Cro Crop saved by Wing Chun?

[hunt1]

For those that watched the recent UFC and saw Cro Crop get knocked out by a round kick to the head. There is a basic wing chun concept or method that may have saved him. Of course nothing is 100% and nothing works all the time.

My question is really directed at those that are crittical of wing chun. I would like to know if they understand what they critisize or apply wing chun in the same fashion that I do.

So the question is how would wing chun have saved CroCrop?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well, Hunt...I gotta tell you that first of all, it looked like Cro Cop was seriously exposed in that fight. Either he was just having a really bad day (I saw him on the attack only once)....or he's been exposed.

Because Gonzaga kept throwing the jab/cross over and over again and Cro cop had no answer for it. None. He just kept circling/backing away.

And finally he throws a roundhouse kick that's caught/captured....and he's down on his back in guard getting hammered by elbow strikes. (The standup was a gift by the referee - for without it I think he'd still be down eating elbows as we speak).

And within perhaps maybe 20 seconds of the standup - he gets caught by the same kind of roundhouse kick to the head that he usually does to end fights - and that was it.

So firstly - he had no clue about how to deal with an aggressive jab/cross.
Secondly - he turned INTO the roundhouse to his head without any hands/arms up...making himself a sitting duck for the knockout.

[bodhitree]

So the question is how would wing chun have saved CroCrop?


It would not have. Crocop would knock the sh!t out of 99.9% of wing chun guys (I'm not saying there is no chance for exception, but ALMOST no chance.)

Crocop had a bad day. Upsets happen, especially this year, GSP losing to Serra, Gomi to Diaz, it's not that crocop is not skilled. He has fought the best heavyweights in the world. Period. And done well against almost all of them. (ko'ed by Randleman and decision to Emelienenko)

[Vajramusti]

Havent seen the clip as of yet. Dont know where it is.
Good question-but for any serious conversation-the forum seems to have passed a point of no return
With good wishes, joy chaudhuri

[Edmund]

He has fought the best heavyweights in the world. Period. And done well against almost all of them. (ko'ed by Randleman and decision to Emelienenko)

Armbarred by Nogueira. Lost to Hunt.

Wins:
Beat Barnett. Yoshida I wouldn't call a top heavyweight. Silva not really a heavyweight. Minowa *really* not a heavyweight.

Randleman not really top heavyweight.

He beat Coleman a couple of years ago. Does that count? By that time I wouldn't have classed Coleman as a top heavyweight.


Because Gonzaga kept throwing the jab/cross over and over again and Cro cop had no answer for it. None. He just kept circling/backing away.

I don't think Gonzaga landed in any of those exchanges.
Gonzaga nailed him with plenty of damaging elbows on the ground though.

But all in all he just got caught.
CC must have learnt that hands down style of WC.

[Vajramusti]

Saw the clip of the kick/knockout. Post facto- CC was standing frozen relative to his opponent even when the kick was beginning. Lack of balanced motion-including footwork.

joy chaudhuri

[bodhitree]

Armbarred by Nogueira. Lost to Hunt.

Wins:
Beat Barnett. Yoshida I wouldn't call a top heavyweight. Silva not really a heavyweight. Minowa *really* not a heavyweight.

Randleman not really top heavyweight.

He beat Coleman a couple of years ago. Does that count? By that time I wouldn't have classed Coleman as a top heavyweight.



I don't think Gonzaga landed in any of those exchanges.
Gonzaga nailed him with plenty of damaging elbows on the ground though.

But all in all he just got caught.
CC must have learnt that hands down style of WC.

What about Remi Bonjowski, Jerome Lebanner, and Ernesto Hoost? They aren't top heavyweights. Picking stupid arguments. Shame.

[Mr Punch]

1) Although Cro-cop has improved a lot over the years, I still think he's a couple-of-tricks-pony. As Edmund just pointed out, he hasn't really beaten any top-notch heavyweights. I was really impressed that he managed to go the distance with Fedor - reckon it'll be curtains the next time they meet.

2) How wing chun might have helped Cro-cop had he ever done it is possibly the most ridiculous question I've heard on here! How anything would have helped him: he should've moved his body rather than just dropping his arm to try and absorb a non-existant mid-roundhouse... :rolleyes: Easier said than done!

[Ultimatewingchun]

No. Gonzaga didn't really land anything with the jab/crosses (perhaps once)....but my point was that he kept Cro Cop on defense and totally out of rhythm (and out of attack mode) with the persistent jab/cross routine.

In fact, Cro Cop's only offense the whole fight (the roundhouse to the mid section that Gonzaga caught and brought Mirko down with)...was really a very half-a55ed attempt to score - and had not been set up at all.

You could tell he was frustrated and just "threw something".

In answer to Hunt's first post....perhaps some aggressive pak sao and follow-up punches against the jab/cross might have made the outcome of the fight different (pure speculation, of course)...

since just retreating/circling/getting frustrated clearly didn't cut it.

[Lugoman]

I have not seen the fight (yet) but from how others are describing it... Bat Jum Daos? :D

Yeah, I've got nothin' constructive to offer.

[AmanuJRY]

Got to agree with Mirko being off his game and that he's not in the top 5 heavyweights...


...as for entertaining the 'how would WC have saved him?' question, double guan sau's, advancing inside the kicking arc, and punches/elbows to finish.;)

...other options;

off-lining away from kick and toward opponent with attack (escrima)
drop under and attack other leg for single leg take down (wrestling/jj)
or, block and counter with spinning back kick (karate, a la Marko Lala)


...just some, there are countless options. The point is, I don't like confining it to one 'style', there are many possibilities and I wish to remain open to any of them (as I imagine any mma fighter would as well).

At a basic level, what would have saved CroCop was blocking/protecting his head.:cool:

[michael01]

First time poster, been "lurking" (if that's the correct term, I'm not much for blogging) for a while. I think this forum, in spite of all the arguing, is very, very informative.

My background - high school wrestling, sport karate, lots of free-sparring in college, got whooped by a couple of kyokushin cats from Japan, started to train with them, graduated and concentrated on music, started a career (not in music), got away from music, started up lifting & MA again to stay in shape, found TWC and have been training for almost 4 years as a long-distance student as I don't live close to my instructor who I see as often as time permits. So, I am NOT an expert on fighting, nor think I could complete against world class athletes, nor do I train because I'm afraid that ninja will drop from trees and attack me at random (besides, I do have a discover card in case of that), blah, blah, blah. Personally, I train because it's FUN. Ok, sorry to bore everyone with the loser details...

Cro Cop's fight: I don't think anything other than moving out of the way would have stopped that kick. It was a text-book, power round house, perfectly timed, thrown, and followed-through. Even if Cro Cop saw it, and put some kind of block up, I don't think that would have changed the outcome. In TWC, the basic technique that I have been shown would be to face the incoming kick while using a double pak sao. But, I don't think it would have helped - may have even taken damage to the hands / arms / shoulder from absorbing the blow. Like previously posted: it's purely speculation at this point.

[hunt1]

Joy I think you are right about the forum. I am trying to get a feel for how others understand and apply wing chun. Trying to correct how I see others posts.

Some good posts so far some not so good. Some didnt even understand the question which may be why so many threads devolve into my way or the highway threads.

Before I give my follow up doing to wait to see if the big critics weigh in.

[AmanuJRY]

Some good posts so far some not so good. Some didnt even understand the question which may be why so many threads devolve into my way or the highway threads.


Maybe you should specify in your question, WC 'techniques' or WC 'concepts', or both, perhaps?:D



the 21CWCIJ is not going to like this......

[Mr Punch]

What about Remi Bonjowski, Jerome Lebanner, and Ernesto Hoost? They aren't top heavyweights. Picking stupid arguments. Shame.Sorry, I was talking UFC/Pride, not K1. I like K1 but it's a different kettle of fish.


Some didnt even understand the question which may be why so many threads devolve into my way or the highway threads.
Whatever. If you think more theoretical what-ifs will help contribute serious discussion, knock yourself out!

But let's play:

from my exp full-contact MMA sparring (of course using WC when and where appropriate) -

I am aggressive and not so good against kicks, so I always move in and cramp up the space by going for the elbows, then takedown ASAP. Cro-cop coming from Pride prob doesn't have so much exp with elbows, and isn't the best at takedowns either. His game is longer range, but unfortunately he got played there too.

Other options: step in and off at an angle with any diffuse shot to just above the knee. I've done this on full speed roundhouses with a tan wedged tight into my body (stepping in so you can get the knee before it comes up so high) - it's not a classic tan, but it's not far off what Sam Kwok used to teach as a dispersing tan. You can reinforce it with a bong elbow to above the knee too. That leaves you open to ****ing up the clinch position which invariably follows when you both move in, unless you drop for a takedown. Either way, you need crazy speed, and I've been nailed trying this many times which'll get you a dead arm or KOed.

Step off at an angle and kick **** out of his post leg. Simple. Works, if you have a good kick.

High bong (of course whilst stepping off and counterpunching soon after). Seen a lot of MMA fighters use something similar recently.

Double fuk sao (same with the footwork)... more like a 'classic' guard.

Rush in like a madman and go for a takedown: pulled that off a couple of times, but at my (relatively low) skill level more by luck than judgment I reckon.

There you go: multiple options as usual for what if scenarios. The problem lies more in what combos the other guy has been softening you up with, so what he's 'training' you to expect than some cookie cutter response to a single attack!

[Knifefighter]

For those that watched the recent UFC and saw Cro Crop get knocked out by a round kick to the head. There is a basic wing chun concept or method that may have saved him. Of course nothing is 100% and nothing works all the time.

My question is really directed at those that are crittical of wing chun. I would like to know if they understand what they critisize or apply wing chun in the same fashion that I do.

So the question is how would wing chun have saved CroCrop?

Cro Cop dropped his hands, the kick came over and landed perfectly... simple mistake, simple ending.

Theoretically, anything that would have forced him to keep his hands up would have helped him (which is most realistic fighting methods). Unfortunately, in real fighting, you sometimes drop your hands. At the wrong time against the wrong opponent, it ends up being lights out.

The key to beating Cro Cop, as several fighters have figured out, is zoning away from and/or nullifying his left kick.

[t_niehoff]

Cro Cop dropped his hands, the kick came over and landed perfectly... simple mistake, simple ending.

Theoretically, anything that would have forced him to keep his hands up would have helped him (which is most realistic fighting methods). Unfortunately, in real fighting, you sometimes drop your hands. At the wrong time against the wrong opponent, it ends up being lights out.

The key to beating Cro Cop, as several fighters have figured out, is zoning away from and/or nullifying his left kick.

And "concepts" won't keep your hands up -- that comes from training.

As far as WCK having the "concept" of keeping the hands up, look at how many WCK people use the mun (tan) and wu sao, silly-ass bi-jong posture! (And don't even think a wu sao will be able to deal with that powerful of a kick; it will knock right through your wu sao).

Keeping your hands up for protection is not a "concept" IMO, it is a necessity (sort of like the "concept" of keeping your eyes open) and needs to be coupled with head/body movement to be effective, and anyone who spars with good people will see that necessity for themselves rather quickly.

BTW, my belief is that CroCop "thought" that kick was a feint for a shoot (which worked against him before, so he thought his opponent who would have known that, might try it) and dropped his hands "early" in anticipation of that shoot.

[Knifefighter]

The only WC technique that would have saved him would have been Victor's patented super-duper, heavy-duty head protector.

[hunt1]

Good to see so many informative and civil posts for a change,except for Punch and his catty snide comments but he may have learned his wing chun in a sorority house.

I was looking for concept instead of technique since for me technique is adaptable to the situation. There is no one way to do something. What ever saves my teeth is correct at the time.

In my Wing Chun and that is all I am referring too. We cover we do not block. Cro Crop dropped his elbow either because he was trying to block the kick or possible as TN suggested to defend a take down. It is clear he was responding to the motion of the leg. This is a clear example of why we cover and never try to block. A block is at best an educated guess. Cro Crop guessed wrong. If he covered the side the kick was attacking instead he never would have dropped his arms.
Perhaps the kick would have injured his arm ,it happens but he wouldnt have been knocked cold. Also since he saw the kick coming he could have moved his body whether away from,into or merely shifting is dependent upon fatique.

Anyway was really just trying to get a read on peoples outlook ,understanding and application of wing chun. Hellps to know where folks are coming from.

[t_niehoff]

Good to see so many informative and civil posts for a change,except for Punch and his catty snide comments but he may have learned his wing chun in a sorority house.

I was looking for concept instead of technique since for me technique is adaptable to the situation. There is no one way to do something. What ever saves my teeth is correct at the time.


Sorry, but I don't follow -- you are looking for concept . . . since technique is adaptable? Are you saying that you think "coveriing" is a concept?



In my Wing Chun and that is all I am referring too. We cover we do not block. Cro Crop dropped his elbow either because he was trying to block the kick or possible as TN suggested to defend a take down. It is clear he was responding to the motion of the leg. This is a clear example of why we cover and never try to block. A block is at best an educated guess. Cro Crop guessed wrong. If he covered the side the kick was attacking instead he never would have dropped his arms.
Perhaps the kick would have injured his arm ,it happens but he wouldnt have been knocked cold. Also since he saw the kick coming he could have moved his body whether away from,into or merely shifting is dependent upon fatique.


I agree with you that reaching for punches or kicks, which is involved in "blocking", is a cardinal error in fighting on the outside, regardless of a person's style or maritial art. Using distance, evasions, covering, etc., especially when working in concert, is lower risk and higher percentage.

Seeing that we agree on this point, do you still think it wise to teach "techniques" and drills where the trainee reaches/blocks?

[Black Jack II]

I would not say he s extactly a one trick poney. He did defeat Ikuhisa Minowa by ground and pound. It's not all punches and kicks. Just most of the time.:D

People get caught, no big, its not like he is going to just let it pass without addressing his problem areas.

[Wayfaring]

Just saw the video. Gonzaga had an excellent strategy going in.

His consistent movement towards Cro Cop's right, flanking his lead right leg both nullified Cro Cop's left leg by elongating the distance it needed to travel and opened up a lane for his straight right. While he really didn't land solid straight rights, the lane being open allowed him to be on the offensive and forced Cro Cop to close the hole and cover up rather than mounting any offense. The longer distance to target for the left leg left the kick exposed where it was trapped for the single leg takedown. On the ground, Cro Cop has always had a very passive guard. He just defends by head and arm clinching, but has no hip movement to attack or open up escapes. Low ground skills. On the final kick, Cro Cop misjudged the target - he was covering up his ribs where he thought the kick was going so was surprised at a high kick.

So, excellent strategy for Gonzaga capitalizing upon his strengths and his opponent's weaknesses, and excellent execution imposing his plan in the fight.

Also, Cro Cop looked flat in the fight for whatever reason. Coming off a cold, low energy - whatever. It happens. If he was 'on' he might have been able to overcome a strategic disadvantage with sheer attributes.

Since this thread is on wing chun possibilities for Cro Cop, I'll offer up one possible strategy. Instead of allowing Gonzaga to flank him to his right, he could have cut off the flank by stepping to his right with Gonzaga. That would have closed holes down, and he could have stepped with him until the cage cut him off. That would have forced him back into his left leg, or when the escape space was cut off, there would have no longer been the elongated distance to travel to land the left leg body or head kick. That's some basic wing chun angle concepts.

[stricker]

i think cro cop follwed what wing chun masters do perfectly: sold his soul and went for the $$$ option (took a dive ;)) hahahaha

someone called me a conspiracy theorist once... yup thats what we get labelled as when they want to discredit us :cool:

[Edmund]

What about Remi Bonjowski, Jerome Lebanner, and Ernesto Hoost? They aren't top heavyweights. Picking stupid arguments. Shame.

Well he's lost against Hoost every time and never looked that good doing it. That's more an indication of how good Hoost used to be. Bonjasky was a good win. Lebanner not so much.

Not really trying to pick an argument. Just going over the stats.

[Edmund]

I would not say he s extactly a one trick poney. He did defeat Ikuhisa Minowa by ground and pound. It's not all punches and kicks. Just most of the time.:D

People get caught, no big, its not like he is going to just let it pass without addressing his problem areas.

I don't think he's one trick either. He's got a really big left hand as well.
He's tapped Randleman too.

[Liddel]

I think CC wasnt on his game at all, due to Gonz keeping him on the back foot - he pushed the action the whole fight.

Keeping his hands up and not being over sensitive in reaction 'could' have certainly helped IMO.

I focus on covering also Hunt1, the only VT action (if you will) i like to give is slightly turning/rotating my forearm as an attack impacts my cover.
This is VT energy deflection 101.

The call about using Guarn Sao for an round kick is interseting IMO - its direct force against force and a sure way to get your arm broke against a heavy kicker..... very interesting :rolleyes:

[hunt1]

Good question TN.

First I may not have been very clear. I dont think of things in the way of use a specific technique against a specific attack. For me covering is a concept. How you go about it changes from situation to situation or moment to moment. There are some good basic covering methods but as long as you are covered it doesnt matter how you do it.

Drills are interesting,I try not to train or teach any drills that use any unrealistic motions or actions. So no reaching or blocking. I dont use a pak punch drill the way most do it for example. It does help with some coordination in the beginning I guess but I dont want anyone to get the idea that you can pak a jab with any kind of reasonable success factor.

[Liddel]

I dont want anyone to get the idea that you can pak a jab with any kind of reasonable success factor.

Pak Sao or a parry against jabs are very high percentage....the follow up punch commonly taught in VT is what adds the difficulty of sucess IMO.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w5/a99223/ivesound_01.gif

[hunt1]

I would consider that a fook sau into a jut or gum not a pak sau. Pak would be intercepting with the palm of your hand. Here he is intercepting with the wrist /forearm which is something I use often because it covers and allows interception using the entire hand and forearm area.

[Liddel]

oh totally agree Hunt1 - i didnt mean to imply it was the use of pak sao, just a Parry and follow up...
Pak Sao for me is damm near impossible/much less percentage with gloves on, so when i spar with anything over 8oz fingerless im a bit more like how you mention...
Using the forearm etc....

I tend to try and follow the parring hand back into a punch which relies on good footwork/ body movement, to give a one two on my opponent.
:)

[t_niehoff]

Good question TN.

First I may not have been very clear. I dont think of things in the way of use a specific technique against a specific attack. For me covering is a concept. How you go about it changes from situation to situation or moment to moment. There are some good basic covering methods but as long as you are covered it doesnt matter how you do it.


OK, I see what you mean.

I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. "Keeping your eye on the ball" is not in my view a "concept", but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement).



Drills are interesting,I try not to train or teach any drills that use any unrealistic motions or actions. So no reaching or blocking. I dont use a pak punch drill the way most do it for example. It does help with some coordination in the beginning I guess but I dont want anyone to get the idea that you can pak a jab with any kind of reasonable success factor.

We're on the same page.

[t_niehoff]

Pak Sao or a parry against jabs are very high percentage....the follow up punch commonly taught in VT is what adds the difficulty of sucess IMO.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w5/a99223/ivesound_01.gif

I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that -- there is a reason you don't see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people). And that this guy got away with it doesn't make it high percentage (people sometimes get away with extremely low percentage shots too, and I could find many examples of them, i.e., knees as 'counters' to the shoot). One of the things about low percentage stuff is that there is a place and time where the odds of making it work go up -- when the opponent is much worse than you, when he is doing something poorly (like in your gif), etc.

[JPinAZ]

OK, I see what you mean.

I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. "Keeping your eye on the ball" is not in my view a "concept", but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement).


Really not trolling here, what approach DO they use then?
If no 'functional martial artist' uses the 'technique vs. technique' approach, but also don't use a 'conceptual' approach, what do they use?
What do you mean here?

And IMO, from my WC perspective, cro cop gave up his space/'gate concept' and got smacked (if even not a WC practitioner and didn't realize it as this). It was a simple mistake, and a costly one. He just got caught. Even if he anticipated a mid-body strike, he still didn't cover his upper gate.
I feel anyone can make this mistake, conceptual guys, 'technique' guys, clowns, etc - deppends on the awareness at that time.

I think what could have also possibly saved him, besides having his hands up, would have been something more rudmentary as changing the range so the kick was much less effective (stepping in, back etc). But, of course, it's hard to say not having been the one in the ring. And yeah, he did look like he was out of his element!

Jonathan

[JPinAZ]

I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that -- there is a reason you don't see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people). And that this guy got away with it doesn't make it high percentage (people sometimes get away with extremely low percentage shots too, and I could find many examples of them, i.e., knees as 'counters' to the shoot). One of the things about low percentage stuff is that there is a place and time where the odds of making it work go up -- when the opponent is much worse than you, when he is doing something poorly (like in your gif), etc.


There's a big difference between seeing things used at low percentage and things not working at low percentage.
Just because someone doesn't see things used that much in whatever 'arena' you 'see things', it doesn't mean they can't be and aren't used effectively at a high percentage.

Maybe the reason you're just not seeing them used very often (effective OR otherwise) is because they are not a focus of training for the people you've 'seen'. If people aren't training it, you won't see it.
If I watch boxers fight on the street, I'm not going to see them use many kicks or BJJ. Not because they aren't effective, but maybe because they are just not part of thier fight training.

FWIW, most UFC fights I've seen on TV, the only defense I've really seen used at a 'high percentage' is moving away, covering up or none (just trading punches). from my POV, none of these are the 'smartest' way to defend. I see this used to a high percentage all the time. Doesn't mean it's the most 'effective' way by any means.

[Knifefighter]

FWIW, most UFC fights I've seen on TV, the only defense I've really seen used at a 'high percentage' is moving away, covering up or none (just trading punches). from my POV, none of these are the 'smartest' way to defend. I see this used to a high percentage all the time. Doesn't mean it's the most 'effective' way by any means.

What do you think the most effective way would be?

[Knifefighter]

OF COURSE....EVERY GOOD FIGHTER...will practice and drill SPECIFIC responses to specific situations....ie.- you shoot...AND I SPRAWL. (okay...now let's try that again. And again).

Hmmm, good point...

Terrence?

[anerlich]

I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach.

BJJ as espoused by a number of elite practitioners is pretty much about "I try A. If he counters A with B, I do C. If C doesn't work, I try D. If he does E, I ..."

Eddie Bravo's new book is all about this approach. I've heard John Will and JJ Machado advocate much the same thing.

"Flow with the go" is good for beginners, and occasionally to keep training fun. But most coaches are telling you to drop that approach and work on tactics and strategies PDQ.

I don't know if chess is a sport, but the same thing certainly applies there.

[JPinAZ]

What do you think the most effective way would be?

Well, to get into this, I would have to explain a LOT of WC principals, concepts, theories, etc. Now, if that isn't troll bait on this forum I don't know what is.

The answer really depends on the situation and changes from instant to instant. If I give you one example for one situation, it wouldn't necessarily work for another situation. So, you'd have to be more specific in your question.

Basically, I'll tell you what I would NOT do. I would not just 'cover up' when someone is trying to enter with a flurry of punches. I wouldn't just step back out of range whenever someone tries to enter my space with a probing jab (great examples of this: the latest arlofski fight, or the one between sanchez and koscheck). Always running away from attacks might be 'safe'defense, but it doesn't win a fight either. Now this might work if you are trying to 'avoid' a fight..

And I surely wouldn't attempt to just trade punchers with a guy staning in front of me in rage to hit me with a punch. Would you?
This to me sounds like lucky fighting at it's finest.

[anerlich]

Hmmm, good point...

Agreed.

John Will also advocates the development of what he calls IA's or immediate actions, standard responses to the opponent's movements. "He stands in my closed guard, I underhook his leg", that sort of thing.

[Edmund]

Pak Sao for me is damm near impossible/much less percentage with gloves on, so when i spar with anything over 8oz fingerless im a bit more like how you mention...
Using the forearm etc....


I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that -- there is a reason you don't see that sort of thing very often in fighting (between good people).

Pak sao is low percentage now? Maybe you guys haven't watched a lot of fights.
Punches are parried all the time. It's one of the few workable defences against punches.

LOL. I don't think it's that hard.
The "trick" is to put your hand between the opponent's fist and your face.

Unless you have a gigantic head or baby hands it's not that much area to cover.

[Edmund]

What do you think the most effective way would be?

MT 101:
Lateral movement.
Tie them up.
Knee them.

[hunt1]

Victor good analogy to music. I agree you must have a way for teaching things and you need drills etc. One of wing chun stengths from my pov is learning to use both hands at the same time with each hand performing a different function. I cant think of anyway to learn this other than chi sao.. For me it has always been a struggle to teach people how to fight as fast as possiible and to teach wing chun at the same time. For me for example i believe you have to teach the wing chun body mechanics to teach how to fight with wing chun. At the same time some drills etc teach unrealistic combat methods or not very good methods.

I always try to teach a drill or a technique like bong sau or bong lop and then try to teach how to use it in a fight at the same time. It is a work in progress for me. I am always open for suggestions.

[hunt1]

Edmund a pak sau against a jab drill for you. Try it and then tell me what you think of a pak sau as a primary defense against a jab.

Stand with your back to a wall to prevent changing distance . I recommend headgear with a faceguard, have the jabber reach out his arm so that his fist goes to the depth of your eye. Punches from ****her away cant hurt you or cant even reach the target so practice against them is not needed. Now without changing distance by either of you and that is hard. The jabber throws full power jabs without turning his shoulder. If he uses a shoulder turn then just measure the starting position with the turn. have him do 10 straight fast full power jabs. How many does your pak sau stop before contact with the face mask. Then have him throw 10 jabs at different angles then 10 more including a jab hook. Everytime your mask or headgear is hit is a failure of the pak to stop the jab. Now repeat except use a fook sau instead of a pak.

Unless you are superhuman you will find what everyone who has ever done this has found as the jabs change from simple to angles and then complex with the jab hook your number of interceptions falls. use a fook sau and no drop off.

Next if you are using a pak you are using only the area of your hand to stop a jab. A fook provides the area of your hand and forearm. you can cover with the foof the pak requires pin point target.

Sure you can parry lots of punches. many punches that you can parry are thrown from a non threating range. When you are in a range where you will require dental work the pak wont protect your teeth the way a fook will.

[Edmund]

Unless you are superhuman you will find what everyone who has ever done this has found as the jabs change from simple to angles and then complex with the jab hook your number of interceptions falls. use a fook sau and no drop off.

Hunt1,

I don't agree with the point that you're making.

By creating a false scenario where you *MUST* use pak sao even when not appropriate, you've taken the technique out of its context.

The pak sao is good for certain angles. A hook is not really a good one to use a pak sao on because it's circular. (I'm not sure why a fook sao would be good for a hook actually.)

When the opponent *uses* a different angle you must adjust with the appropriate different technique or adjust the angle itself. That doesn't make the pak sao any lower percentage. It's not the answer to every situation and I didn't suggest it was.

You seem to suggest the fook sao is the answer to every situation and I'm a little dubious.

Parrying the punch is seen in many arts and many fights - Gonzaga/Crocop even. Crocop was parrying quite a LOT of Gonzaga's punches during the standup periods.

Fook sao you don't see so much.


Next if you are using a pak you are using only the area of your hand to stop a jab. A fook provides the area of your hand and forearm. you can cover with the foof the pak requires pin point target.

I believe my point was that you don't nead a large area. Your head is only so large (hopefully). You only need to ensure your pak sao is protecting that area which doesn't require much accuracy at all.

[Mr Punch]

Good to see so many informative and civil posts for a change,except for Punch and his catty snide commentsApologies, I didn't realize what you were getting at at all... and we have so many tech vs tech BS discussions which just degenerate into lineage flame wars.


but he may have learned his wing chun in a sorority house.Interesting, but no. I learned from Sam Kwok and others in his org, who I thought was your sifu... My wing chun is no longer pure Kwok - it has developed as I moved, and picked up more from other lines, and MMA and whatnot, but essentially I think of it as basically Kwok's org's.


I was looking for concept instead of technique since for me technique is adaptable to the situation. There is no one way to do something. What ever saves my teeth is correct at the time.Completely agreed.

My first suggestion, which is simply crowding, is in my mind a very important and very basic WC concept (and before any of the realism police here call me on it, I don't mean it's just a WC concept!). It's perfect for clinch and takedown/tackle too (at least the way I learned the tackle: being from very close range, not a big dive).


In my Wing Chun and that is all I am referring too. We cover we do not block. Cro Crop dropped his elbow either because he was trying to block the kick or possible as TN suggested to defend a take down. It is clear he was responding to the motion of the leg. This is a clear example of why we cover and never try to block. A block is at best an educated guess. Cro Crop guessed wrong. If he covered the side the kick was attacking instead he never would have dropped his arms.OK, I agree with the concept, but I've always found this a bit of a strange term... how do you cover the whole of one side with your arm...?

I know that question makes me sound simple and a newb, and I have the answer through my full-contact sparring, but humour me.

Often, I think people aren't really sure what they mean by cover, or how it varies from moving your arm to 'cover' another part of your side (otherwise known as "blocking"!) - not accusing you here, Hunt.

[kung fu fighter]

Hey Hunt,

I think you are right on the money brother, covering with a kwan sao would have been the only option to save Crocop in that situation, even though I think he would have lost his balance because his stance was not structurely sound to take the impact unless he applied it with the pivot step which i don't think he trains. Gonzaga setup timing was right on. He pressured crocop not giving him distance and timing to set up anything. I used wing chun with a similar strategy when i fought in san shou competitions against thai style fighters. I would eat up there space, forcing them to attack and then i would counter them, or they would back up to try to access the situation, which kept them on the defensive

I think the results would be similar in a rematch between these two, if crocop doesn't change the way he fights.

Navin

[SevenStar]

For those that watched the recent UFC and saw Cro Crop get knocked out by a round kick to the head. There is a basic wing chun concept or method that may have saved him. Of course nothing is 100% and nothing works all the time.


I haven't read this thread yet, but I am betting someone is gonna say gan sau...:rolleyes: :(

[SevenStar]

...as for entertaining the 'how would WC have saved him?' question, double guan sau's, advancing inside the kicking arc, and punches/elbows to finish.;)


I knew it...

[t_niehoff]

Hmmm, good point...

Terrence?

KF, sorry, I miss these sometimes in the morass of verbal abuse. ;)

My view is that we will always do or try to do something in response to what our opponent does. But that isn't the case of when he does technique A and you do technique B -- the example given of, he shoots, you sprawl -- because there is more to it than that. That oversimplifies the combative situation and what you need to solve it. As I see it, the shoot from the outside is part of a a whole game (at least, good wrestlers will have a complete takedown game), and you can't defeat a game with a technique; you defeat a game with a game. The shoot is part of that game. If I am out of range and he shoots, I'm not going to sprawl; if I have a wh1zzer, I'm not going to sprawl, etc. A game, as I am referring to it, is a set of skills. You learn the skills, develop the skills, and put together your own individual game. Just like dealing with the shoot requires a game, escaping from the bottom when on the ground requires a game (the answer to side mount isn't just elbow escape, though that is an element). Similarly, dealing with attacks from the outside is a game.

[Knifefighter]

Similarly, dealing with attacks from the outside is a game.

But doesn't one develop the whole game by first learning "technique A counters technique B"?

[hunt1]

Edmund I dont know where to begin to throw out a drill without ever trying it leads me to suspect you are a true believer.

The drill is very real. You only are dealing with punches that can hurt you. Most people like to deal with punchs that are from long distance or not done with real intent. You should try to work with a decent boxer. Boxing punches are not Leung Ting arrow punches. A jab moves at different angles and if its close enough to do damage time for body movement to save you is minimal. The hook that i am referring too is thrown off the jab it is extremely tight and will remove your head if coming from a person with skill. Boxers have been dealing with jabs for a long time and their solution is cover not parry. Also parry requires you to chase hands.

A tried and true fighting stratagy is to through long range jabs to get the person to reach out and parry so you can take advantage of the gap the leave when they try to parry.

[hunt1]

MR Punch, yes SAm was one of my teachers too. no harm done your suggestions are good ones. You are right communication is the key and it is very hard on a forum.

Covering for me begins with the fact that you cannot effectively block. Blocking requires you to see something calculate its direction speed etc and then get the proper weapon to respond. Blocking keeps you working at the time and pace of the other person. The key to covering is awarness. Of yourself and what areas are open and your opponent and where he can attack from. For example if he is facing you with a lead leg forward then a side step to the outside of the lead leg protects half of your body so I use a bil to cover high and Wu mid section to cover the side of my body that could be attacked. i am sure you have been through this stuff. Covering just comes down to knowing where you are weak and where the opponent can most easily attack. For me The knofe form teaches most of the standard covering methods. if yoiu can move forward and into a weapon you can do it unarmed.

[t_niehoff]

But doesn't one develop the whole game by first learning "technique A counters technique B"?

That is part of it, and I don't deny that takes place. There is an old saying about how "common things occur commonly" -- and because certain things (combative problems) are common, so too are the answers. My view is, however, that the combative environment (as is most sport environments) is more complex than to permit a " tech A works against tech B" view since there will always be other factors (than just technique) involved, and those often effect outcome.

Also, I see technique not as something that stands alone but as a means of learning/developing skills -- technique being but an example or snapshot of the skill in action. Sprawling, like most other things, I see as a skill (you can show many different examples of sprawling technique and they may all look somewhat different). Similarly, a jab is a technique but being able to jab effectively (jabbing?) is a skill (each jab or technique is but one example of the skill in action). So what it comes down to is really skills vs. skills (or game vs. game). Does this make sense to you?

[Edmund]

Most people like to deal with punchs that are from long distance or not done with real intent. You should try to work with a decent boxer.


LOL. Seems like you're attacking my creds.


Boxers have been dealing with jabs for a long time and their solution is cover not parry.

That's funny. Because well before I ever started WC when I was training MT under Paul Briggs (current #1 WBC boxing light heavyweight contender ), parrying the punch was the first punch defence taught. And it's for a real good reason. You don't want your arms wandering up too high. It exposes your body.

We did plenty of boxing obviously but I guess you trained with better guys.


Also parry requires you to chase hands.

You don't have to chase their hands at all. That's when you completely fail to do it properly. You'd be swatting at flies basically. That's the wrong way to do it and against the basic theory of WC or boxing or MT.


A tried and true fighting stratagy is to through long range jabs to get the person to reach out and parry so you can take advantage of the gap the leave when they try to parry.

Reaching out is wrong too.

As I said very plainly before: The idea is to cover the area of your head with your hand.

[AmanuJRY]

But doesn't one develop the whole game by first learning "technique A counters technique B"?


Answer = yes.

In the same manner as one learns chi sau and then applies it to his/her own game.;)

[stricker]

... parrying the punch was the first punch defence taught. And it's for a real good reason.agreed about a basic parry/pak. the boxing/thai hands are different to wing chun though as the guard position is higher and closer to the face/body than wing chun man/wu...

the boxing/mt parry uses no more than a few inches movement and is right close to the face. that way you're not reaching and asking to get nailed by a double-jab, jab-cross, whatever.

=> just re-read your post after posting, yeah you covered all this :)

my guess is the wing chun answer to this is that the pak sao becomes a palm strike if it doesnt find the punch (also means follow the right geometrry, centerline etc)

also what i found interesting is that thai boxing has a few parries/hand movements similar to wing chun (e.g. kao sao) a lot of the time while kicking/knee-ing or going to clinch. the main difference is the basic structure of the art, how the hands move from the basic guard position.

(note about teaching method: the thai boxers etc dont label every shape pak, kao, fook, etc they just say parry it out, in, up, across, push this, pull that etc. getting it to work then comes from practice and working it out not following x=a*b+c)

[stricker]

"I don't know where the "use a specific technique against a specific technique" stuff came from. No functional martial artists - from boxers to wrestlers to judoka to whatever - or atheltes in any sport for that matter, use that approach. Nor do they take a conceptual approach. "Keeping your eye on the ball" is not in my view a "concept", but is simply one of the things we need to do to play the game well. Same with not reaching for punches (which is a high risk movement). " (TN)


TOTAL AND COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED BULL5HIT...written by a moron who doesn't know anything about fighting - but who is trying to pass himself off as some sort of an expert.

OF COURSE....EVERY GOOD FIGHTER...will practice and drill SPECIFIC responses to specific situations....ie.- you shoot...AND I SPRAWL. (Okay, now let's try that again. And again. And one more time, thank you!)

This is how you train effectively.

What a friggin' moron.

IN FACT, I'M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT TN'S POSTS ARE JUST AN EXERCISE IN TRYING TO SEE HOW FAR HE CAN THROW DOUBLE-SPEAK OUT AT PEOPLE AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

How far will people let him go before they push back on his delusional envelope? :cool: :cool: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
first of all calling people morons bull****ters etc and all that **** is making you look like a chump mate, knock it off...

anyway lets take shoot and sprawl drills.

you could drill sprawl vs shoot or you could drill take the man down vs dont get taken down

first is technique vs technique, second is skill versus skill. Terence, is that what you're getting at?

the skill-drill vs technique-drill thing is interesting. i remember my first mma training session being told when the timer went to "get double-underhooks". the thing is i wasnt taught any techniques to do so. if i'd have asked "what techniques should i use" i would have got the answer "do anything you want just get underhooks". techniques come later.

so you drill a skill, not a technique.

of course the obvious answer is mix both but its interesting to say well which direction does the progression go in, start with open drills and find what needs to be technique drilled, or drill techniques then open it up to closer to sparring... biiig diference in approach.

also ive gotta say i find it really interesting finding out what comes out of myself under pressure, is it techniques i've drilled in, or skills ive developed in more open drills/sparring. go fight and find out for yourself ;)

[Edmund]

agreed about a basic parry/pak. the boxing/thai hands are different to wing chun though as the guard position is higher and closer to the face/body than wing chun man/wu...


Kinda dependant on who you learn MT from AND who you learn WC from. :)

My recent MT coach, Yuttana Wongbandue, didn't advocate holding the hands above the height of the face or that close to the head. It prevents you from punching with power or seeing what's going on.

It is a compromise between being covered and being able to attack.


the boxing/mt parry uses no more than a few inches movement and is right close to the face. that way you're not reaching and asking to get nailed by a double-jab, jab-cross, whatever.

=> just re-read your post after posting, yeah you covered all this :)

my guess is the wing chun answer to this is that the pak sao becomes a palm strike if it doesnt find the punch (also means follow the right geometrry, centerline etc)

Hmm. Interesting idea. Still sound like your extending your arm though.

I don't see why the WC answer *has* to be any different. I wasn't taught anything that complicated in WC: Simple parries and few inches of movement are good enough.



also what i found interesting is that thai boxing has a few parries/hand movements similar to wing chun (e.g. kao sao) a lot of the time while kicking/knee-ing or going to clinch. the main difference is the basic structure of the art, how the hands move from the basic guard position.

True. I think that difference is due to the kicking/kneeing and clinching.


(note about teaching method: the thai boxers etc dont label every shape pak, kao, fook, etc they just say parry it out, in, up, across, push this, pull that etc. getting it to work then comes from practice and working it out not following x=a*b+c)


The really good coaches can explain everything as well IMHO. It's not just left to the student to figure it out. e.g. "Don't reach out to parry. You get punched."

[Edmund]

Back on the Crocop/Gonzaga fight:
I watched it again and it was *just* as Joe Rogan commentated that Crocop was looking tentative that Gonzaga kicked his head off. He really was spot on with that comment. Crocop was sort of collecting himself and taking a breath then he just wandered closer into kicking range without having much of anything in mind.

Gonzaga probably spotted that as well and threw his best kick.

[t_niehoff]

Answer = yes.

In the same manner as one learns chi sau and then applies it to his/her own game.;)

Actually, the answer is "sort of". What I am saying is that in my view technique is taught as an example of a skill in action (it's a snapshot of skill), and performance of the skill is called technique. The objective is to learn and develop that skill; learning/practing technique is just a step toward that objective. In open skill activities, like fighting or tennis, everything we do (technique) has to be continually modified, adjusted, and adaptaed to the changing situation/environment. So, for example, every forehand drive is different, and you are not just doing the same technique every time you hit a forehand, but you are using the same skill. Each forehand is a slightly different technique (example of the performance of the skill). In that way, when the ball comes to your forehand side, you hit a forehand but as a player you are not thinking in terms of technique A to counter technique B -- you are thinking in terms of hitting the ball (the skill). Similarly, when someone shoots, I don't think good grapplers think in terms of use sprawl to counter shoot but more along the lines of stop his takedown (hit the ball).

With regard to chi sao, I see it as a platform (its own game) to learn certain skills. But those skills will not transfer directly from that game (chi sao) into another, very different game (fighting) without some significant modification and tweaking -- which can only come through taking those skills and putting them into that different game (fighting) and training them.

[t_niehoff]

anyway lets take shoot and sprawl drills.

you could drill sprawl vs shoot or you could drill take the man down vs dont get taken down

first is technique vs technique, second is skill versus skill. Terence, is that what you're getting at?


Exactly. And this is why I think WCK is not a "conceptually based martial art" but rather is a skill-based martial art.



the skill-drill vs technique-drill thing is interesting. i remember my first mma training session being told when the timer went to "get double-underhooks". the thing is i wasnt taught any techniques to do so. if i'd have asked "what techniques should i use" i would have got the answer "do anything you want just get underhooks". techniques come later.

so you drill a skill, not a technique.

of course the obvious answer is mix both but its interesting to say well which direction does the progression go in, start with open drills and find what needs to be technique drilled, or drill techniques then open it up to closer to sparring... biiig diference in approach.

also ive gotta say i find it really interesting finding out what comes out of myself under pressure, is it techniques i've drilled in, or skills ive developed in more open drills/sparring. go fight and find out for yourself ;)

As I sad in my post above, I think technique is an example of performance of a skill. And so we can use technique as a means of teaching the greater skill.

[AmanuJRY]

So, for example, every forehand drive is different, and you are not just doing the same technique every time you hit a forehand, but you are using the same skill. Each forehand is a slightly different technique (example of the performance of the skill). In that way, when the ball comes to your forehand side, you hit a forehand but as a player you are not thinking in terms of technique A to counter technique B -- you are thinking in terms of hitting the ball (the skill). Similarly, when someone shoots, I don't think good grapplers think in terms of use sprawl to counter shoot but more along the lines of stop his takedown (hit the ball).

But sleight variances are a given, so we tend to lump techniques into groups based on similarities to reduce having a catalogue of 1000's of techniques to keep track of (name), and only experience will teach you the sleight variances.;)





With regard to chi sao, I see it as a platform (its own game) to learn certain skills. But those skills will not transfer directly from that game (chi sao) into another, very different game (fighting) without some significant modification and tweaking -- which can only come through taking those skills and putting them into that different game (fighting) and training them.

I agree.:cool:

[WinterPalm]

That's the problem with these UFC guys, they are not training Wing Chun. Now, whomever can market this angle and get corn crop on board is going to hit the big moneys. Better ger Furey on board as well.:rolleyes:

[stricker]

cool edmund we agree on a few bits and bobs :)


Kinda dependant on who you learn MT from AND who you learn WC from. :)

My recent MT coach, Yuttana Wongbandue, didn't advocate holding the hands above the height of the face or that close to the head. It prevents you from punching with power or seeing what's going on.

It is a compromise between being covered and being able to attack.
true. in thai/boxing/mma i keep my right hand by my jaw/cheek (been kicked in the head before, not letting it happen again...) and lead hand a few inches lower and out a little to get the jab working.

in wing chun i was taught the guard position was man sao wu sao about half way up the torso. so, do you use a higher/closer guard in wing chun? also, how do you mix/relate the two arts, so i can get where your coming from, is it a personal thing, or does your school do both, or your style of wing chun?

oh also, in both arts ive been taught (and worked out) to vary the guard depending in range and circumstances etc


Hmm. Interesting idea. Still sound like your extending your arm though.yeah your still extending your arm, but you follow (with body/footwork) through to strike, so it doesnt matter so much. again, i cant vouch for it working, but thats core WT theory as i understand it, everything is a strike intercepted. if the intercept (the parry/pak) doesnt happen its a strike...



I don't see why the WC answer *has* to be any different. I wasn't taught anything that complicated in WC: Simple parries and few inches of movement are good enough.yup but the classical wing chun positions tan bon fook etc your hands are much further away from your body/face than when your shelling up in thai/boxing. i think conceptually there might not be a difference but the physical implementation will be a bit different for the reasons ive said.



The really good coaches can explain everything as well IMHO. It's not just left to the student to figure it out. e.g. "Don't reach out to parry. You get punched."nah i didnt mean that, any teacher should be able to see thats going wrong, i just meant wing chun is very technique-oriented in that every little movement is documented in the forms, named etc muay thai seems a bit more natural in a way... different teachers have differnt styles etc but this is a bit deeper than that... part of it could be due toa differnce in how the arts have travelled from east to west

[Edmund]

true. in thai/boxing/mma i keep my right hand by my jaw/cheek (been kicked in the head before, not letting it happen again...) and lead hand a few inches lower and out a little to get the jab working.


I think there are a variety of schools of thought on MT hand position. Some like it very close to head, others less so.



in wing chun i was taught the guard position was man sao wu sao about half way up the torso. so, do you use a higher/closer guard in wing chun? also, how do you mix/relate the two arts, so i can get where your coming from, is it a personal thing, or does your school do both, or your style of wing chun?


Our school does both.
And I believe in terms of guard position, the 2 arts are relatively close.
Same height for both hands - head level. In front of the head but not against it.
Both elbows with about the same amount of bend in them but lead hand is more forward due to the chest being not square on.

Our school doesn't really advocate a man sao and wu sao as a guarding position.
We use a higher/closer guard.




oh also, in both arts ive been taught (and worked out) to vary the guard depending in range and circumstances etc


Same here.



yeah your still extending your arm, but you follow (with body/footwork) through to strike, so it doesnt matter so much. again, i cant vouch for it working, but thats core WT theory as i understand it, everything is a strike intercepted. if the intercept (the parry/pak) doesnt happen its a strike...

Sounds a little bit difficult but worth a try.


yup but the classical wing chun positions tan bon fook etc your hands are much further away from your body/face than when your shelling up in thai/boxing. i think conceptually there might not be a difference but the physical implementation will be a bit different for the reasons ive said.

I find tan bong and fook are generally more useful in the situations where the arms are in contact and we're fighting to establish our grips or clinch on the opponent.

Whereas other techniques like pak sao, tiu sao, or biu sao are more useful for establishing that contact or parrying.

Shelling up in MT is conceptually different again and a great defence for kicks especially. Something Crocop could have done rather than block. Not really a WC concept.

This is where WC could learn a thing or two from a stronger kicking art such as MT. When your shin and forearm form a nice big shield to get behind, it doesn't matter what height the kick is coming. There's no gap to get a kick through.



nah i didnt mean that, any teacher should be able to see thats going wrong, i just meant wing chun is very technique-oriented in that every little movement is documented in the forms, named etc muay thai seems a bit more natural in a way... different teachers have differnt styles etc but this is a bit deeper than that... part of it could be due toa differnce in how the arts have travelled from east to west

I think so. They actually do have a few tricky technique names too but I'd also say it's not as important to remember them.

[Liddel]

Sorry i have to backtrack, ive been away a few days - i have a life......


I sugggest you spend some time sparring with good people before you make statements like that .

Parries are used all the time in many types of fighting sports including UFC and PRIDE - i was saying the follow up punch like in the vid is what adds difficulty and makes it low percentage. So we kinda have a similar POV shcmuck.

I do spar with good people - perhaps compared to you they are not so good who knows, who cares, your ellitest attitude is out of order -

I suggest you spend more time not being a jerk trying to make yourself seem better than everyone.

If you took time to properly read peoples posts instead of looking for points to counter youd get it right.

Its a shame - all the good insights you offer are overshadowed by the way you treat people round here.

You may be the $hit, you may train with the best, you may BE THE BEST. But it doesnt mean what i have isnt of value and im sick of your BS.
IM OUT
DREW