# Wing Chun weapon defence



## Kensai (Aug 4, 2006)

Hi guys,

Noticed the WC forum was a little quiet recently. So I was wondering, who in their WC class includes weapons, or the SD elements of weapon, knife drills, kosh, etc. 

I don't mean do you butterfly knife drills, or tri-pole forms, but actual SD aspect of taking, handling, confronting an aggressor with weapons.

Just curious. :asian:


----------



## Stu (Aug 4, 2006)

yup, our class of Wing Chun includes this. Mainly knife self defence and it only appears once in the syllabus (its the Ip Ching syllabus), its a simply dissarm from a knife lunge.

My Sifu is very aware that knife attacks are serious stuff, so outside of the syllabus we practice simply street defence techniques and how to apply our wing chun and quite abit of it is knife defence.

We also play around with some escrima from time to time and use some wing chun techniques in that as well.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 4, 2006)

Stu said:
			
		

> yup, our class of Wing Chun includes this. Mainly knife self defence and it only appears once in the syllabus (its the Ip Ching syllabus), its a simply dissarm from a knife lunge.
> 
> My Sifu is very aware that knife attacks are serious stuff, so outside of the syllabus we practice simply street defence techniques and how to apply our wing chun and quite abit of it is knife defence.
> 
> We also play around with some escrima from time to time and use some wing chun techniques in that as well.



Cool, like the sounds of that. How long are you classes? Ours tend to be around 2 hours or so.


----------



## Stu (Aug 4, 2006)

Our classes are officially an hour long although i've never been to one that finishes then... they usually last about 1 and a half hours to 2 hours.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2006)

Stu said:
			
		

> My Sifu is very aware that knife attacks are serious stuff, so outside of the syllabus we practice simply street defence techniques and how to apply our wing chun and quite abit of it is knife defence.
> 
> We also play around with some escrima from time to time and use some wing chun techniques in that as well.


 
Is weapon defense something that is normally not covered or not looked at in depth?  I ask this because I notice in your post that you said that your Sifu works this material outside of the syllabus.

I don't know much about this art, so thats why I'm asking. 

Mike


----------



## Kensai (Aug 4, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Is weapon defense something that is normally not covered or not looked at in depth? I ask this because I notice in your post that you said that your Sifu works this material outside of the syllabus.
> 
> I don't know much about this art, so thats why I'm asking.
> 
> Mike


 
Well, to be honest, it's not something that we cover in ours at all. I was looking to try and do a second art that would complement, or cover a few gaps as it were, but don't really have the time right now.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Well, to be honest, it's not something that we cover in ours at all. I was looking to try and do a second art that would complement, or cover a few gaps as it were, but don't really have the time right now.


 
Thanks for the reply!:ultracool 

You may want to look at the FMA's for your weapon work, if you were looking to cross train.  Lots of great stuff there!:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## Kensai (Aug 4, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply!:ultracool
> 
> You may want to look at the FMA's for your weapon work, if you were looking to cross train. Lots of great stuff there!:ultracool
> 
> Mike


 
I'm getting that impression. In fairness, and I've said it before, I'm like a kid in a sweet shop when it comes to the martial arts. Or even the marital arts.


----------



## profesormental (Aug 5, 2006)

Greetings!

Wing Chun execution for weapons defense has to be tempered with thought and lessons from the actual handling of the weapon.

In other words, if you don't know how to use the weapon (blade, firearm or blunt weapon... the ones we have to worry about!) the direct application of the principles from empty hand will be inneffective.

Taking note of the principles of Wing Chun, you can take into account the principles of weapons defense, like for a gun, getting out of the line of fire (some traps might still get you in the line of fire and shot!), etc. 

For a blade, to be light on the feet (here a low bong sau deflection might move the attacking arm... yet by just moving the weapon a bit you're cut!)... etc.


So serious thought should com of what are the fundamental principles of weapons defense... and as in Wing Chun, distill the principles into the simplest, most efficient forms...

So Wing Chun is not only a technique set... it is a way to look at things and make them simple and complete at the same time!

More examples of the applications to weapons defense that  Iuse at my school if anyone asks... very important subject!

sincerely,

Juan M. Mercado

P.S. One of my teachers said that if Wing Chun is still made more complete by adding material, he is not impressed... yet if by making it even simpler and taking away material and it is still complete, then that is a breakthrough!

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 5, 2006)

profesormental said:
			
		

> Greetings!
> 
> Wing Chun execution for weapons defense has to be tempered with thought and lessons from the actual handling of the weapon.
> 
> In other words, if you don't know how to use the weapon (blade, firearm or blunt weapon... the ones we have to worry about!) the direct application of the principles from empty hand will be inneffective.


 

This is of great importance and i would also suggest the psychology of an armed person.  For a breaif explanation of what i mean lets take the guy who brandishes a knife as a threatening tool.  Although he may use it he is less likely too and by understanding the postion the opponent is in, often wanting to get away as cleanly as possible.  This situation is esque of many muggings, and your own psychology comes into play when you weigh up what is in your wallet etc. vs. the value of your life.  I generally advise keeping distance and cooperating in this situation.  Another similar situation i have seen has been in security work, a very desperate guy armed with used heroin needles (possibility of HIV) really wanted to get out and his temper was very volitile.  Generally we give him a free path to the door so he feels less trapped and has an escape from his situation.  Don't worry he was apprehended but his state of mind had to be controlled in the dangerous situation. The point is many people treaten with weapons out of fear and this makes them unpredictable, of course you can train for the situation when you have no choice i know i do and training with a couple of rubber knives is actually great fun when you play with a million possibilities.

Of course if someones intent is to stab you then the chances are they won't show you a knife, in fact they may not even show themselves and take you by supprise.  There are many ways to brandish a weapon so no one can tell until it is to late, understanding this is also an important aspect of the training as well as how to react if you have been stabbed.



			
				profesormental said:
			
		

> Taking note of the principles of Wing Chun, you can take into account the principles of weapons defense, like for a gun, getting out of the line of fire (some traps might still get you in the line of fire and shot!), etc.
> 
> For a blade, to be light on the feet (here a low bong sau deflection might move the attacking arm... yet by just moving the weapon a bit you're cut!)... etc.


 
Yeah, the kwoon is a great place to come up with and work as much defence work, remembering defence work doesn't always mean engaging the opponent.  Reading the situation is important.




			
				profesormental said:
			
		

> So serious thought should com of what are the fundamental principles of weapons defense... and as in Wing Chun, distill the principles into the simplest, most efficient forms...
> 
> So Wing Chun is not only a technique set... it is a way to look at things and make them simple and complete at the same time!
> 
> ...


 
Yeah the idea isn't to give you a million and one answers to the same question that you then have to choose the right one, its about training good complete movements that work quickly and effectively without involving the mind - this leaves the mind free to referee the situation.



			
				profesormental said:
			
		

> P.S. One of my teachers said that if Wing Chun is still made more complete by adding material, he is not impressed... yet if by making it even simpler and taking away material and it is still complete, then that is a breakthrough!
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?


 
Its something i've heard many a time from my sifu and others "don't add more add less".  Again you can add and add and add and eventually end up with a different tool for every situation and then you can add tools for every varience and this just takes up a **** load of system resources and gives you a huge system.  Wing chun is a small system and a complete one at that, yip man made a lot of refinements in the system but it remained complete.  I see this on a personal level now as i will mould wing chun to work as a complete system for me, i may find ihave a tool that covers x and y and a tool that just covers x - do i need the latter tool?  Now the thing to remember is that this is a personal thing so when teaching you must give the student the benifit of the entire system not just the system that suits you in order for them to take what works for them and refine it.  

nice post by the way.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 5, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> This is of great importance and i would also suggest the psychology of an armed person. For a breaif explanation of what i mean lets take the guy who brandishes a knife as a threatening tool. Although he may use it he is less likely too and by understanding the postion the opponent is in, often wanting to get away as cleanly as possible. This situation is esque of many muggings, and your own psychology comes into play when you weigh up what is in your wallet etc. vs. the value of your life. I generally advise keeping distance and cooperating in this situation. Another similar situation i have seen has been in security work, a very desperate guy armed with used heroin needles (possibility of HIV) really wanted to get out and his temper was very volitile. Generally we give him a free path to the door so he feels less trapped and has an escape from his situation. Don't worry he was apprehended but his state of mind had to be controlled in the dangerous situation. The point is many people treaten with weapons out of fear and this makes them unpredictable, of course you can train for the situation when you have no choice i know i do and training with a couple of rubber knives is actually great fun when you play with a million possibilities.
> 
> Of course if someones intent is to stab you then the chances are they won't show you a knife, in fact they may not even show themselves and take you by supprise. There are many ways to brandish a weapon so no one can tell until it is to late, understanding this is also an important aspect of the training as well as how to react if you have been stabbed.
> 
> ...


 
Great post there Ed. Some very valid points, most notably about the keeping you distance element of weapon facing, and the simple factor that as a defender, you may not even be given the chance to _see_ the blade. Again, awareness is a key factor here. 

Stripping away moves/techniques is an interesting point too. As mentioned, perhaps many other styles, systems may decide to use as many techniques as there are possible variances in attack, but as to how confusing, or how much cerebral input/time that would use up as opposed to a more conditioned reflexive response would be down to the individual. Something I'd not considered though, cheers fellas. 

:asian:


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 5, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Great post there Ed. Some very valid points, most notably about the keeping you distance element of weapon facing, and the simple factor that as a defender, you may not even be given the chance to _see_ the blade. Again, awareness is a key factor here.


 
Well i know if i wanted to stab someone i wouldn't let them know my intentions and probably do it from behind.  Ovewr before they know it started, however i hope i'm never in a postion to do that really.








			
				Kensai said:
			
		

> Stripping away moves/techniques is an interesting point too. As mentioned, perhaps many other styles, systems may decide to use as many techniques as there are possible variances in attack, but as to how confusing, or how much cerebral input/time that would use up as opposed to a more conditioned reflexive response would be down to the individual. Something I'd not considered though, cheers fellas.
> 
> :asian:


 
thats one thing i love about wing chun, nothing is really set, you are either fighting or you aren't.  When you are you just do what you do without thinking and deal with it as quickly as possible in order to get on with your life.  Some arts are very complex and do give you a lot to think about which is great and obviously takes more time learn it all.  I'm not saying thats wrong at all but i always think k.i.s.s. is the way to go, i mean you can add all the extra stuff so long as your stock stuff is good and working so you always have something to use.  I am by no means disputing the effectivness of any other art but a response to a knife attack can't really be too regimented as the whole thing is so varible and dangerous.  I mean sure you can have a specific strategy that will be very variable, like our learned freind suggested being light on your feet.  But its an area of training that you should be very critical of when you train it, i mean its no use having someone step in with a knife a few times and thinking you can deal with knife enties, like what was said about the bong sau getting cut.  Its a bit different with regular fighting it can afford to be a bit more scrappy and mistakes are safer to recover from.  Knives are scary dangerous and the training should represent the threat they present.  I personally will avoid fighting a knife guy as much as possible, especially if they are handy!

And definitely look into the FMA's apart from anything they are fun and there are a few back and forth drills you can mess around with and interject wing chun entry as a finish.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 5, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Well i know if i wanted to stab someone i wouldn't let them know my intentions and probably do it from behind. Ovewr before they know it started, however i hope i'm never in a postion to do that really.
> 
> thats one thing i love about wing chun, nothing is really set, you are either fighting or you aren't. When you are you just do what you do without thinking and deal with it as quickly as possible in order to get on with your life. Some arts are very complex and do give you a lot to think about which is great and obviously takes more time learn it all. I'm not saying thats wrong at all but i always think k.i.s.s. is the way to go, i mean you can add all the extra stuff so long as your stock stuff is good and working so you always have something to use. I am by no means disputing the effectivness of any other art but a response to a knife attack can't really be too regimented as the whole thing is so varible and dangerous. I mean sure you can have a specific strategy that will be very variable, like our learned freind suggested being light on your feet. But its an area of training that you should be very critical of when you train it, i mean its no use having someone step in with a knife a few times and thinking you can deal with knife enties, like what was said about the bong sau getting cut. Its a bit different with regular fighting it can afford to be a bit more scrappy and mistakes are safer to recover from. Knives are scary dangerous and the training should represent the threat they present. I personally will avoid fighting a knife guy as much as possible, especially if they are handy!
> 
> And definitely look into the FMA's apart from anything they are fun and there are a few back and forth drills you can mess around with and interject wing chun entry as a finish.


 
Again, great post. If I were the kind of person to go round stabbing others, I'd keep that blade hidden until the last second. To defend against a knife, I think judgement of distance, waiting for either the chance to run, or make your move is critical.


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 5, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Again, great post. If I were the kind of person to go round stabbing others, I'd keep that blade hidden until the last second. To defend against a knife, I think judgement of distance, waiting for either the chance to run, or make your move is critical.


 
You are absoloutely right, indecision is dangerous in situations like that.  Imean feints with a knife are just a little more critical than feints with hand to hand combat.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 9, 2006)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> You are absoloutely right, indecision is dangerous in situations like that. Imean feints with a knife are just a little more critical than feints with hand to hand combat.


 
I think indecision is a problem in any SD situation, however, in a knife fight, it's even worse.


----------



## monji112000 (Aug 9, 2006)

Well I can say my lineage has SD, Law Enforcement, and Knife/GUN/club(stick) training. My lineage is a combination of Lo Man Kam and Duncan Leung.

Sigung Duncan Leung was very famous for his knife fighting and from what I have read not all of it was from Wing Chun specifically. Sigung Lo man works with the Taiwanese Swat. I know he as integrated many things and I have had the pleasure of meeting some Taiwanese Swat members. I have done a little of the SD stuff, but mostly We have focused on Strictly Wing Chun, later in my training I am sure we will spend more time on SD ect..

For more information about Lo Man Kam Wing Chun :
http://lomankamwingchun.blogharbor.com/blog/_WebPages/AboutSifu.html

For more information about Duncan leungs Wing Chun:
http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/hpageie.html
http://wingchunkungfu.cn/


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 9, 2006)

monji112000 said:
			
		

> Sigung Duncan Leung was very famous for his knife fighting and from what I have read not all of it was from Wing Chun specifically. Sigung Lo man works with the Taiwanese Swat. I know he as integrated many things and I have had the pleasure of meeting some Taiwanese Swat members. I have done a little of the SD stuff, but mostly We have focused on Strictly Wing Chun, later in my training I am sure we will spend more time on SD ect..
> 
> /


 
But using wing chun to incapacitate someone and put them on their *** is SD?


----------



## monji112000 (Aug 9, 2006)

I don't follow you?


 incapacitate someone and put them on their *** can be SD. Shooting the Guy is also SD.

If you are asking what I think SD is, then... its anything you can do to protect yourself( you must be safe in the end). Really this requires little Wing Chun Knowledge. A person can learn SD without really learning much Wing Chun. That is to say they could not fight someone but they could "protect themselves" and get away. SD training has many aspects not just "technique". Learning the Whole system of Wing Chun is overkill. Even Half is overkill. Probably even a quarter is overkill.



JMO


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 10, 2006)

monji112000 said:
			
		

> I don't follow you?
> 
> 
> incapacitate someone and put them on their *** can be SD. Shooting the Guy is also SD.
> ...


 
"but mostly We have focused on Strictly Wing Chun, later in my training I am sure we will spend more time on SD ect.."

The statement alluded to them being of a seperate nature.  Like you have said SD is anything you can do to protect yourself and wing chun is one thing you can use to protect yourself, thus wing chun isn't exclusive from the definition you yourself have given to SD.  Technique has nothing to do with this and learning the whole wing chun system is not overkill, its sensible.

Essentially my post was to illustrate how the wording of your post confuses what you have gone on to say in this post.  Nothing more.


----------



## monji112000 (Aug 11, 2006)

In some cases yes and in some cases no. Its not a black and white issue.


 My statement means what it says. My training is mostly geared to Fighting, later I hope to gear to learning more of Law Enforcement and SD emphasized skills.


----------



## ed-swckf (Aug 11, 2006)

monji112000 said:
			
		

> In some cases yes and in some cases no. Its not a black and white issue.
> 
> 
> My statement means what it says. My training is mostly geared to Fighting, later I hope to gear to learning more of Law Enforcement and SD emphasized skills.


 
Like i said your statement also says fighting with wing chun isn't SD when actually it is, as is running away, as is pulling a gun.


----------



## monji112000 (Aug 22, 2006)

Its not so black and white.


 Yes SD is anything that protects you. I would consider SD training, something that deals with Scenarios LIKE : rape,mugging chokes, falling ect..


 I believe strong like my Sigung, You can answer any problem in fighting with Wing Chun theory.
 Fighting is a large idea, SD is a sub-category like sports fighting.  
 My current training is on Wing Chun theory/Drills, dealing with Fighting in general.  


 Its semantics, but I think its worth defining differently. I would like to gear my training for sports fighting also in a year or so.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 31, 2006)

monji112000 said:
			
		

> Its not so black and white.
> 
> 
> Yes SD is anything that protects you. I* would consider SD training*, something that deals with Scenarios LIKE : *rape,mugging chokes, falling* ect..
> ...


 
I would be inclined to agree with that. It IS a fine line, but Wing Chun can be used for SD as well as fighting.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 3, 2006)

monji112000 said:


> Its not so black and white.
> 
> 
> Yes SD is anything that protects you.


 
Well that seems pretty black and white to me right there.



monji112000 said:


> I would consider SD training, something that deals with Scenarios LIKE : rape,mugging chokes, falling ect..


 
Yes among lots of other stuff, like developing reactions to deal with attacks, to be able to use attacks as defence.  I mean you yourself say self defence is anything that protects you.




monji112000 said:


> I believe strong like my Sigung, You can answer any problem in fighting with Wing Chun theory.
> Fighting is a large idea, SD is a sub-category like sports fighting.
> My current training is on Wing Chun theory/Drills, dealing with Fighting in general.


 
SD is anything that protects you, it could simply be running fast and knowing when to run.  Thats a valid self defence, so is being able to fight your fight as opposed to theirs.




monji112000 said:


> Its semantics, but I think its worth defining differently. I would like to gear my training for sports fighting also in a year or so.


 
Well not really, i mean going running often is not really training for self defence unless thats the reason you set out to do it.  Understanding that its a valid defence and getting that as a reaction in your head is self defence.  Training to preform a martial art when under pressure and when attacked is self defence training - self defence is a term that can cover so much, of course a typical self defence course will cover some typical scenarios but you move on from there and wing chun training gives you hard wired defence mechanisms weather you wish to define it as self defence or not.  But it is designed to protect you and we are agreed that self defence is anything that protects you.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 3, 2006)

Kensai said:


> I would be inclined to agree with that. It IS a fine line, but Wing Chun can be used for SD as well as fighting.


 
If someone decides they want to fight you, throws a swing and you beat them to the punch is that fighting or self defence?

Or if you are in a situation where a guy is squaring up to you and you feel that you are in danger, you don't have anywhere to run (perhaps wife and kids are with you) so you strike first.  Is that fighting or self defence?


Just wanna know where you stand and where this fine line is drawn?

And swaying off topic a little, How do you feel about protecting your home from intruders, possibly armed intruders?  Where do you stand on using weapons to defend your home?


----------



## Kensai (Sep 4, 2006)

ed-swckf said:


> If someone decides they want to fight you, throws a swing and you beat them to the punch is that fighting or self defence?
> 
> Or if you are in a situation where a guy is squaring up to you and you feel that you are in danger, you don't have anywhere to run (perhaps wife and kids are with you) so you strike first. Is that fighting or self defence?
> 
> ...


 
I would say it's a bit of both. Fighting to me is UFC/"putting your dukes up" and slogging it out. SD is a more wide ranging view that encorporates awareness, verbal de-escalation, avoidance tactics and either pre-emptive strikes acting in SD, or using set pattern (kata style) responses to given attacks. That's obviously just my take on it, and I do think it's a grey area because they overlap in the sense that you go into a UFC ring, and technically speaking you're looking to start a fight, if someone tries to bottle you in a bar, you defend yourself. As I say though, they very much overlap. 

As for the other question, I'm very nearly a dad, with a family to protect, ANYONE who breaks into my home, armed or otherwise is getting hurt. Badly. I'm not going to rely on some flimsy half baked law that's as misleading as it is weak. The problem with the law here is that it gives little support to the person who's home has been invaded. How would I know the "intention" of the assailant? How would I know whether they were armed? I'd go with the intent of causing great harm. That's my honest feeling. If you're alluding to whether or not my going and confronting a burglar, intruder, et al and whether or not that constitues fighting or SD, I still say it would be both.  I think in some ways it boils down to intent and who's starting what to whom. As for using weapons in the home, I'd take whatever's to hand, I have a rather sharp Roman gladius, wonderful stabbing weapon, a bokken, and a baseball bat. Nice selection. They're either display weapons, or things used in my MA practice. I should think that me running downstairs in the nip, screaming like a banshee, wielding a gladius would be quite a heart-stopper. Not sure whether that'd be from the sight of me in the nud, or the sword...


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 4, 2006)

Kensai said:


> I would say it's a bit of both. Fighting to me is UFC/"putting your dukes up" and slogging it out. SD is a more wide ranging view that encorporates awareness, verbal de-escalation, avoidance tactics and either pre-emptive strikes acting in SD, or using set pattern (kata style) responses to given attacks. That's obviously just my take on it, and I do think it's a grey area because they overlap in the sense that you go into a UFC ring, and technically speaking you're looking to start a fight, if someone tries to bottle you in a bar, you defend yourself. As I say though, they very much overlap.


 
Again it doesn't seem that grey an area, in one situation (ufc-esque) you are williningly engaging in a fight you actually have chosen this and its not a case of someone invading your personal space or endagering your safety without you agreeing to it beforehand.  Self defence is obviously true of the situations i have illustrated before hand and what makes it self defence is that its not your choice for it to be happening, even when you strike pre-emptively you are doing it because you were put in a situation which you didn't wish to be in.  

The only way i see it as a grey area is the idea of refering to techniques used in a UFC type scenario as self defence - the real self defence would be not to get in the ring in the first place.  But what you use in a ring to make distance or incapacitate the opponent can be the same skills used in a real self defence scenario in a pub or whatever. 

What i mean is, how is it a bit of both?  I mean if someone attacks you and you stop them by hitting them it seems like a reaction used only to defend ones self.  Its an appropiate and seems like these wing chun skills were used in self defence.  I don't see how the fighting aspect you have described comes into it, its not like the wing chun person is looking to fight, its a reaction driven out of a fear for their own safety.

The way i see it, any fighting skills can be put to use in a self defence situation and perhaps thats what you mean by it being both. The realtionship between the people involved in the incident will be what determins if its a self defence issue or perhaps a drunken macho man issue or any other issue filled with variables.  That of course goes towards the laws behind what constitutes self defence and i would definitely agree there is a grey area there.  The only reason i am even posting in this thread is to say wing chun is viable self defence skills!  My point was to point out that the satement "I have done a little of the SD stuff, but mostly We have focused on Strictly Wing Chun" and how to me the skill set learnt in wing chun serves as a self defence mechanism as well as a fighting mechanism.  The difference between being dictated by the situation.



Kensai said:


> As for the other question, I'm very nearly a dad, with a family to protect, ANYONE who breaks into my home, armed or otherwise is getting hurt. Badly. I'm not going to rely on some flimsy half baked law that's as misleading as it is weak. The problem with the law here is that it gives little support to the person who's home has been invaded. How would I know the "intention" of the assailant? How would I know whether they were armed? I'd go with the intent of causing great harm. That's my honest feeling. If you're alluding to whether or not my going and confronting a burglar, intruder, et al and whether or not that constitues fighting or SD, I still say it would be both.


 
well doesn't that then suggest that all self defence calsses are both fighting and self defence?  I mean this suggests that a woman defending a potential rape attack with a knee to the groin is fighting - and if that is the case then surely that solidifys my original statement that wing chun skills are self defence skills.  

I don't think fighting and self defence are interchangable terms but i do think that the fighting skills learnt all apply to being self defence (well almost all) and what sets the terms apart is the situation.  I mean sure its an ability to fight that you use but you use it in a manner that constitutes self defence.  Other than that the only thing that makes your situation both is your intent to cause the intruder a lot of physical harm  (this borrows the idea of fighting you described earlier in your post).  This comes down to your intent, if you knock the guy out out of the intent of keeping your family safe that to me suggests self defence, using a fighting technique in a self defence situation.  Even if it was done out of protecting your property it seems to be self defence, you haven't dictated the situation, you haven't agreed to engage in violence on similar terms.  This is all triggered by the intruder what you initially want to do is protect, if once you are in a position of safety you continue to intend harm upon the intruder then yes that would no longer be justified as self defence and would simply be fighting or something other.  

What you highlighted from the other post by monj was that sd is dealing with rape, muggings, chokes etc.  But the skills that are taught in wing chun are skills to deal with things like this, i mean a rapist will want to grab you and control you, perhaps take you to the floor all things that could happen in a fight, people will also try and choke you in a fight.  Mugging is a bit different but an understanding of distance is hugely important as well as reading the mugger/opponent.  I guess what i want to know is what makes self defence different from wing chun?  








Kensai said:


> I think in some ways it boils down to intent and who's starting what to whom. As for using weapons in the home, I'd take whatever's to hand, I have a rather sharp Roman gladius, wonderful stabbing weapon, a bokken, and a baseball bat. Nice selection. They're either display weapons, or things used in my MA practice. I should think that me running downstairs in the nip, screaming like a banshee, wielding a gladius would be quite a heart-stopper. Not sure whether that'd be from the sight of me in the nud, or the sword...


 
Well intent was what i illustrated in my previous post, an intent to stay unharmed and safe vs. an intent to harm.  I have a few baseball bats and some other weaponry myself, my use for them beyond playing baseball and practicing weapons forms would be protection.  

I have studied wing chun for quite sometime now and i never look to fight, i don't want violence in my life, my skillset is to keep me safe and deal with unwanted situations as quickly and effectively as possible so they have as little a bearing on my life as possible.  I enjoy my art thoroughly but i don't go looking to use it, my mindset is one that runs alongside self defence and reflects the Kuen Kuit.  If i am put in a situation in which defence is needed then my defence is wing chun or like you a baseball bat or a sword with a good scrwam or shout.  However the nud has never  been a technique i have used.


----------



## Kensai (Sep 4, 2006)

ed-swckf wrote:


> Again it doesn't seem that grey an area, in one situation (ufc-esque) you are williningly engaging in a fight you actually have chosen this and its not a case of someone invading your personal space or endagering your safety without you agreeing to it beforehand. Self defence is obviously true of the situations i have illustrated before hand and what makes it self defence is that its not your choice for it to be happening, even when you strike pre-emptively you are doing it because you were put in a situation which you didn't wish to be in.


 
Ah yes, but if two UFC combatants both got into the ring, and neither of them initiated an attack, or if *only* one fighter did, and the other constantly used defensive techniques, then you could argue, that technically speaking he's not fighting, but defending himself? Unlikely, but it was merely intended as a point example. I think it is a grey area, that does overlap, and I stand by it coming down to intent. You get into a boxing ring, and two fighters start slugging it out, then they're fighting. Same principle. Their intent is to go into the ring, and cause as much harm as possible. Take Aikido, MOST Aiki moves will wait for an attacker to come to them, they then defend themselves with restraining moves, techniques. I wouldn't call that fighting. I would call that defending oneself. Defence and offence. Self defence and fighting. 

I think we do have similarish views on this, but I'm about to have an argument with my mrs, and will have to reply later. Sorry dude.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 5, 2006)

Kensai said:


> ed-swckf wrote:
> 
> 
> Ah yes, but if two UFC combatants both got into the ring, and neither of them initiated an attack, or if *only* one fighter did, and the other constantly used defensive techniques, then you could argue, that technically speaking he's not fighting, but defending himself?Unlikely, but it was merely intended as a point example.


 
The difference is they know what they are entering the ring for and it is to fight each other for sport.  There are rules that say you must fight back or the fight is stopped, if this was truly a self defence issue then you wouldn't enter the ring and that would be your defence.





Kensai said:


> I think it is a grey area, that does overlap, and I stand by it coming down to intent. You get into a boxing ring, and two fighters start slugging it out, then they're fighting. Same principle. Their intent is to go into the ring, and cause as much harm as possible.


 
The intent is not really evident of self defence but if it is a grey area then how so?  I mean they are aware that they are going to get hurt here and its sport that they agree to take part in.  But if you are suggesting what goes on in that ring is self defence then that just continues to add weight to what i have said.




Kensai said:


> Take Aikido, MOST Aiki moves will wait for an attacker to come to them, they then defend themselves with restraining moves, techniques. I wouldn't call that fighting. I would call that defending oneself. Defence and offence. Self defence and fighting.


 
So hitting someone to stop them hitting you isn't self defence? Even if thats the only thing you can do to stop them?  Thats fighting?  Interesting where you are drawing this line now.  If you are waiting for an attack surely you have a line of defence that would stop you having to fight and engage an attacker.  Self defence would suggest not being there if you don't have to be otherwise its poor self defence as you are increasing the risk of being hurt.  If you have to use the technique then thats last resort really.


----------



## Kensai (Sep 6, 2006)

We've obviously got completely different opinions on this, I stand by my belief that self defence and fighting are on the one hand different, yet in another way, similar. A paradox if you will. 

Let's take it completely out of the ring environment then, some random nutter on the street starts on you. Throws punches and kicks, and you employ nothing but blocks, or moving out the way. Are you fighting then, or just defending yourself? You do NOTHING offensive to the other guy, in a bar, trying to hurt you. You do nothing but move and defend. Are you fighting, or just defending? Self defence? Not taking ANY offensive action? 

We're splitting hairs here I think, I do think SD and pure fighting are different, yet I think they're also inherently linked. The point about 2 guys in the UFC was to highlight an example of fighting. That was the point that they aren't using SD as you pointed out, they both know why they're there.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 6, 2006)

Kensai said:


> We've obviously got completely different opinions on this, I stand by my belief that self defence and fighting are on the one hand different, yet in another way, similar. A paradox if you will.
> 
> Let's take it completely out of the ring environment then, some random nutter on the street starts on you. Throws punches and kicks, and you employ nothing but blocks, or moving out the way. Are you fighting then, or just defending yourself? You do NOTHING offensive to the other guy, in a bar, trying to hurt you. You do nothing but move and defend. Are you fighting, or just defending? Self defence? Not taking ANY offensive action?


 
You are having a hard time here i can tell.  I have already used a similar example to suggest that the scenario you have just described is self defence.  Not sure what gave you the immpression i thought otherwise?

You haven't agreed to being attacked and you are protecting yourself, perhaps the confusion arose from me interjecting the idea that running away should be a line of defence utilised first - if that option is open to you and you choose not to take it and instead decide to show 'em some aikido then you are sticking around for the fight.  Obviously in the scenario you just gave that isn't an issue as its a case of someone getting a kicking.  In that scenario i would suggest not sticking around very long if you don't intend to incapacitate them, their intent is to harm you and its poor self defence to remain in that situation when you don't have to be there.  I'd suggest defending and moving in order to give yourself distance from the situation.  Further more i would suggest the using an attack as a defence to stop this guy stomping your lights out should also be considered self defence and should be used to defend yourself when there is no other option.  I am reapeating myself here. 



Kensai said:


> We're splitting hairs here I think, I do think SD and pure fighting are different, yet I think they're also inherently linked. The point about 2 guys in the UFC was to highlight an example of fighting. That was the point that they aren't using SD as you pointed out, they both know why they're there.


 
Well no its not really splitting hairs.  Pure wing chun teaches the use of attacks as a self defence, so do self defence classes - self defence isn't just blocking strikes, the difference from fighting is the ultimate goal of SD is to protect and eleviate danger as soon as possible meaning you aren't going to be there when you don't have to.  It seems a clear line between when its being used as self defence vs. when its pure fighting being used.  


I'm just very simply pointing out that the skills taught in wing chun are self defence skills, sure if you decide to stick around and fight someone then the same skill set is applied, but what i am saying is wing chun in its design contains skills that directly apply to self defence and to suggest SD and wing chun are exclusive from each other doesn't work for me.  If you disagree with that then thats fine but that is the core element of my commentry in this thread.


----------



## Kensai (Sep 6, 2006)

I never once suggested that they were mutually exclusive, and neither am I having a "hard time". I merely have a different opinion to you on this. Having studied the likes of Aikido, and seen the way an Aikidoka would respond to an attack, I can assure you, it ain't "fighting". I'm saying nothing more on this matter, as there's nowt else to say. Cheers!


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 6, 2006)

Kensai said:


> I never once suggested that they were mutually exclusive, and neither am I having a "hard time". I merely have a different opinion to you on this.


 
Well if you aren't having a hard time why are you depicting scenarios to portray your opinion that clearly prove to add weight to what i have been saying?  All the while saying that the opinions we hold are completely different?  I think you have fundamentally missed the point of want i have said here.  And i never said that you said they were mutually exclusive but my commentry is in response to a remark that suggests such, you've jumped in midway and unfortunately got the wrong end of the stick.  If you'd care to let me know just where your opinion differs to mine and why then do so.  We both agree self defence isn't entering into a ring, correct?  But if your opinion suggests that self defence is using techniques to cause harm to your attacker when you don't have to do so and could ignore the situation, leave the bar, run away etc.  Then yes we do have a different opinion of self defence.  If you agree that using any means necessary to keep you and your loved ones in safety and resort to the most dangerous of these means (physical violence) as a last port of call equates to what self defence is then you hold an opinion similar to mine.  I am unsure exactly of how your opinion differs from mine and i feel i have made a decent post to explain why i don't really think the difference between fighting for the sake of fighting and self defence is that grey.




Kensai said:


> Having studied the likes of Aikido, and seen the way an Aikidoka would respond to an attack, I can assure you, it ain't "fighting". I'm saying nothing more on this matter, as there's nowt else to say. Cheers!


 
So are you saying that when you use aikido in a UFC situation you aren't fighting with it? Why isn't it fighting?  

Does it cause harm to the attacker trying to harm you?  Is that the only choice you have?  Instead of using the technique you have an oppertunity to not be there when the attacker is attacking, if you choose not to take that oppertunity then you are engaging this person by your own choice in an act of violence - thats not really self defence and if its not fighting then what the hell is it?  I am unassured here! 
Its beyond reasonable force for your own safety if the force was not needed at all as you had the choice of not engaging in the situation, If you make the choice to stick around in a dangerous situation with no reasonable reason then legally it wouldn't be self defence and i find it hard to see how it would be considered as such.

I've obviously got a lot of questions but if theres nothing else to say on this matter i guess we will leave the discussion there, somewhat up in the air.  All that leaves me to do is to thank you for your time and thoughts, and i'm sure we will meet in another thread on another subject.  Until then, as you say, cheers.


----------



## Kensai (Sep 7, 2006)

ed-swckf wrote:



> I've obviously got a lot of questions but if theres nothing else to say on this matter i guess we will leave the discussion there, somewhat up in the air. All that leaves me to do is to thank you for your time and thoughts, and i'm sure we will meet in another thread on another subject. Until then, as you say, cheers.


 
No doubt. I don't really have the time at the moment to have a long drawn out discussion on this, perhaps we were arguing the same points in a different manner. Will need some time to read through.

Actually, I can discuss this, so long as brief points are laid out (sorry - my boss has a meeting this am!!) I think the point I'm trying to make it that Self defence encorporates many things, awareness, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation are an aspect of that, and yes of course fighting can be used for SD, that's not in doubt, if I've led you to that conclusion of my opinion then I humbily apologise, it was not what I was trying to say. So, to conclude, fighting is SD, but not all of SD, one aspect, in the same way that it is only one element of the MA in general. Part of SD, not all of it, there is more to SD than pure fighting. I'm not sure if we're arguing similar points in a different manner or what. I am now officially confused.


----------



## monji112000 (Sep 7, 2006)

I follow what you are saying Kensai,


 As I stated before, fighting is a general category. It can have other sub-categories, but they arn't really 100% autonomous.  


 What would make SD training different from just plain normal WC training in my opinion would be:
 more emphasis on training situations of SD. Example would be someone trying to steal a persons bag. Or someone trying to pin you down and rape you. You probably need to over emphasis things like awareness, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation , Aggression training, fear training ect..


 While this may be a different emphasis's their still remains many shared training trait's and emphasis's.
 Many of the things I just stated are also normally trained in normal WC training. When I say normal I mean Gun lik ( think thats how you spell it I am don't speak the language) training.  


 Sports fighting would also be another subcategory of fighting. You would have to modify normal WC training to fit into the pattern of what ever sport fighting style. An example would be : Light contact, Full contact, Kick boxing, Thai boxing , MMA.


 All have different rules, rings, gloves, foot wear ect..


 Also other things that need to be over emphasized are : Cardio, Aggression, more offensive tactics.  


 I am sure their are many other things that are different and similar in both subcategories.  


 Yes a Punch is a punch.. but theirs allot more to fighting then punching and kicking. Common sense, tactics ect..


 Yes SD is anything that protects your self. But if you don't OVER emphasis aspects, and cover others that may not have been covered.. you won't have the proper skill to do ANYTHING. Most people don't magically know how to react properly.


----------



## Kensai (Sep 7, 2006)

monji112000 said:


> I follow what you are saying Kensai,
> 
> 
> As I stated before, fighting is a general category. It can have other sub-categories, but they arn't really 100% autonomous.
> ...


 
Thank-you! Too busy, but great post.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 7, 2006)

monji112000 said:


> I follow what you are saying Kensai,
> 
> 
> As I stated before, fighting is a general category. It can have other sub-categories, but they arn't really 100% autonomous.
> ...


 
So what we are essentially saying thus far is that wing chun can have subcategorys that focus on different elements of training, could be SD could be sport fighting etc. etc.  I agree with that but hopefully you can understand why i made comment in the first place?  When you seemingly counter pure wing chun with SD, and of course all i was saying is self defence is available within the pure wing chun system.  Wing chun is just a bunch of tools which can be used in a million different situations from SD to sports fighting - of course you will have to apply tools differently in different situations.  Scenario work is great and most wing chun sylabusses cover wing chun as self defence, wing chun won't just work on an answer to someone pinning you for SD as its something that happens in sports fighting also, awareness is often drilled, most schools have some sort of multiple opponent drills, strategy drills or even chi sau leung bye muk etc.  Avoidance is always trained working away from the danger of the opponents force and striking where they are weak, we learn to control the distance and the space around us, we set up an early warning system for people getting into fighting range, that can be our cue to make further avoidance and run.  Training itself as a whole with train the aggression and fear, to the point where the reaction becomes a sub conscious one, we don't get caught up with fear and we tend not to pay much mind to aggression either as we have become relaxed with our skill set. Our skill set tends to be a very good reply to most attempts upon us and these are skills that develop through pure wing chun training.  Now don't get me wrong, i agree with you, and believe that you can put more emphasis on SD and further the scenario training, work on dealing with aggresive attackers (again this could cross boundries into the ring etc.) the verbal stuff is great and all in all just take time to focus your wing chun towards SD kinds of scenarios.  However it is wing chun, you are applying wing chun concepts and principles hence me pointing out that wing chun is a load of tools that you could and probably will use for self defence.  Wing chun in its design won't give you different answers for multiple situations it will give you good answers for a number of situations.  You'll find that much of what you learn in wing chun can and does directly translate into self defence therefore when i say wing chun is SD in response to you saying 'been studying strictly wing chun but later on will look at SD' that is what i am getting at.

Not really sure what gung lik means to you but with what it means to me i don't think what you meant came across.




monji112000 said:


> All have different rules, rings, gloves, foot wear ect..
> 
> 
> Also other things that need to be over emphasized are : Cardio, Aggression, more offensive tactics.
> ...


 
Yes you are right, but it still remains that the fighting discipline would be called wing chun so why wouldn't the self defence discipline aslo be called wing chun seeing as they are built on the same framework?  A punch, in particular a wing chun punch is indeed just a punch but perhaps the way you deide upon deploying that punch differs from how you would deploy it in a SD situation however it remains wing chun training with a different focus.  Wing chun is fighting, is self defence or perhaps we could get clever and say its none of those things and go with an idea that it is purely a system that can be applied to all those things.  Common sense and tactics of course also are found as integral to good self defence. 




monji112000 said:


> Yes SD is anything that protects your self. But if you don't OVER emphasis aspects, and cover others that may not have been covered.. you won't have the proper skill to do ANYTHING. Most people don't magically know how to react properly.


 
Ok, the over emphasis can be a dangerous thing too, if you get caught up in how you believe a rape to happen then you may not be covering all bases.  Wing chun is effective in its ability to cut out all the pre thought out reactions via its training.  Wing chun develops a skill set which isn't magical but does give a great self awareness and understanding of how you react in an effective and proper way.  You can emphasise so much but the variables are vast and wing chun knows this, it trains you for this and it works with this.


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 7, 2006)

Kensai said:


> ed-swckf wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ok, well this was never my point, i'm not saying fighting is the only element of self defence either but i did want to establish that it can be used in such a way that makes it SD.  All i am saying is that wing chun provides you not only with fighting skills, although they do contribute, but a great many skills that can and are used as effective elements of self defence.  See my whole point is when you are training strictly wing chun you are getting a lot of SD training there.  I don't despute that the emphasis on SD will be different from fighting but it can all be done in and around a wing chun framework.


----------



## Kensai (Sep 8, 2006)

ed-swckf said:


> Ok, well this was never my point, i'm not saying fighting is the only element of self defence either but i did want to establish that it can be used in such a way that makes it SD. All i am saying is that wing chun provides you not only with fighting skills, although they do contribute, but a great many skills that can and are used as effective elements of self defence. See my whole point is when you are training strictly wing chun you are getting a lot of SD training there. I don't despute that the emphasis on SD will be different from fighting but it can all be done in and around a wing chun framework.


 
Cool.  Mates?


----------



## ed-swckf (Sep 11, 2006)

Kensai said:


> Cool.  Mates?


 

Without a doubt.


----------

