Training Wing Chun?
- Thread starter Xue Sheng
- Start date
... Shou (手), are those only defense and not offense?
A: I train Tan Shou, Fu Shou, Bong Shou, Pak Shou, Wu Shou, Gang Shou, ...
B: I train jab, cross, hook, uppercut, overhand, back fist, hammer fist, ...
A: I train "iron shirt".
B: I train "iron palm".
A: I train "anti-grappling".
B: I train "grappling".
When A fights B, B will play offense and A will play defense.
Last edited:
It's a comparison between "defense approach" and "offense approach". It has nothing to do with you and I.
Should we emphasize "WC chain punches" training more than training such as Fu Shou, Tang Shou, Bong Shou?
One guy in Taiwan he trained how to hit a coconut that's tied between 2 trees for 1 year. A year later in a national tournament, nobody could escape his head hunting.
- Boxing is famous for jab, cross, hook, uppercut, ...
- TKD is famous for front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, spin hook kick, ...
- MT is famous for roundhouse kick, elbow, knee, flying knee, ...
- Wrestling is famous for single leg, double legs, ...
- ...
Most MA systems are defined by the offense skill and not by the defense skill.
Last edited:
As a person who periodically trains horses (as in actual horses) it always strikes me as funny when stance training is framed as training the horse.Hmmm. Like this?
OK, seriously now, you make a good point. On the other hand, different WC/WT/VT branches have very different ideas about what makes a proper stance and steps.
Attachments
Last edited:
A way to look at wing chun training is not as training defence or offense but rather training things that are more genarlised.
For example: as at least Callen and perhaps wckf92 have both pointed out in different ways, 1) nothing in wing chun is 'defencive' and 2) train your punch, you are training at all the other hand movements anyway.
this is because 1) the punch is certainly not a defencive movement and 2) it is the most generalised arm movement in wing chun, everything else stems from it in one way or another. Even movements which might appear defencive.
For example, if someone throws an arcing punch coming in at the head, you might turn and use a dai sao to intercept the incoming punch and use your punch to hit the opponent.
In this scenario, to consider the dai sao as defencive because it is intercepting the oncoming punch is to misunderstand the intention of dai sao. Dai sao will be delivered simultaneously and with identical striking force as YOUR outgoing punch. this means that your interception of the incoming punch is not defencive, it is offencive. You are trying to break the person's wrist as you try to break their face. The dai sao, in its intention, force and delivery, has its genesis in the punch.
SOooo, when training, particularly if you don't have a training partner, train at the most generalised movements, movements that will feed into all other movements in one way or another.
In my opinion one can't go wrong training their 1) stance (or horse if people want to term it like that) 2) single punches whereby one starts with the arms pulled up and back in resting arms (or 'chambered' position, if people want to call it that) and throw a punch with one arm, and when you throw the next punch you pull the previous punch all the way back at the same time. and 3) Jun ma (turning stance/pivoting/shifting, or whatever people want to call it). And finally, 4) some form of turning punches which is really learning to combine 1, 2 and 3.
Last edited:
I is A or B. It's A talks to B. It's not I talk to you, or you talk to me.
It's fun to talk about the subject. It's not fun to involve you or I in discussion. This is why it's not proper to ask people, "What's your style?", "Who is your teacher?", "How long have you trained?" Because those questions have nothing to do with the discussion subject.
When
- "I" is used in the post; people may say that you are self-center.
- "You" is used in the post; people may say that you try to shove your opinion into their throats.
Most of the time when "you" is used in my post, I try to say it's general YOU.
Last edited:
Nonsense! A is A, B is B, and I is I, at least in English, although in most other languages it's pronounced "E".
General Yu? ...Guan Yu?
Ummm, perhaps I'm approaching this wrong? I always felt that its perfectly valid to discuss Wing Chun from an inclusive perspective, referencing concepts and principles as used in different branches, and even unrelated styles of martial arts. Also, it keeps the conversation lively. Now I'll turn it back to ...Yu!
It's always interested to discuss the tradeoff.
The PRO of "连消带打 - defense and offense at the same time" (such as left Tan Shou, right punch) is you can combine offense and defense into 1 move.
The CON of this is, in order to do so, both of your arms have to extend forward at the same time. This can limit your power generation (you can't rotate your body when you punch).
But if we change left Tan Shou, right punch into grab-pull-punch, you can add that extra body rotation into the punch.
From the power generation point of view, left Fu Shou, right punch makes more sense than the left Tan Shou, right punch.
Just curious, but:
1) what makes you think one can't rotate their body if they do a tan sao and a punch together
and if that's what you believe,
2) why is it then possible to do a fuk sao and a punch and rotate the body?
My understanding of Fu Shou (or Diao Shou) is grab-pull.
Tan Shou is a forward motion. Fu Shou (or Diao Shou) has pulling intend. In order to rotate your body, you (general YOU) need to have one arm moving forward and one arm moving backward.
Of course, you can turn 30 - 90 degree with Tan Shou and punch. But that's not enough turning for the maximum power generation.
Last edited:
wckf92
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 556
What!?
This is not true. This is basic wing chun!
Fair enough, that's not like any fuk sao that I've ever learned.
Tan-da sau can be a forward wedging movement, or a rotating movement using a turning stance. Either, if done properly, will generate good power. It's true that rotation combined with forward intent can add more power, but you don't need to rotate more than 45° to generate heavy striking power ...in Wing Chun or any other form of boxing! In fact, really good practitioners can generate power with very small movements.
We are talking about generating short power. It's found in many fighting arts. I also learned methods of achieving this from GM Rene Latosa a renowned Escrima and Filipino "dirty boxing" instructor. While it's true that BIG movements with a lot of follow-through can generate a lot of power, they are easier to see coming and require more commitment. There's always a trade off.
Wing Chun and other southern short-bridge Chinese boxing methods generally favor compact movements that don't have a lot of wind up and follow-through. Big movements just don't work that well up close and inside.
On the other hand, big movements do make sense at longer distances, and also up close in grappling and throwing arts where unified, full body power is essential. But this is different from "boxing" or percussive arts IMO.
