Techs: From structure, to application, to ISOLATED SPARRING

[KenWingJitsu]

I came across an interesting thread & thought I'd share.
In the past I've always preached about direct application of any technique we learn in WC.

I've always said all the "techniques mean nothing if they aren't applied. When asked how to apply, I've stated EVERYTHING must have an application, and that application MUST be sparred.

Fallen on deaf ears...whatever. But this thread describes exactly what I was talking about. Nice to see some WT people doing exactly what i described as isolated sparring, going live on each "technique".


After countless, countless times hearing the same **** in relation to WT, thought it might be time for me to post an FAQ.
1. All Wing Chun sucks!

A: No, it doesn't. While I agree with you that most, or a lot of WC is McDojo and BS, there are still the few schools who know where its really at. Mine's one of them.
2. What makes your school different?

A: Realism. You basically take your technique, and test it. For example, last week in class, we were doing a fairly stereotypical WT technique called "Guan Sau Punch" where a punch is thrown at your stomach, and you use your front hand to chop down on it and block it, while simultaneously punching the face with your back hand. After doing it non-contact and with no gear on a few times, sifu broke out the helmets and you either had to block the full power punch to the stomach and then hit back with a full power punch to the head, or attempt to hit the stomach and defend your head. After most people had had a go at this and were getting pretty good, sifu had two of the top students put on the gear, and go totally free - either one of them could throw the technique, and either one had to defend. So in what was almost a totally open atmosphere, with controls, they managed to pull it of and make it look almost exactly the same as the totally closed drilling we had done at the start of the class - and it worked.


This is the part I was referring to. You can read the whole thread here;
http://bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14118

[KenWingJitsu]

Pst. Ernie...this is what I meant with my sentence that began with "All techiques".............and ended with............"Application". This dude gave a perfect example. :)

[Ernie]

Dhira,
Down 110 % bro,
First off let me openly thank your for being there when I needed you to train and express idea’s, funny how people use the linage thing to keep all separated in there little bubbles, yet you and I can sit there for hours train and discuss the differences and pro’s cons’ no secrets and not one ounce of political b.s. Come into it. It just goes to show how much can be gained when we leave all the sifu’, master, grand master says crap at the door and just look at wing chun as a whole and train the idea’s with pressure in mind and as you always say application[ and my term that p isses of the word nerds functionalize =) ]. You did a beautiful thing when after I had gone over a ton of my notes and idea’s you simply stepped smiled and said ‘’o.k. That’s great now apply it on me ‘‘ you caught me off guard with some thing I would do to some one it was great =)

Shows you how you need good friends and training partners to keep you honest.

Thanks for being there homie, thanks for the brutal honesty and for being so open
Hope you got some stuff out of it as well peace Ernie

Ps. Big drew wants to get in on it next time =)

[anerlich]

That's a pretty good thread.

One thing I'm finding is absolutely essential for proper alive training is good protective gear, both for hitter and hittee. A lot of people at our kwoon don't have decent gloves, for example. I'm still getting over a black eye from sparring without headgear and a cut over the other eye from a head clash from working clinch. Not like I was hurt, or even hit hard, but it looks bad.

The average guy who has a professional job and doesn't want to go to work looking like an axe murderer, or a girl who doesn't want people to assume her boyfriend/husband beats her up (unless it's at training) has to think of these things.

Plus, no one's tough enough to withstand repeated concussion or brain trauma. A detached retina is no fun either.

But you CAN'T make your training work without working like this.

[IRONMONK]

nice thread on how to train your WT/WC techniques with aliveness.

Anerlich,

detached retina sounds very scary.Advantages of using head gear is that you wont have visible cuts,no broken nose etc and you can go to work the next day without people giving you funny looks!!!But do you think there are disadvantages to wearing headgear?

[CFT]

Originally posted by crimsonking
Well, its either totally open, or it has controls. It sounds like a fairly contrived scenario to me, almost exactly the same criticism many people seem to have of chi sao. I don't know if you have a problem with the ideas or the expression of those ideas.

Chi sao has its place in any school of WC, but its purpose is mainly on developing sensitivity. There may be other attributes you can train for at the same time, but I'll leave that to others to enlarge upon if they so wish.

So it is again a contrived scenario, but one which is closer to combat than chi sao is. How many times have I heard on this forum that chi sao is not fighting - that is not its purpose?

If we spar with more intent and energy, we and our partners have less time to react, may tense up, may use more strength, may over-commit - all the things that we shouldn't do. By applying or being subject to additional pressure we may make and correct different mistakes to what we may make in chi sao.

It is just another necessary way to train WC, IMO.

I should qualify my post to say that I don't train in this way yet, and we don't do it in the class I attend, but this could be due to the overall level of the class. The other class in the school does have sessions like this, but I'm not sure how frequent it is.

As to the advisability of padding up - isn't this what boxers do when they train?

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by anerlich
The average guy who has a professional job and doesn't want to go to work looking like an axe murderer, or a girl who doesn't want people to assume her boyfriend/husband beats her up (unless it's at training) has to think of these things.

Makes me think of Fight Club.

[anerlich]

detached retina sounds very scary.Advantages of using head gear is that you wont have visible cuts,no broken nose etc and you can go to work the next day without people giving you funny looks!!!But do you think there are disadvantages to wearing headgear?

Oh, sure. lack of visibility is one, though IMO this is less of a problem than many think. Unless you have a REALLY good one, the suckers keep slipping. Too much stuff over your face, you can't breathe. You can still get KO or concussion. But overall the risks are reduced.

It's like any other piece of equipment or method of training. It has drawbacks as well as advantages. Training has many aspects and they must be balanced.

In the case of headgear though, IMO the advantages outweigh the drawbacks.

[KenWingJitsu]

Thanks for being there homie, thanks for the brutal honesty and for being so open. Hope you got some stuff out of it as well
Hey man, my pleasure always. As you say...family bro.....family. You make me better, hopefully I can do the same for you. Family.
I for sure got much out of it. A lot. I need to digest a bit and put it through my "aplication filter". But yes, you gave me enough to chew on.;)

anerlich, I recommend geting headgear with a cage. Unless you're using boxing gloves...basically, never spar without headgear else it wont be "true"...or on the other extreme, lots of injuries. "In the case of headgear though, IMO the advantages outweigh the drawbacks" Absolutely.


So, no place in your training for any kind of cardio, weight training, yoga, qigong?
I dont get your point. Those things are "CONDITIONING" which should be done outside of class. I'm specifically talking about fighting techniques (in WCK). Chi sao isnt fighting. Its rolling arms in a specific structure with specific techniques. nothing to do with fighting....unless you take those techniques OUT of chi-sao and put them in application, like in the isolated sparring drill mentioned above.

[Vajramusti]

Chi sao isnt fighting. "Its rolling arms in a specific structure with specific techniques. nothing to do with fighting"....unless you take those techniques OUT of chi-sao and put them in application, like in the isolated sparring drill mentioned above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be sure- not a very useful version of chi sao!

[Ultimatewingchun]

KenWingJitsu (Dhira) wrote:

"I'm specifically talking about fighting techniques (in WCK). Chi sao isnt fighting. Its rolling arms in a specific structure with specific techniques. nothing to do with fighting....unless you take those techniques OUT of chi-sao and put them in application, like in the isolated sparring drill mentioned above."

I agree with this...although I wouldn't say "nothing to do with fighting".

I would say that the moves, strategies, and principles learned in chi sao MUST always be translated into isolated sparring drills..and then actual free-form sparring/fighting.

And the more you do BOTH chi sao and it's applications in the SAME class...the more wing chun becomes ALIVE.

Good thread, Dhira!

[anerlich]

Joy and Victor are correct.

Dhira, yeah, I'm coming around to the cage too. The open face ones are too, well, open, the plastic visor ones stop the oxygen supply which is a bit tough with the mouthpiece in as well for the breath, plus I've seen a number of "unbeakable plastic visors" get smashed in my time.

[kj]

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
Chi sao isnt fighting. Its rolling arms in a specific structure with specific techniques.

I read this as food for thought, and hope you won't mind a momentary digression. Perhaps we do have different conceptions of what constitutes chi sau.

Save the foundation elements of our Wing Chun practice, I'm not a big advocate of pre-set "you do A and I'll do B" kinds of drills in or out of chi sau. Aside from limited experimentation or analysis of a specific application or concept, things quickly approach randomness once operating beyond the basic poon sau/luk sau rolling platform.

Energy levels and "assertiveness" during chi sau (cautiously distinguished from the ill-will connotation of "aggressiveness") vary dramatically based on practitioner experience and capabilities, especially during gor sau variations of the exercise. Accidents sometimes happen, ranging from not-altogether-uncommon split lips and bruises to more rare occurrences like dislocations, broken bones, separated biceps, torn ligaments, etc. Chi sau, as I know it, encompasses a wide range of practice; and while there is always some element of control to it, it is not always or by definition "patty cake."

I also rarely concern myself with "techniques" during chi sau; I'm far more concerned with concepts and principles of practice, with the aim of allowing my hands to do what they need to do without much interference from me. This seems to work reasonably well in practice, within provisional limitations of course.

Even lat sau/lut sau (separation and loss of sticking) happens during gor sau; while technically the moment and act of separation is not chi sau, it can and does occur during the course and range of chi sau practice.

However, my conception of chi sau still and distinctly does not incorporate fighting. Depending on one's POV, I reticently concede it may cross the bounds of what some consider forms of sparring. My continued hesitation and ambivalence on that point is mainly due to the "heart" of the chi sau exercise as that of mutual learning and development, rather than for the purpose of besting an "opponent" or attempting to "prove" something to oneself or to others, despite an inherent "testing and verification" element to the practice. There remains a delicate balance of sorts that nags me on this.

Some semblance of control is also maintained in chi sau. And as always, chi sau per se doesn't intentionally and mutually go to the ground (though sometimes "stuff happens"); regardless of the value of the practice, it would be called something other than chi sau in my vernacular.

I therefore maintain and agree that chi sau is indeed a different thing from a fighting episode and the full range of things that can occur during one. Nonetheless, my conception of chi sau is exceedingly more expansive, varied and rich than "a specific structure with specific techniques."

It may yet boil down in part to semantic interpretations rather than wholesale disagreement in concept and practice. It's an interesting consideration all the same. I confess a great difficulty in accepting black and white, on or off, or dogmatic assertions from any corners; there are just too many variations, amplitudes, shades of gray, circumstances, and exceptions to rules for things to be quite so simplistic and one-size-fits all.

Again, pardon my pensive digressions, especially in that such trivia may be of interest primarily to those not actively participating on this thread. Back over to you guys and the topic at hand.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Vajramusti]

Good post KJ.

There is great diversity on what chi sao is, what it means, what it includes, what its dynamics are and what its purposes are.
On purpose- a common answer that is given is that its for devloping "sensitivity"...sensitivity to what, when and how...
and what do with the information?

[kj]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
On purpose- a common answer that is given is that its for devloping "sensitivity"...sensitivity to what, when and how...
and what do with the information?

Yes - my conception of chi sau is hugely about sensitivity or as you describe it, or "listening" skills. Despite the "niceness" of those words, it still isn't patty-cake.

Regards,
- kj

[CFT]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
There is great diversity on what chi sao is, what it means, what it includes, what its dynamics are and what its purposes are.
On purpose- a common answer that is given is that its for devloping "sensitivity"...sensitivity to what, when and how...
and what do with the information? Isn't it sensitivity to force and position? As to what to do with the information once received - formulate appropriate responses through lots of 'repetition'.

[t_niehoff]

Chi sao is a drill to introduce and develop (to a modest degree) certain aspects of our method. What many people don't seem to appreciate is that attributes (and sensitivity, timing, even structure are attributes) can be broken down into intensity-independent attributes (like strength, speed, etc.) and intensity-dependent attributes (like timing, sensitivity, mechanics, etc.). In other words, one can have very good sensitivity or timing or structure at low intensity but not at high intensity. But if you have them at high intensity (which comes from working at high intensity), you have them at lower intensity. Chi sao introduces and develops many attribute-dependent attributes to a modest degree; but since the intensity never approaches full-out fighting one will never develop the attributes at that level (which is where we need them). Technique and attributes are not two separate things. The bottom line is that to develop the attributes, and thus our techniques, necessary to perform at high-intensity we need to train/work at high-intensity. Thus, folks that don't do that sort of training, won't have the attributes or the technique (can't fight) regardless of their titles, years in the art, etc. So chi sao is an important drill, but it is only a first step, not the destination.

Regards,

Terence

[old jong]

About Chi Sau,I prefer to think about "stick and control" instead of sensitivity.It has not that "passive" feel to it.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by old jong
It has not that "passive" feel to it. Sensitivity does not mean passive. When you sense an opening you attack it.

Bill

[Matrix]

I found this clip on the main Kung Fu forum.
http://users.1st.net/abaddon/kfo/wcvsmantissparring.wmv

It's listed as Wing Chun versus Mantis sparring..... I don't see any Wing Chun here, nor any Mantis. If this is what people think WC sparring is, then count me out. ;)


Bill

P.S. I know this is not what Dhira, Ernie and Victor are talking about, but I'd love to hear their comments...... if they're suitable for print. :D

[old jong]

Hi Bill!
I will try to be more clear.When you stick,you should be able to control your "opponent" with your "actions" instead of your "reactions"
There is a very dynamic thing in Chi Sau happening.It is not simply touching hands and waiting for an attack or an opening to be sensed.The goal is to be in the present rather than having to react to something already in action.
This is why equalising and neutralising are so much important factors in sticking.

[kj]

Hi Terence,

I understand your breakdown, and it makes sense.


Originally posted by t_niehoff
Chi sao introduces and develops many attribute-dependent attributes to a modest degree; but since the intensity never approaches full-out fighting one will never develop the attributes at that level (which is where we need them).

However, the ranges of chi sau, as I know it, does at times approach fighting intensity. Close enough for my comfort zone, and sometimes then some. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[old jong]

Many will only be reassured if they feel they are acting tough enough and they find approval from others who do the same.

[kj]

Originally posted by old jong
Hi Bill!
I will try to be more clear.When you stick,you should be able to control your "opponent" with your "actions" instead of your "reactions"
There is a very dynamic thing in Chi Sau happening.It is not simply touching hands and waiting for an attack or an opening to be sensed.The goal is to be in the present rather than having to react to something already in action.
This is why equalising and neutralising are so much important factors in sticking.

Hi OJ,

I can understand where you're coming from on this. We definitely don¡¦t want to be playing ¡§catch up.¡¨ Still, I am confident this one is indeed more a semantics issue than anything else.

In that light, and just for fun and discourse, here's a thought: Perhaps we might agree that "to be in the present" would require one to perceive (sense) what the present is. At any infinitely small moment in time, there is a razor fine edge between antipation and commitment vs. being reactive and catching up. You may not wish to refer to the characteristic of perceiving and capitalizing upon each infinitesimally small and fleeting moment of opportunity as sensitivity, but I don't mind calling it that. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Matrix]

Originally posted by old jong
It is not simply touching hands and waiting for an attack or an opening to be sensed.The goal is to be in the present rather than having to react to something already in action. Bonjour Michel.

I was merely commenting on the use of the term "passive". Often times we see comments that seem to indicate that chi sao is some type of passive rolling exercise, and of course we know that it is much more than that.

You are right, simply waiting for an opening is not what we're looking for. We need to create it, and this is done with action.

Bill

[kj]

Originally posted by old jong
Many will only be reassured if they feel they are acting tough enough and they find approval from others who do the same.

Touche.
- kj

[Ernie]

P.S. I know this is not what Dhira, Ernie and Victor are talking about, but I'd love to hear their comments...... if they're suitable for print


this was posted before by the wing chun guy ,
touch and go sparring more like a karate match , nothing wrong with some guys having fun :D





as for the whole sensitivity vs. intensity , t_niehoff hit it on the nose , you might be great at level's 1-7 but when the volume gets turned to 8,9,10, and above
you will get overwhelmed , things will happen to fast and to hard for lower level training to adjust , body and mind get shell shocked .
but to each there own i'm also not a believer in go hard core all the time something gets lost ,
hard core 10% to get to get the rush
the other 90 brak up into degree's of difficulty

[old jong]

KJ!...
You're right,there is some semantic here but there is also some "technical" involved. Being in the present means to be active in sending back the "opponent" energy by equalising and neutralising.This way,speed tricks and other gimmicks have little chance of being effective and the "opponent" needs a very superior timing to catch you.
But I'm sure there are many other ways to explain this concept.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ernie
touch and go sparring more like a karate match , nothing wrong with some guys having fun :D Ernie,
Sure, it's all in good fun. I just don't think it should be posted as Wing Chun versus whatever. There's no WC there at all. Looks more like TKD, although I don't mean to insult any TKD folks.


you will get overwhelmed , things will happen to fast and to hard for lower level training to adjust , body and mind get shell shocked . I'm going to step out on a limb and say that it's mostly in the mind as opposed to the body. The mind will race, possibly panic, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Your body knows what to do, but your mind short-circuits. In the heat of the moment, you don't know what you know.

Bill

[old jong]

Bill!

Bonjour Michel.

I was merely commenting on the use of the term "passive". Often times we see comments that seem to indicate that chi sao is some type of passive rolling exercise, and of course we know that it is much more than that.

You are right, simply waiting for an opening is not what we're looking for. We need to create it, and this is done with action.


I know! You just gave me an opportunity to me more precise.

The bizarre thing is having people who don't see the natural skill/combat/development relation in Chi Sau. Almost everybody forget all about it when they spar.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by old jong
The bizarre thing is having people who don't see the natural skill/combat/development relation in Chi Sau. Michel, I think that has to do with the fact that you can't "see" what is really happening in Chi Sao. You need to feel it, and only those directly involved can do that.

Gotta go. Talk to you later...

Bill

[Ultimatewingchun]

Michel (Old Jong):

You wrote...

"The bizarre thing is having people who don't see the natural skill/combat/development relation in Chi Sau. Almost everybody forget all about it when they spar."

Precisely the point I was trying to make in my previous post on this thread...

They are apt to "forget all about it" when they spar if the moves, principles, and strategies learned in chi sao aren't CONSTANTLY translated into isolated drills and then free sparring.

It's not so bizarre to understand when it's acknowledged that MANY wing chun schools will spend hours doing chi sao and "mere minutes" doing the translations.

And by the way...while I agree with kj and others that sensitivity is a very essential "skill" being developed in chi sao - your remark on a previous post...

"About Chi Sau, I prefer to think about "stick and control" instead of sensitivity. It has not that "passive" feel to it..."

IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

Stick and control is the "meat and potatoes" of the entire Wing Chun system, IMO.

[old jong]

Chi Sau is not a bag of tricks.It is a developmental approach of fighting skill. You learn to control an opponent so you can punch him at will.This skill should "translate" to sparring or fighting without ant translation needed.
I have my students do many types of sparring drills beside chi sau and the same dynamics apply.The instant there is contact,chi sau skill kicks in,that's all.
Why so many seems to change art when they spar is a mystery to me.

Stick and control is the "meat and potatoes" of the entire Wing Chun system, IMO.
You can add the sauce also!...;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ernie wrote:

"As for the whole sensitivity vs. intensity , t_niehoff hit it on the nose , you might be great at level's 1-7 but when the volume gets turned to 8,9,10, and above
you will get overwhelmed , things will happen to fast and to hard for lower level training to adjust , body and mind get shell shocked .
but to each there own i'm also not a believer in go hard core all the time something gets lost ,
hard core 10% to get to get the rush
the other 90 brak up into degree's of difficulty."

VERY TRUE !

William Cheung used to tell us that for every one hour of sparring at least 3 hours should be spent "drilling".

And in fact - I like Ernie's number 90/10...(although I don't necessarily see a major difference with GM Cheung's percentages)...

Because out of that "one hour of free form sparring"...only a small percentage of it should be "all out", IMO.

It should be a gradual buildup of speed, power, intensity, etc.

So only the last 10-15 minutes should be all out, IMO.

In this manner the practitioner is less apt to "get lost" in the heat of combat and start flailing away...losing his "wing chun" perspective...make stupid mistakes, etc.

RETURN TO CENTER...is a lot more than just bringing a hand back to the centerline when someone has taken you off. It's a state of mind - perhaps more than anything else. And it is really put to the test in all out sparring...so it's best to build up to it gradually.

[Ernie]

The fog of war

That’s what this is really all about, developing your navigational tools to get some sort of bearing,
Of course we need isolated experiences to break down and train the body and mind by minimizing outside ‘’ noise ‘’
Then we need a nucleus to build from ‘’ chi sau ‘’ then we graduate to perhaps cross arm drills and somewhat freestyles
Finally we have no connection and train how to seek, recognize and control this connection [or if your real good just drop the guy with out any connection]
So now we can take ourselves out into an open environment live energy from a resisting opponent [call it sparring if you will] but your still refining the same thing you did when you were in other stages of training, then when we are ready we get in front of guys not from our school that have there own battle plan and navigational tools well developed and we see if we can still maintain our game plan [fog of war]
Can you adapt, you have learned speed, timing, balance. Power in controlled environments, now learn adaptability in non-controlled, meaning you don’t know what this guy is coming with, it’s a blank slate, you know similar to a street fight were you can’t pick your opponent. You have to adapt and analyze on the fly, get knocked off course and recover your bearings.

If you never leave the safety of the harbor, you will never really know if your ship holds up or will sink, within reason of course there are many more uncontrollable variables in a street fight.

But if your only into preserving the ‘’ art ‘’ portion there is not need to leave the harbor,

[Vajramusti]

Ernie -
while we differ on sparring- agree completely that being able to adapt to quite differing situations is a key to effective wing chun.
Wing chun is not robotics.

Joy

[old jong]

If you never leave the safety of the harbor, you will never really know if your ship holds up or will sink, within reason of course there are many more uncontrollable variables in a street fight.

But if your only into preserving the ‘’ art ‘’ portion there is not need to leave the harbor,

Ernie, I think you generalise too much in that kind of statements.I see you coming over and over with your notion that everybody but you and a few others are on the right path and all others are just swimming on dry land if they do not think exactly like you.The "art" contains a lot more than you seems to believe and it is a lot more than a "portion" IMO.
There always will be somebody better than you or me and there is nothing we can do about that.Unless you train for sport reasons,there is no point in doing this way.

[t_niehoff]

KJ, chi sao never, by its very nature, even approaches fighting intensity -- never. If you think it does, try some fighting (where your opponent is trying to take your head off) and see.

Old Jong, there is only one way to learn to become a better swimmer -- by getting in the water. In terms of WCK, the environment is fighting (characterized by intensityl resitance, and intent). This is nothing new. If you wanted to become a good chessplayer, you'd study the game (train) which would include learning opening, endgame studies, tactics, playing over the games of masters, etc., then you'd play (fight) lost of games, that is, actually try to use those things you studied in the very activity you are trying to get good at, then you'd think/analyze your success and failures, which would lead to growth. Then the cycle continues -- more studying, more playing, more thinking, more growing. Same with any other "competitive" acitivity, physical or mental. In boxing, you become a better boxing by fighting (sparring). It's an individual's art, like chess and WCK, but anyone who wants to get better has to do the same things (because that's ow we as human beings develop). If you don't believe that to be the case, it is easy enough to disprove -- find someone (or do it yourself) that doesn't fight as part of their development, and see if they can defeat any good fighters. And btw, there is no "art" if it doesn't work.

Regards,

Terence

[Shadowboxer]

FWIW,

I edited that clip for Fajing. There was discussion about it on a previous thread. A little background info. Those guys were testing the waters with each other. It was the first time they met. At the end, the mantis guy says he was only working on conditioning. I saw several TWC entry techniques from Sifu Milan and a couple of fung gerks.

[Ernie]

Ernie -
while we differ on sparring- agree completely that being able to adapt to quite differing situations is a key to effective wing chun.
Wing chun is not robotics.

Joy

we may not differ as much as you think , i don't believe in touch and go sparring , one thing is if your just playing around with a friend and it's all fune but if your refineing your entry and adaptive skills against some one who might ring your bell , then it's a little more serious and timeing taking position and blowing the dude out is important ,

this is not sparring but more of isolating your outside to inseide skills and then adapting if your entry gets countered , being able to maintain your '' center '' mind , balance and calmness under pressure is a skill , i don't see how this is not a wing chun skill
the tooling and body engine and structure need to be refined under fire like any weapon ,

the intesity of the flame is up to the person and how much there planning on putting in and getting out . people have different needs and goals ,

some like to just feel safe with the gun in the house , others take it out into the range , others shot clay objects , others go hunting
still another level if you plan on going to war .



jong,Ernie, I think you generalise too much in that kind of statements

[[[goes both ways many say they have it all in chi sau or in there lineage or what ever , could be true i don't know , not there training with them , so i stick to raw human facts , ]]]]

.I see you coming over and over with your notion that everybody but you and a few others are on the right path and all others are just swimming on dry land if they do not think exactly like you.

[[[ not at all i can only do what is right for me , back to the raw human facts , if you want to swim you must get wet , no way around that , if you want to find out what your capable of you must test yourself , people learn by experience and pressure , the level of that pressure will dictate the level of your measurable skill , if i have never move arond with a 250 pound fighter , i wont know if i can adapt to such a person fight or flight might kick in , doesn't mean it's impossible every dog has it's day but i wouldn't bank on it , if all you ever do is realte to a wing chun energy you will be dialed into that , when a un common and un crispy line cones at you it might cause you to pause , this pause might make a difference in the out come ]]]]

The "art" contains a lot more than you seems to believe and it is a lot more than a "portion" IMO.

[[[ again this is one of those general state ments , i know what you don't know stuff , meaning less banter . i have been around enough skilled people , probably more then most , to know what wing chun guys can do , and i have been very impressed , but i have noticed those that have and do fight are just better plain and simple . sure some might have a great stance or root or sensitivity or what ever but these are just elements '' the art ''
my only concern is in the application and consisitancy of that application in a live enviroment ,
history means nothing to me , being connected to this or that means nothing to me , having to prove this lineage is better then that complete waste of time in my book , how i can improve and how i can help others improve is all that matters , if i find a better way i will toss out everything i know and move on i have no emotional commitment to a training system , it should speak for itself by results , no need to try and defend it ]]]


There always will be somebody better than you or me and there is nothing we can do about that.Unless you train for sport reasons,there is no point in doing this way.

[[[ i live humbled by better fighters every day in and more out of wing chun , the only person i compete with is myself , if you really knew me you would understand that , that's the same mind set i have in chi sau or in sparring i'm trying to improve myself the person infront of me is just energy no emotional commitment beyond mutual respect ]]

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KJ, chi sao never, by its very nature, even approaches fighting intensity -- never.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify, Terence. My use of the term "approach" was in a differential calculus sense, and allowing for varying deltas regarding intensity. It was not intended in any absolute sense, nor to imply that chi sau and fighting are remotely the same thing; hearkening to my earlier writings on this very thread where I vehemently insisted that chi sau is not fighting. So it seems we are once again in violent agreement.

Sadly, I have also seen chi sau evolve rapidly into a real and serious fight. When egos interfere, the leap from one to the other is not always that far. :(

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[PaulH]

NO! NO!

You folks evidently don't play chess enough! There is a pure, unmatched, and undiluted streak of cruelty found only in this beautiful celebral game. I know my dad and uncle would shut themselves in a room for a whole day and left unspoken to each others for weeks in the aftermath. Like Chi Sau, it can be a "Reach out and crush someone!" as one likes it! But I always come in peace for all my sau! =)

[old jong]

being connected to this or that means nothing to me , having to prove this lineage is better then that complete waste of time in my book

It means something to me but not on a political base.I am proud of my lineage but you will not hear me boast about it or worse,talk for my Sifu or Sigung.I am very conscious that there are very skillful Wing Chun people in all lineages.


It was not intended in any absolute sense, nor to imply that chi sau and fighting are remotely the same thing

But it is a very important training method to get to a certain skill level in Wing Chun (If you believe Wing Chun has some value!)...Not talking to you KJ!...;) It is central to Wing Chun.There is certainly a good reason for this.

[Ernie]

To get this thread back online
And since no one ever-said chi sau is not important
Lets see how people would approach an isolated progression

Lets pick a pak sau [something universal]

How would you take it through these stages?

First basic mechanics
Then in chi sau application
Then in a non chi sau application
Then is a live non wing Chun environment
Then take it back to chi sau with newly gained experience.

[PaulH]

Ernie,

Duncan Leung Sifu said it so well on one of his reply to a question on timing/fighting that I will repost his post in its entirety here as it also touches your question.

"Essentially, proper timing in martial arts (and I believe this would be true of any physical or mental activity) comes from experience. There are two ways in which to acquire the requisite experience. The most obvious, of course, is actually fighting or sparring. With sufficient experience and suffering, one's timing will improve. Additionally, in Wing Chun, we have drills with a partner designed to speed up the reaction time; these drills are different from drills for improving technique. They involve responding to various types of punches, kicks, openings, and opportunities in different sequences and at gradually increasing velocities. The object is to shorten the reaction period from eye (detecting incoming objects, such as fists and feet) to brain and nervous system to muscles, which are programmed to respond appropriately. Any martial art in any part of the world, any style, would have a timing drill similar to the one I have just described. Because it is so basic and essential, I am sure your instructors would be able to help you with this. "

[t_niehoff]

Duncan Leung is only partially correct. Why do boxers spar in the ring and not just do drills? Why do wrestlers grapple on the mat and not just do do drills? Why do BJJers roll and not just do drills? Why go through all that hard work of actually doing the activity in a fighting environment? Because as human beings the only way to truly become skilled at an activity is by doing the activity itself. In WCK we don't do forms and drills for their own sake, but to develop fighting skill. Drills can help us but they can't take us the whole way, not even a large portion of the way. If we want to become better fighters, we must fight. That's an absolute requirement. You won't get any argument from folks that actually fight about this (they know from experience) -- only from folks that don't fight but think they can if they wanted to (lack of experience)! Well, anyone who claims otherwise can prove it fairly easily just by getting some experience (fight some skilled people). Otherwise, all you're doing is wu shu -- some exercise, some choreography that is removed from fighting.

Regards,

Terence

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Shadowboxer
Those guys were testing the waters with each other. It was the first time they met. At the end, the mantis guy says he was only working on conditioning. I saw several TWC entry techniques from Sifu Milan and a couple of fung gerks. Shadowboxer,

Thank you for the additional details. Since the clip is advertised as "Wing Chun vs. Northern Mantis sparring", that's what I was looking for. If it's "Two guys testing the waters" then please label it as such. ;)

Let's just leave it at that.

Thanks,
Bill

[sihing]

deleted......

[anerlich]

Boxers spar because they take one to give one. They have to learn to get hit and continue with their own combos, not all people can do this.

Only dumb and unskilled boxers take one to give one. Boxing can be every bit as scientific as Wing Chun. In some ways it is a more efficient system than WC. Diss boxing at your peril.

Everyone has to learn to get hit and continue fighting if they expect to be able to operate in a live situation. If they can't, they better take up yoga or firearms, not that there's anything wrong with either of those. The fight may start with you getting sucker punched, or jumped from behind, you better be able to respond.


When wrestlers drill they are grappling on the mat??? Same with BJJ.

And your point is .... ? There's a big difference between drilling takedowns, pins, or submission holds, and trying to apply them on a fully resisting opponent. Any BJJer who does only drills and never rolls will get DESTROYED by a peer who trains alive for the same length of time.

[anerlich]

While it presumptuous to second guess Duncan Leung, I think when he said "there are two ways", that he advocates doing both, not making a choice between the two.

[KingMonkey]

Boxers spar because they take one to give one.
Ho hum, no they dont.
They might expect to take the odd hit in a fight but so does anyone who's been in one or trained in a manner adequately simulating one. It's only form masters, chi-sao specialists and drill-junkies who think they're never going to cop one.

[old jong]

Even internet tough guys get hit.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
Boxers spar because they take one to give one. They have to learn to get hit and continue with their own combos, not all people can do this. James,
A real boxer will not "take one to give one". They will make you miss with their footwork, bob and weave and slip punches. Probe with jabs and wait for their time to strike. Yes, some guys will just go toe-to-toe and slug it out, but not most.


When wrestlers drill they are grappling on the mat??? Same with BJJ. Just the equivalent to boxers wearing gloves and head-gear to spar.


Lots of people fight with no training and are still sh!tty fighters.Lots of people train and are still sh!tty fighters. :rolleyes:

Bill

[KenWingJitsu]

Lookit this thread...IT'S ALIVE!!!!


And the more you do BOTH chi sao and it's applications in the SAME class...the more wing chun becomes ALIVE.
Victor, that is my whole point on chi-sao. Notice I said "unless the applications are taken out and trained alive. We basically agree. My point is...only chi-sao has nothing to do with fighting if it is 'only chi-sao". If you take the techniques and put it in a "fighting context", (like the Isolated sparring example), THEN it now has something to do with fighting.

Before this becomes a 'chi-sao' thread, let me just say that just chi-sao will make you good at one thing....chi sao. Period. no matter how its sugar-coated, no matter how many ways it's defined. Not even when it is "aggresive chi sao". Aggressive chi sao makes you good at...aggresive chi sao lol. To use the techniques or principles chi-sao was designed for, you MUST put them in a fighting context, and TRAIN them in a fighting context. The sifu in the example I quoted does this, and like Victor said, it was trained in the same class......this way students get to learn the chi-sao, leand the application of it, and then apply the move under real pressure...even if its only in isolation...it's still alive.

Ernie's last post summed it up. : Lets pick a pak sau [something universal]

How would you take it through these stages?

First basic mechanics
Then in chi sau application
Then in a non chi sau application
Then is a live non wing Chun environment
Then take it back to chi sau with newly gained experience.

My answer would be

First basic mechanics SHow the form of the pak. elbow posititon, hip position and show the proper direction of the pak...(forward, not sideways). Show the power generation and practice it a few times without resistance...i.e. "dead", but this is for building proper technique.

Then in chi sau application : In most schools from poon-sao, this is done as an inside pak. So Have one person be the "paker" (lol) and the other the just rolls hands. The paker, once he feels his bong being rolled into ton uses that as the "cue" to pak and then punch. Repeat for reps or minute rounds tightening up mechanics.

Then in a non chi sau application : This is where I hope I dont lose anyone. This is where application comes in. To apply it for real, you are now taking it out of the "chi-sao environment". have sone person be the puncher the other the punchee. Start form no contact, but from a distance. The instigator reaches & grabs the back of the neck (necktie & tries to pull him in -(snapdown). The ‘paker' reacts by stepping fwd with the pull & trying to punch on the inside of the grabbing arm (ex. Say Attacker grabs defenders head with his left arm, defender punches with his right hand on the inside of A’s left elbow as the pull begins). IF A’s elbow is down and tight, the punch will be 'jammed' before it reaches his face (if it isn't the punch lands - which is better) this is where the pak comes in. Defender inside paks the forearm to clear the “barrier” creating a path for the punch to smash the attackers face. There’s your application.

Then is a live non wing Chun environment DO rounds of it live, and unexpected, i.e. attacker doesn’t let the other know which hand you’ll grab with or when he’ll grab. He makes it “live” and really tried to pull the guy in to headbutt or punch. Next, switch roles, then next, both people try to grab (clinch-headbutt or punch) AND defend with the pak. This is isolated sparring.

Then take it back to chi sau with newly gained experience. Next time you do chi-sao (doesn’t have to be the same class since you’ve already begun with chi-sao), you’ll KNOW the application of the inside pak from the poon-sao roll, so it’s not just an inside pak from chi-sao, but now you envision every time you roll in chi-sao that you are in fact defending a barrier such as a neck tie that pulls you in for a headbutt or clinch or for a punch. You’ll “see” the application every time you chi-sao, and this will give your chi-sao a different feeling and a different meaning as far as that technique goes.

Do the same for ALL techniques/drills/postures in chi-sao and you're set to apply it for real.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Matrix (Bill);

I agree with Shadowboxer's assessment of the clip...more like two guys just messing around than an example of two guys "showing" their respective arts.

When I first saw this clip (some time ago)...I didn't see hardly any mantis, or wing chun... and some poorly-attempted TWC entry techniques.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Dhira wrote:

"Victor, that is my whole point on chi-sao. Notice I said "unless the applications are taken out and trained alive. We basically agree. My point is...only chi-sao has nothing to do with fighting if it is 'only chi-sao". If you take the techniques and put it in a "fighting context", (like the Isolated sparring example), THEN it now has something to do with fighting....

"Let me just say that just chi-sao will make you good at one thing....chi sao. Period. no matter how its sugar-coated, no matter how many ways it's defined. Not even when it is "aggresive chi sao". Aggressive chi sao makes you good at...aggresive chi sao lol....

To use the techniques or principles chi-sao was designed for, you MUST put them in a fighting context, and TRAIN them in a fighting context. The sifu in the example I quoted does this, and like Victor said, it was trained in the same class......this way students get to learn the chi-sao, leand the application of it, and then apply the move under real pressure...even if its only in isolation...it's still alive."



Dhira...I couldn't have said it better!


And now let me add one to Ernie's request for a pak sao in a "non chi sao application"...

Someone steps forward towards you with his left foot and a straight left stiff lead (punch) at your face. (You're in a completely neutral stance with your hands down...he tried to sucker punch you).

You step up (somewhat) and to the outside of his left leg with your right leg..while using a diagonally upward right hand pak sao on his punching arm (about half-way between his elbow and his wrist)...and the pak is actually guiding his punching arm toward and over your left shoulder...

while simultaneously punching his body (ie.- floating ribs) with your left fist.

[sihing]

Ali took some to give some, perfect example was with Foreman. Obviously they do not employ this strategy all the time, but they do learn how to take a shot to setup one of their own combinations. Even Vitor Belfort on one of his boxing tapes relates this, "sometimes you have to take one to set-up the proper position to give one", so is he a "dumb and unskilled" boxer? If evasion works then of course they would rather use that method.

Quote: Anerlich
"Everyone has to learn to get hit and continue fighting if they expect to be able to operate in a live situation. If they can't, they better take up yoga or firearms"

Problem is some people cannot take any shots, because of their individual attributes, most likely small and frailness. If a person that is small framed and 150lbs, were to take one shot from a 250lb opponent it may kill them, so then what are people of this stature to do? Should they not even attempt to learn any method of self-defence? OR Should they learn something that allows them to anticipate the opponent’s movement earlier, eliminates some of their opponent’s options, and gives them tools to take out their attackers quickly with non telegraphic movements while at the same time putting them in superior positions in relation to their opponent?

Matrix:
¨Lots of people train and are still sh!tty fighters. ¨
How did I know this come back was coming, lol. Compared to who Matrix? Did they improve at all? That is the point right. If they improved their fighting ability then the training worked, they are better than they were before, maybe more training is required. I can't see someone training at a half decent intensity level and not improving at all. I've training kids with ADD and after a year of training they improved in all areas of physical attributes, and I can guarantee their fighting skills improved too.

Sihing

[anerlich]

If a person that is small framed and 150lbs, were to take one shot from a 250lb opponent it may kill them, so then what are people of this stature to do? Should they not even attempt to learn any method of self-defence?

If I was going to die the first time I got hit, I'd wear a motorcycle helmet and body armour and carry an Uzi 9mm at all times. TWC would be way too risky.

You can push that example further. Would you recommend TWC to a haemophiliac, or a person with brittle bones, like Samuel L Jackson's character in "Unbreakable"? I hope not!


OR Should they learn something that allows them to anticipate the opponent’s movement earlier, eliminates some of their opponent’s options, and gives them tools to take out their attackers quickly with non telegraphic movements while at the same time putting them in superior positions in relation to their opponent?

So you're advocating Brazilian jiu jitsu! Or boxing, for that matter.


but they do learn how to take a shot to setup one of their own combinations

An old KF saying has it that: "a good boxer is stung frequently and hurt occasionally." Some may be more macho about it than others, but if you train an MA for real, or have to defend yourself, you WILL get hit and you WILL have to learn to deal with it and keep fighting to prevail. Unless you die on the first shot, of course :rolleyes:

And I'd put my money on Vitor or George to demolish any KF guy who didn't train alive very early in the first round.

[sihing]

Quote: Anerlich
"And I'd put my money on Vitor or George to demolish any KF guy who didn't train alive very early in the first round."

How did I know that you would compare Vitor and George to any KF guy.....are these guys professional, yup. Most KF guys are not, besides anerlich, do you know every KF guy in the world? Let me say it this way, if one had the similar natural physical attributes similar to Vitor and George, and was willing to put in the same training time and intensity into TWC that these two gentlemen put into their respective arts, and with proper instruction from a instructor I know, I would put my money on the TWC guy, in a streetfight. Like I have said earlier, just because one learns TWC does not mean they are the deadliest streetfighter alive , but they will make it hard for most to take them down. Vitor and George are exceptional atheletes with unusual detemination and physical attributes, and they like to fight. Me personally, I don't like to fight and I do not consider myself a natural fighter, but I am atheletic and have good TWC skill, plus some heart to boot, so this would make it harder for anyone to just blaze through me if the situation called for a streetfight to happen.

Quote: Anerlich
"So you're advocating Brazilian jiu jitsu! Or boxing, for that matter"

Nope, rolling around a bar floor with glass everywhere and buddies looking on would not be recommended...Boxing maybe, requires too much speed, TWC would be the recommendation anerlich..oh yeah this is a WC forum, funny you didn't recommend TWC.....

Quote: Anerlich
"If I was going to die the first time I got hit, I'd wear a motorcycle helmet and body armour and carry an Uzi 9mm at all times. TWC would be way too risky."

Anerlich, ever heard of SENIOR CITIZENS, DISABALDED PEOPLE, SMALL PEOPLE IN GENERAL, you think any of these people can take a shot? And what do you recommend, a gun, that makes allot of sense. More guns, exactly what we need. Maybe you do not have a strong faith in TWC effectiveness for smaller folk, not all agree with you...oh by the way what would you recommend for a person with Samuel L Jackson's character's aliment?? A haemophiliac yes I would recommend TWC, the faster the fight is over the lesser chance of not getting bruised or cut...



Sihing

[t_niehoff]

Sihing wrote:

". . . but fighting to become better fighters is not the be all end all either."

If you want to lose weight there is only one way: eat less calories and exercise more. Now, within that general approach there can be a great variety of "diet programs" -- but the general approach is an absolute because that's how we, as human beings, gain or lose weight.

With fighting, regardless of our method (WCK, bjj, boxing, etc.) there needs to be the same general approach to development because we, as human beings, only learn competitive physical skills a certain way: we first learn a form (technique) whether it is how to do a hip throw, a pak sao, or a rear cross; we next need to drill that particular item (practice it in a cooperative environment) to develop it to what I call the "comfortability stage" (where we feel comfortable doing it), then we need to try to put it to use in a fighting environment (where there is genuine intensity, resistance, and intent). This is what boxers do, wrestlers do, bjjers do, muay thai fighters do, etc. -- all fighters do this, in one form or another, because that's the only way to develop fighting skill (if there were an easier way, everyone would be doing it!). If you're not using that approach, you will never develop the attributes, technique, strategies, etc. to fight at any significant level. Moreover, if you don't continue to fight, you will begin to lose your attainments -- the longer the "lay off", the greater the loss.

sihing wrote: "ever heard of SENIOR CITIZENS, DISABALDED PEOPLE, SMALL PEOPLE IN GENERAL. . . ?"

Well, just like they must use the same general approach as the rest of us to lose weight, they must use the same general approach as the rest of us to developing fighting skills. It will be much more difficult for them, but if they don't use the general approach, it will be impossible for them.

Again, if someone disagrees with this, it is a simple matter to prove me wrong.

And btw, KJ and others, if you think you've seen chi sao "approach fighting intensity" try this -- go to a MMA gym or some other place where they actually fight and ask to begin a fight with one of them from the chi sao position (they'll be happy to accomodate you, I'm sure). You'll see it is apples and oranges. (I wonder why those that think their chi sao gives them fighting skills refuse to put their belief to the test?).

Regards,

Terence

[sihing]

t_niehoff, I agree with most of what you said, and the theory behind it. Form first then practical reinforcement of that form, no problem there. I honestly think though that one advantage we as WC people have is the element of surprise and just simply the fact that we use economy of movement and non-telegraphic movements to make it all work. The key to combat is definetly to attack first ask questions later, once a confrontation reaches that stage of violence. Because of the utter velocity and overwheleming nature of WC attacks, one should defeat another if they intiate the attack first. This is why WC works for smaller more frail people, they sort of have to "suck" their opponents in, then BAM, surprise them and use all their effort to take them out quick, this could mean using more than just the fists, elbows and fingers would have to be employed to get them through this situation. Any fighter can be surprised, especially if they underestimate them.

Sihing

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good Wing Chun doesn't need George Forman or Vitor Belfort.

Just wear a mullet !!!

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I didn't see hardly any mantis, or wing chun... and some poorly-attempted TWC entry techniques. Victor,
I definitely agree. That was my point.

Bill

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
Lots of people train and are still sh!tty fighters. ¨
How did I know this come back was coming, lol.
It's not just a "come back", it's a statement of my opinion. Or do you feel that your opinion is somehow more valid?


Did they improve at all? That is the point right. Like you said, everyone improves to some degree. At some point however you may have to put it to the test and some guy that's handing you your head won't care less about how much you've improved.

Bill

[old jong]

(I wonder why those that think their chi sao gives them fighting skills refuse to put their belief to the test?).

It was tested a few times.Maybe not in a sport manner but the results were ok for me. Now,I wonder why those who don't believe in Wing Chun principal development system even bother to stay in Wing Chun?...Why not simply join your local MMA gymn and start doing what you preach so well?...
;)

[sihing]

Matrix:
No, your opinion is just as valid as mine, I just anticipated the response that's all. I don't understand your statement though about putting it to the test, meaning what? I've never stated that you can learn to fight by just doing forms and praticing in the air, off course the techniques have to be put to the test, just that for me how many times do I have to test it, continually the rest of my life?? IMO when properly learned, trained and initially "tested" then you have the skill(which to me means all the attributes needed to defend ones self or fight), and it will remain there with less effort required than in the learning/testing phase of one's progression through the system...

Victor: "Good Wing Chun doesn't need George Forman or Vitor Belfort.

Just wear a mullet !!!"

So what's this supposed to mean. That's no way to treat a senior of yours. It sounds pretty judgemental of you, since you have never seen the man in action nor talked with the man. Besides "sneakers" are no fashion statement either, lol...

Sihing

[AndrewS]

Dhira,

found a nice counter to that twisting neck tie counter the other night working with Louvel.

Crimsonking,

in a sense, yes. Once you develop physical understanding of a tool and are able to cultivate it under moderate resistance, once you know more than shape, then you can work that tool and hone it more effectively through many routes, including chi sao.

Terence's remarks on intensity independant and dependant attributes are particularily apt in this case. Thai boxers train very softly. Why does this work for them? Because they fight regularly and intensely, and the soft work is done based on the understanding of what they need to work on derived from their fighting. No fighting= no understanding.

Old jong,

excellent suggestion, why don't you take it?

Later,


Andrew

[old jong]

Hey tough guys!..


Before this becomes a 'chi-sao' thread, let me just say that just chi-sao will make you good at one thing....chi sao. Period.

My question is: Do you still practice chi sau and if yes,why are you still doing something that has no value for fighting?...(IYHO)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
I don't understand your statement though about putting it to the test, meaning what? James,
I may have been a little cryptic there. What I mean is that if your goal is just to "improve", that smells like striving for mediocrity to me. So, if you're happy with being mediocre, then one day when you need those skills they will probably not deliver the results that you expect.

I know that you're concerned about the kids with ADD, the senior citizens, and disabled, and I share your concern for these people. However, these limitations do not apply to most of us in this discussion group and is non-sequitur to the debate. Although I may be getting close on the senior citizen category. ;)

On the other hand most of us will never be great fighters in the sense of Ali or (insert your favorite name here). But, I think we need to strive for the higher ground within the context of our abilities. Settling for "just improving" doesn't cut it, IMO.

Bill

***That was Zen, this is Tao.***

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
And btw, KJ and others, if you think you've seen chi sao "approach fighting intensity" try this -- go to a MMA gym or some other place where they actually fight and ask to begin a fight with one of them from the chi sao position (they'll be happy to accomodate you, I'm sure). You'll see it is apples and oranges.


I’m not sure what it is you think I (or others) aren’t getting, but no worries in any event.

You do pose another interesting question regarding terms and usage. It's our human tendency to assume a common understanding of common terms. Yet I suspect that if you polled a dozen or more people on what chi sau means to them, you'd likely get an interesting variety in the answers. Which brings me to your statement on "the chi sao position." This phrasing would indicate that you may consider chi sau as essentially something in fact constrained to a "position." Does that indeed reflect your view of the meaning and range of chi sau? And if so, what do you believe the chi sau position is?

We (the communal we) may not ever fully agree on certain terms and meanings. Nonetheless, getting a clearer picture of the meaning the writer intends can be useful and instructive.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Matrix]

Originally posted by kj
We (the communal we) may not ever fully agree on certain terms and meanings. Nonetheless, getting a clearer picture of the meaning the writer intends can be useful and instructive.


Confucius says "Never fight with a wooden legged librarian about terminology, for she will kick your sorry butt." :D

[kj]

Originally posted by Matrix
I know that you're concerned about the kids with ADD, the senior citizens, and disabled, and I share your concern for these people. However, these limitations do not apply to most of us in this discussion group and is non-sequitur to the debate. Although I may be getting close on the senior citizen category. ;)

Methinks your own present good station may color your view on this just a tad. ;):)

Then again, to my sensibilities, many if not most mainstream forum discussions seem fraught with all manner of assumptions. Consequently, judgements of what "others" ought to do are easily uninformed or overgeneralized. IMHO, they are thus to be interpreted with a healthy grain of salt and one's own personal good judgement.

If the general tenor of this forum was an accurate barometer, there are many of us who would have no business practicing martial arts at all, myself included. Perhaps I can understand the concerns Sihing has expressed better than some. It will be a sad and ironic day when martial arts training exclusively benefits the young and robust.

As for getting closer to the senior citizen category ... let's hope so! The alternative sucks. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[old jong]

As for getting closer to the senior citizen category ... let's hope so! The alternative sucks.

It is not so bad,at least we will be able to fight the nurses for a clean diaper!...

[anerlich]

Let me say it this way, if one had the similar natural physical attributes similar to Vitor and George, and was willing to put in the same training time and intensity into TWC that these two gentlemen put into their respective arts, and with proper instruction from a instructor I know, I would put my money on the TWC guy, in a streetfight.

It would be easy enough for the instructor concerned to prove this, train a fighter and put him in Pride, the K-1 or UFC. Go for it.

[KenWingJitsu]

crimsonking, obviously you do not know the meaning of "dead" vs alive. Obviously. Its not the technique that makes it dead or live. it's the energy timing and motion performed while using the techniqe. if the students are REALLY trying to hit each other with real intent, and they get hit,...or they sucessfully defend,....the intent and unexpectedness is the key. If you disagree, I definitely want to hear your definition of dead and alive training...



anerlich is correct about everything!!!!!! Dang bro...you are taking peeps to school. Nice posts.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Hey tough guys!..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before this becomes a 'chi-sao' thread, let me just say that just chi-sao will make you good at one thing....chi sao. Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is: Do you still practice chi sau and if yes,why are you still doing something that has no value for fighting?...(IYHO)"


Look...Michel (old jong):

I personally think that frequent chi sao gives ENORMOUS benefits and value to one's overall training...but the real issue is not whether or not to do chi sao...

the real issue is whether-or-not the chi sao skills, principles, strategies, techniques, etc....ARE BEING TRANSLATED...on a FREQUENT basis...into a more "realistic" setting (ie.- isolated sparring drills...free form sparring/fighting, etc.)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by kj
If the general tenor of this forum was an accurate barometer, there are many of us who would have no business practicing martial arts at all, myself included. Now let's not talk crazy-talk. :D I don't think that anyone here believes that. I know I certainly don't.


Originally posted by kj
It will be a sad and ironic day when martial arts training exclusively benefits the young and robust. Wasn't it George Bernard Shaw who said " Youth is wasted on the young."? Quite frankly I think that a greater number of "mature" people should train in the martial arts. I guess there's some sort of stigma against it, but who cares about that. I'm not one who is very good at "acting my age", whatever that means... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by kj
As for getting closer to the senior citizen category ... let's hope so! The alternative sucks. ;) I was thinking more about the discount at the movie box-office. ;)

Regards,
Bill

[anerlich]

Can someone define "senior citizen" for me please?

(Are we there yet?)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by anerlich
Can someone define "senior citizen" for me please? It refers to an "elderly person" or someone who is retired, usually at least 60 years old. Please note that we were talking about "getting closer to" that level, not actually being there. Not that there's anything wrong with that............. :D

Bill

[anerlich]

Sounds fair, I got a bit over 10 years to go then. Though I can get my Seniors Card and insurance in about 5 ...

Ah, so much to look forward to, er ... what were you saying again? And where are my glasses ....

[anerlich]

A friend's father, aged in his late 70's at the time, was visiting Britain. He had been an Army boxing champ and a judoka since the 50's. That's boxing and grappling, in case anyone wasn't paying attention ...

Two muggers accosted him, he resisted. One ran away and he chased the other, walking stick in hand, into a public toilet where the would be mugger hid in a cubicle and cried for help until the cops arrived, the old guy cursing him and banshing the door with his stick.

You don't have to turn into a feeble, brainless cripple as you age.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by anerlich
Ah, so much to look forward to, er ... what were you saying again? You know what they say,.....your memory is the 2nd thing to go. ;)

Thanks for the story about your friend's father. It's a good one.

Bill

[Ultimatewingchun]

crimsonking:

You've got to be kidding with this...

"This 'isolated sparring' your talking about it just a pretty regular, and crappy, application drill with gear on and a macho strut. This really doesnt sound much like the sparring that many good boxers, or as AndrewS pointed out, muay thai fighters do, which is (can be), regardless of intensity or intent, a really alive learning environment, albeit one which has no place in wing chun."

Isolated application sparring drills ARE the precursor to the kind of sparring that boxers, Muay Thai fighters, etc.....do.

They are one of the essential building blocks that lead to sparring - so that the fighter is prepared thoroughly to engage in free form sparring successfully.

And they have a place in ANY and ALL martial arts schools that are serious about learning how to fight.

[t_niehoff]

crimonsonking, if you believe there is "no objective proof" of skill in "real fighting" (?), then how can one ever know whether or not any training that they have done was productive? Experience -- the actual doing of the activity itself, in this case fighting -- will show you both your improvement and where you still lack. Fighting is no different than any physical activity -- we can get better at it by doing certain things, most importantly by doing the activity itself. It is no coincidence that all fighting arts (those where the practitioners actually fight as opposed to those that only think they can) follow the same training regimine -- they will have a functional warm-up/conditioning part, followed by drills, then a focus on technique development, ending with fighting. This is true whether it is boxing, bjj, wrestling, kyokushikai, muay thai, MMA, etc. Dance classes, however, naturally follow a different training method. ;)

"Fighting" is not a venue or a specific condition but an environment (like the water is in swimming) characterized by 1) intensity (the level of attribute involvement, including skill, the variety of weapon variables, and degree if risk; 2) resistance; and 3) intent, the focus of the intensity and resistance).

The "challenge" I outlined may sound easy to you -- well, why not try it then? It's easy to say "I could fly if I jumped off the building" and a different thing to prove it. There are some of us who have taken the leap -- that is, had that *experience*. Until you have that experience, any opinion you offer is in my view uninformed. Opinion is only as good as the evidence you have to back it up.

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
"Fighting" is not a venue or a specific condition but an environment (like the water is in swimming) characterized by 1) intensity (the level of attribute involvement, including skill, the variety of weapon variables, and degree if risk; 2) resistance; and 3) intent, the focus of the intensity and resistance).

Now this is useful!! Not definitive, but definitely useful. While my characterization of fighting would differ, it finally provides a stake in the ground about what you mean when you use the term.

FWIW (and just to give you ample opportunity to argue back at me ;)), I agree that all the elements you describe are essential at appropriate stages in one's training. It is only in proportions that our views likely differ (e.g., appropriate ranges and degrees of risk).

Were I to apply my own definition of "fight," which further encompasses intent and will to harm, maim, or kill, the risk would be too much to take routinely or lightly, and inconsistent with my purposes in training.

Regards,
- kj

[t_niehoff]

KJ, A couple of things:

I’m not sure what it is you think I (or others) aren’t getting, but no worries in any event.

**This is a discussion on training methods -- what we all need to do to develop greater fighting skill. Different people practice WCK or MAs for different reasons (health, cultural interest, etc.) and if fighting is not a concern of theirs then the discussion will be of little interest. If developing greater fighting skill is a concern, then we need to separate myths from truths. With regard to training, we evaluate it by *results* not "opinions" or "conjecture" or "extrapolations" or what we hope or would like to be true. So to *know* if our training has improved our fighting ability, we need to fight. And, you'll see -- as folks who do fight have proven over and over again -- that real gains in fighting ability can only be made by making fighting part of one's training. It's that simple. Now if folks what to believe stories or myths about little old men and weaklings having extraordinary powers without actually fighting, I can't stop them. But I can ask where they are! ;) Helio is a little old man (90) that can still fight but he got to that point by fighting.

You do pose another interesting question regarding terms and usage. It's our human tendency to assume a common understanding of common terms. Yet I suspect that if you polled a dozen or more people on what chi sau means to them, you'd likely get an interesting variety in the answers. Which brings me to your statement on "the chi sao position." This phrasing would indicate that you may consider chi sau as essentially something in fact constrained to a "position." Does that indeed reflect your view of the meaning and range of chi sau? And if so, what do you believe the chi sau position is?

**I'm merely pointing out that if you think chi sao is anything like fighting, then have a go with someone who actually fights and has some fighting skill and begin however you like (from some point of contact where you feel comfortable, for instance). Actually see for yourself by doing it. If your chi sao prepares you for fighting, then fighting should be an easy matter and you shouldn't have a problem.

**BTW, one significant problem with not fighting as part of one's training is that IME a person actually becomes a worse fighter through their continued chi sao training because they continually reinforce bad fighting habits, things that won't work for them in a fighting environment, etc. (There is a lot of things that work in chi sao because it is not a fighting environment, and there are many, many things that one needs to "adjust" from chi sao to make functional in a fighting environment. Thus, good at chi sao does not mean good fighter. If you don't believe that, go see for yourself.). The fighting is what allows a person to "tweak" their training, to get rid of the stuff that doesn't work, make the adjustments in how they do things, concentrate on that which does work, etc., not to mention developing one's attributes -- for example, one doesn't really develop "sensitivity" to a significant degree in chi sao since it is an intensity-dependent attribute. Think I'm wrong? Then everyone doing chi sao should have an easy time fighting as they have sensitivity and the poor fighter doesn't! So while you may have great sensitivity at chi sao, that doesn't mean you'll have it at fighting.

-----------------

Were I to apply my own definition of "fight," which further encompasses intent and will to harm, maim, or kill, the risk would be too much to take routinely or lightly, and inconsistent with my purposes in training.

**My definition includes intent. Not all fights, including "streetfights" involve intent to maim or kill; most actually don't. But all fights will include the intent to "pound" you or make you submit in some way -- this is why we need to have that level in our training: because that is what we are learning to deal with. The major difference between a NHB and a street assault is mainly in the degree of risk I talked about.


Regards,

Terence

[Ernie]

Terence

you mean the is no 90 year old flying chi master , **** you for bursting my bubble

i would challenge you to a fight but i fear the intent of my chi sau sensitivity might kill us both ;)

great post man

[AndrewS]

CK writes:
>So, getting back to the original point - this 'isolated sparring' >your talking about it just a pretty regular, and crappy, >application drill with gear on and a macho strut. This really >doesnt sound much like the sparring that many good boxers, >or as AndrewS pointed out, muay thai fighters do, which is (can >be), regardless of intensity or intent, a really alive learning >environment, albeit one which has no place in wing chun.

Er, no, on a couple of points. Putting aside the fact that I don't prefer to use the in-pak to break the plum, and please keep in mind that Dhira and I train together, and I know exactly the drill platform he's talking about, this is *precisely* the sort of drill thai boxers do- as in I was using this platform (shucking and countering the double neck tie) on Wensday morning with a training partner who's record up at Vut's smokers is something on the order of 24-0-1 (+/- a couple), and his comment was 'This is the stuff all the guys coming in from Thailand used to do 6 3 minute rounds of'.

Personally, I use the tan sequence from 3rd set SNT to frame the single neck tie off, to set up a spade palm and neck pulling hand, or blast out, and I train doing rounds of this with differring variables (i.e. +/- knees, hooks, uppercuts, takedown, one person trying to break the tie, etc), alternating with rounds of chi sao focusing on the skills being used in application. And, when I'm a real *******, I have the man out do some sled-dragging (Wensday's fun little sequence).

Interestingly, an hour of this mix seems to produce much more improvement than an hour of just chi sao in all skills covered- better application, stance, *and* chi sao results.

Here is your fundamental misconception:

>Dead = Training.
>Alive = Training with what you believe to be a slightly higher >level of intensity and a slightly different intent on the part of >the 'attacker'.

Alive= variability, intent, and 'real' timing, reducing the number of variables involved so that you're working at the point where you can use 'real' time. Defending a bunch of jabs, then a bunch of crosses does not produce the same results as defending a bunch of either jabs or crosses, using one to set up the other, with some motion thrown in for fun.

Now, why doesn't this training method have a place in Wing Chun?

Terence,

the intensity-dependence thing. I was training with sifu Emin a few weeks ago, and he was operating free and at fair speed. I was doing alright, surviving and trying to get some back. At the end, he commented that I was becoming reasonably relaxed in this situation, where I knew I was fairly safe, risking no more than a split lip, broken nose, or cracked rib, but that the next stage was to turn things up, and involve some real energy and intensity, so that I could learn to be relaxed and changeable there.

Knowing my own experience, I'd codify the intensity-dependence thing a bit further into intensity of the forces used and emotional/intentional intensity. Your reaction to and ability to deal with explosiveness, shock, and massive force are the same things used to deal with less extreme forces, yet training with less extreme forces does *not* prepare you well for the extreme stuff, unless you've dealt with it before and are training specifically to deal with them. Your own motion and your visual perception can further decay the attributes people seek through chi sao, and those attributes must hence be cultivated in situations of graded intensity and variability, with situations besides the static agreement of chi sao. Emotional intensity- the other person coming in doing whatever they please, looking to nail you changes the picture significantly- some people shine in the gym, and choke in the ring, others do beautifully in the ring but get KTFO by heavy handed British kickboxers. . .

The main differences between an NHB fight and a streetfight,are in an NHB fight you know someone's gonna stop it if it gets ugly, while in a streetfight someone may rape the gut wound in your corpse (ok, a little exaggeration there). There's a lot of psychological preparation for a ring fight; a 'street' fight is often sudden violence, and the ideal response is being able to turn 'on' quick. Living in that state of being able to go from having a quiet walk and a smoke to kicking someone's head in, in under 20 seconds, is neither fun nor healthy, though at times in one's life it may be necessary. It's probably a lot healthier to walk around being confident that you can take that first punch and gather yourself calmly to respond, than constantly being a loaded gun waiting to break the next person who f*cks with you. At least, that's what I prefer,

Later,

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Alive= variability, intent, and 'real' timing, reducing the number of variables involved so that you're working at the point where you can use 'real' time. Defending a bunch of jabs, then a bunch of crosses does not produce the same results as defending a bunch of either jabs or crosses, using one to set up the other, with some motion thrown in for fun.

Now, why doesn't this training method have a place in Wing Chun?

I'm so confused! What I'm reading here does have it's place in my Wing Chun.

First, within the "traditional training hall," if you will, we call this "feeding hands." Typically done by the instructor or at least by more experienced students for the benefit of less experienced students. It is not just an add-on new agey thing or something I invented - it is a method of training used by Leung Sheung and subsequently carried on by his students who now teach. It offers not only experience in practice, but the opportunity for coaching, commentary and analysis. And, like our chi sau at least, it has a wide and unpredictable range of speeds, variations, and intensities. The only thing it seems to lack - at least in potential - is sufficient hatred for one another. ;) (Yes, it is NOT fighting.)

But that is only a fraction of the total picture. Among other things, we (being me and like minded others) make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can in wide manner of ways. We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering "non Wing Chun" style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our "database" as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety (which are not the same for everyone). I still have a hunch it's different perspectives on the safety and risk factors which is at the heart of a lot of this.

I'm aware that not everyone incorporates these same elements into their practice. Other than begging the mercies of Mike Tyson, going to the "cage," joining the Dog Brothers, picking random street fights, or other functional equivalents of throwing myself/ourselves (not knowing who the target of reproof really is) on a live grenade, then based on what you guys set forth I still fail to see what I'm significantly and reasonably missing (if anything). Other than enough time and health to actually do it all! Okay, and I don't talk tough enough; coming across tough just isn't my strong point. But I figure I can make up for some of that if I just talk on long enough ... :p:D

I have to wonder, in the end, does it really matter where you're getting certain types of training experiences as long as you're getting what you need? I still maintain it's up to the good student to take responsibility for their learning and to be resourceful. Which you guys (we all know which side of the imaginary fence we're sitting on for the sake of debate, LOL) obviously do.

Hey, I may be thick, but at least it should be obvious that I'm trying to communicate and flesh something useful out here. Yeah, I'm probably still missing something, and it's probably very obvious to some of you what that thing is. :D

But there's always room for thought. And we haven't even broached the glass half full - half empty part of the discussion yet. :)

Later!
- Kathy Jo

[Ultimatewingchun]

"It's probably a lot healthier to walk around being confident that you can take that first punch and gather yourself calmly to respond, than constantly being a loaded gun waiting to break the next person who f*cks with you." (AndrewS)

VERY TRUE!

The "emotional climate" training...(as Tony Bleuer puts it)...

is SO important - and SO overlooked.

And the kinds of training that this thread is about is a good start towards that "emotional" training. (ie.- isolated sparring drills).

Everything should be leading up to high intensity sparring that one can (emotionally) handle.

Then you know you're truly prepared for the uncertainties and potential dangers of the real world.

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Now, why doesn't this training method have a place in Wing Chun?

I second that question.

[t_niehoff]

KJ wrote:

. . .it is a method of training used by Leung Sheung and subsequently carried on by his students who now teach.

**Following tradition is fine if one wants to "preserve" a lineage but it doesn't necessarily mean it promotes fighting skill (funny how there are no boxers preserving John L. Sullivan boxing isn't it? I guess boxers aren't concerned with "original" boxing or "preserving" a lineage.). The Gracies, for example, can point to their results in fighting against world-class, skilled fighters as evidence of how their training methods will develop greater fighting skill (as can boxers, wrestlers, muay thai fighters, etc. -- refer to my post about how they all follow the same training approach); can your "lineage" do that? And I'm not trying to pick on any specific "lineage" -- merely pointing out that just because *anyone* follows a specific training approach doesn't mean it's productive, or how productive it is. We determine that by looking to results. If your concern is to develop greater fighting skill (as opposed to preserving a lineage), then it is a simple thing to test whether you have developed greater fighting skill and to what extent or where you are lacking.

It offers not only experience in practice, but the opportunity for coaching, commentary and analysis. And, like our chi sau at least, it has a wide and unpredictable range of speeds, variations, and intensities. The only thing it seems to lack - at least in potential - is sufficient hatred for one another. (Yes, it is NOT fighting.)

**And that's all great to build a foundation or beginning but by itself it will develop only marginal fighting skills. One can do that stuff for 40 years, just as they can stand on the side of the pool for 40 years practicing what they think it's like to swim, but if they don't get into the water they won't make any substantial gains in being able to swim. You don't need to believe me -- it is a simple matter to test for yourself. Go to a NHB gym, like a Straightblast Gym, and ask to fight someone of the same gender, smaller than you, with less time in training than you and see how you fare.

But that is only a fraction of the total picture. Among other things, we (being me and like minded others) make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can in wide manner of ways. We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering "non Wing Chun" style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our "database" as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety (which are not the same for everyone). I still have a hunch it's different perspectives on the safety and risk factors which is at the heart of a lot of this.

**Again, that's great but will only take you a very limited way. Chi sao, the drill, works because it is a cooperative environment where both sides are "doing" WCK (just like lop sao is a cooperative drill that works because both sides are "doing" WCK). It is, in effect, a game of its own that can introduce and develop to a limited degree certain aspects of fighting but its very nature excludes a great deal of what is involved in fighting. How "good" you are at the game isn't a reflection of how well you will fight. You can only appreciate this by actually fighting (with non-WCK people).

I'm aware that not everyone incorporates these same elements into their practice. Other than begging the mercies of Mike Tyson, going to the "cage," joining the Dog Brothers, picking random street fights, or other functional equivalents of throwing myself/ourselves (not knowing who the target of reproof really is) on a live grenade,

**It's a simple matter to make fighting part of one's training -- as my previous post pointed out, all fighters do it already. To think of it as "throwing yourself on a live grenade" is like a nonswimmer talking about "throwing yourself into watery death". You can look at it that way, but you still need to get in the pool if you want to learn to swim. Or you can look at it as "this is the environment I want to become accustomed to dealing with" and jump in.

then based on what you guys set forth I still fail to see what I'm significantly and reasonably missing (if anything).

**It is precisely the fighting that will tell you what you are lacking (in being able to fight) and permits you to develop. You are presuming that your nonfighting drills have somehow prepared you to deal with a fighting environment, but what if you are wrong? Wouldn't you rather learn that in the safety (since safety seems a recurring theme in your posts) of the gym or kwoon rather than on the street?

Other than enough time and health to actually do it all! Okay, and I don't talk tough enough; coming across tough just isn't my strong point.

**This isn't "tough talk", it is simply a matter of seeing that the I-can-learn-to-fight-without-actually-fighting mindset has never produced any person with any significant proven fighting skill (and stories, myths, conjecture, extrapolation, etc. is not proof) whereas the you-can-only-become-a-better-fighter-by-making-fighting-a-part-of-your-training approach has repeatedly produced demonstratable results.

I have to wonder, in the end, does it really matter where you're getting certain types of training experiences as long as you're getting what you need?

**But this begs the question of how does one know they are getting what they need? If fighting skills are what a person wants, how other than by fighting can a person determine if they are getting what they need from their training?

I still maintain it's up to the good student to take responsibility for their learning and to be resourceful. Which you guys (we all know which side of the imaginary fence we're sitting on for the sake of debate, LOL) obviously do.

**Our WCK teachers (boxing coaches, BJJ blackbelts, etc.) regardless of how "good" they are, don't teach us to fight -- they can't. You can only learn that by yourself, by fighting (just as we must learn to swim by oursleves). All they can do is pass on the method and help you with pointers along the way.

Regards,

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Following tradition is fine if one wants to "preserve" a lineage but it doesn't necessarily mean it promotes fighting skill (funny how there are no boxers preserving John L. Sullivan boxing isn't it? I guess boxers aren't concerned with "original" boxing or "preserving" a lineage)....

we make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can...We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering "non Wing Chun" style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our "database" as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety."

(Terence)

I suggest that people memorize this quote and repeat it to themselves on a daily basis - until it becomes so much a part of their being...that they just "live" it without even having to think about it anymore.

Great post, Terence.

[kj]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"Following tradition is fine if one wants to "preserve" a lineage but it doesn't necessarily mean it promotes fighting skill (funny how there are no boxers preserving John L. Sullivan boxing isn't it? I guess boxers aren't concerned with "original" boxing or "preserving" a lineage)....

we make reasonable efforts to gain as much breadth of experience as we reasonably can...We intentionally work with Wing Chun people not from our own school or teaching line, as well as martial artists from entirely different styles who actually know and are capable of delivering "non Wing Chun" style offenses, defenses and movement. The whole point is to populate our "database" as much as we can, within appropriate limits of safety."

(Terence)

I suggest that people memorize this quote and repeat it to themselves on a daily basis - until it becomes so much a part of their being...that they just "live" it without even having to think about it anymore.

Great post, Terence.

The last half of the quote was mine.

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Terence,

Thank you for clarifying that your specific notion of "fighting" is indeed something different from the isolated sparring Andrew and Dhira were apparently describing.

You are once again correct. I and no doubt many others do not have the compulsion to fight in the sense that you seem to apply the term. Nor flippant about the risks, ethics, and cost/benefits impacting the fuller context of life. I am indeed satisfied to "compromise" through a considered and synergistic amalgamation of "lesser" training methods and other life experiences. My aim is not to "prove" something, rather to improve as much as possible without what I consider unreasonable risks, or undue sacrifices in overall quality of life or personal values.

As as been discussed so many times, there is no method which can offer conclusive "proof" of one's ultimate superiority in any and all situations; not even "fighting" can offer ultimate "proof," but at best an increasing sense of probabilities. I am therefore further satisfied that the feedback I continuously seek and receive on my evolving but endless stream of shortcomings, is sufficient for continued improvement. I'm not in a hurry, only persistent.

If this type of approach somehow puts into question my or other's seriousness or intelligence as martial artists, so be it. I don't have as much compulsion or need of definitive and unequivocal proof as some like yourself, and am apparently more comfortable with reasonable degrees of uncertainty. Well considered and plausible evidence is sufficient for me to extrapolate what to work on next in the endless cycles of continuous improvement. Additionally, there are more than enough other benefits of practice to balance and compensate for a slower rate of development as well. Contrary to what some may say, it's not a matter of taking things less seriously, it's just taking them differently.

Just a healthily different perspective on things.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

KJ wrote:

You are once again correct. I and no doubt many others do not have the compulsion to fight in the sense that you seem to apply the term.

**It's not about "a compulsion to fight" but the recognition that if you are training to develop greater fighting skill then fighting is something you *must* do.

Nor flippant about the risks, ethics, and cost/benefits impacting the fuller context of life. I am indeed satisfied to "compromise" through a considered and synergistic amalgamation of "lesser" training methods and other life experiences.

**That's fine, people practice MAs for various reasons: health, fitness, cultural preservation, etc. Some people enjoy folk dancing. But one needs to appreciate that it only develops marginal fighting skills and only gives one a marginal understanding of fighting application (because if you can't do it, you don't understand it).

My aim is not to "prove" something, rather to improve as much as possible without what I consider unreasonable risks, or undue sacrifices in overall quality of life or personal values.

**I hear the phrase "I don't have to prove anything" and quite frankly I think that's absolutely incorrect -- you always have something to prove. For example, if a person makes public statements, the weight we give those opinions depend on that person's credibility (do they know what they are talking about?). If someone teaches, they owe it to their students to prove they know and can do what they are talking about. On a personal level, a person that is interested in growth needs to know their weaknesses, if their training is effective, etc. Proof is what permits us to determine what is true. If someone is not interested in proof, they are not interested in truth. Lineage, certification, association, time-in-the-art, etc. doesn't say anything about a person's fighting skill, i.e., their ability to apply their WCK. There is only one way to know that.

As as been discussed so many times, there is no method which can offer conclusive "proof" of one's ultimate superiority in any and all situations; not even "fighting" can offer ultimate "proof," but at best an increasing sense of probabilities. I am therefore further satisfied that the feedback I continuously seek and receive on my evolving but endless stream of shortcomings, is sufficient for continued improvement. I'm not in a hurry, only persistent.

**This is a cop out. Of course there is no ultimate test for all possible fighting situations, that's true of anything. But that doesn't mean we can't examine training methods and determine their general effectiveness. If we can't do that, then it is open season for anything -- someone could propose any "method" and rely on your argument that since there is no "ultimate test for all possible fighting situations" their method is just as good as anythig else. Skill in any physical activity can be demonstrated by how well one can perform that activity.

If this type of approach somehow puts into question my or other's seriousness or intelligence as martial artists, so be it.

**Firstly, I don't see why pointing out that a certain training method isn't productive has become questioning a person's intelligence. Secondly, I don't see why those persons claiming to be training to become better fighters would not be interested in a critical discussion of training methods. Thirdly, I don't see why folks who think their training methods are productive would be reluctant to put it to the test (to find out for themselves if their assessment is accurate) or provide some evidence to support their claim.

I don't have as much compulsion or need of definitive and unequivocal proof as some like yourself, and am apparently more comfortable with reasonable degrees of uncertainty. Well considered and plausible evidence is sufficient for me to extrapolate what to work on next in the endless cycles of continuous improvement.

**People can believe almost anything, and lots of theory and practice seem reasonable and effective outside of a fighting environment but will fail miserably in a fighting environment (particularly as the skill level of the opposition increases). This can only be appreciated through experience. Here's a simple example -- the wing chun groundfighting folks: if they think what they are developing is good groundfighting skills, why not roll with some skilled groundfighters and see? They can extrapolate and theorize all they want but since they lack an understanding of what really goes on when groundfighting, they are just theorizing in the dark. Rolling with skilled groundfighters will provide them with some experience that they can use as a framework for theorizing and a means to test their conclusions. And, *if they do have good skills* what would they lose by rolling (they can only gain greater experience)*? My view is that in the overwhelming majority of the time when someone won't prove something it is because they can't prove it.

Additionally, there are more than enough other benefits of practice to balance and compensate for a slower rate of development as well. Contrary to what some may say, it's not a matter of taking things less seriously, it's just taking them differently.

**The path to developing significant fighting skills is not a situation where many different paths lead to the same place -- they don't. Of course, you can believe they do but it is an easy matter to test, isn't it?


Just a healthily different perspective on things.

**I don't know how "healthy" that perspective will be should one be called on to actually use fighting skills. ;)

Regards,

Terence

[AmanuJRY]

Terence,

While I agree with your approach, for the most part, I would like to give an example in contrast.

There was a guy who trained in our group for a time who had several physical "obsticles" to deal with. One of which was that he had sustained a head injury in the past and had been told that a sufficient blow to his head would cause permenent damage. Now, he was interested in learning self defence, and as we all know headshots are common (to say the least). Should this guy still train realism, and put himself at risk of screwing himself up pretty bad, should he quit training and reside himself to not ever defend himself, or should he seek "alternate" means of developing his skill.

[kj]

Hi Terence.

Thanks again for taking the time and making the effort. I fully understand your logic and stated conclusion. It is the fundamental premises (e.g., that nothing of value can be learned or developed with out fighting), many of your assertions (e.g., about people and their motivations), and especially the all-or-nothing perspective that I disagree with. However, as you remain uninterested or unwilling to entertain discussion on those, or any number of other concerns I've raised (individual differences and needs as regards risk, safety and health, personal values, quality of life, etc.) we are once more at stalemate.

It is not necessary to reiterate or restate your position for my benefit, as I have heard it consistently over many years and am apparently thoroughly incorrigible. I realize there may be some others who can benefit from hearing the logic explained one more time, so I'll leave it to you and to them to make best use of the bandwidth.

Regarding the many topics and issues I and others have raised and tried to entertain discussion of, I'll be more than happy to engage on them with others of you as time and circumstances allow, though it may be best addressed in a different thread as this one's been derailed enough already.

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
Terence,

While I agree with your approach, for the most part, I would like to give an example in contrast.

There was a guy who trained in our group for a time who had several physical "obsticles" to deal with. One of which was that he had sustained a head injury in the past and had been told that a sufficient blow to his head would cause permenent damage. Now, he was interested in learning self defence, and as we all know headshots are common (to say the least). Should this guy still train realism, and put himself at risk of screwing himself up pretty bad, should he quit training and reside himself to not ever defend himself, or should he seek "alternate" means of developing his skill.

Adopting the clearly stated alternative view (distinctly not my view), there is NO WAY he can learn how to fight without fighting. Ergo, his circumstances are irrelevant, and he either needs to go and fight despite them, or else a) he is wasting his time and/or b) training for some other reason. There are no exceptions, and nothing else worth discussing that will impact this irrefutable conclusion.

From a different POV, if you'd ever be interested to discuss progressive training in light of any manner of personal challenges and what can be done, I'd be delighted to pursue it on a different thread sometime, as time and circumstances allow. (I may be indisposed on and off for awhile due to another minor surgery of my own.) It's a topic I'm sensitive to, and willing to discuss honestly.

Regards,
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

Kathy Jo:

Didn't realize that the second half of what I quoted came from you...kudos.


Terence:

Once again - your latest post is brilliant...and the logic to your arguments irrefutable.

"All roads DON'T necessarily lead to Rome".

And without some real testing in a competitive environment against skilled, resisting opponents both within one's own martial art AND from other arts (as well as against the plain old-fashioned but ever dangerous streetfighter type)...

any claims to "fighting efficiency" are theoretical at best...Bull5hit at worst.

[AmanuJRY]

kj,

I'd love that. It's not as imperitive now, he hasn't trained in a couple years (keeps talking about returning, could be things like this that make him apprehensive). But to discuss these things would be good. Some, I'm sure would p*ss all over the thread, but if enough people were truly interested to keep it alive I'm sure a lot of good info would come from it.

[kj]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"All roads DON'T necessarily lead to Rome".

To be more precise, the assertion set forth was that only ONE road leads to Rome.

Regards,
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

But I think that the ONE road that Terence was referring to is...

that things have to be tested in a competitive environment (of which isolated sparring drills are but one example)...

in order to truly see what works and what doesn't.

That road is indeed "the one" that has be travelled by all martial arts if they are to be given credence.

When I said all that roads DON'T lead to Rome - I meant that "other" roads (other than the competitive ones...and I don't include chi sao in this group)...

those other roads don't prove anything - as regards fighting efficiency.

[old jong]

We all know that after some times,Rome became decadent.Rome is not always the best destination.

[t_niehoff]

AmanuJRY wrote:

There was a guy who trained in our group for a time who had several physical "obsticles" to deal with. One of which was that he had sustained a head injury in the past and had been told that a sufficient blow to his head would cause permenent damage. Now, he was interested in learning self defence, and as we all know headshots are common (to say the least). Should this guy still train realism, and put himself at risk of screwing himself up pretty bad, should he quit training and reside himself to not ever defend himself, or should he seek "alternate" means of developing his skill.

**First, self-defense does not necessarily involve fighting. Second, if your assumption is that he can somehow train to fight without "realism" -- he can't. Will it do any good to learn "headshot" defenses if they won't work when/if someone realy puts them in? BTW, do you think hemophiliacs should learn to fight too? Do you think fighting is for everyone?

--------------------

KJ wrote:

Adopting the clearly stated alternative view (distinctly not my view), there is NO WAY he can learn how to fight without fighting. Ergo, his circumstances are irrelevant, and he either needs to go and fight despite them, or else a) he is wasting his time and/or b) training for some other reason. There are no exceptions, and nothing else worth discussing that will impact this irrefutable conclusion.

**Could this guy ever be a good boxer without actually sparring (boxing)? Of course not. Could he ever be good at bjj without actually rolling. Of course not. Could he be a good muay thai fighter without sparring? Of course not. Then why assume he could learn to fight with WCK's method without actually fighting? And if it is possible, where are these great WCK fighters that have trained that way?

From a different POV, if you'd ever be interested to discuss progressive training in light of any manner of personal challenges and what can be done, I'd be delighted to pursue it on a different thread sometime, as time and circumstances allow. (I may be indisposed on and off for awhile due to another minor surgery of my own.) It's a topic I'm sensitive to, and willing to discuss honestly.

**Certainly training needs to be progressive, and can take limitations into account -- I continued to train while recovering from a dislocated knee (that I got while fighting/training). But all fighters follow the same general approach to training: warm-up/conditioning, technique/drills, sparring/fighting. Talking about progressive training is great but if you leave off one or more of these steps, no progression will take you far.

----------------------

Old Jong, certainly not everyone wants or needs to go to Rome. That's fine -- different strokes for different folks. But it is important that they not delude themselves, and others, into thinking they are headed for Rome when they are not.

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**First, self-defense does not necessarily involve fighting. Second, if your assumption is that he can somehow train to fight without "realism" -- he can't. Will it do any good to learn "headshot" defenses if they won't work when/if someone realy puts them in? BTW, do you think hemophiliacs should learn to fight too? Do you think fighting is for everyone?

For anyone still enjoying the discussion ...

a) Most self-defense appropriately falls in the domain of prevention. When prevention fails, a person may be compelled to fight or to do nothing. I'm not a big advocate of doing nothing. In those cases, self defense may very well involve fighting.

b) In a violent encounter, doing something is better than doing nothing, both for emergencies and in preparation should they occur, and regardless if one has a knee injury, head injury, is a hemophiliac, has high blood pressure, brittle bones, arthritis, one eye, no legs, etc. Avoidance, survival, repair - in that order of precedence.

c) Context is everything. Furthermore, there is still no definitive agreement on what fighting is. Therefore, questions such as "Do you think fighting is for everyone?" are too general and ambiguous to be meaningful.


**Could this guy ever be a good boxer without actually sparring (boxing)? Of course not. Could he ever be good at bjj without actually rolling. Of course not. Could he be a good muay thai fighter without sparring? Of course not. Then why assume he could learn to fight with WCK's method without actually fighting? And if it is possible, where are these great WCK fighters that have trained that way?

There are many physical, mental, and emotional skills the amalgamation of which, while guaranteeing nothing about the outcome of a fight, can be useful skills to have in a fight (by whatever definition). If this were not true, then any training other than outright fighting would be useless, and we've already agreed that isn't true.

Instead of asking "Could this guy ever be a good boxer" (and then giving us the answer) one might ask "Could this guy ever prevail over a good boxer". The answer to the second question is less certain and more meaningful than the first.

There are slathers of case studies about people who did not set out or prepare to be fighters, yet were compelled to fight and even fought "successfully" in that they survived. Without even going to the trouble of time-consuming research, real-life case studies can be conveniently found in "Strong on Defense," a volume no doubt found on many reader's bookshelves by now. In each such case study, the person brought to the encounter a culmination of skills and knowledge obtained through any manner of life experiences. Any additional skills acquired, martial or otherwise, may have been of further use.


**Certainly training needs to be progressive, and can take limitations into account -- I continued to train while recovering from a dislocated knee (that I got while fighting/training). But all fighters follow the same general approach to training: warm-up/conditioning, technique/drills, sparring/fighting. Talking about progressive training is great but if you leave off one or more of these steps, no progression will take you far.

So ... if you leave off a step, it might take you somewhere, even if it's not far. Suddenly the black and white, "can't" and "won't" absolutes seem to have vanished.

Given the contention that "sparring" and "fighting" are such entirely different things, I can't help but wonder why "sparring" was grouped above with "fighting" instead of with "technique/drills" or left on its own.

From a strictly Socratic POV, definitions offered thus far for "fight" and "fighter" remain insufficient and far too ambiguous for mutual examination and meaningful discussion.

The contention that someone must fight in order to be able to fight is a partially a semantic argument and partially a well considered opinion. The semantic merry-go-round is growing tiresome, and there are additional well considered opinions.

Regards,
- kj

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
First, self-defense does not necessarily involve fighting. Second, if your assumption is that he can somehow train to fight without "realism" -- he can't. Will it do any good to learn "headshot" defenses if they won't work when/if someone realy puts them in? BTW, do you think hemophiliacs should learn to fight too? Do you think fighting is for everyone?


What do you mean by fighting?

sport fighting - nope, not for everyone.
self protection - yes, I would say that is for everyone...even hemophiliacs.

A person who trains, by progressive means, is better off than someone who doesn't train at all because he is intimidated by the training.




Originally posted by t_niehoff
Could this guy ever be a good boxer without actually sparring (boxing)? Of course not. Could he ever be good at bjj without actually rolling. Of course not. Could he be a good muay thai fighter without sparring? Of course not. Then why assume he could learn to fight with WCK's method without actually fighting? And if it is possible, where are these great WCK fighters that have trained that way?

But what are you comparing to? A person may not be a good boxer or wrestler or anything competition based, but the only competition in streetfighting is survival, and I believe a person can achieve a workable ability to defend themself with progressive training. There is no doubt in my mind that with realism in training and good sparring that the same individual would be even better, but the balance is between what they are trying to achieve and their limitations.




Originally posted by t_niehoff
Certainly training needs to be progressive, and can take limitations into account -- I continued to train while recovering from a dislocated knee (that I got while fighting/training). But all fighters follow the same general approach to training: warm-up/conditioning, technique/drills, sparring/fighting. Talking about progressive training is great but if you leave off one or more of these steps, no progression will take you far.

I disagree with this statement, partially. Truth is that with a complete progression as you stated is ideal and will produce the greatest results, but I would not say that you would not go far without one of these elements, just not as far.

[t_niehoff]

The trouble with citing "self-defense" studies, "self-defense" books, using WCK for "self-defense", etc. is that none of these things deal with fighting good, skilled opposition. Instead, they rely mainly on low-level skills to deal with opposition that has low-level skills. Sure those things cited can work against folks with little or no skill, especially when combined with surprise, but they will fail miserably when facing higher levels of skill. For example, if someone has you mounted, you can just sit up quickly and shove them off your chest or poke them in the eyes. That works great against folks with little or no groundfighting skills. It won't work against a (moderately) skilled groundfighter, as it is easily countered and is a mistake that they will take immediate advantage of. Experience (fighting) with good groundfighters will show you that. The former is fine for a "self-defense class" or if your aim is only for "self-defense" or "streetfighting" (chances are you're never going to be attacked by a skilled fighter) -- it's easy to learn, simple to use, doesn't take much training, and may be effective against an untrained assailant. In contrast, to learn good ground escape skills -- stuff that will work against more skilled opponents -- will take a lot of time, a great deal of effort, and practice in actual fighting. Of course, if one has developed the higher level of skills, they will work in "self-defense", i.e., low level, situations too.

Now I have no problem with anyone wanting to learn "self-defense." One doesn't need to be a good fighter to have some basic self-defensive skills, i.e., things that have some chance of working against the unskilled. To spend years or decades studying WCK or BJJ or any other fighting method only to develop some low-level "self-defense" skills, however, seems to me to be a waste of time -- one can get to that level fairly quickly by other means. If your goal is to develop some good, sound fighting skills, in other words to become a good fighter, you need to do more than focus on "self-defense" or "streetfighting". If you don't want to be a good fighter, that's fine too -- just it is important to recognize the distinction (and understand where you fit in). So, sure a 90 year old grandmother or a guy with an egg-shell skull can learn some "self-defense" that *may* (if everything goes their way) work but they'll never be able to fight with any degree of skill. They'd be better off, IMO, getting some pepper spray and taking a class on how to use it than spending years studying WCK.

No one -- and I repeat, NO ONE -- ever became a good fighter without fighting, and without fighting good opposition. If anyone thinks they or their teacher have, then by all means put your theory to the test. A great many people, including me, would love to know of a way to train good fighters without all the hard work! Otherwise, as I indicated before, I believe that folks that won't prove their claims simply can't prove their claims.

Regards,

Terence

[Ernie]

Ahh
The self-preservation vs. the self-perfection issue
How much is enough how much is too much

How much hard core vs. how much light training

Street fight vs. sporting event

How about a blend of both
Train skill light. But learn to apply it in varying degrees of difficulty
Be in shape; have conditioning be your foundation
Since there are no mats in the street and you can’t pick your bad guy. To much sport training gives you the wrong mindset.
But if you never feel the heat of some one going ape sh@t on you, your fancy skills turn to dust

Use sport path but only focus on ballistic tools, and weapons and multiple attackers often or you might get complacent and a false sense of skill by only working the sport side, same false sense of skill when not applying any pressure at all

Interesting dilemma

[AmanuJRY]

if your aim is only for "self-defense" or "streetfighting" (chances are you're never going to be attacked by a skilled fighter) -- it's easy to learn, simple to use, doesn't take much training, and may be effective against an untrained assailant.- t_niehoff

That's what I'm sayin'.



Now I have no problem with anyone wanting to learn "self-defense." One doesn't need to be a good fighter to have some basic self-defensive skills, i.e., things that have some chance of working against the unskilled.

Or even partially skilled. When I began training in WT, I had trained no longer than 6 mo. (basic stuff, no sparring) and had found that what I learned was sufficient to defeat a person with blue, even black belt in Goju-Ryu karate in a sparring match, even held my own against two black belts at once. This is partilly a matter of their ability (or lack of), or weakness in their training, however they were somewhat trained.



They'd be better off, IMO, getting some pepper spray and taking a class on how to use it than spending years studying WCK.

True.



No one -- and I repeat, NO ONE -- ever became a good fighter without fighting, and without fighting good opposition. If anyone thinks they or their teacher have, then by all means put your theory to the test. A great many people, including me, would love to know of a way to train good fighters without all the hard work! Otherwise, as I indicated before, I believe that folks that won't prove their claims simply can't prove their claims.

So the argument ends with the question, do you train to be the best fighter you can, or for reasonably adiquate self defence skills? (not you specifically, Terrance, just a rhetorical question):D

[sihing]

Quote: AmanuJRY
"So the argument ends with the question, do you train to be the best fighter you can, or for reasonably adiquate self defence skills? (not you specifically, Terrance, just a rhetorical question)"

It all again depends on one's individual goals and specific intent. IMO WC serves both purposes, but obviously when one puts more time, effort into their training, and has more understanding of the system, then they should be "allot" better than those that do not do the same, which means they should fight better. The whole idea behind the creation of WC was for people to learn a way of fighting in a short period of time and have skills in the end that would allow them to fight and defeat other skilled fighters, from whatever style they came from. IMO, WC has been improved, adapted, modified, etc... by those that were the keepers of the system since its creation, but essentially the principals and concepts behind what we do have remained the same.

As for the agruement that there are better things that one could do/use than WC for those only interested in Self-Defence, like pepper sprays, key chains, tasser guns, etc...these things can be used against you also. Since most of us have our limbs intact(and even when we don't), we should rely first and foremost on what we have ourselves, and train them at least in a minimal way on how to use them effectively in a self-defence situation.

Personally, I just like to practice WC for the sake of practicing, that was one of the main reasons behind my continued participation in the art. Teaching it also gives me great pleasure. It is really nice to see someone go through the system from ground zero to someone that has attained a skill in a physical, mental and spiritual art form, and to know that I had something to do with that skill development.

For those that have that need to constantly be tested, or those that love the training involved with learning any MA, or those that just have a thirst for more knowledge/truth or whatever you want to call it, then that is good for you. I must say that part of me admires those that have this drive in them, it is a good quality to have in one's self, but part of me would always wonder what could I do if I didn't always have that "drive to strive" forward. It happened to me years ago when I was tested for my instructor level. Due to some personal situations happening in my life I did not have the drive to train or even participate much in the WC school I was a part of before the test, but I still got through the it, which was a test of skill, endurance, and heart. At that time I proved to myself what Sifu had always said, which was basically once the skill was achieved(after hard work and consistent effort was put in) that you would have it in you always to some degree, and that in reality the mind is the perfect weapon. You could train your legs, arms and whole body to do amazing things but in fighting if you had nothing up here(refering to your head) then all the training would mean nothing, and that WC is a MA based on our intellegence(logic and the science of movement) which seperated us from the animals. I always wondered if that was true, well one day long ago I proved it to myself.

Sihing

[Ernie]

Personally, I just like to practice WC for the sake of practicing, that was one of the main reasons behind my continued participation in the art. Teaching it also gives me great pleasure. It is really nice to see someone go through the system from ground zero to someone that has attained a skill in a physical, mental and spiritual art form, and to know that I had something to do with that skill development.




honesty such a rare gem :D
nice post

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Sure those things cited can work against folks with little or no skill, especially when combined with surprise, but they will fail miserably when facing higher levels of skill.

Well, that's bad news. But since not every bad guy has great skill, it's also good news. Combine a little skill with an unlucky day for a more skilled opponent, and there is still some chance - however remote - for a favorable outcome. It boils down to an odds game, where the bets are the types and degrees of risk to accept, and investments to make.

Fortunately, there are other benefits in training beyond improved odds in a fight. The combined range of benefits can make the overall investment extremely worthwhile and offer enormous personal value even for someone who'd otherwise be a mediocre "fighter."


Now I have no problem with anyone wanting to learn "self-defense." One doesn't need to be a good fighter to have some basic self-defensive skills, i.e., things that have some chance of working against the unskilled.

Good to hear, and I agree. This would be one heck of an overwhelming investment if the only benefit were a few paltry self-defense skills.


To spend years or decades studying WCK or BJJ or any other fighting method only to develop some low-level "self-defense" skills, however, seems to me to be a waste of time -- one can get to that level fairly quickly by other means.

I agree with this too. If the only purpose and goal is for self defense or other aspects of fighting, time would be better spent elsewhere. However, and again, combined with a myriad of other benefits, combined value and personal benefits - including but not exclusively self-defense skills - can be astronomical.


If your goal is to develop some good, sound fighting skills, in other words to become a good fighter, you need to do more than focus on "self-defense" or "streetfighting".

We're once again nearing that dilemma of what it means to "fight" or be a "fighter." But yes, if one is out to be the top dog or simply wants to "be" a fighter (as opposed to the person interested in continued personal improvement or developing skills which may be useful in a fight) ... well, you gotta do what you gotta do, at whatever risks you gotta accept in doing it.


If you don't want to be a good fighter, that's fine too -- just it is important to recognize the distinction (and understand where you fit in).

The dilemma is in the implication and phrasing. I don't know anyone who says "Hey everyone ... I don't want to be a good fighter!!!"

However, there are indeed those of us who accept that we aren't or won't be the "top dog," or believe the price of such a goal is too high. There are others who don't want to "be" fighters, nor wish to fight at all, but rather intend to prepare as best and reasonably as they can should they be called upon to fight against their will. In other words, to learn a great deal about fighting, yet in continued hopes of never having to.

Yeah, as Ernie says, it's a dilemma. However, that dilemma doesn't make any of these other sorts less "serious" than the "best fighters" as so often and casually implied. It only means there are different balances in life. Hopefully most are aware of the tradeoffs they're making; if not, then perhaps your message does indeed serve as a reminder and impetus for fruitful self-reflection.

For myself, I not only know pretty well where I "fit in" (and where I don't, in practice) - I take pains to ensure that I know just how bad my kung fu is. :p For me, the only "competition" and true benchmark is with myself. When it comes to how I stack up against others, what will be will be. I have sufficient "attitude," LOL; it just happens to be a learning and continuous improvement attitude more than a competitive one. But this is what I need in order to maintain my motivation and continue seeking improvement; everyone to their own needs in their own way.


So, sure a 90 year old grandmother or a guy with an egg-shell skull can learn some "self-defense" that *may* (if everything goes their way) work but they'll never be able to fight with any degree of skill. They'd be better off, IMO, getting some pepper spray and taking a class on how to use it than spending years studying WCK.

I happen to love working with 90 year old grandmothers and people with egg-shell skulls. Maybe it's a "calling," LOL.

But I hear your point and will go you one further than pepper spray - I personally wouldn't pursue martial arts only for purposes of self-defense and "real" fighting, nor would I advise others to do so. For that purpose alone, I'd much rather invest my time at the shooting range and a variety of supplementary venues - but not in traditional martial arts. Though I might check out some of that Kina Mutai Ernie mentioned awhile back. ;)


No one -- and I repeat, NO ONE -- ever became a good fighter without fighting, and without fighting good opposition.

Applying a specific and narrow definition of "fighter" and "fighting" I can concede the logic in this.

Since to me, the terms fighting and fighter generally covers a much broader spectrum of meaning, that is where my perspective begin to diverge and fall away from such a definitive conclusion. My difference in meaning is also the reason for much of my jibber jabber and splitting hairs on the subject.


If anyone thinks they or their teacher have, then by all means put your theory to the test. A great many people, including me, would love to know of a way to train good fighters without all the hard work! Otherwise, as I indicated before, I believe that folks that won't prove their claims simply can't prove their claims.

Now that sounds like an old fashioned dare. ;):D

More seriously, I'd be curious to know who all these self-proclaimed great fighters are. I either don't see much of it, or else I have blinders on to such pompousness or naivete. My hunch is that there are at least some good "fighters" (sic) who prefer not to make some big public statement about it.

Boasting about being some great fighter isn't the sort of thing that usually impresses me much, nor do such general claims mean much without a good bit of context. If anything, I tend to become more skeptical of a person who would make those kinds of claims; skeptical about their skills, their character or both, rather than confident in either.

To your comment on hard work. Whatever a person's goals, intentional fighting or something else, hard work is part of the package in developing kung fu.

I do distinguish hard work from managing risks though. Sometimes, managing risks appropriately means one needs to work even harder to achieve their goals.

There are obviously some of us who aren't into the "proof" thing, but instead maintain a steady focus on continuous improvement. Might be different roads, or different ways of looking at the same road. And yes, we may use more moderate and varied means of feedback to address our ever evolving stream of shortcomings. We must strive to get the most we can from our efforts, and accept the rest for whatever it will be. In the macro view of things, that's really the best any of us can do.

The effectiveness of dialog seems to have improved immensely through the thread, and the "talking past each other" considerably diminished in this last round or two. I find mutual understanding and effective dialog much more satisfying than polite agreement. So thanks again for taking the time and making the effort on behalf of whoever may be in audience. Perhaps at least those of us playing here have entertained them for awhile. :)

Gotta get ready to take my wooden leg in for repairs now. Till later!

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by sihing
Personally, I just like to practice WC for the sake of practicing, that was one of the main reasons behind my continued participation in the art. Teaching it also gives me great pleasure. It is really nice to see someone go through the system from ground zero to someone that has attained a skill in a physical, mental and spiritual art form, and to know that I had something to do with that skill development.

This is beautiful. No matter what the reasons for starting, it does tend to get under your skin, doesn't it. :)

Regards,
- kj

[Vajramusti]

kj sez:
Boasting about being some great fighter isn't the sort of thing that usually impresses me much, nor do such general claims mean much without a good bit of context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In by passing the same old issues...FWIW--two paisas --

Lots of real good fighters dont boast and dont do mouth boxing.
Sometimes- unknown people are not in our samples and generalizations.

I never met Paul Lam - a Hakka and an early student of Leung Sheung. As a Hakka he had to face many real challenges- physical, economic etc. with Chinese as well as non Chinese.He didnt brag in magazines and few know of him. But he was in the second wave of wc instructors in the UK. Two friends of mine studied with him.

Since he was in the second wave he faced a couple of old style challenges from the first wave. Later he had to face real goons in his business.(Fairly well verified). First restaurant then restaurant supply (chickens)for a while
on the Continent. Finally tired of the equivalent of the triads and enforcers and did someting else. he is no longer teaching wing chun-that I know of. May have moved to Westen Canada for a while. Dont know whether he is alive. I understand that some one from the Vancouver/Seattle region learned from him.

Lam had polio as a kid and it affected his legs- so he had to adjust his wing chun learning style-off the standard path specially footwork. As compensation he developed his hands and became
a bit like the Spiderman's Ock (I havent seen the movie and dont plan to) and became formidable in practical self defense... fending off people with good legs and kicks.Going with his strength and disguising his weaknesses.

There is always someone more skilled than "you". Wits and courage and adaptation are important equalizers as well in real encounters. Same size does not fit all.

But he didnt "spar" in the usual sense of the word and didnt walk around with pepper spray- to the best of my knowledge.

My point: there are different roads to wing chun excellence.

(Rome has bever been my destination- actual or desired)

[KenWingJitsu]

"Alive= variability, intent, and 'real' timing, reducing the number of variables involved so that you're working at the point where you can use 'real' time. Defending a bunch of jabs, then a bunch of crosses does not produce the same results as defending a bunch of either jabs or crosses, using one to set up the other, with some motion thrown in for fun.

Now, why doesn't this training method have a place in Wing Chun?"

crimsonking, I suggest you read Andrews' description of alive training. And you are incorrect in thinking muay Thai fighters and boxers do not do isolated sparring. the first thing you lean in a boxing gym is jab vs jab sparring. If that doesnt fit into isolated sparring, in"your" definition, then again....you do not know what the term means. Muay Thai..."kicksparring kicks only. = Isolated sparring.

sihing.......so you think WC is a better option for someone who is scared to get hit eh? Why? Because they will now magically be invulnerable to getting hit?

lol.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Dhira:

"sihing.......so you think WC is a better option for someone who is scared to get hit eh? Why? Because they will now magically be invulnerable to getting hit?"

ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Stop it man...You're killin' me with that stuff!

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
...so you think WC is a better option for someone who is scared to get hit eh? Why? Because they will now magically be invulnerable to getting hit?

lol.

Better option than what? not trainig? JKD? Kenpo?



Originally posted by sihingAt that time I proved to myself what Sifu had always said, which was basically once the skill was achieved(after hard work and consistent effort was put in) that you would have it in you always to some degree

Once memories are made by the formation of neural pathways, yes they do remain, but without 'refreshing' them every so often, they will decay and the knowledge will become obscure.



sihingTeaching it also gives me great pleasure. It is really nice to see someone go through the system from ground zero to someone that has attained a skill in a physical, mental and spiritual art form, and to know that I had something to do with that skill development.

There is learning in teaching and teaching in learning, a nice yin-yang concept. Good post sihing.

[IRONMONK]

I still cant beleive some ppl are against isolated sparring.When fighting ppl they will resist-they will not stand there like a wooden dummy
I did alot of dead cooperative drills(i think they have their place in learning) and assumed i could fight.
I sparred with another resisting WC guy and everything went out of the window.Go try your stuff with a boxer and see if the trapping stuff you practice with a cooperative partner works!!!

a quote from Bruce Lee:

“The best way to learn how to swim is to actually get into the water and swim.”

It’s a simple fact that no amount of dry-land swimming will prepare a person for the water. You can stand by the edge of the pool day after day, practicing your arm strokes, breathing properly, ect But sooner or later you still have to get wet. Sparring is the acid test for all your training. Without sparring, how will you know if your techniques and skills will work in a real-life situation? Without testing your material you may proceed from false and possibly fatal assumptions. Only in free sparring can you learn the exact timing and correct judgment of distance so necessary in fighting.

Also training against resistance is good for your CONFIDENCE which you will need in a streetfight.

[t_niehoff]

KJ wrote:

Well, that's bad news. But since not every bad guy has great skill, it's also good news. Combine a little skill with an unlucky day for a more skilled opponent, and there is still some chance - however remote - for a favorable outcome. It boils down to an odds game, where the bets are the types and degrees of risk to accept, and investments to make.

**That's a correct assessment IMO.

Fortunately, there are other benefits in training beyond improved odds in a fight. The combined range of benefits can make the overall investment extremely worthwhile and offer enormous personal value even for someone who'd otherwise be a mediocre "fighter."

**What are these "other benefits" that "offer enormous personal value" that come from training in MAs, and in WCK specifically? It seems to me that you can get most things, like health, fitness, commaraderie, etc. more effectiviely and efficiently with other pursuits; what you can't get from those pursuits is fighting skill. And btw, such a person isn't a "fighter" since they don't fight (is a writer someone that never writes but thinks they can?), and they won't have mediocre fighting skills, they'll have poor fighting skills.

I agree with this too. If the only purpose and goal is for self defense or other aspects of fighting, time would be better spent elsewhere. However, and again, combined with a myriad of other benefits, combined value and personal benefits - including but not exclusively self-defense skills - can be astronomical.

**What are these "astronomical" side-benefits?

However, there are indeed those of us who accept that we aren't or won't be the "top dog," or believe the price of such a goal is too high.

**It's not a matter of being "top dog" but becoming the best that we can be or even developing a reasonable degree of fighting skill.

There are others who don't want to "be" fighters, nor wish to fight at all, but rather intend to prepare as best and reasonably as they can should they be called upon to fight against their will. In other words, to learn a great deal about fighting, yet in continued hopes of never having to.

**But the point is: ********** they can't "learn a great deal about fighting" without fighting!********** They know jack about fighting if they never fight. It is apparent from your posts that you don't accept this. In reality, they will only have very low-level skill that they *may* be able to use against someone with very little skill and a low level of attributes, and will more than likely need surprise to pull off. If you don't believe me, go see for yourself.

More seriously, I'd be curious to know who all these self-proclaimed great fighters are. I either don't see much of it, or else I have blinders on to such pompousness or naivete. My hunch is that there are at least some good "fighters" (sic) who prefer not to make some big public statement about it.

**First, my position is not boasting; I've said nothing about my skill level. It's the same as if I was on the BJJ forum and saying you can't really become good at BJJ without rolling -- that's not a boast, it is simply a fact (doesn't say anything about my BJJ skills). Sure there are good WCK fighters that don't make public comment about it, just as there are in any art. But if they are good, they got that way by fighting.

Boasting about being some great fighter isn't the sort of thing that usually impresses me much, nor do such general claims mean much without a good bit of context. If anything, I tend to become more skeptical of a person who would make those kinds of claims; skeptical about their skills, their character or both, rather than confident in either.

**Care to point out to me where I've "boasted" about the level of my skills? I do know where I stand skill-wise, and not because I "touch hands" with others that have no fighting skills and think that somehow I can infer fighting skill from that, but by doing the only thing that will allow one to gauge fighting skill -- by fighting.

To your comment on hard work. Whatever a person's goals, intentional fighting or something else, hard work is part of the package in developing kung fu. I do distinguish hard work from managing risks though. Sometimes, managing risks appropriately means one needs to work even harder to achieve their goals.

**It's not just a matter of how hard one works, but that they work in a way that produces results. After all, it is the results we are after.

There are obviously some of us who aren't into the "proof" thing, but instead maintain a steady focus on continuous improvement.

**How can one know if they are improving, let alone "continuously improving", if they don't have proof? By "Oh, my forms and chi sao are so much better today"? WCK isn't a method to become better at chi sao or forms but at fighting (using WCK's approach). And experience will show you that having "good" chi sao doesn't translate to good fighting skills. How do you know your training is making you a better fighter, that you are "continuously improving" your fighting skills, if you don't test them? The fact of the matter is, by not fighting as part of your training, so that you are getting constant feedback of what works and what doesn't work for you in a fighting environment, you will actually get worse -- develop worse fighting skills because you will continually reinforce those things that would be "weeded out" by good feedback. And if you did fight as part of your training, you'd see that you don't learn to fight by doing the forms and drills.

Might be different roads, or different ways of looking at the same road. And yes, we may use more moderate and varied means of feedback to address our ever evolving stream of shortcomings. We must strive to get the most we can from our efforts, and accept the rest for whatever it will be. In the macro view of things, that's really the best any of us can do.

**That's BS to me -- what it boils down to is experience or the lack thereof. Folks that have fought skilled opposition will all tell you the same thing about the necessity for fighting (and alive training) as a requirement to developing good fighting skill; folks that haven't will say all kinds of different things and have all kinds of "theories." Should I listen to the fellow that has never gotten into the pool yet think they "know about swimming" tell me about how to learn to swim ("well, you can become a mediocre swimmer without getting into the pool", "the pool offers risks", "you can continuously improve without getting into the pool", "swimming classes offer great benefits besides merely learning to swim", etc.) or do I listen to those folks that have gotten into the pool and saw for themselves whether they could swim? My position is simple: if someone refuses to get into the pool, they can't know much about swimming. And if they can't swim, what can they offer someone who wants to become a better swimmer?

Regards,

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

Crimsonking quoting me - and then responding:

UWC:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the real issue is whether-or-not the chi sao skills, principles, strategies, techniques, etc....ARE BEING TRANSLATED...on a FREQUENT basis...into a more "realistic" setting (ie.- isolated sparring drills...free form sparring/fighting, etc.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You mean a more realistic-looking setting. If you understood chi-sao, its just as realistic as any sparring, just a whole lot more abstract."

Look...as chi sao expands to long-arm chi sao (chen kiu sao)...it gets more realistic (because fights don't start from chi sao "position")...and when it gets to non contact range (some call it kiu sao)...then it's even more realistic (for the same reason - usually there is a gap between you and your adversary)...

BUT THAT'S WING CHUN VS. WING CHUN

Which is all well and good...you need to know how to fight against other wing chun fighters.

But once you start training against boxing, karate, Muay Thai, kickboxing, grapplers, streetfighters...

Then my above quote about "translations" makes total sense. Adjustments have to be made, in order to account for the fact that your opponent is now using a very different set of fighting principles, strategies, and techniques than was your wing chun partner.

So for example...isolated sparring drills against a boxer's jab - or jab/cross combo...or jab followed by a double leg shoot takedown...or a fake backfist followed by a spinning back kick...

These kinds of "isolated" drills are essential.

[Ernie]

c-king
A good wing chun practicioner should be "pro-active". Sure, i have spent a lot of time practicing bridging and going going into chi sao with boxers, but the drills as described dont sound anything like that.

I’m not trying to butt in to you and big daddy Vic’s thing. But you pointed something out, since we are talking about the benefits of isolated sparring/drilling

You brought up a boxer scenario

There are 2 ways to approach this example [or energy as you put it]
One is just jump into the fire and get banged around until you figure it out, not the smartest way but it is effective, people adapt pretty fast, problem is with out some sort of progressive plan you might develop bad habits just to survive the situation

Then there is the progressive approach.
Were you get a boxer [actually as many different types you can get your hands on] and you isolate the jab line and work off it until your bored then at in the cross line and hook, upper cut, over hand and so on. You build your self up increasing pressure and learning to adapt until you reach a free sparring/training /drilling level
After you feel somewhat comfortable you just plug in different arts or people to the formula
Use your wing Chun filter mixed in with commonsense and experience.

I have seen this work time and time again and keep injuries to a minimum as well as your focus on street application and not sport application

You will still face all the problems the ‘’ sport minded ‘’ have to face conditioning, both physical and mental
Natural adaptation and learning to read on the fly

But you want to avoid the singular mindset the ‘’sport minded ‘’ person will get, to much one on one ground and pound, not fully utilizing dirty tactics
The real negative is that sport minded people get ‘‘too competitive ‘‘ and loses the cornered rat killer instinct what ever it takes mindset that you need for the street.

But in all truth I would much rather have a sport guy having my back in a bar fight then a non sparring/hard drilling type [chi sau master] just because the pain tolerance and conditioning alone

[Ernie]

What you're saying is fine - although eventually in wing chun training the need for example applications fades away. What if you fight a martial artist of a style you've never seen before?


---- it's in the mind set i don't approach a person like i know he is this or that i train my mind to be blank [ no mindedness ] and just adapt and relate to what happens , this is the soul of wing chun for me , how one stands or the shape of the hand whatever this is just a thing but the life is in the transition of the action or application , how to spend time developing that '' life '' is the key

cking-The 'sparring' you describe requires a willing boxer, and an understanding that the drill does not take place under fair terms. Free sparring in the ring with gloves, and the boxer has the inherent advantage. Problem is you still can't work 'realistically'. Gloves and wing chun dont mix - neither do elbows and training partners faces.



--- i guess i have been blessed to have been training in a enviroment were i have many willing boxers ,thai fighters and vale tudo guys , for years
i disagree about the gloves though any one who knows me i'm just as functional with or with out gloves , minor adaptions on pulling concepts but a glove can hook as well , it's all based on position and pressure you can still seal with a glove no problem and apply intent to the elbow or wrist area . this is stuff i would have to show in person , could be i just spent so many hours doing the glove stuff i developed sensitivity with the glove :D
i will work elbows on head gear and it rattles people just fine :D



---cking The highest levels of martial ability involve going beyond the sporting paradigm.

a hot bowl of soup in the face or a broken bottle in the gut works well;)

[CFT]

Originally posted by Ernie
a hot bowl of soup in the face or a broken bottle in the gut works well;) I'd rather have a lovely hot bowl of soup in my gut, but you can keep your broken bottle.

[AndrewS]

CK writes:

>I couldnt agree more about having a progressive approach - >although when you say 'free sparring' this is where things start >to go astray. The 'sparring' you describe requires a willing >boxer, and an understanding that the drill does not take place >under fair terms. Free sparring in the ring with gloves, and the >boxer has the inherent advantage. Problem is you still can't >work 'realistically'. Gloves and wing chun dont mix - neither do >elbows and training partners faces.


So?

Why care about advantages when you're training? Failure teaches more than success and if I can work on part of my game with someone from a sport art, I don't care that much if I win or lose. The clinch in a sport grappling match teaches me skills that transfer to a NHB format, which can then be applied to the 'terminate' mind set and approach one develops for 'reality' which then transfers back to the sport stuff, which when you focus on the competetive finish preps you for the 'reality' stuff.

Getting tapped, getting hit, these things really aren't a big deal, and the friends you make in 'sport' stuff wind up being skilled people to work the 'real' stuff with who aren't trapped in Wing Chun.

CK writes:
>A parallel i might draw is no understanding chi sao = no >understanding dan chi. The fighting that muay thai practicioners >do, is sport-fighting, which, like chi sao, is just a model, a >framework for practicing fighting skills.

Here you are making a logical fallacy, unless I'm missing something. Sport-fighting is achieving victory under a set of rules. Within those rules and within that sport there are a number of methods for training to achieve success. There are no victory conditions for chi sao, as I understand it; it is a thing in itself, supposedly existing to teach fighting skill.

CK, what's your point? You seem to be saying that working progressively, training with contact, and working hard with people with experience from other lines are important a necessary components of skill development which you have engaged in. Are you contending that those things are irrelevant and that only chi sao is necessary?

>If you understood chi-sao, its just as realistic as any sparring, >just a whole lot more abstract. The problem is seems not a lot >of people are capable of understanding how the abstract >relates to reality - no problem, we all have different strengths >and weaknesses. Go study a martial art you can get your head >around - like boxing. Seems to me that people like to spar >because it makes them feel better about themselves - allows >their martial training to fit in with their world-view. Different >views, no problem - different training paradigm. Stay away from >Wing Chun.

Now that's just silly- let's drive the fighters away from Wing Chun, and avoid using teaching methods which allow more people to grasp the art faster and better. It's like you want to make a concerted effort to kill Wing Chun. My goal is to pass core skills on as quickly as possible, along with the ability to apply. Chi sao is merely a recent training platform in the art of Wing Chun, useful to some, irrelevant to others. Keep it if it works and helps pass on the art- I think it does, personally- tweak it, if it fails to do that.

Looking at the vast majority of 1,5,10,15,20, and 25 year practitioners I have met, the art has failed them. You don't get magically good after 10 years of practice- a month's hard work makes you a month better, but if you expect martial enlightenment to come and suddenly transport you, you're delusional. I reject the 'at ten years there's a difference' fallacy- I've seen it disproven by guys with 5 years in who can walk into any boxing gym, any grappling hall, any cage, and earn respect with pure Wing Chun.

BTW- Wong Sheung Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Gary Lam, Emin Boztepe- all guys with serious fullcontact 'sport' time on their resumes- I take them as my role models.


Andrew

[Ernie]

cking
Good for you. I've no interest in developing skills with gloves.


--- i respect that , but let me ask you this how do you develop hitting a person with full power , while he is attempting to hit you with all he has got

with out protective gear ?

there is a certian honesty that comes out when you go to this level , things change , things get developed ,

gloves are just a tool . like the pole the knives the dummy

each is about a piece not about a whole yet each helps in over all growth and understanding

why would one limit the arena of understanding

what good would come from that

how would limiting your training make you better



big drew
BTW- Wong Sheung Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Gary Lam, Emin Boztepe- all guys with serious fullcontact 'sport' time on their resumes- I take them as my role models.

great list
:D :D :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

crimsonking:

"If you think the wing chun training is just for fighting other wing chun practicioners, you dont understand wing chun. Sorry."

This sentence alone demonstrates that you're being deceitful...you know very well that I wasn't saying that wing chun is only designed to fight other wing chun...

Nothing more needs to be said.

[KenWingJitsu]

Victor...where I come from the term troll fits quite nicely. lol.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's another one that needs to be put on a plaque...hung on the wall...and memorized word-for-word:

"But let me ask you this...how do you develop hitting a person with full power,while he is attempting to hit you with all he's got...without protective gear?" (Ernie)

[Ernie]

iron face chi gung :rolleyes:

[AmanuJRY]

I was thinking good medical insurance and a plastic surgeon on retainer.:D

[Ernie]

extreme wing chun make overs !

when you face looks like a catchers mit
give us a call
www. buysome headgear*******.com

[AmanuJRY]

LOL:D :D

:mad: ouch, that hurt I laughed so hard.:D

[AndrewS]

When I started training WT my first teacher told me-

'A split lip is training, a broken nose is a mistake. Mistakes happen.'

I came up with my own addition-

' A split lip is training, a broken nose is a mistake, reconstructive facial surgery is an occasional unfortunate necessity.'

Andrew

[AndrewS]

When I started training WT my first teacher told me-

'A split lip is training, a broken nose is a mistake. Mistakes happen.'

I came up with my own addition-

' A split lip is training, a broken nose is a mistake, reconstructive facial surgery is an occasional unfortunate necessity.'

Andrew

[AmanuJRY]

So funny you had to tell us twice???:D :D :D

[AndrewS]

>So funny you had to tell us twice???

No, so much training without headgear. . .


Andrew

;-)

[IRONMONK]

this is a perfect example of aliveness :

http://home.earthlink.net/~lancasteraikido/id18.html


Click on the photos for the videos, and be sure to check out the atemi section as well. I have never seen such hard core Aikido in my life



p.s i am being sarcastic :)

[Ernie]

Originally posted by IRONMONK
this is a perfect example of aliveness :

http://home.earthlink.net/~lancasteraikido/id18.html


Click on the photos for the videos, and be sure to check out the atemi section as well. I have never seen such hard core Aikido in my life



p.s i am being sarcastic :)

dude i i laughed so hard i think i pee'd a little ha ha

and i can just hear there tea talk now , '' did you feel the heat comeing from my chi , yes sensi i thank god you have such a high level of skill or i might have suffered internal damage


i'm dieing :D

[KenWingJitsu]

LMAO!

Those guys are deadly! lol.
"please fall in slow motion so I can look good. Thanks"