Fancy Trapping

[akja]

Trapping is "a" tool amongst several tools in the box. Highly effective for some and totally ineffective for others. All the tools can't work for all people. I see trapping in differant ranges. It does not mean I have to trap. But "I see", that is key. Trapping in its most basic form could be catching an attacker at the elbow and jamming him.

Combined with all the tools, trapping works. A boxer would be weak if he couldn't bob and weave and had no footwork. A boxer learns all of his tools over time as do all arts. Trapping is no differant. People just confuse the training drills with the actual execution. With that mentality. I see the "Cardio Boxers" hitting the focus mitts, so they should be good boxers, correct?? Not a chance! Not without the rest of the tools.

No one technique or type of technique makes the fighter, its our own collection of all the tools which make us fighters.

[robertlee]

Taking a look back to traps of wing chun. The tieing up of the tools temporary imobablization of the tools. Was designed to work aginst a stronger advesary. And enable the striking of your own tools. This was done at first by no other then a woman. She by training could use this skill to over power the stronger and defend off the trapping. But agin traps are mearly an aspect to the whole. And should never be looked or trained just to trap. But trained to use when it becomes a time to do so. Its a and between the doing of another set. Trap and strike, Trap and sweep, Trap and take down. But if the trap is not needed to exucute the move its not used. I have wrenches tools to do different work on my cars. Some I may not use in five years or more. But I have them when I need them. Same with trapping. I train to keep the rust off . And sometimes purposely work the traps in a spar to peroidicly test there use. But would never plan to win the fight per say by trapping. Just if I trapped I did it. I do not claim to be some great trapper. I just do what I do. And try to improve on my doing And trapping drills to me can be alittle fun to do. Good hand eye responce. Learning to feel the different resistive pressures. finding the timing to get the traps off. And in the reverse learning to yeild and upset. resist by pressing or lock. So trapping is part of the learning game. Not all people train it and many dont want it then some do and learn it. After all you deside your needs. And can be a very good fighter without ever training the trapping hands. But could trapping hands make you just a little bit better? You have to find that out. And it like the rest of your learning, will take a little time to bring it up to what you want in it. Either way some of use train with them and some dont so the matter of just training will make you better be it any useable set of tools you devlop.

[Kirves]

Originally posted by robertlee
This was done at first by no other then a woman.

You're not referring to the legend of Wing Chun, now are you?

[akja]

The legend is Yimm Wing Chun was a women and her teacher Ng Mui was a woman as well.

The origin of Wing Chun has been disputed, but this lineage is the most likely scenario.

Nobody can say for sure. But those who say differant are the minority and do not have proof either. All information that far back is passed down word of mouth.

[Kirves]

Originally posted by akja
The origin of Wing Chun has been disputed, but this lineage is the most likely scenario.

Oh you think so? I have only read two books on the subject (I think the best one is Complete Wing Chun, as it's most neutral, IMO) and both seem to lean on other stories. Was it two or three styles that have told the story of Ng Mui as is, and about a dozen styles have been (independently of each other) telling that the rebels made up a story about a nun called Ng Mui to hide the names of the real rebel leaders, it makes a good case about not believing that story. It would be different if the styles had been in contact with each other, but if totally independent branches from different countries (spread long before any modern communication means) tell their history this way and only a couple of styles which also teach less kung fu in general are telling the nun story, it can be argued that the nun story isn't so believable. We will probably never know the truth, but I think it is pretty inappropriate to indicate as if that was the case when it is used as a basis for reasons why/how some martial art's methods work.

[akja]

Originally posted by Kirves


Oh you think so? I have only read two books on the subject (I think the best one is Complete Wing Chun, as it's most neutral, IMO) and both seem to lean on other stories. Was it two or three styles that have told the story of Ng Mui as is, and about a dozen styles have been (independently of each other) telling that the rebels made up a story about a nun called Ng Mui to hide the names of the real rebel leaders, it makes a good case about not believing that story. It would be different if the styles had been in contact with each other, but if totally independent branches from different countries (spread long before any modern communication means) tell their history this way and only a couple of styles which also teach less kung fu in general are telling the nun story, it can be argued that the nun story isn't so believable. We will probably never know the truth, but I think it is pretty inappropriate to indicate as if that was the case when it is used as a basis for reasons why/how some martial art's methods work.

First, there is no defining document, so there can be no defining word. The nun story comes through other systems probably because this is before Wing Chun. I've heard it called Five Ancestors Shaolin Boxing. The 5 ancestors being the ones that survived the destruction of the Shaolin Temple.

There is much controversy with all of it. Like a nun being a survivor? Like a nun living with monks?

All we know for sure is that the temple was destroyed along with any "possible" documents. And it is beleived that Wing Chun did come from a woman.

The Ng Mui and Yimm Wing Chun part of history is very controversial but a lot of people do beleive it at least as possibility and probable.

http://www.leungting.com/feature02.htm

[Kirves]

Originally posted by akja
a lot of people do beleive it at least as possibility and probable.

Yes, especially from the Yip Man branch.

But you explained my point yourself:

history is very controversial

This is exactly why I think it shouldn't be used as something you check the techniques by, if the story isn't at all verifiable. To make assumptions on the techniques and their power or purpose based on a story that even you yourself say may or may not be true, doesn't sound too smart IMO.

[akja]

Originally posted by Kirves


Yes, especially from the Yip Man branch.

But you explained my point yourself:



This is exactly why I think it shouldn't be used as something you check the techniques by, if the story isn't at all verifiable. To make assumptions on the techniques and their power or purpose based on a story that even you yourself say may or may not be true, doesn't sound too smart IMO.

Very controversial! Some of todays big forefront systems have a controversial past.

[Bruce_Fan]

Question for Terry

Terry,

I had some questions for ya. When you said you sparred against Maurice Smith and the like, which range did you start out with?
Did you start from 10 feet away like in a boxing match, or did you start from 3 feet away?

I am guessing that you probably started afar and closed the distance.
What do you think would have happened if you had started 3 feet apart which did not allow room for crisp punching?

I have not yet begun to learn trapping. Majority of what I do is Muy Thai but I am always curious to learn about people's experiences.
My understanding is that a major part of JKD/Kali trapping and sticky hands is to immobilize the opponent's hands so that he cannot get off any punches.

Why is this hard to do against someone who has not trained in sensitivity?

Thanks in advance for any insight you can offer.
Bruce_Fan

Ps. Terry, you said 60% of your art is now Muy Thai. What's the other 40%?

[ryanhall]

Bruce Fan,

Terry will have something better to say, but I think I can shed some light on this one. Trapping isn't necessarily "hard to do" against someone who hasn't trained it, it's just impractical for the most part. Trying to trap a good boxer like Maurice Smith would be hard because he is so fast and a trap is complex. When attempting to trap against most people, the foundation falls apart for a number of reasons:
1) They don't keep the connection or the foundation of the trap is lost because of their erratic and "untrained" motions.
2) They disengage, breaking up the trap. In my experience, when someone has their hands tied up, they tend to either throw wild punches at your body or try to back off.

Why is trapping mostly unnecessary:
1) Most people do not occupy the centerline like a good boxer or Wing Chun/JKD player, so you don't even need to bother with it.
2) There are more efficient ways to do things. I prefer to bypass trapping and go to the clinch, or flow into clinch with a VERY simple trap.

When I think of trapping, I don't see a traditional Wing Chun trap in my mind's eye. I think of it as immobilization. If a hand/arm/bodypart is in the way, I might grab it and move it. Nothing special, nothing fancy. I just hold onto it so I can hit the opponent without them hitting back.

I still think that practicing a little traditional trapping can be good for dexterity and speed, but it's not really necessary as far as I am concerned. Traditional trapping is beyond most of us--it takes a LOT of speed and precision to pull off on a good opponent.

Just my way of "trapping." Any ideas?

[sikal]

First, I've heard Dan Inosanto say several times at seminas. "When trapping isn't available, don't trap."

Trapping has a time and place where it's available and effective. Trying to force it into another situation is improper use of it and, of course, it will likely fail. If the trap's there, it's there. If it's not, it's not

When I think of trapping, I don't see a traditional Wing Chun trap in my mind's eye. I think of it as immobilization. If a hand/arm/bodypart is in the way, I might grab it and move it. Nothing special, nothing fancy. I just hold onto it so I can hit the opponent without them hitting back.

I still think that practicing a little traditional trapping can be good for dexterity and speed, but it's not really necessary as far as I am concerned. Traditional trapping is beyond most of us--it takes a LOT of speed and precision to pull off on a good opponent.

Just my way of "trapping." Any ideas?

Sounds like proper (and "traditional") trapping to me. All the trapping drills from WC, JF, Kali, etc. are just that: drills. They're intended to ingrain attributes that help us find and take advantage of traps that present themselves. If a compound trap never presents itself (and it often won't) then you don't try to force it. But simple traps often present themselves. If they've never been trained, then you most likely won't take advantage of them even if they do present themselves.

Are the WC, JF, Kali, etc. training methods the only way to learn trapping? Of course not. But they are good and valid ways.

Personally, I think trapping is invaluable as long as people don't get "caught in the classical mess."

So many people get caught up on the techniques of trapping, then they try them and they don't work. Trapping is a set of principles that form a concept. The principles are universal, relatively simple, and very effective.

What you described, Ryan, is trapping in my book. Trapping is very simple. It's "obstacle removal." There's something in my way; I move it. It's just that simple. People do it all the time. Whether they call it trapping or not is totally beside the point

Mike

[terry]

Re: Question for Terry

Originally posted by Bruce_Fan
Terry,

I had some questions for ya. When you said you sparred against Maurice Smith and the like, which range did you start out with?
Did you start from 10 feet away like in a boxing match, or did you start from 3 feet away?

All of 'em. Starting in trapping range doesn't help if your opponent has more experience, a higher pain threshold and better timing than you do. It just starts the punishment earlier. (Actually, Maurice is a very prince of a gentleman who is very cool about working you at whatever level you're at. But still, it was like playing chess on the opening move of the other guy's checkmate.)

I am guessing that you probably started afar and closed the distance. What do you think would have happened if you had started 3 feet apart which did not allow room for crisp punching?

When I was doing straight Jun Fan? I got one, maybe two traps in before he seized control of events. It's the kind of thing you have to experience to fully understand. He's good.

I have not yet begun to learn trapping. Majority of what I do is Muy Thai but I am always curious to learn about people's experiences. My understanding is that a major part of JKD/Kali trapping and sticky hands is to immobilize the opponent's hands so that he cannot get off any punches.

Learn trapping. Learn boxing. Learn Muay Thai. In fact, learn everything you can. Don't throw it out before you learn it. But over time you may also select a small set of material, say 10-20 techniques that you can bet your life on. For me, when I'm empty-hands standup, that material is mostly drawn from Muay Thai. To put it plainly, I haven't found anything that I can make work better. Having said that, remember that the tools a person fights are chosen on an individual basis. It varies from person to person.

Why is this hard to do against someone who has not trained in sensitivity?

Lots of arts do sensitivity training. Contact reflexes or sensitivity is something that Muay Thai does a lot in plumb range. Check it out. But when somebody is hitting you with combinations such that you can't even react fast enough let alone counter, sensitivity isn't what you need. You need a good 100 yard dash. I know some guys are invincible out there--generally the ones who never fight anybody. But if you try it you'll definitely find your limitations. For me at least, finding and testing those limitations is one of the most fun parts of training.

Ps. Terry, you said 60% of your art is now Muy Thai. What's the other 40%?

A grab bag of stuff. I never know what will come out. In any case, Muay Thai is core. On the ground it is BJJ. Interestingly, with weapons it is 30% FMA, 60% KK (including heavy guns from Muay Thai). One thing is for certain, the better guy you face the more you focus just on the core stuff and forget anything fancy.

Terry

[terry]

Originally posted by sikal
First, I've heard Dan Inosanto say several times at seminars. "When trapping isn't available, don't trap."

I've heard him say the inverse of this statement: "When you can, hit."

Trapping has a time and place where it's available and effective. Trying to force it into another situation is improper use of it and, of course, it will likely fail. If the trap's there, it's there. If it's not, it's not

I guess I see fewer opportunities to use trapping (traditional definition) than I used to. In the 1970s you would get a high outside reference easily because a lot of people were doing karate blocks. I don't run into many of those guys any more. A much higher percentage of martial artists have either a boxing or a grappling background. The structure is different. The high-inside reference point happens more off a boxer's jab or cross.

In any case, it may come down to the fact that I don't have the raw hand speed of, say, a Damon Carro. Or it may be personal preference. I really like to elbow and knee out of the plum, like Ryan, so that cuts into trapping range somewhat. (They overlap.) But, under the pressure of a life threatening situation, Jun Fan trapping has never come out.

One of the final issues that comes up is what to do when teaching. By teaching stuff you don't personally use (can, but don't against many, can't at all against a top guy) are you commiting fraud or wasting people's time? By omitting stuff you can't use from the curriculum are you depriving people of making their own decisions and limiting their growth? This has always been a tough issue for me and one that I keep trying different solutions to address. It seems like as I get older I tend to go more and more for the physical correction (old school) and less for the philosophical route. Just beat it out of 'em and let 'em think about it over an ice pack.

T

[Bruce_Fan]

Thanks

Terry,

Thanks for your reply. I do plan on learning trapping and sensitivity because, at the very least, I find it fascinating.

I also think that you and Sikal are saying the same thing.
When trapping is not available, don't trap. Yet, you can always hit. You don't need to trap to hit. I heard Jerry Poteet say something like this on one of his tapes: "When in Doubt, HIT!" was a quote Bruce said to his students.

Sounds like a great philosophy to me!


Lastly, as for your dilemma, you said:

One of the final issues that comes up is what to do when teaching. By teaching stuff you don't personally use (can, but don't against many, can't at all against a top guy) are you commiting fraud or wasting people's time? By omitting stuff you can't use from the curriculum are you depriving people of making their own decisions and limiting their growth?


I thought maybe I could help you by adding a student's perspective. As a student, I'd like to learn everything. I always appreciate knowing what works for my Sifu, but I think I owe it to myself to be aware of various techniques.
Maybe I can make something work for me when others were not able to.
Now, how could I do that if I am not even aware of that technique?
My JKD is not your JKD................. You know how it goes........

Thanks again for your replies,
Bruce_Fan


Ps. I once saw a feature where a couple of NFL linemen were learning Wing Chun trapping and sensitivity. It was on the learning channel, I believe. That's a superb idea. If I were an NFL linemen, that'd be on top of my list. You can't punch, you can't hold or grab, you can only try to immobilize the other man.

[sikal]

Originally posted by terry
One of the final issues that comes up is what to do when teaching. By teaching stuff you don't personally use (can, but don't against many, can't at all against a top guy) are you commiting fraud or wasting people's time? By omitting stuff you can't use from the curriculum are you depriving people of making their own decisions and limiting their growth? This has always been a tough issue for me and one that I keep trying different solutions to address. It seems like as I get older I tend to go more and more for the physical correction (old school) and less for the philosophical route. Just beat it out of 'em and let 'em think about it over an ice pack.

T [/B]

I think that, as instructors, it's important to be able to recognize when a student will benefit from certain material.

Personally, I do teach trapping (by my definition) to all my students. However, in your situation, here's what I'd recommend:

Give everyone a basic introduction to the trapping. Determine who it seems to suit and continue to develop it in them. Also continue developing it in any other students who are particularly interested in it.

For any students who wish to be instructors, I'd say to teach it to them regardless of their aptitude because they may have future students who can benefit from it. Even if they can't apply it themselves, they should have the understanding to pass it on to others if they want to be a teacher.

For the rest, make sure they have the basic groundwork for trapping so they can explore it later if they think it'll help them.

Of course, that's just my opinion. But, as I've said, I consider trapping to be invaluable for me personally. If you honestly believe that it has absolutely no place, then either research it deeper to see if you can find a place, or discard it (or, at least, discard the training methods you find useless - by my definition, you'll still be teaching trapping, but your training methods might teach the trapping principles from the MT clinch instead of Chi Sao).

Mike