What would you do ? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Ultimatewingchun

07-26-2004, 05:37 PM

Here's my take on this:

1) Go back and watch the fight several times with the sound off...the rage and taunting only serves to distract and scare the opponent (and the people watching)...which also means that fighting also requires focusing one's mind on one's OWN inner dialogue...DURING THE FIGHT...thereby shutting down the opponent's ability to scare and/or distract you.

2) After watching the video like this several times...you may begin to see ways of beating the guy who won the fight - in terms of analyzing the moves and determining where his weaknesses are and how to exploit them...which is not to say that he's not a good fighter...that guy is REALLY good...but he CAN be beaten.

3) I'm not going to go into the details of exactly how to beat him based upon what I saw...would take too long...but I will say this - it can be done.

4) A guy like this has to be hit in his throat...his eyes...his balls...kicked in the knees, etc....he's too tough for anything less.

5) And after closing on him successfully (and again I confess I'm leaving a lot out about exactly how to do that)...you should consider taking him down and finishing him on the ground (assuming you have grappling skills)...because though you have already struck him in the throat/eyes, etc..perhaps once - maybe twice...he's still very dangerous...and DON'T EXPECT that those one or two strikes to a vulnerable target will finish him (remember how tough he is)...

if it happens - great...but don't count on it...so be prepared to take him down (where his awesome punching power and excellent standup footwork and boxing skills can't work for him)...the same way it works when he's up on his feet.

OdderMensch

07-26-2004, 05:48 PM

and DON'T EXPECT that those one or two strikes to a vulnerable target will finish him (remember how tough he is)...

Good point, I'd like to comment on it real quick before I go (class starts at 8)

One of the things my Sifu drills into us early one (like from day one) is KEEP HITTING THEM! attack weak points and keep it up until the other guy cannot defend himself, hit him a few more times just to be sure. The "one shot one kill" attitude I hear at times could get you killed, even the loser shook off a good hit to the midsection.

Anyone can be beaten, even you, so dont take your skill for granted. But dont forget them either! Practice Practice Practice!!! on that note, gotta run

PaulH

07-26-2004, 05:49 PM

We went through this before, Ernie! =) You're right in that all of the past debates are meaningless when put on such scale of reality. My goal is not geared toward these kinds of confrontation, but rather just to enjoy what WC has to offer and how it enriches my life. Beautiful words but true! =)

t_niehoff

07-26-2004, 05:54 PM

Ernie,

Don't you know that WCK is sooo dangerous that Kimbo wouldn't stand a chance against a WCK practitioner? After all, we have all those weapons that prevent us from actual fighting ("WCK is for streetfighting, not sport", after all) -- you know, things like the fingerjab, that just make it too dangerous for us to mix it up. And besides, our chi sao would make such a fight child's play. ;)

Terence

Ernie

07-26-2004, 06:47 PM

beautiful ,

i love when people only see with knee jerk reactions

OdderMensch

Think about what? Will sloppy technique help in that situation?

---- no technique will help , this is about spirit , pressure , toughness mental and physical and luck

the fact that you even brought up technique sloppy or other wise tells me alot .-------------------

Am I big eongh to take a soild hit from one of those guys?

----------- who said anything about big and strong , i asked if you are conditioned , do you know how to take a hit , have you been hit by that type of power , have experienced that type of range and kept your cool---------------------------------

Am I strong enough to out power them?

-------------- again strength , out power these seem to be your demons not mine , are you clever , seasoned enough that is the question ---------------------------------

Fast enough to outrun or out hit one of those elephants in boxers?

---------- those elephants were very athletic , quick strong and confident , all those elephants have to do is step on a mouse :D

Do I know enough dirty tricks and makeshift weapons to overome that rage?

----------- i don't know do you ? are you confident your non dirty tricks will make any difference ?

I dont care.

------ then die .

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

victor ,
no comment you understood the situation ;)

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

as did terrence

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

paul
accepts death with a smile :D :D :D

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

this cmes down to being honest with yourself , could you survive this situation

is there somehting you can do to improve your chances

could your current shape , mind set , conditioning , training get you through this bad day

i don't know

i asked myself the same questions

so i just passed them to you

there is not right and wrong when your being honest with yourself

my answer will not be yours

put yourself infront of those guys and ask yourself , my god what am i going to do

planetwc

07-26-2004, 07:04 PM

Ernie,

Who are you kidding? That guy would just kill most people.
I know he would KTFO me.

I think the other guy who lost would kill me as well.

I think there is no way in h*ll the average WC guy would stand a chance against that level of streetfighting experience and conditioning. And if that guy has grappling experience as well, then I pity the BJJ guy as well.

Hitting him on the head/face is a mistake.
One would have had to have trained Muay Thai very hard to take out the legs on someone like him.

And from the looks of it, that was just boxing rules only as they were ONLY throwing down with fists, no feet, no grappling.

So kicking him might just **** him off.

Standing toe to toe with him would be a BIG mistake.
You'd end up with Rocky Balboa brain damage and face redecoration.

So the attributes if this was fists only would be to have the footwork and timing skills (slipping, bobbing and weaving, fakes/feints) to slip his attacks and if lucky work the body.

That and VERY fast hands and closing skills.

Kinda hard if one wants to stay out of the way of the damage he was doing to the other guys face.

Ernie

07-26-2004, 07:25 PM

Ernie,

Who are you kidding? That guy would just kill most people.
I know he would KTFO me.

I think the other guy who lost would kill me as well.

I think there is no way in h*ll the average WC guy would stand a chance against that level of streetfighting experience and conditioning. And if that guy has grappling experience as well, then I pity the BJJ guy as well.

------- good honest post man :D
i felt the same way when i boxed with a ex pro heavy wieght
the guy was over 100 pounds heavier then me and over a foot taller

i was soooooo scared , and i got dropped time and time again

i remember his arms looked like legs they were so big and strong

he was quick had broken timing and footwork

then as time went on i started to get in shots and as more time went i hit him with a shot that made him pause

he was cool and started to let me work in my tools except for eye jabs he quit boxing do to a detached retna

once i started running my game and after many hours working off him

i could get him to go down or in the clinch and really mess his power and base up .

he helped me over come my fear and grow

so now when i see big dudes woof'n it doesn't fade me

but there was something about the cat that one , a spirit about him that really made me wonder about my skills

Zhuge Liang

07-26-2004, 07:33 PM

Just thinking out loud, but what are the chances that I will, personally, have to fight someone like that? For me, given the type of person I am, given my personality, given the activities I do, it's probably not high. If I'd have to bet, the chances of me having to fight someone like that would be about the same as my chances of having to fight a grizzly bear. So should I have to condition myself to fight grizzly bears?

Not that the questions you asked aren't pertinent, I think that anybody that expects to grow will have to honestly ask themselves some tough questions, and honestly assess themselves. So that part of your message I hear loud and clear. And of course there are always things I can and should do to better myself. However, my priorities don't allow me to spend enough time and effort to prepare for the day I'd have to wrestle and choke out a grizzly bear. :)

Regards,
Alan

t_niehoff

07-26-2004, 07:34 PM

If you train to fight with tigers, kittycats won't bother you; if you train to fight with kittycats, the tigers will kill you.

Zhuge Liang

07-26-2004, 07:44 PM

Hi Terrence,

Originally posted by t_niehoff
If you train to fight with tigers, kittycats won't bother you; if you train to fight with kittycats, the tigers will kill you.

More power to you if your training incorporates tiger defence. Fortunately for me, I live in an area where tigers only very rarely prowl around coffee shops and grocery stores, so I'm a little less worried about training with tigers. But those kittycats will feel my wrath should they ever cross me! ;)

Regards,
Alan

Ernie

07-26-2004, 07:47 PM

alan,

those bears , are just men and you walk among those men everyday . random acts of violence

happen

the person getting beat or killed only mistake is they were in the the wrong place at the wrong time

this is life

to quote bruce '' better to be over trained then undertrained ''

i also hear you life is life better to be spnt having fun then living in fear

but we are martial artist so our eye should see more and be aware of the bears

does this wonderful wing chun knowledge stop at certian hieght and wieght restrictions does it become in effective ?

if that is the case then alot of people have beenlieing to themselves and others for along time :D

Rhat

07-26-2004, 07:56 PM

"If you train to fight with tigers, kittycats won't bother you; if you train to fight with kittycats, the tigers will kill you."

Does someone want an annual check up with Ultimatewingchun?

KenWingJitsu

07-26-2004, 07:59 PM

next time you spend another wasted second on what part of your foot should have more wieght think about it

PWN3D!!!!!!!!!!
once again you bring a tear to my eye.....*sniff*

If you train to fight with tigers, kittycats won't bother you; if you train to fight with kittycats, the tigers will kill you.

*sniff* I'm not crying bro, it was the onions....

Zhuge Liang

07-26-2004, 08:03 PM

Hi Ernie,

Originally posted by Ernie
does this wonderful wing chun knowledge stop at certian hieght and wieght restrictions does it become in effective ?

Most definitely. There is a limit for everyone. All any of us do is to train ourselves so that we don't reach that limit as early.

if that is the case then alot of people have beenlieing to themselves and others for along time :D

I think everyone lies to themselves to some degree. Some of us realize we are doing it, and some of us are less inclined to admit it. Good thing we can count on some people, like you, to ask the tough questions when we get complacent. But still, I think everyone, at one time or another, lie to themselves.

As for random acts of violence, well, what can I say. A 14 year old kid can walk up behind me with a handgun, pop me in the head, and steal my shoes. We just enjoy our lives the best we can. Some people enjoy preparing all their lives to fight demons that my never come, and some people enjoy sitting around talking about the histories of the tan, bong, and fook, and their angles and positions evolved through time. For me, it's live and let live.

But your point is well noted. I really should get myself in better shape. Maybe if I p-i-s-s-e-d off some ganster and constantly fear for life, I might get motivation from a different perspective. :)

Regards,
Alan

Ernie

07-26-2004, 08:18 PM

alan ,
i'll sneak up behind you with a sadam mask and a box cutter [ ouch]
just to keep you on your toes .

we got to hang soon brother i'm working on it .;)

but i only ask the questions that i ask myself and find i have trouble answering , finding out my own lies as well

so as my post say if the truth hurts , you shall feel the pain ,
better in the training session then in the street :D

dhira
i told you about those onions ;) i'll call you this week bro

Rhat

i got mad respect for victor but i don't believe in comp's , i don't like the mind set it creates , not street enough

but i do believe in training to the level of being competitive at all times in your every day life .

train with ni wieght restrictions or rules just maintain a level of control and always train weapons and multiple attacker
keeps you honest

Ultimatewingchun

07-26-2004, 09:43 PM

"i got mad respect for victor but i don't believe in comp's , i don't like the mind set it creates , not street enough" (Ernie)

You know, Ernie...I've come full circle about competitions. I always pretty much felt the same way you do - that the time spent preparing for competitions with rules - yadda, yadda...takes too much valuable training time away from preparing for the street.

But I just have a gut feeling that such an annual tournament might be a good thing for the Wing Chun world...a lot of people (in that world) need to see a few things that they'll probably never see if their number is never called.

You're not one of them.

Ultimatewingchun

07-26-2004, 10:04 PM

Now back to a more important issue...Ernie said this:

"That is a fight , those are the type of individuals that have no problem getting in your face and checking your manhood
this is real...
all the pretty words , and stories of the past and fortune cookie stuff...
won't put a dent in a dude with that much spirit as he stomps your skull into the ground .
There is an 'art' to that type of beat down and there are alot of 'artists' who can paint with your blood...
they're not in martial art schools
they're on the street , they're in the market , they're sitting outside the store or driving in the car next to you.
So when you train think about that , next time your fighting over lineage , or what angle your tan sau has , or what angle it had in 1901...

think about that fight.

Next time you spend another wasted second on what part of your foot should have more wieght...

think about it."

And Ernie also said this:

"this is about spirit , pressure , toughness mental and physical...

"Who said anything about big and strong , i asked if you are conditioned , do you know how to take a hit , have you been hit by that type of power , have experienced that type of range and kept your cool?... are you clever , seasoned enough that is the question?

Do I know enough dirty tricks and makeshift weapons to overome that rage?

I don't know - do you ? Are you confident your non dirty tricks will make any difference ?

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING SPIRIT...and the guy in the film has so much of it that he will force most men to doubt themselves - and that's when they've lost...not when he hits them with one of his bombs.

All the other things combined still aren't as important as the fighting spirit.

Martial arts is first-and-foremost about developing a powerful fighting spirit; and hopefully...through the proper attitude when training and living your life - a generosity of spirit...that will prevent you from BECOMING the demon that motivated you to want to learn a martial art in the first place...in order to kill him.

Ernie

07-26-2004, 10:21 PM

victor
But I just have a gut feeling that such an annual tournament might be a good thing for the Wing Chun world...a lot of people (in that world) need to see a few things that they'll probably never see if their number is never called.

dude i'm sure your right ;)

but if it turns out to be chi sau comp i'm coming in with 2 chain saws and heads are going to roll

[[[[[IT'S ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING SPIRIT]]]]]]]]
as i said i knew you understood what i was getting at .

developing that spirit would be a good thread :D

Ultimatewingchun

07-26-2004, 10:24 PM

"but if it turns out to be chi sau comp i'm coming in with 2 chain saws and heads are going to roll."

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

sihing

07-27-2004, 12:02 AM

Funny how this video came up, I just saw it today too, lol.

No, I wouldn't want to tango with either dudes on that tape, unless it was necessary. Looking at it in the secure environment of my living room, yeah it raised the emotion of fear in me, but if I had no choice and had to do something against these monsters the emotional feelings would change. Maybe I would find a way over that fence and run(flight response),I think I would be able to out run both those guys, since the big one probably out weighs me by 110lbs, maybe I would be forced to confront him(fight response) in the protection of another. I remember a story my father told me of when he was a police officer in a small northern Ontario town. In those days, there were no roads for cars, only railway lines, he was on his own and for the first few months of his tour in this town he was challenged quite often. One day it was 5 french lumber jacks against him, I asked him what happened, well he related how his adrenaline picked up and he was able to subdue a few of them and force the others to flee. The judge as a matter of fact scolded my father the next day for the condition the men in his custody were in(black eyes and such), and he told this judge that he wasn't pro boxer and wasn't able to pick his shots, it was survival and that's it. Things happen when its life or death, so its hard to predict what anyone of us would do. Any MA training would be helpful, as this would be a starting point as to what to do next. WC training IMO even more helpful, as WC gives you so many tools when trained and reinforced in one's self properly. Also training in the arts helps on the emotional side of things, in that through proper training one hopefully should have more ability to control them.

So could I handle someone/'s like those two depicted on the tape????? I hope that it never happens but if it did I would have to deal with the situation in the same way as I have dealt with any serious situation that has happened in my life, one moment at a time with careful execution in regards to the actions I take to steer the outcome in a positive way.....

Sihing

Phil Redmond

07-27-2004, 02:30 AM

when the winner got hit a few times and said, "that's all you got" and kept on coming I was thinking of the fights I've seen between MA and street fighters back in NY. The "trained MA usually lost the fights I've seen. I know you know why. ;)

But then again if the other guy had a well structured Tan he would have....nah I can't go on with this ....lolol

AdrianUK

07-27-2004, 04:23 AM

Hi All

guess I am the devils advocate here then !

Watched the clip, big guys but not monsters, arm weight punches bouncing off. I was not impressed, would I take them lightly ? hell no. Do I think they would be a real tough fight ? probably. Tell you what I would rather fight either of them than a small faster trained guy. Really, they had there hands low a lot, hunched down with limited mobility and slow punches

Right, all of you outside !!!!

Feel free to all flame me now

Regards,
Adrian

Nick Forrer

07-27-2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING SPIRIT...and the guy in the film has so much of it that he will force most men to doubt themselves - and that's when they've lost...not when he hits them with one of his bombs.

I agree with this statement

Originally posted by Adrian
Watched the clip, big guys but not monsters, arm weight punches bouncing off. I was not impressed, would I take them lightly ? hell no. Do I think they would be a real tough fight ? probably. Tell you what I would rather fight either of them than a small faster trained guy. Really, they had there hands low a lot, hunched down with limited mobility and slow punches.

I agree with this statement as well though.

My view- The better your wing chun is, the less natural attributes matter - size, strength, speed etc. Conversley, an abundance of these attributes will make up for poor wing chun, that is, until you meet someone with more of those attributes than you. Surely this is the whole point of wing chun - to give small, weak people (like Yip man) a fighting chance against larger, stronger people.

Just to stress- I really dont think that good wing chun (or if you like high level wing chun) has anything to do with size, strength or power. After all I'm not a small or weak guy but when I had a go with Anthony Kan (WSL student) who is about half my size, he just went straight through me again and again.

Similarly, at seminars WSL would make a point of picking out the biggest guy in the crowd and demonstrating on him to show that a size advantage can be neutralised through good wing chun.

If your wing chun doesnt have this as the ultimate goal why bother with it?

Matrix

07-27-2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
but if it turns out to be chi sau comp i'm coming in with 2 chain saws and heads are going to roll Ernie,
Why do you need 2 chain saws? ;)

Bill

vt108

07-27-2004, 06:50 AM

Ernie.

I saw the fight and I must say they both would be really hard to win. They are in a very good shape, very strong I suppose. An average VT fighter has no chance with these guys.
But they are not great fighters. What they try to use is the brute strenght and almost no technique. Punches are strong (not as strong as they seem to be) but not at the correct spot, they are not accurate enough. It is almost impossible that when somebody of this size hits the man straight to the face and he stays on his feet as nothing happend (unless he is on drugs for example). I once readed an article of Sifu Barry Lee. It was in one of the Austrlian Martial Arts Magazine I suppose. The title was "Real fighting is not a game". Believe me, Sifu Barry Lee knows what he is writing about. As I remember he wrote about three diffrent groups of attributes which are: phisical attributes like strenght, stamina, size, fitness etc. The second is attitude. And the third is technical skill like timing, distancing, footwork, techniques etc. And as I remember he wrote that the most important to win in the shortest possible time is technical skill. With a skilled opponent your strenght, reach of your hands, your height etc have very limited use. So, of course all physical attributes will halp you a lot but first you must be sure your technique is ok.
I'm a little surprised you say often that forms are not so important (maybe I didn't undestand you correctly, if so I'm sorry). In my opinion they are but of course forms will not make you a fighter. But they are much more important than many think. I must disagree with you also about footwork. Beeing aware your weiht distribution and feet position while training is very important. You have to think about your position all the time while training so you don't have to think about it in fighting. That's my opinion.
Another good example of a very big fighter is a man called Sapp. You can see him sometimes on the ring of K1 fights. Really big man, much bigger than those two on the film. And he was knocked down twice by much smaller opponents. So it really can be done.

Regards,

vt108.

Matrix

07-27-2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
[So you run into these guys by accident, now you need to get your scrap on, are you ready?
- Is your training enough?
- Are you in good enough condition?
- Can you run fast enough to get out? Ernie,
I saw this clip the other day on the main Kung Fu forum and I asked myself similar questions. How would I do against these dudes? I know that I can run.... I'm in reasonably good condition. However, I'm more concerned about the results if running were not an option. For some reason I think my whole face would like hamburger, just like the losers eye. I agree with Nick and others that "The better your wing chun is, the less natural attributes matter - size, strength, speed etc." However, I am not confident that I am at that stage yet. I do however believe that it is attainable, even by average joe's such as myself. It requires a lot of training and dedication, and equally important, the mental attitude that you can do it. No matter how mad your skills are, if you don't have the correct frame of mind, you've lost before you've started, IMO.

Bill

t_niehoff

07-27-2004, 07:15 AM

Theory is great . . .

"Size, strength, speed, etc. shouldn't matter." Get in there and prove it. Can you do it? Otherwise it does matter. And if you fight, you'll see they matter a great deal.

"My sifu is amazing in demonstrations." Lots of people are great at demos -- proves absolutely nothing. Nothing. Have sifu go take on Kimbo and prove he can do it beyond the safe environment of demos. Then he'll be worth listening to.

"Small, weak people like Yip Man." LOL! WCK isn't for weaklings -- weaklings can't fight. A smaller, weaker (less strong) person can defeat a larger, stronger, skillful person. By being more skillful, by being in good condition, by developing his/her body to its potential, etc. Helio, like most of the Gracies, is a small man. But no one would call him "a weak person." Sum Nung was a small man. But no one would call him "a weak person." Sum could knock folks across the room with his bong sao! Technique and attributes are not two different things -- they are really two sides of the same coin. WCK technique without power is like a gun without bullets.

Mental attitude is swell -- but it won't help you if the skills and attributes aren't there. And IME if the skills and attributes are there, the mental attitude will be as well -- because what it takes to develop those skills and attributes, fighting, will develop the mental attitude. Without that training, there will be no "attitude".

Terence

Ernie

07-27-2004, 07:24 AM

Interesting comments,
And as I said no right answers since you would have to be in that situation to really understand the severity of it.
Reminds me of a story Bruce wrote, something like if three different types of fighters watch the same fight, there view will be skewed by there particular approach.
The puncher will critique the punching and footwork evasive skill, the kicker the range and target and long distance tool, the wrestler would have only seen the chance for the clinch and the take down.

Here we se the technician looking and only seeing sloppy techniques
The chi sau person trying to relate this to chi sau experience, quantify it into the box
And then the seasoned guys that have been around, that know nothing is guarantied

All just elements of the whole

I wonder if you just looked from the outside in with your filter on
Or if you hand enough imagination to put yourself in the fog of war

Were if you hit an man with all you got, he just put his hands down and laughed at you
Were raw rage is like a tidal wave smashing down on you, drowning you in a sea of hits

Would you have the spirit to lift your head and look back and say is that all you got

This is a fight
Not a tan, or a pak or an horse, or your root, those are just things that may or may not come to play in a fight

Don’t think I’m going to drop some clever answer or even have a agenda, I just look at the heart of the problem and wonder if I would have enough heart to deal with, survive it.
Spend some time on the lonely island of uncertainty,
It’s like that feeling when your leaning over in a chair and it almost tips over when you’re floating in space just grasping into thin air…

Bill

2 chain saws, just to rid the world of silliness that much quicker

Matrix

07-27-2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
And IME if the skills and attributes are there, the mental attitude will be as well -- because what it takes to develop those skills and attributes, fighting, will develop the mental attitude. Terence,
I'm sure that is true in your experience. However, the world is full of people who have good skills who choke when they come under pressure.

Bill

t_niehoff

07-27-2004, 07:40 AM

Bill,

You can't separate technique, attributes, mental attitude, etc. into components because they are not -- it's the whole enchilada. Someone doesn't have "good skills" outside of using them, i.e., putting them into action; it is precisely being able to do it in a fighting environment that make them skilled (you can't be a skilled boxer who chokes in the ring as it is how well you do in the ring that determines whether or not you are a skilled boxer). The skills don't exist apart from the fighting environment.

Regards,

Terence

Nick Forrer

07-27-2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
"Size, strength, speed, etc. shouldn't matter." Get in there and prove it. Can you do it? Otherwise it does matter. And if you fight, you'll see they matter a great deal.

Depends on who you are and who you're fighting. I'm larger and stronger then my teacher, so how is it that he beats me everytime without breaking a sweat?

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Have sifu go take on Kimbo and prove he can do it beyond the safe environment of demos. Then he'll be worth listening to.

An argument stands or falls on its own merits- the person who makes it has nothing to do with its validity. Otherwise its just appeal to authority is it not? For example, If someone shows you how to form a bong sau and demonstrates in what situations you'd use it, but then subsequently gets knocked out by vanderlai silva (say) does that mean a bong sau is useless? Of course not. As Tony Ceccine says 'techniques dont fail, we, as people, fail to apply techniques correctly'. Of course a teacher who cant demonstrate what they do against a 'skilled resisting opponent' is cause for concern..I just think care has to be taken over what kind of inferences we draw from the data we have available.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
"Small, weak people like Yip Man." LOL! WCK isn't for weaklings -- weaklings can't fight.

When I say weak i mean if you were to put him on a bench press he wouldnt be grinding out ten reps with 300 pounds. As im sure you know, the strength in wing chun comes from structure (i.e. biomechanical alignment, power from the floor etc.), positioning (I like Gary Lam's analogy of car 1 crashing head on into the side of car 2, car 2 sustaining much greater damage than car 1) and relaxation, not from localised muscular exertion.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
A smaller, weaker (less strong) person can defeat a larger, stronger, skillful person.

Thank you, thats what i'm saying.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Helio, like most of the Gracies, is a small man. But no one would call him "a weak person."

This statement is profoundly point missing given the context of my original remark.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Sum Nung was a small man. But no one would call him "a weak person." Sum could knock folks across the room with his bong sao!

But he did it with wing chun structure/body mechanics - which dont come from pumping iron in the gym

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Technique and attributes are not two different things -- they are really two sides of the same coin. WCK technique without power is like a gun without bullets.

The power comes from the technique i.e. if your 'technique' or perhaps 'execution' is correct the power will follow naturally as a corollary

KingMonkey

07-27-2004, 07:54 AM

Ernie,

Your post has coaxed me out of my dormant state.

A few comments.
These guys were big and strong but the winner certainly was also a reasonable puncher with some body mechanics not just an 'arm puncher' as someone suggested.
His slip to the side off popeye's cross transitioning straight into the left mexican hook (the one that probably did the damage) was pretty sweet, depending on your perspective. Whoever said that (cant remember) re watch the clip and watch the winner's hip's torque with the punch.

To answer your question what would I do ?
Well if I managed to keep my bottle and I couldnt get out of there.......

Use range more, neither of these guys really did that, the stronger one didnt need to the other guy did.
I'd hang back and try and frustrate the big guy with destructions and leg shots using my (hopefully) better mobility and cardio to stay out of trouble and take some of the wind out of his sails. Initially he's going to have to come after me, I want to stay at a range where he has to move his feet before he try's to hit me and if I have to goad a little I will.
I'd look for an opportunity to quickly change the range to straight blast chain punches, then knees elbows range (definitely not hang around trading). I'd probably gamble that the guy hadnt done any ground fighting and that even my limited experience of BJJ would be a bit of an equalizer on the ground, so once I was in I'd hope the unorthodox nature of WC in fighting and my speed of punch delivery (which I used to work on an awful lot) would allow me to get in a lot of shots, if it was working and he wrapped me up, I'd be prepared to go to the ground.

My best chance will probably lie in having better cardio, going after a joint, knee/elbow or an elbow to the jaw throat.

On a more general note I think reality checks like this are useful but people should guard against an all or nothing mentality.
Yes you might meet a raging bull of a man that's spent his life brawling, has an 18" neck and high pain threshold if you're unlucky, or it might be some 140lb jerk off who's just split up with his girlfriend and had a few too many drinks and likes to watch Kung fu flicks.
My point, we should think about and prepare for these worst case scenarios but not deem ourselves failures or our training useless just because we might still not be able to match up to every possible opponent.
At the end of the day you can only do your best.

Ernie

07-27-2004, 08:07 AM

The King has spoken

ha ha

Great post King monkey

very much along my lines of thinking ,

the key is you have a adjustable plan , flow from one siutation to the next .

you looked at the guy sized possible strength and weakness

understood your strength and weakness

you individualized the situation , didn't try to be [ a wing chun man ] or a [ ground man ] or what ever

just a man dealing with another man

nice , very nice

fighting is a gamble , do your best to increase your odds

AdrianUK

07-27-2004, 08:08 AM

KingMonkey

I made the comment on arm punches, yeah the shot that did the damage was good, a lot of the others where arm punches, of the 2 the winner did look a lot more skilled to my non expert eye. As for 18inch necks, got one thanks ! maybe thats why these guys look a little less scary to me. As for tactics if I had to, try to close the eyes, use philipino gunting to hurt his hands, close in and shred him, not very WT/WC but my WT is not at the level to take on that sort of challenge, I would be more interested in the history of that fight (had the sound off, I am at work), seemed to be an organised fight, wonder how things would have looked if they had been mad at each other !

Regards to all
Adrian

Matrix

07-27-2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Bill,

You can't separate technique, attributes, mental attitude, etc. into components because they are not -- it's the whole enchilada. Someone doesn't have "good skills" outside of using them, i.e., putting them into action; it is precisely being able to do it in a fighting environment that make them skilled (you can't be a skilled boxer who chokes in the ring as it is how well you do in the ring that determines whether or not you are a skilled boxer). The skills don't exist apart from the fighting environment.

Regards,

Terence Terence, I absolutely agree. In fact, in a round-about way, that was the point I was trying to make. It seems to me that many folks do not necessarily see "the whole enchilada". They believe that because they have great footwork, strong kicks, powerful punches or whatever, that they can fight. I'm saying that it ain't necessarily so. Only under pressure can we know for sure. Victor, this is your cue.........

Regards,
Bill

AmanuJRY

07-27-2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
...the rage and taunting only serves to distract and scare the opponent (and the people watching)...which also means that fighting also requires focusing one's mind on one's OWN inner dialogue...DURING THE FIGHT...thereby shutting down the opponent's ability to scare and/or distract you.

You're right, shutting down the opponent's ability to scare/distract you is a must....but I would rather view it as focusing beyond such taunting and staying aware of what is going on outside my own mind. Too much internal focus and the needed awarness is diminished. But, like I said, focus past distraction, stay aware.

I didn't get to see the vid (bandwidth issues), but from your posts I get the picture that this guy(s) was a huge biznach. I find it interesting that no one has mentioned directlly, the fact that it isn't technique that's important....it's strategy (and spirit, of course). Many of you have posted your strategy in this situation, but did not recognize/qualify it as such.

Q: How much time do you spend studying/training/developing strategy?

We spend a lot of time with technique, and that is a major part of it, but without a good strategy, technique is just incomplete.

t_niehoff

07-27-2004, 09:07 AM

Depends on who you are and who you're fighting. I'm larger and stronger then my teacher, so how is it that he beats me everytime without breaking a sweat?

**Are you fighting him or doing chi sao? Could he beat Kimbo without breaking a sweat?

An argument stands or falls on its own merits- the person who makes it has nothing to do with its validity. Otherwise its just appeal to authority is it not? For example, If someone shows you how to form a bong sau and in what situations youd use it and then subsequently gets knocked out by vanderlai silva (say) does that mean a bong sau is useless? Of course not. As Tony Ceccine says 'techniques dont fail, we, as people, fail to apply techniques correctly'.

**Demonstration doesn't indicate skill because skill is being able to do it under fighting conditions (we are, after all, training a fighting art, not a demo art). Being able to do it in chi sao or drills or demos doesn't translate to being able to do it when fighting. And it is not an appeal to authority, just the opposite: I don't believe it because someone says so or can demo it, but rather I see it work for myself in a fighting environment (not necessarily every time but regularly). If someone says to use X a certain way and then can't do it, why should I listen to him? He may be completely wrong. If he says do Y and can actually do Y against skilled, resisting opponents, then I'll listen. And see whether I can make it work for me.

**Tony C. is wrong (or more likely, you have the context wrong). Calling something "technique" doesn't make it good or effective. Technique is a physical way of doing a certain thing. Just because someone comes up with an idea of how to do something doesn't make it particularly effective. We determine its effectiveness generally by whether other folks can use it successfully and its effectiveness in particular by whether or not I can use it successfully. Some things work against the unskilled or disadvantaged (less speed, less strength, etc.) but will fail miserably against the skilled (who take advantage of the mistake). Now "generally effective technique" can fail because of individual lack of skill or idiosyncracy but we know it is generally effective technique because others have proven it so (maybe I can't make the omoplata work but other in BJJ can).

When I say weak i mean if you were to put him on a bench press he wouldnt be grinding out ten reps with 300 pounds. As im sure you know, the strength in wing chun comes from structure (i.e. biomechanical alignment, power from the floor etc.), positioning (I like Gary Lam's analogy of car 1 crashing head on into the side of car 2, car 2 sustaining much greater damage than car 1) and relaxation, not from localised muscular exertion.

**Those things are involved, as they are in many fighting methods, but that's not the total picture by far. If you fight, you'll see that. There is a time and place for localized muscular exertion. Go fight some NHB/MMA folks and tell me you didn't use any localized muscular exertion. ;) You will. My objection to your posts is that they seem (and *if I'm misreading them, I apologize*) to adhere to the myth that WCK will make the 98-pound weakling an effective fighter. It won't. Nothing will. You can be 98 pounds but it better be a tough, conditioned, in shape, flexible, strong, highly-skilled 98 pounds. A 98-pound panther is fearsome; a 98-pound butterball turkey is delicious.

But he did it with wing chun structure/body mechanics - which dont come from pumping iron in the gym

**Of course body mechanics are involved. Power can and does come from body mechanics, and developing them to a high degree is essential (without them we have nothing). But there is more to fighting than just having good body mechanics (essential as they are). If you fight someone significantly larger than yourself you'll see what I mean.

The power comes from the technique i.e. if your 'technique' or perhaps 'execution' is correct the power will follow naturally as a corollary

**Yes. I focus, however, on producing results instead of "correctness". Too often we chase what we think is "correct" and never find results.

Regards,

Terence

Nick Forrer

07-27-2004, 09:24 AM

Hi Terence

Reading your response i feel any disagreement between us rests more on semantic nuances (definition of 'weak', 'fighting', 'chi sau' etc.) than on any substantial point. I would say, though, that our respective si gungs (Hawkins and WSL) and their teacher (Yip Man) were all small people who many would be assailants might consider to be a push over. However we both know other wise.

Again, to repeat, i'm not saying that size and strength aren't important in fighting, i'm saying that the higher your skill (in wing chun) the less important they become.

Ultimatewingchun

07-27-2004, 09:32 AM

AmanuJRY wrote:

"You're right, shutting down the opponent's ability to scare/distract you is a must....but I would rather view it as focusing beyond such taunting and staying aware of what is going on outside my own mind. Too much internal focus and the needed awarness is diminished. But, like I said, focus past distraction, stay aware."

Let me focus on one phrase in particular...

"TOO MUCH INTERNAL FOCUS AND THE NEEDED AWARENESS IS DIMINISHED".

Not so fast...there...grasshopper. I'm talking about an internal focus that concentrates exclusively on WHAT THE MAN IN FRONT OF ME IS DOING...on his movements...his stance...his rhythm...his elbows and knees...his speed...on exactly what he's throwing...etc.

I am commanding my mind through an internal dialogue (wherein my own voice is talking to my inner ear)...and it's saying things like:

"There's an opening...strike through it...there's an opening...kick him...he just overextended himself with that punch - take his flank and punch him/grab him/take him down/choke him, etc."

At such a rapid pace that eventually the voice disappears from the inner ear-shot...but the reactions and initiatives are still being performed by "my inner something" (the Spirit).

In this manner there is literally no room for his taunting and scare tactics to take hold - because I don't even hear what he's saying...and I'm not looking directly at his eyes or his facial expressions (which are meant to intimidate).

AmanuJRY

07-27-2004, 10:36 AM

I agree with this Victor, and suggest that we may be arguing semantics.

In my view, I would state it as focusing past, as opposed to focusing internally, just to communicate the idea that I am still aware of what is going on around me. Your statement is similar, I think we are just stressing different aspects of it.

t_niehoff

07-27-2004, 10:44 AM

Nick,

My main concern is that I think WCK is being -- or has been for the most part -- turned into a pseudo-intellectual, cultural relic, that's more closely akin to folk dancing than fighting (like tai ji has become). As I said in another post, martial arts without fighting is no longer martial arts. A major source of that is a number of myths surrounding TCMAs -- things not born out by experience (fighting) but by heresay, belief, tradition, etc. The more WCK goes that route, the more "nonfighters" (folks that don't want to fight in the first place) are attracted to it, and the more the downward spiral continues. Then all we get even more chi sao tournaments!

It's easy to say things like "WCK doesn't use force against force" and that attracts a certain group of people, but the reality is that's not true (WCK uses a smart force to overcome a dumb force, sometimes directly in opposition). Another is that WCK is designed for smaller, weaker folks. Again, that attracts people who interpret it as "works for the chronically unfit, weak, etc.", and that too isn't true. (BTW, I don't remember Yip or Sum using that to recruit students). If someone is trying to sell their art to people, they can only sell it to fighters by proving they can fight -- so if they can't fight, they need to find a way to sell it to nonfighters (a larger base, btw), and as experience has shown us, they do it by finding ways of making fighting sound easy (by saying you can learn to fight without fighting, with secrets, etc.). IMO, if someone is practicing WCK and not fighting or teaching WCK and not fighting, then they are directly contributing to the decline of WCK (besides having little skill). Regardless of what they think they are "preserving".

FWIW, that's also why I think a WCK tournament is a bad idea (I actually looked into having one a few years ago; most people wanted nothing to do with the idea. Only Phil Redmond and a few others showed any interest.). If we in WCK want to fight, we should get out there in front of others and do it with them. There are all kinds of venues. It's too easy to be a big fish in a small pond.

Regards,

Terence

Spark

07-27-2004, 10:45 AM

are you talking about a situation similar to this where i'm stuck in some backyard fight, or something life or death where this guy is gonna kick my a$$ no matter what.

If I had no outs I'd probably look to crack him in the nuts as hard as I could first chance I got.

Ultimatewingchun

07-27-2004, 10:47 AM

Hard to argue with this...

"I think a WCK tournament is a bad idea (I actually looked into having one a few years ago; most people wanted nothing to do with the idea. Only Phil Redmond and a few others showed any interest.). If we in WCK want to fight, we should get out there in front of others and do it with them. There are all kinds of venues. It's too easy to be a big fish in a small pond." (Terence)

But then again...you gotta start somewhere.

t_niehoff

07-27-2004, 10:53 AM

Victor,

There are NHB venues out there . . . some people on this board have fought in them. Or, just go to a local NHB/MMA gym and have some fun! To be honest and brutal, winning a WCK tournament would be like being first in the slow-progress class. ;)

Terence

OdderMensch

07-27-2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
beautiful ,

i love when people only see with knee jerk reactions

OdderMensch

Think about what? Will sloppy technique help in that situation?

---- no technique will help , this is about spirit , pressure , toughness mental and physical and luck

the fact that you even brought up technique sloppy or other wise tells me alot .-------------------

Sorry about the knee jerk reaction, I am normally much more careful in my postings, as I said I was in a rush for class and read the thread breifly.

It seemed to me at the time that you were discounting training WC in favor of body conditoining, I see conditioning as part of my WC training, training it is as important as training proper footwork, breathing, sensitivity, ect.

However; I bring up tecnique for a reason and I feel that reason is valid. A lot of my confedince in fighting comes from my training, my"faat" or technique IS important to me. Yet I know from my training that without the "gung" (or training, or unconsoius skill) my "faat" will be useless. But I am a student of WC, I am useing "faat" to develop "gung" with the little gung I have, I feel fairly confedint in most any hand to hand encounter.

Am I big eongh to take a soild hit from one of those guys?

----------- who said anything about big and strong , i asked if you are conditioned , do you know how to take a hit , have you been hit by that type of power , have experienced that type of range and kept your cool---------------------------------

Am I strong enough to out power them?

-------------- again strength , out power these seem to be your demons not mine , are you clever , seasoned enough that is the question ---------------------------------

Ah, I see. Well I do practice body conditoining, I do spar, and I have taken hits before. We even have a drill that teachs you to maintain an attack aftter being hit. As for seasoning that takes time and I'm spending it as best I can.

Fast enough to outrun or out hit one of those elephants in boxers?

---------- those elephants were very athletic , quick strong and confident , all those elephants have to do is step on a mouse :D

Oh I know, belive me I wasn't meaning to imply that those two were slow by any means. Hell, one of the reasons I started learning in the first place is because I am so **** slow running, I know I can't outrun people! :)

Do I know enough dirty tricks and makeshift weapons to overome that rage?

----------- i don't know do you ? are you confident your non dirty tricks will make any difference ?

I dont care.

------ then die .

I plan to :) but I hope I don't get beat to death :D

could your current shape , mind set , conditioning , training get you through this bad day

i don't know

i asked myself the same questions

so i just passed them to you

there is not right and wrong when your being honest with yourself

my answer will not be yours

put yourself infront of those guys and ask yourself , my god what am i going to do

Try like hell to not fight, then fight like hell.

There is a lot more to this thread then I can read/adress right now, so this post is incomplete, but I will post more later.

lawrenceofidaho

07-27-2004, 11:10 AM

Great thread, Ernie, and many great comments as well.......

In addition to the questions of; physical attributes, skill level, aggression, awareness, etc. -I really think it's critical to have the Belief that the situation can be successfully dealt with.

I'd like to differentiate between;

1) Making an objective & rational observation (based on facts and reasonable probablities)

2) "Believing" that something can be done, -by being able to positively visualize a desired outcome so that you are not paralyzed by fear and actually able to take SOME kind of action (which will at least give you a chance).

If I'm in a cage facing Sakuraba or Frank Shamrock, I realize (rationally) that the chances I could beat either of them are very, very low, but if I don't BELIEVE I could beat them, I would probably have zero chance....... :(

Objective observation would mean realistically assessing your strengths and weakness so that you can intelligently plan your training to improve what you're doing, -while Belief would be what you need when (I like how Victor put it) "your number is called".

-Lawrence

sihing

07-27-2004, 11:41 AM

Quote: Lawerenceofidaho
"If I'm in a cage facing Sakuraba or Frank Shamrock, I realize (rationally) that the chances I could beat either of them are very, very low, but if I don't BELIEVE I could beat them, I would probably have zero chance......."

The thing that doesn't scare me about these guys is they would probably not kill me for no reason. The fear factor in the tape for me was the fact that I have no idea what these monsters are thinking, what drug they may be on or not or what mental state they may or may not be in. Unpredictability is a scarry thing.

I remember the butterflies when just doing a running event at track meets in high school, now just up the annty a bit when one enters a fighting event like UFC and imagine what happens then to the old nerves. Personally I have never liked the realities of combat, even watching the street fights always gave me that unnerving feeling, but that doesn't mean if it comes down to having no choice but to participate I wouldn't. If there was no choice then at the least I know I do know something about combat, and that the words "no chance" are never the reality. All of us always have a chance to succeed in situations like this.

Sihing

AmanuJRY

07-27-2004, 11:44 AM

This is where your warrior spirit comes in.

You must have COMPLETE resolve, and be able to operate with little to no knowledge on what your opponent may or may not know or think.

YongChun

07-27-2004, 03:45 PM

I think watching this kind of thing every once in awhile is good to keep some sense of reality to our idea about what Wing Chun is for. Of course there are many other kinds of realities like 10 Filipino's with Machete's against one but even this kind of fight is hard enough.

If I had more punching power than those guys and was at least as big then those guys wouldn't bother me. But having less punching power and being smaller and older is definitely a factor which makes winning very difficult. If those guys were better boxers or also kickers, dirty technicians etc. it would be even more difficult.

When I train I never think that I am trying to beat up some tough guy in class. That's setting my sights too low although it is a first step. For me I imagine the opponents to be guys like in this video, Mike Tyson, Hulk Hogan (guys like that), Chris Dolman, Jon Bluming etc.

In school if you aim to get a pass (50%). Then surely you will fail. If you aim to get 100% then you might just get an 80%. So setting your goals too low in class will result in an under achievement for sure. So for me Ernie's excellent post is to make sure we set our goals high enough.

This video also brings back the idea of keeping one's art simple because for sure, complex techniques just aren't going to work. Number one you need something to take out a guy like in the video. If he were a rush in grappler who could also punch then can you evade forever or have you got a takeout move(s)? If you are small then you better be fast, be able to hit hard, be accurate and never let the large guy catch you. Fast footwork is pretty important. If cornered then maybe fast twisting and head dodging is required.

I don't know if sparring with people that aren't trying to take your head off will help to prepare for people that are. But if you spar that way then sooner or later your sparring partner will take it off for sure. So that's not too productive either.

I think normal Wing Chun training is still good as long as it's kept simple to the bare basics. I think having many levels of achievement and hundreds of counters to everything is not that useful in real fighting and is sort of a Kenpo Karate approach.

Some people say Wing Chun is no good. To me Wing Chun is just like a list of good recommendations for fighting and that's all. The rest is training, sparring, fighting until the concepts sink in and can be applied. Not everyone wants to be too realistic and of course then the results will be less.

With the recommendations idea then you can discuss the idea that Wing Chun is no good a little more rationally. Which recommendations are no good? To be efficient, to be relaxed, to hit with power, to not use force against force etc.?

If the guy who lost had Wing Chun training I don't think that would have decreased his chances any. For the small guy I think my Hung style teacher's thoughts apply. When I asked him about a smaller lady realistically being able to handle a fight against a larger guy, he said it's possible but she would have to have ten times the skill of the man.

So as Emin said it's not the years of training but the number of hours of (correct or useful) training put into those years.

For me I would treat that video fight the same as someone swinging a baseball bat at me or a faster Escrima stick. It's all in the distancing and timing to move in at the right time. With the size of that guy maybe punches or chops don't work and only clawing the eyes out will. Of course he can do that to but at least both parties will have more of an equal chance in a fight like that than for a smaller (non fighter) guy to knock out a larger aggressive guy with a punch.

Then there is always the idea that we definitely have limits but from all the strange news stories we also always have a chance. If you feel you don't have a chance then definitely you won't.

Ernie

07-27-2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by YongChun
In school if you aim to get a pass (50%). Then surely you will fail. If you aim to get 100% then you might just get an 80%. So setting your goals too low in class will result in an under achievement for sure. So for me Ernie's excellent post is to make sure we set our goals high enough.

Exactly
You see it is very easy for an intelligent person to be on the outside and think a situation through, and I do find that most wing chun people have an above average level of intelligence [myself excluded I’m an idiot].

Problem is intelligence can also be your down fall, since you can see point [A] though point [Z] and summarize all that is in-between there is no need to experience it.
This is not the case, it’s the sh*t that happens during the process of A-Z that makes you get honest real quick and makes you grow as an individual.

People are funny and wing Chun people even funnier, since we like things to add up and fit everything into a nice logical box. Problem is when you are confronted by a very illogical situation suddenly your universe comes crashing in.

My universe has imploded and will many times again and again.

In training this is a good thing in real life this is a bad thing

Now I don’t have the magic pill to solve the problem of dealing with reality and the shock and awe of the fog of war

And I wouldn’t believe any one that said they did.

It must be an individual journey

This video clip was an image right out of my mind, they type of person I see In my head, not the face or body type but the level of rage and street seasoning, real street warriors not weekend pretend dudes or hyped up jocks.

Could be a fat old biker in a bar that id just hardened and will take all you can hit him with because he knows he can drop you in one. Or some big farm kid that has been lifting heavy stuff all his life and is just **** strong and conditioned by the elements

Or some skinny street kid that survived by beating up big dudes all his life,

Shapes and forms my vary, but killer instinct has a certain universal element to it.

I wonder how many of us cultivate that instinct, which knows

Just wanted to make us all think as a whole, and wonder as a whole

Great responses guys

KenWingJitsu

07-27-2004, 06:01 PM

To me Wing Chun is just like a list of good recommendations for fighting and that's all. The rest is training, sparring, fighting until the concepts sink in and can be applied.

*sigh*. I feel happy. They are out there......

Ernie

07-27-2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
*sigh*. I feel happy. They are out there......

no you can sleep better at night :D

hey bro

family stuff came up so i didn't have a chance and i won't have a chance to get a work out in before this weekend

i really want to thank you for being down :D

and if you talk to andrew thank him as well and i promise we will all hang soon the following weekend i got a instructor from the uk coming to stay at my pad he wants get some work in with me over the weekend

maybe we can all hang and get a work out in .

peace

Phil Redmond

07-27-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Nick,

My main concern is that I think WCK is being -- or has been for the most part -- turned into a pseudo-intellectual, cultural relic, that's more closely akin to folk dancing than fighting (like tai ji has become). As I said in another post, martial arts without fighting is no longer martial arts. A major source of that is a number of myths surrounding TCMAs -- things not born out by experience (fighting) but by heresay, belief, tradition, etc. The more WCK goes that route, the more "nonfighters" (folks that don't want to fight in the first place) are attracted to it, and the more the downward spiral continues. Then all we get even more chi sao tournaments!. . . . . . .
Terence
That's about the best description of WC that I've heard. When I was in NYC only a few schools got respect from the MA community at large. I'm tired of the chuckles and smirks coming from other "real" MAs when I mention that I do WC. Our rep as a fighting art needs to be worked on.

Ernie

07-27-2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
That's about the best description of WC that I've heard. When I was in NYC only a few schools got respect from the MA community at large. I'm tired of the chuckles and smirks coming from other "real" MAs when I mention that I do WC. Our rep as a fighting art needs to be worked on.

agreed ,
now were would you begin ?

i'm working on a program that will make the transition from the training system to full contact street oriented training
gary has given me a green light to take some of the guys from school and expose them to this

it's a experiment , i will be bringing in pro level boxers and k-1 guys as well ground guys to work off after about 6 months of prep work , conditioning and education on how to train at that level without getting wrecked

lets see if they hang :D

CFT

07-28-2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
lets see if they hang :D What? From the gallows? Only joking ... :D

Seriously though, that sounds like an awesome programme. If it works out, you'll produce some very scary people.

I'm sure we'd all like to hear progress reports and lessons learned if you can spare the time.

Ultimatewingchun

07-28-2004, 06:02 AM

About this...

"My main concern is that I think WCK is being -- or has been for the most part -- turned into a pseudo-intellectual, cultural relic, that's more closely akin to folk dancing than fighting (like tai ji has become). As I said in another post, martial arts without fighting is no longer martial arts. A major source of that is a number of myths surrounding TCMAs -- things not born out by experience (fighting) but by heresay, belief, tradition, etc. The more WCK goes that route, the more "nonfighters" (folks that don't want to fight in the first place) are attracted to it, and the more the downward spiral continues. Then all we get even more chi sao tournaments!. . . . . . ."
Terence

Because Terence is SO RIGHT about this...is exactly the reason why I'm advocating an annual tournament.

With absolutely NO CHI SAO going on...the one and only event would be the full contact fighting that I described. I believe this is the way to rescue Wing Chun from the downward spiral that Terence describes.

As Phil said..."our rep as a fighting art needs to be worked on."

And as I'm sure there will those who'll say they don't care about any such rep...the fact is - there are many of us who do care...and it is to this latter group that I am making my appeal. I'm sure Phil Redmond would join me in trying to organize such a tournament...and I'm wondering who else might be interested in organizing and/or participating?

t_niehoff

07-28-2004, 06:13 AM

Hi Ernie,

Where to begin?

IMO at the beginning . . . with one's very reason for training in WCK. Are you training because you want to fight (and like fighting) or because you don't want to fight (and want to avoid fighting)? Why does BJJ, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, kyokishinkai, MMA, etc. produce fighters while TCMAs (for the most part), Aikido, etc. doesn't? Because in the former you have fighters (people who have actually fought and in many cases continue to fight) training people who want to be fighters. In the latter, you have nonfighters training people to be nonfighters (who then teach a next generation of nonfighters and so on). And that's when all the BS starts. I overheard a MMA fighter once being asked what he thought of "kung fu" and he replied that it was all BS. He's right. It has become mostly BS. WCK is mostly BS. The more you move away from fighting (which filters out the BS), the more BS you naturally get. If you are a nonfighter "practicing" a MA, then you are just contributing to the BS.

How do you tell whether something is an apple tree or not? By whether it produces apples. A person can look around him for the apples -- if they don't see them, then they are getting BS, regardless of their lineage, the "name" of their sifu, etc. Just imagine going to a swimming school and never seeing anyone getting into the pool. That should tell you everything, and it will if your desire is to really learn to swim (you want to get in that water). If you don't like the water, are afraid of the water, don't want to do the hard exercise to really swim, etc., but like to think of yourself "a swimmer" ("should it be necessary" -- LOL! doesn't that reveal all?), then you'll find self-convincing reasons to stay on dry land (sifu says "you can learn to swim on dry land . . .I have the secret." Only sifu has never swam a lap in his life.). Perhaps even have "mock swimming" contests to further convince themselves of how they could swim should the need arise. And, of course, the arguments start over who has "the best" BS.

If someone wants to train to fight, they don't need to reinvent the wheel -- the training methodology already exists. All fighters use it in one form or another (though it has been tweaked in recent times): conditioning, technique, drills, fighting. WCK also traditionally (in the past) used that approach. But when nonfighters got hold of WCK, they dropped the conditioning aspects (since if you don't fight you don't need it) and the fighting aspects so that the focus became technique (but nonfighters like to call everything concepts since that sounds more advanced) and drills (which became, not surprisingly, "combat-ready" drills). So to me, it doesn't matter if you adopt the "3I approach", use a lot of isolated sparring, whatever . . . I think the important thing is that one is actually fighting as part of their training. If they do that, they'll experiment and determine for themselves what training regimen works best for them (as individuals). What's important is doing it -- fighting as part of your training. Then the clouds will part, the sun will shine through, the fog of BS will begin to lift, and things will become clearer.

BTW, to all those that have practiced WCK for years and never fought -- am I saying you have wasted your time? No. You've done some of the prep work. The question for you is: do you want to remain safe on the side of the pool (in the nest as it were) or take the plunge and learn to swim? The plunge will be painful, frustrating, ego-shocking, demoralizing but it will also lead to real rewards, genuine empowerment, fulfilling accomplishments, and actual fighitng skill.

Regards,

Terence

Ultimatewingchun

07-28-2004, 06:32 AM

And here's another great advertisement and motivation for an annual wing chun tournament that only features full contact fighting:

"BTW, to all those that have practiced WCK for years and never fought -- am I saying you have wasted your time? No. You've done some of the prep work. The question for you is: do you want to remain safe on the side of the pool (in the nest as it were) or take the plunge and learn to swim? The plunge will be painful, frustrating, ego-shocking, demoralizing but it will also lead to real rewards, genuine empowerment, fulfilling accomplishments, and actual fighitng skill." (Terence)

As to the rest of his latest post...it is all B.S. if you're not sparring/fighting with real contact.

07-28-2004, 09:05 AM

Terence, that was perhaps the most succinct summary of your position and logic that I have yet seen. If it weren't for differing perspectives in the underlying premises of your argument and the continued omission of numerous relevant and contextual matters (given, issues that don't personally interest or concern you), even I would find your conclusion quite convincing. Kudos on a well stated position and, as always, your art and skill in presenting it.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
The question for you is: do you want to remain safe on the side of the pool (in the nest as it were) or take the plunge and learn to swim? The plunge will be painful, frustrating, ego-shocking, demoralizing but it will also lead to real rewards, genuine empowerment, fulfilling accomplishments, and actual fighitng skill.

Another good piece of logic flow and a valid challenge.

By the narrow definition offered (and there are of course other definitions), fate allowing, I for one am quite content to stay in the safer areas of the pool (or ocean currents? so many possible metaphors ...), by way of applying more measured methods of learning and progression, and calculating and recalculating the risks and benefits each step of the way. I'm less interested in drowning, unnecessarily breaking my neck, or offering myself as willing victim to the undertow.

Nagging ambiguities of what constitutes "real fighting skills" and "plunges" aside, bold and persistent wading into deeper and deeper waters is also painful, frustrating, ego-shocking, demoralizing, and also leads some to real rewards, genuine empowerment, and fulfilling accomplishments; such experiences and continued fulfillment are not in the sole purview of people who electively fight.

I recognize and appreciate your clear admonishment that most of us are indeed guilty of contributing to the demise of Wing Chun. For those who love the art - in whatever light and for whatever reasons - it is indeed a good reminder, a bold challenge, and something worthy of serious and continuous introspection. I would only add that no one, including "real fighters" (by anyone's definition), is exempt from contributing to the demise of Wing Chun, each person in their respective, various, and humanly flawed ways. By definition, I must agree that you, I and everyone here in some way damages Wing Chun, however inadvertently. Ironically then, it may be better for Wing Chun if many of us loved it less. Still, the stubborn optimist in me suggests that we each also have an opportunity to contribute something, and likely not the exact same thing or in same degrees for all of us. To hope for Wing Chun to be preserved through any one person or any single "type" of person is optimistic at best, misguided at worst, IMHO. Collective wisdom, while no more consummate or integral than individual wisdom, also has its utility in the larger scheme of things.

BTW, to all those that have practiced WCK for years and never fought -- am I saying you have wasted your time? No. You've done some of the prep work.

Yes. :)

Thanks once more for sharing something of your ideal and model of Wing Chun with those of us reading here. My incessant nit-picking is a function of both contemplating and benefiting from your and others' experiences and considered views.

Regards,
- kj

Ultimatewingchun

07-28-2004, 09:37 AM

kj, Terence, everyone...

Again - an annual event where people are prepared to "take the plunge into the water" would go a long way toward righting the Wing Chun ship.

(and to date...I'm amazed at how few people seem to be interested in this.)

t_niehoff

07-28-2004, 10:09 AM

KJ,

By the narrow definition offered (and there are of course other definitions), fate allowing, I for one am quite content to stay in the safer areas of the pool (or ocean currents? so many possible metaphors ...), by way of applying more measured methods of learning and progression, and calculating and recalculating the risks and benefits each step of the way. I'm less interested in drowning, unnecessarily breaking my neck, or offering myself as willing victim to the undertow.

**"Narrow definition"? Do you think WCK is a kuen faat (fist or fighting method) or not? If so, then its purpose and ours in practicing it, is to develop good fighting skills. You reference "learning and progression" but how do you measure progress -- to see if you are genuinely progressing in your fightng skills or merely thinking you are -- if not by fighting? You can't tell if you are making progress toward being an able swimmer without ever getting into the water. Fighting skill (skill in WCK) is skill in fighting -- actual fighting -- not skill in drills, including chi sao, or skill in a hypothetical reality (I think I could do this in a fight). And it's not a case of risk-benefit, it is rather that there are somethings you absolutely must do to develop good fighting skills. You absolutely must get into the water to learn to become a good swimmer. There is no other way. None. Nada. Zilch.

Nagging ambiguities of what constitutes "real fighting skills" and "plunges" aside,

**Ambiguities exist for you because you don't fight. Fighting will resolve very quickly for you any ambiguity of what "real fighting skills" are. Swimmers know what "real swimming skills are"; it's the folks that never get in the water but think they know what swimmming is like that have ambiguous ideas of "swimming skills."

bold and persistent wading into deeper and deeper waters is also painful, frustrating, ego-shocking, demoralizing, and also leads some to real rewards, genuine empowerment, and fulfilling accomplishments; such experiences and continued fulfillment are not in the sole purview of people who electively fight.

**Yes, they are. Because this is a fighting method. Who would say that never getting into the water would somehow lead someone to accomplishment, that they have experienced the rewards of swimming, or the empowerment that comes with being able to traverse a body of water? The guys on the edge of the pool get none of that.

I recognize and appreciate your clear admonishment that most of us are indeed guilty of contributing to the demise of Wing Chun. For those who love the art - in whatever light and for whatever reasons - it is indeed a good reminder, a bold challenge, and something worthy of serious and continuous introspection. I would only add that no one, including "real fighters" (by anyone's definition), is exempt from contributing to the demise of Wing Chun, each person in their respective, various, and humanly flawed ways.

**There are a lot of flawed characters in boxing -- but boxing lives because they box (fight). Not because they do drills or talk about the theory of boxing or pretend to box or preserve lineages of boxing or demonstrate how they would box should they ever needed to.

By definition, I must agree that you, I and everyone here in some way damages Wing Chun, however inadvertently. Ironically then, it may be better for Wing Chun if many of us loved it less. Still, the stubborn optimist in me suggests that we each also have an opportunity to contribute something, and likely not the exact same thing or in same degrees for all of us. To hope for Wing Chun to be preserved through any one person or any single "type" of person is optimistic at best, misguided at worst, IMHO. Collective wisdom, while no more consummate or integral than individual wisdom, also has its utility in the larger scheme of things.

**No one person preserves boxing or muay thai or BJJ or any other fighting art. It is rather the collective whole of persons that practice the art and keep it alive. They "practice" it by fighting since those are fighting arts. WCK is not the forms, not in the drills, it is in the application (fighting). If you can't apply it, i.e., fight, you have nothing. The forms and drills are a means to an end, an approach to produce a result, not the end itself. You can have all the dry-land forms and drills but if you can't get into the pool and swim, what have you gotten out of your swimming classes? Nothing.

Regards,

Terence

Zhuge Liang

07-28-2004, 10:39 AM

Hi Terrence,

Do you think WCK is a kuen faat (fist or fighting method) or not?

yes

If so, then its purpose and ours in practicing it, is to develop good fighting skills.

for you maybe, not neccessarily for everyone. WCK has a design, yes, and I agree that it was designed as a training system for people to learn how to fight. But it is up to the individual to define their own purpose in training. Your purpose is to use WCK for fighting. Someone else's purpose may be something else. And yet another person's purpose may be a combination of fighting AND something else. You may think that everyone's purpose for WCK should be for fighting, but that's only your opinion, and opinions are like a$$holes. You may also think that those people who don't use WCK soley for fighting may be wasting their time, gaining "nothing", and are the ones to blame for the slow demise of WCK, but those are again, only your opinions. But you are obviously free to voice them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on the whole, and I do believe that for me to grow in the direction I wish to grow, I have to incorporate "fighting" into my training routine. I just don't see a need to presume that my purpose in training should be the same for everyone else's.

Regards,
Alan

PaulH

07-28-2004, 12:02 PM

"Confidence, like art, never comes from having all the answers; it comes from being open to all the questions. - Diogenes Laertius"

We should not quarrel too much over differences in individual approaches. They are just questions for you to solve in WCK learning/training. "Maintain your space and keep your focus" =)

Regards,
PH

t_niehoff

07-28-2004, 12:02 PM

I'm sorry, Alan, but I don't understand why someone would take swimming lessons, admitting that they are studying a swimming method, but then in the same breath suggest that they have goals that don't include becoming a better swimmer (and thus may not get into the water). Do they take sky-diving lessons to not sky-dive? Or skiing lessons but never get out on the slopes? What is the point? If that's the case, can't they get these nonswimming benefits better in some other way? And do they expect to be taken seriously when they give an opinion on swimming or methods of teaching swimming (when they've never gotten in a pool)?

Terence

07-28-2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
WCK is not the forms, not in the drills, it is in the application (fighting).

Ah, thanks for pointing out the rub. I do not agree that Wing Chun is fighting. Only fighting is fighting, Wing Chun or no. I furthermore believe that Wing Chun comprises a continuum of development, regardless if the practice actually manifests in a fight.

I do agree that the conjunction of Wing Chun and fighting will be strengthened provided that one exercises both simultaneously. I'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise. ;):D

The catch is, I think it is a huge presumption that one will stick unremittingly with Wing Chun when one's primary aim of the moment is to win a fight (your term) or immediate survival (my term). It's a paradoxical but not unusual rub between ideals and the real, so to speak.

To put it another way, when I hear tell of this Wing Chun person or that who was in such and such fights, I am still left to wonder to what degree Wing Chun in particular was a prevailing factor vs. a myriad of other factors involving the individual and their other experiences in martial arts, training, or life more generally. I'm not looking for any definitive answer on this, as I don't believe there is one.

Among those who've born out my perspective on this are several of the self-proclaimed fighters among us and who, based on their own experiences, consistently mock the notion of limiting oneself to Wing Chun in an altercation - sporting or otherwise. While I personally view Wing Chun as something more empowering than limiting, I have to agree with them that in any "real" fight (at least by my definition of what that means), I wouldn't put my money on much of anyone staying fully with Wing Chun and its ideals. At best, a person may manifest the expression of Wing Chun in greater or lesser degrees, and thus necessarily as only some fraction of the whole picture.

The forms and drills are a means to an end, an approach to produce a result, not the end itself.

Why sure! At least in one sense, that's what I've been saying, LOL. Wing Chun to me is not fighting. Wing Chun is indeed a means to an end, yet it is not the same thing as that end. It is an integrated set of principles, concepts, and training methodology, which manifests in the tangible realm only through physical practice by otherwise complex and infinitely variable human beings.

I also agree that the primary purpose and focus of Wing Chun principles and training is to develop skills for effective use in fighting. Yet I am unwilling to concede that as the sole purpose or benefit of Wing Chun, any more than I would say the only legitimate purpose and benefit to be gained from swimming is to get to the other side of the pool.

On the question of whether or not Wing Chun can or should be truly an end unto itself, my inclination is that "it can be, but it shouldn't be." However, I admit there are some intricacies of this one that still leave me contemplating and not 100% certain.

We've been round this block enough times for me to recognize that we're verging on another go round of "yes, but you can't know for sure if the practice is appropriate to fighting unless you actually fight with it," and me arguing in favor of "strong evidence" vs. "proof" and the variant meanings of "approach." So unless somehow my saying "you're right" would be truly useful and satisfying in some way, let's just concede stalemate on those same old issues again, and thanks for the opportunity of exchange and expression. Here's hoping some of the other readers are having fun playing out their arguments and perspectives along with us.

Regards,
- kj

Zhuge Liang

07-28-2004, 12:41 PM

Hi Terence,

I'm sorry, Alan, but I don't understand why someone would take swimming lessons, admitting that they are studying a swimming method, but then in the same breath suggest that they have goals that don't include becoming a better swimmer (and thus may not get into the water).

I probably wouldn't understand either, but it's not up to me to define what that person's goals should be. Maybe he just likes the smell of chlorine? Whatever floats his boat...

What is the point? If that's the case, can't they get these nonswimming benefits better in some other way?

I believe this is the crux of the matter. What do you mean by "better"? Better for who? Better by what measure? Yes, they can probably get the non-swimming benefits some other way, but they chose to get them through swimming. For them, swimming provides the best mix of these other benefits AND that of swimming.

Going back to WCK, I use it as a vehicle for self exploration. Yes I can probably do that through other vehicles, such as painting, writing, music, meditation, running, swimming, etc., etc., etc. But I choose martial arts because as a package, it fits me. I enjoy it. Although I agree that fighting is a very important part of it for me, by no means is it the only important part. For you it may be the only relavant part. For someone else, it may not matter to them at all. For one reason or another, we chose to do martial arts because we are getting what we want out of it. If we weren't, or if we think we can get it better from some other venue, we'd probably be doing something else.

And do they expect to be taken seriously when they give an opinion on swimming or methods of teaching swimming (when they've never gotten in a pool)?

Unfortunately, some people do. But I'm not concerned with them. For the general case, who's taken seriously depends on who's doing the talking and who's doing the listening. If you have your "fighting is the only relevant thing" filter on, then everything not fighting related is going to sound like crap. If you are interested in stuff other than fighting, then you might pick up some gems in non-fighting related discussions. But if those things don't matter to you, of course that is fine too. Just leave the discussions to those who care about it.

Thanks for the dialog,

Regards,
Alan

t_niehoff

07-28-2004, 12:47 PM

I'm not saying fighting skill is the only benefit from WCK or BJJ or boxing -- certainly there are others. But the main purpose of those methods is to make one a better fighter: by developing fighting skills and attributes. There are other ways besides fighting to develop or indulge in things besides fighting skills, but if you divorce a fighting method of fighting, you've turned it into a cultural relic akin to folk dancing. WCK, BJJ, and boxing all have techniques, principles, strategies, etc. But skill in any of them is determined solely in the application, in the performance, in the fighting. No fighting, no skill. You don't even need to see it -- if a boxing gym claims to teaching boxing but there is no sparring, if a muay thai gym claims to teach muay thai but they don't spar, if a BJJ school claims to teach BJJ but they don't roll, they can only be crap. Ah, but WCK is different. ;)

Terence

07-28-2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I'm not saying fighting skill is the only benefit from WCK or BJJ or boxing -- certainly there are others. But the main purpose of those methods is to make one a better fighter: by developing fighting skills and attributes. There are other ways besides fighting to develop or indulge in things besides fighting skills, but if you divorce a fighting method of fighting, you've turned it into a cultural relic akin to folk dancing. WCK, BJJ, and boxing all have techniques, principles, strategies, etc. But skill in any of them is determined solely in the application, in the performance, in the fighting. No fighting, no skill. You don't even need to see it -- if a boxing gym claims to teaching boxing but there is no sparring, if a muay thai gym claims to teach muay thai but they don't spar, if a BJJ school claims to teach BJJ but they don't roll, they can only be crap. Ah, but WCK is different. ;)

Terence

You're right. And if life were truly as simple and one dimensional as the argument set forth, everyone else would be wrong.

Regards,
- kj

sihing

07-28-2004, 01:26 PM

Terence,
I don't think people on this forum are saying that you "only" have to do form, practice in the air and understand theory and you will be a supreme fighter/MA. There has to be some form of random play somewhere in the training, otherwise one will never be able to react to the opponent that never may come. WC is a partner system in that one needs to have another to train with if any sort of skill is to be gained. My argument has always been how much more of the type of training that you are recommending is required, AFTER one has already gone through it all and developed the skills. By going through it all I mean all the sparring, two person drills, fighting and such. My belief is that once the skill is obtained then one can "ease" off on the intensity levels of their training, that is if they choose to. If they thoroughly enjoy that type of training, then great, but not everyone likes to receive punishment or that type of high intense training on a daily or weekly basis. When you mention arts like Boxing and Thai boxing, I believe these arts require more intense levels of training just for that fact that these arts are based on more physical attributes like speed, strength and stamina, to make them work effectively. WC and also IMO BJJ probably do not require as much physical attribute training like speed work or strength work, because these arts are more based on skill attributes which mean timing, distancing, sensitivity and things of this nature. IMO these types of attributes deteriorate much slower and are much more easy to maintain (once the skills are learned) if one where to ease off on the training regimen, as compared to physical attribute based arts. Of course if one was competing professionally, like in UFC or pride type tourneys then they would have to keep up the training regimen, they are professionals dealing with other professionals. When the skills are equal then whoever has the strength or speed advantage will have a edge.....But since most of us are not pro's and the odds of meeting a pro on the street are very low, I do not find it unacceptable for those that choose not to spar as much or not at all.

Sihing

t_niehoff

07-28-2004, 01:28 PM

I'm tired of the old "yours is true for you, and mine is true for me" arguments. I guess we've all gotten so socially, morally tolerant that we hesitate to confront the fact that if what you say contradicts what I say, then we both can't be speaking the truth. The great thing about martial arts -- or any activity where we actually do something -- is we can test to see which is true. As soon as performance becomes the goal, we can test it. You absolutely do need to get into the water to become a good swimmer. You can test that. You can test whether or not you need to fight to become a better fighter. It has, in fact, been tested since time immemorial. All good fighters do it. The evidence is there. You can test it for yourself. But for whatever reason, cognitive dissonance or blind faith, folks don't want to see it.

Yes, KJ, you are wrong if you think you can develop good fighting (WCK) skills without fighting. Anyone who feels the same way as you is wrong. It is that simple. But that's not "everyone" as you suggest -- the fighters all agree with me (and they practice what they preach), Anyone who thinks differently can easily test their belief and see for themselves. You see that's the difference between our positions -- mine is substantiated by proof, yours rests on conjecture and belief. For me, it is important that I not lie to myself about what I can or cannot do. I don't think that's healthy.

Terence

YongChun

07-28-2004, 02:21 PM

I think many people like to learn to defend themselves but within the constraints that in so doing they don't get injured worse then the event they are training for. The more realistic the sparring the greater the risk of serious injury.

Some people would say to wear protection but then it's no longer realistic and so defeats the idea of being more realistic. Knife fighting practice with a short wooden dowel or rubber knife just isn't the same as fighting with a very sharp and pointed blade. The risks you take and the techniques you develop are totally different.

One of our female members was always in favor of getting fighting experience until she went to Japan sparred with the wrong guy and got her face re-adjusted with a broken nose from an angry well placed elbow. After that she gave up martial arts forever. Before that it was her passion.

During my Karate days I met some other very good passionate martial artists that I admired. One got his sternum broken by a well placed back kick in a friendly sparring match. He dropped out of martial arts forever. The other got hit in the back of his neck and has never been the same since. He of course also gave up martial arts forever. Before that , their art was beautiful sight to behold.

I have read that in Tai Chi in the early part of this century (Southern China) broken arms, broken noses, broken knees and split lips and the occasional death were common in Tai Chi. Yet some people could see there was great Health value in Tai Chi as an exercise art. So a movement was started to try and introduce Tai Chi for the masses as a means for Health and not injury. That resulted in todays form and pushing hands practice wherein many more people will partake of it and yet the few that want to do hardcore martial arts can find a way to make that work as well. I think Aikido took the same road. Now millions can partake of it, most are not fighters and could care less yet for those who want to fight the essence is still there to reinvent, to train that and to fight.

I think for many Wing Chun people like 70+ year old Yip Chun for example, they enjoy many of the aspects of Wing Chun and feel it is something they can enjoy for a lifetime no matter how old they get. I doubt he can enter any ulitmate fighting competition but I don't doubt that he has generated some people who can fight.

I think even for real fighting 100% Chi sau training can be useful as it can involve hitting sweeping, locking, engaging or anything a clever mind could imagine. The beauty of it is that Chi sau can be a continuous spectrum of evolution which can take one on a path from complete mildness to complete fury within whatever timeframe one desires.

Real fighting is a matter of the mind. Women with no fighting experience have successfully defended themselves without the benefit of any martial arts training. So the same mentality combined with recreational martial arts training would work as well.

For most, we have families, we have to go to work the next day. We cannot afford to lose our jobs, to have our faces disfigured or to have some permanent crippling injuries. Real fighting is great until you get injured. Many injuries take months and even years to heal if ever they heal. That's why some very competitive fighters have changed from kickboxing and Judo to Tai Chi, to Aikido and to Wing Chun. With these arts there is the possibility of training with minimal injury. There is an aspect of control. This is a big plus. In many Kung Fu styles you cannot have a slow controlled fight, it just doesn't make sense to throw a slow hooking swing that at speed would take someone's head off. So instead those artists resort to form work and more form work and are considered by outsiders as being useless for the real fight.

Today the reality of fighting is the handgun. Anyone serious about self defense carries one of those. That is what caused the demise of Chinese Kung Fu. It was the invention of the gun.

I see Wing Chun as an art that can be studied for a lifetime. It can provide a lifetime of joy, physical exercise, socializing, and source for much fertile thought (that's why we are all on this newsgroup - certainly we don't get better by just talking). If Wing Chun were just about going into a gym to have realistic fighting matches then I doubt there would be much difference between that and kickboxing or modern mixed martial arts. Most likely the whole art would die.

Sometimes I think that those who wonder how to make Wing Chun work against treal fighters should just forget Wing Chun and adopt whatever people say are the proven training methods and techniques (Thai boxing, boxing, Gracie Jujitsu, mixed martial arts). Why reinvent all this.

As civilization evolves people are less likely to desire the type of Gladiatorial events and training that we had in the past. Those were as real as your ever going to get.

In China these have been people who have done Wu Shu since they were 4 years old. Yet some Americans came back and said those people couldn't fight. The governemt before didn't allow fighting and hence they couldn't fight. (Now with Sanda it's changed). Yet those same Americans reported that in an experiment , when they trained these people in fighting for just three months then they became formidable fighters. They has all the essence of fighting within them but only needed to get the proper distancing, timing and experience to pull it off. Hence all their years of training was not a waste in regards to real fighting it's just that it was never their goal.

There are always those who like to live on the edge, the closer to the edge and the more the risk the larger the reward. For those who are married not many wives would like to see her husband come home from class with a broken something. How can he clean the house, take out the garbage and earn a living with a broking leg or arm?

I think it is all about risk and safety. If there was a safe way to become a realistic fighter then maybe more people would do it. Many students don't ever think about liability regarding injury. Not that many teachers like to risk losing their house and everything they own because some zealous students wanted to fight in a more realistic way and in so doing got seriously injured. So legal consequences are maybe a factor in why many martial arts clubs don't seem as real as some fighters would like.

07-28-2004, 02:52 PM

Hi again, Terence. For the record and benefit of our fellow readers, your summary and closing statements do not accurately or appropriately reflect the depth and complexity of my view.

To be clear, I hold forum discussions as discussions on issues in general, just as any other discussion with anyone else on these boards. They are not something personal to or about individuals. Similarly, the issues I choose to discuss are not specifically to or about you even when they glint off of something duly credited to you as author. Nor, IMHO, are such dialogs about taking "sides," real or imagined, which would serve to "label" and pigeon hole people, artificially alienate forum participants from one another, and hamper further and potentially constructive dialog on these or any number of other topics. I hope you don't interpret otherwise, and regret if you do.

Regards & Peace,
- kj

Matrix

07-28-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I'm tired of the old "yours is true for you, and mine is true for me" arguments. Terence,
To go back to your swimming analogy......there are those who just want to dog paddle or tread water, there are others who want to swim laps, maybe even join a swim team, others aspire to the Olympics or to conquer great obstacles such as the English Channel or the Great Lakes. Different strokes for different folks, both literally and figuratively. ;)

I agree that one must fight to develop a high level of fighting skill. However, some people just want to be better than they are if they were to have no skills at all. This has nothing to do with social morality or tolerance.

I am reminded of a situation that happened to me many years ago when I first started to train in martial arts. I was a yellow belt in a Shotokan Karate school at the local college, so that's only a couple of months training. I was confronted by a former high school bully and his friend. These were guys who would have beaten the cr@p out of me in earlier times. With a single front kick and a straight punch the fight was over. I dropped the guy like a sack of potatos, and his pal backed off immediately when he saw his buddy gasping for air on the ground. I had never trained to fight. Just punching and kicking drills ad nauseum. I reacted automatically. I was no fighter, but I was far better off with my meager skills than I was without them. Sure, I was probably very lucky as well, but I KNOW that my limited training made me a whole lot luckier than I would have been otherwise. I learned to be a better fighter later on, but I always remember my first "fight" as a neophyte Martial Artist and I am grateful for it. ;)

Peace,

Bill

Ernie

07-28-2004, 05:13 PM

I was trying to stay out of this, but it seems to just keep going in circles, it really is very simple, there is no one-way. I here the word ‘’ fight ‘’ being tossed around a lot. But really what defines a fight and what fight are you planning on having?
I only care about a street fight, were adaptability, killer instinct/survival instinct and having suddenness / quickness is very important. Conditioning is paramount, but not so much for the ‘’ fight ‘’ you see I don’t plan on having a ‘’ fight ‘’ I don’t plan on going toe to toe, macho man styles with any body, I have a cheat, circumvent, find a equalizer type mentality.

I have no desire to have a competitive type mentality that, to much sparring and hardcoreing will bring out, not my game
I have dropped enough hard-core Thai guys, boxers, kick boxers, vale tudo, and BJJ guys with very little effort because I train hardcore at cheating. On the same note I have been dropped by all of the above and respect there work ethic but again not conducive for the street, to much one on one thinking.

Now why can I cheat and stop a hard-core spar /fight dude simple. Because I have been in there with them. I have trained with them and I have trained one more thing to a higher level ‘’ attributes ‘’

I can hang in there with there game [rules] long enough to cheat and weather there storm, my attributes are dialed in seek out there gaps. If I stay in there game I will surely lose.

So it comes down to what you want

If your definition of fight is a competitive one and you define your skill based on competition then that may or may not cross over in the street, if your goal is purely street were things like shell shocking, multiple opponents and dealing with quickly changing terrain is a more common factor then your skills may not hold up to well in a competitive situation.

One thing is universal, attributes and conditioning

How you develop them well that is up to you,

Wing chun is just a training system I have no emotional connection to it, for some it has become tai chi – there main focus is on energy and body, for others it’s become karate – there focus is on forms and structure – for others an outlet for there emotions

To each there own

In the end it’s only you that matters don’t worry so much what other people are doing

Phil Redmond

07-28-2004, 06:01 PM

Ernie wrote: "...I have a cheat, circumvent, find a equalizer type mentality. .."

Dang Ernie, sounds like me. Not to brag but I never lost a street fight and all the victims were larger than me. It could have been simply luck. But I like to believe that I WILL win at all costs and by any means.

Ultimatewingchun

07-28-2004, 07:55 PM

"Now why can I cheat and stop a hard-core spar /fight dude simple. Because I have been in there with them. I have trained with them and I have trained one more thing to a higher level ‘’ attributes. ‘’ (Ernie)

Please explain this further? Attributes? What attributes?

Ernie

07-28-2004, 10:19 PM

Please explain this further? Attributes? What attributes?

Simple, speed timing sensitivity power adaptability conditioning

I find I have always at least one if not more above '' most '' people I have sparred

Or different tools and strategies

Just have to find the weakness in the persons approach

Boxers, have trouble with pressure high low high and smothering or immobilizing there limbs

Thai dudes center is open, the telegraph. Savate kicks to the balls kill them

Ground dudes don't like getting slapped bit ball shots

Just rough ideas
focus on the area's there not used to defending

but be prepared to absorb some punishment to get there

t_niehoff

07-29-2004, 06:37 AM

Hi Bill, Ernie,

IMO fighting is fighting, the venue can change (ring, mat, gym, alley, etc.) and with it tactics (which depend on the situation) but the same core skills and attributes of our method remain. Those come from "working" in that fighting environment (characterized by intensity, resistance, and an opponent really trying to pound you). The venue can change in the water too -- rough seas, calm pool, riptide, etc. -- but the same core swimming skills are necessary (though perhaps used differently, i.e., tactics). Those skills and attributes come from getting in the water. Even to dogpaddle successfully (the Hong Kong rooftop fights are a good example of dogpaddling - low-level swimming skills but still in the water), you need some time in the water. Sure not everyone that takes swimming lessons wants to be a champoin swimmer -- but just being a competant swimmer requires a lot of pool time. I hear folks say, "yeah, but I just want to be able to defend myself and don't want to face injuries" -- you won't be able to defend yourself (swim) if you don't fight (get in the water). Even to dogpaddle fairly well requires some pool time. You can minimize risks (wear gear -- a snorkle, nose plugs, etc.) but a necessary part of learning to swim is the risk that you may swallow a bit of water. The greater level of swimming skills require more risks and more effort.

BTW, what would anyone think if they went to a swimming class but didn't see a pool? And when they asked the instructor about their swimming experience was told, "I've never swam but I'm pretty sure I could, you see I've extrapolated from my experience on the side of the pool . . . " Then you ask if the instructor would mind showing you how well they can swim to which comes "Are you challenging me?" ;)

Regards,

Terence

Nick Forrer

07-29-2004, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by YongChun
I think many people like to learn to defend themselves but within the constraints that in so doing they don't get injured worse then the event they are training for. The more realistic the sparring the greater the risk of serious injury.

I couldn't agree more with this statement Ray. People are in MA for different reasons. I have met a few nut cases in my time who not only didnt mind violence...they actually did it for a living. Must well adjusted people recognize that fighting involves pain and injury to both parties, no matter the victor, and try their best to avoid it. They also recognise that that the repurcussions can extend far beyond the fight... they may be legal in nature or they may involve come back (I'm thinking of that line in Casino 'you beat him with fists he comes back with a knife, you beat him with a knife he comes back with a gun, you beat him with a gun you better kill him because he'll come back and back until one of you is dead.)

AmanuJRY

07-29-2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
Or different tools and strategies

Just have to find the weakness in the persons approach

Boxers, have trouble with pressure high low high and smothering or immobilizing there limbs

Thai dudes center is open, the telegraph. Savate kicks to the balls kill them

Ground dudes don't like getting slapped bit ball shots

Just rough ideas
focus on the area's there not used to defending

but be prepared to absorb some punishment to get there

.......Ahhh, strategy..........

I just yesterday got to watch the videos (my buddy has a broadband connection), and to answer the original question 'what would I do?'........pray.......just kidding.:D
Since it looks like they agreed to this match (for gambling purposes or ???), first off I would say I would never agree to fight that dude in the first place. If left with no choice, go for the knees and stay out of the way of that punch.

.....(that dude's eye at the end..........eeeeeeeewwwwwww!!!!)

Matrix

07-29-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
BTW, what would anyone think if they went to a swimming class but didn't see a pool? And when they asked the instructor about their swimming experience was told, "I've never swam but I'm pretty sure I could, you see I've extrapolated from my experience on the side of the pool . . . " Then you ask if the instructor would mind showing you how well they can swim to which comes "Are you challenging me?" ;) Terence,
The point I want to make is that while we all need to get into the water, not everyone can/will jump into the deep-end (i.e. hardcore). For those that do not wish to, I respect that. I would not say that they can't swim or aren't good enough based on that. As paraphrase a famous quote, " You cannot discover new lands without being willing to lose sight of the shore". But some folks just want to go out for a little boat cruise.

As for instructors/coaches, would you say that Angelo Dundee was not a great boxing coach because he wouldn't get in the ring and fight with Ali. I would think not.

Bill

Ultimatewingchun

07-29-2004, 12:11 PM

Ernie:

Nice post...just wanted you to expound on some details..some people might have thought you were being vague, otherwise.

Terence:

Great posts...this entire thread so far. But I fear that your wise words might be falling on many a deaf ear. But here's how I would sum up your message in one simple sentence:

Remember the first Bill Clinton presidential campaign..."It's about the economy, stupid?"

Well...as regards Wing Chun Kung Fu...

"It's about FIGHTING, stupid."

Matrix

07-29-2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
But I fear that your wise words might be falling on many a deaf ear. ........."It's about FIGHTING, stupid." Victor,
The ears are not deaf, just discerning. And it's not about the FIGHTING. It's about HITTING. ;)

Bill

YongChun

07-29-2004, 03:50 PM

I think lots of people, probably the majority, do martial arts just for fun. They would consider themselves as martial artists rather than fighters. If it wasn't fun then they wouldn't do it. At the same time, not that many of those martial artists think getting punched in the face is fun. Whether the martial arts hobbyists can fight or not is not a foregone conclusion. As one person pointed out, he managed to save his hide because of the so called "useless" drills he practiced in class.

Matrix

07-29-2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by YongChun
I think lots of people, probably the majority, do martial arts just for fun. They would consider themselves as martial artists rather than fighters. Yongchun, I believe that is the case. Guys like Ernie, Victor and Terence are at the elite/hardcore side of the spectrum. I respect that, and in fact think it's very cool. In fact I don't mind the occasional punch in the head in the name of training. It's all part of martial arts from my point of view, but I do not simply discount those who are there for fun. I believe that they learn some valuable skills along the way that just may save their bacon at some point in time.

I agree that sparring is necessary to reach a high level of skill, but it must be done at the right time in an individuals progress through the system. I also have no problem with individuals who opt out. Everybody in the pool !!! ......and no running. :D

Bill

Ernie

07-29-2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Yongchun, I believe that is the case. Guys like Ernie, Victor and Terence are at the elite/hardcore side of the spectrum. I
Bill

man , i'm far from elite , i have felt what hardcore and elite hits like and i would rather run :D

i'm just goal oriented , everything has to have a reason , it must be clear and connected

thats why i like to test stuff ,

to old to waste my time training things that don't really translate into combative situations

in a few years , who knows maybe i'll slow down , injuries will catch up , commen sense will kick in and i'll be hear talking about the angle of a tan sau and how much wieght i have on my big toe

and wondering what yip man had for dinner

but then again maybe not

life is funny that way:D

PaulH

07-29-2004, 05:27 PM

I like his post at his own forum so I thought I should offer it again here for your perusal.

Regards,
PH

Posted by: SiFu Leung - July 13, 2004 (11:42 p.m.) - 68.225.81.68
Let me respond to some of the thoughts expressed in the many letters stimulated by Dan's initial query.

Why learn Wing Chun today? Certainly, it is not for the sole purpose of winning battles. A 44 Magnum will accomplish that with greater dispatch and much less effort. Also, certainly we do not learn Wing Chun for the purpose of courting danger or inculcating aggression. I would say that the answer includes the following:

-- first and foremost, it is a genuine art; as such, in the same manner as painting, calligraphy, music, dance, sculpture, etc., it represents a means of greater self-expression

-- the cultivation and preservation of an aspect of an ancient culture may have some intrinsic value

-- on a psychological level, learning Wing Chun, or any martial art, builds confidence and self-esteem

-- one does not know when a situation will arise when the knowledge and training will serve to protect someone or save a life

Some have written that fighting (with the risk of sacrificing one's life) for one's country is the ultimate test of manhood. I do not agree with that. Depending upon the circumstances, fighting to defend one's country and its ideals may be the heroic course of action. However, in other circumstances, it may demonstrate the power of brainwashing rather than courage. Witness the millions who fought and died to advance the cause of Nazism.

Mastery of Wing Chun, as perhaps with any art, brings out the highest potential of the individual mentally as well as physically. It encourages us to think and govern our actions as individuals.

Ernie

07-29-2004, 05:32 PM

paul

you know were friends

but

write your own stuff man :D

and for the record i don't see wing chun as an art
it's a training system that develops skill

art is subjective to the beholder

skill can be measured in combat art can not

unless i'm beating you over the head with a painting and don't tempt me;)

PaulH

07-29-2004, 05:42 PM

Ha! Ha! Ernie! why reinvent the thought? It has merits and so I let it bounce around the forum!

P.S It is what you think it to be! =)

Ernie

07-29-2004, 05:49 PM

P.S It is what you think it to be! =)

Psycho

Matrix

07-29-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Ernie
unless i'm beating you over the head with a painting and don't tempt me;) Personally, I prefer sculpture. Now there's an art form with impact. :D

Ernie

07-29-2004, 06:38 PM

It was the butler with the Maltese falcon

YongChun

07-30-2004, 07:15 PM

When I looked at that fight again, then I think any hard core Wing Chun guy should do OK against the winner of that match. They are not as good as professional boxers. If you can't handle that with a lot of Wing Chun training, then of what use is your Wing Chun? Anyone who trains thousands of Wing Chun punches a day would be able to do the same damage to the winner of that match as he did to the loser even if he has a much smaller build. The darker guy does seem to have more experience.

william

07-31-2004, 03:05 AM

If someone has bought this up b4 I apologise!

I didn't have time to read all of the posts:

So those guys are big! Is there anyone in the MA, WC world who you think could beat the winner? One on one?

Just for example how do you think Emin Boztepe or William Cheung or (Can't think of anymore 'famous' masters at this point but you get the point) would do in a live situation with people like those two.

Interested to know your thoughts??

Cheers

W

old jong

07-31-2004, 05:14 AM

These guys are big and strong so,just a little boxing can make them almost unbeatable for most who go force against force.If your Wing Chun (or any style) is based on the same training or principles than these two,you must be stronger and faster.

Martial arts can be: Not enough in certain cases,equaliser,or more depending on you,your opponent,the environment and hundreds of other reasons.

t_niehoff

07-31-2004, 08:14 AM

Paul, why do post Duncan Leung's stuff here? He just repeats the same old crap you hear in all "martial arts" that have divorced themselves from being concerned with genuinely developing fighting skills (aikido, tai ji, etc.) -- the same old arrogant crap. Sure WCK builds confidence (as does tai ji and aidido). But is that "confidence" based on reality (they have genuinely good fighting skills) or fantasy (theyonly believe they can fight)? So what if WCK "preserves" culture -- so does folk dancing. There is no "art" -- including in music, painting, and fighting -- without real skill. Dablbling on the piano or splashing some paint doesn't make one an "artist". Mohammed Ali and Rickson Gracie are artists; folks that go to a gym but can't box or folks that go to a BJJ school but can''t roll, aren't artists. Neither are folks that "practice" WCK but have no fighting skills.

William, there are folks in WCK that could IMO beat those guys. Some are on this list. Some I train with. If folks at where you train couldn't at least give them a good run for their money in a fight, then you should leave pronto and find a genuine WCK school -- you know, where they really train to fight and not just talk about it. BTW, if you showed that clip to any place that really trains fighters they would not be impressed -- boxers, muay thai folks, kyokushinkai, wreslters, BJJers, etc. would all be confident about having a go.

Terence

07-31-2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by PaulH
I like his post at his own forum so I thought I should offer it again here for your perusal. <snip of Duncan Leung's quote>

I like it too, Paul, and thanks for sharing it. It's healthy to see what others think and consider their POV. They may sometimes echo our own perspectives, and sometimes not, but always food for thought.

Regards,
- kj

PaulH

07-31-2004, 01:55 PM

Ha! Ha! I don't know why one even react with so much sound and fury over this! Opinion is opinion. Duncan Leung is just offering his view based on his lifelong teaching and experience. Everyone has a role in the WC community. Some are teachers; others fighters. Some like to tinker with theories; others like to put theories to the test. There are always a variety of expressions in all human endeavours. I may agree or disagree in whole or in part of what other people say. I might even debate with them, but I let people do what they think is best for them in the end. We have only one life to live, live your own dream.

Regards,
PH

Ultimatewingchun

08-01-2004, 08:28 AM

Earlier on this thread Ernie wrote this...

"i'm working on a program that will make the transition from the training system to full contact street oriented training...it's a experiment , i will be bringing in pro level boxers and k-1 guys as well ground guys to work off after about 6 months of prep work , conditioning and education on how to train at that level without getting wrecked."

A TRANSITION FROM THE TRAINING SYSTEM (that wing chun provides)...TO FULL CONTACT STREET ORIENTED TRAINING.

This is exactly what the word *Ultimatewingchun* means to me. It's not a name I've given myself - it's a GOAL. Something to strive for...to achieve.

The word "Ultimate" was meant to connote two things:

1) UFC - to use wing chun as the nucleus of a street oriented approach that is basically no-holds-barred, that includes almost any and all unarmed possibilities that the street may contain...such as grappling (both standup and on the ground)...some boxing moves and footwork...even some JKD concepts and footwork. (Although at this point in time the Pride Fighting events from Japan seem to contain the best fighters...UFC being on the wane).

2) "Ultimate" meaning that by doing the above - wing chun could - in theory - reach it's highest potential (for me) as a fighting art in TODAY'S WORLD...which is a very different world of fighting than was the case when wing chun was born hundreds of years ago - or even what was going on 30-40-50 years ago.

Now as to this part of Ernie's quote...

"it's a experiment , i will be bringing in pro level boxers and k-1 guys as well ground guys to work off after about 6 months of prep work , conditioning and education on how to train at that level without getting wrecked."

This is similar to what I've been trying to do for years now...been training a small group of my most advanced students (and myself) in a way that requires strong conditioning and skills like timing, power, speed...and bring it to a level that requires a constant monitoring. Working at a high level without "getting wrecked" is an art in itself - you have to figure out when to fire them (and myself) up...when to turn it down a bit...when to call a time out...when/how to to criticize their performance, attitude, and commitment...and when to praise them...when to stop the drilling and sparring completely and just do some explaining and teaching...when to leave them alone and let them figure things out amoungst themselves...and when/how to turn up the intensity and spontaneity and start sparring/grappling competitively again.

But most of all - the biggest trick is to, in the final analysis, teach them (and myself) to be a *band of brothers* that hit, kick, and grapple hard - while at the same time looking out for each other's welfare both physically and spiritually.

t_niehoff

08-01-2004, 09:52 AM

Paul,

Ha! Ha! I don't know why one even react with so much sound and fury over this! Opinion is opinion. Duncan Leung is just offering his view based on his lifelong teaching and experience.

**No, *you* are offering his views -- and I asked why. Because they support your own. But that is arguing from authority (if Duncan says so, it must be valid). We must examine these things for ourselves, and not accept it as true because some "name" says so. Most of the "names" have little skill and correspondingly little real understanding; they have never fought anyone of any real skill. All these swimming teachers that have never gotten into the water . . . .

Everyone has a role in the WC community.

**I completely disagree. Why do they "have a role"? Because you want to be inclusive? Do deluded role-players have a role? Charlatans have a role? Folks with no real skill just out to make money have a role? Is WCK just one big group hug with no standards?

Some are teachers; others fighters.

**Again, this is simplistic. There are swimmers and those that can teach swimming. But those that teach swimming still need to be able to swim. Both get into the water. Those that teach or practice dry-land swimming have no understanding of swimming or skill in swimming.

Some like to tinker with theories; others like to put theories to the test.

**Folks that don't get into the pool can have any "theories" they like, but they are clueless. Folks that get into the pool can theorize or tinker, and the art evolves. Apples and oranges.

Terence