Generally, the way I teach locks/restraints are to teach the general principles behind a lock (i.e. how you’re affecting a joint, or ligaments/muscle), behind leverage, behind positioning, etc. and use specific locks as examples - but stress the importance of not taking these examples as verbatim techniques to be memorized. The examples are used to illustrate the principles, and show the student how the principles can be applied, and change in application depending on the situation. One of the first things I teach are that locks/immobilization are generally done after the distance has been closed or the reaction has been cut - through a strike. It is very hard to realistically go directly in to a lock/immobilization without some form of uprooting or initial counter attack. A counter attack performs the dual function of a) closing the distance, and b) cutting the reflexes. Very rarely can you flow right in to locks and holds as they are often irresponsibly demonstrated in public demonstrations and movies. Your opponent will not be as cooperative as that screen actor or you kwoon training partner. Most locks/restraints that involve going directly in to the lock/restraint, and can actually be done, involve either:

1. an over committed opponent, or
2. an opponent who has already grabbed you (which is also a commitment).

Beyond what’s mentioned above regarding getting in to a lock/restraint/submission, the three key principles of any lock/restraint/submission itself in application as I outline them to my students (and as I demonstrated at the last Friendship Seminar):

1. Balance - You must have control of a person’s balance or root, and the technique should allow constant control over it.
2. Active Hand/Lever - You must have an active torque to apply stress to joints, their connective tissue, or other anatomical features (such as veins or arteries).
3. Fulcrum - You must have a fulcrum or stable platform for you to apply point 2 around.

These three principles can be found in any successful lock/restraint/submission. The points may be combined/blended, but they are there.

For example, a simple wrist lock combines points 2 and 3. Format of the lock for illustrative purposes - opponent’s palm is up and being bent back towards them with your two hands. In this, your hands operating in unison function as both the active hand, and the fulcrum. Point 3 is often lacking when first learning to apply this lock - a beginner often gets point 2 easily (the torquing or bending of the hand /wrist) however they often allow the hand itself to drop or move with the torque. This lessens the effect by taking away a stable fulcrum or platform. This also illustrates how I have my students use these principles - if a lock is not performing to their expectation in class, look at these 3 points and see which one is absent or needs work.

Another example - an elbow lock. Format of the lock for illustrative purposes - you are on the outside of the arm, one hand on the opponents wrist, the other just behind the elbow on the triceps. The wrist hand is pulling towards your chest, the triceps hand pushing away (often times actually pushing down and augmented by you bending or kneeling - which in turn drives the opponent down). In this, points 1 and 3 are combined - the triceps hand controls both the fulcrum and the balance. Your active hand is the wrist hand.

I don’t believe that the art tells you in any which position or reference to fight from, just teaches you the principles and coordination, using an actual physical representation as a starting point to learn said principles and coordination. Following this thought, the forms are simply said principles strung together, not representative of a specific application. Generally, they are not taught as sparring against an imaginary opponent (i.e. most system’s forms), though I have seen some try and apply or teach them in this manner. One should not look to the forms for actual application (be they on the surface or embedded), but rather to flow and interaction to learn those applications. An example to my point: A common argument amongst wing chun people who say there is no groundfighting in the art - “Where is it in the forms?”

Marty Goldberg started training in Kenpo Karate in 1981, at the age of 10. Through the years he continued furthering his love of the arts through studies of Northern Shaolin Kung Fu, Ninpo, Western Boxing and Wrestling, and Thai Boxing. In 1992, he made the choice to study the Wing Chun system of grandmaster William Cheung, and soon decided to follow the Wing Chun way permanently. In 1993, Goldberg was appointed the offical internet represntative of grandmaster Cheung. Goldberg also founded and continues to co-administer the Wing Chun Mailing list. In 1998, he co-founded the International Wing Chun Kung Fu Federation, the first organization dedicated to the promotion of all wing chun, all branches, across the world

Related Posts

• Southern Double Knives Competition Rules
• Q&A - Anti-Grappling
• Correction to Wing Chun Unity Article/Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine
• On Grappling