Anybody ever really spar on a table?

[geezer]

---

Guys, take a look at the following. It's an idea I posted on another forum, but I'd be interested in the responses of folks over here.

We've all heard about old school bouts in Hong Kong and on the mainland fought on top of tables. And of course there is the cool, if unrealistic, table top fight scene in the movie Ip Man II. Or the one in Prodigal Son. My old sifu spoke of training chi-sau that way, and from time to time we've all seen demos like that -- using strong square tables something like heavy-duty card tables, ....not tippy, round restaurant tables like in the IP Man movie, of course. Well, reading the following bit on another forum got me wondering, "Why don't we set up actual competitions based on this?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean66
Sifu WKL: Some parts of the Wing Chun style are very useful, while others are not ideally suited to certain situations. All styles have their benefits and disadvantage. Say, Wing Chun can be used with great effect when you only have small space or fight at close range. Like the predecessors, when they exchanged skills it was on a very small platform. So back then you could not step too much backwards, so the platform made you have to keep a close distance.

Personally, I'd really like to see competitons set up like this. Set up a small, low platform about 5 ft. by 5 ft., or even a bit bigger, say 2 meters on a side, and have opponents start from opposite corners. You could use kicking, punching, elbows, knees, throws, or grappling, but if you go over the side, you lose points. If both competitors go over, you'd reset on top. It could be done safely using low platforms ...perhaps raised 18 inches or 50 cm off a floor padded with mats. Having such a small floor-space with no ropes or netting to lean on would definitely change the fighting dynamics. It would be challenging and dramatic, and it would showcase the type of close fighting situation WC evolved to fight.

Has anybody actually promoted open competitions anything like this? I'm thinking WC might earn some real respect if they did. Any thoughts?

 

[Tez3]

My other half, when younger did a Zulu Warrior on a table in the mess, he fell off taking his sock off and broke his nose, didn't realise till he sobered up.

 

[Blindside]

---

Personally, I'd really like to see competitons set up like this. Set up a small, low platform about 5 ft. by 5 ft., or even a bit bigger, say 2 meters on a side, and have opponents start from opposite corners. You could use kicking, punching, elbows, knees, throws, or grappling, but if you go over the side, you lose points. If both competitors go over, you'd reset on top. It could be done safely using low platforms ...perhaps raised 18 inches or 50 cm off a floor padded with mats. Having such a small floor-space with no ropes or netting to lean on would definitely change the fighting dynamics. It would be challenging and dramatic, and it would showcase the type of close fighting situation WC evolved to fight.

Has anybody actually promoted open competitions anything like this? I'm thinking WC might earn some real respect if they did. Any thoughts?

I think if you have to artifically constrain your fighting area in order to showcase your art you are probably going to earn less respect than if the same fighter participated in a more open competition. I didn't think that Wing Chun was designed to fight in close quarters, but that close quarters were a range that could be used to neutralize bigger/stronger type fighters.

 

[Tez3]

I think the idea comes from certain films? If it's going to be a spectator sport however the idea of having competitors on a platform does make for easier viewing, other than that it would be no different from MMA/boxing/MT fights in rings and cages where the space available to fight is limited. However MMA and MT are also done on mats in some competitions, more likely amateur or interclubs comps. I can't see how WC would look any different from them?

 

[Josh Oakley]

I think if you have to artifically constrain your fighting area in order to showcase your art you are probably going to earn less respect than if the same fighter participated in a more open competition. I didn't think that Wing Chun was designed to fight in close quarters, but that close quarters were a range that could be used to neutralize bigger/stronger type fighters.

Not necessarily on either count. Muat born, kempo, jujitsu, and plenty others Excel at close quarters.

And a big strong fighter trained in close quarters will still have quite an advantage.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Blindside]

Not necessarily on either count. Muat born, kempo, jujitsu, and plenty others Excel at close quarters.

And a big strong fighter trained in close quarters will still have quite an advantage.

No disagreement from me, I am just talking about the strategic reason why WC specializes in the range that it does.

 

[HammockRider]

I don't think you would restrict any and all WC competitions to a small space. Just make it an additional competition. I think it would be fun.

 

[geezer]

I think that having a close-quarters competition would be a really interesting experiment. It would definitely affect styles dependent on long range techniques. Other arts, like boxing and muay thai that have vicious close range techniques would probably do very well. However, having to reset if you go over the side would change the way grappling and throwing are applied. Those who want to take it right to the ground would have to really control their opponent to keep him from deliberately rolling off the platform and taking the point deduction to gain a re-set standing up.

Heck, it's just an idea for a different rule-set. I'm not saying anything about eliminating weight classes, or that WC would dominate. Heck no, the best fighter under those conditions would dominate. It's just something I'd like to see. Another approach would be the classic fight "in a phone booth"... held in a "mini cage" about 5ft. x 5ft. square.

But don't mind me. I'd also like to see full contact basketball!

 

[geezer]

No disagreement from me, I am just talking about the strategic reason why WC specializes in the range that it does.

I don't really know, but whenever I'm further out, I use more Escrima. Just feels natural.

 

[Edgar]

This should be made a drill for Wing Chun classes! It will be great training. Here are 3 reasons why:

1. Closing the distance: We naturally tend to back away from an attack but in this training, we won't have space to step back and

2. Stability: This would be great training for rooting ourselves down so that we can channel our energy better and create a balanced forward pressure without overdoing it (which can lead to overcommitting to an attack).

3. Shifting training: Like #1, I tend to rely on stepping back or to the side instead of shifting when I chi sao. I try to force myself to shift but I have bad habits. But being in a small space with nowhere to step back, I'm forced to shift.

These are my 3 reasons why it would be a cool training drill. What do you guys think?

 

[WingChunIan]

I've never spared on a table but have done chi sau on a 2ft by 6ft table. Isn't whats being proposed simply a lei tai that was always traditionally used for san shou. I don't think it makes any odds whether its a platform, ring or cage, the only thing that restricting the space does is prevent stick and move type fighting and would play into the hands of grapplers more than close range strikers unless you adopt rules that allow striking of areas banned in most combat sports.

 

[mook jong man]

Wing Chun specialises at close quarters because it is a range where we can generate power , but typically most others cannot unless they draw their strikes back which wastes time.

Another factor for the fixation on close range is that Wing Chun makes extensive use of the bottom of the forearms , they act as wedges to redirect incoming strikes off at various angles.

When controlling the opponents arms we have to be in close enough to get the proper arm contact so that we can have the leverage to force the opponents arms down , that way we can clear the way for more striking .

The bottom of the forearm will cut down on the opponents arms using the whole surface area of the arm somewhat like a type of sliding wedge , this type of power is called "elbow force"
This type of thing would require a fair bit of effort from further out

Another reason for the close range , is with the Wing Chun stance the toes are pointed inwards , the potential force of the whole body is focused to a point on the centreline that is not too much further than the distance of our outstretched arm .

As long as our strikes are aimed on this centreline then they will contain the mass of the whole body.

 

[Eric_H]

But don't mind me. I'd also like to see full contact basketball!

Like this?

 

[Buka]

Sigh. I've sparred on a table. And dozens of other equally ridiculous surfaces/scenarios. We were teenagers and figured we wanted to be prepared and trained for every G.D. thing. We fell down a bunch, always trying to leap up with the proper Kiai and attitude. We got hurt some. Maybe some of it helped our balance, but I don't really think so. But we were young, we thought we were bad and I suppose it was fun. But now I'm sixty and I've never been attacked on a table, never got robbed in a small bathroom, never got jumped in a swimming pool. I ain't never fought off bandits in the back of a van or the roof of a garage and the bad guys just never attacked in three feet of water at the beach. (Gotta love those beach classes)
I'm just glad we never broke our necks.

 

[Zenjael]

Speed will always overcome force. The practitioner who utilizes their art to this advantage will find themselves rarely defeated.

It is true that force is always required, but your examples excel in close combat not because of stronger techniques, but rather those which carry the momentum through the target, rather than the normative into.

Kempo especially makes use of that small body/rotation torque. They don't need a big wind up. Simple movement combined with rotation always produce the most efficient uses of force in combat. To say otherwise is to have never been thrown by a small person taking two steps.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Speed will always overcome force. The practitioner who utilizes their art to this advantage will find themselves rarely defeated.

It is true that force is always required, but your examples excel in close combat not because of stronger techniques, but rather those which carry the momentum through the target, rather than the normative into.

Kempo especially makes use of that small body/rotation torque. They don't need a big wind up. Simple movement combined with rotation always produce the most efficient uses of force in combat. To say otherwise is to have never been thrown by a small person taking two steps.

You can hit someone 100 times in 2 seconds with a feather or you can hit them 1 time with a brick

 

[Nabakatsu]

I think proper positioning and good forward springy energy, which can seem like speed is more important!

 

[mook jong man]

You can hit someone 100 times in 2 seconds with a feather or you can hit them 1 time with a brick

Or you can have a decent stance and hit them 100 times in two seconds with a brick.

 

[Zenjael]

You can hit someone 100 times in 2 seconds with a feather or you can hit them 1 time with a brick

While some punches are less strong than others, I think you find a person capable of moving with such speed also capable of delivering with great force as well.

I would always advertise master of technique, then speed of execution, then power. I understand if others would advise differently, but this has worked for me.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Or you can have a decent stance and hit them 100 times in two seconds with a brick.

True and I have no issue with that, it was was the "Speed over comes force" bit I was referring to. Speed is good but speed without force is not worth a whole heck of a lot.