Differences in Wing Chun & 7 Star Mantis

[7starmantis]

I know this is a very specific title, but I'm interested in discussing some of the differences between these two systems. Obviously I study 7*, but I'm curious about WC. I do not have alot of knowledge about WC, so I hope to learn alot here.

First difference I see is the centerline theory. As I understand it, wing chun really focuses on attacking and moving through the centerline of the opponent. While 7* mantis focuses on circling and attacking at odd and different angles. First, is this true of WC? Second, could someone elaborate on the theory and idea behind this principle as opposed to angular attacks?

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, the way I understand the centerline theory in wing chun is not so much the centerline as defined by the line drawn straight up and down from the top of your head, between the eyes, and down the chest. Rather, the centerline should be understood to be the "core" of the body, from the top of the head down thru the torso. This isn't drawn on the surface of the body like the previous description, but rather goes thru the body's core. Consequently, the centerline is attacked or manipulated no matter which direction the opponent may be facing. We then use stepping and opponent manipulation that can develop angled attacks. The Wing Chun Centerline should not be misunderstood to mean we just attack straigh in from the front.

I was following the posts in the Kenpo section, and notice that you made reference to "Sticking" to the opponent. We also do a similar thing in Wing Chun. Once contact is made, we stick and follow the opponent's movements to work him into a trap, which is sort of like a stand-up grapple, that allows us to then deliver the decisive strikes once the hands have been tied up and nullified.

Hand strikes are delivered like a machinegun. Very rapid, one after another, to overwhelm the opponent. Kicks are more rare, and are kept low, definitely below the belt. Kicks to the knees, shins, ankles, and the like are common. These are typically front and side kicks. You don't see flashy jumping or spinning kicks in wing chun.

The art doesn't focus a lot on movement. Siu Nim Tau (set #1) doesn't move at all. Chom Kiu (set #2) moves a bit laterally, but compared to other styles like White Crane or Capoeira, this movement is minimal. Biu Gee (set #3) stays in the same place, but does pivot to face different directions to some degree. However, I do know that some schools take these sets and practice them with added movement and sponteneity. Movement in application, then, is short and quick, to set up the opponent for a decisive finish. It just doesn't use a lot of space like many of the other systems. You can practice the sets while taking a shower. literally.

Physical conditioning is done thru striking the sandbags and the wooden dummy. I have heard stories of wing chun people who have broken other people's arms by simply blocking their punch. The wooden dummy, if practiced consistently and properly, can give you forearms like iron.

Maybe this is enough to start. more focused inquiries might bring out more detail...

michael

 

[7starmantis]

We then use stepping and opponent manipulation that can develop angled attacks. The Wing Chun Centerline should not be misunderstood to mean we just attack straigh in from the front.

So wing chun does not only use linear attacks, but also angled attacks such as a punch from say a 45 or 23 degree angle? I'm not trying to get so technical on the degree of the angle, just trying to be clear that I'm talking about an angled strike. From what I had been led to believe, wing chun didnt' neccessarily attack from the angles. Not that a wc person couldn't turn to an angle, but that the attacks were linear as based by the body.

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

So wing chun does not only use linear attacks, but also angled attacks such as a punch from say a 45 or 23 degree angle? I'm not trying to get so technical on the degree of the angle, just trying to be clear that I'm talking about an angled strike. From what I had been led to believe, wing chun didnt' neccessarily attack from the angles. Not that a wc person couldn't turn to an angle, but that the attacks were linear as based by the body.

7sm

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by the punch from an angle. I guess what I was describing is that as you tie up and manipulate your opponent, you also move and position yourself into an advantageous position which may mean that you pivot and turn and use stepping that moves you around your opponent, so you are coming in from an angle as opposed to just driving straight in from the beginning.

As far as the actual punch, it does tend to be straight from the center, but we also use uppercuts and knifehand techniques and such thrown to the side, rolling backfists that go over or under an opponent's guard, etc. We don't tend to use things like the good oldfashioned haymaker, if that is what you are referring to.

As an example: say you and I are engaged in a combat. In the course of the combat, I get your hands and arms tied up and actually pinned to my own chest, but I have pivoted so I am now facing sideways to you. The specific technique is probably something you aren't familiar with and I can't really describe without showing it so don't worry about the details. I then fire out a knifehand to your throat, but it is thrown to the side, when compared to my body position.

If this is the kind of thing you are thinking about, then maybe this gives you an idea? Otherwise, if you can clarify what you mean when you are referring to the angle of the punch, maybe I can give it a second shot.

 

[dmax999]

The WC I did, everything was straight lined to your centerline. If the opponent moved 45 degrees to you, you would turn 45 so you still faced him square and continue attacking, also would angle upwards or downwards to face changed height of your opponents stances.

I never did 7*mantis, but I have done a lot of northern kung-fu (somewhat similar?). The biggest differences:

1) Shoulders and hips keep square to your opponent, keep your centerline lined up with opponent's centerline. This allows use of both hands with equal efficancy.

2) Once your attack starts in WC, you continue until the fight is over. There is no "step back and see what the other guy does". Once going, you continue attacking full speed, if the other guy retreats you follow at same speed, no lull in the action at all, no circling, no "testing out" your opponent.

I took a non-traditional WC that may be slightly different then others. Ours required complete confidence that you can protect your centerline better, and that you can just overwhelm your opponent with well placed powerful strikes.

 

[7starmantis]

The WC I did, everything was straight lined to your centerline. If the opponent moved 45 degrees to you, you would turn 45 so you still faced him square and continue attacking, also would angle upwards or downwards to face changed height of your opponents stances.

Thats more of what I've heard and seen of WC. The ones I've fought with are great at those turns too!

The biggest differences:

1) Shoulders and hips keep square to your opponent, keep your centerline lined up with opponent's centerline. This allows use of both hands with equal efficancy.

This is very different from mantis, but I can see the benefit of this type of fighting. Does this mean that there are no or very few shoulder or elbow attacks to the side? What about sidekicks?

2) Once your attack starts in WC, you continue until the fight is over. There is no "step back and see what the other guy does". Once going, you continue attacking full speed, if the other guy retreats you follow at same speed, no lull in the action at all, no circling, no "testing out" your opponent.

This sounds very much like mantis actually. In fact as I understand it, it is one of the major focuses of mantis. Aggressive continued powerful attacking, but defined by your opponent. We do use "circling" but in the heat of attacking, and by no means creating distance with the circle, if anything, cloing the gap further with it.

I took a non-traditional WC that may be slightly different then others. Ours required complete confidence that you can protect your centerline better, and that you can just overwhelm your opponent with well placed powerful strikes.

What happens if you can't or dont overwhelm them? Not trying to be rude or anything, but seriously, if thats its base and that doesn't happen, is there a "secondary" focus or anything?

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by the punch from an angle. I guess what I was describing is that as you tie up and manipulate your opponent, you also move and position yourself into an advantageous position which may mean that you pivot and turn and use stepping that moves you around your opponent, so you are coming in from an angle as opposed to just driving straight in from the beginning.

As far as the actual punch, it does tend to be straight from the center, but we also use uppercuts and knifehand techniques and such thrown to the side, rolling backfists that go over or under an opponent's guard, etc. We don't tend to use things like the good oldfashioned haymaker, if that is what you are referring to.

I'm actually refering to a punch that basically crosses your centerline. If you had a line from head to toe in the center of your body, the punch might originate on the right side of the line, but connect on the left side. Is that any clearer? Also, redirecting is a big part of mantis. We use circular/hooking type "blocks" or redirects. This is not something used in WC is it?

As an example: say you and I are engaged in a combat. In the course of the combat, I get your hands and arms tied up and actually pinned to my own chest, but I have pivoted so I am now facing sideways to you. The specific technique is probably something you aren't familiar with and I can't really describe without showing it so don't worry about the details. I then fire out a knifehand to your throat, but it is thrown to the side, when compared to my body position.

Heh, actually I'm quite familiar with this type of technique, we use it quite a bit even using it with joint locks, breaks, even sweeps and throws.That is something I didn't realize was used in WC however, especially the knife hand example.


7sm

 

[ed-swckf]

So wing chun does not only use linear attacks, but also angled attacks such as a punch from say a 45 or 23 degree angle? I'm not trying to get so technical on the degree of the angle, just trying to be clear that I'm talking about an angled strike. From what I had been led to believe, wing chun didnt' neccessarily attack from the angles. Not that a wc person couldn't turn to an angle, but that the attacks were linear as based by the body.

7sm

for the most part we do strike from our own center line into the opponents core, the line is mobile so yes those attacks can come from any angle and the footwork is key, even a 45 or 23 degree angle is possble in wing chun. We do also have a fair ammount of attacks that don't travel on our center line. First encountered is probably fak sau in the first form, this travels, or can travel to any point in a 180 degree arc (90 each arm) in front of you so that its end point without moving your feet is your shoulder line. If center line theory is understood correctly then there should be understanding of the hows and whens the shoulder line becomes the center line.

not the best example of fak sao as its from second form. This is all a lot easier to explain in person!!


Another technique that doesn't really restrict itself to linear trajectory is chung choy (often confused with lin wan kuen) it translates as battle fists and the best way to explain this is if you imagine the line you would use to hack someone with battle axes if they were of at a 45 degree angle from yourself, we still try to get a driving force behind the elbows but the line of the punch is hacking - it hits but will cut through the line and can result in a lapping effect with the punch. In the second form there is more note of the fak sau and also the bong driving from one line to another travelling through 90 degrees, its still a center line attack but doesn't begin from the center line it ends up in. Chum kui also introduces laterally moving elbow strikes.


Later forms and application of them, bui tze for instance, introduces a lot more elbow lines which work all the way from coming down perfectly vertical and through another 180 degree semi circle until the elbow takes the line of coming up a verticle line. Also as bui tze works off the line most of the techniques are used to regain the line and thus don't travel so linearly, in fact yip ching shows a good varient of the punch that follows the double lap in that form and its basically a driven uppercut from where your hands have finished the lap (about half a meter to the side of your body). Baat cham dao (knives) come of the line with different stepping and this all translates back into empty hand use.

Wing chun is really tight with its lines but believe it or not it does have a lot of scope but the lines still look tight and because the feet do most of the work the hands don't seem as though they travel in much varience.

 

[ed-swckf]

What happens if you can't or dont overwhelm them? Not trying to be rude or anything, but seriously, if thats its base and that doesn't happen, is there a "secondary" focus or anything?

7sm

The saying goes:

if you learn sui lim tao and chum kui correctly you will never need bui tze

(bui tze is what happens if things go wrong)

But chum kui and sui lim tao both employ an understanding of regaining, controlling and changing that center line. Bui tze only really works after that has failed and structure is lost. The sensitivity training deals with that constant pressure, when you come up against strong lines the sensitivity training gets the arms and the body to work around that instead of using force against it you move yourself instinctively of the power line of the incoming force. Here would also be where you may use angling to draw that energy into a hole where you aren't. Again this makes more sense in person.

 

[ed-swckf]

I'm actually refering to a punch that basically crosses your centerline. If you had a line from head to toe in the center of your body, the punch might originate on the right side of the line, but connect on the left side. Is that any clearer? Also, redirecting is a big part of mantis. We use circular/hooking type "blocks" or redirects. This is not something used in WC is it?

Yes that happens but although it crosses that original center line, that is no longer the center line. Think of 3 basic lines the first is a core line where and imagine that your opponent is a cillinder, that core line is where you attack for the opponent to accept full force of your strike ( i know you understand that one. Second a line like you suggest from head to toe in the center that you guard. Third imagine a plane that connects you and your opponent, if you are squared up that line obviously resides on the second center line but as you move in relation to the opponent this line changes and with this mobility there will be times that you move from one line to another that will for an instant cross this center line number 2 but it moves as you move. The game is to use one hand to deal with one side and the other with the other side as crossing your arms is something you don't want to do as to avoid traps etc. And wing chun doesn't want to get tied up, its trapping is a principle that keeps you free to be mobile and not caught up in a vertical grapple.

Heh, actually I'm quite familiar with this type of technique, we use it quite a bit even using it with joint locks, breaks, even sweeps and throws.That is something I didn't realize was used in WC however, especially the knife hand example.


7sm

Wing chun has a lot of unusual lines that don't come through in the stereotypical sumeriasation of what the system intails but i'm sure thats the case with a lot of other arts too.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm actually refering to a punch that basically crosses your centerline. If you had a line from head to toe in the center of your body, the punch might originate on the right side of the line, but connect on the left side. Is that any clearer? Also, redirecting is a big part of mantis. We use circular/hooking type "blocks" or redirects. This is not something used in WC is it?

Heh, actually I'm quite familiar with this type of technique, we use it quite a bit even using it with joint locks, breaks, even sweeps and throws.That is something I didn't realize was used in WC however, especially the knife hand example.


7sm

Well, I would see no problem with firing off a punch that crosses the centerline, I mean after all, ya gotta hit the target whereever it may be. It might be accomplanied by a shifting pivot with the feet so that you end up straight on again anyway. The pivot, of course, can add to the power behind the punch as well.

Our blocking techniques, tend to be minimalistic in movement. We don't do big looping blocks, but rather bump the incoming attack with our blocking techniques just enough to move them into a safe zone. Of course these "bumps" can actually have quite an impact. I mentioned earlier, I have heard of people breaking other peoples' arms with a solid bong sau. Once we have made the necessary bump, we are going to stick to the arm just long enough to open a target for a machinegun punch attack. This could happen right after the bump, or the bump may lead into a tie-up of his arms.

We do a defensive movement that involves pivoting to the side and using a taun sau to block an attack, accompanied simultaneously with a punch, but the punch is going out to the side, not crossing the centerline. The knifehands to the side come directly from the Siu Nim Tau and Biu Gee sets.

As far as the technique I described, it is just something I figured out in the heat of chi sau practice. It seems to work for me pretty well, but not against everyone. The more my classmates see it, of course, the less well it begins to work on them, but i've had some success with it. I don't know that you could strictly call it "traditional" wing chun. It may be something that happened spontaneously because of my kenpo background (a lot of joint manipulations there), but I don't think it is out of place in wing chun. I actually find the two arts complement each other well. I have had several "Ah-Ha!" moments during wing chun when we have worked a technique that I realized was very similar to something from kenpo, but suddenly it made more sense to me than before. I have also had moments where I realized something from Kenpo could work very well in chi sau, or I simply found myself doing things that, after I thought about it later, I realized was from Kenpo.

 

[dmax999]

As I said before, I took a non-traditional WC, and I by no means learned all there was about it.

Whenever I crossed my centerline, at all, with my hands while sparring the teacher I was instantly beaten. There was absolutly no striking to your left side with your right hand, this included parrys/blocks as well. No side kicks, no elbows that ended up across the centerline. We also divided the body into upper middle and lower perimeters as well as left and right. The rule was you can't issue power in two places in the same perimeter. No block and strike in left or right. No straight puch with a high block, etc. It did allow punches with low blocks, or low kicks with high blocks, etc.

Another difference I just thought of, in WC we never "dodged" attacks, all were parried. Many parries were automatically paired up with strike, (Gong Sau was ALWAYS done with punch, I couldn't do it alone anymore). In northern kung-fu, an advanced "secret" is dodging the attack is quicker then blocking and then counter attacking (See boxers ducking a hook)

If you can't overwhelm your opponent, I guess you just lose. I can't imagine a fight with someone from my WC school lasting more then five seconds, most would probably last under three once it actually started. It was either completely devistate instantly or lose instantly (unless it ends up on the ground grappling). In my northern kung-fu, its easy to see how a fight would last over a minute.

I'm sure more advanced WC people don't follow as strict rules, or used techinques I didn't learn. But I didn't really see a need for any more then I had, it covered me completely and was a small amount of material which let me perfect few moves instead of being slopply at a bunch like I am at northern kung-fu now.

 

[7starmantis]

Whenever I crossed my centerline, at all, with my hands while sparring the teacher I was instantly beaten. There was absolutly no striking to your left side with your right hand, this included parrys/blocks as well. No side kicks, no elbows that ended up across the centerline. We also divided the body into upper middle and lower perimeters as well as left and right. The rule was you can't issue power in two places in the same perimeter. No block and strike in left or right. No straight puch with a high block, etc. It did allow punches with low blocks, or low kicks with high blocks, etc.

Yeah, thats a great point and one that can't be ignored. We work heavily on "collapsing" or "yielding" from your centerline, so trapping is harder to do on you. Its curious that no punching while high blocking....do you know the reasoning behind that?

Another difference I just thought of, in WC we never "dodged" attacks, all were parried. Many parries were automatically paired up with strike, (Gong Sau was ALWAYS done with punch, I couldn't do it alone anymore). In northern kung-fu, an advanced "secret" is dodging the attack is quicker then blocking and then counter attacking (See boxers ducking a hook)

Yes, one of our main concepts is "move rather than block". However, we rarely completely dodge without making some type of contact at some point on the body. Does WC focus on contact even beyond hands and arms, such as hips, legs, and such?

If you can't overwhelm your opponent, I guess you just lose. I can't imagine a fight with someone from my WC school lasting more then five seconds, most would probably last under three once it actually started. It was either completely devistate instantly or lose instantly (unless it ends up on the ground grappling). In my northern kung-fu, its easy to see how a fight would last over a minute.

Yes, again thats a similarity I see with manits, we try to end it as quickly and devestatingly as possible. My sifu is allways saying, if the fight last longer than a few seconds, you are probably in big trouble. But then alot of our techniques are designed to work against people who have skill (especially in kung fu) so it does tend to go back and forth a bit more than it would on the street.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

As I said before, I took a non-traditional WC

What style/organization was it? I'd be curious to hear more (maybe in a different thread). What made it different?

I'm enjoying this thread--a comparison between these styles is most interesting. Thanks to all who are actively participating in it!

 

[7starmantis]

Another question. In mantis we use quite alot of chin na. Are these used in WC as well? Also, does WC practice sweeps and throws? They are a huge part of mantis.

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

Another question. In mantis we use quite alot of chin na. Are these used in WC as well? Also, does WC practice sweeps and throws? They are a huge part of mantis.

7sm

I would say yes to the chin na. The Chi Sau drills that work into trapping can often flow naturally into a joint lock or manipulation of some kind. Low sweeps are in there as well. When you have the opponent's hands and attention tied up high, it is useful to sweep him low.

Based on my experiences, we did not have any rule saying no punches with high blocks, and we do have side kicks, but kept low, like the knee or lower. These were comments you had made earlier.

 

[7starmantis]

Someone made a comment earlier that sparked some thoughts. It was basically to the idea that contact is made and maintained until an opening occurs for a barage of fast punches or attacks. Is this to say that contact is used to create the opening but once the attack begins, the contact is of less value?

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

Someone made a comment earlier that sparked some thoughts. It was basically to the idea that contact is made and maintained until an opening occurs for a barage of fast punches or attacks. Is this to say that contact is used to create the opening but once the attack begins, the contact is of less value?

7sm

Not necessarily. Contact (in the form of a block/defensive technique, for example) can create an immediate opening to fire the punches, but often the non-punching hand will maintain a control/trap on the opponent's hands (ideally pinning one hand beneath the other, so that control of both of his hands is maintained with just one of mine). I may switch hands so that I can fire a rapid succession of punches, but also switching the control hand.

Other times, it may take a couple movements to manipulate the opponent into an effective trap, and then the punches get fired, but again control of his hands is maintained, altho often the hands get switched up.

Also, while contact and control is often desired, it is by no means a "rule" of any kind. When there is an opening, we fire away. This can happen without any prior contact being made.

 

[dmax999]

I took Wing Chun Do, which I am sad to say a worthless organization that kicked out an awsome teacher (At least in my opinion)

Never did ChiNas, throws, or side kicks. Did one kick above the waist, it was a forward thrust kick aimed to snap the pelvis at the pubic systhesis.

Can't make two moves in same perimeter at same time (Punch high while blocking high) because the body can't balance out the energy required to do both right, it will allow you to be thrown off balance a lot easier.

As for maintaining contact, we had a distance we wanted to fight at. Once you attacked, we maintained that distance right through the other guy trying to retreat. It wasn't feasable for someone to back up faster then I could keep on them punching. Also practice punching full power on moving targets, I could continue punching as they fell to the ground if needs be or no matter how they ducked and weaved. At full speed I was putting out 10 punches a second and wouldn't miss, even if I did miss one the other 9 would put someone out.

Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.

I learned a lot about "fighting theory" in my WC school. The teacher was a figher, and they are always better to learn from. Most of what I learned I didn't realize how good it was until years later, the more I learn the more I think WC is the ultimate striking art to use against other martial arts. I'm sure the same is true for anyone learning an MA from a good fighter teacher.

 

[Flying Crane]

Also, the three seconds to win wasn't a cool "self-defense move" or joint lock or throw, it was ugly pound the hell out of the other guy.

Yes, I think when it comes down to a real encounter, this is what actually gets results. Many arts teach a lot of stuff that has good theory behind it, but I wonder how much of it really works when push comes to shove. My White Crane sifu has taught me some amazing, beautiful, lengthy, and powerful forms, but he says when it comes to fighting, all you need is Chien Choi, Pau Choi, and Kup Choi (charging punch, cannon fist punch, and down raking punch), and the ability to throw them like lightning.