Footwork or retreat?

[WoodenYummy]

Hi All,

I am currently studying TWC for about a year now, though I have a couple years experience in some modified wing chun as well. I have posted this question before, but was not satisfied with the "answers" I got. Perhaps this is my own fault, (i.e. I wasn't clear about what I was asking...) In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch. And as for "off the line" I mean that we immediately try to step to the flank of the opponent entering in on us. Now I am NOT suggesting that we step so far back that we are no longer in contact with the opponent, just far enough to keep them in the "contact" stage, and not let "them" for us into the exchange stage. I have seen this done by GM Cheung, so I know it is not something my current Sifu just made up. However, I know that some other schools of Wing Chun stress to step in immediately upon attack. (i.e., its all about timing & intercepting). So is this ultimately all about how comfortable you are with your own skills vs. your opponent? Do other TWC schools stress this "back & off the line" concept (possibly using different terminology)? I don't question the concept, as it certainly makes sense to me anyway. There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately if they were coming at me. Perfect timing or not, some people would tear right through you if you just stepped in on them mid-punch. I would like to hear all of your thoughts on this. Initially, I thought perhaps this was something that was just taught to FNG's so they don't lose their teeth during the learning process, but now I think there is more validity to it. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it. Thanks in advance for any & all replies.

[Liddel]

I feel that essentially you have answered your own question :p

It depends on the situation -


There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately

Exactly.

Its all Depending on what you are doing/ or want to do at the time.

If your looking to counter you must still be in RANGE, so a half step is what i use.. wether its a triangle straight back whatever.... this means that im not reaching nor am i losing that elbow space by being too close. Stay in the pocket somewhat.

If your weathering a storm/flurry of attacks you need space to regather your tools so terrain permitting you want that bigger step back or larger triangle step cutting the angle on the heavy cross etc.Or your getting close and clinching up...style appropriate

If your are instigating and timing an attack its essential you take thier space, so moving foward in the right way offers you positional advantage and adds momentum to force in attacking actions.


So is this ultimately all about how comfortable you are with your own skills vs. your opponent?

IMO Yes. Ive sparred guys way slower with heavy hands and way faster with no power....i approached each with a differnt method... same result . :rolleyes:


I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it

I agree... timing is everything so.....

DREW

[Graychuan]

Hi All,
In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch. And as for "off the line" I mean that we immediately try to step to the flank of the opponent entering in on us. Now I am NOT suggesting that we step so far back that we are no longer in contact with the opponent, just far enough to keep them in the "contact" stage,

In the Woo system we are taught to ‘attack the attack’ which I understand is contrary to what you are explaining but I have to ask….how are you able to be in ‘contact range’ if you have already stepped back to be out of ’contact range’ as you put it here,
either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch.



Do other TWC schools stress this "back & off the line" concept (possibly using different terminology)
…..I don't question the concept, as it certainly makes sense to me anyway. There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately if they were coming at me.

But are you not eventually going to HAVE to step in to control and end the fight?



If your looking to counter you must still be in RANGE, so a half step is what i use.. wether its a triangle straight back whatever.... this means that im not reaching nor am i losing that elbow space by being too close. Stay in the pocket somewhat…If your weathering a storm/flurry of attacks you need space to regather your tools .

I can agree with this. That’s why I was asking WoodenYummy about the stepping back. It is ok to take a half-step or step back to create space for proper bridging and interception but the Woo System stresses forward energy(bridging, jamming, wedging, kune su kune) and CROWDING SPACE. This will not happen if you are moving back.


Perfect timing or not, some people would tear right through you if you just stepped in on them mid-punch…. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it. Thanks in advance for any & all replies.

IF you understand ‘bridge-walking’, maintaining a proper defensive structure and not deviating from that idea(SLT/CK) then you should have no problem doing this. So don’t just step in mid-punch. Step in, bridge, let their forward energy be redirected( man, pak, biu, lop, wu, garm...etc.) I’ve said it before that Chi-Sao answers all of these questions.


If your are instigating and timing an attack its essential you take thier space, so moving foward in the right way offers you positional advantage and adds momentum to force in attacking actions.

This is why we have the three hand forms and wooden man, to learn 'how to move forward the right way'.




I agree... timing is everything so.....
DREW

I disagree…there is timing, forward sensitivity, and structure. This is also true of defense(attacking the attack).

CHRIS

[WoodenYummy]

Sorry, I should have clarified, in TWC the "Contact range" is where your hands can reach their hands, but neither can make contact with the body, "exchange range" is where both parties can be hit. So while we do step back as they come in, we do not lose contact. But if we did not move at all then they would come right into exchange range on their own terms, instead of on ours. That was my point.

[edseas2]

We don't like to step back and I'm unable to think up a situation where I would ever choose to step backwards. Obviously, it is possible for me to be driven backwards but this would be because I didn't shift properly or messed up my footwork or for some other reason that was an error on my part.

We like to say that we want to rush forward towards the opponent and let the hands take care of themselves - clearly, it is a bit more complicated than that but through learning all of the forms (and practicing a lot of chi sao) we end up with a unified weapon that serves to be dangerous from head to toe encompassing everything from head butts (Randy Williams) to ankle/shin kicks (Gary Lam) should the student choose to use these techniques (I personally avoid head butts).

I think that the jong is awfully good at teaching automatic footwork/arrow stepping that would serve advanced students well in combat.

[Phil Redmond]

I feel that essentially you have answered your own question :p

It depends on the situation - DREW
You're right on. TWC doesn't teach to ALWAYS step away. When possible it's better to interrupt an attack by putting pressure on your opponent ASAP.

[Phil Redmond]

Sorry, I should have clarified, in TWC the "Contact range" is where your hands can reach their hands, but neither can make contact with the body, "exchange range" is where both parties can be hit. So while we do step back as they come in, we do not lose contact. But if we did not move at all then they would come right into exchange range on their own terms, instead of on ours. That was my point.
If you're a member of the WWCKFA please go here: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/TWCKF/
There are videos there that can explain TWC concepts for you.
You can also go here: http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/history.asp
and click on the streaming martial arts thumbnail and watch live streaming Traditional Wing Chun classes, BJJ classes and other martial arts.

[Liddel]

the Woo System stresses forward energy(bridging, jamming, wedging, kune su kune) and CROWDING SPACE. This will not happen if you are moving back.


Gray, ive heard a few people put foward this idea before but through more and more experience with sparring different styles i now disagree with the BOLD part of the quote.

I believe in the concept and application of Foward energy that most VT lineages stress. Where our opinions begin to part ways is that i believe you can have foward energy in your hand tools while your horse is moving back... :o

It depends though on the relationship between you and the opponent...

IE If the distance between you is constant, like If hes moving foward and your moving back so the distance between you remains the same during said movement, you can issue foward power and control position with the right Chum Kiu waist movement and stepping/grounding.

Having the right slide lines as my sifu puts it (the correct angles) in your tools is what makes or breaks them IMO while retreating. Foward energy while preferable is not a requisite of being able to handle yourself in retreat anyway.

Ive also found through my own experience that the foward movement of the opponent can lend itself to your actions (in a foward energy sence) when you yourself are actually static....

Aint VT great. :D

DREW

[WoodenYummy]

Thanks for eveybody's input, and thank you Sifu Redmond for the website recommendations, I have thoroughly checked out your site and seen all the videos. I guess my initial concern was from my original post which seemes to get pretty negative replies. I was wondering if my school was the only one teaching this "back & off the line" stuff. We are not taught to "always" do this, situations are all different. It is taught more as a safe(r) response, so that you can engage on your own terms instead of theirs. I watched the GM Cheung video with Sifu Eric Oram and didn't see or hear any mention of it so I was curious. I agree with the majority of the thoughts posted, bridging is essential, but ultimately I was wondering about if the rest of you really do "attack the attack" regularly, or if this is just the ideal? Like I said, there are some big fellas out there, there is one in particular at my school who bounced for many years, you do not want to step in front of his round punch! Which is not to say no one can, but rather there is always a bigger fish in the sea. And as WC is ideally suited for smaller opponents to have a fair chance against larger ones, it seems this "stepping right in" mentality would destroy alot of smaller people. Maybe I'm getting too hypothetical about this, but it seems a little contradictory to me.... Just a thought. I mean the Fut sao is essentially a retreating move, isn't it?

[Phil Redmond]

Everything in a fight is relative. Don't live in a box. You definitely don't want to charge down the middle of an extremely larger opponent though. ;)

[Graychuan]

Gray, ive heard a few people put foward this idea before but through more and more experience with sparring different styles i now disagree with the BOLD part of the quote.

I believe in the concept and application of Foward energy that most VT lineages stress. Where our opinions begin to part ways is that i believe you can have foward energy in your hand tools while your horse is moving back... :o

It depends though on the relationship between you and the opponent...

I can agree with this because I mentioned the same thing about stepping back to create space...but not crowding space. And you will not be in as much control If you are moving back. The opponent should be struggling for thiers. Half-step...one step at most. As I think we both said. And what you described should be happening in that half or one step back...but then its back on.


IE If the distance between you is constant, like If hes moving foward and your moving back so the distance between you remains the same during said movement, you can issue foward power and control position with the right Chum Kiu waist movement and stepping/grounding.

There is turning...and Trin Ma and there is leway for a half step or a step back...as we both mentioned. We even have videos up of Chi Sao and Kui Sao footwork forward and backwards but this is to learn the continuity of technique. However Yummy specifically said



... In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch.

In the Woo System(as I cant speak of any other WCK) none of the 3 hand forms have any stepping backward. Chum Kui has a change of direction to face the attacks but not a step backward.



Ive also found through my own experience that the foward movement of the opponent can lend itself to your actions (in a foward energy sence) when you yourself are actually static....

Good for you, mane. We dont stand still when there is forward energy put on us in the Woo system ...if this is what you mean by static. But Im with you on using the forward energy of your opponent. Thats why we Attack the Attack.



Aint VT great. :D



Yup. ;)

[Lee Chiang Po]

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

Hi All,

I am currently studying TWC for about a year now, though I have a couple years experience in some modified wing chun as well. I have posted this question before, but was not satisfied with the "answers" I got. Perhaps this is my own fault, (i.e. I wasn't clear about what I was asking...) In my current school we are taught to step "back & off the line" when dealing with attacks. Whether it be through a shift, or a T-step, either way you step back far enough that if your hands fail you you should still be out of reach of the incoming punch. And as for "off the line" I mean that we immediately try to step to the flank of the opponent entering in on us. Now I am NOT suggesting that we step so far back that we are no longer in contact with the opponent, just far enough to keep them in the "contact" stage, and not let "them" for us into the exchange stage. I have seen this done by GM Cheung, so I know it is not something my current Sifu just made up. However, I know that some other schools of Wing Chun stress to step in immediately upon attack. (i.e., its all about timing & intercepting). So is this ultimately all about how comfortable you are with your own skills vs. your opponent? Do other TWC schools stress this "back & off the line" concept (possibly using different terminology)? I don't question the concept, as it certainly makes sense to me anyway. There are plenty of REALLY big guys who I would not step-in on immediately if they were coming at me. Perfect timing or not, some people would tear right through you if you just stepped in on them mid-punch. I would like to hear all of your thoughts on this. Initially, I thought perhaps this was something that was just taught to FNG's so they don't lose their teeth during the learning process, but now I think there is more validity to it. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe we can just step in on any attack and "jam" or "intercept" it. Thanks in advance for any & all replies.
__________________

You have it pretty much right I think. I am only 5'4" tall. I was taught by people that were sometimes shorter than myself. In the US most people are going to be much taller than me, so I have used this step and side shift a lot. What I am doing is not moving out of range, but maintaining the range as the opponent moves in on me. Whether or not he realizes it, he is coming right up his own center line at me, and by my moving back to keep the same range I also shift to the side, his dead side usually, and violate his center line. I would then immediately attack and move right on into what you are calling exchange range. I can usually control that side of him and deliver a number of hard punches.
The idea that I could simply meet him head on and wear him out is really taking far too much for granted. I have had to deal with people that even though they were not trained in some form of MA, they could beat you to death given half the chance. The whole idea is to not meet power with power. You simply move from it's path and send it on it's way. The only power you deal with is your own when you fire your weapons at him.
Being short, and by some standards small, I have always felt that a mistake on my part could be fatal. I have always taken advantage of all the moves and techniques that were less likely to place me in danger of making that fatal mistake. View every antagonist as though he were 6'4" and 250 pounds. Be kind to yourself.

Chiang

[Graychuan]

Well here is a guy who moves forward (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwwTE_SKiBo)..allows for a one step or half step back the most. And it also looks like the big guy is actually on the run. He also stays in he middle.

[Phil Redmond]

Well here is a guy who moves forward (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwwTE_SKiBo)..allows for a one step or half step back the most. And it also looks like the big guy is actually on the run. He also stays in he middle.
That demo is in a controlled environment. It wouldn't look the same if some really big guy was bent on hurting the smaller guy. We have guys here who can do many reps with 100lb barbells in each arm. During the adrenalin in a fight they could take the smaller guys punches and simply pick him up and body slam him if he stays in the middle.

[bennyvt]

I must agree that stepping into a big guy would be bad. The problem comes from the fact that everyone thinks of VT as beating a bigger guy. Now this is true to a point. I can make my power, speed and timing increase by using VT. But if it say makes me 3 times as strong, this is great unless I fight a guy who is four times stronger then me. I always use the idea of, You are fighting the hulk, he throws a wide punch, you step forward with a tan sao and punch. Now you have perfect technique and structure so techically it should work right? WRONG. If you did that your arms would brake and your head would be in the next planet. VT is great but not indestructable. Sometimes the force is so great you must go back to relieve the force.
We teach the step after poon sao. We step into the centre and through the partner at 45 degrees. The partner steps back at 45 to releive the pressure while staying in range ( by this I mean elbow a fist and thumb away from the body and arms in normal chi sao range). This teaches that when too much force is against you , you step back to disolve the force. Barry always says "one step back, two steps forward. The step back is taught first then the step forward. This is because it is always better to be able to do the defence well. Wong shun leung brought this exercise forward as before it used to be taught with the dummy but he felt it was too important to fighting. The idea is to be able to step back only enough to release the pressure so you can still hit them. When your elbow gets pushed back further then the fist and thumb you have no option but to step or get hit. Yip man used to say " Iron arms, tofu belly and a glass head". Better to step back then have your head taken off.
David peterson teaches an interesting exercise which is using this princible. Partner A stands with both hand togeather and in the centre, Partner B pushes on his hands. Partner a steps back to relieve the force but still keeps contact. This is a simple exercise to give people the feeling.

[sihing]

That demo is in a controlled environment. It wouldn't look the same if some really big guy was bent on hurting the smaller guy. We have guys here who can do many reps with 100lb barbells in each arm. During the adrenalin in a fight they could take the smaller guys punches and simply pick him up and body slam him if he stays in the middle.

Phil, if this is true (all demos are in controlled environments), I guess all of your demo/vids are subject to the same critique? The vid Graychun posted, yeah it is in a controlled environment, but the skills learned there can help a smaller guy function closer to the centerline in fighting, instead of always having to retreat or look for a big flanking advantage. Nothing works exactly like it will in training, but the attributes learned can only help one in a fight, there are no guarantee's, regardless of what your learning. Smaller guys beat bigger guys in fights all the time.

Do you suggest against a bigger guy, that you fight on the outside and give him more chances to hit you? The problem with that type of strategy is you give the bigger guy a chance to develop forward momentum, most all fighters cannot function retreating. If I am going to fight a guy much bigger than me, once I have my bearings, I would take the fight to him and try to make them retreat by attacking the COG, while striking them (At Sifu Lam's they have po pai training, where smaller guys can launch larger people with ease, making them "Fly" into the mattresses). Good body mechanics and structure can make a small person very powerful, while maintaining their ability to be quick and maneuverable. Big guys have strength but no speed, if a smaller guy has both, that is extremely dangerous and I would put my money on the smaller guy.


The strength it takes to do reps with 100lbs barbells is mostly useless in a fight if the person does not have some fighting skills and coordination to complement it, it is all relative so I do not understand why you would use an example like this. Yes, if you are facing someone bigger/stronger than you that has skills, you are in more trouble as it is here that the strength factor really kicks in, when it is combined with skill.

I'm not suggesting that a smaller person confront a bigger/stronger opponent dead on, but there are ways to use WC/VT properly without having to run away whenever great force is met. The key is to use the mechanics properly (if you have these mechanics present in your system), and timing. The thing about big guys, is that they have harder time protecting their centers, smaller guys can navigate right thru their centers if they know what they are doing. I've trained with smaller guys, at intense levels, and realized this fact. Of course the danger of just getting picked up and bear hugged is there, but it is there regardless of how you defend yourself against a bigger guy, since contact is inevitable if you choose to stay and fight rather than run. And there is also the option of low level attacks, including the groin and legs, as well as more lethal setups using eye jabs and neck hits. All people, whatever size they are, are susceptible to these types of attacks.

I ask everyone here to ask any 10yr to hit you square on in the face and see if it has no affect on you. When your life is on the line, and you have good training behind you, you can produce devastating results when need be. Yes there is an adrenalin dump, but that works both ways, your opponent may have more tolerance for pain, but so does the person defending themselves, and, thru good training gain more power and ability to do what is necessary to defend themselves. Remember the idea in self defence is not to stay in there to knock the guy out, or finish him off, but rather to survive, and get out alive.. If the odds are against me due to some physical factor (he's very large, I'm injured, I'm drunk, There's more than one, Weapons invovlved, etc etc..), I temporarily disable my opponent and run to get out alive and safe.

Retreat is part of the process, but to do so just because greater force is applied onto one is foolish. Good WC/VT practitioners can accept great force upon themselves without having to retreat or move back a great deal, while at the same time attack, as others have mentioned, the problem is not all WC/VT is the same or equal. IMO, and through my years of training TWC, it is a longer range art that fights on the outside parameter, and at a flank most of the time, so they are more likely to retreat more so than someone trained in another form of WC/VT, which operates closer in. When making comments we have to keep it within the context of what you are training in.

James

[JPinAZ]

Interesting discussion!!
James, I think you nailed it on your last post :)


...Sometimes the force is so great you must go back to relieve the force...

I can see this, given you already have a bridge.
As I understand WC, prior to contact, I should just occupy space with strong structure and stand my ground. We have a saying "I don't move unless I have too". Sure, stance/foot adjustments for proper facing, structure and lines of offence/deffense might be necessary, but one shouldn't have to give up thier space prior to contact. To me, it makes sense to read the energies once (if) a bridge is made and then we know what we have to do next and how/if we should move.

Maybe, if after the bridge is made and someone is collapsing my structure or entering my space, then my feet move - as my hands tell them too. (feet follow the hands) But as I see it, this is done to regain lost space or structure after a bridge is made, not prior too.

As was mentioned previouslye, one can step back prior to making contact and still have fwd energy in thier hands. But to me, they still are giving up thier space and moving away from the attack, so the fwd energy in the hands isn't doing as much good if your body is stepping away from where this fwd energy is directed. And of course, this can be made to work! But to me, it seems that this gives the opponent more time to regroup or launch a second attack easier.

And of course, fighting bigger and stronger opponents takes a different approach/strategy - maybe. But IMO, if I step away from one of these bigger guys, I just give him more room to build momentum and use his size/strength against me. Not to mention the fact I just gave him more time to maneuver and get to me.
I'd rather still stand my ground then reposition if I feel he is overpowering my structures or I can't deflect/redirect his incoming energy.

If I am concerned about his strength being greater then mine, then I am thinking from an attributes perspective. I feel with proper structure and use of timing and positioning, the larger/stronger factor doesn't really matter. Isn't this what WC is all about anyway? :)

[sihing]

Interesting discussion!!

James, I think you nailed it on your last post :)

Thanks:)


I can see this, given you already have a bridge.
As I understand WC, prior to contact, I should just occupy space with strong structure and stand my ground. We have a saying "I don't move unless I have too". Sure, stance/foot adjustments for proper facing, structure and lines of offence/deffense might be necessary, but one shouldn't have to give up thier space prior to contact. To me, it makes sense to read the energies once (if) a bridge is made and then we know what we have to do next and how/if we should move.

In strict WC you occupy space, giving the opponent less opportunity to hit you dead on. I can agree with your saying, less movement means economy of motion and less signs to give away to your opponent. Giving up space prior to contact is foolish as there is no reason to, I say basically attack the attack (giving back what you are recieving), this can be done with different timings (slightly before initiation, during initiation, after initiation), to put your opponent back on the defensive. If you give space you are not doing that, as you are only avoiding the attack, not attacking yourself.


Maybe, if after the bridge is made and someone is collapsing my structure or entering my space, then my feet move - as my hands tell them too. (feet follow the hands) But as I see it, this is done to regain lost space or structure after a bridge is made, not prior too.
Agreed..



As was mentioned previouslye, one can step back prior to making contact and still have fwd energy in thier hands. But to me, they still are giving up thier space and moving away from the attack, so the fwd energy in the hands isn't doing as much good if your body is stepping away from where this fwd energy is directed. And of course, this can be made to work! But to me, it seems that this gives the opponent more time to regroup or launch a second attack easier.
Giving up space is opposite of WC thinking, it is less efficient and takes away the effectiveness of the WC delivery system, which is based on moving forward or toward the center while giving pressure to their COG and with striking weapons. Like a wedge for a door, without putting pressure on it, it is useless.


And of course, fighting bigger and stronger opponents takes a different approach/strategy - maybe. But IMO, if I step away from one of these bigger guys, I just give him more room to build momentum and use his size/strength against me. Not to mention the fact I just gave him more time to maneuver and get to me.
I'd rather still stand my ground then reposition if I feel he is overpowering my structures or I can't deflect/redirect his incoming energy.
Agreed, giving them more momentum, and time to attack means less chance to overcome your opponent, pretty simple if you ask me.


If I am concerned about his strength being greater then mine, then I am thinking from an attributes perspective. I feel with proper structure and use of timing and positioning, the larger/stronger factor doesn't really matter. Isn't this what WC is all about anyway? :

This is exactly what WC is about, using the natural strengths of our bodies to produce the most effective weapon available to us. Some WC systems teach this, some don't, that why this forum has so many threads, too much variation and differences in training, concept and application.

The only true way to find out what we are all talking about is personal one to one contact, training with one another. I did this and found out what was what, the rest is history;)


James

[Liddel]

In the Woo System(as I cant speak of any other WCK) none of the 3 hand forms have any stepping backward. Chum Kui has a change of direction to face the attacks but not a step backward.


My VT has stepping back as a seperate stepping drill, like we see in WSLs old vid the science of infighting where he demonstrates punching while using a shuffle foward and back. Similar to the arrow horse punching with the kwan only with the normal horse... And in the weapons forms stepping back is even more evident.

I know some dont intergrate the weapons concepts into Hands and vice versa...

But IMO its important to know how to issue power and have structure whilst moving back.
Its a shame you dont focus on it more Gray im sure it would make you guys even better.


...Sometimes the force is so great you must go back to relieve the force...

Exactly Benny, sometimes your hands get crossed momentarily, sometimes if your opponents good even in a training platform like Poon Sao you lose elbow space.
I often make younger guys elbows touch thier body with good positioning leaving them with few options but to step further away gaining distance.

VT has certain maxims that we try to adhere to, but just like the purpose of BJ we need options to use when the opponent screws with those ideals in application ? Unless your never up against someone with more skill than you.

Personally, im never perfect :o even against younger students in training - i get tired, i make mistakes...its human.

I feel to assume youll always be able to go foward is absurd, its paramount to assuming youll never be able to be taken to the ground :o


one can step back prior to making contact and still have fwd energy in thier hands. But to me, they still are giving up thier space and moving away from the attack

2 things -

I feel this assumes you still have/own the space but most other styles move into the pocket when punching so your actually competing for space equally, in a sence...its already lost untill you get it back again.

You want maintain your space is a better way to say it IMO. If you dont step back or to the side maintaining your space, you may end up in a clinch and space is gone altogether. Too close is just as bad as too far away in a VT sence.

Situation is paramount - if its five guys in a park on you alone, running a good 20 meters to gain the space to turn and brace is a fair option. :)


there are some big fellas out there, there is one in particular at my school who bounced for many years, you do not want to step in front of his round punch!

I find letting it go - Pak Sao and duck, stepping away if hes coming in, and using a good knee stomp or side kick (right out of the dummy form - 30 to 40 or thereabouts) is effective for me....never play someone else game, pick him off and stay mobile, do not crash the center untill you've kept him busy dealing with something ..... :)

DREW

[Phil Redmond]

Phil, if this is true (all demos are in controlled environments), I guess all of your demo/vids are subject to the same critique?
James....Yes they are. But we do test our principles against resisting opponents in the ring and in class.

[sihing]

....Yes they are. But we do test our principles against resisting opponents in the ring and in class.

Phil,

How do you test your principles in class? Do you spar yout WC? Is this the correct test of your principles? Sparring to me isn't, as it is the application side of things. Application is up to the individual. When I defend myself or fight it is me fighting, not TWC or WSL WC, just me. You can't test your principles this way, since the test is not specific enough. The true test of your WC, is during WC training IMO. I think the situation here is that the two of us have different ideas of what WC/VT represents. When I was in TWC, my thinking was application, technique. From my research in TWC over the years and years I practiced it, application and technique was the thing GM Cheung was after as well. This is fine and dandy. Today, the WC I practice is not about application nor technique, rather it is about body mechanics and concepts. Basically the difference is this, TWC tells me how to fight, what to do when someone does this or that. WSL WC other hand trains my body to move in a certain way, it gives me physical attributes and body mechanics so that I can 1) punch hard from short distances, 2) accept force within my structure and stance, 3) move fast with interruptable footwork and short stepping, 4) take someone's balance away while striking them with punches and short kicks, attack their COG, as well as a whole bunch of other neat things. Now if you ask me what I am going to do when someone throws this punch or that kick, whatever attack, I won't be able to give you a definitive answer, simple due to the fact that I don't know. I will figure that out when the situation arises, all I do know is if you want to attack me, my first instinct is to attack you as well, chase your center, eat your space, hit you hard, and continue to do so until you are incapacitated. The insignifigant details, like tan/pak/bong/lop, this sau or that sau, are all actions to help me hit you. If the first hit doesn't finish it, the system allows for immediate follow ups, each with the equal and vicious force. The system is not unbeatable, but it is definetely something to contend with if the training is correct. That is a big IF though.


Regarding your comment about the ring, I have no concern about anyone's usage of WC in the ring, as WC is not a ring sport, nor was it ever developed for that place. It's about street survival, getting out alive when the possibility of death or serious injury is on the table. Ring fighting is a totally different situation. IMO you can adapt WC to the ring, and that is fine if that is your thing. For me it isn't and it doesn't prove a thing when someone says what they do works in that arena. The idea here on this forum I would think, is not about proving anything, it is a place for discussion and revelation, but we are very limited here because there is no physical contact. Everything you say to me is theory, and what I say to you is the same, that is until we met face to face.

James

P.S. Thanks for the invite to the school in New Jersey. If I had the coin, I would take the next flight there to see what you guys are up to, as I'm always down for stuff like that. I live in Thunder Bay, just north of Minneapolis, about a 14hr drive from TO, so can't make that seminar of yours either, thx for the invite though:)
Nothing personal Phil, just a difference in thinking and the way I see things now as compared to yourself.

[couch]

2 things -

I feel this assumes you still have/own the space but most other styles move into the pocket when punching so your actually competing for space equally, in a sence...its already lost untill you get it back again.

You want maintain your space is a better way to say it IMO. If you dont step back or to the side maintaining your space, you may end up in a clinch and space is gone altogether. Too close is just as bad as too far away in a VT sence.

Situation is paramount - if its five guys in a park on you alone, running a good 20 meters to gain the space to turn and brace is a fair option. :)

DREW

I agree here, Drew. Look at the Tony Blauer stuff. Or look at Geoff Thompson's The Fence. In a self-defense situation, I have no problems putting up my hands to occupy the centreline, but backing up while trying to de-escalate verbally. Putting my hands up and stepping back is a great way to show I'm not aggressive - right before I fire one at their head!

My 2 cents.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Personally, I have never liked sparing with another WC person. It is like fighting one's self if you know what I mean. But in fighting with people that are not WC trained, I have learned what works best for me. Being short and all.
I have found that in a real fight you may exchange back and forth until you manage to make something work. You might land a few, and you may take a few back before you get in the one that works for you. That is why it is called fighting. On the other hand, knowing that in a fight you also stand a good chance of getting your stuff beaten out of you, I have learned to back up when it is necessary. I try not to give my opponent a lot of room to maneuver, but then I can hit him from as far away as he can hit me, so I try to maintain the distance as I move with him. I use my center line to attach or defend, but so does he. And if he is coming right up my center line I just move it on him. I step off to the side and back to keep distance real. That way his center line is now off to my side and I adjust and shift to keep him directly in my own center line. He has to fight me sideways and if I am now quick enough I can rush in and control his side while I batter him. I have been able to spin a fellow completely around so that I am punching his kidneys out and stepping into the back of his knees. When you step into his knee he drops down. It is then that you unleash the dragon. I have used that so many times.
This is only when or if he comes charging in. You would never consider moving back otherwise. It is my theory that if you are defending then you have the advantage. The attacker always has to move into fortified ground.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

How do you test your principles in class? Do you spar yout WC? Is this the correct test of your principles? Sparring to me isn't, as it is the application side of things. Application is up to the individual. When I defend myself or fight it is me fighting, not TWC or WSL WC, just me. You can't test your principles this way, since the test is not specific enough. The true test of your WC, is during WC training IMO. I think the situation here is that the two of us have different ideas of what WC/VT represents. When I was in TWC, my thinking was application, technique. From my research in TWC over the years and years I practiced it, application and technique was the thing GM Cheung was after as well. This is fine and dandy. Today, the WC I practice is not about application nor technique, rather it is about body mechanics and concepts. Basically the difference is this, TWC tells me how to fight, what to do when someone does this or that. WSL WC other hand trains my body to move in a certain way, it gives me physical attributes and body mechanics so that I can 1) punch hard from short distances, 2) accept force within my structure and stance, 3) move fast with interruptable footwork and short stepping, 4) take someone's balance away while striking them with punches and short kicks, attack their COG, as well as a whole bunch of other neat things. Now if you ask me what I am going to do when someone throws this punch or that kick, whatever attack, I won't be able to give you a definitive answer, simple due to the fact that I don't know. I will figure that out when the situation arises, all I do know is if you want to attack me, my first instinct is to attack you as well, chase your center, eat your space, hit you hard, and continue to do so until you are incapacitated. The insignifigant details, like tan/pak/bong/lop, this sau or that sau, are all actions to help me hit you. If the first hit doesn't finish it, the system allows for immediate follow ups, each with the equal and vicious force. The system is not unbeatable, but it is definetely something to contend with if the training is correct. That is a big IF though.

I do regard the best way to test a martial art is to fight. And in no way should any martial tell you how to fight. Don't live in a box is the saying at our school. We give people attributes and alternatives and they use what works for them. My C is also about body mechanics. I don't think there is a fighter that doesn't have body mechanics



Regarding your comment about the ring, I have no concern about anyone's usage of WC in the ring, as WC is not a ring sport, nor was it ever developed for that place. It's about street survival, getting out alive when the possibility of death or serious injury is on the table. Ring fighting is a totally different situation. IMO you can adapt WC to the ring, and that is fine if that is your thing. For me it isn't and it doesn't prove a thing when someone says what they do works in that arena. The idea here on this forum I would think, is not about proving anything, it is a place for discussion and revelation, but we are very limited here because there is no physical contact. Everything you say to me is theory, and what I say to you is the same, that is until we met face to face.
I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just stating how we train. Again, the best way to train a martial art is to test it against resisting opponents from different disciplines who are trying to hurt you. There are two ways to achieve this. Either spar or get into street fights. Now I know for self defense there is no need to spar. Anyone can get hit upside the head with a bottle, bat, or whatever by someone who doesn't train. I'm not knocking your opinion. I just love the rush of the combat

[sihing]

I do believe the best way to test a martial art is to fight. And in no way should any martial art tell you how to fight. Don't live in a box is the saying at our school. We give people attributes and alternatives and they use what works for them. My WC is also about body mechanics. I don't think there is a fighter that doesn't have body mechanics



I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just stating how we train. Again, the best way to train a martial art is to test it against resisting opponents from different disciplines who are trying to hurt you. There are two ways to achieve this. Either spar or get into street fights. Now I know for self defense there is no need to spar. Anyone can get hit upside the head with a bottle, bat, or whatever by someone who doesn't train. I'm not knocking your opinion. I just love the rush of the combat

If I want to fight and test my skills for some egoic reason, then I would agree with you. Go out and fight other fighters from other systems. Then after some wins and losses, evaluate what needs to been improved and do it all over again. Sounds like a endless cycle of chasing a false belief if you ask me:eek:

This here is the difference between the two of us. I train because I enjoy the process of learning WC/VT. I would have to admit that constitutes 95% of why I continue to train in the art. If I didn't enjoy it, then why continue to do it? The self defence aspect of it was developed years and years ago. I imagine if someone hasn't learned it within the first few years they either have no talent or have a lousy instructor.

As for fighting, which is a comparison of skill in the art of combat, it is ultimately a sign of egotisical behaviour (if I can physically dominate you, then you will be submissive to me). This is different to self defence, which is totally about surviving a surprise attack.

The way I look at it, if I want to "test" my Wing Chun, I will do so against other WC people (I'm talking specifics here). WC to me is a training philosophy, a way of developing skills and attributes designed to give me an advantage in combat, plus a fun activity to participate in. Fighting is different, as now you are trying to pit your combative skills against someone else with similar abilities to test manhood & satisfy the ego. All I'm interested in is developing WC skills. I think we should all be honest here, unless you are getting into fights on a daily basis, why kid ourselves into believing that is why we are training, LOL.

I highly recommend, if you feel a rush from combat that you ask yourself why? Do you have a need to prove something to yourself or others? Ask yourself, do you really want to hurt the person in front of you, or are you doing it for alternative reasons? For me, if I had those feelings I would look deep inside to ask why. As human beings, I would think the thought or undertaking of incapasitating someone else for the pleasure/love of it would be something most would find very disturbing. If I remember correctly, GM Cheung himself said that once someone has the developed the skills of fighting or self defence, the need to prove oneself should be gone. Is this really true?

James

[anerlich]

I don't think there is a fighter that doesn't have body mechanics

I think if anything most WC guys concentrate too much on structure and body mechanics, to the point where they get in the way, rather than help, in self-defense. I've yet to meet a WC guy who couldn't talk all four legs off a chair about structure, elbow position, body mechanics, gates, lines, yadyadayada.

James, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you got dudded on TWC by Lewadny, and that you agree on some levels at least. Hard to take the subtext of your statements any other way. The straw man arguments you make about TWC do not match my experience, nor Phil's, apparently.


It's about street survival, getting out alive when the possibility of death or serious injury is on the table.

Most of us saw Ernie's recent fine vid on that subject too. The same stuff Geoff Thompson and Sandford Strong among others have been saying for decades. Jeez, I've had that "Surviving violent crime" link in my .sig for as long as I've been on the forum. Arguably, martial skill is one of the least important attributes in surviving violent crime situations.

AS it's illegal and possibly dangerous and fatal to indulge in regular street fights to test our stuff, many of us still resort to some sort of practice fighting with rules, limits and protection to ensure our stuff works. Good luck to you if you've found another way, but I'm sceptical.


Or look at Geoff Thompson's The Fence. In a self-defense situation, I have no problems putting up my hands to occupy the centreline, but backing up while trying to de-escalate verbally. Putting my hands up and stepping back is a great way to show I'm not aggressive - right before I fire one at their head!

No probs with that tactic, but that's not the way the Fence is designed in my experience. The fence is exactly that, setting a boundary that the guy must not pass. Your hands are up, while you try to defuse the situation verbally, so that hopefully the guy senses he can't successfully king hit you, or if he does you can and will then defend, and that you won't be intimidated. If he touches the fence more than once, you push him away, both hands, STAND YOUR GROUND, and bark commands at him - stay away, don't f***ing move, etc. to hit him with the adrenal dump. Either he'll (hopefully) back off (flight), usually hurling insults from out of range, or it's on (fight), so you need to be ready. You could argue that this is a version of man sao, asking hand, in a WC context.

If he's adrenalised and you back away, he WILL chase you down, millions of years of evolution say so. So you'll be fighting.

That might be a good tactic for you, but I see that as different from The Fence.

[WoodenYummy]

I just want to say thanks to all of you for offering your insights. I really appreciate hearing from so many varying perspectives on this matter. I am still realtively new at this, and very eager to learn as much as I can. I have the utmost respect for all of you for offering up your opinions & differences. Much appreciated. I understand that situations will vary, and that ideally I do want to occupy the centerline, I guess I was ultimately trying to get a feel for who does & does not use this "back & off the line" concept and how frequently. I have some difference of opinion with some of the comments made, but hey, I haven't seen you guys, maybe you are a much bigger guy than I am imagining ;) And when I brought this up, I should have been more clear, I am not suggesting that we are taught to retreat at our kwoon, its more like a move to clear your self from the path of something big, but we are certainly taught to follow that energy and use it to our advantage. Typically if a BIG round punch is coming through, we would step back and off the line, only to follow the punch as it passes with a Pak Sao or something and attempt to pin that elbow while attacking from the blindside. Anyway, thanks to all of you once again! I am pleased to see all the differences without the politics rearing their ugly heads! WING CHUN IS THE SHIZNIT!

[Phil Redmond]

If I want to fight and test my skills for some egoic reason, then I would agree with you. Go out and fight other fighters from other systems. Then after some wins and losses, evaluate what needs to been improved and do it all over again. Sounds like a endless cycle of chasing a false belief if you ask me:eek:

This here is the difference between the two of us. I train because I enjoy the process of learning WC/VT. I would have to admit that constitutes 95% of why I continue to train in the art. If I didn't enjoy it, then why continue to do it? The self defence aspect of it was developed years and years ago. I imagine if someone hasn't learned it within the first few years they either have no talent or have a lousy instructor.

As for fighting, which is a comparison of skill in the art of combat, it is ultimately a sign of egotisical behaviour (if I can physically dominate you, then you will be submissive to me). This is different to self defence, which is totally about surviving a surprise attack.

The way I look at it, if I want to "test" my Wing Chun, I will do so against other WC people (I'm talking specifics here). WC to me is a training philosophy, a way of developing skills and attributes designed to give me an advantage in combat, plus a fun activity to participate in. Fighting is different, as now you are trying to pit your combative skills against someone else with similar abilities to test manhood & satisfy the ego. All I'm interested in is developing WC skills. I think we should all be honest here, unless you are getting into fights on a daily basis, why kid ourselves into believing that is why we are training, LOL.

I highly recommend, if you feel a rush from combat that you ask yourself why? Do you have a need to prove something to yourself or others? Ask yourself, do you really want to hurt the person in front of you, or are you doing it for alternative reasons? For me, if I had those feelings I would look deep inside to ask why. As human beings, I would think the thought or undertaking of incapasitating someone else for the pleasure/love of it would be something most would find very disturbing. If I remember correctly, GM Cheung himself said that once someone has the developed the skills of fighting or self defence, the need to prove oneself should be gone. Is this really true?

James

You're assuming that I love the sparring/fighting due to ego. You are wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

[sihing]

I think if anything most WC guys concentrate too much on structure and body mechanics, to the point where they get in the way, rather than help, in self-defense. I've yet to meet a WC guy who couldn't talk all four legs off a chair about structure, elbow position, body mechanics, gates, lines, yadyadayada.

I honestly believe the opposite, lol. Most of what I see online and thru personal experience with other lineages, the practitioners lack structure and body mechanics, but to each their own, some see trash, some see gold:D The key here is not be be a slave to the process, as it is only a training system. One should apply it as needed and with their own flavor. The problem is people get stuck in the process, thinking the training is the application, so therefore they stagnate and discontinue progression.


James, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you got dudded on TWC by Lewadny, and that you agree on some levels at least. Hard to take the subtext of your statements any other way. The straw man arguments you make about TWC do not match my experience, nor Phil's, apparently.

You could be quite right there. I just find it interesting that in 94' and on film, that GM Cheung appointed Lewadny as North American Head. I think it is fair to say, since there is little video footage available and no one here besides me (there are other lurkers here that could testify to his abilities as well, but they lurk;)) that can testify to Lewadny's skills, that no one can say definitively if he was dupped or not. All I know is this, 1) He was certified Sifu Level by GM Cheung back in 87', 2) Back in 90' in my presence, was told by Polish Instructor that he was recommended to teach international students by Aussie Headquarters, 3) Upon personal training with US TWC students in 90' during GM Cheung's 50th Bday, the skills taught, shown and demonstrated by the top instructors there where no better than Lewadny's, in fact other instructors came to him for advice.

What I have realized over the years is that my first Sifu improved upon (IMO) and adapted to his students what he had learned from GM Cheung in Aussie land back in 86-87'. Suffice it to say, I have my own ability to evaluate who's who in TWC land, and so far besides the GM himself, I haven't seen any who match Sifu B's skills, but I could be wrong as feeling is really believing:) The man was a Martial Arts genius IMO, and I still have great respect for his skills as a WC man and as a Martial Artist. But all of this is just talk and I am no longer a part of that organization so it is of no matter to me what people think of the man. If I want to really find out what someone is all about skill wise I would visit with them first hand, that way there are no if, and's or but about it. I recommend that you do that Andrew before you comment on whether somone was duped or not:)

James

[sihing]

You're assuming that I love the sparring/fighting due to ego. You are wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.


Phil,

How do you define ego? I define ego as a entity of the mind that produces a false identity, of superiority, of being special, of having to be different from common mankind. I find it interesting that anyone that admits to loving fighting is lacking in ego, but to each their own (just to clear the record, I feel the thrill of combat as well, that is why I avoid it at all costs.) If I told you that all of us are special, all of us are common, and that anything and everything you do, is not a reflection of who you are, would you believe that?

Good journey's dude, I only wish you the best in the future and in health:)

James

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

How do you define ego? I define ego as a entity of the mind that produces a false identity, of superiority, of being special, of having to be different from common mankind. I find it interesting that anyone that admits to loving fighting is lacking in ego, but to each their own (just to clear the record, I feel the thrill of combat as well, that is why I avoid it at all costs.) If I told you that all of us are special, all of us are common, and that anything and everything you do, is not a reflection of who you are, would you believe that?

Good journey's dude, I only wish you the best in the future and in health:)

James
Ego;
noun, plural e·gos.
1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance: Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
4. self-esteem or self-image; feelings: Your criticism wounded his ego.
5. (often initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. the enduring and conscious element that knows experience.
b. Scholasticism. the complete person comprising both body and soul.
6. Ethnology. a person who serves as the central reference point in the study of organizational and kinship relationships.

I more relate to the 1st definition of the word ego. Yes, I am self aware and I do distinguish myself from others as do most humans.
Does a mountain climber have ego because he wants to challenge himself? Maybe. Does a sky diver have ego because he enjoys the thrill and danger of the jump? Do the people who dive with sharks have ego?
Does the soldier who trains for combat and goes willingly have ego?
Does the fighter who wants to see if what he trains in works in the real world have ego? The answer could be yes or no. It just so happens that some people love to test their limitations and are not satisfied with living in a safe theoretical world. Thank you for your good wishes. I wish the same for all people.

[bennyvt]

I was not saying you should step back when not in contact. This should only be done when your eblow goes too close or your structure or stance is being lost. The step gives you the chance to regain your space.
Not all fighting is about ego. As far as I know WSL was some what famous for his challenge matches, he also told his students that they should do it too. I know that WSL, my teachers teacher, and your teach (gary Lam) had several. This is the only way to test if VT works. Of course you can make it work against VT people you know exactly what they will do. They hit in the centre so you block in the centre. The real world people throw them from all angles and the size and strength differences change what techniques can be used. This does not have to be about ego. Barry told us stories were they would be having lunch and doing hoon sao under the table and the cooks would notice. They would arrange a match, if you won they gave food for the next week, if you lost you did something for them. They sat and disscussed what happened and learnt from them, this is not ego this is using VT for what it is for, testing the effectiveness. WSL used to say " VT is a sophisticated system of combat, nothing else. If you want to learn self defence dont learn VT. Unless you are prepared to fight to win you will lose" (not exact words but pretty close)

[Phil Redmond]

Some of the students from Duncan Leung's school were training for full contact matches at Madison Square Garden. I was asked to be a sparring partner because the other sparring partners needed a break. I had done hours of chi sao and forms. Anyone who trained at the Great Jones school knows how tough the training was there. Since I was training hard plus the was allowed to wear an Everlast headgear that protected the front of the face I thought being a sparring partner would be fun. Well, I got hit with a full power blow that rocked me big time. My game plan went out the window after that. There's a saying that goes, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit". After that incident I wondered that if got hit hard in a real situation would I be able to continue or would I b1*ch up. That's what got me into full contact fighting. Not ego.

[sihing]

I was not saying you should step back when not in contact. This should only be done when your eblow goes too close or your structure or stance is being lost. The step gives you the chance to regain your space.
Agreed, if your structure is being collapsed you toi ma (pushed step) to regain the space, but at the sametime you are still able to hit with structure and power.


Not all fighting is about ego. As far as I know WSL was some what famous for his challenge matches, he also told his students that they should do it too. I know that WSL, my teachers teacher, and your teach (gary Lam) had several. This is the only way to test if VT works.
I agree that testing what you are doing, which IMO is a requirement if you want to be functional with your WC/VT, is not about ego. As far as I understand it, WSL would accept beimo fights to test his abilities, this is still not the same as a real self defence situation, as there are rules and respect for the opponent during beimo fights, not so during when someone attacks you randomly. My point was, lots of people look at sparring and testing as the be all end all, plus they get a high out of it when they defeat someone in sparring. Sparring IMO is testing the non contact aspect of your ability to bridge the gap and safely enter the range where WC/VT is used. It is an important part of the training, if you understand properly what it is there for. Just like everything else in training, it is just there to make you more functional, rather than looked upon as the end result of your training.


Of course you can make it work against VT people you know exactly what they will do. They hit in the centre so you block in the centre. The real world people throw them from all angles and the size and strength differences change what techniques can be used. This does not have to be about ego. Barry told us stories were they would be having lunch and doing hoon sao under the table and the cooks would notice. They would arrange a match, if you won they gave food for the next week, if you lost you did something for them. They sat and disscussed what happened and learnt from them, this is not ego this is using VT for what it is for, testing the effectiveness. WSL used to say " VT is a sophisticated system of combat, nothing else. If you want to learn self defence dont learn VT. Unless you are prepared to fight to win you will lose" (not exact words but pretty close

Like I said in one of my posts, I was being specific. If you want to improve your "Wing Chun" skills, you practice it with other WC people. If you want to improve your fighting skills you fight. WC IMO is a training system, not a application system, there's a difference here. WSL said if you want to learn self defence, learn the art of invisibility, since we can't do that, the next best thing is to avoid it all cost, so far this strategy has worked for me. I for the most part practice WSL VT because I love it, it gives me pleasure to participate in the activity and to spread the teaching as well and making new friends is the best part:) That's it. I haven't even had the chance to use my skills in the real world in over 10 yrs, that is because I don't look for trouble. If you are, you will find it:eek: The self defence skills were learned many years ago, my learning in WSL VT has only improved the effectiveness of those skills 10 fold.
Of course if someone attacks me, I will do what I need to do to overcome them in defending myself, but I wouldn't call it "winning", as that gives the impression that there was some sort of competition going on. In street defence that is never the case, you survive and hopefully walk away from it with as little injury as possible. Sometimes that is not always the case:(

James

P.S. I've heard many great things about Sifu Barry. I hope he is recovering well from his accident:)

[Liddel]

I think you both have a point.

Have you actually fought a guy bigger and stronger than you Ali ?
You look like you have size on your side from the vids ive seen of you. :rolleyes:

Obviously its situation dependent.

Ive seen two cops jump on a 120 KG Samoan after another cop snap kicked his groin and peppered sprayed him. IT MADE HIM ANGRY !

As much as i believe in martials arts and technique in fighting....sadly the truth is IMO... size and strength does matter, its not the be all and end all but it is an advantage at the very least.

DREW

[Phil Redmond]

I think you both have a point.

Have you actually fought a guy bigger and stronger than you Ali ?
You look like you have size on your side from the vids ive seen of you. :rolleyes:

Obviously its situation dependent.

Ive seen two cops jump on a 120 KG Samoan after another cop snap kicked his groin and peppered sprayed him. IT MADE HIM ANGRY !

As much as i believe in martials arts and technique in fighting....sadly the truth is IMO... size and strength does matter, its not the be all and end all but it is an advantage at the very least.

DREW
You're right Drew. Ali is 6'4"- 6'6". I don't know the metric....lol.
The situation with that Samoan happens all the time. I've seen big guys go nuts in clubs and fight off the security. When you combine size and adrenalin size matters regardless of what anyone says. It's simple physics.

[Liddel]

To take this a little further and to keep on topic...

Do you appraoch (mentally/physically) bigger opponents differently than same size guys ?

What are some of the tactics and/or strategies of VT i might see the two of you employ against a much bigger/stronger opponent ?

I think keeping/maintaining good distance, being even further than what you would use with a similar sized opponent, is important. (keeping to the original post :)) Stepping back maintaining distance at first.

Im not staying away all the time of course - because i must get close to attack, so Bridging in and out must be quicker and more effective, i tend to be more mobile.

My heaviest actions are my right hand and elbows which i look to set up off knee stomps/kicks and VT jabs which if done clean are very sucessful against bigger guys than me.....

I dropped a tough KBer friend of mine with a good knee shot off a punch, whos bigger by
30 - 40 pounds and stronger. But im sharper...inch power. :)

DREW

[couch]

For me, it's about bringing down larger opponents at the knees. If I were to have the distance, a well-placed kick would either bring the opponent down or hopefully "stop-hit" them in a fashion for a good follow-up.

Theorizing over :p,
Kenton

[Graychuan]

Everything in a fight is relative. Don't live in a box. You definitely don't want to charge down the middle of an extremely larger opponent though. ;)



Anyone ever watch a Matador vs. a Bull in a Bullfight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4xwwj9Pb-E)?

Funny thing is...if the Matador turns and runs, or steps back...its his @$$. Usually you see these guys hold thier ground. Can't put the saber in the neck if you are moving back. And these guys examplify 'grace under pressure'. Nothing 'controlled' about that environment.

On the other hand...its always the Rodeo 'Clowns' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VSc_u5Asc)that run away and get thrown, trampled or impaled.

Now that I think about it...Id love to see a Matador learn some Wing Chun Kung Fu and have the same mentality as when he is staring down the eyes of a charging Angus.


Love, Peace & Chitlin' Grease,
~Cg~

[CFT]

It really isn't comparable. The bull is a quadruped with 'limited' offensive capabilities namely it's horns, mass and speed. It has a certain amount of agility but can't slip and turn as quickly as a human. It doesn't engage in deceit/feinting so it is almost like a train on a track. If the matador is reading the bull's posture correctly then he should be on top of the situation.

I'd like to see a human go barehanded against an enraged gorilla or chimpanzee.

[k gledhill]

primates go straight for the nutz and bite , biting off testicles , biting off fingers and anything else they get hold of....not nice ..ergo rules of engagement ...we 'higher minded' :rolleyes: primates have rules.

dont eat the opponent and or rip his nutz off : rules eh ?

Id rather face a bull than a monkey or a gorilla any day , gored or eaten ,hmmmm let me think SLAP !! dont think RUN :D

[Graychuan]

... If the matador is reading the bull's posture correctly then he should be on top of the situation...


And there is absolutely no reason why this is not true of two men facing each other in a fight. Why be conflicted? Fear and indecisiveness are mind-killers.
You either face the attack and fight or you turn and run (flight) Trying to do both will just make you a dear in the headlights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laeingBmeV0&NR=1).

[couch]

primates go straight for the nutz and bite , biting off testicles , biting off fingers and anything else they get hold of....not nice ..ergo rules of engagement ...we 'higher minded' :rolleyes: primates have rules.

dont eat the opponent and or rip his nutz off : rules eh ?

Id rather face a bull than a monkey or a gorilla any day , gored or eaten ,hmmmm let me think SLAP !! dont think RUN :D

Don't think...run...is right!

It's not fight or flight...it's flight OVER flight. We lasted this long because we (as humans) felt a greater need in the pit of our being to run than stand and fight the lions, tigers and bears.

Oh my!

[Ali. R]

It really isn't comparable. The bull is a quadruped with 'limited' offensive capabilities namely it's horns, mass and speed. It has a certain amount of agility but can't slip and turn as quickly as a human. It doesn't engage in deceit/feinting so it is almost like a train on a track. If the matador is reading the bull's posture correctly then he should be on top of the situation.

I'd like to see a human go barehanded against an enraged gorilla or chimpanzee.

Being mentally ready is the ideal of engagement far as fighting up the middle (grace under pressure), either you stand there or you don’t, it’s your choice fight or run and reset, and watch your opponents momentum snow ball down hill into something that you will never begin to control… Stop it in its infancy before it reaches it’s incline…


If the matador is reading the bull's posture correctly then he should be on top of the situation.

Everything that you said about the matador and bull is correct, but there are people out there that are just as bad as the bull when it comes to: agility, can't slip, doesn't engage in deceit/feinting; that's been fighting for years, and I can count them on two sets of hands…

But yet, man is much smaller then the bull… I find that very ironic that one will stand up to a bull, but not a bigger man…



Ali Rahim.

[WoodenYummy]

Come on guys, I think you're being incredibly simplisitc if you are saying any type of step (other than forward) should be considered "flight" or running away. Name a single fight, MMA or Boxing, where the fighters NEVER stepped backwards or to the side. Its a bit ridiculous, it happens all the time, in every fight I've ever seen... Distance is key, you don't just "stand your ground" like a statue. I think that suggetion is a little absurd. I do see the point you are making about needing to have "heart" to fight, you certainly can't be thinking about running from a bigger guy and still have the confidence to win. I think you just went a little overboard on the analogies there at the end... Courage & Grace under pressure are definately very, if not the most, important factors in those situations, but I don't think thery're incompatible with using footwork to be elusive. Structure can only withstand so much, better structure can withstand more pressure than a poorer structure, but it still only goes so far... Getting hit by a bus is "getting hit by a bus" no matter how slow its moving, or how correct your structure is. Thats my 2 cents anyway.

[Ali. R]

I’m sorry, I don’t follow that sport, and I don’t fight for points…


but I don't think thery're incompatible with using footwork to be elusive. Structure can only withstand so much, better structure can withstand more pressure than a poorer structure, but it still only goes so far.

That’s when one should adjust with bridge contact when striking which is a advantage when fighting humans, where as the matador had no bridge and still stood his ground… Mentally it’s very comparable…


Ali Rahim.

[Phil Redmond]

You beat me to the punch. I was just about to say that Ali, Foreman, Tyson, and other great fighters have had to step back. I don't think they're "tough cowards". You mentioned TWC in your initial post so you should expect dissent from some camps.;)

[k gledhill]

Of course we can move anyway ....depends on the environment ...avoid a dead end /corner, facing 2-3 head on ...1st come 1st served , but who's on 1st :D....I dont know so I let them come and show me..I might have to make someone come after me by stepping back to draw them in...flanking is about either angling or facing to angle a moving opponent , we can move on a clock face . I can go sidways to make you chase me as a target , only to make you go further than intended by sudden stops ....feinting is king .
The mind is free to express itself with the reality before it.
The weapons are to fire once the positions are taken....but only a fool would be firing head on to a rushing army with a machine gun....now if he moved to the side/s the advancing army would present themselves as dominoes , and we all know what happens when you hit the first one ....:D just aim and fire along a line , rather than 'fan out' at isolated targets advancing on you as you shoot....better to have the nearest isolated from the full strength of the whole...if they manage to face , move to recover the flank , or let them move and hold your flanking line ....proven in warfare to be a devastating idea ....
more soldiers died attacking trenches with flanking machine gun positions , than by gas or any other means in World War I . In WWII the americans knew this tactic and attacked the 'seemingly' open fields by going for the corners of the battle fields...flanking isnt new.:D
tactics, tactics ,tactics.

[Graychuan]

You beat me to the punch. I was just about to say that Ali, Foreman, Tyson, and other great fighters have had to step back. I don't think they're "tough cowards". You mentioned TWC in your initial post so you should expect dissent from some camps.;)



Ali, Foreman, Tyson all had the cushion of a 8-10 count and a referee. Matadors dont. Neither does any man who is about to engage an opponent in a real fight.


… Mentally it’s very comparable…


Ali Rahim.


:D

[Ali. R]

You beat me to the punch. I was just about to say that Ali, Foreman, Tyson, and other great fighters have had to step back. I don't think they're "tough cowards". You mentioned TWC in your initial post so you should expect dissent from some camps.;)


But when they didn’t step back the fight was over much quicker just as the matodor and the bull, just watch any ‘Tyson’ fight and sometimes it was over before one could sit down…

The one with foreword momentum nowadays usually catches the judges’ eye and will control the fight… And 'Ali was talented; it’s only three to four people that can do what he did in the ring, if that... And we have all seen what happen to him in the end, you only can drop your hands and run for so long before you get caught…


Ali Rahim.

[Graychuan]

But when they didn’t step back the fight was over much quicker just as the matodor and the bull, just watch any ‘Tyson’ fight and sometimes it was over before one could sit down…

The one with foreword momentum nowadays usually catches the judges’ eye and will control the fight… And 'Ali was talented; it’s only three to four people that can do what he did in the ring, if that... And we all seen what happen to him in the end, you only can drop your hands and run for so long before you get caught…


Ali Rahim.



This is very true. Ali was moving back when Wepner caught him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J2RI-05-Bw).

[Ali. R]

This is very true. Ali was moving back when Wepner caught him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J2RI-05-Bw).

And so did 'Frazer' and 'Norton', they both broke Ali’s jaw, and 'Larry Holmes' ought to be in prison for what he did to ‘Ali’, one of the saddest days of my life…

Even though 'Wepner' was out classed he never stopped coming in, and that’s the only reason why he stayed in their with ‘Ali’ and gave him a fit…

If he would have stayed on the outside ‘Ali’ would have picked him apart like a four day old thanksgiving turkey… Well, I think he did that anyway, but it would have been a lot worst if he stayed on the outside…


Ali Rahim.

[WoodenYummy]

OK, first you say you don't follow that sport, then you spout off their histories like you've written their biographies???? And when did ANYONE ever suggest STAYING on the outside? This whole discusion was about the option of "stepping" outside or off the line, not "staying" outside or off the line. I (nor anyone else, from what I've read) ever suggested that by using this "back & off the line" concept that we would fight entirely from this position, did we? It's a move, not a whole fighting strategy... Jeez. OBVIOUSLY, one would need to step in and attack ASAP, but this "could" include having to move out of the way of a hay-maker and such if it were powerful enough. There are quite a few WC techniques that utilize this idea of following their energy as it passes you to compromise them and pin their elbow...

I think I am in agreement with your general premise that its better to shut it down before it begins, but this is reality we are discussing not fantasy, anyone who claims they can & will shut down every opponent before they hit them is fooling themselves IMO. There are too many other factors involved, you can't possibly cover for all the possible scenarios that can occur.

By your own logic, which Grey seems to subscribe to, in every "other" fight of Tyson, Ali, Frazier and such they were tough cowards because they didn't just run in and end it immediately? OK, fair enough, everyone's entitled to an opinion...

[SAAMAG]

And so did 'Frazer' and 'Norton', they both broke Ali’s jaw, and 'Larry Holmes' ought to be in prison for what he did to ‘Ali’, one of the saddest days of my life…

Even though 'Wepner' was out classed he never stopped coming in, and that’s the only reason why he stayed in their with ‘Ali’ and gave him a fit…

If he would have stayed on the outside ‘Ali’ would have picked him apart like a four day old thanksgiving turkey… Well, I think he did that anyway, but it would have been a lot worst if he stayed on the outside…


Ali Rahim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBa9BxfYpHA&feature=related

[WoodenYummy]

OK, but your statements sounded like you were saying anyone who does anything other than step right in is a tough coward. And you seemed to take what I said and twist it if you are making comments about "running from a fight" because I asked about stepping back & off the line. It is easy to misunderstand one another in this medium, that much I think we would agree on. I am not trying to confuse anyone, or build any puzzles, I am just looking to tap into some of the wisdom of the many other WC practitioners gathered here, whether I agree with them or not, I still appreacite your input. So thanks!

[JPinAZ]

Thought this was interesting given the direction of the thread :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKkKRufNtMg&feature=related

[WoodenYummy]

While we are on the topic of things I never said... My Sifu has given me answers, I was putting this out there to hear what other lineages and instructors had to say about it since I have studied in two different lineages with different approaches. I am not upset in the least, just baffled by how easily people hear (or read) what they want to. I am a big believer in jamming and intercepting as well, I just don't think its the end-all-be-all of WC, and that there are situations where it won't work. In my expereince, and what I've seen and heard online, I hadn't heard anyone else discuss this topic, so I thought I'd put it out there. I said I wasn't happy with the answers I got from my first post, not with the answers I got from my Sifu. I am trying not to be "boxed-in" by my lineage/Sifu/Art or whatever. I honestly do want to hear all of your opinions, and I have a varying degree of agreement with alot of the Non-TWC posts. It was Ali's take on my comments that brought up my retort. I suggested that he (and you) were reading something into it that wasn't there. Like I admitted, this medium is easily misunderstood. You seem to get personal when someone doesn't agree with YOU. I will do my best to keep this amicable, as I DO appreciate all of your thoughts on this. Just becuase I question it doesn't mean I believe TWC is always right. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my first Sifu in the modified WC, (he may be the BEST martial artist I've ever seen) and it was only because I moved across the country that I ended up studying TWC. Don't make this political, that is NOT where I am coming from. Attitude seems to creep into this discussions WAY too easily. Are you a big guy Gray? I mean what size does someone have to be to be considered "big" compared to you? I am just asking, not prodding or instigating. I think alot of this is relative, a 5'4" woman might view this whole scenario differently, agreed?

[Graychuan]

Thought this was interesting given the direction of the thread :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKkKRufNtMg&feature=related


Now thats what I call attacking the attack!

[Graychuan]

While we are on the topic of things I never said... My Sifu has given me answers, I was putting this out there to hear what other lineages and instructors had to say about it since I have studied in two different lineages with different approaches.

Exactly.




I am not upset in the least, just baffled by how easily people hear (or read) what they want to. I am a big believer in jamming and intercepting as well, I just don't think its the end-all-be-all of WC, and that there are situations where it won't work. In my expereince, and what I've seen and heard online, I hadn't heard anyone else discuss this topic, so I thought I'd put it out there. I said I wasn't happy with the answers I got from my first post, not with the answers I got from my Sifu. I am trying not to be "boxed-in" by my lineage/Sifu/Art or whatever. I honestly do want to hear all of your opinions, and I have a varying degree of agreement with alot of the Non-TWC posts. It was Ali's take on my comments that brought up my retort. I suggested that he (and you) were reading something into it that wasn't there. Like I admitted, this medium is easily misunderstood. You seem to get personal when someone doesn't agree with YOU. I will do my best to keep this amicable, as I DO appreciate all of your thoughts on this. Just becuase I question it doesn't mean I believe TWC is always right. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my first Sifu in the modified WC, (he may be the BEST martial artist I've ever seen) and it was only because I moved across the country that I ended up studying TWC. Don't make this political, that is NOT where I am coming from. Attitude seems to creep into this discussions WAY too easily. Are you a big guy Gray? I mean what size does someone have to be to be considered "big" compared to you? I am just asking, not prodding or instigating. I think alot of this is relative, a 5'4" woman might view this whole scenario differently, agreed?


The only disagreement with me was when it was suggested that a Matador facing down a Bull and a Man facing another Man in a fight was not comparable within the context of this thread....and the fact that you and Phil both didnt advise facing down or stepping in to a larger opponent. There was no hostility or attitude there. We even elaborated on the fight or flight concept which was an interesting and appropriate developement to this thread. And it was Couch who followed up that comment. I didnt even reply. I had no reason to reply or be hostile. So why does he come with...

It's okay. He's not staying on topic. He's jumping around to have the ability to continue to argue with you. It's not you. Trust me. :)

I wasnt even talking to him at that point.
I did disagree with CFT but there was no hostility or taking it personal there. From me or CFT. And in spite of what Couch has said...I've told you plenty about the Woo sytem and I bet you got some good info from me and everyone in this thread...as you have stated.

5'4" woman? Dont know. But a very particular 5'7" female that has taught me Kempo since July of 1994 continues to blow that scenario, and my big brown @$$ out of the water. Different art but same goals ultimately.

And yes..I am a very big guy.

[Ali. R]

Thought this was interesting given the direction of the thread :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKkKRufNtMg&feature=related


No tough cowards there, and talk about your “Lassie vs. Bruno”!:D



Ali Rahim.

[WoodenYummy]

Hey Red Boat Fellas, I'm not in total disagreement with what you're saying. Have you ever seen the fight between Mighty Mo and that tiny Thai Kickboxer? Google it, it is really sick! KaluKali or something.... anyway, its something with alot of K's in it. This tiny guy wrecks mighty mo when he finally lands the last hit. But until that point he dances around the ring avoiding this monster. Maybe this would prove both of our points? The little guy wrecks the big fella, but he had to avoid him continuously until the right moment... Just a thought. I just re-read this whole thread from the first post, and it strikes me that alot of the posts from you two seem to focus more on the psychological aspect, particularly the bull fighter analogies. Maybe that is where we began to differ.. I think you are dead on in describing the mindset one needs to have in those situations, however I was a grad student of Sociology so I don't buy any of the Psycho babble. LOL Point well taken, thanks to both of you for your input. So Gray, this little white chick really handed it to you, huh? What was she an expert in? How does she ultimately serve it to you? (Take-downs, centerline strikes) In other words what does she use to overcome you (a bigger opponent). Please try to be somewhat specific, not just "she uses excellent technique". Thanks guys! Hey since you're down in KY, do you know if there are any WC schools in TN? Of any lineage?

[Ali. R]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBa9BxfYpHA&feature=related


Good find, but man that hurts…;)

Take care,


Ali Rahim,

[Phil Redmond]

Though we all have different opinions, methods, or whatever we all will use what works for us as individuals. The bottom line is that I use what works best for me. I know everyone else does/should. And yes I can also fight down the middle. I did so in full contact when the chance arouse. I just prefer not to.

[Phil Redmond]

Yeah I know especially if the guy is bigger then you might get body slammed right? Hey maybe a lower center of gravity could help..
I have one already. Old school horse training from the 70's until now




Yeah one’s size can really give you something to think about, and it might hurt a little too, huh..Ali Rahim
Not really. Every one I've fought outside the ring was a big guy. No problem.
OK. your turn . . .(notice how I can post without getting personal?) ;)

[Liddel]

Im in total agreement with Woody...

It's a move, not a whole fighting strategy... Jeez.


But if the smaller guy is more skilled he will have a better chance against someone with a higher center of gravity

I feel you're always talking about being in a favourable position during a fight Ali...
How about when your smaller and less skilled, would you still avoid stepping back ?

and lets not get carried away with crazy analogies...


like a Pit-bull vs. a Collie

Ali, ive lived with a Pitbull breeder here in New Zealand.... IMO this is a crazy misplaced analogy...pitbulls are inherently agressive and are born with a physical advantage over Collies at least as well as most other dogs IMO... from the muscles to the structure of the Jaw...lockjaw is a perfect example of how they have evolved towards being more suited to hunting and fighting.

Perhaps Pitbull vs Rottie is better, cause rotties are just as aggresive in conflict but have size over Pitbulls...but even then it would depend on the dog i suppose :)


if the Matador turns and runs, or steps back...its his @$$

I cant believe someone hasnt called you on this and i hate to be Captain obvious here Gray but..... even if i agreed with the fact that if the matador stepped back its his @ss (which i dont)

Bulls aim at the red cape mate not at the Matador himself, and he lets the bull touch the cape, are you willing to take a shot from a big guy just to remain in the center ?.....
so its not like us fighting a bigger guy at all....unless

IMO if the Matador wore a red suit that would be a more appropriate analogy but it would be a differnt ball game for the matador LOL

Standing his ground would be the most stupid thing he could do IMO.


You either face the attack and fight or you turn and run (flight)

Or you do what you need to do to survive long enough to make your own attack.

Just to clarify, are you saying Grey you fight the Bigger guys exactly the same way as guys your size or smaller ? or would you change your game plan a bit ?

I fight down the center (im not a TWC guy for clirification) but i fully realise like Phil does that there is a time that one would be foolish to do so and that time is against someone with a big strength and size advantage....pick your time to use the center nothing more nothing less.

DREW

[Liddel]

Stand your ground, but at what cost ?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=1z3g54AcQEc

[Vajramusti]

Perhaps Pitbull vs Rottie is better, cause rotties are just as aggresive in conflict but have size over Pitbulls...but even then it would depend on the dog i suppose
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont want to go off topic... but though Rotties are bigger and aggressive--most of the time-best not to send a Rottie anywhere near a pit bull if you love a Rottie.
A pit bull doesnt even have to be big- a 50 or 60 pound pit bull is an awesome character.

joy chaudhuri

[Ali. R]

Perhaps Pitbull vs Rottie is better, cause rotties are just as aggresive in conflict but have size over Pitbulls...but even then it would depend on the dog i suppose
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont want to go off topic... but though Rotties are bigger and aggressive--most of the time-best not to send a Rottie anywhere near a pit bull if you love a Rottie.
A pit bull doesnt even have to be big- a 50 or 60 pound pit bull is an awesome character.

joy chaudhuri


And that’s right on point and the gist of my analogy…:D


Ali Rahim.

[Graychuan]

Im in total agreement with Woody...
I feel you're always talking about being in a favourable position during a fight Ali...
How about when your smaller and less skilled, would you still avoid stepping back ?

I think this part is really significant to this whole thread and has been at the heart of it from the very first post.





I cant believe someone hasnt called you on this and i hate to be Captain obvious here Gray....


Thats because they have been paying attention.




Just to clarify, are you saying Grey you fight the Bigger guys exactly the same way as guys your size or smaller ? ...

YAHTZEE!!!...its about time you figured it out.





I fight down the center (im not a TWC guy for clirification) DREW

Im glad you clarified this because as I was saying ... The whole Matador comparison was one of MENTALITY as well as the physicality part. And even though we have different lineages, arts approaches or whatever...the tools are basically the same, the forms are basically the same, the science it basically the same and you can disagree with it or not but in Wing Chun there is all kinds of discussion about jamming , wedging, structure , crowding space, and sensitivity that we all have agreed upon in one thread or another.
BUT...at the heart of the very first post of this thread...and in every argument to support that first post...there is a general 'concern' about eating a straight punch from a big guy.
IN THE WOO FAI CHING SYSTEM a question like this would be recognized as being mentally conflicted with what needs to be done because of that 'concern'. This 'concern' is why there is this science of the 'flanking step'.
In the Woo Fai Ching System we have a concept of the 'Bracing Step' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLvs4-q6tE). What is this? This is how we step into the mouth of the tiger. Stepping in makes our OPPONENT concerned about getting hit.
Earlier there was a post something about ' stepping in to keep the bigger opponent from building momentum that would snowball and eventually overwhelm you' or something like this. This is what we call Attacking the Attack in the Woo Fai Ching System. This will not be possible if you 'step back to stay just out of range in case the hands fail.'
In the Woo Fai Ching system we have also said that the 'feet follow the hands'. So if im bridging then Im stepping into it also and my structure is right in the pocket doing the rest.
The feet are not following the hands when you try to bridge while flanking or stepping back.. The hands go out and forward to 'ask' but the feet move back? This is not to say that a bridge can not be made but its not one that I want to cross.
In the Woo Fai Ching System , and other Ip Man lines, we also fight off the square which allows for double arm control(Chi-Sao). So we count on having to deal with BOTH of our opponents hands. When you have an art that inherently 'tries not to have to deal with the other hand if possible', with flanking and stepping back, then double-arm control will not work.

The same way that all of you are reluctant to admit that the 'Matador Metaphor' was comparable is the same way you are reluctant to admit why you have a whole 'flanking science'.
You are concerned about eating the punch as most of you have said.
And you should be. ;)

[Liddel]

Perhaps Pitbull vs Rottie is better, cause rotties are just as aggresive in conflict but have size over Pitbulls...but even then it would depend on the dog i suppose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont want to go off topic... but though Rotties are bigger and aggressive--most of the time-best not to send a Rottie anywhere near a pit bull if you love a Rottie.
A pit bull doesnt even have to be big- a 50 or 60 pound pit bull is an awesome character.

joy chaudhuri

Fair enough call Joy.....im a Pitbull fan too. But Pitbull vs Collie is a no contest IMO which is whyb i thought it a bit off....

I agree with your (and now Ali's) point about charcter but itll only take you so far in reality huh ?

DREW

[Liddel]

YAHTZEE!!!...its about time you figured it out.

Treating every opponent as the same is dumb IMO. Each has differences that need to be acknowledged when fighting and its not only size thats a factor, style is also a concern.

I.E You wouldnt want to behave the same way in a fight against a Kickboxer as you would against a grappler.... Tools are the same but Strategy must change.

Thinking othewise shows lack of realistic experience IMHO. From H2H to armies it matters not. Go read the art of War. :o



The whole Matador comparison was one of MENTALITY as well as the physicality part.

You state they hold thier ground, and if they move back "Its thier @ss" end quote!

I post a vid of a Matador moving back alot and surviving ! and in the same clip another matador holding his ground and getting killed.

I rest my case on the use of useless analogies.



at the heart of the very first post of this thread...and in every argument to support that first post...there is a general 'concern' about eating a straight punch from a big guy.

I believe Woody posted a "round punch" from an ex bouncer training partner of his whos round punch "you wouldnt want to eat" sure ive sparred guys that had massive power, so i know what hes on about.

Its no concern like "tough cowards" . just a point that you may not want to crash the center right away and that stepping back away from such an opponent can be done to feel or wait for a good opening...



In the Woo Fai Ching system we have also said that the 'feet follow the hands'. So if im bridging then Im stepping into it also and my structure is right in the pocket doing the rest.
The feet are not following the hands when you try to bridge while flanking or stepping back.. This is not to say that a bridge can not be made but its not one that I want to cross.

If you move back and he moves foward the space between you is the same as it was prior to the movement unless either fighter has a smaller or bigger step relative to each other...
Its being mentioned that to stay in the pocket requires a half step so you still have support structure and range to reach opponent - you must have missed that part, go back.... myself woody and our HFY friend all mentioned this.



In the Woo Fai Ching System , and other Ip Man lines, we also fight off the square which allows for double arm control(Chi-Sao). So we count on having to deal with BOTH of our opponents hands. When you have an art that inherently 'tries not to have to deal with the other hand if possible', with flanking and stepping back, then double-arm control will not work.

IMO and with respect Gray, if you have a good foundation in Chum Kui - wether your sqaure or having one side foward will not effect you ability to use both hands with the VT stance . The quote seems like its coming from a SLT junkie..and i know you have more Gray, ive seen you in vids. :rolleyes:



The same way that all of you are reluctant to admit that the 'Matador Metaphor' was camparable is the same way you are reluctant to admit why you have a whole 'flanking science'.
You are concerned about eating the punch as most of you have said.
And you should be. ;)

This smacks of talking down to me. Ive never have... nor ever will i use the term flanking... i personally dont like it am im not of TWC lineage so its never being part of my system.

I can take a punch gray, ive had my nose broke in a 2 on one fight and survived. After i got hit during the fight (sucker punched actually) with blood pouring....
to remain in a position to get hit in the nose again was not smart. I stepped back gaining distance slipping a round punch to the face and bridged in to land an elbow which made one guy run after the reciever fell.

So you can see why im ok with stepping back in certain situations.

Where you are getting hung up is that you think you can move foward ALL THE TIME where as im saying its ok to believe there are situations that require you move away from danger before you bridge into range and do all those things you advocate.

For someone that does a system with a BJ form to make up for unfavorable situations where things dont go your way.... it seems funny that you think everything works all of the time.

Drew

[Liddel]

Then why worry about getting slammed if you’re well connected to the floor?

Hope you never face the Gold medal weight lifter from Beijing Ali. He lifted like 251 KGs mate. I weigh 75 soaking wet.

So forgive me if i step back when he rushes me LOL

Ill give a few inches and take a mile while you live in fantasy land where you can fireball bigger opponents to hold your ground.
Crazy LOL :)

DREW

[Graychuan]

Treating every opponent as the same is dumb IMO. Each has differences that need to be acknowledged when fighting and its not only size thats a factor, style is also a concern.

I.E You wouldnt want to behave the same way in a fight against a Kickboxer as you would against a grappler.... Tools are the same but Strategy must change.

Thinking othewise shows lack of realistic experience IMHO. From H2H to armies it matters not. Go read the art of War. :o



You state they hold thier ground, and if they move back "Its thier @ss" end quote!

I post a vid of a Matador moving back alot and surviving ! and in the same clip another matador holding his ground and getting killed.

I rest my case on the use of useless analogies.



I believe Woody posted a "round punch" from an ex bouncer training partner of his whos round punch "you wouldnt want to eat" sure ive sparred guys that had massive power, so i know what hes on about.

Its no concern like "tough cowards" . just a point that you may not want to crash the center right away and that stepping back away from such an opponent can be done to feel or wait for a good opening...



If you move back and he moves foward the space between you is the same as it was prior to the movement unless either fighter has a smaller or bigger step relative to each other...
Its being mentioned that to stay in the pocket requires a half step so you still have support structure and range to reach opponent - you must have missed that part, go back.... myself woody and our HFY friend all mentioned this.



IMO and with respect Gray, if you have a good foundation in Chum Kui - wether your sqaure or having one side foward will not effect you ability to use both hands with the VT stance . The quote seems like its coming from a SLT junkie..and i know you have more Gray, ive seen you in vids. :rolleyes:



This smacks of talking down to me. Ive never have... nor ever will i use the term flanking... i personally dont like it am im not of TWC lineage so its never being part of my system.

I can take a punch gray, ive had my nose broke in a 2 on one fight and survived. After i got hit during the fight (sucker punched actually) with blood pouring....
to remain in a position to get hit in the nose again was not smart. I stepped back gaining distance slipping a round punch to the face and bridged in to land an elbow which made one guy run after the reciever fell.

So you can see why im ok with stepping back in certain situations.

Where you are getting hung up is that you think you can move foward ALL THE TIME where as im saying its ok to believe there are situations that require you move away from danger before you bridge into range and do all those things you advocate.

For someone that does a system with a BJ form to make up for unfavorable situations where things dont go your way.... it seems funny that you think everything works all of the time.

Drew


Wrong again Drew. Ive even agreed with you about taking one or a half step back. Look at my first 2-3 posts, guy. You will see it all.
Your problem is you are trying to make this all about you when I have been addressing the original post. You even said yourself you are not a TWC guy so what are you all flustered about? And as far as me talking down to you....well Im just sharing knowlegde from our system , mane. Its in the thread for all to see.

'It plain ta see,
Ya can't fade me.
Imma be a Chunna fo' life.
:D

[Liddel]

Hey look my bad Grey, more power to ya.

Best of luck in training and life.
Peace out.

DREW

[WoodenYummy]

Hey Drew, thanks for your input. I hear what you are saying.

I am beginning to see what Couch was trying to tell me now... There is no use in debating things when people take this approach. An old woman I know used to say "Never argue with an idiot, because you can't tell who the A-hole is". It makes more sense to me with each passing day... You can't get respect if you don't give any!

Regardless, thanks to EVERYBODY for posting on this thread, even those of you who refused to address my questions. I'm not very internet savy, but I've learned alot about online forums in the past 48hrs. LOL

Did ANYONE find that Mighty Mo clip I mentioned, it is SICK!

[Liddel]

I know you guys have Shaolin Kenpo and also add boxing to the mix where you train. or so it seems in the vids you have....

Do you advocate stepping back at all in these diciplines ?

DREW

[Liddel]

It was towards both of you.....

Ali ive seen you teaching kids boxing, the louiseville sluggers (SP?) right ?

and in some of the clips with Gray on youtube there is sinage saying Shaolin kenpo....

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx8gfmc4uKo&feature=related

Here it says Gray is a 9th degree BB so i wanted his opinion from a kenpo POV...
Actually at 145 ish he steps back so i thought as a VT man hes not big on it, but in Kenpo he is...which is his perogitive....

http://au.youtube.com/user/graychuan

No lies... im just curious if you advocate stepping away when teaching/practicing with other diciplines... ?


Stop licking their paws and let the man answers the questions, you should be tired as hell after picking your self up many times, when the bottom fell out of every last one of your posts…

Sticks and stones, move on...

DREW

[couch]

Hey Drew, thanks for your input. I hear what you are saying.

I am beginning to see what Couch was trying to tell me now... There is no use in debating things when people take this approach. An old woman I know used to say "Never argue with an idiot, because you can't tell who the A-hole is". It makes more sense to me with each passing day... You can't get respect if you don't give any!

Regardless, thanks to EVERYBODY for posting on this thread, even those of you who refused to address my questions. I'm not very internet savy, but I've learned alot about online forums in the past 48hrs. LOL

Did ANYONE find that Mighty Mo clip I mentioned, it is SICK!

Don't let this stop you from posting, though. You'll notice that there are a *few* of us that give out pieces here and there. I, for one, have learned about my system from posts here and there. Touching hands is the way to go, but there have been some gems dropped in the past. You'll get your favourite posters and ignore the rest.

All the best,
K

[Phil Redmond]

Then why worry about getting slammed if you’re well connected to the floor? .
Having a good root doesn't guarantee you can't be taken down. You or anyone else can be taken down.




Yeah right, then why teach or dictate in the beginning of this thread to all; that those who are or maybe small of stature will not have a chance against someone that is near or twice their size when fighting up the middle, when it’s very clear that one could do so on clip… .
I NEVER said that a smaller person would have no chance against a larger person.
I broke the jaw of a guy your size and the leg of another one and this wasn't in any ring. So I'm never say that a smaller guy has no chance. And NO, though I've seen someone get picked up and body slammed it's never happened to me.

[Phil Redmond]

Well here are some questions for you.

What is the difference between your wing chun and others in which you refer to as “modified” wing chun?

And what makes other lineages of wing chun “modified” as you stated?

And if everyone else has “modified” wing chun, then what would yours be?

Does your wing chun take the stand of authenticity over “modified” , and if so then why.

And I’m sure you can’t answer any of those questions especially if you’re told not to , in which I’m almost sure that you would be told not to answer.…


Ali Rahim.
Lets call this one like it is. You and I have a history. You don't like me and you don't like TWC. For what reasons I don't know. I'm not sure what you've told people in KY about me but you know in your heart that I've never done anything to you. Yet you still carry some sort of anonymousity towards me. I've moved on.
We don't teach people to use "modified" these days. It's divisive IMO. We are taught that Wing Chun is one family with different branches. I hope that cleared things up.

[Graychuan]

It was towards both of you.....

Ali ive seen you teaching kids boxing, the louiseville sluggers (SP?) right ?

and in some of the clips with Gray on youtube there is sinage saying Shaolin kenpo....

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx8gfmc4uKo&feature=related

Here it says Gray is a 9th degree BB so i wanted his opinion from a kenpo POV...
Actually at 145 ish he steps back so i thought as a VT man hes not big on it, but in Kenpo he is...which is his perogitive....

http://au.youtube.com/user/graychuan

No lies... im just curious if you advocate stepping away when teaching/practicing with other diciplines... ?



Sticks and stones, move on...

DREW


Actually Im a 4th Degree Black belt. The 5'7" female I mentioned earlier is the 9th degree. And yes there are forms that step back. The 2nd Kata of the system steps back twice in its first two moves. I appreciate you asking. There is also stepping back in the Tai Chi Chuan line that I have studied for the last 10 years. Repulsed Monkey, DaLu(Big rollback pushhands set with a partner which is kinda the Luk Sao of Tai Chi but be careful. You guys tend to take my metaphors and comparisons a bit too seriously.). But very few.
Now can you see the appeal that the Woo Fai Ching System has to me?
I have struggled with the same question in my early studies that this thread opened with. We all have. This is the reason why some take up studying the arts.
Since we are in WCKF thread and since the opener was a very specific question I am still consistent with the topic.
I have no problem duscussing Tai Chi or Kempo with you or anyone but it should be in an appropriate thread/forum.
And since Couch wants to make up things about me trying to go off topic :rolleyes: might I suggest we do exactly the opposite. Since I have been consistent this whole thread.

Sincerly, Drew. Thanks for asking. I appreciate the interest in an art I have studied for the last 15 years.

~Ch'uan~

[Graychuan]

Just some good natured humor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-lrxcQltCY) for the thread to lighten things up.


Drew, we could go all over the place with the stepping back forward to the side or whatever on this one...lol. Enjoy ,mane. WoodenYummy...some of these guys/gals/kids had a lot more to worry about than if they flanked or braced.


Peace, fellas.

[k gledhill]

be like water my friend....:D

[WoodenYummy]

K, Couch, Drew... I gotcha, loud & clear. It's like finding diamonds in a pile of manure sometimes... But its still worth it.:)

Gray, thanks for answering the questions, I knew we had the ability to be civil. Though I'd still like to hear your responses to my questions, though I understand you're reasoning (another topic = another forum) Fair enough.

Ali, WTF???? I truly don't know ANYONE on this forum, I am new here, I have never even met PHIL! YOU automatically assume these guys are somehow "my boys" and that we are ganging up on you... Talk about paranoid! I used to study "another version" of Wing Chun, Pin Sun to be exact, and I loved it. As I stated I only study TWC because that is all that is taught where I currently reside. I do like it, and I think ALL WC is essentially still WC, just some minor differences in teaching, but ultimately the concepts are mostly the same. As I DONT KNOW PHIL, I did not realize that this "modified" terminology is so looked down upon within TWC, talk about getting yer panties in a bunch! Jeez,

I only used the term to distinguish different lineages, I did not use it to get anyone all riled up. So let me be clear to all of you, I meant NO disrespect to any other lineage of WC, I was only tring to clarify that I wanted to know if other TWC schools used this concept, and I was also interested in "other lineages" take on this as well. As I have said REPEATEDLY, I am NEW to this!!!!! How big a font do you need to understand that? I have no preconceptions that TWC is "better" than any other WC lineage, in fact, if you read my post I said that my 1st Sifu (who was NON-TWC) was the BEST Martial artist I've ever seen.... "there are no superior marital arts, just superior martial artists"

Then all of a sudden you come with all this crap asking us why we think TWC is superior than the others, when did I or anyone else EVEN SUGGEST that? Grow up man(e), sounds like someone has a HUGE chip on his shoulder... Peace-OUT!

[WoodenYummy]

OK Ali, which questions would you like me to answer? You would like me (the self-confessed newbie of TWC) to explain and justify the lineage and its history to you? I am sure at your age, that you have already read everything there is out there on the subject and have already formed your own opinions, so you really don't want to hear my answers to your questions do you? You are just once again trying to goad someone else into another useless political discussion. And if you read my posts you would see that I have essentially answered your questions as best I (the rookie) could, I said that all WC is WC IMO, regardless of lineage, and that I don't believe any are superior... and that I am not in the least bit interested in the politics of WC.

Are you kidding me or what? I am not hiding anything, nor am I "linking" to anyone else. I am my own man. I am new to TWC (that is ITS name), is it OK for me to use that, or does that offend you as well? There are hundreds of books, articles, etc that have used these "modified" and "TWC" terms, hell Wikipedia even uses it for christ sakes! So FORGIVE ME if I used words that are known by millions of people and in popular usage. I have a deep love of Wing Chun as an art, not any particular lineage. You jumped down my throat because I made a rookie mistake, used the wrong word!!??!?!?!?? Where is the respect a Sifu is supposed to posess?

I asked you & Gray questions that went unanswered as well. But at least Gray managed to keep things civil, we are all free to disagree, but there is no need to accuse people you've never met of conspiracies against you. My Sifu (who is not Phil by the way) has never told me anything about what I should & shouldn't say regarding TWC, I'm not hiding anything, this conspiracy is in your head chief! Maybe (or should I say obviously) you've had some bad experiences with TWC folk, but it wasn't with me, so how about cutting me some slack. Don't discrimante based on the past, you don't know me & I don't know you so hows about a fair shake?

I do have my ideas about why those two terms are used, and I will be completely honest here, I am not in the least bit proud of how this has played out. As I have never met GM Cheung, I will not pretend to know why he chose that name for his style. But YES, I have heard the stories, and I am not interested in all of that useless bickering... I believe your actions speak louder than your words, so if it's a good system than its worth training in, thats all I care about. This arguing is like hero-worship, its tantamount to saying my Dad can kick your Dad's a*#, who cares? I care much more about how good "we" are rather than how good our "teachers" were.....

I am sure you don't believe this, but I have a genuine interest in your system as well as everyone else's out there, I even asked if you knew of any WC schools in TN because its nearby (I think this fact at least "hints" that I value(d) your opinion) but you keep planting your own ideas in other peoples statements. Sort of self-fulfilling if you ask me. Why don't you lay off the character bashing and stick to discussing WC, isn't that supposed to be why we are all on here?

I am not going to resort to the sort of smack talking you keep espousing, so I will bite my tongue here and let you have the last insult.

Best of luck to you Sifu, and regardless of what you choose to believe I am not your enemy!

[sihing]

OK Ali, which questions would you like me to answer? You would like me (the self-confessed newbie of TWC) to explain and justify the lineage and its history to you? I am sure at your age, that you have already read everything there is out there on the subject and have already formed your own opinions, so you really don't want to hear my answers to your questions do you? You are just once again trying to goad someone else into another useless political discussion. And if you read my posts you would see that I have essentially answered your questions as best I (the rookie) could, I said that all WC is WC IMO, regardless of lineage, and that I don't believe any are superior... and that I am not in the least bit interested in the politics of WC.

Are you kidding me or what? I am not hiding anything, nor am I "linking" to anyone else. I am my own man. I am new to TWC (that is ITS name), is it OK for me to use that, or does that offend you as well? There are hundreds of books, articles, etc that have used these "modified" and "TWC" terms, hell Wikipedia even uses it for christ sakes! So FORGIVE ME if I used words that are known by millions of people and in popular usage. I have a deep love of Wing Chun as an art, not any particular lineage. You jumped down my throat because I made a rookie mistake, used the wrong word!!??!?!?!?? Where is the respect a Sifu is supposed to posess?

I asked you & Gray questions that went unanswered as well. But at least Gray managed to keep things civil, we are all free to disagree, but there is no need to accuse people you've never met of conspiracies against you. My Sifu (who is not Phil by the way) has never told me anything about what I should & shouldn't say regarding TWC, I'm not hiding anything, this conspiracy is in your head chief! Maybe (or should I say obviously) you've had some bad experiences with TWC folk, but it wasn't with me, so how about cutting me some slack. Don't discrimante based on the past, you don't know me & I don't know you so hows about a fair shake?

I do have my ideas about why those two terms are used, and I will be completely honest here, I am not in the least bit proud of how this has played out. As I have never met GM Cheung, I will not pretend to know why he chose that name for his style. But YES, I have heard the stories, and I am not interested in all of that useless bickering... I believe your actions speak louder than your words, so if it's a good system than its worth training in, thats all I care about. This arguing is like hero-worship, its tantamount to saying my Dad can kick your Dad's a*#, who cares? I care much more about how good "we" are rather than how good our "teachers" were.....

I am sure you don't believe this, but I have a genuine interest in your system as well as everyone else's out there, I even asked if you knew of any WC schools in TN because its nearby (I think this fact at least "hints" that I value(d) your opinion) but you keep planting your own ideas in other peoples statements. Sort of self-fulfilling if you ask me. Why don't you lay off the character bashing and stick to discussing WC, isn't that supposed to be why we are all on here?

I am not going to resort to the sort of smack talking you keep espousing, so I will bite my tongue here and let you have the last insult.

Best of luck to you Sifu, and regardless of what you choose to believe I am not your enemy!

Good post WoodenYummy. I think you are trying to as genuine as anyone else is trying to be, it is just that you used some language that may have offended some. I was a part of the TWC camp for many years and used the same terminology, as soon as I got here I learned fast not to use those terms, lol. IMO, the reason the terms were invented in this context was simply to distinguish between what GM Cheung was doing and everyone else. The truth of the matter is, GM Cheung himself has changed things in his system, as recently as the last few years, as has been stated by a few top level TWC guys here on this forum. To me, nothing alive will stay static, so everything that wants to progress in this world has to change with the times and be "modified". Traditional is a term some people like to hear as it gives the impression that it is Authentic, or Original, but guess what, other WC lineages have trademarked those names as well, so all in all it is all about Marketing and distinguishing one's identity from others. Basically it all means nothing.

Regarding some things you mentioned before, in all truth I do not believe that all WC is the same. If this is true, it still doesn't not allow someone to disrespect another because these differences exist. Lots of what I read here about the way people perform their WC I disagree with, that is fine and dandy, but I do not disrespect the person saying such things. The facts are, as humans, we fall into the trap of identifying ourselves with the things we are associated with. So when disagreements come up between us (which is also a human habit, people can't help themselves but to disagree, this is a ego problem), people take it personally and feel that it is a reflection upon themselves. It is like saying you are a lousy, terrible person, it effects the way you feel about yourself, even though you know it is not really true.

I've found that there are vast differences between the way people understand what WC is about and the way they train it. For example, as somone that had practiced/taught TWC for many years, when I started training in WSL WC, I basically had to relearn everything, from the basic techniques of Tan, Bong and Fok, up to the more complex things like body alignment, structure and application, everything had to be retrained and the old habits had to be disgarded. I am not exagerrating when I say this. This does not mean that my training in TWC was a waste of time. I have no regrets training in that system, I just find the training I do now more interesting, functional, and a truer reflection of what I believe WC is. This is my opinion based on my experience, it is okay if not everyone agrees with it. Since everyone has different experiences, not all of us will agree on things. The fact is some people just don't know what they don't know, I didn't for a long long time, I found out, and decided to make some changes. We are all entitled to change our minds thru out our lives and to express those changes to others, as long as we don't disrepect anyone in the process.

I hope you continue to explore your WC, train hard, keep and open mind, and try to train with other WC practitioners as much as possible as it will only help you in the end.


James

[WoodenYummy]

Hey James, thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.

I hear what you're saying, I think my point in saying "WC is WC" is that even different Sifu's within the same lineage teach it differently. But to me its all Wing Chun, as long as the principles are there, its WC. A bit over-simplified maybe, but thats just how I see it. I don't think any particular lineage has the "right" answers. I am still amazed how different other TWC schools & Sifus appear when compared to mine. I am just happy to have found a WC school within commuting distance. Thanks for your encouraging words though. I taught a college course a few years back that had an online forum with over 400 students, so I know how easily things can misinterpreted online and quickly get out of hand.

I have heard all this stuff about why GM Cheung calls it Traditional, and refers to others as "Modified". Funny thing is, when I studied in another style I never heard even ONE of them ever mention this. It wasn't our concern, we were doing our thing, let them do theirs. But I agree, I see now it was a foolish mistake (or slip rather) for me to use that term. As I stated I have no less respect for any other lineage. TWC in my mind is only used to distinguish GM Cheung's teachings from other lineages, nothing more. I don't read anything into the term "Traditional", but I am even more aware now of how much some OTHERS do! But you know, in this secret conspiratorial TWC society that I now belong to, we do meet on the first fullmoon of the year to trash talk the rest of you:eek: LOL.

Hey James, since you're of the WSL lineage, do you know anything about the movie he was making? It's been on my Netflix list forever listed as "soon to be realeased".... any info??? Thanks Bro!

[Graychuan]

I asked....Gray questions that went unanswered as well.



When?




Respectfully,
Ch'uan

[sihing]

Hey James, thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated......

Hey James, since you're of the WSL lineage, do you know anything about the movie he was making? It's been on my Netflix list forever listed as "soon to be realeased".... any info??? Thanks Bro!

You know I'm not aware of any soon to be released movie's starring WSL? I have heard that there was supposed to be a second part to The Science of InFighting (which is the expert guide to internet forum etiquette :eek:), but they decided against releasing it. Too bad, the footage would have been great to see.

James

[WoodenYummy]

Hey Red Boat Fellas, I'm not in total disagreement with what you're saying. Have you ever seen the fight between Mighty Mo and that tiny Thai Kickboxer? Google it, it is really sick! KaluKali or something.... anyway, its something with alot of K's in it. This tiny guy wrecks mighty mo when he finally lands the last hit. But until that point he dances around the ring avoiding this monster. Maybe this would prove both of our points? The little guy wrecks the big fella, but he had to avoid him continuously until the right moment... Just a thought. I just re-read this whole thread from the first post, and it strikes me that alot of the posts from you two seem to focus more on the psychological aspect, particularly the bull fighter analogies. Maybe that is where we began to differ.. I think you are dead on in describing the mindset one needs to have in those situations, however I was a grad student of Sociology so I don't buy any of the Psycho babble. LOL Point well taken, thanks to both of you for your input. So Gray, this little white chick really handed it to you, huh? What was she an expert in? How does she ultimately serve it to you? (Take-downs, centerline strikes) In other words what does she use to overcome you (a bigger opponent). Please try to be somewhat specific, not just "she uses excellent technique". Thanks guys! Hey since you're down in KY, do you know if there are any WC schools in TN? Of any lineage?


Hey Gray, the questions bolded above are what I was asking about... Though I said in a later post that I understand if you think they should be answered on another thread as they are not specifically WC related (for the last one)... Also, here is the link to the mighty Mo match I was talking about, have any of you guys seen this one before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy9xOyNDCoM
*Forgive the horrible music, its the only clip of this fight I could find... Now granted its a "ring" fight, not a real fight... But do the rest of you think this was a valid strategy to defeat someone much bigger than him? Or is this, as many argue, just a case of the little guy "getting lucky"?

Peace out fellas!

[Ali. R]

No one should let the might of others dictate how much man or woman one should be when dealing with the ideal of grace under pressure, rather then falling into the fetal position way before one comes out the gate physically, it’s all about being mentally prepared and not losing hope in ones ability, base on the size of another …


Ali Rahim.

[bennyvt]

I was thinking about one time at a party we were discussing the UFC and i was asked what I would do. I said not go to the ground. Ended up with a guy about 6"3 trying to tackle me, this was early in my training when I thought that with the right structure I could beat anyone. Well I ended up on the ground after pivoting and jum sao. He was knocked out but the point being that if I wasnt with friends I would have had people bouncing on my head. I also spent several months getting treatment for my back as I refused to step back on big people. VT is about being in the centre, not too stable not too movable. If one is rooted to the spot he can step any where. If you step into a big person and cant negate his force (by structure, strength, balance etc) you will be dead.
In any thread people will try to move it to where they want, you need to read the good ones and laugh at the rest of the keyboard warriors

[iron_leg_dave]

I was thinking about one time at a party we were discussing the UFC and i was asked what I would do. I said not go to the ground. Ended up with a guy about 6"3 trying to tackle me, this was early in my training when I thought that with the right structure I could beat anyone. Well I ended up on the ground after pivoting and jum sao. He was knocked out but the point being that if I wasnt with friends I would have had people bouncing on my head. I also spent several months getting treatment for my back as I refused to step back on big people. VT is about being in the centre, not too stable not too movable. If one is rooted to the spot he can step any where. If you step into a big person and cant negate his force (by structure, strength, balance etc) you will be dead.
In any thread people will try to move it to where they want, you need to read the good ones and laugh at the rest of the keyboard warriors

The earliest quantum of knowledge I was given in real kung fu went like this:

Me: I love practicing my kicks, freestyle, just kicking the air, I could kick all day.

Him: That's good.

Me: Yea, sometimes, it's hard to do the stuff that I don't like to do. I just want to the stuff that seems fun that day, I think it's better, I can concentrate on it, and eventually everything get's it's day.

Him: Thats good, but you've got to do all of it. You have to practice everything, and stretch everyday.


Simple words. They continue to resonate. When you stop breaking down your shua jiao, and qin na, you cut your ability to fight in half. When you decide to put the gloves away, you better hope there is no chance someone is going to try to fight you.

People can rush in on you faster than you can hit them. Any dude can do this. Alot of people need to be taken with a grain of salt. They will show you this technique, or that technique to defend against someone trying to rush in on you. If you train like that, you'll get tackled, and your face will get rearranged.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . People can rush in on you faster than you can hit them. Any dude can do this. Alot of people need to be taken with a grain of salt. They will show you this technique, or that technique to defend against someone trying to rush in on you. If you train like that, you'll get tackled, and your face will get rearranged.
I knew some guys in NY that said their horse was so good that no one could take them down. When it happened I just laughed. :D

[bennyvt]

In my school we teach stepping as an exercise like dan chi or poon sao (rolling). After learning rolling and before any trap we teach the stepping in poon sao. This means stepping into the patrner and going through them at 45 degrees through their centre. But we teach stepping back first then forward. The idea is that
*as a novice you are more likely to step back.
*It is harder to learn how to step back as we don't naturally do this,
*Stepping back will always be slower then forward so need more practice
*Any fighting involves some stepping back
* VT takes it that you opponent is bigger, faster, better looking girl friend etc so you will probably get overwhelmed and need to adjust
* The angle needs to be right so you can still attack with both hands while cutting off your opponent
*It is harder to learn to stay your pproper distance while being chased then just running after someone.
*Learning to protect the centre while going from a parrellel stance.
There are many more this is just an example. But Barry always said dont step back, but if you do, for every one step back you step forward two. Meaning in the real world saying that you wont step back shows you only fight or train with people you can throw around. You will have to step back so it needs to be good but dont try to step back.