Why so scared of the ground? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

KPM

01-31-2005, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by chisauking
Before this forum turns into the official BJJ forum, may I ask all the people who's constantly repeating that WC don't have all the answers and it's weak on the ground, how did you arrive at this conclusion? And, why are you so scared of the ground that you feel the need to focus so much time on this element of fighting?

---Even though I have been labeled as a "non-fighter" and "theoretician" by some (despite the fact that I gear up and spar as realistically as feasible on occasion), I try to keep a balanced outlook on things. Wong Shun Leung called WCK "The Science of In-fighting." That's a pretty good description. It points out that WCK is a specialized fighting method.....it is meant for the "in-fighting" range. It is not and was never meant to be an "all-inclusive" method. We don't have extended stances and long kicks to fight on the outside like TKD does. We don't have extensive ground-fighting techniques to fight on the ground like BJJ does. Systems that try to be all-inclusive often end up being a "jack of all trades but master of none." Sure there are WCK techniques or concepts that can be extrapolated to work on the outside range....or on the ground. But are WCK ground-fighting methods going to be as good as something like BJJ? Heck no! That is there specialty....not ours! Is BJJ going to be as good as WCK on the inside (standing)? Heck no! That is our specialty...not theirs! I see nothing wrong with a WCK player that wants to expand their repertoire also training in BJJ. Heck, if I had more time for training I'd be doing it myself! But I would keep it as two separate things......WCK when on my feet....BJJ the minute I hit the ground! It is the "blending" that I don't think is necessary. The combining of things like WCK and boxing to work in a range in which WCK is already designed to operate. Develop your WCK. If you want to be proficient in another range or phase of fighting, then cross-train in something that works that range. But don't "mix & match"...you'll just end up with a "mash." For me, I have my hands full just trying to develop my WCK to its full potential! Just my opinion, of course. :-)

Keith

t_niehoff

01-31-2005, 05:22 AM

KPM wrote:

---Even though I have been labeled as a "non-fighter" and "theoretician" by some (despite the fact that I gear up and spar as realistically as feasible on occasion),

**The fact that you "gear up and spar on occasion" is good (it's better than nothing) but so do the silat guys, the shotokan guys, etc. Occasionally sparring with one's classmates isn't what I've been talking about -- it's making fighting, actually doing WCK, the core of one's training. That's something else.

I try to keep a balanced outlook on things. Wong Shun Leung called WCK "The Science of In-fighting." That's a pretty good description. It points out that WCK is a specialized fighting method.....it is meant for the "in-fighting" range. It is not and was never meant to be an "all-inclusive" method. We don't have extended stances and long kicks to fight on the outside like TKD does. We don't have extensive ground-fighting techniques to fight on the ground like BJJ does. Systems that try to be all-inclusive often end up being a "jack of all trades but master of none."

**But the point is we need to be a "jack of all trades" -- that is, a well-rounded fighter -- if we want to fight successfully against skilled well-rounded fighters (or even "defend" ourselves on the street).

Sure there are WCK techniques or concepts that can be extrapolated to work on the outside range....or on the ground. But are WCK ground-fighting methods going to be as good as something like BJJ? Heck no! That is there specialty....not ours! Is BJJ going to be as good as WCK on the inside (standing)? Heck no! That is our specialty...not theirs!

**I agree.

I see nothing wrong with a WCK player that wants to expand their repertoire also training in BJJ. Heck, if I had more time for training I'd be doing it myself! But I would keep it as two separate things......WCK when on my feet....BJJ the minute I hit the ground! It is the "blending" that I don't think is necessary. The combining of things like WCK and boxing to work in a range in which WCK is already designed to operate. Develop your WCK. If you want to be proficient in another range or phase of fighting, then cross-train in something that works that range. But don't "mix & match"...you'll just end up with a "mash." For me, I have my hands full just trying to develop my WCK to its full potential! Just my opinion, of course. :-)

**The only flaw in your position is that IME whenever you take two methods and *integrate them* into your personal game, each will in some ways, perhaps minor but perhaps significantly, effect the other and result in changes in both. In other words, your WCK will change how you do (or use) BJJ and your BJJ will change how you do (or use) your WCK. This doesn't mean that your WCK or your BJJ is "watered down" or "less pure"; it means that you do with each what you are supposed to do -- take it and make it your own.

chisauking

01-31-2005, 06:35 AM

I'd asked a very simple question yet not one is willing to answer.
If you think it's so important to focus so much time on the ground -- why? Was your decision based on personal experience? Was it based on club sparring with rules or actual street fighting experience? Have you or have you not been taken down to the ground in a real fight, and what level of WC skills were you at that stage?

If you people don't want to answer, that OK. I'm not going to upset anybody's chip or pasta plate. But, it's just a shame to see this once constructive Wing Chun forum turn into the sister BJJ forum for self promotion

Merryprankster

01-31-2005, 07:54 AM

chisauking,

Actually, you received a few good answers, one of them was "experience," another was "I've seen what a good groundfighter can do," another was "I think we should be well-rounded fighters."

You chose to ignore those answers and follow up with further questions. Not their fault.

t_niehoff

01-31-2005, 07:56 AM

chisauking,

Apparently you didn't read my post -- I told you the basis of my opinion: experience. I've seen firsthand what skilled groundfighters can do, what persons skilled in takedowns can do. I've seen this, as well as experienced it myself, while fighting. By "real fights" do you mean streetfights? Assaults? What?

I find it interesting that you used the phrase "club sparring with rules or actual street fighting experience" -- that demonstrates one of the major fallacies associated with "streetfighting": the negative effect of "rules", or limitations on what you can do.

First of all, there are always limitations, or rules, even in streetfights -- unless one wants to go to prison. For example, one can't use deadly force unless one's assailant does (typically we're limited to the same level of force our opponent uses). So if he swings at you and you crush his windpipe or gouge an eye, you're going to prison. For me, that's not much of a "self-defense"; I'd rather get hit than go to prison! Some of those rules as imposed by society and some by ourselves (what we believe is ethical or moral).

And while rules or limitations can restrict us from actually using our method (for example, a wrestler trying to fight in a kickboxing tournament), "no rules" or NHB fights typically allow any and all methods but just limit the "dirt" or "foul tactics" (like eye gouges, etc.). They refllect, if you bother to look at most "streetfights", how fights typically "look" (fwiw, I've been in a few streetfights and never been eye-gouged or fish-hooked.). Some may believe that those restrictions prohibit them from really using their "deadly" fighting skills. But the reality is just the opposite is true -- these restrictions actually help us develop our fighting skills since we can practice nondirt realistically.

No one really "practices" that dirt realistically, i.e., really puts them into their fighting practice (you can't without harming your training partner). So they never really develop them. At best they do them as sort of a mock-defense. On the other hand, by removing the "dirt", one can practice (fight) full-out as one really would do it, and thus they develop better skill doing those things. Removing the dirt actually permits us to practice realistically and develop greater skill; it's a strength rather than a weakness. This has been proven over and over again by experience.

What that means is that the dirt is theory -- it is never really done as it is meant to be done: one practices mock eye jabs and pretends it will land, that it will have the proscribed effect, etc. But what dirt does is provide theoreticians excuses for not fighitng ("I would, but I'd have to kill you"). What they will find if they ever give themselves a chance, is that good fighters easily deal wtih the dirt (in fact, I love it when folks give me the "I will only mix it up if I can use my deadly techniques" routine; I know that means they have no fighting skill. Typically, I'll tell them to by all means use them since I know that means they'll be trying to fight with things they've never developed! It just makes it easier for me.).

Tactics are context/situation specific; our fighting skills are not. If I can deal with a punch in the ring, I can deal wtih it in the street. The venue doesn't matter. The difference is the tactics -- in the ring I may continue to fight whereas in the street I may hit and then run. Different tactics for different situations; the skills remain the same.

For those that cling to the notion of dirt, let me ask you this: do you rely on it? Would removing it really change how you express your WCK? Can you deal with a punch without it? And that's what I mean by the skills being unrelated to the venue. Can anyone say, "I can deal with a punch in the street but not in the gym?"

Certainly there are aspects/elements on the street that make it potentially more dangerous than the gym. But our core fighting skills work in both. And, how can anyone believe that they need less skill in a more potentially dangerous situation. Swimming in the ocean is more dangerous than swimming in a pool; but if you can't swim well in a pool, you're not going to fare well in the ocean.

chisauking

01-31-2005, 08:16 AM

Merry, T-niehoff, KF:

EXPERIENCE. But that's what I'm trying to ask: what experience? What were your wing chun or fighting proficiency at that stage of experince?

We ALL have experience, but how and where that experience came from is the most telling.

reneritchie

01-31-2005, 08:19 AM

"Before this forum turns into the official BJJ forum, may I ask all the people who's constantly repeating that WC don't have all the answers and it's weak on the ground, how did you arrive at this conclusion? And, why are you so scared of the ground that you feel the need to focus so much time on this element of fighting?"

Do you do anything more than a right handed vertical thrust punch?

Do you always drink only the same beverage, same brand, same amount day in, day out?

Have you always owned exactly the same make, model, and color of car year after year, and never driven anything else?

Some people may be hyper-focused on only one technique.

Some only want one form.

Some only stick to one system, many forms.

Some only do martial arts, many systems.

Some only fight, whether its MA or back yard brawls.

Personally, if I'd only ever done one MA, I'd never have encountered WCK. It was my 4th art.

If I'd never done anything else, I'd be bored.

If I'd never done anything else, I'd have missed a lot of other experiences, good and bad.

couch

01-31-2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by reneritchie
"Before this forum turns into the official BJJ forum, may I ask all the people who's constantly repeating that WC don't have all the answers and it's weak on the ground, how did you arrive at this conclusion? And, why are you so scared of the ground that you feel the need to focus so much time on this element of fighting?"

Do you do anything more than a right handed vertical thrust punch?

Do you always drink only the same beverage, same brand, same amount day in, day out?

Have you always owned exactly the same make, model, and color of car year after year, and never driven anything else?

Some people may be hyper-focused on only one technique.

Some only want one form.

Some only stick to one system, many forms.

Some only do martial arts, many systems.

Some only fight, whether its MA or back yard brawls.

Personally, if I'd only ever done one MA, I'd never have encountered WCK. It was my 4th art.

If I'd never done anything else, I'd be bored.

If I'd never done anything else, I'd have missed a lot of other experiences, good and bad.

What Rene said is HUGE. I don't know how many people here have trained previously in some other MA and then joined up in WC. I know I have and everyone in my kwoon, including my Sifu has a background of some kind.

I would have missed a lot of good and bad experiences too. Other martial arts have opened my eyes to what else is out there. And given me the ultimate appreciation for WC.

Sincerely,
Couch

t_niehoff

01-31-2005, 10:34 AM

chisaoking,

My POV is that we need to find these things out for ourselves -- from our own experience by doing it -- instead of relying on the chronicles of my experience (which only makes it theory to you). Go out and mix it up with a *good* groundfighter (being able to do it against your WCK traiing partners doesn't mean it will be effective against a good groundfighter). See what you can do. It's notable that everyone that I know in WCK who has done this comes away with similar views. What I've yet to see is anyone in WCK who says WCK training provides significant ground skills *and* is willing to step up and prove/demonstrate it (like by going to the local BJJ club and showing how they manhandle those guys -- which if they can do it, doesn't seem to be asking much). This is my whole point,: so many opinions are based on conjecture, hearsay, etc. (theory) and so few on personal experience (evidence).

Nick Forrer

01-31-2005, 10:56 AM

CSK,

Put your ego on hold and go and roll at a bjj school. Dollars to donuts you will get owned by even the blue belts. Granted you you would be 'playing their game' but it is a very good game - limitations of the street (syringes, hot coals, bottomless pits, wild animals:p) notwithstanding.

Knifefighter

01-31-2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by chisauking
EXPERIENCE. But that's what I'm trying to ask: what experience? What were your wing chun or fighting proficiency at that stage of experince?I was a freestyle/folkstyle wrestler before I began learning the striking aspects of fighting. My expereince was that I could take down almost any striker (assuming he didn't also have a background in wrestling), take him out of his game, and usually dominate him on the ground- both in real fights and in training. An this was just from having a sport wrestlng background. Back then, I knew nothing of submsissions or how to set up good postions for ground striking.

I didn't actually understand the power of grappling until I had after I had trained for quite a while with people who trained only in striking.

Ernie

01-31-2005, 11:30 AM

CSK

there is only fear and speculation of the unknown
once you do it you see it's not a big deal

i am not a ground guy at all
but have spent time with guys that are , at first i was scared , and didn't know what tapping out was , this bfire wing chun
i got my neck pinned against some guys chest and he cranked on me until i passed out , hurt like hell for a few days , i was a bit of a body builder at the time and it was a little dude that messed me up

next time i went back [ it was my firnds school across the street from my gym ] i got my shoulder cranked i hated it all things that had to do with BJJ

later after i started to train in WC and other things

i played with a friend that does those tap out cage matches
he could not take me down and when we started from a ground position i held my own and could get up

now we were not fighting just working out

but i felt he this ground stuff is nothing no big deal

a few years later i messed around with my friend rob who is not ranked but is very good on the ground and he was real slow and heavy just shut me down like a boa

i thought hmmm what a min. since i knew rob was even better standing this mix of skills make me think

messed with some collage wrestlers and got shot on with amazing speed and power

the game got more interesting

then i sparred vale tudo guys and again did very good standing and on the ground
they even complimented my sensitivity and elusivness

the more time i worked out with guys like this the more relaxed and i got and the more skills i gained from standing came through in some basic way on the ground
or more so on the way to the ground [ the tumble alot of fun stuff can happen there ]

so do i fear the ground no am i training on the ground no
do i have respect for the bad things that can happen there
yes

just gain experience and do your best to learn from every thing life hands you ,

you are still *you* standing ,sitting , or on the ground
the more control over *you* that you have based on experience the better you will become

so the real question is not about this or that art
but why are people afraid of getting to know themselves
;)

45degree fist

01-31-2005, 12:06 PM

not a bad post ernie

I kind of agree

I've heard it said a bunch of times

"the guy who loses is the one who runs out of time."

the grappler might not take you down in time before he gets knocked out.

or the Bi-pedalist fighter might get taken down before he can attack.

we have all had bad days
we have all had good days

you just gotta figure out one thing

what end of the a$$ kicking are you on today?

anerlich

01-31-2005, 03:16 PM

Thanks for the grammar lesson MOUTH BOXER. Typical Anerlich behavior, with the spelling and grammar checks but nothing meant personally right? As usual.

You accused me of being in a click [sic] with Terence and Victor. Nothing personal, right?

You accuse me of being a mouth boxer - nothing personal, right?

Your problems with spelling and grammar may relate to your inability to accept in yourself the faults you seem keen to decry in others.

But, nothing personal. :p

chisauking

02-04-2005, 08:22 PM

Why so scared of the ground?

I was so intrigued by so many 'skillful' wing chun practitioners that understood fully its principles state
that wing chun was weak on the ground, I wanted to know the source of your fighting expereicnes that warranted
you to form such a statement. As we all know, experiences may differ depending on how that expereince was
aquired. In other words, different test yeilds different results. But, more importantly, the way and environment
of how you conducted the test would determine the 'truth' of your expereince. For example, fighting in a
club environment, wearing proctective equipment from head to toe, would yield expereince of real fighting
close to a lie. That's the reason why I'd asked about people's expereince -- so that I may understand your
opinion on the need for ground grappling and to help me ascertain your true fighting experience.

As to my own personal expereince, ground grappling has never been an issue with me for the simple fact that
I have only been taken to the ground maybe a few times -- but I'd no problems getting back up. Due to my
upbringing and my present occupation (running 2 pubs) I have had more than my fair share of fights, to the
point that I'm now well versed in the international language of PAIN! Ah, but I have never fought any one
skillful, and they were all useless scubs -- as Terence would say. Fair enough, I'm a nobody so my
expereince doesn't count. But to all the others that claim wing chun is weak on the ground from personal
experience -- but not real combat experience -- consider the following...

Debt collectors: I know 2 associates that do debt collecting for Birmingham's Chinese loan sharks. Their
names are Twan and Kwan Lee. 1 practice Muay Thai, and the other Tong-long. Due to the nature of the type
of people that borrows money from loan sharks(very desperate people), Kwan and Twan knows fisrt hand how
difficult it's to try a take things from people that have nothing. I have sparred with both of them
without breaking sweat, but they both stated that in all the fights they have had, very few go on the
ground.

Military: Because of my pub's proximity to the S.A.S H.Q. in Herefordshire, and also where I train my
helicopter flying is sometimes used by the S.A.S, I get to talk to some of the most expereinced fighters
in the world. In fact, arguably, they are the best train soldiers in the world. Just to give you an
idea how tough they are, they have to complete a 40miles run with a full backpack weighing 60lbs+ for
their test. They have had more real combat experience then anybody on this forum. However, when I got to
know some of them, they stated that most unarmed fights don't go to the ground.

Wing Chun Clan: Not one single 9th generation wing chun practitioner has observed or stated that wing chun
was weak on the ground. Maybe they ALL coundn't fight or too proud to admit wing chun was weak on the
ground.

Wing Chun fighter:The late Derek Jones was probably the most active wing chun fighter in his time, from
the UK. He used to come in the kwoon with cuts and brusies all over from fighting in gipsy bare knuckle fights. He never
backed down from any challenges, and when he accepted a challenge, he would go on his own(unlike so many
other so-called fighters that need to take all their crew). Strange, such an effective fighter never ever
taken a single class in ground fighting?

Professional Martial artist from differnt styles:Steven Benitez from Silat has said ground grappling isn't
as important as some people from NHB make out. Sken and Toddy -- 2 of the most succesful MT trainers ever,
producing world champoin after world champion -- has never needed to suppliment their training with
ground grappling. Mo Teague -- ex military, ex guardain angle, Sambo instructor, BJJ practitioner, bouncer
with 100's of street fight expereince, representing Richard Bustillo, Rick Faye, etc., has openly
stated that very FEW fights actaully go to the ground. When asked why he practised BJJ, he said it was FUN.

I could go on and on, but do you see a pattern or a common denominator here? People who do fighting for real,
for their living, are saying that most fights don't go on the ground. Why do their experience differ from
yours? Could it be that they are ALL lying?

So who is actually saying that 90 -- or is that 95% -- of all fights go on the ground? Is it just some wing chun practitioners and the Gracies?

And that's the whole point of my post -- if most fights don't end on the ground (besides the loser, that is)
why spend so much time on ground grappling?

For my part, I personally beleive that wing chun is extremely strong on the ground, in that it prevents it
happening in the first place. In the same way, if you want safer flying, you don't give all the passengers
parachutes. You make the plane more reliable to begin with. If you want to drive safer, you don't practice
advasive action. You would instill good driving practice to begin with. In other words, prevention is better
than cure. Some people would still say: what happens IF it goes to the ground? I would ask: what happens if
you got poked in the eye, finger locked, hair pulled, neck locked, knee stomped?

chisauking

02-04-2005, 08:27 PM

Rene Sez: Do you do anything more than a right handed vertical thrust punch?

Do you always drink only the same beverage, same brand, same amount day in, day out?

Have you always owned exactly the same make, model, and color of car year after year, and never driven anything else?

Some people may be hyper-focused on only one technique.

Some only want one form.

Some only stick to one system, many forms.

Some only do martial arts, many systems.

Some only fight, whether its MA or back yard brawls.

Personally, if I'd only ever done one MA, I'd never have encountered WCK. It was my 4th art.

If I'd never done anything else, I'd be bored.

If I'd never done anything else, I'd have missed a lot of other experiences, good and bad.

Rene: I think you have missed my point again. It could be my poor English, so you have to excuse me for that.
I didn't say don't practice BJJ. I didn't say it was rubbish. The point of my post is to get people to
question the honesty of their experience, and I for one don't beleive ground graplling is as nearly as
important as some people on this forum make out.

In a real fight, far more things are more likely to effect you than being taken to the ground, yet why so
much time is focused disportionally to its threat? If you enjoy BJJ, then say so. Don't deride another system just to justify
your particpation in it. This is not targeted at you, but in general.

I have never ever gone against learning from all sources because I don't beleive in limiting my fighting
knowledge. However, even you can't deny that there are things in life that just don't go together. For
example, dim sum and custard; or hot dog and salt and vinegar. Wing Chun is a very specailised style, and for the people
that really understands its concept and principles, it' not a style that can be choped and changed and mixed
and match as easily as other styles. For wing chun to be at its most effective, you must try to adhere to its
basic princples. No matter how you try to justify it, it's next to impossible to integrate wing chun with
BJJ and keep its core princples.

As the old saying goes: sometimes more is less

chisauking

02-04-2005, 08:35 PM

Nick Sez: Put your ego on hold and go and roll at a bjj school. Dollars to donuts you will get owned by even the blue belts. Granted you you would be 'playing their game' but it is a very good game - limitations of the street (syringes, hot coals, bottomless pits, wild animals) notwithstanding.

Nick, go to any Chinese restaurant and the chef would be able to cook Chinese food better than you. Go to any French teacher and they be able to speak French better than you. If you let someone put you in a finger lock, you are going to have broken fingers. Let someone kick you in the knee with full power, and you are going to have damaged knee. What's your point? That I should fight in a manner that my opponent knows best? Why don't I just bombared him with my powerful kicks when he reaches for my leg?

sihing

02-04-2005, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by chisauking
Nick Sez: Put your ego on hold and go and roll at a bjj school. Dollars to donuts you will get owned by even the blue belts. Granted you you would be 'playing their game' but it is a very good game - limitations of the street (syringes, hot coals, bottomless pits, wild animals) notwithstanding.

Nick, go to any Chinese restaurant and the chef would be able to cook Chinese food better than you. Go to any French teacher and they be able to speak French better than you. If you let someone put you in a finger lock, you are going to have broken fingers. Let someone kick you in the knee with full power, and you are going to have damaged knee. What's your point? That I should fight in a manner that my opponent knows best? Why don't I just bombared him with my powerful kicks when he reaches for my leg?

Total agreement here chisauking, why play their game and fight their fight. It's always the same on this forum "Yeah but when this or that happens and he sets up his mount with the single leg Blah blah blah", in the meantime he has nothing to deal with from me right? Lol. For every "What if" that comes out of people's keyboards on this forum, it can be reversed. Any good fighter should take his opponent down quickly, just due to the fact that neither fighter will know what the others skills are. And since WC is a "fast" system, meaning it was develop to be fast, not the individual being fast, there's a difference, the idea is always to overwhelm your opponent with severe pressure that is hard to handle and make them very reactive, and not proactive. I remember someone on here saying that the chain punches of WC don't work, then a few days later I find a clip of Vitor Belfort using that very same technique (not exactly the same since he uses horizontal fists and boxing technique but very similar) to knock out Vanderlia Silva to which most consider one of the best stand up middleweight NHB fighters around in 45 seconds, very quick.

James

Ultimatewingchun

02-04-2005, 09:08 PM

Knifefighter

02-04-2005, 09:13 PM

I'm going to make a rough estimate that I have either been in or witnessed somewhere between 40 and 50 streetfights total.

The 90-95% rule has held true in my experiences. That figure is about the percentage of every fight that I have been in or witnessed that have ended up on the ground... and about 90-95% of those that went to the ground were either won or lost there.

Ultimatewingchun

02-04-2005, 09:26 PM

Very similar numbers for me in terms of what I've seen or done - and I would say that about 75% of the time the fights went to the ground and were won or lost there.

That's alot.

So whether we're talkin' 75-85-95 %...it's still quite a bit.

Does that mean that they always go there?

No.

But being prepared for the ground is of paramount importance.

Because most of the time that is what's going to happen.

sihing

02-04-2005, 09:33 PM

I just taught a groundfighting class last Wednesday afternoon ranging from defending the shoot and from being mounted, all using WC technqiue and principal/concepts. So yes I agree, in today's world you have to be prepared for the possibility of a ground confrontation, that's why we prepare for it in class, as well as all other ranges of combat.

James

Ultimatewingchun

02-04-2005, 09:36 PM

"I really love it when a guy who didn't know what a sprawl was until a couple of weeks ago thinks he has a complete fighting system."

It's just SO worth repeating..............

Knifefighter

02-04-2005, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by sihing
I just taught a groundfighting class last Wednesday afternoon ranging from defending the shoot and from being mounted, all using WC technqiue and principal/concepts. James,
I'd love to hear your take on defending the mount from a WC perspective. Please share.

Ernie

02-04-2005, 09:46 PM

I just taught how to dis arm a nuclear war head with wing chun concept saw it on MacGyver once :D

sorry James it was like when you see the clean shot to the head guy has his hands down and you fake and kick him in the nuts just to be evil ;)

messing with you man:cool:

SAAMAG

02-04-2005, 09:49 PM

I don't remember who it was that said it on here, but wing chun is not ground fighting, never will be. Sure it has techniques that might save you, techniques that are based on standup fighting (but can transpose to other ranges since it is after all...striking)but things specifically taylored for the ground? Don't think so.

So yes...some elaboration is in order here....specific elaboration so that we may all be enlightened to make all our wing chun as good as yours.

sihing

02-04-2005, 11:14 PM

How does one elaborate on a written forum like this so all could understand? Basically to keep it simple, against the shoot, we use a side neutral stance at the non contact stage/range, with the feet slightly wider than shoulder width, heels in line and side by side (like a basketball player defending his zone or someone returning serve in tennis), with the feet/knees/hips/shoulders pointed towards a 45deg. angle, depending on the lead arm, so if the right arm is lead the direction of angle is left. With this stance your lateral movement from side to side is superior than when in the traditional lead foot forward stance. I like to use the Matador vs. Bull metaphor, so when the person shooting towards you comes in, we move sideways or by T-stepping or back stepping all the way while simultaneously controlling the arm and neck or just the neck of the "shooter", maintaining close space with him, leading him to the ground, following up with many different things. Also a variety of hand movements (pak sao, kan sao, low bon sao, or combo of each one) meant to deflect/attack can be applied to vital neck areas, to disrupt his momentum, and control him while stepping in the proper direction.

As for when one is mounted, one has to guard the center mass so the attacks are coming in on the outside. Using dbl Tan sao to protect the face and neck/head, one would deflect the attacks by turning left or right to "face the point of contact" of the blows. Once a opening is seen/felt (utlizing chi-sao attributes) many things can be done, lop sao side strike to the neck, dbl palm strikes to chest/neck areas, neck chin na, muscle grabbing, pressure point useage, etc....Once the momentum is in your favor you attempt to reverse the positions and mount your aggressor.

All of the above are not magical techniques that just work for the hell of it. Practice is essential, to develop the right feel, timing and essence of what one is trying to do.

I do agree that WC does not specialized in "Ground Grappling", but it does encompass Anti Grappling movements to help one, at the least, defend themselves when faced with a ground grappler.
You play their game your chances of winning are slim, so why would I want to do that?

I'll try to get some of these clips up also someday soon.

James

Knifefighter

02-04-2005, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by sihing
Once a opening is seen/felt (utlizing chi-sao attributes) many things can be done, lop sao side strike to the neck, dbl palm strikes to chest/neck areas, neck chin na, James- you really are doing your students a disservice by teaching them things like this. These are things that are set-ups for a variety of arm locks for the person who has the top mounted position. These are some of the first things you learn not to do in BJJ and some of the first things you look to attack against an unknowing person on the ground.

iblis73

02-04-2005, 11:40 PM

Lets be honest, if you cant handle yourself on the ground you cant handle yourself. Grappling is one of the most important ranges for the simple reasone that it is visceral and it happens.

I used to do WT but found not only did i like mma/bjj but that it was just as logical and strategic as wt. I've seen amazing things from bjj folks-superb ways to dump someone on the ground when they are standing over you, simple things that will prevent or jam their ability to punch you if they are on top of you.

I think we all understand the idea that they concentrate on what they do and wt/wc folks do what they do. But bjj is such a sophisticated martial art and I think most wt/wc people would not only enjoy it but LOVE it. Its focus on tehnique and leverage over strength and size sounds much like another sytem i heard extoll those virtues........

sihing

02-04-2005, 11:40 PM

Yes Dale, I understand that to have one's arm out and away from their bodies for long periods of time is a no no, as I have witnessed it lots on the BJJ video's and such. The timing of it has to be perfected and practiced to apply the techniques and concepts I was talking about, as you don't just extended your arms and try to strike the neck/face. If and when you can apply a good lop sao, this will help in your ability to apply your own attack. No technique or concept is 100% guaranteed to work all the time, because of the varied circumstance that arise during a fight, one has to adapt to the situation and use what ever tools you have to overcome. As you Dale have much much more experience in this relm of combat, I probably wouldn't want to play your game if fighting you and end up on the ground with you on top, lol. Thanks for the pointers though.

James

Ultimatewingchun

02-04-2005, 11:45 PM

How does one elaborate on a written forum like this so all could understand?" (James)

THAT'S what videos are for.

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

As for this:

"I like to use the Matador vs. Bull metaphor, so when the person shooting towards you comes in, we move sideways or by T-stepping or back stepping all the way while simultaneously controlling the arm and neck or just the neck of the "shooter", maintaining close space with him, leading him to the ground...

NOW try using a sprawl along with an arm control (ie.- garn sao) with one hand and the other arm at his neck (like a forearm smash)...

and maybe you'll start to get something going...

as ONE possible way to work against a low shoot.

Do you know what a sprawl is, James?

If not...look into it.

t_niehoff

02-05-2005, 06:44 AM

IMO generalized statements like "90% of fights go to the ground" and the like, even if true, aren't significant. The issue is what we personally can do, what our skill level is, what our performance ability is, etc. How easily can you be taken to the ground? How well can you deal with that situation should it occur? And the most important question: is your answer based on theory or do you *know* based on experience? In other words, do you *know* your performance level? (There is only one way to know that).

So often, as in this case, the issue almost always comes back to whether you are a theoretician or a fighter -- if you believe you have the answers/skill that's one thing, continually testing your beliefs/skills against *skilled* opposition in fighting is something else. Quite frankly, one can't argue with theoreticians because in theory all things are equal, much appears plausible, etc. You'll never convince a theoretician that wants to believe WCK has all the answers, or WCK is a superior art, WCK will work on the ground, or whatever, that they are mistaken. All we can do is ask anyone that makes a claim to prove it, provide the evidence. If they can't or won't prove it in fighting, then we know it is nothing more than conjecture on their part.

Victor makes the call for video -- and that can be good evidence, though that depends on the content of the tape. For example, someone could provide a tape of them using their WCK "mount defense" in a demo or against one of their classmates. That would prove nothing (other than perhaps give us a clearer example of what they were talking about). It's another matter to provide a tape of them using it against skilled folks, with developed attributes, under genuine fighting (full resistance, full power, etc.) conditions.

sihing

02-05-2005, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
How does one elaborate on a written forum like this so all could understand?" (James)

THAT'S what videos are for.

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

As for this:

"I like to use the Matador vs. Bull metaphor, so when the person shooting towards you comes in, we move sideways or by T-stepping or back stepping all the way while simultaneously controlling the arm and neck or just the neck of the "shooter", maintaining close space with him, leading him to the ground...

NOW try using a sprawl along with an arm control (ie.- garn sao) with one hand and the other arm at his neck (like a forearm smash)...

and maybe you'll start to get something going...

as ONE possible way to work against a low shoot.

Do you know what a sprawl is, James?

If not...look into it.

Yes I know what the sprawl is, but why lose mobility when I can step out of the way, when possible of course. Sometimes the sprawl may be used, sometimes the footwork method maybe be used. I would prefer the footwork method of getting out of the way while using the neck controls, as this allows greater safety for one's self and greater control of the opponent.

James

sihing

02-05-2005, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
IMO generalized statements like "90% of fights go to the ground" and the like, even if true, aren't significant. The issue is what we personally can do, what our skill level is, what our performance ability is, etc. How easily can you be taken to the ground? How well can you deal with that situation should it occur? And the most important question: is your answer based on theory or do you *know* based on experience? In other words, do you *know* your performance level? (There is only one way to know that).

So often, as in this case, the issue almost always comes back to whether you are a theoretician or a fighter -- if you believe you have the answers/skill that's one thing, continually testing your beliefs/skills against *skilled* opposition in fighting is something else. Quite frankly, one can't argue with theoreticians because in theory all things are equal, much appears plausible, etc. You'll never convince a theoretician that wants to believe WCK has all the answers, or WCK is a superior art, WCK will work on the ground, or whatever, that they are mistaken. All we can do is ask anyone that makes a claim to prove it, provide the evidence. If they can't or won't prove it in fighting, then we know it is nothing more than conjecture on their part.

Victor makes the call for video -- and that can be good evidence, though that depends on the content of the tape. For example, someone could provide a tape of them using their WCK "mount defense" in a demo or against one of their classmates. That would prove nothing (other than perhaps give us a clearer example of what they were talking about). It's another matter to provide a tape of them using it against skilled folks, with developed attributes, under genuine fighting (full resistance, full power, etc.) conditions.

Yes, but who's making claims. If I said my techniques are superior to all others, then this is a claim and I better be ready to prove it. In my posts describing what we may do in a situation, there are no claims of superiority, just explanations of what someone can do in the situation. There are hundreds of ways to defend one's self against the mount, shoot, punches or kicks, whatever. JKD people use this or that method, Muay Thai something else, all according to what the concepts and principals of that particular art entail.

As for the video, you may never see the technique/s described if using it against someone specialized in that area when fighting as I am not going to allow them to just mount me and start the fight from there. Get me there first then of course I will use whatever methods needed. But you have to have a base or idea of what one can do. Just going out and doing whatever comes to mind when in the heat of the battle will not work. You have to drill something into your system and learn how it works, why it works, when it will work, what it works against, and against who it will work. In class when teaching anything to the students it is not sufficient to just ask them to mimic your movements, everything (according to the comprehension level of the student) must be explained so the questions above are answered. Everything starts out as a theory and is then put into practice. One without the other makes the process incomplete, therefore an incomplete Martial Artist is the result.

James

t_niehoff

02-05-2005, 09:11 AM

sihing,

Go find someone that has *good* shooting skills, like a collegiate wrestler-level, and have them really try to take you down, with everything they've got and see if your view holds water. Some of us have done that (and continue to do it) -- and what is interesting is that all of us that have, share similar views. While those that haven't done that, who "practice" their things cooperatively and/or against folks that have little shooting skills (poor technique, poor attributes, etc.), "believe" differently. You many think your views sound reasonable (why lose mobility when I can step out of the way? etc.) but there are some things going on that you don't appreciate until you've done it against skilled people. I could tell you wat they are, but it would remain theory to you and you'd rationalize ways to still argue your beliefs. But, after eating the mat twenty times in a row, you'd *know.* You need to see it rather than hear about it. Open your eyes and close your ears.

Mark Rasmus

02-05-2005, 10:20 AM

Check out this video of wing chun ground fighting. I am glad I dont train at that school. But I still can imagine if you didnt loose all your teeth and brain cells you would be an effective fighter eventually using their approach....ouch!!!
http://www.meihua.ee/video/wt_udar.wmv:mad:

Merryprankster

02-05-2005, 03:08 PM

and what is interesting is that all of us that have, share similar views.

I have noticed this as well. I've also noticed that those people that go from theory to doing, find their views significantly altered.

Ultimatewingchun

02-05-2005, 06:18 PM

"I have noticed this as well. I've also noticed that those people that go from theory to doing, find their views significantly altered." (MP)

SUCH AS coming to recognize the importance of the sprawl...against some half-assed grappler or streetfighter type who starts his shoot from too far away...a sidestep might work.

Against a good grappler/wrestler...no chance (because no room) to sidestep.

Better learn to sprawl.

sihing

02-05-2005, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
sihing,

Go find someone that has *good* shooting skills, like a collegiate wrestler-level, and have them really try to take you down, with everything they've got and see if your view holds water. Some of us have done that (and continue to do it) -- and what is interesting is that all of us that have, share similar views. While those that haven't done that, who "practice" their things cooperatively and/or against folks that have little shooting skills (poor technique, poor attributes, etc.), "believe" differently. You many think your views sound reasonable (why lose mobility when I can step out of the way? etc.) but there are some things going on that you don't appreciate until you've done it against skilled people. I could tell you wat they are, but it would remain theory to you and you'd rationalize ways to still argue your beliefs. But, after eating the mat twenty times in a row, you'd *know.* You need to see it rather than hear about it. Open your eyes and close your ears.

I don't recall ever saying the methods I use are unbeatable? Or that I am Unshootable? They are methods that one can use when needed. Anything can happen, unpredictable things arise in a fight, and the skilled wrestler, grappler will definitely have things in their arsenal that I do not possess, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate them. But the same is also true of my skills, there are things that I have in my arsenal that they don't. Is the wrestler, grappler to appreciate that also, or is he so superior to me and WC that he doesn't have to? I hear a prejudice tone in your post Terence.

James

sihing

02-05-2005, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"I have noticed this as well. I've also noticed that those people that go from theory to doing, find their views significantly altered." (MP)

SUCH AS coming to recognize the importance of the sprawl...against some half-assed grappler or streetfighter type who starts his shoot from too far away...a sidestep might work.

Against a good grappler/wrestler...no chance (because no room) to sidestep.

Better learn to sprawl.

The streetfighter will shoot to far away, the pro will shoot in closer. What are you doing while the pro is getting in closer to you, nothing? How about something as simple as putting the attack/pressure to him instead of waiting for him to shoot in on you, lol. (yeah yeah, I know the answer already, he's got a strategy to bridge the gap that's unbeatable to right?) If you honestly believe that then you have already been defeated by the enemy you have never faced.

Once more anyone of any high level skill in the MA will be harder to defeat, regardless of style or system, so you automatically have to respect your opponent and be weary of his tools and to never underestimate him. Be ready, trust your tools, don't think about the outcome and let whatever happens to happen naturally & instinctively because you have done the work in the past.

James

sihing

02-06-2005, 12:09 AM

How good are ground fighters when weapons are involved like brass knuckles, knifes, shanks, etc. Especially when they are concealed. If I'm being mounted and resisting it, can the quality ground grappler take me out faster than I can use a weapon on him that he doesn't know is there? Is it wise to be on the ground if you do not know if there are weapons involved, or would one rather by standing up? Grapplers or grappling advocates please feel free to answer.

James

SAAMAG

02-06-2005, 12:38 AM

I think at this point there are too many what if's that are being employed here. Grappling with someone on the ground that has a weapon is no worse then trying to fight standup with the like.

A knife puts the fight in a totally different league then simple hand to hand.

The main thing with a grappler or wrestler, and this has held true to any fights I have been in or seen....is if you don't end the fight with the first couple strikes...then the fight is now in their court because by that time they're going to have you on the ground.

Granted you can still hit them while you're there...but again...you better hope that damage is done because after that, you're not only playing their game, but they've already done half the work in beating you by putting you on the ground. Then it's just a matter of waiting for YOU who has no ground experience, to make a mistake, which you WILL do, and then the fight will be over. That's it, end of story.

chisauking

02-06-2005, 06:07 AM

Van sez: The main thing with a grappler or wrestler, and this has held true to any fights I have been in or seen....is if you don't end the fight with the first couple strikes...then the fight is now in their court because by that time they're going to have you on the ground.

If you can't beat an opponent standing up after having first strike, where you have far better leverage and mobility, what makes you think you can beat them on the ground? Further more, any style that advocates taking a 'few shots' before it comes into play is STUPID in my opinion. 1) it means it has very sloppy inintial defence. 2) what happends when you meet someone that CAN punch and kick, and punch and kick accurately? The thing to remember is, if your opponent can take your best shot standing up, where you have maximum power, you are going to be in deep ding-dong on the ground where your strikes would probably lose half its power. If you don't have the power to beat someone standing up, you definately wont have the power to beat them on the ground.

My friend, in the fight scenario that you have desribed, it was not the ground work that lost the fight -- the opponent was just too strong to begin with. It may have finished on the ground, but the fight was already lost standing.

Vajramusti

02-06-2005, 06:37 AM

Chisauking sez-

It may have finished on the ground, but the fight was already lost standing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
True- happens often again and again.

PS- the other person's synthesis is "theory"- their own
is "reality"... according to self labelled realists.

keyboards can spit out any word that one wants- including- goulash.

YungChun

02-06-2005, 07:42 AM

Yes most fights go to the ground because most fights involve puerile morons who have no brain, no training, no skills and no plan. Yes fights involving good grapplers will almost always go to the ground, what a shock! Interesting the one poster talked about trained (standup) fighters who actually fight who have said, it seems, that in their fights (they) don't normally go to the ground, again the reason is clear, it's their skill.

I don't rule out the possibility that the Wing Chun system has potential for groundwork, especially since so many here are so sure it doesn't. :D Wing Chun concepts are not limited to any particular method or way, Wing Chun teaches, more than anything else, to use what is most economical in a given situation; WC structure is created by applying the concepts to the body’s available tools, we think, just for standup – this is what has created the system’s tools and techniques, well if you can apply these concepts to create a standup system then you can apply them to create WC Ground & Pound IMO – that assumes the brilliant founders of this system never considered groundwork necessary. :confused:

In any case all system concepts are sound and may be applied even to things that don’t fit in with the traditional WC paradigm; Bruce applied WC concepts to everything he did, WC or not, including large circular techniques that are not nearly efficient enough for Wing Chun to call her own.

These concepts IMO can be applied to anything, something I’ll be looking into, including WC Ground & Pound, which some people have already been working on apparently. Anyone seen that new NHB Wing Chun DVD, it supposedly has lots of G&P ala WC...

SAAMAG

02-06-2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by chisauking
Van sez: The main thing with a grappler or wrestler, and this has held true to any fights I have been in or seen....is if you don't end the fight with the first couple strikes...then the fight is now in their court because by that time they're going to have you on the ground.You need to re-read what I posted here.

If you can't beat an opponent standing up after having first strike, where you have far better leverage and mobility, what makes you think you can beat them on the ground?
I think you're misunderstanding the post...because...that's exactly what I was saying to these people. That IF you aren't going to able to beat the grappler with the first couple hits, you're pretty much done for unless you know something of the ground

Further more, any style that advocates taking a 'few shots' before it comes into play is STUPID in my opinion. 1) it means it has very sloppy inintial defence. 2) what happends when you meet someone that CAN punch and kick, and punch and kick accurately? Never said it was smart...and I never talked about that at all. What I'm talking about is IF you're not able to stop him with the proverbial 3 second onslaught that wing chun so dearly adheres to....that you better hope you have a backup plan for the ground because that's where you're going next.

The thing to remember is, if your opponent can take your best shot standing up, where you have maximum power, you are going to be in deep ding-dong on the ground where your strikes would probably lose half its power. If you don't have the power to beat someone standing up, you definately wont have the power to beat them on the ground. This is somewhat incorrect from my experiences. If you don't have the power to beat them standing up, then on the ground you will other options to use because there (If you have some ground game) you can then use choking and submission techniques...since your strongest punch didn't work as you stated. It doesn't take "power" in every case to beat someone. None of the "realists" here are saying that wing chun doesn't have power, but simply that it's not completely prepared. Conceptually it is...but putting concept into practice in an area that you don't practice in (EVER) seems to be a longshot in my opinion. And yes...I said OPINION.

My friend, in the fight scenario that you have desribed, it was not the ground work that lost the fight -- the opponent was just too strong to begin with. It may have finished on the ground, but the fight was already lost standing. You're correct, the fight was lost before it started...because the striker, in this case a wing chun person...wasn't fully prepared.

SAAMAG

02-06-2005, 09:39 AM

And just so you guys know...

I was and still am a standup fighter for the most part. I have studied various joint locks and throwing techniques and some basic submission finishes once the opponent was on the ground and I had theoretical control over him.

One day years ago I decided that I couldn't honestly make a good judgement as to the effectiveness of what I did without expanding my horizons, without truly knowing and experiencing first hand what the "other guys" were doing (and especially in the 90's when the ground game boomed due to the UFC and the like). Because to me, one cannot truly speak on the subject of effectiveness if they have not tested it first hand, and ESPECIALLY if that have no first hand knowledge of the arts in question. (this vs that or whatever....))

So that's when I looked up a BJJ joint in the area where I was stationed. A friend of mine worked out there...and I had just started teaching him the wing chun that I knew...because he lacked standup fighting skills. Quid pro quo ya know? Long story short, I did it to gain experience, so I could use empirical evidence to substantiate my theories on fighting in general. You will notice the guys who have actually had experience in that arena will say the same. It is highly technical, and it's not about "power" at all...it's about being smarter then the other guy.

I guess you could say wing chun is the same way, as is any art...but you will find that a lot of the people that claim above all that their art needs nothing, are not the same people that are going out and actually experiencing and learning about the other arts they claim to be able to beat using only wing chun, because if they did, they probably would have a more open mind about it.

I have faith in my standup arts, they are my strongest in my arsenal, and although I've never been in a real fight wherein I had to full out "grapple", the ground did come up on occasion as an issue, I just simply averted it because my opponents were never really high in skill thinking back in retrospect. Or maybe I was just better at the time. Who knows. One day I may fight someone better both in attributes as well as grappling. You will often hear about people saying that luck is a big factor in fighting as well, but I feel that one can make their own luck by being prepared...so far I've been lucky. I may not be tomorrow, so I work on it today.

Ultimatewingchun

02-06-2005, 09:41 AM

"What are you doing while the pro is getting in closer to you, nothing? How about something as simple as putting the attack/pressure to him instead of waiting for him to shoot in on you, lol. (yeah yeah, I know the answer already, he's got a strategy to bridge the gap that's unbeatable too... right?) " (James)

WRONG.

Of course I pressure someone as he tries to get close - that's a huge part of the Wing Chun strategy. But a good fighter can still attempt a shoot as I'm pressuring him...

that's a fact.

And sometimes his shoot can be nullified by the kind of pressure I'm applying (ie.- hits, traps, deflections, throws, sidestepping, and controls being put on him).

That's a fact too.

BUT DON'T COUNT ON THAT ALWAYS BEING THE CASE.

If life was only that simple.

There will be plenty of times when none of the things I just mentioned will get the job done...your timing could be off...he could have gotten the jump on you unexpectedly...he could be coming from an angle that nullified your standup game...the environment was too slippery or precarious - or not enough space to deflect or sidestep...he could be so drugged up or crazed that your strikes didn't slow him down...

any number of a reasons.

Ultimatewingchun

02-06-2005, 09:49 AM

"Yes most fights go to the ground because most fights involve puerile morons who have no brain, no training, no skills and no plan." (YungChun)

THAT'S NOT why most fights go the ground when two experienced and skilled people fight...

it's because in the real world both antagonists ARE COMING IN...to "get" the other guy.

And if they're both skilled and tough - then they can often take shots if need be, and/or tie the other guy up if need be.

And what you have then is a standing grappling situation that very often winds up on the ground.

t_niehoff

02-06-2005, 10:35 AM

sihing wrote:

I don't recall ever saying the methods I use are unbeatable?

**And no one is suggesting that you did. The issue is how effective those methods are. And what I'm trying to point out is that WCK's methods aren't very effective (don't work well against skilled folks) in certain situtations (like against the shoot, on the ground, etc.).

Or that I am Unshootable? They are methods that one can use when needed.

**It's not a question of having "methods one can use" but the effectiveness of those methods; folks can do all sorts of things but if you try them against skilled folks (who are best able to take advantage of poor responses) you'll see that they are more often a liability rather than an asset.

Anything can happen, unpredictable things arise in a fight, and the skilled wrestler, grappler will definitely have things in their arsenal that I do not possess, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate them. But the same is also true of my skills, there are things that I have in my arsenal that they don't. Is the wrestler, grappler to appreciate that also, or is he so superior to me and WC that he doesn't have to? I hear a prejudice tone in your post Terence.

**Boxing is a great art too (as is WCK) and has things that wrestling/BJJ doesn't; that doesn't mean it has all the answers or even some effective answers to questions that are posed by wrestling or BJJ. Sure, a boxer can still punch on the ground, but if they don't have solid ground skills those things will most likely be a liability against a skilled groundfighter. Does that mean I'm "prejudiced"? No. It means that I have the experience to realize that all methods have their strengths and weaknesses, including WCK. They are great for what they do, but not so great for what they were not intended for. Each method has limitations, gaps, and weaknesses that can be exploited even against the best of practitioners of those methods. Same with BJJ -- it is great on the ground but not standing up.

**That was one of the main lessons of the NHB fights -- that well-skilled folks in one method could be beaten easily by taking them out of their method's strengths (if they were a striker, take them to the ground or clinch; if they were a groundfighter, develop the skill to stall and brawl; etc.). Hence the need for MMA/crosstraining: minimizing your weaknesses, developing flexibility in your game to permit you to take advantage of another fighter's weaknesses, etc.). If you don't accept the evidence before your eyes, then go do it for yourself -- everyone that has comes away with the same view. And, as I said before, if someone doesn't care about becoming a well-rounded fighter -- if they just want to focus on WCK, for example -- then these things won't matter to them. Nevertheless, the underlying truth remains.

**Of course, I appreciate that I'm not going to convince you, Joy, chisauking and those of similar views that they are mistaken. And even if we were able to convince you from discussion, it would still remain only theory to you. The only way -- ONLY WAY -- for a person to gain genuine knowledge (as opposed to meren information) and skill is from personal experience because those things are personal and not gotten from another. If you lack that experience, you will simply lack both knowledge and skill. This is why I say to you: don't take my word for it, go see it for yourself. Of course, I'm simply paraphrasing Yip Man's advice ("I may be tricking you, go out and test it for yourself."). As I've pointed out, all those that have done that, that have tested themselves against good groundfighters or good wrestlers, have come away with similar views.

**However, you may believe, as some apparently do, that this is because all of us that have had this experience simply go into them with poor WCK skills and so couldn't respond appropriately. For me, this is like some boxer saying *he* could deal with a groundfighter and the reason all the other boxers have failed is because they didn't have good boxing skills (like he does). OK, fine -- then test that opinion in the light of experience -- go mix it up with a skilled groundfighter -- rather than rely on theory and the belief in your superior WCK skill. So far, the only people making that claim are the folks that haven't put their views to the test. As experience leads to knowledge and skill, a serious practitioner will actively seek those experiences because they are interested in knowledge and skill and that's the only way to grow. In my view, folks that refuse to seek those experiences simply aren't seriously interested in their personal growth in fighting skill and knowledge and are more interested in preserving their beliefs, their positions, their ego, their incomes, etc.

YungChun

02-06-2005, 10:46 AM

Victor,

I also said that if you have good grapplers it most often will go to the ground, two boxers, less often, two dumb kids, more often - point is it depends on those involved.

What does taking the center really mean? Does it mean simply landing a strike or does it also mean taking their Center of Gravity??

If you take the CG they cannot take yours... To defend a shoot I attack their CG, I have no problem with WC student's going into a mount if needed, etc. I think WC can easily transition in a case like this to a mount and ground and pound.

I am fully in favor of getting ground experience in a ground system, but I also think WC may have over looked ground potential and can often stop the TD.

BTW: I have seen some clips, I think of you training/sparring??

If that is you I was wondering why in some clips you started off doing WC but then as your partner disengaged you tackled him to the ground :confused: and wrestle.

In other clips you seem to be doing western boxing, jabbing, weaving, etc., instead of using WC structure, why?

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by sihing
How good are ground fighters when weapons are involved like brass knuckles, knifes, shanks, etc. Especially when they are concealed. If I'm being mounted and resisting it, can the quality ground grappler take me out faster than I can use a weapon on him that he doesn't know is there? Accessing a weapon once you are mounted by someone who knows even a little about groundfighting is extremely difficult- almost impossible. If you did happen to get to the weapon, it is a simple and pretty easy matter for the top guy to take it from you and use it againsts you.

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by sihing
How about something as simple as putting the attack/pressure to him instead of waiting for him to shoot in on you, Forward pressure is what a grappler wants for the takedown. It makes the takedown much easier to get. "Anti-grappling" is exactly the opposite- as little forward pressure as possible

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by YungChun
If that is you I was wondering why in some clips you started off doing WC but then as your partner disengaged you tackled him to the ground :confused: and wrestle.

In other clips you seem to be doing western boxing, jabbing, weaving, etc., instead of using WC structure, why? I'll take a guess before he answers. Because he is trying to make his sparring somewhat realistc and is using what is appropriate to the situation.

YungChun

02-06-2005, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Forward pressure is what a grappler wants for the takedown. It makes the takedown much easier to get. "Anti-grappling" is exactly the opposite- as little forward pressure as possible

Grapplers use your energy against you...and so do we... :D However WC need take your balance only for a moment, just long enough to remove an eye... ;)

How is he going to take you down when you blow away his center of gravity? What is taking the center? Is it simply hitting? Does it not mean taking his Center of Gravity?

However, it really depends on his energy and position and there can be no fixed answer IMO regarding the correct amount of energy and position, to suggest otherwise is using cookie cutter methodology.

AndrewS

02-06-2005, 12:13 PM

Dale writes:

<Forward pressure is what a grappler wants for the takedown. It makes the takedown much easier to get. "Anti-grappling" is exactly the opposite- as little forward pressure as possible>

What do you mean by this? I'm curious about the approach you're alluding to.

Forward pressure means several things to me- at a distance it means keeping your weapons ready to fire while moving to create openings, forcing the other person to respond with their footwork or lose the engagement when the distance is broken (Dempsey and Lewis are a joy to watch with this, and what I've seen of Rickson precontact uses this, it seems), from a timing perspective it means not letting up where-ever you are, never giving a breather, from a contact perspective it means always being lined up to press in with your hips (with whatever you care to use, whether it be a kick, shot, hold and hit), with that intention of pressing there (amount of pressure varying between just wanting to go in, and a linebacker drive).

Andrew

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by AndrewS
What do you mean by this? I'm curious about the approach you're alluding to.
Forward pressure is either continual forward movement in a non-contact ragne or pressing yourself forward against your opponent's resistance once contact is made. A grappler or striker who only applies forward pressure is easily taken down.

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by YungChun
How is he going to take you down when you blow away his center of gravity? Do you even know what the center of gravity is?

YungChun

02-06-2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Do you even know what the center of gravity is?

Golly gee I think so......

Do you 'even know' what Centerline Theory is?? :eek:

How about Energy Issuing? :o

Hand Unity? :confused:

Bidirectional Energy? :cool:

But, why not address the question, or better yet the spirit of the question instead of us giving each other a vocabulary quiz.. :rolleyes:

AndrewS

02-06-2005, 01:03 PM

<A grappler or striker who only applies forward pressure is easily taken down.>

I assume that you mean from a non-contact perspective they become predictable, and from a contact perspective they give you something to work with. Any reason you say taken down as opposed to taken advantage of? Lots of good wrestlers seem to work off the constant forward pressure idea for their takedowns, and there are some notable boxers who've done well (i.e. Frazier, Marciano) with constant pressure. Is the hole in, for instance, a Frazier-like constant advance the same from your perspective for both takedowns and strikes.

Later,

Andrew

iblis73

02-06-2005, 01:32 PM

It should be noted that a good grappler is no more interested in taking a few shots to get a take down than a boxer is. I'm not sure where this myth originated. We should also note the advancement of martial science into the MMA realm (or the return to?) In other words many grapplers cross train, often in the same school. As such you have many who can kickbox, clinch and grapple with alarming effectiveness. This is what we are up against-not a "shoot" or tackle, but a skilled opponent .

K.Kerspecht once wrote an article called "never box a boxer and never wrestle a wrestler." At the time I read it I thought it to be sage-like. But while the underlying theme resonates (dont play his game) such statements seem silly to me. Not only because it assumes your opponent will do/know one thing OR the other but because by the time you say "uh oh hes a boxer" youve been hit 3-5 times.

This is where MMA has such an edge of other "styles." It assumes the opponent can box,kick,clinch and take the fight to the ground. Much more wholistic imho.

Ultimatewingchun

02-06-2005, 04:11 PM

YongChun:

Yes..that's me.

Go back and read some of my posts on that thread in answer to your questions.

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by YungChun
But, why not address the question, or better yet the spirit of the question instead of us giving each other a vocabulary quiz.. :rolleyes: OK... as a grappler, I'm not too worried about a striker blowing away my center of gravity. I'm much more likely to disrupt his center of gravity since that's what a takedown is.

As a groundfighter, I'm not too worried, even if a striker does somehow happen to beat me at the center of gravity game, because we end up on the ground.

Overall, a striker who wants to keep the fight standing is usually better off if he concentrates on maintaining his own center of gravity, rather than trying to move that of his grappling opponent.

Knifefighter

02-06-2005, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by AndrewS
Any reason you say taken down as opposed to taken advantage of? The original statement was addressing forward pressure in terms of holding off a grappler who wants to take you down. However, I think, as a general rule it is probably easier to take down someone when he is applying constant forward pressure than it is to outstrike him.

chisauking

02-06-2005, 07:07 PM

t_niehoff (Terence) the invincible:

I find you to be an enigma. You are a very good communicator, and you get all your points across in writing very well. Your peice on Rene's site was excellent...but you seem to talk a load of ballonly on this forum???? Whether you do this just to wind people up, I don't know and nor do I care. If that's how you get your kicks, fine. What I find very funny is your constant 'dry land swimming' analogy, and your statement that you have to fight to get better at fighting. However, when people ask you to elaborate on your remarks and maybe show some example of your fighting, you point them to the Mark Thorton site. Yet what people saw on that site was no more realistic than what some people are actaully doing now, and in some cases, even more realsitic and extrem. Now you are suggesting that people should 'test' themselves with skillful fighters!
1) What makes you think some haven't done so? Because they don't agree with you?
2) What if your expereince was wrong? As all smart people should know, different skill levels yields different results and ultimately different experiences.

You still haven't answered me how YOU aquired your experiences yet, so I can't ascertain the honesty of yout results. Maybe your expereince was from actual street fighting with opponent's that genuinely tried to kill you. Maybe it was from what I would term club sparring, wearing proctective equipment from head to toe.

I find that with all chat forums that there's only so far you can go. I'm not going to find out how good you are, and you not going to find out how good I am, until we meet and spar (or fight, depending on your definition). I can only say to people, if you truly want to be the best at what you do, you have to travel on the path of self honesty. For example, if you really want to know how effective -- or ineffective -- a take down technique is, whatever you do, don't believe what is shown on T.V. Go and test it yourself...but in a REAL environment against someone that's genuinely trying to HURT you, and you are not wrapped in cotton wool. Find the most powerful kicker you can, get him to wear normal footwear(like leather shoes), go outside on the pavement or concrete, and then offer him $200 if he can kick you, whilst you try to take him down. There's no rules -- he can kick or knee you in the face full power, and you can use full power to take him down. Now that's what I would term a real experience. You could even go more extrem, but that's beyond most on this chat room.

Whilst its been nice bantering with all you lovely people, it's time for me to get back to intensive training, so I will resign myself to lurking mode for the next 2-months

Train smart, train safe. michael yan choi

sihing

02-06-2005, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Knifefighter
OK... as a grappler, I'm not too worried about a striker blowing away my center of gravity. I'm much more likely to disrupt his center of gravity since that's what a takedown is.

As a groundfighter, I'm not too worried, even if a striker does somehow happen to beat me at the center of gravity game, because we end up on the ground.

Overall, a striker who wants to keep the fight standing is usually better off if he concentrates on maintaining his own center of gravity, rather than trying to move that of his grappling opponent.

Wrong, on the last paragraph. As a "striker" primarily (whatever that means as there are lots of tools in my arsenal besides hitting someone with my fists, feet, etc.) I want to lead my opponent to the ground, maintaining superior balance, position and control, and put the attack to him there. His chances of running away while on the ground is less as his mobility is severely lessened, and since WC technique and philosophy when striking on the ground work the same I have a better chance of success. With the above mentioned, control and balance, etc. of the opponent I can also make the landing to the ground hurt, and use it to my advantage. The key here is having the above in place when doing this. Obviously against the strict striker (one who wants to stay upright and on their feet), once the takedown is in process I would have the advantage as the experienced ground fighter is used to being taken down and being on the ground, the strict striker isn't. A prelude to all of the above is to distract or make it easier to apply to the opponent by striking or applying "pain" of some sort so the opponents mind and thoughts are "Not" on the takedown I am applying to him. To simply try to takedown an experienced ground fighter would not work without some sort of set up. In streetfights, with no prior knowledge of your opponent, this works better because WC is a fast system and can be launched upon someone with explosiveness that most are not used to, so the element of surprise is with us, and also since WC advocates a strict guarding structure making it difficult to get hit or advanced upon easily, we can concentrate more on attack, rather than defense.

James

sihing

02-06-2005, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by chisauking
t_niehoff (Terence) the invincible:

I find you to be an enigma. You are a very good communicator, and you get all your points across in writing very well. Your peice on Rene's site was excellent...but you seem to talk a load of ballonly on this forum???? Whether you do this just to wind people up, I don't know and nor do I care. If that's how you get your kicks, fine. What I find very funny is your constant 'dry land swimming' analogy, and your statement that you have to fight to get better at fighting. However, when people ask you to elaborate on your remarks and maybe show some example of your fighting, you point them to the Mark Thorton site. Yet what people saw on that site was no more realistic than what some people are actaully doing now, and in some cases, even more realsitic and extrem. Now you are suggesting that people should 'test' themselves with skillful fighters!
1) What makes you think some haven't done so? Because they don't agree with you?
2) What if your expereince was wrong? As all smart people should know, different skill levels yields different results and ultimately different experiences.

You still haven't answered me how YOU aquired your experiences yet, so I can't ascertain the honesty of yout results. Maybe your expereince was from actual street fighting with opponent's that genuinely tried to kill you. Maybe it was from what I would term club sparring, wearing proctective equipment from head to toe.

I find that with all chat forums that there's only so far you can go. I'm not going to find out how good you are, and you not going to find out how good I am, until we meet and spar (or fight, depending on your definition). I can only say to people, if you truly want to be the best at what you do, you have to travel on the path of self honesty. For example, if you really want to know how effective -- or ineffective -- a take down technique is, whatever you do, don't believe what is shown on T.V. Go and test it yourself...but in a REAL environment against someone that's genuinely trying to HURT you, and you are not wrapped in cotton wool. Find the most powerful kicker you can, get him to wear normal footwear(like leather shoes), go outside on the pavement or concrete, and then offer him $200 if he can kick you, whilst you try to take him down. There's no rules -- he can kick or knee you in the face full power, and you can use full power to take him down. Now that's what I would term a real experience. You could even go more extrem, but that's beyond most on this chat room.

Whilst its been nice bantering with all you lovely people, it's time for me to get back to intensive training, so I will resign myself to lurking mode for the next 2-months

Train smart, train safe. michael yan choi

Here's a metaphor that relates what I think Terence's ideas of Wing Chun are. Wing Chun=BUTTER, Skilled Fighter=KNIFE. The thing Terence doesn't realize is sometimes the BUTTER is frozen and the knife is plastic.

James

rogue

02-06-2005, 08:10 PM

sihing, do you really believe that crap?

sihing

02-06-2005, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by rogue
sihing, do you really believe that crap?

Well, whenever one of us WC traditionalist (which doesn't mean I have blind faith and am not aware of what else is out there) explains a concept or method or whatever, Terence always comes around and says, "Try that against a skilled fighter, that's just fought 100 fights in the ring, with 20yrs of experience trying to kill someone else, and trains 23 hrs a day and blah blah blah". It's like when I explain a round punch defense, I like to use a tan sao and side step (into the punch) and simultaneous punch to his face, Terence will automatically think that 1) I’ve only imagined the movements in my head, never really trying it against someone that knows how to throw a punch or 2) the more skilled and precise and fast and stronger the opponent is the less chance it will work for me, or anyone for that matter. What he doesn’t realize, I think anyways, is the concepts and principals will work and have to be tested to work for the individual. In the round punch defense, when occupying the center, the slower path is around my guard (Man/Wu Sao structure), this gives me more time to react to it. Also, I'm watching his lead elbow which moves slower than his fist, which makes the punch even faster to read. Third, I'm hitting as soon as he opens his center to hit me with his round. In most instances in this technique, my punch lands before I make contact with his round punch (obviously the less angle involved in the round/hook punch the faster it will be). The side step puts me out of the way of his combo, so the opponent will have to reset to hit me again, but in Terence’s mind I will be just standing there waiting for him to reset, instead of hitting him in the head while this is all happening. Basically he tries to make practitioners with WC skills feel like they have no chance of resisting against anyone of superior skills, like a knife through butter, easy..

Too many what if's, this or that's, lack of understanding of others beliefs, or just plain ignoring them.

James

Merryprankster

02-07-2005, 07:04 AM

It's like when I explain a round punch defense

Why bother?

A "round punch" is to a hook what the drunken fratboy tackle is to a decent high school wrestler's shot.

If you learn to defend the hook, the round punch is cake. So why explain a round punch defense at all?

Waste of time.

I want to lead my opponent to the ground, maintaining superior balance, position and control, and put the attack to him there.

As a response to KF's last paragraph this makes no sense. Why are you trying to put a groundfighter on the ground? If you close the gap you're going to lose there more likely than not. If you stay away you allow them up, thus losing the advantage you claim to have gained.

A decent (Average blue-belt, average high school wrestler) groundfighter has spent more time working on balance, position and control from these positions than you have, against people who have spent more time doing those things than you have. Simply put, barring quick, debilitating injury, you are unlikely to maintain your superior balance, position and control for long.

Ultimatewingchun

02-07-2005, 07:17 AM

"It's like when I explain a round punch defense, I like to use a tan sao and side step (into the punch) and simultaneous punch to his face, Terence will automatically think that...I’ve only imagined the movements in my head, never really trying it against someone that knows how to throw a punch..." (James)

I WILL automatically think it too...

since I know from many years of experience that tan sao has very little chance of stopping a serious hook (round) punch that's thrown with ferocity.

Bil...or bil/lop...or lop...are the Wing Chun answers to the hook.

t_niehoff

02-07-2005, 07:35 AM

sihing wrote:

Well, whenever one of us WC traditionalist (which doesn't mean I have blind faith and am not aware of what else is out there) explains a concept or method or whatever, Terence always comes around and says, "Try that against a skilled fighter, that's just fought 100 fights in the ring, with 20yrs of experience trying to kill someone else, and trains 23 hrs a day and blah blah blah".

**One of the most significant problems in the WCK community is that we have lots of folks, especially the "masters" and "grandmasters", who have no real fighting skills teaching folks how to fight (apply WCK). And these students are never fighting either (except perhaps occassionally "sparring" with classmates). It is the blind leading the blind. All I'm saying is open your eyes -- see for yourself, don't take someone's word for it, don't trust to theory.

It's like when I explain a round punch defense, I like to use a tan sao and side step (into the punch) and simultaneous punch to his face, Terence will automatically think that 1) I’ve only imagined the movements in my head, never really trying it against someone that knows how to throw a punch or 2) the more skilled and precise and fast and stronger the opponent is the less chance it will work for me, or anyone for that matter. What he doesn’t realize, I think anyways, is the concepts and principals will work and have to be tested to work for the individual. In the round punch defense, when occupying the center, the slower path is around my guard (Man/Wu Sao structure), this gives me more time to react to it. Also, I'm watching his lead elbow which moves slower than his fist, which makes the punch even faster to read. Third, I'm hitting as soon as he opens his center to hit me with his round. In most instances in this technique, my punch lands before I make contact with his round punch (obviously the less angle involved in the round/hook punch the faster it will be). The side step puts me out of the way of his combo, so the opponent will have to reset to hit me again, but in Terence’s mind I will be just standing there waiting for him to reset, instead of hitting him in the head while this is all happening.

**You've given an explanation of why you believe what you are training *should* work. That's all theory. Theory is not skill. Try it against someone good; see if you can really do these things, if they really work as you believe they will.

Basically he tries to make practitioners with WC skills feel like they have no chance of resisting against anyone of superior skills, like a knife through butter, easy..

**To defeat someone you need superior skills or superior attributes or both (unless you believe in magic). It's not "WCK skills" that will save you, it is having superior fighting skills, regardless of your method, to that of your opponent. This is why theoreticians like to say "WCK is a superior method of fighting" -- as though somehow the method itself will give them an edge over an opponent. It won't. Superior skill or superior attributes will, nothing else. And to get superior fighting skill you need to fight as part of your training.

Too many what if's, this or that's, lack of understanding of others beliefs, or just plain ignoring them.

**I don't want to "understand other's beliefs" -- some folks believe in empty force (hitting or throwing without touching via chi) while others believe they can develop good fighting skills without fighting. There are all kinds of beliefs out there. I'm interested in skill, obtaining skill, increasing skill, etc, -- RESULTS. Increased fighting performance. Not theory.

**Merry makes a good point in his post -- his is the voice of experience.

sihing

02-07-2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Why bother?

A "round punch" is to a hook what the drunken fratboy tackle is to a decent high school wrestler's shot.

If you learn to defend the hook, the round punch is cake. So why explain a round punch defense at all?

Waste of time.

As a response to KF's last paragraph this makes no sense. Why are you trying to put a groundfighter on the ground? If you close the gap you're going to lose there more likely than not. If you stay away you allow them up, thus losing the advantage you claim to have gained.

A decent (Average blue-belt, average high school wrestler) groundfighter has spent more time working on balance, position and control from these positions than you have, against people who have spent more time doing those things than you have. Simply put, barring quick, debilitating injury, you are unlikely to maintain your superior balance, position and control for long.

Round or Hook, different words interpreted differently. The tighter the circle of the movement the harder it gets, but still applies using the same method described in my post, so no waste of time.

Re-read my post Merryprankster, when leading someone to the ground you need what in place? If I have superior control, balance and position on my opponent, all the while striking him or applying some sort of pressure (chin-na lock, muscle grab, etc.) then how is the opponent able to regain position and advantage. And if he does, who's to say I cannot do the same to him? If I lose balance, when I had superior balance to begin with, why can't I regain it again after it was lost? Your argument can be turned around on you easily, especially on an internet forum like this. The basic philosophy of what I described in my post was this; I will not ground grapple an expert in this field when on the ground, I will still fight him on the ground using the same methods I would use standing up. If I am on top can I not mount him from the side? (Blindside theory). Can I not trap his limbs from this position also? Won't my chi-sao attributes work the same if the opponent is deflecting my attacks? Again, you can't just take someone down to the ground without some sort of resistance, and resistance is relative to skill in that area. And guess what, I may not even use that method and decide to stay on my feet, WOW, what a revelation ah! Just like any concept in the WC system, I can choose when to use it or not. In essence I do not know what exactly I will do, the situation will dictate that.

James

sihing

02-07-2005, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"It's like when I explain a round punch defense, I like to use a tan sao and side step (into the punch) and simultaneous punch to his face, Terence will automatically think that...I’ve only imagined the movements in my head, never really trying it against someone that knows how to throw a punch..." (James)

I WILL automatically think it too...

since I know from many years of experience that tan sao has very little chance of stopping a serious hook (round) punch that's thrown with ferocity.

Bil...or bil/lop...or lop...are the Wing Chun answers to the hook.

The Tan will work regardless if the it's hook or round, but like I said above in my reply to Merryprankster, the tighter the circle of the movement the harder it will be.

You should already know this, but maybe I will remind you. When applying the tan sao & side step against the hook/round, you actually are meeting the blow at the point where there is less power in the strike. If you let the strike complete it's movement then you will have to deal with all the power that it has generated, since it is at it's apex in movement. When stepping into it and deflecting, you are cutting the hook/round movement in half, and therefore meeting it at a time in space where it has less power and leverage, therefore it works fine. Timing is important here, as well as good structure concerning your own body mechanics.

Maybe you should explain to me (and all of us) WHY Tan won't work, instead of making a statement without any explaination to back it up. What's your take on it Victor?

Yes, Bil can be used also to replace the Tan, all of them can of course be followed up with a Lop Sao.

James

sihing

02-07-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
sihing wrote:

Well, whenever one of us WC traditionalist (which doesn't mean I have blind faith and am not aware of what else is out there) explains a concept or method or whatever, Terence always comes around and says, "Try that against a skilled fighter, that's just fought 100 fights in the ring, with 20yrs of experience trying to kill someone else, and trains 23 hrs a day and blah blah blah".

**One of the most significant problems in the WCK community is that we have lots of folks, especially the "masters" and "grandmasters", who have no real fighting skills teaching folks how to fight (apply WCK). And these students are never fighting either (except perhaps occassionally "sparring" with classmates). It is the blind leading the blind. All I'm saying is open your eyes -- see for yourself, don't take someone's word for it, don't trust to theory.

Sihing reply:

Well my information source has as much "real" fighting experience as anyone on this forum if not more. I agree that if you can't trace the information back to someone who actually used it then you may have a point. I for one have tested the skills, do I still have to "write" the test over and over again to prove that I have the knowledge? IMO you don't, and since I'm making no claims of superior fighting skills as a individual there should be no threat to anyone, so really all I am doing is discussing methods and concepts, to which is all one can do on a Internet forum.

"It's like when I explain a round punch defense, I like to use a tan sao and side step (into the punch) and simultaneous punch to his face, Terence will automatically think that 1) I’ve only imagined the movements in my head, never really trying it against someone that knows how to throw a punch or 2) the more skilled and precise and fast and stronger the opponent is the less chance it will work for me, or anyone for that matter. What he doesn’t realize, I think anyways, is the concepts and principals will work and have to be tested to work for the individual. In the round punch defense, when occupying the center, the slower path is around my guard (Man/Wu Sao structure), this gives me more time to react to it. Also, I'm watching his lead elbow which moves slower than his fist, which makes the punch even faster to read. Third, I'm hitting as soon as he opens his center to hit me with his round. In most instances in this technique, my punch lands before I make contact with his round punch (obviously the less angle involved in the round/hook punch the faster it will be). The side step puts me out of the way of his combo, so the opponent will have to reset to hit me again, but in Terence’s mind I will be just standing there waiting for him to reset, instead of hitting him in the head while this is all happening."

**You've given an explanation of why you believe what you are training *should* work. That's all theory. Theory is not skill. Try it against someone good; see if you can really do these things, if they really work as you believe they will.

Sihing reply:
See here we go again. What makes you think I haven't already done this, lol. Also, everything on a internet forum is theory if you look at it they way you do. Either you trust the person writing the post and believe in what they say or you don't.

Basically he tries to make practitioners with WC skills feel like they have no chance of resisting against anyone of superior skills, like a knife through butter, easy..

**To defeat someone you need superior skills or superior attributes or both (unless you believe in magic). It's not "WCK skills" that will save you, it is having superior fighting skills, regardless of your method, to that of your opponent. This is why theoreticians like to say "WCK is a superior method of fighting" -- as though somehow the method itself will give them an edge over an opponent. It won't. Superior skill or superior attributes will, nothing else. And to get superior fighting skill you need to fight as part of your training.

Sihing reply:
I can agree with some of this here. But methods do make a difference IMO. The way they built cars 50 or 60 yrs ago is not as efficient and effective as it is today, the technology(mechanical technology, therefore the tools we use to manufacture cars. which allows us to do things faster) has improved. The TKD method is not as effective as the WC method IMO, but that doesn't mean the TKD method won't work, as there are some practitioners of that art that can make it work for them due to training intensity and natural abilities. But take those same practitioners and teach them the WC method instead and they will be better more effective fighters, because the method is more effective. In the end, it is still the individuals responsibility to make it work for them and use it when needed. Yes, sooner or later you need to "fight" to test your skills, forms alone won't do it for you.

Too many what if's, this or that's, lack of understanding of others beliefs, or just plain ignoring them.

**I don't want to "understand other's beliefs" -- some folks believe in empty force (hitting or throwing without touching via chi) while others believe they can develop good fighting skills without fighting. There are all kinds of beliefs out there. I'm interested in skill, obtaining skill, increasing skill, etc, -- RESULTS. Increased fighting performance. Not theory.

Sihing reply:
Well at least your honest and now we know. You don't have the capacity to understand other's opinion because you have prejudged them, and have made your mind up even before you get to know them.

Knifefighter

02-07-2005, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by madsox
You call yourself knifefighter - don't you carry more than one blade?
I had more to say on this, but I don't think it's worth the effort.Well, let's hear about your experience with weapons on the ground.

t_niehoff

02-07-2005, 11:23 AM

sihing wrote:

Well my information source has as much "real" fighting experience as anyone on this forum if not more.

**Unless that "information source" is yourself, it is theory.

I agree that if you can't trace the information back to someone who actually used it then you may have a point. I for one have tested the skills, do I still have to "write" the test over and over again to prove that I have the knowledge?

**Tested how? Against whom? I'll be frank -- if you tested some of these things against good skilled fighters, you wouldn't be saying the things you do. As I've said before, folks that have certain experiences share simliar views. Folks that haven't tested them against skilled oppositon have all kinds of theories.

IMO you don't, and since I'm making no claims of superior fighting skills as a individual there should be no threat to anyone, so really all I am doing is discussing methods and concepts, to which is all one can do on a Internet forum.

**Folks can "talk" about anything, and certainly you can talk all you want. But you're talk certainly doesn't "threaten" me. You can talk all you want about your tan da vs. hook and your theory behind it. And I could point out all kinds of problems with your theory if I wanted to. But all that is just getting us into a quagmire of theory. I could point out the advantages to ducking a hook, hitting with a body shot at the same time, and coming up with another hook (a boxer's response, for example). I could argue how that makes more sense than what you're talking about. But in the end, theory doesn't tell us what to do -- our skills (what we can do) tell us what to do and what we can do.

See here we go again. What makes you think I haven't already done this, lol. Also, everything on a internet forum is theory if you look at it they way you do. Either you trust the person writing the post and believe in what they say or you don't.

**"Sparring" with your WCK classmates isn't much of a test. If you are so sure about these things, then go to a NHB gym and have a go -- really test it. Tape it. Let's see you make these things really work against skilled opponents. I can tell by what you say that you haven't tried these things against good people because if you had, you wouldn't be saying the things you do. I know because no experienced people do say those sorts of things. Only theoreticians say these things. FWIW, I trust that you believe the things you say; my point is that your belief is misguided.

I can agree with some of this here. But methods do make a difference IMO. The way they built cars 50 or 60 yrs ago is not as efficient and effective as it is today, the technology(mechanical technology, therefore the tools we use to manufacture cars. which allows us to do things faster) has improved. The TKD method is not as effective as the WC method IMO, but that doesn't mean the TKD method won't work, as there are some practitioners of that art that can make it work for them due to training intensity and natural abilities. But take those same practitioners and teach them the WC method instead and they will be better more effective fighters, because the method is more effective.

**Again, this is all theory. You don't judge these things (how effective a method or technique is, for example) from a theoretical POV but from evidence -- and the overwhelming evidence is most people in WCK have very little fighting skill. They're crap. They couldn't deal with good, skilled fighters. In fact, WCK as most people practice it, actually make them worse fighters by instilling lots of poor fighting habits (some of which you proudly mention in your post on how to deal with the hook) than if they just worked out with a good exercise program. Instead of being concerned about how "superior" WCK is as a method of fighting, just be concerned about what you can do.

In the end, it is still the individuals responsibility to make it work for them and use it when needed. Yes, sooner or later you need to "fight" to test your skills, forms alone won't do it for you.

**It's more than that -- they need to fight as part of their training, a significant part. And they need to do that with skilled fighters, the more skilled, the better. You see, since WCK actually makes many people worse fighters, and they "spar" with each other, they get very erroneous feedback about their own performance level (they think they're doing great but only because the competition is so poor).

Well at least your honest and now we know. You don't have the capacity to understand other's opinion because you have prejudged them, and have made your mind up even before you get to know them.

**If we're talking about training methods or application, what concerns me is results (what results those things get). Absent results, we can't accurately evaluate those things. Sure you can tell me what you believe is a good training method or some application, but in theory lots of things sound great. So then you tell me that you've tested it in drills like chi sao or "sparring" with some classmates. BFD. I'll listen to Ernie or Merry and some others because I know they're fighting, they're looking to results. I can tell without ever having met them just by what they say that they are fighting, i.e., practicing WCK.

Ultimatewingchun

02-07-2005, 11:37 AM

"The Tan will work regardless if the it's hook or round, but like I said above in my reply to Merryprankster, the tighter the circle of the movement the harder it will be.

You should already know this, but maybe I will remind you. When applying..." (James)

AND I SHOULD remind you, James...that without the frequent hard sparring against someone who's trying to hook you with a punch that's meant to drop you...

it's all theory.

As I told you once before...William Cheung himself has said that he doesn't think the tan will work against a hook.

Knifefighter

02-07-2005, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
-- if you tested some of these things against good skilled fighters, you wouldn't be saying the things you do. As I've said before, folks that have certain experiences share simliar views. Folks that haven't tested them against skilled oppositon have all kinds of theories.T is exactly right. Experienced people don't say the things you are saying.

Originally posted by t_niehoff
"Sparring" with your WCK classmates isn't much of a test. If you are so sure about these things, then go to a NHB gym and have a go -- really test it. Tape it. Let's see you make these things really work against skilled opponents.You don't know the difference between a hook and a round punch, yet you are talking about defenses against them.

A short time ago, you didn't know what a sprawl was, but you are teaching how to defend against it.

You've never trained in a groundfighting system, but you are teaching how to defend and apply groundfighting concepts.

Try your theories out and make them work against those who specialize in them- ground fighters and boxers... only then should you be teaching this stuff.

Knifefighter

02-07-2005, 11:46 AM

James,
You are the ultimate theoretician. You have never trained in another style. You don't do any sparring or fighting outside of your studio. You think chi sao is representative of sparring and fighting. You take your "masters" word as gospel. You are worried about the inevitable injuries that come from hard/realistic training.

sihing

02-07-2005, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Knifefighter
James,
You are the ultimate theoretician. You have never trained in another style. You don't do any sparring or fighting outside of your studio. You think chi sao is representative of sparring and fighting. You take your "masters" word as gospel. You are worried about the inevitable injuries that come from hard/realistic training.

I don't know if I should take that as a compliment or not, but being the "ultimate" in something is better than nothing I guess, lol.

In all seriousness, it's true that my training and development physically is exclusively through the WC system my Sifu teaches. Does this make me BUTTER to your KNIFE Dale? It may or may not, that doesn't concern me, as I have stated many times that I am not a Fighter, per say or one that likes to engage in physical combat and cause another pain. If necessary the tools are there to a sufficient level of effectiveness IMO, but I'm proud of the fact that I haven't had to use them for quite sometime.

As for Chi-sao, this is what I think of it. It is a drill and its purpose is many and varied, 1) to develop forward intention towards a persons centerline 2) two arm coordination 3) contact reflexes, 4) footwork/handwork coordination 5) close range vision 6) structure 7) chi development etc...The skills developed are attributes just like strength, speed, stamina, toughness, flexibility, etc... And can help one achieve success in a combat situation. Most of the drills in Chi-sao do not directly relate to combat and fighting, as I wouldn't have my hands in a fok/tan/bon sao position in a fight, but if the "Axe isn't sharpened" it will take a longer time to cut the wood.

I do trust my Sifu's experience and teachings, as he has much more real life experience and teaching/MA experience than I, so why wouldn't believe him when he says something. But I do have an open mind and have looked at many other methods of MA, so at the least you can't say I'm closed minded about MA. I just have a strong faith in what was taught to me and what I teach to others.

James

Merryprankster

02-07-2005, 01:28 PM

I never said you couldn't do any of the things you talked about in your response to my post. I made a very simple point:

A groundfighter has spent significantly more time than you learning to do all the things you say are required to lead somebody to the ground and defeat him there. You MIGHT be able to accomplish your objective in the manner you initially outlined. I am betting not. There are many people who possess superior takedown skills (or just happened to get the takedown) who have lost on the ground because the other person took away their balance, control and position. It's not a commentary on ability or art. It's a commentary on training focus.

As far as the round punch and hook, they are mechanically different. The reason for that is that the round punch is wrong, from a biomechanical perspective. It does not unify the body in an effort to express it through the fist. The arm is isolated from the body.

The hook, on the other hand, does unify the body, arm and fist.

If you learn to handle the hook, which is far more dangerous, you can handle a round punch. The reverse is not true.