Interesting video

[Hardwork108]

I don't know if anyone has seen this clip but it has a lot of Wing Chun essence. It was posted in 2006 so there is a good chance that it has been posted before, if so then sorry in advance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBt2ZKux3y8&feature=PlayList&p=9965D4C8A9925666&index=9

[t_niehoff]

These are NOt applications of WCK. The whole idea of "application" is wrong-headed. If you are really applying (using) WCK, then you are fighting/sparring. You can only see application in fighting. Outside of fighting, you are only seeing demonstrations -- someone acting out what they believe will work in fighting. People acting out using their WCK movements is fantasy fu. It has absolutely no legitimacy or truth..

If someone wants to explain how they do something or how something works for them, they first need to show it really working in fighitng, otherwise it is merely a fantasy demo. For example, want to show how YOU deal with hooks? Then show yourself really dealing with hooks in fighting/sparring, and only afterward explain it, break it down, etc.

[m1k3]

These are NOt applications of WCK. The whole idea of "application" is wrong-headed. If you are really applying (using) WCK, then you are fighting/sparring. You can only see application in fighting. Outside of fighting, you are only seeing demonstrations -- someone acting out what they believe will work in fighting. People acting out using their WCK movements is fantasy fu. It has absolutely no legitimacy or truth..

If someone wants to explain how they do something or how something works for them, they first need to show it really working in fighitng, otherwise it is merely a fantasy demo. For example, want to show how YOU deal with hooks? Then show yourself really dealing with hooks in fighting/sparring, and only afterward explain it, break it down, etc.

t, I would like to take this one step further. If you are going to show how wing chun works against a boxer or wrestler please show it against a boxer or wrestler not some wing chunner pretending to be a boxer or wrestler using a poor imitation of what they think a boxer or wrestler would do.

Ok, rant over. :D

[t_niehoff]

t, I would like to take this one step further. If you are going to show how wing chun works against a boxer or wrestler please show it against a boxer or wrestler not some wing chunner pretending to be a boxer or wrestler using a poor imitation of what they think a boxer or wrestler would do.

Ok, rant over. :D

That's a very good point. Lots of JUNK works not because it is fundamentally solid or that the person doing it is particularly skilled, but because of who it is being done against. And these fantasy demos are really a sort of strawman argument. The bottom line is that the only way to tell whether something works for you is by really doing it, and doing it against good people.

[Shadow_warrior8]

That's a very good point. Lots of JUNK works not because it is fundamentally solid or that the person doing it is particularly skilled, but because of who it is being done against. And these fantasy demos are really a sort of strawman argument. The bottom line is that the only way to tell whether something works for you is by really doing it, and doing it against good people.

Yes I have found the flawed demos of wingchun versus other styles "
acted" by other wingchun guys, not to be representative of the art.

And, btw, you have said exactly what I mean, in the other qi thread,

The bottom line is that the only way to tell whether something works for you is by really doing it, and doing it against good people.

All Qi, Jing demos, have to subject itself to the litmus tests and pressure testing. Some pass, some dont. But while I advocate testing, the purpose of these practices were for spiritual refinement, people like me, abuse it by adding a layer of ego to want to prove it. Still work in progress- My Bad.

[t_niehoff]

Yes I have found the flawed demos of wingchun versus other styles "
acted" by other wingchun guys, not to be representative of the art.

And, btw, you have said exactly what I mean, in the other qi thread,

The bottom line is that the only way to tell whether something works for you is by really doing it, and doing it against good people.

All Qi, Jing demos, have to subject itself to the litmus tests and pressure testing. Some pass, some dont. But while I advocate testing, the purpose of these practices were for spiritual refinement, people like me, abuse it by adding a layer of ego to want to prove it. Still work in progress- My Bad.

There are no qi tests since qi doesn't exist. If someone does something it can be explained without reference to nonexistent forces.

[Shadow_warrior8]

Like I said, punch the guy, if chi blast works, you lose, if it doesnt you win.

Nonsense talk like whether a real punch worked or not is even more estoric then Qi.

Simple test, logical, easy. But then again, it cant be simple right? Because we are superior human beings over thousands of years of research, and we know better.

Sorry HW108, didnt mean to hijack your thread. Please continue....

[t_niehoff]

Like I said, punch the guy, if chi blast works, you lose, if it doesnt you win.

Simple test, logical, easy. But then again, it cant be simple right? Because we are superior human beings over thousands of years of research, and we know better.

ROFLOL! Another qi blast alert! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmYIOjOjEEA

Reread what I wrote: If someone does something it can be explained without reference to nonexistent forces. And this time try to THINK about it.

Your hitting someone -- regardless of the result-- doesn't prove the existence if qi.

[Hardwork108]

Sorry HW108, didnt mean to hijack your thread. Please continue....

Don't worry Shadow_warrior as it wasn't you who hijacked, it was t_niehoff, but then nothing new there.

[t_niehoff]

Watch it or I will qi blast you from afar!

[Hardwork108]

These are NOt applications of WCK. The whole idea of "application" is wrong-headed. If you are really applying (using) WCK, then you are fighting/sparring.

But then before you use them you have to train and understand them with a partner, hence the video!


You can only see application in fighting. Outside of fighting, you are only seeing demonstrations -- someone acting out what they believe will work in fighting.
Someone "acting out" techniques that have worked in fighting in the past through the practice of "crystalized" exercises. Now that is a better explanation.


People acting out using their WCK movements is fantasy fu. It has absolutely no legitimacy or truth..

....and that would be because you Mr Niehoff never perfected your WC skills to be able to apply them in real combat and as a result you believe them to BS?


If someone wants to explain how they do something or how something works for them, they first need to show it really working in fighitng,
And before they can show it working, they need to pracitice it with a training partner.

I really believe that you have missed the point of the video and the thread.



otherwise it is merely a fantasy demo. For example, want to show how YOU deal with hooks? Then show yourself really dealing with hooks in fighting/sparring, and only afterward explain it, break it down, etc.

Again, you have missed the point of this thread, which is about the application of the art of Wing Chun.

If somehow you are implying that typical WC techniques that adhere to this art's principles don't work in combat and that they need to be somehow "modernized" then I would suggest that you discuss this in the MMA threads.

[t_niehoff]

But then before you use them you have to train and understand them with a partner, hence the video!


When you train with genuine, fuctional martial artists and they teach you applications, they are teaching you things they DO in fighting and that reliably and consistently work for them in fighting. That is what is missing in the video you posted. This is not things this guy does in fighitng or anyone does in fighting -- this is what he fantasizes will work in fighting.



Someone "acting out" techniques that have worked in fighting in the past through the practice of "crystalized" exercises. Now that is a better explanation.


If these techniques have worked, then showing them working shouldn't be a problem, right?

Here is a very simple way to tell the nonsense: CAN WE SEE IT FOR OURSELVES BEING DONE IN FIGHTING. My view is that unless and until we see that, don't believe it.



....and that would be because you Mr Niehoff never perfected your WC skills to be able to apply them in real combat and as a result you believe them to BS?


Certain phrases are dead give-aways for nonfighters, things like "perfected your WC skills" (skills are never perfected) and "real combat" (LOL!). FWIW, I DO (fight with) WCK two or three times a week. And I can make what I do work very well. And I train with very good nonWCK fight trainers and fighters. Which is why I can look at that nonsense and tell you it won't work. But, of course, to proveme wrong all he needs to do is show it working in fighitng against good people, right?



And before they can show it working, they need to pracitice it with a training partner.

I really believe that you have missed the point of the video and the thread.


NO, I didn't miss the point. He's doing what they all do -- showing what he believes (in theory) will work. My point is that he, like all the rest (with a very, very, very few notable exceptions) NEVER SHOW IT ACTUALLY WORKING IN FIGHTING AGAINST ANYONE GOOD. If he is going to take the time to post videos of himself, then at the very least make those videos not more of the same old crap.



Again, you have missed the point of this thread, which is about the application of the art of Wing Chun.


You can't see application except through fighting -- what you see on the video isn't application, it is some guy acting out what he WRONGLY believes will work.



If somehow you are implying that typical WC techniques that adhere to this art's principles don't work in combat and that they need to be somehow "modernized" then I would suggest that you discuss this in the MMA threads.

I'm not suggesting anything; I am stating it explicitly: showing in a demo (acting it out) what you believe you can do or how you believe things should be done (concepts/principles) WITHOUT ACTUALLY SHOWING IT WORKING IN FIGHTING is the standard approach of the theoretical nonfighter. Every boob on youtube does that.

[clam61]

...This is not things this guy does in fighitng or anyone does in fighting -- this is what he fantasizes will work in fighting.

its good to not blindly follow someones teachings, but now you are making claims without basis.

how can you say that what he is doing will not work in a real fight and no one does that in a real fight.

the move at 0:38 looks like a "flapping wing palm", one of the 12 san sik in sum neng wing chin.

it is extremely effective and is one of our knockout moves.

i use it in sparring as well as my kung fu brothers. it is a perfect move to do on someone coming at you with a hook punch, chung choi, or some other straight punch.

[Knifefighter]

i
the move at 0:38 looks like a "flapping wing palm", one of the 12 san sik in sum neng wing chin.

it is extremely effective and is one of our knockout moves.

i use it in sparring as well as my kung fu brothers. it is a perfect move to do on someone coming at you with a hook punch, chung choi, or some other straight punch.

So, post a clip of it working in sparring.

Why can't anybody ever post a clip of the things they "always" use in sparring? Do the ubiquitous video recorders that always seem to be around for compliant partner demos suddenly quit working when sparring starts?

[clam61]

well i havent posted any demo videos so you cant use that reasoning with me.

im not going to bother showing you. even if i did you would probably say it was staged or the guy i was fighting sucks and that it wouldnt work against a skilled person or something.

its pretty obvious that it would work. its a simple simultaneous block/strike. nothign special.

[t_niehoff]

its good to not blindly follow someones teachings, but now you are making claims without basis.


I do have a basis for my negative claim: my experience fighting and everything that I can see working in anyone else's fights. We never see that crap working in fighting for the simple reason it doesn't work (at least not like that).

And like I said on the chi thread -- the more we learn and know about how things really do work (the stuff we can see over and over again working), the more we know about what things don't work.



how can you say that what he is doing will not work in a real fight and no one does that in a real fight.


Because I know from fighting with good people the sort of things that might work -- and that crap won't.



the move at 0:38 looks like a "flapping wing palm", one of the 12 san sik in sum neng wing chin.

it is extremely effective and is one of our knockout moves.

i use it in sparring as well as my kung fu brothers. it is a perfect move to do on someone coming at you with a hook punch, chung choi, or some other straight punch.

Find a MMA gym or muay thai gym, and try your "knock out move" when sparring them. Take your video camera along. When I see it for myself, I'll believe it.

[t_niehoff]

well i havent posted any demo videos so you cant use that reasoning with me.

im not going to bother showing you. even if i did you would probably say it was staged or the guy i was fighting sucks and that it wouldnt work against a skilled person or something.

its pretty obvious that it would work. its a simple simultaneous block/strike. nothign special.


It's pretty obvious it won't work -- neither will your simultaneous block/strike. Those are extremely low percentage moves.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Just started to watch the vid on the first post of this thread. Turned it off after about 7 seconds...

right after he stopped the guy's rear cross with an armlock capture.

Outside of possibly a Steven Seagal movie, this move will never happen. ;)

That's all I needed to see.

[Hardwork108]

When you train with genuine, fuctional martial artists and they teach you applications, they are teaching you things they DO in fighting and that reliably and consistently work for them in fighting. That is what is missing in the video you posted. This is not things this guy does in fighitng or anyone does in fighting -- this is what he fantasizes will work in fighting.

Or it is something that you, yourself can't make work in fighting. Terrence, it is all in the training. You don't train that way so you are not able to relate to it.

There are thousands of TKD guys training complicated high kicks the use of which would get them killed in most real fights. Many people would criticise them and say that those high kicks are fantasie kicks as in real life you won't have a chance to use them, yet there are a few who make them work, both in full contact tournaments and in the street. Why? Because they spend more time and train that stuff profoundly, something that you obviously have not done as regards Wing Chun.


If these techniques have worked, then showing them working shouldn't be a problem, right?
The man is demonstrating WC techniques in two man training exercises and you want everyone who posts such techniques to include a real full contact fight using the techniques beforehand?LOL!


Here is a very simple way to tell the nonsense: CAN WE SEE IT FOR OURSELVES BEING DONE IN FIGHTING. My view is that unless and until we see that, don't believe it.
There are a lot of things that we have not seen, but some of us have intuitions that say that certain things make sense and some of us don't.;)


Certain phrases are dead give-aways for nonfighters, things like "perfected your WC skills" (skills are never perfected) and "real combat" (LOL!).
The give away here is that you did not understand my reference to "perfecting" your WC skills/techniques.;)


FWIW, I DO (fight with) WCK two or three times a week.

Is that real Wing Chun or McWing Chun (remember that most WC schools are Mc kwoons)?

And is "fight" a reference to sparring or real street fighting?

Have you ever had a fight with a real kung fu sifu/expert? Or are all your "fights" friendly sparring matches with "wing chuner" friends?


And I can make what I do work very well.
But in what context? The sports context or the real fight context?


And I train with very good nonWCK fight trainers and fighters. Which is why I can look at that nonsense and tell you it won't work. But, of course, to proveme wrong all he needs to do is show it working in fighitng against good people, right?

How many good (I mean experts) genuine Wing Chun people have fought and defeated in real fights?

My message here is sports fighting/competitions do not reflect the real fighting scenario. Helio Gracie would agree with me here.



NO, I didn't miss the point. He's doing what they all do -- showing what he believes (in theory) will work.

How do you know that he has not used his knowledge in real fights? Did you know that there are quite a few Hong Kong sifus that were gangsters?


My point is that he, like all the rest (with a very, very, very few notable exceptions) NEVER SHOW IT ACTUALLY WORKING IN FIGHTING AGAINST ANYONE GOOD.

Have you ever fought and won against a "GOOD" kung fu sifu, perhaps in your local china town and in a REAL fight?



If he is going to take the time to post videos of himself, then at the very least make those videos not more of the same old crap.

You are making rude comments about someone of who you know very little and about an art that you have not mastered. Lets just hope that he never comes knocking at your door.;)




You can't see application except through fighting -- what you see on the video isn't application, it is some guy acting out what he WRONGLY believes will work.

Wrongly in you opinion, that is.




I'm not suggesting anything; I am stating it explicitly: showing in a demo (acting it out) what you believe you can do or how you believe things should be done (concepts/principles) WITHOUT ACTUALLY SHOWING IT WORKING IN FIGHTING is the standard approach of the theoretical nonfighter. Every boob on youtube does that.

Because people like you never ever train kung fu deeply in an authentic school you end up misunderstanding the training methodology.

A lot of schools will teach you the two man self defense stuff and eventually when you get to contact sparring level you begin to apply what you have been taught. As usual certain people may be better at pulling off certain applications whereas others may find their fort in others.

What a lot of people (you?) advocate is for the students to start their fighting/sparring from day one. As far as I am concerned the traditional kung fu methodology that I have been exposed to is the correct way.

[aelward]

As the video poster, I will be the first to say that I am in agreement with what most of the people are saying here: it wouldn't work in a ring fight or a street fight.

It's just a performance that was hastily put together as a favor for the Aikido dojo that we sublet in celebration of their grand reopening. If we wanted to make a "real" demonstration with a non-compliant opponent, most of the audience wouldn't even understand what they were seeing and it would be ugly because all parties involved would be eating hits (and if you say you are so good that you don't get hit in full contact, non-complaint exchanges, I'd have to see the proof that Mr. Niehoff is clamoring for).

What's in the video clip is not how we train-- we don't do fixed combinations, we emphasize distance (how many times do you see someone in a demo throw an attack that wouldn't even reach?), we don't leave arms out for people to chi sao all over. Once again, it's just a performance-- choreographed so that people can enjoy the party without worrying about pulling out the first aid kits.

In essence, I actually agree with what Mr. Niehoff says in most of his posts on this forum (though his message does seem to get lost because of his pompous, combative tone)-- you have to go out there with a humble attitude and mix it up with people who do other martial arts and are not going to comply with what you are doing. Indeed, the other guy in the clip regularly spars full contact against practitioners of MT, Boxers, and BJJ etc. It's the only way to honestly see what works for you.

This is just a clarification. Knowing Mr. Niehoff's need to get the last word, I am not going to reply any further to this because I don't have time to get into internet arguments with someone who seems to have too much time to banter online given the amount of full-contact sparring he does.

[Liddel]

In case some haven't realized, "hardwork" is just a troll who tries to stirr crap. Fortuantely, he's been exposed on the main forum and will soon be gone

With coments like this.....


How do you know that he has not used his knowledge in real fights? Did you know that there are quite a few Hong Kong sifus that were gangsters?

Id hope so....

He should go back to reading comic books :cool:

DREW

[PC28]

I think that there are valid points throughout this topic. Ive only recently started some light sparring after 3 years of wing chun and a year or so of filipino martial arts and I can say that a larger percentage of things I have learned cant be applied to a fight situation, right now.

Perhaps in future I'll be able to work some of them into sparring and see how it goes but until then I will learn as I go along without presuming something will work just because it works in theory.

[t_niehoff]

As the video poster, I will be the first to say that I am in agreement with what most of the people are saying here: it wouldn't work in a ring fight or a street fight.

It's just a performance that was hastily put together as a favor for the Aikido dojo that we sublet in celebration of their grand reopening. If we wanted to make a "real" demonstration with a non-compliant opponent, most of the audience wouldn't even understand what they were seeing and it would be ugly because all parties involved would be eating hits (and if you say you are so good that you don't get hit in full contact, non-complaint exchanges, I'd have to see the proof that Mr. Niehoff is clamoring for).


So what you are saying is that you intentionally presented "applications" of WCK that you knew couldn't possibly work (i.e., nonsense) -- and didn't make this clear in your video or in your description -- because the people you created the video for (which would seem to be anyone that had access to youtube) wouldn't "understand" genuine application. Oh,yeah, that makes great sense.



What's in the video clip is not how we train-- we don't do fixed combinations, we emphasize distance (how many times do you see someone in a demo throw an attack that wouldn't even reach?), we don't leave arms out for people to chi sao all over. Once again, it's just a performance-- choreographed so that people can enjoy the party without worrying about pulling out the first aid kits.


Then why label your video clip "Wing Chun Demo, part 2: Applications" when you say they are not applications? Why describe your video as "Part 2 of a local demo. We demonstrated some possible Wing Chun responses to various types of attacks. These were all choreographed" when you now say these things would not work? Don't you think you were/are being dishonest or at the very least misleading?



In essence, I actually agree with what Mr. Niehoff says in most of his posts on this forum (though his message does seem to get lost because of his pompous, combative tone)-- you have to go out there with a humble attitude and mix it up with people who do other martial arts and are not going to comply with what you are doing. Indeed, the other guy in the clip regularly spars full contact against practitioners of MT, Boxers, and BJJ etc. It's the only way to honestly see what works for you.

This is just a clarification. Knowing Mr. Niehoff's need to get the last word, I am not going to reply any further to this because I don't have time to get into internet arguments with someone who seems to have too much time to banter online given the amount of full-contact sparring he does.

OK, so you are saying that this isn't the stuff you do, it's not how you train, you know these things couldn't possibly work, you'reon the same page as me, etc. yet you thought this stuff would somehow make a good demo of WCK applications. I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. If that's true and you want to demo how to deal with a takedown, for example, why not really show what you do instead of making some nonsense up?

[m1k3]

"The difference between theory and practice is a lot less in theory than it is in practice".

"The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."


Important sayings from the sages.

Train hard, have fun. Thats what its all abount.

[Hardwork108]

He should go back to reading comic books :cool:

DREW

You suprise me (and that is nothing new in this forum) as the fact that WC has been used by gangsters is a well known fact among some Hong Kong sifus.

[clam61]

I do have a basis for my negative claim: my experience fighting and everything that I can see working in anyone else's fights. We never see that crap working in fighting for the simple reason it doesn't work (at least not like that).


that reasoning is full of holes. just because you havent seen it done doesnt mean that it cant work.




It's pretty obvious it won't work -- neither will your simultaneous block/strike. Those are extremely low percentage moves.

you must not study wing chun...or if you do that is even scarier because that is one of the fundamental basics of WC.
there is no reason that blocking, then striking would result in a higher percentage of success (where success means making contact with your strike) than blocking and striking simultaneously. blocking and then striking would give your opponent more time to react vs a simutaneous block/strike



Just started to watch the vid on the first post of this thread. Turned it off after about 7 seconds...

right after he stopped the guy's rear cross with an armlock capture.

Outside of possibly a Steven Seagal movie, this move will never happen.

That's all I needed to see.

im just talking about the flapping wing palm at 0:38. i didnt watch the rest of the vid.


Or it is something that you, yourself can't make work in fighting. Terrence, it is all in the training. You don't train that way so you are not able to relate to it.

this is very important. you have not been able to make it work. it doesnt mean that it cant work. again im talking about the flapping wing palm.

[Liddel]

Did you know that there are quite a few Hong Kong sifus that were gangsters?
Name one :rolleyes:


You suprise me as the fact that WC has been used by gangsters is a well known fact among some Hong Kong sifus.

Its no fact friend...its 'the word on the street' :)

Regardless you could say that about any style IMO - gangsters - thugs - street punks many try to emulate/learn styles, so what ?

Are they representitive of the best of any style ? Take kimbo for instance, was he actually at a pro level in boxing in the backyard fights on the net ? has he gone anywhere in MMA ?

My sifu taught in HK for decades and my opinion is in line with his - Gangsters dont tend to fight fairly - one on one H2H - its fairytale stuff that if really true has no relevance to anyone elses effectivness with VT anyway.

I just think when disussing the effectivness of VT especially with someone like Terrence (a grounded reality based person, or so it seems LOL) using an unsubstantiated rumour was not the strongest evidence for VT's effectivness IMO.

Wouldnt it be wise to talk from your own personal experience in sparring fighting rather than gangsters, not one person can argue with what youve experinecd and know to be true :rolleyes:

DREW

[Hardwork108]

that reasoning is full of holes. just because you havent seen it done doesnt mean that it cant work.





you must not study wing chun...or if you do that is even scarier because that is one of the fundamental basics of WC.
there is no reason that blocking, then striking would result in a higher percentage of success (where success means making contact with your strike) than blocking and striking simultaneously. blocking and then striking would give your opponent more time to react vs a simutaneous block/strike



im just talking about the flapping wing palm at 0:38. i didnt watch the rest of the vid.



this is very important. you have not been able to make it work. it doesnt mean that it cant work. again im talking about the flapping wing palm.

Hello clam61,

Good post but you attributed one of Ultimatewingchun's quotes to me.:eek:

[Hardwork108]

Name one :rolleyes:
I know of TWO!

But it is not for me to talk about them in a public forum. I don't know wether this fact will be seen by them negatively as far as their public image is concerned.




Its no fact friend...its 'the word on the street' :)

It is a fact!



Regardless you could say that about any style IMO - gangsters - thugs - street punks many try to emulate/learn styles, so what ?
As far as Hong Kong is concerned some gangsters go beyond "emulating".


Are they representitive of the best of any style ?

They are representative of functionality of the style.



My sifu taught in HK for decades and my opinion is in line with his - Gangsters dont tend to fight fairly - one on one H2H - its fairytale stuff that if really true has no relevance to anyone elses effectivness with VT anyway.

That is nothing new. However, gangsters are "hands on" people when it comes to fighting.

When I lived in Rio de Janeiro one would here about Ju Jitsu gangs causing trouble in nightclubs. Do you think they fought one to one?


I just think when disussing the effectivness of VT especially with someone like Terrence (a grounded reality based person, or so it seems LOL) using an unsubstantiated rumour was not the strongest evidence for VT's effectivness IMO.

It is unsubstantiated for you and Terrence but for me it is more than substantiated.


Wouldnt it be wise to talk from your own personal experience in sparring fighting rather than gangsters, not one person can argue with what youve experinecd and know to be true :rolleyes:

Well your friend Terrence seems to lack any real fight experience with Wing Chun experts, yet goes on to put down Wing Chun and every other TCMA and TJMA under the sun as "fantasy" martial arts. Tell him that!

My personal experience is in Wing Chun contact sparring to improve my street effectiveness not my sport competition effectiveness!

[t_niehoff]

that reasoning is full of holes. just because you havent seen it done doesnt mean that it cant work.


You miss the point. People can and do BELIEVE in all sorts of fantasies in the martial arts. They can BELIEVE in fairy tales and stories. I want evidence. Evidence I can see. I form my conclusions not on stories or fairy tales or hearsay but on hard evidence.

And one part of that hard evidence is seeing what sort ofthings really do work in fights.



you must not study wing chun...or if you do that is even scarier because that is one of the fundamental basics of WC.
there is no reason that blocking, then striking would result in a higher percentage of success (where success means making contact with your strike) than blocking and striking simultaneously. blocking and then striking would give your opponent more time to react vs a simutaneous block/strike


Here's the thing, I could explain to you intellectually why simultaneous blocking and striking is low percentage (and btw, the kuit lien siu die da does NOT translate into simultaneous block and strike) but you would not understand it since you don't have the requisite experience. The only way you or anyone can understand is by hard sparring/fighting against good people and trying to make that work -- THEN you'll see. Until then, it is just some intellectual theory to you. Go try to make it work at a good boxing gym, at a muay thai gym, at a MMA gym. You'll see what I am telling you is true. But the only way to see that is by doing it.



this is very important. you have not been able to make it work. it doesnt mean that it cant work. again im talking about the flapping wing palm.

It's not just me. Simultaneous blocking and striking is low percentage for everyone. And even when you can pull it off, it doesn't typically leave you in a good spot. But the only way you can see this is through EXPERIENCE -- through a great deal of HARD (trying to knock each other out type hard) sparring with skilled opponents. Understanding fighting and what works in fighting cannot be grasped through intellectual discussion or through unrealistic exercises (chi sao or light sparring).

[clam61]

You miss the point. People can and do BELIEVE in all sorts of fantasies in the martial arts. They can BELIEVE in fairy tales and stories. I want evidence. Evidence I can see. I form my conclusions not on stories or fairy tales or hearsay but on hard evidence.

i understand that. i am also a very factual and objective person. one of the reasons i am a very skeptical person. but i also know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which is what your reasoning is.

just because i didnt produce a video for you does not mean that by default the technique i am talking about doesnt work...especially when work is so loosely defined.



Here's the thing, I could explain to you intellectually why simultaneous blocking and striking is low percentage (and btw, the kuit lien siu die da does NOT translate into simultaneous block and strike) but you would not understand it since you don't have the requisite experience.... The only way you or anyone can understand is by hard sparring/fighting against good people and trying to make that work -- THEN you'll see. Until then, it is just some intellectual theory to you. Go try to make it work at a good boxing gym, at a muay thai gym, at a MMA gym.

again i dont know how you get your assumptions about my experience. and btw, i am not translating that saying.

and also i have sparred and i have seen it work. the only thing your experience tells you is that you have not made it work. my experience tells me i have made it work.

you seem like a reasonable person. can you see the that we are in a stalemate here with regards to experience as evidence? im sure you can understand the fallacies in what you are saying.



It's not just me. Simultaneous blocking and striking is low percentage for everyone. And even when you can pull it off, it doesn't typically leave you in a good spot.

please define low percentage. also, you are generalizing 'simultaneous blocking and striking' leaving you in a bad spot.


through unrealistic exercises (chi sao or light sparring).

no offense but it really seems like you must have had an inadequate teacher. for you to think that chi sao is 'unrealistic'. of course no one is going to let you tie them up so easily. you wont start a fight in a chi sao position, but in many standup fights you get close. and chi sao skills have great application.

again you will say you haven't used it and cant use it. i submit that your failed attempts do not define a technique as unrealistic

[clam61]

with so much fighting experience you are probably a decent fighter by now. maybe better than me...who knows i have no idea.

but if you are not trying to ever do any simultaneous blocks/strikes...you are not doing wing chun. please no one give me 'wing chun is whatever works' or any other 'wing chun is wing chun...its all wing chun' bull.

its not necessarily a bad thing. lots of good fighters out there who dont use wing chun.

[Matrix]

with so much fighting experience you are probably a decent fighter by now. maybe better than me...who knows i have no idea.
No need to question this one. T and KF are the best fighters in these parts. I have no doubt they could kick all of our @sses without breaking a sweat.

Cheers,
Bill

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yeah, I understand that Terence just got his blackbelt in Keyboard Warrior. :)

[Liddel]

While i personally agree with some things Terrence says, i can think of several different styles that "simultaneous block and strike" and several different examples ive seen all in the last UFC and Affliction events i watched...

Perhaps its the VT techs he just doesnt give value to. :rolleyes: Me however i know they work though actually doing them sucessfully LOL.

His sparring partners must be $ h i t Hot, all i can say is - im jelous :)

DREW

[Hardwork108]

Yeah, I understand that Terence just got his blackbelt in Keyboard Warrior. :)

It was easy for Terrence to get his black belt. I mean all he had to do for his final test was to beat some invisible "fantasy" TCMA-ists.:D

[Hardwork108]

About simultaneous blocking and hitting.




And even when you can pull it off, it doesn't typically leave you in a good spot.

Let me get this right. You punch I block and hit you in the nose simultaneously and I am the one who ends up in a bad spot?

[Liddel]

The thing is every offensive action leaves you in a less favorable position...
Sun Tze (Art of war)
Or if i remember correctly my versions translation was 'non advantaged position' etc

Good england :p

DREW

[Hardwork108]

The thing is every offensive action leaves you in a less favorable position...
Sun Tze (Art of war)
Or if i remember correctly my versions translation was 'non advantaged position' etc

Good england :p

DREW

And yet you will never win any wars without some kind of an attack or counter attack, as the case may be.

[t_niehoff]

While i personally agree with some things Terrence says, i can think of several different styles that "simultaneous block and strike" and several different examples ive seen all in the last UFC and Affliction events i watched...

Perhaps its the VT techs he just doesnt give value to. :rolleyes: Me however i know they work though actually doing them sucessfully LOL.

His sparring partners must be $ h i t Hot, all i can say is - im jelous :)

DREW

Sure, lots of styles, including boxing and MT, have simultaneous blocks and strikes. There is a time and a place for them. Just for the most part they are low percentage tactics -- difficult to pull off when really going at it, and IME often when you do manage to pull them off it leaves you vulnerable (as both your arms are occupied) for #2. This is why you don't see them often in boxing or MT matches.

I often hear people SAY these things work great for them, but we never SEE it working great for them. Why is that? Why don't we ever see some WCK fighter sparring with decent boxers or muay thai guys and consistently and successfully pulling off simultaneous blocking and striking? (But we do see their demo on youtube of how it should work!). Why? Geez, after all, just about everyone claims to be able to do it with ease and they always say it works great for them. Hmmm.

BTW, there is no need to be jealous -- just do what I do, train at a MT/boxing gym.

[t_niehoff]

with so much fighting experience you are probably a decent fighter by now. maybe better than me...who knows i have no idea.

but if you are not trying to ever do any simultaneous blocks/strikes...you are not doing wing chun. please no one give me 'wing chun is whatever works' or any other 'wing chun is wing chun...its all wing chun' bull.

its not necessarily a bad thing. lots of good fighters out there who dont use wing chun.

Lots of people have "ideas" (concepts) of what is or is not WCK or how things should work -- just like you do. Where do these "ideas" come from? I'll tell you: from people (grandmasters, masters, sifu included) that have no significant fighting experience with competant fighters. Everyone has their "ideas" (concept) of what they should be doing, just 99.9% of them never do it! Oh, but even though they never do it, and can't do it, THEY KNOW.

My view is that if you can't do it consistently and successfully in fighting against competant fighters, then you don't know. And, listening to people who can't do something tell you how it should be done is only a recipe for failure.

Don't believe me or anyone -- GO OUT AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. Go spend some time doing some very hard sparring (fighting) against some competant fighters (boxers, MT, or MMA). Let application (the fight) be your sifu.

[chisauking]

Sure, lots of styles, including boxing and MT, have simultaneous blocks and strikes. There is a time and a place for them. Just for the most part they are low percentage tactics -- difficult to pull off when really going at it, and IME often when you do manage to pull them off it leaves you vulnerable (as both your arms are occupied) for #2. This is why you don't see them often in boxing or MT matches.


We don't see BJJ take downs, or elbows to face, or judo throws, either in boxing or MT. Does it make it low %? Or, is it due to the fact that you havent taken into account the environment & rules of the game when you compare differences?

Simultaneous parry & hit is a fundanmental concept in wing chun, and it's a very effective counter; it may not work in sport not because it's low % but simply due to the rules of the game.

In wing chun we don't need to limit ourselves with this concept in application by using only hand & hand, we can only use hand & leg. I can't speak for others, but I find a pak or a lap and stomp kick very effective. I find a withdrawing tan and bil to eyes very effective.

However, I personally don't know what the % of pulling this concept of simultaneous parry & hit off in a gym because I haven't tried it myself. It may well be extremely low because all the fighters in a MMA would wipe all wing chunner's a55es -- and that's just for lunch. They train in such realism it is beyond the reach of all other theoritical fighters.

[Stevehans]

In wing chun we don't need to limit ourselves with this concept in application by using only hand & hand, we can only use hand & leg. I can't speak for others, but I find a pak or a lap and stomp kick very effective. I find a withdrawing tan and bil to eyes very effective.

Every technique is effective against fellow VT classmates. And its unlikely you will ever speak for others because i dont think you actually really know yourself ? How many fights friendly or otherwise have you had where your deliberate eye flicks have been a success ? Why not say its its also an effective technique if you stick your boot into the guys groin ! and the odd ear biting has proven an effective tactic, maybe you should consider adding it to SLT ? :D



However, I personally don't know what the % of pulling this concept of simultaneous parry & hit off in a gym because I haven't tried it myself. It may well be extremely low because all the fighters in a MMA would wipe all wing chunner's a55es -- and that's just for lunch. They train in such realism it is beyond the reach of all other theoritical fighters.

Well then why dont you go down to the gym to find out yourself ? But then it might prove the unthinkable , so i dont expect you will ever do that ! Your sarcasm is mis-placed and doesn't really hold weight as you dont walk the walk.

In the right hands and if trained realistically VT is effective against the average street thug. And nothing wrong with that as many who train are not looking for much more. But you shouldn't be mocking MMA especially as you for one will never demonstate your theoretical skills against any skilled MMA.

But if that day ever comes make sure you take a camera with you just to set the record straight ! And dont get me wrong i will be rooting for your corner :)

[chisauking]

Just stick with the subject question, Stevehans.

Can you reason why -- in your own words -- why the wing chun concept of simultaneous parry & hit is low % when applied in the manner in which it was intended?

[clam61]

please define MMA beyond explaining the acronym as 'mixed martial arts'


Every technique is effective against fellow VT classmates. And its unlikely you will ever speak for others because i dont think you actually really know yourself ? How many fights friendly or otherwise have you had where your deliberate eye flicks have been a success ? Why not say its its also an effective technique if you stick your boot into the guys groin ! and the odd ear biting has proven an effective tactic, maybe you should consider adding it to SLT ? :D



Well then why dont you go down to the gym to find out yourself ? But then it might prove the unthinkable , so i dont expect you will ever do that ! Your sarcasm is mis-placed and doesn't really hold weight as you dont walk the walk.

In the right hands and if trained realistically VT is effective against the average street thug. And nothing wrong with that as many who train are not looking for much more. But you shouldn't be mocking MMA especially as you for one will never demonstate your theoretical skills against any skilled MMA.

But if that day ever comes make sure you take a camera with you just to set the record straight ! And dont get me wrong i will be rooting for your corner :)

[Knifefighter]

Simultaneous parry & hit is a fundanmental concept in wing chun, and it's a very effective counter; it may not work in sport not because it's low % but simply due to the rules of the game..
What rules prevent simultaneous blocking and punching?


I find a withdrawing tan and bil to eyes very effective..

How are you able to gouge all these people in the eyes without getting sued?

[Knifefighter]

Could someone point me to a link showing what you are talking about with simultaneous hit/punch so we can be sure we are all on the same page? (considering the fact of how hard it has been to get you guys to decide on a common definition of something as foundational as the center line)

[lkfmdc]

please define MMA beyond explaining the acronym as 'mixed martial arts'

MMA isn't about WHAT you train, it is about HOW you train

The training regime is to select techniques that work based upon the criteria that they can be drilled realisitically, their effectiveness demonstrated on a live resisting opponent.

If your methodology is MMA, you are going to throw out some techniques as impractical or improbable. Others you are going to find become your "bread and butter"

In reality, you are going to discover most likely what your system was really liek back a few generations back when they actually fought with it

[clam61]

this concept of throwing out techniques that arent as useful has been done before the term MMA was ever coined. its really nothing new. id like to add that MMA goes beyond filtering techniques to incorporating new ones where you may find them. this also is nothing new as many TMAs are a result of a combination of different MAs.

if terry is going to make a sweeping generalization that simultaneous block/attack moves dont work and leave you in a bad spot id like to ask for an example of one.

[Knifefighter]

if terry is going to make a sweeping generalization that simultaneous block/attack moves dont work and leave you in a bad spot id like to ask for an example of one.

Can you show an example of one working?

[lkfmdc]

this concept of throwing out techniques that arent as useful has been done before the term MMA was ever coined.



see my point about reverting back a few generations

today, far too many TMA lineages are holding onto "tradition" blindly and living off the practicioners of the past

[Knifefighter]

In reality, you are going to discover most likely what your system was really liek back a few generations back when they actually fought with it
I doubt they were really all that a few generations back.

[clam61]

Can you show an example of one working?

i sighted the one in the video that i claim works. i know its not a real situation, but thats not what im asking for.

im not asking him for a live example of someone doing a simultaneous block/strike move in a real fight that left him in a bad position...im asking for an example of a block/strike move that does this because i cant imagine one that would be bad for you

id be happy to learn something new

[Knifefighter]

i sighted the one in the video that i claim works. i know its not a real situation, but thats not what im asking for.

im not asking him for a live example of someone doing a simultaneous block/strike move in a real fight that left him in a bad position...im asking for an example of a block/strike move that does this because i cant imagine one that would be bad for you

No need for him to do it. Your example was a perfect example of one that wouldn't work.

[clam61]

how does that put you in a bad spot?

whether the strike was successful or not, after the move, you still have one hand guarding your face.

also maybe you can tell me why it wouldnt work. im not saying its THEE ultimate move, but why is it such a horrible one?

[lkfmdc]

I doubt they were really all that a few generations back.

There was nothing like BJJ back in China. So in an MMA environment many of the old fighters would have been lost on the ground, no question

Having had a glimpse of the older genration, like my teacher, I can tell you that they were practical, stuck to basics, and were pretty tough

[Knifefighter]

how does that put you in a bad spot?

whether the strike was successful or not, after the move, you still have one hand guarding your face.

also maybe you can tell me why it wouldnt work. im not saying its THEE ultimate move, but why is it such a horrible one?

Because you generally don't catch punches out of the air like that from someone who has half a clue about what he is doing... that is mostly fantasy fu.

Not to mention the fact that he is setting himself up for the double leg takedown.

[clam61]

There was nothing like BJJ back in China. So in an MMA environment many of the old fighters would have been lost on the ground, no question

Having had a glimpse of the older genration, like my teacher, I can tell you that they were practical, stuck to basics, and were pretty tough

not true. there is di su (ground skill) kung fu, which includes the grappling chokes and joint locks found in jujitsu as well as strikes and weapon techniques all concentrated with fighting while on the ground

[clam61]

i forgot what exactly happened in the video before the strike, but the flopping wing does not require you to catch any punch.

if someone throws a hook or straight punch at you, you basically parry the punch with one hand near your face while the other hand extends to strike.

so instead of parrying with one hand, and then striking with the other hand, it is one motion.

if somehow your opponent evades your strike it doesnt connect, you still have one hand up to defend.

edit:
actually i looked at the video again. im talking about the move by the black dude that starts at 0:37
in this case he decided to uproot his opponent by hitting him in the shoulder but he could have hit him in the face too

this forum doesnt let images get hosted, which is retarded btw, so here it is. chrnologically from top to bottom. the black guy is blocking with his right and striking with his left.

hes too far away so hes just hitting his shoulder instead of the face. but in this case he could have also hit his ribs

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.7288d073fe.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?7288d073fe.jpg)

[chisauking]

Knivefighter sez: What rules prevent simultaneous blocking and punching?

csk: None that I know of in the sporting context. However, I do know many games that prevent simultaneous parrying & hitting applied in the wing chun context, some of which I've already described.
So, do you think BJJ or MT techniques are low % in boxing because it isn't used?


knivefighter: How are you able to gouge all these people in the eyes without getting sued?

csk: To be honest, being sued is the last thing on my mind when I'm fighting. I'm prepared to do whatever it takes, to inflict as much damage to my enemy as possible (even if I have to sacrifice my own health) when people chose to attack me. Off course, some people on this forum that fight all the time, on a regular basis, with meaningful opponents, couldn't possibly understand this type of mindset.

Did my boss who'd stabbed a customer with a 12' kitchen skewer in the thigh; or my mother who'd smashed a man's face in with a metal ladel, and throw boiling oil on a man's face worry about being sued before they did it? Off course not, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

If one is worried about the consquence of one's action, then they shouldn't fight to begin with. Go home where it is nice and safe.

[Hardwork108]

not true. there is di su (ground skill) kung fu, which includes the grappling chokes and joint locks found in jujitsu as well as strikes and weapon techniques all concentrated with fighting while on the ground

Clam61,

You should be careful with such comments as you are going to cause heartattacks amongst MMA and "Kung Fu doesn't work" fraternity, some of whose livelyhood depends on teaching "improved" or "modernized" kung fu because the "traditional stuff doesn't work".;)

[Liddel]

Sure, lots of styles, including boxing and MT, have simultaneous blocks and strikes. There is a time and a place for them. Just for the most part they are low percentage tactics -- difficult to pull off when really going at it, and IME often when you do manage to pull them off it leaves you vulnerable (as both your arms are occupied) for #2. This is why you don't see them often in boxing or MT matches..

You dont see them often becuase they dont suit the platform IMO. and there are several permentations right... for instance i consider pulling an arm to headguard while landing a hook simil blocking/ attacking (rampage vs Wandy) as well as many unique ways included in VT.

As far as the bad position POV - i see that as not knowing VT - when we do simultaneous block and strike actions the postion of your arms and elbows are there to ultimatly minimise the opponents ability to attack at that instance... etc



I often hear people SAY these things work great for them, but we never SEE it working great for them. Why is that? .

Cant say - i dont see much CQB that friends do for Police and DPS on the net, which is hard core to say the least... theres much more out there than what you can find on the net IMHO and there are to many people doing VT thinking they are/ or wanting to be bruce lee...



Why don't we ever see some WCK fighter sparring with decent boxers or muay thai guys and consistently and successfully pulling off simultaneous blocking and striking? .

Havent we had a few here - Phil R - Vic - Alan ? dunno

Prob the same reason i have to wade through chumps posting themselfs doing the Comfortably numb solo on youtube when they cant even play paint it black - Chumps like to show off and pretend they are the $ h i t, able people dont need validation from strangers...:o thats one major reason IMO.



BTW, there is no need to be jealous -- just do what I do, train at a MT/boxing gym.

I dont go to thier gym but i have several buddies that do MT and one that does Boxing only (others have mixes) and we sparr in my garage :) .
Ive found lots of things work that you advocate are low percentage and often dont work....
I really think it would be good to have better training partners hence the 'jelousy' call - im really acknowledging they are good, but there are better -

I take training for what it is... im a hobbiest really - :o at higher levels im open minded perhaps its less percentage sure, but why post as if its useless :rolleyes:

Ive had sucess with it, ive had bad days too though :)... end of.

DREW

[t_niehoff]

if terry is going to make a sweeping generalization that simultaneous block/attack moves dont work and leave you in a bad spot id like to ask for an example of one.

My name is Terence. If you want to call me by name, then use it. Some of us actually do use our real names.

Look, no one is ever going to convince you via the internet that your ideas (concepts) are wrong. Even if I were to show you, you'd still argue that it wasn't a proper example or whatever. That's because you can't settle questions about fighting by not fighting. YOU need to do the work. If you don't (won't) do the work -- that is, get out and put in significant time fighting/sparring very hard -- with some competent fighters, you will never get it. Never. No one can show you but YOU. No conclusion, idea, etc. that you have or reach about WCK or fighting will have any validity beyond the work (the amount of quality sparring) you've done.

You've never seen anyone who could consistently and successfully pull of simlutaneous blocks and strikes fighting with good opponents, you've never done it yourself, yet you believe it to be true. You believe it because you've been told it and because you can do them in unrealistic practice (under nonfighting conditions). As your "idea" of the usefulness of this tactic comes not from your own or other's work (quality sparring), it has no validity and is just another case of the blind leading the blind.

[t_niehoff]

Because you generally don't catch punches out of the air like that from someone who has half a clue about what he is doing... that is mostly fantasy fu.

Not to mention the fact that he is setting himself up for the double leg takedown.

Bingo. When a person has put in the time and done the WORK (quality sparring), they KNOW.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Most systems that apply "block/strike" combs effectively VS other systems tend to not really block and strike at the same time, its more of a intercepting strike with cover(block).
The "blocking" hand is not really blocking as much as covering and its the footwork that "counters" the attack and the strike that compromises the structure.

[t_niehoff]

Most systems that apply "block/strike" combs effectively VS other systems tend to not really block and strike at the same time, its more of a intercepting strike with cover(block).
The "blocking" hand is not really blocking as much as covering and its the footwork that "counters" the attack and the strike that compromises the structure.

My view is that tan da, biu da, pak da, etc. are potentially valid and useful WCK tactics/tools. But that the tan, biu, pak, etc. are NOT blocks (or parries). As they are not blocks, a tan da is not a simultaneous block and stike. Nor can you use them consistently and successfully when not already attached (in free movement range) to an opponent.

[Stevehans]

Just stick with the subject question, Stevehans.

Can you reason why -- in your own words -- why the wing chun concept of simultaneous parry & hit is low % when applied in the manner in which it was intended?

Well i couldn't help addressing the other points that you raised but sure i'll address the above Q as well.

When you are thinking of simultaneous actions the way you describe you have certain disadvantages;

1)Assumming you manage to catch the punch you have to deliver at least 90% power and commitment into your own punch for it to be effective. With that in mind and assumming your mind cant concentrate on 2 things at the same time under pressure then i assume one is attributing around 10% to the parry. But the reality to recieve a fairly powerful shot and to respond instanteously and simultaneously on a secure footing to deliver takes some serious timing and skill.

When you commit are you focussing on the Parry or the Strike ? If your Parry gets knocked what happens to the power of your Punch ? Everytime you set yourself up for deliberate contact as in Parry/Strike you risk possible disruption of your own footing.

2)Whenever you Parry/Strike you commit yourself and inturn open a larger window for attack to yourself than if you just held a guard. Now assumming most punches you recieve during a round would either be out of range or just jabs then unless you have lightening speed in both hands and footwork your going to be extending or uncoiling both arms at the same time which doesn't leave you with a very powerful follow up if you miss.

3) And lastly assumming your doing it the VT way then you are going to sacrifice some range and attacking at that range your opponent is sure to have his guard up anyway. So really its a lot of commitment just to throw a punch !

Not saying it cant be done but outside of demonstrations the timing/footwork and power just makes it low %

[sanjuro_ronin]

My view is that tan da, biu da, pak da, etc. are potentially valid and useful WCK tactics/tools. But that the tan, biu, pak, etc. are NOT blocks (or parries). As they are not blocks, a tan da is not a simultaneous block and stike. Nor can you use them consistently and successfully when not already attached (in free movement range) to an opponent.

Then what are they?

[t_niehoff]

Then what are they?

Bridge arms.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Bridge arms.

Well, every time we connect, in whatever fashion, we create a bridge, be it a strike, a block, a parry or mutual carressing.
To call them "brides" is fine, but the clinch is a bridge, the over/under is a bridge, heck even offering a bridge is a bridge.

[t_niehoff]

Well, every time we connect, in whatever fashion, we create a bridge, be it a strike, a block, a parry or mutual carressing.
To call them "brides" is fine, but the clinch is a bridge, the over/under is a bridge, heck even offering a bridge is a bridge.

In my view, contact (alone) does not make a bridge. Sustained contact (attachment) is required. (For example, batting away a strike is not a bridge but does involve contact). In metaphorical terms, a bridge connects two (land)masses. In terms of thinking, replace the term "bridge" with attached-hand.

Moreover, as I see it, the objective of your bridge -- why you want attachement and what you do with attachment -- is control of an opponent (his bridge, his structure, etc.). So we use our bridgehands (attachedhands) to fight for control over our opponent.

[LSWCTN1]

In my view, contact (alone) does not make a bridge. Sustained contact (attachment) is required. (For example, batting away a strike is not a bridge but does involve contact). In metaphorical terms, a bridge connects two (land)masses. In terms of thinking, replace the term "bridge" with attached-hand.

Moreover, as I see it, the objective of your bridge -- why you want attachement and what you do with attachment -- is control of an opponent (his bridge, his structure, etc.). So we use our bridgehands (attachedhands) to fight for control over our opponent.

'why you want attach(e)ment'

you are therefore implying you attempt to reach this state

sounds like chasing hands to me

[t_niehoff]

'why you want attach(e)ment'

you are therefore implying you attempt to reach this state

sounds like chasing hands to me


It may be that's what it "sounds like" to YOU. To me, it sounds like the kuit 'Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu' (If there is no bridge, erect one).

I am not talking about chasing hands; I'm talking about chasing control. And you can't have control without attachment to your opponent.

[clam61]

You've never seen anyone who could consistently and successfully pull of simlutaneous blocks and strikes fighting with good opponents, you've never done it yourself, yet you believe it to be true. You believe it because you've been told it and because you can do them in unrealistic practice (under nonfighting conditions). As your "idea" of the usefulness of this tactic comes not from your own or other's work (quality sparring), it has no validity and is just another case of the blind leading the blind.

This is annoying because...WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? how can you consistently state with such confidence what i have done and what i have seen? because i disagree with you? that is the definition of being hardheaded

you're constant refusal to discuss this further leads me to believe that you know you are in the wrong. you're constant assertions with no basis also leads me to believe that you know you're case is shaky

[chusauli]

In WCK, the timing is the issue to make the bridges work. Often in these discussion, we are not discussing the right timing or the timing that we are able to conduct these maneuvers.

You are not chasing his hands, but his body. As the opponent is constantly offbalance - you have the time to use bridges then. You must be in the first timing, not allowing their style to show. ''Counterattack" timing is too slow to use "alleged simultaneous attack and defense".

[t_niehoff]

This is annoying because...WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS ABOUT ME AND WHAT I'VE SEEN!

you're constant refusal to discuss anything leads me to believe that you know you are in the wrong. you're constant assertions with no basis also leads me to believe that you know you're case is shaky

I know this about you from what you say. It's like guys (some on this forum) who say that WCK has groundfighting. I know if they say this that they haven't put in any significant amount of time fighting on the ground with competent fighters because if they did, they wouldn't be saying that. They'd know better. Their view doesn't come from experience but from fantasy/speculation. Which also explains, btw, why we never SEE them do it. Similarly, anyone saying they can consistently and successfully pull off simultaneous blocks and strikes in hard sparring against competent fighters isn't talking from experience (from having done it). How do I know? Because if you put in the time doing that WORK, the hard sparring -- which I have -- you see what is possible and what isn't.

These things aren't going to be decided through discussion. Nor will you come to understand them through discussion. For example, I won't through discussion on this forum convince the guys who believe WCK has groundfighting that they are wrong. Why? Because they have some fantasy view of WCK and/or the ground that leads them to believe that. Nothing will change until they are stripped of this fantasy -- BY EXPERIENCE: by fighting on the ground with competent fighters. It's the same for stand-up. The guys that believe they can block and hit simultaneously consistently and successfully will argue and defend their views until they are stripped of them by EXPERIENCE.

[t_niehoff]

In WCK, the timing is the issue to make the bridges work. Often in these discussion, we are not discussing the right timing or the timing that we are able to conduct these maneuvers.

You are not chasing his hands, but his body. As the opponent is constantly offbalance - you have the time to use bridges then. You must be in the first timing, not allowing their style to show. ''Counterattack" timing is too slow to use "alleged simultaneous attack and defense".

In my view, what I am talking about isn't timing but method.

I don't chase the body, I chase control since for me WCK is about controlling the opponent while striking him. To get the body but not have control gives me nothing. So in my view, the body - or his bridges - provide potential access (attachement) to control. Why do we off-balance? To help us get or maintain control. But you can still get or maintain control without your opponent being off-balance.

[Hardwork108]

I know this about you from what you say. It's like guys (some on this forum) who say that WCK has groundfighting.

Wing Chun (at least the Siu Lam Lineage and suspect some others) have has ground fighting and it is taught towards the end of Chum Kiu. If this aspect of Wing Chun is unfamiliar to you then that does not make it invalid!


Similarly, anyone saying they can consistently and successfully pull off simultaneous blocks and strikes in hard sparring against competent fighters isn't talking from experience (from having done it).
Is there a technique that you know that you can pull off "consistently in hard sparring against competent fighters"?

The fact is that in hard sparring or in real fights there are not that many things that you can pull off consistently. Surely you knew that fact taking into consideration your "realistic" and "functional" training?



How do I know? Because if you put in the time doing that WORK, the hard sparring -- which I have -- you see what is possible and what isn't.

The problem with your approach is that what you use in your hard sparring is not really related to authentic kung fu practise, is it?

Wouldn't it be correct to assume that you are really an MMA-ist who is using the Wing Chun tag (for whatever reason). This would explain your lack of appreciation for traditional practises such as chi sao and your view of WC's principles and concepts as mere "fantasies".


These things aren't going to be decided through discussion. Nor will you come to understand them through discussion.
Of course not!

What kind of a Wing Chun discussion can one have with someone who does not ACTUALLY practise Wing Chun?




For example, I won't through discussion on this forum convince the guys who believe WCK has groundfighting that they are wrong.
That would be because you still haven't grasped the higher aspects of this art's stand up fighting, to start with, let alone its transition to the ground scenario.

You are typical of many who post here. You see everything through MMA tinted glasses.

That is fine if MMA works for you, but then why post in a Wing Chun thread and in a KUNG FU forum at that?


Why? Because they have some fantasy view of WCK and/or the ground that leads them to believe that.

Well since you don't really practise Wing Chun and have negative views and misunderstandings of some of its fundamental methods and principles then it is fair to conclude that any opinion that you have towards WC practice is a FANTASY.

That means that the FANTASY is yours, Terrence, as you are the one who lacks genuine experience in authentic Wing Chun, hence you are the one who is GUESSING your way through about what you deem this art lacks!





Nothing will change until they are stripped of this fantasy -- BY EXPERIENCE:

Exactly!

Why don't you go and practise genuine Wing Chun for a few years then come and tell us about your EXPERIENCE!

[Kansuke]

The two-year Grandmaster drops more pearls of wisdom...

[lkfmdc]

Wing Chun (at least the Siu Lam Lineage and suspect some others) have has ground fighting and it is taught towards the end of Chum Kiu.




the famous wing chung ground fighting! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fNPW9OgmY)

[sanjuro_ronin]

In WCK, the timing is the issue to make the bridges work. Often in these discussion, we are not discussing the right timing or the timing that we are able to conduct these maneuvers.

You are not chasing his hands, but his body. As the opponent is constantly offbalance - you have the time to use bridges then. You must be in the first timing, not allowing their style to show. ''Counterattack" timing is too slow to use "alleged simultaneous attack and defense".

Timing is crucial, but timing is also very "style specific' and even "training specififc".
Only way around that is to have varied training with varied external stimuli (sparring partners that do NOT fight in a way you are used to).
I have found that, under these circumstances we don't "chase" anything, or "control" anything but ourselves and not in the 'meditive" sense.

[t_niehoff]

What kind of a Wing Chun discussion can one have with someone who does not ACTUALLY practise Wing Chun?

Actually, in all your nonsense you did make one good point (above) -- though you don't realize it.

To practice WCK is to fight with WCK -- not doing forms, not doing drills or exercises (chi sao), but fighting (and with competent fighters).

And people who aren't fighting (with competent fighters) -- who aren't practicing WCK -- can't have an intelligent discussion with the people who are because the former (like you) have a fantasy-based "concept" of WCK and the latter a reality-based experience of WCK. The two don't mesh.

[t_niehoff]

I have found that, under these circumstances we don't "chase" anything, or "control" anything but ourselves and not in the 'meditive" sense.

So, for example, when a MT fighter has you in the plum position and is jerking you around the ring and into his knees, he's not controlling you?

[Knifefighter]

I know this about you from what you say. It's like guys (some on this forum) who say that WCK has groundfighting. I know if they say this that they haven't put in any significant amount of time fighting on the ground with competent fighters because if they did, they wouldn't be saying that.

Exactly... pretty much the same way you know guys who spout the bullsh!t below haven't done any eye gouging, but, instead, fantasize about what they "would" do if they were ever to have to use it.



csk: To be honest, being sued is the last thing on my mind when I'm fighting. I'm prepared to do whatever it takes, to inflict as much damage to my enemy as possible (even if I have to sacrifice my own health) when people chose to attack me. Off course, some people on this forum that fight all the time, on a regular basis, with meaningful opponents, couldn't possibly understand this type of mindset.

Did my boss who'd stabbed a customer with a 12' kitchen skewer in the thigh; or my mother who'd smashed a man's face in with a metal ladel, and throw boiling oil on a man's face worry about being sued before they did it? Off course not, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

If one is worried about the consquence of one's action, then they shouldn't fight to begin with. Go home where it is nice and safe.

People who have actually done things don't talk in that manner. Those are the words of a theoretical non-fighter.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So, for example, when a MT fighter has you in the plum position and is jerking you around the ring and into his knees, he's not controlling you?

Not if I Outweighed him by 80lbs he isn't.
:p
What well trained MT fighters do is put themselves in the right position to "jerk you across the ring and knee you".
That is what I was referring to.
And as such, he is controlling HIS position more so than yours.

[t_niehoff]

Not if I Outweighed him by 80lbs he isn't.
:p
What well trained MT fighters do is put themselves in the right position to "jerk you across the ring and knee you".
That is what I was referring to.
And as such, he is controlling HIS position more so than yours.

The point I am trying to make is that the MT fighter -- and WCK fighter -- when he gets attached is trying to actively control you (chasing control) so that he can pound away. This control involves many things, including relative position, attachment, momentum, etc.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The point I am trying to make is that the MT fighter -- and WCK fighter -- when he gets attached is trying to actively control you (chasing control) so that he can pound away. This control involves many things, including relative position, attachment, momentum, etc.

I agree, I just don't like the term "chase", makes it sound that you are on the "reactive", a step behind, ie" Chasing.

[Knifefighter]

I agree, I just don't like the term "chase", makes it sound that you are on the "reactive", a step behind, ie" Chasing.

Nothing wrong with chasing control. It's pretty much what every wrestler and BJJ practitioner does.

[t_niehoff]

I agree, I just don't like the term "chase", makes it sound that you are on the "reactive", a step behind, ie" Chasing.

I too ahve issues with many of the "old" terms. In this case, I see it as chasing=something you are continuously trying to achieve/maintain (an ongoing process versus a finsihing line). So chasing control means, for me, continuously trying to get or maintain control (over your opponent).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nothing wrong with chasing control. It's pretty much what every wrestler and BJJ practitioner does.

Point made.


I too ahve issues with many of the "old" terms. In this case, I see it as chasing=something you are continuously trying to achieve/maintain (an ongoing process versus a finsihing line). So chasing control means, for me, continuously trying to get or maintain control (over your opponent).

Yeah, I understand.
Its probably just a personal 'peeve" of mine, just like I don't like the term "defense".

[LSWCTN1]

It may be that's what it "sounds like" to YOU. To me, it sounds like the kuit 'Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu' (If there is no bridge, erect one).

I am not talking about chasing hands; I'm talking about chasing control. And you can't have control without attachment to your opponent.


your teacher must be proud you can't have control without attachment to your opponent what?!?! :confused:

if you cover (effectively) and strike, without bridging, can you not have control?

and in all honesty i havent heard that particular kuen kuit before, but where i train 'upon loss of contact rush forward' is the term that we would use for when there is no bridge, which would tie in with my instructors seemingly personal favourite 'check the walls before you attack the castle' - which means that yes, we do become aware of the opponents limbs as we enter, but we close them down by covering or angling etc as we strike

if there is no bridge and we must build one, then you are actively seeking to have your bridges meeting - that IS chasing hands

[Hardwork108]

Actually, in all your nonsense you did make one good point (above) -- though you don't realize it.

All of my points were good!

You are the one who "don't realize it".


To practice WCK is to fight with WCK

That is the eventual goal of any Wing Chun practitioner or at least to gain the ability to fight using Wing Chun.



-- not doing forms, not doing drills or exercises (chi sao),

Doing forms, drills and exercises such as chi sao are part and parcel of Wing Chun training. These exercises were designed and evolved by real kung fu masters who had profound understanding of what kung fu training entails.

You and other MMA-ists will never see the profoundness of authentic kung fu because you have limited yourselves to the "fastest results in the fastest time possible" requirement as regards combat training, which is very relevant to sport fighting or even for law enforcement necessities, but not a deep study of kung fu.




but fighting (and with competent fighters).

Are you saying that kung fu fighters are not competent? If yes, then please tell us how many genuine kung fu experts/sifus you have defeated in real fights, not "hard" sparring.


And people who aren't fighting (with competent fighters) -- who aren't practicing WCK -- can't have an intelligent discussion with the people who are because the former (like you) have a fantasy-based "concept" of WCK and the latter a reality-based experience of WCK. The two don't mesh.

As I stated before your lack of understanding regarding the higher principles of WC makes your criticisms of Wing Chun nothing but FANTASY.

For those who really understand Wing Chun (and many other kung fu styles) it is very clear that it was not designed just to fight other Wing Chun and kung fu exponents.

Those who understand the principles know that they are hollistic and can be applied to any situation and yes even to ground fighting. The problem is that many WC practioners today have not developed the necessary tools to apply the principles to a wider fighting scenarios.

I am talking about aspects such as Iron Palm/Iron Body etc.; Chi-na(kum na);ground training; Internal training including, "softness" training; "sensitivity" training; "listening" training;"sticking training;" and so on.

Without the above aspects one is only learning one dimensional - EXTERNAL - kung fu, which is lacking potency, hence the understandable search "outside" to fill in the obvious shortcomings training in irrelevant styles that at the end of the day classify what one does as MMA rather than kung fu.

[chisauking]

The human mind and combat is much more capable & adaptive then you give credit for if you suggest that we can’t multi-task 2 actions without putting ourselves at risk. Any way you hit will put one in a stationary position – no matter how brief – so it doesn’t matter whether you hit with 1 or 2 action.

There are many permutations of possibilities utilizing the wing chun concept of simultaneous parry & hit, but it’s pointless to go any further.

To say it’s low % to use this concept with any skillful fighter is pointless, since a skillful fighter will be difficult to hit irrespective of any method which you choose to use.

With hindsight, it’s a folly to try and debate wing chun with people that has no interest in wing chun, or\and has spent little time in training its method. Or, someone who sees & trains wing chun in a sporting MMA context.

I will bid farewell to all the participants here, since I no longer feel it’s constructive to part-take in a MMA forum purporting to be a wing chun forum. It’s has been said that if people repeat themselves often & long enough, people will start to believe them – this forum is testament to this theory.

To leave on a good a positive note, and to make all the MMAs happy, I will say that the ultimate test for realism is your local MMA club, and anybody who doesn’t train in this model of learning, fighting on a regular basis, with meaningful opponents, isn’t effective in their wing chun training. Look to the 2 BEST fighters on this forum for your answers.

I hope everybody excels in their training, and I may come back to lurk once in a while. (Not to learn about wing chun, but to glean tips on how to write and argue)

[Knifefighter]

For those who really understand Wing Chun (and many other kung fu styles) it is very clear that it was not designed just to fight other Wing Chun and kung fu exponents.

Those who understand the principles know that they are hollistic and can be applied to any situation and yes even to ground fighting. The problem is that many WC practioners today have not developed the necessary tools to apply the principles to a wider fighting scenarios.

Wait a minute... didn't you just start training WC a year or two ago?

[Vajramusti]

Do come back from time to time.

joy chaudhuri

[Hardwork108]

Wait a minute... didn't you just start training WC a year or two ago?

I started training Wing Chun 8 years ago.

It seems that you have either fallen for lkfmdc and kansuke's disinformation campaign or you have joined them to propogate a lie. Which is it, then?

[Hardwork108]

The human mind and combat is much more capable & adaptive then you give credit for if you suggest that we can’t multi-task 2 actions without putting ourselves at risk. Any way you hit will put one in a stationary position – no matter how brief – so it doesn’t matter whether you hit with 1 or 2 action.

There are many permutations of possibilities utilizing the wing chun concept of simultaneous parry & hit, but it’s pointless to go any further.

To say it’s low % to use this concept with any skillful fighter is pointless, since a skillful fighter will be difficult to hit irrespective of any method which you choose to use.

With hindsight, it’s a folly to try and debate wing chun with people that has no interest in wing chun, or\and has spent little time in training its method. Or, someone who sees & trains wing chun in a sporting MMA context.

I will bid farewell to all the participants here, since I no longer feel it’s constructive to part-take in a MMA forum purporting to be a wing chun forum. It’s has been said that if people repeat themselves often & long enough, people will start to believe them – this forum is testament to this theory.

To leave on a good a positive note, and to make all the MMAs happy, I will say that the ultimate test for realism is your local MMA club, and anybody who doesn’t train in this model of learning, fighting on a regular basis, with meaningful opponents, isn’t effective in their wing chun training. Look to the 2 BEST fighters on this forum for your answers.

I hope everybody excels in their training, and I may come back to lurk once in a while. (Not to learn about wing chun, but to glean tips on how to write and argue)

All I have to say is that you shouldn't leave! If we stick together we can turn this into a Wing Chun (and a kung fu forum again). This forum needs people like you and Vajramusti so that people here will have real Wing Chun references as opposed to the knucklehead "lets stand there and hit each other and then call what we do kung fu", variety.

There are people like Vajramusti who is a real Wing Chun sifu who doesn't post as much as I would like him to, but when he does his statements are wise and informative.

Perhaps you can do that too? Post once in a while giving your insights and thoughts on the various aspects of Wing Chun. You don't have to discuss or argue with the MMA-ists (leave that to me as I've got their handle).

Hope to read your posts again.:)

[Matrix]

I agree, I just don't like the term "chase", makes it sound that you are on the "reactive", a step behind, ie" Chasing.I think your point is well taken. There's something about the term "chasing" that seems to imply trying to catch up, being a step or two behind. But Terence uses the term in a different way that seems to work for him. It's all good, because it causes me to think about my understanding of the concepts and principles.
Keep up the great work guys. :cool:

Peace,
Bill

[Matrix]

if you cover (effectively) and strike, without bridging, can you not have control?Attachment can be momentary, or longer, can it not? If so, a strike (assuming it reaches the target) can achieve both control and attachment. In fact I would say it should. I would also say that a strike landed is also a bridge.

I think there are 2 parts to the idea of control. Primarily you need to have control of your self, or there's liimited potential for success. Next you need to have (or take) control of the opponent. You cannot have the 2nd part without the first, IMO.
Too often we think of trying to take control of the opponent without first establishing and maintaining control of ourselves.

Just a thought.

Bill

[Kansuke]

I started training Wing Chun 8 years ago.




= he had 2 years of training 8 years ago.

[Ali. R]

There are people like Vajramusti who is a real Wing Chun sifu who doesn't post as much as I would like him to, but when he does his statements are wise and informative.



You got that right; he’s (Joy) the best poster here on this forum by far, and another member in whom I love as a brother (Old Jong), they both had masterful training and were blessed with a wonderful wing chun family…

Joy’s knowledge and humbleness could easily make him “Sifu” of the year in my book, and that’s every year… For those that seek the knowledge, it would be to one’s advantage to ponder on the words of these men…

Take care,


Ali Rahim.

[t_niehoff]

your teacher must be proud you can't have control without attachment to your opponent what?!?! :confused:


Application (fighting) is my teacher (sifu). Yes, you ARE confused. That comes from not doing it.



if you cover (effectively) and strike, without bridging, can you not have control?


No. Hitting someone - whether you cover or not- is not controlling them. A nonWCK example is ground-and-pound: the strikes don't control your opponent, your position (mount, for example) does. If you sat off tothe side and just hit your opponent there would be no control. Same with the MT clinch, it is the plum positionthat provides control, not the knee strikes. You can't have control without attachment.



and in all honesty i havent heard that particular kuen kuit before, but where i train 'upon loss of contact rush forward' is the term that we would use for when there is no bridge, which would tie in with my instructors seemingly personal favourite 'check the walls before you attack the castle' - which means that yes, we do become aware of the opponents limbs as we enter, but we close them down by covering or angling etc as we strike


You don't close anything down by covering or angling. If you believe so, then go fight some decent nonWCK people and see for yourself. I say nonWCK people because most WCK people have developed really bad habits, like leaving their arms in position to be "covered", etc. that good fighters simply won't do. So when we"spar" with WCK guys, a lot of our stuff may seem to work -- well, it works only because they are giving us certain preprogrammed bad habits.



if there is no bridge and we must build one, then you are actively seeking to have your bridges meeting - that IS chasing hands

You don't understand what a "bridge" is. A bridge is ANY handle I have to the opponent that provides control. His arms can be a bridge, his leg can be a bridge, his body can provide a bridge, his neck can be a bridge, etc. I don't chase any particular handle (hands), I chase control.

Another kuit you may not have heard of: Chut Kuen Mo Fan Lai (When the fist goes out, it does not return). Why does it not return? Because it becomes a bridge (to control the opponent).

And btw, you can't learn to be a good golfer following the advice of poor golfers.

[t_niehoff]

The human mind and combat is much more capable & adaptive then you give credit for if you suggest that we can’t multi-task 2 actions without putting ourselves at risk. Any way you hit will put one in a stationary position – no matter how brief – so it doesn’t matter whether you hit with 1 or 2 action.


Perhaps in your time away, you can work on your reading comprehension skills. I said that simul blocks and strikes are LOW percentage, meaning you won't be able to pull them off most of the time. Also, they do tend leave you exposed for #2.

You have your theory of why this should work. It is nothing more than a theory. All you need to do is follow Yip Man's advice and "go out and see for yourself." Go fight with some competent fighters and SEE.



There are many permutations of possibilities utilizing the wing chun concept of simultaneous parry & hit, but it’s pointless to go any further.


In theory you can come up with all kinds of permutations. Practice is a horse of a different color.



To say it’s low % to use this concept with any skillful fighter is pointless, since a skillful fighter will be difficult to hit irrespective of any method which you choose to use.


You don't understand what low % means or why I talk about trying things against competent fighters. It makes no sense to try something on some unskilled scrub. We may get almost anything to work against a zombie. Being able to stop someone who doesn't know beans about taking someone down doesn't say anything about your takedown defense. To see if something is sound or not you need to practice it against competently skilled people -- work your takedown defense against competant wrestlers, for example. If you can consistently and successfully deal with them, then you KNOW that your takedown defense is sound. It's the same with everything else.

When you do THAT, you will begin to see that some things work much, much more often than other things. For example, going back to takedown defense, you find the sprawl works much, much more than knee strikes to the shooter. Can you pull off knee strikes to a shooter? You bet. It's just a very low percentage move. Knowing that one (the sprawl) is high percentage and one (knee strike) is low percentage, which do you think would make more sense to train/practice as your default?

And, you can't from theory determine what is or is not high/low percentage -- you can only determine that from EXPERIENCE.

The fact you don't understand any of this tells me that you aren't doing it -- because if you were, you'd already know this.



With hindsight, it’s a folly to try and debate wing chun with people that has no interest in wing chun, or\and has spent little time in training its method. Or, someone who sees & trains wing chun in a sporting MMA context.


I have a great interest in WCK and have spent decades training it. You don' ike it that your theories, your beliefs, etc. are questioned and criticized. You don't like it that you cannot offer any evidence to support your beliefs.



I will bid farewell to all the participants here, since I no longer feel it’s constructive to part-take in a MMA forum purporting to be a wing chun forum. It’s has been said that if people repeat themselves often & long enough, people will start to believe them – this forum is testament to this theory.


Actually, that is precisely what has you in its grip -- the repetition of nonsense, bullsh1t, etc. about WCK by nonfighters that has come to be the dominant view in WCK circles.

[Ali. R]

It’s not based on if one has all of the knowledge that another person needs to be taking seriously, it’s about if one takes the right steps for development, (in this case wing chun) and that’s what makes one a serious wing chun practitioner...


Ali Rahim.

[Stevehans]

The human mind and combat is much more capable & adaptive then you give credit for if you suggest that we can’t multi-task 2 actions without putting ourselves at risk. Any way you hit will put one in a stationary position – no matter how brief – so it doesn’t matter whether you hit with 1 or 2 action.)

I am not suggesting the human mind is not adaptive but clearly for most men its is very hard to focus on 2 things at the same time. (Nor am i suggesting that it is impossible to Strike/parry simultaneously) Afterall the strike might be low or high or non commited so when do you parry/strike, are you constantly lifting both hands when you are being hit with jabs, when do you decide a strike warrants your P/S ?



To say it’s low % to use this concept with any skillful fighter is pointless, since a skillful fighter will be difficult to hit irrespective of any method which you choose to use.

So why even suggest even using it ? Why put yourself at a disadvantage straight away but using a techniue which has a low success % ???


With hindsight, it’s a folly to try and debate wing chun with people that has no interest in wing chun, or\and has spent little time in training its method. Or, someone who sees & trains wing chun in a sporting MMA context.

Its not that i dont have an interest in VT its just that i get fed up with people who preach theory and method which they cant physically back up outside of class demos and expect members of the public to accept it at face value and worst still part with our hard earnt money to learn. We are not asking you to go on the street and end up getting arrested or killed but just to have a friendly spar with the guys down at the local MMA club. Then i would be interested in the feedback (and i know there are some guys in this forum who do just that) as its the feedback from these encounters that takes VT forward and not the fantasy of what you think you can do based on the stories of old !

Its not the whole VT world its just that section who insist on putting more time in glorifying and putting the system on a pedestal instead of facing the reality to making the method work !



I will bid farewell to all the participants here, since I no longer feel it’s constructive to part-take in a MMA forum purporting to be a wing chun forum. It’s has been said that if people repeat themselves often & long enough, people will start to believe them – this forum is testament to this theory.

You sound like my younger sis who argues mostly through her emotions. Imagine where our politics would be if politicions followed your example ? Why dont you stick around and make us see and understand your point of view ? Afterall the truth always prevails as there only so much we can do to cover the truth !


I hope everybody excels in their training, and I may come back to lurk once in a while. (Not to learn about wing chun, but to glean tips on how to write and argue)

As your going to have more time may i suggest you analyse the way you train. Or at the very least test your methods safely against MMA fighters who are not trained in eye gouges and who trains in a gym where there are no knives or swords........that way you will be much safer than the life and death fights your always talking about. Just a tip before you depart its not undignified to tap out.

[Hardwork108]

You got that right; he’s (Joy) the best poster here on this forum by far, and another member in whom I love as a brother (Old Jong), they both had masterful training and were blessed with a wonderful wing chun family…

Joy’s knowledge and humbleness could easily make him “Sifu” of the year in my book, and that’s every year… For those that seek the knowledge, it would be to one’s advantage to ponder on the words of these men…

Take care,


Ali Rahim.

By the way, you should post more often too Ali. You are among the handfull of people here who know their Wing Chun.:)

[punchdrunk]

interesting points but Terrence i disagree when you say angling can't close anything down, an extreme example would be taking someone's back, that definately removes many of their options. Another extreme is knocking someone to the ground.. again a different angle that controls the opponents options. A less extreme example is standing to someones side before you initiate action, that is used by police and security every day. Angling is used in boxing and several other combat sports all the time.. like avoiding someones strong right. But I do agree with testing your training against other methods.

[t_niehoff]

interesting points but Terrence i disagree when you say angling can't close anything down, an extreme example would be taking someone's back, that definately removes many of their options. Another extreme is knocking someone to the ground.. again a different angle that controls the opponents options. A less extreme example is standing to someones side before you initiate action, that is used by police and security every day. Angling is used in boxing and several other combat sports all the time.. like avoiding someones strong right. But I do agree with testing your training against other methods.

If I point my pistol at you and you angle out of my line of fire, you haven't "closed down" my gun. If you slip my punch or angle away, you haven't "closed down" my striking offense. You've just gotten out of the way. In my book, getting out of the way -- dodging, for example -- isn't the same thing as "closing down" an offense. In my view, you close down an offense by controlling an opponent.

[punchdrunk]

I think position is a good way to control an opponent and angling is important in all positioning, if i stand between you and access to your gun it is useless. But hey I don't wanna take this off topic and I value your input, it's good to read other perspectives.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If I point my pistol at you and you angle out of my line of fire, you haven't "closed down" my gun. If you slip my punch or angle away, you haven't "closed down" my striking offense. You've just gotten out of the way. In my book, getting out of the way -- dodging, for example -- isn't the same thing as "closing down" an offense. In my view, you close down an offense by controlling an opponent.

I think that you may have to narrow a view of control.
Certainly you can control ( and it is far easier to do so) by grappling, but you also can control via strikes and by positioning.
Anytime the opponent has to react to you, to what you are doing, you are controlling him in one way or another.
Granted, like I stated, controlling him by "holding" him is far easier, it is not always the best way to go.

[t_niehoff]

I think that you may have to narrow a view of control.
Certainly you can control ( and it is far easier to do so) by grappling, but you also can control via strikes and by positioning.
Anytime the opponent has to react to you, to what you are doing, you are controlling him in one way or another.
Granted, like I stated, controlling him by "holding" him is far easier, it is not always the best way to go.

I don't want to split hairs, but to me physical control isn't "anytime the opponent has to react to you" as you suggest -- since even when you are controlling someone you need to react to what they are doing to keep control (try staying mounted, for example, without reacting to what your opponent is doing). Adjustments (to what your opponent is doing) are always taking place.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't want to split hairs, but to me physical control isn't "anytime the opponent has to react to you" as you suggest -- since even when you are controlling someone you need to react to what they are doing to keep control (try staying mounted, for example, without reacting to what your opponent is doing). Adjustments (to what your opponent is doing) are always taking place.

Well, I think we are splitting hairs, but at least its a MA discussion !
LOL !