Simply put, where did the chain punch come from. Always seemed to be a add on. To me, it just didn't fit philosophy wise. Curious as what form or technique it derives from?
Chain Punch
- Thread starter Transk53
- Start date
This is a great question. Although I don't have the answer I hope someone responses back.
Many things simply come from people misinterpreting the forms, applying literal thinking, and not understanding the system as a whole; the strategy and tactics. A lot more than chain punching leaves me bewildered with many interpretations of Wing Chun. 
OP
- Thread Starter
- #4
Maybe so, that would be you're personal view. The system is sound, but chain punching would be right cross or straight. Does fit to me, that is what I am asking
Kwan Sau
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 60
The idea of 'chained' strikes is found throughout the forms. It doesn't necessarily have to be a chain 'punch'.
That being said...chain punching isn't the best strategy, regardless of how the movies make it out to be. It is easily dealt with. Just my .02
OP
- Thread Starter
- #6
I had posted this on my group's facebook page some time back:
One criticism I hear about WT is that all we do is chain punch.
The chainpunch is taught right away to the new WT student to give them an effective weapon to have in their arsenal from the very beginning of their training.
It teaches the new WT student how to dominate the centerline, keeping your opponent on the defensive, while keeping the WT man protected behind their hands.
So it accomplishes two things: it ingrains an overall strategy of relentless atack in the WT student, while at the same time providing the tactical means to accomplish this.
And because WT's overall goal is simplicity, more often than not, this is how you see a high level WT fighter deal with their opponent, because often, that's all that's needed.
One criticism I hear about WT is that all we do is chain punch.
The chainpunch is taught right away to the new WT student to give them an effective weapon to have in their arsenal from the very beginning of their training.
It teaches the new WT student how to dominate the centerline, keeping your opponent on the defensive, while keeping the WT man protected behind their hands.
So it accomplishes two things: it ingrains an overall strategy of relentless atack in the WT student, while at the same time providing the tactical means to accomplish this.
And because WT's overall goal is simplicity, more often than not, this is how you see a high level WT fighter deal with their opponent, because often, that's all that's needed.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
Thanks. Me just thinking in application, it would be unlikely that a fluid target could get overwhelmed by chain punching.
An interesting question. The way you phrase it implies that you are relatively certain that the concept of chain punching is not a good fit with WC theory. I'd have to disagree. LFJ pointed out that people have a tendency to look at sequences from the forms too literally. That may be the problem. Trying to understand each section of the forms in terms of a specific application can be very misleading. I understand this tendency, since many of us explain the form through applications that happen to look like the movements in the forms. But that's just a starting point. The movements teach bigger things like solid structure, angles, ways of applying and dissolving force, ...basically broader concepts. And in this context I see chain punching as very fundamental to WC.
To put it another way, don't think of it as chain punching but , as Kwan Sau stated, as chain striking. Now in WC, offense is always our best defense -- from the perspective of simplicity and efficiency. Think Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. If the way is free, we simply strike forward. Even if our opponent seeks to defend or block, a good centerline strike can often wedge through a poor defense and hit hard. What then? a defensive move or combination? No! If our first strike clears the way, we simply strike again, ...and again and again, with each strike further disrupting our opponent's structure and setting up the next with relentless forward pressure.
Only when a strike is obstructed should you have to use a tan, bong, fook, lap, or other parrying/deflecting movement to clear the way. And even so, these are typically applied with simultaneously delivered attacks (tan-da, fook-da, lap da, etc.) so the chain-punching concept of continuous attack is still applied.
If you look at chain punching not as a mindless forward rush with bicycling vertical fists, but as a way of expressing this concept of continuous attack, even while simultaneously defending, I believe you will see it in a different light.
To put it another way, don't think of it as chain punching but , as Kwan Sau stated, as chain striking. Now in WC, offense is always our best defense -- from the perspective of simplicity and efficiency. Think Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung. If the way is free, we simply strike forward. Even if our opponent seeks to defend or block, a good centerline strike can often wedge through a poor defense and hit hard. What then? a defensive move or combination? No! If our first strike clears the way, we simply strike again, ...and again and again, with each strike further disrupting our opponent's structure and setting up the next with relentless forward pressure.
Only when a strike is obstructed should you have to use a tan, bong, fook, lap, or other parrying/deflecting movement to clear the way. And even so, these are typically applied with simultaneously delivered attacks (tan-da, fook-da, lap da, etc.) so the chain-punching concept of continuous attack is still applied.
If you look at chain punching not as a mindless forward rush with bicycling vertical fists, but as a way of expressing this concept of continuous attack, even while simultaneously defending, I believe you will see it in a different light.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #11
Okay, I obviously don't have the knowledge then. Thanks for the reply, that is informative. Being a one strike and strike hard type of guy, guess I have a lot to learn
Okay, I obviously don't have the knowledge then. Thanks for the reply, that is informative. Being a one strike and strike hard type of guy, guess I have a lot to learn
Transk -- check out the following videoclip of Alan Orr explaining how he trains chain punching with his fighters. I find his approach very practical.
@Yak -- Check out Alan's not-so subtle digs at the way a lot of WT guys train chain punching. Punching with the elbow going up and losing energy, not controlling the opponent's body so he can trade punches, and so on. He makes some good points. Unfortunately, you do see all of that in a lot of WT. (Bad WT, or WT training viewed out of context, that is. The really good guys don't look like that at all!) Any thoughts?
...Being a one strike and strike hard type of guy, guess I have a lot to learn
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, if you can instantly follow up that hard strike with couple more good shots, even better!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #14
Thanks
I would not ask for too many thoughts though, probably end in the usual argument.Argument? No that's for those other forums. We, the superior individuals of the Martialtalk persuasion have enlightened and informative discussions!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #16
Argument? No that's for those other forums. We, the superior individuals of the Martialtalk persuasion have enlightened and informative discussions!
LOL, sure
I look forward to them then.
You may use "double spears" strategy to deal with "double straight line punches" such as jab and cross. This way, you can protect your center from outside in.
This strategy came from the ancient Chinese spear technique. When your opponent uses spear to stab you, you use "clockwise circle" or "counter-clockwise circle" to deflect it, you then move in after that. If you treat each of your arms as a spear, you have "double spears".
This strategy came from the ancient Chinese spear technique. When your opponent uses spear to stab you, you use "clockwise circle" or "counter-clockwise circle" to deflect it, you then move in after that. If you treat each of your arms as a spear, you have "double spears".
Last edited:
Isn't chain punching/striking just a misconception -- by which, I mean, making a "technique" out of something that isn't a technique to begin with?
For as long as the centerline is open, we strike. This is the principle of lat sao jik chung. If, after striking the first time, the center remains open, you should continue striking. That's not a technique. That's just common sense. But to see someone launching a continuous barrage of strikes into an opponent that remains open, and then abstract that as some kind of "chain ___" technique is to miss the point in the first place. You can't suppose that you can chain any number of techniques; all you can do is attack and follow the flow while utilizing the core principles of the system; which is to control the centerline, and attack instinctively when it is open. If that happens to be a chain of punches or strikes, then "chain punching" was the result, but not the source.
For as long as the centerline is open, we strike. This is the principle of lat sao jik chung. If, after striking the first time, the center remains open, you should continue striking. That's not a technique. That's just common sense. But to see someone launching a continuous barrage of strikes into an opponent that remains open, and then abstract that as some kind of "chain ___" technique is to miss the point in the first place. You can't suppose that you can chain any number of techniques; all you can do is attack and follow the flow while utilizing the core principles of the system; which is to control the centerline, and attack instinctively when it is open. If that happens to be a chain of punches or strikes, then "chain punching" was the result, but not the source.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #19
I don't understand that too much?
IMO, a jab, cross, jab, cross, ... pattern may be too predictable. A
- jab, cross, hook, hook, or
- jab, cross, hook, uppercut, or
- ...
may be less predictable. But I don't know it can be called as "chain punches" any more.
It's true that the shortest distance between 2 points is the straight line. But in combat strategy, sometime you may have to take the longer route in order to "surprise" your opponent. You may open your center-line when you use hook, hook combo, but if you are good at "double spears" strategy, you can still protect your center from outside in if needed.
- jab, cross, hook, hook, or
- jab, cross, hook, uppercut, or
- ...
may be less predictable. But I don't know it can be called as "chain punches" any more.
It's true that the shortest distance between 2 points is the straight line. But in combat strategy, sometime you may have to take the longer route in order to "surprise" your opponent. You may open your center-line when you use hook, hook combo, but if you are good at "double spears" strategy, you can still protect your center from outside in if needed.
Last edited:
