Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[Kung Fu Wang]

IME, WC has both long range and short range methods. Yin and Yang.

During his 2nd horse stance punch, his

- right fist,
- right shoulder, and
- left shoulder

make a perfect straight line. That's long range punch.

The question is will all WC guys use it in fighting?

 

[wckf92]

Got it, it’s a general martial conditioning thing, it not a direct wing Chun specific conditioning. Would you agree with that?

Hmmm....can't say. Don't really know. I only know it as a WC training/conditioning drill (one of MANY). WC likes to be efficient so IME some drills may pack a lot of attributes and tools into the toolbox to make the best use of training time, reps, etc.

 

[wckf92]

During his 2nd horse stance punch, his

- right fist,
- right shoulder, and
- left shoulder

make a perfect straight line. That's long range punch.

The question is will all WC guys use it in fighting?

Nobody can answer that question dude. Nobody can speak for "all WC guys". I guess all I am saying is that you can't look at this and take it literally. No more than you would look at a boxer training on the speed bag and ask "how come you don't fight like that"? etc.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Nobody can answer that question dude. Nobody can speak for "all WC guys". I guess all I am saying is that you can't look at this and take it literally. No more than you would look at a boxer training on the speed bag and ask "how come you don't fight like that"? etc.

Do you think it's a reasonable question to ask

- Why don't you fight the same way as you train?
- You have a long range tool in your toolbox but you are not using it. Why?

 

[Flying Crane]

Does anyone fight the way they train? I mean really? All training is an approximation to fighting. Some closer than others, but none are exact.

It is no mystery that many drills are not meant to be exactly like fighting. They develop useful attributes nonetheless. Would you go into a boxing gym and tell them they need to change how they train on the speed bag because it isn’t how they fight? Would you, really?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Does anyone fight the way they train?

May be you should ask, "Does anyone train the way they fight?"

Fighting is the goal. Training is the path to reach to that goal. It should not be the other way around.

For example,

Goal - to be good in roundhouse kick.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in TKD, MT, ...

Goal - to be good to protect my center.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in WC, praying mantis, ...

Goal - to have maximum reach.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in long fist, Tong Bei, Pi Gua, ...

I select MA styles. MA style doesn't select me.

 

[drop bear]

Does anyone fight the way they train? I mean really? All training is an approximation to fighting. Some closer than others, but none are exact.

Almost exactly.

And you see it with BJJ more than anything. And I think this is because they have such a signature looking system. So you will see BJJ guys in street fights hunting for heel hooks and other esoteric moves. Rather than wildly swinging. That is how they are trained. That is how they perform.

And I think this is why your training should have realistic elements to it in terms of contact, pacing and intent.

I like to use this as an example of how training is fighting.

That there should be enough tools in your arsenal that you could technically stop an attacker within you sparring rule set.

Because then if say you get in to a fight you at least know that will work. And it is not as big a jump to try to solve other problems you might encounter.

 

[Flying Crane]

May be you should ask, "Does anyone train the way they fight?"

Fighting is the goal. Training is the path to reach to that goal. It should not be the other way around.

For example,

Goal - to be good in roundhouse kick.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in TKD, MT, ...

Goal - to be good to protect my center.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in WC, praying mantis, ...

Goal - to have maximum reach.
Path - Where can I find the training? I can find it in long fist, Tong Bei, Pi Gua, ...

I select MA styles. MA style doesn't select me.

I guess I don’t find these questions to be meaningful.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Almost exactly.

Yesterday my student asked me, "Why don't you teach form"? I told him that I don't teach form. I only teach "partner drill". When you do partner drill without partner, you get solo form. This way the training and application will be identical.

Here is an example to proof what I have said.

Partner drill:

Solo form = partner drill without partner:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I guess I don’t find these questions to be meaningful.

Do you set up a goal first. You then find a path to reach to it? I don't believe you will set up a path and don't know what your goal is.

1. I want to fight this way, so I train this way.
2. I train this way, so I can fight this way.

I do 1, and I don't do 2.

 

[geezer]

....The question is will all WC guys use it in fighting?

Kinda depends on the individual.

When I first started WC, I hung out with a group of Chinese kids. They liked WC, but knew a smattering of other Chinese martial arts too. They trained with a local guy who ran a Chinese restaurant. When they sparred, outsiders, if they they lost, they would get scolded for not applying the correct techniques, but if they won, even though using a technique that was, ...er ..."atypical", the instructor would congratulate them and show them how that technique "was really hidden in the system"!

My take away? Style is important, but winning is important-er! ...Grandmaster Yip is said to have been a bit like that. Maybe we all are.

Oh and BTW, when I train that "Bow and Arrow Punch" or "Battle Punch" I drop my weight with the punch as I turn sideways and step into the horse stance, then I rise a bit, straightening the back leg as I pivot my hips forward to deliver the rear hand punch. And ya know? That's pretty much what John Wang has been saying we should be doing all along.

Now would I use it in a fight? Probably not ...unless the situation was just right. Decades ago, I beat one of those Chinese kids with a cross-step side kick when he thought he was out of my range. He got up and said, "I didn't know Wing Chun had that." Stealing a line from his sifu (the restaurant guy), I replied, "Oh, it's a hidden technique!"

 

[Flying Crane]

Do you set up a goal first. You then find a path to reach to it? I don't believe you will set up a path and don't know what your goal is.

1. I want to fight this way, so I train this way.
2. I train this way, so I can fight this way.

I do 1, and I don't do 2.

Probably not in the way that people might typically think of it.

There are ways of moving that are efficient and powerful, and that is useful if you need to fight. So I practice ways to incorporate those concepts and principles. But ultimately, what it looks like does not matter. So do I train like I fight, or fight like I train, or however you might want to put it? I guess it depends on how you mean. I think I do. But again, Maybe not how many people would think of it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think I do.

Do you train a set of techniques on your right side, and a different set of techniques on your left side? If you do, you train for fighting.

My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting.

Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.

 

[Flying Crane]

Do you train a set of techniques on your right side, and another different set of techniques on your left side? If you do, you train for fighting.

My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting.

Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.

I train equally on both sides, including weapons. It’s for fighting.

 

[geezer]

My teacher had a mark on his right foot, but nothing on his left foot. There are certain techniques that he only trained on his right foot but not on his left foot. A good example that he trained for fighting. ...Most people who trains for health will train evenly on both sides.

This is a good observation. Fighters don't train to do everything equally, they train to get as good as they can with their preferred tools. A master fencer, archer, or marksman typically doesn't spend equal time training left and right handed either.

In the martial arts world, back in the day, Bill "Superfoot" Wallace comes to mind. He used his left leg to kick with.

 

[Callen]

WC has arrow punch. But WC people don't use it in fighting. It doesn't make logic sense to me.

When you say, "WC has arrow punch", it is important to understand the context in which it is most often utilized. The reason it is not used in fighting is because it is an exercise, not an actual punch.

Not all drills in Wing Chun can be translated into applications. There are many drills like the arrow punch that serve as a developmental step towards learning a specific skill or attribute. The branch I train in for example, uses it as a training tool that compliments the Ping Cheung ( 平槍 ) pole action. It is simply not designed to be a Wing Chun punch.

The pole form further develops the punch. We train the arrow punch tool before the pole form, so the practitioner can focus on their own skill development without the distraction of the actual pole. Think of it as a good habit forming exercise, it breaks codependent habits that weapon forms often create. The arrow punch tool reinforces balance, coordination, a solid core and base… to name a few.

There are more complexities to the arrow punch tool and how it relates to the pole form, but that's just a quick summary to help you get you more familiar.

A: WC is good in short range fighting.
B: WC is also good in long range fighting because WC has arrow punch.
A: But WC people do not use arrow punch.

Covering distance, hitting from where the hands are, angling, utilization of mobile footwork, timing the attack, etc. Long range, short range... it's all up to how bad you want it. The answers are there. Not all Wing Chun circles subscribe to the theory that you need contact (a bridge) first in order to hit.

IMO, there is far too much emphasis placed on "range" when discussing the functionality of the Wing Chun system as a whole.

 

[wckf92]

Not all Wing Chun circles subscribe to the theory that you need contact (a bridge) first in order to hit.

Well said.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Not all drills in Wing Chun can be translated into applications.

But this "black tiger eat heart - bow arrow stance cross -> horse stance jab" is so useful in close range fighting.

- You use leading arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your back hand punch toward his face (bow arrow stance cross).
- When your opponent blocks your cross, you change bow arrow stance into horse stance and use your leading hand to punch on his chest (horse stance jab).

The reverse "horse stance jab -> bow arrow stance cross" is also useful in close range.

- You use back hand to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your leading hand punch toward his chest (horse stance jab).
- When your opponent blocks your jab, you change horse stance into bow arrow stance and use your back hand to punch on his face (bow arrow stance cross).

The difference is whether you use leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm. I'm pretty sure if we search online hard enough, we should be able to find a WC application like this.

I'm also sure that in sparring, to use your leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, you then punch at him is a very common strategy.

A common downward parry (hand trap) -> punch

 

[Flying Crane]

But this "black tiger eat heart - bow arrow stance cross -> horse stance jab" is so useful in close range fighting.

- You use leading arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your back hand punch toward his face (bow arrow stance cross).
- When your opponent blocks your cross, you change bow arrow stance into horse stance and use your leading hand to punch on his chest (horse stance jab).

The reverse "horse stance jab -> bow arrow stance cross" is also useful in close range.

- You use back hand to parry down your opponent's leading arm, your leading hand punch toward his chest (horse stance jab).
- When your opponent blocks your jab, you change horse stance into bow arrow stance and use your back hand to punch on his face (bow arrow stance cross).

The difference is whether you use leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm. I'm pretty sure if we search online hard enough, we should be able to find a WC application like this.

I'm also sure that in sparring, to use your leading arm, or back arm to parry down your opponent's leading arm, you then punch at him is a very common strategy.

Saying that not all drills in wing Chun can be translated into applications is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to find direct applications in the drills.

Can you find them? Sure, of course. If you find them useful in that way, then use them.

Let’s not make a false dichotomy where one doesn’t need to be.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Saying that not all drills in wing Chun can be translated into applications is not the same thing as saying you are not allowed to find direct applications in the drills.

Can you find them? Sure, of course. If you find them useful in that way, then use them.

Let’s not make a false dichotomy where one doesn’t need to be.

This is the purpose for online discussion.

A: Not all drills can be translated into applications.
B: Here is an applications in that drills.

I just don't believe that people can't see the combat value for the following clip. I do believe that all MA systems will attack like this most of the time.

- Open your opponent's guard.
- You then punch through.