what is soooo unsatisfactory about Classical WCK?

[yellowpikachu]

There are people who think the old WCK is not good.
There are people who think the Old WCK is not good for street fight.
There are people who think ancient WCK is obsolete..
all sort of thinking.


what is soooo unsatisfactory about Classical WCK?


How is all the people Bench Marking? or it is about personal believe ?


If in one way, one believe in Bruce Lee or others on his view claiming the old WCK is no good. But without Bench Marking. How is that different compare with believe in the Old WCK is the greatest iin the world without Bench marking.

there is no different between believing the modern is better then the old or the old is better then the modern. Just a believe. and believe without bench mark is just a personal opinion.

And Proving is not about this guy beat the other guy. that is a single event according to Statistic. Further more, there is a different between a great system and a great teacher.


and so what is that Classical Wing Chun Kuen is about? have any clue? otherwise, dont know about the classical, no bench marking, how is one draws a conclusion?
Believe in sifu? Believe in a certain fighter? Is it got to do with Wing Chun Kuen at all?


what is your view?

[Ernie]

Hendrik--And Proving is not about this guy beat the other guy. that is a single event according to Statistic. Further more, there is a different between a great system and a great teacher.


that is about the weakest thing i have ever read -- this is combat right ?

[SAAMAG]

Not to mention the fact that Bruce Lee did in fact prove everything he would talk about. It doesn't mean "Classical WCK" is no good, someone else might be able to make it work as effectively as Bruce used his JKD, but for Bruce the classical could be improved upon based on his experiences with modern fighters from different arenas.

One thing you have to remember, the asians had a large advantage a hundred or so years ago in hand to hand combat when the asian arts were new to westerners. You can't combat (effectively) something you know nothing about. Many of the martial arts worked back then. Fast forward to present day. Everyone knows about the asian martial arts, and is at least familiar with the basics and generally what to expect. Do you think that the "classical mess" is as effective now as it was then? Evolution is necessary to survive in a changing environment. You adapt or you die. Plain and simple.

[Vajramusti]

Yellowpikachu-

An art has to evolve-it will- just a matter of which direction.
If by classical wing chun one means fundamental principles of motion- classical wing chun is valid.

BL IMO did not understand Classical wing chun and evolved his own system. His preference.

But sticking to classical does NOT mean IMO mechanically repeating the techniques of Ip man or Leung Jan. Thus some early folks may not have to face short snappy hooks- but the sytem is larger than the person and one can find answers to hooks without violating the principles of wing chun motion.
Same for leg dives.

Buta KFO forum and some chat lists are hopelessly flawed
as far as having serious discussions- so we flail around and will continue to do so for the most part..
So I ignore most things, laugha lot and sometimes sigh. Life

[Ernie]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Yellowpikachu-

An art has to evolve-it will- just a matter of which direction.
If by classical wing chun one means fundamental principles of motion- classical wing chun is valid.

BL IMO did not understand Classical wing chun and evolved his own system. His preference.

But sticking to classical does NOT mean IMO mechanically repeating the techniques of Ip man or Leung Jan. Thus some early folks may not have to face short snappy hooks- but the sytem is larger than the person and one can find answers to hooks without violating the principles of wing chun motion.
Same for leg dives.

Buta KFO forum and some chat lists are hopelessly flawed
as far as having serious discussions- so we flail around and will continue to do so for the most part..
So I ignore most things, laugha lot and sometimes sigh. Life


good post Joy

and may i steal this--Buta KFO forum and some chat lists are hopelessly flawed
as far as having serious discussions- so we flail around and will continue to do so for the most part..
So I ignore most things, laugha lot and sometimes sigh. Life


that's how i feel about most wing chun conversations on here
people would rather talk about the translation of a word , the history of a word , or technique or shape ETC

instead of just putting in the work to test and refine the idea

helps me understand the mind state of many wing chun people
avoid contact at all cost ;)

[AmanuJRY]

Hendrik,

So how do we go about 'benchmarking' WC?

or are you saying that it's more about opinion than fact?

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
Hendrik,

So how do we go about 'benchmarking' WC?

or are you saying that it's more about opinion than fact?



Bench Marking is IMHO such as.


IE:
Basic components in random, then one can go to momentum......etc

1, power generation for a strike.
understand the process of how the strike being power from two different styles.

compare how they use muscle. how they use the body. how they use the coordination. how many step from start to completion of the process.


What is the power generation dependent on? some might be the muscle of the arm. some might be speed. some might be.... and what is the pro and cons


2, Body handling.
Understand the parts of the body train. how complete the are they? and how are these parts condition to sustain impact or acceleration.

IE if one just stand there and the other has a full body work out.


3, .....

[YongChun]

I think there is a lot of confusion going on. Wing Chun to me is some good ideas for fighting, which from a mathematical and physics standpoint are valid. More simply , most of the ideas are just good common sense. These for the most part have probably been extracted from other Chinese fighting systems and also have some validity based on that.

These ideas or principles can be taught to you by a fighter or by a theoretician who has never fought in his life. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line whether a fighter tells you that or a modern sports scientist who maybe doesn’t practice any sport. The idea of yielding against a stronger force can be told to you by a fighter or a non-fighter (sports scientist). It’s a universal concept. It’s just common sense. A horizontal cut to the stomach with a knife one thousand years ago is the same as a horizontal cut to the stomach today. There are only so many common angles of attack. We don’t need a modern method to deal with a number 1 angle stick strike (diagonal to the temple). Is it that the old time people didn’t know how to defend against that? Not likely. So a part of martial art is always the same no matter what the generation.

What is different is the training methods. Maybe they are not better or worse but different. We don’t know how gladiators trained but undoubtedly it was effective for fighting. If we are to believe history, those people fought for real. Who knows if modern or old training methods are better in a real life and death weapons fights? We can only compare methods that are well documented and practiced by current practitioners. Even comparing old time boxers with modern boxers is a speculative event. However from what we know, training methods in our short time history have evolved and have produced better, bigger, stronger, faster and smarter fighters as far as ring competition goes. A stabbing on the street however is likely to be almost the same as a stabbing on the street 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.

So Wing Chun is a textbook, like a textbook of physics or mathematics. A sports scientist can teach that to someone or a theoretician can teach that to someone in the same way as a team of sports scientists can improve the performance of the worlds best weightlifters based on computer analysis of bio mechanics. Even training methods can come from a team of sports scientists who never fight.

Beyond that you need tactics and strategy and experimental results that can only come from real fighters. There are too many variables in a real fight to be covered by a theoretical model. Theories evolve based on new fighting results. All models of real life are like that. A model cannot usually capture all the nuances of the real thing. Small things can mean big differences in the end result. A little thing can mean defeat or loss in a real fight. Real fighters validate the models of the theoreticians. Theory can only go so far. Boxers have sometimes ignored the advice from their corners to win the fight. A case in point is Mohammed’s trainer’s advice to dance against Foreman. Instead he stuck to the ropes. He used his own non-conforming strategy to succeed. He had to go with the situation and not with the general advice. Only he knew how the real situation felt.

In an ideal world, you should be taught by a team of sports scientists and by a team of fighters. The world’s strongest man has a team of 20 sports scientists watching his every movement. They are trying to maximize what his body can do. They have for the most part achieved that. People have lifted weights since antiquity. There have always been strong men around. But now we have new ways to analyze human motion, new knowledge about nutrition, new understanding about various types of muscle fibers, new computerized ways to analyze biomechanics, and so we can produce better results for sports. Perhaps no amount of training can enhance someone as much as a simple dose of steroids?

The Wing Chun forms provide a mathematical kind of textbook or a framework for things to analyze. It’s a short summary of concepts that are useful for fighting. These ideas were good in the past and are still good now because they are based on simple logic. But you have to put these ideas into a modern training context and adapt the ideas to whatever type of fighter you are dealing with. It’s likely that Wong Shun Leung, Yip Man and such could not have handled the modern fighter or today’s Thai boxer. That says nothing about the art or the textbook but only about the training methods and physical attributes of those people.

To compete at the highest levels, to compete against professionals, is a whole different ball game that most of us cannot be concerned with as Wing Chun hobbyists. At lower levels it’s all shades of grey as to what is or isn’t useful.

For the most part we have two groups of people arguing with each other. One group is for intense training that approaches real combat while the other is trying to discuss the textbook portion of the art. The fighting group doesn’t like to listen to people who talk about the textbook aspects or to other people’s experiences because they are not their experiences. Within each group intelligent discussion can occur but between groups constructive discussion is difficult. Logically to be called a real fighter, you must fight. Both fighters and theoreticians should agree on that. If training a fighting art, then fighting results take precedence over theory but both are a part of one whole.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by YongChun

For the most part we have two groups of people arguing with each other. One group is for intense training that approaches real combat while the other is trying to discuss the textbook portion of the art.


The fighting group doesn’t like to listen to people who talk about the textbook aspects or to other people’s experiences because they are not their experiences. Within each group intelligent discussion can occur but between groups constructive discussion is difficult. Logically to be called a real fighter, you must fight. Both fighters and theoreticians should agree on that. If training a fighting art, then fighting results take precedence over theory but both are a part of one whole.


I dont think there is two groups of people arguing. I think it is that as human , and only human, we as human lots of time stop to observe and think one knows it all and to be the most correct one. hehehehe. just human. ;)



As for facts, what is the charateristics of power generation of Wing Chun Kuen? is it the same with TKD? TaiJi? Shao Lin? boxing? be it from any angle --fighter or text book.

if this is not clear what to talk about beside our own opinion?

Such as, very basic,
EVeryone can call everything Keng Geng and shock power, or inch power, and everyone does it differently. However, when a Grapper launch a take down where is all those Keng or Shock or inch? or it goes back to square one who has a bigger heavier body, stronger muscle?....

The question then is analogy to what is your power supply for your notebook computer, is it li-ion? CDium? wall adaptor or what ?before even talk about how fast the CPU can function.


why do I mention this basic stuffs which lots of people know better then me to Kick A$$ with their power because they are fighter. In my experience vesus pratictioners such as Kyokushin or Mauy Thai or Yee Chuan, boxing ....etc. I am trying to find out what is the advantage of Wing Chun term by term. from power generation, stratergy, training, conditioning.... and guess what I am aging and getting weaker physically. so is it Wing Chun is great or is it I am bad because my physical ?


it is similar to doing a business. so what is the advantage of your product? what is the unsatisfactory? the classic coca cola, the modern coca cola, the pepsi.... bottom line a product has to serve the customers and WCners are customers.


Just some opinion and I might be wrong.


PS;

back to my AT (approximate type ) and IT (iterative type) model.

AT or IT has nothing todo with classical or modern.

AT is just approximate the reality based on a person, an era, a concept, and keep it that way.

IT is an iterative process that continously iterating --- the external evironment/condition/chalenge grow; internal resorces/technoclogy/development, to arrive at the goal of intent.
and this is a continous process of evalution/evolving/grow....

Thus, there is no past or modern. it is just NOW and with all methods balancing the external, internal, and the goal at any point.



As for AT or the Approximate model, it is based on relying on a certain human, view, or concept....... and called that the ultimate. However, that provide no clue on bringing the art to the next level because the core of the AT art system is an approximate based on somebody, some thing. some concept, and never get out from the box.

EVery a few years or so some one will come up with some great approximation of reality at that time. and people follow that. that then become an AT system. This system will last for a certain time and the system effectiveness drop because of the reality change with time. and when this art is dis-integrating. It by default goes into a market competition of Physical power and streght.



on the other hand, the IT system also will get into trouble when people taking an IT system and make it an AT without an understanding of what is what.


So, all this unsatisfied stuffs is about customer satisfaction. nothing to do with which CEO of the Inc is the biggest hot short or the riches or number one wizad of the technology.

[Ernie]

Hendrik--Thus, there is no past or modern. it is just NOW and with all methods balancing the external, internal, and the goal at any point.


now your talking , when one has a goal they can take what is old run it through a filter and if it stands up then it is no longer old
if it doesn't stand up then toss it aside and walk on

the study of power seems to interest you

but what is the goal that defines that power as functional

you could build the largest power plant in the world , but it will take time to warm up and get started it might not be very mobile

and so on

so for all the power you build you can not use it when needed [ for the set goal ]


so we need to look at more then just the building and training of power , but the use

then we can have progress in a set direction

if you are really goal oriented then you won't care about were the training method comes from , what year , what person , what part of the world , you will only care for results and research and test towards those results

you will have no ego and try and label and name the family and point all fingers at the source , you will just be content with the results

and spreading that training method out to as many as possible to help you test and research

ah but as you said there is the *human* factor
the need to feel special ;)

[yellowpikachu]

now your talking , when one has a goal they can take what is old run it through a filter and if it stands up then it is no longer old
if it doesn't stand up then toss it aside and walk on -----



You still dont understand me.



GOAL is not the key of everything. In the real word, people compremise. and Goal changes based on external/internal condition.

There is no old or modern it is just is the technology appropriate. There is no filtering but beable to make use of everything.






the study of power seems to interest you. but what is the goal that defines that power as functional
----


Sure.

because in the real life I am one of those nuts in silicon valley in this era within the circle of creating and designing architecture of the power management system for the modern computer to handle devices.

and without the fast response, mega power capability, high efficientcy, adaptively inteligent, and fit into smaller and smaller size. Not much the computer can do not much the cell phone can do without power.. look at the speed of processing today vesus 1994 look at your cell phone?


there is no non functinal power.there is only how one uses it.

Who control the energy who control the out come. ;)







you could build the largest power plant in the world , but it will take time to warm up and get started it might not be very mobile ---



Inter CPu needs the capability of deliver 150 Amp of current in a micro second with 90% and above efficientcy and place in small volume.

Your cell phone comes with camera, PDA..... everything.

and guess what? the power management team in this world happily delivered newer model every few months. ;)




and so on
so for all the power you build you can not use it when needed [ for the set goal ] ------


That is your assumption.

You know, the design engineer who design the fastest CPU in the past decade until today never care much about how much power they need. they just design and ask the power management people take care of the power issue.

Power or energy per second is similar to a credit card. the more you have the more you can spend without has to wait untill next year of next month. so, one can buy what one wants NOW when it is needed. and one always can find a way to use the high limit credit card.


A reason of FEAR of survival is because when one is in scacity of power or energy or money or..... and the demand is stepping in. that step loading cause FEAR. and the only way to get rid of that FEAR of have not enough to survive is be able to generate lots of power.




so we need to look at more then just the building and training of power , but the use
then we can have progress in a set direction -------


As I mention before. power supplying generally has two process. The generation process and the deliver process.

The generation process influence the delivery process and vice versal. Look at the high tower beside the high way where mega electrical power is carry. that high tower will have to use much bigger wire if the power generation is different.

Samething with the Computer. the trace of the CPU is broad instead of a tiny narrow one to accormodate for the high speed current transfer.


So, ALL is one, one is ALL. Can't just decide on one thing and dont care of the rest. In the old time, when the speed is not an issue, when computer is just a toy. there is no issue. But today, every fraction of an inch of the power supply trace counts.




if you are really goal oriented then you won't care about were the training method comes from , what year , what person , what part of the world , you will only care for results and research and test towards those results -----



The only way for a doctor to know what is going on clearly with the patient's sickness of healing development is to look into all his living record, what, when, how he eat, sleep, work,.........




you will have no ego and try and label and name the family and point all fingers at the source , you will just be content with the results -----


I never content with result.
I like the continous iteration technology grow.

thus, at every second, I need to know all what happen with the power supply around the world with its history which supplying the Yahoo or the hotmail servers. and watch out hotmail just increase thier storing capacity from 2 Meg to 250 Meg. That needs an increase of power supplied.

mixing a TaiJi to Wing Chun is not going to get very far while fight with a TaiJi expert. Such as two computer brand name which using the same Taiwan OEM is not going to out perform each others.




and spreading that training method out to as many as possible to help you test and research -----


sure.

both AT and IT model can be used. But it has to be clearly understood.



ah but as you said there is the *human* factor
the need to feel special ;) ------

That is not going to go away but one always can embrase and go a step further to look at things in a broader Systemic view. instead of Stuck at any old or modern AT system;)

[Ernie]

hendrik-As I mention before. power supplying generally has two process. The generation process and the deliver process


B-I-N-G-O


both must work together towards a common goal

or else there will be no balance and they will not match

sure each standing on it's own can reach a very high non functional level

but only with a purpose will there be a plan , and when a plan is applied will there be results

so when you can have a higher knock out rate [ just as a example] against people trying to knock you out then you have proven your results :D

if there is no direction engineers will go crazy and make useless objects , just becasue they can , if there is no checks and balances anything is possible , if there is no time limit then sure study every old piece of information you want might as well go to egypt and stare at the pyrimids :rolleyes:

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ernie
plan is applied will there be results

so when you can have a higher knock out rate [ just as a example] against people trying to knock you out then you have proven your results :D



nope, disagree.

using a boxing jab can knock people down.
using a Taiji jing can knock people down.
get a 4x3 can knock people down.
born with a big body has advantage.
go to gym everyday has advantage..... and the list goes on.

cant call it a result of martial art , hiding somewhere with the 4x3 and knock the heck out of others. :D


But,

can the process empower a general group of weaker person who is not be able to knock others out with very little dependentcy of thier physical to be able to do knock out.

see, no one needs to be able to scream loud to talk to some one in Europe with a cell phone. That is what a real power in my mind is about.

[Ernie]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
nope, dis agree.

using a boxing jab can knock people down.
using a Taiji jing can knock people down.
get a 4x3 can knock people down.
born with a big body has advantage.
go to gym everyday has advantage..... and the list goes on.

cant call it a result of martial art hiding somewhere with the 4x3 and knock the heck out of others. :D


But,

can the process empower a general group of weaker person who is not be able to knock one out with very little dependentcy of thier physical to be able to knock out.


the are more people knocked out around the world by a boxing power type punch then anything else

:D

the time it takes for a tai chi type person to develop there power and the amount that get and can use it against a skilled fighter is like next to none in respect to the boxing example

so there you go stop wasting time and learn to box the results are in ;)

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ernie
the are more people knocked out around the world by a boxing power type punch then anything else

:D

the time it takes for a tai chi type person to develop there power and the amount that get and can use it against a skilled fighter is like next to none in respect to the boxing example

so there you go stop wasting time and learn to box the results are in ;)


This is where we are different. as i said, I love iterative continous technological grow not just a results or any brand name or technology.

if you like Boxing. then do boxing. nothing wrong with it.

As for Taiji, do you know TaiJi ? if not so why commenting about it?

[Ernie]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
This is where we are different. as i said, I love iterative continous technological grow not just a results.

if you like Boxing. then do boxing. nothing wrong with it.

As for Taiji, you dont know TaiJi so why commenting about it?

i have sparred tai chi guys
my trainingpartner for the last 5 years is a long time tai chi guy
two guys i'm training have 10-15 years in tai chi
the list is long
the results the same

that's what i mean , no testing anything is possible , when tested things change

i do know how to box from before wing chun :D

have to run to work but i get it you like to imagine things
i like to see them work it's just a different filter man no worries
room for everyone

with out the dreamers we would never grow;)

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ernie
i have sparred tai chi guys
my trainingpartner for the last 5 years is a long time tai chi guy
two guys i'm training have 10-15 years in tai chi
the list is long
the results the same

that's what i mean , no testing anything is possible , when tested things change

i do know how to box from before wing chun :D

have to run to work but i get it you like to imagine things
i like to see them work it's just a different filter man no worries
room for everyone

with out the dreamers we would never grow;)


Taiji is famous for health . have you test against those under Chen Xiao Wang from the Chen village? ;)


I work with the industy to power your computer and cellphone with imagination.

And, so far so good. the computer get faster, the cellphone get more functions. and sure you never notice. ;)

[Ernie]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
Taiji is famous for health . have you test against those under Chen Xiao Wang from the Chen village? ;)

no but i would :)

one man does not define a system , perhaps he is just a great fighter and no matter what he trained he would be great , just has great attributes

but since i am a average wing chun guy , when i spar the average tai chi guy and walk through him like a piece of paper

and this has been the same experience over and over again

got to go by that ;)

hendrik-And, so far so good. the computer get faster, the cellphone get more functions


phones don't hit back:eek:

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ernie
no but i would :)

one man does not define a system , perhaps he is just a great fighter and no matter what he trained he would be great , just has great attributes

:


you know,

this topic is about What is sooo unsatisfactory about classical WCK?
not who is the greatest man ;)

lets others post about the topic.;)

[YongChun]

I find a lot of people comment on Tai Chi but have never met a real Tai Chi fighter, have never touched a Tai Chi master. It's all assumption based on watching people who do Tai Chi for exercise. The average Tai Chi guy is not a fighter, maybe the average Wing Chun guy is a fighter. You can't compare averages.

Tai Chi for fighting can be learned as quickly as Wing Chun for fighting. Tai Chi is marketed for health and not for fighting so you find few fighters there now. Few people can teach that for fighting. But if someone cares to look in Taiwan or China then they can find them. But Wing Chun and boxing is more accessible, that's certainly true so why waste time with Tai Chi?

For Tai Chi, you have to ask what is Tai Chi? Is it waving your arms around like David Carradine in his TV Kung Fu series. Good Tai Chi is also very simple. In a fight, the reactions of a Tai Chi fighter might be hard to distinguish from those of a Wing Chun fighter. They also can do a Pak sau combined with punch. Those people who couldn't handle Wing Chun had something wrong. Here we have a good Tai Chi master and the Wing Chun people have a lot of trouble with him. So nothing wrong with the art.

Tai Chi is a broader art and hence to really train the complete thing, it takes more time. If you just need to train jab, uppercut, hook, then that takes less time. If you add kicking to that the time goes up. If you add joint locking and counterlocking then the time goes up more. If you want to blend those together then more time. The Tai Chi idea is to overcome a larger force with a smaller one. Lot's of arts have that idea but implement the idea in different ways.

At a low level, I don't think there is really much significant difference between the ways people generate power to punch. There are hundreds of styles of boxing all claiming to have unique power delivery methods but all are based on sending a signal to the tricep muscles to extend the arm. All can further enhance that by turning the body or by stepping to enhance that strike. All of them can knock you out. I think it is how the whole art ties together that defines the art, the same way as how the whole computer runs and not by how the chip does adding.

[planetwc]

Hendrik,

In some sense, it appears as though your benchmarks are based around the conceptual/theoretical "specifications" of the art to the exclusion of those specifications being able to be applied consistently over time.

I think the people who can deliver and APPLY those concepts are very very rare. It comes down to access to a teacher who has those skills to begin with, who pressure tested them in fighting and could then pass them on to a student who also pressure tested them in fighting. To develop that skill takes a lot of time to study on a weekly basis stretched out over years.

Most people now don't have the time to do that in Wing Chun.
That can lead to the following situations:

1. Incomplete transmission of information - holes in the student's knowledge.

2. Complete transmission of information - incomplete TRAINING and APPLICATION by the student. Not enough training time to develop skill and application of theoretical knowledge.

3. Incomplete transmission of information AND incomplete training and application.

From those three things come poor Wing Chun in it's many forms.

That is the reality of the situation for almost all "classical" martial arts.

Here is a question for you to ponder.

Postulation: The end poiint of a martial arts system is to teach someone to how to fight with a given set of principles and techniques. Further the expectation is that one who trains will be able to fight and win, by development of skill and experience using the concepts and theories of their art.

What percentage of students of "classical" martial arts TODAY can fight and win against a skilled, resisting opponent using their training?

5%? 1%?

What percentage of students of modern martial arts (MMA:BJJ/Boxing/Muay Thai) TODAY can fight and win against a skilled, resisting opponent using their training?

50%? 75%?

What percentage of MMA trained students can fight and win against a classically trained student using their training?

70%? 90%?

I don't know the percentages, but I think the rate of return for average students in each group would skew towards one getting a higher rate of return if you trained using an MMA approach.

That gets back to how people are actually TRAINED. The level of cardio, strength and endurance that is part of their daily workout. The amount of time they spend actually using their techniques against a resisting opponent. The amount of time they go to class and train.

---

Sooo...how many can bridge the gap between the concepts and being able to USE them under pressure. How many can take the theory and apply it consistently over time with success?

Those are the benchmarks that count. The other things are specifications.
Being able to do them in isolation of application is a demo of an interesting skill. Being able to do them in combat at the right time is where it is at.

[planetwc]

Originally posted by YongChun

At a low level, I don't think there is really much significant difference between the ways people generate power to punch. There are hundreds of styles of boxing all claiming to have unique power delivery methods but all are based on sending a signal to the tricep muscles to extend the arm. All can further enhance that by turning the body or by stepping to enhance that strike. All of them can knock you out. I think it is how the whole art ties together that defines the art, the same way as how the whole computer runs and not by how the chip does adding.

If we presume then that Boxing has a smaller curriculum than a "martial art" (ie less techniques, more rules)...

Then should we not find that there are MANY martial artists who can step into a boxing ring, glove up and knock out boxers using arm strikes?

Why haven't martial artists gone where the money is and taken those pro belts and the money that comes with them?

How many "martial artists" actually CAN knock someone out?

If the number of martial artists that can do so is few and far between, then AGAIN, is the return on potential investment worth it?

It's as if one is saying you have to be the equivalent of a Navy SEAL to the general population of the US Military in order to develop the skill.

That is not a high percentage bet.

[planetwc]

Originally posted by YongChun
I find a lot of people comment on Tai Chi but have never met a real Tai Chi fighter, have never touched a Tai Chi master. It's all assumption based on watching people who do Tai Chi for exercise. The average Tai Chi guy is not a fighter, maybe the average Wing Chun guy is a fighter. You can't compare averages.

Tai Chi for fighting can be learned as quickly as Wing Chun for fighting. Tai Chi is marketed for health and not for fighting so you find few fighters there now. Few people can teach that for fighting. But if someone cares to look in Taiwan or China then they can find them. But Wing Chun and boxing is more accessible, that's certainly true so why waste time with Tai Chi?


But the whole point IS to compare averages. Because most people are average. They are NOT the 1% of the population.

Where are these Taiji fighters? Where are they fighting? Who are they fighting?

Who are the teachers teaching Taiji for fighting?

How many students of any of the 4 tigers of Taiji are fighters?

How many Taiji guys from Taiwan have gone to Lumpini stadium and cleaned house on the Muay Thai boxers? How many Taiji guys from China or Taiwan are world or olympic ranked boxers? How many have fought in the UFC or Pride or Cage fights? How many in Sanda or Le Tai fights? How many in TKD tournaments?

There ARE people out there that like to fight. Why is it that none of the people who fight professionally chose Taiji as their core toolset?

Again, is it that if you want a higher rate of return of being able to dish out a beat down then receive one, you better cross train in BJJ/Boxing/Muay Thai.

Or you can hope that after twenty years you win the Wing Chun lottery. :D

[anerlich]

that is a single event according to Statistic

All events are single events (duh!).

Statistics, among other things attempts to predict likely outcomes based on *large* samples. The problem with statistical benchmarking of WC as a combat-effective method of fighting is that there is no statistically valid sample of reliable accounts of bouts, unlike with some other MAs which have at least some publicly vetted stats on which to base their claims for effectiveness.

For something to be "wrong" with classical WC, it has to have a defined purpose, and then fail to live up to the related goals.

The problem I see with classical is that its proponents claim it to be, among other things:

A fighting system
A system of physical culture and healing
A system of spiritual development
A cultural program
An art

By trying ot be all of these, IMO it ends up doing none of them particularly well.

[anerlich]

the asians had a large advantage a hundred or so years ago in hand to hand combat when the asian arts were new to westerners

How so? Based on what information?

Since parts of Asia were colonised by Europeans, often by force, and significant expanses were regularly overrun by the Japanese, I'm not really sure that CMA as a whole proved very historically effective.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The asians had a large advantage a hundred or so years ago in hand to hand combat when the asian arts were new to westerners."


On the contrary - what was known as the Boxer Rebellion in the early 1900's against the British and other Westerners was a disaster for the Chinese "kung fu" fighters...

Where?...Hendrik gets his historical information is quite unfathamable.

Come to think of it - just about everything he says is quite unfathomable...either by design (ie. - if he confuses us enough maybe we'll just get tired of trying to figure things out and just take his word for it)...or...as an attempt not to leave a trail that could be traced to a place of fact that contradicts what he wants us to believe.

To be blunt - I have to take just about everything he says as some sort of an attempt to make a case for himself as an "expert"...and for the martial arts he's been involved with and/or has researched as THE best martial arts on the planet at any time...whether it be past, present, or future.

It's a childish game...and I'm constantly amazed at how often people buy into it - or even respond to it.

[old jong]

Since parts of Asia were colonised by Europeans, often by force, and significant expanses were regularly overrun by the Japanese, I'm not really sure that CMA as a whole proved very historically effective.
Guns!


On the contrary - what was known as the Boxer Rebellion in the early 1900's against the British and other Westerners was a disaster for the Chinese "kung fu" fighters...
Guns again!...

I don't think it is a good idea to gauge the value of CMAs on their lost under european's firearms!...

About the Boxer rebellion: It is common knowledge that the chinese "boxers" were fooled into believing that certain talismans would protect them from bullets!...Superstition was the mistake,not Kung Fu!...

[Ernie]

About the Boxer rebellion: It is common knowledge that the Chinese "boxers" were fooled into believing that certain talismans would protect them from bullets!...Superstition was the mistake,not Kung Fu!...


--- yep just like the superstitions of CHI power , or sending some on flying with a flick of a wrist , or how great the [[great fighters] of the past iron body Dim Mak and so on ,,,, allot of hype

but people associate with the under dog and believe in magic so hey the beat goes on

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by planetwc


In some sense, it appears as though your benchmarks are based around the conceptual/theoretical "specifications" of the art to the exclusion of those specifications being able to be applied consistently over time.

I think the people who can deliver and APPLY those concepts are very very rare. It comes down to access to a teacher who has those skills to begin with, who pressure tested them in fighting and could then pass them on to a student who also pressure tested them in fighting. To develop that skill takes a lot of time to study on a weekly basis stretched out over years....



Thanks for your view!


You know, in my limited view, in my understanding from my lineage, since Cho family is a martial art family where they open up martial art schools and accept challenge since mid 1800 to the cultural revolution period, doesnt mean I can do it, the process of a specific kung or technics such as power generation development has 4 level needed to be past.

1, preparation or conditioning the body to have a glims of the kung fu. say fajing.

2, Crystalized the specific kung or technics

3, Applied in daily life.

4, let go and make it a part of reflextion.


until then one is no consider mastering that specific kung or technics.



So, by my sigung or sifu's definition. I know some WCK sets but I dont have the Kung because I didnt go through the 4 level process.



A familiar sentence always ring in my ears was : those who sell lamps oil in the chinese village in the old time can pour the oil into the narrow neck bottle without spill a drop. That is kung fu. without that precision and repeatable control. You dont have anything but brute force and raw courage, young man.


My sigung Cho On who at old age still knock younger people out with precision doing pressure point hit I can see what Kung fu Mean for him. I believe the old generation such as my sigung Cho On, GM IM, GM YKS... those have a very different standard on the art of WCK when they rely on them to live.


And, later when I got Mas Oyama's teaching on if one doesnt do a kick 10,000 x , one doesnt know the kick. I see the similarity of the 4 level process. Lots of works. and the time of Kung Fu might be past and gone in this everything has to be fast to learn and fire arms era.


just some random thoughts.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by planetwc
If we presume then that Boxing has a smaller curriculum than a "martial art" (ie less techniques, more rules)...

Then should we not find that there are MANY martial artists who can step into a boxing ring, glove up and knock out boxers using arm strikes?



No I am saying that martial arts is like diluted boxing because they spend a lot less time to develop base skills than a boxer does. Look at Aikido with 3,000 techniques. How can you make that work with the time most people have available for martial art. It would be very rare that a maertial artist can step into a ring and knock out a good boxer or a good Thai boxer.

Ray

[SAAMAG]

Exactly Jong. Im not talking about effective against guns, Im talking about hand to hand.

The euro/anglo culture did not have fighing methods as as evolved as the chinese/japanese/korean etc, and so naturally HAND TO HAND combat would have put the asians in favor up until the latter part of this century when it started to catch on and spread to the masses. On a smaller scale think of how americans reacted when karate and judo first came over. Everyone was amazed at how the smaller asian guy could defeat bigger americans. Not trying to be too cliche mind you. Once the rest of the world started to catch on and become more integrated in the asian martial arts world...they became more knowledgeable themselves and found that it was the brains that defeated the braun, and technique over muscle.

Now today, to be effective it seems, one has to improve on many levels because everyone knows about martial arts just about.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by planetwc
But the whole point IS to compare averages. Because most people are average. They are NOT the 1% of the population.

Where are these Taiji fighters? Where are they fighting? Who are they fighting?

There ARE people out there that like to fight. Why is it that none of the people who fight professionally chose Taiji as their core toolset?

Again, is it that if you want a higher rate of return of being able to dish out a beat down then receive one, you better cross train in BJJ/Boxing/Muay Thai.

Or you can hope that after twenty years you win the Wing Chun lottery. :D

I think the Tai Chi fighters are rare. Some of my points were based on looking at Tai Chi from a Wing Chun perspective and say "yes, I think I could make a small subset of that stuff work - but perhaps then it isn't Tai Chi." I base other comments on experiences from Kenneth Chung who I think is good at Wing Chun although the realists wouldn't think so. But anyway, he seems to think some Tai Chi is good and he is a better judge than I since he has met the cream of the crop and his Wing Chun is much better than mine. My personal experience is that Wing Chun , even a years worth, can give a lot of trouble to Tai Chi people who have trained even 20 years.

If Wing Chun is not taught properly then you better cross train so that you can fight. We have to define what is meant by fight (fight who?). Personally I think Ken's Wing Chun is very refined however I think it takes much longer and a bit of faith to believe it will eventually work as compared to say Emin Boztepe's. Then again people would argue about what is really Wing Chun? Both individuals have been trashed here and there.

Ray

[anerlich]

The euro/anglo culture did not have fighing methods as as evolved as the chinese/japanese/korean etc, and so naturally HAND TO HAND combat would have put the asians in favor up until the latter part of this century when it started to catch on and spread to the masses..

On what evidence do you base this? why were anglo arts "unevolved"? Boxing? Wrestling? Savate? Fairbairn and Applegate's stuff? You make a sweeping assertion with no factual basis.

Have the boxers, wrestlers karateka, MT guys that beat TMAers late (or early, for that matter) on CHANGED their styles to get by the "DEADLY" Asian arts? Nahh. Kickboxers had to get unadulterated western boxing into their arsenal so that cound beat boxers who were wiping their TCMA hand techs out in the ring.

You could say that BJJ destroyed everyone in the late 80's early 90's as well. but it had been going on since the early 20th century. Because Asians never saw BJJ, was their art still the ultimate?


On a smaller scale think of how americans reacted when karate and judo first came over. Everyone was amazed at how the smaller asian guy could defeat bigger americans.

The shock of the new and clever marketing. And the smaller ASian EXPERT beating ****y American *******es, perhaps. Still arguably apples and oranges.

[planetwc]

So then Hendrik,

Is there anyone from your lineage in the present generation, who does have the 4 levels you mention below?

If not...why not?

What is different about the current active generation of Cho Family stylists that renders them unable to represent their teacher's art?

What are the inefficiencies of study and training?

It is something to consider, because as each family reduces the number of people who can "deliver the goods", the chances of the style perservering is less and less, OR it turns into a shadow or caricature of itself.

So here is the central criticism of classical wing chun and/or classical martial arts in general.

It's training methodology is inefficient.

It's training methodology produces too FEW competant students.

It's training methodology has not kept pace with modern information regarding fitness, exercise, strength training, kinesiology, cardio and conditioning.

It's training methodology does not teach dealing with the current state of fighting as it exists in the modern world today. By that I mean dealing not with another Wing Chun guy and is po pai, but a boxer with jabs, hooks and uppercuts and footwork, a BJJ guy with submissions, a wrestler/judoka with takedowns, and a Muay Thai fighter with conditioning, powerfull leg attacks and elbow/punches.

Each one of those other arts by nature of their training regimen also probably produces better conditioned fighters (used to dealing with getting hit, being able to take it and having the stamina to dish it out).

In Classical systems, return on investment of time relative to development of fighting skill is lower than other modern fighting systems. By that I mean the yield rate at which someone can fight successfully is lower.

It is a low percentage approach for the average guy looking to learn to fight.

Please respond and discuss those points and how you would improve the situation or counter my suppositions.


Originally posted by yellowpikachu
Thanks for your view!


You know, in my limited view, in my understanding from my lineage, since Cho family is a martial art family where they open up martial art schools and accept challenge since mid 1800 to the cultural revolution period, doesnt mean I can do it, the process of a specific kung or technics such as power generation development has 4 level needed to be past.

1, preparation or conditioning the body to have a glims of the kung fu. say fajing.

2, Crystalized the specific kung or technics

3, Applied in daily life.

4, let go and make it a part of reflextion.


until then one is no consider mastering that specific kung or technics.



So, by my sigung or sifu's definition. I know some WCK sets but I dont have the Kung because I didnt go through the 4 level process.



A familiar sentence always ring in my ears was : those who sell lamps oil in the chinese village in the old time can pour the oil into the narrow neck bottle without spill a drop. That is kung fu. without that precision and repeatable control. You dont have anything but brute force and raw courage, young man.


My sigung Cho On who at old age still knock younger people out with precision doing pressure point hit I can see what Kung fu Mean for him. I believe the old generation such as my sigung Cho On, GM IM, GM YKS... those have a very different standard on the art of WCK when they rely on them to live.


And, later when I got Mas Oyama's teaching on if one doesnt do a kick 10,000 x , one doesnt know the kick. I see the similarity of the 4 level process. Lots of works. and the time of Kung Fu might be past and gone in this everything has to be fast to learn and fire arms era.


just some random thoughts.

[Ernie]

PlWC

very good questions , this is were all the preconditioned responses come in and the BS meter goes way up :o

[Ernie]

use this:D

[YongChun]

Originally posted by planetwc

So here is the central criticism of classical wing chun and/or classical martial arts in general.

It's training methodology is inefficient.

It's training methodology produces too FEW competant students.

It's training methodology has not kept pace with modern information regarding fitness, exercise, strength training, kinesiology, cardio and conditioning.

It's training methodology does not teach dealing with the current state of fighting as it exists in the modern world today. By that I mean dealing not with another Wing Chun guy and is po pai, but a boxer with jabs, hooks and uppercuts and footwork, a BJJ guy with submissions, a wrestler/judoka with takedowns, and a Muay Thai fighter with conditioning, powerfull leg attacks and elbow/punches.

Each one of those other arts by nature of their training regimen also probably produces better conditioned fighters (used to dealing with getting hit, being able to take it and having the stamina to dish it out).

In Classical systems, return on investment of time relative to development of fighting skill is lower than other modern fighting systems. By that I mean the yield rate at which someone can fight successfully is lower.

It is a low percentage approach for the average guy looking to learn to fight.

Please respond and discuss those points and how you would improve the situation or counter my suppositions.

I wonder how Kenneth Chung's group is addressing all these issues since that is the criticism people have of his art also. The only thing I heard was that Carl was working on training some fighters to compete but haven't heard much about that lately.

Ray

[yellowpikachu]

Is there anyone from your lineage in the present generation, who does have the 4 levels you mention below?

If not...why not?


What is different about the current active generation of Cho Family stylists that renders them unable to represent their teacher's art?

What are the inefficiencies of study and training?

It is something to consider, because as each family reduces the number of people who can "deliver the goods", the chances of the style perservering is less and less, OR it turns into a shadow or caricature of itself. -----






With the impact of Mao Tze-Dong's Cultural Revolution to destory the core family in China.

With the society structure changes in the Asia. Teaching martial art to make a living is hard living.

so, naturally, when the older generation who view the art is thier live passing away, young people switch thier carrer and art is no longer the first priority in life.


For passed genertion, there were practitioner mistakenly cause serious injury and later death to other in Kong Sau, and become religious man upto today to repend his life.

for my generation, there were non-active-Cho practitioners in different location of the world today, range from professor in university, succefull software design engineer, stock brokers, to high tech CEO who own jet plane. so, they choose thier carrier well eventhough at one time they are good practitioners with great potential in martial art. They all make great living compare if they choose martial art is thier carreer.










So here is the central criticism of classical wing chun and/or classical martial arts in general.

It's training methodology is inefficient.

It's training methodology produces too FEW competant students.

It's training methodology has not kept pace with modern information regarding fitness, exercise, strength training, kinesiology, cardio and conditioning.

It's training methodology does not teach dealing with the current state of fighting as it exists in the modern world today. ....


It is about society changes, and making the best good living one can.

Plenty of People in ASia today has passed the point of one has to rely on fighting to make a living and to live. Thus, martial art is no longer the first priority.

whatever not being focus on naturally decay that is the law of nature.


Above is my personal opinion.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ernie
use this:D


looks like a Great meter.

lets try.

Mas Oyama is sloppy :D

but strange , how come Mas Oyama never lost a fight to challengers from different styles and produce great kyokushin fighters generation over generation.


It must be a real BS meter which dont know what is it measuring. :D

[Finny]

What do you mean by classical WCK Hendrick??

William Cheung's TWC, Hung Fa Yi? Pan Nam? Pao Fa Lien? Chi Sim?

When asking a question you should always provide accurate definitions as to what you're talking about.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Finny
What do you mean by classical WCK Hendrick??

William Cheung's TWC, Hung Fa Yi? Pan Nam? Pao Fa Lien? Chi Sim?

When asking a question you should always provide accurate definitions as to what you're talking about.


My definition of Classical WCK is the WCK the older generation people such as the generation of Ip Man, YKS, Sung Num, Cho On, Chan Wah, Fung family elder and generation before that practiced .

[kj]

A good analysis might involve relative measures in addition to absolute measures.

For example, many (most?) times in discussion it is proposed to compare the best in Wing Chun with the best in this or that other art in order to ascertain things like


Whether or not Wing Chun is as or more effective than other martial arts and training systems, or
Which variant of Wing Chun or training methods (new, old, evolved, hybrid, etc.) rate the best


Of course most of us understand that the individual makes a significant and unique contribution to each outcome, and that the outcome is not merely a function of the martial art of interest. So this is part of the dilemma in trying to establish absolute measures. It's very difficult to achieve truly controlled experiments in something like this. Since there are so many variables, and experiments are mildly to wildly uncontrolled, we may understandably attempt to defer to statistics (e.g., for establishing some signal to noise ratio). However, it remains difficult to obtain a statistically reliable sample (quantity of data), no less with any kind of control or stability in various relevant factors (quality and consistency of data) to do a rigorous objective analysis.

There are other analytical approaches that can be taken, and other interesting and relevant kinds of questions to ask, though not as commonly proposed or examined (at least of late). For example, if one assumes or acknowledges that there are a) different kinds of people coming to the art(s) (e.g., different motivations, different expectations, different constraints, etc.), and with a wide range of different beginning or inherent capabilities (e.g., prior experience, genetic attributes, physical limitations, acquired attributes, learning styles, etc.) then that might lead to a different set of analytical questions such as:

Given the range of types, and baseline capabilities of individuals, does art A significantly contribute to overall functional improvement (e.g., mean, median, mode, peaks, area under the curve, six sigma variations, etc. ) more than art B?
If so, how do they compare relative to time span? (e.g., near term, long term, consistent throughout the duration of active practice, etc.)


Given this broader range, it might be a "little" easier to get a meaningful statistical sampling, though still pretty challenging (understatement) to really do it. Even if we could do this type of analysis, the results might beg additional questions such as:

Do different types of arts tend to attract different kinds of people or those with different baseline capabilities?
If so, then should art to art comparisons more closely take into account the improvements based in comparable ranges of types and baseline capabilities?
What would the results be if the typical range of types and capabilities commonly found in art A were swapped with art B?
Would the results be comparable for those individuals regardless of art, or do some arts better optimize performance for certain types or baseline capabilities? In other words, for certain types or ranges of people, are some arts more suitable for improving individual and overall combined performance than other arts?


And these are just some rough ideas and questions for starters. (Please note that I am proposing that these kinds of things would make interesting studies, and not suggesting the need for more and less informed opinions - we already have plenty of those, including mine. :p )

A careful and critical analysis would examine a lot of other factors too, ask even more questions, avoid too many assumptions, try to more rigorously and objectively characterize a wide range of performance and performance improvements, and even come up with some new and possibly unexpected questions based on whatever might be learned.

It gets pretty complicated and quickly, is certainly quite interesting, yet ironically difficult if not virtually impossible to be statistically and analytically rigorous enough to really "prove" something in this arena (sic). Thus, with or without such careful and critical analysis, we'll end up relying [and arguing based] on our own values and assumptions, and whatever data and observations we each personally gather in conjunction with the factors most relevant to us, combined with a certain amount of faith in our own capacity for sound judgment.

Of course we can attempt to cut to the chase and say that it isn't prudent to think about such things, since it's all abstract and theoretical and the "proof" (such as it is) is only in the doing anyway. However, a proposal to leave reason out of equation is also lacking, at least in affairs involving humans. Not to mention that "shoulding" on people "ought" (ha ha - caught in my own trap!) to involve at least a modicum of serious reflection.

So short of finding some "balance" in all of this (on an individual or consensus level), or going to extremes of dogmatism, it seems we are stuck in a quagmire.

And we haven't yet even touched on the more philosophical, ethical or even pragmatic kinds of questions such as:

Is the worth of a martial art better measured by highest levels of fighting performance in voluntary venues (i.e., venues of competition), or
Through the application of skills in situations of compelling need, even if at lesser frequencies or lower levels of demonstrable skill (e.g., self-defense)?
Or, by some other, or a combination of various factors for which fighting prowess is only one aspect?


We could also do a reverse-engineering type of analysis. For example, if we adopt the thesis that birds-of-a-feather tend to flock together, then comparing demographics, values, motivations, etc. of the respective practitioners. We might then look to see how this correlates to the characteristics of the art, school, or method of choice. Of course we all do some of this anyway, though more often with varying degrees of prejudice than in a fully objective and analytical fashion.

Just some hastily sketched out musings. Not sure if this makes much sense (to anyone but me), though hopefully some of you with experience in scientific methods, statistical analysis, process control, modeling and simulation, analytical problem solving, or similar concepts will at least get my slapdash drift.

Back to the argument du jour. :D

Regards,
- kj

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by YongChun
No I am saying that martial arts is like diluted boxing because they spend a lot less time to develop base skills than a boxer does. Look at Aikido with 3,000 techniques. How can you make that work with the time most people have available for martial art. During my first seven years of BJJ, I wrote down every technique I had learned. When I finally got to busy/lazy to catelog them any more, I was up to about 1,8000 different techniques and variations. However, I was successfully using BJJ to beat other experienced martial artists after about 6 months of training.

[Matrix]

Knifefighter,

Out of curiosity, did you find that you just tended to gravitate to a handful of techniques, and some variations of those main ones, to use as your preferred techniques for "real world" application?

I would think that 1,800 is just unmanageable.

Thanks

[kj]

Originally posted by Matrix
I would think that 1,800 is just unmanageable.

Hopefully at some point common patterns, themes or concepts would emerge. If applicable as more generic solutions, they could then [potentially] be adapted and applied according to situational context. That would seem a lot more practical than having to remember all those techniques, or on the other hand by ignoring or eliminating many of them, especially if truly useful.

But there I go with Wing Chun centric thinking again, LOL.

Regards,
- kj

[iblis73]

I'll try to keep this brief. My problems with WCK are the same as with any TMA-its an ART. I seek out more totality-ie, striking,grappling,weapons and street use/tactics. I have found folks like Tony Blauer to give some of the best training ideas for developing thought processes,spontenaity and such. I've found from Matt Thornton that you can develop some good skill in a short amount of time with a well rounded curriculum,aliveness and good coaching. Last and not least some great advice from real world folks like Kelly Mccann,Masaad Ayoob and Gabe Suarez, esp when dealing with firearms.

I find most arts bogged down by terminology, "we step this way not that way" and so forth. Even FMAs have become convoluted. You dont need to know FMAs to beat someone skillfully with a stick or cut them with a knife. What about the interplay of firearms and empty hands at close range? Drawing a weapon while fending an attack?

Then there are tactical considerations like environment or situation. For example, I know x number of ways to step, punch and kick-but how would I fight off an attacking dog? Whats the best way to handle a car jacking? A home invasion? What about first aid trauma care? What about how to talk your way out of a bad situation, or even a bad neighborhood?

Self protection is what drew me to TMAs, and its what is drawing me away. I really loved doing WT and escrima, but looking at the "big picture"-theres just so much more to it all.

So much for brevity.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Matrix
Out of curiosity, did you find that you just tended to gravitate to a handful of techniques, and some variations of those main ones, to use as your preferred techniques for "real world" application?

I would think that 1,800 is just unmanageable.

1,800 is not really unmanageable at all. As kj stated, many of them are related to each other or variations on a theme.

We have a drill where you pull off different submissions in five minutes againsts an non-resisting parter. The advanced people can easily pull of 50 or more within that time period.

BJJ has a basic strategy that you can use after learning a handful of techniques. Everything after that is designed to fight against more and more advanced opponents.

[anerlich]

I don't have Knifefighter's experience in BJJ, I'm only a blue belt, but from what I've seen and experienced you don't need anywhere near that number of techniques to deal with people less skilled than yourself.

As with most things, mastering a smaller number of fundamentals that you can actually use against resistance is much more important than the accumulation of a vast number of techniques, perhaps far too many to actually practice to get each to the level of even conscious competence.

Matt Thornton will tell you that, too.

Also, with most black belts I've met you could ask them to perform any simple sweep or submission on you you might care to name, even on whichever limb, or whatever, and within a short period of free-rolling they will have applied it on you successfully, probably several times.

[anerlich]

We have a drill where you pull off different submissions in five minutes againsts an non-resisting parter. The advanced people can easily pull of 50 or more within that time period.

LOL, I have to demonstrate 36 in under 5 minutes as part of getting to get my next stripe.

[yellowpikachu]

KJ,

I agree.

it is a complicated stuffs.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The key is being able to perform the BASIC principles, strategies, and techniques of WHATEVER fighting system you're doing - to a point of sufficient mastery - so that you have enough CONTROL over the opponent to be able to constantly make adjustments and add moves - including finishing moves - in a seamless flow.

It's mastery of the basics that makes all of the variations on the theme possible.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by anerlich
As with most things, mastering a smaller number of fundamentals that you can actually use against resistance is much more important than the accumulation of a vast number of techniques, perhaps far too many to actually practice to get each to the level of even conscious competence. Essentially, that's what I was I thinking.

P.S. don't give me any of this "I'm only a Blue Belt" stuff. We all know the value of a belt. ;)


Thanks,

[iblis73]

Its not just practicing a small core of techniques but how one masters those techniques. Arts like BJJ have an inherent aliveness (yes, i'm purloining mr thorntons ideas ;) against a resisting opponent. The schools I've visited that have produced the best fighters are those that engage in contact sparring, usually non wt/wc schools. They also seem to have less anxiety as a group in what they are learning. Love it as I do my WT/WC simply breaks down outside of the kwoon-esp with an adrenaline dump.

I think we should also step back and look at TIME FRAME. Most people cant or wont train more than 2x a week. They are often drawn to TMAs in search of self defense and are told (esp in wck schools) they will be able to even within a short period. I do not find that to be the case at all.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by iblis73
Its not just practicing a small core of techniques but how one masters those techniques. Arts like BJJ have an inherent aliveness (yes, i'm purloining mr thorntons ideas ;) against a resisting opponent. The schools I've visited that have produced the best fighters are those that engage in contact sparring, usually non wt/wc schools. They also seem to have less anxiety as a group in what they are learning. Love it as I do my WT/WC simply breaks down outside of the kwoon-esp with an adrenaline dump.

I think we should also step back and look at TIME FRAME. Most people cant or wont train more than 2x a week. They are often drawn to TMAs in search of self defense and are told (esp in wck schools) they will be able to even within a short period. I do not find that to be the case at all.


A side topic, Another Classical CMA style the Tai Shing Pek Kwar which has produced practitioners who many time defeat other styles both CMA and Thai in SEA. it a great realistic style. one of the style which I respect but has no chance to study.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=448

[iblis73]

Oh hey, I've heard of those guys.....heard they are quite good.

Again I've just put aside trying to learn an "art" and focus more on tools,tactics and strategy and building my knowledge base. I guess I like bjj/muay thai and some escrima as far as traditional arts go. But given the complexity of street crime I tend to seek out as much real world training/knowledge as possible.

Even what I posted earlier I've found a big disparity in mma/vale tudo schools. Some are rock em sock em, some are very intelligent in bringing their students along (the instructor makes a big difference here.) A school like Matt Thorntons can give a strong fighting base in a years time. Most schools are not up to his level of both technique, training method AND coaching skill.

I actually found a company that trains people (usually meter readers) how to fend off and survive dog attacks. Its pretty in depth and they use live dogs in their training. It seems silly but for anyone in an urban area being attacked by a dog is not as far fetched as it seems.