If my WCK is good then I won't be taken down... [Archive]

t_niehoff

07-29-2007, 10:36 AM

His takedown defense *was* pretty poor but the rest of his game was OK IMO.

First of all, I agree with you that both deserve props for getting in there.

That said, when I look at the stand up skills of the WCK fighter, I wouldn't call it "OK", just the opposite. Besides being taken down just about at will by his opponent -- which is not just a matter of his "takedown defense" but also in how he is moving -- the WCK guy really didn't have much in the way of offensive skills, not helped by his maintaining "the wing chun guard" (which only limits your offense), he kept doing the silly TWC entry-hop-thingy, and really didn't seem to have much going for him - certainly not a good game plan. Moreover, I really didn't see much WC, even TWC, other than the dancing around in the "wing chun guard" and the hopping-entry. All I saw was poor kickboxing.

If people want to kickbox, they would be wise to do something besides WCK, perhaps something that has proved to be a really good kickboxing method (cough, muay thai, cough).

He was never in real trouble on the ground, and some of what he was doing was reasonably sound, controlling the arms, pulling guard when the takedown was on, etc.; and when the MMA guy did fall over his ground defense was IMO no better and arguably worse.

The MMA fighter -- a wrestler according to the video caption -- did give up position too much (going for subs as Dale pointed out). And he didn't have a very good stand-up game either. That said, he dominated the WCK guy. Not really surprising when you train a bunch of stuff that you can just never make work.

Both of these guys are young kids. I am sure both learned a lot from this bout. Props to both for mixing it up.

I think this was just a fairly informal bout in a gym somewhere. Most sanctioned events allow you to wear shoes or kick, but not both.

These sorts of things can be instructive for everyone - provided they look at them critically.

And what most other people have said for years too.

Well, certainly not WCK people. ;)

YungChun

07-29-2007, 02:12 PM

"the wing chun guard" (which only limits your offense)

Are we talking about Jong Sao?

Please elaborate...on why and what...

anerlich

07-29-2007, 04:09 PM

he kept doing the silly TWC entry-hop-thingy

You are ignorant on this subject, but as usual that doesn't stop you from blathering on at length.

The principles of the TWC entry technique and MT "compound defense" are actually pretty much the same. And it's NOT A ******* HOP!

And yes, it all comes down to training methods.

And BTW, MT specialists who don't practice takedown defense don't necessarily fare any better than anyone else without those skills. John Wayne Parr got taken down and beaten in about 20 seconds by Tony Bonello here a while ago. JWP is an elite Muay Thai fighter, but ...

Liddel

07-29-2007, 05:02 PM

If he learned anything - when he fights another wrestler we should expect him to not be so greedy and reckless with his punches.

He looked to not have good control of his range, rather just bursting in haphazard which gave rize to the takedown....

While you might like to dog on the guy/s for whatever, we dont really know if this is day two or year two of training for these guys so.....

Talk technique all you want......

YungChun

07-29-2007, 05:20 PM

If he learned anything - when he fights another wrestler we should expect him to not be so greedy and reckless with his punches.

He looked to not have good control of his range, rather just bursting in haphazard which gave rize to the takedown....

Agreed..

Entry should be measured and cautious, especially in a match; we need to be keenly aware of the range and position of ourselves and the opponent... Actually, leaping into range isn't a good idea or really what the "method" :cool: is all about....

When we do enter we need to take his balance and hurt him relentlessly...

drleungjohn

07-29-2007, 11:35 PM

You can clearly tell it's a Cheung school-the only thing I will comment on is that many times the TWC entry wasn't done at the correct angle to maintain the outside line

But nice for 2 16 year old kids and nicer that the school trains somewhat realistically against grapplers

-And you will be seeing more of this Andrew "Chu" kid--

YungChun

07-30-2007, 03:38 AM

Lifting the lead knee like that and skipping, hopping, sliding in, however one does it certainly is not limited to TWC and is something that is common among folks who fight kickers.. I used to do this often when crossing that line with kickers, assuming I wasn’t kicking myself, to jam and enter into hand range. It can work well depending on the timing and distance used but not something that should be done all the time.. For example I would NOT use this unless absolutely necessary when fighting a grappler or against someone who may grapple, and I would use kicks sparingly against same as kicking to enter on grapplers just gives them a nice big handle to catch..

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 06:02 AM

Are we talking about Jong Sao?

Please elaborate...on why and what...

"Jong sao"? Is that what *you* call it?

Extending an arm away from the body and holding it there in some "ready stance" like this guy (and many WCK people do) is generally a mistake in fighting -- it limits the things you can do both with your arm and body, offensively and defensively. Even for simple, basic things like using your shoulder (or hands) to cover your chin. As you can see from the video, it really didn't serve him and if his opponent had had decent hands, you would have seen why it is a mistake.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 06:21 AM

You are ignorant on this subject, but as usual that doesn't stop you from blathering on at length.

No, I'm not ignorant on this subject, just not brainwashed.

The principles of the TWC entry technique and MT "compound defense" are actually pretty much the same. And it's NOT A ******* HOP!

Oh, please! The "principles" are the last refuge of the TMAs -- "we have the principles". Well, the principles don't matter. For the most part, "principles" are part of the brainwashing. What matters is what you do and how well you do it. Good MT guys don't move like TWC guys, so they are not *doing* the same things. Certainly, they are not "hopping in."

I know you guys say it is not a hop, but when you see it applied, what do you see? A hop (lift a leg and dart forward). LOL! A useless, pointless, hop. One that tells the other guy you are coming, that won't provide any real defense or offense, that certainly will limit what you can do, how you can adjust, etc. Really "brilliant" stuff.

And yes, it all comes down to training methods.

Training methods guided by results. And to be guided by results, we need to critically examine our results, to look with an unbaised eye at how things really are.

And BTW, MT specialists who don't practice takedown defense don't necessarily fare any better than anyone else without those skills. John Wayne Parr got taken down and beaten in about 20 seconds by Tony Bonello here a while ago. JWP is an elite Muay Thai fighter, but ...

I completely agree with you, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if someone wants to kickbox well, then there are better methods than WCK for kickboxing - like MT.

k gledhill

07-30-2007, 06:22 AM

Im in agreement with dr leungjohn & liddel here...both the distance and angles ??
The exercise Seung -ma x Toi -ma in early chisao deals with this very important aspect of developing a natural instinct to angle while maintaining our maximum force relative to an arm/body ...the guy should have delivered body behind a punch at precisely the time he didnt :D
many hit with arms, after the body takes them to their destination [ chisao trains this mistake out] ...when they arrive they arent were they need to be [chisao one checks the stages, angles, elbows in ] , they have gone a stop to far on the train....[ chisao , too close to deliver force....] chisao contains a simple method / process to use the SLT & Chum Kil...not to stick to arms either
let the arms find you while you strike

seung ma x toi ma will cure this...its no guarantee but it isolates the primetime point of maximizing ones ability to attack an attack / punch a punch with both correctly timed leg force behind an extending fist/palm...our inch punches test or 'proves' this point of contact in seung ma toi ma...can you get that inch punch distance but deliver it with 2 ft body mass timing proportionate to your body weight and the speed of the incoming head all in one point ?

I feel like Im saying what WSL said in a quote , chisao isnt to tie your opponent up or learn to stick endlessly to their arms..its how to deliver the force of a combined body arm strike while maintaining a tactical flanking action constantly....aka what to do once you arrive in the guys face / space you dont want to be moving stright in or straight back...wrong thinking to start never mind what a boxer will or might do ...anyone will throw an over arm hook a school kid in the playground will do this, so why do so many vt guys do it "charge" ! like the light brigade, it may be your last...;)

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crimea/chargelb.html

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 06:29 AM

You can clearly tell it's a Cheung school-the only thing I will comment on is that many times the TWC entry wasn't done at the correct angle to maintain the outside line

But you're not going to be able to "do it at the correct angle" and "maintain the outside line." The other guy will adjust and face you directly - within a split second - *as you move in*. It's not like the demos where the opponent stands there like a statue. Show me one video where someone can use this "entry technique" against someone with decent skills in 100% sparring and maintain the "outside line".

This is a good example of starting with theory and trying to make it work -- it never will, at least not consistently and certainly not against anyone good. If you start with the fight and see what works *as a starting point*, no one would be wasting their time doing this stuff.

But nice for 2 16 year old kids and nicer that the school trains somewhat realistically against grapplers

He did at least as well, if not better, than most grown-ups in WCK would do.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 06:36 AM

canglong

07-30-2007, 06:55 AM

Show me one video where someone can use this "entry technique" against someone with decent skills in 100% sparring and maintain the "outside line". And what you'll argue against some other part of the technique. What good is a video if you can't understand the principle. You want to make this harder than it needs to be the raised leg guards against a kick before moving forward similar to a forward guard hand. If you have seen Tony Jaa raise his knee while practising you have seen the same raised MT knee as TWC so once again Terence you are wrong but nothing new there.

YungChun

07-30-2007, 07:00 AM

But you're not going to be able to "do it at the correct angle" and "maintain the outside line." The other guy will adjust and face you directly - within a split second - *as you move in*
{snip}
This is a good example of starting with theory and trying to make it work -- it never will, at least not consistently and certainly not against anyone good. If you start with the fight and see what works *as a starting point*, no one would be wasting their time doing this stuff.

Moving to the outside is taught in boxing.... I won't bother with why... Suffice it to say it's a sound tactic..

Moving to the outside at the last split second as you attack/counter happens all the time in fighting and in boxing as well--in boxing it's called a slip...

Most standup fighters sooner or later learn to move to the outside when using certain kinds of attacks, like a cross... It's just duh... Nothing so special or theoretcial or exotic about any of this...

And I and many others have used the lifting knee thing to jam kicks on entry, another common tactic, even MT does the lifing knee thing <takoon?> to block/jam kicks, moving in with it is even better to jam, but you don't leap with it...

As for Jong Sao it's neutral position and occupation of the line is useful IMO.. but the hands keep moving...

Ultimatewingchun

07-30-2007, 07:06 AM

The Entry technique does work well against kickers.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 07:16 AM

It does work well against kickers.

There is no such thing as "kickers." Decent fighters don't just kick -- the move, they strike with both hands and feet, they clinch, etc.

But if you think this works against fighters that throw kicks, go visit a MT gym and spar 100% with some decent MT "kickers" and see for yourself. You'll find that if you try to "hop in" their kicks will just knock you down.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 07:29 AM

Moving to the outside is taught in boxing.... I won't bother with why... Suffice it to say it's a sound tactic..

It is a sound tactic -- AS BOXERS DO IT. They don't try to hop in with a bil sao. ;) They move to create angles for punches, and as defense. You can't hop in with your body as quickly as you can throw a punch.

Moving to the outside at the last split second as you attack/counter happens all the time in fighting and in boxing as well--in boxing it's called a slip...

Most standup fighters sooner or later learn to move to the outside when using certain kinds of attacks, like a cross... It's just duh... Nothing so special or theoretcial or exotic about any of this...

Dude, it's not the same thing. Wrestlers use circular movement to set up shots too.

But as I was saying: you won't be able to sue this angle with the hopping enry and you won't be able to keep the outside line either (because the oppopnent will adjust). Instead of arguing with me -- yes you can! -- from a theoretical perspective, show me (video?) anyone that can do it in fighting, consistently (so that it wasn't a lucky shot), against decently skilled fighters (like a good MMAist or MT fighter). That evidence doesn't exist because no one can do it.

And I and many others have used the lifting knee thing to jam kicks on entry, another common tactic, even MT does the lifing knee thing <takoon?> to block/jam kicks, moving in with it is even better to jam, but you don't leap with it...

Sure you and many others use it -- lots of people do all kinds of skilly things. Show me someone that does it in 100% fighting, consistently, against people with some skills.

Yes, MT raised the leg, but not while moving forward. You will have no base and if he kicks you with a good thai shot, he'll take you out.

As for Jong Sao it's neutral position and occupation of the line is useful IMO.. but the hands keep moving...

A few rounds of sparring with a good boxer will disavow you of that opinion. :)

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 07:38 AM

And what you'll argue against some other part of the technique. What good is a video if you can't understand the principle.

Who cares about the principles? I want to see it work. What good is the principle if you can't make it work? Do you think fighting takes place on a chalkboard? You see, my theory says . . . .

Post that video of your stuffing the MT fighter's kicks over and over with your entry technique, of your getting and keeping the outside line, etc. Or, just do what all theoretical people do -- tell me how it does work, how the principle is correct, that you've used it and it has worked, etc. In other words, do everything but show us that what you say is true.

You want to make this harder than it needs to be the raised leg guards against a kick before moving forward similar to a forward guard hand. If you have seen Tony Jaa raise his knee while practising you have seen the same raised MT knee as TWC so once again Terence you are wrong but nothing new there.

MT does not use this hopping, skipping entry. In MT and MMA, they raise the leg as a cover while in base. It's like raising your arm/elbow to cover your head agaisnt a hook. It makes sense if you have base -- since there will be an impact that you need to be able to absorb. If you don't ahve the base, you will be knocked off-balance (perhaps down).

canglong

07-30-2007, 08:26 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
Post that video of your stuffing the MT fighter's kicks over and over with your entry technique, of your getting and keeping the outside line, etc. Or, just do what all theoretical people do -- tell me how it does work, how the principle is correct, that you've used it and it has worked, etc. In other words, do everything but show us that what you say is true.Should that be posted next to all your shining works of art. Terence for someone that claims not to talk excessively when I compare your join date to that of mine and then your number of post to mine I think you talk more than you post videos and wine more than some children I know.
originally posted by t_niehoff
It makes sense if you have base -- since there will be an impact that you need to be able to absorb. If you don't ahve the base, you will be knocked off-balance (perhaps down).Now you are saying leave your horse to create a base on one foot:rolleyes: oh yeah thats right you are the same person that doesn't believe in principle, "Who cares about the principles? " so a one legged base probably does sound good to you.

YungChun

07-30-2007, 08:26 AM

Post that video of your stuffing the MT fighter's kicks over and over with your entry technique, of your getting and keeping the outside line, etc. Or, just do what all theoretical people do -- tell me how it does work, how the principle is correct, that you've used it and it has worked, etc. In other words, do everything but show us that what you say is true.

You don't show anyone jack schit.. You just tell every one they're full of it unless THEY post vids... YOU are a Hypocrite.. All you do is talk about how everyone's experience is irrelevant except yours... That's called being pig headed... I think that the folks you fight are probably really good, and you probably can't make anything work on them, get your butt kicked regularly and as a result spend hours on the puter each day telling everyone else that the only reason they can make anything work is because they are not fighting the folks you are and getting their azz handed to them in each session the way you do...

MT does not use this hopping, skipping entry. In MT and MMA, they raise the leg as a cover while in base.

Actually, as I was shown by a MT trainer they start on the ball of the foot and when absorbing energy allow the foot to land on the heel, becoming flat..

You say entering with the raised knee doesn't work, BS I and scores of others have used it, use it and will use it... It offers other benefits, taking position and taking space away and closing stuffing the force.. Take it to the extreme and you have a flying knee...

Moving to the outside is not hard, you just move to the outside... It forces them to keep re adjusting, boxing coaches teach this.. What in GOD's name do you mean folks can't do that? It's preposterous... YOU are preposterous..

It's simply changing the angle in a pre entry phase... BFD!

Slipping can't be done?

Nothing can be done, only you the magnificent Terence can do it, or maybe not because you are fighting the only skilled fighters in the world and only those fighters with whom you spar are legitimate measuring sticks...

You see no value in starting, using, attacking on the centerline with one or more hands? Then I don't think you know jack schit about WCK or controlling the centerline...the core of the 'method'.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 08:34 AM

Should that be posted next to all your shining works of art. Terence for someone that claims not to talk excessively when I compare your join date to that of mine and then your number of post to mine I think you talk more than you post videos and wine more than some children I know.

So now you change the subject from substance to one about how I post too much. Oh, what I surprise. When you can't respond to substance, the next thing to do is change the subject and talk about me. Thanks for admitting that you can't respond with substance.

Now you are saying leave your horse to create a base on one foot:rolleyes: oh yeah thats right you are the same person that doesn't believe in principle, "Who cares about the principles? " so a one legged base probably does sound good to you.

Yes, you can have one legged base (though it isn't as strong as two legged base). But when your body is moving forward with one leg raise, like in that entry technique, you don't have base. Don't beleive me, visit a MT gym, try your entry technique, and see for yourself.

canglong

07-30-2007, 08:47 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
So now you change the subject from substance to one about how I post too much. Oh, what I surprise. When you can't respond to substance, the next thing to do is change the subject and talk about me. Thanks for admitting that you can't respond with substance.The only substance here is in your mind you argue with everybody about anything then in your mind decide you are correct and everyone else is wrong.
originally posted by t_niehoff
Yes, you can have one legged base (though it isn't as strong as two legged base).wow did you figure that one out all by yourself T.
originally posted by t_niehoff
But when your body is moving forward with one leg raise, like in that entry technique, you don't have base. Don't beleive me, visit a MT gym, try your entry technique, and see for yourself. The leg raises then you move forward if performed the way you describe it would be a thrusting knee, oh but if you described it correctly there might not be room for you to argue against it.
You don't show anyone jack schit.. You just tell every one they're full of it unless THEY post vids... YOU are a Hypocrite.. All you do is talk about how everyone's experience is irrelevant except yours... That's called being pig headed... I think that the folks you fight are probably really good, and you probably can't make anything work on them, get your butt kicked regularly and as a result spend hours on the puter each day telling everyone else that the only reason they can make anything work is because they are not fighting the folks you are and getting their azz handed to them in each session the way you do...That's about how I read it.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 09:02 AM

You don't show anyone jack schit.. You just tell every one they're full of it unless THEY post vids... YOU are a Hypocrite.. All you do is talk about how everyone's experience is irrelevant except yours... That's called being pig headed...

I don't post videos because I am not on here telling people this or that will work in fighting. I'm saying it won't. And I can't post videos showing it not working because one of you bright fellows will point out that my opponent was (perhaps) bad and didn't know the real principle (like you do, of course) - so I would be trying to prove a negative. You guys say it works, you've made it work, you know the real WCK principles, etc. So show us.

You may calling not believing it unless I see it pig-headed; but that's the only way to know if it is BS or not.

I think that the folks you fight are probably really good, and you probably can't make anything work on them, get your butt kicked regularly and as a result spend hours on the puter each day telling everyone else that the only reason they can make anything work is because they are not fighting the folks you are and getting their azz handed to them in each session the way you do...

Yes, the folks I fight with are very good and do kick my ass. And I can see from working with them, what sort of things can work, and what sort of thigns can't work. If a good, athletic, skilled fighter can't do it, what makes you think that you can? But if you can, and you know better, please by all means educate us -- put it up for all to see. Show us how you make it work against good fighters. I'm all for learning. I'll take good stuff from anyone. You just need to show me that it is good.

Actually, as I was shown by a MT trainer they start on the ball of the foot and when absorbing energy allow the foot to land on the heel, becoming flat..

So?

You say entering with the raised knee doesn't work, BS I and scores of others have used it, use it and will use it... It offers other benefits, taking position and taking space away and closing stuffing the force.. Take it to the extreme and you have a flying knee...

A flying knee is an offensive technique, like a kick -- where you raise your knee too! LOL! Once again, you miss the point: it's not the same thing. Neither is raisnig your leg because you beleive a kick is coming, realizing you were mistaken, then stepping down to enter. The mechanics, intent, etc. -- what you are actually doing -- is very, very different.

Back in the day, Benny Urquidez, the great kickboxer, used a similar looking technique (actually, this is where I believe Cheung took it from and tried to adapt it into his TWC) -- from a standard boxing guard position, he's raise his lead leg (knee) and shoot out his front hand (opened) into the face of his opponent (like a bil sao) while stationary as a defense against the low round kick. He shot out the hand to block the eyesight of his opponent (so they couldn't see his counter coming).

His technique, btw, was an adaptation of what many 70s point fighters used as an entry: the raised leg entry. It works in that environment because they are not really kicking with realistic power.

Moving to the outside is not hard, you just move to the outside... It forces them to keep re adjusting, boxing coaches teach this.. What in GOD's name do you mean folks can't do that? It's preposterous... YOU are preposterous..

It's simply changing the angle in a pre entry phase... BFD!

Of course you can move to the outside (circle them), that's what boxers and wrestlers do. I didn't say you couldn't -- I said you couldn't enter with that entry technique off that angle. And you won't be able to maintain the outside line. They'll close the angle when (or even before) you move. That step is too slow. And it doesn't threaten them and force a response from them.

Slipping can't be done?

Sure it can - but that's not what we are talking about. Try slipping while raising your lead leg! LOL!

Nothing can be done, only you the magnificent Terence can do it, or maybe not because you are fighting the only skilled fighters in the world and only those fighters with whom you spar are legitimate measuring sticks...

Lots of stuff can be done, and the stuff that can be done we can see in done. Instead of arguing how it will or should work and telling me stories about how you've done it, just show me someone who can do it consistently in fighting at 100% with good people (like decent MMA or MT fighters). I can't argue with that.

You see no value in starting, using, attacking on the centerline with one or more hands? Then I don't think you know jack schit about WCK or controlling the centerline...the core of the 'method'.

Just because you repeat some principle "attack or control the centerline" doesn't mean you can do it, know how to do it, understand what it means, etc. Holding your lead hand out there in "jong sao" isn't attacking or controlling anything. All it is doing is exposing you, limiting your offense, etc.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 09:15 AM

The only substance here is in your mind you argue with everybody about anything then in your mind decide you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

I don't think "everybody" is wrong -- because not "everybody" does this entry stuff or believes it is any good. I decide what is good from evidence, from seeing it for myself work in fighting (at 100%) against good people. Not from theory or demos. I've been in WCK for 25 years and never seen anyone who could do use this entry technique consistently in fighting and against anyone decent. But, if the evidence exists that proves me wrong -- please, provide it. I'm more than willing to reassess my views in light of genuine evidence.

wow did you figure that one out all by yourself T. The leg raises then you move forward if performed the way you describe it would be a thrusting knee, oh but if you described it correctly there might not be room for you to argue against it.That's about how I read it.

Once again, this is the old you-don't-know-how-to-really-do-it-like-I-do argument. That might carry some weight if you would provide any evidence to back up what you say.

YungChun

07-30-2007, 09:43 AM

I don't post videos because I am not on here telling people this or that will work in fighting. I'm saying it won't. And I can't post videos showing it not working because one of you bright fellows will point out that my opponent was (perhaps) bad and didn't know the real principle (like you do, of course) - so I would be trying to prove a negative. You guys say it works, you've made it work, you know the real WCK principles, etc. So show us.

No you are saying that what everyone else does is BS and won't work, implying that only what you do, whatever that is, WILL WORK.. So show us!

I know what works and what has worked on the folks I have sparred with.. You say that's meaningless because you don't think it will work against the folks you fight... And that we must show you it will work against folks you fight..

So say we show you something that works against the people you fight and then you begin using it and it works on the folks you fight.. Then Chuck Liddel gets on the board and tells you that what you are doing is a load of BS because it would never work against the folks that he fights with.... And on and on…

I measure my success fighting and sparring against myself.. If I get better then I have achieved something.. Others who work security may have lived a little longer due to their skills and yet again this means nothing and is BS unless they post a video of themselves fighting someone you specify..

So what's your point?

If you can’t use your WCK to whip Tito Ortiz’s butt then I think you suck and have your head up your butt…

The point is that YOU are the one with the audacity and presumption to tell everyone one what they do is BS.. So you know better.. So I say PROVE YOU KNOW BETTER AND SHOW US!!!!!! If you can't show us then I say you are full of schit..

You think occupying the line, starting on the line is useless... If you don't start on the line then you must move to the line.. This allows the opponent to take the line first.. Once that happens you are playing catch up in terms of occupying the line... There is no problem starting on the line if you are filling space with structure but I don't think you use any of these things, from the most basic to the most complex in the method.. You probably look like a half assed kick boxer... And btw many of the 'proven' methods taught in boxing are only viable because they have GIANT gloves on... Many of the moves used in boxing become next to useless when you are bare fisted, such as taking hits on gloves, catching punches--go take your fist, put it on your head and let someone hit you...and see how you feel.. The reason the positions in WCK are not like those used in boxing is because absorbing shots on your hands, that are placed next to your face is not functional without those big old pads on...in fact its pretty stupid. Look at the positions used in the old days of bare fisted boxing and whoaaaaa we see guys with and extended guard.... But HEY they didn't fight those bad boys you do so....

Spar with those big old gloves on and you won't be able to use the small spaces WCK was designed to use, you will loose dexterity in your hands, you will have no structure to speak of using some half assed peek-a-boo guard and rely on your gloves to absorb blows.... This kind of stuff completely leaves behind the method of WCK..

Where is the WCK in your WCK?

Moreover you failed to provide the location of your school, if you even have one, so that folks can come check you out.. You did not appear at the sparring event which, once and for all would clear up the question of walking the walk, and you refuse to show us the RIGHT way which only you claim to ‘understand’ because of your mythical experience..

Only listen to those who can walk the walk yet we have no evidence that you have learned to crawl with WCK let alone walk

canglong

07-30-2007, 09:47 AM

orignally posted by t_niehoff
Once again, this is the old you-don't-know-how-to-really-do-it-like-I-do argument. That might carry some weight if you would provide any evidence to back up what you say.If I was as impressed with your 25 years in service as you seem to be then that might matter to me but your 25 years hasn't made your argument more superior more persuasive or less opinion than fact any more than anyone else on this forum. But as long as you believe you know it all then I am sure you'll continue your crusade to prove Victor correct.
originally posted by Robert Chu
No opinion, just fact.
I noticed you didn't have anything to say to this statement even though it was just full of holes. Terence you are so transparent it's pathetic and you are becoming even more so with each and every post.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 10:38 AM

If I was as impressed with your 25 years in service as you seem to be then that might matter to me but your 25 years hasn't made your argument more superior more persuasive or less opinion than fact any more than anyone else on this forum. But as long as you believe you know it all then I am sure you'll continue your crusade to prove Victor correct.

I *know* that I don't know it all -- because I know that if a person can't do it, they don't know it. And I can't do it all! ;)

But I don't take things on faith or theory or belief -- I base my opinions, judgments, and conclusions on evidence. EVIDENCE. Funny, how all you guys that say you can make it work, say that you have made it work, etc, can't provide any evidence that we can see for ourselves to prove your assertions. You'd think that would be the easiest thing in the world - if it were true.

I noticed you didn't have anything to say to this statement even though it was just full of holes. Terence you are so transparent it's pathetic and you are becoming even more so with each and every post.

Just admit that you can't provide the evidence and leave it at that. We all know that's the case.

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 12:02 PM

No you are saying that what everyone else does is BS and won't work, implying that only what you do, whatever that is, WILL WORK.. So show us!

It is because I don't believe you. It's nothing personal, but anyone can say "oh, I can make such and such work" or "I've had a zillion street fights" or whatever. These are empty claims. I can say that the elbow escape works. You don't need to take my word for it or trust my theory, you can find all kinds of videos of people using it in fighting, you can go to a BJJ school and see it done in fighting for yourself -- because it works there is all kinds of evidence of it working. When it is true, the evidence will exist, and anyone can see it. When it doesn't exist, . . .

My opinion on the "jong sao" (which is that it is not a fighting posture, but an action) is based on my experience, from seeing what other WCK people can really do when they fight, and from seeing what really good fighters can do if you give them an opening. And anyone can see it for themselves -- just go spar at 100% with some people with proven, good standup skills (like at a boxing or MMA gym). If you leave your arm out there, you will see the results for yourself.

I know what works and what has worked on the folks I have sparred with.. You say that's meaningless because you don't think it will work against the folks you fight... And that we must show you it will work against folks you fight..

What do you mean by "it worked"? That you were able to do it? So was the kid in the video. Did it make any difference in the video? No. He would have done better - been less open to the shoot, better able to defend the shoot, etc. for example - by keeping his arm back. His punch would have more power. He'd be better covered with his arm back, and better able to defend himself (which he would see if the other guy had had good punching skills).

As I said, lot of people do things in what they call "sparring", particularly with others in their same group, doing the same things, with the same poor habits, poor skills, etc. This is the problem. You can't learn what are and are not good fighting habits by working with poorly skilled people. Go to a really good boxing gym, one that has produced high level boxers, show them your "guard", and ask them -- after all, they are experienced fighters -- about what they think of it, about the strenghts and weaknesses of it. Then ask them to show you why it is a bad idea. They'll be glad to.

So say we show you something that works against the people you fight and then you begin using it and it works on the folks you fight.. Then Chuck Liddel gets on the board and tells you that what you are doing is a load of BS because it would never work against the folks that he fights with.... And on and on…

Solid stuff will work at any level. Obviously a person needs to be at that level in their skill/performance ability, but crap can and does work against poorly skilled people (crap works against crap) but it won't work against good people. For example, the elbow escape -- it works from white belt through black belt, works in MMA competition, works on the street, etc. I may not be able to pull it off against a BB, but someone (another BB) can! A good sign of crap is that no one can pull it off against good people.

I measure my success fighting and sparring against myself.. If I get better then I have achieved something.. Others who work security may have lived a little longer due to their skills and yet again this means nothing and is BS unless they post a video of themselves fighting someone you specify..

You can only measure your progress in fighting (developing fighting skills) by fighting with better and better people.

So what's your point?

If you can’t use your WCK to whip Tito Ortiz’s butt then I think you suck and have your head up your butt…

My point is that if you've spent years or decades, training something that you can't make work against someone with decent fighting skills, then something is wrong, very very, wrong. And if you beleive it is good, then the evidence of it working against good people should be easy to find or produce.

The point is that YOU are the one with the audacity and presumption to tell everyone one what they do is BS.. So you know better.. So I say PROVE YOU KNOW BETTER AND SHOW US!!!!!! If you can't show us then I say you are full of schit..

I can very easily prove I know better. Go visit a good MMA gym and spar with them at 100% and tape it. There's your proof. You'll see that what you train to do, what you talk about doing, you won't be able to do. See, I can show you. You just don't want to see.

If I showed what I can do, you'd just say, "OK, maybe he can do that, but it doesn't mean what I do is wrong." And that would be exactly right. My doing something else doesn't prove what you do is wrong. The only way for you to know about what you do is to see for yourself. But sparring (light sparring) with poorly skilled people won't show it to you.

You think occupying the line, starting on the line is useless... If you don't start on the line then you must move to the line.. This allows the opponent to take the line first.. Once that happens you are playing catch up in terms of occupying the line... There is no problem starting on the line if you are filling space with structure but I don't think you use any of these things, from the most basic to the most complex in the method..

This is not how fighting really works. You'd be much better off to stop thinking in terms of lines. You'd be much better off thinking in terms of are my hands in a place to do the things I will need them to do. Holding an extended arm out there will not permit you to do the things you will find that you really need to do in fighting.

You probably look like a half assed kick boxer... And btw many of the 'proven' methods taught in boxing are only viable because they have GIANT gloves on... Many of the moves used in boxing become next to useless when you are bare fisted, such as taking hits on gloves, catching punches--go take your fist, put it on your head and let someone hit you...and see how you feel..

I don't think you know much about boxing either. Boxing *skills* work on the street, in the gym, where ever. The tactics -- how you use those skills -- change based on the situation.

The reason the positions in WCK are not like those used in boxing is because absorbing shots on your hands, that are placed next to your face is not functional without those big old pads on...in fact its pretty stupid. Look at the positions used in the old days of bare fisted boxing and whoaaaaa we see guys with and extended guard.... But HEY they didn't fight those bad boys you do so....

The hands are up for protection, yes -- and it does work on the street, btw -- but also to facilitate body mechanics, close off openings, find angles, etc. People did do lots of thigns in the good old days, not because they were better but becaue they hadn't learned better yet.

Spar with those big old gloves on and you won't be able to use the small spaces WCK was designed to use, you will loose dexterity in your hands, you will have no structure to speak of using some half assed peek-a-boo guard and rely on your gloves to absorb blows.... This kind of stuff completely leaves behind the method of WCK..

How do you know what "WCK was designed for"? How do you even know it was designed in the first place? More theory.

Go spar some really good boxers without gloves and test your theory. When you wake up, have them tell you what happened. ;)

Where is the WCK in your WCK?

Even the question reveals you don't get it. Who would ask "where is the boxing in your boxing"? If you are using the tools/skills of the method (in question) in fighting, you are doing it, either boxing or WCK. Your level, your skill, your understanding, depend upon the level you can do it. Does really bad boxing work? Sure, it can. Against really bad people. How do you know it is good boxing? Because it works against really good people.

Moreover you failed to provide the location of your school, if you even have one, so that folks can come check you out.. You did not appear at the sparring event which, once and for all would clear up the question of walking the walk, and you refuse to show us the RIGHT way which only you claim to ‘understand’ because of your mythical experience..

Only listen to those who can walk the walk yet we have no evidence that you have learned to crawl with WCK let alone walk

I live in St. Louis and I'm in the book. I don't have a "school"; we have a small group of guys that train WCK together. And some of us crosstrain too. If you want to visit, you're welcome. I've had a few visitors over the years.

Knifefighter

07-30-2007, 12:10 PM

You don't show anyone jack schit.. You just tell every one they're full of it unless THEY post vids... YOU are a Hypocrite..

Pretty much everything T posts about can be seen performed by athletes against other athletes in competitive settings. You can find just about everything he espouses on You Tube. There is no reason for him to post personal videos of himself when you can find better examples done by professional fighters.

For those of you arguing counterpoints to his arguments, just point out the videos of good fighters doing what you are claiming can be done. You don't necessarily have to post videos of yourselves.

YungChun

07-30-2007, 01:51 PM

It's pointless.. You two will never get it...

It's too easy to refute here your written statements Terence, no point doing it anymore...

It's easy to believe I can do it.. Whatever IT is.. Just imagine me doing it on scrubs...

See now it's real easy to believe...

Even if folks posted said videos they would be labeled exceptions for whatever reasons.. Most TMA folks are hobbyists.. Most TMA are thought to exist for same so you don't get to see thousands of MMA types training in them at that level.. Maybe if you did you would see changes and new tactics from those arts in MMA but that isn't the case...yet.

These hobbyists may well spar hard but sadly they are not up to your elite standards because they are not sparring the right people, the folks who are proven...

You label everything to suit your theory Terence, okidoki...

Modern Boxing is what it is based largely on the fact that folks wear these giant gloves, have them take them off and the whole sport would change, no question... Very likely it would again reflect some of the older elements of the sport when it was bare fisted... A block consisting of a hand/fist placed in front of your face/on your head/face is good... Okidoki...

Fists are better than open hands, retracted structure is better than advanced structure...okidoki

Modern combative research says otherwise but... Terence has straightened us out... He is the all knowing all seeing, yet, invisible WCK man from reality with an antigravity YGKYM from no form..

Wing Chun techniques are BS.... But he does WCK.... Whatever WCK is when you take away all the training, forms, techniques and training/fighting concepts.. Whatever WCK is we can't define it but Terence does it...and we can't because we are fighting scrubs.. Okidoki... We fight who we fight, we improve depending one how often and how dedicated we are.. Not good enough though so we all suk... Okidoki...

Centerline is meaningless, don't think of lines... Forget the most basic tenant of the method.... Controlling the center.. The method without the method, but you have the TRUE structure.. To me it's a load of BS...

Terence is riddled with contradictions, he does WCK but doesn't follow any of the elements within the method except his magic antigravity biped stance which came from a form he doesn't do. He invites folks to come check him out but has no address.. I have no doubt that Dale knows that biped thing is a load of BS... Yet we are supposed to take this guy seriously ..okidoki

I have no intention of being the next Bruce Lee.. Or whoever.. When I was younger I would have challenged you to a fight if we were face to face and I would have trained for it..

These days I could give a crap less.. and I am not in the shape I was when I was hell bent for combat.. I know that I have improved and I was happy with what the system/training/method did for me--it allowed me to stop getting my ass kicked by scrubs.... Not a great feat but good enough for my meager goals..

There are others who worked in Prisons and in Security that feel the same way.. But our thinking is flawed, we are immersed in the folly of theory...because we don't fight the right people...okidoki..

It's cool, you go and do your thing, which seems to mainly involve posting insults here. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to enjoy our training, and improve to the best of our limited abilities.. No we won't be fighting in the next UFC but we may just and continue to cultivate a modicum of skill and be happy with it...

Happy training Terence, whatever that means to you...

Phil Redmond

07-30-2007, 02:01 PM

Dutch MT fighter Remy Bonjasky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCosqNTYN7Y
is known for his flying knees to the face from a distance.
Other fighers know about, and train to stop it but he still pulls it off.
The same goes for the "entry' which is not a hop and is not used all the time. It can quickly change into a front kick or knee. Btw the first and second place winners in the Lei Tai division I posted about succesfuly used entries multiple times. Those of you in the WCKCG will see the clips in a few days.
Phil

t_niehoff

07-30-2007, 02:24 PM

It's pointless.. You two will never get it...

It's too easy to refute your written statements, no point doing it anymore...

It's easy to believe I can do it.. Whatever IT is.. Just imagine me doing it on scrubs...

See now it's easy to believe...

You don't need to refute any written statement -- provide evidence that you can, or someone can, successfully pull off consistnetly in 100% fighting against good people. That's it. Look, I don't care if you believe you can send chi balls at theguy -- just show me.

There is a reason Dale and I have similar views on these things; we share some similar experiences (although I think he has had much more than me) with good fighters.

Even if folks posted said videos they would be labeled exceptions for whatever reasons.. Most TMA folks are hobbyists.. Most TMA are thought to exist for same so you don't get to see thousands of MMA types training in them at that level.. Maybe if you did you would see changes and new tactics from those arts in MMA but that isn't the case...yet.

LOL! First you try to weasel by saying that if people posted videos we'd poo-poo their videos. Thatwouldn't be a problem because no one is going to be able to make these things work consistently against good people.

Then you try to relate TMA to MMA -- sorry, TMA is fantasy-based. MMA is reality-based. If you train your TMA like MMAists train, it will look and feel like MMA. MMAists aren't going to adopt things that don't work. It isn't a case of "yet". ;)

These hobbyists may well spar hard but sadly they are not up to your elite standards because they are not sparring the right people, the folks who are proven...

You label everything to suit your theory Terence, okidoki...

No, as I said, I base my conclusions on evidence. You have fought with some midgets. BFD. That is supposed to prove your theory is good? Go fight some decent people. If you have, and what you do works, then what is the problem showing it?

Modern Boxing is what it is based largely on the fact that folks wear these giant gloves, have them take them off and the whole sport would change, no question... Very likely it would again reflect some of the older elements of the sport when it was bare fisted... A block consisting of a hand/fist placed in front of your face/on your head/face is good... Okidoki...

More theory (would, would). Boxing has evolved over time as people have gotten better, learned more about how to train, etc. As I said, go down to a good boxing gym and spar with some good people without gloves. You'll see that the glvoes aren't that big a deal.

Fists are better than open hands, retracted structure is better than advanced structure...okidoki

It all depends on what you are doing. The "wck guard" (your jong sao) has many weaknesses and few things to recommend it.

Modern combative research says otherwise but... Terence has straightened us out... He is the all knowing all seeing, yet, invisible WCK man from reality with an antigravity YGKYM from no form..

"Modern combative research"? LOL! Where did that come from? If you want to see and/or participate in real combative research, go spar with some really good fighters. They won't be standing there in jong sao and they'll be very happy you are. ;)

Wing Chun techniques are BS.... But he does WCK.... Whatever WCK is when you take away all the training, forms and training/fighting concepts.. Whatever WCK is we can't define it but Terence does it...and we can't because we are fighting scrubs.. Okidoki... We fight who we fight, we improve depending one how often and how dedicated we are.. Not good enough though so we all suk... Okidoki...

I never said WCK techniques are BS. Just the way people try to do them, when they try to do them, and how they train them are BS. I can define WCK -- it is fighting with WCK tools (its skills/technqiues). I can define poor WCK too -- it is not being able to fight very well with WCK tools.

Centerline is meaningless, don't think of lines... Forget the most basic tenant of the method.... Controlling the center.. The method without the method, but you have the TRUE structure.. To me it's a load of BS...

Of course it is BS to you, because you are brainwashed by theory. You believe that you hvae the concepts (theory), that you know what they mean, how they are applied, etc. and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You don't beleive this because of evidence, that you've ver seen anyone able to use that theory, move the way you move in training, etc. while fighting at any decent level of skill, but you know, in your mind, that it is correct. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

The truth is you don't know. You don't understand anything unless and until you can do it in fighting, at 100%, against decently skilled people. Playfighting and chi sao doesn't provide skill or understanding of fighting. Fighting does.

But, asI said, you can prove me wrong. Go to that local MMA gym and spar with some decent guys. Show us all how well you really know.

Terence is riddled with contradictions, he does WCK but doesn't follow any of the elements within the method except his magic antigravity biped stance which came from a form he doesn't do. He invites folks to come check him out but has no address.. I have no doubt that Dale knows that biped thing is a load of BS... Yet we are supposed to take this guy seriously ..okidoki

I said I'm in the phonebook. How difficult is that to find? I'll also be in LA next June, and you can meet up with me there.

Yes, I do WCK. And I let application be my sifu, not theory. If you want to see what I do, then visit. If not, I don't care. The only requirement we have is that anyone who visits must participate. So bring your gear.

Hendrik

07-30-2007, 03:19 PM

Want a reality check?

if you are trained to standing in YJKYM with your weight on your heel and clamping your butt. Then, it is a hard reality that that habit make you not able to sustain the in comming force.

and

in that case, those kind of habit is going to determine -- being take down to the ground.

Because those type of training is indeed against nature and open for being take down.

Cold fact but do we willing to face it?

Peace

jesper

07-30-2007, 03:23 PM

More theory (would, would). Boxing has evolved over time as people have gotten better, learned more about how to train, etc. As I said, go down to a good boxing gym and spar with some good people without gloves. You'll see that the glvoes aren't that big a deal.

Quite often you see good boxers break their hands in real fights, since they are not used to hitting without gloves on. Remember gloves are there to protect his hands, not your head.
But other than that I agree with you

Knifefighter

07-30-2007, 03:40 PM

.

Modern Boxing is what it is based largely on the fact that folks wear these giant gloves, have them take them off and the whole sport would change, no question... Very likely it would again reflect some of the older elements of the sport when it was bare fisted... A block consisting of a hand/fist placed in front of your face/on your head/face is good... Okidoki...

Fists are better than open hands, retracted structure is better than advanced structure...okidoki

Modern combative research says otherwise but...

What research is this? Can you site your source?

I have no doubt that Dale knows that biped thing is a load of BS... .

Actually, I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about with that.

The biped thing?

Do you mean about raising the knee and hopping in? If so, no... I don't think I want to be doing that. A flying knee is one thing. Raising the knee and then hopping in is another.

There are others who worked in Prisons and in Security that feel the same way.. But our thinking is flawed, we are immersed in the folly of theory...because we don't fight the right people...okidoki..

Working prisons and security and taking martial arts doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the effectiveness of the martial art. There are thousands of non-MA trained law enforcement and security personnel who do just fine when dealing with combative prisoners.

Knifefighter

07-30-2007, 03:48 PM

Want a reality check?
if you are trained to standing in YJKYM with your weight on your heel and clamping your butt. Then, it is a hard reality that that habit make you not able to sustain the in comming force.
and
in that case, those kind of habit is going to determine -- being take down to the ground.
Because those type of training is indeed against nature and open for being take down.
Cold fact but do we willing to face it?

LOL....

Want a reality check?

Go to any MMA or grappling program and stand there with your weight on your heels and your butt cheeks clamped in and see how long it takes before you are taken down.

Knifefighter

07-30-2007, 03:53 PM

Quite often you see good boxers break their hands in real fights, since they are not used to hitting without gloves on. Remember gloves are there to protect his hands, not your head.
But other than that I agree with you

They break their hands, not so much because they are not used to hitting without gloves, but because boxers develop so much power with their hits.

BTW, it is a myth that the gloves protect the hands more than the head. They protect the head much more than the hands. Thats one of the reasons you see so many one punch knock downs/outs in MMA with their much smaller gloves.

The wraps are the main protection for the hands.

canglong

07-30-2007, 04:22 PM

originally posted by t_niehoff
Just admit that you can't provide the evidence and leave it at that. We all know that's the case.Terence, once you see a video all of sudden the opponent wasn't resisiting enough to your liking blah blah blah the opponent wasn't anyone you know yadda yadda yadda show you another one yeah yeah wah wah wah. Just admit a video isn't the answer to your whining.

The point is if you don't understand and agree with the principle the only thing that will change your mind is experience and for that you have to know WC and do your own homework something you seem adverse to since you already have those magical 25 years in and have seen and done it all you are only here to correct everyone so desperately in need of your visionary work ethic no one could possibly get without you here to lead the way.

With all your zeal to help the unenlightened I was taken back when my search results came back. Youtube No Videos found for 'Terence Niehoff'

jesper

07-30-2007, 04:33 PM

They break their hands, not so much because they are not used to hitting without gloves, but because boxers develop so much power with their hits.

But do they not only develop this kind of hitting power because their hands are being protected while boxing.
it seems to me that most mma fighters hit using same methods as boxers and yet they dont develope as much power behind (could be wrong, never measured it) since they need to protect their hands.

Oh and your right about the wraps being the main protection of the hands. case of typing to fast reflecting to little on my behalf :)

Liddel

07-30-2007, 05:48 PM

the raised leg, guards against a kick before moving forward similar to a forward guard hand.

From an outside perspective, it does look like a hop though....
Balance all on one leg and for a split second the horse is OFF the ground.
Thats a Hop in my dictionary :o (regardless of its matial validity)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTXA5snEYa8

There are seversal vids on this next page with examples of the entry tech, each time its used as an action NOT a reaction to a kick, and the person leaves the ground for a split sec.

http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/tech.asp

I can only speak from my own experience. The mojority of TWC entry techs that ive seen in vids on the net, show people using the tech on its own. Regardless of a coming kick or not.

Is that a misuse of the action ?

Like someone of another lineage chasing hands in a fight, trying to Chi Sao.
Wrong application. :rolleyes:

DREW

Matrix

07-30-2007, 06:24 PM

"Jong sao"? Is that what *you* call it? We call it jong sau also, but who cares what you call it. IMO, I think that you are right that this "position" is limiting. You cut off some options and if we were playing poker I could see some of your cards. ;)

As for that entry technique, it is IMO quite weak, regardless of the angle taken. A good kicker will make you pay for that move - for that matter a good striker or grappler will do likewise. You're not even on one leg, you have momentarily left the ground.

As for the video itself, I think others said it well. They both have learned some valuable lessons. :cool:

Edmund

07-30-2007, 07:10 PM

I can only speak from my own experience. The mojority of TWC entry techs that ive seen in vids on the net, show people using the tech on its own. Regardless of a coming kick or not.

Is that a misuse of the action ?

I think you're on the money. IMO A little tweak to the idea would make it work a lot better.

I don't think leaving the ground is the problem because generally the hop is from a fair distance away. The problem is the landing. The leg is coming *down* at the exact time when I would say watch out for a leg kick.

Never mind the angle.

I can't hop around in a crane kick stance. Once my knee goes up and reaches its max height, it's going to need to come back down. If I raise it before I'm in reach of a kick and then go in, my knee will be coming back down right when it might need to be coming up.

Contrast that to Mr Flying Knee, Remy Bonjasky. He jumps his rear knee in and it's on the way *up* as it goes towards the opponent, not down.

ScottS

07-30-2007, 08:33 PM

You do have to give the guy credit for fighting someone with reasonable MMA skills. Every single other video on the net is either a training video using someone with no grappling skills at all as a dummy or tournament clips using bizarre sets of rules and almost completely unskilled opponents. Despite this, the WC guy clearly had nothing. The MMA fighter was never in danger. It appears that the WC fighter was never able to connect with a serious punch.

The WC fighter's major difficulty was he continually found himself in classical MMA positions without the skills to deal with them. The fight regularly broke down into positions like the sprawl and the clinch. Every time a clinch developed, the WC fighter got taken down - of course he would. Around the 3 minute mark, you see a clinch develop and the WC fighter try to push himself away. Similar problems appeared from the sprawl and ground positions where the WC fighter seemed to have no knowledge of what to do and began to reply on gut instinct, i.e. street brawling.

In fact, the MMA fighter did not seem particularly skilled at takedowns or ground fighting. This only makes me wonder what a truly skilled grappler could do in a situation like this.

canglong

07-30-2007, 09:45 PM

From an outside perspective, it does look like a hop though....
Balance all on one leg and for a split second the horse is OFF the ground.
Thats a Hop in my dictionary Drew,
Good point, what one wants to focus on first is the validity of the martial principle involved regardless of what anyone wants to call the technique. The principle in question sweeps through the lower gate just as the hand would the upper gates before contact.
I can only speak from my own experience. The mojority of TWC entry techs that ive seen in vids on the net, show people using the tech on its own. Regardless of a coming kick or not. Yes, that is correct just as one would sweep through an upper or middle gate with a guard hand the leg too not only as an afterthought to an in coming kick can also be used as a deterrent when the possiblity of contact exist.

Though the technique may be delivered in different packages MT raised knee, TWC, or HFY its the principle that you must question. If you are taught to sweep your upper and middle gates then sweeping the lower gates should not be that far reaching a concept for you to come to grips with. On the other hand if clearing your gates is not part of your regular training it is something you would need to experience before forming an opinion on one way or the other.

t_niehoff

07-31-2007, 05:56 AM

Terence, once you see a video all of sudden the opponent wasn't resisiting enough to your liking blah blah blah the opponent wasn't anyone you know yadda yadda yadda show you another one yeah yeah wah wah wah. Just admit a video isn't the answer to your whining.

The point is moot, since no one can really make that stuff work in fighting against decently skilled opponents. I don't expect to see videos of Bigfoot either.

The point is if you don't understand and agree with the principle the only thing that will change your mind is experience and for that you have to know WC and do your own homework something you seem adverse to since you already have those magical 25 years in and have seen and done it all you are only here to correct everyone so desperately in need of your visionary work ethic no one could possibly get without you here to lead the way.

This is the BS stuff nonfighting theoreticians use to sell crap to the gullible.

Look, I don't need to know the "principles" of muay thai or BJJ to see that it f*cking works, against really skilled fighters. That they can do what they train to do. And at all levels of fighting. That's the only standard and all anyone needs to see. This is because they really fight, and so need to really use functional skills, techniques, etc. If it doesn't work in fighting, they don't keep it for tradition's sake.

I'm not here to "correct" anyone. I'm not telling anyone how to "do" WCK. I'm saying that if you want to develop good fighting skills then you need to train like fighters really do. That's the only proven way to do it. And not to beleive people who haven't and can't do it because they are clueless. To base your conclusions and opinions on evidence (in fighitng) that we can see for ourselves, not stories or demos or chi sao. In the world of functional martial arts, all of this is standard operating prodecure.

With all your zeal to help the unenlightened I was taken back when my search results came back. Youtube No Videos found for 'Terence Niehoff'

If you want a video of me, bring a camcorder along with your sparring gear when you visit. ;)

canglong

07-31-2007, 06:25 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
I don't expect to see videos of Bigfoot either.The chance of us seeing you actually perform wc are about the same so what.
originally posted by t_niehoff
Look, I don't need to know the "principles" of muay thai or BJJ to see that it f*cking works, against really skilled fighters. You are gulliable to think you know anything about fighting without understanding the principles all you have is the illussion of what you think you know and you're too stubborn to go find out what you don't know by training with anyone other than the people you considered skilled and those are all people that think like you so you are like the doctor that diagnosis himself.
originally posted by t_niehoff
that we can seeAgain the mythical "we" lol as if one of you isn't enough.
originally posted by t_niehoff
If you want a video of me,No thank you no one wants or needs a video of you.

Ultimatewingchun

07-31-2007, 06:32 AM

Just watch the first Entry he does on the vid - for arguments sake. Because he wasn't using the "hop" entry properly...(and btw, it doesn't matter if both feet are temporarily off the ground) - if you're WATCHING him the right way, ie.- his lead elbow and rear knee - because they give away his moves in time to react, ie.- putting both feet immediately down if he attacks the middle or lower part of your body - are you WATCHING him properly?

...And are you on the outside of his lead leg? Is he crouched ready to spring at your legs? - then don't use the Entry...will you be ready to put both feet down in time? - otherwise don't use it - judgment call...especially good to stop kicks - as was pointed out - but if you're WATCHING carefully - you can also use it when he's standing very upright and not looking like he's in position to kick.

And don't follow up with punches to the head when he's clearly low enough (and has enough space) to go under your arms for the takedown. Bad sense of distance on the Entry and bad sense of distance and timing with the follow up punches on that first one.

Kudos to the young guy in the vid for his effort - but he made many mistakes with the TWC Entry.

t_niehoff

07-31-2007, 06:39 AM

The chance of us seeing you actually perform wc are about the same so what.

The chance is 100% if you make the effort to come see for yourself. :) I'll even be in LA in June.

You are gulliable to think you know anything about fighting without understanding the principles all you have is the illussion of what you think you know and you're too stubborn to go find out what you don't know by training with anyone other than the people you considered skilled and those are all people that think like you so you are like the doctor that diagnosis himself.

If your "principles" don't work, what makes them any good? LOL! If they do work, that should be easily shown. Wrestlers, BJJ fighters, MMA fighters, boxers, judoka, samboists, MT fighters, etc. have absolutely no problem showing that they can do what they train to do. When people can't do that, we know it is BS.

Again the mythical "we" lol as if one of you isn't enough.

It might surprise you to learn that there are people besides myself that require evidence before reaching conclusions/opinions.

No thank you no one wants or needs a video of you.

Then stop asking for one. ;)

t_niehoff

07-31-2007, 06:43 AM

Kudos to the young guy in the vid for his effort - but he made many mistakes with the TWC Entry.

This implies that there is a good way to use it (and that you know it since you see the "mistakes"). OK, where are the videos of this entry being used (consistently) against decent MMA fighters or MT fighters or kickboxers in fighting?

canglong

07-31-2007, 06:57 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
The chance is 100% if you make the effort to come see for yourself.Always asking for that which you will not do.
originally posted by t_niehoff
If your "principles" don't work,They are universal principles of fighting.
originally posted by t_niehoff
It might surprise you to learn that there are people besides myself that require evidence before reaching conclusions/opinions.
Requiring evidence is not the crux of this discussion it is the way in which that evidence is acquired which is in dispute.
originally posted by t_niehoff
Then stop asking for one.Again no amount of request seems to stop you from asking.

t_niehoff

07-31-2007, 11:05 AM

Always asking for that which you will not do.

Wrong. I am not asking to see your HFY. You were asking or commenting about the chance of seeing my WCK. Well, if you want to see my WCK, make the effort -- and then you can see it.

They are universal principles of fighting.

In your fanstasy world of "pretend fighting". How can people who can't fight particularly well, know what "the universal principles of fighting" are? That's just a dream.

Requiring evidence is not the crux of this discussion it is the way in which that evidence is acquired which is in dispute.Again no amount of request seems to stop you from asking.

It's really simple. Can you - or someone else - actually consistently make what you are training to do work in fighting (at 100%) against decently skilled opponents. That's all I care about seeing, the only evidence worthwhile. Because if you - or someone else - can't do that, there is nothing to support that what you do in training, from theory to exercises to techniques, is particularly useful. BS won't work in fighting at 100% against decently skilled people. That's the BS test. That's what separates the functional martial arts from the fantasy martial arts.

WoodenYummy

07-31-2007, 11:51 AM

Mr. Niehoff,

I mean this sincerely, but wouldn't the easiest way to prove your viewpoint be to simply post a video of yourself doing some WC against "real" fighters? I'm not trying to instigate anything, it just seems like the most reasonble way to dispell all this animosity. After all you continually ask other to post there vids to prove their merit, are you not to be held to the same standard? I for one would like to see what you are capable of. Honestly, to see what you find useful from WC in real fights would be a benefit to anyone reading this post. Thank you in advance.

YungChun

07-31-2007, 12:43 PM

What research is this? Can you site your source?

Tactical trainers these days are advising open handed moves, 'structure' that is far out away from the body and closer to the opponent--the fence--and not a peek a boo boxing guard and moves..

Actually, I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about with that.

The biped thing?

Ah, this is where T told you that he could stand square on to you and you wouldn't be able to move him backward even if you put all your weight on his chest.. Just more BS from T...

Working prisons and security and taking martial arts doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the effectiveness of the martial art. There are thousands of non-MA trained law enforcement and security personnel who do just fine when dealing with combative prisoners.
And there are many who do far less than "fine"....

If folks applied there WCK in dire and violent situations against thugs in prison and made it work then it worked for them... Despite the fact that T will argue otherwise.. For many others who got mauled in the line of duty things were less rosey...

There are clips of folks winning fights in competition with WCK but this isn't good enough for T cause its not MMA/NHB/UFC.. or with fights by those folks who kick HIS butt ... Too bad...

T tells us what will not work, even if it HAS worked for us, yet he cannot show us or tell us what he uses from WCK that does work, and he claims that he does "use techniques from WCK" beyond the antigravity biped <square> stance..

YungChun

07-31-2007, 01:01 PM

We call it jong sau also, but who cares what you call it. IMO, I think that you are right that this "position" is limiting. You cut off some options and if we were playing poker I could see some of your cards. ;)
Aside from poker...

JS can take more than one fixed shape or position and can move around, etc... But it does serve to occupy the line...

What do you suggest here, in the way of a guard position for use in "the duel"?

Phist

07-31-2007, 01:36 PM

Matrix

07-31-2007, 05:06 PM

What do you suggest here, in the way of a guard position for use in "the duel"?Jim,
The hand position shown in the clip is overextended, IMO. The lead hand does occupy the centerline, but is not in a good position to strike and the elbow is disconnected from the hips/horse. You can see that he needs to retract the hand before he attempts to do anything so he's telegraphing big time. Also, it seems to offer the opponent a good opportunity to bridge if he wanted to take it.
I'd like to see something more compact and more structurely sound than what is being displayed here. It's just an opinion.

YungChun

07-31-2007, 05:08 PM

Jim,
The hand position shown in the clip is overextended, IMO. The lead hand does occupy the centerline, but is not in a good position to strike and the elbow is disconnected from the hips/horse. You can see that he needs to retract the hand before he attempts to do anything so he's telegraphing big time. Also, it seems to offer the opponent a good opportunity to bridge if he wanted to take it.
I'd like to see something more compact and more structurely sound than what is being displayed here. It's just an opinion.
Aside from what was shown in the clip... JS as I know it, is done more compactly...

I often use variations of JS..but I don't limit myself...

What do you use?

Edmund

07-31-2007, 05:31 PM

especially good to stop kicks - as was pointed out - but if you're WATCHING carefully - you can also use it when he's standing very upright and not looking like he's in position to kick.

But why raise your knee if he's not in position to kick?
A hop is less adaptable than a shuffle IMHO.

YungChun

07-31-2007, 05:38 PM

>>Actually, as I was shown by a MT trainer they start on the ball of the foot and
>>when absorbing energy allow the foot to land on the heel, becoming flat..

So?

SO, you are saying that the BASE must be strong <laterally?> to use a lifting knee as a defense or as an offensive jam.. MT uses the ball of a single foot..

Given this apparently the former is just more of YOUR theorectical BS...

Using momentum to close PAST KICKING range and using a single leg/foot as a base offers just as much "base" as the ball of a foot.. :rolleyes:

Matrix

07-31-2007, 06:49 PM

I often use variations of JS..but I don't limit myself...

What do you use?Jim,
Yes, variations of JS, but not so over-extended and disconnected as was demonstrated. But as you say, why limit yourself? :)

t_niehoff

08-01-2007, 06:17 AM

Mr. Niehoff,

I mean this sincerely, but wouldn't the easiest way to prove your viewpoint be to simply post a video of yourself doing some WC against "real" fighters?

It would *if* I was trying to tell anyone what they should do -- I'm not. I'm telling them what will not work particularly well. Like that "entry technique." Like the "jong sao."

You can look on youtube and find lots of clips of good fighters "entering" in ways that are good. It's all the same.

The problem with me showing what I do or can do is that it is really irrelevant to the discussion -- it's not a question of me vs. them or "let me show you the right way". In my view, there is no "right way". There are many right ways and many, many more ways that simply won't get good results. So it is a question of can they make that what they train to do work.

Since I do believe you are sincere, let me expand: there is no "right" way to box. You can look at numerous top-level boxers and see a huge variation in what they do (in technique, movement, strategy, etc.). But this doesn't mean that anything anyone does is "good". What makes it "good"? That they can do what they train to do at a high level (against really good opponents). People who do box, however, will recognize things that just won't work very well in boxing -- they know that from boxing, being acquainted with what things you can do, what "sort" of things do work.

Throwing an uppercut from the outside with the rear hand while trying to step in, for instance, won't get good results. I know from experience. But let's say someone said, yes it will -- my theory or my sifu says this is great stuff, we practice it all the time. Then I say, OK, show me, show me someone doing that consistently against decent competition. If it is great stuff, we should expect to see it work, right? But, you see, there is no evidence that it really does work. And I don't expect there to be.

Should I do a video to show them the sorts of good things they can do? No, because although I can do them -- box my way -- that isn't necessarily how they should box. The only way for them to find out how to enter - for them - is by trying to enter against good people, and using their results to guide them. That's the only way. If I did a video and people tried to copy it, they'd just be doing more of the same: letting someone else tell them how to box. It doesn't work that way. The only way to learn to box is by you actually boxing. The only way to learn WCK is by you actually fighting with WCK.

Anyone who goes through that process and is honest with themselves, will see what doesn't work.

I'm not trying to instigate anything, it just seems like the most reasonble way to dispell all this animosity. After all you continually ask other to post there vids to prove their merit, are you not to be held to the same standard?

My posting a video wouldn't dispel the animosity. That I can make my WCK work, doesn't make it "right". It only makes it "right" for me. If I posted a video, people would point out that although I can make what I do work, that doesn't mean that what they do wouldn't work too. And they would be right. What proves whether or not what they do works is only whether they can make it work. Don't you see that?

I for one would like to see what you are capable of. Honestly, to see what you find useful from WC in real fights would be a benefit to anyone reading this post. Thank you in advance.

If you honestly want to see what I can do, visit me. Come train with us.

YungChun

08-01-2007, 06:33 AM

It would *if* I was trying to tell anyone what they should do -- I'm not. I'm telling them what will not work particularly well. Like that "entry technique." Like the "jong sao."

http://wingchunfightclub.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=57

Looks like Alan and/or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun uses a JS variant .... :eek::cool:

t_niehoff

08-01-2007, 06:39 AM

interesting match between couple of competent boxers:

guy number 1 keeps his spine erect all the time, and his leading hand is pretty much extended, kind of asking, stickin, pushing, restricting, blinding, measuring etc ...

guy number 2 bobs and weaves, ducks, seeks angles, keep his hands near his head most of the time...

guess who won?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=twZ8-47Rp8g

Klitschko (who had a reach advantage) made very good use of the jab -- but he wasn't doing what WCK people do with their "jong sao", so you are comparing apples and oranges. He was boxing. He wasn't standing in a "neutral stance", he wasn't hopping into the other guy's range, etc. He was boxing.

If a boxer is taller with a reach advantage and has a really good jab, the extended *lead* can be a potent tactic. You may also notice that Klitschko didn't just leave his arm extended either, that it moved back, forward, and was constantly threatening.

But this is a good illustration of the thinking many in WCK do -- they see some similarly between what they expouse (holding the lead arm extended in a prefighting posture) and someone using an extended lead in boxing and see only the "extended arm" and not everything else that is going on.

t_niehoff

08-01-2007, 06:43 AM

http://wingchunfightclub.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=57

Looks like Alan and/or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun uses a JS variant .... :eek::cool:

Are those pictures of fighting?

The same guy (Alan) in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpnq95UbUJw

Nick Forrer

08-01-2007, 06:47 AM

http://wingchunfightclub.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=57

Looks like Alan and/or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun uses a JS variant .... :eek::cool:

Watch 50 secs into this clip - his hand position and bridging method reflects what we do (although there are many ways of course)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fU8spMgJKGY

YungChun

08-01-2007, 06:57 AM

Watch 50 secs into this clip - his hand position and bridging method reflects what we do (although there are many ways of course)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fU8spMgJKGY

At 50 secs in they 'clash' and then he leads *constantly* with the side CHOP or Lan Sao.. Which IMO is not a valid lead in Chi Sao IMO because it would never be a valid lead in real fighting.. Chi Sao aint fighting...but it still isn't a valid lead in drilling..

So,

Demo = Jong Sao

Chi Sao = Lan Saos minus Luk Sao

"Real Fight" with no head contact = No Jong Sao

Clear as mud... :p ;)

Nick Forrer

08-01-2007, 07:07 AM

At 50 secs in they 'clash' and then he leads *constanly* with the side CHOP or Lan Sao.. Which IMO is not a valid lead in Chi Sao IMO because it would never be a valid lead in real fighting.. . :p ;)

My mistake, Try 1.09 in the clip.

Knifefighter

08-01-2007, 07:17 AM

canglong

08-01-2007, 11:33 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
In your fanstasy world of "pretend fighting". How can people who can't fight particularly well, know what "the universal principles of fighting" are? That's just a dream.So Terence, maybe you would be so kind as to share with those of us reading this thread what the universal principles of fighting are since it's now obvious that you know and understand them so well.

t_niehoff

08-01-2007, 11:57 AM

So Terence, maybe you would be so kind as to share with those of us reading this thread what the universal principles of fighting are since it's now obvious that you know and understand them so well.

As I told you already -- the concepts/principles don't matter. Looking at WCK from a conceptual POV is like looking at basketball or tennis from a conceptual POV: that's not how you learn or develop skill at that activity. What are the "universal principles" of tennis or basketball? Who the f*ck cares? Who talks that way? Certainly not good tennis or basketball players. Go to a good tennis coach or basketball coach and tell them you want to learn the "universal concepts" of the sport and they'll look at you like you are crazy. Or, do what WCK people do -- go to poor or nonplayers to get the "universal concepts"!

Like any athletic activity, baskeball, tennis, boxing, or WCK, you learn the fundamental skills of "the game", then practice those fundamentals, and then do the activity itself. What matters are you skills, your experience, etc. Concepts or principles may be suggested to beginners -- since beginners don't have experience and may need something to guide them in playing the game. But in the end, it is our own individual experience actually playing the game that matters (and that replaces any theory).

canglong

08-01-2007, 12:26 PM

originally posted by t_niehoff
As I told you already -- the concepts/principles don't matter.Oh now the principles don't matter when earlier you stated that people that know how to fight would know the principles and people that don't know how to fight can't know them.
Thank you for answering that question. ;)

t_niehoff

08-01-2007, 01:00 PM

Oh now the principles don't matter when earlier you stated that people that know how to fight would know the principles and people that don't know how to fight can't know them.
Thank you for answering that question. ;)

No, you said something about "the universal principles of fighting" -- and I asked you how could people who can't fight particularly well, know what those are? A question, btw, you never answered. ;) The answer is, of course, that they can't. How can someone who can't surf know much about surfing? How can someone who can't fight particularly well know much about WCK? Any "knowledge" would, in those cases, be purely superficial.

I was not suggesting, however, that these "universal principles" did indeed exist or that if they did, it really mattered. WCK is a skill (more accurately, a skill set) like boxing is a skill and like riding a bike is a skill - though a much more simple one. A person doesn't need to "know" the "universal principles of bicycle riding" - assuming that they even exist - to learn or develop that skill. Same with boxing. Same with WCK.

When you see WCK as a skill and not a belief structure, you'll see things as I do.

Wayfaring

08-01-2007, 02:51 PM

Klitschko (who had a reach advantage) made very good use of the jab -- but he wasn't doing what WCK people do with their "jong sao", so you are comparing apples and oranges. He was boxing. He wasn't standing in a "neutral stance", he wasn't hopping into the other guy's range, etc. He was boxing.

If a boxer is taller with a reach advantage and has a really good jab, the extended *lead* can be a potent tactic. You may also notice that Klitschko didn't just leave his arm extended either, that it moved back, forward, and was constantly threatening.

But this is a good illustration of the thinking many in WCK do -- they see some similarly between what they expouse (holding the lead arm extended in a prefighting posture) and someone using an extended lead in boxing and see only the "extended arm" and not everything else that is going on.

So in your opinion, if someone isn't standing in a "neutral stance", hopping into the other guys range, and holding their hands extended in a prefighting posture, they aren't doing wing chun?

If that's what I learned in wing chun I'd probably be as against it as you seem to be.

In that fight, Klitschko was using a flanking position well with his footwork combined with a reach advantage that allowed him to target centerline with his jab while his opponent had to adjust to deal with it, which he never did well. Eventually taking advantage of that position also opened up a line for a straight right which sat his opponent down.

Does any other wing chun practitioner recognize that flanking position as something they've been exposed to in wing chun training? Do you feel it's apples and oranges to you?

t_niehoff

08-01-2007, 06:23 PM

So in your opinion, if someone isn't standing in a "neutral stance", hopping into the other guys range, and holding their hands extended in a prefighting posture, they aren't doing wing chun?

No, because I do WCK and don't do any of those things!

I was - and I thought it was obvious, but there I go again expecting people in WCK to see the obvious (my bad) - referring to the video clip (that's what the WCK guy was doing).

If that's what I learned in wing chun I'd probably be as against it as you seem to be.

I don't know what you mean by "learned in wing chun."

In that fight, Klitschko was using a flanking position well with his footwork combined with a reach advantage that allowed him to target centerline with his jab while his opponent had to adjust to deal with it, which he never did well. Eventually taking advantage of that position also opened up a line for a straight right which sat his opponent down.

He was boxing. Boxing. Using boxing tactics with boxing tools/skills. Boxing. Get it?

And, dude, you should go back and watch that clip again -- it wasn't Klitschko who was flanking, it was his opponent. Watch the feet on the clip, the opponent's front leg was almost always on the outside of Klitschko's lead leg. Klitschko was fighitng from the middle, not the flank.

Does any other wing chun practitioner recognize that flanking position as something they've been exposed to in wing chun training? Do you feel it's apples and oranges to you?

You're doing just what I talked about. You see a superficial similarity between what you expouse (in theory) and what boxers are doing, and miss everything else that is going on -- just like you did when you thought Klitschko was flanking.

Wayfaring

08-01-2007, 08:10 PM

No, because I do WCK and don't do any of those things!

I was - and I thought it was obvious, but there I go again expecting people in WCK to see the obvious (my bad) - referring to the video clip (that's what the WCK guy was doing).

If you're referring to the previous video clip I understand. However, your statements blur into a generalized criticism of all wing chun that certainly don't keep the context of the original video.

I don't know what you mean by "learned in wing chun."

Learn - 1. to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience: to learn French; to learn to ski. (from dictionary.com)

He was boxing. Boxing. Using boxing tactics with boxing tools/skills. Boxing. Get it?

Being that he is a boxer, I figured that is what he was doing. However, as you are so fond of saying in a long-winded fashion, things that work in fighting are universal, regardless of what the label is. There are similarities in how things do work.

And, dude, you should go back and watch that clip again -- it wasn't Klitschko who was flanking, it was his opponent. Watch the feet on the clip, the opponent's front leg was almost always on the outside of Klitschko's lead leg. Klitschko was fighitng from the middle, not the flank.

I went back and reviewed the clip again. Absolutely Klitschko was flanking his opponent. Little small steps just to the outside of the line of Byrd. That 2 inch difference that gives an advantage. Once he steps on his foot. If you can't see that, maybe all your hot air about fighting skills really isn't based in anything solid. Sure there are times Byrd takes the outside position. Usually there Klitschko retreats - see that?

You're doing just what I talked about. You see a superficial similarity between what you expouse (in theory) and what boxers are doing, and miss everything else that is going on -- just like you did when you thought Klitschko was flanking.
And you are just because something has a label of wing chun discounting that anything a boxer can do could be a similar method. I've trained with good boxers. And seen that footwork before any wing chun training. I just learned some of the terminology and theory in wing chun behind why it works. But oh, just because it's theory means it can't contribute anything, right Einstein?

Phist

08-02-2007, 04:53 AM

Klitschko wants to keep the range that suits his reach advantage. To hide behind a Peek-A-Boo guard and crouch and duck would be very much against his interests.

I was half jesting when describing Kltiscko in WC terms ... but the point is, there is stuff that works in boxing, but would ill advised to use in real fighting, and in some cases, there is Klitschko who discards most of that.

Klitschko might be indeed bending the rules a bit by almost pushing with his extended jab leading hand.

Boxers can usually get away with bobbing and weaving and ducking because the rules wont allow the effective counter measures. MT fighters don't usually do ducking/crouching because they would get their head grabbed and smashed with a knee.

In UFC, Anderson Silva is a fighter who's used Thai clinch and head kneeing with devastating results.

t_niehoff

08-02-2007, 06:43 AM

If you're referring to the previous video clip I understand. However, your statements blur into a generalized criticism of all wing chun that certainly don't keep the context of the original video.

It is a generalization only if you do those things. ;)

Learn - 1. to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience: to learn French; to learn to ski. (from dictionary.com)

For me, doing forms, drills, etc. is not really "learning" WCK, at least not the substance of WCK. Just as learning some boxing form, hitting the heavy bag, etc. is not really learning to box. Learning WCK comes only from fighting with WCK, just as learning to box comes only from boxing (in the ring) or learning BJJ comes from rolling on the mat.

Being that he is a boxer, I figured that is what he was doing. However, as you are so fond of saying in a long-winded fashion, things that work in fighting are universal, regardless of what the label is. There are similarities in how things do work.

While what are functional elements of fighting are universal, what things people do and how they use them are not. WCK is not boxing.

I understand that you were trying to point out that flanking is a tactic that is common to many fighting methods. True. But how WCKflanks and how boxing flanks are not the same in my view.

I went back and reviewed the clip again. Absolutely Klitschko was flanking his opponent. Little small steps just to the outside of the line of Byrd. That 2 inch difference that gives an advantage. Once he steps on his foot. If you can't see that, maybe all your hot air about fighting skills really isn't based in anything solid. Sure there are times Byrd takes the outside position. Usually there Klitschko retreats - see that?

This time watch it with your glasses on.

Klitschko did very little flanking - he never got the flank or sued the flank. Most, if not all, of his shots came straight up the middle. When you stand between your opponent's legs you don't have the flank. That is, unless you use a different defnition for the flank than everyone else.

Klitschko is using some lateral movement (circling) to create angles but for the most part (95% of the time) he's standing between the guys legs/shoulders even with that lateral movement.

And you are just because something has a label of wing chun discounting that anything a boxer can do could be a similar method. I've trained with good boxers. And seen that footwork before any wing chun training. I just learned some of the terminology and theory in wing chun behind why it works. But oh, just because it's theory means it can't contribute anything, right Einstein?

Theory is BS. The more theory, the greater the BS. The more rigid the theory, the greater the BS.

It comes down to skill. WCK is an athletic skill, like boxing, BJJ, etc. are atheltic skills. If you treat WCK that way, your need and attachment for theory -- and to lineages, to legends, to sifus, to traditions, etc. -- will fall away. All the BS will fall away. As long as you hold onto that stuff, the BS, your martial art can't be functional, at least at a significant level. Because the BS, and the mindset that goes with it, is in direct conflict with the process of learning/training in functional martial arts. The two are like oil and water - they don't mix.

YungChun

08-02-2007, 06:47 AM

It comes down to skill. WCK is an athletic skill, like boxing, BJJ, etc. are atheltic skills. If you treat WCK that way, your need and attachment for theory -- and to lineages, to legends, to sifus, to traditions, etc. -- will fall away. All the BS will fall away. As long as you hold onto that stuff, the BS, your martial art can't be functional, at least at a significant level. Because the BS, and the mindset that goes with it, is in direct conflict with the process of learning/training in functional martial arts. The two are like oil and water - they don't mix.
What a load..

There's all kinds of theory, concepts, tactics in ALL ARTS/SPORTS.... It's what drives and guides the training...it's what makes one art like MT different from another like Western Boxing, different from WCK, BJJ different from Judo, etc, different methods, different tactics or similar tactics applied differently.

Wayfaring

08-02-2007, 09:37 AM

For me, doing forms, drills, etc. is not really "learning" WCK, at least not the substance of WCK. Just as learning some boxing form, hitting the heavy bag, etc. is not really learning to box. Learning WCK comes only from fighting with WCK, just as learning to box comes only from boxing (in the ring) or learning BJJ comes from rolling on the mat.

No duh. Is there a point there?

While what are functional elements of fighting are universal, what things people do and how they use them are not. WCK is not boxing.

I understand that you were trying to point out that flanking is a tactic that is common to many fighting methods. True. But how WCKflanks and how boxing flanks are not the same in my view.

There's the generalization again. Why don't you stick with "how MY WCK flanks is not like boxing".

This time watch it with your glasses on.

Klitschko did very little flanking - he never got the flank or sued the flank. Most, if not all, of his shots came straight up the middle. When you stand between your opponent's legs you don't have the flank. That is, unless you use a different defnition for the flank than everyone else.

Klitschko is using some lateral movement (circling) to create angles but for the most part (95% of the time) he's standing between the guys legs/shoulders even with that lateral movement.

Commentary with glasses on with time references to follow. I must have watched a different fight or you don't know what you're looking at.

Theory is BS. The more theory, the greater the BS. The more rigid the theory, the greater the BS.

It comes down to skill. WCK is an athletic skill, like boxing, BJJ, etc. are atheltic skills. If you treat WCK that way, your need and attachment for theory -- and to lineages, to legends, to sifus, to traditions, etc. -- will fall away. All the BS will fall away. As long as you hold onto that stuff, the BS, your martial art can't be functional, at least at a significant level. Because the BS, and the mindset that goes with it, is in direct conflict with the process of learning/training in functional martial arts. The two are like oil and water - they don't mix.

Theory is the underlying concept that governs the specific athletic skill you are training. If you never consider it, you will waste a hell of a lot of time figuring out what works and what doesn't by trial and error. And then you still won't understand. Like "position before submission" in BJJ. Without that theory, people spaz out and try for kimura's from under mount. In your world, you would have to try that way too many times to figure out it doesn't work.

Theory without application I'll give you is BS. And maybe some train that way. Good theory plus application rules.

Wayfaring

08-02-2007, 09:41 AM

Klitschko / Byrd
:41-54 – flank steps and straight left jabs. Notice his elbow is outside Byrds – foot (heel out – adds power to jab) was outside Byrds foot.
:54-57 – same thing – even steps on his foot in the steps to the outside.
:57-1:00 – Byrd slips a jab inside, comes in. No capitalization, clinch.
1:01-1:04 – Klitschko jabs with foot inside Byrds, misses 2 jabs, tries ugly lead hook, blocked easily
1:04-1:13 – measuring with jab, foot inside, wide lead hook misses, goes to clinch.
1:15-1:23 – goes back to flanking / jab. Lands a couple. Byrd works for outside, when he gets it Klitschko retreats.
1:29-1:36 – Byrd’s hands in defense only. Klitschko jab up middle, foot inside, lands a good 2 punch
1:36-1:55 back to flank step and lead jab – works great.
1:56-1:58 – Byrd is fighting not to give him that outside position, but instead of circling, he’s keeping weight on back foot and trying to force the outside step – leaves himself wide open with being back weighted, not circling properly, gets tagged.
2:00-2:17 – dancing around. Klitschko tries the flank/punch, circles towards inside, back to flank/punch.
2:17-2:30 Klitschko also uses jab to measure distance well, end of round.
Round 2
2:53-3:00 there’s the flank step lead jab / cross again.
More of the same. Byrd is trying peekaboo, but his footwork isn’t float like a butterfly.
Round 3
3:50-3:53 – Klitschko with the flank step and lead jab AGAIN.
3:54 – Byrd tries the back weighted step to force foot outside Klitschko’s, gets caught by a straight right, goes down. Standing 8.
4:25-4:36 flank step, lead jab, cross. Finishes fight.
Summary – flank step and lead jab is the primary mode Klitschko fought in. It was effective, and opened up errors with opponent and set up knockdown punches. Hell, even at :22 he was flanking Byrd in the staredown.

canglong

08-02-2007, 05:42 PM

originally posted by t_niehoff
I was not suggesting, however, that these "universal principles" did indeed exist or that if they did, it really mattered.Terence,
You'll never ever be 100% sure of things when dealing with things you have no experience with.
originally posted by t_niehoff
Like any athletic activity, baskeball, tennis, boxing, or WCK, you learn the fundamental skills of "the game", then practice those fundamentals, and then do the activity itself.Again you sound like a know it all that would actually try to perform/play a sport without knowing the rules(principles) because you consider yourself athletic enough or skilled enough to overcome such trivial matters. A mistake made by many before you and many after you quite possibly but not one that need be made at all.

Lee Chiang Po

08-02-2007, 09:45 PM

Went and looked at the video. This is not a fair comparison of anything. Neither one was very skilled, and both were wearing gloves. For a Wing Chun fighter it is comparable to going to a knife fight and having all your knives taken up at the front door. Everyone is reduced to fist fighting. The weapons of Wing Chun were stuffed inside a glove. So what you were looking at was 2 kids fist fighting and wrestling on the floor. Besides, what is billed as full contact is not full contact as long as you are wearing those gloves. The gloves and rules of the fight ring will all but disarm a WC fighter to the point to where he is just another fist fighter. And you guys sit around and analyze that like it was an honest comparison. Once the rules place both fighters on an equal basis, what with gloves and rules and such, the only thing left is size, strength, and possibly speed. There is no comparison of skills really.
If you really want to match skills, do away with the rules, do away with the gloves, and each figher use the skills of his system and go at it. No holds barred.

Edmund

08-02-2007, 10:08 PM

Everyone is reduced to fist fighting. The weapons of Wing Chun were stuffed inside a glove. So what you were looking at was 2 kids fist fighting and wrestling on the floor. Besides, what is billed as full contact is not full contact as long as you are wearing those gloves.

"Reduced to fist fighting"?
What did you think he could have done without gloves? Plucked his eyes out?
Yanked his hair? Pulled a painting off the wall, busted it over his head, swung him around and hammer tossed him out a window? :)

I think the kids will learn more from a controlled match where no one does any "street" style WC.

If they can't compete in a poor old fist fight, then WTF sort of martial art are they studying?

It was full contact enough.

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 06:40 AM

Theory is the underlying concept that governs the specific athletic skill you are training. If you never consider it, you will waste a hell of a lot of time figuring out what works and what doesn't by trial and error. And then you still won't understand. Like "position before submission" in BJJ. Without that theory, people spaz out and try for kimura's from under mount. In your world, you would have to try that way too many times to figure out it doesn't work.

Theory without application I'll give you is BS. And maybe some train that way. Good theory plus application rules.

No, "position before submission" is not theory -- it is a general strategy, a game plan, for groundfighting, and a plan based on actual experience groundfighting, observing successes and failures, etc. Similarly, ground-and-pound (GNP) is not theory, it is a stragegy too. To use it I need to get you to the ground, get the top position, before I pound you. That's not theoretical, it's my game plan. It's like saying my approach to tennis is serve-and-volley. And these things are validated and informed by genuine experience, not by how we want or believe fighting should be. I know that the position before submission stragetgy can work well, that the GNP strategy can work well, and that serve-and-volley can work well. How? Because I can see them in action, for "real", and from actual results know that those approaches can be successful. Contrast that to people who can't fight particularly well (WCK masters) telling us how to fight, what should work, etc.

This is part of the problem with you theoretical nonfighters -- it's all a morass of theory for you. You believe it will work because it makes "sense" to you (sense to people who don't fight!) or that it works in unrealistic situations. Whereas position before submission, GNP, serve and volley are all proven good strategies.

If you want to be a good GNP fighter, you need to know how to play that game (takedown, get/maintain the top, begin to pound), learn and develop the skills to play that game, and then play the game a lot. How much "theory" do you need? Little to none. It's the same for any sport, any physical activity, etc.

People like "theory" because they don't have skills and experience. Be believing that "theory" is important, they can reassure themselves that they do "know" WCK -- after all, they "know" the "theory". In reality, all the theory is BS.

YungChun

08-03-2007, 06:54 AM

What's the difference between "Wing Chun Theory" and "Wing Chun Method"...

What are Wing Chun theories?

What is Wing Chun's method?

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

Centerline theory...

Take him when he comes, follow when he goes...

Forward Spring Energy....

Borrowing opponent's force...

Hand Unity...

Hand Replacement....

Economy of energy...

Economy of motion...

Body Unity...

Body Alignment....

Freed hand fires...

Face the opponent...

Immovable elbow....

Make three movements at once...

ALL BS?

ALL theories?

Many of them are no different IMO that position before submission... A tactic and method... Tactical advice... Training advice.. Common sense...
-------------------------------------

What makes what you do Wing Chun and not brand X?

monji112000

08-03-2007, 07:01 AM

This is reflects what I keep saying.

How do we develop the skills so that we don't get taken down? Essentially, by training against (particularly sparring) with skilled people (at take downs) trying to take us down. There is no other way. And it helps to get coached/taught by people with those skills (that can really do it themselves). Theory won't help (particularly theory from people who can't do it themselves). Your skill at dealing with takedowns (like the shoot) will correspond to the amount of time you've spent sparring with good people trying to take you down. Little to no time doing it = little to no skill doing it. Simple.

And you'll find that by doing that, it will change your entire game -- from how you stand to how you move to how you strike to how you do everything. Because everything you do can create openings for the takedown/shoot.

TAKENDOWN? WTF you got to learn to walk first before you start running. Just look at his striking game.. I love the first jab then hook to his face... come on forget about the ground game until you can at least defend yourself standing. Just about every attack thrown was unanswered. Every push kick was worthless. He had the typical square stance. ... It was plainly clear that what every grappling he did know (if any) was not working.

Just putting on MMA gloves and sparring doesn't make you a good fighter. Thats why in every sport they have drills and many other ways to build skills... ow wait its called drill for skill. (Ok know I need to follow my own advice) :D

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 07:05 AM

Terence,
You'll never ever be 100% sure of things when dealing with things you have no experience with.

And many things I am very, very happy that I have no experience with!

One of the many gambits of the traditional guys (theoretical nonfighters) is that attitude of superior knowledge ("we know the universal principles of fighting"). Which is funny since martial arts isn't knowledge-based and superiority can only be shown through performance (which they never do). But this is easy enough to settle -- prove it. Through performance. If HFY has the "universal principles of fighting" where are all of its great fighters? Is it just the case that you guys know them but can't use them? If that's the case, then knowing them really hasn't helped! And the poor slobs that just train like fighters, and can kick your ass with ease, seem to be doing OK without them. ;)

Instead of you guys giving me reason after reason why traditional views and traditional training should or will work or that you guys have the "true" knowledge/principles, just provide the evidence that it does. Millions of people do TMAs world-wide. None have developed significant levels of fighitng skill. All the good fighters have discarded the traditional views and embraced the more modern view of MA and training. You can keep telling me that levitation works, and give me reasons why it should work -- but we never see anyone levitate! Wake up and smell the coffee.

Again you sound like a know it all that would actually try to perform/play a sport without knowing the rules(principles) because you consider yourself athletic enough or skilled enough to overcome such trivial matters. A mistake made by many before you and many after you quite possibly but not one that need be made at all.

I'm not a know-it-all, but I am smart enough to realize that (1) all human beings learn and develop (open) skills the same way, so it will be the same process for wreslters, boxers, BJJ fighters, and WCK fighters, (2) that results prove beyond a doubt that the traditional mindset/views, which include how to train, don't produce very good results, and (3) that the modern athletic mindset/views, which include how to train, does produce very high levels, including world-class levels, of results. Moreover, I base my opinions and conclusions on evidence - of performance results - that I or anyone can see. I don't base them on stories, legends, unrealistic practices, etc.-- the stuff of traditional martial arts.

If you look at howmodern athletes train, you'll see that a "premium" isn't placed on principles or theories. You don't need to know "principles" to learn how to play basketball or to box or to do any sport/atheltic activity, or to become really good at them. All you need is for someone who can really play the game (which most people in WCK can't do) to show you how to play the game, teach you the skills needed to play, help you develop those skills, and then play. The people concerned with "the principles" are the people who don't know how to play the game.

YungChun

08-03-2007, 07:21 AM

All you need is for someone who can really play the game (which most people in WCK can't do) to show you how to play the game, teach you the skills needed to play, help you develop those skills, and then play. The people concerned with "the principles" are the people who don't know how to play the game.

Yawn...

Hmmm...

Noyes Boxing School of Franklin
Established in 2004, the goal of Franklin Boxing is to teach strong and effective boxing principles to teens and adults, men and women. We welcome all experience levels: beginner students, amateur boxers, mixed martial arts fighters, or anyone who just enjoys an exciting workout.

The principles of boxing footwork help me the most; shuffling without clicking my feet, keeping my weight forward, staying balanced the whole time. If you can't get your feet right, you can't box. It's the same with football. If you don't know where your feet are and know what they're doing, you're going to be off-balance.

It might have been a worthy addition, to the tape, to show people from other arts just what is involved in a full Muay Thai warm up! Following this we are shown the principles of boxing and elbow strikes in Muay Thai on the appropriate pads with Sandy and his assistant Instructors. Throughout his demonstrating he clearly explains what he is doing and what the student should be doing in order to carry out each technique correctly.

canglong

08-03-2007, 07:39 AM

originally posted by t_niehoff
And many things I am very, very happy that I have no experience with!
"Ignorance is bliss" but you're taking the phrase to new heights by placing more value on your opinion than experience.
originally posted by t_niehoff
If you look at howmodern athletes train, you'll see that a "premium" isn't placed on principles or theories. You don't need to know "principles" to learn how to play basketball or to box or to do any sport/atheltic activity, or to become really good at them. All you need is for someone who can really play the game (which most people in WCK can't do) to show you how to play the game, teach you the skills needed to play, help you develop those skills, and then play. The people concerned with "the principles" are the people who don't know how to play the game.To the contrary we have all seen boxing trainers that have not fought and baseball coaches that could not play and they all have one thing in common and that is they are said to have "known the game". All athletes would be considered equal only seperated by what they know combined with what they can do thats the premium the list of names of draftees to all sports that showed potential but never reached that potential is very long. Natural ability skill plus trial and error time and practice have their limits unless you build upon them with presice knowledge.

YungChun

08-03-2007, 07:42 AM

Ah Kwan taught me that these twelve principles are inherent in the system and in fact, Yip Man's Wing Chun also follow these principles except for the last two key words. Yip Man's Wing Chun follows the principles of Huen (circle) and Dim (point), rather than Tang and Dong. Throughout the years, I had the fortune of seeing other practitioners of the Yuen Kay Shan system and I have noticed differences in both the 12 keywords and 12 basics. I have concluded that the differences may reflect how Grandmaster Sum Nung has taught throughout the years, or differences in interpretation from his various students.
--Robert Chu

The Chu Sau Lei Main 5 Principles of Attack and Defence.

In the Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun System we trap with the whole body as you can see in picture 3. Firstly I must have a strong body structure. Secondly I must intercept the opponent and break this structure and up root him. To do this I must use my stance to break his balance as I apply the controlling movement as in Picture 3a. This will make it very hard for him to counter attack or defend as he is trying to regain his balance. In picture 4 you can see I chase the opponent to keep him on the back foot. In picture 5 I have totally destroyed my opponents structure and pin him to finish. This is real trapping pressing your opponent keeping him off balance destroying his use of tools and controlling the fight. It is not about which technique I use.
{snip}

Correct timing - Understanding the flow of things and how to change it.
Positioning - Correct power lines and angles required.
Body structure- Dynamic control of weight and balance
Rootedness - Feeling your body connection.
Power(Ging) - Internal and external training.
Reflex development defense - Drills, trapping, Chi Sao and so on.
Offense- Mindset.
Emotional content - Dealing with control of fear and apply intention to your movements.
Centerline - Know the correct power lines for openings
Footwork - Mobility, you must be able to move well.
Principles - A complete understand of how to apply your skills.

--Alan Orr

Knifefighter

08-03-2007, 08:36 AM

To the contrary we have all seen boxing trainers that have not fought and baseball coaches that could not play

Boxing coaches that have never fought? Nope, sorry.

Baseball coaches that have never played? Probably not even at the little league level will you find a baseball coach who has never played baseball.

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 11:58 AM

"Ignorance is bliss" but you're taking the phrase to new heights by placing more value on your opinion than experience.

To the contrary we have all seen boxing trainers that have not fought and baseball coaches that could not play and they all have one thing in common and that is they are said to have "known the game". All athletes would be considered equal only seperated by what they know combined with what they can do thats the premium the list of names of draftees to all sports that showed potential but never reached that potential is very long. Natural ability skill plus trial and error time and practice have their limits unless you build upon them with presice knowledge.

Once again, you are starting from belief - want you want to believe, really -- and projecting it into WCK. You are caught in the fanstasy of the traditional miondset. As long as you have that mindset, you can never develop significant skills. Never.

Skills can be taught -- but only by people who have the skills. A good tennis coach can teach you tennis skills, how to play tennis better, etc. So can a good boxing coach, basketball coach, wrestling coach, WCK "coach." It isn't just "trial and error". But people without those skills can't teach them. You don't become a good wrestler by training with people who can't wrestle well or by being coached by someone who can't (and never could) wrestle well. How can someone who is a poor wreslter even begin to believe that he comprrehends the "universal principles" of wrestling? And, why would anyone in their right mind believe him?

Can you learn a sport from somoene who isn't very good? Sure. They can give you the rudiments. But they can't give you, teach you, help you develop, what they themselves have no grasp of, no abiltiy to do, etc. A bad golfer may teach you how to play golf, but he won't be able to help you become a really good golfer. Similarly, people who can't fight -- use their WCK -- particulalry well, won't be able to help you become a good fighter. All you can learn from a bad golfer or bad fighter is how to be a bad golfer or bad fighter.

That said, people can become good without a great coach, through doing the activity a lot, through playing the game. There are really good athletes out there who become really good at a sport mainly through their own personal experience. What a good coach/instructor can do is share experience, and thereby accelerate the growth -- save you a lot of work.

But, as I said, you can give me reasons until the cows come home of why you believe the traditional mindset (levitation) will work. And I can keep pointing out where you are wrong. In the end, it comes down to evidence. All you have to do is show me someone who using only that traidtional training/mindset has developed the ability to consistently do in fighting against decent level opponents those things they train to do. Or, you can remain faithful to the traditional mindset and believe in spite of the evidence.

SDJerry

08-03-2007, 12:44 PM

Hats off to both of them for testing their skills on a resisting oponent though. With that being said... here's my opinion:

I've seen good WC and this kid is either new to the art or just needs to train harder. One thing I see consistent in WC guys where I am from is that they are very powerfull punchers. The guy in the video had quick hands but there wasn't anything behind them. You want to make a wrestler pay for trying to shoot in on you and he just couldn't do that.

Also, MMA is a sport. They have weight classes because size and strength do matter under the general set of rules they fight by. Certin moves are outlawed for the fighters saftey because they have to be able to fight again. That puts the kid at a disadvantage from the start because the other guy weighed more and was more powerful. The MMA guy I'm sure is quite familiar with the rules while the WC guy is basically trying to fight him at his own game.... we know how that goes heheh

That's my 2 cents

Chango

08-03-2007, 12:56 PM

k gledhill

08-03-2007, 01:47 PM

good post :D

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 02:24 PM

If we use boxing as a example it should be clear that there are many "great" or even legendary trainers that have never boxed on the pro level. Of course I do agree they must have atleast stepped in the ring. But that does not always mean they had to be great boxers or even good for that matter. Angelo Dundee had very little if any ring experience as a boxer but he went on to be one of the greats. Here's a little bit about him.

http://www.fightingmaster.com/trainers/dundee/

Freddie Roach a accomplished trainer trained Oscar De la hoya against Floyd mayweather Jr. Did not have a great record as a boxer but as a trainer he will be remember as a great trainer of our time. here's his info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Roach_%28boxing%29

So I have to say yes you do need to have atleast some base experience to coach or teach. But at the same time you don't have to be a great at it to produce greats.

Yes, you don't have to be great to train great fighters -- or be a great tennis player to be a great tennis coach (after all, champions must be coached by people not as good as they are). But they need to have competant levels of skills (actually be able to do them at a decent level) and have played the game --and they need to be exposed to great players/fighters to learn from. Your boxing trainers had other excellent boxing trainers and great boxers to draw from, to learn from, etc.

The point is that you can't learn or develop good fighting skills from people who don't have those skills. Someone who doesn't know the game - from both playing it and from being exposed to other really good players - can't help someone else develop a great game.

This whole idea that one does not need "principles" is ridiculous princilples are simply the physical laws. By knowing these laws you can varify the validity of a concept. From these concepts stategies/tactics can be defined. Of course all of these will support the mechanics of the techniques you are using.

No, they are not physical laws (like gravitiy is a physical law), they are ideas -- and mostly rubbish. Of course you like them because that is what you sell to the gullible -- ideas that are mostly rubbish. And you try to sex them up, to make them appealing. But it is all BS.

If you take these things in consideration it does not matter what type of fighting we are talking about this is a sound way to approach things looking beyond the surface. Now if you simply just want to bang your head and take what works for you at your current level that is fine. But then again if you don't understand things you might reject something that requires a deeper understanding.

Fighting is a skill. Skill. You don't need to "bang your head" if you really have the skills. And someone that can do that skill, can show you the skill. You will not reject what works (at least if it works for you).

Surfing is a skill. Someone that can surf -- really do it in the ocean -- can teach you how. They can teach you the techniques of surfing. Strategies, share experience, etc. But it is not a mattter of understanding the "principles of surfing"; it is a matter of learning the skills, and practicing the skills that is the activity called surfing. It's not an intellectual exercise. You don't just "bang your head" or use just "trial and error"or "reject something that requires deeper understanding" -- all that sort of verbage just means you don't see fighting as a skill. It is a belief structure to you.

I think some might have the wrong idea of what the "Traditional" method is. This idea varies from lineage to lineage and from teacher to teacher. So I ask what is the definition of Traditional? Maybe we have a different P.O.V on what makes it Traditional.

I personally find it odd that some people argue against forms and then in the very same breathe they talk about shadow boxing. LOL! Ok one is fixed in a routine to preserve all of the info. One is free and express concepts and mechanics etc... in a lively setting. Both are good and neither is more traditional then the other. But that's just my opinon. Of course I don't expect anyone to concede. Take it or leave it I'm just offering!;)

How do we learn to play basketball or tennis? The same way we learn to box or wrestle. Are their lineages, sifus, secrets, mysticism, theory, unproven claims, etc.? No. Because the approach these things take is in keeping with the traditional mindset. It is the more modern, functional, athletic mindset. The one that has proved to be the better way to learn and develop physical skills.

Wayfaring

08-03-2007, 03:25 PM

No, "position before submission" is not theory -- it is a general strategy, a game plan, for groundfighting, and a plan based on actual experience groundfighting, observing successes and failures, etc.

Hahaha. It appears that the "theory" that Terence operates from is the straw man argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Theory, principles, strategy - all these are synonymous. The idea or concept behind what you are endeavoring to accomplish.

This is part of the problem with you theoretical nonfighters -- it's all a morass of theory for you. You believe it will work because it makes "sense" to you (sense to people who don't fight!) or that it works in unrealistic situations. Whereas position before submission, GNP, serve and volley are all proven good strategies.

I was just reviewing and trying to figure out where exactly it was that I said I don't train with fighters. Oh, I know. Your massive generalization combined with straw man.

People like "theory" because they don't have skills and experience. Be believing that "theory" is important, they can reassure themselves that they do "know" WCK -- after all, they "know" the "theory". In reality, all the theory is BS.

I like "theory" because I have a math degree. You prove "theorems". Then you apply them to solve problems. Music "theory". You learn it, then you're a better musician in improvisation, as you apply it in practice. The ability to think abstractly is one of the things that is supposed to differentiate humans as a higher species.

"Theory" is not a 4 letter word, you idiot.

Chango

08-03-2007, 03:33 PM

It seems you have been burned in the past. so it seems you have alot of negative feelings about principles etc... I'm not trying to sell anything here man.

Yes! I agree the laws are gravity, Ceterline (central mass, center of balance etc...) maybe you have a different experience as to what has been called a "principle"? I'm not sure but this is not my experience. Given these misunderstandings I understand why you feel frustrated. (angry at times)

It seems someone has sold you some bad wing chun and maybe others remind you of this experience and this maybe why you have such venom in your tone. I understand why your emotions are as they are. But not all Wing chun or C.M.A for that matter use lineage etc... as a way to romance the student. I think you fail to see the value of learning the culture of kung fu as well as the fighting. So as it does not fit your need (Sport fighting or MMA) So you feel the need to attack it as a scam. That's sad to see.

I agree with you on these points
* the quaity of who is training you can have a great effect on your skill development.

* you must training in a realistic enviorment with real resistance.

* Theory is nice but if you cannot execute it will not help you!

*If you are wanting to learn about real combat you have to spar on a regular basis to keep your attributes sharp.

Maybe we should start at our common ground and bring this thread to a productive state! I think these threads tend to go by way sinceless arguements instead productive discussion so can we please move forward?!!

Take care,
Chango

JPinAZ

08-03-2007, 03:42 PM

The point is that you can't learn or develop good fighting skills from people who don't have those skills. Someone who doesn't know the game - from both playing it and from being exposed to other really good players - can't help someone else develop a great game.

T, don't you have students? If what you say is true, what hope do they have to learn to fight then? :rolleyes:

And this one is too funny:

Millions of people do TMAs world-wide. None have developed significant levels of fighitng skill. All the good fighters have discarded the traditional views and embraced the more modern view of MA and training. You can keep telling me that levitation works, and give me reasons why it should work -- but we never see anyone levitate!

Directly followed by

I'm not a know-it-all

rriiiiiiggghhhttt....

Sorry, the BS just gets deeper and deeper with this guy..

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 05:47 PM

I don't know it all, but I do know some things -- like how to recognize BS in the martial arts (WCK).

What's funny is that you guys will try to redicule my position, personally attack me, offer all kinds of rationales/excuses for why you believe the traditional mindset/views are good, and do everything else that you can think of EXCEPT the one thing that matters: provide evidence to support your view. Where are the great traditionally trained WCK - or any TCMA for that matter - fighters? Oh, is it your touted HFY fighter Milton? ;)

So keep rolling your eyes. All the eye rolling means is that you have no evidence to support your views. And no rational reasoning based on evidence behind them. It is all belief structure.

Chango

08-03-2007, 06:12 PM

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 06:28 PM

Terence,
It's sad that you feel this way. As you have said in the past you represent Terence and Terence only. Just like Milton represents himself. I think your attempt at attacking a person or a lineage demonstrates how you are not willing to move to more fruitful discussion. As with many of your argumentative post and Hi jacking of a thread it's all a waste of time.

My post wasn't in response to yours but to the one above my post.

I see that you guys are distancing yourself from Milton. Not surprising.

I'm not attacking anyone or any lienage -- the topic began with that clip, comments followed about how the WCK was doing silly things, others commented on why they thought they weren't so silly, and the conversation turned to training -- not surprising since how we train is how we fight (or should be). The guy in the clip trains to do those things. That's his problem. He's doing them not because he gets good results doing them (or that anyone does) but because he has been told to by people who, if they really fought themselves, would know better.

pitty you did not choose to move on to a more serious discussion!

I've been doing just taht for quite aq while now. Don't come to the party late and complain about the lack of chips.

One more try:

What do you consider "Traditonal"? what are your standards for this?

or can we discuss what we agree on and find out where we may differ in these comon ground.

come on Terence let's not make it the same old BS! can we? ;)

I don't offer BS.:)

In a nutshell, the traditional martial arts are those which continue to follow and adhere to outdated, outmoded, and erroneous ways of looking at the world, at teaching, at training, and at fighting. They have stopped evolving, being guided by actual results.

Liddel

08-03-2007, 06:53 PM

I don't know it all, but I do know some things -- like how to recognize BS in the martial arts (WCK).

Now your just being a jerk mate. Ive used my own skill to get out of some bad situations which is ONLY due to my training in Ving Tsun. I dont doubt there are many out there that share similar feelings on the matter.

I will NEVER be a top fighter, nor do i pretend to be !
I wont be beating Rampage nor Couture for any belt, but i do know that VT is not BS and ive proven it.....to myself...END OF

You BS on about the negitives of Traditional training yet traditional training is DEAD. It isnt around. Traditional training for my master was going to fight other schools. When he wanted to,was challenged or when his Sifu asked him to.

You support using your skill on one hand and beat down the idea of traditional training on the other. The traditional training mindset IMO was exactly that...go fight and from that change what youve learnt to suit you, making it yours.

You have no clue about traditional training, you only know about the modern version of whats considered traditional training.

And really if your so strong about your POV of VT being BS, i wouldnt bother to argue, just Pi$$ off somewhere else already THIS IS SOOOOO OLD.

I couldnt fight my way out of a paper bag and i dont care...DREW LOL :D

canglong

08-03-2007, 06:57 PM

Terence,
There have been many people because of medical conditions they weren't able to play but became excellent coaches. Here in Arizona the UofA Softball coach Mike Candrea is a male coach coaching an all female team that won the NCAA Championship Coach Bela Karolyi he coached gold medal winning female gymnist. MLB is littered with coaches that didn't have major league skill but now coach so you keep saying what you say but again the Evidence disagrees.

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 07:13 PM

Hahaha. It appears that the "theory" that Terence operates from is the straw man argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

Theory, principles, strategy - all these are synonymous. The idea or concept behind what you are endeavoring to accomplish.

They are not synonymous, at least not in the realm of martial arts.

Let me try to explain it this way -- fighting, or any competitive athletic activity, requires problem solving: how do I take the skills that I have and solve the problems I am encountering (how can I defeat my opponent)? Strategy is your plan that you use in solving that problem. That strategy/plan can be theoretical or it can be tried-and-tested, from experience. For example, if I am taken down I'll bite and gouge the eyes to defeat my opponent. Purely theoretical strategy. Or, you can have developed an entire bottom game, and spent hundreds of hours actually rolling with good ground grapplers to develop your personal strategy. That's not theory, it is based on experience. It is tried-and-tested. This is show I know that my strategy is effective; that my approach to solving the problem works.

Strategy and tactics don't need to be theoretical; they are like techniques -- things you do, try, develop, refine, etc. So I don't use a strategy or tactic or anything from theory, but from the standpoint of this is something I have tried-and-tested, forged with experience. Again: I don't do it because theory tells me to, I do it because I know from experience that it works.

The other thing is, often strategy is broken down into strategic goals/steps. Again, these goals are not merely theoretical or ideas, but real tangible things that from experience we've learned are useful. So the idea behind what you want to accomplish is not theory. In GNP, for example, I want to take you down. That is not an concept or principle or theory, it is a physical objective, something that anyone can see, feel, touch. "Position before submission" is the same thing, it is a real, identifiable physical objective (position - mount, side, back, etc.). And, most importantly, those objectives are not based on some "idea" of what will or should work, but on *experience* (from experience knowing that a superior position will make it easier to get a submission).

If it is theory, it is BS. Only experience - results - is meaningful.

I like "theory" because I have a math degree. You prove "theorems". Then you apply them to solve problems. Music "theory". You learn it, then you're a better musician in improvisation, as you apply it in practice. The ability to think abstractly is one of the things that is supposed to differentiate humans as a higher species.

"Theory" is not a 4 letter word, you idiot.

My undergraduate degree was in math and physics. Theory has its place. But its place isn't in learning or developing atheltic skills. Boxers, wrestlers, WCK people, don't need theory.

You want to believe theory helps you, but it doesn't -- it only holds you back. All that traditional sh1t holds you back.

i

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 07:21 PM

Now your just being a jerk mate. Ive used my own skill to get out of some bad situations which is ONLY due to my training in Ving Tsun. I dont doubt there are many out there that share similar feelings on the matter.

I will NEVER be a top fighter, nor do i pretend to be !
I wont be beating Rampage nor Couture for any belt, but i do know that VT is not BS and ive proven it.....to myself...END OF

And that's exactly what people in aikido, tai ji, shotokan karate, etc, say. I got into a fight, and I beat some scrub, my reverse punch took him out, my irimi nage knocked the guy out, etc.

I'm not suggesting beating Rampage, but if you have been doing WCK for 10 years and someone with a few years of boxing or muay thai can wipe the floor with you, what does it say?

You BS on about the negitives of Traditional training yet traditional training is DEAD. It isnt around. Traditional training for my master was going to fight other schools. When he wanted to,was challenged or when his Sifu asked him to.

You support using your skill on one hand and beat down the idea of traditional training on the other. The traditional training mindset IMO was exactly that...go fight and from that change what youve learnt to suit you, making it yours.

You have no clue about traditional training, you only know about the modern version of whats considered traditional training.

And really if your so strong about your POV of VT being BS, i wouldnt bother to argue, just Pi$$ off somewhere else already THIS IS SOOOOO OLD.

I couldnt fight my way out of a paper bag and i dont care...DREW LOL :D

Another example of the classic traditionalist response: let me tell you this training really works, or let me tell you why it works. Why doesn't anyone ever show that it really works by actually sparring with some really good fighters, not world class, but perhaps MMAists with a few years training, and showing how well their training works? If it works and works so well, where is the f*cking evidence that it works? Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you beat up a scrub. Top drawer. ;)

t_niehoff

08-03-2007, 07:38 PM

Liddel

08-03-2007, 07:50 PM

And that's exactly what people in aikido, tai ji, shotokan karate, etc, say. I got into a fight, and I beat some scrub

Actually im not the biggest of guys, and every street fight ive been in, has seen me being out of my weight class. On several occasions two guys on me. One fight i had there were two guys and one with a bottle trying to beat it over my head.

I aint preaching round here EVERY THREAD like you though :rolleyes:

Another example of the classic traditionalist response: let me tell you this training really works, or let me tell you why it works.

This is the issue i have with your argumentitive superior attitude....

I never said it works, come to think of it - our training methods are different even in the same lineage, so we never laid down what 'IT' specifically IS. 'IT' to me, just seems to be your stereotypical view on WC you've seen.

In Fact you well know that i (and most others) have agreed with you in many different threads on what VT needs to supliment/ change/assimilate enhance......

Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you beat up a scrub. Top drawer. ;)

A man twice my size with NO formal training is dangerous. Further more if i did beat up a scrub that smacked me when i wasnt looking thats still an achievement.

You constantly post from a POV of everything being fair and equal - a telling sign that all you have is training in a face to face bout/sport with NO street experience where people will fight dirty an seek unfair advantage.

Sorry im not up to your level MR Elletist.

DREW

canglong

08-03-2007, 08:11 PM

originally posted by t_niehoff
All these coaches will have had competant levels of skills themselves and/or have other resources of expertise to draw upon.Terence,
Other resources of expertise sounds like a new phrase for knowledge.
originally posted by Liddel
You constantly post from a POV of everything being fair and equal - a telling sign that all you have is training in a face to face bout/sport with NO street experience where people will fight dirty an seek unfair advantage.
Drew,
I think you may be on to something here and I couldn't agree more.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 08:56 AM

A man twice my size with NO formal training is dangerous. Further more if i did beat up a scrub that smacked me when i wasnt looking thats still an achievement.

Terence has already acknowledged that some big strong guy with good attributes and no training could take him out. So the implication is that taking out same is an achievement.. The problem is that he can't agree outright or take you seriously for the sake of this discussion unless you also state that the traditional training, forms, chi sao, drills, theory are also BS... Implying that the traditional training helped you do this is totally in conflict with his belief system and his experience...he can't accept it.

Wayfaring

08-04-2007, 11:14 AM

They are not synonymous, at least not in the realm of martial arts.

Let me try to explain it this way -- fighting, or any competitive athletic activity, requires problem solving: how do I take the skills that I have and solve the problems I am encountering (how can I defeat my opponent)? Strategy is your plan that you use in solving that problem. That strategy/plan can be theoretical or it can be tried-and-tested, from experience. For example, if I am taken down I'll bite and gouge the eyes to defeat my opponent. Purely theoretical strategy. Or, you can have developed an entire bottom game, and spent hundreds of hours actually rolling with good ground grapplers to develop your personal strategy. That's not theory, it is based on experience. It is tried-and-tested. This is show I know that my strategy is effective; that my approach to solving the problem works.

Strategy and tactics don't need to be theoretical; they are like techniques -- things you do, try, develop, refine, etc. So I don't use a strategy or tactic or anything from theory, but from the standpoint of this is something I have tried-and-tested, forged with experience. Again: I don't do it because theory tells me to, I do it because I know from experience that it works.

The other thing is, often strategy is broken down into strategic goals/steps. Again, these goals are not merely theoretical or ideas, but real tangible things that from experience we've learned are useful. So the idea behind what you want to accomplish is not theory. In GNP, for example, I want to take you down. That is not an concept or principle or theory, it is a physical objective, something that anyone can see, feel, touch. "Position before submission" is the same thing, it is a real, identifiable physical objective (position - mount, side, back, etc.). And, most importantly, those objectives are not based on some "idea" of what will or should work, but on *experience* (from experience knowing that a superior position will make it easier to get a submission).

If it is theory, it is BS. Only experience - results - is meaningful.

Theory - (again from dictionary.com - defining terms)
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

If you are focusing upon usage #2, #4, #6, or #7 with respect to our discussion on martial arts, I would agree with what you are saying. However, usage #1 or #5 do not carry the connotation of contrast with applied practice. I guess I mostly am sticking closer to the usage #1 when I'm using the term "theory" talking about martial arts training, and that would be a little closer to what you are saying is "strategy".

You want to believe theory helps you, but it doesn't -- it only holds you back. All that traditional sh1t holds you back.

Yeah, and my little brother tells me I overanalyze my golf swing too. Funny, though, he doesn't mention it much when I'm beating him.

People learn in different ways. Some are high visual, some conceptual, some feel. You can't generalize what will and will not help people learn.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 12:15 PM

I don't use a strategy or tactic or anything from theory, but from the standpoint of this is something I have tried-and-tested, forged with experience. Again: I don't do it because theory tells me to, I do it because I know from experience that it works.
So, does it, whatever it is, work all the time; on any fighter, at any level, under all circumstances..? No? Then when it can't or doesn't work I guess it is just your theory...

t_niehoff

08-04-2007, 04:08 PM

So, does it, whatever it is, work all the time; on any fighter, at any level, under all circumstances..? No? Then when it can't or doesn't work I guess it is just your theory...

There are things, from techniques to tactics to strategies, that are tried and proven to have a high percentage success rate, things that we can see work over and over again, consistently, at all levels of fighting. They will hold up to the pressure. How do we know if a technique or tactic or strategy is one of those things? Not by theory or conjecture or belief. We know from experience. That's the only way.

One of the differences between a functional martial art and a traditional martial art is that the functional marital arts begins with those things that have proven effective (as mentioned above) and not because of adherence to any theory of how fighitng should be or how things should work -- functional martial arts let application /results be their guide and traditional martial arts lets theory be its guide.

This is because in functional martial arts, they are going to be really doing those things in fighting as sparring is the core of their traning method -- and often that begins very early in the training -- so anything that doesn't work extremely well, is going to be discarded. Whereas the traditional martial arts typically use unrealistic practices, like chi sao, where all kinds of unrealistic things will "work", and which supports their theoretical views and gives them a false understanding of fighting. And, this is why when we see TMAists really fight at 100%, they never can successfuly do those things they do in training. We see WCK practitioners that move one way in their forms and drills, and sometimes look great in demos and drills but you never see that stuff come out, and certainly not consistently, in their fighting.

t_niehoff

08-04-2007, 04:34 PM

Terence has already acknowledged that some big strong guy with good attributes and no training could take him out. So the implication is that taking out same is an achievement.. The problem is that he can't agree outright or take you seriously for the sake of this discussion unless you also state that the traditional training, forms, chi sao, drills, theory are also BS... Implying that the traditional training helped you do this is totally in conflict with his belief system and his experience...he can't accept it.

You can't draw sound conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. People win fights for all kinds of reasons, and many of them having nothing to do with skill or training. For example, when I was a white belt, and I first rolled with a purple belt, I passed his guard, clean, on my very first attempt. Did that mean I had purple level passing skills? Hardly. I got lucky, caught him by surprise (he wasn't expecting it). You can't measure your skill level this way.

We can only measure our skill/performance level by and through lots of actual performances against various skilled fighters. How do I know what my guard passing skill level really is? By rolling with lots of different level BJJ people and seeing what I can consistently do.

So if I win a fight against a larger, stronger, poorly skilled scrub, what does this mean? That in itself doesn't tell us much. To say it proves your training worked, your theory is right, etc. is silly. If your training is sound and really did work, then you should expect to see it everytime you spar. Right? And if you really have good skills, they will work against decent MMA fighters, muay thai fighters, etc. So why do TMA people always win these fights on the street (or so they say) but can't do it in the gym against decent fighters?

And, winning the fight is not proof by any means that your training worked. That's only half of it. The other half of it is how did you win the fight? Did you win the fight by doing those things that you trained to do? That's the test for skill.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 05:21 PM

There are things, from techniques to tactics to strategies, that are tried and proven to have a high percentage success rate, things that we can see work over and over again, consistently, at all levels of fighting. They will hold up to the pressure. How do we know if a technique or tactic or strategy is one of those things? Not by theory or conjecture or belief. We know from experience. That's the only way.

And many people are telling you that the things they train do work for them--the problem is you don't accept their word for this or their experience...

One of the differences between a functional martial art and a traditional martial art is that the functional marital arts begins with those things that have proven effective (as mentioned above) and not because of adherence to any theory of how fighitng should be or how things should work

All arts have theory... The moves people work in WCK the basics, the core are as simple as a punch, a parry, a jam, a grab... Not really anything so flamboyant or hard to swallow or hard to make work... All proven systems have similar moves, parries, grabs, punches, swimming a hand, etc.. According to you a WCK parry is theory and a boxing parry is proven... Meanwhile the difference between the two is miniscule and both work just fine… What makes the WCK parry slightly different is what about the parry that gives it a common thread that allows it to fit in with the principles of Wing Chun and what makes it a WCK parry and not a boxing parry… Which do you use?

This is because in functional martial arts, they are going to be really doing those things in fighting as sparring is the core of their training method -- and often that begins very early in the training -- so anything that doesn't work extremely well, is going to be discarded.

And there are plenty of WCK folks who have found that certain things they were taught in the art DIDN'T work for them and they discarded them.. In some cases this is due to the fact that they never learned the move right, don't understand the application of the move, the move may not have an application within the realm of who they are fighting or the move may not fit the person.. It's up to the teacher to decide if the move has merit or not and even today people are changing the system based on their experience... But according to you, none of WCK moves have any kind of history of functioning or are proven. So, based on that we would have to throw them all out--right? If I am mistaken here then please tell us exactly which moves have been "proven" so we can go and use those moves..

Liddel

08-04-2007, 05:28 PM

I dont appreciate you putting me and others into a box here T. Just to be straight up :).

You've chimed on about the same thing here for months, breaking into your training rant again and again. I would have thought that you actually read and digest what others reply in the way of recognising what your saying.

You have a VALID pov, but if you expect people to drop VT all together youve come to the wrong place. I will take on what suits me based on results...thanks youve been a great help there.
Youve planted your seed, now lets see if it grows ? LOL

Why is it you dont offer your own insights into how you made your taining more functional...you blow it off when asked, stating that we should look to the proffesionals for the proven methods. But they are a stretch as they dont do VT, you DO, supposedly. So lets here some specifics about you......In good faith ill go first....

I regularly train with friends that do Boxing, MT, Kyokin Karate and the most skilled sparring partner i have is a friend that does MMA type stuff as part of his job. Larry Jordon CQB, Kempo, JJ and Boxing.

When I full contact spar with these guys i feel my VT works consistently well in two main areas.

1- Protecting myself. My elbow position and habbits from Chi Sao help me to cover comming actions to my upper body. The elbows help me control the center and cover the sides for round actions. I also feel when a flurry of punches or a kick is given to me from either sides i can cover very well with the elbow which also lets follow up actions come easier because i can change the energy from my elbow to my first quickly. My traditional training (LOL) seems to have given me a good sence of Action vs Reaction. Seeing empty spaces and knowing when to set up and follow up.

2- Staying Mobile. My VT footwork helps me load up attacks and block actions by keeping me mobile so that i have momentum any time i need it for an attack or a block. Yu Ma Lik. I feel because of training tools like Gor Sao and Lux Sao im comfortable in a authodox or southpaw stance as the situation dictates.

I had a hard time staying away from my MT friends kicks and punches at first but i found switching to Southpaw (hes authodox) meant i could effectivly cut off some off his angles which were away from his power lines.

At first, years ago my VT footwork from forms and chi sao was to static, understanding where chi sao fits into fighting AND SPARRING gets that out of you very quick. I dont know where the idea that you always have to be in a nuetral stance came from, so many VT peeps do it in demos. But where i train this is just an option. I always face off with a southpaw stance, meaning i like having a lead leg untill im at a nice close range where i may or may not switch to a nuetral stance depending on the opponents position. Having a lead leg makes it easier for me to use Bong Gerk or Tan Gerk to cover my lower gates from kicks etc. Which i personally find more difficult when in a nuetral stance.

Ive found with my friend shooting on me for takedowns that if im close and in a nuetral stance i have more chance of turning him away or getting off the line while using my elbows to control and/or sprawl from the center.

So theres a few points from me.....
You regularly train with skilled people, perhaps much more skilled than my training partners. How has your VT adapted to a realisitc setting, what have you found useful from the VT Tool Box when sparring ? (specifics please :o )

Maybe you can lead by example for a change rather than generalising and saying your traditional stuff Sux.. LOL

:cool:
DREW

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 06:32 PM

But according to you, none of WCK moves have any kind of history of functioning or are proven. So, based on that we would have to throw them all out--right? If I am mistaken here then please tell us exactly which moves have been "proven" so we can go and use those moves..

That's an easy one that anyone can do. Watch a bunch of full contact fight footage. Notice the techniques that consistently work a large percentage of the time and are the most effective (.i.e. leg kicks, crosses, hooks, uppercuts, chopping head kicks, parries, lateral footwork, takedowns, sprawls, guillotines, arm bars, triangles, etc.).

Then go into the techniques that you use and watch demos of the system that you practice. Find all the techniques in there that you do not see in fighting and those are the ones that probably won't work for most people and you can throw those out (i.e. the straight ahead punches thrown with the elbows with no body torque and the slappy back arm hits to the neck that you see in many demos, but never show up with any effectiveness in fights).

After you have taken out all the ineffective junk, what will remain will be the effective techniques. Anything that is lacking after taking out the junk can be supplemented with the higher percentage techniques that you have observed working in fighting situations.

A simple and effective solution for getting rid of any B.S. that does not suit your purposes and evolving it into a more suitable system.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 06:57 PM

That's an easy one that anyone can do. Watch a bunch of full contact fight footage. Notice the techniques that consistently work a large percentage of the time and are the most effective (.i.e. leg kicks, crosses, hooks, uppercuts, chopping head kicks, parries, lateral footwork, takedowns, sprawls, guillotines, arm bars, triangles, etc.).

Then go into the techniques that you use and watch demos of the system that you practice. Find all the techniques in there that you do not see in fighting and those are the ones that probably won't work for most people and you can throw those out (i.e. the straight ahead punches thrown with the elbows with no body torque and the slappy back arm hits to the neck that you see in many demos, but never show up with any effectiveness in fights).
Why not just box and do MT?

I agree that punches without body power are garbage... The chop to the throat, while over used by some is used as a lever in the clinch, not as a chop to the throat though and if i am not mistaken chopping the throat is not legal in NHB... The chop IMO is useful when the arm is in a certain position, when opponent is in a certain position, similar to when you would use it as a lever to gain position or peel the opponent off of you..something I have seen in NHB fights.. And no different than using a backfist or forearm smash in some applications, like that video most have seen of the karate guy chopping the pimp in the head with the forearm and KOing him, it depends on position and distance..but I agree that move should not be a mainstay in fighting or lead in chi sao..

t_niehoff

08-04-2007, 07:04 PM

And many people are telling you that the things they train do work for them--the problem is you don't accept their word for this or their experience...

BINGO. EXACTLY!!! I don't accept their word for it. Anyone can claim anything. I want to see the evidence of it working for myself. In functional martial arts, you don't have to take any one's word for anything.

All arts have theory... The moves people work in WCK the basics, the core are as simple as a punch, a parry, a jam, a grab... Not really anything so flamboyant or hard to swallow or hard to make work... All proven systems have similar moves, parries, grabs, punches, swimming a hand, etc..

Most functional martial arts have very little in the way of theory.

"Moves" are not theory. They are skills.

According to you a WCK parry is theory and a boxing parry is proven... Meanwhile the difference between the two is miniscule and both work just fine… What makes the WCK parry slightly different is what about the parry that gives it a common thread that allows it to fit in with the principles of Wing Chun and what makes it a WCK parry and not a boxing parry… Which do you use?

I don't "parry", and my WCK doesn't have "parries".

But a parry, in any case, isn't a theory, it is a skill, an action.

And you can't make something "fit in with the principles of WCK" when there are no such things. What you really mean is use a parry in accordance of how you believe WCK should theoretically work. What boxers do -- and fwiw they rarely parry, but for the sake of discussion I'll go along like they do -- is find from sparring how to make their parrys work, how to fit them into their own, individual game. Not by trying to adhere to some "principles" but by doing it.

And there are plenty of WCK folks who have found that certain things they were taught in the art DIDN'T work for them and they discarded them.. In some cases this is due to the fact that they never learned the move right, don't understand the application of the move, the move may not have an application within the realm of who they are fighting or the move may not fit the person..

Work in what sense?

It's up to the teacher to decide if the move has merit or not and even today people are changing the system based on their experience...

All a good instructor can do is provide the trainee with the fundamental skills, strategies, and tactics of that particular method of fighitng. And, in some cases, help the trainee put together his own game. To do that requires, of course, that the trainers "knows" them, and he can't really know them if he can't do them. Otherwise, he would only have a superficial knowledge.

But it is up to the trainee, not the teacher or "the system", to decide what value these things have, how to best use them, etc. based on that trainee's personal results. This is another part of the TMAs that is BS, putting the teacher or "system" above the trainee. A good trainer will of course use his experience in guiding the trainee, in helping him find those things that work for him.

But according to you, none of WCK moves have any kind of history of functioning or are proven. So, based on that we would have to throw them all out--right? If I am mistaken here then please tell us exactly which moves have been "proven" so we can go and use those moves..

Who cares if someone, somewhere could make their WCK "moves" work. The only important questions are can you make your WCK moves work and at what level? Everyone says they can; they talk a great game. They ahve the "best" theory"! But that is a load of crap. And that's why we never see them do it, not even against poor fighters, let alone decent fighters. People do forms to learn these moves, chi sao and other drills to practice these moves, and then they all go out the window when they spar at 100% or they don't really work particularly well (most often poorly). Anyone who says I'm wrong can prove me wrong very easily by just providing sopme video of them *consistently* using the WCK tools/moves at 100%.

Why is this the case? In my view, it is due mainly to the traditional mindset, a "view" of martial arts and training that is way, way behind the times and was never particularly effective in the first place. But since everyone used it, the were all equally, relatively bad.

We can see today what sort of training produces really good atheltes, not just in the combative arts, but in every sport or atheltic endeavor. This training model has been studied, validated, and improved by scientific researchers. They have proved, for instance, that with open skills, like wrestling, boxing - and so WCK - that using "models", forms, is a really poor way to learn. Yet people in TMAs continue to use them. We know that all functional martial arts have sparring at the core of their training. Yet TMAs continue to use unrealistic exercises, like chi sao and kiu sao, as their core training. So is it any wonder that people can't really make these things work?

The bottom line is that the traditional mindset is oil and the modern training method are water, and they don't mix. People caught in the tradtional mindset and traditional training can't develop significant skills because they aren't using the process that we know needs to be used to develop higher levels of skill.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 07:08 PM

I love this stuff.. Boxers don't parry... His wing chun doesn't parry... What do I mean by work...

Is Terence for real or in reality is he a chatbot?

You decide..

t_niehoff

08-04-2007, 07:25 PM

I dont appreciate you putting me and others into a box here T. Just to be straight up :).

I'm not putting you in the box -- you're putting yourself there.

You have a VALID pov, but if you expect people to drop VT all together youve come to the wrong place. I will take on what suits me based on results...thanks youve been a great help there.
Youve planted your seed, now lets see if it grows ? LOL

I don't want people do drop WCK. And I don't expect anything either. All I am doing is pointing out waht I see as the weaknesses of the traditional mindset and traditional training model.

Why is it you dont offer your own insights into how you made your taining more functional...you blow it off when asked, stating that we should look to the proffesionals for the proven methods. But they are a stretch as they dont do VT, you DO, supposedly. So lets here some specifics about you......In good faith ill go first....

Why would you listen to me and not the professionals? You want to know what I am doing? Trying to follow their lead.

I regularly train with friends that do Boxing, MT, Kyokin Karate and the most skilled sparring partner i have is a friend that does MMA type stuff as part of his job. Larry Jordon CQB, Kempo, JJ and Boxing.

When I full contact spar with these guys i feel my VT works consistently well in two main areas.

1- Protecting myself. My elbow position and habbits from Chi Sao help me to cover comming actions to my upper body. The elbows help me control the center and cover the sides for round actions. I also feel when a flurry of punches or a kick is given to me from either sides i can cover very well with the elbow which also lets follow up actions come easier because i can change the energy from my elbow to my first quickly. My traditional training (LOL) seems to have given me a good sence of Action vs Reaction. Seeing empty spaces and knowing when to set up and follow up.

Dude, no offense meant, but a beginning boxer will do the same thing -- you needed the forms, chi sao, etc. to learn this?

2- Staying Mobile. My VT footwork helps me load up attacks and block actions by keeping me mobile so that i have momentum any time i need it for an attack or a block. Yu Ma Lik. I feel because of training tools like Gor Sao and Lux Sao im comfortable in a authodox or southpaw stance as the situation dictates.

So you are essentially kickboxing?

I had a hard time staying away from my MT friends kicks and punches at first but i found switching to Southpaw (hes authodox) meant i could effectivly cut off some off his angles which were away from his power lines.

Why do you want to stay away from him when WCK is an inside (contact) fighting method?

At first, years ago my VT footwork from forms and chi sao was to static, understanding where chi sao fits into fighting AND SPARRING gets that out of you very quick. I dont know where the idea that you always have to be in a nuetral stance came from, so many VT peeps do it in demos. But where i train this is just an option. I always face off with a southpaw stance, meaning i like having a lead leg untill im at a nice close range where i may or may not switch to a nuetral stance depending on the opponents position. Having a lead leg makes it easier for me to use Bong Gerk or Tan Gerk to cover my lower gates from kicks etc. Which i personally find more difficult when in a nuetral stance.

More kickboxing?

Ive found with my friend shooting on me for takedowns that if im close and in a nuetral stance i have more chance of turning him away or getting off the line while using my elbows to control and/or sprawl from the center.

What is he shooting for?

So theres a few points from me.....
You regularly train with skilled people, perhaps much more skilled than my training partners. How has your VT adapted to a realisitc setting, what have you found useful from the VT Tool Box when sparring ? (specifics please :o )

Maybe you can lead by example for a change rather than generalising and saying your traditional stuff Sux.. LOL

:cool:
DREW

This is like asking me how have I adapted my BJJ to a realisitic setting. It is too broad to put into words.

Essentially, my approach in WCK is that it is a form of dirty clinch boxing, and I try to quickly join (dap), close down the opponent's offense on contact (jeet), break his structure (chum), and start putting the hurt on him (saat). Or as we call it, crash and smash. :)

t_niehoff

08-04-2007, 07:28 PM

I love this stuff.. Boxers don't parry... His wing chun doesn't parry... What do I mean by work...

Is Terence for real or in reality is he a chatbot?

You decide..

Work where? In chi sao or in sparring 100% against good people?

I don't parry. I am either out of range- so that I don't need to parry - or I am inside closing the guy down - so I don't need to parry. I understand you don't know what I am talking about; I expected as much.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 07:31 PM

I don't parry. I am either out of range- so that I don't need to parry - or I am inside closing the guy down - so I don't need to parry. I understand you don't know what I am talking about; I expected as much.
And I guess you're geezer azz is so fast that the time between out of range and inside their range happens in the blink of an eye, too fast for those "proven fighters" to stop hit you.. Yes, I understand, but not the way you think.. ;)

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 07:32 PM

The chop to the throat, while over used by some is used as a lever in the clinch, not as a chop to the throat though and if i am not mistaken chopping the throat is not legal in NHB... The chop IMO is useful when the arm is in a certain position, when opponent is in a certain position, similar to when you would use it as a lever to gain position or peel the opponent off of you..something I have seen in NHB fights..

The arm over into the neck for a lever is very effective in the clinch, but it is completely different than the chop you are seeing in demos.

And no different than using a backfist or forearm smash in some applications, like that video most have seen of the karate guy chopping the pimp in the head with the forearm and KOing him, it depends on position and distance..but I agree that move should not be a mainstay in fighting or lead in chi sao..

It can be an effective technique as an opening "sucker punch" (although I prefer the "Isn't your sister's name Lisa," followed immediatedly by a cross to the jaw). However, that's not the way it is trained or demo'ed.

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 07:36 PM

I love this stuff.. Boxers don't parry... His wing chun doesn't parry...

Actually, he is right. Boxers do more of a catch. Fencers parry.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 07:50 PM

Yes they catch, roll, slip, duck and parry.. The most common boxing reaction that I have seen both from watching fights and from working with boxers is the rear hand parry of the jab, parry meaning the rear hand comes out to make contact with the jabbing arm as opposed to catching the punch, which is different. Some boxing coaches even teach them to hit just after the parry, crazy...

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 07:51 PM

Why is it you dont offer your own insights into how you made your taining more functional...How has your VT adapted to a realisitc setting, what have you found useful from the VT Tool Box when sparring ?

I'll go:

- I use it ("it", meaning some of the things I picked up from WC) if I want to be purely defensive and keep my opponent at outside range. I use it strictly with back/lateral movement.
- I use it when in someone's guard if I want to set up strikes.
- I use it when someone is in my closed guard if I want to set up a strike that will set up an angle for a submission.

Theoretically (theres' that word), it should be very effective when mounted on someone if you want to strike them. Functionally, however, it is a different story. Because this ties up your hands, it takes away your ability base out and allows your opponent to roll you.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 08:28 PM

Liddel

08-04-2007, 08:53 PM

I'm not putting you in the box -- you're putting yourself there.

You assume everyone that does VT, ONLY adheres to the traditional way. Its apparent in many of your posts even after many have offered thier personal details on other training.

I don't want people do drop WCK. And I don't expect anything either. All I am doing is pointing out waht I see as the weaknesses of the traditional mindset and traditional training model.

Pointing out LOL ! what an understatement.

Why would you listen to me and not the professionals? You want to know what I am doing? Trying to follow their lead.

Same Lame excuse to not get specific. Mainly because you say you do VT.....and mainly to hear something other than the same old regurgitated post, but suit yourself.

I like to hear many and varying opinions on all matters.

Dude, no offense meant, but a beginning boxer will do the same thing -- you needed the forms, chi sao, etc. to learn this?

If it aint broke...dont fix it ! There's no such thing as an advanced technique.

Nice troll attempt T your getting good. Way to simplify and lessen my input. Touche.

As far as the chi sao and forms comment, why would the path matter to you when its all about results? (rhetorical)

So you are essentially kickboxing?

It may appear that way to some, however my energy comes from VT - if it looks the same so be it....its about results isnt it ?
I mean if you really believe all physical endeavour to be the same, using the same body mechanics etc etc then why would it look any different to a layman?

Why do you want to stay away from him when WCK is an inside (contact) fighting method?

I dont in terms of distance, i do in terms of angle and position.

More kickboxing?

See above :o

What is he shooting for?

A takedown

This is like asking me how have I adapted my BJJ to a realisitic setting. It is too broad to put into words.

I read your posts. Why ? i dont know anymore.
You clearly state traditional training is blah blah blah.... so obvioulsy one must adapt VT training to fit real fighting...because traditional training i.e VT is so far removed from reality....

Forgive me for taking on your POV and trying to get some valid info with regards to it.... from you. I just thought we could move on from the 'same old' from you. Clearly i was wrong mate. :o

Essentially, my approach in WCK is that it is a form of dirty clinch boxing, and I try to quickly join (dap), close down the opponent's offense on contact (jeet), break his structure (chum), and start putting the hurt on him (saat). Or as we call it, crash and smash. :)

Well thats a start. try not to share to much, just keep talking down to us all. Your contempt is obvious pal.

Cheers for the 'chat'

DREW

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 09:13 PM

Check out this clip..by Danny Campbell, pro boxer, trainer, ref and promoter.

http://www.mediafire.com/?e0ycmyg237d

And keep in mind while watching that according to our resident experts.. Boxers don't parry... :rolleyes:

Well, if you want to get petty about it, I said, "...more of a catch".

Fencer's are the ones who do real parries, as they will take their opponents weapons quite a ways offline before riposting, since they do not have to worry about a second, follow-up weapon and they need to move the attacking weapon more out of the way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR0eAV0sQBQ

A true parry also catches the side of the blade to move it out of the way.

A boxer's parry, on the other hand, is closer to a catch because he cannot afford to open his line up to the second follow-up hand. Not to mention how hard it is to catch the side surface of the striking hand/glove, which is what is required of a true parry. In actuality, the boxer's parry is more of a catch/push than it is a true parry.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 09:18 PM

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 09:20 PM

There's no such thing as an advanced technique.

Have to disagree with that. In BJJ, an umoplata lockdown with a figure 4 foot lock is definitely an advanced technique, as is a suplex in wrestling, as is an uppercut in boxing.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 10:01 PM

Does that technique really work Dale? How often?

There are techniques that are seen infrequently yet are seen to work very well.. The reason they work when they do IMO is it's because those folks who use them actually are working them in training and have made them part of who THEY are..

Since some moves can work when people put the time into applying them I think we should have a broader view of what “can work” in general. Not everyone has to look like X or use XYZ moves.. Not to say folks shouldn't learn those basics and how to deal with them but the human body is so complex that is can express many a movement. Shouldn’t we explore the options that are out there—especially since such moves can surprise the crap out of unsuspecting opponents?

What works is dependant on the fighter, not the "mean average technique" used by the population that operates in zone B... Don't you think it would be terribly boring if everyone fought almost the same way? Personally, I love to be surprised by a rare submission or an unusual striking move or combo. In the end it's up to the individual to get out there and see what can work for them <in addition to basics> without limits imposed by the mainstream..

Liddel

08-04-2007, 10:03 PM

Have to disagree with that. In BJJ, an umoplata lockdown with a figure 4 foot lock is definitely an advanced technique, as is a suplex in wrestling, as is an uppercut in boxing.

LOL . Speak to Matt thornton on that one Dale, thats who i was quoting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T0WLoI6pk

Depends on your POV :rolleyes:

DREW

Knifefighter

08-04-2007, 11:03 PM

LOL . Speak to Matt thornton on that one Dale, thats who i was quoting....

Yeah, I know he said that.

Like I said, I disagree.

Beginners get confused with simple arm bars and can't even remember which side of the neck to put the leg over for the triangle. There's no way you are going to be able to teach them something like an omoplata with a figure 4 footlock... or an x guard to a knee bar... or a D'arce choke... and the list goes on and on with advanced techniques.

You've got to learn the basic beginning techniques before you learn the complicated ones.

YungChun

08-04-2007, 11:06 PM

I agree with Dale on this one.. . Depends on how much material there is..

Students have to start with the basics and become proficient with them first..

Liddel

08-04-2007, 11:29 PM

I agree with you both.

But im open minded and purely from a technique POV it is the same for a newbie as it would be for a pro. So i see some relevance :rolleyes:

But people need somewhere to start and the less complicated and confusing the better.

sunfist

08-05-2007, 12:25 AM

There's no way you are going to be able to teach them something like an omoplata with a figure 4 footlock... or an x guard to a knee bar... or a D'arce choke... and the list goes on and on with advanced techniques.

You've got to learn the basic beginning techniques before you learn the complicated ones.

Counting combinations isnt fair, since they are obviously multiple techniques :p

I just came in to troll... but now that im here, why the hell do we see so much WC using kicks as a defence to takedowns? It is beyond retarded.

YungChun

08-05-2007, 12:55 AM

why the hell do we see so much WC using kicks as a defence to takedowns? It is beyond retarded.
I'll second that and add using them to enter on a grappler..

They do it because they see everyone else kicking to enter. It's fine in kickboxing....

t_niehoff

08-05-2007, 02:20 PM

And I guess you're geezer azz is so fast that the time between out of range and inside their range happens in the blink of an eye, too fast for those "proven fighters" to stop hit you.. Yes, I understand, but not the way you think.. ;)

Parries are low percentage. If somone catches me, I cover.

t_niehoff

08-05-2007, 02:26 PM

Ducks and dogs.. More of less of is meaningless to me... One is a parry the other is not... The parry allows the energy to pass and allows for the counter; the catch stops the forward motion.. Danny clearly shows us the difference in both terms and tactics... According to Danny and me, boxers DO parry... :p:cool:

And if you look (like oin youtube) at what boxers do - when they box - you're not going to see much in the way of parrying. It's low percentage. In fact, reaching for punches is a huge mistake. This is exactly what a good boxer/fighter wants you to do: open lines for him. Boxers use range, evasion, and covers more than parrying.

Same with MMA/NHB -- look at most fights and you're not going to see much parrying.

t_niehoff

08-05-2007, 03:00 PM

You assume everyone that does VT, ONLY adheres to the traditional way. Its apparent in many of your posts even after many have offered thier personal details on other training.

No, I don't assume -- I can tell who has the traditional mindset by what they say.

Same Lame excuse to not get specific. Mainly because you say you do VT.....and mainly to hear something other than the same old regurgitated post, but suit yourself.

My answer was specific. Go work with some good fighters and fight trainers if you really want to develop good fighting skill. Why? Because your fighting skill level is directly related to the amount to quality (level of your opponents) time you spend sparring. Good fighters will give you better quality. Good trainers will speed up the process.

If it aint broke...dont fix it ! There's no such thing as an advanced technique.

Nice troll attempt T your getting good. Way to simplify and lessen my input. Touche.

As far as the chi sao and forms comment, why would the path matter to you when its all about results? (rhetorical)

Why would the path matter? Well, let's say I was giving you directions to my house, would you like me to give you directions that had you going around in circles, wasting lots of time, going in directions that didn't take you any nearer to my house, etc. or would you like me to give you simple, straight-forward,direct directions?

It may appear that way to some, however my energy comes from VT - if it looks the same so be it....its about results isnt it ?
I mean if you really believe all physical endeavour to be the same, using the same body mechanics etc etc then why would it look any different to a layman?

No, if it looks like kickboxing, then you are kickboxing. If you want to kickbox - not that there is anything wrong with kickboxing - there are good kickboxing methods, like muay thai. Why would anyone want to use WCK to kickbox?

All physical endeavors are not the same, and I've never said they were. Nor do all fighting methods use the same mechanics. WCK is not a kickboxing method and that's why its movements, mechanics, etc. are different from kickboxing.

A takedown

A takedown. OK. He's shooting in for a takedown. Single? High or low? Double? Hi C? Just a tackle? What?

Go to a good MMA school or find a good collegiate wrestler and spend some time working on your"takedown defense" with them -- you'll see it is night and day from working with your buddy.

I read your posts. Why ? i dont know anymore.
You clearly state traditional training is blah blah blah.... so obvioulsy one must adapt VT training to fit real fighting...because traditional training i.e VT is so far removed from reality....

I don't expect people caught in the traditional mindset to like my posts. My views will undermine their entire belief structure (what the tradtional mindset is).

I can't explain in words how I use WCK, how I fight. That's like asking how do you surf? It's not something that you can explain adequately with words. But it is not kickboxing. My WCK is a close range, inside, contact (attached) method of fighting.

Well thats a start. try not to share to much, just keep talking down to us all. Your contempt is obvious pal.

Cheers for the 'chat'

DREW

It's not contempt -- I don't care enough to be contempuous. ;) My attitude is more apathetic.

Liddel

08-05-2007, 04:52 PM

I dont want to get into a back and forth disagreement here T.

I can't explain in words how I use WCK, how I fight. That's like asking how do you surf?

Well others seem to do alright round here explaining thier experiences....it aint that hard when you try mate...

I have a 6/4 'Seasons' thruster, i dont use gorrila grip - i prefer wax. My style is more freestyle in nature. I stand natural and i like big power turns which suit the local break. Kinda like signature Occy (Australian pro surfer).

No, if it looks like kickboxing, then you are kickboxing.

Who said it looks like kickboxing, that was an assumption on your - part my friend.....Hypothetical Question...

If i golf swing a tennis racket and hit a tennis ball off the ground over the net... am i playing tennis or golf ?

If i did the same thing, but on a golf course what am i playing ?

How would you determine ? by the gear ...so if i spar VT.... with gloves im really boxing ?
or perhaps body mechanics...

I dont really see your POV bout that...anyway different strokes for different folks.

And id just like to point out to you - that if i really just took your advice and looked ONLY to the proven proffesionals for how to train find out about others experiences etc etc then why would we want to read yours or any other posts, or come to a forum....

This thread is dead.

DREW

Matrix

08-05-2007, 05:03 PM

It's not contempt -- I don't care enough to be contempuous. ;) My attitude is more apathetic.Terence,

For someone who is apathetic you spend an awful lot of time on this matter. I will, however, say that I don't think it's contempt either although I can see how it may come across that way from time to time. I think your concerns are genuine. I just believe that a little more carrot and a little less stick would be helpful in getting people to at least consider your POV.

My answer was specific. Go work with some good fighters and fight trainers if you really want to develop good fighting skill. Why? Because your fighting skill level is directly related to the amount to quality (level of your opponents) time you spend sparring. Good fighters will give you better quality. Good trainers will speed up the process.I think something is missing. In another thread you claim that you are not a great fighter and yet you do train this way - or so I assume - so I see a disconnect here. If you train this way and are dilgent in doing so, I would expect great things. Especially since there are so many scrubs and posers out there you should be able to take them out with relative ease.

Bill

YungChun

08-05-2007, 05:08 PM

And id just like to point out to you - that if i really just took your advice and looked ONLY to the proven proffesionals for how to train find out about others experiences etc etc then why would we want to read yours or any other posts, or come to a forum....

Certainly no need to go to a Wing Chun forum..

It IS really pointless to go on and on about what isn't WCK, what NOT to do, to belittle people for training WCK and then telling them to look to folks who don't do WCK for how to fight.. Yet T says he does WCK... All a bunch of half truths, distortions, veiled insults, semantics and disinformation--all in all a huge waste of time...

The Ignore list is looking better and better...

Matrix

08-05-2007, 05:18 PM

The Ignore list is looking better and better...
Jim,

Pretty soon we may all Ignoring each other. What a great forum that would be. ;)

YungChun

08-05-2007, 05:25 PM

I think your concerns are genuine. I just believe that a little more carrot and a little less stick would be helpful in getting people to at least consider your POV.

Bill,

T has a non POV.. What WCK isn't.. Why in the traditional system is BS.. Who to look to who doesn't do WCK... Why this doesn't work; why that doesn't work.. Why others WCK is crap.. He offers nothing substantial TO DO, other than to NOT do the traditional training and get in their and spar with NHB fighters and train like other arts do...

T's non POV fills hundreds of pages yet no one knows what it is that T does or really adovacates doing with WCK except vauge generalities, misinformation and insults. He spends all day, everyday knocking down what folks train and their understanding of the system but never offers to provide anything useful people could use to better train/understand the system, so IMO he POV is useless and not helpful to WCK and those who are training it..... Others may have the wrong idea at times about what WCK is, but at least they HAVE an idea and share it...

Matrix

08-05-2007, 05:56 PM

He offers nothing substantial TO DO, other than to NOT do the traditional training and get in their and spar with NHB fighters and train like other arts do..Jim,
I can't speak for Terence, but I think that whatever you do it needs to stand up to some sort of test under pressure - that does not necessarilly need to involve a cage. I think that forms and drills have value. I don't need to justify that to anyone. Having said that, whatever training method you subscribe to, it needs to work when called upon. I know 2 people who work in very dangerous environments, one in a mental hospital and another in a maximum security prision. Both train WC and claim that it has saved them from serious injury. Now these "opponents" are not trained MMA fighters, but they do have the power to injure you and there's no referee. WC has provided these people with valuable tools that literally help them to survive on a daily basis. And yet I think CroCop would kick both of their butts. ;)

T's non POV fills hundreds of pages yet no one knows what it is that T does or really adovacates doing with WCK except vauge generalities, misinformation and insults. ..... Others may have the wrong idea at times about what WCK is, but at least they HAVE an idea and share it...True. I just tend to think most people believe that the things they do are "right" within a given context and in this case "the end justifies the means". Just as I might have hash words for someone who claims to be a WC Master and yet shows clear lack of skill. I might feel justified in my position, but am I "right"? Maybe to the degree that I feel this Master is doing some dis-service to the art, but maybe not in the way I make my point.

I just think that it's not so cut-and-dry and there's lots of shades of gray between black and white.

Bill

Matrix

08-05-2007, 06:24 PM

t_niehoff

08-05-2007, 07:18 PM

Terence,

For someone who is apathetic you spend an awful lot of time on this matter. I will, however, say that I don't think it's contempt either although I can see how it may come across that way from time to time. I think your concerns are genuine. I just believe that a little more carrot and a little less stick would be helpful in getting people to at least consider your POV.

It's not a matter of carrot-stick. It is a matter of seeing things as they really are. I'm sorry if some people don't like my bluntness. But if it upsets them then I think they are taking themselves too seriously. This is just discussion.

I think something is missing. In another thread you claim that you are not a great fighter and yet you do train this way - or so I assume - so I see a disconnect here. If you train this way and are dilgent in doing so, I would expect great things. Especially since there are so many scrubs and posers out there you should be able to take them out with relative ease.

Bill

Do you think everyone who boxes or does BJJ or does MMAs or wrestles or does another functional martial art is a great fighter? There is a HUGE difference between having good, solid skills and being great. There is a HUGE difference between being really good and being great.

Liddel

08-05-2007, 07:22 PM

Terence,
I think your concerns are genuine. I just believe that a little more carrot and a little less stick would be helpful in getting people to at least consider your POV.

Bill - IMO many people here on this forum actually more than considered his POV, but actually agreed with his POV on issues like
- live drills
- realistic training
- Mixing it up with other styles
- Preasure testing

Basically testing what you have like the guy in the original vid....and more

But for him it becomes a "let me be the judge" IMO.

I attempted to further the thread, offering my own take and he makes a generalised comment (with no actual knowledge) about how guys at a MMA school would be different to my buddy that i spar with....
"Youll see its night and day from working with your buddy"

Thats basically picking holes from LIMITED info, which is poor form IMO.

To advocate a type of training and when someone acknowledges that and offers there input on the same point only for him to refute the context or legitimacy of how you perform said training...

May work well in the court room, but i think he may be a social retard... LOL

ohh, no offence T.

:cool:
DREW

t_niehoff

08-05-2007, 08:23 PM

Bill,

T has a non POV.. What WCK isn't.. Why in the traditional system is BS.. Who to look to who doesn't do WCK... Why this doesn't work; why that doesn't work.. Why others WCK is crap.. He offers nothing substantial TO DO, other than to NOT do the traditional training and get in their and spar with NHB fighters and train like other arts do...

If I tell you what WCK is, that is just theory. You need to see it, find it for yourself. Only then is it not theory. For example, you believe WCK uses parries. You believe this because you haven't spent much time sparring at 100% against good punchers, good boxers or MMAists. If you did that for any length of time, you'd stop parrying - or more accurately, trying to parry. You'd see it doesn't work, or at least is low percentage. But, you can't take my word for it -- that's what a traditionalist would do -- you need to find out the truth for yourself. To really know. That knowledge only comes via experience; no one can give it to you. No experience, no knowledge. But traditionalists - theoretical nonfighters - don't want to do the necessary work, sparring at 100% with good people. They beleive there is another way. But there isn't. I keep telling you that.

Once you see parries don't work, then you'll need to find out what does work for you. Again, you can only find that through experience. I don't mind sharing my experience or giving suggestions to people doing the work (sparring with good people), but if you are not doing the work, what I tell you won't help and you'll just argue with me from a theoretical standpoint (or offer that it worked "in the street" or in light sparring). And that will get us nowhere.

You want to know why I won't give technical answers. Because the questions you guys ask aren't meaningful. I can tell from the questions you are not doing the work. If you were doing the work, the questions would be very different. You don't get good answers asking the wrong questions. And if you are not doing the work (sparring with good people), the right questions won't come up.

Here's a very simple question: why is it when WCK people spar at 100% most of their tools, the movements from the forms adn drills, don't come out as they train them to? Why do they so often end up kickboxing? Who can give me the answer?

T's non POV fills hundreds of pages yet no one knows what it is that T does or really adovacates doing with WCK except vauge generalities, misinformation and insults. He spends all day, everyday knocking down what folks train and their understanding of the system but never offers to provide anything useful people could use to better train/understand the system, so IMO he POV is useless and not helpful to WCK and those who are training it..... Others may have the wrong idea at times about what WCK is, but at least they HAVE an idea and share it...

What I say is useless to you because you cling to the tradtional mindset. And it is so pervasive you, and others, don't even see it. Step 1 has to be to change that mindset. If that doesn't change, nothing can help. You say I "never offers to provide anything useful people could use to better train/understand the system" -- but I do. I try to get them to see that the traditional mindset is useless and even harmful and I tell them that they need to do the work, sparring with quality fighters. Those are the two most important pieces of advice anyone could give you. And you ignore both.

t_niehoff

08-05-2007, 08:50 PM

Bill - IMO many people here on this forum actually more than considered his POV, but actually agreed with his POV on issues like
- live drills
- realistic training
- Mixing it up with other styles
- Preasure testing

"Pressure testing" is one of those traditionalist buzzwords. Do boxers "pressure test" their boxing? No. They just box. You guys intellectualize too much. It's simple: if you want to develop fighting skills, train like a fighter.

Basically testing what you have like the guy in the original vid....and more

Why call it "testing"? He was sparring. And he was being dominated, on his feet and on the ground. And the reason he was dominated on his feet was because he had poor stand-up skills.

I attempted to further the thread, offering my own take and he makes a generalised comment (with no actual knowledge) about how guys at a MMA school would be different to my buddy that i spar with....
"Youll see its night and day from working with your buddy"

Thats basically picking holes from LIMITED info, which is poor form IMO.

No, it's not poor form, it is the truth. Speaking the truth is never poor form. If you don't believe me, go see for yourself. I don't hear anyone on this forum saying "when I go toss around the guys at the MMA gym . . ." It's very easy to get lulled into a false sense of security, understanding,e tc. when we don't train (spar) with really good people.

To advocate a type of training and when someone acknowledges that and offers there input on the same point only for him to refute the context or legitimacy of how you perform said training...

But you are not acknowledging what I was talking about: doing some sparring with your buddy isn't what I was advocating. I've met lots of WCK people that "spar". People at karate schools "spar." Doing some "sparring" and even with people from other "styles" isn't what I'm talking about. That still most often just produces junk. It's not just sparring but the quality of the sparring that matters -- the intensity (realistic, 100%) and the level of the opponents. And, of course, your skill is directly related to the amount of quality sparring you've done.

May work well in the court room, but i think he may be a social retard... LOL

ohh, no offence T.

:cool:
DREW

No offense meant.

Liddel

08-05-2007, 09:12 PM

All my sparring partners (outside of my own training) are bigger stronger and have more experience in thier arts than i, bar one.

We do spar at 100%.

My point is - you dont know this and assume otherwise...

You assume my sparring partners are no good, do you know them.
Youn said yourself you are a skeptic. OWN IT.

Pessure testing - its just a phrase - whos being serious now T ?

Ive been to other schools of VT where ive asked to spar with the students and/or master...everybody stops and looks at you... i felt a little preasure then.
Call it nerves call it preasure testing skill.... whatever......dude :o

discussing things with you is not a pleasure i feel i want to continue doing... :rolleyes:

Take it easy man.

DREW

YungChun

08-06-2007, 12:15 AM

We do spar at 100%.

My point is - you dont know this and assume otherwise...

You assume my sparring partners are no good, do you know them.
Youn said yourself you are a skeptic. OWN IT.

Pressure refining would be more what I see it as...

But it doesn't matter who you fight/fought. If you say the traditional material 'works' for you then Terence can't accept that what you do qualifies as "realistic training with skilled people". He can't accept this because he can't do it..that is make the traditional moves/structure work...and by traditional moves I mean ANY of the moves we know of as WCK.. Because he has made it clear that NONE of the moves, tactics or principles that come out of the box are worth a crap.. Again because *he* can't make them work.. and as a result is doing whatever it is that he hides so well.

I mention parry and he goes nuts.. No, no, no, you can't parry if he's a good fighter.. Excuse me but that's BULLS#$#%..... You have world class boxing coaches teaching it; but T knows better--or does he? Parrying is a tried and true way to receive an attack in many arts including boxing.. That doesn't mean you do it all the time, or it works all the time or that you base how you fight on a parry :rolleyes: It's just another tool, that can and does work.. My boxer student would agree and also used parrying. BFD..! It’s just one way to receive, more often I like to use the parry as a guard and I slip, close and attack—three movements at once… :D

When I used to spar with another guy who is a boxer, and because of how he moves and his size and reach; I used to go right away for the parry and hit off his jab...and as a result he was very reluctant to throw it and spent most of the time running away from me—man a guy with 10 years of boxing—hard to believe, but believe it because you have some folks that train long and hard and still suck, right T? ;)

There are all kinds of folks out there. Some of them can fight very well with no formal training.. It's about attributes and anyone may outclass anyone else regardless of what their label is, MMA, Thug, Brute, TMA, Crazy person, etc.. No one persons experience is the litmus test nor should anyone claim it is lest they be thought a fool.

What's really lame and demonstrates the level of a neophyte is to suggest that in a street fight you should try to take or receive attacks on your 'glove', when you don't have a glove; to suggest that structure, advanced structure, unlike a boxing guard that is close to the head, is the way to go in the street; shows a complete lack of understanding of many combative arts as well as Wing Chun.. Advanced structure provides a better level of protection and offers better offensive opportunity—to intercept; that is simply not possible when using a sport tactic like covering your head with your hand—one good shot and that hand is going to be broken and useless.

Law Enforcement is not taught to cover using a peek-a-boo boxing guard--it's asinine to suggest such a thing is reasonable.. One need only look at what Tony Blauer is doing these days and how he trains LEO..to get the idea, and Tony, the creater of the best full contact gear out there, knows all about full contact and effective tactics.. Despite T's good points about realistic training and refining, keeping it real, and so on I don't think he understands much about WCK...hell, he even implies that he learns WCK and we should, from those who DO NOT do WCK—fight those who don't do WCK yes; but learn WCK from a good WCK guy or guys, and then take it out and learn to apply what is WCK... If you can't do that and find another way <that doesn't use any WCK techs, concepts, moves> great but don't pretend and call it WCK.

YungChun

08-06-2007, 12:26 AM

Jim,

Just for fun, do a search of "Wing Chun" on YouTube.
Have a look at some of the reams of clips that will appear from all over the world and tell me what you think. What percentage of them, approximately, are a reasonable representation of what you understand 'good" Wing Chun to be? I'm willing to bet that the number is relatively low. I just think our art suffers from this, which in turn reflects badly on all of us.

Bill
Been there done that. I fully understand what's out there..and that most of it is junk.. And that goes for most TMA.. and I'll tell you, IMO that's exactly how it should be and how it was intended to be from the get go....

But it's not my problem and has nothing to do with me or where I came from or how I operate.. My goals as a young guy coming into WCK was to be a better fighter.. I was fighting at that time all the time... My only concern was to stop getting my butt kicked all the time.. And that problem got solved pretty quick.. I was happy... :D There were no MMA schools around at the time, that I know of and those I fought were tough and skilled no question about it.. Then I moved on and nowadays I mainly just enjoy the training and messing around here and there and teaching when I can..

But the best Wing Chun I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot, was at 45 East Broadway... In the end all training has limits and it's up to the individual IMO to take responsibility for their development--whatever that means to them--and they can take it as far as they want to good or bad...

sunfist

08-06-2007, 12:47 AM

But traditionalists - theoretical nonfighters - don't want to do the necessary work, sparring at 100% with good people. They beleive there is another way.

Nobody spars regularly with good people at 100%, because sparring at 100% regularly is not a habit of successful fighters. Sounds like something a traditionalist would assume those MMA people do :p

All my sparring partners (outside of my own training) are bigger stronger and have more experience in thier arts than i, bar one.

We do spar at 100%.

And you played along and got caught out :D

Phist

08-06-2007, 03:05 AM

... 100% like in this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3lwLuIh9VE

that's what I would call nearing 100%

Protective gear or no protective gear? Sparring without shin pads, full impact low kicks? That would be counter productive. Nor does Crocop try to kick peoples heads off when sparring, nor does Wanderlei Silva try to soccer kick or stomp his grounded partnerss at 100% when sparring - who would like to spar with them if that would be the case?

k gledhill

08-06-2007, 06:04 AM

GIVE UP EXCESSIVE IDEALS

Having excessive ideals with regard to fighting will cause one to be far too nervous. Wing Chun theory is flawless indeed if one can accomplish it absolutely, but a theory is only just a theory, never can a person reach such a state of perfection, human beings are all apt to make mistakes at some time or another. In normal combat situations, most opponents are of more or less equal size and strength. Everyone has two hands and two feet, strengths and weaknesses, and so on. Each is subject to the same conditions and so each has to fight hard. The most determining factor overall is the level of skill each fighter possesses.

If the possibility of your winning is 70%, there is still a 30% possibility of being attacked. If we look at World Championship boxing contests, even the winner of the match has to take many blows from his opponent in order to finalise the competition. Nowadays, however, many Wing Chun coaches make exaggerated boasts and purposely turn simple things into mysteries, misleading their students with "fairy tales". They deceive others and themselves. This is the height of shame. It would be a far better idea to prepare the student both mentally and physically before fighting, informing them of the realities of fighting, especially that it is expected that one may have to in fact take one or more blows upon one's own body in the course of the fight. Thus, when engaged in fighting, you will not be full of misgivings and be at a loss as to what to do.

WSL

Wayfaring

08-06-2007, 06:44 AM

You want to know why I won't give technical answers. Because the questions you guys ask aren't meaningful. I can tell from the questions you are not doing the work. If you were doing the work, the questions would be very different. You don't get good answers asking the wrong questions. And if you are not doing the work (sparring with good people), the right questions won't come up.

Why would anyone who spars with good fighters be wanting technical advice from you as opposed to the good fighters they train with? Being as you're not a good fighter, right?

YungChun

08-06-2007, 06:48 AM

Matrix

08-06-2007, 07:08 AM

It's not a matter of carrot-stick. It is a matter of seeing things as they really are.Terrence,
It must be an awesome responsiblity to be the keeper of this view of reality. I hope you use your powers for good and not for evil. ;)

I'm sorry if some people don't like my bluntness. But if it upsets them then I think they are taking themselves too seriously. This is just discussion.You're right it is just a discussion. Hopefully some useful ideas will be shared, but I think we're losing participants at a rapid rate.
Bluntness seem to be your nature, and as you said in another post you enjoy the combative nature of your training. This is reflected in your posts. I think you're more interested in arguing than in discussing.

Do you think everyone who boxes or does BJJ or does MMAs or wrestles or does another functional martial art is a great fighter? .No, I'm talking about you. The way you talk about your training leads me to believe that you are a serious student of the art, and train at a high level.

There is a HUGE difference between having good, solid skills and being great. There is a HUGE difference between being really good and being great.Ok, so you must be Very Good. Not great, but better than good.
I look forward to seeing a display of this very good fighting skill at some point in the future. That would be very instructive, IMO.

Bill

Matrix

08-06-2007, 07:14 AM

To advocate a type of training and when someone acknowledges that and offers there input on the same point only for him to refute the context or legitimacy of how you perform said training...

May work well in the court room, but i think he may be a social retard... LOL

DREW,
I certainly agree with you post, with the exception of the "social retard" comment. I just think he likes to argue.

Bill

YungChun

08-06-2007, 07:19 AM

I just think he likes to argue.

It's like a never ending chess game with him and winning is everything...

I think he is a chess guy as well--it fits...

Queens Gambit?

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 07:24 AM

What's really lame and demonstrates the level of a neophyte is to suggest that in a street fight you should try to take or receive attacks on your 'glove', when you don't have a glove; to suggest that structure, advanced structure, unlike a boxing guard that is close to the head, is the way to go in the street; shows a complete lack of understanding of many combative arts as well as Wing Chun.. Advanced structure provides a better level of protection and offers better offensive opportunity—to intercept; that is simply not possible when using a sport tactic like covering your head with your hand—one good shot and that hand is going to be broken and useless. .

Boxing structure is one of the best ways to fight standup on the street.

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 07:27 AM

Nobody spars regularly with good people at 100%, because sparring at 100% regularly is not a habit of successful fighters. Sounds like something a traditionalist would assume those MMA people do :p

Depends on whether you are talking grappling or striking. Grappling sparring is mostly done at 100%. Striking is a mix.

Matrix

08-06-2007, 07:28 AM

Been there done that. I fully understand what's out there..and that most of it is junk.. And that goes for most TMA.. and I'll tell you, IMO that's exactly how it should be and how it was intended to be from the get go.... .
Jim,

Unfortunately, perception is reality. These types of generalizations lead to type of misunderstandings. Before I trained WC, quite frankly I thought kung fu was a joke. I went to see the school that I train at based on a friend's recommendation. Let's say the rest is obvious. :)

So, if most of what is out there is junk, then the odds are that most people will be see junk if they go to one of these places. This just prolongs the misunderstanding.

Bill

YungChun

08-06-2007, 07:40 AM

Boxing structure is one of the best ways to fight standup on the street.
Generic blanket statement.. Address the points made Dale..

So you advise...

Taking power shots on the hand? *

Catching power shots with the <bare> hand*...?

Bobbing and weaving in the street*?

* From large strong and powerful threat..

Yes it can work and will work better than most TMA because of how most TMA train..

BUT:

The structure used today in boxing began when Queensbury Rules took effect.. When bare fists were used the structure needed to be different--it was.. Extended advanced structure, vertical fists--you can believe it is a coincidence if you want to .. The change happened over night.. The gloves and hand wraps were huge changes that changed how the game worked or not..

BTW: I like boxing.... If I was a few years younger I might go and do some..and I added it into what I teach in terms of drill format.. But I realize the limits of the sport in the street.. So does Tony Blauer <SPEAR> and all the other sane professional tactical trainers out there...

You will not see LEOs being trained to cover peek-a-boo style and bob and weave... Sorry, these days it's about forward motion, shut them down, smother them and use advanced structure, open hands <fists are a no no>, elbows/knees to do that... Looks a lot MORE like bare fisted boxing<structure> and old style MT or southern style kung fu than any kind of modern boxing...

YungChun

08-06-2007, 07:50 AM

Jim,

Unfortunately, perception is reality. These types of generalizations lead to type of misunderstandings. Before I trained WC, quite frankly I thought kung fu was a joke. I went to see the school that I train at based on a friend's recommendation. Let's say the rest is obvious. :)

So, if most of what is out there is junk, then the odds are that most people will be see junk if they go to one of these places. This just prolongs the misunderstanding.

Not to sound flippant Bill, but so what? Who cares what 90% of TMA do?

BTW: Check your PMs..

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 07:54 AM

Catching power shots with the <bare> hand*...?

Absolutely. I'll let anybody punch my open hand full force as I catch it. Been doing this for years.

Bobbing and weaving in the street*?

Bobbing and weaving definitely has its place... usually, if your oppoent in landing bombs. Makes it much harder for him to find his target. Lots of examples of this in MMA.

Yes it can work and will work better than most TMA because of how most TMA train..

Has nothing to do with the training and everything to do with the structure.

The structure used today in boxing began when Queensbury Rules took effect.. When bare fists were used the structure needed to be different--it was.. Extended advanced structure, vertical fists--you can believe it is a coincidence if you want to .. The change happened over night.. The gloves and hand wraps were huge changes that changed how the game worked or not..

I've done quite a few non-gloved fights and witnessed many more. Doesn't change the structure... watch Kimbo's fights for a good example of this.

The old fashioned structure was done because they were not as advanced as today's fighters.

You will not see LEOs being trained to cover peek-a-boo style and bob and weave... Sorry, these days it's about forward motion, shut them down, smother them and use advanced structure and open hands/elbows to do that... Looks a lot MORE like bare fisted boxing and old style MT or southern style kung fu than any kind of modern boxing...

Law enforcement is about subduing and controlling a suspect, not about taking him out with punches and kicks. Law enforcement personnel have to control and subdue... as a result they must grapple. If the goal of law enforcement was to dish out as much punishment and possible, the training would be different... more along the lines of boxing/Muay Thai.

BTW, guess what the LA County Sheriff, LAPD, and Orange County Sheriff adademy's teach for the striking portion of their training for when the officers are forced to duke it out... yep, boxing with boxing gloves.

Oh yeah, and guess what happens during the training when they take punishement because the "suspect" is better at striking and starts to overwhelm them... they cover up with a boxing stucture to protect their heads.

Much more effective than what the majority of TMA practitioners do when they start to take bombs, which is turn away with their hands down.

Matrix

08-06-2007, 08:02 AM

Not to sound flippant Bill, but so what? Who cares what 90% of TMA do?..Just because it may help to understand the negative comments that are leveled by critics. You say " I train WC". They think " I've seen that cr@p" (based on their limited exposure) and think that when use use terms such a "jong sau" (over-extend and rigid guard) or "chi sau" (steering wheel) they know what you're talking about, but they really don't. So everyone's "reality" , including mine, is tainted with these limited levels of understanding. We need to take this into consideration when we try to understand where someone else is coming from.

BTW: Check your PMs..I did. thanks. check you email. :)

Matrix

08-06-2007, 08:06 AM

Has nothing to do with the training and everything to do with the structure.Dale,
I must admit, I find this comment very strange coming from you. I thought we went through a debate where you claimed "structure" was a theoretical concept. :confused:

Bill

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 08:08 AM

Dale,
I must admit, I find this comment very strange coming from you. I thought we went through a debate where you claimed "structure" was a theoretical concept. :confused:

Bill

No, my point was that the theoretical guys make too big a deal about structure from a theoretical standpoint. Structure is obvious in the doing and there are different structures for different goals. Good structure is pretty much basic and comes mostly from doing, rather than theorizing.

I use the word structure because that is what everyone else here seems to use to denote the positions your body takes in fighting... what in BJJ would be called posture, and in wrestling and boxing would be called stance.

YungChun

08-06-2007, 08:09 AM

Absolutely. I'll let anybody punch my open hand full force as I catch it. Been doing this for years. And folks don't have years to train such a thing, even if it would help enter and control which it doesn't. You have to grapple/clinch.. Staying disconnected from the opponent is inefficient; especially since time to control is critical.

That's fine for you Dale.. I personally think suggesting that a small person cover and take a hook on the hand that's covering the head is absurd.. There are better and saner ways to do that found in a multitude of systems.....

Bobbing and weaving definitely has its place...

Not when you need to enter and control and avoid getting dumped and/or kneed.

Has nothing to do with the training and everything to do with the structure.

Disagree.. The structure is great for the sport as it is.. If it was worth 2 cents in the street you would see tactical trainers al over the world, who focus on control and taking out the threats, no not always just being nice and cuffing them, using this kind of sport structure--you see no one using it for that--it's about crashing and smashing,.and/or subduing..

The old fashioned structure was done because they were not as advanced as today's fighters.

Structure used to match the needs of the activity... Take the gloves away now and you would see major structure changes.. Broken hands do not win fights, horizontal fists are less stable, taking power shots on the back of the hand is nuts---do I really need to say this?

Law enforcement is about subduing and controlling a suspect, not about taking him out with punches and kicks. Law enforcement personnel have to control and subdue...

Crash and smash is the most efficient means of combat.. Tactical trainers train taking threats out as well as control...

I find it amusing that you think adding the hand wraps and large gloves would not have a huge affect on the method used and structure used.. The evidence says otherwise as does common sense IMO.

Matrix

08-06-2007, 08:12 AM

No, my point was that the theoretical guys make too big a deal about structure.Sounds like you're making a big deal about it now, when you "Has nothing to do with the training and everything to do with the structure." Interesting....

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 08:21 AM

Sounds like you're making a big deal about it now, when you "Has nothing to do with the training and everything to do with the structure." Interesting....

OK, forget about calling structure. I'm just trying to use your vocabulary to describe what I would more normally call technique.

Matrix

08-06-2007, 08:31 AM

OK, forget about calling structure. I'm just trying to use your vocabulary to describe what I would more normally call technique.
Dale,
Thank you accomodating me with the terminology. I also appreciate the selective reasoning. It's classic.

Bill

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 08:32 AM

That's fine for you Dale.. I personally think suggesting that a small person cover and take a hook on the hand that's covering the head is absurd..
There are better and saner ways to do that found in a multitude of systems.....

When you are being overwhelmed with punches and taking shots to the head, what is this better and saner suggested defense?

Not when you need to enter and control and avoid getting dumped and/or kneed.

Like the cover, bobbing and weaving is used when you are taking punishment from punches, not when you are entering to control.

Disagree.. The structure is great for the sport as it is.. If it was worth 2 cents in the street you would see tactical trainers al over the world, who focus on control and taking out the threats, no not always just being nice and cuffing them, using this kind of sport structure--you see no one using it for that--it's about crashing and smashing,.and/or subduing..

Completely different scenario... crashing and smashing is all about having, weapons, superior numbers and controlling suspects.

Take a law enforcement guy without a weapon and tell him he has to "subdue" someone who is as skilled or more skilled than he is in a one-on-one situation and the crash and subdue won't work anymore. More than likely, it will get him KTFO.

Again, I will point you to Kimbo as another good example for this. Watch his fight against Gannon. Gannon is a trained police officer. He would have loved to crash and smash Kimbo and get the fight over quickly. However, he couldn't do this in a one-on-one, non surprise situation because Kimbo is big, strong, and skilled.

Structure used to match the needs of the activity... Take the gloves away now and you would see major structure changes.. Broken hands do not win fights, horizontal fists are less stable, taking power shots on the back of the hand is nuts---do I really need to say this?

Have you watched the Kimbo fights? Those are perfect examples that you don't know what you are talking about.

Crash and smash is the most efficient means of combat.. Tactical trainers train taking threats out as well as control...

Only when you can surpise or overwhelm your opponent. Doesn't work if your opponent is ready or is as good or better than you are.

I find it amusing that you think adding the hand wraps and large gloves would not have a huge affect on the method used and structure used.. The evidence says otherwise as does common sense IMO.

Theory says that things might change... evidence (actual fighting) says otherwise.

Common sense should come from what acutally happens, rather than what theoretically should happen.

Knifefighter

08-06-2007, 08:46 AM

Dale,
Thank you accomodating me with the terminology. I also appreciate the selective reasoning. It's classic.

I'm not sure what the problem is here Bill. Let me explain my POV view of structure.

To me structure is just a buzzword to describe the basic ways your body is positioned in different postitions that allows you to perform techniques in an efficient manner.

Structure changes depending on your goals and is just part of your techniques. For example, in BJJ I have a different structure if I have side control and I want to arm bar someone vs. wanting to just control him. In standup, my structure will be different if I am grappling vs. if I am striking vs. if I am doing both. In grappling, my structure is different if I want to do an upper body Greco Roman clinch vs. a leg attack. I will have different structures for each position and different structures for different goals.

Structure was probably not the word to best describe what I was talking about. Instead of "boxing structure", I should have said "boxing approach".

t_niehoff

08-06-2007, 11:00 AM

When you are being overwhelmed with punches and taking shots to the head, what is this better and saner suggested defense?

Exactly. And yes, lots of "systems" tell you to do something different -- and that's why they don't work against good people. Anyone that gets in and goes at 100% will see that for themselves. But if you never do that, then you go around believing that those "other things" work.

Like the cover, bobbing and weaving is used when you are taking punishment from punches, not when you are entering to control.

Correct.

Have you watched the Kimbo fights? Those are perfect examples that you don't know what you are talking about.

Almost every fihgt will show he doesn't know what he is talking about. ;)

Only when you can surpise or overwhelm your opponent. Doesn't work if your opponent is ready or is as good or better than you are.

That attitide comes from working with scrubs and/or theory. The reality is as you describe.

Theory says that things might change... evidence (actual fighting) says otherwise.

Common sense should come from what acutally happens, rather than what theoretically should happen.

One reason for why people seeking to develop fighting skills need to train/spar with quality opponents at 100% is simply to come to appreciate what is involved in fighting. Because you can't really even begin to address the problems of fighting until you really know what they are. And that knowledge only comes from seeing those problems firsthand. What you get when you don't do this are people who believe they know what's going on, but they don't.

t_niehoff

08-06-2007, 11:13 AM

Yeah the question he wants to hear:

Why do all those MMA guys always loop over my chain punches and knock me out?

The question he does hear:

Since you say everything in the system sucks what part of the system do you actually use in fighting?

The funny thing is he would answer both these questions, and any others, the same way: "You don't understand what WCK is", "the theory is BS" , "you need to get KOd more often by good fighters.." and "it doesn't matter what I do, I'm not you.."

You still don't get it. First, there is no "system". That's BS. Second, when I fight standing up, I do WCK. Not parts of it. WCK. You can't ask a boxer "what parts of boxing do you use?" This is a meaningless question and shows that the person asking doesn't understand what boxing is. He just boxes. As I already told you, my WCK is a method of close range, inside, dirty boxing. I use the basic WCK method (faat): dap, jeet, chum, saat (join, close him down, break his structure, finish him). How I do that, what tools I use, depends on the resistances I get, on what the opponent does.

Your trouble is that you don't see that there is a process to developing good fighting skill, regardless of the style, and that the answers you want only come from going through that process and are individual.

YungChun

08-06-2007, 11:29 AM

Completely different scenario... crashing and smashing is all about having, weapons, superior numbers and controlling suspects.

According to you..

According to Blauer it's about intercepting and shutting them down.. It's also about dealing with surprise attacks, sucker punches, the SPEAR is the concept of entry and shutting them down... Not for when you have superior anything, for when the schit hits the fan...

Entering and jamming is higher percentage vs. doing the opposite, you attack on their prep.. And they train this stuff at full intensity... Check out his site...

Again, I will point you to Kimbo as another good example for this. Watch his fight against Gannon. Gannon is a trained police officer. He would have loved to crash and smash Kimbo and get the fight over quickly. However, he couldn't do this in a one-on-one, non surprise situation because Kimbo is big, strong, and skilled.

Don't know the fighter but I am sure he wasn't trained in SPEAR....

Ah yes, LEOs SHOULD ask suspects if they are MMAs first that way they can aviod getting their butts kicked in when they try their silly theorectical moves... :rolleyes:

It's not about what works 100%--nothing does-- it's what works more of the time...shutting them down, taking their balance and attacking is it...clinchwork...

And for covering I wouldn't advise the hand to cover, rather the elbow bent up over the side of the head--similar to MT--this is what is used for cover and again to enter, jam and attack... Disagree, then argue with Blauer..

YungChun

08-06-2007, 11:33 AM

You still don't get it. First, there is no "system". That's BS.

No there is--your POV is BS..

Second, when I fight standing up, I do WCK. Not parts of it. WCK.

Everything mentioned about the system you have implied sucks so I am just trying to find out what you use, since I assume you don't use the parts that suck...

YungChun

08-06-2007, 12:06 PM

Your trouble is that you don't see that there is a process

Process?

Wow I thought good WCK came in pill form.. Did they stop making those or something?

to developing good fighting skill, regardless of the style, and that the answers you want only come from going through that process and are individual.
Yes there is a process--it's called the system, system=process... But since you have thrown out the system and process you seem to suggest that there is no process you just get out there and do it... That's not a process or how one refines skills, you need a real progressive, totalistic process, a system of perfecting each skill subset--perfection work.:D Say it with me S Y S T E M... :D

What about your method makes it different from other arts--what about your method tactics makes you feel what you do is WCK? Did you make up your own definition of what you think WCK is?

Matrix

08-06-2007, 01:02 PM

I'm not sure what the problem is here Bill. Let me explain my POV view of structure.

To me structure is just a buzzword to describe the basic ways your body is positioned in different postitions that allows you to perform techniques in an efficient manner.

Structure changes depending on your goals and is just part of your techniques. Dale,
I certainly agree with your description on this issue - it's precise and concise. I just think we can get hung up on terminology. If there is a problem, it's that we bust each others chops over these words. We are more concenred about being "right" then finding out "the truth". Quite frankly, I just want improve my game. The problem with words is that they are abstractions, and depending on our experience we will assign different attributes to the words that we see as either negative or positive. In other words, we can use the same word and have totally different reaction to the term. Of course we need to use words to express ourselves and that's where it can get complicated. I just think we can cut each other a little slack and understand that there's some room for interpretation. If we go into a discussion expecting confrontation, it will be a self-fulfiling prophecy.

If you or Terence have some ideas I can use, I'm all for it. The Ignore List that seems to becoming trendy is a big mistake IMO. The funny thing is that when you take the time to get out and meet of the people on this forum, you will find that they are much different than their Internet persona. In genereal, you will find that you have in common than you may think, and that discussing things within a mutual respect framework will make you bother better people from that experience.

Structure was probably not the word to best describe what I was talking about. Instead of "boxing structure", I should have said "boxing approach".OK, that's fine by me. Wing chun is Chinese boxing.

I hope that we can meet some time so that I can better understand your position.

Peace,
Bill