Brief clip of Alan Jensen

[AndrewS]

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkUSCVZXGg4&mode=related&search=>

A brief instructional clip of one of the senior Alliance guys, and head of the Danish WT organization. Interesting motion.

Andrew

[Knifefighter]

OK, since I'm getting grief about my "anti-WC" sentiments, how about we start a rational discussion using the various WC clips shown on that page?

What does everyone think are the negatives and positives in each of the clips on that page in terms of applications to real fighting?

[Matrix]

Hi Dale,

I don't know about "rational discussion" , and I'm not sure if we all see the same clips on the side when we open the original video.

Quite frankly I'm not overly impressed by a lot of the demo clips. In a "real fight", I think the opponent might actually fight back - call me crazy. We often see a single attack, then the counter, as the opponent freezes or drops their hands while the defender goes nuts. They are supposed to be doing a demo and if the attacker actually fought back, it would be a fight, not a demo. I still think the attacker could be a lot less passive. So, to answer your question, there's not a lot of real word application being shown.

It's easy to be critical. In the clip that started this thread, we are looking at instruction where the sifu is breaking things down and explaining some of the details of WC theory. So it's not subject to the same comments as some of the "demo" clips.

[Edmund]

Yeah. He seemed to be just teaching the basic techniques to students in a seminar rather than trying to demonstrate how to beat up someone. It's fairly standard applications like tan and punch, lop and punch etc.

[AmanuJRY]

Why are we constantly looking for proof of ability demonstrated in video.:confused:

Why not reality?;)

Frankly, I'm tired of internet WC videos. :(

[Matrix]

Why not reality?;) Justin,

The question posted by Dale was whether these demo videos reflect some people's view of reality. I think it's a valid question.

If you're tired of the videos, that's cool. I think they offer some insight of how others interpret Wing Chun theory and principles.

[AmanuJRY]

Justin,

The question posted by Dale was whether these demo videos reflect some people's view of reality. I think it's a valid question.

But, as you mentioned, this particular video isn't a deomonstration of real fighting, it's instructional, making it a not so valid question.:(


If you're tired of the videos, that's cool. I think they offer some insight of how others interpret Wing Chun theory and principles.

My wearyness of internet videos stems from just that. I'm growing more interested in my interpetation of WC theory and principles.;)

[AmanuJRY]

Bill,

Also, to clear things up a little, I meant reality as in face to face, working on these things with a coach/sifu in the real world as opposed to the virtual one.

Yes, videos can provide insight, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans without actually doing it, that's where real learning occurs. I could spend hours reviewing videos and learn a little or I can spend 30 min working things out with a group/partner and learn a lot.

Don't get me wrong, though. I've learned a lot from my Dan Duby dvds.;) :D

[Knifefighter]

But, as you mentioned, this particular video isn't a deomonstration of real fighting, it's instructional, making it a not so valid question.:(


It doesn't matter whether or not it is a demonstration.

My original thought was for people to deconstruct the various techniques shown on this clip and talk about which ones would or would not be high percetage techniques in a real fight.

I thought this would be a good opportunity to see the various thoughts people have in terms of the specific techniques from chi sao and their effectiveness or lack thereof. I thought this might also be a good opportunity for people to see why I have the perspective on chi sao that I do.

I was thinking we could have a discussion on actual technique before the usual flamethrowing begins.

Apparently, people prefer the threads that skip any prelimnaries that might have substance and just start with the flames.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I can't get to see the vid - what am I doing wrong?

Let me rephrase the question: what exactly do I have to do?

[marcus_pasram]

Victor,

Try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkUSCVZXGg4.


I can't get to see the vid - what am I doing wrong?

Let me rephrase the question: what exactly do I have to do?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Thanks, Marcus....

So far just watched the first vid with Allan Jensen.

Let me be as diplomatic as possible about it (In other words...I'm not going to comment about what aspects of the chi sao that I think are lacking in good structure, technique, etc.)...

Instead I'll offer this:

Unless REAL FIGHT APPLICATIONS of those moves are also being taught to these sifus-to-be by Jensen (which aren't on the vid)....unless that's also included...

and unless those applications are actually being tested against live, resisting opponents who are SKILLED in other arts (and are using those arts, ie.- boxing, kickboxing, etc.)...then this first vid is a total waste of time.

AND IF THOSE MOVES ARE BEING TESTED in the manner that I described - and prove to be ineffective - then the vid is a waste for a second reason.

So I guess my question is: WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH THIS STUFF?

Are they really putting it to a test?

Or what?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Just watched about the next 6-7-8 vids or so....And I think my questions have been answered.

I didn't see ANY real resistance being given by any of the secondary players in any of the vids. (Not to mention any quality boxing, kickboxing, etc.)

Therefore: While it's possible that some of the primary players are pretty good fighters in real life - you could never tell that from any of these vids.

Because these vids are all about marketing. PERIOD.

And I'm not just picking on the European WT people with these comments - very, very, very few wing chun vids from any style show any true (or close to true) reality fighting.

As I said on a different thread...at least 90% of wing chun is bull5hit.

But I'm still convinced that the remaining percentage is KICK-ASS.

[Knifefighter]

Victor, Victor, Victor-

You are breaking the rules. You have jumped right into the flamefest already.

We are supposed to break down and critique the individual techniques and explain why we think each is or is not applicable to a real situation.

Only later, do we get to blast on how it's all for marketing, not against resisting opponents, not against people from other styles, etc.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

[Liddel]

My original thought was for people to deconstruct the various techniques shown on this clip and talk about which ones would or would not be high percetage techniques in a real fight.

I was thinking we could have a discussion on actual technique before the usual flamethrowing begins.


He seems to have no body power in most of his actions. This to me sez he's not able to have knock out power.
Which means if he punched you it would just **** you off. :D

One other factor that stands out to me is Timing. Unrealistic timing.
From action to reaction it seems slow. Meaning most actions are low percentage in a real situation if used the same way.

The punching is High percentage, you've always got a strickers chance :D
(trying to be balanced here)

Also turning his forearm from under the bridge to over, only then to tan and punch is overcomplicated and would never be able to be applied against a moving opponent.

Even non fighters have a natural reaction to move and or cover the head/face.
:confused:

He had the choice of a more direct responce but decided to go the fancy way.
Nothing new to internet VT demos.

The young guy had timing issues also, Pak Sao is a universal parry IMO. Many other styles use similar actions for the same use. Its just a parry. From non contact or contact stage.

The young guy uses Pak Sao then one...two... oh the punch !

Any action in VT should only take a half sec at most to appply and catch the target.

Im still amazed and disappointed that most so called advanced practitioners still demo Chi or Poon Sao the most.

IMO Gor or Luk Sao are much closer to sparring and real life fighting than Chi or Poon Sao. They are un co-operative and can be near or full power, if your game :rolleyes: .

[Edmund]

That's not really a justifiable comment.

To me it seemed obvious that he was teaching the basics of very standard techniques like lop sao, tan sao, pak sao. It wasn't REAL FIGHTING. To teach things, you have to slow things down and break things down or no-one's going to learn any of it.

Just trying to dazzle a student by hitting them as quick and hard as possible - THAT would be wasting a student's time.



Thanks, Marcus....

So far just watched the first vid with Allan Jensen.

Let me be as diplomatic as possible about it (In other words...I'm not going to comment about what aspects of the chi sao that I think are lacking in good structure, technique, etc.)...

Instead I'll offer this:

Unless REAL FIGHT APPLICATIONS of those moves are also being taught to these sifus-to-be by Jensen (which aren't on the vid)....unless that's also included...

and unless those applications are actually being tested against live, resisting opponents who are SKILLED in other arts (and are using those arts, ie.- boxing, kickboxing, etc.)...then this first vid is a total waste of time.

AND IF THOSE MOVES ARE BEING TESTED in the manner that I described - and prove to be ineffective - then the vid is a waste for a second reason.

So I guess my question is: WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH THIS STUFF?

Are they really putting it to a test?

Or what?

[Knifefighter]

Hey!!!

You guys are starting the flamefests way to soon.

Technical discussion first... flaming later.

Follow the rules, damm!ttall.

I'll throw in my two cents worth on the technical aspects after you guys have had a chance to.

THEN we can begin flamethrowing.

[Matrix]

Technical discussion first... flaming later.

Follow the rules, damm!ttall.Dale,
May I suggest that you select a suitable video for your objectives. One that has the kind of technical issues that you're looking to discuss, and throw that one out for comment. The current video is not appropriate for what trying trying to accomplish, IMO. Obviously, one or two of them caught your eye when you posted your question.

I think it's worth a shot.

[Matrix]

To teach things, you have to slow things down and break things down or no-one's going to learn any of it. I definitely agree. I would also add that students should be encouraged to slow things down when they're trying to learn things as well. Too many times we seem to be in a rush to "get it" and miss the finer points.

[Liddel]

That's not really a justifiable comment.

To me it seemed obvious that he was teaching the basics of very standard techniques like lop sao, tan sao, pak sao. It wasn't REAL FIGHTING. To teach things, you have to slow things down and break things down or no-one's going to learn any of it.

Just trying to dazzle a student by hitting them as quick and hard as possible - THAT would be wasting a student's time.

Edmund - you have a point, i recognise having taught people applications before, that you have to slow down, give away space etc etc. (im not a sifu just to clarify)

This as i see it - is an instructors seminar (?) based on the words they key over the pics.
Maybe going over the basics in an instuctors seminar sez alot :rolleyes:

I do though, find it interesting that they are doing slow movements and then ohh he just does Lop Da at what appears to be full speed. ???

I ask the same question ultimate asked
"WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH THIS STUFF? "

However i still believe my claim of a lack of body power and incorrect timing can and does apply to Chi Sao , Gor Sao , Luk Sao even though its not real full contact fighting.

If you dont practise body unity and correct timing in the forementioned training techs - where do you train them ?

If you are calling yourself a Sifu then you should have these ellements present when you fight and when you lift a set of draws, you just dont drop them when ONLY doing Chi Sao as a DEMO. Thats just MHO.

I see what your saying though. :)

[Matrix]

However i still believe my claim of a lack of body power and incorrect timing can and does apply to Chi Sao , Gor Sao , Luk Sao even though its not real full contact fighting.

If you dont practise body unity and correct timing in the forementioned training techs - where do you train them ?)Liddel, I would say that it might depend on the level of the students at that class. If they are real beginners, they might be into fairly static drills at that level. I tend to look at things as a progression. First you learn a pak da, for example, then you add some hip/shifting and then stepping/footwork. There's no point in teaching body unity to someone who doesn't know what a Pak da is.
Having said that, I still think you can (and should) teach and learn each step of the progression at a slow and smooth pace. You can work on body-unity without the need for high speed. It's important, from my understanding, to break it down and really feel what your body is doing at each point in the exercise. You can always add speed to good mechanics, but I think it's harder to develop good mechanics at high speed.

[Edmund]

I ask the same question ultimate asked
"WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH THIS STUFF? "


Not being a WT person, I don't know the details of their stuff however it seemed to be very much congruent with their particular style.

I don't want to reduce it to a sterotype but I think I'd characterize WT as a fairly "rapid hand movements" style of WC: usually standing relatively square-on, alternating hands, shuffling steps in a forward direction.

As for training methods, I don't think they do anything radically different from other WC people. Chi sao, various application drills, sparring etc.




However i still believe my claim of a lack of body power and incorrect timing can and does apply to Chi Sao , Gor Sao , Luk Sao even though its not real full contact fighting.

If you dont practise body unity and correct timing in the forementioned training techs - where do you train them ?

If you are calling yourself a Sifu then you should have these ellements present when you fight and when you lift a set of draws, you just dont drop them when ONLY doing Chi Sao as a DEMO. Thats just MHO.


Concerning the timing, I believe they were going SLOW in the video to teach.
I think most of us would have seen WT people really try to go as fast as humanly possible when actually applying it.

AND because they gear the style for moving that fast, they need to be fairly relaxed and loose in the arms. They aren't going to have all these full body movements.

I don't subscribe to that particular strategy but I understand why it's the way it is.

[Knifefighter]

Hey!!!!:eek:

Knock it off, you guys.

We are supposed to be talking about those videos and the techs as related to fighting.

I think the Alan Jensen one would be a good one to start with.


Matrix-
From a technical standpoint, do you think any of the TECHNIQUES shown in that video are suitable for use in a real fight?

Edmund-
You are not qualified to comment from a technical standpoint.
Quit messing up this thread and get out of here until the flaming begins.
Come back when everyone starts yelling at each other or at me.

[Edmund]

KF,

While I'm not a WT person, I am a WC person... :)

"WT" is like the trademark for Leung Ting's lineage.

I've done WC for almost 10 years. Not as experienced as some of the "old-timers" her but I know a little bit about the topic.

[Knifefighter]

Oh, I thought we were only diffentiating between VT and WC.

I didn't get the memo about WT.

OK, then... you are allowed in during the pre-flaming posts.

[Edmund]

Thanks!

I probably should have made the various distinctions clearer....

As for the usefulness of the techniques in a real fight: Those techs were some of the more fundamental moves in WC. Different lineages may execute them in very different ways but those techniques are meant to be used in real fights.

As Liddel said, the pak sao is a universal parry in a lot of MA styles - not just WC.

[Liddel]

Concerning the timing, I believe they were going SLOW in the video to teach.
I think most of us would have seen WT people really try to go as fast as humanly possible when actually applying it.

AND because they gear the style for moving that fast, they need to be fairly relaxed and loose in the arms. They aren't going to have all these full body movements.

I don't subscribe to that particular strategy but I understand why it's the way it is.

I see what your saying, but i think you've missed my particular point.
Perhaps i didnt lay it out right but i am slacking off at work here...

My concern towards the timing - was not aimed at the speed of which they were moving - but the relationship between action and reaction.

If you want realistic training tech's you must have the same relationship between action and reaction regardless wether its half or full speed - Chi Sao or full contact... :rolleyes:

[Edmund]

I see what your saying, but i think you've missed my particular point.
Perhaps i didnt lay it out right but i am slacking off at work here...

My concern towards the timing - was not aimed at the speed of which they were moving - but the relationship between action and reaction.

If you want realistic training tech's you must have the same relationship between action and reaction regardless wether its half or full speed - Chi Sao or full contact... :rolleyes:

I'm still not sure I get what you're saying. What's "the relationship between action and reaction" mean?

You felt the techniques were too complicated to be applied?

[YungChun]

The purpose of any of this kind of training, which has nothing to do with the quality of the training, all has to do with the same things--drilling WCK concepts into the body and mind.

This stuff is about developing attributes like:

Contact Reflexes

Meaning a sensitivity to various conditions that can and will exist when fighters "clash", meaning forceful contact with the arms, legs and body happens, something that happens often enough in real fighting—forceful contact.

Awareness to position and range

Conditions that WCK trains to be sensitive to relate to body and bridge position and energy. This translates into how, as it applies to energy/force, the opponent's resistance manifests <how he leaves the line> and how to use this resistance depending on what position you find yourself in to gain an advantage in order to apply an effective attack.

Why Sensitivity Training?

In order to:

Speed up our timing

Just as grapplers use feeling to determine how to control the opponent using the concepts and moves in their system WCK emphasizes relying on feeling as much as possible because responding to feeling is several times faster that is relying on sight--due to reaction delay..

WCK in it's simplest form is about learning how to control the center space through adapting to the opponent's energy and position, just as a grappler does, except in this case using WCK techniques, structure and concepts..

More over these kinds of drills re-enforce and ingrain a myriad of key system concepts into the body, like:

General Center Space theory
Hand Unity
Hand Replacement
Bi-Directional Energy
Using the opponent's energy against him
Leaving and Returning to the line
Body Unity
Body Alignment
Economy of Motion
WCK Power generation and release
Freed Hand Attacks the Line
Attacking Hand Defends
Facing and Following
Hand Hits from where it is..
Fan Sao--or Continuity of Attack
Making Three movements at once
Combining attack and defense

And on and on...

These drills, when taught and trained the right way may not be a "cure all" but they represent a highly evolved training platform for cultivating several key system components via a PROGRESSIVE TRAINING method. The method addresses the majority of WCK concepts and integrates them as a whole that can be trained against progressive resistance and internalized..

The progression is an ingenious method of cultivating in a cohesive manner most of WCK's key attributes in a format that can be completely unrehearsed and free, or it can be broken down into parts for students to focus on where they may need work. These dynamic sensitivity drills form the basic training of the system and provide a context for each tool, technique and concept and the opportunity to work them in a kind of WCK laboratory where our attributes, techniques and concepts can be cultivated with progressive resistance--ideally they become a natural part of us.

What is good about movement A and what is bad about movement A is a gross over-simplification; It all depends on the conditions that exist in the moment. Each tool has a use and time it is best applied.. There is no guarantee, however, that any training move or technique will ever be needed since this all depends on what the opponent does or fails to do.. Indeed some WCK moves will NEVER be needed, but this does not invalidate training to adapt to the opponent's energy and position, since this is at the heart of what ANY MA system or method of training is trying to do, the only question is how one goes about it and what methods one wishes to train and cultivate..

WCK emphasizes training feeling and kinesthetic awareness as it relates to controlling our "center space" and center <CG> of the opponent. At close quarter combat range sight is almost useless, and deceptive as well, so other senses are cultivated in these drills. We train to use energy, ours and his, the given position, leverage and our system's concepts to take control of the opponent by the most economic means possible--and that is the study made here in the drills..

No doubt that folks can get carried away by this large area of focus. So folks need to also work on Visual Sensitivity and working from the outside, non contact ranges, how to read the opponent, etc. And these things must be addressed in Sparring drills and sparring that involves MAINLY IMO sparring folks that DO NOT do WCK...

So, these drills form what is the base and core of WCK theory and how that is internalized... Don't get confused by the "fancy moves" in these drills--don't take the training so literally—look beyond petty technique--it is about the underlying lessons and concepts that are being taught.

The drilling is finally about a study of energy and position, through feeling and kinesthetic awareness and how to become sensitive enough to this resistance to adapt, naturally, economically and with superior timing and position. The objective of this drilling is to train the student how to use WCK concepts and internalize them in order to take control and finish the opponent.

In the end the training is the training, don’t confuse the Finger for the Moon, this stuff is all about using less not more, to become simpler, not more complicated and, as with any art you get out of it what you put into it—train harder and smarter and the result will be better.

[Knifefighter]

Don't get confused by the "fancy moves" in these drills--don't take the training so literally—look beyond petty technique--it is about the underlying lessons and concepts that are being taught.
Do you believe the "fancy moves" shown in the video clip are or are not valid in a real fight?

[Jim Roselando]

Knifefighter,


All you have to do is look at his Head!

If someone with Strength in the street colides with him then the body will not be able to support or dynamically adjust.


Yung Chun:

Drills without a support system are a waste of time no matter how much "sensitivity" we think we get out of them.


Just an opinion.


:)

[Knifefighter]

All you have to do is look at his Head!

If someone with Strength in the street colides with him then the body will not be able to support or dynamically adjust.
Jim-
Can you elaborate on these comments? I'm not sure what you mean.

[Jim Roselando]

Knifefighter,


His body alignment is so off that its very very Weak. He would have no choice but to use flailing speed to try to dominate which is like shooting fifty shots to hope for one or two to leak in. I am fond of an old Maxim for this sort of thing: The Mouse Steals The Cheese. The strong street fighter will not allow those smooth chi sao transitions to happen. They will lock up and the weak frame wont support.

When he issues his strength is only 1 Force Vector of power backed up by maybe a bit more of the same. --> --> Someone with more wholesome whole body strength colides with him then the wholesome force will rock the one direction of force. Its like being hit with something coming straight with more straight backing it up or up/down/left/right/forward/backward or Moving Gyro English hitting.

Just some thoughts.

Peace,

[Knifefighter]

His body alignment is so off that its very very Weak.
I know I may be jumping the gun here and potentially moving into the flame part of the thread early but...

Why would a top guy who has been training this stuff for decades do a demonstration where his body alignment is so weak?

[Jim Roselando]

Dale,


Perhaps it all depends on what emphacis people put on their boxing or art. Maybe what he is doing works very well for him against the people he has trained with or against. Maybe our opinions are wrong. Just because someones art uses 2 force vectors versus 4 or 6 it doesn't mean they cant pull it off if with lots of training. For me, nothing is more important than good alive posture and healthy spine.

When he demonstrates a pressing in "application hit" I can see he is loaded up to fire off his big power shot. This means he has to Re-Load to launch his next heaviest shot after he bases. So, if he starts the flailing chain attack he may throw his most powerful hit with the first, maybe the second of the chain attack will have less on it and the the third even less unless he Re-Loads. This is why I do not think the Chain attack is very practical. Max one or two shots with any beef and the rest will be un-cooperative body and hand linkage. Also, if he does land the first or second shot the guy will not be close enough to deliver 3,4,5 etc.. I think we sometimes confuse stamina practice with application.


Gotta run man!


Peace,

[AmanuJRY]

WT vs. 'Kickboxing' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4Jq6H9pEQ&mode=related&search=)


any comments???

[Fajing]

WT vs. 'Kickboxing' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4Jq6H9pEQ&mode=related&search=)


any comments???


Yeah.....is that kickboxer ONG BAK, The Thai Warrior?????:p :D

Wait....I think I saw some Tae Bo in there:eek:

[Knifefighter]

You guys are hopeless.

I thought there was lots to comment on from that video... maybe I was wrong.

Anyway, I'll go back and watch it and comment later.

As far as the "kickboxer" vs. VT guy, was that karate point sparring?

[Knifefighter]

OK… just watched it again.

First of all, I think the guy can be excused for his head placement and lack of structural integrity. It looked to be a low key demo where he was relaxed and talking.

As far as techniques, I saw a lot of stuff in there. Are you sure you guys train?

I saw traps, tans, lops, paks, backfists and some other things that I remember learning in WC. As far as useful techniques for fighting, I didn’t see too much.

I saw the usual weakness of only working the centerline and never throwing hook types of punches when there would be myriads of openings to do so in a real fight.

I found the pushing stuff to be pretty unrealistic which is not uncommon to most WC demos that I’ve seen. One will be pretty hard pressed to push an engaged opponent away unless one is much bigger than said opponent.

All in all, not much in terms of useful technique.

[AmanuJRY]

I saw traps, tans, lops, paks, backfists and some other things that I remember learning in WC. As far as useful techniques for fighting, I didn’t see too much.

I saw the usual weakness of only working the centerline and never throwing hook types of punches when there would be myriads of openings to do so in a real fight.

I found the pushing stuff to be pretty unrealistic which is not uncommon to most WC demos that I’ve seen. One will be pretty hard pressed to push an engaged opponent away unless one is much bigger than said opponent.

All in all, not much in terms of useful technique.

Hence, the lack of comment.:o

[AmanuJRY]

You guys are hopeless.

I thought there was lots to comment on from that video... maybe I was wrong.

Anyway, I'll go back and watch it and comment later.

As far as the "kickboxer" vs. VT guy, was that karate point sparring?

I'm not sure, it was just a couple clicks away from the other vid.

I think they were just 'demonstrating' how devistating WC is against kickboxing.

;) :(

[Edmund]

OK… just watched it again.

First of all, I think the guy can be excused for his head placement and lack of structural integrity. It looked to be a low key demo where he was relaxed and talking.


I agree.



As far as techniques, I saw a lot of stuff in there. Are you sure you guys train?


LOL. We saw it too but what you consider a lot is not really much at all from a WC perspective - It's a bit too bread and butter WC to have that much to say about it.



I saw traps, tans, lops, paks, backfists and some other things that I remember learning in WC. As far as useful techniques for fighting, I didn’t see too much.

I saw the usual weakness of only working the centerline and never throwing hook types of punches when there would be myriads of openings to do so in a real fight.


Well maybe they throw hooks at a later stage or whatever.
I think there's nothing wrong with putting that as a drill too.
It's not like it's a alien concept.

Don't think I saw a backfist or much trapping. There was *potential* positions for trapping but it was more that the demo target really just didn't bring his hand out.




I found the pushing stuff to be pretty unrealistic which is not uncommon to most WC demos that I’ve seen. One will be pretty hard pressed to push an engaged opponent away unless one is much bigger than said opponent.

All in all, not much in terms of useful technique.

Isn't that what a few other guys said..... :)

The "pushing" I think you are referring to, possibly was some sort of foot sweeping drill.

Really, the techniques of WC are very simple and few. Punching, elbowing, a few different hand fighting techniques like pak, tan, lop etc. a few simple kicks. Some lineages use knee strikes.

A lot of the drills are abstractions that a lay person is not going to see much practicality out of. The drills are MORE complicated than the application. It's the WC way of supposedly training smarter.

[Liddel]

As far as techniques, I saw a lot of stuff in there. Are you sure you guys train?

I saw traps, tans, lops, paks, backfists and some other things that I remember learning in WC. As far as useful techniques for fighting, I didn’t see too much.

I saw the usual weakness of only working the centerline and never throwing hook types of punches when there would be myriads of openings to do so in a real fight.


I saw these things also but i thought his stance was was to static.
To Much Chi Sao makes VT peeps straight shooters, we think about the centerline too much. And plant our feet to our detriment.

To me the centerline- its the shortest distance between you and me, wether im front on or side on wether you face me or have ur back to me. Its not about just attacking the opponents front / chest, which a lot seem to do.

Good to see someone using Pak Sao right at the start of the vid there but it was 90 arms. Not much turning at the waist at all.
If you look closely after the parry when he follows up he has to go over the opponents hands - and he stands up, So his punch looses force.

We get stuck going for the head, why not the body ?
I agree with the hook call by KF, but as a VT man my 'Hook' is more a bannana punch with my elbow still inside - ish - simlar to the ginger punch from BJ.

We have uppercuts also - from CK - but they for the most part were relaxed point sparring, not getting inside to crowd and catch the body where you would launch such a punch.

The same goes for the kicking - wheres the body power - more harrasing than damaging. Kinda pushed rather than snapped, bad cam angle though, i could be wrong.
You could call the wing arm he gave when a side kick came a Bong Sao but it deflected the kick up almost in his face. He would have been more secure with the body behind him moving.

Id like to see more movement from his legs, it would liven up his game.

Im not perfect - but i recognise a few things im trying to work on myself.

[YungChun]

Yung Chun:

Drills without a support system are a waste of time no matter how much "sensitivity" we think we get out of them.


Just an opinion.


:)

Not sure I know what you mean either Jim.. I don't recall advocating anywhere to drill without a "support system." :confused:

[Jim Roselando]

Yong Chun,


I was under the impression that you approved of the training becauses of your post:

This stuff is about developing attributes like:

Contact Reflexes

Meaning a sensitivity to various conditions that can and will exist when fighters "clash", meaning forceful contact with the arms, legs and body happens, something that happens often enough in real fighting—forceful contact.

Awareness to position and range

Conditions that WCK trains to be sensitive to relate to body and bridge position and energy. This translates into how, as it applies to energy/force, the opponent's resistance manifests <how he leaves the line> and how to use this resistance depending on what position you find yourself in to gain an advantage in order to apply an effective attack.

Why Sensitivity Training?

etc etc etc.


Gotta run!


Peace,
Jim

[Jim Roselando]

Hey guys,


Check out the skeletal integrity of Chu Shong Tin. More vectors and able to handle pressure without having to run around it because of being weak:

http://www.wingchun.com.au/videos_wingchun_seminar_realisticfighting1.shtml


Peace,
Jim

[YungChun]

Yong Chun,


I was under the impression that you approved of the training becauses of your post:

Yes, I approve of correct WCK sensitivity training.. It's how WCK, in part, is
trained.

The post addressed, just that, WCK sensitivity training, and not anyone's in particular and didn't say without a "support system", which I assume, implies "without structure."

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


We can agree to disagree. :) Sensativity training is whole body involvement and not just needling like flowery pillows IMO. What good are all those refernce points and transitions without the above? Both Chu Shong Tin and Ken show a clearly different form of body sensativity. You just cannot do one without the other.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekX7gbZJ5b8


Regards,

[YungChun]

Hello,


We can agree to disagree. :) Sensativity training is whole body involvement and not just needling like flowery pillows IMO. What good are all those refernce points and transitions without the above? Both Chu Shong Tin and Ken show a clearly different form of body sensativity. You just cannot do one without the other.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekX7gbZJ5b8


Regards,

Jim, I fail to see where I said that sensitivity training does not involve whole body involvement....

I also fail to see where I wrote or implied "needling like flowery pillows"...

In fact I wrote that WCK emphasizes training feeling and kinesthetic awareness as well as use of proper structure..

Where are you getting this from???

If you are going to disagree with something I wrote that is fine with me, however I expect to have written it in the first place.. Please quote something specific I wrote if you wish to disagree and not "put words in my posts.."

[Jim Roselando]

Yung Chon,


Jim, I fail to see where I said that sensitivity training does not involve whole body involvement....

I also fail to see where I wrote or implied "needling like flowery pillows"...

In fact I wrote that WCK emphasizes training feeling and kinesthetic awareness as well as use of proper structure..


I wrote earlier:


I was under the impression that you approved of the training becauses of your post:

Yes, I approve of correct WCK sensitivity training.. It's how WCK, in part, is
trained.

The post addressed, just that, WCK sensitivity training,


I was under the impression that we were talking about this particular footage? I was also under the impression that you said you approved and I was stating my opinions on this footage. So, just to smooth out the discussion (since I seem to be confused :p ), do you approve or not approve of the practitioners performance we are talking about?


:)



Regards,

[YungChun]

I was under the impression that we were talking about this particular footage? I was also under the impression that you said you approved and I was stating my opinions on this footage. So, just to smooth out the discussion (since I seem to be confused :p ), do you approve or not approve of the practitioners performance we are talking about?

No, I also wrote two posts ago:


The post addressed, just that, WCK sensitivity training, and not anyone's in particular and didn't say without a "support system", which I assume, implies "without structure."

Much of the recent discussion here and elsewhere was about sticking training in general, and there seems to be much confusion about the purpose of this training in general. As I attempted to convey before my comments were on WCK sticking training in general and not anyone's in particular!

As to this footage I only glanced at it.. I will watch again when I get a chance...

[Jim Roselando]

Hey YC,


I watched the footage and then posted. I never read the entire thread so I may be off on this! :) Look forward to your thoughts on the footage.


Peace,

[stricker]

andrew, thanks for the clip. what did you make of it?

knifefighter, when i said about tapping out white belts i was saying about this thread, not the main clip but a lot of the others linked off it showing applications stuff. theyre so easy to criticise as theyre never skilled opponents but people who think a takedown is flaling around bending over at the waist etc never know basic boxers defense or footwork no wrestling or clinch experience etc and generally just roll over and play dead after a couple of chain punches.

as for the alan jensen chi sao clip his head and shoulder posture did seem off but i foundn it more interesting to watch his hips. it looked like he was taking pressure to the ground at certain points before moving round it then staying on etc. also could be he can get away with looking lazy upper body, depends what the partner is giving him etc there were a few moments id like to see what happened if the partner stepped in instead of backing off or staying neutral.

also bear in mind what andrew said he has students fighting etc maybe more than meets the eye

im looking forward to watching Jim Roselandos clip when i get the chance :)

[Jim Roselando]

Stricker,


Search the old threads!

I started one about a year ago requesting to see more people show what they do. You can find a clip there if you want to see my smiling face.

:)


I'm not shy amigo!

;)


Peace,

[stricker]

cool will do man. cant watch vids right now as im on work time ;)

ps did you watch his hips what did you pick anything up there?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I still don't get the intent of this thread; that is, the turn that Dale is trying to give it...

All those vids are meaningless without the applications in real time being drilled/sparred with the proper intensity and spontaneity.

Otherwise the chi sao we saw is just a dance form and the other "demo sparring" vids just marketing - all style and no substance.

Is Dale asking whether or not lop sao, pak sao, tan sao, bong sao, etc....ie.- WING CHUN...is useful in real fighting? Is that it?

If so...the answer is YES...at very close range - and in certain fighting situations...

and as long it's seamlessly integrated into the rest of your arsenal both from short range and especially from longer distances - like using hooks, uppercuts, front kicks, roundhouse kicks, longer reaching straight leads and crosses, etc....as well as a more dynamic broken rhythm and stepping than what is "normally" associated with the typical wing chun "just rush in there" footwork - no matter how "explosive"....

Otherwise you can have all the proper body structure, vectors, trapping, and blah blah blah you want - and it still won't work very well in a real fight against a skilled fighter.

[stricker]

coast clear :cool:

first impression the "realistic fighting seminar" one showed amazing body mechanics but taking the **** about "realistic fighting"

a guy that skinny and you can really see how he uses skeletal structure :cool:

take those body mechanics add some timing footwork and realistic applications now we're talking :D

need to go over them a few more times... thanks tho might be some little gems in there :)

[Knifefighter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekX7gbZJ5b8
There’s one glaring problem with what was demonstrated on that clip.

Many of those techs shown give a wrestler the set for a clinch, take down or throw.

Someone without a wrestling background may not realize this and inadvertently give the grappler exactly what he wants.

[gabe]

There’s one glaring problem with what was demonstrated on that clip.

Many of those techs shown give a wrestler the set for a clinch, take down or throw.

Someone without a wrestling background may not realize this and inadvertently give the grappler exactly what he wants.


Yup, and you don't figure these things out unless you cross-fight. If they can do this and prevent the clinch, takedown or throw, then that's impressive. I don't think analysis comes down to what works or what doesn't work, it's really who executes first. Just a thought.

[Edmund]

There’s one glaring problem with what was demonstrated on that clip.

Many of those techs shown give a wrestler the set for a clinch, take down or throw.

Someone without a wrestling background may not realize this and inadvertently give the grappler exactly what he wants.

Of course they don't realise this... It's not like WC people are all experts in wrestling. They aren't going to gear their style to counter something they don't know much about.

[Liddel]

Although i dont particularly perscribe to this action exactly as in the demo.

I wonder - have you guys never taught someone using examples / analogies / insights into the point your trying to get across ?

This perhaps is exactly the way they would use it in a fight, ideed giving a wrestler exactly what he wants, but do we know this for sure ?

Or are we just picking holes for a change ? :cool:

"Anythings possible, lets see what happens" - Royce Gracie.

[Edmund]

Wait a sec. You were picking holes on Alan Jensen's clip.
Now Ken Chung has a clip up and you don't want to.

I think it's more reasonable to say that a WC person doesn't know much about countering wrestling than saying that they don't have the right WC stance or timing. Unless they've done some wrestling, their knowledge would be rudimentary.



Although i dont particularly perscribe to this action exactly as in the demo.

I wonder - have you guys never taught someone using examples / analogies / insights into the point your trying to get across ?

This perhaps is exactly the way they would use it in a fight, ideed giving a wrestler exactly what he wants, but do we know this for sure ?

Or are we just picking holes for a change ? :cool:

"Anythings possible, lets see what happens" - Royce Gracie.

[jesper]

Well I wasnt going to post on this thread at first but Im curious about this quote

"This as i see it - is an instructors seminar (?) based on the words they key over the pics.
Maybe going over the basics in an instuctors seminar sez alot "


So you actually mean that just because someone has made it to or are in the process of becoming an instructor you dont need to go over the basics:confused:
Are you like a god with perfect technics just because your an instructor

Ah well what do I know

[Liddel]

Wait a sec. You were picking holes on Alan Jensen's clip.
Now Ken Chung has a clip up and you don't want to.


I see a difference in actually engaging in Poon Sao which resembles applications of VT in fighting, and when one is describing a technique.

The question was asked of 'fighting realism' with regard to Alan Jensen's clip so i gave my opinion as to exactly that - 'fighting realism' .

A comment was made about the Ken Chung clip, and i offered my 'opinion' as to what i though the intention of the clip was.

I mean for crying out loud he was talking - stopping his actions - giving visual and verbal examples. where as the previous clip was an obvious attempt at very light sparring (at best).

Two totally different clips.

If were gunna continue on the same path as the second clip - we might as well look at a vid of me eating an ice cream and say that when i raise my hand to my face to take a bite i open up the perfect space for a hook. :eek:

I still stand by my OPINION.

Stress less man.

[AmanuJRY]

So you actually mean that just because someone has made it to or are in the process of becoming an instructor you dont need to go over the basics:confused:


So...do you practice walking?? spelling?? or perhaps you delve into doing some simple addition and subtraction problems in the evening?

Basics are a crucial part of learning, but once learned how much time should be attributed to training them?

I don't practice spelling, yet I don't seem to forget how to (except on the big words).

[stricker]

Stricker,


Search the old threads!

I started one about a year ago requesting to see more people show what they do. You can find a clip there if you want to see my smiling face.

:)


I'm not shy amigo!

;)


Peace,oh i just reread what you said i didnt mean i was waiting for a clip of you personally like some sarcastic arse i meant the one you posted the link to :) also i did search and find the thread but all the clips were down. no prob tho and thanks for the clip of that skinny dude!

AmanuJry,

thats a really bad analogy about the basics. a little story (not wing chun but muay thai but its the moral that counts) i was at mma doing thai padwork with a guy from the local "other" thai boxing club and as this other guy was holding we were doing combos with spinning backfist jumping punch all that "advanced" thai stuff as hed done some grading to do those when my mma coach (an actual champion in muay thai) stopped and came over to give us a bollocking and said concentrate on basics. i see a guy who regularly fights the stadiums in thailand train all the time and ive never seen him practice any of those techniques ever just BASICS BASICS BASICS

also one thing is i think the alan jensen clip is its a seminar for instructors but there going over material for student grades 7-8 that makes sense to me if your gonna have grades instructors etc

[Edmund]

I mean for crying out loud he was talking - stopping his actions - giving visual and verbal examples. where as the previous clip was an obvious attempt at very light sparring (at best).

Two totally different clips.



I don't see it that way.

They were both teaching by example and talking IMO.

[Liddel]

I don't see it that way.

They were both teaching by example and talking IMO.

Thats fair, we see it differently then.

I did just offer my opinion only. Thats all we can offer without going to spar with the guy.

As far as going over the basics - I agree, its always a good idea.

My comment came from a place of wanting to see more Gor Sao / Luk Sao and then sparring above 70 % when any chunner is in an 'advanced' teaching environment.

Whose not to say they didnt do that after what we saw, but i can and will only comment on something ive seen or felt.

My particular view of VT in the modern MMA wolrd is NOT to totally change the ART, but def change the way its taught.

I can dream cant I ?

:rolleyes:

[AndrewS]

Basics are a crucial part of learning, but once learned how much time should be attributed to training them?

All of it.

Andrew

[Liddel]

"Basics are a crucial part of learning, but once learned how much time should be attributed to training them? "


All of it.
Andrew

Anyone remember the cartoon Voltron from back in the day ?

Several animal like machines combined together to make one bid bad a$$ machine.

Ving Tsun or any fighting system can only add up - to the sum of its parts.

If i perform for example an advanced move in Poon Sao, does it not contain several elements of the basics to make one advanced application ?

The center punch from our forms is simple, you learn it from day one (hopefully)
but as you learn chi sao and chum kui you put that punch onto your horse and add body power and momentum from stepping or turning.

It becomes advanced IMO.
Making something static - dynamic.

With this in mind i think that if you want to train the basics as an advanced VT practitioner you dont train them in the basic WAY.

If you train them in a advanced application arent you still practicing the basics as they are part of the sum ?

I mean i can practice by myself giving a pak sao action in front of a mirror.
This would be practicing a basic action in a basic application.

Therefore practicing a pak sao against a moving attacking opponent, would be practicing a basic action in a advanced situation.

This is the POV from which i made my comment on the Alan Jensen clip.

[AmanuJRY]

All of it.

Andrew

Of course, Andrew.:D

But, I argue that you are really working on your attribute development, not your understanding of basic technique by 'training the basics' all the time. Once your mind and body have learned the technique you are only training to get quicker, more powerful or to improve your timing etc.

I may know how to ride a bike and not forget, but I probably won't win any races.

Understanding basics and training them to develop attributes are related but two different things.

[AndrewS]

AmanuJRY writes:


But, I argue that you are really working on your attribute development, not your understanding of basic technique by 'training the basics' all the time. Once your mind and body have learned the technique you are only training to get quicker, more powerful or to improve your timing etc.

Unconscious incompetance
Conscious incompetance
Conscious competance
Unconscious competance

One model for skill development progression.

What do you do when you're at the point of unconscious competance with a skill? Further destabilize the conditions under which you apply it- work the basics under more challenging conditions which can include better partners, heavier contact, more open rules, limitation sparring (i.e. jab vs. hook, shock vs. soft, always start from being mounted, etc)- whatever- you're still just cleaning your basics.

BTW- the DEWTO instructors program (per my partner who trained in Copenhagen for his first 5 years in) involves weekly or every other week free, *mandatory* instructors' sessions focusing on how to teach, based in part on the perceived development or lack thereof of the students (i.e. they ain't getting something, so we need to focus on X more). I suspect that this is what that clip is- a portion of one of those sessions. For those who want more live stuff- cruise the DEWTO site, they had a few MMA matches from members up there for a while (at least one of which various armchair bad*sses mouthed off about a while ago on this forum).

Am I confused or did Liddell mistake this Jensen clip for some form of sparring? The intro is 'if you like to train we like to teach', c'mon! There's a text line along the bottom saying they arrange free instructor seminars . . .

This board gets more surreal every year.

Andrew

[steeltoe]

This was amusing. :D

I remember when we sat down and edited the clip, we decided on putting the subtitles in so that people would understand what kind of fotage it was. It is 1 minute and 22 seconds from a +2 hour seminar put together to show what might be taught on an instructors seminar. It is not fighting, it is not sparing, it is an attempt to show people how some of the training and teaching is done. We thought of it as material fit for people looking for a martial art, not for people who apparently knows the martial art. And we wanted to show that we actually do have instructors seminars. You need that to get some level of consistensy with schools in four countries.

But Im glad that you liked it. We will try to get more material on the internet someday. ;)

[AmanuJRY]

you're still just cleaning your basics.

I think that's another way of saying 'attribute development'.

Forgive me if I interpet 'basics' as getting to the Unconscious competance stage. After that, we continue to work those techs under more and more stress to develop the attributes that support the tech more so than to learn the 'nature' of the tech (which should be understood by this point).

[AndrewS]

AmanuJRY writes:


I think that's another way of saying 'attribute development'.

Forgive me if I interpet 'basics' as getting to the Unconscious competance stage. After that, we continue to work those techs under more and more stress to develop the attributes that support the tech more so than to learn the 'nature' of the tech (which should be understood by this point).

Attributes? What are attributes? I presume you're talking about physical characteristics- absolute strength, speed-strength, strength-endurance, speed-strength-endurance, strength-speed, VO2max, flexibility, mobility, lactic acid tolerance, etc. These are a conditioning base-GPP, built on motions usually fairly far from the sport involved (i.e. squatting for your golf game)- which must be transformed into usable qualities, the process of doing SPP (specific physical preparedness- working on a power swing with your newly strong posterior chain, possibly with off-weight implements, under some training constraint like a timed rep, continuing the golf analogy), then brought into your actual 'game'.

I'm talking about not just transforming S&C work into the 'fuel' for a technique, but the little technical subtleties that come out as you constantly work on a skill, subtleties that sometimes make all the difference in making something work better. I will note that I make more of these 'breakthroughs' when I bring up lagging areas in my S&C program or introduce a new crosstraining approach(implying that I'm doing SPP to build on my GPP base), but these developments aren't always the expected ones; often messing around w/ a 'basic', I'll find that something I didn't expect to develop has, because I've fixed a physical problem or improved some motor pattern (for example, my triangle got a lot better when I was doing a lot of overhead squats- because I got the strength in that ROM to allow me the flexibility to better execute).

What I mean by working on basics is a constant attempt to refine the most fundamental portions of your motion and strategy- that involves the above, but also involves a constant examination, testing, and experimentation with those fundamentals. Having been doing that for a while now, and having had some fairly profound changes in my perceptions of fairly simple actions over the years, I think that perceiving yourself as 'understanding' a technique limits your ability to refine, develop, and challenge that understanding, working towards getting an even better understanding.

Basics are merely a bridge between intent and mastery (which, by definition is an ideal, not an attainable state) - with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche.

Andrew

[Liddel]

Am I confused or did Liddell mistake this Jensen clip for some form of sparring?
This board gets more surreal every year.
Andrew

Yes you are confused. Im in no doubt, its NOT sparring.
I made comments with regard to sparring, but i wasnt saying this is sparring.

The confusion has come from the topic changing. Originally the clip was introduced with a question of 'fighting realism' even though its not fighting itself.

I gave my opinion to serve as one POV on the question.
Its that simple.

[AmanuJRY]

Attributes? What are attributes? I presume you're talking about physical characteristics- absolute strength, speed-strength, strength-endurance, speed-strength-endurance, strength-speed, VO2max, flexibility, mobility, lactic acid tolerance, etc. These are a conditioning base-GPP, built on motions usually fairly far from the sport involved (i.e. squatting for your golf game)- which must be transformed into usable qualities, the process of doing SPP (specific physical preparedness- working on a power swing with your newly strong posterior chain, possibly with off-weight implements, under some training constraint like a timed rep, continuing the golf analogy), then brought into your actual 'game'.

I'm talking about not just transforming S&C work into the 'fuel' for a technique, but the little technical subtleties that come out as you constantly work on a skill, subtleties that sometimes make all the difference in making something work better. I will note that I make more of these 'breakthroughs' when I bring up lagging areas in my S&C program or introduce a new crosstraining approach(implying that I'm doing SPP to build on my GPP base), but these developments aren't always the expected ones; often messing around w/ a 'basic', I'll find that something I didn't expect to develop has, because I've fixed a physical problem or improved some motor pattern (for example, my triangle got a lot better when I was doing a lot of overhead squats- because I got the strength in that ROM to allow me the flexibility to better execute).

What I mean by working on basics is a constant attempt to refine the most fundamental portions of your motion and strategy- that involves the above, but also involves a constant examination, testing, and experimentation with those fundamentals. Having been doing that for a while now, and having had some fairly profound changes in my perceptions of fairly simple actions over the years, I think that perceiving yourself as 'understanding' a technique limits your ability to refine, develop, and challenge that understanding, working towards getting an even better understanding.

Basics are merely a bridge between intent and mastery (which, by definition is an ideal, not an attainable state) - with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche.

Andrew

What about attributes like timing and tactile sensitivity? I don't see how their development is that far removed from the actual activity.

I think the difference of opinion lies in how we interpet 'basics'. Are we talking punches and kicks? Body structure? Theory? All of the above?

I'm definately not suggesting that one reaches a point in which one 'understands' a tech such that they need not train it, not in the sleightest. I'm suggesting that there are aspects that commit themselves to memory regardless of how much or little is trained ( i.e. I could not train for ten years and still remember centerline theory or the mechanics of a punch) and others, like muscle memory, that degrade at varying rates ( i.e. I may remeber the mechanics of a punch, but can I execute it)

[AndrewS]

Justin writes:


What about attributes like timing and tactile sensitivity? I don't see how their development is that far removed from the actual activity.

I wouldn't qualify these as attributes- to me, attributes are measurable physical characteristics not entirely specific to the individual sport/activity in question. Timing is clearly a sport specific skill, a basic, while tactile sensitivity is probably better termed 'relational kinesthetic awareness' and while there is clearly some carryover between different forums in which this is developed (ever taught a dancer or gymnast a martial art- it's annoying watching people catch on that quickly sometimes), it's activity specific in a martial context, and as such would be a 'basic'- SPP, not an attribute (GPP, conditioning base).


I think the difference of opinion lies in how we interpet 'basics'. Are we talking punches and kicks? Body structure? Theory? All of the above?

There's a definite difference here. Theory is not a basic; it's a cognitive model, the usefulness of which is limited to the results it produces. Theory is mouthboxing.

To me, 'basics' would be SPP- training of skills specific to your chosen activity. Using the OODA loop model
Observe- the ability to read your opponent's balance and intent, and your awareness of your own balance and intent
Orient- kinesthetic and spacial awareness of your relation to each other (tactile sensitivity, kuzushi, feeling what to play for when you pummel or play for grip based on both your motion and the other person's)
Decide- a limited response set based on re-evaluation of the situation (i.e. guy's going back looking rocked, smash in with strikes as in the drill on the SF thread, or pick a double, or whatever- have a limited response set of
Action- whatever you decide to do, 'techniques'- which may be developed by smoothing out motion (i.e. training technique), or improving strength, power, etc. with that technique (which is easier if you have more strength and power- GPP- if you can jerk 200kg, you'll have an easier time doubling your punching power than if you can only jerk 50kg).

That's just the start on a complex subject.

GPP- my physical condition- is constantly changing (and hopefully improving) state. As such, when I go back to work on 'basics', I often get rewarded with new and interesting insights and skills- i.e. I improved my hip mobility, stretched out my hip flexors, messed with some new chi gherk sections and discovered that I could finally turn my round kicks over, something which had given me immense hip pain for years.

FWIW,

Andrew

[AmanuJRY]

In that context, then, I don't disagree with you in the slieghtest.:D