Hardcore

[Ernie]

http://media.putfile.com/Silat-conditioning

so ya think your a tuff guy ?

[Jim Roselando]

E!


Thats funny! The second guy got poked in the stomache pretty good. When the guy went to shake hands I thought he was going to fall back and throw up! haha

This stuff is just soooooo bad for the body! Its even making them worst for fighting! Look at their facial expression because of the stopped breath/tension. They tense up to block the pain making the body one big dead brick.

Now! The big question is;;;;;;

Can we crack/break that shell?

:cool:


Peace,

[KPM]

This stuff is just soooooo bad for the body! Its even making them worst for fighting! Look at their facial expression because of the stopped breath/tension. They tense up to block the pain making the body one big dead brick.

Can we crack/break that shell?

,


Jim is right about that! Its good to train to absorb shock, but it should be done by exhaling and relaxing upon impact to smoothly distribute the force....not by holding the breath and tensing up! This creates what is known as a "valsalva" response that increases your intra-abdominal pressure as well as your intra-thecal pressure. This is what leads to hernias as well as spinal disc problems. But no need to "crack" the shell. Knowing how to deliver "shock" to a person that doesn't know how to absorb it properly allows you to "insert" the force past the external shell.

Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Kieth,


Are you stalking me! ;)

WCK is famous for the ability to Break or Crack the vest. A lot of arts place heavy attention on the Golden Bell or Gum Gok stuff. Even a good weight lifter can tense up his body enough to bounce off mosts punches. With the Gum Gok guys its more than a thin layer covering the outside. There insides are really hardened.

But no need to "crack" the shell.

Have you ever met anyone with a developed "vest"?

Knowing how to deliver "shock" to a person that doesn't know how to absorb it properly allows you to "insert" the force past the external shell.

Ok! But we are not talking about people who dont know how to absorb it. These types of people, and others, do know how to absorb it thru their own way/training of course.


Regards,

[kj]

Reminds me of the good old days. :rolleyes:

The youthful illusion of immortality and indestructibility is a powerful thing.

Regards,
- kj

[PaulH]

I think Curly head's is more conditioned. I've seen bombs exploded right at Curly's feet and the chubby guy still running.:D

[syn]

That's kind of nasty. The music's pretty cool though. Is this really a traditional form of training/conditioning in wing chun?

[Ernie]

That's kind of nasty. The music's pretty cool though. Is this really a traditional form of training/conditioning in wing chun?


no it's silat , but people like to see different idea's of conditioning in MA;)

[syn]

I think while some of that stuff maybe helpful, alot of it is way to harsh and can cause long term damage to the body.

[sihing]

Like Jim said, they were using muscle tension to absorb the punishment, the incorrect way.

One of the Silat masters in the States, Rudy TerLinden (I think that is how you spell it), his teachers would have him soaking in a barrel full of Jow at the end of the day as part of his training, toughning his skin I guess.

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

Looks like they are trying to prepare themselves for some stick lessons from Dale (Knifefighter)........

:D

Imagine those guys putting up with ten years of that cr@p, -then a Jiu Jitsu school opens up next door. -Every time they fight, the JJ guys just; takedown, lock, and choke (no strikes). -Just think how pi$$ed they'd be at their guru / teacher for putting them through all of that for nothing.

:mad:

[syn]

Personally I think the guy who took all that punishment in the face would winf a fight. But only because no matter how horrible beat up he is and how hurt he get's he'll just put all the pain behind him and ckeep going. Which will probably get him pretty messed up.

Oh yeah and when the video reaches 5 minutes there's that little kid, and it looks like the sifu is going to break the kids chest bone or something. I kind of feel sorry for the kid.

[AndrewS]

So who on this thread actual has hit or fought someone who does some flavor of iron body?

Keith?

Jim?

There's a really simple solution to 'iron body', one I've discussed with one fairly competent practitioner of the system who could use his skills under full contact as well as static conditions, one which *doesn't* appeal to hoping your 'proper method of applying force' can work on a species of practioner so hard to find that's it would be nigh impossible to regularly test and hone that skill, and which works even on that more common species of 'tough son of b*tch who doesn't care if it hurts'.

The solution?













CURB STOMP

There's not need to make it any more complicated than that- control position, put the guy's head on something hard, apply repeated strikes until head breaks. Problem f*ckin' solved.


And James- when exactly did you become an expert on the right or wrong way to take a shot?

The clip is goofy, but the commentary is getting ridiculous.

Andrew

[syn]

That's pretty brutal man. If a fight ever escalated that much I'd have to back up out, I don't want to go doing somethign stupid.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Yes! I have spar with those people! The old stomp or eye flick or groin slap! Of course those things work. Not that easy against a tough fighter. Actually, if you have a guy on the ground and his head is against curb I think you are in a favorable position that your refined power should be able to finish him without the Bruce Lee jumping on the guys head in Enter The Dragon scene finish but it all depends on the situation and heat of the moment. Sorry! It came to mind! :)

A lot of these types of arts tend to give you full frontal tagets to come after knowing they can take the punishment.

If WCK develops Chuk Geng and Chuk Geng is present everywhere then what would be the out of the norm if your body only issues Chuk Geng? I think you believe it is something that is not the norm and something that gets pulled out of a hat for special occassion. Inch Shock is nothing odd. So, I guess we agree with each other then since I also agree:

which *doesn't* appeal to hoping your 'proper method of applying force' can work on a species of practioner

Nothing is desgined for specific purpose or species as that would mean you need to think. Inch Shock is what it is. What we develop.


Peace,

[kj]

I am a bit surprised that some would perceive that video as some epitome of brutality. In my concept of brutality, real brutality, saying "whoa" and backing out is rarely a viable option.

Child abuse is furthermore not a prerequisite in order for someone to endure and survive serious violence. The now infamous "Strong on Defense" offers among its case studies the compelling story of a woman who endured a great deal worse than that, virtually protecting herself with bloody stumps where her hands should have been. To me at least, this kind of violent encounter is on an entirely different scale when compared to being bludgeoned by someone who you know will spit and rub out your wounds afterwards, or who may care enough to seek medical attention should they screw you up badly enough. Or amping it up with your buddies for that matter.

With all the tough guy talk in these parts, I sometimes wonder who's kidding who when it comes to issues of real violence.

A naive person reading a forum such as this might be led to believe that some kind of guarantee can be had on the one hand, and for those who fail to live up to the implied guarantee, no hope at all on the other. Both extremes are illusions of the mind. Reality lies in the in-between realm of such things as probabilities and confidence intervals. The occasional dash of mental clarity, luck, or divine intervention, while they cannot be relied upon, ought also not to be overlooked or underestimated.

Regards,
- kj

[Sihing73]

Hello,

While the video shows some examples of what could be considered extreme, or even foolish, I doubt that it give a realistic view of training methods in practice. Seems to me that the video was more for show and to impress, although I did not have the luxury of understanding what was being said.

Silat/Serak can be translated as "training fo combat". Much of the training is brutal but it is developed gradually. The conditioning process is a long and arduous one and is known, by some, as "tempering". Initially you start to strike your body with light open hand strikes and then build up the power. Eventually you can work up to using other objects.

However, I am led to question the practicality of this video as anything more than an attempt to impress. IMH experience, the majority of silat/serak is trained and practiced to be employed using an edged weapon. It would be a foolhardy practicianer who would ever accept a blow from their opponent willingly since that blow would doubtless have a sharp edge to it.

The intensive physical training is, IMHO, more to condition the mind than the body. One of the true strengths of such a person is that warrior mindset which like the old timex commerical, "takes a licking and keeps on ticking". For those who were fortunate, or unfortunate enough to undergo some of the more advance training in the US Milatary, tell me was it the body or the mind that was being developed?

Just some rambling as I eat a donut and drink my mountain dew. See how well conditioned I am :)

[Sihing73]

Hello,

KJ's posts always provoke thought, and I hate her for that as thinking hurts my head :mad: ( I do hope you realize I am joking!! Having met KJ I could never hate her :) )

Some of the truly strongest people are those who have not only survived abuse but gone on to lead fully productive lives. For those interested in reading a real life story check out would be that of David Pelzer: http://www.davepelzer.com/aboutd.htm

People like this are true examples of "Tough Guys" and have overcome things which most of us would never have survived unscarred.

[AndrewS]

KJ,

Excellent point, consensuality doesn't really fit with 'brutal'. If you can back out, having a bullseye of 18 gauge needles whipped off your back with a bullwhip is an act of intimacy, not violence.

Jim,

let's skip over the passive aggressive apsersions regarding my low-level understanding of power evolution and step to the meat of why I find your comments on 'breaking the vest' so very annoying-

Ultimately, you're suggesting that you rely on your ability to deliver a shot which the other person can't take, however you evolve power and however they receive it. That's a very difficult hypothesis to test in any training environment, and, while I'm all for hitting hard (whether it's a 'special' way or not), that's what you're counting on in this case, and the other guy not being able to take my shots is not something I choose to count on.

What I do find more reliable is the tensile strength of bone, and that the magnitude of force I need to cave in someone's cheekbones, or crack their skull is something I can reliably generate if their head is pushed into something hard. Incidentally, many years ago this is the one way I managed to tap someone much bigger than me who did this method - I took mount and started folding elbows into his face.

Hence, there is a far simpler and more easily trained solution to this problem that requires a much smaller leap of faith in one's strikes- learn to control position and pin, whether against wall, obstace, or floor (if you can use the ceiling for this, the guy isn't really a problem, or you have a nice bodylock, not normally a Wing Chun tool. On second thought if you can spike someone into the ceiling with a bodylock, they aren't really a problem).

I have little patience with recommendations of methods which are hard to effectively test, of dubious reliability, and lack practicality.

Oh yeah, the last nice solution to someone who can take your shots- pick up a brick. We have these things called *thumbs*. . .

Andrew

[ghostofwingchun]

Actually . . . I am thinking that Mr. Andrew made two very good points . . . about the dependability . . . I cannot think of another word that suits at the moment . . . of striking versus grappling . . . a strike can be performed perfectly and make the contact as intended perfectly but that does not guarantee result . . . he may have iron chin . . . but grappling submissions like choke or arm bar for example if executed correctly will always give desired results . . . and that there are ways to better assure striking effectiveness . . . thank you for this post Mr. Andrew . . . I find it very thought provoking.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Ultimatewingchun]

Got to jump into this conversation...

While it is true that tremendous power can be generated from internal chi gung training in one's strikes...the fact is that under real combat conditions out in the scary world...very, very, very few people can maintain the intensely focused and calm relaxed mental/emotional/muscular/breathing necessary to generate such power.

For the 99.9% of the rest of humanity - stomping on his head while he's pressed against the curb is a much better tactic to rely upon! ;)

[syn]

Also just for the record, when I have entered an intense fist fight, I don't really feel any pain or care abotu the damage of my body due to all the adrenaline running. Your body usually only allows 30% of oyur strength to be used so you don't hurt yourself, but in certain occassions it will go all out and you'll lower your defenses and just fight till you can't move anymore. So I'm not quite sure what the purpose of this training will do. MY question is when ever receiving a punch is it better to tense and protect the organs, and absorb the blow and let the energy diffuse hoping you don't die?

[Jim Roselando]

Andrew,


Jim,

let's skip over the passive aggressive apsersions regarding my low-level understanding of power evolution and step to the meat of why I find your comments on 'breaking the vest' so very annoying-

:D

Ultimately, you're suggesting that you rely on your ability to deliver a shot which the other person can't take, however you evolve power and however they receive it.

In any fight are we all not trying to use our ability to deliver whatever aspect we spend years cultivating? Who says one shot BTW! It doesn't have to be the Inch Shock it can be anything we practiced for years that supposed to come out when needed.

That's a very difficult hypothesis to test in any training environment, and, while I'm all for hitting hard (whether it's a 'special' way or not), that's what you're counting on in this case, and the other guy not being able to take my shots is not something I choose to count on.

Isnt this what any stand up art (or ground) does? Cultivate to fight? We train for X ammount of years and then do something with what we cultivate? Like connect in a fight. Be it once or numerous. Power is useless unless we can connect?

What I do find more reliable is the tensile strength of bone, and that the magnitude of force I need to cave in someone's cheekbones, or crack their skull is something I can reliably generate if their head is pushed into something hard.

Ok! I recently read your work out schedule on the other forum. Awesome man! In reality I can understand why the above stuff would be very easy for you to do to about anyone! I am just a little guy tho! 5' 5" about 138 (well, holidays are here (142)) :). i also dont have the time you have. But! Awesome training dude.


Incidentally, many years ago this is the one way I managed to tap someone much bigger than me who did this method - I took mount and started folding elbows into his face.

Great! I am sure you practiced it hard and your training came out. Its just a different approach.

Hence, there is a far simpler and more easily trained solution to this problem that requires a much smaller leap of faith in one's strikes- learn to control position and pin, whether against wall, obstace, or floor (if you can use the ceiling for this, the guy isn't really a problem, or you have a nice bodylock, not normally a Wing Chun tool. On second thought if you can spike someone into the ceiling with a bodylock, they aren't really a problem).

Ok. Sure! Its just a different approach.

I have little patience with recommendations of methods which are hard to effectively test, of dubious reliability, and lack practicality.

Grappling related stuff is great. You get nice results and in good shape. Practicality of it is also great. But, WC is pretty practical, as is boxing and other arts, and all this is about is Inch power my man which is WCK trade mark right. Nothing odd or mysterious. This then goes back to NHB being the sole judge of practical and then we need to go back to listing training schedules for lifestyle comparison etc..


Oh yeah, the last nice solution to someone who can take your shots- pick up a brick. We have these things called *thumbs*. . .

Sure! That works to!


Victor,

While it is true that tremendous power can be generated from internal chi gung training in one's strikes...

And without Chi Gong!

the fact is that under real combat conditions out in the scary world...very, very, very few people can maintain the intensely focused and calm relaxed mental/emotional/muscular/breathing necessary to generate such power.

Sure! Like anything you need to get a little better every year at what you try to do.

Guys! Why study an art if all we need is practical? Whats the point of doing WCK or Boxing or other stuff when in reality all we need is one punch and some footwork/body movement from different angles for stand up right? Yeah! We need to be practical but then junk 99% of your tools and do one thing over and over for a few years and you will beat most.

Practical is using the simplest action at the right time hopefully!

Genious is the ability to make the complicated simple!

That came out of a fortune cookie the other night! I kept it!

;)

Regards,

[AndrewS]

Jim writes:


Grappling related stuff is great. You get nice results and in good shape. Practicality of it is also great. But, WC is pretty practical, as is boxing and other arts, and all this is about is Inch power my man which is WCK trade mark right. Nothing odd or mysterious. This then goes back to NHB being the sole judge of practical and then we need to go back to listing training schedules for lifestyle comparison etc..

You have, once again, mis-stated my position. What I've described could use the ground, but that is not *necessary* for it.

From a pure Wing Chun perspective (not ground and pound), I'm talking about pinning someone (Gum), and smothering them (Fook), both of which involve 'long' power rather than short.

I ran into a pro thai boxer who trained in Hong Kong with some WC folks for a bit once- his observation was that he could play with them in the center of the ring, but they were 'real good at driving you into stuff'. Much of how Wing Chun is set up and operates is, IME, built to 'drive people into stuff', preferably so they're twisted up, can't exert force, and can be dissected at leisure.

Incidentally, one of my seniors clocks in at 5'6" and around 160 these days (since having a few meals)- he uses this strategy quite nicely on me, it's not solely a big man's game, in fact, it's a much safer strategy for a smaller person, as middleweights and below are at *much* greater risk should they try to stay in a place where they might be forced to trade with a heavyweight.

Andrew

P.S. If you think my workout schedule is anything significant, realize that as far as I'm concerned, I'm a fat, lazy amateur who trains only for fun.

[ghostofwingchun]

Mr. Roselando you wrote that wc is all about inch power which is its trademark . . . it is my understanding that this is very true . . . however this does not mean that inch power is for finishing . . . it is my understanding that inch power is for disruption . . . and I have not seen or ever heard of anyone using inch power to finish . . . for shock it is great but not for saat or finish . . . it is my understanding that wc also has finishing power which is different than inch power . . . and while not trademark and perhaps not as well known is just as important . . . to disrupt but not be able to finish will only lead to defeat . . . at least this is my thinking at the present.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Andrew,


You have, once again, mis-stated my position. What I've described could use the ground, but that is not *necessary* for it.

Not unusual for me to mix something up!

From a pure Wing Chun perspective (not ground and pound), I'm talking about pinning someone (Gum), and smothering them (Fook), both of which involve 'long' power rather than short.

Agreed

I ran into a pro thai boxer who trained in Hong Kong with some WC folks for a bit once- his observation was that he could play with them in the center of the ring, but they were 'real good at driving you into stuff'. Much of how Wing Chun is set up and operates is, IME, built to 'drive people into stuff', preferably so they're twisted up, can't exert force, and can be dissected at leisure.

Controlling COG is crucial so the Thai boxer was right! Pressing people is also an easy way to ljoin and smother. Much safer than exchanging blows.

Incidentally, one of my seniors clocks in at 5'6" and around 160 these days (since having a few meals)- he uses this strategy quite nicely on me, it's not solely a big man's game, in fact, it's a much safer strategy for a smaller person, as middleweights and below are at *much* greater risk should they try to stay in a place where they might be forced to trade with a heavyweight.

Great! Totally agree. Its also a good sign of something effective when a little guy can do it. This reminds me of something I heard at a Ken Chung seminar before;

If a woman cant do it then its not WCK or something like that.

My comment about it being easy for you was based on your size and strength not that its not possible for smaller people to make it work.

:)


Regards,

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Mr. Roselando

Just Jim please!

you wrote that wc is all about inch power which is its trademark . . . it is my understanding that this is very true . . . however this does not mean that inch power is for finishing . . . it is my understanding that inch power is for disruption . . . and I have not seen or ever heard of anyone using inch power to finish . . .

Releasing power is releasing power. How much power you release is up to you. Connecting with power is ultimately the hard part! haha So, you can disrupt or penetrate more.

for shock it is great but not for saat or finish . . . it is my understanding that wc also has finishing power which is different than inch power . . .

What is finishing power? Something that lands and penetrates more. If Inch Power is built into your WCK then when you land a liight or heavy blow it is present. It just depends on how heay the blow is.

and while not trademark and perhaps not as well known is just as important . . . to disrupt but not be able to finish will only lead to defeat . . . at least this is my thinking at the present.

Controlling the COG or balance/disruption is important but issuing/release of a tool is no different. Sometimes you let it fly!


Gotta run!

[kj]

This reminds me of something I heard at a Ken Chung seminar before;

If a woman cant do it then its not WCK or something like that.

Your recall is crystalline. Holding it as a defining characteristic of Wing Chun, it can fairly be considered one of his mantras.

Regards,
- kj

[ghostofwingchun]

Hello,

Releasing power is releasing power. How much power you release is up to you. Connecting with power is ultimately the hard part! haha So, you can disrupt or penetrate more.

What is finishing power? Something that lands and penetrates more. If Inch Power is built into your WCK then when you land a liight or heavy blow it is present. It just depends on how heay the blow is.

Controlling the COG or balance/disruption is important but issuing/release of a tool is no different. Sometimes you let it fly!

Gotta run!

Jim thank you so much for your reply . . . and for allowing me to call you Jim! Your view is certainly interesting and thought provoking for me . . . as I do not view things the same as you . . . this is a good thing I am thinking . . . for me releasing power is not just releasing power . . . I do not view there as being one wc power and a volume control . . lol . . . and finishing power is just that . . . power we use to finish with . . . not trying to be funny just can't think of a better way to describe it . . . for example jab won't finish anyone no matter how good jab is . . . cross will finish or knock out so it has finishing power . . . cross is just not jab that penetrates more . . . lol . . . but is different tool with different mechanics to produce different effect . . . short power or shocking power will not finish. Also I do not like the expressions short or long power as this reflects discrete thinking in my view and not reality . . . like saying people are either tall or short . . . this is perhaps true but there is in reality a continuum and there are no clear demarcations of what clearly defines one or other . . . instead I look at intended effect on opponent . . . shocking power or finishing power for example . . . just as it happens shocking power is a short power . . . anyway this is my thinking at moment . . . I just offer it in way of explanation since you ask what is finishing power . . . I hope this makes my view more clear for you . . . thanks again for providing interesting perspective.

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Your recall is crystalline. Holding it as a defining characteristic of Wing Chun, it can fairly be considered one of his mantras.

Regards,
- kj

KJ this is interesting perspective too . . . would you mind expanding on what exactly this means . . . as I can think of several possibilities.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Ghost,


Jim thank you so much for your reply . . . and for allowing me to call you Jim!

I have been called worst! hahaha ;)

Your view is certainly interesting and thought provoking for me . . .

Dito

as I do not view things the same as you . . .

Thats ok!

this is a good thing I am thinking . . . for me releasing power is not just releasing power . . . I do not view there as being one wc power and a volume control . . lol . . . and finishing power is just that . . . power we use to finish with . . . not trying to be funny just can't think of a better way to describe it . . . for example jab won't finish anyone no matter how good jab is . . .

I have to agree and disagree on the Jab. I have met people who can indeed drop you with the jab. JKD/Filipino instructor Richard Bustillo has a brutal jab! He came to mind as I was talking about his jab the other day! The Jab is most certainly not the most powerful shot in Boxing as it is often used as a set up or feeler or just to poke etc.. What is it that makes any shot more powerful than another? IMO, Not seeing it coming is one thing! The punch the hurts the most is the one you did not see coming or were not prepared for! With WC I think there are different tools but the ammount of force we put into them is based on timing and other stuff. Example:

Whats is the finishing tools of WCK? Sun punch? Chop? etc? So, we have tools that control (gum, tan, lim, etc) but to finish someone with something you must penetrate with it (the striking tool) and if WCK trade mark is Inch force then inch force should be present everywhere. It's not something you turn on and off.

cross will finish or knock out so it has finishing power . . . cross is just not jab that penetrates more . . . lol . . . but is different tool with different mechanics to produce different effect . . .

Yes! In boxing the jab is not the cross or hook. Those are different tools but since WCK is not a probing art we typically do not flick to do that. Our tools are our tools. Mainly we like to counterfight (Loi Lau) but can fire the first shot if need be.

short power or shocking power will not finish.

Cant agree with you on that one. How much power does it take to crack a rib? How much power does it take to bust a nose.

Also I do not like the expressions short or long power as this reflects discrete thinking in my view and not reality . . . like saying people are either tall or short . . . this is perhaps true but there is in reality a continuum and there are no clear demarcations of what clearly defines one or other . . . instead I look at intended effect on opponent . . . shocking power or finishing power for example . . . just as it happens shocking power is a short power . . . anyway this is my thinking at moment . . .

I am not a big fan of the terms long or short power either but there are short bridge and long bridge actions that can be clearly defined.

I just offer it in way of explanation since you ask what is finishing power . . . I hope this makes my view more clear for you . . . thanks again for providing interesting perspective.

Thank you!


Peace,

[ghostofwingchun]

I have to agree and disagree on the Jab. I have met people who can indeed drop you with the jab. JKD/Filipino instructor Richard Bustillo has a brutal jab! He came to mind as I was talking about his jab the other day! The Jab is most certainly not the most powerful shot in Boxing as it is often used as a set up or feeler or just to poke etc.. What is it that makes any shot more powerful than another? IMO, Not seeing it coming is one thing! The punch the hurts the most is the one you did not see coming or were not prepared for! With WC I think there are different tools but the ammount of force we put into them is based on timing and other stuff. Example:

Whats is the finishing tools of WCK? Sun punch? Chop? etc? So, we have tools that control (gum, tan, lim, etc) but to finish someone with something you must penetrate with it (the striking tool) and if WCK trade mark is Inch force then inch force should be present everywhere. It's not something you turn on and off.

Yes! In boxing the jab is not the cross or hook. Those are different tools but since WCK is not a probing art we typically do not flick to do that. Our tools are our tools. Mainly we like to counterfight (Loi Lau) but can fire the first shot if need be.

Cant agree with you on that one. How much power does it take to crack a rib? How much power does it take to bust a nose.

I am not a big fan of the terms long or short power either but there are short bridge and long bridge actions that can be clearly defined.

Peace,

Thank you Jim for your reply! I very much like discussions with people that have different views than mine . . . it causes me to reexamine my own thinking and reflect on my experience . . . and perhaps see things in new ways . . . this is a good thing for me. I understand your view on the jab . . . there are people with really good jabs . . . but can you think of one pro or amatuer fight where someone was finished with the jab? . . . as I am thinking of it this is just not the jabs purpose. It is my view and my experince that inch power or short power will only shock and disrupt . . . breaking nose or rib will hurt but not finish fight . . . unless fighting sissy . . . lol . . . and I agree that not expecting shot may increase its effectiveness . . . but even not seeing jab will typically not knock you out since jab just doesn't have finishing power behind it. I am thinking that short power is wc trademark because it is so obvious and unusual to observer seeing wc . . . but short power is not I am thinking whole enchilada . . . I am thinking in fighting when trying to finish opponent inch power is not enough . . . need to also train finishing power . . . otherwise like trying to fight someone only with jab. It is my understanding that basic wc strategy is to join, cut off opponent's offense and defense, disrupt his body integrity and then finish . . . each strategic step uses different wc tools with different mechanics to have different effect on opponent . . . but this is just my thinking at the present . . . always subject to change or revision or modification depending on what I learn . . . I am sure others have different way of doing things . . . and I am not saying one way is better or worse than another . . . you may have different way than me. . . I find your views very thought provoking.

Thanks,

Ghost

[sihing]

Thank you Jim for your reply! I very much like discussions with people that have different views than mine . . . it causes me to reexamine my own thinking and reflect on my experience . . . and perhaps see things in new ways . . . this is a good thing for me. I understand your view on the jab . . . there are people with really good jabs . . . but can you think of one pro or amatuer fight where someone was finished with the jab? . . . as I am thinking of it this is just not the jabs purpose. It is my view and my experince that inch power or short power will only shock and disrupt . . . breaking nose or rib will hurt but not finish fight . . . unless fighting sissy . . . lol . . . and I agree that not expecting shot may increase its effectiveness . . . but even not seeing jab will typically not knock you out since jab just doesn't have finishing power behind it. I am thinking that short power is wc trademark because it is so obvious and unusual to observer seeing wc . . . but short power is not I am thinking whole enchilada . . . I am thinking in fighting when trying to finish opponent inch power is not enough . . . need to also train finishing power . . . otherwise like trying to fight someone only with jab. It is my understanding that basic wc strategy is to join, cut off opponent's offense and defense, disrupt his body integrity and then finish . . . each strategic step uses different wc tools with different mechanics to have different effect on opponent . . . but this is just my thinking at the present . . . always subject to change or revision or modification depending on what I learn . . . I am sure others have different way of doing things . . . and I am not saying one way is better or worse than another . . . you may have different way than me. . . I find your views very thought provoking.

Thanks,

Ghost
I’m thinking there can be many different perspectives to allot of what this discussion is about, depending on an individuals knowledge, experience and skill with it. It is true that the jab isn't considered a finishing blow, but like Jim said there are guys that can make that happen. The so called finishing blows are not always that way also, sometimes it takes more than one to actually finish the opponent off, as the first one may not have landed flush or whatever. Too many variables to deal with in this situation to make absolute assertions to say this or that is not so IMO. There are definitely WC practitioners out there that can make the inch power work better than others can, and use it as a finishing strike. IMO, the optimum power range for the average WC practitioner is not at that short of a distance but more like 6" or 7" away.


Just my 3 cents...

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Whats the point of doing WCK or Boxing or other stuff when in reality all we need is one punch and some footwork/body movement from different angles for stand up right? Yeah! We need to be practical but then junk 99% of your tools and do one thing over and over for a few years and you will beat most." (Jim Roselando)


***SORRY Jim, but I just don't buy this logic...

Reality fighting requires a lot more than one punch and some footwork from different angles! :D

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,



Thank you Jim for your reply! I very much like discussions with people that have different views than mine . . . it causes me to reexamine my own thinking and reflect on my experience . . . and perhaps see things in new ways . . . this is a good thing for me.

For both of us!

I understand your view on the jab . . . there are people with really good jabs . . . but can you think of one pro or amatuer fight where someone was finished with the jab? . . . as I am thinking of it this is just not the jabs purpose.

Yes! Its not the jabs purpose as it is a specific tool for boxing. I have never watched a pro fight that anyone lost from a jab but have seen it in different schools when people square off. More so in reality. Actually, on more than one occassion the martial artist walked into a good stiff jab and they were all done. Of course the guy did not have gloves on so that would make a huge difference.

It is my view and my experince that inch power or short power will only shock and disrupt . . . breaking nose or rib will hurt but not finish fight . . . unless fighting sissy . . . lol . . .

Keep in mind we (WCK people) are not one shot hero's so while I do believe one shot can do the job if you have power it can also be the beginning of a possible end. I have not met many who can keep going after recieving heavy blows but I cracked a rib once and kept going but in reality I probally would have lost. Luckily, we were in the class and the adrenaline was cranking. It was also not what I call a serious punch but it was strong enough to crack. I know what you mean but do not compare it to being hit by nasty power. I remember Paul talking to us about the time when Gary hit him on the chest and his heart started going wild. I am sure he did not give him the full shot as he would probally kill him but that kind of power is not nice.

and I agree that not expecting shot may increase its effectiveness . . . but even not seeing jab will typically not knock you out since jab just doesn't have finishing power behind it.

Ghost, I am a big boxing fan. I find it hard to believe that if someone cleanly connects with a bare knuckle lead hand poke on the Chin, Jaw, Nose does not have sufficient stopping power. Walking into a good jab is nasty. Yeah! Its not boxing big power shot but its lousy to be hit by and in the street (bare knuckle) it is going to do real damage.

I am thinking that short power is wc trademark because it is so obvious and unusual to observer seeing wc . . . but short power is not I am thinking whole enchilada . . . I am thinking in fighting when trying to finish opponent inch power is not enough . . . need to also train finishing power . . . otherwise like trying to fight someone only with jab.

I think we may need to define Inch power as I see not difference from applying something lightly or with more force. Inch power is not something odd. Its just part of what we do and how hard we appy what we do is the only difference. Finishing power for me is just the ammount of penetration applied to whatever you try to do.

It is my understanding that basic wc strategy is to join, cut off opponent's offense and defense, disrupt his body integrity and then finish . . . each strategic step uses different wc tools with different mechanics to have different effect on opponent . . .

All this is fine, and correct, but what are the different mecanics? The human body can only do so many things. Raise, Sink, Open, Close or move left, right, forward, backward etc.. If you use any of those 4 for mechanics you will use it for punching and other stuff. How much you put into it is the difference. Stand in YJKYM, throw a turning pak sao with the right hand. Stand in YJKYM, throw a turning punch with the right hand. Stand in YJKYM, throw a turning Bong Sao with the right hand. Are they really so different? Little things yeah but whats makes something for shock or for finish is the ammount of force issued.

For me, I tend to think the core basics of WCK are Loi Lau Hoi Sung and Use Stillness to to overcome Action.

but this is just my thinking at the present . . . always subject to change or revision or modification depending on what I learn . . . I am sure others have different way of doing things . . . and I am not saying one way is better or worse than another . . . you may have different way than me. . . I find your views very thought provoking.

Dito! My views constantly change. If they didn't then I would not be practicing much of getting any better!

Nice chat!

Peace

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Vic!


***SORRY Jim, but I just don't buy this logic...

Thats ok!

Reality fighting requires a lot more than one punch and some footwork from different angles!

Well, I agree with you to a point but in reality very little is actually needed! You need a tool that can cover longer medium and close. Maybe one take down and a couple of basic ground things. For reality! That is more than enough! Its not often you see anything other than that being used in reality.

How many different punches/punching angles do you have in TWC? How many of all your tools are not travelling down the same line? Palms, chops, this or that are still all travelling down that centerline. The hook looking punch is different line and for a different range.

So, your angles are just body movement/positioning but still one line "mainly". Just because the tip of the tool is different it does not mean its not basically the same thing.

Just some thougts!


Peace

[ghostofwingchun]

I’m thinking there can be many different perspectives to allot of what this discussion is about, depending on an individuals knowledge, experience and skill with it. It is true that the jab isn't considered a finishing blow, but like Jim said there are guys that can make that happen. The so called finishing blows are not always that way also, sometimes it takes more than one to actually finish the opponent off, as the first one may not have landed flush or whatever. Too many variables to deal with in this situation to make absolute assertions to say this or that is not so IMO. There are definitely WC practitioners out there that can make the inch power work better than others can, and use it as a finishing strike. IMO, the optimum power range for the average WC practitioner is not at that short of a distance but more like 6" or 7" away.


Just my 3 cents...

James

Thank you Mr. James for providing your thoughts on this matter! I am sure it is possible that there are people who might be able to use jab to finish people much weaker or smaller than themselves . . . but I am thinking this will not be possible with anyone the same size or larger . . . the mechanics of jab just won't produce that kind of power . . . and history of boxing matches would seem to agree with me . . . lol . . . and I agree with you one hundred percent that some have better short or inch power than others . . . but I have never seen anyone that could finish someone same size or larger with short power strikes . . . and I doubt anyone here could do it . . . if they can, I'd love to see video of it! . . . so question of finishing still remains. Short or inch power as I understand it does not depend on how far blow travels . . . but is a kind of power . . . that creates certain effect on target . . . and that kind of power comes from certain sort of mechanics person is using . . . not all mechanics produce same effect . . . some mechanics great for one thing but not another . . . short power mechanics is great for some things like shocking or disrupting but not for others like finishing. . . but if someone can use short power for finishing this is great I'd love to see it . . . they are unique person with special abilities . . . for rest of us who can't do it . . . like me . . . I must use finishing power. . . anyway this is how I view it.

Thanks,

Ghost

[lawrenceofidaho]

Current world champ, Winky Wright, recently beat former world champ, Tito Trinidad, using the jab almost exclusively. Didn't win by KO, but absolutely dominated the entire fight. Excellent timing, good footwork, and plenty of power behind that jab made it enough to neutralize everything Tito had.

Granted, Tito is a rather one dimensional fighter, but a highly developed jab can be a devastating weapon.

[ghostofwingchun]

Yes! Its not the jabs purpose as it is a specific tool for boxing. I have never watched a pro fight that anyone lost from a jab but have seen it in different schools when people square off. More so in reality. Actually, on more than one occassion the martial artist walked into a good stiff jab and they were all done. Of course the guy did not have gloves on so that would make a huge difference.

Keep in mind we (WCK people) are not one shot hero's so while I do believe one shot can do the job if you have power it can also be the beginning of a possible end. I have not met many who can keep going after recieving heavy blows but I cracked a rib once and kept going but in reality I probally would have lost. Luckily, we were in the class and the adrenaline was cranking. It was also not what I call a serious punch but it was strong enough to crack. I know what you mean but do not compare it to being hit by nasty power. I remember Paul talking to us about the time when Gary hit him on the chest and his heart started going wild. I am sure he did not give him the full shot as he would probally kill him but that kind of power is not nice.

Ghost, I am a big boxing fan. I find it hard to believe that if someone cleanly connects with a bare knuckle lead hand poke on the Chin, Jaw, Nose does not have sufficient stopping power. Walking into a good jab is nasty. Yeah! Its not boxing big power shot but its lousy to be hit by and in the street (bare knuckle) it is going to do real damage.

I think we may need to define Inch power as I see not difference from applying something lightly or with more force. Inch power is not something odd. Its just part of what we do and how hard we appy what we do is the only difference. Finishing power for me is just the ammount of penetration applied to whatever you try to do.

All this is fine, and correct, but what are the different mecanics? The human body can only do so many things. Raise, Sink, Open, Close or move left, right, forward, backward etc.. If you use any of those 4 for mechanics you will use it for punching and other stuff. How much you put into it is the difference. Stand in YJKYM, throw a turning pak sao with the right hand. Stand in YJKYM, throw a turning punch with the right hand. Stand in YJKYM, throw a turning Bong Sao with the right hand. Are they really so different? Little things yeah but whats makes something for shock or for finish is the ammount of force issued.

For me, I tend to think the core basics of WCK are Loi Lau Hoi Sung and Use Stillness to to overcome Action.

Nice chat!

Peace

Thank you Jim for most thought provoking and illuminating discussion! I agree with you one hundred percent that good jab can cause some damage . . . can hurt . . . can do all kinds of things . . . but unless there is great disparity in size or something it cannot finish opponent. . . I am not saying jab isn't useful . . . it certainly is useful . . . but just not to finish . . . it is not matter of saying hit harder with jab to finish . . . for me to finish is to incapacitate opponent so he cannot continue fighting. I am thinking that inch power mechanics has limitation in same way that jab mechanics has limitation . . . you can do jab light to full power or in between but mechanics limits power it can create . . . both kind of power and amount of power . . . which will effect nature of power transfer and effect that has on opponent . . . so no sense talking to boxer about finishing with his jab . . . just like no sense to talk to wc person about finishing with short or inch power . . . it is not going to happen as mechanics won't permit it. I am thinking it is not a matter of penetration . . . cross does not penetrate anymore than stiff jab . . . in fact good jab may knock head well back and good cross not knock it back at all . . . but cross finishes due to nature of kinetic power transfer . . . which comes from different mechanics . . . anyway this is how I see it . . . if I see someone who can use short power to finish larger opponent I might change mind . . . lol! I agree with you one hundred percent about sink, rise, swallow, spit as the basic body mechanics of wc . . as I understand it they are not only four discrete fixed body mechanics and that is all we have in wc. . . with only one spit or one sink for example . . . a person can sink by bending at waist or bending knees or tilting hips and so on . . . the human body is very dynamic . . . so I do not view wc as one size fits all . . . so I am thinking that not everyone uses same exact four mechanics . . . there are many ways to step to move right or left . . . we all can't do same things equally well . . . part of training as I understand it is to take basics and customize them to suit our own self . . . so my sink may involve slightly different mechanics than yours . . . so no one can tell you how exactly to do mechanics for yourself . . . only give you basic and then from practice you find mechanics that work for you . . .as I understand it these basic methods can also combine to create many other mechanics . . . anyway this is how I am thinking at moment.

Thanks,

Ghost

[kj]

Hi Ghost,


KJ this is interesting perspective too . . . would you mind expanding on what exactly this means . . . as I can think of several possibilities.

Thanks,

Ghost

Well, I can at least expand on what it means rather generally. I'll follow up when I can, though in a separate thread with a more fitting headline. :)

Regards,
- kj

[sihing]

Thank you Mr. James for providing your thoughts on this matter! I am sure it is possible that there are people who might be able to use jab to finish people much weaker or smaller than themselves . . . but I am thinking this will not be possible with anyone the same size or larger . . . the mechanics of jab just won't produce that kind of power . . . and history of boxing matches would seem to agree with me . . . lol . . . and I agree with you one hundred percent that some have better short or inch power than others . . . but I have never seen anyone that could finish someone same size or larger with short power strikes . . . and I doubt anyone here could do it . . . if they can, I'd love to see video of it! . . . so question of finishing still remains. Short or inch power as I understand it does not depend on how far blow travels . . . but is a kind of power . . . that creates certain effect on target . . . and that kind of power comes from certain sort of mechanics person is using . . . not all mechanics produce same effect . . . some mechanics great for one thing but not another . . . short power mechanics is great for some things like shocking or disrupting but not for others like finishing. . . but if someone can use short power for finishing this is great I'd love to see it . . . they are unique person with special abilities . . . for rest of us who can't do it . . . like me . . . I must use finishing power. . . anyway this is how I view it.

Thanks,

Ghost

I can agree with most of what you wrote Ghost. Too many variables to make absolute statements that is all. If at the very least you have stunned your opponent, to follow up with more if necessary. Nobody from any Art can absolutely guarantee 100% that the force of any blow learned is going powerful enough everytime. It's your ability to be able to follow up with more if necessary that counts concerning effectiveness of what you are doing and trying to acheive. Do not anticipate any outcome that may happen when fighting, just adapt and perceive quickly what is happening at any particular moment in time.

As far as special abilities that is true too, but with consentrated effort done on a consistent basis then all can acheive similar results, otherwise your art will rely on too many "Special Abilities" from the individual. I'd rather use something that works for most of us, than something that works for a special few.

There is also the timing thing that must be brought into play here. When punching, like on your own in the air it may not look powerful, but combining it with your opponents movement forward, like when they are trying to attack you, you can elevate the effectiveness and power output by combining your force into the movement and his force coming forward. The two combined can almost double the output of power in the punch.

James

[Edmund]

Well, I can at least expand on what it means rather generally. I'll follow up when I can, though in a separate thread with a more fitting headline.


Ask Annie Oakley! She'll tell you what a woman can do:
(CUE MUSIC)

Anything you can do, I can do better
I can do anything
Better than you.

(MAN) No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
(MAN) No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
(MAN) No, you can't.
Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Reality fighting requires a lot more than one punch and some footwork from different angles!" (Victor)

"Well, I agree with you to a point but in reality very little is actually needed!" (Jim Roselando)


***THEN YOU DON'T agree with me at all. :rolleyes: :D

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


"How many different punches/punching angles do you have in TWC? How many of all your tools are not travelling down the same line? Palms, chops, this or that are still all travelling down that centerline. The hook looking punch is different line and for a different range.

So, your angles are just body movement/positioning but still one line "mainly". Just because the tip of the tool is different it does not mean its not basically the same thing." (Jim Roselando)


***YOU'VE GOT ME confused with somebody else, Jim...:cool:

For me it's about numerous different types of punches - not just TWC vertical fist wing chun punches that come directly from the center - I also use boxing type straight leads that extend further than the wing chun punches because of the shoulder and hip rotation; uppercuts, boxing (not wing chun) hooks, overhand punches with a downward arc, etc....

and NO...they don't all come from the "centerline" - if fact - at certain ranges (distances) they don't come from the centerline at all.

I only punch directly from the centerline when I'm very close to the opponent.

[kj]

Ask Annie Oakley! She'll tell you what a woman can do:


Ha!

To avoid going down the wrong trail (and however much I might wish it so, LOL) the "I can do anything better than you" idea is not what actually underlies the precept of Wing Chun as a "woman's art." I can hardly argue that Annie Oakley is correct in the general sense, though. :D:p:D

Regards,
- kj

P.S. That ditty will be running through my head all day now! :eek::D

[ghostofwingchun]

I can agree with most of what you wrote Ghost. Too many variables to make absolute statements that is all. If at the very least you have stunned your opponent, to follow up with more if necessary. Nobody from any Art can absolutely guarantee 100% that the force of any blow learned is going powerful enough everytime. It's your ability to be able to follow up with more if necessary that counts concerning effectiveness of what you are doing and trying to acheive. Do not anticipate any outcome that may happen when fighting, just adapt and perceive quickly what is happening at any particular moment in time.

As far as special abilities that is true too, but with consentrated effort done on a consistent basis then all can acheive similar results, otherwise your art will rely on too many "Special Abilities" from the individual. I'd rather use something that works for most of us, than something that works for a special few.

There is also the timing thing that must be brought into play here. When punching, like on your own in the air it may not look powerful, but combining it with your opponents movement forward, like when they are trying to attack you, you can elevate the effectiveness and power output by combining your force into the movement and his force coming forward. The two combined can almost double the output of power in the punch.

James

Mr. James thank you so much for your reply! Yes I understand that there are no guarantees in fighting . . . just to clarify . . . using your example of stunned opponent . . . or as they say in boxing when he's ready to go . . . a boxer would not think oh great now is time to finish him so I should really let go with the jab . . . lol . . . no matter how good their timing was with the jab either . . . there are better tools for finishing . . . and those tools have mechanics that can produce knock out or finishing power unlike jab . . . similarly I doubt very much an experienced and well trained person using wc in the same situation would use a short or inch power strike to try to finish their opponent . . . regardless of any timing considerations . . . they would want to use something that had a much better chance . . . not guarnatee . . . of finishing . . . this is my thinking and my experience at least at the moment . . . and subject to change. Please understand I am not trying to convince anyone to my way of thinking . . . I doubt anyone is convinced by forums . . . but only to share my view in dialogue . . . and to explain why I have views that I do . . . this way people can critique my views . . . and explain their views . . . and it gives me more to think about and maybe experiment with.

Thanks,

Ghost

[ghostofwingchun]

Hi Ghost,

Well, I can at least expand on what it means rather generally. I'll follow up when I can, though in a separate thread with a more fitting headline. :)

Regards,
- kj

Thank you KJ for your response! I look forward to hearing your views on this subject.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Vic,




***THEN YOU DON'T agree with me at all.

I do actually! You need more than just one punch and footwork but not really much more. So, there is a level of agreement.

I have watched countless UFC, Pride this or that. How much is really used by most winners? Mario Sperry has probally the hands down best vale tudo (series one) instructional tape out there and its not becuase its a lot of stuff but because its the core. Watch any of his fights and you will see nothing more than the ultra core stuff he teaches being used on most. Sport/Gi competition is different.

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


***YOU'VE GOT ME confused with somebody else, Jim...

I know your not just a pure TWC guy but it was an example.

For me it's about numerous different types of punches - not just TWC vertical fist wing chun punches that come directly from the center - I also use boxing type straight leads that extend further than the wing chun punches because of the shoulder and hip rotation; uppercuts, boxing (not wing chun) hooks, overhand punches with a downward arc, etc....

and NO...they don't all come from the "centerline" - if fact - at certain ranges (distances) they don't come from the centerline at all.

Yes! Of course since you are doing different stuff but its all still very simple!

Boxing:

(this is just a basic look)

Longer range;

Straight line lead hand (jab)
Straight line rear hand (cross)

Medium/Close:

Hooks/Upper Cuts

From different angles but basically the same punch.

Very simple stuff. Wing Chun for the most part pounds down the centerline with its tools. Simple stuff. Basic grappling and stand up grappling is also simple. How many refernece points for contact are there?

Very little is essentially needed for reality.


Regards,
Jim

[KPM]

Hi Guys!

Just wanted to make a general comment. Not all jabs are wimpy. There is an animal known as a "power jab" that is more of a lead hand power blow. This is delivered with a "falling" or "trigger" step that gets body weight behind it and can pack a real "wallop"! :) Jack Dempsey used this and even delivered it with a vertical fist! It looked a lot like an extended Wing Chun punch! :eek: If you walked into one of these babies delivered without gloves on it would be lights out!

Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Ghost,



Thank you Jim for most thought provoking and illuminating discussion! I agree with you one hundred percent that good jab can cause some damage . . . can hurt . . . can do all kinds of things . . . but unless there is great disparity in size or something it cannot finish opponent. . . I am not saying jab isn't useful . . . it certainly is useful . . . but just not to finish . . . it is not matter of saying hit harder with jab to finish . . . for me to finish is to incapacitate opponent so he cannot continue fighting. I am thinking that inch power mechanics has limitation in same way that jab mechanics has limitation . . . you can do jab light to full power or in between but mechanics limits power it can create . . . both kind of power and amount of power . . . which will effect nature of power transfer and effect that has on opponent . . . so no sense talking to boxer about finishing with his jab . . . just like no sense to talk to wc person about finishing with short or inch power . . . it is not going to happen as mechanics won't permit it. I am thinking it is not a matter of penetration . . . cross does not penetrate anymore than stiff jab . . . in fact good jab may knock head well back and good cross not knock it back at all . . . but cross finishes due to nature of kinetic power transfer . . . which comes from different mechanics . . . anyway this is how I see it . . . if I see someone who can use short power to finish larger opponent I might change mind . . . lol!

I really think the only confusion we have is that it seems you think there is a difference between Inch/Shock and Finishing power. I dont. Let me try to explain.

Try this:

Hold a focus mitt on your chest. Have a Karate guy hit you, a Boxer hit you, a Wing Chun man hit you etc. etc.. Each will have a different feel. The feel produced by the WC training should have zap or shock present. Its not something that is odd. If someone punches you and you Pak and someone punches at the boxer and he does his parry it should feel different to the person throwing the punch. Not everything has shock as moves like Bong is more passive but we just feel different. So, thats why I say the only thing different from something being lighter or more brutal is the ammount of force we release/connect with and how deep it penetrates. The shock should be present no matter how hard you do your stuff. Well, unless you are a noodle.

I agree with you one hundred percent about sink, rise, swallow, spit as the basic body mechanics of wc . . as I understand it they are not only four discrete fixed body mechanics and that is all we have in wc. . .

I listed Rise, Sink, Open, Close as Swallow and Spit seem to be not normally stated in WCK. It would be like repeating it as its expressed in Loi Lau Hoi Sung "Recieve/Escort" but its pretty much the same stuff.

with only one spit or one sink for example . . . a person can sink by bending at waist or bending knees or tilting hips and so on . . . the human body is very dynamic . . . so I do not view wc as one size fits all . . .

There cant be no one size fits all way of doing things as we all have different bodies. But still in reality all you listed are still sink. The body has lots of folds and if we had to break it all down it would be too confusing to make natural. Sink is sink. How much we sink depends on the situation. Not everything produces shock tho. So, we can do lots of stuff but a good way to see if its fits is to feel the shock or not.

so I am thinking that not everyone uses same exact four mechanics . . . there are many ways to step to move right or left . . . we all can't do same things equally well . . . part of training as I understand it is to take basics and customize them to suit our own self . . . so my sink may involve slightly different mechanics than yours . . . so no one can tell you how exactly to do mechanics for yourself . . . only give you basic and then from practice you find mechanics that work for you . . .as I understand it these basic methods can also combine to create many other mechanics . . . anyway this is how I am thinking at moment.

A natural freedom of expression is hopefully the goal of all our training. We are all pretty much basically taught the same in WCK.

SLT-Standing
CK-Medium Rotation/Stepping
BJ-Sharp Rotation

When combined we have lots of stuff but by the time we finish our power/body should be developed to deliver and use the body in a way that it cultivated/issues Shock.


Hey Ghost!


Thanks for the chat!


Peace,

[sihing]

Hey Vic,




***THEN YOU DON'T agree with me at all.

I do actually! You need more than just one punch and footwork but not really much more. So, there is a level of agreement.

I have watched countless UFC, Pride this or that. How much is really used by most winners? Mario Sperry has probally the hands down best vale tudo (series one) instructional tape out there and its not becuase its a lot of stuff but because its the core. Watch any of his fights and you will see nothing more than the ultra core stuff he teaches being used on most. Sport/Gi competition is different.

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


***YOU'VE GOT ME confused with somebody else, Jim...

I know your not just a pure TWC guy but it was an example.

For me it's about numerous different types of punches - not just TWC vertical fist wing chun punches that come directly from the center - I also use boxing type straight leads that extend further than the wing chun punches because of the shoulder and hip rotation; uppercuts, boxing (not wing chun) hooks, overhand punches with a downward arc, etc....

and NO...they don't all come from the "centerline" - if fact - at certain ranges (distances) they don't come from the centerline at all.

Yes! Of course since you are doing different stuff but its all still very simple!

Boxing:

(this is just a basic look)

Longer range;

Straight line lead hand (jab)
Straight line rear hand (cross)

Medium/Close:

Hooks/Upper Cuts

From different angles but basically the same punch.

Very simple stuff. Wing Chun for the most part pounds down the centerline with its tools. Simple stuff. Basic grappling and stand up grappling is also simple. How many refernece points for contact are there?

Very little is essentially needed for reality.


Regards,
Jim

Hey Jim, some people like to complicate things, that's all, makes them feel important like they are inventing something old, lol......

I agree with you Jim, good posts...

James

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Anyone see Winky fight the wildman from Australia?

Man that guy was ugly but good stamina!

The fight I liked the most in recent times was Floyd Mayweather against A. Gotti from NJ. Floyds was amazing! So fast and crisp power! What a display of Boxing skill!

Great stuff!


Regards,

[Jim Roselando]

Hey James!


I have to post my fortune cookie saying again:


Genious is the ability to make the complicated "simple"!


Thanks man!


Peace,

[sihing]

Hey James!


I have to post my fortune cookie saying again:


Genious is the ability to make the complicated "simple"!


Thanks man!


Peace,

That quote reminds me of My Sifu...

So I guess the opposite is, Idiots make the simple more "complicated"!;)

No problem, glad to help out where I can..:cool:

JR

[ghostofwingchun]

Hi Guys!

Just wanted to make a general comment. Not all jabs are wimpy. There is an animal known as a "power jab" that is more of a lead hand power blow. This is delivered with a "falling" or "trigger" step that gets body weight behind it and can pack a real "wallop"! :) Jack Dempsey used this and even delivered it with a vertical fist! It looked a lot like an extended Wing Chun punch! :eek: If you walked into one of these babies delivered without gloves on it would be lights out!

Keith

Mr. Keith thank you for adding your thoughts to matter! Please understand . . . I am not saying all jabs are wimpy . . . or that jab can not have wallop . . . just that jab is not finishing blow . . . even Dempsay not use jab to finish . . . can you name one fight where he knock out or incapacite opponent with jab? . . . of course not . . . of course I agree with you that it possible a big strong guy with tremendous jab may knock some smaller person out . . . but this is exception and not the rule . . . can you knock out bigger tough guy with your jab? . . . I certainly can't and I don't know anyone that can . . . we mortals use blows with finishing power built into them when we are going for finish.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Kieth,


Power Jab

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

Hi Guys!

Just wanted to make a general comment. Not all jabs are wimpy. There is an animal known as a "power jab" that is more of a lead hand power blow. This is delivered with a "falling" or "trigger" step that gets body weight behind it and can pack a real "wallop"! Jack Dempsey used this and even delivered it with a vertical fist! It looked a lot like an extended Wing Chun punch! If you walked into one of these babies delivered without gloves on it would be lights out!

This also reminds me of everyones good buddy Bruce Lee and his art of JKD/Jun Fan. He always taught to place the strong hand forward as its closest to the target. This approach also gave the weaker hand more distance to help increase power for it.

Its pretty effective!


Regards,

[ghostofwingchun]

I really think the only confusion we have is that it seems you think there is a difference between Inch/Shock and Finishing power. I dont. Let me try to explain.

Try this:

Hold a focus mitt on your chest. Have a Karate guy hit you, a Boxer hit you, a Wing Chun man hit you etc. etc.. Each will have a different feel. The feel produced by the WC training should have zap or shock present. Its not something that is odd. If someone punches you and you Pak and someone punches at the boxer and he does his parry it should feel different to the person throwing the punch. Not everything has shock as moves like Bong is more passive but we just feel different. So, thats why I say the only thing different from something being lighter or more brutal is the ammount of force we release/connect with and how deep it penetrates. The shock should be present no matter how hard you do your stuff. Well, unless you are a noodle.

I listed Rise, Sink, Open, Close as Swallow and Spit seem to be not normally stated in WCK. It would be like repeating it as its expressed in Loi Lau Hoi Sung "Recieve/Escort" but its pretty much the same stuff.

There cant be no one size fits all way of doing things as we all have different bodies. But still in reality all you listed are still sink. The body has lots of folds and if we had to break it all down it would be too confusing to make natural. Sink is sink. How much we sink depends on the situation. Not everything produces shock tho. So, we can do lots of stuff but a good way to see if its fits is to feel the shock or not.

A natural freedom of expression is hopefully the goal of all our training. We are all pretty much basically taught the same in WCK.

SLT-Standing
CK-Medium Rotation/Stepping
BJ-Sharp Rotation

When combined we have lots of stuff but by the time we finish our power/body should be developed to deliver and use the body in a way that it cultivated/issues Shock.


Hey Ghost!


Thanks for the chat!


Peace,

Thank you very much for thought provoking discussion! I find it very illuminating to see different perspectives on these things . . . and it gives me much to think about and digest. You are right . . . my understanding is that inch power and finishing power are two different things . . . and not just a matter of finishing with greater amount of inch power . . . I am thinking that mechanics that produces inch power cannot by nature of mechanics create sufficient power to finish . . . at least not against tough guy or bigger guy or genuine opponent . . . though it will produce sufficient power to shock or disrupt . . . in earlier post you mention wc is woman's art . . . do you think woman or weaker man can produce such tremendous level of inch power to finish bigger opponent? . . . I have not seen anyone that can do it . . . perhaps you have developed such high degree of inch power you can do it . . . if so I think you are exception. I am thinking that wc straight punch has shock effect because this is what punch was designed for . . . to shock or disrupt . . . as prelude to finish . . . not as finishing tool itself. I should add . . . only because I do not want to agree by default . . . that I also do not view wc forms as you describe . . . but this is beside the point of discussion at hand. All in all I have enjoyed this discussion . . . and it has helped me to see how others see things . . . for this I thank you Jim.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Thanks for the chat Ghost!

my understanding is that inch power and finishing power are two different things . . . and not just a matter of finishing with greater amount of inch power . . .

Try this! Lets eliminate the word Inch power or Shock power etc.. Gone! That is just a "description" anyhow of what we feel like once cultivated.

Whats the difference between a light sun punch, medium sun punch and a heavy sun punch? The ammount of velocity and mass behind it. Its still a sun punch.

I am thinking that mechanics that produces inch power cannot by nature of mechanics create sufficient power to finish . . . at least not against tough guy or bigger guy or genuine opponent . . . though it will produce sufficient power to shock or disrupt . . .

The mechanics are no different IMO. Sure! Its not likely that a 2" sun punch will drop someone in the heat of battle unless your a monster but WCK is not about being 1 shot heros.

Mass + Velocity = the ammount of bang we try to deliver! A little more mass/velocity = a little more finishing power as you call it.

in earlier post you mention wc is woman's art . . . do you think woman or weaker man can produce such tremendous level of inch power to finish bigger opponent? . . .

Only if they had a fully cultivated body. Hard to find this!

I have not seen anyone that can do it . . . perhaps you have developed such high degree of inch power you can do it . . . if so I think you are exception.

Kung Fu or martial art hopefully teaches us to issue/recieve as much possible force as we can with specific mechanics. It cultivates our bodies to do this. In a perfect world! :) Its not about being a one shot hero but certanly there are little people who hit wicked hard. Look at our Kung Fu ancestors;

Wong Wah Sam from Koo Lo was 5' tall 98 lbs.

Sum Nung was a little guy!

Wang Xiang Zhai from Yi Chaun was my size about 5' 5" (138)

Lum Sang from Jook Lum Mantis was 5' tall about 100lbs.


I am thinking that wc straight punch has shock effect because this is what punch was designed for . . . to shock or disrupt . . . as prelude to finish . . . not as finishing tool itself.

What is a finishing tool in your opinion?

I should add . . . only because I do not want to agree by default . . . that I also do not view wc forms as you describe . . . but this is beside the point of discussion at hand.

Thats ok! The Forms have lots of meaning. Not just that stuff.

All in all I have enjoyed this discussion . . . and it has helped me to see how others see things . . . for this I thank you Jim.

Me to! Thanks!


With whom do you train?


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's not as simple as you make it sound, Jim.

Because actually DOING IT when sparring/fighting for real against a decent opponent requires a lot of work; specifically the transitioning between the weapons to be used at the different ranges (and therefore the different systems - such as boxing/kickboxing at certain longer ranges - wing chun at a closer range - in the clinch using elbows and knees - still closer where takedowns and throws, and sweeps might come into play...and then possibly fighting/wrestling/grappling on the ground....


you SERIOUSLY UNDERSTATE the case. To the point, quite frankly, where you seem to be simply out of touch with the reality of putting it all together against a good fighter.

Take a look at some of the top MMA fighters ot today - like Fedor Emelianko, Mirko Cro Cop, Randy Couture, Mark Hunt, Chuck Liddell, etc.

There's a lot of complexity to what they're doing - and your remarks about Mario Sperry seem to indicate a lack of paying real atttention to where the game has evolved to now.

[anerlich]

Based on some opinions expressed on this thread, one might gather that the lead left hand, be it delivered with boxing jab or WC straight punch mechanics, is a wimpy punch with no stopping power, while the supposedly inefficient lead left hook regularly poopooed by (some) WC purists, which regularly puts boxers and street punters down for the count, must obviously be and demonstrably is, by the criteria given, be a better punch.

Bad logic in there somewhere. But where?

Geoff Thompson and others talk about having a "core game", which in GT's case is a right cross. However, you need a "support system" of backup techniques and alternatives when your core game fails or is successfully countered. The "support system" is based in fundamentals.

The processes of JMA's Shu Ha Ri and JKD's philosophy have us starting with simplicity due to ignorance, moving to complexity, and then returning ot simplictiy through integration. It is a mistake to assume that the last stage is identical to the first, or that you can short-circuit the process successfully.

[chisauking]

Quote: can you name one fight where he knock out or incapacite opponent with jab? . . .

Can you name me one street fight where you put on big boxing gloves before you jab?

Quote: can you knock out bigger tough guy with your jab? . . .

YES

Quote: I certainly can't and I don't know anyone that can . . . we mortals use blows with finishing power built into them when we are going for finish.

I sun punched someone very lightly in the solerplex and that finished him off.. Is that considered finishing power? Or... do I have to follow with a couple of cross and hay makers for good measure? LOL very L

[sihing]

Exactly, putting gloves on takes away how much power? I've seen boxing matches were the guy took right crosses and was still there to take another one, so is the right cross a finishing blow, always? Different circumstances for different folks depending on who you are fighting. Too many variables. Again the important thing is not about one punch knock out power but your ability to follow up if necessary.

You know if the guy out weighs you and is taller/larger, why try the knock out on the chin anyways, when you can take out the knees and groin and bring him down a level for you to finish off.

James

[kj]

(In response to Ghostofwingchun's question in the Hardcore thread.)

Here is some of what it means to say "If a woman can't do it, it isn't Wing Chun":

Literally what it says. Our benchmark for determining whether something is Wing Chun or not, is to examine whether or not women in general can feasibly execute in such a manner or compete on the basis of dependent attributes. Anything that doesn’t pass this test, is inconsistent with and therefore not an aspect of Wing Chun. (I realize some of you will disagree; my purpose here is not to convince, rather to lightly illuminate the quotation and viewpoint.)
The ability to practice or utilize Wing Chun does not rely on [typically] superior masculine physical characteristics such as gross strength in the large muscle groups, reliance on speed (velocity), or large relative differences in mass.
Wing Chun leverages physical characteristics that are not as markedly different between the sexes. For example, more emphasis is placed on development and utilization of body alignment and integration, utilization of positioning and joint movements to realize mechanical advantage, and sensitivity for increased responsiveness and perceived speed (i.e., getting there first vs. competing on the basis of velocity).
Considering women as an illustration and recognizable example of those who are smaller, weaker, or more physically disadvantaged than a potential opponent, Wing Chun aims to achieve both a) utilization and optimization of one’s opportunities and b) minimization of one’s vulnerabilities. [FWLIW, minimization of one’s vulnerabilities is a distinguishing feature of Wing Chun as I know and love it, as compared with many other training methods, fighting solutions, or perspectives.]
Wing Chun takes advantage of capabilities available to [what is typically] the least common physical denominator; this makes practice of Wing Chun practical, and development and improvement realizable for virtually anyone regardless of stature or gender. In other words, while everyone may not become an MMA champ, everyone can make significant improvements relative to themselves through Wing Chun.


Other aspects of Wing Chun which are generally consistent with women’s tendencies or characteristics:


A passive aggressive and stealth nature vs. overtly revealing intent (telegraphing) or excessive commitment
A reserved or defensive nature (“as needed”) vs. a tendency to initiate aggression
Stronger reliance on sensitivity, perception vs. forcing, insisting, or attempting to over-power (we are pretty well acclimated already to the fact that that won't work)
Greater patience (usually); this factors into many of the items already listed
Despite any reluctance at the start, relentless once committed. Women (generally of course) are not inclined toward overt conflict, tending to view fighting as a matter of ultimate seriousness, even a life-and-death matter; it is a rare woman who approaches fighting as a game or sport.
Wing Chun taps into advantages of smallness, compactness, and a non-threatening appearance or demeanor (“yin-ness,” if you will).
In my experience, many women have an easier time grasping some important nuances of Wing Chun initially (e.g., settling, muscle relaxation, development of posture, reliance on positioning and sensitivity vs. unnecessary force, etc.). Granted, over time such gender differences tend to subside, whereupon men’s generally stronger physical characteristics eventually play again as a bonus to their advantage.


Things that are *not* meant or implied:

That women will achieve greater or even comparable results to men (in general).
That size, strength, speed, conditioning, youthfulness, and yadda yadda yadda of an opponent doesn’t matter.
That physical attributes of either party don’t matter.
That a Wing Chun person of any size, gender, race or creed will or should be expected to prevail in a fight or violent encounter. While we can work to increase our odds, at any given moment in time, what is, is, simple as that.


Some additional considerations:

There is always someone larger, stronger, faster, younger, or prettier than you. Learning how to utilize “lowest common denominator” type of skills can come in handy for anyone, no less greater sustainability as we age. Through the practice of Wing Chun, the gift of more masculine or youthful attributes, greater mass, reach, etc. become a) a bonus rather than a requirement and b) less likely a liability turned easily against oneself.
A close examination of Wing Chun (as I know it) puts into serious doubt a genesis of the art that fails to include to include at least some influence or consideration of women. Regardless of their truth, fallacy, or partial basis in reality, the myths and legends involving the likes of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun still significantly inform the art.
Wing Chun can help to tap into or improve virtually anyone’s capabilities; this is a major strength of the art, IMHO.
While Wing Chun (as I know it) is well suited to a broad spectrum of people, I know of no basis for claiming Wing Chun to be the ultimate martial art or fighting method.
The fact that some great fighters, great fighting, great training, great sport, or great athletic achievement may utilize some specific practice or attribute does not by default make that practice or attribute an aspect of Wing Chun. Fighting and Wing Chun, while related, are not the same thing.
While Wing Chun can help us to better understand, appreciate and internalize a lot of things, practice of it will not fundamentally change the laws of physics or the nature of the universe. :D
I think most of us fully realize that the system, the training method, the quality of instruction, and the individual themselves all factor into the realization of success. Commentary on Wing Chun as a woman’s art or as anything else doesn’t impact the truth of this.
Generalities, almost by definition, are wrong in some cases. So if you happen to know of a woman who doesn't fit these generalized characteristics, or some man who does, bully for you for finding exceptions. :p


There is more to consider but bottom line is that, like my teacher, I too hold that "if a woman can’t do it, it isn’t Wing Chun." In contrast to Annie Oakley’s contention, I also believe - at least when it comes to Wing Chun - that if a woman can do it, so can you.

Regards,
- kj

[Phil Redmond]

KJ, Your points have always been my arguement against "barreling" down the middle. If you can do it fine, but it's not always the best approach. Also, I always found it easier to teach a woman especially in chi sau. The lower testosterone levels work in their favor. ;)
Phil

[Edmund]

(In response to Ghostofwingchun's question in the Hardcore thread.)

There is more to consider but bottom line is that, like my teacher, I too hold that "if a woman can’t do it, it isn’t Wing Chun." In contrast to Annie Oakley’s contention, I also believe - at least when it comes to Wing Chun - that if a woman can do it, so can you.


But Annie can do it better!

Is there ANY martial art that relies on being bigger than the opponent? (Sumo perhaps!)

[KPM]

Excellent summary KJ! Thanks!

Keith

[cobra]

Good Post KJ!! I agree, this perception of Wing tsun has helped to increase my effectiveness 10 times over. I have gained a whole new understanding of and level of sensitivity because of it. Also, my speed and overall power has increased as well as my ability to last longer when sparring without getting winded.

[kj]

Howdy Edmund. :)


But Annie can do it better!

Well isn't she gifted. :D


Is there ANY martial art that relies on being bigger than the opponent? (Sumo perhaps!)

In theory, no. In practice, many if not most do.

The implication isn't simply that martial arts other than Wing Chun rely on such attributes. Many would-be Wing Chun practitioners also do it. Even I do it; it's instinctive. It takes a Hades of a lot of work, supported through relentless hounding by a knowledgeable teacher or coach to do otherwise. A virtual "rewiring" of instincts doesn't come easily, and a job never fully done.

Just to be clear, the issue is not simply a matter of "avoiding reliance on" [relatively more] masculine attributes. The assertion is much stronger than that. It's not merely about leaving something out; it is about actively and specifically developing something else. In the case of Wing Chun, IMHO, we require development of characteristics that happen to be more naturally congruous with women. Without developing this part, one may realize phenomenal achievement (and many in fact do!), though it may be little or no achievement relative to Wing Chun.

The epitome of Wing Chun (note, I did not say fighting), is not simply to prevail as a smaller person. It is application of certain types of skills that make it Wing Chun, or not. Some means of execution and movement will be closer to Wing Chun and some will be farrther from it. I don't know that anyone reaches the ideal of Wing Chun; further refinement and discovery is always possible. It is in this light that my own teacher refers to himself as "a humble student of Wing Chun," and no doubt feels others would be wise to follow suit.

It takes a tremendous amount of discipline to avoid falling in the "habit" of relying on one's superior physical attributes long enough to develop a solid base in "common denominator skills" (my term for it). I don't see this being driven home by many martial arts teachers including Wing Chun.

Again, to your question, I am not making comparative assertions on the superiority of martial art styles or lineages. It is a) about what Wing Chun is (and isn't), b) how we train, develop, and execute, and c) the degree to which these converge. I have seen and experienced some martial artists in other styles who, in my view, are more consistent with the ideals of Wing Chun than many of us who explicitly practice a Wing Chun style. When other stylists make achievements that are characteristic of Wing Chun, kudos to them for tapping into that essence.

Regards,
- kj

[wingchun187]

hello all, my girl friend has been training in wing chun now for two years and she is doing great ,picking things up fast,i agree with phill her free chi sao is on point.and shes loves training.i think WCK its perfect for a woman.

[reneritchie]

I have been hit by both KJ and my classmate Georgia, and wish to warn others that there are some hella deadly women out there.

My low muscle-toned, poorly coordinated, non visual-learning self can't do half what they can.

I would like to humbly request much, much more stringent requirements :(

[sihing]

My Sifu's wife is a senior instructor in the association (she's my senior also), and has actually had to use Wing Chun more than I have in real street situations (each time using it in her favor). She's about 5'6", and average weight for her age (I dare not say anymore otherwise I'm dead, lol). She has great skill, but also has a great spirit with the art when she uses it. There is no playing around when she uses Wing Chun, whether it is practice or for real. She get's straight to the point when you make contact with her arms and the power & effectiveness of her strikes and movements are very high. GM Cheung from the TWC system, Chi-sao's with her back in 94' and was astonished as to her skills, saying he's never seen a women as good. Due to that, he appointed her the Head Instructor of his self defense system (Pro-Tekt) for the whole of North America.

James

[Phil Redmond]

But Annie can do it better!

Is there ANY martial art that relies on being bigger than the opponent? (Sumo perhaps!)
Yes. That is proven in the full contact Kyokushinkai matches in all the time. You can see examples of that it in the movie Fighting Black Kings. Also, there is an old Chinese saying. "Same school, stronger one wins? If you think in terms of physics and a system teaches force against force, who has the greater "chance" of winning, a stronger person or a weaker one?
Phil

[reneritchie]

I remember going to see Karate fights back in 1989 that were full contact but you could only punch the chest (not head). The two combatants would stand opposite each other and chain-punch each other in the chest, rapidly, until one fell down. The other was declared the winner.

[couch]

Some additional considerations:

There is always someone larger, stronger, faster, younger, or prettier than you.


Regards,
- kj

Sorry. But there is noone prettier than I. Maybe stronger and faster...but definately not prettier.

On topic:
I know you may have to explain this open-ended question to high Heaven, but how do you differ Wing Chun specifically, from fighting? And how do you bridge that gap? Because I've been really thinking a lot lately about fighting (and sparring) with Wing Chun...I wish you'd go into this from your family/school/personal point of view!

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

[Ultimatewingchun]

While it is true that wing chun has certain characteristics that make it different than a more typical, in-your-face style of martial art, like kyokushin karate, for example (because of the sensitivity training that is acquired from chi sao and other related drills - so that we minimize using direct force vs. direct force)...

and therefore has more of a "feminine" quality too it...thereby making the style somewhat more appealing and available to women...

the fact still remains that both the yin and the yang are required for one who truly wants to excel in fighting.

[FooFighter]

(In response to Ghostofwingchun's question in the Hardcore thread.)

Here is some of what it means to say "If a woman can't do it, it isn't Wing Chun":

Literally what it says. Our benchmark for determining whether something is Wing Chun or not, is to examine whether or not women in general can feasibly execute in such a manner or compete on the basis of dependent attributes. Anything that doesn’t pass this test, is inconsistent with and therefore not an aspect of Wing Chun. (I realize some of you will disagree; my purpose here is not to convince, rather to lightly illuminate the quotation and viewpoint.)
The ability to practice or utilize Wing Chun does not rely on [typically] superior masculine physical characteristics such as gross strength in the large muscle groups, reliance on speed (velocity), or large relative differences in mass.
Wing Chun leverages physical characteristics that are not as markedly different between the sexes. For example, more emphasis is placed on development and utilization of body alignment and integration, utilization of positioning and joint movements to realize mechanical advantage, and sensitivity for increased responsiveness and perceived speed (i.e., getting there first vs. competing on the basis of velocity).
Considering women as an illustration and recognizable example of those who are smaller, weaker, or more physically disadvantaged than a potential opponent, Wing Chun aims to achieve both a) utilization and optimization of one’s opportunities and b) minimization of one’s vulnerabilities. [FWLIW, minimization of one’s vulnerabilities is a distinguishing feature of Wing Chun as I know and love it, as compared with many other training methods, fighting solutions, or perspectives.]
Wing Chun takes advantage of capabilities available to [what is typically] the least common physical denominator; this makes practice of Wing Chun practical, and development and improvement realizable for virtually anyone regardless of stature or gender. In other words, while everyone may not become an MMA champ, everyone can make significant improvements relative to themselves through Wing Chun.


Other aspects of Wing Chun which are generally consistent with women’s tendencies or characteristics:


A passive aggressive and stealth nature vs. overtly revealing intent (telegraphing) or excessive commitment
A reserved or defensive nature (“as needed”) vs. a tendency to initiate aggression
Stronger reliance on sensitivity, perception vs. forcing, insisting, or attempting to over-power (we are pretty well acclimated already to the fact that that won't work)
Greater patience (usually); this factors into many of the items already listed
Despite any reluctance at the start, relentless once committed. Women (generally of course) are not inclined toward overt conflict, tending to view fighting as a matter of ultimate seriousness, even a life-and-death matter; it is a rare woman who approaches fighting as a game or sport.
Wing Chun taps into advantages of smallness, compactness, and a non-threatening appearance or demeanor (“yin-ness,” if you will).
In my experience, many women have an easier time grasping some important nuances of Wing Chun initially (e.g., settling, muscle relaxation, development of posture, reliance on positioning and sensitivity vs. unnecessary force, etc.). Granted, over time such gender differences tend to subside, whereupon men’s generally stronger physical characteristics eventually play again as a bonus to their advantage.


Things that are *not* meant or implied:

That women will achieve greater or even comparable results to men (in general).
That size, strength, speed, conditioning, youthfulness, and yadda yadda yadda of an opponent doesn’t matter.
That physical attributes of either party don’t matter.
That a Wing Chun person of any size, gender, race or creed will or should be expected to prevail in a fight or violent encounter. While we can work to increase our odds, at any given moment in time, what is, is, simple as that.


Some additional considerations:

There is always someone larger, stronger, faster, younger, or prettier than you. Learning how to utilize “lowest common denominator” type of skills can come in handy for anyone, no less greater sustainability as we age. Through the practice of Wing Chun, the gift of more masculine or youthful attributes, greater mass, reach, etc. become a) a bonus rather than a requirement and b) less likely a liability turned easily against oneself.
A close examination of Wing Chun (as I know it) puts into serious doubt a genesis of the art that fails to include to include at least some influence or consideration of women. Regardless of their truth, fallacy, or partial basis in reality, the myths and legends involving the likes of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun still significantly inform the art.
Wing Chun can help to tap into or improve virtually anyone’s capabilities; this is a major strength of the art, IMHO.
While Wing Chun (as I know it) is well suited to a broad spectrum of people, I know of no basis for claiming Wing Chun to be the ultimate martial art or fighting method.
The fact that some great fighters, great fighting, great training, great sport, or great athletic achievement may utilize some specific practice or attribute does not by default make that practice or attribute an aspect of Wing Chun. Fighting and Wing Chun, while related, are not the same thing.
While Wing Chun can help us to better understand, appreciate and internalize a lot of things, practice of it will not fundamentally change the laws of physics or the nature of the universe. :D
I think most of us fully realize that the system, the training method, the quality of instruction, and the individual themselves all factor into the realization of success. Commentary on Wing Chun as a woman’s art or as anything else doesn’t impact the truth of this.
Generalities, almost by definition, are wrong in some cases. So if you happen to know of a woman who doesn't fit these generalized characteristics, or some man who does, bully for you for finding exceptions. :p


There is more to consider but bottom line is that, like my teacher, I too hold that "if a woman can’t do it, it isn’t Wing Chun." In contrast to Annie Oakley’s contention, I also believe - at least when it comes to Wing Chun - that if a woman can do it, so can you.

Regards,
- kj

Brilliant. Thank you sharing your insight.

[Tom Kagan]

Sorry. But there is noone prettier than I. Maybe stronger and faster...but definately not prettier.

I can arrange to have that fixed if you like. Let me know.


On topic:
I know you may have to explain this open-ended question to high Heaven, but how do you differ Wing Chun specifically, from fighting? And how do you bridge that gap? Because I've been really thinking a lot lately about fighting (and sparring) with Wing Chun...I wish you'd go into this from your family/school/personal point of view!

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

In order to answer the question, you must first make the distinction between method and result. Ving Tsun is both. Fighting is not; it is only a result. How to bridge the gap between method and result should be obvious: Test what your method purports to help you learn if you want to know.

If you don't want to know or don't have a particular need to know, then it's not important.

[AmanuJRY]

Nice post kj.:)

Though I don't disagree with your post, at all, I will say that to me, MA (regardless of style) is about personal development, so any martial art is for any gender or size of person. Any number of arguments can be brought against any art regarding gender, size, etc. It is the goal of many styles to promote that their art is suitable for females and smaller individuals to learn to defend themselves, and therefore should be in line with your school/instructor's motto.

So, I agree, but to me it's sort of a moot point.

[kj]

Thanks folks.

LOL, Rene. Georgia, absolutely. Me, still greatly a work in progress. :o

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

the fact still remains that both the yin and the yang are required for one who truly wants to excel in fighting.

... or anything, n'est pas?

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Nice post kj.:)

Though I don't disagree with your post, at all, I will say that to me, MA (regardless of style) is about personal development, so any martial art is for any gender or size of person. Any number of arguments can be brought against any art regarding gender, size, etc. It is the goal of many styles to promote that their art is suitable for females and smaller individuals to learn to defend themselves, and therefore should be in line with your school/instructor's motto.

So, I agree, but to me it's sort of a moot point.

Understood. I'll defer to the caveats in my response to Edmund above regarding theory, practice, and what I believe to be a somewhat unique aspect of Wing Chun.

Regards,
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yes, Kathy Jo....or anything! :)

[couch]

How to bridge the gap between method and result should be obvious: Test what your method purports to help you learn if you want to know.

If you don't want to know or don't have a particular need to know, then it's not important.

Thanks Tom. Makes sense to me. More experience = More experience. I'll keep on the path I'm travelling.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

As I have said many times this is your forum. Based on the opinions expressed by several members I have decided to restore this thread and allow it to continue.

Ernie,

I can respect your right to delete a thread which you started but not after it has gone on into several pages. IMHO the time to delete the thread would have been in the beginning.

Please try to keep things civil and enjoy your continuing discussion.

[Ernie]

Hello,

As I have said many times this is your forum. Based on the opinions expressed by several members I have decided to restore this thread and allow it to continue.

Ernie,

I can respect your right to delete a thread which you started but not after it has gone on into several pages. IMHO the time to delete the thread would have been in the beginning.

Please try to keep things civil and enjoy your continuing discussion.
WOW god spoke ,,,,,,,,,, and all the village was at peace

dude no big deal , let the children play hahahaa:D the cure for cancer might be hidden in these post ,,,, we can't lose that !!!!

[kj]

Hi Kenton,


Sorry. But there is noone prettier than I. Maybe stronger and faster...but definately not prettier.

I'll take you at your word. :)


On topic:
I know you may have to explain this open-ended question to high Heaven, but how do you differ Wing Chun specifically, from fighting? And how do you bridge that gap? Because I've been really thinking a lot lately about fighting (and sparring) with Wing Chun...I wish you'd go into this from your family/school/personal point of view!

It's a good question. Strictly from my point of view then, and speaking for no one else, here goes. As you read this, please understand that I'm offering more of a scattershoot, than a rigorous logical progression.

Wing Chun is a system comprised of a model (e.g., abstract and idealized principles) and a training method (or methods) for the development of human capabilities which in turn realize those abstract principles. Wing Chun can be much likened to basic training in the military. In the way that training is not war, Wing Chun is not fighting. Wing Chun is both a tool and a process of learning how to use that tool.

Again, basic training is preparation, and oriented toward building skills and capabilities. A war, on the other hand, has a very specific and immediate intent, an objective with relative to a specific engagement and specific opposing force. Basic training is an act of preparedness, and may be ongoing; a fight, a battle, or a war - even if protracted - has a beginning and an end.

Both basic training and Wing Chun can be codified. A fight or a war cannot be codified or executed with predictable consistency - every war is wholly unique and unpredictable. Though, in both cases we obviously aim to stack the odds in our favor.

Practicing Wing Chun is a process of preparation, to develop capabilities that may ultimately be used in fighting; like a battle or war, fighting is an objective in the here and now to supersede physically over another individual, to protect or preserve person or property, or for rewards like power, pride, or money. Just as there may be alternative rewards and motivations for someone who undergoes basic military training (e.g., improve self-discipline, respect for authority, learn skills that apply to non-war endeavors, receive tuition assistance, etc.), individuals may be motivated or benefit from non-fighting rewards in the practice of Wing Chun. Not everyone who undergoes basic training becomes directly involved in a military engagement, battle, or war. As a plus, even those who undergo basic military training but do not engage directly in warfare contribute to the sustainment of military capability in a wide variety of ways; similarly, those who practice Wing Chun have an opportunity to contribute to and the sustainment of Wing Chun.

The primary purpose for which Wing Chun was designed (or at least has evolved) is for application of certain skills and behaviors during the act of fighting (e.g., some of my comments on "If a woman can't do it, it isn't Wing Chun"), under the theory that application of such a skill set will increase one's odds of success. The care to be exercised here is to avoid confusing a thing with its intended purpose, a process or skill set with its intended result. A hammer (the object) is not the same thing as an act of hammering, for instance. One can also hammer with a wrench, a stone, or a fist. The ability to hammer is also not the same as an act of hammering. While designed for fighting, it is rare to see a person employ only Wing Chun ideals or its humanized movements in fighting; even for those who are highly trained in Wing Chun, characteristics of the art are often hard pressed to be seen.

To say that Wing Chun is fighting also implies that they are equivalent. First, I have yet to see a fight on any level which was consistent with both the model of Wing Chun or its training methodology. Secondly, I have never yet seen a person who, even in training, was in perfect adherence to the model or ideal of Wing Chun. Some far closer than others, though no one who could not be closer or more consistent still. In this light, I have noted my own carelessness on occasion to say that "I do Wing Chun." A closer examination would show that I don't "do" it as much as I "practice" in hopes of internalizing and realizing the ideals of the model and capabilities commensurate with it. I hope to "do" it, or come close to doing it one day. In reality, perhaps no one truly "achieves" or "does" Wing Chun; at best we may grow closer to the ideal of it.

Though not the same as equivalence (i.e., Wing Chun "is" fighting, and conversely that fighting "is" Wing Chun), there is opportunity for Wing Chun (the ideals and human realization of it) and the act of fighting to converge. In a fight, it is more pressing objective that a fight be won, than to hold to the ideals of a training method. As humans, we obviously enjoy and feel validated on several levels when the two converge.

Well, enough of my incessant rambling. Hopefully there's an idea or two in there for you to work with or chew on further.

Regards,
- kj

[sihing]

Hi Kenton,



I'll take you at your word. :)



It's a good question. Strictly from my point of view then, and speaking for no one else, here goes. As you read this, please understand that I'm offering more of a scattershoot, than a rigorous logical progression.

Wing Chun is a system comprised of a model (e.g., abstract and idealized principles) and a training method (or methods) for the development of human capabilities which in turn realize those abstract principles. Wing Chun can be much likened to basic training in the military. In the way that training is not war, Wing Chun is not fighting. Wing Chun is both a tool and a process of learning how to use that tool.

Again, basic training is preparation, and oriented toward building skills and capabilities. A war, on the other hand, has a very specific and immediate intent, an objective with relative to a specific engagement and specific opposing force. Basic training is an act of preparedness, and may be ongoing; a fight, a battle, or a war - even if protracted - has a beginning and an end.

Both basic training and Wing Chun can be codified. A fight or a war cannot be codified or executed with predictable consistency - every war is wholly unique and unpredictable. Though, in both cases we obviously aim to stack the odds in our favor.

Practicing Wing Chun is a process of preparation, to develop capabilities that may ultimately be used in fighting; like a battle or war, fighting is an objective in the here and now to supersede physically over another individual, to protect or preserve person or property, or for rewards like power, pride, or money. Just as there may be alternative rewards and motivations for someone who undergoes basic military training (e.g., improve self-discipline, respect for authority, learn skills that apply to non-war endeavors, receive tuition assistance, etc.), individuals may be motivated or benefit from non-fighting rewards in the practice of Wing Chun. Not everyone who undergoes basic training becomes directly involved in a military engagement, battle, or war. As a plus, even those who undergo basic military training but do not engage directly in warfare contribute to the sustainment of military capability in a wide variety of ways; similarly, those who practice Wing Chun have an opportunity to contribute to and the sustainment of Wing Chun.

The primary purpose for which Wing Chun was designed (or at least has evolved) is for application of certain skills and behaviors during the act of fighting (e.g., some of my comments on "If a woman can't do it, it isn't Wing Chun"), under the theory that application of such a skill set will increase one's odds of success. The care to be exercised here is to avoid confusing a thing with its intended purpose, a process or skill set with its intended result. A hammer (the object) is not the same thing as an act of hammering, for instance. One can also hammer with a wrench, a stone, or a fist. The ability to hammer is also not the same as an act of hammering. While designed for fighting, it is rare to see a person employ only Wing Chun ideals or its humanized movements in fighting; even for those who are highly trained in Wing Chun, characteristics of the art are often hard pressed to be seen.

To say that Wing Chun is fighting also implies that they are equivalent. First, I have yet to see a fight on any level which was consistent with both the model of Wing Chun or its training methodology. Secondly, I have never yet seen a person who, even in training, was in perfect adherence to the model or ideal of Wing Chun. Some far closer than others, though no one who could not be closer or more consistent still. In this light, I have noted my own carelessness on occasion to say that "I do Wing Chun." A closer examination would show that I don't "do" it as much as I "practice" in hopes of internalizing and realizing the ideals of the model and capabilities commensurate with it. I hope to "do" it, or come close to doing it one day. In reality, perhaps no one truly "achieves" or "does" Wing Chun; at best we may grow closer to the ideal of it.

Though not the same as equivalence (i.e., Wing Chun "is" fighting, and conversely that fighting "is" Wing Chun), there is opportunity for Wing Chun (the ideals and human realization of it) and the act of fighting to converge. In a fight, it is more pressing objective that a fight be won, than to hold to the ideals of a training method. As humans, we obviously enjoy and feel validated on several levels when the two converge.

Well, enough of my incessant rambling. Hopefully there's an idea or two in there for you to work with or chew on further.

Regards,
- kj

Well done KJ, very nice post..

James

[AmanuJRY]

In keeping with the military/basic training model, part of the trainig includes 'war games' (a.k.a. sparring to MAists), this isn't nessisarily part of 'basic' training but is part of military occupational training and the regular training cycle. And with advanced branches like Special Forces, on a more frequent schedual (because their job is to be able to teach it to someone else, quickly).

[kj]

In keeping with the military/basic training model, part of the trainig includes 'war games' (a.k.a. sparring to MAists), this isn't nessisarily part of 'basic' training but is part of military occupational training and the regular training cycle. And with advanced branches like Special Forces, on a more frequent schedual (because their job is to be able to teach it to someone else, quickly).

Yup. Valid analogy.

.
.
.

Unfortunately, the natural follow on is to take forum discussions .... once again .... into definitions of "what is a fighting vs. sparring vs. training," how much and when of any of these are required, going in the same old circles over and over and over for another decade. Everyone trying to prove some point yet convincing no one because everyone already is. Paper-rock-scissors-paper-rock-scissors-paper-rock........ It's the classic definition of insanity. :eek:

The progression can then degrade once again into picking dodge ball teams, civil wars and personal judgements against all those dirty bastids spoiling Wing Chun, who is doing real Wing Chun, who is living in fairy land, who is a jerk, who is stupid, who is a nincompoop, whose mother wears army boots, whose mother can't tie them etc. ad infinitum. LOL. It would probably be a lot more Wing Chun-like for us to stop discussions right here, and just jump over and into the name calling thread. Howsaabout for starters I say you can't reason, you can say I can't fight, and see where we can go from there? :D:D:D

When you really think about it, little wonder in Ernie or anyone one else with a hankering to delete the lot of us. :p

Regards,
- kj

[AmanuJRY]

So how do we avoid the degredation?:confused:

[Ernie]

KJ-The progression can then degrade once again into picking dodge ball teams, civil wars and personal judgements against all those dirty bastids spoiling Wing Chun, who is doing real Wing Chun, who is living in fairy land, who is a jerk, who is stupid, who is a nincompoop, whose mother wears army boots, whose mother can't tie them etc. ad infinitum. LOL. It would probably be a lot more Wing Chun-like for us to stop discussions right here, and just jump over and into the name calling thread. Howsaabout for starters I say you can't reason, you can say I can't fight, and see where we can go from there?

When you really think about it, little wonder in Ernie or anyone one else with a hankering to delete the lot of us.



--- Yup !

_Justin-So how do we avoid the degredation?

-- speak from personal first hand experince , not from hand me down stories , assumptions , fantasy, hope, faith, ghost stories , easter bunny, big foot sightings ...etc

-- just be honest , speak from what you can do not what you ''think'' you would or should be able to do if you added this or that to your training ,,,,, which may or may not produce the results you asssume you will have ;)

-- keep it real , from the heart , and true :D

-- but name calling is fun too

[kj]

So how do we avoid the degredation?:confused:

It's a people problem, not a Wing Chun problem. Until our collective human natures evolve to a higher form, LOL, I don't know that we can avoid it entirely. My own best hope is that it will stay in check. I hate losing good people and valuable insights or debate due to degradation of the environment.

Appreciating or at least accepting that there are very few single and wholly perfect solutions in this universe would likely be a good start. Virtually everything that is 'judgeable' has a range of advantages, disadvantages, costs, and benefits. The sum total of which may vary in value for different individuals and in different contexts. The world is not so black and white as we often tend to color it. The topic du jour (or du forum, LOL) being no exception. Nor is anyone all bad, all stupid, all unreasonable, and so on, even though it may seem convenient to react to each other that way. This kind of appreciation or acceptance isn't in everyone's nature or habit though. C'est la vie.

So short of policing our own behaviors and being reserved in judgment of one another, the only alternative I know of thus far is severe restrictions or moderation of the forum. The "process" piece, if you will. I don't presume that will or should ever happen here, though at least one such forum does in fact exist in an explicit effort to preserve civility in conversation on the topic. Every solution has its up and down sides, and nothing suits everyone.

While we're crying in our beers here, it seems worth a mention that a lot of mutual respect has in fact developed in these parts and throughout the years. And the great part about it is that people of good will, can and do exchange ideas with each other in a productive way and often regardless of agreement or disagreement on specific issues. We "hear" and respond to the squeaky wheels loud and clear, yet there is plenty of silent appreciation that goes unheard each day. Highlighting that now and then is probably not an altogether bad idea. (Note to self.)

BTW, I'm referring to the generic "we" throughout, of course. I like to believe that you and I are already fairly evolved. ;);) If it isn't true in either half, I pray you will just let me wallow in blissful ignorance. :D

So, what shall we talk about now? :)

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

See, I barely get my post out and there's me and Ernie at odds again! :eek::p

J/K w/you, bro, and you know it. :D

Regards,
- kj

[Ernie]

See, I barely get my post out and there's me and Ernie at odds again! :eek::p

J/K w/you, bro, and you know it. :D

Regards,
- kj

KJ - your always family in my book and you know that ,,, if there were ever anything that threatend that i would be the first to pick up the phone and air it out ;)

but i will be d@mned if i will become civil and evolved ,,,,,, what next frosting my hair , and designer jeans !!!!!!!:eek:

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The primary purpose for which Wing Chun was designed (or at least has evolved) is for application of certain skills and behaviors during the act of fighting (e.g., some of my comments on 'If a woman can't do it, it isn't Wing Chun'), under the theory that application of such a skill set will increase one's odds of success. The care to be exercised here is to avoid confusing a thing with its intended purpose, a process or skill set with its intended result. A hammer (the object) is not the same thing as an act of hammering, for instance." (KJ)


***WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, Kathy Jo...I've heard this kind of analysis of wing chun a thousand times over the last 30 years...and I've got to say that I've found it to be hogwash!

In fact, allow me to translate the part about "during the act of fighting" into English:

This is what wing chun people who have never really seen wing chun used in real fighting against a skilled opponent say to describe the system. And there have been times when people (very prominent people in the wing chun world - whose names I won't mention) spoke like this to avoid having to answer specific questions about how the system is to be used in actual combat - because they either didn't really know or because they didn't want to let on so that the rice bowl would constantly stay full (keep them guessing and they'll keep coming).

Either way...it's hogwash.

Nothing personal, Kathy Jo. Just callin' it like I see it. :o

[Jeff Bussey]

KJ - your always family in my book and you know that ,,, if there were ever anything that threatend that i would be the first to pick up the phone and air it out ;)

but i will be d@mned if i will become civil and evolved ,,,,,, what next frosting my hair , and designer jeans !!!!!!!:eek:

I just want to say that I think this thread should be nuked again because there's nothing wrong with frosting hair, although designer jeans would be a bit too far :eek: :)

[kj]

"The primary purpose for which Wing Chun was designed (or at least has evolved) is for application of certain skills and behaviors during the act of fighting (e.g., some of my comments on 'If a woman can't do it, it isn't Wing Chun'), under the theory that application of such a skill set will increase one's odds of success. The care to be exercised here is to avoid confusing a thing with its intended purpose, a process or skill set with its intended result. A hammer (the object) is not the same thing as an act of hammering, for instance." (KJ)


***WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, Kathy Jo...I've heard this kind of analysis of wing chun a thousand times over the last 30 years...and I've got to say that I've found it to be hogwash!

In fact, allow me to translate the part about "during the act of fighting" into English:

This is what wing chun people who have never really seen wing chun used in real fighting against a skilled opponent say to describe the system. And there have been times when people (very prominent people in the wing chun world - whose names I won't mention) spoke like this to avoid having to answer specific questions about how the system is to be used in actual combat - because they either didn't really know or because they didn't want to let on so that the rice bowl would constantly stay full (keep them guessing and they'll keep coming).

Either way...it's hogwash.

Nothing personal, Kathy Jo. Just callin' it like I see it. :o

Nothing personal taken Vic; as you've told me before, it's just the New Yorker in you. ;) Nothing personal here either; I know you appreciate directness.

What exactly is your point of technical concern? It may be my denseness, but I see no correlation between your "translation" and what I wrote. At face value it just looks like an emotional release. You failed to advance the conversation with an assertion of your own. You did not offer a contrast or alternative to whatever it is I said that you didn't like. Something more needs to be added if conversation is to progress.

What can it be?

Do you not like the part about wing chun being for women? If so, please discuss.
Do believe that a hammer (the object) is the same thing as an act of hammering? If so, feel free to explain your thinking.
Do you believe that Wing Chun's purpose is something other than to increase the odds of success in a fight? I'm sure I and others would be interested to hear your logical analysis on that.
Is it the context of my statements that bothers you? Would you perhaps like to assert that Wing Chun and fighting are equivalent? If so, how so?
If it's my writing style that annoys you, why don't you filter me out?
Is it perhaps not what I wrote at all, but rather just for the satisfaction of saying I can't fight, or that therefore your perspective (whatever it is in this case) is superior to mine? If so, please refer back to my joke with AmanuJRY. :D


I got the name calling part. I know which dodge ball team you "think" I'm on. If you had another point, I missed it.

Regards,
- kj

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Vic,


It's not as simple as you make it sound, Jim.

Well, we can make things as simple or complex as we like. As human beings we typically prefer to make them complex.

Because actually DOING IT when sparring/fighting for real against a decent opponent requires a lot of work;

Of course this is the hard part but why does this make the number of tools for reality more complicated?

specifically the transitioning between the weapons to be used at the different ranges (and therefore the different systems - such as boxing/kickboxing at certain longer ranges - wing chun at a closer range - in the clinch using elbows and knees - still closer where takedowns and throws, and sweeps might come into play...and then possibly fighting/wrestling/grappling on the ground....

Vic! Sorry man but what you are saying is correct but still simple stuff. "Making it work" requires training of the atrtributes timing, distance, this or that but still there are only so many reference points to contact at any range and very little is actually needed if we just want fighting.


you SERIOUSLY UNDERSTATE the case. To the point, quite frankly, where you seem to be simply out of touch with the reality of putting it all together against a good fighter.

Making things more complicated than they really are does not help build a fighter IMO. Making what you know work requires training against strangers regularly. That can only be done with fighting against others but it still does not make something more complicated.

Take a look at some of the top MMA fighters ot today - like Fedor Emelianko, Mirko Cro Cop, Randy Couture, Mark Hunt, Chuck Liddell, etc.

There's a lot of complexity to what they're doing - and your remarks about Mario Sperry seem to indicate a lack of paying real atttention to where the game has evolved to now.

I watch Spike TV regularly top watch todays Gladiators going at it. Besides a bit "more stand" up can you tell me what are they doing that is new? Can you list out the new contact points they are working from that would be different or todays evolution?

If you are out of contact range you can either punch/kick straight or from some angle. If you get closer you can hook/elbow/bump etc..

If you are in closer range you can either use your WCK or other punching tools or use the stand up grappling connection to take down or sweep whatever. How many contact points are there?

Two hands out, one out/one in (either side) and two in.

If you end up on the ground there are the normal common options. Mount, half mount (either side), guard or side stuff.

Still simple!

While there is and always will be evolution in the world and martial art we cannot forget that there are only 2 hands/legs to contact or fight against and only so many options top engage them.

KISS Theory!


Peace,

[Ultimatewingchun]

"What exactly is your point of technical concern? It may be my denseness, but I see no correlation between your 'translation' and what I wrote." (KJ)


***SIMPLY THIS, Kathy Jo...

When you write that: "The primary purpose for which Wing Chun was designed (or at least has evolved) is for application of certain skills and behaviors DURING the act of fighting...The care to be exercised here is to avoid confusing a thing with its intended purpose, a process or skill set with its intended result"...


you fail to see that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE - they are one and the same.

Wing Chun IS a process and skill set...and...

Wing Chu IS Fighting (It's intended purpose).

Now understanding this (hopefully)...you might be able to better comprehend what I meant about SO MANY people in the wing chun using the whole "wing chun is a process not a style" thing as a VEIL to be worn - so that they can blur the lines when asked to be SPECIFIC about what their wing chun actually looks like in combat.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. :eek:

[Ultimatewingchun]

"...specifically the transitioning between the weapons to be used at the different ranges (and therefore the different systems - such as boxing/kickboxing at certain longer ranges - wing chun at a closer range - in the clinch using elbows and knees - still closer where takedowns and throws, and sweeps might come into play...and then possibly fighting/wrestling/grappling on the ground....(Victor)



"Vic! Sorry man but what you are saying is correct but still simple stuff. 'Making it work' requires training of the attributes timing, distance, this or that but still there are only so many reference points to contact at any range and very little is actually needed if we just want fighting." (Jim Roselando)


***NO IT'S NOT SIMPLE STUFF!!!

Not at all. It requires tremendous and constant work to excel at fighting at all the ranges I've been talking about - and it takes quite a bit of technical knowledge - as opposed to your idea that "very little is actually needed if we just want fighting."

This might be true against an inexperienced or poor fighter; but is clearly not the case against anybody else.

That's all I'm going to say about this for now...I suspect that you and I are at a dead end on this.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Vic,


***NO IT'S NOT SIMPLE STUFF!!!

Not at all. It requires tremendous and constant work to excel at fighting at all the ranges I've been talking about - and it takes quite a bit of technical knowledge - as opposed to your idea that "very little is actually needed if we just want fighting."

Appreciate your POV on this Vic but so far I agree with everything you are saying except you have not pointed out just why not very little is needed if all we want is fighting. What are the complicated number of tools needed for each of those ranges? Transitioning between positions is the art of change but that has nothing to do with whats being used or needed in reality for fighting. What new tools are being used in these ranges that are so complicated? So, we are both correct I guess huh! ;)

This might be true against an inexperienced or poor fighter; but is clearly not the case against anybody else.

Please let me know which UFC or Pride or any of those matches where I can see anything but the simple stuff being used in each range?

That's all I'm going to say about this for now...I suspect that you and I are at a dead end on this.

Not really! We are just talking about different stuff.

Thats why I said this early on when you said I didn't agree with you:

I do actually! You need more than just one punch and footwork but not really much more. So, there is a level of agreement.

:)

Regards,

[kj]

Thanks, Vic! I can better see now what your point of contention was.


When you write that: "The primary purpose for which Wing Chun was designed (or at least has evolved) is for application of certain skills and behaviors DURING the act of fighting...The care to be exercised here is to avoid confusing a thing with its intended purpose, a process or skill set with its intended result"...


you fail to see that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE - they are one and the same.

Wing Chun IS a process and skill set...and...

Wing Chu IS Fighting (It's intended purpose).

This is useful. Now we are getting somewhere. I understand now that you do indeed see Wing Chun as fighting as the same thing.

For purposes of discussion as well as for the benefit of readers who asked or are interested in this, I have some clarifying questions which can better help us to understand your perspective or become further enlightened.

a) How exactly did you come to KNOW for a FACT that fighting and Wing Chun are the same thing? (For example: Is is just your "FEELING?" Is it something that is always and only "INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS" to highly experienced fighters? If you REASONED it out, what was your thought process? Is it something you were TOLD by your teachers or other experienced fighters that you respect? Did you just ASSUME it?)
b) If Wing Chun is EXACTLY THE SAME thing as fighting, would you then also state that fighting is EXACTLY THE SAME thing as Wing Chun? If you say the former, but not the latter, why?
c) If you aren't saying they are EXACTLY the same thing, then what further detail can you offer to describe HOW, WHY, IN WHAT WAY they are the same thing?


Now understanding this (hopefully)...you might be able to better comprehend what I meant about SO MANY people in the wing chun using the whole "wing chun is a process not a style" thing as a VEIL to be worn - so that they can blur the lines when asked to be SPECIFIC about what their wing chun actually looks like in combat.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. :eek:

I understand clearly that this is YOUR PERSONAL CONCLUSION. How you LOGICALLY get to here from your premise hasn't been spelled out (unless, as above, it's one of those things that is ALWAYS AND ONLY OBVIOUS TO EVERY EXPERIENCED FIGHTER (though it might be a tad bold to presume to speak for every experienced fighter the world over ..... but I digress) without the need for any LOGICAL or REASONED basis).

PLEASE don't suggest that FIGHTERS don't need to REASON about things they KNOW, and then go on to say that EVERYONE ELSE IS STILL CLUELESS. :D

I hope you don't mind that I added some EXTRA EMPHASIS to make sure I am being CLEAR ENOUGH. ;):p Sorry Vic, sometimes I can't help myself... what can I say ...it's a Western NY thing. :D

Regards,
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

Come on, Kathy Jo...???? :confused:

What kind of question is this?:

"How exactly did you come to KNOW for a FACT that fighting and Wing Chun are the same thing?"


***THAT'S LIKE ASKING me how I know that boxing is fighting, or how I know wrestling is fighting...or jiu jitsu, karate, Muay Thai, etc.

The answer is that it's SELF EVIDENT.


Jeez................:p :rolleyes: :D

(Now if you want to say that wing chun is more than just fighting - I'm with ya!)

But first and foremost: it's a fighting system. :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Please let me know which UFC or Pride or any of those matches where I can see anything but the simple stuff being used in each range?" (Jim Roselando)


***GO TO SHERDOG (.com) and download what they have about Fedor Emelianko.

He's the best out there today precisely because he has so many tools.

(And the fact that he has the heart of a lion and the body of a bull doesn't hurt either! :cool: )

[reneritchie]

Fedor is a freak. He gets tackled by Coleman and Juji Gatame's him, gets spiked on his head by Randleman and Ude Garami's him, he feels no pain, shows no emotion, and hits like the CCCP army.

I'm not sure if he's actually *more* skilled (though his Sambo is a thing of beauty) and well rounded, or if he's just such a genetic machine it doesn't matter how skilled his opponents are... BJ Penn may fall in that catagory as well, crazy own-eye poking maniac...

Now Bustamante's skill is staggering. A BJJ phenom, he out-boxes Menne and out-wrestles not only Henderson, but Olympic level Lindland.

[kj]

What kind of question is this?:

"How exactly did you come to KNOW for a FACT that fighting and Wing Chun are the same thing?"


***THAT'S LIKE ASKING me how I know that boxing is fighting, or how I know wrestling is fighting...or jiu jitsu, karate, Muay Thai, etc.


Asking very specific, detailed, and seemingly obvious questions helps us to more clearly understand others, and ourselves. Sincerely questioning things we believe to be true is one of the most powerful ways in which we can learn and grown.


The answer is that it's SELF EVIDENT.

Thanks again Vic. That does help in clarifying the basis of your viewpoint. I don't assume it is self evident to everyone, though your angle on it is clear now.


(Now if you want to say that wing chun is more than just fighting - I'm with ya!)

Yes. To your credit I know you've said as much in the past also.


But first and foremost: it's a fighting system. :)

With all sincerity, I think this one is worth peeling another layer of veneer to see what's underneath. In looking at something anew or in scrupulous detail, sometimes even I come to some new thinking. Hard as that is to believe. :D And in the worst case, it might lead me to some more annoying questions to devil the forum with, LOL.

For now, though, it's night night time. Tomorrow, she's another day. :) I'm even too tired to play with the caps lock, heh he.

Regards,
- kj

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Vic & Rene!


Thanks for the info..

I agree with Rene tho! One make not the norm. He may have super DNA!


Rene,

Bustamante is great! I remember watching him years ago and it was a treat!


Peace,

[lawrenceofidaho]

Exactly, putting gloves on takes away how much power? I've seen boxing matches were the guy took right crosses and was still there to take another one, so is the right cross a finishing blow, always?
Some fighters have strong chins....... You can deliberately limit yourself to sparring partners who are weak, but how much good does that do you toward the end of developing functional skill versus simply padding your ego? (Which brings up the question; "Why would your ego need padding?")

I would say that if you can't finish off a guy just because the two of you are wearing boxing headgear and MMA gloves, I definitely wouldn't count on being able to do it in a street situation simply because that protective gear is not in the equation. (Headgear protects from cuts on the face & head and gloves help prevent small bone fractures in the hands, -yet they reduce concussive force very little.)

When the UFC implemented the use of (small 3oz) gloves for all competitors, the knockout rate in their fights increased dramatically, -it didn't go down as certain folks might have expected. (Of course, it also had the primarily desired result of reducing hand injuries to a minimum.)

-Lawrence

[Ultimatewingchun]

Lawrence....

I think the knockout rate has picked up dramatically because more and more skilled strikers were coming on the scene. In the beginning, most of the striking was not impressive at all.

Add to that the adjustments that strikers have made to the earlier UFC vulnerability to being taken down as they tried to punch - by becoming better at sprawls and overall striking footwork and strategy - and you get a much different game today.

Quite frankly - while it is true that you are more vulnerable to hand injuries when striking without gloves...nonetheless, being on the receiving end of a solid punch without gloves is much worse than when gloves are worn.

[chisauking]

Lawernce said: Some fighters have strong chins....... You can deliberately limit yourself to sparring partners who are weak, but how much good does that do you toward the end of developing functional skill versus simply padding your ego? (Which brings up the question; "Why would your ego need padding?")

I would say that if you can't finish off a guy just because the two of you are wearing boxing headgear and MMA gloves, I definitely wouldn't count on being able to do it in a street situation simply because that protective gear is not in the equation. (Headgear protects from cuts on the face & head and gloves help prevent small bone fractures in the hands, -yet they reduce concussive force very little.)


This is the problem with trying to converse with a MMA who thinks he understands wing chun on a forum for wing chun practitioners... Unless you have a wing chun mindset, you will never understand the wing chun way.

For your information, wing chun is a very exact and subtle way of fighting, because that's the only way to maximise our delivery and power. Just like a magnifying glass, even if it's slightly off-focused, it will never have the same concentrated point of heat. If you can understand me so far, you may just understand the next part....

In punching, no matter how hard you can punch, there will always be someone that can punch harder than you...there will always be someone that can take your best punch on the chin...

With this in mind, the wing chun practitioner in his wisdom decided that ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target of the punch. It is enough to a wing chun fighter that they have sufficient damaging power, they don't need to be so strong that they can bring a house down, or be able to exchange blows with the enermy. So what if you could kill a rhino with one punch? To a person that could jab your eyes out, or smash your nose in and then jam the bone into the back of your eyes with the second punch before you even have time to **** your arm back means very little.

To help your little MMA brain understand, here's a good analogy. If you have the excaliber weighing 150 lbs, and I have a flimsy foil with a sharp point weighing 20 lbs, before you could even lift the excaliber, I would have pierce your heart with my little flimsy rusty foil. LOL

Now going back to the simple wing chun punch. Although similar to the lightweight foil, in that it's not heavy and powerful, it can deliver much faster, but it must hit venerble targets in order for it make an impact. However, if you wrap your fist with a great big piece of cotton wool, like a boxing glove, how is it going to penertrate the target? Imagine a tradesman wrapping his hammer with a boxing glove. Would it still be able to hammer nails? LOL Try it Lawernce!

That's the reasons why the wing chun punch is the way it is. The speed and accuracy of the punch is far more important then the strength and continuation of the punch. If you try to learn wing chun skills in sparring with boxing gloves you will never accumulate accurate wing chun fighting experience. The experience with boxing gloves will never yield the same result as with bare knuckles. If you don't believe me, try it, if only for once. Wearing birdcages would only mean both of you can punish each other longer (LOL V V V L), aiming at all targets besides the most import ones.

In the begining, using proctective equipment is a good start, but as you progress, you must go beyond this low level stage of fight emulation.

No need to use a sledge hammer to crack a small nut!

[Edmund]

..
..
..
If you try to learn wing chun skills in sparring with boxing gloves you will never accumulate accurate wing chun fighting experience. The experience with boxing gloves will never yield the same result as with bare knuckles. If you don't believe me, try it, if only for once. Wearing birdcages would only mean both of you can punish each other longer (LOL V V V L), aiming at all targets besides the most import ones.


Well that just demonstrates the danger of NOT using a bit of protective equipment.

If you break your sparring partner's nose with a really light quick punch in the face with your bare fist, how are you going to get much practice in? Everyone's going to be icing their face and going home.

I agree mostly that in WC "the ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target ".

[AmanuJRY]

This is the problem with trying to converse with a MMA who thinks he understands wing chun on a forum for wing chun practitioners...

First, although Lawrence has a MMA view I assure you he is a WC practicianeer.

Thinks he understands WC?...Thinks....

How well do you know him?
Can you accurately quote all that he may or may not know?

Ninja, please keep personal attacks to yourself (or go over to bullshido).



With this in mind, the wing chun practitioner in his wisdom decided that ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target of the punch. It is enough to a wing chun fighter that they have sufficient damaging power, they don't need to be so strong that they can bring a house down, or be able to exchange blows with the enermy.


His wisdom...:rolleyes:

IMHO, power is equally as important as speed and accuracy (well, accuracy may be a little more important).


To help your little MMA brain understand, here's a good analogy. If you have the excaliber weighing 150 lbs, and I have a flimsy foil with a sharp point weighing 20 lbs, before you could even lift the excaliber, I would have pierce your heart with my little flimsy rusty foil. LOL

I have a claymore (the sword not the mine), do you have a foil....let's try that.

Oh, and a 150 lb sword...in this day and age...puuuuuuhhhhhhhhleeeessssseee!


Imagine a tradesman wrapping his hammer with a boxing glove. Would it still be able to hammer nails? LOL Try it Lawernce!

yes, though not as effectively (BTW, I'm a tradesman).


In the begining, using proctective equipment is a good start, but as you progress, you must go beyond this low level stage of fight emulation.

and advance to...actually beating the stuff out of each other?


And, I might add that the WC punch you are refering to sounds more like Dim Mak to me.

[GungFuHillbilly]

This is the problem with trying to converse with a MMA who thinks he understands wing chun on a forum for wing chun practitioners... Unless you have a wing chun mindset, you will never understand the wing chun way.

That is fairly presumptuous of you that just because someone disagrees with you it suddenly is not a “wing chun mindset.”

Who died and made you grandmaster that you now have a monopoly on the perspective a wing chun practitioner should have?


With this in mind, the wing chun practitioner in his wisdom decided that ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target of the punch.

Who is this “wing chun practitioner” and when did he make this decision?

And I would argue that speed is not nearly as important as power and timing. Speed is a much overrated attribute. What good is speed if you can’t hit the target? What good is timing if you have no power? These principles are not mutually exclusive.

I can think back to a few students who were physically ‘faster’ than my Sifu, however I have seen time and time again that they couldn’t actually hit him because of his superior timing.


To a person that could jab your eyes out, or smash your nose in and then jam the bone into the back of your eyes…

So how many times have you jabbed someone’s eyes out? Do you have a kwoon full of blind practitioners?


To help your little MMA brain understand…

I would guess that you have a fairly fragile ego that you need to belittle an individuals intelligence [entirely without merit I might add] on a discussion group.


That's the reasons why the wing chun punch is the way it is. The speed and accuracy of the punch is far more important then the strength and continuation of the punch.

Again, what good does speed do you if the punch has no effect on your opponent? I believe that you are grossly oversimplifying the principles of wing chun.


If you try to learn wing chun skills in sparring with boxing gloves you will never accumulate accurate wing chun fighting experience.

I don’t recall anyone saying that the ONLY sparring they were ever doing was with boxing gloves. That is just one modality that has been discussed. It was not put forth as the ONLY way. I believe that you are the only one here that has been talking in terms of absolutes.


as you progress, you must go beyond this low level stage of fight emulation.

Into what? A “high” stage of fight emulation?

This reminds me of some training I did in the Marine Corps for urban combat. We did a tremendous amount of dry runs [without ammo] and everything seemed to be working in theory. However the more we began to understand what was happening, the instructors decided to implement the use of paint guns [specifically designed to be used with M-16’s].

You’d be amazed at how different the teams and squads reacted and how much more intensity this added to the training.

Would you say that we were at a “low level stage of fight emulation”…?

Would someone say that my unit really didn’t know how to fight because we weren’t using live rounds? Did we have to kill someone on our team in order for us to learn and grow from the training? I think not…

Every student is different and a good teacher will be able to tell at what level the student needs to be challenged in order to grow.

You don’t match a poodle against a pit bull. But this doesn’t mean that a poodle can’t learn to be mean as hell! : )

Just my thoughts…

-GFH

[lawrenceofidaho]

I think the knockout rate has picked up dramatically because more and more skilled strikers were coming on the scene. In the beginning, most of the striking was not impressive at all.

Add to that the adjustments that strikers have made to the earlier UFC vulnerability to being taken down as they tried to punch - by becoming better at sprawls and overall striking footwork and strategy - and you get a much different game today.
Vic,
I completely agree with your assessments about how the MMA sport has evolved into what it is today, but I was trying to bring up a different point about knockouts increasing immediately after gloves were added in the UFC. It's been speculated because at that time they were using the "tournament format" (where fighters had to engage in multiple fights in an evening) that there may have been some hesitancy on the part of the fighters to really "let go" with their hands (unless it was the final match) because they knew they'd have to fight again soon after. If a hand injury was sustained in a preliminary fight, a guy was pretty much finished and wouldn't have a chance to earn any more prize money until the next event came around months later.

When defending yourself on the street, you'll just let the punches fly with everything you've got and worry about potential hand injuries later, but if you know for a fact you'll have to fight 1-2 more times in the next couple of hours (and there is a lot of money on the line), you might formulate a somewhat more conservative strategy.......

When gloves were put on all the fighters, suddenly this was much less of a concern and guys could throw punches all out without worrying about their hands.

-Lawrence

[couch]

Vic,
I completely agree with your assessments about how the MMA sport has evolved into what it is today, but I was trying to bring up a different point about knockouts increasing immediately after gloves were added in the UFC. It's been speculated because at that time they were using the "tournament format" (where fighters had to engage in multiple fights in an evening) that there may have been some hesitancy on the part of the fighters to really "let go" with their hands (unless it was the final match) because they knew they'd have to fight again soon after. If a hand injury was sustained in a preliminary fight, a guy was pretty much finished and wouldn't have a chance to earn any more prize money until the next event came around months later.

When defending yourself on the street, you'll just let the punches fly with everything you've got and worry about potential hand injuries later, but if you know for a fact you'll have to fight 1-2 more times in the next couple of hours (and there is a lot of money on the line), you might formulate a somewhat more conservative strategy.......

When gloves were put on all the fighters, suddenly this was much less of a concern and guys could throw punches all out without worrying about their hands.

-Lawrence


Here's a good article about the "Death" of MMA and the use of gloves, rules, etc:
http://bjj.org/editorials/19991117-fightclubbed/

All the best,
Kenton

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good points, Lawrence.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I would say that if you can't finish off a guy just because the two of you are wearing boxing headgear and MMA gloves, I definitely wouldn't count on being able to do it in a street situation simply because that protective gear is not in the equation. (Headgear protects from cuts on the face & head and gloves help prevent small bone fractures in the hands, -yet they reduce concussive force very little.)" (chisauking)


***WRONG! A solid punch that lands on a vulnerable target without gloves wll go much further than with gloves.


"This is the problem with trying to converse with a MMA who thinks he understands wing chun on a forum for wing chun practitioners... Unless you have a wing chun mindset, you will never understand the wing chun way...

There will always be someone that can take your best punch on the chin...

With this in mind, the wing chun practitioner in his wisdom decided that ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target of the punch. It is enough to a wing chun fighter that they have sufficient damaging power, they don't need to be so strong that they can bring a house down, or be able to exchange blows with the enermy." (csk)


***YOU HAVE TO GET to the targets first and often - for your theory to hold water.


"To help your little MMA brain understand, here's a good analogy. If you have the excaliber weighing 150 lbs, and I have a flimsy foil with a sharp point weighing 20 lbs, before you could even lift the excaliber, I would have pierce your heart with my little flimsy rusty foil. LOL

Now going back to the simple wing chun punch. Although similar to the lightweight foil, in that it's not heavy and powerful, it can deliver much faster, but it must hit venerble targets in order for it make an impact. " (csk)


***NOW I UNDERSTAND why you never responded to my question about how often and with whom do you spar with, chisauking...

You are relying on hitting very specific targets to win your fight - this is not real fighting.

[sihing]

"I would say that if you can't finish off a guy just because the two of you are wearing boxing headgear and MMA gloves, I definitely wouldn't count on being able to do it in a street situation simply because that protective gear is not in the equation. (Headgear protects from cuts on the face & head and gloves help prevent small bone fractures in the hands, -yet they reduce concussive force very little.)" (chisauking)


***WRONG! A solid punch that lands on a vulnerable target without gloves wll go much further than with gloves.


"This is the problem with trying to converse with a MMA who thinks he understands wing chun on a forum for wing chun practitioners... Unless you have a wing chun mindset, you will never understand the wing chun way...

There will always be someone that can take your best punch on the chin...

With this in mind, the wing chun practitioner in his wisdom decided that ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target of the punch. It is enough to a wing chun fighter that they have sufficient damaging power, they don't need to be so strong that they can bring a house down, or be able to exchange blows with the enermy." (csk)


***YOU HAVE TO GET to the targets first and often - for your theory to hold water.


"To help your little MMA brain understand, here's a good analogy. If you have the excaliber weighing 150 lbs, and I have a flimsy foil with a sharp point weighing 20 lbs, before you could even lift the excaliber, I would have pierce your heart with my little flimsy rusty foil. LOL

Now going back to the simple wing chun punch. Although similar to the lightweight foil, in that it's not heavy and powerful, it can deliver much faster, but it must hit venerble targets in order for it make an impact. " (csk)


***NOW I UNDERSTAND why you never responded to my question about how often and with whom do you spar with, chisauking...

You are relying on hitting very specific targets to win your fight - this is not real fighting.

First of all the comment about the gloves was from Lawrence.

Secondly your comment "YOU HAVE TO GET to the targets first and often - for your theory to hold water." This holds true for all Martial Ars so why make it look like a WC problem when it isn't, lol. Just goes to show if you have no confidence/belief/faith in the basics behind the system, how can you even attempt to try to apply with any success, that is why you look else where for answers, you haven't even mastered the basics yet..

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

***WRONG! A solid punch that lands on a vulnerable target without gloves will go much further than with gloves.
The amount of force generated for the punch depends on the body mechanics of the motion. Taking that force and channeling it to a somewhat smaller and harder striking area *is* going to help make it somewhat more destructive, especially when it comes to cutting facial skin or injuring small facial bones around the eyes. Those are two things I definitely want to avoid (for both myself and my partners) in sparring, and even if you're "being careful", accidents will happen when you mix things up. Someone is bound to get hit in one of those spots and then have to make a trip to the doctor's office if you are sparring without gloves.

Yet, I wouldn't want to rely on the cutting or eye-socket damage factor to stop a fight for a couple of reasons. I might not be able to pinpoint targets like that against an opponent with good head movement and mobility, and even if those bare-fisted blows landed and did damage which later would require a trip to the ER, they still might not stop the fight. -Remember the dude Kimbo fought in the backyard whose eye-socket was crushed? He was still fighting and ready to keep going despite the injury which surly cost him his eye (and might've been prevented had light gloves been worn in that match.)

I remember Matt Thorton talking about there only being three reliable ways to end a fight against a person that is serious about putting some hurt on you (i.e.- not a playground fight between teenagers). I think they are valid and worth repeating here:
1) Landing strikes until the opponent is unconscious
2) Breaking a major joint (knee, elbow, etc.)
3) Apply a blood or air choke until the opponent is out

While a cut can damage a tough fighter, it might not make him any less capable of continuing to inflict damage *on you*. Consider two recent fights of Tony Fryklund that were stopped because of a cuts........ The officials stopped them for the sake of his long-term health, but Fryklund still looks plenty dangerous in both of these photos as he protests the stoppages:

[Buddha_Fist]

This is the problem with trying to converse with a MMA who thinks he understands wing chun on a forum for wing chun practitioners... Unless you have a wing chun mindset, you will never understand the wing chun way.

Blablabla


For your information, wing chun is a very exact and subtle way of fighting, because that's the only way to maximise our delivery and power. Just like a magnifying glass, even if it's slightly off-focused, it will never have the same concentrated point of heat. If you can understand me so far, you may just understand the next part....

Blablabla


In punching, no matter how hard you can punch, there will always be someone that can punch harder than you...there will always be someone that can take your best punch on the chin...

Even more blablabla


With this in mind, the wing chun practitioner in his wisdom decided that ultimate power of a punch is not as important as the speed and target of the punch. It is enough to a wing chun fighter that they have sufficient damaging power, they don't need to be so strong that they can bring a house down, or be able to exchange blows with the enermy. So what if you could kill a rhino with one punch? To a person that could jab your eyes out, or smash your nose in and then jam the bone into the back of your eyes with the second punch before you even have time to **** your arm back means very little.

Dude, are you a kid? Your Sifu has fu@$%d up your head. If you believe in miracles, I've got a magic carpet that I can sell ya'.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Dude, are you a kid? Your Sifu has fu@$%d up your head. If you believe in miracles, I've got a magic carpet that I can sell ya'.
I've got the perfect girlfriend for him that's about the same age......."SoftWT" (aka "Kitten")

Here she is on one of my favorite threads:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=625720#post625720

[Buddha_Fist]

I've got the perfect girlfriend for him that's about the same age......."SoftWT" (aka "Kitten")

Here she is on one of my favorite threads:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=625720#post625720


She believes and does everything she's told..... Hmmmm..... Can I have her? :D

[Edmund]

I actually understand chisauking's point that the use of protective equipment is more bulky and can't be used all the time when sparring with WC.

But Ninja please :), going full power without some gear is just a recipe for an injury. There's not a lot of face conditioning you can do.

[stricker]

the way i see it sparrings about learning a slightly different set of skills anyway. not much point in sparring other wing chun people either as you just end up doing chi sao (as your both programmed to use the same moves, stick etc). boxings more about timing, range, seeing gaps, reading your opps movements etc, the psychological side etc all valuable skills but different to wing chun drills and a real fight is a combination of all those things anyway. youll never know what a real fight looks like unless you actually have a real fight but the point is about how to gain skills and for that sparring with gloves etc is very useful, and you gain experience from it. so yeah you could say sparring is unrealistic, and so's chi sao and so's anything its all just ways of getting skills... get over it!

also the way i see it a big problem people have arguing here (ultimatewingchun vs chisaoking etc) is about hard sparring etc. again i dont know how important hard sparring really is as everyone has slightly different rules (eg boxing, wrestling, vale tudo etc etc etc) and different gear (eg big gloves, mma gloves, headgear, etc etc) so really there all just different ways of training, same as chi sao etc. what i think the issue really is is not so much hard sparring (we do very little hard sparring at mma club, and have titles and good mma wins etc so...) but really more experience and being open minded and realistic. eg if you've never sparred with anyone but the handful of people in your own club in your own style then your gonna be in for a surprise when you fight someone of a different style etc. Of course theres exceptions eg some very top thai boxers only spar with their select training partners etc...

chisaoking: ok so you think sparring with headgear etc is a waste of time thats fine, whats your idea of the higher level and how does it work with injuries etc?

[kj]

the way i see it sparrings about learning a slightly different set of skills anyway. not much point in sparring other wing chun people either as you just end up doing chi sao (as your both programmed to use the same moves, stick etc). boxings more about timing, range, seeing gaps, reading your opps movements etc, the psychological side etc all valuable skills but different to wing chun drills and a real fight is a combination of all those things anyway. youll never know what a real fight looks like unless you actually have a real fight but the point is about how to gain skills and for that sparring with gloves etc is very useful, and you gain experience from it. so yeah you could say sparring is unrealistic, and so's chi sao and so's anything its all just ways of getting skills... get over it!

also the way i see it a big problem people have arguing here (ultimatewingchun vs chisaoking etc) is about hard sparring etc. again i dont know how important hard sparring really is as everyone has slightly different rules (eg boxing, wrestling, vale tudo etc etc etc) and different gear (eg big gloves, mma gloves, headgear, etc etc) so really there all just different ways of training, same as chi sao etc. what i think the issue really is is not so much hard sparring (we do very little hard sparring at mma club, and have titles and good mma wins etc so...) but really more experience and being open minded and realistic. eg if you've never sparred with anyone but the handful of people in your own club in your own style then your gonna be in for a surprise when you fight someone of a different style etc. Of course theres exceptions eg some very top thai boxers only spar with their select training partners etc...


What a marvelously lucid post! Nicely done.

Regards,
- kj

[chisauking]

First of all, may I thank Vic for agreeing with me for once (***WRONG! A solid punch that lands on a vulnerable target without gloves wll go much further than with gloves.)

Secondly, I have to say besides enraging quite a few closet chopsuey wing chun practitioners, this thread has been the same result as a broken pencil: pointless. I know what ever I say or do will not change those minds one degree. The skill of fighting is one of those things that you either excell at or not at all -- there's no inbetween. I'm not prepared to wast any more of my time trying to educate those who has no real faith in wing chun -- look for your own path, whether it may be western boxing or BJJ.

For the few that may be interested in my fighting experience, I have this to say: the highest level of fighting is the one that can control his\her emotional state of mind, the one that finds calm in chaos. How do we reach this level of thinking? Well, let me give you this one tip: it is NOT putting oneself in relative safety in the process of aquiring your fighting skills. LOL (no more tips from me)

sik siu siu ban doy bil

[Ultimatewingchun]

"For the few that may be interested in my fighting experience, I have this to say: the highest level of fighting is the one that can control his\her emotional state of mind, the one that finds calm in chaos. How do we reach this level of thinking? Well, let me give you this one tip: it is NOT putting oneself in relative safety in the process of aquiring your fighting skills." (chisauking)


***SO NOW THAT YOU gave us the stock answer David Carradine (Cain) speech about self control, and then followed it with what you think one shouldn't do (ie.- spar with protective gear)...

now tell us what exactly should be done to attain the highest level of fighting.

And if you can't tell us....LOL. :p :rolleyes:

[stricker]

oh thanks kj. normally i read my posts back and there a bit garbled :o

i still dont think i really got my point across and thats really i think wing chun is a great martial art (the best :p :p ) but then so is boxing, or wrestling or whatever and really the best thing is to get out there and explore and learn. that way you get different perspectives and ideas, if some other art does something the same as you it confirms you must be on the right track, if theres a difference then look into it and its something to study.

i guess also the thing is maybe not get too fixated or hung up about any one particular thing, by doing something different (out of the comfort zone ;)) your gonna find new things you never experienced before. for example tonight i just got back from a judo class (@mma club) and wearing a gi opens up a whole new world of possibilities. in stand up it gives you different handles for throws and balance taking and on the ground the whole game especially chokes has another dimension added. this was all new for me as we never really look at clothing in wing chun or regular mma class but in a street fight it could make a big difference! so yeah my eyes were opened to a whole new level of martial skills! and yeah i was way out of my comfort zone and lots of very uncomfortable places :D

so yeah chisauking you may diss what you call the mma approach to wing chun and you may be a way beyond it wing chun master but i garantee theres stuff you dont know about fighting and even wing chun itself and could learn from hanging with some different people. same goes the other way round really i mean theres wing chun people whove never done mma sparring etc who can really kick ass, so maybe its not the be all and end all.

anyway, this is all just what i think today, could change tomorrow ;) im just learning and exploring, growing every day... are YOU (whoever you are!)???

oh and one more thing chisaoking, yeah i have real faith in wing chun as ive seen people who can kick ass with it, and its because i want to get good at wing chun, and that im in it for the long haul that i decided to take time out to do mma (partly cos im still in my 20s). and trust me i feel my wing chuns got better for it.

and one more thing (again!) i think your right about being calm in the storm etc thats one of my biggest problems especially in boxing, and so far im finding that doing boxing with gloves where you have to cover up but stay alert keep your eye s open, learning boxing defense is really helping more than anything in that regard. still got a way to go but the psychological side of boxing sparring is really helping me no end, even when it comes to doing wing chun. also wrestlings good for making you keep fighting never give up type mentality. too many alsos, not so lucid this time methinks :D anyway if you think theres a better way i for one wanna hear it and i mean that totally sincerely im open to anything, hell i know im wrong about an awful lot of things :D

[Ernie]

Sticker hit some nice points that I would like to add a twist to as far as what you get when you cross-research-experience
lets look at some of the core guidelines in wing Chun
to be simple direct and effective
to maximize the most out of our natural body mechanics with out an excessive an mount of motions [preset patterns or techniques]
to follow the path of least resistance [avoid force on force or tight force in your own body ]
and apply our maximum out put into there most vulnerable [weak] position , structure , target

so the idea's of preset drills and endless techniques combinations [though good for early coordination and conveying concept ] in the long run actually hurt us .working of the same core people and motions hurts us [after the development stage and understanding has been achieved ]

so to further our understanding of *OUR OWN* wing Chun training , we need to place ourselves in unfamiliar water to develop the skill of adaptability and calmness in the face of the unknown.

because in the end all you can hope for is a calm aware mind and some luck in the street ! you can not control anything else [this is why techniques and drills give a false sense of reality and will cause us to try and seek that environment , leaving us slightly out of touch with what is really happening ]

so when you spar/play/fight with non wing Chun people you get a wonderful and unique opportunity to gain a deeper and more meaningful understanding of simple direct and effective wing Chun

you learn to read and evaluate a body on the fly , which later will help you become more efficient on your entry or counter , instead of the all to common I don't care what he does I will just rush in and attack his center and make him deal with me ! '' response

which has merit in a very low level or desperate way .

but if you could cultivate your awareness and eyesensitivty to give you valuable information that would help you get to where your game is , wouldn't it be foolish to not investigate it !

you see there are pieces in every fight [when there is room] you can use sparring non wing Chun people to isolate and refine your skill set in those pieces and when you put it all together your that much better that much more direct and effective and it's that much more simple !

if you know in your mind what you are training you can learn and practice from anything ,anyone ,in any environment ..,,,,,, but if you have not been taught properly and do not have a functional understanding of the concepts and strategies of wing Chun [notice I did not say techniques ] then you are trapped and a limited practitioner

it's really a personal call , what do you want and how much do you really know ?
how much truth are you willing to find out !;)

[couch]

if you know in your mind what you are training you can learn and practice from anything ,anyone ,in any environment ..,,,,,, but if you have not been taught properly and do not have a functional understanding of the concepts and strategies of wing Chun [notice I did not say techniques ] then you are trapped and a limited practitioner

it's really a personal call , what do you want and how much do you really know ?
how much truth are you willing to find out !;)

So, do you believe that after you understand the principles/strategies of Wing Chun, you can then perhaps bend and break the "rules" in order to become a better fighter and martial artist?

I'm interested in when you say: you are trapped. Either way, then...if you are bound by the principles and rules:you are trapped as a limited practicioner/but if you don't correctly understand the strategies of what you are supposed to do:you are trapped as a limited practicioner? Please elaborate!

Good stuff,
Kenton

[Ernie]

Kenton
----So, do you believe that after you understand the principles/strategies of Wing Chun, you can then perhaps bend and break the "rules" in order to become a better fighter and martial artist?----


There should be no bending or breaking , just choices , you can do something totally text book wrong , but if you know it's wrong , then is it really wrong ?
the wing Chun training method [I do not believe in wing Chun fighting, wing Chun doesn't fight people do far to often people confuse wing Chun forms and drills are specific fighting situations and run around stuck in postures trying to form some one to death ] exposes you to basic human body structures that can expand or contract , support or let go , suppress or bend
. it also exposes you to combat strategies based on the most effective ways of using this framework , you learn it and drill it in a way to isolate the linkage and then combine in motion against some one who is also in motion , your learn to adapt once it is broken and recover , all the while guided by a goal , to do as much physical harm to the person in your face while maintaining some form of safety factor .

there should be no difference no matter what or who you are fighting , you should be seeking to do as much damage as possible , finding the best position , to fire off from what ever framework utilizes that position

so if your doing chi sau or sparring a boxer it's all research finding the best way for *you * to get your game off .




Kenton
---I'm interested in when you say: you are trapped. Either way, then...if you are bound by the principles and rules:you are trapped as a limited practitioner/but if you don't correctly understand the strategies of what you are supposed to do:you are trapped as a limited practitioner? Please elaborate!---

if your training method is doing what it is supposed to do it will first build your engine[ at this stage the intent and goal should also be introduced on a small level , so they can see what and how there particular engine works and why it will suit them , give them something to relate to ]
--- this can and should be introduced in first form and single sticky , leading up to rolling , stepping tan basic attacks and 45 degree shifting footwork---
, then put it in motion [ now give them problems were the must trouble shoot with the tools you have provided , free thinkers , show them that the concept will give birth to what ever technique or parts of techniques they need to achieve there goal , give them a one or two basic attacks and let them seek out counters looking back to the forms or the concepts for support , teach them to correlate a problem with a wing Chun answer , once they can establish this type of mind the will learn to guide themselves and seek out more problems to solve .

at this stage they can already start to venture forth in the real world and gain experiences , bring the problems back to there teacher/coach and work together to focus on the problem at hand and relate the lesson back to what the wing Chun training methods give you , all the while you will be exposing them to the tools and idea's of the total system , but the stuff that sticks will be the personal experiences they face and find meaning in .

or you can just build a robot and make a list of techniques , tell them they don't need to spar and wing Chun is indestructible and pray they never try and use it against any one good =)