WC Punch

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is what Chow Da looks like

In the above picture, the guy on the left can use a 45 degree downward left hay-maker to hit on the back of his opponent's head. His left block is similar to general CMA "comb hair". It can end with a nice "head lock".

IMO, the "comb hair" is too conservative. Your hand is too close to your own head. I like the WC Tang Shou better. It's more aggressive and it's closer to your opponent's head instead.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In the above picture, the guy on the left can use a 45 degree downward left hay-maker to hit on the back of his opponent's head. His left block is similar to general CMA "comb hair". It can end with a nice "head lock".

IMO, the "comb hair" is too conservative. Your hand is too close to your own head. I like the WC Tang Shou better. It's more aggressive and it's closer to your opponent's head instead.

That block is vicious. If the elbow catches the punch the right way, it'll tear up the bicep big time. I got to see my Sifu experience this first hand. He instantly stopped after it occurred and I saw him open and close his hands repeatedly while holding his bicep. He was in pain as well. The following day look like someone soaked his bicep in blue dye. He lost functional use of that arm for a few weeks and eventually had to go to a traditional doctor to help with the healing process. Anything movement that required significant use of the bicep was painful for him. We do the same block in our system and we can choose to move in close to it or brace for the impact. It can be used to defend a hook in which you don't have time to advance because the footing may not be in a position to advance. In our school we call the "oh sh_t technique" because it's what is done at the last moment when someone throws a punch that is noticed too late to do anything else other than putting the arm up like that.

In the video that you posted you can tell that the guy throwing the punch is aware of the dangers of hitting his bicep on the elbow.

 

[KPM]

I

This is what Chow Da looks like

Actually, that isn't really the same as your first picture. In the first picture showing Wing Chun the defending arm is a Tan Sau. The Tan Sau travels forward with a slight coiling action that diverts or deflects. What is shown in the picture above is what Tang Yik Weng Chun calls "Fook Fu." The defending arm is a "Chout", which actually snaps slightly rearward as well as outward. It is a sharp action designed to "bounce" something away rather than smoothly deflect it like the Tan Sau does. It is much like a Karate outward block as in your middle picture. Tan Sau is different! But it is still "simultaneous defense and attack"!!!

 

[guy b.]

This is the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) - block (or deflect) and strike at the same time" that I have learned from the YM WC system. I do think we have trained different WC systems.

I would agree, different systems

 

[guy b.]

And again....there are more versions of Ip Man's Wing Chun than what is taught in the WSL lineage. After all this time you haven't figured out that one way to avoid conflicts in discussions on any of these forums is to make it clear what you are talking about?

If you are talking about WSLVT (which is what you study) then say that. Don't assume you can be talking about WSLVT and it applies to everyone else's Ip Man Wing Chun. Again, that is just a very arrogant attitude.

I don't assume that other people practice the same system. But the VT of WSL is the VT of YM. I not telling anyone that they practice the same system or a different system; that is their business, not mine.

And again......VT here meaning WSLVT and not Wing Chun in general? Because you seem to switch back and forth.

To which you could have simply said "I am referring to what I practice, which is WSLVT."

There is no thing called WSLVT. There is VT, which I practice. Please feel free to call whatever it is that you practice whatever you wish to call it. I don't mind and I won't trouble you with my opinion on whatever name you choose to employ.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Actually, that isn't really the same as your first picture. In the first picture showing Wing Chun the defending arm is a Tan Sau. The Tan Sau travels forward with a slight coiling action that diverts or deflects. What is shown in the picture above is what Tang Yik Weng Chun calls "Fook Fu." The defending arm is a "Chout", which actually snaps slightly rearward as well as outward. It is a sharp action designed to "bounce" something away rather than smoothly deflect it like the Tan Sau does. It is much like a Karate outward block as in your middle picture. Tan Sau is different! But it is still "simultaneous defense and attack"!!!

When your opponent punches at your face, should you use

1. Tang Shou (travels forward) to deal with that punch so your Tang Shou hand will be closer to his head, or
2. comb hair (rearward as well as outward) to deal with that punch so your comb hair hand will be closer to your own head?

IMO, in situation

- 1, since my hand is too close to my opponent's face, it will be difficult to generate a knock down power, I prefer to use that arm to wrap my opponent's arm.
- 2, since my hand is further away from my opponent's head, I can use it to hay-maker on the back of his head with good knock down power.

I like to use 2 (travel forward) Tang Shou

- left Tang Shou travel between my opponent's right arm and his head.
- right Tang Shou travel between my opponent's left arm and his head.

This way, I can separate my opponent's arms outside of my arms, and occupy his center. I give it a name as "Chinese zombie arms".

 

[KPM]

I don't assume that other people practice the same system. But the VT of WSL is the VT of YM. I not telling anyone that they practice the same system or a different system; that is their business, not mine.



There is no thing called WSLVT. There is VT, which I practice. Please feel free to call whatever it is that you practice whatever you wish to call it. I don't mind and I won't trouble you with my opinion on whatever name you choose to employ.

Again, the assumption that your version of Wing Chun is THE version of Wing Chun taught by Ip Man and the only thing worthy of being called Wing Chun (or Ving Tsun, which is the same thing) is the height of arrogance. And you still wonder why discussions in which you participate here quickly go down the tubes!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I would agree, different systems

I just can't believe that we don't even agree with the most basic WC principle, "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) - block (or deflect) and strike at the same time".

I like the concept that both blocking arm, and striking arm

- start to move at the same time , and also
- stop at the same time.

It takes courage and commitment to apply in combat. Sometime when a punch coming toward your face, you may just think about dealing with that punch and not think about punch back at the same time.

 

[guy b.]

Again, the assumption that your version of Wing Chun is THE version of Wing Chun taught by Ip Man and the only thing worthy of being called Wing Chun (or Ving Tsun, which is the same thing) is the height of arrogance.

VT is the kung fu of YM. Other groups may also practice the kung fu of YM- that is their business.

And you still wonder why discussions in which you participate here quickly go down the tubes!

I believe I know why people don't like to discuss specifics. I'm not sure what your interest is to be honest.

 

[guy b.]

It takes courage and commitment to apply in combat.

Exactly- it is non-optimal in terms of safety and efficiency. It requires following the actions of opponent to read when he will strike, rather than thoughtless imposition of a strategy- chasing centre, cutting the way, linking neutralisation with striking, not stopping until it is done.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Actually, that isn't really the same as your first picture. In the first picture showing Wing Chun the defending arm is a Tan Sau. The Tan Sau travels forward with a slight coiling action that diverts or deflects. What is shown in the picture above is what Tang Yik Weng Chun calls "Fook Fu." The defending arm is a "Chout", which actually snaps slightly rearward as well as outward. It is a sharp action designed to "bounce" something away rather than smoothly deflect it like the Tan Sau does. It is much like a Karate outward block as in your middle picture. Tan Sau is different! But it is still "simultaneous defense and attack"!!!

Yes you have described the technique as correctly but that same technique for us can be hard or soft.

There's no one set rule that it has to be hard or has to be soft. If we use it as a soft redirect it is still called "chow da" The decision to use it as a hard strike or a soft redirect makes no difference. When we use Chow Da in a chain punch it redirects so it's a soft technique, if I don't use it in a chain motion then most likely I'm going to use it to damage the incoming attacking arm, in that scenario it's a hard technique. The soft Chow Da makes it possible for us to be fast. The hard Chow Da is quick in terms of doing it once, but if I tried to do another Chow Da in the other direction it would be considerably slower than the soft version. If you look at the video of flower fist that I posted you can see that same technique being done with a soft chow which allows him to chain the technique.

Jow Ga as well as many other fighting systems have both hard and soft techniques and sometimes those techniques are the same, but one is done soft and the other is done hard. Jiu Sao is like this as well. If I use it as soft technique then I can redirect the attacking arm and use that same arm to attack the face. We have version where we do Chow as a hard block similar to karate and then with the same hand move forward and strike the face with the palm. As soon as the palm hits the face we then try to catch the face and grab it as if we are trying to rip the face off. If done correctly it should be possible to get the fingers to dig down into the eye sockets, and we'll pull on the zygomatic bone. The palm and the grabbing would be considered tiger. The Soft Jui Sao would be considered snake as it doesn't knock the arm away but softly redirects a punch and strikes forward.

Not saying you are wrong, just giving some more insight to Jow Ga.

 

[Phobius]

VT is the kung fu of YM. Other groups may also practice the kung fu of YM- that is their business.

Actually everyone practises VT here. Same as you and everyone practises WC.

Your system, and everyone else's system is named VT as well as WC. It is your lineage that is defined as WSLVT. To claim you do not have a lineage is wrong since you are very set on WSLPBVT is the only true VT. So the annoying part is not that you claim you practise YM VT, but making that statement is similar to someone saying "I train martial arts". What martial art they practise is important to those that are interested in a discussion.

There are many VT systems same as those are also WC systems. They are similar and many have an origin from YM. So this is why there is a need to define lineage or you make it impossible to discuss application, theory or techniques.

Another option is if you create your own style and name that style something special and trademark it. If you do, like for instance if VT is a trademarked name. In that case you can not call it VT and say it is what YM taught because YM did not own the trademarked name. In such a case you are training VT and it is not what YM taught because YM was not alive when the name was trademarked.

Life is easier for me, I train WT. It is not identical to what YM was teaching. It is a belief that it is an improvement in how to make WC/VT work for europeans. For bigger guys, and so on.

So your statement tries to imply that you got the secret juice from YM. Because your teachers teacher told you, as he was told by his teacher. Who in turn was learning from YM or perhaps told by his teacher who in turn read a quote from WSL and made interpretation as to what it must mean. It is rather funny but next time, add "WSL" for discussion purposes. Otherwise it is very hard to know if you are talking in generic terms about all lineages or specific to your WSLVT lineage or even WSLPBVT. And no they are not identical, there are quite a few interpretations already on WSLVT level.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Because your teachers teacher told you, as he was told by his teacher. Who in turn was learning from YM ...

It makes no sense for guy b, the 3rd (or the 4th?) generation under YM to tell someone XYZ, the 2nd generation under YM that he is right and XYZ is wrong.

YM -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
YM -> ??? -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
YM ->??? -> XYZ

Do we have any forum member who is the 1st generation under YM?

YM -> you

 

[LFJ]

All 3 of these YM's students had mentioned the "连削带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da)" as the following pictures. There is no way that all 3 can be wrong.

Another Appeal to Majority?

The majority of YM students didn't learn the free fighting aspect of VT.

The idea of LSDD has been repeatedly explained on this thread and it's still lost on you. You keep talking about using two arms against one, which is innefficient where the same goal can be achieved with one arm and is not a particularly special skill to learn.

打手亦是消手, the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm. LSDD means simultaneous, not block then punch. Put these together and it clearly means one arm, one beat, two functions.

Not our fault you never learned how to do that.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It makes no sense for guy b, the 3rd (or the 4th?) generation under YM to tell someone XYZ, the 2nd generation under YM that he is right and XYZ is wrong.

YM -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
YM -> ??? -> ??? -> ??? -> guy b
YM ->??? -> XYZ

Do we have any forum member who is the 1st generation under YM?

YM -> you

Does it matter if who is in which generation if the discussion is about a technique? Techniques are techniques and sharing other applications of similar techniques should be a win for everyone.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You keep talking about using two arms against one, which is innefficient

I'll chop your arm off and we'll see how efficient you'll be with one arm.

Come to think of it, Wing Chun is the biggest user of 2 hands. Chi Sao

Vs Tai Chi Push hands 0:00 -0:46

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Does it matter if who is in which generation if the discussion is about a technique? Techniques are techniques and sharing other applications of similar techniques should be a win for everyone.

If you have used a copy machine, you will know that if you copy A to A1, copy A1 to A2, copy A2 to A3, the quality of

A > A1 > A2 > A3

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

打手亦是消手, the striking arm is also the neutralizing arm. LSDD means simultaneous, not block then punch. Put these together and it clearly means one arm, one beat, two functions.

You assume you can use 1 arm to deal with your opponent's 2 arms. In the following picture, you assume that your left arm can

- pass your opponent's left arm,
- pass his right arm, and
- hit on his face,

without using your other arm at all. Do you have any clip to show what you are talking about?

- When you punch,
- your opponent arm is in your striking path,
- you try to use your punching arm to neutralize your opponent's blocking arm.

2 situations can happen here.

1. force against force - Your opponent uses his left blocking arm to resist your left neutralized arm.
2. yield and borrow force - your opponent yields into your left neutralizing force, borrows your neutralizing force, add on his force, and use his back right arm to redirect your left punching arm away.

In both cases, to assume that you can only use your left arm to achieve neutralizing and striking, and also pass his left defense arm and right defense arm, it's not an easy task. The reason is simple. Your opponent can neutralize your neutralizing force too.

 

[KPM]

VT is the kung fu of YM. Other groups may also practice the kung fu of YM- that is their business.



I believe I know why people don't like to discuss specifics. I'm not sure what your interest is to be honest.

So again,.....you seem to be saying that when you write "VT", you are referring to WSLVT. I've said it more than once, if you just took the effort to make 3 extra key strokes you would avoid a lot of conflict on these forums. But then, you don't care, do you? You like stirring people up and causing problems, don't you??

 

[KPM]

[Another Appeal to Majority?

---You guys are really something! Talk about arrogant! John mentioned 3 different students of Ip Man who understood a Tan Da as expressing LSDD. That certainly shows that SOMEONE taught them this concept this way. And they said it was Ip Man. This is just as good as you saying that WSL said something specific so it must be the gospel truth. Yet John has 3 saying the same thing. So yes, it is an appeal to majority, and it is perfectly valid!


The majority of YM students didn't learn the free fighting aspect of VT.

---Again, were you there?


The idea of LSDD has been repeatedly explained on this thread and it's still lost on you. You keep talking about using two arms against one, which is innefficient where the same goal can be achieved with one arm and is not a particularly special skill to learn.

---BS. Nothing is being lost on John or anyone else here. Everyone here but you and Guy just has a less narrow understanding of LSDD. But because WSLVT doesn't have Tan Da (at least according to you), then a Tan Da cannot possibly use the concept of LSDD as far you are concerned. And a Tan Da does not use two arms against one. It uses one arm against one while the other arm is striking through the opening created. But I've got news for you.....more appeal to majority here.....both Pin Sun Wing Chun and Tang Yik Weng Chun have a Tan Da and consider it simultaneous attack and defense! So just maybe the complete understanding of the concept is actually lost on you!


Not our fault you never learned how to do that.

---John never said he didn't learn to do that. He only said he has a wider understanding of how the concept can be applied than you do!