# How to flow out of a pinned hand.



## futsaowingchun (Nov 26, 2021)

How to escape a pinned hand. Using a relaxed body to flow out of the pinned arm position.


----------



## Callen (Nov 26, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> How to escape a pinned hand. Using a relaxed body to flow out of the pinned arm position.


Thanks for sharing!

In my opinion this scenario really gives you an excellent opportunity to chase your opponent’s center, instead of his arms. Your left hand is completely free. If the way is clear, attack center.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 26, 2021)

Callen said:


> Thanks for sharing!
> 
> In my opinion this scenario really gives you an excellent opportunity to chase your opponent’s center, instead of his arms. Your left hand is completely free. If the way is clear, attack center.


@Callen beat me to it. This scenario may look "cool", but it essentially is training the participants to chase hands.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Nov 26, 2021)

Callen said:


> Thanks for sharing!
> 
> In my opinion this scenario really gives you an excellent opportunity to chase your opponent’s center, instead of his arms. Your left hand is completely free. If the way is clear, attack center.


Hi Callen.. if you noticed in the video what I did was effect his center so it's not chasing hands..


----------



## Callen (Nov 26, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> Hi Callen.. if you noticed in the video what I did was effect his center so it's not chasing hands..


You absolutely disrupted his structure, but I think attacking center in this context is a bit subjective. I’m in no way attempting to correct or criticize, just offering a different perspective.

In my training, for example, when we chi sau, poon sau or gwoh sau, we are always training to attack the opponent's center immediately when the hands are free. The absolute second there is no longer force or pressure on our arms during chi sau, our hands go forward to hit automatically. This is how we develop Lat Sau Jik Chung. Everything we do is in the service of attacking center; elbow position, angling, footwork, hands on top, hitting when the way is clear, etc.. to name a few. Always chase center.

So in terms of your video, another way to think about attacking center from chi sau is to hit as soon as your opponent removes his right arm from your left @0:04 sec. It is a fantastic opportunity for you to be as direct and efficient with the system as possible without chasing hands. It would also make it harder for your opponent to cover your right arm with both of his hands.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Nov 26, 2021)

Callen said:


> You absolutely disrupted his structure, but I think attacking center in this context is a bit subjective. I’m in no way attempting to correct or criticize, just offering a different perspective.
> 
> In my training, for example, when we chi sau, poon sau or gwoh sau, we are always training to attack the opponent's center immediately when the hands are free. The absolute second there is no longer force or pressure on our arms during chi sau, our hands go forward to hit automatically. This is how we develop Lat Sau Jik Chung. Everything we do is in the service of attacking center; elbow position, angling, footwork, hands on top, hitting when the way is clear, etc.. to name a few. Always chase center.
> 
> So in terms of your video, another way to think about attacking center from chi sau is to hit as soon as your opponent removes his right arm from your left @0:04 sec. It is a fantastic opportunity for you to be as direct and efficient with the system as possible without chasing hands. It would also make it harder for your opponent to cover your right arm with both of his hands.


yes i understand everything your talking about.. Am using by body in a different way a differnt set of skill sets. No one base on Centerline theory but based on Center Point theory


----------



## Callen (Nov 26, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> yes i understand everything your talking about.. Am using by body in a different way a differnt set of skill sets. No one base on Centerline theory but based on Center Point theory


To a lot of practitioners, “attacking center” means attacking the opponent's center of mass... and to those who already train this way, attacking the opponent's center of mass is the very definition of putting the centerline concept into action.

Wong Shun Leung for example, taught his students to place very little emphasis on their own centerline when pressuring and attacking. The focus was always the opponent's center, not their own.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Nov 26, 2021)

Callen said:


> To a lot of practitioners, “attacking center” means attacking the opponent's center of mass... and to those who already train this way, attacking the opponent's center of mass is the very definition of putting the centerline concept into action.
> 
> Wong Shun Leung for example, taught his students to place very little emphasis on their own centerline when pressuring and attacking. The focus was always the opponent's center, not their own.


I understand what your saying but am not concerned with attacking center of mass C.O.M am concern with distrubting the Csnter point which is the balance point of the body not C.O.M the center point is about 2" below your navel..as you can see it's very different


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2021)

Your opponent will not do something meaningless.

You may have ignored your opponent's free left hand. Of course you have free left hand too. But since your opponent uses right hand to push up your right arm, he is one step ahead of you.

While you are trying to deal with your oppont's right arm, he can use his

- right forearm to push on your throat.
- left hand to pull your right leg.
- right leg to inner hook your left leg.

Your opponent may take you down when you try to deal with his right arm. This is why I have said that your opponent is one step ahead of you.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Nov 27, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent will not do something meaningless.
> 
> You may have ignored your opponent's free left hand. Of course you have free left hand too. But since your opponent uses right hand to push up your right arm, he is one step ahead of you.
> 
> ...


He's one step ahead of me but I let him put me in that position otherwise there would be no video..


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> He's one step ahead of me but I let him put me in that position otherwise there would be no video..


Your opponent allows you to have a free left hand. You also allow your opponent to have a free left hand. Too many things could happen there.

IMO, it makes more sense that your opponent uses his

- left hand to push your right arm up,
- right hand to push your left arm down (or up).

This way you won't have any free arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2021)

When your opponent uses right arm to push your right arm up, you can use your left arm to push his right arm up more than he wants to. At the same time your free right arm can hit him with an uppercut.

IMO, to borrow your opponent's force is always better than to resist against his force.


----------



## Callen (Nov 27, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> I understand what your saying but am not concerned with attacking center of mass C.O.M am concern with distrubting the Csnter point which is the balance point of the body not C.O.M the center point is about 2" below your navel..as you can see it's very different





futsaowingchun said:


> This idea is what I call Center point theory which is not using your Centerline, but locking onto the center point or mass of the opponent.



In your other post, "Do You Have a Progressive Mindset?", you defined your Center Point theory as locking onto the center point or mass of the opponent (quoted above). You have now introduced a new element of distributing the center point or balance point of the body, which in your Center Point theory, is a center point below the navel (near the Dan Tian). You mention mass of the opponent as a defining factor in one post, but then take it away in another. 

I'm not trying to be critical or demeaning in any way; but I guess I'm having a difficult time understanding what your Center Point theory really is in terms of its uniqueness to the Wing Chun system, and how it relates to the opponent's centerline differently than attacking center. Also, now that I know this video is an example of your Center Point theory, some questions do come to mind:


In what specific ways does this video exemplify the utilization of your Center Point theory? How exactly does your Center Point theory function uniquely to the Wing Chun system in this scenario?


In regards to how the Wing Chun system functions as a whole, what are the unique benefits and differences of focusing 2 inches below the navel (where you said your Center Point theory focuses) as opposed to attacking the opponent's center?


How is your Center Point theory an improved Wing Chun method? 


How does your Center Point theory train and develop all of the concepts and principles of the Wing Chun system?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> in the video what I did was effect his center so it's not chasing hands..


There is no such thing as "chase hands". When your opponent controls both of your arms, you have to free your arms first before you can do anything. If your opponent only controls one of your arms and you have a free arm, that's different story.

When your opponent pushes your arm up, he can attack your center first by his shoulder.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 27, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is no such thing as "chase hands". When your opponent control your arm, you have to free your arm first before you can do anything.
> 
> When your opponent pushes your arm up, he can attack your center first by his shoulder.


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> How to escape a pinned hand. Using a relaxed body to flow out of the pinned arm position.


Aside from the cogent comments made by _Callen _above, I'm a little dubious about the entire exchange shown in the video. Specifically, what is your opponent trying to accomplish with his "attack"? It appears as though he releases your left arm and pushes your right arm upward, and then extends his left arm around your far side (out of view).

Consider the following (already pointed out by _Callan_ and _John Wang_):

1. He completely releases your left arm inviting you to strike him.
2. His right arm pushes your left arm up _accomplishing nothing, _he neither unbalances you nor moves in to strike you with his right elbow.
3. He does free up his own left arm, but instead of striking your ribs he apparently extends it around your far side...  Why???

And then, finally you respond with an elbow grapple that unbalances him and causes him to be tossed away to the side ...a move that would be at best cumbersome and unreliable in a more combative situation.

Perhaps your intent is just to illustrate a "concept".  Regardless, my main issue with this is the set up as stated above. It seems inconsistent with really basic WC concepts such as simplicity, efficiency and practicality and, as _Callen _stated, the motto of _Loi lau hoy sung, lat sau jik chung._


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 27, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is no such thing as "chase hands".


There is a very clear example of chasing hands in the OP video that started this thread. Go back and watch it again. It happens in the first few seconds.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 27, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> Hi Callen.. if you noticed in the video what I did was effect his center so it's not chasing hands..



You can "redefine" things to make it fit your narrative...but it doesn't change the fact that *you chased hands first* in order to effect is center.


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is no such thing as "chase hands".







I don't see you "chasing hands"here. You grapple and use hands and arms as handles and levers, but you do so to control the body!

WC guys do the same thing, except as _strikers_. Or should. i.e. we should be targeting the center and also unbalancing and controlling the body not engaging in the futile pursuit of their fists!


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> There is a very clear example of chasing hands in the OP video that started this thread. Go back and watch it again. It happens in the first few seconds.


I don't think John uses the term "chasing hands" the way most WC folks do. This is a classic failure to communicate.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> There is a very clear example of chasing hands in the OP video that started this thread. Go back and watch it again. It happens in the first few seconds.


When your opponent controls both of your arms, you have to free your arm/arms before you can do anything. But if your opponent only controls one of your arms, your free arm can just punch on his head. The only issue is when you punch, your opponent may use your leading arm to jam your punching arm. So in order to have a perfect counter, you still have to free your arm first.


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent controls both of your arms, you have to free your arm/arms before you can do anything. But if your opponent only controls one of your arms, your free arm can just punch on his head. The only issue is when you punch, your opponent may use your leading arm to jam your punching arm. So in order to have a perfect counter, you still have to free your arm first.


Nothing here I disagree with. 

However, just to be clear, you do not have to disengage your hands for "a perfect counter". You can remain in contact (not "free") but you do have to be the one in control, so at the opportune moment you can slip through your opponent's defenses to strike. _Lat sau jik chung._

This kinda reminds me of an old saying in our group, "Chi sau isn't so much about sticking ...as _slipping! _


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2021)

You punch. Your opponent blocks. You use your punching hand to grab his blocking arm.

Is this a "chasing hand"? If I can control your arms, you can't punch me any more. It's a good strategy IMO.

From a striker point of view, it's better to punch on your opponent's head than to control his arms. From a grappler point of view, it may be better the other way around.


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> From a striker point of view, it's better to punch on your opponent's head than to control his arms. From a grappler point of view, it may be better the other way around.


Why not have the best of both worlds? Stick to and control his arms to create an opening for a strike or throw without struggling and fighting against his force? Isn't that exactly the type of skill exercises like chi-sau were originally intended to develop?


----------



## futsaowingchun (Nov 29, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> You can "redefine" things to make it fit your narrative...but it doesn't change the fact that *you chased hands first* in order to effect is center.


chasing hands is BS its over and a  used meaningless term... its like calling someone a racist who you dont know anything about.


----------



## Callen (Nov 30, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> chasing hands is BS its over and a used meaningless term... its like calling someone a racist who you dont know anything about.


Chasing hands is an established term that is part of the chasing center concept. It is used for Wing Chun practitioners who are not attacking and chasing center. If a practitioner prioritizes attacking the opponent’s arms when there is a clear opportunity to hit, they are indeed chasing hands. In other words, it is doing the opposite of Lat Sau Jik Chung.

It is a very real concept, with a profound meaning. To identify chasing hands is to identify the importance of chasing center. Chasing hands and chasing center both contribute to the same understanding of the Wing Chun system’s principles. One simply cannot exist without the other because they are two sides of the same concept. The only way chasing hands can be BS, is if chasing center is also BS.

I often find that those who complain the loudest about chasing hands being an overused or meaningless term, are usually the ones who chase hands the most. And to me, that speaks in volumes.

Respectfully, I also get the impression that you are not receiving the responses you were hoping for in regards to this post and your Center Point theory in general. You have shared this video on almost every Wing Chun forum on the internet and you have been given extremely similar feedback. I can truly understand any frustration that you might be feeling.

In my humble opinion, this is really a great opportunity for growth. You are in a good position to reassess your approach, and further refine your ideas about centerline based on what the Wing Chun community is telling you. Peer review can be a powerful tool and learning experience when used positively, I encourage you to take advantage of the insight given to you.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 30, 2021)

I'm not a mean spirit so I'm not going to harangue this poor guy.

The hard truth about bridging in the Southern arts is that they are only truly learned from experience, as opposed to theories.  The OP might benefit from examining the life of Wong Shun Leung, someone who actually used these theories in combat regularly.  Not in his living room.

If you really want recognition for mastery of Wing Chun or any other martial art, make good students who can use it well in practice.  Youtube videos are kind of weak by comparison.






						» Wing Chun: when the “Wong Way” gets results!  Ving Tsun Combat Science
					

Wing Chun (Ving Tsun) lessons held in the Melbourne CBD based on the Wong Shun Leung (WSL) Method. Tried and tested Wing Chun that is simple, direct and efficient.



					www.wslwingchun.com


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 30, 2021)

Callen said:


> Chasing hands is an established term that is part of the chasing center concept. It is used for Wing Chun practitioners who are not attacking and chasing center. If a practitioner prioritizes attacking the opponent’s arms when there is a clear opportunity to hit, they are indeed chasing hands. In other words, it is doing the opposite of Lat Sau Jik Chung.
> 
> It is a very real concept, with a profound meaning. To identify chasing hands is to identify the importance of chasing center. Chasing hands and chasing center both contribute to the same understanding of the Wing Chun system’s principles. One simply cannot exist without the other because they are two sides of the same concept. The only way chasing hands can be BS, is if chasing center is also BS.
> 
> ...



Eloquently put Callen! 
My first thought on seeing his vids is that he is trying to create his own system or style. Which is fine. But as you mentioned, if he is calling what he is doing "wing chun" without the core concept of Lat Sau Jik Chung...then he is actually NOT doing "wing chun". Just my .02. Thanks. And again, good post.


----------



## Callen (Nov 30, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> But as you mentioned, if he is calling what he is doing "wing chun" without the core concept of Lat Sau Jik Chung...then he is actually NOT doing "wing chun".


Personally, I’m starting to get the impression that the OP’s "Center Point" theory might really just be his way of coming to the realization that the chasing center concept 追形 in Wing Chun is about the opponent’s centerline, not our own centerline. I fear that in an attempt to think outside the box, he is also in danger of mistakenly reinventing the wheel.

While the OP’s breakthrough may not necessarily be new or unique, the take-away I get is that it’s a new discovery for _him_… and ultimately in my opinion that can be a good thing. However, it is never a good idea to sacrifice core concepts in the process of personal discovery because it can put the functionality of the system at a risk.

This is a solid reminder to all of us. We need to be cautious not to place so much value on our own ideas that they become a justification for destroying the foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching us.


----------



## geezer (Nov 30, 2021)

Callen said:


> This is a solid reminder to all of us. We need to be cautious not to place so much value on our own ideas that they become a justification for destroying the foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching us.


Well put. 

My foundational background is in WT with Leung Ting back in the 80s.  Many who have experience with the EWTO WT today would be disappointed with the simplicity of what Leung Sifu taught us back then. LT had a real dislike for  "funny movements" that were not practical and direct. I copied a few and thought they were so cool. Once I made the mistake of doing one in front of my sifu. To put it mildly, _he was not impressed_.   

Since then I've worked with various people and have invented a few of those "funny movements" myself. For example, I came up with a chi-sau entry into an arm-drag that is a great lead into flanking or even taking a person's back.  But you know, unless the situation is just_ ....perfect,_ it really _is_ kinda like chasing hands. That is to say, in almost any situation where I can pull it off, I'd probably be better off just punching my opponent._ Lat sau jik chung. _


----------



## geezer (Nov 30, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> Eloquently put Callen!
> My first thought on seeing his vids is that he is trying to create his own system or style. Which is fine. But as you mentioned, if he is calling what he is doing "wing chun" without the core concept of Lat Sau Jik Chung...then he is actually NOT doing "wing chun". Just my .02. Thanks. And again, good post.


In the last 20 years or so we've all learned that "Wing Chun" is more diverse, with more branches and interpretations than I ever imagined back in the 70s and 80s. So I would not be quick to say that anybody else was not doing "Wing Chun".

I would say that a lot of what I see isn't at all like the Wing Tsun/Chun I learned.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 30, 2021)

Callen said:


> However, it is never a good idea to sacrifice core concepts in the process of personal discovery because it can put the functionality of the system at a risk.


When you do a hip throw, you violate the Taiji principle that you should keep your head vertical upward. Does that mean if you train hip throw, you just put the Taiji system at a risk?

IMO, whatever MA skill that you have developed is yours. It doesn't belong to your MA system. The day when you die, if all you can do is what your teacher taught you, you may be a good copy machine, but you have not contributed anything to the MA world.

The person in the following clip doesn't believe the throwing skill can put the WC system at a risk. 

For the throwing art, if you can control your opponent's leading arm, you can apply 70% of your throws. So to chase your opponent's leading arm is a good strategy. If you pull your opponent's leading arm, his body will follow.


----------



## Callen (Nov 30, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The person in the following clip doesn't believe the throwing skill can put the WC system at a risk.


Wang Zhi Peng is demonstrating that it is possible to blend Sanshou, and he does it well. He is also not sacrificing (omitting, deleting, neglecting, ignoring, contradicting, re-defining, throwing out, etc...) any core WSLVT principles in exchange for his own ideas.

And to stay focused on the topic of the OP's post, we're not talking about blending or adding anything. We're talking about the importance of a cornerstone method of the Wing Chun system that appears to be left out. Unfortunately the OP has mistakenly removed (sacrificed) the core principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung 甩手直衝 for the pursuit of his own theory. Neglecting this principle absolutely places the functionality of the Wing Chun system directly at risk.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 30, 2021)

Callen said:


> Wang Zhi Peng is demonstrating that it is possible to blend Sanshou, and he does it well. He is also not sacrificing (omitting, deleting, neglecting, ignoring, contradicting, re-defining, throwing out, etc...) any core WSLVT principles in exchange for his own ideas.
> 
> And to stay focused on the topic of the OP's post, we're not talking about blending or adding anything. We're talking about the importance of a cornerstone method of the Wing Chun system that appears to be left out. Unfortunately the OP has mistakenly removed (sacrificed) the core principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung 甩手直衝 for the pursuit of his own theory. Neglecting this principle absolutely places the functionality of the Wing Chun system directly at risk.


That's because he doesn't understand Snake or Crane style.  How the hell is he going to become a dragon without understanding his human body?

Ip Chun understands.


----------



## Callen (Nov 30, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's because he doesn't understand Snake or Crane style. How the hell is he going to become a dragon without understanding his human body?


Which could quite possibly hark back to our earlier discussion regarding the Western mindset. So many details are often lost in translation.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 1, 2021)

Callen said:


> In your other post, "Do You Have a Progressive Mindset?", you defined your Center Point theory as locking onto the center point or mass of the opponent (quoted above). You have now introduced a new element of distributing the center point or balance point of the body, which in your Center Point theory, is a center point below the navel (near the Dan Tian). You mention mass of the opponent as a defining factor in one post, but then take it away in another.
> 
> I'm not trying to be critical or demeaning in any way; but I guess I'm having a difficult time understanding what your Center Point theory really is in terms of its uniqueness to the Wing Chun system, and how it relates to the opponent's centerline differently than attacking center. Also, now that I know this video is an example of your Center Point theory, some questions do come to mind:
> 
> ...


center point when someone is standing up is slightly below the navel. there are many ways to effect this point.. One way is by having your opponent over extend himself which moves his centerpoint.. Just attacking the COM means your oppoenet is still balanced and cn defend ant attack by using C,P,T you cant launch a proper attack is your not balanced.. its like a drunk man trying to stay on his feet. C.P.T is the continuation or or you can use as an add on to the standard wing chun procedure. There is no conflict when using C.P.T.


----------



## Martial D (Dec 1, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> center point when someone is standing up is slightly below the navel. there are many ways to effect this point.. One way is by having your opponent over extend himself which moves his centerpoint.. Just attacking the COM means your oppoenet is still balanced and cn defend ant attack by using C,P,T you cant launch a proper attack is your not balanced.. its like a drunk man trying to stay on his feet. C.P.T is the continuation or or you can use as an add on to the standard wing chun procedure. There is no conflict when using C.P.T.


After reading this thread and others about this 'center point theory' I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

Where's the beef?


----------



## APL76 (Dec 1, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> center point when someone is standing up is slightly below the navel. there are many ways to effect this point.. One way is by having your opponent over extend himself which moves his centerpoint.. Just attacking the COM means your oppoenet is still balanced and cn defend ant attack by using C,P,T you cant launch a proper attack is your not balanced.. its like a drunk man trying to stay on his feet. C.P.T is the continuation or or you can use as an add on to the standard wing chun procedure. There is no conflict when using C.P.T.


If I am understanding what you wrote here correctly- are you are advocating CPT as taking control of the opponent's balance, rather than simply controlling their centreline?

So to elucidate what I think you are meaning I can relate what I have felt from my Sifu quite often: 

When he deals with any particular attack, he wont just deflect (or whatever) the oncoming attack and strike back simultaneously, he actually does one/a combination of uprooting your stance and/or taking away your centre of balance so that you have to readjust your footing to avoid falling over (if indeed he isn't sending you flying away/throwing you towards the ground in the first place). Additionally, this is done, by him, in response to whatever excessive force/over extension/hardness he feels in your attacks and defences (so the old "deflect oncoming force, follow retreating force and where you feel no force rush in and attack"- Its how my Sifu translates it from Cantonese).

Where he adds the sticky leg work into this its even harder to keep your footing and while he might toy with you, and so you actually can readjust and try to deal with any oncoming attack, if applied in real time it'd be all over and done with in an instant. When he is just playing around with you the sensation is like what I imagine it would feel like to be a human marionet puppet. 

If this is what you are advocating as CPT then cool, but it's already in Wing Chun. I learned both Yip Man and Sum Nung Wing Chun from my Sifu so I don't know if its something specific to one, the other, or both; but its certainly in at least one of them (my money would be on the Sum Nung style if not both).


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 1, 2021)

APL76 said:


> If I am understanding what you wrote here correctly- are you are advocating CPT as taking control of the opponent's balance, rather than simply controlling their centreline?
> 
> So to elucidate what I think you are meaning I can relate what I have felt from my Sifu quite often:
> 
> ...


Yes, C.P.T is about controlling and manipulating your opponents balance point not about using Centerline line theory.. Centerline Theory is very specific and does not have anything to do with C.P.T of course it does not mean one can not be doung both at the same time both. But they have different functions and priorities..


----------



## APL76 (Dec 1, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> Yes, C.P.T is about controlling and manipulating your opponents balance point not about using Centerline line theory.. Centerline Theory is very specific and does not have anything to do with C.P.T of course it does not mean one can not be doung both at the same time both. But they have different functions and priorities..


Fair enough.

"centerline Theory is very specific and does not have anything to do with C.P.T" I think this is where I'd deviate in agreement with you. Certainly I can see how they can and possibly should be separated earlier-intermediately, and indeed its easier to learn the elements of both separately; however they end up unified at the higher levels (much like everything else in Wing Chun).


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 2, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> You can "redefine" things to make it fit your narrative...but it doesn't change the fact that *you chased hands first* in order to effect is center.


why are you so obsessed with this chasing hands stuff.. First am not from the WSL school so i really dont care about his made up chasing hands stuff..


----------



## APL76 (Dec 2, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> why are you so obsessed with this chasing hands stuff.. First am not from the WSL school so i really dont care about his made up chasing hands stuff..


In wckf92's defense chasing hands is definitely a thing, and usually a bad thing to do, but how one defines it might differ from one group the the next.

I've seen some people argue that if you do anything other than attempt to hit a person (often you will hear "attack the centre") even if that anything includes dealing with an oncoming attack, a punch to the head perhaps, then you are chasing hands. I can see the rationale behind such an argument but I wouldn't agree with it. For a start, in both styles of wing chun I learned attacking the wrist of an incoming attacking arm is an entirely legitimate target and more often than not done in conjunction with an attack to elsewhere on the body. Moreover, you don't need to chase anything if some guy's fist is chasing your face.

What I would characterise as chasing hands would be, lets say someone has thrown a punch, you have caught the punch with, maybe, tan sao. The guy punching is extended and so to redeploy that punch (lets assume he is one armed for the sake of the illustration) he needs to retrieve it and relaunch a new punch. 
Now, were I to follow that punch back and take the first opportunity to hit the guy when I had the line, I am following "force comes deflect, force retreats follow, if there's no force rush in and attack". If, however, I forgo hitting the guy once a clear line presented itself in order to stick to the guy's arm then I'm chasing hands. There may be reasons why one might want to do that, but in general its something to avoid from my point of view.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 3, 2021)

APL76 said:


> "force retreats follow". ...stick to the guy's arm ...


Many years ago, someone said, "If I can move back faster than your forward footwork, none of your technique will work on me." His comment had bothered me for a long time. One day I suddenly realized that "follow/stick" is just not good enough. I need "connect" instead. If my body can connect with my opponent's body, when he moves back, his body will pull my body with him.

Which one is better, 

1. A punches B, B blocks. B then punches back at A.
2. A punches B, B blocks. B grabs, pulls A's punching arm, and then punches back at A.

IMO,  1 (block) < 2 (block, grab, pull) for the following reasons:

- B's arm wrapping can prevent A from moving back too fast and avoid B's next punch.
- B's arm wrapping can help B to move into A faster by counter force.
- A won't have chance to pull back his punching arm and uses it for defense.
- B can create a head on collision that A + B > A.
- B can change a punching game into a grappling game right at that moment if he wants to.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 3, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> why are you so obsessed with this chasing hands stuff.. First am not from the WSL school so i really dont care about his made up chasing hands stuff..


First of all...you already replied to this in post 25 so not sure what you are on about.
Second, not obsessed with chasing hands.
Third, I never said you were from the WSL school so...again, not sure what you are getting at. 
And finally, I've never heard that WSL "made up" chasing hands "stuff".? Do you know this for a fact?


----------



## APL76 (Dec 3, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, someone said, "If I can move back faster than your forward footwork, none of your technique will work on me." His comment had bothered me for a long time. One day I suddenly realized that "follow/stick" is just not good enough. I need "connect" instead. If my body can connect with my opponent's body, when he moves back, his body will pull my body with him.
> 
> Which one is better,
> 
> ...


Well you are throwing out quite a few possibilities, and I'm not really following what you point is, but I'm guessing that its to do with footwork. I guess, yeah, you move in and stick where it is appropriate, if that means you advance with footwork then so be it.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 3, 2021)

wckf92 said:


> First of all...you already replied to this in post 25 so not sure what you are on about.
> Second, not obsessed with chasing hands.
> Third, I never said you were from the WSL school so...again, not sure what you are getting at.
> And finally, I've never heard that WSL "made up" chasing hands "stuff".? Do you know this for a fact?


Wsl people are the first to coin the term chasing hands it's his philosophy which is fine but don't expect everyone to jump on board with his this.. If you believe am chasing hands that's fine but to me it's not important am not from that school of though and have my own way of doing things and wsl and his followers have theirs.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 3, 2021)

APL76 said:


> In wckf92's defense chasing hands is definitely a thing, and usually a bad thing to do, but how one defines it might differ from one group the the next.
> 
> I've seen some people argue that if you do anything other than attempt to hit a person (often you will hear "attack the centre") even if that anything includes dealing with an oncoming attack, a punch to the head perhaps, then you are chasing hands. I can see the rationale behind such an argument but I wouldn't agree with it. For a start, in both styles of wing chun I learned attacking the wrist of an incoming attacking arm is an entirely legitimate target and more often than not done in conjunction with an attack to elsewhere on the body. Moreover, you don't need to chase anything if some guy's fist is chasing your face.
> 
> ...


Chasing hands is a thing for some but for me I don't follow the crowd and it's not an issue for me..


----------



## Holmejr (Dec 3, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> How to escape a pinned hand. Using a relaxed body to flow out of the pinned arm position.


Late for the show here, but I think the video is very good. I’m not super familiar with WC, but the vid shows a pretty linear approach to the movement. In our art, that would also be a valid movement, accept we would attempt to angle off and end up on the opponents back. During tapi tapi we end up like that often with the opponent pushing our arm up into our center line or in front of our face. Also, this is simply a movement in a chain of movements, flowing as the situation requires. This is also shown in slow motion, where in combat it is violent and immediate. We’ll practice it in class this weekend! Fun stuff!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> Personally, I’m starting to get the impression that the OP’s "Center Point" theory might really just be his way of coming to the realization that the chasing center concept 追形 in Wing Chun is about the opponent’s centerline, not our own centerline. I fear that in an attempt to think outside the box, he is also in danger of mistakenly reinventing the wheel.
> 
> While the OP’s breakthrough may not necessarily be new or unique, the take-away I get is that it’s a new discovery for _him_… and ultimately in my opinion that can be a good thing. However, it is never a good idea to sacrifice core concepts in the process of personal discovery because it can put the functionality of the system at a risk.
> 
> This is a solid reminder to all of us. We need to be cautious not to place so much value on our own ideas that they become a justification for destroying the foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching us.



Not really. The whole point of coming up with new concepts is that they are not the old concepts.

You test the idea and it works or it doesn't.

If it works the core concepts are sound.  And you have to figure out what those concepts are.


----------



## Callen (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Not really. The whole point of coming up with new concepts is that they are not the old concepts.
> 
> You test the idea and it works or it doesn't.
> 
> If it works the core concepts are sound. And you have to figure out what those concepts are.


I'll stand behind my point.

If new ideas destroy the core foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching, then those ideas are not beneficial to the system.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 3, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> Wsl people are the first to coin the term chasing hands it's his philosophy which is fine but don't expect everyone to jump on board with his this.. If you believe am chasing hands that's fine but to me it's not important am not from that school of though and have my own way of doing things and wsl and his followers have theirs.



Well...you seem quite obsessed with WSL. Good luck on your journey.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> I'll stand behind my point.
> 
> If new ideas destroy the core foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching, then those ideas are not beneficial to the system.



Which is completely limiting to understanding your martial art.

If the core principles can be destroyed. Then they should be. 

What exactly is the benefit of preserving a principle that is broken?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 3, 2021)

APL76 said:


> I'm not really following what you point is,


My point is stick/follow is not good enough. Connection is better. If my hand can hold on your arm (chasing arm?), when you move back, your body will pull my body with you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> If the core principles can be destroyed. Then they should be.
> 
> What exactly is the benefit of preserving a principle that is broken?


Agree that one should be honest to his testing.

Does "body slam" destroy the "jump guard" core principle?

https://i.postimg.cc/SRgHm34B/body-slam.gif


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> If new ideas destroy the core foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching, then those ideas are not beneficial to the system.


So the system is incapable of evolving or growing?


----------



## geezer (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> I'll stand behind my point.
> 
> If new ideas destroy the core foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching, then those ideas are not beneficial to the system.


This is an important point. I agree with Drop Bear's idea of testing what works and what doesn't. At the same time, not _everything_ that works belongs in WC.

If you create a martial art out of everything that works in every situation, you'd end up with an overcomplicated mess.

Wing Chun is defined as much by what we don't do as by what we do. By simplifying and limiting our scope and trying to get more from less, we seek greater efficiency and spontaneity. Sometimes_ less is more_.


----------



## geezer (Dec 3, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So the system is incapable of evolving or growing?


No. In fact I call what I do "Adaptive Wing Chun". We are very open to new approaches, provided:

1. They work ...i.e. solve a problem.
2. They fit within the scope of what our WC is about.

If a technique or "move" meets the simple criteria above, I'm betting that they do express our theoretical foundation!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2021)

geezer said:


> This is an important point. I agree with Drop Bear's idea of testing what works and what doesn't. At the same time, everything that works doesn't belong in WC.
> 
> If you create a martial art out of everything that works in every situation, you'd end up with an overcomplicated mess.
> 
> Wing Chun is defined as much by what we don't do as by what we do. By simplifying and limiting our scope and trying to get more from less, we seek greater efficiency and spontaneity. Sometimes_ less is more_.



Say old mate was doing chi sau. (Which I assume is the context) and is pulling off that move, regardless if it is core principles or not. Then you just have to deal with that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Say old mate was doing chi sau. (Which I assume is the context) and is pulling off that move, regardless if it is core principles or not. Then you just have to deal with that.


But in the WC sticky hand, you suppose to be able to control both of your opponent's arms. In the OP's clip, both his left arm and his opponent's left arm are free.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But in the WC sticky hand, you suppose to be able to control both of your opponent's arms. In the OP's clip, both his left arm and his opponent's left arm are free.



I am not necessarily saying that move would would work. I wouldn't know.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I am not necessarily saying that move would would work. I wouldn't know.


In wing chun, during the chi sau training drill (as per the OP video)...the guy on the left would have been punched in the ribs by the guy on the right immediately upon him releasing to go for the "pinned arm" move. It is not about whether or not the "move would work" or not. It is all about training the limbs and joints to explode forward to hit/strike. By him doing that (going for the arm pin) and his partner also going for an arm pin release (or whatever), they are both de-training a keystone on which the wing chun system is built. Just my 2 cents of course. Folks can do whatever they want...apparently. But if you took the punching out of boxing would it still be boxing? If you took the grappling out of grappling would it still be grappling? And so on and so forth... 
As for whatever kung fu wang is trying to get at...who knows. He has a knack for steering threads away from their original topic. He sometimes makes valid points but his delivery is a bit incomprehensible at times. 
Meanwhile...I need an adult beverage! Carry on!


----------



## Callen (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Which is completely limiting to understanding your martial art.
> 
> If the core principles can be destroyed. Then they should be.
> 
> What exactly is the benefit of preserving a principle that is broken?


Definitely some good points in terms of evolving, but my comments were directly related to the OP’s post.

I am not discussing destroying a principle. I am discussing the dangers of the OP's admission of taking away the principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung in exchange for the pursuit of his hypothesis. Through my experience, the removal of the core principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung altogether places the functionality of the Wing Chun system at risk. Leaving out, or omitting certain core principles can destroy what the Wing Chun system is teaching. 

Out of curiosity, how much do you understand about Lat Sau Jik Chung and how it relates to the development of the concepts and principles of the Wing Chun system as a whole? Specifically, do you know what happens to the Wing Chun system if Lat Sau Jik Chung is not included as a continual compass in physical training?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> Definitely some good points in terms of evolving, but my comments were directly related to the OP’s post.
> 
> I am not discussing destroying a principle. I am discussing the dangers of the OP's admission of taking away the principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung in exchange for the pursuit of his hypothesis. Through my experience, the removal of the core principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung altogether places the functionality of the Wing Chun system at risk. Leaving out, or omitting certain core principles can destroy what the Wing Chun system is teaching.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how much do you understand about Lat Sau Jik Chung and how it relates to the development of the concepts and principles of the Wing Chun system as a whole? Specifically, do you know what happens to the Wing Chun system if Lat Sau Jik Chung is not included as a continual compass in physical training?



No idea. I am more of an advocate of using scientific method for the understanding of practical martial arts.

Than an ideological approach.

So if you chi sau betterthan him because of these principles then you should keep them. 

If you are being beaten then his principles have merit.

You can't argue after the fact if you were beaten that you were not really beaten because he didn't use Wing chun.


----------



## Callen (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> No idea. I am more of an advocate of using scientific method for the understanding of practical martial arts.


That's good. If you were a Wing Chun practitioner, you would find that its scientific method is embedded in the principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung.



drop bear said:


> Than an ideological approach.


To which we agree. All of the principles and concepts in WSLVT serve to develop effective actions. That is why we train them.


----------



## Callen (Dec 3, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> So the system is incapable of evolving or growing?


It is easy to take things of context by mistake, we've all done it.

My comments have nothing to do with evolution. In fact, as a WSLVT practitioner, I'm actually an advocate of evolving Wing Chun. In fact, I could write a whole thread on that topic.

I was actually commenting on the OP's removal of the Lat Sau Jik Chung principle from the Wing Chun system. From my experience, if the foundational principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung is taken away, it places the functionality of the Wing Chun system at risk.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> That's good. If you were a Wing Chun practitioner, you would find that its scientific method is embedded in the principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung.
> 
> 
> To which we agree. All of the principles and concepts in WSLVT serve to develop effective actions. That is why we train them.



This scientific method?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 3, 2021)

geezer said:


> This is an important point. I agree with Drop Bear's idea of testing what works and what doesn't. At the same time, not _everything_ that works belongs in WC.
> 
> If you create a martial art out of everything that works in every situation, you'd end up with an overcomplicated mess.
> 
> Wing Chun is defined as much by what we don't do as by what we do. By simplifying and limiting our scope and trying to get more from less, we seek greater efficiency and spontaneity. Sometimes_ less is more_.


Wing Chun is like a triple distilled whiskey, with the raw grains sewn across all of China and the fermented treasure at the end of the rainbow somewhere around Canton, picked up by sailors and spread like venereal disease across the rest of the world.  Warts and all.

Unfortunately what this means is that very, very few people are genuinely capable of turning what they're taught into a real, moving orchestration.  Even kept simple, Wing Chun can boggle the noggin for decades.  40 years might not even be enough!  Sometimes it takes 40 years and a few more days, then BING!

What doesn't work?  Your body, without 功.


----------



## APL76 (Dec 3, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> Chasing hands is a thing for some but for me I don't follow the crowd and it's not an issue for me..


fair enough.


----------



## APL76 (Dec 3, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My point is stick/follow is not good enough. Connection is better. If my hand can hold on your arm (chasing arm?), when you move back, your body will pull my body with you.


It does that anyway with or without needing to hold onto the opponent's arm. As soon as you have contact , i,e, connection, you should have the intention and forward force required to move in as necessary. When the other guy pulls back he will pull your attack in. That's the entire point.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> Definitely some good points in terms of evolving, but my comments were directly related to the OP’s post.
> 
> I am not discussing destroying a principle. I am discussing the dangers of the OP's admission of taking away the principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung in exchange for the pursuit of his hypothesis. Through my experience, the removal of the core principle of Lat Sau Jik Chung altogether places the functionality of the Wing Chun system at risk. Leaving out, or omitting certain core principles can destroy what the Wing Chun system is teaching.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how much do you understand about Lat Sau Jik Chung and how it relates to the development of the concepts and principles of the Wing Chun system as a whole? Specifically, do you know what happens to the Wing Chun system if Lat Sau Jik Chung is not included as a continual compass in physical training?


Could you please define and explain the principle?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 3, 2021)

drop bear said:


> This scientific method?


I believe Callen is talking about, "When you can detect your opponent's weakness, you should run him down."

I do agree that all MA demo should include "momentum". Your opponent will not attack you without forward motion. You also will not counter your opponent without forward motion.

The "scientific method" is to "run your opponent down when you have a chance." Your run down can be either knock down, or take down.

IMO, the OP's demo is just too "static".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 3, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Could you please define and explain the principle?


I believe this is the WC principle - 甩手直衝 Run your opponent down when you can detect his weakness.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 3, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe this is the WC principle - 甩手直衝 Run your opponent down when you can detect his weakness.


Well, I’ll let the wing Chun folks define it for me.  But I would consider that a strategy, and not a principle.  Any person can adopt any strategy they like.  A strategy isn’t definitive of a martial system.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 3, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But in the WC sticky hand, you suppose to be able to control both of your opponent's arms. In the OP's clip, both his left arm and his opponent's left arm are free.




what i demoed was not chi sao..


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 3, 2021)

Callen said:


> Personally, I’m starting to get the impression that the OP’s "Center Point" theory might really just be his way of coming to the realization that the chasing center concept 追形 in Wing Chun is about the opponent’s centerline, not our own centerline. I fear that in an attempt to think outside the box, he is also in danger of mistakenly reinventing the wheel.
> 
> While the OP’s breakthrough may not necessarily be new or unique, the take-away I get is that it’s a new discovery for _him_… and ultimately in my opinion that can be a good thing. However, it is never a good idea to sacrifice core concepts in the process of personal discovery because it can put the functionality of the system at a risk.
> 
> This is a solid reminder to all of us. We need to be cautious not to place so much value on our own ideas that they become a justification for destroying the foundation of what the Wing Chun system is teaching us.



I don't believe in sacrificing any key concepts but am not bound by then either..I use them when they need.I dont believe in becoming a slave to my martial art..Its a tool that I use like a hammer or a scewdriver thats all. C.P.T is not a replacement for any of the Wing Chun tenets but a progessive development that one uses to reach a new development in your Wing Chun.. To Me the whole idea of keeping wing chun pure not questioning its core prinicples sounds like a CULT!!! and ive written about that to.. That mind set is toxic and renders any martial art in a state of obsolescence.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 4, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> C.P.T is not a replacement for any of the Wing Chun tenets but a progessive development that one uses to reach a new development in your Wing Chun.. To Me the whole idea of keeping wing chun pure not questioning its core prinicples sounds like a CULT!!! and ive written about that to.. That mind set is toxic and renders any martial art in a state of obsolescence.



But you have yet to really question any of Wing Chun's core principles, and by those I mean the three Shaolin animal styles that comprise Wing Chun.  Whatever you're questioning is a mystery to me right now.

Like, you haven't asked me one single question, and I'm hurt.  Let's get to the bottom of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 4, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> what i demoed was not chi sao..


Let's talk about the CMA principle 來留去送 if you come, I'll keep you. if you go, I'll follow you.

1. Your opponent uses left arm to push up your right arm, and uses right arm to press down your left arm (separate hands).
2. He then use his right arm to take over his left hand control, and free his left arm (switch hands).

During step 2, if your left hand can follow his right arm (stick/follow), and push his right elbow to your right, and spin your body to your right (let your opponent's right arm to push into the thin air), you will have a perfect skill demonstration video - 來留去送 if you come, I'll keep you. if you go, I'll follow you.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 4, 2021)

This thread made me think of Tai Yi Wu Xing Quan Crane.  I could be mad but I think it sums up the poster's dilemma: the need to learn more, and train harder.


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Say old mate was doing chi sau. (Which I assume is the context) and is pulling off that move, *regardless if it is core principles or not. *Then you just have to deal with that.



Yeah, you absolutely have to deal with it ...but that doesn't make it good Wing Chun.  

For example, if your WC partner closes-in and throws a short, straight-line high punch or elbow (a typical WC attack). You might choose to slap it upward and aside (high pak-sau), simultaneously changing levels and shooting a double-leg and then proceed by grappling on the ground to achieve a submission.

That counter, the double-leg and ground fighting, is totally valid and absolutely can work. But it isn't WC. Further,  attempts by WC guys to make-up "anti-grappling" are ...to put it kindly,_ less_ than satisfying. 

So, IMO it is best to practice WC as it was intended, as a close-range, stand-up, striking art, primarily emphasizing straight line attacks and leave the training in other areas to qualified experts in those fields (BJJ, etc.).

On the other hand, I believe WC people need to become more martially "multi-lingual" so to speak and address how to react to a wide variety of attacks. But, to pursue the language metaphor- in an ideal situation, you would learn decent English and decent Spanish first before playing at "Spanglish" ...i.e. learn each separate MA well, and then explore the transitions between them.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 5, 2021)

geezer said:


> Yeah, you absolutely have to deal with it ...but that doesn't make it good Wing Chun.
> 
> For example, if your WC partner closes-in and throws a short, straight-line high punch or elbow (a typical WC attack). You might choose to slap it upward and aside (high pak-sau), simultaneously changing levels and shooting a double-leg and then proceed by grappling on the ground to achieve a submission.
> 
> ...



There is an element of going completely prison rules. And an element of gaming the game a bit.

I don't think a bit of sneaky head movement or some chasing hands is outside the boundaries of what would be expected in an exchange like that.

If it is flawed. Then it will present as flawed and you won't be able to pull it off.

If you do pull it off and the other guy cried foul for it not being wing chun. I think that is more of a case of salty panties. Rather than a system breaking ethic.

And I disagree with the analogy. If say I spoke English but wanted to use the word chi sau to convey an idea. I should have to learn Chinese to do it.


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2021)

drop bear said:


> If you do pull it off and the other guy cried foul for it not being wing chun. I think that is more of a case of* salty panties*. Rather than a system breaking ethic.


Salty Panties??? Never heard that before. Sounds really awful. Worse than sandy underpants. If I had salty panties I'd be very grumpy indeed! 

...So is that where the current American term "salty" comes from? My son uses that all the time to describe me.



drop bear said:


> And I disagree with the analogy. If say I spoke English but wanted to use the word chi sau to convey an idea. I should have to learn Chinese to do it.


I don't get what you are saying. I was just using learning languages as a metaphor for learning different martial arts. I certainly don't think its necessary to learn Cantonese (beyond basic terminology) to be proficient in Wing Chun or to have to learn Korean to do TKD. Do all BJJ guys have to speak fluent Brazilian Portuguese? That would be a stretch.

Heck, next you'll tell me I have to learn Aussie!!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 5, 2021)

geezer said:


> `Do all BJJ guys have to speak fluent Brazilian Portuguese?


All BJJ guys have to learn "Do Do Ban".


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 5, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Let's talk about the CMA principle 來留去送 if you come, I'll keep you. if you go, I'll follow you.
> 
> 1. Your opponent uses left arm to push up your right arm, and uses right arm to press down your left arm (separate hands).
> 2. He then use his right arm to take over his left hand control, and free his left arm (switch hands).
> ...


its a bit confusing what your saying I have to see an example of it.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 5, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> its a bit confusing what your saying I have to see an example of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 5, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> its a bit confusing what your saying I have to see an example of it.


Form 0.01 - 0.03, your opponent's right arm touched on your left arm, and your left arm tried to control his right arm (you come. I'll keep you). At 0.04, his right arm moved away from your left arm, but your left arm did not follow/control his right arm (you leave, I'll follow).


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


>


Well, just goes to show that size DOES matter. That is a big, stout and aggressive snake. Probably a Northern Diamondback Watersnake:






And BTW the Crane succeeded in defending itself. Now if the crane were bigger and the snake smaller, it might have gone like this:


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 6, 2021)

geezer said:


> Well, just goes to show that size DOES matter. That is a big, stout and aggressive snake. Probably a Northern Diamondback Watersnake:
> 
> View attachment 27693
> 
> And BTW the Crane succeeded in defending itself. Now if the crane were bigger and the snake smaller, it might have gone like this:


Thst isn’t a crane in the first video, the one with the fight with the snake in the water.  Looks like some kind of egret or something.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 6, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Form 0.01 - 0.03, your opponent's right arm touched on your left arm, and your left arm tried to control his right arm (you come. I'll keep you). At 0.04, his right arm moved away from your left arm, but your left arm did not follow/control his right arm (you leave, I'll follow).


Why should I follow that poem..am free to do what I like..


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 6, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> Thst isn’t a crane in the first video, the one with the fight with the snake in the water.  Looks like some kind of egret or something.


Heron vs. Crane, same stuff different day.

I still prefer Kangaroo fu to these smaller fights.


----------



## geezer (Dec 6, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> I still prefer Kangaroo fu to these smaller fights.


Kangaroo fu? Well, a Kangaroo tail would be really awesome for a WC guy. Then you could lean back on your tail and do two legged chi-gurk just like chi sheung sau or poon sau. And for sparring? Wow!


----------



## Oily Dragon (Dec 6, 2021)

geezer said:


> Kangaroo fu? Well, a Kangaroo tail would be really awesome for a WC guy. Then you could lean back on your tail and do two legged chi-gurk just like chi sheung sau or poon sau. And for sparring? Wow!


Kangaroos are some of the most lethal kickboxing animals, and there aren't that many of those.

And they actually do look a little like Wing Chun Youtube fight videos, don't they.  The difference is the kangaroos clearly know what they're doing, especially the one with better muscle tone than me.


----------



## geezer (Dec 6, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> That isn’t a crane in the first video, the one with the fight with the snake in the water.  Looks like some kind of egret or something.


Definitely an Egret.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 6, 2021)

geezer said:


> Definitely an Egret.View attachment 27698


Yup, very different animal from a crane.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 6, 2021)

geezer said:


> Kangaroo fu? Well, a Kangaroo tail would be really awesome for a WC guy. Then you could lean back on your tail and do two legged chi-gurk just like chi sheung sau or poon sau. And for sparring? Wow!


I hear cassowaries are pretty dangerous kickers.  I guess if you encounter one in the wild, you put your knapsack on front to protect your torso.  They kick, and will eviscerate you with their talons.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 6, 2021)

futsaowingchun said:


> Why should I follow that poem..am free to do what I like..


Because you don't want your opponent's left arm to be free (you think 1 step ahead). Your opponent tries to use his right arm to free his left arm so his left arm can

- go behind your waist (as shown in your clip),
- grab your right leg (better follow up),
- ...

If you just push on your opponent's right elbow to use his right arm to jam his left arm, you will free your right arm while both of his arms have no threaten to you.

_It's not easy to have a chance to use your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm. In your clip, he gives you that opportunity, and you should take it. When you do that, your right arm is already free.

In other words, your main concern should be his left free arm and not his right arm that left your right arm up._


----------



## drop bear (Dec 6, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> I hear cassowaries are pretty dangerous kickers.  I guess if you encounter one in the wild, you put your knapsack on front to protect your torso.  They kick, and will eviscerate you with their talons.



They are not that bad.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Dec 7, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because you don't want your opponent's left arm to be free (you think 1 step ahead). Your opponent tries to use his right arm to free his left arm so his left arm can
> 
> - go behind your waist (as shown in your clip),
> - grab your right leg (better follow up),
> ...


Yes I understand what your saying but it's only a Demo no need for me to worry about what he might do..I already know what he's going to do..


----------

