haven't.   Just going from what you've said, if I saw your Wing Chun I doubt I would consider it to be "all about defending against the knife."  My guess is that it would look like pretty standard Wing Chun.  But to each his own.


----------



## geezer (Nov 3, 2015)

KPM said:


> That's fine Danny.  Just be careful about blanket statements, because someone will ask you to back it up!  ;-)  And be careful about implying that your Wing Chun has "evolved" while others haven't.   Just going from what you've said, if I saw your Wing Chun I doubt I would consider it to be "all about defending against the knife."  *My guess is that it would look like pretty standard Wing Chun. * But to each his own.



It might look standard, and it might look really bizarre... until we get him to post a video we'll never know. What's worse, well be back to watching _Futsao's_ videos. I want to see something _completely different!_






BTW @DANNY: You had me pegged. I absolutely do not know how to post a video. I don't even make videos ...yet.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 3, 2015)

KPM said:


> That's fine Danny.  Just be careful about blanket statements, because someone will ask you to back it up!  ;-)  And be careful about implying that your Wing Chun has "evolved" while others haven't.


I don't believe I implied that at all. I stated in post #13;
_"WC evolved as all good martial systems do. They will continue to evolve unless the practitioner masses refuse to evolve. Why were the pole and swords added to the system? Just because, was it an afterthought, or was it because the systems practitioners saw a need for it. They must have been encountering the pole or staffs and bladed weapons. I didn't say wc started out as an bladed system. I wasn't there but I am willing to bet that those who were using it found a need to protect themselves against objects other than just an opponent's fist and feet." _
With examples of the addition of the pole and the swords the implication here is that Wing Chun, the system, evolved not just mine.

You made the remark in post 28:
_"Ah! So you are saying that YOUR Wing Chun has been "evolved" to be centered around dealing with weapons? That is very different! That is not the same as making a blanket statement that "Wing Chun is all about dealing with weapons."_
My original statement about wc and bladed weapons was _"I believe WC is all about defending against a bladed weapon."_



KPM said:


> Just going from what you've said, if I saw your Wing Chun I doubt I would consider it to be "all about defending against the knife."  My guess is that it would look like pretty standard Wing Chun.  But to each his own.


Oh I'm certain you will find something different about it. Everyone's wc is different in some way or another and I'm far from being near the standard as to what great is but I agree with you on that it would look rather standard. Never said it was different. I stated I use the same movements and positions in rather the same manner. Intercept the movement, maintain a springy forward pressure, protect the line, attack the core. Yeah I'm sure it is rather standard.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 4, 2015)

geezer said:


> It might look standard, and it might look really bizarre... until we get him to post a video we'll never know.



Bizarre... seems some of my thoughts on wc are, maybe my wc does look bizarre but I hope not.


geezer said:


> BTW @DANNY: You had me pegged. I absolutely do not know how to post a video. I don't even make videos ...yet.


Well you are still ahead of me. You posted the above video and I have no idea as how to do that.
I had one of my students video me doing a quick demo vs an empty hand punch attack to the mid section and one with a midsection knife thrust attack similar to the video posted earlier for comparison but I don't know how to post it here.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 4, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Bizarre... seems some of my thoughts on wc are, maybe my wc does look bizarre but I hope not.
> 
> Well you are still ahead of me. You posted the above video and I have no idea as how to do that.
> I had one of my students video me doing a quick demo vs an empty hand punch attack to the mid section and one with a midsection knife thrust attack similar to the video posted earlier for comparison but I don't know how to post it here.


The easiest way to post your video is to upload it to YouTube and embed the video here. PM me if you want me to walk you through the steps.


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2015)

Ok.  Simple question.   This is pretty typical Wing Chun.  Would you do this if that was a quick thrust with a knife rather than a jab?


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2015)

How about this one?  Would you do the same if this was a slash with a knife rather than a hook punch?


----------



## KPM (Nov 4, 2015)

Just to be clear what I am saying.......The above videos are pretty standard Wing Chun technique.  This is technique and strategy clearing designed to deal with an unarmed striking opponent.  If you did this same thing against someone armed with a knife it would get you killed.  So you cannot say that Wing Chun always assumes the striking arm is holding a knife.  You cannot say Wing Chun is "all about defending against the knife" because the default setting would be something that actually worked against a knife!  Neither of the techniques above would work against a knife.  You can say that Wing Chun is adaptable and can be performed successfully specifically with knife defense in mind.  But this is much different from implying that knife defense is the central thing about Wing Chun.   At least Wing Chun in general!  If you have changed your Wing Chun to be "knife-centric", then I would love to see it in action!  Because it should different from the Wing Chun in the videos above!  It should different than just about everyone's Wing Chun!  ;-)


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ok.  Simple question.   This is pretty typical Wing Chun.  Would you do this if that was a quick thrust with a knife rather than a jab?



Nope


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> How about this one?  Would you do the same if this was a slash with a knife rather than a hook punch?



No. (But I don't really agree with how he employs his wc tools wrt that attack. His tan is located incorrectly imho


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...you cannot say that Wing Chun always assumes the striking arm is holding a knife.  You cannot say Wing Chun is "all about defending against the knife" because the default setting would be something that actually worked against a knife!



The Wing Chun Policeman Has Spoken! 


Just joking around KPM. It's clear your mind is adamant on your position, and that's fine. The first video you posted was WC???
Weird drill if so.
Second video...I would agree with you that Peterson would have been cut or killed if partner was wielding a knife. He also would have possibly eaten that hook.
Just my .02
Peace


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 4, 2015)

geezer said:


> It might look standard, and it might look really bizarre... until we get him to post a video we'll never know. What's worse, well be back to watching _Futsao's_ videos. I want to see something _completely different!_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------------------------------------------
Oh oh


----------



## Danny T (Nov 4, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The easiest way to post your video is to upload it to YouTube and embed the video here. PM me if you want me to walk you through the steps.


Thanks Tony. I'll get with you a bit later today.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ok.  Simple question.   This is pretty typical Wing Chun.  Would you do this if that was a quick thrust with a knife rather than a jab?


No. You are doing the same double dip action you were referencing before hitting the guy. In the first action 'if' I  were to go to the inside I would Bil Da striking the guy not trapping his hand. That is a wasted motion. Trapping for the sake of trapping. I don't feel it is something I would do.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 4, 2015)

KPM said:


> How about this one?  Would you do the same if this was a slash with a knife rather than a hook punch?


Again no.
A tan presented as shone in this video vs a strong committed tight hook will get your bell rung and if it is with a knife you will now have a handle sticking out of your head. Timing is very important and if your actions are all timing dependent or speed dependent you will get caught. No I would not use the tan in this manner. Now what Sifu Peterson did do, that I believe I would do, is counter attacked simultaneously. For safety he palmed the students chest. He did not go to trap his opposite hand.


----------



## geezer (Nov 4, 2015)

Danny, I see that your FMA background is _Pekiti_ which is about as blade oriented as it gets. My Latosa  Escrima background probably has a heavier emphasis on stick-work, but one of the guys I train under in _DTE_ has a solid _Pekiti_ background and I've been intrigued by some of the similarities between the arts, ...his stance turning for example, and some of the passing movements that compare to a flowing version of WC tan or gaun, and so on.

Still the way it is applied is quite different from basic WC, as it _has to be. _I think that is what has me a little confused.  Like KPM, I don't think the _core_ of WC is a blade art. On the other hand, it does share concepts and ways of moving that lead me to believe that at an advanced level, the transition from H2H to blade defense could work well, but not without some _significant_ adjustments.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 4, 2015)

It comes down to nuance a bit.. So I imagine he concept is that you are halfway into a fight when you realise you have been stabbed and not punched. And how has wing chun against an empty hand attack protected you.

And I would go for yeah.sort of. I mean you are not focusing on the knife or stripping. But you are keeping a bit of distance between the knife and your body.

So not as dedicated as a knife system. But a jack of all trades knife would probably fit.

And from there you have to make a personal choice ascto how far you lean towards the unarmed side or the knife side.

Because if I try to defend combinations with double dipping the arm or too much focus on control. I am at the disadvantage. It is why boxers box how they do. If I cover vs a knife that will not work. There is a functional compromise that has to be made.


----------

