William Cheung's TWC

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . When you talk about facing, when someone tries to go round you you talk about stepping out perpendicularly so you stay in the original centre-to-centre position, no? Don't you teach just turning drills to keep them from getting round you, or something like sam gwok ma for cuttin ginto their path and say uprooting or taking their centre? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but the stepping out at right angles seems like a waste of a movement.

Not having a pop, just trying to get your way of doing it...

Victor wrote: "...So here’s a question: If I stood still but my opponent moved - would the central line change? NO. The central line as it has been defined is always the same horizontal plane in front of me. So if he moved to my right - I would take a lateral step to my right) - so as to CONTINUE FACING HIM in the ways already described.

In other words - I won’t allow him to outflank the central line positioning..."

Of course anything can happen in a fight but TWC never wants to face centerline to centerline. TWC is central line WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Quote:
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

"the elbows and knees are indeed control points.As is the head, Keith."

"Victor,
Are you taught to control first and then strike or strike first and then control?" (Tony Jacobs)

***In TWC one is taught to be able to do both – depending upon the situation. Sometimes a simple strike to an open target is the way to start taking control…at other times controlling the opponent’s elbow, knee, wrist, forearm, body positioning, balance, etc. will be the starting point one uses before actually delivering any strikes.

………………………………………….


1) "Why do you use east/west etc for the way you're facing? Since you have to explain it every time you use it's the same as saying 'your left', 'outside his right foot' etc, no? Just wondering... is it useful?

2) When you talk about facing, when someone tries to go round you - you talk about stepping out perpendicularly so you stay in the original centre-to-centre position, no? Don't you teach just turning drills to keep them from getting round you, or something like sam gwok ma for cutting into their path and say uprooting or taking their centre? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but the stepping out at right angles seems like a waste of a movement." (Mr. Punch)

***I'VE FOUND IT USEFUL because I've noticed it's just a little quicker way to describe direction to a student…(to simply say “north, south, east, west” - rather than to say "left, right, forward, backward"). Especially so when trying to describe 45 degree angles - which we use a lot in TWC (ie.- northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, etc.) Strictly arbitrary on my part.

As to your other points…No, I didn’t say to move perpendicularly – I said Laterally..(ie.- east or west). This cuts off the ring while maintaining the facing of my central line to his center-of-mass.

[anerlich]

Are you taught to control first and then strike or strike first and then control?

Always better to establish control before pressing the attack if possible. But also better to strike the other guy before he strikes you.

The head is certainly an excellent point of control, something any good wrestler knows.

Are you saying Kool Aid will stop your head being easily controlled?

It would seem that the one is more easily controlled after consuming the Koolaid.

Keith when you need an "opinion" involving an issue of your own health would you visit your local gas station attendant for his opinion or visit your doctor for his opinion.

Keith is a doctor, so he probably wouldn't need to bother anyone else and harangue them beoyond the point of decency and reason as to how or why they came to a conclusion.

If I WAS at the gas station, and I knew the attendant to shoot the breeze with, and it was an inconsequential issue (like this one) like a cold, I might ask him anyway. I wouldn't waste my or the doctor's time unless it of sufficient importance.

Pretty inappropriate analogy anyway. A doctor has certain independent peer reviewed qualifications, something pretty much absent in the WC world.

[Mr Punch]

Victor wrote: "...So here’s a question: If I stood still but my opponent moved - would the central line change? NO. The central line as it has been defined is always the same horizontal plane in front of me. So if he moved to my right - I would take a lateral step to my right) - so as to CONTINUE FACING HIM in the ways already described.

In other words - I won’t allow him to outflank the central line positioning..."

Of course anything can happen in a fight but TWC never wants to face centerline to centerline. TWC is central line WC.

See now, I don't get this description... that was the one I was looking at.

'So as to continue facing him in [that] way...' means keeping him to your north (to use Victor's expression), right? Which amounts to centreline to centreline, doesn't it?

[Mr Punch]

one is taught to be able to do both – depending upon the situation. Sometimes a simple strike to an open target is the way to start taking control…at other times controlling the opponent’s elbow, knee, wrist, forearm, body positioning, balance, etc. will be the starting point one uses before actually delivering any strikes.

This is an improtant point in WC in general I think: control most definitely doesn't have to be controlling by holding/grabbing/jerking/otherwise manipulating your opponent's limbs/head physically, but you can exercise a degree of control of him by footwork (cutting down the angles he can move easily in), hitting first (establishes a psychological control, apart from ideally disrupting his structure too) etc. It's a prime principle of wing chun (though not exclusively of course) and one that I've always aimed for - though much easier said than done!

... Strictly arbitrary on my part...

Fair enough, seems to work.

As to your other points…No, I didn’t say to move perpendicularly – I said Laterally..(ie.- east or west). This cuts off the ring while maintaining the facing of my central line to his center-of-mass.

I was taking this lateral move to mean the perpendicular of a line between you and your opponent. Whereas your laterally means that if he moves to your east, you still move directly east and thus clash/intercept him with your whole body positioning...? Would you say it's a priority of yours to turn so your opponent is to your north ASAP?

[Mr Punch]

If I WAS at the gas station, and I knew the attendant to shoot the breeze with, and it was an inconsequential issue (like this one) like a cold, I might ask him anyway.

That's interesting - I often have to ask my doctor about gas.

[anerlich]

That's interesting - I often have to ask my doctor about gas.

LOL. Cultivate it as a WMD.

Getting back to the head thing - having dome so many headlock escapes in BJJ and standup over the years, I'd prefer to get the head and another limb. Then again, I know a few guys who are really good at the plum, Thai head control.

[LSWCTN1]

LOL. Cultivate it as a WMD.

Then again, I know a few guys who are really good at the plum, Thai head control.

SORRY FOR THE SIDE NOTE!

i have found it useful in this situation to put my palms under their elbows and move their clinch structure backwards by moving forward, and up. of course it leaves your hands tied up - so your head flies in - almost always a knockout (i presume, by plum, that you mean thai clinch?)

[JPinAZ]

Victor, I am sorry I started all this and got your thread sidetracked.
Tony and Jp, I don't see why you are getting your panties in a wad over what I said...

Not sure what you're really talking about here, I wasn't upset about anything. Might want to go re-read my 3 posts on this thread. I was just either looking for better understanding on what you were talking about, or giving my own. But if you see me as getting my 'patties in a wad' well, nothing I can really do about that.

What I would be interested in is hearing more about your system you train. From the little I gather, it sounds like Hung Fa might be another interesting system that shares technology that also might be different that some of the YM lines. I would like to see some more info on Hung Fa personally (maybe another thread so not to take away from this one?)

Oh, no need to apologize to Vic, he said it was cool to talk about it

Jonathan

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I was taking this lateral move to mean the perpendicular of a line between you and your opponent. Whereas your laterally means that if he moves to your east, you still move directly east and thus clash/intercept him with your whole body positioning...?" (Mr. Punch)

***YES.


"Would you say it's a priority of yours to turn so your opponent is to your north ASAP?" (Mr. Punch)

***YES.

[Phil Redmond]

See now, I don't get this description... that was the one I was looking at.

'So as to continue facing him in [that] way...' means keeping him to your north (to use Victor's expression), right? Which amounts to centreline to centreline, doesn't it?

It means dissecting his body in half while facing my center line 45 degrees away and striking along my central line. I can make a short clip if you'd like.

[UKBBC]

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then). The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct? Please can you consider this situation:

A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor. Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...simple enough in the air and compliant feeding in practice...right?

My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes. This is in my brief experience in TWC, and perhaps the students I practiced with were doing it entirely wrong and badly, I don't know...but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence, I am not convinced they have enough stopping power, can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then). The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct? Please can you consider this situation:

A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor. Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...simple enough in the air and compliant feeding in practice...right?

My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes. This is in my brief experience in TWC, and perhaps the students I practiced with were doing it entirely wrong and badly, I don't know...but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence, I am not convinced they have enough stopping power, can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.

***FIRST the ball of the foot hits the floor - followed by the rest of the foot, as you step. So you end up with evenly distributed weight over the entire bottom of the foot.

Furthermore, in TWC we would never expect to be able to step to the outside of a rear cross and use a tan da. It would never happen unless the attacker is absolutely clueless...because it's too far (for the wing chun fighter) to travel - and a good boxer (fighter) would never throw the cross from so far away as to enable you to respond with an outside tan da.

[anerlich]

i have found it useful in this situation to put my palms under their elbows and move their clinch structure backwards by moving forward, and up. of course it leaves your hands tied up - so your head flies in - almost always a knockout (i presume, by plum, that you mean thai clinch?)

Yes, that's what I mean. You can also hold the elbows in place, level change, and shoot at the legs. Or hold one arm in a grip similar to a 2 on 1 and stop his knees by breaking his balance or with pointly elbows on the thigh. Or prise his jaw back (controlling the head) and swim through. Or ...

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong

So it would appear.

The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct?

I'd only fgive you 50% for that answer. You stay on the balls of your feet for mobility (boxers do this, and I assume you'll accept that they can hit hard as well). To strike, you need to ground yourself. The step I use for punching is similar to Jack Dempsey's "falling step".

My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes,

Incorrect. TWC relies on footwork, grounding and structure for striking power.

using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes.

The heels aren't enough on their own. You need to engage the calf muscles to fully develop forward power. That's how your legs are designed to work. Walk around on your heels all day and see how mobile and fast your are (not).

can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

We're continually taught the importance of engaging the legs and core in punching, and that the punch comes form the floor up, hip/elbow connection etc. etc.

Dare I say you haven't experienced enough of TWC to draw proper conclusions?

but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence

THey're not (not here, and I'm sure not at Vic's or Phil's either). Hopefully this misconception will keep you awake at night no longer.

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.

No small girl with half a brain is going to trade punches with a bigger guy if she can possibly avoid it in a defense situation. I suggest that the odds would be stacked against her even if she trained in one of "the majority of other Yip Man systems" which use the "deadly heel footwork" as well.

fault of the instructor, not mine then

I would suggest the responsibility of every person to ensure they are not labouring under misconceptions is primarily their own.

[Phil Redmond]

I have a query about TWC, having trained in it quite briefly, I may have some concepts wrong (fault of the instructor, not mine then). The footwork primarily places the weight on the ball of the foot, as opposed to the heel in the majority of other Yip Man systems, correct? Please can you consider this situation:

A small TWC practitioner, in fact, let's go as far to say a small female TWC practitioner, faces a strong male aggressor. Against a simple cross, the TWC practitioner steps to the outside with tan da and throws a flurry of chain punches to follow up...simple enough in the air and compliant feeding in practice...right?.

What Victor said.

My problem is that the small, female TWC practitioner, moving on the balls of her feet, relies mainly on pure arm strength in the strikes, and I really don't believe that she can deal enough damage without having rooted her stance, using her heels to add her bodyweight to the strikes. This is in my brief experience in TWC, and perhaps the students I practiced with were doing it entirely wrong and badly, I don't know...but if small weak girls are being taught this as self-defence, I am not convinced they have enough stopping power, can you elaborate if there is considerably more connection between the arms and the legs than I have experienced?

I can appreciate strong guys being able to knock me out...but not small girls/weak guys.

One of the things a good boxer/kickboxer/full contact fighter notices is if their opponent fights on his/her heels. They time when the opponent is on their heel then go for the knockout.