YouTube Clips [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

leejunfan

02-15-2007, 02:37 PM

t_niehoff------No disrespect intended -- but.......

I like a lot of what Matt says in regards to alive training and so on. He's pretty dead on in so many ways.... but...... dead training patterns in the beginning are important as well. Like learning the ABC's we all need a firm grasp on the basics.

The problem I see is that too many schools ONLY do dead pattern training.... and that is very bad.

Again.....No disrespect intended -- But wasn't it Matt who also said traps don't work? I'm not disagreeing with HIS experiences with trapping but trapping trained for fighting works in fighting....plain and simple.

Anyway....... good stuff all around for both sets of video's. Thanks guys.

ps: To see my views on sparring take a look at a quote from a post I did just today "I don't disallow them to spar because of level. To me...... we spar to get an understanding of the reality and speed of combat. We start off VERY VERY light.... and as skill grows so does the intensity of the sparring. Some poeple jump to conclusions that when we say "spar" we mean just strap on gear and GO!.... nothing could be further from the truth.

Knifefighter

02-15-2007, 02:44 PM

But wasn't it Matt who also said traps don't work? I'm not disagreeing with HIS experiences with trapping but trapping trained for fighting works in fighting....plain and simple.

Can you post a link or two to clips of fighting where trapping is being used?

Knifefighter

02-15-2007, 02:53 PM

No disrespect intended --

watch the first few minutes of this clip (the whole thing won't hurt either), where Matt Thornton has the "traditional" guys show their techniques and then they go on to show why these things won't really work as they "practice" them

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7892384548000318708

That was a great clip. Tricked me for a minute.

During the first part, I thought they were doing that as if they were trying to demonstrate that those were useful and alive techniques.

I couldn't believe Matt and his guys would be thinking that.

t_niehoff

02-15-2007, 03:07 PM

I've heard the argument that "dead training" is useful in the beginning -- Thornton has offered a good refutation to that before (his "I" method, which is nothing new but just his spin on motor skill development). Personally, I don't like the terms "alive" and "dead" because they are vague (everyone tells you they train alive). I prefer "realistic" -- how closely does your training match or correspond to what you are training to do, i.e., use those things in fighting (the specificity principle in psycho-motor training), the closer the match, the more effective the training (conversely, the less they correspond, the less effective the training).

The problem I have with most WCK demos is they are unrealistic -- it just won't work like that in fighting. This leaves me wondering: do the people doing the demo realize this? If so, then why are they demoing unrealistic stuff? If not, how is their stuff worthwhile?

But I do agree with you that a person needs to start with unrealistic training -- you can't *learn* in a fighting environment, too much is going on. So you reduce the "noise" to an unrealistic level and that let's you focus on the thing you are trying to learn. After you can do that thing comfortably, however, it is time to put it into a realistic environment -- continuing to "practice" in a unrealistic environment is counterproductive (the chi sao masters).

Just my view, of course.

Indian Giver

02-15-2007, 09:28 PM

Not to get in a ****ing contest over any of this, as everyone has a right to their opinion. But the comment about Sifu "Putting down other arts" Well, he dosen't comment on any system he has not earned Black Belts in. He began training at age 5 and had Black Belts in Tae Kwon Do and Kenpo among others prior to learning Wing Chun. He has 40+ years in the Martial Arts and 25 + years in Public Safety as a Police Officer, Firefighter and Emergency Medic. He has been where it counts, in the street.

He has a background in Thai Boxing and grappling, so he does take things like the single leg takedown into consideration. He is applying the Bong Girk, to leg lock kicking technique from a tie up or bridge position, where he can limit the opponents ability to shoot down for a leg. And it is a technique applied very fast and not as a 1-2 motion. Naturally when teaching, the technique is applied slowly in order to see and learn the method. But if you look at the end of the clip, you get an idea as to the speed of application when he applies the technique on the guy at he edge of the mat near the thai bag. Any way, I apreciate the input and find everyones comments very educational.

Thanks for your ideas!

IG

Knifefighter

02-15-2007, 10:46 PM

He has a background in Thai Boxing and grappling,
It is pretty obvious by his "tie-up" position that he has no background in either of these. If he is telling you that and trying to pass himself of has having background in those arts, he is more than likely lying to you.

He is applying the Bong Girk, to leg lock kicking technique from a tie up or bridge position, where he can limit the opponents ability to shoot down for a leg. And it is a technique applied very fast and not as a 1-2 motion. .

As someone who really does have a longtime background in both Muay Thai and grappling, I can tell you that from that tie up, doing that with the leg is feeding the opponent the single leg and making it easy for him to take you down.

Indian Giver

02-15-2007, 11:02 PM

My Sifu isn't a member here but says if you do more than type, give him a call (757) 890-1188 he would be more than glad to talk with you about his background!

-IG

Knifefighter

02-15-2007, 11:06 PM

My Sifu isn't a member here but says if you do more than type, give him a call (757) 890-1188 he would be more than glad to talk with you about his background!
Since I just posted and you just replied telling me what he said, he must be with you now.

Maybe he can post his grappling and MT credentials through you, since supposedly, he just had a response to my post of about 15 minutes ago.

If he is going to all of the hassle of giving you his phone number so that I can call him regarding something I just posted, maybe he could simply fill you in on the specifics of his grappling and MT background right now... that would be much simpler.

Knifefighter

02-15-2007, 11:12 PM

BTW... you did post the clips asking for feedback.

I'm just giving you the heads up that he may possibly be ripping you off as a student by exaggerating his credentials and providing you with techniques that might get you in trouble against a real grappler.

If you want to think he is the real deal, it's no skin off my nose.

It would be pretty simple for you to find out whether he is pulling a fast one on you. Have him show you some wrestling tie ups that he will know from his "background" days. Ask him to show you some control points. Then, simply go to your local high school wrestling coach and have him show you the same things.

See if they are different.

I'll bet they will be... significantly so.

While you are at it, you could even show the coach the bong girk and try to keep him from getting an easy takedown.

I'd also bet you wouldn't be able to stop it.

Knifefighter

02-15-2007, 11:49 PM

So let's see here...

When you posted that, it was 1:00 AM on the east coast where you are and about 15 minutes after my post. That means one of three things:

1- You are randomly giving out your sifu's number and putting words into his mouth without consulting him and he has no idea you are doing so... which would be pretty pathetic
2- He just happens to be hanging out with you at your place at 1:00 AM and he is telling you what to post, but is afraid to post it himself... which would be even more pathetic.
3- You are Sifu Massengill... which would be incredibly pathetic.

So... which is it?

Tom Kagan

02-15-2007, 11:57 PM

Well, he dosen't comment on any system he has not earned Black Belts in. He began training at age 5 and had Black Belts in Tae Kwon Do and Kenpo among others prior to learning Wing Chun.

Hmmm ... he made a comment at 1:49 on the 2nd clip where he said the position this particular throw attempt puts you in a position where both opponents could be able to throw each other.

In Judo, the throw to which he refers is called Osoto Gari. Unfortunately, his comment ignores one of the most fundamental principles of any effective martial art. In Judo, that principle is called Kuzushi. (In Ving Tsun, it's called TsuiMa.)

I don't know the extent of Tony's "black belts." But, to leave out the process of unbalancing an opponent for this and other throws means either he doesn't understand it, or he constructed a strawman argument. If he is as good as you say he is, one has to wonder why he specifically chose to leave this little tidbit out. After all, if he can make his alternative work, then unbalancing is also the reason why. (My impression is those in that class did not pick up on this subtlety.)

Here is a competition clip of Yasuhiro Yamash1ta, one of the best Judo practitioners with a devastating Osoto Gari. There are several examples of the throw on this clip. If you examine each throw attempt, they are all preceded by the opponent being guided off balance. Good off balancing skills during any throw is what prevents being squashed by a counter attack:

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

Here is the great Masahiko Kimura throwing none other than Helio Gracie with Osoto Gari:

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

On a related note, the Yamish1ta clip also has a good example of Deashi Harai as a counter to Kouchi Gari. (Kouchi Gari is essentially the basis of what Tony Massengill's proposed as an alternative to Osoto Gari in his clip.) As you can see at 0:14, the clips shows what can happen if you attempt Kouchi Gari without good Kuzushi. In this portion of the clip,, Yamash1ta actually baited the Kouchi Gari to set up a sweet and effortless counter. That's what happens when your opponent is off balance and also fully committed.

I want to make it clear that I give value anyone who opens themselves up by posting clips of themselves to critique, comments, and ridicule from the anonymous morons of the internet peanut gallery. Regardless of whether people can rightly or wrongly pick apart the videos, they get big Kudos from me just for making this attempt to share. With a little luck, whomever makes such a video will be genuinely appreciative of the responses from the scrutiny of the public forum of peer review and not become defensive.

(Can someone please tell me how the hell I know this much about Judo when I don't study it? LOL. While you are at it, can you also explain why I am up working AGAIN this late waiting for processes to finish?)

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 12:22 AM

It was obvious from the "tie-ups" he has no wrestling background.

Now we see he has no judo background.

Just what is his supposed grappling background in?

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 12:42 AM

On a related note, the Yamish1ta clip also has a good example of Deashi Harai as a counter to Kouchi Gari. (Kouchi Gari is essentially the basis of what Tony Massengill's proposed as an alternative to Osoto Gari in his clip.) )

Notice also the difference between the foot placement of Kouchi Gari (below the knee) in the judo match and the "Bong Girk" version demonstrated by Massengill (above the knee). Kouchi Gari done properly below the knee can be an effective sweep. Above the knee gives the opponent the leg.

samson818

02-16-2007, 12:44 AM

Nice clips.
Did Sifu Tony M. study with Duncan Leung's group?
If so, he seems to have retained some of his flavor, especially the counterkicking.
Or does Sifu Sam Kwok have a similar method?

As far as Matt Thornton and his aliveness, people have been doing it for ages.
The arts have simply been watered down and people do not train as hard.

For the pakda / tanda combination, if that's all you trained for 1 year against opponents of all sizes/timing/speeds/strengths, will you not be able to pull it off?
Wing Chun techniques can and do work, just as live boxing/thaiboxing techniques. They can also not work. Also, are you fighting some lowlife bully? An MMA hobbyist? Or Frank Shamrock? I doubt most people on this forum, myself included, would be able to make anything work against a professional fighter. Its all a matter of how you train...

Tom Kagan

02-16-2007, 01:46 AM

Notice also the difference between the foot placement of Kouchi Gari (below the knee) in the judo match and the "Bong Girk" version demonstrated by Massengill (above the knee). Kouchi Gari done properly below the knee can be an effective sweep. Above the knee gives the opponent the leg.

LOL, it didn't seem to help Yamish1ta's opponent at all.

Anyway, I did I see the difference. That's why I said "essentially the basis of" instead of "is".

To be fair, people can get away with less TsuiMa in their setup, if not a complete lack. However, the trade off is needing more "muscling" to execute the movement and more exposure to counters - assuming their opponent is not a relative scrub to their level. But, whether or not this "fits" in a Ving Tsun training paradigm, as I've said before many times: against a scrub, a practitioner can make almost anything work. Go ahead and moon walk the way to an attack if that's what someone feels like playing with.

Indian Giver

02-16-2007, 04:56 AM

Hi Guys

Mr. Kagan, the principle of unbalancing was explained in detail, you are seeing clips of the class, and not the entire class. You also do not see reference to prefixing Chin Na with striking, in this case a strike to the eyes. However the point that was being taught was based on people with no real training in a tie up position attempting a trip. He was not teaching the take down, so didn't go in to how to properly perform the technique. Notice he said people will "Try" to do that type of take down. The guy he is working with in the clip is a prison guard, and the question which began this class was based on an altercation with an untrained thug in the jail. So there were aspects of the class which were not featured in the video clips. As for Knifefighter, the phone number I posted is the school number....The same number that appears on the school logo on the posted clips. When I read your response and assertion that Sifu was lieing about his background,I phoned him at home. He stated that he is not hard to reach, and has posted his number on the clips. So if you wanted to do more than just talk trash, and had a genuine question about his background he would be glad to answer your questions. As for his background, it is easy to check. We are lucky enough to have the opportunity to train with other instructors who have known sifu for 30 + years, and have also had the opportunity to train with his teacher, Master Kwok as well. So we are well aware of his background. I asked for feedback on the clips, and have enjoied reading the opinions. It is having someone who hides behind a screen name with no information on their profile, show a disrespectful attitude in their feedback and then do nothing but bash and slander that is a little irritating, but then again, I have seen the political backstabbing on this forum before, so I guess I should have expected no less. Any way, thanks for the feedback, I look forward to reading more on peoples different ideas of application. It is educational, and helps students like myself approach training questions in class.

So Thanks

IG

t_niehoff

02-16-2007, 06:51 AM

Unfortunately, his comment ignores one of the most fundamental principles of any effective martial art. In Judo, that principle is called Kuzushi. (In Ving Tsun, it's called TsuiMa.)

A couple of quibbles . . . first, I don't think 'kuzushi' is "one of the most fundamental principles of *any* effective marital art" (though is important in judo) as many martial arts that have proved to be effective don't seem to use/talk about it, and second, kuzushi = tsui ma? That seems to really be a stretch. (FWIW, kuzushi doesn't even mean "unbalancing", see http://www.bestjudo.com/blog/2006/06/ for 2 good discussions on kuzushi from a judokas perspective).

Terence

t_niehoff

02-16-2007, 06:59 AM

As far as Matt Thornton and his aliveness, people have been doing it for ages.
The arts have simply been watered down and people do not train as hard.

Sure, *some* martial arts have adopted realistic sorts of training (alive) -- boxing, fencing, judo, wrestling, Shuai-Jiao, etc. But I think most, particularly the TCMAs did not. For example, the forms, drills, chi sao, etc. in WCK is all "dead", nonrealistic, training. And, btw, "alive" (realistic) training does not mean "hard"; lots of people train hard and unrealistically. Putting lots of effort into unproductive training methods won't produce good results.

You say "the arts have simply been watered down" -- how do you know? On what evidence do you reach that conclusion? Maybe they were just never very good in the first place.

Terence

Tom Kagan

02-16-2007, 06:59 AM

Mr. Kagan, the principle of unbalancing was explained in detail, you are seeing clips of the class, and not the entire class.

I am only making an observation of this one point of the clip. At this one point, he chose to ignore unbalancing. All you are telling me is he created a strawman argument so he could demonstrate a Judo-ish "Kouchi Kake", which, while not entirely useless as Knifefighter likes to tweak you with, is an extremely low percentage throw - especially with the Tori's knee climbing that high up on the grapevine of the Uke, as both I and Knifefighter observed.

So, if Tony knows all this, I still have to wonder what the point was in bashing Osoto Gari, a higher percentage throw, just to show a little chicanery at this one point.

Tom Kagan

02-16-2007, 07:20 AM

A couple of quibbles . . . first, I don't think 'kuzushi' is "one of the most fundamental principles of *any* effective marital art" (though is important in judo) as many martial arts that have proved to be effective don't seem to use/talk about it, and second, kuzushi = tsui ma? That seems to really be a stretch. (FWIW, kuzushi doesn't even mean "unbalancing", see http://www.bestjudo.com/blog/2006/06/ for 2 good discussions on kuzushi from a judokas perspective).

Terence

The author in the link you posted enlarges the idea behind a "full" Kuzushi to such a point where the author is suggesting using a different word. The funny part about this "greater sum" is that this has always been my understanding of the overall concept.

I do recognize that the idea of unbalancing is not specifically talked about or explicitly emphasized in more than a few given arts. However, it is still there (at least as far as my understandings and observations permit). I am willing to go so far as to suggest that counter striking - without any tie up or "bridging" - is also about exploiting an "imbalance" in an opponent's distancing, timing, etc. Initial striking would be a more towards the idea of trying to create the imbalance. Additionally, following up, or "punches in bunches" (or FahnSao if you prefer ;) ), also is about maintaining and increasing an opponent's off balancing. (My $2.22, adjusted for inflation. Take it for what you will. ;) )

You probably don't define the idea of a "full" TsuiMa as I do and are probably looking at it from the perspective of some sort of drill. That's no big deal as it is only terminology. Since this tangent is not really relevant to this thread, we'll just have to disagree on this. Thanks for that link!

(You know, 8 months or so of once-a-week "Kiddie Judo" 35 years ago when I was 7 years old shouldn't have stuck with me this much. LOL)

leejunfan

02-16-2007, 07:47 AM

Can you post a link or two to clips of fighting where trapping is being used?

sorry it took me so long to respond. I stayed away because I knew the sh@t storm that was about to happen.

Anyway, I honestly don't have time to point this or that out by searching out video clips to prove my case. Many people when they think of "trapping" seek to see typical wing chun or JKD style trapping. But in actual fighting a trap can be something simple like removing a barrier (the guys arm) and punching him square in the snozola. A good example of that would be Nick Diaz's use of a technique that looked an aweful lot like Larp Da. He kept pawing and pawing away until BAHM.... he blasted the guy. Trapping does not have to be a giant obvious thing and it's also not something that is around long enough to be recognized by someone who doesn't understand what they just saw.

Another example is an old Ali fight were Ali was in matched lead and kept doing a movement that looked like Fuk Sau....... sure enough... all of a sudden.... Fuk Da... lights out.

In UFC, K-1 and Pride we see a lot of Thai, boxing and so on..... and there is trapping all over the place done in THEIR way. So what if it doesn't look like WC or JKD typical demonstration type trapping. Why is the UFC and others the "proving" ground for what works and what doesn't? Yes I agree... those poeple are higher trained and great athletes...... but is the cage/ring the only place people fight???

Guys.... and this means everyone..... it is common sense to say that if you work something within the world of non-compliant drills that eventually the light bulb or devine AH HA will happen and you'll be able to do it. But.... if you say or think something wont work, guess what.... it wont.

Peace,

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 08:10 AM

However the point that was being taught was based on people with no real training in a tie up position attempting a trip.

Why would a teacher with a supposed grappling background tie up in a bad control position, even if he was teaching "based on people with no real training"? Wouldn't it make more sense to show the most effective tie up positions?

And, even more importantly, why would he show a bad tie up when the tie up would be the key to making a sweep like that work (assuming one could possibly make it work when done in that manner)?

The guy he is working with in the clip is a prison guard, and the question which began this class was based on an altercation with an untrained thug in the jail.

Wouldn't it be even more important to show the technique as if the opponent knew what he was doing, considering how important that might be to a prison guard in an environment like that?

So we are well aware of his background.

What is his specific grappling background?

Any way, thanks for the feedback, I look forward to reading more on peoples different ideas of application. It is educational, and helps students like myself approach training questions in class.

If this really is the case, why not use this as an opportunity to ask him about tie ups, control points and the various applications of them?

Of course, one has to wonder why he would not already be explaining those to you if he is telling the truth and really does have grappling experience.

It is having someone who hides behind a screen name with no information on their profile,

8 years JKD/Wing Chun.
20 years boxing/muay thai.
30 years full contact stick fighting.
35 years wrestling.
12 years submission grappling/BJJ.

What is your background?

When I read your response and assertion that Sifu was lieing about his background,I phoned him at home.

You phoned him at home at 1:00 in the morning to tell him what someone posted on the internet?

Um... OK.

Seems kinda weird to me.

do nothing but bash and slander that is a little irritating

In his videos he bashed karate and TKD, as well as any system that uses a defense/counter strike approach. He then goes on to dismiss Osoto Gari, a fundamental judo technique.

Mr. Kagan, the principle of unbalancing was explained in detail, you are seeing clips of the class, and not the entire class.

If that was the case, why not say that in the first place?

So, what did he tell you those principles were?

And what did he tell you about staggered vs. square stances and how push/pull/unbalancing pertains to those.

Oh, and by the way...
At 3:13 on the leg attack clip, he talks about striking inside vs. outside of the knee.

He has it backwards. Striking from the outside is potentially much more damaging and has a much higher risk of injury. As is taught in a basic level sports biomechanics class, you can much more easily damage the ACL and MCL from the outside than you can damage the LCL from the inside.

This is something that might be important for you as a student to know before you and other students blow each other's knees out by thinking you are safer getting kicked from the outside as he was telling you.

t_niehoff

02-16-2007, 08:21 AM

The author in the link you posted enlarges the idea behind a "full" Kuzushi to such a point where the author is suggesting using a different word. The funny part about this "greater sum" is that this has always been my understanding of the overall concept.

As I read it, he's saying (and as a highly respectied judoka, may know what he's talking about) that the common view of "kuzushi", as a judo concept, is mistakenly narrow. He cites many great judoka and their descriptions of the term. This, btw, is one of the problems inherent when we talk about arts we really aren't proficient in -- we can only have rather superficial understanding of them.

I do recognize that the idea of unbalancing is not specifically talked about or explicitly emphasized in more than a few given arts. However, it is still there (at least as far as my understandings and observations permit). I am willing to go so far as to suggest that counter striking - without any tie up or "bridging" - is also about exploiting an "imbalance" in an opponent's distancing, timing, etc. Initial striking would be a more towards the idea of trying to create the imbalance. Additionally, following up, or "punches in bunches" (or FahnSao if you prefer ;) ), also is about maintaining and increasing an opponent's off balancing. (My $2.22, adjusted for inflation. Take it for what you will. ;) )

Certainly I agree with you that "unbalancing" takes place in fighting. And, good fighters, whatever their method, will take advantage of that situation (just as they will if you close your eyes). However, because unbalancing happens does not mean or imply that a fighting method (their overall fighitng strategy) involves pursuing it as a strategic *objective* (as does judo). As to WCK, see below.

You probably don't define the idea of a "full" TsuiMa as I do and are probably looking at it from the perspective of some sort of drill. That's no big deal as it is only terminology. Since this tangent is not really relevant to this thread, we'll just have to disagree on this. Thanks for that link!

I am not looking at it from a drill perspective but a functional one. If destroying structure (what's usually referred to as "chum") -- which may include off-balancing -- is our objective (it is in my WCK), then there are many ways to achieve it, and certainly using the tsui ma is one way among many (striking works too, and so does using turning horse). For me, tsui ma is an *action*. So I agree that we can use tsui ma to unbalance, just as I can use the punch to unbalance, but tsui ma or the strike isn't the same thing (or the "concept" - ughh) of unbalancing. At least that's my perspective.

Terence

Tom Kagan

02-16-2007, 08:26 AM

However, because unbalancing happens does not mean or imply that a fighting method (their overall fighitng strategy) involves pursuing it as a strategic *objective* (as does judo).

We agree on this. By me calling it fundamental, I'm just making the observation that if the fighter does not pick it up somehow, they are never really going to be very effective. While I am in no way comparing myself to Kano, this is no different than his original observation of Kuzushi within Japanese Jujitsu. Just because he stuck a label on it and started to emphasize it did not make it any less important for effective Jujitsu.

I happen to be friends with Shiro Oishi, a former world class level Judoka competitor and former U.S. national champion in Greco Roman wrestling who currently holds a Shichidan in Judo. Just for giggles, the next time we get together, I'm going to ask him for his perspective on the alternative Japanese word of "Koshikudake" in this context.

sorry it took me so long to respond.

... looks at Knifefighter's post ... yesterday, 4:44 pm ...
... looks at leejunfan's post ... today, 10:10 am ...

I sometimes consider sleep just a bad habit I picked up in kindergarten. It sure seems like I've been trying to beat this addiction, anyway. But, oh man ... you are apologising for an overnight delay in posting of 17 hours, 26 minutes ???

Wow, I thought I was impatient by entertaining thoughts of how to make a microwave cook faster.

Even if you waited a week, there is nothing to apologize about. This interweb contraption of Al Gore's made up of a bunch of tubes isn't always exactly like a conversation on the phone. :)

While it didn't make any difference for me, have you considered switching to decaf? :D

leejunfan

02-16-2007, 08:31 AM

LOL Tom,

Actaully...... some poeple who know me personally would laugh but.... I don't drink coffee or soda's. In fact..... I restrict my intake of caffiene to the once a day visit to Starbuck's for my Grande Chai Latte with Soy..LOL :D and I STILL stay up way too late. Some day though... I'll know what it's like to actually sleep 8 full hours :p

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 08:34 AM

But in actual fighting a trap can be something simple like removing a barrier (the guys arm) and punching him square in the snozola.
Another example is an old Ali fight were Ali was in matched lead and kept doing a movement that looked like Fuk Sau....... sure enough... all of a sudden.... Fuk Da... lights out.

I'll agree with that.
BTW, I'm not necessarily saying trapping doesn't work.
If that is what you are talking about in terms of trapping, I have no debate with that.

So what if it doesn't look like WC or JKD typical demonstration type trapping. Why is the UFC and others the "proving" ground for what works and what doesn't?

Those are not the only proving grounds. However, those guys are making stuff work against skilled opponents in an open venue and there is evidence for everyone to see for any claims that are made.

In UFC, K-1 and Pride we see a lot of Thai, boxing and so on..... and there is trapping all over the place done in THEIR way.

Is there any other way? And if there is, is there any public, observable evidence of it working under realistic circumstances?

... but is the cage/ring the only place people fight???

Not at all. However, in this age of ubiquitous video footage, it is a simple matter to find evidence for claims that made for a supposedly workable technique if it really does work.

t_niehoff

02-16-2007, 08:39 AM

Guys.... and this means everyone..... it is common sense to say that if you work something within the world of non-compliant drills that eventually the light bulb or devine AH HA will happen and you'll be able to do it. But.... if you say or think something wont work, guess what.... it wont.

Peace,

"Non-compliant" does not mean realistic ("alive"). Chi sao is non-compliant drill (your partner doesn't just let you do whatever you want). However, it is completely unrealistic (people don't behave as they do in fighting). Doing non-compliant but unrealistic drills won't produce realistic skills (skills that work in a realistic setting). The only way to develop realistic skills is by training realistically.

The truth is lots of things we can't make work, no matter how long, hard, etc, we train them. Some of these things are individual and some are universal.

On the matter of "trapping" -- many good fighters "trap". It takes place all the time. Thornton, if you roll with him, will trap your arm before he goes for an armbar. Wreslters do it. It happens in the clinch all the time. What I think Thornton is talking about is "WCK trapping" as it is typically demonstrated (in chi sao, for example). This is because many people mistake the drill for the application, and think actual application will look and work like the drill. It won't. This is why when WCK people fight, they have little skill (they are trying to use their WCK tools as they do in the drills when fighting). But many WCK people believe that drill=application (how you do it in the drill will be how it works). And Thornton, seeing the drill realizes from his experience, that those things will never work as they are being practiced.

Terence

leejunfan

02-16-2007, 12:28 PM

leejunfan

02-16-2007, 12:31 PM

Not at all. However, in this age of ubiquitous video footage, it is a simple matter to find evidence for claims that made for a supposedly workable technique if it really does work.

I don't know many street fighters who video tape their fights :p

Something about evidence and lawsuits I think ;)

t_niehoff

02-16-2007, 01:19 PM

Terrence,

We're basically saying the same thing. Believe me... I agree with everything you and Thornton are saying. I never said that the Chi Sau drills you typically see translate to application. Like Lock flows in grappling they teach you many things about energy, zoning and so on.

Let's not get into a huff.... I think we're on the same page....

Besides.... to me..... non-compliant is "alive". Again.... we all have different interpretations of the meaning. Like I said in the past.... gradual steps towards all out sparring is our poison of choice.

Peace

No huff intended, but I don't think we're on the same page -- maybe the same chapter?

I agree with you that many people have different interpretations of the term "alive" -- however, a person calling what they do "alive" (by their interpretation) doesn't make their training methods effective (to a functional degree). Thornton, as I understand it, uses that term very specifically to characterize a certain way of training; so you're using the same word but not following the same way of training. Non-compliant is not what he -- or I -- am talking about when using the term "alive". (Otherwise, we could just call it non-compliant training). ;)

Non-compliant training is not functional (alive or realistic) training, but functional skill-building training is non-compliant. This is where many people get confused. And that's because non-compliance is just one aspect of what makes up functional skill-building training. We need to train all the aspects together to make what we do functional (because when we fight, all those aspects will be present and operating). People can get very good at their form of noncompliant training (chi sao, push ands, kiu sao, point sparring, etc.) and still not fight in a realistic environment worth beans.

FWIW, in my view, "gradual steps" toward all out sparring is not a good idea. It's like saying someone needs "gradual steps" to playing basketball. In BJJ I was rolling in my first class. Yes, you need some basics and need some level of conditioning -- but that shouldn't take very long, and then you should be out "playing the game", i.e., sparring. Fighting skill is only developed through fighting/sparring; everything else is supplemental. And besides, the only way to measure progress is via sparring.

Let me ask Dale -- what are your views on this?

Terence

leejunfan

02-16-2007, 01:58 PM

well Terence then we've reached an impasse.

My methods work..... your methods work....... Matts methods work....... I guess that's all there is to it. Nothing more to say.

Peace.

Edmund

02-16-2007, 05:31 PM

I am only making an observation of this one point of the clip. At this one point, he chose to ignore unbalancing. All you are telling me is he created a strawman argument so he could demonstrate a Judo-ish "Kouchi Kake", which, while not entirely useless as Knifefighter likes to tweak you with, is an extremely low percentage throw - especially with the Tori's knee climbing that high up on the grapevine of the Uke, as both I and Knifefighter observed.

So, if Tony knows all this, I still have to wonder what the point was in bashing Osoto Gari, a higher percentage throw, just to show a little chicanery at this one point.

Extremely low percentage?
Kouchi Gake is my favourite throw! I find it far easier than Osoto gari.

The thing is one judoka's worst throw is another judoka's best.
In the case of yamash1ta and kimura, osoto gari is their top technique and not many can stop them.

My problem with osoto gari is much like what Tony said and what you've been talking about with kuzushi. If uke blocks, he's in position to osoto gari back on you and just blocking it throws off your balance. That's why it's such a full commitment throw. I think osoto makikomi could be one followup if they block but I'm not great at that one.

Kouchi gake, they have to block the whole weight of my body hanging grapvined on their leg.

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 06:14 PM

FWIW, in my view, "gradual steps" toward all out sparring is not a good idea. It's like saying someone needs "gradual steps" to playing basketball. In BJJ I was rolling in my first class. Yes, you need some basics and need some level of conditioning -- but that shouldn't take very long, and then you should be out "playing the game", i.e., sparring. Fighting skill is only developed through fighting/sparring; everything else is supplemental. And besides, the only way to measure progress is via sparring.

I think there needs to be some kind of progression for beginners so they don't go all out and completely slaughter each other, even in something like BJJ.

That being said, the sooner one gets to hard sparring, the faster he will become proficient.

I also think intensity needs to be monitored in striking. With striking, I don't think it is advisable to go hard every session. That is one of the main advantages of grappling over striking. You can train at just about 100% in every session with grappling..

As far as "alive", it means in the same context as one would do it in a fight. You can take one component, such as side mount in ground fighting or jabs in boxing or pummelling in MMA, and spar with only that element because you can do it pretty much exactly the same as you would do it when fighting when all elements are combined.

Any time you take an element that is not specific to the movements of fighting, you lose the aliveness. However, while I think alive training should form the bulk of training, there still is a place for a bit of the dead stuff, as long as it's just a bit.

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 06:30 PM

I don't know many street fighters who video tape their fights :p

Something about evidence and lawsuits I think ;)

OK, having removed my smart@$$ remark from above, let's revisit this.

If you are claiming that there is another way of trapping that works in a live environment, you should easily be able to record yourself and/or your students doing it when you spar all out so that it is observable for others to see.'

Using the "there's not video on the street" excuse, is a cop-out.

If you have developed something that is different that you want to keep close to the vest and not have others see, I can accept that, as I've got lots of knife stuff like that... but don't use the "it only works on street" argument.

Knifefighter

02-16-2007, 08:30 PM

Tom Kagan

02-16-2007, 08:31 PM

Extremely low percentage?
Kouchi Gake is my favourite throw! I find it far easier than Osoto gari.

The thing is one judoka's worst throw is another judoka's best.
In the case of yamash1ta and kimura, osoto gari is their top technique and not many can stop them.

My problem with osoto gari is much like what Tony said and what you've been talking about with kuzushi. If uke blocks, he's in position to osoto gari back on you and just blocking it throws off your balance. That's why it's such a full commitment throw. I think osoto makikomi could be one followup if they block but I'm not great at that one.

Kouchi gake, they have to block the whole weight of my body hanging grapvined on their leg.

Well since we've gone this far with the tangent: assuming you do make Kouchi Kake work, are we talking about just getting an Ippon? Although it doesn't matter as much under Kodukan rules, don't you find yourself being countered with a sacrifice throw or landing in an inferior/neutral position more often than not?

I do not mean to imply Kouchi Kake cannot work. (That's Knifefighter tweaking you. ;) ) However, by my comment of extremely low percentage, I mean it is not seen very often. Perhaps that's because people choose not to train it to proficiency. But, I feel, after hours upon hours of watching various clips on youtube, finding only two examples of Kouchi Kake - Tony's above, another a similar Ninjitsu demo - is a significant observation. So, while this throw may work well for you, this, by itself, may yet be only an aberration. (Of course, I could be quite wrong and just be missing it.)

Contrast this with the countless examples of other throws such as Osoto Gari pulled off at the highest levels of competition not only in Judo, but in other elite venues. Additionally, you see this throw at the more mundane mid and low level tournaments. I think you'll agree that competition is different that even practice and very far from a mere demonstration.

If you have some good examples of Kouchi Kake pulled off by various practitioners either in free practice or competition, I would like to see them if it is not too much trouble for you to find. It seems I can't get enough of this stuff. :D

Anyway regardless of terminology used or the particulars of a given technique, I think everyone can agree that what succeeds in a fair match between peers of the same skill level is ultimately found almost entirely within the quality of the setups and/or the chaining through the counter/re-counter/re-counter-counter cycle.

Edmund

02-16-2007, 11:50 PM

Not sure where an example would be but perhaps if you search under kouchi gari... For a certain style of kouchi gari where you get your leg in a lot deeper, often when it's blocked and they are are just standing still, you can finish with gake where you just fall onto them.

kinda like this http://www.judoinfo.com/images/video/santani/kouchigake.mov

or http://youtube.com/watch?v=DaaOPuFVa1E
After a few ouchi gari's she follows up with a kouchi gari which looks like a bit of a gake to me.

(Also seen as a followup to a failed ippon seionage.)

If you're nice you roll off beside them so you don't crush them and I suppose they can counter it with some sort of sacrifice throw. But if you are mean you just drop like a bellyflop to squash them and they won't really have much to work with.
You land with one leg out usually (half guard), and you can commence your sleeve choke from there. I wouldn't call it a inferior/neutral position. Unless they are real quick to lock it up you can get your leg out and get oseikomi.

Not your most spectacular throw unlike osoto gari.
It may not get the ippon as often due to smart opponent twisting out as soon as he feels he's going to fall back.

But osoto gari's not easy! You land one and it's usually worthy of a highlight reel because it looks like you killed the guy. There's usually no need to follow up with newaza. kouchi gake looks like you slipped and fell on him so it's a bit of a cheap throw. Still you can see how easy it is.

Maybe I'm getting my wrestling terms mixed up but I believe the "turk" is a form of kouchi gake when done from a standing position. Search around for turks maybe?

In this clip the guy is picking his opponent up into the air with a double before applying a gake as he's hitting the ground.

http://www.themat.com/CoachesCorner/technique/IntoaTurk/clip.gif (http://www.themat.com/CoachesCorner/techniqe/IntoaTurk/clip.gif)

Didn't quite nail it though so no ippon! The guy didn't land on his back.

Tom Kagan

02-17-2007, 07:15 AM

I can find a lot of examples of Kouchi Gari.

Regardless, I am sure you already noticed that the three examples you showed are significantly different than the variant Tony was showing in his clip.

Also (as I'm sure you noticed), the Tomoe Nage (?) sacrifice counter to the Kouchi Gari in the youtube clip. But, as you already know, under Kodukan rules it was too late because the Ippon was already over and done.

Regardless of similarity, I do find it interesting the one clip you found of Kouchi Gake at the judoinfo site was in the demonstration section of the video archive. Although the site is not complete, you cannot find an example of Kouchi Gake as of yet in the rather extensive collection of examples in the competition section.

Anyway, thanks Edmund. I know how difficult it can be to come up with examples for movements/techniques a little bit off the beaten path. But regardless of whether we can argue and enjoy our little "catch jab" play of internet banter, video examples (especially ones in the fair fight level playing field of competition or free practice) are always appreciated.

Knifefighter

02-17-2007, 07:29 AM

I do not mean to imply Kouchi Kake cannot work. (That's Knifefighter tweaking you. ;) )
Not tweaking... it simply won't work. Not the way you two are talking about (which, even that way, neither of you can find and example of someone using successfully), but the way that the clueless guy was showing on the original clip (above the knee).

Knifefighter

02-17-2007, 07:36 AM

Maybe I'm getting my wrestling terms mixed up but I believe the "turk" is a form of kouchi gake when done from a standing position.

The turk is done with the opposite leg. It is normally a riding technique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztdvsqR7r5M

Although it can be used from a takedown:
http://www.themat.com/CoachesCorner/technique/IntoaTurk/default.php

Unlike the Kouchi Kake, the turk step IS done above the knee.

A Kouchi Kake type takedown in wrestling, even when done correctly below the knee, is an extremely low percentage move (and I would venture to say, even unworkable) because it gives the opponent exactly what he his trying to set up- a "1/2 man" angle to attack from.

This is not as big a factor in judo because of the grip on the gi.

t_niehoff

02-17-2007, 08:15 AM

OK, having removed my smart@$$ remark from above, let's revisit this.

If you are claiming that there is another way of trapping that works in a live environment, you should easily be able to record yourself and/or your students doing it when you spar all out so that it is observable for others to see.'

Using the "there's not video on the street" excuse, is a cop-out.

From my perspective, "trapping" is basically a misused and abused term in WCK. Personally, I think this is one of the many Bruce-isms that so many WCK people have adopted. So I don't like or use the term (which isn't traditionally a part of WCK anyway). Instead, I use the term "jeet" -- again, not in the Bruce Lee tradition of "intercept" but as "cutting off" the opponent's offense (part of WCK's method, "faat").

Grabbing, holding, and pinning an opponent's arm -- or head or other handle -- ("trapping") while hitting him with the other hand is something you can easily find in many fights (MMA or street or hockey game). In my view, WCK "specializes" in *attached striking* of this kind (why our punch, for example, has different mechanics than say boxing which uses unattached striking).

Terence

leejunfan

02-17-2007, 08:52 AM

From my perspective, "trapping" is basically a misused and abused term in WCK. Personally, I think this is one of the many Bruce-isms that so many WCK people have adopted. So I don't like or use the term (which isn't traditionally a part of WCK anyway). Instead, I use the term "jeet" -- again, not in the Bruce Lee tradition of "intercept" but as "cutting off" the opponent's offense (part of WCK's method, "faat").

Grabbing, holding, and pinning an opponent's arm -- or head or other handle -- ("trapping") while hitting him with the other hand is something you can easily find in many fights (MMA or street or hockey game). In my view, WCK "specializes" in *attached striking* of this kind (why our punch, for example, has different mechanics than say boxing which uses unattached striking).

Terence

Bingo!

I thought I hinted on this with my last post but as always.... someone says it better then me. Thanks Terence.

Tom Kagan

02-17-2007, 10:01 AM

Not tweaking... it simply won't work. Not the way you two are talking about (which, even that way, neither of you can find and example of someone using successfully), but the way that the clueless guy was showing on the original clip (above the knee).

I'm not actually commenting on whether the specific variation Tony is attempting to show will work or not. That's your jihad. :)

I'm just pointing out what I feel is a misplaced bashing of Osoto Gari and the root of Tony's variation: Kouchi Gari. And, I will also keep pointing out the differences between the working example clips given and what Tony is showing. Like I said before, the only other video example I've found of what Tony is showing is in a similarly styled Ninjitsu demonstration. (Read: I find it a bit suspect - if, and only if, for the 'Ninjitsu' reason alone. :D )

My "tweaking" comment is just me tweaking you. :)

I think it's pretty clear from the discussions in which we both choose to participate that we both find a certain enjoyment in poking holes in arguments. It's just that you seem to allow such glee seep into your writings right from the get go. I have a tendency to let it bubble up only after I feel the other person doesn't "get it". But regardless, I can assure you our intent and goal in this discussion is pretty much the same. ;)

[NOTE: If you follow some of the conversations on Ving Tsun in which I've participated @ Bullshido, this little tendency of mine is much more pronounced. Since I chose to participate in this thread here, I probably would have tweaked Indian Giver about the late night phone calls, too. But you pretty much had that covered. :D]

Edmund

02-17-2007, 05:52 PM

I can find a lot of examples of Kouchi Gari.

Regardless, I am sure you already noticed that the three examples you showed are significantly different than the variant Tony was showing in his clip.

Everyone's got a variant in judo.

Tony's isn't even a throw. Stepping on someone's leg is not a throw.

But he's correct about the entry into osoto gari being quite difficult for a lot of people. Just because freaking Yamash1ta can do it doesn't make it easy. As soon as you make a mistake with the entry, they can throw you with their own osoto gari.

The only time I ever pull it off is when my partner is trying to hit osoto gari on me!

Tom Kagan

02-17-2007, 07:08 PM

The only time I ever pull it off is when my partner is trying to hit osoto gari on me!

Of course, not everyone can be Yamash1ta. However, since so many Judoka can pull off an Osoto Gari at all different levels of competition, and since most Judoka are introduced to this sweep as like the second or third technique they are shown, have you considered you are just not very good at Kuzushi or at the mechanics of this throw?

(Yes, that's me starting in on tweaking you. ;) )

Edmund

02-18-2007, 04:47 PM

Of course, not everyone can be Yamash1ta. However, since so many Judoka can pull off an Osoto Gari at all different levels of competition, and since most Judoka are introduced to this sweep as like the second or third technique they are shown, have you considered you are just not very good at Kuzushi or at the mechanics of this throw?

I'm not very good at osoto gari. As I said I find it's a more difficult throw.
It's introduced early but that doesn't make it easy because of the reasons I stated before.

Kosoto gari and gake are easier and actually not uncommon in judo comps despite the fact that you can't seem to find clips of them. Any comp you go to, you'd see them.

Tom Kagan

02-18-2007, 05:07 PM

Kosoto gari and gake are easier and actually not uncommon in judo comps despite the fact that you can't seem to find clips of them. Any comp you go to, you'd see them.

I never said you wouldn't see Kouchi Gake. I just pointed out what you do see, even if it is uncommon, is significantly different than what Tony showed. Also, I pointed out if he can make what he showed work in a level playing field with someone of equal skill, why it worked (if it worked) would be for the same reason as why someone could make Osoto Gari work - Kuzushi.

Mr Punch

02-18-2007, 06:50 PM

Props for putting the vids up. Seems OK.

I don’t like the pseudo scientific explanations, but that’s just me. I know what the femoral nerves are, but we just used to call it a dead-leg! Unless Sifu Massengill is a physiotherapist/anatomist/doctor etc, I don’t really see any need for it and it smacks of the ‘blinding them with science (???)’ approach that a lot of chun sifu go for these days.

And as a couple have already said, maybe that hokey stamp kick to the outside of the knee is a difficult one to break the structure, any kind of roundhouse or wing chun sweeping move from huen bo has as good a chance at causing damage (to the ACL) from the outside as anything from the inside.

That whole ‘bong gerk’ explanation is also ignoring (as KF said) the takedown gift, but furthermore, it would seem to be a great tech only on someone who’d had their foot nailed to the floor and was incapable of moving it in a simple way to get away from the hooking stamp! :D Any chunner who’s practiced any chi gerk should be able to get round it and use it to their advantage, as would any judoka, jujutsuka or aikidoka. To say that it’s going to break someone’s leg with such surety is also abject fantasy. Tendon damage at most.

And no I don’t want to fly across the Pacific just to test Sifu Massengill on that point, so perhaps you’d like to ask him if he has actually broken anybody’s leg with that move or seen it done!

The defence/entry against the jab-cross was OK, but seemed to rely on the guy keeping his arm out.

Finally, just a quick terminology point, but when I learnt from Samuel Kwok and his organization 10 years ago, I seem to remember bong gerk being the opposite way to that which Sifu Massengill is teaching…! By my understanding, bong gerk mirrors bong sao in that in the same way as bong sao presents the outside of the elbow, bong gerk presents the outside of the leg (little toe turned upwards as the little finger is in bong gerk). Thus you also have tan gerk which presents the inside of the leg (the thigh turned out as in Sifu Massengill’s bong gerk) in a similar way to the tan sao presenting the inside of the elbow (big toe turned outwards as the thumb is outwards in tan sao).

Do you have a tan gerk?

Be interested to know what others see as bong gerk/tan gerk…

Tom Kagan

02-18-2007, 07:23 PM

I seem to remember bong gerk being the opposite way to that which Sifu Massengill is teaching…! By my understanding, bong gerk mirrors bong sao in that in the same way as bong sao presents the outside of the elbow, bong gerk presents the outside of the leg (little toe turned upwards as the little finger is in bong gerk). Thus you also have tan gerk which presents the inside of the leg (the thigh turned out as in Sifu Massengill’s bong gerk) in a similar way to the tan sao presenting the inside of the elbow (big toe turned outwards as the thumb is outwards in tan sao).

Do you have a tan gerk?

Be interested to know what others see as bong gerk/tan gerk…

Me too. I wasn't even going to get into that. But you brought it up: BongGerk does not look like the SHAPE of bong sao inverted and put on a leg. Bong (whatever) is a MOVEMENT. How you move your leg/foot is what is similar to the arm. Due to anatomy, the SHAPE appears opposite (unless you look at it much more closely and stretch definitions a bit, as you already pointed out).

Yes, I have BongGerk/TanGerk the same as you understand. However, I don't have a FookGerk (boy, that would be dumb). I do have a FunGerk, though. :)

And, truthfully, I'd call Tony's "hook" something more like Huen instead, anyway. ;)

To be fair, it's all just terminology to me. So, stuff like this I consider just nitpicking rather than anything substantial like what we've previously been discussing.

Mr Punch

02-18-2007, 09:08 PM

To be fair, it's all just terminology to me. So, stuff like this I consider just nitpicking rather than anything substantial like what we've previously been discussing.
Finally, just a quick terminology point...:rolleyes:

I was interested as I learnt what apparently you and I call bong gerk from Samuel Kwok, Billy Davidson and my sifu, and here in the same lineage we have the opposite. That's all.

However, while it could never border on the importance of your judo discussion (and btw, I'm with you on the kuzushi thing)...
Bong (whatever) is a MOVEMENT. How you move your leg/foot is what is similar to the arm.This is important, so if Sifu Massengill is calling his position (our tan gerk) a bong gerk, it would suggest that it is just aping the shape, and not understanding the purpose, application or energy of the bong gerk... and...
Yes, I have BongGerk/TanGerk the same as you understand.What does he do for a tan gerk?

When you go into the hips opening and closing as in biu jee, you should understand and practice (against bags and people) the tan gerk as a strong opening out movement that can deflect a roundhouse to the thigh as well as it can get 'kuzushi' on the knee or deliver a knee or a kick from no distance. Tan gerk into that inner thigh hook is asking to get your own foot trapped even if it comes off, and is certainly putting you off-balance as you're on one foot for two moves instead of one and changing to put your weight into your own front leg, which is asking for a sweep or a single leg (in fact your own back leg is also locked tight so the double leg or kicking through your post leg isn't too unreasonable to expect).

The tan gerk should be one deflection and/or one kick: that's why there aren't two words, one for each position. This is using two moves where one would do (either a tan gerk or a huen bo).

So while semantically it's nitpicking, it does make me wonder what he understands and is teaching by the movement.

However, I don't have a FookGerk (boy, that would be dumb). You know, I like the sound of that... :D I might steal that and base my new sticky-legs-groundwork system around that. ;)

I do have a FunGerk, though. :)Are you kidding this time or what?! What's a fun gerk?

t_niehoff

02-19-2007, 06:34 AM

and/or[/i] one kick: that's why there aren't two words, one for each position. This is using two moves where one would do (either a tan gerk or a huen bo).

So while semantically it's nitpicking, it does make me wonder what he understands and is teaching by the movement.

One guy "teaches" one thing, another "teaches" something else. Theory is fun. Arguing whose theory is better, even more fun.

Mr Punch

02-19-2007, 06:59 AM

Thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes: Just in case I thought I was going to get some training on this thing.

Tom Kagan

02-19-2007, 12:01 PM

Are you kidding this time or what?! What's a fun gerk?

Well, I did say it as a pun on a ... a ... different part of anatomy. ;) However:

Fun = to seal.
FunGerk = Sealing Leg/Foot, i.e.: a stop kick. Some people call it a teep.

stricker

02-23-2007, 10:11 AM

stricker

02-23-2007, 10:15 AM

also the whole alive/dead thing i think may not be the full story about effective fighting training. i just recently got in the ring for the first time ever for an amateur thai boxing fight so this stuff is going round my head a lot. the stuff that came out were things id drilled hard on the pads and little of the nicer stuff id do in sparring came out. i also find this in rolling sometimes the things id drilled to **** over and over are what i do so it seems the to me that training that is conditioning-oriented is what works.

also a lot of pro fighters training is very drill-oriented. not just the ones i train with but also ive heard of pro boxers who dont even spar at all in fight prep (calzhage?) also one thing 2 of the best groundfighters ive seen (eddie bravo and shaolin ribeiro) have in common is they drill drill drill. shaolin especially had a lot of agility-type drills for on the ground, and he was just super slick at them. again they were very dead or unrealistic but after doing them the movement entrained comes out better in sparring/rolling. i just wonder when knifefighter said "some time for dead stuff more on alive" i think maybe for a lot of very good pro fighters the percentage is way the other way round, and the bulk is on dead drilling.

(sorry if this isnt very wing chun specific but i think this is an important and deeper issue than what style were training in)

Nick Forrer

02-23-2007, 11:16 AM

Jon

I method (SBGi terminology) is essentially:

Introduction of a technique (dead reps of a technique when first learning)
Isolation of a technique (practice technique against progressive resistence within set parameters e.g. start from side control.....have to submit him using kimura...he has to escape)
Integration of a technique (competently use technique in sparring/fighting)

So nothing shocking...just a good way to train/teach

t_niehoff

02-23-2007, 12:40 PM

t_niehoff,

this interested me a lot. have you got any references on the I method or psycho-motor training?

There is lots of material out there on "I method" that Thornton (SBGi) uses (as Nick referenced); you might want to look at the Straightblast Gym's website as a starting point (Matt even has a blog on "Aliveness"). IMO this is nothing new but merely Thornton's take on the basic model of psycho-motor training. A good textbook on the subject is "Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis" by Richard A. Schmidt (you can pick one up used on Amazon for $5). If you just want a basic outline of the subject, try looking at http://danielson.laurentian.ca/drdnotes/2206_schmidt_ch01.htm which are the course notes for a class on motor training.

Tom Kagan

02-23-2007, 03:18 PM

There is lots of material out there on "I method" that Thornton (SBGi) uses (as Nick referenced); you might want to look at the Straightblast Gym's website as a starting point (Matt even has a blog on "Aliveness"). IMO this is nothing new but merely Thornton's take on the basic model of psycho-motor training. A good textbook on the subject is "Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis" by Richard A. Schmidt (you can pick one up used on Amazon for $5). If you just want a basic outline of the subject, try looking at http://danielson.laurentian.ca/drdnotes/2206_schmidt_ch01.htm which are the course notes for a class on motor training.

I kind of liked the P.L.U.M.(tm) progression I made up for this board a while back a little better. :D

Thanks for the book reference!

BTW, in reality, the "I" method is lifted almost directly from Judo: (Kata - Uchikomi/Nagakomi - Randori). So, finding sources on this are relevant, too.

(Before anyone not knowing enough Judo gets the wrong idea, Kata in Judo - especially the "lower forms" of it - is not at all what most other arts call Kata. And, a lot of what other arts don't call Kata would actually be considered Kata from a Judo point of view.)

t_niehoff

02-23-2007, 07:20 PM

I kind of liked the P.L.U.M.(tm) progression I made up for this board a while back a little better. :D

Thanks for the book reference!

BTW, in reality, the "I" method is lifted almost directly from Judo: (Kata - Uchikomi/Nagakomi - Randori). So, finding sources on this are relevant, too.

(Before anyone not knowing enough Judo gets the wrong idea, Kata in Judo - especially the "lower forms" of it - is not at all what most other arts call Kata. And, a lot of what other arts don't call Kata would actually be considered Kata from a Judo point of view.)

In my view, Kano's real genius was in being able to step away from the "traditional model" of training martial arts -- especially in a culture that revered tradition -- and embracing a more modern view of training that was performance-based. All performance-based training methods will of necessity mirror the I-method since that is the essential mechanism by which people develop motor skills (a rose is a rose by any name). It's amazing to me that Kano even without the benefit of the hindsight we have, access to the loads of research available to us, living in his culture, etc. was able to make this leap, and yet people today still cling to the belief that the traditional model (the ancients knew so much better) works.

stricker

02-24-2007, 03:00 AM

There is lots of material out there on "I method" that Thornton (SBGi) uses (as Nick referenced); you might want to look at the Straightblast Gym's website as a starting point (Matt even has a blog on "Aliveness"). IMO this is nothing new but merely Thornton's take on the basic model of psycho-motor training. A good textbook on the subject is "Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis" by Richard A. Schmidt (you can pick one up used on Amazon for $5). If you just want a basic outline of the subject, try looking at http://danielson.laurentian.ca/drdnotes/2206_schmidt_ch01.htm which are the course notes for a class on motor training.awesome thanks. book is on its way (oh the new 4th edition is about $50, i got an earlier one for about $10)

nick, thanks as well.

did anyone have any comment on my other post. essentially what im trying to say is i think theres a kind of training im not exactly sure where it fits in this model which is resisted drilling or conditioning oriented drilling that seems very effective (from personal experience and what some top fighters do)

cheers guys. ps t_niehoff and tom kagan youve been writing a lot of good stuff its been a good read

t_niehoff

02-24-2007, 07:39 AM

also the whole alive/dead thing i think may not be the full story about effective fighting training.

I agree.

i just recently got in the ring for the first time ever for an amateur thai boxing fight so this stuff is going round my head a lot. the stuff that came out were things id drilled hard on the pads and little of the nicer stuff id do in sparring came out. i also find this in rolling sometimes the things id drilled to **** over and over are what i do so it seems the to me that training that is conditioning-oriented is what works.

I'd like to point out (to others, you already know this) that you are able to question these things precisely because of your experience fighting (using your training). One of the things going on here is that you are experiencing what I call "intensity specificity" -- the transfer of skills (training to performance) occurs best when we train at or near the intensity we will be performing.

also a lot of pro fighters training is very drill-oriented. not just the ones i train with but also ive heard of pro boxers who dont even spar at all in fight prep (calzhage?) also one thing 2 of the best groundfighters ive seen (eddie bravo and shaolin ribeiro) have in common is they drill drill drill. shaolin especially had a lot of agility-type drills for on the ground, and he was just super slick at them. again they were very dead or unrealistic but after doing them the movement entrained comes out better in sparring/rolling. i just wonder when knifefighter said "some time for dead stuff more on alive" i think maybe for a lot of very good pro fighters the percentage is way the other way round, and the bulk is on dead drilling.

(sorry if this isnt very wing chun specific but i think this is an important and deeper issue than what style were training in)

This is how I presently view these things (in a very shortened version) -- I see martial training as comprised of three general stages: learning (we learn a movement or sequence or whatever and practice it until we can comfortably and easily perform it), training (taking what we learned and making it a fighting skill and/or increasing that skill), and habituation (so that it becomes an unconscious process).

We can't "learn" very easily in a realistic/alive environment as so much is going on we can't give our attention to the thing we're trying to learn. So we remove many of the aspect of the realistic environment, creating an unrealistic or dead environment, to permit greater focus and enhance learning. Most "dead" type drills are for learning -- or for conditioning (preparing our body for the fight) which I'll come to below. Our bodies learn through repetition (develop those neural pathways), and dead drills permit a great number of repetitions. The WCK drills, including chi sao, I see as being in this category, learning. (Chi sao for me is a learning platform, not a fighting skill development platform).

Once we have learned that movement or sequence or whatever and can comfortably and easily perform it, then it needs to be put into a realistic (and intensity specific) or alive environment to develop it into a fighting skill. That means sparring or situational sparring (starting at some predetermined position and "fighting" to reach some predetermined objective). If a person doesn't train it realistically, they will not develop realistic skills (skills that work in a realistic environment); unlrealistic training (chi sao) will never develop realistic (fighting) skills. This will naturally entail the modification of those things that we have learned, and the development of our own game.

Fighting skill, however, is in large part conditioning (which is more than fitness) -- if your body isn't prepared to fight, it certainly can't fight well (regardless of what you know or believe you know). As our conditioning declines, so does our skill level (performance ability). The most difficult thing to maintain is our conditioning (especially as we get older! Ughh), and so a large percentage of our training time will be necessarily devoted to it. Some "dead" sorts of drills will be used for conditioning (like hitting the heavy bag). The sparring will develop conditioning too.

This is how I look at things and many good people have differing ways of organizing their views (though I think we're all talking about the same general thigns). Regardless of how you view things, the best advice I ever heard was this: be guided by your results.

AndrewS

02-24-2007, 08:40 AM

Hey Jon,

did anyone have any comment on my other post. essentially what im trying to say is i think theres a kind of training im not exactly sure where it fits in this model which is resisted drilling or conditioning oriented drilling that seems very effective (from personal experience and what some top fighters do)

It's called SPP- specific physical preparedness - in some coaching models.

Think about it this way,

You develop baseline conditioning in the spectrum of strength qualities necessary to your sport. (Bodyweight squats)

You then increase your level of conditioning in those qualities.
-me box squat for limit strength
-power cleans or speed squats for speed strength
-depth jumps for speed strength

You then translate the improvements in condition into improvements in execution with skill-specific drills
-body lock and suplex from a variety of situations, done explosively

Andrew

stricker

02-24-2007, 09:37 AM

stricker

02-24-2007, 09:49 AM

Hey Jon,

It's called SPP- specific physical preparedness - in some coaching models.

Think about it this way,

You develop baseline conditioning in the spectrum of strength qualities necessary to your sport. (Bodyweight squats)

You then increase your level of conditioning in those qualities.
-me box squat for limit strength
-power cleans or speed squats for speed strength
-depth jumps for speed strength

You then translate the improvements in condition into improvements in execution with skill-specific drills
-body lock and suplex from a variety of situations, done explosively

Andrewaaaah yes SPP. that would be the last stage in your plan.

to relate it back to the thing about being a weapon, its obvious to me when your dealing with someone who takes their SPP seriously, even if they aint got the highest skill level in the world you still dont wanna **** with them!

one other thing is i think i may be confusing two types of training, the 'fighter prep' training (GPP/SPP model) and 'working your way through a syllabus' (3Is). both of which are different andhave their place.

t_niehoff

02-24-2007, 11:12 AM

t_niehoff,

that makes a lot of sense, but there are still a few things im not clear about how they fit in. eg skill attribute (eg distance, timing, sensitivity etc) learning vs technique learning. but then the skill attributes are mainly learned in the less intensity-specific way than techniques.

It may help to look at things a bit differently: try not thinking in terms of technique, attributes, etc. separately but think only in terms of developing "skill". Skill is defined by the motor people as "the ability to bring about some end result with max certainty and min outlay of energy, or time and energy" (Motor Control and Learning p. 4). In other words, don't separate the skill into components parts; look at developing it as a whole, because skill is the whole enchilada. Though the enchilada has many ingredients, it is their combination that makes an enchilada. :)

Where does that skill come from? First we learn the thing, let's say a double leg shoot. We practice it in dead drills (repetitions) until we can comfortably and easily perform it. That performance of the dead drills will involve attributes (but not in the same way as it will when we go live). But we are not skillful with it at this point -- it is not a fighting skill. Why? Because we haven't developed the timing, distance, sensitivity, power, etc. that goes into really being able to use it effectively in fighting. How do we develop the ability (skill) to do that? By alive or realistic practice (by trying to use it under the same conditions we intend to use it). So the "attributes of skill" only come from alive or realistic training. This is why chi sao won't develop "sensitivity" for fighting.

But, as Andrew has pointed out, our ability to do this sort of training will depend on both our GPP and SPP. Both of these can be enhanced/developed by supplemental exercises. Sometimes this is necessary, sometimes not. Our performance (results) will inform us. Conditioning is SPP, which is a part of our skill.

Make sense?

oh and the conditioning thing is definitely not just fitness. my thai boxing coach explained it to me as you need to make your body a weapon, when you can work fast and hard on the pads with good technique then you become a force to be reckoned with.

im gonna think this through some more and come back

Excellent!