What was Wing Chun designed for?

[DanT]

Hopefully to make it better.

It doesn't need improving, it's a method that works. Your wing chun needs improving tho. Practice that more before complaining.

 

[drop bear]

Go to Wimbledon and play tennis with a golf club and see what happens.

Donald Bradman traditionally played cricket with a stump as a child.

That grounding potentially made him the best cricketer of his time.

 

[drop bear]

It doesn't need improving, it's a method that works. Your wing chun needs improving tho. Practice that more before complaining.

It is not about complaining it is about innovation. Not being satisfied with works. But striving for works better.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, if you are referring to me, I think you have missed my point and have not followed my premise very well. First, Wing Chun works great for what it was designed for! And that's close range fighting. I have suggested that Wing Chun can be made even more effective by giving it a "long range game." Numerous people seem to have had difficulty grasping the fact that having a "long range game" is different from having a strategy to survive at long range long enough to be able to close the gap into the preferred "close range game." Wing Chun guys typically just step into close range and start going at it. You see this a LOT in clips of Wing Chun guys free-sparring. Just look for yourself. Having a "long range game" means you can conduct the entire fight from long range. That clearly is not what Wing Chun was designed to do nor optimized for. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm sure plenty of people are perfectly happy with that. But what I don't understand is why so many people seem to want to deny all of this. Including you, and you don't even do Wing Chun!

Now sure, one could just expect to improvise and use "natural body motion" when caught out at long range and might do fine. Someone could be confident in their close range skills and their ability to move into close range and might do fine. But another option is to actually train a method that does have a good "long range game." Maybe that's for you. Maybe not. But to deny the value of doing something like that just seems absurd. To think that Wing Chun can do just as well at long range (something it wasn't designed for) as a method was actually designed for long range just seems absurd.

My premise hasn't been that Wing Chun is worthless and ineffective. My premise has been that there is room for improvement. Room for an "upgrade." Room for some "modernization." Do I expect that everyone will want to or feel the need to "modernize" their Wing Chun? Of course not! But I also don't expect people to flat out deny that there is potential to do such a thing.

I studied wing chun for four or five years, and continued to practice my forms for a few years after that. I have not practiced wing chun since about 2010, but I have some familiarity with it.

So where do you draw the line in defining a long range vs. a short range?

 

[LFJ]

Yeah, honestly I find these wing chun threads weird because it looks to me like a bunch of wing chun folks insisting that wing chun is nothing but holes and gaps and shortcomings in the method. If people feel that way, then why do they train wing chun? Go do some other method that they have more faith in.

That's what I'd been saying about most Yip Man derivatives, and people blew up and called me an elitist jerk for pointing how and why certain systems are "broken"...

But then, these same people turn around and start making threads admitting exactly what I'd been saying!

Quite amusing, really...

 

[Juany118]

I think the problem here is that people see Wing Chun as something monolithic. It isn't, WC has almost as many different Lineages as Karate if you account for Main Land Lineages and then the numerous YM sub lineages and this creates issues. As an example...

1. Some have grappling some don't.
2. Some have round kicks some don't.
3. Some have round punches (tight round punches) some don't.
4. Some kick above the waist some don't and this can get compounded by #3.

I could go on but I think, for issues like what we saw here we need to do what has even been acknowledged by the OP. The WC I am dedicated to doesn't follow the same rules that some around here see as set. I am far from unique. So maybe we need to first post our perspective born of the WC we study, then raise the "issue".

 

[Phobius]

---Is that not rather unusual for the Wing Tsun lineage? I"ve heard plenty of other WT people talk about the advanced footwork being in the knife form but having to be darn near at the "Master" level before ever actually being taught the knife form.

Nothing in WT or even WC is ever simple. However take away desire to charge money for knowledge and many WT clubs/practitioners probably introduce things a lot quicker. I am certain this is not unique to my situation.

---If that were true, why would so many MMA fighter also be doing what is essentially boxing footwork????

Either something is or it isn't. But I think most do MT footwork. Western boxing is too wide sometimes and not as effective in deflecting or handling kicking.

It is perfect for its purpose though.

But MT footwork is not WB and yet it might be if that is what their teacher teaches. Footwork is not something that follows a blueprint.

It is more of a good enough list of dos and donts on long range. It creates unique style in everyone and yet it is not anything goes because structure and good form needs to be kept.

Experiment but don't add just WB footwork as if being a technique. Train it as they do and be aware that you may or may not incorporate bad habits because they do not consider kicks.

 

[KPM]

That's what I'd been saying about most Yip Man derivatives, and people blew up and called me an elitist jerk for pointing how and why certain systems are "broken"...

But then, these same people turn around and start making threads admitting exactly what I'd been saying!

Quite amusing, really...

But then, you have no evidence and can provide no proof that your version of Wing Chun is any different. And you go on and on about how "broke" everyone else is but come up short when asked to show what you do differently to prove that yours isn't "broken." Quite amusing, really......

 

[KPM]

Either something is or it isn't. But I think most do MT footwork.

----No. That is incorrect. Not even the MT-based guys are doing strictly MT footwork. They have incorporated a lot of boxing to improve their punching skills and with that comes bobbing, weaving, ducking, angling to get punches, etc. that are boxing footwork.

Western boxing is too wide sometimes and not as effective in deflecting or handling kicking.

---Boxers only have a hard time handling kicking if they haven't trained against kicking. Why would you assume that a footwork system that is very mobile and evasive would have a problem with kicking?

 

[KPM]

I studied wing chun for four or five years, and continued to practice my forms for a few years after that. I have not practiced wing chun since about 2010, but I have some familiarity with it.

---Good to know! Didn't realize that.

So where do you draw the line in defining a long range vs. a short range?

---I've posted a brief description of the "long range game" twice now on two different threads. But as far as "drawing a line".....generally speaking, of course for punching styles.....close range is essentially going to be where you can reach the opponent with both hands at the same time without having to move in. This is Chi Sau range for Wing Chun or clinch range for boxing. Middle range is where you can reach with an extended lead punch with only a small step if any but aren't quite close enough to lay both hands on the opponent. This is the "stand toe to toe and punch" range for Boxing. Long range is where you aren't close enough to contact with a strike at all.....kick or punch. This is the range where you are moving around the opponent to set something up or to avoid contact. Fighting from long range means you are good at maintaining distance and can "dart" into that middle range to land a blow and back out again before the opponent can do much. Fighting from long range means that when the opponent tries to close in, you can keep him away and keep him from landing effective blows until you see or create an opening that you can take advantage of. Muhammed Ali was a master of this.

---Some like to talk about "pre-contact range" vs. "contact" range. This is because in a system that specializes in close-range, it makes sense to think of things as either being in your preferred close-range (contacting the opponent) or outside of that preferred range (before contact). The implication of this way of thinking is that nothing much is going on in "pre-contact" range and it doesn't really count. So they don't worry about it much or do much there. It is seen as something to be moved through in order to get to "contact range", which is essentially "close range." A good Boxer would disagree with this way of thinking!!!

 

[wckf92]

I wish KPM would use the multi quote function. It would certainly help to track long threads ...
Probably would take less time than it takes to breakout & bold the lines he wants... just sayin!

 

[Flying Crane]

I studied wing chun for four or five years, and continued to practice my forms for a few years after that. I have not practiced wing chun since about 2010, but I have some familiarity with it.

---Good to know! Didn't realize that.

So where do you draw the line in defining a long range vs. a short range?

---I've posted a brief description of the "long range game" twice now on two different threads. But as far as "drawing a line".....generally speaking, of course for punching styles.....close range is essentially going to be where you can reach the opponent with both hands at the same time without having to move in. This is Chi Sau range for Wing Chun or clinch range for boxing. Middle range is where you can reach with an extended lead punch with only a small step if any but aren't quite close enough to lay both hands on the opponent. This is the "stand toe to toe and punch" range for Boxing. Long range is where you aren't close enough to contact with a strike at all.....kick or punch. This is the range where you are moving around the opponent to set something up or to avoid contact. Fighting from long range means you are good at maintaining distance and can "dart" into that middle range to land a blow and back out again before the opponent can do much. Fighting from long range means that when the opponent tries to close in, you can keep him away and keep him from landing effective blows until you see or create an opening that you can take advantage of. Muhammed Ali was a master of this.

---Some like to talk about "pre-contact range" vs. "contact" range. This is because in a system that specializes in close-range, it makes sense to think of things as either being in your preferred close-range (contacting the opponent) or outside of that preferred range (before contact). The implication of this way of thinking is that nothing much is going on in "pre-contact" range and it doesn't really count. So they don't worry about it much or do much there. It is seen as something to be moved through in order to get to "contact range", which is essentially "close range." A good Boxer would disagree with this way of thinking!!!

Ok, well I think something that is important to keep in mind is that different people have different experiences and different capabilities with the same material. Different lineages go about things differently and may have different material or variations on the same material. So there is no ultimate standard for consistency that will hold true across the board.

Before deciding that "wing chun does not have..." or "wing chun cannot do..." it might be important to understand that we are all speaking from our own experiences, and those experiences do not reflect all that there is. My own ability, or lack thereof, in no way determines someone else's.

There are plenty of things out there that seem downright stupid to me, and yet plenty of people are quite capable with them. Maybe I don't have any use for it so it's not a good match for me, but that does not take away from what others can do with it.

So, maybe that's something that ought to be an undercurrent for the discussion.

And sometimes an internet discussion forum is a poor venue to make a point because we can't directly show what we mean when describing a physical action. So in the end, I think we need to be able to come away understanding that other people have a different grasp of it all, and there just isnt anything wrong with that.

 

[KPM]

Ok, well I think something that is important to keep in mind is that different people have different experiences and different capabilities with the same material.

---Good point. There are several ways to "slice it up" when talking about ranges. JKD talks about it as trapping range, punching range, and kicking range. When dealing with weapons in FMA how "close range, middle range, and long range" are defined varies a bit from how I defined them above.

Before deciding that "wing chun does not have..." or "wing chun cannot do..." it might be important to understand that we are all speaking from our own experiences, and those experiences do not reflect all that there is. My own ability, or lack thereof, in no way determines someone else's.

---Again, this is true. But that is irrelevant to the fact that Wing Chun was designed as a close-range system. It was not designed to function optimally at long range. Now some people may have added things to their version of the system to make it more viable at long range.....like the vid I showed of how Adam Willis has adapted what he sees as Biu Gee form principles to long range. But most of the time these are the exceptions and not the rule. LFJ thinks that WSLVT functions well in long range. And it very well might! But as I have been trying to descibe, surviving at long range long enough to get to your preferred close range is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that allows you to fight comfortably and completely from that range.


And sometimes an internet discussion forum is a poor venue to make a point because we can't directly show what we mean when describing a physical action.

---I've showed several videos that illustrate fighting from long range in boxing. People have said "Wing Chun does that!" but haven't been able to provide equivalent videos.

So in the end, I think we need to be able to come away understanding that other people have a different grasp of it all, and there just isnt anything wrong with that.


---Of course not! And that is exactly why people shouldn't be "poo poo'ing" what I have been saying across three different threads now! I have met with all kinds of resistance simply because I have pointed out the fact that Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do.

 

[Phobius]

Of course not! And that is exactly why people shouldn't be "poo poo'ing" what I have been saying across three different threads now! I have met with all kinds of resistance simply because I have pointed out the fact that Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do.

I think you contradict yourself. First you say people disagree with you. Then you go out and make a statement that leaves no room for other opinions saying 'Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do'.

This will cause people to disagree with you not because something is or isn't. But because the truth is different to them.

I for one does not share your view on WB and MT footwork. My view is not that footwork is taught by learning a technique but rather natural movement confined by different requirements on structure and form. In the end also created and improved through physical exercises.

You can't learn footwork from watching an art. You learn it by training by that arts confinement.

My view forces me to disagree with some statements that leave no room for the words 'IT DEPENDS', no yelling intended.

 

[KPM]

I think you contradict yourself. First you say people disagree with you. Then you go out and make a statement that leaves no room for other opinions saying 'Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do'.

---No, I am not contradicting myself. Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" equivalent to boxing. That is a fact. No one yet has been able to show otherwise. But that is different from saying....."Wing Chun has a strategy for dealing with long range that works well for me, so I'm not concerned about the fact that Wing Chun has no long range game equivalent to boxing. I'm perfectly Ok without that!" Now THAT statement I could not disagree with!


This will cause people to disagree with you not because something is or isn't. But because the truth is different to them.

----The Wing Chun system is designed to function optimally in close range. It was not designed to be a long range fighting method. That is a fact. I don't care what someone's "truth" may be. This is not religion. Well, maybe it is for some, but it shouldn't be!


I for one does not share your view on WB and MT footwork. My view is not that footwork is taught by learning a technique but rather natural movement confined by different requirements on structure and form. In the end also created and improved through physical exercises.

---Ok. And when MT guys started doing WB punching to improve their striking game, that required a little different structure and form that included the footwork and body dynamics that went along with learning WB punching methods.


My view forces me to disagree with some statements that leave no room for the words 'IT DEPENDS', no yelling intended.

---- What DEPENDS is whether you feel the need to improve or add a "long range game" to what you do. THAT part is open for discussion and opinions. That Wing Chun lacks a "long range game" equivalent to what boxers do (unless it has been added from outside the system) is just a fact. It doesn't "depend" on anything!

----BJJ was designed to work optimally for ground fighting. Do they have some things to help them get through the stand up portion of the fight in order to get to the ground? Of course they do! But that isn't where BJJ functions optimally and isn't what BJJ was designed for. I doubt you would find BJJ guys arguing that their system has a "long range game" equivalent to what boxing does.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok, well I think something that is important to keep in mind is that different people have different experiences and different capabilities with the same material.

---Good point. There are several ways to "slice it up" when talking about ranges. JKD talks about it as trapping range, punching range, and kicking range. When dealing with weapons in FMA how "close range, middle range, and long range" are defined varies a bit from how I defined them above.

Before deciding that "wing chun does not have..." or "wing chun cannot do..." it might be important to understand that we are all speaking from our own experiences, and those experiences do not reflect all that there is. My own ability, or lack thereof, in no way determines someone else's.

---Again, this is true. But that is irrelevant to the fact that Wing Chun was designed as a close-range system. It was not designed to function optimally at long range. Now some people may have added things to their version of the system to make it more viable at long range.....like the vid I showed of how Adam Willis has adapted what he sees as Biu Gee form principles to long range. But most of the time these are the exceptions and not the rule. LFJ thinks that WSLVT functions well in long range. And it very well might! But as I have been trying to descibe, surviving at long range long enough to get to your preferred close range is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that allows you to fight comfortably and completely from that range.


And sometimes an internet discussion forum is a poor venue to make a point because we can't directly show what we mean when describing a physical action.

---I've showed several videos that illustrate fighting from long range in boxing. People have said "Wing Chun does that!" but haven't been able to provide equivalent videos.

So in the end, I think we need to be able to come away understanding that other people have a different grasp of it all, and there just isnt anything wrong with that.


---Of course not! And that is exactly why people shouldn't be "poo poo'ing" what I have been saying across three different threads now! I have met with all kinds of resistance simply because I have pointed out the fact that Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do.

See, you are starting with a premise that you hold out as truth, that you claim is a fact that wing chun was designed as a close range system, that not everyone will agree with. I don't know where you came up with your assertion of what wing chun IS, but I for one, do not agree with it. So that's just for starters. I don't mind that you believe what you are saying, and if you get good mileage in what you do within that context, then I cannot tell you that you are wrong. But neither do I hold your assertion as truth. I see these things differently, I don't feel they can or should be categorized in that way, I feel it means something different.

If you can't have enough flexibility in your point of view to accept that of others, it's going to be never ending argument.

 

[KPM]

See, you are starting with a premise that you hold out as truth, that you claim is a fact that wing chun was designed as a close range system, that not everyone will agree with. I don't know where you came up with your assertion of what wing chun IS, but I for one, do not agree with it. So that's just for starters. I don't mind that you believe what you are saying, and if you get good mileage in what you do within that context, then I cannot tell you that you are wrong. But neither do I hold your assertion as truth. I see these things differently, I don't feel they can or should be categorized in that way, I feel it means something different.

If you can't have enough flexibility in your point of view to accept that of others, it's going to be never ending argument.

Holy geez! It just boggles the mind that people who have trained Wing Chun would question whether it was designed as a close-range system!

Let's see:
1. Short, tight punches......no extended "long arm" punches that can be used from a longer range
2. A focus on developing "contact reflexes" in Chi Sau.....which is a close-range training platform
3. An upright stance with very short and direct footwork intended to move quickly for very short distances.
4. Minimal kicks and the kicks that are used are low and close without much extension.

Contrast that to something like Hung Kuen or Choy Lit Fut that do include long range fighting:
1. "Long arm" extended punches designed to land from a distance
2. Two-man drilling when only one arm can reach to contact.
3. Extended lower stances and evasive body work to avoid blows rather than block or parry them. Footwork that covers larger distances quickly
4. Longer, extended kicks with some "flying" or "jumping" kicks that again...cover distance from a longer range quickly.

That's just "kung fu 101", in a very brief and limited summary!

 

[Vajramusti]

Holy geez! It just boggles the mind that people who have trained Wing Chun would question whether it was designed as a close-range system!

Let's see:
1. Short, tight punches......no extended "long arm" punches that can be used from a longer range
2. A focus on developing "contact reflexes" in Chi Sau.....which is a close-range training platform
3. An upright stance with very short and direct footwork intended to move quickly for very short distances.
4. Minimal kicks and the kicks that are used are low and close without much extension.

Contrast that to something like Hung Kuen or Choy Lit Fut that do include long range fighting:
1. "Long arm" extended punches designed to land from a distance
2. Two-man drilling when only one arm can reach to contact.
3. Extended lower stances and evasive body work to avoid blows rather than block or parry them. Footwork that covers larger distances quickly
4. Longer, extended kicks with some "flying" or "jumping" kicks that again...cover distance from a longer range quickly.

That's just "kung fu 101", in a very brief and limited summary!

Hopelessly lost-wandering around without a compass !!!

 

[Flying Crane]

Holy geez! It just boggles the mind that people who have trained Wing Chun would question whether it was designed as a close-range system!

Let's see:
1. Short, tight punches......no extended "long arm" punches that can be used from a longer range
2. A focus on developing "contact reflexes" in Chi Sau.....which is a close-range training platform
3. An upright stance with very short and direct footwork intended to move quickly for very short distances.
4. Minimal kicks and the kicks that are used are low and close without much extension.

Contrast that to something like Hung Kuen or Choy Lit Fut that do include long range fighting:
1. "Long arm" extended punches designed to land from a distance
2. Two-man drilling when only one arm can reach to contact.
3. Extended lower stances and evasive body work to avoid blows rather than block or parry them. Footwork that covers larger distances quickly
4. Longer, extended kicks with some "flying" or "jumping" kicks that again...cover distance from a longer range quickly.

That's just "kung fu 101", in a very brief and limited summary!

Oh I know all about long range systems. My system of Tibetan white crane is about as "long-arm" as it gets. That doesn't mean it is most useful at long range, or that it is not useful at short range.

What is often described as short or long range in one system or another is really a training methodology and mechanism that has little relevance to the range at which it is useful. It is a training mechanism that teaches and develops and reinforces certain principles of movement and power generation, that can then be applied in any situation once you understand them. As a methodology, there is a certain consistency that is important in training the principles. These principles are expressed in certain techniques that are part of the training regimen, but are not limited to those techniques. They can be utilized in any movement that is needed to fit the situation, even if that movement is not a "proper" technique. It does not matter. But it is up to the individual to apply them as they will, in whatever context they find themselves, and any failure is the person, not the method. If you cannot see that wing chun ought to be plenty useful at any "range", then I think you are selling the method short. It has more potential then you are giving it credit for.

I really don't even like the distinction of short, medium, long range, to be honest. You are trying to define differences of what often amount to an inch or two, in a dynamic and possibly chaotic, and constantly changing encounter of combat. You don't try to change your methods to deal with a change in range. You need to understand how your method works, regardless.

There will always be distancing issues. Some of them are biological. Some people simply have longer arms and legs, larger bodies, and there are advantages and disadvantages in that. So yes, that is an issue. But the discussion of range in wing chun isn't the same as say, a boxing matchup where one competitor has a six inch reach advantage over the other. That is an absolute comparison on a biological level. A martial system is not the same as that. It is a methodology used to develop skills that can be applied whenever and wherever and however you need them, to the extent of your own skill level. And different people will get different mileage from it, and some methods are a better match for some people than others are, so pick your method wisely.

 

[Martial D]

Oh I know all about long range systems. My system of Tibetan white crane is about as "long-arm" as it gets. That doesn't mean it is most useful at long range, or that it is not useful at short range.

What is often described as short or long range in one system or another is really a training methodology and mechanism that has little relevance to the range at which it is useful. It is a training mechanism that teaches and develops and reinforces certain principles of movement and power generation, that can then be applied in any situation once you understand them. As a methodology, there is a certain consistency that is important in training the principles. These principles are expressed in certain techniques that are part of the training regimen, but are not limited to those techniques. They can be utilized in any movement that is needed to fit the situation, even if that movement is not a "proper" technique. It does not matter. But it is up to the individual to apply them as they will, in whatever context they find themselves, and any failure is the person, not the method. If you cannot see that wing chun ought to be plenty useful at any "range", then I think you are selling the method short. It has more potential then you are giving it credit for.

I really don't even like the distinction of short, medium, long range, to be honest. You are trying to define differences of what often amount to an inch or two, in a dynamic and possibly chaotic, and constantly changing encounter of combat. You don't try to change your methods to deal with a change in range. You need to understand how your method works, regardless.

There will always be distancing issues. Some of them are biological. Some people simply have longer arms and legs, larger bodies, and there are advantages and disadvantages in that. So yes, that is an issue. But the discussion of range in wing chun isn't the same as say, a boxing matchup where one competitor has a six inch reach advantage over the other. That is an absolute comparison on a biological level. A martial system is not the same as that. It is a methodology used to develop skills that can be applied whenever and wherever and however you need them, to the extent of your own skill level. And different people will get different mileage from it, and some methods are a better match for some people than others are, so pick your method wisely.

Classic example of theory eclipsing reality.

Except wc is a close range system in theory too.