WC Punch

Oh? Maybe you better tell this guy. He seems to think that he can move seamlessly from VT into shuai chiao. Clearly you should set him strait.


He's grappling with SC, not VT. This is because VT is about the worst grappling platform imaginable.
 
Under hooks/over hooks, whizzers, throws/sweeps, clinch work are in lots of WC application. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. And before you start the "well I've done a bit of mma etc" to justify your observations, I have plenty of catch/submission wrestling experience and can see the crossover.
 
Where are the over hooks, whizzers, throws and clinch work in VT? How do they work with llhs lsjc without contradiction?

How do you integrate a grappling applications approach with the conceptual base and overall organisation of the system?
 
Last edited:
When you punch at your opponent's face, do you try to step in your leading leg as far as you can between his legs? In CMA, it's called "仿帕(Ru Ma) - enter horse". This way, you can take over your opponent's center. I believe this is also a very important WC principle.

** Edit, I didn't see Eric_H already touched on this
but I tend to agree with his 'stance' on this - In an open/mirrored stance, it is typically a very bad strategy to step in between your opponent's legs for reasons he already mentioned. Same goes for close stance really. Among many things, in simple terms you end up with decreased leverage & facing, giving access to your back.
 
Last edited:
Given a general strategy, experienced practitioners "should" know or be able to figure out what to do with it. I can't be expected to write out a step by step tutorial on something as unpredictable as fighting.

Your are correct on that matter. However, if "we or I" express how it's done (because it work for us), you would give us that never failed "that's wrong, we don't do this, that violates WC concept and ..." anyway.

I have no problem with how you apply your VT, glade it is effective for you. Being different size, shape and structure, what work for one individual would not work for the other. Acknowledge the differences and move on already.

As I've said, this forum is built for sharing, if you can't or unwilling ...
 
** Edit, I didn't see Eric_H already touched on this
but I tend to agree with his 'stance' on this - In an open/mirrored stance, it is typically a very bad strategy to step in between your opponent's legs for reasons he already mentioned. Same goes for close stance really. Among many things, in simple terms you end up with decreased leverage & facing, giving access to your back.
In mirror stance, it may be better to step in outside of your opponent's leading leg. You can jam his left leg, prevent him from moving toward your right, and then move to your back.


But in "uniform stance", to step in between your opponent's legs will be a good idea.

enter_center.jpg


 
Last edited:
It's very difficult to avoid grappling if you apply WC "forward pressure". You want to move in, but you don't want to move in too much. What kind of battle do you intend to fight?

I think you and I have different understandings of what forward intent is. I can have forward intent without having forward body movement and vice versa.

And you've pretty much already said it, I intend to have a battle where I get close, but not *too* close :)
 
In mirror stance, it may be better to step in outside of your opponent's leading leg. You can jam his left leg, prevent him from moving toward your right, and then move to your back.

From a general pov I agree with this.

But in "uniform stance", to step in between your opponent's legs will be a good idea.

enter_center.jpg



I can see how someone might think this is a 'good idea' - if they are a non-wc practitioner and/or if they are planning to do what is shown in your included pic/clip. While you may argue, what you are showing imo does not generally show WC body methods, application, strategy, etc and surely not WC punching - it shows grappling/wrestling. So I don't think we're talking about the same thing any more.

Maybe it would be best to just stick to the subject, which is WC Punch and not other-art grappling :)
 
Last edited:
Maybe it would be best to just stick to the subject, which is WC Punch and not other-art grappling :)
If you can push on your opponent's shoulder, you can punch on his face. The key point is you have taken your opponent's center and his center become your center. This is how you use your Tan Da through your opponent's front door and run him down.

I had a clip that a WC instructor (one of YM's Chinese students) also addressed this issue. I just can't find that clip right now. In the following picture, if you step in right leg as deep as you can between your opponent's legs, you will get that "run your opponent down" effect.

wc_front_door_attack.jpg


If you can make your opponent to lean back, it will be to your advantage.

ru_ma_4.jpg


ru_ma_5.gif


ru_ma_6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oh? Maybe you better tell this guy. He seems to think that he can move seamlessly from VT into shuai chiao. Clearly you should set him strait.

It's my belief that Shuai Jiao is the missing grappling component from kung fu systems. For examples, all kung fu has 4 elements:
  1. Striking and Kicking
  2. Weapons
  3. Chin Na
  4. Grappling (shuai jiao)
Learning all 4 areas will give a more complete definition of any kung fu system. The reason why I think Shuai Jiao is the missing component because the goal of Shuai Jiao is to put your opponent on the ground while remaining standing or at a very minimum in a dominant position. By remaining standing anyone should be able to use any Kung Fu system to continue the strikes that are found with in the system. Being on the ground means that striking skill sets and technique will become void. Shuai Jiao however keeps you standing. If a person wants to fire off some hung gar strikes or Wing Chun strikes then standing up is requirement.

That video shows just how fluid Shuai Jiao is with a striking art. A person trying to do BJJ and Kung Fu would not have the same fluid transition between striking and grappling. We see evidence of this in MMA and UFC fights. Where there is no flow between striking and grappling.
 
It's my belief that Shuai Jiao is the missing grappling component from kung fu systems.
If you can put your right hand on your opponent's throat, you can pull his leading leg by your left hand to take him down. Anybody can learn this technique within 5 minutes. The throwing art is not that hard to learn.

ru_ma_5.gif
 
Last edited:
If you can put your right hand on your opponent's throat, you can pull his leading leg by your hand (or by your leg) to take him down. Anybody can learn this technique within 5 minutes. The throwing art is not that hard to learn.
Learning to escape that move takes less than 5 minutes. Basic Chin Na applications address what you are describing. If someone grabs my throat, I'm breaking their wrist and or arm.
 
However, if "we or I" express how it's done (because it work for us), you would give us that never failed "that's wrong, we don't do this, that violates WC concept and ..." anyway.

I've never said "that's wrong". I'm not your teacher.

I've said "we don't do this" if we don't. So?

And if it violates VT principles, what's wrong with pointing it out?
 
Your are correct on that matter. However, if "we or I" express how it's done (because it work for us), you would give us that never failed "that's wrong, we don't do this, that violates WC concept and ..." anyway.

Why would you care? Either you look at the point being made and respond or seriously consider what you are doing, or you dismiss it and continue on. I don't understand the response of hearing criticism and then just being sad about it but not doing anything. It appears some of you guys are mostly offended by language and perceived manners than by facts?

I have no problem with how you apply your VT, glade it is effective for you. Being different size, shape and structure, what work for one individual would not work for the other. Acknowledge the differences and move on already.

VT is a concept and principle based system. It is adaptable to neary any size or shape beyond obvious extremes.
 
Why would you care? Either you look at the point being made and respond or seriously consider what you are doing, or you dismiss it and continue on. I don't understand the response of hearing criticism and then just being sad about it but not doing anything. It appears some of you guys are mostly offended by language and perceived manners than by facts?



VT is a concept and principle based system. It is adaptable to neary any size or shape beyond obvious extremes.

Expected same old typical respond ... and tag teaming at that. I'm honored.

Before you two take another shot, take an hard look at what does ADAPTABLE means. This is what this whole mess of an thread is boiled down to.

Adaptation of Wing Chun concept & principle and make it effective varies to suit each individual, there is no right way nor wrong way ... it is just the way. Why do you feel the need to inject any criticism at anyone which do it different than you?

If you must, just explain how and why you do thing certain thing which is effective for you and be done with it. Unless you get off in carrying on as being since day 1.

I can bet one or both of you WILL throw more crap back, because that's what you live for, but that only re-enforce the assessment we had of you.
 
Expected same old typical respond ... and tag teaming at that. I'm honored.

Before you two take another shot, take an hard look at what does ADAPTABLE means. This is what this whole mess of an thread is boiled down to.

Adaptation of Wing Chun concept & principle and make it effective varies to suit each individual, there is no right way nor wrong way ... it is just the way. Why do you feel the need to inject any criticism at anyone which do it different than you?

If you must, just explain how and why you do thing certain thing which is effective for you and be done with it. Unless you get off in carrying on as being since day 1.

I can bet one or both of you WILL throw more crap back, because that's what you live for, but that only re-enforce the assessment we had of you.

I believe you're wasting your time trying to have a discussion with these guys. Many have tried and given up, better to expend your energy on training.
 
take an hard look at what does ADAPTABLE means. This is what this whole mess of an thread is boiled down to.

Adaptation of Wing Chun concept & principle and make it effective varies to suit each individual, there is no right way nor wrong way

It isn't a case of adapting the concepts of a system to fit the individual (or the individual problem). This has been discussed before and is referred to as gap filling. There is a right way and there is a wrong way according to the conceptual base of the system. To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice VT. It is not difficult.

It is perfectly possible to practice coherent and non contradictory VT, adapted to physical difference, but aligned with the core ideas upon which the system is based. VT is not designed only for people of a particular age, shape, or physical capacity.
 
It isn't a case of adapting the concepts of a system to fit the individual (or the individual problem). This has been discussed before and is referred to as gap filling. There is a right way and there is a wrong way according to the conceptual base of the system. To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice VT. It is not difficult.

It is perfectly possible to practice coherent and non contradictory VT, adapted to physical difference, but aligned with the core ideas upon which the system is based. VT is not designed only for people of a particular age, shape, or physical capacity.

To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice VT. It is not difficult.
To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice WC. It is not difficult.
To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice WT. It is not difficult.

To be in alignment with that conceptual base is to practice any other kind of spelling of WC.

Just figured I would change your statement to a more correct one. To avoid unnecessary fighting here.
 
I believe you're wasting your time trying to have a discussion with these guys. Many have tried and given up, better to expend your energy on training.

Thank you for reminding me of that.

Maybe we all should channel our energy on more positive areas than having keyboard war ... the fire will flame out when deprived of oxygen.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top