How it goes

[t_niehoff]

As I see it, the Cheung-Boztepe fight was a good example of what a realistic fight will look like regardless of the "styles" of the combatants. A MMA/NHB fight, the "lunch break at school", the after-school fight, the bar fight, Cheung-Boztepe, etc. will all look pretty much the same for the simple reason that when people really go at it full-out, all the sytlistic, nonfunctional, artful, etc. crap goes out the window, and all anyone can really make work are the same basic functional elements (because our bodies can only do a limited number of things at 100%). That's why I think that the further a person gets away from this - in other words, the less your martial art "looks" like this - the less effective it will be.

On a related note, Matt Larson, the man considered to be the "father of Modern Army Combatives" (the system of hand-to-hand combat taught to the U.S. Rangers and special forces), reported that hundreds of soldiers that engaged in hand-to-hand combat in Afghanistan and Iraq were interviewed, and, according to Mr. Larson "every hand-to-hand fight we have documented has involved grappling, but not a single one has involved only striking." (quote from "Hand to Hand Combat" by Greg Thompson and Kid Peligro).

[Ultimatewingchun]

Given the fact that this really wasn't much of a fight - since William Cheung was surrounded by 6 of Boztepe's friends..and that the video was edited to hide the fact that Cheung actually front kicked Boztepe and pushed him back when Boztepe first charged....and that he slipped with his second kick on the next charge (the thin Chinese slippers on a polished parquet floor will do that to you)...

and given the fact that as a result of the slip Boztepe was able to get close enough to pull off a takedown...followed by about 10 seconds of a very ineffectual mount while throwing punches (none of which landed anywhere except William's arms and shoulders)...

and given the fact that after the 10 seconds or so William escaped back to his feet - and Boztepe, his cohorts, and the video camera were now on their way to the editing room...

YES... many real "fights" (this was not exactly one of them)...will look something like this.

One big difference, however, is that many real fights will see punches being thrown (and landed) from a standing position...and many fights will have punches and possibly knees being thrown from some sort of clinch (or grabbing) situation.

And most real fights won't be the result of having someone surrounded by 6 of your friends.

What you have to understand about that INCIDENT (which is a more accurate descriptive word for it, imo)...is that given the fact that he was a LONE CHINESE MAN in Germany for the first time - he didn't want to fight once he saw what had developed. The kicks were meant to keep this guy he'd never seen before AWAY from him - and possibly discourage him from continuing his attack.

And the headlock he put Boztepe in once Emin gained entry very close to him - was again meant to possibly be a neutralizer - and not actual fight engagement (ie.- throwing punches that were meant to do damage).

But the standing headlock neutralizer against someone taller than you (and someone who knew how to do a takedown from there) - is not very high percentage, to say the least, and it resulted in the "fight" going to the ground - and you know the rest.

I know all of this because William Cheung was in NYC exactly 10 days after the incident and told a number of his students like myself all about it.

And I believed him. And I still do.

And I also believe my own eyes when I watch the (edited) video. (Many times now. It holds to what William said about it).

And to Emin Boztepe's credit - he's since apologized for this whole affair.

[A Soave]

As I see it, the Cheung-Boztepe fight was a good example of what a realistic fight will look like regardless of the "styles" of the combatants. A MMA/NHB fight, the "lunch break at school", the after-school fight, the bar fight, Cheung-Boztepe, etc. will all look pretty much the same for the simple reason that when people really go at it full-out, all the sytlistic, nonfunctional, artful, etc. crap goes out the window, and all anyone can really make work are the same basic functional elements (because our bodies can only do a limited number of things at 100%). That's why I think that the further a person gets away from this - in other words, the less your martial art "looks" like this - the less effective it will be.

On a related note, Matt Larson, the man considered to be the "father of Modern Army Combatives" (the system of hand-to-hand combat taught to the U.S. Rangers and special forces), reported that hundreds of soldiers that engaged in hand-to-hand combat in Afghanistan and Iraq were interviewed, and, according to Mr. Larson "every hand-to-hand fight we have documented has involved grappling, but not a single one has involved only striking." (quote from "Hand to Hand Combat" by Greg Thompson and Kid Peligro).

This is highly informative, is it not? IT makes me think a little bit.


I was trying to make the point. however, that in response to the valid comments I received (some of them), the problem is that I composed most of that "synopsis" scenario - it was, in my opinion, exceedingly biased until I revised about 25 edits. The point I was trying to make is, isn't almost every behavior that one observes a POV?

For example, listen for one second to this scenario and see if you agree:
i5 of us watch a TV newscast, the exact same newscast, very intently, without distraction, and then we are subsequently queried as to the essence of what we watched. Would we have the same stories, or do you think we would provide accounts that differ? I believe, and I think there is social-psychological evidence to support it, that we may give different, sometimes radically different accounts based upon our perceptions that were influenced by biases and expectations.

I will be the first to admit that I am different than you, or anybody else. I likely am MORE biased because of my training with GM. And in reality, many others are similarly biased, in entirely different directions because of their experiences, expectations, etc. That being said, I have watched this short clip, and it is a highly inadequate portrayal of anything conclusive. It's dark, it's shot from one angle, it's edited, it's truncated, etc. etc. Essentially, I don't see much other th an somebody cinching somebody else, two people falling to the ground, and some strikes that are entirely unclear as to where they hit and how hard. I just know one thing, however.

I have been hit in the head before, and I have summarily concluded one thing- I REALLY don't like it at all. Therefore, I believe if I got struck multiple times with any appreciable impact, I would not participate much further in the day's activities. Hell, I might call of Christmas. This is the primary reason that when (and if ever) I fight, I fight dirty. I ain't gettin my head hurt, can't afford to lose ANY IQ points. And by the sound of many of my colleagues here, neither can they.

So tell me so I can understand it, how is it then, that GM continues on with a seminar, if this great, domination, a$$-whuppin' victory took place? And if you conclude much as I and others have, why would you dramatize it, hype it, put it on websites, make documentaries, etc. etc. ?

I appreciate your thinking and your time, because your response was essentially devoid of the hysteria that seems to permeate any discussions of sport, combat, etc. I also GREATLY appreciate the gentleman from AU (don't recall his name) , he had been around awhile and trained with Rick Spain, who provided rational comments.


A Soave

[YungChun]

As I see it, the Cheung-Boztepe fight was a good example of what a realistic fight will look like regardless of the "styles" of the combatants. A MMA/NHB fight, the "lunch break at school", the after-school fight, the bar fight, Cheung-Boztepe, etc. will all look pretty much the same for the simple reason that when people really go at it full-out, all the sytlistic, nonfunctional, artful, etc. crap goes out the window

Clearly Boztepe took Cheung down and held him there for a reason--that is a tactical choice. Making the case that this wasn’t a clear tactical choice is arbitrary and specious, IMO. If I wanted to fight someone and test my WCK against theirs I would not attempt to *shoot* and get a takedown, let alone keep him there restrained..

With this kind of reasoning we are asked to agree that WCK in a real situation breaks down into haphazard floor restraint..

In the case of Cheung and Boztepe a WCK challenge could have been done but instead Boztepe was operating with a different set of objectives in mind..and he pretty much got what he wanted--more safely without risking his future earnings potential and perhaps even bolstering it..

[t_niehoff]

YES... many real "fights" (this was not exactly one of them)...will look something like this.

One big difference, however, is that many real fights will see punches being thrown (and landed) from a standing position...and many fights will have punches and possibly knees being thrown from sort of clinch (or grabbing) situation.

And most real fights won't be the result of having someone surrounded by 6 of your friends.

Yes, stand-up striking can be involved in realistic fighting -- no argument there. But they will almost invariably lead, as Mr. Larson points out, to grappling (clinch and ground). This is why most realistic fights will end up looking like Cheung-Boztepe.

[t_niehoff]

Can we all stop talking about what exactly happened in that fight -- and instead focus on the lessons we can draw from it? And how those can and should be incorporated into our training.

[CFT]

And most real fights won't be the result of having someone surrounded by 6 of your friends.No? Sounds like the kind of odds any aggressor would prefer.

[Nick Forrer]

Can we all stop talking about what exactly happened in that fight -- and instead focus on the lessons we can draw from it? And how those can and should be incorporated into our training.

Good luck with that

Most people like to stay in la la land dreaming of the grandmaster whose tears can cure cancer (shame then that he never cries).

[Wayfaring]

A MMA/NHB fight, the "lunch break at school", the after-school fight, the bar fight, Cheung-Boztepe, etc. will all look pretty much the same for the simple reason that when people really go at it full-out, all the sytlistic, nonfunctional, artful, etc. crap goes out the window, and all anyone can really make work are the same basic functional elements (because our bodies can only do a limited number of things at 100%).

Do you mean like this "lunch break at school" fight? Adryan steals Kevin's lunch money, and messes up his hairnet. Kevin doesn't like it. They step out back and have a disagreement. Kevin leaves happy after his homeys collect the money and rights to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vkdIcQsYow

[t_niehoff]

Clearly Boztepe took Cheung down and held him there for a reason--that is a tactical choice. Making the case that this wasn’t a clear tactical choice is arbitrary and specious, IMO. If I wanted to fight someone and test my WCK against theirs I would not attempt to *shoot* and get a takedown, let alone keep him there restrained..



Boztepe didn't do a shoot. He ran in, clinched, and they grappled until they went to the floor.

I remember the famous (infamous?) incident when Larry Holmes, the then heavyweight boxing champion, got into a "streetfight" against his soon-to-be opponent, and how he came running over a car, jumped on the guy, took him down, and began pummeling him. Sound familiar? Is this how boxers "test their boxing"? No. It is how people really fight.



With this kind of reasoning we are asked to agree that WCK in a real situation breaks down into haphazard floor restraint..


No, it is just when people fight realistically, they invariably end up grappling and from there, often hit the floor.



In the case of Cheung and Boztepe a WCK challenge could have been done but instead Boztepe was operating with a different set of objectives in mind..and he pretty much got what he wanted--more safely without risking his future earnings potential and perhaps even bolstering it..

Yes, Boztepe wnated to embarass Cheung and he succeeded. However, my point is that regardless of how the fight began, regardless of who won, regardless of everything else, that when two people, kids on a playground or top level fighters, fight realistically, it will end up pretty much looking the same -- because that is the nature of fighting.

[Ultimatewingchun]

You guys should go back and reread my first post on this thread - as I've added greatly to it (before even realizing that there were so many followup posts).

[YungChun]

Do you mean like this "lunch break at school" fight?

Apparently they didn’t get the memo on how to fight "for real" correctly...

This shows that what happens in a "duel" type fight is based on how fighters train, and how they think they are supposed to fight. .

When you have two folks that have similar "fight thinking" their fighting will reflect that, not what someone else's "fight thinking" is...

The trick is when two are different and have different "fight thinking" then often the better fighter's methods will dominate, venue permitting..

[Ultimatewingchun]

First of all - the details of the exact incident are important to understanding exactly what happened in this "fight" and why.

Again: One man wants to charge and fight and the other, for several reasons (shoes/floor, being surrounded, a lone Chinese in a caucasion country for the first time - and not exactly the most openminded of countries to foreigners of a different race)...

So clearly all of this influenced his "fight" choices push away/keep him at bay kicks, headlocks instead of punches, etc.)

Sorry, but there's just no getting around that.

[t_niehoff]

Apparently they didn’t get the memo on how to fight "for real" correctly...

This shows that what happens in a "duel" type fight is based on how fighters train, and how they think they are supposed to fight. .

When you have two folks that have similar "fight thinking" their fighting will reflect that, not what someone else's "fight thinking" is...

The trick is when two are different and have different "fight thinking" then often the better fighter's methods will dominate, venue permitting..

There is something in what you are saying -- often people get "trapped" into playing their game, and if both play the same sort of game, like let's stand here and bang away as in that clip, that's what you get. Or, you get crap like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ixi2GLcd9s

where the two "fighters" are constipated by their training/theory.

However, in most realistic fights you get people ending up in a clinch. And if you have good stand up, good clinch, and good ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9WPWJLodE&mode=related&search=

same Kimbo, different opponent.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

It never fails to amaze me how people want to dwell on the past.

First of all this "fight" proved nothing for either side. The only thing it accomplished was to make everyone involved, entire lineages not just the individuals, look foolish. It did not rectify any views on who was the "best Wing Chun" person. Each side has made, and most likely will continue to make, claims showing how they "prevailed". Everyone will continue to make excuses for why their side may have looked bad. In the end nothing is accomplished and this is better left in the past. It is highly doubtful that anyone will have their minds changed by anything posted here and this thread and those like it, really serve little purpose other than to keep trouble brewing.

This whole matter kind of reminds me of my 6 year old daughter when she has a cut and it has scabbed over. While it is better to leave the scab alone to heal, some doubtless will pick at it even though it does little more than keep the wound from healing quicker. Still, no matter how ofter I tell my daughter to leave it alone she will still pick at it, go figure.

[t_niehoff]

First of all - the details of the exact incident are important to understanding exactly what happened in this "fight" and why.


The problem, Victor, is that there is great disagreement over "the details" -- so instead of arguing about them, let's focus on the general lessons involved.



Again: One man wants to charge and fight and the other, for several reasons (shoes/floor, being surrounded, a lone Chinese in a caucasion country for the first time - and not exactly the most openminded of countries to foreigners of a different race)...

So clearly all of this influenced his "fight" choices push away/keep him at bay kicks, headlocks instead of punches, etc.)

Sorry, but there's just no getting around that.

And it could just be the case that when one man charges in at another, it is very, very difficult to avoid the clinch -- which is my point. And from there, it will often lead to the ground, particularly if someone hasn't spent a lot of time working in the clinch developing the skills to stay up.

[tbone]

I was watching some shows on National Geographic recently called "Lockdown" about what goes on inside America's prisons. Both women and men penetentiaries were showcased. They showed a bunch of fights. In some of them there was some grappling. In most of them it was stand up until someone got caught and the person receiving the blow went to the ground.

I've watched a ton of street fights on the web. I've seen dozens of street fights in real life. Some are stand up until someone gets caught while others almost immediately turn into a grappling match. I think all one can say is that street fights are dynamic and unpredictable. You'd better train all phases of combat so you can defend yourself accordingly.

[sihing]

I think it's important to realize:

1) We're all amateur's, if even that maybe just active hobbyist, in this thing we call "FIGHTING"

2)Reality is different for everybody, Situations arising are different each and every time we are engaged in them, whether it is driving to the store for groceries or defending your self in a fight.

3) Anything can happen in a fight, striking, grappling, 2,3,4,5... on 1, weapons, sprays, etc. The point is there are NO guarantee’s, to think so is foolish. All you can do is make the odds better in your favour and hope you are lucky enough to get out of it alive.

4) Time is limited, so we choose to do what we LIKE, not always what is best. I practice WC because I love it. Of course it is not the be all end all of fighting, as there are lots of ways to the same destination. If you believe you are invincible, you will find out through time how wrong you are. If you think your method is invincible, you will find out how wrong you are.

5) Training and learn something, especially physical is a process. Wing chun is a complicated process to learn. We all know how to defend ourselves instinctually, but to refine it and make it more effective we have to follow a method, so that someday that method is within us and no longer foreign but a part of our natural way of doing things combat related. This still doesn't guarantee anything, which is why we mostly practice it because we ENJOY IT, not because it is super effective or a guarantee of success in a fight.

Just my theoretical 2 cents on this subject..:)


James

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've seen what William Cheung does against someone who charges him (in private seminars) - and there's lots of stiff arm (gum sao) and simultaneous punching or palm strikes going on.....or short, quick low kicks followed immediately by multiple punches.

No...I know what I'm talking about here.

He wanted no part of this "fight" - and he chose his responses accordingly.

And I won't be trolled any further by you (or anyone) about it. I came on here to make my point - and that's it. (Your trolling always takes the form of ENDLESS rounds of argumentation).

Which is why you're on my IGNORE LIST.

I only came on this thread to help keep things clear about what really happened to my sifu in Germany and why.

My work is done here.

[sihing]

I've seen what William Cheung does against someone who charges him (in private seminars) - and there's lots of stiff arm (gum sao) and simultaneous punching going on.....or short, quick low kicks followed immediately by multiple punches.

No...I know what I'm talking about here.

He wanted no part of this "fight" - and he chose his responses accordingly.

And I won't be trolled any further by you (or anyone) about it. I came on here to make my point - and that's it. (Your trolling always takes the form of ENDLESS rounds of argumentation).

Which is why you're on my IGNORE LIST.

I only came on this thread to help keep things clear about what really happened in Germany and why.

My work is done here.

Victor has a point here. No one knows exactly what was happening inside Cheung's head or Boztepe's head when the encounter happened. Me, if I was in a strange foreign place alone (1st lesson learned is to NOT go to such places alone), not familiar with who was attacking me, who the people were that brought me there in the first place, the laws of the place where I was at, what weapons the people could have had, etc...I too would be tentative to totally take someone out (not that Cheung could or could not have done that). Like I said in my post, situations are different everyday for everyone involved. To me the video show's that Boztepe had a dominant position over Cheung for sure, but it does not show him totally taking him out either. Especally when he was able to continue on with the seminar afterwards. My first Sifu was there in Australia at the time, and when Cheung came back earlier than expected from the event he noticed NO bruises or marks of anykind on him. And he did tell everyone not to retaliate, which is a good thing in my book.

James

[Knifefighter]

.followed by about 10 seconds of a very ineffectual mount while throwing punches

There was no mount. Boztepe probably could have done much more damage if he would have taken the mount, although, at the time he probably had no groundfighting experience.

[Knifefighter]

So clearly all of this influenced his "fight" choices push away/keep him at bay kicks, headlocks instead of punches, etc.)

Wait a minute. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure WC has no headlocks. You're trying to say that a grandmaster who trained for decades in a style suddenly decides to use something that is completely foreign to this style?

Sorry... not buying that spin.

[tbone]

There was no mount. Boztepe probably could have done much more damage if he would have taken the mount, although, at the time he probably had no groundfighting experience.
right, because nobody could ever mount another without previous groundfighting experience.

[tbone]

Wait a minute. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure WC has no headlocks. You're trying to say that a grandmaster who trained for decades in a style suddenly decides to use something that is completely foreign to this style?

Sorry... not buying that spin.maybe you are the one trolling?

[Ultimatewingchun]

First and last post on this thread replying to the other troll on my IGNORE LIST.

The guy was a streetfighter in Hong Kong back in the 1950's...and permanently left for Australia when the word on the street was that he was going to be shot or stabbed by a rival gang for poking somebody's eye out in a fight. (And he was stabbed in an attack by multiple opponents - an event witnessed by another future wing chun master, Duncan Leung).

Was 19-20 years old when he got to Australia - where he's lived all these years. And during his 20's-30's he had a number of fights as well.

You think he doesn't know what a headlock is?

If you do, you're clueless.

But by now we all know where you're coming from. Of course you know that William Cheung knows about headlocks. Anybody who's ever been in a streetfight in a western country (or even seen such fights) knows.

Enough said.

[Knifefighter]

You think he doesn't know what a headlock is?
If you do, you're clueless.
But by now we all know where you're coming from. Of course you know that William Cheung knows about headlocks. Anybody who's ever been in a streetfight in a western country (or even seen such fights) knows.
Enough said.

Then why would he use such an ineffectual technique? Surely all his years of WC training would have taught him some type of control technique that was more effective.

[Knifefighter]

right, because nobody could ever mount another without previous groundfighting experience.

Without groundfighting knowledge, most people will not purposely seek to obtain the mount. Unless one has knowledge of the strategy, if the mount is obtained, it will usually just be incidental to what is happening.

[JPinAZ]

Apparently they didn’t get the memo on how to fight "for real" correctly...

This shows that what happens in a "duel" type fight is based on how fighters train, and how they think they are supposed to fight. .

When you have two folks that have similar "fight thinking" their fighting will reflect that, not what someone else's "fight thinking" is...

The trick is when two are different and have different "fight thinking" then often the better fighter's methods will dominate, venue permitting..

Another issue is, this fight (Kimbo fight) is a prize fight with 'boxing' rule (stand up only). So the fight looks like that because of rules.

[Phil Redmond]

Wait a minute. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure WC has no headlocks. You're trying to say that a grandmaster who trained for decades in a style suddenly decides to use something that is completely foreign to this style?

Sorry... not buying that spin.

****, I didn't want to get dragged back into this forum ****ing contest again.
Ok, let's see you think that WC only has chi sau, straight
punches and some kicks right? Well, WC also has self defense
techniques as well.
Duncan Leung taught all sorts of self defense. He even taught how to protect yourself in case you were knocked to the ground. WC also teaches how to escape from headlocks, fighting from the floor,escapes from wrist grabs, grabs from the side, from behind, etc. At least that what was taught by the Sifus in NYC back in the day. Dale your statement says that your knowledge of WC is limited. I remember when you were sparring with my student Rahsun in L.A.
When he escaped from something you did I heard you ask him if he'd studied grappling because what he did to escape was an advanced technique. He replied that he was just using WC principles.
btw, Rahsun should be in L.A. this week. He can clear up any misconceptions you have about WC.I'll email you his cell number. Or you can wait until I come out there later this year. I have your cell number so I'll let you know when I'll be there.
Phil

[duende]

WC has no headlocks??? :confused: :rolleyes:

[YungChun]

So the fight looks like that because of rules.

Rules?

Are you familiar with Kimbo's rules?

Are you familiar with his fight against the MMA (grappler) guy?

[t_niehoff]

I think it's important to realize:

1) We're all amateur's, if even that maybe just active hobbyist, in this thing we call "FIGHTING"


So what? What does getting paid money matter?



2)Reality is different for everybody, Situations arising are different each and every time we are engaged in them, whether it is driving to the store for groceries or defending your self in a fight.


I agree that there are different fighting situations, but there is only one reality.



3) Anything can happen in a fight, striking, grappling, 2,3,4,5... on 1, weapons, sprays, etc. The point is there are NO guarantee’s, to think so is foolish. All you can do is make the odds better in your favour and hope you are lucky enough to get out of it alive.


Yes, as Wong said, "fighting is gambaling." But how you train and what you train is critical in increasing - or decreasing - your odds.



4) Time is limited, so we choose to do what we LIKE, not always what is best. I practice WC because I love it. Of course it is not the be all end all of fighting, as there are lots of ways to the same destination. If you believe you are invincible, you will find out through time how wrong you are. If you think your method is invincible, you will find out how wrong you are.


Agreed.



5) Training and learn something, especially physical is a process. Wing chun is a complicated process to learn. We all know how to defend ourselves instinctually, but to refine it and make it more effective we have to follow a method, so that someday that method is within us and no longer foreign but a part of our natural way of doing things combat related. This still doesn't guarantee anything, which is why we mostly practice it because we ENJOY IT, not because it is super effective or a guarantee of success in a fight.

Just my theoretical 2 cents on this subject..:)

James

Functional martial arts can't be complicated, either to learn or apply. They need to be rather simple. Being simple allows higher levels of performance.

[t_niehoff]

Rules?

Are you familiar with Kimbo's rules?

Are you familiar with his fight against the MMA (grappler) guy?

Jonathan is correct. Kimbo doesn't always fight with the same "rules."

[YungChun]

Jonathan is correct. Kimbo doesn't always fight with the same "rules."

Great Terrence.. Perhaps you could share what rules were used...

No clinching? Excluding the ever popular 'fook sao clinch' of course... :rolleyes:

No ground and pound?

No grappling?

No submissions?


=================

These folks fought the way that did, very simply because that's how they fight.. Simple as that...

[sihing]

So what? What does getting paid money matter?
JR- Amateur in the fact that most of us here do not train full time, have coach's watching us train/fight, with critique, personal trainers/nutritionalist, etc.. It matters because to be the best you must train that way, and make the committment to do what it takes to achieve that goal. I'm not willing to make that committment for a variety of reason's, are you T? If your not at your best, then how do you judge someone when doing a physical activity. My understanding was that Boztepe trained for a year for the challenge with Cheung, how long did Cheung train? (I could be wrong about the year thing, correct me if that is so)

I agree that there are different fighting situations, but there is only one reality.

JR- Your reality is different from mine, because we are different people and interpret things differently, see thing different, understand things different and have different interests, especially when it comes to our Martial Arts. Therefore our reality if different. The reality of a fight is that anything can happen, the intensity can be anything on the scale, from a mugging to fighting for your life and families (to me there is a big difference here).


Yes, as Wong said, "fighting is gambaling." But how you train and what you train is critical in increasing - or decreasing - your odds.

JR- Agreed, that is why I said that the only thing you can do is increase your odds of success. Learning something (regardless of what we experts think of the art) is still better than nothing. Increase is increase, even though it may only be slight. Remember, we're not talking about defeating world class athletes like Liddel, Jackson, and Ortiz here, but surviving the street in which we live in, at least that is what I am talking about.



Functional martial arts can't be complicated, either to learn or apply. They need to be rather simple. Being simple allows higher levels of performance.

JR- IMO functional is not always natural reaction born within us (at least not in the majority of us, but there are a few freaks out there I'm sure..). If this is true, then you have to learn what IS functional, and HOW to get to be functional. This is a process of development. In the end I agree, that the result concerning your own movement and thinking is simplicity, efficiency and directness. IMO after you learn the basics of body mechanics, structure, sensitivity bla bla bla, you need to learn how to relate to an opponent through timing, distance control and perception. If you can grasp these things, combined with your new body mechanics, you become an effective fighter, the problem is getting there is not always easy or simple IMO. Dealing with another person hell bent on hurting you, whether in the ring or out, is never an easy thing to accomplish when the skills/attributes are of similiar levels. If one of these factors is uneven, then you have a big advantage, but still Fighting is risky business.


James........

[Knifefighter]

Ok, let's see you think that WC only has chi sau, straight
punches and some kicks right? Well, WC also has self defense
techniques as well.
What is the difference between WC fighting techs and self-defense techs?


Dale your statement says that your knowledge of WC is limited.
Which statement is that?



I remember when you were sparring with my student Rahsun in L.A.
When he escaped from something you did I heard you ask him if he'd studied grappling because what he did to escape was an advanced technique. He replied that he was just using WC principles.
We've already discussed that in another thread here. What he did was more than likely specific to him, his athleticism and his own personal ability. I doubt it was a WC principle, since you didn't know what he was doing.

[Knifefighter]

Great Terrence.. Perhaps you could share what rules were used...
No clinching? Excluding the ever popular 'fook sao clinch' of course... :rolleyes:
No ground and pound?
No grappling?
No submissions?

Kimbo's "backyard" fights are standing only. No grappling, no G&P, no submissions.

He is scheduled to fight a full MMA bout in the near future which will include ground & grappling.

[PangQuan]

I used a headlock, AND mount in several of my scuffles back when i was a teen.

I had no martial arts training at the time, i just liked to get in trouble.


i must be a total natural to have been able to employ those techniques without any formal training, man im a beast.

bow down to your superior :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

Can we all stop talking about what exactly happened in that fight -- and instead focus on the lessons we can draw from it?

LOL, how can you draw lessons from it while disregarding what happened?

The biggest lesson from this episode for you, Terence, is to not stir up trouble for the sake of it and not assume everyone will be interested in what you have to say no matter how many times you say it.

You seem unwilling to accept the lesson.

A more general lesson might be, if you want to challenge someone for maximum notoriety, make sure the odds are stacked well in your favour and use the element of surprise. Ambushes are better than challenge matches that both sides can train for.

Another might be to not try to raise yourself up by saying everyone else's stuff is rubbish, because someone somewhere will eventually call you on it.

I own the H2H book, FWIW. The "father of modern combat" tag seems rather disingenuous toward guys like Fairbairn and Applegate. But if you've read "The Gracie Way", you'll see Kid Peligro's not always objective.

[Phil Redmond]

What is the difference between WC fighting techs and self-defense techs?
In our system self defense techinques are used when you are grabbed or restrained. It's a distinction used as a teaching tool



Which statement is that?
WC has no headlocks.




We've already discussed that in another thread here. What he did was more than likely specific to him, his athleticism and his own personal ability. I doubt it was a WC principle, since you didn't know what he was doing.
You're right. I didn't see what Rahsun did. So I just called to ask if he remembered. He told me that he used a WC principle to get away. That's from his own mouth. The principle was not fighting force with force. You pushed his leg/knee one way and he went with it to escape. Your doubting Rahsun is like saying he doesn't know WC principles. No more pi**ing contest for me. I'm too busy training to continue this. I'll email his number. You can email me personally. I'm done posting here unless it's about some event or something important.
Peace,
Phil

[byond1]

My Fast 2cents!~

If someone wants to tell me ~Their~ WCK doesnt include Kum Na and Sot Gow, I can accept that. I might even be able to accept someone thats authoritative, in a particular branch stating, ~therr~ branch of WCK doesnt include Kum na and Sot Gow. But to say WCK doesnt include Kum Na and Sot Gow is plain, incorrect.

WCK is a very unique martial art. It fuses internal and external methods into one hybred system. Its nature is of the 6 harmonies. 3 internal - 3 external. This is the manefestation of the Snake and Crane esssence.

WCK is also one of the few CMA, that is Conceptual, Principle, and Ging based. In fact most MA are technique based, hence their limited use and application.

White Crane, WCK, Southern Mantis, and a few other Hakka and internal arts, are Ging based, and conceptual/principle in nature. This means they can be applied in a wide range of uses, limited to ones imagination, and the criterion as defined by the Concepts, Principles, Physical structure, and Kuen Kuit.

All Ging based, conceptual arts, can and should be used for Da, Gerk, Kum Na, Sot Gow. Striking, Kicking, Siezing and locking, and grappling.

Within striking, includes Fist, palm, and finger, forearm and elbow, shoulder and body. Within kicking , other than the obvious, are also found Knee strikes. Within Kum Na is found locking, submission and breaking of Fingers, wrists, elbow, shoulder,ankle, knee and neck. Ontop of Breaking, we also have seperating tendons and ligaments. Within Sot Gow, is takedowns, sweeps, throws, ect.

How far one can use WCK for Sot Gow, is really only limited to ones imagination. AND you must remain within the context first and foremost or loose actually doing WCK. WCK may or may not contain sealing the vein and breath as well.

So I understand some may not have these things, but that doesnt mean WCK is missing them.

Also most branchs of WCK have "Self defence senarios" they train early on that introduces the student to senarios that one may encounter, as well as the use of WCK to counter them. These are typicaly called "San Sau"


Peace

Brian

[anerlich]

They showed a bunch of fights. In some of them there was some grappling. In most of them it was stand up until someone got caught and the person receiving the blow went to the ground.


Must have been one of those holiday camp prisons for the rich.

I saw a doco on the Aryan Brotherhood, which showed a lot of video'ed "Fights". Except the fights were either one guy getting shiv'ed while he was distracted by one or more henchmen who then joined in, or one or two being rushed and pulverised by a large group with shivs and other improvised weapons.

Terence is sounding like more of a theoretician than anyone else on this thread ... speculating from a video, quoting books, etc. etc. Hypocrisy par excellence.

[Knifefighter]

WC has no headlocks.

I guess you are right. I didn't know WC had headlocks. As you can see by that video, headlocks are pretty ineffective, are pretty easy to counter and lead one to be in a pretty bad position. Maybe it would be better if you took the headlocks out of the curriculum.


You're right. I didn't see what Rahsun did. So I just called to ask if he remembered. He told me that he used a WC principle to get away. That's from his own mouth. The principle was not fighting force with force. You pushed his leg/knee one way and he went with it to escape.

See... even he doesn't know what he did. I pushed the shin one way and he didn't go with it... he went the opposite direction. Hmmm... must have been an accident.


I'll email his number. You can email me personally. I'm done posting here unless it's about some event or something important.
Peace,
Phil

Phil: please quit e-mailing me people's numbers. When you come out you can look me up. You and I can spar and you can clear up all my misconceptions then.

[AmanuJRY]

First of all - the details of the exact incident are important to understanding exactly what happened in this "fight" and why.


Not if people can't even agree on the details of the fight.;)

[sihing]

Here's a clip of Cheung back in his hay days punchin, http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2035424075 . Pretty fast hands :)

Just thought I post this up, historical footage per say.

J

[Liddel]

Can we all stop talking about what exactly happened in that fight -- and instead focus on the lessons we can draw from it? And how those can and should be incorporated into our training.

A-F--ken-men bruva !

Who cares anyway, like if you loose one fight it means you cant fight ....:eek:
Someone should tell that to the Ice man or The Natural.

I think Matt Hughes said it best "if you havent lost, your not fighting the right people"

EVERYBODY LOOSES...so what ?

I agrre with T, fights look messy, unorganised and whats more IME they tend to find you when you least expect and/or feel like it.

Say when your wearing your favorite silk slippers for example :cool:

Rarely will you be comfronted right after training when your in the zone and all warmed up ready to bang on flat ground and squaring off face to face in a fair and reasonable confrontation.. :rolleyes:

I was attacked by two guys, one with a bottle in hand. I was sucker punched and came out with a broken nose. But you know what - i survived because of my training, and did my own damage ;)

The Sifu worship and untouchable fighter mentallity is for comic books IMHO.

Ive learnt from these occasions and others experience also, ive asked grapplers to take me down over and over and applied what i know already to what they give me...it aint the be all and end all but its a good start for me.

Lets move the f--k on already !

[sihing]

A-F--ken-men bruva !

Who cares anyway, like if you loose one fight it means you cant fight ....:eek:
Someone should tell that to the Ice man or The Natural.

I think Matt Hughes said it best "if you havent lost, your not fighting the right people"

EVERYBODY LOOSES...so what ?

I agrre with T, fights look messy, unorganised and whats more IME they tend to find you when you least expect and/or feel like it.

Say when your wearing your favorite silk slippers for example :cool:

Rarely will you be comfronted right after training when your in the zone and all warmed up ready to bang on flat ground and squaring off face to face in a fair and reasonable confrontation.. :rolleyes:

I was attacked by two guys, one with a bottle in hand. I was sucker punched and came out with a broken nose. But you know what - i survived because of my training, and did my own damage ;)

The Sifu worship and untouchable fighter mentallity is for comic books IMHO.

Ive learnt from these occasions and others experience also, ive asked grapplers to take me down over and over and applied what i know already to what they give me...it aint the be all and end all but its a good start for me.


I'm all for it as well. The more you expose yourself to, the better prepared you will be. Pressure testing is all a part of the process, if you don't do that, what do you have, not much IMO. But the thing I see on this forum and other's, is a select few making big time assumptions about what people are doing and thinking. In todays age of technology and media sharing, it is highly unlikely that someone that trains in stand up alone (which doesn't necessarily exclude grappling) is going to think that they can unanimously defeat any and all grapplers, that is a joke. Maybe a decade or two ago that would be something most of us would think, but not today. Grappling and MMA IMO has opened our minds up to alot of possibilities that can happen out there today, and to me that is a good thing. Like Liddel said, all you have to do is use what you know against what they are doing, the more you do that the more secure you will be with whatever you are practicing.

James

[Mr Punch]

The expression 'the Ghey' should be resurrected for this thread.

Ultimate: you're hilarious! You said you were going two days ago and have been back every day since! To reply to people you supposedly have on ignore...! :D I mean, no offence mate, but just own up - you love fighting on the internet!

Terrence: what was your point exactly? Let me guess: you really wanted to just include the Kid Peligro quote but were afraid to come out and say "100% of fights go to the ground"... is it not old enough news that you should train all ranges and blah blah blah without flogging two old dead horses with one whip? :rolleyes:

Phil: nice to see you around again... even if you are just popping up to say, there's no way I'm gonna post on a stoopid thread like this? :p :)

But by far the funniest quote on the thread has to be this:
Me, if I was in a strange foreign place alone (1st lesson learned is to NOT go to such places alone), not familiar with who was attacking me, who the people were that brought me there in the first place, the laws of the place where I was at, what weapons the people could have had, etc...I too would be tentative to totally take someone out Yep, there's no ****ing way I'd go to a suspicious place like another ****ing country on my own...! :D :D :D. AND I'd make sure I was only attacked by people I knew. Plus, if I was giving a seminar, I'd make sure it was only with people I knew who I'd frisk first. And finally, kids, don't forget to check with an officer of the law before you defend yourself from a violent attack...! :rolleyes:

Holy ****, kids, it's been a lot of fun, but there's no way I'm posting on this thread again...! :D

[Mr Punch]

... I've got far better things to do...

like go and play with my lego set...

:rolleyes:

:D

[Edmund]

I was trying to make the point. however, that in response to the valid comments I received (some of them), the problem is that I composed most of that "synopsis" scenario - it was, in my opinion, exceedingly biased until I revised about 25 edits. The point I was trying to make is, isn't almost every behavior that one observes a POV?


Then you should not REMOVE other POVs from wikipedia pages.

You chopped whole chunks out.
How can you claim that you fixed the page when you removed other people's POVs?

If you acknowledge that there are different POVs and you just admitted that you have bias, you can't put only your version on the page and remove other people's.

A look at the history of the page will show the type of edits you did.

You can't produce a balanced page if you take it upon yourself to remove opposing views from the page. Similarly you can not put editorial in. It's meant to be factual. Not your free promotional page.

For instance, stating this is just your way of taking a dig at another lineage:
"Many martial arts practitioners, including members of the Wing Tsun community '''who were privy to the assault''', particularly what orchestrated it, viewed this as a disgrace to martial arts and cite incidents such as this as among reasons which to leave Leung Tings organization."

Quoting a forum thread as a source still doesn't make it relevant.

[Wayfaring]

However, in most realistic fights you get people ending up in a clinch. And if you have good stand up, good clinch, and good ground:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9WPWJLodE&mode=related&search=

same Kimbo, different opponent.

Correct. Here - no clinch game, no ground game = loss. Sometimes you can succeed to keep a fight in your element if you are extremely talented. However, a better approach is to be well rounded to succeed with a fight goes to your less talented element. Even if your strategy is to survive in the less talented arena to be able to take it to a better arena.

[JPinAZ]

Kimbo's "backyard" fights are standing only. No grappling, no G&P, no submissions.

He is scheduled to fight a full MMA bout in the near future which will include ground & grappling.

This is correct as far as rules. I also believe there's a 'laying 20 count'.

And don't forget his upcoming fight with Ray Mercer either this month or July (but not sure if that's a boxing match or MMA)

[Paul T England]

Surely part of learning a martial art system is to retrain you moves/instincts etc so that you fight a certian way. If you loose your head/cool/composure then you will revert back to instincts.....

Also if you don't finsh a person and they do something like grab you then yes you are in a grappling situation

95% of stats are......add your own ending....

Just my two cents.....

Paul

[kj]

I think it's important to realize:

[deleted important points 1-5]

Just my theoretical 2 cents on this subject..:)


James,

That is a mature, well considered, and invaluable $.02. Nicely done.

Regards,
- kj

[t_niehoff]

Surely part of learning a martial art system is to retrain you moves/instincts etc so that you fight a certian way. If you loose your head/cool/composure then you will revert back to instincts.....


IME we are hard-wired to move/act in certain ways and we can't erase that through training -- it will kick in when we are really hard-pressed. Those martial arts that are highly functional IMO build on this hard-wiring, they use our natural instincts, etc. rather than go against them. The human body is "designed" by evolution to function best (most power/speed/etc.) when we follow this hard-wiring, not try to go against it. Those martial arts that do try to "impose" different ways of moving/behaving will naturally fail when really pressed.

As far as not losing your head/composure, this comes from training (sparring) - in particular, from familiarity (being in that situation many, many times before).



Also if you don't finsh a person and they do something like grab you then yes you are in a grappling situation

95% of stats are......add your own ending....

Just my two cents.....

Paul

Finishing someone at stand-up (outside) range is possible, but highly unlikely (low percentage) particularly if your opponent doesn't "cooperate" and remain on the outside. For most people it takes an extraordinary amount of training to develop that ability (finishing on the outside), and a lot of training to maintain it. And even then, an opponent who really wants to clinch is very, very difficult to stop. That ability too takes a great amount of training. As Mr. Larson's data indicates, grappling, either stand-up or ground, is the situation that occurs most commonly.

[sanjuro_ronin]

As I see it, the Cheung-Boztepe fight was a good example of what a realistic fight will look like regardless of the "styles" of the combatants. A MMA/NHB fight, the "lunch break at school", the after-school fight, the bar fight, Cheung-Boztepe, etc. will all look pretty much the same for the simple reason that when people really go at it full-out, all the sytlistic, nonfunctional, artful, etc. crap goes out the window, and all anyone can really make work are the same basic functional elements (because our bodies can only do a limited number of things at 100%). That's why I think that the further a person gets away from this - in other words, the less your martial art "looks" like this - the less effective it will be.

On a related note, Matt Larson, the man considered to be the "father of Modern Army Combatives" (the system of hand-to-hand combat taught to the U.S. Rangers and special forces), reported that hundreds of soldiers that engaged in hand-to-hand combat in Afghanistan and Iraq were interviewed, and, according to Mr. Larson "every hand-to-hand fight we have documented has involved grappling, but not a single one has involved only striking." (quote from "Hand to Hand Combat" by Greg Thompson and Kid Peligro).

Hmmm...'realistic fights"...

Well, there are realistic fights between untrained people, there are realistic fights between trained and untrained and there are realistic fights between trained people.
There are realistic fights for police, for prison guards, prison inmates.
There are realistic fights between drunks.

Military H2H is a "joke" and anyone that has been in the military and has ANY type of MA background will atest to that.
To use what soldiers ( basically untrained or minimum training) due with other soliders as an example of anything in terms of H2H combat should come with a disclaimer.

The Emin and Cheung video was a joke, in all facets.

IF you can find a video of a TRAINED fighter in a street fight, then lets see it.

Fact is, anyone that thinks that a fight is LIMITED to any stage of combat is smoking weed and is not sharing, and this is not cool.

[t_niehoff]

Terence is sounding like more of a theoretician than anyone else on this thread ... speculating from a video, quoting books, etc. etc. Hypocrisy par excellence.

Are you becoming my own little stalker? ;)

No hypocrisy: Evidence is evidence -- not theory. Experience is evidence, whether our own or someone else's. People watch fights to learn from them, whether the fights are "live" or on video. The Larson data comes from interviewing soldiers that had "real" fights on the battlefield; they interviewed soldiers about what exactly happened. Starting with the fight and drawing conclusions from the fight is not theory, it is learning from real experience. Theory is when you begin with some "concept", some notion of how you believe fighting should be, not derived from real, actual experience.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This must be the REAL Dim Mak because its on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOllbvP3I3Q

Don't see any "grappling":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR-ky8jhFfs&mode=related&search=

After all that grappling...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3fVYlBk9Q&mode=related&search=

No comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqt5MyuxVc&mode=related&search=

[sanjuro_ronin]

" Can you feel the love tonight"..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvqrGtVCwK8&mode=related&search=

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just go on youtube and search for bar fights, sit back and laugh.

[t_niehoff]

Hmmm...'realistic fights"...

Well, there are realistic fights between untrained people, there are realistic fights between trained and untrained and there are realistic fights between trained people.
There are realistic fights for police, for prison guards, prison inmates.
There are realistic fights between drunks.


Exactly. There are all "kinds" of fights. And they are all "real" in the sense that the participants are really trying to hurt theother person, using realistic energy, moving in realsitic ways, etc. I make that distinction (realistic) so as to point out that what we need, regardless of the particular situation, is realistic skills: skills that work in realistic situations. The tactics we use will, of course, vary with the situation.



Military H2H is a "joke" and anyone that has been in the military and has ANY type of MA background will atest to that.
To use what soldiers ( basically untrained or minimum training) due with other soliders as an example of anything in terms of H2H combat should come with a disclaimer.


I think you miss the point. Military people, like Larson, has to prepare soldiers (the best they can in the time allotted in training) for what they are likely to encounter, and this is why they interviewed soldiers that had been in fights to see what things actually happened. They found that in almost all cases, the combatants came to grappling. This is not surprising; if you look at a lot of "street fight" videos (lots are up on the net), MMA fights, etc. you see pretty much the same thing played out over and over again.

Does that mean every fight will go that route? Of course not. But I do think that (very strong) possibility is something to be considered.



The Emin and Cheung video was a joke, in all facets.


Lessons can be learned from any fight.



IF you can find a video of a TRAINED fighter in a street fight, then lets see it.


They are out there (on the net) if you want to take the time to search. Here's one I had handy -- the second fight shows someone with some skills.

http://sublimedirectory.com/fights/ray_vs_jose_jorge.wmv



Fact is, anyone that thinks that a fight is LIMITED to any stage of combat is smoking weed and is not sharing, and this is not cool.

I'm not saying the fight is limited to grappling -- just that it is very, very likely it will at some point be involved. I agree that you need stand-up, clinch, and ground.

[t_niehoff]

This must be the REAL Dim Mak because its on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOllbvP3I3Q

Don't see any "grappling":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR-ky8jhFfs&mode=related&search=

After all that grappling...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3fVYlBk9Q&mode=related&search=

No comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqt5MyuxVc&mode=related&search=

There are "one-punch" knock-outs in streetfights and in top level events (Chuck Liddell knows), there are fights where people stand on the outside and punch each other, there are fights that begin in the clinch, there are fights . . . . We can find examples of all kinds of things. But what I am talking about is what happens typically, and to do that you need to look at this broadly. Is Rampage-Liddell (one punch knockout) typical? Or, if you look at MMA fights (and streetfights, etc.) broadly, do you see that in most cases grappling is involved?

For example, there are fights where someone has knocked out the person shooting in for a single leg with a knee strike. Does this mean that we should accept this as a good strategy? Not if you look at the broader view (compare how many times it worked vs. how many times it failed, and what other things work high-percentage). If we do that, then we realize that the knee strike is a low-percentage, high risk move.

As I said in another post, my point is that it is very likely a person will end up in a grappling situation. Those chances are elevated significantly if your opponent is really intent upon clinching (even poor boxers can clinch the best boxers). I think that is the broader view.

[CFT]

Terence,

re: military combatants - which came first, the evidence of real life encounters ending on the ground or the grappling training? If the soldiers feel comfortable on the ground because of their training then that influences what they do in the field.

Of course you make a good point about the amateur videos on the net.

[t_niehoff]

Terence,

re: military combatants - which came first, the evidence of real life encounters ending on the ground or the grappling training? If the soldiers feel comfortable on the ground because of their training then that influences what they do in the field.

Of course you make a good point about the amateur videos on the net.

Chee, by grappling I don't think they necessarily mean on the ground - people can grapple standing up too. My understanding is that the data encompasses both (some trained in ground and some not).

BTW, not too long ago I watched an interview with this soldier from WWII that received the Medal of Honor. He was an old guy recounting his exploits about what earned him the medal. At one point he talked about how he ran out of ammo and got into this fight with a japanese soldier, and got him in a headlock. He then said that they went to the ground and "somehow he (the japanese soldier) ended up on top." I laughed since this is one of the reasons BJJ people don't like the headlock -- typically if you go down, you end up mounted. While anecdotal, I think it illustrates what we see over and over again from MMA fihgts to street fights to apparently the battlefield: it is likely that fights will end up in some form of grappling, and this is the natural course of the fight.

[sihing]

Exactly. There are all "kinds" of fights. And they are all "real" in the sense that the participants are really trying to hurt theother person, using realistic energy, moving in realsitic ways, etc. I make that distinction (realistic) so as to point out that what we need, regardless of the particular situation, is realistic skills: skills that work in realistic situations. The tactics we use will, of course, vary with the situation.



I think you miss the point. Military people, like Larson, has to prepare soldiers (the best they can in the time allotted in training) for what they are likely to encounter, and this is why they interviewed soldiers that had been in fights to see what things actually happened. They found that in almost all cases, the combatants came to grappling. This is not surprising; if you look at a lot of "street fight" videos (lots are up on the net), MMA fights, etc. you see pretty much the same thing played out over and over again.

Does that mean every fight will go that route? Of course not. But I do think that (very strong) possibility is something to be considered.



Lessons can be learned from any fight.



They are out there (on the net) if you want to take the time to search. Here's one I had handy -- the second fight shows someone with some skills.

http://sublimedirectory.com/fights/ray_vs_jose_jorge.wmv



I'm not saying the fight is limited to grappling -- just that it is very, very likely it will at some point be involved. I agree that you need stand-up, clinch, and ground.

Terrence,

What's your point them with all these posts? That grappling is a possibility in a fight? We all know that, lol.

I can't really understand why you post what you do, when it is old news to all of us. Know one is here stating their WC (stand-up alone) is a guarantee against all comers in a fight. If that was the case, you would have the justification for what you are saying (which is basically trying to lecture an audience that deserves it..), but that is not the case. We all realise the realities of a fight, some of us more than others, and lucky for us some of those guys relate to us the true reality of it all.

The key IMO is to not have an attitude of superiority or c0ckyness. Underestimating someone in a fight is the worst thing you can do. Always expect the unexpected, and that the other guy is stronger and faster than you. At least this way you will be mentally psyc'd for it.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

A running joke in the military is that they teach you just enough H2H to get you killed in a real fight.

Luckily most troops are equally badly trained.

Fights look like crap because people don't train like real fights happen, they end up grappling because neither knows how to hit or lack knock out power.
Very few people would advocate grappling in a "real" fight UNLESS you have no other choice, the reason for this are obvious.

Milage varies from person to person, experience to experience, I can count on 1 hand the "grappling" altercations I have had over the many years.
And the ground fighting: ZERO.

Of course my judo and MT background probably helped a bit in that regard ;)

[sihing]

A running joke in the military is that they teach you just enough H2H to get you killed in a real fight.

Luckily most troops are equally badly trained.

Fights look like crap because people don't train like real fights happen, they end up grappling because neither knows how to hit or lack knock out power.
Very few people would advocate grappling in a "real" fight UNLESS you have no other choice, the reason for this are obvious.

Milage varies from person to person, experience to experience, I can count on 1 hand the "grappling" altercations I have had over the many years.
And the ground fighting: ZERO.

Of course my judo and MT background probably helped a bit in that regard ;)

I think that episode on TUF a couple of weeks ago was a good example (not that it represents the abosulte truth), of what can happen when you go for ground stuff to early. The guy on the bottom actually complained to the other guy when he dumped him on the concrete, lol. Whatta expect when it's not in the ring??

Realities are different for different people. The situation is real and that reality in and of itself is always the same, but how we deal with it is different for everybody here, based on all kinds of things. You can't judge street fights on video IMO, as we don't know the circumstance, the players in the fight or their experience. You can of course learn from them, as we can learn from any stimuli and everyone you meet in this world. Whether or not it is useful learning is another story.

J

[t_niehoff]

A running joke in the military is that they teach you just enough H2H to get you killed in a real fight.

Luckily most troops are equally badly trained.

Fights look like crap because people don't train like real fights happen, they end up grappling because neither knows how to hit or lack knock out power.
Very few people would advocate grappling in a "real" fight UNLESS you have no other choice, the reason for this are obvious.


Yes, some people have developed good "knock out power" - along with the skill to use it. However, IME much of that is genetics (even among boxers they say good punchers are born, not made). And even then, that power is limited to people more or less your same size or smaller (where are the videos of small guys knocking out much bigger guys?). But, if someone has that talent, by all means they should develop it.

I think a great many people, and some very good fighters, would advocate grappling in a "real" fight for a number of reasons. I've known some that have. As Helio said, "Lots of tough guys can take a punch; with choke, there is no tough guys." ;)

Moreoever, I think it is something that can and will happen if one of the participants really is intent upon doing it (grappling, stand up or ground).



Milage varies from person to person, experience to experience, I can count on 1 hand the "grappling" altercations I have had over the many years.
And the ground fighting: ZERO.

Of course my judo and MT background probably helped a bit in that regard ;)

And I know some people who swear by shotokan's reverse punch -- they've used it successfully "on the street". BTW, judo is grappling.

[t_niehoff]

I think that episode on TUF a couple of weeks ago was a good example (not that it represents the abosulte truth), of what can happen when you go for ground stuff to early. The guy on the bottom actually complained to the other guy when he dumped him on the concrete, lol. Whatta expect when it's not in the ring??


First of all, grappling is not limited to the ground -- it can happen standing up too (the clinch). Second, grappling doesn't necessarily mean being on the bottom if it goes to the ground. The guy who took your example down was grappling, and used grappling to dump him on concrete. So he successfully used grappling "on the street."



Realities are different for different people. The situation is real and that reality in and of itself is always the same, but how we deal with it is different for everybody here, based on all kinds of things. You can't judge street fights on video IMO, as we don't know the circumstance, the players in the fight or their experience. You can of course learn from them, as we can learn from any stimuli and everyone you meet in this world. Whether or not it is useful learning is another story.
J

When people take in information - whether in class or from watching videos or from watching fights, live or on tape - they do it at their level of understanding (which is their level of skill). Beginners don't "see" the same things experts do. What anyone "gets" from information depends on them: their skill/understanding level, their experience, etc. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water . . .

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, some people have developed good "knock out power" - along with the skill to use it. However, IME much of that is genetics (even among boxers they say good punchers are born, not made). And even then, that power is limited to people more or less your same size or smaller (where are the videos of small guys knocking out much bigger guys?). But, if someone has that talent, by all means they should develop it.

I think a great many people, and some very good fighters, would advocate grappling in a "real" fight for a number of reasons. I've known some that have. As Helio said, "Lots of tough guys can take a punch; with choke, there is no tough guys." ;)

Moreoever, I think it is something that can and will happen if one of the participants really is intent upon doing it (grappling, stand up or ground).



And I know some people who swear by shotokan's reverse punch -- they've used it successfully "on the street". BTW, judo is grappling.

Yes judo is grappling, I am a shodan in Judo, hence the "wink".

Punchers are born, not made, but almost anyone can learn to take out an untrained person with a strike, they just rarely do.

When Helio said that, he was talking about a ring fight, not a "real" fight.
real fights = the possibility of weapons, multiple attackers, enviromental conditions.
I should have said "ground fighting" not grappling, my bad.

As you saw in the clips I posted, when people go to the ground outside the 1-on-1 context, there is always someone ready to take a kick at them.

And yes, if one person is intent on "wrestling" or going to the ground, the chances increase that it COULD end up there.

But using a video that shows untrained people fighting to "prove" the necessity of grappling is not needed.
People that don't know the values of training grappling deserve to have a rude awakening.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,

What's your point them with all these posts? That grappling is a possibility in a fight? We all know that, lol.


Really? Then why do you, and others, argue with me? ;) But that's not all I am trying to say.



I can't really understand why you post what you do, when it is old news to all of us. Know one is here stating their WC (stand-up alone) is a guarantee against all comers in a fight. If that was the case, you would have the justification for what you are saying (which is basically trying to lecture an audience that deserves it..), but that is not the case. We all realise the realities of a fight, some of us more than others, and lucky for us some of those guys relate to us the true reality of it all.


I started this thread about the "lessons" of the Cheung-Boztepe fight (after that came up on a different thread). One of those lessons, in my view, is that it is a good example of what a fight will likely look like, and so we need to prepare for that. It will not, IMO, look like chi sao or the san sao that so many people in WCK practice believing they are developing fighting/self-defense skills ("this is what I will do in a fight"). As you can see from that fight, those sorts of things went out the window. And that's because, IMO, they trained to use their "tools" in unrealistic situations (in ways that don't reflect fighting) and when reality intruded, they had nothing. We can either learn from that or we can ignore it and go on believing everything is wonderful, and chalk it up to footwear choices. ;)



The key IMO is to not have an attitude of superiority or c0ckyness. Underestimating someone in a fight is the worst thing you can do. Always expect the unexpected, and that the other guy is stronger and faster than you. At least this way you will be mentally psyc'd for it.
James

The key in my view is being prepared for what is really going to happen.

[sihing]

Really? Then why do you, and others, argue with me? ;) But that's not all I am trying to say.



I started this thread about the "lessons" of the Cheung-Boztepe fight (after that came up on a different thread). One of those lessons, in my view, is that it is a good example of what a fight will likely look like, and so we need to prepare for that. It will not, IMO, look like chi sao or the san sao that so many people in WCK practice believing they are developing fighting/self-defense skills ("this is what I will do in a fight"). As you can see from that fight, those sorts of things went out the window. And that's because, IMO, they trained to use their "tools" in unrealistic situations (in ways that don't reflect fighting) and when reality intruded, they had nothing. We can either learn from that or we can ignore it and go on believing everything is wonderful, and chalk it up to footwear choices.

The key in my view is being prepared for what is really going to happen.

I at the least am stating that I know the possibility that a takedown/standing grappling situation can occur in a fight, the impression that I am getting from your posts is that you think we are unaware of that. So to me I am not arguing with you, but stating that "Yes I am aware of that possibility".

All we have to do is search "street fight" in youtube, and voila we have streetfights on our screen. I really don't know what the Cheung/Boztepe thing was, but again in that situation we can't really judge what happened and how it happened, unless we have been in the exact same situation.

The sentence above that I have bolded, who here is thinking this? Maybe you are preaching to the wrong crowd? The thing I learned from the Cheung/Boztepe is two fold, 1) don't be arrogant enough to proclaim yourself the #1 man in a Martial Art and expect no one to call you on it, 2) don't do a seminar in a place where you are unfamiliar with the people putting it on all by yourself, with no backup, especially if you are guilty of the act in #1. Yeah, that knee Cheung tried was not a good idea, as it set up Boztepe's takedown, and I agree, back then not much thought was put into being taken down and taken out from there. We've all learned alot regarding how effective BJJ is and other related Grappling arts, and no doubt that is part of the whole concerning streetfights. Like I've said two or three times already, anything and everything can happen in a fight. All we can do is prepare for it with what ever we have available to us. Time is limited for most of us, we all can't just drop everything else in our lives to take up full time Martial Arts training in all disiplines and ranges, to be able to defend ourselves, when the majority of the time our mouths and non phyical actions can do the work for us.

For me WC is a training method, built around concepts and priniciples applied through a body mechanic. What and how you use it is up to you the individual, not a text book or Sifu says manual. Techniques are the manifastation of what you come up with in the heat of the moment to deal with whatever pressure or situation that comes upon you. Each time you use it, it is different, depending on the situation and the person you are fighting against. Sometimes you will be defeated anyways, because the other guy is just that much better than you. Hopefully that guy is compassionate enough to stop when your defeated, as most people don't want to go to jail forever for something as insignifigant as a misunderstanding resulting in a streetfight.


James

[t_niehoff]

I at the least am stating that I know the possibility that a takedown/standing grappling situation can occur in a fight, the impression that I am getting from your posts is that you think we are unaware of that. So to me I am not arguing with you, but stating that "Yes I am aware of that possibility".


I don't doubt that everyone understands that "possibility." (Again, I am not talking strictly about groundfighting.). But, there is a difference between "possibility" and liklihood.

Moreoever, your example seemed to me to be more along the lines of see-why-grappling-bad, and missed the point that the "winner" had used grappling!



All we have to do is search "street fight" in youtube, and voila we have streetfights on our screen. I really don't know what the Cheung/Boztepe thing was, but again in that situation we can't really judge what happened and how it happened, unless we have been in the exact same situation.


We don't need to know -- just like we don't need to know what is really behind any other streetfight on youtube. We can learn from it as it is. What we see are two WCK instructors of high reknown (and I agree that both knew WCK) fighting in a way different than they teach, train, etc. What you see are two WCK guys fighting like everybody else does (in MMA, in streetfights, etc.) when they are really hard-pressed. Most, if not all, of the WCK went out the window. Why? In my view, for two essential reasons: 1) because they didn't train it realistically -- in other words, they didn't put it into realistic situations/contexts and practice it, and 2) much of what is taught, particularly in how it is typically explained, in WCK isn't practical in the first place (which they would see if the did #1). This is why when you see WCK "sparring" you most often don't see the WCK.



The sentence above that I have bolded, who here is thinking this? Maybe you are preaching to the wrong crowd? The thing I learned from the Cheung/Boztepe is two fold, 1) don't be arrogant enough to proclaim yourself the #1 man in a Martial Art and expect no one to call you on it, 2) don't do a seminar in a place where you are unfamiliar with the people putting it on all by yourself, with no backup, especially if you are guilty of the act in #1. Yeah, that knee Cheung tried was not a good idea, as it set up Boztepe's takedown, and I agree, back then not much thought was put into being taken down and taken out from there.


Your #1,2 are fine, but it doesn't say anything about what we learned about fighting (and WCK) from the fight.



We've all learned alot regarding how effective BJJ is and other related Grappling arts, and no doubt that is part of the whole concerning streetfights. Like I've said two or three times already, anything and everything can happen in a fight. All we can do is prepare for it with what ever we have available to us. Time is limited for most of us, we all can't just drop everything else in our lives to take up full time Martial Arts training in all disiplines and ranges, to be able to defend ourselves, when the majority of the time our mouths and non phyical actions can do the work for us.


Your missing the point. If your time is limited, as is mine, isn't it more important to get the most from your investment (of time and energy) in training? In other words, to find the shortest route to personal functionality? Here were two guys that had spent huge amounts of time and energy in WCK and they couldn't use it when hard-pressed. So what does that tell you about their method of training? That this is the way to go? Both Cheung and Boztepe (at that time) could do chi sao splendidly, could do san sao, could demo WCK brilliantly, etc. They had all the "concepts". ;) But it didn't work.

Of course, people will say "Yeah, they stunk, but my sifu or I could . . . " No. It's the fault of the training method. And everyone who trains like that will have similar results when hard-pressed.

My view is that we can either learn from this "experience" and adjust our training methods or keep repeating their mistake.



For me WC is a training method, built around concepts and priniciples applied through a body mechanic. What and how you use it is up to you the individual, not a text book or Sifu says manual. Techniques are the manifastation of what you come up with in the heat of the moment to deal with whatever pressure or situation that comes upon you. Each time you use it, it is different, depending on the situation and the person you are fighting against. Sometimes you will be defeated anyways, because the other guy is just that much better than you. Hopefully that guy is compassionate enough to stop when your defeated, as most people don't want to go to jail forever for something as insignifigant as a misunderstanding resulting in a streetfight.
James

Regardless of how you "see" WCK, your ability to use it (apply WCK in fighting) will depend primarily on the amount of quality realistic training (mainly sparring) you do trying to use your WCK. The lesson of Cheung-Boztepe IMO is that most WCK "training" is not really training (in the sense of preparing your for fighting) but simply learning (acquiring skills, etc.). And that much of what is being "taught" is ineffective.

[Knifefighter]

IF you can find a video of a TRAINED fighter in a street fight, then lets see it.

Umm... weren't BOTH of those guys trained?

[A Soave]

Obviously, your passion for WC rings loud and clear. And my analysis of what's going on is that there are people here whose agendas are not to share information; instead they seek to exploit your passion in the manner of provocateurs.

Proof of point: You detailed very clearly, what GM's intentions were (to suppress the confrontation) and you listed his reasoning that sounded reasonable, with nothing absurd or illogical about it. However, it elicited, in a few people here, some exceedingly stupid responses that simply disregarded any germane point you made. When people stray so far away from reason, obviously they have reasons; perhaps reasons of which they themselves are unaware. These people are beneath the dignity that you bring to the art. Anyone can talk to a keyboard. But I'll bet any of my licenses that they will would not express themselves similarly in front of you, Masters' Mazza or Redmond. GM just laughs this stuff off. Grandmaster NEEDS no defense, which those who know him can attest. I don't care if someone sees it as grandstanding or rhetoric, or whatever. Many great fighters talk - remember Ali?


[/QUOTE]
Which is why, btw...I'm stunned that people are allowed to edit other people's posts on the Wikipedia site.[/QUOTE]


I resented ANYBODY defining something as my POV, deleting and replacing it with THEIR POV. So I did it back, after the thousanth consecutive revision, and it IS more balanced. But initially, that was not balance, it was a subrosa agenda, and you don't need to be a profiler to recognize that.

But I suppose it is our instinct, he is our family, and we all know about the protectionism that goes along with family, especially us Italians.
So until somebody says something to your face (they won't), they are rendered rather insignificant; although ironically that is exactly why they protest, provoke, and spew. They really don't have a clue, do they?


A Soave

[sanjuro_ronin]

Umm... weren't BOTH of those guys trained?

Nope, they did WC !





Sorry, couldn't help it ! :D

[sihing]

I don't doubt that everyone understands that "possibility." (Again, I am not talking strictly about groundfighting.). But, there is a difference between "possibility" and liklihood.

Moreoever, your example seemed to me to be more along the lines of see-why-grappling-bad, and missed the point that the "winner" had used grappling!

JR-No not really, because I realize that scene in TUF was not the absolute reality, that is just an assumption on your part. I would love to train in BJJ but I don't have the time or inclinaton to do so at this moment. I realise someone with such training and stand up is more well rounded as a fighter than with either alone. Right now I prefer to teach and train in VT because I love it and I think it is good enough for my needs. Remember we are not PRO's, fighting other PRO's, just regular guys with a keen interest/hobby in Martial Arts. I'm not worried everyday that I will meet a Liddel or Jackson in a street encounter, sh!t I haven't had any encounters in the last 10yrs, never mind a world class/amatuer fighter.



We don't need to know -- just like we don't need to know what is really behind any other streetfight on youtube. We can learn from it as it is. What we see are two WCK instructors of high reknown (and I agree that both knew WCK) fighting in a way different than they teach, train, etc. What you see are two WCK guys fighting like everybody else does (in MMA, in streetfights, etc.) when they are really hard-pressed. Most, if not all, of the WCK went out the window. Why? In my view, for two essential reasons: 1) because they didn't train it realistically -- in other words, they didn't put it into realistic situations/contexts and practice it, and 2) much of what is taught, particularly in how it is typically explained, in WCK isn't practical in the first place (which they would see if the did #1). This is why when you see WCK "sparring" you most often don't see the WCK.

JR- I can agree that VT is mostly a stand up art, and that the idea is to not go to the ground. but IMO and other's going to the ground in a fight is a big no no. It's only done when you are forced and the idea is to do what you can when there and get back up. Of course if you have training in the relem you will be more prepared. Like I said, I don't really know what to think of the Cheung/Boztepe thing, as neither party really proved anything and neither got hurt.



Your #1,2 are fine, but it doesn't say anything about what we learned about fighting (and WCK) from the fight.

We all see things differently



Your missing the point. If your time is limited, as is mine, isn't it more important to get the most from your investment (of time and energy) in training? In other words, to find the shortest route to personal functionality? Here were two guys that had spent huge amounts of time and energy in WCK and they couldn't use it when hard-pressed. So what does that tell you about their method of training? That this is the way to go? Both Cheung and Boztepe (at that time) could do chi sao splendidly, could do san sao, could demo WCK brilliantly, etc. They had all the "concepts". ;) But it didn't work.

JR-Personal functionality may not be the goal of every practitioner. Listen, if someone was stating on the forum that they have the ultimate method capable of defeating any and all comers, then your posts would be perfectly appropiate to them, but no one here is claiming that. Most of us here have a common interest in WC/VT and whatever that includes, forms, techniques, concepts, training, personalities, etc.. Chi sau is a training platform, you take from that training and apply it to a real fight, rather than taking exactly the physical technique from the drill and applying it that way. Demo's are marketing, an idea conveyed to others about what the art may have to offer them, not a realistic portrail of a fight/self defense situation IMO. For all I know maybe Boztepe realized he couldn't match Cheung in the WC relem and decided to take him out of his element, who know's??

Of course, people will say "Yeah, they stunk, but my sifu or I could . . . " No. It's the fault of the training method. And everyone who trains like that will have similar results when hard-pressed.
JR- You see, this is what you do, assume. I for one would not think that, it is the furthest thing from my mind. Looking at a situation and judging it without having to be in their shoes is easy for anyone to do, it happens every Monday morning after the weekend games, lol.

My view is that we can either learn from this "experience" and adjust our training methods or keep repeating their mistake.

JR-Of course we all can learn from it, some of us different things, that what makes us individuals :)

Regardless of how you "see" WCK, your ability to use it (apply WCK in fighting) will depend primarily on the amount of quality realistic training (mainly sparring) you do trying to use your WCK. The lesson of Cheung-Boztepe IMO is that most WCK "training" is not really training (in the sense of preparing your for fighting) but simply learning (acquiring skills, etc.). And that much of what is being "taught" is ineffective.
JR- I agree here, if you don't pressure test it, it truely isn't yours, "To know and NOT DO is NOT KNOWING".



From your recent posts it is becoming clear to me anyways that you have lost all faith in the WC/VT training method
James.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think you've put your finger on something big, James, ie.- people losing faith in wing chun for one reason or another - and then everything but wing chun seems to be a better alternative for them. (Well, almost everything).

So once again I'll return to something I've been saying for years now (yeah, I guess that's part of my agenda - but not because I'm trying to come up with some new system with my name attached to it, LOL)...but because I just think that it makes the most sense from a fighting and scientific point of view.

WING CHUN IS FOR CLOSE QUARTER STANDUP INFIGHTING USING PRIMARILY HAND AND ELBOW STRIKES AND EMPHASIZES USING TWO ARMS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

We can argue and debate until we're blue in the face about wing chun also has longer range this, and longer range that...and it has some arm and elbow locks, some sweeps, a headlock, perhaps even some throws...and the kicking is not just a very close range straight front heel kick, etc.

And there's some truth in all of that. But my contention has been for some years now that since wing chun favors the PRINCIPLE of shoulders being squared up so that two arms can be used simultaneously to the same distance at virtually all times for attack and defense...

then by definition it is a very close quarter standup striking system.

Now take a look at this exchange between two others just a while ago on this thread (talking about the Cheung/Boztepe incident):

"Umm... weren't BOTH of those guys trained?" (KF)

"Nope, they did WC !

Sorry, couldn't help it !" (SR)

Meaning, their wing chun really didn't come into play and big mistakes were made in the clinch and groundfight mode of their exchange in what was supposedly a streetfight by two trained martial artists.

But my response to that exchange is this: WHY IS IT THAT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS AND DECADES WING CHUN IS STILL SO POPULAR - AND MANY PEOPLE STILL SWEAR BY IT FOR STREET ENCOUNTERS?

Because most real fighting will go to very close quarters - including clinch and ground - due to the nature of reality settings, ie.- real fights don't take place in an empty boxing ring or an octagon with nice cushy and well kept floors and where no one else will interfere if it goes to the ground.

So learning how to strike (and defend) from close range when punches or attempted grabs come - and to do so with both arms simultaneously...can be a very big plus. SINCE REALITY FIGHTING ALWAYS GETS TO CLOSE RANGE - AND USUALLY IN A HURRY. And if your wing chun training has allowed for the development of some nice power in your strikes from close range...and if your wing chun instruction has included a quality blocking/redirecting system with strong balance, smart footwork, and quick reflexes...and if your training regimen has included frequent hard sparring against worthy opponents...

then you've got something worthwhile. And a number of people in the wing chun world can attest to that.

Anybody who has ever truly gotten to see William Cheung in person over a period of time (and the same with Emin Boztepe I'm sure)...can testify to the fact that both men can definitely fight - and fight well. Very well.

Which doesn't mean that wing chun has all it needs for fighting AT LONGER STRIKING/KICKING RANGES THAN RIGHT-IN-YOUR-FACE, in the clinch, preventing takedowns, or groundfighting.

All systems of wing chun have their limitations in this regard.

Which is why a number of wing chun people (myself included) advocate some form of crosstraining.

But to throw out the baby with the bathwater because you (whoever you are) didn't get higher quality wing chun instruction or training methods is foolish.

Wing Chun can definitely do damage - especially at close (almost clinch) standup range.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Look, Cheungs problem was NOT his WC, it was HIM, he was NOT ready to fight even though he was challenged.
Its just that simple.

Emin had the intent to beat on WC, WC didn't want to fight, he was a "step behind" and paid for it, that simple.

[A Soave]

Look, Cheungs problem was NOT his WC, it was HIM, he was NOT ready to fight even though he was challenged.
Its just that simple.

Emin had the intent to beat on WC, WC didn't want to fight, he was a "step behind" and paid for it, that simple.


Nah, as previously stated, there's more to it than that.

Nothing's that simple. Well, I take that back - when you get clarification but still remain argumentative, your mind is that simple.



A Soave

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nah, as previously stated, there's more to it than that.

Nothing's that simple. Well, I take that back - when you get clarification but still remain argumentative, your mind is that simple.



A Soave

Excuses make things complicated, fighting is simple.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Sanjuro,

Normally I enjoy and agree with your posts. You seem to know a lot about real fighting. But about this situation with William Cheung in Cologne, Germany in 1986 - you just don't get it. And the points already made about what happened and why don't need to be endlessly repeated.

Otherwise we're just contributing to another troll job.

Period.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is my view:

I don't care how set-up he was or how out numbered of how edited the video was, that has little to do with what IS SEEN in that clip.

I am giving WC more than the benefit of the doubt, I am saying he got "suckered" into a stage event/fight that was gonna make him look bad, regardless.
Fact is, if he had ****ing pasted Emin into a pulp, there would have been NO WAY to edit that.

And that is the issue that I have with it.

You stated your view and I mine.

Period on my part too.

:D

[anerlich]

Are you becoming my own little stalker?

Hardly. You're so far up Matt Thornton's orifice (stalking perhaps not, jockriding definitely) that NO ONE wants to follow you there. If I ever wanted to stalk anyone, there are many targets who are far more interesting, and no doubt more attractive.


Really? Then why do you, and others, argue with me?

Hmmm. You start a thread on a controversial subject with your usual get-right-in-the-imaginary-theoreticians-faces approach, and feign surprise when you get into an argument. Go figure. :rolleyes:

As James alluded, most people started figuring grappling into their game last century. And an ocean of craptacular analysis has already gone into the Cologne incident, which occurred over 20 years ago. Any more is redundant. You had to bring the book in in a failed attempt to deflect the deserved criticism of this post as flamebait. The fight and Mr Thompson's "research" have nothing to do with each other.

[Liddel]

IMO VT contains the Tools to deal with someone wishing to and forcing a fight to grappling range, or as Vic put it "CLOSE QUARTER STANDUP INFIGHTING "

People here keep refering to Ving Tsun this and VT that, but really its the user that needs to take the responsibility of how they implement what they have.

I fully realise the realities of street fighting and try to have my training reflect that.

With any style of fighting the be all and end all is the ability to make the opponent fight your game. IMO this is why grappling arts like JJ/BJJ are so sucessful in many encounters. They learn the tools to force the opponent into thier range of fighting expertise and how to avoid getting stuck in the opponents area of expertise.

This is what all fighters should take into consideration. And this is one area where my own training and those of the VT community should focus on, rather than changing our whole game plan i.e dropping what we have because others cant make it work. :cool:

Adapting VT for different ranges is very do-able.

[Vajramusti]

Some topics reapppear again and again in cycles on this forum. And trolls keep
some of them up including the Cologne incident. And folks repeat their same pet POVs.
So FWIW- I disagree with Victor that wing chun is limited to being a close quarters art. But I dont think Victor will be listening. He has his mix of boxing and catch wrestling..others have bjj, mt etc.Apparently works for him.Much depends on one's training and the individual as well and their understanding of their own game..

If someone can't make wing chun work for them in some context, I see no problem in that person or persons adapting aspects of some other activity to fill their gap.
And if someone doesnt have regular access to good wing chun but has regular access to bjj, mt, wrestling, boxing or whatever- they should try to get the better instruction.

Its presumptuous to generalize about all of wing chun-when we really mean
our own point of view.

I think that wing chun training can/could prepare people to take care of themsleves in varying contexts- but that is not what this thread is about.

But-I hope that we can soon get past cologne- it smells.

[Matrix]

Excuses make things complicated, fighting is simple.Very true.... :cool:

[jesper]

Hey Ultimate

First off I would like to say that personally I dont care that much about what happened in a fight 20 odd years ago, but...
you keep talking about botzepe bringing 6 friends to this fight but its my understanding it happened during a seminar where there where atleast 50+ TWC guys around so whats your point ?
To me those 6 guys seems pretty irrelevant compared to that.

Not trying to stir up something about the fight, but im just curious why you put so much emphasis on them ?

[Nick Forrer]

Lots of magical thinking on this thread. The formula seems to be:

Cherished belief

+

Evidence that appears to refute cherished belief


= mental gymnastics to conserve cherished belief

[Knifefighter]

Lots of magical thinking on this thread. The formula seems to be:
Cherished belief
+
Evidence that appears to refute cherished belief
= mental gymnastics to conserve cherished belief

I'd say that pretty much sums things up.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Lots of magical thinking on this thread. The formula seems to be:

Cherished belief

+

Evidence that appears to refute cherished belief


= mental gymnastics to conserve cherished belief" (Nick Ferror)



***KINDA like the guard position and Sakuraba vs. 4 Gracies, humm? :eek: :cool: :D

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


As for the alleged 50 TWC guys in the room at Cologne, Germany - nice try but no cigar.

William Cheung had never been to Germany before that weekend. So where did these phantom 50 TWC guys come from? It was one German guy - just one guy - who attended a William Cheung TWC seminar in another country, and being impressed with what he saw, convinced William Cheung to come to Germany because he (that one guy) could organize, promote, advertise, and run a sizeable seminar for William.

Who knew?! :rolleyes:

[Knifefighter]

***KINDA like the guard position and Sakuraba vs. 4 Gracies, humm? :eek: :cool: :D

How many Gracies did Sakaraba beat from their guard?
Oh, that's right... zero.
Bwhahahahahaha!
Talk about magical thinking.


As for the alleged 50 TWC guys in the room at Cologne, Germany - nice try but no cigar.
William Cheung had never been to Germany before that weekend. So where did these phantom 50 TWC guys come from? It was one German guy - just one guy - who attended a William Cheung TWC seminar in another country, and being impressed with what he saw, convinced William Cheung to come to Germany because he (that one guy) could organize, promote, advertise, and run a sizeable seminar for William.

It would be the person who is hosting the seminar, plus the 49 attendees.

The six people who were there as backup should have been the one's who were nervous. If that seminar was anything like ones I have taught or have been to, the "backup" guys would have been in a world of hurt had they tried to change the odds by jumping in.

[Nick Forrer]

KINDA like the guard position and Sakuraba vs. 4 Gracies, humm?

Yes exactly like that:)

Let me demonstrate:

Cherished belief: Sakuraba is proof once and for all that the guard is useless in MMA and everyone would be much better using catch wrestling instead (a belief held despite never having actually trained with anyone in BJJ and instead learning catch from video tapes from a man whose murky credentials and unsubstantiated claims resemble those of a certain grandmaster in WCK)

Evidence that refutes it - Sakuraba gets destroyed by BJJ trained silva and arona due to having a poor guard/defence against striking when on his back

Mental gymnastics to conserve cherished belief: Ignore these fights plus the many, many others that show people either winning from the guard or losing because of their lack of a guard and drone on ad nauseum about 4 cherry picked fights that dont actually prove the point you're trying to make.

[PangQuan]

I think you've put your finger on something big, James, ie.- people losing faith in wing chun for one reason or another - and then everything but wing chun seems to be a better alternative for them. (Well, almost everything).

So once again I'll return to something I've been saying for years now (yeah, I guess that's part of my agenda - but not because I'm trying to come up with some new system with my name attached to it, LOL)...but because I just think that it makes the most sense from a fighting and scientific point of view.

WING CHUN IS FOR CLOSE QUARTER STANDUP INFIGHTING USING PRIMARILY HAND AND ELBOW STRIKES AND EMPHASIZES USING TWO ARMS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

We can argue and debate until we're blue in the face about wing chun also has longer range this, and longer range that...and it has some arm and elbow locks, some sweeps, a headlock, perhaps even some throws...and the kicking is not just a very close range straight front heel kick, etc.

And there's some truth in all of that. But my contention has been for some years now that since wing chun favors the PRINCIPLE of shoulders being squared up so that two arms can be used simultaneously to the same distance at virtually all times for attack and defense...

then by definition it is a very close quarter standup striking system.

Now take a look at this exchange between two others just a while ago on this thread (talking about the Cheung/Boztepe incident):

"Umm... weren't BOTH of those guys trained?" (KF)

"Nope, they did WC !

Sorry, couldn't help it !" (SR)

Meaning, their wing chun really didn't come into play and big mistakes were made in the clinch and groundfight mode of their exchange in what was supposedly a streetfight by two trained martial artists.

But my response to that exchange is this: WHY IS IT THAT AFTER ALL THESE YEARS AND DECADES WING CHUN IS STILL SO POPULAR - AND MANY PEOPLE STILL SWEAR BY IT FOR STREET ENCOUNTERS?

Because most real fighting will go to very close quarters - including clinch and ground - due to the nature of reality settings, ie.- real fights don't take place in an empty boxing ring or an octagon with nice cushy and well kept floors and where no one else will interfere if it goes to the ground.

So learning how to strike (and defend) from close range when punches or attempted grabs come - and to do so with both arms simultaneously...can be a very big plus. SINCE REALITY FIGHTING ALWAYS GETS TO CLOSE RANGE - AND USUALLY IN A HURRY. And if your wing chun training has allowed for the development of some nice power in your strikes from close range...and if your wing chun instruction has included a quality blocking/redirecting system with strong balance, smart footwork, and quick reflexes...and if your training regimen has included frequent hard sparring against worthy opponents...

then you've got something worthwhile. And a number of people in the wing chun world can attest to that.

Anybody who has ever truly gotten to see William Cheung in person over a period of time (and the same with Emin Boztepe I'm sure)...can testify to the fact that both men can definitely fight - and fight well. Very well.

Which doesn't mean that wing chun has all it needs for fighting AT LONGER STRIKING/KICKING RANGES THAN RIGHT-IN-YOUR-FACE, in the clinch, preventing takedowns, or groundfighting.

All systems of wing chun have their limitations in this regard.

Which is why a number of wing chun people (myself included) advocate some form of crosstraining.

But to throw out the baby with the bathwater because you (whoever you are) didn't get higher quality wing chun instruction or training methods is foolish.

Wing Chun can definitely do damage - especially at close (almost clinch) standup range.


I recently started training in wing chun kungfu.

though i have trained in martial arts for some years now, i have only participated and practiced wing chun for a couple of months. already i can feel some of the strengths wing chun has to offer.

my personal assessment of wing chun so far is very similar to what you just posted. which is exactly the element i wish to extract from wing chun and add to my current game. though i am still new to this art, i began training with an understanding of what i might be able to take from wing chun based on what i have seen in video's and read in testimonials and training accounts.

my previous strengths lie in shaolin training, many long strikes, and kicks. mixed with chin na. after my wing chun training gets to a point where i feel its solid and i can actually use it, ill go for a nice solid ground game.

to me, its all about being the most rounded fighter i can be. but we all have to start somewhere, no one starts with a full game.

Wing Chun seems to have a frightening, near superior strength in this particular aspect of its training. Though there are holes in wing chun, which seriously should be expected of any style so focused, it no doubt tries to cover its basises more so as you become further involved in this art. Of course I feel I have some of these aspects covered from all my previous and future planned training.

I am quite content to take the best wing chun has to offer and leave the rest behind. which IMO is the in fighting

[Knifefighter]

KINDA like the guard position and Sakuraba vs. 4 Gracies, humm?
Yes exactly like that:)
Let me demonstrate:
Cherished belief: Sakuraba is proof once and for all that the guard is useless in MMA and everyone would be much better using catch wrestling instead

(a belief held despite never having actually trained with anyone in BJJ and instead learning catch from video tapes from a man whose murky credentials and unsubstantiated claims resemble those of a certain grandmaster in WCK)

Evidence that refutes it - Sakuraba gets destroyed by BJJ trained silva and arona due to having a poor guard/defence against striking when on his back
Mental gymnastics to conserve cherished belief: Ignore these fights plus the many, many others that show people either winning from the guard or losing because of their lack of a guard and drone on ad nauseum about 4 cherry picked fights that dont actually prove the point you're trying to make.

Bwhwhaahahahaah!!!!

Pwnage of the year!

Watch out or you will be put on his "IGNORE" list, where he will only read your posts on "important" issues. (Translation: the best way to bug Victor is to get on his "IGNORE" list, because you will know that he is reading your posts but is going crazy being unable to respond because he has told everyone he is not paying attention to what you are writing).

[jooerduo]

PangQuan wrote:

I am quite content to take the best wing chun has to offer and leave the rest behind. which IMO is the in fighting




*** yep there sure is a lot of "in fighting" in wing chun :D:D:D just kidding!

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I recently started training in wing chun kungfu.

though i have trained in martial arts for some years now, i have only participated and practiced wing chun for a couple of months. already i can feel some of the strengths wing chun has to offer.

my personal assessment of wing chun so far is very similar to what you just posted. which is exactly the element i wish to extract from wing chun and add to my current game. though i am still new to this art, i began training with an understanding of what i might be able to take from wing chun based on what i have seen in video's and read in testimonials and training accounts.

my previous strengths lie in shaolin training, many long strikes, and kicks. mixed with chin na. after my wing chun training gets to a point where i feel its solid and i can actually use it, ill go for a nice solid ground game.

to me, its all about being the most rounded fighter i can be. but we all have to start somewhere, no one starts with a full game.

Wing Chun seems to have a frightening, near superior strength in this particular aspect of its training. Though there are holes in wing chun, which seriously should be expected of any style so focused, it no doubt tries to cover its basises more so as you become further involved in this art. Of course I feel I have some of these aspects covered from all my previous and future planned training.

I am quite content to take the best wing chun has to offer and leave the rest behind. which IMO is the in fighting." (PangQuan)



***I THINK you're on the right track, PangQuan. If you can marry arts together that seriously cover certain ranges and aspects of fighting that the others don't specialize in - then you've got all the bases covered.

In theory, anyway. :)

Keep us informed as to your progress on this.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What gives with your man, Royce, Nick?

This is a current post/thread on the UG:

Mixed martial arts legend Royce Gracie (Pictures), best known as the slender gi-wearing Brazilian who twisted oversized competitors into knots during the early days of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, tested positive for Nandrolone Metabolite following his decision win over Kazushi Sakuraba (Pictures), June 2 in Los Angeles, the California State Athletic Commission revealed on Thursday.

Gracie has been suspended from June 2, 2007 through May 30, 2008, and is fined $2,500, the maximum penalty the CSAC can hand down.

The 40-year-old Gracie has 30 days from the date on his suspension letter to appeal.

Calls to Gracie's representatives were not immediately returned.

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=7908


***OH MY GUARD!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[anerlich]

Great ... so this thread has gone from Cheung/Boztepe to Royce/Saku. :rolleyes:

So ... 'roids. Obviously that's how Royce beat those two weaklings, Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn, early on. It's SO obvious now. :o

Better living through chemistry.

My MMA instructor, a BJJ black belt, is of the opinion that the G&P style top game has evolved a lot faster than the guard, and that is why there are far fewer wins from the bottom than there used to be. Indeed, thewre's less groundfighting in MMA than there used to be.

IMO most likely that Darwinian selection had more to do with this than Tony C and the influence of catch wrestling, but how would I know :rolleyes:

[Knifefighter]

Mixed martial arts legend Royce Gracie (Pictures), best known as the slender gi-wearing Brazilian who twisted oversized competitors into knots during the early days of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, tested positive for Nandrolone Metabolite following his decision win over Kazushi Sakuraba (Pictures), June 2 in Los Angeles, the California State Athletic Commission revealed on Thursday. Nandrolone[/url]

Royce took Nandrolone? I think someone forgot to tell him he is also supposed to lift weights at the same time.:eek:

[Nick Forrer]

Hey Vic

Since you are obviously in the know on these things can you tell me what Tony C is trying to do at 320 on this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHQxqfPz-Cg

It looks like he is advocating putting your heel on the guys chest but that cant be right can it because that would be idiotic?:eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

KINDA like the guard position and Sakuraba vs. 4 Gracies, humm?

Yes exactly like that:)

Let me demonstrate:

Cherished belief: Sakuraba is proof once and for all that the guard is useless in MMA and everyone would be much better using catch wrestling instead (a belief held despite never having actually trained with anyone in BJJ and instead learning catch from video tapes from a man whose murky credentials and unsubstantiated claims resemble those of a certain grandmaster in WCK)

Evidence that refutes it - Sakuraba gets destroyed by BJJ trained silva and arona due to having a poor guard/defence against striking when on his back

Mental gymnastics to conserve cherished belief: Ignore these fights plus the many, many others that show people either winning from the guard or losing because of their lack of a guard and drone on ad nauseum about 4 cherry picked fights that dont actually prove the point you're trying to make.

Are you insinuating that the Gracies that Sakuraba beat had sub-par guard work ??

[sanjuro_ronin]

My MMA instructor, a BJJ black belt, is of the opinion that the G&P style top game has evolved a lot faster than the guard, and that is why there are far fewer wins from the bottom than there used to be. Indeed, there's less ground fighting in MMA than there used to be.

IMO most likely that Darwinian selection had more to do with this than Tony C and the influence of catch wrestling, but how would I know :rolleyes:


Correct.
The GnP has become what it always was "meant" to be, the dreaded "anti-grapple".
Some how, someone "discovered" that you can't Sub someone while getting your face smashed :D

[Nick Forrer]

you can't Sub someone while getting your face smashed :D

Nope incorrect. You can sub someone from the guard whilst being struck- see for example fedor vs coleman.

It is true tho that it is different when someone isnt striking back - but then again in some ways striking leaves you more vulnerable to submissions also. So it is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. That said it is not so much the strking that makes G N P effective against the guard as it is submission defence e.g. base, posture etc.

For those who dont understand (which seems to be a few people on this board) the guard is not considered a superior position - that is why BJJ emphasises a positional hierachy with the back mount being the top - its just that you may end up there whether you like it or not and so it makes sense to train it (which actually is true of ground fighting in general).

[t_niehoff]

That said it is not so much the strking that makes G N P effective against the guard as it is submission defence e.g. base, posture etc.


A very good point. And good submission defense comes in large part from experience dealing with people with a good guard.



For those who dont understand (which seems to be a few people on this board) the guard is not considered a superior position - that is why BJJ emphasises a positional hierachy with the back mount being the top - its just that you may end up there whether you like it or not and so it makes sense to train it (which actually is true of ground fighting in general).

Agreed. And another factor is using what you personally do best (your A game). If your guard is your strength, the best part of your ground game and where you feel most comfortable, you may actually want to be there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nope incorrect. You can sub someone from the guard whilst being struck- see for example fedor vs coleman.

It is true tho that it is different when someone isnt striking back - but then again in some ways striking leaves you more vulnerable to submissions also. So it is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. That said it is not so much the strking that makes G N P effective against the guard as it is submission defence e.g. base, posture etc.

For those who dont understand (which seems to be a few people on this board) the guard is not considered a superior position - that is why BJJ emphasises a positional hierachy with the back mount being the top - its just that you may end up there whether you like it or not and so it makes sense to train it (which actually is true of ground fighting in general).

Fedor is a freak and shoudl not be given as an example of anything other that what happens when you genetically create a fighter in a Laboratory !
:D

There are two schools of thought in regards to position and submission, I agree with them both depending on the experience of the fighter:
Position before submission
Submission from any position.

The guard in all its forms is a necessity to learn and be comfortable in, but it should be more transitory than most use it.

[Knifefighter]

Are you insinuating that the Gracies that Sakuraba beat had sub-par guard work ??

For that to be the case, he would have had to beat them from inside their guard... which he never did.

That being said, I would venture to say, based on Royce's performance against Sak two weeks ago, that his guard work could, indeed, use quite a bit of improvement.

[t_niehoff]

The guard in all its forms is a necessity to learn and be comfortable in, but it should be more transitory than most use it.

This sort of presupposes that there is a "best" way to (how everyone should) fight on the ground, and I don't think that's true -- because a fight is always, first and foremost, a contest between persons. As such, the strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. of the contestants needs to go into the "mix", as well as the context (situation), etc. From that "mix" a fighter will determine what things are appropriate and how they believe (from their judgment based on their experience) to proceed.

[Knifefighter]

Hey Vic

Since you are obviously in the know on these things can you tell me what Tony C is trying to do at 320 on this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHQxqfPz-Cg

It looks like he is advocating putting your heel on the guys chest but that cant be right can it because that would be idiotic?:eek:


Most of the things shown on that tape are pretty idiotic. If that is the tape the Vic learned from, I think he should ask for a refund.

[YungChun]

Most of the things shown on that tape are pretty idiotic. If that is the tape the Vic learned from, I think he should ask for a refund.

I'm not a catch wrestling expert nor a BJJ expert.. I have wondered for a while why many of those moves, esp the neck cranks, which some folks have demoed on me, and seem devistating, are not, or at least I have not, seen used in MMA fighting...

Dale.. Could you <or anyone else> possibly help explain why/which of these moves are not viable and why?

[lkfmdc]

I would venture to say, based on Royce's performance against Sak two weeks ago, that his guard work could, indeed, use quite a bit of improvement.

You are only as good as the people you train with. They push you, you float at the level of the ocean you swim in.....

Old Rocye trained with Rickson, Royler, etc....
New Royce only trains with his own students and some crappy trainers :eek:

On a side note, he just tested positive for Deca and the decision vs Sak will get overturned now

[PangQuan]

PangQuan wrote:

I am quite content to take the best wing chun has to offer and leave the rest behind. which IMO is the in fighting




*** yep there sure is a lot of "in fighting" in wing chun :D:D:D just kidding!

lol, thats good for a chuckle first thing in the morning :D

[PangQuan]

"I recently started training in wing chun kungfu.

though i have trained in martial arts for some years now, i have only participated and practiced wing chun for a couple of months. already i can feel some of the strengths wing chun has to offer.

my personal assessment of wing chun so far is very similar to what you just posted. which is exactly the element i wish to extract from wing chun and add to my current game. though i am still new to this art, i began training with an understanding of what i might be able to take from wing chun based on what i have seen in video's and read in testimonials and training accounts.

my previous strengths lie in shaolin training, many long strikes, and kicks. mixed with chin na. after my wing chun training gets to a point where i feel its solid and i can actually use it, ill go for a nice solid ground game.

to me, its all about being the most rounded fighter i can be. but we all have to start somewhere, no one starts with a full game.

Wing Chun seems to have a frightening, near superior strength in this particular aspect of its training. Though there are holes in wing chun, which seriously should be expected of any style so focused, it no doubt tries to cover its basises more so as you become further involved in this art. Of course I feel I have some of these aspects covered from all my previous and future planned training.

I am quite content to take the best wing chun has to offer and leave the rest behind. which IMO is the in fighting." (PangQuan)



***I THINK you're on the right track, PangQuan. If you can marry arts together that seriously cover certain ranges and aspects of fighting that the others don't specialize in - then you've got all the bases covered.

In theory, anyway. :)

Keep us informed as to your progress on this.


so far my whole life seems to be based on theory:cool:

we'll see how well this one works out for me:D

ill probably post on this again in a year or so :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

This sort of presupposes that there is a "best" way to (how everyone should) fight on the ground, and I don't think that's true -- because a fight is always, first and foremost, a contest between persons. As such, the strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. of the contestants needs to go into the "mix", as well as the context (situation), etc. From that "mix" a fighter will determine what things are appropriate and how they believe (from their judgment based on their experience) to proceed.

There is a Best Way, it just happens to be different for everyone.
But no one advocates the closed guard as a static position,at least not anymore.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Are you insinuating that the Gracies that Sakuraba beat had sub-par guard work ??"


***I'M SUGGESTING that their guard work was totally ineffectual against Sakuraba.


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


And on another note from a question posed by another poster:

The catch moves aren't used because quality catch wrestlers are few and far between in MMA....since real catch instruction is hard to come by. And the fact that Josh Barnett has retired (and he was a relative newcomer to catch with more learning to go) - and Sakuraba (arguably the best catch wrestler to come along in the last 25 years) is over the hill.

But sooner or later you will see the neck cranks, standing and kneeling double wristlocks, and an array of catch style leglocks come into play - since there is something of a catch resurgence going on...thanks to guys like Tony Cecchine, Yoshiaki Fugiwara, and D i c k Cardinal putting out quality catch as catch can wrestling vids. (And btw...the old catch wrestler who had spent some time in recent years teaching catch to Josh Barnett - Billy Robinson - will probably have a video out by the end of the year).

Fugiwara is Karl Gotch's best student (according to the 80 year old Gotch himself)...and it was Fugiwara's old training partner,Takada, who taught catch to Kuzushi Sakuraba.

As for the dominance of todays GnP over the guard position (with a rare sub coming from the bottom when the top guy makes a mistake)...

I can attribute that to the BASIC CATCH PRINCIPLE that top positions are dominate - since you're making him carry your weight - and his mobilty and range of options gets more limited than yours - and the force of gravity is on your side...including when you start striking.

If you lower your center of gravity and pressure his hips with your hips moving forward - you take away the space the bottom guard player needs to get a leg over your head for the armbar and the triange. And you're pressuring him with your weight (ie.- causing some discomfort).

And keep that in mind as you start punching. When he seeks the space needed when you're punching - you stay mindful of the relative hip positions and keep adjusting your hips as necessary while you attack with the strikes.

At which point he's usually going to be in a lot of trouble.

And there are other creative ways of taking his space away while making him very vulnerable to strikes from the top.

I think Fedor understands these top principles very well, btw....although he's a Sambo guy.

His bottom guard game is very good, don't misunderstand me...but he clearly knows which position is better and more preferable, imo - from watching his fights.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Gene LeBell is GOD !!

:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Gene is indeed a very cool guy. ;)

[Knifefighter]

I'm not a catch wrestling expert nor a BJJ expert.. I have wondered for a while why many of those moves, esp the neck cranks, which some folks have demoed on me, and seem devistating, are not, or at least I have not, seen used in MMA fighting...

Dale.. Could you <or anyone else> possibly help explain why/which of these moves are not viable and why?

That clip is funny for a couple reasons.

Right from the start he is in a side control position (both knees up) in which he derides BJJ people for doing. According to his later teachings, the catch method is to put the weight on the chest with the legs sprawled back. Obviously, he didn’t seem to know that at the time he did this tape. (BTW, both, as well as other variations are viable and are all used for different purposes. Most grapplers will transition from one variation to another in response to their opponents’ movements and whether they are trying more for control or submission set ups).

He then proceeds to work to mount in a method that would only get you put into half or full guard.

Things just go downhill from there. The head and arm crank from the mount (:19 secs) and the head lift crank (:59) from side control don’t provide the leverage needed to make a resisting opponent tap. With the “backwards arm bar” (1:39) and the variations from that, all the opponent has to do is clear the right knee and come around to a top control position.

As far as the heel on chest move… completely ludicrous. Only someone who hadn’t really had much grappling experience would advocate a move like that.

There is a reason you will never see any of those techs shown on that clip done successfully in MMA or sub-grappling… because they won’t work against a resisting, halfway skilled opponent whom you don’t outweigh by at least 100 lbs.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Nick,

That vid was done a few years before Tony Cecchine's best work - which began with the "Lost Art Of Hooking" Series - followed by another 3 or 4 quality vids. (Lou Thesz coached him somewhat on the LAOH series - although it was by and large Tony being Tony).

And the vid you talk about was geared specifically for Karl Gotch - since Tony wanted to come and train with Gotch at that time (who is notorious for leading the life of a hermit since he returned from Japan to the United States).

What exactly do I mean? Gotch was known as the catch wrestler with "1,000 submission holds" - so I think it's a general consensus by now that Tony was trying to impress him by showing as many submission holds as possible on that vid that he sent to Gotch. And consequently it was not his best work.

It didn't work out - and Tony actually spent time a year or so later training a bit with Lou Thesz....who some would argue as being an even greater overall catch wrestler than Karl Gotch - and who emphasized the importance of developing maybe 6-7-8 submissions at most as your bread and butter - with the double wristlock as numero uno.

(The move that Sak used so successfully against the Gracies).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nick,

That vid was done a few years before Tony Cecchine's best work - which began with the "Lost Art Of Hooking" Series - followed by another 3 or 4 quality vids. (Lou Thesz coached him somewhat on the LAOH series - although it was by and large Tony being Tony).

And the vid you talk about was geared specifically for Karl Gotch - since Tony wanted to come and train with Gotch at that time (who is notorious for leading the life of a hermit since he returned from Japan to the United States).

What exactly do I mean? Gotch was known as the catch wrestler with "1,000 submission holds" - so I think it's a general consensus by now that Tony was trying to impress him by showing as many submission holds as possible on that vid that he sent to Gotch. And consequently it was not his best work.

It didn't work out - and Tony actually spent time a year or so later training a bit with Lou Thesz....who some would argue as being an even greater overall catch wrestler than Karl Gotch - and who emphasized the importance of developing maybe 6-7-8 submissions at most as your bread and butter - with the double wristlock as numero uno.

(The move that Sak used so successfully against the Gracies).

See, I didn't know that.
And I agree with Thesz, though I must admit, if I could pull off 1000 subs like Gotch...

[Knifefighter]

Nick,That vid was done a few years before Tony Cecchine's best work - which began with the "Lost Art Of Hooking" Series - followed by another 3 or 4 quality vids. (Lou Thesz coached him somewhat on the LAOH series - although it was by and large Tony being Tony).

So, he went from knowing not very much about grappling to being an authority on all things catch in just a few short years?

[lkfmdc]

So, he went from knowing not very much about grappling to being an authority on all things catch in just a few short years?

Knifefighter, I must be an uncharacteristically good mood or something :D

I don't think it's too strange to observe that in the catch wrestling world, there is a mixture of moves that work and "show holds"... practically no one has used catch "for real" in a very long time, instead it's mostly remained as a vestige of days when pro wrestling was real, ie it was morphed into a style to do worked pro wrestling matches

I don't buy much of Tony's stories, they simply do not add up, especially claims to tapping unnamed bjj black belts and winning golden gloves titles, but what he put out there was always a mixed bag. The "gotch tape" is a bit horrible at times, :D , but other things he does work.... once you get past the anti BJJ hype

[Ultimatewingchun]

Tony Cecchine first learned catch wrestling many years before the Gotch tape; but as I said, he purposely geared the vid he sent Gotch as one wherein he might be able to showcase as many finishing holds as possible - hoping that Gotch would be impressed enough to be willing to show him even more - as well as some higher level ways of doing staple bread & butter catch stuff (that he didn't already know) - which he believed could only be gotten if Karl really looked upon him as a sincere student and someone with already-existent catch wrestling talent.

As I said earlier, Karl Gotch has always had a reputatiuon of being a really tough customer to deal with - on and off the mat.

And it was common knowledge by then that Gotch was one of only maybe 5 or 6 people left in the world whose catch knowledge was at the highest levels - so Tony wanted to most impress him with what he (Gotch) was most famous for - and enormous arsenal of finishing holds.

Ever wonder where Gene Lebell got all those finishing holds he demos in his books?

From guys like Gotch, Thesz, and a few other old timers from the 1940's,50,60's.

But Tony C already had catch as catch can wrestling basics and a number of good high percentage submissions down before he decided to just throw everything he ever learned or saw up against the wall in that vid for Gotch.

Big deal.

Enough said about that.

[Mr Punch]

I don't believe how horrible this thread is. It's gone from totally redundant oldskool random chun lineage bs, to totally redundant grappling infighting bs...! So, to contribute further to this crap, here's my tuppence'a'porth... :D

I don't know much about grappling, but that video was horrible. If that's typical of catch, it should be called snatch... as in a *****'s snatch would be tighter than most of those positions! :eek: :D He did just about everything that would cause my teacher to laugh at me (and beat it out of me) when I had four weeks' experience...

which brings me to the question: if he was'throwing in as many submissions as he could to impress Gotch' why did he throw in such a bunch of sloppy BS? Did he have a special section of 'Total Toss Techniques' on that vid?

I mean, I don't care either way, since either of them, and probably any of you could tie me into a pretzel.. but sounds like ****e to me.

[Knifefighter]

which brings me to the question: if he was'throwing in as many submissions as he could to impress Gotch' why did he throw in such a bunch of sloppy BS? Did he have a special section of 'Total Toss Techniques' on that vid?

That's just Victor's way of rationalizing his world view. The fact is that if he really knew what he was doing and was really trying to show thousands of techniques, he would have run through at least 10 or 12 from each of the different positions he was in... and they would have been much more fluid and tighter than that. That was a clip of someone faking his way through.

[Wayfaring]

Tony Cecchine first learned catch wrestling many years before the Gotch tape; but as I said, he purposely geared the vid he sent Gotch as one wherein he might be able to showcase as many finishing holds as possible - hoping that Gotch would be impressed enough to be willing to show him even more - as well as some higher level ways of doing staple bread & butter catch stuff (that he didn't already know) - which he believed could only be gotten if Karl really looked upon him as a sincere student and someone with already-existent catch wrestling talent.


If Tony wanted to impress Gotch by showing off white belt BJJ level cr@ppling with no pressure, loose submissions, and lack of positional control, then he succeeded.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun View Post
Tony Cecchine first learned catch wrestling many years before the Gotch tape; but as I said, he purposely geared the vid he sent Gotch as one wherein he might be able to showcase as many finishing holds as possible - hoping that Gotch would be impressed enough to be willing to show him even more - as well as some higher level ways of doing staple bread & butter catch stuff (that he didn't already know) - which he believed could only be gotten if Karl really looked upon him as a sincere student and someone with already-existent catch wrestling talent.


Like i said,

Cherished belief + evidence that appears to refute said belief = mental gymnastics to try and preserve cherished belief

[YungChun]

That clip is funny for a couple reasons.

Right from the start he is in a side control position (both knees up) in which he derides BJJ people for doing. According to his later teachings, the catch method is to put the weight on the chest with the legs sprawled back. Obviously, he didn’t seem to know that at the time he did this tape. (BTW, both, as well as other variations are viable and are all used for different purposes. Most grapplers will transition from one variation to another in response to their opponents’ movements and whether they are trying more for control or submission set ups).

He then proceeds to work to mount in a method that would only get you put into half or full guard.

Things just go downhill from there. The head and arm crank from the mount (:19 secs) and the head lift crank (:59) from side control don’t provide the leverage needed to make a resisting opponent tap. With the “backwards arm bar” (1:39) and the variations from that, all the opponent has to do is clear the right knee and come around to a top control position.

As far as the heel on chest move… completely ludicrous. Only someone who hadn’t really had much grappling experience would advocate a move like that.

There is a reason you will never see any of those techs shown on that clip done successfully in MMA or sub-grappling… because they won’t work against a resisting, halfway skilled opponent whom you don’t outweigh by at least 100 lbs.


Thanks for the reply Dale...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Okay...so let's make this a catch wrestling discussion. To begin with, and especially for those who are new to this - you should keep in mind that the first 2 vids on the LOST ART OF HOOKING (10 volume) series gives some serious basics of catch WRESTLING while on the ground....and little-to-no actual submissions.

And it's excellent. And other Cecchine vids like the WRISTLOCK SEMINAR, one called RIPPING TECHNIQUES, THE WORKSHOP SEMINAR, DOUBLE TROUBLE, and one called TAKING IT TO THE FEET all cover various other aspects of catch - including many high percentage submissions and setups - as well as wrestling standup, clinch, and takedown material.

But I'm not going to be married to the idea that I have to defend everything Cecchine has ever done to satisfy the trolling of certain BJJ guys - one of whom spending tons of time on this forum trying to take advantage of (or creating) opportunities to put wing chun down as a second rate art - as if somehow he's gonna grow another 6 inches and wake up 40 pounds heavier some morning if he fulfills some sort of anti-wing chun quota.

And the same applies to his constant bashing of catch as catch can wrestling.

Cecchine has his limitations; but the fact remains that the GOTCH TAPE was some years before he actually got to do some training and received some mentoring from the great Lou Thesz and Billy Wicks (another great old time catch wrestler), and consequently other work by Tony Cecchine (ie.- the other vids I just mentioned) are miles ahead of the vid he sent Karl Gotch.

All that said - I believe that Yoshiaki Fugiwara's vids - as well as those of D i c k Cardinal (and I've been told that Billy Robinson's vid is out - and got to see some scenes from it yesterday)...these older catch wrestlers surpass Cecchine - although I still believe that Tony is very good.

So for example, let's talk about the cross chest position (what BJJ refers to as side control). My understanding of catch at this point in my training is that yes - lower your hips thereby making him carry your weight - but not to the point of being off your knees "completely" ...meaning, be in more of a triangulated position so that you have a knee up tight to his lower body, thereby almost completely blocking his ability to turn and shrimp into guard - and with the other triangulated knee blocking tight up against his head/armpit area - but you're still low to the ground. (As I said - triangulated, keeping your hips relatively low to the ground. See Sakuraba's fights for a good demonstration of this).

And if you set up and begin to catch him in a double wristlock or a top wristlock on the far side, for example (similar subs in BJJ known as the kimura and the americana, respectively)...then bring the leg near his head back to the completely-off-the-knees position - thereby lowering your center of gravity (and hips) even more so as to make him carry more of your weight on his chest as you crank the hold. (The extra pressure on his body makes defending your sub much more difficult for him).

At other times (depending upon his size and his reactions) you might want to stay in the triangulated knee position - like a tripod - while trying to finish the sub...or possibly even transition to the head and arm position (known in judo as the scarf hold) and continue going for subs (or strikes, if it's MMA) from there. And D i c k Cardinal has an outstanding variation on the head and arm position that really works well as a very tight hold-down and setup for striking and subs.

So the hips LOWER-to-the-ground triangulated knee positions from cross chest are therefore not really meant to try and set up a pass into the full mount - but rather to gain a tight hold down and help in your work to CATCH a submission (or multiple striking opportunities) - a different strategy than BJJ in some important respects.

[Wayfaring]

Okay...so let's make this a catch wrestling discussion. To begin with, and especially for those who are new to this - you should keep in mind that the first 2 vids on the LOST ART OF HOOKING (10 volume) series gives some serious basics of catch WRESTLING while on the ground....and little-to-no actual submissions.

LAOH is better than the vid on this thread. He does like to bash BJJ one minute, and then the next teach something that is fundamental BJJ in the next minute. He has poor coverage of any guard / half guard positions. His advice is "get back on top". OK, but good BJJ instruction presents a hundred detailed techniques to drill for doing exactly that. Catch - nada except for the advice. Many of his subs won't work against trained guys - low percentage. But overall, LAOH has some good stuff in it if you can get around the above.



So for example, let's talk about the cross chest position (what BJJ refers to as side control). My understanding of catch at this point in my training is that yes - lower your hips thereby making him carry your weight - but not to the point of being off your knees "completely" ...meaning, be in more of a triangulated position so that you have a knee up tight to his lower body, thereby almost completely blocking his ability to turn and shrimp into guard - and with the other triangulated knee blocking tight up against his head/armpit area - but you're still low to the ground. (As I said - triangulated, keeping your hips relatively low to the ground. See Sakuraba's fights for a good demonstration of this).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this called the '1000 kilos' hold in BJJ? Hips low, same triangulation. It is not a unique catch discovery by any means. However, BJJ also has some side control variations from the knees specifically designed to block certain escapes. Those are like blocking far hip and near shoulder, or near hip and far shoulder. All those are designed to transition between to maintain position and pressure and set up attacks. Many times mediocre BJJ you'll see doing that with no pressure and lots of space, kind of like Tony's video above, but better guys you see the pressure game pretty clearly. Catch (or Tony C catch) has a limited variation of that to accomplish the same thing.



And if you set up and begin to catch him in a double wristlock or a top wristlock on the far side, for example (similar subs in BJJ known as the kimura and the americana, respectively)...then bring the leg near his head back to the completely-off-the-knees position - thereby lowering your center of gravity (and hips) even more so as to make him carry more of your weight on his chest as you crank the hold. (The extra pressure on his body makes defending your sub much more difficult for him).
[QUOTE]
It's a lot harder to catch decent guys in far side wristlocks (kimura/americana) from side control. That's one of the first things you learn to protect at white belt BJJ level. If you're going for those exclusively and not chaining them together with improving your position that is a weaker approach.

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;770948]
At other times (depending upon his size and his reactions) you might want to stay in the triangulated knee position - like a tripod - while trying to finish the sub...or possibly even transition to the head and arm position (known in judo as the scarf hold) and continue going for subs (or strikes, if it's MMA) from there. And D i c k Cardinal has an outstanding variation on the head and arm position that really works well as a very tight hold-down and setup for striking and subs.
[QUOTE]
Scarf hold is also in BJJ, as well as a similar position facing the feet (Bravo has a whole game around this called "Twister side control"). LAOH does a decent job on the detail of pressure from scarf hold. A lot of BJJ tape series show attacks from there.

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;770948]
So the hips LOWER-to-the-ground triangulated knee positions from cross chest are therefore not really meant to try and set up a pass into the full mount - but rather to gain a tight hold down and help in your work to CATCH a submission (or multiple striking opportunities) - a different strategy than BJJ in some important respects.
I would say you have a misconception of BJJ strategy. While it is position before submission, you're not going for mount 100% of the time over submissions from side control. You can transition to mount if it's there and they give it to you. Actually to me, without the gi, mount is a little harder to finish something from than side control. Yet, being comfortable with transitioning between side control, knee on stomach, and mount while continuously setting up attacks is 1000% better than catch's approach of laying in side control and trying to finish something.

Overall, I would say that catch wrestling, like sambo, is an acceptable approach to getting to ground skills. However, it has weaknesses. So does sambo, so does BJJ. BJJ is notoriously weak on takedowns and throws, so many schools cross-train in wrestling and judo. There's a whole group of people that just train submission wrestling - no BJJ or ranks. Many of them are very good too.

[Wayfaring]

Okay...so let's make this a catch wrestling discussion. To begin with, and especially for those who are new to this - you should keep in mind that the first 2 vids on the LOST ART OF HOOKING (10 volume) series gives some serious basics of catch WRESTLING while on the ground....and little-to-no actual submissions.

LAOH is better than the vid on this thread. He does like to bash BJJ one minute, and then the next teach something that is fundamental BJJ in the next minute. He has poor coverage of any guard / half guard positions. His advice is "get back on top". OK, but good BJJ instruction presents a hundred detailed techniques to drill for doing exactly that. Catch - nada except for the advice. Many of his subs won't work against trained guys - low percentage. But overall, LAOH has some good stuff in it if you can get around the above.



So for example, let's talk about the cross chest position (what BJJ refers to as side control). My understanding of catch at this point in my training is that yes - lower your hips thereby making him carry your weight - but not to the point of being off your knees "completely" ...meaning, be in more of a triangulated position so that you have a knee up tight to his lower body, thereby almost completely blocking his ability to turn and shrimp into guard - and with the other triangulated knee blocking tight up against his head/armpit area - but you're still low to the ground. (As I said - triangulated, keeping your hips relatively low to the ground. See Sakuraba's fights for a good demonstration of this).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this called the '1000 kilos' hold in BJJ? Hips low, same triangulation. It is not a unique catch discovery by any means. However, BJJ also has some side control variations from the knees specifically designed to block certain escapes. Those are like blocking far hip and near shoulder, or near hip and far shoulder. All those are designed to transition between to maintain position and pressure and set up attacks. Many times mediocre BJJ you'll see doing that with no pressure and lots of space, kind of like Tony's video above, but better guys you see the pressure game pretty clearly. Catch (or Tony C catch) has a limited variation of that to accomplish the same thing.



And if you set up and begin to catch him in a double wristlock or a top wristlock on the far side, for example (similar subs in BJJ known as the kimura and the americana, respectively)...then bring the leg near his head back to the completely-off-the-knees position - thereby lowering your center of gravity (and hips) even more so as to make him carry more of your weight on his chest as you crank the hold. (The extra pressure on his body makes defending your sub much more difficult for him).

It's a lot harder to catch decent guys in far side wristlocks (kimura/americana) from side control. That's one of the first things you learn to protect at white belt BJJ level. If you're going for those exclusively and not chaining them together with improving your position that is a weaker approach.



At other times (depending upon his size and his reactions) you might want to stay in the triangulated knee position - like a tripod - while trying to finish the sub...or possibly even transition to the head and arm position (known in judo as the scarf hold) and continue going for subs (or strikes, if it's MMA) from there. And D i c k Cardinal has an outstanding variation on the head and arm position that really works well as a very tight hold-down and setup for striking and subs.

Scarf hold is also in BJJ, as well as a similar position facing the feet (Bravo has a whole game around this called "Twister side control"). LAOH does a decent job on the detail of pressure from scarf hold. A lot of BJJ tape series show attacks from there.



So the hips LOWER-to-the-ground triangulated knee positions from cross chest are therefore not really meant to try and set up a pass into the full mount - but rather to gain a tight hold down and help in your work to CATCH a submission (or multiple striking opportunities) - a different strategy than BJJ in some important respects.
I would say you have a misconception of BJJ strategy. While it is position before submission, you're not going for mount 100&#37; of the time over submissions from side control. You can transition to mount if it's there and they give it to you. Actually to me, without the gi, mount is a little harder to finish something from than side control. Yet, being comfortable with transitioning between side control, n/s, knee on stomach, and mount while continuously setting up attacks is 1000% better than catch's approach of laying in side control and trying to finish something. Take a look at an example of working side control in this BJJ brown belt finals video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2eEwOTvw9I

Overall, I would say that catch wrestling, like sambo, is an acceptable approach to getting to ground skills. However, it has weaknesses. So does sambo, so does BJJ. BJJ is notoriously weak on takedowns and throws, so many schools cross-train in wrestling and judo. There's a whole group of people that just train submission wrestling - no BJJ or ranks. Many of them are very good too. One of the main keys though is getting out and rolling with people that are higher level - that's what improves you.

[anerlich]

One of the main keys though is getting out and rolling with people that are higher level - that's what improves you.

Amen to that.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"His advice is "get back on top". OK, but good BJJ instruction presents a hundred detailed techniques to drill for doing exactly that. Catch - nada except for the advice."


***AGAIN...you can't really judge the guy until you see all his vids - including some great stufff about how to escape bottom positions.

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

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this called the '1000 kilos' hold in BJJ? Hips low, same triangulation. It is not a unique catch discovery by any means."


***AND who said that it was? And btw, Maeda, who taught the Gracie's judo/jiu jitsu after moving to Brazil circa 1916, only lost two matches in his entire life, so the story goes. While he was wrestling in Europe under the name Count Koma. And those matches were to catch wrestlers - who, we're told (by a jiu jitsu blackbelt on his website - which I'm tired of having to scan and post every six months or so when yet another BJJ guy wants to trash catch) - Maeda spent some time learning from these wrestlers before going to Brazil...so who really knows where this 1000 kilos comes from, anyway..???

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

"It's a lot harder to catch decent guys in far side wristlocks (kimura/americana) from side control. That's one of the first things you learn to protect at white belt BJJ level. If you're going for those exclusively and not chaining them together with improving your position that is a weaker approach."


***AND AGAIN....you need to see Cecchine's RIPPING video if you want to see some ways that far side double wristlocks and top wristlocks are set up from cross chest - as well as Yoshiaki Fugiwara's stuff - which look amazingly like exactly how Sakuraba set up and finished Royler Gracie. Is Royler a white belt?

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

"Scarf hold is also in BJJ, as well as a similar position facing the feet (Bravo has a whole game around this called "Twister side control"). LAOH does a decent job on the detail of pressure from scarf hold. A lot of BJJ tape series show attacks from there."

NO KIDDING about the scarf hold...and ah yes, the subject of Eddie Bravo - who took an old catch submission known as the "abdominal stretch" and renamed it the "twister." Cute. And then, in between kilos of pot smoking - Bravo bounces back and forth like a ping pong ball on the UG forum - first praising catch wrestling - then blasting it - then praising it again, etc.

The guy is a nutjob.

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

While it is position before submission, you're not going for mount 100&#37; of the time over submissions from side control. You can transition to mount if it's there and they give it to you. Actually to me, without the gi, mount is a little harder to finish something from than side control. Yet, being comfortable with transitioning between side control, n/s, knee on stomach, and mount while continuously setting up attacks is 1000% better than catch's approach of laying in side control and trying to finish something."

***SO THEN it's you who doesn't understand catch philosophy. Catch any hold you can means exactly that - take whatever he gives you (including a limb for a sub even in some weird "positions" - as long as CONTROL is there). And sometimes the sub attempt on the limb (or head/neck) ACTUALLY PROVIDES AND CREATES the control. And this philosophy might also include going to top saddle position (full mount) - or it may not. And there are at least 2 subs available from cross chest that I suspect you've never seen - as well as a very smooth transition POTENTIAL to IMMEDIATE head and arm position subs (and again, while in the head and arm - I suspect that there are at least 2 or possibly even 3 subs from here which you may have never seen).

And your analysis of the full mount (top saddle) not necessarily being the best finishing position is indeed correct from a catch point of view. A guy with a strong bridge might easily ruin your day if you go for that JUST FOR THE SAKE OF "IMPROVING" POSITION - especially on the transition.

[Wayfaring]

"***AGAIN...you can't really judge the guy until you see all his vids - including some great stufff about how to escape bottom positions.


I haven't seen any "great stuff" from catch wrestlers on escaping bottom positions. The way to do that is having a strong bottom game - meaning guard and half guard. Which is catch's weakness. That's like saying "really great BJJ throws". It's an oxymoron.



***AND who said that it was? And btw, Maeda, who taught the Gracie's judo/jiu jitsu after moving to Brazil circa 1916, only lost two matches in his entire life, so the story goes. While he was wrestling in Europe under the name Count Koma. And those matches were to catch wrestlers - who, we're told (by a jiu jitsu blackbelt on his website - which I'm tired of having to scan and post every six months or so when yet another BJJ guy wants to trash catch) - Maeda spent some time learning from these wrsetlers before going to Brazil...so who really knows where this 1000 kilos comes from, anyway..???

I'm all for blending wrestling and BJJ or judo, sambo, etc. and BJJ. I just think that a lot of what you see called "catch" today is from people avoiding mixing it up with better grapplers. Like Tony, yourself, others. That's not trashing catch wrestling - it's like saying you can become proficient in wing chun without sparring hard. Apply the same criteria across the board.



***AND AGAIN....you need to see Cecchine's RIPPING video if you want to see some ways that far side double wristlocks and top wristlocks are set up from cross chest - as well as Yoshiaki Fugiwara's stuff - which look amazingly like exactly how Sakuraba set up and finished Royler Gracie. Is Royler a white belt?

And Marcelo Garcia lost in ADCC this year by a front headlock turned into a choke. And CroCop got caught by a roundhouse. Yes there are ironies in competition and people can get caught. Royler also got caught in a triangle by Eddie Bravo. BFD.

I've seen Cecchine's ripping video and tried it out and have come to the conclusion that his far side wristlock setups are not high percentage against better grapplers.



NO KIDDING about the scarf hold...and ah yes, the subject of Eddie Bravo - who took an old catch submission known as the "abdominal stretch" and renamed it the "twister." Cute. And then, in between kilos of pot smoking - Bravo bounces back and forth like a ping pong ball on the UG forum - first prasing catch wrestling - then blasting it - then praising it again, etc.

The guy is a nutjob.
Actuallly Bravo said he took the twister from a high school wrestling what they call a "guillotine" - different from BJJ / sub wrestling meaning. Yes there's plenty to criticize about Bravo. One thing you can't criticize about him that you can about Cecchine is that Bravo took all his glaucoma medication induced inventive names for positions and used them successfully against a high level of competition. Tony C never has competed against notable grapplers.

My main beef with catch right now is that there is no quality control because the vast majority don't compete with it and the culture is not to get out there and mix it up with good people. There's a whole group of people coming up doing just submission wrestling and are d@mn good. No belts or anything but they rock. I roll with some folks like that consistently. I know a greco guy that smokes many BJJ black belts consistently in no gi. He's good with a gi too.

Catch, however, is some lost art rediscovered. While that may be appealing, it's more appealing to learn from a bunch of grappling sources and mix it up. I do some catch moves too that I've built in for what works for me. So much for labeling me some BJJ catch basher.

[Knifefighter]

***SO THEN it's you who doesn't understand catch philosophy. Catch any hold you can means exactly that - take whatever he gives you (including a limb for a sub even in some weird "positions" - as long as CONTROL is there).

The thing I like about the BJJ positional strategy is it works better where weapons and striking are concerned.


NO KIDDING about the scarf hold...and ah yes, the subject of Eddie Bravo - who took an old catch submission known as the "abdominal stretch" and renamed it the "twister."

Eddie's innovation regarding the Twister (which was Rigan's name for the move, BTW) was not the fact that he "developed" it (which he didn't, nor does he claim to have done), but the fact that what he did develop was a whole host of setups to enter into it. He can get into the Twister from almost any position.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And for the second and last time (on this thread) - I'm going to talk about Kazushi Sakuraba - as I'm not married to Tony Cecchine's material or his personal track record.


SAKURABA IS A CATCH WRESTLER.

I have all of his early fights on vid...let's say, his first 10-12-14 fights or so.

Go back and watch his escapes from bottom positions.

Then go back again and watch how often he's not on the bottom.

And how many times you've actually seen him use the guard position. (I have a hard time thinking of even one).

How is that possible?

The guy is only 6' tall and weighs just barely 200 (usually coming in around 190).

It's in the training and the philosophy behind the training.

Then go back and watch some of Barnett's last fights before he retired (his 2 with Nog and his fight with Mark Hunt especially).

He's clearly not at Sak's level - but he was getting there. Watch the "style" of grappling that both men are using - and by that I mean the philosophy, ie.- CATCH ANY HOLD YOU CAN...just as long as you either have control first - or the hold (sub) you're going for yields a high potential (percentage) of gaining control over his body for you - regardless of position - EVEN THOUGH TOP POSITIONS ARE FAVORED - and escaping from non-dominant bottom positions (ie.- like the guard) are what's advocated first and foremost...

unless a sub opportunity is there (ie.- a limb or head) for the taking. Otherwise - get up and out. Also watch some of Frank Shamrock's fights in this regard as well - although his catch training was not as extensive as Barnett's and no where near Sakuraba's. (And his takedown defense has always been shaky, to say the least).

Then go back and watch how often Sak got taken down - and how often he landed on the bottom (rarely).

It's a different philosophy in many respects...and I believe the philosophy provides a more dynamic approach than BJJ - and a whole array of subs (and sub opportunites) that otherwise might get ignored.

[Knifefighter]

One thing you can't criticize about him that you can about Cecchine is that Bravo took all his glaucoma medication induced inventive names for positions and used them successfully against a high level of competition.

And his guys regularly do very well in competitions.

[Liddel]

Not to interupt at all....but i thought id just stoke the fire for you guys.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CERNSyu2q3c

And for anyone else, its just a cool clip to escape from the.... "Discussion" LOL.

:cool:

[t_niehoff]

The thing I like about the BJJ positional strategy is it works better where weapons and striking are concerned.


And I think that this positional strategy can be particularly useful to beginners as it provides a framework around which to build a solid ground game.



Eddie's innovation regarding the Twister (which was Rigan's name for the move, BTW) was not the fact that he "developed" it (which he didn't, nor does he claim to have done), but the fact that what he did develop was a whole host of setups to enter into it. He can get into the Twister from almost any position.

This underscores how BJJ continues to evolve.

In my view, there are several proven, very good approaches to developing solid ground games: BJJ, judo, sambo, catch, folk wrestling, etc. In the end analysis, it isn't the approach you use to develop your game that is all that significant. What matters is your level of personal development. Different people may, for various reasons, like different certain approaches better than others.

Pointing at one guy, Sak, as "proof" that catch or it's approach is superior to everything else doesn't make any sense at all. If that were the case (one guy proves the superiority of a method), we should all be pointing to Fedor and dropping everything to do sambo. ;) Sak's results proves that he is a great fighter, and that his catch training worked for well for him. Does this mean he wouldn't have been as good if he trained in judo or BJJ or sambo? Who can say? If catch is so superior, why isn't catch dominating MMA or grappling competitions (there are other people training in catch, right? -- including people from Sak's gym.).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets keep it simple, doing what you do, and doing it well, that gets victories.

Be it MT, BJJ, Sambo, Wrestling, or Ethiopian Sumo.

[Wayfaring]

Another point to bring up - a lot of these top known catch fighters, like specifically Sak and Josh Barnett, do cross-train with top grapplers from other arts. If you think Josh Barnett hasn't had many sessions with top level BJJ players you're mistaken.

[anerlich]

And for anyone else, its just a cool clip to escape from the.... "Discussion"

Thanks, that was a great clip. That roundhouse to the head and the cartwheels are fan-friggin-tastic. I could watch that all day.

Allen Goes gave Saku a hard time with that sitting guard and up-kicks. Everyone Saku has fought since that tried it, from Belfort on, got PWN3D.

Saku and Genki remain my favorite guys because they'll try just about anything and often pull it off.

Not much there really to stoke the catch v bjj argument, if there has to be one. It more a triumph of superior skill and athleticism, and a lack of willingness to swallow the hype.

[Liddel]

Saku and Genki remain my favorite guys because they'll try just about anything and often pull it off.

Hell yeah, for the most part they make fighting so much more exciting to watch.

Its great to watch fighters adlib into the unorthadox, as a spectacle... but also as a strategy to keep the opponent one step behind.

Unpredictable = Formidable IMO.

:rolleyes: :cool:

[sihing]

Hell yeah, for the most part they make fighting so much more exciting to watch.

Its great to watch fighters adlib into the unorthadox, as a spectacle... but also as a strategy to keep the opponent one step behind.

Unpredictable = Formidable IMO.

:rolleyes: :cool:

We'll have to get this "Terrence Approved" before this can be called an official combat tactic.

T, when you have a moment can you approve this? Pls and Thx Dude, in the meantime continue to visit your local MMA club for further instruction in the way :)

James

[Mr Punch]

Saku and Genki remain my favorite guys because they'll try just about anything and often pull it off.OT but you know Genki retired? *sniff sniff*

[Ultimatewingchun]

Sak should retire also.

Sorry to say....he's over the hill.:(

BUT HE WAS GREAT. :D:cool:

[anerlich]

Yeah, Genki had a neck injury, and Saku could/should have quit while he was on top with no disgrace.

Looking forward to the next great MMA creative genius.

[t_niehoff]

We'll have to get this "Terrence Approved" before this can be called an official combat tactic.

T, when you have a moment can you approve this? Pls and Thx Dude, in the meantime continue to visit your local MMA club for further instruction in the way :)

James

No one needs approval from *anyone* -- if they get results (in fighting) doing what they are doing. Lots of tactics can work. It's not the tactics themselves that work, however, it is the person using them (their personal ability) that makes them work. While there are great examples of very successful unconventional fighters, there are also examples of unsuccessful unconventional fighters too. And, of course, there are lots of very good conventional fighters (there is a reason so many do the "conventional" things: they've been tried, tested, etc.).

Don't worry about the "meantime" -- I will continue to plug away. :) Just, as I'm sure, you will continue to theorize with your "conceptual WCK". ;)

[sihing]

No one needs approval from *anyone* -- if they get results (in fighting) doing what they are doing. Lots of tactics can work. It's not the tactics themselves that work, however, it is the person using them (their personal ability) that makes them work. While there are great examples of very successful unconventional fighters, there are also examples of unsuccessful unconventional fighters too. And, of course, there are lots of very good conventional fighters (there is a reason so many do the "conventional" things: they've been tried, tested, etc.).

Don't worry about the "meantime" -- I will continue to plug away. :) Just, as I'm sure, you will continue to theorize with your "conceptual WCK". ;)

I agree with your first paragraph, as it is up to the person using the method to really determine if it is for them. Like you said, there are plenty examples of lots of different types of people making conventional and unconvention tactics work, it's all in how "YOU" as an individual makes it work.

Regarding your training methods as compared to mine, I wish you all the best with them. You and I have very different thoughts on Martial Arts, and therefore train differently. Neither is better or worse, it all depends on what you want out of it T, I just don't force my way onto everyone else as the only way, like you do on a regular basis, like you are lecturing us as you would your students. I love training and teaching VT and look forward to more theoretical and practical work in the future.:p

By the way my original post was a joke at your expense, I hope you don't mind :)

James