Principles verses Reality

[Miles Teg]

Ive been thinking lately about principles and their validility. Often they sound logical and make perfect sense but putting them into practice is a different matter.

What principles or ideas can you think of that fit into this category?

Some from me are:
* In Tae Quan Do one of their foundational principles is that legs are more powerful than arms.
Reality: If you dont have some good skill with hands as well kicks on their own arent too effective.

* A W.C principle: the straight punch is more direct and efficient than a hook.
Reality: A hook can knock you on yo a$$ and it can be difficult to defend against even with a straight punch.

* Another W.C principle: High kicks take a long route, expose the groin and leave you on one leg so low kicks are better.
Reality: High kicks can be "fight enders". Even when able to defend them, they can cause damage to the arms. Can be particularly difficult to defend if the attacker is good at setting them up with combos etc.

[Wingman]

WC Principle: Economy of motion.
Reality: It is more difficult to hit a moving target than a stationary one.

[burnsypoo]

MT,
I've never really heard those principles of Wing Chun before, do you have any others?

[sihing]

High kicks can be fight enders, just like any other technique in any other MA. For me it all depends on how effective the delivery system is, how do I get my weapons to make contact with the opponent in the most efficient and effective way. IMO, high kick alone are not too effective, but add a lop sao or other setup technique and then they become effective tools. In the WC I train in we use high kicks all the time, it’s just how we apply them and when to apply them that's different.

Round vs. Straight- again the principal is a sound one, but it’s always up to the individual to apply it correctly, timing and distancing and such. This goes both ways, for the individual to apply the round/hook punch effectively will be more difficult than applying the WC punch effectively, just for the simple fact that its a faster movement, and the WC fist is closer to the opponent than his fists (WC guard vs. Boxers/whatever style guard), meaning it has less distance to travel. Personally, if someone can't get the WC straight punch in first then that person has serious problems, it can't get much simpler than the WC straight punch/chain punch techniques...

Sihing

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
the principal is a sound one, but it’s always up to the individual to apply it correctly, timing and distancing and such. James,

Well said. A principle is just that. How it's applied makes all the difference.

Bill

[anerlich]

My instructor encouraged me to look at each principle of TWC, and find the "shadow" of each. For example:

Central Line theory: concentrating too much on the centre can leave you open to peripheral attacks. In the early days of the UFC GM Cheung was considering entering a couple of senior guys (Aussies, instructors, taught in Melbourne by the GM himself, would be well known to most TWCers) and asked my Sifu down to test them. Sifu put 'em both on the floor with short boxing hooks. Also, in the late 60's when GM Cheung was in Canberra, he used to send his students to the school of an old friend, Sifu David Crook, who taught CLF and Northern Sil Lum, because he (GMC) felt his (GMC's) students needed to bolster their skills in dealing with circular attacks. Some varieties of CLF have specific techniques designed to either crash through or snake around a WC guard. There are countermeasures, there are holes.

Touch reflexes: if seen as the be all and end all, leave you open to attacks launched from outside contact range.

Simultaneous block and attack: not always the best scenario, you can do them on the same beat but not simultaneously. If taken too literally, can give you a weak block and an ineffective counterattack. Proper body mechanics to deliver a powerful strike often means the two should be successive, not simultaneous.

Economy of movement: as mentioned, it's harder to hit a moving target. Economical and Effective are not always the same.

etc.

You get the idea. While it's good to have faith in your art, you need to find its weaknesses and limitations as well.

Per the old quote: "Theory and practice are a lot closer in theory than they are in practice".

[YongChun]

I was just discussing this with a student the other day after we watched Leung Ting explaining when a punch comes in you just turn. The second thing Leung Ting did on the tape was just charge into the guys center and chain punch away. The student was rushed into a wall and then fell down.

So then I told the student to try to turn when I charge in and throw a straight punch at him. He failed every time because the proper application depends on very critical distancing and timing. He always turned too late or too early. I moved in without comitting myself so the student didn't know when to start turning. With a committed punch that doesn't change course and starts from a long distance (e.g. an Aikido type of practice attack) it's easy. But if you move in and don't commit anything then just trying to defend as opposed to attack is impossible.

Next I told the student to rush into me or one of the other students and start chain punching. If the defender does nothing then it's easy. However if the defender is more rooted and skillful (or just much bigger) then you can just take in the chain punch and push the chain puncher out or make the chain puncher feel like they have charged into a solid wall. However one year in the late 80's one of our members entered the blackbelt division of a Vancouver Karate tournament and he defeated four blackbelts with the rush in and chain punch technique. He got defeated by the fifth blackbelt who was watching all this from the side and took him out with a hook punch to the head. So he figured out some limitations of the rush in and chain punch approach. Nothing works all the time.

At any rate Leung Ting's explanations were OK and logical but real fighting and application are always much more complex because of the aspect of distancing, timing, balance and the ability of good fighters to interrupt the attack, to deceive not to mention the aspect of pure speed and power (you can't stop a bullit, you can't stand in the way of a tank). In seminars you often can't ask what about this and that or try to counter the teacher because then you will be considered a "smart ass" or just plain rude (it has to be done diplomatically without a threat or confrontation). So many seminar attendees go home with still many unanswered questions that only a hands on scenario with counter attemps might have provided. Then again many students are not at the level of the visiting master and some are so stupid that only kocking them out would teach them something and even that doesn't convice some people.

But real fighting skills can be developed from the simple concepts and you have to start somewhere. Often people go to seminars and hear all kinds of nice theory but then when they try to apply it in their club or against other martial artists it just doesn't work.
It might mean you have to make it work. For example we learned the Gum sau in Chi sau but none of us could pull it off like the teacher could so it was a good candidate for being classified as being useless (Bruce Lee's discard what is useless) and throw it out. The other option was to do it a few thousand times and then most likely it could be made to work once the elements of proper positioning, sensitivity (when to do it) , timing and right speed and power were mastered. Then I read a marketing line from one Wing Chun branch that said with their system you don't need to make it work because in their system everything works for you automatically.

In principle against a low power roundhouse kick you might get away with a Gan sau. But when a couple of Wong Shun Leung students tried that in Japan they both got their arms broken. I am sure they got away with it in the classroom against non professional kickers. So that's why they say to test out your art against non Wing Chun people. Pretending to be a kicker or kickboxer or grappler is a good starting point to learning defense against there things but the real practitioner of those arts have slightly different setups, timings, fakes and many ways to make their stuff work and counter when it doesn't.

I met someone who studied a lot of Taekwondo. However my legs happened to be longer and stronger than his so just by kicking into his kicks he couldn't make one single kick work. My Wing Chun is just average. So he said all the Taekwondo he learned was pretty useless. But take his same kicks and put them into a taller stronger meaner guy and then it might be a whole different story.

Also this person learned some Wing Chun and was forced to work on his stance for a long time. So he gave that up and said it was useless Wing Chun. We did more variety faster and so he thought that was better. However everyone knocked him off his feet right away which wouldn't have happened if he had paid more attention to his stance. So the stuff he was learning was not useless but he was impatient and maybe didn't get an explanation or demonstration of the point of it all. Everything has to be done in a balance too because you will find a lot of people spending 10 years being stationary to train the legs but then can't move at all in a fight. So you need to know when is what you are learning good enough and time to move on.

In teaching some people use the model of learn A and then when A is very good, then learn B and when B is real good then learn C etc. Other people use the model of learn the whole alphabet quickly and then each year the whole alphabet gets better and better. So you can do SLT for 1 year, then CK for a year etc and in year 10 do the knife or you can learn everything in a year and each year go back to square 1 and refine the whole thing. In method two you at least know what you are getting into. In the former method it might not become clear until year number ten what you have actually learned. I would say both models have produced good students so everything always depends onthe students, the teacher the training , the circumstances etc.

Without a theory I think the practice is a bit aimless and does not lead to the highest result. Without practice the theory can never be made to work. Each improvement in human endeavor always starts of with a theory so theory is important. You can practice for a lifetime but if you practice incorrectly then your training might all be a waste of time. When you meet someone who has trained correctly you will feel you have wasted a lot of time.

[Lindley57]

Miles Tag,

One must be clear in what principles are and their purpose. Each martial art system is guided by principles, in some manner. Principles are ideal concepts that must be kept in mind when one is advancing in their training. It is during this learning process one develops understanding and can become guided by these principles.

You mention that " In Tae Quan Do one of their foundational principles is that legs are more powerful than arms.
Reality: If you dont have some good skill with hands as well kicks on their own arent too effective." The skill of your hands and feet together has nothing to do with the fact that your legs are more powerful than your arms. This art focuses on the intense training of the legs guided by the idea or principle that the legs are more powerful than the arms. The reality you speak of is more appropriately linked to the training of the individual, not the art itself!

In our Ving Tsun family, we are guided by three major principles: Centerline (shortest distance between two points is a straight line), facing: maintaing the shoulders square to face the target; and hand unity: equal hands and hand replacement. These ideas guide us during our training in conjunction with martial attirbutes such as balance, coordination, timing, sensitivity, and relaxation to support technique.

Think about riding a bicycle and how your parent held the back while you were learning to keep balance. Later on, you could ride without thinking about it. What got you there is now ingrained. To be like those people in the X-Games, they use the same "principles" of riding a bike, but master them and other attrirbutes to go beyond what most people can do with a bike.

This is why when I discuss "multiple" martial arts with people, it is my feeling one should study one art to some degree of proficiency before studying another art. Each art has a set of principles, which may seem in conflict to the beginner student. A student who has advanced in a system develops an ability to learn "how to train" and if they are truly "advanced" they know how to understand learning a system. Once you have this, you can more easily understand another style and thus follow Bruce Lee's idea of "take what is useful and discard what is not".

Good luck with your Kung Fu!

[Matrix]

Lindley57,
First of all let me say that I enjoyed and agreed with your post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I did have a comment on the section quoted below...


Originally posted by Lindley57
A student who has advanced in a system develops an ability to learn "how to train" and if they are truly "advanced" they know how to understand learning a system. Once you have this, you can more easily understand another style and thus follow
In my experience I have found that training for extended periods in one system may in fact inhibit development in another style. You learn habits that can actually detract from your ability to progress in different styles. For example, in hard styles like TKD, Karate or kickboxing you learn to hit harder and faster than your opponent. I have found that years of developing this mindset has in fact made it more difficult to truely relax "I thought I was relaxed" and to overcome the tendency to use muscular strength. This may not be a problem in styles that are more similar in nature.

Like I said, this has been my experience. That does not make it so, but I'm just curious if anyone else has had similar issues?

Bill

[PaulH]

Good point, Matrix! I have heard also that if you know WC well it is very easy to learn other styles but not the other way around. Why? Because WC is narrow angle usage and thus easy to adapt to large or wide angle usage MA styles like Karate, TKD, etc.

Regards,
PH

[Matrix]

Originally posted by PaulH
I have heard also that if you know WC well it is very easy to learn other styles but not the other way around. Paul,
I would tend to agree with that statement. I also think that it takes more time to develop the sensitivity that is required to excel in WC, than it does for the power skills of other styles. Once again, based on my experience.

However, once you've trained in WC, why would anyone want to go back. ;)

Bill

[PaulH]

Well, maybe just a little FMA? Always like the knife and dagger stuff! =)

[JAFO]

There's "knowing" something and then there's being able to pull it off in real time. Execution counts. Kung Fu is cool and all but it's still a lot of hard work. The precision of WC applications only magnifies the requirements for clean execution. A miss of an inch may as well be a mile in many cases. The reality of fighting is that the person who understands and executes their plan the best is the one with the advantage. Wing Chun can be a huge advantage, but only to the extent that the person can use it.

Incidentally, back in the day the TKD schools were much more kick oriented than they are now. They had to add a lot more hands because the 'pure' TKD style has too many weaknesses and requires a fairly specific environment in which to prevail. There's a reason that groin attacks are very strictly prohibited at all Korean tournaments, and why punches to the head are scored much lower than kicks to the head. Bill 'Superfoot' Wallace lost a testicle to a groin attack. Kickboxing and all of its related cousins would look very different if the easiest and most simple counter to a kick were allowed in the rules.

Open the groin up to attack and even the Muay Thai and San Da guys have a real weakness going, no matter how fast and conditioned they are. There are ways to kick with less exposure, but it mostly involves the use of combinations rather than trying to rely solely on speed and timing. Kicking as an initial move only works against the really fat and/or stupid.

Taken far enough, training solely to the rules of most any competition can really give you a false sense of security. I think that applies to WC, too.

[Hendrik]

Principle without Kung is a great logical thought but not reality.
Technics cannot substitute Kung. Principle with Kung is a reality.


Dont expect to knock down others with a punch just because one know how to punch but never condition one's body for the impact and penetration......

[Matrix]

Originally posted by JAFO
Kung Fu is cool and all but it's still a lot of hard work. The precision of WC applications only magnifies the requirements for clean execution. A miss of an inch may as well be a mile in many cases. Anything worth doing usually entails hard work. I see that as a positive thing. I also disagree about this concept of a need for high precision. In fact I would argue that you can "miss by an inch" and not really miss at all. ;)


The reality of fighting is that the person who understands and executes their plan the best is the one with the advantage. ........... Assuming the plans are of equal quality. Executing a weak plan "best" may leave you at the short end of the stick compared to someone who merely executes a superior plan. In other words, it's the plan AND the execution that must taken into consideration. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs.....


They had to add a lot more hands because the 'pure' TKD style has too many weaknesses and requires a fairly specific environment in which to prevail. Maybe so, but the kick is still the predominant weapon of choice with TKD folks. Any hands tend to be weak. This is of course a gross generalization.


Open the groin up to attack and even the Muay Thai and San Da guys have a real weakness going, no matter how fast and conditioned they are. There are ways to kick with less exposure, but it mostly involves the use of combinations rather than trying to rely solely on speed and timing. Even with the groin attack ruled out, high kicks can leave you vulnerable to counter attack. You are standing on one leg for a considerble amount of time when you execute high kicks. Think of the possibilties...........


Kicking as an initial move only works against the really fat and/or stupid. First of all, I must say that I find this statement to be quite distasteful. Equating "fat" and "stupid" is insensitive at best, but it is just plain crass. Also, don't fool yourself into thinking that big people are by definition slow (physically or mentally). You may be surprised.

Bill

[JAFO]

Matrix,

I apologize for the "really fat and/or stupid" remark. You're right, it was very crass and insensitive, not to mention incorrect of me to equate really fat and obese with slow and immobile; and stupid and unknowing with unwitting and unaware. I'm sure there are lots of obese people who have great footwork, timing and coordination; and lots of unwitting people who can outsmart a trained TKD kicker through sheer instinct alone. Of course, there is an "or" in my characterization, which equally acknowledges the possiblilities of a person being one but not the other, as well as being one and also the other. Besides, this all supposes my comment would normally be interpreted literally rather than figuratively - is it possible to be physically thin and also be mentally obese; and/or be academically intelligent and also be functionally unwitting? Between the literal and the figurative, which would be worse? But now I'm the one splitting hairs.

Once again, I apologize as it was not my intention to offend.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by JAFO
[B I apologize as it was not my intention to offend. [/B]
JAFO,

It takes a very mature person to admit their mistakes. I hope that I am equally as gracious as you have been, should I ever find myself in the same situation.

Best Regards,
Bill