What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[guy b]

Now, now, now. That's a just trolling. You asked, "Why is your goal chasing hands?" ...in response, how about this: "Hey Guy, when did you stop beating your wife?"

It's not trolling because I honestly don't want another response from Juany. I would prefer him to stop typing. I guess it is more frustration than anything else. It is extremely tiring answering questions from people who don't understand what you are talking about

 

[geezer]

It is extremely tiring answering questions from people who don't understand what you are talking about

Honestly I couldn't agree more.





Now you know how so many of the rest of us feel!

 

[Juany118]

For those who are interested in a different "concept based" use of bong sau that is absolutely NOT "1:1 application" oriented, I will again throw out the "WT" approach to bong sau. The underlying concepts, which apply to the way we move the entire body from arms to stance and steps, are basically as follows:


1. Maintain forward intent.

2. Be elastic and springy, compressing with force received and snapping forward when released (basically loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung).

3. Follow your opponent's center.

4. Do not try to execute a pre-conceived technique. Your opponent will show you how to hit him!



If you apply these concepts, you will use your opponent's incoming energy and form a bong (essentially='bent spring") as needed (loi lau hoi sung). Depending on the situation and energy received, that bong will move with your opponent's energy to deflect his force to the side, upwards and aside, or downwards and aside.

--As the incoming energy is released, it slips free and snaps forward as a fak-sau, a punch, etc. (lat sau jik chung).

--Or, if your opponent crashes into you, his energy may bend your bong double and you release your energy back at him as an elbow strike.

--Or if he grapples your arm at the wrist and elbow yanking it downward... perhaps you can release your energy with a shoulder punch.

In short, the techniques can be infinite and as such are unimportant. The process and effect is the same if you follow the concepts. We are not talking about techniques at all, but about a way of moving, of receiving and returning energy.

Now we all know that LFJ and Guy reject this particular approach as useless and impractical, basically discounting it as a method "born of too much chi-sau and not enough fighting". Whatever. My point is simply that this is another example of concept-based rather than technique-based movement.

....Of course it may not be so universal or optimal as some other approaches!

This is exactly it. The only thing I would add is that preconceived intent is not simply saying "I will perform maneuver X but also saying "I will not perform..."

One of the prime tenets of WC is achieving your goal regarding your opponent as quickly as possible. If you have preconcieved notions of how to achieve this goal, or how not, you will not achieve the goal as swiftly not only because you add thought to the process (of course you must think/visualize the goal itself) but because in requiring or denying particular techniques inevitably you add steps and/or transitions from technique to technique that are less efficient. Why open the way for a punch if your opponent is kind enough to leave his lead leg vulnerable to a kick to the knee cap?

 

[Juany118]

It's not trolling because I honestly don't want another response from Juany. I would prefer him to stop typing. I guess it is more frustration than anything else. It is extremely tiring answering questions from people who don't understand what you are talking about

Sometimes frustration is born of people understanding, they simply disagree with the foundation of the premise. We all agree speed and efficiency are the key to WC/VT. We all believe that one should simply react to achieve our goal. The problem is many of us believe that planning is not simply limited to saying "I will do this next" but also "I will not do this". Additionally some of us believe that WC is not simply about punching.

The only time these issues become a matter of "they don't understand" is when someone dogmatically adheres to their position and sees it as the right way. That however is an artifact of your opinion, not an objective truth.

If the above wasn't he case why are there so many different schools of WC/VT all claiming the same Lineage from YM. Perhaps more interestingly why, from reading this thread, is there debate inside WSL/VT itself? Otherwise why dismiss Sifus within that specific branch?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to

- put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.
- Since your Tan Shou is already close to your opponent's face while your back hand is next to your elbow, when your opponent punches you, you can change your Tan Shou into chain punches and attack his face from that short distance.
- ...

If you

- can make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a good WC guy.
- can't make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a bad WC guy.

 

[Juany118]

To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to

- put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.
- Since your Tan Shou is already close to your opponent's face while your back hand is next to your elbow, when your opponent punches you, you can change your Tan Shou into chain punches and attack his face from that short distance.
- ...

If you

- can make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a good WC guy.
- can't make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a bad WC guy.

That is certainly part of the basic foundation but I kinda see saying that as saying "if you can add 4*4=16 you are good at math.". There is much more to WC. Not as broad as mathematics of course, but a lot more none the less

 

[geezer]

To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to

- put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.
- Since your Tan Shou is already close to your opponent's face while your back hand is next to your elbow, when your opponent punches you, you can change your Tan Shou into chain punches and attack his face from that short distance.
- ...

If you

- can make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a good WC guy.
- can't make this "concept" to work in fighting, you are a bad WC guy.

OK, if you had to boil the system down to one simple example, this would illustrate it as well as anything.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Of course WC has more. But the WC principle that I have just mentioned is quite unique among all CMA systems. For the others principles, you may be able to find through some other CMA systems.

 

[LFJ]

1. Obviously these principles (at least as you understand them) are not so universal if only your PB-WSL-VT lineage reliably applies them.

I'm not a PB follower, and directness and efficiency principles are recognized by every WC lineage I know of, although many unwittingly violate them.

2. "Optimally functional" is just a more latinate and sophisticated-sounding way of saying "My way is the best!".

Didn't say anything about "my way". For any WC lineage to function optimally, directness and efficiency principles must be adhered to. I don't know of any lineage that would disagree with this.

 

[LFJ]

If you have preconcieved notions of how to achieve this goal, or how not, you will not achieve the goal as swiftly not only because you add thought to the process (of course you must think/visualize the goal itself) but because in requiring or denying particular techniques inevitably you add steps and/or transitions from technique to technique that are less efficient.

Are directness and efficiency preconceived notions of how or how not to achieve the goal? Are you rejecting foundational principles?

Through proper training that adheres to these principles, your body will automatically know when to use what, or not, without thought. It's not a matter of thinking "this would be good or bad right now" in the middle of a fight.

Why open the way for a punch if your opponent is kind enough to leave his lead leg vulnerable to a kick to the knee cap?

Your Wing Chun can't use hands and feet together to attack high and low simultaneously?

 

[LFJ]

To me, the main "concept" of the WC system is to

- put your Tan Shou in your opponent's striking path. Any of his punches can be deflected easily with your minimum Tan Shou side way movement.

Sideways movement with a taan to deflect punches?

Hand-chasing. That's your main concept?!

 

[Juany118]

Are directness and efficiency preconceived notions of how or how not to achieve the goal? Are you rejecting foundational principles?

Through proper training that adheres to these principles, your body will automatically know when to use what, or not, without thought. It's not a matter of thinking "this would be good or bad right now" in the middle of a fight.



Your Wing Chun can't use hands and feet together to attack high and low simultaneously?

Glad to see you are willing to argue for argument's sake

The first half is a strawman argument because I am not arguing against the foundational principles at all. I am actually saying exactly what you say here. You are trying to create the appearance of otherwise however because of our on going disagreement.

As for the last, of course I can. However if my opponent is bladed and we are facing each other, as I envisioned in the scenario, something called geometry gets in the way. If I can kick his leading leg in the knee cap I likely can't punch him. Him you noticed I said "open the way" first, which implies having to close with the opponent. Now I will still have my forward intent after the kick, in the event I do not hyperextend the knee of shear the knee cap, and thus be able to follow up by opening the way and performing hand strikes.

I get that at this point you are simply trying to question absolutely anything said by those who disagree with you. Whether it is to troll or some other reason I don't know. Regardless what I do not get is this. There is no single universal school of thought on WC/VT. Even under the UK lineage, his living students are divided on aspects and far too many of their followers argue over superiority. It spreads even further when you look at the schools of thought created by his students that have left us. WSL/VT is a perfect example as there the students of WSL are divided among themselves with the same type of arguments I refer to above.

In such an environment arguing what is "right" WC is pointless. Beyond the foundational principles and the form/shape of the individual techniques, Your WC/VT will not be my WC. My WC will not be Geezers and Geezer's will Nobody's. This even occurs among people who share the same school of thought because even if that is he same we can not help but bring some degree of personal idiosyncrasies into what we do. As such to quibble over a single technique and it's "proper place", especially when you dealing with people trained under different schools of though is useless, unless you have some desire to say "I am right, you are wrong, I am better, my WC/VT is better" and that to me goes against the very philosophy of an art that purports to be conceptual.

The way such arguments should be resolved, again so long as the foundational principles are adhered to, is to "agree to disagree" and move the hell on.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sideways movement with a taan to deflect punches?

Hand-chasing. That's your main concept?!

The side way movement that you guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm exists in many other CMA styles. IMO, that's not a unique principle only used in WC.

I'm not chasing my opponent's hands. I'm chasing his head. But before I can get to his head, I want to make sure that his hands won't give me any trouble. I want to create a "safe path" between his arms before I can get to his head. Since I have to deal with both of his arms, I will need to use both of my arms to feel where his arms are. It's like to "hold on handrail to go downstairs".

 

[Juany118]

Sideways movement with a taan to deflect punches?

Hand-chasing. That's your main concept?!

I believe he is referring to sideways movement AFTER contact is made. If so, while, I might not typically do such a thing (I am opening my center), the tan isn't hand chasing, you are simply moving your arm and as a consequence the opponent's arm moves. So if you want to use a "chasing" type description the opponent's move follows the path of your arm.

Again I wouldn't do that since, as described, I fear it would open my center, instead I would spiral into a bong so my hand stayed in a closer position on my centerline but that's just me, I have seen others do what he describes and it works. You really seem to jump to 2 retorts reflexively, "hand chasing" and "1:1" even when they are clearly not applicable.

 

[LFJ]

The way such arguments should be resolved, again so long as the foundational principles are adhered to, is to "agree to disagree" and move the hell on.

My argument is not a matter of specific tactics being subjectively right or wrong. I'm addressing issues I see where foundational principles are being violated.

If I can kick his leading leg in the knee cap I likely can't punch him.

Why not? Depends on your position. Are you playing straight-line with them?

Him you noticed I said "open the way" first, which implies having to close with the opponent.

You said nothing about being out of range initially. Being in close range doesn't mean the way is open.

I'm not chasing my opponent's hands. I'm chasing his head. But before I can get to his head, I want to make sure that his hands won't give me any trouble. I want to create a "safe path" between his arms before I can get to his head.

You aren't chasing his head if you are pressing his hand off to the side and then moving forward to strike. What you are doing is indirect and inefficient.

The same goal can be achieved with a direct counter punch that automatically clears the line displacing his arm while striking in one beat.

We've had this discussion before, but you're still doing block then punch. This is a violation of directness and efficiency principles, or lin-siu-daai-da.

I believe he is referring to sideways movement AFTER contact is made.

Doesn't matter. Messing with an arm sideways with the intent to defend then attack is hand-chasing, not center-chasing.

You really seem to jump to 2 retorts reflexively, "hand chasing" and "1:1" even when they are clearly not applicable.

Not reflexively. I only call it as it's presented. If it were not hand-chasing or 1:1, I wouldn't say so.

 

[LFJ]

@Juany118

It just dawned on me that perhaps the reason you're unable to follow my posts is because you do Cheung's style. That is probably the biggest hand-chasing style I've seen. The entire strategy is about moving out, keeping distance, and reaching out to control the opponent's arms. There's no eating space and smothering the opponent with center-chasing attacks.

This is not meant as a bash on your style, but an attempt to show you where I'm coming from when I talk about hand-chasing, with an example of something you probably understand.

I don't know if this is representative of what you do, but I believe he's a respected elder of the Cheung lineage. So, here we go...

As a first response to a single punch, he does jat, hyun, and paak before counter striking. Never mind the fact that a jat like that is just pulling the second punch into his face, asking to get knocked out, that's 3 defensive actions against one before hitting back.

Because he has crossed himself by doing jat to the inside of the opponent's arm, he then has to correct his wilful mistake with a hyun to get to the outside. Then instead of punching simultaneously with the opposite hand, he adds yet another defensive step to the same arm by doing a paak to check it while he gives a body shot.

He's so focused on controlling the arm he's doing all this stuff to that he's completely unaware of the opponent's second hand that would be coming in right after his arm-chasing jat rendering all this stuff useless. He would not even get to the second step.

Now, if you can look at this and think it's not clearly the textbook definition of arm-chasing, I can see why we're not on the same page.

I think if you looked up arm-chasing in a Wing Chun dictionary you'd see these still images. In the last one, he's doing paak down and to the inside, so focussed on controlling that one arm that he's trading a low palm strike for a knockout punch to the face.

Can't get any more arm-chasing than this. And that's just one example. Open any video of Cheung style and they're stepping out, keeping a gap between them, and reaching out to control arms. Practically everything they do is arm-chasing.

 

[Juany118]

@Juany118

It just dawned on me that perhaps the reason you're unable to follow my posts is because you do Cheung's style. That is probably the biggest hand-chasing style I've seen. The entire strategy is about moving out, keeping distance, and reaching out to control the opponent's arms. There's no eating space and smothering the opponent with center-chasing attacks.

This is not meant as a bash on your style, but an attempt to show you where I'm coming from when I talk about hand-chasing, with an example of something you probably understand.

I don't know if this is representative of what you do, but I believe he's a respected elder of the Cheung lineage. So, here we go...

As a first response to a single punch, he does jat, hyun, and paak before counter striking. Never mind the fact that a jat like that is just pulling the second punch into his face, asking to get knocked out, that's 3 defensive actions against one before hitting back.

Because he has crossed himself by doing jat to the inside of the opponent's arm, he then has to correct his wilful mistake with a hyun to get to the outside. Then instead of punching simultaneously with the opposite hand, he adds yet another defensive step to the same arm by doing a paak to check it while he gives a body shot.

He's so focused on controlling the arm he's doing all this stuff to that he's completely unaware of the opponent's second hand that would be coming in right after his arm-chasing jat rendering all this stuff useless. He would not even get to the second step.

Now, if you can look at this and think it's not clearly the textbook definition of arm-chasing, I can see why we're not on the same page.

I think if you looked up arm-chasing in a Wing Chun dictionary you'd see these still images. In the last one, he's doing paak down and to the inside, so focussed on controlling that one arm that he's trading a low palm strike for a knockout punch to the face.

Can't get any more arm-chasing than this. And that's just one example. Open any video of Cheung style and they're stepping out, keeping a gap between them, and reaching out to control arms. Practically everything they do is arm-chasing.

Hmmm that's odd because my Sifu is a Student of Sifu Keith Mazza (closed door student of and the the USA Rep for GM Cheung) we are taught exactly what you are taught. No backing up, always go in, circle to the blind side if possible, but always go in (if possible, sometimes the other guy is better and yeah it's time to reevaluate) and absolutely no hand chasing, if we do its our ***.

Hell one night I was sloppy because I hadn't slept in 20 hours. I kept using Kali zoning (triangle steps on the outside of the opponent) because before class I was doing Kali drills not knowing we had a guest instructor from Sifu Keith's school present and the exhaustion just had my brain on autopilot. Our guest asked "what are you doing? We always go in" and I corrected myself. I actually noted this experience on the thread started by Geezer about what other arts, other than Wing Chun, do you study a day or two ago, I just neglected the state of exhaustion that contributed to the sloppiness.

I would suggest that videos from YouTube are likely not the best choice to use to pump up or put down a system as they are far from dynamic and ofte. only serve, at best to demonstrate the possible functions of techniques, THE real uses, or the guy can just suck.

By the bit about possible uses I mean method. It's not enough to just teach the forms as then say "open the way and punch". A teacher has to explain and demonstrate the various functions of the techniques in a static way initially so students can visualize how they work. Then through training and experience, the development of muscle memory, you then simply do what works for the given moment. About the only thing that you MAY call "hand chasing" that we have is a motto. "Touch one hand and look for the other" but hat mantra is simply a way to say "you know where the hand is that you can feel, be aware another attack will be coming" so you do not get sloppy and lower your guard.

A better judge? Head on down to Maryland in July for U.S. International Kuo Shu Championship Tournament | USKSF and watch the competition's. Saturday afternoon is a knockout fest for those who arent doing it right.

 

[LFJ]

Well, I see the same stuff from Cheung himself. So.. Shall we look at some of his instead?

Even when, especially when, showing ideas to beginners I would never use such hand-chasing tactics.

Whether or not someone can make it work at some point against someone doesn't mean it isn't far from optimal, since it's a serious violation of directness and efficiency principles.

More direct and more efficient would certainly make it more functional against a wider range of skilled fighters.

 

[Juany118]

Well, I see the same stuff from Cheung himself. So.. Shall we look at some of his instead?

Even when, especially when, showing ideas to beginners I would never use such hand-chasing tactics.

Whether or not someone can make it work at some point against someone doesn't mean it isn't far from optimal, since it's a serious violation of directness and efficiency principles.

More direct and more efficient would certainly make it more functional against a wider range of skilled fighters.

I added an addition to my previous response but I will repeat it here. I think you are confusing teaching method with application. One can teach "you can address this attack like so, or so, or like so in order to close with the opponent" simply to illustrate possible applications of the techniques from the forms. You need this to actually understand the use of the art imo. Once the muscle memory is built in through proper training, application becomes far more automatic, you do what works for the immediate circumstances.

No striking art I am familiar with teaches hand chasing as APPLICATION. WC is unique in many ways but not in this, which is why I am puzzled by the argument in the first place. That simply doesn't work in a real fight BUT different arts, or schools of thought, have different methods in which they teach the possible applications, at what pace they allow students to start "exploring" the real applications of the art etc. This is what, imo at least YouTube training videos are for. If you can show me instructional videos from a Sifu you recommend that illustrate a different principle of learning I would like to see them.

 

[Callen]

It just dawned on me that perhaps the reason you're unable to follow my posts is because you do Cheung's style. That is probably the biggest hand-chasing style I've seen...

Really? There's no need for this. I'm sure someone of your caliber can make your points without picking out what you believe are the deficiencies of other lineages.