Wing Chun is not "attached" fighting

[Ultimatewingchun]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

[k gledhill]

agree, subtle differences in training focus, but HUGE variation in end result ...one being a fighter who has highly mobile, aggressive, tactical assault or Ter's way, "the way of the chortle,chortle, "choking hand" , chortle !"

[YouKnowWho]

I don't know which way is better:

- Punch on your opponent's face multiple times, or
- Pull your opponent in toward you and punch him once on his face.

Both machine gun and grenade all have their place in battle field.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I wouldn't expect to see too many one punch knockouts as you' re pulling someone into you with the other hand.

A one punch knockout is almost always a big bomb of a punch.

[YouKnowWho]

The head on collosion (3 + 2 = 5) always cause more damage than the rear end collosion (3 - 2 = 1).

[Liddel]

My fighting behaviour depends on my opponent but i will say for an art that spends so much time on contact drills it would be misleading to say that "Wing Chun is NOT attactched fighting" as much as it would be wrong to say that its "ONLY attached fighting"

Sticking/ attatchment/ contact ,however one puts it is only a means to an end.

I see exactly where your comming from with this but your running a fine line.

I chase the body (with punches) contact with the hands just seem to be a natural progression when i do this. If i fight a guy that i can controll only with punches then i dont force sticking actions, but the reality of fighting is that its going to happen 9.9 times out of 10.

The most common occurance in my sparring is i attack the head my opponent covers and retaliates and i have to deal with slipping trapping evading an attack to fire off my own.

Being attatched is just a natural bi product of my VT attacking stlye.

I will also say that i use the running punch as a contact attached method also in that the lowering retreating hand after landing is a means of pressing /clearing/ blocking my opponenets ability to cover and or use his hands to hit me back.

Thats my take Vic.

DREW

[Ultimatewingchun]

Alright, Drew...

Now this is where the rubber will probably hit the road on this thread.

Here's what I believe about wing chun: it's about hitting, and not "attachment" (other than momentary)...as I said on the first post.

But you pointed out something very pertinent when you said:

"If i fight a guy that i can controll only with punches then i dont force sticking actions, but the reality of fighting is that its going to happen 9.9 times out of 10.

The most common occurance in my sparring is i attack the head my opponent covers and retaliates and i have to deal with slipping trapping evading an attack to fire off my own.

Being attached is just a natural bi product of my VT attacking stlye."
................................

***AND IN MY OPINION, DREW... what you RIGHTFULLY describe as "the reality of fighting" is where wing chun ENDS and something else begins.

In other words, wing chun - pure and simple - and regardless of lineage...is about hitting, but when the reality of fighting kicks in...

and punching, angling, cutting, checking, etc. meets a skilled fighter who covers well - or perhaps a fighter who goes into an "attached" form of fighting of his own other than wing chun, like wrestling, grappling, etc...

now you MAY have to fight in an "attached" manner...but if so, you're no longer doing wing chun pure and simple...you're engaging in either some form of wrestling/grappling - or some hybrid (crosstrained) mix of wing chun with other arts.

Which is fine, but it's no longer wing chun by itself.

Let's just call it as it is. (As I said on a different thread, for example...a guillotine is a guillotine - and not something that I learned from bil jee).

Sure wing chun will often block, check, parry, redirect...even the occasional simultaneous (or near simultaneous) block and strike (lin sil die dar)...But wing chun, by itself, does not "chase" hands in order to "attach"...like some sort of "striking with grappling" system.

It's about HITTING the opponent until he's either down or out - with multiple punches....and all other limb-to-limb contact is there to serve that end by some sort of very momentary checking, pinning, lop, pak, gum, lan, tan, etc.

BECAUSE WING CHUN IS A STRIKING SYSTEM, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Now I know that there are people around here who may disagree with me about the need to crosstrain - because I believe wing chun is simply very close quarter striking, and very little else...and real fighting will often require more than what's in that tool box...

but as far as wing chun goes - pure and simple...I think that most of those same people and I can easily agree.

IT'S ABOUT HITTING, period.

[Phil Redmond]

The test is fighting against people outside of your comfort zone.

[YungChun]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

Good stuff!

And this..

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Bang on again..

And something T uses to show why *temporary* breaking of structure with striking is insufficient, when in fact the "checking" (actual VT "attachment") unbalance is just as temporary. But there is also the advanced leg work, this can "in theory" "control" as well..

Truly VT does not "attach" with the exception of T's favorite Jong move, perhaps his main tool along with the MMA stuff..

now you MAY have to fight in an "attached" manner...but if so, you're no longer doing wing chun pure and simple...you're engaging in either some form of wrestling/grappling - or some hybrid (crosstrained) mix of wing chun with other arts.

Exactly..

Of course it depends on exactly what is meant by "attached".. Generally moves that lock up, prevent natural (economical) transition to continuous striking is outside the realm of VT.

Let's just call it as it is. (As I said on a different thread, for example...a guillotine is a guillotine - and not something that I learned from bil jee).

Agreed.....

Sure wing chun will often block, check, parry, redirect...even the occasional simultaneous (or near simultaneous) block and strike (lin sil die dar)...But wing chun, by itself, does not "chase" hands in order to "attach"...like some sort of "striking with grappling" system.

Agreed and yet T says he does not chase hands, but by the standard definition it seems unlikely that he doesn't.

Reaching for "attachment" or reaching for a "trap" or reaching for a whatever IF it means you are not using that time to strike or attempt a strike means a lost beat in VT.. Also if the attachment means you have now trapped that hand you have also lost a beat.

The more they get in our way, the more "attachment" there will be..

Now, what the hell does ATTACHED mean? In VT there is precious little sustained sticking or attaching.. There are times when this could happen but then it's because they are/were fighting for the line, interrupting our attack and then still each move only stays for a moment. Sustained energy issuing could result from *hand replacement* but even then it is a string of multiple short controls not a sustained attachment..

If you are attached to their bridge and they leave the line AND you remain attached as they leave the line you are taking that arm/weapon out of the fight.. This is why VT lets them go and instead of chasing fires the weapon.. Not chasing hands is where many chances to use their force against them comes in.. If you need *sustained* control then a smaller person will have even more trouble because sustained control and momentary control are two different animals, sustained requires more energy and power, VT is about less energy, more economy.

In their attempt to interrupt the attack they will leave the line, this offers an opportunity for position and attack to win over strength and speed. Not to say you might not use some move or tactic once inside to hold and hit them but it is the exception rather than the rule. VT wants to move on to the next strike, to the next finishing move, to the next threat..

In most cases the movements of VT are intended to keep the flow of attack landing on their head.. And doing so in most cases will serve nicely to control them as blast after blast lands on their face/head... And of course there are other attacks and controls that can happen down below with the legs while you keep the attack coming upstairs..

IMO T thinks the strikes have little power because he is trying to pin their bridge with his elbow while hitting with that same arm, and/or his mechanics bite..

It's--The attacking hand defends NOT the controlling hand defends..

[k gledhill]

agree again, SLT starts with a striking line made a certain way to further a technique, then we make strikes with either arm along this line made for reference before each form.

drilling starts with learning basic striking methods tan & jum

many start the basic striking drills as an attached rolling , feeling drill , being led into another way of thinking...attachment.

then take this attached idea to double attached arms feeling, rolling, rather than developing the stability of the stances in motion fighting , with lat sao chit chung developed as well as ambidextrous facing ability. We develop ambidextrous timing for strikes and parry in 1 beat strike/deflections, pak da, jut da, gum da, bong jut , bong lop, bong pak, outside pak inside pak....simply using each other for target practice, timing and ambidexterity ....not to use as the 'way' to sparring /fighting. Fighting is not to be attached , facing squarely in the basic stance ....

We want to try to turn the opponent, this can be achieved several ways.

imagine a flowing torrent of water aimed at you as you tried to move out of its way....this is what you should feel like when having vT come at you....not a hands on standing grapple or hands on shoving sumoesque stuff. A lot of this is from simple lack of focus on striking attacks or how to MAINTAIN striking attacks beyond chain punch lead leg bs...

Many grapple/grab simply to try to stop the other guy hitting them Ive had guys do that in chi-sao when they couldnt stop me landing hits [controlled] so they do what they have to. They cover up, this is what po-pi shoves are for..to shove with just enough force to put them into your striking range ideally, or down a flight of stairs
...

on the flip side having done the attached method too... from another teacher. When you feel the striking attack compared to the 'attached' way. you know which you would prefer to fight attached is slow and easily thwarted because you can lead the arms like a donkey to carrot, here donkey donkey ...hand for you to attach to, then its gone, and now the hand is over here...now here...they want to touch your hands first. So naturally will use what ? hands first...
As opposed to developed striking techniques that allow deflection as you strike the head
with out sacrificing the hands as you attack...because you made the forearms be the second set of hands, unseen by the opponent, all developed by controlling the angles and positions of the ELBOWS, SLT is ELBOWS...it looks like we are delivering simple strikes to the onlooker, but the recipient feels overwhelmed and controlled AS THEY are hit...and im not talking about a chain punch attack with lead leg kamikaze style either.

very subtle but has to be felt , words dont convey the idea as well as experiencing it.

[YungChun]

imagine a flowing torrent of water aimed at you as you tried to move out of its way....this is what you should feel like when having vT come at you....

This is a good way of seeing the tactical idea on many levels.. I say like the power of a high pressure fire hose..

I always used this as a "direction" in training and fighting with VT along with the other elements of the art. There's more to it but this gets to the thrust of the idea..

[LSWCTN1]

IMHO

we train to do a higher percentage of fighting attached for a reason.

of course timing, speed and power can all be trained, but in terms of producing a % of people that can perform all three of the effortlessly we still lag a long way behind many other combat arts, especially boxing.

therefore staying attached is our forte, and we use it do receive the attacks from an opponent and to deliver our own.

you dont necessarily always need to be stuck to do so i guess, a bit like this short discussion between T and I
http://martial.securesites.net/forum...&postcount=242

for example, 4/6 of class time at my school is sticky, the rest is gor sau.

i dont mean chi sau, i mean learning to receive and retain

[YungChun]

IMHO

we train to do a higher percentage of fighting attached for a reason.

of course timing, speed and power can all be trained, but in terms of producing a % of people that can perform all three of the effortlessly we still lag a long way behind many other combat arts, especially boxing.

therefore staying attached is our forte, and we use it do receive the attacks from an opponent and to deliver our own.

you dont necessarily always need to be stuck to do so i guess, a bit like this short discussion between T and I
http://martial.securesites.net/forum...&postcount=242

for example, 4/6 of class time at my school is sticky, the rest is gor sau.

i dont mean chi sau, i mean learning to receive and retain

Hard to know what you are actually addressing, lots of vague generalities here.

Got video?

[HumbleWCGuy]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

I believe that attaching as in grappling systems such as Muay Thai, wrestling, and Judo is a logical extension of WC principles especially for larger fighters. I believe that WC is at its best when these techniques are employed.

However, I agree with your general premise that WC isn't attached fighting. I don't think that referring to WC as attached fighting really represents what the art is even with the narrowest definition. I also am uncomfortable with the notion that trapping has come to represent what WC is to a lot of laymen. To me, WC is an art of kicking and punching like any other upright art with a few tweaks that give it a unique flavor.

[t_niehoff]

...it's about hitting the opponent.

Victor, I am sorry that you never learned the WCK method (faat) or kuit.

Of course we want to hit -- but even more important than hitting is NOT BEING HIT. WCK provides us a METHOD (faat) for being able to hit while not being hit. And that is to control the opponent while you strike him.

And any bridging that involves limb-to-limb or body contact is always meant to be very momentary...

because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc...is about striking your opponent multiple times, hopefully on the way to a knockout, or a knock down, which ever comes first.

What do you think your opponent will be doing while you try to strike him multiple times? Just twiddling his thumbs? No, he will be either hitting you back or moving to control you. This is what happens when you fight.

And if coming in to strike means you need to clear some arms/hands that are in the way - then...momentarily....that's what you should do - so as to be able to hit a hard target, preferably multiple times. And if you're "checking" an opponent's arm (a more accurate term than "trapping")...then you can't expect that to be anything more than momentary with the check either, ie.- lop, pak, gum, lan, etc.

If you are not controlling an opponent then he is free to move -- and so you will need to deal with his offensive action. If you control him, we will not be free to move, and will need to first get out of your control to make an offensive action.

The method comes from the ancestors -- dap (join/ride) is the first of the method. Our signature drill/exercise is a contact/attached drill. Why have a contact/attached drill to only deal with "momentary" contact?

And if that "checking" (or striking, or pressuring) results in some unbalancing of the opponent - then that's momentary also.

Because wing chun/ving tsun/wing tsun, etc. is not about "attaching" to the opponent - similar to a grappling system. No, it's about hitting, and not getting hit - and not allowing the opponent to grab you, ie.- "attach" himself to one or more of your limbs, or your body or your head.

It's about hitting.

You are doing what I call WCK kickboxing -- using a kickboxing "structure" to apply your WCK tools. That doesn't work, and it isn't WCK's method or "structure". The method (faat) is basic level WCK, it is the organizing principle of everything in WCK, it is the map of how you put the pieces of the puzzle together. You seem to be missing some very large parts of the WCK curriculum.