email from asbel cancio : ufc 5 ving tsun fighter

[bougeac]

hi, i recently managed to get hold of the email address for asbel cancio, the ufc 5 fighter who lost to dave benetau the canadian grappler...

i asked him what his thoughts were going into the fight and what strategy he tried to apply, this is what he said :

"Dear chris,
firstly, i would like to thank you for your kind words and yes i am the Sifu Cancio that fought in UFC 5.i cannot believe that almost 8 years later there is still
interest about my fight.i must tell you regarding your question about my thoughts going into the tournament, i had no particular thoughts other than
reacting to whatever my opponent threw my way.unfortunately the outcome did not go in my favor ,but i must tell you that this experience opened my eyes and mind to a new level. i know that dave benetau did not want to find out first hand what my stand up abilities were even though he mentioned that he
would go toe to toe with anyone.regardless i give him credit for winning and showing me how effective grappling can be in a one on one scenario under those circumstances.remember the UFC was the brain child of Horion Gracie so
to a certain extent the rules have always favored grapplers.thank you for your email and hope to hear from you soon.

your ving tsun brother,

Sifu Asbel Cancio "

in my email to him, i applauded him for having the courage to take part in the ufc and to put his skills on the line...

i still stand by this and hope that no one out there posts any stupid "witty" sarcastic comments regarding what sifu cancio has said about his fight, remember he has been there YOU havent...

[Merryprankster]

The rules didn't favor grapplers, especially not in UFC 5. They continue not to favor grapplers what the forced stand-ups, the rounds, and the lack of a hard surface that I can bash your head into with a takedown.

That said, he's been where many haven't, as you pointed out, so kudos. It just showed he had a hole in his training--nothing more, nothing less.

[t_niehoff]

Thanks bougeac for posting cancio's email. A few thoughts . . .

asbel cancio wrote:

i had no particular thoughts other than reacting to whatever my opponent threw my way. ac

This is major part of a losing strategy IMHO. While we must let the opponent tell us how to defeat him, that doesn't envolve "reacting" -- reaction means you are already behind the timing. TN

unfortunately the outcome did not go in my favor ,but i must tell you that this experience opened my eyes and mind to a new level. ac

The Gracies have a great saying, "You are only as good as your training partners." Our opponents teach us how to apply WCK; the better our opponents, the better we become. TN

to a certain extent the rules have always favored grapplers. ac

And to a certain extent he's right -- any rules that make it one-on-one, removes environmental variables, etc. will favor (make it more appealing, at least) grappling, particularly groundfighting. But IMHO since WCK contains both grappling and striking, that isn't a good excuse for not performing well. TN

i know that dave benetau did not want to find out first hand what my stand up abilities were. ac

A major part of our "stand-up abilities" is the ability to remain standing. ;) TN

Terence

[bougeac]

thanks for your views terence, out of interest, would you say the most usefull "anti-groundfighting/extreme close range" concepts/techniques are to be found in the biu-gee form??

i believe that wing chun does contain all you need to get back on your feet again IF and ONLY IF you practice on the ground against resisting oponents...

whats your take on this??

[t_niehoff]

bougeac writes:

would you say the most usefull "anti-groundfighting/extreme close range" concepts/techniques are to be found in the biu-gee form?? B

IMO groundfighting -- other than kneeling (i.e., not lying down) -- is not a part of WCK (we don't have the tools for that aspect), but I think it does focus on "close body" fighting. TN

i believe that wing chun does contain all you need to get back on your feet again IF and ONLY IF you practice on the ground against resisting oponents...whats your take on this?? B

I agree with you that the only way one can learn to make their WCK work is if they train against resisting opponents. And I do agree that if we, for whatever reason, go down, that we should get up ASAP. TN

Ho Kam Ming when asked about WCK "groundfighting" said that it is better to spend more time learning to fight on our feet (i.e., learn not to go down); I am in that camp. From my perspective, I can spend all kinds of time practicing iron vest to be able to deal with any strikes that get through my defenses or spend time perfecting those defenses. But whatever time I spend on iron vest is time I can't spend on developing my defenses. However, I do appreciate and respect the contrary view. And just like WCK doesn't have iron vest, I don't think it has ground fighting. If I wanted to learn iron vest, I'd find the best iron vest teacher that I could; likewise, if I wanted to learn groundfighting, I'd find the best groundfighting teacher that I could. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Ricco being KTFO by Tim Sylvia last weekend should show how much the rules don't, and never did favor grapplers. What favored grapplers then was that they trained more realistically and were used to dealing with strikers where strikers were not used to dealing with them. Now all the fighters have access to great trainers, great sparring/grappling partners, and attributes and relative skill comes back into play.

Hopefully one day we'll see a WCK person whose trained well, conditioned well, and has drilled against seasoned, good strikers and grapplers walk in there and show what he or she can do with WCK tools.

[Merryprankster]

Thanks for talking sense Rene...and what a knockout that was. Ricco is an arrogant punk and I'm glad he got pasted :D

[Miles Teg]

As a spectator of such sports I would also agree that it doesnt favour the grappler.
It takes great skill and timing to go in for a take down.
Do you know how dangerous that is? There are plenty of examples of grapplers running head first into striking knees. Thats two forces coming together at speed.
One example I can think of at the top of my head is the fight between Igor Vochanchin(spelling?) and a fighter under the Mark Coleman camp. (I shook Mark Colemans hand during the Christmas holidays, cool eh?).
Igor kneed the grappler as he was coming in for a take down, and seriously concussed him, he was out cold.

[KenWingJitsu]

i believe that wing chun does contain all you need to get back on your feet again IF and ONLY IF you practice on the ground against resisting oponents...
Truer words, never spoken.

[reneritchie]

MP - Wasn't a good UFC for trash-talkers at all. Baroni was funny as well. He wanted Busta but couldn't even handle Lindland (whom Busta schooled at his own game, and several other games ;)

If the rules favored grapplers, sprawl and stallers would be put par terre, the same way lay and prayers are stood up.

MT - Renzo vs. Hendo comes to mind as well. Gracie ran right into a knee, and right out of the fight.

[Merryprankster]

Yeah, the "favors grapplers," argument has been old for quite awhile.

I agree--not a good night for trash talkers. I'm SO glad phil got stomped.

[old jong]

That rules argument always made us look like crying kids.
The major factor is that no pure strikers were ready for something they did'nt really know or cared about.in those early UFC's.
Now,everybody know about striking and grappling.Very good strikers like Chuck Liddel (good take down defense) can dictate the terms of a fight the way they want. Grapplers crostrain in boxing or whatever to be able to fight standing up in case they need it.

Abel Canscio was just not ready. He fell for the old " fake punch to raise hands/shoot" trick. He could have punched Benetau at will but he reacted like a hand chaser instead .(IMO) Not a good thing to do when facing a 250 pds wrestler.