Cheun Sau

[LFJ]

And yet somehow he tries to deny that a center held guard directed at the opponent is being used by the VT guys in Sean's video.

Sean himself has explained to you the VT guard and the theory behind it.

Not sure why you are unable to see it throughout that video.

 

[LFJ]

WC's Bai Jong guard position is about maximum efficiency.

Its efficiency is still submaximal.

It's not about leaving the 'sides open', it's about closing centerline down giving your opponent 2 options - try to break thru center, or take the long way around.

That's 3 options. Left, right, or center. Multiplied by high or low.
So, at least 6, depending on how you define gates.

And you have to react at the right time, with the right arm and right action, to the right gate.

That's quite a lot to worry about and get right.

Anyone who can't see the usefulness of this, or doesn't understand this simple principle, still has a lot to learn about WC system.

For most lineages, it's WC101. Of course, I'm familiar with the theory.

I just disagree that it "puts time on your side or gives you the advantage", because every gate is open as you sit at the center and have to reactively move to close them at the right time, with the right arm and right action, to the right gate, usually with two arms to deal with one. Submaximal efficiency.

As dudewingchun just said, many times in his fight he didn't even see kicks until they landed, and kicks are a lot more conspicuous than hooks coming in a barrage of punches all in your face.

So, to say them having to take the long way 'round "puts time on your side" is wishful thinking.
And having to be reactive with two arms defending to 6 areas is not much of an "advantage".

Actual fist fighting is not as easy as your theory makes it out to be.
This theory in fact complicates things far more than need be.

 

[geezer]

Its efficiency is still submaximal.

As always, LFJ does a good job breaking down and explaining the problem. And as always, he neglects to give a short and to-the-point explanation of what he does differently.

If past experience serves, next he will either say that he has "already explained that many times", or treat us to a series of enigmatic statements and questions, but shooting down any response given.

The thread will devolve into pointless bickering that drags on for a couple of pages, eventually KPM will totally lose it and get banned for a week, and the thread will be locked with absolutely nothing being resolved.

Have fun, I've got to get back to grading exams....

 

[KPM]

The thread will devolve into pointless bickering that drags on for a couple of pages, eventually KPM will totally lose it and get banned for a week, and the thread will be locked with absolutely nothing being resolved.

.

Not this time! I vowed to avoid LFJ's BS games.

But you absolutely nailed it when you said:

next he will either say that he has "already explained that many times", or treat us to a series of enigmatic statements and questions, but shooting down any response given.

 

[dudewingchun]

I got to agree with what LFJ is saying on this thread.

 

[KPM]

I got to agree with what LFJ is saying on this thread.

So you don't use a "center held" Man Sau/Wu Sau guard? What kind of guard do you use?

 

[KPM]

 

[KPM]

 

[KPM]

 

[LFJ]

 

[KPM]

You said this, and chose not to elaborate or explain your alternate viewpoint. As per your usual way in which you start and string out an argument. Because if you were to just state what you actually believe and how you see things in one nice concise post, that would be too easy.

Center guard is open on all sides and results in reacting to the strings the opponent pulls.

TWC side stance has the guard on the central line, in the middle, aimed at the opponent. Same thing.

Just like Geezer said:

As always, LFJ does a good job breaking down and explaining the problem. And as always, he neglects to give a short and to-the-point explanation of what he does differently.


So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"?? Because you were the one that equated this with being "reactive" and "chasing hands." Don't argue. Just clarify and explain.

 

[LFJ]

So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"?? Because you were the one that equated this with being "reactive" and "chasing hands."

No, I don't.

And a guard itself is not reactive and chasing hands. It's the gate theory that usually accompanies it.

That's why I kept saying "center guard + gate theory".

 

[KPM]

No, I don't.

And a guard itself is not reactive and chasing hands. It's the gate theory that usually accompanies it.

That's why I kept saying "center guard + gate theory".

Thank you for the detailed explanation and elaboration.

 

[DanT]

I usually don't use the "Yip Man" style guard when fighting, I prefer a more typical guard (Sanda like) as it allows me to throw more Shaolin techniques from it. Even when training my Wing Chun techniques I don't really use that position except for Mai San Jong.

 

[geezer]

I got to agree with what LFJ is saying on this thread.

I kinda think I do too... but to be honest I'm not sure. It would help if he would explain exactly how and what he prefers to do instead!

Not likely though. I fully expect he will get sidetracked into a big argument with KPM and I will never know exactly what he advocates.

 

[geezer]

No, I don't.

And a guard itself is not reactive and chasing hands. It's the gate theory that usually accompanies it.

That's why I kept saying "center guard + gate theory".

So it's not the center-line positioning of the man-sau and wu-sau guard that you are objecting to. It's the reactive "gate theory" that many groups adhere to?

Please elaborate.

 

[LFJ]

I kinda think I do too... but to be honest I'm not sure. It would help if he would explain exactly how and what he prefers to do instead!

You need to know what I prefer to know if you agree with the points made about something else??

Even if I had no alternative beyond changing styles completely, the problems still exist.

So it's not the center-line positioning of the man-sau and wu-sau guard the you are objecting to. It's the reactive "gate theory" that many groups adhere to?

Well, both. I've discussed with diagrams failings of the center guard, too, that everyone acknowledged.

 

[KPM]

I kinda think I do too... but to be honest I'm not sure. It would help if he would explain exactly how and what he prefers to do instead!

Not likely though. I fully expect he will get sidetracked into a big argument with KPM and I will never know exactly what he advocates.

LFJ is not very clear or concise on what he means. He equated a center held guard directed at the opponent as being bad. But like you, I kind of think he was actually referring to the "gate theory" as what he believes leads to this "reactive strategy" and "chasing hands" (which I also disagree with). However, in typical fashion, he would rather argue than explain and elaborate.

Several have said they don't use a "center held guard." But you don't have to have the classic Man Sau/Wu Sau position with arms extended to have a "center held guard directed at the opponent". There really are only two options when it comes to guards. You either have your guard occupying the center so that the opponent is more likely to go around and come in at somewhat of an angle, or you have your hands held wide of center so that the opponent is more likely to strike down the middle between them. The best example of the first option is obviously Wing Chun. The best example of the second option is Muay Thai. There are western boxing versions of both, depending on the fighter. For sparring Alan Orr teaches to keep the hands held back closer in, but they are still in front of the face and on the centerline. So unless you are holding your hands wide like a Thai boxer, you are likely using a "center held guard" that is a variation of the classic Wing Chun "Man Sau/Wu Sau" position.

And gate theory does not make you reactive and "chase hands." It simply defines quadrants through which an attack is likely to come. Heck, you don't have to block at all if you don't want to! But if you can identify that an attack is coming thru a particular quadrant you can angle or move away from it and chain punch to your heart's content! By having your hands occupying the center, the opponent is more likely to be punching around at an angle. And since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, you have a chance of hitting him before he can hit you simply because you will be punching straighter than him. If you are holding your hands away from the centerline, that means you will have to either punch at an angle rather than straight, or bring your hands back to centerline as you punch. Either way this is not as direct as having your hands on the centerline when you start the punch. This is Wing Chun 101.

Additionally, by using the gate theory you train and recognize the optimal hand techniques to defend a particular gate or quadrant. So in instances where you don't have the angle, distance or timing to simply move in and punch, you know which hand technique to use without thinking about it. And that hand technique may simple by insurance to make sure you don't get hit by him AS you are moving in and punching. Duncan Leung teaches to cover, not to think about blocking. Gate theory + center held guard gives you the structure to cover while hitting quickly and effectively. Nothing is "chasing hands" about it, unless understood or used improperly.

So all you guys that say you do Wing Chun without a "center held guard directed at the opponent" I would love hear what you are actually doing!

I'll point out that on that video that Sean shared, not only are the students using a center held guard directed at the opponent, but at times they are being "reactive"! At several points the partner threw a wide loopy punch and the student used a high cover rather than just stepping in and punching.

 

[KPM]

And just so it is clear to everyone before LFJ starts to try and back-pedal on his statements, I asked:

So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??

To which LFJ answered:

No, I don't.

Which is why I provided pictures of WSL and PB standing in a center held guard.

 

[geezer]

And just so it is clear to everyone before LFJ starts to try and back-pedal on his statements, I asked:

So, you actually DO use a "center guard aimed at the opponent"??

To which LFJ answered:

No, I don't...

KPM, at this point it is clear that you and LFJ are talking past each other. You are talking in general terms that apply broadly to different lineages of WC/WT/VT and to pugilistic arts in general.

I believe that LFJ is focusing on the minutia that differentiates the WSL VT guard from every other branch of VT/WC and indeed every other form of pugilism in the world. Although the pictures of WSL-VT you posted appear to show a centerline guard in the broad sense, LFJ's reference to his previously provided geometric diagrams on another thread certainly seem to suggest that he sees this VT guard differently.

Anyway, I'm for just letting it all go. Attitudes like LFJ's are why some really competent fighters I know through the DTE circle think that all WC guys are idiots. Ahh the burden we must bear. [/QUOTE]