Sparring clip no.2

[Big Vern]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8igqrpZ-_U

I enjoyed all the feedback from previous clip, quite excited to see if we get 5 pages from this one.
One did notice that the disenters have no footage to post, is this because they are to busy winning major hardcore comps as the result of their 'real full contact sparring'.
Do call in when next in UK and see how you last against young Lol in the above clip, only 14 yrs old and quite small, but great control and focus echoing the respect and self discipline we promote @ the Gym.

BV.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nice, better than the first one, this one showed CONTACT that disrupted the other persons sparring.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Not bad at all, Vern. Better than the first vid. Particularly liked tha bald guy in the dark blue shirt against the guy in the black sleaveless tee shirt....and the oriental-looking guy had some good defense and footwork going.

Now if they put on headgear and took it to the next level a bit (didn't really see punches landing to the head or face) - it would be even better.

Anyhow, props for the vid. These guys are on a good track.

Even saw a very young-looking kid in there. Very cool. What's the lineage?

[monji112000]

I guess you want some opinion?

Again to restate what I said on the other thread:

take off the napkin MMA gloves. They do not protect the person you hit, they are meant for protecting your hand from getting hurt when you hit someone at full force.

Put on some boxing gloves, that way when you start punching with intent..(YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE PERSON BELIEVE THAT ITS A REAL PUNCH) the other person isn't scared to be hit. The fact is that getting hit is part of the training, but you can greatly increase the benefit by letting loose without worry of braking peoples bones.

I would also suggest one person “pretend” to be a boxer or a Kickboxer. That way you can focus on a real opponent, who throws “almost” real punches. The punches still hurt, they just aren't 100%.

this is basic sparring 101.

JMO

no clip .. just go into any gym that does boxing or MT or MMA ect..
:)

[Wu Wei Wu]

i just had brief look at the clips and I have one thing to say:

excellent work chaps.

I'm not into bickering with other Wing Chun guys. But, I am into simple encouragement. So, keep training hard, keep doing your thing and any flaws will become self evident.

I like your work ethic.

WWW

[Matrix]

BV,

Like I said in the previous thread, I am enjoying th clips.

I'm curious as to what your guys think when they see themselves sparring. Are they able to identify areas where they think they can improve their game?

Keep up the good work.

[AmanuJRY]

Nice vid.:cool:

I would clairify by calling it WC(T,Tz, etc.) sparring, as you are restricting (on purpose or otherwize) techniques to the ranges trained in WC - kicking, punching and in-fighing/clinch. I didn't see any takedown defence or work against boxing/kickboxing combinations. I did see some nice but brief examples of good WT clinch work.;)

[t_niehoff]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B8igqrpZ-_U


Same as before.



I enjoyed all the feedback from previous clip, quite excited to see if we get 5 pages from this one.
One did notice that the disenters have no footage to post, is this because they are to busy winning major hardcore comps as the result of their 'real full contact sparring'.


I'm sorry that I don't have any video to uplink -- but I don't take my camcorder to the gym with me, and even if I did, I wouldn't be so vain as to think what I was doing was particularly noteworthy. There are lots of tapes of really good people sparring.



Do call in when next in UK and see how you last against young Lol in the above clip, only 14 yrs old and quite small, but great control and focus echoing the respect and self discipline we promote @ the Gym.

BV.

Instead of waiting of us to beat our way to your door, and since you apparently like videotaping yourselves, why not take your camcorder down to a good MMA gym and show us how that looks?

[Matrix]

Instead of waiting of us to beat our way to your door, and since you apparently like videotaping yourselves, why not take your camcorder down to a good MMA gym and show us how that looks?More hypocracy from Terence. You are so critical of other people's efforts, that you must be some sort of super-star. Please put your "humility" in check for a few moments and do what you are asking others to do. :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

More hypocracy from Terence. You are so critical of other people's efforts, that you must be some sort of super-star. Please put your "humility" in check for a few moments and do what you are asking others to do. :rolleyes:

No hypocrisy (the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess) -- these are indeed my views. And I don't claim to be a "super-star" (Maybe you didn't read where I said that my sparring wouldn't be particularly noteworthy? Or that I suggested that instead of wanting to see my sparring, that he look at some really good fighters?). If people want to put up videos of themselves, that is their perogative. If they want to call playing around sparring, that too is their perogative. But in my view that practice shouldn't be encouraged. There are enough videos of WCK people doing crappy stuff already. I find it amazing that the people who put up these clips, and the people who post positive comments about them, actually believe that stuff is good. I'm not surprised, just amazed.

[chi sau]

I find it amazing that the people who put up these clips, and the people who post positive comments about them, actually believe that stuff is good. I'm not surprised, just amazed.

then show us what you believe to be"good stuff"
because so far you have put up a clip of some amateur boxers?
i actually agree with you (vaguely )on your point about it being a different game when strikes etc are at full intensity

For one example, the one guy kept kicking his opponent's lead leg, over and over almost in slo mo, and his opponent did nothing to deal with it (because it didn't *hurt*). One really good hard shot, and I can promise you that he would begin to deal with it, changing how he moved, how he stands, how he reacts, etc. which would require the "kicker" to change what he was doing. The game would change.


For one example, the one guy kept kicking his opponent's lead leg, over and over almost in slo mo, and his opponent did nothing to deal with it (because it didn't *hurt*). One really good hard shot, and I can promise you that he would begin to deal with it, changing how he moved, how he stands, how he reacts, etc. which would require the "kicker" to ch nge what he was doing. The game would change.




i agree with you here i really do
but you cant train like that every session
i would also draw your attention to bv 's introduction

Emphasis on control and mobility.

not Emphasis on going all out or full contact
judge it on this criteria
because this is their rules/criteria not yours
peace

[Wu Wei Wu]

BV,

once again i reiterate what i wrote previously. good work.

recording what you do in a session, irrespective of posting it on a public forum, is a superb way of evaluating and monitoring progress. you are able to view things from a 3rd part perspective.

keep doing what you are doing.

i am interested in your training methods, lineage, what types of things you work on. PM me if you are unwilling for your training to be evaluated by the court jester.

WWW

[Matrix]

I'm not surprised, just amazed.
You are just arrogant. Which is neither surprising, nor amazing. By the way, if you read the quotes posted you will see that I said I enjoyed the clips, since I do enjoy watching the dynamic between different training partners. I also enjoy watching amateur sports, but that doesn't mean the level of play is necessarily at the highest level. I think they are trying to develop some basic skills in a more dynamic environment, rather than static drills which has some good points that should be encouraged.

Others had some constructive criticism to offer - you may want to look into the meaning of "constructive criticism". You know that you can offer suggestions without just calling it crappy.

And you are a hypocrit because you demand videos from others and are unwilling to produce the same.

If you stand by your claim that your sparring is not noteworthy then why do you feel your criticisms are? :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

Others had some constructive criticism to offer - you may want to look into the meaning of "constructive criticism". You know that you can offer suggestions without just calling it crappy.

And you are a hypocrit because you demand videos from others and are unwilling to produce the same.

Bill is correct.

Those who criticise others' performances when they are unwilling and probably unable to demonstrate how to do what they say should be done themselves are often, and IMO justifiably, regarded with derision and as deserving of ridicule.

IOW: Terence, you're acting like a d1ck. Enough already.

[YungChun]

Perhaps Terrence could be more constructive and kind in his criticism of other's videos.. But at least he's not using personal attacks or name calling...

When folks make observations, good or bad, about something, either the point made is valid or it is not.. Tact is another issue.. A person need not "prove" that he/she can perform any particular skill to make the point a valid one..

Statements and facts stand for themselves.. When you attack the person and not the idea you are employing an "Ad Hominem Attack".

QUOTE:


==================================================
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

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

Attack the idea if you can... Not the person...

[t_niehoff]

Perhaps Terrence could be more constructive and kind in his criticism of other's videos.. But at least he's not using personal attacks or name calling...


I gave my constructive criticism in discussing "Sparring Clip #1", so I didn't feel the need to repeat it.



When folks make observations, good or bad, about something, either the point made is valid or it is not.. Tact is another issue.. A person need not "prove" that he/she can perform any particular skill to make the point a valid one..


You are exactly right. I don't need to play the violin to recognize when it is being played poorly. ;)

And, if we extend their "logic", if they are going to comment too, even with a positive comment, shouldn't they need to prove they can perform the particular skill too? How else do they know it is "good"?



Statements and facts stand for themselves.. When you attack the person and not the idea you are employing an "Ad Hominem Attack".


Yes, ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. But beyond that, person's using them if most often signalling, IMO, the inablity to offer solid reasons in support of their position (when I can't refute what you say, I call you a bastid). So I don't mind people resorting to name calling -- for me, it's the equivalent of them admitting they can't respond intelligently.



Attack the idea if you can... Not the person...


It boils down to the "if you can" -- if a person can attack the idea, can support their position with intelligent, rational reasons, can refute an assertion, they would. They only attack the person when they can't successfully attack the idea. That's why, as I said, ad hominem attacks are basically admissions that they got nothing.

[jesper]

or signs people are fed up with certain persons way of offering "constructive critism"

[Ultimatewingchun]

Any wonder why some people have seen fit to use the IGNORE button? ;) :cool: :D

[AmanuJRY]

Any wonder why some people have seen fit to use the IGNORE button? ;) :cool: :D

You don't need a button to ignore people, just don't respond.;)

[Matrix]

Attack the idea if you can... Not the person...Others have offered good constructive comments that can be taken away and used to improve the game being played, such as "watch your elbow position / flying-elbows" or " put enough power in your strikes to at least get a reaction from your partner" so that the sparring will be in a proper context.

The statement that something is "crappy" is not an "idea". It's just trash talk. The funny thing is that I agree with Terence to a point, it's more a question of how he criticizes others, not the fact that he is.

You say "A person need not "prove" that he/she can perform any particular skill to make the point a valid one." and yet Terence repeatedly asks others to go to a mma gym a vidoe tape a sparring session to "prove" their point and yet refuses to do the same. :rolleyes: So when I see this type of arrogance and hypocrasy, I call it such. You may see this as an "Ad Hominem Attack", and he can make his little glib comments and that's unfortunate. So I'll just leave my comments as they stand and move on to the next topic.

[anerlich]

They only attack the person when they can't successfully attack the idea.

I wasn't aware the thread was about the finer points of argument (on KFO?) but ...

Actually, it's possible to do both at the same time. To claim otherwise is to perpetuate another logical fallacy, a false dichotomy.

Appeal to popularity is also a fallacy whne trying to determine facts, but the opinion that you are bing a PITA does seem to be getting more popular ...


But beyond that, person's using them if most often signalling, IMO, the inablity to offer solid reasons in support of their position (when I can't refute what you say, I call you a bastid).

In the earlier post, I was criticising your behaviour (acting like ...) not your person (ad hominem). That's changed, BTW.

I didn't offer an opinion on your assertions, I'm suggesting your posts here and their tone are often offensive, tactless, unhelpful, unnecessary, redundant, and that your pontification on a subject about which you can demonstrate no practical experience begs ridicule.

You're at least as bad as the Grandmasters who you say can't fight lecturing others on how to fight and train.

Ad hominem may be a logical fallacy. You are demonstrating that in some cases it can also be appropriate.

Most people will have seen this, but it seems appropriate to jog the memories of some:

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt, From a speech given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910

[Liddel]

No wonder you parrot on so much about realistic training T.

If you have the same attitude towards getting on with people in the real world, you would no doubt be getting into fights almost every day :cool:

Judging by other peoples responces, good or bad, noteworthy or not.
We'd love to see some vids of you in action.

Put your money where your mouth is per say. :rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

Not a chance of that happening.

[Edmund]

Terence,

You have previously stated, if you can't do it, you don't know it.

Hence if you cannot actually full contact spar well, how can you justify your critique of anyone? You're not qualified to say anything about it if you can't do it.

Also you made the insulting remark "where's the sparring?" before which suggested to me that you believe you could actually full contact spar well.

That's what makes you an armchair critic. And a rude one who doesn't have a leg to stand on. You do WC and you spar. So it's not like you can't create a clip of your own. The shoe is on the other foot when you have other people looking at your performance.



Anyone can increase their level of contact in training to an all out brawl if they want to.

People choose not to for a lot of different reasons: Safety, trying to learn new moves, working on combos, working with people of different abilities or sizes.

If the toughest fighter decided to go all out in sparring against you, you wouldn't learn much except how to get flattened.

I've posted a link to how hard pro-MT fighters for the top stadiums is Bangkok spar. The WC clips look approx the same level and it looks like they are learning something.

You've given your reasoning for going harder. I understand what you said. I got no objections to those reasons. Now demonstrate how well it works please.

I don't see why a positive comment needs to be reinforced with a clip. It would look similar to the previous clip.

If you think you can do better, you can top all the clips with one of your own.
If you think you can't do it better, then just say so.




You are exactly right. I don't need to play the violin to recognize when it is being played poorly. ;)

And, if we extend their "logic", if they are going to comment too, even with a positive comment, shouldn't they need to prove they can perform the particular skill too? How else do they know it is "good"?

[anerlich]

I don't need to play the violin to recognize when it is being played poorly.

T, I have visions of you stopping a string quartet recital to tell the players what they are doing wrong, then getting a viola smashed over your head, held down on top of the cello, and receiving a Stradivarius enema while being force fed the viola fragments, with the audience applauding loudly.

No doubt someone would put the vid up on YouTube, and some tone-deaf doofus, a long time ago on a forum far far away, would have said "my mother swings a viola better than that", "real muso's put the tuning pegs in first, go ask them", etc. etc.

[Mr Punch]

T, I have visions of you stopping a string quartet recital to tell the players what they are doing wrong, then getting a viola smashed over your head, held down on top of the cello, and receiving a Stradivarius enema while being force fed the viola fragments, with the audience applauding loudly.

No doubt someone would put the vid up on YouTube, and some tone-deaf doofus, a long time ago on a forum far far away, would have said "my mother swings a viola better than that", "real muso's put the tuning pegs in first, go ask them", etc. etc.You know, you can medication for these strange things you're seeing...! :D

The sparring clips were OK. Of course, everyone has a point about sparring at the levl where nobody is being rocked enough to mess with their stance and rhythm, but they were OK for that level of contact.

As for Terence, I'm all about ad hominem. Other pompous asses can tell me that means I've lost the argument in the first place, but when he levels thinly veiled attacks on other people being vain or whatever because they dare to put up vids of themselves that they know are gonna get ripped on (like putting vids on this forum - the pinnacle of wing chun comment on the net - is tantamount to pride! :D ) and then using that as an excuse for not enlightening us all... it is frankly the actions of a

boring sanctimonious ****.

(insert word for the stars as you like - my choice is Anglo-Saxon for 'hole')

Terence, even most of the people who agree with you on this board think you're a twat. I mean, you're mostly right about this point, so you're right, I got nothing on your argument. I just know a twat when I see one.

[t_niehoff]

If these guys find this sort of training useful (at some level), that's great. But it isn't sparring. Sparring is realistic training, and much of what is going on in this exercise is not realistic. (If they believe it is realistic, that's a whole other problem). And that's why I object to them calling it "sparring." If they called it playfighting or some sort of drilling, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Here's how easy it is to see if something is realistic: spar at full power, full intensity, full speed, etc. against a genuinely resisting opponent (especially with someone who isn't trying to play your same game and has some decent attributes/skill - why, btw, I suggested they visit a good MMA gym). Now, if they did this and then compared that to how how they move in these "sparring" clips, they'd see that they are moving and behaving in ways they could not "get away with" at 100% (especially when they have an opponent that isn't playing their same game). They'd see that are behaving and moving unrealistically in these clips.

To tell what works, what doesn't work, the mistakes you're making, etc. depends on feedback. When you do drills/exercises where everyone moves/behaves unrealistically, you get unrealistic feedback. What does that matter? Because we use, even on an unconscious level, whatever feedback we get to develop and reinforce our movement habits. And when you are not getting good feedback, you develop and reinforce poor fighting habits. It's a case of garbage in (unrealistic feedback), garbage out (poor fighitng habits/skills).

You can "turn down" the intensity in your sparring, but you still need to move/behave in a consistent, realistic manner (as you would move/behave at 100%).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sparring comes in all shapes and sizes and what type you do is usually based on what you are drilling or your experience level.

Pro football players do not scrimmage ( a type of "sparring") at full speed.
They "intensity" will vary depending on what is being practised.

Some times we forget that there is a difference between training and practicing.

[t_niehoff]

Sparring comes in all shapes and sizes and what type you do is usually based on what you are drilling or your experience level.

Pro football players do not scrimmage ( a type of "sparring") at full speed.
They "intensity" will vary depending on what is being practised.

Some times we forget that there is a difference between training and practicing.


Yes, pro football players do scrimmages -- but they behave/move realistically in them (they don't move/behave in a way that they can't in the game). Otherwise, they wouldn't derive much benefit from the practice (they'd be practicing things that just wouldn't work). What guides them in this is their experience actually playing the game at 100% (knowing what is realistic).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, pro football players do scrimmages -- but they behave/move realistically in them (they don't move/behave in a way that they can't in the game). Otherwise, they wouldn't derive much benefit from the practice (they'd be practicing things that just wouldn't work). What guides them in this is their experience actually playing the game at 100% (knowing what is realistic).

As you have noticed by my other posts, I advocate hard contact training ( in varied degrees) when it comes to sparring.
But, I also know that it must gradually get there, more so than in "my time' when you were thrown into hard sparring almost right away ( best way to swim is the dive in).
There are some benefits to "controlled soft sparring" just as there are to "realxed rolling".
I don't personally advocate them too much and feel they should be dropped by the way side as soon as one is able to move from them, but theyrserver a purpose.

[YungChun]

There are some benefits to "controlled soft sparring" just as there are to "realxed rolling".

Nothing wrong with light or medium or hard or full...

The problem is when what is trained fundementally violates certain basics..

Such as...

1. Wrong Distances...

2. Wrong Timing...

3. Lack of follow through...

4. Lack of followups/Finishing...

5. Lack of resistance...

6. Touch Me Kill Me Moves

7. Lack of stress...

Etc..

May apply to chi sao as well... eg no Fan Sao... No energy release... No attacking structure..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All training is fake... The only real thing is the real thing.. Whatever that is for the individual, be it training for sport or street... The key is to have the least crappy fake training... :) So the more realistic the better..

BUT that doesn't mean, IMO that you start there.. You work up to it and get more realistic as you go; and sometimes you go back to work on something you need improvement in..

However, most of the folks that I know, including myself, do not like to do hard/full contact to the head with too much regularity.. It just isn't good for you and at some point <age> you have to draw the line for health purposes...

Beyond that the more realistically you train the better will be the results...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nothing wrong with light or medium or hard or full...

The problem is when what is trained fundementally violates certain basics..

Such as...

1. Wrong Distances...

2. Wrong Timing...

3. Lack of follow through...

4. Lack of followups/Finishing...

5. Lack of resistance...

6. Touch Me Kill Me Moves

7. Lack of stress...

Etc..

May apply to chi sao as well... eg no Fan Sao... No energy release... No attacking structure..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All training is fake... The only real thing is the real thing.. Whatever that is for the individual, be it training for sport or street... The key is to have the least crappy fake training... :) So the more realistic the better..

BUT that doesn't mean, IMO that you start there.. You work up to it and get more realistic as you go; and sometimes you go back to work on something you need improvement in..

However, most of the folks that I know, including myself, do not like to do hard/full contact to the head with too much regularity.. It just isn't good for you and at some point <age> you have to draw the line for health purposes...

Beyond that the more realistically you train the better will be the results...

Ah yes, the major issues with any type of sparring outside "hard contact" sparring.
I define hard contact as any contact that forces your partner to react to what is going on.
As such, there are degrees of hard contact, from simple contact like a slap from your coach when you drop your hands doing pad work, to a full force punch to the liver.
Even a simple slap like that given by the coach is enough to get the point across so there really is no excuse for training with no-contact.

One of the biggest problems with light contact though is when partners are not honest with each other or themselves, as in the case of a person getting drilled in the face by a light knee while coming in with a crappy takedown attempt and still goes through with the takedown as if nothing happened.
Or the person that tries to pull out a 7 strike combo and get hit in the body by some counter hooks but doesn't "think" that would have effected their combo.

Sometimes light contact can be quite detrimental.

[Wayfaring]

I thought the 2 clips were decent from a basic movement perspective. I read the comment on the original post about emphasizing control and movement.

There's nothing wrong with training movement and control with this kind of stuff. I would say though that if that is the only sparring that goes on, that's not enough. You do probably need to gear up a little more and go after a little more aggressive pursuit. It's kind of hard to go real hard consistently with just the 4oz gloves and no headgear. And you need the harder stuff also to learn to deal with the pressure.

I'd say if you did stuff like this, did some rounds with head gear and 12 oz gloves, and did some rounds offense / defense with thai pads with the 4 oz gloves so people could go for hard contact it would be a decent blend. That's also good conditioning too.

I'm not criticizing because I don't know what else you do to train in a night besides the clips uploaded.

[Matrix]

Pro football players do not scrimmage ( a type of "sparring") at full speed.
They "intensity" will vary depending on what is being practised.

Some times we forget that there is a difference between training and practicing.Very true. And when football players (American football that is) train a lower internsity they often drop the pads as well. There is some value in this level of practise, because you just can't go full out all of the time, IMO.

[t_niehoff]

Nothing wrong with light or medium or hard or full...

The problem is when what is trained fundementally violates certain basics..


I agree with the above, but it doesn't go far enough. A huge problem with lower intensity stuff is that fighting by its very nature is extremely high intensity, and when we lower the intensity we can do lots of things we could never do - and get away with - in fighting. High intensity training shows us what we can and cannot do; it has its own demands. When someone is familiar with moving in a high intensity fighting environment, they can lower the intensity in their training (but continue to do those same things they do at high intensity). However, when we go about it from low intensity practice, we never see the limitations that high intensity sparring puts on us. So we continue to train things and in ways that just isn't realistic. And practicing things you just won't be able to do, that will fail when the intensity rises, isn't good training by any definition.



May apply to chi sao as well... eg no Fan Sao... No energy release... No attacking structure..


Chi sao is by its very nature unrealistic training. So no matter how one practices it, it will not develop realistic skills.Realistic skills only comes from realistic training.



All training is fake... The only real thing is the real thing.. Whatever that is for the individual, be it training for sport or street... The key is to have the least crappy fake training... :) So the more realistic the better..


Training is not fake. In fact, thinking in terms of "the real thing", street v. sport, etc. is fallacious in my view. Training in martial arts is to develop realistic fighting skills. Realistic fighting skills can be used in any realistic fighting situation, be it street, sport, whatever you believe is "the real thing", etc. If you can't make it work in a ring, it won't work in the street. And only realistic practice, particularly sparring, significantly develops realistic fighting skills. How do we know when something is realistic? Easy, it's what happens when people fight (and genuinely resist each other) at 100&#37; full-out, full speed, etc.



BUT that doesn't mean, IMO that you start there.. You work up to it and get more realistic as you go; and sometimes you go back to work on something you need improvement in..


Yes and no. Of course, when we learn, we have to learn with unrealistic drills and exercises (as they provide focus and a less intense environment that permits acquisition of skills). But as soon as possible, we need to put those skills into a realsitic environment. Without doing that, people will continue to move in ways that simply isn't realistic.



However, most of the folks that I know, including myself, do not like to do hard/full contact to the head with too much regularity.. It just isn't good for you and at some point <age> you have to draw the line for health purposes...

Beyond that the more realistically you train the better will be the results...

I know what you mean, but we don't get to choose what it takes to develop skills, maintain skills, etc. If we want those skills, there is a price to pay.

[YungChun]

Chi sao is by its very nature unrealistic training. So no matter how one practices it, it will not develop realistic skills.Realistic skills only comes from realistic training.

Chi Sao does indeed develop skills or ATTRIBUTES... The only question is if *you* can then apply those attributes later in a combative manner...



Training is not fake.

Semantics..

It's all fake until the dung hits the fan blades..

Training of any kind is not what folks are training for—training is training, preparation for an event.. If, competition then the ultimate goal is in the "Ring". When you are IN the Ring; this is when all realities are fully in play... The training for the event is not the event itself; that's why it's called training.. You can make it close but it is still not the same thing, not in reality, not physically and not in the mind.

Training for "Self Defense" <not the same--nor are the reqs the same as in sport> means the reality is when you are fighting for your life, and/or the lives of loved ones... Again, and even more so here, the training is further removed from the event and all it may encompass; how it will impact the body and mind. Even when you employ "Reality training" the RBSD instructors like Tony Blauer will tell you it's quite "fake" until you are facing possible death or worse... This is why RBSD folks work scenarios, de-escalation and adrenal stress training; in order to better approximate reality; *approximating reality* btw means it’s not real, AKA, fake..

"Real training" could be done I guess... Just go out and incite a biker gang and let them all chase you into your kwoon.. THEN you would have pretty non fake "training".... :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Chi Sao does indeed develop skills or ATTRIBUTES... The only question is if *you* can then apply those attributes later in a combative manner..." (YungChun)


***AND I would add that chi sao, as well as the forms, has certain techniques and combat response moves to be developed - but the bigger issues are the concepts and attributes that can be garnered from chi sao.

Understanding how to use/perform specific techniques and when they apply to specific fighting situations should come along with the rest of the turf - if the concepts are fully understood and the attributes (ie.- speed, timing, balance and stability in motion, power, etc.) are developed.

But this is a horse few can ride, as the saying now goes.

Because it requires making significant adjustments, modifications, and additions to the chi sao platform - since fights don't go along the way of chi sao stance, starting positions, and rules.

Imo, *you* need to put on thin gloves and other protective gear and translate chi sao and form material into actual sparring virtually every class to some degree or another - otherwise chi sao becomes an impractical close quarter dance with a partner...perhaps spontaneous and fun to watch - but still a dance.

In fact, bouncing back-and-forth between chi sao/drills and spontaneous sparring within the same class is very helpful, imo, on a frequent basis. Then the connections and translations become clearer in the head of the practitioner.

[t_niehoff]

Chi Sao does indeed develop skills or ATTRIBUTES... The only question is if *you* can then apply those attributes later in a combative manner...


We may be saying the same thing. (?)

I said chi sao does not develop *realistic* (fighting) skills -- as it is a an unrealistic exercise (since the "conditions" are not realistic, i.e., don't reflect what goes on in a fight). Of course it develops skills; any exercise you do will develop some skills. But developing or having some skill or ability does not raise it to the level of a realistic (fighting) skill. Realistic (fighting) skills are those skills that can be used by you reliably and consistently in a fighting environment (obviously, if you can't do them in fighting, they are not fighting skills; if you can't do them well in fighting, they are not good fighting skills). Realistic (fighting) skills come from realistic training/practice; your ability to apply those things comes from realistically trying to apply them.



Semantics..

It's all fake until the dung hits the fan blades..

Training of any kind is not what folks are training for—training is training, preparation for an event..


It's not a case of semantics. Training can be directed to prepare for a specific event. But it can also be -- and is most often the case -- a generalized development of performance abilities pertaining to some activity. And this typically involves doing (practicing) the very activity itself, playing the game to develop your ability to play the game.



If, competition then the ultimate goal is in the "Ring". When you are IN the Ring; this is when all realities are fully in play... The training for the event is not the event itself; that's why it's called training.. You can make it close but it is still not the same thing, not in reality, not physically and not in the mind.

Training for "Self Defense" <not the same--nor are the reqs the same as in sport> means the reality is when you are fighting for your life, and/or the lives of loved ones... Again, and even more so here, the training is further removed from the event and all it may encompass; how it will impact the body and mind. Even when you employ "Reality training" the RBSD instructors like Tony Blauer will tell you it's quite "fake" until you are facing possible death or worse... This is why RBSD folks work scenarios, de-escalation and adrenal stress training; in order to better approximate reality; *approximating reality* btw means it’s not real, AKA, fake..

"Real training" could be done I guess... Just go out and incite a biker gang and let them all chase you into your kwoon.. THEN you would have pretty non fake "training".... :D

You seem to view this as there is training, like sparring, which is "fake" since it isn't the event or situation, and then there is some event or situation, the "real thing". This is IMO confused thinking. The issue is about developing our overall performance ability in some activity, in this case fighting (with WCK). Training develops our performance abilities (skills, attributes, etc.). And an extremely important part of that developmental process is actually doing the activity itself. You become a better boxer by boxing; you become a better grappler by grappling. What is "real" is your performance ability, including skills, attributes, etc. Those aren't fake. And they can't be faked.

Training which is unrealsitic won't develop skills that function in a realistic (fighting) environment. Realistic training, which includes doing the activity itself, will develop realistic skills. Realistic skills aren't fake; they will work in any realsitic (fighting) environment. If you have genuine core fighting skills in stand-up, clinch, and ground, they will work in any fighting environment, from ring to street. So my view isn't that the ring is real or the street is real, what's real is what I can do.

I do agree with you, however, that there are tactics related to specific situational aspects (cage, street, etc.) than do need to be addressed and trained, but these draw on the same core fighting skills.

[YungChun]

In fact, bouncing back-and-forth between chi sao/drills and spontaneous sparring within the same class is very helpful, imo, on a frequent basis. Then the connections and translations become clearer in the head of the practitioner.

Sounds good.. For me it depends a lot on what level the student is at. This would determine the what and the when...

Funny though, I noticed when I was teaching a while back that some people find more realistic drills actually easier to do than some of the classical drills.. One guy I had just could never really get the basic pak sao drill down well but had no trouble doing sparring drills with Pak.. Makes me think that more than meets the eye may be going on in some of these classical and "simple" drills, in some ways they are more demanding than basic application work....

[YungChun]

You seem to view this as there is training, like sparring, which is "fake" since it isn't the event or situation, and then there is some event or situation, the "real thing". This is IMO confused thinking.

Not really.. It's learning to drive vs. driving the race...

[Ultimatewingchun]

"One guy I had just could never really get the basic pak sao drill down well but had no trouble doing sparring drills with Pak.. Makes me think that more than meets the eye may be going on in some of these classical and "simple" drills, in some ways they are more demanding than basic application work...." (YungChun/Jim)


***COULD also mean something else...that the classical way has some serious limitations when confronted with more modern ways of sparring/fighting. :eek:

I've seen similar phenomena in my classes through the years as well, btw...

What's in the forms, drills, and chi sao has to be adapted...modified, changed, worked with, riffed on with spontaneity, etc.

Otherwise very little will be functional in 2007 against a skilled fighter, imo.

But with a creative approach to forms, drills, and chi sao - I think REGENERATION
of the whole system into a very high level fight game is possible.

But without the open mind - forget it.

Dinosaur.

[YungChun]

***COULD also mean something else...that the classical way has some serious limitations when confronted with more modern ways of sparring/fighting. :eek:


I dunno... To me the classical drill we trained seemed easier; less stress, less stuff going on but perhaps more precise in terms of how to apply energy, structure and angle.. But this guy never got it down right—yet had no trouble applying pak when we geared up and I was trying to hit him in the face... :confused:

Some folks seem to get a block in their head from classical work.. You show them a stance and then explain later they need to "let it go", move freely and naturally but apply the "lessons" of the stance's structure, alignment and so on, but there face just goes blank...

Move freely <> locked in a stance...

They don't get the difference between "The Finger and the Moon" no matter what you tell some of them...

As a result I started doing the same progression concept wise and tool wise but in a kind of A/
B set up where A would be the standard classical drill and B would be a more relaxed, loose and less restrictive JKD type application work with the same move/tool/idea...

This way they would get the classical work and also switch into a more application oriented drill... Sounds similar to your model Victor..

[jesper]

He may simply be thinking to much about the correct way of doing Pak during training.

Many many many..... :) years ago I learned how to fall with a forward rolling motion, sorry dont know the english name.
For the life of me I couldnt do it properly if I had to show it during a class, but one day I was out riding my bike when the front wheel collapsed and I flew over the steering wheel headfirst down on the concrete. Somehow I managed to make a perfect roll and get right up on my feet without hurting myself. I have now Idea how I did it and it was only because a friend told me how cool it looked I knew I had even done this forward rolling fall.

[AmanuJRY]

Not really.. It's learning to drive vs. driving the race...

Less black and white than that...;)

More like learning to drive (basics), learning to race on a go cart track (low level sparring/drills), lerning to race cars on an oval track (harder contact sparring/advacned drills), racing in NASCAR (competition fighting)....trying to outrun cops/mafia/gangs, etc. (real fighting).:cool:

[YungChun]

Less black and white than that...;)


Naturally, <this time> I was trying to keep it pithy.....

Point well taken, however, there are many shades of gray, many steps to the top...

[t_niehoff]

Not really.. It's learning to drive vs. driving the race...

No, it's not the race or type of race that is important (which is real and which is fake?) it is about driving skills which will serve you whenever and where ever you drive. There is no "real driving" and "fake driving" -- driving is the activity, where you drive is simply the context. There are only real driving skills, and whenever you are using those real skills, you are really driving; when you are not using those real skills, you are not driving. Learning to drive and the development of driving skills comes primarily from driving -- really driving -- actually doing the activity itself, actually using those various skills realistically. You don't develop driving skills by not (avoiding) driving.

[YungChun]

Hawkins often uses an analogy of driving a car to convey his teachings. He asks, "Are you good driver?" A student nods affirmative. Are you a good driver in Europe? Are you a good driver with a manual transmission? Are you a good driver in New York?" The student looks confused, as Hawkins continues, "The difference between driving a car around the block versus driving a car on the freeway is confidence and experience. Confidence and experience go hand-in-hand. If you're not confident, you will be a disaster in driving or fighting." The students understand.

Terrence, everything for you is black or white...no shades of anything.. That is not reality..

You take a simple point and split every little hair in order to hit all of your hackneyed talking points...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Terrence what you do is not real..... :eek: Not a totalistic realization of all realities.. By the definition in play here….

Mortal combat is real..

I wonder Terrence in your training…………

How many times have you fought to the death?

How often do you train/fight multiple attackers?

How often do you train/fight with weapons? Armed/unarmed? Which weapons?

How often do you train to employ environmental factors/tools/terrain, to assist you in multiple threat scenarios?

How often do you train/fight without gear/pads?

How often do you train/fight to defend a second party who is helpless?

How many scenarios do you train per week?

How often do you train/fight to read potential street threats in these scenarios?

How often do you train de-escalation?

How often do you knock your opponents out?

How often have you killed or maimed your opponents?

Do you train/fight and use attacks to vital areas of the body to ensure they work?

How often do you train/fight with tried and proven street fighters?

How often do you train/fight with tried and proven street fighters who have weapons?

Do you train/fight with top level MMA fighters

Do you train/fight with top level MMA fighters who have weapons?

Have you fought, sparred the ex-con who just got out and moved into your town?

Have you even been in a REAL fight?

Have you ever been mugged?

Carjacked?

Have you ever been in a situation where you wondered if you would survive to tell the tale?

------------------------

The reality of reality is that it is not neatly packaged into a single small box.. It means certain uncertainty and limitless possibilities..

Are you really covering the gamut of RBSD and then some; Or are you simply training to whoop butt in safe “sparring duels” with your kwoon mates and calling that the entire reality of all realities?

Have you convinced yourself that because you spar you have covered the entire spectrum of what is an infinite study of the martial way …? Oye..

[sihing]

Quote:
Hawkins often uses an analogy of driving a car to convey his teachings. He asks, "Are you good driver?" A student nods affirmative. Are you a good driver in Europe? Are you a good driver with a manual transmission? Are you a good driver in New York?" The student looks confused, as Hawkins continues, "The difference between driving a car around the block versus driving a car on the freeway is confidence and experience. Confidence and experience go hand-in-hand. If you're not confident, you will be a disaster in driving or fighting." The students understand



That must of been the place Sifu Lam got it, as he uses that analogy as well in one of his DVD's. Hawkins and him are good friends.

Terrence is in his own reality and is incapable (as of this writing and IMO) of seeing things through other's eyes. Reality is different for each of us, as we all have different perspectives, ideas, experiences & abilities, needs/wants and each situation is different. There is no black and white, life is all in the grey shades.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

I dunno... To me the classical drill we trained seemed easier; less stress, less stuff going on but perhaps more precise in terms of how to apply energy, structure and angle.. But this guy never got it down right—yet had no trouble applying pak when we geared up and I was trying to hit him in the face... :confused:

Some folks seem to get a block in their head from classical work.. You show them a stance and then explain later they need to "let it go", move freely and naturally but apply the "lessons" of the stance's structure, alignment and so on, but there face just goes blank...

Move freely <> locked in a stance...

They don't get the difference between "The Finger and the Moon" no matter what you tell some of them...

As a result I started doing the same progression concept wise and tool wise but in a kind of A/
B set up where A would be the standard classical drill and B would be a more relaxed, loose and less restrictive JKD type application work with the same move/tool/idea...

This way they would get the classical work and also switch into a more application oriented drill... Sounds similar to your model Victor..


***I should also offer this caveat to what I'm saying, and how it applies to, amoungst other things, being locked into the wing chun stance vs. moving freely (finger and the moon). The caveat being that I always emphasize to my students that the distance between them and their opponent at any given moment will always determine what they do - including basic fighting structures.

Again, I'm crosstraining boxing with wing chun and catch wrestling. And although there are some longer range moves in TWC that are wing chun oriented that I use - I don't want them to be "locked in" at that distance - because we use lots of boxing straight leads and crosses to get into the opponent's space - and more of a kickboxing/JKD type footwork body structure from longer range.

And boxing stance, hip, shoulder, and foot...work...require a non hips-locked-in-and-forward stance.

And then comes the squaring up of the shoulders so that your main centerline faces his center of mass (COM) directly (when you've achieved a certain close quarter distance).

So getting back to the pak sao drill - yes....I teach the "classical" way with the understanding that this is the framework they should do at a certain distance - but at a longer distance a different framework might be used for something like pak.

[YungChun]

Another thing I see a lot of WCK folks doing.

They often do Chi Sao and then think that they are going to Chi Sao themselves through a fight...

When I started I was already sparring so I was more interested in hitting my opponent...

As I picked up this and that from the WCK I always tried to apply it from a "how can this help me hit them" viewpoint.. Many other WCK folks will tell me they never think this way and think rather in terms of controlling their opponent vs. hitting.. To me much of this stuff STOPs working when you are operating from this passive, reactive, blocking mentality... Conversely if you just think of attacking them and landing on them the moves become much more useful and *incidental* which IMO is how they are supposed to work..

[Ultimatewingchun]

"As I picked up this and that from the WCK I always tried to apply it from a 'how can this help me hit them' viewpoint.. Many other WCK folks will tell me they never think this way and think rather in terms of controlling their opponent vs. hitting.."


***GOOD POINT. Wing chun is about hitting people. Control is important...but in the final analysis - it's about hitting.

[sihing]

"As I picked up this and that from the WCK I always tried to apply it from a 'how can this help me hit them' viewpoint.. Many other WCK folks will tell me they never think this way and think rather in terms of controlling their opponent vs. hitting.."


***GOOD POINT. Wing chun is about hitting people. Control is important...but in the final analysis - it's about hitting.

Interesting points. In Sifu Lam's system (and I'm only talking about my own experience and viewpoint here, no one elses and I could be off the mark), hitting is what is first taught, level 1 stuff. In his system, crossing hands (hitting, trapping and all that is publicly associated with Wing Chun) is the first thing learned. There are 4 more systems after that to learn, pulling, pushing, closing and footwork (more or less kicks and sweeps), and he divides them into 3 levels (Level 1 crossing hands, level 2 control/feel, level 3 coaching level) with the 4th level reflecting someone who has naturally absorbed it all into their natural movement (again this is my individual understanding of it all). After level 1 is absorbed, level 2 is taught, which is all about control and feeling (I was able to learn a very small bit of this material, it's pretty cool:) ). I guess in his mind hitting is easier, controlling is harder. I personally believe that it is better to learn a delivery system that first teaches solid hitting skills, so that you essentially can hit equally hard with both fist from any position. But I can see where Sifu Lam is coming from. He likes to play with the people he encounters in his school (.. he encounters lots of other WC people from various lineages), and works off the second or third timing as well. From what I have been told and understand myself, this level of fighting is more sophisticated and higher level, but it takes more time to develop. Sifu Lam has had 30+ yrs to develop and is probably one of the most natural WC fighters you will ever encounter, as it is hard to recognize what he is doing whether or not you are on the recieving end of it or watching from afar. My good friend, coach and mentor Ernie has a very good grasp of all of this, and in my mind has the best of both worlds as he is dedicated to developing the Wong Shun Leung/Gary Lam method, which will soon be rediscovered when his updated website is goes live. I've already had a glimpse of one of the video clips and it rocks :), covering alot of what it being discussed here. Checkout his site, as listed below under wingchuncoach.

James

[t_niehoff]

Terrence, everything for you is black or white...no shades of anything.. That is not reality..

You take a simple point and split every little hair in order to hit all of your hackneyed talking points...


This is "the pot calling the kettle black" stuff -- you are the one saying everything except mortal combat is "fake", training is "fake", etc. That's black and white.

I'm saying that there is an activity - fighting - and that it takes place in all kinds of contexts (situations), that they are all equally real (as long as a fighting environment exists).



Terrence what you do is not real..... :eek: Not a totalistic realization of all realities.. By the definition in play here….

Mortal combat is real..


Of course mortal combat is real -- and so is anytime you get really punched in the head. Fighting in a ring is real, fighitng in a cage is real, fighting in the gym is real, its all f*cking real. And one isn't more real than the other. What they all have in common is they are real, real fighting environments (people moving at full intensity really trying to resist one another, really hit one another, really trying to choke out one another, etc.). And it takes the same basic fundamental skills in all of them. A punch/armbar/choke/escape/etc. in mortal combat is the same as a punch/armbar/choke/escape/etc. in sparring.

If I had to play baseball for my life, I wouldn't be doing anything different than when I normally play baseball. Why would I? I'm playing the very best I can whenever I play. Is baseball for my life "real" and all other games "fake"? Just because the game was for my life wouldn't change the fact that it was just a ballgame.



I wonder Terrence in your training…………
[
How many times have you fought to the death?


How many times do I need to fight to the death to develop fighting skills? Are my skills not "real" because I haven't fought to the death? This line of inquiry is silly. Instead of focusing on the myriad number of possible situations (have I done this, have I done that, etc.) the focus should be on has the person done what they need to do to develop solid, basic fighting skills (in empty hand) in stand-up, clinch, and ground? If not, regardless of the context/situatiion they are going to most likely fail.



The reality of reality is that it is not neatly packaged into a single small box.. It means certain uncertainty and limitless possibilities..

Are you really covering the gamut of RBSD and then some; Or are you simply training to whoop butt in safe “sparring duels” with your kwoon mates and calling that the entire reality of all realities?

Have you convinced yourself that because you spar you have covered the entire spectrum of what is an infinite study of the martial way …? Oye..

I'm not suggesting anything can be put into a small box (just like I'm not the one calling things fake). I'm saying that regardless of the fighting situation/context you find yourself in, you will need to rely on your fighting skills to come out succesfully. We develop those fighting skills mainly by sparring -- we develop our game through playing the game. Whether you do empty hand, weapons, multiple attackers, RBSD, whatever, fighting skills are developed by practicing them in a realistic fighting environment. The precise nature of that environment -- whether it is mortal combat or simply sparring with a good opponent -- isn't controlling; the one isn't "real" and the other "fake". They are both real as both require genuine fighting skills.

And this goes back to my problem with these clips -- they are not sparring in them. The very nature of sparring demands that a fighting environment exists (people really trying to hit one another, for example).