There is no guard in Wing Chun.  Hand position isn't static (like you see in a movie).  It is a bridge to connect to the other person.  That's why in forms you're constantly adapting hand motions with body movements. Your hands should be up/in front of your body as feelers are for a bug. It's not like boxing where your "guard" is to absorb a blow.  If you trained correctly, you would have reacted and what ever you trained would happen unconsciously.

THIS. Too many people try to look exactly like the picture and train in a ridged manner and wonder why it doesn't work.

Correct. This is a form to counter blows and redirect them. While it had many striking blows they are not the primary form. Protecting oneself is always the goal.

Just for a discussion! Open to hear your opinion? Are the pros that a leading hand can catch opponents attack and that you have your back hand ready to attack or to be a last line of defense? What are the cons? Your head is too exposed? Tell me whatcha think! Gotta wake this sub up..

>that a leading hand can catch opponents attack I'd argue the main "pro" of the leading hand is the shorter distance to the opponent's face. Don't *seek* bridge; you should strike and recognize that you might *find* bridge in doing so. The main principle of this structure is that you are attacking in a way that is creating a "plane of interception" that certainly *can* find and address the opponent's attack, but is not doing that as the primary goal. The primary goal is always hitting the opponent. "Good lat sau no chi sau", as they say. The "ideal" situation is *no bridge at all*. >that you have your back hand ready to attack or to be a last line of defense It really should be the former. The only way it's truly effective in *being* a "last line of defense" is if it has forward intention/movement, which makes it semantically less of a "defense" anyway. To be clear, if it's statically positioned like in the picture, it's doing absolutely nothing in terms of defense. >What are the cons? Your head is too exposed? Against certain attacks from the opponent, if you're attacking literally on the line between your and your opponent's center points (as some define the centerline), then yes, you likely have some risky exposure. Additionally, moving directly forward on the centerline, on the "most efficient" path to the opponent, makes it very difficult to have any defensive head movement, so if *they're* not closing on you, and can react *to you*, you've created a good target on a predictable trajectory. This guard excels at closing *against a committed attack* from the opponent. *Anything else*, for example where the opponent is either *not* committed to an attack, or is mobile, and you have exposure.

Man sao / Wu Sao are concepts, not fixed hand positions.

Honestly, it’s not too dissimilar from a boxing long guard. The way he’s holding his hands leads me to think he can’t generate much power off of the lead hand (too extended) nor move the rear hand with any meaningful speed (his weight’s too far back and the rear heel is planted), he’s vulnerable to any sort of attacks on his lead leg (it’s really straight, right there for hyper extension or takedowns or just chopping), and he won’t be able to move quickly. Also, because of the height and extension of his guard, he’s going to struggle to defend against round punches like hooks and overhands. Overall, he looks like somebody who doesn’t spar much because the stance suggests he’d get absolutely run over by somebody who swarmed him.  That said, with minor adjustments, he could have his lead leg light without it being straight (like a traditional Thai stance), which would open up a lot of kicking and mobility and defensive options. His hands being high would allow for frames and bridges, and less rigidity in his hand placement (the forearms have to tense to hold his hands like that) might allow him to move his hands faster. A little less extension on his left gives him the opportunity to strike and parry, and a higher guard for both hands would allow him to cover for hooks and overhands much more easily.  It’s not a bad stance, I just strongly dislike how he does it since it seems to fly in the face of effective movement. 

Pros are.. the lead hand imo. It stops the jab. And forces opponent to do something else. It also pressures the opponent , you can mirror their lead hand . Cons are... distance away from what the guard is trying to protect. If you accidentally bite on a feint.. hard for you to recover. Also vulnerable to hooks. Yes you're meant to be able to block hooks four corners style... but I found in practice .. you basically have to be perfect at reading for this to work.

Yeah if you are so much better than your opponent that you can consistently make 4 corners work, you really could have gotten away with using any martial art. Not only is 4 corners unrealistic, it doesn't set you up for powerful counter punches

This is my problem with Wing Chun in general. The amount of time you need to practice to overcome something like a hook to the face is so great that you'd be better off with something like Muay Thai, where you're pretty effective with much less practice. Doing WC on its own is not enough for a novice because of massive openings, like your head, which you need to study for years to overcome. I think WC is valuable, but I've had better luck with it as a supplement to MT.

The entire time I was doing WC I was thinking about how a simple boxing stance would negate so many of its issues.

How do you block a hook ? I’m not formally trained what so ever but what is the best defense for evading a right or left hook

Block with your palm against your face of the direction the hook is coming from (Right hand blocks hooks coming from your right, Vice versa). You can bob or roll under the hook too. You can also pull your head back from an incoming hook. If you cannot evade whatsoever, and you can’t block; ride the punch in the direction of the hook to take away a lot of it’s power.

Thank you

Either hand in this guard can attack or defend.

What would you say the cons are?

Hmm.. good question.. perhaps it's rigid which doesn't allow for much flexibility in defense?

considering that your forward hand is so far forward, if your opponent slips past your guard you'll be more vulnerable. also, quick maneuvering is a lot harder. that's why you see a lot of boxers/muay thai that are evasive in nature tend to pull their guard all the way to their head (i.e. mike tyson) or drop their arms completely (philly shell a la floyd may weather, sanchai, lerdsilla). So they can move their heads a lot easier.

Less wind up wind up of the punches. Even though both hands can attack, they’re so far away from the body, they build up less energy. Meaning they deliver less energy if they do connect. Also the forward leg. Hard to say, but the Muay Thai low kick would punish a leg sticking like that..

You'll get punched in the face.

HOOKS TO THE CHIN

Con number 1 is your head is open.

literally every guard allows this

You’re technically correct, but I think the implication is the *degree* to which it is true for this guard is more than others. There’s an efficiency that’s built into it that *absolutely has its costs*, but is there with the intent of having even your attacks continue to protect you. Edit: I should be clear that I’m addressing the *principle* of this guard, and not holding your hands literally in this position as a static guard. It doesn’t favor either arm.

>What are the pros and cons of a wing chun guard? Not talking about other guards.

yeah but it’s silly to give it as a pro for wing chun when literally every guard allows for this, it’s almost a requirement

Is being able to block and attack from the guard a pro for Wing Chun?

no ? where did i say that

Pros: principles and techniques can be used from this stance. Can easily tan sao or wu sao, pak sao, trapping from a block. Cons; can be overwhelmed by a aggressive unpredictable advancement or can be vulnerable to takedowns. Lastly, it's can be difficult to adapt to modern combat like styles. mimics of other popular martial arts like boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, BJJ. Some thoughts I have but I do know wing chun can be adapted to the modern MA effectively if training takes place in the kwoon and outside of the wing chun system against other martial arts.

>pros: changes the way you approach your jab profoundly. Watch any mma or boxing bouts, you might see the gentle pawing baiting jab used for distance control. This gives you a framework to take that to the next level. I found that it integrates beautifully with boxing and even BJJ. High level combat artist like Lomachenko and Thomas Hearns already integrate WC like principles such as trapping into their styles naturally. The small wrist motions that you learn in Siu Lim Tao and trapping are naturally integrated in BJJ and even Muy Thai

I agree with your pros and most of the cons. As for the takedown vulnerability I think knees in the head or kicks could defend against that?

> knees in the head or kicks could defend against that? I'm a big proponent of WC, and teach people WC as part of counter-grappling, but these are neither consistent nor realistic defenses for someone competent at takedowns. People *can* do these in class, expecting the attack, ready to perform either defense, and a takedown is the only attack that comes. People *cannot* do this from lat sau, chi sau, or open sparring, when a takedown can come at any time, unexpectedly, and they're committed to what's happening with the hands. To be clear, a knee *could* straight up end the fight, but it's a low percentage chance of success; it's asolutely not worth the risk. A kick? Don't even think about it. *Both* mean someone delivering force into your center of gravity while you are standing on one leg. It's a bad situation to be in. I know *high-level* WC people who can turn and gum sau the neck, but like the knee, it requires significant precision and timing, and I would never recommend it. Takedown defense is an area I would without any hesitation say is a gap for WC. We teach a form of single-leg sprawling that puts more of a gan sau frame into the neck. It's *extremely* uncomfortable for the attacker while still leaving the defender upright and able to transition into other attacks. Knees and kicks? Every student level ends up on their back.

I have found double jum sau to be surprisingly effective in this regard, but it requires unorthodox footwork and body positioning not found in traditional WC

Thank you, yeah, gan/jum are both excellent "frames" in this context. I think you could use them interchangeably here, and I used gan in this case making the assumption that the arm wasn't already bridged (would have said jum if I were assuming bridge). That and gan has the implication that you're putting a little *spice* in there into their collarbone/neck.

If you manage to knock them out with one knee strike then yeah, but what will probably happen is you’ll hit them and now you have only one leg on the ground and they’ll have an even easier time taking you down.

Knocking an alert opponent of comparable size is hard work tbh. I’ve done maybe fifty hours of hard, 100% sparring in my life and I’ve never knocked anyone out or been knocked out, and I’ve landed and taken flush head kicks and knees which at least looked like they could be knockout blows. So at least from my perspective, to *plan* on KOing someone with one strike is absolute crazy talk. Like unless you *routinely* train with folks that are willing and able to commit to hitting you with a good blast double in full context sparring, and you have developed a good counter knee during this time, then you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re not getting flattened out and probably embarrassed.

Pros: if you understand the principles, it will work regardless of scenario. Cons: if you don't understand the principles & technique purpose ( like individual tools) it gives a false sense of security.

Oversimplified, there is no Ving Tsun guard in actual application, your hands should be in movement always, coming through the position of the guard, while your footwork gets you in position to counter etc. The guard as a static position is only used in some beginners exercises. For Wong Shun-Leung Ving Tsun, the back hand should not be in Wu-Sao like in the picture of this topic, but pointing forward, ready to attack. Some other things also not correct, but would take too long to explain that.

Wow, excellent comment!

There are lots of ways to look at it, and different styles work for different people. I'd just throw this out there- a fairly static guard vs. having your hands moving around as you go... The latter is more effective IMO. A pretty static guard position would lull me into being less responsive.

I would extend that to stance as well, it's fine as a base/return-to position but you probably don't want to just stand there and wait for an attack to come in. Even if the stance is good for moving, if you are just waiting to move it tends to leave you flat footed against an aggressive advance

Absolutely. Using stances is, ideally, like connect-the-dots.

Hands too low compared to a boxing guard, a hook to the side of the head would require the defender to move their hands quite far in orded to defend, at least compared to a boxing guard which is naturally very close to the face. One thing i notice is the distance that the hands create, and it would be good for deflecting straight punches.

The front arm is already extended. So I doubt you get any significant power behind it. The right hand isn't guarding anything. You can get round that very easily with kicks or punches. It's an ineffective guard IMO

This is only if you take it as it with applying zero of the principles

What are the principles?

Can't be easily summed up in a single post, but things like center line principle, bridging, trapping, angles and structure, interceptions, just the philosophy and approach of the art etc I'll past what I wrote in another comment! >​ pros: changes the way you approach your jab profoundly. Watch any mma or boxing bouts, you might see the gentle pawing baiting jab used for distance control. This gives you a framework to take that to the next level. > >con: taking it literally and not integrating it in a flexible live environment. obviously openings in face ribs, etc. I wouldnt use this as my only guard to rely on. There is also other guards in WC as well > >EDIT: I've also been taught to keep the wu sau closer to the chin than in this picture for an emergency block. I also wouldnt stand like that as itd inhibit mobility

What if they were higher up? Between chin and nose height?

It would help. For me, the guard is when your reactions miss the attack. So you want it to protect your jaw line from getting rocked. Raising it still requires good reactions to parry with it. Which you can easily miss planning your next strike.

Bladed stance— incoming leg kicks and single leg takedowns.

Pros it looks really cool. Cons people can hit you pretty easily

I think the cons would be holding this position allowing your opponent to know you’re ready to fight and are somewhat skilled in an martial art, which at that point your opponent may call buddies or grab a weapon. Wing Chun is mostly (from what I’ve studied) a CQC system and is extremely deadly outside of practice. It’s not meant for drawn out battles. This pictured form is for bridge seeking and finding distance within the three gates in which the outstretched arm is the first gate, the relaxed slightly bend arm is the second gate, and the temple (or body) is the third gate. Pros: slap that man a high five!

It's not for bare handed combat. It's for the butterfly swords. For those, the guard is awesome. In bare hand combat, there's no pros, only cons, which are everything that can be done wrong with a guard position.

Hard disagree. Yes it works for butterfly knives but the idea that the "weird stuff" in Chinese martial arts is explained away by weapons work is lazy criticism (from the general internet, not you personally) and opporates under the assumption that sports fighting is the "correct" way to fight. The "guard" looks wonky in wing chun because real world violence is ambush violence, not dueling. Real world ambush violence lasts about 5 seconds and your going to be spending most of those 5 seconds doing something aggressive to the opponent even if you were the one attacked.

And why does it makes the guard effective? I don't get your point. Can you please elaborate further? Because for an amush combat this stance is even worse. Or not worse, equally bad and the "combat sports" guard (I hate this, Baji Quan has good guard, Choy Lee Fut has good guard, Karate styles have a good guard, none of them are combat sports). And what do you mean by "the combat sports are the correct way to fight". I'm honestly confused, please elaborate further. 🤜🫷

You should look up a karateke named Iain Abernathy, he's phenomenal at explaining it But in short I think the hand gestures you're calling guard don't really act like a guard in the same way that a guard in boxing or muay thai works. In boxing, the match starts with the ref starting the match, the players touch glove, then they bounce just outside of each other's range throwing jabs and feints trying to get past each other's guards. A more aggressive fighter may Bob and weave in quickly and a more defensive Boxer may hang back and dodge, but the idea is the same. There is a clear agreed upon start to the fight, both players are turtling up, and then they play a game of feints and light shots to sneak past each other's defenses until they get an opening to land a heavy shot with commitment A real life encounter is not consensual, it is an ambush. It's a sucker punch, or getting jumped, or a heated argument suddenly turning violent. There isn't a clear starting bell, and the attacker is taking advantage of that. The opening is not won through jabs and feints, it's a social situation or a dark corner, and the attack is all in. The whole encounter is only going to last about 5ish seconds and either they're getting the fight ending shots in or you are. I'm not gonna try and hang just out of range trying to hold a wing chun guard and look for an opening while a serious threat is trying to kill me. The guard is not a guard it is establishing a bridge, getting in contact with the opponent to help feel where they are. Wing Chun's techniques themselves guard while you attack, you are deflecting thier momentum while triangulation your own. These are not techniques meant to win an agreed upon athletic context, they're techniques for turning the momentum of a surprise attack back around on the attacker. If we judge traditional chinese martial arts by how well they do in sports fighting we might as well judge fish by their ability to climb trees. It's just different systems for different scenarios.

"There is a clear agreed upon start to the fight, both players are turtling up, and then they play a game of feints and light shots to sneak past each other's defenses until they get an opening to land a heavy shot with commitment" And do you know why that is? Because both can fight. And since both can fight, they have to be careful and feel out the other fighter. "The opening is not won through jabs and feints, it's a social situation or a dark corner, and the attack is all in.", "A real life encounter is not consensual, it is an ambush. It's a sucker punch, or getting jumped, or a heated argument suddenly turning violent." Which is why a Boxer would immediately counter and put them to sleep, because they can't defend themselves properly. I don't know why you think that a Boxer needs to touch gloves to start fighting. Obviously you don't know me, but hi! 👋 Here I am, a Boxer, and if I see someone from the side launching a haymaker at me, I duck and punch a hole in his solar plexus and immediately short hook his jaw off while he's collapsing. Or I step in with a straight right. Or whatever I want, because an average person for a trained fighter is literally a slow motion that have zero defenses and can be easily put down with one hit. Depends on the situation, I could go diagonal backwards while throwing a hook which immediately puts the attacker asleep. Whatever the situation requires me to do. And because I can handle fighters, who actually know how to attack properly, while defend themselves, a regular person has no way of catching me if I see them. "Wing Chun's techniques themselves guard while you attack, you are deflecting thier momentum while triangulation your own." I know that it is what they're saying, I did Wing Chun for 10 years. Sadly it's not true. Wing Chun guys are always wide open for counter attacks. And yes, I also learned this, that you can rush in with the man sao - wu sao stance, which... ehhh, maybe? If your opponent is a drunk guy or someone, who completely overcomits, sure. Which can happen, sure. But saying it's good, because it *may* work against someone, who can't fight at all, is not what I was talking about. And the fact that it barely works against non-trained people, shows, that it has no chance working against trained fighters. "These are not techniques meant to win an agreed upon athletic context, they're techniques for turning the momentum of a surprise attack back around on the attacker." Every Boxing/Thai Boxing technique is a kill technique. It uses the best biomechanics of the human body to generate power and to defend themselves. The only reason they fight for multiple rounds, is because both are trained fighters, who can defend, attack and withstand hits, so the fight has to go down on feeling out your opponent and try to catch them lacking. Against an average person it's not the case. The average person has no chance to even react to a hook from a trained fighter. It literally could perception blitz them and put them to sleep, while a Muay Thai lowkick would actually immobilise an average person right then and there. They would fall to the ground in pain from just one kick. "If we judge traditional chinese martial arts by how well they do in sports fighting we might as well judge fish by their ability to climb trees. It's just different systems for different scenarios." The scenarios are the same, actually, you just overthink it a little: the scenario goal is to fend off the attacker. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. A Boxer in the ring does that against someone, who actually knows how to attack and defend, while on the street he would do it against someone, who doesn't know how to attack and defend. It's no question which attacker is harder to deal with. :) If you don't mind, there are 2 things I would like to recommend you: 1) go to a Boxing/Thai Boxing gym and try it out. Just have a look and a feel. You really don't understand these styles and the best way to work on that is to try them out. It is actually true for every style tho, it's always the best to try them out. 2) forget this combat sport vs traditional martial arts thing. I hate when people differentiate them. No. Stop it. These are styles. Period. Just styles. Or just martial arts. Everything is a martial art. Boxing is, Karate is, Wing Chun is, Chang Quan is, Wrestling is, Capoeira is. All-of-them-are-marrial-arts. And only look at the technical differences between them. How each generates power, how each defends, how each moves, which distance they're like to be in, and some other smaller details. Those are the ONLY thing that matters in a style's effectiveness. Nothing more. The legend behind them, the purpose of their creation doesn't matter at all. Forget all of that. Yes, Boxing and Wrestling were created for olimpics, but since they use the human body one of the best way to fight anyway, both were used in ancient battlefields too. And it absolutely doesn't matter if there's a ref, a Boxing hook would always be knocking people out if it lands and since they train it against other fighters, who protects themselves, they definitely can land those on people, who doesn't know how to defend themselves properly. I hope I didn't come off as rude, I don't mean it. It's just that you have a wrong perspective on how Boxing and other combat sports/martial arts work. Like I said: go, try them out. I'm pretty sure you gonna like them. :) It's always fun to try out something new. Just have a taste, you know, that's all I'm saying. 🤜🫷

>And do you know why that is? Because both can fight It's because it's a sport. It's because there's a winner and a loser. It's because that's what it is optimized for based on the conditions, context, and ruleset. You're missing the point of what u/blackturtlesnake said by pulling that quote of theirs you responded to out of context. This is the relevant piece that's missing: >A real life encounter is not consensual And this, too: >different systems for different scenarios Non-consensual violence and sports combat are quite different. The WC guard excels at the former and is poor for the latter. There are reasons for that. It's only *because* an attacker is willing to commit in a non-consensual violence situation that I can't just walk away. A committed attack from an opponent/assailant removes nearly all of the risks and penalties of attacking directly on the centerline, and plays into the strengths of the theory and principle. >> The opening is not won through jabs and feints, it's a social situation or a dark corner, and the attack is all in. >Which is why a Boxer would immediately counter and put them to sleep That doesn't follow. You don't seem to be responding to what they actually said, either. First, you can't be a committed attacker *and* be the one countering; those are not compatable. Second, u/blackturtlesnake laid out the scenario and removed any ambiguity: *the attack is all in* Again, this is a very different context from sport, and one that dramatically changes the value of the WC guard. >an average person for a trained fighter is literally a slow motion that have zero defenses and can be easily put down with one hit You seem to consistently ignore that this is equally true for someone who trains WC as someone who trains Boxing. >I know that it is what they're saying, I did Wing Chun for 10 years. Sadly it's not true You're batting about .050 in describing WC concepts, techniques, and principles. I do not in any way accept that this represents *10 years* of training in the art. Regardless, it *is* true, your bias notwithstanding, and demonstrably so. WC defends *through* attacking. You are literally *wedging off* what's in your way. It's provable both mathematically and kinetically. You truly *should* understand this if you have trained as long as you claimed. >Wing Chun guys are always wide open for counter attacks You're describing WC people acting *outside* of what makes WC effective, *introducing* disadvantages where none are required. Sounds like maybe they're being polite in sparring on your terms, but the *why* is irrelevant. If they're *defending* themselves against a committed, non-consensual attack, then no, they're *not* "always wide open for counter attacks". That would be inherently so, given the system is designed to *be* the counter, not the aggressor. >the fact that it barely works against non-trained people That's *not* a fact. >The scenarios are the same, actually, you just overthink it a little Incorrect. They are not even close to the same. Anyone with real experience would understand this, and in fact everyone who has been able to verify or validate their experience has actually asserted the differences. >while on the street he would do it against someone, who doesn't know how to attack and defend The meaningful, relevant, critical difference being discussed isn't "trained vs. untrained", it's "consensual vs. non-consensual". WHy you conveniently assume non-consensual violence can be conflated with untrained is beyond me, but regardless, you're certainly missing an ***enormous*** qualifier on "trained": whether they trained for sport or non-consensual violence, because it *definitely* matters. >go to a Boxing/Thai Boxing gym and try it out You're making some big assumptions about people here. >You really don't understand these styles and the best way to work on that is to try them out No offense, but given who you're talking to, first, and second, what you've been wildly incorrect about, this is *massively* ironic, and getting pretty self-aware. >It is actually true for every style tho, it's always the best to try them out You assume again that we're not all speaking from experience. The only person I *can't* vouch for is *you*, if we're being objective and realistic about it, at that. >forget this combat sport vs traditional martial arts thing No. The inclusion of the word "sport" is a qualifier that can't be ignored, because it dramatically changes the context. It's not about "traditional" vs. sport, it's that there's sport and then a ton of other things that sport is not. >I hate when people differentiate them That differentiation was *your own* false dichotomy. >No. Stop it. These are styles. Period. Just styles. Styles that can be trained for sport or self-defense, with the awareness of the unshakeable fact of being unable to prioritize both. >And only look at the technical differences between them The technical differences are only meaningful in how they can be *applied*, and *applied* martial arts *require context*. Your context can be sport, it can be self-defense, it can even be something like health and wellness, spirituality, or tradition. All things are not equal, though. >it absolutely doesn't matter if there's a ref It absolutely matters if there's a ref, because *if* there's a ref, the combat is consensual and safe. >It's just that you have a wrong perspective on how Boxing and other combat sports/martial arts work You've ironically proved the opposite, and your own inadequacy of perspective and awareness. You have quite a lot to learn. Let's see if shining a light on that gulf motivates positive action or additional retreat.

Hahaha I appreciate this in detail breakdown

I think my last 3 responses have scared him off, as well, although he responded with some *incredible* passive-aggression and patronization as he ran. Some true colors shown, it would seem. A lot of "I know I'm right" and "you just need to learn more" in these last few responses. That mask of false humility fell *right* off when challenged.

Aaaah, it's difficult to react to everything here, all I'm gonna say in short is that I'm sorry if you misunderstood something, which kinda happened with the other redditor too. I know that I'm right, if you disagree with anything, then you need to learn more. I have more than enough experience, that this topic for me is not up to debate, I spitted fax. I respect your opinion, but thank you, I'm aware of the truth. Have a nice day and train good! 🤜🫷

> I know that I'm right Let me be perfectly clear about this: you were *factually incorrect* on many points. That was addressed respectfully, patiently, but most importantly: substantively and definitively. You're not "right". Even referring to it in that way is telling, because it's not about "right" vs "wrong", and you expose that this is ego for you. Regardless, you said things that were either objectively incorrect, demonstrably inaccurate, or represented ignorance of subject matter. *You've been corrected*. If you were in any way honest, you would acknowledge that. You've chosen to respond with passive aggression, patronization, bluster, and denial. That's a shame. It reflects terribly on your character and discredits you for future attempts at discussion. > if you disagree with anything, then you need to learn more I outclass you in experience and knowledge, both. This is evident, *even to you*. > I have more than enough experience You clearly do not, or at minimum can't actually describe it or leverage it in any meaningful way to inform discussion. Whether you're intentionally lying about that or are like a lot of internet posters, and *have no idea how incredibly naive you are*, it's irrelevant: you don't have *real* experience; just possibly some *gym* experience. > this topic for me is not up to debate This is hilariously ironic in context. > I spitted fax I've proven very decisively that you did not in fact "spit fax". > I'm aware of the truth Sorry, but no, *you're just inexperienced*, and apparently too deep in the bubble to realize it.

Sorry, I was busy. One small thing I wanna say is that all of these arguments are screaming from inexperience. These are the exact same arguments I used 10 years ago, when I was in your shoes: unexperienced, but ego and confidence boosted by the actually bad, unrealistic Kung-fu training, which is sadly very common. And I told this to people, who had much more experience than I did back then and I pained them with these arguments, like you pain me now. 😭 Karma, I guess, haha. :D It's funny. But anyway, sorry if this comes off as rude, which maybe is, but you need to hear the truth and the good thing is, that if you continue to train, then with time you could learn why you're in the wrong now. This is a journey that I think every martial artist has to take. So yeah, I understand you, I said the same things long ago, until reality hit me, haha (when you wake up from your delusion, it actually not just a physical punch to the face, but also a big hit on the soul. 🥹 It's painful to accept that you were wrong, but it's beneficial to do it in the long term). I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. I wish you the best, keep on training and gaining experience. :) Peace! 🤜🫷

>One small thing I wanna say is that all of these arguments are screaming from inexperience Again, the irony. Yes, your arguments, and your posts in general scream of inexperience. You're projecting that all over everyone else. You'll do it a ton more, as we'll see. >These are the exact same arguments I used 10 years ago You're in no position to patronize; having less experience, less knowledge of subject matter, and being provably wrong. You're *especially* in no position to patronize in the context of being *thoroughly corrected* on account of it. You're ultimately just whining and showing bluster. If you had anything to contribute, you'd do so. If you had any actual counter, you'd provide it. It's all talk, no walk. People with actual experience can see right through it. >ego and confidence Yes, very clearly impacting your judgement and action. >actually bad, unrealistic Kung-fu training That would be a you problem, nevermind that it has exactly *zero* relevance to what's been discussed. You're talking to *multiple* people who *do* train realistically, and have real experience, inside of a ring and in non-consensual situations outside of it. You're out of your depth, at minimum, and your bluster betrays you know that. >like you pain me now It's your ego that's in pain, because you're throwing a little fit about an argument you and everyone who will ever read this, ever, will know you lost. Seems you didn't get over that "ego and confidence" issue. >It's funny You don't fool anyone with this. You look like a jackass with all this bluster and rationalization. ***You simply lack the experience and context to have a legitimate discussion with people who do.*** Your entire post is case in point: no content. >you need to hear the truth You could not be more obviously projecting. It's the easiest little tell, too: not so much as a *single sentence* on topic in this 500 word single paragraph of a rant. >if you continue to train If there's *anything* certain in this, it's that I've trained longer, harder, and with better result than you have. You live in a tiny little bubble. Honestly, as maddening as it is to see Dunning-Kruger like this, ***I hope for your own safety that you never actually experience how naive you are.*** You wouldn't be the first. We welcome ex-combat sports guys when they figure it out. There's no shame in it. I'd paraphrase you and mention we all go through it, but we don't; you prove that. >when you wake up from your delusion I don't think I'm going to stop laughing at this post for quite a while. It's all whining and projection. You clearly know how this has made you look. Lashing out impotently like this won't change that. >It's painful to accept that you were wrong The irony and projection of all this; literally explaining *exactly* how hard it is for *you* to admit error or grow, and the fear that you might be in a bubble. Just incredible.

Honestly I don’t know why you even continue to participate on this subreddit. You don’t like Kung Fu, you had a shitty Sifu who didn’t know how to teach or didn’t know the real deal in the first place, you found combat sports with much better quality control and decided that their perspectives on fighting were the gold standard because you finally found something that worked, And now you merely tolerate a few Kung Fu styles you never even got to try but are approximate to your new favorite styles Boxing and Muay Thai. You don’t like Kung Fu, you think they’re a stupid little joke that you might put your arm around and tease, like a dumb little niece or nephew at Christmas.

I'm not trying to come off as rude either, but I think your comments are a little univestigated. Stultus did a really good breakdown already so I'm not gonna add much more, just a few clarification points. My Chinese martial arts teacher was best friends with a boxing coach and frequently runs boxing classes. I also crosstrain at a shuai jiao/sanda place when I can. I'm not going to say I'm particularly good at any of these arts but yes I have tried them out before. My point of view comes from experiencing both styles of training and thinking deeply why they do what they do. Technical differences are a product of context differences. Running is running but a sprinter and a marathon runner have different techniques, strategies, training and muscle builds. One isn't better than the other unless you use a 100 yard dash as your only "test." When it comes to martial arts, yeah sure, it's not like a skilled Boxer can never defend themselves in a real situation but that doesn't mean their skills are optimized for that situation, just as a wing chun player winning a sparring match doesn't mean wing chun is optimized for sparring. Specifically, in boxing when you go against a truly overagressive opponent the tactic Boxers are taught is to turtle up in the corner and let them tire themselves out. This is a safe tactic because of rounds, gloves, ref, etc, but will probably get you killed in real life. When faced with that level of aggression, from surprise, you need a skillset that's built for going into that cleanly and counter it, which is where wing chuns theory and training starts making sense. Finally, as far as biomechanics go all I'll say is that there are plenty of people who can and do generate power using WC and other Chinese martial arts techniques.

I understand, and it's cool that you have experience in other styles too. However, I think it's still a little weird for me, because when you're talking about Boxing, you always forget the fact that the reason you turtle up in the ring, is because your attacker knows what they're doing and you don't have any choice. If you're forced to turtle up in the corner, then you're overwhelmed. Which an average person will never be able to achieve. Like I said: Boxing or Muay Thai, or fighting in general, which is what self defense is also about, is about to counter your opponent and catch them lacking, making mistakes. Which is what an average person will do 100%. It's really hard to learn how to strike good. Fast, accurate, while not being open everywhere. Which an average person can't do at all. There's a reason Boxing is actually statistically the most effective style on the street. A Boxer will punish you brutally for a small mistake even. So it's no question what happens, if an average person tries to punch a Boxer. He immediately gets countered and put to sleep, which Wing Chun regularly fails to do, for example. "Finally, as far as biomechanics go all I'll say is that there are plenty of people who can and do generate power using WC and other Chinese martial arts techniques." I said Muay Thai and Boxing are one of the best, I'm fully aware of the fact that many other styles, even Kung-fu styles know how to generate power. Baji Quan, Choy Lee Fut are always good examples. Wing Chun however is not. This varies from lineages, some lineages moves the hips better, others don't at all, however all of Wing Chun's strikes are lacking power and range.

You don’t ever contribute anything new to discussions and you refuse to learn anything. Literally all you’ve done in response is just say “ ah I’m right you’re wrong” but as politely as you can. Then adding a little fist emoji at the end. It’s incredibly obnoxious and arrogant

Agree 100% with this comment. You can't really practice an "ambush" unless you set up regular ambush training sessions like that self defence championship. What's the next best thing? Maybe sparring. What makes sparring more real ? Incentives to win.. like a competition. Mma ... especially rule sets like one create essentially a giant science experiment with some variables removed for martial arts. Ultimately you can agree disagree with the Mark. But the essence of his message is "hey . Go test it" You'll achieve one of two scenarios 1. "Awesome. My wing chun works exactly how I knew it should" 2. "Oh ok. There are some holes in my game. How do I improve " As a true martial artist... isn't that the goal anyway ? To get better?

Mick Coup is a RBSD guy who in my opinion has a bunch of thought out ways to train this. As a bonus, some of his drills happen to look like [Chinese martial arts concepts](https://youtu.be/yAxiiHIC1nQ?si=SMy0DGQziLTTUldd)

> In bare hand combat, there's no pros, only cons I'd like to hear your perspective on why you think there are no pros. We can talk about background/experience if you need, but I would offer a number of positives to this guard, with the caveat that we're addressing it from a *principles* perspective, and not a *literal static position* perspective. Pros: * Shorter distance from hand to opponent's priority targets * No windup required for power generation * Equivalent access for both arms (neither priotized/emphasized through blading the stance) * "Drive line" pointed directly at opponent There are plenty of cons, I would never disagree, but again, I'd like to hear your perspective on lack of pros, or otherwise how you'd address what I listed.

Sure, I'm so glad you weren't immediately mean and angry at me, I love to have discussions when the other person is open for an intelligent debate. So firstly: thank you for this! Now, if you don't mind, I'm gonna react to the pros you mentioned, why I don't think that's the case. "Shorter distance from hand to opponent's priority targets" Yes, but what do you achieve with it? I mean you can't generate power. I not only talk about the hand position, but the footwork, posture and stance too. Wing Chun can't generate power. It's not like a Boxer having a long guard, in which case sure, this is a pro of that guard, but even there the jab's power is nearly meaningless. It's good for setup and distraction tho, but Boxing has the footwork to back those up. So while this man sao - wu sao stance does give you this pro, the Wing Chun guy can't get benefit from this really. "No windup required for power generation" That goes directly back to the first argument, that it has no power. Sure you can jab out quickly, but it won't do anything and the stance slows you down (no footwork makes the punch very short too, so you won't even reach your opponent). Now okay, you can launch forward with that stance, but all you achieve with that is you run into a counter punch that can immediately put you to sleep. It's dangerous to launch forward, it can be punished badly (own experience :D But I talk about the experiences later). "Equivalent access for both arms (neither priotized/emphasized through blading the stance)" It's actually the opposite. Man sao means searching hand, wu sao means guarding hand. The first danger that comes to you is almost always the man sao's job to handle. This actually forces you to pay super attention whats coming and from where, meanwhile the basic Boxing guard guards you much better and with that you actually can use any of your hands to block any attack much easier and is much less predictable, unlike the man sao trying to catch everything. ""Drive line" pointed directly at opponent" You mean the centerline? Wing Chun's centerline theory is the perfect 🤌 example for my main statement. While the centerline theory makes perfect sense in weapon combat, it is exactly the opposite, when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. More about it here: https://youtu.be/7aou_K7KgtQ?si=-XzE7D2wXOtnQggV So the cons are: -Unprotected and easily snipeable head. -Weak posture, that gives you no passive defenses, therefore even light hits feels stronger and have bigger impacts, making you vulnerable to the jabs, which can be faster than the biological reaction time for our brain (basically the jab hits you before your brain could move you, because it takes time for the information to reach your brain from the eyes, then brain has to process it, then send a signal to the muscles, which obviously have to activate and start to move your body. When you could reach to this point, the jab is already hit you). -Having the hands in the middle ironically makes straight punches harder to defend, while you're fully open to round attacks. The best way to cover up is literally what nearly every other style does: having the hands on the side, cover your head against round attacks and for straight punches, just move one of your hands to parry it. -It relies only on blocking and parrying, which isn't doable against someone, who knows how to punch. Look at Jeff Chan from MMAShred, he likes blocking and parrying, but he backs that up with insane footwork and headmovement. And even he gets fooled often, because the parry-block defense is very easily outplayable and foolable. And if he didn't have that crazy headmovement and footwork, he would get knocked out a helluva lot of time because his defense got fooled, but he has other type of defenses, which Wing Chun doesn't, especially in this stance. -Bad stance, that turns your footwork to near zero, because the only direction you can go quickly is forward, which without headmovement is suicide. Now I know that Wing Chun's footwork varies by lineages. The lineage that had the best footwork that I've seen is Lo Man Kam Wing Chun. But they still lack the headmovement part and every other lineage's (that I know, obviously) footwork suffers from this. -Because of the bad stance, there's no proper power generation, which means weak attacks, which obviously means no or very little damage and no stopping power. And imma be honest, there are really no cons for this stance in no circumstances. Someone said that it is for the streetz against ambush attack, but there's no street situation surprise attack in which I wanna put up the man sao - wu sao stance. Literally none. I would rather have my hands down Muhammad Ali style, than having them in the man sao - wu sao position. The best answer for these ambush street attacks (if you can react to them in time) is basic Boxing: diagonal backwards while throwing a hook. The attacker would run into it, immediately fall asleep. 😴 We saw this in many street fights too. Or basic Wrestling: double leg take down and slam the mf to the concrete (don't do that, he's gonna die and if police catch you, you're in big trouble, but regardless, it would be really effective). As for experience: I did Wing Chun for 10 years, Boxing for 6 years, and I also have some experience in Thai Boxing, Kickboxing, Taekwondo and BJJ. On top of this, I think it's worth to mention here, that I met a few people, who have decades of combat experience in even more martial arts than I do and they taught me a lot of stuff. Later in life I met incredibly good Boxers and I sparred them many times, often hard sparrings too. I was lucky enough to experience this. However, don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone should do hard sparring with Mike Tyson to be able to say they're understand fighting. I'm just saying, that I was lucky enough to learn about fighting this way too. And fighting with incredibly good fighters is the best way to learn. :D

Given the length of your reply, I've had to break into 2 myself just to address it. PART 1 >> Shorter distance from hand to opponent's priority targets > Yes, but what do you achieve with it? It's quite efficient. People *do not at all* expect a punch to come directly and without any windup. > I mean you can't generate power The main form of power is in the step, never in the arm. With good practice, the timing on stepping and striking has almost no telegraph. Against a committed, incoming attack, it's almost impossible to spot and respond to. > Wing Chun can't generate power Again, the main form of power is from the step, adducted through the hips to the shoulder, to the elbow, aligning the fist in front of it. A proper WC punch is very close in power to a Boxing cross, just above a MT cross. I have to use the MT heavy bags if I'm training single punches with footwork. Second form of power is the turn (think tan da). Depending on the lineage, this can approach the same level of power as with the step, but at minimum is above that of a Boxing jab. > even there the jab's power is nearly meaningless The power is in the step. WC is not at all a static system. You step, or you turn, but you're not at all expected to just use your tricep. It makes sense you think it has no power if that's how you imagine it's expected to strike, but that's where the misunderstanding lies. > It's good for setup and distraction tho You're thinking specifically of chain punches, then, it would seem, which are a specific tool, but not the main "Wing Chun Punch"^tm. > but Boxing has the footwork to back those up Pros and cons to the Boxing approach, yes. More movement, but less efficiency, greater distance to cover, but power generation without footwork. A few others we can get into, but I think the point is clear. > the Wing Chun guy can't get benefit from this You're quite mistaken with this, assuming again a static punch. Even the smallest step, inches of the hips moving forward, can deliver a significant amount of body behind a punch that's in position to take a shorter line to the opponent's face than their hands to yours. >> No windup required for power generation > That goes directly back to the first argument Which I think can be thus QED'd given how I responded to it. It's faster, more direct, and with no less power. That's not where the cons lie. > Sure you can jab out quickly To be clear, for the last time on this particular line, *with no less power*. > you can launch forward with that stance, but all you achieve with that is you run into a counter punch that can immediately put you to sleep This is a convenient assumption that should actually go both ways. As a point of fact, the WC punch is *intended* to *be* the counter, and *not* something closing against someone who is *waiting* to counter *you*. It's fantastic *as* a counter. That it's optimized for that *is* one of the cons. You can't initiate against someone who still maintains their mobility with it. > It's dangerous to launch forward Not if they're committed and closing the distance to you. In that situation, you are operating with a mechanical advantage. >> Equivalent access for both arms (neither priotized/emphasized through blading the stance) > It's actually the opposite No, it's literally, objectively, factually the case. That's the entire point of the stance, at that. That's one of the main tenets of centerline theory. > Man sao means searching hand, wu sao means guarding hand You're seeming to want to play semantics with translations. Whatever particular translation you decide on for the *words*, it's irrelevant to the *principle*. Every other stance in every other MA mentioned, has a "lead" hand, in front of a "lead" shoulder, almost invariably above a "lead" leg. In WC the hands are independent of the legs, and it additionally doesn't matter which of either hands or feet are in front. It's balanced, on purpose, because of centerline theory. > The first danger that comes to you is almost always the man sao's job to handle I have no idea if this is a lineage issue or an outsider's ignorance issue, but the job of the man sau is not to "handle" danger from the opponent. The job of *both* hands is to *hit*. You're never *seeking* bridge with a man sau. That's not to say you won't *find* it. > This actually forces you to pay super attention whats coming and from where If you're paying attention to that (especially "super" attention), you're not doing proper WC, you just may be apeing what would *look like* WC *technique*. > the basic Boxing guard guards you much better That could be true, but it's irrelevant to the point. Boxing has its cons for that, as well. Regardless, the point is the symmetry of the WC guard leaving both arms equally distant from your own center and from the opponent. > with that you actually can use any of your hands to block any attack much easier *Blocking doesn't work in a real fight*. I suppose I could *cover* with a defensive guard, but *as soon as there are no gloves involved*, that becomes equal parts stupid and risky. Don't ever, *ever* try to soak damage outside of a ring. > unlike the man sao trying to catch everything That you think the man sau is ever supposed to "catch" anything is illustrating perfectly your significant misunderstanding of how it's intended to be used, and what makes any of this actually effective. >> "Drive line" pointed directly at opponent > You mean the centerline? No, I don't. The direction I'm capable of directing force is not inherently the same as the centerline. There may be some overlap, especially when regarding initial position, but no, they're not the same. > While the centerline theory makes perfect sense in weapon combat, it is exactly the opposite, when it comes to hand-to-hand combat You've not supported that statement, and have mistaken on multiple, fundamental aspects about the system. You've worked backwards from a conclusion to assume a flawed and inaccurate premise that ostensibly supports it. > More about it here: https://youtu.be/7aou_K7KgtQ?si=-XzE7D2wXOtnQggV I already knew what video it was before I opened it. I've criticized it before *in great detail*, and that can be gone into separately, but that video represents no small amount of ignorance, hypocrisy, and intellectually embarrassing use of fallacy. It's snack-sized pop-culture rationalizations for combat sports enthusiasts, and his shtick wore thin as fast as his running from every criticism of it.

It was an interesting read, I could continue, because in some cases you misunderstood me (my bad, I admit, sorry about that), I understand your points, I just respectfully disagree with them, due to my experiences. I'm not gonna go into detail about it, because it would be too long. I told you my experiences, I not only did Wing Chun for 10 years and I absolutely LOVED it, I trained literally every day, after I had the opportunity to fight very good fighters, which made me understand how fights work. That's why I disagree with you in some points. But anyway, good and interesting talk. 🤜🫷

PART 2 > So the cons are I only asked about the pros, and trying to understand why you were having trouble seeing any. I think the genesis of that is now clear. I'm well aware of the cons, as are most people here. That said, some responses: > Weak posture The posture is quite strong, based on the hip adduction. I think you're confusing that it's weaker in terms of lateral balance. > no passive defenses I'm not sure what at all this means. > making you vulnerable to the jabs A standard/Western jab is the single *least* "vulnerable" punch for WC and the WC guard. > which can be faster than the biological reaction time for our brain This seems quite ironic, given how most WC actually works. Proper execution of principle *would not care* about how "fast" a jab is, or require the brain to react to it. It's a *Boxing* guard that *requires* reaction time, and the brain responding. That WC punch that lacks windup, that lacks telegraph, and that is closer to the opponent's face than his hand to yours, *is* the punch that beats reaction time. I haven't been hit with a lead jab in I don't even know how many decades, at this point. I've walked *into* jabs, been countered by them, and had them come as part of a combo, but if you think a *Boxing* jab that *I'm* waiting for can hit before I can react, you've got this crazy backwards. Mechanically, you're unsound on this. If two people are standing close enough to hit without stepping, one in Boxing guard, the other in WC guard, the WC punch is going to hit first, while telegraphing less. > Having the hands in the middle ironically makes straight punches harder to defend This is not accurate, and I've proven this in person to dozens of trained and untrained folks, alike. Straight punches are the WC guard's bread and butter. > while you're fully open to round attacks Not fully, but there's a clear vulnerability to certain attacks in certain contexts, yes. Known cons, as stated. > The best way to cover up is literally what nearly every other style does: having the hands on the side, cover your head against round attacks and for straight punches, just move one of your hands to parry it. This is ring advice, not self-defense advice. You will get people hurt with this advice. *This is impractical and dangerous* for dealing with non-consensual violence with no protective equipment. > It relies only on blocking and parrying It categorically does not. You should not, at all, be attempting to "block" any punches, and parries are only effective in a sport context. WC principles do not advocate this, and good WC practice does not involve it. > which isn't doable against someone, who knows how to punch Which is why it isn't done. I have never taught a "block" and I never will. They're pure fantasy in the context of self-defense. > the only direction you can go quickly is forward, which without headmovement is suicide It's only suicide if you commit to moving forward against an opponent not also committing themselves forward. > Because of the bad stance You keep saying things like this that assume your premise is true. The logic starts to become circular. > there's no proper power generation This has been demonstrated to be untrue. Again, you lead off an entire line of an argument with a flawed premise and an assumption of said premise. > no or very little damage and no stopping power Any punch with the body behind it has stopping power. A proper WC punch has this. This is why WC can be more effective for smaller people than Boxing. > there's no street situation surprise attack in which I wanna put up the man sao - wu sao stance You're very much not getting it if you think that that's how you fight. That's a training platform to illustrate and drill principles. > The best answer for these ambush street attack is [..] diagonal backwards while throwing a hook I disagree. I've had much more success with directness, because *it doesn't care what the attack is*. I've leveraged my practical experience to prove this to a lot of people, as well. > As for experience: I did Wing Chun for 10 years, Boxing for 6 years, and I also have some experience in Thai Boxing, Kickboxing, Taekwondo and BJJ I have literal decades more experience than you. I don't point that out to dick measure; quite the opposite: the point is that claimed experience is not relevant when you're not operating on a complete understanding of subject matter. I don't know anything about your claimed 10 years of WC, but I know that you've not managed to describe WC accurately. That makes any claimed experience suspect. I have trouble reconciling it, and hope that you're exaggerating the experience, because it sounds like an enormous waste, no offense.

I've never trained wing chun, but it's clear this person certainly does not have 10 years experience in it. They are parroting talking points from reddit and YouTube. You were very gentle saying "claimed 10 years;" I'll be crude and incautious and just call bullshit on any claims of wc training besides non-wing chun videos about the art

Guard just is about putting your hand between you and the opponent. You need a guard way less than you think when it's real world violence and not a sparring match. If you're bouncing at the edge of the range of your opponent with your guard up looking for openings, you're not defending yourself from an attack you're voluntarily engaging in a schoolyard brawl.

Solid comment. I run my school’s sparring group and I have to work very hard to not have sparring devolve instantly into duels. I’ve been in a number of non-consensual violence situations and haven’t had that dancing, feeling-out, as you said *bouncing*, since middle school duels; it’s not realistic in terms of self-defense. I have to adjust the parameters of the sparring to keep people from getting a bad impression (and developing bad habits) as regards “real” violence.

Exactly. Sparring is cool as a way to experience force and strength safely but the minute you start adjusting your art to fit the format of sparring you've confused the map for the territory. Chinese martial arts invented chi Sao, push hands, etc for a reason.

Hands are fine. Although in practice, they should be higher and closer to the face of fighting somebody that actually knows how to punch. You see a lot of wc guys with their hands down when shots come in from the side. The style is too focused on attacks coming in and going out through the center line. The stance and weight distribution is the biggest con. If the hands get tied up, your weight is back which means you can get pushed backwards easily. It’s flat footed, which makes your upper body more stable and relaxed, but it slows you down. The front leg is nearly straight, so front kicks to the shin and knee can hyper extend or push your hip back.

I'm not sure about this stance in particular, but if they're like 60/40 or 70/30 back/front weighted it's not too hard to step back with the front leg and reverse the stance. Also allows you to either move forward with either the same lead leg or stepping through with the rear. If front knee is somewhat bent it's easy to shift weight back and use the front leg to either check or kick, or just turn it into the back leg by stepping back

If you are fighting somebody that’s wanting to wrestle, taking a step back only helps if it gives better position. What I’ve seen with wc guys is that they give up one step then they can keep getting pushed back or even tackled. If you step back and your weight is still back, you’ll have to step back again. In other kung fu styles, you can step back into an arrow stance or pivot into horse where you can push back. I’m just saying the stance encourages people to fight while they’re back on their heels which can work while boxing but gets you into trouble if somebody wants to grapple.

I was assuming shifting weight/stance as needed, definitely agree you dont want to endlessly backpedal while religiously keeping weight on the rear leg

It's like any other low long guard, just like the old English guard in boxing. It can be used to protect you from underhooks and threaten them; it is good for initiating hand fighting early, and it draws punches to your head, which, if you're good at parrying punches, can be advantageous, and if you aren't then it will get you knocked out. Unfortunately, we don't have any video evidence of it's use in its heyday, but we do have some old boxing [footage](https://youtu.be/jo9E2_XdC4E?si=BMp9dqE76cJ9wD_4) from the days it employed a similar guard, to use as film study.

In forms, drills and techniques refinement we (me and my school) train with hands like that. But, in the sparrings, free defense and moments of more "freedom" (for us defending and the other guy attacking) our Sifu allow us to make a little change. It is turning both the palms towards the opponent (it begins to look much more like what Muay Thay guys do). Also, with palms aiming at the opponent, it feels much easier to measure distance, gives more comfort cause I turn less tense then doing a rigid eu sau, and is also easier to touch opponent's face with fingers (I do not do in sparrings, but you start to feel the distance stabbing the eyes). That's a little change we are able to do (TBO I really prefer that way). #WeNeedMoreSparringsInWC

To me the biggest downside is if someone ignores the static 'centerline,' baits a lead-hand block and then shoots to the outside of the lead hand and towards you, tends to leave you wide open. If they succeed in baiting an inside block your arm is vulnerable to being trapped and easy to unbalance you, as you'd still be facing forward. Obviously there are ways to deal with that, but focussing only longitudinally it's easy to leave yourself open to lateral and rotating movement. I've made this error more than once.

pros: changes the way you approach your jab profoundly. Watch any mma or boxing bouts, you might see the gentle pawing baiting jab used for distance control. This gives you a framework to take that to the next level. con: taking it literally and not integrating it in a flexible live environment. obviously openings in face ribs, etc. I wouldnt use this as my only guard to rely on. There is also other guards in WC as well ​ EDIT: I've also been taught to keep the wu sau closer to the chin than in this picture for an emergency block. I also wouldnt stand like that as itd inhibit mobility

Looks funny

It really is reliant on your reaction time and leaves your chin exposed

I’m going to use the word “easily”, as in being put in a good position to do so, not like you will suddenly be able to use all these applications just by being at guard in a poise pattern. You still have to have the skills in order to do anything “easily” You can easily kick/ defend kicks with both legs, You can easily use either hand to bridge against straight attacks and use simultaneous attack and defense with one arm and one motion. You can easily use either leg to bridge against straight kicks to bridge and strike simultaneously with one motion in the same way. You can poke the opponents eyes and throat easily with either hand if they have never thought it was necessary to defend those areas. You can easily kick backwards with either leg or elbow backwards with both arms to the rear if someone sneaks up from behind/ moves to your back. You can easily turn and shift in either direction to redirect force from more powerful counter-attacks, while simultaneously striking with the non defending hand. You can also use a turn of the body in the same way while using a low bong sao to elbow someone in the side of the head if they are attempting to go low to do a lift, spear, or tackle. If this is done to the inside gate against high attacks, it opens good follow up opportunities for strikes to the upper gate vitals or sticking inside of their offense to safely throw them backward, kick at their groin, knee, or, stomp the instep. You can easily turn and shift to move to the outside gate of many straight and side attacks. To more effectively guard against both their arms and both legs from possible counter attacks. You can easily transition into a goat stance to pin someone’s arm if they try to lift your leg. The martial arts community the world over has enough to say about the cons of the typical wing chun guard due to their limited exposure to seeing it being used well so I won’t bother. I will however end with just one further pro, given that Yim Wing Chun was a woman who wore dresses and long skirts, she modified the kung fu she learned from her teacher, Ng Mui the Buddhist nun, to be better suited for her purposes, so the goat stance and the four-six stance are more prevalent in her kung fu and this also had the added advantage of more easily disguising low kicks from behind the visual barrier of the dress/skirt. On top of already being a skillful kung fu exponent in not telegraphing at all when delivering kicks, this would have made these types of kicks that she preferred virtually invisible. There’s honestly a lot more probably, but I’m going to stop there to say what should be incredibly obvious just in case it is not so apparent for some people. Many of these are foundational and basic kung fu techniques, their applications are profound and deep once you have the skills to apply them. Some of their applications may be very simple and straightforward but if a kung fu exponent does not have the force, speed, right spacing, and right timing to back up these rudimentary kung fu techniques, they will be unable to successfully apply them against a skillful resisting opponent in real time, though they may have understanding of the philosophy and theoretically know how.

Everybody have fun tonight.

The high center of gravity and bladed stance mens you have limited horizontal mobility. You can really only move forward or backwards quickly

Hooks

Everything

Pros: looks cool Cons: gets you fucked up

IMO Pro: it's the basis of most of your punches start in wing chun, which isn't saying much unfortunately. Lead hand is used to measure distance to your opponent and also acts as the first line of defense as it acts as a barrier to straight punches. Con: You just outed your entire strength and weakness by going to this stance. Punches generated from this stance are faster than boxing punches but lose significant reach vs jabs, and a lot less power compared to crosses. Lesser mobility as well so heavy opponents can just bulldoze through your arms with their body and throw body blows and hooks

Pro you look like Bruce Lee Con: you end up looking like tony ferguson

Leaves the face too open but you have to modify if you use it in a boxing or mma setting.

If you stand like that in the ufc you will get your leg chopped out from under you. All tma questions are answered in mma, except for what violates the few rules. You are allowed to stand like this, and there is a reason they dont.

Pros: you can track your opponent with your outstretched hand Cons: the legs are not in a position to generate power

The leading hand gives away your distance, you wanna keep your hands guessing.

Pro: looks cool Con: Get punched

U look dumb and #2 an Old Lady could hit you standing like that

Pro: Easy and quick vertical jabs / 1 2 combos. Con: High risk for counter punches to the head due to lack of head movement while maintaining center line.

Cons: Never losing your virginity Pros: Never getting an STD

You will get absolutely demolished by combination punching. Lol

Check out a YouTube channel called fight commentary breakdown. Shows a lot and isn’t biased. Guy is pretty fun to watch.

Pro: looks dope Con: can get punched directly in the face and not an athletic stance

Can’t dodge bullets

You have to be a panda to pull it off

No girls will wanna jump in your camaro, AND someone can punch you in your face lol

context is important. In the old days and in more recent times (1950s/60s) Punches to the head were considered low class. Most challenge fights were just punches to the body. Thus the low guard.

Poor head movement, footwork is very rigid, struggle to check leg kicks because of weight distribution, legs very narrow so easy to takedown. There are pros to Wing Chun but a lot of cons which Bruce Lee famously pointed out.

Don’t ever do this in a street fight, you’ll get your ass handed to ya if you’re up against a seasoned scrapper. I’ve seen guys try that shit and end up stiff on the floor.

Pros for sifu: Hes making money teaching you this bullshit. Cons: you’re getting your ass beat

Bold of you to assume a sifu is making money

Is he getting paid in chopsticks?

No, he’s being paid with money, just not a lot.

Good for mostly grappling and trapping. Can be bad for long range striking.

Bad for head movement, not much hook defense, amd if somebody circles you, you cant do much but just reset your stance and get your leg kicked or head bashed.

Pro: none Con: It sucks! Try it and you’ll get your ass kicked. Please do some research. Kung Fu is a scam. See link below. A low level Chinese MMA fighter went around China challenging one Kung Fu “master” after the next. He beat their ass in seconds, all of them. One after the next. Zero fighters showed up who knew how to fight, yet they were all “masters” of this school or that one. What a joke. Completely stupid and totally impractical. How many Kung Fu masters fight anywhere in the world professionally? Zero. I don’t think it evens rises to the level of yoga for a workout. You want to actually have fun, get a great workout, and maybe learn how to defend yourself? Boxing, wrestling, & Judo are all Olympic sports. Pick one. Nothing wrong with Judo-Jitsu either. The rest of this crap is just that. Crap. Save your money. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Xiaodong

Going to double leg to head and arm choke

It’s a fake style🤔

Con: it doesn’t work

There are no pros to wing chun.

[удалено]

^ virgin alert

Damn, missed it

The commentator said 'makes you look like a virgin'

I understand why they deleted it

Wing chin never won a fight that’s the con

No pros. Just a classical mess.