Weng Chun download clip

[Andreas Hoffman]

Weng Chun download clip

Dear weng chun friends,

here is a weng chun training clip download from Sifu Stefan Reis:

http://chun-wi.208243.vserver.de/fi...-training-3.wmv

[mortal]

It doesn't work for me! Doh!

[Andreas Hoffman]

Sorry, here is the right:


http://chun-wi.208243.vserver.de/index.php/4/0/

Scroll the site down and choose your weng chun clip

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've seen this clip already - Andreas sent it to me last week.

Once again, Andreas...congratulations.

Excellent stuff.

Still haven't forgotten about organizing/hosting a possible NYC seminar for you to do at some point in the future.

I'll work on it.

[mantis108]

It is a great privilege to see Weng Chun in action. I have been a silent observer for the efforts and works of your Weng Chun Kung Fu mostly because I am a practitioner of Chiu Chuk Kai Tai Chi Praying Mantis. I have always been interested in finding out GM Chiu's comment about the similarity of his Kung Fu and his sworn brother GM Chu Chong Men's Kung Fu. Through these clips, I am satisfied that there are indeed similarty in the flow of combat elements. I think you would term it as Lau (leaking) if I am not mistaken.

Indeed these are great stuff and thank you very very much for sharing them.

With deep and sincere appreciation,

Robert Hui (Mantis108)

[SAAMAG]

Looks like a blend of traditional shaolin arts, tai chi, and wing chun! Cool looking stuff. I must admit I have little knowledge of Chee shim weng chun....perhaps I should look more into it. Thanks for the insight into your training!

**The chi sao that you guys are doing in the middle of the clip looks almost exactly like the "augmented" chi sao that I "developed" with some of my own training partners in efforts to better transpose the skills from the poon sao type chi sao movement directly to fighting wherein anything goes (wing chun or not). I feel that method to be better suited for the translation of techniques from poon/gor sao to actual combat. We hit a little bit harder though.

I see now that I wasn't very original with my idea...but it's good to see that I wasn't the only one doing it!

[VingDragon]

nice clip, nice music, nice edit - good job Stefan!

[t_niehoff]

Good examples of various dead and cooperative training practices (so prevalent in TCMAs) . . . but I did see a few good things.

[Ultimatewingchun]

You're barking up the wrong tree here, Terence.

No one style has all the answers - but Weng Chun is a definite contribution to reality-fighting.

[Nick Forrer]

Hi Andreas

Thanks for posting the clip. I very much enjoyed it. I have a strong interest in Weng Chun but the only stuff id seen up until now were the small cips on your web site. This clip makes things a lot clearer.

And was that some BJJ i saw in their half way through? If so nice blend between the two.

Keep up the good work

[t_niehoff]

Victor,

I'm not saying anything about "weng chun" as a fighting method (I think highly of it, and have only heard excellent things about Andreas personally), I'm talking about what I see on that video clip -- what was shown was cooperative and dead training, no one "moved" as they really would in a fight. Sure the weng chun practitioner moved quickly and seemed to be able to "handle" every attack but so do the akido guys! It looks great because everyone is cooperating, giving the "primary" what they need to perform their "techniques" (even though they may be random and unrehearsed). Against genuine resistance from somewhat skilled fighters, it won't "look" anything like that. In fact, I see lots of poor fighting habits demonstrated in those clips (because I know from fighting those sorts of things just won't work). IMHO these sorts of clips are just more of the same in the TCMAs. They look great to the beginner, the nonfighter who thinks "wow! if I could only move like that!" Show the same thing to a fighter, and they'll see something very different.

But as I said, I did see a few good things. But that sort of training (and the clips say this was training, not demos) will actually hinder good development IME -- by reinforcing (through cooperation) those poor fighitng habits.

A while back I posted a clip from the Estonian WT people (actually fighting) that lots of folks here said "looked" terrible, and was a bad example of "good WCK." Yeah, well, that's how WCK "looks" when it is genuinely applied. And that sort of training is the only way to develop good fighting habits. The only persons that recognized those "good habits" in that mess were the folks that fight (Andrew S. comes to mind). To the nonfighters, it looked "terrible".

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I'm talking about what I see on that video clip -- what was shown was cooperative and dead training, no one "moved" as they really would in a fight. Sure the weng chun practitioner moved quickly and seemed to..." (Terence)


BUT WHY is that the very first thing that you mentioned?

And then throw Weng Chun a bone later?

Aren't you fight-savy enough to know, just by looking at that clip, that there is much in the Weng Chun system that really works?

I'm not saying this as an opening for other people to jump all over you; as you know, I almost always agree with what you have to say about reality-fighting and reality-training.

But you're becoming a one-note Charlie...

don't you think?

[Vajramusti]

I checked the first clip and enjoyed watching it. Well made and flows nicely as a two person flowing training drill.

And, different from wing chun- but nice and interesting.

[Vajramusti]

I checked the first clip and enjoyed watching it. Well made and flows nicely as a two person flowing training drill.

And, different from wing chun- but nice and interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

[mortal]

Refreshing. Someone who shows some cool skills. I loved the clips. Your form had great stucture power generated from the ground. Really good flow. I also was impressed with your weapons techniques. Good stuff all around.

[t_niehoff]

http://www.meihua.ee/video/koong-sao-tournament.wmv

Sorry to be a "one note Charlie", Victor, I just get tired of the same-old "lemme-show-how-great-our-cooperative-training-is" cr@p and the inevitable slap-on-the-back congratulations about how "good" or "skilled" the folks in the clip are from other cooperative-trainers. This is just old hat. And it's what continues to make WCK look bad.

[Vajramusti]

Is that wing chun?

[taltos]

Was that a video of guys pulled off the street and asked to flail at each other?

I don't know... pads sure do help to "let" (read: "cooperate") someone really let it all out to look good, while someone else just flails without structure or strategy.

And since there was a referee, and they got to start fully upright and aware of each other (and at a safe distance), and they could tap out... I didn't see any REALITY fighting. Just higher energy (and harder contact) CONTROLLED sparring. Nothing new under the sun.

-Levi

[canglong]

originally posted by t_niehoff
And that sort of training is the only way to develop good fighting habits. That might be true but there are many ways to develop skill.
originally posted by Vajramusti
different from wing chun- but nice and interesting.Does this mean if the concept or principle is lacking in your particular training it's not Wing Chun or that the principles and concepts at play in the video are not simple or efficeint.

[VingDragon]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
http://www.meihua.ee/video/koong-sao-tournament.wmv isn't an Estonian WingTsun?


I just get tired of the same-old "lemme-show-how-great-our-cooperative-training-is" cr@p and the inevitable slap-on-the-back congratulations about how "good" or "skilled" the folks in the clip are from other cooperative-trainers. This is just old hat. I agree :rolleyes:

[SAAMAG]

What lineage are those guys from in that vid? Euro LT ?!

[FuTaiChi]

It' s coming from one of the Yip Man - Leung Ting lineages in Germany

[FuTaiChi]

It' s coming from one of the Yip Man - Leung Ting lineages in Germany

[SAAMAG]

That's what I figured...it looked it.

[AndrewS]

FWIW,

Emin Boztepe on watching that Estonian WT clip:

'Hey they're still doing the drills I showed them!'

'Sloppy, but it tends to look that way.'

No great props, but no great condemnation either, unlike the theoretical crew.

Andrew

[t_niehoff]

Joy asks: Is that wing chun?

**Yes. It may not be high level WCK (fighting) skill, but it is WCK. And I understand how many may not want to accept that -- as they have notions of what they "believe" WCK should "look" like. But, when you put folks into a genuine fighting environment, you eliminate the fantasy.

-----------

canglong wrote:

That might be true but there are many ways to develop skill.

**It depends -- skill at what? There is no "generic" skill. If a person wants to develop good fighting skills, that comes from developing good fighting habits. And like I said, there is only one way a person can get those.

[YungChun]

If that's Wing Chun then the good news is that anyone with about a week of training can do Wing Chun... Very accessible system, no? :rolleyes:

[YungChun]

**It depends -- skill at what? There is no "generic" skill. If a person wants to develop good fighting skills, that comes from developing good fighting habits. And like I said, there is only one way a person can get those.

There has to be a progression. The system starts off assuming that the student has no skills, no experience, nothing at all, like a child.

You have to build up attributes, tools and theory and then gradually bring on the 'reality' that you seem espouse as 'the path' this ‘reality’, however represents the next level of growth, involving testing and refinement; and as with any refinement there has to be something there to refine in the first place and that is what the progression is all about.

The system has always advocated getting combat experience when the system attributes are in place and ready to be tuned in combat training - this is part of the system. Another unofficial part of the system has been in the testing of one's kung fu outside the kwoon and with those who practice other styles; something that was very true for may of Ip Man's students.

In the end it is up to the individual student how far they want to take their kung fu in the direction of combat, be it in challenge matches, the Ring, the street or keeping it in the kwoon. Everyone has their own path, not all students should or will want to fight in challenge matches, not all students are looking to be the next Bruce Lee and few students will even have the ability to take it to these levels. No one path is more valid than any other path unless one projects their own goals, views, shortcomings, strengths and beliefs onto everyone else which is really quite silly, since every student is unique and different.

[kj]

No one path is more valid than any other path unless one projects their own goals, views, shortcomings, strengths and beliefs onto everyone else which is really quite silly, since every student is unique and different.

Accurate, excellent, and quotable.

Regards,
- kj

[sihing]

Yes, good post YungChun. But the problem is people here think differently. For example I have stated what I think of my skills and to what category I should be in, which is one skilled in self defense and in the Art of Wing Chun, as I do not consider myself a "fighter" as I define it, but I get challenged by tons on this forum for what I say and write about. My goals in Wing Chun training have never included being a supreme "fighter", but only to gain skill in something I enjoy doing. I have a very keen and intense interest in Wing Chun and Wing Chun alone, as well as a passing interest in Martial Arts in general, not Fighting as some define on this forum. But I do believe that when one does attain a high quality skill level in WC they will as a byproduct have good self defense skills. To be a great fighter, first you have to have "Killer Instinct" which is something that is born in you, unless of course someone is trying to kill your family, then we all have it. Then the fighter must like to fight and like to hurt others in the process. After that a true fighter will train like a SOB, to achieve excellence in his favored field of endeavor, enduring pain and sacrifice to gain greater skills. Very few are like this, some think they are, I'm not one of them, as I believe moderation is the key to success and happiness in life....

James

[t_niehoff]

YC wrote:

There has to be a progression. The system starts off assuming that the student has no skills, no experience, nothing at all, like a child.

**That's true of any martial art.

You have to build up attributes, tools and theory and then gradually bring on the 'reality' that you seem espouse as 'the path' this ‘reality’, however represents the next level of growth, involving testing and refinement; and as with any refinement there has to be something there to refine in the first place and that is what the progression is all about.

**The flaw in your theory is that's not how human being develop physical skills. In reality, we learn something, we next drill (repeat it) until we are comfortably able to do it, and then put it to work (as it was intended to be used). For example, you learn to slip in boxing, you drill it until it feels smooth, then you spar with it. The significant attributes, the timing, distance, etc. only come from the sparring. My point is that having learned to slip and being able to do it in drills, is only the preparation stage -- and it doesn't mean one has any skill slipping. That skill only comes from sparring or fighting.

The system has always advocated getting combat experience when the system attributes are in place and ready to be tuned in combat training - this is part of the system. Another unofficial part of the system has been in the testing of one's kung fu outside the kwoon and with those who practice other styles; something that was very true for may of Ip Man's students.

**If "the system" has always advocated that, how come so few have done it? I'm not talking about "touching hands" or gor sao, I mean fighting, and with skilled fighters.

In the end it is up to the individual student how far they want to take their kung fu in the direction of combat, be it in challenge matches, the Ring, the street or keeping it in the kwoon.

**This is like saying "it is up to the individual how far they want to take their swimming in the direction of getting in the water." You can't swim without getting in the water, and you can't "do WCK" without fighting just like you can't "box" without getting in the ring.

Everyone has their own path, not all students should or will want to fight in challenge matches, not all students are looking to be the next Bruce Lee and few students will even have the ability to take it to these levels.

**Not all BJJ students will be Rickson either, but they all get out on the mat and roll. They will never get any good without it, and they're not "doing BJJ" except in application. Not all persons that take up boxing want to be Golden Gloves champs. But they'll never be a good boxer, or even a boxer, if they don't get in the ring and fight.

No one path is more valid than any other path unless one projects their own goals, views, shortcomings, strengths and beliefs onto everyone else which is really quite silly, since every student is unique and different.

**That sounds all warm, embracing, etc. but is a load of crap. If someone wants to learn to swim or to box or to grapple or to do WCK, they simply must do certain things. If they want to learn BJJ's approach to grappling, they must do certain things. If they want to learn WCK's approach to fighting, they must do certain things regardless of their individual "path".

[canglong]

"And like I said, there is only one way a person can get those."

Terence,
If you were open to more ways of learning it might improve your training.

[t_niehoff]

Canglong,

I'm open to anything that produces results. You said "there are many ways to develop skill" -- that sounds great, but where are the results that prove it? There's only one way to become a good swimmer, and the folks that actually swim know what it is. The landswimmers theorize about "the many ways."

[old jong]

SWIMMING... (http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/esd/oceansafety/jellyfishpic.jpg) :eek:

[lawrenceofidaho]

Terence,
If you were open to more ways of learning it might improve your training.
Depends on what one means by "improve your training".......

Does it mean increase your performance against skilled, resisting opponents? (That's what I'm interested in, and I'm reasonably sure that it is Terence's primary goal as well.) -If yes, how are we to learn whether or not the methods you suggest are actually helping us move closer to our goal?

As far as I know, there is only one way to test whether or not I am "improving", and that is to see whether my stuff is working when a tough, uncooperative opponent is putting real pressure on me.

If I used a less stressful test, I might just be fooling myself.

Fighters are generally; flexible, open, and pragmatic people, and most wouldn't reject training ideas other than their own out of simple stubborness, because they are truly interested in WHAT WORKS........If a fighter DOES reject an idea or method, it is likely because there is little or no evidence of it's effectiveness.

Has anyone already made a joke about Terence being from Missouri, and the state motto there being; "Show me." ???? :)

-Lawrence

[Phil Redmond]

I have a legitimate question. I've noticed that many people complain that MA clips where there are resisting opponents don't like they think a MA should look like. I'm wondering if someone knows where I can find a clip of two people sparring or fighting where the techniques are perfect. You know, like in a Jet Li movie. jk ;) Maybe if more WC people sparred we would see a "perfect" WC sparring session.
PR

[Matrix]

I have a legitimate question. I've noticed that many people complain that MA clips where there are resisting opponents don't like they think a MA should look like. I'm wondering if someone knows where I can find a clip of two people sparring or fighting where the techniques are perfect.
Phil,
While I can't help you with a clip, I think we need to make the distinction between using WC techniques/concepts etc and displaying something where "techniques are perfect". It would be nice if they beared some resemblance to the art. If we're just going to revert to boxing, then let's just train to be better boxers from square one and stop deluding ourselves.

For things to "look good" in the movies, they need to be bigger and flashier then is practically required. It translates to more impact on the screen, and is meant to be entertaining, not necessarily practical. How many 'takes' are you going to get in a real fight? ;)

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,
While I can't help you with a clip, I think we need to make the distinction between using WC techniques/concepts etc and displaying something where "techniques are perfect". It would be nice if they beared some resemblance to the art. If we're just going to revert to boxing, then let's just train to be better boxers from square one and stop deluding ourselves.

For things to "look good" in the movies, they need to be bigger and flashier then is practically required. It translates to more impact on the screen, and is meant to be entertaining, not necessarily practical. How many 'takes' are you going to get in a real fight? ;)
Even pro boxers aren't always perfect in form when the pressure is on. That's why they have corner men ;) I only said that because I remember critising kickboxers by saying they should have done this or that. I later learned not to be so critical after I got into the ring. When "real" blows are coming at you do what you are able to at the moment. My point is that you have to start somewhere if you want to learned to deal with resisting opponents. I give credit where it is due. Maybe through constant contact training the guys in the clip will be worthy of the approval of some forum members. At least it's a start in the right direction.
PR

[Matrix]

Even pro boxers aren't always perfect in form when the pressure is on. That's why they have corner men I absolutely agree. But even bad boxing looks like boxing. Like you say, being critical is much easier than being correct. Perfection is an idealistic goal. Practically we may have to settle for something less. Never the less, reverting to flailing is not a goal worth aspiring to.


My point is that you have to star somewhere if you want to learned to deal with resisting opponents. I give credit where it is due. Maybe through constant contact training the guys in the clip will be worthy of the approval of some forum members. At least it's a start in the right direction. Well, it is a start, but maybe not in the right direction. Yes, you need to start somewhere...........at the beginning. Sparring before it's time is counter-productive, IMO. Of course, I expect that others have a much different Point of View.

[t_niehoff]

Phil,

You made a great point -- the theoreticians have an idea of what they believe WCK should "look" like based on the forms and chi sao (they believe their physical expression will look like it does in those things). But that is a mistaken idea -- WCK when applied does not "look" like it does in chi sao or the forms. It's not that "we are less than perfect when the pressure is on". Rather, the true nature of WCK isn't expressed in the forms or chi sao. In other words, the theoretican/nonfighters have never even really seen WCK because WCK is in the application (in fighting), not the forms or chi sao. Fighting pretty much looks the same, regardless of style or method or lineage; the only significant factor in what is going on is the range (outfighting, infighting, ground). The demands of range dictate what you must do.

Proof of this is that no one can fight (against anyone skilled) and make it "look" like the theoreticians believe it should look like. No one has ever seen it. Like bigfoot, however, folks go on believing it exists. And when the nonfighters see folks actually fighting with WCK, they invariably say "Oh, they think that's good WCK?!" and pat the other theoreticans on the back for sharing in their superior "knowledge." Of course, should we ever be able to get any of them to fight (and they'll find every excuse not to), they'll do the exact same things or end up pounded to hell.

[Matrix]

But that is a mistaken idea -- WCK when applied does not "look" like it does in chi sao or the forms. Terence, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Yes it will look different but it will not look like bad boxing....

[YungChun]

**The flaw in your theory is that's not how human being develop physical skills. In reality, we learn something, we next drill (repeat it) until we are comfortably able to do it, and then put it to work (as it was intended to be used).


The flaw in your theory is that you completely ignore something called PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE. You don't go from A to Z, there ARE steps in-between and in WCK there are many steps. WCK is trained from the inside out. Love it or leave it!

Some of the folks I am working with now are challenged to perform a good pak sao in a drill or execute 10 good punches in a row. These folks are the ones that people spend hours with in the kwoon trying to ‘bring them along’ should they be thrown into a sparring situation (run) when they can barely punch (stand)? If your answer is yes then we are not seeing the same WCK picture. Indeed some folks might be better off training some Reality Based Self Defense Training – Oh and Christ they don’t spar there either… But these folks want the WCK so it will be a long road.



**If "the system" has always advocated that, how come so few have done it? I'm not talking about "touching hands" or gor sao, I mean fighting, and with skilled fighters.


First of all anyone who knows the system should know when and how the system traditionally introduces combat. Now, today most schools have sparring. Whether it is good sparring or not is another question, but most schools these days have it and use it as a tool; and there are many ways to use it in training.

Personally I think, 'sparring' WCK vs. WCK is too narrow to be of much use. If a WCK student is ready and wants fighting experience then he/she would be far better off fighting/sparring with people from other styles. Now you can simulate that in class but you are limited by who you have and what they do and how good they are.

Skilled fighters? THAT is a bunch of bull because everyone will have a different idea of what that means; it's totally subjective – most of the many hardcore sport fighters have no hands IMO so whose skilled a Pro? My buddy Bob?



**This is like saying "it is up to the individual how far they want to take their swimming in the direction of getting in the water." You can't swim without getting in the water, and you can't "do WCK" without fighting just like you can't "box" without getting in the ring.


Wrong!

First of all some students will be able to fight before they walk in your kwoon. They might be of any persuasion. These students have already been fighting and probably still are sparring. These students will often be able to apply WCK elements without and before any sparring, sparring drills or fighting in class.

To some extent we can only get as good as those we have to work with and challenge us. Having WCK vs. WCK sparring to me is the most useless kind of training for WCK people, better to just work on chi sao or chi gerk, that's what your brothers and sisters are there for. To get valid sparring or fighting experience we need to fight what isn't WCK. So we need to go outside the system and away from the people we work with everyday to gain useful experience and find new weaknesses in our kung fu. This is a long hard journey that simply isn't needed or desired by all students; Period.

[t_niehoff]

YungChun wrote:

The flaw in your theory is that you completely ignore something called PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE. You don't go from A to Z, there ARE steps in-between and in WCK there are many steps. WCK is trained from the inside out. Love it or leave it!

**You misunderstand the whole idea of progressive resistance -- it is progressive doing the activity itself, in other words, fighting using WCK's method. By boxing (getting in the ring and sparring) better and better boxers (progressive resitance), you become better. How do you use "progressive resistance" to become a better basketball player? By breaking basketball down into "baby steps" or by simply teaching the fundamentals, drilling them, and then playing basketball? "Progressive resistance" is simply part of the natural process of doing a physical activity itself, whether basketball or boxing or WCK.

Skilled fighters? THAT is a bunch of bull because everyone will have a different idea of what that means; it's totally subjective – most of the many hardcore sport fighters have no hands IMO so whose skilled a Pro? My buddy Bob?

**Fighting skill (level) isn't subjective, any more than being skilled in basketball or boxing isn't subjective. The problem you have is you are trying to judge skill at basketball without every playing basketball or skill in boxing without getting in the ring or skill in WCK without fighting -- it can't be done. It has nothing to do with "having a different idea of what that means" (this statement alone proves you are a nonfighting theoretican). In fact, it has nothing to do with any idea at all -- it is a physical performance level and that can be easily demonstated.

[t_niehoff]

Matrix wrote:

Terence, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Yes it will look different but it will not look like bad boxing....

**Functional methods tend to agree. If one uses their WCK in "boxing range" (punching range) it will look like boxing, and so will any art -- the demands of range will require it. If one uses their WCK at kicking and punching range, it will look like kickboxing -- the demands of range require it. My expression of WCK doesn't take place, for the most part, in those ranges, and so it doesn't look like boxing or kickboxing. I'm not saying my expression is the best way or the only way or the correct way, just that the demands of range determine what our fighting will look like, not our method or style.

[YungChun]

**You misunderstand the whole idea of progressive resistance -- it is progressive doing the activity itself, in other words, fighting using WCK's method. By boxing (getting in the ring and sparring) better and better boxers (progressive resitance), you become better. How do you use "progressive resistance" to become a better basketball player? By breaking basketball down into "baby steps" or by simply teaching the fundamentals, drilling them, and then playing basketball? "Progressive resistance" is simply part of the natural process of doing a physical activity itself, whether basketball or boxing or WCK.


There is a progression in the system; it's there for a reason. If you don't agree with it or understand its value then don't train it. I think the progression is correct.

As I said most students take time to develop the skills the tools the concepts. If you can't perform the task under a little stress you won't be able to do it under the stress of FC sparring. So you get there in steps. This is not that complex an idea - there are steps. Again if you don't agree with it then don't train it or teach it.





**Fighting skill (level) isn't subjective, any more than being skilled in basketball or boxing isn't subjective. The problem you have is you are trying to judge skill at basketball without every playing basketball or skill in boxing without getting in the ring or skill in WCK without fighting -- it can't be done. It has nothing to do with "having a different idea of what that means" (this statement alone proves you are a nonfighting theoretican). In fact, it has nothing to do with any idea at all -- it is a physical performance level and that can be easily demonstated.

I could care less about basketball.

Fighting skill will be subjective in any competition where rules exist. Fighting skills are measured in your Reality Fighting by the rules of the event. A K1 fighter might defeat a NHB fighter in one venue and loose in another. How good a fighter in what venue? Challenge matches? You doing a lot of those are you? Sparring in class against whom and under what rules? You judge your killing ability by how often you tap your buddy in class? How do we measure who is how good? Does everyone go street fight everyone else and we all get a number?

I'm a non fighter?

What does that mean?

That I don't spar? I started MA in a hard contact karate school. Did you?

That I don't roll around on the ground three times a week with someone in pajamas? Do you?

That I don't street fight regularly? Do you?

If it means having a real boxer attack me and working against someone who's has better hands than most of what I see in sport fighting then I am. Do you? I'd bet he'd KO you in an instant.

I seriously question your understanding of the system and your audacity to comment on others abilities or training. By doing so you bring into question your ability buddy.

[canglong]

I'm open to anything that produces results. You said "there are many ways to develop skill" -- that sounds great, but where are the results that prove it? There's only one way to become a good swimmer, and the folks that actually swim know what it is. The landswimmers theorize about "the many ways." Terence,
If you had more proof of results you words would carry more meaning. So for now many people here are on different paths to attaining fighting skill and without proof that your method is not only the way but even better than others decribed here your words are no more powerful or meaningful than anyone elses. You can call it dry land flying on your next post just to mix things up.

[canglong]

originally posted by LawrenceofIdaho
If I used a less stressful test, I might just be fooling myself. Lawrence your statements underscores the value of proper teaching with proper training.
Without proper guidance/teaching you might be doing something right or you might not then if you add a stress test to that with a partner that might know a thing or two about fighting or might not you 2 together might discover a few things or you might not. The value of knowing what you are training and why you are doing it can never be underestimated. The first order of the day is understanding the difference of what is failing you and why if your stress test fails is it because of your inablity to apply what you learned or is it that what you learned was faulty to begin with, if what you are being taught is faulty from the beginning there is no amount of stress testing in the world that can correct or help you overcome this inherent problem.
1. First you learn the principle.
2. Secondly you must apply the concept.
3. Thirdly you must experience the application.
4. Then you can fight.

When a person just fights fights fights without 1,2,&3 that is fine as long as we understand that it is not wing chun. The difference is as apparent as splashing around in the shallow end of a pool or wearing a gold medal for the olympic 100 meter freestyle both may consider themselves swimmers but there is somewhat of a visible difference when it's time to perform.

[Matrix]

**Functional methods tend to agree. If one uses their WCK in "boxing range" (punching range) it will look like boxing, and so will any art -- the demands of range will require it. I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. WC has tools at all required ranges. If you think that WC should look like western boxing within some ranges, that's your prerogative. I'm not saying boxing isn't effective, because I think it is. It's just that I'm looking for something else, and I don't see it.................and no, it's not a perfect Bong Sau or Tan Sau or whatever. It's not about "shapes" as some good people I know, like to say, or even specific techniques. It's something more fundamental than that.


I'm not saying my expression is the best way or the only way or the correct way, just that the demands of range determine what our fighting will look like, not our method or style.Unfortunately your posts up to this point have made me think that you believed otherwise. It's refreshing to see that your view is not so restrictive.

Peace,

[Matrix]

There is a progression in the system; it's there for a reason. If you don't agree with it or understand its value then don't train it. I think the progression is correct. YungChun,
Exactly. Here lies the fundamental distinction that I think needs to be understood.


As I said most students take time to develop the skills the tools the concepts. If you can't perform the task under a little stress you won't be able to do it under the stress of FC sparring. The clip from Estonia really shows this well. These guys are flailing away, one guy tends to dominate based purely on brute strength, the other guy takes a pounding and survives possible brain damage. What is learned through this exercise? Nothing that we all didn't learn in grade school.

Why ask someone to spar when they can't even through a proper strike or don't know any basic footwork. It's like asking a baby that is learning to crawl to run the 100 meters on a track. You can push a prod all you like, but the natural progression must take place. Unfortunately it takes time............

It's not that the idea of progression is complex. I think it's because people seem to want results in the short-term and are willing to sacrifice long-term benefits to achieve that goal. So they spar sooner, rather than later, because they 'feel like' they're actually fighting. It's a symptom of the fast-food generation.

Most would rather drive through and pick up a combo ( super-sized of course) then take the time to cook a heathier meal. Never mind the long-term implications, at least I'm satisified right now. Tomorrow will take care of itself, right?? :rolleyes:

I must also point out that the extreme-opposite position is equally flawed. You can't do forms forever either, and expect to see improvement. I think that there is solid middle ground. As it goes in many things in life, timing is everything.

[canglong]

Bill,
Very well Said!

[Matrix]

Thanks Tony...

I'm no expert, but I've seen a lot of different approachesover the years.
Like a fine wine, you can't rush the process or you end up with vinegar.

[t_niehoff]

It's rather amusing that I keep hearing about "proper teaching" or what is "good WCK"or whatever -- everyone has an opinion of what is "correct". My point is rather simple: where is the evidence that supports your view? What the theoreticians offer in support of their views is always theorectical conjecture (typically based on hearsay); if ever they physically demonstrate their POV it's always in a cooperative environment (which includes touching hands or gor sao), or they rely on stories/history.

Matrix and others have a belief that WCK should look a certain way in application. Show us the evidence of that -- someone that can make it work like you believe it should against skilled opposition. *Then* I'll take your views seriously. Of course, I know you can't because that view is mistaken. Others, like Canglong, believe they have the "proper" way to train. Fine, then it should produce results. Show us evidence of that -- someone that has developed skills they can use successfully against a skilled fighter (and not in gor sao against some other unskilled WCK guy). *Then* I'll take your views seriously. Of course, I know you can't because your view is mistaken.

For all of you, go to a good local NHB/MMA gym and have a go (fight) with someone with half the amount of training time you've put in and see what happens. See for yourself firsthand whether you can do what you beleive should work, see if your training methods produce results, etc. Those of us who have done this sort of thing have opinions based on firsthand experience; those that haven't had that experience have opinions based on theory or hearsay or some other nonesense. Of course, I know most of you won't do this -- and I know why. We have a saying here: when you don't have skills, all you're left with is excuses.

[sihing]

All fine and dandy Terence, but where is your Proof? You say all of this but don't back it up yourself. In this modern day why can't you show us, or is this beyond you and your superior training methods. You always ask for evidence from other's but never supply when it is asked of yourself.

There are something’s that we agree upon, and I think everyone on here realizes the importance of realistic training, you call it fighting, others call it sparring, names are names, but the point is you do have to test your understanding of the WC you are learning and this has to be in a environment that is suitable enough to provide this experience for someone. But once that is done, how often do you have to keep on "Testing" your self? I'm not talking about a scenario where you eventually gain skills in WC, have tested it in sparring and then quit all together. Of course if this was the case your skills will deteriorate for sure. What I'm talking about is that once the skills are in you, they have been tested and reinforced, isn't it easier to maintain them, by doing less of everything you did before to gain them, than it was to actually gain the skill? For me it has, I know I am more skilled at the Art and better able to defend myself than I was 5, 10 years ago. Would I increase that skill if I sparred and Chi-sao'd more? Yes for sure, no argument there, but for me I am satisfied with the skills I have and what they will do for me.


James

[t_niehoff]

sihing wrote:

All fine and dandy Terence, but where is your Proof? You say all of this but don't back it up yourself. In this modern day why can't you show us, or is this beyond you and your superior training methods. You always ask for evidence from other's but never supply when it is asked of yourself.

**The proof is in how all proven skilled fighters (everyone that steps up and fights), regardless of their style or method, train. Look at any boxer, MMAist, muay thai fighter, BJJ fighter, etc. and they all train following the same basic model (that I'm advocating). What we don't see is anyone with any proven fighting skill (who has stepped up and fought good people) that follows a different model. Why is that? Simple, because they don't exist. Some will argue that they do exist -- great fighters behind closed doors -- but how can they say they are great fighters if they've never fought anyone skilled?

There are something’s that we agree upon, and I think everyone on here realizes the importance of realistic training, you call it fighting, others call it sparring, names are names, but the point is you do have to test your understanding of the WC you are learning and this has to be in a environment that is suitable enough to provide this experience for someone. But once that is done, how often do you have to keep on "Testing" your self?

**You're missing the point -- your question is like saying "OK, we all agree you need to get in the water at some point to 'test your understanding of swimming' but how often do you need to do that?" First, it has nothing to do with "understanding"; it has to do with ablilty (no boxer talks about "understanding" his boxing -- these very expressions reveal your perspective is theoretical and knowledge-based). Second, "sparring" or fighting ****is**** the WCK: WCK is in the application (the doing, the performing). If you are not fighting, you're not doing WCK. WCK is fighting using the WCK method (strategies and tools). How often do boxers need to get in the ring?

I'm not talking about a scenario where you eventually gain skills in WC, have tested it in sparring and then quit all together. Of course if this was the case your skills will deteriorate for sure. What I'm talking about is that once the skills are in you, they have been tested and reinforced, isn't it easier to maintain them, by doing less of everything you did before to gain them, than it was to actually gain the skill?

**You can't "maintain" WCK skills without fighting, i.e., without using them.

For me it has, I know I am more skilled at the Art and better able to defend myself than I was 5, 10 years ago. Would I increase that skill if I sparred and Chi-sao'd more? Yes for sure, no argument there, but for me I am satisfied with the skills I have and what they will do for me.

**It's fine to be satisfied with what you have. When I hear folks say "I know", it always begs the question: how do you know?

**And as an aftertought: I don't care how anyone trains or does their WCK -- who am I to tell you how it should be done? My perspective is that if you can make it work, then great! But folks need to realize that loads of crap works against poorly skilled people (especially those with poor attributes); that's why it is important to try it against skilled fighters. Crap won't work against them. I offered a link to the Estonian WT guys -- these are folks, and there are others, that are actually doing WCK (fighting with WCK). Perhaps they are not doing it at a high level (yet), but they are at least doing WCK.

[Wayfaring]

I'm sorry, but my BS meter is going off here.

First off, I readily and heartily acknowledge, along with most on this board, that training in WCK or any martial art must involve free-form non pre-arranged fighting or sparring to realistically develop any martial skill, which is supposedly at least one of the main points of training in a martial art. I even acknowledge, accept, and embrace that NHB fighting and training has changed the face of martial arts since the early 90's, and that the ground game and grappling skills have grown to the proportion they can't be ignored in martial arts.

However, statements like this, ...

**The proof is in how all proven skilled fighters (everyone that steps up and fights), regardless of their style or method, train. Look at any boxer, MMAist, muay thai fighter, BJJ fighter, etc. and they all train following the same basic model (that I'm advocating).

when asked for backup of a person's skills and expertise in continuously criticizing anyone who they feel doesn't train realistically is, as the only other amateur fighter with a record on this forum quoted "theoretical nerd blather".

Let me get this straight. You're saying that because you order PPV UFC events, have training tapes by Frank Shamrock that you and some students imitate, and yourself cross-train in BJJ and Muy Thai (without proven skills in either), that somehow *YOUR* method of training that you advocate, or *YOUR* opinion about how others train is somehow worth more than anyone else's on this forum?

That is completely laughable. Please enlighten me on how that method of training NHB is different than someone picking up a couple of Yip Man videos off the internet, and opening a school saying they train "in the same model" that Yip Man trained. I'm curious.

Even if I concede all of your points you make incessantly, the bottom line to your argument really should be that the only one qualified to have an opinion on realistic training on this forum would be the only one who you can find an NHB record for anywhere - that's Knifefighter - Dale Frank, who is 1-1 in Kage Kombat events - a small NHB circuit. So dial back your rhetoric and run your arguments through him for a while for truth in marketing's sake.

Everyone, let's all say at once:

WE PROMISE TO TRAIN REALISTICALLY :cool:

Sorry if I'm harshing, but to say something positive there were aspects of your Estonia vids you posted I liked - the consistent sparring mentality promoted. If I lived there, and had to choose between the WT school with that marketing and the one next door with the video of the serene dude in the full lotus position, you'd probably see vids of me in headgear beating on someone with Metallica in the background (with of course a serene look on my face :) )

Rgds,
Dave

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Let me get this straight. You're saying that because you order PPV UFC events, have training tapes by Frank Shamrock that you and some students imitate, and yourself cross-train in BJJ and Muy Thai (without proven skills in either), that somehow *YOUR* method of training that you advocate, or *YOUR* opinion about how others train is somehow worth more than anyone else's on this forum?

That is completely laughable. Please enlighten me on how that method of training NHB is different than someone picking up a couple of Yip Man videos off the internet, and opening a school saying they train "in the same model" that Yip Man trained. I'm curious.

Even if I concede all of your points you make incessantly, the bottom line to your argument really should be that the only one qualified to have an opinion on realistic training on this forum would be the only one who you can find an NHB record for anywhere - that's Knifefighter - Dale Frank, who is 1-1 in Kage Kombat events - a small NHB circuit. So dial back your rhetoric and run your arguments through him for a while for truth in marketing's sake.

Everyone, let's all say at once:

WE PROMISE TO TRAIN REALISTICALLY."

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



DAVE (WAYFARING):

Dude...that was one helluva post !!!

[Matrix]

Matrix and others have a belief that WCK should look a certain way in application. .Terence,
Please re-read my post. I clearly said ".................and no, it's not a perfect Bong Sau or Tan Sau or whatever. It's not about "shapes" as some good people I know, like to say, or even specific techniques." Once again you have missed the mark. You ask for evidence, and yet you provide none. You call some of us theoreticians and yet you've offered nothing but fighting theory yourself. Interesting.......

[canglong]

You ask for evidence, and yet you provide none. You call some of us theoreticians and yet you've offered nothing but fighting theory yourself. Interesting....... Bill,
He does it at least once a day by my count. One thing no one can take away from Terence is his consistency for contradiction.

[Matrix]

Bill,
He does it at least once a day by my count. One thing no one can take away from Terence is his consistency for contradiction. I stand corrected.
Thank you Tony. :)

[sihing]

sihing wrote:

All fine and dandy Terence, but where is your Proof? You say all of this but don't back it up yourself. In this modern day why can't you show us, or is this beyond you and your superior training methods. You always ask for evidence from other's but never supply when it is asked of yourself.

**The proof is in how all proven skilled fighters (everyone that steps up and fights), regardless of their style or method, train. Look at any boxer, MMAist, muay thai fighter, BJJ fighter, etc. and they all train following the same basic model (that I'm advocating). What we don't see is anyone with any proven fighting skill (who has stepped up and fought good people) that follows a different model. Why is that? Simple, because they don't exist. Some will argue that they do exist -- great fighters behind closed doors -- but how can they say they are great fighters if they've never fought anyone skilled?

There are something’s that we agree upon, and I think everyone on here realizes the importance of realistic training, you call it fighting, others call it sparring, names are names, but the point is you do have to test your understanding of the WC you are learning and this has to be in a environment that is suitable enough to provide this experience for someone. But once that is done, how often do you have to keep on "Testing" your self?

**You're missing the point -- your question is like saying "OK, we all agree you need to get in the water at some point to 'test your understanding of swimming' but how often do you need to do that?" First, it has nothing to do with "understanding"; it has to do with ablilty (no boxer talks about "understanding" his boxing -- these very expressions reveal your perspective is theoretical and knowledge-based). Second, "sparring" or fighting ****is**** the WCK: WCK is in the application (the doing, the performing). If you are not fighting, you're not doing WCK. WCK is fighting using the WCK method (strategies and tools). How often do boxers need to get in the ring?

I'm not talking about a scenario where you eventually gain skills in WC, have tested it in sparring and then quit all together. Of course if this was the case your skills will deteriorate for sure. What I'm talking about is that once the skills are in you, they have been tested and reinforced, isn't it easier to maintain them, by doing less of everything you did before to gain them, than it was to actually gain the skill?

**You can't "maintain" WCK skills without fighting, i.e., without using them.

For me it has, I know I am more skilled at the Art and better able to defend myself than I was 5, 10 years ago. Would I increase that skill if I sparred and Chi-sao'd more? Yes for sure, no argument there, but for me I am satisfied with the skills I have and what they will do for me.

**It's fine to be satisfied with what you have. When I hear folks say "I know", it always begs the question: how do you know?

**And as an aftertought: I don't care how anyone trains or does their WCK -- who am I to tell you how it should be done? My perspective is that if you can make it work, then great! But folks need to realize that loads of crap works against poorly skilled people (especially those with poor attributes); that's why it is important to try it against skilled fighters. Crap won't work against them. I offered a link to the Estonian WT guys -- these are folks, and there are others, that are actually doing WCK (fighting with WCK). Perhaps they are not doing it at a high level (yet), but they are at least doing WCK.

Ah, you already admitted in a post last year that you sucked anyways, so why listen to you in the first place..... :cool:

James

[t_niehoff]

Wayfaring,

Three points -

1) The "evidence" that really matters IMO is what you personally can do, your own performance level. It doesn't matter if you are following the "best" training method or using the "best" martial art or from the "best" lineage if they aren't providing you with what you need to increase your fighting performance level. If you believe (hypothetical you and hypothetical belief) that your training is working, my question is "how do you know"? That seems rather simple. Since we are training to be better fighters (WCK is a fighting method), how can we know if our training is working or if our training is increasing our (fighting) performance level or our rate of "growth" and all the associated things, if we aren't fighting? And fighting better and better opponents? Do you suggest we know these things by conjecture or by extrapolation? By how well we can do drills? Or do you take your sifu's word for it? How? It seems to me that anything other than fighting would be relying on theory.

Let's say you believe you grasp the meaning behind the "WCK concepts" or some movement in the forms. How do you know that your interpretation is valid? Because cooperative practice seems to bear you out? Lots of things -- including pure crap -- work in cooperative practice. So how do you know your view is valid in fighting? Maybe you used it successfully "in the street". OK, do you think that means it will work against someone skilled or with good attributes? How do you know? How? It seems to be that anything other than fighting would be relying on theory.

Some people will respond by saying that what they are doing is "traditional", that is, it has worked in the past for our ancestors. OK, perhaps. But how do we know it will work for us? And at what level? How? It seems to be that anything other than fighting would be relying on theory.

So my point is that if we're not fighting, how can we know? Perhaps you'll take the time to explain that to me.

FWIW, I don't care if someone believes that meditating, doing hei gung, doing thousands of reps of the forms, whatever, will make them a better fighter -- my question is "how do you know that's true?" And if they have proof it does, hell, I'll start doing it!

2) I'm also pointing out that if we look at those people today that really do fight at a higher level regardless of their method/style/art, and we look at how they train, what we see is that they have a different training model than what most are doing in WCK (or traditional arts). Moreover, we see that not just the higher level people in those arts are doing those things, but that's how everyone in those methods train. So we know from this evidence that this training model works -- it produces results, increases performance levels significantly. Can anyone disagree with that? IMO that's incontrovertable. Now, WCK and many TCMAs don't, for the most part, follow that training model. So the logical question is does the WCK training model produce the same sort of results the more modern training method do? I don't beleive it does. However, I'm open to the possiblity that it may. If it does, shouldn't someone who uses that training model be able to provide the evidence of higher-level results? And not historical evidence because those stories can be embellished. But evidence that this sort of training model used by trainees today produces results comparable to the more modern training methods. If it does, shouldn't we expect to see those results? So why haven't we? Perhaps you'll take the time to explain that to me.

3) For some reason folks like you and others seem to think that the validity of my views rest on my personal performance level. It doesn't. Whether I can swim or not, or how well I can swim, has no bearing on the issue that one needs to get in the water to learn to swim or to become a better swimmer. I can be a nonswimmer and that proposition is still true. I can point out that all good swimmers get in the water, and that's how they became good swimmers. My getting in the pool doesn't bear on the validity of that. Why? Because I can point to any good swimmer -- ANY ONE -- as evidence. And not only any one, but everyone! I can also say, if someone believes you can be a good swimmer without getting in the water, show me a good swimmer that hasn't (which is the evidence that training method works) -- again that has no bearing on my personal swimming skills. Hell, it doesn't even matter if I practice WCK -- the evidence of which training model works is right before our eyes (if you bother to open them). Perhaps you'll take the time to explain to me why the validity of my views even depend on whether or not I practice WCK.

[sihing]

Yes, but nobody on here is saying that swimming on dry land is swimming? We all realize that you have to get into the water to learn how to swim Terence, but you do not seem to acknowledge this. IMO, doing forms alone will not give you great combat/self defense abilities, you have to combine it with the drills, the chi-sao, the sparring, the meditation, etc, to be able to use the WC you are learning in a fighting environment. All of these things listed above alone will not suffice, although some of the things are more critical in the process.

As for "How do you know if you have the skill" type of questions, first off you have to be truthful with yourself. Second you have to test it. When someone test's it in class is that less credible than testing it against other's outside of your particular school? Maybe, maybe not. Testing is testing in my mind, and when I tell a student to attack me with all they got, they will do it. In the end, if one truly puts their heart and soul into it, they will gain skill in fighting as compared to when they first started, but not everyone will be a high caliber, unless of course they make it a top priority. One of the advantages of being a teacher of WC, rather than just a practitioner is I have taught hundreds upon hundreds of people, and no matter what you do or how you teach them some will pick it up like so easily and progress through the system with flying colors, becoming great practitioners of WC with high quality self defense/fighting abilities, while others will not as they don't put their heart and soul into it. I can't choose who becomes what, as I can only teach them the concepts and techniques of the WC I teach, they have to decide how important it is to them, and make it a priority if they want it badly enough. Also, who does one have to prove it too? And if they prove their skills to one person will they have to prove it to another? Awhile back on this forum, some people mentioned about Sifu's that don't accept challenges. Well it comes down to this, if someone comes in to the school and challenges me, and we fight and I defeat this person, what was proven? That I can defeat another in combat? So what, who cares anyways. But next week another stranger comes in and wants to find out if I have any skill, do I have to fight him also? How many times do I have to go through this process, and why would I. Because someone with an ego problem makes me? I don't think so, the day that someone else controls your actions is the day you will become a slave to another's opinion, and if that is the case you will be a busy fighter, proving nothing to nobody.


James

[Wayfaring]

Terence,

My point is I don't think you have any genuine training experience with the NHB training methods that produce top NHB fighters. You haven't trained with Lion's Den or Team Quest or anyone else like that. But you talk about NHB training methods incessantly.

So, in other words, in terms of your favorite analogy, you are a tidal wading pool occupant on one beach criticizing and ridiculing all the dry land swimmers on another beach for not swimming.

Now if you were saying "My cross-training in BJJ shows me this modification I need to make to my WCK entry to prevent this takedown", or "My cross-training in Muy Thai has taught me to keep my lead leg less extended in a fighting stance" that's one thing. But you're challenging everyone on what skilled NHB fighters they've "realistically fought against" as validation of their training. And you haven't done that either.

But really on top of that I think this type of behavior is starting to drive away some people who really like WCK and want to train it in the best way they can, which is why I'm speaking up about it.

Your overall intent I actually agree with. I think WCK schools ought to fight more. I actually really like the standard BJJ school class format of 1/3 conditioning, 1/3 technique, and 1/3 rolling. It's a great training blend. I think many get hung up on the words "fight" or "spar". So let's define it in a fashion where people can do it and get in better condition, not get hurt, continually test themselves and each other, and advance progressively.

And yes, if I'm ever out in MO, I'd stop in and roll with you, without any testosterone or anything to prove, just to mix it up and have a great time training.

Rgds,
Dave