Getting the Angle

[Nobody Important]

Hands are the important part in keeping the opponent from being able to "re-face" and bring the rear hand into play. The criticism has essentially been "well, the guy would just follow him and punch him!". Its that lead Pak that contacts the opponent's lead arm from the outside that makes it much harder from him to re-face.

As shown in the video by Drop Bear, the footwork alone can take you out of harms way and negate any initial counter. As Geezer said, only once the gap is closed & inertia slowed are hands necessary. A simple pivot once the pass is made gives you the opponents back. My only criticism from Mr. Redmond's video was the initial bridge contact and Lat Sau. Even when initiating an attack this isn't necessary from the range they were at, the side step would have been sufficient. I understand what he was illustrating, but it is IMO low percentage unless the opponent actually freezes. There is no guarantee they will, or that their immediate knee jerk action won't be to lash out. If that happens, being so commuted to controlling an arm that is doing nothing can be a gamble from that head on charge, not enough angle to negate a secondary action. Side step with simultaneous strike is simpler & more effective IMO. That being said, I get what he was trying to illustrate, just isn't how I would go about it. To each their own.

 

[geezer]

Hands are the important part in keeping the opponent from being able to "re-face" and bring the rear hand into play. The criticism has essentially been "well, the guy would just follow him and punch him!". Its that lead Pak that contacts the opponent's lead arm from the outside that makes it much harder from him to re-face.

True. It is hard to "re-face". That's why we train against this a lot in drills, chi-sau, and sparring. For example, in one "lat-sau" drill we let the opponent pak/trap the arm across the body and attempt to shove us back and/or turn us aside so we can polish our response. If the guy pressing your arm across over commits or tries to hold it too long, you can slip the trap and really nail him! If he side-steps and doesn't turn you, it's even easier to re-orient and take the offense. Sure, he's a move ahead. but like the old WC/VT motto, you just start last and arrive first!

Now I admit, it ain't the easiest thing in the world to do. But I'm off to Austin next month to train, and there's a really old guy there named "Sifu Harry" ...in his mid 70s. One of my go to moves is off-lining and trapping the arm across, like what we are talking about. Harry suckers me in on this every time. I overcommit, he slips my trap and nails me hard. And he's freakin' strong for an old guy. But not this year! I'm growing up. I'm gonna be 62 in July, and I'm not gonna be slapped around like a kid anymore!!!

 

[DanT]

Not really. Phil is coming straight on and doesn't step off until the guy turns.

In fact, he says as much right at the beginning;

"I step in. I attack. He turns, and I step off."



He didn't angle off to the blindside until the guy tried to turn.

The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.

Nothing is stopping the guy from cutting into Phil's timing with a direct counterstrike, either from the rear hand, or if he sees the attempt to grab the lead hand coming, by recycling the lead into a strike before he's able to grab it.

I do this all the time to WC guys who try to "seek the bridge" but end up grasping at air while getting punched in the face. Too much of the "sticky hand" game doesn't work when someone doesn't want you to touch their arms.

He already controlled the blindside before the opponent turned. When the opponent turned he had to reposition himself to stay on the blind side.

You fail to realize that the step to the outside could be a slip to avoid a straight punch, not just a step to deal with the opponent turning to face you.

You also fail to realize that Phil could be striking as he's moving to the blindside.

 

[LFJ]

I pointed out that Phil's very first step took him off the line.

But it didn't...

Looks like we have to pull out the GIFs again.

The attack:

Steps straight in, inside the guy's stance to slap then grab his arm.
The initial attack is not within striking range.
No reason the guy could not counterpunch directly with the rear hand or see the obvious attack on his guard coming and recycle it into a punch before it can be grabbed.
Instead he tenses up and allows himself to be pulled while his rear hand falls asleep.

The response to the counter (of stepping away and turning for no reason without attacking):

Again, steps straight in, inside the guy's lead leg to slap then grab his arm because the initial punch is out of range.
His foot is clearly not stepping to the outside of the guy's lead leg, nor is he using any sort of body method to move off line of a counterpunch similar to anything shown in drop bear's clip against southpaws.

The guy takes a large lateral step for no other reason than that he was told to.
Phil doesn't start moving off line until the guy steps away and turns, without attacking.

This works because the opponent supplies him with a strong-arm taan-sau to pull on, steps away, and doesn't counterattack.

The entire strategy relies on their being a stiff arm to leverage against the opponent, but it may not be there when you go for it.

Then you're unable to stop someone from turning by pressing on their arm that isn't there, but it wouldn't matter because you stepped straight in and attacked from out of range and could be directly counterpunched instead of scaring the guy off into a pointless sidestep.

 

[KPM]

As shown in the video by Drop Bear, the footwork alone can take you out of harms way and negate any initial counter. As Geezer said, only once the gap is closed & inertia slowed are hands necessary. A simple pivot once the pass is made gives you the opponents back. My only criticism from Mr. Redmond's video was the initial bridge contact and Lat Sau. Even when initiating an attack this isn't necessary from the range they were at, the side step would have been sufficient. I understand what he was illustrating, but it is IMO low percentage unless the opponent actually freezes. There is no guarantee they will, or that their immediate knee jerk action won't be to lash out. If that happens, being so commuted to controlling an arm that is doing nothing can be a gamble from that head on charge, not enough angle to negate a secondary action. Side step with simultaneous strike is simpler & more effective IMO. That being said, I get what he was trying to illustrate, just isn't how I would go about it. To each their own.

To me, Wing Chun is all about being efficient, but being safe at the same time. How many times have you had to admonish a student to keep their Wu Sau hand in place as a backup defense? Of course there is no guarantee the opponent isn't going to lash out. But that lead Pak is already in play. Phil isn't necessarily committed. If the opponent suddenly yanked his lead arm back to try and throw the rear hand, Phil's defense is already up and that Pak just transitions to something else. But NOT having that kind of defensive mindset and hand "in play" is less safe. If the opponent was the one being the aggressor and was charging forward, then yeah...Phil would have probably just stepped out and struck low under that lead arm. But remember, Phil is launching the attack here. Why wouldn't he reduce the chances of the opponent being able to respond by checking that lead arm with his Pak Sau? That just seems like safe common sense to me.

 

[KPM]

But it didn't...

.

As per your typical M.O.....out of the repetitions Phil had on that short clip you singled out the two where he doesn't quite get his foot outside of the opponent's foot and simply ignored the ones where he does. I've told you what is happening in that clip. You can put anything into slow motion and criticize it. I'm not arguing with you. You either choose to see what I'm talking about, or you choose to be argumentative. You seem to always choose the later.

 

[LFJ]

As per your typical M.O.....out of the repetitions Phil had on that short clip you singled out the two where he doesn't quite get his foot outside of the opponent's foot and simply ignored the ones where he does.

There were only a couple other repetitions. Here they are.

Once again, Phil is moving straight in and doesn't get outside the guy's foot or move off line.

The guy is either unresponsive, or needlessly steps away and presents Phil with a stiff lever arm to pull, without counterattacking. (As he was told to do.)

Only in the first one here where the guy doesn't respond does Phil ever get into range to actually land a strike. Otherwise he's just slapping and pulling from out of range.

I've told you what is happening in that clip.

You've told me what you think or hope is happening in the clip, but that doesn't match reality.

You can put anything into slow motion and criticize it.

If he's actually stepping off line outside of the guy's lead foot, as you say, putting it in slow motion shouldn't change that!

You either choose to see what I'm talking about, or you choose to be argumentative. You seem to always choose the later.

No one can see what you're talking about, because you are imagining it.

He's standing right in front of the guy and moves straight in with his attack, as slow motion of each initial application shows.

 

[Lobo66]

It looks to me like he is 1) still out of range even after having advanced and 2) actually moving further away and out of range during the second strike attempt.

If you're going to create angles using footwork, slipping or a combination of the two than you had better stay in range so your opponent doesn't have the opportunity to counter effectively (like in the boxing vid that someone posted).

In VT we try to cut off the opponent and disrupt his center while attacking - "smothering" him with our actions.

 

[Nobody Important]

To me, Wing Chun is all about being efficient, but being safe at the same time. How many times have you had to admonish a student to keep their Wu Sau hand in place as a backup defense? Of course there is no guarantee the opponent isn't going to lash out. But that lead Pak is already in play. Phil isn't necessarily committed. If the opponent suddenly yanked his lead arm back to try and throw the rear hand, Phil's defense is already up and that Pak just transitions to something else. But NOT having that kind of defensive mindset and hand "in play" is less safe. If the opponent was the one being the aggressor and was charging forward, then yeah...Phil would have probably just stepped out and struck low under that lead arm. But remember, Phil is launching the attack here. Why wouldn't he reduce the chances of the opponent being able to respond by checking that lead arm with his Pak Sau? That just seems like safe common sense to me.

I always have a "safety first" mind set, and being out of range or not being on your opponents line of attack are the simplest things you can do to maintain it. No hands required but can be used to help augment coverage of vulnerable areas.

I understand he was initiating the attack, and I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to this, it was poorly executed. Attacking with his left side straight up the center, left his right side open and driving straight into opponents power side, there is no safety first measure here. His pak sau on the opponents man sau from that postion could have easily back fired by drawing the opponent into him, disrupting everything,. Simply adding a simultaneous kick to that action would have allowed for better penetration and control. His second move was a readjustment to take flank & seize his opponents balance because his first attack put him in a vulnerable position, IMO, this should have been his first move.

If Mr. Redmond was trying to show how to recover from a failed attack, then good job. If he was attempting to illustrate taking flank on an opponent, it was convoluted.

As I stated earlier, I have no issue with the concept, merely the execution, it wasn't efficient nor was it from a "Safety First" perspective. It was charge in and and see what happens, I'll adjust accordingly. Some people don't mind that approach, it can be pulled off, but I find it a risky strategy when simply slipping to the outside will achieve the same purpose more efficiently and at a much safer angle to opponent.

 

[KPM]

It looks to me like he is 1) still out of range even after having advanced and 2) actually moving further away and out of range during the second strike attempt.

If you're going to create angles using footwork, slipping or a combination of the two than you had better stay in range so your opponent doesn't have the opportunity to counter effectively (like in the boxing vid that someone posted).

In VT we try to cut off the opponent and disrupt his center while attacking - "smothering" him with our actions.

Now this is probably the most valid criticism so far. Phil is a little far out. Probably because he is talking during the demo and is just ensuring he isn't going to actually make contact with his punches. Staying closer would allow him to turn or pin his opponent even better.

 

[KPM]

I

If Mr. Redmond was trying to show how to recover from a failed attack, then good job. If he was attempting to illustrate taking flank on an opponent, it was convoluted.

.

You may be right! We don't know the lead in to this short clip or what Phil have been teaching or talking about just prior. At the 12 second mark he says something like "people say if you do that I will just turn and....But I'm not going to just stand there. I'm going to step off!" So it could very well be that he was showing stepping to the blindside as a recovery option. If I was doing it (and the way I was showing my students to do it just recently), that first step would have been wider and more to the side while closing more distance, making the second step unnecessary. In the very first example in the clip (where Phil is wearing a hat) he does step wider with the first step than he does with the following examples. You can't see his feet, and LFJ chose not to "slo mo" that one. But he gets a better angle right off the bat with that one.

 

[Nobody Important]

You may be right! We don't know the lead in to this short clip or what Phil have been teaching or talking about just prior. At the 12 second mark he says something like "people say if you do that I will just turn and....But I'm not going to just stand there. I'm going to step off!" So it could very well be that he was showing stepping to the blindside as a recovery option. If I was doing it (and the way I was showing my students to do it just recently), that first step would have been wider and more to the side while closing more distance, making the second step unnecessary. In the very first example in the clip (where Phil is wearing a hat) he does step wider with the first step than he does with the following examples. You can't see his feet, and LFJ chose not to "slo mo" that one. But he gets a better angle right off the bat with that one.

This is plausible and would actually explain a lot about what is going on in that clip.

 

[LFJ]

In the very first example in the clip (where Phil is wearing a hat) he does step wider with the first step than he does with the following examples. You can't see his feet, and LFJ chose not to "slo mo" that one. But he gets a better angle right off the bat with that one.

No, he doesn't.

You think I'm misrepresenting things by showing 4 times he did it poorly instead of the 1 time he did it well? Okay.

You can't see their feet, but you can see their knees.

Phil is still stepping straight in, and does not get outside of the guy's stance, nor does he achieve any sort of angle on him until step 2, the pull and step off.

Again, absolutely unnecessary for the guy to step away and turn like that without attacking.
He's just presenting his arm to be pulled.

Nothing at all to stop him from counterpunching with either hand before Phil gets a chance to grab him, which could well shut down the whole blindside attempt.

It's no different than the other repetitions.

 

[Juany118]

Hmm... For me it is never that simple. People pivot, specially when there is no arm control (which is not easy when the guard is close to the body). I feint to the wrong side before going where I want. I also go to the side I don't want (and cannot do much) just to be less predictable.

Yes and no. For few reasons. First one of the principles in WC is that your attacks should disrupt your opponents center. Whether it be by simply recoiling from the speed of the attack or an outright taking of their balance. As an example the video I showed in the chuen sau thread...

The chuen sau, if applied correctly not only acts as a cover in the event the other hand comes at yeah, it takes the opponents balance so he can't effectively pivot/counter attack.

That of course is for the "no" of my premise.

For the "yes" your attack may indeed not be enough to take away their ability to pivot or counter attack and you need to be prepared for that. There are some videos of Provisional Master Jerry Devone in a competition called "Man up, stand up". He does on occasion try to get to the blindside but his opponents adapt and so he just goes straight in so it doesn't become a circular dance.

There is a video of him fighting another opponent that shows what I see as a weakness of some WC lineages that don't teach any grappling however. When Sifu Jerry really starts hammering the opponent goes for a clinch, which can end badly if you aren't prepared to deal with it (in a real fight).

Regardless, at least in my experience, for WC to work you have to go "all in" on the attack. I actually apply an axiom we use at work to TWC.

sometimes you have to be willing to let your butt hang out and risk it being shot off to get the job done.

This axiom seems to apply to other Ip Man sub-lineages as well. I can't speak for non-Ip Man lineages though.

 

[geezer]

Hey Keith, I know you and LFJ are not going to see eye to eye, but those GIFs he put up were really helpful in clarifying the situation. I still agree with him on this. As a demo, it's fine and probably better than most of the demos I do. But imagine if his student wasn't so stiff, tightening up his man-sau and trying to pull away. Then Phil would not have the same control and the guy would be able to counterattack.

Actually, I much preferred the clip of Keith Mazza that Juany provided. IMO his distancing (moving in close) and his forward pressure put him in a far better position to control his opponent.

 

[KPM]

Hey Keith, I know you and LFJ are not going to see eye to eye, but those GIFs he put up were really helpful in clarifying the situation. I still agree with him on this. As a demo, it's fine and probably better than most of the demos I do. But imagine if his student wasn't so stiff, tightening up his man-sau and trying to pull away. Then Phil would not have the same control and the guy would be able to counterattack.

.

Ok. How do you see his opponent counter-attacking? In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak. That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand. The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face. So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him. "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side. This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch. So just what do you see as the problem?

 

[Phobius]

Ok. How do you see his opponent counter-attacking? In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak.

I have been away so long, decided training was more valuable than writing and got caught up here way too much.

Anyways, to the point. In the last slo-mo clip Phil was in fact initiating an attack with a pak-sau. Also a downward angled pak-sau indicating that he was already from the start chasing hands. Not saying anything of it was right or wrong. But it was not a forward intent from the partner but rather a reaction to an incoming pak-sau. A problem most likely from videorecording a drill where people try to re-enact a drill. (Video recording a drill intentionally usually becomes reenactment rather than training drill)

That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand.

Not only this, in that slo-mo clip he actually fired off a pak-sau a punch and a pull. At the same time his partner stiffed. Usually I find this very unrealistic in terms of drills to believe that you can do three movements not even counting footwork at the time your opponent/partner makes a single punch.

The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face.

Actually it was the partner that tried to flank but also sadly not in an attempt to attack but rather to move away from his opponent. This seems to give Phil the possibility to flank without moving very much. All of this is just from that last clip of course. In addition when punching it seems as if Phil jumps with both feet to get into range while extending his arm.

So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him. "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side. This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch. So just what do you see as the problem?

I think at least for me the concern with this is that there is no forward intent whatsoever in the partner.

Not saying it is a bad drill but while recoding I see no forward intent. Also I agree and believe that a forward intent would cause for a counter-punch in this situation.

Lets not forget that if you can move twice, so can he.

 

[drop bear]

I don't care if people suggest he may need to step out futher. On the way in.

It is a valid observation.

 

[Nobody Important]

Personally I think it all comes down to this.

If it's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

What if scenarios will always pop up in the course of discussion and hindsight is always 20/20 when recounting a witnessed event. People are going to see what is relevant to them, and unfortunately defend that until the end when hypotheticals are added in. A good recipe for argument and moot points.

My advice, take it for what it is, a demo on a basic and simple concept. There is always room for improvement, so don't take anything as gospel just because someone else believed it to be. Explore for yourself.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ok. How do you see his opponent counter-attacking? In the last slo mo clip that LFJ provided, the partner is actually moving with some forward intent just before Phil does his Pak. That could very well have been the beginning of a punch that Phil then stopped with a Pak Sau and then stepped off of the line to the blindside before the guy could fire his rear hand. The guy knew his punch had been stopped and Phil was flanking him so he tried to pivot and re-face. So Phil transitioned to a Lop Sau to maintain control of his lead arm and punched him. "Stiff Man Sau" vs. "Actual punch" amounts to the same thing from Phil's side. This could very well have been a demo of how to defend against a simple "forward intent" lead hand punch. So just what do you see as the problem?

For what it's worth, I can see several opotunities available for the defender to negate that attack, from a left punch, right bong sau to moving back with a right front kick, among others. All plausible because Mr. Redmond did not initially move the line and overextended himself. He's able to get away with it because it's a demo and the rigid opponent isn't really responding. He was just trying to illustrate a concept. IMO it could have been simplified, too much unnecessary interaction if flanking was the goal. But it is what it is, and arguing over hypothetical what if's is moot. Take what you want from it, good or bad. For me, at the end of the day it isn't going to affect how I do things.