Fighting a boxer in Wing Chun

[wckf92]

Could you give an example?

Step 1: strike the bad guy
Step 2: if, while en route to pummeling bad guy, an obstacle is encountered...WC hands contain angles which will either 'subdue', or 'disperse', or 'wedge' or 'sink' (etc etc but you get the idea) that obstacle while hopefully still en route to striking the bad guy.
Step 3: depending on the obstacle and the tactical situation you've encountered (and the adversary)...a covering or clearing hand may be needed.

Yes, WC operates on the holier-than-thou "centerline"...but it also contains the ability to cut back to the centerline if you find yourself off of it or being diverted too far from it. I.E. straight defeats circular; circular defeats straight, etc.

Let's say the bad guy beats me to the punch...let's say a straight punch to my teeth. Depending on where my hands happen to be located at the time...I can 'counter punch' with angles embedded in the system via the forms. I can punch him in the face with either a wedging or a cutting/sinking aspect to my punch depending on several factors (i.e. am I taller or shorter than him? Am I on the outside or inside of the attack? etc... closest weapon closest target, etc). Again, this all depends on many factors..;.but hopefully you get a general idea.

I could just as easily punch him somewhere else besides the face. I could elbow him. I could kick him in the balls. etc.

 

[wckf92]

I have tried to find the 5th method besides the following 4 methods from any MA system on this planet, but I have not found it yet. I will be grateful if you can tell me the 5th one.

The "5th" is rare to see. I was in WC for several years already before I was shown an example. It's not a 'secret' and it's "idea" is in the forms.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Step 1: strike the bad guy
Step 2: if, while en route to pummeling bad guy, an obstacle is encountered...WC hands contain angles which will either 'subdue', or 'disperse', or 'wedge' or 'sink' (etc etc but you get the idea) that obstacle while hopefully still en route to striking the bad guy.
Step 3: depending on the obstacle and the tactical situation you've encountered (and the adversary)...a covering or clearing hand may be needed.

If I understand you correctly, that is still "3. block and punch by using the same arm". You punch, your opponent blocks it, you use your punching arm to "bounce" his blocking arm away, you still punch him with the same arm. In CMA, there is a name for that and that's called 哈拳(Ha Quan).

 

[wckf92]

Still that is "3. block and punch by using the same arm". If I understand you correctly, you punch, your opponent blocks it, you use your punching arm to "bounce" his blocking arm away, you still punch him with the same arm. In CMA, there is a name for that and that is 哈拳(Ha Quan).

Your earlier post was "block and punch back".
And above you now say "block and punch"
So, perhaps we have a slight miscommunication(?)

But, in the WC I learned there are no "blocks". Blocking is defensive.
So, when I read your post about 'block' and punch...it sounds like a defensive, 1st motion, then 2nd motion.
In my example, "blocking" is not part of the thought process.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Your earlier post was "block and punch back".
And above you now say "block and punch"
So, perhaps we have a slight miscommunication(?)

But, in the WC I learned there are no "blocks". Blocking is defensive.
So, when I read your post about 'block' and punch...it sounds like a defensive, 1st motion, then 2nd motion.
In my example, "blocking" is not part of the thought process.

May be "block" is not a proper term to be used here. How about "deflect", "re-direct", "yield", "sticky", "bounce", ...

You punch, if

- nothing is in your punching path, your fist will meet on your opponent's face.
- something is in your punching path, your punching arm can deflect, re-direct, yield, sticky, bounce, ...)" it away. You can also just change your attacking path to avoid contact. You then continue your punch.

For example, you hook punch at your opponent's head, your opponent responds. You change your circular hook punch into a linear straight punch toward his chest.

 

[KPM]

And yet this idea is easily found to be contradictory in terms of other bits of the system, i.e. a problem exists with this understanding of bridging

---And yet, this idea is not contradictory to the meaning of the word "Kiu" and the way "Kiu" is used throughout CMAs to refer to something done with the forearm. So I'm not sure what "bits" of the system you are referring to.


It is the only understanding that makes sense and avoids contradiction

---You didn't answer my question. In fact, as it pretty usual for you, you side-stepped the question pretty obviously.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm quite surprise to hear that

- to use your blocking arm (such as Tang Shou) to block your opponent's punch,
- re-direct his arm to be away from your attacking path,
- use his leading arm to jam his back arm (this is a very important MA strategy),
- you then attack him through his "side door",

are not part of the WC "bridge" strategy.

 

[guy b.]

And yet, this idea is not contradictory to the meaning of the word "Kiu" and the way "Kiu" is used throughout CMAs to refer to something done with the forearm. So I'm not sure what "bits" of the system you are referring to

This is why it is important to look for inconsistency and incoherence in the system, not in terms of a weak understanding of Canonese words, or in terms of what other Chinese MA systems might or might not do. Bridge meaning forearm contact is not consistent with the conceptual basis of the VT system. It doesn't hang together. There are big problems with it as an idea probably meaning that it is a misunderstanding or an intentional change.

 

[guy b.]

I'm quite surprise to hear that

- to use your blocking arm (such as Tang Shou) to block your opponent's punch,
- re-direct his arm to be away from your attacking path,
- use his leading arm to jam his back arm (this is a very important MA strategy),
- you then attack him through his "side door",

are not part of the WC "bridge" strategy.

Looks fantastically unlikely ever to work, unless you are fighting a person with a chronic motor disability. This is not VT

 

[guy b.]

You didn't answer my question. In fact, as it pretty usual for you, you side-stepped the question pretty obviously.

That is an answer to your question. There are WSL groups with a poor understanding of the system. I used to train with one of those. I don't train with them any more.

 

[guy b.]

So you think "bridge" strategy has nothing to do with "sensing and manipulating arms".

Correct

block and punch at the same time - This is the WC most famous strategy 连消带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) such as to use left Tang Shou to block your opponent's punch and right hand punch on his face.

This is not the VT system understanding of LSDD

 

[Buka]

I kind of like the idea that a lot of you are debating/disagreeing on certain aspects of fighting. I think it shows individual artistry, and I believe fighting skill is personal and unique.

I hope as you continue you steal things from each other as much as you write off anything as wrong.
And be nice. It's nice to be nice.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is not the VT system understanding of LSDD

If your opponent is

- not on guard, you can punch on his face.
- on guard, your face punch will be interrupted by his guard. what do you do then?

When you fight, do you use any "set up" at all?

Even if you use "jab, cross" combo, your jab will hit on your opponent's guard (knock on the door - build a bridge). if he moves his arm away from his face (he opens his door), you can then punch his face (you enter through his door).

The "knock on the door (such as boxing jab, jab, cross)" strategy is the same as the "bridge" strategy.

 

[guy b.]

If your opponent is

- not on guard, you can punch on his face.
- on guard, your face punch will be interrupted by his guard. what do you do then?

You clear the way to punch. But VT is not a reactive system and does not seek arm contact- it is about imposing patterns of movement on the other person. With stepping you cut the way and make attacking lines. The punching strategy covers without thinking while exploiting these attack lines.

Even if you use "jab, cross" combo, your jab will hit on your opponent's guard (knock on the door - build a bridge).

Why would you seek a bridge if a bridge is arm contact and your ultimate aim is to punch your opponent? This is contradictory.

if he moves his arm away from his face (he open his door), you can then punch his face (you enter through his door).

What do you call it when he just removes his arms from your forearm contact while you are waiting for him to "open his door"? Did he "demolish his bridge"? Maybe it was one of those bridges that opens to allow ships through? What happens if traffic is backed up on the bridge and high winds are forecast? What if it's a toll bridge in rush hour and traffic is really bad, or a railway bridge and cars can't use it? Maybe today they are painting the bridge and it is closed. Perhaps you will need to take the ferry?

All of this theoretical stuff generally assumes that people don't move and for the most part it is nonsense because it derives from games in chi sau. Unfortunately people do move around a lot while trying to hit you and these kind of ideas fall apart rapidly. What works is simple, direct, efficinet, non-contradictory, and able to be done under pressure, i.e. without thinking

 

[geezer]

I'm totally bored with this obsession with the word bridge in VT. Now it may be some kind a a special key word in YM-WSL-PB-VT but in our branch of YM-VT it's no big deal. It's just a term that can be applied several ways as a way to understanding what we do in VT.

If it doesn't describe things the way you like, just find another word.

 

[KPM]

That is an answer to your question. There are WSL groups with a poor understanding of the system. I used to train with one of those. I don't train with them any more.

So, your answer seems to be "no, that is not the accepted understanding of "bridge" throughtout the WSLVT lineage."

 

[KPM]

This is why it is important to look for inconsistency and incoherence in the system, not in terms of a weak understanding of Canonese words, or in terms of what other Chinese MA systems might or might not do. Bridge meaning forearm contact is not consistent with the conceptual basis of the VT system. It doesn't hang together. There are big problems with it as an idea probably meaning that it is a misunderstanding or an intentional change.

Yes. You are probably right! Given that "Kiu" in Cantonese actually refers to a physical structure and not a gap, and given that "Kiu" in CMAs is used consistently to refer to the forearm of a martial artist in concrete terms, as well as establishing a linkage or contact of some kind with an opponent in abstract terms, then I would say you are correct... it is likely a misunderstanding or intentional change in meaning within the WSLVT lineage.

 

[LFJ]

So, your answer seems to be "no, that is not the accepted understanding of "bridge" throughtout the WSLVT lineage."

That would suggest they know it yet don't accept it. That's not the case.

Few people in fact know the free fighting aspect of VT. Fact is when WSL informed students that sparring was planned for the next class, most didn't turn up.

Most people, hobbyists, don't really get into serious fight training. Most just do the drills and use them as "technique practice" without getting into real fight strategy.

Easy to see how they might think it's all about arm contact and control. However, the control we are developing in training is of our own behaviors, not control of the opponent's arms. We're just using each other to check for and test attributes, not theorizing about fighting techniques that are predicated on pre- and prolonged arm contact.

Actually, VT free fighting is very simple compared to the drills.

 

[LFJ]

1. block and punch at the same time - This is the WC most famous strategy 连消带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) such as to use left Tang Shou to block your opponent's punch and right hand punch on his face.

It's not a particularly special skill to use two arms against one, and in a case where simultaneous attack and defense can be achieved with a single arm, using two would violate VT efficiency principles.

连消带打 primarily means 打手亦是消手, that is dual functions by a single arm in one beat. No block and then punch, which is two beats against one and again violates efficiency principles when the same can be achieve in one beat.

 

[LFJ]

All of this theoretical stuff generally assumes that people don't move and for the most part it is nonsense because it derives from games in chi sau. Unfortunately people do move around a lot while trying to hit you and these kind of ideas fall apart rapidly. What works is simple, direct, efficinet, non-contradictory, and able to be done under pressure, i.e. without thinking

Correctamundo!

If people would step away from chi-sau and face someone moving fast, unpredictably, and throwing a lightning quick barrage of attacks at them with full intent they would know these sticky arm, intent-sensing bridging theories don't work.