WC Pride: Merryprankster

[CanadianBadAss]

Merry... I think it's time you tell us what’s really going on here.

"But like I said, if it's a good WC school, run with it."
Merryprankster (from a bjj thread)

I've noticed you seem to refer to WC quite a bit, even in discussion where it's not a part of the topic, u just bring it up.

I also see you hanging around the WC forum a hell of a lot, almost every time I go in, there u are.

So I've come to a conclusion...

You're a closeted WC player.

You don't have to be ashamed of what you are man. People won't think any less of you. So... whether you decide to continue living in denial, or just admit the truth to yourself and to us, I just want you to know, you have my support.

[CanadianBadAss]

no replies... ? I gues it was kinda lame, it seemed like a good idea at the time though.

[rogue]

Just repost this on the main forum, he should see it there.

[Merryprankster]

Truth be told, my interest in WC (and use of it in examples) comes from a pretty simple foundation:

1. WC is the only form of Kung Fu that I have watched in a ringfight--I saw something different and it made me curious.

2. I only try to ring in on those threads on the WC forum that deal with:

Fighting Principles (good is good, bad is bad, and they
transcend stylistic differences)

Grappling, obviously

Training methods--generally speaking, not when
discussing WC specific things from one school to
the next.

Body Mechanics--despite the insistance from different
people across different arts, NOBODY is doing anything
that is that different from anybody else (when you
compare apples to apples), or "special," or, from a
biomechanical/or fighting perspective, with "superior
theory." Good is good, bad is bad, and good punching
and kicking from art to art uses a similar set of body
mechanics.

3. When I ask a question and don't get a straight answer, I'll keep hammering away until some sense is made--doesn't matter what board it's on.

So, I'm afraid that I'm not a WC guy. Intensely curious about all of this stuff--but not so much so that I'll give up what I'm doing now and figure it all out. Maybe later when I'm tired of being competitive all the time and I'm looking for some other outlet. :)

As far as the WC post on the main forum, it is because Julien was discussing in a DIFFERENT thread about how he's a teenage, not a whole lot of cash, and transportation problems and I said that maybe he should look into boxing or wrestling at a local club--it's cheap usually, and decent instruction is often available, whereas it seems you have to search to find good CMA, and it may not be convenient--but he wants WC, and I said if it's a good school, run with it.

[red5angel]

"Body Mechanics--despite the insistance from different
people across different arts, NOBODY is doing anything
that is that different from anybody else (when you
compare apples to apples), or "special," or, from a
biomechanical/or fighting perspective, with "superior
theory." Good is good, bad is bad, and good punching
and kicking from art to art uses a similar set of body
mechanics. "

Do you really believe this MP? honestly? If so I would like to hear a better explanation, usually you give a small blurb that sort of seems like something and then later you flame me :) and come back with a better explanation I can understand! Just want to make sure I am understanding you here........

[Merryprankster]

Yes--I really believe that. I find that when you start discussing something in depth, there are more similarities than differences, when comparing "apples to apples."

Don't get me wrong, there are differences too, but the overall principles of movement tend to be (from the descriptions) very similar a lot of the time. How you put it all together is what makes the style look like the style it is.

An example might be throwing events. The Javelin, shotput, discus and hammer are all different events and all look VERY different. However, at the moment of release, if you just took a picture from the throwers armpits down, you'd be hard pressed to determine who was who (except the javelin guy--they tend to be skinnier :))--they look almost identical, barring individual differences.

Why? Because every single one of them, while relying on different techniques to get the impliment moving, have the same instrument of expression--the human body, and the END goal is the same--to throw something as far as you can--now, the releases all look different, but the movement from the feet through the hips and torso, where all the power is transferred to the impliment, and every last bit of "oomph," is given by the large muscles in the trunk and thighs, looks the same.

So that's what? 80% similar--probably even more if you start talking about the percentage of body mass involved that's all doing the same thing.

Another example--throws come in all different forms and different names from style to style--some little details of the throw will vary from style to style, but they are more similar than different--the inside flying mare and ippon seio nage, are for all purposes, the same throw with some minor variations--but they're basically the same--Water Dragon's Diagonal Cut and O Soto Gari have different finishes, but the principles governing the two throws are very similar.

[red5angel]

Not too familiar with the throwing arts so couldnt say too much about them. however to take your example a little further, you would be correct in saying it would be hard to tell those throwers from the armipts down but it is in the details that the differences, and sometimes the most important differences exist.
From the armpits up you wold very definitly be able to tell who was throwing what.
I can agree with maybe 70% :). We are limited in our range of motion just by being human, and so there are many similarities but there are also many differences. For instance, can you identify an art just by watching someone do it? As you said some of this is the way things are put together........

[Merryprankster]

Red--I agree that the devil is in the details--THAT's the difference between the flying mare and ippon seio nage! Or between TKD's front snap kick and MT's Teep kick--but the basic body structure behind the specifics is extremely similar, and that's more what I'm getting at.

So, to say that something is completely different or somehow revolutionary is, to my mind, not particularly accurate.

Boxers, for instance, are just as concerned with being relaxed and punching with the whole body--even on their jab, as a WC man is. The specifics in the delivery differ, but the body mechanics involved aren't THAT different--they are different--don't get me wrong, but even if they were "hugely different," biomechanically, when the rubber meets the road, I really don't think you would be looking at more than a 30% difference--and I think I'm being generous.

THAT however, is purely inferred from how similar movements are from art to art. I've no WC punching experience, so I'm not the authority--of course, Yuan Fen would completely disagree with me, and he's welcome to--however, there is another fellow on the boxing thread who was surprised at how similar the mechanisms between boxing and WC punching were, so it looks like we're all in the same boat of being human :)

[red5angel]

Yep, although the devil is in the details I would agree that the principles are similar. I believe you are correct when you say WC people put their body behind just as boxers do, again the differences are in the details.
I think it just depends on how far you want to break it down. Wing Chun has a tendancy to be overly complicated when it is really a very simple art, it just takes a while to get it right! Its like some people would consider boxing simple, especially compared to martial arts, but I dont think a boxer would call boxing simple.

[S.Teebas]

Boxers, for instance, are just as concerned with being relaxed and punching with the whole body

Where is the origin of their movement?

[Merryprankster]

S. Teebas--

I don't really comprehend the question. How do you mean it? Do you mean "what happens first?" If I had to pick a place for the cross to start, it starts by pivoting on the ball of the foot of the rear leg, but of course, the hips are turning through while that is going on...

[DelicateSound]

I'd love to agree with you MPS, about practically everything you've said - it runs perfectly with my "It's the practitioner not the art" philosophy.


However, you are a BJJ man, and so I must instead induce vomiting, to force myself to think of something other than agreement :D

[Nichiren]

I don't understand the problem? I have never practised Kyokushin karate but I know that they are tuff S-O-Bs so I recommend it to friends who seek my advice on karate (it is often easier to find a near karate dojo than a WC kwoon).

/Cheers...

[rogue]

Would the cause of the differences in WC from some other arts be because of tactics, strategy, or something else?

[S.Teebas]

Merryprankster..

I mean if you standing completely still and need to throw a punch, what the first part of your body that moves?...or initiates movement? ...your hand?...your foot? ...your shoudlers?

Im not saying boxing is at all bad, cause i respect what these guys can do. And i know they could knock me out if the land one of their punches! Their avaliable power is not the issue here. But how we go about generating power is.

In WC we initiate the movement internally (this is way to indepth to go into on a forum) But when i started WC it was somthing new to me too! I did external arts and see 2 some degree how they generate power using muscular force. But when you FEEL the power of a GOOD Wc person. Its very different.
Because the movement starts inside, there is already a great amount of force being generated before the external movement is even seen. Which makes it difficult to counter. I believe that although we do all have the same objective, there are differents ways to the same end.

[Merryprankster]

S. Teebas--

You're never going to convince me that "internal," power is some complicated animal. Internal and external are terms that were invented, in my mind, based on the discussions that I've had here, to describe the difference between a focus in approach.

BJJ is considered by some of the TCC guys to be internal because you do everything with "no strength" and they're constantly telling you to use proper mechanics and timing to counter force.

Wrestlers will outwork you. Period. That single leg not working? Pull harder and use your angles--drive him, smash him, push pull twist, whatever you have to do to drop the SOB.

However, it's a difference in mindset, not execution, because the very best guys in each game are using proper mechanics to counter force and working their tails off at the same time. Cael Sanderson has the sweetest ankle pick I've ever seen, and it's all about timing and sensitivity. Fish in both sports are a pain because they're all elbows and knees and spastic messes. Once you learn how to relax and flow, it's all good....

If you want to know where the power comes from in a boxing punch, it comes from:

1. Relaxation
2. Proper structure upon impact

For a cross, the movement is initiated by two things that happen simultaneously--there is a subtle weight shift placing more on the front foot, and the hips open up to face the target. That's the initiation. The arm is the last thing to move in the sequence.

Rogue--to answer your question--the differences from art to art I think are largely due to a strategy, which then defines the tactics you're going to use. The tactics define the techniques you learn and prefer and join together and lend each art a distinctive look. Of course, that all grew up together, not individually.

[S.Teebas]

You're never going to convince me that "internal," power is some complicated animal.

Ok i see where u stand Merryprankster. And im not on a mission to convince you that "What i do is best!" Because as we both know, all arts have the potential to be effective/devistating in the hands of somone who knows what they are doing.

But what i will say is this: I have seen people skilled in "internal" arts being able to generate force EXTREMELY much more greater than I believe would be possible...if using muscular strength as a main power source. (for that individual person)....and the ability to retain the use of extreme force into a very matured age. (not to say that boxers and wrestlers cant...but this is somthing i have observed in internal arts as a good asset!)

[Merryprankster]

Teebas--

You know what? I TOTALLY agree with you. But I think there is a serious misconception about the way certain arts work. Wrestling does not "rely on strength and power." It's a component, because, as a sport, if you have a strength and power edge on your opponent, then that is an advantage. Boxing is similar. I just got done sparring today with a 165 guy who hits like a freight train (shudder). My trainer is 60 and he still hits HARD. I mean frighteningly hard. The degradation you see in the bodies of competitive athletes is damage over time--but the goal of a competitive athlete is not necessarily the same as somebody who is taking an MA. If you had a competitive WC circuit that was full contact and as popular and filled with talent as boxing, you would see the same kind of degradation over time--and that holds with any sport fighting.

If you muscle your shots, you punch yourself out. NO successful boxer--even the ones famed for knockout power, muscle through their punches. It's impossible to do it without running out of gas.

Structure, relaxation, timing--and (are you ready for this?) channeling the power through your center, are the keys. We don't talk about it that way in boxing, but that's what is going on.

I will say that boxing is not a complete stand up fighting system--But Wing Chun IS.

By the way, I'm sorry that I have made two conflicting posts--I said the cross starts with a foot pivot in one and with a weight shift and hips opening in another. It's the second one that is accurate. I had to stand up and check that out.

Pls don't think I have a closed mind--working from different viewpoints sometimes produces that feeling and I don't want that to be a hallmark. It's just that my thoughts, from all I've read here and my experiences, teach me that the fact that we're all expressing these arts through the same instrument, means there are only so many "correct," ways to do things, so good principles apply across the arts, resulting in more similarities in biomechanics than differences.

[red5angel]

I can attest to MPs open mindedness, if that s even a word.

I would agree with you MP on the idea that whether hard or soft everyone experiences degredation with decrepitude. "Soft" style users tend to rely more on structure then muscle power and so it often lends and advantage but even hard styles can develope good structural use.
I dont even think power and structure are lost nearly as much as endurance, which is a huge deciding factor in a fight.

[Merryprankster]

Red--true. You'll notice that the older boxers are typically better BOXERS--they know every trick in the book, and can out slick their opponents--but as the rounds drag on.....

And power is the LAST thing to go. Foreman and Tyson still have knockout power, but have you seen Holyfield fight lately? His reflexes are gone and so are his legs. He would have dismantled Ruiz 5 years ago...