# Bad Chi Sao has ruined WC as a fighting art!



## hunschuld

Thread title is a bit over the top but hope it got Geezers attention! 

Chi Sao is meant to train skills that you then need to learn to apply in sparring It is not meant to be a replacement for sparring or an end in itself unless. However most Chi Sao has devolved into a situation where hitting someone and superiority of Chi Sao skills is the goal. Chi sao is used in a competitive way which actually destroys the skills the exercise is trying to train. This has led to most being unable to actually applying WC skills in sparring or fighting situations with non cooperative opponents.

One example is attacking  on the change. This is teaching nothing other than taking advantage of a roll and boosting the ego of the successful attacker unless you believe when you get into a fight the other person is going to put up his arms and say Chi Sao time!

Another thing is Chi Sao tag where one person is hit and then the other reaches a to get a hit of their own and feels vindicated when they tough someone at arms length.






In that video Leung Ting has put up his son,or so I was told as a victim to prove how good his chi sao is against all comers. The result is total stiffness, reaching to attack, no discernible footwork ,no balance,no use of hips and no actual skills that would translate into real fighting success. All the time they spent doing chi sao and this is what happens when faced with a non cooperative partner.

next 




This even happens to WC teachers held in high regard at about 1:33 Gary starts chi sao demo with a stranger that hasn't bought into the teacher is great self Hypnosis that is the usual standard. First roll he notices the bad,lazy tan Sao of GL and the second roll he lands what would have been a powerful strike taking advantage of the bad tan sao. I am sure GL was being lazy because no one ever took advantage of this position before.
The result Gl totally lost his stance then starts to attack on contact instead of rolling when they make contact again. Taking advantage of the person who's is clearly showing his intent is to roll not fight. Gl continues reaching strikes trying to get back a hit and look at his total lack of footwork when chasing .Look at the just walking forward at the 2:30 mark.. What is the point of training chi sao if one little hit is all it takes to forget all the wing chun you have learned over 50 years?

Video 3 to show this problem is not just a Yip Man issue.






Yiu Choi wing chun from Foshan and what do we see nothing but powerless reaching strikes, arm stiffness,shoulder stiffness. Chi sao tag and nothing more. Can't see the footwork so no comment on that.

You should not play tag when doing Chi Sao. When you are hit with a strike delivered while the elbow is bent you should stop1. It is over go back and learn what you did wrong and try to fix the problem. You learn from getting hit. If you opponent stops don't take advantage and reach to hit him trying to get even.That will not happen in a fight people won't stop when they hit you and slapping someone will do nothing to slow them down.

Chi Sao can be the most important drill you do because it can teach you to function in the more dangerous fighting range learn the skills and do not think it shows you have any real fighting skills. Chi Sao skills prove nothing when it comes to fighting ability only sparring with non wing chun people can develop those skills


----------



## hunschuld

Just noticed I misspelled the thread title . Hope you all excuse my fat fingers. Should be an N instead of a B so ruined.


----------



## ShortBridge

It hasn't ruined WC as a fighting art, but is has confused a whole bunch of people and has certainly contributed to some people's overconfidence in their abilities and preparedness. 

Not everyone trains the same way. Not everyone puts their stuff on YouTube.


----------



## Danny T

Though chi sao is a major training drill used it isn't the only drill used and for some of us it isn't the most important drill. In our training we actually spar more than we chi sao. I believe in cases chi sao is an overly used drill.


----------



## Poppity

hunschuld said:


> Thread title is a bit over the top but hope it got Geezers attention!
> 
> Chi Sao is meant to train skills that you then need to learn to apply in sparring It is not meant to be a replacement for sparring or an end in itself unless. However most Chi Sao has devolved into a situation where hitting someone and superiority of Chi Sao skills is the goal. Chi sao is used in a competitive way which actually destroys the skills the exercise is trying to train. This has led to most being unable to actually applying WC skills in sparring or fighting situations with non cooperative opponents.
> 
> One example is attacking  on the change. This is teaching nothing other than taking advantage of a roll and boosting the ego of the successful attacker unless you believe when you get into a fight the other person is going to put up his arms and say Chi Sao time!
> 
> Another thing is Chi Sao tag where one person is hit and then the other reaches a to get a hit of their own and feels vindicated when they tough someone at arms length.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that video Leung Ting has put up his son,or so I was told as a victim to prove how good his chi sao is against all comers. The result is total stiffness, reaching to attack, no discernible footwork ,no balance,no use of hips and no actual skills that would translate into real fighting success. All the time they spent doing chi sao and this is what happens when faced with a non cooperative partner.
> 
> next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This even happens to WC teachers held in high regard at about 1:33 Gary starts chi sao demo with a stranger that hasn't bought into the teacher is great self Hypnosis that is the usual standard. First roll he notices the bad,lazy tan Sao of GL and the second roll he lands what would have been a powerful strike taking advantage of the bad tan sao. I am sure GL was being lazy because no one ever took advantage of this position before.
> The result Gl totally lost his stance then starts to attack on contact instead of rolling when they make contact again. Taking advantage of the person who's is clearly showing his intent is to roll not fight. Gl continues reaching strikes trying to get back a hit and look at his total lack of footwork when chasing .Look at the just walking forward at the 2:30 mark.. What is the point of training chi sao if one little hit is all it takes to forget all the wing chun you have learned over 50 years?
> 
> Video 3 to show this problem is not just a Yip Man issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yiu Choi wing chun from Foshan and what do we see nothing but powerless reaching strikes, arm stiffness,shoulder stiffness. Chi sao tag and nothing more. Can't see the footwork so no comment on that.
> 
> You should not play tag when doing Chi Sao. When you are hit with a strike delivered while the elbow is bent you should stop1. It is over go back and learn what you did wrong and try to fix the problem. You learn from getting hit. If you opponent stops don't take advantage and reach to hit him trying to get even.That will not happen in a fight people won't stop when they hit you and slapping someone will do nothing to slow them down.
> 
> Chi Sao can be the most important drill you do because it can teach you to function in the more dangerous fighting range learn the skills and do not think it shows you have any real fighting skills. Chi Sao skills prove nothing when it comes to fighting ability only sparring with non wing chun people can develop those skills



I agree with you in part but I feel that perhaps  some schools' obsession with drilling chi sau is more of an appearance of eroding the martial from the wing chun system as opposed to the cause.

Chi sau has a number of issues attached certainly one of them is the belief that to test someone's wing chun you need to touch hands or chi sau with them. I have no doubt this must have been true back in the day when people were roundly skilled in the art but now, when some schools solely practice chi sau at the expense of sparring or applying on a resisting opponent... It's not going to show how well they know or can us the system.

I  think the issue with wing chuns martial aspect is wider as you also have some schools over analysing a posture without even moving and concluding that a bong must be at a certain angle,  (  as if  someone had reverse engineered a technique from a photo) or that you must remain stationary with a man sau in a fight.

A quick scan of you tube will reveal a strange pride people have of mindlessly reciting the basic movements of the form as if this displays some profound knowledge as opposed to an abysmal attempt at physical karaoke.

There are a plethora of reasons as to why wing chun appears to be losing it's martial aspects,in  my honest opinion it just comes  down to how popular it is and how many people just want to teach it without learning wing chun in detail before hand.

I am not going to get into my more fringe and unpopular views on this such as how i strongly feel Ip man's sons were mistaken in attempting to solely manage their fathers legacy, or how i suspect xu xiaodong is beating up old men in southern styles with the CCPs blessing, or even that lots of supplemental techniques from other styles can be found in wing chun anyway.

 in essence I agree that wing chun as a whole may appear to be losing its martial aspects,

But I guess the natural progression is that; it either continues to become more popular and you will have more people practicing a yoga like version of it whilst the pockets of people who practice it's martial aspects continue or, it becomes less popular the poor quality wing chun backwashes until your left with the pockets of people who practice it's martial aspects.

So hopefully it will all wash out in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## JowGaWolf

So what I'm understanding is that Chi Sao is not Wing Chun.  It is a part of Wing Chun.  Some people forget about this and focus too much of Chi Sao as being Wing Chun instead of treating it as a component like a kick, a punch, or elbow.


----------



## Poppity

JowGaWolf said:


> So what I'm understanding is that Chi Sao is not Wing Chun.  It is a part of Wing Chun.  Some people forget about this and focus too much of Chi Sao as being Wing Chun instead of treating it as a component like a kick, a punch, or elbow.



I think the concern is that chi sau is being viewed as the key component or quality control test for good wing chun and this approach appears to have become the accepted industry standard.

In doing so chi sau has become a game used to measure wing chun ability as opposed to combative application.


----------



## Danny T

JowGaWolf said:


> So what I'm understanding is that Chi Sao is not Wing Chun.  It is a part of Wing Chun.  Some people forget about this and focus too much of Chi Sao as being Wing Chun instead of treating it as a component like a kick, a punch, or elbow.


Chi Sao is a component of the training and practicing of wing chun. If you know anything about wrestling...there is pummeling; in muay thai there is the clinch. There is far more to wrestling than pummeling and there is far more to muay thai than clinch, and the same holds true to WC. Many in the WC world have taken chi sao as the holy grail for great fighting skill rather than actually being able to fight. I'm humble enough to say there are many in WC who are much better than me playing Chi Sao but in the same breathe I'm just as confident in my actually fighting skills to say that I'm a lot better at fighting than them. Chi Sao is but one drill for practicing elements of WC.


----------



## hunschuld

Great replies. 
What things do you do at your school or have you done to to make Chi sao a skill development tool rather than the skill in itself?

For example back in the day one of the things I did that I found really effect was we did Chi Sao in a narrow hallway. With our backs against the wall there was no stepping away so you had no choice but to work on receive what comes and shift or step for angles. You really dealt with the fear of getting hit. If you made a mistake you got hit. You learned to relax when close.


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> Great replies.
> What things do you do at your school or have you done to to make Chi sao a skill development tool rather than the skill in itself?
> 
> For example back in the day one of the things I did that I found really effect was *we did Chi Sao in a narrow hallway. With our backs against the wall there was no stepping away so you had no choice but to work on receive what comes and shift or step for angles. You really dealt with the fear of getting hit. If you made a mistake you got hit.* You learned to relax when close.




Hahaha! Me too! Except it wasn't a hallway, but a really small restroom. Same idea though. Great training!


----------



## ShortBridge

hunschuld said:


> Great replies.
> What things do you do at your school or have you done to to make Chi sao a skill development tool rather than the skill in itself?
> 
> ...



I really haven't found it difficult.

1) We don't spend all of our time on it (maybe not enough time)
2) It is far from the only non-compliant contact training that we do.
3) As with any other drill, I explain what I want people to get out of it (either before or after). Chi Sao is good for a lot of things. Someone mentioned getting over fear of being hit (or hitting someone), sensitivity, flow, structure, well rooted stance... It's a actually very versatile drill. But, it isn't fighting or even sparring and anyone who has trained with me for any amount of time would give the same answer, because I don't allow for the possibility that it could be interpreted that way. 
4) It can also be a fun game and I embrace that, as long as perspective is maintained. 

It's usually highly commercial lineages who are holding large seminars and posting things on-line where you find the belief that chi sao = sparring and is a test of fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Do you grab on your opponent's wrist (or arm) during your WC sticky hand training?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

hunschuld said:


> Just noticed I misspelled the thread title . Hope you all excuse my fat fingers. Should be an N instead of a B so ruined.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## hunschuld

Tony Dismukes said:


> Fixed that for you.


Thanks


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you grab on your opponent's wrist (or arm) during your WC sticky hand training?


Lop till you drop!  Yes grabbing allowed and at a point encouraged..


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Lop till you drop!  Yes grabbing allowed and at a point encouraged..


Don't see wrist grabbing used in both single sticky hand and double sticky hands.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> So what I'm understanding is that Chi Sao is not Wing Chun.  It is a part of Wing Chun.  Some people forget about this and focus too much of Chi Sao as being Wing Chun instead of treating it as a component like a kick, a punch, or elbow.



The issue also is if you Chi Sau a striker you will get your head smashed in. Because being good at Chi Sau sets up some terrible positions to strike from.

It is all hands out, chin up and standing directly in the worst possible place to receive punches from.

So from a striking point of view these are things to avoid.





Now with footwork, angles and basic striking it is a different story.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Don't see wrist grabbing used in both single sticky hand and double sticky hands.



Those examples are from the same lineage so it may just be their method.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you grab on your opponent's wrist (or arm) during your WC sticky hand training?


Yes...grabbing is a component within chi sao as is kicking, stomping, kneeing, elbowing, off balancing, tripping.


----------



## wckf92

drop bear said:


> The issue also is if you Chi Sau a striker you will get your head smashed in. Because being good at Chi Sau sets up some terrible positions to strike from.
> 
> It is all hands out, chin up and standing directly in the worst possible place to receive punches from.
> 
> So from a striking point of view these are things to avoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now with footwork, angles and basic striking it is a different story.



You don't "chi sau" a striker or anyone else for that matter (as it is trained). It is not fighting. It's simply an attribute development drill, in cooperation with a training partner.


----------



## Poppity

Just a quick apology for my ranty post. I am taking myself off line for a bit to get my head together.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Snark said:


> Just a quick apology for my ranty post, I recently lost my father due to covid so I am pretty disagreeable and irrationally angry at things at the moment. I am taking myself off line for a bit.


My condolences for your loss.

For what it's worth, I don't think there was anything unreasonable in your post that you would need to apologize for.


----------



## hunschuld

Snark said:


> Just a quick apology for my ranty post. I am taking myself off line for a bit to get my head together.


I must have missed it. The posts I have read of yours seem on point nothing wrong with them.


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> The issue also is if you Chi Sau a striker you will get your head smashed in. Because being good at Chi Sau sets up some terrible positions to strike from.


 
 
Some people are just hard headed!
You Don't Chi Sao in a fight!!! You fight and in doing so you may use a piece of what you learn within the drill of chi sao 'IF' it is appropriate. 
Chi Sao IS NOT fighting! It is a attribute development.


----------



## wckf92

Saying WC folks "fight" with chi sau is like saying a boxer boxes the same way he/she hits the speed bag; or like saying a grappler grapples the same way he/she does the basic "shrimping" drill on the floor. 

And now, if that is over with...we return you to your regularly scheduled programming


----------



## ShortBridge

...until the next time someone posts this issue as a new discussion/assertion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Those examples are from the same lineage so it may just be their method.


Do you have any clips to show that wrist grabbing is used in the sticky hands? I remember that I have seen a clip that has:

- left hand grab on opponent's left wrist,
- left hand push opponent's left arm to jam opponent's own right arm.
- right hand punch on opponent's face.

but I can't find it.



drop bear said:


> The issue also is if you Chi Sau a striker you will get your head smashed in. Because being good at Chi Sau sets up some terrible positions to strike from.


When your arms make contact with your opponent's arms, you have some goal that you want to achieve.

- To know where your opponent's arm is.
- To disable his arms if you can.

Use one hand to control both of your opponent's arms and use your free arm to punch. This concept by itself make CMA unique from boxing. (I'm not sure whether boxers train this strategy or not).

If you can use your

- left hand to grab on your opponent's right wrist.
- right hand to grab on your opponent's left wrist.
- You then use your right hand to guide your opponent's left arm across his right arm,
- You can free one of your arms and do your thing.

This is why I think the wrist grabbing is so important in the WC sticky hands training.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clips to show that wrist grabbing is used in the sticky hands? I remember that I have seen a clip that has:
> 
> - left hand grab on opponent's left wrist,
> - left hand push opponent's left arm to jam opponent's own right arm.
> - right hand punch on opponent's face.
> 
> but I can't find it.
> 
> 
> When your arms make contact with your opponent's arms, you have some goal that you want to achieve.
> 
> - To know where your opponent's arm is.
> - To disable his arms if you can.
> 
> Use one hand to control both of your opponent's arms and use your free arm to punch. This concept by itself make CMA unique from boxing. (I'm not sure whether boxers train this strategy or not).



Well, in chi sau...you do not have an "opponent", just a training partner who is (hopefully) wanting to make you a better wc man. 
To your other points:
1) to know where your opponents arm is - yes, this is automatic by merely having contact during the chi sau drill. So in my mind it's not so much a goal (as you say) but more of a fact through touching.

2) to disable his arms if you can - maybe, but also maybe not. My job (by learning and practicing the proper shapes and energies of the hands through the forms and other drills) is to merely "roll" and then when and if my training partner does not exhibit the proper corresponding shapes / energies, my WC goes on auto-pilot. 

But to your point about grabbing. To me, grabbing is merely a fleeting tool used to either generate power, use his power against him, and/or to clear an obstruction.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I also don't see "arm drag" used in most WC sticky hands training. To use opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm so you can have 1 free arm to do your thing is very useful.

IMO, more combat skills can be developed by using the WC sticky hands training.

In the following picture, 

- If A uses right hand to pull B's right arm, B's right arm can jam B's own left arm. Since this pulling cause B to rotate his body to his left. B can't punch out his left arm
- When A uses right hand to pull, A's left hand will be free to do his thing.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Chi sao is fighting, and it is not fighting, in the same way 黐 means sticky rice, but also a trap for birds, and yet another hidden reference to something completely mundane in reality, crossing arms with a training brother or sister.  Something that if you don't do, your kung fu will always suck.

With regards to all these Wing Chun videos, I hope everyone notices the worst element in them: the crowd.  I swear, if it was ever just two people playing slap boxing, nobody would even care.  But put it on video, especially in front of a live crowd, and you can actually hear the bloodlust.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

What's the major difference between CMA and boxing?

IMO, the major difference is in

Boxing - you punch me, I dodge. I punch you, you dodge. In sword fight, this is like you cut my leg off, at the same time I'll chop your arm off.

CMA - you try to control your opponent's arm when you punch him. In sword fight, this is like my sword touches on your sword. I slide my sword along your sword (this is why the sword contact is important), and cut your head off.

IMO, the CMA approach is much safer than the boxing approach. You use one had to control your opponent's am while punch him with another arm make CMA to be different from boxing.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I also don't see "arm drag" used in most WC sticky hands training. To use opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm so you can have 1 free arm to do your thing is very useful.
> 
> IMO, more combat skills can be developed by using the WC sticky hands training.
> 
> In the following picture,
> 
> - If A uses right hand to pull B's right arm, B's right arm can jam B's own left arm. Since this pulling cause B to rotate his body to his left. B can't punch out his left arm
> - When A uses right hand to pull, A's left hand will be free to do his thing.


----------



## hunschuld

I agree you, don't see this enough yet it is in Chum Kui.. You also have what wrestlers call the Russian Tie in Chum Kui. The only difference they use it to set up a take down we use it to strike,lock and strike,lock and knee attack/ sweep of some kind or all three. Not as easy as I may make it sound but if your goal is maintain close distance and get to the side body position it is a basic thing.


----------



## hunschuld

I goofed up the above posts some how. Should be one post


----------



## hunschuld

As far as grabbing not only is it part of chi sao but  since the mid 90's to not include it is malpractice. You need to know how to stop guard from being pulled and how to stop basic shoot at the very least. With a world full of grapplers now if you don't at least have a basic understanding of grappling in chi sao you are in trouble


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I also don't see "arm drag" used in most WC sticky hands training. To use opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm so you can have 1 free arm to do your thing is very useful.
> 
> IMO, more combat skills can be developed by using the WC sticky hands training.
> 
> In the following picture,
> 
> - If A uses right hand to pull B's right arm, B's right arm can jam B's own left arm. Since this pulling cause B to rotate his body to his left. B can't punch out his left arm
> - When A uses right hand to pull, A's left hand will be free to do his thing.


You don't see arm drags much because if you are attempting an arm drag from sticky hands you will have crossed the line and have committed your 2 hands onto the opponent's one arm. If you can do an arm drag from within chi sao the other person is terrible in chi sao. In the example photo Red Shirt should isn't sticking while Green Shirt has committed both hands to one arm. IF Red was sticking with his left he would simply punch Green in the face while his left arm/elbow position would have prevented Green from being able to reach under his rights upper arm.


----------



## Marnetmar

It seems rather counterproductive to me to try and force Chi Sao to do things it wasn't designed to do in order to incorporate half-assed grappling rather than just learning proper grappling to begin with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> If you can do an arm drag from within chi sao the other person is terrible in chi sao.


The main point is there are many effective counters to "arm drag". If you don't train in WC sticky hands, when will you train it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Marnetmar said:


> It seems rather counterproductive to me to try and force Chi Sao to do things it wasn't designed to do in order to incorporate half-assed grappling rather than just learning proper grappling to begin with.


Of course you can design a new training drill for that purpose. Since WC sticky hands  already exist, why do you need to invent a new training drill?

In WC sticky hands drill, if

- I grab your wrist,
- you rotate your arm, break my grip against my thumb, and grab back on my wrist.
- I then do the same thing, rotate my arm, break your grip, and grab back on your wrist.






It's so easy to add such training in your existence WC sticky hands. You don't need to develop a new one. The nice thing about this training is after you get used to this training, when your opponent tries to grab on your wrist, your arm will rotate automatically and escape out of that wrist grabbing. That's the ability that you want to develop.

- You try to grab my wrist.
- I rotate my arm and make your grabbing into the thin air.
- I then grab on top of your elbow joint.


----------



## Steve

wckf92 said:


> Saying WC folks "fight" with chi sau is like saying a boxer boxes the same way he/she hits the speed bag; or like saying a grappler grapples the same way he/she does the basic "shrimping" drill on the floor.
> 
> And now, if that is over with...we return you to your regularly scheduled programming


I don't know about boxing, but grapplers do shrimp against an opponent exactly the way they do in the drill.  It's a fundamental movement that, like a sit out drill, translates directly to movement in a match.  

If you're looking for attribute development, maybe something like Ginastica Natural is more analogous to chi sau.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The main point is there are many effective counters to "arm drag". If you don't train in WC sticky hands, when will you train it?


Well in my wing chun training we do train such. Just not from the chi sao platform.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In WC sticky hands, you may let your opponent's arm to touch your arm too easily. You should also train  the situation that

- you don't want your opponent to touch your arm, but you want to touch his arm whenever you want to.

How to avoid arm contact? The answer can be as simple as to rotate your arm the same direction as your opponent's arm is rotating.


----------



## wckf92

Steve said:


> I don't know about boxing, but grapplers do shrimp against an opponent exactly the way they do in the drill.  It's a fundamental movement that, like a sit out drill, translates directly to movement in a match.
> 
> If you're looking for attribute development, maybe something like Ginastica Natural is more analogous to chi sau.



A fair point. Thanks. 
I guess I was thinking back to when I was learning grappling and we used to do these ridiculously long shrimp drills up and down the floor. hahaha.


----------



## ShortBridge

How about skipping rope? As in:

"wck92 throws a hard left, but shortbridge counters with some rope skipping!"


----------



## geezer

Danny T said:


> You don't see arm drags much because if you are attempting an arm drag from sticky hands you will have crossed the line and have committed your 2 hands onto the opponent's one arm. If you can do an arm drag from within chi sao the other person is terrible in chi sao. In the example photo Red Shirt should isn't sticking while Green Shirt has committed both hands to one arm. IF Red was sticking with his left he would simply punch Green in the face while his left arm/elbow position would have prevented Green from being able to reach under his rights upper arm.



...Further response to John Wang's post #29 about arm-drags in chi-sau. We also train arm drags and counters in other drills. But, as you said Danny, your posture and positioning in chi-sau does not set up an arm drag. In fact it makes a striking counter likely when you commit two arms to one. Check out this clip by Stephan Kesting talking about arm drag counters while working from an upright posture that is very unlike a wrestler's stance and maybe (kinda-sorta) like the upright posture used training chi-sau:






Now just swap Kesting's term "judo chop" for "fak-sau" or even "biu-sau" and you'll see my point.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I don't know about boxing, but grapplers do shrimp against an opponent exactly the way they do in the drill.  It's a fundamental movement that, like a sit out drill, translates directly to movement in a match.
> 
> If you're looking for attribute development, maybe something like Ginastica Natural is more analogous to chi sau.



Yeah. A contested drill that isn't application is kind of a unique one.


----------



## ShortBridge

A) Is he wearing a Star Trek uniform?
B) That is a very awkward position that black shirt guy is putting himself in. 

I'm not advocating for or against integrating something like a lop Sao into this drill, but I don't think that I would do it like that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Now just swap Kesting's term "judo chop" for "fak-sau" or even "biu-sau" and you'll see my point.


Of course when you uses both hands to deal with one of your opponent's arms, his free arm can do a lot of things to you.

How to solve this problem?

You use

1. Octopus strategy - left hand to grab on your opponent's right wrist, right hand to grab on his left wrist.
2. Arm tucking - right hand to guide his left arm under his own right arm.

If you free your right hand (on your opponent's left wrist), and apply arm drag at that moment, his left arm won't be fast enough to do anything on you.

There are many effective counters against "arm drag". The "Judo chop" is not one of those.

Arm tucking:






Octopus strategy:






The easiest arm drag counter.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> ...Further response to John Wang's post #29 about arm-drags in chi-sau. ...


Something is missing in your clip and that is to control your opponent's left free arm first.

Common sense tell us if you:

1. control your opponent's arms, your opponent can't punch you.
2. guide your opponent's arm away from your entering path, when you enter, his arm can't give you any trouble.
3. guide your opponent's arm to jam his other arm, you can use one arm to control both of his arms. This will free one of your arms.

You have 2 arms. Your opponent also has 2 arms. If you use 2 on 1, you will need to take care of that free arm first. So before you try to do 2 on 1, you have to do something else first.

In the following clip, he guides his opponent's left arm to jam the right arm. This way, he can free his left hand and do his thing.


----------



## hunschuld

geezer said:


> ...Further response to John Wang's post #29 about arm-drags in chi-sau. We also train arm drags and counters in other drills. But, as you said Danny, your posture and positioning in chi-sau does not set up an arm drag. In fact it makes a striking counter likely when you commit two arms to one. Check out this clip by Stephan Kesting talking about arm drag counters while working from an upright posture that is very unlike a wrestler's stance and maybe (kinda-sorta) like the upright posture used training chi-sau:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now just swap Kesting's term "judo chop" for "fak-sau" or even "biu-sau" and you'll see my point.



Geezer good to see you. I started this thread on your suggestion.

Going to disagree with arm drag in chi sau. You can set the arm drag  when you are in double fook or in single fook. You must be stepping to the outside of the arm you are dragging or shift to the outside of the arm. The elbow of the fook controls the opponents tan and you are moving to onside pulling an arm in front of you thus neutralizing the arm not dragged. Your position puts you in a perfect place to attack the leg on the side of the drag. KFW is showing something like this in his post above.

The issue in your clip is the footwork of the man in black. Based on his footwork he should be dragging the opposite arm. Footwork is most important for the 2 on 1 to work . In this video he is dragging the wrong arm.


----------



## geezer

hunschuld said:


> The issue in your clip is the footwork of the man in black. Based on his footwork he should be dragging the opposite arm. Footwork is most important for the 2 on 1 to work . In this video he is dragging the wrong arm.



His footwork, at least from what you can infer based on his body movement, is pretty standard stuff from a wrestler´s perspective. His objective is to move inside and gain position at your back where he has what one coach I knew called a "plethora of options".

The more typical Ip Man Wing Chun objective is to gain position and control center primarily for striking, kicking, and lastly sweeping or throwing. Different objectives mandate different strategies.


----------



## hunschuld

The more typical Ip Man Wing Chun objective is to gain position and control center primarily for striking, kicking, and lastly sweeping or throwing. Different objectives mandate different strategies.[/QUOTE]

This may be part of the reason people in the videos I posted were unable to perform basic chi sao skills in a more adversarial situation.
 For me I want to control the center of gravity and attack through the center. Fighting for control of the center almost has to lead to what we see in the videos.We prefer to receive and then redirect energy and get to a side body position if possible or if in the center we want to turn either our body or the opponents body.

Best place to be in the back. I have 2 arms he has none. At side I have 2 he has 1 so again I have a big advantage  but in center we both have 2 arms so no one has an advantage but stronger person will have an advantage if everything else equal so this leads to what we see in video 1.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> but in center we both have 2 arms so no one has an advantage ...


In center if your arms are

- on top, and
- inside,

you will have advantage.

When your arm are

- on top, you have the weight advantage.
- inside, you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In center if your arms are
> 
> - on top, and
> - inside,
> 
> you will have advantage.
> 
> When your arm are
> 
> - on top, you have the weight advantage.
> - inside, you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head.


 

2 arms on 2 arms no advantage vs 2 arms vs 1 arm.

Not true

What you are talking about is who has better skill. You are trying to do something to me I am trying to do something to you. If one is on top the other doesn't just stop moving and leave them there they try to do something it becomes a matter of training and skill and sometimes just innate advantage. You are faster than I am You have an advantage I can use my hips better than you can I have an advantage. 

The point is if I can use 2 hands and you can only use one I can control your one and have a free hand to do something unopposed . If we are facing 2 on 2 I have to do more to control and clear a path for attacking and have to deal with more possibilities from you when defending. Getting to the outside or the back is always an advantage. It always limits the opponents possibilities


----------



## drop bear

hunschuld said:


> 2 arms on 2 arms no advantage vs 2 arms vs 1 arm.
> 
> Not true
> 
> What you are talking about is who has better skill. You are trying to do something to me I am trying to do something to you. If one is on top the other doesn't just stop moving and leave them there they try to do something it becomes a matter of training and skill and sometimes just innate advantage. You are faster than I am You have an advantage I can use my hips better than you can I have an advantage.
> 
> The point is if I can use 2 hands and you can only use one I can control your one and have a free hand to do something unopposed . If we are facing 2 on 2 I have to do more to control and clear a path for attacking and have to deal with more possibilities from you when defending. Getting to the outside or the back is always an advantage. It always limits the opponents possibilities



In fighting you limit their ability to strike while you are grappling by limiting their space. 

So two hands on one isn't the risk that it may seem to be during chi sau. 

So it is kind of comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> So two hands on one isn't the risk that it may seem to be during chi sau.


Agree! When you use 2 hands to guide your opponent's leading right arm across his body, his body will rotate to his left. His left back hand cannot punch out. Of course your opponent can borrow your rotation force, spin his body to his left, and hit with his left spin back fist. But his back will have to be exposed under your back neck choke.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> If one is on top the other doesn't just stop moving ...


Of course you can keep moving. But you have to deal with your opponent's body weight if his

- arm is on top of your arm, or
- body is on top of your body.


----------



## hunschuld

Body on top of Body becomes grappling discussion which is not what we are talking about here.

As far as hands on top vs bottom.I know in chi sao many consider 2 hands on top to be the stronger position. I have never found it to be an issue. In the first gif above long pants issue is not that short pants is controlling but rather he is violating the rules on elbow placement and energy flow. Long pants has several strikes ,sweeps/controls and throws open to him it becomes a matter of skill or speed as to which person get the ultimate advantage Short pants actually gives up control for a moment when he moves his hands up from wrist control to elbow control. A skilled opponent would switch the initiative.

This goes back to my point 2 arms on 2 arms vs 2 arms on one. If you go to your post above the last by using 2 arms on one you have used the opponents body to block or negate the effective use of the far arm and if you move his body across you get a clean shot at attacking his side or back and multiple take down options. The person with their arm being dragged and body being moved away has far fewer options and his options are so few that you know what they are and have a distinct advantage in countering.

Dark shirt possibilities have been reduced while white shirts have been  increased vs front facing 2 arms on 2 arms.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Short pants actually gives up control for a moment when he moves his hands up from wrist control to elbow control. A skilled opponent would switch the initiative.


The advantage of A garbs on B's wrist is A is 1 step ahead of B.

1. A's hand grabs on B's wrist.
2. B rotates his wrist to break A's grip.
3. A moves his hand from B's wrist position to B's elbow position.

In 2, even if B doesn't intend to break A's grip. A's hands can "slide" along B's arms and reach to B's elbows. A's grips with tiger mouth facing to A can force B's arms to rotate inward. This will give A a chance to "slide" his hands along B's arms. In other words, how B may break A's grips is part of A's plan.

A has a plan. That's A's advantage.

IMO, most of the WC sticky hand training may not have a plan. That can be an issue.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, most of the WC sticky hand training may not have a plan. That can be an issue.



Wing chun sticking hand training doesn't have a plan, it has a process. A step by step process.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Wing chun sticking hand training doesn't have a plan, it has a process. A step by step process.


In Taiji push hand, when I push your arm, I will expect 2 responds.

1. Resist - When you try to use your force to against my force, I can borrow your force, change my push into a pull.
1. Yield - When you try to yield into my force, I can also borrow your force, change my push into more push.

The WC sticky hand may not function like the Taiji PH. You try to give your opponent limit amount of options. Whatever the option that your opponent may take, you have some follow up waiting for him.


----------



## Oily Dragon

wckf92 said:


> Wing chun sticking hand training doesn't have a plan, it has a process. A step by step process.



It has a prescription, which is easy to understand the moment you stick to an opponent and have to decide what to do next.

The natural tendency for many is to break, but the point is to learn to not break, more like how to coil around and crush an opponent.

That is the essence of southern Dragon style, after all, the third biggest influence to Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer

Oily Dragon said:


> It has a prescription, which is easy to understand the moment you stick to an opponent and have to decide what to do next. The natural tendency for many* is to break...*



Not sure what you mean by "break". Do you mean to "break free" and try to hit? To break structure (yours or theirs)?  ...or something else?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Not sure what you mean by "break". Do you mean to "break free" and try to hit? To break structure (yours or theirs)?  ...or something else?


How do you train you want to touch your opponent's arm, but you don't want him to touch your arm?

In wrestling, you want to have one hand on your opponent, but you don't want your opponent's to have any hand on you. I believe this strategy fit the striking art as well.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you train you want to touch your opponent's arm, but you don't want him to touch your arm?
> In wrestling, you want to have one hand on your opponent, but you don't want your opponent's to have any hand on you. I believe this strategy fit the striking art as well.



Perhaps, but for the most part Wing Chun, at least the Yip Man lineage "WT" I've trained, emphasized extending the limbs forward towards the opponent rater than grasping and pulling inward. Very different from grappling-focused arts.

So when using chi-sau as a training method, you make bridge contact, with your arms sticking and pressing forward, rather than grabbing and pulling inward. However, the objective is _not to defensively stick_ and obstruct your opponent's attacking line. It is to _open an attacking line and slip forward_...allowing your hand to strike outward and hit your opponent. So we say that chi sau is not so much about sticking as _slipping._

I wondered if _this_ was what Oily Dragon meant when he used the word "break" in his previous post.  Either way it's important to note that even when "slipping" you are still in contact with your opponent's arms and still controlling his position ...his arms, his "center" and better yet, his structure and center of gravity. Or at least that is the objective. Only once this is achieved would the WC practitioner want to consider finishing with a throw.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you train you want to touch your opponent's arm, but you don't want him to touch your arm?



"Moods are for cattle and loveplay".  G. Halleck, 10,191 AD.


----------



## FinalStreet

Bad Chi Sao but chi sao hasn't been transmitted well since Yip Man, so no suprise.


----------



## Oily Dragon

FinalStreet said:


> Bad Chi Sao but chi sao hasn't been transmitted well since Yip Man, so no suprise.



How about bong sao?  It's related to chi sao, and that is part of the problem.

People love to criticize instructors, but students can be so, so stupid.  

They love to pass on their limited understanding.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Oily Dragon said:


> How about bong sao?


This is wrong Bong.


----------



## Poppity

I think its a bit more than bad chi sau.

武術 is pronounced in modern mandarin as Wu shu but when pronounced in the Cantonese dialect (as are all wing chun terms and wing chun itself) it's Mo Seot. 

There appears to be a rising trend for some sources to claim that all martial arts were traditionally and historically called Wu shu, including the southern arts. 

This is incredibly unlikely.

In China there are a total of 11 languages, 64 dialects, 64 subdialects. 

Mandarin was historically common but not overwhelmingly so and other languages including Cantonese were widely used.

The national language (Guoyu) based on mandarin with a Beijing dialect (including the Wu shu prononciation) was only decided to be the standard in 1913.

Further it wasn't until 1932 that a dictionary based on the Beijing Mandarin pronunciation (a particular dialect of mandarin) came about for use in schools. 

So calling martial arts "Wu shu" would not have even been taught as standard until 1932 because mondern Mandarin in its current format did not even exist before this date.

As for the Wu shu art itself, its widely accepted that it was not organised into its current format until 1949,  as a standardised state approved group of northern martial arts.

Why does this matter?

The Chinese Communist party during the cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976 "firmly discouraged" martial arts and the traditional student sifu relationship. Wu shu was not targeted and so the discouragement was effectively a stamp down on southern styles not affiliated with the Wu shu programme.

However, because of economic migrants and the unexpected rise of Bruce Lee as an international movie star, the southern arts not only survived but thrived outside of China. 

This popularity also lead to many poorly skilled students of wing chun ,who had emigrated and lost their assets and principal sources of income to teach it outside
China. This also encouraged a  specialising in chi sau to avoid any display of the glaring holes in a poor practitioners ability in actual application.

Despite its popularity the independently taught and governed southern arts do not  conform to the CCPs firm ideals of social harmony.  So what course of action does the CCP have to address this?

The most obvious, easiest router requiring the least efforts isa smear campaign, to establish the southern arts as the primitive and backwards cousin of the cutting edge Wu shu programme. Like an early rough draft of Wu shu if you will, as opposed to something which evolved separately. The first step... it's all the same because it all called Wu shu.

When you look at the current state of Chinese martial arts this makes a lot of sense.

For example, it beggars belief that a character like  Xu Xiaodong can upset the social harmony by targeting southern art practitioners without any reprisal or imprisonment... Especially in a country where people were imprisoned for uploading phone footage of someone collapsing in the street from covid. 

Xu Xiaodong is not some plucky rebel in the hills or a criminal mastermind, he is clearly operating openly from his gym with state approval and his opponents are always carefully picked southern arts practitioners.

Further it comes as no surprise that the most successful practitioners in competitions, who utilise southern Chinese styles come from outside China like Qi La La or even Alan Orr's students.

Another issue with the quality of wing chun is because the southern arts are taught in a such a secretive manner, where not all students were historically taught equally and even the favoured ones may not be taught thoroughly until many, many years have passed and their character is deemed of worth. The excellent documentary "needle through brick" clearly illustrates the issues and commonality of this approach.


In conclusion, I think the issue with wing chun is not bad chi sau but rather the three elements of:

1) poorly skilled students widely teaching the art for many years.
2) the CCP promoting state Wu shu at the expense of the independent southern styles including wing chun.
3) the secretive nature of many teachers of the southern arts resulting in the loss of more complete curriculums and interest from younger generations.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

2 men free training drill exist in the southern CMA. It doesn't exist in most of the northern CMA. It's a valuable training tool that should be preserved and expanded.

Here is something similar to the WC sticky hand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

IMO, this is the missing part of the WC sticky hand training.

- connect,
- disconnect,
- connect again,
- disconnect again,
- ...

Why is this important? This is how a real fight may look like.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, this is the missing part of the WC sticky hand training.
> 
> - connect,
> - disconnect,
> - connect again,
> - disconnect again,
> - ...
> 
> Why is this important? This is how a real fight may look like.



The tribble here is self-evident.   Not a single punch at the face.


----------



## Cephalopod

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 2 men free training drill exist in the southern CMA. It doesn't exist in most of the northern CMA. It's a valuable training tool that should be preserved and expanded.
> 
> Here is something similar to the WC sticky hand.



What a trip through memoryville!
Most of a lifetime ago, a visiting Cha Chuan sifu taught us this set as a conditioning drill. The arm contact in the first 16 seconds was a hard as we could take it, and the hip check at 0:28 was taught, in no uncertain terms, to launch our partner across the room. Being young adults, we had great fun crashing into each other...and ruefully limping around afterward with bruises all over our hips and arms.

Good times!

Thanks for posting KFW!
But, um, the similarities to chisao...I don't see em!
And FYI, good chisao training includes plenty of connnect-disconnect-connect etc. Otherwise, as Oily suggested, you get hit in the face.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is wrong Bong.


_Sometimes_ "Wrong Bong" is necessary. It depends on the situation. Remember - at least in the lineage I learned, your opponent's force forms your defense. With the inside gate cross bong, or what some call "wrong bong"  you just need to be aware of how dangerous it is and_ instantly_ move through it into an offensive technique. 

Even with "normal" bong...._ "Bong sau never stays!"  _


----------



## geezer

Oily Dragon said:


> The* tribble* here is self-evident.   Not a single punch at the face.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> _ "Bong sau never stays!"  _


The issue is not "stay" but "intend". When you detect my arm intend to use "wrong Bong", you back hand will move toward me, and help my elbow joint to raise higher.

For the "correct Bong", I don't have to worry about that because your other hand can't each to my elbow joint.


----------



## geezer

That could happen. And it could work. 

Conversely, a typical defense to that grapple is punching straight through (over the "wrong bong" with the rear hand) simultaneously clearing the elbow and striking ...while your opponent is attempting to grab your elbow (committting his two hands to control one).

That can work too.


----------



## hunschuld

KFW said "IMO, this is the missing part of the WC sticky hand training.

- connect,
- disconnect,
- connect again,
- disconnect again,"

 I agree that you don't see this but it is not missing. As Snark pointed out the problem is transmission not content.

While we have some different chi sao platforms focusing just on the standard Yip rolling our training is as follows.

no Bridge or search for the bridge--find or create Bridge-- cross bridge--- sink or destroy bridge

Cross bridge is standard chi sao . the bridge has already been made.

we then move up the forearm close to the elbow for sink the bridge training. This is training for throws ,sweeps,trips,Elbow's uppercuts ,whipping or hooking attacks. Moves designed to end the fight by placing person on the ground

Create the bridge. wrist to wrist. generally a distance where you need 2 moves to strike,learn how to stop opponent from running or break contact ,includes kicking

No contact. learn how to make contact.

we start training when the bridge is made for several reasons.This is the range that people are most unforgettable operating in yet it teaches you the most about balance,absorbing energy sinking and close body footwork among other things.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Since circular punch such as hook, or hay-maker is not general used in the WC system, How to establish and remain arm contact by using the WC sticky hand when your opponent throw a hook punch at you?


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since circular punch such as hook, or hay-maker is not general used in the WC system, How to establish and remain arm contact by using the WC sticky hand when your opponent throw a hook punch at you?



There is hook punch in biu tze form and lifting punch ( uppercut) in chum kui but you are correct, there is no hay maker.


----------



## Danny T

yak sao said:


> There is hook punch in biu tze form and lifting punch ( uppercut) in chum kui but you are correct, there is no hay maker.


Yeah...well in the wing chun I have learned there are several circular movement strikes that could be called hooks. The thing is for the most part the range where wc is most effective is in close therefore elbows are usually a better choice than hook punches. Our 'hooks' are predominately body strikes vs head.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> Yeah...well in the wing chun I have learned there are several circular movement strikes that could be called hooks. The thing is for the most part the range where wc is most effective is in close therefore elbows are usually a better choice than hook punches. Our 'hooks' are predominately body strikes vs head.


Hook punch or hay-maker can cover wider range than elbow can.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Hook punch or hay-maker can cover wider range than elbow can.


Okay and as Yak Sao has already stated; "... you are correct, there is no hay maker" (in wc).


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Hook punch or hay-maker can cover wider range than elbow can.



Consider though that wing Chun fights at a range that is inside the arc of a hay maker. And if we are at a longer range, like at the onset of the fight or having been knocked back away from our preferred range of fighting,  we're not going to close the distance with a round technique, we would prefer to take a more direct approach with straight punches and kicks saving the round attacks for close in.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since circular punch such as hook, or hay-maker is not general used in the WC system, How to establish and remain arm contact by using the WC sticky hand when your opponent throw a hook punch at you?



 I can only speak for the WC Leung Jan passed to Lo Kwai. As others have noted circular techniques exist across a wide range of WC styles. 

Sticky hand is not for fighting per se. The goal of Chi Sao for us is to learn to react to an opponents energy with out thinking. In other words to build reflexes, If I am pushed or grabbed or I intercepts an incoming punch you do not have time to think what is this attack and how do I respond. You just respond. Chi Sao is used to remove thinking from the equation.
You don't try to remain in arm contact. The goal of forward intent is to hit. If I am not obstructed I hit. Chi sao teaches how to clear a path to hit if your path is obstructed.

There are no blocks in wing chun. Chi sao will also teach you how to cover your exposed areas. part of that is learning movement how to move and where to move. One reason you move to the outside, side body, instead of up the middle is to use the opponents body to help block hooking movement from one side. The best way to stop a punch is not to be there. that is why footwork is so important. That is why people in the videos I posted to start the thread have so many problems. Non of them are using WC footwork. Triangle step,circle step, shifting step.sinking step etc  and shifting are designed to help you change your angle  and points of contact as well as change your head position. 

Of course no matter what you do sometimes you get hit. Some one that spends time training their art be it boxing or what ever will get in their stuff. The key to getting hit is to be in a position where you don't absorb the full power of the strike which gets back to movement and position and covering or obstructing the  open space.

This is our WC others may differ.


----------



## yak sao

hunschuld said:


> I can only speak for the WC Leung Jan passed to Lo Kwai. As others have noted circular techniques exist across a wide range of WC styles.
> 
> Sticky hand is not for fighting per se. The goal of Chi Sao for us is to learn to react to an opponents energy with out thinking. In other words to build reflexes, If I am pushed or grabbed or I intercepts an incoming punch you do not have time to think what is this attack and how do I respond. You just respond. Chi Sao is used to remove thinking from the equation.
> You don't try to remain in arm contact. The goal of forward intent is to hit. If I am not obstructed I hit. Chi sao teaches how to clear a path to hit if your path is obstructed.
> 
> There are no blocks in wing chun. Chi sao will also teach you how to cover your exposed areas. part of that is learning movement how to move and where to move. One reason you move to the outside, side body, instead of up the middle is to use the opponents body to help block hooking movement from one side. The best way to stop a punch is not to be there. that is why footwork is so important. That is why people in the videos I posted to start the thread have so many problems. Non of them are using WC footwork. Triangle step,circle step, shifting step.sinking step etc  and shifting are designed to help you change your angle  and points of contact as well as change your head position.
> 
> Of course no matter what you do sometimes you get hit. Some one that spends time training their art be it boxing or what ever will get in their stuff. The key to getting hit is to be in a position where you don't absorb the full power of the strike which gets back to movement and position and covering or obstructing the  open space.
> 
> This is our WC others may differ.



What he said


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Sticky hand is not for fighting per se.


My question is can WC sticky hand training be able to help to handle the circular punch. Do WC guys use a different training to deal with this kind of punches? What training will that be?


----------



## Danny T

In my wing chun training; yes we do. We do so in other drills but not withing the chi sao platform. Chi Sao is but one (1) drilling platform there is far more to wing chun than chi sao.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My question is can WC sticky hand training be able to help to handle the circular punch. Do WC guys use a different training to deal with this kind of punches? What training will that be?


 San sik


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> There are no blocks in wing chun. Chi sao will also teach you how to *cover* your exposed areas



Exactly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> San sik


When Googling San sik, I find this clip that I like it very much. 






I like this kind of fast training.


----------



## Danny T

While there are pros to this type of repetition exercising there many cons a well. No sense of distancing, timing, pressure. 2 Person drills help but one also needs to work against another who is being non telegraphic and unpredictable as well as using pressure and speed.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Triangle step,circle step, shifting step.sinking step etc  and shifting are designed to help you change your angle  and points of contact as well as change your head position.



I am familiar with Triangle step and circle step, but what in the world is a "shifting step"? are you referring to Juen Ma (pivoting)?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> I am familiar with Triangle step and circle step, but what in the world is a "shifting step"? are you referring to Juen Ma (pivoting)?


 To be clear what I call shifting you call pivoting. Like beginning of Chum Kui  double lan let right left. Shifting step is you are shifting as you move most common use is in place of an arrow step


----------



## EdwardA

In regard to the idea of inside and outside...or small and large circles, that's exactly why in my third year of training I started in Tai Chi.  Both the 108 movement form (for stucture and posture), but I concentrated a considerable time to Tai Chi push hands.  A very natural combination....it's almost like WC was made to add to TC.   Haha, ya'think?

I t wasn't real long before I found you could combine Chi Sao and the many forms Tai Chi's push hands.

For me it became a very encompassing form of sticky hands that made sense.


----------



## EdwardA

In regards to the OP's subject....I agree that instruction about attitude, ego and the idea of working as partners seems to be missing from many schools.  When my sifu made me start taking control of classes I specified and worked with each individual to make sure they had to overcome their ego. You can push your partner, helping them to improve...at their pace, but trying to prove yourself at their expense helps no one.

Eventually, I gave up on schools completely for that reason.  It seemed more common as time went by.  Instead, I found individuals I could train that were willing to do it so we helped each other improve.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> you could combine Chi Sao and the many forms Tai Chi's push hands.


WC sticky hand + Taiji push hand

will make the training more complete. But there are still something missing such as:

- arm tucking, and
- body squeeze.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> To be clear what I call shifting you call pivoting. Like beginning of Chum Kui  double lan let right left. Shifting step is you are shifting as you move most common use is in place of an arrow step



by "Shifting step" are you referring to shifting while slightly advancing one foot as in the stepping at the start of this clip? or the stepping which starts at 0:12 into the clip?


----------



## hunschuld

Both are versions. There are a couple more variations.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Both are versions. There are a couple more variations.


What's the core version of "Shifting step" which the different versions stem from?


----------



## hunschuld

No core version other than a concept and how you execute the concept.

When closing there is a universal problem. You do not want to present your head as a fixed target. Boxing uses weaving,bobbing etc. . Moving your head can present balance issues that boxers don't have to worry about since there are no take downs in boxing. So the concept is to use your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense and to keep your head changing position. Shifting steps are useful when you are on the inside, by that I mean you are inside your opponents arms. Shifting is also a way to generate power


----------



## Poppity

Sounds similar to our crane footwork. Most videos I see of wing chun contain the footwork of the rooted snake, rarely the agile crane.


----------



## EdwardA

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC sticky hand + Taiji push hand
> 
> will make the training more complete. But there are still something missing such as...



The Asian that trained me from 1968 to 1976 refused to speak any Chinese.  In the same years I practiced Tai Chi with a guy that learned it in Hawaii.  He never told me much, except that it was from the Dung family...maybe Tsung.

After that I worked with a few people here and there and never picked up the Chinese.  Even now, decades later....I've read and see the names, but don't remember.  My bad.

I'm not sure if anything is complete, but I was taught how to move even more so than movements. I've fought some in the air against big guys (climbed them like tree), and on the ground too.... fought in between the results of both.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> The Asian that trained me from 1968 to 1976 refused to speak any Chinese.  In the same years I practiced Tai Chi with a guy that learned it in Hawaii.  He never told me much, except that it was from the Dung family...maybe Tsung.
> 
> After that I worked with a few people here and there and never picked up the Chinese.  Even now, decades later....I've read and see the names, but don't remember.  My bad.


Here is my question, if you have trained both WC and Taiji, when you train

- WC sticky hand, do you try to ignore your Taiji push hand knowledge?
- Taiji push hand, do you try to ignore your WC sticky hand knowledge?

Will you keep your knowledge separate, or will you try to integrate both. If you have integrated both, what will you call that training?

I'm sure you are not the only person on earth who has cross trained both WC and Taiji. Why have we not heard anybody who shared his integration experience so far?


----------



## EdwardA

Completely integrated...as far as a sticky hands routine, or in combat.

I haven't run across anybody else, but I stick pretty private now days.

I don't call it anything..."sticky hands".

I decided to start posting some here to see if anybody else has gone in a similar direction.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> Completely integrated...


Please share more of your integration experience.

1, Single arm training:

WC single sticky hand - Your right arm contact your opponent's left arm.
Taiji single push hand - Your right hand contact your opponent's right wrist. 

Double arms training:

WC double sticky hands - Your right arm contact your opponent's left arm. Your left arm contact your opponent's right arm.
Taiji double push hands - Your leading hand contact your opponent's leading arm wrist. Your back hand contact your opponent's leading arm elbow.


----------



## yak sao

EdwardA said:


> Completely integrated...as far as a sticky hands routine, or in combat.
> 
> I haven't run across anybody else, but I stick pretty private now days.
> 
> I don't call it anything..."sticky hands".
> 
> I decided to start posting some here to see if anybody else has gone in a similar direction.



I've learned WT from a couple of different Sifu, one of whom was from Hong Kong.
He taught us the Tai Chi form and pushing hands to help our WT skills.

I can honestly say it helped my WT but to say that I am proficient in Tai Chi I would be lying to myself and to you.


----------



## EdwardA

That's quite a question, and I'll try to explain, even tho I'm using my phone.

I learned the 108 moves of the Tsung style and the push hands, but my primary instuctor insisted that I didn't learn moves.  He insisted that I practiced spontaneous movement in structure that he could correct when he saw something wrong.  Instead of practicing moves, he made me imagin 3-4 opponents and do my sets that way.  When it came to sticky hands I had to teach the students what I was doing.  His training of me for some unknown reason was completely customized for me...never charged me a dime, when everybody else paid.

I only have ideas of why but don't know why.  We did not part in good company.  What he taught me was strictly for the street and to hurt people badly with as little effort as possible.  I integrated Tai Chi into it so that I could cotrol opponents without maiming them.  He didn't like that one bit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

How to integrate these?

WC single sticky hand - your right arm touch your opponent's left arm.







Taiji single push hand - your right arm touch your opponent's right arm.


----------



## EdwardA

The only time I did single hand was so the students could learn that and go on to double hand.

For myself, I practiced being amadextrius.  I believd in that from the beginning.  Circular or straight line, I could do the same with either or both.  I even practiced writing with both hands like a mirror...at the same time, of course.  It was natural for me.

Referring to the last photo, I don't attack, but move inside the attacker at the same time, again like a mirror inside a mirror.  Defense and offense in the same movement.

Blocking and sticking at the same time.  Receptivity, speed.  That's my advantage.

I talked to my istuctor about and I named it the magnetic mirror.  He didnt say much, but seemed encouraging.  I taught myself that.

Added: if you are asking about more detail of controlling someone's arms... moving inside or outside for control, yes with the wrist and forearm, but my perferrence is to control their movement, in that circumstance, is at, or near the elbow.


----------



## EdwardA

The way I was taught, there is no form, only stucture.  You don't learn vantage points for controlling movement, you have to learn how vantage points work so you can apply them to any movement...as it occurs.

So the sticky hands I developed from WC and TC is formless, but retains the posture, balance and underlying technical structure of the original systems.

There are no moves, only undertermined movement.

I can't tell anyone that what I did was the right way or the wrong way.  That's the direction I went and was very effective on the steet, even people that were trained.  The gang-bangers were the most dangerous because one guy would stay back until he could sneak in behind you.... wouldn't even know he was with the other two.  They planned it that way.  Organized.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> So the sticky hands I developed from WC and TC is formless,


This is the Taiji PH that I'm talking about. It's predefined pattern.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Both are versions. There are a couple more variations.



How many variations/versions of shifting steps are there?

Would you say anytime you torque to step is considered "shifting step"?



hunschuld said:


> So the concept is to use your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense and to keep your head changing position.



In both these versions the head still appears to remain on the center line instead of changing your angle of attack and defense, so not too sure what you mean here?



hunschuld said:


> Shifting steps are useful when you are on the inside, by that I mean you are inside your opponents arms. Shifting is also a way to generate power



Would you say "shifting steps" applications are best used when occupying the 3 gates inside the opponent’s arms?


----------



## EdwardA

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the Taiji PH that I'm talking about. It's predefined pattern.



I would have to watch this carefully several times to offer an opinion.  Being out in a rural area means I'm out of data for now.  I reedited and uploaded a coulpe videos to youtube a week ago....now im low on data.  The vids are just heavy bag routines tho. 

 I live a ways North of Spring Branch off 281, by the way.

How long is the video.


----------



## wckf92

I think @EdwardA  and @Kung Fu Wang  should start their own thread for the topic they are discussing. Sounds interesting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

EdwardA said:


> How long is the video.


1 minute and 14 seconds. It's a small clip.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> I think @EdwardA  and @Kung Fu Wang  should start their own thread for the topic they are discussing. Sounds interesting.


I did stated a new thread. But no WC guys share their opinion there so far. Does this kind of integration discussion not interest to any WC guys?


----------



## EdwardA

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I did stated a new thread. But no WC guys share their opinion there so far. Does this kind of integration discussion not interest to any WC guys?



I think most believe in very strong tradition and I agree for most practitioners.  In '60s to the early '70s people were creating systems like JKD and Kenpo, but that's a hard way to go especially if you intend on convincing people of the validity.  Personally, I never cared whether anybody else was interested in what I was doing, but found some that were after they spent a little time seeing what I was doing.  I never tried to be official about it or tell many.

I'll look for your other thread, but you might put its link here.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> How many variations/versions of shifting steps are there?
> 
> Would you say anytime you torque to step is considered "shifting step"?
> 
> 
> 
> In both these versions the head still appears to remain on the center line instead of changing your angle of attack and defense, so not too sure what you mean here?
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say "shifting steps" applications are best used when occupying the 3 gates inside the opponent’s arms?


 You are getting past my ability to write an explanation. Entering much easier to show you than describe territory. The shift happens when you foot lands  so front foot lands/shifts back foot shifts or also lands/ shifts. 

As for the head in the video. There are variations some things harder to learn/do than others/.

As for the 3 inside gates that is where I personally use them. You can use them anywhere.


----------



## hunschuld

Snark said:


> Sounds similar to our crane footwork. Most videos I see of wing chun contain the footwork of the rooted snake, rarely the agile crane.


 Our footwork Kuit. is Footwork must be light and fast. Snake footwork takes over after close contact is achieved. Crane footwork for long and mid range. Dog shakes water ging for long/mid range Snake strikes ging for close range


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> As for the 3 inside gates that is where I personally use them.



Do you also have a personal preference for using the version of "Shifting step" which starts at 0:12 into this clip on the 3 inside gates as well? or do you prefer to use this in the 6 gates outside the opponent’s arms?


----------



## hunschuld

For me its a matter of speed. I can not do shifting steeps as fast as I can do other footwork so I prefer footwork I can move faster with from distance/outside. For me shifting steps come in to play when the other person can not easily break distance. Also I  always sink at the moment of contact and try to keep my hips below those of my opponent. So different footwork comes into play.  Things  depend upon your physical abilities


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> For me shifting steps come in to play when the other person can not easily break distance.


 
Not sure what you meant by this?? Did you mean when the other person's footwork is quick enough to get out of your range such as the mobility of a good western boxer who prefers to fight at range on the outside?

Do you have a preference for a specific version of the shifting step? if so which version?

I have a preference for the version of the "Shifting step" at the start of the clip, where your shift while slightly advancing one foot. I feel the version where you commit fully by changing lead legs at 0:12 into the clip takes too much time to recover your balance leaving you vulnerable in the process. and is the reason why in western boxing why you don't switch lead legs in front of the opponent, as he can catch you with a right cross in between your step. based on your experiences, what's your opinion on this?


----------



## Oily Dragon

geezer said:


> Not sure what you mean by "break". Do you mean to "break free" and try to hit? To break structure (yours or theirs)?  ...or something else?



Yes.


----------



## hunschuld

Sorry for the delay



Jens said:


> Not sure what you meant by this?? Did you mean when the other person's footwork is quick enough to get out of your range such as the mobility of a good western boxer who prefers to fight at range on the outside?
> 
> ( I am referring to distance. If I get close and am able to still connect even if they move back. Also tend to use it as opponent closes distance so their energy is closing in. I also sink while close. I have always assumed the other person is faster,stronger and knows more so I focused my training on where am I vulnerable and there for automatically attempt to close those avenues if that makes sense. For example I never block I cover areas.I punch with the left the right fills in the area where a hook or a counter straight punch could come.)
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a preference for a specific version of the shifting step? if so which version?
> 
> ( one thing I found very effect is when faced nose to nose is a chum kui step on an angle toward the outside of the opponents opposite leg and then the rear leg uses a shifting step to attack through the opponents center and it  becomes the front leg. So the step you prefer going a bit more forward.Another I prefer is the shifting front steep. The opposite of the footwork at .12)
> 
> I have a preference for the version of the "Shifting step" at the start of the clip, where your shift while slightly advancing one foot. I feel the version where you commit fully by changing lead legs at 0:12 into the clip takes too much time to recover your balance leaving you vulnerable in the process. and is the reason why in western boxing why you don't switch lead legs in front of the opponent, as he can catch you with a right cross in between your step. based on your experiences, what's your opinion on this?



( I agree with you > When using the footwear at .12  the other person should be moving away and  my front leg will become a a low front round kick or a sweep/trip)


----------



## Svarog

Chi sao had perfect sense while Wing Chun was used on the Red Boats. Narrow passages and extremely confined space simply prevented any kind of footwork besides front or back step and executing anything besides straight line attacks, for empty hands and weapons as well. In those conditions establishing and keeping contact was easy and being good in chi sao and using it especially in weapon fighting was a crucial advantage. Outside the confined space setting chi sao is pretty much useless. One other thing is interesting regarding chi sao. Rolling hands platform was invented by Yuen Kai San , all older styles have different platforms and don't use rolling hands. Yip Man obviously knew more than one Chi Sao platform but he taught only one, fairly new  in his time. Why he did that will remain a mystery but it is interesting .


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Svarog said:


> Yip Man obviously knew more than one Chi Sao platform but he taught only one, fairly new  in his time. Why he did that will remain a mystery but it is interesting .


What I don't understand is, Yip Man's single sticky hand only train your right arm deal with your opponent's left arm.







The training that your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm is missing.

Why?


----------



## hunschuld

KFW, Yip Man and other styles have extensive cross hand chi sau


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> KFW, Yip Man and other styles have extensive cross hand chi sau


Do you have any video to share?

If WC also trains right arm deal with right arm, the WC Bong Shou will not make sense. Your left hand can reach to your opponent right elbow joint.

In other words, the WC Bong Shou can only work in your right arm deal with your opponent's left arm. The WC Bong Shou won't work when your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm.


----------



## Callen

Svarog said:


> In those conditions establishing and keeping contact was easy and being good in chi sao and using it especially in weapon fighting was a crucial advantage. Outside the confined space setting chi sao is pretty much useless.


IMO, in the context of understanding Wing Chun, it's never useless.

Don't think of it as a compartmentalized method of fighting. It has always been utilized as a training tool.  A single tool, out of many, that aids in the development of certain core attributes within the system. Obviously the attributes that Chi Sau reinforces can vary slightly depending on lineage, but that might be a discussion for another thread.


----------



## wckf92

Svarog said:


> Yip Man obviously knew more than one Chi Sao platform but he taught only one



Can you elaborate on this part?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The training that your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm is missing.



? 
No, it isn't missing. Perhaps you were never taught it, but it is definitely not missing.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The WC Bong Shou won't work when your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm.



I have to disagree.


----------



## Svarog

wckf92 said:


> Can you elaborate on this part?


Yip Man was a student of Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chan So and today descendants of both use different chi sao platforms from Yip Man's. You can check Chan Yiu Min's style , Yiu Min was Chan Wah Shun's son and Ng Chan So taught Yiu family so you can also check Yiu Choi\Yiu Kay style. Non of these styles have rolling hands platform, and Yip Man had to know their way of Chi Sao. The only style that has rolling hands almost identical to Yip Man's style is Yuen Kai San's style, on the other hand style taught by Yuen Kai San's brother Yuen Chai Wan doesn't have rolling hands and he didn't teach it,  not in China nor in Vietnam . Yip Man could learn rolling hands only from Yuen Kai San or ( but this is  extremely remote possibility) they  invented it together.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The training that your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm is missing.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> If WC also trains right arm deal with right arm, the WC Bong Shou will not make sense. Your left hand can reach to your opponent right elbow joint.
> 
> In other words, the WC Bong Shou can only work in your right arm deal with your opponent's left arm. The WC Bong Shou won't work when your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm.


Uhh... No, I disagree, you are incorrect with this. Your lack of wing chun knowledge creates incorrect opinions.


----------



## hunschuld

Svarog said:


> Yip Man was a student of Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chan So and today descendants of both use different chi sao platforms from Yip Man's. You can check Chan Yiu Min's style , Yiu Min was Chan Wah Shun's son and Ng Chan So taught Yiu family so you can also check Yiu Choi\Yiu Kay style. Non of these styles have rolling hands platform, and Yip Man had to know their way of Chi Sao. The only style that has rolling hands almost identical to Yip Man's style is Yuen Kai San's style, on the other hand style taught by Yuen Kai San's brother Yuen Chai Wan doesn't have rolling hands and he didn't teach it,  not in China nor in Vietnam . Yip Man could learn rolling hands only from Yuen Kai San or ( but this is  extremely remote possibility) they  invented it together.


 

Not really all true. You will see the Yip man rolling performed in the Yui Choi Chum Kui form 



 at 34 seconds in or so.

Yui Choi ,YKS and YM all trained at Ng Chan So school along with almost every other wing chun person in Fatshan at that time Jui Chow and Jui Wan were there to for example. It was a hang out. The rolling was a development of working out and some took it in one direction and some another. Chi Sao itself existed for many years prior, Families just developed their own versions based on their own development intent.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any video to share?
> 
> If WC also trains right arm deal with right arm, the WC Bong Shou will not make sense. Your left hand can reach to your opponent right elbow joint.
> 
> In other words, the WC Bong Shou can only work in your right arm deal with your opponent's left arm. The WC Bong Shou won't work when your right arm deal with your opponent's right arm.




 I don't think I understand the point you are making. Does wing chun operate in a square body position from your point of view? Bong sao has many uses and energies. There are many examples of Right bong against left arm. The dummy form is full of them.

The picture seems to be an example of Peng energy. Wing Chun does not do this and does not use energy in this way. Bong would receive and redirect but not yield. Bong is very temporary. It leave the body vulnerable to all sorts of nasty things that is why Chum Kui teaches different bongs but the elbow always drops.

I have all sorts of videos however almost everything I have is on VHS so I can't share. I do have some things burned on CD but I have not reviewed them in years. I will try to look through them time allowing.


----------



## wckf92

One thing to remember about Bong sau...the B in Bong means "ballistic" haha. In my upbringing, using Bong sau is quite energetic, even explosive at times. Like @hunschuld said...there are many ways to interpret/use Bong.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> I don't think I understand the point you are making. Does wing chun operate in a square body position from your point of view? Bong sao has many uses and energies. There are many examples of Right bong against left arm. The dummy form is full of them.


What if your opponent is not in square body? Your opponent may not be a WC guy.

I'm talking about when you right arm touch on your opponent's right arm, you cannot use Bong Shou.

Can Bruce's opponent uses WC Bong Shou to deal with Bruce's punch in this video? Of course he can. But how can he prevent Bruce from using Bruce's left hand to push up on his right elbow joint when he uses Bong Shou?

In other words, can WC Bong Shou be a solution here?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If there is a right arm deal with right arm WC sticky hand training video, I would like to see it. If Bong Shou is used in that situation, I also world like to see it.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent is not in square body? Your opponent may not be a WC guy.
> 
> I'm talking about when you right arm touch on your opponent's right arm, you cannot use Bong Shou.
> 
> Can Bruce's opponent uses WC Bong Shou to deal with Bruce's punch in this video? Of course he can. But how can he prevent Bruce from using Bruce's left hand to push up on his right elbow joint when he uses Bong Shou?
> 
> In other words, can WC Bong Shou be a solution here?



 This would not be a typical bong sau situation.For simplicity bong is either aggressive, Ballistic as wckf93 stated or the opponents energy creates it. Bruce is pak ing the elbow down clearing the punch as a movie shot. I just entered in Youtube cross handed chi sau and this came up at the very top. It should answer some questions.


----------



## Callen

wckf92 said:


> Bong sau is quite energetic, even explosive at times


We call this explosive use you mention, Pau Bong. Translated as "throwing" or "tossing" Bong.

Bong is an interesting term, like many of the shapes in Wing Chun, a lot can get lost in translation. When pronounced with a low tone, in Cantonese, Bong means "scaffold". However, many people pronounce it incorrectly resulting in a completely different word. When Bong is pronounced with a higher tone, it means to "tie the hand". Each of these meanings has a different Chinese character, that is why the Bong found in Wing Chun is the "scaffold" character.

This says quite a bit about the intended transitory purpose of Bong within the system.


----------



## hunschuld

Since you like Bruce. Here is a Vid of Bruce doing cross arm chi sao from the 60's


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Since you like Bruce. Here is a Vid of Bruce doing cross arm chi sao from the 60's


Thanks for showing these clips. This is the 1st time that I have seen WC right arm contact right arm training clip. IMO, this training is much closer to the real fight.

IMO, if WC sticky hand also include right arm deal with right arm, this kind of training can be the most valuable element that CMA can offer to the world.

The nice thing about the right arm deal with right arm sticky hand is you can train almost all throwing skill if you want to.






To guide your opponent's one arm to jam his other arm is an excellent strategy.


----------



## Callen

hunschuld said:


> Since you like Bruce. Here is a Vid of Bruce doing cross arm chi sao from the 60's


Im late to the party, as usual... what portion of this video is being considered "Cross Arm Chi Sau"?


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Sorry for the delay



All good brother! lol thanks for the reply! I enjoy reading your posts.



hunschuld said:


> I am referring to distance. If I get close and am able to still connect even if they move back. Also tend to use it as opponent closes distance so their energy is closing in.



Okay, If I understand you correctly, you only use shifting steps when: 1. you are already within bridge contact distance with the opponent to maintain your bridge contact distance, or 2. to close in just as the opponent is about to close into bridge contact distance with you?

_


hunschuld said:



			( one thing I found very effective is when faced nose to nose is a chum kui step on an angle toward the outside of the opponents opposite leg and then the rear leg uses a shifting step to attack through the opponents center and it becomes the front leg. So the step you prefer going a bit more forward.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean stepping 45 degrees diagonally forward on one side of a V with the point of the V facing you. - left or right with the same front foot as the side you step to. the right foot is forward if you step right, left if you step left. and then the rear leg uses a shifting step to attack through the opponents center and it becomes the front leg as you re-face the opponent from his flank?

or more of a lateral side step across to the outside of the opponent's lead leg and then the rear leg uses a shifting step to attack through the opponents center and it becomes the front leg as you re-face the opponent from his flank? 




hunschuld said:



			Another I prefer is the shifting front step. The opposite of the footwork at .12)
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean the shifting front step starting at .12 into the clip?
_


hunschuld said:


> (I agree with you > When using the footwork at .12 the other person should be moving away and my front leg will become a a low front round kick or a sweep/trip)



This makes total sense! I never really thought of this as part of the "shifting steps" category until you brought it up here. but I guess a "shifting step" can be classified as anytime you are shifting while stepping from one place to another?


----------



## Svarog

hunschuld said:


> Not really all true. You will see the Yip man rolling performed in the Yui Choi Chum Kui form
> 
> 
> 
> at 34 seconds in or so.
> 
> Yui Choi ,YKS and YM all trained at Ng Chan So school along with almost every other wing chun person in Fatshan at that time Jui Chow and Jui Wan were there to for example. It was a hang out. The rolling was a development of working out and some took it in one direction and some another. Chi Sao itself existed for many years prior, Families just developed their own versions based on their own development intent.



They have movements in the form but they don't use it in chi sao, not originally anyway, I have seen many styles "Yipmanized" over the last few decades due to Yip Man's popularity. What those movements are used for I can't say because I really don't know anything about that style besides what can see on internet videos, perhaps someone who trained that style could give a proper explanation. Here are few first videos appeared in search.  
















Stories about "three heroes of Wing Chun" should be taken carefully because they came mainly from Yip Man's students and were later accepted by some other people in Foshan but people from Yuen Kai San lineage have different view of things, one of the Yuen Kai San's students said in an interview that Yip Man was Yuen Kai San's student, if I manage to find the video I will post it because I can't read Chinese and interview is in Chinese. Other sources from Yuen Kai San lineage state that Yuen and Yip families were friends but  not Yuen Kai San and Yip Man , actually it was the opposite . Having in mind Chinese culture and especially Kung Fu culture , truth is usually extremely well hidden behind folk tales, hype and outright lies and takes a lot of patience and a lot of serious research  to get small pieces of true events.


----------



## Highlander

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if your opponent is not in square body? Your opponent may not be a WC guy.
> 
> I'm talking about when you right arm touch on your opponent's right arm, you cannot use Bong Shou.
> 
> Can Bruce's opponent uses WC Bong Shou to deal with Bruce's punch in this video? Of course he can. But how can he prevent Bruce from using Bruce's left hand to push up on his right elbow joint when he uses Bong Shou?
> 
> In other words, can WC Bong Shou be a solution here?



Honestly none of this conversation really matters because don chi (single are chi sao) is only a training exercise. Yes the arm not in use can grab/hit or any number of things. But that's not the drill. Just like in chi sao its considered back form to pull a gun


----------



## Highlander

Svarog said:


> They have movements in the form but they don't use it in chi sao, not originally anyway, I have seen many styles "Yipmanized" over the last few decades due to Yip Man's popularity. What those movements are used for I can't say because I really don't know anything about that style besides what can see on internet videos, perhaps someone who trained that style could give a proper explanation. Here are few first videos appeared in search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories about "three heroes of Wing Chun" should be taken carefully because they came mainly from Yip Man's students and were later accepted by some other people in Foshan but people from Yuen Kai San lineage have different view of things, one of the Yuen Kai San's students said in an interview that Yip Man was Yuen Kai San's student, if I manage to find the video I will post it because I can't read Chinese and interview is in Chinese. Other sources from Yuen Kai San lineage state that Yuen and Yip families were friends but  not Yuen Kai San and Yip Man , actually it was the opposite . Having in mind Chinese culture and especially Kung Fu culture , truth is usually extremely well hidden behind folk tales, hype and outright lies and takes a lot of patience and a lot of serious research  to get small pieces of true events.


I dont really know much about the other styles of WT before Yip Man. But in all this videos I very much see rolling hands.


----------



## wckf92

The excessively "side to side" rolling has always puzzled me when you filter it through the mainly direct nature of wing chun. To me it almost has a tai chi look to it at times. The only chi sau platform I have direct knowledge of is the forward-intention version (Yip Man version?) of the drill. So, it is interesting to see how other families and lineages do it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Did Ip Men teach "cross arm sticky hand"? I have met 3 of Ip Men's students. As far as I know, none of them had learned from Ip Men for this kind of training.

Your thought?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Did Ip Men teach "cross arm sticky hand"?



Yup. He must have, because cross arm sticking hand is alive and well in 2020... Do you recall who the three people were? I.e. Names, etc?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Yup. He must have, because cross arm sticking hand is alive and well in 2020... Do you recall who the three people were? I.e. Names, etc?


Do you have any Ip Men video on "cross arm sticky hand" training?

The Law's brothers and Jimmy Kao. I met all 3 of them when I was a UT Austin student back in 1973. They were UT Austin students too. I learned WC 3 forms and single sticky hand, double sticky hand from Jimmy Kao (who lives in Houston today).

Here is one of my old WC clips.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Mirror stance -  Your normal WC sticky hand will work here. When your opponent punches you with his leading arm, your leading arm Bong Shou will work here.






Uniform stance - Your cross arm WC sticky hand will work better here. When your opponent punches you with his leading arm, your leading arm Bong Shou will not work here.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Mirror stance -  Your normal WC sticky hand will work here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uniform stance - Your cross arm WC sticky hand will work better here.


I’m not going to try and tell a bunch of Wing Chun people how to improve their chi sao or their Wing Chun.  I’m no authority on the topic, after all.

But I will suggest that if two people face off to have a combative competition, and one of them simply starts walking a circle around the other, when he is too far away to even make physical contact if he even tried, which he has not, then that person has misunderstood his training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> But I will suggest that if two people face off to have a combative competition, and one of them simply starts walking a circle around the other, when he is too far away to even make physical contact if he even tried, which he has not, then that person has misunderstood his training.


IMO, foot sweep is the best initial attack. When your opponent circle walks around you, he will cross his legs or have wide stance.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, foot sweep is the best initial attack. When your opponent circle walks around you, he will cross his legs.


That might work.  But that’s beside the point I was making.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> That might work.  But that’s beside the point I was making.


Agree that one should not try to establish arm contact in kicking range.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree that one should not try to establish arm contact in kicking range.


That wasn’t my point.

My point was actually kind of a tangent, just based on my observation of the video clip you included.  It just struck me that the fellow was pointlessly walking around the other guy, I assume he had trained bagua and was doing his circle walk.  Pointlessly.  Accomplishing nothing.  Doing something from his training, but without meaningful context that is necessary for it to be useful.

That kind of stuck out in my mind.  I think a whole lot of people just don’t understand why some aspects of training and the curriculum exist.  Nothing exists in a vacuum.  It all depends on the context of the situation, what the other guy is doing, what else is in your vicinity.  

The thread on the charge punch fits this as well.  Some comments made by some people in that discussion made it clear to me that they do not understand the charge punch.  Which is fine by me.  But the charge punch would be a dangerous thing to try as a way to bridge distance, to just run into someone starting at a distance well out of range, with no hope of making contact until the third or fourth punch.  That would be a stupid thing to do.  But some comments in that discussion made it clear to me that some people think that is what it would be for.  

I think that mindset bleeds into discussions on chi sao as well.  Not acknowledging the context, the training paradigm, that chi sao is not fighting, but rather is training, and has numerous variants designed to build different traits and skills. So I think my observation is still on topic, here in this thread.


----------



## APL76

Svarog said:


> They have movements in the form but they don't use it in chi sao, not originally anyway, I have seen many styles "Yipmanized" over the last few decades due to Yip Man's popularity. What those movements are used for I can't say because I really don't know anything about that style besides what can see on internet videos, perhaps someone who trained that style could give a proper explanation. Here are few first videos appeared in search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stories about "three heroes of Wing Chun" should be taken carefully because they came mainly from Yip Man's students and were later accepted by some other people in Foshan but people from Yuen Kai San lineage have different view of things, one of the Yuen Kai San's students said in an interview that Yip Man was Yuen Kai San's student, if I manage to find the video I will post it because I can't read Chinese and interview is in Chinese. Other sources from Yuen Kai San lineage state that Yuen and Yip families were friends but  not Yuen Kai San and Yip Man , actually it was the opposite . Having in mind Chinese culture and especially Kung Fu culture , truth is usually extremely well hidden behind folk tales, hype and outright lies and takes a lot of patience and a lot of serious research  to get small pieces of true events.



Yeah, that's how we have always seen it, Yip Man's father and Yuen Kay San's father it seems were on good terms, however it seems Yuen Kay San and Yip Man, perhaps not so much. Yuen Kay San taught Yip Man sticky hands reluctantly under pressure from both their fathers.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any Ip Men video on "cross arm sticky hand" training?
> 
> I doubt there are any videos of Yip Man doing WC at all. You have the videos he did shortly before his death and there are rumors Yip Bo Ching had monies of Yip  performing every form. What happened to Yip Bo Ching's materials after his death is unknown. Rumor again is he had stacks of notebooks and movies. There are stories about people trying to get access to his house to get their hands on them after his death  but who knows.The cross arm was part of YBC's WC I was shown.
> As for who Yip taught cross hand to again these things are up in the air. He had private students who paid $$$ and they got stuff others didn't. He taught different things to so many that there is no way of knowing. My first teacher taught me in 1983. He had been a student of both Jui Wan and Moy Yat. I don't know which taught him the cross arm stuff or both.
> The video of Bruce is from the mid 60's. Bruce trained with WSL and spent a lot of time with William Cheung and Hawkings Chueng The other video are people that do William Cheungs WC. So Bruce picked it up in the late 50's in Hong Kong before he came to the states so it  came from those in his training circle and WSL was the clear senior. No way to know if he learned it from Yip Man or someone Yip had taught.
> 
> Cross arm is also part of the WC passed on by Lo Kwai that means is existed in the 1870's.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree that one should not try to establish arm contact in kicking range.


Very nice leg sweep. Is that you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Very nice leg sweep. Is that you?


That's not me.

He had good timing. When his opponent stepped in right leg, he swept his opponent's left leg. When his opponent bent forward and tried to regain balance, he tried to pull his opponent downward. IMO, it's a good technique to deal with circle walking.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> All good brother! lol thanks for the reply! I enjoy reading your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, If I understand you correctly, you only use shifting steps when: 1. you are already within bridge contact distance with the opponent to maintain your bridge contact distance, or 2. to close in just as the opponent is about to close into bridge contact distance with you?
> 
> _
> Do you mean stepping 45 degrees diagonally forward on one side of a V with the point of the V facing you. - left or right with the same front foot as the side you step to. the right foot is forward if you step right, left if you step left. and then the rear leg uses a shifting step to attack through the opponents center and it becomes the front leg as you re-face the opponent from his flank?
> 
> ( Yes, although in this case I am looking at as the opponent is facing me and I am going 45 into the inside of his lead arm as opposed to going to the outside of the lead arm. That is preferable but harder to do for a slow old man against a trained person who will move with you.. So my right bui attacks the inside of his left lead my left hand punches to his face. To hit me with his right he has to cross his body  which will rob his right of some power. My left is also in the way of his right attacking my head and if  have my shoulder in position my chin is protected. If I strike his left arm hard enough it will also pull his right away from me robbing his right of some power. My back foot then moves up and shifts into him on an angle left lops his right in a perfect world while my right attacks  him on the side of his head, jaw or ear area either are good knockout area's.)
> 
> or more of a lateral side step across to the outside of the opponent's lead leg and then the rear leg uses a shifting step to attack through the opponents center and it becomes the front leg as you re-face the opponent from his flank?
> 
> ( Lateral side step is also good. same basic mechanics as above)
> 
> 
> Do you mean the shifting front step starting at .12 into the clip?
> 
> (No, the goal is to get up the opponents shirt so once the bridge is crossed I want to maintain the distance However stepping to avoid or create the angle is often better and faster than shifting. I must keep moving I don't want to create a static target and if he is powerful I don't want to stay in front so the front foot moves laterally and shifts into the opponent. the rear leg swings behind the front creating a new left forward stance for example. This also protects the rear leg from sweeps and take downs. This footwork is part of our dummy and pole form)
> _
> 
> 
> This makes total sense! I never really thought of this as part of the "shifting steps" category until you brought it up here. but I guess a "shifting step" can be classified as anytime you are shifting while stepping from one place to another?


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I am referring to distance. If I get close and am able to still connect even if they move back. Also tend to use it as opponent closes distance so their energy is closing in.



Do you mean: you only use shifting steps when: 1. you are already within bridge contact distance with the opponent to maintain your bridge contact distance, or 2. to close in just as the opponent is about to close into bridge contact distance with you?

Also in which section of your forms are the "Shifting steps" first introduced?

In Lo Kwai wck, do you have a cross over leg stance to apply circle steps (not referring to huen ma) and spinning footwork?




Wing chun people tend to used different terminologies to describe the same things, What do you consider to be "triangle steps"?


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> Also in which section of your forms are the "Shifting steps" first introduced?



If I understand correctly, I'd say the full expression of what he is talking about is from the knives (or pole, depending on the pattern).



Jens said:


> In Lo Kwai wck, do you have a cross over leg stance to apply circle steps (not referring to huen ma) and spinning footwork?



There is a cross over step in the wooden man form.
...

Great discussion Gents!


----------



## hunschuld

Crossover steps as in the photo are not something I endorse. They have never fit my body type and my physical abilities. I think they open you up for takedowns and throws and endanger your balance and are too slow. Where ever I would use the step other foot work does the same thing without the risks, however this is just me. I have taught them and I leave it to the individual to use them if they see fit.

You can use shifting steps anytime. My personal preference in contact or just before. We put footwork into 2 categories heavy and light. Heavy is used when in contact. In the video you posted we would classify the shifting step usage as heavy. They can be used light. When teaching I show both then show my personal preference and why. More athletic people can do all sorts of things effectively that I can't

Shifting steps are in the dummy and the weapon forms.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> We put footwork into 2 categories heavy and light. Heavy is used when in contact. In the video you posted we would classify the shifting step usage as heavy. They can be used light. When teaching I show both then show my personal preference and why.



By "heavy", I assume you mean the stance being more sunken and rooted, vs "light" which is more upright and mobile closer to natural walking strides?



hunschuld said:


> Shifting steps are in the dummy and the weapon forms.



Some view the stepping in the dummy set as "Triangle steps", while others view it as "Shifting steps". According to your understanding what's the difference between  "Shifting steps", "Triangle steps", and "Circle steps"?


----------



## hunschuld

I have to think how to describe these things. Circle steps are larger involving the movement of the leg. leg comes in and then semi circles out. Triangle ,if I am the top of the triangle I move along the side while facing the target. Shifting, the foot does in essence its own small circle without the whole leg movement the foot carves a small semi circle. 
Hope this makes sense.

yes you understand the heavy and light. When in contact I must sink when not in contact I must dart.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Circle steps are larger involving the movement of the leg. ...


Are you talking about some footwork like this?

- You have right foot forward.
- You step in your left foot.
- You move your right foot behind in a big circle.

This way you can move yourself completely to be outside of your opponent's attacking path.


----------



## hunschuld

No, The foot work you illustrated would be the facing footwork from the pole form or the swing step I described a few posts ago. when the left lands the foot shifts to face the opponent and the right swings in behind as you said it is used to get outside the attacking path but still keeping attacking distance.. It is a combination off Chum Kui footwork with pole footwork. It also appears in our dummy form .


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Triangle ,if I am the top of the triangle I move along the side while facing the target.








By "I am the top of the triangle" I assume you meant you are on the apex of the triangle, then take a 45 degree diagonally backward triangle step along either side of the triangle.

Do you also have a forward version of triangle step where you start at the base, then take a 45 degree diagonally forward step, followed by a rapid step with your rear leg to cut in along either side of the triangle towards the apex (aka Saam Gok Ma)?



hunschuld said:


> Shifting steps are in the dummy form.








Is it a "triangle step" or "shifting step" being done in the first section of the Yip Man dummy form where you step to the side and in towards the dummy trunk with tan sau and palm strike?


----------



## Jens

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are you talking about some footwork like this?
> 
> - You have right foot forward.
> - You step in your left foot.
> - You move your right foot behind in a big circle.
> 
> This way you can move yourself completely to be outside of your opponent's attacking path.



This looks identical to the "Crossover steps" I described earlier, you don't actually pause in a "cross stance", I only posted the cross stance photo for illustrative purposes to convey what I was trying to get across. This type of stepping is seen quite a bit in the gerk jong or plum flower posts training routine.


----------



## hunschuld

triangle step can be used in any direction

The first section of Yip Dummy step would be a circle step. from left bong left foot does chum kui step right then circle steps in


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Shifting steps are in the dummy form.


Which section of the Yip Man dummy form are the "shifting steps" in?

Which section of the Yip Man dummy form are the "triangle steps" in?


----------



## hunschuld

I don't know Yip Fatshan dummy but HK dummy no shifting steps and no triangle steps


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I don't know Yip Fatshan dummy but HK dummy no shifting steps and no triangle steps



I am familiar with how the backward version of Triangle step is done.
Can you describe how the forward version of triangle step is done?


----------



## hunschuld

at about 1:30 Lo Man Kam shows good triangle steeping.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Find this post in another forum. It's very interested. Any comment?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Problem With Trapping & Why Late Bruce Lee Dismissed It:"

In late Original Jeet Kune Do from Bruce Lee, there was no trapping used anymore. This may shock some people, but according to Ted Wong and Jesse Glover, late Bruce Lee dismissed trapping all together because it didn't work under pressure. Also he stated to Taki Kimura 1969 that Chi Sao was out. Even in the fighting method books, with all the pictures form 1966-67, there was practically zero trapping, if something than very few single pac saos. Everything was based on attacking an opening or using feints, instead of trapping.

Trapping works only if the opponents would freeze their hands up and completely stop their attacking intention, instead of snapping or punching through and continuing attacking. Trapping fails completely if the attack is unpredicted and comes from all angles and with full force. Therefore it's a very unrealistic concept. But people love it, because it looks flashy. As a initial attack it can work if its simplified, but in that case anything can work, even a punch from a completely untrained person. However, trapping always means compromising own punching structure.


----------



## hunschuld

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Find this post in another forum. It's very interested. Any comment?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The Problem With Trapping & Why Late Bruce Lee Dismissed It:"
> 
> In late Original Jeet Kune Do from Bruce Lee, there was no trapping used anymore. This may shock some people, but according to Ted Wong and Jesse Glover, late Bruce Lee dismissed trapping all together because it didn't work under pressure. Also he stated to Taki Kimura 1969 that Chi Sao was out. Even in the fighting method books, with all the pictures form 1966-67, there was practically zero trapping, if something than very few single pac saos. Everything was based on attacking an opening or using feints, instead of trapping.
> 
> Trapping works only if the opponents would freeze their hands up and completely stop their attacking intention, instead of snapping or punching through and continuing attacking. Trapping fails completely if the attack is unpredicted and comes from all angles and with full force. Therefore it's a very unrealistic concept. But people love it, because it looks flashy. As a initial attack it can work if its simplified, but in that case anything can work, even a punch from a completely untrained person. However, trapping always means compromising own punching structure.


 

Totally agree,trapping is something that's great if it happens but not something to look for. I will say I look at WC as stand up grappling therefor a trap is  something that can happen if there is some hand fighting going on but its not a conscious decision my conscious intent is to hit and kick. In chi sau you can play around and set traps up but that's because the other guy isn't trying to take your head off or take you down.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hunschuld said:


> Totally agree,trapping is something that's great if it happens but not something to look for. I will say I look at WC as stand up grappling therefor a trap is  something that can happen if there is some hand fighting going on but its not a conscious decision my conscious intent is to hit and kick. In chi sau you can play around and set traps up but that's because the other guy isn't trying to take your head off or take you down.


This is why I think to 

1. use a kick to enter the kicking range, 
2. use a punch to enter the punching range. 
3. If you can obtain a clinch (arm contact), you start from there. 
4. If you don't obtain a clinch, you just keep your punches.

IMO, the WC sticky hand only train step 3 and skip step 1, 2, and 4. I do believe that the WC sticky hand should evolve into all 4 steps process.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> at about 1:30 Lo Man Kam shows good triangle steeping.



You mean The step Lo Man Kam does at 1:42 into the clip?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> You mean The step Lo Man Kam does at 1:42 into the clip?


Yes.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Yes.












So the forward "triangle step" is: you start at the base of the triangle in yi jee kim yeung ma, you then advance one of your feet forward along one side of the triangle towards the apex of the triangle (_your right foot steps along the right side of the triangle, your left foot steps along the left side of the triangle), _while facing towards the apex of the triangle the whole time? without first bringing the feet together as in when doing circle step before advancing your foot?

If so, I use this step to lock/check my opponent's lead ankle as I simultaneously close my lower center-line to prevent a groin kick, often times it can trigger chi gerk actions such as sweeps and kicks. Do you also apply it in this manner?

It's funny cause alot of wing chuners view the circle step as in the first section of the Yip Man dummy form where you step to the side then circle your leg into the dummy leg as the triangle step. So this helps to clear things up!

Can you also combine a side step with the forward "triangle step" to get more of an angle to the side?


----------



## hunschuld

Yes,you understand. You can combine it as stated


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> at about 1:30 Lo Man Kam shows good triangle steeping.



Starting at 2:16 into the clip, after Lo Man Kam does the forward forward triangle, he appears to follow it up with a forward shifting step. is this correct? or is this follow up step from that forward position also considered a forward triangle step as well? 

Do you have a step in your Lo Kwai wing chun system where you step on one arm of a V with the point of the V facing you. You step on one arm - left or right with the same front foot as the side you step to. The right foot is forward if you step right, left if you step left? 

In your Lo Kwai wing chun, are there stepping which spins 360 degrees to change lines of attack?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Why does one use right arm to deal with his opponent's left arm only? What happen to right arm deal with right arm training?

Any comment?


----------



## Callen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why does one use right arm to deal with his opponent's left arm only? What happen to right arm deal with right arm training?
> 
> Any comment?


There are many drills, shapes and applications that develop cross-hand actions.

The interpretation of Dan Chi Sau that you posted is a single arm training tool to help ready practitioners for the two handed, opposite arm rolling movement (Poon Sau) contained within Chi Sau. So if a practitioner wanted to develop cross-hand attributes, Dan Chi Sau wouldn't be the proper tool.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> There are many drills, shapes and applications that develop cross-hand actions.
> 
> The interpretation of Dan Chi Sau that you posted is a single arm training tool to help ready practitioners for the two handed, opposite arm rolling movement (Poon Sau) contained within Chi Sau. So if a practitioner wanted to develop cross-hand attributes, Dan Chi Sau wouldn't be the proper tool.


When will the right-to-right arms sticky hand training start?

- Before single sticky hand?
- After single sticky hand, but before double sticky hands?
- After double sticky hands?

Why does WC over emphasizes right-to-left sticky hand (mirror stance), but not emphasizes enough on right-to-right sticky hand (uniform stance)?

What's the possibility that your right arm will contact on your opponent's right arm (uniform stance)? IMO, that possibility should be more than 50%.

- In uniform stance, your opponent's powerful back leg roundhouse kick can only hit on your back.
- In mirror stance, your opponent's powerful back leg roundhouse kick can hit on your chest. Of course your powerful back leg roundhouse kick can hit on your opponent's chest too.

Most people like to stay in uniform stance to avoid that back leg roudhouse kick.


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When will the right-to-right arms sticky hand training start?
> 
> - Before single sticky hand?
> - After single sticky hand, but before double sticky hands?
> - After double sticky hands?
> 
> Why does WC over emphasizes right-to-left sticky hand (mirror stance), but not emphasizes enough on right-to-right sticky hand (uniform stance)?
> 
> What's the possibility that your right arm will contact on your opponent's right arm (uniform stance)? IMO, that possibility should be more than 50%.
> 
> - In uniform stance, your opponent's powerful back leg roundhouse kick can only hit on your back.
> - In mirror stance, your opponent's powerful back leg roundhouse kick can hit on your chest. Of course your powerful back leg roundhouse kick can hit on your opponent's chest too.
> 
> Most people like to stay in uniform stance to avoid that back leg roudhouse kick.



There's a third option. Don't fight in a side stands towards your opponent.

The Wing Chun paradigm is generally fighting squared up to your opponent.... that's not necessarily saying toe-to-toe, rather we are square to our oponent as we try to fight him on his flank.


----------



## Callen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When will the right-to-right arms sticky hand training start?
> 
> - Before single sticky hand?
> - After single sticky hand, but before double sticky hands?
> - After double sticky hands?
> 
> Why does WC over emphasizes right-to-left sticky hand (mirror stance), but not emphasizes enough on right-to-right sticky hand (uniform stance)?
> 
> What's the possibility that your right arm will contact on your opponent's right arm (uniform stance)? IMO, that possibility should be more than 50%.
> 
> - In uniform stance, your opponent's powerful back leg roundhouse kick can only hit on your back.
> - In mirror stance, your opponent's powerful back leg roundhouse kick can hit on your chest.
> 
> Most people like to stay in uniform stance to avoid that back leg roudhouse kick.


Good questions.

I would say cross-hand development is ongoing, the principles of the system supports cross-hand action at many intervals throughout training. Like so many examples of shapes, movements and drills, it is but one part of the whole.

It can found in the proper Wing Chun punch, for example punching through an opponent's attack, cutting or angling on top ("short-cut punch", or "intercepting punch"). Siu Nim Tao (SLT) also has cross hand concepts in it as well. Punching, inside Pak Sau, Taan Sau, Gaun Sau etc... can all be implemented on right-to-right/left-to-left. Even Wu Sau is often used as a helping hand in cross-hand actions.

It might be beneficial to think of cross-hand as not just "sticky", but equally as a stand-alone action. It can be utilized in Goh Sau, as an entry, as a Laan Sau, as an interception etc... It is also important to remember that the goal of cross-hand (or any Wing Chun action) is not to chase a certain hand, it is to utilize the action to gain the position to attack center. All that said, it can be incorporated into training at many points in any complete Wing Chun curriculum.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> There's a third option. Don't fight in a side stands towards your opponent.
> 
> The Wing Chun paradigm is generally fighting squared up to your opponent.... that's not necessarily saying toe-to-toe, rather we are square to our oponent as we try to fight him on his flank.


The issue is if you fight in square stance, your center is completely exposed to your opponent's front kick (groin kick is the worse). IMO, when you stay in side stance, your body expose the minimum amount of target for your opponent's attack.

It has been proved that the square stance is dangerous for "double legs" in UFC.


----------



## yak sao

There are some WC lineages that do fight from the character two stance but in our particular lineage we don't fight with both feet beside each other.
Our hips/shoulders are square giving us access to both hands but one leg is forward inserted into the opponent's stance or making contact with their front foot or leg while the other leg is back.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why does one use right arm to deal with his opponent's left arm only? What happen to right arm deal with right arm training?
> 
> Any comment?



This would probably make a good thread topic by itself...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Taiji push hand trains right-to-right arms contact. I have never seen any Taiji guy who trains right-to-left arms contact.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Starting at 2:16 into the clip, after Lo Man Kam does the forward forward triangle, he appears to follow it up with a forward shifting step. is this correct? or is this follow up step from that forward position also considered a forward triangle step as well?
> 
> Do you have a step in your Lo Kwai wing chun system where you step on one arm of a V with the point of the V facing you. You step on one arm - left or right with the same front foot as the side you step to. The right foot is forward if you step right, left if you step left?
> 
> In your Lo Kwai wing chun, are there stepping which spins 360 degrees to change lines of attack?


 

At 2:16 I would say it is a triangle step followed by a front step. Not really shifting but you could shift.

question 2 yes, Question 3 no spinning but you could if you needed to. Only rule is don't turn your back to your opponent.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> At 2:16 I would say it is a triangle step followed by a front step. Not really shifting but you could shift.



Do you personally used this type of front step directly down the center as Lo Kam Man did here?

What's the name of the step in your Lo Kwai wing chun system where you step on one arm of a V with the point of the V facing you. Where you step on one arm - left or right with the same front foot as the side you step to. The right foot is forward if you step right, left if you step left?

At close range once the "gap" has been closed, do you personally find much use for "arrow stepping", or do you rely more on other types of steps such as shifting steps, circle steps, and triangle steps?



hunschuld said:


> Snake footwork takes over after close contact is achieved. Crane footwork for long and mid range.



By "snake footwork" are you referring to the arrow steps? which types of steps do you categorize as "snake footwork"?



hunschuld said:


> Find the bridge, cross the bridge, destroy the bridge. In videos I never see a wing chun master that bridges other than make the bridge with your face and his hand which again is not a Kuit of which I am aware. In a fight you don't extend an arm. Do not pose a mun sao. Mun sao is an attack asking the other person to intercept your hand. If there is no intercept then your mun strikes them. You only extend because you have something in mind. You are attacking. It doesn't matter if your opponent commits first. They either give you their hand via a block or intercept or they don't and you hit them.



How does this work if the opponent “bob and weave” with slips using evasive footwork to altogether avoid your man sau bridging attempt by evading it with a simultaneous counter strike as in how Mike Tyson does it?

Besides mun sao, what other methods/ strategies are used to "find the bridge" in Lo Kwai wing chun?


----------



## hunschuld

I don't want to get to deep in the weeds on footwork because there are so many variations but if you focus on the "forest" and not the "trees" the footwork becomes clear. Snake foot work is just close  body foot work ,shifting steps, hooking steps,small arrow steps,circle steps. . a lot of footwork depends on your balance and hip usage. For example if you are a back leg weight person much of the close range footwork won't work or be usable. 

 Bob and weave. very easy to deal with unless you are facing a really good boxer.The goal of wing chun is to drive in and get close to your opponent. I like the phrase get under their shirt. I am looking to drive in and finish with a sweep or throw. Nothing ends a fight faster or can be more deadly then bouncing the back  of a persons head off the ground. Also there are no blocks you only cover areas. When closing you cover the areas that are most vulnerable.

Mun Sao is not a focus. I just used it as an example since so many pose a Mun Sao. All hands should be active all the time in a fight. Nothing posed or frozen.

Chum Kui is all active bridging. We do not stand back at a distance and throw punches. In Lo Kwai's Wing Chun we close. Against bob and weave I like a cover with a Lan and Wu. some like Kwan. My goal is that when bob and weave has reached my closing distance I use spring steps to drive into him. If he is in a tight cover I am looking to use the Lan against his forearms between the elbow and the middle of his forearm to jam or control his punches. There is a good change that if we both meet at the same time and he is moving his weight side to side and I know how to use my hips I will off balance him on contact . Your weight must go forward and down. A student did this in a amateur match and just wore the other guy out . He just kept driving and closing and kept dumping the other guy onto his back.. They guy tried to kick, he ended up on the ground, punch, bob and weave. Same result. He wanted to fight from a distance and was constantly caught off balance. When closing be sure to keep you chin down and get your head into your shoulders. This helps to cover your jaw from a hook.
.


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> Also there are no blocks you only cover areas. When closing you cover the areas that are most vulnerable.



Exactly.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> For example if you are a back leg weight person much of the close range footwork won't work or be usable.



I agree 100%! From my personal experience it's because a back leg weight person is not able to effectively transfer his body mass to generate the necessary forward drive needed to effectively destroy the opponent's root to control his center of gravity.

They reason I asked whether you personally used the type of front step directly down the center that Lo Kam Man did in the clip after the triangle step is because personally I find it's very susceptible to a double or single leg takedown from that angle, so wanted to get your take based on your experience. 



hunschuld said:


> The goal of wing chun is to drive in and get close to your opponent. I like the phrase get under their shirt.



Does this also apply to when using Mun Sau? for example, do you generally step forward into the opponent when throwing out a mun sau to engage him?

In a previous post you had said: 





hunschuld said:


> Mun sao is an attack asking the other person to intercept your hand. If there is no intercept then your mun strikes them. You only extend because you have something in mind. You are attacking. It doesn't matter if your opponent commits first. They either give you their hand via a block or intercept or they don't and you hit them.



What happens if the opponent does not give you their hand via a block or intercept, but instead remains elusive at close range by their changing footwork angles with “bobing, weaving and slipping to altogether avoid your man sau attempt with simultaneous counter strikes as in how Mike Tyson does it, do you still just hit them by turning your mun sau into strike? or does your mun sau morph into a cover while you simultaneously strike them with your other hand?


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> do you still just hit them by turning your mun sau into strike?



Mun sau is a strike...or at least that is how I was taught.


----------



## Jens

wckf92 said:


> Mun sau is a strike...or at least that is how I was taught.



I was taught Mun Sau is an un-committed strike


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> I agree 100%! From my personal experience it's because a back leg weight person is not able to effectively transfer his body mass to generate the necessary forward drive needed to effectively destroy the opponent's root to control his center of gravity.
> 
> They reason I asked whether you personally used the type of front step directly down the center that Lo Kam Man did in the clip after the triangle step is because personally I find it's very susceptible to a double or single leg takedown from that angle, so wanted to get your take based on your experience.
> 
> ( I agree with you. I look at that stepping as a chasing step to close when the other person is moving away. I think you always have to be cognizant of the threat of the take down in today's world. Part of the WC problem is that most of the old teachers never really fought so have little real world experience and even those that did I doubt ever had to think about a double leg.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this also apply to when using Mun Sau? for example, do you generally step forward into the opponent when throwing out a mun sau to engage him?
> 
> In a previous post you had said:
> 
> What happens if the opponent does not give you their hand via a block or intercept, but instead remains elusive at close range by their changing footwork angles with “bobing, weaving and slipping to altogether avoid your man sau attempt with simultaneous counter strikes as in how Mike Tyson does it, do you still just hit them by turning your mun sau into strike? or does your mun sau morph into a cover while you simultaneously strike them with your other hand?



Mun sao is always a strike. Once my range is reached I attack. I don't care what my opponent is doing. If I move my hands towards you my intention is to strike. In a perfect world if you don't stop my hand it hits you. However I don't always use a Mun sau or an asking hand of any type. I always think of cover and close so your Mun changes to a cover if the person evades instead of giving you a hand.  To me all hands morph into one hand. So in pieces Mun , bend at elbow now bong can now change to Kup or lan elbow drops into fook or lap then to palm strike then bui the Mun again while your right is doing that every position change your left adopts the appropriate hand be it to support ,cover an area or attack and attacks are also covers since they will intercept anything incoming through the same area. Also with bob and weave you must get close to gain control of their center of gravity. The goal is not to avoid getting hit, you can't do that. If you fight you will get hit. the goal is to avoid getting hit with the opponents full power. So getting control of their hips you get control of their cog and you have the advantage


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> attacks are also covers since they will intercept anything incoming through the same area.



Do you mean attacks which takes a diagonal line/path to the opponent's centerline, for example from your shoulder to his center-line as in the case with "Mun Sau" to intersect his straight line attack (the Phillip Bayer WSLVT people refer to this as "X-ing" the centerline), rather than directly along the center-line as in a chain punch?

What are some good examples of attacks that are also covers?



hunschuld said:


> Also with bob and weave you must get close to gain control of their center of gravity. The goal is not to avoid getting hit, you can't do that. If you fight you will get hit. the goal is to avoid getting hit with the opponents full power. So getting control of their hips you get control of their cog and you have the advantage



Do you mean driving in with your stance to get your hips underneath the opponent's hips similar to how a how Greco Roman wrestler does to control his opponent's hips and COG prior to setting up a takedown? please explain?

At close range once the "gap" has been closed, do you personally find much use for "arrow stepping", or do you rely more on other types of steps such as shifting steps, circle steps, and triangle steps?


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> as "X-ing" the centerline), rather than directly along the center-line as in a chain punch?



IME, WC is a cross-the-CL system at its heart. That is how I was taught from day 1. I know that is probably heresy in some WC schools/lineages, but in order to provide the proper covering hands (that are also attacking hands and vice versa), it is important that they continuously cycle and recycle automatically...aka "flowing". 
For example: the fist would start slightly off center and then as it moves along its punching trajectory it "intercepts" and "cuts" the CL on its way to the target. 

Anyway, kind of difficult to type in words so I'm not sure any of that makes sense...hahaha.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Do you mean driving in with your stance to get your hips underneath the opponent's hips similar to how a how Greco Roman wrestler does to control his opponent's hips and COG prior to setting up a takedown? please explain?



Very much the same. Receive what comes = Greco bring your body to their body If you go back to the videos I started this thread with you will see they all make the same mistakes that leads to poor fighting ability  standing to straight and not using and dropping the hips.. Look at Mike Tyson doing the bob and weave he is down in his hips and when he attacks the power is transferred via his hips.In most wing chun you see locked hips . In Lo Kwai WC we try to never lock the hips. You sink down into your hips when making contact. When looking to answer your question I found  Greco body drills and  hip usage drills that are very similar to our drills.




Jens said:


> At close range once the "gap" has been closed, do you personally find much use for "arrow stepping", or do you rely more on other types of steps such as shifting steps, circle steps, and triangle steps?


 When In range I may arrow step it all depends. My goal is to drive through my opponent so I may arrow step between his legs and then ,sweep ,hook, stomp or kick . It all depends on the position we are in. I am not really conscience of what footwork I am using at this point and I have not even done Chi Sao in at least 5 years l let alone sparring so I don't really think and practice.  I just do some shadowboxing etc to keep myself in some sort of shape and to not totally forget everything I have learned.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Mun sao is always a strike. Once my range is reached I attack. I don't care what my opponent is doing. If I move my hands towards you my intention is to strike. In a perfect world if you don't stop my hand it hits you. However I don't always use a Mun sau or an asking hand of any type. I always think of cover and close so your Mun changes to a cover if the person evades instead of giving you a hand.  To me all hands morph into one hand. So in pieces Mun , bend at elbow now bong can now change to Kup or lan elbow drops into fook or lap then to palm strike then bui the Mun again while your right is doing that every position change your left adopts the appropriate hand be it to support ,cover an area or attack and *attacks are also covers since they will intercept anything incoming through the same area*.



In regards to Mun Sau attacks which are also covers, Do you mean attacks which takes a diagonal line/path to the opponent's centerline, for example from your shoulder to his center-line as in the case with "Mun Sau" to intersect his straight line attack ("X-ing" the centerline), rather than a straight line path directly along the center-line as in a chain punch?

What are some good examples of Mun sau attacks that are also covers?



hunschuld said:


> If you go back to the videos I started this thread with you will see they all make the same mistakes that leads to poor fighting ability standing to straight and not using and dropping the hips.. Look at Mike Tyson doing the bob and weave he is down in his hips and when he attacks the power is transferred via his hips. In most wing chun you see locked hips . In Lo Kwai WC we try to never lock the hips. You sink down into your hips when making contact.



By "not using and dropping the hips", are you referring to bending at your knees to lower your hips, and straightening at the knees to rise the hips?


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> In Lo Kwai WC we try to never lock the hips. You sink down into your hips when making contact.



Does WSL demonstrate a good example of what you meant by "You sink down into your hips" in this clip?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> In regards to Mun Sau attacks which are also covers, Do you mean attacks which takes a diagonal line/path to the opponent's centerline, for example from your shoulder to his center-line as in the case with "Mun Sau" to intersect his straight line attack ("X-ing" the centerline), rather than a straight line path directly along the center-line as in a chain punch?
> 
> What are some good examples of Mun sau attacks that are also covers?
> 
> 
> 
> By "not using and dropping the hips", are you referring to bending at your knees to lower your hips, and straightening at the knees to rise the hips?


----------



## hunschuld

The idea of cutting across the center line is to intersect with attacks coming at you from as many angles as possible.  Sometimes you are looking for an automatic response like a  Mun going at the opponents eyes this almost always picks up an auto response as the basic subconscious response is to protect our eyes. . Covering is not so  much drawing a response as filling an area of space where you are most vulnerable or recognizing where an attack is most likely to come from based on your movement. Covering can also  be used to intercept and smother. In any event your goal is to achieve 2 things at the same time attack and disrupt the opponents COG

Hip usage is different than knee usage although both are usually used together. In the video WSL is dropping lower as he attacks.he bends his knees and thrusts with the hips. There is a reason WSL was considered one of the better fighters and you can see it in very basic chi sau. Knees should always be bent. never ever straight. Hips can be used independent of the knees. Hips open and close and the hip girdle can swing,sink,thrust. Knees are springs and act like shock absorbers but have a very limited range of safe movement so its your hips and not the knees that transfer power


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> Covering is not so much drawing a response as filling an area of space where you are most vulnerable or recognizing where an attack is most likely to come from based on your movement. Covering can also be used to intercept and smother.



It's strange...because the only lineage that says stuff like this is the Duncan Leung folks...  It's nice to see that topic was passed on / exists in Lo Kwai as well.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> The idea of cutting across the center line is to intersect with attacks coming at you from as many angles as possible.  Sometimes you are looking for an automatic response like a  Mun going at the opponents eyes this almost always picks up an auto response as the basic subconscious response is to protect our eyes. . Covering is not so  much drawing a response as filling an area of space where you are most vulnerable or recognizing where an attack is most likely to come from based on your movement. Covering can also  be used to intercept and smother. In any event your goal is to achieve 2 things at the same time attack and disrupt the opponents COG



Are there Mun Sau attacks which also simultaneously fill an area of space where you are most vulnerable or recognizing where an attack is most likely to come from based on your movement?

If so what are some good examples of mun sau attacks which also simultaneously covers your most vulnerable space?

or is Mun sau always used completely independently of covering?




hunschuld said:


> Hip usage is different than knee usage although both are usually used together. In the video WSL is dropping lower as he attacks.he bends his knees and thrusts with the hips. There is a reason WSL was considered one of the better fighters and you can see it in very basic chi sau. Knees should always be bent. never ever straight. Hips can be used independent of the knees. Hips open and close and the hip girdle can swing,sink,thrust. Knees are springs and act like shock absorbers but have a very limited range of safe movement so its your hips and not the knees that transfer power



How are the Hips used independent of the knees when "dropping the hips"? or  when "You sink down into your hips"?

Are you referring to the smooth "tucking" and "un-tucking" of the hips for lack of a better term to preserve the mechanical advantages within kinetic linking to efficiently transfer power (kinetic energy) through the Kinetic chain as a a wave force?

By "hips can swing" are you referring to the torquing the hips side to side?


----------



## hunschuld

wckf92 said:


> It's strange...because the only lineage that says stuff like this is the Duncan Leung folks...  It's nice to see that topic was passed on / exists in Lo Kwai as well.


 It's funny. I think a long time ago,20 years or so, Steven Leung and I had a conversation about this.  It has been said that less than 10 people really got the full WC system from YM Duncan being one.


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Are there Mun Sau attacks which also simultaneously fill an area of space where you are most vulnerable or recognizing where an attack is most likely to come from based on your movement?
> 
> If so what are some good examples of mun sau attacks which also simultaneously covers your most vulnerable space?
> 
> or is Mun sau always used completely independently of covering?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are the Hips used independent of the knees when "dropping the hips"? or  when "You sink down into your hips"?
> 
> Are you referring to the smooth "tucking" and "un-tucking" of the hips for lack of a better term to preserve the mechanical advantages within kinetic linking to efficiently transfer power (kinetic energy) through the Kinetic chain as a a wave force?
> 
> By "hips can swing" are you referring to the torquing the hips side to side?


 Jens we are at a point where while I could show  you in a few minutes I really don't have the skill to provide detailed written descriptions.

Asking hand is always done with 2 hands so the rear hand is covering also I don't look at Mun as one thing I see it as a concept. It use depends upon what the other person is doing.  a basic boxing guard will call for something different than a wrestling type of stance. So a bui,pak,gum, gann ect all can be asking hand. The constant is ask and attack when your range is reached. .

Hips have their own independent movement. two good non WC places to watch how hips move would be Olympic lifting and football offensive linemen techniques.  One of the things that makes a huge difference in the drafting of pro football offensive linemen is hip work and the difference between tight hips and loose hips. Tight hips is always a negative. I think you are on it by the smooth tucking and un-tucking


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I don't look at Mun as one thing I see it as a concept. It use depends upon what the other person is doing.  a basic boxing guard will call for something different than a wrestling type of stance. So a bui,pak,gum, gann ect all can be asking hand. The constant is ask and attack when your range is reached.



Got it! so asking hand is not only the swinging side to side arms technique known as Mun Lo Sau in the Biu Jee form, All wing chun techniques can have Mun Sau energy or be used as an asking hand. When using other wing chun techniques such as bui,pak,gum, gann ect. with the Mun Sau concept, do you always have the rear hand covering in the same manner as in Mun Lo Sau in the Biu Jee form?



hunschuld said:


> Hips have their own independent movement. two good non WC places to watch how hips move would be Olympic lifting and football offensive linemen techniques. I think you are on it by the smooth tucking and un-tucking



I assume you are referring to getting full hip extension as in the "hip pop" in greco roman wrestling/Olympic lifting, as well as "rolling your hips" as in this clip?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Got it! so asking hand is not only the swinging side to side arms technique known as Mun Lo Sau in the Biu Jee form, All wing chun techniques can have Mun Sau energy or be used as an asking hand. When using other wing chun techniques such as bui,pak,gum, gann ect. with the Mun Sau concept, do you always have the rear hand covering in the same manner as in Mun Lo Sau in the Biu Jee form?
> 
> Always the same idea yes. If my Mun is high then the rear hand covers below and you position the rear elbow to cover as well so the rear hand can be lan sau or a wu sao or a bong sau
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you are referring to getting full hip extension as in the "hip pop" in greco roman wrestling/Olympic lifting, as well as "rolling your hips" as in this clip?



You got it. Also look at the elbow placement of the block.Elbows in a fist and a half length away from the chest


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> You got it. Also look at the elbow placement of the block.Elbows in a fist and a half length away from the chest



So it's this full hip extension as in the "hip pop" in greco roman wrestling/Olympic lifting, or "rolling your hips" motion in football offensive linemen that you refer to as "dropping the hips" and "You sink down into your hips" in wing chun?



hunschuld said:


> Always the same idea yes. If my Mun is high then the rear hand covers below and you position the rear elbow to cover as well so the rear hand can be lan sau or a wu sao or a bong sau








So in application, the Classical Mun Sao Wu Sau static guard position seen above in yip Man wing chun, should actually take a path from the side to the opponent's center line, cutting across the center line to intersect attacks coming at you,  to cover as many angles as possible, rather than just statically pose both your hands directly on the centerline?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> So it's this full hip extension as in the "hip pop" in greco roman wrestling/Olympic lifting, or "rolling your hips" motion in football offensive linemen that you refer to as "dropping the hips" and "You sink down into your hips" in wing chun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in application, the Classical Mun Sao Wu Sau static guard position seen above in yip Man wing chun, should actually take a path from the side to the opponent's center line, cutting across the center line to intersect attacks coming at you,  to cover as many angles as possible, rather than just statically pose both your hands directly on the centerline?




 Yes, these are all examples or proper hip usage and it goes across all different Athletic activities. You brought up Tyson doing the bob and weave. Look at his hips. same thing. It how you bring power and engage the lower body. You can see how difficult it is to throw  or take down someone that is using their hips in the way.

Yes, that Mun Wu is just a pose it is not an active fighting guard. Posing that static guard will always put you behind the opponents pace. In Our WC and YM's as well the saying is my opponent moves but I move first. If you pose this Mun you are always moving second. and you have to be faster than your opponent because you have to go from a dead stop and speed up to intercept his motion and since he has already punched before you have even started you have a very hard time intercepting his attack


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Yes, that Mun Wu is just a pose it is not an active fighting guard. Posing that static guard will always put you behind the opponents pace. In Our WC and YM's as well the saying is my opponent moves but I move first. If you pose this Mun you are always moving second. and you have to be faster than your opponent because you have to go from a dead stop and speed up to intercept his motion and since he has already punched before you have even started you have a very hard time intercepting his attack








Do you ever under cycle the Classical Mun Sao Wu Sau guard position above back and forth along the centerline, so that the Wu Sau hand slightly drops extending into Mun Sao, as the Mun Sau hand retracts and cycles into Wu Sau, alternating back and forth? or Do you strictly only apply it by taking a path from the side to the opponent's center line, cutting across the center line to intersect attacks coming at you, to cover as many angles as possible?




hunschuld said:


> Yes, these are all examples or proper hip usage and it goes across all different Athletic activities. You brought up Tyson doing the bob and weave. Look at his hips. same thing. It how you bring power and engage the lower body. You can see how difficult it is to throw or take down someone that is using their hips in the way.



This hip usage is also very common in the Hakka kung fu systems such as Southern Praying Mantis, Bak Mei Pai, Southern Dragon Style, Fujian White Crane, Hung Ga etc. I believe they use this hip usage to apply their 4 basic powers:  Float, Sink, Spit, Swallow. So it would make sense that wing chun also utilizes this hip usage to generate and transfer power following southern kung fu tradition.

Pease explain how these 2 energies of the 18 energies in Lo Kwai Wing chun are applied:
1. zhan=vibrate
2. juan=roll

Does Lo Kwai Wing Chun have Chi Gerk (sticky legs)?


----------



## hunschuld

You have been doing some reading!

Vibrate and Roll are primarily for grappling. We see wing chun as stand up grappling not just striking.

So basics. 3 easy ways to defend throws and joint locks. I drop the hips. If my hips are lower than your hips you will have a hard time throwing me. of course you can sweep etc just staying with basics. next is break the grip. cant be thrown or locked if they cant grip you. Vibrate is the use of short power in a jut, fook,  huen, gum, etc to break grip the moment you feel it. I think all wing chun trains or should train short power for striking. Same power different use. Roll. again primarily grappling use . throwing and locking usually depend on the target resisting or fighting the energy. Rolling is you go with the energy and roll it in the general direction it wants to go.  The very first move of almost every version of wing chun I have seen after opening the stance is a rolling bong sau. Most mainland dummy forms I have seen have a rolling quan sau in them. It is just accepting and directing incoming force .

You can cycle mun and wu .


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> You have been doing some reading!



Lol Yeah I read a little regarding the 18 energies of Lo Kwai wing chun on wingchunpedia.com



hunschuld said:


> Vibrate is the use of short power in a jut, fook,  huen, gum, etc to break grip the moment you feel it. I think all wing chun trains or should train short power for striking. Same power different use. Roll. again primarily grappling use . throwing and locking usually depend on the target resisting or fighting the energy. Rolling is you go with the energy and roll it in the general direction it wants to go.  The very first move of almost every version of wing chun I have seen after opening the stance is a rolling bong sau. Most mainland dummy forms I have seen have a rolling quan sau in them. It is just accepting and directing incoming force .



Is it also considered "Vibrate" and "Roll" when using using a quick short explosive jerky type of force as in when applying the push/pull concept? for example applying a quick forward press at the contact point, then taking advantage of the opponent's pushing reaction to pull him off balance? btw this Push/pull concept can also be used in a grappling situation as in judo by pushing in one direction to get the opponent to push back so that you can capitalize on his reaction by pulling him in the opposite direction.



hunschuld said:


> You can cycle mun and wu .



When cycling mun and wu, how does the wu cover similarly to how the rear hand does in the biu jee form mun sau?


Does Lo Kwai Wing Chun have Chi Gerk (sticky legs)?

I imagine your hip usage is probably very similar to this guy's starting at 2:08 into this clip


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Lol Yeah I read a little regarding the 18 energies of Lo Kwai wing chun on wingchunpedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> Is it also considered "Vibrate" and "Roll" when using using a quick short explosive jerky type of force as in when applying the push/pull concept? for example applying a quick forward press at the contact point, then taking advantage of the opponent's pushing reaction to pull him off balance? btw this Push/pull concept can also be used in a grappling situation as in judo by pushing in one direction to get the opponent to push back so that you can capitalize on his reaction by pulling him in the opposite direction.
> 
> ( Yes, many variations but you get it)
> 
> When cycling mun and wu, how does the wu cover similarly to how the rear hand does in the biu jee form mun sau?
> 
> ( In cycling one hand replace the other, like chain punch where one hand drops and comes back replaces )
> 
> 
> Does Lo Kwai Wing Chun have Chi Gerk (sticky legs)?
> 
> ( Yes and No. I have chi gerk in my kung fu because I learned yip man WC Chi Gerk was formalized by some of Yip's students or so the story goes. Lo Kwai has training more like Judo rendorii . We practice throws sweeps trips and how do defend  and also practice kicking and defending kicks with the legs in several drills. So different format but accomplishing the same thing)
> 
> I imagine your hip usage is probably very similar to this guy's starting at 2:08 into this clip



( yeah I guess. Different things trained in different forms but basically there is a limit to ways you can use your hips and everyone can do the same things just depends on development)


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Chao Kwai's granddaughter told me her grandfather would like to fix my wing chun. The way I was taught was things were added to my Yip Man wing chun. Chao Sifu was into efficiency so keeping my Yip Man base and adding to it was the fastest way to teach.



What were the major "game changer" aspects of wing chun which Chao sifu added to your yip man wing chun base?

What's your opinion of Alan Orr's "hip usage"? is it in line with yours?







hunschuld said:


> ( In cycling one hand replace the other, like chain punch where one hand drops and comes back replaces )



Do you mean the front mun sau hand drops and retracts under so that the rear wu sau hand can go forward to replace it becoming the new mun sau (same cycling as the chain punch)? or Do you mean the rear wu sau hand drops, under cycling forward to become the new mun sau, while the mun sau hand retracts backward to become the new mun sau (the reverse cycling of the chain punch action)?


----------



## hunschuld

NO!, The stance should be shoulder width not wider than the shoulders. Going wider like this lets you do certain things but starts to lock the hips and prevents other things. Everything that you can do with the wide stance you can do with the shoulder width stance however the reverse is not true.

Replacement hands both can be true . The hands are concepts not fixed position. You are always filling space in a circular fashion.

Game changer was the proper use of the lower body and that WC is an internal art not referring to chi or other such mystical stuff but internal meaning the art is based on the proper use  of the skeleton. Also learning about misnamed and misunderstood hands. For example tan sau is not a flat hand thrusting out


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> NO!, The stance should be shoulder width not wider than the shoulders. Going wider like this lets you do certain things but starts to lock the hips and prevents other things. Everything that you can do with the wide stance you can do with the shoulder width stance however the reverse is not true.



I completely agree! It also affects the agility of your footwork!



hunschuld said:


> Replacement hands both can be true . The hands are concepts not fixed position. You are always filling space in a circular fashion.



Which of your vulnerable space are you covering with the With the rear wu sau hand?



hunschuld said:


> Also learning about misnamed and misunderstood hands. For example tan sau is not a flat hand thrusting out



Please explain which Wck hands are misnamed or misunderstood? And What’s the correct name and understanding?

Were there concepts and principles in Lo Kwai wck which you didn’t learn in yip man wck?


----------



## hunschuld

I don't want to get into the differences with Yip Man WC. YMWC is blah to great depending on the version. Look at basic stances and you can see the differences

Hand names. 1 example Tan sau. Its not a flat palm or the movement of thrusting out a palm up hand.That is actually a yang palm strike using the Yin Meridian to be technical. Tan Sau is the action of spreading or opening up the opponents center line. So spreading hand


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Tan Sau is the action of spreading or opening up the opponents center line. So spreading hand



When you say spreading hand, is it spreading the opponent's hand directly to the side to open up his center line? or cutting back to spread thus opening up the opponent's center line (what some mainland wck linages refer to as Tun sau)?





hunschuld said:


> It's funny. I think a long time ago,20 years or so, Steven Leung and I had a conversation about this.  It has been said that less than 10 people really got the full WC system from YM Duncan being one.



There has been some controversy as to whether or not Duncan actually learnt directly from Yip Man.


----------



## hunschuld

It can be either. I am not so technical. for me there are always several ways to do something. I don't bother with separate names  for the possibilities. I know many do. 

I don't know much about Duncan. Was told he had been a private student of YM and the fact that Lo Man Kam's son trained with him leads me to believe its true.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Tan Sau is the action of spreading or opening up the opponents center line. So spreading hand



What's your definition or explanation of the Tan Sau Spreading action?



hunschuld said:


> I don't know much about Duncan. Was told he had been a private student of YM and the fact that Lo Man Kam's son trained with him leads me to believe its true.



That's a very good point!

Of all the direct Yip Man students that you've seen, in your opinion who have the correct Hip usage?


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> There has been some controversy as to whether or not Duncan actually learnt directly from Yip Man.



@Jens  where did you find those screenshots about Duncan? I'd like to read more about it. Thanks.


----------



## wckf92

hunschuld said:


> and the fact that Lo Man Kam's son trained with him leads me to believe its true.



Yup. Good point. Another point is that Yip Man told a young Allan Lee to go find Duncan in order to learn from him, etc.


----------



## Jens

wckf92 said:


> @Jens  where did you find those screenshots about Duncan? I'd like to read more about it. Thanks.



On Hang Lum Andrew Ma facebook page



wckf92 said:


> Yup. Good point. Another point is that Yip Man told a young Allan Lee to go find Duncan in order to learn from him, etc.




But then again, there is also the story of when Duncan first arrived in NYC in the early 1970's claiming to be Yip Man's private student and Yip Man's disciple Moy Yat refuting those claims. As Moy Yat said he had never heard of Duncan and no-one in the Hong Kong wck community seemed to know whom Duncan was. All Yip Man's disciples were aware of whom Yip Man's private wealthy businessmen students were, since they often times would drive Yip Man around and Yip Man had never mentioned Duncan to any of them. For what it's worth I've been told that the choreography of both Duncan Leung's and Ho Kam Ming's  knife sets are identical.


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> On Hang Lum Andrew Ma facebook page
> 
> 
> 
> But then again, there is also the story of when Duncan first arrived in NYC in the early 1970's claiming to be Yip Man's private student and Yip Man's disciple Moy Yat refuting those claims. As Moy Yat said he had never heard of Duncan and no-one in the Hong Kong wck community seemed to know whom Duncan was. All Yip Man's disciples were aware of whom Yip Man's private wealthy businessmen students were, since they often times would drive Yip Man around and Yip Man had never mentioned Duncan to any of them. For what it's worth I've been told that the choreography of both Duncan Leung's and Ho Kam Ming's  knife sets are identical.



Thanks for that link @Jens 

Interesting point about the identical knife sets. Do you have a link to their two knife sets? I'd be curious to learn more about that.


----------



## Jens

wckf92 said:


> Interesting point about the identical knife sets. Do you have a link to their two knife sets? I'd be curious to learn more about that.



I don't have a link to the Duncan Leung knife set, if you do please post so that we can make a comparison. here is the link to the Ho Kam Ming knife set


----------



## hunschuld

Could say a great deal.
 Unfortunate that there still is a great deal of jealousy and conflict. It makes no difference to me who claims what in YMWC but I do question a few things.
 The Moy Yat Duncan story had a bit more to it. My first teacher was one of Moy Yat first 7 disciples and was a student of Jiu Wan in HK. 
Hawkins made a point in an interview he did with Kung Fu Magazine in the 80's that there were many private students that were unknown to Yips public class students and he believed some were very good. Just because someone was unknown does not mean he was not a direct student.
Duncan did not say his 7 hour a day training was with YM just that he trained that long. 
YM made his money from private students and he got paid well. Ho Kam Ming paid a big fee for his WC . The name of the game was those that paid YM extra got more information. If you couldn't pay you did other things with or for him and you got rewarded with information. He usually took someone with him when he taught a private student who would do the hands on training.
Since Lo man Kam was Yip/s nephew or son depending on who you talk too and since he started training with YM in the early 50's (he was the person WSL fought first when he came to test YM) I doubt he would have his son learn from a fake. His WC is pretty good after all.

Knife form is a bit dead isn't it?


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> I don't have a link to the Duncan Leung knife set, if you do please post so that we can make a comparison. here is the link to the Ho Kam Ming knife set



That's a really long knife form! I wonder if that one conforms to the "12 set" form?


----------



## Jens

@hunschuld is this guy's hip usage in line with the hip usage you learnt from Chao Kwai sifu?


----------



## hunschuld

Looks like Andreas's version of the form. He is using his hip's best use is in the beginning. He could be doing more and could keep a better position.


----------



## hunschuld

wckf92 said:


> That's a really long knife form! I wonder if that one conforms to the "12 set" form?


If you count the section based on the stepping its 8 sections.  Its different than the 12 sections  but is a fine form. I like Yip Chings and WSL form better but all YM forms are different to some degree. Tradition is that there is only 1 knife man in a family and he gets the 12 sections. Yip Bo Ching was that man for YMWC


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Its different than the 12 sections  but is a fine form. I like Yip Chings and WSL form better but all YM forms are different to some degree. Tradition is that there is only 1 knife man in a family and he gets the 12 sections. Yip Bo Ching was that man for YMWC



Would you say all 
the material of the Yip Bo Ching 12 sections are also covered in Yip Ching's and Ho Kam Ming's 8 section knife sets?  




hunschuld said:


> Tan Sau is the action of spreading or opening up the opponents center line. So spreading hand



What's your definition or explanation of the Tan Sau Spreading action?

Of all the direct Yip Man students that you've seen, in your opinion who have the correct Hip usage?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> Would you say all
> the material of the Yip Bo Ching 12 sections are also covered in Yip Ching's and Ho Kam Ming's 8 section knife sets?


 No




Jens said:


> Of all the direct Yip Man students that you've seen, in your opinion who have the correct Hip usage?


Its not something I have seen emphasized from anyone in a public setting. Most do some type of hammer/knail thing with the full body and locked hips. Some have talked about after I have brought it up with them. Chu Shong Tin always seemed most open about internal and body use in general



Jens said:


> What's your definition or explanation of the Tan Sau Spreading action?



Three parts or options. It comes into play after contact. Primary action comes from the elbow. it can be done with the wrist and of course the whole body via shift. Used to either open a path to the center or move object off the center. short ging can be used. Always followed with a strike. If overdone can be countered with running hand. This most easily happens when spreading with a shift..

 My observation through the years  is the use of short ging seems to be problematic early on in training so using the body has gotten relied upon. Its primarily done with the elbow


----------



## wckf92

Jens said:


> Would you say all
> the material of the Yip Bo Ching 12 sections are also covered in Yip Ching's and Ho Kam Ming's 8 section knife sets?



It appeared to be missing some footwork(?)


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Three parts or options. It comes into play after contact. Primary action comes from the elbow. it can be done with the wrist and of course the whole body via shift. Used to either open a path to the center or move object off the center. short ging can be used. Always followed with a strike. If overdone can be countered with running hand. This most easily happens when spreading with a shift.



Does the Tan sau immediately spread directly to the side? or using more of an elbow retracting motion which pulls as it gradually spreads to the side to either open a path to the center or move object off the center?


----------



## hunschuld

Its the elbow motion.You only need to move the opponent arm half an inch or less to change the line or open the center.. The more you move your arm to spread the easier it is for the other person to run around your spreading motion. Always stay tight. If the elbow isn't doing it you ad the wrist with ging.


----------



## Jens

Jens said:


> Its different than the 12 sections but is a fine form. I like Yip Chings and WSL form better but all YM forms are different to some degree. Tradition is that there is only 1 knife man in a family and he gets the 12 sections. Yip Bo Ching was that man for YMWC



Are there major differences between the Yip Bo Ching 12 section knife form and the WSL 12 section knife form? if so please elaborate.

Does Lo Kwai wing chun emphasize punching along different angular lines such as circular and hook punches? or is there more of a heavy reliance on straight center line punches as in to Yip Man wing chun?


----------



## hunschuld

Punching, all angles, hooks ,uppercuts overhand hammer hangingfist/backfist to name the main punches in addition to straight punch then there are the different body usage tied to punches ,rising falling sinking swinging etc

 Knife question. Have given how to answer this some thought.  First there are2 general wing chun knife forms. Some lines have a southern set not a specific wing chun set. Leung Jan WC has a set specific to wing chun. The purpose is one how to fight with weapons. Two how to fight with Wing Chun specific hands and techniques.

All forms are knife forms. Do Chum Kui holding knives and you have a knife form.  Since the knife form is meant to train how to fight with WC hands all knife forms from Leung Jan are similar. All Yip Man forms are similar for the same reason. One form may have "A" one may have 'B' but they are all similar.

 Some forms have left out things you need for real fighting  some forms have dead bodies. Some forms hold knives in ways that would get you killed if you faced a sword or other weapons

The Ho Kam Ming form above is a fine form however all you have to do is look at how the body is used and how the knives are held to see some issues.

The Knife form on one level is  the companion to the dummy form. The dummy form is giving basic combat suggestions after the bridge has been crossed. The knife form is providing suggestions on how to cross the bridge and maintain the crossing. It is based on aggression the dummy based on counter fighting. If you can close the gap and cross vs a sword you can do it vs a fist .

The Yip Bo Ching form I was taught has things that I have not seen in other YM forms. However the YBC form has almost all of the same things as the LK form.


----------



## Jens

@hunschuld 

Besides Tan Sau what were the other misnamed and misunderstood hands according to Chao Kwai sifu?

When "covering", how do you determine where your exposed areas are? or which of your gates to close? especially if the opponent moves erratically.

In Lo Kwai wing chun how is "Stillness to overcome movement" ?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> @hunschuld
> 
> Besides Tan Sau what were the other misnamed and misunderstood hands according to Chao Kwai sifu?
> 
> When "covering", how do you determine where your exposed areas are? or which of your gates to close? especially if the opponent moves erratically.
> 
> In Lo Kwai wing chun how is "Stillness to overcome movement" ?



Now you are going into actual fighting. It starts with my opponent moves but I move first.


 To do everything you mentioned  comes down to one thing. After determining distance and stance you don't pay attention to what the opponent is doing. Erratic  movement does not matter. Distance and position is what we care about. Once my bridging distance is reached I move based on position to bridge. Therefore I know what gates I need to cover because I am not reacting to what someone else is doing. The timing of the fight is mine not yours. The things you are talking about are only an issue if the other person is driving the timing and you are reacting. if you do this you will always have issues. Also we don't use fakes. Intent is always to strike.

This is where knife form knowledge is important. One reason we have 4 steps forward  and back in each of the 12 sections. You bridge and then chase if needed. each section teaches different chasing footwork coordinated with multiple hand techniques.  So you learn you try to close and bridge ,the opponent moves to avoid ,you have then trained chasing reflexes so you change to continue closing depending on the direction they moved to avoid.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Punching, all angles, hooks ,uppercuts overhand hammer hangingfist/backfist to name the main punches in addition to straight punch then there are the different body usage tied to punches ,rising falling sinking swinging etc



Please give an example of how "Dong - swing" and "Jui - follow" is applied according to the Lo Kwai 18 Methods/Energies.


----------



## Jens

In an earlier post you mentioned: 





hunschuld said:


> The concept is to use your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense.



Please explain how does "use your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense" relate to "Stillness to overcome movement"? these two seems to be contradicting each other.

Are you using constant motion with your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense to force the opponent to re-adjust his position by "squaring " back up (i.e. why boxers use circling footwork), to prevent their opponent from "getting set" by minimizing his ability to potentially attack you continuously? or is the purpose of you using your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense strictly used to counter the opponent's angle of attack and angle changes, thus you only step when he steps?


----------



## hunschuld

Jens said:


> In an earlier post you mentioned:
> 
> Please explain how does "use your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense" relate to "Stillness to overcome movement"? these two seems to be contradicting each other.
> 
> Are you using constant motion with your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense to force the opponent to re-adjust his position by "squaring " back up (i.e. why boxers use circling footwork), to prevent their opponent from "getting set" by minimizing his ability to potentially attack you continuously? or is the purpose of you using your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense strictly used to counter the opponent's angle of attack and angle changes, thus you only step when he steps?




I think "Stillness" is either  mistranslated of just miss understood because of a lack of real fighting/sparring experience. It is closer to "deliberate" not "still" as in not moving.

Footwork usage is not either or its all of the above. Its depends on situation and what your capabilities are. Against another fat old man I may be very aggressive. Against a younger person I have to be more deliberate and defensive staying within myself if I am to have a chance.

Follow is for staying with someone that is trying to disengage  Dong is for grappling range and is based on absorb and react to incoming energy


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> I think "Stillness" is either  mistranslated of just miss understood because of a lack of real fighting/sparring experience. It is closer to "deliberate" not "still" as in not moving.



Please elaborate on what you mean by "deliberate" in this context footwork/stepping above?



hunschuld said:


> Follow is for staying with someone that is trying to disengage



Is "Follow" used strictly when there is already existing bridge contact as in chi sao to stick to the opponent? or can it also be used at long range when there is no existing bridge contact, for example in the context of using your footwork/stepping to track the opponent's footwork/stepping (i.e. when the opponent takes one step back you take one step forward in unison to match him)?



hunschuld said:


> Dong is for grappling range and is based on absorb and react to incoming energy



Is the application of "Dong" (swing) related to "Juan" (Roll) ( i.e I pull you to your right (dong), then when you resist to your left, I switch directions taking advantage of your momentum by rolling  with it  to your left  to throw you?  another example of this is: I pull you forward towards me (dong), then when you resist backwards, I go forward rolling with your energy to throw you backwards.


----------



## hunschuld

The concept of Follow can be used anytime so the idea can and should be used without contact. AS an energy it requires contact.. You also understand Dong.

Stillness- Wing Chun is actually only learned by getting hit. No sparring against non wing chun people=no real wing chun. That is why all the stories of Leung Jan,Chan Wah,Lo Kwai Fung Wah etc fighting others. these were not bar fights they were usually learning and testing fights They all had real fights but those were few in number.

Fighting range to far away to connect, shoot range,kicking range,punching range, grapple range. No matter what some one does if they are to far away to get to me I don't have to do much. I don't have to move. As they get closer I have to do more adjustment and movement. If they are in range to shoot I react based on their shoulder movement. To go for a double leg their shoulders have to drop. I react based upon my predetermined defenses for a shoot from this distance. ie my opponent moves but I move first..
In kicking range I now have 2 things to deal with a kick or a shoot. etc At each range I have already trained various reaction. As someone gets closer the more I have to move and expend energy. If I stay still in front of a boxer I will get picked apart. No one can stop a real jab on a consistent basis when behind on timing and starting from a fixed position.

the reverse also happens when my range is reached I attack I do not wait to see what the other person is going to do. As a WC person and being old and slow that range is punching range.

However everyone's abilities ,speed and ranges are different. That is why you must spar against non WC people so you can learn and understand combat ranges. This can not be learned in chi sau nor can you learn it sparring WC only people since you both are acting at the same range For example You want to learn to defend against kicks you need a TKD person kicking you full speed and power not a WC person.. Doing this is the only way to really learn and understand wing chun Kuit.


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> Fighting range to far away to connect, shoot range,kicking range,punching range, grapple range. No matter what some one does if they are to far away to get to me I don't have to do much. I don't have to move. As they get closer I have to do more adjustment and movement. If they are in range to shoot I react based on their shoulder movement. To go for a double leg their shoulders have to drop. I react based upon my predetermined defenses for a shoot from this distance. ie my opponent moves but I move first..
> In kicking range I now have 2 things to deal with a kick or a shoot. etc At each range I have already trained various reaction. As someone gets closer the more I have to move and expend energy. If I stay still in front of a boxer I will get picked apart. No one can stop a real jab on a consistent basis when behind on timing and starting from a fixed position.
> 
> the reverse also happens when my range is reached I attack I do not wait to see what the other person is going to do. As a WC person and being old and slow that range is punching range.




If I understand you correctly above,  when you are just outside fighting range you are *Not* using constant motion with your footwork to keep changing your angle of attack and defense while advancing with a series of incremental angular steps to take the initiative to close the distance on the opponent.  Thus forcing the opponent to re-adjust his position by re-facing or "squaring" back up to you, then using his reactions to re-face you against him to set traps by taking advantage of timing to attack him while he is in the midst of refacing you?

When you are just a couple of inches outside the opponent's kicking range, you wait until the opponent breaches your punching range, then you immediately attack him, taking control by continuously attacking and dominating him?


----------



## Jens

hunschuld said:


> when my range is reached I attack I do not wait to see what the other person is going to do. As a WC person and being old and slow that range is punching range.



How do you define  punching range? and does waiting until the opponent reaches your punching range before reacting or attacking him leave you vulnerable in shoot range/kicking range?

Once your range is reached, do you initially engage by stepping forward with a mun sau to create a bridge to control his bridge as you strike him? or strike him directly without the need for bridge control?



hunschuld said:


> Once my bridging distance is reached I move based on position to bridge..



Is your bridging distance kicking range or punching range?


----------

