New Training Clip

[LFJ]

I was under the impression that Tan and Jum were the main elbow concepts in WSLVT based on old postings. am I mistaken?
Could you clarify for me and discuss differences in the Fook and Jum elbow concepts?

Jam is a punch using the fuk concept, or as Lobo would say in French, concept fuk.

 

[LFJ]

Right wu-sau would start from the point of direction change on the green line, already wide of the incoming red lines.

----Then you seem to be assuming the punch is coming significantly inside of your shoulder line if you are getting your Wu hand behind it. Again, that is a relatively straight punch.

The scenario was a straight punch.

For someone in front of me to straight punch me in the head, their punch has to be within the shoulder line, because my head is within the shoulder line and wu guard. My head doesn't sit on one shoulder.

Anything wider is basically shoulder or past. To get a line to the head from that angle would require a round punch.

----No it wouldn't. In Pin Sun we often approach "from side to center" rather than right up the middle. We would do a pivot step and throw a punch meant to travel on that outside red line and go just in front of the shoulder to contact the chin.

The outside red line is within the area covered by wu.

Already discouraged by the well-guarded left side, and defendable by the paak/shoulder shrug as described earlier if too late for other movement.

---But I thought in your scenario your Man has been taken off-line and therefore the left side is no longer well-guarded? And I thought you dismissed using a Pak Sau as "inefficient" and "chasing hands"???

We were not talking about that scenario here. With man-wu on one side it discourages round attacks there as it is obviously well-guarded.

Paak-sau against a straight punch as in the scenario we were discussing is indeed inefficient and chasing hands.

You might be exaggerating quite a bit? If the attacker is in front of us and just pivots with jat-da, they will not be able to get that far to the side, whether with lead leg or neutral stance.

---What makes you think that? A slight step as you pivot and you are there. Standard footwork in Pin Sun. And not weak at all because the pivot is still powering the punch. If someone has time to step in as they are doing that Jut Da, they certainly have time to step-pivot and come at an angle rather than straight up the middle.

Do you have any clip showing this? How are you able to step to perpendicular to me and straight punch me in the ear without me moving and facing too?

That's how far you'd have to go to get around the wu-sau with a straight punch. The outside red line, which you said is the line you take, is within the area covered by wu.

So really, the Wu next to the elbow is a good idea, but only really an advantage when facing another Wing Chun guy who is going to be throwing pretty straight punches right up the centerline.

None of the red lines in the diagram were right up the center line.

 

[Juany118]

The Wing Chun kick is mainly a supplemental technique rather than a damaging one. It's used to either distract, break opponent's structure, or create distance. At least that's the way I understood it.

Perhaps in your Lineage. At some points you are correct but also, at least in TWC, if I kick I am doing my damnedest to hyper-extend/break a knee etc.

 

[LFJ]

And I'll ask again.....how is this going to work against someone not throwing a pretty standard straight punch? Do you only train to go up against a fellow Wing Chun practitioner?

Well, here's the thing. I recall having discussed this strategy on here before. It is not that holding wu-sau somewhere special is all that is needed to create a perfect defense. As I said, it needs to be part of a supporting strategy together with other tactics.

When we are holding man-wu it is prior to engagement. Having the guard on one side, as stated, discourages round attacks to that side as it is well-guarded. Our stance, footwork, and distance management also tend to draw straight line attacks, and from more a predictable angle using drawing and baiting tactics.

So, avoiding round attacks and drawing predictable straight line attacks we are poised to deal with enables a tactical entry on the opponent where we are able to turn them and attack a given flank. Once in, man-wu become chained actions alternating between attack and controlling space for the next attack, drawing responses and closing options. Much of this can be seen in the OP video.

 

[KangTsai]

Only wasted if they don't produce a useful result. There are many ways to use a kick that are helpful, but don't do the kind of damage you're thinking of. There's more than one workable approach to any given scenario.

But kicks generally do absolutely nothing without some force behind them, as opposed to what you can liberally do with your hands.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But kicks generally do absolutely nothing without some force behind them, as opposed to what you can liberally do with your hands.

You can't easily make someone pay attention to their leg with your hands. A kick can do that quite easily, and doesn't have to have a lot of force behind it to accomplish that end.

 

[KPM]

When we are holding man-wu it is prior to engagement. Having the guard on one side, as stated, discourages round attacks to that side as it is well-guarded.

---Ok. I agree with that. I thought we were talking about your scenario where the lead hand is taken off-line. But Ok.

Our stance, footwork, and distance management also tend to draw straight line attacks, and from more a predictable angle using drawing and baiting tactics.

----So what is about it that would make someone punch so straight? I can see where the guard as described would effectively bait the opponent into attacking the other side, but the most clear way to strike into that apparent opening would be an angled strike like a boxer's cross. So what is it about what you are doing that would dictate a perfectly straight Wing Chun-like strike?

So, avoiding round attacks and drawing predictable straight line attacks we are poised to deal with enables a tactical entry on the opponent where we are able to turn them and attack a given flank. Once in, man-wu become chained actions alternating between attack and controlling space for the next attack, drawing responses and closing options. Much of this can be seen in the OP video.

---Ok. I follow what you are saying. But again, how are you dictating nice straight punches? In Sean's video they are Wing Chun guys training against fellow Wing Chun guys. So of course they are throwing nice straight centerline punches.

 

[KPM]

The scenario was a straight punch.

---I thought the scenario was having your Man Sau hand suddenly taken out and how to defend from the Wu hand when that happens.

For someone in front of me to straight punch me in the head, their punch has to be within the shoulder line, because my head is within the shoulder line and wu guard. My head doesn't sit on one shoulder.

----Maybe I didn't describe it very well. I'm seeing that outside red line as going just in front of the shoulder when an opponent is standing with that side forward. So the punch is traveling on a line from outside to inside that goes just in front of the shoulder without hitting it and slips past aimed at the chin. The more square you are standing, the less likely it is to get in.



We were not talking about that scenario here. With man-wu on one side it discourages round attacks there as it is obviously well-guarded.

---My theoretical street-fighter it just as likely to smack down a lead hand held up defensively and throw that tight curved punch just over the shoulder. So it would work just like your Jut Da, just a curved punch instead of nice and straight well in front of your shoulder. And since an encounter on the street is not likely to be with another Wing Chun guy throwing nice straight centerline punches.......


Paak-sau against a straight punch as in the scenario we were discussing is indeed inefficient and chasing hands.

----So its "chasing hands" to Pak a straight punch, but not "chasing hands" to Pak an angled punch?



Do you have any clip showing this? How are you able to step to perpendicular to me and straight punch me in the ear without me moving and facing too?

---No. Do you have any clip showing this drill and the scenario you have designed?


That's how far you'd have to go to get around the wu-sau with a straight punch. The outside red line, which you said is the line you take, is within the area covered by wu.

---I guess we must be seeing that red line differently. But its your red line, so Ok. I'm talking about another line a little further out that would be traveling just in front of your shoulder and essentially would have the same relationship with your Wu hand as a centerline punch would if your Wu hand was held on the center.

 

[LFJ]

----So what is about it that would make someone punch so straight? I can see where the guard as described would effectively bait the opponent into attacking the other side, but the most clear way to strike into that apparent opening would be an angled strike like a boxer's cross. So what is it about what you are doing that would dictate a perfectly straight Wing Chun-like strike?

Straight doesn't mean down the center. Angled punches, like the red lines on the diagram, are still straight. Not down the center, but still straight, and that's fine. That's what we want to deal with.

It's not the guard itself that draws straight attacks, though. It's more the footwork and distance management before closing. All these tactical elements have to work together in the overall strategy.

Staying just outside hooking range, with a parallel stance to avoid leg kicks, and staying very mobile, we can draw the opponent out to reach with straight punches, even overreach if done very well.

I'll give an example to illustrate, but remember this is not meant to be a play-by-play. Just to give an idea.

With our left lead man-wu, the opponent is already discouraged from throwing round punches to our well-guarded left, especially from out of range. If they are orthodox and we are out of range for their left hook, but in range for a right straight, it's this hand we can force. And because we are managing distance with footwork, drawing the punch out, the punch will not be able to come from much wider than that outside red line in our diagram. It will be more in front of us and within our wu-sau line.

Once entered via either given flank, we pressure to control space, and disrupt the balance and facing of the opponent, closing options and forcing errors and responses.

So, ideally we are either out of range for round punches, or in close controlling space, balance, and facing, making it difficult for them to throw such attacks effectively if at all. This way we can deal with straight punches, which obviously for a VT practitioner should be more comfortable to face.

Last time we discussed this, I posted a link to a boxing article about how to bait and force all kinds of attacks you want in boxing; from the type of punch, to the specific arm, the specific angle, etc..

Baiting and Forcing Counters

I posted that because some thought this kind of thing was fantasy. But boxers do it all the time.

A few pertinent quotes:

"Great fighters don’t wait for their opponents’ punches,
Great fighters FORCE their opponents punches!"

"The best fighters don’t wait for counters,
they force the counters."

"Learn how to make your opponent throw the punches you want,
so you can land the counters you want."

The difference here is, we're using VT strategy and tactics which are obviously very different. We aren't trying to stay at arm's length and exchange punches. But with an intelligent strategy and tactics, we can bait, draw, and force in ways that work for us and our goal.

 

[LFJ]

----Maybe I didn't describe it very well. I'm seeing that outside red line as going just in front of the shoulder when an opponent is standing with that side forward. So the punch is traveling on a line from outside to inside that goes just in front of the shoulder without hitting it and slips past aimed at the chin. The more square you are standing, the less likely it is to get in.

We will chiu-ying, more square-shouldered, so that line is still within coverage of the wu-sau.

---My theoretical street-fighter it just as likely to smack down a lead hand held up defensively and throw that tight curved punch just over the shoulder. So it would work just like your Jut Da, just a curved punch instead of nice and straight well in front of your shoulder. And since an encounter on the street is not likely to be with another Wing Chun guy throwing nice straight centerline punches.......

Chiu-ying and distance management as described above will help linearize those punches, unless it is some sucker punch we are caught too late with, in which case paak/shoulder shrug is the best bet if no other movement is possible.

----So its "chasing hands" to Pak a straight punch, but not "chasing hands" to Pak an angled punch?

It's chasing hands to paak unnecessarily, when an intercepting counterpunch would be available if the wu-sau were not wrong.

As an emergency cover, we're talking Biu-ji, which plays by different rules than core VT strategy. A WC practitioner shouldn't be forced to Biu-ji survival mode against a straight punch just because their man-sau was compromised. That's a big failure.

---I guess we must be seeing that red line differently. But its your red line, so Ok. I'm talking about another line a little further out that would be traveling just in front of your shoulder and essentially would have the same relationship with your Wu hand as a centerline punch would if your Wu hand was held on the center.

You'd have to get out pretty wide for that. The wu-sau can be held at shoulder line. To perhaps be more precise, it can float between midclavicular to axillary line, higher or lower as needed. Next to the elbow as stated earlier, or bicep, is a good way to describe it because it works as a unit with the lead.

See YM's wu-sau here. This is correct. It's a unit with the bong-sau, ready to punch through the opened line.

This is wrong. They are not a unit and the wu-sau position is wrong.

This is wronger.

 

[KPM]

Thanks LFJ! Nice direct responses and clear illustrations. I understand much better where you are coming from now! This is how discussions should be done!

 

[geezer]

Correct. Wrong. Wronger. can you show us Wrongest?

@LFJ ...I appreciate the more open dialogue. Now I too can clearly see where you are coming from on this. One point. Your use use of terms like correct, wrong, wronger, and so forth reminds me much of the thinking in the old WT assn. I once belonged to, and indeed, to the thinking of many groups. Discussions of how "our way is right, and any other way is wrong" are bound to offend, elicit a hostile response, and get in the way of any meaningful exchange on the subject.

Instead of presenting things in terms of right and wrong, may I recommend taking something more along the lines of a cost vs. benefit approach. For example saying something like, "We find that holding the hands in such and such a position will offer a better angle to accomplish the stated objective, while reducing the risk of eating a punch," etc. etc.

This kind of discussion avoids the whole stylistic superiority-inferiority issue that has been such a problem on this WC/WT/VT forum lately. And it really opens up the discussion, since everybody can relate.

 

[geezer]

PS. From the perspective of my VT, I would agree that the photo of GM Yip posing a bong-wu-say posture appears to be "more unified" with both hands aligned to offer better protection and that the wu-sau seems better placed to punch through, simultaneously deflecting and incoming strike and hitting.

But they are just photos showing a static pose. To really judge, I'd have to see how people actually apply the techniques against an opponent. In my VT the "ideal" position for bong-wu-sau is between somewhere these two versions, a bit more towards the positioning shown by GM YIp. The bong and wu work together to create a sort of V-shaped pocket to receive the incoming strike (on the back side of the wu-sau) facilitating deflection and punching through. Less margin of error perhaps, but very functional in my experience.

 

[LFJ]

Correct. Wrong. Wronger. can you show us Wrongest?

 

[geezer]

@LFJ: OK ....Now that's hillarious.

 

[LFJ]

This kind of discussion avoids the whole stylistic superiority-inferiority issue that has been such a problem on this WC/WT/VT forum lately. And it really opens up the discussion, since everybody can relate.

I get you, but I don't think it's a stylistic issue. I'm only discussing the VT system as taught by YM. If I take the cost vs benefit approach, it may cause less offense but it's also too subjective.

There is right and wrong in YMVT, both in reference to what he taught and what is functional. I've tried to make this more objective by illustrating problems that result from not getting it right, and all have acknowledged it. So, I think everyone can relate if we lay ego aside and take an honest look at things.

Everyone can test out the drill/scenario and see what works, how and why, and why alternatives fail so easily where one should not.

Also, looking at the photos I posted, even though they are still shots, with explanation it can be seen clearly that awareness of the VT strategy YM taught is missing in the latter two (three). If there is still doubt, any video or direct interaction will dispel that.

Since wu-sau is only a small part of the whole, I think it may be a bit more obvious now that it wasn't a WSL invention. It is too cohesive with the rest of the system for this idea and strategy to have been reconceptualized into the existing actions of SNT for example, without changing anything.

If the actions are not changed, but explanation is given, then it will be evident what the original interpretation must be. Where there is strategic information represented in abstract actions meant to establish certain concepts, others have replaced this information/gap-filled with application ideas devoid of strategy.

The opening actions of SNT are a perfect example. Everyone sees blocks or strikes of all sorts, or training shapes for these types of things, or they have changed it to add rolling arms, introducing complicated double arm actions like kwan-sau before even looking at the basic punch in the system. Very illogical learning progression and not a "little" idea.

When I look at it I see abstract concepts setting up an understanding of space and attack lines which we'll deal with when looking at the punch in the following taan and fuk section, which are also abstract pre-punch elbow training, not deflections and controlling arm actions. Each step of the form and indeed the rest of the system is built upon in logical progression this way.

If we look at other YM derived lineages, we wonder why all this information is missing and their systems are comparatively so disjointed and full of applications, not to mention failures we've discussed. We then look back at various student testimonials of YM's temperament (preferring to teach 1 good student over 10 lousy ones, and not wasting time on people he felt not worth it) and teaching style (having students go through the motions with little or no explanation), and the lack of fighting experience of most, and we can plainly see why their systems are the way they are.

If I tell a beginner this is taan-sau, it means spreading hand, but give no further detail, they will naturally assume it's for blocking. If I say to them this is chi-sau practice, it means sticking hands, but give no further detail, they will assume it is for sticking to, feeling, and wrestling with an opponent's arms.

Why else would other YM lineages be missing all the information and what they do have is exactly what an uninformed beginner would come up with?

I know it's hard to avoid offense when talking about this, and I'm really not trying to insult anyone. But hopefully I am conveying to you just why I have the views I do. That they are based on an honest examination of the evidence (technical analysis and comparison of teachings and functionality; YM student testimonials and experience or lack thereof; photos of YM showing ideas no one else can explain), and not just "because I said so".

 

[wckf92]

question for LFJ/Guy/Lobo...
When you guys say that pak and jut are used to help in continuing the assault, how do you determine which one to use? Does it simply depend on which side of your counterpunch the opponents block or parry or whatever happens to be on?

 

[guy b]

I get you, but I don't think it's a stylistic issue. I'm only discussing the VT system as taught by YM. If I take the cost vs benefit approach, it may cause less offense but it's also too subjective.

There is right and wrong in YMVT, both in reference to what he taught and what is functional. I've tried to make this more objective by illustrating problems that result from not getting it right, and all have acknowledged it. So, I think everyone can relate if we lay ego aside and take an honest look at things.

Everyone can test out the drill/scenario and see what works, how and why, and why alternatives fail so easily where one should not.

Also, looking at the photos I posted, even though they are still shots, with explanation it can be seen clearly that awareness of the VT strategy YM taught is missing in the latter two (three). If there is still doubt, any video or direct interaction will dispel that.

Since wu-sau is only a small part of the whole, I think it may be a bit more obvious now that it wasn't a WSL invention. It is too cohesive with the rest of the system for this idea and strategy to have been reconceptualized into the existing actions of SNT for example, without changing anything.

If the actions are not changed, but explanation is given, then it will be evident what the original interpretation must be. Where there is strategic information represented in abstract actions meant to establish certain concepts, others have replaced this information/gap-filled with application ideas devoid of strategy.

The opening actions of SNT are a perfect example. Everyone sees blocks or strikes of all sorts, or training shapes for these types of things, or they have changed it to add rolling arms, introducing complicated double arm actions like kwan-sau before even looking at the basic punch in the system. Very illogical learning progression and not a "little" idea.

When I look at it I see abstract concepts setting up an understanding of space and attack lines which we'll deal with when looking at the punch in the following taan and fuk section, which are also abstract pre-punch elbow training, not deflections and controlling arm actions. Each step of the form and indeed the rest of the system is built upon in logical progression this way.

If we look at other YM derived lineages, we wonder why all this information is missing and their systems are comparatively so disjointed and full of applications, not to mention failures we've discussed. We then look back at various student testimonials of YM's temperament (preferring to teach 1 good student over 10 lousy ones, and not wasting time on people he felt not worth it) and teaching style (having students go through the motions with little or no explanation), and the lack of fighting experience of most, and we can plainly see why their systems are the way they are.

If I tell a beginner this is taan-sau, it means spreading hand, but give no further detail, they will naturally assume it's for blocking. If I say to them this is chi-sau practice, it means sticking hands, but give no further detail, they will assume it is for sticking to, feeling, and wrestling with an opponent's arms.

Why else would other YM lineages be missing all the information and what they do have is exactly what an uninformed beginner would come up with?

I know it's hard to avoid offense when talking about this, and I'm really not trying to insult anyone. But hopefully I am conveying to you just why I have the views I do. That they are based on an honest examination of the evidence (technical analysis and comparison of teachings and functionality; YM student testimonials and experience or lack thereof; photos of YM showing ideas no one else can explain), and not just "because I said so".

Excellent post

 

[LFJ]

question for LFJ/Guy/Lobo...
When you guys say that pak and jut are used to help in continuing the assault, how do you determine which one to use? Does it simply depend on which side of your counterpunch the opponents block or parry or whatever happens to be on?

We might say most often paak is the rear helping the lead get through, while jat is the lead helping the rear get through. But it depends on position. Jat can be with either side after a punch has been interrupted from left, right, or below, to open the line for the next punch to continue. It's also used to capture space and cover as our next punch follows. So, it isn't necessarily contingent on arm contact, more on position. In this way it's part of chaining actions in a sustained attack, rather than just chaining punches which leaves space uncontrolled.

 

[wckf92]

We might say most often paak is the rear helping the lead get through, while jat is the lead helping the rear get through. But it depends on position. Jat can be with either side after a punch has been interrupted from left, right, or below, to open the line for the next punch to continue. It's also used to capture space and cover as our next punch follows. So, it isn't necessarily contingent on arm contact, more on position. In this way it's part of chaining actions in a sustained attack, rather than just chaining punches which leaves space uncontrolled.

Ok. Thanks for posting.
IIRC, on another thread a while ago...you or Guy mentioned that using a Bong would be (obviously) situational, but that it ballistically clears the line from underneath...and that it was based on vision vs 'feeling'...is that a somewhat correct paraphrase?