How do you do Siu Lim Tao part 1?

[YongChun]

I was wondering how the different lineages train the Tan/Fook/Huen part of the Siu Lim Tao (first 50 movements) and maybe why?

Some train the first part using tension (I read this on Duncan Leung's site) and maybe San Franciso's Paul Chan? Some do the first part totally relaxed (Kenneth Chung). Some do the first Tan Fook quickly and even come out with sort of a snap. I know a Jiu Wan lineage guy that did this. Some take 30 minutes to complete the first section of the form and it's done in a realxed way. One person by the name of Patrick Chow had students do the first part relatively quickly (normal demo speed) but would have them repeat and repeat until one hour elapsed. All of the above people were pretty good.

Ray

[Hendrik]

First, train to settle.....
settle that muddy water... let the mud sink settle and water become clear....

[Ernie]

slow
relaxed
breath

used to part of the 20/45 min. crew

now i just laugh at it ;)


find the '' when /why/and how'' in a exhange , in experience

leave pretending for tai chi ;)

[yylee]

Originally posted by Ernie
slow
relaxed
breath

used to part of the 20/45 min.

Wah! your WC must be very good! :)

[Ernie]

Originally posted by yylee
Wah! your WC must be very good! :)

not from sitting there making shapes that was a long time ago , when i was told the stories of yip man and his 1 hour slt

so instead of being like mike , i wanted to be like yip

until one day my teacher slapped me in the back of the head and told '' what the hell are you doing , yip was an old man more concerned with chi gung , you are are young , now go train with a person and learn to fight '' ha ha ha

[AmanuJRY]

'saam pai fut'

This is what you're referring to right.

As Ernie aluded to, the forms are for learning shapes. You learn what to do with those shapes in chi sau, lop sau, and free sparring. The 'saam pai fut' section is used by many to perform chi gung (as opposed to some chi gung form). If your group practices chi gung separatly, you may do this part of the form quick, or if the 'style' is more internal and chi gung is incorporated, then it is done more slowly. Whatever your WC dogma is.

Me, I do meditation/chi gung/kundalini stuff separatly so the forms in my WC are strictly form practice, and done at the same pace as the rest of the form. Although, I will say that I do focus breathing during form practice, but the entire form and in all forms, not just one part of one form.

[Rhat]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
'saam pai fut'

This is what you're referring to right.



There is a set called Saam Pai Fut in Chi Sim Weng Chun.

Did Yip Man borrow this term"Saam Pai Fut" from Chi Sim Weng Chun?

Any thought?

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Rhat
There is a set called Saam Pai Fut in Chi Sim Weng Chun.

Did Yip Man borrow this term"Saam Pai Fut" from Chi Sim Weng Chun?

Any thought?

I can't say, for sure, where the term entered into Ip Man WC.

Saam pai fut, translated means; 'three bows (to) buddha' , which is a common 'theme' in Buddhist prayer/meditation. It is possible that the tradition, as it is practiced in WC, was introduced at WC's origin (in the Temple or Red Boat Opera, which ever is your belief), as the anti-Qing movement had heavy ties to the Shaolin.

[Vajramusti]

AmanuJRY sez:

As Ernie aluded to, the forms are for learning shapes. You learn what to do with those shapes in chi sau, lop sau, and free sparring. The 'saam pai fut' section is used by many to perform chi gung (as opposed to some chi gung form). If your group practices chi gung separatly, you may do this part of the form quick, or if the 'style' is more internal and chi gung is incorporated, then it is done more slowly. Whatever your WC dogma is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is indeed Coach Ernie's position- IMO it is limited.
The forms are not just for learning "shapes"... a tan sao is not just a shape-the mother tan sao in the form for instance is a very deliberate motion.
In action- the "shape" may not be visible to all but the proper motion should be there.

Merely because its 2004 it does not mean that one can dispense
with the development of the motions of the art and still call it wing chun..

Its ok to play great electric guitar music- just dont call it the sitar.

[Vajramusti]

Did Yip Man borrow this term"Saam Pai Fut" from Chi Sim Weng Chun?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon- sam pai fat is a buddhist label- how it manifests itself on the art depends on the art and the artist.

You dont even have to be a martial artist to do sam pai fat.

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
If that is indeed Coach Ernie's position- IMO it is limited.
The forms are not just for learning "shapes"... a tan sao is not just a shape-the mother tan sao in the form for instance is a very deliberate motion.
In action- the "shape" may not be visible to all but the proper motion should be there.

By learning 'shapes', I mean; the positions (physically) your body takes in certain techniques and the idea behind that technique.
The actual technique is learned by connection to outside energy/pressure (i.e. opponent). You cannot possibly train the form with these energies/pressures in mind until you have felt them in practice (chi sau - sparring). It is only through the latter experience that one is able to incorporate that concept into form training, therefor forms do not train the technique just the 'shape' of it, and with experience, the technique trains the form.

[Vajramusti]

AmanuJRY:

1.The forms are more than a collection of shapes- by proper correction and repetition one understands imo that the forms are
really the key formulae of wing chun.

2.The application of the formulae and the adaptations one learns
via all kinds of experinces including chi sao are also necessary.

Both 1 and 2 are necessary for it to be wing chun. Again- wing chun is NOT the only path to self defense- but the wing chun path does have its requirements- to wit both form and applications.

Experience can be a very good teacher- but there are lots of pugs walking around with broken bodies who have not learned much while swimming in wet water.

[Ernie]

If that is indeed Coach Ernie's position- IMO it is limited.


---- Why thank you Joy your opinion means a lot to me =)


The forms are not just for learning "shapes"... a tan sao is not just a shape-the mother tan sao in the form for instance is a very deliberate motion.
In action- the "shape" may not be visible to all but the proper motion should be there.

---- Thus once you have the mechanical idea [ form], finding it’s natural application in motion is the real essence, not sitting their collecting dust on your limbs,
But many people like to make wing Chun into tai chi IMO =)

This way they can pretend many different things , and have countless meanings
:D

[Miles Teg]

Pretending things - like visualization tecniques? I think these are important. They not only help develpop the right energy but are also important for fighting and chi sao. SNT should help make your structure strong. Our defintion of structure is the ability to resist muscular force while staying relaxed and without having to redirect.

Once I chi sao with this guy who came to visit and was quite advanced. His hands were so heavy that it I had a tough time. At one point he put his arm out almost completely straight and kept chasing me. Normally it is easy to manipulate some if their arm is straight and yours is bent, but I couldnt move his arm an inch. This was a very threating position to be in. After he had his fun with me he told me "You get that from SNT".

[Ernie]

"You get that from SNT".

the idea yes but you really get it when you feel it during a experience with some one

then you can relate it

until '' pretending has no meaning , just empty words and actions ''

but please don't listen to me i like people that pretend makes my life a whole lot easier :p

[yylee]

Originally posted by Ernie
not from sitting there making shapes that was a long time ago , when i was told the stories of yip man and his 1 hour slt

so instead of being like mike , i wanted to be like yip

until one day my teacher slapped me in the back of the head and told '' what the hell are you doing , yip was an old man more concerned with chi gung , you are are young , now go train with a person and learn to fight '' ha ha ha

If people think forms are just sitting and shape making activities, I have no words to say ;)

tell you a story:

I happen to know someone who had the exact opposite experience from yours. He thought his WC was good under his first sifu (Sifu A). Sifu A used to say "what the hell are you doing! you don't have to do that (Tan/Fuk/Huen) 3 times to tell people that you are doing WC!!! just cut that cr@p!!".

Then, years later, after Sifu A retired, that someone I know (let's call him Neo) met Sifu B. Well... the WC as Neo knew it suddently came to an end, turned up side down completely. Under Sifu B's instruction, Neo did a full year of SNT, no Chi Sau, no sparring......

Years later Neo became very good in WC. I also happen to know another fellow who is Neo's senior under Sifu B. He told me: "Oh, Neo came a long way you know. I was watching Neo 'salvage' his WC just by standing there, Tan after tan, Fuk after Fuk.. poor kid, but he finally made it".

[Ernie]

If people think forms are just sitting and shape making activities, I have no words to say


------ with out a devils advocate there wouldn’t be a good discussion
;)

[azwingchun]

I can't say that I agree with your take on the forms, but I will have to second the statement below. It actually gave me a little chuckle, but at the same time it rings very true.


with out a devils advocate there wouldn’t be a good discussion

I've said it once (maybe twice) and I will say it again, if we all believed exactly the same thing......this forum would be of no use! ;)

[Fresh]

Originally posted by Ernie
------ with out a devils advocate there wouldn’t be a good discussion
;)

Huh? What happened to its all about being honest Ernest? Gotta keep your lines straight. :D :p

[Matrix]

Originally posted by yylee
If people think forms are just sitting and shape making activities, I have no words to say ;) They are!......if that is all you can see in them. ;)

Bill

[Miles Teg]

Ernie�@said:
"the idea yes but you really get it when you feel it during a experience with some one"

I agree, they have to feed off each other. He was applying this though a Chi Sao context which is obviously an essential practice so that one is familar with how opposing force feels etc. But what I got from his statement was that SNT is an essential ingredient for developing this sort of strength/power.

[AmanuJRY]

They are!......if that is all you can see in them.


That's all I can see in other peoples forms. When I do forms, I am able to Imagine the energies that would be present to create these 'shapes'.

But I stand by the idea that it is the individual and their experience that defines the technique, without that experience they are empty shapes. And to a new student of WC, who has no experience with the pressures/energies that create the techniques, they are merely shapes.

[Ernie]

Originally posted by Fresh
Huh? What happened to its all about being honest Ernest? Gotta keep your lines straight. :D :p

I was and am being honest
You don’t fight with forms, unless you’re a trapped robot, or doing tai chi wing Chun just living off chi sau

You must apply

And then gain true individual understanding, until then you are going off hearsay

So unless you step out of the form you will never grow

But people that never test or just stay in the chi sau bubble can play, and imagine and pretend all the want.

But with out the forms to first give an alphabet of reference points and concepts we have nothing to build on, but once you have put up the frame work you must finish the house and then live in it

But I know people love their beloved forms like some security blanket and they have invested so much time into them. They will never let them go ha ha

[taltos]

Originally posted by Ernie
But with out the forms to first give an alphabet of reference points and concepts we have nothing to build on, but once you have put up the frame work you must finish the house and then live in it

EXCELLENT POINT Ernie... so true. Too many people either rush past the foundation towards sparring, or they spend their whole lives building the foundation over and over again. Neither one does anyone any good.

Excelent Post.

-Levi

[Vajramusti]

You don’t fight with forms, (Ernie)
------------------------------

((((possibly a straw man argument. No serious wing chun person
should say that you fight with forms))(joy)
------------------------------------------------

unless you’re a trapped robot,(Ernie)
-----------

((none should be a robot- but using the body ina wing chun way
and break through old habits does take repetition, correction and right practice -kung fu)) (Joy)
---------------------------------------
or doing tai chi wing Chun(Ernie)

((Dont know what taichi wing chun is. Average taichi and average wing chun is useless-lots of folks doing both without proper direction and practice. Top flight taichi people know how to take care of themselves. Average taichi folks dont. Taichi has tui shao(sp) which also devlops timing and spontaneity with taichi principles and motion. But wing chun is better for me.Wing chun has chi sao- which is badly diluted in many places and made into mechanical rolling. Wing chun and taichi are two styles that really stand out in CMA because of their hands on timing work))Joy
------------------------------------------------------------------------

just living off chi sau ((Ernie))

(("just" is not good enough. Not all chi sao is created equal.
No argument against the virtues of "practical" experience and individualizing wing chun. No two good wing chun persons are the same. No two good pianists, violinists are the same either- but one has to have a solid foundation for the individuality to flourish . No two good streetfighters are the same either.

Deliberately seeking real street fights can have diminishing returns and other medical and legal issues.

Provided the motions are learned right and the timing is developed right- I see no problem with some work with gloves or
the mat or with other styles. The key word is "provided". Sure- not knowing how to apply wing chun can be a big problem. But IMO not knowing wing chun is a greater problem among those who claim to be under the wing chun umbrella.))Joy

BTW- my comments are not on Ernie but on his post and other posts. I try to speak to the subject not the person.I liked the pics from Boise-Ernie. No proofreading- gotta go take care of a dog that has had 3 important operations on the same day and is in recovery. Joy

[Ernie]

joy
BTW- my comments are not on Ernie but on his post and other posts. I try to speak to the subject not the person.I liked the pics from Boise-Ernie. No proofreading- gotta go take care of a dog that has had 3 important operations on the same day and is in recovery. Joy


out of all that was said this rings of true importance , take care of your dog , joy
i'm a big softy when pets are involved :D

i wish your friend a speedy recovery

peace

[kj]

Originally posted by yylee
If people think forms are just sitting and shape making activities, I have no words to say ;)

Amen to that. My own experience is very similar to your friend's. My initial foray into Wing Chun, while fun and "street focused," was highly superficial, extremely "ad hoc," and lacking both in satisfaction and significant development. A deepening understanding and appreciation of the sets and their relationship to other elements of practice was a profound turning point in my personal development.

Practice of the sets in conjunction with partner work comprises an iterative process whereby each element continuously informs the others. This alone would make the sets an invaluable element of practice. Yet, they serve even more purposes, at least for me.

The sets are isolated training exercises for development and conditioning of a suite of physical and mental attributes. By this I mean actual and targeted development in the same sense that calisthenics, weight work, swimming, physical therapy, etc. are to other physical endeavors or sports. The sets also facilitate the learning and neuromuscular development for a level of precision and self-reference that partner work and sparring would not efficiently or reliably afford. The forms provide an environment and the time for exploring one's own unique physiological make up and function; essentially, getting to know certain aspects of oneself. How one's body works, its flexibility, dimensions and tolerances, its ever changing posture, stability, and weighting; what it takes to calm and settle the body, the breathing, heart rate, mind and ego.

At the most superficial and introductory level the sets contains shapes. At deeper levels it is about means and paths of movement, and the ability to position with great control and accuracy. All of these, and more, translate for controlling forces in application.

I furthermore see the sets as rich and highly engineered repositories of knowledge, encapsulating and preserving information for continuous exploration and research both by present day practitioners and for generations to come. I realize that's heresy to some, but so be it.

I am not much concerned with things such as "chi" or other mystical attributes that I can't fully and clearly comprehend. Whatever such things are, and to whatever degree they may transpire naturally, I'd consider it a bonus rather than the point or main benefit. So to those of you who overgeneralize and characterize all people who value and practice the sets as chi-loving tree huggers, raspberries to you. :p

We are often reminded to perform our sets as if working with a partner or opponent, and to work with our partners as if doing our sets. The various elements of practice are complimentary, and whether by design or evolution, serve as parts of a whole. I believe that to omit or diminish one aspect is to create an imbalance in practice which will sacrifice either one's ability to apply existing capabilities, fullest development of capabilities, or both.

I'm just scratching the surface here on what I see as some of the benefits of diligently exercising the sets and overall balance in practice. I nonetheless realize that others' experience and interests will vary.

Regards,
- kj

[Matrix]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
But I stand by the idea that it is the individual and their experience that defines the technique, without that experience they are empty shapes. Justin,
I definitely agree. It's why the ;) at the end of my comment is critical. They are empty shapes for those who want to see, or can only see empty shapes.

Just as the alphabet is a series of "empty shapes" that represent static characters. You must move beyond that stage and learn to form words and then sentences, and add grammar to see full picture. When you read (or write), we no longer stop and identify the shape of each character as we read. We see even more than individual words, but rather the expression of ideas that just flow through our mind with ease. Sometimes we need to pause to absorb the full meaning of what is written. If we read too fast we may miss a key concept. Don't be in a hurry to just read, but rather take the time to become fully engrossed in what you are doing.

Peace,
Bill

[kj]

As for how I do the first part of Siu Lim Tau.

Minimum time for the full set is generally 15-20 minutes. As much as 30 minutes or up to an hour is fine if a person can afford the time, though the rule of thumb is that a) this is not necessary for daily practice and b) more than an hour won't do you any more good. The majority of the time spent is in the slow first tan, wu, fook section, which takes in the range of about 10-16 minutes in a 15-20 minute set.

The exception to the slow rule is when we are demonstrating the first set, otherwise be like watching paint dry and a torture to those observing.

As for varying speeds, we reserve this for the other sets. In those sets the speed can vary slow to fast, though the practice advice given is that the tempo within a given iteration of the set should remain consistent throughout.

Regards,
- kj

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Matrix
Justin,
I definitely agree. It's why the ;) at the end of my comment is critical. They are empty shapes for those who want to see, or can only see empty shapes.

Just as the alphabet is a series of "empty shapes" that represent static characters. You must move beyond that stage and learn to form words and then sentences, and add grammar to see full picture. When you read (or write), we no longer stop and identify the shape of each character as we read. We see even more than individual words, but rather the expression of ideas that just flow through our mind with ease. Sometimes we need to pause to absorb the full meaning of what is written. If we read too fast we may miss a key concept. Don't be in a hurry to just read, but rather take the time to become fully engrossed in what you are doing.

Peace,
Bill


Beautifully put, Bill.
In the future I will try to interpet the smilies better. ;)

[YongChun]

Originally posted by kj
Amen to that. My own experience is very similar to your friend's. My initial foray into Wing Chun, while fun and "street focused," was highly superficial, extremely "ad hoc," and lacking both in satisfaction and significant development. A deepening understanding and appreciation of the sets and their relationship to other elements of practice was a profound turning point in my personal development.

<... some deleted...>"

Regards,
- kj

Hi Kathy-Jo,

I tend to agree with your thinking but I doubt that many people can relate to your view except the high level Tai Chi practitioners who also can fight because they understand something and don't feel the need to take up grappling or kickboxing the key elements of which are probably in their classical training regime. We are all heavily influenced by out teachers. Your first teacher did the best he could with what he learned but he wasn't exposed to the teachers you have been exposed to and so his path was different than yours. Yet he had a street reality, was fast and strong and could fight but still something deeper was missing.

I know for Tai Chi it takes a long time for the body to become aware of itself in such a way that we can control it in the right way and that it has just the right position, sensitivity, feeling and connections. The process of learning Tai Chi or Wing Chun can be compared to the process of making a good dough. If the process is hurried then the dough never has the right feel. If the bread is taken out of the oven too soon then the bread just isn't right and no matter how often you put it back in it will still not be the same. So training takes time. The proper amount of time should be put in before one should test the waters. If the time is not put in then most training will degenerate to a form of kickboxing, Kenpo or Jeet Kune Do. Those arts are fine and effective but they are not Wing Chun.

Among my students we have all kinds whose opinions also vary all over the map. Those that think too much about reality and who after a year or so also think forms are a waste of time and Chi sau is a waste of time never progress beyond the kickboxing, Kenpo and Jeet Kune Do look and feel. These people certainly can fight but after a few years they reach a limit and can never improve because they are as fast and strong as they are ever going to get. They develop the qualities of the fast being able to beat the slow and the strong being able to beat the weak. That's the essence of their skill. Clasical Shaolin textbooks frown upon this type of skill as being of the lowest kind.

It is unfortunate that we really don't have any good models on video that we can all agree to as being good Wing Chun. And so we may have the case on this forum (I'm exaggerating of course) of bar room brawlers talking with people who maybe have spent half their life time to master the intricasies of their art. Yet they both talk about fighting as if they had a common bond. It is like the difference between someone who has learned to play "chop sticks" on the piano on their own to someone who has studied 20 years under a top teacher to be able to play Mozart , Beethoven , List and Chopin with perfect position, feeling and pashion.

I have seen a lot of young people who really don't care for forms or for Chi sau but they want to learn Wing Chun to fight. So while "putting up" with doing some forms and chi sau (when are we gonna stop this boring stuff so we can practice fighting?) their mind is really elsewhere. They come to class once a week to learn Wing Chun and spend two other nights a week learning submission wrestling and Thai boxing. After a few years they can fight but after a few years also most drop out of the martial arts scene altogether because their bodies can't take it anymore and everything has become boring. When they become old and when they might really need their martial art then they have nothing left with which to defend themselves.

However this is only a one sided view of martial arts and is forgetting about the joy of the process of seeking personal perfection. Martial arts is not only about the end result of winning a fight.

I think there is something to be said for classical training. Whether Wu Shu is practical or not I still admire watching classically trained artists who have spent their lifetime to master Wu Shu, Tai Chi, Ba Gua or whatever art. Art is a high level of human achievement that animals just don't have.

Perhaps these days we are addressing neither end of the Wing Chun spectrum which has pure and brutal fighting at one end and very high level ART at the other. And thus we continue to evolve.

All things deteriorate, become extinct or evolve. Perhaps through all these discussions, Wing Chun will evolve into something better. On a positive note the fact that students of different lineages can get together to share is a very good thing that our teachers (for political or business or face saving reasons) cannot do.

It was Master Wang Kiu's comment that eventually, far into the future, Wing Chun may evolve to some kind of a Ballet.

Ray

[Vajramusti]

Quite a few good points Ray. But I dont know about Wang Kiu's prediction or it's logic.

Joy

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Quite a few good points Ray. But I dont know about Wang Kiu's prediction or it's logic.

Joy

Of course he was being facetious and merely commenting on all the changes in Wing Chun. It was his opinion that the Wing Chun he learned didn't need to be modified. However that was in 1982 that I heard that and they didn't have UFC/K1/Pride back then.

[Vajramusti]

Ray--
some years ago- I sawa video of some of Wang Kiu's "students"
from Holland
doing (gasp) "sparring"...I didnt see much wing chun there.

joy

[yylee]

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mrv2k2/wck/seminar19092003/index.html

http://wingchun.antville.org/topics/Wang+Kiu+Seminar+2003/

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Ray--
some years ago- I saw a video of some of Wang Kiu's "students"
from Holland
doing (gasp) "sparring"...I didnt see much wing chun there.

joy

I saw a similar thing this year and also didn't see much Wing Chun. I think it is students wanting to fight before they are ready to fight. I have heard that Wang Kiu taught according to what the student thought Wing Chun was. So if a student thought is was like Karate then he would be taught Karate Wing Chun. If he thought it was like Tai Chi, then he would be taught Tai Chi Wing Chun. So that means the results were uneven. At the same time each student probably felt they learned the real pure Wing Chun whatever that may mean. To me pure authentic unmodified Wing Chun means nothing. When I get a time machine then it may mean something but it may not be any better.

Ray

[Vajramusti]

Ray sez:I have heard that Wang Kiu taught according to what the student thought Wing Chun was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An unusual teaching approach??!!!

YYLee- thanks for the jpgs- the vast majority of them had people just standing around. I understand that he is not in good health...?

joy

[Rhat]

Originally posted by YongChun
To me pure authentic unmodified Wing Chun means nothing.
Ray

Is it a sign of good taste to combine bitter and sweet? :D :cool:

[yylee]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
YYLee- thanks for the jpgs- the vast majority of them had people just standing around. I understand that he is not in good health...?

joy

no need to thank me, thank Google.

By looking at the pictures, he is doing not bad given his age (80+).

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Ray sez:I have heard that Wang Kiu taught according to what the student thought Wing Chun was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An unusual teaching approach??!!!

YYLee- thanks for the jpgs- the vast majority of them had people just standing around. I understand that he is not in good health...?

joy

I heard him also say that Yip Man didn't like to argue with people. So if someone asked Yip Man if such and such a technique was correct then Yip Man would say yes in order to avoid an argument. That's maybe why we have so many versions of Yip Man Wing Chun. So in this light it seems Wang Kiu did the same at least in the late 70's anyway. But maybe during the next 30 years he changed. I went to a couple of his seminars but found he wasn't that open. Maybe to his own students he taught a lot? When I learned, everything was rather secretive. I found Wang Kiu could talk for days and days about Wing Chun. Then I met Kenneth Chung and found he could also talk for days and days about Wing Chun (that would be 24 hours a day). Yet the funny thing is that none of the conversation overlapped. What they talked about had very little in common with each other yet it was both about Wing Chun. I found Wang Kiu's style to be more aggressive and attack oriented. I found Kenneth Chung's explanations related more to the defensive aspect. Their usage for things in the forms were totally different. For example Wang Kiu would show how to use the elbows to attack while Kenneth Chung would shop how the same movements were used for defense. Each thought the other's positions in Chi sau (bent wrist Fook sau- Wang Kiu vs Flat Fook sau- Kenneth Chung) were just plain wrong. They both had their good academic reasons. They also disagreed on the knee position with Kenneth Chung having the knees very much in whereas wang Kiu didn't. However they both agreed on having the Tan sau flat and so both didn't think the elevated Tan sau was good. However Ken did meet a guy in China who had had a very good elevated Tan sau and couldn't be taken advantage of easily. Wang Kiu used to talk a lot about the defects of the elevated Tan sau in the sticking hands practice. Wang Kiu also said Tai Chi's pushing hands were defective from a Wing Chun point of view however he said they may have methods to deal with the Wing Chun perceived weakness.

Ray

[Vajramusti]

Ray sez-
I heard him also say that Yip Man didn't like to argue with people. So if someone asked Yip Man if such and such a technique was correct then Yip Man would say yes in order to avoid an argument. That's maybe why we have so many versions of Yip Man Wing Chun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I was not present in Ip Man's teaching days... but FWIW
...my opinion is...
1. not a matter of Ip Man's liking to argue or not to argue.

2. Possible reasons for differences-
Ip Man evolved as a teacher

Students vary in their listening abilities re details and to execute them.

The principles were the same (IMO)- people were free to draw out the applications-individuality is a wing chun thing.

Ip Man was not always forthcoming- selective.Many traditional TCMA sifus were conservative that way.

The amount of quality time with Ip Man varied quite widely among
the students....much inflation of the times in stories after Ip Man's death- combined
by the relative silence of the "brotherhood" (the culture thing).

Many of the classes were taught by "senior" students- Ip Man saved much for the follow up paying privates.

PS- our times are different re teaching and learning environments... its important for folks to share their perspectives without oneupmanship(it is mostly a "man" thing-the bragging). I for one have learned much by thinking about what others say they have learned and do. Cooperative retrofitting is possible to some extent... the old story of-nine men describing the elephant thing they encountered..

[Vajramusti]

PPS- I dont think that Wang Kiu is in his 80s. My guess is the middle or even late 70s. Does anyone know?

[Ernie]

Hey Joy
how did your dogs operations go
hopefully all well :)

[YongChun]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
PPS- I dont think that Wang Kiu is in his 80s. My guess is the middle or even late 70s. Does anyone know?

I remember in 1982 that Wang Kiu's student Dr. G.K. Khoe said he was 55 years old. So that would make him 77 years old.

Ray

[Vajramusti]

About right Ray.
Wang Kiu was a few years older than Wong Shon Leung.
Wong would be almost or around 70 about now.

joy

[yylee]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
About right Ray.
Wang Kiu was a few years older than Wong Shon Leung.
Wong would be almost or around 70 about now.

joy

I remember WK said he's 79 in 2002, of course my memory is not always 100% reliable ;).

[Vajramusti]

Its not in this case. I met the man.

WSL- 1935-1997


tempus fugit

[yylee]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Its not in this case. I met the man.

WSL- 1935-1997


tempus fugit

I give up! :p

BTW Joy, you met Wang Kiu before?

[Vajramusti]

I was talking about meeting with Wong Shun Leung.

But Wang Kiu dropped in Jeff Bolt's Houston tournament one time
years ago..
He was there but I did not visit with him.

[russellsherry]

hi guys,i once did sil lim tao, for three hours at a camp, around,1979 , i thinkthis was to prove ifwe could do it , but looking back it was silly ,good sil lim tao is twenty minutes maxiem, i train two versions, the wong shun leurng version, monday tuesday and sifu willliams version with the double punch the test of the week , peace russellsherry

[Hendrik]

A set can train and has to train all the :

Tendon, skin, bone, Sinew/qing, Breathing/qi, Shen/awareness, potential, momentum, and power/Jing.


How to cover all of above is a big questions....

[h_bathow_sai]

Is there a clip for a 15 or 20 min. siu lim tao?

I'm a new Wing Chun student and I hear about the right way to do it as (Yip Man) is for around 20 min. ....I really care about Chi so i rather do it the slow way but should i do the whole form slowly or just the first third?...what about the punches and the last part?...

when i tried i did SLT in 12 min.!!!

i know it is a begginer quastion but i hope someone answers me please. thanx

[XeeBee]

Originally posted by h_bathow_sai
...whole form slowly or just the first third?...what about the punches and the last part?...
[/B]

We do the first section slowly. A rule of thumb that can be used is tan sau, wu sau and fok sau in the first section should take 1 minute each to do. the rest of the form is done at a normal pace.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by h_bathow_sai
Is there a clip for a 15 or 20 min. siu lim tao?

I'm a new Wing Chun student and I hear about the right way to do it as (Yip Man) is for around 20 min. ....I really care about Chi so i rather do it the slow way but should i do the whole form slowly or just the first third?...what about the punches and the last part?...

when i tried i did SLT in 12 min.!!!

i know it is a begginer quastion but i hope someone answers me please. thanx

It would be very boring to watch. IMagine someone standing in the neutral stance just holding their hand out asking for money. That's what the slow Tan sau section would look like. For a 30 minute SLT form you wouldn't notice any sign of movement but when 5 minutes is up you can see that the Tan sau indeed has moved.

Ray

[h_bathow_sai]

Originally posted by YongChun
It would be very boring to watch. IMagine someone standing in the neutral stance just holding their hand out asking for money. That's what the slow Tan sau section would look like. For a 30 minute SLT form you wouldn't notice any sign of movement but when 5 minutes is up you can see that the Tan sau indeed has moved.

Ray

well then, what about the punches, the 2nd and 3rd sections of SLT?..should they be performed with the same pace?

[yylee]

Originally posted by YongChun
It would be very boring to watch. IMagine someone standing in the neutral stance just holding their hand out asking for money. That's what the slow Tan sau section would look like. For a 30 minute SLT form you wouldn't notice any sign of movement but when 5 minutes is up you can see that the Tan sau indeed has moved.

Ray

really? I don't seem to see the magic behind a super slow Tan Sau as you describe it. Of course it is just me thinking, however, I do know some non-YM people who do it with this pace.

I'd rather do 5-10 minutes of the Fok/Wu cycle with slow pace, may be repeat 50 times, then move on with the rest of the set. When I have gone through the form and time permits, just randomly pick other moves in the set to train. When I feel tense, I go back to Fok/Wu cycle until I calm down again, then continue...

[WCis4me]

Originally posted by yylee

I'd rather do 5-10 minutes of the Fok/Wu cycle with slow pace, may be repeat 50 times, then move on with the rest of the set. When I have gone through the form and time permits, just randomly pick other moves in the set to train. When I feel tense, I go back to Fok/Wu cycle until I calm down again, then continue...

I agree.....the Fok/Wu seems to be a significant factor for me as well. Not sure about 5-10 but I know my focus seems to get better during that time.

Vicky

[YongChun]

Originally posted by h_bathow_sai
well then, what about the punches, the 2nd and 3rd sections of SLT?..should they be performed with the same pace?

Everything is normal speed except the first part of the form where the Tan sau comes out and the Fook sau comes out (for people who do it slowly). The rest of the form is all normal speed.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by WCis4me
I agree.....the Fok/Wu seems to be a significant factor for me as well. Not sure about 5-10 but I know my focus seems to get better during that time.

Vicky

After Kenneth Chung does the first part slowly his hands can be beet red. I saw the same in some Tai Chi people. One reason for the slowness is just for total relaxation and to totally calm and settle the mind.

When I first learned Wing Chun we did it quickly but repeated the Tan/Fook section for one hour. That's what Patrick Chow a private student of Yip Man said he had to do.

In the Wang Kiu lineage the first section just took a few minutes but they talked about the fact that it could be made to last longer like 30 minutes.

I saw a good Jiu Wan fighter do the first part very quickly and even with sort of a snap. He was very soft though and hit like a truck.

Most students would probably quit with the very slow version unless they were mature enough. In Tai Chi it's the same: a few go very slowly but most go at a medium speed.

[Gangsterfist]

I was reading through this thread and due to the little time I had I was unable to read it all. I was in deep thought of my SLT just today in class. I concentrated on every single movement and focused only on myself and how my structure moved. I felt power in my stance and felt strongly rooted to the ground. When I was doing the Tan and Fooks my arms felt light, and my energy focused in the elbow. My sifu says there is strong Qigong in the first part of the SLT.

I was pondering how my SLT was different than the rest. For one thing some others call it the SNT, and in YKS wing chun they call it the "first little training." Where as in my system we call it "little idea." I just got done reading Rene Richies book on YKS wing chun. It was very interesting and it is similar is some aspects and quite different in others than what I train. It was well written though, I think I have a very small improvement in the understanding of the system.

So, in deep thought about how to do the SLT and how everyone else does it. It does not matter how other lineages do their SLT and I know I should not dwell on it. However, I do like to point out the distinct differences and try to understand why they are different. They are trained that way for a reason and I am not here to debate which is better, because I am in no position to qualify which is better. However, I still like to have a little idea of the differences.

In the first part of the SLT we train the tan and the fook saos. Which happen to be 2 of the 3 pillars of wing chun. Which is also the two main positions in single hand chi sao. In the third part you train the bong sao which is the 3rd pillar of wing chun and used in combination with the first two during 2 hand chi sao. 2 hand chi sao is what some call the heart and soul of wing chun. It is a training method that really builds attributes to functionally utilize wing chun.

After thinking about all of this today in class, after class, and even right before I went to go see Alien Vs Predator tonight I think I made a connection. Its progressive training of structure.

The first part of the SLT is what you have probably trained the most since you started wing chun. Definately utilized in chi sao. So really from day one, from the first form, you are set down a path to develope attributes to utilize your wing chun. I am by no means saying these are the only attributes needed to be good at wing chun or gung fu in general. Its just a logical way of a very good system of training the body.

The SLT is definately some of the most important wing chun training you'll ever have, and also the most basically fundemental. I think there is some genius behind how this was created. I also think if we can all see this view we will stop squabbling about lineage, philosophy, religions, and semantics.

I will stop rambling now, and get back to the real world and away from the digital one.

Good luck to all of you in your traning,
-GF

[t_niehoff]

Perhaps I'm wasting my breath . . .

I know that I may seem to be a one hit wonder, but so much depends on that one essential song. There are lots of "theories" on how to "do" the forms (not the choreography but the substance), and there is a reason there are so many "theories" -- because no one is testing those theories by actually *using* their WCK in a fighting environment (so theories multiply like bunnies). You can talk about how so-and-so does his form and contrast that with how another "famous" guy does his form but where does that get you besides seeing merely a range of theoretical possibilites (and most of it, like the "red hands" stuff Ray reported, being nonsense)? Would you be asking or even interested in the question if you *knew precisely* the substance that your form, whichever one, whatever movement, whatever section, etc., was trying to impart? We have a saying: "You don't learn to fight from forms, you learn the forms (their substance) from fighting." If you truly understand that (and understanding can only come from practice/experience -- fighting), and consequentially the ramifications of that, a great many things will become clear. Otherwise, WCK and its forms, will forever remain "theory" to you.

Regards,

Terence

[Matrix]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Would you be asking or even interested in the question if you *knew precisely* the substance that your form, whichever one, whatever movement, whatever section, etc., was trying to impart? Terence,
Of course, that's the whole point. N'est pas?

*Bill

P.S. You are not wasting your breath. Stick to your guns.

[old jong]

Just yesterday,I had a very good demonstration by master Ho Kam Ming and his students on how to use the forms in Chi Sau and in fighting.They don't put things upside down.You learn the forms,practice them so you can control yourself then you practice Chi Sau still using control on yourself so you can react the right way to any change or attack by the training partner.Then you spar,using what you have learn and developed through your practice.If you find that you lose your balance and control,go back and do it again!

The forms teach how to control ourself and give us the proper structure needed in Wing Chun
Chi Sau helps us develop timing,awareness of lines and further development of self-control that must not be forgotten in sparring...Or fighting.

BTW,15 to 20 minutes is a good thing in SLT first third.

[Vajramusti]

Comments on Terence's post (in brackets)):

Perhaps I'm wasting my breath . . .

((No- but it is only one perspective))


I know that I may seem to be a one hit wonder, but so much depends on that one essential song.

((Dont know the song))..

There are lots of "theories" on how to "do" the forms (not the choreography but the substance),

((Choreography? Wing chun isn't a dance))

and there is a reason there are so many "theories" -- because no one is testing those theories by actually *using* their WCK in a fighting environment (so theories multiply like bunnies).

(((FWIWyour "reason" could be a theory too. Comparative and diverse levels of ignorance and ego and greed can be another reason))

You can talk about how so-and-so does his form and contrast that with how another "famous" guy does his form but where does that get you besides seeing merely a range of theoretical possibilites

((Net forums format =talk. Ray's reference ("red hands") was reporting an observation....not nonsense per se- depends on degrees and kinds of inferences drawn or made. Motions can have different physiological indicators of what is happening ))

Would you be asking or even interested in the question if you *knew precisely* the substance that your form, whichever one, whatever movement, whatever section, etc., was trying to impart?

((Students vary and learning methods vary. Some are interested in theory and practice- being good in one does not preclude being good in another.In passing on the art it helps to know something about both. Some fighters learn more about application--but some of them in turn cannot or do not pass on what they have learned very well---Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston etc))))

We have a saying: "You don't learn to fight from forms, you learn the forms (their substance) from fighting."

((First part-true IMO. Second part much less so. ""Learning" varies. Some learn the yellow pages listings of available medical services. "Learning by doing" was part of "progressive education
with mixed results. But folks threw out the baby with the bath water- praxis))))

If you truly understand that (and understanding can only come from practice/experience -- fighting), and consequentially the ramifications of that, a great many things will become clear. Otherwise, WCK and its forms, will forever remain "theory" to you.

((Practice, experience, fighting--- not always the same thing. Much of what is called fighting is different degrees of simulation.
Forms by themselves do NOT equal fighting. But without forms
one can miss the wing chun approach to kung fu/kuen fat.
There are many effective approaches to fighting or self defense.
Wing chun is not the only one.And wing chun is not for everyone.
Martial arts like many subjects can create illusions of grandeur among others. The results include the boxer rebellion or an accomplised muay thai champion in a year or so ago- being mowed down on the street in Arniefornia-not too far from his school))))

joy chaudhuri

www.tempewingchun.com

[t_niehoff]

Hi Bill,

Matrix wrote:

Of course, that's the whole point. N'est pas?

**Yes, but asking such a question only shows a fundamental flaw in the training itself. In other words, if one were doing the fighting/application, the question wouldn't even arise in the first place. The fact that it does, means the questioner is doing something wrong.

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

Hi Joy,

((Choreography? Wing chun isn't a dance))

**It seems to be folk danicing for most people since they don't fight with it. ;) But I'm sure you know what I mean by choreography vs. substance.

(((FWIWyour "reason" could be a theory too. Comparative and diverse levels of ignorance and ego and greed can be another reason))

**Everything is a "theory" until you test it. The testing purges the BS.

((Net forums format =talk. Ray's reference ("red hands") was reporting an observation....not nonsense per se- depends on degrees and kinds of inferences drawn or made. Motions can have different physiological indicators of what is happening ))

**What is the "physiological indicator" of wasting time? ;) IMO it is that you can't make your training work against skilled opponents -- that's what we need to focus on. If the forms are "texts" or training to make one a better fighter, one can determine if one's practice is useful by loooking to results -- are they actually becoming a better fighter or not? How does one judge if they never fight? Don't you see how the very question -- how to do the form -- already indicates a failing in one's training? Fighters regardless of their MA don't ask such questions because the fighting answers it for them. The fighting/application is the self-correcting aspect of all fighting arts. Once you lose that, then all bets are off, anything goes, all theories/opinions are equal, etc.

((Students vary and learning methods vary. Some are interested in theory and practice- being good in one does not preclude being good in another.In passing on the art it helps to know something about both. Some fighters learn more about application--but some of them in turn cannot or do not pass on what they have learned very well---Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston etc))))

**Fighting is application ("some fighters learn more about application" - huh?). But I agree that some fighters do not make good teachers (they may be able to do it but not able to help others do it). To teach, however, one must *know* what they are teaching. The "shell" of WCK, the form choreography, the drills, the kuit, etc. can be passed on by those that can't fight but the substance, i.e., the application, can only be learned by oneself from the doing (fighting).

We have a saying: "You don't learn to fight from forms, you learn the forms (their substance) from fighting."

((First part-true IMO. Second part much less so. ""Learning" varies. Some learn the yellow pages listings of available medical services. "Learning by doing" was part of "progressive education
with mixed results. But folks threw out the baby with the bath water- praxis))))

**The focus is on learning a physical activity, not memorizing the yellow pages. Any physical activity is learned from doing that physical activity. The objective in WCK is not to learn to do the forms, drills, etc. in some ritualized way (so that it becomes dance) but to use those things to develop fighting skills -- the ultimate objective is better fighting skills (using the tools of the method). So the test is whether or not those things we do, forms, drills, etc. have developed better fighting skills. There is, of course, only one way to test that (or we can "theorize" until the cows come home). Moreover, since we are trying to develop better fighting skills (the activity), the only way to do that is by actually doing the activity (fight).

**Regarding our motto: take a simple example like the punch. Learning the SNT will not teach you the "substance" of the punch, the stuff that goes into it to make it work -- that comes from hitting things, from developing it via exercises, drills, etc. and finally genuine application so that you come to really have a punch and understand it (how it works, how it fits into our method, etc.). This experience, culminating in fighting, goes into the punch in *your* form, so that it becomes *your form* -- and you've learned to do the form by fighting. And your form grows as you do, it is "alive" and changing. Without the "substance", the forms are dead, empty choreography -- the shell.

((Practice, experience, fighting--- not always the same thing. Much of what is called fighting is different degrees of simulation.

**"Simulation"? Fighting, like water is to swimming, is an environment: if you are facing a genuinely resisting opponent that is really trying to 'pound' you, then it is fighting. Ultimately, we are learning how to "cope" and succeed in that environment. WCK just takes a particular approach (BJJ a different approach) to dealing with that environment. We can create that environment in many ways. It is that environment that matters, not the venue or the stakes.

((Forms by themselves do NOT equal fighting. But without forms
one can miss the wing chun approach to kung fu/kuen fat.
There are many effective approaches to fighting or self defense.
Wing chun is not the only one.And wing chun is not for everyone.

**I agree. WCK has a core, its tools (tan, bong, fook, YJKYM, concepts, etc.), and that is expressed in the forms. Everyone in (legitimate) WCK has that core. But the tools in the forms are "shells", the substance of which are only revealed to us via individual application (you or I may have a theory what X "means" but application tests that theory).

((Martial arts like many subjects can create illusions of grandeur among others. The results include the boxer rebellion or an accomplised muay thai champion in a year or so ago- being mowed down on the street in Arniefornia-not too far from his school))))

**OK. Regardless of the physical activity -- golf, tennis, WCK, BJJ, swimming, hang-gliding -- there is a certain amount of "prep work" that goes into it (in WCK's case that is the forms, drills). But we "learn" the activity by doing that activity itself. WCK is an approach toward fighting (using certain tools). If we want to talk about the "prep work" we can only do it in relation to the results it produces. No results, no way to judge (other than theorize). There is much "illusion", or more accurately delusion, in those MAs that don't fight since "theory" runs amok, unchecked. BS then predominates.

Regards,

Terence

[Vajramusti]

Terence sez:

**OK. Regardless of the physical activity -- golf, tennis, WCK, BJJ, swimming, hang-gliding -- there is a certain amount of "prep work" that goes into it (in WCK's case that is the forms, drills). But we "learn" the activity by doing that activity itself. WCK is an approach toward fighting (using certain tools).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golf, tennis...

have fairly defined parameters and objectives-
hitting a golf ball-fewer strokes wins... tennis...hitting a ball accross a net- scores and sets...wins

bjj is different but still has parameters and limits.

Each real fight is different--- the constancy of parameters, rules and limits of sports can vanish. And serious fights are illegal
in the US, UK , OZ and Canuck country.

The swimming analogy doesnt completely hold- differences in swimming for fun, for competition, for the English channel, for pearl diving.

I am not makinga brief for "academic"(worst sense of the word) wing chun- but for an orderly development of skills and appropriate testing of those skills.
Skills are built one after another. Its a cumulative process. One can conceptually understand "biu" but merely "fighting" or beginner;s body development , or improper training- does not produce the skills of biu.

I dont expect to be persuasive- because Terence's posts seem to have taken on one single predictable track... of late...."Fight".

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Perhaps I'm wasting my breath . . .

I know that I may seem to be a one hit wonder, but so much depends on that one essential song. There are lots of "theories" on how to "do" the forms (not the choreography but the substance), and there is a reason there are so many "theories" -- because no one is testing those theories by actually *using* their WCK in a fighting environment (so theories multiply like bunnies). You can talk about how so-and-so does his form and contrast that with how another "famous" guy does his form but where does that get you besides seeing merely a range of theoretical possibilites (and most of it, like the "red hands" stuff Ray reported, being nonsense)? Would you be asking or even interested in the question if you *knew precisely* the substance that your form, whichever one, whatever movement, whatever section, etc., was trying to impart? We have a saying: "You don't learn to fight from forms, you learn the forms (their substance) from fighting." If you truly understand that (and understanding can only come from practice/experience -- fighting), and consequentially the ramifications of that, a great many things will become clear. Otherwise, WCK and its forms, will forever remain "theory" to you.

Regards,

Terence

Terence, there was never any inference made that red hands relate to fighting. It was an observation that I have seen in a few good Tai Chi people that a few good Wing Chun people were able to duplicate. I have no idea what it means but may mean that the person is able to relax more than those people that don't see this effect.

In general relaxation is good but a relaxed person is not necessarily a fighter. A stiff person can also fight but advanced athletes of any sort tend to be more relaxed because they conserve energy and a host of other reasons. That relaxation can get it's start from doing the form, meditating, doing yoga (one Olympic Judo guy does Yoga to relax) or anything but later has to be translated into the fighting.

When I see someone doing a stiff tense form then pretty well I can judge his fighting will be the same consisting of stiff jerky movements which can easily be dealt with. When I see someone doing a very relaxed form then there is the possibility that his fighting could be good. If it is stiff , tense, awkward, wrong angles then there is not much possibility that that person is operating at their optimum levels and someone with equal training but more relaxed will beat them. I love people that are stiff and tense.

Form is just a dictionary or alphabet and a way to hand down a style. Without it you don't have Kung Fu, you just have street fighting, brawling, and kickboxing. Form is just your mechanics and theories about how they should be applied in practice. In Chinese fighting competitions the practioners must first demonstrate their form and later in fighting use the things they displayed in the form. In this way Hung style, Tai Chi, Preying Mantis which are all different theories remain distinct. Stylists have distinct ways to move, to use energy, to absorb power, to generate power etc. In Hung style people did ten years of form, every day, 7 hours a day plus conditioning until the body was built strong and the ideas of the style ingrained. After that the practitioners fought and fought in order to try to apply the ideas of the style. Later when you saw them fight they didn't look like Kickboxers, Thai boxers, Capoeira stylists etc. They looked like Hung style fighters. On that note if you want to fight with Capoeira you don't practice Wing Chun or Hung style forms, not do you just start fighting against kickboxers or go on the street and fight. Capoeira start with leaning distinct form. Then you learn to use it to fight. Kung Fu has been trained this way for more than a thousand years.

First you blindly copy a master's idea by way of form and then when you understand something you can develop your own through your own fighting experiences. Western boxing start with learning the proper mechanics of form for the uppercut, jab, cross. Good fighters can lose when they have small errors in form. One world class champ lost when his opponent took advantage of a slight shoulder drop during a certain kind of punch that the champ threw. The challenger just waited until the opportunity came up and knocked him out. An error in his form did him in.

Likewise new people to Wing Chun get beat because they make so many errors in position. Form gets out some of those errors. Later there is sensitivity, feeling, timing and many other factors all of which need to be analyzed carefully.

For many Wing Chun stylists, they can use their stuff because most attackers don't pump iron in the gym all day long, train against professionals just so they can pick on some weak person on the street. Our training gives us some advantage. Again it's against who. The more you train and the more realistic you do that the better you will be with the negative effect that your fighting career will also last a short time.

You can fight with lots of protection on but that is not realy the same thing. You can fight all day with a rubber knife but if you face a real sharp two edged blade the feeling is just too different. You just wouldn't take half the chances you wood with rubber knife, plastic knife, wooden knife or just fake knife training.

One you have the basic form then the rest is fighting practice. It's not one or the other form or fighting but for a Kung Fu art it is both. Fighters fight. There are many way to fight and certainly Wing Chun doesn't have the monopoly on good fighting. No one on this forum is famous for their fighting as far as I know. No lineage has shown they are better than all the other lineages.

There is little incentive for anyone to be a professional fighter. There is no money in it. No part time Wing Chun guy can compete against a guy that trains in a professional manner no matter what his style or art. So talk about realistic professional fighting is nonsense among non professionals. Likewise talk about realistic fighting is nonsence because realistic fighting is getting stabbed in the back, ten on one, the use of guns, chains, sharpened pipes, acid etc. Unless you practice all day long stick and knife fighting and are very familiar with gun tactics you can't live too long in the REAL world of fighting.

Who will be stupid enough to have a manly one on one fight with life or death as a goal? Real fighters don't last long. They get killed off or spend 20 years behind bars. Once there, they can pump iron all day long and really practice realistic fighting and maybe have much opportunity to use it.

Learning form in Wing Chun is the same as slowly progressing through many drills and exercises in Piano, Chess, Basketball or Judo where you study the works of the masters. Later you take this information and do your own thing with it. Some choose to train at a serious level and train 10 hours a day every day. That's how you become good. People who don't train like that can't converse intelligently with those who do. There should be two forums, one for the reality guys who have proven themselves and continuously compete at a high level and the other for the part time hobby types. All these years people talked about how to beat the Thais. So far I have heard Gary Lam actually got the experience so I would trust he knows what he is talking about. Unless someone has a reputation like Dekker or Doleman or Bluming no one can really talk about what works and what doesn't.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Perhaps I'm wasting my breath . . .

I know that I may seem to be a one hit wonder, but so much depends on that one essential song. There are lots of "theories" on how to "do" the forms (not the choreography but the substance), and there is a reason there are so many "theories" -- because no one is testing those theories by actually *using* their WCK in a fighting environment (so theories multiply like bunnies). You can talk about how so-and-so does his form and contrast that with how another "famous" guy does his form but where does that get you besides seeing merely a range of theoretical possibilites (and most of it, like the "red hands" stuff Ray reported, being nonsense)? Would you be asking or even interested in the question if you *knew precisely* the substance that your form, whichever one, whatever movement, whatever section, etc., was trying to impart? We have a saying: "You don't learn to fight from forms, you learn the forms (their substance) from fighting." If you truly understand that (and understanding can only come from practice/experience -- fighting), and consequentially the ramifications of that, a great many things will become clear. Otherwise, WCK and its forms, will forever remain "theory" to you.

Regards,

Terence

Terence, there was never any inference made that red hands relate to fighting. It was an observation that I have seen in a few good Tai Chi people that a few good Wing Chun people were able to duplicate. I have no idea what it means but may mean that the person is able to relax more than those people that don't see this effect.

In general relaxation is good but a relaxed person is not necessarily a fighter. A stiff person can also fight but advanced athletes of any sort tend to be more relaxed because they conserve energy and a host of other reasons. That relaxation can get it's start from doing the form, meditating, doing yoga (one Olympic Judo guy does Yoga to relax) or anything but later has to be translated into the fighting.

When I see someone doing a stiff tense form then pretty well I can judge his fighting will be the same consisting of stiff jerky movements which can easily be dealt with. When I see someone doing a very relaxed form then there is the possibility that his fighting could be good. If it is stiff , tense, awkward, wrong angles then there is not much possibility that that person is operating at their optimum levels and someone with equal training but more relaxed will beat them. I love people that are stiff and tense.

Form is just a dictionary or alphabet and a way to hand down a style. Without it you don't have Kung Fu, you just have street fighting, brawling, and kickboxing. Form is just your mechanics and theories about how they should be applied in practice. In Chinese fighting competitions the practioners must first demonstrate their form and later in fighting use the things they displayed in the form. In this way Hung style, Tai Chi, Preying Mantis which are all different theories remain distinct. Stylists have distinct ways to move, to use energy, to absorb power, to generate power etc. In Hung style people did ten years of form, every day, 7 hours a day plus conditioning until the body was built strong and the ideas of the style ingrained. After that the practitioners fought and fought in order to try to apply the ideas of the style. Later when you saw them fight they didn't look like Kickboxers, Thai boxers, Capoeira stylists etc. They looked like Hung style fighters. On that note if you want to fight with Capoeira you don't practice Wing Chun or Hung style forms, not do you just start fighting against kickboxers or go on the street and fight. Capoeira start with leaning distinct form. Then you learn to use it to fight. Kung Fu has been trained this way for more than a thousand years.

First you blindly copy a master's idea by way of form and then when you understand something you can develop your own through your own fighting experiences. Western boxing start with learning the proper mechanics of form for the uppercut, jab, cross. Good fighters can lose when they have small errors in form. One world class champ lost when his opponent took advantage of a slight shoulder drop during a certain kind of punch that the champ threw. The challenger just waited until the opportunity came up and knocked him out. An error in his form did him in.

Likewise new people to Wing Chun get beat because they make so many errors in position. Form gets out some of those errors. Later there is sensitivity, feeling, timing and many other factors all of which need to be analyzed carefully.

For many Wing Chun stylists, they can use their stuff because most attackers don't pump iron in the gym all day long, train against professionals just so they can pick on some weak person on the street. Our training gives us some advantage. Again it's against who. The more you train and the more realistic you do that the better you will be with the negative effect that your fighting caree

[Matrix]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Yes, but asking such a question only shows a fundamental flaw in the training itself. In other words, if one were doing the fighting/application, the question wouldn't even arise in the first place. Terence,
Who raised the question?
To me it was self-evident.

*Bill

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Golf, tennis...

have fairly defined parameters and objectives-
hitting a golf ball-fewer strokes wins... tennis...hitting a ball accross a net- scores and sets...wins

bjj is different but still has parameters and limits. The problem with analogies is that the items of comparsion are, by definition, merely analgous to the each other. They tend to differ on other traits, which is where we see the comparisons and the discussion break down.

*Bill

[AmanuJRY]

When a person seeks to discredit an analogy, instead of looking for the lesson in it, it becomes useless as a form of communication.

I, myself, love the use of analogy as a communication tool. There's a certain poetry to it.

speaking of poetry, here's a haiku;

When it's caught inside
the stillness of the moment
sunset or sunrise?

:D

[Vajramusti]

The Zen master asks
> Jadi, what is the Buddha?.
> Ah! The rabbit moves!

[t_niehoff]

Vajramusti wrote:

Each real fight is different--- the constancy of parameters, rules and limits of sports can vanish. And serious fights are illegal in the US, UK , OZ and Canuck country.

**The notion of "real" (vs. unreal?) fight is illusionary -- there is just a fighting environment (there isn't "real" water and some other kind, or some kind of "real" swimming and nonreal swimming). Fights can have rules and limits, even on the street (such as the law unless we want to go to prison; morality; the situation; etc.). Our tactics will change with the circumstances but the environment -- dealing with a genuinely resisting opponent that is trying to 'pound' you -- remains.

The swimming analogy doesnt completely hold- differences in swimming for fun, for competition, for the English channel, for pearl diving.

**Once again, it all takes place in the water -- and if one hasn't practiced swimmming even in a calm pool, they will not be ready for pearl diving or anything else; sure pearl diving may be more strenous, but the only way to develop that skill is by swimming. It always amazes me that nonfighters defer to the "it isn't real" argument but fail to see that their training, i.e., forms, drills, etc. is certainly not "real" by their own standards. How can an even less "real" training prepare you for "real" fighting? At least "sport" or fighting as part of one's training or whatever you want to call it has the characteristics of a "real" fight, the fighting environment, and so one can see whether or not they are prepared to be able to deal with. It's getting in the pool, dealing with the environment.

I dont expect to be persuasive- because Terence's posts seem to have taken on one single predictable track... of late...."Fight".

**There is so much BS on these forums and in most nonfighting MAs, and there is a root cause for it -- lack of fighting experience (from folks that claim to pratice a fighting method!). We'd expect the same thing, i.e., all kinds of nonsense, on a swimming forum if most of its contributors never got into the pool but "discussed" how their pool-side preparations worked, or were better, etc. Yes, you are correct that my posts have been consistent. Because I'm on a swimming forum where most don't get into the pool -- forgive me for pointing out that if a person were to get in the pool, they may actually become a better swimmer and have much of the nonsense fall away.

Regards,

Terence

[t_niehoff]

Hi Ray,

I'm not going to include your post in my response because of length concerns.

Your post relies on many assumptions -- so let's begin from a simple proposition: that a person can *only* learn to fight skillfully or competantly or improve their fighting skills (like swimming) by getting in the water (by actually swimming). WCK is an approach to fighting (swimming). So one can only become competant in that approach to fighting by actually using that approach in fighting. You either accept that or you don't. The evidence we can actually see -- people that fight skillfully regardless of style or lineage -- all follow that "paradigm" (if you will) in their training. And it comports with how human beings learn any physical skill. If you do accept it, then all the assumptions and the BS begin to fall to the wayside.

You talk about "good" people. How do you determine whether someone is "good" -- by what they can demonstrate (forms, drills, one-steps)? Or by how they can actually use their method in fighting? From my perspective, if they don't fight as part of their training, they can't be "good". To determine skill, we need a way to measure. If you wanted to measure your strength and how well your training helped develop strength, you could lift and record your pounds, then do training, and measure again to see your progress. In any fighting art, we want to measure performance as well so that we can see how we are progressing and tweak our training. But what do we measure? We measure what it is, the performance, we are trying to do -- fight; we measure our performance in fighting.

Chi sao (and the touching hands stuff) is a drill, sort of like "point sparring" -- which as a drill, has certain advantages, but also certain drawbacks in terms of developing fighting skills. Many things "work" in point sparring that will get you killed in a genuine fighting environment; the same with chi sao. By actually fighting, one can determine what those are, and then remove them from their point sparring to get greater benefit from the drill. Same with chi sao. Or, they can never fight but continue to "refine" and "refine" their point sparring skills -- what they would call "improving" -- and become great point sparrers without ever realizing that in so doing they are actually moving further and further away from developing good fighting skills (their "refinement" of point sparring tactics and tools are actually make them a worse fighter!). Same with chi sao. Moreoever, when one actually fights and compares that to point sparring or chi sao, they'll see that those methods of training really didn't develop attributes like timing, sensitivity, awareness, etc. for a fighting enfvironment (as they are intensity-dependent). The point sparring and chi sao are useful as drills, but nothing more. They aren't indicative of fighting skill and can't be used as a measure.

Form and function (application) are not two different things, they are the same thing. By making it work, whatever it is, we learn the "proper" form for ourselves (as individuals). And if it doesn't work, our form is bad.

Whether folks have trained a certain way for 1000 years is irrelevant, even if true. But tell me, where are all the tremendous "kung fu" fighters that this way of training has produced? Don't give me stories or legends. And so what if they have done it that way for 1000 years -- does that make it good? Or efficient? Or effective? Let's say that it has produced a *few* highly skilled people, a small percentage of folks that practice the art -- perhaps they were just "exceptional" in the first place. The important question is whether it works for you. Has it? There is only one way to know -- by testing it. What we do know is that the "paradigm" I'm putting forward has, and continues to, produce good fighters regardless of style (because that's how humans learn).

No one becomes a good fighter by aping or mimicing his "master." To blindly follow, even as a beginner, demonstrates neither the master or student have a clue as to developing fighting skill. "Form" is not static, but in action, in the performance. Good form produces good results, as form and function are the same. A good teacher or coach doesn't just tell their student to do things a certain way (because that's how things are done) but rather shows their student **how to produce a certain result in application by using a certain "form".** Bad result equals bad form. For example, you learn the "form" of a hip throw from your teacher but you take that and try to make it work for yourself. The student through application (fighting) learns to find *their form*. Good teachers invite questions, invite experimentation, invite challenges, etc. from their students -- they want the student to figure things out and understand for themselves. Understanding and skill only come from the doing.

WCK people get beat, including beginners or "masters", because they have little to no fighting skill -- skill that is developed by fighting. You can't separate form and function. And attributes like timing, sensitivity, etc. are all intensity-dependent -- forms, drills, including chi sao, will not develop them beyond a superficial level. You can only develop them by fighting. So if someone doesn't fight, they won't have the necessary attributes, nor form, nor skill.

It is simple -- if you never get in the pool, you may be able to dogpaddle a bit but that's the limit of your skills regardless of how much time you put in on the side of the pool doing drills and forms. To develop into a competant swimmer requires that we get pool time. To develop even greater swimmming skills requires even more pool time. So all the "good" tai ji people and "good" WCK people that never get into the pool will only be able to dogpaddle; and anyone who does get into the pool regularly will most likely be able to swim much better. You can try and "analyze" swimming but that won't make you a good swimmer without getting into the pool. And you are just "analyzing" in the dark.

Folks can make all kinds of excuses for not fighting. Fighting with protection is better than no fighting at all (just like getting in a pool with a flotation device is better than not getting in). Boxers wear gloves when they get into the ring but the fighting skills they develop, and which can only be developed by getting in the ring, will serve them on "the street" when they don't have the gloves on. Never boxing in the ring just means one will never develop good boxing technique, good boxing skills, or the attributes to make a good boxer. But maybe they'll look "good" in demos. ;)

You learn form from fighting. How does one *know* where or how to position their tan sao, for example? From application, from seeing what works and what doesn't, not from someone telling you how to do it. The problem with drills is that they can be done is such a way as to presuppose a certain way of doing things (a drill is performed in a prearranged way) but that doesn't mean it will be effective for that person in a fighting environment. One needs to experience that firsthand.

And I'm not talking about being a professional fighter -- if you went to a BJJ school or boxing gym or any other place that trains fighters, you'd fight as part of your training because they are all martial arts. If you don't fight, you're not practicing a martial art. And it's not a case of hobby vs. serious fighter either -- there are hobbiests at every BJJ *but they still fight.* They can "converse intelligently" with Rickson because they all practice the same art and have experience . Maybe the hobbiest will never be as good as Rickson but to have any skill in BJJ they need to fight.

Regards,

Terence

[Vajramusti]

Noise! Lots of it.

Without reproducing Terence's or Ray's posts.

Good grief! This is just a xxxx chat net forum- not a running record of wing chun or wing chun folks. Most wing chun folks are not even on this list. In the last "poll" only 26 or 27 people even bothered to reply on aspects of their fighting experience.

... simulations and rearrangements of deck chairs on an imaginary Titanic.

This is not a Ring Magazine record of fighters and their records.
We just circulate the same hearsays with little spins on them here and there.

Why in the world would anyone including wing chun folks who have had real fights and have hurt someone badly at one time or another come on KFO to prove to Terence or anybody else "from Missouri" that they are tough.

PS- as far as that 1987 fiasco in Germany- except for 2 lineages/lineage holders-
it had nothing to do with the rest of wing chun and there was almost no wing chun skills demonstrated- a story(or history) of bragging on one side and planned ambushing on the other..
The tenor of the discussions at times seems to be that kfo participants know who is doing what in the whole wide world.
Even referring to that incident makes us a laughing stock to many.
Ditto for the EB/Gracie non fight non story.


If someone does not have confidence in their art- they should eject. If they are interested in the art they should try to get the best instructor they can get. If they think that they themselves lack something in their development-they can attempt fixing it.
If someone one's wants to fight, I hope that they dont claim to represent
anyone but themselves- hope they train very well for it-and hope they make sure that it is worth it- financially or personally.

[Hendrik]

1, So what is the purpose of practicing SLT? Until that question resolved there is no way out.



2.
that a person can *only* learn to fight skillfully or competantly or improve their fighting skills (like swimming) by getting in the water (by actually swimming). WCK is an approach to fighting (swimming). ----------------





Beware that everyone define SLT training in thier own way.

So,
is The question, one doing SLT in "water" or doing SLT in the "air"? Or Is the question does SLT train for swimming at all?

Is doing SLT analogy to a swimming training? Swimming training is not Swimming competition. But, it is a great and a must preparation for Swimming competition.





3, Chi sao (and the touching hands stuff) is a drill, sort of like "point sparring" -- which as a drill, has certain advantages, but also certain drawbacks in terms of developing fighting skills. ----


According to who's definition?

In China many many decade ago.
Wing Chun Kuen's characteristics or strength is Chi Dar or stick and strike.

A spider cannot go out and jump around similar to the grashopper to fight. A spider wait in its web.



Thus, the whole question of How do you do Siu Lin Tau part 1 or part x return to the question--->

what is the purpose of training Siu Lin Tau .
and this question return to the question ------->

What is the characteristics and strength of Wing Chun Kuen.


If the big blue print question is not answered, one cannot answered the methodological question, and one cannot answer the How do you do Siu Lim Tau specific method's question.



In addition,


a Spider is not a Grashopper. A spider cannot fight like a Grasshopper. A spider doesnt train its body similar a Grasshoper does. A spider's hand cannot be a Grasshopper's Kiu Sau.

Similar to Wing Chun's Leong Jan's hand, skill, and steps CANNOT be similar to Shao Lin Hung Gar's Tit Kiu Sam's (Iron brigde three) or Shao Lin's CLF Chen Heng.
Thus, I never believe in SLT is from Shao Lin.


A small spider might not be able to sustain a certan bigger size of grasshopper, but a spider grows as a spider. A spider cannot go out and learn how the Grasshopper root and generate power because Spider reside in the middle of the web is not ground. ...

so what kind of SLT are you doing? the grasshopper? the Spiderman? from the DNA, is SLT for grasshopper or Spiderman?


some blue sky thougths.

[KenWingJitsu]

Forms rob you of fighting ability.

Thats what Ernie is saying in simple english. Like it or don't, believe it or not. lol. Good luck at becoming a world champion at performing forms.

Fighting is about movement, not perfecting shapes.:o

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
Forms rob you of fighting ability.

Thats what Ernie is saying in simple english. Like it or don't, believe it or not. lol. Good luck at becoming a world champion at performing forms.

Fighting is about movement, not perfecting shapes.:o


"Forms rob you of fighting ability................."
That is certainly a valid belive and has lots of truth in it.


Will you get rid of your SLT training starting this instance?
if not then why do you still keep doing it contradict to your belive?

[Miles Teg]

Havent ya heard of Jet Li? He became a world champion at doing forms. Doesnt neccessarily mean hes a good fighter of course but its possible. One could also say good luck at becoming a world champion fighter - cause that would be just as hard.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Miles Teg
Havent ya heard of Jet Li? He became a world champion at doing forms. Doesnt neccessarily mean hes a good fighter of course but its possible. One could also say good luck at becoming a world champion fighter - cause that would be just as hard.


I still rather put my bet on the form champion who is capable to control and manage his/her body/staminal and precision on the motion. then lots of so called figthers.

[Miles Teg]

Hey Hendrik
I was really responding to KenWIngChuns comment.

But there are plenty of sports where sole practice is insufficient for some reason. Most boxers have to train a lot of other things in preparation for a fight.

[sihing]

Quote KenWingJitsu:
"Forms rob you of fighting ability.

Thats what Ernie is saying in simple english. Like it or don't, believe it or not. lol. Good luck at becoming a world champion at performing forms.

Fighting is about movement, not perfecting shapes"

Forms are not fighting, I agree there, but to say that forms "rob you of fighting ability" I would have to disagree with that statement. Forms teach you how to control your own body first, so that you do not have to worry about controling your own actions in relation to your body when the sh!t hits the fan. Is one supposed to just start out sparring from day one, and develop their own system of stance, guard formation, structure and go from there? What if what they come out with is not very efficient or effective. Boxers practice in front of mirrors correct? Why do you think they do this? To practice form, shadowbox to develop flow and smoothness in the own individual technique and mechanics, and to self correct when watching in the mirror. Although it is a free style of form, it is form, just a difference in methodology. Boxers practice thousands of jabs, to develop strength and stamina in the jab but to also perfect the form of the jab, so that it's mechanics when done in the heat of the moment is the same as when practiced in the gym.

You have to start somewhere, you have to have a basic structure, and then you take it from there with movement and footwork.

James

[YongChun]

Hi Terrence,

I guess my posts are too long such that the message is lost. I mentioned one example of Hung style. They practice form until the form and mechanics are good, the stance stable and rooted and the punches are powerful and the hand speed is very fast. Maybe this took ten years. After that they went out to fight. That's it, that's all there is too it! I think various Kung Fu arts produced good fighters in the past otherwise why are we all practicing these various arts? They survived for some reason.

However in modern days real fighting is different because it involves weapons and multiple opponents. Mainly there is a good chance to get killed off or put in jail if you go out and look for fights. Actually most Kung Fu styles come from the realm of multiple arrmed opponents. The only thing difference was the abscence of guns.

So instead students of all arts spar with each other as a form of play fighting. Animals train this way too. Some spar with other styles in tournament settings with various rules. The most notable people who really fight are boxers. However most don't box beyond a certain age and a some get brain damage. So that doesn't appeal to most people. Also there is no evidence that this kind of training prepares one for street confrontations where anything at all goes. So various methods to keep up one's developed fighting skills were developed. Chi sau is one. Chi sau can train attributes or just relaxation or at the other end of the spectrum just turn into a full blown fight. Chi sau between competing schools could turn into that. Full chi sau can involve all ranges of combat, include the closing and have any intesity that people would like. One can even train very fast knife chi sau.

To me stick and knife fighting all day long is the best and hand to hand combat is second best. If you are preparing for real street fights by training against rough and tough resisting opponents then that won't cut it either. I think it is smart to train in such a way that the injuries caused in training are not worse than that which might occur on the street. I think it is wise not to go out looking for fights.

I would like to see weekly tapes of the realists have fights like those two black guys we saw the other week to show how effective Wing Chun training can easily handle that. The fighting must be weekly otherwise the training wouldn't be realistic. If someone is not actually trying to knock your head off in training or really stab you then it is just play.

For me I prefer the play. we have had various students who went from just play to real fighting because they have jobs as bouncers, as police officers or as correctional officers. These people survived for some reason. By the various posts on this subject they should have gotten killed off.

It would be nice to have some tests as Terrence suggests. So what are the definitive tests that we can go by. We all spar to varying degrees, some against tougher opponents than others. Most clubs have people from all kinds of backgrounds.

[Ernie]

Every body’s form looks great ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- until they get hit
One must also practice the form of getting hit and being able to hit while in motion and with intent to do damage.
To be able to remain calm, centered and clear, while your spitting blood, to be able to absorb punishment, get up once your down and rally back if needed, I have come across many people that can out form me, but as soon as the pressure came on, they crumble on impact, loss focus, resort to fast desperate punches with noting on them, they have form with no function


This is more common then not, sadly

I would much rather fight a [
Form champion who is capable to control and manage his/her body/stamina and precision on the motion]

Then a regular street thug with a high pain tolerance and street fight experience, with bad ‘’ form ‘’


Any day of the week

Why simple the forms champion doesn’t’ train to relate to another person and doesn’t train to take pressure and pain from another person beating on them disrupting there internal dialogue.

But please keep on doing more forms then refining function, even a scare crow has a purpose =)

[WCis4me]

I feel that forms have a definate purpose. It is important to have control, to train your focus and moves and know where you want to go next and to train in it enough so that it will come naturally, valuable time can be lost 'thinking' about what comes next.

However, I also agree that it is important to be able to adapt to your environment, which may not have perfect form. The training is just that, to train your body and mind to move in a controlled, effective manner, however when the real deal happens, such as what Ernie has described, you need to be able to adapt and perform on a level that form alone cannot take you. That is why learning more than one style of MA is important, it adds to the mix and gets you away from certain definitions of form and teaches you to adapt under varying circumstances, holds, positions, etc etc etc. Short of going and testing the waters by starting a street brawl (for those that haven't had a lot of experience there) mixing it up a bit is a good plan of action that may serve you very well one day.


"even a scare crow has a purpose =)"

Teehee Ernie I sooooo have to use that some day. LOL

[AmanuJRY]

To me, forms are like a workbook;

Your instructor gives you a blank workbook (the form as you learn it in the beginning, empty), from there the experience you get from isolated drills, chi sau and you instructor's lectures becomes the notes that you put into the workbook, to fill in the blank spaces. You do this in your own words/with your own experience. Once the workbook is filled, and you understand the lessons within, you return to it once in a while to refresh your understanding or to amend it with new experience.

A fight/sparring match is like a test (not open book), where you apply what you have learned from memory, without the aid of your notes, just pure understanding.

BTW, in some of the most difficult tests the answer to some questions lies in something as simple as the definition of a word.

[Vajramusti]

"To me, forms are like a workbook;""

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part , yes... but there is more to it than that.
There is a complementary process of understanding concepts AND shaping the body and developing it in a wing chun way... NOT static "shapes".

[Ernie]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
"To me, forms are like a workbook;""

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part , yes... but there is more to it than that.
There is a complementary process of understanding concepts AND shaping the body and developing it in a wing chun way... NOT static "shapes".


Joy ,
wouldn't you say that shaping in the wing chun way is found in it's proper relationship to the energy and position of the opponent , this is when the form has life in a changing organic state

like finishing the circuit , giving your ground and path way a place to go and reason for being




justin , great post man

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
In part , yes... but there is more to it than that.
There is a complementary process of understanding concepts AND shaping the body and developing it in a wing chun way... NOT static "shapes". Joy,
I agree with you, and I also believe that Justin was not limiting the workbook concept to static shapes. Far be it for me to speak for Justin, but I did not draw that conclusion from his post. The "static shape" comment was made elsewhere.

*Bill

[AmanuJRY]

Static shapes = empty workbook
Live shapes = filled workbook
organic movement = understanding of what's in the workbook

[WCis4me]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
To me, forms are like a workbook;

Your instructor gives you a blank workbook (the form as you learn it in the beginning, empty), from there the experience you get from isolated drills, chi sau and you instructor's lectures becomes the notes that you put into the workbook, to fill in the blank spaces. You do this in your own words/with your own experience. Once the workbook is filled, and you understand the lessons within, you return to it once in a while to refresh your understanding or to amend it with new experience.

A fight/sparring match is like a test (not open book), where you apply what you have learned from memory, without the aid of your notes, just pure understanding.

BTW, in some of the most difficult tests the answer to some questions lies in something as simple as the definition of a word.
I REALLY like this definition!

[Vajramusti]

Replying to two of Ernie's posts:


Every body’s form looks great --

((I dont think so. A trained eye can see flaws and strengths in motion and coordination in any skilled activity. Even ina boxer's shadowboxing you can tell whether they have jab, hook etc))--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- until they get hit

(((Composure under fire is important in martial sport and activity
and in wing chun as well))


One must also practice the form of getting hit and being able to hit while in motion and with intent to do damage.


(( Gor sao-chi sao-lat sao if done right can teach that))


To be able to remain calm, centered and clear, while your spitting blood, to be able to absorb punishment, get up once your down and rally back if needed,

((True!!))

I have come across many people that can out form me, but as soon as the pressure came on, they crumble on impact, loss focus, resort to fast desperate punches with noting on them, they have form with no function

((True in part- they probably didnt have good form to begin with-
they may have hada pretty looking form))


This is more common then not, sadly

I would much rather fight a [
Form champion who is capable to control and manage his/her body/stamina and precision on the motion]

Then a regular street thug with a high pain tolerance and street fight experience, with bad ‘’ form ‘’


(( Hey= do we have to become street guys-great on the short-
but a la Hobbes- such lives are nasty, brutish and short))-----------------
---------------------------------------------
wouldn't you say that shaping in the wing chun way is found in it's proper relationship to the energy and position of the opponent , this is when the form has life in a changing organic state

((Yes- but first one has to develop the energy relationships
and posyional coordination of oneself...the flow of forms helps with that-in the wing chun way))

like finishing the circuit , giving your ground and path way a place to go and reason for being

((Yes))

[Ernie]

((True in part- they probably didn’t have good form to begin with-
they may have hada pretty looking form)) Joy

Now this is the essence of the conversation, many people have excellent looking forms with all the right motions and mental focus and power generation,

But they lack the ability to relate that ‘’ perfect form ‘’ to a non-perfect environment.

Sure it works great inside of chi sau and gor sau and lat sau and what ever sau,

But once there is no pre defined set of possibilities then these perfect forms shapes and energies crash and bounce and desperation slips in. often adaptability in a foreiengn enviroment will bring this out.

And this is the best thing in the world that can happen, this is when you stop being a slave to the form and start using it to fit and suit your current needs, the uncrispy actions, were timing, speed, power, footwork, and adaptability rule, then the ‘’ form ‘’ you use will take a back seat to the skill you use. Form is the weakest of all the branches on the tree, it’s the core root that gets you there and supports you ounce you get there

But the forms do point the path to the root, but once you have the root then you or the situation decide the tools you use not by the forms



So there is a difference between a perfect form person and a seasoned form person, perhaps the seasoned person my not have the ‘’ pretty ‘’ form that the other has but when the two meet the real soul and beauty come out.

Forms, chi sau, gor sau, and so on are all just a path, this path can be short or long or if you like you can walk in circles, or get to one side and then go back, it’s only when you leave the path that ‘’ you ‘’ really start your own journey

But many people fear being on their own and like linus hold on to their security blankets forever

[sihing]

Forms, Forms, Forms, just tools of the trade, just like a carpenter and his tool box. Without the box he cannot build the structure. Ernie is right about allot of what he says, you cannot be bound by the form, but you need it's structure to allow you to progress to the next level, in WC case chi-sao, lat-sao or whatever sao, lol. At this point you get to put your form to the test and allow it to become alive, but you must understand the structure here also. Not too many people on the street are going to fight in a bong/fok/tan/wu structure, so how do we apply chi-sao, which in my mind is a form of structure too. Well you don't apply chi-sao to fighting, you apply the attribute's you learn from it, forward intention, sensitivity, close range fighting, trapping, etc....Then what's next, well learning how to apply it on a unsubmissive opponent to get used to that type of energy and aggression, and also learning how to perceive what your opponent is up to before or at the time he/she does it.

James

[Miles Teg]

I dont think anyone is saying that the form should replace other practices. Just that its good and shouldnt be left out completely.



As I alluded to before though, form practice should bring some very concrete results. We do structural tests on eachother where we try to manipulate the limbs of a fully resisting partner. Even if the partner is fully tensing his muscles, our relaxed arm should prevail. This is even important for the power of a punch. I got my friend (non W.C guy) who is way bigger than me to put his hand out and try and stop me from punching out. I can relax push forward and he cant hold the punch back. When he tries it, his arms get shakey and its hard for him to push it out. This comes from form practice and is a real result of practice. And it seems that this sort of power doesnt reach a peak as long one keeps practicing.


This isnt an arguement about whether people should spar or not. Thats a whole different discussion. Whats wrong with doing both?

[Vajramusti]

David Petersen- had that nice WSL interpretation- of passing on the whole art-in relation to not diluting the art.

Forms, chi sao and experience are all part of the whole wing chun package.....

Individual competence in each or all can vary.

[YongChun]

For us there are none of these discussions. Some students hate forms so they just come and fights. Some people love foms and chi sau so they do that all day long. Some of the form and chi sau people have ended up using their Wing Chun on the street or on the job (police or jail guard stuff) or a few have gotten attacked on the street. There wasn't that much difference between the fighters and the good Chi sau and form people probably because even the Chi sau people have a broader definition of what chi sau is and mixed in anything anyway. Furthermore most people already had other arts or street fighting in their background anyway. I have also seen people who were right out of Wing Chun for 10 to 15 years but they could still fight pretty well. So a lot of skill that you build up is retained. However if you want to compete at a close to an Olympic style level then you have to train every day for about 7 or 8 hours. If you do that then you have no other life. For the money it's not worth it.

[Simon]

just to add another analogy to the mix:

i see forms simliar to someone learning english by learning a simple poem:

- the reader learns to pronounce the words and learn the flow of the language
- the reader learns some (but not all!) ways of putting words together in a meaningful way
- the poem is easy to learn exactly and can be repeated 10 years down the track with little or no mistakes
- the ideas are much more succinctly put in the metaphors of the poem, rather than explaining each one extensively

Forms are for training basics, muscle memory and getting ideas for drills etc. They are just one part of good training in my eyes, nothing more, nothing less

[t_niehoff]

One of the most important things that comes from fighting/application is it changes how we look at things. Conversely, if one doesn't fight, we can't develop that perspective no matter how we theorize.

"Forms" is actually a poor word choice; better is "linked sets." Because form is mechanics is function is application. Tan sao, for example, is not a shape or something that has a fixed form but an action which requires a certain mechanics (traditionally, it was called "ging", trained strength) to function in a fighting environment. The linked sets give us, among other things, the *shells* of various tools -- they are shells because the "ging", or the mechanics, cannot be developed by just performing the linked set: one needs application to find that "ging" or mechanics or form and then you go back and put that into your linked set. It is a constant evolution.

The WCK drills, including chi sao, gor sao, lut sao, whatever, are not fighting as they don't involve a fighting environment -- they are limited, focused, cooperative activities that permit us to develop to a very basic level, and later after fighting, continue to refine (and if you don't fight, you won't know what to refine), certain skills and attributes. These drills can give someone a clue as to "filling the shell", for example. However, these drills will not make one able to use that tool in a fighting environment against a skilled opponent no matter how many times they do the drill. The only way to make it work in a fighting environment against skilled opposition is to practice it in a fighting environment against skilled opposition. For example, in wrestling one can learn the form of a single-leg shoot and then practice it in drills to develop the mechanics. But that does not mean one will be able to make it work against a skilled opponent in a fighting environment (itg may work against a chump) -- they need mat time, and lots of it, against good people, to do that. It's the same in all fighting arts. Folks that have done it know why that is; folks that haven't done that will have no clue.

Both linked sets and drills are prep work for fighting. They are necessary but limited. All MAs do "forms" (but not necessarily linked sets) in some sense and drills as prep work. Even champion fighters still work on "form" and continue to do drills. But these things are informed by their fighting.

One a side note: Ray, you keep mentioning how some WCK people have used their stuff on the street successfully -- so what? That's not a good test of fighting skill. If all you want is the ability to handle yourself against untrained folks, you don't need to do much training (so why spend years doing it?) -- most BJJ advanced white belts, one year boxers, etc. will beat most people "on the street". Our *skill* is determined by what level of opponent we can defeat.

Regards,

Terence

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
One of the most important things that comes from
One a side note: Ray, you keep mentioning how some WCK people have used their stuff on the street successfully -- so what? That's not a good test of fighting skill. If all you want is the ability to handle yourself against untrained folks, you don't need to do much training (so why spend years doing it?) -- most BJJ advanced white belts, one year boxers, etc. will beat most people "on the street". Our *skill* is determined by what level of opponent we can defeat.

Regards,

Terence

I agree with this. But so far I have not seen any Wing Chun teacher or student on this forum defeat any well known high level fighter. When that happens everyone will listen more carefully to what is being discussed.

Not all street fighting I mentioned was against untrained folks. So far people have stated that class fighting is unrealistic, street fighting is unrealistic and that tournament fighting like K1/Pride/Ultimate is unrealistic. Is there some other place to fight that is more realistic? If you can handle a pack of people who are armed to me that has to show some skill. I haven't seen that myself so maybe those are just stories too. So I am waiting to see a video of what is good Wing Chun fighting against realistic opponents. I haven't seen Emin Boztepe, Kenneth Chung or anyone else do this. Yet I think I can judge they are good fighters. I don't doubt there are lots of people who can beat either.

This discussion is best served by real life examples and not just talk. We can all claim our methods are great, our teachers and class mates are great but the rest never see this so it's also just talk.

Why do we need so much talk about the obvious statement that fighters must fight in order to learn to fight?

Maybe we should define fight against who or what and then show examples of that. We have lots of examples from Grappling, boxing , Judo, Fencing, school yard fights, Karate tournament fighting but really few of any classical Chinese art doing anything or Aikido in action against a resisting oponnent etc. But I wouldn't kid myself that some of those folks can't fight. Maybe 99% can't but some can.

The problem with Wing Chun is that there were few examples around of good fighting against good opponents. So far we are seeing at least more and more clips of classroom stuff which is a good start to something.

There are lots of good fighters in any city. They train in all different ways and some don't even train.

I think martial arts should not just be something for young strong people. One of the Gracies is old and still hits the mat but I doubt against world class grapplers. Probably there is not much difference bewteen him rolling around on the mat and someone else practicing chi sau. He can choke someone out and someone else can punch him out.

[sihing]

t_niehoff,
You keep preaching to us how these drills of ours will not allow us to defend ourselves against a "skilled opponent", lol. Get real man. I am not a professional fighter. I would have to say that 99.9% of us on this forum are not professional fighters. What do I mean by "Professional". Any person that spends the majority of their day(min. 5 hours) training in an activity, and gets paid for it . Why oh why do you constantly compare us average folk against professionals? Do you actually think the odds are in favor of you or I or anyone will ever meet a professional on the street? Very, very low. And don't tell me that you don't rely on odds. People rely on odds everyday when they trust another human being to stop when the light turns RED. Now if I were to run into lets say Royce Gracie on the street, and I bumped him walking in the crowd. He gets upset and pulls the mano vs. mano scene. He knows nothing about me or what my skills are or anything for that manner(meaning there are no 3 month training sessions to get prepared for a certain type of fighter, no watching tapes of the person you’re going to fight, or scouting reports..). He gets 3" in my face, who's going to win now? Well, if it was me and I struck first, 90% chance that I would win(knowing what I know now, 16yrs of WC). Visa versa for Royce in this scenario. Realistically on the street, it's anyone's game until the cards are laid down. My skills that I have now will either take him out right now or won't. If he is more skilled than the average thug, then it may take more time, but the whole idea of WC is the simple fact that you are not attacking your opponent until you are maximum 1' away from him. How many people can react from a non-telegraphed attack from that distance? Not many...You see, surprise works most of the time and that is the advantage WC gives us. Most of us are unknown, unknowns are scary things in all walks of life, never mind self defense or fighting. If I am up against someone that has unknown skills to me then that is something that makes me think, luckily I have a system of tools that allows me to react to any type of attack and react efficiently and effectively, regardless of what style or non-style they attack me with.

Quote t_neighoff:
"One a side note: Ray, you keep mentioning how some WCK people have used their stuff on the street successfully -- so what? That's not a good test of fighting skill. If all you want is the ability to handle yourself against untrained folks, you don't need to do much training (so why spend years doing it?) -- most BJJ advanced white belts, one year boxers, etc. will beat most people "on the street". Our *skill* is determined by what level of opponent we can defeat."

I agree 100% with Ray, most of us are not thinking about getting into a fight with the likes of a Mike Tyson, or Kimbo Slice or Tito Ortez, when we join a MA club, school or academy. All we are worried about in the beginning of our training is that there may be a time in our live's when someone approaches us with that desperate look in their eyes and wants something from us and is willing to take it from us if need be, not a 12 round bought with the Boxing champ/ UFC champ/ Underground Champ of the world, LOL...Our skill is not determined by what level of opponent we can defeat, but how we can safely with out injury to ourselves get out of a violent situation, and if that means hittin and runnin, then I was successful. Remember that in all out street combat, if I were to find a baseball bat laying behind the dumpster and you are Royce Gracie, your odds of beating me, with the skill I have today are very, very, very slight, and of course the same is true if Royce had that same type of weapon against me. The odds of surviving such an event can change so dramatically if one or the other parties has an advantage due to an environmental variable such as for example a "BAT", meaning anything can change no matter what you do or how you prepare. If I were to honestly try to prepare 100% for every single type of attack possible, then I would be a "Professional", and I wouldn't be on this forum right now cause I would be too busy counting all the $$$$ I would be makin from knockin all those pugs out, lol.

Now, how do I practice Shil Lum Tao? Slowly with lots of forward intention for the 1st section, then onwards continuing with the forward intention theme, I increase the intensity & energy of my movements, so that instead of Gum Sao being used solely as a defense against a attack, my Gum Sao becomes a attack onto it's self. This theme continues throughout the rest of the sections of the SLT.....




James

[t_niehoff]

A few points in reply --

First, one doesn't need to be a "professional fighter" or fight in NHBs to develop better fighting skills -- **every** BJJ student, muay thai student, boxing student, kyokushinkai student, MMA student, etc. fights as part of their training. Anyone that wants to develop better fighting skills must do that. The point is this training develops fighting skills, nothing more. I'm not comparing average folks to pro fighters; I'm pointing out that even "average" folks if they want to develop better fighting skills need to train a certain way (with fighting as part of their training). Not everyone needs or desires to be a world-class swimmer or put in that investment, but to just develop into a good, competant swimmer requires they get in the water. If they don't have pool time, they can't be good swimmers. Period.

Second, it is true that no WCK person has achieved great results in world-class NHB competitions (so far!) but many have achieved good results in "lower" level NHB competitions (several on this forum), many train regularly with NHB/MMA fighters as part of their training, etc. But most BJJ, muay thai, boxing, etc. practitioners haven't achieved those results either. To develop world-class skills we need to train like world-class fighters. That's true of BJJ too -- the overwhelming majority of BJJ practitioners aren't "world-class" fighters. That says nothing of the art, only the training level of the practitioners. To develop good, competant fighting skills still requires a lot of fighting however. Why do I mention this? Because the point seems lost on many.

Third, relying on "surprise" as the keystone of your fighting method only indicates poor skill. Skill does not rely on surprise. Good fighters won't be surprised, and if by some chance you do surprise them, they recover in a split second. And if your "surprise" doesn't work for some reason, you had better have skill to back it up.

Fourth, there are no guarantess in a fight just as there are no guarantees if your boat sinks in the water -- but having developed good swimming skills certainly increases your odds of surviving.

Fifth, focus on form is coming at developing fighting from the wrong direction (which theoreticians so often do). Good mechanics produce good results. Those mechanics are our "form". You judge "form" by results, not how they look or how you "think" you should be doing them.

Sixth, yes there are good natural fighters just as there are good natural swimmers. So what? And yes, lots of people develop good fighting skills using other approaches. So what? The question is what results do you want. If you want to develop better fighting skills, even if you are a good natural fighter, there is only one way.

Seventh, stuff like "I have a system of tools that allows me to react to any type of attack and react efficiently and effectively, regardless of what style or non-style they attack me with" is nonsense on so many levels. It's not about "having tools" or "a system" or "strategies" (knowledge) but being able to use them -- fight -- skillfully. Do you have fighting skill? You have nothing if you can't skillfully use them in fight. And there is only one way to develop that skill. If you don't do it, you can't have it.

Regards,

Terence

[CFT]

I'm a bit surprised that I'm agreeing with much of what Terence is posting, since I am more a hobbyist than a "hardcore" practitioner. But I agree that WCK is about fighting, although individuals benefit in other ways through training WCK. Forms inform fighting and vice versa; it should be a cyclic process. I certainly don't think that only practicing forms will adequately prepare one for fighting.

I can practice bong-da in YJKYM. But everything changes if I add motion, e.g. pivoting; I've got to keep balance, body shape, maintain cover of the centreline. If I peform some kind of bong-lap drill with a partner, I've now got to cope with forward pressure from the partner. So fighting is a whole different ball game all together.

But if I can see where I'm failing in combat it can inform my forms and partner training, and so on. By increasing the pressure we are under, we are truly tested in our abilities.

Taking Terence's favoured swimming analogy. I would say that getting in the pool and swimming lengths is equivalent to practicing our forms. Racing our practice mates is akin to partner drills. But swimming in competitions is really the only true analogy to fighting. So more pertinent is what level of competition do we prepare for? School, College, County (State), National, International/Olympic?

Let's take the analogy even further. Athletes pace their training so that they peak for their competitions. How does that sit with advocates of a train hard/fight hard approach? To be frequently injured because of realistic training is not conducive to defending oneself on the streets. I'm not questioning the value of realistic training, just stating the need for balance, as others have on this forum.

[Vajramusti]

see possibly relevant comments on the chi sao thread.

[VingDragon]

I dont know if that can help in your topic but I found my old video performing first form ;)

oops, transfer of attachment was missed :(

[sihing]

Okay, it is true that you must "use" your skills in a random environment to develop effective enough skills to be able to use in a self defense environment. I don't like using the word "fighting" for things done in class to develop these attributes, sparring I guess is the thing we are talking about. Although I have experienced in my own training during the early years that I didn't spar and it worked too, meaning that the technique will come out if it is trained in a "forms" environment, but I think the follow-up and ability to stay focused and actually use the technique well over a sustained period of time if the fight keeps on going maybe be more difficult. My problem with what Terence says at times is statements that basically mean when the time comes for you to fight someone of real skill then you will be defeated if you are not fighting(sparring). Well I have said this in the past that I do not consider myself the best street fighter in the world, is anyone on this forum the best street fighter. Is it even possible to determine who is? None of us can guarantee anyone that comes into our schools 100% that they will become unbeatable, but we can improve their chances of survival, I will say that.

As for the element of surprise, it does work and anyone can be surprised, even top fighters. Talking in the WC context, surprise means non-telegraphing movements. Say for example I put you in a strange room that is pitch dark with no flash light, and tell you to navigate around and try to get to the door. On the way to the door, walking at a normal pace you walk into a pole that is attached to the ceiling and floor, BAMM. You have know been surprised and for a few seconds will be disorientated and distracted from your task of finding the door. Same in WC, the punch is thrown a max. of 1' away from your opponent like I said before. There is no windup in the punch so it is non-telegraphic, and is straight-line movement, therefore fast movement. What does this mean, surprise surprise for the other guy. Over the years I've must of thrown over 1 million punches, so for me it's fair to say that I know how to execute the WC punch with speed and efficiency, and with power too, and I'm no professional. Now if one cannot do this then it is their fault, not the arts, for there lack of skill in performing this simple movement. I agree that you have to put the work in during the development years of WC training, meaning forms, conditioning, chi-sao have to be done on a regular basis, like going to the gym regularly. Then after a little while, sparring drills can be performed to give the practitioner some exposure to a random environment and build some confidence. Gradually the sparring will get harder and more random elements will be added to it until it is anything goes(like in the level 10 instructors test for students in the association I belong to, everything is random, standing, kneeling, on your back, sitting, in a 3/4 on 1 environment). Now after this the training can be kept up if wanted, but the skill is there in the practitioner and the maintenance of that skill is allot easier than the development of it.

"Tools" are just that Terence, fighting skill, which includes all you mentioned, strategy and a system to it. Yes of course you have to be able to apply it all for it to work, but when the system you are studying is based on simple, logical and effective movements how hard can that be? Over the last 16yrs I've seen every type of student and ability. I've seen the natural athlete learn the style and attain good skill and I've seen the unnatural athlete do the same thing, and include disabled people in that list of unnatural. Kids too. I've also seen students with no previous fighting skills and only a basic understanding of the art going into competitions and destroy there opponents, why? Because the stuff works if applied correctly and it surprises the hell out of those opponents that are not used to getting hit in the head 6 times a second.

I think some of the problem out there today in the MA in general is that people have been ripped off by individuals over the decades that have taught them bogus technique and made claims to them that were not true, and had fraudulent credentials. So what are we to do about the frauds of the past? We must try to keep the quality of WC very high and teach everything in the system to the student and let them decide what they like best about the system.

James

[t_niehoff]

sihing wrote:

Okay, it is true that you must "use" your skills in a random environment to develop effective enough skills to be able to use in a self defense environment.

**Notions of "random" and "self-defense" are meaningless. We're talking about what it takes to develop *fighting skill* (which can be used in self-defense but SD is much more than just fighting). To become a better fighter -- become better skilled at working in a fighting environment -- you need to fight. Period.

I don't like using the word "fighting" for things done in class to develop these attributes, sparring I guess is the thing we are talking about.

**You can call it whatver you like but sparring, fighting, whatever, means that you are putting yourself in a fighting environment, where you are facing an opponent that is genuinely trying to resist you while trying to really pound you.

Although I have experienced in my own training during the early years that I didn't spar and it worked too, meaning that the technique will come out if it is trained in a "forms" environment, but I think the follow-up and ability to stay focused and actually use the technique well over a sustained period of time if the fight keeps on going maybe be more difficult.

**No, you have already contradicted yourself. You can't say that you "didn't spar" but that "it worked" -- it can only "work" if it has happened in a fighting environment. No fighting equals not working.

My problem with what Terence says at times is statements that basically mean when the time comes for you to fight someone of real skill then you will be defeated if you are not fighting(sparring).

**No, I'm saying that one needs to fight to become a better fighter.

Well I have said this in the past that I do not consider myself the best street fighter in the world, is anyone on this forum the best street fighter. Is it even possible to determine who is? None of us can guarantee anyone that comes into our schools 100% that they will become unbeatable, but we can improve their chances of survival, I will say that.

**"Streetfighting" is another meaningless concept. You either have fighting skill or you don't (your level depends on the level of opposition you can defeat). If you don't, it won't matter if the fight takes place in an alley or a gym. If you do, it won't matter whether the fight takes place in an alley or a gym. Your skills follow you.

As for the element of surprise, it does work and anyone can be surprised, even top fighters.

**Great theory -- go try it out.

Talking in the WC context, surprise means non-telegraphing movements. Say for example I put you in a strange room that is pitch dark with no flash light, and tell you to navigate around and try to get to the door. On the way to the door, walking at a normal pace you walk into a pole that is attached to the ceiling and floor, BAMM. You have know been surprised and for a few seconds will be disorientated and distracted from your task of finding the door. Same in WC, the punch is thrown a max. of 1' away from your opponent like I said before. There is no windup in the punch so it is non-telegraphic, and is straight-line movement, therefore fast movement. What does this mean, surprise surprise for the other guy. Over the years I've must of thrown over 1 million punches, so for me it's fair to say that I know how to execute the WC punch with speed and efficiency, and with power too, and I'm no professional. Now if one cannot do this then it is their fault, not the arts, for there lack of skill in performing this simple movement. I agree that you have to put the work in during the development years of WC training, meaning forms, conditioning, chi-sao have to be done on a regular basis, like going to the gym regularly. Then after a little while, sparring drills can be performed to give the practitioner some exposure to a random environment and build some confidence. Gradually the sparring will get harder and more random elements will be added to it until it is anything goes(like in the level 10 instructors test for students in the association I belong to, everything is random, standing, kneeling, on your back, sitting, in a 3/4 on 1 environment). Now after this the training can be kept up if wanted, but the skill is there in the practitioner and the maintenance of that skill is allot easier than the development of it.

**You're wrong on almost everything you've just said, and that's because it is all theory to you -- you obviously haven't fought anyone with any skill. Boxers get hit all the time, it doesn't stop them, and they just keep coming. No surprise. So you've thrown a million punches -- you have nothing if you can't land them with timing, focus, power, precisions, etc. in a fighting environment. That only comes from working in a fighting environment. There is no "graduated intensity" of fighting -- you either have a fighting environment or you don't. And maintenance of skill is more difficult than developing it, especially as one's skill level gets more highly advanced. All you have is theory. If you think your theory works, put it to the test.

"Tools" are just that Terence, fighting skill, which includes all you mentioned, strategy and a system to it.

**NO! Skill is the ability to use the tools, strategy, etc. in a fighting environment (fighting skills). If you can't, then they are useless to you. You can have "the best" theory of how to win at water polo but if you don't have swimming skills it won't matter.

Yes of course you have to be able to apply it all for it to work, but when the system you are studying is based on simple, logical and effective movements how hard can that be?

**ROFLOL! If it is so easy, where are all the folks that can fight with it? Go to a MMA/NHB gym and have a go. Look, you can't say what WCK is "based on" if you can't make it work -- that's just "theory" or conjecture or what you've been told. It's only "simple, logical, and effective" in application. So if you can't make it work against skilled opposition it isn't "simple, logical, or effective" to you.

Over the last 16yrs I've seen every type of student and ability. I've seen the natural athlete learn the style and attain good skill and I've seen the unnatural athlete do the same thing, and include disabled people in that list of unnatural. Kids too. I've also seen students with no previous fighting skills and only a basic understanding of the art going into competitions and destroy there opponents, why? Because the stuff works if applied correctly and it surprises the hell out of those opponents that are not used to getting hit in the head 6 times a second.

**What type of competitions? And let me give you a clue -- you can't hit with power 6 times in a second. That stuff won't work in a fight. If you think so, go to a MMA/NHB gym and have a go.

I think some of the problem out there today in the MA in general is that people have been ripped off by individuals over the decades that have taught them bogus technique and made claims to them that were not true, and had fraudulent credentials. So what are we to do about the frauds of the past? We must try to keep the quality of WC very high and teach everything in the system to the student and let them decide what they like best about the system.

**How do we know that you or your sifu aren't some of the folks ripping others off? That you aren't frauds? MAybe you have the bogus techniques. It seems fairly simple -- if you have the "goods", then you should be able to deal with a skilled fighter. Have a go.

Terence

[VingDragon]

finally :)

DMR - 1991

Siu Lim Tao (http://photos.imageevent.com/vingdragon/dmr/dmr%20-%20sltform.wmv) right click to save target as...

[Ernie]

**"Street fighting" is another meaningless concept. You either have fighting skill or you don't (your level depends on the level of opposition you can defeat). If you don't, it won't matter if the fight takes place in an alley or a gym. If you do, it won't matter whether the fight takes place in an alley or a gym. Your skills follow you.



Sorry bro, but your way off on this one,
When I hear you use the word fight and then define it as working off a resisting opponent that’s trying to pound you, I don’t see fight anywhere in there, I see just ‘’ training ‘’
It should be part of any training regiment, but no matter how much you may think it’s a fight it’s not, there are safety factors in place.

1. You new what you were getting into [no surprise or shock value]
2. You more then likely new who you were going to ‘’ train with ‘’ and what rules were in play and what that person brings to the table
3. There is probably some protective gear in effect
4. And most important you had a choice

This is not a fight, this is a work out

It’s like walking a type rope with a safety net, you know you can get in your car and go home. If you weren’t feeling well you could pass, if you got hurt to a certain degree it would stop
This is not a fight

In a street fight and I speak from experience in both hard training sessions [which I totally believe and agree with] and being in more than a few street fights, there is no safety net. There is much more on the line, there is no doctor or ref or coach waiting for you in the wings you can’t chose the environment or the opponents or your mood.

This is a different mindset and things like suddenness and shock and surprise valuable tools, you can shell shock a person when he is building his spirit. Take the wind out of his sails, in a competitive match this not the case the person is of similar weight and skill and approach and has been prepping for a while [if he is any good]

There is a very bad habit [hardcore guys develop] single mindedness they only focus on the person in front of them and not the danger of the environment, see it all the time, there reflexes are to dialed into what every style and approach they prefer this leaves holes,

Yes they have better attributes from training hard and better timing and commitment if you keep things in there ‘’ game ‘’ the street is not a game if you take that same work ethic and train attribute development but train in a anything goes street mindset you get a different monster, less limited in my mind.

I have stood in front of some very talented ring and mat fighters I have won and loss, I have been in street situations with some of these guys that were incredible in the ring and watched them get dropped for treating the street like a ring or mat, to much of anything will leave you lopsided unless you only plan to ‘’ play fight and hardcore on the mat or ring ‘’

Another big thing is a false sense of skill the hardcore guys get see this a lot with bjj and MT guys, there all tough till the get shell shocked or taken out there game, and they usually come back and tell me well that will only work once try it again and I’ll be ready, and there right but it only has to work once in the street =)

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


"Got some free time so I was lurking and read this"

Ernie wrote:

Sorry bro, but your way off on this one,
When I hear you use the word fight and then define it as working off a resisting opponent that’s trying to pound you, I don’t see fight anywhere in there, I see just ‘’ training ‘’
It should be part of any training regiment, but no matter how much you may think it’s a fight it’s not, there are safety factors in place.

1. You new what you were getting into [no surprise or shock value]
2. You more then likely new who you were going to ‘’ train with ‘’ and what rules were in play and what that person brings to the table
3. There is probably some protective gear in effect
4. And most important you had a choice

This is not a fight, this is a work out

It’s like walking a type rope with a safety net, you know you can get in your car and go home. If you weren’t feeling well you could pass, if you got hurt to a certain degree it would stop
This is not a fight


100% Amen Correct IMO!

The Street and the Kwoon are two totally different worlds!!! I agree with Terence's training values and that you need to test against others but that is not the street. Its do or die in the street with the element of surprise and safety and nerves and etc. coming into reality. One mistake and its in the hospital.


Back to work and so long again guys!


Regards,

[PaulH]

Talking of surprises, the street fights after school that I knew of were mostly chaotic images of flashing machetes, swinging iron chains, and flying chunks of rocks! =)

[Ernie]

Originally posted by PaulH
Talking of surprises, the street fights after school that I knew of were mostly chaotic images of flashing machetes, swinging iron chains, and flying chunks of rocks! =)

That’s why you need skill in bladed weapons, projectile weapons, mass attack and some kick but shoes to get your sprint on

[WCis4me]

Good post Ernie!

I completely agree. Street fighting is WAYYYYYY different than fighting in an controlled environment.

How many gym fights do you see the guy pull out a pipe or knive and have the 'INTENT' to kill or maim you? Or how many gym fights does the ref say 'turn your back and let him have the first shot', or 'hey anyone wanna jump in, 3 on 1 is ok here'.

Again, Ernie defined it way better than me, great stuff man!

Vicky

[t_niehoff]

For the "real fight" folks, those that see "streetfighting" as something unique . . .

Certainly there are variables in any "street" assault that aren't present in other venues -- (possible) weapons, multiple opponents, surprise (sucker punches), etc. and those variables can put greater and additional demands on us. But the *base skills* one needs to cope with that situation should one elect to fight (and there are other tactics available) can only come from fighting as part of one's training -- that is, from working in **a fighting environment.** From my POV, *any* fighting a person does is training, even a "street" confrontation, as it provides one experience in a fighting environment. It is not the "stakes" that determine whether it is a fight or not, it is the environment. To suggest that it's not a "real fight" unless there are "no safety factors" is like saying it is not really swimming unless there are no safety factors in place", i.e., there is a genuine risk of drowning. Sure that risk places a greater demand on us when we are swimming, and that greater demand may in some cases overwhelm us (in very rough seas, for example) but that risk of death isn't what defines swimming -- it's being in the water that does.

Moreover, all too often folks that buy into this "streetfighting" vs. all other types of fighting notion, seem to think that their training somehow will prepare them for a "streetfighting" situtation (where the stakes are high) even though they suck at other "types" of fighting. Amazingly, they even use this "distinction" as an excuse for why they can't fight -- "I'm training streetfighting, not sport!" This is akin to thinking that they have the skills to swim in rough seas but can't make it across the pool. ;)

The situation (street assault, challenge fight, training in the gym, etc.) determines the tactics we use but the base skills we need remain the same. Those base skills are our ability to deal with the fighting environment -- which, of course, only come from working in that environment.

FWIW, I've been in "streetfights" and my personal experience has been that they have been a great deal less challenging than my fighting in training has been -- fighting you, Ernie, or Dhira, or Merryprankster in the gym would be much more demanding than fighting some half-drunk jerk in a bar. Either way, the base skills remain the same. Most "fighters" I've spoken with have had the same experience. Go ask Rickson which were more demanding, his challenge fights where they had "safety factors in place" but he faced trained, conditioned, seasoned fighters or his fights "in the street" against unskilled, out of condition, inexperienced knuckleheads where there were no such safety factors. Wanna bet what he'd reply?

Regards,

Terence

[Ernie]

Moreover, all too often folks that buy into this "street fighting" vs. all other types of fighting notion, seem to think that their training somehow will prepare them for a "street fighting" situation (where the stakes are high) even though they suck at other "types" of fighting. Amazingly, they even use this "distinction" as an excuse for why they can't fight -- "I'm training street fighting, not sport!" This is akin to thinking that they have the skills to swim in rough seas but can't make it across the pool.



T,
Herein lies the difference in mindset and approach [this "street fighting" vs. all other types of fighting notion]; it’s not about vs. but the skill to circumvent a persons game and strong point,
You see the concept of going toe to toe, either in a boxing, kick boxing, or rolling situation is well to me stupid, if I’m in a street mindset, you have to be able to adapt and take them out of there game, the kicker is to do this you must have first established a certain base level of ability in there game, at the bare minimum spent time sparring with many different people from ‘’ that type of fighting ‘’

Anything can be countered and every style has holes, and every person has weaknesses yes even the Gracies, hit them in the head with a pipe and they drop just like a harp seal =)
One of the ‘’ enlightening moments ‘’ I had was way back in the day when I was training with a mixed group, traditional guys ground guys Thai guys and so on it was a street oriented seminar. They guy holding it came out with a big bag filled with junk, brooms, water hoses, cans broken stuff bricks you name it, and he said grab a weapon and spar, I watched many [gym and ring] guys get totally uncomfortable, even opting to not use a weapon and paid a price for it, they couldn’t adapt, sure there base skills were there but so was everybody else’s. And now they were at a loss.

Then on many other occasions when I would spar I would add elements and tools that ring and mat guys were not familiar with and they get caught off guard, this timing allowed me to do nasty stuff, again the only reason I could pull this stuff off is because I spent time in there environment studying them as they were trying to fight me, different mindset

In my mind i'm fighting = killing as fast as possible using what ever I need to get the job done.
I cultivate this mindset, once the choice is made and the switch is on that’s it, cheating, dirty tactics are all trained to the same level and under the same pressure are you basic kick punch, lock, throw, submission. I actually hate submission lets call it joint break =)

And yes there have been very bad injuries and hospital rides, especially way back, we used to train in alleys and at night anywhere we felt uncomfortable or awkward.

Now I’m much more mellow

So when you say they are the same and one prepares you for the other, I can’t really agree, one helps but is still lacking adaptability and exposure.
Also going against some one that is skilled all the time causes problems as well, you get to crispy and to refined and that competitive mindset will get you killed, no room for competing in the street only surviving.

How often have you seen a pro level boxer get in front of a total scrub a guy way beneath his skill level that is awkward and the pro looks like dirt and can’t put him away. The pro is to sharp and dialed in the awkward guy is uncrispy and has broken timing. Back to adaptability

As for you view of a street fight some drunk guy or maybe some jock, mine have been mass attack were there were guns, and I have been shot at jumped pistol whipped, got the shoe job from 20 or so people and seen a few knives, it has almost never been one on one with some drunk guy, I would just walk away from that. I would never under estimate what nasty stuff the street can produce

Now my personal experience has dictated my view on training and ‘’fighting ‘’



Edited in.
I have trained with Dhira, and Andrew from this forum, and it is more ‘’demanding ‘’ in the work out aspect, but we weren’t fighting we were training =)
They are perfect training partners and know ‘’how’’ to train, we have mutual respect for each other’s safety, yet still introduce pressure. And try and grow and learn. There is no competition or ego, just people striding to improve.

I bring this out to show this is the normal mindset when one is ‘’ training ‘’ even at extreme levels of pressure. There is always a safety net

[Ernie]

To suggest that it's not a "real fight" unless there are "no safety factors" is like saying it is not really swimming unless there are no safety factors in place", i.e., there is a genuine risk of drowning. Sure that risk places a greater demand on us when we are swimming, and that greater demand may in some cases overwhelm us (in very rough seas, for example) but that risk of death isn't what defines swimming -- it's being in the water that does.



------ To use your swimming analogy,
Swimming is swimming, yes, the way the legs move and the hands move .the mechanics of swimming is universal, if your in a pool, or the ocean things stay similar just adjust for the waves and the currents, but you mind frame is similar. You might drown but if you’re in shape and in control you trust your self and the threat is not that big of a reality. [Safety net]

Now toss in a few sharks, some jellyfish, barracuda, sharp reefs, seaweed to tangle your feet, fog at night, empty coldness, and the unknown, no visible way out [no safety net]

And though the mechanics stay the same and your conditioning is there, reality has changed and your mind is working differently, your sense of awareness is going nuts, your heart is racing this is messing with your wind and now your worried about ability to maintain what was in a safe pool or ocean swim such a simple thing, things can pop up from anywhere any time and your not sure what is what.

Here comes a shark cool you see it you focus on that and your skills are ready, but wait why is you leg burning something bit you. You turn to see and bam the shark that was in front of you bumps you then a jelly fish stings you, all the while your sucking in gulps of water and things are going to fast, so you follow you instinct your one on one training and you attack and grab the first thing that presents itself in front of you and you give it your all, but you never notice the things ripping you back and legs apart until, it’s too late and you feel weak and just sink.

No one to catch you, no one to take you to the hospital

Silly story I know, [just saw open water and the movie sucked =)]

But you see there is a major difference between a ring or mat situation, and a street situation, when your life is really on the line you will react differently, when you can’t control the environment or opponents or your emotional make up on that given day, things are very different

Training is training, playing is playing, competing is only competing, but fighting for your life is ‘’ fighting ‘’

Again not picking on you ‘T’
I agree with intense training methods, I just know fighting is a different mental monster and requires a lot more then just mat and ring time a lot more

[t_niehoff]

Ernie,

I agree completely with you that there are "major differences" between fighting in the ring and self-defense situations; there are even major differences in various self-defense situations. The bottom line, and it seems we agree on this too, is that the situation will dictate tactics but the base skills are the same.

Personally, my experience has not been the same as yours when it comes to "streetfights" -- I've not experienced the one expressed by you where "your mind is working differently, your sense of awareness is going nuts, your heart is racing this is messing with your wind and now your worried about ability to maintain what was in a safe pool or ocean swim such a simple thing'." My "streetfighting" experiences have been of the sort where BANG, the fight is suddenly on, and I just went automatically into "fighting mode", and it was over. And afterward is when I experienced the heart-racing, confusion, etc. This may be just individual differences.

If the circumstances do effect one's mindset, however, the question still remains how do we train/develop it so that we can deal with those sorts of situations. Certainly forms and drills won't do that (especially if fighting doesn't!). Do you suggest habituation or acclimization (by exposing ourselves to it more and more)? Will that even really accomplish that? It seems to me the most we can do is train to develop sound base fighting skills (by fighting), which to me include conditioning, attributes, etc., and then do our best -- regardless of the situation.

Regards,

Terence

[Ernie]

Terence,

Some wonderful points have come out of our discussion,

1.base skills

I agree with you we can not control our environment [in a street situation] all we can do is hope to control ourselves and produce sufficient results so that we may make it home that day =)

So lets list *Base skills*

1. Speed = initiation, speed, reaction speed, combination speed, etc….
2. Timing = setting it up, reading it, making it instinctual [I don’t hit it hits by itself] idea
3. Power = raw power, structure power, relaxed power, emotional power, mental focus and so on
4. Distance = controlling distance = footwork / controlling distance body to body, measure in less then an inch
5. Sensitivity= eye, body, and awareness
6. Adaptability = can you not only physically flow off what is given but mentally and emotionally to set up tactical advantage
7. There are more this is just to get it started, feel free to add or subtract
The least important are the techniques and tools, if you have all the above you can insert what ever tool / technique you want




How do we train these things? What are your goals, ring and mat guy, and street guy, MMA, TMA?


[[[If the circumstances do effect one's mindset, however, the question still remains how do we train/develop it so that we can deal with those sorts of situations.]]].

Another great point, and exactly a way to look at ones training, is are we preparing for this?

I use methods of stress overload borrowed from military training, watered down since I can’t set up a obstacle course get you up at 3am and blow off live rounds to scare the hell out of you and then ask you to perform in a relaxed state =) but if I could I would

Multiple opponent, weapons, terrain, put people in very uncomfortable and sometime no win situations and let them *experience* it. Get to know themselves under pressure.

If you become fairly consistent in a 2 or 3 on one situation with and with out weapons, when you stand in front of one guy is like ‘’ is that it ‘’


Now these are some basic ideas please feel free to add your own or break mine down. Think these are important issues in the big picture


Great discussion Terence

[t_niehoff]

Hi Ernie,

Ernie wrote:

Some wonderful points have come out of our discussion,

**Agreed.

1.base skills

I agree with you we can not control our environment [in a street situation] all we can do is hope to control ourselves and produce sufficient results so that we may make it home that day =)

**Exactly. What I don't fathom are those folks that think that although they can't pull something off against a genuinely resisting opponent in the gym that they will be able to "on the street"!

So lets list *Base skills*

1. Speed = initiation, speed, reaction speed, combination speed, etc….
2. Timing = setting it up, reading it, making it instinctual [I don’t hit it hits by itself] idea
3. Power = raw power, structure power, relaxed power, emotional power, mental focus and so on
4. Distance = controlling distance = footwork / controlling distance body to body, measure in less then an inch
5. Sensitivity= eye, body, and awareness
6. Adaptability = can you not only physically flow off what is given but mentally and emotionally to set up tactical advantage
7. There are more this is just to get it started, feel free to add or subtract
The least important are the techniques and tools, if you have all the above you can insert what ever tool / technique you want

**We can list all those "attributes" required to be a competant swimmer too but I don't think that is necessary or even advisable. If someone gets into the pool and tries to swim with the "strokes" (tools) of whatever swimming method they practice, they'll soon see for themselves what exactly it is they need. For example, you and I both *know* how important conditioning is relative to one's fighting ability. Conditioning is the foundation of fighting skill; world-class fighters need to be in world-class shape, good fighters need to be in good shape, whereas out-of-shape means poor fighting skills (good fighters may stop fighting and lose their condition, and with it much of their fighting skill). Many "theoreticians" (folks who don't fight) don't *think* this is the case. Experience -- getting in the pool -- will make it abundantly clear. Moreover, the conditioning one needs to fight well only comes from fighting (not the general conditioning but the specific conditioning required to use their fighting method). Knowing what these base skills are and developing them only come from getting in the pool. Otherwise it's "theory" or conjecture or hearsay.

How do we train these things? What are your goals, ring and mat guy, and street guy, MMA, TMA?

**IME one should first focus on developing the base skills of WCK's approach, i.e., become competant using our WCK tools in a fighting environment, then "tweak" our approach toward whatever area(s) interests us. In other words, first learn the base skills of swimming, then if you want to focus on pearl diving, concentrate your training more in that area.


[[[If the circumstances do effect one's mindset, however, the question still remains how do we train/develop it so that we can deal with those sorts of situations.]]].

Another great point, and exactly a way to look at ones training, is are we preparing for this?

I use methods of stress overload borrowed from military training, watered down since I can’t set up a obstacle course get you up at 3am and blow off live rounds to scare the hell out of you and then ask you to perform in a relaxed state =) but if I could I would

Multiple opponent, weapons, terrain, put people in very uncomfortable and sometime no win situations and let them *experience* it. Get to know themselves under pressure.

**That's excellent and I think we're on the same page. Experience or "pool time" is what matters most. And you put it in a nutshell: "get to know themselves under pressure."

If you become fairly consistent in a 2 or 3 on one situation with and with out weapons, when you stand in front of one guy is like ‘’ is that it ‘’

**I see the benefits to "multiple attacker" training yet at the same time know that a person, however skilled, cannot defeat competant multiple attackers. I look at it from the standpoint of "I've fought with highly skilled, conditioned, seasoned fighters -- I've fought tigers -- so I'm not going to have much trouble with a puzzycat."


Now these are some basic ideas please feel free to add your own or break mine down. Think these are important issues in the big picture


Great discussion Terence

**Thanks, I feel the same.

Regards,

Terence

[sihing]

Although we are way off thread, Sorry Ray, I have questions regarding what Terence and Ernie are discussing. How long does one have to do these things described in your most recent posts to develop fighting skills and maintain them. Does one have to do this forever? Or can they be maintained with less intense "workouts" after the abilities are achieved to a high standard. Also, who determines if that high standard has been achieved and how do you determine this, if possible at all?

James

[YongChun]

I think any discussion is OK and brings forth a lot of ideas about Wing Chun training. Maybe all this can turn into some practical training standards. It's very easy to just step on the gas and go all out and increase the risk level to whatever level people like. But to keep up an intense level of training all of one's life is not that practical or enjoyable. If it's not fun why do it unless you are in a war situation? From what I know of the Hong Kong Wing Chun people, they trained about one or two years and then just went out and fought. Don't know if Terrence recommends that?

[t_niehoff]

sinhing wrote:

I have questions regarding what Terence and Ernie are discussing. How long does one have to do these things described in your most recent posts to develop fighting skills and maintain them.

**Everyone is able to fight to some extent even without training just like they can swim (or flail around in the water) without training. Training (with fighting) will permit us to become a better fighter or swimmer. So "fighting skill" like "swimming skill" isn't the attainment of a certain predefined level but rather is relative. In fighting, our skill is determined by the level of opposition we can "hang with". In my view, a "competant fighter" is someone that can "hang" with other good, solid fighters (like a golden glove boxer, amateur-event MMA fighter, etc.). How long it takes to reach a certain level will depend on the individual's talent, how hard he worked, what level he is aiming for, etc. Maintaining that level will require regular training (fighting), again depending on these variables.

Does one have to do this forever? Or can they be maintained with less intense "workouts" after the abilities are achieved to a high standard.

**The higher one's level of skill to be maintained, the more difficult. Fighting skill is no different than any other physical, athletic skill. Let's say you want to be able to run 10 miles. That takes more running training than someone who only is aiming to run 2 miles. Once you attain that level, it will require you run regulary at that level to maintain it. To put that in a fighting perspective, your skill level will be reflected by your level of physical conditioning. So if you can't even do 50 push-ups, 100 sit ups, 100 squat thrusts in succession and then run a couple miles, you are in poor shape and can't have (and won't have) any fighting skill. So, how much effort do you need to get into shape and maintain it just so that your body can perform?

Also, who determines if that high standard has been achieved and how do you determine this, if possible at all?

**In other words, how do we determine our performance (fighting) level? That is determined by fighting with skillful people and seeing how we compare. How do we tell "how good" a boxer is? Of "how good" a BJJ practitioner is? By the level of fighters they can "hang with".

Regards,

Terence

[sihing]

From reading this last post of yours Terence, I understand that to be a better fighter one must fight. Just like a swimmer must get into the pool and swim to maximize there skills. This makes perfect sense. I too believe that to actually learn how to defend one's self that you have to train that somehow in class, using sparring or any form of random drilling. Unless one is willing to die and or kill to find out actual skill in fighting, we have to use safety precautions in our training so that we don't end up in jail or something(which might be a good thing if you’re looking for realistic training, lol). I also understand from your last post that you believe that one has to continue to train in order to maintain their present level of skill. I believe the same also, just like you said it is the same in any physical endeavor, unless you use it or train it hard, improvement will be nil. From previous posts that you have authored you have said that we should not really be worried about meeting top notch world class fighter's in the street, I agree, the chances of that happening are nil also. My difference to your opinion is this. The whole idea behind WC creation was to develop effective fighters in short periods of time, so that they could combat other skilled fighters from different styles. To accomplish this task a new fighting method had to be developed, one that stressed concepts and principals instead of technique, strength or speed. Anyone can use a concept or principal and make it work, not all people can use strength or speed, since all of us are not strong or fast. IMO once the WC is learned then, besides having an advantage over your opponent just for the simple fact that effectiveness and efficiency is prevalent throughout the whole style, you have those skills forever, just like learning golf, tennis, swimming, riding a bike or whatever you want to include in that list. Yes your skills will not be at there absolute peak if you stopped intense training. If Bruce Lee stopped training he would not be the same fighter physically, but he would be a great fighter anyways. You have to remember that Bruce was not born with great physical attributes, everything he did he "man made it", so please do not say that he was a gifted athlete/fighter or something along those lines, he was like a Olympic athlete in regard's to training and was determined to achieve his goals, which is a prerequisite for anyone to achieve anything in life, it's just that Bruce was ultra determined and ultra focused. And since the odds of meeting world class fighters on the street is nil, then it is fair to say that once the skills of WC have been learned and engrained to some degree then those skills, although deteriorating, will allow us to defend ourselves competently. I think the real issue here is how intense someone is about learning WC correctly. If someone looks at it as a hobby and a way of exercise then they will probably not be as effective a fighter as someone who looked at WC more seriously and intense and trained hard to understand how the system worked. What sets WC apart from most every other MA is that everyone can become effective at using it for self-defense, if they choose to. Not every MA gives you that same chance. I would agree with you 100% Terence if you were talking about MA in general, because these arts rely on physical attributes like speed and strength. They require you to have more of both, as compared to when you first start training in them, to make them work for any individual. WC doesn't, the strength and speed you have from day one is already enough, coordination of that speed and strength, along with the proper skill in technique, is all that is required to be successful in WC and in self defense.

James

[Fresh]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**"Simulation"? Fighting, like water is to swimming, is an environment: if you are facing a genuinely resisting opponent that is really trying to 'pound' you, then it is fighting. Ultimately, we are learning how to "cope" and succeed in that environment. WCK just takes a particular approach (BJJ a different approach) to dealing with that environment. We can create that environment in many ways. It is that environment that matters, not the venue or the stakes.

You are boxing shadows Terrance. Your last sentence here is so correct! If you would just say that and remind everyone to go out and pressure test their work you wouldn't come off as such a ****head.

You don't even seem to mind contradicting yourself. If someone is REALLY trying to pound you then the stakes do matter! And you never stick with a solid definition of fight so a lot of your moaning and argueing with people is just a word game. To REaLLY fight means a lot of different things to different people. If you mean what you wrote in that last sentence then you haven't really said anything different than a lot of the people y ou insist on arguing with!

There are some other problems too because you never gave concrete definitions. Besides you use the word fight to loosely. You never said how often is enough or gave any circumstances. By your definitions an older person who was a great fighter but doesn't fight any more can't fight any more. They might get rusty but to say they can't fight any more at all doesn't make any sense. You also never said how often is enough or what percentage of time training and fighting as you call it. Is fighting once enough? Five times? Twice a week? Ten times in a life time? If you fight five times a week then take a year off does that mean you don't have any ability to fight during that year? And who are they fighting? And what if they can't find the right kind of person to fight to give them the right odds? And what if they lose once, or most of the time or all of the time? Your arguments are pretty but they are hollow and flimsy at the core.

If you would just remind people to test their training under pressure you would make your point a whole lot better. You would also stop looking like such an anal bully. The swimming and fighting analogy is old and tired. You have a lot of holes to fill if you want to convince someone about something new.