Blast From the Past

[Ultimatewingchun]

William Cheung answering questions at his first NYC seminar back in February,1984. That's me facing the camera with the white sleeveless shirt that has a photo on it of William Cheung doing a bil jee strike...and about 40 seconds into it you'll see Robert Chu standing right behind me...and if you listen carefully the very first question on this clip comes from Phil Redmond...(and Phil's face does appear briefly as he faces the camera around 30 seconds in when William Cheung makes a joke about "chi rice").


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJh8RNXVP00&feature=related

[chusauli]

I had forgotten what hair was... :)

Thanks Victor!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I had forgotten what hair was... :)

Thanks Victor!

LMAO !!
Ah the 80's, hey, at least it wasn't a flock of seaguls haircut, now that would have gotten you in some serious trouble Robert !

[Ultimatewingchun]

Now here's another one, and in this one I get to learn exactly what William Cheung thinks of the whole idea of "chi geak" (sticking legs). (Not much) :cool:

I volunteered to demonstrate what I had learned of it from Moy Yat - and William Cheung took the opportunity to explain to me (and the rest of those present) how useless it really all is as a drill, in his opinion. :eek:

I had to crack up when I saw this (for the first time, about 2 minutes ago) - had forgotten all about it.

Jeez, 25 years went by quickly !! ;)

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

And once again, there's Robert Chu taking it all in as well. (And he still had his hair!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylBFr40bRAw&NR=1

[t_niehoff]

It's too bad Cheung doesn't know what chi gerk is for.

[Ultimatewingchun]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[chusauli]

Vic,

You didn't post the link...

I actually remember that day. I also thought many drills in WCK are useless - for example:

Pak Sao - no one stands at a fixed distance and lets you throw punches at them.

Dan Chi Sao - the distance is fixed, the other hand is chambered, I would not hit an opponent in the chest with a palm strike... the exercise is boring and unrealistic; Cross Hands Chi Sao is also equally lame

Luk Sao - Who the hell rolls like that in real life?

Tui Ma- pushing horse, Hands gripping an opponent's forearm, or hands behind the back...

Of course, William transcended all those exercises, and most of the exercises I described above were for people not experienced in anything at all.

So its not just Chi Gerk.

Chi Gerk will however, will teach you:

Bo Faat/Stepping – Moving the stance
Bik Faat/Trapping – Trapping the opponent’s leg
Gerk Faat/Striking – Use of the foot, knee, shin, thigh
Jeet Faat/Intercepting – cutting off the opponent’s attack
Jou Faat/Running – going away from the force
Sou Faat/Sweeping – Destroying the opponent’s balance
Chi Faat/Sticking – Moving with the opponent
Mun Faat/Asking – Inquiring the next move
Wu Faat/Protecting – Guarding the body and placement of the knee

[t_niehoff]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If you bother to look at the Cheung-Boztepe fight, you'll see for yourself why it is too bad he didn't know what chi gerk was for -- and why he ended up on his ass.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The link is there, Robert - on the bottom.

[chusauli]

Thanks Victor.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Vic,

You didn't post the link...

I actually remember that day. I also thought many drills in WCK are useless - for example:

Pak Sao - no one stands at a fixed distance and lets you throw punches at them.

Dan Chi Sao - the distance is fixed, the other hand is chambered, I would not hit an opponent in the chest with a palm strike... the exercise is boring and unrealistic; Cross Hands Chi Sao is also equally lame

Luk Sao - Who the hell rolls like that in real life?

Tui Ma- pushing horse, Hands gripping an opponent's forearm, or hands behind the back...

Of course, William transcended all those exercises, and most of the exercises I described above were for people not experienced in anything at all.

So its not just Chi Gerk.

Chi Gerk will however, will teach you:

Bo Faat/Stepping – Moving the stance
Bik Faat/Trapping – Trapping the opponent’s leg
Gerk Faat/Striking – Use of the foot, knee, shin, thigh
Jeet Faat/Intercepting – cutting off the opponent’s attack
Jou Faat/Running – going away from the force
Sou Faat/Sweeping – Destroying the opponent’s balance
Chi Faat/Sticking – Moving with the opponent
Mun Faat/Asking – Inquiring the next move
Wu Faat/Protecting – Guarding the body and placement of the knee


***HAVE to disagree, strongly, Robert. About most of what you said here, in fact.

First of all, if you go to this link I'm about to provide...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8oiJ9zmGA

...instead of just watching that vid...click on the icon on the top right (my photo - and it says SifuParlati)...

and you will then see a listing of 17 vids I've put up...and start watching the chi sao series numbered 1-13...and watch them sequentially. (It starts with dan chi sao).

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE "NARROWNESS" OF THE VIDS...it seems that my student who posted them had a problem that he hasn't yet corrected with the proper "aspect ratio" needed to post vids the right way - and hence my 170 lbs. looks more like a matchstick man who weighs about 130. LOL.

But anyway, I intend to post many more vids in this series that demonstrate how to apply what one learns in chi sao (and other drills) to actual fighting/sparring...what I like to call how to TRANSLATE chi sao into fighting.

Here's an example of what I mean: there are also 4 other vids posted on my channel...and one of them is entitled: wing chun vs. straight lead punch...

In a future "chi sao translation" vid, I intend to explain and demo how and why I MIGHT NOT use the chuen sao (threading hand bil sao) that follows the pak sao in that vid about the straight punch, ie.- if the opponent's punching angle was ACROSS the line going to my left...

in which case to try and chuen off the pak would be foolishness...since THROUGH CHI SAO TRAINING I should be able to feel that his punch is across my "line"...and make that determination (and act accordingly) in a micro-second.

So I believe all the drills we're discussing have value, when the translations are understood - including chi geak.

If you watch the vid with myself and William Cheung, you'll notice that toward the end he agreed with me on the one point about using one of the positions/moves in chi geak against a kick coming in at you - but he (rightly) corrected me about what part of my leg to use.

NOW HERE'S THE BIGGER PROBLEM AS I SEE IT, ROBERT:

Too many wing chun people have never been taught high quality chi sao - as well as quality sparring/fighting translations of what they learn in chi sao (and other drills)...

and hence, they either wind up with a whole bunch of clueless ideas about how to use wing chun - or they come to the conclusion that things like forms, chi sao, and chi sao related drills are all useless - and they wind up throwing the baby out with the bathwater - including drills like dan chi sao, luk sao, cross arm chi sao, pak sao-pak da, bong sao-lop sao, etc.

[chusauli]

So TWC does not have a Chi Gerk practice today?

[Ultimatewingchun]

No, there is no chi geak training in TWC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Btw, did you see my post#11.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Also, Robert, you can see one such "translation" toward the end of chi sao vid part 6.

But as I said, I plan to do much more than that by way of translations.

[chusauli]

Victor,

I am playing Devil's advocate, because those were the thoughts that went through me when William Cheung talked about the uselessness of Chi Gerk.

Playing Devil's Advocate, you can think that almost all fixed drills have an apparent weakness. Other than that, no big deal - they're just drills to impart and concentrate a level of skill.

Not sure what else you disagree strongly with. Of course, always happy to hear what you have to say.

Many thanks,

[Yoshiyahu]

Ultimate Wing Chun posted:
and William Cheung took the opportunity to explain to me (and the rest of those present) how useless it really all is as a drill, in his opinion.

t_niehoff posted:
It's too bad Cheung doesn't know what chi gerk is for.
Oh wow Niehoff do you practice Chi Gerk...The way it is practiced is unrealistic how does it prepare you for real fighting. I mean really who the hell is going to kick you like that. Not a Kickboxer or someone who practices; Gojoryu Karate,Shotokan, Kyoshukin, Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai or Tang So Do....Do they kick like that? How does Chi Gerk prepare you for real competent fighters outside of Wing Chun kwoons???

Back in the days of Yip Man and his brothers learning WC did they practice Chi Gerk. No Chi Gerk is later invention is it not?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Agreed, Robert...this is certainly true.

And of course the most obvious weakness is the fact they're fixed - whereas real fighting/sparring is always "alive"...and things learned from a fixed drill therefore have to be adapted/translated into the spontaneity of real fighting/sparring on a dime.

Which means that you not only have to master the "basics" of the drills (including chi sao) - to the point where you can do them in your sleep...

but more importantly, you have to be able to improvise on a dime with what you learn from those drills.

Here's an example (and I intend to post vids about this also at some point):

the basic pak sao-pak da drill that most, if not all, wing chun sytems use has a variation in TWC that includes several ways to come with footwork - including footwork being utilized on every movement used against every punch being thrown by the partner...

with some further variations that I came up with some years ago...so that the latest "version" of the pak sao-pak da drill that I use presently uses all the footwork just described along with a chuen off the pak that might end with a lop da against a high straight punch...(seen in the vid I referred to on an earlier post on my youtube channel)...

...a pak-tan da against a mid level straight punch...and a pak-garn sao against a low straight punch...

followed by drills wherein you don't know which of the three is coming in advance.

Just a for instance.

The same with the bong sao-lop drills utilized by most wing chun systems: there are several variations of this used in TWC that include footwork on every move:

The basic bong-lop used against high straight punches - a jut garn against a low straight punch, and even a bil sao/chuen sao/lop sao against a high round punch...and a garn sao variation against a low round punch...

but all done within a basic bong sao-lop sao platform that moves....followed by a repeat of the drill but wherein you don't know what's coming next.

BUT THE BIGGER POINT IS:

They're just drills - and the spontaneous adaptions/translations of these drills used in actual sparring is the most essential thing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

William Cheung here in NYC ten years later (1994)...and his partner in the vid is Joe Sayah.

But there's a LOT GOING ON in this double arm chi sao vid that can be translated into fighting/sparring - in terms of footwork, body positioning, and countering someone's attempts to control your arms and your balance as a response to your inital lop sao attack upon him.

BUT AGAIN: THE TRANSLATIONS may look very different in the "live" fight or spar - but the skill sets needed in those instances have their developmental foundations in a chi sao interchange like those seen in this vid.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=162NkojmIvI&feature=related

[Mr Punch]

Too many wing chun people have never been taught high quality chi sao High level chi sao/gor sao should contain principles learned and trained almost exactly as in chi gerk (as listed by Robert earlier). It's basic clinch work.

[Phil Redmond]

If you bother to look at the Cheung-Boztepe fight, you'll see for yourself why it is too bad he didn't know what chi geuk was for -- and why he ended up on his ass.
I'm usually very respectful but I must say that you are an A**. First of all Yip Man didn't teach chi gerk. I have an article that explains it was "invented" by some students. And second of all one encounter doesn't mean some one is no good. If that were the case them Ali, Frazier, Joyce Gracie, Tyson, Chuck Liddel, (I could go on), are no good.
I still would love to see you in action without having to come to MO. Your remark was childish at best. And yes, I WOULD say that to your face. I thought you were better than that. You've NEVER seen me write something negative about any Sifu regardless of what I think about their kung fu.

[TenTigers]

Ultimate Wing Chun posted:

t_niehoff posted:
Oh wow Niehoff do you practice Chi Gerk...The way it is practiced is unrealistic how does it prepare you for real fighting. I mean really who the hell is going to kick you like that. Not a Kickboxer or someone who practices; Gojoryu Karate,Shotokan, Kyoshukin, Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai or Tang So Do....Do they kick like that? How does Chi Gerk prepare you for real competent fighters outside of Wing Chun kwoons???

Back in the days of Yip Man and his brothers learning WC did they practice Chi Gerk. No Chi Gerk is later invention is it not?

Two things:
1-there is nothing wrong with it being a "later invention."
Many systems contain drills and two man exercises that have been developed from techniques and situations that came up during training. Isolating this and creating drills, and giving them a name does not negate its value. On the contrary, in some cases it shows the evolution of a practitioner.


2-when you are within your opponent's range, you will encounter their legs. Whether it is a low line kick, sweep, leg hook leading into a takedown, etc. Having the ability to intercept and redirect their leg, or move around it, in order to maintain position, or create a better position is a skill well worth developing.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you are going to catch a kick with your "sticky leg" and trap it, like some cheezy Shaw Bros. flik.

[t_niehoff]

I'm usually very respectful but I must say that you are an A**. First of all Yip Man didn't teach chi gerk. I have an article that explains it was "invented" by some students. And second of all one encounter doesn't mean some one is no good. If that were the case them Ali, Frazier, Joyce Gracie, Tyson, Chuck Liddel, (I could go on), are no good.
I still would love to see you in action without having to come to MO. Your remark was childish at best. And yes, I WOULD say that to your face. I thought you were better than that. You've NEVER seen me write something negative about any Sifu regardless of what I think about their kung fu.

Why do you idolize Cheung? Just because someone teaches WCK doesn't make them immune from criticism. That clip Victor posted just illustrated that Cheung -- like most "grandmasters" -- has a very limited grasp of WCK. BFD. Your skill and your understanding (beyond the superficial level) doesn't come from your sifu. The fact of the matter is, the Boztepe fight showed that Cheung didn't know what to do with his legs when he got close -- and that's why he ended up on his ass. Those are the skills that are taught in the chi gerk exercise.

Yes, Yip's students created the drill called chi gerk, taking the hand exercise and extending it to the legs. So what? It's not the exercise that is significant but the skills the exercise teaches that is important. These things can be taught as san sao or through a drill. The same is true of chi sao. Cheung apparently doesn't know what those skills are. You guys use circling footwork to open your forms, right? That's a chi gerk skill.

Victor posted a clip of Cheung "explaining" why chi gerk was silly (I guess it's OK for him to say others are silly but not for us to say he's the one who is silly?). I replied saying that Cheung apparently didn't grasp what chi gerk was really about. The proof of that is in what he says and the example of his fight. Interesting to note is that Leung Ting's curriculum (that Boztepe trained) includes chi gerk.

PS - your analogy using Gracie, Ali, etc. isn't sound or applicable to Cheung. We KNOW that Gracie, Ali, Liddell, etc. all had great fighting skills since they proved they did through fighting great fighters (and we could see it for ourselves, in action). That they lost individual fights didn't take away from their accomplishments. Cheung is another story entirely. The Boztepe incident was the ONLY fight we've ever seen Cheung in -- unlike Ali, Gracie, Liddell, etc. Yes, he had some rooftop fights as a kid. We've seen what those were like and the level of the competition.

[t_niehoff]

[
Oh wow Niehoff do you practice Chi Gerk...The way it is practiced is unrealistic how does it prepare you for real fighting. I mean really who the hell is going to kick you like that. Not a Kickboxer or someone who practices; Gojoryu Karate,Shotokan, Kyoshukin, Tae Kwon Do, Muay Thai or Tang So Do....Do they kick like that? How does Chi Gerk prepare you for real competent fighters outside of Wing Chun kwoons???


Chi gerk, like chi sao, is a learning platform, a way for a trainee to learn in an unrealistic environment, certain skills. With regard to chi gerk, it is to learn the leg/footwork skills you need when on the inside, close to an opponent. Robert listed many of these things in his post.

While chi sao and chi gerk teach certain skills, you need to take those skills and put them into a realistic environment to hone them into realistic skills.



Back in the days of Yip Man and his brothers learning WC did they practice Chi Gerk. No Chi Gerk is later invention is it not?

You're right -- it was a later invention. Read my post to Phil. So what? The chi sao most people use including Yip Man lineage (the luk sao platform) was invented by YKS and Sum Nung. It's not what Leung Jan used or how Yip learned chi sao. So what? It's not the exercise or platform that's important but the skills it teaches that is important. You can learn the chi gerk skills as san sao or in chi sao. It doesn't matter.

[Vajramusti]

Ip Man taught various things in various ways to various people.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Ip Man never taught chi gerk.
Ip Man's life was not covered bya 24 hour motion detector.
The problem is that some folks do make up things that do not conform to good wing chun
dynamics.
Opinions can vary-so often everyone has an opinion with varying merit.

joy chaudhuri

[Ultimatewingchun]

Phil,

Don't waste your time with this guy.

He's demonstrated time-and-time again on this forum over many years now that he's willing to say virtually anything - including constant insults against people who could (and would) wipe the floor with him like a mop...

and then, when he's called out, has made it clear (by his actions, not his words)...that he'd never be willing to back up his insults like a man.

And I mean never.

How can you respect a guy like this? :rolleyes: :mad:

It's impossible. And you only disrespect yourself if you try to answer all of his hundreds of posts that never stop coming - regardless of how ignorant, or how foolish, or how arrogant he's been proven.

I've lost track of how many times I've put him on the IGNORE list over the 7 years now that I've been posting here.

In good ol' Brooklynese - he's a punk.

Forget him.

[chusauli]

I would say that Yip Man probably didn't teach his early students (pre 1960's) Chi Gerk.

From my own meeting of elders from pre 1960's Tsui Sheung Tien, WSL, William Cheung, Hawkins Cheung, Lo Man Kam, Victor Kan - they have said to me that Chi Gerk was not part of their curriculum. Of course, I may be mistaken, as I am fallible in memory and these days concentrate on disease. Post 1960's like Moy Yat, Ng Chan, Ho Kam Ming have some variation of Chi Gerk, with Ho Kam Ming/Augustine Fong branch having the most refined Chi Gerk curriculum.

Of course, with this board, people from various lineages can verify when their sifu learned from Yip Man year, and say if their branch has Chi Gerk.

I personally teach Chi Gerk and think it has a good basis for stepping, kicks, sweeps, throws, and pins.

[Phil Redmond]

Why do you idolize Cheung? . . . .
I don't IDOLIZE any man. I never have and never will. What I don't do is trash talk other martial artists because I understand Mo Duk.
Since you used the chi geuk example you probably know of a famous Leung Ting Sifu who trained in Chi geuk that lost a fight to a TWC guy who doesn't do chi geuk. In fact he was hospitalized. My issue was your trash talking. Not chi geuk. If some prefer to use it then good for them.
Also, though there are no videos with regards to Wm Cheung/Chang fighting. Read what WSL and others say about him.
http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/

http://www.wongvingtsun.co.uk/wslbl.htm

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_lo01.html

[Vajramusti]

And his NYC student's chi gerk? You can't be serious.

The differences in stances can count. EB had some wrestling take down background.

joy

[Ultimatewingchun]

Too many wing chun people have never been taught high quality chi sao - as well as quality sparring/fighting translations of what they learn in chi sao (and other drills)...

and hence, they either wind up with a whole bunch of clueless ideas about how to use wing chun - or they come to the conclusion that things like forms, chi sao, and chi sao related drills are all useless - and they wind up throwing the baby out with the bathwater - including drills like dan chi sao, luk sao, cross arm chi sao, pak sao-pak da, bong sao-lop sao, etc.


***WANT to follow up on this. Just came across this vid on youtube. It's labelled "ADVANCED CHI SAO"...and then subtitled double pak sao-chuen sao.

Clearly just pure nonsense in terms of how to use pak/cheun - as without coming into your opponent to take his space away - the whole concept of pak, or chuen, or the two together is meaningless. I understand it's just a drill - but it's missing a very important element (eating up his space).

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBHY1a-ZdM&feature=related

[Knifefighter]

LOL @ chi gerk training in WC, which is basically another pretend, theoretical training method. If you want to learn what is realistic in terms of leg-work, off-balancing, sweeping, etc, go train some judo and muay thai.

Chi soa with legs... give me a break.

[TenTigers]

kf-read much? doubtfull. otherwise you may have understood that chi-gerk is NOT chi-sau with legs. Read chusauli's posts. Then maybe you can speak on this forum with any intelligence.

[Knifefighter]

kf-read much? doubtfull. otherwise you may have understood that chi-gerk is NOT chi-sau with legs. Read chusauli's posts. Then maybe you can speak on this forum with any intelligence.

I was referring to the dumbgass question asked in the video.

As far as what it is or isn't, unless you are drilling it by drilling slamming kicks into your opponents legs and sweeping him full force onto the ground, you are pretty much wasting your time.

[duende]

[B]
Clearly just pure nonsense in terms of how to use pak/cheun - as without coming into your opponent to take his space away - the whole concept of pak, or chuen, or the two together is meaningless. I understand it's just a drill - but it's missing a very important element (eating up his space).

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBHY1a-ZdM&feature=related

Agreed. There is no Chum Kiu element to the pak sao in the vid's. No control or influence on the opponent's COG.

This is "slapping Hands" taken waaaay too literally.

[TenTigers]

"As far as what it is or isn't, unless you are drilling it by drilling slamming kicks into your opponents legs and sweeping him full force onto the ground, you are pretty much wasting your time. "

ahh, that's pu$$y$hit.
Can you do THIS?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n_9Nd9bhco&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eurlesque%2Ecom%2F2009%2F06 %2F09%2Freal%2Dlife%2Dmartial%2Darts%2Dmaster%2Dde stroys%2Da%2Dcar%2Dwith%2Dhis%2Dbare%2Dhands%2F%3F icid%3Dmain%7Chtmlws%2Dmain%7Cdl5%7Cl&feature=player_embedded

[Mr Punch]

LOL @ chi gerk training in WC, which is basically another pretend, theoretical training method. If you want to learn what is realistic in terms of leg-work, off-balancing, sweeping, etc, go train some judo and muay thai.

Chi soa with legs... give me a break.


As far as what it is or isn't, unless you are drilling it by drilling slamming kicks into your opponents legs and sweeping him full force onto the ground, you are pretty much wasting your time.LOL, Dance much? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z78ti0XIVM)

Dale, you're wrong. In this case it seems very much like your chi gerk didn't cut the mustard. It was one of the few directly applicable things I managed to take from wing chun into MMA training.

Edit: but yes, the logical conclusion of chi gerk training is to do full force sweeps, trips, takedowns etc... which we did regularly on mats when we trained chi gerk (after we'd got to know the basics) and incorporated into chi sao (when we were doing it at a harder level).

[t_niehoff]

I don't IDOLIZE any man. I never have and never will. What I don't do is trash talk other martial artists because I understand Mo Duk.


"Trash talking"? Mo duk? Phil, this isn't China and I don't buy into the you-must-respect-your-elders crap. Cheung is a WCK teacher. Period. That's ALL. He said something about WCK that was wrong. His own words show he doesn't know what chi gerk is about. Not only that, but his own actions show that he doesn't have the skills that chi gerk teaches. That isn't "trash talk", it's the truth.

If some martial art instructor said that the guard was no good and then we had a video of him getting submitted in the guard some time later, wouldn't that be significant? If some martial artinstructor said take-down defense was unnecessary and we had a video of him later getting taken down, wouldn't that be significant?



Since you used the chi geuk example you probably know of a famous Leung Ting Sifu who trained in Chi geuk that lost a fight to a TWC guy who doesn't do chi geuk. In fact he was hospitalized.


So what?



My issue was your trash talking. Not chi geuk. If some prefer to use it then good for them.


Your issue isn't trash talking, it is criticizing Cheung. Cheung is nobody special. He's just another WCK instructor. A dime a dozen. That doesn't make him immune from criticism.



Also, though there are no videos with regards to Wm Cheung/Chang fighting. Read what WSL and others say about him.
http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/

http://www.wongvingtsun.co.uk/wslbl.htm

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_lo01.html

Isn't it sad that the best evidence you have is what others say about him? IMO that speaks for itself.

Look, I have no doubt he had some fights as a teenager. We've all seen the rooftop fights and the level of the competition. While it's true he and some others fought, that experience hardly proves that he was some great fighter.

No one becomes a great fighter without putting in loads of sparring/fighting with other really good fighters. As the Gracies say, you are only as good as your sparring partners. When did he put in that time? With whom? We both know it didn't happen.

And, quite frankly, some of the stuff he does say, like about pressure point striking, hitting iwth the fingers, the entry technique, etc., really has to make a person wonder. Those aren't things we'd expect from someone with significant fighting experience.

[t_niehoff]

LOL @ chi gerk training in WC, which is basically another pretend, theoretical training method. If you want to learn what is realistic in terms of leg-work, off-balancing, sweeping, etc, go train some judo and muay thai.

Chi soa with legs... give me a break.


I don't disagree with you. Unrealistic training won't develop skills. I just see those things are traditional ways of introducing certain skills. But, you're right -- if you want to develop skill, you need to train like judo and muay thai.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Cheung is nobody special. He's just another WCK instructor. A dime a dozen." (Terence)


***YOU SEE what I mean, Phil?

This guy would never say such a thing directly to the face of one of William Cheung's students. Never in a million years. :eek:

Don't waste your time with him. :cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

While I do see "some" value in it, I really don't regard it as anything crucial to your overall wing chun training - precisely because there are other martial art systems that cover this type of material - and go waaaay beyond it...

and should be crosstrained, imo.

Some have already been mentioned, ie.- judo).

But I'm thinking specifically of wrestling/grappling systems.

If you crosstrain in one of them, after awhile what you learned (and might still drill) in chi geak will seem like high school stuff - compared to the college material you'd learn in wrestling, jiu jitsu, judo, sambo, etc.

[t_niehoff]

"Cheung is nobody special. He's just another WCK instructor. A dime a dozen." (Terence)


***YOU SEE what I mean, Phil?

This guy would never say such a thing directly to the face of one of William Cheung's students. Never in a million years. :eek:

Don't waste your time with him. :cool:

That's really funny. It is so schoolyard (showing your mental age) and TCMA-comic book at the same time! "You have insulted my sifu and the Shaolin Temple."

You need to get over your Cheung worship. Grow up. Be an adult.

[Ultimatewingchun]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:rolleyes:

[Yoshiyahu]

T_Niehoff said:


Chi gerk, like chi sao, is a learning platform, a way for a trainee to learn in an unrealistic environment, certain skills. With regard to chi gerk, it is to learn the leg/footwork skills you need when on the inside, close to an opponent. Robert listed many of these things in his post.

While chi sao and chi gerk teach certain skills, you need to take those skills and put them into a realistic environment to hone them into realistic skills.


So do think its important to practice Chi Sao and Chi Gerk in addition to realistic fighting and sparring with those skills???

[Knifefighter]

It was one of the few directly applicable things I managed to take from wing chun into MMA training..

Which MMA facility do you train at? And which MMA events have you fought in?

[Mr Punch]

:rolleyes:

I just spent the best part a day answering in detail what people have been asking about chi gerk because I know that it's not so common even in WC circles, and that's the one thing that you seize on? Do you have any problems with the logic of what I've written? Any part of the explanations you want clarifying? Any disagreements with my comparisons to the harai goshi drills etc? Don't let's be a Kansuke about this... one is entertaining but two of you pithy mofos would be more than I could handle...

Kaminari Dojo, Tokyo, now defunct, for about 18 months. Teacher was Ryan Bow, ex middleweight Pacific Rim Shooto champion.

Before then, mostly with Ryan but also with a couple of guys from Purebred Gym, Omiya, and the gym's own trainers, at Yokohama Shooto Gym... probably about a year.

Competitions: none... got seriously injured training for the licence to enter Deep (still receiving physio and rehabbing the injury - after four years or so, so looking less and less likely I'm getting into even semi-pro anytime soon).

I've written all this before, mostly in response to YOU, so do me a ****ing favour and remember this time.

[CFT]

I've written all this before, mostly in response to YOU, so do me a ****ing favour and remember this time.You'll have to save it on file and do a cut 'n paste job. Saves on all the typing.

[Knifefighter]

:rolleyes:

I just spent the best part a day answering in detail what people have been asking about chi gerk because I know that it's not so common even in WC circles, and that's the one thing that you seize on? Do you have any problems with the logic of what I've written? Any part of the explanations you want clarifying? Any disagreements with my comparisons to the harai goshi drills etc? Don't let's be a Kansuke about this... one is entertaining but two of you pithy mofos would be more than I could handle...

Kaminari Dojo, Tokyo, now defunct, for about 18 months. Teacher was Ryan Bow, ex middleweight Pacific Rim Shooto champion.

Before then, mostly with Ryan but also with a couple of guys from Purebred Gym, Omiya, and the gym's own trainers, at Yokohama Shooto Gym... probably about a year.

Competitions: none... got seriously injured training for the licence to enter Deep (still receiving physio and rehabbing the injury - after four years or so, so looking less and less likely I'm getting into even semi-pro anytime soon).

I've written all this before, mostly in response to YOU, so do me a ****ing favour and remember this time.

Thanks... I knew you had trained, but I forgot where. What are you doing training-wise now?

[Mr Punch]

No reason to clog the board up with it, and besides, you can see on my blog thread, though I don't update it very often at all.

PMed. By all means post anything you think relevant to this thread from the PM.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Now here's a very clear example of what I mean when I've talked about how one needs a long range delivery system to get to wing chun "range"...because without one...

what the kickboxer guy in this vid did to the wing chun guy is a very common ocurrence. The kickboxer almost completely controlled/dominated this little sparring session.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7iLZ-BEgqo&feature=related

[t_niehoff]

So do think its important to practice Chi Sao and Chi Gerk in addition to realistic fighting and sparring with those skills???

As I have said, chi sao and chi gerk are unrealistic exercises/platforms to teach certain contact skills. You don't need to learn the skills that way. In fact, it is a rather poor way to learn them.

[hunt1]

Victor,

Do you really consider the fighter in that clip a fair example of wing chun fighting?

I see no footwork, little movement, no structure, no use of body among other things. I would guess he has spent very little time learning how to fight outside of his school.

[Knifefighter]

Victor,

Do you really consider the fighter in that clip a fair example of wing chun fighting?

I see no footwork, little movement, no structure, no use of body among other things. I would guess he has spent very little time learning how to fight outside of his school.

Please post a vid of you doing better.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hunter,

I wouldn't say that he's very good, no.

But my point on this subject is this: without longer range punches and kicks (wherein you clearly have a lead leg and a lead arm) - and you're throwing horizontal (not vertical) punches with some extended shoulder work - like boxers do...

...along with some longer range kicks (similar to what the kickboxer was doing in that vid)...

you're gonna have serious problems getting to the place where you can square up your shoulders and go to double-fisted/double-armed work on your centerline - especially when you're up against guys with good boxing/kickboxing skills.

[Ultimatewingchun]

COMING BACK TO THIS NOW:

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
Clearly just pure nonsense in terms of how to use pak/cheun - as without coming into your opponent to take his space away - the whole concept of pak, or chuen, or the two together is meaningless. I understand it's just a drill - but it's missing a very important element (eating up his space).

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBHY...eature=related

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

And duende's response to that was:




Agreed. There is no Chum Kiu element to the pak sao in the vid's. No control or influence on the opponent's COG.

This is "slapping Hands" taken waaaay too literally.


***NOW HERE'S a good example of how to take the opponent's space away with pak sao/cheun sao - in a real fighting/sparring application.


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

[JPinAZ]

Vic,

Look at your last 2 posts, I seea contradiction.
With that last vid of Keith, wouldn't you say this is a good way to close the distance with a boxer? Looks like he bridging from an outside striking range and getting into the 'squared up, equal reach' range you are talking about (WC range).

Is so, why do you need to box a boxer with his own tools to bridge this gap if WC has the tools aready?

Having boxed prior to learning WC, I disagree with you that you need to box/kickbox a boxer from outside ranges to close the gap. WC already does ahve the tools to do this, as keith's vid points out.

No digs here, just looking for your input.

Jonathan

[Knifefighter]

Is so, why do you need to box a boxer with his own tools to bridge this gap if WC has the tools aready?
Only one problem. That clip shows nothing. There is no sparring. There is no boxing. All that clip shows is a demo of how it is "supposed" to be done... and it is done against a non-resisting, non-boxing opponent.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Vic,

Look at your last 2 posts, I seea contradiction.
With that last vid of Keith, wouldn't you say this is a good way to close the distance with a boxer? Looks like he bridging from an outside striking range and getting into the 'squared up, equal reach' range you are talking about (WC range).

Is so, why do you need to box a boxer with his own tools to bridge this gap if WC has the tools aready?

Having boxed prior to learning WC, I disagree with you that you need to box/kickbox a boxer from outside ranges to close the gap. WC already does ahve the tools to do this, as keith's vid points out.

No digs here, just looking for your input.

Jonathan


***THANKS for this post, because it provides an opportunity to examine in detail when it's crucial, imo, to use some boxing, and when it's not.

First of all, go back and take a look at Keith against the second guy in the vid. Notice the serious difference in reach, due to the size discrepancy between the two men.

Assuming that you're good with the pak/chuen move, and you understand the timing, and so forth - it's really not that difficult to do what Keith did when the arm reach (and of course, the height advantage) is what it is. (It also doesn't hurt that Keith outweighed the guy by about 80 lbs....LOL).

Now suppose that the guy Keith was working with was at least as tall as Keith (if not taller)....do you think that Keith would have been able to get so deep into the man's space on the jab that Keith decided to go in on?

Just like that?

I don't think so.

Not I'm not taking anything away from Keith's skills or from the whole concept behind the pak/chuen...but my point is that against a bigger man than seen in the vid I believe a longer range delivery system would be needed to get that deep into the man's space - and do it without eating punches and kicks on the way in.

[Phil Redmond]

Terence, I used a Chinese term since we do a Chinese martial art. But I understood the concept of honor from the Corps. In the Corps if you had a disagreement with someone you would tell them to their face and go from there. Trash talkers were ostracized. It has nothing to do with him being my Sifu. Wm. Cheung was there for me in some personal issues not related to kung fu. If you and I were close I'd speak on your behalf as well if you weren't there to speak for yourself.
What separates you and me is that I never write anything online that I wouldn't say to some one's face ;)

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . .Look, I have no doubt he had some fights as a teenager. We've all seen the rooftop fights and the level of the competition. While it's true he and some others fought, that experience hardly proves that he was some great fighter. . . . .
Actually Duncan Leung told me of the times when William Cheung would fight for the Chinese people when some Aussie guys would start trouble. He even writes about that in his book. I even have an Aussie news paper article with still pics of him fighting a guy in Australia. My point is that unlike you are saying he has had street fights as an adult. I've even seen people try to sneak him during seminars. Not too many WC Sifu have had actual fight experience. But I'm wasting my time with you. I'd really love to see you do something on video. Even if it's just to explain something. I doubt that'll ever happen though.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Are you kidding, Phil?! :eek:

This guy won't even post a photo of himself... :D

[Liddel]

My Sifu learnt Chi Gerk from his teacher Sifu Lok and had pointers from GM ip about it so dont know where peeps saying it came later got that info from but my Sifu was actually there so...

As for its effectiveness, well thats up for debate...but IMO balanced with good old fashioned sparring i have found it quite usefull for balance and timing with regard to checking and recieving kicks and immediatly following up with my own kicks and punches.

And i sparr with TKB's often. (hobbiests not pros though).

As for the b i t c h a s s n e s s of people who are old men compared to me...act your fricken age. Im a 29 yr old PUNK and still am more mature than most by the nature of some of the posts here LOL.

Stop taking yourself so seriously for crying out loud, some people dont have jobs cant pay the rent / mortgages and your B i t c h i n about BS on your expensive interweb.

CRAZY ! :mad:

DREW

[Edmund]

Now suppose that the guy Keith was working with was at least as tall as Keith (if not taller)....do you think that Keith would have been able to get so deep into the man's space on the jab that Keith decided to go in on?

Just like that?

I don't think so.


Me neither.

It all sounds great in theory but as shown in your kickboxer vs WC guy clip, it's very one dimensional to have only short range skills. The short range skills are more important but the other guy is going to kick all day if he sees you can't deal with kicks.

[t_niehoff]

Terence, I used a Chinese term since we do a Chinese martial art. But I understood the concept of honor from the Corps. In the Corps if you had a disagreement with someone you would tell them to their face and go from there. Trash talkers were ostracized. It has nothing to do with him being my Sifu. Wm. Cheung was there for me in some personal issues not related to kung fu. If you and I were close I'd speak on your behalf as well if you weren't there to speak for yourself.


We can do a chinese martial art but that doesn't mean we should adopt silly cultural artifices from archaic, fuedal (and caste) societies.

This has nothing to do with "honor". If someone -- anyone -- says X is true and he's wrong, pointing that out isn't dishonorable. I pointed out that Cheung's words only showed he was ignorant of the lessons of chi gerk. And, not only that, his fight with Boztepe demonstrates that ignorance. Why do you believe that to criticize Cheung has to do with "honor"?

I don't know about you, Phil, but I can be friends with someone, even really close, and still say that they were wrong or are wrong or that I don't agree with them. Robert and I are good friends. He knows I don't agree with him on many things. I've told him personally, I've disagreed with him on this forum. This is what adults do, and what equals do. Only when you idolize people or hero-worship them and put them on pedestals do you get to the point where nothing can be said against them and there can be no disagreement with them. And where to do so is "fighting words."

That sort of mentality isn't concerned with truth. And terms like "mo duk" and "honor" are only used to try to get people to not point out that the emperor has no clothes.



What separates you and me is that I never write anything online that I wouldn't say to some one's face ;)

That's not what separates us. Anything I would write I would say to their face. But you're correct that we do have very different attitudes toward some things.

[Mr Punch]

***NOW HERE'S a good example of how to take the opponent's space away with pak sao/cheun sao - in a real fighting/sparring application.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbGfWIDFuA&feature=relatedI couldn't see any real sparring or fighting on that clip.

Keith says, 'Nobody throws just one, right?' and follows it with 'Where's the boxer?'... then gets the boxer to come out with... wait for it... one jab! And one that stops almost exactly halfway to his head. Dunno, but when I was taught to jab I was taught to jab something.

But he still manages to make it outside the jab with a cheun sao... so he's getting outside a full speed jab and with his right wrist/hand controlling the other guy's right elbow? Hate to say it, but without the speed of Superman, that's pure fantasy. That's your idea of taking the space? If he's in proper jab range, eats one, and gets in with his elbow covering/striking/smothering above his elbow, he might just make it on that side. Otherwise and standard pak/slipping the jab is all you need.

[t_niehoff]

Actually Duncan Leung told me of the times when William Cheung would fight for the Chinese people when some Aussie guys would start trouble. He even writes about that in his book. I even have an Aussie news paper article with still pics of him fighting a guy in Australia. My point is that unlike you are saying he has had street fights as an adult. I've even seen people try to sneak him during seminars. Not too many WC Sifu have had actual fight experience. But I'm wasting my time with you. I'd really love to see you do something on video. Even if it's just to explain something. I doubt that'll ever happen though.

Yes, you are wasting your time with me because you keep wanting to tell me stories of how good Cheung is. And you don't apparently even realize how really poor your "evidence" and examples are. Sneak up on him in seminars? Citing Duncan Leung? Don't you realize how lame that is? When people need to use poor evidence it means they don't have any good evidence.

Yes, I agree with you that not many WCK sifu have even limited fighting experience. I grant you that Cheung has had limited fighting experience.

Look at this objectively:

Regardless of who you are and what your fighting art, your fighting skill (the ability to use your art in fighitng) comes only from quality sparring/fighting. Everything else is prep work. The "quality" of your sparring/fighting is the level (skill/attributes) of your opposition. This is why they say that you are only as good as your sparring partners.

You can see this for yourself in every combative art (boxing, wrestling, BJJ, MT, etc.). So, your fighting skill is directly proportional to the amount of quality sparring time you've put in. And to maintain those skills, you need to keep doing it.

That's the work you must do to develop significant fighting skills. And really solid fighting skill doesn't come from a few or even a few dozen fights -- it comes from hundreds of hours of quality sparring/fighting.

Once you appreciate this, you can then ask yourself: has so-and-so put in that amount of quality sparring/fighting? Weboth know that Cheung hasn't done that work.

The other thing is that if you do put in that work, you will recognize the nonsense (a corollary: it is difficult to recognize the nonsense if you haven't put in the work). Things like pressure point striking, hitting with the fingers, the hopping entry technique, etc. you'll know to be nonsense. And you'll find it very hard to take anyone as having a realistic grasp of fighting who promotes these ideas. Is it any wonder that MMA people, fighters, etc. look at WCK as silly?

[t_niehoff]

I couldn't see any real sparring or fighting on that clip.

Keith says, 'Nobody throws just one, right?' and follows it with 'Where's the boxer?'... then gets the boxer to come out with... wait for it... one jab! And one that stops almost exactly halfway to his head. Dunno, but when I was taught to jab I was taught to jab something.

But he still manages to make it outside the jab with a cheun sao... so he's getting outside a full speed jab and with his right wrist/hand controlling the other guy's right elbow? Hate to say it, but without the speed of Superman, that's pure fantasy. That's your idea of taking the space? If he's in proper jab range, eats one, and gets in with his elbow covering/striking/smothering above his elbow, he might just make it on that side. Otherwise and standard pak/slipping the jab is all you need.

Very good post.

As I said on another thread -- the TCMAists, including WCK people, go about things ass-backward. Don't tell us how it should work, and then demo it in an unrealistic way. First, show it working in fighting. Then, you can explain it and teach it.

There's a very good reason we don't see that: because, as you've indicated, most of this stuff is pure fantasy. And, they never have pulled it off.

[lkfmdc]

I really don't care about the personal attacks and other BS, BUT....

That is NOT a jab, he barely throws it out

and

if you are supposed to be learning how to fight a boxer, why take a soutpaw stance and throw a right jab when 95% of boxers are orthodox and throw LEFT jabs :confused:

[Wayfaring]

if you are supposed to be learning how to fight a boxer, why take a soutpaw stance and throw a right jab when 95% of boxers are orthodox and throw LEFT jabs :confused:
And show how this differs from and is at least equal to a common boxer's response in this scenario - to cover and jab your way around to the flanking side, which protects the target from a fast moving jab and offers an offensive cover to the movement not leaving you open to the cross.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"if you are supposed to be learning how to fight a boxer, why take a southpaw stance and throw a right jab when 95% of boxers are orthodox and throw LEFT jabs."


***FIRST OF ALL, Keith is not trying to fight like a boxer. Secondly, in TWC (Traditional Wing Chun) a big part of the strategy is to fight from the parallel position to where your opponent starts from, ie.- so if he has a right lead, you take a left lead....if he has a left lead, you take a right lead...

and what you saw in the clip is exactly the reason why:

you might be able to get to the outside of his lead leg and have both your arms to the outside of his lead arm...thereby giving you a momentary two-on-one advantage since his rear arm and leg have now been blocked out.

It won't last long, but perhaps long enough to do some damage.

[lkfmdc]

I think you missed my point. Sure, Mazza isn't trying to be a boxer. But his "opponent" is supposed to be "playing a boxer" yet isn't throwing a jab correctly and isn't taking the stance 95% of boxers take and is throwing a jab with the right which 95% of boxers do not throw

[Ultimatewingchun]

...response I gave to Dave Ross (lkfmdc)...btw, what do those letters stand for, anyway?

What I do personally at this point in time in standup is a mix of boxing and wing chun, and therefore I don't always start form the parallel position, although I do look upon it (and the TWC strategy alluded to in my previous post) as a big tool in my toolbox.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Dave,

Think carefully about what I said in post#69...and then you might understand that...

If the guy had assumed the more conventional left hand/left leg lead boxing position - then Keith would have started from a right hand/right leg lead.

But since the camera man was where he was...the smaller guy assumed the right hand lead - since he knew what it was that Keith wanted to demonstrate: fighting from the parallel position in order to possibly obtain the two-on-one advantage.

[JPinAZ]

***THANKS for this post, because it provides an opportunity to examine in detail when it's crucial, imo, to use some boxing, and when it's not.

First of all, go back and take a look at Keith against the second guy in the vid. Notice the serious difference in reach, due to the size discrepancy between the two men.

Assuming that you're good with the pak/chuen move, and you understand the timing, and so forth - it's really not that difficult to do what Keith did when the arm reach (and of course, the height advantage) is what it is. (It also doesn't hurt that Keith outweighed the guy by about 80 lbs....LOL).

Now suppose that the guy Keith was working with was at least as tall as Keith (if not taller)....do you think that Keith would have been able to get so deep into the man's space on the jab that Keith decided to go in on?

Just like that? I don't think so.

Not I'm not taking anything away from Keith's skills or from the whole concept behind the pak/chuen...but my point is that against a bigger man than seen in the vid I believe a longer range delivery system would be needed to get that deep into the man's space - and do it without eating punches and kicks on the way in.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree size, strength and reach do make things easier to accomplish. But, I don't think that means things wouldn't work when match up with the same size guy, or if things were reversed even (keith punching the 'boxer'). And this is regardless the 'technique' one is using to bridge with. (but I agree the smaller guy would have to be more on his game)

From my experience, it really boils down to correct structure, timing, positioning, energy and leverage. These things can go a long way to neutralizing an attacker's advantages, whether it's size, speed reach or power. I don't agree with the notion that if the guy is your same size you can't use the same tools you would against the smaller guy. It won't be as much of a cake walk, but I don't see one would have to go with trading punches and boxing a boxer just because the size changed. Actually, the thought would be the opposite in my opinion. Keith would have and easier time with that guy if he boxed him because keith is bigger and stronger. But the same goes for his WC identity

AS far as how much Keith penetrated: Yeah, I agree with those here that say that wasn't really a commited punch. And, it was just a demo. But, from my experience, things can sometimes work easier if the punch is more committed. Keith would be able to get in 'as deep' even easier if the boxer commited to actually trying to strike him - the boxer would be covering more of this distance and Keith would have to use less footwork.

Regardless of the vid, I think saying you have to box a boxer because of some physical differences or similarities goes against WC principals. You set up good structure, if a brisge is found you neutralize it, then you capatalize by setting up a superior position and control of your opponent. This is harder to do if matching jab for jab. Not saying it doesn't work, and I love a good boxing match :)
I just have found WC gives us much more tools with which to safely bridge and get inside and control our opponent than I saw in boxing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I hear what you are saying, and I agree size, strength and reach do make things easier to accomplish. But, I don't think that means things wouldn't work when matched up with the same size guy, or if things were reversed even"...(JP)


***THIS is where I disagree. When you're using matched leads (ie.- the "parallel" position)...and your opponent is at least as big as you - and possibly bigger and with a longer reach than you - and possibly even stronger than you because maybe he's 30 lbs. heavier...

and he knows how to use the jab, how to hook off the jab, how to hold his arms back and invites you in only to hook around your lead, how to use a very stiff lead (and multiple leads)...

then what this can become is in violation of another wing chun principle: don't fight force with force - and especially if the opponent has superior force. Then you are making a very big strategic mistake by putting your main attacking weapons on the same line he's using - and perhaps a line that he's now easily dominating, for the reasons I just gave.

So then you may have to go to "cross" position - instead of the "parallel" position, imo. And come in on a different line with your main (ie-lead side) weaponry.

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

"From my experience, it really boils down to correct structure, timing, positioning, energy and leverage. These things can go a long way to neutralizing an attacker's advantages, whether it's size, speed reach or power." (JP)

***AGAIN, it's not a question of having the correct structure, timing, energy, and leverage. But it is a matter of POSITION. And while it is true that these things can go a long way toward neutralizing a bigger opponent's advantages - there is a point of diminishing returns, ie.- you're up against a bigger guy with some serious boxing/kickboxing skills.

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

"I don't agree with the notion that if the guy is your same size you can't use the same tools you would against the smaller guy."(JP)

***IT DEPENDS upon his skills as a boxer, when up against the guy your size. But is quite evident if you're up against a bigger man with skills - because you're now limiting yourself to an infight strategy against a skilled man with a longer reach and using longer range striking/kicking techniques and strategies.

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

"It won't be as much of a cake walk, but I don't see one would have to go with trading punches and boxing a boxer just because the size changed." (JP)

***I DON'T ADVOCATE using boxing to be a "boxer". I advocate using boxing to get to wing chun range and then use wing chun predominantly once in that range. (Unless of course the opportunity is right there to take him out with a big rear cross of your own, for example.)
..............................

"Actually, the thought would be the opposite in my opinion. Keith would have an easier time with that guy if he boxed him because keith is bigger and stronger." (JP)

***TRUE.

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

"But the same goes for his WC identity. (JP)

***FALSE. Keith goes 5'11" and weighs about 235-240. But if his opponent has the skills I'm talking about and also is that size - and especially if he's bigger (how about 6' 3" /260)...then Keith has a built in reach problem because he's only using the shorter range wing chun striking strategy/technique.

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

"AS far as how much Keith penetrated: Yeah, I agree with those here that say that wasn't really a commited punch. And, it was just a demo. But, from my experience, things can sometimes work easier if the punch is more committed." (JP)

***TRUE, but let's put this on hold for a second and go to what you said next...

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

"Keith would be able to get in 'as deep' even easier if the boxer commited to actually trying to strike him - the boxer would be covering more of this distance and Keith would have to use less footwork." (JP)


***AND THIS is where I have to go back to where I started in this post:

"and (if) he knows how to use the jab, how to hook off the jab, how to hold his arms back and invites you in only to hook around your lead, how to use a very stiff lead (and multiple leads)...

AND THEN I'DD ADD THIS..

and he knows when to throw the rear cross, or the uppercut from either hand - and he doesn't just throw "commited strikes" without the proper setups, footwork, distancing, head movement, etc... then the opportunity to use a pak chuen against his lead may never even happen...and in fact, any close quarter wing chun strategy/techniques may not work well without fighting your way in first using longer range punching and kicking technique.

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

"Regardless of the vid, I think saying you have to box a boxer because of some physical differences or similarities goes against WC principals. You set up good structure, if a bridge is found you neutralize it, then you capitalize by setting up a superior position and control of your opponent. This is harder to do if matching jab for jab. Not saying it doesn't work, and I love a good boxing match .
I just have found WC gives us much more tools with which to safely bridge and get inside and control our opponent than I saw in boxing." (JP)

***PLEASE UNDERSTAND that this is not just an endorsement of boxing, per se...it's an endorsement of using some boxing (and kickboxing) technique to get close enough to hit, to bridge, bridge & hit, and to use all the wing chun weaponry, as the fight dictates.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"***PLEASE UNDERSTAND that this is not just an endorsement of boxing, per se...it's an endorsement of using some boxing (and kickboxing) technique to get close enough to hit, to bridge, bridge & hit, and to use all the wing chun weaponry, as the fight dictates." (Victor Parlati)

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

And at this point I want to, no...not crosstrain...but cross explain :cool:

...my remarks on this thread and some of what I was getting at on the "Why Do Wing Chun Stylists Cite Bruce Lee" thread.

Granted, Bruce Lee's overall knowledge of wing chun was limited (which is not to say that by the end of his life he wasn't extremely good at being able to apply the wing chun he did know)...but his ideas about using the 5 angles of attack, ie.- various combinations and ways to apply long (and mid) range punching, kicking, bridging, footwork, deception, etc...

to get to what he called the "trapping" range...(what I'm now calling the wing chun close quarter infight range)...

and of course his overall endorsement of crosstraining so that virtually anything could happen - including clinch and ground work...

makes much more sense to me than simply trying to stick to the wing chun "game plan" no matter what; or by trying to make the case that wing chun can indeed fight very efficiently in all ranges; and against all sizes of opponents regardless of what type of fight they're fighting, and no matter what styles they are using.

[Phil Redmond]

Louie, the guy throwing the jab boxed Golden Gloves. And along with his WC training he trains with Prince Badi and his trainer. Usually when people come to the school to challenge we send little Louie to them. It could be embarrasing to some people to get KTFO by a small guy. I'm not sure of the percentage of Orthodox boxers vs South Paws but South Paws do exist so we train to fight against both.
No, it wasn't sparring or fighting. It was a "demo" to show people how to train the technique. Usually in a demo you're not trying to knock your partner's head off. Also you don't need the speed of Superman to pull off that pak cheun. I know many people who can pull it off against a super fast jab including me. If anyone would like to put some money on it I'd be willing to show them. I'm in Chinatown every Sat.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . I pointed out that Cheung's words only showed he was ignorant of the lessons of chi gerk. And, not only that, his fight with Boztepe demonstrates that ignorance. Why do you believe that to criticize Cheung has to do with "honor"?
Criticizing is one thing. The way you criticize is another thing. With regards to the honor thing I guess you'll never see my point of view and I know why. But that's another thing.
You must have missed the part where I said that I don't worship or idolize anyone. It's against my religious beliefs. Though there are no clips of me fighting I do have some of me explaining how I do things. Until I see something from you I'll just presume that you are a keyboard warrior that spouts his opinions online with no basis. Of course I don't expect you to care what I think but that's what I think. ;)

[JPinAZ]

And at this point I want to, no...not crosstrain...but cross explain :cool:

...my remarks on this thread and some of what I was getting at on the "Why Do Wing Chun Stylists Cite Bruce Lee" thread.

Granted, Bruce Lee's overall knowledge of wing chun was limited (which is not to say that by the end of his life he wasn't extremely good at being able to apply the wing chun he did know)...but his ideas about using the 5 angles of attack, ie.- various combinations and ways to apply long (and mid) range punching, kicking, bridging, footwork, deception, etc...

to get to what he called the "trapping" range...(what I'm now calling the wing chun close quarter infight range)...

and of course his overall endorsement of crosstraining so that virtually anything could happen - including clinch and ground work...

makes much more sense to me than simply trying to stick to the wing chun "game plan" no matter what; or by trying to make the case that wing chun can indeed fight very efficiently in all ranges; and against all sizes of opponents regardless of what type of fight they're fighting, and no matter what styles they are using.

Vic, Thanks for the replies. I read your earlier post, but I think this one makes more sense to reply too.

I don't agree that there is such thing as a 'WC game plan' or 'wing chun close quarter range' (or, to be fair, it's the only place WC principals/concepts apply). I think it's as simple as one either understands and operates under WCK concepts and principals or they don't (to varying degrees of course!).

To bring bruce up here, only complicates things. Even as you said, his understanding of WC wasn't as deep as one would hope. So of course it makes sense for him to look at other methods to fight with! (not saying corss training is bad, just not sure it's necessary for bridging the gap from long range). Are you saying your understanding of WCK is the same as his? :)

I think most here would agree that to fight with WCK, you should have a very good understanding of the principals and concepts (both mind and body). I don't feel these dissapear if we are not in trapping range. If someone advocates throwing jabs, crosses, probing kicks, etc from the outside to try to work our way in, that IMO turns into lucky fighting. You are giving up any advantage WCK has to offer and giving your opponent more chance to also get luck when you give up your identity. Further, you are now matching speed and skill of say, boxing, against your opponent. If your opponent is more skilled in boxing, or quicker than you, you are going to have a harder time - the opposite of what you said earlier.

Way I see it,
CL theory still applies at a longer range.
Certain bridging still applies and works.
Gate theroies apply.
Facing theories applies.
Positioning as well.
I don't agree that we have to go to a 3 gate type stance with long/short reach problems in our hands just because we are outside of trapping range. If anyting, Bai Jong still exists right?
---------
Size and skill of your opponent makes a difference regardless what 'style' you are fighting with. That's a no brainer. But I don't buy into the idea that if your opponent is bigger or more skilled that WCK can't work or you need something else. My experience tells me otherwise. WCK is what give me the edge in this case! I'm not going to try to match speed and strength with a younger faster bigger opponent like I did when boxing. Doesn't make sense.

** Side note:
I've seen vids of Phil, Keith and Rahsun on youtube. They train the same lineage of WCK you do. I haven't seen one case where they boxed or kickboxed thier way into what you might call the WC close quarter range. To me, it seems they stick to the concepts/principals of TWC WCK (of course, they could answer better than me since I'm not a practitioner of the system). Even some older vids of William Cheung against the boxer is the same.
Now, this isn't meant as a slight against you by any means, but could it be you just prefer to jab your way in rather than it being necessity? If so, that's cool. Or you might have missed somet things in your training (again, not a slight against you.) Curious if they feel the same way you do on this subject.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion!

Jonathan

[t_niehoff]

Criticizing is one thing. The was you criticize is another thing.


I admit, I criticized Cheung with disdain. Frankly, I think that video clip of Cheung talking about chi gerk just about sums Cheung up.



With regards to the honor thing I guess you'll never see my point of view and I know why. But that's another thing.


I don't think you know why.



You must have missed the part where I said that I don't worship or idolize anyone. It's against my religious beliefs.


Actions speak louder than words.



Though there are no clips of me fighting I do have some of me explaining how I do things. Until I see something from you I'll just presume that you are a keyboard warrior that spouts his opinions online with no basis. Of course I don't expect you to care what I think but that's what I think. ;)

Phil, I don't care if a person puts of video clips of themselves or their students. People are free to do what they like. And lots of people don't put up clips of themselves or their studentss. I just find it interesting that the persons that do put up clips, they never put up sparring clips - particularly any sparring against competent non-WCK fighters. We see forms, drills, demos, explanations, etc., everything except the "final product." Do you think that I'm the only guy in the world to see this pattern? That's partly why WCK people are laughed at by most fighters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3sfXnZyyA

[-木叶-]

We can do a chinese martial art but that doesn't mean we should adopt silly cultural artifices from archaic, fuedal (and caste) societies.

This has nothing to do with "honor". If someone -- anyone -- says X is true and he's wrong, pointing that out isn't dishonorable. I pointed out that Cheung's words only showed he was ignorant of the lessons of chi gerk. And, not only that, his fight with Boztepe demonstrates that ignorance. Why do you believe that to criticize Cheung has to do with "honor"?


Hi,

First of all, we Chinese have a saying "One day as Sifu, Lifetime as Father".
It means my sifu is also my father. So is it honorable that someone criticizes your
sifu and you do not defend him?

Secondly, Yip Man taught Wing Chun to all his disciples but each one interprets
it differently. Perhaps Master William Cheung's experience led him to believe
that the particular chi geuk drill is "useless" in his words.

Thirdly, Mo Duk:

「武」字由「止」、「戈」二字組成。按古代造字法中的「會意」，它的意思是「以武禁暴，整亂，止息干戈，非 以為殘而與縱之也」（見《漢書·武五子贊》）。可見武有御暴防身、止戈平亂、化解爭鬥、獲取和 平之意。

Mo, is form by two separate words, "stop" and "weapons", according to ancient chinese phonetics, the meaning is "using martial arts to stop violence, prevent chaos, calm war and bring peace, and not for destruction".

據說「德」字在上古寫作「德」、「德」，也就是上「直」下「心」。《說文解字》云：「德，外得與人，內得與 心也」；「德，正見也。」可見「德」字有正見，思想公正無私，在外利益世人、眾生；在內心境平和，祛除私心 雜念之意。

Duk, consists of 2 words, "upright" and "heart". In ancient chinese text, it was said "Duk, prospering people outside, prospering the heart within".
Its meaning is "The thought is just and fair with no prejudice, benefiting people from the outside, and bring peace within the heart, and removing all chaotic thoughts".

有人說：習武之人，應以武德為重，所謂持之以莊，臨之以敬，接之以和，秉之以公，練之以勤，行之以義，存之 以仁，歸之以忠，而切忌恃強逞能，做無意義之事。

For martial arts practitioners, we should observe Mo Duk,

持之以莊 - Be proper and decent
臨之以敬 - Treat others with respect
接之以和 - Seek peaceful resolution
秉之以公 - Settle matters with fairness
練之以勤 - Practice our art with earnest and hardworking
行之以義 - Uphold justice
存之以仁 - Be righteous
歸之以忠 - Be loyal to where we belong, which is our country and our Wing Chun
而切忌恃強逞能，做無意義之事 - Do not be violent and bully, and do useless things

So it is not a "silly cultural artifices from archaic, fuedal, and caste societies."

[t_niehoff]

Hi,

First of all, we Chinese have a saying "One day as Sifu, Lifetime as Father".
It means my sifu is also my father. So is it honorable that someone criticizes your
sifu and you do not defend him?


I don't care if the "chinese have a saying". I'm not chinese. And, I don't live my life by following silly sayings either.



Secondly, Yip Man taught Wing Chun to all his disciples but each one interprets
it differently. Perhaps Master William Cheung's experience led him to believe
that the particular chi geuk drill is "useless" in his words.


I agree with you. Trouble is, Cheung is just plain wrong. His own experience (Boztepe) demonstrated that.



Thirdly, Mo Duk:

「武」字由「止」、「戈」二字組成。按古代造字法中的「會意」，它的意思是「以武禁暴，整亂，止息干戈，非 以為殘而與縱之也」（見《漢書·武五子贊》）。可見武有御暴防身、止戈平亂、化解爭鬥、獲取和 平之意。

Mo, is form by two separate words, "stop" and "weapons", according to ancient chinese phonetics, the meaning is "using martial arts to stop violence, prevent chaos, calm war and bring peace, and not for destruction".

據說「德」字在上古寫作「德」、「德」，也就是上「直」下「心」。《說文解字》云：「德，外得與人，內得與 心也」；「德，正見也。」可見「德」字有正見，思想公正無私，在外利益世人、眾生；在內心境平和，祛除私心 雜念之意。

Duk, consists of 2 words, "upright" and "heart". In ancient chinese text, it was said "Duk, prospering people outside, prospering the heart within".
Its meaning is "The thought is just and fair with no prejudice, benefiting people from the outside, and bring peace within the heart, and removing all chaotic thoughts".

有人說：習武之人，應以武德為重，所謂持之以莊，臨之以敬，接之以和，秉之以公，練之以勤，行之以義，存之 以仁，歸之以忠，而切忌恃強逞能，做無意義之事。

For martial arts practitioners, we should observe Mo Duk,

持之以莊 - Be proper and decent
臨之以敬 - Treat others with respect
接之以和 - Seek peaceful resolution
秉之以公 - Settle matters with fairness
練之以勤 - Practice our art with earnest and hardworking
行之以義 - Uphold justice
存之以仁 - Be righteous
歸之以忠 - Be loyal to where we belong, which is our country and our Wing Chun
而切忌恃強逞能，做無意義之事 - Do not be violent and bully, and do useless things

So it is not a "silly cultural artifices from archaic, fuedal, and caste societies."

I see you're an avid wu xia reader. Isn't fantasy wonderful.

[-木叶-]

I don't care if the "chinese have a saying". I'm not chinese. And, I don't live my life by following silly sayings either.



I agree with you. Trouble is, Cheung is just plain wrong. His own experience (Boztepe) demonstrated that.



I see you're an avid wu xia reader. Isn't fantasy wonderful.

It is an explanation on the words Mo Duk, and the meaning behind it,
i do love Wu Xia though. :)

Thanks for your reply

[Yoshiyahu]

Terrence are there any good WC sifu's who can actually fight that have videos on youtube...



If you want Terrence maybe You and I can strap on the gloves and fight and have someone video tape...that way we can post it on youtube showing WC as functional. But you may not care too since you said once before your not a good fighter...I guess your only as good as your training partners!



I don't care if the "chinese have a saying". I'm not chinese. And, I don't live my life by following silly sayings either.



I agree with you. Trouble is, Cheung is just plain wrong. His own experience (Boztepe) demonstrated that.



I see you're an avid wu xia reader. Isn't fantasy wonderful.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence are there any good WC sifu's who can actually fight that have videos on youtube...


Go see for yourself. Why don't you search for wing chun sparring and then do a search for muay thai boxing -- see what turns up.



If you want Terrence maybe You and I can strap on the gloves and fight and have someone video tape...that way we can post it on youtube showing WC as functional. But you may not care too since you said once before your not a good fighter...I guess your only as good as your training partners!

Here we go again.

When after all your bothering me with requests to see how we train, spar with us, etc. I relented and offered you a chance to come spar with guys from my group you told me that wouldn't pay the $10 visitors fee to the YMCA! What, did your mother finally give you the $10?

But you're right, you are only as good as your training partners. That's why I train where I do. I train with good fighters. I told you to go train at a MT school -- so that you could see and train with good fighters too.

[Yoshiyahu]

I am not able to afford our fees.



Go see for yourself. Why don't you search for wing chun sparring and then do a search for muay thai boxing -- see what turns up.



Here we go again.

When after all your bothering me with requests to see how we train, spar with us, etc. I relented and offered you a chance to come spar with guys from my group you told me that wouldn't pay the $10 visitors fee to the YMCA! What, did your mother finally give you the $10?

But you're right, you are only as good as your training partners. That's why I train where I do. I train with good fighters. I told you to go train at a MT school -- so that you could see and train with good fighters too.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I think most here would agree that to fight with WCK, you should have a very good understanding of the principles and concepts (both mind and body). I don't feel these disappear if we are not in trapping range. If someone advocates throwing jabs, crosses, probing kicks, etc from the outside to try to work our way in, that IMO turns into lucky fighting." (JP)

***OH YEAH, I have a very good understanding of wing chun principles and concepts, alright.
34 years worth, and having trained during that period quite extensively with two of Yip Man's students.

And I know from many years of experience that what I'm advocating has nothing to do with luck.

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


"You are giving up any advantage WCK has to offer and giving your opponent more chance to also get luck when you give up your identity. Further, you are now matching speed and skill of say, boxing, against your opponent." (JP)

***NO, wrong again.

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


"Way I see it,
CL theory still applies at a longer range.
Certain bridging still applies and works.
Gate theroies apply.
Facing theories applies.
Positioning as well." (JP)


***YES, they do. And what I have found is that by using longer range horizontal fist (boxing type) straight punches, along with a more mobile boxing type footwork that uses raised heels, broken rhythms, feints and jabs - ALL DONE WHILE UTILIZING TWO CENTERLINES that correspond to your shoulders (and your opponent's shoulders)...so that you''re now dueling, so to speak, with your right arm/hand vs. his left arm/hand FOR CONTROL OF ONE CENTERLINE...

and with your left arm/hand vs. his right arm/hand FOR CONTROL OF THE OTHER CENTERLINE...

until you reach close quarters to the point where you get to use your main centerline as the major point of reference, (and therefore less concerned about the 2 lines corresponding to the shoulders)...

AND ALL THE WHILE you can still use bridging, and the gates, and the facing, and certainly the positioning...

so that boxing and wing chun can come together quite seamlessly - as a number of future sparring vids I intend to post will show.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . We see forms, drills, demos, explanations, etc., everything except the "final product." Do you think that I'm the only guy in the world to see this pattern? That's partly why WCK people are laughed at by most fighters.
Well all I can say is that we do have clips of some amateur Lei Tai fights. I have no clips of my fights but at least a few people in NYC know about my fights. I'd like to add that anyone who has come to out school has left with a different impression of WC.

[Wayfaring]

If someone advocates throwing jabs, crosses, probing kicks, etc from the outside to try to work our way in, that IMO turns into lucky fighting.

Some boxers are luckier than others. Yet it appears this is through training not winning the lottery. Actually the jab, both hand and foot, is kind of the tool here for gauging distance, and hovering right around the "go point" to try and draw someone into their space to counter punch. The MT inside and outside leg kick here is another tool that is at the outside of range and offers a challenge.



You are giving up any advantage WCK has to offer and giving your opponent more chance to also get luck when you give up your identity. Further, you are now matching speed and skill of say, boxing, against your opponent. If your opponent is more skilled in boxing, or quicker than you, you are going to have a harder time - the opposite of what you said earlier.

If someone is coming after you with committed punches then the jong is easier to deal with that from structure. The problem is hovering on the edge, with broken rythym and skills to draw you out at the "go point". Then it very much becomes skill on skill. If you go and overextend, you're vulnerable. If you don't go and the jab is entered on, you get your space eaten up. Training the go point is hardest. Even in bai jong training.



Way I see it,
CL theory still applies at a longer range.
Certain bridging still applies and works.
Gate theroies apply.
Facing theories applies.
Positioning as well.
I don't agree that we have to go to a 3 gate type stance with long/short reach problems in our hands just because we are outside of trapping range. If anyting, Bai Jong still exists right?

Do you realize good Muy Thai boxers approximate a 6 gate stance mostly? Without all the exact reference points? But they look closer to 6 than typical 3.

---------


Size and skill of your opponent makes a difference regardless what 'style' you are fighting with. That's a no brainer. But I don't buy into the idea that if your opponent is bigger or more skilled that WCK can't work or you need something else. My experience tells me otherwise. WCK is what give me the edge in this case! I'm not going to try to match speed and strength with a younger faster bigger opponent like I did when boxing. Doesn't make sense.

I agree.

Sorry to butt in your convo with Vic, but a couple of these points I was interested in and have some input.

[Wayfaring]

I'd like to add that anyone who has come to out school has left with a different impression of WC.

I'd drop by and train with you guys / Vic if I'm out east. Travel for me is bad in this economy though.

[duende]

Some boxers are luckier than others. Yet it appears this is through training not winning the lottery. Actually the jab, both hand and foot, is kind of the tool here for gauging distance, and hovering right around the "go point" to try and draw someone into their space to counter punch. The MT inside and outside leg kick here is another tool that is at the outside of range and offers a challenge.


If someone is coming after you with committed punches then the jong is easier to deal with that from structure. The problem is hovering on the edge, with broken rythym and skills to draw you out at the "go point". Then it very much becomes skill on skill. If you go and overextend, you're vulnerable. If you don't go and the jab is entered on, you get your space eaten up. Training the go point is hardest. Even in bai jong training.


Do you realize good Muy Thai boxers approximate a 6 gate stance mostly? Without all the exact reference points? But they look closer to 6 than typical 3.


Excellent points Dave! I must say I agree with you wholeheartedly. Though I think JP was referring to the Lucky punch timeframe after range is already gauged and set-up.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"If someone is coming after you with committed punches then the jong is easier to deal with that from structure. The problem is hovering on the edge, with broken rythym and skills to draw you out at the 'go point'. Then it very much becomes skill on skill. If you go and overextend, you're vulnerable. If you don't go and the jab is entered on, you get your space eaten up. Training the go point is hardest. Even in bai jong training."

***EXCELLENT point, Wayfaring.

And it's after eating quite a few punches at the "go point", as you put it, against someone with a longer reach and excellent boxing skills, that resulted in my starting to experiment with the longer range horizontal boxing punches and footwork about 3-4 years ago...and putting it together with the "two centerline" concept that I described in my previous post - as well as going to cross position if necesary (instead of the parallel position matched leads) if such a boxer type (and again, especially if he has a size and reach advantage)...starts to dominate the parallel "line".

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

"I'd drop by and train with you guys / Vic if I'm out east. Travel for me is bad in this economy though." (Wayfaring)

***ANYTIME!

[scottking]

t_niehoff said
Go see for yourself. Why don't you search for wing chun sparring and then do a search for muay thai boxing -- see what turns up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM57M8LBJqg

I may be wrong but i think this is what T is saying, if you type in the link above it goes to kamon wing chun, and kamon (ive forgot his real name) is cross training, then it goes to his students doing wing chun. which one would you want to do if you were in a scrape?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'd want Terence watching my back if there's a scrap. :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

I'd want Terence watching my back if there's a scrap. :rolleyes:

Oh, poor Victor, still hurting over my cricitism of Cheung. Maybe, just maybe, you might stop and think that before you post a clip of Cheung talking nonsense or before go over to bullshido and post a nonfighting clip of yourself explaining how you would fight. Neither seemed a particularly bright move.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Oh, poor Victor, still hurting over my cricitism of Cheung. Maybe, just maybe, you might stop and think that before you post a clip of Cheung talking nonsense or before go over to bullshido and post a nonfighting clip of yourself explaining how you would fight. Neither seemed a particularly bright move.


***THERE'S nothing you, Terence Niehoff, could ever do that's going to hurt me. Nothing at all. Because you're a total non-entity when it comes to fighting. Any kind of fighting. Including what goes on here on this forum with words. You know it. And everyone else around here knows it. So stop the bull5hit.

You're just a two-bit shiester lawyer who can't back up anything he says. And that's been your m.o. for years now.

And as for William Cheung, he's forgotten more wing chun than you could ever possibly hope to know.

Which is one of the biggest reasons why you take every opportunity you get to try and degrade him. And you do the same to Garrett Gee. And Moy Yat. And Wong Shun Leung. And Yip Man. And this one. And that one.

Because your jealousy of other people's achievements/knowledge/skill in wing chun knows no limits. If you s-u-c-k at it...then everyone else has to s-u-c-k at it.

That's why you post e n d l e s s l y month after month, year after year...and why virtually...

EVERY SINGLE POST is meant to try and tear someone else down. Because you're miserable.

And a pathetic coward and liar, Terence Niehoff.

[Wayfaring]

Aw, Terence is just a sensationalist. He likes to run down a lot of people including WCK masters to stir things up. Stirring things up at least makes for interesting conversation, although it can get heated at times.

I like his views on pressure testing WCK through the same "aliveness" Matt Thornton and SBG promote (although I don't see anything unique about Matt or his students tearing up the BJJ tournament circuits anywhere). I like his views on fighting being your teacher (although I don't necessarily agree on what he calls fighting - I think it's hard sparring).

I don't like all the running people down, especially elders who have put some time into arts. It makes me wonder if he'd push a 75 yr old man into cereal boxes at the grocery store to get ahead in line. I don't like the one track discussions with all the logic repeated. I don't think he has a realistic view on "proving" history of anything anthropology / sociology related.

But it is what it is. People are who they are. I take it with a grain of salt.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Aw, Terence is just a sensationalist. He likes to run down a lot of people including WCK masters to stir things up. Stirring things up at least makes for interesting conversation, although it can get heated at times.

I like his views on pressure testing WCK through the same "aliveness" Matt Thornton and SBG promote (although I don't see anything unique about Matt or his students tearing up the BJJ tournament circuits anywhere). I like his views on fighting being your teacher (although I don't necessarily agree on what he calls fighting - I think it's hard sparring).

I don't like all the running people down, especially elders who have put some time into arts. It makes me wonder if he'd push a 75 yr old man into cereal boxes at the grocery store to get ahead in line. I don't like the one track discussions with all the logic repeated. I don't think he has a realistic view on "proving" history of anything anthropology / sociology related.

But it is what it is. People are who they are. I take it with a grain of salt.



***BASICALLY this is true. But here's the thing with this guy: his views on "pressure testing" can be expressed in one sentence. But he uses this one truism as a battering ram to crash into everyone in sight. Endlessly. And if you read his posts through the years - you cannot fail to come to the realization that his own personal knowledge and skill level with wing chun is extremely limited.

One reason, for example, why he tries to degrade things like SLT, chi sao, kiu sao, wooden dummy, etc. on every thread these things are discussed. Because he knows very little about the real meaning and skills that can come from these things.

Furthermore, when push-came-to-shove a few years ago about just how much time he actually did spend training in wing chun (ie.- how much time he actually spent with Robert Chu)....after quite a bit of stalling, evasion, and double talk - when he did respond - it finally came out that he had spent very little time learning wing chun with Robert.

So who is this guy anyway, to criticize virtually everything and everyone connected with wing chun? What are his credentials to do that? He's the first one to tell you (and he's done it numerous times) that he himself is not very skilled (in anything)....

and he clearly is not very knowledgable and skilled in wing chun...so then why should we on this forum allow ourselves to be subjected to his endless onslaughts without calling him out on it?!

And of course there's the basic "internet problem": people can sometimes have unlimited access and opportunity to say anything - true or false and never pay a price for telling lies, for committing slander, for outrageous insults based upon falsehoods and unverifed innuendo, for trying to pass off half truths for whole truths, for trying to pass off their own personal prejudices (and ignorance) for truth...

and this can go on for years because they can always hide behind false names, or the fact that they live thousands of miles away from those whose reputations they try to injure, hide behind legalities if they are challenged, etc. etc. (Or all of a sudden they play the "why don't you grow up" game if they are challenged...the same person who cuts people so childishly over-and-over)...talk about cowardly hypocrisy!

Do you think that it's an accident that this guy doesn't even want people to know what he looks like? Forget any chance of his ever posting a clip of himself actually "doing something" connected with martial arts...but he has made sure that he's completely unrecognizable, ie.- to my knowledge not one photograph of Terence Niehoff has ever made it's way onto the internet.

Here's a for instance. If you google his name, this is one of the things that come up:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55064

The guy is an arrogant loudmouth joke - with nothing to back up his posturing. And it's my belief that although it's impossible and unfeasible to try and respond to everything people like him post - given how much rubbish he posts (and re-posts)...

every so often it becomes necessary to confront, expose, and beat down people like this - so that the damage they do with their garbage (not to mention all the hi-jacking of interesting and useful discussions)... gets mitigated and neutralized somewhat.

[duende]

I have to agree with Victor.

It would be one thing to share an opinion. But the guy obviously has some agenda to simply spread insults, disrespect elders, and cause heated internet flame wars. We are literally talking 10 years of crap on the internet. From the sh1t he wrote on WCML to here on KFO.

Plus... who has the time to write as much as he does. Endless paragraph after paragraph of repeated egotistical close-minded rhetoric. And then more paragraphs of slimey insults and sleazy inuendo's.

The guy is sick in the head. Seriously.

[t_niehoff]

Oh goody, the HFY and Victor agree that I am a bad guy! LOL! I have to say that if the HFY guys and Victor hate me, then it just proves I must be doing something right. :) Thank you for the support.

[Ultimatewingchun]

No, thank you once again for proving my point.

Just another in an endless series of posts that serve no other purpose than to try and knock someone else down....(Verbally, of course. Since no other options in this regard exist for you).

[t_niehoff]

No, thank you once again for proving my point.

Just another in an endless series of posts that serve no other purpose than to try and knock someone else down....(Verbally, of course. Since no other options in this regard exist for you).

Oh, are we continuing this? Great. Let's see: now you accuse me of "knocking someone else down"? Who would that be -- you and the HFY boys posts are directly above mine insulting me (and I'm "knocking" people down -- ahh, the irony) and that's who I was responding to. Was there someone else you thought I referrred to? But, I forget, I shouldn't really expect you to make those sorts of challenging connections, should I?

Let me guess your response: you will call me more bad names. Not original, but we both know that's essentially the limit of your intellectual and verbal ability. Kinda like your stuck in the 7th grade. Did you ever earn the GED? ;)

[JPinAZ]

[B]
Do you think that it's an accident that this guy doesn't even want people to know what he looks like? Forget any chance of his ever posting a clip of himself actually "doing something" connected with martial arts...but he has made sure that he's completely unrecognizable, ie.- to my knowledge not one photograph of Terence Niehoff has ever made it's way onto the internet.

Here's a for instance. If you google his name, this is one of the things that come up:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55064


Vic,

I agree with most everything you've said regarding T. But I think you're wrong here. Sure, we all know he's not going to post a video, but I think there's a picture of him. (how exciting is a video of a guy warming the bench going to be anyway?)
Not that it really matters, but I think this article and picture about a lawyer defending drug addicts and murderers is him:
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2002-10-23/news/for-the-defense/1

[t_niehoff]

Yup, that's me.

Victor wonders why no photos of me have hit the internet. Well, for the simple reason that I don't see a reason to post photos or videos of myself on the internet. In fact, I wonder why most (99.9%) of people do post videos of themselves on the internet. I think it's silly. Although I can see a few exceptions, like if you are selling something. I don't go around with a camera during my workouts or record myself doing forms or want to put up instructional clips (personally I think WCK is sensitivity-based so you can't really show it). You don't see Robert putting up clips, Dave or Dzu putting up clips, etc. Alan does it because he is marketing a product.

I leave clips to people like Victor. Bullshido loves people like Victor andtheir clips.

[anerlich]

Victor wonders why no photos of me have hit the internet.

You don't want it, Vic. By all accounts he's an ugly b@st@rd.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Again, the hypocrisy. He credits Robert Chu with virtue because he doesn't do videos...(the point being that the "publicity" of doing videos and getting your face in front of the camera betrays some sort of a "problem" with your character) - but then says it's okay for Alan Orr to do it because with Alan it's about making money. (As if Alan doesn't also enjoy the fact that he's in front of a camera when trying to make money with his product).

Not that I'm knocking either Robert or Alan, because I'm not doing that at all. I've seen a bunch of Alan's vids, and there's some good stuff there. I dont buy into all of what he's teaching, but there's some good stuff there.

No, this is about Terence Niehoff.

It's okay for his "side" to do certain things (Niehoff spent some time learning from Robert, and Alan is also a student of Robert)...but those very same things betray some sort of character flaw if other people do it.

Again: THE MAN SPECIALIZES IN HALF TRUTHS.

Which always means that the other half is false.

The same guy who tries to point out what a "basically" good guy so-and-so is, and how sweet his family is, and what a tough break life has given him...

and therefore society should ignore (ie.- not punish, or restrain with prison sentences) - these very same people for committing the most horrific of murders.

So we want you to see and acknowledge the Good in so-and-so...and don't look at the Bad. Just judge him by half the story (and I use the word "half" with lots of generosity).

So in other words, it's not really important to Terence Niehoff if the whole truth (ie.- all the facts are carefully examined and weighed, thereby letting just and logical conclusions fall where they may)...

and the only thing that's important is that HE gets people to believe what he wants them to believe - so that his "side" prevails.

Does this modus operandi sound familiar? ;)

Yeah, let's rest this case. :cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

..and away from the publicity seeking one-note-Charlie thread hijackers... :eek: :cool: :D

what do you guys think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c661Iqfv5I8&feature=related

[Ultimatewingchun]

as I do, that one of the biggest problems the wing chun guy had in that clip stemmed from him trying to use a short range arsenal of weapons (and strategy) against someone using longer range weaponry...when they are not at close range (and he ate a lot of punches from longer range)...

then look at this vid - which I find very interesting, and the ideas/concepts expressed here move somewhat in the direction that I've been following for some 3-4 years now. Not exactly, but a close cousin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74oxk65AZ4&feature=related

[Ultimatewingchun]

I would contend that the single biggest reason why the wing chun guy did much better than the wing chun guy in the first vid did...is because he had a much longer reach - so his wing chun infight weaponry and strategy was enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h4wa52_chQ&feature=related

[grasshopper 2.0]

Interesting clips! so here's my concern - does that mean the shorter/smaller guy has no chance with his wing chun? If so,what's the point of wing chun altogether then - isn't it supposed to give us small guys a "fighting" chance?

That boxing/wing chun clip is really cool. For me, i find it interesting that he separates boxing from wing chun, whereas wing chun really is boxing. I think over the years, wing chun has gotten lost in its chi-sao and chain punches, where really it is a boxing form - chinese boxing. The idea of short-range/long-range does not exist..you just want to hit, and to get your punch from A to B is where chi-sao comes in. And i don't mean trapping or sticking, i mean that chi-sao training lets your punch snake through to the target..in a sense (no bong sao, tan sao, etc needed).

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The idea of short-range/long-range does not exist..you just want to hit, and to get your punch from A to B is where where chi-sao comes in. And i don't mean trapping or sticking, i mean that chi-sao training lets your punch snake through to the target..in a sense (no bong sao, tan sao, etc needed)." (Grasshopper)


***FIRST of all, welcome to the forum. :)

But let me tell you why I believe that short-range/long-range does exist. And for now, I'll just throw basically one thing out there for you to think about in this regard.

Wing Chun requires that your shoulders be pretty much squared up with each other, so that the basic vertical fist straight punch used most often in wing chun can travel along (or very close to) your centerline.

And so that you can always use two arms simultaneously, and extend them to basically the same exact distance in order to block-and-strike with maximum (and near simultaneous) efficiency....

without even having to move (turn) a shoulder very much.

So this maximizes quickness - but at the expense of reach. And requires that you be very close to the opponent to make this strategy work.

Whereas, on the other hand, a boxing position, for example, does not usually have the shoulders squared up to each other, and will therefore allow a longer reach for each individual punch thrown...

also helped by the fact that in boxing you will torque/turn your shoulder much more so than when throwing a punch in wing chun.

And then there's the footwork, but that's another matter....:cool:

[grasshopper 2.0]

First off - thanks!

I see ur point and its quite valid! So is short range defined by the positioning of the shoulders?

Take, for instance, that ur 6'5 fighting a boxer at a height of 5'5. Ur "short range" is now his long range. And his "long range" is now ur short range.

With the reverse scenario, no matter how u position urself against a really tall opponent, none of ur weapons are long range.

Let's say a boxer wants to get in with a jab and close with a hook. Is that hook short range? Or long range? Does it still even matter?

Even with that said, who says.a wing xhun guy HAS to keep his shoulder square? Wing chun, imo,(and all arts) should have a functional role - if u can replicate the function of a move while deviating from its boundaries, u r still performing wing chun.

Are there not punches that torque the shoulder in the wing chun curriculum? If u had the opportunity to punch someone at the expense of torqing ur torso/shoulder, would u not take it?

We get trapped, IMO, into the chain punch/trapping mentality cuz that's what we do (chi sao) and that, in a sense "shortens" our range...

[Ultimatewingchun]

First off - thanks!

I see ur point and its quite valid! So is short range defined by the positioning of the shoulders?

Take, for instance, that ur 6'5 fighting a boxer at a height of 5'5. Ur "short range" is now his long range. And his "long range" is now ur short range.

With the reverse scenario, no matter how u position urself against a really tall opponent, none of ur weapons are long range.

Let's say a boxer wants to get in with a jab and close with a hook. Is that hook short range? Or long range? Does it still even matter?

Even with that said, who says.a wing xhun guy HAS to keep his shoulder square? Wing chun, imo,(and all arts) should have a functional role - if u can replicate the function of a move while deviating from its boundaries, u r still performing wing chun.

Are there not punches that torque the shoulder in the wing chun curriculum? If u had the opportunity to punch someone at the expense of torqing ur torso/shoulder, would u not take it?

We get trapped, IMO, into the chain punch/trapping mentality cuz that's what we do (chi sao) and that, in a sense "shortens" our range...


***THIS is a good post. Yeah, of course I believe that you should torque the shoulder if it means that your punch will connect - and to some extent you will almost always torgue the shoulders (even when doing "pure" wing chun) - it's just a matter of how much. And yes, the chain punch/trapping mentality is a very narrow street to work on (literally and figuratively)...

But the devil is always in the details. And I believe it's possible to use wing chun principles and still use what looks like a boxing position (including horizontally-thrown boxing straight leads and rear crosses)...as well as some boxing-type footwork...to get to a close range...wherein you can pretty much square up the shoulders and do a more "conventional-looking" wing chun.

[Knifefighter]

Interesting clips! so here's my concern - does that mean the shorter/smaller guy has no chance with his wing chun?

Bingo! You are exactly right.

[Knifefighter]

So this maximizes quickness - but at the expense of reach and power.

Fixed to add the other parameter that is compromised.

[Ultimatewingchun]

True. Although it is possible to generate some power from the wing chun position - it is clearly not the same amount of power that a punch thrown with more body torque...the kind of torque used when you're not in a shoulder-squared-up position.

The idea in wing chun is to take up that slack with multiple punches - and to some extent that's true too.

But the real truth is, imo, you need all of the above. Long range punching (and kicking) power...and short range multiple striking that can have a cumulative effect and perhaps also set up other moves (like knees, elbows, takedowns, etc.)

[Knifefighter]

True. Although it is possible to generate some power from the wing chun position - it is clearly not the same amount of power that a punch thrown with more body torque...the kind of torque used when you're not in a shoulder-squared-up position.

The idea in wing chun is to take up that slack with multiple punches - and to some extent that's true too.

But the real truth is, imo, you need all of the above. Long range punching (and kicking) power...and short range multiple striking that can have a cumulative effect and perhaps also set up other moves (like knees, elbows, takedowns, etc.)

Interesting how your views are changing over the years as you put yourself into more full-contact situations with more kinds of fighters.

Better watch out... pretty soon you'll be over on the dark side with Terrance and myself!:)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ha! Ha! Ha! :D

Yeah, I'll tell ya, the guy I wanted to make the wing chun vs. boxing vid with (and I believe it will still happen - as he always returns sooner or later)...but anyway...

that guy - along with a few other guys (all of whom are taller than me and with a longer reach) - really have had an influence on my thinking. And needless to say, the fact that we've been doing some serious contact sparring (and not just chi sao and light contact sparring)...changes everything.

[TenTigers]

Hey Victor,
doesn't the inverted punch in chum kiu utilize the torquing of the waist and shoulder? If it's in the form, then it's in the system. If a concept is brought up, then it can be expanded upon and extrapolated, thus being applied to different circumstances, strikes, etc. I am I correct here, or am I misunderstanding the strike, or delving too deep? (is there such a thing?);)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ha! Ha! Ha! :D

Yeah, I'll tell ya, the guy I wanted to make the wing chun vs. boxing vid with (and I believe it will still happen - as he always returns sooner or later)...but anyway...

that guy - along with a few other guys (all of whom are taller than me and with a longer reach) - really have had an influence on my thinking. And needless to say, the fact that we've been doing some serious contact sparring (and not just chi sao and light contact sparring)...changes everything.

I can tell you this, the ability to generate enough force to damage and incapacitate with strikes is far more crucial for a smaller/lighter fighter than for a bigger one, for obvious reasons.
I recall Mas Oyama once saying, I would rather get hit by a dozen "slaps" than one punch.
For bigger people that carry more weight in their strikes "naturally", systems that advocate multiple "machine gun" strikes are a fine fit ( think kenpo), but for those that must generate far more mass/force behind their strikes, well, lets just say that power is at a premium.

[TenTigers]

I can tell you this, the ability to generate enough force to damage and incapacitate with strikes is far more crucial for a smaller/lighter fighter than for a bigger one, for obvious reasons.
I recall Mas Oyama once saying, I would rather get hit by a dozen "slaps" than one punch.
For bigger people that carry more weight in their strikes "naturally", systems that advocate multiple "machine gun" strikes are a fine fit ( think kenpo), but for those that must generate far more mass/force behind their strikes, well, lets just say that power is at a premium.

Probably why Lam Wing-Fei's Jook Lum favored elusive movement, and rapid-fire, multiple strikes utilizing the fung-an choy to nerve clusters.

BTW-to people who are ready to go off and troll about "all that phoenix-eye, etc is bull****, Jook Lum also has heavier strikes, elbows, hammerfists, etc. It's not all "deadly dim-mak."

And...look at it this way-if I have a ballpien hammer, and I pop you in the face, you will be in a world of hurt, (even if momentarily) and I can follow up. It's not magic, or mysticism. It's just pain and the shock that accompanies it. It's not meant to be a coup de gras, but more of a set-up. Like a jab, but causing a heckuvalot more sharp pain. It's only one tool out of many.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Probably why Lam Wing-Fei's Jook Lum favored elusive movement, and rapid-fire, multiple strikes utilizing the fung-an choy to nerve clusters.

BTW-to people who are ready to go off and troll about "all that phoenix-eye, etc is bull****, Jook Lum also has heavier strikes, elbows, hammerfists, etc. It's not all "deadly dim-mak."

And...look at it this way-if I have a ballpien hammer, and I pop you in the face, you will be in a world of hurt, (even if momentarily) and I can follow up. It's not magic, or mysticism. It's just pain and the shock that accompanies it. It's not meant to be a coup de gras, but more of a set-up. Like a jab, but causing a heckuvalot more sharp pain. It's only one tool out of many.

I can and have drilled people though phone books with my PE fist, I used it as a Kubotan !!
:p
Years ago the JKA did a study about muscular strenght and effort in strikes ( It can be found in Nakayamas book, Dynamic Karate) and they found that the first 3 strikes of combination were the most powerful, the 2nd being the most, but after that there was a CONSIDERABLE drop in force and speed.

[TenTigers]

that would make sense, as your first strikes in most cases, are combined with launching the body,body torquing+adding momentum,(think step jab/cross) whereas your follow ups are body torquing alone.

[sanjuro_ronin]

that would make sense, as your first strikes in most cases, are combined with launching the body,body torquing+adding momentum,(think step jab/cross) whereas your follow ups are body torquing alone.

Yep.
I remember when I started to forge my PE fist, I had alawys been told it was not needed because you are aiming for the "soft spots" anyways.
Unfortunately, in a fight, those soft spots tend to be coveerd by hard spots !!
So I forged it, I can do push-ups on them on concrete, hit them on the IP bag and can drill close to full force on the HB.
I only used it once in a "playful" sparring match with open fingered gloves and was asked politely to NOT bring "blunt weapon" into training.
LOL!!:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hey Victor,
doesn't the inverted punch in chum kiu utilize the torquing of the waist and shoulder? If it's in the form, then it's in the system. If a concept is brought up, then it can be expanded upon and extrapolated, thus being applied to different circumstances, strikes, etc. I am I correct here, or am I misunderstanding the strike, or delving too deep? (is there such a thing?);)

***IT WAS in the chum kiu form I learned from Moy Yat, but in William Cheung's (TWC) chum kiu it's not there.

In Moy Yat's version, it was explained that this was a punch back to the centerline when you need to quickly return to it - similar to much of how the bil jee form is explained.

In any event, yeah, I suppose you could look upon it as an uppercut type punch with lots of body torque - but in the overall wing chun scheme of things, it's much more of an "exception" than it is the "rule".

[grasshopper 2.0]

But for myself, that is NOT the exception. I think that's key. If u (general sense) have a default view of chain punching as ur attack, then u have limited urself. I see uppercuts, hooks, cross, chain punches all the same and accessible for use.

In other words, u can turn the shoulder when it's safe to turn the shoulder to land a blow. U can throw a hook when the opening is there. It all becomes "alive" and free. Wing chun training simply let's u do this - not restrict u from it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

As far as uppercuts, hooks, and crosses go - I prefer to work with the boxing ways of throwing them...and then work that into my wing chun...

and work my wing chun into the boxing.

Pretty mystical, huh?! ;)

That was zen and this is now! :cool:

[punchdrunk]

That's a very good point grasshopper, people need to let go of chain punching and pratice other punches that utilize body motion more. There are lots of different strikes in the system, and there are lots of different body mechanics in the forms and drills. Welcome to the forum.

[grasshopper 2.0]

As far as uppercuts, hooks, and crosses go - I prefer to work with the boxing ways of throwing them...and then work that into my wing chun...

and work my wing chun into the boxing.

Pretty mystical, huh?! ;)

That was zen and this is now! :cool:

Totally was zen. haha - i agree. It's interesting, once you get the hang of throwing hits out the "wing chun" way, your boxing punch (as it appears) will have that wing chun feel and character to it...

PunchDrunk - thanks! so far it's been good here. seems like thre's effort to stay away from politics and bashing each other. Nice to see!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Now this is a very interesting sparring match. First of all, both guys are about the same exact height, weight, reach. And watch how often the wing chun guy eats punches (and some kicks) from longer range...and how he does much better from close range...

although clearly his skills in other arts also helped a great deal from close range (ie.- sambo, wrestling/grappling).

And look what happened later in the fight when the san shou/kickboxer guy tries a spinning back-kick (give credit to the wing chun guy for being close enough and alert enough to jam it)...

All-in-all, what I see here is a wing chun short range striking strategy doing little more than counter-striking and counter-reacting (although at times he did it fairly well) - against a stylist with more longer range weaponry.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBjRvUqyZSQ

[JPinAZ]

Vic,

Cool vid! it's great to see guys mixing it up like that!~

FWIW, I watched that video, and I don't think the WC guy was getting tagged by those longer range shots 'because he was using WC'. I think he ate those shots because he didn't understand how to engage using WC.

What I saw was, when the other guy started throwing those shots from outside, instead of using gate theory and proper bridging, the WC guy just fired back with shots of his own - he was trading with the guy. It was effective at times because he was using CL theory while the other guy was taking the longer path. But, he still ended up eating the long range punches in return.
Sometimes he even stepped back when he did it, which gave the other guy even more opportunity to throw more of those long range attacks. Only when the WC guy ate up the space was he most effective at neutralizing the long range shots. He ate the long range shots when he either stood there and tried to trade punches, or when he backed up.

I admit I only watch half the video, but it was enough to see he wasn't using WC engagmetn or bridging strategies to shut his opponent down to stop those long range shots from being effective.

Again, it was a cool video, and nice to see WC guys mixing it up and sparring the way a MA fighter should!

Jonathan

[Graychuan]

Now this is a very interesting sparring match. First of all, both guys are about the same exact height, weight, reach. And watch how often the wing chun guy eats punches (and some kicks) from longer range...and how he does much better from close range...

although clearly his skills in other arts also helped a great deal from close range (ie.- sambo, wrestling/grappling).

And look what happened later in the fight when the san shou/kickboxer guy tries a spinning back-kick (give credit to the wing chun guy for being close enough and alert enough to jam it)...

All-in-all, what I see here is a wing chun short range striking strategy doing little more than counter-striking and counter-reacting (although at times he did it fairly well) - against a stylist with more longer range weaponry.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBjRvUqyZSQ

I dont think the Chunna ate any punches or kicks at all. Any of the Blue mask's punches that landed hardly even made the Chunna break structure. The blue mask was off balance most of the time which is why there was no power in his strikes or kicks and why Red(Chunna) didnt have to worry about the long range.
I argue that the strikes you saw Red 'eating' were just bouncing off harmlessly. Also all of those attempts at shooting didnt work because of the same reason....Chunna had balance and didnt compromise structure and idea.
Now the Chunna's strikes, on the other hand, were rocking Blues world. I also noticed that the further into the clip....Blue was more and more on the retreat. Red was jamming and stop-kicking at will.

As far as skills in other arts go....I didnt see Red(chunna) do anything but maintain balance, which is not a different concept or art outside of WC...even when he spoiled all those shoots. This is not to say that the RED didnt have any other skills...but just because he foiled some shoots and turned a guys ground attempts against him doesnt HAVE to mean that he used something OTHER that WC.


Love, peace & chitlin' grease,

Chris

[JPinAZ]

Chris,

I agree, a lot of the shots from Blue didn't have as much pepper on them when they landed. And, red did 'intercept' blues attempts to strike. And, he did control CL.
But, he intercepted Blue's intent with punches of his own - Red still was, for the most part, trading punches. There was no real bridge control, and no 'control' over Blue's COG when trading punches. Yeah, he disrupted the punches by striking in return, but he still caught the punches (even if less effectively as you pointed out).

And, I am aware you can't stop all punches - a weakened punch is better than a full-on punch. But for the "just bouncing off harmlessly" remark, they were wearing head gear and gloves. Those punches still would have quite a bit of sting if they were knuckle on cheakboane as a lot of those were.

Either way, my points still stand. Red did back up a lot, even directly after landed a shot. He didn't eat up space most time. And, he didn't show a good awareness for engagement. But he did, for the most part still handle his opponent.

[Graychuan]

Well said, JP. :cool:

[Graychuan]

Chris, ... Red did back up a lot, even directly after landed a shot. He didn't eat up space most time. And, he didn't show a good awareness for engagement. But he did, for the most part still handle his opponent.

I agree here wholeheartedly. I think had he done this better he would not have had to deal with the shoots or the power kicks hardly as much... if at all.

[t_niehoff]

Another perspective on those clips:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81138&highlight=russian+wing+chun

[JPinAZ]

I agree here wholeheartedly. I think had he done this better he would not have had to deal with the shoots or the power kicks hardly as much... if at all.

Agreed! :D

[Knifefighter]

So all I'm going to say about that thread is this: I received an email yesterday from the man who was going to be the boxer in the vid I want to do - apologizing for disappearing from class for the last 3 months - and promising to return soon.

You can go into just about any boxing gym and get footage of yourself mixing it up with some of the guys.

Can you see how having to go only against a specific boxer who comes to your class affects any credibility that you might be trying to achieve?

[taai gihk yahn]

Can you see how having to go only against a specific boxer who comes to your class affects any credibility that you might be trying to achieve?
the key to "proving" the effectiveness of anything is trying it against someone who has no interest in you as an individual, no investment in your looking good at the end of the day; it's like therapy: you know it works when you can do it on a patient who is psychologically negative towards what you are doing (my favorite kind to treat, actually - I like to freak them out by treating them from across the room via verbal instructions as to what to do w/their breathing, eye movements, etc. - the worst thing you can do to a passive aggressive patient is show them that they can self-manage; oh the disappointment!)

the reality of effectiveness is generalizability and ease of transfer: the more rarified your approach, the more constraints on its function; even the Taoists would agree - truth lies in non-differentiation!

[Ultimatewingchun]

"You can go into just about any boxing gym and get footage of yourself mixing it up with some of the guys.

Can you see how having to go only against a specific boxer who comes to your class affects any credibility that you might be trying to achieve?" (Knifefighter)



***NO, and for the following reasons.

As you'll see when the vid is made, the guy is a really good boxer, and I'll probably eat some punches. This will not be some one-sided complete domination. It will be clear that he's not just some guy in the wing chun class who's trying "to make like a boxer" - but who in fact has little or no real boxing skills.

And given his height, weight, and reach (he goes 6'0" tall and weighs 200 lbs. - to my 5'10"/170)...I"ll probably have to use some kicks and other longer range moves (boxing straight leads, crosses, etc.) some "non-wing chun" footwork, and other things in order to get in and (hopefully) dominate the match.

And then maybe he'll start using some kicks, knees, elbows, too - I don't know. But the point is, he can really box, and, given that, and his size - I'm going to have to use some longer range technique/strategy than simply "pure" wing chun...

in order to either score from long range and/or get to close range and try to dominate with wing chun and whatever else - otherwise he's going to pick me apart.

This is what I've come to see over the years, both working with him and with some other guys - all of whom are taller/and or heavier than me - and all of whom brought some skills from other styles to my school and then spent a significant amount of years training with me in wing chun.

What this vid will be intended to show is not just how "wing chun vs. boxing" might work out - but something way beyond that: I'm going to be trying to show why and how adding to wing chun will make it better...

hell, I might even go to full clinch and throw some stuff, or go for a takedown or a shoot, I don't know.

I couldn't do these things I'm talking about if I simply walked into Gleason's gym and asked to spar someone.

[CFT]

You can go into just about any boxing gym and get footage of yourself mixing it up with some of the guys.

Can you see how having to go only against a specific boxer who comes to your class affects any credibility that you might be trying to achieve?Are most boxing gyms really willing for anyone to come in off the street, ask for a spar, video the sparring and then post the video on the internet? I can see maybe 1 & 2 being possible but the last 2 points?

[hunt1]

Back when I was learning how to fight with WC I did exactly this, went to boxing gyms in Chicago looking to spar. It was not as easy as knifeboy makes it seem. I was able to do it at 2 gyms but primarily because one of my training partners was a former pro boxer and he had to arrange things for me .

Things may be different now but back then ,over a decade ago , gym owners worried about things like liability issues and a host of other things so strangers just walking in off the street with no proof of experience were not just put into the ring with " KILLER" and allowed to go at it.

I had much better luck from the newspaper ads I ran looking for sparring partners from any and all styles to train with. Ended up with folks ranging from just out of prison crazy men to blackbet s of all types from boxers and MT folks to future BJJ blackbelts. If you can handle the crazies this is the way to go imho.

[t_niehoff]

Back when I was learning how to fight with WC I did exactly this, went to boxing gyms in Chicago looking to spar. It was not as easy as knifeboy makes it seem. I was able to do it at 2 gyms but primarily because one of my training partners was a former pro boxer and he had to arrange things for me .

Things may be different now but back then ,over a decade ago , gym owners worried about things like liability issues and a host of other things so strangers just walking in off the street with no proof of experience were not just put into the ring with " KILLER" and allowed to go at it.

I had much better luck from the newspaper ads I ran looking for sparring partners from any and all styles to train with. Ended up with folks ranging from just out of prison crazy men to blackbet s of all types from boxers and MT folks to future BJJ blackbelts. If you can handle the crazies this is the way to go imho.

Good post.

My experience is that it is difficult to walk in off the street and just ask to spar with people in boxing, MT, or BJJ schools -- that situation raises from their perspective all sorts of possible problems, ranging from they are dealing with a nutter, to whether you are physical prepared to do it and not get injured, etc. If you want to do it, the best way that I've found is to join their gym or class for a time. That builds trust and you get the benefit of the cross-training. And often you can ask for a bit of limited sparring as a bona fide before you join ("I just want to see what your guys can do").

But, some MMA/BJJ places do have an open mat policy or special time reserved for it.

[chusauli]

Guys,

Just as a side note, since this issue has been brought up by some people. I don't want to get involved in any arguments, but I do want to say although Terence trained briefly with me, I taught him all that was relevant and pertained to WCK, that I knew at that time. I went through my entire WCK curriculum with him on the 3 forms, Jong, pole and knives, the complete Gu Lao points, Chi Sao, body structure, applications of each move of the form, positioning, timing, applications against other systems, how to train with equipment, transitioning to weaponry or grappling, jointlocking, throws, freefighting, footwork, teaching drills, and other things. WCK can be taught in a very short period of time, but to perfect it requires much practice and time.

My goal is to teach as thoroughly as possible, and have the student go on from there. I'm no mercenary, but when I teach, I don't hold back. If I know things, I tell you, show you and have you feel it. If I don't know something, I say I don't know, I never BS a student. Terence flew me to St. Louis where I met his group, and he has a talented group of fighters who train regularly with him. Some of them are very advanced.

Prior to him studying with me he had already learned much of the Wing Tsun curriculum and knew the Australian TWC curriculum as well. He's very good and trains very hard, and has good insight. Perhaps teaching in this way may not be traditional, nor does a student stay with me all the time, but at least I have given him the tools to work and develop for himself. And perhaps my failure is I do not put philosophical dogma on a student by teaching him a "kung fu life" or try to control them, or force them to accept my worldview. I hope you understand, although he learned briefly, I held nothing back.

[sihing]

Guys,

Just as a side note, since this issue has been brought up by some people. I don't want to get involved in any arguments, but I do want to say although Terence trained briefly with me, I taught him all that was relevant and pertained to WCK, that I knew at that time. I went through my entire WCK curriculum with him on the 3 forms, Jong, pole and knives, the complete Gu Lao points, Chi Sao, body structure, applications of each move of the form, positioning, timing, applications against other systems, how to train with equipment, transitioning to weaponry or grappling, jointlocking, throws, freefighting, footwork, teaching drills, and other things. WCK can be taught in a very short period of time, but to perfect it requires much practice and time.

My goal is to teach as thoroughly as possible, and have the student go on from there. I'm no mercenary, but when I teach, I don't hold back. If I know things, I tell you, show you and have you feel it. If I don't know something, I say I don't know, I never BS a student. Terence flew me to St. Louis where I met his group, and he has a talented group of fighters who train regularly with him. Some of them are very advanced.

Prior to him studying with me he had already learned much of the Wing Tsun curriculum and knew the Australian TWC curriculum as well. He's very good and trains very hard, and has good insight. Perhaps teaching in this way may not be traditional, nor does a student stay with me all the time, but at least I have given him the tools to work and develop for himself. And perhaps my failure is I do not put philosophical dogma on a student by teaching him a "kung fu life" or try to control them, or force them to accept my worldview. I hope you understand, although he learned briefly, I held nothing back.

Although I've never met T is person, you can recognize in what he has to say that he knows a thing or too about fighting. I've read a couple of his articles that he wrote years ago on body structure and the such, and it was obvious then that he knows quite well what good WC is. I recognized this in my Ernie as well, we used to have offline chats and I realized then that what he was talking about was higher level ideas and concepts, which in the end made me want to travel to LA to train with him and Sifu Lam. My only problem with T is his rudeness towards others on the forum, some more tact may be needed on his part to avoid further conflicts with people.

James

[t_niehoff]

Here's a for instance. If you google his name (Terence Niehoff), this is one of the things that come up:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55064



I jsut wanted to clear something up. On the link above (which I had never seen-- only showing that I don't google my own name), the following appeared:

Yoshiyahu

Posts: 1,302
Casino cash: $6907
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: St.Louis Missouri
Age: 32
Thanks: 292
Thanked 147 Times in 132 Posts

1,000 Post Club
Rep Power: 0


Re: St. Louis Wing Chunner

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

I heard of him. But don't know where he is. He learn Wing Chun from Sifu Robert Lee MacField and Mau Chang. The Lineage is Yuen Kay San. Very effective.

I know of Yip Man school in St.charles though...I also know where some people who are related to Mau Chang Yuen Kay San Wing Chun practice at in University City. I go that often to increase my skill in Wing Chun and learn more Theory and Application....


Just to be clear, I never "learned" or trained with McField or Ma Chang (Eddie Ma) and don't practice YKS WCK (and I could make a rather good case that neither do they).

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's another one, but I recommend watching it with the sound off (the music is horrible) - and the video quality is not the best. But again, the longer range boxing moves and footwork did quite a bit to neutralize the wing chun infight - and the fighters are all about the same size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8VkwXH4Kdo&NR=1

[Graychuan]

Here's another one, but I recommend watching it with the sound off (the music is horrible) - and the video quality is not the best. But again, the longer range boxing moves and footwork did quite a bit to neutralize the wing chun infight - and the fighters are all about the same size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8VkwXH4Kdo&NR=1


Ill give you that the boxers did score shots but so did the chunnas. And from what I saw the boxers were still on the retreat more than on the advance.

Also, my opinion is that niether the boxing or the Chun was all that good in the video. We can all debate the Chun but the best boxing was done when the two boxers were against each other. The two boxers threw more combos. But they kept thier hands way to low and wasted opportunites to score more hits. My opinions come from the fact that I train boxing with Ali and his boxers 3 times a week. This includes sparring for 4 rounds, 3 minutes per round.So I am not just throwing opinions out there. But I am not the authority.:D

I am also wondering why only one guy had headgear and the other didnt? Either both or none would have been more appropriate.

These are just my opinons and not everyone will agree. I dont expect them to agree. I apologize in advance if anyone gets peeved. Tensions are high in the forums lately....:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's another one, but I recommend watching it with the sound off (the music is horrible) - and the video quality is not the best. But again, the longer range boxing moves and footwork did quite a bit to neutralize the wing chun infight - and the fighters are all about the same size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8VkwXH4Kdo&NR=1

When to different systems collide, the one that is best able to enforce their strengths will be victorious, that takes a bit of skill when both are facing systems with different footwork and defense that they are not accustomed to, typicaly the one fighter that makes the transition quicker, wins.

[Graychuan]

When to different systems collide, the one that is best able to enforce their strengths will be victorious, that takes a bit of skill when both are facing systems with different footwork and defense that they are not accustomed to, typicaly the one fighter that makes the transition quicker, wins.


I completely agree with you there, San. In my sparring I am used to the luxury of being able to chase down oppoents and bridge the gap with kicks and less foot work, especially if they run a lot. But in boxing....if you only use the tools of boxing then it is a helluva lot harder to get into effective range to score against someone who knows good boxing footwork, has really good defensive strategy(as relates to boxing) and is conditioned properly. Especially if you didnt do it on a regular basis at first. Took me a few months but the conditioning has caught up.

[russellsherry]

hi sifu victor re mster cheungs comments chi gerk , i think he is right how the heck, are you going to get into a postion , to use it against a thai ? no way i have a video of my ex sifu doing it and i thought it was olny for pratice, i hated doing it re my balace i think its olny for tradional purose olny regards russell sherry

[anerlich]

I have mostly ignored this thread one I noticed T spamming it, but:


No, there is no chi geak training in TWC.

In my experience this is true. However, Rick Spain did teach me two dummy sets which have a number of leg reaping, sweeping, and plucking moves which are essentially similar, and not that far removed from some drills I was taught by a 6th dan judoka who trains at the BJJ academy I attend.

Doing them on a human is more effective than on the dummy, but then that's true for just about everything.


I'm usually very respectful but I must say that you are an A**.

I agree with both assertions made in that sentence.


Isn't it sad that the best evidence you have is what others say about him? IMO that speaks for itself.

I guess that's true of you as well, T.

William Cheung in my esperience enjoys making provocative statements and denigrating his peers. T is probably more like him than he cares to admit.


I am not able to afford our fees.

Sell your computer and cancel your ISP account. Help all of us as well as yourself.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Thank you, Russell...and I agree with you.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I thought I'd post this here. It's a couple of videos I just came across on youtube of Tommy Carruthers - the JKD student of Ted Wong who was one of those guys featured in the recent documentary: "How Bruce Lee Changed the World". His school is in Scotland.

Check this out: (Warning: the first one is probably best seen without the sound)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6JdzCbXFE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBTM6_l-Gdk&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm ending my participation on this thread. Terence Niehoff, of all people, is being protected by the moderator.

He's deleted two of my posts, and while I can see how the first one may have been considered somewhat inflammatory, (although justified, imo); nonetheless, all the second one really amounted to was just a challenge to Niehoff to put up a video of himself doing something - or shut up.

It gets deleted. Pathetic.

Good-bye.

[chusauli]

In my experience this is true. However, Rick Spain did teach me two dummy sets which have a number of leg reaping, sweeping, and plucking moves which are essentially similar, and not that far removed from some drills I was taught by a 6th dan judoka who trains at the BJJ academy I attend.

Doing them on a human is more effective than on the dummy, but then that's true for just about everything.


William Cheung in my esperience enjoys making provocative statements and denigrating his peers. T is probably more like him than he cares to admit.


From what I understand of those two TWC kicking sets, pretty much everything is in there. The only difference is the way they're taught. One is taught through form, the other as a partner exercise. And I agree a lot of the Judo Ashi Waza are very close to Chi Gerk.

And from my experience with William Cheung, I would agree with Andrew's statement of making provocative statements and and denigrating his peers. You could also read his autobiography and get the same general idea.

[t_niehoff]

hi sifu victor re mster cheungs comments chi gerk , i think he is right how the heck, are you going to get into a postion , to use it against a thai ? no way i have a video of my ex sifu doing it and i thought it was olny for pratice, i hated doing it re my balace i think its olny for tradional purose olny regards russell sherry


If you train some muay thai or watch some muay thia fights, you'll see that they have "chi gerk" type training (though in a realistic way) and use their legs effectively in the clinch. Just as chi sao teaches us contact (attached fighting) skills, chi gerk teaches us various leg tactics/skill for attached fighting (when we are close).

However, when you don't see WCK as an close-range, inside, attached fighting method but as an outside fighting method (like kickboxing) then of course you arenot going to see the usefulness of that sort of thing.

[Phil Redmond]

If you train some muay thai or watch some muay thia fights, you'll see that they have "chi gerk" type training (though in a realistic way) and use their legs effectively in the clinch. Just as chi sao teaches us contact (attached fighting) skills, chi gerk teaches us various leg tactics/skill for attached fighting (when we are close).

However, when you don't see WCK as an close-range, inside, attached fighting method but as an outside fighting method (like kickboxing) then of course you arenot going to see the usefulness of that sort of thing. My WC is also close-range, inside, attached fighting yet I don't need chi guek. I use leg checks instead.

[Phil Redmond]

I thought I'd post this here. It's a couple of videos I just came across on youtube of Tommy Carruthers - the JKD student of Ted Wong who was one of those guys featured in the recent documentary: "How Bruce Lee Changed the World". His school is in Scotland.

Check this out: (Warning: the first one is probably best seen without the sound)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6JdzCbXFE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBTM6_l-Gdk&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
Whoa, a white Bruce Lee. ;)

[Phil Redmond]

It seems that some people seem t think that TWC is a "long range" fighting system. It's a fighting that covers all standup ranges. Like all WC should.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Sugar Ray Robinson. Middleweight champion of the world. This guy was awesome! Btw, the term, "the-best-pound-for-pound-fighter" started with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-gG2_JUqZE&feature=fvw

[Ultimatewingchun]

...but again, best watched with the sound off. Just a silly distraction.


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

[t_niehoff]

My WC is also close-range, inside, attached fighting yet I don't need chi guek. I use leg checks instead.

"Leg checks" are part of what chi gerk teaches. Chi gerk is just a drills, an exercise, to teach various leg skills/tactics. Whether you personally use them or not, that doesn't mean someone else - like one of your students - might not find those things useful. They might want to do more than just "check" an opponent's legs -- they may want to use their legs offensively or learn how to deal with an opponent who does.

But I'm not saying anyone needs the drill -- just like they don't need chi sao either. It's just a drill. It's the skills that are important.

[t_niehoff]

It seems that some people seem t think that TWC is a "long range" fighting system. It's a fighting that covers all standup ranges. Like all WC should.

My view is that WCK is an attached fighting method, not a noncontact fighting method. Of course, the method includes the skills to get in from the outside (to gain attachment). But WCK doesn't have the tools to STAY and fight on the outside (like boxing, MT, kickboxing, savate, etc.).

[Phil Redmond]

. . . But WCK doesn't have the tools to STAY and fight on the outside (like boxing, MT, kickboxing, savate, etc.).
Most definitely wrong. Personally I refrain from saying what "WCK" has or doesn't have since I haven't studied every WC linage in depth.

[t_niehoff]

Most definitely wrong. Personally I refrain from saying what "WCK" has or doesn't have since I haven't studied every WC linage in depth.

You don't need to study every WCK lineage in depth to know what WCK is -- we all have the same elements (tools) in the curriculum. That core is what makes it WCK.

All anyone needs to do is look at what tools outside (noncontact) fighting methods (boxing, MT, savate, kickboxing, etc.) have (and they all have pretty much the same things because they need to) and compare that to WCK's tools. Just like WCK doesn't have the tools to fight on the ground, WCK deson't have the tools to stay on the outside and fight. What works on the outside is kickboxing or its variations.

The other thing to do is to simply fight COMPETENT kickboxers and see whether or not you (the WCK person) can use the tools of WCK as you have trained to use themin that context. The thing is, whenever we see that, what wesee is the WCK go out the window and the WCK practitioner doing poor kickboxing.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . They might want to do more than just "check" an opponent's legs -- they may want to use their legs offensively or learn how to deal with an opponent who does.. .
Leg checks can be defense or offensive. I know because I used them successfully against "skilled" opponents in full contact matches in NYC.

[Phil Redmond]

You don't need to study every WCK lineage in depth to know what WCK is -- we all have the same elements (tools) in the curriculum. That core is what makes it WCK.

All anyone needs to do is look at what tools outside (noncontact) fighting methods (boxing, MT, savate, kickboxing, etc.) have (and they all have pretty much the same things because they need to) and compare that to WCK's tools. Just like WCK doesn't have the tools to fight on the ground, WCK deson't have the tools to stay on the outside and fight. What works on the outside is kickboxing or its variations.

The other thing to do is to simply fight COMPETENT kickboxers and see whether or not you (the WCK person) can use the tools of WCK as you have trained to use themin that context. The thing is, whenever we see that, what wesee is the WCK go out the window and the WCK practitioner doing poor kickboxing.
This is a perfect example of you saying something that you couldn't possibly know unless you saw how we teach and train. I do agree that people need to fight/spar with resisting opponents to know what works and what doesn't. So I'll give you that. But I must tell you emphatically that my WCK does have the tool to fight to work on the outside. One of the first things a begginer learns in TWC is the 5 stages of combat. The first stage is the pre-contact stage. And with regards to competent fighters I've trained with, sparred with, and fought some of the best fighters in the NY tri-state area. Have you ever heard of Ralph Mitchell, Yoel Judah, Jonas Nunez?
I'd say they were competent fighters.