# articles in WCI magazine...



## wckf92 (Jul 2, 2017)

Just skimmed the latest edition of Wing Chun Illustrated...

It highlights two of Yip Man's students/diciples... "Mak Po Shing" (disciple of YM from the mid 50's); and a "Roland Tong" (also from the mid 50's generation).
They both seem to indicate that YM was not very consistent in his teachings. He taught each according to that students' own understanding. And, the articles go on to say that not everyone was taught the full measure of YM's skill. Just sayin'...  

Also, the articles speak of YM's footwork skill, his tremendous abilities with just his legs and kicks and positioning ability...so perhaps YM had a long range ****-whoopin abilty that only a few got as well? (along with the pole and knives)


----------



## LFJ (Jul 2, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> And, the articles go on to say that not everyone was taught the full measure of YM's skill. Just sayin'...
> 
> Also, the articles speak of YM's footwork skill, his tremendous abilities with just his legs and kicks and positioning ability...so perhaps YM had a long range ****-whoopin abilty that only a few got as well? (along with the pole and knives)



As much should be painfully obvious by now, I think.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> As much should be painfully obvious by now, I think.


If by obvious you mean imperceptible, I completely agree. Your right about the painful part though. Also dizzying.

I've still yet to see this long range Wing Chun brought into evidence. Maybe I should start claiming boxing is a good ground fighting system in every thread for so you can see what I see.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I've still yet to see this long range Wing Chun brought into evidence.



Here ya go. Probably best to continue the discussion there if you wish, in an attempt to keep it all in one place.


----------



## diego_guidone (Jul 2, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Just skimmed the latest edition of Wing Chun Illustrated...
> 
> It highlights two of Yip Man's students/diciples... "Mak Po Shing" (disciple of YM from the mid 50's); and a "Roland Tong" (also from the mid 50's generation).
> They both seem to indicate that YM was not very consistent in his teachings. He taught each according to that students' own understanding. And, the articles go on to say that not everyone was taught the full measure of YM's skill. Just sayin'...
> ...



I think that's for sure correct. First I trained in Wang Kiu/Victor Kan system, and as much as I loved the system there was a lack in explaining why we do certain movements in the forms, and the thinking behind those forms. 
But if you know that Wang Kiu only trained for 2.5 years with YM and had a full time job in Hong Kong( so probably 12 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week ). You understand why he lacked that knowledge. Viktor Kan on the other hand who trained for 7years full time with YM, probably has knowledge, because he helped YM with instructing, but doesn't want to explain peopleand has a horrible personality (ask anyone that trained with him) so we don't even know what he knows... he also really likes money. But you can feel his strength and just by briefly training with him you can feel that. 

Since a few years I started training Wong Shun Leung Philipp Bayer system. WSL trained about 20years with YM. In my opinion you get to hear way more information and more in-depth information 


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk


----------



## Martial D (Jul 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Here ya go. Probably best to continue the discussion there if you wish, in an attempt to keep it all in one place.


Yes, I saw that. The old deadly side kick to the knee canard. That doesn't actually work you know, that's an old MA wives tale, right up there with "TMA is too deadly for competition."

Your right though, this doesn't belong in this thread.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Yes, I saw that. The old deadly side kick to the knee canard. That doesn't actually work you know, that's an old MA wives tale, right up there with "TMA is too deadly for competition."



That wasn't at all the whole point of the post, but in case you're just a newb and not just trolling, here's a _freaking spinning back kick_ to the knee that ends a fight.

If even that can be pulled off against a trained fighter, _of course_ a far more reliably precise oblique kick or side kick to the knee can absolutely cause serious injury and end a fight.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2017)

@LFJ beat me to some of the videos, especially the Jones one.  Here is another.



.

Now you see what it can do from the front in terms of hyperextension.  The thing is the knee is designed to take an amount of stress in the direction and it can still mess you up.  Now apply that same force from the side, which the knee is not designed to deal with.  It works definitely when used properly, why?  Biomechanics.  All of our joints are designed to only bend one way or another.

What I especially loved in the video I linked was that even in the face of "no one uses WC techniques in MMA what did the one fight commentator say "that's a Wing Chun technique."


----------



## KPM (Jul 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Here ya go. Probably best to continue the discussion there if you wish, in an attempt to keep it all in one place.



That ain't it bro!  And just the fact that you think it is speaks volumes about your understanding!


----------



## KPM (Jul 2, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> so perhaps YM had a long range ****-whoopin abilty that only a few got as well? (along with the pole and knives)



Maybe so!  But there is no evidence of that so far!


----------



## Martial D (Jul 2, 2017)

LFJ said:


> That wasn't at all the whole point of the post, but in case you're just a newb and not just trolling, here's a _freaking spinning back kick_ to the knee that ends a fight.
> 
> If even that can be pulled off against a trained fighter, _of course_ a far more reliably precise oblique kick or side kick to the knee can absolutely cause serious injury and end a fight.


Nope, not trolling. Your first video was a totally different technique than I was talking about, landing in fluke timing just as the other guy is kicking. 

So sure, if you happen to land something like that at that exact moment you should probably also buy a lottery ticket, as luck is on your side. 

As for the second video that shows actual side kicks toward the knee. That was what, ten clips? 0 of them ended the fight.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Nope, not trolling. Your first video was a totally different technique than I was talking about, landing in fluke timing just as the other guy is kicking.
> 
> So sure, if you happen to land something like that at that exact moment you should probably also buy a lottery ticket, as luck is on your side.
> 
> As for the second video that shows actual side kicks toward the knee. That was what, ten clips? 0 of them ended the fight.


The last part made me SMH.  There is no "one shot one kill" in a fight unless you have a sniper rifle.  It's about breaking them down bit by bit and the joints, and face, are the most effective targets for that. This is actual basic biology, I don't even know why there is a debate and if you look back at the history between me and @LFJ the fact we are on the same page here should tell you something.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Your first video was a totally different technique than I was talking about, landing in fluke timing just as the other guy is kicking.
> 
> So sure, if you happen to land something like that at that exact moment you should probably also buy a lottery ticket, as luck is on your side.



It was actually one of his signature counters against kicks and landed with perfect timing as the opponent's base leg was turned out.

Of course, point being, a knee stomp can far more reliably land with perfect precision and damage the knee.
At the very least it can have someone walking funny and unable to fight back as effectively. It's a sharp pain.

Even a rather mild hyperextension can take weeks to heal. 
A more serious hyperextension can damage ligaments and cartilage and require surgery. 
Knee stomps are definitely not to be scoffed at.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> It works definitely when used properly, why?  Biomechanics.



Hard to argue against how the human body is built.



> What I especially loved in the video I linked was that even in the face of "no one uses WC techniques in MMA what did the one fight commentator say "that's a Wing Chun technique."



Right.



Juany118 said:


> This is actual basic biology, I don't even know why there is a debate and if you look back at the history between me and @LFJ the fact we are on the same page here should tell you something.



It tells me this kid is either a really basic newb or just trolling. Probably both.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> The last part made me SMH.  There is no "one shot one kill" in a fight unless you have a sniper rifle.  It's about breaking them down bit by bit and the joints, and face, are the most effective targets for that. This is actual basic biology, I don't even know why there is a debate and if you look back at the history between me and @LFJ the fact we are on the same page here should tell you something.



Yes, it tells me you have the same religious beliefs.

It also tells me you haven't been following the conversation. My post was in response to his claim side kicks to the knee are deadly fight enders, where in reality that is barely ever the case. Reality Trump's theory every time.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 3, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Yes, it tells me you have the same religious beliefs.
> 
> It also tells me you haven't been following the conversation. My post was in response to his claim side kicks to the knee are deadly fight enders, where in reality that is barely ever the case. Reality Trump's theory every time.



They actually are crippling fight enders when applied correctly.  One day at work I was trying to kick to the common peroneal and hit the knee instead.  I had to write my UoF memo in A LOT more detail  than usual because the suspect required surgery.  Even when it isn't that catastrophic it can easily make the opponent less effective in combat because you undermine their foundation, even if the long term result is simply ice, Aleve and bed rest.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> They actually are crippling fight enders when applied correctly.  One day at work I was trying to kick to the common peroneal and hit the knee instead.  I had to write my UoF memo in A LOT more detail  than usual because the suspect required surgery.  Even when it isn't that catastrophic it can easily make the opponent less effective in combat because you undermine their foundation, even if the long term result is simply ice, Aleve and bed rest.



This kid must just be really young and inactive to not know how easily knees can be damaged.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> This kid must just be really young and inactive to not know how easily knees can be damaged.



Or maybe he just has a different experience? Not everything has to be so black and white you know.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Or maybe he just has a different experience? Not everything has to be so black and white you know.



Basic human anatomy isn't subjective.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Basic human anatomy isn't subjective.



Yea, but high % moves are also not subjective. Sure, you might break the knee but how easy is it to hit that?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Yea, but high % moves are also not subjective. Sure, you might break the knee but how easy is it to hit that?



Knee stomps are high percentage and easy to hit. Did you not see the Jon Jones video? He did it all the time.

Line a bunch of your friends up according to height, and interestingly you'll find despite the range in heights, their knees will be roughly at the same height, excluding obvious extremes.







It's not hard to train to hit the knee with precision, especially on weighted lead-leg fighters with no awareness of leg kicks, like boxers who don't cross train.

Now, I didn't say it will break the knee, though possible, but hyperextension can easily cause lasting injury, and absolutely take someone out of a fight or at least hinder their mobility and therefore effectiveness against you.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> They actually are crippling fight enders when applied correctly.  One day at work I was trying to kick to the common peroneal and hit the knee instead.  I had to write my UoF memo in A LOT more detail  than usual because the suspect required surgery.  Even when it isn't that catastrophic it can easily make the opponent less effective in combat because you undermine their foundation, even if the long term result is simply ice, Aleve and bed rest.


I didn't say low kicks aren't useful, they are very good for keeping over agressive opponents at arm's length, and they hurt like Hades to be on the wrong end of. 

Yet, if that is your go to long range weapon you're probably in for a long...or very short..night..if you expect anyone to fold under it.  This is from the squared off/both men ready perspective. 

Now if the other guy isn't ready, and is not in any kind of fighting stance, sure..it can be an effective ambush from the blind side I guess.


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> @LFJ beat me to some of the videos, especially the Jones one.  Here is another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Genuine question.  I have read many times that WC is a "system" not a group of techniques.  If Jon Jones doesn't train WC, can this actually be viewed as validating WC, even if the technique is familiar?  (I hope that makes sense).


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> Genuine question.  I have read many times that WC is a "system" not a group of techniques.  If Jon Jones doesn't train WC, can this actually be viewed as validating WC, even if the technique is familiar?  (I hope that makes sense).




I think the statement simply indicates the origin or where it is most prevelantly used.  Wing Chun is taught as a system, but simply because that is the case doesn't mean you can't take individual techniques that form the system and then apply them to other fighting methods.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Yet, if that is your go to long range weapon you're probably in for a long...or very short..night..if you expect anyone to fold under it.



No one said it's a "go-to finisher", though it is an example of something that can certainly end a fight from long range without needing to close in. It's one of a number of things.

I said it is used to very good effect in keeping the opponent at bay to manage distance on the outside, as you just agreed is very good. 

That's part of long-range VT, conducting the fight from long range with VT, as the original post I linked to was describing.

For some reason you threw out the whole point of the post, and of that kick, to cherrypick the statement that it can end a fight and strawman it into an unrealistic "go-to finisher".

Obvious troll.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> Genuine question.  I have read many times that WC is a "system" not a group of techniques.  If Jon Jones doesn't train WC, can this actually be viewed as validating WC, even if the technique is familiar?  (I hope that makes sense).



It validates the usefulness of the kick which is used in VT.


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It validates the usefulness of the kick which is used in VT.


Okay.  So youre not saying that Jones is doing WC.  got it.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> Okay.  So youre not saying that Jones is doing WC.  got it.



Just like someone who ducks a kick is not doing boxing or copying it.

I learned the oblique kick in other TCMAs as a kid before I ever came to VT.

I don't know where Jones got it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Just like someone who ducks a kick is not doing boxing or copying it.
> 
> I learned the oblique kick in other TCMAs as a kid before I ever came to VT.
> 
> I don't know where Jones got it.


So, it would be correct to say that this is an example of a technique being used effectively, which would indicate that similar techniques in WC can work (i.e., the biomechanics are sound and there is evidence it can be used effectively in a fight).  But this isn't an example of WC being used in MMA.  Maybe, but that would really depend on the individual having trained in the system of WC.

Do I have that right?

Just to clarify, I want to make sure I get what you guys mean.  I don't have a stake in this either way.  Just trying to track the discussion.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> So, it would be correct to say that this is an example of a technique being used effectively, which would indicate that similar techniques in WC can work (i.e., the biomechanics are sound and there is evidence it can be used effectively in a fight).  But this isn't an example of WC being used in MMA.  Maybe, but that would really depend on the individual having trained in the system of WC.
> 
> Do I have that right?



Yes.

If Jones learned it from VT and uses it, you could say he's using "a VT kick". 

Otherwise, he's using "a kick that is used in VT", and it obviously works.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Knee stomps are high percentage and easy to hit. Did you not see the Jon Jones video? He did it all the time.
> 
> Line a bunch of your friends up according to height, and interestingly you'll find despite the range in heights, their knees will be roughly at the same height, excluding obvious extremes.
> 
> ...



So your argument is that because the knee is at approx the same height on all people, it is easy too hit? Umm right..knee is a tiny moving target. Good luck with that!


----------



## KPM (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Yes.
> 
> If Jones learned it from VT and uses it, you could say he's using "a VT kick".
> 
> Otherwise, he's using "a kick that is used in VT", and it obviously works.



Body leaned back with torso in a direct line with the direction of the kick....that's a straight up Savate kick.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 3, 2017)

karatejj said:


> So your argument is that because the knee is at approx the same height on all people, it is easy too hit? Umm right..knee is a tiny moving target. Good luck with that!



Well first the knee is no smaller than hitting the nose and surrounding cheek bones and that happens all the time.  Second you don't have to hit the knee directly to have the effect.  Hitting just above or below the knee can still cause hyperextension.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

karatejj said:


> So your argument is that because the knee is at approx the same height on all people, it is easy too hit? Umm right..knee is a tiny moving target. Good luck with that!



What Juany said... 

It doesn't move around as erratically as a head, but you don't scoff and say good luck punching someone in the face... and Jones makes a pretty good habit of kicking it just fine.



KPM said:


> Body leaned back with torso in a direct line with the direction of the kick....that's a straight up Savate kick.



You could say it's a kick in many styles, including VT. Point is, it works and is part of long-range VT.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> What Juany said...
> 
> It doesn't move around as erratically as a head, but you don't scoff and say good luck punching someone in the face... and Jones makes a pretty good habit of kicking it just fine.



Ever tried drinking a glass of water using your feet? Bit different compared to what your hands can do. Good luck with that


----------



## LFJ (Jul 3, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Ever tried drinking a glass of water using your feet? Bit different compared to what your hands can do. Good luck with that



No, but I've kicked people in the knee...


----------



## karatejj (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No, but I've kicked people in the knee...



Punching them in the face much easier!


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 3, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Punching them in the face much easier!


Its all a matter of 
A. How much you practice.
B. How hard the target is to hit.  

The knee, while it moves is actually easier to hit than the face, especially if you are using the kick the way you see in the video.  Someone is either moving in on you and you want to maintain distance (little lateral movement of the target) or the leg is planted while a punch is thrown.  

In either case the knee, if you actually train such a kick, can be as easy, if not easier, than punching someone in the face.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 3, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No one said it's a "go-to finisher", though it is an example of something that can certainly end a fight from long range without needing to close in. It's one of a number of things.
> 
> I said it is used to very good effect in keeping the opponent at bay to manage distance on the outside, as you just agreed is very good.
> 
> ...


Well, as the conversation started as a question about this phantom long range wc, and you showed me that, what other conclusion am I left with? It seems strange to use something as a tool to keep someone at range when you don't have anything but that at range. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

As an aside I see you don't know what trolling means. Trolling is simply fishing for responses. Trolling is not addressing points and offering rejoinders. Just because you don't understand or don't agree with something that is posted does not make it trolling, so save it. If anything, your constant accusations of trolling are the real trolling.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 3, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, as the conversation started as a question about this phantom long range wc, and you showed me that, what other conclusion am I left with? It seems strange to use something as a tool to keep someone at range when you don't have anything but that at range. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
> 
> As an aside I see you don't know what trolling means. Trolling is simply fishing for responses. Trolling is not addressing points and offering rejoinders. Just because you don't understand or don't agree with something that is posted does not make it trolling, so save it. If anything, your constant accusations of trolling are the real trolling.



But it is not phantom from the staart, even according to the OP.  @KPM has acknowledged that the WC I study, "Traditional Wing Chun" has a long range game.  So out of the gate, whether others "like" my WC or not, the OP acknowledges it has a long range game.  He has even called it "long fist" WC.  We now have @LFJ showing what I knew from my novice level study of it years ago, that WSLVT, he studies under the Philipp Bayer line and I under the Gary Lam, also has a long range game.  @LFJ even showed a video of it.  LFJ and I have had some serious knock down drag out fights over the last year but even I have to agree with, and support, him on this.

Here is the problem, there is no "monolithic" Wing Chun.  You have any number of Main Land Lineages and then you have however many claim YM.  Off the top of my head I can think of the Yips, my TWC via GM William Cheung, the various WSL variations (Philipp Bayer, Gary Lam, and David Petersen to name only three), Hawkings Cheung and Leung Ting.  I am sure there are others but all of these have differences, some major and some minor so to say anything is a phantom in WC is wrong.  Some have a long range game and others do not.  Some have chin na/grappling, others do not.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> @LFJ beat me to some of the videos, especially the Jones one.  Here is another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If those kicks work in competition then they dont work on the street. Because of rules.


Kicks to the knee work. The knee exploding not so much.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 3, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> They actually are crippling fight enders when applied correctly.  One day at work I was trying to kick to the common peroneal and hit the knee instead.  I had to write my UoF memo in A LOT more detail  than usual because the suspect required surgery.  Even when it isn't that catastrophic it can easily make the opponent less effective in combat because you undermine their foundation, even if the long term result is simply ice, Aleve and bed rest.



I have been messed up by a round kick to my knee. I have not been messed up by the thousand other round kicks to my knee. 

I am going to work on the theory that a knee kick probably won't end a fight regardless how correctly applied.

Anyone who is claiming they can reliably smash a knee with a kick had better have smashed more than one knee.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 3, 2017)

Well, I'm getting dizzy. I'm too old for this many laps on the merry go round.

Long fist WC huh? So you throw out center line principle, the biomechanics, the entire approach of phone booth chi sau sensitivity and trapping and attack with your body on the >45 degree angle necessary to get long range, boxing style arm extension?

That would put your center somewhere to his right or left(depending on orth/southpaw) which destructuralizes  everything(now your tan saus/bong saus/fook said are easily collapsed..etc.

If you say so I guess.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> Genuine question.  I have read many times that WC is a "system" not a group of techniques.  If Jon Jones doesn't train WC, can this actually be viewed as validating WC, even if the technique is familiar?  (I hope that makes sense).


Have the same kick in the Kali system I train and teach. What would that do the same for Kali.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 3, 2017)

Steve said:


> Genuine question.  I have read many times that WC is a "system" not a group of techniques.  If Jon Jones doesn't train WC, can this actually be viewed as validating WC, even if the technique is familiar?  (I hope that makes sense).



MMA does wing chun better?


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Have the same kick in the Kali system I train and teach. What would that do the same for Kali.


i don't think I understand what you're asking.


----------



## Steve (Jul 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> MMA does wing chun better?


Lol.   I don't think so.  We all know that wc doesn't work in Mma, ergo if wc works in Mma, It isn't wc.  That's logic.  Infallible, rock solid, logic.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Lol.   I don't think so.  We all know that wc doesn't work in Mma, ergo if wc works in Mma, It isn't wc.  That's logic.  Infallible, rock solid, logic.



All roads lead to IP Man.

I met him once nice guy. He told me the secret to wing chun. But I was on Facebook so I wasn't really paying attention.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Punching them in the face much easier!



You think you can punch this guy in the face pretty easily, huh?

I think you'd have a hard time, but his knee could be kicked at almost any point in there, because boxers don't need to be concerned about such dangers in the sport. So, he leaves his lead leg there without much movement while focusing on upper body evasion.

You should actually train knee kicks and try it out against boxers before you say what is much easier to do.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, as the conversation started as a question about this phantom long range wc, and you showed me that, what other conclusion am I left with? It seems strange to use something as a tool to keep someone at range when you don't have anything but that at range.



How about you actually read the post, and watch the video? That is not the only weapon at long-range.



Martial D said:


> Long fist WC huh? So you throw out center line principle, the biomechanics,



Not at all.



> the entire approach of phone booth chi sau sensitivity and trapping



No such thing in VT to begin with.



> and attack with your body on the >45 degree angle necessary to get long range, boxing style arm extension?



There's no need to overextend at long-range.



> That would put your center somewhere to his right or left(depending on orth/southpaw) which destructuralizes  everything(now your tan saus/bong saus/fook said are easily collapsed..etc.



No. _Taan-sau_ and _fuk-sau_ aren't fighting techniques in VT, and _bong-sau_ isn't something to hold pressure.

If you aren't familiar with VT, only incorrect conclusions can come from these assumptions.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If those kicks work in competition then they dont work on the street. Because of rules.



What? Rules are not what make knee kicks work.



drop bear said:


> Anyone who is claiming they can reliably smash a knee with a kick had better have smashed more than one knee.



I have smashed more than one knee.


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2017)

* according to the OP.  @KPM has acknowledged that the WC I study, "Traditional Wing Chun" has a long range game. *

----Uh no.  Like LJF, you obviously haven't been following what I've been writing over...what...3 threads now?  I said TWC has better long range abilities that any other system of Wing Chun I've seen, and that some of what I was saying didn't apply to TWC.  I did not say that  TWC has a "long range game" that is the equivalent of boxing  and others.  It comes the closest, but still has plenty of room for improvement and further development.  And for that reason, TWC is the base Wing Chun version I am using in my "Wing Chun Boxing" project.
*
  He has even called it "long fist" WC.  *

---No.  I called it "long arm" WC.  I've also seen it called "long bridge" WC.  This reflects the fact that some of the arm techniques tend to be more extended than other WC and are used more from the middle range.


*that WSLVT, he studies under the Philipp Bayer line and I under the Gary Lam, also has a long range game.*

---Then please show a video of this "long range" Wing Chun.  And I will repeat...for probably the 10th time now, that having a viable "long range strategy" is NOT the same thing has having a fully developed "long range game."
*

@LFJ even showed a video of it.  *

---So you really think Sean's video clip of MMA training, with obvious grappling elements and obvious boxing elements represents and demonstrates a full and "pure" Wing Chun "long range game" ???   You can honestly look at Sean's student ducking and bobbing forward and then hopping to the side and not see an obvious boxing influence?   You can look at the clip of Sean's students doing a classic boxing "high cover" and say with LFJ that it was "pure" WSLVT???

* Some have a long range game and others do not.  Some have chin na/grappling, others do not.*

---Please share with us a video clip of ANY Wing Chun lineage fighting entirely from long range.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> *@LFJ even showed a video of it. *
> 
> ---So you really think Sean's video clip of MMA training, with obvious grappling elements and obvious boxing elements represents and demonstrates a full and "pure" Wing Chun "long range game" ???



You keep pointing to irrelevant clips in the video to invalidate the relevant part. Why?

This is a dishonest tactic.



> You can honestly look at Sean's student ducking and bobbing forward and then hopping to the side and not see an obvious boxing influence?



It's natural instinct even for the untrained, and not precluded from VT, nor learned from boxing.



> You can look at the clip of Sean's students doing a classic boxing "high cover" and say with LFJ that it was "pure" WSLVT???



It's a _Biu-ji_ tactic in the form, simply used as a standard defense because of its usefulness against other styles.



> ---Please share with us a video clip of ANY Wing Chun lineage fighting entirely from long range.



I did, but it's invalid because other irrelevant clips in the video show grappling.


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2017)

*You keep pointing to irrelevant clips in the video to invalidate the relevant part. Why?  This is a dishonest tactic.*

---And you keep pointing to an MMA sparring clip saying it represents "pure" WSLVT.  You want to pick and choose the short segments that you feel support your point and ignore the rest.  That seems like a very dishonest tactic to me! 

---Just admit it.  That one clip is all you have to try and represent a WSLVT "long range game."   And that clip is inconclusive and poor evidence because it is a clip of MMA training where things from outside of WSLVT have been added in.  So you just want everyone to take your word for it that the elements that look so much like western boxing actually come from your WSLVT Biu Gee form and have been part of WSLVT all along.  Sorry.  That is even close to being proof of anything.  That is an MMA clip and there is nothing to show that those boxing-like elements didn't come from an actual boxing influence.  


*
It's a Biu-ji tactic in the form, simply used as a standard defense because of its usefulness against other styles.*

---And I've asked before and you failed to answer....where is this in the Biu Gee form?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---And you keep pointing to an MMA sparring clip saying it represents "pure" WSLVT.  You want to pick and choose the short segments that you feel support your point and ignore the rest.  That seems like a very dishonest tactic to me!



It's not. What I pointed to is pure WSLVT long-range fighting. Like it or not.



> that clip is inconclusive and poor evidence because it is a clip of MMA training where things from outside of WSLVT have been added in.



If the long-range striking clip were uploaded alone, it would show nothing but pure VT, and you couldn't use the dishonest tactic of pointing to irrelevant clips showing grappling. That is your only way to complain about it.



> So you just want everyone to take your word for it that the elements that look so much like western boxing actually come from your WSLVT Biu Gee form and have been part of WSLVT all along.



It is entirely unlike boxing, and is right there in the form. Truth doesn't require your belief in it.



> That is an MMA clip and there is nothing to show that those boxing-like elements didn't come from an actual boxing influence.



It's just like looking at an oblique kick in VT sparring and saying it's not VT because other styles do something similar.

That's just ignorant.



> *It's a Biu-ji tactic in the form, simply used as a standard defense because of its usefulness against other styles.*
> 
> ---And I've asked before and you failed to answer....where is this in the Biu Gee form?



No. You failed to read the answer that I gave you at least two or three times. It's at the end.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> * according to the OP.  @KPM has acknowledged that the WC I study, "Traditional Wing Chun" has a long range game. *
> 
> ----Uh no.  Like LJF, you obviously haven't been following what I've been writing over...what...3 threads now?  I said TWC has better long range abilities that any other system of Wing Chun I've seen, and that some of what I was saying didn't apply to TWC.  I did not say that  TWC has a "long range game" that is the equivalent of boxing  and others.  It comes the closest, but still has plenty of room for improvement and further development.  And for that reason, TWC is the base Wing Chun version I am using in my "Wing Chun Boxing" project.
> *
> ...


Long fist, long arm, long bridge.  That is a semantics game, not one of substance.

I have shown a video.  How many kicks does Sifu Jerry use in the MUSU fight I have posted, kicks are part of a TCMA long game. 

You have yet to show how boxing demonstrably improves in the long game of TWC.

You know the history of @LFJ and I, yet I can look at his video and say "that is WSLVT" in his video in terms of long game and say that the take down, while not WSLVT via PB (it's there is Gary Lam's though) is irrelevant.

So we have videos already posted.   You even posted a video of GM Cheung using WC against a boxer.  If you feel the WC you study and teach needs a gap filler that is fine, I don't study yours so I won't say you are wrong but you are saying other Lineages also need such an addition and it's seems clear what applies to one lineage doesn't apply to all.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> If you feel the WC you study and teach needs a gap filler that is fine, I don't study yours so I won't say you are wrong but you are saying other Lineages also need such an addition and it's seems clear what applies to one lineage doesn't apply to all.



Clearly an ego problem.

He doesn't want to be the only one admitting gaps in fundamentals, so he will use dishonest tactics to invalidate the demonstrated long-range game of VT.

Especially since I have been saying most YM derivatives are full of gaps, and he hates that, he would never acknowledge WSLVT has a long-range game.

That video was a compilation of things. Training, drilling, and various sparring bouts, and not even all on the same day.

The bout I pointed to showed the VT fighter using nothing but VT long-range game.
But, since the video had some separate grappling clips, he jumps on that to disqualify the whole thing.

Obvious ego-driven dishonesty.


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2017)

Long fist, long arm, long bridge.  That is a semantics game, not one of substance.

*---I defined the terms.  It certainly does have substance.*

I have shown a video.  How many kicks does Sifu Jerry use in the MUSU fight I have posted, kicks are part of a TCMA long game.

*---So you showed a clip of a TWC fighter kicking.  And you think that is an example of the entire "long range game" and an example of conducting the entire fight from long range, equivalent to what a boxer could do???   Kicking can indeed be an important element of a "long range game."  But just because someone is kicking doesn't mean they have a "long range game" that goes beyond just a "long range strategy."  The clips I showed of Wing Chun guys just stepping in and starting punching had kicks as well.*

*You have yet to show how boxing demonstrably improves in the long game of TWC.*

----I proposed it as a possibility.  And not even a  necessity!  And yet people have gotten all butt-hurt at the suggestion that there might be room for improvement in their Wing Chun!!!  


*You know the history of @LFJ and I, yet I can look at his video and say "that is WSLVT" in his video in terms of long game and say that the take down, while not WSLVT via PB (it's there is Gary Lam's though) is irrelevant.*

----So you are so caught up in justifying your current beliefs, that you are willing to look at an MMA training video that shows both obvious grappling elements and obvious boxing elements, and then take LFJ's word that the boxing element has been part of WSLVT all along?  Really??  I have to say I'm a bit disappointed you in.  I thought you were more open-minded about things like this.

*So we have videos already posted.   You even posted a video of GM Cheung using WC against a boxer. *

---Sure.  And he wasn't doing much from long range!!!!  And neither was the boxer at the time.

* If you feel the WC you study and teach needs a gap filler that is fine, I don't study yours so I won't say you are wrong but you are saying other Lineages also need such an addition and it's seems clear what applies to one lineage doesn't apply to all*.

----So now you are even picking up on LJF's derogatory term????   I've said multiple times now that some people may be perfectly happy with the long range strategy that goes along with their Wing Chun.  And that's Ok!  I've also said that it is not the equivalent of what other systems that were actually designed to work from long range can do.  That's just common sense.  So logically speaking, a Wing Chun guy can improve their abilities at long range by looking to one of those systems.  You can call that "gap filling" if you want.  I just call it "cross training" or "common sense"  But its just amazing at the number of people that have gotten all offended by my suggestion!     And yet I'm the one accused of being "ego driven"???


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No. You failed to read the answer that I gave you at least two or three times. It's at the end.



Yep.  Pretty typical of you.  You are asked "where are these long range methods found in the Biu Gee form?"   Your answer?  "At the end."   That's sure a detailed answer that explains everything!  Geez!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> ----So you are so caught up in justifying your current beliefs, that you are willing to look at an MMA training video that shows both obvious grappling elements and obvious boxing elements, and then take LFJ's word that the boxing element has been part of WSLVT all along?  Really??  I have to say I'm a bit disappointed you in.  I thought you were more open-minded about things like this.



In other words, 

"I'm a bit disappointed you in [sic]. _I thought you were on my side and would back me in disqualifying a particular sparring bout based on unrelated clips that also happen to be in the same compilation_".



> I've also said that it is not the equivalent of what other systems that were actually designed to work from long range can do.



VT can do whatever you required of it, unless your definition of "long-range game" requires overextending punches or spinning kicks. But, these are not necessary in order to conduct and end a fight from long range.



> But its just amazing at the number of people that have gotten all offended by my suggestion!



No one is offended by your suggestion. We are just pointing out that it applies only to your incomplete knowledge of WC and the incomplete WC you have knowledge of.



KPM said:


> You are asked "where are these long range methods found in the Biu Gee form?"   Your answer?  "At the end."   That's sure a detailed answer that explains everything!  Geez!



Have you not learned the form? 

Explains why you're confused a lot, if you haven't completed even a broken system of Wing Chun.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> Long fist, long arm, long bridge.  That is a semantics game, not one of substance.
> 
> *---I defined the terms.  It certainly does have substance.*
> 
> ...


The thing is when you defined them it was rather arbitrary.  You defined the terms long after you first used them based on what appears to be a confirmation bias.  Such things do lack substance imo.

As for an entire fight NO FIGHT, not even boxing, is entirely from long range.  As a matter of fact there are schools of Western Boxing that rely heavily on getting into what one could call trapping range, these boxers are sometimes referred to as swarmers. 

That said I am now shaking my head at showing an entire fight conducted at long range.  You will find no such actual fight in boxing either.  They will test with jabs from long range, which a WC fighter can also do with hands (albiet shorter range) or kicks (longer range).  They then flow between close range and this longer range. 

I just think you are looking at the wrong problem.  Is there a problem with how many schools train WC?  Yes.  The only train WC vs WC and this allows a myopic focus on the hands because of how drills are structured.  If however you don't simply train WC and test against WC but train to actually fight with WC and test against other forms of fighting you learn to use everything from any range, to flow between them as the fight dictates.

That is simply my experience.  I regularly spar with my brother in law who is a 2nd Dan in TKD.  I have a long game against him.  I used the close range game in the beginning because he was vulnerable to it.  He has since gotten better at addressing that and I rarely get into trapping range consistently, when I do I go for takedowns/control because I know he wont let me stay there long.  I still however, with my punches and kicks give at least as good as I get because I regularly train against styles other than WC precisely to avoid the pit fall that comes from how, not what, most WC practitioners train.


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> In other words,
> 
> "I'm a bit disappointed you in [sic]. _I thought you were on my side and would back me in disqualifying a particular sparring bout based on unrelated clips that also happen to be in the same compilation_".
> 
> ...



Pathetic.  That's all you've got, isn't it?  Pretty pathetic!  Attack the messenger and ignore the message.  Obfuscate when it is clear you can't provide solid evidence to back up your beliefs.  Pathetic.  And tiresome.  I'm about done with this.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 4, 2017)

Let me clarify something as well.  At one point I said Kali helped with my WC long game, this is true but it was largely a matter of speed of adaption.  Kali rams home out of the gate distance and timing because of the weapons.  WC would have brought that forward as well, but that largely comes from free sparring/fighting which obviously most any TMA school doesn't throw you into out of the gate.  It's there from the beginning but putting it into practice, the most effective way of really learning it, simply comes later in WC than Kali because, in my experience, weapons sparring starts earlier in FMA than sparring in WC.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> That's all you've got, isn't it?



What? Clearly demonstrated long-range VT along with ample explanation of the method?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> I think it's pretty weak too, I expected something more.....



It's enough to show that what I'm talking about exists. If you want more, go to a school.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 4, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Nah been there done that.....



Following DP, or a related school?

Not all WSLVT is equal. Just like many YM students, there are a lot of WSLVT instructors who didn't learn fully and teach a non-functional version of VT. There are also some outright charlatans claiming the lineage. So, it really depends on where you went.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You think you can punch this guy in the face pretty easily, huh?
> 
> I think you'd have a hard time, but his knee could be kicked at almost any point in there, because boxers don't need to be concerned about such dangers in the sport. So, he leaves his lead leg there without much movement while focusing on upper body evasion.
> 
> You should actually train knee kicks and try it out against boxers before you say what is much easier to do.



That guy is a boxer with boxing movement. Any boxer will have that too. So boxing wins!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 4, 2017)

If I wanted to start kicking the knee out of a boxer I would really want to be able to out box them.

A good defense to knee kicks is beating people into a bloody stain.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 4, 2017)

LFJ said:


> What? Clearly demonstrated long-range VT along with ample explanation of the method?


To be fair, I saw no such thing in that video either...even in the few seconds of that mma sparring match you specified.

And you really haven't explained anything as per methodology. 

Me, I'm done trying to get juice from this particular rock. Good luck KPM!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

Martial D said:


> To be fair, I saw no such thing in that video either...even in the few seconds of that mma sparring match you specified.
> 
> And you really haven't explained anything as per methodology.



It wasn't short-range...

I explained the neutral stance, lateral evasive footwork, covers, long-range kicks, drawing and baiting tactics, opportune punches, etc..

None of that is non-VT, and only the cover is similar to WB, but not non-VT. Sorry you didn't spend enough time to learn VT free-fighting strategy and tactics before giving up.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Your more talk and theory than practice and fighting



MartialTalk... It's a discussion forum to continue discussing your system outside of training and fighting.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> why would I take you serious?



I don't care if Malos1979 or any other user does or not.

I simply discuss the system I train. If you don't like it or find it worthwhile to discuss, you don't have to read it or comment.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Keep on talking, haven't seen any topic were you post your credentials or even introduce yourself, so why would I take you serious?



Yeah, stick around long enough and you'll discover that LFJ has little if any credibility here.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> I know one thing, that he is a black belt 10th dan keyboard warrior



I'm faulted for engaging in discussion on a discussion forum like everyone else?

You wanna fight me, or something, and you're not the keyboard warrior?


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2017)

LFJ said:


> I'm faulted for engaging in discussion on a discussion forum like everyone else?
> 
> You wanna fight me, or something, and you're not the keyboard warrior?



Anyone that resorts to personal attacks when they don't have a good argument.....attacking the messenger when you can't negate the message.......anyone that repeatedly criticizes what other's have to say and calls everyone else's Wing Chun "broken"...anyone that will never ever post video of themselves showing their abilities, but will freely criticize others when they do.......yeah, little credibility!


----------



## karatejj (Jul 5, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It wasn't short-range...
> 
> I explained the neutral stance, lateral evasive footwork, covers, long-range kicks, drawing and baiting tactics, opportune punches, etc..
> 
> None of that is non-VT, and only the cover is similar to WB, but not non-VT. Sorry you didn't spend enough time to learn VT free-fighting strategy and tactics before giving up.



Oh, I can believe that you wing chun contains these things, that you move differently, have different strategy, don't use contact reflex and sensing intent that ALL wing chun is reknown for. But then WHY is it SOOO different to everyone else's wing chun? Is it even wing chun..sure doesn't look like it. Anwer me that one!

Maybe your teacher changed a bit more than he is letting on to you?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

karatejj said:


> But then WHY is it SOOO different to everyone else's wing chun?



People like KPM get butthurt when I spell it out in full detail, even though recently his threads have been admitting what I have been saying all along. I don't care to convince anyone. Like KPM, they'll come to realize it on their own.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2017)

LFJ said:


> People like KPM get butthurt when I spell it out in full detail, even though recently his threads have been admitting what I have been saying all along. I don't care to convince anyone. Like KPM, they'll come to realize it on their own.



I have been admitting what exactly??


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> I have been admitting what exactly??



Deficiencies of your supposedly YM derived WC.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> this guy doesn't have the decency to introduce himself properly.



I have been on this forum since 2014. You, two weeks. 
I've been on another forum that had many of the same users here since 2007.
You're knocking on the door and telling me to introduce myself??


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 5, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Oh, I can believe that you wing chun contains these things, that you move differently, have different strategy, don't use contact reflex and sensing intent that ALL wing chun is reknown for. But then WHY is it SOOO different to everyone else's wing chun? Is it even wing chun..sure doesn't look like it. Anwer me that one!
> 
> Maybe your teacher changed a bit more than he is letting on to you?


It's not different though.  I study a completely different Lineage, heck one LFJ hasn't been overly kind to in other debates, but in TWC I don't see the issue boxing is supposed to solve.  It may have to do with how it is taught though. The most obvious example is that the picture perfect man sau/wu say is taught to impart principles.  As Sifu Keith Mazza (GM William Cheung's official US rep) says, "no one actually fights this way."

I think the origin of the difference may be this.  Both WSL and GM Cheung we're almost notorious for their participation in the roof top challenge fight culture.  They fought A LOT against many different styles, some of which are classic "long fist" TCMAs.  This likely influenced the WC/VT they teach a great deal.

This is why I think threads like this need to specify the WC that is being referenced because WC/VT is not monolithic.

That is also assuming the problem exists in Lineages I am not familiar with.  While he hasn't commented on the issue at length, Joy I believe has made it clear he sees the issues raised regarding range as a solution in search of a problem.  He will probably forget more about WC over the length of his lifetime than most of us will ever actually know.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Deficiencies of your supposedly YM derived WC.


----------



## paitingman (Jul 5, 2017)

I think KPM has his idea of what a "long rang game" is completely framed within the rules of boxing. Not fighting.

"You do this type of stance and this type of footwork. this is a great long range game (when you aren't allowed to kick and don't have to worry about kicks)"

but in mma/real fighting/ and many other systems, you do have to worry about kicks. So the footwork needs to be different.

@KPM keeps pointing out that all your pointing to in a WC/VT long range game is kicks and strategy. But kicks, when allowed, are the starting point of every long range game. Simple kicks to the leg/knee (and the footwork and tactics to deal with them) would be a huge part of Boxing's long range game, if it were allowed.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 5, 2017)

paitingman said:


> I think KPM has his idea of what a "long rang game" is completely framed within the rules of boxing. Not fighting.



This is true and because the WC he learned had no long-range game, and he is now attempting to draw a long-range game from boxing, while not considering the context it is working under. A grave error if looking to make a functional free-fighting method.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Deficiencies of your supposedly YM derived WC.



In a cross training thread. Everyone has to start with a deficiency.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

paitingman said:


> I think KPM has his idea of what a "long rang game" is completely framed within the rules of boxing. Not fighting.
> 
> "You do this type of stance and this type of footwork. this is a great long range game (when you aren't allowed to kick and don't have to worry about kicks)"
> 
> ...



But it is about taking steps forwards. So you look at the deficiency in your game. Fix it then look at the deficiency in that game.

But you have to do it to get a good grasp. On what to do next.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2017)

paitingman said:


> I think KPM has his idea of what a "long rang game" is completely framed within the rules of boxing. Not fighting.
> 
> "You do this type of stance and this type of footwork. this is a great long range game (when you aren't allowed to kick and don't have to worry about kicks)"
> 
> ...




Uh, no.  Have you read all of the discussion?   I have maintained since the very beginning that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized for close range fighting.  And that Wing Chun may have a workable "long range strategy" that gets the Wing Chun fighter to the preferable close range, but this is not the same thing as having a fully developed "long range game" equivalent to methods that were designed to work at long range....like boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc.  I have never said there was anything wrong with kicking!  In fact, I pointed out that low-line kicks can be easily added to a boxing "engine" with minimal changes in the mechanics.  I have simply been saying since the beginning that there is room for improvement in Wing Chun's ability to fight from long range, should someone choose to want to improve it.   And people have gotten all "butthurt" by the suggestion that Wing Chun's long range abilities could be improved!  Are you "butthurt" too?  Or have you just failed to follow the actual conversation and let all of LFJ's diversions distract you?


----------



## paitingman (Jul 5, 2017)

KPM said:


> Uh, no.  Have you read all of the discussion?   I have maintained since the very beginning that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized for close range fighting.  And that Wing Chun may have a workable "long range strategy" that gets the Wing Chun fighter to the preferable close range, but this is not the same thing as having a fully developed "long range game" equivalent to methods that were designed to work at long range....like boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc.  I have never said there was anything wrong with kicking!  In fact, I pointed out that low-line kicks can be easily added to a boxing "engine" with minimal changes in the mechanics.  I have simply been saying since the beginning that there is room for improvement in Wing Chun's ability to fight from long range, should someone choose to want to improve it.   And people have gotten all "butthurt" by the suggestion that Wing Chun's long range abilities could be improved!  Are you "butthurt" too?  Or have you just failed to follow the actual conversation and let all of LFJ's diversions distract you?


I was simply trying to offer a potential bridge between stand points.
I have followed the whole thread, but don't see eye to eye with you the whole way through. That was just my take on it.
You seem to be pretty defensive when someone does not support everything you say. To the point where you make repeated posts like this and even bring up other what should have been non offensive interactions from other threads.
Your behavior and reactions do appear to be a bit unreasonable at times. Not necessarily a fault of yours, but your reactions and how deeply you take disagreements are not what I would call typical.
I'm not sure really how I, or anyone on this forum should interact with you..


----------



## karatejj (Jul 6, 2017)

LFJ said:


> People like KPM get butthurt when I spell it out in full detail, even though recently his threads have been admitting what I have been saying all along. I don't care to convince anyone. Like KPM, they'll come to realize it on their own.



What are you saying, don't act all coy. 

So your wing chun is different- what's the reason? (this should be a good one)..


----------



## karatejj (Jul 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> Uh, no.  Have you read all of the discussion?   I have maintained since the very beginning that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized for close range fighting.  And that Wing Chun may have a workable "long range strategy" that gets the Wing Chun fighter to the preferable close range, but this is not the same thing as having a fully developed "long range game" equivalent to methods that were designed to work at long range....like boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc



You are 100% right for wing chun. It all about that close range game..or why do chi sau to develop teh reflex action?? 

The clip LFJ showed is not like this, so think we have to ask why is it different to the wing chun the rest of us all know??

LFJ is obvs doing somthing different. Is it even wing chun??? Does he have the special secret wing chun the rest of us didn't get?????


----------



## LFJ (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> In a cross training thread. Everyone has to start with a deficiency.



This is not a cross-training thread. It starts off with statements from two lesser-known YM students that appear to support VT's long-range game that apparently not everyone received.

Also, as has been explained to you before, cross-training isn't necessarily to remedy a deficiency. 
It can just be to expand one's toolset, adding functional method to functional method.

A striking system that doesn't address the long-range game has a deficiency, a gap to be filled.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> I pointed out that low-line kicks can be easily added to a boxing "engine" with minimal changes in the mechanics.



Too bad it's not just a matter of adding kicks to a boxing "engine".

You have to consider kick defense, which the boxing "engine" does not. 

This leaves its stance, stepping patterns, and power generation methods uniquely vulnerable when the opponent is allowed to kick.

Let's not forget what happened to the American Kickboxing champion in "The Fight That Changed History"...

Taken out on a stretcher because leg kicks were not legal in his sport and hence the footwork method functioned on the assumption that this danger need not be factored in.

If you're looking to use your long-range game in free-fighting, this danger _must be factored in_.

That means the boxing "engine" will need to be completely reworked, and gaps-filled for it to free fight against kickers.

You might wanna give it a deeper think during your "Wing Chun Boxing" project...


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2017)

*[I was simply trying to offer a potential bridge between stand points*.

---You wrote:  _I think KPM has his idea of what a "long rang game" is completely framed within the rules of boxing. Not fighting._

Which is completely wrong and not what I have been saying.  I offered a description of what boxing can do in long range as an example. But I haven't limited what I've been saying to boxing.  I've  said more than once that other methods have a "long range game" as well.  So I'm not sure what you think you are "bridging."

----You also wrote:   _"You do this type of stance and this type of footwork. this is a great long range game (when you aren't allowed to kick and don't have to worry about kicks)"_

Which is also completely wrong and not what I have been saying.  I never said you aren't allowed to kick.  And I never said that a boxing/Wing Chun hybrid at long range would NOT kick and wouldn't train to defend against kicks.  That's just plain common sense, isn't it?  And as I already pointed out I noted before that you can add low-line kicks to boxing mechanics with no problem.  What I have said, when goofballs try to say that boxing wouldn't work at long range because people can kick them, is that I didn't understand how someone could think that a method with such fast and evasive footwork as boxing wouldn't be able to adapt to defending against kicks with a little training and exposure. I never said that a boxing/Wing Chun hybrid wouldn't have to worry about kicks in mixed competitions.  And I've never tried to defend "pure" western boxing as viable in mixed competitions. Again, you are letting all of LJF's diversions distract you from my real points.


*I have followed the whole thread,*

---I don't think you have.  At least not very well, given that you are misrepresenting what I have been saying.


*You seem to be pretty defensive when someone does not support everything you say. To the point where you make repeated posts like this and even bring up other what should have been non offensive interactions from other threads*.

---I make repeated posts to clarify what I have been saying because the "butthurt" people keep trying  to twist it around into something else.  These threads make wide tangents when LFJ and others throw in diversions so I repeat my premise so that it is clear where I am coming from.  I have no investment in being "defensive" about what I am saying.  I just want it heard correctly and acknowledged.  If you want to talk about being "defensive"....that's LFJ!  Are you guys buddies or something?   Because to call me "defensive" after LFJ has gone on a crusade of character assassination against me, and has gone to great lengths to try to prove me wrong....just seems a bit odd.  He is the one defending his "pure WSLVT."      

*Your behavior and reactions do appear to be a bit unreasonable at times.*

---So you think it is unreasonable to expect people to actually follow what I've really been saying?  Its unreasonable to repeat my points when people have tried to divert the discussion away from those points or misstate what I have actually said?   Its unreasonable to apply simple common sense?   I will acknowledge one thing....it has turned out to be unreasonable on my part to expect people with such dogmatically held beliefs about their Wing Chun to recognize common sense ways their Wing Chun could be improved when pointed out to them!      You never answered as to whether you are one of those people that are now "butthurt" from idea that the long range abilities of your Wing Chun could be improved upon.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> And as I already pointed out I noted before that you can add low-line kicks to boxing mechanics with no problem.  What I have said, when goofballs try to say that boxing wouldn't work at long range because people can kick them, is that I didn't understand how someone could think that a method with such fast and evasive footwork as boxing wouldn't be able to adapt to defending against kicks with a little training and exposure



Hey dude, much as I love your wing chun boxing project, have 2 say ur wrong about adding low line kicks to boxing footwork with no problem. 

See this link for all the detail but basicaly boxing stance allows you 2 sit down on punches for power but very exposed to kicks. Muy Thai stance focus on kicks defence but weak 4 punches because light front foot nd feet turn out. They r not close methods, very different

I think the answer u seem to be getting close is ditch the low kicks and kick defense and focus on boxing punches and chi sau for close range skillz. I know for fact that i would trust my life to punches and getting in close rather than kicking. When was last time u ever saw kicks end a fight in the streets? Never? Lol thought so 

Stick with what ur doing and don't listen to teh h8ers


----------



## karatejj (Jul 6, 2017)

Sorry, forgot link

How do you post it?


----------



## karatejj (Jul 6, 2017)

duh, I got it i think

Muay Thai Stance Analysis | Muay Thai Scholar


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2017)

*Hey dude, much as I love your wing chun boxing project, have 2 say ur wrong about adding low line kicks to boxing footwork with no problem.*

---Pananjakman is essentially low-line kicks added to a boxing mechanic.  Works great!  I've trained it! 

* boxing stance allows you 2 sit down on punches for power but very exposed to kicks. Muy Thai stance focus on kicks defence but weak 4 punches because light front foot nd feet turn out. They r not close methods, very different*

---True.  But plenty of MMA fighters use a stance that is relatively forward weighted and do fine defending kicks. Then when in close they will "sit down" into that deeper boxing stance for power punches.  But they are still using the evasive and mobile boxing/kickboxing footwork at long range.

*I think the answer u seem to be getting close is ditch the low kicks and kick defense and focus on boxing punches and chi sau for close range skillz.*

---No.  As LJF has pointed out and I haven't disagreed with.....kicks and kick defense are important at long range in mixed sparring/fighting.


*Stick with what ur doing and don't listen to teh h8ers*

---Thanks man!  If you saw my youtube channel, keep following along.  Eventually I will do a lesson on the low-line kicking and kick defenses.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 6, 2017)

*Admin's Note:*

Please keep this discussion civil.  This is your only warning, as warning points will be issued for those who continue down this path.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> ---Thanks man!  If you saw my youtube channel, keep following along.  Eventually I will do a lesson on the low-line kicking and kick defenses.



Hey I will, you got something good going on there. I hope u give more of the boxing side tho..Muy Thai and kicks, that stuff I not really into. Never seen a kick end a real fight in the street! Punches do it all the time!


----------



## paitingman (Jul 6, 2017)

KPM said:


> *[I was simply trying to offer a potential bridge between stand points*.
> 
> ---You wrote:  _I think KPM has his idea of what a "long rang game" is completely framed within the rules of boxing. Not fighting._
> 
> ...



All this is why I made sure to preface it with "I THINK..." I was only hinging my point on the *possibility* that a disagreement may stem from this standpoint. 

A simple "No, you've missed the mark. I'm saying this ___" would suffice. Instead we get your typical hostility just because people either disagree with or don't understand you. 

Not everyone here who disagrees with you is "butthurt" by what you say, conspiring together and out to get you, or vindictively trying to "misrepresent you"


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2017)

paitingman said:


> All this is why I made sure to preface it with "I THINK..." I was only hinging my point on the *possibility* that a disagreement may stem from this standpoint.
> 
> A simple "No, you've missed the mark. I'm saying this ___" would suffice. Instead we get your typical hostility just because people either disagree with or don't understand you.
> 
> Not everyone here who disagrees with you is "butthurt" by what you say, conspiring together and out to get you, or vindictively trying to "misrepresent you"



Then you are admitting that you hadn't actually been following the discussion?   I apologize if I came across a little harsh.  But if you had been following this conversation across three different threads you would have seen that I have had to repeat my premise every time someone joined the conversation without have read what came before because they didn't really know what it was about.  That gets pretty frustrating!   And yes, people were obviously "butthurt" at my suggestion that Wing Chun has room for improvement at long  range.  That is exactly why this discussion has been so contentious across three different threads.  So sorry, you came across as one of the "butthurt" ones.


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2017)

karatejj said:


> Hey dude, much as I love your wing chun boxing project, have 2 say ur wrong about adding low line kicks to boxing footwork with no problem.



Here's something else that occurred to me today that I hadn't thought of before.  For those that think that boxing could never work with kicks or against kicks because it has a forward-weighted stance......are you forgetting about Bruce Lee?   His later "Bai Jong" stance in his JKD was just an adaptation of the boxing position.   It was forward-weighted.  Would anyone describe Bruce Lee as having a problem using or defending against kicks???


----------



## karatejj (Jul 7, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here's something else that occurred to me today that I hadn't thought of before.  For those that think that boxing could never work with kicks or against kicks because it has a forward-weighted stance......are you forgetting about Bruce Lee?   His later "Bai Jong" stance in his JKD was just an adaptation of the boxing position.   It was forward-weighted.  Would anyone describe Bruce Lee as having a problem using or defending against kicks???



Would u say Bruce ever tested his JKD vs decent opposition? I say not!

There is a lot of legends around Bruce lee and I wuld take a decent boxers skillz over Bruce any time!

For me I think the link I posted makes it obvius...u have to either go the route of Muy Thai stance to deal with kicks and loss of power you get from that...OR you need to stick wit boxing,know ur open for kicks, and get in to finish with punches asap!!

Agin would ask if u ever saw fight finished wit leg kicks in the streets? Not me!


----------



## karatejj (Jul 7, 2017)

*Which Muay Thai Stance is Best?*


*Traditional Thai stance*




This stance is a traditional muay Thai stance which is still taught in Thailand and many other establishments across the world.

The weight is placed mainly on the rear foot which remains flat, with a small percentage of the bodyweight being placed on the ball of the front foot. If I were to have a guess, I would call it 70% rear leg and 30% front leg, maybe even more weight on the rear leg at times. The length and width of the stance are about even.

*Defence –* An excellent muay Thai stance in terms of blocking with the legs, particularly the front leg. With very little weight being placed on the front foot and the large angle that it points at, it makes for extremely quick blocks left and right.

The back leg isn’t so efficient as it is holding the majority of the body weight so the weight needs to be shifted to the front leg before the rear leg is able to be lifted up. However, due to the narrow placing of the feet, the back leg can still be brought up to block more quickly than in many other stances.

This muay Thai stance is also perfect for the front teep (push kick) – the leg can be brought up very quickly due to the relatively small amount of weight being applied and the constant bounce on the ball of the foot.

*Attack –* A Poor muay Thai stance in terms of attacking ability due to the fighter needing to shift weight to the front leg to move forward and launch the attack. The ability to explode forward is largely lost as the back foot is planted and the knee is almost extended to 180 degrees. The power that can be produced in this stance is also limited as a result of the quite “square” hip position which is made by the out-turned lead foot. This is particularly problematic with boxing techniques.

*Mobility –* Movement is often slow and the steps are small. With the body being set to the rear with the front leg out ahead, it’s difficult to get any real length in the step and almost impossible to make quick movements forward. Going backwards is a little quicker as the fighter is able to push off of the front foot which is ready to fire. Left and right movements are also cumbersome due to the heavy back leg.

*Stability –* A decent muay Thai stance for overall stability. The fighter will be knocked off balance less often than with some other stances as the width and length are fairly even. The rear leg acts as a strong anchor for front leg blocks, although it lacks stability for frontal attacks such as teeps and punches as there is little pliability at the knee due to the large angle of the rear foot.

Another short-coming of the traditional Thai stance is that the feet are close together which makes for a small, perhaps unstable base. Fighters using this stance may get pushed backwards and be forced to move the front leg to the rear to re-adjust.

*Pros |* A stable muay Thai stance which is excellent at firing any kick or block off the front leg.

*Cons |* Not very mobile and makes most rear side techniques sluggish.



*Balanced (square) Muay Thai Stance*




The balanced muay Thai stance is “OK” at just about everything – it doesn’t excel in many areas and doesn’t fail in many either. An all-round stance which is usually a starting point for most practitioners. This is one of the few stances where the legs can do what they like in terms of flexion/extension of the knee and ankle, but we’ll look at the pros and cons of those options as and when we come to it.

The weight is distributed evenly across both feet. As with the Traditional Thai stance, the width and length are pretty even, but it is longer and wider. The angles of the feet have been rotated and are facing more towards the opponent.

*Defence –* A decent muay Thai stance for blocking kicks off of both legs with the weight being evenly distributed between left and right. However, if the feet are flat on the ground, the legs are more easily raised when compared to being on the balls of the feet.

*Attack –* Another decent grade for attacking techniques, with the advantage being given to the “heels up” method as it makes it easier to explode forward into an attack. The hips aren’t as forward-facing when using this stance as they are with the traditional Thai stance so strikes are generally more powerful.

*Mobility –* Movements to the left and right and forward and back are fairly easy. The fighter is able to take larger steps and make quicker movements using this stance than when using the traditional Thai stance. The body is positioned halfway between both feet making push-offs in both directions relatively easy.

*Stability –* Being knocked off balance is rarely an issue with this stance and the foot placement is fairly wide which allows the knee and hip musculature a lot of scope to provide shock absorption and prevent unnecessary foot movement when struck from the sides. The heels up method provides more resistance when hit with a teep or straight boxing techniques.

*Pros/cons* | All-rounder



*Balanced (Narrow) Muay Thai Stance*




This stance is similar to the previous stance in that the weight is evenly distributed between the two feet, only this time the stance is narrower and longer. This stance may suit a more attacking fighter or counter fighter who requires quicker movements and extra power.

The angles of the feet are smaller than in the previous two examples, with the front toes pointing directly forwards.

*Defence –* We’re heading towards the attacking end of the spectrum here so defence attributes are decreasing, although this stance still provides adequate blocking abilities. The lead foot is still pointing forwards so there are no issues with not being able to open the hips for blocks to the left or to the right, nor is there the issue of having _too_ much weight placed on that leg. The rear leg is just as capable at blocking kicks as the lead leg due to the even weight distribution.

*Attack –* Excellent attacking muay Thai stance which provides a very powerful base going forwards AND backwards. The angle of the back foot and the narrow width of the stance means the fighter can bounce back and forth at speed to generate powerful attacks. The fighter can also generate more torque in the hips and shoulders for striking power because of the long stride, providing more room for rotation.

*Mobility –* An extremely mobile stance for forward and backward movements. The fighter is able to move in and out of range quickly and safely. The superior ability to do this when compared with the previous two stances makes this muay Thai stance a great option for those who like to punch. Movement to the left and right is not quite so easy – the fighter will need to widen the stance somewhat to get any real distance and may be slow, but circling to the left can be done quickly and with ease. Circling right can be sluggish.

*Stability –* The most stable of all stances listed so far in terms of straight shots, but may be vulnerable to becoming off balanced by strong kicks or hooks coming in from the left and right. This stance’s integrity may also come into question when fighting an opponent with good sweeping ability, due to the narrow width of the foot placement.

*Pros |* Great attacking muay Thai stance with awesome moblity.

*Cons |* Vulnerable to sweeps and being off balanced left and right.



*The Boxing/MMA stance*




The final stance is more of a boxer’s stance, and is similar to some MMA fighters stances. I’m not sure how many muay Thai fighters are able to use this stance but a lot of practitioners from other sports such as boxing or MMA may favour this stance so I thought I’d include it and explain its pros and cons.

In terms of weight distribution, it’s 50/50, maybe even 60% rear and 40% lead. The angles of the feet are large, with both feet facing right.

*Defence –* Poor. The angle of the lead leg is far too great to be capable of defending a kick quickly – the hips need to be rotated in order to form a blocking position and that takes far too long. A fighter with this stance is also extremely vulnerable to being swept for the same reasons. If the weight is evenly distributed between two legs then blocking off of the rear leg shouldn’t be much of an issue.

*Attack –* Good attacking stance from a boxer’s point of view – the hips and torso are facing away from the opponent which makes for a small target and the right hand had tremendous power due to the extra rotation of the torso. However, a good roundhouse kick or knee is impossible to pull off due to the fighter being unable to open up the hip angle with the lead foot. If the foot is rotated to the left to open the hip from this stance then the opponent would see the kick coming a mile off.

*Mobility –* Very mobile stance with quick movements in all directions.

*Stability –* A seriously vulnerable muay Thai stance in terms of stability along the width. Any kick or sweep will off-balance the fighter.

*Pros |* Powerful punches with good mobilty

*Cons |* Extremely poor kicking and sweep defence, lacks stability



*Which Muay Thai Stance Suits You?*
The question shouldn’t be “what is the best muay Thai stance?”. Rather, which muay Thai stance suits you in a given situation or against a particular opponent.

During a fight, numerous stances are normally used, depending on the given situation. For example, if a fighter is using stance #2 (balanced) and is unable to defend leg kicks, the logical solution would be to switch to more of a traditional stance where more of the weight is place on the rear leg making it easier to block using the front. Or, switch to stance #3 (balanced narrow) which is more suitable to attack the kicker with counters using boxing.

However, fighters generally have one stance which suits them initially.

Coaches will teach one type of muay Thai stance to beginners, but there is no right or wrong stance. The practitioner just needs to know _why_ he/she is using that stance.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 7, 2017)

karatejj said:


> *Which Muay Thai Stance is Best?*
> 
> 
> *Traditional Thai stance*
> ...



You can stand however you want in boxing muay Thai and MMA.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can stand however you want in boxing muay Thai and MMA.



U can. 

U can also live with pros and cons of ur decision!


----------



## geezer (Jul 9, 2017)

karatejj said:


> U can.
> 
> U can also live with pros and cons of ur decision!



Agreed. _Competitive_ martial arts typically evaluate differences in technique from the perspective of pros and cons. On the other hand _traditional _martial arts that don't regularly test their stuff in some form of competition tend to simply evaluate differences in terms of "correct" vs. "incorrect". And if the "correct" method doesn't work for you, that's _your _problem.

...and I have a problem with _that_ mindset!


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 9, 2017)

geezer said:


> Agreed. _Competitive_ martial arts typically evaluate differences in technique from the perspective of pros and cons. On the other hand _traditional _martial arts that don't regularly test their stuff in some form of competition tend to simply evaluate differences in terms of "correct" vs. "incorrect". And if the "correct" method doesn't work for you, that's _your _problem.
> 
> ...and I have a problem with _that_ mindset!


Agreed as well.  I guess my only point of contention is where the changes come from, an outside source or is it just a logical extension of your art?  Example two of my Sifu's teach DoJ and DoD combatives, one just engaged in competitions.  So the elbow shield.  Is it from boxing?  Or is it just a chuen sau.  To describe a chuen imagine just raising your arm from your side so the upper arm is pointed straight out and the elbow  is then bent at a 90 degree angle straight up.  Now if you logically continue that raising of the arm so the hand is at your ear, you have an elbow shield.  I could also say that comes from our Kali, because my Sifu/Guro likes to claim that vs natural evolution due to his close relationship with Master Mazza and GM Cheung.  Maybe that's true.

Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation.  All that matters is if it works.


----------



## KPM (Jul 9, 2017)

* Example two of my Sifu's teach DoJ and DoD combatives, one just engaged in competitions.  So the elbow shield.  Is it from boxing?  Or is it just a chuen sau.  *

---Its an elbow shield or high cover from boxing.  "Chuen" means "to thread."  So "Chuen Sau" is "threading hand."  The concept is that one hand "threads" past the other.    So the classic version in TWC is a high Pak on the inside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by a Fak Sau the goes under it and ends up on the outside of the attacker's limb.  The elbow bent at 90 degrees version is usually done as a Pak Sau on the outside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by that rising motion with the other arm that takes over contact with the attacker's limb on the outside to free up your other hand for a strike.  In both instances, the second hand "threads" past the Pak Sau.....hence the name.  The concept behind it does not really fit with a high cover.   You could just as easily relate the high cover to the Tan Sau.  "Tan" means "to spread."  So the concept behind it is that you "spread" or disperse a force with the outside surface of your forearm.  Now imagine a force coming in that you cannot "spread" outward, so you have to ride it back instead to deflect it....pulling your hand back towards your head.  This is a "Tun Sau" in Pin Sun.  "Tun" means "to swallow" and the Tun Sau is just seen at the "yin" to the Tan Sau's "yang"....but related.   So if the Tan/Tun "swallows" or absorbs and deflects an incoming force all the way back until the hand is next to your head....whoala!....almost a high cover!  But even then, it is still a bit different from the actual high cover that is meant to shield against an angled or arcing oncoming blow, not deflect or absorb a force coming straight in.  So, as I've been saying all along....you can say your Wing Chun has something similar.....you can say the concepts in a portion of your form can encompass it....but if you are using the position exactly with the intent for which it is used in boxing, how you can you say that boxing didn't influence or inspire how you are using it?   How can you call it "pure" Wing Chun....of any version, if you are using it exactly as it is used in boxing and it shows up nowhere in any Wing Chun form and drill in that exact position and use?  

*Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation.  All that matters is if it works.*

----I agree!   All that matters is if it works!  But you have to be careful what claims you are making.  If your claim is a bit outrageous and doesn't add up, people tend to call you on it eventually.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> * Example two of my Sifu's teach DoJ and DoD combatives, one just engaged in competitions.  So the elbow shield.  Is it from boxing?  Or is it just a chuen sau.  *
> 
> ---Its an elbow shield or high cover from boxing.  "Chuen" means "to thread."  So "Chuen Sau" is "threading hand."  The concept is that one hand "threads" past the other...


I don't think there is a classic version tbh.  I think it is a concept.  I have seen how Sifu Phil does it and when I did I said "that isn't how I have been shown by Sifu Keith or my Sifu."  To me a chuen is simply a maneuver given it's own name because it can step outside the general idea of what we see in a "classic" WC pak, tan etc.



> The elbow bent at 90 degrees version is usually done as a Pak Sau on the outside of an attacker's limb followed immediately by that rising motion with the other arm that takes over contact with the attacker's limb on the outside to free up your other hand for a strike.



This is how the three Sifu's I have studied with have taught me.  I know it's confusing.  Three Sifu's?  So let me explain for the new guys/gals on the WC forums first.  You will see me refer to three Sifus.  One is Master Keith Mazza, GM William Cheung's Official US Rep.  #2 will be a Sifu I do not name simply because of my occupation (I already have people I arrested who tried to find me on Social Media so I am paranoid), then you have Master Jerry Devone who teaches regularly at my school.

With that disclaimer out of the way, a chuen, as I am most commonly taught is a technique that not only jams an outside entry like a jamming bong or wu sau, but also acts simultaneously as a cover against the opposite hand of the opponent.  You can then just strike with your opposite hand, drop the chuen into a lap to go for control, what have you but I use it regularly as a jam/cover for blind side entries, even "on the job" because it works well for me. 

I think this maybe the source of our point of contention, now that I think of it.  I have been taught the chuen is jam/trap and, most relevant, cover as you enter.  We are talking about a high cover, and since a cover is part of the context I am taught to use the chuen, I say "okay so what is the big deal, an elbow cover is just an aggressive chuen."  Then I have the added influence of my Sifu and Sifu Keith's relationship.  They work together in their "civilian" business and are close personally.  My Sifu says that he made the case for the elbow shield from Kali being consistent with TWC (and a chuen) and it was "agreed" by the others, including GM Cheung.  Whether it always existed that way or whether he raised the "ah ha" moment I don't know.  It's just how I have been taught.

I have a rather complicated relationship with TWC via my Sifu and his relationships as you can see lol.



> *Thing is, to me, it's a chicken and the egg conversation.  All that matters is if it works.*
> 
> ----I agree!   All that matters is if it works!  But you have to be careful what claims you are making.  If your claim is a bit outrageous and doesn't add up, people tend to call you on it eventually.



Maybe the above, how I am taught to use a chuen (vs how you may have) and what my Sifu has told me, is what I base my understanding on.  Since the both "connect" my view seems to "tick" the boxes for a logical conclusion.  Now if other information comes forward that adds other boxes that conclusion may change, but if it does I don't think it would be wrong for me to say I would most trust those "new" boxes if they were to come from the red sashes I personally study under.


----------



## anerlich (Jul 10, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I don't think there is a classic version tbh. I think it is a concept.



There are a number of "classic" cheun / tseun saos in the dummy sets. I also see it as a concept. 

Linking it a high elbow cover is a bridge too far for me. I use a high cover, but it comes more from the Vale Tudo and MMA defence to get to grappling range I was taught in the MMA academy where I train Jiu Jitsu. Of course, I'm approaching it from a different direction than you would so YMMV.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 10, 2017)

anerlich said:


> There are a number of "classic" cheun / tseun saos in the dummy sets. I also see it as a concept.
> 
> Linking it a high elbow cover is a bridge too far for me. I use a high cover, but it comes more from the Vale Tudo and MMA defence to get to grappling range I was taught in the MMA academy where I train Jiu Jitsu. Of course, I'm approaching it from a different direction than you would so YMMV.


Just to clarify, when I say there is no "classic" I mean a single application/example.  Usually in my experience when people think if a "classic" example they are thinking in a more narrow context.


----------

