drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Nope pretty sure that is still Sanda. we are talking about Ving Tsun.
So this .
Not this.
this is the pocket.
Last edited:
chain-punching damagewise.
- Thread starter Zephyor
- Start date
Nope pretty sure that is still Sanda. we are talking about Ving Tsun.
So this .
Not this.
this is the pocket.
So, when you say "in the pocket", that's as opposed to getting off-line and working from the sides?
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Not really. because if you can wrangle your way to someones blind side you are going to do it. It would be madness not to. It is inside his and your punching range. I threw a late edit video in an above post.
Ah, so it refers to fighting while staying inside striking range?
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Yeah. pretty much.
Thanks! Always love to pick up new terminology for discussions with other aficionados of pain.
You are not talking about VT because your opinion of VT strategy is not actual VT strategy
Do you think this is an example of fighting with VT?
VT does not fight "in the pocket"
Instead of just saying "nuh-uh", try giving some counter-examples. Descriptions, explanations, and example videos go a long way to making your point. Saying "not so!" doesn't do much to help anyone understand what you mean.
Why help drop bear hate VT better? Drop bear makes a criticism of VT which is based on an obvious misunderstanding of VT (because he doesn't do VT). Pointing out that asumptions are wrong invites DB to explore further if he likes. Usually this doesn't happen because people hate to admit they don't know what they are talking about.
DB seems to think that VT walks up the middle and stands in punching range. This would be funny if he was sincere and honest. It is just derisory when he continues to flap on about it despite not actually knowing
Your statement assumes that DB is the only one involved in the discussion. Even if I accept that premise (and I don't know enough of his view of VT to judge that), many others will read this thread, and would like to hear an informed rebuttal of his points.
Getting into a detailed discussion with a person who refuses to admit error is a waste of time for me and for anyone reading because arguments will just drift, mistakes will be conveniently forgotten or ignored, and it will become yet another troll thread that goes nowhere. I think better just to point out the mistake and move on.
And yet, here I am, reading the interchange, and have none of your insight to work with. It would not be a waste of time for me to read your rebuttals, but I don't get the chance. And there are likely others who would also read them, if they existed.
wingchun100
Senior Master
Most people see only the "in game" of wing chun because that is how it is different from most martial arts. People never get around to showing the pole form and how certain techniques within that form can add to wing chun's "outside game." It isn't all about close-range fighting because not all fights will begin in the range where most of wing chun takes place. However, if you train right, then you will train to get into the range you need...just like grapplers train to get into grappling range, boxers train to get into punchin range, kickers train to get in kicking range.
And if you are fighting someone who is comfortable in one of those other ranges, then you try to get into YOUR range while keeping them OUT of theirs.
Every martial art trains that way...or at least, they should.
I don't know why people assume wing chun has this narrow training methodology where we fight only "in the pocket" or only at trapping range or whatever other misconception they have about it.
And if you are fighting someone who is comfortable in one of those other ranges, then you try to get into YOUR range while keeping them OUT of theirs.
Every martial art trains that way...or at least, they should.
I don't know why people assume wing chun has this narrow training methodology where we fight only "in the pocket" or only at trapping range or whatever other misconception they have about it.
From my seat in the audience, it looks like fighting in the pocket is the sweet spot for Wing Chun - the place you'd prefer to be, all things being equal. Is that an accurate observation?
wingchun100
Senior Master
It is preferred, but that doesn't mean we live in a bubble where we think that is how everyone else in the world fights. You need to know how to deal with other ranges, and keeping people OUT of those other ranges, to get into YOUR range. That goes for any art, not just wing chun. If I study judo and I want to grapple, but I happen to be confronted by a tae kwon do practitioner and don't know how to get past his kicks, I am in trouble.
Juany118
Senior Master
Hey Drop Bear and I rarely agree, but his term for "pocket" is multi-part it appears.
1. Striking range.
2. What we call centerline
3. what we call our centerline plane.
So it appears people are getting lost in semantics. Even I did at first as I assumed he meant staying "nose to nose" with the opponent, which indeed WC doesn't do.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Agreed. My personal preference is to stay out of "the pocket" - we maintain distance and close quickly to get to grappling distance. That changes, however, by circumstance. If I'm facing a grappler, I may prefer to work in the pocket, where I may have more weapons than them. If I'm facing a striker (especially one with kicks), I may prefer to stay close and deal with the hands in a compressed range (and no power feet there), where I have more tools than they do.
In the words of one of my instructors, "If they want to grapple, I'll box. If they want to box, I'll grapple."
I've found that many of my disagreements with DB came down to semantics. If either one of us accepted the other's vocabulary for the length of a discussion, we could talk sensibly about more things.
Juany118
Senior Master
On your last point, one name...Bruce Lee.
He never learned the entire system (I don't think he actually ever learned all 3 empty hand forms) as he studied for less than three years, largely taught by YMs teenage students as he was uncomfortable teaching a Eurasian.
So he comes to the US, and after a Fight far longer with Wong Jack Man than a certain movie suggests he starts working on Jeet Kun Do saying "Wing Chun is limited in these ways" the problem is it was his limited understanding of Wing Chun that made it so.
Not to diminish JKD in anyway incidentally, just speaking to what I see as the origin that WC somehow has no long game etc.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
wingchun100
Senior Master
I doubt Bruce learned even half of Chum Kiu, which means he definitely did not get to Biu Jee, which is where the majority of long bridge techniques are taught. Then again, there are some long bridge moves even in Sil Lum Tao.
