Wing Chun and fighting-How to do it? [Archive]

Vajramusti

12-15-2004, 08:31 AM

Good posts YP, Hunt 1 and Ray.

There are different kinds of "powers"... and terminology varies with families...

keng jeng is fajing(mandarin) with yp.But keng geng means listening power to me. Bau ja lik is exploding power to me.
Demoing is the best way to uderstand the varieties of power and the uses of the wing chun engine when properly built.

Also "fighting" is nota fixed entity. Each fight has unique aspects to it- place, time, environment, nature of the other fella(s). You fight four persons and your techniques can work- then they may ve useless aginst the 5th. Chi sao with all kinds of people can give you a sense of different folks timing for your reflexive memory bank..

But one aspect of the thread-re whether wing chun works. One very brief real world example: Some years ago in a southwestern city I and my number two son were waiting at a Trailways bus station for a relative to come in ona bus. Number two son was/is a hyperactive character... constantly running in and out of the bus station door to see whther the bus had come in.
There was a burly man(bigger, younger and stronger than me) who serviced vending machines around town witha truck and dollies. . My son irritated him by running in and out. Understandable but the man's reaction was unacceptable.. So the man confronts my son and says something like "Go****** kid- get your ass over there and sit down". I was a little further away. My son was shocked at the language and looked at me and said something like"Dad did you hear what he said"?
So I walked up to the guy and said something like"Sir- I have trained my kid to respect elders- but you sir are a a son of a
*****". The guy maddened and angry- immediately cursed and threw the equivalent of a good powerful right hook. I stepped forward witha right hand kau sao(straight out of slt) and then a fan sao(separating hand from slt)- left hand controlled his hand and him and my controlled right palm(palm down strike) was at his throat and controlling his throat and him. Dangerous business- working with the throat. Requires control.
I said something like-"I wouldnt do that". He looked shocked surpised and was mumbling something and was basically ineffective and off balance..and I pushed him aside.
End of fight. No permanent damage.
The bus station mangement(they knew the guy and had good relations with him) called 911. The investigating officer accepted my explanation of self defense- no charges. I didn't press charges aginst the thoroughly demoralized man either.
Not a 15 roumd fight. Not a championship match- but as in Shane- you gotta do what you gotta do. Short. sweet and to the point. I knew that wing chun kau sao and fan sao were for real- if you know what you are doing and have developed the appropriate wc skill and timing and control and power...
for the kau sau and fan sao and you know the appropriate lines of attack and defense.

I am generally reluctant to talk about experiences on the net- but I mention this briefly on this thread....because of the talk on the weaknesses of wc and the arbitrary lines between technicians and fighters in some forum posts.The kaosao-fan sao combination may not be the most appropriate for a different occasion and a different opponent. Wing chun is not a collection of memorized techniques...

yellowpikachu

12-15-2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by hunt1
YP- nice post I agree.

Problem is what type of power generation engine is used.

From what i have seen most use an engine that is not necessarily a wing chun engine but it works.

On other threads you ask about Keng Geng. People may have it but not know the name could you give an overview of theit or the mechanics. I personaly have always found chinese confusing. Depending where in China the art is from different terms describe the same thing. Also some teachers teach by hand, They cant describe what they do but can show it. What you call Keng Geng others might say is Fa Jing.

1, in a proffesional way, IMHHO, when the engine is not necessary a Wing Chun endose power generation enginee but a substitution. Then, one has to know what is the pro and con of that enginee and how well it fit with the Wing Chun methodology.
without a clear understanding, we question is that Wing Chun?

2, IMHO, from my reading of the technical history, Keng Geng or Chuck Geng requirement is because in order for WCK to achive its full potential, a power generation with a characteristic of --- default in relax sensing and awareness, almost "Zero second" acceleration, minimum muscle dependency, and always in equilbrium dynamicaly --- is a must.
Otherwise, SLT will not work.

So, while developing the SLT, the Keng Geng or Chuck Geng or Full Arrow platform were developed in the sametimes.

Keng Geng is just means " shock power generation" Chuck Geng is just means " speedly power generation" These two terms are describing this - default in relax sensing/listening and awareness, almost "Zero second" acceleration, minimum muscle dependency and always in equilbrium dynamicaly.

Shock or Keng because it looks "suddent" powered from no where out of the blue while the body is in trainquil relax. Chuck means speedy which is another way to describe the default in relax sensing/listening and awareness, almost "Zero second" acceleration, minimum muscle dependency power. no "pre" preparation needed to generate the power.

So, without this type of power, close range ie elbow range inward combat is not going to be the same drastically. Say, IE a guy rushing in to grab and take down the ancestors WCner with the Keng Geng or Chuck Geng capability. The ancestor has no fear and do not tensing oneself to "against"or sustain the incoming momentum But welcome in awareness and relax for the momentum to land into the domain to disolve it with the power generation when the timing is confirm. as it said, subdue the action with silence.

So, without chuck geng or the speedy/"zero" acceleration time capability, that is not possible to achive.

In addition, with the capability of Keng Geng, make possible for one to stay all the time in Awareness listening or sensing or Chi as in Chi Sau without tensing, but will have the power needed "anytime" the call for power is needed.

The ancient description of the WCK STAGE is ---- Silencely analogy to the surface of a lake's wave always at ease and "aware". impulsely analogy to suddent raise Tida wave which rock and shock the sea. and it is always nature. Note that there is no mention of this or that technics or kiu sau....etc
But boil down to 1, nature 2, aware, 3, capable of huge power and tranquil with ease. 4, it is always pendulum-ing or oscilating similar to the wave. it is non linear.

So, from studying the technical history from LJ lineage or Yik kam lineage, there were solid evidents of this power generation exist.
Yik Kam was described using this type of power to beat the Cho's brothers prior the Cho learn WCK. Chuck Geng is a term from KuLao if I am not wrong.

So, I am interested in the Process of how to attain this keng Geng or the WCK STAGE. Perhaps some one in this forum know how to do it. So they can help us. So, No, it is not about theory or fighting or... all the ego i am more practical then you or I know more then you or I am more origine then you or I have that ZEN term. the question is do one have that process that technology and it shown if the technology is there if the person decide to show insteat of flying in the stealh spy plane mode to cover up.

As for fighting, one can fight in different way and effective. but is it as Describe in the WCK STAGE? if not, then is it WCK? Certainly it is great to brought up fighitng....etc. But , IMHHO, if one doesnt reach or Attained the WCK STAGE with WCK processes. Then, what to discuss? Based on personal "speculation" ? Is that still WCK?

just some thoughts based on Thus I have heard in the Technical History of WCK. and no, Keng Geng or Chuck Geng is not just Chinese term. it has its meaning. and It is not Fajing too. Because Fajing is a common term. Jing or Geng or power itself has atleast 6 different type in internal art. So, why there are so many types? because those ancient ancestors of TCMA knows it will be very difficult to disolve a power which has a different patterns of different force vector combination or the six directional force. Such as a Tan sau is great if the in comming force comes in a certain way and carry a monotonous resultant force patern. but, when the incoming force has an adaptive and non-monotonous resultant force patern, then one will absorb the force and cannot neutralized or dissipate it.

Thus, from the technnical history we know today that there are lots of Process being lost. Thus, when some one brouth up the Song/Chen or Zheng trying to compare with the Falling Step. that is not a quality understanding but real muddy understanding of the components of TCMA. and that cant be valid.

Thus, how can one advocate figthing as the "ultimate" correct way of learning the real WCK where one doesnt clearly understand the basic fundamental components of TCMA or even WCK? is going wild and gongho and forcing and using whatever (even bringing a steel hammer to hit) WCK? I dont deny the capability of some dont even have to learn martial art to beat others in the street. But is that WCK?

merry xmas and happy new year.

hunt1

12-15-2004, 02:27 PM

Joy great post thanks for sharing.
Yp- I agree with you thanks for posting.
I think one of the problems is is that wing chun body is different tahn what many are used to and it takes a long time to reprogram. Its one thing to learn the mechanics another to apply them. I think that when application comes many revert to what is more natural.

I keep looking for all the fighters to share with us what they have learned from their 100% effort training.

Ernie

12-15-2004, 02:30 PM

hell i'm still waiting for all the talkers to share anything :)

hunt1

12-15-2004, 02:47 PM

Aw Ernie thats not fair is it?

From what I have been reading the fighters dont think the talkers have anything worth sharing cause they dont fight so how can they know!

At the same time the fighters keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over !

This is a wing chun discussion forum so I just think it would be nice for the fighters ,some of whom seem to know everything and if they dont know it its not worth knowing, share some specifics thats all.

For example lots of peeps were taught 0/100 bong-shift. Any find that this works just like they were taught in the forms or did changes have to be made? Its possible that someone found that they kept getting taken down or fell victim to a shoulder when they did this and so made some changes.:) :eek:

Ernie

12-15-2004, 02:57 PM

i believe every one has something to offer [ fighting ] what ever version of it people do is just the tip of the ice berg

10%

everything that builds you up that point , drills , solo, training , conditioning , research and so on is the foundation for skill development [ training system]

90%

fighting is the lab were we get personal experience in useing and dialing in those skills the training system exposed us to

so all the talkers , should feel proud to put there training methods up for all to see , especially when they mouth off on how they have the good wing chun or the secret scroll stuff .

but oddly those that sit back and talk the most smack about what is good and how they are lineage holders blah blah blah

are the ones that never show anything and when confronted talk about some one elses skill or some one elses video clip to prove there point never there own

so there just as bad if not worse then the fighters [ what ever that means ]

hell if you can back up what you say , put it up there ,
but of course they won't , suddenly the get all humble
;)

SAAMAG

12-15-2004, 03:07 PM

Okay, I've got one for you directly related to you last post.

In relation to shifting, the EBMAS school that Im currently at stresses a close arrow stance with 0-100 weighting...pivot point in the middle of the foot (not ball or heel) . I had come across this philosophy of weighting in other styles of gung fu from previous years, and had since done away with it due to it's lack of mobility, and just general lack of effectiveness short of defending against lead leg kicks/sweeps.

Since then, in fighting, I've adopted a 50/50 weight dispertion at any given moment, on occasion shifting weight where need be but then going back to the 50/50 weighting. I did this because I performed better this way. I was able to move in any direction quicker, and easier.

Now....Im back to the 0-100 weighting with EBMAS. Go figure. I will keep an open mind with it and try it again, because apparently it works for Sifu Emin...I'll try again to see if I can make it work for myself. Besides, I kind of have to do it this way while in that class. Oh well.

But there's an example for ya~

Ernie

12-15-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by old jong
We are still waiting to see something from those "fighters" :rolleyes: who are BTW the biggest "talkers" on this forum!...
Many have life experiences like what Joy posted about but it is getting less and less pleasant to "share" around here by the times being.

Jong ,
i know what you are saying , but i would be more impressed by the [ good wing chun is this and that not to be confused with blah blah blah ]

people to put up or shut up

people that fight have aggresive ways about them so they by that nature will mouth off

that is a given

it's the high and mighty wing chun snobs i'm waiting on

as for sharing , Joy gets thumbs up man , those real life stories are the little things that keep us going and in check as far as what might and does happen outside the ring

i respect that , as you have shared your work experiences as well i respect that

no one can tell you anything about your personal experience it is yours end of story

as for this forum , yep it's burning out quick , lines are gettng drawn in the sand , and people stopped listening a long time ago everyone seems to be just waiting for there turn to speak and say the same thing over and over andover and over .........:rolleyes:

old jong

12-15-2004, 03:20 PM

I prefer to stay out of this thread. I deleted my post for that reason.

hunt1

12-15-2004, 03:21 PM

Thanks for the post Van just the type of thing I was hoping for.

Ernie you have valid points but it doesnt get any of us anywhere if no one steps up and shares how they made their wing chun work.

There was a time one I first joined this forum way back when when people didnt just talk and put others down because they dont see that they are wrong. There were discussions that you could actually learn things from.

Everyone,well almost everyone ,knows there is a transition from training drills ,chi sao or what ever to real usage. so to keep repeating the mantra 'you have to fight' doesnt help nor will it open eyes. Providing actual examples that people can relate to might do that at least in some cases.

So come on follow Vans example give us just one thing that you were taught in a form or drill that you adjusted because of sparring or fighting or playing with your buds(thats how I look at it but many think I am a card short of a deck) or whatever.

Ernie

12-15-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by hunt1
Thanks for the post Van just the type of thing I was hoping for.

Ernie you have valid points but it doesnt get any of us anywhere if no one steps up and shares how they made their wing chun work.

There was a time one I first joined this forum way back when when people didnt just talk and put others down because they dont see that they are wrong. There were discussions that you could actually learn things from.

Everyone,well almost everyone ,knows there is a transition from training drills ,chi sao or what ever to real usage. so to keep repeating the mantra 'you have to fight' doesnt help nor will it open eyes. Providing actual examples that people can relate to might do that at least in some cases.

So come on follow Vans example give us just one thing that you were taught in a form or drill that you adjusted because of sparring or fighting or playing with your buds(thats how I look at it but many think I am a card short of a deck) or whatever.

Hunt,
first your right there was a time when this was a very healthy place for all to talk and share

i miss that time as well

as for things from the form , to be honest i'm beyond that now
i don't think in tan,bong,and fook etc anymore

sure those were great guides to get the feeling of connection and structure

but they are fixed moments

i think more on timing , distance , feeling , reading a person
stuff like that

what i use at any given moment is not even a thought it just is what it is at that time and might be something else the next time
based on the person infront of me and what he offers

it's one of the reasons i never get into technique conversations , it's like disecting a corpse

argueing about a dead moment

sure in my first few years i was ver oppinionated about this or that angle

but now not so much

it's more the concept and expressing that concept in motion while some one is trying to do there thing that peaks my interest

this is my transition from the training system [ forms ,chi sau. etc]
to being able to find the moments and apply the skills

then perhaps i will go back to the begining and look at all over again with personal experience and get a deeper understanding based on what i went through

you know i'm down to share ,

i'm just in a different phase right now ;)

yellowpikachu

12-15-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by hunt1

I think one of the problems is is that wing chun body is different tahn what many are used to and it takes a long time to reprogram.

Its one thing to learn the mechanics another to apply them. I think that when application comes many revert to what is more natural.

I think here is the issue.

For me,
learning about the mechanics is not equal to "Knowing".

without "knowing" there is no way one can smoothly apply the technics.

IE. learning about how to punch doesnt mean one knows how to punch. to be able to use/apply the punch one has to know the punch.

However,
Today martial art world has a tendency of either stop at the studying mechanics step thinking that is ultimate or going from Learning the mechanics directly going into application without going through the "knowing" step thinking that is the ultimate.

Thus, my view on this so called talker and fighter stuffs exist because.

The one who learn the mechanics without "know" cant use the art even though one think one learn the mechanics. IE. learning a SLT set is not knowing the SLT set.

The one who learn the Application straight without knowing there is a step " Knowing the body of the art" take everyone who speak about the mechanics and process as one who just learn study the mechanics because one can use a certain technics or test a certain technics which the one who only learn the mechanics cant do. Thus, one in denial about lots of ancient teaching. IE. while fighting, that fighting is different to the practice of SLT set. they are not converge. the SLT practice one thing and fighting is another thing.

And the labering of this person is this and that person it that. goes on and make the seperation and opposition and feeding the who is superior trap which needs not to happen if the full view is seen. Taking one's view as the truth without understand the existance of other path is be itself extreme act.

as for, "it takes a long time to reprogram." that is an important issue because some technics wont work without the kung. and that become a big issue in today's world of everything going the fast food way unfortunately. EI, with the capability of close range Kung, there is an immune power from being easily being taking down. Without the close range Kung, being taken down is 100%.

"knowing" is about Kung. Yes, Kung fu's kung in the classical sense. As the shao Lin or Mas Oyama describe -- without practice thousand of repetition on a proven process one simply dont know.

notice, the process is not about being able to talk theory or philosophy. such as, one can talk all day about Zen but cant even get to Theta everytime one sit in meditation. one needs the process to be able to surely get into Theta wave as one likes it.

On the other hand, without the philosophy it is also incomplete. with the same Zen example above. Zen meditation is to expand awareness. when one by tri and erro can get into certain alterstate while meditation doesnt mean one is doing expanding the awareness. so, not everything is Zen.

just some thoughts.

yellowpikachu

12-15-2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by hunt1

Everyone,well almost everyone ,knows there is a transition from training drills ,chi sao or what ever to real usage. so to keep repeating the mantra 'you have to fight' doesnt help nor will it open eyes. Providing actual examples that people can relate to might do that at least in some cases.

hunt1,

IMHO, my take on the weakess link which prohibit some WCner alots is the subsconcious rigid tensing between the lower back to the upper knees. This is one of the big issue of getting WCK into trouble from mobility, stablity, to power geneartion. This is a bad bad habit pick up during doing SLT without know the process of snake body.

Tensing this part habitually destroy the integration of the whole body. if this part of the body is integrate with ease then it will help the execution and flow of the momentum.

To be able to fight needs this part of the body to be well train. IMHHo.

on other hand, beside the Kung such as the Keng Geng... Thus i have heard, in the old time general fundamental knowledge of preparation for combat.

A
one has to know fighting has few general types of attact in order to be able to handle the battle zone big picture.

1, testing attact. 2, speedy attack. 3, power confrontation attact. 4, defence attact....ect

B
depend on the relative hieght, there also different approach to deal with the situation and selecting the path of trajectory and distance.
1, same height, 2, opponent is shorter, 3, opponent is taller, .......

C
different type of opponent, to decide tactic, timing....
1, the type with defence and counter
2, the type with a certain well train moves
3, the type with fast attack.
4, the power confrontation..
5,.......

D,

E,....etc

All of these above are some basic on how to handle the war zone, the paht, and the tactic , and more. These come with the training of the Woodern Dummy instead of just doing the dummy set and then doing the heavy bag and punch like a TKD.

But always the Kung is place as the most important because if one does not have the Kung to knock the other down. all of the above is useless. and the basic understanding such as the above is important both in understanding and doing drill with all different combination of possibility. so there is no one size fit all. lots of cases needs to be work out.

just a first 2 cents hope that this discussion can build up a contructive view to communicate and stop the labeling of as figther or talker.... which is not solving any issue.

PaulH

12-15-2004, 06:00 PM

The Greater Self (K. Gibran)
__________________________

This came to pass. After the coronation of Nufsibaal King of Byblus, he retired to his bed-chamber -- the very room which the three hermit-magicians of the mountains had built for him. He took off his crown and his royal raiment, and stood in the centre of the room thinking of himself, now the all-powerful ruler of Byblus.
Suddenly he turned; and he saw stepping out of the silver mirror which his mother had given him, a naked man.
The king was startled, and he cried out to the man, "What would you?"
And the naked man answered, "Naught but this: Why have they crowned you king?"
And the king answered, "Because I am the noblest man in the land."
Then the naked man said, "If you were still more noble, you would not be king."
And the king said, "Because I am the mightiest man in the land they crowned me."
And the naked man said, "If you were mightier yet, you would not be king."
Then the king said, "Because I am the wisest man they crowned me king."
And the naked man said, "If you were still wiser you would not choose to be king."
Then the king fell to the floor and wept bitterly.
The naked man looked down upon him. Then he took up the crown and with tenderness replaced it upon the king's bent head.
And the naked man, gazing lovingly upon the king, entered into the mirror.
And the king roused, and straightway he looked into the mirror. And he saw there but himself crowned.

sihing

12-15-2004, 10:06 PM

To postulate an answer to the question of this thread, "How does one fight with Wing Chun", IMO first you have to learn how to control your own body, its structure and reaction. Everybody that comes in fresh has his or her own way to move and react. 99.9% of the time it is wrong, therefore inefficient and ineffective. This is achieved by a multitude of things combined and performed over and over again with more intensity added as one becomes more proficient, forms, drills, theory discussion, chi-sao. This is why we have manuals and books and videos, to learn these things and absorb them into ourselves to make it a part of the whole. One thing I also did to speed up this process was watch videos of my Sifu, over and over again performing the movements. I would go out to the bar for the night, come home put in the tape of the last Demo Sifu did and absorb the rhythm, timing, structure, etc.. of what perfect Wing Chun application means to me.

Once this has happened then you have to learn how to read the opponents intentions and apply the concepts, principals and techniques learned earlier. We use particular drills that teach this and as one becomes more skilled with it the randomness and sparring increases in intensity.

Now, since we all know that not everything is going to work perfectly, one has to learn to adapt and interrupt their movements and adjust what they are doing in one moment to something else effective in the next moment. Chi-sao and experience teach this, but to tell you the truth you won't have to use this concept much, because IMO WC has so many back up and secondary defense structures/strategies and very good up front attacking strategies built into it that only when fighting very skilled opponents will those things apply, and how often is that going to happen.

Eventually I believe that an individual transcends the art totally and the Wing Chun becomes a part of them and they live the art in their everyday lives. Everything they do has a WC element in it and in essence they are practicing all the time.

Have I learned specific things through out the training and fighting? Yes, for one thing kicks are very hard to apply successfully in real fighting when the opponent is being defensive and reactive unless the opponent has no idea how to defend themselves against them. The time it takes to execute a kick, and bring it back to the ground and follow up requires more energy, time and space (HFY?) than to stay on your two feet and apply hand movements and such. Only when the opponent is advancing forward and has the intention to initiate the attacks will kicks work really well. Also, trying not to anticipate and letting the tools express themselves by themselves, and not trying to force things to come out. When I first started to spar I couldn't chain punch and ended up just punching with my right-hand over and over again and I couldn't understand it. After awhile the continuous chain punching came out and things started to work fine from there.

Just a perspective?

James

t_niehoff

12-16-2004, 07:09 AM

hunt1 wrote:

From what I have been reading the fighters dont think the talkers have anything worth sharing cause they dont fight so how can they know!

At the same time the fighters keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over !

This is a wing chun discussion forum so I just think it would be nice for the fighters ,some of whom seem to know everything and if they dont know it its not worth knowing, share some specifics thats all.

**Can someone that never gets in the pool intelligently discuss swimming? IMO they can discuss certain aspects, but many other aspects are outside of their experience. The reason I, for one, keep referring back that issue is because much of the nonsense, much of the noise, many of the "questions", all of the BS, etc. all stem from one thing -- folks aren't *doing* WCK, i.e., fighting with WCK's method (tools). What they are doing are exercises, forms and drills like chi sao, to prepare to do WCK. But they haven't even begun to practice WCK; practice involves use. And if they do "spar", it is against mostly other unskilled folks that are trying to do WCK too. It's pitiful. No one that fights, regardless of their method, would ever think this sort of training would lead to significant increases in fighting skill. But apparently, many believe that WCK has some magical process whereby folks can increase their fighting performance level without having to do what every other person in the world needs to do.

**Imagine if you went to a boxing forum and posted a question like - boxing and fighting, how to do it? LOL! Boxing is fighting. WCK is fighting. The very question is silly.

**Ernie made an interesting comment: "i don't think in tan,bong,and fook etc anymore . . . sure those were great guides to get the feeling of connection and structure . . . but they are fixed moments. . . . " Exactly! That shows the difference between a fighter's perspective and a theoreticians. A person will never realize that or get to that level without fighting. So they are left with arguing about what is the "correct" way to do a tan sao, etc. And since in "theory" all things are equal (can be argued), that leaves them to resorting to historical references to "prove" their claim (so-and-so did tan sao like this). It's craziness.

yellowpikachu

12-16-2004, 09:02 AM

Who is not a Theorician these days?

Labering, using one's state as the TRUTH to make others fault,
No idea about what is the philosophy, theory, Processes, and training of a system but using one's view to disprove what one doesnt have idea about is also a Theorician.

IMHHO, discussion of you are this I am that is not going to go anyway

OK,

Let ask anyone or tribe who claim to be a WCK fighter who think they are the MODEL of ALL WCK that others has to learn from because they know the TRUTH WCK. Let them describe his/her power generation process in details.

with a requirement description of how to handling momentum, how to accelerate, what/which part of the body to watch for , what is the uniqueness characteristics of this method of power generation, How is this be able to use in WCK, so that anyone who following the process can repeating this power generation.

Since power generation is the core of all fighting. what fighting to talk about without getting into how to generate, make use of power , and its flow?

It will be great that there are such person be able to enlightent all of us who is junior or dont know about WCK. But, if none of the So called Fighter can do the above. Then, isnt it either they are a theorician who doesnt aware of what they are talking about, or there is no WCK fighter here but ALL TALKER? or fighter from other style? in that case since they dont know WCK why are they here?

But, I certainly love to see the processes repeatable with ' EEG wave logger, Acceleration record, heart beat logging data... etc
otherwise, it is similar to the OLD chinese saying " trust me, I know it all, I can do it, see I beat so and so sifus. I have Qi I have Jing. Just do it."

Sure, one can be the greatest in the universe, but if non of one's practice can be repeat, measure, and monitor. what is the use to ordinary human being ?

Until some one showing clearly the process of power generation which is Unque for Wing Chun Kuen and repeatable within 15 mins of learning. I am sorry to say, who is not a Theorician?

The different is just some based on history, so based on My sifu Knows it all or I know it all or I learn the real Wing Chun Kuen. Same old Same old feeding EGO and trying to force the whole universe to bow to one's ego deal. All Theory without Process. All Brute force without technology.

As the Chinese saying, " in composition of Essay, everyone will say they are number one. in martial art, no one is willing to be number two" same old same old Chinese backward patern even it is already 2004.

Look at the hi tech, with the proven Process people has already build MP3 or Ipod getting smaller and smaller in size every months. So, Process that is important instead of following that Chinese old patern-- theory and fighing....etc . isnt it all are Theory without technology process?

just some thoughts. Ignore my post if you dont like my
post.

12-16-2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Ernie made an interesting comment: "i don't think in tan,bong,and fook etc anymore . . . sure those were great guides to get the feeling of connection and structure . . . but they are fixed moments. . . . " Exactly! That shows the difference between a fighter's perspective and a theoreticians. A person will never realize that or get to that level without fighting.

I 100% agree with Ernie on that point. I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of "techinques." I just don't operate that way. Obviously then, I am fighter, LOL.

It's craziness.

I've yet to meet a person who is fully sane. :)

Regards,
- kj

Ernie

12-16-2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by kj
I 100% agree with Ernie on that point. I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of "techinques." I just don't operate that way. Obviously then, I am fighter, LOL.
Regards,
- kj

KJ in the next K1 !

i'll work your corner :D

UM KJ I never claimed to be a fighter , i just don't have put much stock in non proven stories of how some non educated farmers beat each other up in china 1,000,000 years ago and then some greedy kung fu marketing masters jumped on the band wagon and made up more non proven stories of the secret to supreme skill

but like you said people are crazy :D what ever silly blue print they want to follow , yet they can not duplicate the skill[ the non proven story skill ] , but will still follow the blueprint that yields no results after 20,30,40 years

and then try and convince others that it's ther way to go ! haha

yep crazy people out there

but it would make for a great shaw brothers movie !:cool:

thank god we are in a put up or shut up society :D

but please ignore my post and happy holidays :p

Vajramusti

12-16-2004, 10:41 AM

KJ sez:
I've yet to meet a person who is fully sane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
((<g> I have. Wonder of wonders. I pass by a house every day where a man possibly around 50 lives by himself. Neither fat or thin. Apparently physically healthy. Does not seem to go to work.
Occasionally brings home groceries from convenience stores and hasa cip of coffe in a coffee shop- with an occasional Hamletian speech.
Always has a smile on his face. Does not seem to be interested in maintaining eyecontact for very long.
He works around his house, driveway and yard. Old Jong does perched not have to wrestle him down.
He changes his scenery regularly around his house. On the back of his pickup truck-he has currently painted "Brinks". On his dirt driveway he hasa sign- no skating allowed. Ona tree trunk he has a sign- his advice to the world..."work it out". He has a screen door witha flyswatter leaning against a bush- with an arrow and the letters"nowhere".On some rainy days he has has a bathtub with a shower head balanced on the roof next to the chimney. He sometimes jogs with a colorful jogging outfit in the bicycle path- sometimes witha sign "Watch out for pedestians".
When he walks on the street sometimes he hasa ceramic parrot on his shoulder to whom he explains the weather and the need for watching out for cars.

Apparently a perfectly sane man in an insane world.

I hope that an insane person does not hurt him, arrest him, put him in a hospital or urge him to follow some dogmatic path.
Thus far appears to be a free man- at least comparatively.

yellowpikachu

12-16-2004, 10:57 AM

KJ sez:
I've yet to meet a person who is fully sane.

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

there is a great chinese saying: " the half kati laught at the eight once ( a chinese kati has 16 once) ". How wise was the ancient Chinese speaking the TRUTH about the So-called Theorician and Fighter :D

What a wonderful world! EGO Never changes.

PaulH

12-16-2004, 11:06 AM

"Your thought differentiates between pragmatist and idealist, between the part and the whole, between the mystic and materialist.
Mine realizes that life is one and its weights, measures and tables do not coincide with your weights, measures and tables. He whom you suppose an idealist may be a practical man.

You have your thought and I have mine.- K.G."

12-16-2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Ernie
KJ in the next K1 !

i'll work your corner :D

I'm counting on it, Ernie! :)

UM KJ I never claimed to be a fighter ,

It wouldn't be me trying to categorize you Ernie. To the contrary, my point was that there are inevitable risks in attempting to definitively or neatly categorize people. Like most of us, you're [obviously] much more interesting and complex than we [the general “we”] often allow ourselves to acknowledge or give each other credit for.

A wise person I once knew summed it up this way: "If you absolutely must label someone, label them only by their name."

but please ignore my post ...

Not at all. We all have things to say, experiences or perspective to share, and things to get off our chests. Somewhere out there exists a wisdom far greater than any wisdom we alone possess. I'm not implying it's the "communal" wisdom though, LOL.

and happy holidays :p

And to you and yours. :)

Regards,
- kj

12-16-2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Apparently a perfectly sane man in an insane world.

He could indeed be the one, Joy. :cool:

Still, I am reminded of a quote that recently happened across my desk: "Everyone seems normal. Until you get to know them." On this count, please forgive me a hint of healthy skepticism. ;):D

Regards,
- kj

t_niehoff

12-16-2004, 02:04 PM

kj wrote:

I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of "techinques."

**Tell me, in your "performance" of what -- forms or drills?

12-16-2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
kj wrote:

I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of "techinques."

**Tell me, in your "performance" of what -- forms or drills?

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I'd oblige.

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn't begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200. Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another. Just be sure to tell us which list we're on so we can know unequivocally who we're allowed to converse with and who we've no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right "teams": being as I am a "non fighter" (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn't possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way ... [shakes own head at self].

<sigh>

[and apologies to the readership for my apparent lapse and rant]

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them; it's the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn't baffle me. When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you'll keep writing about you, I'll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

Regards,
- kj

Tydive

12-16-2004, 04:20 PM

Point to Kathy for using solid WC written technique to interrupt an attack by going for the center. ;)

I wonder if Terrance really does not understand that at a certian point many of us no longer see a specific technique only as the start and end point. Rather as you gain experience it becomes more about being in the centered state and moving appropriatly given the current situation.

PaulH

12-16-2004, 04:30 PM

It's too early to tell the outcome of the trial, but I do think the prosecuting attorney need to act more aggressively to downplay the brilliant defense that we just see so far. I sense the jury is very impatient and that could be very bad if the prosecutor star keep nagging the simple facts indefinitely... Stay tuned for more exciting news from your local independent forum. =)

t_niehoff

12-16-2004, 04:50 PM

KJ wrote:

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I'd oblige.

**No set up intended, just making a point. Some questions are rhetorical. You do realize that? ;)

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn't begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200.

**You voluntarily joined in a discussion entitled "WC fighitng - How to do it" -- I guess you don't see the irony? (Hint: rhetorical question).

Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

**Hey, I'm sure everyone that stands along side the pool doing their landswimming is an individual! I'm not saying they're not individuals, nor am I saying they are not nice people -- but when some of these individuals begin to give us opinions on swimming, don't be surprised that someone points out that as nonswimmers, they don't know what they are talking about. Did I just lump a bunch of people that don't swim into the category of nonswimmer -- oh, my God! How beastly. On what possible basis could I do that? (Hint: rhetorical question).

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another.

**I'm sure there are.

Just be sure to tell us which list we're on so we can know unequivocally who we're allowed to converse with and who we've no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

**Which list? The WCK list. You know, those folks that actually do WCK.

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right "teams": being as I am a "non fighter" (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn't possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way ... [shakes own head at self].

**You can't possibly operate in "nontechnique oriented ways" because you're not operating in the first place -- this is a nonswimmer saying they operate in "nontechnique oriented ways"! You can't "operate" without getting in the pool. What "operating" do you think you're doing? Do you really think that someone that never gets in the pool can in any conceivable way transcend swimming technique?

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them;

**I don't think you do understand them -- if you did understand that perspective, you wouldn't say some of the things you do. You know, things like how you operate in "nontechnique oridented ways."

it's the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn't baffle me.

**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills. Would you consider it extreme for someone on the swimming forum to keep pointing out that folks weren't swimming? What an extremist -- thinking that unless folks get in the water they don't know anything about swimming.

When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you'll keep writing about you, I'll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

**Rationalize however you want.

Tydive

12-16-2004, 05:08 PM

**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

False appeal to authority, 5 yard penalty.

PaulH

12-16-2004, 05:54 PM

=): It appears that the prosecuting team has gathered enough steam on its latest round of frontal assault. Tell me, =(, whether you think that the prosecutor can make the label of dryland swimmer stick?

=(: Well, I don't know, =), I saw juror # 12 was very hostile to the prosecuting presentation of their latest discriminating "evidences" exhibited. Didn't you notice?

=): I understand that the case has be nagged on just a little more than 6 months...

=(: Well, the due process of law practice must have its full run. Please remember to vote for me on your next ballot.

=): And that's all, folks! Stay tuned!

Knifefighter

12-16-2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills. Sorry, T, but I've got to disagree with you on this one.
I'm extreme and you are more extreme than I am. :)

As far as a non-fighting theoretician being able to transcend technique, I think one can. Chi sao is not fighting, but it is a kind of game that includes techniques. If one gets good enough at chi sao, he or she can transcend the techniques.

12-16-2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KJ wrote:

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I'd oblige.

**No set up intended, just making a point. Some questions are rhetorical. You do realize that? ;)

Yes, ignorant as a hillbilly but still I get it. Go figure. If I didn't, I'd be trying to post a lot more often, LOL.

Or maybe I just "think" I get it ... hmmm ...

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn't begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200.

**You voluntarily joined in a discussion entitled "WC fighitng - How to do it" -- I guess you don't see the irony? (Hint: rhetorical question).

And here I thought I was posting to a "discussion" list, where things like, uhm, "discussion" take place. Don't that beat all, how perspectives differ!

Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

**Hey, I'm sure everyone that stands along side the pool doing their landswimming is an individual! I'm not saying they're not individuals, nor am I saying they are not nice people -- but when some of these individuals begin to give us opinions on swimming, don't be surprised that someone points out that as nonswimmers, they don't know what they are talking about. Did I just lump a bunch of people that don't swim into the category of nonswimmer -- oh, my God! How beastly. On what possible basis could I do that? (Hint: rhetorical question).

It would go ****her if I a) bought it as a sound use of analogy and b) if all models, pushed to limits, didn't break down.

Hmmmm ... there I go not understanding rhetoric again. Dang; snagged agin.

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another.

**I'm sure there are.

Just be sure to tell us which list we're on so we can know unequivocally who we're allowed to converse with and who we've no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

**Which list? The WCK list. You know, those folks that actually do WCK.

Ouch! That one really smarts! :D

[b]Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right "teams": being as I am a "non fighter" (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn't possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don't think or operate in a technique-oriented way ... [shakes own head at self].

**You can't possibly operate in "nontechnique oriented ways" because you're not operating in the first place -- this is a nonswimmer saying they operate in "nontechnique oriented ways"! You can't "operate" without getting in the pool. What "operating" do you think you're doing? Do you really think that someone that never gets in the pool can in any conceivable way transcend swimming technique?

Finally! (and as requested) we cut to the chase. Thank the Lord.

Okay, I'm the first one on the non-fighter list. (Translation of the more common "non-swimmer"* terminology for general convenience and those who didn't get that part.) I love to lead, especially when there's no one to follow, LOL. So, who's next? Let's stop *****footing around, and get those lists down now, once and for all. You're either a fighter or non-fighter, and you either practice WCK or you don't dagnabbit.

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them;

**I don't think you do understand them -- if you did understand that perspective, you wouldn't say some of the things you do. You know, things like how you operate in "nontechnique oridented ways."

Clarification. I only claim to understand the majority of your points as written, and agree with many if not most of them. I never meant to imply that I understand you or your experience. I do, however, appreciate how intimately familiar you are with my and others' life experiences. :p

it's the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn't baffle me.

**My perspective isn't extreme

Oh, okay then. :D:D:D

-- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

Maybe, maybe not; I'll know for sure when I'm omniscient. (Okay, okay, I'll say it just this once: ... "like you." Don't blame me ... the crowd urged me on!!! :D)

FWIW, I don't see others who either a) do or b) claim to "genuinely" train to increase their fighting skills behaving toward others in the manner you do, or press points to the extreme as you do. Not even our other pro-active fighting protagonists on the forum. I don't see anyone trying to draw a "line in the sand" between people as vigorously as you.

Would you consider it extreme for someone on the swimming forum to keep pointing out that folks weren't swimming? What an extremist -- thinking that unless folks get in the water they don't know anything about swimming.

That's one o' them thar rhetorical questions, ain't it? :D

When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you'll keep writing about you, I'll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

**Rationalize however you want.

Dawgonnit, I'll shore try!

I'm not so arrogant or self-delusional as to think I have the ability or energy to hold my own with a tenured prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. Near half a century old and I just heard about a thing called "debate club" for the first time last year, LOL. I realize this means you'll have to put some more hurt on me now and I'll just have to take my lumps. Well, at least maybe we've broken the old patterns and some of the forum "tensions" just a little, even if just for a little while. Who knows, maybe even enough to lighten things up on the KFO a mere tad and get folks feeling a little more comfortable and inspired to offer up some new and interesting things to jaw on about awhile. Even us non-Wing Chun types can enjoy some good or interesting dialog. At least we fancy we can. ;):D

[My apologies to our fellow readers. I'm apparently just feeling a bit "Weilandish" today. I'll get over it quick enough, LOL. Thanks for your toleration.]

Now, what was that question uppatop there ... something about what has fighting taught the fighters about Wing Chun or sump'n like that?

Regards,
- kj

* Correction. Make that "dry-land swimmer." Yeesh, you'd think I'd have that one down by now!

KPM

12-17-2004, 03:48 AM

Kathy Jo, you're a real peach! You crack me up! And you're right on IMHO!

Terrence, I'll ask again as I have many times recently.....where's the balance? You like labels, I think a good one for you is "extremist" as the above posts suggest. :-)

Keith

Jim Roselando

12-17-2004, 04:54 AM

Hello,

I started a thread that was about all of us sharing some video clips of ourselves. Out of all the people (and that includes the KFO fighters/non fighters) who chat on this board only 2 or 3 or us were or are willing. How sad! Well, lets change that and say: Only 2 or 3 or us even replied to that scary idea. Why? The camera will be rolling for everyone to see you!

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again? Those with more experience can help us by looking back on their experience (or recording some for us to view) so this is where the Fighters can really make a difference versus just repeating their (our) mantras about what we believe WCK is or isnt.

Hopefully, more people will be up for this idea as we can all learn from each others comments/views of our performances. AND please do not say:

I have no access to a digital camera!

All of us know someone who has one and there is a site that will post it up for free so we do not even have to build a special site!

Come on Fighters and non Fighters!

Show us your stuff!

Regards,

t_niehoff

12-17-2004, 06:16 AM

tydive wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**My perspective isn't extreme -- its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False appeal to authority, 5 yard penalty.

**Bzzzt. Wrong. Appeal to evidence.

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

kj wrote:

Finally! (and as requested) we cut to the chase. Thank the Lord.

Okay, I'm the first one on the non-fighter list. (Translation of the more common "non-swimmer"* terminology for general convenience and those who didn't get that part.) I love to lead, especially when there's no one to follow, LOL. So, who's next? Let's stop *****footing around, and get those lists down now, once and for all. You're either a fighter or non-fighter, and you either practice WCK or you don't dagnabbit.

**I don't put anyone on any list. Do you fight as a regular part of your training? Tell me do you skydive? If you don't skydive, am I labelling you, putting you on some list, to say "you're not a skydiver"? I'm merely pointing out the blantantly obvious. Truth isn't a label.

FWIW, I don't see others who either a) do or b) claim to "genuinely" train to increase their fighting skills behaving toward others in the manner you do, or press points to the extreme as you do. Not even our other pro-active fighting protagonists on the forum. I don't see anyone trying to draw a "line in the sand" between people as vigorously as you.

**I'll grant you that I'm consistent and forceful. But what you don't understand is that I'm not "drawing the line" -- it is already there. And many, if not most, of the "theoretician" posts implicitly or expressly present, reinforce, and promote that other-side-of-the-line view. It's overwhelmingly prevalent. It's the bad stench of the rotting corpse of WCK. And then you have the nerve to say, "can't we on that other side of the line, just discuss things as we want? do you always have to interpose your view?" Well, yeah, just to point out, if nothing more, the stink (that underlying prevailing view).

**BTW, I use the terms "nonfighter" and "theoretican" interchangably because in a fighting method, one who isn't fighting (nonfighter) isn't actually doing the method (a boxer who doesn't box isn't doing the method), they are doing drills and forms and theorizing how what they are doing would "work" in a fight (should I need to get into the ring, then I'd . . . ). As I remember, in one of our discussions you even said something to the effect of how you could "extrapoloate" from the drills (like chi sao) into fighitng. See -- that's being a theoretician. Do fighters theorize too? Sure. But they test rather than rely on those theories. The testing makes them practitioners as they are actually using the method.

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

KF wrote:

As far as a non-fighting theoretician being able to transcend technique, I think one can. Chi sao is not fighting, but it is a kind of game that includes techniques. If one gets good enough at chi sao, he or she can transcend the techniques.

**Perhaps within the context of a drill she can -- that's not the >>context<< of where transcending technique matters. I suppose someone could say "when I do the pak da drill I no longer think in terms of technique like pak sao or the punch but . . . . " BFD.

t_niehoff

12-17-2004, 06:44 AM

JR wrote:

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again?

**You're not going to "learn" anything from clips -- get your @sses out on the floor, mats, whatever, and mix it up. That's the only way. You learn and develop by doing. Theoreticians love clips, so they can sit in their armchairs and critique based on their fantasy-driven notions of how WCK *should* (that word is a theoretician giveaway btw) be done. Then "debate" whether "theoretically" that clip was good or bad, etc. It's nonsense.

SAAMAG

12-17-2004, 07:00 AM

I think the reason they want the vids is to see who is simply talking and who can actually practice what they preach.

Makes good sense considering all the smack talk on here.

YongChun

12-17-2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
JR wrote:

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again?

**You're not going to "learn" anything from clips -- get your @sses out on the floor, mats, whatever, and mix it up. That's the only way. You learn and develop by doing. Theoreticians love clips, so they can sit in their armchairs and critique based on their fantasy-driven notions of how WCK *should* (that word is a theoretician giveaway btw) be done. Then "debate" whether "theoretically" that clip was good or bad, etc. It's nonsense.

Boxers who really fight also love clips. They learn from film clips of other boxers. One world champ watched the clip of another fighter hundreds of times to discover a strategy that allowed him to win over that fighter. He noticed that during a certain punch, the champ dropped his shoulder by just one inch and he used that fact to defeat the guy. All real athletes watch clips of others who are good or better.

Why someone wants a clip of Terrence is that maybe all your talk is hot air and your fighting is worse than theirs and your training is not the 100% you say. One man's 100% might be another man's 20%. Some people's chi sau is more violent than some people's supposed real fight sparring training because their chi sau might be a real fight but they only label it chi sau.

You need a good balance of forms, drills, fighting, theory , analysis etc. No one can tell you what that balance should be. It depends on what you have got and where your mind is at.

The real fighters fight in wars, fight on the streets, fight in jails etc. The next class of real fighters are the professionals who box and fight in mixed martial arts competitions for all to see, judge and criticize. This kind of fighting requires the most accurate technical skill but is missing a lot of elements that go into real fighting where there are no rules of any sort. The rules in real fighting are kill or be killed and eventually you get killed. The next class are the people who compete in all the other kinds of martial arts tournaments. After that you have people who just train to fight but they are not fighting no matter how intensive they think they and their friends fight. Fighters can be plugged into a continuous spectrum with dancing at one end and real fighting at the other. Some people make it to the top of the spectrum where they really fight and really die. Many don't want to go that far and treat the whole thing as something for health as opposed to something for harm.

old jong

12-17-2004, 12:53 PM

yylee

12-17-2004, 01:27 PM

this thread is getting a little tense!

Let's enjoy 5 minutes' worth of pure fighting vids. Just to get your mind off the talks.

http://southbostonoffline.com/fights.wmv

now here is a real test for your YJKYM, there is no short of momentum, Chin-Na, ground fights, chain punches, everthing.... :D

Merry Christmas!

Ernie

12-17-2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by yylee
this thread is getting a little tense!

Let's enjoy 5 minutes' worth of pure fighting vids. Just to get your mind off the talks.

http://southbostonoffline.com/fights.wmv

now here is a real test for your YJKYM, there is no short of momentum, Chin-Na, ground fights, chain punches, everthing.... :D

Merry Christmas!

my girl friends sister took me to a hockey game [i'm not into sports at all]

she said i would enjoy the fights , i said what fights ?

they drop there stick take off there head gear and hug

me i would be hitting with the stick and kicking with the bladed skates

just think how cool it would be to stomp some one with a skate blade

she looked at me like i was insane :D

old jong

12-17-2004, 04:26 PM

A few years ago,Eric Lindros;a big red neck farmer and goon hockey player (around 6' 8" on his skates and 250 pds) saw Elvis Stoiko,a canadian figure skater!...He could not resist and called Elvis a ***got!...What happened made history as little Elvis (maybe 5'7' and 150pds) gave the big jerk the beating of his lifetime!...
Elvis had been training in Hung Gar for many years....We simply cant trust our ***s antmore!...;) :D

YongChun

12-17-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by old jong
A few years ago,Eric Lindros;a big red neck farmer and goon hockey player (around 6' 8" on his skates and 250 pds) saw Elvis Stoiko,a canadian figure skater!...He could not resist and called Elvis a ***got!...What happened made history as little Elvis (maybe 5'7' and 150pds) gave the big jerk the beating of his lifetime!...
Elvis had been training in Hung Gar for many years....We simply cant trust our ***s antmore!...;) :D

Here is a link to his teachers. http://www.angelfire.com/wi/StojkoMosaic/052199.html
I studied under James Lore in 1969. The teacher was definitely into fighting. His model was dryland swimming and then real fighting.

Ray

12-17-2004, 08:10 PM

Likewise, Keith. :)

Regards,
- kj

yylee

12-17-2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Ernie
me i would be hitting with the stick and kicking with the bladed skates

just think how cool it would be to stomp some one with a skate blade

LOL, BJD with the legs!

she looked at me like i was insane :D

Told you, you should be in movie biz ;)

Ernie

12-17-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by yylee
LOL, BJD with the legs!

Told you, you should be in movie biz ;)

to let a secret out i was ;)

KPM

12-18-2004, 01:23 PM

12-18-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
As I remember, in one of our discussions you even said something to the effect of how you could "extrapoloate" from the drills (like chi sao) into fighitng. See -- that's being a theoretician. Do fighters theorize too? Sure. But they test rather than rely on those theories. The testing makes them practitioners as they are actually using the method.

I believe you were referring to these questions, which I posed first on the "What Level are You?" (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=531204&highlight=tniehoff#post531204) thread, and later inquired again on the "Fighters and Non-fighters" (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=534680&highlight=tniehoff#post534680) thread:

Originally posted by t_niehoff
This is a simplifed version of how we train:

Step one -- learn a form, not necessarily a linked set, but a technique, a point (yau dim), a san sik, etc. and the extensions of that form.

Step two -- drill it so that the student can get the "feel" (what I call "the comfortability stage").

Step three -- put that into a fighting environment.

I use this progression from the very beginning. The first thing a student learns is the punch, it's extensions, and associated body mechanics (punch from YJKYM, and it's extentions). Then we drill it until he has the "feel" for it. Then we put it into fighting.

Your way of describing things is interesting and spurs some further questions:

a) It appears that you are implying a correlation between the skills in practice and the fighting scenario. To that end, in a “real” fighting environment, which is by its nature totally random and unpredictable, how do you ensure that an explicit and appropriate situation arises for the learner to employ and practice the specific technique (sic) of interest?

b) Do you restrict the learner to specific techniques in a “real fight” in order to ensure they are practiced? This could raise a whole slew of related questions.

c) If parceling out techniques for practice individually or in phases (e.g., they only know how to punch), how is the safety of the learner ensured when in the random, unpredictable, and immenently threatening "real" fighting environment that may demand much more than that particular technique or subset of skills?

The questions were both reasonable and serious. They do not deserve your continued mockery and neither do I. They also served as an opportunity for you to illustrate that there is some method behind the madness, so to speak. I'm sure many others are curious and interested too. Sound answers could even win over some skeptics; if so, you're welcome.

Regards,
- kj

Ultimatewingchun

12-18-2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by hunt1
At this point I we understand that several members of the forum think that you have to fight to learn how to use wing chun.
Could we take it to the next level please? What has fighting taught you exactly? For example It would be instructive if someone said I was taught to do bong sau this way but I have found when fighting it is better used that way.

This is a wing chun forum after all and once upon a time discussions actually talked about how to use wing chun.

This was the original post on this thread - anybody remember it?

Sounds like Hunter wants to go back to the days wherein we spent some time discussing how to use WC in this or that situation...as opposed to now...wherein it's mainly "either you're a fighter or you're not" that characterizes the main gist of the majority of threads.

It's a bit of a dilemma that I think Jim Roselando may have provided a third way answer to - videos. Definitely gonna make it my business to post some - hopefully in the near future.

But it's a good idea, and would (could) go a long way toward - if not actually resolving - then at the very least bringing some clarity to - what the "two camps" around here are trying to say.

About wing chun and fighting...about how to use your bong sao in ways you may not have been originally taught, by way of one little example. About what kinds of training/conditioning/sparring one needs to really be able to fight well - about why some WC people advocate crosstraining in grappling arts...about a lot of things.

And I have to agree that Terence's point about "not being able to learn anything from videos - just go out and fight"...is puzzling to me - as it is seemingly puzzling to some other people as well.

If we want the "theoreticians" to either shut up or put up...then we "fighters" have to be held to the same standard.

KPM

12-19-2004, 05:31 AM

Victor wrote:
Sounds like Hunter wants to go back to the days wherein we spent some time discussing how to use WC in this or that situation...as opposed to now...wherein it's mainly "either you're a fighter or you're not" that characterizes the main gist of the majority of threads.

---Only the threads that Terence feels the need to participate in. He is the one that has "drawn the line in the sand" and likes to label people. I keep asking him "where's the balance", but he keeps ignoring that question. You and I know that nothing is ever so black and white. A big part of the problem is that Terence has chosen to define "fighting" the way most would define "sparring", and many don't realize that. There are many gradations and intensity levels in progressive sparring situations. He has created this dichotomy where none really exists and then keeps hammering it in. The truth is that many if not most of us here do more than just forms and chi sau. We try to "functionalize" our training with progressive sparring drills that become as realistic as feasible. But we still value a "traditional" approach to training and learning and are willing to question our ability and experience rather than the traditional teaching itself if something doesn't work for us right off the bat in a sparring situation. We also value discussions about "why" WCK works (theory), and how other lineages teach or practice certain things. With his extremist stance, Terence seems to deny all of that. He comes across as someone that endorses training at full tilt trying to hurt his partner (opponent?) during every training session. He sounds like someone who would endorse going out on Saturday night and looking for the opportunity to test his skills in the parking lot of the local nightclub. I don't really believe all that of him, but that is certainly the impression he leaves on this forum. KPM

It's a bit of a dilemma that I think Jim Roselando may have provided a third way answer to - videos. Definitely gonna make it my business to post some - hopefully in the near future.

---I think it is an excellent idea as well. I also think Hunt's original purpose for this thread was a good one. Why haven't more of the "fighters" posted with things that they have learned or things they have changed about their WCK based on their fighting experience? And I don't buy the line "I don't think in terms of technique anymore." That's total ...B....S.... Terence says that fighting experience should be the guide to what your WCK consists of, and not traditional teaching. So.....has Terence stopped practicing the Chum Kiu form because Chor Ma Double Lan technique is not useful in fighting? Has he learned to fold his Bong Sau over in application because it smothers the other guys technique better in a fighting situation? Has he learned to hold his Mon Sau guard position higher because most people nowadays are "head-hunters"? What's so hard about actually contributing to the conversation rather than always coming back with "fight!fight!fight! or your wing chun is worthless!"? KPM

And I have to agree that Terence's point about "not being able to learn anything from videos - just go out and fight"...is puzzling to me - as it is seemingly puzzling to some other people as well.

---Like I said above, I think it is just rationalization for not being willing to send in clips of himself. KPM

If we want the "theoreticians" to either shut up or put up...then we "fighters" have to be held to the same standard.

---Exactly. After all, this is just a discussion forum. Everything we say here is purely theoretical, because we can't see what the other person is doing or is capable of. So even Terence's extremist position is purely theoretical when he talks about it in a discussion forum unless there is evidence that he backs it up. KPM

Keith

t_niehoff

12-19-2004, 07:36 AM

KPM wrote:

--Terence... that sure sounds like rationalization for not being willing to send in video clips to me. I think its time for you to either "put up or shut up",

**Let me repost something I wrote in the HFY forum:

**Tell me what part of this don't you understand -- we're discussing training methods for becoming a skilled fighter. Folks that have proven themselves skilled fighters, like boxers, BJJ, MMAist, muay thai, etc. all train with the same model. That model exists whether I can fight or not. You can't dispute those results. Now, if you think that you or someone else has found a different model that produces skilled fighters, then great -- where are the results? I don't need to step up and fight to prove that the model that produced Rickson, Tyson, etc. works. I could be a a quadraplegic and the evidence that this model produces skilled fighters would still exist. But if you, for whatever reason, want to see how well I can fight, visit St. Louis -- I'll be more than happy to mix it up with you.

**So, Keith, when are you going to visit?

and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. Lots of people here are getting tired of you jumping in on various discussions with the same old line of "fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" Everyone here is welcome to participate in any discussion they want.

**Yes, they are.

But we can only hear the same thing so many times.

**You know, I feel exactly the same way! I'm tired of the same-old nonfighter/theoretician perspective.

I remember that once upon a time you actually had some valuable things to contribute. How about going back to those days? One of the main problems is that what you call "fighting" most of us here would refer to as "sparring." Lots of us are doing exactly that....though you still choose to label us as "non-fighters". Its all in how we define things. You choose to define something inyour own way, which confuses many people that don't realize that is what is happening, and then blast everyone that doesn't share your own views. How about showing us that you really do practice what you preach?

**Sparring every once in a while isn't what I'm talking about. People with proven fighting skills use fighting as the core of their training, with everything else supporting that. Lots of people "spar" -- but it is a game of tag and doesn't reflect genuine intensity, intent, or resistance.

t_niehoff

12-19-2004, 08:18 AM

KJ wrote:

Your way of describing things is interesting and spurs some further questions:

a) It appears that you are implying a correlation between the skills in practice and the fighting scenario. To that end, in a “real” fighting environment, which is by its nature totally random and unpredictable, how do you ensure that an explicit and appropriate situation arises for the learner to employ and practice the specific technique (sic) of interest?

**Let me begin by pointing out that we can already fight (though generally poorly). The goal of our training is to make us better. Progressively better. We do that by not "learning the whole system" and then trying to implement it all at once (so that we don't actually begin to be able to fight better until "the end") which will make the whole process too complicated for a trainee but by taking each point, step by step, and putting each into our fighting (so that we, little by little, get more and more skill). This way, we are progressively refining our natural fighting, building on what we already naturally do. And as the tools build on each other, we can see how they fit into WCK's method, etc.

**How does one know what the "appropriate situation" is? Someone tell you? Or do you find that for yourself by trying to use whatever you have? Moreoever, fighting is a matter of using what we have at the moment. If someone is attacked but only has a limited number of "techniques" (because they are a beginner, for example) what do they do? They make do. You can't ask the attacker to come back after you've "completed the system." So a trainee with just the jik chung choi will use that tool to do every job imaginable. If something happens in fighting where that tool won't work, they'll improvise (perhaps poorly). But that will give them insight into the limitations they have, what they need, why they need it, etc.

**In BJJ, for example, you don't wait until you learn "the entire system" to begin rolling, you begin right away. Sure you have limited things you can do, but that lets you focus on doing them, setting them up, etc. And you're a better groundfighter with those few things than you were before you had them. You'll have lots of holes in your groundfighting, make a lot of mistakes, etc. but that's part of the learning process.

b) Do you restrict the learner to specific techniques in a “real fight” in order to ensure they are practiced? This could raise a whole slew of related questions.

**We do have "sparring drills" where we isolate certain things to focus on them, if that's what you mean. But typically a trainee will use whatever they have at the moment.

c) If parceling out techniques for practice individually or in phases (e.g., they only know how to punch), how is the safety of the learner ensured when in the random, unpredictable, and immenently threatening "real" fighting environment that may demand much more than that particular technique or subset of skills?

**Let me ask you a question, how do you think someone can learn to deal with a genuine attack if they never deal with a genuine attack? And in fighting, no one does single attacks -- so we have to learn to deal with the whole enchilada. In fighting practice, we wear protective gear. And, we all go into it with the realization that we are there to learn, to develop, not to just pound on the other guy. And the trainer is always there to intercede. Also, it is by getting into this environment that the trainee develops the conditioning to not be injured. You see, in "real fights" everyone and anyone is going to be hit. There is only one way to learn how to deal with that.

The questions were both reasonable and serious. They do not deserve your continued mockery and neither do I. They also served as an opportunity for you to illustrate that there is some method behind the madness, so to speak. I'm sure many others are curious and interested too. Sound answers could even win over some skeptics; if so, you're welcome.

**I hope my answers gave you better insight into what I'm talking about.

Ernie

12-19-2004, 09:11 AM

KPM= And I don't buy the line "I don't think in terms of technique anymore." That's total ...B....S.... Terence says that fighting experience should be the guide to what your WCK consists of, and not traditional teaching. So.....has Terence stopped practicing the Chum Kiu form because Chor Ma Double Lan technique is not useful in fighting? Has he learned to fold his Bong Sau over in application because it smothers the other guys technique better in a fighting situation? Has he learned to hold his Mon Sau guard position higher because most people nowadays are "head-hunters"?

Well actually I think I might have been the one that said that, and T agreed =)
And I was just being honest, things like the shapes are just static moments and reference points, they give the feeling of proper alignment and connection for things like power release absorbing deflecting and so on

Once you have the [feeling] of these static postures [forms] and the basic idea for there usage [a lan sau is done line this blah blah] you must learn to apply and find the timing.

But this is all just part of the training system, you are still in the bubble if you seek the perfect bong sau [or any hand or posture] in a chi sau environment, then in theory your are still chasing hands, your chasing a mental image of what you think things should look like, instead of relating to the problem and person in front of you.

This is more of a robotic way of trying to fight! If your not relating your not being natural your trying to [do the form] on some one, and it won’t work right, you will be crashing and bumping or getting jammed up

This is when a person try’s to force the training system [forms shapes, chi sau] into a non-training environment

Were you should just be relating to energy and distance, timing, lines off attack, position Etc.

You will use more the feeling of connection or power or absorption and so on then the actual fixed shape

This is when you grow past the training system and things just become natural

Problem is people tend to stay trapped in the training system it makes them feel safe and powerful because it’s a controlled environment

So yes I know longer think in shapes or forms, more concept and application with respect to the person and situation I’m facing

I find this very common with most skilled people from any type of art, you don’t find seasoned people talking to other seasoned people about static postures or weighting of the feet etc. it’s more along the lines of attributes, training methods to improve there combative skill, improving timing, distance, power, speed, feeling, being relaxed
While under heavy pressure

But I know people love security blankets and there is nothing wrong with staying with in the confines of what makes you feel safe and confident

Just not my thing
;)

Ultimatewingchun

12-19-2004, 10:59 AM

"And I don't buy the line "I don't think in terms of technique anymore." That's total ...B....S...." (KPM)

"Actually I think I might have been the one that said that, and T agreed...things like the shapes are just static moments and reference points, they give the feeling of proper alignment and connection for things like power release absorbing deflecting...Once you have the feeling of these static postures [forms] and the basic idea for there usage [a lan sau is done line this blah blah] you must learn to apply and find the timing. (Ernie)

This is one of those rare times when I have to disagree with Ernie. I still think in terms of technique - even after all these years. For example...if I see a a backfist...I'm usually thinking quan sao.

If I see a hook punch...I'm usually thinking a very tight inside biu-larp sao. If I see a double leg takedown - I'm thinking sprawl.

If I see a roundhouse kick aimed at the back of my lead leg - I'm thinking of picking up my lead leg and facing the point of contact with my calf and follow with....this and that.

In fact - I'm oversimplifying a bit - because I've programmed more than one response to many different kinds of attacks and situations into my mind/muscle memory. Depending on the situation/position, etc.

But the point is - I do use SPECIFIC techniques in various fight scenarios...but because I'm constantly SPARRING - variations on the themes constantly emerge - as well as ocasionally coming to the point of recognizing that technique A , which I may have used in the past in a certain situation, is not as efficicent as technique B...which I may have recently discovered or learned.

And most important of all - there comes a point wherein something within takes over - and the "thinking" (or choosing between this or that response) - occurs on an almost sub-conscious level...sometimes on a very conscious level - sometimes on a semi-conscious level - sometimes completely subconscious...and the "body" takes over and just does it.

But in truth - it's NOT the body just taking over. IT IS THE MIND...but on a scale of speed that is so rapid that it just "seems" like you didn't think - and it was simply the body. It's not.

It's the mind - and the mind (and body) has to constantly drill specific techniques in specific situations to the point of mastery...and then the improvisation can begin - and be very fight efficient.

Jim Roselando

12-19-2004, 11:31 AM

Hello,

Wow! What happened to this thread!

I think all athletes of any sport or art form (boxing, baseball, dance, etc. etc.) all find the study of video footage to be essential. Most modern athletes utilize cameras to record their mechanics and study their progress. My main purpose for suggestion videos is so that we can all see each other doing some WCK and use it for discussion and growth.

Terence is right when he says; You cant learn anything from a video! but its not about learning moves or new ideas its about studying a representation of the art and discussing our views. This can be very benefitial for anyone who would be willing to send in footage as you have a number of very experienced WC people (and martial artist in general) who can help us see things we may not be thinking of and vise versa.

I am sure Mike Tyson could watch Joe Frasier and tell what kind of body mechanics and different ways he was using. Ali would be able to understand Roy Jones from watching footage. They all did study themselves and others from before them.

This big attack Terence was not supposed to be the purpose of this idea. I just thought we could all use it for growth. Growth from watching the guys who train more seriously to growth from the less so seriously guys. Just growth from sharing.

Regards,

Ultimatewingchun

12-19-2004, 11:46 AM

"Terence is right when he says; You cant learn anything from a video! " (JR)

Not true. You can learn from videos.

Or to be more specicfic - you can BEGIN to learn from videos...by watching and thinking.

Then it's time to test it all on the mat or while sparring.

Jim Roselando

12-19-2004, 12:14 PM

Hey Vic.,

"Terence is right when he says; You cant learn anything from a video! " (JR)

Not true. You can learn from videos.

Or to be more specicfic - you can BEGIN to learn from videos...by watching and thinking.

Ok! Thats true. What I thought he meant was that you cannot learn anything from video as its the real time and experience when you develop but no doubt videos are good tools. Hence why I suggested to get us all to send in some footage.

Then it's time to test it all on the mat or while sparring.

Absolutely.

See ya!

Gotta run!

old jong

12-19-2004, 12:57 PM

Why not simply look at Wing Chun' tool box?...
1)What is the range of motions of Wing Chun?...
-The defensive range is clearly set in SLT as the distance the motions travel (fook,tan etc...)Anything defensive going past this distance would be overstretching and losing balance.
2)What is the offensive range of Wing Chun?...
-The punches of Wing Chun as shown in SLT and chum kiu,show the effective striking range of the system.They must be combined with proper footwork but never overstretched to get longer reach.
3) what is the footwork of Wing Chun?...
-The basic body structure must be learned and "understood" in SLT before anything else,then it is augmented with motion in CK.Later more possibilities are seen in the dummy and the knifes.This is the Wing Chun way to move with possible accord between the hands and body structure.The need of more force or adding boxing footwork only reveals a lack of understanding of the system.Like adding english words to french language or vice et versa!
4)What is taught and developed in chi sau?...
-Timing ,awareness,control of oneself and the opponent in the real Wing Chun effective range.Fighting should be done idealy in this range if a practitioner want to be fighting with Wing Chun.Doing a hit and run style fits boxing more than Wing Chun but we know of boxers who fight in the Wing Chun range very well.
5)What is learned and developed in the forms?...
-Proper structure and the concept of rellaxation,useful in order to be able to use the opponent own energy and not fight his force and using the whole body as a force vector instead of muscle.It must be completly ingrained to a working degree to be effective,thus ( ;) ) the need to a diligent practice of this aspect of Wing Chun. Using any other training system is simply not Wing Chun even if temporary effectiveness can be obtained with them; as in any sports where skill goes away with age and muscle tone.
6)How to fight with Wing Chun?...
-By using what is learned in Wing Chun!...;)

Ernie

12-19-2004, 01:28 PM

use wing chun , don't let it use you :D

old jong

12-19-2004, 01:37 PM

Use Wing Chun,don't let JKD use you!...;) :p :D

Ernie

12-19-2004, 01:46 PM

valley of the robots , danger will robinson:D

old jong

12-19-2004, 02:15 PM

Irony will bring nothing Dr Smiss! ;)

Matrix

12-19-2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"Terence is right when he says; You cant learn anything from a video! " (JR)

Not true. You can learn from videos. Assuming you have a quality video, in terms of content - not necessarily production quality, you can learn a few things. Videos can be a good supplemental learning tool, but nothing substitutes for solid in-person instruction and training, IMO.

12-19-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**I hope my answers gave you better insight into what I'm talking about.

Yes, it was a great help in better understanding what you've been trying to describe. Thank you.

Regards,
- kj

Matrix

12-19-2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
This is one of those rare times when I have to disagree with Ernie. I still think in terms of technique - even after all these years. For example...if I see a a backfist...I'm usually thinking quan sao. Not a big deal either way. It just shows that different people can understand a common concept using a different approach.

old jong

12-19-2004, 04:08 PM

And,as "robots",we must do our best to use the programming we are supposed to use. This incluse the "robots who think they are not programmed but sumply follow some other program making them believe that they are not!...;) :p

12-19-2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Not a big deal either way. It just shows that different people can understand a common concept using a different approach.

Yup. Given that there are different learning and cognitive styles, it only makes sense that people will understand, perceive and characterize things differently.

Regards,
- kj

Matrix

12-19-2004, 04:26 PM

KJ,

Exactly! It's what makes instruction and learning more difficult since there is not a one-size-fits-all style.

Ultimatewingchun

12-19-2004, 05:00 PM

"Not a big deal either way. It just shows that different people can understand a common concept using a different approach. (Matrix)

"Yup. Given that there are different learning and cognitive styles, it only makes sense that people will understand, perceive and characterize things differently." (kj)

"Exactly! It's what makes instruction and learning more difficult since there is not a one-size-fits-all style." (Matrix)

OKAY............let's debate this!

At the risk of being accused of being dogmatic...I've got to say that, in my experience and opinion, the best fighters (and yes - I mean fighters...in that this is someone who, at the very least, frequently spars with quality opponents who use a variety of methods or styles)...

the best fighers almost always train the way I described; namely, they spend a significant amount of time training (rehearsing) SPECIFIC techniques and strategies against SPECIFIC types of attacks, counters, and fighting scenarios.

And even those people who don't claim to do this - but DO SPEND a significant amount of time sparring against quality opponents...I would postulate that they ARE DOING IT in some form or another...even if they don't consciously recognize it as such.

They think they are not actually training their "muscle memory" to act in a specific manner - and to almost always be spontaneous...but in truth...the SPECIFIC responses are being programmed at a sub-conscious level.

sihing

12-19-2004, 06:27 PM

You have to train SPECIFIC things against SPECIFIC attacks, or you won't have a clue as to what to do when the time comes that it is really needed. I use Tan Sao all the time against round movements (round punch, back fist, spinning backfist, round kicks, crescent kicks, etc..) but I have other options in case the time, space and energy to use tan is not there. In the end your body will follow the instructions/instincts of the mind, so I agree with Victor on this one. This is also the reason for certain rules to be in place in relation to footwork and stance placements. Everything is interrelated and works together as one unit. Once the placement of the tools (hands, arms, tan, bong, fok, etc..) is mastered then you have to learn to use them when you are not conscious of what is happening. I remember the time this happened the first time distinctly in my mind. I was training some combat techniques with a partner and he was throwing some punches and surprisingly he spun and throws out a low spinning back fist to my ribs. My right Gaun Sao found it perfectly while simultaneously striking to the back of his neck. The feeling was quite remarkable as the tools just came out perfect for the required situation. You build upon this base and learn to trust your body/mind connection so that your total focus will now be on the opponent and what they are doing.

James

Matrix

12-19-2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
At the risk of being accused of being dogmatic...Pray tell, what are the odds that that will happen. ;)

I've got to say that, in my experience and opinion, the best fighters .............. First of all, your experience is just that, your experience. There is more to the world than that. More and different experiences abound. Besides, we're not talking about how you train pre se, but how different people comprehend information and relate to their training. You may start out with "SPECIFIC techniques and strategies against SPECIFIC types of attacks, counters, and fighting scenarios." But I think things evolve beyond that to something closer to what Ernie has described. Just as a child must be conscious and deliberate about each initial step, after a while it just flows. You don't think,"Hey , I'm about to walk up some stairs, I need to change my stride to accomidate these steps..." You just do it, without a second thought.

I don't believe in specific techniques against specific attacks, per se. How does that grab you? :D

Ernie

12-19-2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by old jong
And,as "robots",we must do our best to use the programming we are supposed to use. This incluse the "robots who think they are not programmed but sumply follow some other program making them believe that they are not!...;) :p

all I can say is {I} robot think for myself as an individual

but really this stuff has always been simple to me , some people are good at math

stuff that requires body and mind has always been easy ,dancing , sports , what ever
never had to work very hard at it :cool:

sihing

12-19-2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Pray tell, what are the odds that that will happen. ;)

First of all, your experience is just that, your experience. There is more to the world than that. More and different experiences abound. Besides, we're not talking about how you train pre se, but how different people comprehend information and relate to their training. You may start out with "SPECIFIC techniques and strategies against SPECIFIC types of attacks, counters, and fighting scenarios." But I think things evolve beyond that to something closer to what Ernie has described. Just as a child must be conscious and deliberate about each initial step, after a while it just flows. You don't think,"Hey , I'm about to walk up some stairs, I need to change my stride to accomidate these steps..." You just do it, without a second thought.

I don't believe in specific techniques against specific attacks, per se. How does that grab you? :D

Personally it doesn't grab me at all Bill. :cool:

In the end, there is no rehearsal, so whatever comes out, against whatever attack will suffice as long as I am the one walking away..... Baby steps before walking and walking before running, elementary stuff gentlemen....But it all has a beginning, and just because one is beyond that point does not discount it's relevance and importance.

James

Ultimatewingchun

12-19-2004, 09:23 PM

"First of all, your experience is just that, your experience. There is more to the world than that. More and different experiences abound. Besides, we're not talking about how you train per se, but how different people comprehend information and relate to their training." (Matrix)

So let's examine the experiences of other people in the world. How about champion boxers from the past? Can we start with them? Do you think that they didn't constantly practice against very SPECIFIC types of attacks and fighting styles?

Do you think that maybe they recruited sparring partners when preparing for upcoming matches who could emulate their prospective opponent's style?

So that they could come up with some SPECIFIC counters to those SPECIFIC types of attacks and styles of boxing?

Of course they did.

And the same with today's top fighters in PRIDE and the UFC.

.................................................. .........................................

Now as to this:

"You may start out with SPECIFIC techniques and strategies against SPECIFIC types of attacks, counters, and fighting scenarios. But I think things evolve beyond that to something closer to what Ernie has described." (Matrix)

And also what I described...eventually the intuition takes over and true unplanned spontaneity takes over. But the conscious foundation I described serves as the "base of operations"....always to be added to and subtracted from as experience and circumstances dictate. Successful auto pilot simply means that the necessary work has already been done (ie. - specifics)...and now we can just let the subconscious mind take over and FLOW...and sometimes it even goes into areas where we may never have travelled CONSCIOUSLY before.

The sum total has become more than it's individual parts.

Then you've tapped into something that goes beyond your personal and individual "specific" training.

Something else takes over. For lack of a better term - we sometimes refer to it as intuition.

But the problem is...sometimes people want to look for short-cuts that don't exist.

KPM

12-20-2004, 04:28 AM

Terence wrote:
**Tell me what part of this don't you understand -- we're discussing training methods for becoming a skilled fighter. Folks that have proven themselves skilled fighters, like boxers, BJJ, MMAist, muay thai, etc. all train with the same model. That model exists whether I can fight or not. You can't dispute those results. Now, if you think that you or someone else has found a different model that produces skilled fighters, then great -- where are the results? I don't need to step up and fight to prove that the model that produced Rickson, Tyson, etc. works. I could be a a quadraplegic and the evidence that this model produces skilled fighters would still exist.

---Sounds like more rationalization to me. Its simple. You keep talking about how your results are better than anyone elses. You've been asked to provide one simple measure that might support that claim. What's wrong with that? KPM

But if you, for whatever reason, want to see how well I can fight, visit St. Louis -- I'll be more than happy to mix it up with you.
So, Keith, when are you going to visit?

---So now you are using the forum to set up challenge fights? It so happens that I am not as free to travel as others might be. Nor am I the aggressive "fighter" that you are. KPM

**You know, I feel exactly the same way! I'm tired of the same-old nonfighter/theoretician perspective.

---As I said to Victor, EVERYONE is a theoretician when it comes to a discussion board because all we can do is DISCUSS! Everything you are saying is just theory here as well, unless you provide evidence to back it up. KPM

Keith

KPM

12-20-2004, 04:36 AM

Terence wrote:
**How does one know what the "appropriate situation" is? Someone tell you? Or do you find that for yourself by trying to use whatever you have? Moreoever, fighting is a matter of using what we have at the moment. If someone is attacked but only has a limited number of "techniques" (because they are a beginner, for example) what do they do? They make do. You can't ask the attacker to come back after you've "completed the system." So a trainee with just the jik chung choi will use that tool to do every job imaginable. If something happens in fighting where that tool won't work, they'll improvise (perhaps poorly). But that will give them insight into the limitations they have, what they need, why they need it, etc.
In BJJ, for example, you don't wait until you learn "the entire system" to begin rolling, you begin right away. Sure you have limited things you can do, but that lets you focus on doing them, setting them up, etc. And you're a better groundfighter with those few things than you were before you had them. You'll have lots of holes in your groundfighting, make a lot of mistakes, etc. but that's part of the learning process.

We do have "sparring drills" where we isolate certain things to focus on them, if that's what you mean. But typically a trainee will use whatever they have at the moment.

Let me ask you a question, how do you think someone can learn to deal with a genuine attack if they never deal with a genuine attack? And in fighting, no one does single attacks -- so we have to learn to deal with the whole enchilada. In fighting practice, we wear protective gear. And, we all go into it with the realization that we are there to learn, to develop, not to just pound on the other guy. And the trainer is always there to intercede. Also, it is by getting into this environment that the trainee develops the conditioning to not be injured. You see, in "real fights" everyone and anyone is going to be hit. There is only one way to learn how to deal with that.

---There! Now was that so hard? :-) That post actually had some content to contribute to the discussion and give us a little more insight into how you train. That's all Hunt was asking for from the beginning.....something more than just the same old "fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" That was a good post, it acutally had some balance. Now I would still like another question answered while you are in the sharing mood. You have stated that a person's own experience in sparring should be the guide for their WCK, and not traditional teaching. So what things have you changed about your WCK based upon your "fighting" experience? I am not trying to be facetious or argumentative. I would truly like to know what insights you have gained and how you have changed your Wing Chun from the "traditional" way it is done based upon those insights. Again, this was the original intent of this thread.

Keith

KPM

12-20-2004, 04:48 AM

Ernie wrote:
And I was just being honest, things like the shapes are just static moments and reference points, they give the feeling of proper alignment and connection for things like power release absorbing deflecting and so on
Once you have the [feeling] of these static postures [forms] and the basic idea for there usage [a lan sau is done line this blah blah] you must learn to apply and find the timing.

---Ah! But this is different than saying that your insights gained in sparring/fighting are going to alter or change the traditional WCK that you learned. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are learning to apply what you have learned in a free-flowing situation and make it work. KPM

But this is all just part of the training system, you are still in the bubble if you seek the perfect bong sau [or any hand or posture] in a chi sau environment, then in theory your are still chasing hands, your chasing a mental image of what you think things should look like, instead of relating to the problem and person in front of you.

---I agree totally. But again, it sounds like you are not purposefully changing what you have learned based on fighting/sparring experience and then practicing it that way from that point onward. You are simply learning how things are applied effectively. KPM

This is more of a robotic way of trying to fight! If your not relating your not being natural your trying to [do the form] on some one, and it won’t work right, you will be crashing and bumping or getting jammed up

---True. And that is the whole purpose of Chi Sau....to learn to flow and not to be "robotic." Same applies to sparring/fighting. KPM

But I know people love security blankets and there is nothing wrong with staying with in the confines of what makes you feel safe and confident

---I don't think it is a "security blanket." Many would see everything you've said above as applying to quality Chi Sau as well. In the confines of Chi Sau or sparring you don't think about how the technique is executed, you just do it. You learn how it works in application. But that is not the same thing as saying that you are changing the way the techniques are executed when doing solo drills, forms, or other practice. Traditional teaching still applies, and is not thrown out as has been suggested elsewhere. KPM

Keith

t_niehoff

12-20-2004, 06:45 AM

KPM wrote:

---Sounds like more rationalization to me. Its simple. You keep talking about how your results are better than anyone elses. You've been asked to provide one simple measure that might support that claim. What's wrong with that? KPM

**I'm not saying anything about *my* results being better than anyone else's -- I'm saying that if we look at the evidence, look to any proven skilled fighter, and then look at how they have become skilled, we'll see they all followed the same training model. Many people training today in karate, aikido, TCMAs, etc. don't follow that model. And we don't see anyone from that group developing significant demonstrable fighting skills. The evidence doesn't rest on my shoulders.

But if you, for whatever reason, want to see how well I can fight, visit St. Louis -- I'll be more than happy to mix it up with you.
So, Keith, when are you going to visit?

---So now you are using the forum to set up challenge fights? It so happens that I am not as free to travel as others might be. Nor am I the aggressive "fighter" that you are. KPM

**You're asking for a "clip" of me -- to do what? You can't see from a clip whether I have fightign skill or not; there is only one way to see if I have skill, and what level of skill, and that is in person. So if you, for whatever reason, think the rataionale for my POV rests somehow on my personal skill level, then you'll need to come and see for yourself what I can or cannot do.

**You know, I feel exactly the same way! I'm tired of the same-old nonfighter/theoretician perspective.

---As I said to Victor, EVERYONE is a theoretician when it comes to a discussion board because all we can do is DISCUSS! Everything you are saying is just theory here as well, unless you provide evidence to back it up. KPM

**Not everyone is a theoretician. Fighters (swimmers) have a certain perspective, and theoreticians (dryland swimmers) have a different perspective. It goes all the way down to how they think about martial arts. Do fighters have/use theory? Sure, but not in the same way theoreticians do.

t_niehoff

12-20-2004, 07:07 AM

KPM wrote:

---There! Now was that so hard? :-) That post actually had some content to contribute to the discussion and give us a little more insight into how you train. That's all Hunt was asking for from the beginning.....something more than just the same old "fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" That was a good post, it acutally had some balance.

Well, thanks. And I'm sorry to drone on about "fight, fight" but you should understand that when folks that are practicing dry-land swimming ask questions about swimming, that more often than not, their questions would be answered or at least better-focused if they simply got into the pool (hence my answer: swim, swim). So many things would become clear. They'd also see that many of their opinions about are founded on mistaken assumptions (the theory of dry-land swimming).

---Now I would still like another question answered while you are in the sharing mood. You have stated that a person's own experience in sparring should be the guide for their WCK, and not traditional teaching.

The traditional teachings are the finger pointing to the moon. They are a guide and nothing more.

---So what things have you changed about your WCK based upon your "fighting" experience? I am not trying to be facetious or argumentative. I would truly like to know what insights you have gained and how you have changed your Wing Chun from the "traditional" way it is done based upon those insights. Again, this was the original intent of this thread.

To be honest, I don't even think about it in that way. The number one thing that has changed is in how I train and teach WCK. That has changed my perspective.

t_niehoff

12-20-2004, 07:33 AM

KPM wrote:

---Ah! But this is different than saying that your insights gained in sparring/fighting are going to alter or change the traditional WCK that you learned. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are learning to apply what you have learned in a free-flowing situation and make it work. KPM

That's the same thing.

---I agree totally. But again, it sounds like you are not purposefully changing what you have learned based on fighting/sparring experience and then practicing it that way from that point onward. You are simply learning how things are applied effectively. KPM

It's the same thing. The traditional teachings ae a guide for one to find their own individual/personal way.

---True. And that is the whole purpose of Chi Sau....to learn to flow and not to be "robotic." Same applies to sparring/fighting. KPM

That's not the "purpose" of chi sao, and a person can't even begin to understand the purpose of chi sao until they begin fighting -- that's what puts it into context. Without fighting, the chi sao becomes a crutch and it actually takes a person off-course from developing fighting skill.

---I don't think it is a "security blanket." Many would see everything you've said above as applying to quality Chi Sau as well. In the confines of Chi Sau or sparring you don't think about how the technique is executed, you just do it. You learn how it works in application. But that is not the same thing as saying that you are changing the way the techniques are executed when doing solo drills, forms, or other practice. Traditional teaching still applies, and is not thrown out as has been suggested elsewhere. KPM

Doing a drill "well" (look at how great I am at pattycake) doesn't make it "quality chi sao"; the quality of any drill is in how it helps one do the underlying activity, in this case, fight. So one can never tell how their chi sao is helping (or hurting, as is the case with many) them without fighting. Chi sao is a game or drill that will not teach you about application. You learn about application from application. Chi sao takes some of the tools of WCK and allows you to develop them to a certain level but those will not be applied in fighting as they are in chi sao because fighting adds quite a few (lots) variables that were not present in the drill (so those tools won't work in the same way/situations). But from doing chi sao, one can take those tools and try to find for oneself how to put them into our fighting.

Jim Roselando

12-20-2004, 07:40 AM

Hey Terence,

**You're asking for a "clip" of me -- to do what?

It was I who asked "everyone" on this forum to send in some clips! Its a great way to use modern technology to share with others and use as a base for discussion and learning from each other.

You can't see from a clip whether I have fightign skill or not; there is only one way to see if I have skill, and what level of skill, and that is in person.

Sorry Terence but all pro athletes, fighters, etc. watch others and thermselves on Video. I would bet dollars to donuts that 99% of us on this list have a reasonably extensive collection of videos. Do you? A trained eye can see lots and discuss lots. You cant develop skill from watching them but learn/discuss you can.

So if you, for whatever reason, think the rataionale for my POV rests somehow on my personal skill level, then you'll need to come and see for yourself what I can or cannot do.

All of us love to train and train with others. I always post my experiences with others when they visit or who I visited. Travelling accross the county to spar with someone may sound like a fun idea but the fact is its not likely or practical unless you are going to be in that area or have some childish grudge with each other that needs to be worked out. The reason I post that idea and invite "you and others" to join in is because we can all learn from each other. Some spar more than others. Some Chi Sao more than others. Some this or that but the one thign we know is that there are some very experiences WCK people on this list and we can use modern technology to help us learn more by being examined by those on this list. Since we all use this as our home for discussion we must feel that there are people worthy to discuss with right? That means we think the level of WCK discussion here is good so I would also imagine that allowing us to show footage of ourselves for critique by the same people we like to chat with is a good thing or can be.

I can see how some are obviously thinking that many are not comfortable with showing footage of themselves but this is all for learning and not to single any of us out. It would be nice if you and others would participate!

Just my opinion!

Gotta run!

Ernie

12-20-2004, 08:54 AM

---Ah! But this is different than saying that your insights gained in sparring/fighting are going to alter or change the traditional WCK that you learned. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are learning to apply what you have learned in a free-flowing situation and make it work. KPM

[[[ of course ! the training sysytem gives us the seeds and a mni lab to experiement , get to know ourselves in a safe controlled semi live enviroment [chi sau] they key is to create experiences outside of the traditional training sysytem and see how you hold up , based on that information you go back to your ''lab'' with a real view of what you as an individual needs to work on ]]

[[For example,
This weekend I taught a small group private, and I broke out the motorcycle helmet on them they were all wing chun guys some with a lot of years and one my training partner who is incredible at the chi sau game the guy is a ghost and hits like a truck.

Well in this particular drill the guy with the helmet wears 14oz gloves and plays the role of a boxer we just isolated the jab since this is there first time, later everything will fly.

The other person just has on some light fingerless gloves

His goal is very simple wing Chun 101 enters and hit him with some real solid punches.

The skill goal is to.
- Get the right timing and distance
- Hit with full power, no mental ‘’no I can’t hurt my partner stuff ‘’
- Maintain balance, forward pressure and track the head and body as it crumples moves and puts up defensive barriers

The guy firing of the jab has to do everything he can to keep the puncher from entering, jab fast and hard and keep moving all the time

Well this should be very simple for a seasoned wing chun/ chi sau skilled man, basic punching

Here are the problem people faced even though the are super crispy in chi sau and disconnected chi sau drills.
When it came time to really hit with all you got and balance your footwork while tracking and dealing with a fast mobile jab. Things got real interesting, people that were normally very good were stumbling, crashing, missing, and suddenly the most relaxed chi sau guy got tense and clumsy.

And I reminded them this is more like what can really happen when you really have to hit some one to stop them that is hitting you, the emotion, fatigue, rapidness of change all more common the anything is a chi sau session

But the real assignment was for them to pick out what they found in themselves and take it back to there schools and transfer this information back into the system and work on it

This ability to go out seek experience then bring it back in and customize your training to focus on your weakness is how one can progress.

The level of experience is a progression as well this drill is isolated and has its limits; the ultimate goal is to put it all together in a free environment,

This is how your individual path grows with checks and balances.

So modern training and the system training can support each other if you are clever and can connect the dots

Plus the video of the stuff is a blast to watch I’m still busting up]]
:D :D

YongChun

12-20-2004, 10:45 AM

When I listen to the news the main real attacks are getting shot or 8 to ten people with bats, knives, machetes attack a single person. A lot of the reality training people talk about really doesn't address this issue. People just say, that's not possible to handle and then go on to talk about their Thai boxing, BJJ model or they say the Thai boxing, BJJ model will prepare one better than the chi sau method to handle these things. Neither method will do. For group attack you have to also train this scenario a lot even if unrealistic to opitimize one's chances. If not then one's training methods are OK for sports, for the ring against amateurs but is juts a case of dry land swimming for the reality case. Perhaps Escrima and Choy Lee Fut skills are better for the group case in that the former deals with weapon attack and the latter is designed around group attack. The Thai teacher we had felt this may be the case as well as far as what he saw in Korea?

Ray

YongChun

12-20-2004, 10:48 AM

I think any of us can judge the performance of Terrence from a video pretty easily. Any athlete can do that. None of us have fought against Tyson. We only judge from his results and seeing him on TV. One video clip can tell more than several years of arguing about what a real fighter can do.

sihing

12-20-2004, 11:18 AM

I've always asked the question, can one tell the fighting skills to some degree of someone in a demo. Yes you can up to a point of course, with the really skilled people showing us what they want to show and no more or less. Problem is some can't do it this way and have to show the real skill they have and if others critique it and put it down their egos can't take it.

I believe one can learn from videos, you learn rhythm, flow and subtle little things. I know for a fact that I have learned and absorb many different WC attributes strictly from watching my Sifu in demos over and over again. Say for example I was still a beginning student and watched Sifu doing advanced Chi-sao movements, things I haven't learned yet, and when I get to that stage of training, after watching the video's so often my ability to learn those same movements will be faster because I am already familar with them in my mind, all I have to do is train the body and it's reaction, so IMO video is a great learning/training tool.

James

Ultimatewingchun

12-20-2004, 11:57 AM

I think that watching each other's videos could be very helpful; and I certainly agree that skill(s) can be judged from watching - providing certain criteria are there.

1) The video contains footage of a spontaneous fighting/sparring situation wherein there aren't many "rules" about what can and can't be done.

2) The opponent of the person who sent in the video is ALSO skilled. I've seen many a video footage wherein the person who is being highlighted looks really great at what they're doing - but upon watching it a second or third time I saw that the "opponent" wasn't really doing anything special if they were the attacker - and basically nothing by way of quality defense if they were being attacked.

So what did the video prove?

Nothing.

Training videos are one thing...it's understood that the one being highlighted is just trying to demonstarte and explain a move(s) without much resistance. No problem. This kind of video footage is important if the viewer is trying to learn something.

But sometimes this kind of thing gets passed off as a "reality" type fighting situation - when it's clearly not the case.

Just wanted to make that distinction....

but still want to send in some videos and watch some of other folks' stuff.

Wayfaring

12-20-2004, 12:21 PM

Ernie posted:

The skill goal is to.
- Get the right timing and distance
- Hit with full power, no mental ‘’no I can’t hurt my partner stuff ‘’
- Maintain balance, forward pressure and track the head and body as it crumples moves and puts up defensive barriers

The guy firing of the jab has to do everything he can to keep the puncher from entering, jab fast and hard and keep moving all the time

This in my opinion is a fantastic example of bridging the gap between traditional WCK skills and fighting skills. You can scale an exercise like this from 30% power to 100%, you can work different things in it, like focus on footwork for a period of time, explosive power for a period of time, tracking accuracy on punches, then put it all together.

This is also where I think the most value is in discussing back and forth the "fighter/non-fighter" stuff - not just drawing a line in the sand and stand on one side or the other. If non-fighters could see the detail in scaling exercises like this, controlling the pace/tempo to being on the edge of comfortability, then increasing over time, there would be a lot less non-fighters.

Good stuff.

Rgds,
Dave Milner

Ultimatewingchun

12-20-2004, 12:34 PM

"This is also where I think the most value is in discussing back and forth the "fighter/non-fighter" stuff - not just drawing a line in the sand and stand on one side or the other. If non-fighters could see the detail in scaling exercises like this, controlling the pace/tempo to being on the edge of comfortability, then increasing over time, there would be a lot less non-fighters."

Good thoughts, Dave.

Unfortunately, a number of people have made comments in the past to the effect that the kind of drill that Ernie described....

1) isn't good wing chun
2) doesn't really mean anything
3) goes against the flow of wing chun's main training tool (ie.- chi sao)
4) Is unnecessary (it's all covered elsewhere, ie.-chi sao)

and a host of other rationalizations that amount to a big hill of beans.

Ernie

12-20-2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"
Unfortunately, a number of people have made comments in the past to the effect that the kind of drill that Ernie described....

1) isn't good wing chun
2) doesn't really mean anything
3) goes against the flow of wing chun's main training tool (ie.- chi sao)
4) Is unnecessary (it's all covered elsewhere, ie.-chi sao)

and a host of other rationalizations that amount to a big hill of beans.

Victor ,
my training partner of 4 years is a very traditional dude
he is one of those wing chun perfectionist cats

he had all these oppinions and ways of thinking

until he tried the drill and found out he didn't do as well as he thought he would

but what i was most impressed by is he went right back to chi sau situations were he could work out his kinks

kinks he never thought he had !

kinks that were not noticable when he did chi sau since he is very skilled and controls just about every one he rolls with [ he was getting bored with chi sau ]

suddenly armed with this honest information and video observation , he is energized again

one hand helps the other

this is why i don't think one should hard core all the time 10 % and if your prepping for something 50%

the rest should be spent on dialing yourself in based on the information you gained when you turned it up and each time you go back to a hardcore level you should improve

now this way is slower then just bang'n all the time and getting good under fire

but you get hurt less and unless your prepping for a fight , then were in no hurry

keep it honest but keep it fun

as for those that doubt these types of training drills , cool the less people that train that way the better makes my life alot easier when i run into those cats they crumble under real pressure :D

hunt1

12-20-2004, 01:29 PM

WOW! Very interesting turns this thread has taken.
YP- Great post about the lower back. One of those things hiding in plain sight in the forms.
I agree with you about fighting with wing chun body instead of just a wing chun outer shell.

Ernie's post points out what happens when fear enters into the equation. Wing Chun cant be done right until you can relax while fighting and you cant relax while fighting until you defeat the fear of getting hit and hurt which you cant do without some type of sparring and getting hit. What an interesting circle.

So many other great things contained in the posts. Thanks for all the contributions.

Terrence you make many good points but as KPM said or alluded to at least is that what I was hoping to get was some personal experience when folks began to make the transition from classroom to sparring strangers. Everyone goes through some time of transition and learning when they face skilled strangers.
For example the first time I dealt with a TKD hook kick . I had never seen one before and was not at all prepared for it. It never occured to me that a leg could move like that. After I woke up and saw what happened to me I made changes to my footwork and a lesson from the weapon forms was brought home in spades. Sometimes you attack the limb before the body.

12-20-2004, 01:38 PM

,
Originally posted by Wayfaring
This is also where I think the most value is in discussing back and forth the "fighter/non-fighter" stuff - not just drawing a line in the sand and stand on one side or the other. If non-fighters could see the detail in scaling exercises like this, controlling the pace/tempo to being on the edge of comfortability, then increasing over time, there would be a lot less non-fighters.

Bingo, Dave.

Originally posted by Ernie
he had all these oppinions and ways of thinking

until he tried the drill and found out he didn't do as well as he thought he would

but what i was most impressed by is he went right back to chi sau situations were he could work out his kinks

Awesome, Ernie.

It's not "either/or" (or at least shouldn’t be, IMHO); it isn't and shouldn’t be about “extincting” (sic) one type of practice in favor of another. (Although it often enough looks that way, given the limitations and shortcomings of forum dialog and apparent effects of meme theory). It's finding ever increasing effectiveness and balance.

Nice turn of thread into something constructive and positive.

Regards,
- kj

Matrix

12-20-2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by sihing
In the end, there is no rehearsal, so whatever comes out, against whatever attack will suffice as long as I am the one walking away..... James. My point exactly. :)

Matrix

12-20-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
And also what I described... Except that you specifically stated that you disagreed with Ernie's point. Hence my comment.

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The sum total has become more than it's individual parts.

Then you've tapped into something that goes beyond your personal and individual "specific" training. Of course people want to look for short-cuts. It's human nature. It's why people want to spar before they're ready, because they think it makes them a "fighter". They can't crawl yet, but they're trying to run. Hey, but what the hell do I know? :)

sihing

12-20-2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Except that you specifically stated that you disagreed with Ernie's point. Hence my comment.

Of course people want to look for short-cuts. It's human nature. It's why people want to spar before they're ready, because they think it makes them a "fighter". They can't crawl yet, but they're trying to run. Hey, but what the hell do I know? :)

The creation of the Wing Chun system was the shortcut, that's what the system is all about..

James

Ultimatewingchun

12-20-2004, 10:22 PM

"Of course people want to look for short-cuts. It's human nature. It's why people want to spar before they're ready, because they think it makes them a 'fighter'. They can't crawl yet, but they're trying to run. Hey, but what the hell do I know?"

So tell me, Bill...in your opinion - when should people start sparring?

After they've learned...what?

After they've spent time drilling...what?

And after how much time spent doing the above?

And what about contact sparring with protective equipment?

Are you for it or not?

And if so...when should it be started?

KPM

12-21-2004, 03:50 AM

---As I said to Victor, EVERYONE is a theoretician when it comes to a discussion board because all we can do is DISCUSS! Everything you are saying is just theory here as well, unless you provide evidence to back it up. KPM

**Not everyone is a theoretician. Fighters (swimmers) have a certain perspective, and theoreticians (dryland swimmers) have a different perspective. It goes all the way down to how they think about martial arts. Do fighters have/use theory? Sure, but not in the same way theoreticians do. Terence

---It seems you missed my point entirely about the discussion forum. KPM

Keith

Redd

12-21-2004, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by KPM
---It seems you missed my point entirely about the discussion forum. KPM

Keith

Thats just one of many.

KPM

12-21-2004, 04:05 AM

---So what things have you changed about your WCK based upon your "fighting" experience? I am not trying to be facetious or argumentative. I would truly like to know what insights you have gained and how you have changed your Wing Chun from the "traditional" way it is done based upon those insights. Again, this was the original intent of this thread. KPM

To be honest, I don't even think about it in that way. The number one thing that has changed is in how I train and teach WCK. That has changed my perspective. Terence

----Now come on Terence! Like I said before, that attitude is total .....B....S.....! What I have really taken exception to in your past posts is the constant implication that there is something wrong with following a "traditional" approach and sticking to doing things the way a specific lineage teaches (which, BTW, does not exclude using progressive sparring drills). You have supported the idea on more than one occasion that fighting should be what determines how you do your WCK, and not what your Sifu has taught you. You even implied that whether one is using a K1 pivot or a heel pivot (which is a major biomechanical difference) should be determined by what works in fighting and not what your lineage teaches. You have come across as endorsing a very "Jeet Kune Do-like" approach to Wing Chun. Now you are asked to provide a few examples of how this approach has given you insight and changed how you perform and teach your Wing Chun and you can't do it???? You can't provide one example of something like "I have learned to do Bong Sau this way because in fighting I found.......", or "I no longer practice this as I was taught because I have not found it to have any fighting application...."? If you are going to classify everyone with a "traditional" approach to Wing Chun as a "theoretician", then you darn well better be able to do more than just say "I don't even think about it that way", because that sure sounds like a "theoretician's" attitude to me. KPM

Keith

KPM

12-21-2004, 04:18 AM

Ah! But this is different than saying that your insights gained in sparring/fighting are going to alter or change the traditional WCK that you learned. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are learning to apply what you have learned in a free-flowing situation and make it work. KPM

[[[ of course ! the training sysytem gives us the seeds and a mni lab to experiement , get to know ourselves in a safe controlled semi live enviroment [chi sau] they key is to create experiences outside of the traditional training sysytem and see how you hold up , based on that information you go back to your ''lab'' with a real view of what you as an individual needs to work on ]] Ernie

---But again, that is not any different than what many of us so-called "traditionalists" and "non-fighters" and "theoreticians" are already doing! I don't see going on past Chi Sau to do progressive sparring drills as being against a "traditional" approach. Even Augustine Fong, who is a very "traditional" teacher goes beyond Chi Sau to do "Gor Sau" drills that progress to free-sparring. The implication has been that the "fighters" are somehow gaining all this insight and are changing the way they perform and teach their Wing Chun. The implication is that they somehow know more than the ancestors that designed Wing Chun to begin with. The implication is that I shouldn't trust what Leung Jan taught as being good Wing Chun, but that I need to go out and "reinvent the wheel." I have said more than once, that if I cannot make something work in a sparring situation, I am not going to toss it out as ineffective, but I am going to examine what I am doing and figure out WHY I cannot make it work. That seems to be the difference from a lot of the "fighter's attitude" that gets talked about here. KPM

[[For example, This weekend I taught a small group private, and I broke out the motorcycle helmet on them they were all wing chun guys some with a lot of years and one my training partner who is incredible at the chi sau game the guy is a ghost and hits like a truck.........Ernie

---Good drill! We have done similar things. We go beyond Chi Sau and use progressive sparring drills that get as realistic as feasible. I own headgear, gloves, chest-protectors..... But I still consider myself a "traditionalist." I still follow my lineage's teachings. I still try to keep my Wing Chun as close to how my predecessors taught it as possible. The sparring helps me learned how to apply what I have learned, not how to alter it. There is no dichotomy, no "line in the sand" as Terence has tried to create. Maybe some make more use of progressive sparring drills than others. Maybe some only do forms and Chi Sau. But I take offense at being lumped into any one group and labeled. The so-called "fighters" have some good points. But its the way they are presented and the broad brushstrokes used that I take exception to. KPM

Keith

Redd

12-21-2004, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by KPM
But I take offense at being lumped into any one group and labeled. The so-called "fighters" have some good points. But its the way they are presented and the broad brushstrokes used that I take exception to. KPM

Keith

They can't help it. Too many hits to the head.

t_niehoff

12-21-2004, 06:37 AM

KPM wrote:

---So what things have you changed about your WCK based upon your "fighting" experience? I am not trying to be facetious or argumentative. I would truly like to know what insights you have gained and how you have changed your Wing Chun from the "traditional" way it is done based upon those insights. Again, this was the original intent of this thread. KPM

To be honest, I don't even think about it in that way. The number one thing that has changed is in how I train and teach WCK. That has changed my perspective. Terence

----Now come on Terence! Like I said before, that attitude is total .....B....S.....!

**I wouldn't expect you to know what I was talking about -- when you begin to practice WCK, you will see. If you never practice WCK, you won't.

What I have really taken exception to in your past posts is the constant implication that there is something wrong with following a "traditional" approach

**Of course one follows a traditional approach -- the forms, for example, are traditional, as are the drills like chi sao.

and sticking to doing things the way a specific lineage teaches (which, BTW, does not exclude using progressive sparring drills).

**If a lineage tries to enforce a certain way of doing things, then the student of that lineage will never achieve significant results (in terms of fighting performance) regardless of "using progressive sparring drills."

You have supported the idea on more than one occasion that fighting should be what determines how you do your WCK, and not what your Sifu has taught you.

**That is exactly right -- there is no other way. This is what all fighters do, boxers, BJJ, muay thai, etc.

You even implied that whether one is using a K1 pivot or a heel pivot (which is a major biomechanical difference) should be determined by what works in fighting and not what your lineage teaches.

**You are so blinded by your lineage you don't see the forest for the trees. Look -- name anyone that fights at a high level, regardless of lineage, and if you look, you'll see that they *all* move/weight/stand on their toes (k1, ball of the foot, etc.). No good stand-up fighter, whether boxer, muay thai, kickboxer, wrestler, etc., puts their weight (except in transition) on their heels or "middle of the foot". And there is a reason for that: biomechanically, that provides us with the best way to move quickly, powerfully, etc. Anyone that fights with good people will begin to move on their toes because they'll have to. I don't move on k1 because Robert told me to; I move on k1 because it works for me.

You have come across as endorsing a very "Jeet Kune Do-like" approach to Wing Chun.

**Theoreticians are always concerned with "purity" of lineage, method, etc. They are WCK facists. They are trapped by their theoretical view of WCK.

Now you are asked to provide a few examples of how this approach has given you insight and changed how you perform and teach your Wing Chun and you can't do it???? You can't provide one example of something like "I have learned to do Bong Sau this way because in fighting I found.......", or "I no longer practice this as I was taught because I have not found it to have any fighting application...."?

**I don't think like that and never did -- I always considered those sorts of things examples of using the tools, not how they *should* be used by everyone. Someone can show you how to use a jab, but that doesn't mean *you* should use the jab that way. You may, you may not. You determine that works best for you by fighting. You learn to box your way, not as a poor clone of Mohammed Ali. You don't get it because you're not fighting.

If you are going to classify everyone with a "traditional" approach to Wing Chun as a "theoretician", then you darn well better be able to do more than just say "I don't even think about it that way", because that sure sounds like a "theoretician's" attitude to me. KPM

**I'm not classifying you, that's what anyone is that doesn't fight -- that doesn't actually use their WCK. If someone isn't actually swimming but does all kinds of stuff without getting in the water they are at best theoretical swimmers (it's all intelllectual babble to them).

t_niehoff

12-21-2004, 06:50 AM

http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv

Though this is from the StraightBlast Gym, I think it may give some insight into what we've been discussing.

chisauking

12-21-2004, 07:21 AM

KPM said: ...constant implication that there is something wrong with following a "traditional" approach and sticking to doing things the way a specific lineage teaches (which, BTW, does not exclude using progressive sparring drills). You have supported the idea on more than one occasion that fighting should be what determines how you do your WCK, and not what your Sifu has taught you.

Excellent insight, KPM. Problem is, most people don't spend long enough time with a good sifu to reap the benefit of the training and the experiance of the WC practitioners that have gone before. They are too impatient to take the time to build a strong foundation before taking to their kick boxing and BJJ.

Many of the so-called (injured) fighters will be angered by your post, because it struck a chord of truth. They delude themselves into thinking that they and they alone have the way, where in truth many have already trodden this ancient path. The information and experiences accumulated by our ancestors is priceless, but many would ignore this accumulative knowledge and choose to invent the wheel for themselves.

Jim Roselando

12-21-2004, 08:15 AM

Hello all,

I have to agree with Kieth on this:

Since this is a discussion board, and its all just words, we are all nothing more than Keyboard Warriors! So, how many are up for sending in footage?

I was thinking of something a few people have told me in the past that relates to this footage debate of it having value or no value! Then I remembered Hendrik also said the same thing:

As the old Chinese saying " with a move shown by an expert, one will recognized it
is or is it not". SLT, CK, BJ, DLT....... points.... all are names. That single move
itself shown not the name of how one catagorized his/her curricurum.

As the old Chinese saying " The outsider anticipate the busy party, and the insider
anticipate the depth of Kungfu".

A move is a move, but it says alots.
But then, how much moves one has to practice until a move says alots?

This is a classic Chinese saying! Its true. All of us could easily tell if something is quality or not. If something uses WC mechanics or not. If something looks powerful or not.

How many are willing to be part of this? We could just start with one clip and then see how it goes from there! Come on guys! Dont be shy! Here is an opportunity for us to really showcase the stuff we talk about and allow the rest to comment! BUT! Those who are not willing to participate lose all rights to comment IMO. It should be just for those who are willing to be part of this!

Who's up for it?

Hmmmmm?

(Me, Ernie, Vic, Sihing, and a few others are willing)

Regards,

Ernie

12-21-2004, 08:52 AM

so let me get this striaght

in one corner we have traditionalist [so called non fighters ]
that don't want to be lumped into a group

in the other corner [ so called fighters ] that will use traditional methods but are not bound by lineage just seeking results

but the traditionalist that don't want lines in the sand drawn , have inturn drawn lines based on what they consider traditional and non traditional

and the [ so called fighters ] have no problem useing traditional methods

WOW !

so the dog chases the cat while they both chase there tails ;)

good times :D

this is the best day time drama ever

time to go pop some pop corn and watch the show

yylee

12-21-2004, 09:09 AM

Hey Ernie

Want one of these for Christmas?

battery not included ;)

http://global.dymo.com/enUS/Products/LetraTAG.html

Ernie

12-21-2004, 09:29 AM

[it features a simple ABC keyboard that's adult- and child-friendly.]

sounds like a few people on here would benifit from it ha ha ha

dude ,
i don't believe in labels , just treat people as individuals , they can call themselves what ever they like

normally when they get hit in the face all that traditional , lineage . non traditional modern stuff fly's out the window

and the individual comes out :D

but i know people need to feel special like the found some secret hidden magic key and they must protect it

to be honest i really don't understand it , since there is no proof that those old master were any good just alot of talk and non proven stories

and i'm not trying to dis people i really don't get the whole argument , it's not like the traditional guys are any better then any one else so for all that old scroll talk they still suck just like the rest =)

Knifefighter

12-21-2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Jim Roselando
Who's up for it?
I'm am. However, if I'm going to go through the hassle of putting fight clips on the computer and uploading them to a site, I'd like to see people's clips of them actually fighting or sparring where each person is going full tilt.

There are already enough "demonstrations" of WC out there. Show some real time applications against opponents who are trying to beat you- otherwise it's just theoretical non-fighting.

Wayfaring

12-21-2004, 10:19 AM

Want one of these for Christmas?
http://global.dymo.com/enUS/Products/LetraTAG.html

Naw, they won't stick to the skin.

Now these, on the other hand....
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1677853,00.asp

:cool:

Dave

sihing

12-21-2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Knifefighter
I'm am. However, if I'm going to go through the hassle of putting fight clips on the computer and uploading them to a site, I'd like to see people's clips of them actually fighting or sparring where each person is going full tilt.

There are already enough "demonstrations" of WC out there. Show some real time applications against opponents who are trying to beat you- otherwise it's just theoretical non-fighting.

I can understand that also. I've already put some clips up and they can be seen at the website list under my name. Early in the new year I will get some clips of sparring and sparring drills put up also. It's a good idea to share IMO.

James

Jim Roselando

12-21-2004, 11:06 AM

Hello,

Its a good idea to put up lots of stuff!

Sparring! Training! Chi Sao! etc etc etc..

But! You have to start somewhere so why not send in one clip of each other (anything) just as a start and go from there! Lets see what kind of respoce we get!

So far there are only 4 of us so its not looking too good! I'll say it again: How Sad! I dont get it! Actually, I think I do! What Ernie said about the lack of responce seems to be on the money.

"Nobody is confident enough in their precious art to share it with the public! That includes the Fighters and the Non Fighters!"

(not that those were his exact words but it seems to sum it up)

Guys and Gals! Its not about being great or terrible! Its about using modern technology to share and learn from each other! Just like we use the technology or the Internet to chat with other WCK and share and learn but this takes it one step further!

So! How about Jan. 1, 05 we all send in one clip to the UK web site that hosts it for free?

Who is up for it?

Ernie, Knifefighter, Victor, Me, Sihing ???

Is that it?

C'mon!

I will start a new thread on this!

Regards,

KPM

12-21-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
so let me get this striaght

in one corner we have traditionalist [so called non fighters ]
that don't want to be lumped into a group

in the other corner [ so called fighters ] that will use traditional methods but are not bound by lineage just seeking results

but the traditionalist that don't want lines in the sand drawn , have inturn drawn lines based on what they consider traditional and non traditional

and the [ so called fighters ] have no problem useing traditional methods

WOW !

so the dog chases the cat while they both chase there tails ;)

good times :D

---Exactly! This is the point I was trying to make before. It is not black and white. There is no "line in the sand." You cannot conveniently divide people into "fighters" and "non-fighters" as Terence does. There are different approaches and different degrees or levels of intensity in the various approaches.

Keith

KPM

12-21-2004, 12:19 PM

Terence wrote:
**I wouldn't expect you to know what I was talking about -- when you begin to practice WCK, you will see. If you never practice WCK, you won't.

---There you go again. So now I don't even practice Wing Chun? It never stops does it? KPM

**If a lineage tries to enforce a certain way of doing things, then the student of that lineage will never achieve significant results (in terms of fighting performance) regardless of "using progressive sparring drills."

---The lineage gives you the tools and teaches you how to use them. In Chi Sau and sparring you learn how to make the tools work, but you still operate within the structure of Wing Chun. Of course a lineage "enforces a certain way of doing things", or you wouldn't be doing Wing Chun! But that doesn't mean you are rigidly required to only do things is a very particular way. On the other hand, it also means that we are not doing Jeet Kune Do and are therefore free to just change and adapt things to suit ourselves without good reason. Otherwise it wouldn't be Wing Chun! If you want to change and alter things to suit yourself, then do it! Just don't call it Wing Chun if it isn't! KPM

You have supported the idea on more than one occasion that fighting should be what determines how you do your WCK, and not what your Sifu has taught you.
**That is exactly right -- there is no other way. This is what all fighters do, boxers, BJJ, muay thai, etc.

---Then I will ask you again. Please provide examples of how fighting has determined what your WCK consists of as opposed to what your Sifu taught you. What have you changed about what you were originally taught based upon your own insights from fighting? What have you altered or rejected from your own lineage? That shouldn't be such a hard question to answer. And don't tell me that I "don't get it." That's another line of .....B....S..... Either you are doing the Wing Chun you were taught and are exploring how to make it work well (application), or you have changed the Wing Chun you were taught and are doing something different. KPM

You have come across as endorsing a very "Jeet Kune Do-like" approach to Wing Chun.
**Theoreticians are always concerned with "purity" of lineage, method, etc. They are WCK facists. They are trapped by their theoretical view of WCK.

---Throwing out the labels with broad brushstrokes again? I've been trying to get you to break out of your own "theoretician" approach and provide us with some concrete examples. But you seem unwilling to do this. I wonder why? I guess its time to give up the effort. KPM

Matrix

12-21-2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by sihing
The creation of the Wing Chun system was the shortcut, that's what the system is all about.. I once heard that the longest distance between two points is a shortcut. Food for thought......

Matrix

12-21-2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
So tell me, Bill...in your opinion - when should people start sparring?
I think sparring is closer to the end of a progression. In general, I am for it, since as we all agree, it is a martial art. But I don't dismiss those who would rather not participate_ I think there's a lot of value in training even without sparring. And I find that usually it is introduced too early in the program. Then we see the sloppiness and unneccesary damage that is done like in those video clips. For me, it's not strictly a "time" issue. Different people may be ready at different times.

The main problem is that sparring becomes the end-game in and of itself, not skill development. Skills tend to fall to the sidelines as soon as sparring is introduced, if it is done too soon. When is too soon? That's the million dollar question. :)

sihing

12-21-2004, 09:10 PM

Would one rather be a "Technician" or "Fighter"? I was just discussing boxing with one of the senior students who used to box and stays up on the sport as a hobby. We were discussing Roy Jones JR, and the fight this weekend between the two guys that defeated him. I told him that IMO Jones was a natural athlete at boxing but did not have top-notch boxing skills and he agreed. He said that when Jones defeated Hopkins in a bout earlier in Jones career, Jones natural gifts overcame Hopkins at that time, but since then Hopkins keep on working the skills of boxing and has become a "Technician" at it, where as Jones has started to lose some of his natural skills and since he relied heavily on them he cannot compete like he did before, and since he didn't work the boxing skill as hard either he will have a harder time competing today.

IMO, I'd rather be a "Technician" of Wing Chun because its always easier to up the ante and train harder and more intensely than to be a "Fighter" and have lower skills in the art as a whole and rely on physical things like one's individual timing and speed, or strength/toughness attributes, which will dwindle as time goes by, were as skills won't as long as there is a maintenance program in place.

James

Ultimatewingchun

12-21-2004, 09:27 PM

I've always believed that the distinction between FIGHTER & TECHNICIAN is way overblown.

While it's true that many people who have made themselves into quality fighters don't necessarily have much varied technique in their arsenal...and they rely more upon WILL, strength, and conditioning rather than SKILL...

nonetheless, the fact still remains that most of the highest quality fighters...whether it be kung fu, boxing, karate, wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc...

have very good technique.

Even a brawler like Mike Tyson...especially in his early years...had very good technique (albeit a boxing system that was considered unorthodox) - nonetheless...within the confines of the peek-a-boo system - his technique was excellent. Roberto Duran is another example of the same thing.

BUT WHAT IS TRUE...is that it's often possible for people to acquire much by way of technique...both in scope and in execution...but they aren't very good fighters.

Because they haven't spent enough time sparring/fighting against good fighters who are going 100% (or even 90%)...in their attempt to put a hurtin' on them.

Then your WILL, CONDITIONING, & STRENGTH are ALSO being tested along with your technical knowledge and skill.

And that's where the rubber really hits the road.

sihing

12-21-2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I've always believed that the distinction between FIGHTER & TECHNICIAN is way overblown.

While it's true that many people who have made themselves into quality fighters don't necessarily have much varied technique in their arsenal...and they rely more upon WILL, strength, and conditioning rather than SKILL...

nonetheless, the fact still remains that most of the highest quality fighters...whether it be kung fu, boxing. karate, wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc...

have very good technique.

Even a brawler like Mike Tyson...especially in his early years...had very good technique (albeit a boxing system that was considered unorthodox) - nonetheless...within the confines of the peek-a-boo system - his technique was excellent. Roberto Duran is another example of the same thing.

BUT WHAT IS TRUE...is that it's often possible for people to acquire much by way of technique...both in scope and in execution...but they aren't very good fighters.

Because they haven't spent enough time sparring/fighting against skilled opponents.

Anyone that has a good level of skill in their respective art is a technician IMO, so those mentioned above would be considered Fighting Technicians, but if you look at say George Foreman vs Ali, Foreman was for sure the fighter, whereas Ali was the technician (but as everyone knows Ali is a warrior also). Foreman's game then was power and punishment, where as Ali had the skills of the game to do what he choose to do, whether it was running around the ring and stickin' movin' or the rope-a-dope to which he choose to do in the moment.

I agree that one can have good technique and execution but they haven't brought those base skills to the next level (most never go past this stage), which is how to interpret someone's else's movements and then control someone else's movement so that it is at a disadvantage for them and advantageous for you.

James

Knifefighter

12-22-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by KPM
I have said more than once, that if I cannot make something work in a sparring situation, I am not going to toss it out as ineffective, but I am going to examine what I am doing and figure out WHY I cannot make it work.Fighters need techniques that are effective. If a fighter cannot use it himself, or at least see it being used by another fighter in a fighting situation, he knows it is probably not effective and needs to be discarded.
Theoretical non-fighters collect far too many useless techniques.

Originally posted by KPM
I still try to keep my Wing Chun as close to how my predecessors taught it as possible. Fighters and those who coach fighters don't worry about whether or not they are staying true to what their predecessors taught. They only teach what they believe works the best.

Originally posted by KPM
The sparring helps me learned how to apply what I have learned, not how to alter it. Fighters use sparring to both learn how to apply what they have learned as well as how to alter it to best suit their needs.

KPM

12-23-2004, 04:15 AM

Knifefighter wrote:
Fighters need techniques that are effective. If a fighter cannot use it himself, or at least see it being used by another fighter in a fighting situation, he knows it is probably not effective and needs to be discarded. Theoretical non-fighters collect far too many useless techniques.

---So, if the boxer starting out has trouble using an uppercut effectively, he can just disgard it? If the grappler can't seem to get the heel hook to work he can just throw it out? Shouldn't they just train more and practice it more to get good at it and figure out why it is not working for them? I agree that there are a lot of useless techniques out there. But WCK is a system that has already been "stripped down" many generations ago. It is not nearly as elaborate as other CMA systems. So before I going tossing anything aside as ineffective, I am going to give it a fair trial and make sure that it is not just me that is the problem. KPM

Fighters and those who coach fighters don't worry about whether or not they are staying true to what their predecessors taught. They only teach what they believe works the best.

---So why is there a distinction between BJJ and Sambo or Catch wrestling or Judo? Why is there a distinction between Gracie Jiu Jitsu and Machado Jiu Jitsu? Shouldn't it all just be one generic "grappling"? Why is there a distinction between American Kickboxing, Thai Boxing, and Savate? Shouldn't it all just be one generic "kickboxing"? Why is it that certain gyms produce boxers of a certain style that others can recognize in the ring and say "its obvious that Angelo Dundee (or Cus DeMato, etc) trained him!"? KPM

Keith

Nick Forrer

12-23-2004, 04:43 AM

WSL said there were plenty of techniques in Wing chun that he had no idea whether they would work in a fight or not since he never had to use them (his fights were typically over in 3 punches).

Nick Forrer

12-23-2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Fighters need techniques that are effective. If a fighter cannot use it himself, or at least see it being used by another fighter in a fighting situation, he knows it is probably not effective and needs to be discarded.
Theoretical non-fighters collect far too many useless techniques.

Of the 1000 plus techniques you said you learnt through BJJ how many would you characterise as useless?

t_niehoff

12-23-2004, 06:45 AM

Technician is the term nonfighting theoreticians use for themselves (it sounds better, doesn't it?). Ali and Foreman werre both fighters (they fought as part of their training).

KPM wrote:

---So why is there a distinction between BJJ and Sambo or Catch wrestling or Judo? Why is there a distinction between Gracie Jiu Jitsu and Machado Jiu Jitsu? Shouldn't it all just be one generic "grappling"?

**All fingers pointing to one moon, all paths leading to one destination, all textbooks pertaining to one subject matter. Nonfighting theoreticians, having no clue as to the moon, the destination, or the subject matter, can only be concerned with the finger, the path, the textbook. These become all important to them because they know nothing else.

But WCK is a system that has already been "stripped down" many generations ago. It is not nearly as elaborate as other CMA systems.

**Tell us more hearsay theory.

So before I going tossing anything aside as ineffective, I am going to give it a fair trial and make sure that it is not just me that is the problem. KPM

**Good idea. That "fair trial" is, btw, fighting.

Jim Roselando

12-23-2004, 07:28 AM

Hey Terence,

Will you be participating in the Video Clip event with some of us?

I hope so! I think we can learn a lot from your experience with heavy sparring and stuff like that. We will be able to see it in your body mechanics or the way you move!

Its all about learning and sharing with each other! Everyone has something that they do well or a bit different. Everyone has a different eye so they will be able to see different things that we are all doing! C'mon man! Join in the fun!

Regards,

Knifefighter

12-23-2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Of the 1000 plus techniques you said you learnt through BJJ how many would you characterise as useless? I'm not sure. There are some techniques that are good for the gi only, some only for no-gi, some for grappling only, some for striking and grappling, and some for weapons. I keep the ones that are useful for me and forget about the ones that make no sense.

Knifefighter

12-23-2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by KPM
So, if the boxer starting out has trouble using an uppercut effectively, he can just disgard it? If the grappler can't seem to get the heel hook to work he can just throw it out? No, because they can see that it works by watching others use those techniques in fighting situations. Eventually, if he cannot get it to work for him, a fighter will throw out techniques that don't work for him, but work for others.

Originally posted by KPM
So why is there a distinction between BJJ and Sambo or Catch wrestling or Judo? Why is there a distinction between Gracie Jiu Jitsu and Machado Jiu Jitsu? Shouldn't it all just be one generic "grappling"? Why is there a distinction between American Kickboxing, Thai Boxing, and Savate? Shouldn't it all just be one generic "kickboxing"? Why is it that certain gyms produce boxers of a certain style that others can recognize in the ring and say "its obvious that Angelo Dundee (or Cus DeMato, etc) trained him!"? These are perfect examples of people taking what works for them and their particular strategies and throwing out the rest. What you end up with is a different flavor on the same thing (i.e. grappling- BJJ, Catch, Sambo, and Judo).

A dynamic, effective, and efficient combat system should be constantly evolving, and changing. Techniques are added, taken out, and morphed to adapt to the current circumstances.

...stripped down... many generations ago...Sticking dogmatically to something that hasn't changed in generations is the first big mistake.

Knifefighter

12-23-2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
WSL said there were plenty of techniques in Wing chun that he had no idea whether they would work in a fight or not since he never had to use them (his fights were typically over in 3 punches). If he or others would have fought more against more skilled opponents, he would have had a better idea regarding what worked and didn't work becuase those fights would have lasted longer. As it was, it sounds like he was passing on techniques that could have been useless because he had no idea whether or not they worked.

PaulH

12-23-2004, 10:18 AM

I like to point out that WSL as I understand always stressed understanding WC principles and concepts behind each technique that he ever demonstrated. He did not like passing on soulless techniques. =)

Fresh

12-23-2004, 10:27 AM

Good to know you guys are so much more informed and practical than WSL!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Knifefighter

12-23-2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by PaulH
I like to point out that WSL as I understand always stressed understanding WC principles and concepts behind each technique that he ever demonstrated. He did not like passing on soulless techniques. =) Knowing something conceptually is what the theoretical non-fighter likes to do. Just knowing the principles and theory doesn't necessarily mean something will work.

Case in point- the umoplata shoulder lock in BJJ and MMA. Based on theory, this should be a great fight finisher. You can crank your oppoenent's shoulder and you can control him while you punch him. In reality, however, it is very rarely able to be used as a finisher, even by the best fighters. However, one wouldn't know this unless it had been tested out many times in competitions and fights.

PaulH

12-23-2004, 10:45 AM

I always believe in testing out your understanding of "techniques" in Beimo or trial of skills. =)

Vajramusti

12-23-2004, 12:39 PM

Just knowing the principles and theory doesn't necessarily mean something will work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course not. Good wing chun folks do test and make their adjustments. But not really necessary to covince trolls of anything.

PaulH

12-23-2004, 12:43 PM

Joy,

I'm kind of delighted of what KF wrote on this thread. It reminds me of one of my favorite articles that I read many years ago. It's good to be refreshed. =)

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/peterson/wongbeimo.php

Vajramusti

12-23-2004, 12:49 PM

Good article PaulH. I have read it before.Thx.

KPM

12-23-2004, 02:13 PM

Ah Terence! Nice of you to jump onto another reply while totally ignoring my previous points! KPM

**All fingers pointing to one moon, all paths leading to one destination, all textbooks pertaining to one subject matter. Nonfighting theoreticians, having no clue as to the moon, the destination, or the subject matter, can only be concerned with the finger, the path, the textbook. These become all important to them because they know nothing else.

---That's were you are wrong. You can still have respect for the textbook and value the textbook and know the textbook thoroughly before you depart from the textbook. And you can always refer back to that textbook for guidance when needed. That's WHY it is the textbook! If you go off with only a half-assed knowledge of the textbook then you may very well be missing out on a lot. KPM

But WCK is a system that has already been "stripped down" many generations ago. It is not nearly as elaborate as other CMA systems.
**Tell us more hearsay theory.

---Hearsay? Do you think WCK is as elaborate as Choy Li Fut? or Hung Gar? or Longfist? Show me another CMA system with fewer forms or techniques/motions. KPM

So before I going tossing anything aside as ineffective, I am going to give it a fair trial and make sure that it is not just me that is the problem. KPM

**Good idea. That "fair trial" is, btw, fighting.

---Have you even paid attention to anything I've said on this thread so far? Are you that obtuse? The "fair trial" is progressive sparring drills. Unless you suggest we all go out and pick fights on Friday night in the parking lot of the local nightclub. KPM