Does your WC use an upward elbow?

[wckf92]

You attack the hands and arms with your WC? Could you elaborate a little?

Kind of. I was actually commenting on your italicized words from your post 12.
But, if you think about how WC uses the Pole and Knives...your Escrima statement holds true (just, for me, from a WC aspect).
As for unarmed: I was taught and trained that every hand is an attack. So, if you throw me a (for example) roundhouse/haymaker to the head...I'm not just thinking "block and counter"...to me that is not WC. I'm going to attack that incoming limb with my tan while simultaneously counter attacking with a punch (or whatever) strike to your head or whatever target I want.
Of course, one could chaulk this up to a matter of how we each define certain terms, but I wanted to respond to your question.

 

[wckf92]

But I agree, tight hooks are tough. Really tight hooks even more-so. But IMO, you'd either have to have done a lot wrong to allow someone into that super-close range to throw/land one, they were really good or the confrontation just started that close.

All going points...

 

[Marnetmar]

Sure I guess. Once you're past your opponent's structure you can do whatever you like IMO.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But I agree, tight hooks are tough. Really tight hooks even more-so. But IMO, you'd either have to have done a lot wrong to allow someone into that super-close range to throw/land one, they were really good or the confrontation just started that close.

Not really Tyson used to launch and land tight hooks from a distance.

The problem with hooks is that there is more than one way to throw them and there's no one hook defense that defends all hooks. The other problem is the area targeted. Hooks aren't just thrown to the face, not all hooks are telegraphed. Some are hidden and others follow a bait. Things like arm reach also affect defenses against hooks. Some who has a longer arm reach can land hooks further out. Body movement such as slips and hooks can also present problems for defenses.
Long reach vs short reach challenges.

 

[JowGaWolf]

As for unarmed: I was taught and trained that every hand is an attack. So, if you throw me a (for example) roundhouse/haymaker to the head...I'm not just thinking "block and counter"...to me that is not WC. I'm going to attack that incoming limb with my tan while simultaneously counter attacking with a punch (or whatever) strike to your head or whatever target I want.

I think this is a lost perspective in many martial arts styles because it requires conditioning of the forearms, hands, and elbows. Very few martial arts schools around me condition these body parts.

 

[wckf92]

I think this is a lost perspective in many martial arts styles because it requires conditioning of the forearms, hands, and elbows. Very few martial arts schools around me condition these body parts.

You are correct. Lots of conditioning for the forearms/elbows/hands/fingers; and a deep understanding of how and when to exert power.

 

[yak sao]

Also, the lifting punch in CK shares the same type of body mechanics as the upward elbow if you allow it to continue on its path

 

[geezer]

You are correct. Lots of conditioning for the forearms/elbows/hands/fingers; and a deep understanding of how and when to exert power.

I believe this approach to be valid, but it is not equally emphasized in all WC branches. My old Chinese sifu felt that the conditioning drills like iron palm and saam sing arm conditioning (that I had learned with a previous instructor) were unnecessary, and even counterproductive in his "WT" branch. He felt that our regular two man drills, our chi-sau, wall bag hitting, and later-on, the dummy training, was more than sufficient. He felt that too much hard training trying to make the arms hard like weapons reduces your elasticity or "springiness" and sensitivity as required in his soft concept of "WT".

Now as to the rising elbow in the forms, we do not have it literally expressed in the forms as I learned them, but the energy is definitely there. Especially if you look at the wide range of applications that emerge from each movement. For example, the pivoting double lan-sau in Chum Kiu can hit both coming and going. Pivoting forward, you can strike with the outside edge of the hand, the forearm, the front of the elbow, or the point of the elbow. Equally, pivoting back, you can hit with the upper arm, the back or the point of the elbow, the forearm and the edge of the hand. It is all the same, just depending on your position and distance relative to your opponent. Similarly, you can fold your hand into a palm-down fist, and the forward pivoting lan-sau becomes a hook-punch, much like the more whipping hook-like movement learned later in Biu Tze.

Well, if the energy learned in the pivoting lan-sau can be all of the above, then i can certainly see the rising elbow strike as a natural extension of the energy expressed in the "lifting punch" in our version of Chum Kiu (coming from "WT"). Just as lan-sau and bong-sau can fold into kup, gwai, and pai or ding jarn, so can the lifting punch continue upwards and fold into a rising ding-jarn. You can see this movement as I learned it in the clip below at 1:02 -1:05, and in close-up at 1:15-1:18.

BTW here is the whipping "hook-punch" sequence from the old 1980s "WT" version of the Biu Tze form. I've seen the energies expressed in this sequence: hook - downward vertical elbow - reverse biu tze strike applied a wide range of applications. The "hook" can be a punch, a cutting elbow, a "clothes-line" sort of strike with the inside of the forearm or bicep muscle, and even a throw. The downward elbow can also be a downward backfist, rebounding upward into a short lifting punch, or a more extended reverse biu-tze or throat spear, and so on. As this downward elbow "rebounds" up ...it can fold back into the rising elbow just as easily as extending into a strike. See blow, fro, about 1:40-1:48.

Now, some might say that I am reading too much into these sequences. To that I would respond, not at all. One of the reasons that a style as complex as WC only has three comparatively short empty-handed forms is that the forms are very dense. They do not teach mere application, but as others have said, they are the alphabet that underlies our martial language. They teach concepts and principles, structures, movement, and energy dynamics. It is up to us to expand this core into nearly infinite variations as needed in application.

 

[geezer]

Dang, just wasted like an hour this Saturday morning putting together that last post when, as my wife just pointed out, I could have been doing something productive like doing the dishes and cleaning out the cat litter boxes. Gosh, I don't know where my priorities are these days!

 

[geezer]

Also, the lifting punch in CK shares the same type of body mechanics as the upward elbow if you allow it to continue on its path

See, while I was wasting all that time looking at old LT clips and trying to get all eloquent, you said the same thing in one short line. Harumph! ...I guess I'll just start those dishes now.

 

[yak sao]

Dang, just wasted like an hour this Saturday morning putting together that last post when, as my wife just pointed out, I could have been doing something productive like doing the dishes and cleaning out the cat litter boxes. Gosh, I don't know where my priorities are these days!

Geezer, I don't want you to panic because I may simply be overreacting, but I think you and I are married to the same woman!

 

[drop bear]

WC is primarily a close range system, and strikes mainly target the head and body along it's central axis. We don't attack the weapon (arms and hands) we attack the weapon wielder, the "central command" and shut it down at the source if you will.

Now Escrima (my other art) begins at a longer range, and often we do target the hands since typically they are the first target you can reach. And you are quite right, elbows can be murder on your opponent's bare fists. But weapons are even nastier on the fists. Even a cellphone, pocket flashlight or ring of keys, for example, can really mess with an opponent's incoming jabs.

Isnt trapping by definition attacking the limb. Not to hurt it but to at least open it?

As far as i am concerned a parry is a strike because it uses that bit of time and space.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not a Wing Chun guy but so this is just insight from outside of WC. If you use your forearm to block like that then I'm going to crush it with punches. What he explains makes sense when using those gloves, but doesn't work the same with smaller gloves or without gloves, especially without the gloves where the knuckles have a greater depth of impact.

I use a similar fighting stance with my arm bent like that but at an angle so punches don't land solid . I a

The only time my arm like in the OP's original video is when I'm trying to break someone's hand. Even when Wong showed the elbow it didn't look like it had much force behind it for that type of attack. But for breaking the hand of an incoming jab there is more than enough force in that elbow to do that. Just a perspective from a different fighting system, I think too many people think use the elbow to strike the body or head. Using the elbow to break the hand would seem to me to be more natural with the movements of Wing Chun then trying to use it elbow to attack the body like Wong showed.

Just a thought from "someone on the outside looking in".

You are unlikley to come worse off if you are meeting punches dead on with a forearm.

That cover is traditionally used for elbows in thai. The space protects you from the elbow slipping and cutting you

 

[wckf92]

Isnt trapping by definition attacking the limb. Not to hurt it but to at least open it?

Hmmm...interesting tidbit, though to me and my WC, there are no such things as "WC trapping". To me, a 'trap' instead means a momentary (i.e. very very brief) immobilization of a key joint.
Not to derail the topic of this thread but what most WC'ers think of as the dreaded ultimate WC skill of 'trapping' equates to a lack of understanding WRT wing chun principles and footwork.

 

[geezer]

Hmmm...interesting tidbit, though to me and my WC, there are no such things as "WC trapping". To me, a 'trap' instead means a momentary (i.e. very very brief) immobilization of a key joint.
Not to derail the topic of this thread but what most WC'ers think of as the dreaded ultimate WC skill of 'trapping' equates to a lack of understanding WRT wing chun principles and footwork.

Not sure if I agree ...or not. I guess don't know that many other WCers. But a lot of the guys on this forum, guys like you, Danny, Yak, Argus, KPM, Piedmont, Vajramusdi...to name a few, don't view trapping that way. In fact, a lot of the people caught up with the whole trapping mystique probably don't know squat about WC. IMHO that obsession with trapping combinations in which trapping becomes an end in itself rather than a momentary by-product of good position, footwork and forward intent (lat sau jik chung) is a result of some of the JKD stuff ...which really isn't WC at all.

 

[wckf92]

Not sure if I agree ...or not. I guess don't know that many other WCers. But a lot of the guys on this forum, guys like you, Danny, Yak, Argus, KPM, Piedmont, Vajramusdi...to name a few, don't view trapping that way. In fact, a lot of the people caught up with the whole trapping mystique probably don't know squat about WC. IMHO that obsession with trapping combinations in which trapping becomes an end in itself rather than a momentary by-product of good position, footwork and forward intent (lat sau jik chung) is a result of some of the JKD stuff ...which really isn't WC at all.

Not sure what you are saying Geez...though I may not have explained myself very well. So, perhaps to clarify further on this trapping weirdness...I do not believe in 'trap'...

IME, most WC people think they can 'trap' their opponents limbs and then chain punch them into oblivion. Most videos one sees are of a super sifu (dare I say...Master) 'trapping' a poor helpless (and totally compliant) "adversary" and pummeling them into extinction.

Simple (and basic) footwork and knowledge of how to properly train and employ correct elbow position will nullify this dreadful WC tactic.

 

[geezer]

Basically I'm trying to say the same thing.

It's hard when the trick-or-treaters keep ringing the door bell and interrupting my fragile train of thought.

Anyway, my experience is that with good WC, sometimes trapping happens but it is not our objective. In other words, as you penetrate your opponent's guard and attack, often his arms get caught and fouled up for an instant. But trying to trap hands first to enable an attack is putting the cart before the horse. And, if I remember correctly pretty much everybody else on here who does serious WC has said something similar at some point.

 

[Danny T]

WC is not about trapping although trapping is a huge part of the training. Trapping happens because of proper positioning and line control. We move not to trap but to strike; 'if' in the process of striking there is a barrier we either remove the barrier, go around the barrier, or if the angle is proper simply strike through the barrier. Sometimes we trap and often the opponent traps themselves. When that happens finish it, just remember to tell them thank you.

 

[geezer]

WC is not about trapping although trapping is a huge part of the training. Trapping happens because of proper positioning and line control. We move not to trap but to strike; 'if' in the process of striking there is a barrier we either remove the barrier, go around the barrier, or if the angle is proper simply strike through the barrier. Sometimes we trap and often the opponent traps themselves. When that happens finish it, just remember to tell them thank you.

OK, that was expressed well. Thank you. Now I'm back to answering the door and eating candy.

 

[drop bear]

Hmmm...interesting tidbit, though to me and my WC, there are no such things as "WC trapping". To me, a 'trap' instead means a momentary (i.e. very very brief) immobilization of a key joint.
Not to derail the topic of this thread but what most WC'ers think of as the dreaded ultimate WC skill of 'trapping' equates to a lack of understanding WRT wing chun principles and footwork.

Not sure if I agree ...or not. I guess don't know that many other WCers. But a lot of the guys on this forum, guys like you, Danny, Yak, Argus, KPM, Piedmont, Vajramusdi...to name a few, don't view trapping that way. In fact, a lot of the people caught up with the whole trapping mystique probably don't know squat about WC. IMHO that obsession with trapping combinations in which trapping becomes an end in itself rather than a momentary by-product of good position, footwork and forward intent (lat sau jik chung) is a result of some of the JKD stuff ...which really isn't WC at all.

For me I am thinking about trapping from a boxing perspective. Where it is an attack.

But a momentary byproduct of good positioning is also consistant.