Clip from Alan Orr DVD's series

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

This is a clip from my first series:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=xIJQrbD7jL8


I hope you enjoy it.

My best

Alan www.alanorr.com

[Matrix]

Hi Alan,

I enjoyed the clip. Thanks for posting it.

[t_niehoff]

I just had the opportunity to watch Alan's DVD set on wing chun for NHB (which he was very gracious and kind enough to send me), and to see both him and one of his students (Aaron) fight

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WxESVvbz1Ws&mode=related&search

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jKpF-jeK06g&mode=related&search

and what I really liked was that he fought using his WCK just like he trained it (and presented it on the DVDs). For me, this is the test: can you make work what you are training to do? All too often I see people "practicing" things that I know from experience just won't work. Or, they say to do one thing and practice doing that thing, but when they fight, you see them move differently and do different things (which means their training was at the very least nonproductive, and perhaps counter-productive).

While their are lots of books and videos on WCK out there, 98% of them are worthless IMO -- the "good ones" merely repeat the same old tired theoretical nonsense and the "bad ones" profess to teach silly things like WCK anti-grappling or WCK groundfighting. They all talk about how WCK should be done from the perspective of someone who has never done it and can't do it. That's a guaranteed formula for failure. This is why I highly recommend Alan's DVDs: whether you agree with him or not, you can't argue with success. So for anyone interested in making their WCK functional, I suggest you put aside your preconceptions of how you "believe" or have been told WCK should be and watch these DVDs. They are good stuff.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Terence,


Alan's stuff is nice. They are good at what they are doing.

Can you please show me where is the Wing Chun in any of those fighting clips? Tell me the time frame so I can pause/rewind in slo-mo to get a clearer picture of what you are describing as the Wing Chun elements?

All is see is MMA/Boxing.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Terence,


Alan's stuff is nice. They are good at what they are doing.

Can you please show me where is the Wing Chun in any of those fighting clips? Tell me the time frame so I can pause/rewind in slo-mo to get a clearer picture of what you are describing as the Wing Chun elements?

All is see is MMA/Boxing.


I've got a better idea. Why don't you put up some clip of you fighting a decent MMA fighter and show us how it looks any different. ;)

[Jim Roselando]

T,


Your funny! I still remember you being the one who has refused to put yourself on the net even when I asked everyone to send in anything! Anything! :eek: I wasn't as shy as you. ;)

What Alan is doing is good! Nobody is saying it isnt! Those fights are representative of any MMA event.

All I want to know is which aspects are you specifically linking to his WCK?


TIA,

[t_niehoff]

T,

Your funny! I still remember you being the one who has refused to put yourself on the net even when I asked everyone to send in anything! Anything! :eek: I wasn't as shy as you. ;)


Ahh, the sense of entitlement.

My point is there is no sense discussing it with you until you've fought with your WCK against some good people. You approach WCK and what you believe it should be from a theoretical nonfighters perspective. So whatever I point out, you'll just believe is "wrong" since it won't match your theory.



What Alan is doing is good! Nobody is saying it isnt! Those fights are representative of any MMA event.

All I want to know is which aspects are you specifically linking to his WCK?


TIA,

Yes, they are representative of any MMA event since when you fight, no matter what your style or method, it will look like MMA. That is the nature of fighting. Only people who don't fight with good people believe differently (mainly because they either want to believe that or they've been told that by someone who never fought). But I don't care who it is, if you put them in with a good fighter or someone who can press them to 100%, it will look like MMA.

Alan and his guys are using WCK except for the ground. It's their expression of it. Not all BJJ fighters, boxers, etc. look alike -- there is much room for individual and stylistic variation. Buy the DVDs if you want the "elements" explained. Alan goes into it in length.

[Jim Roselando]

Typical T responce.

Show me One WCK tool being used and i'll go along with you?

One sun punch (or one hand) representative of all the training and countless hours and hours of drilling in these WCK "concepts"? Usually when I ask for this people come up with; You cant tell, its all in the Body.

I agree with you. The way you train is the way you fight. Train like mma fight like mma. I like MMA. Yes T, more than you probally realize. It is what it is tho!

Just an opinion and nothing against MMA or their (alan & his pupil) fine performance in competition. I just thought since you were so positive on this being WCK in action I would have recieved a clearer picture of what you see.


Back to lurk mode! I'll leave you with the last word after this :D

[Knifefighter]

One sun punch (or one hand) representative of all the training and countless hours and hours of drilling in these WCK "concepts"? Usually when I ask for this people come up with; You cant tell, its all in the Body.

That's why MMA/boxing/MT training is the most efficient training for most people. Same training/same fighting. One doesn't have to "look" to find almost every single aspect of the training showing up in fighting... it is already obvious.

The percentage of a style's techinques from training that show up in fighting is a good measure of how efficient the training of any style is.


Terrence:
What percentage of the their training shows up in fighting?
And how is their training different from standard MMA training?
How different is it from the training that YM was teaching?

[stricker]

good clips props for puttin up !!

i STILL need to find the time to go train with alan, but i been kinda busy with my own stuff ...

their (alan and aaron from the clips) striking style i dont think resembles "classical wing chun", but it definitely has its own flavour not typical mma or boxing.

from what i understand alans focus in wing chun is the body mechanics, so the tools (tan bon fook) might not be there but its definintely his systems flavour.

i wonder a little bit about how he put his hip into the punches, think thats different to the chum kiu shift ive seen alan teach on his video #1...

also i really dont get the no head shots with bare shins rules (aarons fight). shin-on-shin HURTS, on a level with head shots i'd have thought.

[Knifefighter]

Notice how those fights are no head shots. Might it be that one could make WC work in an environment in which only body shots are allowed?

Back in the days when I was still trying to make my WC work in fighting, I also fought in a few of those types of competitions. My conclusion was that I could make it work in that environment, but as soon as head shots were allowed, it became next to impossible for me to make it to work with any effectiveness.

[stricker]

Notice how those fights are no head shots. Might it be that one could make WC work in an environment in which only body shots are allowed?

Back in the days when I was still trying to make my WC work in fighting, I also fought in a few of those types of competitions. My conclusion was that I could make it work in that environment, but as soon as head shots were allowed, it became next to impossible for me to make it to work with any effectiveness.i'd REALLY like to see one of their fights with head shots. not how well they do or anything but i think thats when you'll really see what their particular style looks like in action.

[IRONMONK]

well sometimes boxing can look like WC :D

[t_niehoff]

Typical T responce.

Show me One WCK tool being used and i'll go along with you?


It's all WCK -- you just don't see it. You have preconceived idea of what WCK will look like in application. Buy the DVD.



One sun punch (or one hand) representative of all the training and countless hours and hours of drilling in these WCK "concepts"? Usually when I ask for this people come up with; You cant tell, its all in the Body.


For me "concepts" are at best temporary guides for beginners and at worst complete BS. WCK exists only in the application.



I agree with you. The way you train is the way you fight. Train like mma fight like mma. I like MMA. Yes T, more than you probally realize. It is what it is tho!


No, that's not what I said. What I said is that anyone, including you, the Fungs, anyone, that really fights full out will look like MMA because that is the nature of fighting -- it will look like some sort of boxing, some sort of wrestling and some sort of BJJ. You can practice all kinds of Monty Python silly walks but when you run full out, everyone regardless of their style or art will move pretty much the same way because they have to. So the way you train is not *necessarily* the way you fight -- train silly walks and that won't work in running. And, you'll be wasting your time. But, if a significant part of your training is running, then you are training the way you will run. Most WCK is silly walk stuff; they haven't functionalized it. They see someone running and say "where is the silly walk" or "show me one silly walk tool" -- they just don't get it.

That's why I said to tape yourself fighting someone good, someone that can really press you -- you'll look like you're doing MMA too. If you try the silly walk stuff, you'll get creamed.

[t_niehoff]

That's why MMA/boxing/MT training is the most efficient training for most people. Same training/same fighting. One doesn't have to "look" to find almost every single aspect of the training showing up in fighting... it is already obvious.


I agree with you that this is a serious flaw in the TCMA training paradigm. We perform forms and drills that aren't realisitic and don't represent realistic application and then expect to get good results in realistic situations!



The percentage of a style's techinques from training that show up in fighting is a good measure of how efficient the training of any style is.


Spot on! Everyone should take this to heart, and go down to a local MMA gym and fight -- that will tell them not only how effective their training is but also how efficient it is.



Terrence:
What percentage of the their training shows up in fighting?
And how is their training different from standard MMA training?
How different is it from the training that YM was teaching?

I don't want to speak for Alan. And I can say that our group here does some things differently. However, from looking at his DVDs and comparing what he says to do with what he does, it seems very consistent to me.

FWIW, in my view, the stuff from Yip -- the forms, drills, chi sao, etc. are not training (as they are not realistic) but are for teaching/learning only (although to quibble, you can correctly say that learning is a part of training). I think that in the old days, the training was the fighting. That's why I think that people who have only learned the forms and drills (no matter how "well" they can perform them) have only a superficial grasp of WCK.

[Knifefighter]

No, that's not what I said. What I said is that anyone, including you, the Fungs, anyone, that really fights full out will look like MMA because that is the nature of fighting -- it will look like some sort of boxing, some sort of wrestling and some sort of BJJ.

I'm not so sure reality bears that out. Lots of times people who train the Monty Python stuff end up looking like these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S19VsB7__v0

That doesn't look like most MMA fighters that I have seen... even the not so good ones. Looks more like elementary school fighting to me.

I think realistic, scientific, functional training is what makes fights look like what we have seen in MMA.

I think the non-realistic, Monty Python type training produces fighters that end up fighting like the guys in that clip.

[stricker]

yeah but MMA fighters dont train a style plucked out of the air... of course there's a stylistic background (ie the individual or gym's roots, most often wrestling/bjj/muay thai/boxing etc) but true mma training is not based on learning a style per se. its fighting then going over and analysing the fight, replicating the scenarios that happened in that fight, working out what you did right, what you did wrong, figuring out solutions then training them. in that sense ultimately the longer everyone does mma the further it will get from the any stylized roots and it just becomes 'fighting' or 'mma fighting style'. why try to 'demo your style' and stick to some formula (ie a style) for no reason other than aesthetics when you should just go in to fight, win, learn...

thats another reason why anyone fighting mma will look like mma regardless of what style (wing chun or whatever) they purport to be from. 50% of what the fight looks like will be dependent on the other fighter, and if they are wrestling/boxing whatever then the mirror of that will inevitably be the same.

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

Thanks for posts.

A lot of the stuff that is being talked about has be answered before.

My guys have had Pro fights with Head shots. We had 50 amateur NHB fights, then also 8 kicking Pro fights, 4 Pro NHB fights.

Tonight my guy Neil won his first Boxing match! First round TKO!

My wing chun is different that other Wing Chun as we use body structure methods as our key.

Now to you guys who can not see wing chun in the fights. Well. in training we develop skills via many methods of training Chi Sao in my school is very much a method of developing skill its like BJJ rolling. But when you fight your tools to fight are punching and kicking. If you have trained you skills you will punch and kick better that the other guy. It is hard to see that on a clip, for such. But it is not western boxing its Chinese Boxing, Elbow position, first angle, stance, methods of power are all different.

The training of forums and drills in wing chun are your blue print for your own structure, then you use that within your striking. Lap and Pak are beginners training. Then you learn to cut your punches and control the lines of attack.

All hard to explain, thats why I did the tapes.


Again, once you feel it you can tell the difference.


My best

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[Knifefighter]

My guys have had Pro fights with Head shots. We had 50 amateur NHB fights, then also 8 kicking Pro fights, 4 Pro NHB fights.

Any clips of the fights with head shots?

Or the boxing match?

[stricker]

Tonight my guy Neil won his first Boxing match! First round TKO!AWESOME well done!


it is not western boxing its Chinese Boxing, Elbow position, first angle, stance, methods of power are all different.people saying its western boxing arent noticing the right things...


IMO the line of "is it wing chun or not" is something only alan,aaron and neil can answer. do they feel in themselves the chisao etc training pays off. if they are true to themselves and say yes then that makes them wing chun fighters.

[Knifefighter]

We had 50 amateur NHB fights, then also 8 kicking Pro fights, 4 Pro NHB fights.

What is the W-L-D record for these?

[t_niehoff]

I'm not so sure reality bears that out. Lots of times people who train the Monty Python stuff end up looking like these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S19VsB7__v0

That doesn't look like most MMA fighters that I have seen... even the not so good ones. Looks more like elementary school fighting to me.

I think realistic, scientific, functional training is what makes fights look like what we have seen in MMA.

I think the non-realistic, Monty Python type training produces fighters that end up fighting like the guys in that clip.

I didn't make myself clear. Sure the Monty Python silly walk guys will look like that when they fight, and it won't work against good guys. This is why it is so important to train against good guys -- because other crap won't force you to move effectively (if your opponent is doing a silly walk, you can do one too). But when you train with good guys, that silly ass stuff just won't work -- because they are putting more pressure on you than silly walk stuff can bear, so it forces you to run (like everyone else) or get the crap beat out of you.

And, the silly walkers will fall apart even against unskilled guys with good attributes. The silly walker stuff only "passes" muster when facingother silly walkers. When they meet anyone who runs, they can't keep up.

Realistic training, which includes working at 100% and with good people, develops realistic skills. Boxers, wrestlers, BJJists, muay thai, etc. all train realistically, all fight/spar as the core of their training, and all have eliminated the nonsense -- like linked sets, unrealistic drills, silly theory, etc. And they continue to evolve.

[Nick Forrer]

Hi guys

just got back from the fight where i was cornering with alan

if you have trained cslwck you will see exactly how the forms chi sau etc translates to the fight...if not you will just say it looks like boxing/wrestling

when you understand wc mechanics properly you understand that the external 'form' doesnt really matter....but you have to be a certain level in the art to appreciate this...most people are still stuck at the external form stage

buy the dvd or come to the class...a forum is not the best place to explain this

but the clip alan put up is gold if you can get to grips with it.

[Knifefighter]

Nick-
What is the overall Win/Loss/Draw record of your guys fights?

[Nick Forrer]

Dale,

Neil won last night boxing rules 1st round tko

Also Neil and aaron both won their last fights (pro and semi pro rules MMA)

I think there may be a few more fights before that but Im not sure what the outcome was

Then before that they each have a lot of amateur wins plus other members of the iron wolves have fought amateur as well

I would say check the link at http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/nhb/teamironorr.html but Im not sure if its up to date

Alan can give a better answer no doubt

[stricker]

Nick-
What is the overall Win/Loss/Draw record of your guys fights?why does that matter? real fighters don't give a **** about their record...

[Knifefighter]

why does that matter? real fighters don't give a **** about their record...

I think it does. When one is testing out a specific method in a new setting , it helps to have an objective measurement of how one is doing.

It would be informative to know what the record is out of their 62 fights.

[stricker]

well then you need to plot a graph to see progress change hahaha

of course its offset by the level of opponent and rule type your fighting.

eg when alan first posted about fighting they were doing really well in amateur mma (no head shots) but i was kinda like thats no big deal, so what?

now, neil broadbent is fighting some known fighters on the uk mma scene, its getting impressive. the win or loss number isnt so important.

also, i think this whole crossexamination thing is bull**** anyway. i sure hope those guys fighting dont read forums. its like theyve got all these vultures on wing chun forums watching their every move, "oooh he lost a fight ah well his wing chun must be **** (even though i never fought)" or living through them "well they won some fights so, wing chun must be good, so, i must be good" etc and thats all bull****.

eg i dont rate my own ability or methods on the basis of how my coach, or xyz fighter i train with did (id be AWESOME hahaha), its about your PERSONAL development (i suck, but im making progress).

certainly the mentality of the thai fighters i train with is one of never turn a fight down, never throw the towel in, dont give a **** about your record.

[Knifefighter]

Win/Loss records are one of the ways you can judge your abilities in a somewhat subjective manner. It is one of several paramaters one can use to judge someone's ability.

If out of those 64 fights, they had only won 10, that would be much different than if they had won 54.

And, yes, they have put themselves under the microscope, so to speak, by claiming to be using WC in MMA.

That's just the nature of being the first to do something in a public arena.

[Matrix]

I think the non-realistic, Monty Python type training produces fighters that end up fighting like the guys in that clip.What's wrong with Monty Python (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqtt-b0cmBI). Oooh, oooh ohhh, gettin' all high and mighty are we. Fresh fruit not good enough you, eh........ classic. :)

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

Again thanks for your support.


In terns of my views on comps, read my new interview:

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/sifuinterview2.html


In terms of fight records:

Amateur NHB 23 wins 15 draws 8 losses

2 wins where from body blows. which show our power.

Semi Pro and Pro 3 wins 1 loss ( also 1 loss to injury)

Full contact kick boxing 3 wins plus Gold medal

Amateur NHB light weight national Belt

Middle weight runner up.

Boxing 1 win TKO.



We have 2 pro fights coming up and 4-6 amateurs as well.

All good fun. Read the article. You will see we fight for our development. The group of individuals who fight represents the small percentage of students that I teach who would like to complete with the skills I have passed on to them. Completing is not a required part of my school training, but some students do want to push themselves in this matter. Therefore, it is my role to make sure they have the best training and coaching available. The main goals of the TEAM are to learn, have fun and improve individually and as a TEAM

My best

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[Gooseman]

I have total respect and admiration for the Alan Orr fight team.
No real criticism can be levied against their actions, basically because they are doin' it! It being fighting to win!
Alas, I do believe that Alan's opponent was a trifle novice up against a long road Master, not a wholly accurate display of forces, wills and skills.
Apart from that, good luck and keep on truckin'.
Steve Gooseman

[Jim Roselando]

Hey guys,



This whole discussion is important. See, some people see wing chun and some people see other stuff. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Alan's body to not be different or use different attributes. This comes from all the other training he does. The Wing Chun structure and strength from its training are all inside the body and no doubt it would feel different from the average guy. So, as Alan said:

But it is not western boxing its Chinese Boxing, Elbow position, first angle, stance, methods of power are all different!

This makes sense. But, its still mainly rooted in Chinese boxing/MMA with the concepts more than Wing Chun. Here is why I say that!

Wing Chun is designed to develop reflexes or reactions without thinking. For me, this means, when or if you get one of those reference points (or not) during exchange the body will not think but react with what has been trained to the Natural. When these things happen during the fight footages the body power might be wck concepts but the Natural reactions were mainly Chinese Boxing. Jab, Cross, Hook, Neck Crank etc..

I dont believe, contrary to opinion, that you need to look the same as you train in realistic situation/sparring. This is a huge mistake but what is important would be what is coming out Naturally in heated training. Alan's performance shows that in heated situation his Chinese boxing stuff is natural for him with the extra beef from his WCK/other training backing it up. Alan is comfortable, relaxed and strong. Great job Alan!


Dale/Knifefighter wrote:

The percentage of a style's techinques from training that show up in fighting is a good measure of how efficient the training of any style is.

What percentage of the their training shows up in fighting?
And how is their training different from standard MMA training?


This is exactly what I am talking about. Sure the body and angles maybe rooted in wck or other training but what % of the art being applied is Chinese Boxing or WCK. Once again, this has nothing against their excellent performances but more to do with what Dale also mentions.


Great results in the fights guys! Congrats!

[t_niehoff]

Wing Chun is designed to develop reflexes or reactions without thinking. For me, this means, when or if you get one of those reference points (or not) during exchange the body will not think but react with what has been trained to the Natural. When these things happen during the fight footages the body power might be wck concepts but the Natural reactions were mainly Chinese Boxing. Jab, Cross, Hook, Neck Crank etc..


No, this is a mistaken view IME. If a person develops "reflexes or reactions without thinking" you'll be easily defeated by a good fighter because you will be predictable (every X will get Y response). Fighting, regardless of the method, is an open skill - and open skills have a significant cognitive element. FWIW, I think this is one of the big mistakes many people make: not treating WCK as an open skill athletic activity.



I dont believe, contrary to opinion, that you need to look the same as you train in realistic situation/sparring. This is a huge mistake but what is important would be what is coming out Naturally in heated training.


You may not "believe" but that is true, and it has been proved by motor science researchers (for the past 60 years "the specificity principle" has been accepted) and corroborated/supported by all combative athletes with significant skills.



Alan's performance shows that in heated situation his Chinese boxing stuff is natural for him with the extra beef from his WCK/other training backing it up. Alan is comfortable, relaxed and strong. Great job Alan!


I nice back-hand compliment (essentially "good fight, poor WCK"). Here's the problem: you have an idea of how you think WCK should work or should look in fighting/application. That's your theory. And that's all it is since you've never seen anyone who could do it against anyone with decent fighting skills. But it persists nonetheless. You see Alan fight and contrast what he did with your theory, and since he didn't meet your "standard" by your theory, he had poor WCK.

Another big mistake people make is not grasping that their "understanding" of WCK (or any fighting method, and fighting in general) is largely dependent upon and limited by their personal performance level (skill). In other words, people who can't *do* it (in fighting), don't understand it. People with low level skill, have low level understanding. And so on. So unless you can do it, and at a higher skill level than Alan (for example), you -- and this goes for everyone -- simply can't *know* what is or is not good WCK.

What Alan's clip represents is his expression of WCK at a certain skill level. That's it.

[Jim Roselando]

Terence,


I played a lot of sports growing up. I know the relationship between development and usage In a Game sort of scenerio. Wing Chun is absolutely no different from any other physical activity. For some strange reason you seem to believe that if people trained something for 10 years that there is eventually a point where its just so nautral you cant tell what it is! I cant go along with this. I have never seen someone train Basketball for 10 years and then come out looking like a Hockey player.

The feels/principles that are first Programed and then De-Programed are just that. A stage. But!!! If you have a Direct relationship with what you practice to your Body then it has to be there or its just not Natural (or as natural as whatever else you are practicing). The whole Non-Experience in rough and tough stuff shows this not to be true is laughable. Knifefighter/Dale had a similar opinion. Atleast thats what I got out of it.

If two people get to the Clinch sort of range and for some moment the bodies connect at some point then this is the Exact Point In Time where what you train to be natural should come out. The pressure on your body will bring you into Natural reaction state from your training. Very Simple.

None of this was a Poke at anyone. Sorry! Stay on topic. I have been around and have respect for this stufff as its effective. As I have mentioned in the discussion. Alan is solid and relaxed in there. Doesn't take a genious to see that. Hence why I compliment him and his boys.

[azwingchun]

Here's the problem: you have an idea of how you think WCK should work or should look in fighting/application. That's your theory. And that's all it is since you've never seen anyone who could do it against anyone with decent fighting skills. But it persists nonetheless. You see Alan fight and contrast what he did with your theory, and since he didn't meet your "standard" by your theory, he had poor WCK.

Wow....I actually agree with Terence! ;)

I think this is one of the best and most important things mentioned on this board in awhile. Stepping aside from the discussion of actual fighting for a moment, I see this happen in Wing Chun quite often. How many times have I heard someone say that a certain individual or school does chi sau differently from the next and are told that it bad Wing Chun. All because it appears slightly different from their own theories, maybe they feel it isn't tight enough, too stiff, too relaxed, not enough forward pressure, etc. These statements are based upon one's own ideas, which each group feel are their "standard" ways and anything else is just wrong or not (Good)Wing Chun.

Now back to fighting, these same things are said about Alan Orr and his group. People don't seem to see the Wing Chun because of appearance (IMHO) though I can see the concepts within their methods. Of course it may not appear to be Wing Chun in appearance, but to me, Wing Chun comes from the inside.....not the shape or look or the methods used (or easily seen from the outside).

In short, I feel great Wing Chun isn't seen as much as it is felt!

[Jim Roselando]

Hey John,


I agree and disagree with you which means I also agree and disagree with Terence. Once WCK is cultivated you are certainly not a slave to its so-called look. No Doubt! We agree!

***

Boxing has: Jab, Cross, Hook, Uppercut, etc..

Wing Chun has: Chung Choi, Gwa Choi, Biu Choi etc..

If you train WCK for 10 years then some of your daily training and regular tools should show up somewhere under pressure! If it doesn't, then its not natural for you or as natural as whatever else you are doing. Its really just that simple.

***

This reminds me of the old Karate debate. Wing Chunners forever complain that their art is better than Karate because we have more of a relationship in what we do to how we use it naturally. Why train like Karate if we fight like Kickboxers was the common slogan wasn't it?

I'm still waiting for Dale to chime in with his thoughts. For some strange reason I think he might actually agree with me for once hahaha :) :) :)

Gotta run!

[azwingchun]

My question to you is this......how do you use your Wing Chun upper cuts, hooking punch etc. under pressure differenly than another style that uses those same techniques? Might sound like a silly question.....though an honest question. ;)

I had two different teachers in my past martial arts training (one a Wing Chun teacher and the other a Tai Chi teacher) tell me that after the first 3-4 punches your system/style goes out the window. This really disturbed me as a student....I at the time had a slight drop in repsect for those teachers (sadly to say). Though today after rethinking those statements, I am not to sure that at that time I truly understood what they meant. Did they mean that the traditional (dare I say robotic) look of the system goes out the window or did they mean you just lose your system completely?!?!?!?

And yes, that use to disturb me as well......I use to watch late night kickboxing fights on TV during the 80's. You couldn't tell a Kenpo guy from a Tae Kwon Do guy. As a kid I didn't really understand this......was it just that the basics were what won the fight....as to the stylized signatures?!?!?!?!

[Knifefighter]

TFor some strange reason you seem to believe that if people trained something for 10 years that there is eventually a point where its just so nautral you cant tell what it is! I cant go along with this. I have never seen someone train Basketball for 10 years and then come out looking like a Hockey player.

Actually, I think I agree with both you and T in certain respects. I think you are right in that your fighting will look like your training and you will be able to differentiate it, in terms of "styles".

On the other hand, I believe that, at the top levels (assuming the environments are similar), most people's fighting will look pretty much the same. This is because there is probably only one (with some slight variations) best way to do a particular activity. This is exactly why basketball does not look like hockey, but most basketball players play pretty similar games (with some slight to moderate variations) to each other- same with MMA... I believe there is definitely a "best" way to fight in an MMA environment.

Additionally, the "best" way is always dependent on the environment... this is one of the reasons for the rise of striking in MMA. No longer can a grappler keep an opponent down on the ground for 30, 60, or 90 minutes until his opponent makes a mistake. In today's MMA environment, the striker only has to survive on the ground until the ref stands the fighters up or stops the fight due to cuts... neither of which happened in earlier NHB days.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey John,


My question to you is this......how do you use your Wing Chun upper cuts, hooking punch etc. under pressure differenly than another style that uses those same techniques? Might sound like a silly question.....though an honest question.

I cant answer the above properly for what I write below this paragraph as the main reason. In heated situation we are more concerned with safe body positioning!!! This allows us to move in and out depending on the exchange. I can hear my sifu repeating the mantra:

Jim, protect yourself at all times with good positioning!

The funny thing is I agree about not being a slave to the training shapes. The shape of the body need not look like the cultivational part of the training but we certainly use the tools we develop. We are mainly a Fist Boxing art after all.

Uppercut/Hook? Honestly! Almost Never! The Upper-Cut type hit only happen when your real close and it stuffs in from under. Hook punch is not something we train. A lot of people use this Hook concept as a take down but still not commonly practiced in our training.

I had two different teachers in my past martial arts training (one a Wing Chun teacher and the other a Tai Chi teacher) tell me that after the first 3-4 punches your system/style goes out the window. This really disturbed me as a student....I at the time had a slight drop in repsect for those teachers (sadly to say). Though today after rethinking those statements, I am not to sure that at that time I truly understood what they meant. Did they mean that the traditional (dare I say robotic) look of the system goes out the window or did they mean you just lose your system completely?!?!?!?

I would imagine they are talking about bringing yourself to the natural stages with what you do. Its almost impossible to hit someone with numerous shots. Even if you really do land a couple of good shots your lucky if you get 2 (heavy blows) landed max. All the compond so-called traps will not be there. One or two shots max if we are lucky in heated situation. Still this is different from what i am talking about.

And yes, that use to disturb me as well......I use to watch late night kickboxing fights on TV during the 80's. You couldn't tell a Kenpo guy from a Tae Kwon Do guy. As a kid I didn't really understand this......was it just that the basics were what won the fight....as to the stylized signatures?!?!?!?!

:)

Thanks for the input.

[azwingchun]

Uppercut/Hook? Honestly! Almost Never!

I see for the most part what you are saying......especially the protecting yourself part. Though the above quote is where we differ. They are a part of the Wing Chun boxing and should be trained just as much as any IMO.

[anerlich]

What's wrong with Monty Python.

Just make sure you don't model yourself on the Black Knight.

Good clip. Amazing how long some of these arguments can go on, ain't it?

[stricker]

I had two different teachers in my past martial arts training (one a Wing Chun teacher and the other a Tai Chi teacher) tell me that after the first 3-4 punches your system/style goes out the window. This really disturbed me as a student....I at the time had a slight drop in repsect for those teachers (sadly to say). Though today after rethinking those statements, I am not to sure that at that time I truly understood what they meant. Did they mean that the traditional (dare I say robotic) look of the system goes out the window or did they mean you just lose your system completely?!?!?!?

And yes, that use to disturb me as well......I use to watch late night kickboxing fights on TV during the 80's. You couldn't tell a Kenpo guy from a Tae Kwon Do guy. As a kid I didn't really understand this......was it just that the basics were what won the fight....as to the stylized signatures?!?!?!?!the thing about it all going out the window is very important to address again whatever art. now i dont know the answers but i think this is where the 'intensity-specific' principle comes in that tniehoff talked about, and also dealing with the bodies natural reaction to attack etc

also one thing to bear in mind is that when a lot of wing chun people say "they lost their system and reverted to just boxing or just kickboxing" theyre wrong. go watch some novice/amateur fights and tell me if you see proper stance, guard, jab, cross, hook form etc. these arts (boxing/thai etc) have a structure and form etc and correct form is HARD to keep up under pressure. i saw one or two novice/amateur thai fights at the weekend and boy past the 1st round they were barely recognisable as muay thai fighters :)

also, about the stylized signatures well one thing is every person moves differently anyway, their body languague if you will. the second thing is the stylized signature often is there but you have to look carefully to see it. its usually pretty easy to tell someones background (boxing/thai/kickboxing/karate etc) even thought the techniques may be similar and it all looks like fighting. its just in action everythings a bit 'blurred' or not as stylized. eg i can see alans teams clips and see the wing chun roots are there in how they move even though it doesnt obviously look wing chun (like the forms/drills etc). actually, i also saw a few little things that made me think hmm not so wing chun but were not talking details so thats another story :)

[stricker]

Just make sure you don't model yourself on the Black Knight.

Good clip. Amazing how long some of these arguments can go on, ain't it?its just a flesh wound :D :D :D

[Matrix]

Amazing how long some of these arguments can go on, ain't it?Is this the 5 minute arguement or the full half hour? :p

[azwingchun]

also, about the stylized signatures well one thing is every person moves differently anyway, their body languague if you will. the second thing is the stylized signature often is there but you have to look carefully to see it. its usually pretty easy to tell someones background (boxing/thai/kickboxing/karate etc) even thought the techniques may be similar and it all looks like fighting. its just in action everythings a bit 'blurred' or not as stylized. eg i can see alans teams clips and see the wing chun roots are there in how they move even though it doesnt obviously look wing chun (like the forms/drills etc). actually, i also saw a few little things that made me think hmm not so wing chun but were not talking details so thats another story

The above about the stylized character and having to look carefully....I agree 100%. I think some times too much focus is spent on what someone's shape/form appears to be and not the concepts or principals which are being applied.

[osprey3883]

Hello all,
Sorry to chime in here so late in the discussion, but here goes-
I have to agree with those posting that certain arts have a certain signature or flavor based on the expression of the art. Ultimately it all boils down to "you fight how you train", it has been shown many times over.

re- Terence

I nice back-hand compliment (essentially "good fight, poor WCK"). Here's the problem: you have an idea of how you think WCK should work or should look in fighting/application. That's your theory. And that's all it is since you've never seen anyone who could do it against anyone with decent fighting skills. But it persists nonetheless. You see Alan fight and contrast what he did with your theory, and since he didn't meet your "standard" by your theory, he had poor WCK.

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. If you show multiple lineages of WC practitioners the same clip, and the majority can't/don't see the WC, then you are most likely not expressing WC. You may be expressing something that is a part of your training, but it is likely your instructors take on how to deal with a particular situation, not an expression of WC.

I will say I do appreciate Alan's willingness to go mix it up. The NHB rule on not striking to the face would make me nuts though.

Just my 2 cents,
Matt

[t_niehoff]

Hello all,
Sorry to chime in here so late in the discussion, but here goes-
I have to agree with those posting that certain arts have a certain signature or flavor based on the expression of the art. Ultimately it all boils down to "you fight how you train", it has been shown many times over.

re- Terence

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. If you show multiple lineages of WC practitioners the same clip, and the majority can't/don't see the WC, then you are most likely not expressing WC. You may be expressing something that is a part of your training, but it is likely your instructors take on how to deal with a particular situation, not an expression of WC.


I don't disagree. But only those people who are acquainted with "genuine expression of the art" and at a fairly significant level would know; nonfighting theoreticians are lost in their theory.

It's this simple: A person's understanding of WCK is directly related (tied to) his skill level (how well he can fight using his WCK). I don't care if someone calls themself "master" or "grandmaster" or have been "practicing" WCK for 30 years, their understanding is on the same level as their fighting skill. So having lots of people in WCK who can't do it say how it "should" be done or how it a"should" look is meaningless. This is the blind leading the blind.

From what I've heard, no one who really practices WCK -- fights with it and against decent oppostion -- has registered any disagreement with Alan's expression.

[Jim Roselando]

T wrote:

From what I've heard, no one who really practices WCK -- fights with it and against decent oppostion -- has registered any disagreement with Alan's expression.

Nobody is complaining about Alan's performance. As a matter of fact, most are complimenting him. The discussion is how much is WCK%. So, nobody needs Terence to answer that question since Alan has replied and answered already:

It is hard to see that on a clip, for such. But it is not western boxing its CHINESE BOXING, Elbow position, first angle, stance, methods of power are all different.

[osprey3883]

I don't disagree. But only those people who are acquainted with "genuine expression of the art" and at a fairly significant level would know; nonfighting theoreticians are lost in their theory.

Terrence,
Are you saying that the wing chun community in general doesn't have people qualified to see what is and isn't wing chun?

I would have to agree with Jim, looking at the demo clip as well as the fighting clips, IMO I see more general chinese kung fu knowledge, but not anything that strikes the viewer as "yep, that's WC."

Matt

[Nick Forrer]

Funny we were training our wc with a well known MMA fighter tonight working some drills with the boxing gloves.

Although no slouch with his stand up, if all we were doing was boxing or muay thai then he should have had no trouble doing what we were doing since it would be interchangeable with what he already knows. Instead his stance, elbow position and torso rotation were all different and he had to be coached how to do our method.

Still I guess what we are doing is still not WC:rolleyes:

In our system we have spring punches, whipping punches, cutting punches, bouncing punches, thrusting punches and piercing punches (amongst others)...If all your system has is straight punches plus some hand techniques with no body structure to power them then yes you will look at clips and say that is not wc. But what you really mean is 'that is not wc according to my level of understanding of it'.

[Liddel]

I think some times too much focus is spent on what someone's shape/form appears to be and not the concepts or principals which are being applied.

Yes.
From what Alan has posted, it seems form his POV Body structure is the most important element in VT. So for people to look for shapes and form is flawed.

IMO Dynamic body structure is the most important part in VT, from the legs up.
Second is the behaviour of the elbows, for structure and power.
Thirdly is the timing of VT.

These attributes (IMO only :p ) are the main differences between VT and other styles and traits that i look for when looking at VT in action.

Alans guys may certainly look like any other style an observer can imagine, but what about how they generate power, something you have to feel.

I can make my VT look like other styles but i am a VT man, i can apply Boxing methods like a 'swirl' or a 'falling step' to my punch, with elbow in and first vertical.

So what style is my punch then ? Its mine ! :cool:
DREW

[GlennR]

IMO Dynamic body structure is the most important part in VT, from the legs up.
Second is the behaviour of the elbows, for structure and power.
Thirdly is the timing of VT.

Alans guys may certainly look like any other style an observer can imagine, but what about how they generate power, something you have to feel.

I can make my VT look like other styles but i am a VT man, i can apply Boxing methods like a 'swirl' or a 'falling step' to my punch, with elbow in and first vertical.

Hi All

I think Liddel is spot on with the above comments.
Its all about what the other guy is feeling at the other end that more or less defines what "style" is being applied upon him.

What i see on both the clips is good structure, presenting the body in what i would call a "WC way".
Stop looking at the hands for a second and compare the stance of the opposing fighters..... totally different from the WC guys who look surprisingly similar.
That would be my signature for the two WC fighters

Regarding hands and elbows? I still see elbows down and plenty of straight punches..... all seems WC to me.

My guess is that the non-Wc boys would have felt;
- strong forward force
- hard to crack defense, particularly down the centre
- power in the punching

My two cents worth!

Glenn

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,
Are you saying that the wing chun community in general doesn't have people qualified to see what is and isn't wing chun?

I would have to agree with Jim, looking at the demo clip as well as the fighting clips, IMO I see more general chinese kung fu knowledge, but not anything that strikes the viewer as "yep, that's WC."

Matt

As the "wing chun community in general" (including its "masters" and "grandmasters") couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack (use their WCK), I wouldn't give their opinion much weight.

When I first saw the 1st UFC and saw Royce fight, it looked like crap -- but the commentator, someone who knew BJJ kept talking about how well Royce was doing (even though it looked to me like he was getting killed). I thought he was crazy! Then Royce's opponent's tapped, and I didn't even know why. Because I did not have an "educated eye" to ground fighting at that point.

It takes a certain "education" to see what Alan is doing.

Let's leave it at this: there is the "art" part of WCK and the "martial" part of WCK. Everyone has the "art." Few develop the "martial." People stuck on the "art" believe the "martial" will look like the "art", and have all kinds of theories about the "martial" based on the "art." If and when they begin to develop the "martial", their perspective will change. Only people doing the "martial" can appreciate the "martial."

[azwingchun]

Yes.
From what Alan has posted, it seems form his POV Body structure is the most important element in VT. So for people to look for shapes and form is flawed.

IMO Dynamic body structure is the most important part in VT, from the legs up.
Second is the behaviour of the elbows, for structure and power.
Thirdly is the timing of VT.

These attributes (IMO only ) are the main differences between VT and other styles and traits that i look for when looking at VT in action.

Alans guys may certainly look like any other style an observer can imagine, but what about how they generate power, something you have to feel.

I can make my VT look like other styles but i am a VT man, i can apply Boxing methods like a 'swirl' or a 'falling step' to my punch, with elbow in and first vertical.

So what style is my punch then ? Its mine !
DREW

I agree with you.....I still say great Wing Chun is felt and not seen. ;)

As fas as elbows, for the most part I would agree, though lets not forget that Wing Chun doesn't always have the elbow down.....look at bong sau, fak sau, the elbow strikes, and the hooking punch. The elbow down is only but one principal of Wing Chun for defense and power generation......there are other principals as well.

[ChangHFY]

It's this simple: A person's understanding of WCK is directly related (tied to) his skill level (how well he can fight using his WCK). I don't care if someone calls themself "master" or "grandmaster" or have been "practicing" WCK for 30 years, their understanding is on the same level as their fighting skill. So having lots of people in WCK who can't do it say how it "should" be done or how it a"should" look is meaningless. This is the blind leading the blind.

Hey Terrence,

I would have to disagree with this post,

a persons knowledge of Wing Chun is not directly tied to his/her skill.
For instance I could be a practitioner of 10 different expressions of Wing Chun. In the Wing Chun community I would be considered an knowledgeable practitioner.
But if Ive never had skill challenges than my knowledge in no way reflects my skill.

In Wing Chun if you havent used the concepts that are being trained in a live skill challenge such as full contact fighting or something similar, than the knowledge that is being learned has no meaning on where your skill level lies.

take care,
Zach

[t_niehoff]

It's this simple: A person's understanding of WCK is directly related (tied to) his skill level (how well he can fight using his WCK). I don't care if someone calls themself "master" or "grandmaster" or have been "practicing" WCK for 30 years, their understanding is on the same level as their fighting skill. So having lots of people in WCK who can't do it say how it "should" be done or how it a"should" look is meaningless. This is the blind leading the blind.

Hey Terrence,

I would have to disagree with this post,

a persons knowledge of Wing Chun is not directly tied to his/her skill.
For instance I could be a practitioner of 10 different expressions of Wing Chun. In the Wing Chun community I would be considered an knowledgeable practitioner.
But if Ive never had skill challenges than my knowledge in no way reflects my skill.

In Wing Chun if you havent used the concepts that are being trained in a live skill challenge such as full contact fighting or something similar, than the knowledge that is being learned has no meaning on where your skill level lies.

take care,
Zach


Zach, I understand what you mean. This is the old I-know-it-but-I-just-can't-do-it (yet) view. A variation of that is I-can't-do-it-but-I-can-teach-it ("I'm a teacher not a fighter"). This view arises from IMO incorrectly looking at WCK as being knowledge-based, like an academic subject. It's not. Try looking at WCK for what it really is: a physical activity. Do you really know how to juggle or ride a bike if you can't do those things? They are physical activities, physical skills. In physical activites/skills, you don't really know it unless you can do it. And the better you can do it, the more you know about it. WCK is like wrestling or BJJ or any fighting method: our knowledge for the most part comes from our skill, not the other way round. If you can't do it (if you can't juggle or can't grapple well), then you don't know how to do it, and if you don't know how to do it, the only knowledge you have is superficial.

The forms, drills, theory, etc. are all superficial in that they show elements of WCK but don't show WCK, the activity. And skill in WCK is skill in doing the activity (fighting). Our ability/skill informs our understanding of the forms, drills, theory, etc. Someone with low skill won't understand (or know) the same things as someone with greater skill. For example, a black belt in BJJ knows more and understands more about passing the guard than a blue belt -- and that knowledge and understanding comes from his skill (or more exactly, from the process he went through to develop that skill). Someone might have the superficial knowledge of how to pass the guard but little genuine skill (they can't do it well in fighting). If that's the case, I'd say that they really don't know that much, don't understand that much, and that their knowledge is reflected by their skill. Is that someone you want to teach you how to pass the guard?

[JPinAZ]

The forms, drills, theory, etc. are all superficial in that they show elements of WCK but don't show WCK, the activity. And skill in WCK is skill in doing the activity (fighting). Our ability/skill informs our understanding of the forms, drills, theory, etc. Someone with low skill won't understand (or know) the same things as someone with greater skill. For example, a black belt in BJJ knows more and understands more about passing the guard than a blue belt -- and that knowledge and understanding comes from his skill (or more exactly, from the process he went through to develop that skill). Someone might have the superficial knowledge of how to pass the guard but little genuine skill (they can't do it well in fighting). If that's the case, I'd say that they really don't know that much, don't understand that much, and that their knowledge is reflected by their skill. Is that someone you want to teach you how to pass the guard?

From that line of thinking, I'm sure there are least a FEW 1st degree black sash/belts in WC just here on this forum. So, then there's gotta be plenty of good 'WC community" right here huh.....

In my opinion, while the videos do show some pretty good skill, I didn't 'see' much of what I'd say 'looked like WC'. If the theroies were there (concepts/principles), that's different - much harder to 'see' that. haha, if there's even such a thing right? ;)

JP

[golden arhat]

hi i posted some ofm your stuff on another thread

u got any clips of you using this stuff in a competition ?
just out of interest ?

[forever young]

From that line of thinking, I'm sure there are least a FEW 1st degree black sash/belts in WC just here on this forum. So, then there's gotta be plenty of good 'WC community" right here huh.....



i would just like to chime in to ask when the hell did sashes/belts become part of the system and are they directly pertainable to fighting skill or knowledge of forms????
oh and where the hell is my sash/belt and can i have a red, gold and green sash :D
but in all honestly i thought skill and ability determined whom is given status not belts/sashes and is this use of sashes becoming prevailent within wc/vt (i know LT awards rank)

[JPinAZ]

i would just like to chime in to ask when the hell did sashes/belts become part of the system and are they directly pertainable to fighting skill or knowledge of forms????
oh and where the hell is my sash/belt and can i have a red, gold and green sash :D
but in all honestly i thought skill and ability determined whom is given status not belts/sashes and is this use of sashes becoming prevailent within wc/vt (i know LT awards rank)

I hear ya, it was more sarcasm than anything. Belt ranking and/or levels/certifications do not necessarily equate to skill. And sometimes, they only represent an amount of time training.

The point was, Terrence gave a standard (belt rankings) to determine knowledge and skill (BJJ was the example), but also argued whether or not people from the "WC community" had certain 'education' to SEE WC or not in Alan's videos.
By his rational from the example given, if a Blackbelt in BJJ has better abilities/knowledge than a blue belt, then it can be assumed that a 'WC blackbelt' should be able to easily identify whether or not a video clip 'resembles' WC by visual apperances.

heh, it's all mumbo jumbo to me. IMO terrence in no way shape or form has the ability to decide who can/can't critique something else, but it comes across in his posts as if he feels he the end-all expert on a lot of things. ahh well, I gotta go train :)

JP

[t_niehoff]

I hear ya, it was more sarcasm than anything. Belt ranking and/or levels/certifications do not necessarily equate to skill. And sometimes, they only represent an amount of time training.


This may be true where belts/ranks aren't performance based.



The point was, Terrence gave a standard (belt rankings) to determine knowledge and skill (BJJ was the example), but also argued whether or not people from the "WC community" had certain 'education' to SEE WC or not in Alan's videos.
By his rational from the example given, if a Blackbelt in BJJ has better abilities/knowledge than a blue belt, then it can be assumed that a 'WC blackbelt' should be able to easily identify whether or not a video clip 'resembles' WC by visual apperances.


Again, that would be true if WCK had performance-based rankings. It doesn't. Anyone can call themselves master or grandmaster or wear a black sash. They don't earn their "status" by performance, by their fighting level.



heh, it's all mumbo jumbo to me. IMO terrence in no way shape or form has the ability to decide who can/can't critique something else, but it comes across in his posts as if he feels he the end-all expert on a lot of things. ahh well, I gotta go train :)


I don't consider or claim to be an expert in anything. For example, I don't call myself master or grandmaster. ;) I don't hold myself out as an authority. My saying that other people aren't authorities or don't know what they are talking about is not the same thing as saying I am an authority.

My view is that we shouldn't accept any authority or view unless and until we see proof of that authority or view, and in terms of WCK that means in fighting. Our knowledge and understanding of WCK is directly related and dependent upon our fighting skill. Fighting skill comes from fighting. Since most WCK 'authorities' and the people commenting on Alan have little to no fighting experience, they can have little in the way of fighting skill, which means they have little to no real knowledge or understanding of WCK. How can people intelligently critique what they can't do?

[JPinAZ]

Again, that would be true if WCK had performance-based rankings. It doesn't. Anyone can call themselves master or grandmaster or wear a black sash. They don't earn their "status" by performance, by their fighting level.

So, now you are an authority on ALL WCK and how they test/give out rank?? Amazing.... you must be a VERY well-traveled man.. You knowledge on the subject astounds me :rolleyes:
Ok, how's this, you list all the WCK schools, families, etc that you KNOW don't have performance-based rankings. This should obviously be a LONG list since it seems you are saying WCK as a whole does not have them.


I don't consider or claim to be an expert in anything. For example, I don't call myself master or grandmaster. ;) I don't hold myself out as an authority. My saying that other people aren't authorities or don't know what they are talking about is not the same thing as saying I am an authority.

Sorry, my bad - you're not an authority or expert.
So, then you can't pass much judgement on other people's ability to say anything, since you yourself do not have the expertise in the given subject. So why should we then take your word when you say who is/isn't and authority??


My view is that we shouldn't accept any authority or view unless and until we see proof of that authority or view, and in terms of WCK that means in fighting. Our knowledge and understanding of WCK is directly related and dependent upon our fighting skill. Fighting skill comes from fighting.

Now this is different - you're expressing 'your view'. I agree with some of this - knowledge and understanding of WCK can be demonstrated by one's ability to physically represent thier art/system in a fight (thier fighting skill). But it can also be demonstrated by training/teaching proven, competent fighters. So maybe you might rethink your all-or-nothing POV.

Fighting skills, IMO, are TESTED/MEASURED by fighting. They don't necessarily COME from fighting all-or-nothing as you put it. I think fighting skills are also developed in training, sparring, drills, understanding the laws of nature, 'concepts & principles' etc. Fighting is demonstrating your abilities/skills at applying these understandings physically.


Since most WCK 'authorities' and the people commenting on Alan have little to no fighting experience, they can have little in the way of fighting skill, which means they have little to no real knowledge or understanding of WCK. How can people intelligently critique what they can't do?

Says who?

Jonathan

[t_niehoff]

So, now you are an authority on ALL WCK and how they test/give out rank?? Amazing.... you must be a VERY well-traveled man.. You knowledge on the subject astounds me :rolleyes:
Ok, how's this, you list all the WCK schools, families, etc that you KNOW don't have performance-based rankings. This should obviously be a LONG list since it seems you are saying WCK as a whole does not have them.


I'm speaking generally, of course. But, fwiw, I have been around WCK for a long time and seen a great deal, including many of the "authorities." When I talk about performance-based rankings, I am speaking of that being fighting performance. If you think your rankings are performance based, there is an easy way to tell -- bring some MMAists to your school and let everyone fight.



Sorry, my bad - you're not an authority or expert.
So, then you can't pass much judgement on other people's ability to say anything, since you yourself do not have the expertise in the given subject. So why should we then take your word when you say who is/isn't and authority??


Once again -- and how many times do I have to say this? -- I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. That's what authorities expect. I'm saying don't believe something unless you see it, see evidence. The other thing I'm saying is that we can look at people we know to be experts/highly skilled and see what they are doing.



Now this is different - you're expressing 'your view'. I agree with some of this - knowledge and understanding of WCK can be demonstrated by one's ability to physically represent thier art/system in a fight (thier fighting skill). But it can also be demonstrated by training/teaching proven, competent fighters. So maybe you might rethink your all-or-nothing POV.


So you are saying that people who can't fight well themselves can train people to fight well?



Fighting skills, IMO, are TESTED/MEASURED by fighting. They don't necessarily COME from fighting all-or-nothing as you put it. I think fighting skills are also developed in training, sparring, drills, understanding the laws of nature, 'concepts & principles' etc. Fighting is demonstrating your abilities/skills at applying these understandings physically.


Development of any skill primarily comes from practicing that skill (in other words, doing what you intend to do). Most of the drills we do in WCK do not involve practicing fighting skills since we are not fighting. We practice them in unrealistic (nonfighting) environments. This is fine -- and necessary -- for learning a skill but will not develop fighting skills. It can't: you can't get realistic skills from training unrealistically. Our training is not, of course, all fighting. There are conditioning drills, etc. All these sorts of things are secondary and/or preparatory of fighitng.

If you look at how all good fighters train, boxers, MMAists, BJJ, muay thai, etc. you'll see the same things.

[JPinAZ]

I'm speaking generally, of course. But, fwiw, I have been around WCK for a long time and seen a great deal, including many of the "authorities." When I talk about performance-based rankings, I am speaking of that being fighting performance. If you think your rankings are performance based, there is an easy way to tell -- bring some MMAists to your school and let everyone fight.

Of course, generally speaking. But it sure didn't sound that way the first time. Just curious, care to name just a few that aren't performance based? or the "authorities" you speak of that can't perform? ;)

I understood what you meant by performance based rankings. And I agree with your definition.


Once again -- and how many times do I have to say this? -- I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. That's what authorities expect. I'm saying don't believe something unless you see it, see evidence. The other thing I'm saying is that we can look at people we know to be experts/highly skilled and see what they are doing.

Ok, but that's not what you said the first time around. You said something much different. It 'sounded' as if you were an acting authority on a great many things...


So you are saying that people who can't fight well themselves can train people to fight well?

Absolutely. I've seen it in pro boxing to name one instance/arena. And I stick by it. You don't have to be a great fighter to train great fighters. But I would agree that it would help.


Development of any skill primarily comes from practicing that skill (in other words, doing what you intend to do). Most of the drills we do in WCK do not involve practicing fighting skills since we are not fighting. We practice them in unrealistic (nonfighting) environments. This is fine -- and necessary -- for learning a skill but will not develop fighting skills. It can't: you can't get realistic skills from training unrealistically. Our training is not, of course, all fighting. There are conditioning drills, etc. All these sorts of things are secondary and/or preparatory of fighitng.

Again, I agree. Development of a skill comes from practicing.
To use an analogy of yours - Say I want to play basketball. I practice dribbling, shooting, passing, plays, etc. These are all skills one could develop to become a better basketball player. And when compared to someone that hasn't developed these skills I should be better at playing bthe game of basketball. Now, actually applying them to basketball is a different thing. But I HAVE developed basketball skills without actually playing the game.
Now, I agree, I could FURTHER develop these skills by playing the game, but it's not the only way (nor would it be the fastest if I didn't do the drills before, or inbetween games)
Or are all the dribbling, passing, shooting drills a waste of my time, since from your POV this isn't really learning basketball skills if I'm not actually playing the game?

"Most of the drills we do in WCK do not involve practicing fighting skills since we are not fighting."
- I disagree. Maybe you should rethink your training? (see above)

"This is fine -- and necessary -- for learning a skill but will not develop fighting skills. It can't: you can't get realistic skills from training unrealistically. "
- The second sentence in no way supports the first. I agree with the second, but in no way proves the first

"All these sorts of things are secondary and/or preparatory of fighitng." Agreed


If you look at how all good fighters train, boxers, MMAists, BJJ, muay thai, etc. you'll see the same things.

sure, but it also depends how you define the word 'fighting no doesn't it? :)

Jonathan

[jesper]

So you are saying that people who can't fight well themselves can train people to fight well?


Fred stoner :D

[t_niehoff]

Absolutely. I've seen it in pro boxing to name one instance/arena. And I stick by it. You don't have to be a great fighter to train great fighters. But I would agree that it would help.


I never said that you need a great fighter to train great fighters -- I said that you can't learn something from someone who can't do it themselves. As I see it, skill comes primarily from having solid fundamental skills and then quality practice of those skills. How far you go will depend on your talent, drive, the quality of your practice, etc. But you can't get good fundamentals from someone who doesn't have them. and if they have competant, solid fundamentals, they will be a decent fighter.



Again, I agree. Development of a skill comes from practicing.
To use an analogy of yours - Say I want to play basketball. I practice dribbling, shooting, passing, plays, etc. These are all skills one could develop to become a better basketball player. And when compared to someone that hasn't developed these skills I should be better at playing bthe game of basketball. Now, actually applying them to basketball is a different thing. But I HAVE developed basketball skills without actually playing the game.


Sure, you have developed some of the skills -- integrating them into your game so they seamlessly work together is part of the process however. And let me point out that these drills, to be of any value, need to be realistic.



Now, I agree, I could FURTHER develop these skills by playing the game, but it's not the only way (nor would it be the fastest if I didn't do the drills before, or inbetween games)
Or are all the dribbling, passing, shooting drills a waste of my time, since from your POV this isn't really learning basketball skills if I'm not actually playing the game?


I never said realistic drills were a waste of time. Doing a basketball linked set would be a waste of time! Realistic drills will develop realistic skills. And we need to do realistic drills for a number of reasons, as a precursor to sparring and because often in sparring we don't get enough "repetitions" (those situations that may not come up all that often) to suit our needs/development. But we do need to play the game, and a lot, since only by playing (our objective, right?) will we really see our performance level and integrate all our skills.



"Most of the drills we do in WCK do not involve practicing fighting skills since we are not fighting."
- I disagree. Maybe you should rethink your training? (see above)


The WCK traditional drills are fine for learning skills, but they don't develop realistic skills since the drills are by their very nature not performed realistically (with both sides behaving realistically in terms of aggression, power, intensity, speed, intention, resistances, etc.). In other words, they do not look like or approximate what will happen in the fight.



"This is fine -- and necessary -- for learning a skill but will not develop fighting skills. It can't: you can't get realistic skills from training unrealistically. "
- The second sentence in no way supports the first. I agree with the second, but in no way proves the first


Chi sao, for instance, is not a realistic drill; a realistic drill essentially mimics fighting or a part of the fight, where the trainees are behaving as they really will in fighting. The only reason chi sao, the drill, works is becasue both sides are trying to stick, do the same sorts of things, play by the same rules as it were. And neither person is behaving as they would in a fight.

Do you think it "good" training to practice one way of moving (A) in a drill but move/behave differently (B) in fighting? To me, this is actually counter-productive. Chi sao is fine to teach certain skills, and we need unrealistic environments/drills to learn (it's difficult to learn when someone is trying to punch you in the mouth!) -- and by learn I mean practice it until one can perform it comfortably -- but at that point, further unrealistic practice becomes nonproductive, and moves into becoming counter-productive. That's the point where the skill needs to go into realistic training.



sure, but it also depends how you define the word 'fighting no doesn't it? :)

Jonathan

What I mean is that all these guys develop realistic skills that they can put into any realistic situation/environment. If you develop the ability to deal with real punches and kicks, that will work in a ring, in a cage, out on the street. If you don't have realistic skills, they won't work anywhere. They all develop those realistic skills by training realistically, and by minimizing the unrealistic practice.

[JPinAZ]

Terrence, I appreciate the dialog. But I must say, you're all over the map now. You really need to go back and re-read the things you've said earlier in the thread. I think you've been training too 'realisticly' lately (too many knocks to the head), or you've just really lost it... :D


I never said that you need a great fighter to train great fighters -- I said that you can't learn something from someone who can't do it themselves. As I see it, skill comes primarily from having solid fundamental skills and then quality practice of those skills. How far you go will depend on your talent, drive, the quality of your practice, etc. But you can't get good fundamentals from someone who doesn't have them. and if they have competant, solid fundamentals, they will be a decent fighter.

No, that is NOT what you said.
Here is what you said: "So you are saying that people who can't fight well themselves can train people to fight well?"
Again - YES. but the teacher having the experience helps.

I agree with everything else you said, besides maybe the point about "you can't get good fundamentals from someone who doesn't have them" - but it sure would help, 'specially if you are learning from them by touch so you can 'feel' what they are teaching.


Sure, you have developed some of the skills -- integrating them into your game so they seamlessly work together is part of the process however. And let me point out that these drills, to be of any value, need to be realistic.

Of course, drills have to be realistic. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
The problem is, you time and again try to imply that there are people that DON'T train realisticly, and you're probably right to an extent. But you also seem to say that ALL WCK doesn't train realisticly, and further more that only MMA guys do... And in this I think that you are dead wrong.


I never said realistic drills were a waste of time. Doing a basketball linked set would be a waste of time! Realistic drills will develop realistic skills. And we need to do realistic drills for a number of reasons, as a precursor to sparring and because often in sparring we don't get enough "repetitions" (those situations that may not come up all that often) to suit our needs/development. But we do need to play the game, and a lot, since only by playing (our objective, right?) will we really see our performance level and integrate all our skills.

You said time and again - THE ONLY WAY TO GAIN FIGHTING SKILLS IS BY FIGHTING.
Maybe you might re-word that and say that it is a GOOD way to gain fighting skills, but not the only way? Or a good way to TEST fighting skills is by fighting?
Now you're talking 'realistic drills' - I can agree with having to train realisticly. But it's not what you were saying before.
(and it's cool for people to correct themselves, maybe change thier way of thinking, etc - but at least be honest about what you said in the past because it's not what you are saying now)
The main problem I have is how you come off as quite the expert with your all-or-nothing claims, your vast knowledge of how sucky WCK people train, etc, etc. then claim you are 'not an expert'.
I actually agree with what you are saying now, but this is a different tune than you were playing before :o


The WCK traditional drills are fine for learning skills, but they don't develop realistic skills since the drills are by their very nature not performed realistically (with both sides behaving realistically in terms of aggression, power, intensity, speed, intention, resistances, etc.). In other words, they do not look like or approximate what will happen in the fight.

Maybe you are only speaking from your expereince? Maybe you haven't witnessed ALL "WCK traditional drills"?

Just to give you my POV: Sure, when I first started training "WCK drills", they were more or less fixed drills (fixed time and space) and some funky energies (too rigid, all or nothing, etc). That was in the beginning when we didn't know what was what. But when I train the same drills years later with more experienced people, you better believe we are 'brining it' to each other. And, the drills aren't as fixed/constrained.
And true, it's still not sparring per-se, but it's not as 'unrealistic' as it seems you are trying to imply "WCK traditional drills" to be (both sides behaving realistically in terms of aggression, power, intensity, speed, intention, resistances, etc.) but to be called drills, there HAS to be something fixed, or it would be called sparring, right?
Or maybe you're just speaking from how you train/been trained in WCK?


Chi sao, for instance, is not a realistic drill; a realistic drill essentially mimics fighting or a part of the fight, where the trainees are behaving as they really will in fighting. The only reason chi sao, the drill, works is becasue both sides are trying to stick, do the same sorts of things, play by the same rules as it were. And neither person is behaving as they would in a fight.

Are you saying 'traditional WC' chi sau doesn't train relaxation, structures, flow, sensitivity, gate theroy, energies, etc? Aren't these things important in fighting?
With the correct focus, I'd say that you get realistic fighting skills from Chi Sau. Not sure if I agree with youre term of a 'realistic drill' though. I'd say that's just your definition..
Now, I would agree if you say Chi Sau isn't fighting - But it does train realistic fighting drills - with the correct focus of course

BTW, Since you keep bringing it up, please give me some examples of 'realistic drills' that isn't just 'sparring' (because it seems you are calling one in the same..)


Do you think it "good" training to practice one way of moving (A) in a drill but move/behave differently (B) in fighting? To me, this is actually counter-productive. Chi sao is fine to teach certain skills, and we need unrealistic environments/drills to learn (it's difficult to learn when someone is trying to punch you in the mouth!) -- and by learn I mean practice it until one can perform it comfortably -- but at that point, further unrealistic practice becomes nonproductive, and moves into becoming counter-productive. That's the point where the skill needs to go into realistic training.

I am not sure what you mean. No, I don't feel it's good to behave one way in a drill and differently in a fight. As far as I know, drills build reactions, structures, timing, range, gate theory, CL theory, energies, etc (at least the ones I focus on). These are things that are directly related to fighting. This is at least how I train

"That's the point where the skill needs to go into realistic training. "
Agreed. And who is saying that doesn't happen?

You have me thinking - "Realistic drills". "Realistic training". Let me stop for a second - Instead of giving us what 'isn't' these things, can you give us some examples of that these things 'are'. I think, at least for me, I'm having a problem understanding exactly what your terminology means (also because it seems to me that you have changed gears a bit from your first postings - which is cool).
Since you have this experience with a lot of different ways to train, and it seems that you are trying to imply that there is only one 'right' way, give us some exaples instead of just picking apart waht you say 'isn't'


What I mean is that all these guys develop realistic skills that they can put into any realistic situation/environment. If you develop the ability to deal with real punches and kicks, that will work in a ring, in a cage, out on the street. If you don't have realistic skills, they won't work anywhere. They all develop those realistic skills by training realistically, and by minimizing the unrealistic practice.

Agreed - you need to learn how to 'realisticly' deal with kicks, punches, etc in any situation. Not sure what your point is, I can't think of anyone that would argue this.

But, who are 'all these guys' anyway? And please give me some examples of the people that aren't doing this, for a comparrison? Earlier, it sure seemed like you knew who all these 'WCK people' were. Are you implying anyone here deosn't train realisticly? Or are you just speaking 'generally' again ;)

Jonathan

[t_niehoff]

Terrence, I appreciate the dialog. But I must say, you're all over the map now. You really need to go back and re-read the things you've said earlier in the thread. I think you've been training too 'realisticly' lately (too many knocks to the head), or you've just really lost it... :D


I am saying the same things. I'm just trying to express the same ideas differently as a way of getting my point across.



No, that is NOT what you said.
Here is what you said: "So you are saying that people who can't fight well themselves can train people to fight well?"
Again - YES. but the teacher having the experience helps.


I am being consistent. You don't have to be a world-class fighter to "fight well." An instructor has to be a good fighter -- have solid funcamental fighting skills. Does this mean a instructor who is a good fighter can't coach a better one? No, not at all. But they can't teach what they don't know, and if they can't do it, they don't know it. It's not that experience "helps", it is mandatory.



I agree with everything else you said, besides maybe the point about "you can't get good fundamentals from someone who doesn't have them" - but it sure would help, 'specially if you are learning from them by touch so you can 'feel' what they are teaching.


Can someone who has little to no real skills in BJJ teach you the solid fundamentals you need for BJJ? Of course not.



Of course, drills have to be realistic. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
The problem is, you time and again try to imply that there are people that DON'T train realisticly, and you're probably right to an extent. But you also seem to say that ALL WCK doesn't train realisticly, and further more that only MMA guys do... And in this I think that you are dead wrong.


I'm not saying anything about all people in WCK, but generalizing. Alan and his guys, for one -- and there are others -- obviously train realistically. They even go train with Eddie Millis. Others on this forum train realistically too.

Training realistically is, however, the first step. The next is who (the quality of our partners) we are training/sparring with.



You said time and again - THE ONLY WAY TO GAIN FIGHTING SKILLS IS BY FIGHTING.
Maybe you might re-word that and say that it is a GOOD way to gain fighting skills, but not the only way? Or a good way to TEST fighting skills is by fighting?
Now you're talking 'realistic drills' - I can agree with having to train realisticly. But it's not what you were saying before.
(and it's cool for people to correct themselves, maybe change thier way of thinking, etc - but at least be honest about what you said in the past because it's not what you are saying now)


Look at it from this perspective for a moment. Fighting is the target activity -- that's what we want to improve our skills doing. Toward that end, we learn some skills with unrealistic drills (they need to be unrealistic so that we can learn). Then we need to practice those skills in realistic drills (drills that mimic the combative environment) because if we just tried to fight with the skills we learned, they wouldn't work. Next, they need to be put into fighting, into the game. Until they are put into the game, they won't be fully developed fighting skills and that's because the game itself and how we individually play the game will modify/alter those skills further.

Take the skill of sprawling. You learn the skill and practice the skill in an unrealistic environment (nothing like a fight). This makes sense as it allows you to focus on the coordination, etc. Once you can perform it comfortably, it is time to put it into realistic practice, let's say live wrestling. This will develop the skill into a realistic skill, you'll then be able to deal with real pressure, aggression, timing, etc. Then you need to put that into fighting, into your overall game to make it a fighting skill (because it is your overall game you are trying to develop). Until you do that, it will be a segmented skill -- the fighting is what tailors these things pecifically to you.



The main problem I have is how you come off as quite the expert with your all-or-nothing claims, your vast knowledge of how sucky WCK people train, etc, etc. then claim you are 'not an expert'.
I actually agree with what you are saying now, but this is a different tune than you were playing before :o


I keep repeating that I am no expert. FWIW, I don't think there are any real experts in WCK. WCK has no great fighters or anyone who has (yet) trained great fighters.

What I am saying is that if we want to know how to best train as fighters, we should look to both what the experts -- the real top quality fighters -- say and do. Do I listen to "Master Q" who has never fought anyone and so can't have much in the way of skill (a theoretical nonfighter) tell me how to train to be a fighter/ develop fighting skill or someone like Matt Thornton, who besides being a BJJ BB and ex-sparring partner to Lennox Lewis, has trained world-class fighters like Nate Quarry, Randy Couture, Forrest Griffin, etc.?



Maybe you are only speaking from your expereince? Maybe you haven't witnessed ALL "WCK traditional drills"?

Just to give you my POV: Sure, when I first started training "WCK drills", they were more or less fixed drills (fixed time and space) and some funky energies (too rigid, all or nothing, etc). That was in the beginning when we didn't know what was what. But when I train the same drills years later with more experienced people, you better believe we are 'brining it' to each other. And, the drills aren't as fixed/constrained.
And true, it's still not sparring per-se, but it's not as 'unrealistic' as it seems you are trying to imply "WCK traditional drills" to be (both sides behaving realistically in terms of aggression, power, intensity, speed, intention, resistances, etc.) but to be called drills, there HAS to be something fixed, or it would be called sparring, right?
Or maybe you're just speaking from how you train/been trained in WCK?


Realsitic drills are 'snippets from fighting', where we are doing (and behaving) exactly what we will be doing in a fight, with the same intensity, power, speed, etc. For example, to drill guard passing you might start in your partner's guard and then fight, once you pass the guard (or he sweeps or submits you), you begin again.

Chi sao and kiu sao, while somewhat dynamic, are not realistic in that they do not represent how people will really fight.



Are you saying 'traditional WC' chi sau doesn't train relaxation, structures, flow, sensitivity, gate theroy, energies, etc? Aren't these things important in fighting?
With the correct focus, I'd say that you get realistic fighting skills from Chi Sau. Not sure if I agree with youre term of a 'realistic drill' though. I'd say that's just your definition..
Now, I would agree if you say Chi Sau isn't fighting - But it does train realistic fighting drills - with the correct focus of course


I'm saying the traditional drills can teach those skills -- permit us to do them until we become comfortable doing them but those drills will by their very nature not develop realistic skills.

What makes a skill realistic is that it we can do it under realistic conditions, fighting conditions -- where we are facing an opponent with high levels of aggression, genuinely trying to resist, with good attributes, skill, etc., in other words, someone behaving as they would in a fight. We call it "the pressure cooker." It's by working in the pressure cooker that we develop the skill to work in the pressure cooker.

The other issue is habituation. Anything we repeat tends to become a habit. If we repeat things, even skills, in a way that isn't realistic, we develop unrealistic habits. This is why fighting must feed the drills and not the other way round.



BTW, Since you keep bringing it up, please give me some examples of 'realistic drills' that isn't just 'sparring' (because it seems you are calling one in the same..)


Here's a drill we call the woodpeeccker: you begin with your partner grabing your t-shirt or whatever with one hand and when the bell sounds his goal is just to do one thing: grab with one hand and hit with the other and keep hitting (and above all, not like a WCK guy), like he really means it. Your objective is to do whatever you need to deal with it. If you stop his punching arm, he just switches, other hand grabs and he hammers in the punches. BTW, protective gear is a must!

We also do the octopus: your opponent begins by grabbing both your wrists, his goal is just to restrain your arms, your goal is to stop being restrained and hit, takedown, whatever you want. The bell sounds and you go.

Another drill we do is called the vice: your opponent's goal is to just get in and get you in some tight body clinch and hold you; your objective is to not let that happen

Then you can combine the drills.

We;ve developed these drills because we've run into those scenarios frequently -- you'll be hitting the guy and he'll start grabbing your arms or he'll try to get a tight clinch, for example.




I am not sure what you mean. No, I don't feel it's good to behave one way in a drill and differently in a fight. As far as I know, drills build reactions, structures, timing, range, gate theory, CL theory, energies, etc (at least the ones I focus on). These are things that are directly related to fighting. This is at least how I train



Now that you know what I mean by realsitic, perhaps you see what I mean.

[Knifefighter]

Here's a drill we call the woodpeeccker: you begin with your partner grabing your t-shirt or whatever with one hand and when the bell sounds his goal is just to do one thing: grab with one hand and hit with the other and keep hitting (and above all, not like a WCK guy), like he really means it. Your objective is to do whatever you need to deal with it. If you stop his punching arm, he just switches, other hand grabs and he hammers in the punches. BTW, protective gear is a must!

We also do the octopus: your opponent begins by grabbing both your wrists, his goal is just to restrain your arms, your goal is to stop being restrained and hit, takedown, whatever you want. The bell sounds and you go.

Another drill we do is called the vice: your opponent's goal is to just get in and get you in some tight body clinch and hold you; your objective is to not let that happen

We;ve developed these drills because we've run into those scenarios frequently -- you'll be hitting the guy and he'll start grabbing your arms or he'll try to get a tight clinch, for example.

Now that you know what I mean by realsitic, perhaps you see what I mean.

Yes... this is alive and realistic training (try the first drill with training knives if you want to see what realistic knife attacks are like).

As compared to chi sao, working the Mook Jong, or doing forms.

[Wayfaring]

Take the skill of sprawling. You learn the skill and practice the skill in an unrealistic environment (nothing like a fight). This makes sense as it allows you to focus on the coordination, etc. Once you can perform it comfortably, it is time to put it into realistic practice, let's say live wrestling. This will develop the skill into a realistic skill, you'll then be able to deal with real pressure, aggression, timing, etc. Then you need to put that into fighting, into your overall game to make it a fighting skill (because it is your overall game you are trying to develop). Until you do that, it will be a segmented skill -- the fighting is what tailors these things pecifically to you.

I think one of the main problems with most of your viewpoint / posts is that there are a lot of people here posting that do these types of drills in learning - 1. Isolate the skill and train it slowly 2. Mix in with other variables / energies 3. Test in live environment. However, you dismiss them as theoreticians and non-fighters because they don't train exactly your way. You consider your way of training to map closely to realistic fighting, and others not to be.

I disagree with your premise.



Realsitic drills are 'snippets from fighting', where we are doing (and behaving) exactly what we will be doing in a fight, with the same intensity, power, speed, etc. For example, to drill guard passing you might start in your partner's guard and then fight, once you pass the guard (or he sweeps or submits you), you begin again.
....
Here's a drill we call the woodpeeccker: you begin with your partner grabing your t-shirt or whatever with one hand and when the bell sounds his goal is just to do one thing: grab with one hand and hit with the other and keep hitting (and above all, not like a WCK guy), like he really means it. Your objective is to do whatever you need to deal with it. If you stop his punching arm, he just switches, other hand grabs and he hammers in the punches. BTW, protective gear is a must!

We also do the octopus: your opponent begins by grabbing both your wrists, his goal is just to restrain your arms, your goal is to stop being restrained and hit, takedown, whatever you want. The bell sounds and you go.

Another drill we do is called the vice: your opponent's goal is to just get in and get you in some tight body clinch and hold you; your objective is to not let that happen

Then you can combine the drills.

We;ve developed these drills because we've run into those scenarios frequently -- you'll be hitting the guy and he'll start grabbing your arms or he'll try to get a tight clinch, for example.

Now that you know what I mean by realsitic, perhaps you see what I mean.

Comments on drills:

1. Woodpeeccker - realistic drill for self-defense / blade attacks. Hard on t-shirts. Probably applies to bar fights. Don't see it applying much to MMA situations, though. Not too many grab with one hand punch with the other in clips I've seen of good fighters / matches.

2. Octopus - live energy drill, which is good. However, double wrist control from standing again I've never really seen in MMA situations, and even less frequently in self-defense. So besides the live energy, the same criticisms here apply to this drill as would chi sau. Your opponent won't just let you grab both wrists.

3. Vice - get in and body clinch. Fending off live energy attempts to grapple is a good drill. However, it's not exactly 'snippets from fighting'. I would say a drill where you combine lead hand jabs or 1-2 punches with closing the gap to a clinch, either by fighting for underhooks or changing levels and going for a takedown would be close to your vice drill and would actually be a little more like 'snippets from fighting'.

So, in your examples above, I see the 'aliveness' of the training, which is good. However, I don't see the exact map to 'snippets of fighting', which is the difference between how you claim to train and how you view most everyone else posting here training.

[t_niehoff]

I think one of the main problems with most of your viewpoint / posts is that there are a lot of people here posting that do these types of drills in learning - 1. Isolate the skill and train it slowly 2. Mix in with other variables / energies 3. Test in live environment. However, you dismiss them as theoreticians and non-fighters because they don't train exactly your way. You consider your way of training to map closely to realistic fighting, and others not to be.

I disagree with your premise.



Yes, there are *some* people in WCK, including some of this forum, that do train realistically, and train to be fighters -- and I've acknowledged them.

I don't think anyone needs to train "exactly my way", and in fact I'd say that this would be a mistake -- since I think training, like fighting, needs to be individual. The point I keep trying to drive home (and it's funny how although I keep saying the same things, some have a difficult time getting what I am saying) is that to effectively train WCK fighting skills we need to follow a more modern training model, the one adopted by all good modern fighters, and which has become the basis of the proven functional martial arts. In other words, stop training like traiditional japanese jiujitsu and start training like judo and BJJ. The old traditional model is based on a poor understanding of how the human body learns/develops motor skills, how the world really works, how to train most effectively, and even how to approach fighting. And more than anything, we need to extinguish the "traditional" mindset and all the nonsense that goes along with it.

Toward that end, to do the "traditional stuff" and supplement it with more modern training methods -- like many are doing -- is a fine first step. But I think the second step needs to be eliminating those traditional modes of learning/training that simply aren't very good and make sparring/fighting the core of our training (like all modern fighters do)

I don't consider anyone "playing the game" to be a theoretical nonfighter.



Comments on drills:

1. Woodpeeccker - realistic drill for self-defense / blade attacks. Hard on t-shirts. Probably applies to bar fights. Don't see it applying much to MMA situations, though. Not too many grab with one hand punch with the other in clips I've seen of good fighters / matches.

2. Octopus - live energy drill, which is good. However, double wrist control from standing again I've never really seen in MMA situations, and even less frequently in self-defense. So besides the live energy, the same criticisms here apply to this drill as would chi sau. Your opponent won't just let you grab both wrists.

3. Vice - get in and body clinch. Fending off live energy attempts to grapple is a good drill. However, it's not exactly 'snippets from fighting'. I would say a drill where you combine lead hand jabs or 1-2 punches with closing the gap to a clinch, either by fighting for underhooks or changing levels and going for a takedown would be close to your vice drill and would actually be a little more like 'snippets from fighting'.


I just offered these as examples for the sake of explanation (of what realistic drills were). We have many others.



So, in your examples above, I see the 'aliveness' of the training, which is good. However, I don't see the exact map to 'snippets of fighting', which is the difference between how you claim to train and how you view most everyone else posting here training.

First, please understand that I don't consider forms, traditional drills or chi sao to be "training" -- these things are unrealistic and are for "learning" (skills) only in my view. So if you take that away from what most WCK people consider training, what is left? How much time are they devoting to reaalistic training/sparring?

Second, the drills I used are "snippets of fighting" because, as I said in my post, these are things that we have seen pop up again and again in sparring (someone grabbing and hitting you, someone trying to control your hands, someone trying to get a tight clinch).

Third, those are drills and do not represent our training progression, but were randomly offered as explanation.

[Wayfaring]

Yes, there are *some* people in WCK, including some of this forum, that do train realistically, and train to be fighters -- and I've acknowledged them.

Toward that end, to do the "traditional stuff" and supplement it with more modern training methods -- like many are doing -- is a fine first step. But I think the second step needs to be eliminating those traditional modes of learning/training that simply aren't very good and make sparring/fighting the core of our training (like all modern fighters do)


Terence, if you're taking the time to spar / roll with high quality fighters, documenting areas to work on, and coming up with innovative drills to isolate problem areasyou encounter in live fighting, increase skill in those areas, and apply them in an alive environment, more power to you, man. That's more than most are doing, and I'm sure over time a group of people working in that fashion will turn into some skilled fighters.

I don't know if I'd go as far as saying forms/sets are not "training" or are a waste of time. Many times forms / sets contain relational measurements, ranges, energies, and aspects of systems that help preserve things to pass along.

Bruce Lee went down the road of abandoning all forms and anything non-fighting related. He himself developed a high level fighting skill from what we are able to see, but very few of even his direct students were able to duplicate it. Two or three generations down and much of JKD degrades to slap-trapping and poor boxing.

I don't know if all your rhetoric moves people off their line of traditional training too far, but I do agree that the avoidance of fighting and realistic training in traditional systems is an issue. I think maybe more of modern culture and the younger generation will take care of it. When I was growing up tournaments were forms, weapons and point sparring. Now it's all UFC/Pride. I think all that will work itself out.

Meanwhile I guess we can just keep pushing the envelope and trying to stave off Father Time for a few more years.