simple,direct and efficient

[Steeeve]

This three words are the goal of WC

Whats ur definition of that?????

Simple..... No Need to think.....
Direct ... No need to ...........used
Efficient Who work in any situation

These 3 key words seem to work together


Steeve

[couch]

This three words are the goal of WC

Whats ur definition of that?????

Simple..... No Need to think.....
Direct ... No need to ...........used
Efficient Who work in any situation

These 3 key words seem to work together


Steeve

I'll bite.

Simple: A collection of techniques that are commonly related. Examples: the "chaining" or "circular" path that they make, that almost all techniques flow out from the "heart" level, etc.

Direct: Fast. The ability for the self-defense system to not have any extra motions or movements. No flowery hands.

Efficient: It works. Depending on the day that I'm having, my skill level and my opponents skill level, it is generally a good system that is put together and works.

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

[Steeeve]

Kenton

Everyone have their own definition of this 3 words .....thank to give urs

Seem like the others dont know or dont want to participate....or :confused:

Steeve

[Dan_chi_sau]

the others are just wondering whether steeeve or steeve or steve can spell his own name consistantly.

[anerlich]

Simple: a small number of techniques/strategies which are easily understood and performed.

Direct: strikes follow shortest, most direct path to the target

Efficient: maximum results for minimum effort. More bang for your buck.


Seem like the others dont know or dont want to participate....or


or ... perhaps not everyone finds your thoughts, questions and insights as captivating as you do.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Simple.....

Just what it suggests. No difficult jumping around and doing things that make no sense. Just a hand full of techniques that can devestate an enemy.


Direct ...

Again, nothing difficult to perform. Just technique that is direct and to the point.


Efficient

Both simple and direct equal this. Efficiency. No wasted energy, movement, or dangerous moves that can get your ass kicked. No drugstore heroics. Just simple, direct and efficient.

[tjwingchun]

This three words are the goal of WC

Whats ur definition of that?????

Steeve

Simple.....LESSON ONE--------PUNCH THEM IN THE NOSE
Direct .... LESSON ONE--------PUNCH THEM IN THE NOSE
Efficient...LESSON ONE--------PUNCH THEM IN THE NOSE

Only when an opponent has the ability to withstand lesson one use lesson two!

After 34 years in the business I still refer to lesson one in any confrontation that has become physical, any deviation depends upon personal knowledge and specific parameters that depend upon experience and assessment of the situation faced.

[JPinAZ]

simple - learn to apply the concepts and principles & stick to your identity and the rest takes care of itself.

direct - C.L and continous fwd energy.

efficient - by using the least amount of energy & economy of motion to get the job done.

But "punch them in the nose/face" sure does sum it up well for all 3!! :)

[t_niehoff]

This three words are the goal of WC

Whats ur definition of that?????

Simple..... No Need to think.....
Direct ... No need to ...........used
Efficient Who work in any situation

These 3 key words seem to work together


Steeve

Who says these "three words are the goal of WC"?

What makes WCK simpler, more direct, more efficient than boxing or muay thai or MMA?

[Matrix]

What makes WCK simpler, more direct, more efficient than boxing or muay thai or MMA?I don't believe that anyone said it was.

Bill

[Graychuan]

1. Sil
2. Lum
3. Tao


~Cg~

:D

[MapoTofu]

This three words are the goal of WC I disagree because other Styles strive to be simple, direct and efficient.

Simple -: an idea stripped down to its fundamental fact or set of facts.
Direct -: the quickest way along a path to a goal
Efficient -: Maximize the gains for your investment.

[Liddel]

Who says these "three words are the goal of WC"?

What makes WCK simpler, more direct, more efficient than boxing or muay thai or MMA?

Your the only one going in that direction T. Its the antagonistic attitude of yours playing tricks... LOL

DREW

[KPM]

Who says these "three words are the goal of WC"?

What makes WCK simpler, more direct, more efficient than boxing or muay thai or MMA?

I'm not one to emphasize the "sifu sez" approach, but Wong Shun Leung himself described WCK as being "simple, direct, and efficient." That's good enough for me! We aren't talking about boxing, muay thai or MMA here.

[t_niehoff]

Keith, who cares what Wong says?

If we look at the definition of "skill" from a motor science perspective, it is defined as a person's ability to perform a specified task with maximum certainty and with a minimum of effort and/or time. My point is that "simple, direct, efficient" just means "skillfully". And it is determined from actual results, not theory.

I brought boxing, muay thai, BJJ into this because their practitioners are doing the exact same thing: trying to solve combative problems "skillfully". Before we can even begin to talk about how skillfully a person or approach solves those problems or performs those tasks (how simple,direct, efficient), or compare persons or approaches, we need to begin with actual results. And in the actual results department, . . . .

[Matrix]

My point is that "simple, direct, efficient" just means "skillfully". I think there's more to it than that. You can do something "skillfully" without necessarily be simple, direct or efficient. These 3 'simple' words can mean different things to different people. Just look at the previous posts in this thread. We see many different interpretations. But of course that's just mental gymnastics not real figthing skill. ;)


I brought boxing, muay thai, BJJ into this because their practitioners are doing the exact same thing: ....Again, no one is saying this isn't the case. Nobody is saying this this is the exclusive domain of WCK, we just happen to use this terminology. It can be said in other ways and expressed in other arts. To think otherwise would be foolish, IMO.

Bill

[MapoTofu]

Who says these "three words are the goal of WC"?

What makes WCK simpler, more direct, more efficient than boxing or muay thai or MMA?


I disagree because other Styles strive to be simple, direct and efficient.


Your the only one going in that direction T. Its the antagonistic attitude of yours playing tricks... LOL
DREW

Liddel, They say socrates pi55ed off quite a few Athenians because his exploration of accepted facts made his fellow citizens feel foolish and eventually contributed to him being Censored by drink. I'm not comparing tniehoff to the philosopher, but I don't see what is wrong with a questioning spirit.

And for the record, I also disagree with those three words are the goal of Wing Chun. Perhaps, what he was trying to ask was lost in translation, but, we can only respond to what was posted.

Chris

[t_niehoff]

I think there's more to it than that. You can do something "skillfully" without necessarily be simple, direct or efficient. These 3 'simple' words can mean different things to different people. Just look at the previous posts in this thread. We see many different interpretations. But of course that's just mental gymnastics not real figthing skill. ;)


Mental gymnastics is right. This is why I said, it must begin with actual results -- otherwise, it is just more nonsense.

And I do think most people are looking at this not from results but from some theoretical perspective, which is nonsense.

Does anyone who fights try to over-complicate what they do, try to do it in a round-about way or use more movement or energy than necessary to do it? Of course not. I think when we talk about these things from a result perspective, we're talking about skill.



Again, no one is saying this isn't the case. Nobody is saying this this is the exclusive domain of WCK, we just happen to use this terminology. It can be said in other ways and expressed in other arts. To think otherwise would be foolish, IMO.

Bill

Yes, some in WCK use this terminology. I just don't think it particularly useful or accurate. And since most use it from a theoretical perspective rather than a result perspective, in that case it is completely meaningless.

It's like saying WCK should be powerful. Who is going to argue with that?

[Matrix]

Yes, some in WCK use this terminology. I just don't think it particularly useful or accurate. And since most use it from a theoretical perspective rather than a result perspective, in that case it is completely meaningless.

It's like saying WCK should be powerful. Who is going to argue with that?Terrence,
Exactly. That's why I think Steeeve asked the question in the first place.


Does anyone who fights try to over-complicate what they do, try to do it in a round-about way or use more movement or energy than necessary to do it? Of course not. Not deliberately, no. But they may have learned things in an over-complicated way and not realized that they are being inefficient. They have never given any thought to these concepts, they are just blindly following instructions. I'm sure you've either experienced or seen a case where people art instructed to learn a convoluted series of moves to address a self-defense scenario. It happens every day in schools around the world, and in all martial arts, so there is a point to be made here.

Bill

[YungChun]

I think there's more to it than that. You can do something "skillfully" without necessarily be simple, direct or efficient.

And that's right.. There is more to it than that. The basic core strategy of the system..



Mental gymnastics is right. This is why I said, it must begin with actual results -- otherwise, it is just more nonsense.

Yes and no.

One can be a good fighter without doing WCK.. One does not need to have good WCK to be a good fighter..

Being good at fighting does not mean/justify that you or anyone has good WCK or any WCK at all in my book.


And I do think most people are looking at this not from results but from some theoretical perspective, which is nonsense.

While there is a lot of "nonsense" out there the core strategy of the system, the continuous direct line of attack--the "high pressure stream of water" is about this kind of thinking in training and application of many of the core tactics. On the inside using WCK, what I think is WCK is very much reliant on economy and directness in order to function.. The timing and technique is based on this economy in motion, in energy, which connects to all other things within the method is what drives the core strategy of the system.


Does anyone who fights try to over-complicate what they do

No. But that doesn't mean they are using WCK tactics and methods, which by their nature of close range linear (holding the line) emphasize extreme economy in motion, energy and time... Anyone familiar with the core centerline strategy, can see the subtle, almost unnoticeable changes from one tool to another, which may require but a twist/circle of the wrist to make those changes, etc, can easily see that. One who understands the system will also see and understand how critical these economical methods are to the core objective of inside centerline occupation, utilization and control.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,
Exactly. That's why I think Steeeve asked the question in the first place.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "that's why he asked the question in the first place."

From my perspective, saying something should simple, direct, and efficient is essentially empty. It's like saying something *should* work. Passing the guard should be simple, direct, and efficient. A single leg takedown should be simple, direct, and efficient. Our whatever-it-is should be simple, direct, and efficient. These are just the characteristics (descriptors) of anyone being skillful, regardless of our style, method, etc. The descriptors don't really add anything meaningful or helpful (don't tell us how, why, when, etc.).



Not deliberately, no. But they may have learned things in an over-complicated way and not realized that they are being inefficient. They have never given any thought to these concepts, they are just blindly following instructions. I'm sure you've either experienced or seen a case where people art instructed to learn a convoluted series of moves to address a self-defense scenario. It happens every day in schools around the world, and in all martial arts, so there is a point to be made here.

Bill

I disagree. First of all, these aren't "concepts" but descriptors (adjectives). Second, you do not need to give much thought to them (anymore than you need to give thought to being skillful). Like in any sport or athletic activity, just doing it and trying to get the best results you can, using results and not "concepts" or descriptors as your guide, is how we develop skill. If you are doing it to get results, then if what you do works (results) and works at a fairly high level (results again) it/you will need to be skillful, which means it will be simple, direct, and efficient. For example, you won't pass the guard or get that single leg at a higher level being overly complicated or indirect or inefficient.

Nor will you develop good gaurd passing or a good single leg starting with some notion that you want to simplify it, make it more direct, make it more efficient. Of course you do. But knowing - or not knowing that - won't help you do it. Doing it and against good people is what will help you do it. Doing it against good people is how you become skillful. Saying it should be simple, direct, efficient won't do squat. It's empty. Meaningless.

How simple do you need to be? Enough to get the job done. How direct do you need to be? Enough to get the job done. How efficient do you need to be? Enough to get the job done. It is getting the job done that is primary. How well (skillfully) we need to do it (how simple, direct, efficient) will depend on our adversary (how skillful he is). In other words, we need to have sufficient skill to overcome our adversary.

[t_niehoff]

One can be a good fighter without doing WCK.. One does not need to have good WCK to be a good fighter..


Agreed.



Being good at fighting does not mean/justify that you or anyone has good WCK or any WCK at all in my book.


Agreed. Someone can be a good fighter without WCK. But someone can't be a poor fighter and have "good WCK." WCK is a fighting art. How well we can use our WCK in fighting determines how "good" our WCK is.



While there is a lot of "nonsense" out there the core strategy of the system, the continuous direct line of attack--the "high pressure stream of water" is about this kind of thinking in training and application of many of the core tactics. On the inside using WCK, what I think is WCK is very much reliant on economy and directness in order to function.. The timing and technique is based on this economy in motion, in energy, which connects to all other things within the method is what drives the core strategy of the system.


If someone can use the tools/techniques of WCK in fighting against good fighters, then they have "good" WCK whether it comports to how we "believe" it *should* look or work or whatever. Skill is in performance, not in theory.



No. But that doesn't mean they are using WCK tactics and methods, which by their nature of close range linear (holding the line) emphasize extreme economy in motion, energy and time... Anyone familiar with the core centerline strategy, can see the subtle, almost unnoticeable changes from one tool to another, which may require but a twist/circle of the wrist to make those changes, etc, can easily see that. One who understands the system will also see and understand how critical these economical methods are to the core objective of inside centerline occupation, utilization and control.

Let me try to be clear. Without addressing your viewon howWCK should be:

You have a certain "understanding" of WCK. For you, this is how it "should" work. Maybe this is what you were told/taught, maybe it is what you have come to believe through experience. And maybe you can make your approach work like that in fighting at a certain level. OK, fine.

But that doesn't make it "the way" or how anyone else should do it or how the "system should work." You can't speak for WCK. You can only speak for yourself and what you can do.

Because a person's understanding will be limited by and depend upon what they can do, their personal level of performance.

Others may have a different "understanding". And maybe it is just as valid or works jsut as well or even better than your own.

My view is that there is no "right way", although there are loads of wrong ways. Since our understanding will reflect our skill level, then people with little to no skill can have little to no sound understanding. None of us can say how it "should" be done. It is presumptuous to think so. All we can talk about is what works for us. And that's if you are really doing it to see if it works for you or not.

But that doesn't mean you are correct or that this is how it "should" work. All it means is this is how it works for you at your fighting level.

The test of our skill and our understanding is the same: whether and at what level we can make what we train to do (our techniques, tools, etc.) work in fighting as we train to do them. If you do it one way and I do it another and we get similar results, who can say that one is right and the other wrong? If you can do it and I can't, how can I say you're wrong but I'm right?

[YungChun]

If someone can use the tools/techniques of WCK in fighting against good fighters, then they have "good" WCK whether it comports to how we "believe" it *should* look or work or whatever. Skill is in performance, not in theory.

Agreed but there are of course infinite levels of "good".


But that doesn't make it "the way" or how anyone else should do it or how the "system should work." You can't speak for WCK. You can only speak for yourself and what you can do.

To an extent.. The tools, positions and tactics remain IMO..


Others may have a different "understanding". And maybe it is just as valid or works jsut as well or even better than your own.

Different fine, but if the performance essentially forgoes the basics of the system as seen in the tools and tactics of the system then IMO you have another animal. If they use some of the tactics but then also use totally different tactics then again it's a different animal.

The core tactic, an 'unbroken' centerline attack is a basic core tenant of the system IMO.. If you take out the centerline and take out the supporting tactics and tools then, okay, call it Ip's WCK, but I wouldn't.. :):cool:

[Matrix]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "that's why he asked the question in the first place." You said that the terms were "not particularly useful or accurate". So I'm guessing that's why the original question was asked. to get a more accurate understanding of the terms.


you do not need to give much thought to them (anymore than you need to give thought to being skillful). Like in any sport or athletic activity, just doing it and trying to get the best results you can, using results and not "concepts" or descriptors as your guide, is how we develop skill. I think that's because you already have that level of understanding. Coming at it from a beginners point of view, they don't know what they don't know. I would think that as an instructor, you would assume that the student doesn't have the same level of understanding, otherwise they wouldn't be there.


How simple do you need to be? Enough to get the job done. How direct do you need to be? Enough to get the job done. How efficient do you need to be? Enough to get the job done. It is getting the job done that is primary. How well (skillfully) we need to do it (how simple, direct, efficient) will depend on our adversary (how skillful he is). In other words, we need to have sufficient skill to overcome our adversary.So, if you add the modifier "enough" that makes things clearer? Your beginning to sound like a theoretician to me. ;) Words are just levels of abstraction, you need to experience 'simple' in order to know what it is. You need to be looking for 'simple ' in order to identify it in your experience. Most people don't even walk or move through "normal" activity much less athletic ones in an efficient way, and I'm willing to bet that they are not aware of their awkward biomechanics.

Just my 2 cents,
Bill

[t_niehoff]

Agreed but there are of course infinite levels of "good".


Yes, "good", like skill, is relative.



To an extent.. The tools, positions and tactics remain IMO..


The forms, drills, etc. show the WCK tools. I don't see how anyone can say they are "using" WCK if they are not using its tools (how coulc someone say they were boxing if they weren't using boxing's tools?). How well we can use them in fighting, our performance level with them will depend on many things.



Different fine, but if the performance essentially forgoes the basics of the system as seen in the tools and tactics of the system then IMO you have another animal. If they use some of the tactics but then also use totally different tactics then again it's a different animal.

The core tactic, an 'unbroken' centerline attack is a basic core tenant of the system IMO.. If you take out the centerline and take out the supporting tactics and tools then, okay, call it Ip's WCK, but I wouldn't.. :):cool:

No one has "Ip's WCK" except Ip. Just as no one has Mohammed Ali's boxing but Ali. Or Rickson's BJJ but Rickson. Ip's WCK is just a curriculum, a way he organized WCK to teach. It's not application. That is always individual. Just like boxing, just like BJJ, etc.

If someone is using (in fighting) the tools of WCK, as shown in the forms, drills, etc. then they are doing WCK. If they can make them work in some way beyond your experience, who are you to say they are wrong?

You seem to keep saying, "yeah, yeah, they can do it anyway they like as long as they do it the way I believe it should be done (unbroken centerline attack)." That's your theory. Maybe others use it too. That doesn't make it correct. There is no "correct."

[Matrix]

I don't see how anyone can say they are "suing" WCK if they are not using its tools (how coulc someone say they were boxing if they weren't using boxing's tools?). Terrence,
You're thinking like a lawyer. ;)

Bill

[t_niehoff]

I think that's because you already have that level of understanding. Coming at it from a beginners point of view, they don't know what they don't know. I would think that as an instructor, you would assume that the student doesn't have the same level of understanding, otherwise they wouldn't be there.


From my perspective, "understanding" isn't significant. It's not a matter of understanding, it is a matter of skill, of being able to do something to bring about a desired result. For example, sinking a basketball isn't a matter of "understanding", and you don't need to understand anything to do it or get better at it. You need to practice doing it. In WCK, a trainee doesn't need to "understand" the punch, they need to learn that skill and then practice it, develop it, which comes, like trying to sink the basketball, by doing it and letting results guide them. Not from intellectualizing. And they can't really understand it apart from what they are able to do.



So, if you add the modifier "enough" that makes things clearer? Your beginning to sound like a theoretician to me. ;) Words are just levels of abstraction, you need to experience 'simple' in order to know what it is. You need to be looking for 'simple ' in order to identify it in your experience. Most people don't even walk or move through "normal" activity much less athletic ones in an efficient way, and I'm willing to bet that they are not aware of their awkward biomechanics.

Just my 2 cents,
Bill

You missed my point. When you focus on the doing (actually performing the activity itself) and trying to obtain the desired results, whatever the appropriate characteristics inherent in skillful performance will appear of themselves -- you won't need to, and it certainly won't be helpful to, focus on them. To do that misplaces where your focus should be.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,
You're thinking like a lawyer. ;)

Bill

LOL! Or, it could be my dyslexia. ;)

[Matrix]

From my perspective, "understanding" isn't significant. It's not a matter of understanding, it is a matter of skill, of being able to do something to bring about a desired result. For example, sinking a basketball isn't a matter of "understanding", and you don't need to understand anything to do it or get better at it. You need to practice doing it. In WCK, a trainee doesn't need to "understand" the punch, they need to learn that skill and then practice it, develop it, which comes, like trying to sink the basketball, by doing it and letting results guide them. Not from intellectualizing. And they can't really understand it apart from what they are able to do..Terence,
When I say "understand", I'm not talking about some intellectual exercise. I mean your body "understands" at a deep level how to respond in a given situation. A trainee does not need to understand the physics or mechanics behind the punch, but they need to know what their body should do (or not do) in order to be effective.


You missed my point. When you focus on the doing (actually performing the activity itself) and trying to obtain the desired results, whatever the appropriate characteristics inherent in skillful performance will appear of themselves -- you won't need to, and it certainly won't be helpful to, focus on them. To do that misplaces where your focus should be.As you've missed mine. Most people walk every day, and yet they do not do so efficiently. Most people tend to learn something to the degree necessary to make it functional after which they don't improve very much, unless they specifically decide to achieve a higher level of proficiency. Yes, you need to do this activity, but you also need to make distinctions about what's bringing you closer to your goal and what's blocking you. Mindless repetition isn't going to get you there either. That's why pro athletes often watch video tape of themselves. We often aren't really totally aware of what we're doing.

Just a thought.

Bill

[Steeeve]

A lot of Rhetoric Here

Whats I want to said is .....since WC training method,tactic and strategy, the way to use their techniques are based on this 3 key words Simple,Direct and efficienty.....Whats the definition for you of this 3 words?


To be skillful thats take a lot of training to have the Physical attribute Power ,speed,endurance Cardio vascular ,timing and so on ...to be able to used your techniques efficiently

Steeve

BTW my name is Steeve but used the nick Steeeve since someone have Steeve:)

[冠木侍]

Yeah. I think the original intention of your post became a little diluted with rhetoric about a whole different issue.

[t_niehoff]

Terence,
When I say "understand", I'm not talking about some intellectual exercise. I mean your body "understands" at a deep level how to respond in a given situation. A trainee does not need to understand the physics or mechanics behind the punch, but they need to know what their body should do (or not do) in order to be effective.


OK, I agree with that. And that's why I think it is a matter of showing someone a skill and letting them practice a skill, and why the intellectualization of the process should be kept to a minimum.

And you brought up another critical point in my view. How can someone who can't do something effectively teach others to do it? How are they going to show anyone how to do it?



As you've missed mine. Most people walk every day, and yet they do not do so efficiently. Most people tend to learn something to the degree necessary to make it functional after which they don't improve very much, unless they specifically decide to achieve a higher level of proficiency. Yes, you need to do this activity, but you also need to make distinctions about what's bringing you closer to your goal and what's blocking you. Mindless repetition isn't going to get you there either. That's why pro athletes often watch video tape of themselves. We often aren't really totally aware of what we're doing.

Just a thought.

Bill

That's a fair point. But I'm not talking about *mindless* repetition; I'm talking about the process of having an objective (a desired result), realistically practicing with that in mind, and then critically examining your obtained results to try and figure out where you went right and wrong.

One of the huge problems we as WCK practitioners face IMO is the blind leading the blind -- people who can't do it themselves or can only do whatever it is at a fairly low level telling us how it should be done. Well, if they can't do it or can't do it very well, it means they really don't know themselves. And all they can do is pass on what they do know (which is incomplete or misunderstood or wrong). This is more of a hinderance than a help if we take what they say as accurate or true.

[t_niehoff]

A lot of Rhetoric Here


Yes, there is and you are engaged in it.



Whats I want to said is .....since WC training method,tactic and strategy, the way to use their techniques are based on this 3 key words Simple,Direct and efficienty.....Whats the definition for you of this 3 words?


Your assumption is that WCK techniques are "based" on those three words. You are wrong. WCK techniques, like the techniques from any martial art, are means by which to do certain physical things, certain specific combative tasks. Ideally, they are optimal ways of achieving their objective. A technique's goal isn't to be "simple" but to do something; your movement/technique can be"simple" and not get the job done.

What you are doing is what I call "trying to jump straight to enlightened monk". I got that from one of the guys I train with who commented on how he couldn't understand how people who couldn't get out of a headlock were "concerned"with the universal principles of fighting.

You can't approach doing something combative with the idea of using as little movement as necessary. First of all, if you can't do it, and do it at a fairly high level, then you will have no idea how much movement will be necessary! Second, once you can do it, you will find that as you get more skillful, you will automatically be doing just as much movement as necessary, so there will be no need to focus on "economy ofmotion" or efficiency. Like the people trying to skip to enlightened monk, focusing on "those three words" is not only putting the cart before the horse but focusing on something that ultimately is a byproduct of developing skill.



To be skillful thats take a lot of training to have the Physical attribute Power ,speed,endurance Cardio vascular ,timing and so on ...to be able to used your techniques efficiently

Steeve


Whatever the martial art, our objective is to develop skill in using it. There are, as you point out, many facets to developing that skill.

[YungChun]

You seem to keep saying, "yeah, yeah, they can do it anyway they like as long as they do it the way I believe it should be done (unbroken centerline attack)." That's your theory. Maybe others use it too. That doesn't make it correct. There is no "correct."
Disagree...

WCK is a centerline based inside system.. Continuity and economy are a part of that as are myriad core tactics and methods--as seen in the basic training of the system.

We throw around the term economy and some pretend there is no special economy in WCK, I say BS! In what other system or method are half the tools all the same but for a twist of the wrist; changes in lines with a micro movement of the elbow; a minute circle of the wrist; displacement of the opponent's attack with little or no deviation from the line, and the target; using sensitivity to tune these almost unnoticeable (economy) changes (in tools and position) to maintain control of the line? Such subtlety wrt centerline occupation, such economy in motion, in energy, in structure, in letting force go.. I mean many of the movements/changes can't even be seen at speed...!!! WCK has a special relationship with "economy" = (less) time and space on the inside--is clear if one is seeing the same tools and tactics I see.

No use of centerline? Then no WCK.. :p

We agree the tools are the tools and the tactics are the tactics, so using those things is a part of what Ip's WCK is.. If we are not seeing these tools and tactics in fighting and seeing something else---then----it's something else.

I say Ip not because we are trying to copy him, but because it's his version of the system, the forms, the drills, the tools, the tactics were passed on from his line and not someone else's which may be substantially different.

[Steeeve]

terrence

In WC Going into grappling stuff...headlock,fight in the ground from the guard and so on ...its a emergency situation

WC is really different of Brazilian jiu jutsu .....First WC is not a collection of techniques ....teaching whats to do in some situation and what to do IF....and how to do it

WC theory ,concept and principle like the centerline ,simultaneous hit and parry ect....give a guide to be simple,direct and efficient....but I agree training is the more important part.....

Steeve

[KPM]

Keith, who cares what Wong says?

---You asked "who says these are the goals of WCK?" I told you! :D

If we look at the definition of "skill" from a motor science perspective, it is defined as a person's ability to perform a specified task with maximum certainty and with a minimum of effort and/or time. My point is that "simple, direct, efficient" just means "skillfully". And it is determined from actual results, not theory.

---But "simple, direct, and efficient" can refer to a strategic approach...tactics. These strategies and tactics are ways to bring about these attributes on the level of skill. Having an approach that emphasizes attacking and defending simultaneously, using the closest weapon to attack the nearest target, using forward pressure up the middle, etc are aspects of an approach focused on being "simple, direct, and efficient."

I brought boxing, muay thai, BJJ into this because their practitioners are doing the exact same thing: trying to solve combative problems "skillfully".

---But they may not use the same strategies and tactics. And no one said that these systems do not also emphasize being "simple, direct, and efficient." The discussion was about how WCK manifests these atrributes....not boxing, muay thai, or BJJ.

Before we can even begin to talk about how skillfully a person or approach solves those problems or performs those tasks (how simple,direct, efficient), or compare persons or approaches, we need to begin with actual results. And in the actual results department, . . . .

---Ah....I knew you wouldn't be able to resist beating that old drum of yours. :rolleyes: One can train a beginner in strategies and tactics aimed at making them as "simple, direct, and efficient" as possible before they ever fight for real and get results. They may modify some of those tactics to make them even more "simple, direct, and efficient" for themselves, but they have to start somewhere!

[t_niehoff]

Disagree...


Of course you do. :)



WCK is a centerline based inside system.. Continuity and economy are a part of that as are myriad core tactics and methods--as seen in the basic training of the system.


According to you. It's great you feel you are qualified to speak for all WCK. Can you rountinely beat low-level MMA fighters? Yet, you are qualified to speak for all WCK. Hmmm. And I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm trying to point out that while you may have an opinion, that opinion is dependent on your level of skill/experience (fighting).



We throw around the term economy and some pretend there is no special economy in WCK, I say BS! In what other system or method are half the tools all the same but for a twist of the wrist; changes in lines with a micro movement of the elbow; a minute circle of the wrist; displacement of the opponent's attack with little or no deviation from the line, and the target; using sensitivity to tune these almost unnoticeable (economy) changes (in tools and position) to maintain control of the line? Such subtlety wrt centerline occupation, such economy in motion, in energy, in structure, in letting force go.. I mean many of the movements/changes can't even be seen at speed...!!! WCK has a special relationship with "economy" = (less) time and space on the inside--is clear if one is seeing the same tools and tactics I see.


OK, let's see those things in fighting. What you will see when any WCK fighter fights a decent-level opponent (like a low-level MMA fighter) is that all of that will go out the window.

You see, your view is the product of unrealistic training (forms, unrealistic drills, chi sao, etc.) -- we get these "ideas" (the theory) of how we think we can make our WCK work. But in my view that is all bunk. When push-comes-to-shove, when we really fight, it looks like MMA.



We agree the tools are the tools and the tactics are the tactics, so using those things is a part of what Ip's WCK is.. If we are not seeing these tools and tactics in fighting and seeing something else---then----it's something else.


WCK is WCK. Just like boxing is boxing, wrestling is wrestling, BJJ is BJJ. How we fight with WCK, box, wrestle, fight with BJJ will always by necessity be individual. Those arts pass on fundamental skills, and different instructors/coaches may pass those same things on in various ways. But the currciulum is not the application. No one "does" Yip Man WCK. That is just a label for Yip's organization/currciculum for teaching the tools/skills of WCK.



I say Ip not because we are trying to copy him, but because it's his version of the system, the forms, the drills, the tools, the tactics were passed on from his line and not someone else's which may be substantially different.

It is his way of organizing (for the purpose of teaching) the same things -- the same fundamentals (tools/skills) that everyone else has. WCK is WCK. He may emphasize things differently than another instructor did, just like they do in boxing or wrestling, but the fundamentals remain the same (they are fundamentals because we need them to do the activity -- you can't do (fight with) WCK without them).

[monji112000]

This three words are the goal of WC

Whats ur definition of that?????

Simple..... No Need to think.....
Direct ... No need to ...........used
Efficient Who work in any situation

These 3 key words seem to work together


Steeve

I prefer....

protect
yourself
always

[t_niehoff]

Keith, who cares what Wong says?

---You asked "who says these are the goals of WCK?" I told you! :D


Really? Prove it.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say he did say that WCK was characterized by those qualities. How does that amke it "WCK's goal"?



---But "simple, direct, and efficient" can refer to a strategic approach...tactics. These strategies and tactics are ways to bring about these attributes on the level of skill. Having an approach that emphasizes attacking and defending simultaneously, using the closest weapon to attack the nearest target, using forward pressure up the middle, etc are aspects of an approach focused on being "simple, direct, and efficient."


No, it can't. Strategy/tactics refer to specific 'plans' of action (to achieve some goal). A battle plan or tactic of "be simple" is meaningless, it gives no direction. "Simple, direct, efficient" are adjectives -- descriptors. And they describe skilled actions.

And I could apply those same discriptors to any functional martial art. I could say that muay thai is simple, direct, and efficient. Same with boxing. Same with BJJ. And so on.



---But they may not use the same strategies and tactics. And no one said that these systems do not also emphasize being "simple, direct, and efficient." The discussion was about how WCK manifests these atrributes....not boxing, muay thai, or BJJ.


Yes, I know. And as I said,they describe skilled action. So any art, including WCK, that is applied skillfully will look simple, direct, and efficient. That's because skillful action is defined as being able to bring about a desired result with max certainty and min effort/time.



---Ah....I knew you wouldn't be able to resist beating that old drum of yours. :rolleyes: One can train a beginner in strategies and tactics aimed at making them as "simple, direct, and efficient" as possible before they ever fight for real and get results. They may modify some of those tactics to make them even more "simple, direct, and efficient" for themselves, but they have to start somewhere!

It's the "old drum" because it is central to everything.

Try to understand this. If you can't make something work, some technique or whatever, it can't be simple, direct, or efficient. It first has to work. Poking someone in the eye to escape the mount sounds like a simple, direct, and efficient strategy/tactic/technique. It just doesn't work. Much of what is fobbed off as "good WCK" (like some of that you mentioned) just won't work.

We first have to find what works (for us, individually). Then, once we find what works, we try to get better doing that. And as we get better, more skilled, whatever it is will become simpler, more direct, more efficient (the characteristics of skill). But what you can't do is start with some characteristic of how you *believe* it should work. That leads no-where.

My "old drum" was meant to illustrate that someone who can't make whatever it is work, certainly can't teach others how to make it work. All they can do is spout theory (this is how it should work). You can't, for instance, teach someone how to escape the mount "simply, directly, and efficiently" if you can't escape the mount. People who are really good at escaping the mount, will do so simply, directly and efficiently. And the same applies to WCK. You don't start with "I must be simple, direct, and efficient" -- you start with "let me get this to work" and go from there.

[Graychuan]

Really? Prove it.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say he did say that WCK was characterized by those qualities. How does that amke it "WCK's goal"?



No, it can't. Strategy/tactics refer to specific 'plans' of action (to achieve some goal). A battle plan or tactic of "be simple" is meaningless, it gives no direction. "Simple, direct, efficient" are adjectives -- descriptors. And they describe skilled actions.

And I could apply those same discriptors to any functional martial art. I could say that muay thai is simple, direct, and efficient. Same with boxing. Same with BJJ. And so on.



Yes, I know. And as I said,they describe skilled action. So any art, including WCK, that is applied skillfully will look simple, direct, and efficient. That's because skillful action is defined as being able to bring about a desired result with max certainty and min effort/time.



It's the "old drum" because it is central to everything.

Try to understand this. If you can't make something work, some technique or whatever, it can't be simple, direct, or efficient. It first has to work. Poking someone in the eye to escape the mount sounds like a simple, direct, and efficient strategy/tactic/technique. It just doesn't work. Much of what is fobbed off as "good WCK" (like some of that you mentioned) just won't work.

We first have to find what works (for us, individually). Then, once we find what works, we try to get better doing that. And as we get better, more skilled, whatever it is will become simpler, more direct, more efficient (the characteristics of skill). But what you can't do is start with some characteristic of how you *believe* it should work. That leads no-where.

My "old drum" was meant to illustrate that someone who can't make whatever it is work, certainly can't teach others how to make it work. All they can do is spout theory (this is how it should work). You can't, for instance, teach someone how to escape the mount "simply, directly, and efficiently" if you can't escape the mount. People who are really good at escaping the mount, will do so simply, directly and efficiently. And the same applies to WCK. You don't start with "I must be simple, direct, and efficient" -- you start with "let me get this to work" and go from there.



As for bold type # 1. Its not that it doesnt work...Its just against the rules in MMA and Cage fighting so you will never see it in that venue.

As for bold type # 2....I agree. But simplicity and efficiency is the goal after you can make it work.

[sanjuro_ronin]

As for bold type # 1. Its not that it doesnt work...Its just against the rules in MMA and Cage fighting so you will never see it in that venue.

There was a time where it was legal and it didn't work and, currently, in the venues where it still is legal, it still doesn't work.

[Graychuan]

There was a time where it was legal and it didn't work and, currently, in the venues where it still is legal, it still doesn't work.


And just exactly when and what venue was this?
And what are the current venues where it is still legal?

Also, Im sure we all know that a gouge to the eye while mounted can be countered and dealt with the same as punches or whatever. If the attempt was countered then Id agree with that specific instance. But suppose its not, or suppose the counter was missed... do you have any examples of where a person **** near had thier eyes pushed to the back of thier skulls and still went on to complete a cage fight? I would love to see it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And just exactly when and what venue was this?
And what are the current venues where it is still legal?

Also, Im sure we all know that a gouge to the eye while mounted can be countered and dealt with the same as punches or whatever. If the attempt was countered then Id agree with that specific instance. But suppose its not, or suppose the counter was missed... do you have any examples of where a person **** near had thier eyes pushed to the back of thier skulls and still went on to complete a cage fight? I would love to see it.

The early days of Vale Tudo had no restrictions on eye attacks or groin attacks.
Even in the early UFC, I believe that Gerard tried to eye gouge Royce and paid for it.

As for today, you can still go into almost any VT/BJJ place and drop the challenge and include eye gouges if you like, heck the last matches i had in Quebec in the late 90's ok'd eye gouges and attacks.
In Brasil ( and I amuse in the states if you look), there are venues where everythign truly goes.

[LoneTiger108]

...You see, your view is the product of unrealistic training (forms, unrealistic drills, chi sao, etc.) -- we get these "ideas" (the theory) of how we think we can make our WCK work. But in my view that is all bunk. When push-comes-to-shove, when we really fight, it looks like MMA.

Lets just say 'pot kettle black' Terence and leave it at that. You mentioned/criticised others for talking for everyone else, yet here you are talking for all WCK practitioners?? Hmmm...


... It is his way of organizing (for the purpose of teaching) the same things -- the same fundamentals (tools/skills) that everyone else has. WCK is WCK. He may emphasize things differently than another instructor did, just like they do in boxing or wrestling, but the fundamentals remain the same (they are fundamentals because we need them to do the activity -- you can't do (fight with) WCK without them).

And again here you mention we can't fight with WCK without using the fundamentals. So, why would I 'look' like a MMA Fighter if I have a strong Kim Yeung and maintain that (at least!) while fighting. Have you ever seen that?? Nor have I (yet), so I see why you think we'll all just look like a MMA Fighter!

I'm just disagreeing that we would all collapse into a fit of rage and loose our basic structures just because an opponent is trying to 'force' us to do so. You must fight your fight, and if all the fundamentals have been trained well people would 'see' the Wing Chun and it would hold it's own ground IMHO.

[Graychuan]

The early days of Vale Tudo had no restrictions on eye attacks or groin attacks.
Even in the early UFC, I believe that Gerard tried to eye gouge Royce and paid for it.

As for today, you can still go into almost any VT/BJJ place and drop the challenge and include eye gouges if you like, heck the last matches i had in Quebec in the late 90's ok'd eye gouges and attacks.
In Brasil ( and I amuse in the states if you look), there are venues where everythign truly goes.


If they dont work...why were they taken out? My opinion is that they have since outlwed these type of techniques because they end fights to quickly for spectator sports such as MMA. I have a friend who almost lost an eye because he tried to grapple and submit a drunk that was causing him trouble at a local park during a festival. He was going to 'hold him down til the cops came'. He has regained about 60% of his sight in that eye after 6 months and 2 surgeries. The drunk also got away. Of course this is just one instance and my word against anyone elses but this is the reality I have been exposed to. Also...eye gouges worked for me every time but I do not compete in sanctioned fights, just the occasional security detail at local bars, clubs, and some venues where concerts are held here.

[YungChun]

According to you. It's great you feel you are qualified to speak for all WCK.

No, I am speaking for myself, as are you.. :)


Can you rountinely beat low-level MMA fighters? Yet, you are qualified to speak for all WCK.

Can you? :)
Yet, you are prepared to fly in the face of what is quite obvious..


Hmmm. And I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm trying to point out that while you may have an opinion, that opinion is dependent on your level of skill/experience (fighting).

Wrong... That experience may indeed inform me what within the system works for me and how but it doesn't change what the system is. What the system is... Basketball doesn't change what it is based on how well you or I play it..


You see, your view is the product of unrealistic training (forms, unrealistic drills, chi sao, etc.) -- we get these "ideas" (the theory) of how we think we can make our WCK work. But in my view that is all bunk. When push-comes-to-shove, when we really fight, it looks like MMA.

If you think what was passed on by Ip Man is all bunk then that's your opinion.. It shows your particular experience with the system in its entirety--apparently you couldn't make it work in terms of what *you* think it is.

The FACT is that no matter if WCK is good, bad or indifferent, it doesn't change what it is. The concepts you speak so harshly of and the tools and techniques, which one moment you say you use and then say are BS... Whatever they are they ARE part of the system, the theories or whatever you want to call them, speak to the training and performance goals of the system--be it bad or good it's still the same centerline based inside system--you can't change that truth no matter how much you write about how WCK *theory* and training of the *concepts* is crap.. And I'll say it again--if so and so sucks and can't fight with his WCK that doesn't change what WCK is.. Likewise, if another person can fight and says he does WCK it doesn't change what WCK is either or make his performance that of WCK if he does not use the concepts and tools, tactics of the system in training and/or fighting.

[KPM]

Terence wrote:
Really? Prove it.

---It is stated by David Peterson in one of the articles on his website. Do you want me to find the specific article for you? Would you like to eMail Sifu Peterson and ask him yourself?

And, for the sake of argument, let's say he did say that WCK was characterized by those qualities. How does that amke it "WCK's goal"?

---It would be "a" goal, but maybe not "the" goal. "The" goal is obviously to avoid getting beaten up! :)


No, it can't. Strategy/tactics refer to specific 'plans' of action (to achieve some goal). A battle plan or tactic of "be simple" is meaningless, it gives no direction. "Simple, direct, efficient" are adjectives -- descriptors. And they describe skilled actions.

---These descriptors serve as a guide-line when planning action. As such guides, they do serve as a "strategy." For instance....one could respond to a strike by defending with one arm and striking with the other in a 1 - 2 cadence. Or one could recognize that this is neither direct nor efficient and instead respond to a strike by defending with one arm while striking with the other at the same time.


And I could apply those same discriptors to any functional martial art. I could say that muay thai is simple, direct, and efficient. Same with boxing. Same with BJJ. And so on.

---Again, so one says that's not true! But WCK has a way in which it strives to be "simple, direct, and efficient" all of its own. Its part of what distinguishes it as WCK as opposed to something else. Each person does not have to reinvent the wheel. They can be taught to defend and strike simultaneously without having to first get into a fight and discover that this is more efficient on their own.


It's the "old drum" because it is central to everything.

---It is an important point. But you typically choose to ignore that fact that in training one has to START somewhere! In WCK we START by learning the basic structure, techniques, and strategies of the system. Being "simple, direct, and efficient" just happens to be some of the guiding features of the system. The beginning student can START learning this before they ever get thrown into the ring to prove it to themselves.

Try to understand this. If you can't make something work, some technique or whatever, it can't be simple, direct, or efficient. It first has to work.

---I disagree. The student may not be able to make something work because they do not yet have the training to do so. Once they have trained it adequately, and it still doesn't work...then they need to start reconsidering.

Poking someone in the eye to escape the mount sounds like a simple, direct, and efficient strategy/tactic/technique. It just doesn't work.

---Touching someone on a "Dim Mak" point on the forearm to stop a blow would seem to be the most "simple, direct, and efficient" technique, but it doesn't work either! Of course there has to be some common sense and prior experience involved in any of this.

Much of what is fobbed off as "good WCK" (like some of that you mentioned) just won't work.

---Attacking and defending simultaneously, using the closest weapon to attack the nearest target, using forward pressure up the middle,.....which of those "just won't work"???

We first have to find what works (for us, individually). Then, once we find what works, we try to get better doing that. And as we get better, more skilled, whatever it is will become simpler, more direct, more efficient (the characteristics of skill). But what you can't do is start with some characteristic of how you *believe* it should work. That leads no-where.

---Then how does the beginner start? Do you just throw them into the ring and let them invent their own fighting style? Why bother with WCK or any other fighting method? Why "teach" them anything if all that counts is finding out what they can make work?

[sanjuro_ronin]

If they dont work...why were they taken out? My opinion is that they have since outlwed these type of techniques because they end fights to quickly for spectator sports such as MMA. I have a friend who almost lost an eye because he tried to grapple and submit a drunk that was causing him trouble at a local park during a festival. He was going to 'hold him down til the cops came'. He has regained about 60% of his sight in that eye after 6 months and 2 surgeries. The drunk also got away. Of course this is just one instance and my word against anyone elses but this is the reality I have been exposed to. Also...eye gouges worked for me every time but I do not compete in sanctioned fights, just the occasional security detail at local bars, clubs, and some venues where concerts are held here.

It was an injury to use ratio, the potential for injury was higher than the chance of victory, I didn't say know one did them or that they didn't injure anyone, I said that they didn't work, ie: end the fight or reverse the tide.
I had a nice scratch on my cheek from someone attempt ro eye gouge me in one match, the result was me with a nasty scratch and him with a broken nose, cheek bones, cut eyebrow, blood all over the place and choked out in his own blood.
See, I was more than happy to punch him a few times to get him into position toapply the choke, but when he tried the eye gouge it should lack of "fighters respect" and I made him pay for it.
Wouldn't you?

[Graychuan]

See, I was more than happy to punch him a few times to get him into position to apply the choke, but when he tried the eye gouge it should lack of "fighters respect" and I made him pay for it.
Wouldn't you?

If you had him subdued with the punches then why not just continue and knock him out? Why go for the choke?

And yes you are right, if I dont loose my eye from an attempt at a gouge I would most definitely make them pay for it. :D. Seems we ARE on the same page as far as this goes.


As far as 'fighters respect'... this is something that exists for competiton, 'dojo tigers', and comraderie among fellow practitioners(which is a very good thing among friends in the Arts). However, in streetfights or anything non-sanctioned like that I dont concern myself with this. Little bit too much to think about while trying to be Simple, Direct and Efficient and all. :p


P.S. I appreciate this conversation, Sanjuro.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you had him subdued with the punches then why not just continue and knock him out? Why go for the choke?

I like to choke people out :D


As far as 'fighters respect'... this is something that exists for competiton, 'dojo tigers', and comraderie among fellow practitioners(which is a very good thing among friends in the Arts). However, in streetfights or anything non-sanctioned like that I dont concern myself with this. Little bit too much to think about while trying to be Simple, Direct and Efficient and all.


Having competed and been in more "street fights" than I care to admit, the level of fighters skill is much higher in competition.


P.S. I appreciate this conversation, Sanjuro.

As do I :D

[Tom Kagan]

do you have any examples of where a person **** near had thier eyes pushed to the back of thier skulls and still went on to complete a cage fight? I would love to see it.


Yuki Nakai vs. Gerard Gordeau, Vale Tudo Japan, 1995


Also, eye gouges happen more often than you might think:
http://www.chrisdetrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/BYU-Pepper-CD-01bw-767668.jpg
http://www.chrisdetrick.com/blog/2007/12/eye-gouge.html

[ChanceDuBois]

Trying to gouge an eye from underneath the mount is utterly stupid because you don't have the leverage to gouge properly and your opponent has the opportunity to take an arm bar as you reach out your arm or rain down loads of punches. Gouging will work if you are in control (eg mount), but why do it?

In the Nakai/Gordeau fight Nakai went for a heel hook without positional control allowing Gordeau to get decent leverage on his eye gouge. Nakai still held on and tapped Gordeau with the heel hook, then failed to get medical attention and lost most of his sight in that eye. The immediate damage from a heel hook, choke, or any major joint lock does more in terms of ending a fight than an eye gouge.

With a broken leg or arm the person you just blinded in one eye will kill you in a real fight.

[Graychuan]

Yuki Nakai vs. Gerard Gordeau, Vale Tudo Japan, 1995


Also, eye gouges happen more often than you might think:
http://www.chrisdetrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/BYU-Pepper-CD-01bw-767668.jpg
http://www.chrisdetrick.com/blog/2007/12/eye-gouge.html

So what was the specific outcome of that match? Who did the gouging and who won. Also was it a defense against the mount or was it in another context? As I said 'It would be nice to see'. And that basketball pic was hilarious. As I dont keep up with sports like that too much I never head of this debacle. But that pic looked kinda fake to me, like a 'photoshop' edit or something. Did he really get under the guys lids like that on the court?:eek:

[Graychuan]

Trying to gouge an eye from underneath the mount is utterly stupid because you don't have the leverage to gouge properly and your opponent has the opportunity to take an arm bar as you reach out your arm or rain down loads of punches. Gouging will work if you are in control (eg mount), but why do it?

In the Nakai/Gordeau fight Nakai went for a heel hook without positional control allowing Gordeau to get decent leverage on his eye gouge. Nakai still held on and tapped Gordeau with the heel hook, then failed to get medical attention and lost most of his sight in that eye. The immediate damage from a heel hook, choke, or any major joint lock does more in terms of ending a fight than an eye gouge.

With a broken leg or arm the person you just blinded in one eye will kill you in a real fight.

I guess you have kinda made my point for me in a way( but by all means I am NOT trying to put words in your mouth)....Why sacrifice an eye when you can end a fight so many other ways. Sanjuro said he abandoned punching because he liked choking peeps out. So why did Nakai choose to lose an eye when he could have just abandoned the heel hook and defeat him another way. Again, another instance where he should have used common sense ( like may friend at the park). But he sacrificed an eye for a sanctioned win?

--'The immediate damage from a heel hook, choke, or any major joint lock does more in terms of ending a fight than an eye gouge. '

I respectfully disagree. I have been in several 'Fights' on the street, in clubs, bars, concerts, Kentucky Derby parties, etc. and that 'immediate damage' you are talking about or the pain from a lock didnt mean diddly against knuckleheads who are drunk, doped up, wired or anything else. They dont feel pain. But to my experice in these same situations they ALL protect thier eyes however I will admit that none of these were from a mount or guard or anything else. Also I will go on to say that it wasnt the specific 'Eye Gouge' that did the trick by itself, I did have to supplement it with strikes to end the confrontations. I will say that even in sanctioned spectator competitions I would not advise sacrificing an eye for a choke.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I guess you have kinda made my point for me in a way( but by all means I am NOT trying to put words in your mouth)....Why sacrifice an eye when you can end a fight so many other ways. Sanjuro said he abandoned punching because he liked choking peeps out. So why did Nakai choose to lose an eye when he could have just abandoned the heel hook and defeat him another way. Again, another instance where he should have used common sense ( like may friend at the park). But he sacrificed an eye for a sanctioned win?

Not sure where you go the idea that I "abandoned punching"...After he tries the eye gouge I dropped a few elbows on him and when he tried to protect his face he gave me the choke...
As for the Nakai match, I think you better re-read what Chance posted...

[Graychuan]

Not sure where you go the idea that I "abandoned punching"...After he tries the eye gouge I dropped a few elbows on him and when he tried to protect his face he gave me the choke...
As for the Nakai match, I think you better re-read what Chance posted...


Why do I need to reread it??:confused:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why do I need to reread it??:confused:

Nakai didn't CHOSE to lose an eye, he chose NOT to get medical attention.
He didn't sacrafice an eye for a win.

[Graychuan]

Nakai didn't CHOSE to lose an eye, he chose NOT to get medical attention.
He didn't sacrafice an eye for a win.



But he continued with a heel hook instead of protecting his eyes.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But he continued with a heel hook instead of protecting his eyes.

Do you know what a heel hook is?
Apllying it was the best way to protect his eyes...

[Graychuan]

- Do you know what a heel hook is?


Yes.


-Apllying it was the best way to protect his eyes...




So how did he screw it up? I mean I know its been said 'no positional control' or whatever but if we have to worry about things like this then it isnt simple and direct and efficient is it?
I am not a grappler. I know SOME grappling as a last resort and just in case I need it but that hasnt happened yet. I am also quite aware that anyone can lose an eye in a striking match as well as grappling or anything else.
Maybe we are on different limbs of the tree but I dont belive what is Simple Direct, and Efficient in the cage is always the same as what is Simple, Direct, and Efficient in the street.

[sanjuro_ronin]

- Do you know what a heel hook is?


Yes.


-Apllying it was the best way to protect his eyes...




So how did he screw it up? I mean I know its been said 'no positional control' or whatever but if we have to worry about things like this then it isnt simple and direct and efficient is it?
I am not a grappler. I know SOME grappling as a last resort and just in case I need it but that hasnt happened yet. I am also quite aware that anyone can lose an eye in a striking match as well as grappling or anything else.
Maybe we are on different limbs of the tree but I dont belive what is Simple Direct, and Efficient in the cage is always the same as what is Simple, Direct, and Efficient in the street.

Allow me to focus on this part:
" Maybe we are on different limbs of the tree but I dont belive what is Simple Direct, and Efficient in the cage is always the same as what is Simple, Direct, and Efficient in the street"

In sport combat, you focus on the high percentage moves, these tend to be:
Simple
Direct
Efficient.
Hence the "high percentage" term.
If they work on a trained fighter, they will work on a non-trained one.
Not vice-versa.

[Graychuan]

Allow me to focus on this part:
" Maybe we are on different limbs of the tree but I dont belive what is Simple Direct, and Efficient in the cage is always the same as what is Simple, Direct, and Efficient in the street"

In sport combat, you focus on the high percentage moves, these tend to be:
Simple
Direct
Efficient.
Hence the "high percentage" term.
If they work on a trained fighter, they will work on a non-trained one.
Not vice-versa.


To me 'sport combat' is an oxymoron. What do you judge to be 'high percentage' moves? And and as far as techniques that work on a trained fighter will work on an untrained one....yes provided all things are equal and controlled, like in a cage. On the street there are to many variables and no rules.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To me 'sport combat' is an oxymoron. What do you judge to be 'high percentage' moves? And and as far as techniques that work on a trained fighter will work on an untrained one....yes provided all things are equal and controlled, like in a cage. On the street there are to many variables and no rules.

I fought in Vale Tudo matches, fought in no-weight division kyokushin, I have mo idea what "equal and controlled" mean.
:D

[Graychuan]

I fought in Vale Tudo matches, fought in no-weight division kyokushin, I have mo idea what "equal and controlled" mean.
:D


Was there a time limit on rounds? Were there any rounds at all? What type of gear did you wear? Any gloves or type of mits that are in the MMA matches I see nowadays? Had you never seen your opponent and not know anything about him before any of those matches or were you able to gain some knowledge of thier fighting skills and tendencies which allowed you to prepare beforehand, like most MMA/ Cage matches I watch? These are all luxuries you dont have on the street regardless if your oppnent is trained or untrained.

[YungChun]

Just for the record..

A year or so a go an interesting article appeared in Black Belt Magazine.. The article talked about how much harder it normally is to fight a trained opponent in a sport setting than it is to fight the average punk on the street.. And while I agree things can go beyond the standard duel on the street, with weapons, multiples, etc, I can appreciate the point of the article: Fighting the average punk on the street--whoever that is--is normally nothing compared to fighting a trained athlete in the Ring, rules or not.

[Steeeve]

Hey Guys

Here we talk about a Traditionnal chinese MA ...Wing Chun.....for self Protection for everyone.......

Nothing to do with Mixed MA and sport combat......Does everyone here are a Gladiator of the MMA...Does you just train for cage fight ....Dont work a job just training
8 hours a day......

Come on .....stay realistic... be Simple,direct and efficient

Steeve

[YungChun]

Here we talk about a Traditionnal chinese MA ...Wing Chun.....for self Protection for everyone.......

Nothing to do with Mixed MA and sport combat.....

Except, of course, for those who wish to use their WCK in such venues.... :D:cool:

[Graychuan]

Just for the record..

A year or so a go an interesting article appeared in Black Belt Magazine.. The article talked about how much harder it normally is to fight a trained opponent in a sport setting than it is to fight the average punk on the street.. And while I agree things can go beyond the standard duel on the street, with weapons, multiples, etc, I can appreciate the point of the article: Fighting the average punk on the street--whoever that is--is normally nothing compared to fighting a trained athlete in the Ring, rules or not.


Now thanks for this, Chun. Ill find the issue. Im interested in reading it. And thank you also Sanjuro. This has been a good and drama free discussion.

~Cg~

[Steeeve]

Yungchun

the best for MMA is some boxing ,some muay thai and some Jiujutsu(brazilian or sambo....now you have the perfect mixed for fight in the ring .....but you need to to be big and take punishment ....so some good steroid could help with ur weight training program
and pleased no job ....just training ......and very important dont be too fast ...I mean if you could count 1,2,3 its OK and easy to manipulate is a plus.....If you was a looser in real life ...now thats ur chance to look good....in the CAGE... You are a Machine ....a predator...a Gladiator....GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR a low esteem of urself,violence abuse to others and Drugs habit could help

Whats the Wing Chun mind? Pleased simple ,direct and efficient

Steeve

[YungChun]

Yungchun

the best for MMA is some boxing ,some muay thai and some Jiujutsu(brazilian or sambo....now you have the perfect mixed for fight in the ring .....but you need to to be big and take punishment ....so some good steroid could help with ur weight training program
and pleased no job ....just training ......and very important dont be too fast ...I mean if you could count 1,2,3 its OK and easy to manipulate is a plus.....If you was a looser in real life ...now thats ur chance to look good....in the CAGE... You are a Machine ....a predator...a Gladiator....GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Whats the Wing Chun mind? Pleased simple ,direct and efficient

Steeve
Hi Steeve..

Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that WCK is only good for "real life fighting" but not for "sport fighting".. Feel free though to share your thoughts on why you think it's good at fighting in one case and not in another--if that IS what you think..

In my book if a fighting system is good at fighting---it's good at fighting--whatever the venue.. Fighting attributes are fighting attributes--power, energy transfer, timing, kinesthetic awareness, adaptability, speed and so on--these remain fairly constant across all kinds of fighting. If WCK is no good for sport fighting then it's no good for fighting.. Of course this is not my opinion and so IMO WCK is good for fighting in 'whatever' if it's worth a dam.

[Steeeve]

I train mostly Pekiti Tirsia Kali .......very efficient ...Kajukenbo ,kuntao silat.......
praying mantis (northern)

BTW ITS a joke what I post about MMA....just to said How stupid they are A BIG SHOW WITH BIG CLOWN....now all the younger want to be a MMA.....its the best.......HAHAHAHA

WC is a really good style ....

[sanjuro_ronin]

Was there a time limit on rounds? Were there any rounds at all? What type of gear did you wear? Any gloves or type of mits that are in the MMA matches I see nowadays? Had you never seen your opponent and not know anything about him before any of those matches or were you able to gain some knowledge of thier fighting skills and tendencies which allowed you to prepare beforehand, like most MMA/ Cage matches I watch? These are all luxuries you dont have on the street regardless if your oppnent is trained or untrained.

10 min time limit, no rounds, no gloves and only protection allowed was a mouthguard and cup ( optional), never met my opponent till we saw each other and had no idea what he could do or what he prefered to do.
On the street, what would I typically face?
An untrained wannabe that could be armed.
Of all the fights I had, I remember 3 that were VS someone with some type of training - they at least knew how to fight, kind of.
Nothing compared to the typical fight in the "ring" though.

[ChanceDuBois]

Also, Im sure we all know that a gouge to the eye while mounted can be countered and dealt with the same as punches or whatever. If the attempt was countered then Id agree with that specific instance. But suppose its not, or suppose the counter was missed...

You suggest gouging an eye while mounted. This doesn't work for the reasons outlined in my last post. It is a beginners mistake, rules or no rules. You have no leverage and your opponent can move his head, hence your gouge will fail. The opponent has lots of leverage and you are immobilised, hence he will be able to beat you badly from above. If you go for the eyes in this position you are screwed. All your post tells me is that you haven't tried grappling.


do you have any examples of where a person **** near had thier eyes pushed to the back of thier skulls and still went on to complete a cage fight? I would love to see it.

The only one I know of is the Nakai example. This was a heel hook against a known dirty fighter..possibly not the best move because he didn't establish positional dominance. He still won however because a heel hook is a horrible sub and Gordeau probably didn't want his knee broken. The immediate effects of a broken knee are worse in terms of stopping a person from continuing a fight in a real no rules situation than a damaged eye is. With a broken knee you cannot stand up, impervious to pain or not. Nakai was stupid not getting the eye seen to by a doctor afterwards. Hope you enjoyed this example of the lack of finishing power of the eye gouge by a larger man vs a smaller one from a position where he could get leverage.

It is a waste of time in grappling unless you have your opponent mounted or otherwise controlled. But then why do it at all?

[Tom Kagan]

But that pic looked kinda fake to me, like a 'photoshop' edit or something. Did he really get under the guys lids like that on the court?:eek:

The picture is not doctored. (Heck, a foul wasn't even called.)

With a little searching of the AP and UPI image archives, you'll find more than a few of these types of images from games of basketball & rugby, plus also from the occasional baseball, hockey, and soccer fight.

Also:

John Marsh vs. Sean Scott. In a match were all techniques were allowed, Marsh wrecked Scott's arm after Scott attempts an eye gouge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_taQXTem_X4

And:

Jordan Raynor vs. John F. Springer:
http://www.bullshido.org/w/images/b/bb/Osiris_vs._JFS.gif

[Graychuan]

The picture is not doctored. (Heck, a foul wasn't even called.)

With a little searching of the AP and UPI image archives, you'll find more than a few of these types of images from games of basketball & rugby, plus also from the occasional baseball, hockey, and soccer fight.

Also:

John Marsh vs. Sean Scott. In a match were all techniques were allowed, Marsh wrecked Scott's arm after Scott attempts an eye gouge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_taQXTem_X4

And:

Jordan Raynor vs. John F. Springer:
http://www.bullshido.org/w/images/b/bb/Osiris_vs._JFS.gif



lol That was no contest lol . That kung fu man didnt even know how to fight. lol

That was a vicious pounding in the second one.

[Graychuan]

The picture is not doctored. (Heck, a foul wasn't even called.)

With a little searching of the AP and UPI image archives, you'll find more than a few of these types of images from games of basketball & rugby, plus also from the occasional baseball, hockey, and soccer fight.

Also:

John Marsh vs. Sean Scott. In a match were all techniques were allowed, Marsh wrecked Scott's arm after Scott attempts an eye gouge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_taQXTem_X4

And:

Jordan Raynor vs. John F. Springer:
http://www.bullshido.org/w/images/b/bb/Osiris_vs._JFS.gif




And I stand corrected on the gouge/mount thing.

Im still skeptical about the basketball photo tho.

[Steeeve]

HAhAhAhA

OK Guys

Whats Simple ,direct and efficient ......? Whaterver the Style...

Steeve