Wing Chun & Anti Grappling

[Nick Forrer]

For the purposes of analysis, Grappling (and thus Anti grappling) can be divided into two parts – clinch (stand up) and ground fighting.

In terms of the clinch

there are a number of wing chun strategies & techniques that should be familiar to anyone who knows the system (different interpretations of the forms notwithstanding) and which can be used to counter various different techniques from the clinch.

For example

In Slt there is;

defence against rear bear hug with double overhooks (raising rear elbows and groin grab/strike)
defence against cross arm wrist grab (turn hand palm up and pak sau the elbow of the hand that is grabbing)
defence against half nelson (straighten arm and turn to face opponent)

In chum kiu there is;

Defence against front bear hug with double underhooks (double eye gouge)
Defence against choke/lapel grab (tok and jut sau together on the elbow of their extended arm.
Defence against same arm wrist grab (turn hand so blade of forearm is next to where their thumb and finger meet and turn and low bong sau to break free.

In Bil Gee there is;

Defence against double wrist grab (Arcing Downwards elbow)

And in the Dummy there is;

Defence against double neck tie (double high palms under their chin)
Defence against double neck tie and knee (Double low palms on their hips)
Defence against take down attempts (neck grab and pull)

These can all be characterised as specifically 'anti grappling' techniques. This is not to say of course that the basic wing chun body mechanics and concepts cannot be used to counter a grappler - they can. I have highlighted these anti grappling techniques purely because they are easy to identify as such.

In terms of the ground

Since the Wing chun fighter is not looking to go to the ground (in accordance with the maxim- do not try and grapple a grappler) if for whatever reason he does end up there (for e.g. if his normally impecable clinch skills have, in this instance failed him, or he has tripped/slipped or he was attacked by surprise) he will in all likelihood be the man on the bottom.

Now there are two variables for the man on the bottom – either the opponent will be in your guard i.e. you will be square on to him with your legs in front of him (which is, if not a ‘neutral’ position then certainly the best of the bad positions for the man on the bottom qua man on the bottom, since it affords him the most chance to sweep, submit, counter strike or escape from the man on top)

Or alternatively the opponent will already be past your guard/legs and will have your flank. In this case the WC player will only have a small window (if at all) to either replace the guard (i.e. to square up) or to stand back up. Otherwise the grappler will be on top of him.

Now if this happens (that is, if the grappler is on top having passed the bottom mans guard) two further variables come into play – space and weight. The top man (grapplers) focus will be on minimising space and maximising weight on the bottom man. He may then strike, submit or move to a better position as he wishes. Thus to escape, the man on the bottom needs to do the polar opposite from the man on the top i.e. to maximise the space between them and to minimise the weight on him.

Before we address the best way to do that though there are two alternative options to escaping in this scenario that merit discussion –

Firstly there is the strategy of striking from the bottom

While this may seem at first blush to be a viable option, there are a number of problems associated with it. These are:

-That any punches thrown will be all arm punches (i.e. with no Bodyweight /Gravity behind them and hence will lack power)
-That there is not sufficient room to adequately chamber and recycle them
-That one is not able to actually reach the desired target in the case of the mount or rear mount.

Perhaps a more plausible solution would be to attack vulnerable targets – but then if the grappler is good he can protect these spots, for e.g. by burying his head to negate biting/eye gouging and keeping his hips low to avoid groin grabbing etc. Consequently it is perhaps unwise to rely on this strategy alone.

The best solution to the space/weight problem, then, is exactly what a grappler would use viz. A combination of bridging (arching the back and pushing up with the hips) and shrimping (turning onto your side and scooting your hips away from the man on top). These two things together, combined with a few other details depending on the context (like sealing off/trapping a side when bridging to prevent the top guy from posting an arm or leg thereby regaining his balance and thus preventing the escape) will get the man on the bottom (provided he applies them correctly) out of 99 % of top pins.

So, having made space and turning to face his opponent, he has now replaced the guard. Here he has a number of options. He can submit, strike, sweep or escape.

Now to go for a submission is to start grappling with a grappler. Moreover a failed submission attempt (such as a triangle or armbar) may result in ones guard being passed.

Another possibility is a sweep. However IME sweeps again involve grappling and are made considerably more difficult when the opponent doesn’t wear a Gi or heavy clothing (though not impossible – the double ankle pick when he stands up in your guard is equally effective in either case).

This leaves striking or escaping. Striking while feasible is not ideal: it is better used as a prelude to an escape. Heels on hips, pushing off and then standing up (correctly) works well if the guy is sitting back. Alternatively, if he is heavy on you you can pull him down and to the right (double handed lap sau) and shrimp your hips out to the left. This will allow you to take the back and thus stand up easily. these are just two high % methods of escape- there are of course others.

To summarise then,

The WC man wants, as a default strategy, to stay on his feet. Thus if he does go to the ground it will be against his will and is likely to involve being on the bottom. If he is on the bottom he is vulnerable to strikes and submissions and his ability to strike (his preferred method of attack) will be compromised. Thus he needs to escape from the bottom as a matter of priority.
To do this he needs to know and be able to apply a handful of fundamental techniques: Bridging, shrimping, how to trap/seal off a side (to prevent them posting a leg/arm to regain their base when sweeping or escaping) and how to block/frustrate submissions whilst trying to escape– arm bar/triangle, RNC etc.

Moreover its not really a question of whether historically Wing chun does or does not have these things– more that even if it does they need to be trained against a skilled resisting partner in the context in question. In other words it is probably unwise to think that there will be a complete and unproblematic crossover of skill sets from stand up to the ground and that therefore one does not need to devote training time to practicing on the ground (especially from the bottom).

Of course there are WC Principles that certainly do cross over to the ground. These include:

- Seek the path of least resistance (don’t fight force with force)
- Keep facing the centreline (don’t let your opponent outflank you)
- Hit the nearest target with the nearest weapon.

But IMO there is sufficient difference to warrant training this range of combat in its own right. In doing so one is formulating a contingency plan - a sensible strategy in many walks of life


To be continued…………….

[reneritchie]

Many concepts are fairly broad in application

Many training sessions are not

[anerlich]

Good stuff Nick. I agree with you totally regarding the ground escapes.

On the weekend I was showing a friend's KF students who knew no grappling basic escapes from side control and mount, just enough to get to something approximating an open guard. I also showed them how to stand up in base quickly and safely.

My suggested strategy for them was to get to a place where they could use their legs to kick/push the guy away, and then create enough space to stand up and either withdraw or engage again from standing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I like this thread !

Good stuff...Nick Forrer...Andrew Nerlich.

[Vajramusti]

Good post Nick. I have some additional ideas(mostly about being at the bottom)- but not necessary
at this time... because yours is a good post.

[Vajramusti]

Good post Nick. I have some additional ideas(mostly about being at the bottom)- but not necessary
at this time... because yours is a good post.

[Kevin Bell]

That was a good post Nick and made for an interesting read!!

Also,changing the subject totally, I stole one of youre lines as it was very well put about differences in pivoting on the WSL forum which if you read no doubt recognised it as youre own words. So a public note of thanks and that i forgot to credit you for that sentance. Hope you dont mind.

Kev

[kj]

Redundant as it may be, great post, Nick. Looking forward to part 2.

Regards,
- kj

[captain]

1,hmm,difficult thread this one.in a fight i used judo.i had virtually no time to think:'im being grabbed this way,ill do this'.training also has NONE of the 'oh my god,im in a fight' feeling that many people get when the plop hits the fan.train as hard and as macho as you want,but its simply not the same.in addition,all of what you study may not apply in a real encounter.plus wobbly fight hands.
however,my suggestion is;udi garami for those grabbed at chi sao range,and osoto gari sweep.the latter i used in a fight and it was instant.terrible world at times.what wing chun gives best,i think, is the bong block.

2,or, we could all go to www.getoutofthehousemore.com

Russ.

[Nick Forrer]

Dear all

Thanks for the kind words. Part 2 will discuss my encounter with EB anti grappling, some elementary submission counters that everyone should know and some other bits and bobs.

Pls be patient, it may take a little while....

Andrew: Yes - what you showed those guys is exactly what im talking about - a simple but effective escape that just needs drilling under pressure.

Joy C: Feel free to add your own thoughts. Always after other suggestions.

Kev B: Yes I saw that and wondered if it was my words coming back at me. Anyway you're welcome: no copyright on wing chun!

[Kevin Bell]

Just a point to add i have seen on footage Gary Lam make Quan Sau work quite nicely with a lap sau from a double handed wrist grab. I suspect Ernie can explain it better.

Nick do you know what happened to the review of the emin boztepe seminar you put up i cant see it anywhere??

Cheers for not sueing me for the loan of the words it took me a while after i wrote that post to remember where i saw it hence the delay in crediting it to you. But im honest so better late than never besides i was struggling to put in better terms myself. Any plans to come back down our neck of the woods in the near future?

[Ernie]

Originally posted by Kevin Bell
Just a point to add i have seen on footage Gary Lam make Quan Sau work quite nicely with a lap sau from a double handed wrist grab. I suspect Ernie can explain it better.



Nick!
Great post man, I love to see when people travel out of the box and gain new experience then bring it back home to WC, much respect brother and great example

I had a chance to spend a few minutes with BJJ/WT man from this forum [Dhira]
This weekend and it was a great experience, first of Dhira is a fantastic coach and he explains things from a wing Chun perspective,

I was not there for a work out but he was not about to let the chance of having me on a mat with out educating me a bit so next thing I know I’m rolling around getting tied in knots =)

He commented on many things I did right just from instinct or wing Chun training [of course first thing I did was go for the my dirty tactics biting and hitting the groin] he laughed new to expect that type of behavior from me! And after stopped trying to cheat. I just relaxed and went along for the ride.

It was a awesome experience, really made me think on a few levels had hip out of range and my center facing also monitor were he was trying to go and be aware of the next route he would take after I defended the first attack line

Keeping air space [I was on my back the whole time] was the thing that kept me in the game, it was fun and once I stopped my survival tactics and actually let him guide and coach me it was very simple, many skills transferred right over from other training, some in concept others is feeling and position

I have been on the ground a few times, but always working on my cheat game, this was the first time I just let it be what it was and I learned a lot, if any of you ever has the chance don’t be nervous just get in there and do it, no ego just a learning experience

Your senses really wake up to! It’s like a big dose of clarity hits you, I can see why many wing Chun people get into this it’s a very mental game

And we are all mental =)


Kev,
The quan from the double wrist grab is a very powerful motion [but in all honesty I have never had a situation when I have had to use it]
You pull/jut in enough to take the slack out of his arms and lock his elbows and then quan twist lock his center and explode from your stance if all the stars are in alignment he goes flying back, Gary says it can damage or break his elbow, maybe take it with a grain of salt, but great demo thing,
Could put up a clip if people want to see it but it will take time I’m real busy this week at work

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Kevin Bell
Just a point to add i have seen on footage Gary Lam make Quan Sau work quite nicely with a lap sau from a double handed wrist grab. I suspect Ernie can explain it better.

Ive played around with quan sau in this scenario - my training partner used it in a fight against a thai boxer with a head butt.


Originally posted by Kevin Bell
Nick do you know what happened to the review of the emin boztepe seminar you put up i cant see it anywhere??

Ive got it plus a complete write up of the second seminar on file. I may put it up again or i may PM you with it (emphasis on may - I took it down for a reason)


Originally posted by Kevin Bell
Cheers for not sueing me for the loan of the words it took me a while after i wrote that post to remember where i saw it hence the delay in crediting it to you. But im honest so better late than never besides i was struggling to put in better terms myself. Any plans to come back down our neck of the woods in the near future?

I have family in Chicester so will be in that neck of the woods over christmas. I probably wont have time to come to alans though (presumably classes wont be running anyway).

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Nick, do you know what happened to the review of the emin boztepe seminar you put up i cant see it anywhere?? (Kevin Bell)




"I've got it plus a complete write up of the second seminar on file. I may put it up again or I may PM you with it (emphasis on may - I took it down for a reason)." (Nick Forrer)



No sweat, Nick.

I'm serious about that.

You post it...I'll respect it.

[old jong]

Keeping air space [I was on my back the whole time] was the thing that kept me in the game, it was fun and once I stopped my survival tactics and actually let him guide and coach me it was very simple, many skills transferred right over from other training, some in concept others is feeling and position

I have been on the ground a few times, but always working on my cheat game, this was the first time I just let it be what it was and I learned a lot, if any of you ever has the chance don’t be nervous just get in there and do it, no ego just a learning experience

I went through that experiences countless times with my Judo coach and his guys!...This is where and when...;) you learn to move your hips away,control his upper body,move out using his movement (non resistance) etc...The biggest mistake is to extend the arms to create space.I prefer to hold him close and to use the hips (center) to create space and momentum.Basic positions and escapes are good things to know but they come with their own methodology.No need to be an expert submission grappler. BTW,dirty tactics are outlawed in competitions because they work!...The trick is to be really agressive and to do it first!...;) (out of the ring context of course!) :D

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by old jong
BTW,dirty tactics are outlawed in competitions because they work!...The trick is to be really agressive and to do it first!...;) (out of the ring context of course!) :D Dirty tactics are not allowed in competition because they only work so-so, but screw you up later on. Biting, groing shots, eye gouges, and small joint manipulations usually don't do enough damage to stop a match, but can send you to the ER later on. Not to mention the blood and messiness factors of something like biting an ear off. However, you can still fight with a chunk out of your face, your finger dislocated, or your nuts crunched. The real fight enders are KO"s, choke-outs, broken arms or legs.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Dirty tactics are not allowed in competition because they only work so-so, but screw you up later on. Biting, groing shots, eye gouges, and small joint manipulations usually don't do enough damage to stop a match, but can send you to the ER later on. Not to mention the blood and messiness factors of something like biting an ear off. However, you can still fight with a chunk out of your face, your finger dislocated, or your nuts crunched. The real fight enders are KO"s, choke-outs, broken arms or legs." (KF)

There's a lot of truth in this...

BUT...

bites, groin shots, eye gouges, small joint manipulations, etc...

can be used as setups for the bigger fight-enders...

(As well as things like elbow strikes when on the ground, fish hooks to the mouth, ears, etc...and the same is true for using such tactics at times to set up...or in the middle of...escapes from precarious positions).

A fact to always keep in mind when people do their training.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

BUT...

bites, groin shots, eye gouges, small joint manipulations, etc...

can be used as setups for the bigger fight-enders...
Agreed. My point was that they are not the fight enders that the non-fighters think they are. They are just messy and a pain in the ass that would make compeitions a huge headache if they were allowed.

[old jong]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Dirty tactics are not allowed in competition because they only work so-so, but screw you up later on. Biting, groing shots, eye gouges, and small joint manipulations usually don't do enough damage to stop a match, but can send you to the ER later on. Not to mention the blood and messiness factors of something like biting an ear off. However, you can still fight with a chunk out of your face, your finger dislocated, or your nuts crunched. The real fight enders are KO"s, choke-outs, broken arms or legs.

So,there would be no effect on you if,in a street fight someone would pull you head close and bite your jugular open?...Or if someone would tear one of your ears off and throw it in the trafic?...Things like that?...

[Kevin Bell]

Hey Nick,

I read the review i asked you to put up on the WSL forum but if theres more i'd be more than happy to have a read.

Also should you want to pop in for a training sesh maybe we could arrange for to take a class on you're ideas im sure our bunch of lads would be more than willing to take part, give me a bit of notice and shouldnt be a prob.


Kev

[Nick Forrer]

Hey Kev

Thanks for the offer - Ill let you know if im in the area.

Since Christmas is coming up and relevant parties have made assurances, the EB seminar reviews will go up soon....

[reneritchie]

There's a whole escape system that involve, basically, extending and locking out your arms.

Like anything, knowledge, awareness, and context are more the constraints than any generalized "do's" or "don't's"

There's also a difference in getting the average Joe Barroom off you compared to someone who wrestled or played football in highschool or university, compared to getting Dhira's purple belt'ed self off you.

For average use against essentially ground-ignorant fighters, stuff like what Rickson Gracie showed in those two seminars floating around the 'net (Hawaii & Chicago, I think), IMHO, is darn good, very basic, and very practical (ways of getting up, sweeping, passing, and escaping average people).

Against people like Dhira, you would probably need more :)

[Nick Forrer]

Note: Emin Seminar 1 is what I posted before. Emin seminar 2 is all new material.

Any credit goes to Emin -IMO an excellent teacher and fighter. Any mistakes/errors are mine and mine alone.

Emin Seminar:1

Emin talked about the following things:

1) The fact that wing chun is scientific and based on well established principle of geometry, physics, psychology and anatomy and physiology

2) the history of wing chun- how ng mui invented the art as we know it almost in its entirety but how every generation must do their best to help the art evolve otherwise it just becomes a doctrine/dogma (he felt hed done that with his wing chun - e.g. his anti grappling program).

3) That to be good at wing chun you need two things: the motivation to train very hard and an open mind- not to mindlessly parrot your teacher but to question everything they show you and to try it out for yourself (he was very emphatic on this point)

4) That people spend ages on fancy chi sau, learning lots of moves and get lulled into a false sense of security by cooperative training partners (a blind leading the blind scenario). However these same people cant even do the basic move with any real power (just stepping in and punching). If you can do this right then in almost all fights all the other techniques are unnecessary (all the so called 'masters' he’d met couldn't even stop his basic punch or wouldn’t even cross hands with him to find out if they could)

5) the importance of loyalty- how its something that cant be demanded, it has to be earned.

6) That many so called masters hide behind a veneer of invincibility because they have no real skill. They then lead their students round in circles by holding back techniques, changing things periodically, adding 'new' techniques on an ad hoc and arbritrary basis etc.


In terms of technique

- He turns on the arch/ball of the foot not the heel.
(My View: By pivoting on your heels you divert force away from your centre of gravity, by pivoting on the balls of your feet you divert your centre of gravity away from force. They both work if done properly)
- He puts all his weight on the back leg, (this prevents the front leg from being swept and allows you to kick without telegraphing it)
- The feet are parallel to one another with the rear foot pointing in the same direction as the front one.
- The knees/les are close together to protect the groin from kicks
-when stepping the feet are on one line not two i.e. they dont double track
-the hips face forward so that both hands are an equal distance from the opponent
-when entering an opponent/taking up their position the front leg checks/monitors their front leg (he doesnt just step up the middle)
-when stepping in the foot circles right across first to 'slip/pass' any incoming kicks which your opponent may launch
-The hand shapes (bong/tan) create a kind of protective sphere which you rotate via your stance to deflect force away from your cog. At no point do you collapse your shapes/let the enemy penetrate your sphere.

Drills:

1)Turning the stance

2)From YGKYM Circle stepping in and punching then returning to YGKYM

3)Arrow stepping and punching up and down the room

4)Squaring off with a partner. The partner steps back and you have to try and hit them in the chest using one step. As you do this they try and sweep your front leg or kick you in the groin (this was to test whether you were back weighted and whether your feet were on one line (thereby protecting your groin).

5)Again with a partner. They try and kick your knees. You Circle step in and slip/pass the kicks.

6)Dan chi sau with stepping back and forth

7)Chi sau. They step in and palm strike from tan, you turn and jum sau, then you pak sau and they ‘roll’ their bong over to wu sau

8)With a partner. You both stand in YGKYM and punch each others punches – cross arm and parallel arm – both indoor and outdoor gates

9)Same again but you stand in a front stance/biu ma

10)Kicking- your partner does thai kicks and you kick the kick





Seminar 2

Emin said:

Basic Theory

Everyone knows that wing chun is scientific – but what does that mean. How is it scientific?

In wing chun we seek to defend our trunk i.e. the bottle shaped area from our groin to our head. The reason why is because this contains all our vital organs. If any one of these is damaged we cant live – our limbs in contrast we can live without (this fact is demonstrated by amputees).

We defend this area with the man sau wu sau structure. So the man sau wu sau is our guard – But how exactly does it protect our trunk?

Science (and common sense) tells us that there are three dimensions of space and one of time. So our guard must take account of that fact if it is to be effective.

By drawing a vertical (mid) line we divide the torso into left and right. By drawing a horizontal (mid) line we divide it into upper and lower. Finally we draw a 180 degree curve from the crown to the groin. The man sau wu sau shape is thus an equal distance from each point of this 3d map of the torso.

Moreover by facing the opponent (presenting his target to him) we determine what his attack will be (i.e. ensuring that his attack will come from a direction we have covered). This also means that both hands are an equal distance from the target (allowing for simultaneous attack and defence)

In this way we are now occupying the centreline.

All these elements together enable the guard to act as a wedge/3d protective shield against any incoming attack

But a wedge on its own is not sufficient. The missing ingredient is forward force.
So we must intercept our opponents forward force with our own forward force. Our limbs are like a spring i.e. if our opponents forward force is too much/greater than ours the spring becomes suppressed (loaded with potential energy) and we turn naturally into one of the four passive positions in order to neutralise their greater force.

It is also important that once in contact with an opponent our elbows (intercepting bridges) maintain the fixed distance from the body – this creates a buffer zone or air bag that our opponents attack must not penetrate.

Other things to note –

1) The centre line is not a vertical line down the centre of the body – this is the axis.
2) your organs are not all stacked on top of one another straight down the centre (e.g. your eyes))
3) The guard (man sau/wu sau) isn’t ‘fixed’- You do make adjustments relative to your opponent e.g. a basketball player vs a midget. Or a very wide guy. (he used the example of tan sau and got two people to link arms to make one wide person)

Other points.


Ng Mui was a member of a religious order. In times gone by all scientific knowledge –astronomy, medicine, maths - was kept by priests and monks. Kings and sultans would rely on these people to advise them.

Science is a universal language – 1x1=1 is true no matter what culture you are from.

Ng Mui already knew the theory of wing chun. All she needed was yim wing chun to develop how to apply it against someone.

SLT has many ideas/concepts – not just one. These concepts can be extrapolated and applied in many different scenarios – facing the target, covering the centre, seeking the path of least resistance, economy of motion etc.

You have to be critical of wing chun - the worst thing you can be is complacent. Wing chun is still the best for self defence for the average person though.


Drills:

1)A punches, b turns and bong saus. A tests Bs structure by pushing in. (note : their bong sau is slightly higher and the elbow is on the centre and the wrist in line with the far hip)
2)Same agin but with tan sau (note: when turning there is a complete lateral shift of the body but you are still facing them at forty five degree angle when you complete the turn so the rear hand is still in range to hit). The tan sau in application is like our lan sau. The finished tan sau position is the same as the beginning of slt when you cross your arms
3)Turn with tan/bong again but now another person tries to pick your leg up. You must keep it on the floor using your adductor muscles.
4)You then counter punch as well – here you must maintain your structure against the push on the tan and the pull on the leg.

Chi Sau-

A comes in with pak sau and b uses kau sau and shift to defend.

A comes in with palm strike to face and B uses chum sau and shift to defend.

A comes in with double punch and B uses Kwan sau to defend.

Anti Grappling

to be discussed later...

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Ernie
Nick!
Great post man, I love to see when people travel out of the box and gain new experience then bring it back home to WC, much respect brother and great example

Thanks for the kind words mate.


Originally posted by Ernie
I had a chance to spend a few minutes with BJJ/WT man from this forum [Dhira]

It was a awesome experience, really made me think on a few levels had hip out of range and my center facing also monitor were he was trying to go and be aware of the next route he would take after I defended the first attack line

If he is a purple belt i have an idea of his level (formidable). But try a BB some time if you get the chance. I rolled with Ricardo Viera recently - ranked 1 in the world in his weight class. Its a whole other level. Dale franks (knifefighter) is a BB. Maybe you could hook up with him.


Originally posted by Ernie
Keeping air space [I was on my back the whole time] was the thing that kept me in the game, it was fun and once I stopped my survival tactics and actually let him guide and coach me it was very simple, many skills transferred right over from other training, some in concept others is feeling and position

Yep. I had the same experience.

As I believe Andrew N commented - whats the worse that can happen? You learn something new and have a good time.

[anerlich]

You have to be critical of wing chun - the worst thing you can be is complacent.

Amen to that. Proper criticism doesn't weaken, it strengthens. Complacency, OTOH, is ALWAYS detrimental.

[Kevin Bell]

Thanks for taking the time to reproduce that Nick. You sure trained with some interesting people!!!

Like i said, im sure a lesson on anti grappling is easily arranged, Al's so laid back he's horizontal. So offer remains open. Im sure we can argue the merits of our different approaches to fitness over a pint afterwards as well!

Interestling enough we ran a personal protection seminar this weekend and one of my buddies 16stone grappler attended so i took a few inevitable visits to the deck myself. Photos will go up soon on Al's site blood/gore and all.

Cheers again. Oh,its my girls birthday this wkend so am unable to attend weapons seminar. Should you go would you mind another write up?

[Nick Forrer]

Kev B

Yes - I will try and do a write up on the weapons seminar. Im usually pretty meticulous about note taking (you should see the wing chun notes i've accumulated over the years! although my BJJ ones are starting to catch up!).

If its primarily FMA i.e. kali/escrima im already fairly familiar with that or at least the lacoste/insoanto take on it so i may do one big FMA thing.

As always time is a factor though...

[reneritchie]

Last month I had the chance to roll with Murillo Bustamante. Actually, after his seminar, Busta lined the 30 participants up (including UFC & TKO fighters, and competitive purple and brown belts in BJJ) and (gently) clowned everyone one after the other. At the end, he apologized for having a broken hand due to his recent PrideFC fight, and promised to give everyone a better go next time.

Fun times, and a real learning experience about what can be developed under progressive training with resistant partners.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Note: Emin Seminar 1 is what I posted before. Emin seminar 2 is all new material.

Any credit goes to Emin -IMO an excellent teacher and fighter. Any mistakes/errors are mine and mine alone.

Emin Seminar:1

Emin talked about the following things:

1) The fact that wing chun is scientific and based on well established principle of geometry, physics, psychology and anatomy and physiology

2) the history of wing chun- how ng mui invented the art as we know it almost in its entirety but how every generation must do their best to help the art evolve otherwise it just becomes a doctrine/dogma (he felt hed done that with his wing chun - e.g. his anti grappling program).

3) That to be good at wing chun you need two things: the motivation to train very hard and an open mind- not to mindlessly parrot your teacher but to question everything they show you and to try it out for yourself (he was very emphatic on this point)

4) That people spend ages on fancy chi sau, learning lots of moves and get lulled into a false sense of security by cooperative training partners (a blind leading the blind scenario). However these same people cant even do the basic move with any real power (just stepping in and punching). If you can do this right then in almost all fights all the other techniques are unnecessary (all the so called 'masters' he’d met couldn't even stop his basic punch or wouldn’t even cross hands with him to find out if they could)

5) the importance of loyalty- how its something that cant be demanded, it has to be earned.

6) That many so called masters hide behind a veneer of invincibility because they have no real skill. They then lead their students round in circles by holding back techniques, changing things periodically, adding 'new' techniques on an ad hoc and arbritrary basis etc.


In terms of technique

- He turns on the arch/ball of the foot not the heel.
(My View: By pivoting on your heels you divert force away from your centre of gravity, by pivoting on the balls of your feet you divert your centre of gravity away from force. They both work if done properly)
- He puts all his weight on the back leg, (this prevents the front leg from being swept and allows you to kick without telegraphing it)
- The feet are parallel to one another with the rear foot pointing in the same direction as the front one.
- The knees/les are close together to protect the groin from kicks
-when stepping the feet are on one line not two i.e. they dont double track
-the hips face forward so that both hands are an equal distance from the opponent
-when entering an opponent/taking up their position the front leg checks/monitors their front leg (he doesnt just step up the middle)
-when stepping in the foot circles right across first to 'slip/pass' any incoming kicks which your opponent may launch
-The hand shapes (bong/tan) create a kind of protective sphere which you rotate via your stance to deflect force away from your cog. At no point do you collapse your shapes/let the enemy penetrate your sphere.

Drills:

1)Turning the stance

2)From YGKYM Circle stepping in and punching then returning to YGKYM

3)Arrow stepping and punching up and down the room

4)Squaring off with a partner. The partner steps back and you have to try and hit them in the chest using one step. As you do this they try and sweep your front leg or kick you in the groin (this was to test whether you were back weighted and whether your feet were on one line (thereby protecting your groin).

5)Again with a partner. They try and kick your knees. You Circle step in and slip/pass the kicks.

6)Dan chi sau with stepping back and forth

7)Chi sau. They step in and palm strike from tan, you turn and jum sau, then you pak sau and they ‘roll’ their bong over to wu sau

8)With a partner. You both stand in YGKYM and punch each others punches – cross arm and parallel arm – both indoor and outdoor gates

9)Same again but you stand in a front stance/biu ma

10)Kicking- your partner does thai kicks and you kick the kick





Seminar 2

Emin said:

Basic Theory

Everyone knows that wing chun is scientific – but what does that mean. How is it scientific?

In wing chun we seek to defend our trunk i.e. the bottle shaped area from our groin to our head. The reason why is because this contains all our vital organs. If any one of these is damaged we cant live – our limbs in contrast we can live without (this fact is demonstrated by amputees).

We defend this area with the man sau wu sau structure. So the man sau wu sau is our guard – But how exactly does it protect our trunk?

Science (and common sense) tells us that there are three dimensions of space and one of time. So our guard must take account of that fact if it is to be effective.

By drawing a vertical (mid) line we divide the torso into left and right. By drawing a horizontal (mid) line we divide it into upper and lower. Finally we draw a 180 degree curve from the crown to the groin. The man sau wu sau shape is thus an equal distance from each point of this 3d map of the torso.

Moreover by facing the opponent (presenting his target to him) we determine what his attack will be (i.e. ensuring that his attack will come from a direction we have covered). This also means that both hands are an equal distance from the target (allowing for simultaneous attack and defence)

In this way we are now occupying the centreline.

All these elements together enable the guard to act as a wedge/3d protective shield against any incoming attack

But a wedge on its own is not sufficient. The missing ingredient is forward force.
So we must intercept our opponents forward force with our own forward force. Our limbs are like a spring i.e. if our opponents forward force is too much/greater than ours the spring becomes suppressed (loaded with potential energy) and we turn naturally into one of the four passive positions in order to neutralise their greater force.

It is also important that once in contact with an opponent our elbows (intercepting bridges) maintain the fixed distance from the body – this creates a buffer zone or air bag that our opponents attack must not penetrate.

Other things to note –

1) The centre line is not a vertical line down the centre of the body – this is the axis.
2) your organs are not all stacked on top of one another straight down the centre (e.g. your eyes))
3) The guard (man sau/wu sau) isn’t ‘fixed’- You do make adjustments relative to your opponent e.g. a basketball player vs a midget. Or a very wide guy. (he used the example of tan sau and got two people to link arms to make one wide person)

Other points.


Ng Mui was a member of a religious order. In times gone by all scientific knowledge –astronomy, medicine, maths - was kept by priests and monks. Kings and sultans would rely on these people to advise them.

Science is a universal language – 1x1=1 is true no matter what culture you are from.

Ng Mui already knew the theory of wing chun. All she needed was yim wing chun to develop how to apply it against someone.

SLT has many ideas/concepts – not just one. These concepts can be extrapolated and applied in many different scenarios – facing the target, covering the centre, seeking the path of least resistance, economy of motion etc.

You have to be critical of wing chun - the worst thing you can be is complacent. Wing chun is still the best for self defence for the average person though.


Drills:

1)A punches, b turns and bong saus. A tests Bs structure by pushing in. (note : their bong sau is slightly higher and the elbow is on the centre and the wrist in line with the far hip)
2)Same agin but with tan sau (note: when turning there is a complete lateral shift of the body but you are still facing them at forty five degree angle when you complete the turn so the rear hand is still in range to hit). The tan sau in application is like our lan sau. The finished tan sau position is the same as the beginning of slt when you cross your arms
3)Turn with tan/bong again but now another person tries to pick your leg up. You must keep it on the floor using your adductor muscles.
4)You then counter punch as well – here you must maintain your structure against the push on the tan and the pull on the leg.

Chi Sau-

A comes in with pak sau and b uses kau sau and shift to defend.

A comes in with palm strike to face and B uses chum sau and shift to defend.

A comes in with double punch and B uses Kwan sau to defend.

Anti Grappling

to be discussed later...

Allot of what you said Nick is on some of Emin's tapes( the Chi-sao one and Lat Sao ones). I like the concept of forward pressure as a wedge, and elbow positioning and keeping a buffer zone between the body and elbow. Good stuff, very interesting thread indeed.

James

[captain]

ah,yes training talk.real world fight=wobbly legs and hands!

Russ

[chisauking]

I don't want to be a party pooper, but there are some interesting points that I'm picking up here...

Quote:Keeping air space [I was on my back the whole time] was the thing that kept me in the game, it was fun and once I stopped my survival tactics and actually let him guide and coach me it was very simple, many skills transferred right over from other training, some in concept others is feeling and position

Ernie: are you saying you prevented him from appying his techniques by cheating? Why would you bother whether you are cheating or not as long as it works?

From a wing chun perspective, I can't understand why its practitioners don't use the most direct, simplistic and efficient approach. As long as you can get back up by biting, clawing, sqeezing the balls, etc., etc., you will be able to fight in your game. Why complicate matters by trying to fight on the ground?

In any compromising position, your priority is to get back into position, not try and fight in that position. For example, if someone has hold of your fingers, would you learn how to fight in a finger lock, or would your priority be to get out of the lock and fight your normal way? If someone grabbed hold of your hair, would you stay in that position or get out and fight your normal fight?

It's a very good idea to practice a game plan should you end on the ground, but only a foolish wing chun practitioner would continue to fight on the ground. If you could get up, why stay down? Even better, prevention is better than cure. As a wing chun fighter, isn't it better to invest your time on take down prevention rather than learning to fight on the ground?

[Ernie]

Originally posted by chisauking
I

Ernie: are you saying you prevented him from appying his techniques by cheating? Why would you bother whether you are cheating or not as long as it works?



Chi sau king,

You have to look at things from 2 angles, you can just keep proving your tricks work and learn nothing new, or you can put away your bag of tricks and learn


Dirty tactics will not just magically work, by saying them in your head over and over and clicking your heels =)

Like most sport guys say you won’t pull it off or you won’t end the fight, this is true

But if you train when and were to apply them off of guys that are working their game on you then you develop the feeling and timing to insert you [dirty tactic]

The only reason you want to bite or dig in his eye attack the groin and so on, is to create space, a moment in time, surprise take him out of his game for a mental second, but you have to be able to capitalize on that moment with escape or gaining a better position

If you remove your dirty tactics and get the feeling of the escape and controlling position with the use of such tricks, when you add them in they are amplified

For years I have always trained with the mindset to circumvent peoples game, I enjoy f*cking peoples mindset up =)

And I have had a fairly good consistency rate with it,

But I could never evolve past that point, you see when you all you got is the Hail Mary
You cannot grow,

Just like the Wing Chun straight blast people that always rely on that Hail Mary tactic
Never get better, there sensitivity and understanding of position and timing, how to flow and capitalize on a persons energy or motion never get developed to a high degree

You will see very skilled wing Chun people never blast they don’t need to


Same thing hear I had to unplug my desperation survival mindset to better understand my position, what he was doing and how to pick up on the information his motion was giving me



This is how you learn, you can still play your game but you have to spend time in there game to see where your game is most efficient and along the way pick up the basic foundation and structure of there game so you can see how to disrupt it for a second

Personally I have no desire to be a ground guy at all, I’m not into whole competitive mindset, I like keeping my mindset street, not wing chun that is to limiting, but street, use what ever it takes to terminate the person in front of you in anyway possible

But to be able to work on that you have to spend time addressing the most common energies you will deal with, being on your back in a street fight is common with more then one person giving you a shoe job or holding you down. You can’t fish hook or eye jab or what ever a guy while you protecting your face from a few feet and fist bombing down but if you program your body to react by way of feeling and escaping position

Then that is just one more tool to help you survive

You have to be willing to leave your preconceived notions at the door and really experience it for yourself,

Just like you should jump in with a skilled boxer and try your game and see how they work

A good Thai guy, a good kick boxer,

Just 2 arms and 2 legs and a few different ways to use them, not really all that complicated, if you get in there and see what’s going on

[sihing]

I like what Ernie says in this last post of his. He basically let the other guy do what he does so he could learn and feel what he was doing instead of trying right off the bat to get out of it. It was a learning experience for him and since it was not a "real fight", he had no pressure to counter the moves being done to him. I like to do the same with Martial Artists that I don't know and are curious about things I do as I am about what they do.

They say if you never made mistakes you would never learn anything, so sometimes it is required to mistake once in a while to absorb what is useful and reject what is useless for you.

James

[anerlich]

I can't understand why its practitioners don't use the most direct, simplistic and efficient approach.

What you are describing is not the most direct, simplistic and efficient approach.

Your inability to understand is an issue for you, not anyone else.


As long as you can get back up by biting, clawing, sqeezing the balls, etc., etc., you will be able to fight in your game.

It's highly unlikely that you will be able to do this against a skilled person. He on the other will be IDEALLY situated to do all that stuff to you from a superior position.


Why complicate matters by trying to fight on the ground?

Taking that "logic" further, why complicate matters by learning to fight standing up? You'll always be able to bite, claw and squeeze, won't you, so why bother learning all that wasteful punching and kicking crap?

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by chisauking
[
From a wing chun perspective, I can't understand why its practitioners don't use the most direct, simplistic and efficient approach. As long as you can get back up by biting, clawing, sqeezing the balls, etc., etc., you will be able to fight in your game. Why complicate matters by trying to fight on the ground?

**I agree totally. As a famous Sifu said "if you spend more time practicing fighting standing up you wont find yourself on the ground".


It's a very good idea to practice a game plan should you end on the ground, but only a foolish wing chun practitioner would continue to fight on the ground. If you could get up, why stay down? Even better, prevention is better than cure. As a wing chun fighter, isn't it better to invest your time on take down prevention rather than learning to fight on the ground? [/B]

**Exactly!
Dave

[anerlich]

Even better, prevention is better than cure. As a wing chun fighter, isn't it better to invest your time on take down prevention rather than learning to fight on the ground?

I think you have to work the worst case scenario to some degree, which includes you getting taken down and pinned.

To learn takedown defense, best way is to learn takedowns. If you and your buds want to learn takedown defense, you better learn good takedowns so what you are practicing defense against is real rather than kidding yourself regarding the efficacy of what you are doing.


As a famous Sifu said "if you spend more time practicing fighting standing up you wont find yourself on the ground".

Appeal to authority. And, other "famous Sifus" have other opinions.

[Ernie]

ha ha man anything that starts with [ sifu said ] even worse famous sifu said

tells you all you need to know


talk to me when you start out by saying [ well i jumped in and tried it and this is what I '' not sifu said'' discovered :o


but i know that would be to much like right :D


back seat driver line please stay in the back

real life experience please step forward


:cool: :cool: :p

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Ernie
real life experience please step forward
Here are a few from experience for all those in the "just grab his nuts if he is controlling you on the ground" crowd.

1- One guy has side control.
2- One guy has the other in his guard.
3- One guy is mounted.

Each person is going for the nutz grab trick in each scenario. Check out the success rates of each person in the three positions.

Here's another one. Start from the mount. Person on the bottom wears full face boxing head gear or equivalent. Top person wears elbow pads. Top person throws elbows while bottom person tries to grab the jewels.

[Ernie]

Here's another one. Start from the mount. Person on the bottom wears full face boxing head gear or equivalent. Top person wears elbow pads. Top person throws elbows while bottom person tries to grab the jewels.




can i umpa [ i think that is what you call it ] slide down and bite him in the nuts [ i have done this and bit the inner thigh , he left air space while he was loading up his shots and i bucked up slide down and bit , this was not a skilled BJJ guy

another thing i pulled of once on cement was same position buy was bombing down on me i tried to reach up and give him a eye massage , it didn't work he almost locked my arm sice i was stiff arming up [ leaned that is a big no no ] then i was able to swim the punches and snag his neck i pulled with all i had and smashed his head into the cement over my right shouder

but he was pumped had to do it a few times before he slowed up and yes there was blood

again not a very skilled ground guy gut he was a BJJ dude with that i can take you on cement attitude

now i know i got lucky and it won't work the same way twice

so better to get in and learn more =)


1- One guy has side control.

slip under his arm and bite the lat or rib area , or over his arm and bite the face ,check ear area , but hold him tighjt so he can't pull away , rip in with your teeth as much as you can till you feel him freaking out and getting tight

this is a common kina muy thai position

2- One guy has the other in his guard.

have to be there and feel my way around

3- One guy is mounted.

been able to slide down between the legs with the elbow on the nuts and grind with the tip of my elbow while the guy on the bottom was going for my head on the chest type pin

all lucky stuff i know but has all happened for me

[t_niehoff]

What Andrew, Ernie, knifefighter bring to the discussion is experience -- and that's why they are worth listening to (and taking to heart). All persons with significant groundfighting experience will say the same things because they have experiencee the reality of that situation for themselves, and don't need to rely on theory, hearsay, sifu-sez, etc. For those who just refuse to believe what all the experienced fighters have to say -- and continue to think that "foul tactics" will save your @ss -- then give it a try and see for yourself.

[chisauking]

The stand up fighting against ground fighting debate has been done to death, so I'm not bringing it up again. My point was, why don't we, as wing chun fighters, focus on what we do best: stand up fighting? If you are a skilled wing chun fighter, being taken to the ground is few and far between, but should you get taken to the ground, your priority should be to get back up to the environment that you fight best in and that's advantages to your style of fighting. You should focus on the aspects which would enable you to get back on your feet, and nothing more. Practice on getting to your feet as quick as possible when you are down. Experiment with rolling and springing up from the ground from a safe angle. If the opponent is very close or in the mount position, you will have to create space or to back him off before you can get up. Practice kicking from the ground; drill scratching, spitting, clawing, biting, finger thrusting, pulling, rolling and all close-quarter hitting techniques. The objective is to act quickly and powerfully, and get up as soon as you have the chance. These are very direct, simple and effective techniques, but it works. Why try to fight in a million different ways when one will do the job just fine?

t_niehoff said we should listen to people with experience, but experience is a very subjective thing. For example, many people into ground fighting will tell you that the methods and techniques that I'd recommended above doesn't work, and that the chances defending ourselves succesfully from mulitple assilants are slim. Well, my experiance will be different to those people. My real life, as opposed to sport, fighting milage is quite high because I run two pubs (anyone can tell you, and it can be substantiated by police statistics, that due to the nature of the business, more trouble and fights start in a pub than anywhere else), and it's quite often that I get to try techniques out. Scratching a deep wound into someone's face does create space; finger jabbing their eyes or taking a chunk out from their calve muscle does cause them to back off. Would those techniques work on a champion BJJ practitioner? I don't know, and since all those techniques are not incorperated and tested for real in gournd fighting shcools, I don't think they would know either. In the final analysis, any bouncer with genuine mileage in the game will tell you that the last place you want to be when the shiit hits the fan is on the ground, especially when multiple attackers are concerned, but this goes against the grain of thinking for some on this forum, so whose experience do we listen to?


Keep it effective, keep it simple. Michael Yan Choi

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by chisauking
If you are a skilled wing chun fighter, being taken to the ground is few and far between, but should you get taken to the ground, your priority should be to get back up to the environment that you fight best in and that's advantages to your style of fighting. You should focus on the aspects which would enable you to get back on your feet, and nothing more. Practice on getting to your feet as quick as possible when you are down. Experiment with rolling and springing up from the ground from a safe angle. If the opponent is very close or in the mount position, you will have to create space or to back him off before you can get up. Practice kicking from the ground; drill scratching, spitting, clawing, biting, finger thrusting, pulling, rolling and all close-quarter hitting techniques. The objective is to act quickly and powerfully, and get up as soon as you have the chance. These are very direct, simple and effective techniques, but it works. I'll agree with this... except for the nothing more. Never hurts to learn other stuff to help make you more rounded.


Originally posted by chisauking
For example, many people into ground fighting will tell you that the methods and techniques that I'd recommended above doesn't work, Not that they don't work... just that they are not necessarily fight enders. Sometimes they just enrage the opponent.



Originally posted by chisauking
My real life, as opposed to sport, fighting milage is quite high because I run two pubs (anyone can tell you, and it can be substantiated by police statistics, that due to the nature of the business, more trouble and fights start in a pub than anywhere else), and it's quite often that I get to try techniques out. Scratching a deep wound into someone's face does create space; finger jabbing their eyes or taking a chunk out from their calve muscle does cause them to back off. If I was a pub owner, I'd be even more interested in learning grappling and ground control techniques. I would think if you own a pub, you'd want to keep the damage to your customers as low as possible rather than having to bite them, eye gouge them, or rip your fingernails through their skin.

[anerlich]

If you are a skilled wing chun fighter, being taken to the ground is few and far between, but should you get taken to the ground, your priority should be to get back up to the environment that you fight best in and that's advantages to your style of fighting.

Counterexample: Cologne 1986. A skiiled WC fighter got taken down and could do ... basically nothing.

No argument other than that, except that the quickest, most efficient, and effective way out from under is through sound technical pin escapes and reversals, not eye gouges, bites and groin squeezes.

Rickson (I think) Gracie: "He who controls, bites".

One of the world's greatest ever grapplers, the eponymous Kimura, had the nickname "groin squeezer".

As Knifefighter said, dirty techniques aren't the thermonuclear option you seem to think they are. They're as effective in a standup fight as they are in a ground fight; if you can't handle yourself without dirty techniques, odds are you won't be able to handle yourself with them. You may just encourage the guy who took you down to REALLY hurt you this time.

If that's the way you deal with obnoxious customers, I'm glad I live elsewhere and are unlikely to ever enter one of your businesses. I'm well behaved, even reserved, while I'm out, but watching people, even a$$holes, get gouged, bitten and maimed ain't my idea of a fun night out.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Gotta put my two cents in here.

First of all - that WAS a very good post, chisauking...

And I agree with Dale that everything you wrote made sense execept for the "nothing more".

But the middle ground is the answer to all this.

Grappling...AND...ripping (dirty tactics)...

have to go together like a fist and a glove, because they complement each other. And while I agree with you that on the floor is the last place I want to be in a pub fight (where his friends could be breaking a bottle over my head at the very moment that I have him pinned down and going for a choke)...and I also agree that in today's MMA events/groundfight schools where RIPS are NOT being used there is no sure way of knowing what pure grappling/striking will work and what won't against a good ripper....

all this said...


Knowing the basics of grappling...and grappling escapes...along with the striking and ripping COVERS A LOT MORE BASES than leaving any part of that out.

When I conduct my wrestling classes in my school - we ALWAYS include ripping (though doing that in something of a controlled fashion without any real injuries occurring is an art in itself)...we always include the rips along with the basic wrestling knowledge AND the striking, traps, blocks, etc. done in Wing Chun.

I feel it's more complete and more reality fight training this way.

Good discussion, guys.

[chisauking]

Quote: Counterexample: Cologne 1986. A skiiled WC fighter got taken down and could do ... basically nothing.

Ah, the ultimate excuse for ground fighting... The old Willy Cheung fiasco. The if the ultimate street fighter got taken down, then it proves ground fighting must be effective argument...

However, you so conveniately forgot to mention that WC was surprised attacked, he was wearing Chinese slippers on a wooden floor (for those who may laugh at this point, I use to train in a wing chun club in London's Chinatown which had a wooden floor, and it was very difficult to not slide about because there was absolutely friction at all -- try it yourself), WC was way past his physical prime, the man that attacked him was in his physical prime, had prepared for the fight well over 1-year in advance and, most important of all, had the element of surprise and a totally prepared frame of mind.

Whatever you make of that incident, you will agreee that it was anything but sporting.

It's true that if you had the choice, control is better than damage, but when your life is on the line, rules and pleasantries go out the window. The people who has experienced real world violence will know what I'm talking about. Those that confine their skills to the realms of the club can say whatever they like.

[Vajramusti]

On the money. Good post chisauking.

FWIW- the Cologne affair and the follow up next generation affair
has very little ( actually zilch)to do with lots of people's wing chun.

[t_niehoff]

chisauking wrote:

t_niehoff said we should listen to people with experience, but experience is a very subjective thing.

**Yes, it is. One very important factor is, however, whether your experience is against skilled practitioners (what Ernie, Andrew, and KF have in common; thus why their opinions are consistent). For example, I know a lot of fighters that think WCK is a joke because they've seen a lot of WCK. And I point out the same thing to them: don't base your opinions on performance of the unskilled.

For example, many people into ground fighting will tell you that the methods and techniques that I'd recommended above doesn't work, and that the chances defending ourselves succesfully from mulitple assilants are slim. Well, my experiance will be different to those people. My real life, as opposed to sport, fighting milage is quite high because I run two pubs (anyone can tell you, and it can be substantiated by police statistics, that due to the nature of the business, more trouble and fights start in a pub than anywhere else), and it's quite often that I get to try techniques out. Scratching a deep wound into someone's face does create space; finger jabbing their eyes or taking a chunk out from their calve muscle does cause them to back off. Would those techniques work on a champion BJJ practitioner?

**Your question has at its base several assumptions -- that you could pull off the same "technique" against a skilled groundfighter as you could against some scrub and that it would have the same result if you did. If you deal with skilled fighters you'll find that both assumptions are false. Fighting some bloke in the pub isn't the same as fighting a skilled fighter -- not by a very long shot. You can experience that for yourself if you start mixing it up against skilled fighters.

I don't know, and since all those techniques are not incorperated and tested for real in gournd fighting shcools, I don't think they would know either.

**They have been "tested." The Gracies will tell you: they've fought on the "street" and in actual no rules fights (where you can bite, etc.). In fact, they *expect* these sorts of reactions from poor fighters. For example, when Rickson teaches the bent armlock he'll say "now is when he may try to rake your face so turn your head when you do this". Moreoever, if one hasn't trained in groundfighting, many of these foul tactics will just further expose you (you reach to poke his eyes and give him your arm for the armbar).

In the final analysis, any bouncer with genuine mileage in the game will tell you that the last place you want to be when the shiit hits the fan is on the ground, especially when multiple attackers are concerned, but this goes against the grain of thinking for some on this forum, so whose experience do we listen to?

**Going to the ground in a fight can come about either involuntarily (slip, knockdown, etc.) or voluntarily. Regardless of how we get there, the better our skill in that situation the better our chances. As far as choosing to go there, that is a tactical decision and the situation always dictates the tactics. Rickson isn't going to choose to go to the ground in a bar fight with multiple opponents either. He knows when to use that tactic and when not to. There is no one tactic that is best or works in all situations.

[Merryprankster]

I think the point of anerlich's post was missed.

It's not that Cheung got taken down. It's that ONCE HE WAS THERE, he could do...basically nothing.

That's the issue at hand.

If getting taken to the ground and being controlled by a person in a dominant position is the worst case scenario for a WC fighter, then the Cologne incident demonstrates quite clearly that the worst case scenario can happen.

In this case, a Wing Chun expert's skills amounted to little because they were overcome by variables:

1. Environment (slippery floor)
2. Attribute differential (weight, strength, speed, youth)
3. Surprise

anerlich's argument was not a knock on Cheung or WC. It was reasoning by analogy. If the "unknowns" can overcome skill and place the expert in a position where his personal toolset was effectively nullified - a worst case scenario. Consequently, it makes sense to at least be familiar with what is required in one of these worst case scenarios. Having a tool does not mean knowing how to use it in every situation. A chef's knife is a multi-purpose tool - but just because you know the best way to dice an onion doesn't mean you know the best way to use that knife to peel an apple.

As Joy pointed out, some people DO practice to peel the apple too.

[IRONMONK]

what happens if you slip over a banana peel in a fight or fighting on a very slippery surface ?this is why groundfighting skills are relevant to streetfighting.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Terence wrote:

"Your question has at its base several assumptions -- that you could pull off the same "technique" against a skilled groundfighter as you could against some scrub and that it would have the same result if you did. If you deal with skilled fighters you'll find that both assumptions are false. Fighting some bloke in the pub isn't the same as fighting a skilled fighter -- not by a very long shot."

Let me tell you guys what the real question is here...

JUST HOW PREPARED DO YOU WANT TO BE?

In terms of chisauking's life and his work circumstances - we can assume that he feels that what he's learned is enough for him. He's not training to go into some organized competition where he might face an expert ground-grappler.

For other people...their goals may be different.

As long as hard, competitive, training is going on wherein one is sparring/fighting on a regular basis against skilled resisting opponents/partners...and your testing out whatever system your doing against moves from other systems (like what Andrew Nerlich said, for example, about learning good takedowns so you can work against a GOOD takedown attempt)...

then at least YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK - as regards reality fight training.

And furthermore,you don't necessarily have to become an "expert" grappler in order to become very competitive against an expert grappler - look at how far Mirko Cro Cop has come in the Pride Fighting events....basically a kickboxer/Thai boxer with an excellent sprawl defense against takedowns...with very limited skills when actually on the ground.

True...lack of ground skills was finally his undoing (after pounding and bloodying his opponent for most of the match with punches and kicks)...when he fought Noguiera...and finally he missed a sprawl and was taken down and submitted...

but Cro Cop is an excellent figher who really IS hard to takedown for most of the "expert" grappler-types he's fought.

So what's the moral of the story?

It's all going to depend on just HOW PREPARED you want to be.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by chisauking
However, you so conveniately forgot to mention that WC was surprised attacked, he was wearing Chinese slippers on a wooden floor (for those who may laugh at this point, I use to train in a wing chun club in London's Chinatown which had a wooden floor, and it was very difficult to not slide about because there was absolutely friction at all -- try it yourself), WC was way past his physical prime, the man that attacked him was in his physical prime, had prepared for the fight well over 1-year in advance and, most important of all, had the element of surprise and a totally prepared frame of mind.So, by this reasoning, WC can only be used when you are in your prime, are completely prepared, and the environment is in your favor.



Originally posted by chisauking
Whatever you make of that incident, you will agreee that it was anything but sporting.Since WC is not about sport, but all about self-defense and real fighting, that shouldn't matter, should it?

[Knifefighter]

Here is my main problem with everyone who makes excuses for why that fiasco didn't really mean anything about "real" WC.

I don't know about you, but if I was one of the head honchos of a martial arts organization and I had a fight that was recorded and made me look really bad, I would want to do something to remedy that situation. Assuming I really had some skills and felt that that what happened was just a "bad day" that was not representative of my real skills, I would immediately be on path of getting several additional fights recorded that showed my real skills in their true light.

Of course, if I was unsure about my system and my ability to be able to demonstrate that I could really use it, then I would make sure that never happened.

[t_niehoff]

Victor wrote:

In terms of chisauking's life and his work circumstances - we can assume that he feels that what he's learned is enough for him. He's not training to go into some organized competition where he might face an expert ground-grappler.

For other people...their goals may be different.

**That sounds logical and many people fall into that trap, but it misses an important consideration IME. Lots of things "work" against scrubs but are in fact actually poor technique/habits/etc. (like reaching for punches in stand-up, for example) By continuing to do those things in training, a person is only reinforcing poor fighting habits. So, if they do want to develop good, solid skills, they have even more difficulty than if they hadn't trained at all (because now they've ingrained a mistake). Whereas, if they trained good, solid habits from the get go, they'd find that these would work against the scrubs while at the same time providing a foundation for higher level skill development.

As long as hard, competitive, training is going on wherein one is sparring/fighting on a regular basis against skilled resisting opponents/partners...and your testing out whatever system your doing against moves from other systems (like what Andrew Nerlich said, for example, about learning good takedowns so you can work against a GOOD takedown attempt)...

then at least YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK - as regards reality fight training.

**One certainly needs that training but equally important IME is the quality of fighters one is facing (training against). You can't become significantly skilled without dealing regularly with significantly skilled folks.

[Tydive]

20 years ago I started to add Chin na, Judo and Aikido to my skill set because I noticed that in real fights some people wont stay down with just strikes (clean or dirty). From my experience I would say that learning the basics of throws, submissions, chokes, escapes, bars, sprawl etc.. should be required in any stand up MA that goes beyond the ring.

It's not like it takes much time to learn the basics.

edit: Oh, and Nick cool topic & post btw.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Of course, if I was unsure about my system and my ability to be able to demonstrate that I could really use it, then I would make sure that never happened." (KF)

This time your trolling is going to fall on deaf ears.

The event in Germany (and subsequent events concerning it) have been worked/discussed/debated/screamed about/fought over...enough in the ensuing years.

Time to move on.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"One certainly needs that training but equally important IME is the quality of fighters one is facing (training against). You can't become significantly skilled without dealing regularly with significantly skilled folks." (Terence)


Of course.

[Vajramusti]

Merryprankster sez:

It's not that Cheung got taken down. It's that ONCE HE WAS THERE, he could do...basically nothing.

That's the issue at hand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True . MP.
That is an issue. The sloppy rolling around. Where was the wing chun?

The problem is that lots of things have to be discussed with restraint because of inter lineage courtesies.A bit of a CMA tradition.And- not a bad one.

The wing chun that some lines do-- evn the ABCs are different from Cheung's.

KF- head honcho? Cheung is head honcho only of his own
self created TWC org.

[old jong]

I agree that we all should have some basic grappling experience.(I train in ground Judo "Ne Wasa" periodicaly)I am no champion but now,I can see the positions coming and counter may things in a more intuitive manner.

I also agree with Ernie's comments about "dirty tactics" I have some very serious and real experiences in that field. I had,and still have to grapple insane patients for 26 years now!...It is part of my job. I can tell you and specially knifefighter that doing a proper side control would only result in having half of your face bitten off!...The mount usually provides the "client" for a nice spitting target!...(most of the times accompagnied with a good dose of hepatithis "B" viruses or worse!) I have also seen a security agent have his head pulled down by a very strong mounted patient only to be headbutted repeatly on the mouth.He lost many teeth,was knocked out and was never the same after!... There are no ways you can ensure good control positioning and be safe from some serious scratching,biting ,spitting in the eyes,ear ripping or hair pulling,all performed with an animal like rage.Don't forget that some punks out there train their "fighters heart" by pulling the eyes out of living birds with their bare fingers!...

So,even if these things are not fight stoppers in some's mind,they are not things to be taken lightly ,IMO!...Who,in some UFC have been bitten to the bone recently?...

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The problem is that lots of things have to be discussed with restraint because of inter lineage courtesies. A bit of a CMA tradition." (Joy)


If that's the case Joy then practice what you preach...he is "A" wing chun honcho....which is the way it was described in the original post. And he was considered that by MANY people in the wing chun world long before he went public with TWC....or have you forgotten?

And as for this...

"That is an issue. The sloppy rolling around. Where was the wing chun?"

Are you trying to say, Joy...that your system of wing chun has a better ground game when on the floor?

I doubt that you are saying that. I doubt that highly.


The Good, The Bad, & the Ugly...remember?

[Merryprankster]

That is an issue. The sloppy rolling around. Where was the wing chun?

No Joy, that's THE issue, not just AN issue.

As I pointed out in my previous post, however, you were quite correct in limiting qualifying the issue with a "some." I say this as an adherence to reason, not as an advocate of one view of WC or another. I must admit the possbility, based on the limited evidence, that the problem was unique or limited in scope and not universal.

However, this does not negate the illustrative example itself - that a combination of things can occur which neutralize or at the very least mitigate specific skill sets as an advantage. Thus, it is useful to understand at least the basics of either other skill sets or the specifics of how your prefered skill set might apply to a 'worst-case' inherently disadvantageous for you situation. I would personally argue that the latter course would reinvent the wheel to a large extent, but that is something of a separate issue.

Old Jong, your post does nothing at all to back up or refute anybody's point. It only highlights the unpredictability and danger of personal combat. Doing that turns this into an endless series of "what if's." We can all find a billion counter possibilities. Faced with limited training time, we must make choices and do the best we can.

[old jong]

This was my point!...We never can be sure at 100% of anything in a real fight! Nothing is 100% foolproof.
This doesn't take anything away from BJJ or ground fighting effectiveness in competitions or against a "non animalistic" opponent in a bar or something but IMO it is foolish to assume being invincible.Whatever the style practiced. IMO,the more Coc...ky you are,the more prone you are to be badly hurted.

My post was not intended to put down anything but to bring some of my own experience in the balance.

[Merryprankster]

Ah, well then, I'll just shut the hell up.

[Vajramusti]

Victor- I have shown the courtesy -by not going any further in my comments.

KF's word/title usage was "but if I was one of the head honchos of a martial arts organization "

Honcho has connotations of a chief of an org. who supervises.
(meanings 1 and 2 in Webster's unabridged...))

Wing chun is not a martial art organization.

[old jong]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Ah, well then, I'll just shut the hell up.

Was this intended for me?...:D
You don't have to shut up!... ;) Feel free to develop more on the idea. ;)

[anerlich]

However, you so conveniately forgot to mention that WC was surprised attacked, he was wearing Chinese slippers on a wooden floor (for those who may laugh at this point, I use to train in a wing chun club in London's Chinatown which had a wooden floor, and it was very difficult to not slide about because there was absolutely friction at all -- try it yourself), WC was way past his physical prime, the man that attacked him was in his physical prime, had prepared for the fight well over 1-year in advance and, most important of all, had the element of surprise and a totally prepared frame of mind.

I though that was the point. Anyone can get taken down, you can't control all circumstances.

He was 46, and, since I'm about to turn 50, I dispute the notion that he would have been "well past his physical prime". The facts and opinions regarding this incident are well known and there was no point me repeating them. William Cheung publically stated that he was ready for challenges any time anywhere, though I don't think he was considering what happened as a "challenge match" (neither do I).

I HAVE tried the Kung Fu shoes thing. IMO they are the most ridiculous footwear ever invented for fighting - an inside joke on Gwailos by Asian Sifus, IMO.


Whatever you make of that incident, you will agreee that it was anything but sporting.

Couldn't agree more. You're the one demanding "realism", and saying that those who cross train somehow don't get it. "Reality fighting" has nothing to do with sport or fairness.

When the reality truck hit, the "famous Sifu" fell over and couldn't get up.

[old jong]

He was 46, and, since I'm about to turn 50, I dispute the notion that he would have been "well past his physical prime".

I'm 52 myself and still very strong and fast so,I second that comment by anerlich. ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Come on, guys. I just recently turned 54 - and though I'm still in very good shape - I'm definitely NOT what I was when I was 24.

Which was about how old Boztepe was (possibly even younger) in September, 1986.

William Cheung was about to turn 46 at that time (October 10th).

He was still in excellent overall condition - but no longer in his "prime" years. (And I suspect that by then he was no longer keeping his cardio up like he did in his earlier years...a big factor in a real confrontation with a skilled opponent who's bigger and 20+ years younger).

And there was also the element of panic - which I'm sure was a big part of the equation - he was a Chinese guy in his gung fu slippers on a parquet floor in a white country he'd never been to before...and finds himself surrounded and the leader of the pack charges him! (He once remarked that he threw the headlock on Boztepe in the hopes of just neutralizing him into a stalemate - because he was afraid to go all out - considering exactly where he was...on German soil). Perhaps there was some truth to that.

Now if you want to say he "should" have been ready for anything - given his statements previously..otherwise don't make such statements...okay...I can buy that.

But it wasn't the case...and on any given day...ANYBODY... can be beaten.

That's the biggest moral of the story, imo.

[old jong]

My wife is always telling me about how much I have improved with age!...But that's another subject!...;)

Seriously,there are things more mature guys can still do well.

[Ernie]

Originally posted by old jong
My wife is always telling me about how much I have improved with age!...But that's another subject!...;)

Seriously,there are things more mature guys can still do well.

yep

make that grunting sound when ever you get up or sit down :D :D

[old jong]

You know nothing about the real meaning of that sound "young guy"!...;)

[old jong]

But it wasn't the case...and on any given day...ANYBODY... can be beaten.

That's the biggest moral of the story, imo.

Only the fools will believe otherwise.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by old jong
I can tell you and specially knifefighter that doing a proper side control would only result in having half of your face bitten off!...The mount usually provides the "client" for a nice spitting target!...(most of the times accompagnied with a good dose of hepatithis "B" viruses or worse!) OJ, you are not fighting, but controlling patients. In your circumstances, if you end up on the ground with a patient, I don't believe you want side control or, even, necessarily, the mount.

But you are the one experienced in controlling the patients if and when you end up on the ground with them. I'd like to hear how you currently control them once you end up on the ground without getting bitten or spit upon.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
But it wasn't the case...and on any given day...ANYBODY... can be beaten.

That's the biggest moral of the story, imo. Not in my mind it isn't. For me, the moral of the story was- WHERE THE HECK WAS THE FRIGGIN' WING CHUN BY EITHER PERSON?

These were supposedly two of the best WC practitioners in the world and NEITHER of them showed any WC technique.

[t_niehoff]

Knifefighter is correct. We see very little fighting skill "demonstrated" in that fight, and that's why it tarnishes WCK's reputation. And that's not a knock on either Chueng or Boztepe personally -- you could replace either with just about any other "master" in WCK and it would be the same. There are important lessons that fight can teach us WCK practitioners, if we let it (by removing our "classical" blinders and leaving all the BS myths behind). The Boztepe-Cheung fight was a fight -- that's how genuine fights are going to "look" (unless they are sucker punch affairs or one participant greatly outmatches the other). Not like chi sao, not like san sao, not like "touching hands" or other "mock fights", not like the movies, not like your fantasies (Leung Jan, Shaolin monks). It's going to be a chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess characterized by sheer aggression and resistance where anything can happen (you may very well end up on the ground, for example). Are you prepared to deal with that sort of environment? Is this what you are training for? If not, you're wasting your time.

http://www.meihua.ee/video/fights_november_2004.wmv

http://www.themenace.dk/der/kong-sao.wmv

[old jong]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
OJ, you are not fighting, but controlling patients. In your circumstances, if you end up on the ground with a patient, I don't believe you want side control or, even, necessarily, the mount.

But you are the one experienced in controlling the patients if and when you end up on the ground with them. I'd like to hear how you currently control them once you end up on the ground without getting bitten or spit upon.

No,I am not really fighting but sometimes he is for sure!...There are no big secrets in controlling agressive patients: you don't want to hurt them so you try to imbalance them and put them against a wall with a kind of back clinch called the "basket ";) (head tucked in etc,you know the game!) But sometimes it is not that easy and I might use some basic judo and aikido moves to bring him (not slam!) to the ground and maintain him with a controled wristlock ( I don't want to hurt him!) on his belly. I then wait for help to finish the intervention.But sometimes,he is not even feeling the pain from the lock and won't follow the move (too strong,adrenaline etc...)so,I have to simply use lots of muscle,leverage,speed and everything I got to bring him down.I am then forced to use a "knee on back" position to hold him on the ground,doing my best to control his arms behind his back and sometimes his head because they sometimes have a tendency to bang their own head on the floor. I don't want to be in close body contact in order to be able to get on my feet quickly if the situation gets out of hands.
I know guys who lost their job because they panicked and started to punch patients!...So,it is a situation where you must "win" but "not too much" if you get the idea! ;)
BTW,it is not always like that .We have quiet days also! ;)

I often used Wing Chun's defensive moves to deflect strikes or attempted grabs from patients.They provide for safe entry for controling techniques.

[Knifefighter]

OJ-
Nice real world examples and descriptions of what you have to deal with. IMO, the knee ride is the ideal postion to deal with this type of control situation when on the ground.

Have you even had a patient take YOU down and end up in the top position?

[Matrix]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Knifefighter is correct. ......<snip>..... It's going to be a chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess characterized by sheer aggression and resistance where anything can happen (you may very well end up on the ground, for example). Are you prepared to deal with that sort of environment? Is this what you are training for? If not, you're wasting your time.

http://www.meihua.ee/video/fights_november_2004.wmv

http://www.themenace.dk/der/kong-sao.wmv

Terence,
Are these clips that you've provided supposed to show how "chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess" a fight can be, or is it an example of what you see as "training"?

[old jong]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
OJ-
Nice real world examples and descriptions of what you have to deal with. IMO, the knee ride is the ideal postion to deal with this type of control situation when on the ground.

Have you even had a patient take YOU down and end up in the top position?

I tripped once and fell with the patient over me but I was in his back and I managed to hold him and get up on top.That time help was very fast and the situation was quickly resolved.
Four years to go and I retire!..;)

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Matrix
Terence,
Are these clips that you've provided supposed to show how "chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess" a fight can be, or is it an example of what you see as "training"? I'm not Terence and I only downloaded the smaller "kong sao" clip, but from my standpoint, the answer is that it (the kong sao clip) is an example of both how chaotic and sloppy a fight can be as well as how part of effective training should be done.

Those guys are on the right track. That's the kind of contact that should be going on at sihing's level 10 "real world" grading.

[SAAMAG]

That was the ugliest, most non-technical fighting I've ever seen...it doesn't disgrace wing chun, because they used so very little of it....but man it was cool to watch!!! :D

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Those guys are on the right track. That's the kind of contact that should be going on at sihing's level 10 "real world" grading. You're kidding, right! Maybe you're going for the Best Troll award for 2004, at my expense, or something. ;)
I don't think you need to be trained to take a senseless beating; we can all do that naturally. There is no training value in that, IMO. If someone "trains" like that, and this is what you guys mean by sparring, then I think you're on the wrong track. Everybody out of the pool!!

At the very least, you're on a track that I have no interest in. But hey, what the he11 do I know - I just do folk dancing. :rolleyes:

FYI, I'm about to leave on a business trip for the week, so I may not be able to reply until next weekend. But I'm really curious to know if this is what other people who call "good training"?

Thanks,

[old jong]

Looking at these videos,this is what anybody agressive can do without any martial art training of any kind!
I was fighting better when I was twelve in the schoolyard.

[AndrewS]

Umm,

guys, the contact is a little heavy, and there are a bunch of times the break should have come earlier, but that definitely qualifies as 'good training', in my book. My b*tch would be with the referee, not the fighters.

I think those are Hungarian WT clips, but they may be Danish.

The Danes, who have a very high 'technical' level of skill are also practical and have been running monthly open in-system fullcontact 'Fight Club' since the mid-nineties, usually doing a couple of hours of practical live drilling followed by fights for whoever wants them, followed by post-fight tape analysis.

If you look at some earlier clips for the same pair of light blue shorts, you see one of the guys is getting *way* better.

This sort of thing is definitely an important part of learning (though the break should come quicker on the repetitive head contact).

Andrew

[RedJunkRebel]

The Kong Sao clip is from the country of Estonia... just east of Russia by Sweden and Finland I believe.

Although these guys don't seem to be using very much Wing Chun, it is full contact sparring. We need to have full contact sparring in order to get as close to real life fighting as possible. For 4 different reasons:
1. Getting the mindset of what its like under real pressure.
2. Feeling what its like to hit and get hit back
3. Get the physical ability you need
4. Know if your techniques will really work.

[old jong]

Everybody is entitled to have his own opinions about this but IMO:

Fighting with gloves and a big helmet is not what I call "pressure" or feeling what it is to get hit and hit back.
Throwing wild punches all over the place is not "technique" even if the other guy lacks the "technique" to stop them most of the times.Also,physical hability (?) without mental habilities,method and control is nothing in my book.
This is just brawlling.Anybody can do that when ****ed off. ;)

[AndrewS]

OJ,

those faceguards do f*ck-all to dampen concussive impact; thye mainly cut down on the dangers of broken bones in the face.

Some people see slop here. I see guys staying vertical in the clinch to defend and strike, stopping singles, cutting angles when facing is lost (the guy in the blue shorts with the quick beatdown to the back of the head), bad posture being abused in the clinch, nice knees from side mount, submission by striking, good use of downward elbows (and demonstration that their use in takedown defense is best when vertical posture and bodyweight are employed, not just lat), excellent forward pressure and aggression, and great taste in music.

Are these pro level MMA fights? No, but these guys have been getting better every time they post a clip for the last year or so, and it's clear they've put in a lot of work. This pack of kids ('cos if there's anyone on those clips over 23, I'd be shocked) looks far sharper than any of that old rooftop footage of training matches of people in Hong Kong of the same age who so many venerate.

Frankly, with this experience before 25, some of those people are going to be decent enough to go pro, and are going to toy with the theoreticians in their own game very soon, as the thing you wanking idealists miss is that all theory is derived from practice.

One frantic moment where 'theory' works is worth months, if not years of drilling, the drilling is simply there to set up the conditions to allow you body to work according to 'theory'.

Later,

Andrew

P.S. Yeah, they *really* need work on their escapes. And need to train with people besides WT folks.

[Kevin Bell]

Hi Andrew,

I see Emin has some Anti Grappling videos/DVDs out. My question is (and in fact the rest of the series) would you consider them a good Buy. I ask cause my interest of Antigrappling concepts has been stimulated somewhat as of late.

Kev

[old jong]

Frankly AndrewS!...Can you share on your opinions without stepping into that zone?...:rolleyes:
Yes,I see slop and I'm not alone. Feel free to disagree without getting insulting....Or personal.

[RedJunkRebel]

Fighting with gloves and a big helmet is not what I call "pressure" or feeling what it is to get hit and hit back. Those that have been hit hard in this kind of gear, know that it is pressure. Its one of the closest ways to get the feeling of being in a real fight that you can get. Bruce Lee was one of the first pioneers to do full contact sparring with protective gear. Full contact sparring is necessary training.
Throwing wild punches all over the place is not "technique" even if the other guy lacks the "technique" to stop them most of the times. Full contact like this teaches what works in real fights. Those that use more technique will be the ones that will get ahead. However, being in such pressure changes things drastically. It creates a whole different outlook on things. Most importantly it teaches courage. Courage is most of what fighting is.

[AndrewS]

Kevin,

the antigrappling stuff that sifu Emin has out there is good, and contains a lot of good ideas. The basic principles from which it all stems are often missed, and, while stated, are again, not glaringly obvious. The best section is from the IKF tape in which he goes through defense while on the ground- our flavor of open guard. That shows the pack of drills that sum up to being one live environment which will develop a useful skill set. Unfortunately, every situation is not gone through in this much detail. If you pick that tape up, and extrapolate methods from that sequence to the rest, said tape can be useful, especially if used in combination with some mat time and a good understanding of positional groundwork, and its biomechanics (Michael Jen's BJJ tapes are quite good for some of that).

OJ,

sorry, for accuracy, I should have used other language, not a wanker. Masturbation is honest and natural, and the fantasy within it produces palpable results.

If you, or your students can do better, film it and post it, otherwise stop scoffing at people who're doing the work.

Later,

Andrew

[old jong]

Andrew!...I'm not in cinema!...;) And I will keep on telling what I think about what I want. Period!
RedJunkRebel...I agre about the courage.

[t_niehoff]

Matrix asked:

Are these clips that you've provided supposed to show how "chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess" a fight can be, or is it an example of what you see as "training"?

**Theoreticians/nonfighters "train" with some idealized (fantasy) notion of what fighting should be -- with that fantasy coming from hearsay or stories, from drills (chi sao), from movies, from demos, etc.; fighters start with what fighting really is, by actually fighting, and train to be able to better deal that "chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess." If you're seriously training, then you should be able to step right into this and do well. After all, this is what you are training to be able to deal with, right?

---------

old jog wrote:

Looking at these videos,this is what anybody agressive can do without any martial art training of any kind!
I was fighting better when I was twelve in the schoolyard.

**Actually, you have inadvertantly hit upon an important point -- all fighting will "look" like your basic schoolyard brawl because that is what fighting really is: the basis for all fighting is right there, all we try to do is take those elements and make them more efficient, more functional, etc.

**As to the other part of your comment -- it's easy to write from behind a keyboard about how "bad" they are, how much better you could fight in the same situation, etc. and, it is a different matter altogether to actually step up and do it. I don't mind the claim, just as I don't mind the claims of any of the theoreticians; I just wish they would prove their claims. Let's *see* them do the things they say they can do or should be done ("this is how fighting should be") -- and not in drills or demos but in this sort of environment.

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

RedJunk Rebel, AndrewS. -- you're both spot on in your comments, IMO.

When many people first see groundfighting, all they see is a mess, rolling madly about on the ground, because they don't know what to look for (they don't see the "technique" or the strategy in the rest of the confused mess; they have an uneducated eye). Same with using WCK's approach in fighting: lots of people, even those in the "art" for a long time, will only see the mess and not what is going on within the mess because they've never developed an educated "eye" for WCK in application -- that education comes from fighting. Andrew's comments about the clips clearly shows he has an educated eye; old jong's comments proves he doesn't.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Vankuen
That was the ugliest, most non-technical fighting I've ever seen...it doesn't disgrace wing chun, because they used so very little of it....but man it was cool to watch!!! :D
Originally posted by RedJunkRebel
Although these guys don't seem to be using very much Wing Chun... That's pretty much what WC looks like when two fighters are going head to head at 100%.


Originally posted by Matrix
I don't think you need to be trained to take a senseless beating; we can all do that naturally. There is no training value in that, IMO. If someone "trains" like that, and this is what you guys mean by sparring, then I think you're on the wrong track. While I wouldn't advocate that level of sparring every week, that is definitely something that anyone who is learning a system for fighting or self-defense should go through during their training.


Originally posted by old jong
Looking at these videos,this is what anybody agressive can do without any martial art training of any kind! I was fighting better when I was twelve in the schoolyard. And I'd be willing to bet if you fought one of your fellow WC practitioners today at the level of contact and intent those guys were, you would look pretty mucy the same as they did.


Originally posted by old jong
Fighting with gloves and a big helmet is not what I call "pressure" or feeling what it is to get hit and hit back.Not exactly a limited rules MMA fight with no protective gear- but a step towards it while at the same time being able to keep the risk of injury low. Try it sometime. There's a lot of value in it- a lot more value than never taking those hard shots at all.


Originally posted by old jong
Throwing wild punches all over the place is not "technique" even if the other guy lacks the "technique" to stop them most of the times.Also,physical hability (?) without mental habilities,method and control is nothing in my book. This is just brawlling.Anybody can do that when ****ed off. ;) Those guys definitely showed their WC training. Anyone who has trained WC and also has experience in trying to use it in that type of environment will see that.

Finally there is some evidence of WC being used in a pressure testing situation and all the non-fighting theoreticians can do is belittle it. I will guarantee that if any you guys do the same type of full contact fighting, your WC is going to look pretty much like it did in that "kong sao" clip.

Actually it would probably be worse. Most of the non-fighting theoreticians would be lucky to make their WC as effective as those guys were able to.

[old jong]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

old jog wrote:

Looking at these videos,this is what anybody agressive can do without any martial art training of any kind!
I was fighting better when I was twelve in the schoolyard.

**Actually, you have inadvertantly hit upon an important point -- all fighting will "look" like your basic schoolyard brawl because that is what fighting really is: the basis for all fighting is right there, all we try to do is take those elements and make them more efficient, more functional, etc.

**As to the other part of your comment -- it's easy to write from behind a keyboard about how "bad" they are, how much better you could fight in the same situation, etc. and, it is a different matter altogether to actually step up and do it. I don't mind the claim, just as I don't mind the claims of any of the theoreticians; I just wish they would prove their claims. Let's *see* them do the things they say they can do or should be done ("this is how fighting should be") -- and not in drills or demos but in this sort of environment.

old jong's comments proves he doesn't.

When I talk about my schoolyard fights I don't mean I brawlled this way. I was taught the basics of boxing by one of my father's friend who was an ex semi-pro fighter.I just had to jab and cross most of the times.The other guys were doing like in these clips!...
BTW, I'm not the one bragging on how "bad" I am on this forum.

But,there is a point I must agree in with you.It was easy to miss the technical side of grappling some times ago.It was new stuff to most then (not for me because I had practiced Judo already)but,you are insulting my intelligence when you talk about my lack of "educated eye" in Wing Chun All there is to see in these clips is frantic punching.

Anyway I just gave my opinion.Feel free to consider this as Wing Chun if you like it this way. End of discussion for me.

[Theorb]

chisauking say:Whatever you make of that incident, you will agreee that it was anything but sporting.


yes but it show proof you go around say "I the best I fight anyone anytime anywhere" pretty soon you have to explain it your shoe fault you lose


:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Okay...watched the first fight clip - the one that's labelled Nov, 2004...and I pretty much have to agree with AndrewS, knifefighter and Terence.

True - virtually no wing chun technigue other than one or two front kicks - some chain punching (and a distinct inability to DEAL WITH chain punching)...

but that's okay.

Because all the elbows and knees in the clinch...the grounding and pounding...one or two nice throws...and the aggressiveness when standing up and throwing the punches/kicks, etc...and the willingness of those who were getting pounded to hang in there...

definitely DOES show that these guys are on the right track.

And yeah...my beef was with the referee - not with the fighters.

And yeah...Andrew is right...these are basically VERY young guys...so if they stick with it (and if it becomes supervised such that many of them don't have to quit due to injuries or intimidation)...then in time some of these guys will become excellent fighters whose technique WILL get better over time.

[Tydive]

I took a look at the longer of the two clips and would say that it really makes the point of this thread... if you can't escape when you get taken to the ground then you get pounded.

On the other hand there was a LOT of flailing going on there, which is what I would expect to see when somebody is over excited and the adreniline is flowing.

So, my suggestion for them would be to get some BJJ or Judo ground work going and do lots of centering exercises. Another exercise they should do is learning to elevate and lower their arousal levels. You can clearly see the guys who stay calm do better (blue trunks and the other shirtless guy in sweats). While most of the guys are overcome by the emotion of the moment.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Theoreticians/nonfighters "train" with some idealized (fantasy) notion of what fighting should be -- with that fantasy coming from hearsay or stories, from drills (chi sao), from movies, from demos, etc.; fighters start with what fighting really is, by actually fighting, and train to be able to better deal that "chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess." If you're seriously training, then you should be able to step right into this and do well. After all, this is what you are training to be able to deal with, right? Terence,
I have a lot of fighting experience, in the ring. I was a kick boxer for several years. Full contact, Knock Out, no head gear. You don't have a clue about my experience, so be careful about drawing the wrong conclusions. When I look at these clips, I'm looking from the point of view of someone who has fought under those circumstances - many times, and quite frankly I see cr@p.

Just because I don't agree with your approach, doesn't mean I'm not serious. Unfortuantely, or may I should fortunately, I do not have to live up your standards.

[Vajramusti]

Matrix sez:

Terence,
I have a lot of fighting experience, in the ring
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotyping folks on a discussion list hampers serious discussion.

[chisauking]

The main point of my post on this thread was that wing chun, or any style of fighting, should focus on its forte... But some ground fighters reacted so defensly to what I'd said it's as though I'm thretenting their livelyhood. Are you mixed (MMA) people so insecure about youslef that you need to justify your ground fighting?

Say you had studied German for the past 5-years, would you elect to take an examination in Chinese? No -- you would take the subject that you are strongest in, which would be German. The same holds true for wing chun disciples. If you were to engage combat, you would choose to fight standing, using wing chun techniques, becuase that's what you have been training to do for many years.

Regardless of what you mixed people may think (basically I couldn't care two faaks), there are considerable disadvantages to fighting on the ground for a wing chun fighter. For example, the reduction of your repetoire of techniques, the inability to apply damaging punches, the lost of your powerful kicks and, to me, the most important aspect of all, that of mobility. Mobility is extremely important becuase it's one of the main aspect that works the most effective against an opponent that's stronger and bigger than you. With mobilty, we don't have to face the force of a bigger and stronger opponent head on (we have already discussed this aspect in another thread: fighting on the blind side). That's why I said you should get back up as quickly as possible if you are down -- so that your most important attributes and fighting tools are available to you. With standing, you need not make contact with your opponent and thereby negating any form of resistance. Any techniques that is meet with resistance, like trying to force your opponent's arm into a certain position, is very much strentgh reliant.

Also, there is clearly one situation in which ground fighting is seriously comprimised. That of multiple attackers. This aspect has always been avoided or dismissed by the Gracies... because they have no real answer to it. They say things like: it's impossible to beat multiple skilled fighters anyway. But the truth is, in real life we do get attacked by multiple assilants, and they aren't ALL skilled fighters. Most cases it's just bums with little skill, but the point is, it IS possible to defend oneself against multiple attackers standing up, even though they may be bums, but it IS impossible to defend yourself from this kind of attack on the ground.

Not only that.. 99% of all fights start standing up, so for the ground fighter you need an extra step to take us down on the ground first. And, as most real world fighters know, that, my friend, is the hardest part of the fight -- unless you are talking about the receipiant of the bombarding kicks and punches!


In an ideal world we would probably learn wing chun for stand up fighting, and BJJ or Pakistani JJ for ground work. But in real life this isn't always easy, and there are others issues to contend with. For example, do we have the time or money to learn a completely different style? Or, more importantly, is there any conflicting principles \ issues between the two different styles?

[chisauking]

Quote by T_niehoff:

Knifefighter is correct. We see very little fighting skill "demonstrated" in that fight, and that's why it tarnishes WCK's reputation. And that's not a knock on either Chueng or Boztepe personally -- you could replace either with just about any other "master" in WCK and it would be the same. There are important lessons that fight can teach us WCK practitioners, if we let it (by removing our "classical" blinders and leaving all the BS myths behind). The Boztepe-Cheung fight was a fight -- that's how genuine fights are going to "look" (unless they are sucker punch affairs or one participant greatly outmatches the other). Not like chi sao, not like san sao, not like "touching hands" or other "mock fights", not like the movies, not like your fantasies (Leung Jan, Shaolin monks). It's going to be a chaotic, sloppy, violently intense mess characterized by sheer aggression and resistance where anything can happen (you may very well end up on the ground, for example). Are you prepared to deal with that sort of environment? Is this what you are training for? If not, you're wasting your time.

Yes, for once you are right.. This fight does demonstarte something to us.. that when the odds are overwhemingly against you, you are going to lose!

Yes, very little -- in fact I would go as far as saying no -- wing chun was used. Poor old willy didn't have a chance. He couldn't even stand up, let alone fight! When you have no balance, your fighting skills are redundant. It's like a Ferrari with only 3 wheels and without tires -- no matter how big the engine or power output, it can't be transfered to the road. Imagine Ali, Hagler, or Leneord on roller skates in the ring. Do you think they can win any compionship match without balance?

Yes, it demonsrtates that a young man will always have the advantage over an older man past his prime. Can anyone on this forum put their hand on their hearts and say Malvin Hagler or Sugar Ray Leneord would fight better now than back in their 30s? Even a mediocre boxer in his prim and in fighting weight would beat an ex world boxing champion that's in his 40s' and out of fighting fitness.

Yes, it demonstrates that anyone that's been preparing themselves for a fight well in 1-year in advance will always be better conditioned than the person that had not. Again, can anyone on this forum say that if Marvin Hagler or Ray Leneord were challenged by a boxer that's been in training for one thing and one thing only for a year, for a fight tommoror, out of the blue, would they stand a chance of winning?

Yes, it demonstrates that a bigger and stronger guy has all the advantages on the ground. Dispite what many poeple say, there's very little wing chun that can be applied on the ground. As I've said, you lose the use of many wing chun techniques on the ground because you don't have rooting to apply those techniques properly. You have lost mobility. Without mobility, you can't turn-ma or side-step to deflect your opponent's force; you can't step back to absorb his energy, and you would have to control his entire body weight, head-on, if he was on top of you, with gravity helping him. Try to imagine a 250lbs man bench pressing a 160lbs weight (you). He would find it very easy. However, turn it around, a 160lbs man would find it extremely difficult to control a 250lbs man.

Yes, it demonstartes that if someone wants to knobble you enough, he can set you up one way or another.

Finally, this fight proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a bigger and stronger man will always win on the ground. If someone that's been practising for over 30-years and still couldn't appy his skills in this environment, what chances have you? Even if willy cheung was a black belt of Pakistani Ju Jitsu, he would still have lost.. simply because he was over-powered by a much stronger guy. He conceeded too much on the ground. Grappling is highly reliant on size and strength -- in this envirnment, his attacker held all the aces: size and strength, and let's not forget, gravity. At the end of the day, strength is a major factor in all fighting, it's just that grapping on the ground has a far greater reliant on strength than wing chun standing up. Why do you think virtually no females are in BJJ? Simply because none of them would or could do well, since grappling on the ground is so strentgh and size reliant.

Time stand still for no man. From an early age onwards, our body gets stronger and stronger, and most people reach their peak between 26 to 33. From that age onwards we go down hill all the way -- weaker and weaker. No matter how much you think otherwise or delude yourself, you can't argue with facts. If you don't beleive me, answer this: why do all the greatest boxers, the likes of Malvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leneord, start to decline and lose their dominance around 33? How come, without exception, all the greatest althlete start to slow down past the age of 35 or younger?
Anything that requires physical attributes is best done early, becuase you are going to reach your maximum potentail around 34. Some people say that they are much better at what they doing now than when they were in their 30s' but that's only becuase their skill has increased. However, if they had the skill level they have accumulated now back then, they would surely have been even better.
Although wing chun relies less on strentgh than most other styles, strength is still a major factor in successful fighting. That's why old willy cheung was no longer the fighter that he was back in his 20s' or 30s'

At the end of the day, Willy has only himself to blame for this sorry saga, but let's not confuse this farce with the real reasons for his defeat.

[AndrewS]

Time to thread devolving to Cologne incident, what, 3 pages?

For the record- William Cheung issued a public 'any time, any place' challenge, claiming to be the best fighter in Wing Chun. Lots of people wanted a piece of him, Emin was the guy who got a piece. Emin fought Cheung because they were roughly the same size- Emin was about 6'1", and 185-190 at the time. Two of the guys there to back him up were the weight classes up and down, Sali Avci and Heinrich, Henirich being about 6'1" and 260, and one of the little known gems of WT from what I've heard.

Lastly, I'm half-competent on the ground, pretty d*mn strong, and weigh in between 240 and 260 with decent cardio, and I have had my *ss handed to me by people 100lbs lighter when grappling (as I have standing). If you're slick, you can make up for a lot of mass and power. Claiming otherwise just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of grappling.

Later,

Andrew

[Ultimatewingchun]

That was an excellent post, chisauking.

I agree with quite a bit of it...Won't get into the "politics" of it...been there - done that enough.

But I want to address one or two things that I don't agree with.

"When the odds are overwhemingly against you, you are going to lose!"

TRUE.

"When you have no balance, your fighting skills are redundant. It's like a Ferrari with only 3 wheels and without tires -- no matter how big the engine or power output, it can't be transfered to the road. Imagine Ali, Hagler, or Leneord on roller skates in the ring. Do you think they can win any compionship match without balance?"

TRUE AGAIN.


"Yes, it demonstrates that a bigger and stronger guy has all the advantages on the ground."

IF HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING...AND...does it better than the smaller man.

"Despite what many poeple say, there's very little wing chun that can be applied on the ground. As I've said, you lose the use of many wing chun techniques on the ground because you don't have rooting to apply those techniques properly. You have lost mobility....etc."

I AGREE WITH THIS.

"Without mobility, you can't turn-ma or side-step to deflect your opponent's force; you can't step back to absorb his energy, and you would have to control his entire body weight, head-on, if he was on top of you, with gravity helping him."

THAT'S RIGHT.

"Try to imagine a 250lbs man bench pressing a 160lbs weight (you). He would find it very easy. However, turn it around, a 160lbs man would find it extremely difficult to control a 250lbs man."

AGAIN...it depends on the relative groundskills of both men. Many great grapplers have beaten much bigger opponents on the ground.

"Finally, this fight proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a bigger and stronger man will always win on the ground."

NOT TRUE...(see above).

"Even if willy cheung was a black belt of Pakistani Ju Jitsu, he would still have lost.. simply because he was over-powered by a much stronger guy."

NOT TRUE...(see above).

"He conceded too much on the ground. Grappling is highly reliant on size and strength -- in this environment, his attacker held all the aces: size and strength, and let's not forget, gravity. At the end of the day, strength is a major factor in all fighting, it's just that grapping on the ground has a far greater reliance on strength than wing chun standing up."

ON THE CONTRARY...Boztepe did not display a high level of groundfighting skills - (especially by today's standards).

A smaller BJJ blackbelt or a smaller Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestler who is considered a hooker...or an expert Greco-Roman wrestler..or an expert in Russian sambo - (but smaller men)...

would (should) dominate a bigger, stronger opponent even if on the ground...if that opponent's groundskills are not in their league.

So what am I getting at ?

It's smart for Wing Chun people to crosstrain in a grappling art.

Find the time.

And get past the politics.

[chisauking]

Thank you, Victor, for your suggustion.

Trouble is, my time is very precious and limited -- I'm getting older by the second!

I prefer to spend the time I'm saving on practising a ground grappling style on training my striking power. I prefer to end the fight even before it gets to the ground stage. So far, my hitting power hasn't let me down yet.

Oh, well. That day, just like it did for willy, will come. But... not until I'm older.

[sihing]

It wouldn't hurt anything to add a ground fighting art like BJJ to your Wing Chun, same with adding TKD or Muay Thai or any other MA out there. But like chisauking said, time for some is limited, and if it is then what does one do? For myself, even if I wanted to go a learn a ground fighting system I couldn't, firstly because of time, to which I don't have any, second because of money, to which I don't have any extra..So then what? Maybe trying to apply WC principals/concepts to ground work? Just today I taught the class some shoot counters and mount counters, some of which the advanced students had not seen. They were surprised by the effectiveness of the movements and were pleasantly surprised at what was taught and practiced. I myself am no expert at this aspect of the art but I can do it if I have to. Some of the students have experience with grappling arts and said this was something they have never seen before and want to learn more about this aspect also. Was I able to side step or pivot(to which we don't do but just for example)? No I wasn't but I could counter using the facing the point of contact principals, and I could lop sao and strike also, once there and the opponent distracted various other things can be done to put the advantage once again on our side. Would these work against a highly skilled BJJ/grappling expert? I don't know, but the odds of meeting them in the street, to which is the only place you will find me fighting, is nil. Plus the fact that I will do my best not to end up there, it is not going to be easy for that to happen. The best advice is to fight your own game and not the opponents fight. If he's a grappler then don't grapple him, and so on. Again if one has had absolutely no exposure to grappling arts then they will definetly be at a disadvantage, but once the eyes are open it is not so easy for them.

As for William Cheung/Emin Boztepe, I've heard there are two versions of the fight, and the copy I got is from the WT camp, but I have heard that Cheung countered Boztepe's attacks before the ground fighting part, so if that is true then Cheung wasn't too old then was he.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

There are definitely two sides to the story of what happened in Cologne, Germany in 1986.

But the controversy surrounding the event will never die if we keep allowing ourselves to be trolled (goaded) into constantly rehashing it...debating it...arguing about it. (And even fighting about it).

Sometimes I think it's constantly revisited because some people are jealous of who/what William Cheung is...in terms of his "place" in the Wing Chun world - and what he has achieved.

And the same for Emin Boztepe.

These are two dominant figures in WC land. For better or for worse.

Divide and conquer.

Think about it.


AND THEN FORGET IT.

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by anerlich
I think you have to work the worst case scenario to some degree, which includes you getting taken down and pinned.

**That is true.

To learn takedown defense, best way is to learn takedowns. If you and your buds want to learn takedown defense, you better learn good takedowns so what you are practicing defense against is real rather than kidding yourself regarding the efficacy of what you are doing.

***LOL, this is really true and I imagine happens a lot, I know I have seen it at seminars by very well known masters who have their own systems.


Appeal to authority. And, other "famous Sifus" have other opinions.


***OK, touche ;) My point or question is once you go down the path of studying a different art, in this case BJJ groundfighting when do you stop? If wing chun is your primary art then you are never going to be as competent on the ground as the person who practices BJJ as their primary art.

Dave Cobb

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
It wouldn't hurt anything to add a ground fighting art like BJJ to your Wing Chun, same with adding TKD or Muay Thai or any other MA out there. James,
IMO, there is NO VALUE to adding anything from TKD to WC. Now this is based purely on my experience. But let's face it, that's all we have to go by, right? You can certainly add concepts, techniques or whatever from other arts if you wish, but for heavens sakes, use some discretion. Next thing you know, you will be adding a cresent kick to your WC. ;)

[t_niehoff]

sihing asks:

It wouldn't hurt anything to add a ground fighting art like BJJ to your Wing Chun, same with adding TKD or Muay Thai or any other MA out there. But like chisauking said, time for some is limited, and if it is then what does one do?

**It depends upon what your objective is and what demands are being placed on you. You get what you train for. If, for example, someone is trying to develop greater fighting skill, should they also learn and develop skill with dealing with a headlock, dealing with a shoot, escaping a pin, etc.? If they aren't training for fighting but only for form competition, for example, then does that matter? Time is limited -- for everyone. But if our objective is to become a better fighter, then we need to know where the "holes" are in our fighting skills, and fill those holes. A person shouldn't just willy-nilly study all kinds of martial arts; that may, in fact, actually be counter-productive since it may train conflicting things. But to fight effectively they need to have certain "base skills" and that includes dealing with striking, grappling and groundfighting.

**The funny thing is that folks that spend all kinds of time doing forms and drills but not fighting, so that they never develop any true fighting skills, are the first to whine about not having the time to really train to fight. Some may think they can rely on their striking power to deal with all things. Helio Gracie once said, "There are lots of tough guys that can take a punch; with choke, there are no tough guys." Lots of people put all their eggs in one basket and expect the best; others train for the worst, and hope for the best.

[saifa5k]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ernie
[B]ha ha man anything that starts with [ sifu said ] even worse famous sifu said

tells you all you need to know

**HO Kam MIng was the sifu that I was quoting. Personally I will take his advice and experience over yours.



real life experience please step forward

***you know nothing of my real life experience.

Dave c

Political incorrectness is no exuse for rudness but a sign of immaturity.

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by Matrix
James,
IMO, there is NO VALUE to adding anything from TKD to WC. Now this is based purely on my experience. But let's face it, that's all we have to go by, right? You can certainly add concepts, techniques or whatever from other arts if you wish, but for heavens sakes, use some discretion. Next thing you know, you will be adding a cresent kick to your WC. ;)

**I agree completely. One theme that seems to permeate thru this thread is it seems like most of the ground fighting advocates seem to be implying that those of us who dont cross train in BJJ are I think they use the word "theoretical" fighters as opposed to their no holds barred biting the nuts (ya sure) style of fighing. OH WELL Guess in their opinion full contact sparring while staying vertical doesnt count.

**Personally I think wing chun is full of anti-grappling escapes,

***Most overstated myth since the Gracies "All fights go to the ground". Funny thing before the UFC I cant recall that cliche??

****If a person has the time an energy to devote to crosstraing thats fine but dont insult the rest of us who practice wing chun.


******This is the wing chun forum right ;))
Dave c

[anerlich]

But some ground fighters reacted so defensly to what I'd said it's as though I'm thretenting their livelyhood.

You haven't exactly been Nelson Mandela yourself when it comes to posting style. If you want to upgrade the politeness level of this discussion, start by standing in front of a mirror.

[anerlich]

If wing chun is your primary art then you are never going to be as competent on the ground as the person who practices BJJ as their primary art.

I dunno, I went to a BJJ grading a couple of weeks ago ... I believe my BJJ skills were at about the same level as those of guys that had been training the same length of time as I at supposed "full time BJJ schools".

There are very few of those anyway, all the BJJ schools I know cross train in either kickboxing, Muay Thai, or hapkido.

There are phenoms who can get to very high skill levels in short periods of time, and don't work but just train, but they will always be rarities.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"One theme that seems to permeate thru this thread is it seems like most of the ground fighting advocates seem to be implying that those of us who dont cross train in BJJ are I think they use the word "theoretical" fighters... (saifa5k - Dave C)



No...No...those of you who don't crosstrain in Catch-As-Catch-Can Wrestling are "theoretical" fighters.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Matrix
James,
IMO, there is NO VALUE to adding anything from TKD to WC. Now this is based purely on my experience. But let's face it, that's all we have to go by, right? You can certainly add concepts, techniques or whatever from other arts if you wish, but for heavens sakes, use some discretion. Next thing you know, you will be adding a cresent kick to your WC. ;)

As a matter of fact Bill there is a cresent kick in WC. I perform it in the Quan Sao section of the Bil Jee form, from the cross stomp/sweeping kick to one side then to the other side a front or cresent kick can be alternated.

James

[Matrix]

Originally posted by sihing
[B]As a matter of fact Bill there is a cresent kick in WC.[B] No, there isn't. Not in the WC I know anyways, but hey I don't claim to have a lock on the truth. Anyone else here use a Cresent Kick?

[Ultimatewingchun]

No...Bill.

But I use a flying dropkick. I learned it from Antonino "Argentina" Rocca back in 1965.

He learned it from Yip Man when he visited Hong Kong before returning to the United States in 1962 to wrestle "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers.

But Rogers submitted him with a figure 4 leg lock.


(Alas....Antonino should have chain-punched).

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
But I use a flying dropkick. I learned it from Antonino "Argentina" Rocca back in 1965. Cool!! I'd love to see that one in action..... :D

[unkokusai]

Originally posted by anerlich
You haven't exactly been Nelson Mandela yourself

He hasn't been a crazy old man?

[t_niehoff]

saifa5k wrote:

One theme that seems to permeate thru this thread is it seems like most of the ground fighting advocates seem to be implying that those of us who dont cross train in BJJ are I think they use the word "theoretical" fighters...Guess in their opinion full contact sparring while staying vertical doesnt count.

**My perspective is that generally I don't want to be on the ground in a fight, but my experience is that I don't always have that choice. I've found that I need to be able to deal with strikes, grappling and groundfighting. What I've found is that folks that are fighting as part of their training, not just "sparring" with other stand-up fighters or schoolmates (for example, if you only face boxers, you may not appreciate the need to defend the shoot), have all reached the same conclusion. Consider the Cheung-Boztepe fight -- how much would "vertical full-contact sparring" have helped? Having skill in the body-to-body clinch and on the ground would have made all the difference. My training motto is: prepare for the worst and hope for the best (rather than expect everything to go just as I want it to). The sign of a theoretician (someone that isn't fighting) is that they approach fighting from the perspective of "this is how fighting should be" rather than "this is how fighting is".

[Vajramusti]

Analysis, experience, fighting, learning properly are not mutually exclusive worlds.

[t_niehoff]

Joy, you are absolutely correct -- they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are very much interdependent.

[Shadowboxer]

What do you suppose those fighters learned about SNT, CK, BJ, etc. from their experience in the ring as they go back to step #2?

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Matrix
Terence,
I have a lot of fighting experience, in the ring. I was a kick boxer for several years. Full contact, Knock Out, no head gear. You don't have a clue about my experience, so be careful about drawing the wrong conclusions. When I look at these clips, I'm looking from the point of view of someone who has fought under those circumstances - many times, and quite frankly I see cr@p. Then I guess until somebody posts a different (less crappy???) clip, we will have to assume that WC used under full contact circumstances like those shown on the clip is crappy fighting.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by chisauking
Yes, it demonstrates that anyone that's been preparing themselves for a fight well in 1-year in advance will always be better conditioned than the person that had not. Again, can anyone on this forum say that if Marvin Hagler or Ray Leneord were challenged by a boxer that's been in training for one thing and one thing only for a year, for a fight tommoror, out of the blue, would they stand a chance of winning? Maybe not...but I'm thinking they would probably at least be able to use a little bit of their boxing skills.


Originally posted by chisauking
Finally, this fight proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a bigger and stronger man will always win on the ground. If someone that's been practising for over 30-years and still couldn't appy his skills in this environment, what chances have you? Even if willy cheung was a black belt of Pakistani Ju Jitsu, he would still have lost.. simply because he was over-powered by a much stronger guy. He conceeded too much on the ground. Grappling is highly reliant on size and strength -- You are right... WC is your game. You know absolutely nothing of grappling.


Originally posted by chisauking
Why do you think virtually no females are in BJJ?Because most women don't like the close, hard contact that BJJ requires.

[Merryprankster]

Grappling is highly reliant on size and strength --

*snicker*

*snort*

*BWAHAHAHAHAHA*


I'll be sure to tell this to my wife, who has mauled several men bigger, stronger and faster than she is. And "natural athlete" does not exactly come to mind when describing her. Dedicated, motivated and persistent, absolutely, but not naturally gifted.

If SHE can do it, anybody can.

[old jong]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
*snicker*

*snort*

*BWAHAHAHAHAHA*


I'll be sure to tell this to my wife, who has mauled several men bigger, stronger and faster than she is. And "natural athlete" does not exactly come to mind when describing her. Dedicated, motivated and persistent, absolutely, but not naturally gifted.

If SHE can do it, anybody can.

Interesting story! In what kind of circumstances did she "mauled" these men?...

[Merryprankster]

Old Jong,

It was grappling sparring, so everybody was playing by the same rules.

However, given that the poster I am responding to said specifically that GRAPPLING requires size and strength and that the bigger and stronger person will always win, this goes even more to the heart of the issue.

In a straight grappling exercise, where no striking was allowed, the bigger, stronger, faster person - who is not my wife - lost.

Sooooo..... it would seem that in grappling, much like anything else, the bigger, stronger, faster person can lose to somebody who is better. Which is my (very narrow) point. While size and strength confer an advantage in any personal combat situation, they are not decisive on their own, even in grappling.

And by mauled, I refer to their egos which were severely bruised. :)

In a fight, who knows....but she's had Kenpo experience and some MT experience and isn't afraid to mix it up....and I've seen her whack a couple of guys around doing that too.

[old jong]

O.K. Merryprankster,that clears it up.
BTW my wife produced her first Chi Ball recently and completely incinerated the turkey she was putting in the oven by accident.Too much "intent" I think!...;) :D

[anerlich]

Why do you think virtually no females are in BJJ?

This is complete rubbish. The ratios are probably similar to WC and perhaps female representation may be stronger in BJJ.

Of the six blue belts at my school, two are female, and on the petite side.




Finally, this fight proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a bigger and stronger man will always win on the ground.

Crap. Nogiera vs Bob Sapp. Genki Sudo vs Butterbean.

Stick to arguments you can back up with facts rather than your own wishful prejudiced thinking.

[Merryprankster]

my wife produced her first Chi Ball recently and completely incinerated the turkey she was putting in the oven by accident.

My wife doesn't cook and I suspect that cooking turkey via chi ball is an "ancient chinese secret," I'm not privy to.

[old jong]

The "chi-broil" application is the most difficult to master!...Also,she wouldn't dare using her "Reiki" out of fear of bringing the turkey back to life again!...:D

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Then I guess until somebody posts a different (less crappy???) clip, we will have to assume that WC used under full contact circumstances like those shown on the clip is crappy fighting. Since it seems to make you feel better to think this way, then Yes, I think that's what you should assume. :D

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Matrix
Since it seems to make you feel better to think this way, then Yes, I think that's what you should assume. :D Actually, what would make me happy would be to see some WC applied against a fully resisting opponent that you guys can agree is quality WC. That shouldn't be so hard, should it?

[Ultimatewingchun]

and the trolling never ends.............

[planetwc]

Finally downloaded and viewed those clips. Saw the second one before.
I think those young men are building a good experience with dealing with pressure AND with dealing with the ground.

Why? Simply because they've been there with classmates actively pounding the daylights out of them.

As they continue to build competance in basic Wing Chun skills AND continue to full contact spar, they will get a greater sense of what works and what doesn't for THEM.

I think their teacher should have stepped in sooner on a lot of those fights however. There were guys taking a lot of punishment they didn't need to.

I notice the also liked to use a LOT of downward elbows to the back of the head to drive their opponent to the ground. And I did see several submissions as well on the ground (kimuras and triangles).

The good thing is they are sparring full out. The question is why are they using some strikes which are not Wing Chun at all, rather more like hammer strikes?

I would also think that they need coaching on calming down so that they get better at conserving energy and not wasting strikes that don't connect and burning themselves out.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
and the trolling never ends............. Trolling? I gave the guys in the clip (second, shorter kong sao) props and stated that that's how I believed WC would look when used in a real confrontation against a fully resisting opponent. Matrix is claiming that what they were doing was crap. All I'm wondering, if that is the case, where is the good stuff that is going to look different from that? Or does all the "real-looking WC" just stay locked behind closed doors never to see the light of day?

[old jong]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
and the trolling never ends.............

The never ending story!:rolleyes: ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

KF:

I gave the clips props too - but there's not much Wing Chun in it...something you seem to think indicates that there's very little that WC can bring to the table in reality fighting.

And I know that's not true.

The clips will keep coming - now that the door is opened.

And the Wing Chun techniques will be getting better.

Now, speaking of clips...................

[saifa5k]

**Hi Terence,


Originally posted by t_niehoff
[

Terence writes:
My perspective is that generally I don't want to be on the ground in a fight, but my experience is that I don't always have that choice.

**True
I've found that I need to be able to deal with strikes, grappling and groundfighting. What I've found is that folks that are fighting as part of their training, not just "sparring" with other stand-up fighters or schoolmates

**Are you making a distinction between sparring and actual fighting or are you saying that standup fighters are sparring while groundfighters are really fighters? Isnt sparring a controlled fight without the anger?

(for example, if you only face boxers, you may not appreciate the need to defend the shoot),

**true.

have all reached the same conclusion. Consider the Cheung-Boztepe fight -- how much would "vertical full-contact sparring" have helped? Having skill in the body-to-body clinch and on the ground would have made all the difference.

**I seriously doubt it, WC was blindsided, sandbagged, and totally surprised. IMO what happened did not prove a thing except some people have no scruples.

My training motto is: prepare for the worst and hope for the best (rather than expect everything to go just as I want it to).

**Good motto.

The sign of a theoretician (someone that isn't fighting)

**Ok, just dont make the assumption that those of us who wish to spend our training time on wing chun are unfamilar with street fighting. I imagine that the opposite is true in fact.


is that they approach fighting from the perspective of "this is how fighting should be" rather than "this is how fighting is".

**Now that I agree with and know a lot of karate people that would fall into that category.

Dave c


[/B]

[SAAMAG]

**I seriously doubt it, WC was blindsided, sandbagged, and totally surprised. IMO what happened did not prove a thing except some people have no scruples


Videos don't lie. No matter what you may feel personally. What if you were "blindsided, sandbagged, and *gasp!*... totally suprised in a fight?! In the real world, that's how things happen. No one is going to announce they are about to beat you down, or stab you, or shoot you...not if they have real intentions on hurting or killing you. William should have expected what came, and should not have blamed his shoes for lack of preparation.

Beyond that...it was a long time ago...and really has no relevance now.

[saifa5k]

Hello Vankuen,

QUOTE]Originally posted by Vankuen
Videos don't lie. No matter what you may feel personally. What if you were "blindsided, sandbagged, and *gasp!*... totally suprised in a fight?! In the real world, that's how things happen. No one is going to announce they are about to beat you down, or stab you, or shoot you...not if they have real intentions on hurting or killing you.


**I agree 1000 %! Usually the sucker punch comes out of nowhere. Been on both ends of that spectrum.

William should have expected what came, and should not have blamed his shoes for lack of preparation.

**LOL, I think his problem was a little deeper than that. Still it was a pretty cheap shot regardless of what your politics are.

Beyond that...it was a long time ago...and really has no relevance now. [/QUOTE]

**I believe someone brought it up to justify the argument tha tall fights go to ground. Guess I am just plain lucky that the few unfortunate incidences that I have been involved in didnt, ;).

Dave c

[Merryprankster]

I believe someone brought it up to justify the argument tha tall fights go to ground.

No.... they brought it up to show that being trained is no guarantee of anything.

[t_niehoff]

MP wrote:

No.... they brought it up to show that being trained is no guarantee of anything.

**Exactly. I think it was Wong Sheung Leung that said that "fighting is gambling". All our training does is increase our chances but it doesn't guarantee an outcome.

[anerlich]

I believe someone brought it up to justify the argument tha tall fights go to ground.

No. I brought it up to show that on a bad day even one of the most prominent WC guys in the world can get taken down, and that once down he was unable to effectively respond, despite being very highly skilled at WC, and that the supposed thermonuclear options of eye gouging, biting and groin squeezing were also available to him.

What are these "tall fights", anyway? :D



I think it was Wong Sheung Leung that said that "fighting is gambling".

He didn't make it up. Another KF teacher of 40 years experience I know uses the white tiger as his spirit animal, as have several generations of teachers before him, for may reasons, but among them the notion that the white tiger is the mascot of gamblers, reminding us that all combat is a gamble.