Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau

[LFJ]

Now you need to show what you mean about not having to defend the gates against any opponent ever. How is this achieved? Text does not convey your message because there are a million "What ifs" in regards to your text.

I said "4 gates", as in facing your opponent with a man/wu guard holding center.
That is already a strategy that spreads you too thin and leads to tactics like taan-da.

So far what you write sounds very close to: "if you do as I do you will never ever get hit!" which we all know is (Bah:censorship) 'not true' and that cant be what you mean.

Of course it isn't. Like a water fight, both parties are bound to get wet, but it's about increasing percentages in our favor to come away drier than the other guy.

 

[LFJ]

Yes. Why he thinks he doesn't need to worry about his own gates. Why he thinks that a real fight isn't a chaotic mess where you may need to cover yourself when you aren't in control of the situation...which may be often! Why he thinks that WSL never taught or did a Tan Da when there is clear photographic evidence that he did. Why he thinks it would be "inefficient" and "indirect" to use a Tan Da motion to cover against a wide punch while moving in with a punch of your own. The list could go on. But, again, this will go nowhere as has already been proven. So time to just move on to something else.

And why are you posting here again? You don't listen to the answers you are given. You believe what you want to believe based on photos rather than personal experience. And you're too cowardly to even defend your own methods in writing like Phobius has. Talk about a waste of time!

 

[guy b.]

I want to know more about how you can be so sure to never end up having to defend your gates.

Waiting for the crumbs?

 

[Phobius]

I said "4 gates", as in facing your opponent with a man/wu guard holding center.
That is already a strategy that spreads you too thin and leads to tactics like taan-da.

To be honest I find that guard a bit silly. Then again I am not a purist in terms of WC. For long range (where use of guard serves a point) I prefer to use a stance more similar to boxing. Reason being that I am far taller than most and would be stupid to not utilize my size to an advantage. There is a zone between WC and my guard however, the kicking distance, which means that my body structure is keeping internal tension for faster movement as taught in WC. It is not as messy as it sounds, just utilizing that position where I can hit you and you can not hit me (long arms) to better my own situation.

Once I get close enough, "WC range", I don't believe you (in this case me) really get a chance to use a guard. In this position there are punches and reactions. Standing still in some kind of guard at close range is like begging to get hit in the face. (I am not believing you can defend your face against a jab from man/wu sau in that range)

Of course it isn't. Like a water fight, both parties are bound to get wet, but it's about increasing percentages in our favor to come away drier than the other guy.

This is the whole problem to all arguments, discussions and verbal fighting in WC forums. "Increasing percentages" are what we strive for, all of us. The question that is open to debate is how to increase that percentage.

 

[guy b.]

Yes. Why he thinks he doesn't need to worry about his own gates. Why he thinks that a real fight isn't a chaotic mess where you may need to cover yourself when you aren't in control of the situation...which may be often! Why he thinks that WSL never taught or did a Tan Da when there is clear photographic evidence that he did. Why he thinks it would be "inefficient" and "indirect" to use a Tan Da motion to cover against a wide punch while moving in with a punch of your own. The list could go on. But, again, this will go nowhere as has already been proven. So time to just move on to something else.

If you cock up and have to cover there are much better ways to do it than a tan da. Lol at reactively covering incoming strikes with your hands way out in front of you instead of near your face! Wing chun is the strategy we impose upon opponent based on certain beliefs we share about fighting. Recovery methods in case of failure are something different.

Wing chun certainly not a bunch of techniques and training shapes busted out at random in response to things done by opponent with no strategic approach. That is like the opposite of wing chun. Complete misunderstanding.

Apart from that just another dishonest post regarding what LFJ has and hasn't said. Carry on!

 

[guy b.]

I shouldnt but this is just an arrogant troll post. If you have nothing valuable to add then leave room for LFJ instead. Cant even believe I am saying this.

It isn't aimed at you Phobius. You are discussing what you do and why. All good

 

[LFJ]

"Increasing percentages" are what we strive for, all of us. The question that is open to debate is how to increase that percentage.

That's what we're debating. Sitting in the middle trying to defend things all around us at once, as typical Wing Chun, is low percentage. Ever play Whack-a-mole? It's like trying to whack the moles that pop up with one arm while punching a center target at the same time with the other.

 

[guy b.]

That's what we're debating. Sitting in the middle trying to defend things all around us at once, as typical Wing Chun, is low percentage. Ever play Whack-a-mole? It's like trying to whack the moles that pop up with one arm while punching a center target at the same time with the other.

Very low percentage. Covering your head and running away would be a higher percentage approach

 

[JPinAZ]

That's what we're debating. Sitting in the middle trying to defend things all around us at once, as typical Wing Chun, is low percentage. Ever play Whack-a-mole? It's like trying to whack the moles that pop up with one arm while punching a center target at the same time with the other.

No one here (besides LFJ) is arguing that or saying anything of the sort. This is just another of the many straw man arguments being created by this poster. Looks like someone is trying to build their own straw-man terracotta army! LOL

If this LFJ's idea of what '4-gate' defense is about or how 'typical wing chun' operates, then I can fully understand why he argue against these things. Problem is, with statements like above, he only expose just how clueless he is on even the most basic ideas of WC Gate theory, what it's for, or anything regarding the rest of the WC world (aka 'typical WC') outside his very small bubble.

 

[KPM]

And why are you posting here again? You don't listen to the answers you are given. You believe what you want to believe based on photos rather than personal experience. And you're too cowardly to even defend your own methods in writing like Phobius has. Talk about a waste of time!

You and Guy are on a roll. So far you've both managed to call me a coward and a liar. Funny that I don't get that reaction from non-WSLVT people!

 

[KPM]

Waiting for the crumbs?

Your shoes are squishing!!!!

 

[Transk53]

Your shoes are squishing!!!!

Can't believe you have just been cited as being a coward. That is lemons below the belt. For the record, I have always enjoyed you're threads and posts.

 

[LFJ]

If this LFJ's idea of what '4-gate' defense is about or how 'typical wing chun' operates, then I can fully understand why he argue against these things. Problem is, with statements like above, he only expose just how clueless he is on even the most basic WC ideas like 4-gate concept, what it's for or anything regarding the rest of the WC world (aka 'typical WC') outside his very small bubble.

Walk into about any beginner Wing Chun class in the world, and this will be a typical 4-gate drill to see.

Of course you don't fight standing there like this, but it's introducing ideas for dividing space into 4 gates and these are ideas people take into fighting.

Some will hold center and defend what comes. We've been logically dismantling that approach.

Some will try to use "blind side" tactics to reduce chances for the opponent to attack all 4 gates, but then there is a whole host of problems with that approach too!

If this is a "straw man", you're welcome to post your method, in video or text, so I'm not misrepresenting it, and I'll tell you where exactly I don't agree and why. Unless of course you have a sound method. Then I'd love to hear it.

 

[guy b.]

If this LFJ's idea of what '4-gate' defense is about or how 'typical wing chun' operates, then I can fully understand why he argue against these things. Problem is, with statements like above, he only expose just how clueless he is on even the most basic ideas of WC Gate theory, what it's for, or anything regarding the rest of the WC world (aka 'typical WC') outside his very small bubble.

Please educate LFJ about how you approach gate theory and why he has it all wrong. I for one am getting sick of his arrogance in bringing logic and discussion to this forum! I will join you in sneering when you have put him in his place.

 

[guy b.]

You and Guy are on a roll. So far you've both managed to call me a coward and a liar.

That's because you are frequently dishonest and cowardly. I haven't seen anyone else here who behaves as you do and so haven't used those terms with anyone else. If you don't do it then I won't say it, if you do then I will. Simple.

 

[guy b.]

Your shoes are squishing!!!!

Lol at still hanging around the thread when you have been "done" with the discussion so many times and proven WSL's method to be just the same old stuff everyone does.

 

[JPinAZ]

The 2 posters that have been dragging down this forum lately arguing against ANY reply regardless how logical, constantly name calling, etc are now on ignore.
Problem solved. Ahhh, peace and quiet lol

 

[KPM]

Can't believe you have just been cited as being a coward. That is lemons below the belt. For the record, I have always enjoyed you're threads and posts.

Thanks man!

 

[geezer]

The 2 posters that have been dragging down this forum lately arguing against ANY reply regardless how logical, constantly name calling, etc are now on ignore.
Problem solved. Ahhh, peace and quiet lol

Yeah, for a while having some contrarian input seemed to liven things up, and the parties made some good points from time to time, or at least I thought so. But lately their input has become insulting and destructive IMO, and I'd really hate to see this forum wither away like that other one. I don't put anybody on "ignore" and I recommend others don't either. Instead, read, keep your cool, and report anything that violates our forum rules to Admin. Let's all work maintain a good, fun and productive WC forum.

 

[paitingman]

In action, it looks like "just a punch". That was a critique some made of WSL's fights. He "just punched and kicked". But that's what VT is!

It's subtle, not a technique. It is not in reference to what an opponent is doing and how I use my elbow or contort my arm to wedge them out this way or that depending on what they do. Without understanding overall strategy and tactics, you will be seeing "just a punch".

It's strategic. It's trained throughout the dummy form, which many take as techniques against an opponent. They see the arms as representing a human or punches. Rather it's a tool to refine our own actions within the limitations of our own structure.

Many are obsessed with occupying the center. So they hold their man/wu on the center and move straight forward with it, aiming to wedge things out. This breaks things into "4 gates" and they are forced to use one hand to defend one of these gates while the other hand punches. Inefficient. Or they are forced to make a detour and cut back in on an incoming attack because they are stuck on the center. Indirect.

It's more about spatial domination that doesn't require stubbornly occupying the center. The correct position and path of wu-sau is taught in CK where it forms a punching unit with bong-sau (aka kwan-sau). But people are too focused on application ideas that they entirely miss the strategic ones.

Rather than 4 gates, I want to cut that in half in such a way that I only need to use one arm with dual functions in direct attack, and two such arms in rotation to sustain an unthinking assault regardless what the opponent does. I don't want to defend with techniques at the mercy of my opponent. I will get set up. I want to protect space while attacking so that I need not think and decide which hand to use where. I want to impose upon the opponent, as guy b. says. Take their space and facing away, limiting their options for response.

I also don't want to let them turn me, as some lineages do. Overturning on one's own is hard enough not to do in the heat of a fight. Training against this begins in CK, where most focus on elbow strikes and other application ideas. We turn the opponent or if the opponent turns themselves, we let them overshoot, taking advantage of the mistake, and taking whichever side they expose. The opponent shows us how to hit them.

But in action, and to the untrained eye, you will only see "just a punch".

Alright, thanks!
I've only got two questions:
1. It's not a technique, it's more a strategy and overall approach right? but where does the elbow training in the forms discussed earlier in the thread fall in to all this? The elbow training is necessary to what part of the strategy?
2. In the photo you showed of Ip Man, what is in fact he doing/showing?