WC Punch

[wckf92]

Just a question in general since I had 2 lessons of WSLVT in the past, very nice guys there.....

My question, does VT/WC/WT generally goes for the face ? Because thats the general tactic I see in movies etc.....

can only speak for me and my wc as I learned it...and the answer is not really. We go for whatever is open, closest, most damage will be caused etc. Could be the face, could be the balls, ribs, shin, whatever.

 

[Dylan9d]

can only speak for me and my wc as I learned it...and the answer is not really. We go for whatever is open, closest, most damage will be caused etc. Could be the face, could be the balls, ribs, shin, whatever.

Thanks for clarifying that....

 

[SaulGoodman]

There's a very, very simple way the "VT" guys can clarify their approach to how the deal with a non linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time. It's called video...

 

[LFJ]

Thanks. Nice article. But as I said to Guy on the other thread, you two seem to think of Wing Chun as a boxing style and are looking for an exchange of blows. Your response above pretty much proves that.

Absolutely not. Pointing to that article is to show that baiting and forcing the type of attacks you want is not fantasy I just came up with.

I also clearly said I don't use these boxing methods. VT has its own unique strategy and tactics for accomplishing similar goals, imposing our fight on the opponent. But it is very different from boxing in both specific strategies and tactics.

But how is that going to help you against the street thug that has a wide loopy "haymaker" coming right at your temple as soon as you realize he is behind you and you turn to see him?

By that time, realistically, anyone would already be clocked.

A thug is coming up to hit you from behind. You turn around, see the haymaker right before it lands... and you're gonna get your taan-da up and out to shut it down? Talk about a fantasy!

Now you seem to be saying you don't need to worry about non-linear, non-centerline punches because your fighting strategy can guarantee that the opponent won't be able to throw them.

Never said that. There are tactics of distance control and positioning that will make round attacks less likely and less practical, and easier to deal with if thrown. That doesn't include standing in the pocket and throwing out a reactive taan-sau, being the opponent's puppet.

You don't need things like Tan Da or Gan Da, etc because you can always counter with one arm while striking with the same arm using LSDD. You don't need other kinds of attacks or Chin Na elements or any of that because all you need is the punch!

Never said that either. I said (several times already) that two arms are never used when one arm could do the task. Secondary actions are used when the initial punch is interrupted. Auxiliary actions can be used when out of position to use one arm as the first response. Taan-da is never the answer because it's redundant against linear punches and doesn't work against round punches. Kicks can be used in a variety of ways.

 

[LFJ]

There's a very, very simple way the "VT" guys can clarify their approach to how the deal with a non linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time. It's called video...

We never said that is our approach. That's some stupid idea KPM came up with.

 

[LFJ]

You can not prevent a round attack by drawing responses.

You can't.

This is the fantasy you seem to have, that you can avoid round attacks altogether using baiting and closing down options.

Never said that. But they can be made far less likely and much less effective through strategy and tactics.

Besides you can't bait people to do something they are not thinking.

On the contrary, mental states can be manipulated and people can be baited into doing things if they think it's the clear choice or other options are closed to them.

What you were asked was defensive strategy on round attacks given LSDD being primary option.

That's a stupid misapplication of the principle, for lack of fighting strategy.

You may go walking into round punches with taan-da and wonder how I would do the same with one arm. But I wouldn't do that in the first place.

Saying you use footwork instead in those cases would be an answer. But to say you bait and close options so people will not do round attacks on you just sounds silly and ignorant.

Tactical footwork is always a part of it. That's why I said you're clueless.

 

[Phobius]

You can't.

Here is news for you. Your own response says you can not either. Read your response below saying goes you can not either.

Never said that. But they can be made far less likely and much less effective through strategy and tactics.

Which is what I said. So admitting I was right. Which leaves the question as to how you would deal with round attacks either unanswered or saying you will take that hit every now and then.

On the contrary, mental states can be manipulated and people can be baited into doing things if they think it's the clear choice or other options are closed to them..

Are you fighting beginners or trained fighters here? Sounds like you are fighting a beginner. A lot of hope your opponent does not have a game plan.

Edit: given that your memory is not so strong at times. Baiting works, that is not a debate. But to have it as you main defense and with only a single goal to prevent round attacks and never to bait a round attack... That is what is being questioned. A one sided bait is not gonna work for you.

That's a stupid misapplication of the principle, for lack of fighting strategy.

You may go walking into round punches with taan-da and wonder how I would do the same with one arm. But I wouldn't do that in the first place.

You are the one talking about taan-da. That is your view, I have never said anything of that kind. Stop putting words in peoples mouths when you know too little.

Tactical footwork is always a part of it. That's why I said you're clueless.

You never answered the question. I was the one saying footwork. You talked about closing options and baiting.

So focus on answering the question or ignore it if too hard. Just helps if you stop being insulting.

 

[Phobius]

It is okay LFJ that you do not have an answer to round attacks. Many clubs focus mostly just on VT/WC attacks or hooks. Some miss that there are round attacks as well at distance.

I am not the one asking the question initially either, was just interested in hearing your answer but given the keywords you throw as a response and how you go out of your way to be insulting as a response I can understand I might have pressured you.

Sorry if that is the case. I can drop the question.

 

[LFJ]

So admitting I was right. Which leaves the question as to how you would deal with round attacks either unanswered or saying you will take that hit every now and then.

You are wrong. If an opponent is not in position to effectively throw a round attack, and is instead forced to use linear attacks, the round attack has been prevented.

Baiting works, that is not a debate. But to have it as you main defense and with only a single goal to prevent round attacks and never to bait a round attack... That is what is being questioned. A one sided bait is not gonna work for you.

When did I say that is my single goal and why would I bait a round attack? Not sure what you're talking about.

You are the one talking about taan-da. That is your view, I have never said anything of that kind. Stop putting words in peoples mouths when you know too little.

KPM was and you hopped in behind him to push his nonsensical question of how to deflect a round punch while striking with the same arm.

I was the one saying footwork. You talked about closing options and baiting.

And how the hell do you think I'd do any of that without footwork? You think you're so clever that only you know to use footwork? lmao

It is okay LFJ that you do not have an answer to round attacks.

The question assumes I'd try to use one arm where KPM would use taan-da, i.e. standing between the opponent's arms trying to block a round punch. That's retarded.

 

[KPM]

We never said that is our approach. That's some stupid idea KPM came up with.

Read a bit closer. Saul just said you can clarify your approach and prove I have a "stupid" impression about what it is, simply by posting a video showing what you mean. You haven't done a very job so far communicating what your "approach" really is. You say I've got it all wrong. So show us. How hard is that?

 

[KPM]

KPM was and you hopped in behind him to push his nonsensical question of how to deflect a round punch while striking with the same arm.

.

And I never said I would do a Tan Da in that situation. I only pointed out that you have said in the past that your system does not have the Tan Da, where the rest of the Wing Chun world acknowledges the Tan Da as using the principle of LSDD. I'd probably actually do a Biu Da. But regardless, everything you have been saying so far leads us to believe that your "VT" would not do two-handed actions like a Tan Da, Biu Da, Gan Da, etc and would stick to the whole "blocking and striking with the same arm" approach. THAT is why we keep asking about non-centerline, non-linear attacks, because THAT approach will not work in that situation. But you are too big-headed to concede this and acknowledge that you would actually use something like Biu Da when required. Of course I'm sure you also see something wrong with Biu Da as well!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you can not prevent a round attack by drawing responses.

Agree!

When a 45 degree downward hook (or hay-maker) comes toward you, it can knock down all your straight punches. If you try to attack after that hook (or hay-maker), the comeback hook (or hay-maker) can still hit you and "reverse head lock" on you.

This is why in ancient Chinese spear technique, people use circular movement to deal with straight line spear stabbing. Please notice that you can move your spear in clockwise direction. You can also move it in counter-clockwise direction. Both can be used to "deflect" a straight line spear stabbing.

This strategy can be applied in open hand and I like to call it "double spears" strategy.

[/QUOTE]

 

[SaulGoodman]

At the end of the day, the majority of us Wing Chun mortals seem to agree that insofar as basic strategies are concerned :
Attacks down the center line (straight) can be pretty easily dealt with by simply engaging with a straight punch of your own, then simply keep recycling those hands in whatever way necessary until the job is done. Not rocket science, not exclusive to "VT" and a WC 101 that every lineage I've trained in has espoused.

Circular blows, if telegraphed we simply punch through the open line.
If it's a little cuter and perhaps a tight overhand hook then you cant risk that strategy as you're likely to trade and it comes down to who has the hardest chin (not a great approach). In that situation covering and hitting or covering THEN hitting are probably the only sane option. Anyone who has been in either real violence or heavy sparring will note that when in the mix it's hard enough just covering that shot when it missiles in from outside your peripheral vision.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Many CMA systems use "chain punches". It's usually called "1 step 3 punches".

 

[LFJ]

Read a bit closer. Saul just said you can clarify your approach and prove I have a "stupid" impression about what it is, simply by posting a video showing what you mean.

No. You read a bit closer. He said we can clarify our approach of "how to deal with a non-linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time".

I have no approach remotely like that. It is the nonsensical approach you are attempting to fit me with and have me explain. I can't explain that in writing or video.

 

[LFJ]

But regardless, everything you have been saying so far leads us to believe that your "VT" would not do two-handed actions like a Tan Da, Biu Da, Gan Da, etc and would stick to the whole "blocking and striking with the same arm" approach.

I quite clearly said we have secondary, auxiliary, and remedial actions that use two arms, but they have a time and place. Most Wing Chun uses them at the wrong time and out of place.

THAT is why we keep asking about non-centerline, non-linear attacks, because THAT approach will not work in that situation. But you are too big-headed to concede this and acknowledge that you would actually use something like Biu Da when required. Of course I'm sure you also see something wrong with Biu Da as well!

I will not concede using something equally as stupid as taan-da.

In response to round attacks, I've explained that we have strategy and tactics to diminish the likelihood and effectiveness of them.

Out of range, distance control will prevent round attacks and draw linear ones. When distance is closed, positioning and spatial dominance will greatly reduce the ability of the opponent to throw round attacks and weaken their effectiveness if attempted.

This is the answer to dealing with round attacks in general. It starts from fighting strategy, not a resort to remedial actions for the lack of intelligent strategy. The specific tactics used to accomplish this have been purposefully omitted.

In most circumstances, I will not be found in the position you probably find yourself in often. That is, walking straight-line in between the opponent's arms, thinking you must "occupy center" and then need to block round attacks left and right like Whack-A-Mole.

If I were to screw things up so royally as to be stood there like that, biu-da would be as bad an answer as taan-da.

The last thing I would want to do when standing between an opponent's arms facing a round punch coming at me, would be to reactively reach my arm out after it, chasing arms, and leaving my head exposed.

At close range, and in such a bad position, a blinding barrage of punches can come fast and having your arms outstretched like a zombie reactively chasing arms is going to get you knocked out.

We had this discussion months ago. You obviously haven't been pressure testing your theory against serious punchers, or you would have come back with a broken face and a changed perspective.

A much safer and provenly effective method would be a wu-sau adaptation for cover closer to the head while counter striking. In this case, we need a remedial action to fix our screw up of position.

You are using the wrong remedial action as part of your general strategy in a position you shouldn't be letting yourself get into. This is why imposition of intelligent fighting strategy is more important than reactive techniques to deal with this or that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Taan-da is never the answer because it's redundant against linear punches and doesn't work against round punches.

Have to disagree with you on this. The Tan Da can be considered as to extend both of your arms outward from your boxing guard.

In "boxing guard", your arms are close to your own head (too conservative).

In "Tan Da", your arms are away from your head and close to your opponent's head (more aggressive).

IMO, Tan Da > boxing guard

If you use Tan Da to move in through your opponent's front door, you are using both of your arms to "separate" your opponent's arms from inside out. You are occupying his center right at this moment.

- Your left Tan can be used to deal with his right arm,
- Your right Da can be used to deal with his left arm.
- You can use both arms to punch on your opponent's head. You can even use both hands to choke on his throat if you want to.

You can also use Tan Da to deal with a hay-maker because

- You can hide your head behind your both Tan Da arms. It functions just like the boxing guard.
- your 2 arms are stronger than your opponent's single hay-maker arm.

Just move into your opponent and extend your

- Tan arm between his right arm and his head,
- Da arm between his left arm and his head,

you will see that you can disable both of your opponent's arms right at that moment. When you apply Tan Da, you try to hug and kiss your opponent. That's how aggressive you are.

 

[LFJ]

Neat theory, but walking straight in between a boxer's arms and standing in the pocket with both your arms outstretched like a zombie is setting yourself up. Face a half decent boxer and find out.

Redundant against linear punches. Doesn't work against round punches.

 

[KPM]

No. You read a bit closer. He said we can clarify our approach of "how to deal with a non-linear attack whilst controlling and hitting with one arm at the same time".

I have no approach remotely like that. It is the nonsensical approach you are attempting to fit me with and have me explain. I can't explain that in writing or video.

And THIS is why it is so difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you! If I was stating something that you do NOT do (even though you kept giving the impression that you did) why did you not post immediately to clarify my misconception and tell us what you actually do in that situation? Rather than just keep posting leading responses and drawing things out, when I asked the very first time what you do against non-linear, non-centerline punches you could have simply say... "you are correct, in that situation LSDD with one arm does not apply. We would do....." But you didn't.

 

[LFJ]

And THIS is why it is so difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you! If I was stating something that you do NOT do (even though you kept giving the impression that you did) why did you not post immediately to clarify my misconception and tell us what you actually do in that situation? Rather than just keep posting leading responses and drawing things out, when I asked the very first time what you do against non-linear, non-centerline punches you could have simply say... "you are correct, in that situation LSDD with one arm does not apply. We would do....." But you didn't.

I most certainly did.

Your question was a leading one that was asking me to expound on an impossible method I don't use, and I did in fact state repeatedly that that is a nonsensical misapplication of the principle and not my method!

You revealed in the last post that your goal was to get me to concede using some technique similar to yours. But the alternative is not some other reactive technique. It's fighting strategy first and foremost, and that's what I explained.