Is the wing chun punch real?

[drop bear]

Sorry but the above avoids all of the points I made and focuses on the narrative you have maintained. Sport with codified rules, down to the clothing available, is applicable to sport and sport alone.

Ok then. Sparring is applicable to sparring alone.

Forms are applicable to forms alone.

And drills are applicable to drills alone.

Or is there some wierd goalpost shift that makes those activities applicable to fighting.

 

[zanaffar]

Well with WC, Special Forces and SWAT operators came home, and because of that still train in it Could the contract for said training whenever gone to another equally capable art? Maybe. But it didn't and WC still works, on a battle field and not in a ring with preset rules on everything down to the shorts you wear, so yeah, it works.

In a circumstance like this, just so you know, in terms of logic it is actually a burden on your part to prove otherwise. I named earlier the major organizations that studied the art because they knew it worked. SEALs, Force Recon etc.

As such you are the one who has to prove your point. So give me evidence that indicates over 300 years up to today proves it works is wrong. That is how fact based debate works. I out forth facts that it works. You said "I don't buy it" and that is it. So call my bluff, show me evidence that 300 years in China, the SEALs and SWAT teams from here to Berlin are wrong. Or you can keep talking in vague generalizations and avoiding that same issue.

Hold up. I find it incredibly difficult to believe the following:

1. That any member of SEALs, Force Recon, and SWAT would ever even get the opportunity to square off against a bad guy, and then use hand to hand combat (in the context of this thread, specifically Wing Chun punches) to subdue their opponent. I'm fairly confident guns, knives, other weapons, and, even more importantly, team oriented tactics would be used 99.9% of the time to attain their desired goals.
2. That these organizations' hand to hand combat training looks anything like what we see in the majority of Wing Chun schools and videos. I've watched videos of combat sporting competitions between military organizations. I've trained with military and LEO guys. And their base always looks like boxing, kickboxing, and wrestling. Obviously this part is anecdotal.

Shouldn't having an alleged proven record at winning in combat situations mean that the art should at least work in competitions which don't typically result in someone dying?

 

[drop bear]

In a circumstance like this, just so you know, in terms of logic it is actually a burden on your part to prove otherwise. I named earlier the major organizations that studied the art because they knew it worked. SEALs, Force Recon etc.

As such you are the one who has to prove your point. So give me evidence that indicates over 300 years up to today proves it works is wrong. That is how fact based debate works. I out forth facts that it works. You said "I don't buy it" and that is it. So call my bluff, show me evidence that 300 years in China, the SEALs and SWAT teams from here to Berlin are wrong. Or you can keep talking in vague generalizations and avoiding that same issue.

You have gone for this a couple of times and it is wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof


"burden of proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one."



I did this whole thing on the celestial tea cup.

 

[drop bear]

Hold up. I find it incredibly difficult to believe the following:

1. That any member of SEALs, Force Recon, and SWAT would ever even get the opportunity to square off against a bad guy, and then use hand to hand combat (in the context of this thread, specifically Wing Chun punches) to subdue their opponent. I'm fairly confident guns, knives, other weapons, and, even more importantly, team oriented tactics would be used 99.9% of the time to attain their desired goals.
2. That these organizations' hand to hand combat training looks anything like what we see in the majority of Wing Chun schools and videos. I've watched videos of combat sporting competitions between military organizations. I've trained with military and LEO guys. And their base always looks like boxing, kickboxing, and wrestling. Obviously this part is anecdotal.

Shouldn't having an alleged proven record at winning in combat situations mean that the art should at least work in competitions which don't typically result in someone dying?

If there was an actual record of swat Leo's astronauts and cowboys using a martial art in war then fine I would go with it.

As there never seems to be one I don't buy it.

 

[Juany118]

Hold up. I find it incredibly difficult to believe the following:

1. That any member of SEALs, Force Recon, and SWAT would ever even get the opportunity to square off against a bad guy, and then use hand to hand combat (in the context of this thread, specifically Wing Chun punches) to subdue their opponent. I'm fairly confident guns, knives, other weapons, and, even more importantly, team oriented tactics would be used 99.9% of the time to attain their desired goals.
2. That these organizations' hand to hand combat training looks anything like what we see in the majority of Wing Chun schools and videos. I've watched videos of combat sporting competitions between military organizations. I've trained with military and LEO guys. And their base always looks like boxing, kickboxing, and wrestling. Obviously this part is anecdotal.

Shouldn't having an alleged proven record at winning in combat situations mean that the art should at least work in competitions which don't typically result in someone dying?

Well first, let me say I joined the Army in 1991 as a Cavalry Scout and a Police Officer in 1998 so this knowledge is simply confirmed by internet sources, not created by it.

In terms of Special Operations in the military (and increasingly "regular" military), hand to hand combatives are taught to even the for two reasons.

1. You may lose the use of your firearms for any number of reasons or they may be inappropriate for the scenario. Special Operations forces, and "regulars" forces if in an insurgency scenario, can find themselves tasked to take people alive either for intelligence reasons or, in the insurgency scenario, if it is unclear if the subjects are actually combatants. In that scenario, also common is Law Enforcement, you would be surprised how often the following happens.
---subject probes out at gun point. One operator holsters/shoulders their weapon to go hands on to take the subject into custody. The minute the Operator touches the subject and fight starts.

2. Special Operations forces will be trained in many MA. Example my Force Recon friend learned WC, Kali, Boxing and Jujutsu on the Government's dime. Essentially every so often the government puts training out for bid on a regular basis, sometimes multiple contracts at the same time. They look at the applicability of the training, the qualifications of the bidder and the cost then decide. Because of this an Operator will end up using a combination of skills. Example here are South Korea's SEALs. While they call their overall system MUSAT this specific part of it is pretty much all FMA, even though you don't see them wielding he classic, ratan sticks.

2. Law Enforcement. First, sadly, most LE gets far less hand to hand combatives training than they should due to cost. When they do however the training is ALL over the map, there is no standard. This PD may train Jujutsu techniques, that one Judo, that one boxing, this one WC. They are also, usually, only taught the easiest to digest techniques not the entire system because to learn any entire MA system requires regular training every week and LE, even active SWAT teams, rarely have that kind of time.

The above all said, it's techniques are indeed taught, used and have proven effective.

3. The classic WC pose usually doesn't show itself in real fighting. You use the principles, centerline, structure, how punches are thrown etc. however since the goal is to punch, if you are attacking, the hands will often be fists, not the neat training/theatrical open hands.

4. As for the Last, WC does have such a record, in the right venues. Example in July thehttp://usksf.org/kuo-shu-championship-tournament-2/ takes place in Maryland. Lots of knock outs on Saturday afternoon. Just because it's not on major cable stations in the West doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That said many Martial Arts, perhaps wrongly, look down on competition as "just sport". /Shrug.

 

[Juany118]

This is important. There is truth in competition, but it only shows who is best and what works best in a given situation. The rule set essentially frames the question. And frankly the question you ask is as important as the answer you get. Imagine a fencer competing in BJJ for example.

Personally I would like to see WC develop a meaningful standardized context for competition that addresses it's particular skill sets as a primarily close-range, stand-up striking art, with some locks and throws and a minimum of ground work. How to accomplish that, and what the rule set would be is a topic for another thread. But some format for "testing" what we do would only strengthen our art.




Every martial arts has it's legends and "war-stories". Some are based on actual events, others are more like creation myths and really can't be taken literally. But as Steve points out, without a format for pressure testing each generation an art can deteriorate and become more ceremonial than functional. That's one thing I liked about Emin. Right or wrong he tested his stuff.

Still, without a controlled and uniform "laboratory" of competition to try stuff out, it is impossible to separate the value of ta particular art, it's strategies, techniques and so forth from the skills of the individuals involved. The scientific method demands replicability. You have to accumulate data or "stats", analyze them and then you begin to objectively find out what works for most people.

Now I do WC, I love it, and my personal experience is that it is functional. And frankly, for me "testing" is out of the question. Not only am I too old to be a fighter now, I can honestly say I never was one. Even in my prime when I "mixed it up" a bit ...I only did that recreationally with like-minded buddies. Fighters are the hard-core elite who get out there and really test this stuff so that the rest of us amateurs can know factually that we aren't learning crap. And every system needs those guys. We also need a venue for them to test their stuff. Stories about ancient warriors or somebody claiming to train special forces troops just doesn't cut it for me. Just sayin'.

I get the last part. That is why I look at today as well. If it was only stories about pre-1900 China I would be like "okay, looks good, feels good, but no objective evidence."

Thing is when you have modern Security Forces and Military training in it you have evidence of functionality. These organizations don't perpetuate things that don't work when they are directly related to succeeding in a mission. Then, as I said I count myself lucky in this regard, I am actually trained by one of the people who used it operationally and then to boot I have used it successfully.

Now is it like FMA where you have people in the slums of Manila using it today in street fights? Nope I grant you that. Could a non point based competition make it more obvious to others that it is effective? Yeah. At the same time, I am sure you are familiar with the fact that before we could even come up with such a system you would have to overcome a disdain for "sport" Martial Arts that those at "the top" have of many traditional MAs, including WC. My Sifu says regularly "if you want to learn a sport we have a lot of strip mall TKD dojos around here. Here we learn to eliminate the threat." Condescending? Sure it is but that is what we see at the top.

 

[drop bear]

But people soldier and police successfully with no martial arts training.

So is that added to successful styles?

Is a weeks worth of training added to how these systems that train soldiers work?

 

[Juany118]

Now we are talking about single punch and not chain punches.


Thanks for putting up those clips. With those clips, it's much easier to discuss the WC power generation method. If we look at this clip, we can observe 2 things.

- When he punched out, his fist, arm, shoulder, body, and back shoulder are not lining up into a straight line. In other words, his body did not turn to the maximum. If we consider the body turning as "compress" and the final punch as "release". IMO, he did not "release" fully at the end of his punch. If he can turn his body more, his punch will be more powerful.

- He did not take advantage on how to pull back his previous punch and use it to generate more power into his next punch. In other words, he did not take full advantage on his "compress". The farther that he can pull his punch back, the farther that he can send his next punch out, the more power that his punch can generate. Of course a full "compress" take extra time. But we are talking about "single punch power" and not "chain punch speed".

The specific video regarding the rice bag was simply to teach the principle of relaxation of the punch and how it relates to being able to do the Chain punching. Some teachers are like that, they demonstrate principles in parts.

If you look when he is punching the bags when held, when chain punching it is definitely the "straight punch". On the "big bag" he is too close to get full extension but the principles are still adhered to. In Siu Lim Tao you bring the fist across to the heart and then push out to learn the principle. In practice you simply aim to have your fist, at impact, to be centered on your structure. He does this in the punches on the held bags at the beginning of the video.

As for your last point, I would definitely agree when the punching technique involves "throwing" your weight behind a punch. WC however punches under the centerline theory principle of "keeping" your weight behind the punch and maximizing potential punch frequency.

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory in terms of defense as well as being "iffy" under the concept of simultaneous attack and defense that gets pounded into your head. When you are punching it's not simply a matter of bringing back the one fist for the benefit of a another punch. The arm that is returning is supposed to be trapping or diverting one of your opponent's limbs, not only to defend yourself but to open the path, or simply maintain an opening, for the next punch.

As I said other punches with more waist rotation and/or rounded strikes can be more powerful, I will never deny that WC has its punching technique designed around a host of concepts that are rooted in the Centerline and simultaneous attack and defense theories. It's more complicated than below but I will try to sum it up as best as I can (not being an instructor myself.)
1. By using the structure and centerline theory, smaller people can still generate effective power as they are keeping their mass behind a punch, rather than throwing it.
2. As the strikes are straight from the centerline, the strikes hit quickly, the shortest distance between 2 points thing.
3. By virtue of the above, minimizing body rotation, and how far you pull back the fist, you can maximize punch frequency, which also benefits a smaller person as damage from strikes can be cumulative if striking the same area.
4. By minimizing body rotation, and the pulling back of the arm, you also keep the returning had in a position to readily protect your centerline (torso and brain) while also keeping the way open for the follow up strikes of the other fist via deflecting or traping one of the opponent's limbs.

Basically it says "okay let's maximize how hard a small person can punch by keeping the weight behind it rather than throwing it. Also, recognizing that a smaller person can only ever punch so hard, let's maximize the frequency at which they can strike so that cumulatively they do a lot of damage and, use your limbs to not only attack but to keep a wedge between your opponent that both defends and opens the path for attack"

It may be a poor description but that is the best I can do.

 

[zanaffar]

I get the last part. That is why I look at today as well. If it was only stories about pre-1900 China I would be like "okay, looks good, feels good, but no objective evidence."

Thing is when you have modern Security Forces and Military training in it you have evidence of functionality. These organizations don't perpetuate things that don't work when they are directly related to succeeding in a mission. Then, as I said I count myself lucky in this regard, I am actually trained by one of the people who used it operationally and then to boot I have used it successfully.

Now is it like FMA where you have people in the slums of Manila using it today in street fights? Nope I grant you that. Could a non point based competition make it more obvious to others that it is effective? Yeah. At the same time, I am sure you are familiar with the fact that before we could even come up with such a system you would have to overcome a disdain for "sport" Martial Arts that those at "the top" have of many traditional MAs, including WC. My Sifu says regularly "if you want to learn a sport we have a lot of strip mall TKD dojos around here. Here we learn to eliminate the threat." Condescending? Sure it is but that is what we see at the top.

I think I am approaching the topic of the effectiveness of Wing Chun through the lens of what I've seen in a majority of videos depicting the art. That is to say, compliant demonstrations. From what I'm reading from you, I get the feeling that the WC training you do involves a good bit of resistance, sparring, and actual non-compliant application. In general, would you say your school's training methodology is similar to that of the majority of Wing Chun? If someone put a gun to your head and told you you had to fight a skilled opponent in the ring, would it look like the WC demos we see on YouTube or something else? You, yourself, mentioned that the classic WC stance isn't typically used in fighting. Why do so many demonstrations feature it? Is it the case that these schools/individuals haven't properly tested their art to know that it looks and functions differently in "real life" than in theory?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory ...

A 100% committed punch with full power generation is a punch that you only consider offense and not consider any defense.

 

[Juany118]

Now we are talking about single punch and not chain punches.


Thanks for putting up those clips. With those clips, it's much easier to discuss the WC power generation method. If we look at this clip, we can observe 2 things.

- When he punched out, his fist, arm, shoulder, body, and back shoulder are not lining up into a straight line. In other words, his body did not turn to the maximum. If we consider the body turning as "compress" and the final punch as "release". IMO, he did not "release" fully at the end of his punch. If he can turn his body more, his punch will be more powerful.

- He did not take advantage on how to pull back his previous punch and use it to generate more power into his next punch. In other words, he did not take full advantage on his "compress". The farther that he can pull his punch back, the farther that he can send his next punch out, the more power that his punch can generate. Of course a full "compress" take extra time. But we are talking about "single punch power" and not "chain punch speed".

The specific video regarding the rice bag was simply to teach the principle of relaxation of the punch and how it relates to being able to do the Chain punching. Some teachers are like that, they demonstrate principles in parts.

If you look when he is punching the bags when held, when chain punching it is definitely the "straight punch". On the "big bag" he is too close to get full extension but the principles are still adhered to. In Siu Lim Tao you bring the fist across to the heart and then push out to learn the principle. In practice you simply aim to have your fist, at impact, to be centered on your structure. He does this in the punches on the held bags at the beginning of the video.

As for your last point, I would definitely agree when the punching technique involves "throwing" your weight behind a punch. WC however punches under the centerline theory principle of "keeping" your weight behind the punch and maximizing potential punch frequency.

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory in terms of defense as well as being "iffy" under the concept of simultaneous attack and defense that gets pounded into your head. When you are punching it's not simply a matter of bringing back the one fist for the benefit of a another punch. The arm that is returning is supposed to be trapping or diverting one of your opponent's limbs, not only to defend yourself but to open the path, or simply maintain an opening, for the next punch.

As I said other punches with more waist rotation and/or rounded strikes can be more powerful, I will never deny that WC has its punching technique designed around a host of concepts that are rooted in the Centerline and simultaneous attack and defense theories. It's more complicated than below but I will try to sum it up as best as I can (not being an instructor myself.)
1. By using the structure and centerline theory, smaller people can still generate effective power as they are keeping their mass behind a punch, rather than throwing it.
2. As the strikes are straight from the centerline, the strikes hit quickly, the shortest distance between 2 points thing.
3. By virtue of the above, minimizing body rotation, and how far you pull back the fist, you can maximize punch frequency, which also benefits a smaller person as damage from strikes can be cumulative if striking the same area.
4. By minimizing body rotation, and the pulling back of the arm, you also keep the returning had in a position to readily protect your centerline (torso and brain) while also keeping the way open for the follow up strikes of the other fist via deflecting or traping one of the opponent's limbs.

Basically it says "okay let's maximize how hard a small person can punch by keeping the weight behind it rather than throwing it. Also, recognizing that a smaller person can only ever punch so hard, let's maximize the frequency at which they can strike so that cumulatively they do a lot of damage and, use your limbs to not only attack but to keep a wedge between your opponent that both defends and opens the path for attack"

It may be a poor description but that is the best I can

I think I am approaching the topic of the effectiveness of Wing Chun through the lens of what I've seen in a majority of videos depicting the art. That is to say, compliant demonstrations. From what I'm reading from you, I get the feeling that the WC training you do involves a good bit of resistance, sparring, and actual non-compliant application. In general, would you say your school's training methodology is similar to that of the majority of Wing Chun? If someone put a gun to your head and told you you had to fight a skilled opponent in the ring, would it look like the WC demos we see on YouTube or something else? You, yourself, mentioned that the classic WC stance isn't typically used in fighting. Why do so many demonstrations feature it? Is it the case that these schools/individuals haven't properly tested their art to know that it looks and functions differently in "real life" than in theory?

Yes, we do a fair amount of sparring, even with newer students, though with newer students we will place limits of available targets, which get broader, as you progress. This is especially true when we swap to Kali halfway through the class, even with a mask or safety glasses you don't wasn't to risk someone losing an eye lol. Is this typical? I can't speak to that. I chose my school after basically interviewing a lot of Sifus. Out of the gate my instructor was talking about Combatives. Of the other two WC schools in my area; one the Sifu is very skilled but he definitely sees WC from its perspective of Chinese Natural Medicine angle so I doubt he teaches this way (he also teaches Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan). The other school simply scared the crap out of me because the head of the school is labeled "Grand Master" on the web site and they say nothing about where or from whom the WC instructor learned WC.

Now as for how it looks a WC person will see it as WC. You will see that the structure is maintained, by structure I mean leg position, pelvis and torso position, the foot work and the arm position. You will also often see little things as well Say two fighters break apart for a moment, you will often see the WC guy swap positions because there is a concept sometimes called simply "same side/same side". Also when an incoming punch comes in at the WC guy you will often see what looks like a punch being thrown in response but it if you look closely the forearm is striking the incoming arm. That wasn't a coincidence, it was a tan The hands, yeah they may be fists, or they may be cupped and not the classic straight open, but if you know what to look for you see WC.

 

[Juany118]

A 100% committed punch with full power generation is a punch that you only consider offense and not consider any defense.

Yes, I understand that, it's why I say other arts have more powerful individual punch techniques. The that kind of attack goes against the core principles of WC, is about maximizing punching power within the confines of the core principles. That doesn't make WC better or worse, imo, it just makes it different.

 

[guy b]

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory

What is "the centerline theory"?

 

[Juany118]

What is "the centerline theory"?

Ahh a fishing expedition like when you asked if I was a Buddhist. That said it comes in three parts (quick and dirty definitions)

1. My centerline. Split me down the middle. If you follow that line all the way to the ground you have my point of of balance. It's a little more complicated because you can use your center anywhere you can strike or defend equally with BOTH hands (hence the beginning of the first form defining it) but I use the line down the middle as it easily identifies your balance point and axis of rotation as well which is part of it. In keeping my center in mind and only attacking from that perspective, I naturally guard my center more readily as my limbs aren't off chasing other things and, just as naturally, when I strike straight ahead I am "keeping" my weight behind my strikes rather than "throwing" it.

2. The opponent's centerline. The same as me, it identifies his center of balance and axis of rotation.

3. Then connecting the two through combat. First I may be striking his limbs but that is only to get to the opponent's center. I want to disrupt his center so that
A) his structure is disturbed thus not making his attacks and defenses less effective.
B) I also want to keep in mind his axis of rotation as well in part because of
C) If I say strike him in the shoulders it MAY disrupt an attack or defense BUT the very act of being able to rotate away from an attack means that my strikes are less damaging. So I wish to attack his center. In this way, instead of bleeding off damage by rotating with the blow, he either takes the full force of the attack, thus causing full damage, or he is moved back and his center is disrupted.

Regardless to where we may move as we fight I must always defend my center while move to and attacking my opponent's.

 

[drop bear]

Wouldn't you defend your centre while attacking off at an angle?

Which would be the same as centreline but with the idea that if he wants to maintain that then you want to deny it to him.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The opponent's centerline. The same as me, it identifies his center of balance and axis of rotation.

You can attack through your opponent's side door and still get his balance. For example, if you are on the right side of your opponent's right arm (his right side door), your right hay-maker toward his right can knock him down to his right even if you are not attacking through his "center line".

 

[Juany118]

You can attack through your opponent's side door and still get his balance. For example, if you are on the right side of your opponent's right arm (his right side door), your right hay-maker toward his right can knock him down to his right even if you are not attacking through his "center line".

It's not just about his centerline but mine as well. If I attack his center while compromising mine, it's wrong in the context of WC because it's not just his centerline I need to be concerned about.

It's not better or THE right way, it's just how WC addresses the issue.

 

[drop bear]

The specific video regarding the rice bag was simply to teach the principle of relaxation of the punch and how it relates to being able to do the Chain punching. Some teachers are like that, they demonstrate principles in parts.

If you look when he is punching the bags when held, when chain punching it is definitely the "straight punch". On the "big bag" he is too close to get full extension but the principles are still adhered to. In Siu Lim Tao you bring the fist across to the heart and then push out to learn the principle. In practice you simply aim to have your fist, at impact, to be centered on your structure. He does this in the punches on the held bags at the beginning of the video.

As for your last point, I would definitely agree when the punching technique involves "throwing" your weight behind a punch. WC however punches under the centerline theory principle of "keeping" your weight behind the punch and maximizing potential punch frequency.

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory in terms of defense as well as being "iffy" under the concept of simultaneous attack and defense that gets pounded into your head. When you are punching it's not simply a matter of bringing back the one fist for the benefit of a another punch. The arm that is returning is supposed to be trapping or diverting one of your opponent's limbs, not only to defend yourself but to open the path, or simply maintain an opening, for the next punch.

As I said other punches with more waist rotation and/or rounded strikes can be more powerful, I will never deny that WC has its punching technique designed around a host of concepts that are rooted in the Centerline and simultaneous attack and defense theories. It's more complicated than below but I will try to sum it up as best as I can (not being an instructor myself.)
1. By using the structure and centerline theory, smaller people can still generate effective power as they are keeping their mass behind a punch, rather than throwing it.
2. As the strikes are straight from the centerline, the strikes hit quickly, the shortest distance between 2 points thing.
3. By virtue of the above, minimizing body rotation, and how far you pull back the fist, you can maximize punch frequency, which also benefits a smaller person as damage from strikes can be cumulative if striking the same area.
4. By minimizing body rotation, and the pulling back of the arm, you also keep the returning had in a position to readily protect your centerline (torso and brain) while also keeping the way open for the follow up strikes of the other fist via deflecting or traping one of the opponent's limbs.

Basically it says "okay let's maximize how hard a small person can punch by keeping the weight behind it rather than throwing it. Also, recognizing that a smaller person can only ever punch so hard, let's maximize the frequency at which they can strike so that cumulatively they do a lot of damage and, use your limbs to not only attack but to keep a wedge between your opponent that both defends and opens the path for attack"

It may be a poor description but that is the best I can do.

I think the issue is you dont really cater for being punched back.

So if they eat cumulative punches and nail you in that exchange it becomes really difficult to recover as advantage goes to the stronger striker.

 

[drop bear]

You can attack through your opponent's side door and still get his balance. For example, if you are on the right side of your opponent's right arm (his right side door), your right hay-maker toward his right can knock him down to his right even if you are not attacking through his "center line".

You can do the same with angles though. Get to that blind side square up and throw straight again.

Right hooks or haymakers ar theoretically low percentage.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's not just about his centerline but mine as well. If I attack his center while compromising mine, it's wrong in the context of WC because it's not just his centerline I need to be concerned about.

It's not better or THE right way, it's just how WC addresses the issue.

If you move in through your opponent's "right side door", your own center line is well protected too. You don't need to compromise your own center line.

You can do the same with angles though. Get to that blind side square up and throw straight again.

Right hooks or haymakers ar theoretically low percentage.

The "side door" is the blind side. The hay-maker is part of the head lock (or choke).