Pads work in wing chun

[guy b.]

Im not the best expert on it as I have only recently just started training CSL. I used to do Ip ching style. The main difference is that CSL incorporate using your body to complement each hand structure when doing the forms. Like when doing the tan sau going out in the 1st section of Siu nim tao. Most wing chun there body stays still whille the tan sao goes out. In CSL your body is rising while going out- sinking while coming in. And Im not good enough to explain why.. but it just seems much more effective then anything I learned at my old school. When I visited Alans school for the first time.. All his students had better structure then me and theyd only been there for a maximum of 2 years.. was quite a revealing experience. Too me it seemed like most wing chuns think that chi sao/fighting is done with your arms/elbow and your body only turns. Chu sau lei is your whole body is powering your arms.. your elbow and hip connect. I never got taught that in my old school. Its similar to CST but not at the same time. CST has the best structure apart from CSL people from my experience. But its a different way of doing things ( not nim tao, tai gung etc). Its like learning to control pressure by inches. Hard to explain.. also Iv only really experienced a few flavours of wing chun.

It took me a little bit to get used to the way that they do things.. and it may not seem like wing chun to some people. But when you start learning it in person and get it explained to you and shown in person it makes a whole lot of sense. Then when you start sparring you can actually defend yourself. Trust me.. I reckon most wing chun people would just crumble going to that school and sparring. Alan & his students spar almost everyday. Not cooperatively. Compared to everyone I met since I started Ip ching.. left and spent a few months going round meeting some people from WSL & CST plus just other stuff.. I can say that Alan is the most skilled by far. Not that other people are not good. WSL & CST guys are actually really good most the time. But one thing that is super clear is since I started training with Alan.. I can actually spar with a mate who does boxing/muay thai and can match his pace and not look like a retard like most wing chun videos. My mate started boxing like a month or two before I left my main school, a little while in we started sparring.. and it didnt take long at all for me to start getting owned/not been able to catch up with his hands..if I had stayed I know for a fact that each week I would be staying the same while he got better in real combat, I realised the limits of what I was learning ( plus lots of issues with a crazy teacher) and eventually left and spent a while researching different lineages and opening my mind up andthen eventually visited Alans school and now I have dedicated to relearning the system under CSL ( and Cst but not bothered to explain that). CSL simply has made me be able to fight alot better then I ever could.. and this is only from a few months learning.. I still have soo much to learn now. I dont think any wing chun that has all its weight in the heels has any structure power now though.

When I watch Alans videos I see all the body structure/general wing chun principles in Chu sau lei and it makes sense. Looking at his videos from your own wing chun's lineage point of view may not make sense as they have different reasons for doing things.. All the reasons of doing things in CSL is because its been proven to be more effective/work then some other ways. Like our lan sao is mid sternum height instead of being shoulder height. I just personally think it works better for myself and I can use it better then other stuff I have learnt. Other people may not have the same experience. Excuse my poor grammar lol But this is just my personal experience with Chu sau lei.. I love it, its great and it works for me. Alan is tough as nails and hits like a truck. Watching him just waste my mate who doesnt do wing chun was awesome.. Finally get to meet a Sifu who can fight for real. I did Ip ching from when I was 11 till I was 20 ( just the usual 2- 4 classes a week for 2 hours a class type deal , plus an hour a day at home..).. I went there and got sassed by students of 2 years or less.. showed me that without body structure you really have no substance to your hand techniques.. Been able to relax and link/delink your joints at the right time is a very useful skill.. Sorry this ended up being way longer then I intended. Hopefully you can get a little insight. Alan himself is a really nice dude & good teacher. He also cares about his students and they have a good atmosphere at the school. It just doesnt look like ip man movie wing chun.. but its 100% wing chun.. all the standup is wing chun.

What is your experience ?

Thanks for reply.

I would say that in wing chun power comes mostly from the leg bypassing most of the body via elbow hip connection as you say. Pole specifically trains the elbow stance connection, centredness, and synchroneity for this on a single side of the body. For this reason tain both sides. Heel is down to recruit particular leg muscle usage, also trained initially in SNT. Upper body force of the waist is also trained by the pole via the connected hands.

From my experience CSL wing chun is geared towards prolonged contact in terms of chi sau and the "wing chun" part of the system. In many ways what CSL does is very like what Hakka arts with 3 step arrow sanchin like forms do. I personally don't think that wing chun should work that way; it is much more mobile. I don't see a huge amount of consistency in terms of the wing chun bit of CSL and the fighting bit. Fighting wise it is quite good, but I think this is mostly due to regular sparring rather than any particular genius in conception. I don't think it is a bad form of wing chun compared to many others.

Experience is sparring with Alan's guys at an MMA school where they visited. Some of his guys were very good at fighting, not so good at wing chun (in my opinion only).

 

[geezer]

I think that you are happy to tolerate this and not get offended (as any normal person would) because it is not coming from a WSL VT person. I think that you must be heavily biased against WSL VT because of the arguments you experienced on the other forum. Please attempt to forget these and to move forward with a positive attitude to discusion.

Nah. It's not personal towards you, Guy, ...or your lineage. I respect WSL VT. I just get majorly annoyed when some WSL students say that other branches are wrong, missing essential basics, and have no coherence as a system. And to be honest, I don't recall you being the person saying this stuff most of the time. And it's not just WSL folks. Frankly there have been plenty of people posting here over the years from other WC branches with the same kind of "attitude problem".

Besides the WSL group (especially the Philip Bayer followers) we've had some other arrogant and opinionated "true believers" claiming to be from the William Cheung lineage. And, some of the worst "true believers" I've ever met come from my own LT lineage. Fortunately they don't seem to be interested in posting here.

BTW I have met some really decent 'chunners from each of these branches. Both decent as martial artists and as people, that is.

 

[geezer]

Thanks for reply.

From my experience CSL wing chun is geared towards prolonged contact in terms of chi sau and the "wing chun" part of the system. In many ways what CSL does is very like what Hakka arts with 3 step arrow sanchin like forms do. I personally don't think that wing chun should work that way; it is much more mobile. I don't see a huge amount of consistency in terms of the wing chun bit of CSL and the fighting bit. Fighting wise it is quite good, but I think this is mostly due to regular sparring rather than any particular genius in conception. I don't think it is a bad form of wing chun compared to many others.

Experience is sparring with Alan's guys at an MMA school where they visited. Some of his guys were very good at fighting, not so good at wing chun (in my opinion only).

Guy!!! ...Good post. You see what a little tact (as KPM phrased it) can do. Check out the way you qualified your opinions in the bolded sections above. I would be the last person to say that people shouldn't express strong opinions, but phrasing things with humility and tact makes a huge difference. And if you put things a little more gently like this, I truly believe people will pay more attention to your opinions as well. At least most people.

 

[guy b.]

You see what a little tact (as KPM phrased it) can do. Check out the way you qualified your opinions in the bolded sections above. I would be the last person to say that people shouldn't express strong opinions, but phrasing things with humility and tact makes a huge difference. And if you put things a little more gently like this, I truly believe people will pay more attention to your opinions as well. At least most people.

Ok, no problem, I will take care to qualify in future if that will help to encourage discussion.

Guy

 

[guy b.]

Nah. It's not personal towards you, Guy, ...or your lineage. I respect WSL VT. I just get majorly annoyed when some WSL students say that other branches are wrong, missing essential basics, and have no coherence as a system. And to be honest, I don't recall you being the person saying this stuff most of the time. And it's not just WSL folks. Frankly there have been plenty of people posting here over the years from other WC branches with the same kind of "attitude problem".

Fair enough, although I think most people got annoyed with me about historical pole theories rather than WSL VT concepts, which does seem an odd thing to get hot under the collar about, but not a problem as long as animosity towards me doesn't kill the forum.

Please let me know if people are abstaining from discussion because I am participating so that I can stop posting before ruining your forum.

 

[wckf92]

If people are abstaining from discussion because I am participating then I will stop posting to prevent this place turning into a wasteland like KFM

Don't do that dude...
I find you and LFJ's views on WSL VT interesting, whether I agree or disagree with them...keep posting!

 

[dudewingchun]

Thanks for reply.

I would say that in wing chun power comes mostly from the leg bypassing most of the body via elbow hip connection as you say. Pole specifically trains the elbow stance connection, centredness, and synchroneity for this on a single side of the body. For this reason tain both sides. Heel is down to recruit particular leg muscle usage, also trained initially in SNT. Upper body force of the waist is also trained by the pole via the connected hands.

From my experience CSL wing chun is geared towards prolonged contact in terms of chi sau and the "wing chun" part of the system. In many ways what CSL does is very like what Hakka arts with 3 step arrow sanchin like forms do. I personally don't think that wing chun should work that way; it is much more mobile. I don't see a huge amount of consistency in terms of the wing chun bit of CSL and the fighting bit. Fighting wise it is quite good, but I think this is mostly due to regular sparring rather than any particular genius in conception. I don't think it is a bad form of wing chun compared to many others.

Experience is sparring with Alan's guys at an MMA school where they visited. Some of his guys were very good at fighting, not so good at wing chun (in my opinion only).

Iv spent like 10 minutes trying to think of the right way to explain but cant get the words. We just keep our weight on the k1 point mainly. Iv only just finished Siu nim tao though in CSL so not sure on everything. I got upto the end of dummy in Ip ching.. and still got rekt like a noob at Alans.. but thats a combination of them being good and my old teachers teachings being quite mediocre for real life.

Thats all cool. Im not familiar with hakka styles or sanchin so I cannot comment sorry. I am quite new in CSL wing chun so I hope I have not misrespresented the theories taught in the lineage. But everything we do in sparring ( standup) is our ( CSL) wing chun. Maybe doesnt conform to WSL/ LT/ HKM/DL ways of application.. but thats there way and I respect them all but I prefer CSL personally as it works well for my body type and way of thinking. I also practice a bit of Chu shong tin which I love for health/structure and just learning to be mindful. I really enjoy both. I do notice at Alans schools alot of the people there are there for mma training and do wing chun because Alan teaches it in almost everything he does. I wish more Wing chun would do regular sparring though.. you quickly find out what works and what doesnt. We do what we do because of that. I am by no means an expert on CSL or an authority on it and my wriiting skills are not good enough to articulate my experience properly so take this all with a grain of salt !

 

[KPM]

Iv spent like 10 minutes trying to think of the right way to explain but cant get the words. We just keep our weight on the k1 point mainly.

The weight moves dynamically across the whole sole of the foot, but the "center point" is at K1. The hips are not "locked in place" as in some WCK lineages. Rather the Kwa is kept relaxed and allowed to "float" to some degree. So power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link. The elbow is "coupled" to the hip. This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip. The body is not by-passed. The spine is also actively engaged. The shoulders are engaged, etc. Nothing is static. The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything. The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau." One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance. Then you can hit him at will. While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them. CSL is nothing like the "sanchin like forms" of the Hakka arts. The CSL forms incorporate much more "internal work" in a relaxed fashion without any "sanchin like" tensing.

 

[dudewingchun]

The weight moves dynamically across the whole sole of the foot, but the "center point" is at K1. The hips are not "locked in place" as in some WCK lineages. Rather the Kwa is kept relaxed and allowed to "float" to some degree. So power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link. The elbow is "coupled" to the hip. This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip. The body is not by-passed. The spine is also actively engaged. The shoulders are engaged, etc. Nothing is static. The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything. The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau." One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance. Then you can hit him at will. While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them. CSL is nothing like the "sanchin like forms" of the Hakka arts. The CSL forms incorporate much more "internal work" in a relaxed fashion without any "sanchin like" tensing.

Thank you for articulating that for me. Spot on from what I understand.

 

[guy b.]

Iv spent like 10 minutes trying to think of the right way to explain but cant get the words. We just keep our weight on the k1 point mainly. Iv only just finished Siu nim tao though in CSL so not sure on everything. I got upto the end of dummy in Ip ching.. and still got rekt like a noob at Alans.. but thats a combination of them being good and my old teachers teachings being quite mediocre for real life.

Thats all cool. Im not familiar with hakka styles or sanchin so I cannot comment sorry. I am quite new in CSL wing chun so I hope I have not misrespresented the theories taught in the lineage. But everything we do in sparring ( standup) is our ( CSL) wing chun. Maybe doesnt conform to WSL/ LT/ HKM/DL ways of application.. but thats there way and I respect them all but I prefer CSL personally as it works well for my body type and way of thinking. I also practice a bit of Chu shong tin which I love for health/structure and just learning to be mindful. I really enjoy both. I do notice at Alans schools alot of the people there are there for mma training and do wing chun because Alan teaches it in almost everything he does. I wish more Wing chun would do regular sparring though.. you quickly find out what works and what doesnt. We do what we do because of that. I am by no means an expert on CSL or an authority on it and my wriiting skills are not good enough to articulate my experience properly so take this all with a grain of salt !

I have been shown the foot position, SNT form, and some structure tests from CSL wing chun. I understand what the aim of this is because it is quite similar to what things like white crane and southern praying mantis do. I have done quite a bit of SPM and it is a style reknowned for power generation mechanics and short power in particular. I just personally don't think this way is best (or could say compatible) with wing chun. It does work in a way though. But is would change the movement, balance and power chain of wing chun in quite a fundamental way. Similarly I think that K1 foot positioning (as the ultimate position) can work in some systems but not so good for wing chun due to the way that it puts the balance in turning and where it directs power. If you are pulling rather than punching it is optimal to be K1 weighted, judo and wrestling would weight here. Obviously wing chun with all of the weight all of the time on the heels is a parody of heel down/heel as ultimate position and doesn't lend itself to natural movement very well.

 

[guy b.]

The weight moves dynamically across the whole sole of the foot, but the "center point" is at K1. The hips are not "locked in place" as in some WCK lineages. Rather the Kwa is kept relaxed and allowed to "float" to some degree. So power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link. The elbow is "coupled" to the hip. This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip. The body is not by-passed. The spine is also actively engaged. The shoulders are engaged, etc. Nothing is static. The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything. The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau." One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance. Then you can hit him at will. While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them. CSL is nothing like the "sanchin like forms" of the Hakka arts. The CSL forms incorporate much more "internal work" in a relaxed fashion without any "sanchin like" tensing.

Thanks for more detailed explanation.

Elbow is coupled with hip in all decent wing chun including WSL VT, but there is no spinal engagement that I have experienced. No shoulder engagement in WSL VT. Breaking balance then hitting not a primary way of attacking in WSL VT.

There is no tensing in genuine Hakka som bo gin and other similar basic power forms. This is a corruption of the idea found in karate. What I saw of CSL was indeed very like SPM. How much experience of SPM, White Crane, Bak Mei or Lung Ying do you have?

 

[KPM]

Thank you for articulating that for me. Spot on from what I understand.

Here's another point worth mentioning Sean, while we are on the subject of CSLWCK. Why is control such a central thing to CSL? CSL has a Chin Na aspect. Pin Sun has a Chin Na aspect. Tang Yik Weng Chun has a Chin Na aspect. However, some Ip Man lineages do not. I've always thought that putting such a big emphasis on the punch was a bit "one dimensional." Wing Chun is more than punching the opponent! What if the opponent is your drunk uncle Ed wanting to "test your Kung Fu!" and messing with you? Are you going to punch him the nose? How about a good Chin Na armlock to convince him to calm down instead? CSL sees a lot of Chin Na in the forms as a "second level" or deeper application of some of the moves. Of course, a version of Wing Chun that does not believe in "applications" wouldn't see that. But this is why the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want. You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc. If all a system teaches to do is punch the opponent, I guess this approach wouldn't be necessary.

 

[KPM]

Similarly I think that K1 foot positioning (as the ultimate position) can work in some systems but not so good for wing chun due to the way that it puts the balance in turning and where it directs power. If you are pulling rather than punching it is optimal to be K1 weighted, judo and wrestling would weight here. Obviously wing chun with all of the weight all of the time on the heels is a parody of heel down/heel as ultimate position and doesn't lend itself to natural movement very well.

I disagree 100%. But that's a topic for a different discussion. Just consider that Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point. It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.

 

[JPinAZ]

[snip] ..power is transmitted from the legs, through the hips dynamically....the hips participate and are not just a link. The elbow is "coupled" to the hip. This means that an impulse of power from the legs is harnessed and augmented by action from the hip and transmitted to the arm as a vector force by aligning the elbow with the hip. The body is not by-passed. The spine is also actively engaged. The shoulders are engaged, etc. Nothing is static. The elbow- stance connection is trained in almost everything. The method has nothing to do with "prolonged contact in Chi Sau." One of the core concepts is to control the opponent and break his balance. Then you can hit him at will. While this might look like "prolonged contact", it is really controlling the opponent so you can do whatever you want to them.

Except for the kwa and k1 stuff (which while giving a better reference in discussion, isn't really needed for WC training), what is described above is what any decent WC does, or should be doing. This is basic WC Body Mechanics 101.

 

[geezer]

I disagree 100%. But that's a topic for a different discussion. Just consider that Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point. It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.

I disagree 100%. But that's a topic for a different discussion. Just consider that Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, Pin Sun Wing Chun, Tang Yik Weng Chun....all pivot on the K1 point. It is my opinion that this was the "original" way it was done and the heel pivot was a much later change within the Ip Man lineage.

Leung Ting's "WT" (coming from Yip Man WC) also places the weight on the center of the foot (aprox. the "K1" point). Possibly this has roots in his early training under Leung Sheung? Anyway, FYI center-of-the-foot turning is present in the Yip Man lineage.

 

[KPM]

Leung Ting's "WT" (coming from Yip Man WC) also places the weight on the center of the foot (aprox. the "K1" point). Possibly this has roots in his early training under Leung Sheung? Anyway, FYI center-of-the-foot turning is present in the Yip Man lineage.

Yeah, I'm aware Steve! That's why I said a "later" change "within" the Ip Man lineage. I've always wondered how that came about.

 

[geezer]

Yeah, I'm aware Steve! That's why I said a "later" change "within" the Ip Man lineage. I've always wondered how that came about.

It might have been there all along. I do not know if the Leung Sheung guys turn that way, but if so, it would suggest that this was something that Yip Man taught early on and not just to LT who trained with GM Yip near the end of his life.

 

[Danny T]

Food for thought.
I learned 3 different pivots. Ball of the Foot, Center of the foot, and Heels.
Jiu Wan was a wing chun brother of Ip Man and when moving to HK trained and taught with Ip Man for about 6 months until he got settled. They continued to be friends and I feel they shared their thoughts about wc with each other.
In speaking with my Sifu he stated he learned all 3 training under Jiu Wan at different times during his training. Most of his training was center of the foot but says use what is needed when it is needed. He also said sometimes Jiu Wan would have some students training one pivot or other actions and others training a different pivot or actions yet doing the same drills. It was a very traditional type of training where it was frowned on for asking questions from teachers until getting to high level status wise in the school. So he'd ask his senior brothers about the different students doing different footwork or other different actions. He came away with sense that different people had different skills and abilities so they were trained for those differences. Over the years there have been a number of changes he has given me that he says you need to do it this way, not your students but you. Some have been profound some have been subtle, some have given greater understanding, some have given more options. One of his teaching philosophies is; give your students what they need to perform for themselves. If stepping makes them better ok teach them to step. If pivoting makes them better teach them to pivot. If they don't have speed give them something to do instead of speed. We teach individuals using the system Wing Chun.
Is appears Ip Man taught different people different things or in different manners. We do know he said something along the lines of don't believe what I say or give you. Go try it out (test it) see if it works for you or not.

 

[KPM]

It might have been there all along. I do not know if the Leung Sheung guys turn that way, but if so, it would suggest that this was something that Yip Man taught early on and not just to LT who trained with GM Yip near the end of his life.

Leung Sheung must have pivoted on K1 because his students I have seen pivot that way. If you look at the footage of Ip Man shortly before his death, Ip Man seems to be pivoting across the sole of his feet rather indistinctly, but certainly doesn't seem to be back on his heels. On those videos near the end of his life, it sure looks to me like he is pivoting just as Leung Ting pivots. So maybe Danny is right, and for certain people Ip Man taught to pivot on the heels for some specific reason. My point was only that this does not seem to be the "standard" for Wing Chun in general across many versions out there. I

 

[guy b.]

Here's another point worth mentioning Sean, while we are on the subject of CSLWCK. Why is control such a central thing to CSL? CSL has a Chin Na aspect. Pin Sun has a Chin Na aspect. Tang Yik Weng Chun has a Chin Na aspect. However, some Ip Man lineages do not. I've always thought that putting such a big emphasis on the punch was a bit "one dimensional." Wing Chun is more than punching the opponent! What if the opponent is your drunk uncle Ed wanting to "test your Kung Fu!" and messing with you? Are you going to punch him the nose? How about a good Chin Na armlock to convince him to calm down instead? CSL sees a lot of Chin Na in the forms as a "second level" or deeper application of some of the moves. Of course, a version of Wing Chun that does not believe in "applications" wouldn't see that. But this is why the whole concept of controlling the opponent rather than just hitting the opponent is so important in CSLWCK. When you control the opponent you can do whatever you want. You can strike him, manipulate him, joint lock him, trip him, sweep him, etc. If all a system teaches to do is punch the opponent, I guess this approach wouldn't be necessary.

This was my impression of CSL wing chun- the immediate focus is on control of the body of the opponent rather than on hitting them, i.e. it is more akin to a grappling centric approach which would explain the wrestling-style balance point. Unfortunately I think there are better grappling approaches, for example wrestling or judo. Why not just learn these if you wish to grapple? The niche that CSL wing chun aims for is pretty narrow; that is hitting off grappling. And there is a huge amount of knowledge about doing just that in MMA already.