Getting the Angle

[geezer]

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?

More of a potential problem, or potential counter.

I wish I had a video to respond with but I don't. Anyway, in the VT I train, the response would be to let the lead arm yield or bend with the lop, while stepping forward and to the left ( going with the force) while simultaneously turning to face the opponent and firing a rear hand punch. We call this step-turn falling-leaf step. We train it against just such a hard, downward jerking lop-sau. For people that know the old WT curriculum, it's in the Lat-sau section 3 drills and in the Chi-sau section 2 drills. Done right it uses the force of the opponent's lop to accelerate your counter.

...The basic idea is not to resist, stiffen and pull back, but to flow with the force, moving forward, and to punch when the hand is free -- in this case the rear hand.

 

[geezer]

Oh, and I agree with Nobody in that it's just a freakin' demo. Off-lining can be a great idea, but maybe there are some things about that demo that leave questions. ...that could allow for a counter. So what? Counters have counters too, and in all probability Phil would still come out on top. Or so I'd like to think. Being short myself, I consider him one of my people!

 

[Juany118]

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.

While I know of Sifu Redmond I have never studied under him. However I have taken seminars under Sifu Mazza and study under Sifu Devone semi-regularly. Those two, and I think Sifu Mazza's video illustrates it well, often go "outside" Wing Chun and will hold regular classes and/or seminars where using Wing Chun techniques in "generic" street fights and the like are used, so it's not always WC vs WC, even if it is we often avoid having your training partner leaving their arm out there etc. Personally I think it starts with Sifu Keith. He is a DOJ, DOD and Local NJ combatives instructor and I think he has passed this down to people who studied extensively under him like Sifu Jerry.

That isn't to say that Sifu Redmond is "lesser" only that teachers sometimes have different methods.

 

[KPM]

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.

I agree. Kind of frustrating to try and share a vid illustrating a basic concept and different approach from a specific Wing Chun system and all people seem to want to do is criticize the details and turn it into an argument. Doesn't make me want to try and keep sharing things like that.

 

[KPM]

More of a potential problem, or potential counter.

I wish I had a video to respond with but I don't. Anyway, in the VT I train, the response would be to let the lead arm yield or bend with the lop, while stepping forward and to the left ( going with the force) while simultaneously turning to face the opponent and firing a rear hand punch. We call this step-turn falling-leaf step. We train it against just such a hard, downward jerking lop-sau. For people that know the old WT curriculum, it's in the Lat-sau section 3 drills and in the Chi-sau section 2 drills. Done right it uses the force of the opponent's lop to accelerate your counter.

...The basic idea is not to resist, stiffen and pull back, but to flow with the force, moving forward, and to punch when the hand is free -- in this case the rear hand.

You think the typical street brawler or boxer would do that? You only train against other guys doing Wing Chun? Sorry, but that is "Chi Sau mentality." I train with the assumption that I WON'T be facing another Wing Chun guy if I ever have to use my skills. I try to picture a good boxer instead. Picture that same thing from LFJ's last slo mo but with a boxer throwing a jab, and Phil avoiding it while timing it and closing with his Pak Sau as it retracts to jam him up while angling to the side and launching his counter. Same concept that is being shown....getting the angle while covering yourself defensively and then launching your own strikes from the blindside. Heck, Phil's first move could have been a simple Pak Sau to deflect that jab, and THEN the "stepping out" to follow the arm in with a Pak Sau to jam and counter. The idea is NOT to be in the same place where the cross would be aimed.

As Sifu Mazza is doing in Juany's video at 1:25:

 

[LFJ]

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?

What I see as the problem is that you're completely reinterpreting the video now.

The guy's hand went forward to present a stiff-arm lever for Phil to pull on, as he was told to do.
His hand went forward as he saw Phil's telegraphed attempt to come in and slap his arm, from out of range.

What could have been done instead is that his lead hand recycles into an intercepting punch, or is replaced by an intercepting punch from the rear hand before Phil is able to slap or grab anything.

Since Phil was moving straight in, the guy was not being flanked, and there'd be no need for him to pivot and reface.
His intercepting punch from either hand could cut Phil off and achieve angle on him, putting him in recovery mode straightaway.

Kind of frustrating to try and share a vid illustrating a basic concept and different approach from a specific Wing Chun system and all people seem to want to do is criticize the details and turn it into an argument. Doesn't make me want to try and keep sharing things like that.

If you want to provide a video of something you're talking about, wouldn't it make sense that what's shown in the video actually matches what you're saying?

I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost every time, in fact.

It's quite bizarre. I'm not sure if they're unable to execute their tactics as they explain them, or if they're unable to explain their tactics as they execute them. But in any case, they just don't match up.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^ LFJ didn't have the satisfaction of getting someone to argue with him, so he had to resort to just out-right insulting people.

 

[LFJ]

^^^^^ LFJ didn't have the satisfaction of getting someone to argue with him, so he had to resort to just out-right insulting people.

Resort to what?

You can't really argue against what is clearly seen in slow-motion.
So, I wasn't looking for or expecting much argument on that.
It's posted so we're all looking at the same things as we comment on them.

My take on the counterattack possibilities here, and my observation on the disconnect between what you say and what is shown weren't insults.

I think I've been pretty objective and helpful. But, if that is your perspective, to take offense rather than try to have a look at things, what can I say?

 

[KPM]

For the clueless amongst us, THIS is somewhat insulting!

I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost every time, in fact.

It's quite bizarre. I'm not sure if they're unable to execute their tactics as they explain them, or if they're unable to explain their tactics as they execute them. But in any case, they just don't match up.

 

[geezer]

double post

 

[geezer]

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.

Yeah, upon re-reading this, I think this is what was bothering me too. Also, I agree with the last comment, even though my VT doesn't come from WSL VT.

 

[geezer]

I just find this is a common problem coming from TWC guys. There is always a disconnect between what they say and what their videos actually show them doing. Almost every time, in fact.

Maybe you do feel that way about TWC guys. But generalizing like that comes pretty close to style bashing which isn't allowed on this forum. Why not continue to address the specifics of the issue rather than letting your disdain tor Keith, TWC, and most any WC/VT that is not what you do become the focus of the argument. Please.

 

[Juany118]

Yeah, upon re-reading this, I think this is what was bothering me too. Also, I agree with the last comment, even though my VT doesn't come from WSL VT.

Which is why I am glad my teachers studied under Sifu Keith Mazza. The critique of LFJ doesn't apply and he is certainly smothering his opponent, taking their balance etc. I have never studied under Sifu Redmond so I can't speak to what he actually teaches. Often Youtube videos are about showing the picture perfect technique in a sterile environment so it looks pretty.

Others of course, as some people have said here (and we know of whom I speak) put intentional errors in their videos apparently. So really the videos I take seriously are the "hey this was on my cell phone at a seminar" vs the polished ones.

 

[Nobody Important]

Often Youtube videos are about showing the picture perfect technique in a sterile environment so it looks pretty.

This is something often forgot and I'm glad you brought it up. Several people, myself included, failed to take this into account before posting any comments. We need to remember it was just a demo illustrating a simple concept and not about the mechanics and various principles involved to be overanalyzed with varying degrees of minutia. Agree or disagree with the manner of execution it doesn't devalue the concept of flanking, it is a valid method of strategy.

 

[dudewingchun]

I like to stay neutral here. But if you post a video on a forum you should realize some people are going to see if completely differently and argue their point, even if it comes across as personally insulting. I mean it is a discussion forum on the internet.

 

[LFJ]

Maybe you do feel that way about TWC guys. But generalizing like that comes pretty close to style bashing which isn't allowed on this forum. Why not continue to address the specifics of the issue rather than letting your disdain tor Keith, TWC, and most any WC/VT that is not what you do become the focus of the argument. Please.

I have no "disdain" for Keith or any style, and I'm not generalizing from one or two specific cases.

It is literally every time I see a video of TWC posted and read a description of it that they don't match up.

This is the issue, bigger than any specific technique.

I think pointing this out would perhaps help them take a closer look and figure out whether they mean to do what they say or what they actually do. It's hard to tell.

I'm not sure why they would find this insulting.
They should be less sensitive and more analytical.

I'm just trying to be helpful.

 

[LFJ]

Which is why I am glad my teachers studied under Sifu Keith Mazza. The critique of LFJ doesn't apply and he is certainly smothering his opponent, taking their balance etc.

Actually, it does apply.

That is apparently your favorite clip, as you have posted it before and we had a look at things.

Now again:

We see how Mazza's feet are moving backward, away from the opponent, actually affording the opponent space to recover.

His follow up gaang-sau only helps the guy reface him and adds momentum to the other arm to counterpunch with.

As he's punching to the guy's abdomen, that other punch would be whipping around to knock him flat out.

So, maybe his initial cheun-sau pushes into the guy. But he is not at all smothering his opponent or taking his balance with the follow up.

It's in fact just the opposite. Not only is he allowing the guy to recover, he's actually helping him recover.

This is a worse case of disconnect between say and do than anything I've seen from Phil, because he's doing the exact opposite of what you say!

I would suggest, after his initial cheun-sau to jat-da, since he's already achieved flank, he should continue to pressure directly inward through the guy's core and not allow him to easily recover.

After doing all that work to get to an advantageous position, don't step away and take the pressure off!

 

[KPM]

. So really the videos I take seriously are the "hey this was on my cell phone at a seminar" vs the polished ones.

And that is why people that have actually learned what was is being shown should be listened to and given a little credence when they explain what the person in the video was likely trying to demonstrate. Rather than being told "No, you are wrong, just look at this slo mo video as I proceed to nick-pick every little detail!"

 

[KPM]

I have no "disdain" for Keith or any style, and I'm not generalizing from one or two specific cases.

It is literally every time I see a video of TWC posted and read a description of it that they don't match up.

This is the issue, bigger than any specific technique.

I think pointing this out would perhaps help them take a closer look and figure out whether they mean to do what they say or what they actually do. It's hard to tell.

I'm not sure why they would find this insulting.
They should be less sensitive and more analytical.

I'm just trying to be helpful.

^^^^^ Written by someone who apparently has total lack of any personal insight!

 

[KPM]

We see how Mazza's feet are moving backward, away from the opponent, actually affording the opponent space to recover.

---Man, you never stop! Just one response to this because I'm not letting you draw me into another of your long and pointless arguments. Mazza is "getting the angle" just like we've been talking about on this thread. Different approach than charging into the opponent as you would probably do. That doesn't give the opponent space to recover because he is off-balancing the opponent or "breaking his base" at the same time.


His follow up gaang-sau only helps the guy reface him and adds momentum to the other arm to counterpunch with.

---No it doesn't. The guy's right foot is forward. He is twisted and off-balance. There would be no power in any counter-punch from that other arm. And the angle and distance Mazza has created puts him in a place where he could deal easily with a punch from that arm if it did come.



So, maybe his initial cheun-sau pushes into the guy. But he is not at all smothering his opponent or taking his balance with the follow up.

---Again, realize this is a demo, Mazza is going relatively slow. Slow enough that his partner has a chance to take a little step back to recover his balance. At speed that wouldn't happen.



This is a worse case of disconnect between say and do than anything I've seen from Phil, because he's doing the exact opposite of what you say!

---No. This is the worst case of nit-picking and being critical just because something doesn't match what you would do.

---Again, I'm not going to argue with you because it will do no good. You can believe whatever you want.