Does WC answer the question...... [Archive]

Sifu Moore

11-15-2006, 04:00 AM

Hello everyone, hope your training and your MA journey is progressing. I have been recieving alot of emails from WC enthusiasts regarding what seems to them to be an ever present onslaught of naysayers regarding WC effectiveness. Especially in todays world of MMA hysteria. Here is what I had to say to him . Maybe some of the younger practitioners (in terms of experience not age) might find this helpful on their personal journeys towards the truth.

Hi Sam,

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your email below. One problem with the internet is that "everyone" has an opinion, whether its based on merit or not. Nine times out of ten, the people engaging in that type of dialog have no clue as to what they are talking about or are still immature in their MA growth. Again, as the saying goes, "There are NO bad martial arts just plenty of BAD martial artists". Every art has something to teach you potentially , if you are ready to listen,learn and most importantly, put the work in that will uncover the pearls of the "journey".

As for WC , any intelligent and mature MA familiar with WC, knows that Wing Chun itself does not need to be defended ,as it speaks for itself regarding its effectiveness. You just cant refute(yet) the laws of motion and physics. However, despite that, there are more unqualified WC people that really do lack skill and/or understanding then ones who do. The same is also true of all the arts. There was a time early in my Martial Arts experience were things like this bothered me, but that was before I truly understood what "My Truth" is. Challenging someone's art form under the context you discribed is usually engaged in by insecure or nefarious individuals who still don't get it or who are up to no good . (never argue with fools)

How you train your art goes right to the heart of what your results will be..good, bad or ugly. You have to decide what you are really trying to accomplish with the art form and then decide whether or not you have the commitment needed to achieve the reality you seek, be it in WC or any art. Always ask questions and analise all the possable answers and be diligent in giving new ideas their due process through effective training before drawing your own conclusion.

So you see, any dialog regarding WC in itself being an effective MA is germaine to what the real issue is .....the real dialog that people should be having is with themselves, regarding their own motives and their own self esteem. Always ask your self the questions....Have you trained hard enough, have you understood and trained correctly and is your current method bringing you closer to your ultimate objective of knowing yourself . If so you can defeat the true enemy (yourself). When the man in the mirror is "right" then the question becomes irrelevant. The truth is different and yet the same for all of us...know yourself first, then strive to express "yourself" honestly, everything else will work itself out.

My truth is TRADITIONAL WING CHUN, I am 1000% convinced. Yet I do not perceive, internalize or express it in the exact same way as my kung fu family does (how could I.... then I wouldn't be me). WC is a great blueprint, the archetects did a brilliant job. However, you must seek to bring your WC alive instead of being a carbon copy or an imitation of someone else's expression.
Any success I have acheived in my training is because along the way, through hard work, I found "myself" in kung fu and understand what "my" needs are in combat. Still a work in progress.

Seek your truth (who knows where that will lead) and do not let external influences make decisions for you.

All the best on your journey little brother!!

Sifu Moore

Ultimatewingchun

11-15-2006, 06:19 AM

Good post, Shannon.

Knifefighter

11-15-2006, 12:10 PM

Nine times out of ten, the people engaging in that type of dialog have no clue as to what they are talking about

You just cant refute(yet) the laws of motion and physics.

The laws of physics come into play in any and all activities. There is no evidence that WC somehow more effectively applies the laws of physics and motion.

WC often passed off as being scientific. WC is much more along the lines of philosophy, rather than science. The scientific approach is one of observing a specific event or events, gathering data from these events, forming hypotheses, testing these hypotheses with controlled experiments that produce more data that is then shown to be valid or invalid using statistical analysis.

A scientific approach to fighting would be to first observe what happens in a fight. Is there grappling? Clinching? Kicking? Punching? Groundfighting? What are the percentages of each of these? What types of moves are seen in fights, what kinds of damage is done with each, and how often are each done? What types of moves might be more effectively and efficiently applied in fighting? How do the mechanics of fights compare to the mechanics of other activities? Etc, etc, etc...

Once the data from the original observations are made and the data is gathered, hypotheses would then be developed and controlled experiments done to determine the validity of the various hypotheses. The data from these experiments would also be used to develop further hypotheses.

If anything, the sportive matches of MMA are closer to being scientific that the approach used in WC. MMA matches are held under relatively controlled conditions that are closer to real fighting than what most WC practitioners do in the confines of their training environments. MMA matches are recorded and statistics are available for analysis. Fighters are constantly testing out new techniques and training methods to determine whether or not they are valid in an environment which is open and available for analysis.

t_niehoff

11-15-2006, 01:15 PM

Amen.

Something else to consider: why does the "question" arise in the first place? No one is writing to ask if BJJ, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, sambo, judo, etc. are effective. Perhaps because there is ample *evidence* those fighting/training methods are effective. And because there is evidence, no one needs to "explain" intellectually why they *believe* they can and will work -- anyone and everyone can see for themselves. There is no argument they don't work. Thus, the very "need" to "tell" and "explain" (especially pointing to "science" aka philosophy) indicates there already is a problem in my view. If you can't show evidence, anything you say is just conjecture.

Just stopping by to say "hello." :)

Terence

Knifefighter

11-15-2006, 01:45 PM

No one is writing to ask if BJJ, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, sambo, judo, etc. are effective.
One can also see evidence of people who come from each of these backgrounds, not just entering and competing in MMA, but being elite level competitors (i.e. Minitaro, Fedor, Sakaraba, Cro-Cop, Kerr, Hughes, Yoshida, etc.) and providing concrete and convincing examples of their base systems being used effectively.

tbone

11-15-2006, 02:30 PM

Alan Orr's crew seems to be effective using it in MMA. Many other WC people have used it in non MMA altercations and used it effectively. Is this evidence to be ignored?

Knifefighter

11-15-2006, 02:43 PM

Alan Orr's crew seems to be effective using it in MMA. Many other WC people have used it in non MMA altercations and used it effectively. Is this evidence to be ignored?
If you want to talk in more "scientific" evidence terms, then it cannot be given much credit.

Alan's crew is not top level, at least not yet, so any compelling evidence from them remains to be seen.

Additionally, at least from what I have seen of the clips, there has been no clear delineation of WC techniques being used like you see with Minitaro's BJJ, Kerr's wrestling, Cro-Cop's kickboxing and Sakaraba's "Japanese/Catch" wrestling. Until one can show them being dominant largely as a result of their WC, you cannot consider this as evidence for the case of WC being effecitive in this environment.

As far as "altercations", you really can't credit them, one way or another, because the quality of the opponent and the environment have too many variables to make a determination in either direction.

Ultimatewingchun

11-15-2006, 03:16 PM

Let me introduce Shannon Moore to some of you guys who may not know anything about him. He's a TWC sifu with a school in Maryland - and has been involved with GM William Cheung's association for many years - and I've seen him at seminars numerous times. The man can fight - and his speed is especially impressive for a guy who stands about 6'3"- 6'4" and weighs in excess of 300 lbs.

Furthermore - he's not a wing chun guy with blinders on. He knows when to use this and when to use that...if you get my drift.

YongChun

11-15-2006, 03:52 PM

The people who fight with Wing Chun for a living, never ask if Wing Chun is effective in a fight. I know a few of these types of people.

Maybe the idea is how to get more people to that level. In Chinese martial arts the process was always:

1) learn the forms,
2) understand the theory,
3) go and fight.

If you skip 1) and 2) then you don't end up doing Wing Chun or whatever art you are learning but of course you can still be a top fighter.

If you do not do 3) then you will always have questions. If you do 3) too realistically then you get your self arrested or killed or crippled and there goes your art.

So the next best thing is to get sparring gear and practice to whatever level you like while keeping safety in mind. Sparring against your buddies who simulate boxing, Taekwondo or grappling is not the same thing as sparring against the real thing but could be a stepping stone. Different people are into Wing Chun for different reasons.

Ray

Liddel

11-15-2006, 04:15 PM

Ive come across kickboxers in the street that have been found wanting - bigger than me, all talk...

Kickboxing has proved its effectivness in the "elite compition" we see today. but it by now way means that any and all kickboxers can beat any and all VT fighter, or any other style for that matter.

Conversly, to me ;) because someone hasn't proved with no "clear delineation " that VT can be effective at the elite level, doesnt mean that VT isnt effective elsewhere. I have my own proof.

But then my motives for learning VT are not because i wish to 'compete' at all in MMA.

I come across many who see MMA as a base, the systems they train in military and police, teach much more effective tecniques in shorter amouts of time, why - purpose !

The first thing i ask a new student Sifu takes on - whats your purpose ?

Edmund

11-15-2006, 05:05 PM

The people who fight with Wing Chun for a living, never ask if Wing Chun is effective in a fight. I know a few of these types of people.

Who fights with Wing Chun for a living?

tjwingchun

11-16-2006, 01:31 AM

Who fights with Wing Chun for a living?

More involved with fights using Wing Chun for a living but? I used to as a doorman (retired), I have a student who is a prison officer, one a detention officer and another who is a care worker with autistic adults that occasionally get quite violent, no titles, trophies or PROOF just part of their daily work.

Paul T England

11-16-2006, 06:17 AM

Interesting posting.

On the subject of science, how can any of the MMA fights be considered as reliable evidence? An MMA competition is very different from most street confrontations so how can it be used as an experiment? How can you test a Ford car going from 0-60 then compare it to a BMW? IF you are going to look at fights like that then IMHO it is seriously flawed. The gloves and floor make a huge difference never mind the rules.

Every martial art should be "Scientific" at a high level its just arts such as Wing Chun and BJJ hopefully save years of experiments that go completely wrong.

Martial artists experiment in a very loose scientific way but it’s the best we can do with ever changing ingredients.

Paul

Ultimatewingchun

11-16-2006, 07:30 AM

I've got to disagree here, Paul. UFC and Pride fights may have rules, are fought with gloves, and on a padded floor...

but the gloves are thin - and those guys are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. It's as close to reality fighting as you're going to get - without actually engaging in a streetfight.

All that said....yeah, if the shoes stayed on some kicks (including some low kicks with the heel of the shoe to a leg/knee/shin...not used in nhb events) could come into play and possibly be a difference maker (as well as kicking to the groin)...and a possible crash onto a hard floor would be a big factor as well.

What's not "scientifically" proven yet, imo...at least not on a big scale - as really good strikers are only a relatively new (and few) phenomenon within MMA events...are how well primarily grappling based fighters will do against high level striker/kickers with a good takedown defense (ie.- sprawls).

tbone

11-16-2006, 07:30 AM

I guess what some are saying is that the only way to see what's effective is if you watch someone do it in Pride or UFC. That's the only time a technique can really be considered effective.

Everyone's first hand experience should just be ignored.

Thousands of years of martial combat end up meaningless because the UFC came out on TV 13 years ago.

To each his own I guess.

tbone

11-16-2006, 08:14 AM

Oh yeah, I learned today that Alan Orr's guys don't do Wing Chun in their MMA fights.

Hey Alan, I know you visit this forum from time to time, are your guys using Wing Chun in their MMA events? If not, then what are they using?

I'm going to start a new thread about what is and isn't Wing Chun.

Ultimatewingchun

11-16-2006, 09:51 AM

"Everyone's first hand experience should just be ignored." (tbone)

***NOT TRUE. Speaking for myself...HARD and REALISTIC sparring against quality, resisting opponents will tell alot. But regardless of how much training/hard sparring I've done through the years...by far the most important indicator to me of what it is that I know/can do - or thought I knew at the time - of what works or doesn't work...

have been actual streetfights that I've had since beginning my wing chun/martial art training over 30 years ago. There have only been 4 or 5 - and one of them very recently, as a matter of fact.

But they are the biggest testing/training ground of all.

Some will argue that they're relatively meaningless if the opponent is just some dumb-ass knucklehead streetfighter with no real martial skills - but they overlook the unknown factor.

You don't know this guy (or his friends). There are no rules, regs, or gear of any kind. The terrain might be treacherous. It could be pitch black night time. You don't know what he has in his pocket.

And the heart rate goes up...which means that everything you ever trained for is at a whole new level of intensity and danger.

That's when you find out what's what.

Nick Forrer

11-16-2006, 11:45 AM

Oh yeah, I learned today that Alan Orr's guys don't do Wing Chun in their MMA fights.

No you didnt learn that..you heard it and took it as the truth without any first hand experience

They use WC for stand up and clinch and BJJ/Catch for ground...I know this from first hand experience of training with them

YongChun

11-16-2006, 11:51 AM

Who fights with Wing Chun for a living?

One guy I had in mind was the number two body guard of a Hong Kong underground boss. Number two means he wasn't as good as the number one guy. This was from the Jiu Wan lineage.

Another guy I knew was an enforcer for an Asian drug gang in Vancouver. This person learned some Lok Yiu lineage Wing Chun but also had some KyokoShin Karate in his background and a bit of Choy Lee Fut. He said the Wing Chun saved his life on a few occasions. The head of the gang was also a Wing Chun man. I don't know what kind. One day this guy stole some ladies purse in a Chinese restaurant in Vancouver. The lady was screaming in Cantonese that someone was making off with her purse. It so happened that the robber ran past a table where the head of the Asian gang was sitting. So as the guy was about to run past his table, the Wing Chun man knocked the guy out with one punch and returned the purse to the lady.

A third is a correctional officer who has used his skills on numerous times to control inmates. In one instance when he was still a newbie he was sent into a room of out of control inmates and was told to handle it (probably to get a laugh). He told his superiors to turn the cameras off because it wasn’t going to be pretty. I don't know what happened but he is still alive. Before Wing Chun he studied some Karate and some Aikido. After Wing Chun he studied some more Karate, some Gracie jujitsu and no NinJitsu.

Three others that I know were in the police. One was an undercover policeman investigating the drug gangs however his stories of six different incidents happened while he was still a regular police officer. His Wing Chun was from the Wang Kiu lineage. He said he just used what he learned from Wing Chun. However fighting mentality does make a difference and that may have come from other things because before Wing Chun he also studied boxing, army combat. police tactics and Judo.

A second police officer was a rookie officer who was sent up North as part of the Canadian RCMP. He said they threw him into about a half a dozen fights and told him to break up the fights. He told me that he was never so scared in his life but he came out without a scratch. I asked him what it was about the Wing Chun system that helped and he said it was the centerline concept that saved him. He was studying the Wang Kiu lineage Wing Chun. Before that he was never any kind of fighter and was never in any fights.

The student of the correctional officer and the correctional officer himself both worked as bouncers for a couple of years and in that job had many occasions to use their stuff. Then the English police officer said he used his skills quite a bit in England against local street thugs. I don't know how often that was but he said his skills never failed him. This was in the Leung Sheung Kenneth Chung lineage.

I think the mental aspects of fighting brain were probably key factors and after that the Wing Chun ideas made their fighting instincts more efficient. The training that all these people did was the regular kind of Wing Chun training that people these days consider as useless: e.g. forms, lots of chi sau and a bit of light sparring, some conditioning and pounding on some bags and the dummy. The rest was lots of fighting.

The Asian enforcer knew the first form inside out he said Jiu Wan had a book a foot thick that talked about the Siu Lim Tao to the smallest level of detail. Don't know if that was true or not but that's what he said. So he knew that, a few movements of the dummy, some stepping and kicking from the Chum Kiu form and chi sau. He was very very soft and hit like a truck. One of his students told me that and also a good Hung style fighter told me the same thing. I only met him once but didn’t see him do anything. But I was impressed with his student. After he arrived in Canada he eventually gave up doing Wing Chun. He said in Hong Kong it was necessary for his survival on the street but in Canada there was no use for it. I would say this person was the best of the works.

The RCMP guy only learned the Siu Lim Tao form and did some class drills and some basic chi sao. He never did any kind of sparring.

The general model for most of these people seems to have been:

1. Learn some forms
2. Learn some chi sau
3. Go out and fight

Ray

tbone

11-16-2006, 12:35 PM

No you didnt learn that..you heard it and took it as the truth without any first hand experience

They use WC for stand up and clinch and BJJ/Catch for ground...I know this from first hand experience of training with themThanks Nick. I was being sarcastic BTW.

Vajramusti

11-16-2006, 02:20 PM

For me absolutely. Its a superb single style programming of reflexive action and possibilities. Others may have other opinions- they are entitled to them... dont care to argue net forum style. Opinions may vary with the kind of wing chun people do and have learned.

Edmund

11-16-2006, 02:21 PM

More involved with fights using Wing Chun for a living but? I used to as a doorman (retired), I have a student who is a prison officer, one a detention officer and another who is a care worker with autistic adults that occasionally get quite violent, no titles, trophies or PROOF just part of their daily work.

Exactly. I think you've made an important distinction.
"Involved with fights" like bouncers, cops, bodyguards and asian gangsters aren't quite at the same level of athleticism as a pro-fighter.

anerlich

11-16-2006, 02:33 PM

Everyone's first hand experience should just be ignored.

Thousands of years of martial combat end up meaningless because the UFC came out on TV 13 years ago.

I agree with your broad thrust here, but since some of us are nitpicking about science:

Wing Chun isn't thousands of years old. A few hundred, more like it.

First hand and anecdotal evidence are not scientific proof. And many TCMA anecdotes are the subject of monstrous exaggeration, along the lines of Bruce Lee supposedly ripping a challenger's heart out of his chest and showing it to him before the challenger died.

One of the problems of applying "science" to fighting is that it is probabilistic, not deterministic. Technique and training can move the odds in your favour, but it all still remains a gamble. Victory is never guaranteed, and that is why fights are best avoided.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

While sportfighting is not a perfect laboratory for comparison of the effectiveness of styles, it IS closely observed by many, many people, and thus (more) difficult to "spin", and about as close as you can get - legally - to real hand to hand combat.

The "not real because there are rules" argument doesn't fly. If there REALLY were no rules, all my fights are going to be victory by shotgun blast while my opponent is getting out of his car. Why *****foot around with this "honourable" sh*t?

Nick Forrer

11-16-2006, 04:41 PM

Thanks Nick. I was being sarcastic BTW.

sorry didnt catch that over the net...

mattb

11-16-2006, 07:42 PM

Just a note. For anyone not participating in the match, there is a bathroom down the hall, second door on the right. ;)

t_niehoff

11-17-2006, 07:50 AM

Saying (my) WCK "works" or that I "know" WCK "works" doesn't make it so. Anyone can make such claims. And we see them from every corner of the MA world. But where is the evidence to back up such claims? Without evidence, claims are empty and boil down to "trust me" (faith-based martial art). Lack of good evidence should be tentatively taken as nullifying any claim (until we have good evidence to the contrary, we tentatively conclude bigfoot does not exist).

Some point to anecdotes of WCK "working on the street" or stories of our ancestors past exploits as evidence. The problem with anecdotes is that they are too nebulous to really draw conclusions from. If someone did indeed win a fight (second- or third-hand accounts aren't always accurate), all kinds of factors could have played a role besides their WCK skills. We can't see that fight to make our own conclusions, and so they too boil down to "trust me" (faith-based martial art).

FWIW, some WCK practitioners are beginning to move into the NHB arena and have been successful at the lower to mid-levels of MMA competitions. All of these guys have also cross-trained in ground/grappling systems (BJJ, catch, etc.) and also regularly trained with MMA trainers. So again, without more evidence it is difficult to draw conclusions with regard to how much WCK plays into their accomplishments.

But it does demonstrate that to obtain a significant level of fighting skill demands a person train like a fighter. Forms, drills, chi sao, etc. alone just won't take you there. The evidence of that is overwhelming (even though some continue to hide behind their "faith"). Listening to people -- in WCK or any martial art -- who don't or haven't fought other skilled fighters (and so don't *know* but may have strong, uninformed opinions) about how to develop as a fighter is not a good recipe for success.

Terence

PS - btw, Nick, Steve Morris is a treasure!

Andrew Williams

11-17-2006, 08:52 AM

Hi Terence.

In light of your above post, I pose a philosophical and somewhat rhetorical question, why are people so willing to accept stories of WCK being made to work, and the ensuing idolatry of those we suppose have attained skill enough to make it work?

I do believe there are elements, in part or in total, of naivety, ignorance, fear (and in some cases laziness) about those who are willing to let the past deeds and the stories of their heroes do their training and fighting for them.

Andrew

Nick Forrer

11-17-2006, 10:23 AM

PS - btw, Nick, Steve Morris is a treasure!

He certainly is....Got a 4hr session with him on sunday and a (GI) comp tomorrow...what a weekend this will be

Knifefighter

11-17-2006, 10:54 AM

I guess what some are saying is that the only way to see what's effective is if you watch someone do it in Pride or UFC. That's the only time a technique can really be considered effective.

No... but it's a good laboratory that everyone can observe, rather than relying on the overblown myths that get passed around in MA circles about who did what "back in the day."

Knifefighter

11-17-2006, 11:05 AM

On the subject of science, how can any of the MMA fights be considered as reliable evidence? An MMA competition is very different from most street confrontations so how can it be used as an experiment? How can you test a Ford car going from 0-60 then compare it to a BMW? IF you are going to look at fights like that then IMHO it is seriously flawed. The gloves and floor make a huge difference never mind the rules.l

Science is all about doing controlled experiments, colllecting data and using that data to make predictions on future outcomes. MMA comps would be a great laboratory for someone to start with if he really was interested in developing a true scientific fighting system...

One's system can contain all types of theories on angulation, economies of motion, centerline principles, and footwork, but unless one is following the scientific method, his fighting system is far from scientific.

chi sau

11-17-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Paul T England
On the subject of science, how can any of the MMA fights be considered as reliable evidence? An MMA competition is very different from most street confrontations so how can it be used as an experiment? How can you test a Ford car going from 0-60 then compare it to a BMW? IF you are going to look at fights like that then IMHO it is seriously flawed. The gloves and floor make a huge difference never mind the rules

short of doing it for real what else represents the nearest you can possibly get to have a fight without actually having a fight?
mma/nhb IS the closest you can actually get to the experience of having someone attack you with the intention of destroying you,but in a controlled enviroment

what comes closer than that?

and re mirko cro cop
trained by milan prosenica co principal of the autodefence company headed by nick smart ,one of (if not the)the top wing chun men in this country

Knifefighter

11-17-2006, 11:54 AM

and re mirko cro cop
trained by milan prosenica co principal of the autodefence company headed by nick smart ,one of (if not the)the top wing chun men in this country
Interesting...
What elements of WC would you say are demonstrated in Cro-Cop's fighting?

chi sau

11-17-2006, 12:24 PM

truthfully you are nt likely to see mirko doing a bong sau or anything like that
im just saying he (along with a few other big names) train with milan who is a highly knowledgable fighter/trainer who also in his day took alot of what he uses/used from wing chun
principles and fundamentals of wing chun are there such as footwork, centreline punching are there
my personal opinion is if you got in the ring with pure wing chun and nothing else ,against the top paid fighters the you deserve the beating you are about to be given:)

YongChun

11-17-2006, 12:53 PM

I read a story a few years ago about an Aikido practitioner who was attacked on the street. The Aikido man punched the attacker in the face and won the fight. Later he said "Aikido really works."

Ray

tbone

11-17-2006, 03:02 PM

No... but it's a good laboratory that everyone can observe, rather than relying on the overblown myths that get passed around in MA circles about who did what "back in the day."I'd agree. It's a good place to observe because it's so public ie. televised.

I'm sure you aren't saying that the only place for an individual to learn about an effective fighting system is either through watching on TV or through listening to stories?

Personally I've gotten validation in class, local grappling tournaments, local MMA events, witnessing and participating in street fights etc..

I guess our differences are more a miscommunication rather than any real disagreement. I may have just understood what you were saying. If one wishes to prove to others that Wing Chun is effective then it will take a WC person doing well in UFC or Pride before that can happen. I'm cool with that.

If that should never happen then it won't really make a difference to me because I'm familiar with it's effectiveness from first hand experience. I have no need to prove to anyone what WC can/can't do. If others don't believe it I can't blame them.

lawrenceofidaho

11-20-2006, 01:57 PM

canglong

11-20-2006, 02:24 PM

Saying (my) WCK "works" or that I "know" WCK "works" doesn't make it so. Anyone can make such claims.It's always perspective isn't it. Wing Chun says two peope at equal distance apart dependent upon varying factors of time space and energy means a straight punch can be and most often is the more efficient and appropriate punch as opposed to using a round punch. Wing Chun's principles, concepts, strategies and tactics for hand-to-hand combat in the example given and as studied in general are a blueprint to producing a better fighter not a guarantee. If one were to find flaws in those principles or concepts then yes one could argue that the blueprint itself is flawed and something less flawed might need to be incorporated into that person's training.

Arguing against a particular person the way Terence does is really a waste of time. If one cannot find flaw with the principles the concepts, strategies and or tactics of wing chun then the silence to those points would suggest that Wing Chun can and does what it says it can without guarantee. So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?

lawrenceofidaho

11-20-2006, 02:55 PM

If one cannot find flaw with the principles the concepts, strategies and or tactics of wing chun then the silence to those points would suggest that Wing Chun can and does what it says it can without guarantee. So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?

Just because something looks good on paper (or in carefully presented presentations) doesn't mean it won't crumble when tested under pressure.

If I see examples of something functioning under extreme adversity, it will have much more credibility in my estimation.......

Liddel

11-20-2006, 04:12 PM

If you really want to measure the effectivness of an art you need not see it in a fourum like UFC or PRIDE this is several steps down the line of potential experiemnts IMO.

Pepole seem to forget the natural factor - most, if not all proffesional fighters competing today were 'probably' fighters in terms of will and agression before learning a style.

Its the heart and mind of a fighter that determines ability - a style is just a device to do so.... Moreover -

if i wanted to measure a styles ability / effectivness - Then i would have a person who has NEVER learnt a style or being in a fight, measure thier natural ability in a fight with someone of average skill and experience. THEN teach them a style and do the fight test again, only then will you see what the "style" has or has not done for them.....

canglong

11-20-2006, 04:47 PM

If I see examples of something functioning under extreme adversity, it will have much more credibility in my estimation.......Should that work for you lawrence, then it's all good, how your own personal interpretations and perspectives would effect the majority of people reading this board is not as clear.

So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?

lawrenceofidaho

11-20-2006, 05:06 PM

Should that work for you lawrence, then it's all good, how your own personal interpretations and perspectives would effect the majority of people reading this board is not as clear.
Tony, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to want to see some measure of objective, empirical evidence before believing a stated marketing claim.

The local Kenpo school sent me a flyer in the mail the other day that said it is "The ultimate in self-defense." -How is someone to realistically differentiate a statement like that from a HFY student expressing how great their art is?

I think every claim is questionable (please note that I did not say "false") until it has proven itself against skilled opposition in a minimal rules environment.

t_niehoff

11-20-2006, 05:24 PM

It's always perspective isn't it. Wing Chun says two peope at equal distance apart dependent upon varying factors of time space and energy means a straight punch can be and most often is the more efficient and appropriate punch as opposed to using a round punch. Wing Chun's principles, concepts, strategies and tactics for hand-to-hand combat in the example given and as studied in general are a blueprint to producing a better fighter not a guarantee. If one were to find flaws in those principles or concepts then yes one could argue that the blueprint itself is flawed and something less flawed might need to be incorporated into that person's training.

Arguing against a particular person the way Terence does is really a waste of time. If one cannot find flaw with the principles the concepts, strategies and or tactics of wing chun then the silence to those points would suggest that Wing Chun can and does what it says it can without guarantee. So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?

The problem is, Tony, fighting is not an intellectual exercise. It's a competitive, athletic activity. We don't fight in some theoretical world, with my theory versus your theory. Effectiveness cannot be measured on a blackboard. Skills, attributes, experience, etc. cannot be put into equations. Believing these things can be determined from a theoretical perspective is an illusion. But it is an illusion that sells very well in some quarters. ;)

As in any fighting method, we can't decide these things on a blackboard or a forum. They can only be determined in the ring, on the mat, etc. by facing quality opposition. That, and that alone, will give you the feedback to make *informed* decisions about things conerning fighting. As Tim Cartmell said recently, "discussions about how to train for fighting are best left to fighters."

When people are not playing the game (fighting), and particularly when they are not playing against other good players (fighters), they lack the experience to grasp much of what is *really* going on in the game (fighting). So their observations, theories, explanations, etc. -- while they might appear sound to others of similar inexperience -- are for the most part hot air.

Theory is mostly hot air.

Terence

canglong

11-20-2006, 05:24 PM

The local Kenpo school sent me a flyer in the mail the other day that said it is "The ultimate in self-defense." -How is someone to realistically differentiate a statement like that from a HFY student expressing how great their art is?
Perhaps go visit the schools in question and experience the art(s) in question first hand, heresay is a lousy measure of anything.
I think every claim is questionable (please note that I did not say "false") until it has proven itself against skilled opposition in a minimal rules environment.
Then you are no different than the rest of us. Since you train wing chun and participate in a wing chun forum can you answer this question.

So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?

lawrenceofidaho

11-20-2006, 06:23 PM

So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?
It's up to the party making a claim to provide evidence to support it, -not for others to disprove it. How can you disprove something that stubbornly avoids the best tests of it's effectiveness that are available (MMA / minimal rules fighting)??

For that matter, what if someone asked you; "Where is the flaw in Jeet Kune Do?" Theoretically and philosophically, it is even more appealing than pure Wing Chun to many people, and will often have less intellectual based objections to it. Most JKD schools, however, avoid "reality testing" as much as the majority of WC schools, and as a result, remain a question mark in regards to effectiveness in combat.

Edmund

11-20-2006, 06:45 PM

Perhaps go visit the schools in question and experience the art(s) in question first hand, heresay is a lousy measure of anything.

Good point. Some Kenpo guys are very hard strikers.

So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?

Well it's flawed in areas outside it's expertise like groundfighting. I suppose you could argue that it's not a flaw exactly but something that it was not designed for.

I would say that if students are looking for a MMA school they'd better look for a MMA school. You get potential students who don't want to enter MMA comps (because it's too hard) but are still wondering whether learning WC is somehow going to be better at MMA than a MMAist.

That's a need they can never satisfy. What else can you do but set them straight?

canglong

11-20-2006, 08:57 PM

It's up to the party making a claim to provide evidence to support it, -not for others to disprove it. How can you disprove something that stubbornly avoids the best tests of it's effectiveness that are available (MMA / minimal rules fighting)??Lawrence, the "claim" or statement that was referenced was written as first hand knowledge from an individual sharing a direct personal experience. Personal test don't get any clearer than that but of course that doesn't appear to be good enough.
Saying (my) WCK "works" or that I "know" WCK "works" doesn't make it so.When someone's experience differs from that of your own or Terence it should not be looked upon as a "claim" but more of an explaination of an experienced fact. Though you may disagree with the results for a variety of valid reasons it will not change the facts of any particular individual experience which again is why it is fruitless for Terence or anyone else to say to every individual on this board that their experience is anything less than what they perceive it to be. Terence saying that a person's remarks are unfounded and wrong doesn't make them so either that is a circular discussion with no end.

As far as speaking to any "claims" being made wing chun does have some constants to offer that might be consider "claims" by some just to name a few it is simple, direct and effiecient based on principles and concepts that will not change according to individual variables such as height, weight and or age.

That being the case it is more productive in these particular type of discussions to focus on the constants of wing chun than the variables of individuals. So again the question remains...where do you find the constants of wing chun itself to be flawed if at all?

canglong

11-20-2006, 09:09 PM

Hello Edmund,

Well it's flawed in areas outside it's expertise like groundfighting. I suppose you could argue that it's not a flaw exactly but something that it was not designed for.What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?

Chango

11-20-2006, 09:27 PM

What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?
Today 03:57 AM

Tony,
As I read this post I think this question becomes a great point at which it could go further then someone discreditiing someone opinion and or experience.

I think it should be noted that Tony's question does not ask about technique but strategy, tactics, concepts and Principles! I'm very interested in the reply on this becuase I can't see where thing things cannot be applied! :D

Edmund

11-20-2006, 09:30 PM

Hello Edmund,
What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?

Well I don't think WC has a strategy that even advocates groundfighting. As I said before that's not necessarily a flaw.

Perhaps you could extrapolate some of the more vague strategies to apply to groundfighting but that's not quite the same as advocating groundfighting.

t_niehoff

11-20-2006, 10:54 PM

Lawrence, the "claim" or statement that was referenced was written as first hand knowledge from an individual sharing a direct personal experience. Personal test don't get any clearer than that but of course that doesn't appear to be good enough. When someone's experience differs from that of your own or Terence it should not be looked upon as a "claim" but more of an explaination of an experienced fact. Though you may disagree with the results for a variety of valid reasons it will not change the facts of any particular individual experience which again is why it is fruitless for Terence or anyone else to say to every individual on this board that their experience is anything less than what they perceive it to be. Terence saying that a person's remarks are unfounded and wrong doesn't make them so either that is a circular discussion with no end.

As far as speaking to any "claims" being made wing chun does have some constants to offer that might be consider "claims" by some just to name a few it is simple, direct and effiecient based on principles and concepts that will not change according to individual variables such as height, weight and or age.

That being the case it is more productive in these particular type of discussions to focus on the constants of wing chun than the variables of individuals. So again the question remains...where do you find the constants of wing chun itself to be flawed if at all?

Anything said on this forum is a "claim". No one should believe anything that is said on a forum or a website -- or from their sifu -- until they investigate it for themselves. Investigation means doing the necessary work. Arguing endlessly about why my theory is better that your theory is the circle, Tony. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes . . . . The work is the only way to put an end to the circle. The work will validate or invalidate the claim.

Personally, I take the views of some people (on this forum) -- like Dale, Lawrence, and a few more -- as being more credible (not that I necessarily agree with them) than others because I know they are doing "the work." How do I know they are doing "the work"? By the things they say. For example, no one who has put in the time sparring with good grapplers or groundfighters is going to argue the position that WCK has groundfighting or has an answer for groundfighting. No one. People shouldn't take my word for it though; see for themselves. Do "the work": go down to the BJJ or MMA school. Or just look at who is saying what -- there are plenty of solid grapplers on this forum (blues or purples in BJJ, etc.); are any of them saying WCK has groundfighting? If I'm wrong, let's see it instead of hearing the arguments. Easy enough to prove, isn't it? Just take that camcorder with you to open mat night at the BJJ school. Funny how we *never* see that.

People who do not put in "the work" really don't have a clue. All they have is hearsay (this is what I have been told by the grandmaster and like a good parrot I will repeat it) or conjecture. Sure they believe they have the answers. In reality, they aren't even fully aware of the problems. You can only appreciate the problems by encountering them -- for real, on the mat, in the ring, etc. Don't believe me? Fine. Visit the local MMA gym and see for yourself. Take the camcorder along. I'll wager you'll encounter some brand new "problems." ;)

Anyone who is doing the work of regularly sparring with good, solid (MMA or equivalent) fighters is not going to argue that WCK is inherently superior or more direct or more efficient or whatever than other martial arts. They'll know better. See for yourself; do "the work." And as I said above, these things are easy enough to prove. All it takes is a camcorder and a visit to a good MMA school. Of course, people will keep arguing how their theory is best, they are scientific, they are blah, blah, blah -- they'll talk you to death about how it will work (in theory), all the while overcomplicating it, overthinking it, misunderstanding the real problems, etc. And they'll just never seem to make it down to the MMA school with a camcorder. ;)

Tony argues that WCK is "simple, direct, and efficient" -- well, I guess it all depends on how you define those words (WCK people love tautologies). Boxing, muay thai, wrestling, judo, BJJ, sambo, etc. could all be called simple, direct, and efficient. In fact, anyone who is any good (skilled) at what they do will appear to be simple, direct, and efficient. This is meaningless dribble. Visit the MMA gyms and you will find your "simple, direct, and efficient" @ss being knocked silly!

Where are the flaws in the "principle, concept, tactic or strategy" of boxing or muay thai or BJJ or wrestling or sambo or judo or MMA or whatever? Let's see you take advantage of those "flaws". And, please, take the camcorder.

If the truth be told, what fighting method you train in (WCK or whatever) is far, far less important than *how* you train.

Terence

lawrenceofidaho

11-20-2006, 11:49 PM

So again the question remains...where do you find the constants of wing chun itself to be flawed if at all?
Simply because the "constants of Wing Chun", do not violate principles of logic which can be pointed out in an intellectual discussion, -does not somehow mean that they are necessarily "true."

Suppose I tell you that I have created the most simple, direct, and effective fighting system ever, and it consists only of a boxing jab....... Then I go on to explain (logically) how in every theoretical fighting situation, I am able to apply this jab and knock out my opponents whether they are strikers, grapplers, or using weapons. -How can anyone "disprove" me?? I mean, it's logically possible, right? :confused:

One might say; "Well, I've faced fighters who jabbed before, and I defended it with technique x, and countered with y." Then I might reply how they were not fighting someone who really knew how to throw the jab correctly, because if they knew my secret way of doing it, there is no effective defense. I could go on and on about my style and never say something that's illogical, or that couldn't be replied to by saying that the only reason a jab ever let anyone down is because they weren't doing it right.

At that point, Terence, Dale, or someone else would probably ask me to report about how my system worked after I sparred (hard contact & minimal rules) with some skilled fighters. I might then reply that my students and I don't spar or compete in that way because the 4 oz gloves hinder our energy transfer and the rules are set up so our special jabs won't be as effective.

Although Terence and Dale might point out that in thousands of MMA competitions, less than 0.1% have been won by a fighter who used the jab exclusively, and that fighters who are consistantly successful need to have more of an arsenal in case the jab fails. I can reply by saying that my students and I kick a$$ on the street all the time, and nothing they can point out will disuade me from believing in my system since no one can show how it's principles are flawed or contradictory.

What would you tell a friend who read one of my magazine ads about my ultimate , simple system (that could be learned and used effectively by anyone regardless of age, size, or athletic ability), and was thinking about signing a contract to join my school?? My sales pitch made perfect sense to him, and he seemed especially convinced after he saw several videos on my website featuring demos of me defeating various types of attacks (from my students) with my special jab.

Would you tell your friend that I am full of it? (How could you? -I mean, you've never "crossed hands" with me, or spent years training the "real" jab with me.)

Edmund

11-21-2006, 12:17 AM

Tony,
As I read this post I think this question becomes a great point at which it could go further then someone discreditiing someone opinion and or experience.

I think it should be noted that Tony's question does not ask about technique but strategy, tactics, concepts and Principles! I'm very interested in the reply on this becuase I can't see where thing things cannot be applied! :D

Sorry Chango.
I should have spent a bit more time on my reply given your interest!
It's such a broad question I don't know where to start.

I think it's more that WC lacks any technicalities of the ground game.

The basic ideas of putting your opponent in the guard is already going outside of WC regular positions. Holddowns like kesa gatame are pretty fundamental. Collar chokes. I would classify them more as tactics not techniques.

Your basic movements on the ground like sitting up, shrimping and bridging. You're pretty much screwed if you can't do something like that.

Edmund

11-21-2006, 12:33 AM

Suppose I tell you that I have created the most simple, direct, and effective fighting system ever, and it consists only of a boxing jab....... Then I go on to explain (logically) how in every theoretical fighting situation, I am able to apply this jab and knock out my opponents whether they are strikers, grapplers, or using weapons. -How can anyone "disprove" me?? I mean, it's logically possible, right? :confused:

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.

No one's doing a sales pitch that they're invincible with one jab KOs.
I don't think Tony's argument is *that* dumb.

And it's not like his school never even competes against other styles.
Wasn't there a post on here just now about HFY guys winning a few full contact striking and MMA bouts?

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 07:16 AM

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.

No one's doing a sales pitch that they're invincible with one jab KOs.
I don't think Tony's argument is *that* dumb.
It was intentionally "over-the-top"....... The point was to show a hypothetical argument that cries out to be refuted because of it's absurdity, -yet cannot be, because it's theories do not violate logical principles, and it avoids tests which could invalidate it's claims.

And it's not like his school never even competes against other styles. Wasn't there a post on here just now about HFY guys winning a few full contact striking and MMA bouts?
It was mentioned on another thread that there were two teenagers and an adult that entered a kung fu san shou tourney (strikes & takedowns) and won medals. I have never heard mention of an HFY practicioner considering MMA.

I would like to see footage of those san shou matches and have Tony narrate to point out what the HFY guys were doing that is unique and different from what a guy from any generic Wing Chun club would be doing.

canglong

11-21-2006, 09:06 AM

Anything said on this forum is a "claim". No one should believe anything that is said on a forum or a website -- or from their sifu -- until they investigate it for themselves. Investigation means doing the necessary work. Arguing endlessly about why my theory is better that your theory is the circle, Tony. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes . . . . The work is the only way to put an end to the circle. The work will validate or invalidate the claim.Terence the probability of you validating every post on this or any other website are between very very slim and absolutely none which is precisely why it is considred a discussion board and not an action board.
Personally, I take the views of some people (on this forum) -- like Dale, Lawrence, and a few more -- as being more credible (not that I necessarily agree with them) than others because I know they are doing "the work." If that works for you roll with it.
How do I know they are doing "the work"?You don't.

Just take that camcorder with you to open mat night at the BJJ school.
Take the camcorder along.
All it takes is a camcorder and a visit to a good MMA school. Terence, if you want to be a hollywood starlet go right ahead but not all celluloid is faultless.
And they'll just never seem to make it down to the MMA school with a camcorderTerence you stole Jim's line because he said that very thing about you and your not for public disemenation videos you have all over the internet.
Tony argues that WCK is "simple, direct, and efficient" -- Terence that is not my argument that is wing chun's argument as taught to me. From that teaching no falicies have been discovered if you have found them now would be a good time to share them on paper or video your choice.
In fact, anyone who is any good (skilled) at what they do will appear to be simple, direct, and efficient. This is meaningless dribble....Where are the flaws in the "principle, concept, tactic or strategy" of boxing or muay thai or BJJ or wrestling or sambo or judo or MMA or whatever?Not really a bad point of discussion here because Terence your narrow minded views won't allow you to see what Bruce Lee saw. A punch is just a punch a kick is just a kick. Your unwillingness to remove the labels and just see individual fighters is part of the problem. Terence you don't see groundfighting in wing chun because when you see groundfighting you see BJJ while others like Bruce Lee would see the principle of loi lau hoi sung. The principle behind the technique is far more important to advancing your skill than the label you might give the technique. So when the principles of wing chun are applied to groundfighting it is unimportant what label you attach to them what is important is that the principle that we learned through training of wing chun for myself or other arts or styles for others be adhered to and applied correctly no matter the label. It is insignificant whether the practitioner be standing, grappling or on the ground you should be familiar with technique but if you understand the principle then you stand a far better chance of being able to execute the principle and counter it as well because a good rule of thumb is as follows in fighting behind every technique lies a principle that needs to be fully understood in order to execute the technique with any kind of repetative skill and that principle may be easy for some to see yet not so easy for others because if you focus on the technique the principle can often get lost in too narrow a focus of training.

canglong

11-21-2006, 09:13 AM

Would you tell your friend that I am full of it? (How could you? -I mean, you've never "crossed hands" with me, or spent years training the "real" jab with me.)Lawrence, why would you want to make the discussion personal you know what you know and others are no better or worse so if you have something to add to further the discussion stick to it if not don't think that others who disagree with you will automatically dislike you. Your argument and what I stated earlier are not the same thing if you can't see that what is there to discuss.

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.
Edmund,
Exactly!

canglong

11-21-2006, 09:16 AM

I would like to see footage of those san shou matches and have Tony narrate to point out what the HFY guys were doing that is unique and different from what a guy from any generic Wing Chun club would be doing.Lawrence, what earlier statement(s) has you convinced that what was being done shown or demostrated would be "different"

Knifefighter

11-21-2006, 09:20 AM

Knifefighter

11-21-2006, 09:24 AM

Well that's a bit of a strawman argument though. You're proposing stuff that no one has said and shooting it down.
It was a great analogy... simple and easy to understand. Simply expand on it and add in more "techniques" and you've got the same argument that a lot of people make for their systems.

Just look at the ludicrous statement made on the "K1" thread about the instructor who was invincible to arm bars.

Knifefighter

11-21-2006, 09:46 AM

Terence that is not my argument that is wing chun's argument as taught to me. From that teaching no falicies have been discovered if you have found them now would be a good time to share them on paper or video your choice.
From a theoretical point of view, no system has faults. Karate, Tae Kwon Do, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Sambo... all are perfect fighting systems in theory.

A punch is just a punch a kick is just a kick.
Not at all... a high roundhouse kick is completely different than a low-level push kick to the knee. A jab is completely different than an uppercut.

A step through kick from Muay Thai is completely different than a "step through" kick from Savate.

There are many differences in how different styles use techniques and how those techniques are done in individual styles.

Knifefighter

11-21-2006, 10:00 AM

tbone

11-21-2006, 10:42 AM

It was mentioned on another thread that there were two teenagers and an adult that entered a kung fu san shou tourney (strikes & takedowns) and won medals. I have never heard mention of an HFY practicioner considering MMA.

I would like to see footage of those san shou matches and have Tony narrate to point out what the HFY guys were doing that is unique and different from what a guy from any generic Wing Chun club would be doing.
Well, since you didn't see it on UFC or Pride it must not have happened...

MMA LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHTS
Lonnie Dodge Vs Chris Nelson
Nelson starts this war with a jab, right, overhand right, but is immediately countered by Dodge's right, overhand right as these fighters slug it out! Dodge connects with a powerhouse right that drops Nelson and Dodge moves in for the finish! Nelson attempts to move to his feet, but Dodge is relentless with another right forcing Nelson to submit! Dodge ends this war with superior striking!
WINNER by Tap Out at :45 of Round One - Dodge.

http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFNews.htm

Lonnie Dodge, Lee's Summit, Missouri, USA, 0-0, 205, 5'10", 8-4-67, Dac Lam, (816) 863-5024, - (8-28-06)

http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFAMRankings.htm

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 01:17 PM

MMA LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHTS
Lonnie Dodge Vs Chris Nelson
Nelson starts this war with a jab, right, overhand right, but is immediately countered by Dodge's right, overhand right as these fighters slug it out! Dodge connects with a powerhouse right that drops Nelson and Dodge moves in for the finish! Nelson attempts to move to his feet, but Dodge is relentless with another right forcing Nelson to submit! Dodge ends this war with superior striking!
WINNER by Tap Out at :45 of Round One - Dodge.

Lonnie Dodge, Lee's Summit, Missouri, USA, 0-0, 205, 5'10", 8-4-67, Dac Lam, (816) 863-5024, - (8-28-06)

Props to Lonnie Dodge.......

Did he learn the "overhand right" in the HFY kwoon or the boxing gym?

t_niehoff

11-21-2006, 01:24 PM

Most WCK theory is BS. It's useless. That's not, however, what people who play around theorizing want to hear. Or what people who market their methods by promoting how superior their theory is want you to hear. And what is ironic is how the people with the greatest amount of theory - layers upon layers, a literal morass of theory - always seem to argue how "simple" WCK is.

At it's very best, WCK theory is meant to be a simple guide (so you need very little theory) to get a beginner into playing the game (a framework from which to begin to grow). We only learn and develop as fighters by actually playing the game (fighting). Since beginners lack experience to guide them in fighting, they need something, a direction. That's all theory does: it gives beginners a way of organizing their play. And as we grow through playing the game (fighting), our exerience replaces theory. Expert players (fighters) are guided by experience (they know what works, when it works, etc. from having done it over and over). So does it really matter what your theory is? Not really. It's going to be replaced anyway.

People who don't play (fight) only have theory (and forms and drills). And that's all they will ever have. For them theory is proscriptive -- "you must or should do it this way". And they believe training is meant to inculcate strict adherence to theory. They just don't get it. This isn't how human beings develop skill in open-skill activities. And WCK is no different than any other open-skill, athletic game.

Terence

t_niehoff

11-21-2006, 01:33 PM

Props to Lonnie Dodge.......

Did he learn the "overhand right" in the HFY kwoon or the boxing gym?

In evaluating these things, the first thing we need to look at is whether our fighting matches what we are training to do. If I am training to move one way, to do certain things, but they never come out in fighting, how can they be called fighting skills? How useful is my training if I train one thing but do something else when fighting? (This, btw, is the main complaint among nonWCK people about the Cheung-Boztepe fight).

The next thing is at what level (of opposition) can we do it.

Terence

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 01:45 PM

Lawrence, why would you want to make the discussion personal you know what you know and others are no better or worse so if you have something to add to further the discussion stick to it if not don't think that others who disagree with you will automatically dislike you. Your argument and what I stated earlier are not the same thing if you can't see that what is there to discuss.

Tony, I did not intend to make anything personal.

I only brought up the hypothetical "jab system" to illustrate the fact that a claim can be logically sound and still be completely divorced from reality.

Edmund

11-21-2006, 01:58 PM

It was intentionally "over-the-top"....... The point was to show a hypothetical argument that cries out to be refuted because of it's absurdity, -yet cannot be, because it's theories do not violate logical principles, and it avoids tests which could invalidate it's claims.

Well they aren't avoiding tests if they enter comps though.

It was mentioned on another thread that there were two teenagers and an adult that entered a kung fu san shou tourney (strikes & takedowns) and won medals. I have never heard mention of an HFY practicioner considering MMA.

I thought they had a guy win a MMA bout in Kansas City Missouri. (Why is Kansas City in Missouri?)

tbone

11-21-2006, 02:08 PM

Props to Lonnie Dodge.......

Did he learn the "overhand right" in the HFY kwoon or the boxing gym?

Lonnie has been studying HFY under Dac Lam for a couple of years now. For the last year or so this club has been interested in participating in MMA events. I have not been able to continue to train with them for the last year so I cannot be certain that Lonnie hasn't looked into boxing somewhere. I can assume that is not the case since he still has Dac Lam as his trainer/coach. I plan on training again soon so I'll see if I can get more detail on his training when I see him.

Edmund

11-21-2006, 02:11 PM

It was a great analogy... simple and easy to understand. Simply expand on it and add in more "techniques" and you've got the same argument that a lot of people make for their systems.

Just look at the ludicrous statement made on the "K1" thread about the instructor who was invincible to arm bars.

That was ludicrous.

I don't think Tony's arguments are at the same level of crazy.

tbone

11-21-2006, 02:13 PM

Well they aren't avoiding tests if they enter comps though.

I thought they had a guy win a MMA bout in Kansas City Missouri. (Why is Kansas City in Missouri?)Yeah but the comps aren't UFC or Pride so they don't count. :rolleyes:

Lonnie Dodge did win an amateur MMA bout in KC, MO. See my above post.

Kansas City is in both Missouri and Kansas... weird huh? Kind of like St. Louis being in both Missouri and Illinois.

Edmund

11-21-2006, 02:25 PM

Principles are definitely more important than individual techniques.

However, principles change depending on the environment. While it is possible to use some WC principles on the ground, groundfighting principles override most WC principles and must be understood first before one can apply WC principles- at least against someone who already understands groundfighting principles.

That's stating it better than I did.

Without those other more fundamental groundfighting principles, WCers would be struggling on the ground.

canglong

11-21-2006, 02:34 PM

Would you tell your friend that I am full of it?Lawrence, just pointing out the possibility of my saying that would be very low so it looked like you were wanting to portraying me a little different than I see myself. I don't think of you as a negative person or the statement as an overwhelmingly negative one really just wanted to bring your attention to the difference of opinion there.

canglong

11-21-2006, 02:37 PM

However, principles change depending on the environment. While it is possible to use some WC principles on the ground, groundfighting principles override most WC principles and must be understood first before one can apply WC principles- at least against someone who already understands groundfighting principles.knifefighter, what principles are you referring to exactly and how do they change?

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 02:43 PM

Lawrence, just pointing out the possibility of my saying that would be very low so it looked like you were wanting to portraying me a little different than I see myself. I don't think of you as a negative person or the statement as an overwhelmingly negative one really just wanted to bring your attention to the difference of opinion there.
Sorry, Tony....

I disagree with some of your views on MA, but you do conduct yourself as a gentleman on this forum, and I respect that.

My point was; wouldn't you want to warn the uninformed / under-informed of something you felt was an overstated claim?

Jeff Bussey

11-21-2006, 02:50 PM

Most WCK theory is BS.

snip snip

as we grow through playing the game (fighting), our exerience replaces theory.
Expert players (fighters) are guided by experience (they know what works, when it works, etc. from having done it over and over). So does it really matter what your theory is? Not really. It's going to be replaced anyway.

Terence

Hey Terence,
Been awhile. I always enjoy your posts.

I snipped out parts of your post just to save space. I'm curious as to what part of the wck theory you think is BS.

I really haven't been to many schools so I don't know how they teach, but the theories that I've been taught seem to be fine.

I agree with what you said about experience and how it weighs more than theory. I think that's the case as well. I think where I differ is that your experience then becomes your theory.

For most people to really understand wing chun, they have to be able to pass it on, they may never have their own school, but they should be able to pass it on. At least that's how I see it. If you can't explain it, then I think you don't understand it.
The reason why I'm saying this is that theory does matter, so you can pass it on.

Jeff

anerlich

11-21-2006, 02:54 PM

What wing chun principle, concept, tactic or strategy comes to mind that you would considered flawed when applied to groundfighting?

If you look hard enough for WC principles in the tactics used by skilled groundfighters, you can probably find them, but not everywhere.

You could, with about the same ease and validity, look at a skilled standup fight and point to where one or other of the practitioners used sound BJJ principles (if all you do is WC, how would you know?)

The fact remains that, no matter how strong one's theoretical base may be, that if he doesn't spend significant time sparring with and learning from good groundfighters and learning how THEY apply sound groundfighting principles, you are not going to have the experience base to apply those principles, and counter the more experienced fighter's applications of them, and are going to get comprehensively beaten when the fight hits the floor.

You want to beat BJJer's? Sambists, MMAers? You need to learn what they know, as well as what your WC ancestors know. One way or another, you need to learn BJJ to hold your own against BJJ - same applies to any other discipline.

The WC strategies aren't necessarily flawed ... it is just there are some areas of fighting for which they have no application at all. Pin escapes are the most obvious example.

Props to the HFY successes, but ...

Fighters from my organisation have won fights at entry and intermediate levels in boxing, kickboxing, MMA, and BJJ events over several years. We won or placed in every division we entered in the Tasmanian BJJ championships in 2004. This is just part of testing your art and moving to another level ... there didn't seem to be the need to post blow by blow details of our successes or imply that we were somehow bringing WC out of the MMA wilderness all on our own.

At the BJJ and MMA club I go to, people have ring fights regularly, and win a fair number. These people get a round of applause at training, and a mention in the club newsletter, but if every MMA club did this for every event MA forums would be filled to overflowing with these results and nothing else.

When one of ours, or yours, win an elite level event, THEN we'll shout it out.

We crosstrain, and IMO so should you.

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 02:56 PM

knifefighter, what principles are you referring to exactly and how do they change?
Answering for myself (abruptly):

mobility on the ground is entirely different from WC footwork,

power generation is different when one is vertical instead of horizontal,

positioning of bodies in relation to each other varies greatly on the ground (while not so much on the feet),

the individual in dominant position (usually the superior grappler) has a big advantage in striking power and overall offensive capability.

I'm sure there are many more, but these are what occured to me immediately off the top of my head.......

Edmund

11-21-2006, 03:02 PM

Yeah but the comps aren't UFC or Pride so they don't count. :rolleyes:

Lonnie Dodge did win an amateur MMA bout in KC, MO. See my above post.

Thanks tbone.

I think it counts but not quite as much! Pride and UFC are at another level of athleticism higher.

Not taking away from Dodge's win. He won in 45 seconds which would make anyone pretty happy with the result.

Kansas City is in both Missouri and Kansas... weird huh? Kind of like St. Louis being in both Missouri and Illinois.

Why can't Missouri build it's own cities? It's so cheap it's got to steal cities off neighbouring states! Guess it gets extra state taxes off them.

tbone

11-21-2006, 03:35 PM

Why can't Missouri build it's own cities? It's so cheap it's got to steal cities off neighbouring states! Guess it gets extra state taxes off them.haha

I don't know, I've lived in both cities and never thought to ask.

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 03:57 PM

Yeah but the comps aren't UFC or Pride so they don't count. :rolleyes:
tbone, just because you don't know about an MMA event going on in Jerkwater, Idaho doesn't mean I would assume you are some sort of elitist MMA snob. :cool:

Cut me some slack already. :o

I have never tried to diminish amateur and/or local MMA shows....... I am a sparring partner to many of the local fighters here, and have even officiated at a local show in the past year.

-I just didn't know about the KC event because I haven't been on the forum for a while.

-L

Knifefighter

11-21-2006, 06:29 PM

knifefighter, what principles are you referring to exactly and how do they change?
There are specific principes for specific positions. Since WC doesn't even have these positional differentiations in the first place(guard, 1/2 guard, side control, mount, north/south, mount, back mount), it doesn't have principles for them.

Some basic groundfighting principles are:

- Make space when on the bottom.
- Shut down space when establishing control on the top.
- Open space for striking when control is established.
- Block the hip when holding side cotrol.
- Control opponent's lower and upper body when passing the guard.
- Don't extend your arms when mounted.
- Don't try to be offensive when mounted.
- Use short or long control when someone is in your guard.
- Stay parrallel to your opponent when in the guard.
- Created angles when using the guard.
- Fight for underhooks.
- Transition to better positions.
- Position before submission (specific BJJ principle).
- Isolation.
- Two limbs vs. one limb.
- Biceps/triceps control from north/south bottom.
- Handfight for grip control.
- Set up submissions with strikes.
- Turtle as transistion rather than position.
- When attacked from the back, protect the neck before defending the hooks.
- When back mounted, back to the ground.
- Control the opponent's head when in top 1/2 guard.

lawrenceofidaho

11-21-2006, 07:49 PM

canglong

11-22-2006, 12:58 AM

canglong

11-22-2006, 01:58 AM

The fact remains that, no matter how strong one's theoretical base may be, that if he doesn't spend significant time sparring with and learning from good groundfighters and learning how THEY apply sound groundfighting principles, you are not going to have the experience base to apply those principles, and counter the more experienced fighter's applications of them, and are going to get comprehensively beaten when the fight hits the floor. Andrew,
Significant sparring time is a good thing no doubt about that. The difference of opinion seems to me to be how to best use that sparring time. One can either train with as you say BJJer's, Sambists, MMAers and others and the list could go on and on or you can find the common denominator amongst those group of arts/styles and train it. The it in my opinion in this particular case can be defined as the principles of grappling. Does there exist a set of natural laws of physics that every grappler must adhere to no matter what the art/style is referred to by name and if so then by training/sparring utilizing those principles can one then become proficient in the arts of grappling and anti grappling. Personally from what I train I find the answer to be yes but of course others will quite naturally disagree as opinions can and do vary. Each individual experience is valid and has merit but sometimes in threads such as this that point is often overlooked.

Some seem to think you can either be a practitioner or a theorist but not both. To that it seems Jeff Bussey said it very well...
I think where I differ is that your experience then becomes your theory.

sihing

11-22-2006, 05:24 AM

Like Jeff said, your experience becomes your theory. On forums like this, your fact is my theory, and theory is all we can talk about here in the written form. Each of us has to take what we are learning and training in and apply it for ourselves. All we can do here is write about it, and what we have experienced in the process of it all. All of us will have different experiences. All of us will have different needs and motivations driving us to train in WC/VT. So therefore, it's almost impossible to answer the question "Does WC answer the question?" generically.

IMO, VT teaches us very well how to use our bodies in a very effective and efficient manner. It is not the easiest method to learn, and is overkill in allot of ways, but I still love training in it. The love of what activities you participate is the strongest motivation for what you train in, I believe. When fighting, you can have the greatest ability to express your VT in forms, chi sau and dummy work, and have the most thorough understanding of it, but if you cannot express it and use it against a resisting, equally skilled opponent that is trying to hurt you, you don't have much in the way of practical usage. In the end, IMO you need three more elements that will make you a more complete fighter, 1) Good timing (doing the right things at the right time) 2) Good distance control (playing according to your rules not theirs) & 3) great eyes or ability to perceive your opponents movements. Put a blindfold on George St Pierre and he wouldn't be that good. Without good eyes to see & assess your opponent's movement quickly, you will be unable to use your VT skills effectively. VT just sharpens your tools, gives your body away of reacting, instead of trying to figure it out when the sh!t hits the fan. :eek:

But whatta I know eh...:D

James

tbone

11-22-2006, 08:07 AM

tbone, just because you don't know about an MMA event going on in Jerkwater, Idaho doesn't mean I would assume you are some sort of elitist MMA snob. :cool:

Cut me some slack already. :o

I have never tried to diminish amateur and/or local MMA shows....... I am a sparring partner to many of the local fighters here, and have even officiated at a local show in the past year.

-I just didn't know about the KC event because I haven't been on the forum for a while.

-L
Very good, sorry Lawrence.

I didn't mean that comment to be specific to anyone in particular. I wrote it directed towards the attitude that some seem to have that the only way to test yourself and your system of fighting is to enter and win in UFC or Pride. If that doesn't describe you then I didn't intend to direct it toward you.

canglong

11-22-2006, 08:57 AM

There are specific principes for specific positions. Since WC doesn't even have these positional differentiations in the first place(guard, 1/2 guard, side control, mount, north/south, mount, back mount), it doesn't have principles for them.

Some basic groundfighting principles are:

- Make space when on the bottom.
- Shut down space when establishing control on the top.
- Open space for striking when control is established.
- Block the hip when holding side cotrol.
- Control opponent's lower and upper body when passing the guard.
- Don't extend your arms when mounted.
- Don't try to be offensive when mounted.
- Use short or long control when someone is in your guard.
- Stay parrallel to your opponent when in the guard.
- Created angles when using the guard.
- Fight for underhooks.
- Transition to better positions.
- Position before submission (specific BJJ principle).
- Isolation.
- Two limbs vs. one limb.
- Biceps/triceps control from north/south bottom.
- Handfight for grip control.
- Set up submissions with strikes.
- Turtle as transistion rather than position.
- When attacked from the back, protect the neck before defending the hooks.
- When back mounted, back to the ground.
- Control the opponent's head when in top 1/2 guard.
knifefighter,
Though the list you have provided is detailed and quite thorough it does not appear to be a list of principles of which I was referring to earlier in the discussion but instead a list of concepts. Let's examine the terms more closely.

Lets start with the 3 layers we recognize that fights take place upon.
Technique, Concept and Principle.

Main Entry: tech·nique
Pronunciation: tek-'nEk
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from technique technical, from Greek technikos
1 : the manner in which technical details are treated (as by a writer) or basic physical movements are used (as by a dancer); also : ability to treat such details or use such movements <good piano technique>
2 a : a body of technical methods (as in a craft or in scientific research) b : a method of accomplishing a desired aim

Pretty sure we are all familiar with different techniques and are able to identify and convey them verbally. What we need to understand is that techniques are always driven by a concept. Example of technique arm bar, front kick biu sau

Main Entry: 1con·cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive -- more at CONCEIVE
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

Beyond this we must further understand that the concepts are always driven by a corresponding principle. Example of concepts Center line theory, six gates & lok ma

Main Entry: prin·ci·ple
Pronunciation: 'prin(t)-s(&-)p&l, -s&-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator -- more at PRINCE
1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle> c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.
Example of principles For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Two objects may not occupy the same place at the same time. These principle (natural) laws of nature (physics) do not change.

Putting it all together for example
Laap sau is the technique.
Center line theory is the concept
An unbalanced center of gravity equals and unbalanced object, the principle.

So the point here is when we want to practice laap sau and grab someone and pull at them but don't effect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them we are not actually performing laap sau because 2 of the requirements are not being met.

This is just a small exapmple of how we learn to better understand not only what lives behind the techniques of the art but why any given technique is effective in the first place. With this same knowledge we then learn what is the antithesis of each technique much more thoroughly by understanding and knowing what 3 layers exist for each technique and the how and why of each technique which is best described in the concepts and principles of any particular technique because there are far fewer principles and concepts to be learned and understood than there are techniques.

Knifefighter

11-22-2006, 11:12 AM

knifefighter,
Though the list you have provided is detailed and quite thorough it does not appear to be a list of principles of which I was referring to earlier in the discussion but instead a list of concepts..
OK, principles...

- The force from hitting the ground is damaging.
- The ground allows for control of the opponent and limits his options better than standing does.
- The ground allows for more offensive options than does standing.
- The entire body used as leverage against an opponent's limb (or neck) provides maximum torque.
- Techniques and concepts are different for different positions.

Knifefighter

11-22-2006, 11:37 AM

So the point here is when we want to practice laap sau and grab someone and pull at them but don't effect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them we are not actually performing laap sau because 2 of the requirements are not being met.

If you grab someone and pull at them, but don't affect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them, but use it as a set up for another damaging blow, what technique have you just done?

Knifefighter

11-22-2006, 12:23 PM

Principles are definitely more important than individual techniques.

I'm going to rescind that comment because it is stupid.

Techniques are the single most important part of a system, followed by concepts, and then by principles. Concepts underlie the techniques and principles underlie the concepts. For one to completely understand a system, one must understand all three. However, one doesn't fight with principles or concepts.

One can fight with techniques without ever understanding the principles and concepts behind them. Additionally, techniques that violate a system's principles can sometimes be put to effective use.

stricker

11-22-2006, 12:40 PM

If you grab someone and pull at them, but don't affect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them, but use it as a set up for another damaging blow, what technique have you just done?knifefighter,

i see the opposite of all this. techniques eg lap sao, pak, etc etc all the labels are bullsht. i just think parry, pull, push, open people up, overextend them, off balance, drive in wedge, keeping other hand up in boxing combos, or wu sao in wingchun etc theyve been more important to me than actual techniques.

eg kuzushi is a principle not a technique. to me in stand up grappling kuzushi is as important as technique no? eg even if i dont have good technique in the particular throw to use given the position were in or what the situation determines good kuzushi and i can use that to keep from gettin hit with as much power, make my hits more effective, move to the position i want etc...

actually i aint gonna get into principles or concepts ill get hit over the head with the dictionary...

i see analysis paralysis in wing chun every **** milimiter movement has a different name etc kills it, just timing distance structure position etc keeps it more simple get in there and ruck :)

anerlich

11-22-2006, 02:21 PM

One can either train with as you say BJJer's, Sambists, MMAers and others and the list could go on and on or you can find the common denominator amongst those group of arts/styles and train it. The it in my opinion in this particular case can be defined as the principles of grappling. Does there exist a set of natural laws of physics that every grappler must adhere to no matter what the art/style is referred to by name and if so then by training/sparring utilizing those principles can one then become proficient in the arts of grappling and anti grappling. Personally from what I train I find the answer to be yes but of course others will quite naturally disagree as opinions can and do vary.

I can't buy this. You seem to think you can find the "principles of grappling" as some absolute metaphysical, or metastylistic, concept that every exponent of every grappling art has somehow missed because they somehow miss some vital way of looking at combat that only TCMA in general and HFYWCK in particular have got. Like you can understand it without actually meeting and training with people who have put in the time necessary to become expert with it.:p

You still have to work your "anti-grappling" against good grapplers, and every good grappler is going to have some sort of stylistic base. The best anti-grapplers are grapplers, because they understand the so called "principles of grappling" at an experiential and intuitive level, not just untested theory.

I'll bet no one has ever successfully done what you suggest in the bubble of a single kwoon, and I'll also bet no one ever will. There's an easier way and much harder way to learn about grappling - going to the source is easy, doing as you suggest about the hardest and most error-prone possible. Only in TCMA do supposed "researchers" insist on reinventing the wheel and blazing trails when their peers in the grappling arts have already built ten lane superhighways covering the same territory and going to the same destination.

BTW, Dale came up with a very good list of principles ... your definitional hairsplitting and resorting to hitting him over the head with the dictionary in response indicates just how well he answered your original question.

Edmund

11-22-2006, 04:14 PM

Though the list you have provided is detailed and quite thorough it does not appear to be a list of principles of which I was referring to earlier in the discussion but instead a list of concepts. Let's examine the terms more closely.
..
..

Tony,

I'm not seeing what your point is.

Classifying KF's list as concepts means what?
You're still not establishing any commonality between WC and grappling arts.

If there aren't any common principles, concepts and techniques between WC groundfighting and other grappling arts I don't fancy your chances in a groundfighting situation.

As I said before you could find some vague principles in common but they don't really help. You can't just have 1 of your layers kinda sorta half similar and still be that competitive on the ground.

Knifefighter

11-22-2006, 06:06 PM

If there aren't any common principles, concepts and techniques between WC groundfighting and other grappling arts I don't fancy your chances in a groundfighting situation.
There are principles, concepts and techniques from any standing style that you could more than likely use very effectively on the ground. However, the principles, concepts and techniques of groundfighting will normally take precedence over the ones from a standing system.

You could probably use many of these standing principles, concepts and techniques even more successfully from the mount than you could when both you and your opponent are standing and your opponent has free mobility. However, many of these same principles, concepts and techniques will be your demise if your position is reversed and your opponent is the one who has control from the mounted position.

Ravenshaw

11-22-2006, 07:14 PM

The best anti-grapplers are grapplers, because they understand the so called "principles of grappling" at an experiential and intuitive level, not just untested theory.

This is the reason that, if I wanted to make any kind of anti-grappling work, I would cross-train with grapplers.

canglong

11-22-2006, 09:42 PM

Concepts underlie the techniques and principles underlie the concepts. For one to completely understand a system, one must understand all threeknifefighter,
True enough completely understand a system exactly, key wording because this generally tends to produce a more knowledgable person or some would say a well rounded individual.
One can fight with techniques without ever understanding the principles and concepts behind them.Also true our discussion here is focused on does wing chun answer the question and the answer to that can best come from individuals who completely understand the system.
If you grab someone and pull at them, but don't affect their center line or their center of gravity and unbalance them, but use it as a set up for another damaging blow, what technique have you just done? -knifefighterIf you laap but don't disrupt the center of gravity of your opponent then there may or may not be a set up to anything after the improper laap it varies depending upon how complete the understanding of your opponent is to what is going on around him/her. It is a valid question because it points out that just because a person was successful executing a particular technique does not mean the technique was used correctly only that the counter was not employed or not employed correctly.

When you want to pound a nail into a piece of wood and you have a choice between using an old shoe another piece of wood or a hammer which would most people prefer to use. Although the other 2 choices may or may not be successful at pounding a nail into wood a hammer is the right tool for the job.

Knifefighter if a person calls himself a grappler but doesn't know the list of things you pointed out you might or might not agree that he is truly a grappler there could be some doubt in your mind. Yet when a person with demonstrated skill of a grappler comes to you as someone who knows the things on the list you provided doesn't that person remove any doubt as to whether or not he or she is a grappler in your mind not only because they can demonstrate skill but because they can explain it also, completely understand the system this is all we are talking about how best to completely understand the system of wing chun.

canglong

11-22-2006, 10:18 PM

Andrew,
This thread nor my post could be considered a referendum on right ,wrong, better or worse. My post also did not allow for any practitioner to recuse him or herself from needed time training or sparring. Just expressing my own personal take on how it is my training takes place and what there is to take away from that training from a personal perspective. To think that there is always only one way to learn how to do something anything is a false premise to begin with. My view is there is a necessary medium between sparring and lecture because people can learn better from one or the other or both. My post was just pointing out where that medium seems to fall from my understanding as provided by my particular school.
BTW, Dale came up with a very good list of principles ... your definitional hairsplitting and resorting to hitting him over the head with the dictionary in response indicates just how well he answered your original question.Knifefighter's response to my post indicates that he understood the meaning of my post and took it in the spirit it was intended.
Concepts underlie the techniques and principles underlie the concepts. For one to completely understand a system, one must understand all three.--knifefighter

Chango

11-22-2006, 10:39 PM

I think there is a comunication gap here. I have a grappling background High school wrestling, combative wrestling (not organized competition)etc... I can see the direct link and relationship to my Wing Chun training. I can infact use my Wing Chun training to define the experiences that I have had in that realm to a much clearer understanding. some may not see that as " being in the system". I think this speaks more to how you view your Wing Chun training.

I honestly see this conversation as people having different Points of views according to how they relate to thier Wing chun. This can be due to many different reasons. Some lineages do not go beyond the shapes and techniques. Some will stop at concepts. Some will go to the principle level. Of course no one here is saying that one lineage or style or even martial art (chinese or other) is the only one that contains principles. So to stay productive this has to be said and understood upfront.

Another reason for different P.O.V's could be the method of thier Sifu. Some teach on the technique level some concept and of course some on the principle level.
Last but not least it could be the understanding of the student or the student's relationship to the art be it technique, concept, or principle.

So many factors are at play here. If we are not clear as to what is a principle and what is a concept this conversation is very limited. This compiled with different expressions of these concepts and principles can make this pretty hard as well.

I also see a misunderstanding about training methods as well. Believe me I'm not speaking from a Wing chun bubble! (I like that)LOL! The work is put in as a requirement. it's important to know that we can theorize all day but it comes down to having experience and having clear understanding of that experience.
I have no problem having a guest comming into the kwoon that speacializes in one area of fighting. (Or I go visit them.) When I train anti-grappling and or grappling I sometimes spar with a speacialist. Of course my intent is not to play his game. I train to be able to have a choice to play his game or not. I use my Wing Chun control this interaction. I use my Wing Chun to control the situation so I can play his game or play my game from a better vantage point. I use my Wing Chun to understand what it honestly takes to be sucessfull in his game. Is this cross training? Ok maybe maybe not. Depends on your P.O.V. I think of it as using my Wing Chun in yet another set of conditions. I'm just using my local resources to get a realistic experience in that realm. Of course you can replace grappler with boxer, Kick boxer, TKD etc.....

The question then comes up, does your Wing Chun offer what it takes to understand the speacialist game? I cannot speak for other Wing Chun lineages I can only speak for my 1st hand experiences. With that in mind I can say that in Hung Fa Yi the Saam Ma Kiu approach allows for this experience. I can also say that through my experiences with Chi Sim Wing Chun the 18 kiu Sau concept allows one to have this experience as well and not loose one's identity. These approachs allows these lineages to define the experience from the P.O.V of Time, Space and Energy. Thus eliminating the tendancy of bias.

I hope this clears things up for some. If not I must apologize for adding to the confusion! :D

I find it quite odd that when I post on a forum that is not Wing Chun they can see this point. But my fellow Wing chun enthusiast seem to run into troubles.

canglong

11-22-2006, 11:07 PM

Classifying KF's list as concepts means what?
You're still not establishing any commonality between WC and grappling arts.
Hello Edmund,
The idea we should be looking at is first removing the labels so we can see things for what they truly are. We first have to call grappling a fighting method and then call wing chun a fighting method to see some common points of reference. Those common points of reference would be the principles behind the techniques because they are the same for all fighting methods involving hand-to-hand fighting for 2 humans.

For instance when someone standing does a leg sweep in combination with a po pai or push the principles of gravity are employed by first destablilizing the opponents structure (attacking the opponents center of gravity)then manipulating his position by push pull or hitting the body(structure). So when someone is on the ground positioned so they establish body structure on both knees and both hands and the opponent sweeps one arm making it easier to attack the opponents center of gravity first and more easily controlling and subsequently being able to manipulate the body (structure) with a push, pull or strike they too are making use of the principles of gravity. So in essence what we have is the 2 controlling opponents employing the same principle with different techniques. Then the commonality we have is that 2 practitioners are acheiving the same exacts ends with what might be seen as 2 different application on the surface but underneath in reality they are the same exact principles being employed for the same exact purpose meaning that understanding the principle is a necessary prerequisite to understanding how and why a technique either works or doesn't work .

Edmund

11-23-2006, 12:01 AM

Hello Edmund,
The idea we should be looking at is first removing the labels so we can see things for what they truly are. We first have to call grappling a fighting method and then call wing chun a fighting method to see some common points of reference. Those common points of reference would be the principles behind the techniques because they are the same for all fighting methods involving hand-to-hand fighting for 2 humans.

I appreciate that point.

For instance when someone standing does a leg sweep in combination with a po pai or push the principles of gravity are employed by first destablilizing the opponents structure (attacking the opponents center of gravity)then manipulating his position by push pull or hitting the body(structure). So when someone is on the ground positioned so they establish body structure on both knees and both hands and the opponent sweeps one arm making it easier to attack the opponents center of gravity first and more easily controlling and subsequently being able to manipulate the body (structure) with a push, pull or strike they too are making use of the principles of gravity. So in essence what we have is the 2 controlling opponents employing the same principle with different techniques. Then the commonality we have is that 2 practitioners are acheiving the same exacts ends with what might be seen as 2 different application on the surface but underneath in reality they are the same exact principles being employed for the same exact purpose meaning that understanding the principle is a necessary prerequisite to understanding how and why a technique either works or doesn't work .

Well this is demonstrating my point! As happily familiar as you can be with the vague principle of gravity and sweeping someone from the feet, you can still be a mile away from sweeping someone from the ground.

It doesn't hurt to know about gravity but the amount that it helps is not so great. That's because you need to ALSO know basic techniques and concepts of groundfighting.

Without those other layers of theory, your groundfighting practice would just be flopping around.

canglong

11-23-2006, 02:27 AM

Without those other layers of theory, your groundfighting practice would just be flopping around.Edmund,
Good point, I agree and by his own words knifefighter concurs with what you just said when he said.
Concepts underlie the techniques and principles underlie the concepts. For one to completely understand a system, one must understand all three --knifefighter No one part of the system is sustainable on its own they must function together as one. If someone were to walk up to you right now and say check this out on my own I just made up a new technique. How could you validate their claim. Well by asking them to first describe the concept behind the technique and then see if the concept adheres to the natural laws of physics. No need to balance on your head to attempt to execute the scissor knee take down technique you know is flawed. :)

splinter

11-23-2006, 09:46 AM

Edmund,
Good point, I agree and by his own words knifefighter concurs with what you just said when he said. No one part of the system is sustainable on its own they must function together as one. If someone were to walk up to you right now and say check this out on my own I just made up a new technique. How could you validate their claim. Well by asking them to first describe the concept behind the technique and then see if the concept adheres to the natural laws of physics. No need to balance on your head to attempt to execute the scissor knee take down technique you know is flawed. :)

Ok, so if you're saying that you can find principles for ground fighting in your wing chun, perhaps you could elaborate on the concepts and techniques that you use to implement those principles on the ground.

I'm curious, since I've never been exposed to any Wing Chun ground fighting.

lawrenceofidaho

11-23-2006, 11:10 AM

A Wing Chun instructor, -anywhere in the world, could release a video about "anti-grappling" and make a fortune, if it showed realistic takedown defenses against an average collegiate wrestler, and realistic sub-defenses against an average BJJ purple belt.

The fact that there are so many WC people in the world (thus an obvious demand for this type of video), makes you wonder why this hasn't been produced

sihing

11-23-2006, 12:34 PM

lawrenceofidaho

11-23-2006, 01:44 PM

It's hard enough connecting my elbow to my hip
Just don't connect it permanently.......

Sometimes you'll want it in another position.

Trust me. ;)

-L

anerlich

11-23-2006, 04:22 PM

To think that there is always only one way to learn how to do something anything is a false premise to begin with.

I never said that. I suggested that some ways were easier than others, and some were proven to work empirically when others were not, and arguably are not implementable in any practical sense.

I have no problem having a guest comming into the kwoon that speacializes in one area of fighting. (Or I go visit them.) When I train anti-grappling and or grappling I sometimes spar with a speacialist.

Which is basically what I suggested to Tony. And, yes, you don't have to do what they do but you have to be able to deal with what they do, not what you decide is the "essence" or "principles" of what you think they do. Thank you!

sihing

11-23-2006, 05:45 PM

Just don't connect it permanently.......

Sometimes you'll want it in another position.

Trust me. ;)

-L

They say VT/WC is about Economy of Motion. To me that means using only the appropiate amount of the art that you need, when it is needed most. When the elbow needs to connect, it connects, when it doesn't it doesn't... A lazy man's Martial Art a wise man once told me..:)

J

Edmund

11-23-2006, 05:48 PM

No one part of the system is sustainable on its own they must function together as one. If someone were to walk up to you right now and say check this out on my own I just made up a new technique. How could you validate their claim. Well by asking them to first describe the concept behind the technique and then see if the concept adheres to the natural laws of physics.

That's pretty much what I'm asking of you because you're claiming that the WC system has some expertise in groundfighting. Having some theoretical knowledge of some of the principles is not enough to claim expertise.

Unless you got all parts of your groundfighting system (techniques, concepts and principles) functioning, it's not really sustainable.

anerlich

11-23-2006, 10:19 PM

If someone were to walk up to you right now and say check this out on my own I just made up a new technique. How could you validate their claim. Well by asking them to first describe the concept behind the technique and then see if the concept adheres to the natural laws of physics.

A much better way to validate their claim would be to have them use it on a number of resisting opponents and make it work.

anerlich

11-23-2006, 10:26 PM

A Wing Chun instructor, -anywhere in the world, could release a video about "anti-grappling" and make a fortune, if it showed realistic takedown defenses against an average collegiate wrestler, and realistic sub-defenses against an average BJJ purple belt.

Amen to that, Lawrence.

The VTM have said they won't release any HFY DVD's, so they will unfortunately be missing out on that potential bonanza.

sihing

11-24-2006, 05:04 AM

Amen to that, Lawrence.

The VTM have said they won't release any HFY DVD's, so they will unfortunately be missing out on that potential bonanza.

Benny Meng has released two DVD's on Shaolin Wing Chun, I have the first one which covers basic stuff, not much WC in it (he did demonstrate though a wrist grab defense that was very similar to a TWC defense that I thought was interesting), some theory and self defense and basic old style stance work stuff. The second DVD is supposed to have more WC in it, but I haven't seen it yet.

James

anerlich

11-24-2006, 11:03 PM

Well, hard to argue with that ... "VTM" told a guy on one of their seminar threads who asked about it that it wasn't in the grand plan, and I believed them. Who wouldn't? :o

t_niehoff

11-25-2006, 09:03 AM

Hey Terence,
Been awhile. I always enjoy your posts.

I snipped out parts of your post just to save space. I'm curious as to what part of the wck theory you think is BS.

I really haven't been to many schools so I don't know how they teach, but the theories that I've been taught seem to be fine.

I agree with what you said about experience and how it weighs more than theory. I think that's the case as well. I think where I differ is that your experience then becomes your theory.

For most people to really understand wing chun, they have to be able to pass it on, they may never have their own school, but they should be able to pass it on. At least that's how I see it. If you can't explain it, then I think you don't understand it.
The reason why I'm saying this is that theory does matter, so you can pass it on.

Jeff

Jeff,

Sorry for the delay -- been away on holiday. :)

Please reread my post. We don't "need" theory except -- at most -- as a beginner to give us some direction to our *practice* (fighting). What we need is experience. Experience *using* (fighting with) WCK. Only people with little to no experience -- which corresponds to most people in WCK -- need theory (or argue about it). For example, I don't do something because some theory tells me to, I do it because I've done it many, many times before (in fighting) and I know it works for me. Theory is typically used by people who don't really know what to do to tell others who don't know what to do, what they "should" do! The proverbial blind leading the blind.

Look at fighters from other methods (BJJ, muay thai, boxing, judo, etc.); they all have some simple theory in the beginning, when they are learning, but as they get better, the theory falls by the wayside and experience replaces it: experience actually using their *techniques* in a fighting environment (facing a generally resisting opponent).

If you begin with "poor" theory, you will quickly discover -- if you are actually "playing the game" (fighting) -- that it doesn't work for you, and what does (especially if playing against quality opposition). And your "play" will develop and evolve from your *practice* (fighting), leaving the theory behind. If your theory is a bit "better" (more realistic), you will make the same discoveries, and still leave the theory behind. So it really doesn't matter too much. Much more important than the initial theory is the discovery, the practice, the fighting, the finding out for yourself what works *for you* (and when, etc.).

We can only do that by "playing the game." This is why we can only become good boxers by boxing, good wrestlers by wrestling, good at BJJ by rolling, good at judo by randori, etc. And only become skilled in WCK by fighting. Putting aside innate talent, it can be said that our skill level will be directly proportional to the amount of time we have spent in quality sparring. Everything else (forms, chi sao, etc.) is just preparation (or supplemental). Thus, little to no time in quality sparring equates with very low levels of fighting skill. (So, how much time has the "grandmaster" spent in quality sparring? ;) ).

I hope this makes my initial point more clear.

Terence

t_niehoff

11-25-2006, 09:27 AM

I'm going to rescind that comment because it is stupid.

Techniques are the single most important part of a system, followed by concepts, and then by principles. Concepts underlie the techniques and principles underlie the concepts. For one to completely understand a system, one must understand all three. However, one doesn't fight with principles or concepts.

One can fight with techniques without ever understanding the principles and concepts behind them. Additionally, techniques that violate a system's principles can sometimes be put to effective use.

Another great point.

Most WCK people, as do most theoreticians, have just about everything associated with developing fighting skill @ss-backwards. So, they believe principles or concepts is primary, theory is primary, etc., when in reality it is far down the line.

Fighting skill comes from fighting. Period. Groundfighting (and grappling) skill comes from quality sparring while trying to use your techniques, and skill level is directly related to the amount of time one has spent in quality sparring. It is the *experience* that matters -- the experience actually trying to apply the techniques of your fighting method in a fighting environment. If you spend the time trying to make the techniques work, you'll figure out how (and why) they work.

This is why I find the "WCK works on the ground" argument hilarious. Are the people who believe this actually routinely sparring with quality (skilled groundfighters) opponents? I know they're not. Because if they were, they wouldn't be saying those things. But, I accept that perhaps I could be wrong -- so I ask them to *show* me, to take their camcorder down to the BJJ school and show me how their WCK works against those skille guys. No one takes me up on it because these people aren't actually sparring. Those of us who are, know better. Experience trumps theory.

Terence

sihing

11-25-2006, 10:00 AM

Jeff,

Sorry for the delay -- been away on holiday. :)

Please reread my post. We don't "need" theory except -- at most -- as a beginner to give us some direction to our *practice* (fighting). What we need is experience. Experience *using* (fighting with) WCK. Only people with little to no experience -- which corresponds to most people in WCK -- need theory (or argue about it). For example, I don't do something because some theory tells me to, I do it because I've done it many, many times before (in fighting) and I know it works for me. Theory is typically used by people who don't really know what to do to tell others who don't know what to do, what they "should" do! The proverbial blind leading the blind.

Look at fighters from other methods (BJJ, muay thai, boxing, judo, etc.); they all have some simple theory in the beginning, when they are learning, but as they get better, the theory falls by the wayside and experience replaces it: experience actually using their *techniques* in a fighting environment (facing a generally resisting opponent).

If you begin with "poor" theory, you will quickly discover -- if you are actually "playing the game" (fighting) -- that it doesn't work for you, and what does (especially if playing against quality opposition). And your "play" will develop and evolve from your *practice* (fighting), leaving the theory behind. If your theory is a bit "better" (more realistic), you will make the same discoveries, and still leave the theory behind. So it really doesn't matter too much. Much more important than the initial theory is the discovery, the practice, the fighting, the finding out for yourself what works *for you* (and when, etc.).

We can only do that by "playing the game." This is why we can only become good boxers by boxing, good wrestlers by wrestling, good at BJJ by rolling, good at judo by randori, etc. And only become skilled in WCK by fighting. Putting aside innate talent, it can be said that our skill level will be directly proportional to the amount of time we have spent in quality sparring. Everything else (forms, chi sao, etc.) is just preparation (or supplemental). Thus, little to no time in quality sparring equates with very low levels of fighting skill. (So, how much time has the "grandmaster" spent in quality sparring? ;) ).

I hope this makes my initial point more clear.

Terence

I agree with most everything said above. If the ultimate goal is fighting skill, then you definetly 100% better fight/spar/play whatever you call in your training. But is wrestling for the wrestler fighting? Is rolling for the grappler fighting? Is randori for the judoist, fighting? Are all these labels actual representations of fighting? If so then you can classify Chi sau as fighting also, as it allows the WC/VT exponent to express what they learn in a more freestyle environment, just like a wrestler does when he wrestles or a BJJ guy does when he rolls. To me, chi sau is not about fighting. It has elements of it there, when you gor sau, but a great chi sau man does not always represent a good fighter persay. When you talk about "Fighting" you are talking about all ranges and situations that are possible, not just one range. Each of us decides for ourselves what vehicle or engine we are going to use or absorb to deal with a fight. Some choose to stick with one way, others choose to learn many ways. No one is absolutely right or wrong, just different. Ultimately, if your only goal is fighting at a high level against other high level athletes/fighters then yes, you have to fight while training to bring the best out of you. In the real world, where physical fighting with only your own bodily tools, is not the only method of self defense, you can still IMO attain fighting skills and maintain them against average people, without actually having to fight hard on a constant basis in training. One can gain these skills by practicing the whole of the art, the forms, the drills, the conditioning and understanding the theory, and by testing those abilities while in the class through various methods. You skills will definetly be limited, but you will have something more in the way of fighting skills than when you first started. The beginning stages are critical and this is where the work must be put in. Once the skills are absorbed you can relax more while still maintaining some sort of skills. It is easier to maintain the skills, compared to obtaining them.

One thing we must realize is that not everyone has the same intention with their training. I myself, am not training, learning and teaching with the ultimate thought of pure fighting ability or effectiveness. I do these things because it gives me pleasure in doing so, plain and simple. Concerning WC/VT, to me it is training system with the intent on teaching our bodies certain ways of acting and reacting when confronted with a possible physical altercation with another human being, not a fighting system which tells one step by step what exactly to do when a fight happens. There is a difference IMO. One method is conceptual based and in the end allows for individual thinking and expression. The other is technique based and does not allow for individual thinking and expression, but rather puts one in a box. Being confined by the demensions of a box is not a good place to be when in a fight IMO. For me, I know what I can do if and when a confrontation arises. My first instinct is to use my mouth, rather than my fists or feet to aliviate the situation. If that doesn't work then what happens just happens, without any fore thought towards the end result. I am pretty confident against the stranger on the street, but if the situation where to come upon me that I was confronted with a world class fighter, then of course my confidence (if I knew of this fighters rep) would not be as high. I would not want to meet Chuck Liddel in a dark alley somewhere with him intent on teaching me a lesson. He is a professional fighter, I am not, so obviously he has the advantage. Saying that, there is always a chance against someone with much more skill and phyisical attributes than yourself. Funny things happen when the sh!t hits the fan, and you never know what the outcome can be. But the chances of that ever happening are slim to none, so realistically I don't worry or even think about that type of situation happening. Do the best you can in a fight, and let your body do it's thing. Hopefully your training was good enough for you to allow your body to do this. And always remember, running is an option too.:D

James

Knifefighter

11-25-2006, 12:40 PM

But is wrestling for the wrestler fighting? Is rolling for the grappler fighting? Is randori for the judoist, fighting?

If so then you can classify Chi sau as fighting also, as it allows the WC/VT exponent to express what they learn in a more freestyle environment, just like a wrestler does when he wrestles or a BJJ guy does when he rolls.
Grapplers use takedowns, ground control and positioning in real fighting, just like they do it in practice. In this respect, rolling is fighting... at least fighting without the striking involved.

Just like boxing and kickboxing are fighting without grappling.

WC practitioners rarely, if ever, use chi sao in fighting. Chi sao may develop attributes for fighting, but it is not fighting.

Wayfaring

11-25-2006, 01:57 PM

Re: Technique vs. Principle

One of the most interesting grappling interviews I've read recently was with one of Rickson Gracie's BB's - he highlighted how the difference between Rickson and other top grappling instructors in his opinion was he was always focused on principles, not just techniques. He would focus on maintaining his base / balance and taking his opponent's base and balance and keep that focus throughout every technique. This was why he can submit BB's with fundamentals.

Now knowing that isn't going to help me sweep someone passing my guard effectively - that I'll have to drill a few thousand times and execute it rolling and in competition. But if I'm looking for the concept, I'll notice when he's extended out too far and know I can take his base and sweep him.

So I think that the principle is the most important part of systems, but you can't bypass the technique and training it in a live environment to get there. That's kind of the main criticism of WC in general - like the old Elvis song - "a little less conversation, a litte more action".

So kind of the takeaway for me is don't forget about the principle level of systems, but don't get so caught up in that I don't focus on training some good attributes and techniques. Otherwise I'll have a great amount of head knowledge that will get dumped with the first really good stiff jab I face or great shoot.

sihing

11-25-2006, 04:07 PM

Grapplers use takedowns, ground control and positioning in real fighting, just like they do it in practice. In this respect, rolling is fighting... at least fighting without the striking involved.

Just like boxing and kickboxing are fighting without grappling.

WC practitioners rarely, if ever, use chi sao in fighting. Chi sao may develop attributes for fighting, but it is not fighting.

As mentioned in my previous post, I too do not believe that Chi sau is fighting, rather it develops attributes, like you said. Once in a while you will see something from Chi sau come out while sparring, but the idea to duplicate exactly what you do in Chi sau while sparring is not the case, at least in my perspective. The idea is to use the drill to develop coordination, sensitivity, center focus, Lat Sau Jik Chung (spring like forward energy), these are the common abilities it is known to develop. It is important to realize though, that not all Chi sau training cirriculums are one and the same. Some forms teach similar concepts, applied to stand up fighting, that you mentioned above, like learning control angles and positional relationships to your opponent

IMO though I see little difference between what a wrestler does when he wrestles or what a grappler does when he rolls, as compared to a chi sau gor sau session. All are freestyle, random expressions of the arts someone practices, with rules applied to them. When two wrestlers wrestle, they to will not perform or look the same as when they where drilling. WC/VT in general terms performs best within a certain range, Chi sau is meant to teach how to move in this range. Gor Sau allows us to express the Chi sau developed attributes in a more free flowing, random environment while staying within the confines of the system, just like two TKD guys sparring at the school, or two wrestlers on the mats. The key IMO is to not think of this excersise as the be all end all of fighting, because it is NOT. Longer range concepts must be learned and applied to become more well rounded as well as dealing with those that like to take you down and deal with you there.

Regarding your comment though, the difference I see is that the grappling arts may be more along the with the technique based systems. That does NOT mean that there are no concepts or principals present, just that most arts tend to be either one or the other for the most part. IMO techniques are the physical execution of a concept in motion. Each time you use that technique, it may be different each time in actual application. While practicing you try to be perfect as possible so that when the adrenaline rush happens, and your fine tune movements go down the drain you perform at least at a higher efficiency than if you had no training at all.

James

sihing

11-25-2006, 05:02 PM

Another great point.

Most WCK people, as do most theoreticians, have just about everything associated with developing fighting skill @ss-backwards. So, they believe principles or concepts is primary, theory is primary, etc., when in reality it is far down the line.

Fighting skill comes from fighting. Period. Groundfighting (and grappling) skill comes from quality sparring while trying to use your techniques, and skill level is directly related to the amount of time one has spent in quality sparring. It is the *experience* that matters -- the experience actually trying to apply the techniques of your fighting method in a fighting environment. If you spend the time trying to make the techniques work, you'll figure out how (and why) they work.

This is why I find the "WCK works on the ground" argument hilarious. Are the people who believe this actually routinely sparring with quality (skilled groundfighters) opponents? I know they're not. Because if they were, they wouldn't be saying those things. But, I accept that perhaps I could be wrong -- so I ask them to *show* me, to take their camcorder down to the BJJ school and show me how their WCK works against those skille guys. No one takes me up on it because these people aren't actually sparring. Those of us who are, know better. Experience trumps theory.

Terence

People get stuck here because they are led to believe that the effort level to perform the art is less. IMO there is less effort needed to perform WC/VT than boxing persay, but as with any skill learned, the more skill you have with it, the more efficient you become with it. Also, the work required to really become skilled in any MA is equal. Lots and Lots of work is required to learn the skills, and be able to apply them naturally in random environments. Most don't get this far along the journey because their bubbles have been bursted and the fantasy is now reality. Unfortunately this is a common problem among VT practitioners. On that regard though this still has no bearing on the art itself, but only on the people practicing it. So the question is, can you discuss the art and it's merits without putting the equation of the individual into it? Even Wong Shun Leung said that Ving Tsun is flawless, and that it is the person using it that isn't. That is were the flaw is.

Gotta run...

J

t_niehoff

11-26-2006, 08:16 AM

t_niehoff

11-26-2006, 08:45 AM

People get stuck here because they are led to believe that the effort level to perform the art is less. IMO there is less effort needed to perform WC/VT than boxing persay, but as with any skill learned, the more skill you have with it, the more efficient you become with it. Also, the work required to really become skilled in any MA is equal. Lots and Lots of work is required to learn the skills, and be able to apply them naturally in random environments. Most don't get this far along the journey because their bubbles have been bursted and the fantasy is now reality. Unfortunately this is a common problem among VT practitioners. On that regard though this still has no bearing on the art itself, but only on the people practicing it. So the question is, can you discuss the art and it's merits without putting the equation of the individual into it? Even Wong Shun Leung said that Ving Tsun is flawless, and that it is the person using it that isn't. That is were the flaw is.

Gotta run...

J

In my view . . .

There is a huge difference between "learning" and developing real skill *using* any fighting method or athletic activity or sport or whatever. How difficult is it to learn to play basketball? Easy. How difficult is it to play really well? There you go. ;)

You can learn the technical elements of boxing relatively easily; becoming a skilled boxer is something else entirely. *That's the same for any ahtletic activity.*

Because *WCK is no different than any other athletic activity*, learning WCK is fairly easy too (though many grossly overcomplicate that process) but developing fighting skill is something else.

When and if we begin to see and treat WCK as we do any other athletic activity -- for example as we do boxing or wrestling, or basketball for that matter -- a great deal of the BS and the marketing will fall by the wayside.

A major reason there is so little true (fighting) skill in the WCK community (or the TCMA community) is that a great many people see (and want to believe) those arts are somehow "different" than any other athletic activity. And the trappings of the TCMAs reinforce this view. While those trapppings may (or may not) have been part of a antiquated cultural heritage, and while they may have been the best those people had to teach, explain, and describe their world and martial art (WCK), they were not an accurate reflection of reality (even then). When we see WCK as not different in kind from boxing or wrestling -- that the same "rules" apply in how we learn, need to train, how we talk about them, etc. -- then and only then can we make real progress.

With this in mind, does it make sense to talk about wrestling or boxing as being "flawless"? Then why talk about WCK that way?

Do we talk about highly skilled boxers or basketball players "knowing" boxing or basketball? Then why talk about WCK that way? (Was it Jordan's superior knowledge that made his such a great player?).

Terence

sihing

11-26-2006, 09:40 AM

In my view . . .

There is a huge difference between "learning" and developing real skill *using* any fighting method or athletic activity or sport or whatever. How difficult is it to learn to play basketball? Easy. How difficult is it to play really well? There you go. ;)

You can learn the technical elements of boxing relatively easily; becoming a skilled boxer is something else entirely. *That's the same for any ahtletic activity.*

Because *WCK is no different than any other athletic activity*, learning WCK is fairly easy too (though many grossly overcomplicate that process) but developing fighting skill is something else.

When and if we begin to see and treat WCK as we do any other athletic activity -- for example as we do boxing or wrestling, or basketball for that matter -- a great deal of the BS and the marketing will fall by the wayside.

A major reason there is so little true (fighting) skill in the WCK community (or the TCMA community) is that a great many people see (and want to believe) those arts are somehow "different" than any other athletic activity. And the trappings of the TCMAs reinforce this view. While those trapppings may (or may not) have been part of a antiquated cultural heritage, and while they may have been the best those people had to teach, explain, and describe their world and martial art (WCK), they were not an accurate reflection of reality (even then). When we see WCK as not different in kind from boxing or wrestling -- that the same "rules" apply in how we learn, need to train, how we talk about them, etc. -- then and only then can we make real progress.

With this in mind, does it make sense to talk about wrestling or boxing as being "flawless"? Then why talk about WCK that way?

Do we talk about highly skilled boxers or basketball players "knowing" boxing or basketball? Then why talk about WCK that way? (Was it Jordan's superior knowledge that made his such a great player?).

Terence

Terence,
You POV makes sense if all you are concerned with is pure application? A true fighter, while they are fighting are not thinking theory or concept. All of that was done previously while in training mode. Yeah, there are natural fighters, but take a natural untrained fighter and put him in against a trained natural fighter, and guess who wins? Adding in theory, concept, principal, structure, etc to a fighter's repetorie is a good thing as it only improves his abilities and skills. To think that high level Boxers or Baskettball players don't talk about technique and things of that nature between themselves is crazy, what do you think they do when they have team meetings with their coach's. It is something they love so why not talk about it among themselves as we do here? Did you see the TV series Contender, with Sly and Sugar Ray. Sugar Ray was giving out gems of knowledge all over the place to the fellow boxers there. lf your intention is not to teach then yes I see the validity of your agrument. But if your agruement was totally true for all of us, then this forum, or any forum covering any subject would not exsit. People like to talk about the things they enjoy with likeminded people. And yeah, things get exagerrated when people talk about things and what their true abilities with regard to whatever skill or thing they are disscussing, but that is just human nature. All we are doing here is talking about something we all like to do, practicing WC/VT. It's all theory, because your fact is my theory, and in the written form, theory is all you can express. Until I prove it for myself, it is still theory.

Also, if theory has no place or is very unimportant, then why would anyone need an instructor or coach to learn anything? With all the technology and media available today, all we would have to do is watch a tape, mimik what the guy is doing and make up our own way right from the get go. Experience is a great teacher, but someone else's experience is also a great thing because it can get you to your destination faster than if you had only your own experience to rely on. To pass along information, you need a starting point to which someone can begin. For me, when I began learn Sifu Lam's method, most of it was totally foreign to me regarding concept, principal and theory. Now after searching for every grain of information, and with guys like Ernie helping me along the way, the ideas behind the system are not so foreign. This knowledge has greatly help me progress in the system and has helped me immensely when teaching it to others. All I have to do now is bring my body up to speed with the knowledge, as I still lack the natural instinct when I express it phyically, but it is improving all the time. I know what to do, now I have to do it.:)

I don't believe that theory or methodology does not have a place in sports or fighting. Boxers have coach's in their corners steady giving out advice and telling their fighters what to do, based on what they observe and what they know of the other fighter. Of course, like I said earlier, you need plenty of other things to win when fighting, just studying it will not do the job. Timing, distance control, your ability to perceive what is happening, etc etc. All these things that are not related to how your own body reacts (the engine itself), but more or less about how you react based on the information you receive by observing your opponent (how you use that engine). In stock car racing, all the cars are supposed to be equal, so if this is true, then why does only one driver win? It is because of the way he used that car and how he drove it, that made him win or lose the race.

WC/VT does not have a problem, the people using it have the problem. Train it hard and often, learn about what it can do for you and understand what you are learning and you will have combat skills. Whether or not you can defeat Fedor, using it is another story. But comparing an average person to a world class athlete that has all day to train and loves to fight, it stupid if you ask me. If you take two untrained average people of similar weight and physical ability (even playing ground), fighter A and fighter B, have them fight, to find out that fighter B wins. If you took fighter A, trained him in WC/VT properly (not just forms and stuff), over a 6 month period who do you think would win? I think the one trained in VT would win (and you could basically replace VT with any other MA and the result would be similar), because he has something the other doesn't. If that is so then Fighter A has obtained fighting skills. Of course, if the skills are equal then the physical attributes play a much larger role. If two people of similar skill meet, then the one who is stronger or faster, or with better timing has the greater chance of winning.

James

Knifefighter

11-26-2006, 11:17 AM

To think that high level Boxers or Baskettball players don't talk about technique and things of that nature between themselves is crazy, what do you think they do when they have team meetings with their coach's.

They may talk about these things, but they are mostly related to application (i.e. how can one apply a specific strategy, tactic or technique against an opponent the next time they meet or how should have a specific strategy, tactic or technique been applied during the last session or competition.

Also, if theory has no place or is very unimportant, then why would anyone need an instructor or coach to learn anything?
To work on applications of strategy, tactics, techniques and conditioning.

Boxers have coach's in their corners steady giving out advice and telling their fighters what to do, based on what they observe and what they know of the other fighter.
This is application, not theory.

WC/VT does not have a problem, the people using it have the problem.
If any system has a problem, it is with the people teaching it.

Train it hard and often, learn about what it can do for you and understand what you are learning and you will have combat skills.
Not if the people teaching it don't know what they are doing.

Knifefighter

11-26-2006, 11:23 AM

A major reason there is so little true (fighting) skill in the WCK community (or the TCMA community) is that a great many people see (and want to believe) those arts are somehow "different" than any other athletic activity.

A perfect example of this kind of thinking:

IMO there is less effort needed to perform WC/VT than boxing persay,

sihing

11-26-2006, 11:49 AM

They may talk about these things, but they are mostly related to application (i.e. how can one apply a specific strategy, tactic or technique against an opponent the next time they meet or how should have a specific strategy, tactic or technique been applied during the last session or competition.

To work on applications of strategy, tactics, techniques and conditioning.

This is application, not theory.

If any system has a problem, it is with the people teaching it.

Not if the people teaching it don't know what they are doing.

Well although the majority of us here are not professionals, some of us do guide others on their journey through the system. This doesn't mean we have all the answers or are all knowing. People have to learn somethings for themselves. IMO, when a coach is in the corner giving advice to his fighter, he is giving him his theory on how he should apply his skills against the other guy so he can win. The application part is up to the fighter himself, just like it is for all of us.

I agree with your statement,some of the problem in VT/WC has to do with the people teaching it, but the majority of it has to do with the practitioners themselves IMO.

The people that are teaching it should be qualified to teach whatever version of the art they are teaching, otherwise they are not a real teacher then are they? They may not be expert fighters, but is it possible for lets say Mike Tyson to pass along his exact skills to other fighters by knowledge alone? I don't think so. Each of us has to make it work for ourselves, according to our own body makeup and knowledge. No MA or concept works the same for everyone, because all of us may not understand it the same or be able to apply the same due to a lack of skill actually using it. The ones that can use it are the ones that practiced it the most.

James

sihing

11-26-2006, 12:07 PM

A perfect example of this kind of thinkingOriginally Posted by sihing
IMO there is less effort needed to perform WC/VT than boxing persay,:

I have to disagree with you here Dale. IMO there are differences in efficiency between arts and styles. It's a fact that some styles and systems of fighting are based mostly on strength and speed, stamina and toughness. Now, since we are not talking about competitions right, but real world application, IMO WC/VT is very efficient in it's application, at least ideally it is (that's up to the individual, and what type of training he/she puts themselves through). This does not mean you are guaranteed to win in every fight against every fighter (so in other words, never be so c0cky and confident to think you are unhitable or invulnerable to other methods). But in my mind I'd rather learn something based on simplicity and efficiency, that works when I'm older, than something based on how strong, fast or tough and young I am. Boxing, although it is a sweet science, is a young man's activity, and is also based on how tough you are and how fast you move. It is a competition-based art, not something meant solely for real fights in real situations. There are no rules on the street, there are no ref's either or doctors standing by ringside. In a real fight, any and all attacks are possible and feasible, this is not so in the boxing world. Of course, boxers can learn just like anyone else, how to deal with street fights as well, as we are all equal in that capacity, so I am not putting myself on a pedestal. It is just my perception that VT/WC is more street applicable than a sport art is, if that is the emphasizes in training. Remember, most of us do what we are training because we love the activity itself, not necessarily for fighting reasons alone.

James

t_niehoff

11-26-2006, 04:10 PM

Terence,
You POV makes sense if all you are concerned with is pure application? SNIP

You don't need to qualify it with "pure", you can say I'm just interested in application -- because WCK really only exists in application (in the doing).

Also, if theory has no place or is very unimportant, then why would anyone need an instructor or coach to learn anything? SNIP

In my view, the role of "teacher" (like theory) is grossly over-rated in the martial arts. Do we need a teacher to learn boxing or wrestling or basketball? Sure, someone has to teach us the techniques, the movements, etc. Beyond that, however, our "teachers" play a very limted role. How much theory do we need to box or wrestle or play basketball? Not a whole hell of a lot. Who taught Jordan how to play basketball? Does it matter? If you don't need to for boxing or wrestling or basketball, what makes you think you need it for WCK?

Now if I am trying to sell you WCK, will I make much money telling you that your teacher really isn't that important, that lineage isn't important, that all the chinese trappings are generally counter-productive, that there are no secrets, that it's not about theory or information, etc. and that the only way to develop any real skill is by getting in the gym/kwoon and sparring (trying to use your WCK techniques) against quality opposition? How many students do you think I'll get? How much will they pay me? LOL!

I don't believe that theory or methodology does not have a place in sports or fighting. Boxers have coach's in their corners steady giving out advice and telling their fighters what to do, based on what they observe and what they know of the other fighter.

Sure theory has a place; but a very limted one. For the most part, it is to get beginners into the game. What we need is experience playing the game, whatever it is. In WCK, that means fighting. By fighting, we develop *judgment* (when to do what, why to do it, an instant appreciation for the situation, the possibilities, etc.). Beginners don't have judgment so they get some simple theory to give them some idea of how to play. But their playing will replace their theory with experience. Then they are doing what they do not because someone told them to but because they have done it successfully many (perhaps thousands of) times before. A coach can help someone who is doing it (playing the game) find their way (their experience) by pointing out things. But someone who hasn't done it themselves (i.e., the sifu's of this world) won't help you with that.

Of course, like I said earlier, you need plenty of other things to win when fighting, just studying it will not do the job. Timing, distance control, your ability to perceive what is happening, etc etc. All these things that are not related to how your own body reacts (the engine itself), but more or less about how you react based on the information you receive by observing your opponent (how you use that engine). In stock car racing, all the cars are supposed to be equal, so if this is true, then why does only one driver win? It is because of the way he used that car and how he drove it, that made him win or lose the race.

Often we overthink and overanalyze these things (the intellectualization of MAs). Can you become a skilled wrestler by not wrestling, a skilled boxer by not boxing, a skilled swimmer by not swimming, a skilled basketball player by not playing basketball, etc.? No. Your skill will be directly related to how much quality time you've spent doing the athletic activity itself (wrestling, boxing, swimming, etc.). All those things will fall into place *if* and *only if* we spend the quality time playing the game.

WC/VT does not have a problem, the people using it have the problem. Train it hard and often, learn about what it can do for you and understand what you are learning and you will have combat skills. Whether or not you can defeat Fedor, using it is another story. But comparing an average person to a world class athlete that has all day to train and loves to fight, it stupid if you ask me. If you take two untrained average people of similar weight and physical ability (even playing ground), fighter A and fighter B, have them fight, to find out that fighter B wins. If you took fighter A, trained him in WC/VT properly (not just forms and stuff), over a 6 month period who do you think would win? I think the one trained in VT would win (and you could basically replace VT with any other MA and the result would be similar), because he has something the other doesn't. If that is so then Fighter A has obtained fighting skills. Of course, if the skills are equal then the physical attributes play a much larger role. If two people of similar skill meet, then the one who is stronger or faster, or with better timing has the greater chance of winning.

James

In my view, WCK does have a problem -- and a big problem. The classical WCK training model (the forms and drills) is out of touch with reality. That method may be typical for the TCMAs and standard for their time/culture, but it is out-of-date by today's standards (and wasn't that good to begin with). So it's not a case of "train hard and often", since even if someone follows that advice, typical WCK training won't take them far (a lot of poor training won't get good results). If you want "real world" results, you must train "realistically".

As I said, it is simple: (setting aside talent) your skill as a wrestler or boxer or as a practitioner of any martial art is directly related to the amount of time you've spent in quality sparring. The more you spar, and with quality opposition, the better you get. Little to no quality sparring means little to no real skill. Stop sparring and your skill diminishes. This is true for low-level and true for world-class. What separates those levels (besides talent) is how much time they've spent in quality sparring. (Talent will dictate how much time each person needs to spend doing that; you and I will differ).

Terence

sihing

11-26-2006, 06:46 PM

You don't need to qualify it with "pure", you can say I'm just interested in application -- because WCK really only exists in application (in the doing).

In my view, the role of "teacher" (like theory) is grossly over-rated in the martial arts. Do we need a teacher to learn boxing or wrestling or basketball? Sure, someone has to teach us the techniques, the movements, etc. Beyond that, however, our "teachers" play a very limted role. How much theory do we need to box or wrestle or play basketball? Not a whole hell of a lot. Who taught Jordan how to play basketball? Does it matter? If you don't need to for boxing or wrestling or basketball, what makes you think you need it for WCK?

Now if I am trying to sell you WCK, will I make much money telling you that your teacher really isn't that important, that lineage isn't important, that all the chinese trappings are generally counter-productive, that there are no secrets, that it's not about theory or information, etc. and that the only way to develop any real skill is by getting in the gym/kwoon and sparring (trying to use your WCK techniques) against quality opposition? How many students do you think I'll get? How much will they pay me? LOL!

Sure theory has a place; but a very limted one. For the most part, it is to get beginners into the game. What we need is experience playing the game, whatever it is. In WCK, that means fighting. By fighting, we develop *judgment* (when to do what, why to do it, an instant appreciation for the situation, the possibilities, etc.). Beginners don't have judgment so they get some simple theory to give them some idea of how to play. But their playing will replace their theory with experience. Then they are doing what they do not because someone told them to but because they have done it successfully many (perhaps thousands of) times before. A coach can help someone who is doing it (playing the game) find their way (their experience) by pointing out things. But someone who hasn't done it themselves (i.e., the sifu's of this world) won't help you with that.

Often we overthink and overanalyze these things (the intellectualization of MAs). Can you become a skilled wrestler by not wrestling, a skilled boxer by not boxing, a skilled swimmer by not swimming, a skilled basketball player by not playing basketball, etc.? No. Your skill will be directly related to how much quality time you've spent doing the athletic activity itself (wrestling, boxing, swimming, etc.). All those things will fall into place *if* and *only if* we spend the quality time playing the game.

In my view, WCK does have a problem -- and a big problem. The classical WCK training model (the forms and drills) is out of touch with reality. That method may be typical for the TCMAs and standard for their time/culture, but it is out-of-date by today's standards (and wasn't that good to begin with). So it's not a case of "train hard and often", since even if someone follows that advice, typical WCK training won't take them far (a lot of poor training won't get good results). If you want "real world" results, you must train "realistically".

As I said, it is simple: (setting aside talent) your skill as a wrestler or boxer or as a practitioner of any martial art is directly related to the amount of time you've spent in quality sparring. The more you spar, and with quality opposition, the better you get. Little to no quality sparring means little to no real skill. Stop sparring and your skill diminishes. This is true for low-level and true for world-class. What separates those levels (besides talent) is how much time they've spent in quality sparring. (Talent will dictate how much time each person needs to spend doing that; you and I will differ).

Terence

Fighting is important in training. Using what you learn in a realistic fashion is the only true way to improve, that is once the skills(your engine) are within you and the knowledge of how to use those skills(how to use that engine) is high. To me this is acheived more wisely by following in the footsteps of someone else that has been there before us. Then and only then will you have high level fighting ability. That is if your interest is in that area. For you Terence, that is where it is at, Application right. Application is important to me also, as I'm sure that I wouldn't continue in this art if I didn't think it worked. We all have different interest in this thing we call Wing Chun. What you do with it is up to all of us as individuals, as only we can truly can become effective fighters, Wing Chun won't do it for us, we have to do it for ourselves. If all you do is forms and drills your fighting effectiveness will be low, but if you progress to high intensity activities like sparring and expressing your WC against other stylists, then yes you will improve immensely, guaranteed. Take what you want out of it, and be realistic about it with yourself and others and you shouldn't have problems while here on the forum or out there in the real world.

James

t_niehoff

11-27-2006, 07:53 AM

Fighting is important in training. Using what you learn in a realistic fashion is the only true way to improve, that is once the skills(your engine) are within you and the knowledge of how to use those skills(how to use that engine) is high.

James, you've grown much since you've begun training with Ernie. :)

Just to nitpick, what would you say to someone that said "wrestling is important in training (to wrestle)"? Soemthing like "Duh?" LOL! The fun part of wrestling or boxing is the actual wrestling or boxing itself -- getting on to the mat or in the ring against an able opponent. People take those athletic (combative) activities up to actually *do* them, to play the game, to fight. Contrast that to WCK.

To me this is acheived more wisely by following in the footsteps of someone else that has been there before us. Then and only then will you have high level fighting ability.

Who has been there before us? How do we know? Stories? So-and-so is a great master who has never fought? How good could a boxer be or a BJJ fighter be who never spent loads of time actually sparring other good fighters?

I agree with you, however, about using the genuine *experience* of others. But we don't need to limit it to WCK practitioners; we can see what genuine fighters need to do in terms of training to develop genuine fighting skills.

That is if your interest is in that area. For you Terence, that is where it is at, Application right. Application is important to me also, as I'm sure that I wouldn't continue in this art if I didn't think it worked. We all have different interest in this thing we call Wing Chun.

Do we say such things about other athletic activities? "Actually playing tennis may be important for you, Terence, but others have different interests in their tennis." ;)

What you do with it is up to all of us as individuals, as only we can truly can become effective fighters, Wing Chun won't do it for us, we have to do it for ourselves. If all you do is forms and drills your fighting effectiveness will be low, but if you progress to high intensity activities like sparring and expressing your WC against other stylists, then yes you will improve immensely, guaranteed. Take what you want out of it, and be realistic about it with yourself and others and you shouldn't have problems while here on the forum or out there in the real world.

James

As I said before, if we begin to treat WCK as we do any other athletic activity, all the BS will fall by the wayside. The problem is, however, that it is precisely the BS that attracts so many to WCK in the first place.

Terence

Knifefighter

11-27-2006, 08:09 AM

IMO there are differences in efficiency between arts and styles. It's a fact that some styles and systems of fighting are based mostly on strength and speed, stamina and toughness. Now, since we are not talking about competitions right, but real world application, IMO
This is complete fantasy world thinking. In addition to any skill one might possess, real world fights take speed, stamina, strength, power and, especially, toughness. Only if you are incredibly lucky will you be in a real world confrontation that does not require these things.

Here's a good example of how tough real world fighting is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG8ew95_7K0&eurl=

Notice the thinner guy in black pulling a blade. Even with his knife, he was unable to put the bigger guys down... and the big guys took a lot of damage in the process.

LOL @ being an old guy without any attributes other than WC in a situation like that... on either side of the battle.

Instructors who tell their students that they can fight for real without the above attributes playing a significant roll are unqualified to be teaching.

BThere are no rules on the street, there are no ref's either or doctors standing by ringside. In a real fight, any and all attacks are possible and feasible, this is not so in the boxing world.
And that is exactly why it is even more important to interweave speed, stamina, strength, power and toughness into one's training if one's goal is defending him or herself in the real world.

t_niehoff

11-27-2006, 09:03 AM

Dale is pointing out the difference between starting with the fight and preparing for what that will really be like versus the theoretical fantasy view of how things should work ("let me sell you the fantasy").

Fighting, in the ring or street, is one of (if not *the*) most intense, violent, strenuous, demanding of athletic activies. Not only just in the exertion necessary to move at 100% for however long it takes, but to do it while someone is trying to take your head off, resist your every movment, and do whatever they can to overcome you. And the better the opponent's skill and attributes, the more difficult it will be! How well anyone can play their game (whatever their method is) in that environment will depend primarily on their level of conditioning (how well their body is adapted to those conditions). And those conditions don't change if you are smaller or if you are older or if you are a woman.

While there are supplementary training measures, a huge part of developing that conditioning is by playing your game in that environment, i.e., sparring. Your body will become accustomed to dealing with that environment. Your training should be much more demanding than any "fight" you will ever have. A good rule of thumb is that your level of skill (in technique) will only rise to whatever your level of conditioning.

WCK is not different than boxing or wrestling or BJJ. A good, well-conditioned, skilled boxer or wrestler or BJJ fighter can defeat someone larger and stronger.

Terence

reneritchie

11-27-2006, 09:26 AM

How well anyone can play their game (whatever their method is) in that environment will depend primarily on their level of conditioning (how well their body is adapted to those conditions).

Mental as well. Many physically gifted and well trained people can break down mentally as well and lose to someone not as gifted or trained.

In terms of coaching, it obviously has a place in any endeavor, and a good coach can save a ton of time due to previous experience and the ability to (from perspective) spot and correct flaws.

In terms of teaching, different students have different needs. Some will need to be shown, some explained, some led, some de- and re-constructed, and some will require extensive, multi-faceted approaches to take in and realize the information.

In terms of fighting, many of the old WCK generation fought a lot and fought early in their training. That probably brought a level of realism to their training--the knowledge they'd be using it soon rather than later; perhaps even right away. The better fighters earned local reputations and attracted more students, who were often like-minded.

(And, of course, people with no interest in fighting can train for fun, or socialization, or cultural appreciation as well, just like people swim or play golf or shoot hoops or whatever, they just shouldn't get drunk and mouth off that their Sifu could kill Fedor in a fight anymore than their doubles partner could beat Woods if only he wanted to join the PGA...)

sihing

11-27-2006, 10:18 AM

This is complete fantasy world thinking. In addition to any skill one might possess, real world fights take speed, stamina, strength, power and, especially, toughness. Only if you are incredibly lucky will you be in a real world confrontation that does not require these things.

Here's a good example of how tough real world fighting is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG8ew95_7K0&eurl=

Notice the thinner guy in black pulling a blade. Even with his knife, he was unable to put the bigger guys down... and the big guys took a lot of damage in the process.

LOL @ being an old guy without any attributes other than WC in a situation like that... on either side of the battle.

Instructors who tell their students that they can fight for real without the above attributes playing a significant roll are unqualified to be teaching.

And that is exactly why it is even more important to interweave speed, stamina, strength, power and toughness into one's training if one's goal is defending him or herself in the real world.

Just because one is old, and not active in his conditioning does not necessarily mean they are useless. I'm not talking about someone that trains for years and years, builds up the skills and proves it then decides enough is enough and becomes a couch potatoe. Of course you have to do something to maintain the skills, I've never recommended that. What I have said is that it is easier to maintain a skill level (especially if the understanding of that skill is very well developed), than it was to obtain or get that skill. My reasoning is this, simple put, with wisdom one becomes smarter with whatever skill they are trying to maintain and develop. Have you ever heard the story of the guy that was in some sort of prison camp, and everyday he would play a round of golf in his mind. He was in that camp for years and years but when he got out he played a round of golf and it wasn't that bad of a round from what he said. The thing here is that the mind cannot distinguish between something vividly imagined and something that really happened. No, so there is no misunderstanding, I am NOT recommending people to just sit around and think about their training. The actual physical work still has to be put in to get the skills in the first place, but once you have them it is easier to maintain them. To improve them guess what you have to do? Go back to the training regemend that got you your level of skills in the first place. To me it's pretty simple.

Now regarding weapons fighting, it doesn't matter who you are or what level of skill you have, if you have no weapon to use against your opponent, your in trouble.

Also I agree that the attributes of speed, strength, stamina etc.. are all important things in a fight, but so is skill in movement, skill in execution, skill in awareness, skill in structure, as so on. If conditioning was the only factor, then the best athletes (Olympic champions, track and field guys) would be the best fighters, without the fighting behind them? I don't think this is so. It is a combination of the two. Especially for competitions, since the whole idea is competiting against other skilled opponents, you need to be in shape. IMO George ST Pierre beat Hugs (both great athletes in great shape) simple because he had high level SKILLS in more areas than Hughs. It was not only based on his athletism but on how well he used his tools. But to be totally honest, I think BJ Penn is better than the both of them, because he is so natural as a fighter, but lacks the conditioning to stay on top in the competiton world. He had Hughs beat in that last fight, and gave St Pierre a beating (just look at his face) in that fight. If he was just in better shape he would have been on top IMO.

In the real world, IMO you need alot more than fast hands and feet to surive, you need awareness, guts, and the ability to know when not to fight and when it is justified.

Gotta run, break's over...

James

Knifefighter

11-27-2006, 11:21 AM

The thing here is that the mind cannot distinguish between something vividly imagined and something that really happened.

While visualizations techniques can play a supplementary role in training, they are secondary to training by far. The mind may not be able to tell the difference between reality and imagination, but the neuromuscular connections between the brain and the muscles definitely can... not to mention the loss of conditioning that occurs if one doesn't continue to train hard

If one wants to maintain ability after already developing the basic fighting skills, he would probably be better served by training in supplemental strength, power and anaerobic endurance work than by doing light MA training.

Wayfaring

11-27-2006, 12:00 PM

While there are supplementary training measures, a huge part of developing that conditioning is by playing your game in that environment, i.e., sparring. Your body will become accustomed to dealing with that environment. Your training should be much more demanding than any "fight" you will ever have. A good rule of thumb is that your level of skill (in technique) will only rise to whatever your level of conditioning.

WCK is not different than boxing or wrestling or BJJ. A good, well-conditioned, skilled boxer or wrestler or BJJ fighter can defeat someone larger and stronger.
Terence

I agree on the conditioning point. One example of training common in ring arts missing in many WCK schools is ring timers. Bag work to timers, sparring to timers, etc. A basic measurement is going 3 x 5 minute unrestricted sparring rounds. Until conditioning is at that basic level, most won't have the attributes necessary for fighting.

One thing I like about the philosophy of wrestling is you hear things like Dan Gable's comment "conditioning is your best hold". I don't like that instead of moving toward that philosophy WC practitioners treat it like all you need is being "most efficient". You can be "most efficient" and get smoked by someone with good timing and attributes.

I do like WC "seeking" most efficient. If you never think about that, you'll never achieve that. I've seen far too many good grapplers who have some seriously stinky striking skills. They should shut up and work on their stand-up instead of criticizing WC people. They could use some centerline concept training instead of wild haymakers leading with your face or little slaps to set up changing levels and a takedown, or the "break-dance" bob shuffle.

A lot of time here criticism of WC's propensity for waxing philosophical and slacking off the aliveness training comes across as WC "hating". If people don't like WC, fine - go train with TeamQuest or whatever local pile of cr@p NHB wannabe local show clubs there are. Or find a good one somewhere with better talent.

If you do like WC, work with the concepts you've learned and see what holds up under aliveness and what needs to be adapted.

t_niehoff

11-27-2006, 02:46 PM

I agree on the conditioning point. One example of training common in ring arts missing in many WCK schools is ring timers. Bag work to timers, sparring to timers, etc. A basic measurement is going 3 x 5 minute unrestricted sparring rounds. Until conditioning is at that basic level, most won't have the attributes necessary for fighting.

One thing I like about the philosophy of wrestling is you hear things like Dan Gable's comment "conditioning is your best hold". I don't like that instead of moving toward that philosophy WC practitioners treat it like all you need is being "most efficient". You can be "most efficient" and get smoked by someone with good timing and attributes.

In my view, all the talk about being "efficient" and "effective" is just BS. And it has more to do with how people "define" the terms (typically using a tautology) than anything else. Just worry about making what you do work (in fighting) -- while fighting -- and the rest will take care of itself. As you do it more, you will become more efficient at doing it. The whole X technique (or style X) is more effective/efficient than technique Y (or style Y) is meaningless dribble from people who don't play the game or fight. What basketball player laments over whether he is being more efficient in how he dribbles than someone else? LOL!

I do like WC "seeking" most efficient. If you never think about that, you'll never achieve that. I've seen far too many good grapplers who have some seriously stinky striking skills. They should shut up and work on their stand-up instead of criticizing WC people. They could use some centerline concept training instead of wild haymakers leading with your face or little slaps to set up changing levels and a takedown, or the "break-dance" bob shuffle.

Efficiency and effectiveness can only be found in playing the game (fighting). You don't need to seek them, as they are the natural by-products of *doing*, and trying to do better. In fact, we can't seek them because we do not know them. For example, how the hell does someone know what works best (most effective) for them except by seeing what works best for them? On the drawing board? In theory?

A lot of time here criticism of WC's propensity for waxing philosophical and slacking off the aliveness training comes across as WC "hating". If people don't like WC, fine - go train with TeamQuest or whatever local pile of cr@p NHB wannabe local show clubs there are. Or find a good one somewhere with better talent.

If you do like WC, work with the concepts you've learned and see what holds up under aliveness and what needs to be adapted.

It's funny that some people see criticism as "hate", while others see it as gold. You only get out of boxing, out of wrestling, out of BJJ, out of WCK what you put into it. Take someone interested in boxing and "train" (and I use the word loosely) him in boxing the way most WCK people train, and he'll be a out-of-shape, lousy boxer with delusions of granduer. Take someone interested in WCK, and train him in WCK like most boxers train, and he'll get somewhere.

Terence

stricker

11-27-2006, 03:39 PM

i hit pause on another browser window and had to share the still with you lot!

perfect bong sao LOL :D

stricker

11-27-2006, 04:02 PM

oops ****ed up the attachment...

Wayfaring

11-27-2006, 09:33 PM

What basketball player laments over whether he is being more efficient in how he dribbles than someone else? LOL!
You don't think Allen Iverson has drilled ball handling more than most on the planet? And has drilled how to move to his target with feints and greater efficiency than opponent?

It's funny that some people see criticism as "hate", while others see it as gold. You only get out of boxing, out of wrestling, out of BJJ, out of WCK what you put into it. Take someone interested in boxing and "train" (and I use the word loosely) him in boxing the way most WCK people train, and he'll be a out-of-shape, lousy boxer with delusions of granduer. Take someone interested in WCK, and train him in WCK like most boxers train, and he'll get somewhere.
Terence
I'm cool with the criticism - I see the value in it. I agree you get out what you put in and agree on the approach to train WCK like boxers to get somewhere.

I don't agree with the more esoteric statements like "just fight, and you'll find the most efficient way". Sometimes I train at an old pro boxer's gym. He's more about showing you the drills to make you better at fighting than throwing you in the ring with sparring partners only. I think if you just fight only or just spar only you get into 1-dimensional habits that get hard to break. I say do the drills to advance your game, then apply them in a live environment to solidify the learning.

I like the conditioning, technique drills, then live training model. And if you talk about the principles you're trying to achieve in techniques and live training, all the better.

sihing

11-28-2006, 05:26 AM

Terence's comments above regarding the basketball player and dribbling efficiently. IMO they do think about it, the question is when do they think about it. When a bplayer dribbles, does he do so with the ball coming up to his head to dribble? No, he keeps it low to the ground so that he can change position with the ball very quickly. The more time the ball is in the air the less ability there is to change its position. To me this is efficiency in dribbling, lol. Now, does the pro player think about all this while playing in a pro game? Nope. He's done enough dribbling drills in practice. Opps, there's that word again, Practice. Not playing but practice. What's really interesting is when the B players come out to play and what's the first thing they do? Warm up, lol. How do they warm up? By practicing the same movements they are going to be going through while playing the game, by themselves, almost like forms practice to me. Sort of like when the boxer gets ready for a fight in the change room. Most don't just sit there in a zen like lotus position and contemplate life. They are movin around, shadow boxing and hittin the pads. Why do this? Why not just get up, go out and fight? Maybe because they are imagining the outcome in their brains, visualizing what the outcome will be, and by moving around shadow boxing, they are playing out the scenario in their minds. Sort of like forms practice. But the key here is this, SHADOW BOXING, VISUALIZATION, FORMS, HITTING THE PADS, DRIBBLING EFFICIENTLY/CORRECTLY, is all part of the whole, not the whole. If one thinks this is the whole, then I agree with Terence, you will not be at your highest effectiveness. But for me, this is not the norm and the typical/traditional training model for WC/VT. Just fighting, to improve fighting, is part of the whole, not the whole. It's impossible to maintain an all fighting no drilling type of training regimen. If your schedule consists of 3 2 hr classes per week, and all you do is spar hard every class, then you will burnout and succumb to injury, guaranteed. What happens then? You are unable to train, and without consistent training you lose skill and effectiveness. Moderation is the key. Yes putting your skills to the test in sparring is important and it is the ultimate test, but it is not everything in fighting. Good technique, application of the concept behind what you are doing and adherence to the principal (as most good fighting arts have these things behind them), is critical IMO. These things are LEARNED IN DRILLING, and applied in sparring, not the other way around.

James

t_niehoff

11-28-2006, 07:47 AM

Basketball players do lots of drills -- which involve handling the ball *as they will in actual play* (what some call "alive" drills). They've developed these drills by seeing the need for them *from actual play*. By practicing/training in a way that closely matches game play (the principle of specificity in motor skill development), they develop skill in handling the ball which transfers into game. Contrast this with WCK "practice". To do that contrast, however, you need to have spent some significant time playing the game (fighting). Otherwise, it is conjecture.

With that skill comes efficiency and effectiveness. Why? Because if they handled the ball improperly or poorly, it would get taken away from them, they would lose control of the ball, etc. They're not focused on the question of efficiency or effectiveness, they are focused on getting the ball down the court and keeping it away from the opposing players. It's the same for any open-skill, athletic activity. That's why I said that in my view instead of concerning ourselves with being "most efficient and most effective" -- which are just buzz-phrases that sound good but are really empty -- we should just concern ourselves with just getting the job done.

Basketball players want to play basketball, boxers want to box, wreslters want to grapple, etc. That's the fun part (the competition). Of course, someone has to teach them the fundamentals of the game. Sure, it helps to drill the fundamentals. It also helps to have a good coach. No one is saying this doesn't need to be done -- it's not a case of "just get out on the court and play" (though, that works). But playing (well) is the goal. Avoiding playing, putting off play as long as possible, never playing, etc. won't produce good basketball players, or good boxers.

James, you seem to maintain that "fighting, to improve fighting, is part of the whole, not the whole". But I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. Fighting is the game. It is the whole enchilada. We're not playing basketball unless we're actually out on the court playing basketball; we're not *doing* WCK unless we're fighting with WCK; we're not boxing unless we are sparring in the ring. Drills in all those activities can (depending on the drill) be useful and can help us develop skills or conditioning, but drills are not the activity itself (they are - at best - a reflection of a piece of the game). It is primarily from doing the activity (sparring or playing the game) that informs everything else we do. For example, our drills are only useful if they help us play the game (if they don't, how can they be useful?). How do we know whether they are useful or not if we don't play? The core of all athletic activities is playing the game, and everything else revolves around that.

The trouble with drills is that they isolate certain things (so we can focus on them), but those things need to be integrated into our game to be functional. This often involves modifying those elements that we have drilled. You can't get that integration or that modification without playing the game. So we can't develop as players without both drills and playing the game. And in terms of WCK, the classical drills (like chi sao) aren't by any means functional drills (in that they develop functional fighting skills), they are simply teaching tools (so we can develop facility with the movement, tactic, etc.). So you can do them forever, and never develop fighting skill to any significant degree.

As I said before, a person's skill level (in BJJ, wrestling, boxing, WCK, etc.) will correspond directly to how much time they've spent in quality sparring -- not in how much time they've spent doing forms or drills (especially if those drills don't involve genuinely resisting opponents). I'm not saying that drills aren't important or aren't useful. They are. All sports and athletic activities recognize this. But skill in playing the game (as a whole) comes with experience playing the game.

Terence

Knifefighter

11-28-2006, 09:21 AM

What's really interesting is when the B players come out to play and what's the first thing they do? Warm up, lol. How do they warm up? By practicing the same movements they are going to be going through while playing the game, by themselves, almost like forms practice to me. Sort of like when the boxer gets ready for a fight in the change room. Most don't just sit there in a zen like lotus position and contemplate life. They are movin around, shadow boxing and hittin the pads. Why do this? Why not just get up, go out and fight?

They are doing this to warm up for the event. Warming up should be specific to the activity and allows the athlete to be quicker, stronger, more flexible, and have more endurance once he begins competing.

Knifefighter

11-28-2006, 09:25 AM

Drills in all those activities can (depending on the drill) be useful and can help us develop skills or conditioning, but drills are not the activity itself (they are - at best - a reflection of a piece of the game). It is primarily from doing the activity (sparring or playing the game) that informs everything else we do.

Exactly... drills should come specifically from the activity itself. Any new drills that are introduced should be a direct result of what happens as a result of performing the activity and observing the results.

sihing

11-28-2006, 10:14 AM

Exactly... drills should come specifically from the activity itself. Any new drills that are introduced should be a direct result of what happens as a result of performing the activity and observing the results.

Sort of like what Wong Shun Leung did. He learned the theory/principal/concept. drilled it, then went out and tested it, and then came back to adapt the training. That to me this is a good example to follow. Whether or not his opponents were skilled or not, is not going to be known to anyone here.

I agree with you Terence in your statement " The trouble with drills is that they isolate certain things (so we can focus on them), but those things need to be integrated into our game to be functional". This is something I learned a bit while in LA but have come to learn more about it since that trip. If something is not quite right, isolate the thing in a drill and then reincorporate it back under real pressure. If the real pressure is not there, your true skill will not be ultimately realised. So I think we all agree on that.

My interpretation though, is that some think that all you need to do is fight to improve fighting skills. Skills and application are different in my mind. To me fighting skill is the end result we are looking to express. To gain this skill and improve upon it, you have to do other things besides actually fighting itself. My speed in movement will not increase by actually fighting more, but only by training and isolating that attribute will I see an increase in speed. You can take any example and do the same. Once the attribute is raised to a higher level, you must integrate in the fighting/sparring that you express, while under real pressure.

When it comes to fighting with "WCK", I actually don't believe that is possible. To me WC/Vt is a training system, something that trains the body, mind and spirit in a particular way. How you use that system is up to you, but for me I am not bound by it. Just because I've exclusively trained in VT for over 18yrs, does not mean I cannot use a boxers jab, or a Thai kick in application. Yeah, my skill with those movements may not be expert level, but I can still perform the movement, and use it as I please. WC/VT is only a training tool or vehicle I use to train the body, so it reacts a certain way mechanically. Without proper execution, utilzing the ideas of timing, perseption and distance control, I will lose in a fight, plain and simple.

Back to work...Good conversation though, lots of learning going on I hope.

James

sihing

11-28-2006, 10:19 AM

They are doing this to warm up for the event. Warming up should be specific to the activity and allows the athlete to be quicker, stronger, more flexible, and have more endurance once he begins competing.

Yes, very true. But what about the practice session before the game, why practice jump shots when playing would be much better? Why do pro golfers (Tiger Woods) go out to the practice greens for hours before they play there round? Why not just play?

The more times you perform the movement, the better that movement will come out when the pressure is on. Again sounds like isolation training (forms practice) to me.

What happens when there is no one around to fight with? Then what, how does one improve?

James

Knifefighter

11-28-2006, 10:33 AM

Yes, very true. But what about the practice session before the game, why practice jump shots when playing would be much better? Why do pro golfers (Tiger Woods) go out to the practice greens for hours before they play there round? Why not just play?

The more times you perform the movement, the better that movement will come out when the pressure is on. Again sounds like isolation training (forms practice) to me.
Forms training would be like practicing the jump shot or hitting the golf ball without using the ball. While a basketball player or golfer might take a few practice shots or swings without the ball, this is a miniscule part of their practice. The ball (or in the case of CQC, the opponent) is integral to the practice.

What happens when there is no one around to fight with? Then what, how does one improve?
One doesn't... at least not much anyway.

Wayfaring

11-28-2006, 10:44 AM

Exactly... drills should come specifically from the activity itself. Any new drills that are introduced should be a direct result of what happens as a result of performing the activity and observing the results.

Agreed. The problem I see with some drills are:

1) They don't model a technique or attribute really necessary in a fighting environment.

2) They are too restricted to have the aliveness necessary to use in a fighting environment, or the drill doesn't scale to introduce aliveness over the duration.

t_niehoff

11-28-2006, 11:12 AM

Sort of like what Wong Shun Leung did. He learned the theory/principal/concept. drilled it, then went out and tested it, and then came back to adapt the training. That to me this is a good example to follow. Whether or not his opponents were skilled or not, is not going to be known to anyone here.

You can look at any athlete and see what they do. Theory/concept/principle is BS. Forget it. Thinking that way won't help you. WCK is not a "conceptually-based martial art," this comes from people who don't play the game. Instead look at WCK like boxing or BJJ or wrestling -- do boxers or wreslters talk about "first learn the concept, test the concept, blah, blah, blah"? WCK is not different in kind than boxing or wrestling.

I agree with you Terence in your statement " The trouble with drills is that they isolate certain things (so we can focus on them), but those things need to be integrated into our game to be functional". This is something I learned a bit while in LA but have come to learn more about it since that trip. If something is not quite right, isolate the thing in a drill and then reincorporate it back under real pressure. If the real pressure is not there, your true skill will not be ultimately realised. So I think we all agree on that.

You can only determine the value of a drill by sparring, by seeing if it produces results in your being better able to fight with your WCK (just because you drill a movement and can do it more easily does not make it an effective fighting skill: it may not work in fighting). And, there is a lot to fighting/sparring that you just cannot get from drills.

My interpretation though, is that some think that all you need to do is fight to improve fighting skills. Skills and application are different in my mind. To me fighting skill is the end result we are looking to express. To gain this skill and improve upon it, you have to do other things besides actually fighting itself. My speed in movement will not increase by actually fighting more, but only by training and isolating that attribute will I see an increase in speed. You can take any example and do the same. Once the attribute is raised to a higher level, you must integrate in the fighting/sparring that you express, while under real pressure.

This is all theory. Our motto: If it's theory, it's crap. :) You will gain in every way by sparring, in technique, in attributes, in conditioning, etc. If you spend the time, you'll see I'm right. I'm not telling you this from theory but from experience. We need drills because certain things do not occur frequently enough in sparring, for example, to get sufficient practice. Drills can let us focus on those things. Also drills can help us fill holes in our skills (which you see in sparring). Drills are secondary to sparring. But most of your fighting skills, attributes, conditioning, etc. will come from the sparring.

Skill is defined in motor skill science as the ability to bring about a desired result with maximum frequency and minimum time and/or energy (effort). If you think about that, you'll see how attributes (and efficiency and effectiveness) are built into the definition.

When it comes to fighting with "WCK", I actually don't believe that is possible. To me WC/Vt is a training system, something that trains the body, mind and spirit in a particular way. How you use that system is up to you, but for me I am not bound by it. Just because I've exclusively trained in VT for over 18yrs, does not mean I cannot use a boxers jab, or a Thai kick in application. Yeah, my skill with those movements may not be expert level, but I can still perform the movement, and use it as I please. WC/VT is only a training tool or vehicle I use to train the body, so it reacts a certain way mechanically. Without proper execution, utilzing the ideas of timing, perseption and distance control, I will lose in a fight, plain and simple.

Back to work...Good conversation though, lots of learning going on I hope.

James

It is possible to fight with WCK, just as it is possible to fight with boxing or BJJ or wrestling -- using your method's tools successfully is fighting with that method. If you are a BJJ fighter and you use a thai kick, is that BJJ? In my view, no, since the thai kick is not part of the approach BJJ takes to fighting. Sure you can do it, but don't call it BJJ. Call it what it is.

Each martial art has an approach it takes to fighting and techniques to implement that approach. A fighter's skill is determined by how well they can do that. To train to move one way in practice and then do something else in fighting is not evidence of good training, and is doomed to fail.

Terence