Attention All Fighters !!! [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

ittokaos

03-31-2007, 11:07 AM

Good Morning,

I think I have an answer to your question.

The reason Wing Chun doesn't work is due to the fact that the practitioner doesn't know how to effectively use it.

This is probably for one(or all)of 2 reasons.

1) Training

You go to your once a week lesson and expect to be the next Yip (Ip) Man. For on e to be good and effective with any art you have to practice diligently. Sure you're awesome when you spar with your fellow students and your sifu is always saying how good you're getting, but if you only train in class you are using the art for the sake of using an art and not for fighting. The greatest wing chun artists were not born overnight, it takes years of diligent training. Look at black belts. When I was young I thought that black belts were the pinnacle(spelled wrong I think) of what a martial artist can achieve and I suppose the ones that train dilligently are actually pretty good. Unfortunately, as we all know, the majority of black belts today(the ones that I know anyway) don't know how to use their art effectively for fighting due to training methods or due to their poor instructor. Which brings us to the next reason...

2)Sifu/sensei/guru not up to par.(teaching wise)

Let's say that your sifu learned from the greatest wing chun master in the world(yip/ip man, pan nam, bruce lee, william cheung, vulgar the clown,slappy the squirrel, yoda, whoever,etc...) and has many,many duels throught their long and battle filled life. They have been in countless hong kong action films and have been honored by China for their fighting prowess. Even after all that: they can still suck at teaching. True that a good sifu should be good at the art but he/she/it should still be able to fully transfer the art to another individual. Once again, it is not the fault of the art but of the sifu who is trying but can't fully transfer the art. Without the proper guidance a practitioner of any art would most likely fail in using it in a fight. Moving on...

My point is: the fault is on the practioner and not the art itself. True certain schools put less emphasis on footwork but all the lineages i've studied use proper footwork and make sure to emphasize the unbalanced opponent aspect of a fight. Without paying the proper amount of attention to each element of the style no progress can be made. Kung Fu is a sophisticated fighting art that has worked for thousands(maybe not for wing chun)of years.

What's the big difference from then to now:people. People would rather see fast results then to constantly train and train until they get it right. That's the reason why people that do taebo actually believe that they can fight. They see fast results and feel that they are learning how to fight and exercise at the same time. Quick and efficient. No(true)fighting art can be mastered in a year's time. It can be learned but not perfected. Ancient and current masters have spent their whole life trying to unlock the mysteries of their arts. So, don't be discouraged if it takes a while. Good things take time. Don't blame the art. It isn't the fault of the creators of wing chun that you can't make it work for you.

If you don't like the art and you feel that it's not working, then stop doing it. Why waste your time, right? But if you know that you can do better and you want to keep working at it then do so. Train harder! Learn as much about your art as possible. Buy books on it. VCDs. DVDs. Whatever you can get your hands on. Just remember that everyone learns at a different pace so don't get discouraged.

I hope this helps. If you have any further questions for me, send me a message.

Thanks

WF

t_niehoff

03-31-2007, 11:29 AM

Hi :D

Hello people,

I haven't posted in a while, but I just have a quick question for all of the fighters out there, why can't you make your WCK work?

There's a lot of guys here that bag on people for sticking too closely to the defined shapes of wing chun (which I for the most part agree that they shouldn't), but then if that's the case, what's wrong with the wing chun principles?

When you first start training, you do start with shapes to get the ideas of what you're supposed to be doing, but as you progress, the shapes blur and you rely more on concepts and principles.

I believe that's what the core of wing chun is about - principles.

So if you agree with me, then what is it that you can't make work and if you don't agree then why not?

J

In my view, it is helpful to look at WCK as an activity, just like grappling is an activity. WCK is playing the game (fighting using a particular approach). Skill in any activity/game primarily comes from doing that activity, from the experience playing the game. Skilled people are guided by their experience and good instructors pass on their experience. Concepts and principles are IME "generalized rules" for beginners, for those practitioners who have no experience to draw from for guidance (on how to play the game). These are replaced by experience.

What is the "core" of basketball? Principles? No. Basketball is a game, an activity with certain fundamental elements (i.e., ball control) and skills (dribbling, passing, etc.) that we need to play the game. The "core" of WCK, like that of any sport/game/activity, will be those elements/skills necessary to playing the game.

jesper

03-31-2007, 04:07 PM

You know ultimatewingchun. If you feel you lack a leading punch, why not start using one, I have never heard any fighters say I couldnt be using a workable technich because it didnt look WT. Any fighters I have met have used a variaty of weapons picked up through hard sparring with different styles. that includes hooks, low roundhouse kicks you name it. Using anything but the best respons in a given situation because its not "WT" would be lame.

Oh and your right, footwork sucks for many practicioners. dunno maybe its not fancy enough spending countless hours finetuning your footwork, but my experience do suggest that most people who has fought some hard sparring matches tend to pay more notice to it. Wonder why :D

JPinAZ

03-31-2007, 04:30 PM

"Because there is no leading shoulder when punching your way in - you need to have your shoulders squared so that the centerline is facing the opponent...which makes for shorter range punches..."

I see this as one difficulty - why punch your way in? I think about controlling a bridge and having correct space/distance and proper position in regards to my opponent before I'd even consider throwing a punch. IMO, punching your way in is like crossing your fingers and hoping you get lucky.
(unless I mistake what you wrote)

-----------
As far as concepts and principles, I think these are the underlying backbone of WC. Without these, you are more-or-less left with is a bag of techniques and not much reference on how to put them together. Not saying it can't be done, nor am I saying it can't be effective - but I feel it takes many more hours trying different things and seeing what works/what doesn't work (trail/error) to become effective. I feel that with understanding 'WC Principles/concepts' from the start (and all through fighting/training), the learning time for effectiveness is decreased - the techniques then are results of the principles (if that makes sense).

I think there can be many obvious reasons someone might not be able to 'make WC work': instructor, non-realistic training, focus, time, etc. And it varies case by case. For me, if I get the feeling I am not making something work, I have to go back and see if I am understanding the principles/concepts I am trying to express. (and yes, having a good, resistive opponent/partner during training helps)

Jonathan

Liddel

03-31-2007, 05:40 PM

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 03:46 AM

Uhm why do you assume we cant make it work ?

Hey Jesper
The only thing I'm asking is why you can't make it work. If you can or don't feel that way then great.

J

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 03:50 AM

My belief is that WC is a better defensive than offensive system and that most WC fighters don't utilize the system in this defensive manner. Instead, they attempt to be offensive and have trouble making the principles work in a realistic manner.

Additional reasons- too much chi sao, Mook Jong, forms, "tag" sparring and not enough hard, full-contact sparring.

Hey Knifefighter

what do you mean by it's a better defensive than offensive system?

J

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 03:55 AM

Hey ittokaos

I agree that most people who train once a week are clueless if they think they're going to be the second coming.
I also agree that it's the practitioner and not the system to blame.

I've found that wing chun does take longer than other arts to start to get. That could just be me but that's been my experience.

J

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 04:06 AM

In my view, it is helpful to look at WCK as an activity, just like grappling is an activity. WCK is playing the game (fighting using a particular approach). Skill in any activity/game primarily comes from doing that activity, from the experience playing the game. Skilled people are guided by their experience and good instructors pass on their experience. Concepts and principles are IME "generalized rules" for beginners, for those practitioners who have no experience to draw from for guidance (on how to play the game). These are replaced by experience.

What is the "core" of basketball? Principles? No. Basketball is a game, an activity with certain fundamental elements (i.e., ball control) and skills (dribbling, passing, etc.) that we need to play the game. The "core" of WCK, like that of any sport/game/activity, will be those elements/skills necessary to playing the game.

Hi Terence,
agree and disagree

So what's the core of BJJ? (First I'd like to say that I have no experience with it so bare with me a little.) Wouldn't it be positioning ? Like if you're in the right position, you can pull off whatever it is that you need to. At least that's how I view ving tsun, always look for the right position (sometimes that right position is leaving and going home) But anyways, if that's right, to get the right position, then you're using certain principles to get there. Like if you know that when he has an arm out, you can do x and move your hips y and bingo bango you've submitted him. (like I said bare with me) Now that comes from experience, like you said above, but it's still based on a principle of how you shift your weight or whatever.

Make sense?

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 04:11 AM

"

As far as concepts and principles, I think these are the underlying backbone of WC. Without these, you are more-or-less left with is a bag of techniques and not much reference on how to put them together. Not saying it can't be done, nor am I saying it can't be effective - but I feel it takes many more hours trying different things and seeing what works/what doesn't work (trail/error) to become effective. I feel that with understanding 'WC Principles/concepts' from the start (and all through fighting/training), the learning time for effectiveness is decreased - the techniques then are results of the principles (if that makes sense).

Jonathan

Hey Jonathan

That is how I feel. They are the backbone, the foundation.

J

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 04:14 AM

I dont know about you guys but VT has saved me from getting smashed over several times, once i was able to avoid getting bottled when two guys attacked me.

So for some to say "it doesnt work" i say... sux for you :eek:

I dont know if others out there are trying to "hammer in a nail with a screw driver" but in its range it works Well for me.

Im certainly not going to win any MMA events but it HAS served me in defending myself.

I agree with this. I've only had a few times where I've needed to use it, and I came out on the winning end. Fine it doesn't make me the next ving tsun stud, and I probably wouldn't last very long in a comp. as well

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 04:49 AM

My take:

Most people don't understand that you've got to be very close to make wing chun work - where it can definitely shine. It's getting there (without being tied up in a clinch or taken down) that most people don't get.

Once you solve that riddle - the shapes, principles, and techniques take care of themselves. The centerline theory of and by itself can only be used successfully when very close to the guy (ie.- inside of two feet).

Hey Ultimate
I'd agree with that.

J

forever young

04-01-2007, 07:45 AM

t_niehoff

04-01-2007, 08:05 AM

Hi Terence,
agree and disagree

So what's the core of BJJ? (First I'd like to say that I have no experience with it so bare with me a little.) Wouldn't it be positioning ? Like if you're in the right position, you can pull off whatever it is that you need to. At least that's how I view ving tsun, always look for the right position (sometimes that right position is leaving and going home) But anyways, if that's right, to get the right position, then you're using certain principles to get there. Like if you know that when he has an arm out, you can do x and move your hips y and bingo bango you've submitted him. (like I said bare with me) Now that comes from experience, like you said above, but it's still based on a principle of how you shift your weight or whatever.

Make sense?

Positioning is a key or core skill in BJJ, no argument there. But positioning is not a concept or a principle: it is an essential skill in playing that game. If you can't get good position, you can't play the game well. Dribbling is an essential or core skill in basketball -- you can't move the ball well if you don't dribble, and if you can't move the ball, you can't play well. It's a skill, not a concept/principle.

Beginners may use "principles" to help them in the beginning but as they get better, more and more they rely on experience (IMO). Beginners don't know how to move, why to move, what opportunites open when you do this or that, etc. So they need something to guide them in their movements. That something are general rules (principles or concepts). These general rules are distilled from other more experienced practitioners' experience (who find that if you generally do this or that, it will increase your chances in the game). As beginners get more and more into the game, and earn their own experience, these general rules will be unnecessary.

As I see it, concepts/principles are at best a starting point from which to begin earning our experience. From that experience, we develop judgment. It's our judgment that tells us what to do, when to do it, etc. A expert in an area (in our case, a good fighter) doesn't do soemthing because it conforms to some general principle; he does it because in his judgment, forged from loads of actual experience, he has found that is the best way to go for him. And very often, that may even be contrary to the "general principle."

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 09:00 AM

Positioning is a key or core skill in BJJ, no argument there. But positioning is not a concept or a principle: it is an essential skill in playing that game. If you can't get good position, you can't play the game well. Dribbling is an essential or core skill in basketball -- you can't move the ball well if you don't dribble, and if you can't move the ball, you can't play well. It's a skill, not a concept/principle.

Beginners may use "principles" to help them in the beginning but as they get better, more and more they rely on experience (IMO). Beginners don't know how to move, why to move, what opportunites open when you do this or that, etc. So they need something to guide them in their movements. That something are general rules (principles or concepts). These general rules are distilled from other more experienced practitioners' experience (who find that if you generally do this or that, it will increase your chances in the game). As beginners get more and more into the game, and earn their own experience, these general rules will be unnecessary.

As I see it, concepts/principles are at best a starting point from which to begin earning our experience. From that experience, we develop judgment. It's our judgment that tells us what to do, when to do it, etc. A expert in an area (in our case, a good fighter) doesn't do soemthing because it conforms to some general principle; he does it because in his judgment, forged from loads of actual experience, he has found that is the best way to go for him. And very often, that may even be contrary to the "general principle."

Hey Terence
My point was that the core is based on principles, just like in your example above to get into the proper position is a skill which you'll get no argument there from me, but that skill is based on principles. I'm talking if you strip everything away, from any sport or martial art it's core is the principles, and it's how you apply those principles (skill) that matter.

Just like in basketball, when you have to move around another player. They've taught you to pivot way back when you first started learning, it's mainly on the ball of the foot and that's the principle, but how you apply it is your skill level. You look in one direction, pivot in the other to pass or whatever. That skill is based on the principle of pivoting on the ball of your foot in combination with other elements of course.

Now you brought up judgement, which again is another big factor for sure. Poor judgement could have you end up somewhere that you don't want to be. Good judgement comes from experience, hands down, experience comes from practice, practice comes from applying a learned set or drill or technique which is based on a principle.

As for your final outcome not following a general principle I'm not sure if that's really the case. It may not 'look' picture perfect but for the most part if you analyze whatever it is, I'm willing to bet it does. The thing with principles and concepts is that they're not tangible which means because they're not rigid, it's easier to conform to a principle than it is to go against one.

My whole thing is that the ving tsun's principles and concepts work.

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 09:28 AM

Hey guys,
I think the following link has a lot of ving tsun principles in it and hey that single collar tie looks like something we have in our mook jong form

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw04qkqTeZs

Sorry just a quick edit.
For anyone who saw that clip would you say that's bad ving tsun?

Ernie

04-01-2007, 11:30 AM

It's dumog [FMA]

been doing that stuff for years , got it from Vu ,,, has VT priciples and we do ''chi sau'' off the neck for rounds , also includes the clinch , head butts knees elbows and takedowns ,,eye gouge and biting in that range with those clinch positions

stuff is a must with my group , more ''street common positions and energy ''

but i would not call it wing chun , since the body mechanics and conditioning needed to control and fire effective strikes is not the same . ;)

Knifefighter

04-01-2007, 11:48 AM

Hey guys,
I think the following link has a lot of ving tsun principles in it and hey that single collar tie looks like something we have in our mook jong form

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw04qkqTeZs

That is a basic wrestling head control tie up, modified for MMA.

That's probably the first tie-up most high school wrestlers learn.

Knifefighter

04-01-2007, 11:53 AM

Positioning is a key or core skill in BJJ, no argument there. But positioning is not a concept or a principle: it is an essential skill in playing that game.

I disagree.

Positioning is the principle. The principle is getting to the best position to give you the most control.

The skill is getting, holding, and/or improving positioning.

Knifefighter

04-01-2007, 11:56 AM

Hey Knifefighter

what do you mean by it's a better defensive than offensive system?

J

I think it is better to use the techs and principles on the outside to keep the opponent away.

t_niehoff

04-01-2007, 11:57 AM

Hey Terence
My point was that the core is based on principles, just like in your example above to get into the proper position is a skill which you'll get no argument there from me, but that skill is based on principles. I'm talking if you strip everything away, from any sport or martial art it's core is the principles, and it's how you apply those principles (skill) that matter.

Principles/concepts are only ideas, mental constructs; they are not physical skills. Riding a bike is a skill, and like any skill you learn and develop it by doing it. Principles/concepts can help (though you don't need them) a novice learn or develop a skill, that's all. Martial arts are no different than any other sport/athletic activity, so it's not a good idea to think about them differently. Theoretician nonfighters love concepts because they are not doing the activity. And they always have lots of ideas/concpets of how things should work.

Just like in basketball, when you have to move around another player. They've taught you to pivot way back when you first started learning, it's mainly on the ball of the foot and that's the principle, but how you apply it is your skill level. You look in one direction, pivot in the other to pass or whatever. That skill is based on the principle of pivoting on the ball of your foot in combination with other elements of course.

Your way of viewing "principles" is all-inclusive: anything and everything could be a "principle" by your way of thinking. What you are talking about above is not a principle, it is simply function (what you must do for it to work). Try pivoting on some other part of your foot and you'll see it just doesn't work (certainly not as well). This is the result of over-thinking the process, of intellectualizing it. If you just play basketball, you'll naturally find out how to pivot properly.

There are so many things wrong with the so-called "conceptual model view" of WCK that I don't know where to begin. Let's just say that WCK, like boxing or wrestling, is not a "conceptual martial art" and is not "conceptually-based", they are skill-based activities. The principle or concept won't lead you to skill -- doing the activity leads you to skill.

I suppose one could say everything is based on some idea, but I don't think this really gets us far. In fact, much skill in any fighitng method is developed implicitly -- from practice without conscious direction (reference to some condept). Experts often don't even realize they are doing certain things as they have developed them unconsciously from practice (experience).

Now you brought up judgement, which again is another big factor for sure. Poor judgement could have you end up somewhere that you don't want to be. Good judgement comes from experience, hands down, experience comes from practice, practice comes from applying a learned set or drill or technique which is based on a principle.

Sets, drills, techniques are to learn and/or develop skills -- means of achieving some objective with max certainty with min time and/or energy or some other physical attribute. For example, punching, like throwing a ball, is a skill/ability, it is not a principle. You learn it and develop it by doing it, getting feedback, refining it, etc. Intellectualizing the process only hinders the process.

A huge problem I've found with the "concept" people is that they always have a concept or idea, but it is usually a silly idea, and they spend their time chasing their idea of how things should work instead of just doing the activity. More often than not, their concepts - how things should work - get in the way of their development. They become blinders. Don't concern yourself with the concepts, concern yourself with playing the game.

When we look at other athletic activites/sports, even the combatvie ones, we hear references here and there to concepts, but they are not the big deals that "martial" artists make them out to be.

As for your final outcome not following a general principle I'm not sure if that's really the case. It may not 'look' picture perfect but for the most part if you analyze whatever it is, I'm willing to bet it does. The thing with principles and concepts is that they're not tangible which means because they're not rigid, it's easier to conform to a principle than it is to go against one.

My whole thing is that the ving tsun's principles and concepts work.

Go fight Crocop and show us. Oh, what? They don't work agaisnt Crocop? Or, you are not able to make them work against Cropcop? It's not a matter of "principles and concepts" of any particular method working -- whomever is better skilled will win. Skills come from performance, not concepts or principles. From performance, we see what works, what doesn't work, etc.

t_niehoff

04-01-2007, 12:02 PM

I disagree.

Positioning is the principle. The principle is getting to the best position to give you the most control.

The skill is getting, holding, and/or improving positioning.

Positioning as you are talking about it is a strategy.

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 12:05 PM

Ernie and Knifefighter,
That wasn't a wing chun clip but it did follow a lot of the wing chun principles. I just put it up to illustrate some of my points.
Ernie you're right the body mechanics are slightly different and that's where it differentiates. As for conditioning though, that's not at the root or core of wing chun. Not saying that's it's not needed, just trying to strip away everything and looking at the basics.

J

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 12:07 PM

I think it is better to use the techs and principles on the outside to keep the opponent away.
I'll agree with that. It is one of our idioms to try and stay on the outside.

J

JPinAZ

04-01-2007, 12:35 PM

Positioning is a key or core skill in BJJ, no argument there. But positioning is not a concept or a principle: it is an essential skill in playing that game. If you can't get good position, you can't play the game well. Dribbling is an essential or core skill in basketball -- you can't move the ball well if you don't dribble, and if you can't move the ball, you can't play well. It's a skill, not a concept/principle.

Beginners may use "principles" to help them in the beginning but as they get better, more and more they rely on experience (IMO). Beginners don't know how to move, why to move, what opportunites open when you do this or that, etc. So they need something to guide them in their movements. That something are general rules (principles or concepts). These general rules are distilled from other more experienced practitioners' experience (who find that if you generally do this or that, it will increase your chances in the game). As beginners get more and more into the game, and earn their own experience, these general rules will be unnecessary.

As I see it, concepts/principles are at best a starting point from which to begin earning our experience. From that experience, we develop judgment. It's our judgment that tells us what to do, when to do it, etc. A expert in an area (in our case, a good fighter) doesn't do soemthing because it conforms to some general principle; he does it because in his judgment, forged from loads of actual experience, he has found that is the best way to go for him. And very often, that may even be contrary to the "general principle."

I very much disagree. No offence meant but, how do you know an 'expert' doesn't do something because it conforms to a principle? You are not in thier shoes, so you cannot speak from any experience but your own. Unless you are saying you ARE an expert? sometimes you come off as trying to portray one :)

What I think you are missing is it's the PRINCIPLES (and/or concepts) that GUIDE the person to the proper position. IMO it's identifying these principles and staying with them can greatly decrease learning time (in the example of a beginner), and it's the understanding of these that give the 'expert' the edge - whether or not they can readily identify the principles, they are still there.

And, I feel Experience = increased skill. I don't feel the principles just 'dissapear' once a certain skill is reached - they are still right there. To use your terminology, the 'rules' haven't changed - you can't 'cheat' nature.

'IMMHHHHOOO' (I always wanted to type that) it's the principles that guide us through what we do if we do things correctly. That doesn't mean someone always has the ability to identify them and say "see, that is why this works!"

Jonathan

t_niehoff

04-01-2007, 01:08 PM

I very much disagree. No offence meant but, how do you know an 'expert' doesn't do something because it conforms to a principle? You are not in thier shoes, so you cannot speak from any experience but your own. Unless you are saying you ARE an expert? sometimes you come off as trying to portray one :)

What I think you are missing is it's the PRINCIPLES (and/or concepts) that GUIDE the person to the proper position. IMO it's identifying these principles and staying with them can greatly decrease learning time (in the example of a beginner), and it's the understanding of these that give the 'expert' the edge - whether or not they can readily identify the principles, they are still there.

And, I feel Experience = increased skill. I don't feel the principles just 'dissapear' once a certain skill is reached - they are still right there. To use your terminology, the 'rules' haven't changed - you can't 'cheat' nature.

'IMMHHHHOOO' (I always wanted to type that) it's the principles that guide us through what we do if we do things correctly. That doesn't mean someone always has the ability to identify them and say "see, that is why this works!"

Jonathan

Johnathan, no offense taken.

In my view, concepts/principles are ideas, general ideas of what to do, how to do it, etc. A novice doesn't know -- from experience -- what to do, how to do it, etc. so giving them general ideas can be a way to help them along ("generally, you want to do this, etc.). As they get experience, they will find how things really are for them, how they need to move to make things work, what they need to do to make things work, etc. These will be very individualized (as all open skill activities are). They will be doing them NOT because they conform to some general idea (principle), but because they get results for them.

A serious problem with the "concept" approach is people do exactly waht you say to do -- keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results. You see, I don't do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me).

Let me use an example, the principle or concept of moving away from the rear hand. This is a common one, used in boxing, Crazy Monkey, TWC, etc. And it's based on a good idea: moving away from the opponent's power hand makes it more difficult for him to land a power shot, if he does hit you it's when you're moving away from the strike, etc. Fine and dandy. It gives a beginning fighter an idea of how to move. But with experience, he'll see the limitations. There are times when moving straight in will work better. He'll find that if he always moves a certain way, that he becomes predictable. And so on. So he'll begin to move in ways he finds works best for him. He'll develop his own individual way of moving and no longer be moving to adhere to some principle. Wasn't it Bruce who said, learn the principle, abide by the principle, dissolve the principle? The principle is a tool to take you to a certain point; once you reach that point, the tool becomes a liability.

When you mentioned "Nature" you hit the crux of the problem -- people see these principles as "laws of the universe". They're not. They're general rules of thumb. And many times these "principles" aren't even based on the experience of really good fighters, they're silly things nonfighting theoreticians dream up or derive from unrealistic practice. Be guided by results, not principle.

IME, and from what I have observed working and talking wtih good people, generally (the principle) the less theory you have the better.

Jeff Bussey

04-01-2007, 01:14 PM

Hey Terence
Principles/concepts are only ideas, mental constructs; they are not physical skills.
Riding a bike is a skill, and like any skill you learn and develop it by doing it. Principles/concepts can help (though you don't need them) a novice learn or develop a skill, that's all. Martial arts are no different than any other sport/athletic activity, so it's not a good idea to think about them differently. Theoretician nonfighters love concepts because they are not doing the activity. And they always have lots of ideas/concpets of how things should work.

>I never said they were physical skills, I said they develop into them. They're also not >my ideas/concepts. I actually wish they were because I'd make a killing selling >them.:D

Your way of viewing "principles" is all-inclusive: anything and everything could be a "principle" by your way of thinking.

>Nope. But anything and everything is probably based on a principle.

Try pivoting on some other part of your foot and you'll see it just doesn't work (certainly not as well). This is the result of over-thinking the process, of intellectualizing it. If you just play basketball, you'll naturally find out how to pivot properly.

I just used pivoting as an example it may have been a poor example. But one thing is for sure people who haven't been taught to pivot versus someone who has been taught to pivot will more than likely do it better than just the person who plays. It's like me when I was a kid playing street hockey against the guys who were on actual ice hockey teams. They've been taught all of the fundamentals and running circles around me.

The principle or concept won't lead you to skill

Actually that's exactly where it leads you

-- doing the activity leads you to skill.

doing the activity develops your skill

I suppose one could say everything is based on some idea, but I don't think this really gets us far.

right. I'm just going back and forth for fun. :D My initial question was what is wrong with wing chun principles and concepts

A huge problem I've found with the "concept" people is that they always have a concept or idea, but it is usually a silly idea, and they spend their time chasing their idea of how things should work instead of just doing the activity. More often than not, their concepts - how things should work - get in the way of their development. They become blinders. Don't concern yourself with the concepts, concern yourself with playing the game.

People making up their own ideas and concepts is one thing, but I'm talking about wing chun's. I do agree that there are too many people thinking too much about things

When we look at other athletic activites/sports, even the combatvie ones, we hear references here and there to concepts, but they are not the big deals that "martial" artists make them out to be.

This is probably due to the fact that martial arts in general attracts ego maniacs. Want to be the centre of attention type of people, either that or they're the quiet sheep who do as they're told (Lurkers vs posters on a forum) :D

Go fight Crocop and show us. Oh, what? They don't work agaisnt Crocop? Or, you are not able to make them work against Cropcop? It's not a matter of "principles and concepts" of any particular method working -- whomever is better skilled will win. Skills come from performance, not concepts or principles. From performance, we see what works, what doesn't work, etc.

Done. I'm calling him right now but he's not picking up. I'll try again later.
Until then though, I think my inability to beat "crocop" has more to do with me and not wing chun or in other words my wing chun. That's a complete guess though.
Again my whole thing is what's wrong with the wing chun principles
other than the principles trying to beat up a professional fighter :D

I've obviously messed something up and suck at the interweb but you'll get my points

J

JPinAZ

04-01-2007, 01:16 PM

One thing I have to give you Terrance, you sure are entertaining - I'm dying over here!

Principles/concepts are only ideas, mental constructs; they are not physical skills. Riding a bike is a skill, and like any skill you learn and develop it by doing it. Principles/concepts can help (though you don't need them) a novice learn or develop a skill, that's all. Martial arts are no different than any other sport/athletic activity, so it's not a good idea to think about them differently. Theoretician nonfighters love concepts because they are not doing the activity. And they always have lots of ideas/concpets of how things should work.

I'm curious, can you name some 'Theoretician nonfighters' that are 'not doing the activity'? Are you speaking from direct experience, or are you just making assumptions? if experience, I would love a more in-depth explenation of what and WHO you are referring too :)

There are so many things wrong with the so-called "conceptual model view" of WCK that I don't know where to begin. Let's just say that WCK, like boxing or wrestling, is not a "conceptual martial art" and is not "conceptually-based", they are skill-based activities. The principle or concept won't lead you to skill -- doing the activity leads you to skill.

I suppose one could say everything is based on some idea, but I don't think this really gets us far. In fact, much skill in any fighitng method is developed implicitly -- from practice without conscious direction (reference to some condept). Experts often don't even realize they are doing certain things as they have developed them unconsciously from practice (experience).

I think you are confusing 'end result skills' with how you get there. I agree 100%, the activity DOES lead to skill, but there are MANY MANY ways to train and actively develop skills. Sure, you could just learn a bunch of techniques, go hit the mats, try this, try that, see waht works, come back, try again, etc, etc. This will build skill, and I feel this is your argument. I think without understanding and identifying key principles and concepts up front, you're just going to have a longer road to the same skill level.
But I guess you have to do what works/doesn't work for you.
And I agree, 'Experts' might not realize they are doing certain things they have developed. Still are great fighers, but can they readily teach someone else how they got there? All they can do is tell the people to 'put the time in like they did'.
Wouldn't it be great if they could pick apart WHY what they are doing 'by experience' works and pass that along??? I wonder if identifying the principles behind what they do could help..... maybe this would speed up the next person's learning curve. Or has this been done for us already? ;)

Sets, drills, techniques are to learn and/or develop skills -- means of achieving some objective with max certainty with min time and/or energy or some other physical attribute. For example, punching, like throwing a ball, is a skill/ability, it is not a principle. You learn it and develop it by doing it, getting feedback, refining it, etc. Intellectualizing the process only hinders the process.

C'mon man! You're mixing 2 things together and calling them the same thing! Re-read what you just wrote. I don't think anyone has said that drills, sets and techniques are principles!

Here's a few definitions of 'principle' so we are all on the same page (at least, the definition I think most of us are referring to):
"a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics."
"a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction."
(taken from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle)

So, are you saying that there are no laws of our known universe? Are you saying that we are not bound by natural laws? Are you also saying that we cannot identify these principles/laws?

A huge problem I've found with the "concept" people is that they always have a concept or idea, but it is usually a silly idea, and they spend their time chasing their idea of how things should work instead of just doing the activity. More often than not, their concepts - how things should work - get in the way of their development. They become blinders. Don't concern yourself with the concepts, concern yourself with playing the game.

haha. This is just funny. And all opinion, but you speak it as fact. You must know a TON of these 'concept' people you talk about and how they train, fight, etc huh..
Since I am of the 'principle/concept people' crowd, I am glad you have just opened my eyes! I've been doing it all wrong! I should just not concern myself with silly ideas and just use trail and error - soon or later (probably MUCH later) I MIGHT figure it out!
haha, good luck to you if that's how you do it! Not to make it personal, but maybe that's why you said on another thread how much you suck? Keep doing what 'works' for you :)

When we look at other athletic activites/sports, even the combatvie ones, we hear references here and there to concepts, but they are not the big deals that "martial" artists make them out to be.

Go fight Crocop and show us. Oh, what? They don't work agaisnt Crocop? Or, you are not able to make them work against Cropcop? It's not a matter of "principles and concepts" of any particular method working -- whomever is better skilled will win. Skills come from performance, not concepts or principles. From performance, we see what works, what doesn't work, etc.

**** edit ***
HAHAHA - I'm dying over here!!! You're right, I'll just take my concept and bash him over the head with it! I hope this was a big silly joke and you weren't in the slightest bit serious in your comparision of skill vs. principles. I think we all know that's not what anyone means or how it works.

You're talking a test of SKILLS. Skills come from whatever training methods you use. Skills come from ACTIVITY, not performance. Performance is your ability to display your skills. Believe it or not, skills can be derived from more than one method.

Maybe you just don't buy all the principle/concept silly ideas because you either were not shown them, or just didn't understand...
Not a big deal, but you can't speak for everyone, just your experience. And believe it or not, your experiences might be limited..

Jonathan

JPinAZ

04-01-2007, 01:47 PM

Johnathan, no offense taken.

In my view, concepts/principles are ideas, general ideas of what to do, how to do it, etc. A novice doesn't know -- from experience -- what to do, how to do it, etc. so giving them general ideas can be a way to help them along ("generally, you want to do this, etc.). As they get experience, they will find how things really are for them, how they need to move to make things work, what they need to do to make things work, etc. These will be very individualized (as all open skill activities are). They will be doing them NOT because they conform to some general idea (principle), but because they get results for them.

A serious problem with the "concept" approach is people do exactly waht you say to do -- keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results. You see, I don't do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me).

Terrance,

Maybe you just do not have the experience to speak about/for the 'concept people'?
You said "A serious problem with the "concept" approach is people do exactly waht you say to do -- keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results."
Are you sure about this last part? 100%? So, if I'm one of the concept/principle people, I don't pursue results?
Or maybe you are implying that in my training I just sit around and theroize about the laws of the univers and what-not, meditate and call it a day? Or maybe not me directly, but a mojority of the 'concept' people then? Or just a few?
Or maybe you can't speak for any of them and just yourself?
Or can you share what exact experience you have with how concept people train?

Speaking from my own experience, I do exactly what you are saying - I base my actions on the results I have gotten through physical training. But, I got them from aplying a concept, understanding a given principle(s), testing it and seeing what happens.
I use a method from what you use, but that by no means makes it a poor way to t. I use more than just 'matt time' to guide what I do. Yes, it's the matt time that builds the skill, but I just build it with a different mindset than you.

T - " You see, I don't do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me). "

Fine. But that's YOUR way, and by far not the only way. But I get the feeling you believe it's the 'best' way, and that's cool, that's your expereince. Funny how you are an expert on EVERY way though huh? ;)

Let me use an example, the principle or concept of moving away from the rear hand. This is a common one, used in boxing, Crazy Monkey, TWC, etc. And it's based on a good idea: moving away from the opponent's power hand makes it more difficult for him to land a power shot, if he does hit you it's when you're moving away from the strike, etc. Fine and dandy. It gives a beginning fighter an idea of how to move. But with experience, he'll see the limitations. There are times when moving straight in will work better. He'll find that if he always moves a certain way, that he becomes predictable. And so on. So he'll begin to move in ways he finds works best for him. He'll develop his own individual way of moving and no longer be moving to adhere to some principle. Wasn't it Bruce who said, learn the principle, abide by the principle, dissolve the principle? The principle is a tool to take you to a certain point; once you reach that point, the tool becomes a liability.

When you mentioned "Nature" you hit the crux of the problem -- people see these principles as "laws of the universe". They're not. They're general rules of thumb. And many times these "principles" aren't even based on the experience of really good fighters, they're silly things nonfighting theoreticians dream up or derive from unrealistic practice. Be guided by results, not principle.

IME, and from what I have observed working and talking wtih good people, generally (the principle) the less theory you have the better.

Cool, that's your expereince.

Jonathan

t_niehoff

04-02-2007, 06:15 AM

One thing I have to give you Terrance, you sure are entertaining - I'm dying over here!

I'm glad you are having fun; now if it gets you thinking, even better. :)

I'm curious, can you name some 'Theoretician nonfighters' that are 'not doing the activity'? Are you speaking from direct experience, or are you just making assumptions? if experience, I would love a more in-depth explenation of what and WHO you are referring too :)

A theoretical nonfighter is anyone who isn't fighting (what I call doing WCK) as a large part of their routine training. For example, someone who "practices" BJJ but doesn't roll or "practices "boxing" but doesn't get into the ring and spar. FWIW, I use the term "fighting" instead of sparring since much sparring I've seen is more game-like than fight-like.

I think you are confusing 'end result skills' with how you get there. I agree 100%, the activity DOES lead to skill, but there are MANY MANY ways to train and actively develop skills.

Actually, not -- at least according to motor skill researchers. The so-called specificityprinciple pretty much says that skills can really only be develop (to a significant degree) by doing (practicing) those skills in the same context, environment, intensity, etc. And if we look at modern combative athletes, that's exactly how they are training.

Sure, you could just learn a bunch of techniques, go hit the mats, try this, try that, see waht works, come back, try again, etc, etc. This will build skill, and I feel this is your argument. I think without understanding and identifying key principles and concepts up front, you're just going to have a longer road to the same skill level.

I'm not suggesting it is all trial-and-error, though that does play a large part of any skill-buidling activity. We certainly want to draw upon the *experience* of other skilled people; they can help us accelerate the trial-and-error process as they have already done much of the work (they can point out "don't do that" because it is a mistake, or "do this" because they've found it works).

But I guess you have to do what works/doesn't work for you.
And I agree, 'Experts' might not realize they are doing certain things they have developed. Still are great fighers, but can they readily teach someone else how they got there? All they can do is tell the people to 'put the time in like they did'.
Wouldn't it be great if they could pick apart WHY what they are doing 'by experience' works and pass that along??? I wonder if identifying the principles behind what they do could help..... maybe this would speed up the next person's learning curve. Or has this been done for us already? ;)

Certainly some experts are better teachers than others. But a nonexpert can hardly teach what they don't know, what they can't do. How can someone who can't do it say what the "principle" is? Where do they get this information? It can't be from experience doing it. So it is just theory, just hearsay. They are the blind leading the blind: someone who can't do it teaching someone who can't do it how to do it! The trouble with this approach is that almost anything can be said to be based on "principles". Again, this approach is not performance-driven or justified by results.

C'mon man! You're mixing 2 things together and calling them the same thing! Re-read what you just wrote. I don't think anyone has said that drills, sets and techniques are principles!

Nor do they "teach" the principles. They teach skills. Why do people insist on seeing WCK as different than other sports/athletic activities?

Here's a few definitions of 'principle' so we are all on the same page (at least, the definition I think most of us are referring to):
"a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics."
"a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction."
(taken from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle)

So, are you saying that there are no laws of our known universe? Are you saying that we are not bound by natural laws? Are you also saying that we cannot identify these principles/laws?

Of course the laws of physics applies to all things, but we don't derive our fighting skills from analyszing them. People beleive that if they have the principle or concept that they can derive application. But it doesn't work like that. This is beginning with a theory. However, there is no way to tell whether that theory really works or not, or how well it works. Instead, we need to begin with appliation, with results, -- from experience -- and work backwards to determine if there is any general idea or trend. Theoreticians begin at the wrong end.

And that sort of thinking leads to the my-art-is-better-that-your-art mentality because they are using their principles as some standard for judging (after all, they'll say, my concepts are the laws of the universe, and your practice is contrary to those). It also leads to the I-can't-do-it-but-I-can-teach-it mentality. Do you think it coincidence that these two views are so commonly held in the TCMAs and WCK but not the functional arts like BJJ, judo, wrestling, boxing, etc.?

Yet, when we look at all forms of atheltics, this sort of conceptual thinking is essentially absent -- and those athletes hit high levels of performance.

haha. This is just funny. And all opinion, but you speak it as fact. You must know a TON of these 'concept' people you talk about and how they train, fight, etc huh..
Since I am of the 'principle/concept people' crowd, I am glad you have just opened my eyes! I've been doing it all wrong! I should just not concern myself with silly ideas and just use trail and error - soon or later (probably MUCH later) I MIGHT figure it out!
haha, good luck to you if that's how you do it! Not to make it personal, but maybe that's why you said on another thread how much you suck? Keep doing what 'works' for you :)

You don't get what I'm saying. Let's suppose you want to learn to deal with a good wrestling shoot (single or double leg). Here's what you do: go find a really good wrestler, some guy who wrestled at a very high level (really did it, not just learned the "principle" of it), like Div. 1 or better. Then have him show you how to do it, the fundamental skills (techniques, tactics, strategies, etc.) that you'll need to do it. Then practice doing it with the best people you can find. Your coach won't be teaching you from principles, he will be teaching you from experience -- he knows what he is teaching you works because he's done it against top level people and it has worked. In fact, those things didn't even derive from principles but over time from experience (of himself and others). Sure he may give you a few "principles" to help get you started, some general guidlelines for your practice, but even these come from his experience. In your practice -- if you practice enough -- you'll naturally find some things work well for you, some not so well, etc. You'll find your own takedown prevention game.

HAHAHA - I'm dying over here!!! You're right, I'll just take my concept and bash him over the head with it! I hope this was a big silly joke and you weren't in the slightest bit serious in your comparision of skill vs. principles. I think we all know that's not what anyone means or how it works.

You're talking a test of SKILLS. Skills come from whatever training methods you use. Skills come from ACTIVITY, not performance. Performance is your ability to display your skills. Believe it or not, skills can be derived from more than one method.

This is the crux of it: you beleive skills can be "derived from more than one method". Skills aren't derived from anything. Skills only come from specifically practicing the skill itself (how else can you learn or develop your dribbling except by dribbling?). Performance is doing the activity. Your performance level is how well you can perform the activity.

Maybe you just don't buy all the principle/concept silly ideas because you either were not shown them, or just didn't understand...
Not a big deal, but you can't speak for everyone, just your experience. And believe it or not, your experiences might be limited..

Jonathan

My views certainly go agaisnt the majority of TMA/WCK people. People fall in love with concepts/principles.

Jeff Bussey

04-02-2007, 06:54 AM

Hey Terence,

Certainly some experts are better teachers than others. But a nonexpert can hardly teach what they don't know, what they can't do. How can someone who can't do it say what the "principle" is?

I think you may be mixing some things up. You've said it yourself, there are guys who just study theory. So that makes it possible to pass on the principles.

Where do they get this information? It can't be from experience doing it. So it is just theory, just hearsay. They are the blind leading the blind: someone who can't do it teaching someone who can't do it how to do it! The trouble with this approach is that almost anything can be said to be based on "principles". Again, this approach is not performance-driven or justified by results.

You can show the principles of the martial art through drills. If they can't do that, then that's a problem. It's up to the individual to explore them.

People beleive that if they have the principle or concept that they can derive application.

If all they have done is read a principle then that's silly.

Skills aren't derived from anything. Skills only come from specifically practicing the skill itself (how else can you learn or develop your dribbling except by dribbling?).

Terence, I don't think anyone would argue with you that practicing something specific will only or should only get you better at it. That's obvious. All I was asking is what is wrong with the principles and concepts that it's all based on. Isn't your grip more with the people who don't test those things through fighting and not with the principles themselves. If I'm worng, cool. Then what's wrong with them.

I think this way of posting may be a little better than the last time I messed up

J

Knifefighter

04-02-2007, 08:07 AM

Are you sure about this last part? 100%? So, if I'm one of the concept/principle people, I don't pursue results?

How are you defining results?

Yes, it's the matt time that builds the skill, but I just build it with a different mindset than you.

Can you explain how that mindset is different?

t_niehoff

04-02-2007, 08:58 AM

Hey Terence,
I think you may be mixing some things up. You've said it yourself, there are guys who just study theory. So that makes it possible to pass on the principles.

The "principles" are not the important thing in learning or developing martial skill -- doing the skill is the important thing. People don't "pass on" the principle or concept of riding a bike or dribbling a basketball (these are skills) -- that's not what it is about.

You can show the principles of the martial art through drills. If they can't do that, then that's a problem. It's up to the individual to explore them.

If I give you a dribbling drill (let's say dribbling around obstacles) to do, it's not to teach you the "principles of dribbling" but to help you develop skill dribbling. Nothing is being "explored."

Terence, I don't think anyone would argue with you that practicing something specific will only or should only get you better at it. That's obvious. All I was asking is what is wrong with the principles and concepts that it's all based on. Isn't your grip more with the people who don't test those things through fighting and not with the principles themselves. If I'm worng, cool. Then what's wrong with them.

I think this way of posting may be a little better than the last time I messed up

J

Specificity in motor skill development isn't that obvious, since it wasn't recognized (academically at least) until 50 years ago. And even today, how many people believe they can develop fighting skill without fighting?

I am trying to tell you what is wrong with being principle-based -- that's not how things work. Athletic activities aren't based on principles, they are based on skills (doing things). Skills specific to that activity. In baseball, for instance, a fundamental skill is throwing a ball. How do you develop that skill? By throwing a ball. A lot. There is no "trick" or concept or principle that will help you do that. The only way to get good throwing a ball is by throwing a ball. Now, someone experienced in throwing a ball can help you develop by sharing their experience, pointing out errors,etc. But the foundation is skill, not principle.

When people believe in principle first or principle based, it creates a whole litany of problems.

Jeff Bussey

04-02-2007, 10:12 AM

Hey T,

If I give you a dribbling drill (let's say dribbling around obstacles) to do, it's not to teach you the "principles of dribbling" but to help you develop skill dribbling. Nothing is being "explored."

So you won't explore how high to bounce the ball, maybe to keep it low to the ground, being able to stop quickly with sharp turns around obstacles vs. not so sharp turns, how much you bend your knees etc.

I'm not saying that when you give me the drill I write down all of the things that could go wrong, analyze it, have my list peer reviewed in case I missed anything and then do a final check for any last minute things.

But I think you would do some exploring of how to do it best along with some coaching from someone skilled in that area. Passing on corrections. I think anyone learning a new skill or activity should do that otherwise you are just following blindly.

Those corrections that you're getting from your coach revolve around the principles of the system or whatever it is your doing

J

JPinAZ

04-02-2007, 10:21 AM

JPinAZ

04-02-2007, 10:30 AM

How are you defining results?

I wasn't, terrence was - I was asking a question. He was saying something about principle people don't persue results, and I was asking if he was 100% sure about that. Basically, he speaks most things as if they are known facts while most of the time it just comes off as BS.

Can you explain how that mindset is different?

Viewing training and fighting with WC from a principle/concept mindset vs. how Terrence continuously campaigns is the 'correct' and 'only' way. I think I was clear on that, but if you want me to go further I can.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Knifefighter

04-02-2007, 11:25 AM

I wasn't, terrence was - I was asking a question. He was saying something about principle people don't persue results, and I was asking if he was 100% sure about that.

You said this:

Speaking from my own experience, I do exactly what you are saying - I base my actions on the results I have gotten through physical training.

Hence, my question. If you are saying you are basing your actions on your results, you must have some kind of criteria for what those results are and how you determine them.

Jim Roselando

04-02-2007, 11:27 AM

t_niehoff

04-02-2007, 12:36 PM

T-

Sorry, not buying any of it. You post some good 'arguments', based on your expereince. But I don't believe you've 'experienced' everything, so you really only have your one view. I see your points, but dissagree if what you are saying is the ONLY way, and not neccessairly the most efficient way in some cases.
It's really no use going any further

Thanks for your views.

JP

You don't have to buy anything becasue I'm not selling anything.

One of the big problems with the TCMAs and WCK is that some people view them as different than other sports/athletic activities. But the way we learn and develop athletic skill doesn't change because we are all human. In the past 100 years they've done loads of studies on how to best learn and develop motor/athletic skills. Atheltes and their trainers have learned more about how to best develop/train. We can learn from that or hide our heads in the sand.

All fighters that attain significant levels do it through the same process, and that process involves making sparring/fighting the core of their training (that doesn't mean they do it most, just that everything revolves around it), they all are heavy into conditioning, they all practice realistically and minimize their unrealistic practice, they all cross-train (which includes sparring against other skilled people), they all seek out the best people they can find, etc.

If there was another way to develop those skills, why don't we see it?

t_niehoff

04-02-2007, 12:57 PM

Hey guys,

The problem with the whole discussion is two things.

1) Unfair comparrisons

2) Fighter Theorititians Theory

One is simple. Because we have Fighters Envy or MMA envy these days there is a lack of common sense thoughts going into comparrisons. To take a fair look at something you have to compare training time, class time, conditioning time etc.. Looking at a guy who is training 3 days a week a few hours each time with partners and doing his cardio etc against a guy who hits the Kwoon once or twice a week for an hour or so doesn't stand up.

At the BMAC (brazilian martial art center) "the hub for mma around town" they average around 2 hours a day when not getting ready for competition. 1 hour Muay Thai/1 hour Grappling When compitition time is coming they add an extra hour to their training plus the fitness and diet etc.

Now, whats the average WC guy doing for training? If someone shows me a MMA guy that trains their stand up (or art) equal to our fist then I say there is NO Reason or Excuse if you can compete with them! None! Hence why its so popular. One hour twice a week with a partner with WC or one hour twice a week with a partner a the (insert style) gym would make for a fair comparison wouldn't it. How we compare these days have nothing to do with actual fair comparisson.

***

I will agree with you that if a MMA trained the way most WCK people do, they would also develop little to no skill! But not for the reasons you cite. It's because WCK people train unrealistically and so can't develop realistic skills.

Of course the amount of time you spend in practicing a skill will be a major factor in the amount of skill you develop. That's a given. But so is the quality of that practice, Roll twice a week against a purple belt in BJJ, and in a couple of years you will really develop some sound, solid skills (blue belt). But if you take the same time period, don't roll but do unrealistic training (lockflows, etc.), with unskilled people, and you won't develop much in the way of skill.

Second! All this Game or No Game or Fighter or Theorititian labelling is laughable. First, how many Wing Chunners are actually interested in using their stuff in the UFC or Pro level? If so, you need a lot of other stuff besides WC like cardio, ground, diet, etc. Second! Lets DEFINE what a real Game is. Is a real game going down the street and sparring your friends in a comfortable enviornment or going to the Real Competitions and Playing agains total strangers doing something different. One is called Practice Game and the other is the actual Game. I am sure lots of people glove up and spar with all the local friends. How many people doing MA are not hanging around with MA guys from the area? I'm sure Terence is not the only one ;) :D

So, yes, T is correct that Practice/Warm Up Games are important but unless someone has Actually Enterred and competed in a Real Game (MMA event, Kyokoshin or any Full Contact event) they have Zero rights to use the Theorititian Label. So, how many people using this Word have played a Real Game besides Dale (knifefighter)? Not that Dale uses this word hahaha

If you go to a BJJ class, you'll roll (spar). That's not just because that is the only way to develop skill, but because it is fun -- and that's why people take up BJJ in the first place. Rolling/sparring is practice and the practice is the actual doing. You practice what you will actualy do by actually doing it! It's the same with any martial art. At least for the fighters.

You don't need to use your BJJ at the UFC level to be a fighter -- everyone who trains in BJJ is fighting. The activity is to fight/spar with it. Whether it is recreational or competitive. Whenever you fight with your BJJ, it is real. You are doing it for real. Most BJJ practitioners will never fight in the UFC; many will never fight in tournaments -- but they all fight in class. And in so doing, develop fighting skills.

Theoretical nonfighters do mainly unrealstic training (drills, chi sao, etc.) and don't do the activity (fight).

And yes, lots of people spar with their friends. So what? If the aikido guy spars with the tai ji guy -- is this supposed to be realistic sparring?

hunt1

04-02-2007, 01:08 PM

Jim Roselando

04-02-2007, 01:13 PM

SevenStar

04-02-2007, 02:40 PM

You say rolling=sparring=fighting. How so? When BJJers roll do they also punch each other full force, half force or no striking at all. Do they use elbows and headbutts? or are they just trying to lock,choke submit,gain position,control or pass guard without striking?

How so? because they are doing whatever it is they do at full force. Coincidentally, I posted an account of mine on the main forum that happened this weekend. I am a bouncer and we are not allowed to strike unless the situation is extreme - weapons or multiple attackers - which has only happened a few times. I use bjj and judo on a regular basis on my job. If we rolled half speed or only did two man drills and technique repetition, I would not be anywhere near as effective. the ability to train all out with resistance is a great equalizer. Consequently, I would say yes, it does indeed equal fighting.

JPinAZ

04-02-2007, 02:45 PM

You said this:
"Speaking from my own experience, I do exactly what you are saying - I base my actions on the results I have gotten through physical training."

Hence, my question. If you are saying you are basing your actions on your results, you must have some kind of criteria for what those results are and how you determine them.

Terrence had said this:
"A serious problem with the "concept" approach is people do exactly waht you say to do -- keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results. You see, I don't do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me)."

I don't 'persue principles', I persue results. If I am shown a concept supported by principles I don't just write it down and look for the next one. I do the physical training to see if I can make it work, or find faults with it, etc. These are the results.
My criterea for the results are if they improve my fighting abilities, my structures, my understanding of (here it comes) time space and energy, etc.
I've boxed in the past, I've fought in the past. If my training and understanding of the principles/concepts improves my skills I had before WC, then I'd say those are positive results.

I am not sure what Terrence knows about 'concept/principle people' nor how they train. But he sure talks like he knows. He says he doesn't do something because it 'comforms to some principle' that's fine. But just because he doesn't do it doesn't mean it doesn't work. He just does what works 'best for him'. But he seems to then say it's the best and only way. Pretty tall order. Must be an expert or authority or something... :rolleyes:

JP

SevenStar

04-02-2007, 02:54 PM

Warm up Game and Real Game are different! The adrenaline will tell you this if you ever competed. I competed in the Vermont BJJ event when i was grappling. Since you like to use BJJ as an example. While its similar to Warm Up Game, or Practice in the Kwoon, I call tell you "FROM EXPERIENCE" that its just not the same.

Which Real Game (event) have you competed in to test your theory or are you basing it on what other do? Something you point fingers to others for doing frequently ;) :p

T, I really do agree with you on many levels but if you can point fingers at others then you can expect them to also point towards your posts/philosophy. Martial Art or any Sport is about the total training package. Stress one thing more than anything else and you will have an out of balanced performance machine.

they are different, but not as different. When I was in TMA, we spent time on forms and learning applications to forms that we could not always practice at full speed for various reasons - pressure points, eye gouging, finger manipulations, etc. Sure, there is more to CMA than that, but for seld defense scenarios, this comprised much of our training, because we wanted to train "techniques that would end a confrontation quickly".

That said, you obviously cannot train those techniques with full speed. However, EVERYTHING I learn in judo, I can train full speed in randori. EVERYTHING I learn in bjj I can use full speed while rolling. In muay thai, I can spar 80% or greater, using everything I've learned.

Sticking with the bjj example, the same techniques I use while rolling are the same techniques I've used in competition, and are the same techniques I use on my job. I execute them with the same intensity. And since I'm used to adrenaline rush and other stressors now, it seems pretty much the exact same for me. sparring and competition as done by sport fighters are not the same, but are nowhere near as far removed from eachother as other training methods.

Knifefighter

04-02-2007, 02:58 PM

I don't 'persue principles', I persue results. If I am shown a concept supported by principles I don't just write it down and look for the next one. I do the physical training to see if I can make it work, or find faults with it, etc. These are the results.
My criterea for the results are if they improve my fighting abilities, my structures, my understanding of (here it comes) time space and energy, etc.

When you say "fighting abilities", how are you defining this?
Sparring, chi sao, street fights, competitions?

JPinAZ

04-02-2007, 03:03 PM

Since the subject changed a bit I'll continue.

You don't have to buy anything becasue I'm not selling anything.

One of the big problems with the TCMAs and WCK is that some people view them as different than other sports/athletic activities. But the way we learn and develop athletic skill doesn't change because we are all human. In the past 100 years they've done loads of studies on how to best learn and develop motor/athletic skills. Atheltes and their trainers have learned more about how to best develop/train. We can learn from that or hide our heads in the sand.

Are we talking athletes/sporting events or fighting? Those are two different things. Sure, a sport fighter/athelete can make a **** good fighter, but one does not by default equal the other. And yes, there is much to be learned form sports/athletic activities. I don't think anyone would argue this.

All fighters that attain significant levels do it through the same process, and that process involves making sparring/fighting the core of their training (that doesn't mean they do it most, just that everything revolves around it), they all are heavy into conditioning, they all practice realistically and minimize their unrealistic practice, they all cross-train (which includes sparring against other skilled people), they all seek out the best people they can find, etc.
If there was another way to develop those skills, why don't we see it?

What 'fighters' are you referring too?
There are those fighting in sporting events with rules to protect each other, and there are those fighting on the street (sometimes for thier lives). There is a difference.
Yes, I agree, that most all sport fighters do it through the same process. And they make very good sport fighters, AND they probably make very good 'fighters' as well.
But I've also known a few 'fighters' that don't really train at all (except MAYBE weight lifting) that have cleaned the clocks of some pretty good 'sport fighters' in less than a minute on the street.

My point: Maybe you haven't seen it just because it hasn't been put down on video? How many 'real' street fights have you witnessed?

SevenStar

04-02-2007, 03:15 PM

SevenStar

04-02-2007, 03:36 PM

Are we talking athletes/sporting events or fighting? Those are two different things. Sure, a sport fighter/athelete can make a **** good fighter, but one does not by default equal the other.

what are the non-sport fighters doing to become good street fighters that the sport guys are not? how are you training in the kwoon that sets you apart from the sport guys? I'm guessing scenario training is what will be discussed here, but I'm curious anyway.

But I've also known a few 'fighters' that don't really train at all (except MAYBE weight lifting) that have cleaned the clocks of some pretty good 'sport fighters' in less than a minute on the street.

We all do. I also know street fighters with no training and that don't even lift weights, who clean the clocks of trained TMA. Heck, two of our bouncers were pure tma - One was taiji/kenpo and the other TKD (yeah, not quite traditional, but you get the point) - both quit after getting beaten up in a fight, and manhandled in other instances. Of course, that's not to say TMA is no good for fighting - we have a guy with a WC background here now, but I haven't seen him in an altercation yet - it merely illustrates that everyone has stories of seeing various trained exponents defeated.

However, I'm pretty sure in his quote, he is referring to successful sport fighters.

JPinAZ

04-02-2007, 03:45 PM

When you say "fighting abilities", how are you defining this?
Sparring, chi sao, street fights, competitions?

I'd say only one of those is actual 'fighting'.

I have not done any competitions yet.
Only one street fight since training WC. No bragging, but was over before it really started, so I would say I had positive results.
'Chi sau' as I believe most people view it isn't necessarily fighting. But I believe it IS a part of fighting given a certain range and facing. And I do believe it does help train fighting abilities (understanding gates, range, relaxation, flow, etc)
I have done some sparring.
I have also 'played' with some pretty tough 'street fighters' back home. Friends that know I train and want to test me out (not a 'real fight' but not slap boxing either). Guys that before my training would most likely have cleaned me up real quick. I suprised myself and them. Again, positive results. This is my best measurement of skill increases.

Of course there's much more I could do to test my skills. And I am starting to do that as well.
Besides all that, I have been in real fights in the past. I know my skills have increased from then. I think it's not 'that' hard to gage one's progress without lying to oneself. I could be wrong..

Why do you ask?

JP

JPinAZ

04-02-2007, 04:04 PM

what are the non-sport fighters doing to become good street fighters that the sport guys are not? how are you training in the kwoon that sets you apart from the sport guys? I'm guessing scenario training is what will be discussed here, but I'm curious anyway.

For the most part, they don't 'train' like sport fighters - they just fight. Well, some boxed in the past, but no 'training' now.
I didn't say I was/wasn't doing anything different than sport fighters.

JP

SevenStar

04-02-2007, 04:27 PM

okay - you were referring to friends of yours. I misunderstood. you said that a person being a sport fighter is not necessarily a good fighter. I thought you were implying that tma training makes you a good fighter.

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 02:38 AM

T, I really do agree with you on many levels but if you can point fingers at others then you can expect them to also point towards your posts/philosophy. Martial Art or any Sport is about the total training package. Stress one thing more than anything else and you will have an out of balanced performance machine.

Hey Jim,
I also agree with Terence on some of the things he says, but he seems more bent on just proving his point than anything else, that he can't see what I asked in the first place.
What's wrong with the wing chun principles / concepts?
Not do you think it's wrong to read about principles and concepts and think you can play basketball? I mean wing Jiujitsu, I mean Brazillian Chun. Ah $hit I'm getting mixed up again.

:p

J

Jeff Bussey

04-03-2007, 02:48 AM

Hey SevenStar,

what are the non-sport fighters doing to become good street fighters that the sport guys are not? how are you training in the kwoon that sets you apart from the sport guys? I'm guessing scenario training is what will be discussed here, but I'm curious anyway.

This wasn't directed to me, but I don't think the non-sport fighters are doing anything different to set them appart. Alot of the people doing martial arts as a hobby, show up like once or twice a week for fun. Now the problem is when those people think they can throw their hat in the ring with the cats training like dogs :p

So I'm assuming you've done wing chun, and my original question is what's wrong with the wing chun principles? If they're flawed, cool man I'm open to hearing yours or anyone elses thoughts

J

t_niehoff

04-03-2007, 06:13 AM

Warm up Game and Real Game are different! The adrenaline will tell you this if you ever competed. I competed in the Vermont BJJ event when i was grappling. Since you like to use BJJ as an example. While its similar to Warm Up Game, or Practice in the Kwoon, I call tell you "FROM EXPERIENCE" that its just not the same.

I'm not saying the are the same -- I'm saying that the skills you need in either are the same. Fighting on the street is not fighting in the gym. I "get" that. Fighting in front of people is different that fighting in the gym. Got it. I've ben to two NAGAs. I know. But the skills we need are the same, regardless of the venue, the pressure, etc. Those realistic skills we get the same way -- by training realistically.

What's interesting is that if you talk to good fighters, they'll tell you that your training (fighting in the gym) should be more demanding than your fight on the mat -- this is how to best prepare (both Ali and Rickson have said that publically).

Which Real Game (event) have you competed in to test your theory or are you basing it on what other do? Something you point fingers to others for doing frequently ;) :p

T, I really do agree with you on many levels but if you can point fingers at others then you can expect them to also point towards your posts/philosophy. Martial Art or any Sport is about the total training package. Stress one thing more than anything else and you will have an out of balanced performance machine.

Instead of making this personal, let's look to how champions at your so-called real game do it. How do they develop their skills? Are these champions doing forms, loads of unrealistic drills, chi gung, standing post, etc.? You see, Jim, that's exactly my point: instead of listening to WCK "masters" who have never fought anyone of any significant skill tell us how to do things, how to develop skills, how to train to fight, let's look at what "real" fighters do, and follow their example. We know their training model works, and works extremely well since it produces good fighters at *all* levels. Or, we can listen to peoplewith opposing views that have never done it -- theoretical nonfighters.

Jim Roselando

04-03-2007, 06:21 AM

Hello,

That said, you obviously cannot train those techniques with full speed. However, EVERYTHING I learn in judo, I can train full speed in randori. EVERYTHING I learn in bjj I can use full speed while rolling. In muay thai, I can spar 80% or greater, using everything I've learned.

Yes, but!!! if you watch the training of lets say the Gracies they Dont typically play at 100% during Practice/Warm Up Games.

compare similar things, then. When I first started judo, I did it 1.5 hours per day, twice per week. I was doing CMA for 1.5 hours per day 3 - 4 days per week. Even though I was doing less judo, when I went back and sparred some of the guys I used to train with, I was dominating them. Not because judo is better, but because we put in more sparring time than we did in the longfist classes.

Exactly! The Judo had a better results geared training than your CMA. Its typical in CMA. Its why many have given up on CMA or do anything and call it CMA as long as they can apply it. For me, its not the art its the practitioner. If WC let someone down then is it because the WC is broken? A lot of better people than us have used it pretty damm well. Sometimes, and I know this is a bitter pill to swallow, people need to realize just because you like something or want to do it it doesn't mean your body is made for it. Maybe those who are so down on WC should look for another art that may fit them better. There another possibility. ;)

okay, so what is the difference in these two groups of people? why aren't the WC guys training 3 days per week, for several hours like the BMAC guys?

Most people who do WCK do it for a hobby or some self defense. There really isn't a huge Sport scene with WCK with all sort of tournaments and other stuff to Play in like Boxing, Thai, MMA etc... But!!! Those looking to Play a real game need not look to far as those events are always open. Taiki Ken Open in Japan. Kykoshin Open, Full Contact events etc..

I do agree with you here. However, some of that could be ingrained with the training, as it is in sport arts. when you roll 30 - 60 minutes per session, you develop the cardio and the anaerobic conditioning. It's part of the training.

You get conditioning but I would say not cardio. Totally different. I would ask one of the guys doing that to do 3, 3 minute rounds of Jump Rope to test their wind.

You can train bjj on a recreational level and to fine in competition - it's all in the training format.

Good training = good results. Your correct.

I placed second in the state judo shiai from training only two days per week. the training was set up in such a way that you received what you needed. Of course, if you are trying to compete at higher levels, extra training is necessary, as your opposition will be putting in the extra time as well.

Agreed.

t_niehoff

04-03-2007, 06:30 AM

You say rolling=sparring=fighting. How so? When BJJers roll do they also punch each other full force, half force or no striking at all. Do they use elbows and headbutts? or are they just trying to lock,choke submit,gain position,control or pass guard without striking?

Most fighting methods are subsets of the total package (all that can happen in a fight). For example, boxing just deals with "real" (realistic) punches but not clinch, kicks and takedowns. Is boxing fighting? Sure, but just a subset of the totality. BJJ is a subset too. The skills learned and developed in these subsets, boxing and BJJ, can be put into the total package (they will need to be integrated, of course). The advantage to the subset is that it permits focus (for example, it is more difficult to develop good grappling skills if your opponent can strike, so by eliminating strikes from the fight, you focus on the grappling).

More importantly is that realistic skills are developed by realistic practice.

Jim Roselando

04-03-2007, 06:48 AM

Hi Jeff,

Hey Jim,
I also agree with Terence on some of the things he says, but he seems more bent on just proving his point than anything else, that he can't see what I asked in the first place. What's wrong with the wing chun principles / concepts?

Nothing wrong with it. Its what Alan and others are using in their Chinese Boxing.

Not do you think it's wrong to read about principles and concepts and think you can play basketball? I mean wing Jiujitsu, I mean Brazillian Chun. Ah $hit I'm getting mixed up again.

hahaha :)

Jim Roselando

04-03-2007, 07:10 AM

T wrote:

Instead of making this personal, let's look to how champions at your so-called real game do it. How do they develop their skills?

Personal? Who is the one running around calling people Theoretitians when they have only "maybe" at best Played in one or two Real Games outside of Kwoon practice? Nobody else name calling/labelling but if its pointed out to you that you yourself are also a Theoretitian Fighter with almost No Real Competititon (game play) you consdier it Personal?

Sorry, maybe if you were actaully going to Full contact events or any Open regularly to test your skill I would give you the full floor to throw these words around but sicne you dont its kind of funny.

Are these champions doing forms, loads of unrealistic drills, chi gung, standing post, etc.?

Its about the Total Package. Since you focus on One thing as being the most important I feel you should actually go to Any real school teaching Real fighting and add up training time versus fight time. I bet your favorite thing is just 10% of what they do.

You see, Jim, that's exactly my point: instead of listening to WCK "masters" who have never fought anyone of any significant skill tell us how to do things, how to develop skills, how to train to fight, let's look at what "real" fighters do, and follow their example.

You see, Terence, this is exactly my Point. Instead of pointing out what other Fighters are actually doing why not do what they do and go compete or play in Real Games like they do? Big difference between telling others what Real fighters are doing and doing what they are doing huh outside the Kwoon in Real Game Competition.

I listen to my body and what effects its performance. If it doesn't work I dump it.

We know their training model works, and works extremely well since it produces good fighters at *all* levels.

Its not the art! Hate to be the bad news delivery person. Its the practitioner and training.

Or, we can listen to peoplewith opposing views that have never done it -- theoretical nonfighters.

You have been doing WC and your realistic training for many many years. Over 20 easily right! Played in maybe 2 actual Real Games. Maybe when you start competing against others in real Events outside the Kwoon you will also lose your Theoretical status or atleast gain the right to use that word.

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 07:33 AM

Yes, but!!! if you watch the training of lets say the Gracies they Dont typically play at 100% during Practice/Warm Up Games. .

BJJ training consists of three things, usually broken down in the following percentages:

10-30% of training with warm ups (BJJ specific drills, calisthenics, stretching, etc);

10-30% of training technique practice;

40-80% sparring done at 90-100%.

You defend your belt in every practice.

t_niehoff

04-03-2007, 07:49 AM

Personal? Who is the one running around calling people Theoretitians when they have only "maybe" at best Played in one or two Real Games outside of Kwoon practice? Nobody else name calling/labelling but if its pointed out to you that you yourself are also a Theoretitian Fighter with almost No Real Competititon (game play) you consdier it Personal?

The point behind "theoretical nonfighters" is about what is behind the opinion, what informs it. Is it expereince, evidence, etc. or is it pure hearsay and speculation? A WCK "grandmaster" can say do-this-or-that-and-you-will-develop-skill -- so how does he know? Has he fought anyone good and used it? Has he seen anyone use it in fighting against anyone decent? Or is this just theory? Something he's heard, wants to believe, sells well, what?

The perfect example of that is Hendrik -- he has these theories on how to train, about measuing EEGs and HRVs, etc. but what evidence does he have other than stories, legends, etc. -- theory and speculation -- that his methods work? I've asked him to show me one proven good fighter who has used his approach, and he can't name one. Yet I point out that all really good fighters have used the same basic model or approach to training and gotten great results. I'm pointing to real fighters and what they do.

Are these champions doing forms, loads of unrealistic drills, chi gung, standing post, etc.?

Its about the Total Package. Since you focus on One thing as being the most important I feel you should actually go to Any real school teaching Real fighting and add up training time versus fight time. I bet your favorite thing is just 10% of what they do.

I never said all they do is fight/spar. But that is the core of their training, and everything revolves around that. If you look at how fighters train, you'll see it isn't as low as 10% (I'd estimate closer to 40-50% but can be more or less). What they don't do is waste their time doing things that won't help them develop good skills. You made good point about most WCK people don't have unlimited training time -- and that's true, neither do I. That being the case, wouldn't it be wise to get the most from the time we do have? If I only ahve a few hours a week to train, is it productive to spend most of that time doing forms, unrealistic drills, chi gung, standing post when I could be doing realistic drills and sparring?

You see, Terence, this is exactly my Point. Instead of pointing out what other Fighters are actually doing why not do what they do and go compete or play in Real Games like they do? Big difference between telling others what Real fighters are doing and doing what they are doing huh outside the Kwoon in Real Game Competition.

I don't fight competitively because I am too old, I'm 47. Even Rickson, who is the same age as me, retired from competition. But I do fight recreationally, and I continue to train and try to improve. However, I train along side people who do and have fought in "Real GAme" competitions and people like me who don't fight competitively, I see how both groups train. But no one has to take my word for it, go see for yourself. Everyone with good realistic skills, skills that will work in fighting, train pretty much the same way.

I listen to my body and what effects its performance. If it doesn't work I dump it.

How can you know what "effects performance" if you are not performing? Seriously. Performance is the fight, not the drill, not chi sao -- the fight. If it works in chi sao or a drill but not fighting, how useful is it? You can't know if you can deal with real punches and kicks without really dealing with real punches and kicks. And you can't even develop the skill to do it without really dealing with punches and kicks. How can you measure your perforance in dealing with punches and kicks without fighting?

We know their training model works, and works extremely well since it produces good fighters at *all* levels.

Its not the art! Hate to be the bad news delivery person. Its the practitioner and training.

Yes and no. The training method is primary (that's what we have been discussing) but the art plays a significant part. No matter how well you train shotokan karate, it's just not going to take you to a really high level of performance.

Or, we can listen to peoplewith opposing views that have never done it -- theoretical nonfighters.

You have been doing WC and your realistic training for many many years. Over 20 easily right! Played in maybe 2 actual Real Games. Maybe when you start competing against others in real Events outside the Kwoon you will also lose your Theoretical status or atleast gain the right to use that word.

No, I practiced WCK pretty much like everyone else and believed the same sorts of things like everyone else, and wondered why I wasn't getting where I thought I should be getting even though I trained really hard (I saw my flaws when I sparred with good people). It wasn't until I began questioning what we've been told from the "masters" - and realized that much of it is nonsense - that I began making good progress.

It has nothing to do with me or my skill level or whether I compete or not. It has to do with what any of us needs to do to develop good, solid, realistic skills -- regardless of the martial art we practice. Who do we look to for how to train? The people with no proven skills or those with proven skills? If we look to the latter, and to even those WCK people who have fought in competitions, we see how they train and the results that training produces. My view is that we should chase proven results, and do things justified by results, and not rely on theory and specuation for these things. If we want to develop fighting skills, we need to train like modern fighters do.

Jim Roselando

04-03-2007, 10:43 AM

T wrote:

The perfect example of that is Hendrik -- he has these theories on how to train, about measuing EEGs and HRVs, etc. but what evidence does he have other than stories, legends, etc. -- theory and speculation -- that his methods work? I've asked him to show me one proven good fighter who has used his approach, and he can't name one. Yet I point out that all really good fighters have used the same basic model or approach to training and gotten great results. I'm pointing to real fighters and what they do.

This is where your missing the point IMO. You point to Hendrik for exactly the same thing you should point to yourself. Hendrik is talking about specific attributes and body conditioining. Pieces of the puzzle just like Jump Rope & Weights would be to another sport or system.

Simple Example:

The HRV is not going to help you become a better fighter but its a TOOL to guage whats going on inside. You may think your relaxed but one way to find out is hook up to that little machine to check. If you Cant even sit down and regulate a calm rythm I can only imagine what type of hard to notice tension is going on when someone is trying to rip your head off.

So, does it help you fight or is it a modern tool to help a piece of the engine or even take you to another level of relax?

You keep asking for one person who has used the different aspects HS discusses and he has pointed to numerous of the all time greats where devoted to it. People who have students and grandstudents holding Open competitions like Wang Xiang Zhai decendants in Japan, White Crane full contact competitions in Taiwan, Kyokoshin Opens etc.. Good fighters travels and compete against good people. If you really where interested in finding or testing them you would not have to look hard. But your not really interested. ;)

Its very interesting that you ask others do show you stuff that you dont ask of your own teachers/training. You never have seen Robert use his stuff in a fight nor have you really fought with him but you took his training and and see if it worked for you. You use Yip Man's quote (go see for yourself and dont trust me) but nobody have ever seen Yip in a fist fight. Hendrik's talking about training stuff for the body and testing it for yourself. No different from what you do with your sifu's info from where i sit.

Even in WC most of the heavy hitters have backed themselves up with this sort of stuff. People like Sum Nung (added kidney qi gong) and guys from South Cali who you respect like Hawkins (your sigung) have continued to practice Wu Taiji which is noticeable with his Drawing in and freeze structure stuff that is Taiji Push Hands signature.

Maybe you could also show us One person who is training Wing Chun to use Wing Chun tools in a Real Game/Fight (just the punches/I dont care what the body is doing) with your training methods or are they mainly Chinese Boxing/MMA guys using the "principles/concepts" of Wing Chun that you are complaining about others doing?

:eek:

Nobody is arguing that realistic regular sparring is not important to build a fighter but like a car there are many parts to a fighter. So, ther whole theoretitian label should only be used by those playing in real games and developing people playing in real games. Your 47 and didn't before nor do you do now even tho you work out (practice games) with people who do. So, your guilty of pointing towards people walking the walk just like Hendrik and others do.

Last post for me! I'll leave you with that last word. :)

JPinAZ

04-03-2007, 11:03 AM

Jim,

You are dead on - great post.

My advice to Terrence: read Jim's last post very carefully and take it in before 'just hitting reply'.

JP

t_niehoff

04-03-2007, 12:29 PM

T wrote:

This is where your missing the point IMO. You point to Hendrik for exactly the same thing you should point to yourself. Hendrik is talking about specific attributes and body conditioining. Pieces of the puzzle just like Jump Rope & Weights would be to another sport or system.

Simple Example:

The HRV is not going to help you become a better fighter but its a TOOL to guage whats going on inside. You may think your relaxed but one way to find out is hook up to that little machine to check. If you Cant even sit down and regulate a calm rythm I can only imagine what type of hard to notice tension is going on when someone is trying to rip your head off.

How do we know that training this way will have the effect you believe it will? We don't. It's his theory. There is no evidence -- from fighitng -- that it has any value. It is pure specualtion on many levels. Contrast that what fighters, great fighters and great trainers of fighters, do. What they do isn't theory as we know it produces results.

What Hedrik and I are talking about are polar opposities -- I'm saying look at what good people really do to become good; Hendrik is in fantasy land.

So, does it help you fight or is it a modern tool to help a piece of the engine or even take you to another level of relax?

Jim, it has nothing to do with being relaxed. It has to do with being familiar with the situation and environment. This si the trouble with nonfighting theoreticians -- they can't have answers because they don't even know the problems.

You keep asking for one person who has used the different aspects HS discusses and he has pointed to numerous of the all time greats where devoted to it. People who have students and grandstudents holding Open competitions like Wang Xiang Zhai decendants in Japan, White Crane full contact competitions in Taiwan, Kyokoshin Opens etc.. Good fighters travels and compete against good people. If you really where interested in finding or testing them you would not have to look hard. But your not really interested. ;)

That these people fought has nothing to do with Hendrik's theory -- they weren't using HRVs or EEGs; whatever success they ahd came from training like any other fighter. Go ask the head of Kyokushinkai, Jon Bluming - who trains MMA fighters - about EEGs and HRVs and he'll laugh his @ss off.

Its very interesting that you ask others do show you stuff that you dont ask of your own teachers/training. You never have seen Robert use his stuff in a fight nor have you really fought with him but you took his training and and see if it worked for you. You use Yip Man's quote (go see for yourself and dont trust me) but nobody have ever seen Yip in a fist fight. Hendrik's talking about training stuff for the body and testing it for yourself. No different from what you do with your sifu's info from where i sit.

I have seen Robert use his stuff in sparring -- against me! Wong Sheung Leung, if you recall, saw Yip fight -- he sparred with him, and that led him to begin training in WCK.

I understand Hendrik is talking about training the body -- but he is doing it not from the POV of experience but from theory.

Even in WC most of the heavy hitters have backed themselves up with this sort of stuff. People like Sum Nung (added kidney qi gong) and guys from South Cali who you respect like Hawkins (your sigung) have continued to practice Wu Taiji which is noticeable with his Drawing in and freeze structure stuff that is Taiji Push Hands signature.

Neither practice their qi gung for marital power or for martial skill, they use it as a health program.

Maybe you could also show us One person who is training Wing Chun to use Wing Chun tools in a Real Game/Fight (just the punches/I dont care what the body is doing) with your training methods or are they mainly Chinese Boxing/MMA guys using the "principles/concepts" of Wing Chun that you are complaining about others doing?

What's so ironic is that everyone who does fight and does make their WCK work in your "Real Game", like Dave, Alan, Andrew, Scott, etc. you dismiss as not "doing WCK" yet you can't point to anyone -- ANYONE -- who can do it as you believe is should be done.

Knifefighter

04-03-2007, 02:58 PM

So, ther whole theoretitian label should only be used by those playing in real games and developing people playing in real games. Your 47 and didn't before nor do you do now even tho you work out (practice games) with people who do. So, your guilty of pointing towards people walking the walk just like Hendrik and others do.

Terence may not be playing the real game, but he is is definitely a student of it. By his posts, one can tell that he studies the training of those who play the real game. He also trains with people who play the real game, so this gives him an intimate knowledge of what it takes to do so.

Also, he is a long time student of WC and, unlike some of us, he has studied with a "real" WC teacher. Who, if not he, is more qualified to have an informed opinion?

Jim, it has nothing to do with being relaxed. It has to do with being familiar with the situation and environment. This si the trouble with nonfighting theoreticians -- they can't have answers because they don't even know the problems.

EXACTLY!!!

And this is where Hendrick and many of the other theoretical non-fighters are dead wrong. Because they don't have much, or any, real-time fighting experience (either on the street or in a sport environment), they don't understand that being relaxed going into a fight is not a good thing.

It is actually beneficial to be in an aroused state for optimal athletic performance. No one who is experienced and skilled is relaxed when they are fighting for real... only the non-fighting theoreticians think this is the case.

Jim Roselando

04-04-2007, 06:04 AM

Dale wrote:

Terence may not be playing the real game, but he is is definitely a student of it. By his posts, one can tell that he studies the training of those who play the real game. He also trains with people who play the real game, so this gives him an intimate knowledge of what it takes to do so.

Sorry to be so blunt but BFD. T is not the only guy in the world who has figured out that more serious training against more serious people is a must for fighting. Sheesh! Rocket science huh. Just because he is getting a second wind in his martial career it doesn't mean nobody else figured this out. Doh.

Also, he is a long time student of WC and, unlike some of us, he has studied with a "real" WC teacher. Who, if not he, is more qualified to have an informed opinion?

There are good number of Real WC teachers out there and lots of people who live next to these real WC teachers and train hourly and weekly and yearly with them. T is like a lot of people. He trained a lot of WC around his area and then found something else he liked in another part of the country so he visited a number of times to learn his methods and make them his own. It would be like you if you lived in Denver but flying to see the Machado's in LA a handful of times to develop different attributes or mechanics. So, if not he, there are a lot of people qualified to have an opinion since a lot of people are Long Time students of the game sharing info..

Dale wrote:

EXACTLY!!!

And this is where Hendrick and many of the other theoretical non-fighters are dead wrong. Because they don't have much, or any, real-time fighting experience (either on the street or in a sport environment), they don't understand that being relaxed going into a fight is not a good thing.

It is actually beneficial to be in an aroused state for optimal athletic performance. No one who is experienced and skilled is relaxed when they are fighting for real... only the non-fighting theoreticians think this is the case.

Total BS. All the best fighters are Alert and Relaxed. Yes, this comes from experience against others, confidence in your own strengths and being in optimal performance condition.

Since you guys have Fighter Envy of other stuff, and dont look at them like just another regular Human standing in front of you, you already lost. Human beings are only so strong and fast. I dont care who you are. The guys out-performing the the rest are typically out training them. So, if your art doesn't hold up with a fair comparisson of training time then maybe its not for you or what your doing was not helping you.

Go walk in any of these Modern Cross training Fitness centers and tell me what type of equipment they are using for the Athletes. You will be surprised that many are hooking up and Monitoring their inner stats. High tech times for high tech athletes. Doens't mean WC can't gain use out of it. And, To My Surprise, when i did go in to check them out the first thing I saw on the wall of videos was some Breathing monitoring stuff.

Dale, your not even a WC guy. Your an X wing chun guy who is mainly a semi competing MMA guy that like to hang around WC forums. Isn't that Ironic. Whats the matter? Miss Yim's first kiss never left your system :o There have been a lot of people who get a lot of Bang out of WC. Pound for pound our hand puts out a lot and as a "primarily" (keep that word in mind) good fist boxing (counter-fighting) system, not a cover everything art, this is where and why WC guys end up getting their arsh handed to them. The, we got it all cover everything BS. Nope! Sorry. This is when we end up using Intellectual ma*terbation and kill a good thing.

Your words were right on the money:

My belief is that WC is a better defensive than offensive system and that most WC fighters don't utilize the system in this defensive manner. Instead, they attempt to be offensive and have trouble making the principles work in a realistic manner.

Loi Lao/BINGO

t_niehoff

04-04-2007, 06:45 AM

Sorry to be so blunt but BFD. T is not the only guy in the world who has figured out that more serious training against more serious people is a must for fighting. Sheesh! Rocket science huh. Just because he is getting a second wind in his martial career it doesn't mean nobody else figured this out. Doh.

Since we're being "blunt", you're right, others have figured this out -- but not you apparently.

There are good number of Real WC teachers out there and lots of people who live next to these real WC teachers and train hourly and weekly and yearly with them.

This is the sort of thing only theoretical nonfighters say. Skill in WCK has nothing to do with any of that. In fact, most "real WC teachers" couldn't fight their way out of wet paper bags, so spending every single minute of your life with them not only wouldn't help you, but it would be counter-productive. Skill comes from learning the fundamentals and then using them realistically (sparring); it doesn't come from other people.

T is like a lot of people. He trained a lot of WC around his area and then found something else he liked in another part of the country so he visited a number of times to learn his methods and make them his own. It would be like you if you lived in Denver but flying to see the Machado's in LA a handful of times to develop different attributes or mechanics. So, if not he, there are a lot of people qualified to have an opinion since a lot of people are Long Time students of the game sharing info..

Jim, you know nothing about me, my training, what I can or can't do.

Skill and knowledge in WCK is not about how long you've "studied" with someone, how close you live to them, how long you have practiced, or those sorts of things -- it is about what you can *do*. People who can't do it well naturally emphasize everything else put performance.

Total BS. All the best fighters are Alert and Relaxed. Yes, this comes from experience against others, confidence in your own strengths and being in optimal performance condition.

It is interesting that you, a nonfighter, are telling a fighter his *experience* is BS!

Actually, Dale is right on the money, and his views are confirmed by experimental results in motor skill studies. Fighters, like all competitive athletes, are alert and aroused during their performance, and it is not relaxation that you see, it is the ease of performance that comes with the experience of having done it many times before.

Since you guys have Fighter Envy of other stuff, and dont look at them like just another regular Human standing in front of you, you already lost. Human beings are only so strong and fast. I dont care who you are. The guys out-performing the the rest are typically out training them. So, if your art doesn't hold up with a fair comparisson of training time then maybe its not for you or what your doing was not helping you.

Are you training a martial art, a fighting method, or not? If you are, then you should be concerned with results from training. Fighting methods are no different than any other sport/athletic activity. People who out-train you will out-perform you. That's a given. And it's not just in the amount of time you spend training, but the effectivenss of how you train, what you do that matters. If we want to develop fighting skills, then we should look at what good fighters actually do to train.

Go walk in any of these Modern Cross training Fitness centers and tell me what type of equipment they are using for the Athletes. You will be surprised that many are hooking up and Monitoring their inner stats. High tech times for high tech athletes. Doens't mean WC can't gain use out of it. And, To My Surprise, when i did go in to check them out the first thing I saw on the wall of videos was some Breathing monitoring stuff.

You just don't seem to get it -- it's not the equipment, etc. that is the issue. Sure, all modern athletes make use of heart-rate monitors (so they can hit optimal training zones, for example). They are not using them in the way Hendrik is. There is actual evidence to support the advantage to training at certain levels of your max HR. Hendrik uses pseudo-science to support his theories.

Dale, your not even a WC guy. Your an X wing chun guy who is mainly a semi competing MMA guy that like to hang around WC forums. Isn't that Ironic. Whats the matter? Miss Yim's first kiss never left your system :o There have been a lot of people who get a lot of Bang out of WC. Pound for pound our hand puts out a lot and as a "primarily" (keep that word in mind) good fist boxing (counter-fighting) system, not a cover everything art, this is where and why WC guys end up getting their arsh handed to them. The, we got it all cover everything BS. Nope! Sorry. This is when we end up using Intellectual ma*terbation and kill a good thing.

And how can you say how WCK "should" be done if you can't do it? And you've never seen anyone do it? Theoretical nonfighters have cornered the market on "intellecutal m@sterbation".

Knifefighter

04-04-2007, 07:17 AM

Total BS. All the best fighters are Alert and Relaxed. Yes, this comes from experience against others, confidence in your own strengths and being in optimal performance condition.

No, the best fighters are alert and somewhat nervous. Talk to fighters (or any other athletes) and you will find that out. Pretty much every one will tell you that they have "butterflies". Better yet, go out there and Play the Game yourself. You will find this to be the case. You will also find that this nervousness really never goes away, which is, actually, a good thing.

Research backs up the fact that a moderately high level of arousal is the most beneficial state to be in for optimal athletic performance.

Go walk in any of these Modern Cross training Fitness centers and tell me what type of equipment they are using for the Athletes. You will be surprised that many are hooking up and Monitoring their inner stats.

Inner stats such as blood lactate levels, heart rate, etc. are used to determine and monitor intensity levels for training... there are sound physiological reasons for this. There are no sound physiological reasons for becoming completely relaxed in an athletic setting.

The fact is that a moderately high level or arousal is optimal for maximum performance. While an overaroused athlete can use biofeedback devices to help him lower this to optimal levels, it is never a good idea to become completely relaxed... unless your goal is to meditate or go to sleep.

Jim Roselando

04-04-2007, 07:29 AM

Jim Roselando

04-04-2007, 07:31 AM

Dale wrote;

No, the best fighters are alert and somewhat nervous. Talk to fighters (or any other athletes) and you will find that out. Pretty much every one will tell you that they have "butterflies". Better yet, go out there and Play the Game yourself.

Thats exactly what I told you guys. Go back and read what i wrote. Big difference. Adrenaline starts pumping etc.. Practice game and real game are different. This topic has been beat to death. We are all agreeing even if we dont see it. Atleast thats what I get out of it. :D :D :D

t_niehoff

04-04-2007, 08:15 AM

T wrote;

This is the sort of thing only theoretical nonfighters say. Skill in WCK has nothing to do with any of that. In fact, most "real WC teachers" couldn't fight their way out of wet paper bags, so spending every single minute of your life with them not only wouldn't help you, but it would be counter-productive.

Maybe you should tell this to Dale! Since he wrote:

Also, he is a long time student of WC and, unlike some of us, he has studied with a "real" WC teacher. Who, if not he, is more qualified to have an informed opinion?

I think Dale knows what I am talking about. He was being sarcastic since he was "accused" of not having a "real" WCK instructor.

T wrote;

And how can you say how WCK "should" be done if you can't do it? And you've never seen anyone do it? Theoretical nonfighters have cornered the market on "intellecutal m@sterbation".

Maybe you should tell this to Dale! Sinice he wrote:

My belief is that WC is a better defensive than offensive system and that most WC fighters don't utilize the system in this defensive manner. Instead, they attempt to be offensive and have trouble making the principles work in a realistic manner.

This is his opinion based on his *experience* -- fighting. It is not based on his theorizing. Do you see the difference? Expereince vs. theory.

What you can do or cant I could care less. I'm just answering and discussing on a forum. Unless your doing something different from anyone else, or have figured out some secret that nobody else has (which you haven't), then it doesn't matter what you can do. Your just another human with an opinion on the Net based on what "others" have done or are doing.

If you don't care what I do or can do, then I suggest you not talk about it. :)

Of course this is a forum and we are all sharing our views and opinions. But not all views and opinions are equal, not all are equally informed, not all make sense, not all are valid, etc. Views and opinions depend on our knowledge and understanding of the subject. In terms of WCK, knowledge and understanding is dependent upon our skill, what we can do. If someone can't do it (in fighting), they don't really know and they don't really understand. And knowledge and understanding they have is superficial.

As I said in my post: Skill comes from learning the fundamentals and then using them realistically (sparring); it doesn't come from other people. Let me emphasize it -- skill, and the attendant knowledge and understanding, does not come from other people. You can only earn it, through genuine experience.

People search out good people. All the people who will be remembered for years and years you deny their achievements. Who will remember you? How many people search for you? There lay the difference between those pointing fingers and those doing!

:cool:

Essentailly everything you wrote above is wrong, and wrong-headed. Skill doesn't come from other people.

Appeal to popularity is one of the well-known logical fallacies. Does popularity prove something is good?

I am not trying to sell anything or promote myself or gain followers (God forbid). I am a martial artist and a tennis player, and I do both for the same reasons -- I enjoy playing the games (fighting and tennis). I don't care if other martial artists or tennis players seek me out! I'm not doing what I do for them; I'm doing it for me. And I'm not denying anyone's achievements. But I don't accept legends and stories and reputations and marketing as truth. Critical thinking skills are just as important in the martial arts as they are in the rest of our lives.

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 08:28 AM

Total BS. All the best fighters are Alert and Relaxed. Yes, this comes from experience against others, confidence in your own strengths and being in optimal performance condition.

that's not true. They ARE relaxed in the situation, as in, they are comfortable fighting, grappling, etc. but they are nervous prior to competition. That is not uncommon. Surely you've heard the term "pre-fight jitters"?

Jim Roselando

04-04-2007, 09:45 AM

7 Star wrote;

that's not true. They ARE relaxed in the situation, as in, they are comfortable fighting, grappling, etc. but they are nervous prior to competition. That is not uncommon. Surely you've heard the term "pre-fight jitters"?

Read my reply to Dale.

Dale wrote;

No, the best fighters are alert and somewhat nervous. Talk to fighters (or any other athletes) and you will find that out. Pretty much every one will tell you that they have "butterflies". Better yet, go out there and Play the Game yourself.

Thats exactly what I told you guys. Go back and read what i wrote. Big difference. Adrenaline starts pumping etc.. Practice game and real game are different. This topic has been beat to death. We are all agreeing even if we dont see it. Atleast thats what I get out of it.

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 09:58 AM

..........

they are different, but not as different. When I was in TMA, we spent time on forms and learning applications to forms that we could not always practice at full speed for various reasons - pressure points, eye gouging, finger manipulations, etc. Sure, there is more to CMA than that, but for seld defense scenarios, this comprised much of our training, because we wanted to train "techniques that would end a confrontation quickly".

That said, you obviously cannot train those techniques with full speed. However, EVERYTHING I learn in judo, I can train full speed in randori. EVERYTHING I learn in bjj I can use full speed while rolling. In muay thai, I can spar 80% or greater, using everything I've learned.

Sticking with the bjj example, the same techniques I use while rolling are the same techniques I've used in competition, and are the same techniques I use on my job. I execute them with the same intensity. And since I'm used to adrenaline rush and other stressors now, it seems pretty much the exact same for me. sparring and competition as done by sport fighters are not the same, but are nowhere near as far removed from eachother as other training methods.

SevenStar

04-04-2007, 10:02 AM

that said, street fights happen quick. I no longer get jitters when fighting on my job.

1. it's a regular basis thing
2. they happen so fast, you are already fighting before you have time to be nervous.

consequently, my "practice game" and "real game" here are pretty much the exact same.

ring righting is not like that at all. you have months ahead of time to think about it. You WILL be nervous.

Wayfaring

04-04-2007, 02:38 PM

Jim Roselando

04-05-2007, 05:58 AM

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 06:42 AM

T wrote:

This is his opinion based on his *experience* -- fighting. It is not based on his theorizing. Do you see the difference? Expereince vs. theory.

Everyone needs to be really careful as Terence seems to have video cameras or Jack (24 show) stuff coming thru your computers. He seems to know what level and how much realistic training everyone does or did. ROFLMAO

Sorry! Couldn't resist!

:D :D :D

Anyone who gets out there and fights (uses their WCK) with some good people -- and it doesn't need to be in your "Real Game" -- are going to see certain things, about both their training and about their WCK.

A person who is training realistically (which includes fighting since that is the only way to measure performance) can tell by certain things said (they don't need a camera) whether another person is training realistically or not. Their experience or lack of it comes through. For example, anyone who says conditioning isn't important (crucial) just isn't training realistically and/or sparring/fighting. And that's because anyone who is training realistically and/or fighting knows better. Or like the people who believe eye jabs and bites will save them on the ground: their lack of real expereince is revealed in their views (anyone who has grappled knows better).

I don't always agree with anyone, even people like Dale or Ernie or Andrew (S and N) or Nick or Alan or Victor or Lawrence (and others) . . . but I can tell from what they say that they are training realistically and fighting. Similarly, I can tell who the theoretical nonfighters are by what they say. What difference does it make? Well, when someone begins talking about application or effective training methods, one group is talking from experience and the other talking from theory/speculation.

FWIW, there is nothing wrong with being a theoretical nonfighter -- people can do WCK for other reasons than developing fighitng skills, for health or exercise or social interaction or to preserve a lineage or whatever. That's all good.

SevenStar

04-05-2007, 07:17 AM

Dude, do you really get that much of a workout rolling drunks?

1. they aren't all drunks. people assume everyone in a club is drinking. I have put out nba and ncaa players.

2. a weight lifter who is just tipsy enough that pain doesn't bother him can be a mofo to deal with.

3. we are talking about the similarity between training and application. I fight with the same techniques I train. you guys admittedly don't fight with chi sao, for example, so your practice game and real game are further removed from eachother than mine are.

Jim Roselando

04-05-2007, 08:06 AM

T,

You speculate way too much.

Show me one WC school open 5-6 days per week with people training hours every night and how easy it is for the Realistic (net guys) guys to pound them around and i'll go along with it.

********
Bottom line:

Results = what you put in. Total Hours training. The best guys train the most HOURS which allow them to do MORE of everything and the guys training 2 days per week also get a lot of it since its very simple stuff.

********

I'm starting to fall a sleep discussing common sense stuff that Everyone and their mother knows. Most people figure this out much earlier in their career than you did but atleast you figured out that more serious training produces more serious results. I'm actually happy for you especially since you agree with me. :p

Quick: Insert T Mantra:

You Theoretitians all sound the same. They dont understand that you can know about it but thats not enough unless you guys out there actually do it. I know what all of you do roflol hahahahaha

;)

Knifefighter

04-05-2007, 08:58 AM

T,You speculate way too much.

Tell us about your training.

Bottom line:
Results = what you put in. Total Hours training. The best guys train the most HOURS which allow them to do MORE of everything and the guys training 2 days per week also get a lot of it since its very simple stuff.

Results = (total hours training) x (realistic training) / (stupid drills + forms training + listening to instructor talk about the old days and rooftop fights) + 1/3 x (chi sao training) + 1.5 x (wooden dummy training)

Jeff Bussey

04-05-2007, 09:37 AM

Hey Knifefighter,

Results = (total hours training) x (realistic training) / (stupid drills + forms training + listening to instructor talk about the old days and rooftop fights) + 1/3 x (chi sao training) + 1.5 x (wooden dummy training)

Now put that all in brackets and multiply it by the number of metachlorions / sqft and throw pi into the equation and your basically a jedi.

:p

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 10:26 AM

T,
You speculate way too much.

Show me one WC school open 5-6 days per week with people training hours every night and how easy it is for the Realistic (net guys) guys to pound them around and i'll go along with it.

It's easier than that -- show me anyone, regardless of their style of martial art or how much time they put in to their training, including WCK -- who aren't training like modern day fighters do, with realistic drills and lots of sparring, that can walk into a Straighblast Gym or other gym that trains MMAists and handle themselves well. What? No one? There you go. :)

Bottom line:

Results = what you put in. Total Hours training. The best guys train the most HOURS which allow them to do MORE of everything and the guys training 2 days per week also get a lot of it since its very simple stuff.

No. While the amount time you put in is important, even more important is the quality of the training time you put in -- a person can spend 8 hours a day practicing crap and they will never make significant progress. But with 8 hours a week of quality training a person can make significant progress. This is your cop out -- "I'm no good and that's because I only train two days a week". I've heard of people making BB in BJJ with 2-3 days of training a week (for 10 years). And I've seen WCK masters and grandmasters (essentially all of them) that have been training their entire lives who would ahve difficulty beating scrubs.

I'm starting to fall a sleep discussing common sense stuff that Everyone and their mother knows. Most people figure this out much earlier in their career than you did but atleast you figured out that more serious training produces more serious results. I'm actually happy for you especially since you agree with me. :p

But you haven't figured it out! As this post proves. (Not to mention your HRV traiing with Hendrik).

Quick: Insert T Mantra:

You Theoretitians all sound the same. They dont understand that you can know about it but thats not enough unless you guys out there actually do it. I know what all of you do roflol hahahahaha

;)

Not all theoretician nonfighters sound the same or do the same things. There are lots of silly theories and lots of silly practices. And these are easy to identify: they are not what good fighters or good fight trainers are doing.

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 11:45 AM

And I've seen WCK masters and grandmasters (essentially all of them) that have been training their entire lives who would ahve difficulty beating scrubs.

Sorry to get off-track and jump into someone else's discussion, but this really kills me - Hey T, care to name a few? Or even one?? I've called you out on this 3 times now, and every time you've just ignored it.
If you are SSOOO possitive, give us some names - shouldn't be a problem, no harm in that right?

or are you just peaking 'generally' once again?

Or out your a$$ again? ;)

Jonathan

t_niehoff

04-05-2007, 12:35 PM

Sorry to get off-track and jump into someone else's discussion, but this really kills me - Hey T, care to name a few? Or even one?? I've called you out on this 3 times now, and every time you've just ignored it.
If you are SSOOO possitive, give us some names - shouldn't be a problem, no harm in that right?

or are you just peaking 'generally' once again?

Or out your a$$ again? ;)

Jonathan

As I said, essentailly all of them. Let me ask you -- who are the fighting masters and grandmasters in WCK? Guys who have fought and beaten anyone with proven decent skills (let's say mid-level MMA level). Name them.

The people who do have the some decent WCK (fighting) skills -- and there are some in WCK, some on this forum -- aren't calling themselves master or grandmaster. It would embarass them to use such terms. Those terms are a dead-giveaway for theoretical nonfighters IMO.

Here's the deal -- if a person not fighting with good people in training, they can't have good fighting skills.

Jim Roselando

04-05-2007, 12:37 PM

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 01:20 PM

As I said, essentailly all of them. Let me ask you -- who are the fighting masters and grandmasters in WCK? Guys who have fought and beaten anyone with proven decent skills (let's say mid-level MMA level). Name them.

The people who do have the some decent WCK (fighting) skills -- and there are some in WCK, some on this forum -- aren't calling themselves master or grandmaster. It would embarass them to use such terms. Those terms are a dead-giveaway for theoretical nonfighters IMO.

Here's the deal -- if a person not fighting with good people in training, they can't have good fighting skills.

By essentially, you are saying All of them then?? So I have it straight, ou are saying ALL Masters/Grandmasters in WC can't fight? This is what you are saying, correct?

And don't try to turn it back on me by asking me who can/can't fight with those titles. I'm not the one making these grand claims to know everything about 'essentially every' person with the title Master/Grandmaster - YOU ARE. It's on you to prove yourself, not on me to prove you wrong.

OK, just for argument's sake, how about at least one name of who you are referring too? We'll discuss that.

"It would embarass them to use such terms. Those terms are a dead-giveaway for theoretical nonfighters IMO. "
So you are speaking for some other people on here? Why the hangup with those terms? You do realize, those terms aren't always self-appointed?
And I'm not talking about pther people on this forum - I'm talking about you and YOUR claims.

NAMES Terrence.

How can we take ANY of what you say as anything but BS if you squirm away every time someone calls you out on the crap you spew?

Jonathan

JPinAZ

04-05-2007, 01:27 PM

Jonathan,

First, sorry for the late reply with thanks for the cool words regarding on of my posts!

Back to the subject. One of the guys T mentions is Andrew S who is on the list as being a fighter. I agree with him as you can tell by his work out schedule he is deveoted to training and conditioning. Two keys!

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35800

Anyone training this much and this hard is going to be in much better fighting condition than the regular guys. More training = More Results.

Perfect example that shows its just that simple.

Peace,

Hi Jim,

No problem, it sure has been interesting here.

I can agree, more training can equal more results.
And, I do agree with some of waht T says regarding realistic training vs. non-realistic (to use his terms). If someone trains 'wrong' but hard every 2-3 hours day, they will still build endurance, stamina, possilby mental toughness, etc... ('wrong' by some people's POV anyway).
I don't feel that necessarily means they will be a better fighter than someone that trains half the time, just as hard, but with better methods.

IMO, it's the time put in, the realism of the training, the opponents you are training with and the methods used. What I mean is, I can hit the gym all day every day - hit bags, shadow box, jump rope, do calistenics, etc. But if I don't spar at all or very little, I still will only be so-so at boxing vs. someone who spars more and does the rest less if that makes sense?

Jonathan

Jim Roselando

04-05-2007, 01:37 PM

Dale,

My training partner for a good number of years was the Middle Weight Wadu/Kick Boxing chap of Brazil. My nose, if we ever meet, is still crooked from our training but his ankle also never healed from my gift. We worked together for 5 years daily. Guess, what I was using? Thats Right, Wing Chun and Grappling where he was using Wadu/Kickboxing and Grappling. He was certainly a better conditioned and trained fighter than I was but because WC is pretty functional it never made it to be a massacre and we fought damm hard. Both have a huge ego for losing. Both would rather die than lose. Makes for brutal battles and why we both are still close friends.

I'm pretty sure his credentials as a fighter out weights the non-achievers on the net wondering who people train with and against. He also run the BMAC. Both of us agree that the most important Two aspects of Fighting is:

Conditioning/Stamina & Ability to take punishment and keep going.

Look at the Old Guy you posted. If you have a good tolerance for pain and stamina you can go a long way.

Humans are only so strong and so fast.

BTW: Did you ever ask yourself why you hang around a Wing Chun forum during your spare time? I understand man! Sometimes its better to be a semi competing martialist on a forum of mostly non competing practitioners huh. Almost similar to a Thai guy hanging around a Taiji forum telling them how bad their stuff is daily/yearly. Things that make you go hmmmm. :)

I have deleted KFO from my list. Wont be checking back in for a long while so thanks for the chats guys! Lots of good points raised/discussed from both sides of the coin.

Peace,
Jim

Jim Roselando

04-05-2007, 01:39 PM

Johnathan,

Thanks for sharing. We all agree on many levels. This is the funny thing about this whole debate huh!

Good training friend!

Peace,
Jim

Knifefighter

04-05-2007, 02:20 PM

Dale,

My training partner for a good number of years was the Middle Weight Wadu/Kick Boxing chap of Brazil.

Really? Under which organization? What was his name? Some of my Brazilian fighting buddies may know him.

What's your grappling background?

What does your training consist of now?

leung jam

04-06-2007, 01:49 AM

Really? Under which organization? What was his name? Some of my Brazilian fighting buddies may know him.

What's your grappling background?

What does your training consist of now?

Different day same sh1t, seems old kf has a black belt in tedium& repetition,, Is this part of getting old kf, becoming a narrowminded bigot?

.....like a monkey with a minature cymbal.............

t_niehoff

04-06-2007, 05:46 AM

By essentially, you are saying All of them then?? So I have it straight, ou are saying ALL Masters/Grandmasters in WC can't fight? This is what you are saying, correct?

How much clearer can I make it for you? None of the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" can fight at a significant level. None. While they all "know" WCK (on a superficial level, at least), none of them can use it well against decent level fighters. And they certainly can't teach others to use it.

For anyone, regardless of their style, to develop significant levels of fighting skills, they need to routinely fight/spar against other good fighters. And can you tell me which of the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" have done that work? None.

And don't try to turn it back on me by asking me who can/can't fight with those titles. I'm not the one making these grand claims to know everything about 'essentially every' person with the title Master/Grandmaster - YOU ARE. It's on you to prove yourself, not on me to prove you wrong.

I'm saying there is no bigfoot or loch ness monster -- just as there aren't any WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" that can fight well. I say that because there is no evidence supporting the existence of such beasts. If you say such things exist, provide the evidence. Of course you can't but you believe it nonetheless.

OK, just for argument's sake, how about at least one name of who you are referring too? We'll discuss that.

LOL! I said all of them, so fill in whatever name you like.

"It would embarass them to use such terms. Those terms are a dead-giveaway for theoretical nonfighters IMO. "
So you are speaking for some other people on here? Why the hangup with those terms? You do realize, those terms aren't always self-appointed?
And I'm not talking about pther people on this forum - I'm talking about you and YOUR claims.

Real fighters (in WCK) wouldn't call themselves "master" or "grandmaster" because they would be embarrassed to call themselves or have other call themselves such things -- once you have fought with really good people, regardless of your skill level, you realize just how fantastic many good fighters are, and how paltry your skills are in relation to them. It's difficult to consider yourself a master when others can easily stuff you.

If WCK people had to perform (fight) to earn such titles, no one would be using them!

NAMES Terrence.

How can we take ANY of what you say as anything but BS if you squirm away every time someone calls you out on the crap you spew?

Jonathan

Anyone -- ANYONE -- who hasn't or isn't routinely mixing it up with other good fighters, MMAists, muay thai fighters, boxers, wrestlers,e tc. -- can't have good fighting skills. Can't. Because fighting skills come from fighting. No one -- NO ONE -- becomes a good fighter by not fighting. This is a lead pipe truth. How good we get in WCK, or any fighting method, is directly related to the amount of quality sparring/fighting we've done. That's true of boxing, BJJ, judo, wrestling, MMA, sambo, muay thai, etc. And it's true of WCK. If you want the formula, there it is. A person's skill level depends on the amount of quality sparring he's done(quality being the skill level of the opponent, intensity,etc.). And knowledge and understanding of WCK is directly related to a person's skill level. So little to no quality sparring means little to no real understanding or knowledge of WCK.

Skill in WCK, and attendent knowledge and understanding, doesn't come from another person -- you don't "get it" from your sifu. It comes from the doing, from the fighting, from earning it. That's the hard work, that's the gung fu.

JPinAZ

04-06-2007, 11:09 AM

How much clearer can I make it for you? None of the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" can fight at a significant level. None. While they all "know" WCK (on a superficial level, at least), none of them can use it well against decent level fighters. And they certainly can't teach others to use it.

For anyone, regardless of their style, to develop significant levels of fighting skills, they need to routinely fight/spar against other good fighters. And can you tell me which of the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" have done that work? None.

I'm saying there is no bigfoot or loch ness monster -- just as there aren't any WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" that can fight well. I say that because there is no evidence supporting the existence of such beasts. If you say such things exist, provide the evidence. Of course you can't but you believe it nonetheless.

LOL! I said all of them, so fill in whatever name you like.

Real fighters (in WCK) wouldn't call themselves "master" or "grandmaster" because they would be embarrassed to call themselves or have other call themselves such things -- once you have fought with really good people, regardless of your skill level, you realize just how fantastic many good fighters are, and how paltry your skills are in relation to them. It's difficult to consider yourself a master when others can easily stuff you.

If WCK people had to perform (fight) to earn such titles, no one would be using them!

Anyone -- ANYONE -- who hasn't or isn't routinely mixing it up with other good fighters, MMAists, muay thai fighters, boxers, wrestlers,e tc. -- can't have good fighting skills. Can't. Because fighting skills come from fighting. No one -- NO ONE -- becomes a good fighter by not fighting. This is a lead pipe truth. How good we get in WCK, or any fighting method, is directly related to the amount of quality sparring/fighting we've done. That's true of boxing, BJJ, judo, wrestling, MMA, sambo, muay thai, etc. And it's true of WCK. If you want the formula, there it is. A person's skill level depends on the amount of quality sparring he's done(quality being the skill level of the opponent, intensity,etc.). And knowledge and understanding of WCK is directly related to a person's skill level. So little to no quality sparring means little to no real understanding or knowledge of WCK.

Skill in WCK, and attendent knowledge and understanding, doesn't come from another person -- you don't "get it" from your sifu. It comes from the doing, from the fighting, from earning it. That's the hard work, that's the gung fu.

T,

I think you've truely lost it. Do you even think about these things before you say them?

Let's define 'fight' first ok? I am sorry, but it could be argued that what you 'see' in a ring with refs, rules, regulations, weight classes, protective gear, etc are not exactly 'real fights' either. (I'm not saying this per-se, but it could and has been argued)
Yes, these guys are very good at what they do, they are great atheletes, in great condition, have good skills, and yes, they can 'fight' under those conditions. And, I am not trying to take anything away from them or say they can't 'fight' either so I'll save you the time of telling me how great they are - I've got it.

BUT, I think you are delussioned if this is what you'd call 'real fighting'. Of course, you are going to compare everything else to this and call it your standard - IT'S ALL YOU KNOW! I'm guessing it's all you've seen too.

Let me ask you T, How many REAL fights have YOU been in? Where there are no rules. Where no-one calls the fight once you are in serious trouble. How many REAL fights have you even seen? Where once someone's eye is shut or an arm/jaw/leg/etc is broken the fight really gets interesting? Or where once you've finally gotten the upper hand, you now have their budy to contend with. Or someone with a bottle? I'm guessing your answer would be very few or most likely none.
You are comparing PRIZE fighting to REAL fighting. You are comparring a GAME to real LIFE. There is a very big difference.

Now, before you get all up-in-arms, I am not saying that guys that fight in MMA, MT, Boxing, K1, etc cannot fight - I'm not even going to go there (and I'm sure you were already compiling your list of guys for you reply email - save it). . It's obvious they can fight in those arenas - we've all seen it. And yes, I would say it is safe to assume that they would most likely do very well in a street fight as well. But you haven't seen it have you? So, by your stupid logic, it must not be so. So could I say that none of your heros can't do what they do in the ring on the street? I'd be crazy to think that. But you think in those terms don't you...

What I think you are really missing is, whether they have the title Master/Grandmaster or not, just because someone hasn't proven thier skills, in a ring, to your 'standards' and in front of a camera, that doesn't mean that they can't fight. Nor does it mean that they haven't been in any fights. Maybe T, you just aren't the all-knowing knowledgable 'expert' on all things WC that you think you are.
Most likely far from it.

Here's the REAL issue here:

Since you are obviously still afraid to drop even one name, but now say 'ALL', you do realize you've just insulted every single lineage of WC where they have people holding these tiltles of respect, honor, etc. You realize you've pretty much said that any person with this title CAN NOT FIGHT???
I actully know, learn form and highly repsect some of these people you have insulted. Are you saying they cannot fight as well? Haha, are YOU ready to prove it to them? I am betting not. You are either the bravest man in the world, a much better fighter than you let on, or you've completely lost it.

Good luck to you, from the way you talk, it sounds like you need luck :)

Jonathan

t_niehoff

04-06-2007, 11:46 AM

T,

I think you've truely lost it. Do you even think about these things before you say them?

I have given this lots of thought.

Let's define 'fight' first ok? I am sorry, but it could be argued that what you 'see' in a ring with refs, rules, regulations, weight classes, protective gear, etc are not exactly 'real fights' either. (I'm not saying this per-se, but it could and has been argued)

If people are really trying to knock the crap out of each other, to finish the other guy (or make him submit), it is a fight -- regardless of the venue or the rules.

Yes, these guys are very good at what they do, they are great atheletes, in great condition, have good skills, and yes, they can 'fight' under those conditions. And, I am not trying to take anything away from them or say they can't 'fight' either so I'll save you the time of telling me how great they are - I've got it.

People who talk about "real" fights are lost in fantasy land. A fight is a fight. If someone has realistic skills, they will work in the ring, in the cage, on the mat, in the gym, or on the street. Fights are "real", and require realistic skills. Realistic skills work under any "conditions" as long as they are realistic conditions.

BUT, I think you are delussioned if this is what you'd call 'real fighting'. Of course, you are going to compare everything else to this and call it your standard - IT'S ALL YOU KNOW! I'm guessing it's all you've seen too.

Let's not try to change the focus to "real" fighting -- the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" are not (except in a few notable cases) fighting, let alone "real" fighting! But as I said above, realistic skills work in any realistic setting -- street, ring, mat, etc. If you can deal with a punch, it doesn't matter where that punch is done.

Let me ask you T, How many REAL fights have YOU been in? Where there are no rules. Where no-one calls the fight once you are in serious trouble. How many REAL fights have you even seen? Where once someone's eye is shut or an arm/jaw/leg/etc is broken the fight really gets interesting? Or where once you've finally gotten the upper hand, you now have their budy to contend with. Or someone with a bottle? I'm guessing your answer would be very few or most likely none.

First, this is not about me -- I never claimed to be a "master" or "grandmaster". Second, as I said, fighting skills don't change because with the venue. Third, who are these masters and grandmasters with verified, proven fights like you mention? Those guys can't fight their way out of wet tissue bags, let alone deal with what you are talking about!

You are comparing PRIZE fighting to REAL fighting. You are comparring a GAME to real LIFE. There is a very big difference.

Of course there is a big difference. But the skills it takes to do either are the same. If you can't deal with someone throwing punches at you wearing gloves, you can't deal with him not wearing gloves.

Now, before you get all up-in-arms, I am not saying that guys that fight in MMA, MT, Boxing, K1, etc cannot fight - I'm not even going to go there (and I'm sure you were already compiling your list of guys for you reply email - save it). . It's obvious they can fight in those arenas - we've all seen it. And yes, I would say it is safe to assume that they would most likely do very well in a street fight as well. But you haven't seen it have you? So, by your stupid logic, it must not be so. So could I say that none of your heros can't do what they do in the ring on the street? I'd be crazy to think that. But you think in those terms don't you...

First of all, I wouldn't need to see it because they have already proven they can fight -- I don't need to see someone fight in a cage to know they can fight if I've seen them fight in a ring. As I said, the skills are the same.

What I think you are really missing is, whether they have the title Master/Grandmaster or not, just because someone hasn't proven thier skills, in a ring, to your 'standards' and in front of a camera, that doesn't mean that they can't fight. Nor does it mean that they haven't been in any fights. Maybe T, you just aren't the all-knowing knowledgable 'expert' on all things WC that you think you are.
Most likely far from it.

They haven't proven they have fighting skills at all if they don't fight. And, they can't have fighting skills without doing lots of fighting. Where is the evidence that these masters and grandmasters have any significant fighting skill?

Here's the REAL issue here:

Since you are obviously still afraid to drop even one name, but now say 'ALL', you do realize you've just insulted every single lineage of WC where they have people holding these tiltles of respect, honor, etc. You realize you've pretty much said that any person with this title CAN NOT FIGHT???

Not to any significant degree. Those titles are not earned; they are marketing.

I actully know, learn form and highly repsect some of these people you have insulted. Are you saying they cannot fight as well? Haha, are YOU ready to prove it to them? I am betting not. You are either the bravest man in the world, a much better fighter than you let on, or you've completely.

Good luck to you, from the way you talk, it sounds like you need luck :)

Jonathan

Lots of people swallow what they sell. Look -- they "know" WCK, at least in the superficial sense. But if they aren't regularly sparring and with good people, they are not going to have much in the way of fighting skill. It's that simple. You may not like it, but that is the truth. To earn just a blue belt in BJJ will take the average person a couple (sometimes more) of years of sparring four to six hours a week against good people (roughly 624 hours of quality sparring). How many WCK masters and grandmasters have even put in that amount of time sparring their entire lives?

SevenStar

04-06-2007, 01:13 PM

1. they aren't all drunks. people assume everyone in a club is drinking. I have put out nba and ncaa players.

2. a weight lifter who is just tipsy enough that pain doesn't bother him can be a mofo to deal with.

3. we are talking about the similarity between training and application. I fight with the same techniques I train. you guys admittedly don't fight with chi sao, for example, so your practice game and real game are further removed from eachother than mine are.

Case in point, we had an ex dallas cowboys player in there last night. Can't recall his name, but he was a big boy. Putting him out woulda been a problem if he tried to resist.

SevenStar

04-06-2007, 01:29 PM

BUT, I think you are delussioned if this is what you'd call 'real fighting'. Of course, you are going to compare everything else to this and call it your standard - IT'S ALL YOU KNOW! I'm guessing it's all you've seen too.

Let me ask you T, How many REAL fights have YOU been in? Where there are no rules. Where no-one calls the fight once you are in serious trouble. How many REAL fights have you even seen? Where once someone's eye is shut or an arm/jaw/leg/etc is broken the fight really gets interesting? Or where once you've finally gotten the upper hand, you now have their budy to contend with. Or someone with a bottle? I'm guessing your answer would be very few or most likely none.
You are comparing PRIZE fighting to REAL fighting. You are comparring a GAME to real LIFE. There is a very big difference.

I have been in several. I will have some tomorrow, possibly tonight. Almost had one last night. From the perspectives being spoken on here, there is not THAT great of a difference between the 'game' and 'reality'. As I stated in an earlier post, the techniques I train in class and have used in competition are the exact same ones I use in a fight. No, there is no ref to stop it. that really does not change the dynamic of anything - it simply means that you keep fighting until one drops or until it is in some way ended. The additional factors (weapons, other attackers, etc) are part of the environmental change. I have contended with a guy and two of his buddies. I have contended with guys with bottles. I used the same techniques I train in class. Grappling on concrete? same techniques I used in class. Brawls involving 20 or so people? same techniques I used in class. The environment is different, but the game is the same - fight until you win. My mindset is the same - make him incapable of continuing, be it KO, snapped limb, etc.

Now, before you get all up-in-arms, I am not saying that guys that fight in MMA, MT, Boxing, K1, etc cannot fight - I'm not even going to go there (and I'm sure you were already compiling your list of guys for you reply email - save it). . It's obvious they can fight in those arenas - we've all seen it. And yes, I would say it is safe to assume that they would most likely do very well in a street fight as well. But you haven't seen it have you? So, by your stupid logic, it must not be so. So could I say that none of your heros can't do what they do in the ring on the street? I'd be crazy to think that. But you think in those terms don't you...

What he is saying is that he's seen SOMETHING. the something he's seen shows him that these guys can handle themselves.

JPinAZ

04-06-2007, 01:35 PM

If people are really trying to knock the crap out of each other, to finish the other guy (or make him submit), it is a fight -- regardless of the venue or the rules.
It's obvious you've never been in a real fight then (no rules, outside the 'ring'). So, you don't even know what you're talking about do you?
You can't tap out on the street. No one can throw in the towel on the street. You can't win by points on the street. There are no padded floors, no gloves, no timer, no bell, no breaks in a REAL FIGHT. Get the point? There is WAY more than money and pride at risk on the street, which makes it WAY different.
If you had any experience in a real fight you wouldn't say such idiotic things.

People who talk about "real" fights are lost in fantasy land. A fight is a fight. If someone has realistic skills, they will work in the ring, in the cage, on the mat, in the gym, or on the street. Fights are "real", and require realistic skills. Realistic skills work under any "conditions" as long as they are realistic conditions.

Again, how many REAL street fights have you been in? No rules, no ref, no bell, just you, an oppenent (or more than one) and your knuckles (or more).
I ask because I believe you are only 'speculating' about it, and haven't EXPERIENCED it. So, who's the real 'theoriretical fighter"??
And yes, I've been in plenty fights outside a ring, so I can speak from my own experience.
Ok, now you'll probably list the names of the people you know can fight, that have 'proven it in the ring' and call that your experience. :rolleyes:

Let's not try to change the focus to "real" fighting -- the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" are not (except in a few notable cases) fighting, let alone "real" fighting! But as I said above, realistic skills work in any realistic setting -- street, ring, mat, etc. If you can deal with a punch, it doesn't matter where that punch is done.

Haha, ok, try to sidestep by saying "except notable cases". Ok, note them!!
Since you pussed out on naming those that can't and just said 'all', now you say there are some, who are they? The crap's getting deeper by the second. How many times are you going to go back on what you say?

FWIW, you are dead wrong if you way in the ring and on the street's the same thing. Ever get slammed onto hard concrete? Or into a table and chairs? You really must be that stupid...

First, this is not about me -- I never claimed to be a "master" or "grandmaster". Second, as I said, fighting skills don't change because with the venue. Third, who are these masters and grandmasters with verified, proven fights like you mention? Those guys can't fight their way out of wet tissue bags, let alone deal with what you are talking about!

No, it IS about you. You opened your mouth, you made claims regarding ALL 'masters' and 'grandmasters'. Are you speaking from experience or just 'theororizing' again? What is your 'vast experience' you are speaking from.
Have you ever been in a real fight? Do you even know what the hell you are even talking about?
And, I don't have to prove anything - I didn't claim anything. You made the claims, YOU prove it. (this is just more back peddling)

Of course there is a big difference. But the skills it takes to do either are the same. If you can't deal with someone throwing punches at you wearing gloves, you can't deal with him not wearing gloves.
Ok, you agree then, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE. The difference is the outcome, the surrounding, and the possible outcome. On the street there's no time limit, no ref to call the attacker off once their opponent can no longer defend himself, etc. And this is the difference between a fight in the ring and a 'real fight'. And this difference changes the way people will react - like it or not. If you had the experience you'd know this.

Yes, the skills do translate from the ring to the street - BUT HAVE YOU SEEN IT?????
The question still remains: HOW DO YOU KNOW WC ALL 'MASTERS'/'GRANDMASTERS' CAN NOT FIGHT???? HAVE YOU SEEN IT??
And are you talking ring fighting, or real world fighting?? Or are you saying it's all the same? No wait, you just said there's a big difference.

First of all, I wouldn't need to see it because they have already proven they can fight -- I don't need to see someone fight in a cage to know they can fight if I've seen them fight in a ring. As I said, the skills are the same.

Rings and cages - these usually are accompanied by rules, refs, etc. Wow, great point...

They haven't proven they have fighting skills at all if they don't fight. And, they can't have fighting skills without doing lots of fighting. Where is the evidence that these masters and grandmasters have any significant fighting skill?

More speculation, theory and BS. Who are you to speak for anyone? What do you know about the people you speak of? How do YOU know NONE of them have or can fight? You can't know. Just because YOU haven't seen any evidence, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. So basically, you're just talking out you a$$.

Not to any significant degree. Those titles are not earned; they are marketing.

No, no insult there? Riiggghhtt..

Lots of people swallow what they sell. Look -- they "know" WCK, at least in the superficial sense. But if they aren't regularly sparring and with good people, they are not going to have much in the way of fighting skill. It's that simple. You may not like it, but that is the truth. To earn just a blue belt in BJJ will take the average person a couple (sometimes more) of years of sparring four to six hours a week against good people (roughly 624 hours of quality sparring). How many WCK masters and grandmasters have even put in that amount of time sparring their entire lives?

Now you're talking about games again. Sparring? I thought you said that they CAN NOT FIGHT. I'm talking 'fighting' - in the real world, with REAL concequences.
I don't know what time they've put in. But I'm not the one pawning myself as all-knowing regarding ALL 'masters'&'grandmasters' of WC - YOU ARE.

And what the hell is a 'belt' ranking, if not another title? ;)

JP

JPinAZ

04-06-2007, 01:46 PM

I have been in several. I will have some tomorrow, possibly tonight. Almost had one last night. From the perspectives being spoken on here, there is not THAT great of a difference between the 'game' and 'reality'. As I stated in an earlier post, the techniques I train in class and have used in competition are the exact same ones I use in a fight. No, there is no ref to stop it. that really does not change the dynamic of anything - it simply means that you keep fighting until one drops or until it is in some way ended. The additional factors (weapons, other attackers, etc) are part of the environmental change. I have contended with a guy and two of his buddies. I have contended with guys with bottles. I used the same techniques I train in class. Grappling on concrete? same techniques I used in class. Brawls involving 20 or so people? same techniques I used in class. The environment is different, but the game is the same - fight until you win. My mindset is the same - make him incapable of continuing, be it KO, snapped limb, etc.

What he is saying is that he's seen SOMETHING. the something he's seen shows him that these guys can handle themselves.

No, he's saying a LOT more than that!

I believe you experienced these things personally. I don't believe T has. As a matter of fact, I'd bet on it that he hasn't.
And you're not making the idiotic claims that terrence is either. I asked him because I wanted to see if he's speaking from his own experiences, or riding the coatails of those that have. There's a big difference - it's perspective. If you've been there, you know. If you haven't, it's speculation, regardless how many stories you've heard..

What T is saying is that a whole group of people with gien 'titles' cannot fight (pretty big claim). I'm curious if T even knows what a real 'fight' is.

And I agree, the same skills we all train in class (and in some cases, compitition) do/can translate onto the street. And if so, it goes the other way too - from street to ring (to an extent). And, I give you a lot of respect for making it work and using it in those situations.
But there IS a difference - On the street, fights don't end just because someone can't return punches.. The environment is the BIG difference

But, that's not really even the point. The point is T's bold claims ALL people of WC that have certain titles. That's a pretty big claim - and a lot of BS coming from T if you ask me.

Jonathan

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 02:42 PM

But, that's not really even the point. The point is T's bold claims ALL people of WC that have certain titles. That's a pretty big claim - and a lot of BS coming from T if you ask me.

Which masters and grandmasters in WC do you think can fight at high levels of skill against quality opponents?

JPinAZ

04-06-2007, 06:37 PM

Which masters and grandmasters in WC do you think can fight at high levels of skill against quality opponents?

That's a bit of a loaded question now isn't it? And, why do you ask me anyway?

I'm not sure if care to get into that game with you. I'm not the one claiming anything here as far as other people's skills. Even if there are those out there I would have in mind as an answer, I'm not going to list them here. I'll save my experiences in that regard for myself.

How's this - T gives his list, I'll give mine..... Fat chance of that though huh! :rolleyes:

JP

chisauking

04-06-2007, 07:11 PM

More misconceptions by Terrence:

If people are really trying to knock the crap out of each other, to finish the other guy (or make him submit), it is a fight -- regardless of the venue or the rules.

Sparring or rolling, however intense, isn't fighting. In a real fight, the objective is to end the fight in the shortest time possible, using any means possible to inflict as much damage and pain to your opponent in order to cripple or kill him.....I know not of one single school that adheres to this defination during sparring. 99% of schools don't even allow stomp kicks to the knees, jabs to the eyes, elbows to the face, pulling of hair until it rips from your scalp, breaking of fingers, wearing boots to kick your opponent's face when they shoot or try to take you down....In other words, it isn't realistic as Terrence trys to 'REPEATEDLY' tell everyone. Unless people train like this, they are THEORETICIANS. Since they don't train this way, they don't know what will happen in a real fight (the same argument Terrence accuse others of)

People who talk about "real" fights are lost in fantasy land. A fight is a fight. If someone has realistic skills, they will work in the ring, in the cage, on the mat, in the gym, or on the street. Fights are "real", and require realistic skills. Realistic skills work under any "conditions" as long as they are realistic conditions.

I know it's you that's in fantasy land, Terrence....probably due to the fact your head has been bash on the mats too many times. Whilst it is true that skills will work in any environment, what YOU so conveniently omitt is the psychologial factor in a real fight. In sparring in a safe environment, you have peace of mind knowing your opponent or someone will stop the fight when it gets extrem or when someone taps. In a real fight, you pray your opponent shows mercy on you when he gets the upper hand, and there be no one to blow the whistle when your opponents repeatedly slams your face adgainst the cold pavment block until a river of red runs down along the street. How do YOU know your mind can cope with this type of pressure if YOU have never put your life on the line if you have never had a REAL fight in your life? It's obvious you don't.......

Ask anyone to walk along a streight line and they will have no problem with it. Put that line 100 feet above and no-one will do it......Yet what you are asking is no differnt (skill wise) then before. But the conquence of failure will play on people's mind when they are 100 feet in the air. The same holds true for sparring in a safe environment and fighting on the street. The skills may be similar, but the mindset and consequence isn't.

Terrence, no matter how I may disagree with other people, I always respect other people's opinion. However, with you, you aren't even a genuine wing chun buff. You put yourself as an authority on wing chun and try to dictate to people how more realistic and superior BJJ is. Whilst I have nothing adgainst any other arts, I think it's only polite for members of a wing chun forum to discuss materials that's largely wing chun base. I would not be rude enough to go onto a BJJ forum and start to proceed to lecture everybody on the superiororty of wing chun, so why do you have to be so ignorant here? Wing chun may not be as realsitic or efficent as BJJ, but surely wing chun people here should be allowed to converse and enjoy themselves in a system that they love so much.

In order to keep things civil on this forum, I shall not respond to you again.

Knifefighter

04-06-2007, 08:15 PM

Sparring or rolling, however intense, isn't fighting.

You are right. They are not.

However, they are 100 times more similar to fighting that the way the theoretical non-fighters train.

Wong

04-06-2007, 11:47 PM

Chisauking wrote: wearing boots to kick your opponent's face when they shoot or try to take you down..

That is probably the stupid thing to do... If you try to kick the opponent's face when someone shoots you or taking down it is very likely you'll end up on ground.

forever young

04-07-2007, 12:21 AM

You can't tap out on the street. No one can throw in the towel on the street. You can't win by points on the street. There are no padded floors, no gloves, no timer, no bell, no breaks in a REAL FIGHT.

ermm i beg to differ ;) have you never heard people say "OK ENOUGH" or perhaps "STOP STOP PLEASE STOP" or "STOP SMASHING THE GRANNY OUT OF ME" asnd as for referees well unless you are in total isolation i would suggest perhaps your friends-his friends-bouncers-police-passers by all can AND DO act as referees as for timers and bells well the standard timers a fight is usually someones cardio, and bells are usually in the form of perhaps sirens or shouting :D

Get the point? There is WAY more than money and pride at risk on the street, which makes it WAY different.
If you had any experience in a real fight you wouldn't say such idiotic things.

well sorry to say but from where im stitting its seems like a case of pots calling kettles black

Again, how many REAL street fights have you been in? No rules, no ref, no bell, just you, an oppenent (or more than one) and your knuckles (or more).
I ask because I believe you are only 'speculating' about it, and haven't EXPERIENCED it. So, who's the real 'theoriretical fighter"??
And yes, I've been in plenty fights outside a ring, so I can speak from my own experience.
yeah sounds like you have :eek:

FWIW, you are dead wrong if you way in the ring and on the street's the same thing. Ever get slammed onto hard concrete? Or into a table and chairs? You really must be that stupid...

if you think that when fighting you give two hoots or even notice what the floor is i again state its would appear to me that YOU 'aint got a clue'

No, it IS about you. You opened your mouth, you made claims regarding ALL 'masters' and 'grandmasters'. Are you speaking from experience or just 'theororizing' again? What is your 'vast experience' you are speaking from.
Have you ever been in a real fight? Do you even know what the hell you are even talking about?
And, I don't have to prove anything - I didn't claim anything. You made the claims, YOU prove it. (this is just more back peddling)

erm im sure ip chun specifically stated hes never been in a fight in his whole life (apart from some meaningless childhood scraps-his words not mine)
so there is an example of one who cant fight can you now give an opposite ?

Ok, you agree then, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE. The difference is the outcome, the surrounding, and the possible outcome. On the street there's no time limit, no ref to call the attacker off once their opponent can no longer defend himself, etc. And this is the difference between a fight in the ring and a 'real fight'. And this difference changes the way people will react - like it or not. If you had the experience you'd know this.

see above ;)

Yes, the skills do translate from the ring to the street - BUT HAVE YOU SEEN IT?????

check the link i dropped in re-street fighter vs mma dude

all in all i think he seems to have more of a grip than a lot of you guys to be fair, i understand the resistance cause i WAS THE SAME but squash the ego for a sec, my interpretation of terences posts are not that wc is crap but the majority of peoples INTERPRETATION is due to general incoprect training methods borne out of peoples desire to look/fight like prodigal sons, to many kung fu movies for some me thinks!!!
anyway ciao

chisauking

04-07-2007, 04:32 AM

Dale sez: You are right. They are not.

At least you are truthful enough to admit that.

Dale:However, they are 100 times more similar to fighting that the way the theoretical non-fighters train.

That wasn't in question. It's just that when wing chun people use other methods to better themselves and to train in a safer way, Terrence would quickly jump onboard and say it isn't fighting.....He doesn't want to understand the difference between sparring and fighting.... In sparring, no matter how much you may dislike your opponent, you are not intent on causing him the most damage....you are not using every weapon available to you......and it is totally un-street like (for example, nobody takes off their shoes before fighting on the streets).........but get this: what ever Terrence does is fighting!

I can assure you of this, Dale, there are a few wing chun people that can apply wing chun -- contrarory to what Terrence or anybody else thinks. But people who can really fight tend to keep a very low profile becuase they understand the damage they can inflict on their opponent's in a real fight....They can understand the traumer of hospitalising someone( someone that may have a family to feed)......All for what? To prove that wing chun works?

Anyway, its been good chatting with some of you guys. I took some time off from training due to damage in gor-sau, but now its healing I shall look forward in spending my time more productively in resuming my wing chun training. Besides, I've angered enough people for now..

tata

t_niehoff

04-07-2007, 01:38 PM

More misconceptions by Terrence:

If people are really trying to knock the crap out of each other, to finish the other guy (or make him submit), it is a fight -- regardless of the venue or the rules.

Sparring or rolling, however intense, isn't fighting. In a real fight, the objective is to end the fight in the shortest time possible, using any means possible to inflict as much damage and pain to your opponent in order to cripple or kill him.....I know not of one single school that adheres to this defination during sparring. 99% of schools don't even allow stomp kicks to the knees, jabs to the eyes, elbows to the face, pulling of hair until it rips from your scalp, breaking of fingers, wearing boots to kick your opponent's face when they shoot or try to take you down....In other words, it isn't realistic as Terrence trys to 'REPEATEDLY' tell everyone. Unless people train like this, they are THEORETICIANS. Since they don't train this way, they don't know what will happen in a real fight (the same argument Terrence accuse others of)

Yes, this is the old if-it-isn't-a-fight-to-the-death-it-isn't-a-real-fight nonsense. People get in streetfights all the time and in the overwhelming majority fo them no one is crippled or killed. A person with realistic fightng skills can use them in the ring or the street -- and can use them with control. A BJJ expert can break your arm or choke you unconscious or let you tap. A good striker can knock you down and not stomp you to death.

People get realistic skills by practicing realistically, and that means sparring.

People who talk about "real" fights are lost in fantasy land. A fight is a fight. If someone has realistic skills, they will work in the ring, in the cage, on the mat, in the gym, or on the street. Fights are "real", and require realistic skills. Realistic skills work under any "conditions" as long as they are realistic conditions.

I know it's you that's in fantasy land, Terrence....probably due to the fact your head has been bash on the mats too many times. Whilst it is true that skills will work in any environment, what YOU so conveniently omitt is the psychologial factor in a real fight. In sparring in a safe environment, you have peace of mind knowing your opponent or someone will stop the fight when it gets extrem or when someone taps. In a real fight, you pray your opponent shows mercy on you when he gets the upper hand, and there be no one to blow the whistle when your opponents repeatedly slams your face adgainst the cold pavment block until a river of red runs down along the street. How do YOU know your mind can cope with this type of pressure if YOU have never put your life on the line if you have never had a REAL fight in your life? It's obvious you don't.......

More fantasy. As I said, not all "real fights" are fights to the death (very, very few are). But if someone is forced to fight for their life, yes there will be much more stress. And if I had to play a game of basketball for my life (he'll shoot me if I lose), there would be more stress. But neither of those situations would change how I train.

Ask anyone to walk along a streight line and they will have no problem with it. Put that line 100 feet above and no-one will do it......Yet what you are asking is no differnt (skill wise) then before. But the conquence of failure will play on people's mind when they are 100 feet in the air. The same holds true for sparring in a safe environment and fighting on the street. The skills may be similar, but the mindset and consequence isn't.

You develop the mindset of a fighter by training like a fighter. Not by fantasizing, and not by doing more chi sao, gor sao or forms!

Terrence, no matter how I may disagree with other people, I always respect other people's opinion. However, with you, you aren't even a genuine wing chun buff. You put yourself as an authority on wing chun and try to dictate to people how more realistic and superior BJJ is. Whilst I have nothing adgainst any other arts, I think it's only polite for members of a wing chun forum to discuss materials that's largely wing chun base. I would not be rude enough to go onto a BJJ forum and start to proceed to lecture everybody on the superiororty of wing chun, so why do you have to be so ignorant here? Wing chun may not be as realsitic or efficent as BJJ, but surely wing chun people here should be allowed to converse and enjoy themselves in a system that they love so much.

Considering that I have been continuously training in WCK for 25 years, I think that would make me a "WCK buff". I'm not lecturing anyone on the superiority of any art -- in fact, I don't even think that way (that one art is superior to another). I am talking about training methods. Training methods.

If people aren't concerned with developing fighting skills with their WCK, then they don't have to respond to threads like this one entitled "Attention all Fighters!"

In order to keep things civil on this forum, I shall not respond to you again.

Oh, I'm hurt. ;)

JPinAZ

04-07-2007, 04:08 PM

ermm i beg to differ ;) have you never heard people say "OK ENOUGH" or perhaps "STOP STOP PLEASE STOP" or "STOP SMASHING THE GRANNY OUT OF ME" asnd as for referees well unless you are in total isolation i would suggest perhaps your friends-his friends-bouncers-police-passers by all can AND DO act as referees as for timers and bells well the standard timers a fight is usually someones cardio, and bells are usually in the form of perhaps sirens or shouting :D
well sorry to say but from where im stitting its seems like a case of pots calling kettles black
yeah sounds like you have :eek:

if you think that when fighting you give two hoots or even notice what the floor is i again state its would appear to me that YOU 'aint got a clue'

erm im sure ip chun specifically stated hes never been in a fight in his whole life (apart from some meaningless childhood scraps-his words not mine)
so there is an example of one who cant fight can you now give an opposite ?

see above ;)

check the link i dropped in re-street fighter vs mma dude

all in all i think he seems to have more of a grip than a lot of you guys to be fair, i understand the resistance cause i WAS THE SAME but squash the ego for a sec, my interpretation of terences posts are not that wc is crap but the majority of peoples INTERPRETATION is due to general incoprect training methods borne out of peoples desire to look/fight like prodigal sons, to many kung fu movies for some me thinks!!!
anyway ciao

You don't know a single thing about me, so don't pretent to. All this post is is basic trolling. What the hell are you even talking about? How would you know what fighting I've done in my life? You don't. Besides, I'm not making the rediculous claims T is. This isn't really about me but you try to turn it into that.
Good try, but you are not saying much.

haha, yeah, sure... some one can cry out all they want "oh please, stop beating me", doesn't mean the person is going to stop - not by a long shot. They might, but it's not even close to gaurenteed... what are you even talking about here?
And you forgot the other side to passers-by - they could be FRIENDS of the attecker and only egg him on, or jump in.
Maybe the types of 'street fights' you've been privy too are a little different that what I've seen/been in..

JP

osprey3883

04-07-2007, 09:22 PM

Hello,
Wow, you have all been busy.

Terrence wrote-

How much clearer can I make it for you? None of the WCK "masters" and "grandmasters" can fight at a significant level. None. While they all "know" WCK (on a superficial level, at least), none of them can use it well against decent level fighters. And they certainly can't teach others to use it.

Once again very brave words for someone that hides behind a keyboard.

Terrence wrote-

Real fighters (in WCK) wouldn't call themselves "master" or "grandmaster" because they would be embarrassed to call themselves or have other call themselves such things -- once you have fought with really good people, regardless of your skill level, you realize just how fantastic many good fighters are, and how paltry your skills are in relation to them. It's difficult to consider yourself a master when others can easily stuff you.

You have no understanding of kung fu culture. These are traditional forms of address in chinese culture. Are you trying to demean the traditional Chinese martial arts in general?

You come across like you are some form of expert in TCMA, but you as far as I can tell are a nobody in the martial world.
From here you are a toothless old dog, making a lot of noise but running and hiding under the porch when someone calls you on your bluff. Be careful, all that noise you make can come around to bite you in the ass.

Matt

Liddel

04-07-2007, 11:12 PM

Just like all the other threads this is getting rediculous, crack a beer relax !

ALthough i have my own views on VT and its place in todays MMA world, no one in thier right mind can deny that if you dont train like a fighter you wont be able to fight like one. END OF STORY.

The fact that some seem to act as though every VT person doesnt or cant, is LOL funny. But in todays world groups get judged by the many so what can you do.

Ultimatewingchun

04-07-2007, 11:21 PM

Liddel

04-07-2007, 11:32 PM

The guy wouldn't talk like that directly in front of one of the Masters or Grandmasters he refers to - or directly to any one of their students...
if his life depended upon it. :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:
This is becoming comic book material.

Im ok with others POV, i dont have to agree or disagree, but more and more ive been wondering...

With your POV terrence toward VT, if i understand it properly - why the Hell do you come here ?

Do you just feel 'Normal' or 'Average' discussing stuff on say a MMA forum ?

Knifefighter

04-08-2007, 12:02 AM

Im ok with others POV, i dont have to agree or disagree, but more and more ive been wondering...

With your POV terrence toward VT, if i understand it properly - why the Hell do you come here ?

Do you just feel 'Normal' or 'Average' discussing stuff on say a MMA forum ?

Probably the same reason I do. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck... some of the beliefs and statements are so incredulous, you just can't help but watching and commenting.

Knifefighter

04-08-2007, 12:16 AM

The guy wouldn't talk like that directly in front of one of the Masters or Grandmasters he refers to .

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only observable evidence of two WC masters fighting was not exactly an incredible display of skills.

forever young

04-08-2007, 12:23 AM

You don't know a single thing about me, so don't pretent to. All this post is is basic trolling. What the hell are you even talking about? How would you know what fighting I've done in my life? You don't. Besides, I'm not making the rediculous claims T is. This isn't really about me but you try to turn it into that.
Good try, but you are not saying much.

haha, yeah, sure... some one can cry out all they want "oh please, stop beating me", doesn't mean the person is going to stop - not by a long shot. They might, but it's not even close to gaurenteed... what are you even talking about here?
And you forgot the other side to passers-by - they could be FRIENDS of the attecker and only egg him on, or jump in.
Maybe the types of 'street fights' you've been privy too are a little different that what I've seen/been in..

JP
i know you based on what you post (ie im assuming that what you post is based on what/how you think) and while you are entitled to think im trolling i was merely replying to what I see. I still think my basic premise is correct and you are just another 'hairy hole talker' and are spouting different but worse rhetoric that TN ever has
eg:
And you forgot the other side to passers-by - they could be FRIENDS of the attecker and only egg him on, or jump in.
yeah and they could be YOUR friends, they could be homer simpson or the man in the moon you fool.....
or what about

oh please, stop beating me", doesn't mean the person is going to stop - not by a long shot. They might, but it's not even close to gaurenteed... well maybe your wife wont stop beating you, but pray tell us what fights YOU have been in where they never stopped?.........
all these death matches you fought must have made you some serious fighter, may i suggest you try making some serious money with it!!!

JPinAZ

04-08-2007, 05:24 PM

JPinAZ

04-08-2007, 05:28 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only observable evidence of two WC masters fighting was not exactly an incredible display of skills.

Well that just speaks for them all then doesn't it?? :rolleyes:
T. must be right then in his 'views' of Masters/Grandmasters huh...

So, are you saying you agree with him in this view(that M/GM's can't fight)? By watching the ONLY 'questionable' fight people have even seen?

JPinAZ

04-08-2007, 05:35 PM

i know you based on what you post (ie im assuming that what you post is based on what/how you think) and while you are entitled to think im trolling i was merely replying to what I see. I still think my basic premise is correct and you are just another 'hairy hole talker' and are spouting different but worse rhetoric that TN ever has
eg:
yeah and they could be YOUR friends, they could be homer simpson or the man in the moon you fool.....
or what about
well maybe your wife wont stop beating you, but pray tell us what fights YOU have been in where they never stopped?.........

Hahaah - this entire post just screams "please please, pay attention to me!!! I want to be part of the 'argument' too!!!"
What a joke. So now, from my posts, you've determined I have a wife? drop it, you sound like an idiot - and you haven't said anything except some half-hearted attempt at more trolling.

Did you even have a point? have any examples of what you 'learned' about me from my posts?

Your last question - why should I even consider giving you an answer - you already know everything about me anyway right?
I never claimed to be anything. I've been in fights, so I can speak from experience (unlike 'Master T') and that's all I said.

all these death matches you fought must have made you some serious fighter, may i suggest you try making some serious money with it!!!
Why, you offering up a chance for a paycheck? ;)

t_niehoff

04-09-2007, 05:57 AM

Osprey has chain punched the correct on Terence Niehoff's hiding face...The guy wouldn't talk like that directly in front of one of the Masters or Grandmasters he refers to - or directly to any one of their students...

if his life depended upon it. :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

This is becoming comic book material.

Sure I would -- I say the same things in person as I do on the net.

Do some of the students of thse nonfighting/unskilled "masters" have some skills? Sure - because they train like fighters, and training like a fighter is where the skill comes from, and not from their "master". No one who isn't training like a fighter will have much in the way of fighting skill.

If someone is a good basketball player, their skill came from getting out on the court and playing and doing lots of realistic (game-like) drills; their skill is no reflection on who taught them the game. This is the same for any sport/athletic activity.

The only comic book material is the traditional mindset that so many get locked into.

t_niehoff

04-09-2007, 06:11 AM

Well that just speaks for them all then doesn't it?? :rolleyes:
T. must be right then in his 'views' of Masters/Grandmasters huh...

So, are you saying you agree with him in this view(that M/GM's can't fight)? By watching the ONLY 'questionable' fight people have even seen?

You can always have a good mid-level MMA fighter come to your school, have your "master" fight/spar with him, tape it, and put it up on the 'net -- and show us all how your "master" is different. ;)

As I said before, the average blue belt in BJJ has to typically put in over 650 hours of sparring (often more) to earn his/her belt (a black belt thousands of hours). The skill comes from the sparring. How much quality sparring has your "master" done? Because that -- the amount of quality sparring a person has done-- is the chief determinant of their fighting skill level. Period. End of story. Doesn't matter what else they've done.

They can spend their entire lives "praticing" WCK, doing forms, drills, chi sao, talking about concepts and princples, traveling the world "teaching", etc. but their skill level will depend on how much quality sparring they've done. And to maintain their skill level, they need to regularly spar/fight with good people.

This is what anyone and everyone who wants to develop (or maintain) martial skill must do -- must do. If they are not doing it, they simply can't have the skill.

JPinAZ

04-09-2007, 07:57 AM

You can always have a good mid-level MMA fighter come to your school, have your "master" fight/spar with him, tape it, and put it up on the 'net -- and show us all how your "master" is different. ;)

As I said before, the average blue belt in BJJ has to typically put in over 650 hours of sparring (often more) to earn his/her belt (a black belt thousands of hours). The skill comes from the sparring. How much quality sparring has your "master" done? Because that -- the amount of quality sparring a person has done-- is the chief determinant of their fighting skill level. Period. End of story. Doesn't matter what else they've done.

They can spend their entire lives "praticing" WCK, doing forms, drills, chi sao, talking about concepts and princples, traveling the world "teaching", etc. but their skill level will depend on how much quality sparring they've done. And to maintain their skill level, they need to regularly spar/fight with good people.

This is what anyone and everyone who wants to develop (or maintain) martial skill must do -- must do. If they are not doing it, they simply can't have the skill.

Alright, T, this is getting pretty old now. If you have all the answers, and have been doing this for such a long time, and have the big mouth - why don't YOU go down with your camera and show some of these 'masters/grandmaster' that they cant F-I-G-H-T (not spar, FIGHT). I'd love to see it, bring it back, post it on Youtube and show us all. Why not let your a$$ back up your mouth for once??

And lets leave my teacher out of this, unless you are trying to say something? If so, say it - but I'd be very careful what you say Terrence.

JP

SevenStar

04-09-2007, 09:57 AM

JPinAZ

04-09-2007, 02:24 PM

Is there any other footage of a WC master fighting anybody, master or not?

I was assuming that the reference was to the Chueng/Emin 'fight'...

stricker

04-09-2007, 03:01 PM

this is sheer madness!!

i think whats missing is the perspective that its all down to what we do as INDIVIDUALS.

for example, i disagree with what terence is saying that we should only look to the top fighters and their training. its a good place to start, but its very narrow. for example there are very few wing chun fighters we can look to as wing chunner. where i think terence is right is you need to test it and be results oriented. for example, if i do some strange unheard of practice and find that it increases my fighting ability (which i test by fighting) then in my opinion that's valid training. just because big mma fighters dont do it doesnt make it invalid.

if your doing some wierd ass training that has not been proven by anyone, and you arent fighting or sparring to test it, then i think you should be very careful before saying its a superior method, as you have no evidence.

but i think the key is its all down to our personal experiences. and people who have fighting experience know whats best for them. for example if someones goal is to survive on the streets, and they have street experience, then they know their methods work. if someone elses goal is to fight mma, or become a better fighter, then they must test their training in that arena and therefore be guided by those results. different strokes for different folks :)

SevenStar

04-09-2007, 03:11 PM

I was assuming that the reference was to the Chueng/Emin 'fight'...

no doubt - I'm sure it is. I am asking if there is any other footage out there besides that fight, because I've never seen any other 'master' of wc fighting except for that one.

JPinAZ

04-09-2007, 03:53 PM

Vajramusti

04-09-2007, 04:19 PM

no doubt - I'm sure it is. I am asking if there is any other footage out there besides that fight, because I've never seen any other 'master' of wc fighting except for that one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((That was an unusual situation best forgotten- because there were aspects of alleged "staging" with cameras ready and disputes on editing... no serious wing chun person that I know of regards that video as a marker.. it may or may not have some residual meanings for some organizational members.

Real (non sporting) fights are usually not filmed. There are teenagers roof top fights- not much there. There have been full contact wing chun and wingchun v others matches in Hong kong and Singapore that have been filmed. I have seen some of them -dont have copies. There are folks with different kinds of films- not likely to be on U tube.))Joy Chaudhuri

Ultimatewingchun

04-09-2007, 08:36 PM

Lots of real life streetfighting with wing chun has gone down for many people through the years, that much I can tell you (and from more than just my own personal experiences)...but also with many conversations with people who were either directly involved or who witnessed through the years...(besides myself personally I'm also thinking of one of my long time students in particular who's been working in a jail for many years now - and has been tested for real many times)...as well as hearing about the experiences of wing chun people outside of my own lineage...

and with the negative view that many wing chun people take to wearing any kind of gloves (a view that I don't buy into myself, btw)...there has only been a spotty record of wing chun people here and there who have done well in full contact tournament fighting (although they definitely do exist - some of whom are excellent fighters)...

but without getting into the ground game to the extent necessary (again Cro Cop comes to mind)...and getting into MMA events...there will always be big-time sceptics from outside of wing chun that question its effectiveness.

And there will always be those of us who have used it and have seen it used in the street who endorse it.

That's where it stands right now. It needs work. But it's very do-able...because the basic underpinings of wing chun are solid.

If you choose to stand close to a good wing chun fighter - he can definitely hurt you.

Jeff Bussey

04-11-2007, 03:10 AM

And to maintain their skill level, they need to regularly spar/fight with good people.

This is what anyone and everyone who wants to develop (or maintain) martial skill must do -- must do. If they are not doing it, they simply can't have the skill.

Hey T,
What's up man.
I was just watching a Matt Thornton video (which he's got some good ideas) and he said something interesting. It was about rolling competitively and how it's not good to do it all the time. He in fact advocates slow rolling the majority of the time with occasionally competitive sparring to get the feel. He seems to think that you'll cap off your progress if that's all you do. You see, he seems to think that you'll start to ignore proper technique and start relying on your attributes to get you through tough situations.
Not to mention the safety issues involved with it and also allowing yourself to explore different responses to the same situation.

Most of what he said in that video goes agaisnt what you say. WRT just play basketball to get better and how there's no exploring involved. Is he not a good rep or source for me to get info from?

BTW, when they were slow rolling, it kinda looked like chi sao and how they play with different postions while learning.

J

t_niehoff

04-11-2007, 05:47 AM

this is sheer madness!!

I can't argue with that -- to continue in this day and age to believe in the traditional mindset is madness.

i think whats missing is the perspective that its all down to what we do as INDIVIDUALS.

Of course that is paramount.

for example, i disagree with what terence is saying that we should only look to the top fighters and their training. its a good place to start, but its very narrow.

I am saying look to what people who get results do as a way of identifiying those things that work; how you, the individual, do those things will vary. No two boxers fight the same way or train exactly the same way (though they do have a commonality).

for example there are very few wing chun fighters we can look to as wing chunner.

Yes, you are right that training needs to be specific, both to the individual and to the activity, and what boxers or wreslters do is in one sense very specific to their method of fighting. But what I think we can do is look at the commonality -- what's behind what they are doing -- and apply that in a specific way to ourselves and to WCK. In other words, adapt the modern training approach that has proved to be so successful to WCK.

where i think terence is right is you need to test it and be results oriented. for example, if i do some strange unheard of practice and find that it increases my fighting ability (which i test by fighting) then in my opinion that's valid training. just because big mma fighters dont do it doesnt make it invalid.

Who can argue with results? My objection rests with people saying this-or-that gets results without being able to show it (take-my-word-for-it) .

if your doing some wierd ass training that has not been proven by anyone, and you arent fighting or sparring to test it, then i think you should be very careful before saying its a superior method, as you have no evidence.

I don't think we should restrict it to weird-ass training, but all forms of training/learning -- everything constantly needs to be evaluated and re-evaluated in light of the results we are obtaning. That is part of growth. Your training will evolve and change over time.

but i think the key is its all down to our personal experiences. and people who have fighting experience know whats best for them. for example if someones goal is to survive on the streets, and they have street experience, then they know their methods work. if someone elses goal is to fight mma, or become a better fighter, then they must test their training in that arena and therefore be guided by those results. different strokes for different folks :)

Yes and no. Street, ring, cage, gym, etc. all require the same fighting skills, only the tactics differ. The problem with "streetfighting" is there are no real factor controls so that skill/progess can't really be evaluated.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that fighting skills come from fighting/sparring. Period. I'm not saying you can't learn them through various unrealistic drills, but developing them into fighting skills -- at least to a significant level -- comes from quality sparring/fighting. This is the general approach taken by all functional martial arts (boxing, MT, judo, wrestling, BJJ, sambo, etc.). And so people with little to no fighting skills are hardly qualitifed to teach/train others to fight. What is the consequence of that with regard to WCK?

From that it follows that understanding and knowledge, beyond the superficail level, comes with skill (a blue belt doesn't know or understand BJJ equally or better than a BB) -- it's not something anyone can give you. You earn it through the process of the training (the quality sparring). What is the consequence of that to WCK?

In contrast, the traditional mindset is that a person can develop fighting skills without fighting. And that knowledge and understanding can be passed down from master to disciple.

t_niehoff

04-11-2007, 06:08 AM

Hey T,
What's up man.
I was just watching a Matt Thornton video (which he's got some good ideas) and he said something interesting. It was about rolling competitively and how it's not good to do it all the time. He in fact advocates slow rolling the majority of the time with occasionally competitive sparring to get the feel. He seems to think that you'll cap off your progress if that's all you do. You see, he seems to think that you'll start to ignore proper technique and start relying on your attributes to get you through tough situations.
Not to mention the safety issues involved with it and also allowing yourself to explore different responses to the same situation.

Of course, he does have a point -- if all you do is train "competitively", and so your sole concern is "winning" (the point of competition), you will tend to only do those things you do best (and so not develop the lesser parts of your game), you'll tend to rely more on attributes, it will be harder on your body, etc. FWIW, I trained BJJ at place that was all about competition most of the time, so I know what he's talking about. If you ask him, he'll tell you that you can go "slower" (less intense) part of time *if* you are doing the high intensity stuff too. Thai boxers, and lots of other athletes, follow this same approach.

What we do here is use an alternating higher-lower intensity cycle in our sparring/drills, doing it high intensity and then lowering the intensity and then raising the intensity and then lowering the intensity, etc. We found that this suits us. Doing the high intensity stuff to build skills, then dropping the intensity to focus more on technique or whatever, then pumping it up again, etc.

By dropping the intensity, I don't mean doing unrealistic drills as a means of skill development, but doing what you are doing in fighting just with less intensity.

Most of what he said in that video goes agaisnt what you say. WRT just play basketball to get better and how there's no exploring involved. Is he not a good rep or source for me to get info from?

Actually, there is a lot of exploring going on when you play basketball and/or any open skill sport. Why not do what I did -- go to a few of his seminars firsthand and talk with him. He is an excellent resourse. He has seminars all around the country. I promosie you that you'll find them eye-opening.

BTW, when they were slow rolling, it kinda looked like chi sao and how they play with different postions while learning.
J

The difference is that his slow rolling is based upon what they are doing in heavy rolling, and it is realisitic in every sense except the intensity level (whereas chi sao in unrealsitic in just about every sense). And anything that they observe or find in slow rolling is then put into heavy rolling. The heavy rolling is what keeps everyone honest and keeps them on track (to functionality).

Thornton has seen, practiced (in the past) and knows about chi sao. If you go to the SBGi website and read some of his articles, you'll see how what he does is nothing like chi sao (which he rightly considers a "dead" drill).

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 02:47 AM

Hey T,

If you ask him, he'll tell you that you can go "slower" (less intense) part of time *if* you are doing the high intensity stuff too. Thai boxers, and lots of other athletes, follow this same approach.

It sounds reasonable to train at times with high intensity, but he did say that you should slow roll for most of the time not part of the time.

Actually, there is a lot of exploring going on when you play basketball and/or any open skill sport. Why not do what I did -- go to a few of his seminars firsthand and talk with him. He is an excellent resourse. He has seminars all around the country. I promosie you that you'll find them eye-opening.
Well it's just you said to me that when you dribble a ball in basketball, you just dribble it and that there's no exploring. That's when I said that you would explore on how to do it and you came back with the same answer so I dropped it.
I actually would like to hear him talk, I think he has some interesting things to say.

The difference is that his slow rolling is based upon what they are doing in heavy rolling, and it is realisitic in every sense except the intensity level (whereas chi sao in unrealsitic in just about every sense).
T, I'm not being disrespectful, but it does seem that you really haven't explored your wing chun enough. You've trained for alot longer than I have so you've probably seen things I haven't yet, but I just can't see why you say this.

For an outsider, looking at chi sao, I can see why they think it's unrealistic. The whole nobody fights form that position, steering wheel start, dead drill thing. But if you look at chi sao as a situation drill then maybe you'd see it differently, maybe not though.

Basically the way I see it, chi sao puts you into different positions where you have contact, on the outside or on the inside and one of your goals is to get around what's contacting you be it a leg or arm. If you look at each instant as situational then it does become realistic. For what it's worth, (I've said this before so I apologize for repeating) I used lop da in a bar one night and split the guys eye open. All I did was move his hand (the obstacle) and punch him in the face with my other hand. That was my chi sao.

Thornton has seen, practiced (in the past) and knows about chi sao. If you go to the SBGi website and read some of his articles, you'll see how what he does is nothing like chi sao (which he rightly considers a "dead" drill).
It will all depend on how you train it and look at the training. But I do have to say, the way they were slow rolling, taking their time shifting their weight, bringing their knee up, dropping their elbows, tucking their arms it all seemed like how you practice chi sao. I probably will read some of his articles to see more of what he's saying.

J

Matrix

04-12-2007, 06:03 AM

T, I'm not being disrespectful, but it does seem that you really haven't explored your wing chun enough. You've trained for alot longer than I have so you've probably seen things I haven't yet, but I just can't see why you say this.Hey Jeff,
I can't speak for Terrence, but from my limited interaction with him on this forum, I would say that he may have explored his wing chun. The problem is that he thinks his experience defines what wing chun is for everyone else based on the limitations he has observed for himself. Unfortunately this has led to circular arguements from all sides, and nothing is resolved. We just become more entrenched in our own positions. :(

BTW, I'm enjoying your recent posts. Keep'em coming.

Cheers

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 06:23 AM

Hey thanks Bill.
I know sometimes the tail does wag the dog but it's still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment I can find. :D

jesper

04-12-2007, 07:21 AM

In contrast, the traditional mindset is that a person can develop fighting skills without fighting

Actually the concept of developing fighting skills without fighting is relatively new.
Most western martial arts fight all the time and even the chinese martial arts used to have regular challence fightings until some 40-50 years ago.

Personally I think you need to have both a very solid theoretically foundation (IE think up new concepts) but also need to test out your skills or ideas against resisting opponents of comparatively skill level.

I cant speak for how its done in US but here in denmark we have always been told to go out and test our skills. That led to many martial arts resenting us in the past because we would go out and ask people to prove their claims.

One thing I learned was that there are many ways of tacling a given situation and what I would find natural would not be so for others. that doesnt necessarily mean my way was better, just that because of my psyke I had one approach and while others with different psykes had another.

Fx I had some very interesting sparring matches against tkd practioners simply because I love being up close while they instinctively tried to keep a distance. Who is to say what is better, well if I got to my fav range I would pawn them, if not ah well.... :D

Knifefighter

04-12-2007, 07:22 AM

But I do have to say, the way they were slow rolling, taking their time shifting their weight, bringing their knee up, dropping their elbows, tucking their arms it all seemed like how you practice chi sao. I probably will read some of his articles to see more of what he's saying.

Is there a link to this rolling? I'd like to take a look at it to see what they are doing.

t_niehoff

04-12-2007, 08:05 AM

Hey Jeff,
I can't speak for Terrence, but from my limited interaction with him on this forum, I would say that he may have explored his wing chun. The problem is that he thinks his experience defines what wing chun is for everyone else based on the limitations he has observed for himself.

I will say that I have explored *my* WCK, and have reached my own conclusions about WCK. But, I have never said that how I view WCK is "correct" or better than some other approach. Results speak for themselves.

However, how we *do* (apply) our WCK is a different question than how we need to effectively train to be fighters (apply our WCK). Toward that end, my view is that we shouldn't take as gospel what nonfighters have to say, or believe stories or legends, or take things on faith. Instead, look to proven results, and see what the people who are getting those results are doing (and saying). In other words, look at good fighters and good trainers. And when we do that, we see that all the proven good fighters and proven functional martial arts, tend to do pretty much the same things (with variations for specificity of approach and individual adjustments).

That sort of training can be shown via evidence -- look at any good fighter -- whereas the "traditional" approach cannot provide evidence of good results.

Unfortunately this has led to circular arguements from all sides, and nothing is resolved. We just become more entrenched in our own positions. :(

BTW, I'm enjoying your recent posts. Keep'em coming.

Cheers

Nothing will be proved one way or another on a forum -- and shouldn't. At best, what I think these sorts of discussions can do is illustrate different perspectives. And even rehashing old discussions can further elaborate views. The real "debate" is the fight.

t_niehoff

04-12-2007, 08:29 AM

Hey T,
It sounds reasonable to train at times with high intensity, but he did say that you should slow roll for most of the time not part of the time.

My understanding of his training methods is based on firsthand experience, attending a couple of his seminars, talking with him, and then reading some of his articles. All good BJJ people -- to a single person -- spends loads of time sparring. That's where the fighting skills come from. And you'll see that the amount of their quality sparring is directly related to their skill level. Do the math.

Well it's just you said to me that when you dribble a ball in basketball, you just dribble it and that there's no exploring. That's when I said that you would explore on how to do it and you came back with the same answer so I dropped it.
I actually would like to hear him talk, I think he has some interesting things to say.

The exploration -- or play -- comes with trying to do different things as you dribble: trying this or that to get past a defender, how to disguise a pass, etc.

T, I'm not being disrespectful, but it does seem that you really haven't explored your wing chun enough. You've trained for alot longer than I have so you've probably seen things I haven't yet, but I just can't see why you say this.

I say what I am saying from experience -- expereince seeing the "masters" and "grandmasters", seeing lots of WCK people, seeing real fighters, by fighting with good people, etc. Go spend a few months sparring with your wCK at a good MMA gym and then come back and let's see if you have the same perspective.

For an outsider, looking at chi sao, I can see why they think it's unrealistic. The whole nobody fights form that position, steering wheel start, dead drill thing. But if you look at chi sao as a situation drill then maybe you'd see it differently, maybe not though.

Basically the way I see it, chi sao puts you into different positions where you have contact, on the outside or on the inside and one of your goals is to get around what's contacting you be it a leg or arm. If you look at each instant as situational then it does become realistic. For what it's worth, (I've said this before so I apologize for repeating) I used lop da in a bar one night and split the guys eye open. All I did was move his hand (the obstacle) and punch him in the face with my other hand. That was my chi sao.

Chi sao is unrealistic because what is going on -- on a physical level -- the intensity, the intention, the positions, the energy, etc. do not correspond to what will typically happen in fighting. A fight will "look" and "feel" completely different. If you get out and spar with some good people you'll see what I mean.

There will always be cases where somone was able to pull off something they have practiced "in a bar" or "on the street". But if you want to really determine whether something works regularly and reliably, and see what level of skill you have doing it, you need to spar with good people.

It will all depend on how you train it and look at the training. But I do have to say, the way they were slow rolling, taking their time shifting their weight, bringing their knee up, dropping their elbows, tucking their arms it all seemed like how you practice chi sao. I probably will read some of his articles to see more of what he's saying.

J

I've slow rolled at a Thornton seminar, so I know what you are talking about. They are rolling like they will be fighting, pinning the same way, going for subs the same way, escaping the same way, passing the guard the same way, etc. When you do chi sao, you are not behaving as you will be in fighting (just more slowly). When you do chi sao you are in fact behaving in ways you cannot behave in fighting. It is night and day. You will be able to take some of the movements that you have learned in chi sao (and become comfortable performing) and with modifications make them work in fighting, but there is not that 1-to-1 correspondence that exists in slow rolling.

Knifefighter

04-12-2007, 09:04 AM

Once again, T pwns this thread.

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 09:06 AM

Hey Knifefighter,

Is there a link to this rolling? I'd like to take a look at it to see what they are doing.

I saw it in a torrent from his Berkley seminar. Not sure if there's something on You Tube. Although if you're into bittorrent I can send you a link.

J

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 09:59 AM

Hey T,

My understanding of his training methods is based on firsthand experience, attending a couple of his seminars, talking with him, and then reading some of his articles. All good BJJ people -- to a single person -- spends loads of time sparring. That's where the fighting skills come from. And you'll see that the amount of their quality sparring is directly related to their skill level. Do the math.

Right, I was just saying what he said. I'm only going from one video I saw, not in person or at a seminar and maybe he's even changed his views since this was taped. But, I think he was saying that the quality comes from going slow.

The exploration -- or play -- comes with trying to do different things as you dribble: trying this or that to get past a defender, how to disguise a pass, etc.

I agree, it's just you were so adamant before about no exploring that it struck me as weird. So that makes sense then.

I say what I am saying from experience -- expereince seeing the "masters" and "grandmasters", seeing lots of WCK people, seeing real fighters, by fighting with good people, etc. Go spend a few months sparring with your wCK at a good MMA gym and then come back and let's see if you have the same perspective.

I would love to get out there and spar. I'm jealous of the guys at our club that have the time to do it. That may sound like a copout but (shrugs) hey.
It's probably one of the hardest things I've had to do since having a kid - sacrafice. I think I actually went through a bit of a depression :eek: Anyways I'm back to being the cheerful guy I used to be :D

Chi sao is unrealistic because what is going on -- on a physical level -- the intensity, the intention, the positions, the energy, etc. do not correspond to what will typically happen in fighting.

Right it's not a fight.

A fight will "look" and "feel" completely different.

Right.

There will always be cases where somone was able to pull off something they have practiced "in a bar" or "on the street".

Right, I get what you're saying and it's true. It could have easily been turned the other way around.

When you do chi sao you are in fact behaving in ways you cannot behave in fighting. .

Why not?

You will be able to take some of the movements that you have learned in chi sao (and become comfortable performing) and with modifications make them work in fighting,

And this is the big point that I've been trying to make all along. Now you said modifications, do these modifications go against the wing chun principles? I'm willing to bet that they don't. You take the movements/techniques/forms that you've been taught, break free from the rigid shapes (modification) and use the principles that they're based on.

Now will the technique you use in application look the same as when you drill it in class. Maybe, maybe not. But that's because the drills in class are based on principles and concepts and not tan da has to be done this way and lap da has to be done that way. Hell I'll use pak sau on your face if I'm in the right position (speaking in general terms not to you directly) :p

So really all I'm trying to say is that you usually hear everyone say that it's not the art and it's the individual. But when it comes to wing chun it's not the individual, it's the art. And that's what this thread was initially about.

J

Knifefighter

04-12-2007, 10:14 AM

Right, I was just saying what he said. I'm only going from one video I saw, not in person or at a seminar and maybe he's even changed his views since this was taped. But, I think he was saying that the quality comes from going slow.

I'm friends with Matt's BJJ instructor, who is not exactly known for rolling slow and easy.

I'm wondering if maybe you are confusing tight and deliberate with slow rolling.

t_niehoff

04-12-2007, 12:00 PM

Hey T,
Why not?

The simple answer is that you can "get away" with all kinds of things that would never work under realistic fighting conditions precisely because it is an unrealistic environment (where both participants are implicitly cooperating to behave in certain ways and not behave in others). This is a criitical thing to realize, because when you see this, the next realization is that just because something works in chi sao doesn't say anything about its effectiveness in fighting. And when people start using their experience in chi sao to draw conclusions about fighting and/or training and/or their skill/knowledge/understanding of WCK, they are literally drawing on a false experience.

And this is the big point that I've been trying to make all along. Now you said modifications, do these modifications go against the wing chun principles? I'm willing to bet that they don't. You take the movements/techniques/forms that you've been taught, break free from the rigid shapes (modification) and use the principles that they're based on.

You are locked into the belief structure that it is all about the principles. My perspective is the principles are unimportant. Skills are important. You can only measure and see skills in action. Quite frankly, how can someone who can't use their WCK well -- who can't fight well -- know whether they understand, know, etc. what those alleged principles even are? Or what they mean? Or how they are used? It's all theory. It's all speculation. You see, that's the problem, it's going about learning to fight ass-backwards: someone who can't fight telling you the principles of fighting! Where is that going to get you?

Now will the technique you use in application look the same as when you drill it in class. Maybe, maybe not. But that's because the drills in class are based on principles and concepts and not tan da has to be done this way and lap da has to be done that way. Hell I'll use pak sau on your face if I'm in the right position (speaking in general terms not to you directly) :p

The drills are not based on principles: they are teaching you certain (movment) skills. Catching a ball is not a principle and is not based on some principle. It's just a skill, an ability to do something. Do something. Don't make more of it than it is. When you take the principle-based approach, you then have a preconceived idea (principle) of it and that will lock you in, and you won't then be looking for results, you'll be looking to stick to your preconceived idea. That's the first step to dead WCK in my view.

So really all I'm trying to say is that you usually hear everyone say that it's not the art and it's the individual. But when it comes to wing chun it's not the individual, it's the art. And that's what this thread was initially about.

J

There is no art without the individual, and WCK exists only in application.

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 01:34 PM

Hey Knifefighter,

I'm friends with Matt's BJJ instructor, who is not exactly known for rolling slow and easy.

I'm wondering if maybe you are confusing tight and deliberate with slow rolling.

I had to watch it again, and he called it slow roll. I mean it may very well be tight and deliberate and I definitely didn't say they were rolling easy, just at a slower pace.

Basically he was saying that if you're stronger than your opponent and you could just pick him up and slam him to the ground to get out of an armbar or whatever it's not working on your technique. And that it would be better to let your partner have the armbar and start over to accept your mistakes and try to figure it out than to just use your muscle to get out of something. He never said to roll easy. You still put pressure, it's just at a level that's technical and try to eliminate other attributes that may save you or cover up your lack of technique.

I may be messing up what he was saying but let me know if that's clear.

J

stricker

04-12-2007, 04:24 PM

Terence,

sorry i hadnt noticed youd replied - reading the same stuff over and over here and trying to pick out the new bits is frustrating...

I can't argue with that -- to continue in this day and age to believe in the traditional mindset is madness.
>> definitely some people are closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears and hoping for the best...

I am saying look to what people who get results do as a way of identifiying those things that work; how you, the individual, do those things will vary. No two boxers fight the same way or train exactly the same way (though they do have a commonality).
>> ok i thought youd said to look at what the best people do (eg top fighters). my point is that there might be exceptions to that and they would be down to the individual. ive read on here and elsewhere cases of wing chun fighters doing very well for themselves. but its not been at an elite (ie ufc etc) level. but, they have been at a serious enough level to mean something serious.

>>eg we heard of a guy on here going to Miletich FS and doing well, and theres other examples too. so, i think to dismiss out of hand those outlying data points would be unwise as we're not dealing with trends, were talking about indivuduals developing fighting skills. sure statistically speaking forget wing chun, go do thai/boxing add some judo/wrestling and a little groundwork its a formula you cant go wrong with. but thats not to say there are NO wing chunners who arent kicking ass.

>>i think you're 100% right about being results oriented, and as for gaining experience outside your training group - nothing like it in the world. in fact from personal experience i agree with most of what you have to say, but if youre saying everyone has to follow elite fighters training, well theres clearly some exeptions to that rule. (actually my experience says i'd take a truckload of convincing to give up things like thai/boxing padwork, alive wrestling/clinch work, conditioning, sparring etc but i accept thats just my experience)

>>of course some closeted wing chunners will still hang off other peoples glory and say "yeah this way works because xyz did it and he can fight"...

Yes and no. Street, ring, cage, gym, etc. all require the same fighting skills, only the tactics differ. The problem with "streetfighting" is there are no real factor controls so that skill/progess can't really be evaluated.
>> thats not the point. in the street there is no skill/progress. you either survive or get the **** kicked out of you. of coure i agree if your interested in developing fighting skill, but how can you argue with someone trained a certain way, had streetfights and won/survived? he's got a goal (survive on street), and result (did ok) so how can that be argued with... now your and my goals may be different (progress fighting skills) so fair enough...

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that fighting skills come from fighting/sparring. Period. I'm not saying you can't learn them through various unrealistic drills, but developing them into fighting skills -- at least to a significant level -- comes from quality sparring/fighting. This is the general approach taken by all functional martial arts (boxing, MT, judo, wrestling, BJJ, sambo, etc.).

And so people with little to no fighting skills are hardly qualitifed to teach/train others to fight.
>> i couldnt agree more. my first criteria for any martial arts teacher is have you fought?

What is the consequence of that with regard to WCK?
>> same as any martial art, a teacher who's fought knows what they're talking about. now actually i disagree with this slightly, as ive met teachers who say 'this is what i do now, and ive fought in the past' and i think they make a mistake of not understanding that its a personal journey, but i digress...

From that it follows that understanding and knowledge, beyond the superficail level, comes with skill (a blue belt doesn't know or understand BJJ equally or better than a BB) -- it's not something anyone can give you. You earn it through the process of the training (the quality sparring). What is the consequence of that to WCK?

In contrast, the traditional mindset is that a person can develop fighting skills without fighting.
>> i dont think the true tradition is that, i think thats a *******ised western thing. i bet the old chinese fighters werent running round wearing silk and slippers, i bet they were fighting...

And that knowledge and understanding can be passed down from master to disciple.
>> i believe theres no truth to that at all. IME/O you can understand something in your head (and ive been taught some awesome stuff by great teachers) but true knowledge is somewhere deeper you can only learn for yourself.

its running late and im out of time...

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 04:31 PM

Mr. T

You are locked into the belief structure that it is all about the principles. My perspective is the principles are unimportant.

Alright.

Quite frankly, how can someone who can't use their WCK well -- who can't fight well -- know whether they understand, know, etc. what those alleged principles even are? Or what they mean? Or how they are used?

They won't until they explore it

It's all theory. It's all speculation. You see, that's the problem, it's going about learning to fight ass-backwards: someone who can't fight telling you the principles of fighting! Where is that going to get you?

T, don't forget that some people take martial arts as a hobby. So if you have a good instructor passing on the principles of the system, it doesn't matter if they can kick crocops a$$ or not. And to answer your next question, I think a good instructor is someone that can pass on the system. And to answer your question after that, how will I know if what he's passing on to me is effective? Well that's up to me. And the answer to the next is ... basketball:D

The drills are not based on principles: they are teaching you certain (movment) skills. Catching a ball is not a principle and is not based on some principle. It's just a skill, an ability to do something. Do something. Don't make more of it than it is. When you take the principle-based approach, you then have a preconceived idea (principle) of it and that will lock you in, and you won't then be looking for results, you'll be looking to stick to your preconceived idea. That's the first step to dead WCK in my view.

Here we go again, T, how many times have you seen the movie 'White men can't jump.' ? Enough with trying to prove the movie wrong already.
I don't have any preconceived ideas, and when you do, that to me is equivalent to sticking more to the shapes and not to the principles. The principles are loose, not rigid, not tangible.

There is no art without the individual,
Are we going to get into the if a tree falls in a forest...thing

and WCK exists only in application.
and now you're sounding like a man of principle
:D

J

Matrix

04-12-2007, 05:02 PM

Once again, T pwns this thread.Not that your judgement is biased one way or the other. :rolleyes:

Matrix

04-12-2007, 05:09 PM

You are locked into the belief structure that it is all about the principles. My perspective is the principles are unimportant. Skills are important.
Terrence,
IMO, Principles are immutable. The laws of physics and biomechanics are true regardless of your style or training methodology. Skill development and principles are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would say skill development can be improved by understanding and leveraging principles to the maximum potential.

Matrix

04-12-2007, 05:11 PM

I know sometimes the tail does wag the dog but it's still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment I can find. :D
So true. I certainly can't afford Sens tickets. :D

Jeff Bussey

04-12-2007, 05:27 PM

So true. I certainly can't afford Sens tickets. :D
:p
Tell me about it

sihing

04-12-2007, 07:30 PM

Terrence,
IMO, Principles are immutable. The laws of physics and biomechanics are true regardless of your style or training methodology. Skill development and principles are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would say skill development can be improved by understanding and leveraging principles to the maximum potential.

Hey Bill,

I agree. If no principles are involved then why learn anything with structure or methodolgy? BJJ has principles, MT has principles, WC/VT has principles, just like any other "complex" physical activity (throwing a baseball, dribbling a BBall, hitting a tennis ball, etc IMO are not complex physical activities, as compared to fighting someone hell bent on hurting you..). The key I believe is to absorb those principles physically in everything you do while training them, then when the point of development is high, you move naturally with the principles engrained in everything you do, using them when needed, discarding them when not needed.

"Rather than pure naturalness or pure unnaturalness, you should have natural unnaturalness or unnatural naturalness.." Bruce Lee

Remember one thing also, this is a forum of discussion. Discussion requires analysis, which in turn requires intelligence. Analysis of combat is all about concepts & principles (ideas and rules of combative motion). The more we discuss the more we understand about one another and the thing we are talking about. I'm sure things would be understood much better if we had physical contact between one one another. For the most part that is not possible, so all we have is analytical disscussion.

James

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 06:08 AM

Terrence,
IMO, Principles are immutable. The laws of physics and biomechanics are true regardless of your style or training methodology. Skill development and principles are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would say skill development can be improved by understanding and leveraging principles to the maximum potential.

The laws of physics are also true and apply to everything, but knowing them -- being a physicist -- won't help you a lick become a better athlete or better fighter. It's approaching the problem, skill acquisition, from the wrong perspective, a perspective that won't help you develop good skills. It's like when people talk about F=Ma in relation to punching skill -- that will get them nowhere.

That "concept-based" perspective is part of the traditional mindset, and views something that is essentially atheltic in nature as being "knowledge-based" (intellectual). This is why you get people who can't fight believing they "know" WCK, because they "have" the principles. And why the TMAs are "sifu centered" as opposed to learner-ceentered (the sifu "knows"). It's all theoretical, intellectual, and a belief-structure. It even leads to my-concept-is-better-than-your-concept, my-art-is-superior (in concept)-to-your-art, and related nonsense. It's all part of the same crap, and makes sense only from that perspective (how can someone with no real fighting skill teach? because while he can't do it, he knows the concepts). We've swallowed this nonsense long enough.

Look at how people learn and develop athletic skills in virtually all open-skill sports and athletic activities. Look at how boxers, MT fighters, wreslters, BJJ fighters, etc. learn and train.

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 06:28 AM

I agree. If no principles are involved then why learn anything with structure or methodolgy? BJJ has principles, MT has principles, WC/VT has principles, just like any other "complex" physical activity (throwing a baseball, dribbling a BBall, hitting a tennis ball, etc IMO are not complex physical activities, as compared to fighting someone hell bent on hurting you..).

You are missing my point. Fighting (WCK) is a physical skill, which involves the coordination of many sub-skills. Just like playing basketball is a skill that involves the coordination of many sub-skills (dribbling, passing, shooting, etc.). To develop that global skill (the activity) requires we learn and develop those subskills, and then integrate them into our global skill (and practicing the global skill will in turn also develop our subskills).

The traditional mindset is that somehow "knowing" the concept/principle is first, and then the skill comes from that. This is entirely ass-backward; it doesn't work that way. You need the skill first. And from the skill, the performance itself, you will begin to see "patterns" emerge, and those "patterns" are the princples/concepts. This is because you can't really "know" something - beyond a superficial level - until and unless you can do it. In fact, the princples/concepts of one person's WCK will be different than another persons.

When people try to do something, some physical action from throwing a ball to usign their body a certain way, their focus is on the action and the result (feedback) and not adhering to some principle.

The key I believe is to absorb those principles physically in everything you do while training them, then when the point of development is high, you move naturally with the principles engrained in everything you do, using them when needed, discarding them when not needed.

Trying to "absorb" and "engrain" principles is absurd -- this is not how our body works, learns, or develops motor skill. You are learning movement skills, and through feedback, develop them, and through repetition habituate those ways of moving.

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 06:44 AM

T, don't forget that some people take martial arts as a hobby. So if you have a good instructor passing on the principles of the system, it doesn't matter if they can kick crocops a$$ or not. And to answer your next question, I think a good instructor is someone that can pass on the system. And to answer your question after that, how will I know if what he's passing on to me is effective? Well that's up to me. And the answer to the next is ... basketball:D

This is the classic traditional mindset: "a good instructor passing on the principles of the system." And, "a good instructor is someone who can pass on the system."

First, there is no "system." A system is just a belief structure. Boxing is not a system, wrestling is not a system, MT is not a system -- these are all approaches to fighting, activities. The whole notion of "system" is a TMA concept. You don't see it anywhere in modern athletics.

Second, a good instructor is someone who produces good students (again, it's the results that tell us). In a fighting method, "good" means can fight well. Is a BJJ instructor "good", if he produces students who can't fight? Hardly. Can someone teach some skill/activity that they cannot do? No. Can a white belt be a good BJJ instructor?

Third, it's not about "passing on the principles" -- it is about the development of skills. That can't be "passed on". No one can give that to you. Skills can only be developed through work. A good basketball coach doesn't pass on the principles of basketball; he structures practice to help his trainees develop skills.

Fourth, it doesn't matter if someone does martial arts for a hobby or for competition fighting -- how people learn, develop, etc. doesn't change. If someone wants to practice BJJ for a hobby, they are going to be doing those same things the competition guys do, just less intensely (they might work out once a week as opposed to 6 days a week). The nature of the activity/sport doesn't change.

Jeff Bussey

04-13-2007, 07:30 AM

Hey T

This is the classic traditional mindset: "a good instructor passing on the principles of the system." And, "a good instructor is someone who can pass on the system."

Um, thanx I guess. Not sure.

First, there is no "system." A system is just a belief structure. Boxing is not a system, wrestling is not a system, MT is not a system -- these are all approaches to fighting, activities. The whole notion of "system" is a TMA concept. You don't see it anywhere in modern athletics.

What would you like to call it? Basketball? :D Seriously, it was for a lack of a better word. Your vocab is larger than mine so you pick a word and I"m sure I'll have no problem with it.

Can a white belt be a good BJJ instructor?

To think that my teachers use to tell me that there were no dumb questions

it's not about "passing on the principles"

I don't agree.

-- it is about the development of skills. That can't be "passed on". No one can give that to you. Skills can only be developed through work. A good basketball coach doesn't pass on the principles of basketball; he structures practice to help his trainees develop skills.

So since we were be a little nit picky I decided to look up a def of Principle. Here's what I found:

principle means fundamental, as in beliefs or truths or understandings and it is always a noun

So it looks like that good basketball coach is passing on principles. Do all coaches pass on the same - nope.

J

Matrix

04-13-2007, 03:52 PM

That "concept-based" perspective is part of the traditional mindset, and views something that is essentially atheltic in nature as being "knowledge-based" (intellectual).
Terrence,
C'mon. You don't need to be a physicist to apply physics, and for some reason you dropped my reference to biomechanics. I think understanding how your body performs would be helpful for anyone, athlete or not. I think that knowledge-based perspective is complementary to skill training. They certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Some of the best "atheletes" understand the principles of the game they play to give them an edge.

Matrix

04-13-2007, 03:54 PM

The key I believe is to absorb those principles physically in everything you do while training them, then when the point of development is high, you move naturally with the principles engrained in everything you do, using them when needed, discarding them when not needed. James,
I'm not surprised we're on the same page here. Good to see that you made it back to LA to train with the boys - theoretical though it may be. :rolleyes:
Peace,

Matrix

04-13-2007, 06:40 PM

First, there is no "system." A system is just a belief structure. Boxing is not a system, wrestling is not a system, MT is not a system -- these are all approaches to fighting, activities. The whole notion of "system" is a TMA concept. You don't see it anywhere in modern athletics.

Hmmmm, it seems that Bas Rutten (http://www.puyallupmartialarts.com/Bas%20rutten%20mma.html) and Pat Miletich (http://mfselite.com/) seem to think that there is such a thing a system. But I guess you know better.

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 07:38 PM

Hmmmm, it seems that Bas Rutten (http://www.puyallupmartialarts.com/Bas%20rutten%20mma.html) and Pat Miletich (http://mfselite.com/) seem to think that there is such a thing a system. But I guess you know better.

Marketing. They give their fighting approach that moniker, but what they both do in training, the inclusiveness of their fighting methods (MMA), and everything else make it very different than what TMAists mean by "systems".

t_niehoff

04-13-2007, 07:43 PM

Terrence,
C'mon. You don't need to be a physicist to apply physics, and for some reason you dropped my reference to biomechanics. I think understanding how your body performs would be helpful for anyone, athlete or not. I think that knowledge-based perspective is complementary to skill training. They certainly aren't mutually exclusive. Some of the best "atheletes" understand the principles of the game they play to give them an edge.

Of course the best atheltes understand the principles of their game -- it is their skill level that gives them that understanding. That is precisely my point. It is not the case of knowledge leads to physical skill, but rather physical skill leads to knowledge and understanding. You don't know it if you can't do it. In other words, until you can do it, you don't really know or understand it. And that knowledge and understanding comes from the doing. No one can give it to you.

Ultimatewingchun

04-13-2007, 09:53 PM

Yeah...there's no such thing as a system....:cool:

Now that's what I call a theoretical statement from a theoretical wing chun person.:rolleyes:

It's only a theory that such a person actually even knows any wing chun.:p :eek:

anerlich

04-13-2007, 11:15 PM

Hmmmm, it seems that Bas Rutten and Pat Miletich seem to think that there is such a thing a system.

The Rubber Guard as espoused by Eddie Bravo and described in his new book is definitely a system.

Dare I say it? Arguing with the forum's self-appointed guardians of aliveness and scourges of theoreticians everywhere is a complete waste of time. It's really boring having an argument, conversation, discussion with such people. They're just regurgitating what others have said more succinctly, and with far less repetition. There's much to be said for brevity. AND KNOWING WHEN TO SHUT UP.

Matrix

04-14-2007, 04:47 AM

Marketing. They give their fighting approach that moniker, but what they both do in training, the inclusiveness of their fighting methods (MMA), and everything else make it very different than what TMAists mean by "systems".You said "you don't see it anywhere in modern athletics", and when you do see it you trivialize it by calling it marketing. So you call it an "approach" not a "system". Nice use of your thesaurus. :rolleyes:

Matrix

04-14-2007, 04:49 AM

It's really boring having an argument, conversation, discussion with such people. They're just regurgitating what others have said more succinctly, and with far less repetition. There's much to be said for brevity. AND KNOWING WHEN TO SHUT UP.Andrew,
Point taken.
Thanks

Knifefighter

04-14-2007, 06:29 AM

t_niehoff

04-14-2007, 07:00 AM

Systems are simply labels to categorize a specific approach to "playing the game". Innovators constantly change and evolve old systems into newer sub-systems (i.e. Eddie's rubber guard approach could be considered a sub-system of BJJ... just as Rodney King's dirty boxing could be considered a sub-system of JKD or John Wooden's system of basketball coaching a sub-system of NCAA basketball coaching).

All good fighters eventually create their own individualized sub-systems from whatever systems they have learned... as do all good coaches.

And this is very different than what TMA's call "systems" -- that are fixed in stone, aren't constantly evolving, are not based on or justified by results, etc. You won't hear Bas or Pat or Eddie saying "don't do that, it's not part of the system" or "that's wrong because it's not part of the system" or other such nonsense that you hear the TMA nonfighting theoreticians talk about. Just because these fighters and/or trainers use the word doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing.

sihing

04-14-2007, 02:13 PM

Of course the best atheltes understand the principles of their game -- it is their skill level that gives them that understanding. That is precisely my point. It is not the case of knowledge leads to physical skill, but rather physical skill leads to knowledge and understanding. You don't know it if you can't do it. In other words, until you can do it, you don't really know or understand it. And that knowledge and understanding comes from the doing. No one can give it to you.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your statments above. The saying "TO KNOW AND NOT DO IS NOT TO KNOW" comes to mind here. Of course intellectual study of combat will only give you a theoretical understanding of it. The physical training has to be there as well to be able to actually use it. Nothing new here, we all know that.

But for me, personally, why can't someone do both at the same time? You can only train for so many hours a day, in the meantime a intellectual, conceptual/principle study of what you are doing can only help you in your search for effective fighting skills.

Principles and Concepts form a guideline of what we have to do. If it wasn't for P & C, then the process to develop fighting ability would take allot longer IMO. Plus how the heck is one supposed to learn how to fight if there is no system in place to learn from? Trial and error can increase the learning time immensely. They say that experience is the best teacher. I agree with that statement, but I also agree that SOMEONE ELSES EXPERIENCE IS ALSO THE BEST TEACHER, as a good teacher/sifu/coach can get you to your destination faster because they have been there before you. They've made the mistakes and know what to do and what not to do (speaking generally that is), and can guide someone rather than the individual having to go through it all themselves.

James

Lee Chiang Po

04-14-2007, 10:03 PM

I think the problem with the Wing Chun fighting system is just here on this forum. I come here now and then, and I read the posts. There are less then 10 people that post on a regular basis, and from what I can see, most of them are not experienced Wing Chun fighters. From what I read, I think they have just paged through a couple of cheap Wing Chun books. These books are a waste of time completely. They do not explain the moves, they do not get into advanced footwork or fighting technique. Most don't even know the purpose of Chi Sao or the 3 unarmed forms. Some of the stuff I have read is absolutely incorrect, Like the assumption that a WC fighting stance must be square and that you only have about a 2 foot fighting range. I can hit an opponent from as far away as he can hit me.
Now I know that some of you are well read from the way you talk. You know how to spell a lot of stuff, but when you go to talking about it your lack of experience shows right through. Jeff, are you any kin to a Beth Bussey?

Ultimatewingchun

04-14-2007, 11:06 PM

"All good fighters eventually create their own individualized sub-systems from whatever systems they have learned... as do all good coaches."

***NOW THIS IS TRUE.

But it's also true that many good fighters stay very close to within the confines of their primary system and just tinker (successfully) around the edges. And they do so with things that come from elsewhere - and especially from what comes from within themselves - based upon their own body type, their own fighting experiences, and their own particular strengths and weaknesses.

anerlich

04-15-2007, 03:17 PM

Andrew,
Point taken.
Thanks

Bill, I wasn't referring my pejorative comments about regurgitation and not knowing when enough is enough at you. The target would be pretty obvious to most by now.

Matrix

04-15-2007, 03:28 PM

Bill, I wasn't referring my pejorative comments about regurgitation and not knowing when enough is enough at you. Andrew,
No problem here. I did receive your point as intended. :cool:
Cheers,

anerlich

04-15-2007, 03:29 PM

how can someone with no real fighting skill teach?

There are enough successful sporting coaches who have few personal skills or attributes in the sport they coach who have been very successful. MA's, T and otherwise, are in fact one of the few areas where this is not regarded as completely normal. Personal skill usually helps, but it is hardly essential.

Aliveness = good.

Open-mindedness = good.

Some of the more prolific posters on the thread have demonstrated that advocacy of the first can be achieved in the total absence of the second.

Wayfaring

04-15-2007, 07:51 PM

Of course, he does have a point -- if all you do is train "competitively", and so your sole concern is "winning" (the point of competition), you will tend to only do those things you do best (and so not develop the lesser parts of your game), you'll tend to rely more on attributes, it will be harder on your body, etc. FWIW, I trained BJJ at place that was all about competition most of the time, so I know what he's talking about. If you ask him, he'll tell you that you can go "slower" (less intense) part of time *if* you are doing the high intensity stuff too. Thai boxers, and lots of other athletes, follow this same approach.

You know, it just may be that there are actually wing chun people that train in this fashion too. :eek: Oh, wait, NO WAY!!! They couldn't be training this way, because they are wing chun people. Wing chun people can only train in theoretician non-fighter ways.

t_niehoff

04-16-2007, 05:42 AM

You know, it just may be that there are actually wing chun people that train in this fashion too. :eek: Oh, wait, NO WAY!!! They couldn't be training this way, because they are wing chun people. Wing chun people can only train in theoretician non-fighter ways.

I don't know if some of you guys just don't bother to read my posts or if you read into them what you "think" I'm saying or if you just try to mischaracterize what I say.

Of course there are people in WCK that have begun to incorporate or have incorporated modern training methods into their training -- I've already acknowledged that (more than once). And I previously said, I think that is a welcome and good first necessary step toward making WCK viable as a modern fighting method.

There are also lots of people in WCK (the vast majority) who haven't incorporated those methods and continue to believe, assert, and teach that the traditional mode of training -- forms, drills, chi sao, concepts, etc. -- is both a good way to learn (which I don't think it is) and will develop good fighting skills (which it won't).

Moreover, I am saying that in my view, the next logical step in the evolution of WCK training will be the complete adoption of the modern learning/training model and the corresponding elimination of those traditional elements that are (at best) nonproductive.

Ultimatewingchun

04-16-2007, 06:20 AM

"Moreover, I am saying that in my view, the next logical step in the evolution of WCK training will be the complete adoption of the modern learning/training model and the corresponding elimination of those traditional elements that are (at best) nonproductive." (Terence)

***AND IF WITHIN THIS "ELIMINATION" you are including drills and chi sao - then once again you are proving that, in terms of wing chun...you are delusional, Terence.

You must do a significant amount of chi sao and drilling in order to learn the system.

It's not an avoidance system. Wing Chun is primarily a blocking, parrying, redirecting, limb and body-manipulating, sometimes even a limb-capturing system of striking from very close range.

You need to develop some serious close range contact reflex skills in order to do this - and chi sao and other related drills is how it is accomplished...

ALONG WITH FREQUENT, SPONTANEOUS, HARD CONTACT SPARRING.

Jeff Bussey

04-16-2007, 06:28 AM

Hey T

I don't know if some of you guys just don't bother to read my posts or if you read into them what you "think" I'm saying or if you just try to mischaracterize what I say.

--- SNIP ---

There are also lots of people in WCK (the vast majority) who haven't incorporated those methods and continue to believe, assert, and teach that the traditional mode of training -- forms, drills, chi sao, concepts, etc. -- is both a good way to learn (which I don't think it is) and will develop good fighting skills (which it won't).

Moreover, I am saying that in my view, the next logical step in the evolution of WCK training will be the complete adoption of the modern learning/training model and the corresponding elimination of those traditional elements that are (at best) nonproductive.

The problem is that you're doing the same thing. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has said that modern ways of training are bad. The other problem is that you assume that people who train concepts and principles are not training at all. Unless they're fighting all the time or playing basketball.:)

J

Wayfaring

04-17-2007, 07:06 AM

I don't know if some of you guys just don't bother to read my posts or if you read into them what you "think" I'm saying or if you just try to mischaracterize what I say.

This would be what we characterize in wing chun as "loi lau hoi sung", or the energy that you put out coming back around to bite you in the @ss. If you want others to listen to you, extend that courtesy yourself.

Of course there are people in WCK that have begun to incorporate or have incorporated modern training methods into their training -- I've already acknowledged that (more than once). And I previously said, I think that is a welcome and good first necessary step toward making WCK viable as a modern fighting method.

Well, your goal of making WCK viable as a modern fighting method is a good one. I don't, however, think you have the corner on the market on how to do that.

There are also lots of people in WCK (the vast majority) who haven't incorporated those methods and continue to believe, assert, and teach that the traditional mode of training -- forms, drills, chi sao, concepts, etc. -- is both a good way to learn (which I don't think it is) and will develop good fighting skills (which it won't).

I don't know any fighting training method that doesn't have drills and concepts. Speed bag drill, and "stick and move". Change levels and shoot. Space and hip movement.

You don't understand chi sau, or view it as a static starting position square horse one or two hand steering wheel type drill, which means you never learned enough about it to be able to take it to the concept level.

Yes, there are weak WCK schools. There are also weak schools in every single other martial art. Wherever you have a society of fat lazy people like the US with money, there will be always be someone selling fitness, self confidence and self defense to that market. The beer-belly Kempo teacher is a fixture in every city almost I've been to. I guess they take the fatter portion of the market because there is empathy.

Moreover, I am saying that in my view, the next logical step in the evolution of WCK training will be the complete adoption of the modern learning/training model and the corresponding elimination of those traditional elements that are (at best) nonproductive.
What, are you Charles Darwin on the Voyage of the Beagle here? I think the sheer number of drooling teenagers who want to be a "cage fighter' probably will take care of that. Along with everyone and their brother who has had a couple fights in a local cheesy show opening up their local MMA fight team schools. If the market shifts, then people will have to change to follow the market.