To the anti-theoretician vigilantes ... I spit upon you [Archive]

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 05:44 AM

I train BJJ and MMA. I put on protective gear and punch on.

But ...

I still like forms, and traditional weapons. I try and do them several times a week. And I'm not half bad at them if I do say so myself. :eek:

I do chi sao every now and then too. Even get the students to drill it when I take class occasionally. :eek:

So ...

What are you going to do about it? :p

Andrew, that's great , , , and some people like hei gung (chi gung), Ch'an buddhism, form and chi sao competitions, etc. If people like these practices and want to do them, that is their perogative and I wish them well. Just like some people like traditional japanese jiujitsu, aikido and tai ji. Some people like the traditional mindset and all that goes with it: idol worship, role playing, esoteric beliefs, etc. It's all good. We are all doing this essentially for entertainment, for our personal enjoyment, so we should enjoy ourselves. Have fun.

Now, when the question turns to what are the effective ways to learn and develop fighting skills, the fact we personally "like" certain practices is irrelelvant, the fact that they are "traditional" is irrelevant, and the fact that we'd like certain practices to work well (because they fit our theories) is irrelevant. Then the issue becomes one of results -- whether those practices are justified by results, measuring results/performance, etc.

What am I going to do about it? Nothing. People are free to do and think whatever it is they like. I'm just putting out a certain viewpoint on a forum (which I try to explain and defend) and trying to get people whose primary interest in WCK is developing fighting skills to examine what they are doing and what they have been taught, critically and objectively.

hunt1

04-18-2007, 06:20 AM

TN if you are trying to be helpful to others then you are not doing a very good job.
Simply repeating a mantra over and over does nothing but bore the hell out of everyone.

If you really are trying to be helpful then give concrete examples about yourself that support what you are trying to say. Give examples of how YOU trained and what didnt work and why when YOU tried to spar outside of wing chun. Give us the wing chun techniques and approaches YOU tried and why they failed for YOU.

To this point YOU have never offered any evidence that YOUR wing chun and training was at all a reflection on how the rest of the wing chun world trained or operates. YOU have never posted and vids of yourself although YOU have been asked for years to provide some evidence.

YOU speak as if you know what everyone else does,how everyone else trains and how everyone else understands and applies wing chun. You dont know me,have never met me, have never seen me train,have never met any of my training partners so how can you possibly speak for me. I am sure this holds for almost everyone else in the world reading this.

So provide sepecific examples so we then judge and then you can be helpful.

When I wanted to learn how to fight with wing chun I ran adds in all the Chicago newspapers looking for sparring partners and joined the top MMA gym in Chicago at that time. I learned to deal with boxing for example form a former sparring partner of Norton and Holmes. I would guess the number and variety of training partners I had rivals anything any other wing chun person has had. When I got smacked around though I looked for the answer in wing chun and I found it. I didnt blame my teachers or the method. Your posts do both.

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 07:07 AM

TN if you are trying to be helpful to others then you are not doing a very good job.
Simply repeating a mantra over and over does nothing but bore the hell out of everyone.

I'm sorry that our discussions get so repetitive but you should realize that it takes two to tango -- and if I didn't keep getting the same "points" brought up again and again, I wouldn't need to keep repeating the same responses again and again. Your next "points" illustrate that.

If you really are trying to be helpful then give concrete examples about yourself that support what you are trying to say. Give examples of how YOU trained and what didnt work and why when YOU tried to spar outside of wing chun. Give us the wing chun techniques and approaches YOU tried and why they failed for YOU.

And as I keep saying, I am not the standard by which to judge *your* training or what is effective learning/training -- so what I do or don't do isn't an issue, as it has nothing to do with the underlying question.

I'll try to illustrate this since it seems to be elusive: let's say someone think that what they are doing is effective training or effective technique. OK, I ask "how do you know?" How have they evaluated these things? Are they justified by results -- sparring with good people -- or is it theory (it works in drills or chi sao, in "principle" it should work, etc.? How does what I do matter in this case? It doesn't.

Let's say the question is how to effectively train to develop fighting skill. So I say, let's look to people with proven results, both fighters and trainers (examples of training that works against highly skilled people). We can see for ourselves how good fighters train and what they say about training. How does what I do (I'm not holding myself out as one of these top fighters/trainers) matter in this case? It doesn't.

What I don't want to do is get into discussions about how what I do is better than what you do -- so I'm avoiding saying how I do things. Because this isn't a personal issue. I do ask people who say that their traditional training works to provide proof because they are pointing to themselves as proof. And if they say it works not for them but for others, I'm asking "who?" Because I can point to good fighters/trainers and motor skill experts that say something else.

To this point YOU have never offered any evidence that YOUR wing chun and training was at all a reflection on how the rest of the wing chun world trained or operates. YOU have never posted and vids of yourself although YOU have been asked for years to provide some evidence.

And as I've said before, if it is important for someone to see how we train and what we do, they are welcome to visit me. But realize that I have never claimed to be an authority on WCK (I've said there are no authorities in WCK) or to be some example of how WCK should be done or trained -- ONCE AGAIN, I'm saying that what I can or cannot do is irrelevant because I'm not saying "listen to me", I'm saying listen to the experts who know about how to train to develop fighitng skills.

YOU speak as if you know what everyone else does,how everyone else trains and how everyone else understands and applies wing chun. You dont know me,have never met me, have never seen me train,have never met any of my training partners so how can you possibly speak for me. I am sure this holds for almost everyone else in the world reading this.

And as I've said before, I am generalizing -- I do realize that some people, some whom I have met, do train like modern fighters. But, having been in WCK for a long time, I also know the traditional training method, forms, drills, chi sao, etc. We can compare/contrast the modern training method and its results with the traditional training method and its results.

So provide sepecific examples so we then judge and then you can be helpful.

If I say "I do this and it works well" and show video evidence, does this mean everyone will suddenly jump on board my train? Of course not. They'll continue to believe and say that "my training wroks well too" and "what you are doing is not WCK" (isn't that what Jim said to Alan?). This is why what people need to do is see their own results (because that is what matters). They are not going to see them in their WCK club or in drills or in chi sao; they need to get out and spar with good people.

When I wanted to learn how to fight with wing chun I ran adds in all the Chicago newspapers looking for sparring partners and joined the top MMA gym in Chicago at that time. I learned to deal with boxing for example form a former sparring partner of Norton and Holmes. I would guess the number and variety of training partners I had rivals anything any other wing chun person has had. When I got smacked around though I looked for the answer in wing chun and I found it. I didnt blame my teachers or the method. Your posts do both.

It's funny because what you describe doing, is exactly what I am saying to do. So what's the beef?

I am not blaming the teachers or WCK. I'm saying that if a "teacher" can't do it (for real), they can't teach it (certainly not at a high level). And I'm saying that the traditional training method isn't too effective, which is borne out by the results of people who just train traditionally and by those who train following the more modern approach. I practice WCK and, like you, have found that can be an effective fighting method. And that like any method, has limitations.

As I see it, the only one to blame for lack of results is ourselves. And the credit, similarly, for anything we achieve goes to ourselves. You found your answers through the hard work of sparring and trying to figure out how to make your WCK work. That's the only way to do it.

Buddha_Fist

04-18-2007, 07:19 AM

nschmelzer

04-18-2007, 07:24 AM

Wayfaring

04-18-2007, 07:57 AM

hunt1

04-18-2007, 08:15 AM

The my beef is that for for several years you have been saying the same thing and almost every decent thread that gets started gets bogged down in this nonsense.

I have never heard or read anywhere that anyone says all you need to do is chi sao and some drills and you will be able to fight. If anyone thinks that then good luck to them because they are better wing chun players then I will ever be.

You are a lawyer, I dont know what type of law you practice but a good trial attorney is able to take something complex and make it simple so he can connect with the jury and so they can understand his point. After all these years of the same posts have you accomplished this?

People need examples so they can understand your points.They need something they can relate too. Explaning how you did the bong lop drill for example and then how using this method failed or worked is something that people can relate to.

The strength of wing chun is that we mold the system to our needs we dont mold to the systems rules. I think all but the truly faithfull understand this. Noone expects your examples to be identical to theirs but it would provide a common denominator for everyone to understand and then to discuss.

Wu Wei Wu

04-18-2007, 09:55 AM

Good post Anerlich.

You train BJJ and spar with protective equipement. Wing Chun allows you to do that. Because of its nature it is compatible with many other arts. I am beginning to come around to the view that the naysayers are missing the point. The only 'traditional' aspects that continue, are in fact, their own traditional mind-sets which convince them that ALL Wing Chun men are merely forms practitioners. This is incorrect.

Many Wing Chun men who train with any degree of seriousness are formidable fighters. They cross train, address strength and conditioning issues and understand sports psychology. Perhaps this is the new breed of Gung Fu man in an art that continues to evolve.

Ultimately, whether one chooses to do Wing Chun recreationally or to compete is upto the individual. I enjoy many aspects of the art. I too like to train forms particularly if I am sore from a harder training session. But, like the new breed, the gum shield, the head gear, the hockey shin pads, the mats, the workmans goggles, the body armour, are never very far away.

To those who train hard, understand the logic of the forms, who value the (many) uses of chi sao and who are unafraid to represent Wing Chun in the bigger sphere... I salute you.

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 10:01 AM

MMA relies heavily on physical attributes - speed, strength, etc. Sure, a lot of young MMA guys can fight (well, at least trade punches and kicks and wrestle) in an environment with rules and pads etc. Some can probably even succeed in a true life-death struggle. And, yes, training in MMA is not necessarily bad for the martial artist - even though it trains bad habits by virtue of the limits imposed by rules and not really hurting your opponent. But what happens when you get older? What happens when you get to your 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond? Are you still going to trade punches and kicks with a 20/30 year old muay thai fighter? Are you still going to grapple a 20/30 year old BJJ fighter?

The fight doesn't change becasue we get older or are wimpy or are a woman or whatever -- the nature of it doesn't change because we want it to. MMA relies heavily on physical attributes because fighting is one of the most intense of physical activities, and the better condititoned we are and/or the better attributes we have, the better we can be at doing it. The assumption on your part is that there is some "other" way.

Are a lot of wing chun men wimpy looking guys that cannot fight? Yes. (Hell, I might be one of them!) But those guys are at least trying to learn a system for self-defense. Trying to improve their combat ability, and trying to put that combat training in the context of their life (the chan / philosophy TN disparages above).

It's great that some people are trying to become better fighters -- that is how the martial arts approach "self-defense". If people want Ch'an or life philosophy, that's cool. Some MMA guys are into tattoo culture. Fine. Does that have anything to do with learning/developing fighting skills? No. I'm saying let's put these things into their proper perspective. You don't need to be a buddhist to develop world-class fighting skills -- the world-class fighters have proven that. And there isn't any evidence it helps in developing fighting skills. So practice buddhism if you want, maybe it will make you a happier person. It won't make you a better fighter. That's all.

So TN, Alan Orr, and all the MMA or nothing self-proclaimed WC practioners, take a step back, and think about your message that WC must prove itself, and WC fighters must prove themselves, in the MMA arena. What are you guys trying to prove? Why do you feel the need to prove it? And why do you feel the need to lecture other WC men about it?

Let's change the question -- why shouldn't WCK or our training methods prove themselves? What's wrong with that? Because if they don't, how can we know -- other than theorize -- whether what we are doing is effective, how effective it is, etc.? Without looking to results and having results justify our practices, how can we discuss anything except on a purely theoretical basis?

Finally, TN, you sound like a know-it-all. How about posting some video of you and your training or fighting so we can see what you are trying to tell us - not just read your empty words.

Once again, what I do cannot justify what you do. Do you get that? We all must justify our own results, as this is the only way to tell if we, ourselves, are progessing or not.

canglong

04-18-2007, 10:06 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
And as I keep saying, I am not the standard by which to judge *your* training or what is effective learning/training -- so what I do or don't do isn't an issue, as it has nothing to do with the underlying question. Terence,
You sound as if you are avoiding the question by repeating the same old answers. You say others training when it sounds as if hunt1 was specifically refering to your training to specifically better understand your post. This has everything to do with your own understanding of the underlying question. That training is clearly the closest point of reference we each have to start and advance any further discussion. You say you are not an authority but usually your own post contradict that very statement. Hunt1 has pointed to the common ground but for reasons unknown you refuse to go there.

originally posted hunt1
If you really are trying to be helpful then give concrete examples about yourself that support what you are trying to say. Give examples of how YOU trained and what didnt work and why when YOU tried to spar outside of wing chun. Give us the wing chun techniques and approaches YOU tried and why they failed for YOU.

To this point YOU have never offered any evidence that YOUR wing chun and training was at all a reflection on how the rest of the wing chun world trained or operates. YOU have never posted and vids of yourself although YOU have been asked for years to provide some evidence.

YOU speak as if you know what everyone else does,how everyone else trains and how everyone else understands and applies wing chun. You dont know me,have never met me, have never seen me train,have never met any of my training partners so how can you possibly speak for me. I am sure this holds for almost everyone else in the world reading this.
Well said hunt1, Terence if you need it explained any better than that you can't expect people to believe that you are actually here being sincere or helpful.

Tom Kagan

04-18-2007, 10:15 AM

And why do you feel the need to lecture other WC men about it?

That's a good question.

Another good question would be to ask why *you* feel the need to lecture those trying to prove something (in your opinion) they should rethink it and handle their situation any differently.

nschmelzer

04-18-2007, 10:35 AM

That's a good question.

Another good question would be to ask why *you* feel the need to lecture those trying to prove something (in your opinion) they should rethink it and handle their situation any differently.

Fair enough. I hate these WC debates. TN can continue to imply that any WC outside the MMA arena is not battle-worthy. TN can continue to discount and even disparage traditional training and methods, and suggest that they cannot survive an encounter with an MMA fighter. TN can also continue converting WC into a sport - like olympic style tae kwon do - by emphasizing the value and importance of an MMA adaptation of WC, and by discounting the value of the internal training and philosophy. All that just makes the more traditional WC more valuable to those that really appreciate its combat and personal depth. When I am 80, I will have plenty of WC left in my life. How much MMA will TN have in his when he is 80? (For the record, I am no expert on any of these matters - only on my opinion.)

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 10:41 AM

The my beef is that for for several years you have been saying the same thing and almost every decent thread that gets started gets bogged down in this nonsense.

First of all, I am at best a part-timer here -- I am gone for months, sometimes a year, at a time. But, yes, you are right that I contribute the same sort or perspective to many threads, and that's because many threads pertain to the issue of how to most effectively train or how to do something. For example, "is chi sao for fighting". If you want to offer your perspective, why can't I offer mine? Many are offering their same old perspective too. ;)

I have never heard or read anywhere that anyone says all you need to do is chi sao and some drills and you will be able to fight. If anyone thinks that then good luck to them because they are better wing chun players then I will ever be.

Some people do believe that, and I've heard people here say that chi sao is a replacement or safer form of sparring. But beyond that, my perspective is that it doesn't develop fighting skills at all -- it just is a platform for people to learn skills (not hone them into fighting skills). And I think that chi sao trains more bad fighting habits than good ones.

You are a lawyer, I dont know what type of law you practice but a good trial attorney is able to take something complex and make it simple so he can connect with the jury and so they can understand his point. After all these years of the same posts have you accomplished this?

I am not trying to convince anyone or change their minds. I don't think that is what these forums do. I think they provide a place where we can share our perspectives and discuss them. I can argue until the cows come home that WCK training won't prepare a person for groundfighting, but I won't change the mind of the "believers" (that it does). The only thing that will is experience -- going to a good MMA or BJJ school and sparring, and seeing for themselves. That is why I suggest doing that. And even then, some people will continue to "believe" despite the evidence and their own experience. So the best I can hope for is that someone reading my words might be open to seeing for themselves.

People need examples so they can understand your points.They need something they can relate too. Explaning how you did the bong lop drill for example and then how using this method failed or worked is something that people can relate to.

Yes, I could share that -- but what is the point when people already are convinced that their lop sao drill will develop fighting skills? I haven't heard people come on here and say, "Yeah, T, I've had that problem -- I can do it in the drill but never make my bong/lop da work regularly in sparring. What do you do?" I've had some people write me privately saying things like that, and I have responded to them. And all I can do is say, "this has worked for me." I can't say it will work for others. They have to do their own work. That's the bottom line. Just like you did your own work. You can't give that to anyone else. Your skill came from that work. No one who doesn't do that work will get it. How did you get the skill? By getting in the ring and sparring with the best people you could find. Your answers won't help me because your answers are not my answers. The only thing that will help me is the work.

The strength of wing chun is that we mold the system to our needs we dont mold to the systems rules. I think all but the truly faithfull understand this. Noone expects your examples to be identical to theirs but it would provide a common denominator for everyone to understand and then to discuss.

I won't argue your point -- because I agree with it -- but I think a lot of the "true believers" don't, My perspective is that there is not a "best" or "correct" way to practice/apply WCK, and that's because like boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. -- any fighting method -- has to be individual-based. And so I don't think there is a best way or correcdt way to train it; that too will be individual. However, the learning/development process we will go through, and must go through, to develop skill is generaly the same. And that the modern fighters have found the most effective way to do that (which is supported by research into sport science and motor skill development). How that model will be adpated to you and your WCK will be different than how I adopt it to mine.

hunt1

04-18-2007, 12:05 PM

tbone

04-18-2007, 12:11 PM

However, the learning/development process we will go through, and must go through, to develop skill is generaly the same. And that the modern fighters have found the most effective way to do that (which is supported by research into sport science and motor skill development). How that model will be adpated to you and your WCK will be different than how I adopt it to mine.Can you elaborate with specifics?

What specifically is "the learning/development process we will go through, and must go through, to develop skill is generaly the same."?

Also what specifically is the process "modern fighters have found the most effective way to do that"?

Are you simply referring to sparring?

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 12:54 PM

TN, I can understand your pov and agree with parts. This is what and why I disargee.

First I approach from the stand point that I am not much of an athlete overall I have some good points some bad but nothing that makes me stand out in an area or allows me to get away with sub par skills.

And I don't think I'm particularly athletically gifted. But I do see what people are doing, in MMA, in BJJ, in boxing, etc. to become better, and everyone, from world-class to recreational guys like me, do pretty much the same things (just with varying degrees of intensity). I think this is true for all atheltic activities.

I have developed my approach to wing chun usage based on taking what I was taught and playing with it until I learned how to apply it. Nothing revolutionary. However what I have learned is both teachable and repeatable. I have only taught a handfull of people I dont run a school or anything like that.

I agree with you that these skills are teachable and repeatable. But only if the trainee does the work. Someone can teach another to ride a bike; that's a repeatable skill. They can show them how to get on, how to peddle, how to steer, how to brake, etc. But the actual riding part, putting it all together to actually ride, comes from the work -- of trying to ride the bike, falling down, getting back up and trying to ride some more, etc. No one can give someone that. So as I see it, the forms, the drills, the chi sao isn't "the work" -- it is, at best, the preparation to do the work.

I always told my students to learn it they must find people to outside of wing chun to spar and train with. I had a student with 5 years of training and no grappling knowledge at all perform very well at a top MMA school where he was only allowed to grapple. No striking because they didnt want him to get hurt. He grappled with 5 students only a div1 NCAA wrestling champ was able to take him down. No one able to submit him with no striking. Only the instructors would glove up and do some striking. When they talked afterwords the grapplers were surprised to learn that they shared body mechanics and hip usage. I have another student that has a public school and has had a BJJ brown belt as a student for a over a year now because when he tried to grapply with Ray he found he had a problem he didnt expect.

My students learned these skills chi sao and drills. Now my chi sai involves many platforms and includes throws,sweeps,locks etc but it is still a chi sao platform.

I too have used the chi sao platform to teach most WCK skills. And that means to practice it until they can perform those things comfortably. In my view it doesn't develop significant fightng skills since it isn't a fighting environment. You seem to disagree. And have provided these examples as proof. It is difficult for me to comment on anecdotes because I don't know all the variables involved. This by no means suggests I think you are lying -- just that I've heard similar things before from people but then found out it wasn't really fighitng, just playing around, etc. What I never see are examples of "this is what I am training to do", "here is how you train it", and "here I am fighting doing just that thing as I've practiced it." That 1-to1 correspondence between training and application. You do see that in judo, BJJ, MT, boxing, wrestling, etc. You can't do that in chi sao for a number of reasons. So at best what you can try to do is adapt chi sao skills on the fly to new fighting situations in the midst of fighting. Compare that to training just as you will fight.

So from my pov a method that is teachable and proven has value and the fact that the main platform was chi sao shows me value in chi sao.

Traditional japanese jiujitsu produced some good people too. But when Kano changed the training regimen, it produced lots more good people, and the good one's were better than the better TJJ guys. The lesson: Even poor training methods can work to some degree for some people.

Your people learned forms or linked sets too, so does that prove the vaue of forms? More analysis is required. You have to consider things like is there a better way to develop these things? Waht is the process of that development? What is required to develop fighting skills? Etc. I think chi sao can have value too, as a teaching tool/platform. As a skill building platform (to develop significant level of skill) I think it falls flat since it doesn't involve a genuinely resisitng opponent and that is what you will be dealing with in fighting. So your training will not involve dealing with what you will really be facing.

It also shows me that our understanding and implementation of wing chun is different.

Of course, that's a given. Everyone's understanding of WCK will depend on their individual level of fighting (WCK) skill.

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 01:15 PM

Can you elaborate with specifics?

What specifically is "the learning/development process we will go through, and must go through, to develop skill is generaly the same."?

Also what specifically is the process "modern fighters have found the most effective way to do that"?

Are you simply referring to sparring?

If you look at how the functional martial arts, like boxing, wrestling, BJJ, judo, sambo, etc, train, they learn certain skills as they will really perform them in fighting, they train to do them by practicing them against genuinely resisitng opponents (whether in sparring or situational drills or whatever) in a "fighting environment". So there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between learning and practice. What they've done is take "snippets of fighting" (from experience fighting), teach you those "snippets" and then give you the most effective way they can find to train them. For example, how you learn to pass the guard in BJJ looks just like how you will practice passing the guard in a situational drill (with a genuinely resisting opponent) which looks just like how you will pass the guard in sparring/competition. This is why when you see a BJJ or MT or sambo fighter in action, they look just like their training. Contrast that with chi sao -- show me the WCK fighter that looks in fighting like they do in chi sao.

Knifefighter

04-18-2007, 01:35 PM

I had a student with 5 years of training and no grappling knowledge at all perform very well at a top MMA school where he was only allowed to grapple. .

I also have a BJJ/wrestling buddy with absolutely no striking training who has rolled through several WC schools and completely shut everyone down in chi sao and sparring with striking only and no grappling.

Doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or another.

Tom Kagan

04-18-2007, 01:53 PM

(For the record, I am no expert on any of these matters - only on my opinion.)

Uh ...

You now state you are "no expert on any of these matters" (MMA, WC, olympic TKD, combative sport, internal training, philosophy, combat, personal depth, aging, etc etc etc).

With all due respect, If you do not have the ability to determine whether what is being done with their alleged "proving something" is the correct way to go about things in WC or not, what was the point of your diatribe against it, then?

nschmelzer

04-18-2007, 02:04 PM

Uh ...

You now state you are "no expert on any of these matters" (MMA, WC, olympic TKD, combative sport, internal training, philosophy, combat, personal depth, aging, etc etc etc).

With all due respect, If you do not have the ability to determine whether what is being done with their alleged "proving something" is the correct way to go about things in WC or not, what was the point of your diatribe against it, then?

Tom -

I am no expert on these matters. This is a discussion forum. I was offering some discussion. My "diatribe" speaks for itself. But to summarize/simpify, I do not think MMA is good for martial arts or WC. That was my point, which was offered as a counterpoint to TN's opinion that MMA is good for martial arts and WC.

hunt1

04-18-2007, 02:42 PM

Knife this is the reason it is pointless to discuss with you. you only respond to the parts of posts that give you what you want. I made it very clear when they sat down and talked they learned that they were using the same or very similiar body work just in a different medium. Humans are humans good combat skills will be the same no matter what art is trained the only difference is that in some arts these methods have not been on a consistent basis it doesnt mean that these methods dont exist. Your belief that wing chun doesnt have these methods is just that your belief.

TN why cant you train chi sao with a resisting opponent? I do. There are several different chi sao platforms and methods out there. If you remove the need to strike. Concentrate instead on exposing gaps and covering gaps then you can go very hard without anyone getting hurt.

Knifefighter

04-18-2007, 03:22 PM

I made it very clear when they sat down and talked they learned that they were using the same or very similiar body work just in a different medium. Humans are humans good combat skills will be the same no matter what art is trained the only difference is that in some arts these methods have not been on a consistent basis it doesnt mean that these methods dont exist. Your belief that wing chun doesnt have these methods is just that your belief.

Hunt-
Can you explain the specific ways in which WC and grappling are the same or similar (things such as hip usage, body mechanics, and any other methods in which they share as combat arts)?

forever young

04-18-2007, 04:18 PM

Hunt-
Can you explain the specific ways in which WC and grappling are the same or similar (things such as hip usage, body mechanics, and any other methods in which they share as combat arts)?

Hi KF i know this was aimed at Hunt but if i may chip in here i would say for example eddie bravo when talking about the rubber guard talks of "the thigh master" feel of squeezing his inner thighs together which to me translates to the same type of squeeze found within the wing chun horse stance (as taught to me anyways)
also we were just doing some 'judo' style grip exchanges/breaks and im sure that one of the moves (imho) was identical to the gaan sau motion found within siu lim tao (wsl lineage as if that matters, i just know not all familys do this motion within slt) it was used as a way to break a sleeve grip, also alot of the motions are simple push/pull motions (again found within the nino bernardo/gary lam branches of wslvt) or perhaps how you use the other person when pulling yourself about rather than creating space which is a direct concept (and application) from cham kiu, there is more that i feel definately translates from/to bjj (again my instructor was only saying the other day how actual fighters keep their sh*t in tight (elbows/knees)
also the usage of the hips is (again imo) the same within both, but the problem lies in translating/referencing one to the other (how exactly CAN you use the sqeeze for example) once the references are made the parallels ARE there.
so while im not saying you dont/wont learn those things in bjj (obviously you do) it is just some of the parallels i have seen that i have already learnt within wc that carry across (i must admit i really feel the sensitivity/feel for balance honed through chisau definitely help when sweeping/reversing/escaping)
just my 02 tho

anerlich

04-18-2007, 04:24 PM

What happens when you get to your 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond? Are you still going to trade punches and kicks with a 20/30 year old muay thai fighter? Are you still going to grapple a 20/30 year old BJJ fighter?

I'm 52. I seldom spar all out full contact any more with anybody, old or young. I've got a few dodgy joints, and had more than enough concussions and impact-related dental issues for one lifetime to want to electively stand in front of someone trying hard to knock me out. I do spar regularly with contact, just not full contact.

I rolled BJJ on Tuesday (and do so at least once a week) at one of the top Machado schools in the state with a bunch of young guys at various belt levels. If any of them gave me a break because of my age, it was not obvious. I have to keep my cardio training up to get through a long hard session, but I've had few injuries and never tapped because of exhaustion (though I've got close).

I plan to be doing this in my 60's. I'm looking forward to it as a major retirement activity.

To those who train hard, understand the logic of the forms, who value the (many) uses of chi sao and who are unafraid to represent Wing Chun in the bigger sphere... I salute you.

Same here. Good post by WWW.

If people want Ch'an or life philosophy, that's cool. Some MMA guys are into tattoo culture. Fine.

If you want to read about an MA with highly unusual culture and philosophy, pick up Eddie Bravo's new book. He's defimitely on the outer reaches of the bell curve.

First of all, I am at best a part-timer here

LOL! It doesn't seem like it!

t_niehoff

04-18-2007, 04:36 PM

TN why cant you train chi sao with a resisting opponent? I do. There are several different chi sao platforms and methods out there. If you remove the need to strike. Concentrate instead on exposing gaps and covering gaps then you can go very hard without anyone getting hurt.

Yes, you can do chi sao with someone that resists within the confines of chi sao -- resisting at that game but that is different than a generally resisiting opponent, someone who isn't trying to play your game with you. Anyone who is doing chi sao is able to do it because his partner is cooperating to play the game. If you don't believe me, try this: play your resisting chi sao and have your partner, at the sound of some trigger, just start trying to hit you, grab you, kick you, etc. like a fight, with real intensity, nonstop, and not trying to play chi sao (just go ape****). Try "sticking" when your partner is trying not to stick, when he is doing those things. When you get a genuinely resisitng opponent who is doing that, it won't "look" or "feel" like chi sao, it will "look and "feel" like fighting. So when you do chi sao, you are moving and behaving unlike you will in a fight. That is not effective training.

hunt1

04-18-2007, 04:45 PM

TN, Ok I understand what you are getting at and yes I agree 2 wing chun guys doing chi sao no matter what the platform is still 2 wing chun guys doing chi sao.
I agree that there comes a time when if you are interested in using wing chun in a more aggresive fashion( I have no problem with someone that looks at wing chun as a hobbyor a part time activity to gain some basic self defense skills. They dont have to do the same training) other though may want to and should find others outside of wing chun to train with,spar etc. Hopefully they will find what i did that the skills they learned can be used. Hence my point about my student at the Militich school. Grappler or wing chun they both found they were the body and sensing energy in the same fashion.

Dim Wit Mak

04-18-2007, 06:16 PM

t_niehoff

04-19-2007, 05:23 AM

TN, Ok I understand what you are getting at and yes I agree 2 wing chun guys doing chi sao no matter what the platform is still 2 wing chun guys doing chi sao.

Yes, and when we "over do" the chi sao (or kiu sao or any unrealsitic drill) we build "bad" fighting habits, because we are developing those habits based on stimulus we will never get in a fight (people are not going to behave as our chi sao partners behave).

I agree that there comes a time when if you are interested in using wing chun in a more aggresive fashion( I have no problem with someone that looks at wing chun as a hobbyor a part time activity to gain some basic self defense skills. They dont have to do the same training) other though may want to and should find others outside of wing chun to train with,spar etc. Hopefully they will find what i did that the skills they learned can be used. Hence my point about my student at the Militich school. Grappler or wing chun they both found they were the body and sensing energy in the same fashion.

From my perspective anyone who really wants to develop some solid fighting skills needs to generally train the way all good fighters do, which requires they take the skills they have learned and put them into a fighting environment to hone them into fighting skills. The level we are after -- and this is where if we are doing WCK for a hobby or for competition or whatever comes in -- will determine how intensely we need do this (amount of time and quality of opponents). For example, you can't develop good ground skills in BJJ without lots of sparring, and if someone wants those skills, whether they are doing it for a hobby or for MMA fighting, they need to train the same way (the difference is for the hobbiest, it may take 5 years to get a blue belt at once a week whereas someone else training 5 days a week gets his in 6 months). WCK is no different than any other athletic activity, and I think we need to stop looking at it that way.

When we look at other functional fighting methods, from boxing to BJJ to judo to etc., we see the same thing: skill is directly related to the amount of time the trainee has spent in quality sparring (everything else is prep work). WCK is no different. Our knowledge and understanding, beyond the superficial level, comes from that process (of doing WCK, of fighting/sparring) of developing skill.

And I think guys like you, with your experience (sparring with quality people) and attendant knowledge and understanding, need to be the ones pushing the evolution of WCK forward, looking for better ways to teach and/or train fighting skills. This is going on in the functional martial arts (why they ahve stayed functional), and we in WCK are already behind the curve. The views associated with the traditional mindset, things like 'the traditional model of teaching/training is great' or 'the real secrets are in the past' or 'my sifu who (who has never fought and so can't have much in the way of skill) knows best' and etc., only hold us back and keep us from evolving.

Now if some people aren't interested in the martial aspects of WCK, and just want to learn the forms, drills, and play chi sao, I have absolutely no problem with that; to me it's like the people taking aikido (which can be lots of fun, good exercise, etc.). They should just do so knowingly, with the understanding that this sort of "practice" won't develop much in the way of fighting (self-defense) skills.

jesper

04-19-2007, 06:11 AM

I dont get it TN

Which teachers are you talking about here :confused:

The views associated with the traditional mindset, things like 'the traditional model of teaching/training is great' or 'the real secrets are in the past' or 'my sifu who (who has never fought and so can't have much in the way of skill) knows best' and etc., only hold us back and keep us from evolving.

Where I come from we have always been told to not take anything for granted and go out to test our skills.
In my former line of work I travelled alot in Europe and have had plenty of experience visiting many schools from various WT/WC/VT whatever lineages, and I have never come across anyone not advocating testing your skills with other styles. Quite on the contrary WT was a bit frowned upon for many years especially because we would keep testing our skills and demanding proof for claims being made to effectiveness.

I have heard the term mcdojo and maybe its an US problem for which im sorry for those walking into such school. Or maybe the problem doesnt really exist, and is just another way of banging people on the head because they choose to train differently.

Ultimatewingchun

04-19-2007, 08:25 AM

P = principles
S = strategies
T = techniques

(PST)

It seems that a big part of this thread is now turning into a "is chi sao good for fighting" debate once again. Let me relate a little anecdote from a private, instructors-only TWC seminar with William Cheung that once took place here in NYC - and I've rewatched the video of it numerous times by now.

At one point William says to someone that "it doesn't matter how good your chi sao is - all that matters is whether or not you can fight."

And what he meant was this - you have to be able to take the principles, strategies, and techniques out of chi sao and apply them in a spontaneous situation that does not start from a chi sao position and is not confined to chi sao rules.

And so there are many other starting-from-contact DRILLS within TWC that use the PST from chi sao, from the wooden dummy, from the forms, etc. in ways that are completely different in format than your basic double arm rolling chi sao...

and we probably spend more time with those various drills than actual double arm - precisely because they are closer to actual fighting, ie.- they start from a front stance or a side stance (not a neutral stance)....and they entail someone throwing all kinds of punches (straight, round, high, low, etc.)...or perhaps even a shoot to the legs...

and then come other similar drills that don't include starting from a contact position of any kind (again: now even closer to reality fighting).

Although always going back to basic double arm chi sao on a fairly regular basis (even if only for 10-15 minutes at a time) is also a good wing chun idea - precisely because there MIGHT be times when you're standing in a completely neutral stance and an attack comes from very close...

which brings up another topic: wrestling/grappling and chi sao. Aside from weng chun - which uses a double arm format (though the starting position has the arms extended slightly further out and the arms/hands/elbows are not exactly on the centerline with the same emphasis as in typical wing chun chi sao)...aside form this - weng chun is primarily an arm locking , sweeping, and throwing system (although there are strikes and kicks as well).

So aside from that, why can't a wing chun man with some wrestling/grappling training in his background chain into clinch work and grappling - along with striking - from chi sao?

We already have some unbalancing moves, sweeps, a standing arm lock or two in wing chun - what's so hard about taking the next step into grappling?

t_niehoff

04-19-2007, 10:53 AM

I dont get it TN

Which teachers are you talking about here :confused:

Perhaps you can tell me which WCK "teachers" -- particularly the masters and grandmasters -- are going out and sparring with really good proven fighters, like at MMA gyms? I agree that there are some, but I think they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

Where I come from we have always been told to not take anything for granted and go out to test our skills.
In my former line of work I travelled alot in Europe and have had plenty of experience visiting many schools from various WT/WC/VT whatever lineages, and I have never come across anyone not advocating testing your skills with other styles. Quite on the contrary WT was a bit frowned upon for many years especially because we would keep testing our skills and demanding proof for claims being made to effectiveness.

I guess this is why WCK is one of the dominating arts in NHB. ;) What, it's not? I wonder why with all these "effective fighters" roaming around we just don't see any evidence of it? Like bigfoot -- real but just elusive?

I have heard the term mcdojo and maybe its an US problem for which im sorry for those walking into such school. Or maybe the problem doesnt really exist, and is just another way of banging people on the head because they choose to train differently.

There is no question about what sorts of training produces good fighting skills, regardless of style, lineage, whatever. The fighters today have proved it, and the scientific studies, from sport science to motor skill development, have proved it. If people cling to "different ways", that's just people refusing to take off the blinders of tradition.

Ultimatewingchun

04-19-2007, 11:34 AM

You know, Terence...after reading this - your latest same-old, same-old...and considering the fact that you yourself can't do even half of what you endlessly drone on about...and after seeing you once again troll about certain wing chun Masters and Grandmasters not sparring with who you say they have to spar with in order to gain your endorsement...

I've decided to put you on my IGNORE LIST.

At least the other guy knows when to take a step back and admit things like a man. That shows character.

You, on the the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for...because you're too much of a

p u s s y to ever take the steps necessary to either personally prove his contentions - or get them disproved...and make the honest acknowledgments if he is disproven.

In other words, Terence...you're a phony.

With an arrogant mouth.

Adios...

t_niehoff

04-19-2007, 12:54 PM

You know, Terence...after reading this - your latest same-old, same-old...and considering the fact that you yourself can't do even half of what you endlessly drone on about...

You have no idea what I can or cannot do. But of course I know that actually being informed about what you are talking about is not important to you.

and after seeing you once again troll about certain wing chun Masters and Grandmasters not sparing with who you say they have to spar with in order to gain your endorsement...

I understand that you are one of the people who idol-worships your grandmasters and masters.

I've decided to put you on my IGNORE LIST.

Excellent!

At least the other guy knows when to take a step back and admit things like a man. That shows character.

You, on the the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for...because you're too much of a

p u s s y to ever take the steps necessary to either personally prove his contentions - or get them disproved...and make the honest acknowledgments if he is disproven.

In other words, Terence...you're a phoney.

Hey! Don't put me in the same league as Tony C.! ;) Seriously, dude, you know where I am. If it is that important to you, make the effort to visit me. The burden is not on me to visit you just so that you can see what I can or cannot do -- where do you get the idea that somehow I owe you this or that you are entitled to me dropping everything and making the effort to come 1000 miles to show you something? Please!

With an arrogant mouth.

Adios...

If you take exception to what I said about the masters and grandmasters having little to no fighting skills, and never having fought anyone particularly skilled, why not just refute that with evidence? Of course, I know you can't -- because no such evidence exists. So the next best thing is to call me an arrogant *****. Call me names if it makes you feel better. Just realize that the name-calling doesn't prove I'm wrong. :)

nschmelzer

04-19-2007, 01:02 PM

If you take exception to what I said about the masters and grandmasters having little to no fighting skills, and never having fought anyone particularly skilled, why not just refute that with evidence?

Since you brought up the issue of evidence, exactly how many Masters or Grandmasters have you fought? What are their names and when did you fight them?

t_niehoff

04-19-2007, 01:23 PM

Since you brought up the issue of evidence, exactly how many Masters or Grandmasters have you fought? What are their names and when did you fight them?

How could I -- or anyone -- have fought any when they never fight? Oh, wait, I'm sorry, there was Cheung vs. Boztepe. ;)

anerlich

04-19-2007, 03:42 PM

You have no idea what I can or cannot do.

I'm pretty sure you could bore me to death if you keep this up :cool:

Sihing73

04-19-2007, 04:06 PM

Hello,

Why does it seem like most postings end up like this thread?? If you feel that people in WC have no real skills then I am confused as to why one continues to post on a WC Forum or even practice the art at all :confused: IMHO time would be better spent learning one of the "reality" arts.

William Cheung had a reputation from back in the 60's for being a very good fighter and his lineage has produced several good fighters, Rick Spain being one of the most well known. Shoot, Bruce Lee even referred to Cheungs skills as impressive, but hey we all know he was one of those non-reality fighters too :rolleyes: so what does he know??

Leung Ting's lineage has produced several good fighters as well. As a matter of fact when my Sifu, Allan Fong, went to introduce WT to Germany and Europe they had several challenges.

IMO every lineage has at least one person, most cases more than one, who can make the art work for them. But there are plenty of nay sayers who point out every flaw while sitting at home on their rumps hiding their own awesome skills.

Oh, FWIW, mentioning Emin and Cheung was, IMO, in poor taste as that incident proved nothing and did no one any good. But hey since you really are not interested in fostering unity I guess it makes sense to bring it up.

I would ask everyone to move on and stop trying to down others because they do not agree with your pov.

Knifefighter

04-19-2007, 04:24 PM

William Cheung had a reputation from back in the 60's for being a very good fighter and his lineage has produced several good fighters, Rick Spain being one of the most well known. Shoot, Bruce Lee even referred to Cheungs skills as impressive, but hey we all know he was one of those non-reality fighters too :rolleyes: so what does he know??

Leung Ting's lineage has produced several good fighters as well. As a matter of fact when my Sifu, Allan Fong, went to introduce WT to Germany and Europe they had several challenges.

IMO every lineage has at least one person, most cases more than one, who can make the art work for them. But there are plenty of nay sayers who point out every flaw while sitting at home on their rumps hiding their own awesome skills.

Oh, FWIW, mentioning Emin and Cheung was, IMO, in poor taste as that incident proved nothing and did no one any good. But hey since you really are not interested in fostering unity I guess it makes sense to bring it up.

I would ask everyone to move on and stop trying to down others because they do not agree with your pov.

There's one simple way to shut up the WC naysayers.

Start posting clips of WC people using their WC in realistic fighting/sparring settings against other resisting opponents.

In this age of the ubiquitous video recorder and YouTube, it should be a simple thing to do.

Instead, everyone would rather just pontificate about the WC fighters who were produced in the past... (talk about the same old rhetoric).

Of course, that does beg the question:

Where are the good fighters of today?

Edmund

04-19-2007, 05:33 PM

Clips? KF you are so full of it.

Didn't ammocase JUST post one in the "Wing Chun at its best" thread?

Victor's posted some full contact sparring ones a while back.
Ernie had a full contact sparring one on his website I believe.

Alan Orr has posted links to whole pro and amateur NHB matches.

Even Terence posted multiple links to some fight club thing from Europe. This was back before he turned into a troll.

It's OK for us WC people to discuss the merits of it but you?
According to you all of it just never happened.
LOL. Find a new tune. It's getting old.

I seem to recall going through this same discussion before. Some newbie said "where's all the fighting clips?". A read of a few threads from the day before would have got him one and a simple search in the forum back 1 month got quite a few.

anerlich

04-19-2007, 05:43 PM

Edmund is 100% correct.

Knifefighter

04-19-2007, 07:31 PM

Didn't ammocase JUST post one in the "Wing Chun at its best" thread?

Victor's posted some full contact sparring ones a while back.
Ernie had a full contact sparring one on his website I believe.

Alan Orr has posted links to whole pro and amateur NHB matches.

Even Terence posted multiple links to some fight club thing from Europe. .

Good point... OK, that should shut me up for a while.

It would be interesting to get Alan to compare and contrast the training he is doing with traditional training.

Edmund

04-19-2007, 08:19 PM

Good point... OK, that should shut me up for a while.

It would be interesting to get Alan to compare and contrast the training he is doing with traditional training.

Certainly it would be a nice change of subject.

Terence mentioned that Alan's NHB DVD covered something along those lines.

So aside from that, why can't a wing chun man with some wrestling/grappling training in his background chain into clinch work and grappling - along with striking - from chi sao?

We already have some unbalancing moves, sweeps, a standing arm lock or two in wing chun - what's so hard about taking the next step into grappling?

Something like this maybe?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PGIhccW8CGE

Ultimatewingchun

04-19-2007, 08:49 PM

VERY GOOD, EDMUND...Now, yeah...that is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

Are you one of the guys in that vid?

drleungjohn

04-19-2007, 08:57 PM

You pretty much described my class as well--

-Break in/break out drills

-Kicking-chi gerk into punching into chi sao into clinching-both types-neck and body

-Self Defense

-Locks/counters non contact and in chi sao

-Point hitting for accuracy drills

-Focus mitts

-Sparring

-Traditional Forms/Breakdowns/etc

While you may have given KF a pass-I haven't-he continues to prove himself to thsi forum for what he is and isn't

Edmund

04-19-2007, 09:20 PM

VERY GOOD, EDMUND...Now, yeah...that is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

Are you one of the guys in that vid?

No. Don't know who those guys are. They seem OK though in terms of attitude - not just trying to bash each other but still trying throws, takedowns, elbows and knees.

It was just a link on the sidebar of the clip that ammocase put up.

t_niehoff

04-20-2007, 06:11 AM

There's one simple way to shut up the WC naysayers.

Start posting clips of WC people using their WC in realistic fighting/sparring settings against other resisting opponents.

In this age of the ubiquitous video recorder and YouTube, it should be a simple thing to do.

Instead, everyone would rather just pontificate about the WC fighters who were produced in the past... (talk about the same old rhetoric).

Of course, that does beg the question:

Where are the good fighters of today?

When I call into question the traditional (WCK) way of training by comparing it to (1) how the good fighters/trainers of today approach learning/training and (2) by what modern reserachers into sport science or motor skill development say and then point out that (3) no one using *just* the traditional training (without also resorting to the more modern training methods) has developed proven significant levels of fighting skill, the reply has often been "OK, T, show us what you do and how you train". What has that to do with how well the traditional training model works or how well the more modern training methods work? Nothing. The answer, for those who believe the traditional training method does work and does produce good results, is to provide evidence that it does. That evidence would answer any question. Yet no one has been able to provide any.

Of course, the traditional "believers" will ask why is the burden on them to prove their training methods work? And that is because any training method needs to be justified by results; we don't just assume it works because of stories or legends or hearsay or it sounds nice. Similarly, we shouldn't just accept that the more modern training methods work either; we should also look to results. And we can by looking at all modern fighters/fight trainers. As I ahve said, I am not the standard. The proof doesn't need to be what results the poster himself has personally achieved but rather examples of results obtained by that training method. I can say that BJJ can develop world-class fighting skills -- do you need to see my BJJ for proof?! I am not basing my conclusions on myself or my results; I'm basing them on the experts.

I may not be a champion weightlifter, but I can say if you want to develop the abilities of champion weightlifters -- or even just incease your strength significantly -- do what they do and listen to what they have to say. Follow their examples. And, that it's probably not a good idea to listen to people who (1) haven't developed those abilites (proven to be good weightlifters) and (2) whose "advice" is contrary to what those experts have to say -- that would seem to be the best way not to develop those abilities. My lifting ability has nothing to do with that.

But I understand, since the "believers" can't offer any evidence to support their views -- they can't do what I am doing and point to the good fighters as examples of how to effectively train. So they try to discredit me, call me names, etc. That doesn't change the underlying issue of training methods needing to be justified by results.

AmanuJRY

04-20-2007, 06:59 AM

AmanuJRY

04-20-2007, 07:14 AM

Who says that by growing old we have to become weak and disabled. To some degree, maybe.
Health becomes more difficult to maintain as we age but not impossible.
Look at Jack LaLanne!

Ultimatewingchun

04-20-2007, 07:20 AM

I just don't see any point in keeping the sword on the table right now.

And btw...it seems as though you think he came back with the questions about the single leg takedown as a way of trying to point some sort of a finger at you - but I don't think that was the case.

The conversation had evolved to a point way beyond that - and into his little light sparring session with Phil's student, Rahsun...wherein he had taken Rahsun down a few times with a single leg.

I don't think it had anything to do with you.

drleungjohn

04-20-2007, 07:43 AM

Lame attempt at a sidestep and misdirection-

Even if I put something up-you can say it was staged -so why bother?
You are not even on my list of people I care to "prove" anything to-nor should I have to-

Your label means nothing to me-
my fights in the street,in the ring and in various Kung Fu challenge matchs during the early 80's (Vic-you can fill him in since you're friends now) mean something to me and God. Period.

Where are your YouTube's by the way?

t_niehoff

04-20-2007, 07:58 AM

Who says that by growing old we have to become weak and disabled. To some degree, maybe.
Health becomes more difficult to maintain as we age but not impossible.
Look at Jack LaLanne!

Whenever I hear the lame excuse about age or gender or being weak, I think of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5R75GGUovg

JPinAZ

04-20-2007, 08:25 AM

When I call into question the traditional (WCK) way of training by comparing it to (1) how the good fighters/trainers of today approach learning/training and (2) by what modern reserachers into sport science or motor skill development say and then point out that (3) no one using *just* the traditional training (without also resorting to the more modern training methods) has developed proven significant levels of fighting skill, the reply has often been "OK, T, show us what you do and how you train". What has that to do with how well the traditional training model works or how well the more modern training methods work? Nothing. The answer, for those who believe the traditional training method does work and does produce good results, is to provide evidence that it does. That evidence would answer any question. Yet no one has been able to provide any.

Of course, the traditional "believers" will ask why is the burden on them to prove their training methods work? And that is because any training method needs to be justified by results; we don't just assume it works because of stories or legends or hearsay or it sounds nice. Similarly, we shouldn't just accept that the more modern training methods work either; we should also look to results. And we can by looking at all modern fighters/fight trainers. As I ahve said, I am not the standard. The proof doesn't need to be what results the poster himself has personally achieved but rather examples of results obtained by that training method. I can say that BJJ can develop world-class fighting skills -- do you need to see my BJJ for proof?! I am not basing my conclusions on myself or my results; I'm basing them on the experts.

I may not be a champion weightlifter, but I can say if you want to develop the abilities of champion weightlifters -- or even just incease your strength significantly -- do what they do and listen to what they have to say. Follow their examples. And, that it's probably not a good idea to listen to people who (1) haven't developed those abilites (proven to be good weightlifters) and (2) whose "advice" is contrary to what those experts have to say -- that would seem to be the best way not to develop those abilities. My lifting ability has nothing to do with that.

But I understand, since the "believers" can't offer any evidence to support their views -- they can't do what I am doing and point to the good fighters as examples of how to effectively train. So they try to discredit me, call me names, etc. That doesn't change the underlying issue of training methods needing to be justified by results.

I think what you are missing is, YOU are the one saying traditional training doesn't work and that it didn't work for YOU once YOU put it to the test (that you couldn't make your WC work against these 'modern fighters'). And that is why you are now looking at 'modern day fighters' and how they train and adopting it for yourself, correct?
(or do I have it all wrong?)

Well, then wouldn't YOU be able to show some proof of how the new 'modern ways of training' from 'proven fighters' has worked for you where the traditional CMA training did not? Can you show how you drew that comparrion, or even the end results?
Can you show how it worked for you by posting a few video clips like you ask - what would that hurt?

And what does it have to do with what you say? because you are the one saying how much better these ways of training work compared to 'traditional ways' - so obviously you have made the comparrison yourself right? So you should have no problem proving it?
or are you just looking at what 'other people' are doing from the both groups and drawing a conclusion from there - from other's results?

But you say: 'I have experienced what works better than traditional training' and that 'how could traditional training work better than what madern day ways are producing if there is not proof - so prove me wrong!'
Do you realize how this sounds? Just because YOU could not prove it for yourself, the burden is now on the world to prove it to you - and by way of video no less :rolleyes:

Could it also be a case of 'how' or 'what' you trained that you are calling 'traditional training' not being the same as others here? Or does your limited experience encompass how ALL WC people train?
Or is it possible that maybe it's just an indivual thing, and it was just YOU that couldn't make it work? That's not such a bad thing to admit either, if there is no ego involved... ahh... but it 'must be the traditional training' right?

You do realize that there are a good majority of people here all asking/saying the same things about how you talk/act/behave here? Is it possible maybe you are are the one not getting it? How can these people all be misunderstanding, yet you seem to know better? Maybe you are not truely hearing what they are saying, because it seems to be the same thing over and over..

I've asked you a bunch of questions, please think before you reply :D

Jonathan

JPinAZ

04-20-2007, 08:27 AM

Randy Couture

'nuff said...

haha true.

list 5 :)

while I do agree with you, he's also a very rare breed. I'm betting when he's 50, we won't be able to easily point to even 20 other people just like him..

nschmelzer

04-20-2007, 08:34 AM

Please, no more stories about how you are someone or know someone who is "older" and still fighting MMA.

My point regarding getting old was this - martial arts / combat sports (MMA/UFC) that rely on physcial attributes (strength, conditioning, speed) are not as "good" as those that rely on body mechanics (structure) and strategy/footwork (superior position). For two reasons, (1) physcial attributes fade as we get older (please don't argue against this); and (2) given two combatants of equal strength and speed, the one with better structure and strategy usually wins.

I think this fact gets lost when the MMA/UFC devotees trash the internal, philosphical, and theoretical aspects of martial arts, and spew on and on about who can beat who up and how WC sucks if you can't throw-down with the MMA crowd (who usually insist on rules that favor physcial attributes). That's why I think the MMA/UFC mentality is bad for the martial arts. This is not incompatable with my opinion that hard contact sparring with all types of fighters is good for the martial artist.

Ultimatewingchun

04-20-2007, 09:19 AM

I don't really know the details of what you're talking about, John...but I do have a few more things to say about the sword on the table - as regards Terence Niehoff.

Yeah...I put him on the IGNORE LIST, where he'll stay...but I think some more needs to be said about him, sword in hand...

With a typical lawyer's mentality, ie.- they will GO ON AND ON with their arguments even though they may know that their client is guilty as sin. They don't care - they will still try to convince everybody with a LIE (ie.- that he's innocent...or that the corporation is innocent of any wrongdoing, etc.)

Just another example of some of the sickness that has pervaded (and perverted) our culture.

But TN's delusions go deeper than just trying to pass off bull as fact - as regards wing chun efficiencies, training methods, etc...BUT also as regards his own personal involvement in martial arts and on this forum. He's also in TOTAL DENIAL about himself. He thinks he's got us fooled (because he's succeeeded in lying to/fooling himself)....about how much wing chun he actually knows/can perform, for example.

His posts are CRYSTAL CLEAR examples of someone who doesn't know/can't do very much with wing chun - as evidenced by the fact that HE ALMOST NEVER ENGAGES in any serious, in depth discussion of forms, chi sao, drills, wooden dummy, weapons...wing chun theory, strategies...which techniques best suit which situations, etc..

This is always an enormous tip-off. :rolleyes: ;)

And then he tries to say "how could you possibly know about me?"

BUT OF COURSE WE KNOW, DUMMY...

How could we not know?

And once again he tried to stick a pin in William Cheung (with his talk about who wing chun Masters and Grandmasters must fight/spar in order to get his endorsement).

Like anyone gives a 5hit about his endorsement. :eek: :) :rolleyes:

But he did that to rile me, amoungst other people.

But let me refresh a few memories about a similar event. During the long thread that was leading up to the Cleveland Get-Together two years ago - he was basically behaving himself and just talking (numerous times) about how in-shape he was...how he was coming to Cleveland to spar - not to do chi sao or drills....how it was all about (and he was all about) realistic training, etc...

And then, very inexplicably - and very close to the actual date set for the Get-Together...he made a post that really ripped into William Cheung (and some other people).

Which, of course, I took great exception to...including asking him if he was aware that his own wing chun sifu, Robert Chu, had contacted me via email just a few months earlier to tell me that he, Robert, always had (and still has) enormous respect for William Cheung...and that he (Robert) didn't want any misunderstanding about that, etc.

In other words, Robert unilaterally opened up a a very positive dialogue with me in order to clear the air a bit. Cool.

But then there was this troll, TN...

And I posted that I'm looking forward to seeing him in Cleveland (if you get my drift).

AND HE DIDN'T SHOW.

And completely disappeared from this forum for about 6 months or more...and came back with a total load of crap about how he found something better to do that weekend.

Like anyone's really going to believe that!!!??? :rolleyes: :cool: :p

But here's the problem:

Because he's in SO MUCH denial - he therefore has no real pride to defend (or redeem) when he's been exposed - so he continues to go on and on with his nonsense. Why so much denial?

NO GUTS. It takes a certain amount of courage to eat crow - especially on a public venue like this forum. And the man has no courage. ONLY A PHONY BRAVADO...and a phony WANNABE MENTALITY (that he uses to latch onto people like Matt Thornton, for example).

So what else is left?

THE IGNORE BUTTON.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 09:22 AM

I don't think it had anything to do with you.

You are absolutely right... that was regarding our conversation and had nothing to do with what others had previously posted.

BTW, I was talking about the low single, not a standard single.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 09:27 AM

What happens when you get to your 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond? Are you still going to trade punches and kicks with a 20/30 year old muay thai fighter? Are you still going to grapple a 20/30 year old BJJ fighter?.

MMA fighters just gradually ramp down our training over the years until, eventually, when we are 85 or so, we are training like the average WC practitioner.

Ultimatewingchun

04-20-2007, 09:42 AM

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 10:47 AM

My point regarding getting old was this - martial arts / combat sports (MMA/UFC) that rely on physcial attributes (strength, conditioning, speed) are not as "good" as those that rely on body mechanics (structure) and strategy/footwork (superior position).

Despite how the theoretical non-fighters would like fighting to be, the fact is that all fighting takes physical attributes such as strength, conditioning, and speed.

Theoretical non-fighters also like to think that their theoretical systems somehow have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the more realistically applied combat systems. The fact of the matter is that the latter actually have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the theoretical systems.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 11:00 AM

"BTW, I was talking about the low single, not a standard single." (Dale)

***WELL THE ANSWER I gave earlier still pretty much applies (mixing some wing chun and/or sprawls, etc...as there is no one single answer)...

But if we want to just mention a wing chun-only type response to a low single - I would drop the knee of the leg being attacked right to the floor while stuffing his head with the gum sao (ie.- like a stiff arm in football)...and start punching with the other hand.

Of course you (the wing chun guy) would have to be "on time" with this (before he gets a chance to pull, lift, or bring the rest of his body weight into play).

Otherwise, you better sprawl.

Since the hand is behind the heel and the shoulder is pushing into the shin, the low single requires you to turn away from your opponent (trying to remain facing forward will always result in being taken down). I'm guessing this is not a WC principle and is why I gave him props for having the instinct to override his training.

nschmelzer

04-20-2007, 11:52 AM

"Despite how the theoretical non-fighters would like fighting to be, the fact is that all fighting takes physical attributes such as strength, conditioning, and speed." (Knifefighter)

Agreed. I did not say othewise.

"Theoretical non-fighters also like to think that their theoretical systems somehow have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the more realistically applied combat systems. The fact of the matter is that the latter actually have better mechanics, strategy and footwork than the theoretical systems." (Knifefighter)

Is this a fact? What makes it a fact (other than you saying it)? What are these "better mechanics, strategy and footwork"? What "more realistically applied combat system" are you talking about?

Look. What I think you are really saying is that most WC guys can't fight (and presumably you can). So why don't you go to a WC gym and have some fun man-handling those guys - and let your fists do the talking instead of your keyboard fingers? I am sure most of us would appreciate a break from your backhanded comments against WC.

Let's try to salvage this thread (your insults to WC are getting boring). Personally, I think the WC elbow driven punch is better than the boxing shoulder punch because it allows for controlling the center, springs up from the ground without going through the shoulder (ground, foot, knee, hip, elbow, fist), is faster than shoulder punches when thrown in a series. I will concede that the shoulder punch can have a lot of power, and be effective, as a result of the body/hips twisting. I will also concede that the shoulder punch has a slightly longer range. So why do you think the mechanics of MMA fighters is better than WC?

Ultimatewingchun

04-20-2007, 11:58 AM

I see what you're getting at....yeah...if you secured it the way you described - then you've got to go with the wrestling principle of turning away from it.

Now assuming that this was the instance wherein Rahsun said that "he was just following wing chun principles"...(and I highly suspect that it was that instance)...in response to your props and comment that that was an advanced wrestling technique of escape...

then we have another misunderstanding - and another opportunity for you to learn some more about the entire wing chun spectrum. You see, in this wing chun system that Rahsun has trained in (William Cheung's TWC)...we will often use escape or avoidance routes that are different than other wing chun systems - in that often we WON'T turn so as to face our centerline to where the attack is coming from....

we sometimes choose instead to move completely away by disengaging at an angle - and not by facing head on.

It's part of what William Cheung calls working on the CENTRAL LINE (and not the middle-of-the-body centerline).

t_niehoff

04-20-2007, 12:03 PM

I think what you are missing is, YOU are the one saying traditional training doesn't work and that it didn't work for YOU once YOU put it to the test (that you couldn't make your WC work against these 'modern fighters'). And that is why you are now looking at 'modern day fighters' and how they train and adopting it for yourself, correct?
(or do I have it all wrong?)

You are wrong.

I am saying that the "traditional" way of training isn't particularly effective for anyone. If it was particularly effective, we would expect to see some people who just using that sort of training achieve good results -- which means being able to hold their own against good people in fighting. We don't see that. And if you disagree, that this evidence exists, please share it. Where are these really good fighters that have gotten that way just using the traditional model of training? Where? Only in stories or legends. But if we look at the training methods that have proved effective -- the ones proven fighters use -- we see that they are training a certain way, and very differently than traditional people.

Well, then wouldn't YOU be able to show some proof of how the new 'modern ways of training' from 'proven fighters' has worked for you where the traditional CMA training did not? Can you show how you drew that comparrion, or even the end results?
Can you show how it worked for you by posting a few video clips like you ask - what would that hurt?

Forget about WCK for a moment and what you believe is good or bad training. Just think about training to be a good fighter and what it takes. We can see that for ourselves readily by looking at really good *proven* fighters and the sorts of things they do, regardless of their style or art or method. If it works for them, why wouldn't it work for WCK? Do you think WCK is somehow different than any other athletic activity? It's the same approach you'd use if you wanted to know how to be a good basketball player -- look at people in the NBA and not people who have never been on the court. Is this so f*cking hard to understand?

My personal training and approach to WCK isn't the issue. But, if for some reason how I personally train or what I can do is of some interest to you, then you make the effort and come visit me. If you want to see my WCK that is the price. If you don't care or don't want to make the effort, I could care less. But get over your sense of entitlement. I'm not on this forum to prove how good, tough, etc. I am. I've repeatedly said I don't consider myself to be particularly great. And that's because I've trained with people who were. If you want to see them, I'll be more than happy when you visit me to take you to some places here in St. Louis where you can spar with guys who have fought in the UFC, IFL, etc. And after you do that, you can explain to them why WCK is "a superior art", how it is "the most effective and efficient fighting art", and how the traditional training method produces such good results ;)

But you say: 'I have experienced what works better than traditional training' and that 'how could traditional training work better than what madern day ways are producing if there is not proof - so prove me wrong!'
Do you realize how this sounds? Just because YOU could not prove it for yourself, the burden is now on the world to prove it to you - and by way of video no less :rolleyes:

Don't put words into my mouth. Any and all training methods need to be justified by results. We can see for ourselves very easily the results -- high levels of skill -- obtained by modern fighters through their training. We can also listen to sports scientists tell us research (evidence) has shown are the most effective ways to train. Do we ignore these people? So do we continue to do forms because we may "like" them or because that's how WCK has been taught or because our sifu told us they had value when the fact that good modern fighters get that way without them and that sport scientists say that this is not a very good way to learn and develop motor skills? Or is the answer to drone on about how I should really put a video of me up on Youtube?

On the other hand, where are the results of traditionally trained fighters? Where? Offering me stories and legends isn't proof -- because stories and legends can be false. I am asking for evidence we can see for ourselves and evaluate. If this sort of training works well, what is the problem provding proof that it does?

So who should I listen to, the people like the fighters, the fight trainers, and the scientists who consistently express one view or the oppostion, the traditional guys, who can't offer any evidene to support their view?

Could it also be a case of 'how' or 'what' you trained that you are calling 'traditional training' not being the same as others here? Or does your limited experience encompass how ALL WC people train?
Or is it possible that maybe it's just an indivual thing, and it was just YOU that couldn't make it work? That's not such a bad thing to admit either, if there is no ego involved... ahh... but it 'must be the traditional training' right?

Again, you are trying to make it personal to me.

If WCK people train like modern fighters do, then they will develop fighting skills. If they don't, then they won't develop much in the way of fighting skill. How do I know? Because we can see that same pattern in every martial art: that skill comes from quality sparring, and the amount of quality sparring directly relates to a person's skill level. You can see that in all proven fighters. So if you disagree with that, tell me who is a proven good fighter that hasn't developed their fighting skill through sparring with good people?

You do realize that there are a good majority of people here all asking/saying the same things about how you talk/act/behave here? Is it possible maybe you are are the one not getting it? How can these people all be misunderstanding, yet you seem to know better? Maybe you are not truely hearing what they are saying, because it seems to be the same thing over and over..

I've asked you a bunch of questions, please think before you reply :D

Jonathan

I understand some people here keep asking me the same questions, and I keep saying the same thing: they are missing my point. They, like you, want to believe that their traditional training works and works well. And so you say "prove that my belief is wrong." But I have. The proof is in the lack of results. I am saying that there is not one instance of evidence showing that someone traditionally trained and not adopting the more modern training methods that has achieved any significant proven fighting skill level. Just like no one has produced a Bigfoot. I can't prove the nonexistence of Bigfoot except by showing there is no reliable proof that one does exist. But it is very easy to refute my contention, that either Bigfoot exists or some traditionally-trained great fighter exists: produce one for us all to see.

t_niehoff

04-20-2007, 12:16 PM

"BTW, I was talking about the low single, not a standard single." (Dale)

***WELL THE ANSWER I gave earlier still pretty much applies (mixing some wing chun and/or sprawls, etc...as there is no one single answer)...

But if we want to just mention a wing chun-only type response to a low single - I would drop the knee of the leg being attacked right to the floor while stuffing his head with the gum sao (ie.- like a stiff arm in football)...and start punching with the other hand.

Of course you (the wing chun guy) would have to be "on time" with this (before he gets a chance to pull, lift, or bring the rest of his body weight into play).

Otherwise, you better sprawl.

Since Victor accuses me of never giving any technical WCK "answers", here's mine: My WCK way to deal with a low single is not to give him the (opportunity to) low-single in the first place by controlling range and position, and if I lose that, to pre-empt any shoot by acting first. If that fails, and he gets it, then I'm on to a different game (trying to pull guard, since I've found sprawling on a lowsingle problematic).

And, btw, on the outside I typically move with my shoulders forward and hips back (with shoulder/knee roughly on the same plane) and that tends to discourage low singles.

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 01:06 PM

And, btw, on the outside I typically move with my shoulders forward and hips back (with shoulder/knee roughly on the same plane) and that tends to discourage low singles.

...........why?

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 03:23 PM

Is this a fact? What makes it a fact (other than you saying it)?

Because these systems are used all the time in full on competitive situations. As with all human athletic activities, competitions require that the very best methods are used.

What are these "better mechanics, strategy and footwork"?
What "more realistically applied combat system" are you talking about?

Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA

I think the WC elbow driven punch is better than the boxing shoulder punch because it allows for controlling the center, springs up from the ground without going through the shoulder (ground, foot, knee, hip, elbow, fist), is faster than shoulder punches when thrown in a series. I will concede that the shoulder punch can have a lot of power, and be effective, as a result of the body/hips twisting. I will also concede that the shoulder punch has a slightly longer range. So why do you think the mechanics of MMA fighters is better than WC?

You just answered your own question- power and range.

The fact is, when it comes to unarmed striking in real situations, power and range almost always trump speed. That is why the larger opponent has the advantage over the equally skilled smaller opponent.

Power and range are hugely important... this is why boxers, Muay Thai fighters and MMA fighters use don't use "elbow" punches, although that type of punching is generally faster.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 03:38 PM

...........why?

That's a great way to GET a low single (watch John Smith's old wrestling matches for perfect examples of this), aw well as prevent one, since your head is way forward of the legs (assuming he is talking about the horizontal plane).

I don't think it is exactly a stance you would want to take in a fight, however (and certainly not one you could use any WC techniques with).

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 03:47 PM

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 05:33 PM

That's a great way to GET a low single (watch John Smith's old wrestling matches for perfect examples of this), aw well as prevent one, since your head is way forward of the legs (assuming he is talking about the horizontal plane).

I really don't see that as in any way preventing a low single as the set up is going to involve getting you to step with that lead leg and shoot just as your weight is coming down on it.

Lean too far forward and you'll get headsnapped through the floor.

The most effective takedown defense is being on the offense and/or being able to read your opponent's attempt at setting up his shot and anticipating his move.

Of course if someone like John Smith wants to get a low single on you, he is. He just is.

Liddel

04-20-2007, 05:36 PM

Sorry, ive been away for a few days and i need to back track for this....

If you don't believe me, try this: play your resisting chi sao and have your partner, at the sound of some trigger, just start trying to hit you, grab you, kick you, etc. like a fight, with real intensity, nonstop, and not trying to play chi sao (just go ape****). Try "sticking" when your partner is trying not to stick, when he is doing those things. When you get a genuinely resisitng opponent who is doing that, it won't "look" or "feel" like chi sao, it will "look and "feel" like fighting. So when you do chi sao, you are moving and behaving unlike you will in a fight. That is not effective training.

What a bunch of BS.
This has happened to me several times when visiting local schools of VT. One place had me pair up with the masters senior student and when he couldnt controll me he "went ape" taking it from a friendly skill developing drill to a fight.

I blocked a punch, moved off line and smacked him in the gut which stopped him right there. :eek: Blocking the punch was sticking ! and moving and punching is ANOTHER part of VT training.

This POV Terrence would be akin to a MT fighting kicking a pad in training and when the pad holder comes in swinging wildly in an ape$hit mannor, the MT fighter would then resort to covering, punching back or clinch and knee etc....
but hold on he was training his kick and due to the distance being closed he didnt use it in this senario......

It must be a waste of training time.....:rolleyes:

Just from your posts Terrence what you and i consider Chi Sao and its uses are very very different :o

anerlich

04-20-2007, 05:51 PM

So they try to discredit me, call me names, etc.

This isn't so much in response in your arguments, than the fact that you repeat them over and over at ludicrous length, on every possible thread.

It's fairly natural to heckle a speaker who has made his point but then keeps hogging the microphone as if his opinion is somehow more valuable than anyone else's.

But of course, you're the forum superhero on a MISSION ...

anerlich

04-20-2007, 05:56 PM

My point regarding getting old was this - martial arts / combat sports (MMA/UFC) that rely on physcial attributes (strength, conditioning, speed) are not as "good" as those that rely on body mechanics (structure) and strategy/footwork (superior position).

BJJ and most grappling arts are all about superior position, strategy, body mechanics and leverage. Like everything else, strength and conditioning will tip the odds in favor over someone with equivalent technical skill but inferior condition.

Worry about getting old when you get there. I'm 52 and not there yet. It may not be as bad or affect you as early as you seem to think it will.

Liddel

04-20-2007, 06:01 PM

Because these systems are used all the time in full on competitive situations. As with all human athletic activities, competitions require that the very best methods are used.

In terms of fighting - this is narrow minded IMO KF.

Some of the "BEST METHODS" cant be used because of rules.

If you want to find the best methods look to what 'real life' guys do.
Special forces - Police officers, diplomatic protection sqads -
Of course there is alot that carries over but IME there is many more differences in thier tool box compared with compitions.

People i know in each of these fields, love TMA's but see them as hobbies and they also see MMA as a SPORT.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 08:57 PM

I really don't see that as in any way preventing a low single as the set up is going to involve getting you to step with that lead leg and shoot just as your weight is coming down on it.

Because you are already so low it is hard to get to the leg before you sprawl or defend with the hands.

Lean too far forward and you'll get headsnapped through the floor.

Watch Smith or anyone who is halfway decent with the kind of stance he uses and I don't think you will see many effective head snaps done against them.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 09:00 PM

In terms of fighting - this is narrow minded IMO KF.

Some of the "BEST METHODS" cant be used because of rules.

If you want to find the best methods look to what 'real life' guys do.
Special forces - Police officers, diplomatic protection sqads -
Of course there is alot that carries over but IME there is many more differences in thier tool box compared with compitions.

People i know in each of these fields, love TMA's but see them as hobbies and they also see MMA as a SPORT.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was talking about unarmed fighting.

Special forces, police officers, and diplomatic protection sqad all train with weapons.... completely different circumstances, strategies, etc.

Put the a professional special forces guy, police officer, diplomatic protection sqad member person against a professional fighter in an unarmed fight and he will get eaten up almost all the time.

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 09:54 PM

Because you are already so low it is hard to get to the leg before you sprawl or defend with the hands..

Nah, don't think so. Its gonna depend on the relative skills of the two, but that is not going to stop someone from shooting a low single who has a mind to.

Watch Smith or anyone who is halfway decent with the kind of stance he uses and I don't think you will see many effective head snaps done against them.

Again, someone like Smith is on another level, but the fact remains that leaving your head out ahead of your hips is asking for a headsnap. Its no secret.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 10:13 PM

Again, someone like Smith is on another level, but the fact remains that leaving your head out ahead of your hips is asking for a headsnap. Its no secret.

I disagree. Because you are already down so low, there is no leverage for the opponent to snap you down... plus the fact that you aren't tied up from there and many times are posting with one hand.

I use the JS stance often in grappling tourneys. While I have been headsnapped often from higher stances, I don't think I have ever had it done from this stance- at least not with any effectiveness.

I train with an All-American wrestler who uses this as his primary stance. No one in our gym, including a second All-American, can head snap him with any effectiveness, even though he is only 145 lbs.

If anything, attempting to head snap someone from this stance, just gives him a better chance at giving him what he wants... his opponent's weighted foot and his head moving toward the shin.

Liddel

04-20-2007, 10:17 PM

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was talking about unarmed fighting.
No mate, you were clear. You missed the last line of my post.

I know people in each of these fields - some of whom are relatives.
I have relatives in the SAS and Police force. My good buddy is a CQB instructor for DPS
Beat cop normal police def not, but SAS and DPS trains H2H quite a bit in my country.

It must be said all have backgrounds in Martial arts or some kind of fighting prior to being where they are.

Put the a professional special forces guy, police officer, diplomatic protection sqad member person against a professional fighter in an unarmed fight and he will get eaten up almost all the time.

Any video evidence ? :p

Your first hand experience must be different than mine Dale.
IME their H2H training is for lack of a better word, Savage !
They are land sharks :o

By your own admission, you have better skills the more you train like you fight.
The more realistic the better.
Your a perponent of realistic live fight training.

So if a MMA guy is training to perform on a stage with protective gear and rules. When these other proffesionals (its thier job to) train with no restriction, no rules, no weight resrtiction, by your own theory......

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 10:24 PM

I disagree. Because you are already down so low, there is no leverage for the opponent to snap you down... .

That doesn't make any sense. Being low won't prevent you from being headsnapped. If you are low enough someone could just drop right into a front headlock, in fact.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 10:36 PM

That doesn't make any sense. Being low won't prevent you from being headsnapped. If you are low enough someone could just drop right into a front headlock, in fact.

Watch Smith's matches. Why wasn't he headsnapped or front headlocked often?

Because it is too easy to move out of range to prevent that.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 10:41 PM

Your first hand experience must be different than mine Dale.
IME their H2H training is for lack of a better word, Savage !
They are land sharks :o

By your own admission, you have better skills the more you train like you fight.
The more realistic the better.
Your a perponent of realistic live fight training.

So if a MMA guy is training to perform on a stage with protective gear and rules. When these other proffesionals (its thier job to) train with no restriction, no rules, no weight resrtiction, by your own theory......

The thing is they don't actually train live with no rules, no restrictions, no safety equipment etc. Otherwise they would be injured all the time instead of working. Can you imagine if these guys were really as deadly as you are making them out to be and they were training full force with no restriction and no gear? There would not be enough people to do the jobs they are being paid to do because at least half of them would be in the hospital most of the time.

As far as my experiences, I trained at Torrance Gracie for quite a number of years, so I got to see it firsthand a number of times. There were a ton of guys from special forces, police, swat, bodyguards etc who came through the school. Royce and the other top dogs at the school handled them with ease.

Any video evidence?

I've probably still got some old video footage of some of the challenge matches and training sessions from those days out in my garage somewhere. Maybe someday when I am feeling ambtitious, I will see if I can dig them out and digitize them if the bugs haven't eaten them yet.

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 10:44 PM

Watch Smith's matches. Why wasn't he headsnapped or front headlocked often?

Because he was far better than most of his competition and because he was almost always on offense.

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 10:47 PM

Because it is too easy to move out of range to prevent that.

Oooh, you shouldn't have added that. You just concluded yourself.

Knifefighter

04-20-2007, 10:55 PM

Oooh, you shouldn't have added that. You just concluded yourself.

I'm not sure what that means.

unkokusai

04-20-2007, 11:32 PM

It means that when you added the "its too easy to move out of range" thing you sort of jumped the tracks.

t_niehoff

04-21-2007, 07:23 AM

That's a great way to GET a low single (watch John Smith's old wrestling matches for perfect examples of this), aw well as prevent one, since your head is way forward of the legs (assuming he is talking about the horizontal plane).

I don't think it is exactly a stance you would want to take in a fight, however (and certainly not one you could use any WC techniques with).

KF, I watched some of Smith's matches (thanks for directing me to them) -- awesome.

However, I am talking about something not so "severe", just having a 10-15 degree forward "lean" of the torso - something many good fighters seem to use (e.g., Gomi), so that the shoulders are slightly forward of the hips but still aligned with the knees. I have found this permits me to move forward more quickly, but at the same time gives more protection to the hips (so I can get away or sprawl faster). I don't need to worry about the head snap since I use this only on the outside. For me, WCK doesn't come in until I am on the inside. (Not saying this ir "correct" or"best", just how I do things). Combining this with controlling the range and position makes the low single unappealing and low percentage IME.

Ultimatewingchun

04-21-2007, 07:31 AM

What do you mean "jumped the tracks"?

t_niehoff

04-21-2007, 07:35 AM

unkokusai

04-21-2007, 07:41 AM

What do you mean "jumped the tracks"?

I mean the argument fell apart. He had been (for some reason) trying to argue against the fact that leaning forward puts you at risk to be headsnapped (which it obviously does) and then changed it to, "well I can move out of the way" which is a separate point, thereby essentially conceding the first.

Its very simple, if you lean your head/shoulders too far out ahead of your hips you are at risk of being headsnapped. Doesn't mean its inevitable, just that it is a factor that must be taken into consideration. Also, no stance is going to preclude someone from shooting a single (or anything else) on you, so you have to be prepared to defend from any position.

That's all I'm saying.

t_niehoff

04-21-2007, 07:49 AM

Sorry, ive been away for a few days and i need to back track for this....

What a bunch of BS.
This has happened to me several times when visiting local schools of VT. One place had me pair up with the masters senior student and when he couldnt controll me he "went ape" taking it from a friendly skill developing drill to a fight.

I blocked a punch, moved off line and smacked him in the gut which stopped him right there. :eek: Blocking the punch was sticking ! and moving and punching is ANOTHER part of VT training.

This POV Terrence would be akin to a MT fighting kicking a pad in training and when the pad holder comes in swinging wildly in an ape$hit mannor, the MT fighter would then resort to covering, punching back or clinch and knee etc....
but hold on he was training his kick and due to the distance being closed he didnt use it in this senario......

It must be a waste of training time.....:rolleyes:

Just from your posts Terrence what you and i consider Chi Sao and its uses are very very different :o

You don't understand what I am trying to say -- chi sao "works" because both players are wing chun people "sticking" (pardon the pun) to WCK "rules"-- and even when WCK people "fight", they tend to stick to those rules (of how to move, react, etc.). When one side throws out the WCK rules, and behaves unlike a WCK person, you can't do chi sao. For example, in chi sao both people are trying to stick, both are using WCK "shapes", WCK attacks, etc. And so you are developing habits based on getting very limited types of actions, actions that are unlike how an opponent will behave in fighting. In other words, your partner in chi sao is not genuinely resisting you (trying not to stick, for example).

Ultimatewingchun

04-21-2007, 07:50 AM

Okay....I see. Good points. I agree with you, unko.

Although I would like to offer this...as a "stance" that makes it easier to do defense (against virtually attack)...

keep your legs/feet almost directly under your body - and with the lead leg only slightly out ahead of the other leg. Obviously as you make attacks you could wind up in a longer stance - but always readjust back to a shorter/narrower stance when you're not persuing your attack.

The narrower stance makes mobility quicker - since you're disturbing less of your balance every time you move - and therefore it's easier to defend against his attacks (ie.- like a low single).

t_niehoff

04-21-2007, 07:53 AM

I mean the argument fell apart. He had been (for some reason) trying to argue against the fact that leaning forward puts you at risk to be headsnapped (which it obviously does) and then changed it to, "well I can move out of the way" which is a separate point, thereby essentially conceding the first.

Its very simple, if you lean your head/shoulders too far out ahead of your hips you are at risk of being headsnapped. Doesn't mean its inevitable, just that it is a factor that must be taken into consideration. Also, no stance is going to preclude someone from shooting a single (or anything else) on you, so you have to be prepared to defend from any position.

That's all I'm saying.

Sure nothing can preclude a low single, but your posture, movement, and distance can make a low single very, very difficult to pull off, and so will discourage good people (who will recognize when there is a high percentage shot or not) from the attempt. After all, a low single is a high risk move -- if you shoot in for one and fail, you are in a really bad position.

unkokusai

04-21-2007, 07:58 AM

Again, I think that the attitude that taking a given stance will preclude someone from a given attack is asking for trouble.

t_niehoff

04-21-2007, 08:27 AM

Again, I think that the attitude that taking a given stance will preclude someone from a given attack is asking for trouble.

You're not understanding -- no one is saying it will *preclude* a given attack, but just as how you stand, move, etc. can make certain attacks harder to defend (and so easier to pull off), they can make them more easy to defend (and so people are less likely to try them). Try standing heel-weightedand with your hips forward and shoulder back (leaning back posture) and see how difficult it is to stop a shoot. A good wrestler will instantly recognize the opportunity created by such a "posture" -- even if it is momentary (like the snap-back to avoid a punch). Similarly, how you stand, move, etc. can make it more difficult for the low single since if your hips are back, hands are in front of you, you are on the balls of your feet, etc. you are in position to respond optimally. Combine this with movement and control of distance and the low single becomes a very low percentage shot.

unkokusai

04-21-2007, 08:48 AM

You're not understanding -- no one is saying it will *preclude* a given attack, but just as how you stand, move, etc. can make certain attacks harder to defend (and so easier to pull off), they can make them more easy to defend (and so people are less likely to try them). Try standing heel-weightedand with your hips forward and shoulder back (leaning back posture) and see how difficult it is to stop a shoot. A good wrestler will instantly recognize the opportunity created by such a "posture" -- even if it is momentary (like the snap-back to avoid a punch). Similarly, how you stand, move, etc. can make it more difficult for the low single since if your hips are back, hands are in front of you, you are on the balls of your feet, etc. you are in position to respond optimally. Combine this with movement and control of distance and the low single becomes a very low percentage shot.

Again, too categorical (perhaps too theoretical). Take any stance you want in a match against someone with a good low single and it will not be "a very low percentage shot" because that person will also be very good at setting you up for that shot. Now, when you add the mention of movement and distance you are talking about something else and that alone should suggest that the notion of a 'posture' making a given offense "very, very unlikely" is too broad to be useful.

AndrewS

04-21-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knifefighter
As far as the WC "answers" to the low single leg, that's exactly the sign of a theoretical non-fighter... trying to find the anwers from within your system (which doesn't even have low single leg attacks in the first place), when you can find the proven answers simply by looking into the methods that incorporate that technique and regularly defend against it.

Why in the heck one would limit himself like this when the very best answers are already right there for the taking from systems that already have this technique as part of their arsenal? Systems that have not only figured out the counter, but the counter to the counter and the counter to the counter to the counter.
Very good and very perceptive.

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you on this. You should always be trying to find the best answer within your system, not Wing Chun, BJJ, wrestling, or Choy Li Fut, but the best answer based on your nature, advantages, and disadvantages as a fighter. That's different for each person, and once you're past the familiarization stage of learning to fight, IMO, your real work is to define what you are as fighter, then refine it. There is some use for analysis and creativity, past simple rote.

Low single counter
From distance
1). Watch for it/ work on reading it
2). Footwork to control angle and distance
3). Work on cutting the angle to fire the lead or rear knee
4). Move off the line or sprawl
5). If gets to leg, before I can sprawl, change angle, try to control neck and shoulder with lead knee, pulling lead ankle back and pushing with lead knee before switching rear knee in (hard), on angle moving caudally, pulling the lead leg back and straightening it -> scramble with me in knee ride position
6). Takedown works, I try to reverse as I fall, see if I can get a shot off in the process
7). Takedown succeeds, he gets position-> escapes

Andrew

Ultimatewingchun

04-21-2007, 03:47 PM

So let's go full circle.

Imo, the best way to stop a low single is to be on the attack - with punches that occupy the lines he needs to go for....WHATEVER HE'S GOING TO GO FOR.

Longer range horizontal straight boxing punches - into lanes and lines....hard body and head targets come later. First get close with what I just mentioned and start to control the fight - by controlling space, controlling his options, manipulating his limbs to make way for YOUR hits, knees, elbows, kicks, underhooks, w h i z z e r s, snap downs, body locks, front head locks, inside leg trips....your wing chun vertical elbow-in punches....your lop and hit...your pak and hit....your gum and hit...your sweep.

By moving into (and striking into) the lanes and lines he'd need for his low single (and whatever else he may try).

How often have you seen someone shoot on Cro Cop when he's on the attack?

Just an example.

Be aggresssive and eat up valuable real estate.

Knifefighter

04-21-2007, 05:37 PM

Imo, the ...best way to stop a low single is to be on the attack - with punches that occupy the lines he needs to go for....

This whole discussion of the low single is predicated on a scenario in which you are not punching/kicking with full power or are in a grappling only match.

In less than full force striking scenarios, the strikes aren't going to have much of an effect...

... and a low single in a full contact NHB/MMA match is probably not the most intelligent tactic.

Liddel

04-21-2007, 06:49 PM

The thing is they don't actually train live with no rules, no restrictions, no safety equipment etc. Otherwise they would be injured all the time instead of working.

Well the last phase test my buddy went on, thier were three broken noses and a lot of bruised bodies...these guys are quite tough.

They fought 4 guys back to back bare knuckles elbows kicks and all, every day over four days. Thats just one test.
One vid ive seen had some quite violent stomping also, which i was very surprised about...whats even more interesting is the team leader yelling get up get up after one guy gets stomped three times in the head....Hence my use of the word savage !

Like i said your experience must be different to mine Dale.
Its still one step above MMA which is a SPORT.

JPinAZ

04-21-2007, 08:12 PM

You are wrong.

I am saying that the "traditional" way of training isn't particularly effective for anyone. If it was particularly effective, we would expect to see some people who just using that sort of training achieve good results -- which means being able to hold their own against good people in fighting. We don't see that. And if you disagree, that this evidence exists, please share it. Where are these really good fighters that have gotten that way just using the traditional model of training? Where? Only in stories or legends. But if we look at the training methods that have proved effective -- the ones proven fighters use -- we see that they are training a certain way, and very differently than traditional people.

Forget about WCK for a moment and what you believe is good or bad training. Just think about training to be a good fighter and what it takes. We can see that for ourselves readily by looking at really good *proven* fighters and the sorts of things they do, regardless of their style or art or method. If it works for them, why wouldn't it work for WCK? Do you think WCK is somehow different than any other athletic activity? It's the same approach you'd use if you wanted to know how to be a good basketball player -- look at people in the NBA and not people who have never been on the court. Is this so f*cking hard to understand?

My personal training and approach to WCK isn't the issue. But, if for some reason how I personally train or what I can do is of some interest to you, then you make the effort and come visit me. If you want to see my WCK that is the price. If you don't care or don't want to make the effort, I could care less. But get over your sense of entitlement. I'm not on this forum to prove how good, tough, etc. I am. I've repeatedly said I don't consider myself to be particularly great. And that's because I've trained with people who were. If you want to see them, I'll be more than happy when you visit me to take you to some places here in St. Louis where you can spar with guys who have fought in the UFC, IFL, etc. And after you do that, you can explain to them why WCK is "a superior art", how it is "the most effective and efficient fighting art", and how the traditional training method produces such good results ;)

Don't put words into my mouth. Any and all training methods need to be justified by results. We can see for ourselves very easily the results -- high levels of skill -- obtained by modern fighters through their training. We can also listen to sports scientists tell us research (evidence) has shown are the most effective ways to train. Do we ignore these people? So do we continue to do forms because we may "like" them or because that's how WCK has been taught or because our sifu told us they had value when the fact that good modern fighters get that way without them and that sport scientists say that this is not a very good way to learn and develop motor skills? Or is the answer to drone on about how I should really put a video of me up on Youtube?

On the other hand, where are the results of traditionally trained fighters? Where? Offering me stories and legends isn't proof -- because stories and legends can be false. I am asking for evidence we can see for ourselves and evaluate. If this sort of training works well, what is the problem provding proof that it does?

So who should I listen to, the people like the fighters, the fight trainers, and the scientists who consistently express one view or the oppostion, the traditional guys, who can't offer any evidene to support their view?

Again, you are trying to make it personal to me.

If WCK people train like modern fighters do, then they will develop fighting skills. If they don't, then they won't develop much in the way of fighting skill. How do I know? Because we can see that same pattern in every martial art: that skill comes from quality sparring, and the amount of quality sparring directly relates to a person's skill level. You can see that in all proven fighters. So if you disagree with that, tell me who is a proven good fighter that hasn't developed their fighting skill through sparring with good people?

I understand some people here keep asking me the same questions, and I keep saying the same thing: they are missing my point. They, like you, want to believe that their traditional training works and works well. And so you say "prove that my belief is wrong." But I have. The proof is in the lack of results. I am saying that there is not one instance of evidence showing that someone traditionally trained and not adopting the more modern training methods that has achieved any significant proven fighting skill level. Just like no one has produced a Bigfoot. I can't prove the nonexistence of Bigfoot except by showing there is no reliable proof that one does exist. But it is very easy to refute my contention, that either Bigfoot exists or some traditionally-trained great fighter exists: produce one for us all to see.

Blah blah blah. No, I'm saying prove your 'theory' is right! The truth is obvious. Again, you claim no great skills, you can't prove any of you THEORIES work for you by experienceing them for yourself, but you still say you are sure what works and what doesn't. If you aren't great, but you're positive these methods work, where are you skills?
Again, you just point to 'this group' and 'that group' - 'proof' and 'no proof'. All theories if YOU have not proven it for YOURSELF. T, you have no proof.
Yes, it is about you, dumba$$. You're the one here running his mouth. And it turns out, that without the experience, you are just full of BS. Your skills/experience DO matter here. You said these methods work, you train with these methos, but they just don't work for you...
Who knows, maybe you're right - but even YOU don't even know for sure.

Yeah, and good one - I'll just spend my money so I can fly half way across the country to play with the people that you see do it 'the right way'. So what, you can sit on the sidelines? I heard you're good at that while other partake in REAL training... What's the point in me coming out there if you don't even have any skills that you 'methods' are supposed to produce. Where the learning in that for me?

You speak of results. By everything you say, it's obvious you can't personally provide any. Yeah, I should fly out there for that...
You want evidence 'traditional training' works (whatever that means)? There's a saying around where I train - 'experience requires'. Not video. not a demo, not watching someone else. I'm talking personal experience. I'm saying yes, 'traditional' training works. But, are you willing to fly to me for that? Would love to show you sometime ;)
(of course that's nover going to happen either - all this 'just fly out and visit me' talk on an internet is never going to happen. It never does. That's why you say it, you know no one gives that much of a crap about you to do it... too funny)

I didn't make it personal, I'm just seeing if what you are speaking is your PERSONAL experience or not. It's obvious, this isn't personal :rolleyes:

JPinAZ

04-21-2007, 08:23 PM

As far as the WC "answers" to the low single leg, that's exactly the sign of a theoretical non-fighter... trying to find the anwers from within your system (which doesn't even have low single leg attacks in the first place), when you can find the proven answers simply by looking into the methods that incorporate that technique and regularly defend against it.

Why in the heck one would limit himself like this when the very best answers are already right there for the taking from systems that already have this technique as part of their arsenal? Systems that have not only figured out the counter, but the counter to the counter and the counter to the counter to the counter.

So, are you saying the only way to prevent something from happening, you have to have that 'something' in the system you use to prevent it?

so you're talking about countering a grappling technique with another one, and then looping. When does it end, once one person gets lucky? Wouldn't the best solution be PREVENTING the ability for a takedown in the first place?

In case your answer to my question is another question, her goes: how do you do that? by controlling the range and preventing the person from entering your space close enough to get the takedown. I don't think that's limiting anything.

And I would agree is someone says you should have a pretty good idea how that takedown works and the range needed to make it work.

JPinAZ

04-21-2007, 08:24 PM

"Because these systems are used all the time in full on competitive situations. As with all human athletic activities, competitions require that the very best methods are used."

Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA

not trying to troll here, this is an honest question:
How is MMA a system, style or anything else? Isn't it just boxing, muay thai, BJJ or whatever else mixed together?
Those are the styles/systems. How is mixing them a new one? MMA, is just that, mixing different MA's. That doesn't make it a system or style itself.

JPinAZ

04-21-2007, 08:26 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you on this. You should always be trying to find the best answer within your system, not Wing Chun, BJJ, wrestling, or Choy Li Fut, but the best answer based on your nature, advantages, and disadvantages as a fighter. That's different for each person, and once you're past the familiarization stage of learning to fight, IMO, your real work is to define what you are as fighter, then refine it. There is some use for analysis and creativity, past simple rote.

Low single counter
From distance
1). Watch for it/ work on reading it
2). Footwork to control angle and distance
3). Work on cutting the angle to fire the lead or rear knee
4). Move off the line or sprawl
5). If gets to leg, before I can sprawl, change angle, try to control neck and shoulder with lead knee, pulling lead ankle back and pushing with lead knee before switching rear knee in (hard), on angle moving caudally, pulling the lead leg back and straightening it -> scramble with me in knee ride position
6). Takedown works, I try to reverse as I fall, see if I can get a shot off in the process
7). Takedown succeeds, he gets position-> escapes

Andrew

Oops, didn't get to this before my post.
Very good post!

Ultimatewingchun

04-21-2007, 11:28 PM

"This whole discussion of the low single is predicated on a scenario in which you are not punching/kicking with full power or are in a grappling only match.

In less than full force striking scenarios, the strikes aren't going to have much of an effect...

... and a low single in a full contact NHB/MMA match is probably not the most intelligent tactic." (Knifefighter)

***BUT DALE, what about our man Sakuraba?

The low single was always his bread and butter takedown...was it not?

..................................................

"If gets to leg, before I can sprawl, change angle, try to control neck and shoulder with lead knee, pulling lead ankle back and pushing with lead knee before switching rear knee in (hard), on angle moving caudally, pulling the lead leg back and straightening it -> scramble with me in knee ride position." (AndrewS)

***Andrew, you've lost me with this part:

"...pulling lead ankle back and pushing with lead knee before switching rear knee in (hard), on angle moving caudally..."

Don't know what you're trying to say there.

t_niehoff

04-22-2007, 08:30 AM

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you on this. You should always be trying to find the best answer within your system, not Wing Chun, BJJ, wrestling, or Choy Li Fut, but the best answer based on your nature, advantages, and disadvantages as a fighter. That's different for each person, and once you're past the familiarization stage of learning to fight, IMO, your real work is to define what you are as fighter, then refine it. There is some use for analysis and creativity, past simple rote.

My view is that you can't always find (and often can't) an answer to every combative problem in the "system" you are training in, because the possibilities (the sheer number of combative problems) within the fight are so large, and the styles, methods, systems, etc. tend to be particular, limited approaches to fighting. WCK isn't going to give you have answers to how to escape from the back mount no matter how hard you search. Neither will boxing or MT or greco. And that's because these "systems" or styles or whatever you want to call them are concerned with different approaches to fighting that don't involve the back mount.

But I do agree with you that that "styles" or "systems" aren't meant to be restrictive but to provide you with training and experience to deal with some combative problems. In the end, you have to come up with your own individual game to deal with the total fight that is best suited to you.

t_niehoff

04-22-2007, 08:42 AM

Blah blah blah. No, I'm saying prove your 'theory' is right! The truth is obvious. Again, you claim no great skills, you can't prove any of you THEORIES work for you by experienceing them for yourself, but you still say you are sure what works and what doesn't. If you aren't great, but you're positive these methods work, where are you skills?
Again, you just point to 'this group' and 'that group' - 'proof' and 'no proof'. All theories if YOU have not proven it for YOURSELF. T, you have no proof.
Yes, it is about you, dumba$$. You're the one here running his mouth. And it turns out, that without the experience, you are just full of BS. Your skills/experience DO matter here. You said these methods work, you train with these methos, but they just don't work for you...
Who knows, maybe you're right - but even YOU don't even know for sure.

Yeah, and good one - I'll just spend my money so I can fly half way across the country to play with the people that you see do it 'the right way'. So what, you can sit on the sidelines? I heard you're good at that while other partake in REAL training... What's the point in me coming out there if you don't even have any skills that you 'methods' are supposed to produce. Where the learning in that for me?

You speak of results. By everything you say, it's obvious you can't personally provide any. Yeah, I should fly out there for that...
You want evidence 'traditional training' works (whatever that means)? There's a saying around where I train - 'experience requires'. Not video. not a demo, not watching someone else. I'm talking personal experience. I'm saying yes, 'traditional' training works. But, are you willing to fly to me for that? Would love to show you sometime ;)
(of course that's nover going to happen either - all this 'just fly out and visit me' talk on an internet is never going to happen. It never does. That's why you say it, you know no one gives that much of a crap about you to do it... too funny)

I didn't make it personal, I'm just seeing if what you are speaking is your PERSONAL experience or not. It's obvious, this isn't personal :rolleyes:

My goal isn't to convince you of anything or satisfy you -- I am sharing my views on a forum, just like everyone else. If you don't care about what I do or what I can do, that's fine, then stop asking for me to show you! If it is some concern, then you make the effort. And if you don't want to come to St. Louis, come out to LA next year in June; Alan, Dave, and I will be getting togehter, along with some of the LA people, like Andrew and I hope KF, and you can show us all how well your traditional training "works". And for you, I won't sit on the sidelines. :)

FWIW, if you are in a hurry to see how well your traditional training is working, pay a visit to a good MMA gym and spar with some good people. Or invite some to your school and let everyone, including your sifu, get some "experience requires". ;)

gabe

04-22-2007, 09:49 AM

"FWIW, if you are in a hurry to see how well your traditional training is working, pay a visit to a good MMA gym and spar with some good people. Or invite some to your school and let everyone, including your sifu, get some "experience requires". ;)[/QUOTE]

Very curious, does your sifu spar with MMAists? Have you gone full resistance with him? Does he roll with BJJer's or other grapplers? Also, does he do any forms training?

JPinAZ

04-22-2007, 11:10 AM

My goal isn't to convince you of anything or satisfy you -- I am sharing my views on a forum, just like everyone else. If you don't care about what I do or what I can do, that's fine, then stop asking for me to show you! If it is some concern, then you make the effort. And if you don't want to come to St. Louis, come out to LA next year in June; Alan, Dave, and I will be getting togehter, along with some of the LA people, like Andrew and I hope KF, and you can show us all how well your traditional training "works". And for you, I won't sit on the sidelines. :)

FWIW, if you are in a hurry to see how well your traditional training is working, pay a visit to a good MMA gym and spar with some good people. Or invite some to your school and let everyone, including your sifu, get some "experience requires". ;)

Again, very tough talk once you have 'backup'. 'Come to LA, where I have a few guys that probably can fight to watch my back. I'll be much tougher there!'
You've offered this 'challenge' to more than one person on this forum. What a joke! Haha, it would be fun to meet you there and embarrass you in front of them. But we both know that's not going to happen - I'm not going to 'fly to LA' to meet you, you aren't going to stop by AZ on your way out, and you aren't even worth the trip. But you do talk big T!

If you are here just to 'share your views', then why mention my sifu?

Don't mention my sifu again again on this forum., or talk about his skills (or even hint to them or him) or anything else. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Now who's the one 'making it personal'?
I haven't even mentioned your sifu, his skills or anything else.

And, who the hell are you to talk about my sifu anyway? (And this isnt' the first time) You are no body. You are a coward and a pu$$y. You are just trying to take the attention off of you by talking about my sifu. What the F do you know about his skills, who he rolled with or anything eles?

On this issue, it's wiser to just shut your mouth before it gets your a$$ into trouble it can't talk it's way out of. A keyboard can't save you either.

This conversation is over, I'm sorry I wasted as much time with you as I did.

canglong

04-22-2007, 11:40 AM

originally posted by hendrik
(Terence) since you love to have critical thinking, lets have critical thinking to examine your motivation of posting the way you post.

if I say,

I have heard you are no longer train in WCK after got defeat by BJJ /mma guys. and you have lost hope in WCK after that and even go as far as reject WCK because it bring you shame.

So, why even discuss in this forum since you have make up your mind that BJJ and MMA are the best fighters better then WCK?

What is your point often down play WCK in you discussion, be it when it is WCK history or the Traditional way of Chinese Martial art training?

Doesnt that you only have a passion for spreading your own theory because your WCK (remember it is your wck) doesnt work?

or you have so much fear in BJJ and MMA so much that you think the whole world is collapsing if everything is not Going BJJ and MMA?

Is this the Truth behind your posting? You love to question others in the web forum. but have you question the obvious about yourself?
yeah Terence why are you always putting Wing Chun down, Is it because maybe just maybe Robert Chu's methods don't work and you in all your wisdom have come to the conclusion that all wing chun is the same when in fact hunt1 gave very good reason for you not to think that way.

nschmelzer

04-22-2007, 11:47 AM

To the guys that claim to be WC men - but claim that most WC sucks in comparison to most MMA - why don't you guys find an MMA forum to make your case - and leave us "role-playing" "non-fighter" "theoricians" alone?

Or better yet - come discuss your opinions about how WC can't stand against MMA in person.

There appear to be two types of WC people on this forum - those that think WC is a supplment to their MMA training, and those that think MMA training is a supplment to their WC. (I am in the second camp - if anyone cares.)

I think those in the first case should find an MMA website - and start a WC thread there.

Do I hear an "amen" from anyone else?

unkokusai

04-22-2007, 12:04 PM

No, you don't.

Knifefighter

04-22-2007, 12:35 PM

If you are here just to 'share your views', then why mention my sifu?

Don't mention my sifu again again on this forum., or talk about his skills (or even hint to them or him) or anything else. You have no idea what you are even talking about. .
Who the heck is your sifu?

JPinAZ

04-22-2007, 01:10 PM

Who the heck is your sifu?

What does it matter to you? Why do you ask?

Knifefighter

04-22-2007, 01:16 PM

What does it matter to you? Why do you ask?

You are making such a big deal about him, just wondering who he is. Is it supposed to be a secret or something?

anerlich

04-22-2007, 05:39 PM

I still spit upon you.

JPinAZ

04-22-2007, 06:40 PM

You are making such a big deal about him, just wondering who he is. Is it supposed to be a secret or something?

Am I making a big deal of it? I'm making a big deal of T talking crap about something he knows nothing about.
Who my sifu is is not 'secret'. Why would you ask something so stupid? haha, yeah, sure, I walk around all the tim 'ssshhhh.. I have a sifu, but I can't tell you who he is...."

I don't even understand why my sifu keeps coming into these discussions from T. It's pretty obvious though, whenever T gets questions about his experience, he points a finger everywhere/anywhere else to avoid answering the questions at hand. My sifu included (more than once now). The obvious reason is T has no real, personal experience to quantify any of his statements. So he diverts the conversation.

My sifu has nothing to do with the conversation. Just like T's sifu doesn't. I thought the conversation was between the people on this forum. :rolleyes:

JP

Liddel

04-22-2007, 06:45 PM

You don't understand what I am trying to say -- chi sao "works" because both players are wing chun people "sticking" to WCK "rules"--

Chi Dan Sao - totally agree, at a base level.
Chi Sao not so much.

Terrence i get your POV, i just disagree. Why ?
Because we see Chi Sao as a different entity.
By your posts - you think Chi Sao has to remain full to be applied.
This is what im trying to get across - that view is flawed.

To apply Chi Sao you need not perform Tan Da Bong or Fook Jum Da in the same exact order or the same timing for that matter. you can apply one or all of these actions in a differnt order if you like it all depends on the input from your opponent, to apply Chi Sao in fighting.

When one side throws out the WCK rules, and behaves unlike a WCK person, you can't do chi sao.

Chi Dan Sao Agreed - you would then resort to other aspects of VT fighting and or take aspects (not in its entirety) of Chi Sao.

I.E partner disengages hand/s to "Go Ape", i would...
1 - Follow up the space if timing was there or
2 - Block the action and retaliate. (blocking is 'sticking' or the beginning of it depending on POV)

1- is a minidset and
2- is a technique
Both, elements introduced in Chi Sao.

For example, in chi sao both people are trying to stick, both are using WCK "shapes", WCK attacks, etc. And so you are developing habits based on getting very limited types of actions, actions that are unlike how an opponent will behave in fighting. In other words, your partner in chi sao is not genuinely resisting you (trying not to stick, for example).

At a Base level agreed, but you and i are not beginners T so why use it in an example ?

I totally agree if you View Chi Sao as Chi Dan Sao...actions repeated.
Fook Jum Da and Tan Da Bong, in that exact order.

This is similar to a situation like if a coach taught me to throw my hands.
He shows me a Lead Jab, right Cross and Hook.
But then i cant make these actions work in the same exact order.

I can however take one of them and with the right opening and timing make it work in sparring or i can change the order to suit the fight and make it work.

Not one person here, except you, is treating chi sao like its the only aspect to VT fighting and the only VT training that is taught to be applied in fighting.

Moreover that its taught as three connected movements that dont work if the order is changed or you use one aspect of it......

I see your POV and agree on a base level - but in actuallity i disagree with the contexts in which you try to discredit its value, because IMO those contexts are not how i was taught to apply it anyway.

Hey regardless - cheers for your input - we managed to stay civil :eek:
DREW

Knifefighter

04-22-2007, 07:21 PM

On this issue, it's wiser to just shut your mouth before it gets your a$$ into trouble it can't talk it's way out of. A keyboard can't save you either.

I'd say that sounds like making a big deal.

Don't mention my sifu again again on this forum., or talk about his skills (or even hint to them or him) or anything else. You have no idea what you are even talking about.

Seems like if he did have provable skills, it wouldn't be an issue.

Who my sifu is is not 'secret'. Why would you ask something so stupid? haha, yeah, sure, I walk around all the tim 'ssshhhh.. I have a sifu, but I can't tell you who he is...."

Since I asked you who it is and you sidestepped the question, this is exactly what you are doing.

My sifu has nothing to do with the conversation.

Since a lot of this thread is about WC teachers who are pretty clueless about fighting, I'd say he does have something to do with the conversation.

Ultimatewingchun

04-22-2007, 07:54 PM

God....does this 5hit ne:eek: :confused: :cool: ver end???

I think it's fair to say at this point (that at least for now) Dale is trying to be somewhat temporate in his remarks about wing chun - but Terence Niehoff is still getting away with murder, fellas...

Because people keep buying into HIS TOTAL LINE OF BULL5HIT.

JPinAZ...he's trollin' you, man. :rolleyes:

WE ALL KNOW BY NOW (with the possible exception of Dale/Knifefighter - but so what about that?)....we all know that TN is a complete phony.

And now it's your turn to know it - don't you think?

And he's never gonna shut up - because it takes REAL pride for a guy lost in the desert to finally admit that he's clueless about where he's goin'. But he has no real pride - and so he will maintain his illusions for as long as possible (like he's really Matt Thornton's MMA alter ego or somebody - since he doesn't really know how to use his wing chun)...and so the disparaging talk about wing chun and wing chun people - and the delusions of grandeur by association (when he's not retreating into his "I'm not really a good fighter myself" routine) :p - will all continue for now...

...or until somebody actually gets on a plane to Saint Louis. :eek:

And is there anybody here who actually cares enough about what this troll thinks that he'll go there and straighten him out?

HIT THE IGNORE BUTTON...do yourself a favor.:rolleyes: :cool:

JPinAZ

04-22-2007, 08:15 PM

Haha, KF, I don't know you, but it's funny how quick you always run to T's aid whenever it seems he's in trouble. Are you his big brother or are you guys a 'thing' or something? :D

"On this issue, it's wiser to just shut your mouth before it gets your a$$ into trouble it can't talk it's way out of. A keyboard can't save you either. "

I'd say that sounds like making a big deal.

I'm not making a 'big deal' 'about my teacher', I'm telling T not to TALK about my teacher - unless he knows that the F he's talking about. my 'big deal' is with the junk t talks.

"Don't mention my sifu again again on this forum., or talk about his skills (or even hint to them or him) or anything else. You have no idea what you are even talking about.

Seems like if he did have provable skills, it wouldn't be an issue.

Proven to who? T? You? and proven how? in a ring? And why should my teacher prove anything to anyone just because some nobody on a forum starts spouting off about crap he kows nothing about? I don't even see why my teacher is an issue.

"Who my sifu is is not 'secret'. Why would you ask something so stupid? haha, yeah, sure, I walk around all the tim 'ssshhhh.. I have a sifu, but I can't tell you who he is...."

Since I asked you who it is and you sidestepped the question, this is exactly what you are doing.

Ahh, I see. I didn't side-step anything. Who are you or T or anyone else that I should talk with you about my sifu or his skills on an internet foum? what is that going to prove? haha - are you really interested in that?

"My sifu has nothing to do with the conversation. "

Since a lot of this thread is about WC teachers who are pretty clueless about fighting, I'd say he does have something to do with the conversation..

I thought this thread about spitting on anti-theroetitian vigilantes....

Since you brought it up, care to 'name' a few of these WC teachers who are pretty clueless about fighting?

JPinAZ

04-22-2007, 08:25 PM

God....does this 5hit ne:eek: :confused: :cool: ver end???

I think it's fair to say at this point that Dale is at least trying to be somewhat discreet in his remarks about wing chun - but Terence Niehoff is still getting away with murder, fellas...

Because people keep buying into HIS TOTAL LINE OF BULL5HIT.

JPinAZ...he's trollin' you, man. :rolleyes:

WE ALL KNOW BY NOW (with the possible exception of Dale/Knifefighter - but so what about that?)....we all know that TN is a complete phony.

And now it's your turn to know it - don't you think?

And he's never gonna shut up - because it takes REAL pride for a guy lost in the desert to finally admit that he's clueless about where he's goin'. But he has no real pride - and so he will maintain his illusions for as long as possible (like he's really Matt Thornton's MMA alter ego or somebody - since he doesn't really know how to use his wing chun)...and so the disparaging talk about wing chun and wing chun people - and the delusions of grandeur by association - will all continue for now...

...or until somebody actually gets on a plane to Saint Louis. :eek:

And is there anybody here who actually cares enough about what this troll thinks that he'll go there and straighten him out?

HIT THE IGNORE BUTTON...do yourself a favor.:rolleyes: :cool:

Yeah, I hear ya man. Someday he'll have a close encounter with a bit of reality, then maybe his tune will change.

Sucks though that there can't be a semi-'normal' conversation here. (and a bit unfortunate I spent the energy in that direction)

I don't think anything T says here will cause anyone to go search him out, or accept his weak-a$$ 'invites' to LA either.
It's like a neigbors little dog yapping at the moon with nothing to say - do you run down the street to kick the dog in the head and shut it up, or just close the window.

I think I'll take your advice and simply close the window :)

Jonathan

anerlich

04-22-2007, 10:36 PM

I thought this thread about spitting on anti-theroetitian vigilantes....

Indeed it was, and the volume of spittle demanded has been proven to be oceanic.

jooerduo

04-22-2007, 10:49 PM

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 06:12 AM

Again, very tough talk once you have 'backup'. 'Come to LA, where I have a few guys that probably can fight to watch my back. I'll be much tougher there!'
You've offered this 'challenge' to more than one person on this forum. What a joke! Haha, it would be fun to meet you there and embarrass you in front of them. But we both know that's not going to happen - I'm not going to 'fly to LA' to meet you, you aren't going to stop by AZ on your way out, and you aren't even worth the trip. But you do talk big T!

I told you, if it is that important to you to see me, then you make the effort to visit me -- you can visit me here or in LA, which ever is closer for you. If it is not important to you, then don't. It's no BFD to me.

If you are here just to 'share your views', then why mention my sifu?

Don't mention my sifu again again on this forum., or talk about his skills (or even hint to them or him) or anything else. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Now who's the one 'making it personal'?
I haven't even mentioned your sifu, his skills or anything else.

Again, I don't care who your sifu is, I am only making a general comment -- which applies to anyone: if you believe your training is working, go visit a MMA gym and spar with some good people and see for yourself (you don't need to visit me to see). And even better, have some visit your school and have everyone mix it up with them including the instructors - that way you can get a true picture of where your instructors stand in terms of skill. How is suggesting this insulting?

And, who the hell are you to talk about my sifu anyway? (And this isnt' the first time) You are no body. You are a coward and a pu$$y. You are just trying to take the attention off of you by talking about my sifu. What the F do you know about his skills, who he rolled with or anything eles?

Dude, I'm only speaking generally -- I don't know or care who your sifu is. You might, however, want to think about why you have such a strong emotional attachment to your sifu (which, btw, is typical of the traditional mindset). Do you have such strong emotions about the golf or tennis pro that gives you lessons? ;) "How dare you insult my golf pro!" I wonder if I went over to a golf forum and suggested that people actually see their golf pro in action before listening to their advice would result in a personal attack ("coward and a pu$$y").

You want the discussion to be about me; I am saying the question isn't about me, it is about the efficacy of training methods, and that people shouldn't listen to me because I am not a proven authority (I'm not a great fighter or a great trainer). Authority in martial arts comes from accomplishments, from what you personally can do (and the level you can do it at). So I am saying listen to the great fighters or great trainers, they are the real authorities. Listen to the experts in sport science, as they ahve put these things to the test. When we listen to anyone we consider an authority, the advice they give can only be as good as it's source.

In any fighting method, a person's skill level (how good the source) will be directly related to the amount of time he has spent in quality sparring (fighting with really good people). This is the crux of it and what TMAists don't want to accept as true -- because if they do accept it, all their lovely, comforting fantasies, the idol worship, etc. will come crashing down. It crashes because TMAs don't spend much time at all in quality sparring; they spend the time doing everything but quality sparring. As I previously said, a typical blue belt in BJJ will spend something like 650 hours of quality sparring (with belts of all levels) -- that's two years, sparring three times a week for two solid hours each time. To get a blue belt. You can imagine what it takes to get a BB -- literally thousands of hours spent in quality sparring.

Telling me that "we spar" (so do shotokan karate people, BFD) or that "you don't know how we train", doesn't change any of what I just said above. If a person is spending that amount of time sparring, and doing it with good people, they are not adhering to the traditional training mindset. If they are training like the experts tell us and show us how to train to develop good fighting skills, they are not adhering to the traditional training mindset. If a person is adhering to that TMA mindset and believes it works well, this is easily shown: visit the MMA gym and see.

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 06:27 AM

tn wrote:
"When one side throws out the WCK rules, and behaves unlike a WCK person, you can't do chi sao. For example, in chi sao both people are trying to stick, both are using WCK "shapes", WCK attacks, etc. And so you are developing habits based on getting very limited types of actions, actions that are unlike how an opponent will behave in fighting. In other words, your partner in chi sao is not genuinely resisting you (trying not to stick, for example).
"

tn, you claim to study wing chun and you offer this example to prove your point.

I really feel sorry that you spent 20 years or how many years on wing chun training?. how sad.
this just proves that you haven't learnt much at all, or you were just trying to offer an unbalanced view like you normally do

I am not offering this to prove my point -- you can't prove these things verbally. I am suggesting that you go to a MMA gym, spar with some good people, and see for yourself. Videotape yourself doing chi sao and then sparring (with good nonWCK people) and see if they look anything alike. See if the feel anything alike. See if your chi sao habits are helping you.

What you are going to find is that when you fight at 100%, nothing resembling chi sao is going to happen. It is going to look and feel like MMA/NHB. Because this is what a fight when you are really pressed looks and feels like. It won't look like chi sao or point sparring or play sparring or whatever, it will look like MMA -- and that's because this is how humans fight, how we move at 100%. Most of what people do in chi sao is nonsense and will break down at that intensity level, and that's because they did not start with the fight, take things that work in fighting and then put them into drills, but they begin with theory (concepts) of how they want the fight to be, how they or their instructors believe (as nonfighters) things will work, and put those into drills. And they think that if it works in chi sao, it will work in fighting. That is patently false. And you can see it for yourself. If you do the work yourself. If you don't want to do that work, you'll never get it.

nschmelzer

04-23-2007, 06:44 AM

Do you have such strong emotions about the golf or tennis pro that gives you lessons? ;) "How dare you insult my golf pro!" I wonder if I went over to a golf forum and suggested that people actually see their golf pro in action before listening to their advice would result in a personal attack ("coward and a pu$$y").

TN - you put WC in the same category as tennis and golf. Many of us do not. Many of see view WC as a way of life. Sorry you have never experienced this level of depth in your training. No wonder you do not understand what everyone is trying to say. We all understand your point - from a sports perspective, the only measure of skill is results.

Authority in martial arts comes from accomplishments, from what you personally can do (and the level you can do it at). So I am saying listen to the great fighters or great trainers, they are the real authorities. Listen to the experts in sport science, as they ahve put these things to the test. When we listen to anyone we consider an authority, the advice they give can only be as good as it's source.

TN - under your definition of martial arts, the weak or disabled can not be martial artists - only the "great fighters" (presumably the great sports fighters). Many of us do share this narrow view of the martial arts.

In any fighting method, a person's skill level (how good the source) will be directly related to the amount of time he has spent in quality sparring (fighting with really good people). This is the crux of it and what TMAists don't want to accept as true -- because if they do accept it, all their lovely, comforting fantasies, the idol worship, etc. will come crashing down.

TN - I think most of us accept what you are saying as true. Realistic training can improve combat skill. But it can also train bad habits. The WC people I know train in fighting in all ranges - and at (almost) full contact (with pads). So who are you talking about?

If a person is spending that amount of time sparring, and doing it with good people, they are not adhering to the traditional training mindset. If they are training like the experts tell us and show us how to train to develop good fighting skills, they are not adhering to the traditional training mindset.

TN - where did you get your understanding of traditional training mindset? Your opinion is not consistent with my experience. What experts do you listen to? Please tell us - so we can correct our errant ways.

gabe

04-23-2007, 07:14 AM

TN - where did you get your understanding of traditional training mindset? Your opinion is not consistent with my experience. What experts do you listen to? Please tell us - so we can correct our errant ways.[/QUOTE]

This is what I've been asking. Does Robert Chu do forms, chi sao, spar full resistance with TN or anyone else, grapple etc? Is he considered an "expert" according to your standards, TN?

Knifefighter

04-23-2007, 07:23 AM

Realistic training can improve combat skill. But it can also train bad habits.

Realistic training can't help but train the proper habits for fighting.

What trains bad habits are unrealistic drills and exercises.

TN - under your definition of martial arts, the weak or disabled can not be martial artists - only the "great fighters" (presumably the great sports fighters). Many of us do share this narrow view of the martial arts.

Sure they can, although they will never develop the same abilities as a world class athlete... and it is even more important for them to train in as realistic manner as posssible, since they cannot make up for bad training with natural physical attributes.

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 07:52 AM

TN - you put WC in the same category as tennis and golf. Many of us do not. Many of see view WC as a way of life. Sorry you have never experienced this level of depth in your training. No wonder you do not understand what everyone is trying to say. We all understand your point - from a sports perspective, the only measure of skill is results.

For some people golf is a way of life too. Does having something as a "way of life" preclude concerning how to develop skill at it?

Personally, I think this "way of life" stuff is BS, new-agey, stuff marketed to a certain segment of people who want that sort of thing. You also see these same people in aikido, tai ji, etc.

TN - under your definition of martial arts, the weak or disabled can not be martial artists - only the "great fighters" (presumably the great sports fighters). Many of us do share this narrow view of the martial arts.

Have you not been reading what I have been saying?

Go watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5R75GGUovg There's a real fecking MAist for you.

TN - I think most of us accept what you are saying as true. Realistic training can improve combat skill. But it can also train bad habits. The WC people I know train in fighting in all ranges - and at (almost) full contact (with pads). So who are you talking about?

You can't accept what I am saying, because you don't understand what I am saying. Anything poorly done will develop poor habits. But how in the hell can you tell what is or is not poorly done if you are not really doing it? I am not talking about just doing some full-contact sparring. Sure, almost everyone does some of that. This is the traditional mindset talking. I am talking about realizing that skill only comes from doing the activity, from quality sparring. That is the "lesson" or moral of the modern training methods. So your skill will be directly determined by the amount of quality sparring you do. How much quality sparring have you done? Because that is the amount of WCK you have done. That view is in stark contrast to the traditional mindset. (To be a blue belt in BJJ requires typically around 650 hours of quality sparring, *doing* BJJ for 650 hours.)

TN - where did you get your understanding of traditional training mindset? Your opinion is not consistent with my experience. What experts do you listen to? Please tell us - so we can correct our errant ways.

I see the traditional mindset all around me; it pervades WCK and this forum. You can see it on any TMA forum or school. It is not consistent with your experience because you don't even see what I am talking about.

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 08:11 AM

This is what I've been asking. Does Robert Chu do forms, chi sao, spar full resistance with TN or anyone else, grapple etc? Is he considered an "expert" according to your standards, TN?

Robert sits on the fence between traditional and modern; he "teaches" traditionally (in large part) but "trains" more modernly (for example, I think he is presently writing an article on kettlebell training for WCK).

My views are my own, not Robert's (as I have said many, many times). His "motto", and the most important thing (though I got some other good stuff too) I got from him IMO, was "let application be your sifu." In other words, let whatever you do be justified by results. Not to accept tradition or even his teachings as gospel or "correct", but to do my own work, to find out for myself. Interestingly, this is what all modern fighters do. Robert's serious students, like Alan and Dave and some others, have likewise taken that to heart. They all routinely get out and mix it up with good fighters. We have all found our own way and our own WCK, and we all share some views and not others. Fighting and training to fight is individual.

gabe

04-23-2007, 09:15 AM

Robert sits on the fence between traditional and modern; he "teaches" traditionally (in large part) but "trains" more modernly (for example, I think he is presently writing an article on kettlebell training for WCK).

My views are my own, not Robert's (as I have said many, many times). His "motto", and the most important thing (though I got some other good stuff too) I got from him IMO, was "let application be your sifu." In other words, let whatever you do be justified by results. Not to accept tradition or even his teachings as gospel or "correct", but to do my own work, to find out for myself. Interestingly, this is what all modern fighters do. Robert's serious students, like Alan and Dave and some others, have likewise taken that to heart. They all routinely get out and mix it up with good fighters. We have all found our own way and our own WCK, and we all share some views and not others. Fighting and training to fight is individual.

From what I see, he is very traditional. Training with kettlebells doesn't change that imo. There is also nothing "modern" about the application driven paradigm even though your strawman doesn't follow it.

Interesting thing is that you have labeled entire sections of his teachings and curriculum as useless- his forms and chi sao training most notably, let alone his weapons. You also call into question his legitimacy to teach if he doesn't routinely mix it up with good fighters, I'm assuming with full resistance. Good fighters including local MMAists and BJJers, I'm guessing he doesn't spar much with them? You've called into question a lot of people's reasons for following a so called traditional sifu and whether or not sifu's are fit to teach. Your position is that if people don't train the way you or Alan do, they are theoretical nonfighters. Problem is, doesn't sound like Robert trains the way you do either.

And the weird thing is, I still hear he is a fantastic fighter. Even with all the useless training he does and teaches.

Knifefighter

04-23-2007, 09:31 AM

Robert sits on the fence between traditional and modern; he "teaches" traditionally (in large part) but "trains" more modernly (for example, I think he is presently writing an article on kettlebell training for WCK).

Do you still train with him? If so, how do you reconcile this traditional training approach into your training?

If not, where do you do your standup training and where do you train BJJ/groundwork?

Knifefighter

04-23-2007, 09:33 AM

And the weird thing is, I still hear he is a fantastic fighter.

Where does he fight?

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 11:55 AM

From what I see, he is very traditional. Training with kettlebells doesn't change that imo. There is also nothing "modern" about the application driven paradigm even though your strawman doesn't follow it.

From what you see? Interesting. I am basing my views on my expereince.

As I said, Robert "teaches" in a more or less traditonal manner. That is teaching. That his motto is "let application be youf sifu" -- if you understand what that means and entails -- reveals how "modern" his view of training is.

However, the issue isn't how right or wrong Robert is -- these things do not depend on what he does or does not do.

Interesting thing is that you have labeled entire sections of his teachings and curriculum as useless- his forms and chi sao training most notably, let alone his weapons.

As I said -- it really would help if you read my posts -- these can be used to teach, and chi sao is a teaching platform. Personally, I don't think those things are necessary and in some cases, liked linked sets, probably do more harm than good. At best, those things are do get the trainee to a certain point -- after that point, they become more of a burden than a help.

You also call into question his legitimacy to teach if he doesn't routinely mix it up with good fighters, I'm assuming with full resistance. Good fighters including local MMAists and BJJers, I'm guessing he doesn't spar much with them? You've called into question a lot of people's reasons for following a so called traditional sifu and whether or not sifu's are fit to teach. Your position is that if people don't train the way you or Alan do, they are theoretical nonfighters. Problem is, doesn't sound like Robert trains the way you do either.

It doesn't matter what our sifu does -- it matters what we do. The skill comes from the doing. I don't get skill from by BJJ or my WCK instructor, I get it from rolling or sparring with good people. When you do that, application becomes your sifu. At best, all that an instructor can give you is the fundamentals and provide an environment for you to play the game (and so develop). At worst, it is blind leading the blind. I don't do something because Robert told me to (or my BJJ instructor told me to); I do it because I actually do it against good people and it works for me. So my WCK does not depend on Robert, it depends on me and the work I do (the gung fu). This is the same for anyone. That's all any of us have.

FWIW, I am not calling into question anyone's ablility to teach. Look -- if you go to a traditional japanese jiujitsu teacher, they can teach you the techniques of jiujitsu (more or less the same things judo has). After all, judo and BJJ were founded on those methods. Right? Yet, those guys can't compete with the good judo or BJJ guys; they don't have that level of skill. Why? Because of how they train. Could you learn JJ from these guys? Sure. Would that make you any good? No. How do you get good? By rolling against good people. Can those TJJ guys help you much with that? No. Why not? Because they've never done it themselves.

And the weird thing is, I still hear he is a fantastic fighter. Even with all the useless training he does and teaches.

I don't consider anyone in WCK a "fantastic fighter", and certainly no one has stepped forward to prove that they are. My view is that instead of being concerned with what Robert can or cannot do, or how his training has or has not worked, you should see for yourself whether these things, like forms, produces results. Of course, you can only do that by looking to results, and that means sparring with quality people. And comparing your results with those who ahven't trained that way.

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 12:02 PM

Do you still train with him? If so, how do you reconcile this traditional training approach into your training?

If not, where do you do your standup training and where do you train BJJ/groundwork?

As I said, Robert teaches using basically the traditional approach, his motto of "let application be your sifu" was the most important thing he communicated to me (there were a couple of other things too, btw). I haven't trained personally with Robert in a few years (as I got what I needed from him). In my view, WCK instructors should be more like personal trainers. I've been spending my time working with my guys on making my WCK functional, and at Vaghi's (BJJ) and also at CMAA and Finney's gym (which both train MMAs).

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 12:17 PM

Let me use a technical example --

How many have seen WCK instructors (or do this themselves) that teach to use the "gate theory" to "block and punch simultaneously" (their interpretation of lien siu die da) an attack on the outside with a tan da or gaun da? Plenty. Yet, when you do it, in sparring at good intensity, you'll find that it is a low percentage/high risk thing to do. Not saying that you won't be able to sometimes pull it off (particularly against poor people), but that as the intensity and/or skill level of your opponent goes up, your ability to do it reliably will go way down, and that if you miss (or hit with no real effect) you will pay a heavy price.

It's the same with the "concept" of blocking/stopping a kick with a kick -- sounds great, and lots of WCK people teach it, practice it, etc. Try doing it in sparring (not friendly play) against good people and see -- another low percentage, high risk action.

How can we tell for ourselves whether something is high or low percentage or high or low risk? By doing it. That's the only way to tell. Do you want to train things that are high risk and low percentage? Or would you rather train things that are high percentage, low risk? Again, the only way to know is by doing them. If your instructor is doing them, then he can share his experience with you. If not, you have to find these things out for yourself. But if your instructor doesn't have that experience himself, he cannot possibly tell you.

gabe

04-23-2007, 12:51 PM

From what you see? Interesting. I am basing my views on my expereince.

---I am basing my views on what he writes. Does he or does he not teach forms and chi sao? The answer is yes he does.

As I said, Robert "teaches" in a more or less traditonal manner. That is teaching. That his motto is "let application be youf sifu" -- if you understand what that means and entails -- reveals how "modern" his view of training is.

---Who cares what his motto is, what his "theory" is? Isn't that what you always say? It's what he does, how he trains that matters. Geez, read your own posts.

However, the issue isn't how right or wrong Robert is -- these things do not depend on what he does or does not do.

---Sure it is. You've been so hard at work defining the stereotypical TMA sifu who doesn't spar regularly if at all, doesn't grapple with grapplers as in your every example, uses useless traditional tools to teach such as chi sao and forms. You laid it out, does your old sifu fall into this category?

As I said -- it really would help if you read my posts -- these can be used to teach, and chi sao is a teaching platform. Personally, I don't think those things are necessary and in some cases, liked linked sets, probably do more harm than good. At best, those things are do get the trainee to a certain point -- after that point, they become more of a burden than a help.

--- yeah, yeah yeah...enough already.

It doesn't matter what our sifu does -- it matters what we do. The skill comes from the doing. I don't get skill from by BJJ or my WCK instructor, I get it from rolling or sparring with good people. When you do that, application becomes your sifu. At best, all that an instructor can give you is the fundamentals and provide an environment for you to play the game (and so develop). At worst, it is blind leading the blind. I don't do something because Robert told me to (or my BJJ instructor told me to); I do it because I actually do it against good people and it works for me. So my WCK does not depend on Robert, it depends on me and the work I do (the gung fu). This is the same for anyone. That's all any of us have.

---I didn't ask you where your wing chun comes from or whether or not you depend on Robert for it. Save the silly lecture of how we are responsible for our own development. I'm not a 5 year old.

FWIW, I am not calling into question anyone's ablility to teach. Look -- if you go to a traditional japanese jiujitsu teacher, they can teach you the techniques of jiujitsu (more or less the same things judo has). After all, judo and BJJ were founded on those methods. Right? Yet, those guys can't compete with the good judo or BJJ guys; they don't have that level of skill. Why? Because of how they train. Could you learn JJ from these guys? Sure. Would that make you any good? No. How do you get good? By rolling against good people. Can those TJJ guys help you much with that? No. Why not? Because they've never done it themselves.

----Sure you are. Why do you think you are so annoying? If people don't compete with good fighters, they can't be very good, right. You've said that over and over and over and over. Does Robert compete regularly? If not, can you learn from him? Sure you can! Would that make you any good? I guess not.:D Why not? Because he's never done it himself? (See, I read your posts)

I don't consider anyone in WCK a "fantastic fighter", and certainly no one has stepped forward to prove that they are. My view is that instead of being concerned with what Robert can or cannot do, or how his training has or has not worked, you should see for yourself whether these things, like forms, produces results. Of course, you can only do that by looking to results, and that means sparring with quality people. And comparing your results with those who ahven't trained that way.

----So you don't consider Robert (or Alan) a fantastic fighter? Ok then. How do your results compare to Robert's who has not trained your way? Are your abilities that much higher than his? They should be based on on 10,000 posts. Use your own analysis, bud.

Why not talk about Robert? You can't set out this premise, hammer everyone with it and then refuse to include certain people or yourself into the analysis. How hippocritical. I'm not getting personal or emotional about this...go ahead. Apply your theories. You've been hammering the WC world, Robert is a part of it.

[Come on, KF. Go get him! Here's your chance to go after another TMA sifu!]

Knifefighter

04-23-2007, 02:00 PM

Why not talk about Robert? You can't set out this premise, hammer everyone with it and then refuse to include certain people or yourself into the analysis. How hippocritical. I'm not getting personal or emotional about this...go ahead. Apply your theories. You've been hammering the WC world, Robert is a part of it.

[Come on, KF. Go get him! Here's your chance to go after another TMA sifu!]

Gabe-

I guess you are not very good at reading between the lines. In a diplomatic way, T has pretty much said that his previous instructor is one of those traditional sifus who doesn't have a lot of fight experience and that his students who can fight have had to venture out on their own to become proficient fighters.

T has stated there are just a few things that he has taken from his teachings. Again, reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure that he is saying most of his abilities come from his sparring and what he has picked up from his BJJ and MMA coaches.

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 02:02 PM

---Who cares what his motto is, what his "theory" is? Isn't that what you always say? It's what he does, how he trains that matters. Geez, read your own posts.

You do realize that teaching is one thing and training to be a fighter (to make your WCK work) another, don't you? The motto I am referring to is how Robert tells us to approach our -- the individuals' -- training. In other words, to let our training be justified by our own results. How Robert trains does not justify my results.

---Sure it is. You've been so hard at work defining the stereotypical TMA sifu who doesn't spar regularly if at all, doesn't grapple with grapplers as in your every example, uses useless traditional tools to teach such as chi sao and forms. You laid it out, does your old sifu fall into this category?

And as I said, he sits on the fence -- he teaches traditionally, but stresses that we train more modernly. I think there are a few better-known WCK instructors that do likewise. As I previously said, this is a good first step but I think the next step is warranted.

---I didn't ask you where your wing chun comes from or whether or not you depend on Robert for it. Save the silly lecture of how we are responsible for our own development. I'm not a 5 year old.

If you understood what I was saying, then you wouldn't care what Robert did or didn't do. Robert's views are not my views. If you want to know his views, contact him. He'll tell you why he teaches the way he does. It's not for me to speak for him. I'm saying my view is that you can teach WCK using the forms and chi sao if you like - it does preserves some of the tradition -- but I don't think it is the most effective or efficient way. And certainly the forms and drills, inclduing chi sao, is not application.

----Sure you are. Why do you think you are so annoying? If people don't compete with good fighters, they can't be very good, right. You've said that over and over and over and over. Does Robert compete regularly? If not, can you learn from him? Sure you can! Would that make you any good? I guess not.:D Why not? Because he's never done it himself? (See, I read your posts)

Try to follow me: being able to teach something (on a basic level) is different than having skill doing it. For example, someone can teach you the rudiments of boxing and not be able to box particularly well themselves. To develop good boxing skill - whoever you are -- and earn the attendant knowledge and understanding of boxing, comes from quality sparring.

A person can only share what they can do, at the level they can do it. After that, it is all theory. Robert, if you ever bother to meet or train with him, will tell you that. This is why he tells us, his students, to "let application be our sifu" -- to not be bound to him or his views, to take the rudiments/fundamentals of the game and get out and do the work, play the game, etc.

----So you don't consider Robert (or Alan) a fantastic fighter? Ok then. How do your results compare to Robert's who has not trained your way? Are your abilities that much higher than his? They should be based on on 10,000 posts. Use your own analysis, bud.

It's this simple, how to both develop solid fighting skills and even attain high levels of fighting skill, levels not yet achieved in the WCK or TMA community, are clear -- from both the people who have achieved that level and from the sport scientists that study how to achieve those levels. We can either learn from their example, or hide our head in the sand. The people in WCK who have gotten solid results are getting them because they are doing realistic training following the modern training methods. Because those methods work. No one that has just followed the traditional model of training has gotten those results. This applies to everyone.

Why not talk about Robert? You can't set out this premise, hammer everyone with it and then refuse to include certain people or yourself into the analysis. How hippocritical. I'm not getting personal or emotional about this...go ahead. Apply your theories. You've been hammering the WC world, Robert is a part of it.

[Come on, KF. Go get him! Here's your chance to go after another TMA sifu!]

How clear can I make it: fighting skill, regardless of your martial art, is directly related to the amount of quality time you've put into sparring. This applies to everyone. And a person's understanding and knowledge is at his level of skill. That applies to everyone. A person can teach the basics, the rudiments of a martial art without being particularly skilled. But beyond that level, to give knowledgeable instruction, they need to be knowledgeable -- hence skilled. Which comes from the quality sparring. That applies to everyone. Everyone.

gabe

04-23-2007, 02:11 PM

Gabe-

I guess you are not very good at reading between the lines. In a diplomatic way, T has pretty much said that his previous instructor is one of those traditional sifus who doesn't have a lot of fight experience and that his students who can fight have had to venture out on their own to become proficient fighters.

T has stated there are just a few things that he has taken from his teachings. Again, reading between the lines, I'm pretty sure that he is saying most of his abilities come from his sparring and what he has picked up from his BJJ and MMA coaches.

There's no need to read between the lines. The lines are quite clear.

Knifefighter

04-23-2007, 02:17 PM

There's no need to read between the lines. The lines are quite clear.

Then why do you keep asking him to spell it out for you?

gabe

04-23-2007, 02:33 PM

You do realize that teaching is one thing and training to be a fighter (to make your WCK work) another, don't you? The motto I am referring to is how Robert tells us to approach our -- the individuals' -- training. In other words, to let our training be justified by our own results. How Robert trains does not justify my results.

And as I said, he sits on the fence -- he teaches traditionally, but stresses that we train more modernly. I think there are a few better-known WCK instructors that do likewise. As I previously said, this is a good first step but I think the next step is warranted.

If you understood what I was saying, then you wouldn't care what Robert did or didn't do. Robert's views are not my views. If you want to know his views, contact him. He'll tell you why he teaches the way he does. It's not for me to speak for him. I'm saying my view is that you can teach WCK using the forms and chi sao if you like - it does preserves some of the tradition -- but I don't think it is the most effective or efficient way. And certainly the forms and drills, inclduing chi sao, is not application.

Try to follow me: being able to teach something (on a basic level) is different than having skill doing it. For example, someone can teach you the rudiments of boxing and not be able to box particularly well themselves. To develop good boxing skill - whoever you are -- and earn the attendant knowledge and understanding of boxing, comes from quality sparring.

A person can only share what they can do, at the level they can do it. After that, it is all theory. Robert, if you ever bother to meet or train with him, will tell you that. This is why he tells us, his students, to "let application be our sifu" -- to not be bound to him or his views, to take the rudiments/fundamentals of the game and get out and do the work, play the game, etc.

It's this simple, how to both develop solid fighting skills and even attain high levels of fighting skill, levels not yet achieved in the WCK or TMA community, are clear -- from both the people who have achieved that level and from the sport scientists that study how to achieve those levels. We can either learn from their example, or hide our head in the sand. The people in WCK who have gotten solid results are getting them because they are doing realistic training following the modern training methods. Because those methods work. No one that has just followed the traditional model of training has gotten those results. This applies to everyone.

How clear can I make it: fighting skill, regardless of your martial art, is directly related to the amount of quality time you've put into sparring. This applies to everyone. And a person's understanding and knowledge is at his level of skill. That applies to everyone. A person can teach the basics, the rudiments of a martial art without being particularly skilled. But beyond that level, to give knowledgeable instruction, they need to be knowledgeable -- hence skilled. Which comes from the quality sparring. That applies to everyone. Everyone.

Geez, there you go again. Dodgeball. You talk about your theories but refuse to apply it to real world examples like your sifu.

Who cares where you got your skills (listening KF?)? I'm talking about your premise, which I don't need you to keep repeating, and how it applies to a real world example, your sifu. Based on what you've stated, he can't fight and has no business teaching. So when he gets together with Alan, do they just talk about theories? Is it all BS because Robert doesn't train the way a real fighter as you define it does?

Don't know. Maybe he doesn't train the way you do, but can actually fight. Maybe that is why Alan goes to him? Maybe there are others like Robert and others like Alan who choose teachers like Robert that don't fit your little paradigm. They don't train the way you do (not Alan) but can actually fight? But you will never meet any of them because you refuse to go out there even when invited. You won't even stand by your theories or your premise. Robert Chu doesn't have a MMA win loss record. Why does Alan train with him? You like to bring him up, so don't give me the old 'he can speak for himself.' Why do others here train with Gary Lam? He doesn't fit your standards either. He can't fight? His students are idiots for following him? Alan, too? Are they following these sifu's for lineage reasons or tradition or uniforms- what tma strawman ideal will you choose from?

All you are going to do is just dodge and repeat...I bore easily.

Ernie

04-23-2007, 02:49 PM

[QUOTE=gabe;f.' Why do others here train with Gary Lam? He doesn't fit your standards either. He can't fight? His students are idiots for following him
All you are going to do is just dodge and repeat...I bore easily.[/QUOTE]

Wow you cats sure know how to beat a whole heard of dead horses ,,,,, see not much has changed around here ,,
As for Gary well he doesn't fit that criteria since he fought a few tournaments and won in HK and then trained fighters to fight in Thai land and they got killed , so he did the unspeakable and went to train with the Thai's for about a year to research there training methods[ OMG sparring and conditioning] and came home to revamp his fighters and his school is is still producing great Thai guys in HK to this day , so he fought as a VT man and did well , then did a year of ring time with the Thais in Thailand and then became a successful coach ,,,, so all bases covered

now this was in the 80-90's so things have changed and evolved and as he says , he did his time and modernized it for his era it is now up to his students to handle there time .

back to the regularly scheduled recording of ,,''A broken record spins round and round ''

gabe

04-23-2007, 03:05 PM

Wow you cats sure know how to beat a whole heard of dead horses ,,,,, see not much has changed around here ,,
As for Gary well he doesn't fit that criteria since he fought a few tournaments and won in HK and then trained fighters to fight in Thai land and they got killed , so he did the unspeakable and went to train with the Thai's for about a year to research there training methods[ OMG sparring and conditioning] and came home to revamp his fighters and his school is is still producing great Thai guys in HK to this day , so he fought as a VT man and did well , then did a year of ring time with the Thais in Thailand and then became a successful coach ,,,, so all bases covered

now this was in the 80-90's so things have changed and evolved and as he says , he did his time and modernized it for his era it is now up to his students to handle there time .

back to the regularly scheduled recording of ,,''A broken record spins round and round ''

Yeah, but he doesn't train BJJ!

And he does chi sao. Forms, too?

Sorry, don't have any more to add. Carry on...
TN, you can go back to lecturing...had you kept it to one post, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. I hope you don't ever had to eat your own words...I have certainly. If you expose yourself to different people, chances are you will be surprised and then your theories go out the window.

Ernie

04-23-2007, 03:17 PM

well lets say forms are not Gary's strong points hahaha

as for chi sau he just thinks it's a game

he fully understands the difference between talking , doing , playing , training and backing up what you say when it comes to fighting ;)

most people dont want to fight and train that way but there ego's wont let them admit it ,,,,

as for BJJ ,,[ i have seen him go to the ground and pull off a nice ankle lock :D ] Gary has often said if he was a young man he would love to learn new things and he still has a passion for knife fighting [ small blade ]

too each there own ,,,,, do what ever makes you happy ,,, life is to short for internet BS

t_niehoff

04-23-2007, 04:43 PM

Geez, there you go again. Dodgeball. You talk about your theories but refuse to apply it to real world examples like your sifu.

No theories. I'm saying this is how good fighters and good trainers approach things. It applies to everyone.

Who cares where you got your skills (listening KF?)? I'm talking about your premise, which I don't need you to keep repeating, and how it applies to a real world example, your sifu. Based on what you've stated, he can't fight and has no business teaching. So when he gets together with Alan, do they just talk about theories? Is it all BS because Robert doesn't train the way a real fighter as you define it does?

You don't *know* how Robert trains or what he does. I said he teaches WCK using the classical forms and drills. This is for teaching purposes, not developing fighting skill. While he may teach certain skills, developing them into fighting takes fighting. Robert is clear about that too -- hence "let application be your sifu." This is why his students, like me, Dave, and Alan all go out and train with good MMA fighters; that is the training.

Don't know. Maybe he doesn't train the way you do, but can actually fight. Maybe that is why Alan goes to him? Maybe there are others like Robert and others like Alan who choose teachers like Robert that don't fit your little paradigm. They don't train the way you do (not Alan) but can actually fight? But you will never meet any of them because you refuse to go out there even when invited.

There is no "other" paradigm except in fantasy. Sport and motor skill science has studied and tells us how human being learn and develop motor skills. And, the accomplishments of fighters that train that way (and the lack of accomplishments of those who don't) only validate that. If someone that has something to offer invites me, I'll gladly meet them (I've gone out of my way to train with Bas, Karo, Royler, etc.; this summer I hope to train with Dennis Hall at his camp). So far, I've never turned down anyone or anything I thought worthwhile. ;) But I ahve turned down some things that were a waste of time.

You won't even stand by your theories or your premise. Robert Chu doesn't have a MMA win loss record. Why does Alan train with him? You like to bring him up, so don't give me the old 'he can speak for himself.' Why do others here train with Gary Lam? He doesn't fit your standards either. He can't fight? His students are idiots for following him? Alan, too? Are they following these sifu's for lineage reasons or tradition or uniforms- what tma strawman ideal will you choose from?

All you are going to do is just dodge and repeat...I bore easily.

As I said, you don't know how Robert trains so stop trying to suggest you do. Alan trains with Robert for the same reasons I did, I suppose, to learn WCK. Robert is IMO an excellent teacher and he has the fundamentals a person needs to make their WCK functional (which a great many lack IME). Learning WCK will not make you able to use it, however; fighting with it will make you able to use it. The skill comes from the sparring with quality people. (And from critical analysis of those results). That's why Alan also goes and trains/spars with the Shark Tank.

Ultimatewingchun

04-23-2007, 08:14 PM

"Geez, there you go again. Dodgeball. You talk about your theories but refuse to apply it to real world examples like your sifu.

Who cares where you got your skills (listening KF?)? I'm talking about your premise, which I don't need you to keep repeating, and how it applies to a real world example, your sifu. Based on what you've stated, he can't fight and has no business teaching. So when he gets together with Alan, do they just talk about theories? Is it all BS because Robert doesn't train the way a real fighter as you define it does?

Don't know. Maybe he doesn't train the way you do, but can actually fight. Maybe that is why Alan goes to him? Maybe there are others like Robert and others like Alan who choose teachers like Robert that don't fit your little paradigm. They don't train the way you do (not Alan) but can actually fight? But you will never meet any of them because you refuse to go out there even when invited. You won't even stand by your theories or your premise. Robert Chu doesn't have a MMA win loss record. Why does Alan train with him? You like to bring him up, so don't give me the old 'he can speak for himself.' (gabe)

***I KEEP TELLING everybody that TN is a big time BULL5HIT ARTIST.

How come nobody believes me when I say it??? :confused:

Why do they have to go and find out for themselves??? :eek:

This is not some just some "theory" of mine, ya know!!! :rolleyes:

No....you guys have to go and do the verbal sparring for yourselves before reaching any conclusions, don't ya??? :mad:

No pre-set drills or verbal chi sao confined to certain rules for you guys, huh??? :cool:

Edmund

04-24-2007, 01:33 AM

Let me use a technical example --
...
...
It's the same with the "concept" of blocking/stopping a kick with a kick -- sounds great, and lots of WCK people teach it, practice it, etc. Try doing it in sparring (not friendly play) against good people and see -- another low percentage, high risk action.

Gah. Seems like you got the concept misunderstood. The concept is that the leg defends the opponent's leg. i.e. Don't reach down and to grab their low kick in case you get punched in the face. Instead put your shin up to protect your legs or push them away with a front kick to the stomach or the lead thigh. Both incredibly common techniques in MT.

Just going off the literal wording of a concept is not the same as being taught the technique. Sheesh.

How can we tell for ourselves whether something is high or low percentage or high or low risk? By doing it.

Hmm. That sort of assumes that you *can* do it.

Terence hearing about some "concept" and then trying it out and getting his butt handed to him is not a good measure.

t_niehoff

04-24-2007, 05:03 AM

Gah. Seems like you got the concept misunderstood. The concept is that the leg defends the opponent's leg. i.e. Don't reach down and to grab their low kick in case you get punched in the face. Instead put your shin up to protect your legs or push them away with a front kick to the stomach or the lead thigh. Both incredibly common techniques in MT.

Just going off the literal wording of a concept is not the same as being taught the technique. Sheesh.

So I just misunderstood the "concept"? Ah, I see. Is the concept called leg defends leg? Or in your concept game do you call things by terms/phrases that are intentionally inaccurate (since I don't play the concept game you'll need to tell me)? Lifting the leg is not kicking, and as I said many people in WCK teach to (try to) kick the incoming kick. Are you saying that you haven't seen this? Did they just get the concept wrong too? That might illustrate one of the (many) problems with having a conceptual approach: interpretation. How does a person know if their "interpretation" of the concept is "correct"? It would seem to me that the answer is results.

You are correct that MT uses the "push kick" and lifts the lead leg. And as anyone can see, that works. And there seems to be very little possiblity of any "misinterpretation" of how they deal with kicks since MT isn't a "conceptual martial art."

Hmm. That sort of assumes that you *can* do it.

Terence hearing about some "concept" and then trying it out and getting his butt handed to him is not a good measure.

Like anything else, you can get out and try to do it and see -- or you can learn from others' experience trying to do those things -- about whether something is high/low percentage or high/low risk. Isn't that what all combative athletes do?

t_niehoff

04-24-2007, 05:16 AM

Victor, what happened to me being on your ignore list? ;) Am I now on your stalking list?

I know, I know, I know . . . don't listen to anything I have to say . . . after all, I think the masters and grandmasters of WCK have very little real fighting skill, and so can't really know beyond a superficial level what they are talking about . . . and we know that some had fights as teenagers against other teenagers and were fighting giants as long as they wore the proper footwear. ;)

Edmund

04-24-2007, 06:56 AM

So I just misunderstood the "concept"? Ah, I see. Is the concept called leg defends leg? Or in your concept game do you call things by terms/phrases that are intentionally inaccurate (since I don't play the concept game you'll need to tell me)? Lifting the leg is not kicking, and as I said many people in WCK teach to (try to) kick the incoming kick. Are you saying that you haven't seen this? Did they just get the concept wrong too? That might illustrate one of the (many) problems with having a conceptual approach: interpretation. How does a person know if their "interpretation" of the concept is "correct"? It would seem to me that the answer is results.

Legs cancel legs.
You're welcome to kick the incoming kick as well. It doesn't violate the idea however the whole point of having a concept rather than "this defends that" is so you have a variety of related techniques that can be used and all make a decent amount of sense. IMO it's not as easy to kick a kick. I personally haven't seen a lot of people kicking an incoming kick deliberately however kicks do clash sometimes especially when both are going for the same sort of kick.

Results certainly are useful but everyone tends to point to the results they want to see.

I think the real answer is that you don't just learn concepts in WC. Any idiot can repeat stupid lines. A teacher teaches you how to do WC and how to apply the concepts in a useful way. i.e. they train you to get the results. How can you get results just from learning some sayings? It's an oversimplistic argument.

It seems like you created a strawman to attack so it would appear like you had the better answer than "all the WC idiots" (despite not actually giving one).

You know I vaguely recall talking about defending the leg kick on the WCML ages ago. And I also recall giving the same suggestion - block it with your shin, front kick or move your leg. They're your best options.

A few people pooh-poohed the idea (you were one of them perhaps. This was back when you thought sparring was bad). But at least I got it out there.

You are correct that MT uses the "push kick" and lifts the lead leg. And as anyone can see, that works. And there seems to be very little possiblity of any "misinterpretation" of how they deal with kicks since MT isn't a "conceptual martial art."

Actually it has a fair few concepts as well.

stricker

04-24-2007, 04:11 PM

this forum has got to the stage of being ****ing rediculous. are most of you teenagers or something?? is this how real martial artists should behave? the name-calling etc is pathetic, and its on a few threads now. the debate is not really debate, its restating positions, no ones shifting their opinion taking on new views etc no ones learning anything.

knifefighter ignores positive bits about wing chun when it suits him, and your always on the negative, get a life dude. terence, you know man i must thank you for some of your posts youve got a strong position and i think your 90% right. you could write an article, your wing chun manifesto, then we could move on from the broken record... ultimatewingchun, no disrespect meant, but the name calling etc just makes you look bad man, especially if all this stuff about only rolling with your students etc is true...

i think a few people need to do a little introspection and think about where your going with this as your just embarrasing yourselves.

this place has the energy of a venomous pit at the moment. and i dont mean that in a good way.

sihing

04-24-2007, 04:35 PM

Wayfaring

04-24-2007, 04:35 PM

To tread among vipers, one's footing must be sure.

anerlich

04-24-2007, 05:55 PM

don't listen to anything I have to say

You have no idea how many of us wish that were possible, other than by leaving the forum.

Victor, what happened to me being on your ignore list? Am I now on your stalking list?

It's because you've so saturated the forum with your incessant, repetitive, derivative nd unsolicited advice that the sheer volume of hot air and bluster has caused leaks through to the other side of the "ignore" barrier.

this place has the energy of a venomous pit at the moment. and i dont mean that in a good way.

I think it has more the energy of a psych ward, where there's one manic patient on crystal meth who can't/won't stop shouting the same message at the top of his voice. Tedious more than venomous.

unkokusai

04-24-2007, 10:04 PM