Consumer Reports / Research & Development

[lawrenceofidaho]

Consumer Reports magazine has earned the trust of many by testing innumerable products side by side and objectively showing the strengths and weaknesses of each when compared to the others.

MMA uses a similar paradigm to Consumer Reports, and through it's format, has shown us some of the advantages and deficienies of WC, -yet I feel the WC community as a whole is reluctant to act on the learnings provided to us.

It seems the MMA community has such a distinct advantage over most traditional artists, in that they test everything realistically, and make "product adaptations" based on what they have learned.

Is this why WC gets beaten down regulary in most MA competitions (exceptions such as Aaron's and Neil's recent victories noted), -because it has no R&D?? -Don't many WC folks (mistakenly?) believe that their school / sifu / lineage already has every answer??

If a modern company said; "We already know everything there is to know about this market. We definitely do not need a research and development division." -How long would such a company last in today's modern competitive environment?

-Lawrence

[Ultimatewingchun]

Crosstraining, and...

Frequent hard contact spontaneous sparring/fighting with worthy opponents, and...

Frequent strengthening, stretching, conditioning, aerobics - as part of the overall training regimen...

ARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISE.








....(everything else is fluff). ;)

[lawrenceofidaho]

Crosstraining, and...

Frequent hard contact spontaneous sparring/fighting with worthy opponents, and...

Frequent strengthening, stretching, conditioning, aerobics - as part of the overall training regimen...

ARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISE
The editor here at the WC division of "Konsumer Reports" agrees with your assessment, Sir.

;)

-Lawrence

[anerlich]

Too many WC schools claim to be "scientific", but they forget that science is not just about theory, it also requires empirical experimentation and evidence to determine the validity or otherwise of that theory.

[KPM]

Hey Lawrence!

MMA uses a similar paradigm to Consumer Reports, and through it's format, has shown us some of the advantages and deficienies of WC, -yet I feel the WC community as a whole is reluctant to act on the learnings provided to us.

It seems the MMA community has such a distinct advantage over most traditional artists, in that they test everything realistically, and make "product adaptations" based on what they have learned.


---I agree with you. But I also think what you have said applies to all "traditional" CMAs, not just to Wing Chun. Now, using your Consumer Reports analogy....when a Consumer sees a product that has been reported to be better than the one he is using, should he switch products or petition the company to change the product he is using? I guess it depends upon your level of confidence in what is being reported. :)

Keith

[kj]

I use Consumer Reports regularly, and have been a subscriber for decades. I highly value their advice. Nonetheless, it is only one input into my decision making process. The "objective" findings and summaries don't always fully or adequately reflect my personal needs, constraints, preferences, and priorities. Even when I fail to reference CR in advance, it is extremely rare for me to end up with the lowest ranked brand or model; an indication that I may have something on the ball now and again, or at least a bit of luck. On the flip side, when I do my research ahead of time, I don't always opt for the top ranked item despite my awareness of it.

As a recent example, I found that my "very good" rated vacuum cleaner suits my needs and preferences better than their "objectively" higher rated models. I wasn't involved in their process of setting criteria and priorities for vacuum cleaners, yet it is important that the cleaner fit my intended day-to-day use of it. Durability, anti-clogging, and eliminating the annoyance of disposable bags rank high for me as compared to some of the other criteria evaluated. I am also apparently not as usability-challenged as some in the study, and actually enjoyed exploring the efficient design and clever engineering of the machine's supplemental features; an extremely minor alteration in my cleaning sequence ensures that even minor usability concerns are entirely a non-issue. Something that didn't even show in the CR ratings was the bright yellow color; the machine saves me moments and aggravation by jumping right out at me in my overstuffed storage area, or from across the room when I'm in the middle of an admittedly all-too-rare cleaning flurry. Simply put, I really like my vacuum, and would pick it all over again given the chance.

Blindly following the advice of Consumer Reports [or, insert your voice-of-authority here] isn't any more rational than blindly following any other advice. Failing to take one's own circumstances, needs and preferences into account along with more objective factors [relatively] is irrational, if not downright silly. At least in my view.

By the same token, if someone else volunteers to assume vacuum responsibilities at my house, CR rated or not, I will by all means defer to and respect their most expert judgement. :D

Regards,
- kj

[ghostofwingchun]

This is very interesting discussion! Mr. Lawrence proposes some way to determine if wc being taught is truly functional for fighting . . . and others make some good related observations . . . Mr KJ reminds us that functionality is just one of many characteristics people look for when buying martial art . . . and this makes good sense . . . as noted MMA fighter once said most people in martial arts just want to be entertained . . . so I am thinking that different groups in wc offer different things and we should be happy with that . . . if someone wants good fighting they can find good fighting group . . . that is easy to see by if they are fighting or not . . . if someone else want something else from wc all they need to do is check and see if that thing they want is going on with group. There is old saying about like attracting like . . . my guess is people end up where they want to be after all.

Thanks,

Ghost

[AmanuJRY]

....when a Consumer sees a product that has been reported to be better than the one he is using, should he switch products or petition the company to change the product he is using? I guess it depends upon your level of confidence in what is being reported.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, ****ed lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881)

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
Evan Esar (1899 - 1995)


Most assuredly it depends on your level of confidence in what is being reported, that's precisely why I conduct my own tests, which is what I think Lawrence is suggesting.;)

[Edmund]

The marketing R&D on martial arts would probably show that TKD is the model that gets the most consumers. And probably satisfies them just fine.

Other martial arts may claim all sorts of attractive features but TKD seems to get people in the door and keep a fair amount coming back for more.

Maybe MMA should learn a thing or two and adapt their product.

[lawrenceofidaho]

The marketing R&D on martial arts would probably show that TKD is the model that gets the most consumers. And probably satisfies them just fine.

Other martial arts may claim all sorts of attractive features but TKD seems to get people in the door and keep a fair amount coming back for more.

Maybe MMA should learn a thing or two and adapt their product.
Depends on if we're talking about research for acheiving performance excellence, -or marketing research on how to make the most "martial" McDollars.......

[Edmund]

Depends on if we're talking about research for acheiving performance excellence, -or marketing research on how to make the most "martial" McDollars.......

Well, in a similar vein to Ray's thread on which training program is better, I doubt that most WC teachers see much benefit in pushing students away just because they aren't interested in competing in MMA. Performance Excellence in this case is probably more suited to those who are doing the performing a lot.

Most pro MT gyms that I've been in, train their fighters in the lead up to a competition at a level that regular joes probably can't and shouldn't do. Because hobbyists aren't going to need that level of fitness and it's putting them in an injury prone situation. And in the lead up to what? They can't keep going like that forever.

The truly hard sparring drops off a bit in the final days before a fight. But for someone not even competing, why would they be doing it ?

[canglong]

originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
Consumer Reports magazine has earned the trust of many by testing innumerable products side by side and objectively showing the strengths and weaknesses of each when compared to the others.Lawrence,
How can it be proven that CR is without bias?
originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
MMA uses a similar paradigm to Consumer Reports, and through it's format, has shown us some of the advantages and deficienies of WC, -yet I feel the WC community as a whole is reluctant to act on the learnings provided to us.
Can you be more specific?

[AmanuJRY]

How can it be proven that CR is without bias?

It can't, at least not beyond doubt, but ultimately that is relying on the opinion of others as a basis for your decision.

Think for yourself!



Can you be more specific?

Why, I think his statement was clear. Asking for elaboration, either about the 'advantages/deficiencies' of WC or the 'WC community as a whole' being 'reluctant to act on the learnings' is fishing for another B.S. argument, not a constructive discussion.

[canglong]

originally posted by AmanuJRY
It can't, at least not beyond doubt, Thank you for you answer.
originally posted by AmanuJRY
but ultimately that is relying on the opinion of others as a basis for your decision.Yes and so is this,

originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
MMA uses a similar paradigm to Consumer Reports, and through it's format, has shown us some of the advantages and deficienies of WC
originally posted by AmanuJRY
Why, I think his statement was clear. Asking for elaboration, either about the 'advantages/deficiencies' of WC or the 'WC community as a whole' being 'reluctant to act on the learnings' is fishing for another B.S. argument, not a constructive discussion. Justin,
If your analysis doesn't apply to Lawrence's opening comments then it certainly doesn't apply to the later comments made in direct response to his.
-yet I feel the WC community as a whole is reluctant to act on the learnings provided to us. If the readers of this thread aren't provided any more detail as to what exactly is being provided as reported in the statement then it is certainly fair to suggest the readers haven't been provided enough information to form an opinion either in line with Lawrence's or against it.

[ghostofwingchun]

http://www.consumersunion.org/aboutcu/about.html

[AmanuJRY]

Yes and so is this,

If what you are interpeting from that statement is that we should just listen to the MMAists and accept their findings as gospel, you're right. But if the intention of the statement is to suggest that we use their 'model' (both CR and MMA) and perform our own testing then you're wrong.


Justin,
If your analysis doesn't apply to Lawrence's opening comments then it certainly doesn't apply to the later comments made in direct response to his.

This statement does not make sense to me. My 'analysis' of Lawrence's opening comments??? Doesn't apply?....

Can you be more specific?:rolleyes:


If the readers of this thread aren't provided any more detail as to what exactly is being provided as reported in the statement then it is certainly fair to suggest the readers haven't been provided enough information to form an opinion either in line with Lawrence's or against it.

I think plenty enough information has been provided for anyone to form an opinion, for or against, Lawrence's statement. Maybe not enough to form an opinion on wheather or not MMA has exposed weakness in WC or wheather or not CR is unbiased, but certainly enough to be able to decide if 'research and development' in WC is important or not.

[ghostofwingchun]

Gentlemen . . . I am thinking that the meaning of Mr. Lawrence's is fairly clear to me and so probably most others . . . but certainly if someone wants clarification this is not a bad thing . . . seeking clarification should be encouraged. The real problem I am thinking is that wc or martial art itself cannot be put to test . . . only person is put to the test . . . their ability with martial art or wc is put to the test. . . so any such test would apply only to individual tested . . . if consumer reports tested car but could only report as to that particular car it would not be very useful report! Now training methods can be tested . . . are tested scientifically from time to time and are tested by athletes all of the time. . . these things are not difficult to find if one interested in finding them.

Thanks,

Ghost

[lawrenceofidaho]

if consumer reports tested car but could only report as to that particular car it would not be very useful report!
LOL!! :p

[lawrenceofidaho]

Too many WC schools claim to be "scientific", but they forget that science is not just about theory, it also requires empirical experimentation and evidence to determine the validity or otherwise of that theory.
Then we're given the (seemingly ever-present) claim that there can be no failure of Wing Chun, -only failures of it's practicioners........

http://datanation.com/fallacies/explan/untest.htm

Just suppose for a moment that the claim were true....... -If it's practicioners on average fail 9 times out of 10 in competitive fighting situations (against physically equal opposition), while "cross-trainers" only fail 4 times out of 10, -wouldn't it imply that Wing Chun is somehow attracting people that are (relatively) incapable learners at a much higher rate than MMA?

That seems a bit fishy to me....... :confused:

(I thought I'd read somewhere on here that it was MMA attracting all the dumb guys.)

-L

[kj]

Just suppose for a moment that the claim were true....... -If it's practicioners on average fail 9 times out of 10 in competitive fighting situations (against physically equal opposition), while "cross-trainers" only fail 4 times out of 10, -wouldn't it imply that Wing Chun is somehow attracting people that are (relatively) incapable learners at a much higher rate than MMA?


Yes, "incapable learners" is surely the one and only explanation. There is no cause or justification whatsoever to consider alternative explanations (that some might be "differently motivated," for example).



http://datanation.com/fallacies/explan/untest.htm

Speaking of logical fallacies, here's a handy reference illustrating quite a few more: http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm. :p



(I thought I'd read somewhere on here that it was MMA attracting all the dumb guys.)

-L

Ha ha - maybe not; maybe so. The jury is still out on this one. ;):D

Regards,
- kj

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. Lawrence original question seems to assume that all wc people training to be fighters . . . while some may give lip service . . . truth is most not training to be fighters . . . can see this clearly from nature of training . . . most people don't want to fight . . . so not surprising that most cannot fight . . . to do forms well must practice a lot doing forms . . . to do chi sao well must practice a lot of chi sao . . . to fight well must do a lot of fighting . . . if someone not do chi sao but only forms they could never get good at chi sao . . . if someone do chi sao but never fight they never get good at fighting . . .this is simply well known specificity principle of motor skill acquisition in action. There is nothing wrong with this . . . not everyone want to be fighter . . . KJ is right that most have different motivation . . and Mr. Edmund is right I am thinking . . . most people want TKD model. . . TKD not produce good fighters but is still popular martial art because it provide what people want. In consumer reports there are many categories of features and performance listed for product . . . this is so we can choose product that matches need . . . I am thinking the same for wc . . . if someone want to be good fighter they need to look for wc group that fights and trains to fight . . . if want different feature look for wc group with that feature.

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

Lawrence,
There is a long standing debate on this forum and others as to whether or not the rules of an MMA competition put the Wing Chun trained fighter at a disadvantage and so are biased in favor of the MMA trained fighter. For this discussion lets skip over that and talk about intent. If the majority of practitioners training Wing Chun were to agree that those competions were in fact biased in favor of the MMA practitioner irregardless of the fact if the perceived bias were true or not it may account for why so many Wing Chun practitioners dont consider the findings based on MMA results to be relavent to them. Their main intent is to learn self preservation for the street or maybe a health oriented goal as already suggested things that they perceive as having nothing to do with MMA competitions.

The reason specifics were asked for earlier is because we shouldn't be here condemning all of Wing Chun for the transgression of a few. No doubt you have been witness to, heard or read about some things that concern you so if you have something specific you think can benefit the wing chun community as a whole then by all means share that information but lets not prejudge or indict the entire Wing Chun Community based on our own limited knowledge and experiences. There are positive and negative in everything :) and we can always learn from both.

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. Tony Jacobs I am wondering other than MMA or NHB fights what do you think would be the most reliable way for someone to test fighting ability?

Thanks,

Ghost

[Airdrawndagger]

Nice post Tony and KJ.

MMA (I am assuming we are reffering to UFC/NHB style MMAist here) is heavily influenced by competition. Sure there are some that do it just for fun but the overwhelming majority of people who encompase this group of people are geared toward competition fighting. So there training(if they are competing) is going to be geared for competition. The way that they train in the gym and the styles that they practice are for the most part going to fit the MMA NHB/UFC rules and regulations. Meaning there moves are going to be perfectly acceptable to the above forums and will in fact strive to fit that same mold. Most of the people who train that format are there training because of NHB/UFC or something similar so there motivation behind training is to follow in the footsteps of some of the current pros of these areanas. Fighting for sport is the main motivation for the more serious contenders. Of course there are acceptions to the rule and you have people who want to follow the MMA way because they feel as though it is right for them, etc... but competition fighting is the goal.
WC and kung fu is not geared toward competition fighting. Sure there are plenty of competitions out there to compete in, but most kung fu and WC schools do not strive for NHB/UFC style competition.
The moves that are learned do not fit the MMA format because that is not the purpose of WC and Kung fu so YES WC and kung fu is at a great disadvantage when compared to MMA because of this fact. And lets face it when we are comparing the two arnt we comparing from a MMA POV? We refference the time when X kung fu guy fought Y MMAist IN a MMA competition.
The way in which we learn WC is for street self defense. I would like to think that WC and KUng fu in general strive for more out of life than a competition fight or fights. The art is deeper than the superficial. We are not concerned with particular formats that fit into the MMA rule books. So if one is to compete they have to almost start from scratch because the style does not fit the mold.
Its no wonder you dont find much kung fu in MMA tournaments. They are 2 different animals.
So enough with the MMA vs WC/KUNG FU comparisons. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. If you think one is better than the other than good for you. But that doesnt mean one IS better than the other, that is just YOUR POV.

MMA is heavily driven by the media with broadcast of the ultimate fighter series UFC unleashed, NHB, etc... and people beleive what they see on TV. There are NO reality based kung fu shows, and VERY little competition events televised that help lend a hand with its promotions. WHY? Who knows. But I garantee that once these shows start surfacing you will have people who will think KUNG Fu is better. This is a media driven society and people believe whatever is in vogue at the time.

You want to compare? How bout we grab one of these MMAist and have them chi sao with a WC guy. Who will win?

Who really cares???????

PEacE

Ricky aka ADD>>>>

[ghostofwingchun]

Airdrawndagger can you tell me how you think is a reliable way for person to test fighting skill?

Thanks,

Ghost

[sihing]

Airdrawndagger can you tell me how you think is a reliable way for person to test fighting skill?

Thanks,

Ghost

I think the answer to this question is yes and no, you can and cannot REALLY test someone's fighting ability, at least not everyone. Some are natural fighters and have killer instinct within in them, and some don't, and then there are people that have a little of both but not to any extreme. All people can fight when it is needed. All Martial Artist with high level skills from any Martial Art (including boxing) are skilled fighters. MMArtist's are professionals, training intensely on a consistent basis, different from the average person training in a Martial Arts school. To me, this whole thing comes down to how one trains. If you do forms all the time then you will have little real fighting skills, but on the other extreme, if you spar all the time with no foundation behind it then you have not much more either. You have to moderate both, and train all of it to be skilled. At each stage you test what the person should be knowledgeable about. Each MA, lineage, school, has a different perspective on what a person should be knowledgeable about at what level. The key thing I think is that the tests have to progressively be more intense as one goes thru the process, meaning everything gets harder for the participant to pass (in my school the 1st level is very basic and elementary 1 on 1, the 10th level is all random and very intense, 3 on 1) . Some also want to test themselves in competitions of all sorts. The problem with competitions is that usually the people competing have fore knowledge of who they are going to fight. Therefore they can get information about their opponents and adjust their training regimen and strategy beforehand to prepare. In a reality situation you do not have this luxury. It's like comparing apples to oranges, both are good but taste different. There are great fighters out there in the MMA world of course, and there are great fighters in the traditional MA world also. In the end it comes down to what the individual does with the knowledge he/she has access to and what he/she wants from it. I can have access to the all knowing crystal ball, but if I don't know how to access the information it is useless to me. You access information by experimentation and/or from those that have the information you need (this way is fastest) .


James

[lawrenceofidaho]

Ricky,


MMA is heavily driven by the media with broadcast of the ultimate fighter series UFC unleashed, NHB, etc... and people believe what they see on TV.
Isn't that how kung fu got it's roots in the west? (David Carradine, Bruce Lee, etc.)


There are NO reality based kung fu shows, and VERY little competition events televised that help lend a hand with its promotions. WHY? Who knows.
How many qwoons / lineages would willing to step up and put themselves on the line? (Not so many, I'd bet.)


But I guarantee that once these shows start surfacing you will have people who will think KUNG Fu is better.
Doubt it.......:cool:

If anything, there would be a call for the "winners" of the kung fu show to step up and enter a show like the Ultimate Fighter to test their mettle against guys other than TCMA practicioners.


You want to compare? How bout we grab one of these MMAist and have them chi sao with a WC guy. Who will win?
Give me 5 minutes with an MMA guy to show him the tan / bong / fook positions of chi-sau, and then how an average wing chun guy might attack from it. He'll roll once in the drill, then drop levels, shoot and (probably) take the WC guy down and mount him........

Then reverse the roles and ask the (pure) WC guy to drill on the ground with the MMA guy and it'll take weeks, -not minutes for the [non cross-training] WC guy to learn to adapt and be able to take advantage of anything, or to be able to stand back up and return to his preferred game.

Why not start training on the ground against good grapplers now to get a head start in dealing with that sort of challenge?


Who really cares???????
Bro, I totally care....... (That's why I train with MMA guys.)

Wing Chun is great, but if you don't train against realistic attacks from other styles, you'll be a sitting duck in a fight against any [sober] guy who has a bit of skill or experience.

-Lawrence

[AmanuJRY]

MMA is heavily driven by the media with broadcast of the ultimate fighter series UFC unleashed, NHB, etc... and people beleive what they see on TV. There are NO reality based kung fu shows, and VERY little competition events televised that help lend a hand with its promotions. WHY? Who knows. But I garantee that once these shows start surfacing you will have people who will think KUNG Fu is better. This is a media driven society and people believe whatever is in vogue at the time.



What's this then? (http://www.shanghaiist.com/archives/2005/11/19/kung_fu_masters.php)

[canglong]

Mr. Tony Jacobs I am wondering other than MMA or NHB fights what do you think would be the most reliable way for someone to test fighting ability?Ghost,
Since I am a practitioner of a specific system and have yet to create a system of my own I would have to defer to that system for my answer to your question. In Hung Fa Yi the system uses the common denominators of time space and energy to answer how to achieve with consistency the most efficient combat results possible before and during sparring to test the practitioners skill level and knowledge.

The short answer is that you must first be taught the most efficient space in time and then what energies will allow you to attain that positon over your opponent. Siu Nim Tao is where you would start this progression, first it must be demonstrated that tan sau for example only exist in one position in time and space (leaving out the details of that position) because if tan sau is over extended it can be lopped or grabbed, if it is too close to the body it can be collapsed, elbow out or elbow too far in weak structure you know the rest. When discussing Chi Sau most often we hear people speak of sensativity training these elbow positions are exactly the positions we are training to recognize on contact from feel. Once a student becomes aware of what exactly constitutes tan sau and what does not he is then charged with demonstrating his knowledge and his ablility to apply technique through a series of test called skill challenges which in this case will test the ability to defne tan sau verbally as well as physically.

In Hung Fa Yi these skill challenge test are quite interesting because they are actually the physical manifestation of the answer to the question of do you know what tan sau is or more appropriately where tan sau resides. So you can have a written question where one would answer definitively the precise position of tan sau in time and space and with what energy it is produced and then a seperate skills challenge to physically illustrate the same answer to make sure your knowledge and skill are in accord with one another and yes there exist a skill challenge for each individual technique as they each must adhere to and abide by serperate and unique laws of time space and energy. After the skills challenge and only then would you spar but not for the sake of testing your techniques but more as an exercise to sharpen and hone your newly acquired skill.

There is no substitute for fighting experience yet by putting a premium on the common denominators of combat as opposed to technique we can learn the path to efficiency based on time space and energy and not a bag of surface level variables subject to change with each opponent and be prepared "to test fighting ability" of individuals on an individual level that is constructive as well as productive preparation for an actual "fight" is reliable and provides the same level of consistency of results before as well as during drills and sparring excercises based on the wing chun model provided by these skill challenges.

[anerlich]

TKD not produce good fighters

Not true! I've met some TKD guys who are tough as hell.


But that doesnt mean one IS better than the other, that is just YOUR POV.

There's more to it than that. It should be possible to determine a goal/purpose and set criteria to objectively measure which approach meets that goal better. If it's all down to opinion, then everything is great, or everything is crap, it just depends on your POV.

The conflict is in the definition and choice of goals, not just opinions.


You want to compare? How bout we grab one of these MMAist and have them chi sao with a WC guy. Who will win?

Is chi sao a contest? A fight? If the latter, as a high profile JKD practitioner said, "if someone tries to chi sao with you, just punch him in the face". If it's not a contest or fight, how do you define "winning"? If punching someone in the face as discussed is disallowed, how relevant is "winning at chi sao" relevant to any combat situation in the ring or elsewhere?


But I garantee that once these shows start surfacing you will have people who will think KUNG Fu is better.

Someone has to make these shows, and without a track record, why would they?

I think KF has had its honeymoon with the media, just as Ninjutsu, MT, etc. did later. BJJ is still pretty popular in the MA media, but the days of "the unbeatable Gracie family from Brazil" are over as well.

People believe all sorts of things, whether in media vogue or not. And many of them distrust the media, with good reason.

And I don't think the show mentioned in the link will do a THING to change KF's profile.

[KPM]

And I don't think the show mentioned in the link will do a THING to change KF's profile.

Certainly not if David Carradine is their mascot and example!!!! :eek:

Keith

[ghostofwingchun]

I think the answer to this question is yes and no, you can and cannot REALLY test someone's fighting ability, at least not everyone. Some are natural fighters and have killer instinct within in them, and some don't, and then there are people that have a little of both but not to any extreme. All people can fight when it is needed. All Martial Artist with high level skills from any Martial Art (including boxing) are skilled fighters. MMArtist's are professionals, training intensely on a consistent basis, different from the average person training in a Martial Arts school. To me, this whole thing comes down to how one trains. If you do forms all the time then you will have little real fighting skills, but on the other extreme, if you spar all the time with no foundation behind it then you have not much more either. You have to moderate both, and train all of it to be skilled. At each stage you test what the person should be knowledgeable about. Each MA, lineage, school, has a different perspective on what a person should be knowledgeable about at what level. The key thing I think is that the tests have to progressively be more intense as one goes thru the process, meaning everything gets harder for the participant to pass (in my school the 1st level is very basic and elementary 1 on 1, the 10th level is all random and very intense, 3 on 1) . Some also want to test themselves in competitions of all sorts. The problem with competitions is that usually the people competing have fore knowledge of who they are going to fight. Therefore they can get information about their opponents and adjust their training regimen and strategy beforehand to prepare. In a reality situation you do not have this luxury. It's like comparing apples to oranges, both are good but taste different. There are great fighters out there in the MMA world of course, and there are great fighters in the traditional MA world also. In the end it comes down to what the individual does with the knowledge he/she has access to and what he/she wants from it. I can have access to the all knowing crystal ball, but if I don't know how to access the information it is useless to me. You access information by experimentation and/or from those that have the information you need (this way is fastest) .


James

Thank you Mr. James so much for your reply! I am thinking you are correct that most people don't want to fight NHB competitions . . . this is proved by fact that they don't compete . . . also I am thinking you are correct that to train for NHB competitions will by very nature require training most not want to do. Not all MMA fighters are pros though . . . most of the NHB circuit except for higher levels is amatuer . . . none or very little money involved . . . people can't make living off of it at least. You say there are great fighters in MMA world . . . yes this I can see with own eyes . . . and you say there are great fighters in traditional world . . . well this brings me back to my question . . . how can we reliably know someone . . . like these traditional practitioners . . . have fighting ability . . . and how do we know what level of ability they have? Let us say for instance that I say that I am a great fighter . . . I am not but am asking hypothetical . . . how can you know if I am a great fighter other than rely on what I say. . . how can others know . . . how even can I know what my fighting ability is? You did not really address the question I asked . . . so can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Ghost,
Since I am a practitioner of a specific system and have yet to create a system of my own I would have to defer to that system for my answer to your question. In Hung Fa Yi the system uses the common denominators of time space and energy to answer how to achieve with consistency the most efficient combat results possible before and during sparring to test the practitioners skill level and knowledge.

The short answer is that you must first be taught the most efficient space in time and then what energies will allow you to attain that positon over your opponent. Siu Nim Tao is where you would start this progression, first it must be demonstrated that tan sau for example only exist in one position in time and space (leaving out the details of that position) because if tan sau is over extended it can be lopped or grabbed, if it is too close to the body it can be collapsed, elbow out or elbow too far in weak structure you know the rest. When discussing Chi Sau most often we hear people speak of sensativity training these elbow positions are exactly the positions we are training to recognize on contact from feel. Once a student becomes aware of what exactly constitutes tan sau and what does not he is then charged with demonstrating his knowledge and his ablility to apply technique through a series of test called skill challenges which in this case will test the ability to defne tan sau verbally as well as physically.

In Hung Fa Yi these skill challenge test are quite interesting because they are actually the physical manifestation of the answer to the question of do you know what tan sau is or more appropriately where tan sau resides. So you can have a written question where one would answer definitively the precise position of tan sau in time and space and with what energy it is produced and then a seperate skills challenge to physically illustrate the same answer to make sure your knowledge and skill are in accord with one another and yes there exist a skill challenge for each individual technique as they each must adhere to and abide by serperate and unique laws of time space and energy. After the skills challenge and only then would you spar but not for the sake of testing your techniques but more as an exercise to sharpen and hone your newly acquired skill.

There is no substitute for fighting experience yet by putting a premium on the common denominators of combat as opposed to technique we can learn the path to efficiency based on time space and energy and not a bag of surface level variables subject to change with each opponent and be prepared "to test fighting ability" of individuals on an individual level that is constructive as well as productive preparation for an actual "fight" is reliable and provides the same level of consistency of results before as well as during drills and sparring excercises based on the wing chun model provided by these skill challenges.

Mr. Tony Jacobs thank you so much for your reply! I am sorry but I am thinking that I do not completely understand you . . . you say that you would defer to system to answer question and go on to talk about some of demoninators of system . . . what I don't understand is isn't fighting ability not just that person know these things but have ability to use or do these things . . . whatever they are . . . actually while fighting? Please be simple with me . . . and do step by step . . . I am trying to understand you. This brings me back to my question . . . how can person test his ability to do these things in fighting? I am thinking that being able to do these things on written test or in test of skill . . . and I don't know what that is so could you explain it to me . . . how does it go and what skill is being tested? . . . may not necessarily mean person can do them while fighting . . . what evidence is there of this? Here is follow up question too . . . when you say that this process you describe is reliable in producing fighting ability . . . how do you know this . . . what is evidence you are relying on for determination? Sorry for all questions but am trying to understand you.

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

. . . what I don't understand is isn't fighting ability not just that person know these things but have ability to use or do these things . . . whatever they are . . . actually while fighting? Please be simple with me . . . Ghost,
Sure lets address these topics one at a time.

Each and every person has a natural instict for survaival. When put into a life threatening situation such as a fight for example those natural instincts will always come into use. Yet for advanced fighting making use of a system such as Wing Chun the first requirement is for the mind to know and understand what it is we want the body to perform these advanced methods will more than likely not come to each individual instinctively. These are the conditions which make the system advanced, forethought of execution to achieve a desired result.

[Airdrawndagger]

What's this then? (http://www.shanghaiist.com/archives/2005/11/19/kung_fu_masters.php)


Thats a soap opera.:p



Give me 5 minutes with an MMA guy to show him the tan / bong / fook positions of chi-sau, and then how an average wing chun guy might attack from it. He'll roll once in the drill, then drop levels, shoot and (probably) take the WC guy down and mount him........

Then reverse the roles and ask the (pure) WC guy to drill on the ground with the MMA guy and it'll take weeks, -not minutes for the [non cross-training] WC guy to learn to adapt and be able to take advantage of anything, or to be able to stand back up and return to his preferred game.

Why not start training on the ground against good grapplers now to get a head start in dealing with that sort of challenge?


First of all, if a WC stylist is going to chi sao with a MMAist then "shooting" and "dropping levels" does not constitute chi sao. That is open sparring and not what im talking about. The point is that so many people are concerned with what MA is better that they dont really focus on what is best for them and how they can take there MA and make it there own, be the best for themselves.

WC is not designed for the MMA ring. WC and its energy and flow and design is not cohesive with the MMA format. Why not take up ground fighting? Because there is no need for me to. Everything that im looking for is found in WC if you know where to look.



Is chi sao a contest? A fight? If the latter, as a high profile JKD practitioner said, "if someone tries to chi sao with you, just punch him in the face". If it's not a contest or fight, how do you define "winning"? If punching someone in the face as discussed is disallowed, how relevant is "winning at chi sao" relevant to any combat situation in the ring or elsewhere?


Chi sao to me is neither. It is a sensitivity drill. There should be no competition and it definetly not be a fight.
"Winning at chi sao"???????

Your high profile JKD practitioner obviously doesnt have a clue what he is talking about by his comments. If there is a fight, who in there right mind is going to walk up to the attacker and try to chi sao with him???LOL

.... Quite frankly im suprised that you would quote something so off target, you usually know what the H3LL your talking about....

[sihing]

Thank you Mr. James so much for your reply! I am thinking you are correct that most people don't want to fight NHB competitions . . . this is proved by fact that they don't compete . . . also I am thinking you are correct that to train for NHB competitions will by very nature require training most not want to do. Not all MMA fighters are pros though . . . most of the NHB circuit except for higher levels is amatuer . . . none or very little money involved . . . people can't make living off of it at least. You say there are great fighters in MMA world . . . yes this I can see with own eyes . . . and you say there are great fighters in traditional world . . . well this brings me back to my question . . . how can we reliably know someone . . . like these traditional practitioners . . . have fighting ability . . . and how do we know what level of ability they have? Let us say for instance that I say that I am a great fighter . . . I am not but am asking hypothetical . . . how can you know if I am a great fighter other than rely on what I say. . . how can others know . . . how even can I know what my fighting ability is? You did not really address the question I asked . . . so can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Ghost

Well Ghost, the only way to know if YOU have fighting skills is to test what you are learning at each stage of the learning process. Simple. But I think it is important to realize that it is unimportant what people think of your fighting skills using a particular method or delivery system. It's only important what you, and those that are guiding you, think, period. In our association, the 1st level tested is very basic, just covering basic stances, arm movements and applications, foundation stuff, with one partner. The last test, our level 10, is the total opposite, random in every manner, against 3 partners trying hard to hit you at every stage. During one part of the test, Sifu will ask the person to apply a particular grappling movement (wrist lock/arm bar, choke for example), and the participant has to get that application out of what ever comes at him (he/she doesn't know, so the person attacking can use anything to attack with and the person testing has to defend it first and get a wrist lock or whatever was called for out of it). Once you pass this test you know you have skills. That what tests are for, to see where you are at and then tweak it all from there. The level 10 test is not only about skills though, but about your heart and will to stay in there when the going gets tough. A physical, mental, emotional and spiritual test in true essence.


James

[ghostofwingchun]

Ghost,
Sure lets address these topics one at a time.

Each and every person has a natural instict for survaival. When put into a life threatening situation such as a fight for example those natural instincts will always come into use. Yet for advanced fighting making use of a system such as Wing Chun the first requirement is for the mind to know and understand what it is we want the body to perform these advanced methods will more than likely not come to each individual instinctively. These are the conditions which make the system advanced, forethought of execution to achieve a desired result.

Thank you Mr. Jacobs for your reply! Yes I understand that that we have natural instincts . . . but I am unsure of what you mean by advanced fighting . . . do you mean someone with very good fighting ability? Am I understanding you . . . you are saying that forethought of execution in making desired result is what makes something advanced? If this is so . . . what if one has forethought but cannot execute it . . . is this advanced fighting? My question remains . . . how can you test whether one has good forethought and execution . . . or call it ability . . . for fighting?

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Well Ghost, the only way to know if YOU have fighting skills is to test what you are learning at each stage of the learning process. Simple. But I think it is important to realize that it is unimportant what people think of your fighting skills using a particular method or delivery system. It's only important what you, and those that are guiding you, think, period. In our association, the 1st level tested is very basic, just covering basic stances, arm movements and applications, foundation stuff, with one partner. The last test, our level 10, is the total opposite, random in every manner, against 3 partners trying hard to hit you at every stage. During one part of the test, Sifu will ask the person to apply a particular grappling movement (wrist lock/arm bar, choke for example), and the participant has to get that application out of what ever comes at him (he/she doesn't know, so the person attacking can use anything to attack with and the person testing has to defend it first and get a wrist lock or whatever was called for out of it). Once you pass this test you know you have skills. That what tests are for, to see where you are at and then tweak it all from there. The level 10 test is not only about skills though, but about your heart and will to stay in there when the going gets tough. A physical, mental, emotional and spiritual test in true essence.


James

Mr. James thank you too so much for your reply! Am I understanding you . . . you say the only way to know if you have fighting abilities is to test . . . can you tell me how you test these things . . . for example how do you test a stance? The example you give . . . person can attack with anything and you defend . . . is this single attack . . like one steps in karate . . . or is it continuous relentless attacks where attacker trying to do all they can to defeat you? My other question is that you say then you know you have skills . . . what do you mean by that?

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

. . . but I am unsure of what you mean by advanced fighting . . .Ghost,
Advance meaning a complete system built on principles of universal law which move an individual beyond insticts using methods both practiced and applied which over any amount of measured time can be proven to consistently yield positive results.

[ghostofwingchun]

Ghost,
Advance meaning a complete system built on principles of universal law which move an individual beyond insticts using methods both practiced and applied which over any amount of measured time can be proven to consistently yield positive results.

Thanks again Mr. Jacobs for taking time to explain these things to me! I am still confused . . . sorry . . . will you tell me what you mean by consistently yield positive results? This seems to go back to my original question . . . how do we test these things . . . so I don't seem to be making progress. Is consistent positive result mean you can consistently make technqiue works in fights . . . or something else . . . like practice drill or what you called test of skill? I also don't understand how we can know if something is principle of universal law or not . . . what is your definition of principle of universal law . . . and how can I tell if something is principle of universal law or not? I thank you for helping me to understand these things.

Thanks,

Ghost

[KPM]

Thanks again Mr. Jacobs for taking time to explain these things to me! I am still confused . . . sorry . . . will you tell me what you mean by consistently yield positive results? This seems to go back to my original question . . . how do we test these things . . . so I don't seem to be making progress. Is consistent positive result mean you can consistently make technqiue works in fights . . . or something else . . . like practice drill or what you called test of skill? I also don't understand how we can know if something is principle of universal law or not . . . what is your definition of principle of universal law . . . and how can I tell if something is principle of universal law or not? I thank you for helping me to understand these things.

Thanks,

Ghost

Excellent points and questions Ghost! I too look forward to the answers! :)

Keith

[sihing]

Mr. James thank you too so much for your reply! Am I understanding you . . . you say the only way to know if you have fighting abilities is to test . . . can you tell me how you test these things . . . for example how do you test a stance? The example you give . . . person can attack with anything and you defend . . . is this single attack . . like one steps in karate . . . or is it continuous relentless attacks where attacker trying to do all they can to defeat you? My other question is that you say then you know you have skills . . . what do you mean by that?

Thanks,

Ghost

The testing procedure for the level 10 test is for the attackers to try to hit the person testing with specific things, for example one attacker will have a list of attacks to perform, and another attacker a different list in a certain order and so forth. This way Sifu has an idea of what is coming next for the person testing (random for the person testing though). If the person testing does not defend or just steps out of the way and does nothing in terms of simultaneous attack/defense, the person attacking will attack again. When I participate in these tests as an attacker I fake, feint, throw the attack anyway I want, and most of the time attack again to make sure the person testing is keeping their hands up. So no it is not one step sparring, but a continuous attacking procedure, but remember the idea for the person testing is to simultaneously defend and attack, so when done properly this takes care of most follow-ups attempted by the attacker. The procedure for the test includes the following: 80 combat tech defenses (kicking/punching attacks defenses), 80 self defense tech. (grab/pulls/headlocks,etc..defenses), 20-30 weapon defenses (clubs, knives, etc..), 20-30 chair defenses (defending above attacks from a chair), 20 kneeling defenses (defending above while in kneeling position), 20 while on the ground defenses (defending when you are pushed or brought to the ground but not in contact with your opponent, like Bruce Lee in Return of Dragon), 15 mounted defenses (defend while being mounted, from bottom position). Besides all this there are other things as well. The test usually last 1 1/2 hours, and is very demanding. Once you go through the test you know you have combat skills, period.

You test a stance by seeing the person in the stance and seeing them move around while utilizing the stance. If the mobility is good, with balance and stability then the student has a good stance. The stance like anything will enhance as you become more and more familiar with it over time. Later on there is no stance, just you doing what you do when it is needed.


"My other question is that you say then you know you have skills . . . what do you mean by that?"
What I mean is through experience, your own experience and others, you realize your skill level. It is like anything else, if you do something enough with good instruction behind it, and consistent effort put into it by yourself, you will become good at it.

Ghost, just a piece of advice. It is good to ask questions but sooner or later you have to answer them yourself, and not expect others to answer them for you. When you learn it yourself, and figure the thing out, you will have learned it much better and more thoroughly than if someone gave you the answer. You’re Sifu or teachers/coaches are there to guide you and be available to lead you in the right direction, not do the work for you.


James

[ghostofwingchun]

Ghost, just a piece of advice. It is good to ask questions but sooner or later you have to answer them yourself, and not expect others to answer them for you. When you learn it yourself, and figure the thing out, you will have learned it much better and more thoroughly than if someone gave you the answer. You’re Sifu or teachers/coaches are there to guide you and be available to lead you in the right direction, not do the work for you.


James

Thank you Mr. James for both your response to my question and your advice . . . I hope my questions are not a bother . . . I ask them so that I can understand what you and others are talking about . . . many times people use expressions or terms . . . or state conclusions or opinions . . . but I don't know that I really understand truly what they are saying . . . so I ask to see if I understand them. There is much ambiguity in many of these discussions . . . at least for me . . . so I ask to try and pin down what people are talking about. . . trying to better understand why people say the things they do.

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

Thanks again Mr. Jacobs for taking time to explain these things to me! I am still confused . . . sorry . . . will you tell me what you mean by consistently yield positive results? Ghost,
Not a problem you're welcome just hope we are making a little progress.

Focusing on Wing Chun Kuen for our discussion because the question could be answered for any number of different topics, so, how can any result be proven to be consistent and positive. Just one example is a straight punch Wing Chun Kuen tells us we have to be a certain distance (range) from the opponent in order for us to use the methods or apply Wing Chun Kuen's straight punch. How do we know this to be true you may ask ;) well if we take the straight punch for example the straight punch will defeat or negate any other punch consistently, effectively in a positive manner for the Wing Chun practitioner only from that proper Wing Chun distance (range). In other words the straight punch carries the possibility of losing it's consistency and effectiveness when outside the proper WCK range of execution, hence the phrase close quarter combat. Ok so we have a Wing Chun punch and we have a Wing Chun range of execution now we use our wing chun kuen gate theory to prove that within that distance their is one absolute most efficient punch that is effective takes the least amount of energy to produce the quickest desired results (to defeat the opponent). To test this theory stand at a Wing chun distance of execution and have someone throw any punch other than a straight punch while you throw straight punches and see if your punches are not more consistently effective than the other punches being applied.
This seems to go back to my original question . . . No , we haven't gone back to all your original question(s) of 1 know, 2 ability, 3 testing because we are addressing the topics of each question in order and we have yet to get to your last question of testing ability. Fear not we shall get there in due time.
I also don't understand how we can know if something is principle of universal law or not . . . We recognize these when we see hear feel or sense them because they are binding to all humans at all times known to man. In Wing Chun terms we look to the kuen kuits for example receive what comes this is universal over any amount of measured time because when another human whether in the past present or future barring any unforseen changes to the human anatomy begins to push and another human then begins to pull the first who started to push the end result remains constant, predictable and increases the possibility of a favorable outcome for the Wing Chun practitioner that adheres to and uses these universal laws in his favor or proper time space and energy.

Hope this is getting closer to your own family's WCK understanding and not further away ;) looking forward to your response......

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. Jacobs I continue to thank you for taking the time to explain these things to me! Please bear with me in my attempts to understand what you are saying.


Ghost,
Not a problem you're welcome just hope we are making a little progress.

Focusing on Wing Chun Kuen for our discussion because the question could be answered for any number of different topics, so, how can any result be proven to be consistent and positive. Just one example is a straight punch Wing Chun Kuen tells us we have to be a certain distance (range) from the opponent in order for us to use the methods or apply Wing Chun Kuen's straight punch. How do we know this to be true you may ask ;) well if we take the straight punch for example the straight punch will defeat or negate any other punch consistently, effectively in a positive manner for the Wing Chun practitioner only from that proper Wing Chun distance (range). In other words the straight punch carries the possibility of losing it's consistency and effectiveness when outside the proper WCK range of execution, hence the phrase close quarter combat. Ok so we have a Wing Chun punch and we have a Wing Chun range of execution now we use our wing chun kuen gate theory to prove that within that distance their is one absolute most efficient punch that is effective takes the least amount of energy to produce the quickest desired results (to defeat the opponent). To test this theory stand at a Wing chun distance of execution and have someone throw any punch other than a straight punch while you throw straight punches and see if your punches are not more consistently effective than the other punches being applied.


Here I am confused again . . . I understand that outside of its range the wc punch is not effective . . . this much is clear . . . when you say produce the quickest desired results what result specifically are you talking about . . . the result of hitting with the fist . . . the result of knocking the opponent out . . . some other result . . . or eventual defeat of an opponent? Some other punches are much more powerful than wc straight punch . . . like boxing cross or hook or overhand or karate reverse punch and so on . . . maybe one good one of these is worth more than several wc straight punches in terms of effect on opponent . . . I don't know. I don't see how the wc punch is any more effective at this range than many other punches. . . can you explain?



No , we haven't gone back to all your original question(s) of 1 know, 2 ability, 3 testing because we are addressing the topics of each question in order and we have yet to get to your last question of testing ability. Fear not we shall get there in due time.We recognize these when we see hear feel or sense them because they are binding to all humans at all times known to man. In Wing Chun terms we look to the kuen kuits for example receive what comes this is universal over any amount of measured time because when another human whether in the past present or future barring any unforseen changes to the human anatomy begins to push and another human then begins to pull the first who started to push the end result remains constant, predictable and increases the possibility of a favorable outcome for the Wing Chun practitioner that adheres to and uses these universal laws in his favor or proper time space and energy.

Hope this is getting closer to your own family's WCK understanding and not further away ;) looking forward to your response......

Here I am really confused . . . I hope you can help explain things to me. It seems to me . . . and I am sure I am wrong . . . that you are saying that we know something is principal of universal law because we somehow recognize it as such . . . but I don't understand precisely how I recognize it . . . am I supposed to just know it when I see it or feel it . . . or is there something I am missing? The kuen kuit of receive what comes . . . which in your example is pull when pushed . . . is this one of these principles of universal laws? It seems you are saying that pulling when pushed produces consistent results . . . though I'm not sure of the result you refer to . . . if done properly . . . at right distance with good timing and right energy? Could this not be said of most any technique? If you could elaborate it would help me better understand.

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

. . I understand that outside of its range the wc punch is not effective . . . this much is clear . . . Ghost,
This is not the same as what was stated earlier so maybe it's not clear. The Wing Chun straight punch has the potential to lose some of its effectiveness and consistency if not applied at the proper range. Any punch has the potential to be effective at any range too many variables involved in what you stated to be as absolute as your statement.
. when you say produce the quickest desired results what result specifically are you talking about . . .Again Ghost, you seem confused because you are trying to get ahead of the discussion. The discussion is about punching the example given is about one Wing Chun punch in particular and the desired result is to hit before you get hit just to keep the conversation simple for now.
Some other punches are much more powerful than wc straight punch . . . like boxing cross or hook or overhand or karate reverse punch and so on . . . maybe one good one of these is worth more than several wc straight punches in terms of effect on opponent . . . Wing Chun tells us that in a fight efficiency is more of a premium than power because obviously if you expend all your power before the end of combat your ability to fight is greatly reduced. So if you can find a more efficient punch at the WCK range of execution for the straight punch then regardless of how much power it will produce you should by all means use it.
. . I don't know. I don't see how the wc punch is any more effective at this range than many other punches. . . can you explain? Yes, It has already been done please read or re-read To test this theory ...

[canglong]

. . I hope you can help explain things to me. It seems to me . . . and I am sure I am wrong . . . that you are saying that we know something is principal of universal law because we somehow recognize it as such . . . but I don't understand precisely how I recognize it . . . am I supposed to just know it when I see it or feel it . . . or is there something I am missing? Ghost,
"Universal Laws are laws of nature that apply to observed highly predictable patterns of occurrences in nature or the universe as a whole. Universal Laws apply to patterns of behavior or outcomes that can be predicted with near 100% accuracy." As an example Law of Gravitation would be considered a universal law that applies to all humans equally. If you hold a ball and let it fall from your hand gravity pulls it downward. If another person holds the same ball and lets it fall from their hands gravity will again pull the ball downward. When the same cause law or phenomenom (such as gravity, inertia, weight or heat and cold etc.) is applied equally to different people but having the same effect or end result it is then considered universal law.
. but I don't understand precisely how I recognize it . . . am I supposed to just know it when I see it or feel it . . . or is there something I am missing? Ghost,
For the purposes of WCK you follow the guidance of the kuen kuits both in and outside of WCK a person's individual level of awareness is just that an individual level of awareness. How do we get better at anything. Through proper guidance and continued practice.
It seems you are saying that pulling when pushed produces consistent results . . . though I'm not sure of the result you refer to . . . if done properly . . . at right distance with good timing and right energy? Could this not be said of most any technique? If you could elaborate it would help me better understand.
The results and their consistency you can determine yourself through trial and error in class. Actually proper time space and energy are not required of most techniques but all techniques require this. Wing Chun Kuen is the method that provides us as individuals with the proper insight of this requirement and the methods to apply that knowledge.

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. Jacobs thanks again so much for this interesting discussion!


Ghost,
This is not the same as what was stated earlier so maybe it's not clear. The Wing Chun straight punch has the potential to lose some of its effectiveness and consistency if not applied at the proper range. Any punch has the potential to be effective at any range too many variables involved in what you stated to be as absolute as your statement.


I am thinking how is it possible in this case to to show how the wc punch . . . or any punch for that matter . . . is more effective than something else?



Again Ghost, you seem confused because you are trying to get ahead of the discussion. The discussion is about punching the example given is about one Wing Chun punch in particular and the desired result is to hit before you get hit just to keep the conversation simple for now.


So you are saying the desired result of the wc punch is to hit before you get hit? . . . why is this the case . . . and are you saying that hitting before the other guy is your definition of being more effective . . . or more efficient? Won't other straight punches travel the same distance . . . assuming both have same reach . . . and it seems to me . . . and please tell me where I'm wrong . . . that some punches may travel a longer distance but move faster than the wc straight punch because of angular momentum . . . and so reach target sooner? And does this take into consideration case where hand if off center . . . or where the center is blocked?


Wing Chun tells us that in a fight efficiency is more of a premium than power because obviously if you expend all your power before the end of combat your ability to fight is greatly reduced. So if you can find a more efficient punch at the WCK range of execution for the straight punch then regardless of how much power it will produce you should by all means use it. Yes, It has already been done please read or re-read To test this theory ...

I am confused . . . you say wc tells us . . . how does wc tell us . . . and how do we know this is true . . . or that it is true for all situation? Power . . . like in punching power . . . I do not think is like gas that we only have so much of it . . . so I am wondering about expending all your power and effect on fight . . . you will not expend all power by punching powerfully . . . so I am confused. What makes wc punch more efficient . . . even by your definition?

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Ghost,
"Universal Laws are laws of nature that apply to observed highly predictable patterns of occurrences in nature or the universe as a whole. Universal Laws apply to patterns of behavior or outcomes that can be predicted with near 100% accuracy." As an example Law of Gravitation would be considered a universal law that applies to all humans equally. If you hold a ball and let it fall from your hand gravity pulls it downward. If another person holds the same ball and lets it fall from their hands gravity will again pull the ball downward. When the same cause law or phenomenom (such as gravity, inertia, weight or heat and cold etc.) is applied equally to different people but having the same effect or end result it is then considered universal law.


I understand universal law . . . in terms or physics . . . so you are saying that predictable patterns of occurance in fighting makes those patterns universal laws . . . is this correct?


Ghost,
For the purposes of WCK you follow the guidance of the kuen kuits both in and outside of WCK a person's individual level of awareness is just that an individual level of awareness. How do we get better at anything. Through proper guidance and continued practice.The results and their consistency you can determine yourself through trial and error in class. Actually proper time space and energy are not required of most techniques but all techniques require this. Wing Chun Kuen is the method that provides us as individuals with the proper insight of this requirement and the methods to apply that knowledge.

I understand we get better through guidance and practice of task . . . and I understand that through trial and error trying to get desired result we learn . . . to better get result . . . this is simple motor learning theory . . . where I don't understand is what is desired result you are referring to . . . let me explain. . . is desired result in practice the same as desired result in fighting . . . or is desired result in practice different than desired result in fighting? Can you also explain how you know wc training . . . or any other martial art training . . . provides insight or methods that are effective? Thanks again Mr. Jacobs for sharing your views with me . . . I find this discussion very interesting.

Thanks,

Ghost

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by Tony Jacobs: how can any result be proven to be consistent and positive.

easy, you control the number of variables.


Just one example is a straight punch Wing Chun Kuen tells us we have to be a certain distance (range) from the opponent in order for us to use the methods or apply Wing Chun Kuen's straight punch. How do we know this to be true you may ask? well if we take the straight punch for example the straight punch will defeat or negate any other punch consistently, effectively in a positive manner for the Wing Chun practitioner only from that proper Wing Chun distance (range). In other words the straight punch carries the possibility of losing it's consistency and effectiveness when outside the proper WCK range of execution, hence the phrase close quarter combat. Ok so we have a Wing Chun punch and we have a Wing Chun range of execution now we use our wing chun kuen gate theory to prove that within that distance their is one absolute most efficient punch that is effective takes the least amount of energy to produce the quickest desired results (to defeat the opponent). To test this theory stand at a Wing chun distance of execution and have someone throw any punch other than a straight punch while you throw straight punches and see if your punches are not more consistently effective than the other punches being applied.

Now, start adding variables like, oh I don't know...movement, and see how consistent they are.



We recognize these (universal laws) when we see hear feel or sense them because they are binding to all humans at all times known to man. In Wing Chun terms we look to the kuen kuits for example receive what comes this is universal over any amount of measured time because when another human whether in the past present or future barring any unforseen changes to the human anatomy begins to push and another human then begins to pull the first who started to push the end result remains constant, predictable and increases the possibility of a favorable outcome for the Wing Chun practitioner that adheres to and uses these universal laws in his favor or proper time space and energy.

I appreciate the Kuen Kuit as much as the next 'chunner, but to consider them 'Universal Law' is pretty out there, you should stick to using gravity as an example.


Again Ghost, you seem confused because you are trying to get ahead of the discussion. The discussion is about punching the example given is about one Wing Chun punch in particular and the desired result is to hit before you get hit just to keep the conversation simple for now.

Nice dodge, you don't have an answer crafted for that yet so you tell him to 'keep the conversation simple'. I think his question is quite valid and not premature.


Wing Chun tells us that in a fight efficiency is more of a premium than power because obviously if you expend all your power before the end of combat your ability to fight is greatly reduced. So if you can find a more efficient punch at the WCK range of execution for the straight punch then regardless of how much power it will produce you should by all means use it.

My WC doesn't tell me that. Mine tells me that Power is just as important as Efficiency, and actually it tells me that Efficiency is more of a loose term that refers to the coordination of attributes like Power, Speed, Timing, Distancing, Footwork, etc.


When the same cause law or phenomenom (such as gravity, inertia, weight or heat and cold etc.) is applied equally to different people but having the same effect or end result it is then considered universal law.

Actually, it is then considered a Law, usually given the name of that person who discovered it (i.e. Newton's Law). 'Universal Law' isn't a term widly used in physics or science in general.

[canglong]

Ghost,
Do you train Wing Chun Kuen? Earlier you said,
Some other punches are much more powerful than wc straight punch . . . like boxing cross or hook or overhand or karate reverse punch and so on . . . maybe one good one of these is worth more than several wc straight punches in terms of effect on opponent . . . I don't know. I don't see how the wc punch is any more effective at this range than many other punches. . . can you explain?
So why would you train Wing Chun if you believe there are other more effective methods of training.
I am thinking how is it possible in this case to to show how the wc punch . . . or any punch for that matter . . . is more effective than something else?
If you reread some earlier post you might notice that some of your questions only arise because you have misread or misinterpreted an earlier statement and you might want to make sure you understand the answer before posing your next question. The aim in Wing Chun is to be more efficient the net result of effciency is effectiveness. The Centerline theory derived from the "king" of battlefield weapons the Spear teaches that when 2 people engage in combat using a spear large movements away from the center of the body for the purpose of gaining power will ultimately leave a person open to defeat by a more efficient attack. The same is true for hand-to-hand combat.
So you are saying the desired result of the wc punch is to hit before you get hit? . . . why is this the case . .Does your Sifu teach something else?
. . . and please tell me where I'm wrong . . . that some punches may travel a longer distance but move faster than the wc straight punch because of angular momentum . . . and so reach target sooner? You're wrong in this case because earlier it was specifically stated that we have to be a certain distance (range) from the opponent in order for us to use the methods or apply Wing Chun Kuen's straight punch. The possiblity that angular momentum would negate the efficiency of the straight punch exist outside the proper range of execution for the straight punch.
I am confused . . . you say wc tells us . . . how does wc tell us . . . and how do we know this is true . . There is a logic flow and progression to learning WCK and again we know these things to be true by trial and error in our daily practice or in other words we either substantiate the teaching preceeding our training or prove them to be false.
I do not think is like gas that we only have so much of it .Sure you are entitled to your own opinion.
. . . so I am confused. What makes wc punch more efficient . . . even by your definition?
The fact that it is straight.

[canglong]

Now, start adding variables like, oh I don't know...movement, and see how consistent they are.
Justin,
This is more like a standing pak sau drill not sure Ghost is ready for movement just yet.
Nice dodge, you don't have an answer crafted for that yet so you tell him to 'keep the conversation simple'. I think his question is quite valid and not premature.Not really but there is nothing stopping you from answering the question.
My WC doesn't tell me that. Mine tells me that Power is just as important as Efficiency, and actually it tells me that Efficiency is more of a loose term that refers to the coordination of attributes like Power, Speed, Timing, Distancing, Footwork, etc.One of the beauties of WCK is that not eveyone's has to be the same as long as we each enjoy our own more power to ya ;)

[Airdrawndagger]

I have some questions for you ghostofwingchun that may be you can answer.

1. Do you train Wing Chun? If yes than who is your instructor and how long have you been training?
2. Do you train other martial arts? If yes than what and for how long?
3. Do you own any books,DVDs, tapes of wing chun? If no, why not go and grab a few and start to educate yourself.

[ghostofwingchun]

Thank you Mr. Jacobs for responding to my questions! I do not mean to be pain . . . my nature is to be plodding and detail oriented . . . so I go slowly and ask lots of questions . . . please do not take this the wrong way . . . I am very interested in what you have to say.


Ghost,
Do you train Wing Chun Kuen?


Yes I do . . . but I am interested in how others train wc too . . . and their views.


Earlier you said, So why would you train Wing Chun if you believe there are other more effective methods of training.


I am sorry . . . but I do not understand then question . . . I do not believe I said anything like this . . . are you asking me this question? I am thinking that there are many good martial arts . . . and that it is not martial art that makes person good but person that makes martial art good . . . but this is just me . . . and I am interested in different views . . . this is why I ask questions.



If you reread some earlier post you might notice that some of your questions only arise because you have misread or misinterpreted an earlier statement and you might want to make sure you understand the answer before posing your next question.


Thank you for advice . . . you are right that many times I don't fully understand statement and this is why I ask for clarification . . . so that I can better understand what person is saying . . . I can read ambiguous statment a million times but it won't make meaning more clear . . . lol . . . so I ask question to resolve ambiguity for me.



The aim in Wing Chun is to be more efficient the net result of effciency is effectiveness.


I am thinking I understand what you are saying . . . but you say aim of wc is to be more efficient . . . efficiency as I understand is to accomplish same task by using less energy . . . but I don't understand how this necessarily leads to effectiveness . . . which I understand is how well something works . . . I am thinking that effectiveness or how well something works comes first . . . and then I try to make it more efficient . . . make it work with less energy expenditure . . . but to start with trying to do something with less energy won't ensure that it will work. Are we using the expressions efficiency and effectiveness to mean the same things?



The Centerline theory derived from the "king" of battlefield weapons the Spear teaches that when 2 people engage in combat using a spear large movements away from the center of the body for the purpose of gaining power will ultimately leave a person open to defeat by a more efficient attack. The same is true for hand-to-hand combat.


Can you tell me how you know centerline comes from spear . . . I have not heard this before? I am thinking that spear and empty hand don't correspond completely . . . with empty hand a weak but faster attack may have no big effect on opponent . . . perhaps I hit someone with very weak punch but he clobbers me with huge overhand punch that knocks me silly but hits me later . . . I am thinking that is such a situation my punch was ineffective since did nothing to opponent . . . while his punch was effective since it knocked me silly . . . and efficiency hasn't even come into picture yet . . . this is why I don't understand you . . . can you explain?


Does your Sifu teach something else?


Yes . . . but this is why I ask questions . . . to explore other possiblities . . . to broaden views.


You're wrong in this case because earlier it was specifically stated that we have to be a certain distance (range) from the opponent in order for us to use the methods or apply Wing Chun Kuen's straight punch.


Yes I understand that I need to be at certain range to make wc punch work . . . this is true of everything I think . . . however because wc punch works there does not mean other things won't work in that range too . . . maybe there are many things that can be effective at that range . . . this is why I don't udnerstand you saying wc punch is most effective . . . and I also don't understand you saying wc punch is most efficient . . . efficiency is doing same job with less expended energy . . . how can you say wc punch takes less energy than jab or hook . . . and how efficient can something be that isn't effective . . . lol?


The possiblity that angular momentum would negate the efficiency of the straight punch exist outside the proper range of execution for the straight punch.There is a logic flow and progression to learning WCK and again we know these things to be true by trial and error in our daily practice or in other words we either substantiate the teaching preceeding our training or prove them to be false.Sure you are entitled to your own opinion.


I too am thinking that all things need to be substantiated . . . this leads back to my original question . . . how do we test these things . . . what is the process involved? You told me about test of skills that your wc groups uses . . . can you tell me more of what this process involves?


The fact that it is straight.


Why would something that moves straight necessarily involve the use of less energy?

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

I have some questions for you ghostofwingchun that may be you can answer.

1. Do you train Wing Chun? If yes than who is your instructor and how long have you been training?
2. Do you train other martial arts? If yes than what and for how long?
3. Do you own any books,DVDs, tapes of wing chun? If no, why not go and grab a few and start to educate yourself.

Airdrawndagger thank you for showing interest in me . . . and my personal history. While I do not wish to give out personal information over internet . . . for several reasons . . . I will say that I do train wc and have for some time . . . I have trained in other martial arts too. I ask questions on forum since I do not understand some of the things people say and want to understand them . . . or they state conclusions so I ask to understand how they reach conclusion . . . or they use expressions so I ask question to understand what they mean by expression . . . and so on. Please don't let my questioning bother you . . . I don't want to bother anyone or make anyone defensive . . . I only want to understand what people are saying better.

Thanks,

Ghost

[sihing]

Thank you Mr. Jacobs for responding to my questions! I do not mean to be pain . . . my nature is to be plodding and detail oriented . . . so I go slowly and ask lots of questions . . . please do not take this the wrong way . . . I am very interested in what you have to say.



Yes I do . . . but I am interested in how others train wc too . . . and their views.



I am sorry . . . but I do not understand then question . . . I do not believe I said anything like this . . . are you asking me this question? I am thinking that there are many good martial arts . . . and that it is not martial art that makes person good but person that makes martial art good . . . but this is just me . . . and I am interested in different views . . . this is why I ask questions.




Thank you for advice . . . you are right that many times I don't fully understand statement and this is why I ask for clarification . . . so that I can better understand what person is saying . . . I can read ambiguous statment a million times but it won't make meaning more clear . . . lol . . . so I ask question to resolve ambiguity for me.




I am thinking I understand what you are saying . . . but you say aim of wc is to be more efficient . . . efficiency as I understand is to accomplish same task by using less energy . . . but I don't understand how this necessarily leads to effectiveness . . . which I understand is how well something works . . . I am thinking that effectiveness or how well something works comes first . . . and then I try to make it more efficient . . . make it work with less energy expenditure . . . but to start with trying to do something with less energy won't ensure that it will work. Are we using the expressions efficiency and effectiveness to mean the same things?




Can you tell me how you know centerline comes from spear . . . I have not heard this before? I am thinking that spear and empty hand don't correspond completely . . . with empty hand a weak but faster attack may have no big effect on opponent . . . perhaps I hit someone with very weak punch but he clobbers me with huge overhand punch that knocks me silly but hits me later . . . I am thinking that is such a situation my punch was ineffective since did nothing to opponent . . . while his punch was effective since it knocked me silly . . . and efficiency hasn't even come into picture yet . . . this is why I don't understand you . . . can you explain?



Yes . . . but this is why I ask questions . . . to explore other possiblities . . . to broaden views.



Yes I understand that I need to be at certain range to make wc punch work . . . this is true of everything I think . . . however because wc punch works there does not mean other things won't work in that range too . . . maybe there are many things that can be effective at that range . . . this is why I don't udnerstand you saying wc punch is most effective . . . and I also don't understand you saying wc punch is most efficient . . . efficiency is doing same job with less expended energy . . . how can you say wc punch takes less energy than jab or hook . . . and how efficient can something be that isn't effective . . . lol?



I too am thinking that all things need to be substantiated . . . this leads back to my original question . . . how do we test these things . . . what is the process involved? You told me about test of skills that your wc groups uses . . . can you tell me more of what this process involves?



Why would something that moves straight necessarily involve the use of less energy?

Thanks,

Ghost


Hey Ghost,

Not that I am Tony, but I thought I would put my 2 cents in their. I agree that there are other good MA out there besides WC. I do believe also that there are different levels of effectiveness regarding MA. I try to look at what a particular system teaches in regards to the key concepts/principals that underlie the entire system, rather than individuals. For example, some Karate systems promote block and then hit, a one two hit action, WC promotes a simultaneous defense/attack action, a one hit action (one less than the karate example). This is an example of efficiency and as Tony stated earlier, efficiency leads to effectiveness. Effectiveness means how well something works. Well it is true that how the persons uses something reflects in how effective that thing will be, but if the movements, concepts/principals (Martial Arts = movement in combat) are inherently effective..... 'e.g.- using a tan sao side step into the round punch while punching simultaneously is a effective application, because 1st you hit him while he is hitting you, a surprise for him, 2nd you step out of the way of his followup or combo attack, leaving less for you to deal with, 3rd you have put yourself in a flanking position, away from his primary weapons, but still able to use all your weapons'..... then with everything being equal in regards to the persons attributes that are using it, you can say they will be more effective fighting using this method over that method. Do you understand this concept? If on paper (or computer) you can truthfully state that X MA is more effective in application than Y MA then you have to assume that X would be the one to study for the masses. Yes, later on you add in the equation of one's personal attributes (speed, strength, endurance, athletic ability, persona, etc.) to either improve upon what is learned or hinder it.

James

P.S. Ghost, also not all WC is equal or the same. So many variations, personal interrpretations out there. By this I mean that not all of us do the same things the same way. Almost like different arts completely...

[stricker]

i think ghostofwingchun is keeping the more solid logic here, keep it up dude.

sihing,


For example, some Karate systems promote block and then hit, a one two hit action, WC promotes a simultaneous defense/attack action, a one hit action (one less than the karate example).i'm sure there are times when the wing chun answer to a problem is actually less efficient than some other style. eg there are times in boxing where you might use an overhand. one move to hit and not get hit so its efficient, but a wing chun answer would be more defensive eg keep the elbow down and intercept, or whatever but it would be 1.5 to 2 moves depending. so in some cases wing chun may be less efficient!

sihing and Tony,

This is an example of efficiency and as Tony stated earlier, efficiency leads to effectiveness. Effectiveness means how well something works.

The aim in Wing Chun is to be more efficient the net result of effciency is effectiveness.
the question you still havent answered is how and why efficiency leads to effectiveness. the way i see it you have methods that are effective and methods that are ineffective, and of the effective ones, some are more efficient than others. but, to say efficiency leads to effectiveness your missing a few steps.

also, why is efficiency so important anyway? do alll those extra calories burned doing 2 moves instead of 1 really make that much difference??? maybe if your fighting rounds you dont want to tire yourself out too early but otherwise i cant see it making that big a difference.

[ghostofwingchun]

Hey Ghost,

Not that I am Tony, but I thought I would put my 2 cents in their. I agree that there are other good MA out there besides WC. I do believe also that there are different levels of effectiveness regarding MA. I try to look at what a particular system teaches in regards to the key concepts/principals that underlie the entire system, rather than individuals. For example, some Karate systems promote block and then hit, a one two hit action, WC promotes a simultaneous defense/attack action, a one hit action (one less than the karate example). This is an example of efficiency and as Tony stated earlier, efficiency leads to effectiveness. Effectiveness means how well something works. Well it is true that how the persons uses something reflects in how effective that thing will be, but if the movements, concepts/principals (Martial Arts = movement in combat) are inherently effective..... 'e.g.- using a tan sao side step into the round punch while punching simultaneously is a effective application, because 1st you hit him while he is hitting you, a surprise for him, 2nd you step out of the way of his followup or combo attack, leaving less for you to deal with, 3rd you have put yourself in a flanking position, away from his primary weapons, but still able to use all your weapons'..... then with everything being equal in regards to the persons attributes that are using it, you can say they will be more effective fighting using this method over that method. Do you understand this concept? If on paper (or computer) you can truthfully state that X MA is more effective in application than Y MA then you have to assume that X would be the one to study for the masses. Yes, later on you add in the equation of one's personal attributes (speed, strength, endurance, athletic ability, persona, etc.) to either improve upon what is learned or hinder it.

James

P.S. Ghost, also not all WC is equal or the same. So many variations, personal interrpretations out there. By this I mean that not all of us do the same things the same way. Almost like different arts completely...

Mr. James thank you so much for your reply! I understand that not everyone do wc the same way . . . this is part of reason why I ask questions! Here is why I am confused . . . let us step away from wc for a moment and ask what is effectiveness for any martial art. I am thinking it is in large part that technique or task or what ever actually works . . . though I think there is more to it but leave it at this for moment. . . so effectiveness does not imply efficiency . . . efficiency is how much effort or work goes into technique or task or whatever . . . but if technique or task or what ever does not work . . . or I can't make it work . . . then then it is not efficient . . . since efficiency means how much energy it takes to work . . . efficiency requires that something be effective before can even begin to talk about efficiency. You give example . . . but what if you can't make it work in fight . . . then it is not effective . . . so then it is not efficient. . . maybe some other person just duck swing and then hit and knock opponent out . . . he is effective. Let's say both you and person who duck make it work . . . how do you measure efficiency of two approaches . . . you did several things and took step and all . . . while he just duck and hit . . . who used more energy? I am all for using less energy . . . and wc kuit talks about twice the result with half the effort . . . which I am thinking deals with idea is to make our technique as efficienct as we can . . . so I agree that we should strive to be efficient in those things we do that are effective. . .. but I don't understand how we can compare with others. . . since to compare efficiency requires both doing same job or task . . so can compare efficiency of two different brands of clothes washer but cannot compare efficiency of clothes washer and stove . . . they do different jobs or tasks . . . can only say one uses less overall energy than other . . . but this is not efficiency . . . it is energy usage.

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Thank you stricker for kind words of encouragement!

Thanks,

Ghost

[AmanuJRY]

. . . I can read ambiguous statment a million times but it won't make meaning more clear . . . lol . . . so I ask question to resolve ambiguity for me.




I am thinking I understand what you are saying . . . but you say aim of wc is to be more efficient . . . efficiency as I understand is to accomplish same task by using less energy . . . but I don't understand how this necessarily leads to effectiveness . . . which I understand is how well something works . . . I am thinking that effectiveness or how well something works comes first . . . and then I try to make it more efficient . . . make it work with less energy expenditure . . . but to start with trying to do something with less energy won't ensure that it will work. Are we using the expressions efficiency and effectiveness to mean the same things?


. . . perhaps I hit someone with very weak punch but he clobbers me with huge overhand punch that knocks me silly but hits me later . . . I am thinking that is such a situation my punch was ineffective since did nothing to opponent . . . while his punch was effective since it knocked me silly . . . and efficiency hasn't even come into picture yet . . . this is why I don't understand you . . . can you explain?



Some very good points and questions....Mr. Ghost, I like you.

[ghostofwingchun]

Thank you Mr. Justin for word of encouragement as well . . . I am just trying to understand what people are saying.

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

the question you still havent answered is how and why efficiency leads to effectiveness.Stricker,
Yes this question was answered already the straight punch at proper wing chun range is most efficient because anything less by the opponent enables the wing chun practitioner to hit before being hit or at the very least occupy center to negate the incoming attack of his opponent.

[stricker]

no dude you got it the wrong way round! in the theoretical example your talking about the wing chun punch is most effective (cos you hit and dont get hit). it may be efficient but thats just an observation not a first principle.

[canglong]

The principle is the straight punch is on a straight line so it is the shortest distance between the two opponents and thats why its both efficient and effective.

[stricker]

ok this is silly just arguing over some little bit of logic thats really not very important, but your saying is:

a: wing chun straight line punch
b: effective
c: efficient

a is b and c, therefore b = c

Nah-naaaah! wrong answer.

i'm gonna tap out now ive dipped my toe in the murky waters of internet arguing over wing chun :p

[anerlich]

For example, some Karate systems promote block and then hit, a one two hit action, WC promotes a simultaneous defense/attack action, a one hit action (one less than the karate example).

Nice overgeneralisation about karate (watch some of Shihan Patrick McCarthy's vids sometime, there's some lovely refutations of your statements therein), but taking the "simultaneous block and attack" thing too literally can lead to less effectiveness.

Trying to, for just one example, block with a pak sao at exactly the same time that you strike the opponent is not particularly effective. Punching properly (or to distill Geoff Thompson's advice down to one sentence, "hitting f***in' hard"), requires a timed movement chain involving joints from the ankle to the wrist. Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple.

"Efficiency" is a term open to multiple definitions, much less grounded in the reality of combat than "effectiveness".

You might get there quicker, but if you hit like a mosquito, so what?

The WC straight punch is effective at medium range. In close, hooks, uppercuts, and overhands are more effective. To use a WC straight punch at such range would also be "inefficient", FWIW, as you cannot as easily generate power from there due to basic mechanics. If I'm wrong, why does every WC style have the the circular elbow strikes in BJ, the mechanics of which are practically identical to Jack Dempsey's hook?

[canglong]

i'm gonna tap out now ive dipped my toe in the murky waters of internet arguing over wing chunLOL
Stricker,
We are not arguing we are just trying to help Ghost this is friendly conversation and at this rate he may find a bill in the mail and since you contributed you are entitled to at least one ale compliments of Mr. Ghost.

[stricker]

canglong,

cool, take it easy :D

good points anerlich.

[lawrenceofidaho]

You might get there quicker, but if you hit like a mosquito, so what??
The only KO at the Idaho State Golden Glove championships this year, was in the middleweight division. One guy had a fast jab, but with (comparitively) little power behind it. The other fighter ate a couple of them, -realized they couldn't seriously hurt him, and then decided to just come forward throwing bombs....... The jabs were more "efficient" in the sense that they were traveling both; a straight line, and quicker, than the other guy's shots, -yet the opponent simply walked thru them, and knocked the "efficient" guy out with a combination of powerful hooks and uppercuts.

[sihing]

Mr. James thank you so much for your reply! I understand that not everyone do wc the same way . . . this is part of reason why I ask questions! Here is why I am confused . . . let us step away from wc for a moment and ask what is effectiveness for any martial art. I am thinking it is in large part that technique or task or what ever actually works . . . though I think there is more to it but leave it at this for moment. . . so effectiveness does not imply efficiency . . . efficiency is how much effort or work goes into technique or task or whatever . . . but if technique or task or what ever does not work . . . or I can't make it work . . . then then it is not efficient . . . since efficiency means how much energy it takes to work . . . efficiency requires that something be effective before can even begin to talk about efficiency. You give example . . . but what if you can't make it work in fight . . . then it is not effective . . . so then it is not efficient. . . maybe some other person just duck swing and then hit and knock opponent out . . . he is effective. Let's say both you and person who duck make it work . . . how do you measure efficiency of two approaches . . . you did several things and took step and all . . . while he just duck and hit . . . who used more energy? I am all for using less energy . . . and wc kuit talks about twice the result with half the effort . . . which I am thinking deals with idea is to make our technique as efficienct as we can . . . so I agree that we should strive to be efficient in those things we do that are effective. . .. but I don't understand how we can compare with others. . . since to compare efficiency requires both doing same job or task . . so can compare efficiency of two different brands of clothes washer but cannot compare efficiency of clothes washer and stove . . . they do different jobs or tasks . . . can only say one uses less overall energy than other . . . but this is not efficiency . . . it is energy usage.

Thanks,

GhostEffectiveness is the same for all MA, what works the best for any encounter. Movement is movement, just the way the person executes it is different. Some punch fast and some slow, some kick fast some slow, some with broken rhythm, some straight ahead. You have to learn to not always allow your opponent to set you up, but to do the visa versa to them.

Okay, firstly, efficiency means less work for the person executing it. This is a good thing for the average guy. The WC straight punch is more efficient in movement than a rounder moving punch because less distance is traveled, therefore less distance means less time to execute (effectiveness). Yeah, the round punch is effective too, as you can see boxers doing it all the time, but the idea is how much training is needed to make it work. The boxer will need to be faster physically to complete the movement than a guy using the WC straight punch if the two are thrown at the same time. So when someone says the boxer could hook the guy throwing WC punches, the same could be said that the WC guy could straight punch the boxer's hooks. On paper you can see that one thing is more efficient, all you need to do is apply it. Why would an efficient thing be harder to apply than a less efficient thing? Maybe they are the same in when learning it but being more efficient alone makes one slightly more effective. The same question you asked, "What if a person cannot apply it", applies also to the duck and punch example you used. IMO if you can move without any disabilities you can apply my example. I've had kids do it with ADD.


Concerning my example (Tan/side step and punch) these are one movement done simultaneously (so not one two then three movements), and can be applied as easy as the duck and punch, which is a one two movement, meaning more time needed to apply. The idea here is what puts you in the better position, the duck and punch or my idea?? Remember, the person throwing you the punch is moving forward to, stepping and such. Movement is everywhere, so instead of moving backwards, move to the side, still having the ability to counter at the sametime. Think about it...

Gotta run to class now, more later..



James

[canglong]

Lawrence,
When in a fight relying on the abilities of others to be less than yours would not be very prudent no matter how many times it may have happened in the past and when a person's punches are naturally less powerful than average being slower is not a step in the right direction.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Lawrence,
When in a fight relying on the abilities of others to be less than yours would not be very prudent no matter how many times it may have happened in the past and when a person's punches are naturally less powerful than average being slower is not a step in the right direction.
Tony,

all I was trying to point out is that if you only think of efficiency, you might be blown over by a powerful fighter.

Likewise, a fighter who only thinks of power (and rarely of efficiency) will have problems also, IMO........

-Lawrence

[canglong]

all I was trying to point out is that if you only think of efficiency, you might be blown over by a powerful fighter.

Likewise, a fighter who only thinks of power (and rarely of efficiency) will have problems also, IMO........ Lawrence,
We can definitely agree there.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Okay, firstly, efficiency means less work for the person executing it. This is a good thing for the average guy. The WC straight punch is more efficient in movement than a rounder moving punch because less distance is traveled, therefore less distance means less time to execute (effectiveness).
James,

I must disagree that "less time to execute" equals effectiveness....... :(



Yeah, the round punch is effective too, as you can see boxers doing it all the time, but the idea is how much training is needed to make it work. The boxer will need to be faster physically to complete the movement than a guy using the WC straight punch if the two are thrown at the same time.
The example you provide doesn't necessarily hold up because a boxer doesn't stand still when throwing a hook. Mostly he is offlining / evading when he throws it (i.e. - simultaneous attack & defense!!).



So when someone says the boxer could hook the guy throwing WC punches, the same could be said that the WC guy could straight punch the boxer's hooks.
If neither has trained against the other's (unique) style of attack, then both are vulnerable........



On paper you can see that one thing is more efficient, all you need to do is apply it.
Easier said than done?
(There is a time for each, IMO.......)



Why would an efficient thing be harder to apply than a less efficient thing?
Perhaps because it's easier for the defender to adapt to.



Maybe they are the same in when learning it but being more efficient alone makes one slightly more effective.
Possibly.......



The same question you asked, "What if a person cannot apply it", applies also to the duck and punch example you used. IMO if you can move without any disabilities you can apply my example. I've had kids do it with ADD.
My wife is not a particularly athletic person, but she learned the duck & punch rather easily....... I suspect the ADD kids would probably do just fine with it as well.



Concerning my example (Tan/side step and punch) these are one movement done simultaneously (so not one two then three movements), and can be applied as easy as the duck and punch, which is a one two movement, meaning more time needed to apply.
I am not saying it is not effective, just pointing out that is may not be as effective in all circumstances or against certain types of fighters.

-Lawrence

[anerlich]

duck and punch, which is a one two movement, meaning more time needed to apply

I don't know what a "duck and punch" might be, but punching on the slip and weaving and punching to the solar plexus are definitely NOT one-two movements. And arguably more "efficient" because you do not need to employ your non punching hand with a tan sao or other shape.

The straight punch is only efficient/effective at certain ranges. Too close.like in a clinch, you cannot get the necessary range for your punch to be effective. But you can rip and hook from there with great effectiveness.

[lawrenceofidaho]

I don't know what a "duck and punch" might be.
I assumed the reference was to an earlier post of mine saying that a "Dempsey Roll" and left hook could easily knock out a chain punching robot (so that's what I was responding to.)

-L

[ghostofwingchun]

The principle is the straight punch is on a straight line so it is the shortest distance between the two opponents and thats why its both efficient and effective.

Mr. Jacobs I was hoping you'd answer my questions . . . this leaves me further confused . . . I hope you will help me understand.

If I go to climb mountain . . . shortest way up is straight up to summit . . . shortest distance is straight line as you say . . . this is often not most efficient . . . but actually will take the most energy . . . the route that go round and round mountain is much longer and take much less energy . . . so here the longest route is most efficient . . . we all can think of similar things . . . and same I am thinking this can be true in some instances in fighting . . . for example when center is blocked . . . hook that goes around blockage uses less energy since only involves arm movement than moving whole body to get open straight line . . . or to force center open . . . also wc punch is not only straight punch . . . jab or cross or many other martial arts have some straight punch . . . so these would be equally efficient using above definition so wc punch could not be called most efficient. Here is my concern with this use of expressions efficient and effective . . . both have rather standard accepted definitions . . . which will apply to everything . . . these definitions seem to be your own . . . like my boss who tells me to go home and have relaxing weekend . . . then tells me what he means by relaxing weekend is to finish project before monday. . . lol . . . if I start defining things as I want to . . . if I can say effectiveness is what ever I do . . . then to say I am most effective or what I do is effective is meaningless to others. I am also thinking that using this definition I hit guy with weak wc punch and then he clobbers me hook . . . and I can say I lost fight but I was more effective and efficient! . . . since we each threw only one punch and mine was more effective and efficient by above definition. . . this is why I am confused.

Thanks,

Ghost

[lawrenceofidaho]

Ghost,

you've brought up a number of excellent discussion points........

It's nice to see someone doing it in a polite & gentlemanly for a change too.
(I'm still working on that part for my own posts. ;) )

-Lawrence

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. James thank you for your reply!


Effectiveness is the same for all MA, what works the best for any encounter. Movement is movement, just the way the person executes it is different. Some punch fast and some slow, some kick fast some slow, some with broken rhythm, some straight ahead. You have to learn to not always allow your opponent to set you up, but to do the visa versa to them.


I am thinking you are right that definition of effectiveness and efficiency must apply to all martial arts or it is meaningless expression . . . I do not understand what you mean movement is movement . . . not everyone move the same way . . . not all martial arts train to do same things . . . will you clarify?



Okay, firstly, efficiency means less work for the person executing it. This is a good thing for the average guy. The WC straight punch is more efficient in movement than a rounder moving punch because less distance is traveled, therefore less distance means less time to execute (effectiveness). Yeah, the round punch is effective too, as you can see boxers doing it all the time, but the idea is how much training is needed to make it work. The boxer will need to be faster physically to complete the movement than a guy using the WC straight punch if the two are thrown at the same time. So when someone says the boxer could hook the guy throwing WC punches, the same could be said that the WC guy could straight punch the boxer's hooks. On paper you can see that one thing is more efficient, all you need to do is apply it. Why would an efficient thing be harder to apply than a less efficient thing? Maybe they are the same in when learning it but being more efficient alone makes one slightly more effective. The same question you asked, "What if a person cannot apply it", applies also to the duck and punch example you used. IMO if you can move without any disabilities you can apply my example. I've had kids do it with ADD.


I am thinking standard definition of efficiency is using less work to do same task . . . more accurately useful work divided by total work . . . just using less total work is not same thing . . . you can use less total work and still be very inefficient . . . this formula implies task is successful . . . punch that misses or throw that fails or whatever cannot be efficient . . . unless you want to say I used less energy than opponent by losing . . . lol! Effectiveness is I am thinking at minimum consistency in accomplishing task . . . but I am thinking that task must involve more than accomplishing movement . . . how can I say that punch that has no effect on opponent is effective . . . it is the same as punch that misses . . . neither has effect on opponent and both accomplish movement. I am also thinking that I often cannot say whether something is more efficient or more effective than something else on paper . . . to do this involves making many assumptions . . . including that I can make technique work against opponent . . . that it will have effect on opponent . . . and so on. . . and there may be factors I do not know to take into account on paper. . . being able to do movement is not I am thinking the same thing as being able to make it work . . . I can make movements of jab cross and so on but this does not make me good boxer . . . being able to do movements don't make them effective . . . or efficient . . . task involves more than just making movement I am thinking.



Concerning my example (Tan/side step and punch) these are one movement done simultaneously (so not one two then three movements), and can be applied as easy as the duck and punch, which is a one two movement, meaning more time needed to apply. The idea here is what puts you in the better position, the duck and punch or my idea?? Remember, the person throwing you the punch is moving forward to, stepping and such. Movement is everywhere, so instead of moving backwards, move to the side, still having the ability to counter at the sametime. Think about it...

Thank you for advice . . . I do think about these things . . . and try to think without preconceptions . . . I am thinking it is not good idea to get into what ifs of these things . . . because we are taking things not in full context of fight . . . and making assumptions and so on . . . and of course nothing can be proved on paper . . . for example I could say that when you step opponent will track you so you will not be in better position . . . or that you won't be able to step . . . or move body . . . faster than he can punch . . . and so on . . . but this is all on paper . . . maybe you can do it . . . if you can this is good thing . . . if you can't it is neither efficient or effective. I guess what I am getting at is comparing different martial arts . . . which have different tasks . . . different strategies tactics and ways of moving . . . is like comparing apples and oranges . . . if other martial artist wins fight how can I say what he does is less effective than how I win fight . . . we both accomplish same thing . . . I can ballpark guess as which uses more energy . . . but this is not efficiency this is total energy usage. . . I am not trying to criticize any person or any martial art . . . boxing is good wc is good jujitsu is good and so on but they are are apples and oranges . . . cannot compare effectiveness or efficiency of arts on paper . . . and it is not art we compare anyway but person's ability to use art that we see . . . this is why I don't understand many statements made here.

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Thank you Mr. Lawrence for kind words . . . I do think being respectful is important for discussion to exist . . . there is too much Jerry Springer drama in world I am thinking!

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. Jacobs I hope you don't think I am picking on you . . . it is just that some of your statements I find very thought provoking . . . this is a good thing!


Lawrence,
When in a fight relying on the abilities of others to be less than yours would not be very prudent no matter how many times it may have happened in the past and when a person's punches are naturally less powerful than average being slower is not a step in the right direction.

I am not sure what you mean by abilities . . . this is a ambiguous expression . . . and can have many meanings . . . skill in wc is an ability . . . so is speed . . . so are lots of things . . . in a fight I hope opponent has all lesser abilities . . . lol . . . if not I am in loads of trouble . . . this is why I train . . . to increase my abilites. I am thinking that you are right that I can't rely on things to remain constant across opponents . . . they bring different things to fight . . . so I need to be adaptable in my wc to be successful in fight . . . if I have more power than opponent should I not use it . . . if I have more speed should I not use it . . . I am thinking it is not prudent to throw away advantage if I have it . . . if I have knife and he doesn't I am not going to throw away knife! . . . lol . . . part of being adaptable I am thinking is to use my advantages whatever they are to my favor . . . being adaptable I am thinking is to use a strategy that takes into account my advantages in abilities and my disadvantages in abilities with opponent . . . I am thinking this is what makes it so interesting . . . a puzzle waiting to be solved. In situations where I can't size up opponent . . . then I am thinking that I go with my strengths . . . what I do best . . . and hope for the best outcome . . . or at least that I last long enough to I get opportunity to better size up opponent. . . so I am thinking that person with really good natural power should use it . . . and since it is his strength should go with it . . . until he finds it not work . . . and then adapt strategy. . . does this make any sense?

Thanks,

Ghost

[AmanuJRY]

Thank you Mr. Lawrence for kind words . . . I do think being respectful is important for discussion to exist . . . there is too much Jerry Springer drama in world I am thinking!

Thanks,

Ghost

I agree, but the problem is that some beat you down with their circular logic and screwball concepts until your patience wears thin...

I'm not promoting 'Jerry Springer' drama, just saying internet forums are a bad place to go to avoid drama. If we all agreed on things, we'd be talking about the latest movie we saw or book we read, or which is the best kind of coffee, or better yet sharing training ideas. But we all have different perspectives and want desperately to be right.

I challenge everyone to read, if you haven't already, the first chapter of Robert Anton Wilson's - Prometheus Rising, and then go back and read the arguments of this post. If that doesn't enlighten you...

[ghostofwingchun]

I agree, but the problem is that some beat you down with their circular logic and screwball concepts until your patience wears thin...

I'm not promoting 'Jerry Springer' drama, just saying internet forums are a bad place to go to avoid drama. If we all agreed on things, we'd be talking about the latest movie we saw or book we read, or which is the best kind of coffee, or better yet sharing training ideas. But we all have different perspectives and want desperately to be right.

I challenge everyone to read, if you haven't already, the first chapter of Robert Anton Wilson's - Prometheus Rising, and then go back and read the arguments of this post. If that doesn't enlighten you...

Mr. Justin thank you for replying to me! I am thinking it takes two to dance . . . and two to make drama . . . but it only takes one to be polite . . . I do not say this to admonish only to explain how I am thinking . . . so please don't take it personally. Perhaps it is more useful to approach discussions without aim of being right . . . but with aim of understanding other . . . and possibly learning . . . learning can only take place when you are wrong . . . so I like it when I am shown to be wrong . . . it proves I am learning . . . lol . . . it must be very dull to be always right . . . it is much more interesting I am thinking to always be learning . . . which means I must be wrong a lot of time . . . lol . . . anyway this is my thinking.

Thanks,

Ghost

[sihing]

LOL
Stricker,
We are not arguing we are just trying to help Ghost this is friendly conversation and at this rate he may find a bill in the mail and since you contributed you are entitled to at least one ale compliments of Mr. Ghost.

LOL, that was funny getting a bill in the mail. What is your rate??

JR

[sihing]

Mr. James thank you for your reply!



I am thinking you are right that definition of effectiveness and efficiency must apply to all martial arts or it is meaningless expression . . . I do not understand what you mean movement is movement . . . not everyone move the same way . . . not all martial arts train to do same things . . . will you clarify?



I am thinking standard definition of efficiency is using less work to do same task . . . more accurately useful work divided by total work . . . just using less total work is not same thing . . . you can use less total work and still be very inefficient . . . this formula implies task is successful . . . punch that misses or throw that fails or whatever cannot be efficient . . . unless you want to say I used less energy than opponent by losing . . . lol! Effectiveness is I am thinking at minimum consistency in accomplishing task . . . but I am thinking that task must involve more than accomplishing movement . . . how can I say that punch that has no effect on opponent is effective . . . it is the same as punch that misses . . . neither has effect on opponent and both accomplish movement. I am also thinking that I often cannot say whether something is more efficient or more effective than something else on paper . . . to do this involves making many assumptions . . . including that I can make technique work against opponent . . . that it will have effect on opponent . . . and so on. . . and there may be factors I do not know to take into account on paper. . . being able to do movement is not I am thinking the same thing as being able to make it work . . . I can make movements of jab cross and so on but this does not make me good boxer . . . being able to do movements don't make them effective . . . or efficient . . . task involves more than just making movement I am thinking.



Thank you for advice . . . I do think about these things . . . and try to think without preconceptions . . . I am thinking it is not good idea to get into what ifs of these things . . . because we are taking things not in full context of fight . . . and making assumptions and so on . . . and of course nothing can be proved on paper . . . for example I could say that when you step opponent will track you so you will not be in better position . . . or that you won't be able to step . . . or move body . . . faster than he can punch . . . and so on . . . but this is all on paper . . . maybe you can do it . . . if you can this is good thing . . . if you can't it is neither efficient or effective. I guess what I am getting at is comparing different martial arts . . . which have different tasks . . . different strategies tactics and ways of moving . . . is like comparing apples and oranges . . . if other martial artist wins fight how can I say what he does is less effective than how I win fight . . . we both accomplish same thing . . . I can ballpark guess as which uses more energy . . . but this is not efficiency this is total energy usage. . . I am not trying to criticize any person or any martial art . . . boxing is good wc is good jujitsu is good and so on but they are are apples and oranges . . . cannot compare effectiveness or efficiency of arts on paper . . . and it is not art we compare anyway but person's ability to use art that we see . . . this is why I don't understand many statements made here.

Thanks,

Ghost

Just a short answer cause I gotta run soon...Regarding the tracking thing, yes this is possible, for both of us, not just the other guy. The idea is timing, at that point of total commitment from your opponent. I've learned that if the opponent can hit me (proper range is established) then I too can hit him, therefore the oppotunity to strike at the same time is there, I just have to apply it, just like the other guy has to apply his stuff on me. It is equal and the same. Like Tony said, in the proper range the WC punch is the most effective because it is the shortest distance between two points, but like Andrew said, at times depending on positioning a hook or uppecut persay may also suffice. There can be allot of What IF's arising when talking about fighting. IMO you cannot let your opponent control all the things happening in a fight. Sooner or later you must TRY to take it away from him, and control the outcome of the fight yourself. If this is not possible then you are in trouble, and running becomes the strategy of choice, lol.

More later...

James

[sihing]

Nice overgeneralisation about karate (watch some of Shihan Patrick McCarthy's vids sometime, there's some lovely refutations of your statements therein), but taking the "simultaneous block and attack" thing too literally can lead to less effectiveness.

Trying to, for just one example, block with a pak sao at exactly the same time that you strike the opponent is not particularly effective. Punching properly (or to distill Geoff Thompson's advice down to one sentence, "hitting f***in' hard"), requires a timed movement chain involving joints from the ankle to the wrist. Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple.

"Efficiency" is a term open to multiple definitions, much less grounded in the reality of combat than "effectiveness".

You might get there quicker, but if you hit like a mosquito, so what?

The WC straight punch is effective at medium range. In close, hooks, uppercuts, and overhands are more effective. To use a WC straight punch at such range would also be "inefficient", FWIW, as you cannot as easily generate power from there due to basic mechanics. If I'm wrong, why does every WC style have the the circular elbow strikes in BJ, the mechanics of which are practically identical to Jack Dempsey's hook?

I'm sure there are Karate guys that apply the simultaneous attack/defense tactic later on in their training. But is it a concept taught from day one and a underlying concept at that. Can their structure and set up allow them to do this on a consistent basis? From my experience with karate people this is not so, and further investigation has not shown this to be common place in that system of MA. I could be wrong of course, as I do not know everything about the karate system.

Like Tony said, the application of the WC punch is most effective at a certain range, so yes I agree in the clinch you wouldn't throwing it out very often. At that range other things would be used in conjunction with a few other tactics. WC is more than chain punches and trapping hands, it is a complete system capable of handling a variety of situations. Training and understanding what you are learning is key here. Investigation of what others are doing from varying MA is important also.

Gotta run..

James

[ghostofwingchun]

I am sorry but I just don't understand . . . how can anyone say wc punch is effective . . . this is like saying jab is effective . . . sure either wc punch or jab can be effective . . . with huge emphasis on can be . . . but is not effective per se . . . both can also be ineffective . . . they can be pitiful or amazing. . . I am thinking it is our ability to use them and get result that makes them effective. I am thinking what many are talking about is things that have proved effective for others over time . . . which leads to conclusion that if it worked form many people before it may work for me too . . . this is I am thinking sound to extent that I understand that this is not necessarily the case . . . but only statistical probability . . . it still depends on ability . . . slam dunk has proved effective technique in basketball but I don't have ability to do it! . . . lay up has proved effective technque in basketball too . . . I have ability to to that better . . . but lay up is only as effective as my ability . . . technique doesn't do itself.

Thanks,

Ghost

[canglong]

. . you are right that many times I don't fully understand statement and this is why I ask for clarification . . . so that I can better understand what person is saying . . . I can read ambiguous statment a million times but it won't make meaning more clear . . . lol . . . so I ask question to resolve ambiguity for me.
Ghost,
Sometimes the reason you lack a complete understanding of others reply is because you want to interject your own personal opinion into their response which as you say then makes a statement seem ambiguous when in fact it is not. For example, your question was
. . . so I am confused. What makes wc punch more efficient . . . even by your definition?
to which the reply was
The fact that it is straight.To which you wrongly conclude that
. . . efficiency is doing same job with less expended energy . . . how can you say wc punch takes less energy than jab or hook . . . and how efficient can something be that isn't effective . . . lol?
and then you ask,
Why would something that moves straight necessarily involve the use of less energy?
The deffinition of efficient or efficiency is not less energy that is your own interpretation which is incorrect.

2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste
synonym see EFFECTIVE
- ef·fi·cient·ly adverb

So, if your earlier statement is true ....
I am interested in how others train wc too . . . and their views.
Then if these answers are unable to provide you with a complete understanding through this medium you should probably visit other schools in person instead of relying on a mix of other's experiences and your own opinion to get answer to things you can better understand with experience you gain by visiting different schools.

Ghost,
It's been fun Happy Holidays much love and respect to you your Sifu and those you hold dear, see ya next year.

Happpy Holidays to All

[sihing]

I am sorry but I just don't understand . . . how can anyone say wc punch is effective . . . this is like saying jab is effective . . . sure either wc punch or jab can be effective . . . with huge emphasis on can be . . . but is not effective per se . . . both can also be ineffective . . . they can be pitiful or amazing. . . I am thinking it is our ability to use them and get result that makes them effective. I am thinking what many are talking about is things that have proved effective for others over time . . . which leads to conclusion that if it worked form many people before it may work for me too . . . this is I am thinking sound to extent that I understand that this is not necessarily the case . . . but only statistical probability . . . it still depends on ability . . . slam dunk has proved effective technique in basketball but I don't have ability to do it! . . . lay up has proved effective technque in basketball too . . . I have ability to to that better . . . but lay up is only as effective as my ability . . . technique doesn't do itself.

Thanks,

Ghost


Title : Why is the Wing Chun Punch Effective ?

Answer (According to me):

1) The punch is a fast movement. Straight lines are shorter distances than round lines, therefore less time is needed to execute it. If you walk from to the other side of the room using a straight line, you will get there faster than if you used a curved line. Therefore you do not have to possess 'Bruce Lee' like physical speed abilities to make the punch work effectively. (Efficiency principal)

2) The punch is non telegraphic. When punchers use torque or twisting movements to generate power, they telegraph the movement with their bodies first before the fist moves to punch. In the WC punch, when the punch starts the fist is the first thing moved, before anything else. Therefore there is less time for the opponent to pick up on the action coming towards them. Remember, range of execution is important here. (Effectiveness principal)

3) You can actually move and punch simultaneously when using the WC punch, when using the torque or twisting action you cannot, you are temporarily immobile, even for a second or so. Since you are squarer on with the opponent, and the power is generated by using the whole body moving forward (like a push), you do not need to torque or twist while punching. This action allows for better follow-up and the ability to attack while moving sideways or backwards, all directions. (Efficiency and Effectiveness principal)

4) Using the WC punching motion allows one an easier time to adapt and interrupt their movement while in motion. Using rounder more committed movement’s forces you to wait until the action is completed before adapting to something your opponent does. It is easier to stop the WC motion in mid flight and adapt to changing strategy's or positions used by your opponent. (Efficiency Principal).

There you go, just a few reasons why (with explanations) the WC punch works so well.


James

[ghostofwingchun]

Thank you Mr. Jacobs for responding to my questions!


Ghost,
Sometimes the reason you lack a complete understanding of others reply is because you want to interject your own personal opinion into their response which as you say then makes a statement seem ambiguous when in fact it is not.



I am sorry if I do this . . . I only give my views to explain why I don't understand . . . so that you have referece to help you better explain things to me . . . perhaps to expose my error . . . and thus help me learn . . . also I am examining what I am told . . . and questioning it . . . so that I can determine for myself whether it make sense or not . . . and so on . . . this is why I give views. Please understand that statement that is not ambiguous to you . . . may appear so to others . . . especially when expressions are used that have not been defined . . . this is why I often ask for people to define expressions.


For example, your question was to which the reply was . . .To which you wrongly conclude that and then you ask. . . .,The deffinition of efficient or efficiency is not less energy that is your own interpretation which is incorrect.



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=efficient

The entry for efficient . . . which seems to be one you used too . . . says "2 : productive of desired effects; especially : productive without waste" . . . you left off last part . . . no matter . . . but let us look at this definition . . . it talks about productive of desired effects . . . but especially . . . those effects produced without waste . . . this refers to my talk of using less energy . . . although I admit it can refer to effect produced with less movement . . . but once again you see less movement does not necessarily mean less energy . . . so to say something is efficient is itself some what ambiguous . . lol . . . I should say that I was understanding efficient in physics way . . . I think if you do some research into how physics explains efficiency you will see where I come from . . . I work in science so tend to think in scientific terms . . . this is good example of what I am talking about . . . we have different definitions for these terms . . . thus I have learned something . . . so I am pleased . . . I hope you learn some thing too . . . that you use terms differently that some others may understand terms . . . this can cause confusion. None of this . . . of course . . . responds to my question about how can something that not work be called efficient or effective?



So, if your earlier statement is true ....Then if these answers are unable to provide you with a complete understanding through this medium you should probably visit other schools in person instead of relying on a mix of other's experiences and your own opinion to get answer to things you can better understand with experience you gain by visiting different schools.

Thank you for advice about visiting other schools . . . yes this is good idea . . . and goes without saying . . . it is always better to see things with own eyes . . . and so on . . . but we are here on forum . . . if we were all together would not need forum . . . lol . . . I am just asking for definition of terms and expressions here . . . and questioning them . . . of course I ask questions based on my own experience . . . this is only way anyone can ask questions . . . so do not hold it against me . . . lol . . . but I am thinking many questions can be answered easily and does not require visit . . . such as can technique that fails . . . like punch that missed . . . be efficient or effective in your view? . . . using your definition for efficient and effective. How does my visiting other school matter one way or other in answering question like this? Please understand I am not trying to be difficult . . . only understand your views better . . . and I don't see how you could answer question better in person than over forum . . . perhaps you could . . . this is why I ask though.



Ghost,
It's been fun Happy Holidays much love and respect to you your Sifu and those you hold dear, see ya next year.

Happpy Holidays to All

Thanks Mr. Jacobs . . . and Happy Holidays to you too! I very much enjoy speaking with you.

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. James thanks for writing this short article for us!


Title : Why is the Wing Chun Punch Effective ?

Answer (According to me):

1) The punch is a fast movement. Straight lines are shorter distances than round lines, therefore less time is needed to execute it. If you walk from to the other side of the room using a straight line, you will get there faster than if you used a curved line. Therefore you do not have to possess 'Bruce Lee' like physical speed abilities to make the punch work effectively. (Efficiency principal)



I am thinking that straight line can . . . emphasis on can . . . be shortest route . . . if nothing in the way . . . but if center is blocked shortest route changes . . . also target may not be directly in front . . . for example maybe I can't hit groin with front kick since he is turned but can hit with hook kick . . . in this case shortest distance to target is curve . . . I am thinking that you are making assumption that thing moving in straight line and thing moviing in curve travel at same speed . . . this may not be case in all situations . . . curve because of angular velocity may move much faster than straight line . . . finally I do not see why hook needs more physical abilities than straight punch to execute . . . can you explain why you say this?


2) The punch is non telegraphic. When punchers use torque or twisting movements to generate power, they telegraph the movement with their bodies first before the fist moves to punch. In the WC punch, when the punch starts the fist is the first thing moved, before anything else. Therefore there is less time for the opponent to pick up on the action coming towards them. Remember, range of execution is important here. (Effectiveness principal)


I am thinking you underestimate what good strikers do . . . from what I have seen then torque and punch at same time . . . similar to wc turning punch or stepping punch . . . all one movement . . . even boxers talk about hand before body for speed . . . good martial artist whatever art is not telegraphic I am thinking . . . this is not just wc.


3) You can actually move and punch simultaneously when using the WC punch, when using the torque or twisting action you cannot, you are temporarily immobile, even for a second or so. Since you are squarer on with the opponent, and the power is generated by using the whole body moving forward (like a push), you do not need to torque or twist while punching. This action allows for better follow-up and the ability to attack while moving sideways or backwards, all directions. (Efficiency and Effectiveness principal)


I am thinking that wc punch can be very good . . . if used in right circumstance . . . and person has ability to make it work well . . . there are also circumstances where hook . . . even stationary hook . . . may be great to do . . . you talk about being temporarily immobile . . . ok but maybe it not matter in situation . . . when you do wc punch are you sometimes stationary? Boxers seem to be very mobile and have great footwork . . . even with hooks . . .and seem to follow up very well . . . I am thinking wc punch allows certain follow ups while boxing punches allow for different follow ups . . . but I wonder how anyone can say one is better than other?


4) Using the WC punching motion allows one an easier time to adapt and interrupt their movement while in motion. Using rounder more committed movement’s forces you to wait until the action is completed before adapting to something your opponent does. It is easier to stop the WC motion in mid flight and adapt to changing strategy's or positions used by your opponent. (Efficiency Principal).


Thai kick is very committed . . . yet seems to work very well . . . because I am thinking that thai fighter uses other things than wc fighter to deal with committment . . . I agree one hundred percent that hooks can be more committed than straight punches but this is part I am thinking of trade offs . . . hook or straight punch each has advantages and disadvantages . . . it is apple and oranges . . . perhaps key is finding circumstances when I use each to its advantage and not to disadvantage . . . it is like stepping straight or turning . . . one is not better than other . . . you can list why stepping stright is great . . . or list why turning is better . . . all valid points . . . but there is a time when stepping straight may produce better result than turning or when turning works better than stepping. . . I am thinking one is not more effective or efficient than other . . . it is how we use them . . . the results that we get that make it so. I do not think anyone will argue that wc punch can work well . . . in right circumstances and with right ability . . . like many other technique. Anyway . . . this is my thinking . . . please help me understand if I am wrong in my thinking.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Ultimatewingchun]

You've hit the nail on the head with these remarks, Ghost...

"I am thinking that straight line can . . . emphasis on can . . . be shortest route . . . if nothing in the way . . . but if center is blocked shortest route changes . . . also target may not be directly in front . . . for example maybe I can't hit groin with front kick since he is turned but can hit with hook kick . . . in this case shortest distance to target is curve . . . I am thinking that you are making assumption that thing moving in straight line and thing moviing in curve travel at same speed . . . this may not be case in all situations . . . curve because of angular velocity may move much faster than straight line . . . finally I do not see why hook needs more physical abilities than straight punch to execute . . . can you explain why you say this?"


***ONLY PEOPLE who don't spar/fight regularly with worthy opponents would still cling to the idea that only straight line hitting or kicking is efficient. A good fighter knows that he needs both straight and round (hooking) strikes/kicks in his arsenal. This is not to say that straight line attacks shouldn't be used more often than rounded ones - but the importance of the rounded strike (for the reasons you gave) cannot be ignored.

[sihing]

Mr. James thanks for writing this short article for us!




I am thinking that straight line can . . . emphasis on can . . . be shortest route . . . if nothing in the way . . . but if center is blocked shortest route changes . . . also target may not be directly in front . . . for example maybe I can't hit groin with front kick since he is turned but can hit with hook kick . . . in this case shortest distance to target is curve . . . I am thinking that you are making assumption that thing moving in straight line and thing moviing in curve travel at same speed . . . this may not be case in all situations . . . curve because of angular velocity may move much faster than straight line . . . finally I do not see why hook needs more physical abilities than straight punch to execute . . . can you explain why you say this?



I am thinking you underestimate what good strikers do . . . from what I have seen then torque and punch at same time . . . similar to wc turning punch or stepping punch . . . all one movement . . . even boxers talk about hand before body for speed . . . good martial artist whatever art is not telegraphic I am thinking . . . this is not just wc.



I am thinking that wc punch can be very good . . . if used in right circumstance . . . and person has ability to make it work well . . . there are also circumstances where hook . . . even stationary hook . . . may be great to do . . . you talk about being temporarily immobile . . . ok but maybe it not matter in situation . . . when you do wc punch are you sometimes stationary? Boxers seem to be very mobile and have great footwork . . . even with hooks . . .and seem to follow up very well . . . I am thinking wc punch allows certain follow ups while boxing punches allow for different follow ups . . . but I wonder how anyone can say one is better than other?



Thai kick is very committed . . . yet seems to work very well . . . because I am thinking that thai fighter uses other things than wc fighter to deal with committment . . . I agree one hundred percent that hooks can be more committed than straight punches but this is part I am thinking of trade offs . . . hook or straight punch each has advantages and disadvantages . . . it is apple and oranges . . . perhaps key is finding circumstances when I use each to its advantage and not to disadvantage . . . it is like stepping straight or turning . . . one is not better than other . . . you can list why stepping stright is great . . . or list why turning is better . . . all valid points . . . but there is a time when stepping straight may produce better result than turning or when turning works better than stepping. . . I am thinking one is not more effective or efficient than other . . . it is how we use them . . . the results that we get that make it so. I do not think anyone will argue that wc punch can work well . . . in right circumstances and with right ability . . . like many other technique. Anyway . . . this is my thinking . . . please help me understand if I am wrong in my thinking.

Thanks,

Ghost

Ghost,

Are you here to learn about WC, or put it down at every opportunity you can? No faith means no effectiveness. If you question everything you learn of course it will not work for you.

Firstly, these things I wrote about, are not absolutes, written in stone, guaranteed 100% to work no matter who you are, where ever you are. NO INSTRUCTOR OR MA CAN GUARANTEE THAT. But they do work on a consistent basis when applied correctly in the right manner. Factors such as positioning and set up apply to ALL Martial Arts and their applications. If you don't practice it, then you won't be able to apply it, therefore it is not effective. You can go on forever saying, well at TIMES THIS WORKS BETTER BUT NOT ALL THE TIME, well if you can't apply the whole set up of it and how you position yourself then yeah it won't work. Boxers set people up with their combinations and tactics. They do not use the WC delivery system to do this, if they did their boxing would not work so well. Grapplers the same, the set up is different.

When you say straight line can be shortest route, only if something is not in the way. Whatta think traps are for. If their is an obstruction in the way you remove it, and if that is not possible, then control it and move around it. Basic WC principal. Hit the dummy for awhile and practice with some intense people putting up obstructions and you will have the ability to crash right through them.


Regarding your statement that I am "UNDERESTIMATING", well you are wrong because that is the first mistake. Yes, boxers throw fast hook and round punches for sure. I never said it doesn't work. The title of the short article was not 'WHY THE WC PUNCH IS FAR SUPERIOR TO EVERY OTHER PUNCH OUT THEIR" but why it is effective. You once again put your own interpretation of what you think it means. Do me a favor, stand in front of a mirror and throw some normal boxing type punches towards yourself. Observe what moves first and what moves second, third and so forth. If someone moves the fist first the arm will straighten first, how do they coordinate the body rotation to generate the power need to make it an effective punch? My understanding is to put the body behind the punch to generate power. The shoulder will move slightly ahead of the fist to do this, it leads the movements, therefore there is a set up here and telegraphic motion. Yes they try to make it non-telegraphic, of course, it is always the one that the other didn't see that knocks him out. But IMO is it easier to do this with a smaller motion. If you believe WC punch is a smaller motion overall, as I do then it is fair to say it is less telegraphic and easier to train so, than a larger movement. More training, less typing....

Ghost, so you’re telling me that the sometimes being immobile in application of an attack is better than having the ability to move at all times? Wouldn't that leave you open to the counters from your opponent, standing still in combat? Oh yeah, I forgot we are talking about other styles of MA, so they can get countered, sorry for the misinterpretation.;) Sounds to me that your making the case for weaknesses in the WC system (I find that common place here, on a WC forum, so called WC practitioners find more fault than good). I disagree with your assessment Ghost, it is always better to have the ability to move and strike simultaneously than the have to strike and be still, IMO. Believe what you want. Can boxers retreat effectively while punching effectively? I never said that boxers have lousy footwork, they have great footwork, that wasn't the point. The point is can they throw the same amount of punches while actually stepping & moving. Try twisting your hips and shoulders quickly and walking. Yeah maybe they can throw 2 punches per step, but without the requirement of twist or torque of the body, you can do more than that when you punch (Yeah Yeah I know the response from the nay sayers, but there is no power behind the punch when it is done this way. When your whole body moves behind your movement you have power, just snap the punch out simultaneously and you will have power. When I do this against a bag it moves significantly, and people feel it when I hit them. But since they are all Kool aid drinkers I guess that means squat, lol).

There are always trade off's, but some of the trade off's cost too much. Remember something for me Ghost, do not think of the top notch Muay Thai athlete training in the gym hours a day and applying his art in the ring, but the average guy, working full time for a living and having only a few hours per week to train at their particular MA. Time becomes very valuable here when it is limited, so I'd rather learn something that doesn't require great strength, toughness or speed. Yes the more training time you put into it the better you will be, and you will see results faster. But if your abilities and Art are based on physical attributes like speed, strength and stamina, you will lose your skill as soon as you stop training. WC IMO is based more so on skill attributes, like coordination, timing, distance control, perception skill, skill in movement and technique. We all need speed and strength to make it work, but some arts IMO rely more on this than WC.


James

P.S. There's nothing stopping me from throwing a hook or uppercut either. The ability is there, along with the skills learned from WC. It's not about having blinders on but when you learn something, learn it well, ask questions but have faith at the sametime, then after all this look at alternatives and how other systems approach things. If you try to do this all at once, you will be a jack of all trades and master of nothing...

[sihing]

You've hit the nail on the head with these remarks, Ghost...

"I am thinking that straight line can . . . emphasis on can . . . be shortest route . . . if nothing in the way . . . but if center is blocked shortest route changes . . . also target may not be directly in front . . . for example maybe I can't hit groin with front kick since he is turned but can hit with hook kick . . . in this case shortest distance to target is curve . . . I am thinking that you are making assumption that thing moving in straight line and thing moviing in curve travel at same speed . . . this may not be case in all situations . . . curve because of angular velocity may move much faster than straight line . . . finally I do not see why hook needs more physical abilities than straight punch to execute . . . can you explain why you say this?"


***ONLY PEOPLE who don't spar/fight regularly with worthy opponents would still cling to the idea that only straight line hitting or kicking is efficient. A good fighter knows that he needs both straight and round (hooking) strikes/kicks in his arsenal. This is not to say that straight line attacks shouldn't be used more often than rounded ones - but the importance of the rounded strike (for the reasons you gave) cannot be ignored.

Know one ever said you should ONLY, at all times, use straight line attacks. You should learn how to read better before you comment, but considering the source I will invoke the rule of politness during the holidays...

James

[AmanuJRY]

Ghost,

Are you here to learn about WC, or put it down at every opportunity you can? No faith means no effectiveness. If you question everything you learn of course it will not work for you.



Oh, this statement is golden, at least in terms of 'what not to say'.

1. Do you think that Ghost is a student of yours? I haven't seen him 'put down' WC, at all.

2. If you question things you learn the truth about them all the rest get eroded away in the process.

3. no faith = not effective....that may have some merit.

[Ernie]

Science relies on confidence, strength of evidence, not faith


The American Heritage Dictionary defines such faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
This type of faith makes it possible to form strong beliefs without any supporting evidence at all. In fact, the weaker or more nonexistent the evidence, the more faith is required for firm belief. Conversely, when good evidence exists for a belief, the need for faith vanishes
That's the key point; faith is only required when there is an absence of good evidence or logical proof. This absurd quality of faith compelled Mark Twain to wryly observe, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."


just something i was reading , that seemed to fit in here ;)

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. James thank you for your reply! Please understand that I am not putting down wc . . . or anything or anyone for that matter . . . it seems to me that if some one say wc is most efficient or most effective or most anything it is they that put down others . . . I am saying that maybe all things have strengths and weaknesses . . . straight punch and hook like we have been talking about . . . and maybe effectiveness and efficiency is not in technique itself . . . or in certain strategy itself . . . or in martial art itself . . . but in person's ability to use technique or strategy or martial art with success . . . this may depend on person's ability and circumstances . . . so someone that is very good in wc can be effective and efficient . . . but so can good boxer . . . and so can good jujitsu man . . . and so on . . . this is my thinking at present . . . and I offer it in discussion so that we can examine things together . . . but of course I may be completely wrong . . . I accept that as possibility . . . do you? Since I accept that as possibility I want to hear other views . . . and question other views to be better understanding of what they say . . . I do not just accept what they say as true though . . . I examine it and question it . . . as I do my own thoughts . . . to see if things hold water . . . if make sense . . . if consistent . . . and so on . . . I mean no disrespect to you or anyone . . . this is how I make progress in thoughts. I am thinking at moment that I do not have faith in technique or strategy or martial art . . . because I am thinking that these do not work of themselves . . . I have faith in some person's abilities . . . does this make sense. If I have offended you in any way I apologize.

Thanks,

Ghost

[AmanuJRY]

Science relies on confidence, strength of evidence, not faith


The American Heritage Dictionary defines such faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
This type of faith makes it possible to form strong beliefs without any supporting evidence at all. In fact, the weaker or more nonexistent the evidence, the more faith is required for firm belief. Conversely, when good evidence exists for a belief, the need for faith vanishes
That's the key point; faith is only required when there is an absence of good evidence or logical proof. This absurd quality of faith compelled Mark Twain to wryly observe, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."


just something i was reading , that seemed to fit in here ;)

The problem is defining 'logical proof' and 'material evidence'...

What a person thinks to be true (wheather based on logic or faith), their brain will gather the 'evidence' and arrange the logical path to support it. That's why we have so many different views on the same subject, because people have differing beliefs supported by their material evidence. That's also why most will interpet 'faith' as what they trust in and believe to be true.

The big question is how do we prove that something is Imperical Evidence and how do we break the shield of 'faith'.

Easy, by questioning our own faith (in this sense Ernie, I mean their belief, wheather or not it's supported) and testing it in every old and new way we can, the Truth will come out clean in the wash.

[kj]

What a person thinks to be true (wheather based on logic or faith), their brain will gather the 'evidence' and arrange the logical path to support it. That's why we have so many different views on the same subject, because people have differing beliefs supported by their material evidence. That's also why most will interpet 'faith' as what they trust in and believe to be true.

Case in point: Flat Earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

Regards,
- kj

[sihing]

Science relies on confidence, strength of evidence, not faith


The American Heritage Dictionary defines such faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
This type of faith makes it possible to form strong beliefs without any supporting evidence at all. In fact, the weaker or more nonexistent the evidence, the more faith is required for firm belief. Conversely, when good evidence exists for a belief, the need for faith vanishes
That's the key point; faith is only required when there is an absence of good evidence or logical proof. This absurd quality of faith compelled Mark Twain to wryly observe, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."


just something i was reading , that seemed to fit in here ;)

I think there is a difference between blind faith, and faith. One is to the extreme, the other is moderate. Me, I'm a moderate, and of course when I learn something I investigate it, but my first impression is not to question it. How can you ask a question about something you have no experience with (especially if your a green horn)? Investigate it, then if questions arise ask.

Regarding the science definition, I agree...


James

[sihing]

Mr. James thank you for your reply! Please understand that I am not putting down wc . . . or anything or anyone for that matter . . . it seems to me that if some one say wc is most efficient or most effective or most anything it is they that put down others . . . I am saying that maybe all things have strengths and weaknesses . . . straight punch and hook like we have been talking about . . . and maybe effectiveness and efficiency is not in technique itself . . . or in certain strategy itself . . . or in martial art itself . . . but in person's ability to use technique or strategy or martial art with success . . . this may depend on person's ability and circumstances . . . so someone that is very good in wc can be effective and efficient . . . but so can good boxer . . . and so can good jujitsu man . . . and so on . . . this is my thinking at present . . . and I offer it in discussion so that we can examine things together . . . but of course I may be completely wrong . . . I accept that as possibility . . . do you? Since I accept that as possibility I want to hear other views . . . and question other views to be better understanding of what they say . . . I do not just accept what they say as true though . . . I examine it and question it . . . as I do my own thoughts . . . to see if things hold water . . . if make sense . . . if consistent . . . and so on . . . I mean no disrespect to you or anyone . . . this is how I make progress in thoughts. I am thinking at moment that I do not have faith in technique or strategy or martial art . . . because I am thinking that these do not work of themselves . . . I have faith in some person's abilities . . . does this make sense. If I have offended you in any way I apologize.

Thanks,

Ghost
When someone says something is "Most Efficient" or "Most Effective" that is personal opinion, based on what they have learned and done with it. My Sifu believes WC is the most effective art out there, based on his 40+ years of Martial Arts training and multiple street fights. To me the man is a genius when it comes to the Martial Arts and everyone that meets him and has seen him move thinks the same. When I started training in WC, I believed him and had faith. After years and years of practice and training, while teaching it also, I confirmed that belief. I had questions too, plenty of them, but I did not QUESTION where the information came from. That is the difference. Questions are fine of course, it is a natural part of the learning process. If you don't ask questions you are stupid. But I had belief that the information was real and worked. Now what you are doing Ghost is obviously not the same thing, there is no physical contact between you and the people you are asking questions to, so that is were the problem lies. All I can say is that I have a belief, based on learning and experience with it, not a Blind faith. I've done a ton of investigation and experimentation myself, I try to have a open mind about things, but nothing so far has made me feel differently than I do.

Happy searching Ghost and Happy Holidays too.



James

[sihing]

Oh, this statement is golden, at least in terms of 'what not to say'.

1. Do you think that Ghost is a student of yours? I haven't seen him 'put down' WC, at all.

2. If you question things you learn the truth about them all the rest get eroded away in the process.

3. no faith = not effective....that may have some merit.


I believe differently. Questions are fine, questioning the answer someone asks for without testing themselves is a lack of trust from where the information comes from. If Ghost does not trust us, then why ask all these questions? I wouldn't ask someone a question about their MA if I didn't have faith in the fact that they know what they are talking about.

Faith in yourself is a very important aspect of achieving anything worth while in life. Ghost doesn't have to trust us, because the medium here may not warrant that, that's okay. IMO he has to train it more and find more of the answers for himself.

James

[AmanuJRY]

Questions are fine, questioning the answer someone asks for without testing themselves is a lack of trust from where the information comes from.

What does 'questioning the answer someone asks for without testing themselves' mean?



If Ghost does not trust us, then why ask all these questions?

To compare your views and how you express them to his views and how he expresses them.


[/QUOTE]I wouldn't ask someone a question about their MA if I didn't have faith in the fact that they know what they are talking about.[/QUOTE]

And then, of course, you wouldn't question their answer...

[/QUOTE] Faith in yourself is a very important aspect of achieving anything worth while in life. Ghost doesn't have to trust us, because the medium here may not warrant that, that's okay. IMO he has to train it more and find more of the answers for himself.[/QUOTE]

Belief in yourself and what you are doing is important, but I believe that those beliefs should constantly be under scrutiny.

[Ernie]

there is a difference between ''Faith'' and confidence
one is built on personal experience
the other on hope .

it's really that simple

how do you become confident in your skill

personal question really , and to what extent are you willing to go ;)

are you willing to subject yourself to the possibility of failure
in yourself , your teacher , and your training methods

by putting it on the line [ to what ever degree yopu as a individual are able to do ]

or do you just play it safe and keep the faith ;)

[sihing]

Belief in yourself and what you are doing is important, but I believe that those beliefs should constantly be under scrutiny.

scrutiny

n 1: the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes) [syn: examination] 2: a prolonged intense look

You would think during the process of learning it you would realize for yourself if it works realistically or not. If it doesn't then do something else. If it does then why continue to look for mistakes? I don't understand the reasoning here. Maybe because I've been through the intial learning process (it never ends but it does not progress as rapidly as when one first starts), I can't relate as well. Over the years I've tried to be open minded and looked at other Martial arts to see what they have to offer. A couple of GJJ tapes I downloaded were very informative and I learned lots about that particular MA. Does any of this make me think less of WC's effectiveness? Nope, not in the least, as a matter of fact it has shown me where the Art can actually take me and what it has to offer.

Just different perspectives I guess...

Another thing to remember is our exposure to WC, and how and what and from who we learned it all, is different. I learned from a guy that lived and breathed literally the Martial Arts. It was not a part time job for him or a hobby, but a full time lifestyle and career, (as a matter of fact he didn't even want to make it a career but that is where it lead him), so I was lucky. Not all of us have the same luck. This is a important factor to consider also...


James

[sihing]

there is a difference between ''Faith'' and confidence
one is built on personal experience
the other on hope .

it's really that simple

how do you become confident in your skill

personal question really , and to what extent are you willing to go ;)

are you willing to subject yourself to the possibility of failure
in yourself , your teacher , and your training methods

by putting it on the line [ to what ever degree yopu as a individual are able to do ]

or do you just play it safe and keep the faith ;)

Well, I will relate a story from my early training/sparring days. I was like a year into it and practicing everyday all the time (I had the luxury of practicing while I worked, all the time while there). We started sparring and a funny thing happened, I kept on punching only with my right hand, the left would not follow through when chain punching. I thought what the hell was going on here, I had thought I had mastered the technique, lol. Well after some more practice and sparring, it started to come out, until it became quite natural. I agree that you have to put it to the test, that has never been a issue. You also have to sit down and understand the thing you are learning. Combat requires strategy and IMO it would be foolish to just go out and do any dam thing that comes up. A moderation between the two are required.

I think there is a link between faith and confidence. Both are present, as I have faith in the system and confidence in my ability to execute it. This takes time and it not developed over night. I can understand that one may be foolish to believe they still have skills when there is absolutely no activity happening regarding that particular activity. I know I would improve if I sparred more often, I know if I did chi sao more that would improve also. All of it would get better with more practice, as there is no ceiling on improvement. That is a given.

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

Science relies on confidence, strength of evidence, not faith

The American Heritage Dictionary defines such faith as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

This type of faith makes it possible to form strong beliefs without any supporting evidence at all. In fact, the weaker or more nonexistent the evidence, the more faith is required for firm belief. Conversely, when good evidence exists for a belief, the need for faith vanishes.

That's the key point; faith is only required when there is an absence of good evidence or logical proof. This absurd quality of faith compelled Mark Twain to wryly observe, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Great post, Bro........

(You're starting to sound like my philosophy professor! :D )

-L

[Ernie]

James -I think there is a link between faith and confidence. Both are present, as I have faith in the system and confidence in my ability to execute it. This takes time and it not developed over night. I can understand that one may be foolish to believe they still have skills when there is absolutely no activity happening regarding that particular activity. I know I would improve if I sparred more often, I know if I did chi sao more that would improve also. All of it would get better with more practice, as there is no ceiling on improvement. That is a given.




--Yep
and as you ramp up the level of intesity more of the truth comes , and sometimes what you thought was great and you had down
suddenly has no meaning or was not as efficient as you once thought

example
my training partner , tough east coast street fighting kid real hard core type harley riding bar smashing up type the guy that would rip your eye out and step on it for laughs , add in 7 years of tai chi [tried to calm his soul ]
a few years of Moy yat and 5 years at GL
now in his 40's
he has very good solid skills and a very evil mind , for that last few years he sank into the chi sau game , in his mind he was still as effective as allways
very deep profound thinker and could wreck shop in school

i asked him a question , i noticed he would stop right before things really got rough , and in his mind he was like , yep i had him all i had to do was finish .

so i said try and finish next time and see what happens ,
he told me dude no problem [ he had faith in himself and a fair amount of confidence]

so he tried and guess what as things got very aggresive sudddenly his game was not as sharp as he thought and things that were working so well before [at lower levels] were not flowing so smooth .

he was forced to reevalute his own [faith] and has now revamped his training based on that very honest look

we often think we are better then we are , until we find out we are not ;)

no matter who your teacher is or what you may ''think'' he can do
it means nothing in respect to what we can do , nothing at all ;)

[sihing]

James -I think there is a link between faith and confidence. Both are present, as I have faith in the system and confidence in my ability to execute it. This takes time and it not developed over night. I can understand that one may be foolish to believe they still have skills when there is absolutely no activity happening regarding that particular activity. I know I would improve if I sparred more often, I know if I did chi sao more that would improve also. All of it would get better with more practice, as there is no ceiling on improvement. That is a given.




--Yep
and as you ramp up the level of intesity more of the truth comes , and sometimes what you thought was great and you had down
suddenly has no meaning or was not as efficient as you once thought

example
my training partner , tough east coast street fighting kid real hard core type harley riding bar smashing up type the guy that would rip your eye out and step on it for laughs , add in 7 years of tai chi [tried to calm his soul ]
a few years of Moy yat and 5 years at GL
now in his 40's
he has very good solid skills and a very evil mind , for that last few years he sank into the chi sau game , in his mind he was still as effective as allways
very deep profound thinker and could wreck shop in school

i asked him a question , i noticed he would stop right before things really got rough , and in his mind he was like , yep i had him all i had to do was finish .

so i said try and finish next time and see what happens ,
he told me dude no problem [ he had faith in himself and a fair amount of confidence]

so he tried and guess what as things got very aggresive sudddenly his game was not as sharp as he thought and things that were working so well before [at lower levels] were not flowing so smooth .

he was forced to reevalute his own [faith] and has now revamped his training based on that very honest look

we often think we are better then we are , until we find out we are not ;)

no matter who your teacher is or what you may ''think'' he can do
it means nothing in respect to what we can do , nothing at all ;)

Well there is nothing wrong with revision (not scrutiny) and looking within one's self for improvement. It is important to also not overestimate yourself as well as the person you are standing in front of. Again there is a moderation here I believe. On one end you do not want to be so under confident that you freeze and have no belief, but on the other end of the spectrum, c0ckyness is not good either. Know thyself well the Bible says, strengths and weakness (through self discovery and testing, what other ways are there that ends up being real). I could right now stand in front of a skilled boxer and get beat. But to me I ask, is that my fault for not training enough or what I use to fight with, the delivery system? IMO it is the fact that I am not in there enough, out of my element of some sorts and with some "ring rust". If more sparring or whatever you want to call it was needed then that is something easy to accomodate. If my delivery system is fuk'd then that to me is a more serious problem.

Regarding who you learn it from, I believe this is a factor. Skill levels vary, and if one instructor is not nearly as skilled or experienced as another, this will reflect in most students skills also (there are exeptions to every rule, as some people have it come to them more naturally and can pick it up almost from a book alone). When my Sifu left for Calgary back in 89', there was a difference in the quality of instruction, which will in the end reflect on your end result. Thinking that one has the same skills as their instructor just because they are his student is a false assumption, for sure. Each of us has to do the work to gain the skills.



James

[Ultimatewingchun]

"my training partner , tough east coast street fighting kid real hard core type harley riding bar smashing up type the guy that would rip your eye out and step on it for laughs , add in 7 years of tai chi [tried to calm his soul ]
a few years of Moy yat and 5 years at GL, now in his 40's, he has very good solid skills ..." (Ernie)



***HEY ERNIE...if he spent a few years with Moy Yat I might know him. What's his name? (pm me if you want to keep it confidential).

[Ernie]

he trained out here in LA
dude likes to keep on the DL
typical moody new yorker ;)
i told him about you and he was going to visit you last year when he was down there but family stuff got in the way .

[chisauking]

Just a quick reply to Anerlick's comments

Anerlick sez: Nice overgeneralisation about karate (watch some of Shihan Patrick McCarthy's vids sometime, there's some lovely refutations of your statements therein), but taking the "simultaneous block and attack" thing too literally can lead to less effectiveness.

Historically, karate was a very basic system. It was brought to Japen by a fisherman that got drifted to China. He learnt a very small portion of a Chinese style, returned to Japan and called it the way of the empty fist. Nowadays, karate has incorporated all sorts of different things into the system.

Anerlik sez: Trying to, for just one example, block with a pak sao at exactly the same time that you strike the opponent is not particularly effective. Punching properly (or to distill Geoff Thompson's advice down to one sentence, "hitting f***in' hard"), requires a timed movement chain involving joints from the ankle to the wrist. Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple.

In keeping with wing chun's concept of using your opponent's energy against him, top wing chun people can use the force of the incoming punch to draw himself towards the opponent, and thereby increasing his own power of attack. You can't be more effective than that, can you? People who can't apply this concept has only reached a very LOW level in their wing chun

sau chi sau mo dak jow

[sihing]

Just a quick reply to Anerlick's comments

Anerlick sez: Nice overgeneralisation about karate (watch some of Shihan Patrick McCarthy's vids sometime, there's some lovely refutations of your statements therein), but taking the "simultaneous block and attack" thing too literally can lead to less effectiveness.

Historically, karate was a very basic system. It was brought to Japen by a fisherman that got drifted to China. He learnt a very small portion of a Chinese style, returned to Japan and called it the way of the empty fist. Nowadays, karate has incorporated all sorts of different things into the system.

Anerlik sez: Trying to, for just one example, block with a pak sao at exactly the same time that you strike the opponent is not particularly effective. Punching properly (or to distill Geoff Thompson's advice down to one sentence, "hitting f***in' hard"), requires a timed movement chain involving joints from the ankle to the wrist. Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple.

In keeping with wing chun's concept of using your opponent's energy against him, top wing chun people can use the force of the incoming punch to draw himself towards the opponent, and thereby increasing his own power of attack. You can't be more effective than that, can you? People who can't apply this concept has only reached a very LOW level in their wing chun

sau chi sau mo dak jow

I agree with your assesment Chisauking. From my experience (which is not ALL KNOWING), karate is not a super advanced MA. Not to say they can't fight, because all Martial Artists with HIGH LEVEL SKILLS can fight, and should never be underestimated. If your skills are at a low level you will not be able to apply it very well, visa versa when the skills are high, at the least the basic concepts will come out. I'm sure the effectiveness of the way Gary Lam uses his WC is at a different level than someone in a kwoon for only a couple of years.


James

[lawrenceofidaho]

Anerlich sez: Trying to, for just one example, block with a pak sao at exactly the same time that you strike the opponent is not particularly effective. Punching properly (or to distill Geoff Thompson's advice down to one sentence, "hitting f***in' hard"), requires a timed movement chain involving joints from the ankle to the wrist. Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple.

In keeping with wing chun's concept of using your opponent's energy against him, top wing chun people can use the force of the incoming punch to draw himself towards the opponent, and thereby increasing his own power of attack.
Using a pak-sau to draw oneself toward the opponent can be performed effectively with either simultaneous, or with slightly delayed (i.e. 1-2) timing, -like what Andrew described above.


You can't be more effective than that, can you?
The "drawing" concept is a tool to add more power to a strike by increasing body's forward momentum....... There's an entire array of other concepts, which, depending on the extent they're employed, will affect the power of a strike, (likely, a number of them being more effective than drawing one's body in with pak).

-Lawrence

[sihing]

Great post, Bro........

(You're starting to sound like my philosophy professor! :D )

-L

I think Ernie has allot to offer, no doubt. It all makes sense and is logical (even for a theortian like me, lol). To me he is talking about high level advanced training practices. What about the new guy on the block with no basic skills or foundation. Where do they start? I would like to know honestly how guys like Ernie train with someone like that. Where does he start them and how is that much different from the guy with much more experience? Not that I would expect Ernie to devulge everything he does to all of us here, I'm not sure that he would want to do that or has the time, but it would be interesting to know.

"Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains", from a book out there somewhere???

James

[chisauking]

Lawernce sez: Using a pak-sau to draw oneself toward the opponent can be performed effectively with either simultaneous, or with slightly delayed (i.e. 1-2) timing, -like what Andrew described above.

A simultaneous pak dar takes a micro-second to perform. You can split a micro-second and still retain and return the energy in that time, lawernce?

I take my hat off to you, you are a better man than I am, gungadine!

sau chi sau mo dak jow

[AmanuJRY]

questioning the answer someone asks for without testing themselves is a lack of trust from where the information comes from.....

Well there is nothing wrong with revision (not scrutiny) and looking within one's self for improvement.

By your definition - a close examination or prolonged intense look - how can you revise yourself without scrutiny?

I think your logic is starting to go in circles...

[AmanuJRY]

I think Ernie has allot to offer, no doubt. It all makes sense and is logical (even for a theortian like me, lol). To me he is talking about high level advanced training practices. What about the new guy on the block with no basic skills or foundation. Where do they start? I would like to know honestly how guys like Ernie train with someone like that. Where does he start them and how is that much different from the guy with much more experience? Not that I would expect Ernie to devulge everything he does to all of us here, I'm not sure that he would want to do that or has the time, but it would be interesting to know.

"Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains", from a book out there somewhere???

James

What about the new guy on the block...?
Where does he start?

Probably not on an internet forum.

Do you think everyone on this board is a beginer, seeking you out for advice?

Of course we're going to be discussing 'higher level' concepts, why would we go online to debate 'level one' stuff? Most everyone who posts here regularly have a degree of experience in whatever lineage they are assosiated with, you can tell because they speak with an air of understanding, like they have put some thought into what they are saying...not the actions of a novice...just cause someone is new to the forum doesn't mean they just started WC...so the dialogs usually roll into discussing the 'big stuff', or fade into rusty old arguments.

Besides, a lot of the 'low level' stuff can't be learned or debated online because it requires physical examples. There are too many ways to describe things, too many adjectives with differing connotations so things have to be supported with...and here's one of the hurdles...good physical represtations. This is where we are all get confused, because our teachers have used different terms (other than the chineese names for techniques, etc.) or paths of logic to describe the same action or concept, thus we end up a good portion of the time arguing semantics.

But there are those times when the core concepts differ...but that's not 'level one' is it?

If you want to know what Ernie's about, hook it up and see, it's not a bad thing...he ain't no hater.

[AmanuJRY]

Lawernce sez: Using a pak-sau to draw oneself toward the opponent can be performed effectively with either simultaneous, or with slightly delayed (i.e. 1-2) timing, -like what Andrew described above.

A simultaneous pak dar takes a micro-second to perform. You can split a micro-second and still retain and return the energy in that time, lawernce?

I take my hat off to you, you are a better man than I am, gungadine!

sau chi sau mo dak jow

Breaking the timing would be using a different kind of energy, you wouldn't be 'borrowing' it as much (if at all), but the power you can get from the body movement is quite effective and you can't get that from the simultaneous attack.

each with it's own +/- ;)

[Ernie]

I think Ernie has allot to offer, no doubt. It all makes sense and is logical (even for a theortian like me, lol). To me he is talking about high level advanced training practices. What about the new guy on the block with no basic skills or foundation. Where do they start? I would like to know honestly how guys like Ernie train with someone like that. Where does he start them and how is that much different from the guy with much more experience? Not that I would expect Ernie to devulge everything he does to all of us here, I'm not sure that he would want to do that or has the time, but it would be interesting to know.

"Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains", from a book out there somewhere???

James
cultivate a certain mindset [remember I hand pick people I train ] , expose them to the body mechanics[develop a specific engine] and training methods that will help them get there [progressive pressure testing and personal trouble shooting ]
if you want a complete curriculum email me ;)

it's really more in the " way " things are done , more so then what things are done .
I find a blank slate much easier to develop , they don't have to let go or relearn things as much [this requires a dieing process]

Justin-If you want to know what Ernie's about, hook it up and see, it's not a bad thing...he ain't no hater

Thanks bro, im all about people getting better i give everything i got to make sure they grow ,
those that have worked with me or even just worked out with me know this , I just love the look on a persons face when they do something they never thought they could get and now it's easy

[Ultimatewingchun]

Got to second these remarks by Andrew Nerlich:

"Trying to, for just one example, block with a pak sao at exactly the same time that you strike the opponent is not particularly effective. Punching properly (or to distill Geoff Thompson's advice down to one sentence, "hitting f***in' hard"), requires a timed movement chain involving joints from the ankle to the wrist. Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple."



***I CALL IT HITTING ON THE BEAT-AND-ONE-HALF...

Not exactly simultaneous (for the reasons Andrew gave)...the strike is on the half beat (in-between two regular beats).

Anybody who's ever studied music will know exactly what I mean.

[lawrenceofidaho]

***I CALL IT HITTING ON THE BEAT-AND-ONE-HALF...

Not exactly simultaneous (for the reasons Andrew gave)...the strike is on the half beat (in-between two regular beats).

Anybody who's ever studied music will know exactly what I mean.
Thanks Vic,

that's what I was referring to when I mentioned "slightly delayed timing", but I think you put it much better....... :)

-Lawrence

[chisauking]

Trying to redirect incoming with a pak sao at the *same* time results in the two movements working at cross purposes, reducing the effectiveness of both. It is better to redirect the incoming force first, then drive the punch in, allowing you to ground and use the hips properly behind the punch. It's not two beats, but it's not simultaneous either. Standard TWC as taught by William Cheung. simple, but not that simple."

The description above is clearly a 2 part process, and certainly it doesn't sound like if he meant "hitting on the beat and one half" as Victor described.

In any case, the pak-dar is applied simulatanously -- however, it is true that the punch lands a fraction later then the pak-sau had completed. As your pak-sau intercepts the incoming punch, your opponent's punch is still driving your body and punch forward until he has fully extended his punch. Distinction, however slight.

sau chi sau mo dak jow

[sihing]

By your definition - a close examination or prolonged intense look - how can you revise yourself without scrutiny?

I think your logic is starting to go in circles...


Revise is to tweak(fine tune), scrutiny is to look for errors where they may or may not exist. For me, I trusted the source, so to scruntinize the information would have foolish because I had no where near the knowledge, experience or ability that the information source had. Not all of us are this lucky. Today, now without the abilities lacking, I still don't see anything wrong with the Art I have learned in regards to effectiveness. People still have to go thru the process of course to learn it for themselves, this is the part that is difficult for some and easier for others. Personally, I know longer look at myself and what I do (WC delivery system) for ineffectiveness or errors, I just tweak it and fine tune everything (I beleive the art will work if I can work the art). Believe it or not I have found that my skills with the art have increased since my level 10 grading (everything expresses itself easier, more fluid and with less physical effort. I feel like a spectator, watching as everything moves in accordance. This does not mean I am invulnerable, but I know longer have think about the performance, it performs all by itself, to paraphrase). Sifu always said that practice is not always physical but also a mental, emotional and spiritual journey (when you think about the concepts you are practicing, when you vividly imagine yourself doing it you are practicing). He proved this himself when I would see him through the years and notice improvement in his ability, movement & technique, but when I asked him if he was practicing he said No, no time too busy teaching and promoting. Some here do not believe higher WC skill translates to higher combat effectiveness, I disagree with that assessment.

James

[AmanuJRY]

Revise is to tweak(fine tune), scrutiny is to look for errors where they may or may not exist.



Your definition, James, not Webster's or the American Heritage's...

If your stuff don't stink....why 'revise/tweek' it???

If it is lacking in some way...how did you come to find out???

...by close examination over a period of time? (scrutiny - by Websters or A.H.'s definition)

...or what does it just occur to you one day...'hey, I need to work on this.'

:rolleyes: full of holes...

[sihing]

[/B]


Your definition, James, not Webster's or the American Heritage's...

If your stuff don't stink....why 'revise/tweek' it???

If it is lacking in some way...how did you come to find out???

...by close examination over a period of time? (scrutiny - by Websters or A.H.'s definition)

...or what does it just occur to you one day...'hey, I need to work on this.'

:rolleyes: full of holes...

I tweak it because I am human, and do not perform the art perfectly (Not that anyone can at all times), and it is always good to look at how you do things. I no longer look at the Art and wonder if what it teaches is effective, simple. I found that as soon as I started taping myself and examining it, I could see where improvement was needed, and the simple fact was I wasn't performing the movement the way it should be, therefore a revision was required. I am examining myself the same way I examine the students that are learning from me.

James

[AmanuJRY]

I tweak it because I am human, and do not perform the art perfectly (Not that anyone can at all times), and it is always good to look at how you do things. I no longer look at the Art and wonder if what it teaches is effective, simple. I found that as soon as I started taping myself and examining it, I could see where improvement was needed, and the simple fact was I wasn't performing the movement the way it should be, therefore a revision was required. I am examining myself the same way I examine the students that are learning from me.

James

How can you video tape yourself, review it in order to improve your ability, and not call it scrutiny?

...ninja please!

[lawrenceofidaho]

...ninja please!
LOL @ Ninja, -please....... :D