To Be or Not To Be....

[Ultimatewingchun]

Stable. Strong in one's stance. Basically immovable when confronted with oncoming power/energy/force.

Never go backwards...always be moving forward.

And what about the power on your wing chun strikes?

Since the punches are thrown basically/usually from the elbows-in position and without the same kind of torque from the hips and shoulders that a boxer might use - they are structurally somewhat less powerful than say a boxers hook or rear cross.

How do we make up for that?

Well besides a relaxed but whip-like energy flow through the body and out to the hands/legs - it's done with an explosive driving move from the ground (legs) that jolts the middle of your body forward (and with a slight torque) - putting power into your elbow and therefore the outgoing force is directly behind the striking hand(s) as you push/throw your elbows/hands forward....like the way Rene described Alan's body motion as a: ) rather than as a lean: /

Right?

Now read once again two seemingly different points of view - the first by Phil Redmond...and the second by Robert Chu:

"Real fighting is dynamic. I'd have no reason to test to see if I could stand square on while someone pushed me in the chest. It's just like the Tai Chi Sifus who have many people push on their stance. It looks impressive to laypersons but how would you use that in the ring or in a fight against a much stronger opponent who is coming at you? It just doesn't make sense.
I'd rather be moving to avoid force and while striking. Developing dynamic/moving structure should be the goal if you're going to fight. But I guess I'll be accused of having no structure but I'm good with that because I've been very successful with the approach." (Phil)

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



"Fighting is fighting, structure is structure. In WCK we learn structure so we can have the powerbase to fight with, as it is the source of our power. Its no different from a shot put thrower using his body to generate force to launch the shotput, or being a stable base to use a rocket launcher. If someone can't stand stable, the rocket will go awry. Hope these analogies make things clearer.

I think we shouldn't cop out and think WCK sucks and has no power and that we only have to shift or do MMA, or do some other system to launch WCK tools. Otherwise, our system sucks and WCK is just BS - just a bunch of empty close quarter hand skills put on an unstable base." (Robert)


***NOW HERE'S MY TAKE on all of this: both views need to be incorporated within one's wing chun. One of the biggest benefits of chi sao training is to integrate what you learned in horse/stance/SLT...(stability)...with the ability to move in any direction (including backwards) WHEN THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT.

The trick is to not give way, half sidestep, full sidestep, etc. - WHEN ALREADY ENGAGED AGAINST HIS FORCE, ie.- there's significant limb-to-limb, or body-to-body contact already in play...unless you have to.

You must link your arms to the rest of your body such that the info gathered in your arms instantly translates into an almost subconscious decision to move - or not move...and if so...how far? and in what direction?

And Why?

(ie.- because now I have his flank and can hit/kick/grab him while momentarily he can't hit/kick/grab me). As one example. Another: it's time to explode forward and hit him with a barrage of strikes on the lines that are now open to me - and do it with lots of forward energy coming off a stable power base that ultilizes my entire body alignment attacking one given point on his body. (So that I'm not just throwing arm punches).

And of course you need the strong stance and stable powerbase to hit with power and to keep the pressure on (so it's him who's going backwards)...as well as to keep yourself rooted when up against someone who's trying to unbalance you.

But wing chun also teaches to avoid fighting force directly with force. Hence avoidance moves, energy release/redirection moves, shifty and interruptable footwork, triangle steps, various sidesteps, etc.

Chi sao greatly helps with the the development of these skills (in the hands, arms, legs, torso) - but must be supplemented by working more spontaneously from a non-contact starting point.

And then Shakespeare would be proud.

[Vajramusti]

Since the punches are thrown basically/usually from the elbows-in position and without the same kind of torque from the hips and shoulders that a boxer might use - they are structurally somewhat less powerful than say a boxers hook or rear cross. (Victor)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor..IMO FWIW:

Developing a proper stable structure internally and externally, improves the wing chun punch. The devil in the details.Of course turning, stepping etc adds to it. One can develop a whole arsenal of punches in wing chun without using a boxer's top heavy structure. Many boxers are susceptible to take downs. Structure development does not imply being robotic in motion. Emphasis on structure is often missing but the emphasis is not limited to one teacher or line.
Depends on who has learned what.

joy chaudhuri

[sanjuro_ronin]

Victor, excellent post.

To me, having been exposed to both the TMA teaching of stances and the sport combat arts "teaching" of stances I can say this:

Without the ability to put into play anythign you develop, in a dynamic and explosive way, its practically useless.

Some of the people with the strongest "roots" are wrestlers and judoka that never do a ounce of "stance training" not in the sense that they devote SPECIFIC training time to it and the "rooting" training that they do is always dynamic.

See structure is important in every sport, it just has be be trained in the same way that it will be allpied, be it WC, or Judo, or powerlifting or shot put.

[Ernie]

tends to come down to peoples characters ....
some guys are Gorillas ,, go head to head nose to nose power junkies ,,tough guys that will never give and inch would rather bump chest and brawl ,,, this type of ''personality will be drawn to what ever training methods lets the be the beast they want to be


other guys are ballerinas ,, technicians perimeter fighters that like to pot shot and set up there attacks [ these tend to be the lighter smaller quicker guys ]
emotionally calmer more patient


perfect example was the mayweather hatton fight ..... mayweather controlled distance never let the guy '' build his pressure '' and pot shotted his a$$ to death ...Hatton rushed in tough guy styles used his face as a catchers mitt ...

[ remember it takes to knuckle heads to create '' pressure'' ] developing a pressure valve pivotal is your personal flex point and not being stubborn. ;)


now the real special is when you get the Gorilla in a tutu :eek:..... dude with excellent footwork distance control angles and can still go in and get ballistic when he chooses [ sets up the right time to apply force ]

mayweather has such skills ,,,, and most ''smart'' non emotional ego fighters do as well =0)

to each there own back to lurk mode :p

[Phil Redmond]

tends to come down to peoples characters ....
some guys are guerrillas ,, go head to head nose to nose power junkies ,,tough guys that will never give and inch would rather bump chest and brawl ,,, this type of ''personality will be drawn to what ever training methods lets the be the beast they want to be


other guys are ballerinas ,, technicians perimeter fighters that like to pot shot and set up there attacks [ these tend to be the lighter smaller quicker guys ]
emotionally calmer more patient


perfect example was the mayweather hatton fight ..... mayweather controlled distance never let the guy '' build his pressure '' and pot shotted his a$$ to death ...Hatton rushed in tough guy styles used his face as a catchers mitt ...

[ remember it takes to knuckle heads to create '' pressure'' ] developing a pressure valve pivotal is your personal flex point and not being stubborn. ;)


now the real special is when you get the guerrilla in a tutu :eek:..... dude with excellent footwork distance control angles and can still go in and get ballistic when he chooses [ sets up the right time to apply force ]

mayweather has such skills ,,,, and most ''smart'' non emotional ego fighters do as well =0)

to each there own back to lurk mode :p
Hey Ernie, I'm thinking you meant the Primate (Gorilla), and not a band if irregular soldiers (Guerrilla)..;)

Hitting heavy bags, striking pads, focus mitts, "Iron Palm" training etc., is neccessary to develop bones and ligaments, for full power striking. Using the torque in the leg and hip in a WC punch instead of just the shoulder/arm is important. A windup haymaker type punch is definately stronger but it's slower. People have to find a happy medium that works efficiently. You can still use a boxers power generation using WC punches.

[aaron baum]

perfect explanation ernie...another example IMO is Anderson Silva...calm, relaxed, non-attached, amazing timing and an animal when he thinks he can finish it....

like most things the middle way...which is the answer to many questions etc...train the skill and train the body to be conditioned, train the form and train the tearup, train the mind and train the body...i just want it all man!

best

aaron

[couch]

Here's my two cents:
I don't feel like there is NO torque power such as that found in boxing. I look at the shift and the way I walk around a dummy arm as a finger pointing to where my torque power is coming from while I tap into Elbow Down-Hip-Foot linking power.

Typed, visual example: If my opponent throws a left hook, MY response would be to eat up the space and walk in with my RIGHT foot first and with the foot facing 45 degrees to the right (setting up for a left-side stance) followed by my LEFT foot trailing behind.

My LEFT foot comes up at about the same time as I shift to the right with my hips creating torque and shoot out my right Tan and left Punch. I can generate a lot of torque this way - even so that I want to raise the LEFT heel off of the ground and sometimes I do.

I don't think the Wing Chun is TOO far of the boxing or vice versa. Even look at the stance. Us WC'ers train the stance with a walk/foot drag and practice getting a set and pre-programmed distance between the feet - boxing uses that giant rubber band to get the same effect.

I see more in common than not.


Comments...

[chusauli]

And what about the power on your wing chun strikes?

Since the punches are thrown basically/usually from the elbows-in position and without the same kind of torque from the hips and shoulders that a boxer might use - they are structurally somewhat less powerful than say a boxers hook or rear cross.

How do we make up for that?

Well besides a relaxed but whip-like energy flow through the body and out to the hands/legs - it's done with an explosive driving move from the ground (legs) that jolts the middle of your body forward (and with a slight torque) - putting power into your elbow and therefore the outgoing force is directly behind the striking hand(s) as you push/throw your elbows/hands forward....like the way Rene described Alan's body motion as a: ) rather than as a lean: /

Right?

Now read once again two seemingly different points of view - the first by Phil Redmond...and the second by Robert Chu:



Hi Victor,

I agree they're seemingly different points of view, but they're both different sides of the same coin. When you have the stable power base, it both absorbs and grounds incoming force and is an excellent medium to launch powerful strikes. You're doing multiple series of ))))))))))))))))))))) to both neutralize and smash the opponent. That whip you alluded to is correct - I am wipping with my whole body and hammering my nail (insert hand tool). And of course the torque from Chum Kiu and other shifts will be used when appropriate, again with the ))))) (what I call the "arc" body). I use the sidesteps, triangle steps, angle steps, "V" steps when necessary, and all to keep the opponent off balance, with that forward pressure generated from that arc.

WCK hand tools can be used on different bases like Phil mentioned in a boxing base, or even MT base, but the best effect is with the WCK arc base.

We should all strive to preserve the past and classical, and apply it NOW against modern systems, so we can work at refining the art and really understanding the ancestors' work.

Best regards,

[Knifefighter]

Many boxers are susceptible to take downs.

Having worked with a variety of WC people and boxers over the years, my experience has been that the WC people are generally much easier to take down.

[Ultimatewingchun]

A variety of wing chun people, huh?! :rolleyes:

Here we go. Dale is back.:cool:

[Knifefighter]

A variety of wing chun people, huh?! :rolleyes:

Here we go. Dale is back.:cool:

Ya- holiday break.

At least with me back, you guys won't fight among yourselves so much.

[Ultimatewingchun]

But I'm going to segway off the exchange bewteen Dale and Joy - and into a subject I wanted to cover on this thread sooner-or-later:

1) The elbows down and in toward the center of the body...

2) The sensitivity developed in the arms/hands/torso through chi sao practice...

3) The use of the Centerline principle

4) The wing chun preference for close quarter striking that utilizes very short, quick strikes (compared to a big, booming boxer's rear cross, or an overhand, or a longer reaching straight lead thrown horizontally with the elbows not down and in toward the center of the body)...

5) The wing chun use of various blocks, parries, and redirecting moves designed to engage blows coming in...

ALL CAN POTENTIALLY MAKE A WING CHUN TRAINED FIGHTER HARDER TO TAKE DOWN THAN THE TYPICAL BOXER/KICKBOXER TYPE...

as long as the wing chun fighter understands the limits of where his striking art should end and where standing wrestling/grappling begins.

Pummel to the inside and then throw an elbow strike, anyone?

Or pummel to the inside and then throw a knee strike?

The elbows-in position used in wing chun is tailor-made for a marriage between striking and wrestling/grappling.

AS IS THE VERY STABLE BASE DEVELOPED THROUGH STANCE/HORSE/SLT/CHI SAO TRAINING....

Both being a key factor in this. Along with the shifting (chum kiu), recovery (bil jee), and various footwork used in close quarter wing chun fighting. And don't forget low line heel kicks and knee strikes to his legs.

AND A MARKED TALENT FOR SPRAWLING WHEN NECESSARY. :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

3) The wing chun preference for close quarter striking that utilizes very short, quick strikes (compared to a big, booming boxer's rear cross, or an overhand, or a longer reaching straight lead thrown horizontally with the elbows not down and in toward the center of the body...
Some boxers (infighters) fight that way, I know I do.


ALL CAN POTENTIALLY MAKE A WING CHUN TRAINED FIGHTER HARDER TO TAKE DOWN THAN THE TYPICAL BOXER/KICKBOXER TYPE...
If you are close enough to clinch, you are going down.

[Knifefighter]

ALL CAN POTENTIALLY MAKE A WING CHUN TRAINED FIGHTER HARDER TO TAKE DOWN THAN THE TYPICAL BOXER/KICKBOXER TYPE....

On the other hand, the WC tendency to not give ground is what makes him easier to take down than the boxer, who is more likely to be able to move backwards and is able hit effectively while doing so.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Without the marriage...yeah...you're probably going down.

With it...you can become one tough customer.

[Knifefighter]

Without the marriage...yeah...you're probably going down.

With it...you can become one tough customer.

Enter a wrestling or sub grappling tourney and see how well it works out for you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Karl Tanswell has a DVD for those of us that like to "keep it standing" called, Keep it standing.
You should look into it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Dale:

Can I punch? Elbow strike? Low kick? Palm strike? Throw knees?

No, you say?

At this point I only allocate my training time to mixing it altogether. Otherwise, it doesn't interest me.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Paul:

As for trying to keep it standing, I agree...that's preferable.

But I believe being prepared to fight on the ground (with all your weapons) must also be in the training mix - as anything can happen.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Paul:

As for trying to keep it standing, I agree...that's preferable.

But I believe being prepared to fight on the ground (with all your weapons) must also be in the training mix - as anything can happen.

Oh I agree, just that karl does some WC like stuff there that you may like.

[Knifefighter]

Can I punch? Elbow strike? Low kick? Palm strike? Throw knees?

No, you say?

At this point I only allocate my training time to mixing it altogether. Otherwise, it doesn't interest me.

If you can stop takedowns WITHOUT being able to do these things, you know you've got the goods. The best way to test your takedown defense is to compete against people who specialize in doing takedowns.

Otherwise, you're just speculating.

[Sihing73]

On the other hand, the WC tendency to not give ground is what makes him easier to take down than the boxer, who is more likely to be able to move backwards and is able hit effectively while doing so.

Hi Dale,

WC people, some at least, learn to evade by side stepping or shifting\turning. For example in Leung Tings system one is taught to move the target sometimes by making a full 90' turn. This is not always preferable, but I don't think its fair to say WC people do not give ground. One may indeed "give ground" depending on the energy\force being applied. Rather than try to meet or overcome force one may indeed reposition in order to deflect. Sometimes this will be with a turn, sometimes with a side step and, dare I say it, sometimes by stepping backwards. But all will be in relation and response to what the opponent gives. I think the idea of not stepping back is when doing so just for its own merit and not in response to the opponensts force. But, hey maybe I'm wrong, been know to happen before :D

If one learns to deal with the force applied then one can certainly adapt and perhaps prevent a tackdown. Of course nobody nor any one technique is perfect and on any given day even the best can fall.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Anyone that has ever faced someone in full contact that outweights them by 100lbs ( or even less really) realizes that step back is a viable option, its how you "retreat" that makes the difference and boxers retreat very well, some can even KO you while doing it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"If you can stop takedowns WITHOUT being able to do these things, you know you've got the goods. The best way to test your takedown defense is to compete against people who specialize in doing takedowns.

Otherwise, you're just speculating." (Dale)


***WHICH is why I invite wrestlers and other grappler types to take part in my classes whenever the opportunity arises.

(The school I teach at is not just me - there's also other classes being offered in a number of things: karate, jiu jitsu, capoeria, etc.) Lots of different people pass through here.

And when that happens - I usually suggest two ways of going about things. Firstly, I'm going to strike when the opportunity arises (assuming they're amenable to it)...to see whether my overall game is working or not.

Then later, I might stop striking entirely and just try to test my wrestling anti-take downs all by themselves. Depends on who I'm working with.

The same with once it goes to the ground. Sometimes pure wrestling/grappling...sometimes we'll include light striking.

[Knifefighter]

WC people, some at least, learn to evade by side stepping or shifting\turning. For example in Leung Tings system one is taught to move the target sometimes by making a full 90' turn.

Which is one of the other things that gives up the takedown. Turning like that perfectly sets up a single leg attack.

Boxers tend to have different methods of evasion that make the takedowns somewhat more problematic.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Is there a website for Karl Tanswell?

[Sihing73]

If you can stop takedowns WITHOUT being able to do these things, you know you've got the goods. The best way to test your takedown defense is to compete against people who specialize in doing takedowns.

Otherwise, you're just speculating.

Hi Dale,

Why fight someone elses fight if my approach works? So, are you saying that if one is able to stop being taken to the ground because one uses strked, elbows etc they are doing something wrong? Does the end not justify the means? If it works why change it?

My Sifu once attended a BJJ seminar and one of the guys tried to take him down and he hit him in the side of the head with an Elbow. The guy stated that it would not work in reality because he was not knocked out. My Sifu told him he had not hit him with full force because they were training. The guy insisted in doing it again and got knocked out. Now this does not mean that the method being used to try and take my Sifu down was flawed, just that it was not the proper tool for that time and place. FWIW, my Sifu holds a great deal of respect for BJJ in certain isntances and has integrated it into his WC. However, he was able to employ a WC technique against a skilled grappler without ending up on the ground. But then again, as I said before all of us can fall so knowledge is never wasted. As long as one does not become fixated on a specific approach.

[Sihing73]

Which is one of the other things that gives up the takedown. Turning like that perfectly sets up a single leg attack.

Boxers tend to have different methods of evasion that make the takedowns somewhat more problematic.

Perhaps, but to think that this is always the case is an indication of fantasy. If one removes the target while keeping balance and the ability to attack via elbows or whatever then the one going for that single leg takedown may have a nasty surprise. Of course it could go both ways, but thinking it will only go one way is shortsighted, imho. ;)

Perhaps you would care to share the differing methods which make boxers more difficult to take down.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.karltanswell.co.uk/index.php

[Knifefighter]

Why fight someone elses fight if my approach works? So, are you saying that if one is able to stop being taken to the ground because one uses strked, elbows etc they are doing something wrong?

If you can stop takedowns against skilled wrestlers without strikes, you know you've got something.

As far as mixing strikes in, if you are not regularly doing this YOURSELF against people skilled in takedowns, you really have no idea if it really works for you or not.



My Sifu once attended a BJJ seminar and one of the guys tried to take him down and he hit him in the side of the head with an Elbow. The guy stated that it would not work in reality because he was not knocked out. My Sifu told him he had not hit him with full force because they were training. The guy insisted in doing it again and got knocked out. .

The fact that your sifu told you this holds no weight and not just because sifus are notorious for making stuff like that up. The main reason it holds no weight is because he did it, not you. Unless you have done the same, you really don't have much of an idea on whether you could do it also.

[Knifefighter]

Perhaps, but to think that this is always the case is an indication of fantasy.

I'm not saying it is always the case, just most of the time. This is based on my 30 years as a grappler having mixed it up in a wide variety of environments. After 30 years, I think I have a pretty good idea of the things that are involved in setting up a single leg attack.


If one removes the target while keeping balance and the ability to attack via elbows or whatever then the one going for that single leg takedown may have a nasty surprise. Of course it could go both ways, but thinking it will only go one way is shortsighted, imho. ;)

It's not removing the target, it is giving it.

As far as fantasy, that would be thinking you could ever, ever, ever, stop a takedown with elbows.


Perhaps you would care to share the differing methods which make boxers more difficult to take down.

Sure... boxers tend to be able to be better able to move backwards with a corresponding lateral movement and deliver powerful strikes at the same time. A takedown generally requires the opponent to be either stationary or moving forward.

[Sihing73]

If you can stop takedowns against skilled wrestlers without strikes, you know you've got something.

The fact that your sifu told you this holds no weight and not just because sifus are notorious for making stuff like that up. The main reason it holds no weight is because he did it, not you. Unless you have done the same, you really don't have much of an idea on whether you could do it also.

Dale,

Don't go getting desperate to make your point sound better. I offered this as an illustration that tyring to take someone to the ground is not always the best option and is not a no fail method. This was in response to your advocating that being able to stop takedowns without strikes is the only way to be effective. My point, which still stands, is that if one can stop a takedown with a strike why change it? To please someone else.

It does not matter whether you believe the incident or not. As to my stopping being taken to the ground all I can say is, as I have told many that have met me or I have taught, I CHEAT I have been known to do nasty things and even use weapons in order to survive a real life fight. So tell me if someone is rushing in to take me down and they accidently run into a blade is this somehow less effective because it does not fit into your view of what does and does not work? Or is or is not fair?

[Sihing73]

I'm not saying it is always the case, just most of the time. This is based on my 30 years as a grappler having mixed it up in a wide variety of environments. After 30 years, I think I have a pretty good idea of the things that are involved in setting up a single leg attack.


Sure... boxers tend to be able to be better able to move backwards with a corresponding lateral movement and deliver powerful strikes at the same time. A takedown generally requires the opponent to be either stationary or moving forward.

Okay, so you have 30 years as a grappler in which you have sought out and trained for grappling, seems pretty obvious that you would tend to believe grappling is the way to go. I have no problem with this per se, my problem is when you try to interject your view as the only valid viewpoint based on your experience This is no more fair then me trying to impose my views on everyone else based on my experience. It just may not be applicable to what others have faced or dealt with. This does not make their experience less valuable or realistic than my own.

So if a takedown usually requires the opponenet to be stationary why would turning and shifting be so bad? I mean unless one was rooted to the floor with no ability to move. In WT the weight is kept on the rear leg so the front left is empty and very mobile.

I will say that one of the things which attracted me to Pekiti Tirsia was the footwork. I did not like the Latosa method, not a put down-just not for me. However, for me, blending the PT footwork with WC was a marriage made in heaven. If you are familiar with PT then you may understand what I mean.

[Knifefighter]

This was in response to your advocating that being able to stop takedowns without strikes is the only way to be effective.
My point, which still stands, is that if one can stop a takedown with a strike why change it? To please someone else.

Go back and read my post. I said the best way to TEST your takedown defense is to compete without strikes against those who are experts at takedowns. This will help you to make your takedown defense the best it can be.

Add strikes onto that, and it becomes even better.

The problem with not testing in the first place, is adding the strikes onto a method that doesn't work in the first place, so it all falls apart.



As to my stopping being taken to the ground all I can say is, as I have told many that have met me or I have taught, I CHEAT I have been known to do nasty things and even use weapons in order to survive a real life fight. So tell me if someone is rushing in to take me down and they accidently run into a blade is this somehow less effective because it does not fit into your view of what does and does not work? Or is or is not fair?

We were talking about takedown defense. If you are talking about a life or death streetfight, things become different. In that case, weapons become the first consideration in my mind. Everything I do on the street is based around that.

[Knifefighter]

Okay, so you have 30 years as a grappler in which you have sought out and trained for grappling, seems pretty obvious that you would tend to believe grappling is the way to go. I have no problem with this per se, my problem is when you try to interject your view as the only valid viewpoint based on your experience This is no more fair then me trying to impose my views on everyone else based on my experience. It just may not be applicable to what others have faced or dealt with. This does not make their experience less valuable or realistic than my own.

I never said grappling was THE way to go. I've always been almost as much a striker as a grappler. I believe both have their place. My point was specifically on why WC practitioners were generally easier to take down that boxers. Being a grappler, with both a competitive WC and boxing background, I've have a chance to mix it up a bit in all kinds of environments.

What kind of boxing and grappling background do you have to be able to relate your experiences?


I will say that one of the things which attracted me to Pekiti Tirsia was the footwork. I did not like the Latosa method, not a put down-just not for me. However, for me, blending the PT footwork with WC was a marriage made in heaven. If you are familiar with PT then you may understand what I mean.

How many full contact stick fights have you done to be able to test this out? Or is this also speculation?

[Sihing73]

Go back and read my post. I said the best way to TEST your takedown defense is to compete without strikes against those who are experts at takedowns. This will help you to make your takedown defense the best it can be.

Add strikes onto that, and it becomes even better.

The problem with not testing in the first place, is adding the strikes onto a method that doesn't work in the first place, so it all falls apart.

We were talking about takedown defense. If you are talking about a life of death streetfight, things become different. In that case, weapons become the first consideration in my mind. Everything I do on the street is based around that.

Hi Dale,

I can accept your point and agree that being able to stop takedowns without using strikes is a higher level of skill. Of course one should strive to be as capable as possible. However, one should also concentrate on what is most likely to work in a real situation, hence the use of strikes to prevent a takedown. If I have a limited amount of time to train then I opt to use the method I am most likely to be able to employ which will work and make that the best I can.

Dale, your second part has me a bit confused; I thought that one of the things you were always ragging on WC about was its alleged ineffectiveness. Now you are saying that your training and your actual real life application would differ. Apparently due to the possible ineffectiveness or inapplicability of the very training method you espouse. What is confusing to me about this is that this sounds exactly like what you accuse so many WC people of doing: not training realistically I mean if you fight different than you train, what makes your approach any better or more valid than anyone doing WC, or any other art for that matter.

[Knifefighter]

Dale, your second part has me a bit confused; I thought that one of the things you were always ragging on WC about was its alleged ineffectiveness. Now you are saying that your training and your actual real life application would differ. Apparently due to the possible ineffectiveness or inapplicability of the very training method you espouse. What is confusing to me about this is that this sounds exactly like what you accuse so many WC people of doing: not training realistically I mean if you fight different than you train, what makes your approach any better or more valid than anyone doing WC, or any other art for that matter.

I train for a variety of different things. I train for sport BJJ, wrestling and sub-grappling. Each of these require slightly different approaches. I also train full contact stick fighting and for MMA, both of which requires a slightly different approach. I also train for street stuff, which is a still different approach and includes training for the use of and against edged weapons, projectiles and firearms.

All of these require a slightly different training method and mentality, although there are many overlaps between them. One of the commonalities of each is making the training as specific to each as possible.

As far as real world applicability, there are parts of everything that I train that are used in that. Would I shoot in for a takedown if there was the slightest chance of the involvement of a weapon? Not unless I had absolutely no other options. Would I use my grappling skills if weapons were involved? Absolutely.

[Sihing73]

I never said grappling was THE way to go. I've always been almost as much a striker as a grappler. I believe both have their place. My point was specifically on why WC practitioners were generally easier to take down that boxers. Being a grappler, with both a competitive WC and boxing background, I've have a chance to mix it up a bit in all kinds of environments.

What kind of boxing and grappling background do you have to be able to relate your experiences?

How many full contact stick fights have you done to be able to test this out? Or is this also speculation?

Dale,

Who did you do "competitive WC" with and how far in the system did you get?

My boxing background is very limited, I did some in the Army and it was the method of choice when I went through the PA State Police Academy. An interesting note is that at the end of this academy we had to do a 3 minute no break full out anything goes grudge match. This was to give us an idea of the reality of fighting all out for an extended period of time.

As to my grappling background I used to hold a Black Belt in Kodakan Judo. My instructor was a guy named Lou Moyerman. But hey this was a lot of years ago so I guess it does not count. Although, I did use to compete, and did okay but nothing special.

As to full contact stick fighting, only in training so I guess that don't count either. Although, I have had a few encounters on the street with real knives in which I have been both cut and stabbed and done the same to some others. But again, who cares, does it make me any more credable, not really. Oh, I have been shot and shot others in the line of duty so can I say I am an expert in guns as well :rolleyes:

Your experience is yours and that is fine. Mine is mine and I would be willing to bet that I have had closer encounters with death so perhaps my perspective is a bit different. I have locked people up, not all of them were willing to go to jail, sometimes things got physical. Does this somehow invalidate your experience and lend credence to mine? Not necessarily, but I know I was applying my skills for real against resisting opponents, not playing around in the park or gym with others with no real intent to do me harm.

So tell me Dale, how many people have your cut\stabbed, how many have you shot and how many were actually trying to send you to the hospital or worse? Oh, and how many did you face alone, without your buddies standing by?

The sad fact is that it really does not matter in the long run. Who really cares about my experience, or for that matter yours? In the end it does not make my views any more relevant.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Great thread, so far...huh? :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

Well, Dale...Dave...

Thanks for sharing all of that. That was awesome! Can't wait to hear from the two of you again.

But in the meantime...perhaps the two of you should go to the movies together. Let me recommend "No Country For Old Men".

[Knifefighter]

Oh, sorry Vic... I forgot how upset you get when "your" thread doesn't stick to the script you had planned out for it.:rolleyes:

[Vajramusti]

But I'm going to segway off the exchange bewteen Dale and Joy - and into a subject I wanted to cover on this thread sooner-or-later
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((What? Incorrect. I don't and didn't waste time or exchange with "Dale". I tend to leave non informative monologues alone))

joy chaudhuri

[Knifefighter]

But I'm going to segway off the exchange bewteen Dale and Joy - and into a subject I wanted to cover on this thread sooner-or-later
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((What? Incorrect. I don't and didn't waste time or exchange with "Dale". I tend to leave non informative monologues alone))

As do I tend to leave the theoretical, "above it all", pontificating, self-righteous WC grandmothers alone... can't resist occasionally, though.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ha! Ha! Ha! :rolleyes: :cool:

I like improv...

It's the boring reruns of "HOW I EARNED MY CHOPS AND THE REST OF YOU SUCK" that's getting a little tired. :D

(Kinda like watching a Gracie pull guard and then lay there for an hour and a half). :eek:


I'd rather do SLT a couple of hundred times - and then go back and see whether Royce got the armbar or not.

[Ultimatewingchun]

This is an important subject - and especially so once we get completely past the "sport" mindset, including mma events. Because in real life you're probably going to very close quarters rather quickly in an altercation...

so being able to fight from a strong base while still having some shiftiness and some carefully chosen "small step" maneuverability is key - as is wrestling/grappling skills in the clinch. Including locks, sweeps, throws, and takedowns of your own.

Close quarters is the name of the game in real fighting - another reason to do wing chun.

[Wayfaring]

(Kinda like watching a Gracie pull guard and then lay there for an hour and a half). :eek:

If I wanted to watch anyone pull guard, it would probably be Ryan Hall...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMRz8ir4DQ0

[Vajramusti]

Being aware of one's structure is important in close quarters too...allows one to make small quick and powerful moves even at zero inch.

BTW-regarding the earlier reference on this thread to the great Mayweather/Hatton fight...Mayweather showed that
many folks underestimated his inside fighting skills. He wasnt just sticking and moving.He did an effective job in preventing Hatton who was no slouch
from landing up close and his key short left hook in the first knock down was a beut. He kept his balance through the clinches.He was also using a boxing version of lan sao up close-barring Hatton from hitting.

Good wing chun has both structure and mobility IMO.

joy chaudhuri

[Ultimatewingchun]

From post#7, page 1, of this thread:

"If my opponent throws a left hook, MY response would be to eat up the space and walk in with my RIGHT foot first and with the foot facing 45 degrees to the right (setting up for a left-side stance) followed by my LEFT foot trailing behind.

My LEFT foot comes up at about the same time as I shift to the right with my hips creating torque and shoot out my right Tan and left Punch. I can generate a lot of torque this way - even so that I want to raise the LEFT heel off of the ground and sometimes I do.

I don't think the Wing Chun is TOO far of the boxing or vice versa. Even look at the stance. Us WC'ers train the stance with a walk/foot drag and practice getting a set and pre-programmed distance between the feet - boxing uses that giant rubber band to get the same effect.

I see more in common than not.

Comments? (Couch)


***VERY SIMILAR to how I deal with this from a TWC perspective - but with a few important changes. Firstly, I always use a variation of bil sao/lop sao against hooks (as I have found that tan can be hooked around or collapsed much easier)...

since the extension of the bil/lop is longer and the elbow is not directly behind the hand as it is with tan - one of those times when it's preferable not to have the elbow so close to your center...

since the extra few inches that your elbow now occupies away from your body provides more protection against the arch of the hook going around your block.

In addition, the bil/lop (mainly lop) structure is such that your hand is directly facing the point of contact (not so with tan) - and therefore can be much more proactive and aggressive (I always teach my students that this move, along with others like garn sao, pak sao, tan sao, etc. should be attacking the limb coming at you...

as if you're trying to hurt that limb - not simply trying to block, parry, or redirect it).

Secondly, there is torque on the punch coming out with the bil/lop - but I don't raise the rear heel as I throw it because this will disturb the stable structure/base I want to have on contact (ie.- his hook punch could conceivably be very powerful)...

and I never drag a foot. Step with the foot - for more speed and powerful forward force.

And thirdly, I often throw my return punch at the shoulder joint of his punching arm but at the inside part, thereby minimizing any possible sliding of my punch off his shoulder - and the punch is thrown with a slight (barely detectable) uppercut structure - while blocking his punch directly at the inside cruck of his elbow joint with the bil/lop (and with my centerline almost directly facing the bil/lop block).

The effect of this can really discourage him from throwing any more hooks - because his punching arm/shoulder will take quite a beating if you do this right.

[anerlich]

I don't think the Wing Chun is TOO far of the boxing or vice versa. Even look at the stance. Us WC'ers train the stance with a walk/foot drag and practice getting a set and pre-programmed distance between the feet - boxing uses that giant rubber band to get the same effect.


I'm the same as Victor. No foot drag. The engine is the back foot rather than the front when we step forward to hit. TWC footwork is IMO very similar to Jack Dempsey's boxing footwork.

[Phil Redmond]

I'm the same as Victor. No foot drag. The engine is the back foot rather than the front when we step forward to hit. TWC footwork is IMO very similar to Jack Dempsey's boxing footwork.
Though some do it and have their reasons I see dragging the feet analogous to driving a car with the emergency brake on. I've never seen a pro fighter drag his feet. In boxing you are taught to "place" your feet. But then some may say that boxing isn't WC. I say box a boxer while dragging your feet and see what happens. ;)

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . . Good wing chun has both structure and mobility IMO.
joy chaudhuri
And mine too.