From: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty)
Subject: Re: Wing Chun style..help! (Todd's post)
Originator: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:54:29 GMT

stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) says:
Subject: Re: Wing Chun style...help!


>Thanks very much for your comments, Marty. 

No prob, I'm glad you didn't take it as a flame.

>I'm sure that some of the
>weaknesses I thought I saw were just my inability to understand what
>he was doing, and some were things that he uses his (considerable)
>physical strength and explosive power to compensate for that might not be
>classical Wing Chun.

Probably more his innacurate use of Wing chun from what you described.
Like with many other systems, if you ain't doing Wing Chun, then
you ain't doing Wing Chun.
By using his brute force, he powers over what the techniques are
actually there for.  It'll be his loss in the future.

>I'm sure it's just like in Aikido, where people who are 
>physically very powerful often have a harder time learning precision in 
>techniques, because they can get away with powering the technique through, 
>whereas the smaller, weaker people *have* to get it exactly right, or they 
>can't get it to work at all.  You know what I mean ?

Yah, but in Wing Chun it's even a little different than that.  It's
not so much precision in a technique as it is dealing with a persons Chi.

>Anyway, I'd say that
>what he does works for him, with his massive bone structure and thick
>musculature.  

Apparently not well enough though, as you are allready finding ways 
around what he does. :)
And it's kind of an insult the way he uses his brute strength and
everything else, and calls it Wing Chun.  I'm sure people from
other styles would feel the same of someone doing that with theirs.

>The stuff about sidestepping and hooking wasn't meant to imply 
>anything like 'all I would do is ...' It was meant to say that I saw very
>few weaknesses in what he was doing, and if I had to pick it apart
>to fight this particular guy, or coach someone to fight him, I'd recommend
>that the most likely openings in infighting would appear by keeping the hands
>in tight and then shooting very short hooks over-and-around the 
>shoulders and under-and-around the elbows, using evasive weaving 
>body movement and lateral footwork, rather than a direct forward stepping in
>because his structure in the center is so strong.   The usual types of 
>direct combinations on the inside would probably be pretty well blocked, and he 
>doesn't seem to lead enough on one side to permit an outside combination,
>unless you're weaving a lot.  

That's on the right track.  There's actually a number of thigs you could do.
If you were a Wing Chun practionere, you could take advantage of his
obviously weak structure.  (Weak in this case does not mean 
strength wise, but in the quality of the structure itself).  Sounds
like he'd be really tense, and easy to read.  (Tense in Wing Chun
terms does not necissarily mean tightening the muscles or "tensing"
them.  It means the loss of certain body sensitivity abilities, and
the constant direction of Chi in a certain direction, which
goes hand in hand witht he structure also).

I myself have come up with an idea from my own perspective recently,
that I am applying to my personal JKD.  When fighting someone loose
fight loose yet tight.  When fighting someone tight, fight
tight yet loose.  Loose in this case means a non defined structure,
able to hit anywhere with anything, in a non structured movement.
(Simmilar to a Boxer, or even long/medium range arts).
Tight means strict structure, very defined, lot's of linnear
or direct movements.  (Wing Chun, many sourthern arts, and other
systems from around the globe).

By remaining loose and tight against a loose fighter, you
fight what he is used to by fighting loose, and you play
by the general rules.  By adding the tight movements,
you take advantage of the holes in his fighting by
being tight yurself, and using linnear movements
when he is used to the general loose movements.

Same goes against a tight fighter, but in a differen't
way.  Against a tight fighter, you need to be tight
or he will devestate you because of your openess.
Yet you still need a certain openess to your tight
fighting to take advantage of certain angular 
attack that you can take advantage of.

Again, this goes with the saying "Fight a boxer and box a fighter", but
to a deeper understanding and extent.

If you can, try it out on him next time.

>I don't know how much of this applies to
>classical WC, or whether it really even applies in this one case.  It's just
>my impressions, for what they're worth.   Maybe he's completly unbeatable,
>and maybe all WC people are completely unbeatable.  But my mind always runs
>to try to find weaknesses rather than just give up.  ;-)

That my friend, is why you will always be one step ahead.  Always seek
to find an answer no matter what the confrontation or how good the
opponent is.  Never give up.

>							todd


Marty

Do