Seperating drills from practicallity

[mjw]

I have noticed over the years that a lot of people have problems seperating drills (usually used for development) and actual practicallity of ving tsun/wing chun techniques for use in a street fight etc.

What are other peoples thoughts?

[Vajramusti]

I have noticed over the years that a lot of people have problems seperating drills (usually used for development) and actual practicallity of ving tsun/wing chun techniques for use in a street fight etc.

What are other peoples thoughts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked- so-IMO_
Often the product of poor teaching and learning .

joy chaudhuri

[Knifefighter]

I have noticed over the years that a lot of people have problems seperating drills (usually used for development) and actual practicallity of ving tsun/wing chun techniques for use in a street fight etc.

What are other peoples thoughts?

Because 99% of people have no idea how to train for street/self-defense fighting, most of all the guys who do not realize the vital role that competition plays in this type of training.

[grasshopper 2.0]

I think competition has a role but not neccessarily a determining factor in one's ability with regards to self defense. Would a sport shooter fair better than a green beret? Would an Indy 500 racing champion fair better than a cop in a neighbourhood car chase? Would your champion toast master win the election for US presidency?

Maybe they would...but at the same time, many would also fail too. Too many variables to say for sure.

[Knifefighter]

I think competition has a role but not neccessarily a determining factor in one's ability with regards to self defense. Would a sport shooter fair better than a green beret? Would an Indy 500 racing champion fair better than a cop in a neighbourhood car chase? Would your champion toast master win the election for US presidency?

Maybe they would...but at the same time, many would also fail too. Too many variables to say for sure.

Full contact competition against an opponent whom you don't know and who is trying as hard as he can to hurt you is vital to effective self-defense training (and just one of the many variables neglected by the "self-defense" crowd).

There aren't any other controlled situations that can give you close to the same adrenaline dump you are going to get in a street/self-defense fight. Being able to perform under the stress of that adrenaline dump is one of the factors of effective street/self-defense training.

[grasshopper 2.0]

Ya the options are certainly limited. I agree with that. There's gotta be a way to drill against a resistant partner..ya? Without having to go into a sparring situation - perhaps as a bridging mechanism to introduce the person into the sparring setting..

I have "sparred" with mma guys. I've sparred with mma guys who are hardcore at it and those who are like me - 6 hours a week, on and off, casual training. Of course, the hardcore guys are..well..hardcore. But the guys at my level were so-so and it was an eye opener for all of us, given the popularity of mma. I think drills have their place, as with sparring. But again, both are pieces of the puzzle, not the all encompassing solution.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

One of the ways we used to try and ramp up the adrenaline/unpredictability level in partner drills was to do "eyes closed drills."

Stand facing your partner, an arm's length from their body.
Agree on what the drill/training situation will be.
Both of you stand casually, relaxed, arms at your sides.
One person closes their eyes, readies themselves ("empties their mind"), opens their eyes, and reacts to their partner.

The other person pays close attention to the moment their partner opens their eyes. This is like their starter's pistol.
When they see their partner open their eyes, they launch an attack according to the agreed drill/situation.

Generally, it's a good idea to start with simple, single attacks. Then a gradual progression into full force attacks, combo attacks or different scenarios can happen.

This drill helps ramp up the pressure because you're being attacked the moment you open your eyes, and don't have time to consciously process the scene. It significantly trains and develops the reaction response of the right side of the brain, and depending on the level of training, trains the left side as well.

As with any training, there is always the caveat that training does not equal actual experience. This drill, however, went a long way to helping me bring relevance to my previous training, if for no other reason that I quickly learned not to "plan" moves, working with the reality of the situation instead.

P.S. As the level of pressure and realism goes up, so does the level of risk. We had a saying:
"If you break your partner, you don't get another one, so take care of the one you have."

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I forgot to give an example of an agreed upon drill. Here's one:

When their partner opens their eyes, the attacker, from a hands-at-sides-position, will attack with EITHER fist to ANY region of the upper gate. The defender will attempt to block and then counterstrike.

This ups the unpredictability nicely.

[Knifefighter]

Ya the options are certainly limited. I agree with that. There's gotta be a way to drill against a resistant partner..ya? Without having to go into a sparring situation - perhaps as a bridging mechanism to introduce the person into the sparring setting..

I have "sparred" with mma guys. I've sparred with mma guys who are hardcore at it and those who are like me - 6 hours a week, on and off, casual training. Of course, the hardcore guys are..well..hardcore. But the guys at my level were so-so and it was an eye opener for all of us, given the popularity of mma. I think drills have their place, as with sparring. But again, both are pieces of the puzzle, not the all encompassing solution.

Not sparring... competitive, full-contact fighting against guys you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you as badly as they can.

Training in the comfort of your studio will never come close to the adrenaline dump you will get by competing in full-contact venues.

[mjw]

To me it seems at times that people take developmental drills too seriously and take these drills in their entirety to the fighting arena almost as if they get tunnel vision from focusing too much on the drills in my opinion. Then needless to say their drils usually don't work or may for only a little peice of the pie.

[grasshopper 2.0]

Not sparring... competitive, full-contact fighting against guys you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you as badly as they can.

Training in the comfort of your studio will never come close to the adrenaline dump you will get by competing in full-contact venues.

Ya I see ur point. Then u would agree, that those mma guys who just train in mma casually (sparring, pad hitting in the comfort of their gym) are in the same scenario having not have fought in a full contact venue..

[t_niehoff]

Because 99% of people have no idea how to train for street/self-defense fighting, most of all the guys who do not realize the vital role that competition plays in this type of training.

You often hear from the fantasy guys that "this is for street, not sport" (one of the many give-aways that you are dealing with a fantasy guy), and a commonly held MYTH among people who don't fight is that sport is somehow a lesser form of training. In reality, it's just the opposite. The sport model, which includes competition, has PROVED itself to be a much, much superior from of training than anything else. Sport has and continues to produce world-class level fighters, continually expanding levels of performance, etc.

[mjw]

You often hear from the fantasy guys that "this is for street, not sport" (one of the many give-aways that you are dealing with a fantasy guy), and a commonly held MYTH among people who don't fight is that sport is somehow a lesser form of training. In reality, it's just the opposite. The sport model, which includes competition, has PROVED itself to be a much, much superior from of training than anything else. Sport has and continues to produce world-class level fighters, continually expanding levels of performance, etc.

I do agree very much so however the training of some of the eye gouging, leg destruction kicks (as in straight to the knee) etc. which is part of VT/WC as well as other arts can also save your ass in street though that is also only part of the pie at the end of the day but nothing to be left out in my opinion.

[Knifefighter]

I do agree very much so however the training of some of the eye gouging, leg destruction kicks (as in straight to the knee) etc. which is part of VT/WC as well as other arts can also save your ass in street though that is also only part of the pie at the end of the day but nothing to be left out in my opinion.

LOL @ the myths of the leg destructions and eye gouges.

[t_niehoff]

I do agree very much so however the training of some of the eye gouging, leg destruction kicks (as in straight to the knee) etc. which is part of VT/WC as well as other arts can also save your ass in street though that is also only part of the pie at the end of the day but nothing to be left out in my opinion.

In my experience, most of that stuff -- the eye gouging, leg destructions, etc. -- is low-percentage, high-risk stuff that generally isn't reliable. Anyone who depends on that stuff as part of their game is training to fail.

Most of these things simply can't be trained realistically (you can't really eye gouge or break your sparring partner's leg), and because you can't train them realistically, you can't develop the ability to use them under realistic conditions (in fighting). They can only be practiced under unrealistic (nonfighting) conditions. That is the advantage of sport training: you can really do/practice those things you do in the sport.

And while "foul tactics" can be used effectively in limited situations, the ability to use them depends on having solid fundamentals (the non-foul stuff). Once again, the stuff comes from sport-type training.

[monji112000]

Because 99% of people have no idea how to train for street/self-defense fighting, most of all the guys who do not realize the vital role that competition plays in this type of training.

I strongly feel you have hit the needle on the head. Its true competition isn't 100% a street fight or selfdefense.. but it helps build the "core" ideas. sure you can do cheap illegal stuff in a fight.. but do you want to really on that as your only option? I'm seeing more and more that stuff like that isn't as reliable as we think,(having them done to me in BJJ by accident or on purpose). I would rather have those things as a option, but my real skill set, based my meat and potatoes striking.

You could always just go out to bars and pick fights with people.. but honestly thats not too smart anymore.

so competition like it or not is really the only "real" training aid/ training test.
you just can't argue with it. Sure things are different in a real fight, but allot of things aren't. I would argue MOST things aren't.

[grasshopper 2.0]

You often hear from the fantasy guys that "this is for street, not sport" (one of the many give-aways that you are dealing with a fantasy guy), and a commonly held MYTH among people who don't fight is that sport is somehow a lesser form of training. In reality, it's just the opposite. The sport model, which includes competition, has PROVED itself to be a much, much superior from of training than anything else. Sport has and continues to produce world-class level fighters, continually expanding levels of performance, etc.

I understand the logic....so ur saying that an olympic tkd competitor is a more capable street fighter than say a krav maga practitioner?

I agree that sport and competition can create one hell of a fighter. I just think there still exists a missing link between that and street fighting and that the two can not not be directly related although a relationship would exist.

[Knifefighter]

I understand the logic....so ur saying that an olympic tkd competitor is a more capable street fighter than say a krav maga practitioner?
Absolutely. At least the TKD competitor is hitting and getting hit with full force against an opponent who is trying as hard as he can.


I agree that sport and competition can create one hell of a fighter. I just think there still exists a missing link between that and street fighting and that the two can not not be directly related although a relationship would exist.

Of course there is a jump from the competitive environment and the street. However, there is an ever bigger stretch from the training facility to the street and there is even less of a relation between the training facility and the street.

[grasshopper 2.0]

Points noted. Ya it does make sense. I think there may be apprehension to do so by some teachers because it may lead to "sloppy" technique or..as uve pointed out - these teachers have no clue.

I'm still trying to find that line between attaining full-contact environment yet be able to use wing chun

[Knifefighter]

Points noted. Ya it does make sense. I think there may be apprehension to do so by some teachers because it may lead to "sloppy" technique or..as uve pointed out - these teachers have no clue.

I'm still trying to find that line between attaining full-contact environment yet be able to use wing chun

Yeah, god forbid you would find workable non-WC techniques that you might use. :rolleyes:

[grasshopper 2.0]

Haha I knew that was coming. I'm all for punching/moving outside the realm of wing chun...but there are certain qualities/distinctions that are chracteristic of wing chun...it's not in the moves...but could be in the structure or how the punch is thrown (whether it is a "wing chun" punch or not).

[Mr Punch]

I like wing chun because I like wing chun.

I like other arts and MMA because I like the other arts for what they are.

I don't like fighting, but if I have to I'm sure as hell not going to worry about style: I'll use whatever I can remember and pull off.

On a brief note more on topic: I don't do chain punches in a fight, but I think they have value as a drill. The straight wing chun punch up the middle does have value however against everyone I've tried it against since it is easy to achieve a slightly unexpected angle, accuracy and timing. The third or fourth time, they should have predicted it, mind, and will probably be easily counterpunching you out! :eek: :D

You have to mix it up. That's why I don't buy your assertion, KF, that the Leung Ting (and yes, I'm picking on LT line here because 9 times out of 10 the youtube wing chun full contact ****fests are LT) clowns who go full contact nutso with protection against others from the same line and just end up with a one angle (straight from the front!), constantly advancing chainpunch fest with half-arsed crappling... are getting anything at all from their experience. You say they get more than the chunners who've never done any FC stuff but I don't believe so. They get a false sense of confidence and invincibility. Within the first 30 secs I would say of FC against boxers, Thai boxers, grapplers, kyokushin, even Tai Chi... I had I realised chain punches weren't going to cut it in terms of strategy or power.

Again, with practicality in mind, when I work the bag I throw in wing chun, boxing, all sorts. Why? Because the bag isn't trad WC and that's good cos I don't want to worry about restricting myself to trad anything when the **** hits the fan. It's not that I don't believe my chun won't work (that's an irrelevant argument), just that you're an idiot if you think sticking to any one system has merit in a fight. So, why do I do 'ineffective' chun stuff on the bag? Everything has it's place. It's not rocket science to switch from a boxing stance to a chun stance, and back to a pin ma or whatever, just as it's not rocket science to switch from a boxing overhand right to a back-stance wing chun hook, to a front-weighted lead boxing hook... most things have their purpose (in the case of the hook the wing chun hook is definitely weaker than the boxing hook, but the vertical fist makes it less likely to damage your pinkies and it's easier than the boxing hook when they're pressurizing you and pushing you onto the back foot).

Turned into a long post. Hope it's useful for someone.

[Lee Chiang Po]

You guys that advocate fighting with someone that is trying to hurt you, is that what you do? You know, if you did have any real experience outside the ring with actual fighting, you would know that each fight is going to be a completely different scenario, and that you will not be able to actually learn anything. You will only be able to apply what you have already learned. I think most of you have already stated a time or 2 that in a fight you tend to forget everything and just start fighting, so how the heck are you going to learn at such a time? I know that none of you are actually fighting. If you were, you would not be here arguing on this forum. You wouldn't have time. So you do all your fighting here.

[grasshopper 2.0]

that's true...i don't fight 24/7. Guilty as charged. haha

yea, i'm of WT line and i know exactly what you mean Punch. Good post!

[Mr Punch]

You guys that advocate fighting with someone that is trying to hurt you, is that what you do? You know, if you did have any real experience outside the ring with actual fighting, you would know that each fight is going to be a completely different scenario, and that you will not be able to actually learn anything. You will only be able to apply what you have already learned. I think most of you have already stated a time or 2 that in a fight you tend to forget everything and just start fighting, so how the heck are you going to learn at such a time? I know that none of you are actually fighting. If you were, you would not be here arguing on this forum. You wouldn't have time. So you do all your fighting here.WTF are you blathering about?

Unfortunately I've had several fights 'outside' as security, as an obnoxious young man and as a random violence/mugging victim. I don't want any more, and can only see me having more if somebody gives my family grief. And no, I'm not fighting while I type this! :D :p


...is that what you do?Is WHAT what 'we' do?

[Mr Punch]

yea, i'm of WT line and i know exactly what you mean Punch. Good post!Thanks.123

[Ultimatewingchun]

"You have to mix it up. That's why I don't buy your assertion, KF, that the Leung Ting (and yes, I'm picking on LT line here because 9 times out of 10 the youtube wing chun full contact ****fests are LT) clowns who go full contact nutso with protection against others from the same line and just end up with a one angle (straight from the front!), constantly advancing chainpunch fest with half-arsed crappling... are getting anything at all from their experience. You say they get more than the chunners who've never done any FC stuff but I don't believe so. They get a false sense of confidence and invincibility. Within the first 30 secs I would say of FC against boxers, Thai boxers, grapplers, kyokushin, even Tai Chi... I had I realised chain punches weren't going to cut it in terms of strategy or power....Turned into a long post. Hope it's useful for someone."


***YES, I find it useful, Mr. Punch. Because you're spot on. Those Leung Ting (Wing Tsun) fight vids all over youtube make me laugh. Sure, they're getting some heavy-hitting and
getting-hit-heavy experience...but their technique is pure garbage, for the most part.

[mjw]

In my experience, most of that stuff -- the eye gouging, leg destructions, etc. -- is low-percentage, high-risk stuff that generally isn't reliable. Anyone who depends on that stuff as part of their game is training to fail.

Most of these things simply can't be trained realistically (you can't really eye gouge or break your sparring partner's leg), and because you can't train them realistically, you can't develop the ability to use them under realistic conditions (in fighting). They can only be practiced under unrealistic (nonfighting) conditions. That is the advantage of sport training: you can really do/practice those things you do in the sport.

And while "foul tactics" can be used effectively in limited situations, the ability to use them depends on having solid fundamentals (the non-foul stuff). Once again, the stuff comes from sport-type training.


I agree though the "foul play" techniques shouldn't be just put aside and should be trained as well so those tools care in your tool shed of tools to use when needed. At the same time a palm strike to the head can be used instead of the ingers to the eyes etc.

[taojkd]

"You have to mix it up. That's why I don't buy your assertion, KF, that the Leung Ting (and yes, I'm picking on LT line here because 9 times out of 10 the youtube wing chun full contact ****fests are LT) clowns who go full contact nutso with protection against others from the same line and just end up with a one angle (straight from the front!), constantly advancing chainpunch fest with half-arsed crappling... are getting anything at all from their experience. You say they get more than the chunners who've never done any FC stuff but I don't believe so. They get a false sense of confidence and invincibility. Within the first 30 secs I would say of FC against boxers, Thai boxers, grapplers, kyokushin, even Tai Chi... I had I realised chain punches weren't going to cut it in terms of strategy or power....Turned into a long post. Hope it's useful for someone."


***YES, I find it useful, Mr. Punch. Because you're spot on. Those Leung Ting (Wing Tsun) fight vids all over youtube make me laugh. Sure, they're getting some heavy-hitting and
getting-hit-heavy experience...but their technique is pure garbage, for the most part.

Yes, but this is still closer to an actual street fight then fantasy larping that i see from most of the other WC/VT/WTvids on youtube. Good for them for learning to take a hit and how to deal with an adrenaline rush. As for a false sense of confidence...um, no. Just the opposite. Their learning respect, the hard way, for how fragile their heads really are :)

[t_niehoff]

I like wing chun because I like wing chun.

I like other arts and MMA because I like the other arts for what they are.

I don't like fighting, but if I have to I'm sure as hell not going to worry about style: I'll use whatever I can remember and pull off.

On a brief note more on topic: I don't do chain punches in a fight, but I think they have value as a drill. The straight wing chun punch up the middle does have value however against everyone I've tried it against since it is easy to achieve a slightly unexpected angle, accuracy and timing. The third or fourth time, they should have predicted it, mind, and will probably be easily counterpunching you out! :eek: :D

You have to mix it up. That's why I don't buy your assertion, KF, that the Leung Ting (and yes, I'm picking on LT line here because 9 times out of 10 the youtube wing chun full contact ****fests are LT) clowns who go full contact nutso with protection against others from the same line and just end up with a one angle (straight from the front!), constantly advancing chainpunch fest with half-arsed crappling... are getting anything at all from their experience. You say they get more than the chunners who've never done any FC stuff but I don't believe so. They get a false sense of confidence and invincibility. Within the first 30 secs I would say of FC against boxers, Thai boxers, grapplers, kyokushin, even Tai Chi... I had I realised chain punches weren't going to cut it in terms of strategy or power.

Again, with practicality in mind, when I work the bag I throw in wing chun, boxing, all sorts. Why? Because the bag isn't trad WC and that's good cos I don't want to worry about restricting myself to trad anything when the **** hits the fan. It's not that I don't believe my chun won't work (that's an irrelevant argument), just that you're an idiot if you think sticking to any one system has merit in a fight. So, why do I do 'ineffective' chun stuff on the bag? Everything has it's place. It's not rocket science to switch from a boxing stance to a chun stance, and back to a pin ma or whatever, just as it's not rocket science to switch from a boxing overhand right to a back-stance wing chun hook, to a front-weighted lead boxing hook... most things have their purpose (in the case of the hook the wing chun hook is definitely weaker than the boxing hook, but the vertical fist makes it less likely to damage your pinkies and it's easier than the boxing hook when they're pressurizing you and pushing you onto the back foot).

Turned into a long post. Hope it's useful for someone.

On the topic of "chain punches" -- they are a TACTIC, and IME there is a LIMITED time and place (tactical context) where they are useful. The trouble is that some people try to use that TACTIC the mainstay of their WCK (what I cal caveman WCK). When you use that tactic outside of its limited usefulness (tactical context), it becomes a potential liability. For example, blasting in from the outside with chain punches is stupid, and all it takes to see that for yourself is to try it a few times with good boxers or good wrestlers. They'll show you why it's stupid.

[dirtyrat]

You guys that advocate fighting with someone that is trying to hurt you, is that what you do? You know, if you did have any real experience outside the ring with actual fighting, you would know that each fight is going to be a completely different scenario, and that you will not be able to actually learn anything. You will only be able to apply what you have already learned. I think most of you have already stated a time or 2 that in a fight you tend to forget everything and just start fighting, so how the heck are you going to learn at such a time? I know that none of you are actually fighting. If you were, you would not be here arguing on this forum. You wouldn't have time. So you do all your fighting here.

There is truth to this. The topic of self-defense and violence is a HUGE one. A lot a guys seem interested in just learning to fight a guy one on one. But the parameters of real world violence goes far beyond what can be learned in training for the ring. I feel fortunate to have classmates and instructors who are in the law enforcement and the military as they gave me valuable perspective on the subject.

[monji112000]

There is truth to this. The topic of self-defense and violence is a HUGE one. A lot a guys seem interested in just learning to fight a guy one on one. But the parameters of real world violence goes far beyond what can be learned in training for the ring. I feel fortunate to have classmates and instructors who are in the law enforcement and the military as they gave me valuable perspective on the subject.

fighting more than one opponent isn't a smart idea. granted you can't always avoid it .. How can you expect to fight more than one opponent, if you can't fight even one opponent?Its interesting I had this conversion with a seal two days ago.
Everyone trains with law enforcement.. its no big deal. I train with cops, sheriffs, seals, marines ect.. They have no secret to wining a fight, and the places they run too are all "competition" geared schools. To be honest with you more BS martial arts gets put into law enforcement and the military.. then probably any MCdojo on the planet. Some of the stuff I see that they come in doing... its scary!
:(

[dirtyrat]

fighting more than one opponent isn't a smart idea. granted you can't always avoid it .. How can you expect to fight more than one opponent, if you can't fight even one opponent?Its interesting I had this conversion with a seal two days ago.
Everyone trains with law enforcement.. its no big deal. I train with cops, sheriffs, seals, marines ect.. They have no secret to wining a fight, and the places they run too are all "competition" geared schools. To be honest with you more BS martial arts gets put into law enforcement and the military.. then probably any MCdojo on the planet. Some of the stuff I see that they come in doing... its scary!
:(

True. I'm just saying that one on one should not be your sole focus in training. Multiple opponents is just one other variable you could face. Things change when other factors are thrown in such as weapons, the type of weapons, the surprise factor, the environment you find yourself. Its goes on and on. The perspective I gained from my LEO friends is not so much the MA techniques but the experience that they got in dealing with the situations they find themselves. Of personal interest to me is how they use psychology in some situations.

[monji112000]

True. I'm just saying that one on one should not be your sole focus in training. Multiple opponents is just one other variable you could face. Things change when other factors are thrown in such as weapons, the type of weapons, the surprise factor, the environment you find yourself. Its goes on and on. The perspective I gained from my LEO friends is not so much the MA techniques but the experience that they got in dealing with the situations they find themselves. Of personal interest to me is how they use psychology in some situations.

I agree there are many elements that are not present in a "sport" competition. Surprise is one such element. Weapons training.. I personally have not seen any realistic method for dealing for knifes.. but yes those are also elements. BUT the core skill/body/ect.. is still there. That core is still going to benifit from competition and competition training. I emphasize the training more than the competition.

I can see how psychology would be a factor. I have also been told by friends that contact sports, in particular grappling, have a very profound psychological effect. I have felt this, but it was a surprise to be told by other people. You are pushed to near death, fighting literally for you life.. lets keep it real here.. you give me any other sport or activity that give you that psychological advantage. Kickboxing.. sure but there is something to be said about choking someone till there body givesout and fighting for your life while being choke unconscious.

It changes people. I have been told time and time again by military and police.. that this alone is one of the best preparations for what they do.

Just think about it.. how many people can say I have fought for my life? Not a fight, but were someone is trying to KILL me. Were only by there kindness at the last second I'm not dead or permanently injured. I have, and I do several times a day. Nobody can tell me that this won't greatly effect me in self-defence.

[Graychuan]

Weapons training.. I personally have not seen any realistic method for dealing for knifes.. .


In what context are you talking about...I find this hard to swallow. Can you elaborate? After all, aside from the club or stick.....the blade is probably the oldest type of weapon.
:confused:

[monji112000]

In what context are you talking about...I find this hard to swallow. Can you elaborate? After all, aside from the club or stick.....the blade is probably the oldest type of weapon.
:confused:

You show me a system that can guarantee I won't get cut in a knife fight. How about one that even will give me a "high" percentage of not getting cut. I have seen some that seem like they are much better then most.. but honestly... ;) I would rather just give someone my wallet. When you get held up by someone, you will understand. I have been approached were they didn't seem to have any weapon and I have had someone pull a knife. I gave the guy my wallet without even thinking. It takes very little skill to kill someone with a knife, even the smallest knife.

I have had this discussion with Kali "masters", seals, and even special forces people. I even talked to a few Israeli arm guys. I have yet to train any knife style because I'm not impressed.. again I'll give someone my wallet faster. HELL I carry a fake wallet just for that reason.:o
Isn't martial arts about keeping yourself safe and using your common sense?:o

[dirtyrat]

You show me a system that can guarantee I won't get cut in a knife fight. How about one that even will give me a "high" percentage of not getting cut. I have seen some that seem like they are much better then most.. but honestly... ;) I would rather just give someone my wallet. When you get held up by someone, you will understand. I have been approached were they didn't seem to have any weapon and I have had someone pull a knife. I gave the guy my wallet without even thinking. It takes very little skill to kill someone with a knife, even the smallest knife.

I have had this discussion with Kali "masters", seals, and even special forces people. I even talked to a few Israeli arm guys. I have yet to train any knife style because I'm not impressed.. again I'll give someone my wallet faster. HELL I carry a fake wallet just for that reason.:o
Isn't martial arts about keeping yourself safe and using your common sense?:o

I carry a fake wallet too!

In the FMAs I studied, I was taught that I shouldn't expect not to get cut, and that getting cut is a reality in knife defense. Having said that though, I had a classmate that manage to defend himself without getting cut, though he admit that lady luck was with him that day.

[Graychuan]

You show me a system that can guarantee I won't get cut in a knife fight.


There is none...just as there is no system that will guarantee that you wont get hit...but that doesnt invalidate the empty hand system. I will agree to disagree with you on this one. I have been in knife situations. Not muggings tho...as a bouncer. I handled myself and I have been cut. So I guess our own personal experiences will be the deciding factor. I agree with you on the common sense and being safe tho.

But I leave you with this...suppose you are going to be attacked anyways? Even if you give up the wallet. What then? Would you be better off with the skills or without?

[Knifefighter]

I think most of you have already stated a time or 2 that in a fight you tend to forget everything and just start fighting, so how the heck are you going to learn at such a time?
Actually, that's more common among people who have only trained in their training facilities and have never truly the adrenaline dump of a real fight. Full contact competitions give you a close approximation of that dump, which means you will be less likely to forget about what you have trained.

[Knifefighter]

***YES, I find it useful, Mr. Punch. Because you're spot on. Those Leung Ting (Wing Tsun) fight vids all over youtube make me laugh. Sure, they're getting some heavy-hitting and
getting-hit-heavy experience...but their technique is pure garbage, for the most part.

Umm... your technique in your videos wasn't any better.

[Knifefighter]

True. I'm just saying that one on one should not be your sole focus in training. Multiple opponents is just one other variable you could face. Things change when other factors are thrown in such as weapons, the type of weapons, the surprise factor, the environment you find yourself. .
You are exactly right. That is why, if you are training for self-defense/street fighting you should be going full contact with all those variables (including training with weapons on the ground). If you aren't, then you really aren't training for the street.

[Knifefighter]

You show me a system that can guarantee I won't get cut in a knife fight. How about one that even will give me a "high" percentage of not getting cut.
What you can do is decrease the probabilities of getting cut and/or getting killed, but again, you have to get as close to the real circumstances as possible.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Umm... your technique in your videos wasn't any better.


***BULL5HIT. You, yourself had some goods things to say about the sparring vids I put up a few years ago.

[k gledhill]

Drills in VT are easily misunderstood without some fundamental knowledge of the purpose of the drills in the first place. Vague notions abound, sadly.

Chi-sao has a lot of redundancy , like standing facing square on with 2 arms extended.

The arms are developed in the SLT to have an ability to deliver simultaneous attacking strikes.
By their acute angles along the centerline, they can create deflecting angles as they penetrate along the vt fighters flanking attacks.

The initial actions of the SLT are commonly thought of as a high low gaun sao and that it has a martial purpose, this is not the thinking . The actions are to x the wrists on the centerline in front of your chest, then extend out , as a strike would go out...while the wrists stay xed. then retracting back to the chest...you have created the line and the intersecting line of the strikes.....anything that comes across the line while fighting will be met by either arm along this line as they deliver strikes along the line.
The actions are shown pointing low so the beginning student doesn't train to raise the elbows up and down , a bad thing to ingrain .Each form starts with making the line to intersect and work as you complete the following forms . The SLT has tut sao to teach one arm of the initial opening actions is extended as the other is retracted....fluidly along the line..Chum kil teaches to point the line .

To make the idea function we need motion and the ability to face at angles to attacks from either side fluidly and instinctively. This is developed from stages of chi-sao and chum kil movement to learn to 'face' the attacking line to the opponent. This line is guided by knife fighting tactics of , fighting 50% of the attacker who is presumed to be equally armed with 2 blades ....the attacking 'line of force' becomes your guide to respond. Or what side is coming at you as they attack you, right or left ?
We train equally either side for this reason, so that we simply change the facing angles to take advantage of the movements of the attacker, if they turn before us we don't chase their arms , we allow the movement /motion that will open the sides up to possible counters or we create attacks that turn the opponent to their weaker sides an inability to face us with their full strength 2 arms and legs.
The attacking concept is a simple idea that once we have an entry we capitalize on it by attacking like rushing water. To be able to be like water isn't easy by any means, so we need to learn to po-pai guys who cover up as we attack, kick straight and low so we can chase a runner that is beyond our arms without stopping to chamber or step back to the kicks starting point , giving a gap to the attack....use bil gee actions to recover grabbed wrists as attempts are made to stop our arms , same if our arms are lifted up we tut sao under , not over as SLT

To have arms capable of seamless transfer from one side to the other we adopt the chi-sao stance facing equally.
We deliver stepping attacks and learn to angle to them as we 'strike the strike' with simultaneous counter strikes . Training to adopt responses to the attacking sides. We do this for each others benefit. I attack your right jum response with my left tan strike, each is working the others technique....You x my arm and I bong it away and recover my bong back to striking elbow in ie tan sao...elbow up, elbow back down to the line, elbow back up...elbow back down to the line . Jum sao strike, strike back to fook sao, rotate back and forth, check angles repeat to ingrain so you dont think about the angles of the arms and their ability to function under real stress.

In a fight we always adopt vu-sao & man sao in rotation , one arm leads the other so there is always a possibility to deliver another attacking hand from the vu-sao...the tut sao actions in SLT teach the sliding rotation along the same xed line of the first actions of SLT..one arm out the other back and ready to strike never trapping your self.

Not understanding the development of elbows , has led to many taking the drills and adopting them as 'moves'.

[Knifefighter]

***BULL5HIT. You, yourself had some goods things to say about the sparring vids I put up a few years ago.

I believe I said, good for you for sparring and putting the clips up. I'm not sure I said anything about your technique. That being said, I'm not putting down your technique, I'm just saying it wasn't any better than the ones you are putting down. The fact is, those guys would more than likely smash you.

[taojkd]

Actually, that's more common among people who have only trained in their training facilities and have never truly the adrenaline dump of a real fight. Full contact competitions give you a close approximation of that dump, which means you will be less likely to forget about what you have trained.

Excellent point about adrenaline dump in a real fight. I think that a lot of techniques in WC/VT/WT are valid and will work in such an adrenaline dump but the students never test them so it just plain ol' rage when they get into a fight.

Then again i see a lot of crap out there that I think hasn't been tested at all, but looks pretty in chi sao :)


You show me a system that can guarantee I won't get cut in a knife fight. How about one that even will give me a "high" percentage of not getting cut.

Dont the dogbrothers have a saying "Die a little less" for a reason? Hey, Knifefighter, you know of anyone in the NYC/CT area you'd recommend that has a similar mindset?

-taojkd

[mjw]

To have a knife system where you won't get cut is like having an open handed system where you will never get hit......very doubtful to ever happen.

[AdrianK]

I think that a lot of techniques in WC/VT/WT are valid and will work in such an adrenaline dump but the students never test them so it just plain ol' rage when they get into a fight.

Its the concepts that once you internalize them, will come out. Techniques and drills are there only to help your body to understand the concepts. Your lop sao, pak sao, gum sao, bong sao, pak sao, huen sao etc. - Those are actually all natural reactions that the body has already - Parry, Grab, Pin, Cover, etc. The WC concepts build on those natural reactions by helping you understand your own body mechanics, so you can more efficiently utilize them.

Or at least they should. IMHO if the expression becomes rigid and stiff, instead of natural and free flowing, you're doing yourself a disservice.

It should become each practitioners expression of the concepts, not the rehearsal of the techniques.

[Knifefighter]

Its the concepts that once you internalize them, will come out.
LOL @ "internalizing" concepts. Unless you are going full force against people you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you, the only thing you are going to internalize are those done in the same safe conditions of your studio.



Techniques and drills are there only to help your body to understand the concepts. Your lop sao, pak sao, gum sao, bong sao, pak sao, huen sao etc. - Those are actually all natural reactions that the body has already - Parry, Grab, Pin, Cover, etc. The WC concepts build on those natural reactions by helping you understand your own body mechanics, so you can more efficiently utilize them.
If anything, WC teaches the opposite of what are natural fighting reactions. The Chinese styles with the wide, looping techniques are much more instinctive.

[AdrianK]

LOL @ "internalizing" concepts. Unless you are going full force against people you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you, the only thing you are going to internalize are those done in the same safe conditions of your studio.

Yes and No. There's knowledge to be gained by different stages of resistance. Eventually you should be going full force. And sparring against people far outside of your studio.



If anything, WC teaches the opposite of what are natural fighting reactions. The Chinese styles with the wide, looping techniques are much more instinctive.

I disagree. Grabbing(lop), parrying(pak), covering up(bong), pinning(gum), are all very natural reactions for someone trained or untrained.

They aren't as natural as punching someone, but they are very natural things that people have been doing in fighting since the beginning.

Of course, the standard template which wing chun shows these techniques, isn't very natural. But the ideas they demonstrate allow you to apply these conceptually to those original instincts.

Chances are if it looks like the original template, its not going to be effective, because as it is, its a rigid and stiff expression, IMHO.

[Knifefighter]

Yes and No. There's knowledge to be gained by different stages of resistance. Eventually you should be going full force. And sparring against people far outside of your studio.

Not sparring... going full out with the intention of hurting each other as much as possible. If you haven't done that consistently, you haven't really trained for self-defense.

[AdrianK]

Isn't that what sparring is?

Well, or what it should be.

I think I understand what you're saying. The sparring in Kung fu schools in general is less like sparring and more like playing tag.

Hence why I love boxing gyms :)

[Knifefighter]

Hence why I love boxing gyms :)
Again, sparring at a boxing gym is not self-defense training. Attend the next Dog Brothers gathering and you'll see what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCO9ZsYGDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Itdhuct_A&feature=related

[AdrianK]

I never said it was self-defense training. Merely citing the fact that any good boxing gym has full-force sparring, an idea that should be utilized in martial arts.

Having a timer of 2 to 3 minutes is good as well so that people don't try and pace themselves, keeping the action going instead of messing around.

[Mr Punch]

Its the concepts that once you internalize them, will come out. Techniques and drills are there only to help your body to understand the concepts. Your lop sao, pak sao, gum sao, bong sao, pak sao, huen sao etc. - Those are actually all natural reactions that the body has already - Parry, Grab, Pin, Cover, etc. The WC concepts build on those natural reactions by helping you understand your own body mechanics, so you can more efficiently utilize them.Natural reactions without natural power and without natural expression...! And there's a big one you missed off that list: Dodge. You could have Ride as a separate one too. Why is that?


Or at least they should. IMHO if the expression becomes rigid and stiff, instead of natural and free flowing, you're doing yourself a disservice.The style strongly lends itself to rigidity and stiffness. Why? Partly because people don't practice full power punches against their wall-bag, against their dummy, against their heavy bags (if they're even radical enough to use them! :rolleyes: ), against each other. So when they actually try to they become ridiculously unnatural and fall back on rigid conformity to the 'form' (in western and eastern senses of the word).


It should become each practitioners expression of the concepts, not the rehearsal of the techniques.No, it should be fighting. I'm not interested in expressing concepts, I'm interested in putting someone down who's trying to put me down. If wing chun helps me to do that, great.


LOL @ "internalizing" concepts. Unless you are going full force against people you don't know who are trying as hard as they can to hurt you, the only thing you are going to internalize are those done in the same safe conditions of your studio.That's exactly what I was going to post as soon as I saw this post. Rather more prosaically: internalising **** is bad, mmkay!


If anything, WC teaches the opposite of what are natural fighting reactions. The Chinese styles with the wide, looping techniques are much more instinctive.There's good and bad: the straight-out reaction is also there as a push away... the supposed penetration of a wing chun punch shouldn't be hard to modify from that reaction.


I disagree. Grabbing(lop), parrying(pak), covering up(bong), pinning(gum), are all very natural reactions for someone trained or untrained.Bong is a ****-poor cover up. Not saying it doesn't have a use, but it's extremely limited, and again, a very unnatural reaction. Watch someone flinch: yeah the arms come up but invariably with the hand palm in to the head and the elbow down. As far as grabbing goes, grabbing someone's arm to pull it in to you? The grab everything response is stronger: and that's pure grappling or at least clinch. Which is something your wing chun should have... in fact that should be a mainstay for a 'system' that works at wing chun's range.

And again, your list misses dodge (and ride)... which:

are very natural things that people have been doing in fighting since the beginning.

[AdrianK]

Natural reactions without natural power and without natural expression...!

I don't understand what you mean. Without technique and template, or any understanding of the concepts, these natural reactions are a natural expression.

With technique, template, concepts, these natural reactions should still be a natural expression, utilizing your abilities. If they are not, then you aren't utilizing the concepts, you're expressing static(dead), rehearsed motions.



And there's a big one you missed off that list: Dodge.

Whats your point? That dodge isn't in the curriculum? Or that I didn't include dodge? If its the former, I never said WC encompassed all of our natural reactions. I believe it is far from that. If it is the latter, I named a certain few concepts, not nearly all of them.

Either way, I didn't miss anything.



The style strongly lends itself to rigidity and stiffness. Why? Partly because people don't practice full power punches against their wall-bag, against their dummy, against their heavy bags (if they're even radical enough to use them! ), against each other. So when they actually try to they become ridiculously unnatural and fall back on rigid conformity to the 'form' (in western and eastern senses of the word).

I believe almost all styles as they are taught lend themselves to rigidity and stiffness.

It is because these styles aren't taught in the form of concepts, that they are a small but valid science, instead they are taught that with rehearsed motions - they are the ONLY valid "Science", and follow no scientific method or understanding.

I fully agree that the state of WC, and Kung Fu, and most martial arts in general, is very poor.



No, it should be fighting. I'm not interested in expressing concepts, I'm interested in putting someone down who's trying to put me down. If wing chun helps me to do that, great.

What you don't seem to understand is that fighting, and expressing concepts, are the same thing.

Expressing concepts is a more specific way of saying you are utilizing what you are taught and what you teach yourself, in a natural way. Utilizing your physical and mental abilities, as well as your emotions and will.

Fighting is very expressive. In a fight where you are tested to your limits, you show exactly who you are as a person. There is no room for anything else.



Bong is a ****-poor cover up. Not saying it doesn't have a use, but it's extremely limited, and again, a very unnatural reaction.

Absolutely, conceptually its strengths lie beyond simply covering up. Though, its as natural a reaction as any, to lift your arms up to protect yourself. Its as natural as any to grab(lop), but the concepts behind grabbing are what empower it.



Watch someone flinch: yeah the arms come up but invariably with the hand palm in to the head and the elbow down.

The bong, like every technique, is variable. The elbow being down is similar in structure as the elbow being up, its just a variation. Still bong sao conceptually. Thats where we all get confused is that the rehearsed motion is static. Its not, its an idea which is infinitely variable. Thats where expression comes in, how you choose to utilize that variable idea at any given moment.

Fighting isn't rehearsed, it is not an expression of a style, that we can use anything we're taught is great. The ideas need to be adaptable though, otherwise we're stuck trying to do all of these techniques we learn, trying to find the perfect situations to do them in, and everything in between that, we have no answer to.



As far as grabbing goes, grabbing someone's arm to pull it in to you?

Grabbing as a concept, again, encompasses every variable.



The grab everything response is stronger: and that's pure grappling or at least clinch.

Ya know, grab everything is just an idea. It has its place, but you can't always control both arms, and you can't always control just one arm. Both are valid. Grab everything is an expression of lop sao as well.



Which is something your wing chun should have... in fact that should be a mainstay for a 'system' that works at wing chun's range.

Absolutely. Me and "Violent Designs" here sometimes train together, and utilize grabbing everything, as you've said. We're frequently clinching and grappling in chi sao and sparring.


All of these things are my interpretation of WC, though. I really, deeply know that this is far from the norm of how the style is taught.

[k gledhill]

lop is from bil gee ...a way to turn your opponent on his/her axis like opening a farm gate on its hinge attached to a wall, you dont try to pull the gate off the hinges...size doesnt matter because of the leverage ...fight 50% of a person ability by fighting flanks, bil gee is showing how to TAKE a side if they arent truning before you as you attack them of they manage to stop your flow grab and turn then shove [po-pai] enought o keep them within your attack zone and keep attacking..

The idea of lop is to gain a flank aggressively if the opponent hasnt nor will they allow a flank as you enter /engage them...followed by a sharp push to regain the flow of water , dont let them create a 'dam' to the flow. Try not to allow them to face squarely like your a hanging bag, move or grab and move them ...shift to sides avoid allowing equality of tools....

Jut sao is the primary response to an arm interrupting your strike...because jut sao is what you do AFTER A STRIKE ATTEMPT is stooped/interupted [stooped ?I meant stopped] ], rather than leading by grabbing ....and JUT will stay on the strike line/centerline even if you miss the backwards/forwards 'jerk'..plus jut doesnt involve grabbing the arm and turning off line to a given RE-direction/flow of attacking action direction....
iow if you miss with a lop as your primary grab left or right you open up your own entry line if the guy feints you.

Ive been taught lop as a primary move before, I used it in a street fight and missed the guys arm making me wide open , luckily I could regain my self and managed to come
out unscathed [good word unscathed :D]

Jut is in SLT not LOP, LOP in BG

[Wayfaring]

Again, sparring at a boxing gym is not self-defense training. Attend the next Dog Brothers gathering and you'll see what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCO9ZsYGDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Itdhuct_A&feature=related

Hey thanks for the links - I hadn't seen the Gabe Suarez combo one - and the fusion - gun/knife/empty hand is one that is not often covered in any self defense material and yet is pretty vital.

[Knifefighter]

lop is from bil gee ...a way to turn your opponent on his/her axis like opening a farm gate on its hinge attached to a wall, you dont try to pull the gate off the hinges...size doesnt matter because of the leverage ...fight 50% of a person ability by fighting flanks, bil gee is showing how to TAKE a side if they arent truning before you as you attack them of they manage to stop your flow grab and turn then shove [po-pai] enought o keep them within your attack zone and keep attacking..

Too bad it doesn't work that way against a halfway skilled opponent.

[AdrianK]

lop is from bil gee ...a way to turn your opponent on his/her axis like opening a farm gate on its hinge attached to a wall, you dont try to pull the gate off the hinges...size doesnt matter because of the leverage ...fight 50% of a person ability by fighting flanks, bil gee is showing how to TAKE a side if they arent truning before you as you attack them of they manage to stop your flow grab and turn then shove [po-pai] enought o keep them within your attack zone and keep attacking..

The idea of lop is to gain a flank aggressively if the opponent hasnt nor will they allow a flank as you enter /engage them...followed by a sharp push to regain the flow of water , dont let them create a 'dam' to the flow. Try not to allow them to face squarely like your a hanging bag, move or grab and move them ...shift to sides avoid allowing equality of tools....

Jut sao is the primary response to an arm interrupting your strike...because jut sao is what you do AFTER A STRIKE ATTEMPT is stooped/interupted [stooped ?I meant stopped] ], rather than leading by grabbing ....and JUT will stay on the strike line/centerline even if you miss the backwards/forwards 'jerk'..plus jut doesnt involve grabbing the arm and turning off line to a given RE-direction/flow of attacking action direction....
iow if you miss with a lop as your primary grab left or right you open up your own entry line if the guy feints you.

Ive been taught lop as a primary move before, I used it in a street fight and missed the guys arm making me wide open , luckily I could regain my self and managed to come
out unscathed [good word unscathed :D]

Jut is in SLT not LOP, LOP in BG

The thing about Lop or Jut is the meaning of each word. Besides the fact that no one has ever had overall authority over the style, the understanding of each concept varies from teacher to teacher. There is plenty of in-fighting for this reason. Then we have Wing Chun outside of the Yip Man lineage, and there are even further deviations.

Conceptually Lop Sao is a grab, nothing more specific than a grab, how you interpret that grows and changes based on who you train with, and how you train. On top of that, it is also a concept with several variables for which you can express your own understanding of this grab, and not just what your teacher tells you that you can.

Ultimately in martial arts and fighting, you do what works. There is nothing gained from sticking to stylistic constraints.

[Knifefighter]

The thing about Lop or Jut is the meaning of each word. Besides the fact that no one has ever had overall authority over the style, the understanding of each concept varies from teacher to teacher. There is plenty of in-fighting for this reason. Then we have Wing Chun outside of the Yip Man lineage, and there are even further deviations.

Conceptually Lop Sao is a grab, nothing more specific than a grab, how you interpret that grows and changes based on who you train with, and how you train. On top of that, it is also a concept with several variables for which you can express your own understanding of this grab, and not just what your teacher tells you that you can.

Ultimately in martial arts and fighting, you do what works. There is nothing gained from sticking to stylistic constraints.

If you want to know the best techniques for grabbing (or any other variable), all you have to do is watch the people who are the most highly skilled in the world at grabbing- judokas, BJJ stylists, Sambo players, MMA fighters, wrestlers, or any other activity in with people are performing in real time at world class levels using grabbing.

The fact is, you are not going to see athletes in these activities perform grabbing in the lop sao manner taught in WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

There are applications for lop, pak, bil, tan, bong, garn, jut, etc. that can work.

But without constant sparring using serious contact, ie.- full, (or very close to full) power headshots, body punches, kicks, knees, and elbows being thrown with the same intensity (and I believe that using thin gloves but lots of protective gear is the way to go - with all due respect to the Dog Brothers and mma fighters)....

without these things - wing chun people will never find out what the applications for these moves (and the concepts and principles behind the moves) really are.

And what doesn't work at all.

After a full contact sparring session recently with myself and two other students who are way ahead of him - as well as being bigger than him by 5-6 inches, one of my students turned to me and said that when you spar - "you have to do a whole other version of wing chun".

He went on to say that the way he had to use pak, and lop, bong, bil, etc.. was different than what's done in the forms, drills, chi sao, etc.

And I was very happy that he said all this - because it shows me he's really starting to understand what it's all about. The very same thing I've been discovering for many years now for myself - this was starting to click for him too. The forms, drills, chi sao, wooden dummy, etc. all serve a purpose - by providing the letters that make up the alphabet, some phrases, some sentences, even a short paragraph or two here-and-there.

But all of this means nothing if you don't go and make your own paragraghs for yourself. More than paragraghs. YOU have to go REWRITE THE BOOK - and the book may constantly change with each new set of circumstances, with each new sparring partner, perhaps even with each new tool that an old sparring partner might bring to the table the next time.

It's important to learn the forms, drills, chi sao, etc. - and it's important to get grounded in certain applications of what's in the forms, drills, wooden dummy, etc...and to periodically return to these things - but it all comes out in the sparring.

In the end, it's the sparring/fighting that determines how the techniques will come out, which techniques, and when. And the final product may seriously surprise you.

[AdrianK]

If you want to know the best techniques for grabbing (or any other variable) all you have to do is watch the people who are the most highly skilled in the world at grabbing- judokas, BJJ stylists, Sambo players, MMA fighters, wrestlers, or any other activity in with people are performing in real time at world class levels using grabbing.

Absolutely, their grabs are forged in the fire of competition and combat, and if WC practitioners did so as well, you'd probably see lop sao become something extremely close to what they do.



The fact is, you are not going to see athletes in these activities perform grabbing in the lop sao manner taught in WC.

I never said it would be, in fact I've said the opposite, the general WC world is in a very poor state. Very few teachers have any understanding of their art conceptually, both in and out of Wing Chun.

[taojkd]

Absolutely, their grabs are forged in the fire of competition and combat, and if WC practitioners did so as well, you'd probably see lop sao become something extremely close to what they do.

So stop learning WC and go learn MMA/Judo/BJJ and see how they do grabs "forged in the fire of competition". Cause you wont get that from WC. i learned so WC, and then left to go do some MMA for a bit. I learned some FMA's and repeat. I still like the WC, when i can stand to be around that community.




He went on to say that the way he had to use pak, and lop, bong, bil, etc.. was different than what's done in the forms, drills, chi sao, etc.

Then stop doing those forms, drills, chi sao etc if the muscle memory your conditioning with those things isn't whats used when you spar. One reason I hate playing chi sao with people. Half of that crap never works when we gear up and spar. I only use chi sao-like drills to refines stuff I already know works.

-taojkd

To be honest, I really hate calling it chi sao since it usually ends up being more like pummeling or MT clinch drills with an emphasis on reacting on what I feel from my training partner and vice versa.

Hey Knifefighter, do you consider pummeling/MT clinch drills to be like a chi sao drill? Or does it turn your stomach to call them that :)

[Liddel]

the general WC world is in a very poor state. Very few teachers have any understanding of their art conceptually, both in and out of Wing Chun.

Given you've said Lop Sau is a grab i think you fall into this group.

The worst thing IMHO someone can do with lop sau is grab. Most schools out there advcate this. You see them showing teaching drills during chi sau telling people not to grab from Wu sau...the action has greater results as a chop.

The energy is better the touch points are more sound, you avoid being locked up and/or manipulated by people that are good at grabbing :cool:

IMO Lop sau (the action itself) is a parrying Chop. That may lead into a grab if one wishes, but to state the action is a grab is wrong.

Damm shocking :o


Too bad it doesn't work that way against a halfway skilled opponent.

As a grab perhaps not LOL but i've had sucess many times against kickboxers with the same experience as me. Generally in the clinch when they try to bridge in and put the plum on, on straight leads, head guards after wethering combos the list goes on....

Theres nothing wrong with being a hobiest and working theses things against mates from other styles that are also hobbiests, not everyone has to be a pro there bud...:o

DREW

[Ultimatewingchun]

Liddell is correct, lop sao's greatest efficiency is when it's used more as a guiding hand than as a grab-and-pull. It can be done much faster, and it's easier to transition to something else than when using the grab-and-pull.

[AdrianK]

So stop learning WC and go learn MMA/Judo/BJJ and see how they do grabs "forged in the fire of competition". Cause you wont get that from WC.

How does that have anything to do with what I said? I said, forged in the fire of combat, lop sao would probably become something very similar, because what they have is very conceptually similar to wing chun's lop sao. But then again, the concept of lop sao is up to the practitioner and who he or she has learned from.

I didn't say specifically that it would become exactly like MMA, in fact I believe there is a lot of arrogance there that MMA/Judo/BJJ is the best way. I don't think its the best way, just a proven way. The person's understanding and expression of the ideas is always the best way, meaning the "best" person has the "best" way, to a point.



Then stop doing those forms, drills, chi sao etc if the muscle memory your conditioning with those things isn't whats used when you spar. One reason I hate playing chi sao with people. Half of that crap never works when we gear up and spar. I only use chi sao-like drills to refines stuff I already know works.

You can talk to Violent Designs about the way we do chi sao. Its basically like sparring, just starting from a very close range. Why not spar, you might ask? Well, Chi sao is designed to build your understanding and ability from that range. Sparring is designed to be a more complete method. Chi Sao in my expression of it, is designed to focus on that range. So our sparring is actually very much like our chi sao, only we have less outside-range fighting and more inside-range fighting, since we start on the inner ranges. I think the strongest point of it is that he isn't even a Wing Chun practitioner. So there aren't any imaginary rules built into it.



Given you've said Lop Sau is a grab i think you fall into this group.

As far as I know, the literal translation of lop sao is grabbing hand? Given the number of lineages, conceptually it can only be said that this is a GRAB, nothing more, and nothing less. I am NOT saying that this is the only, or best, way of interpreting lop sao. I'm simply saying that as a concept, it can only be said that Wing Chun's Lop Sao is a grab. I'm not saying it can't be more than that, or less than that, but given the diversity of the wing chun community, its the most complete explanation that can be given, on the whole.



The worst thing IMHO someone can do with lop sau is grab. Most schools out there advcate this. You see them showing teaching drills during chi sau telling people not to grab from Wu sau...the action has greater results as a chop.

There is a chopping hand, which can utilize the ideas of lop sao. But lop sao does not mean chop, or chopping hand.



The energy is better the touch points are more sound, you avoid being locked up and/or manipulated by people that are good at grabbing

Obviously if someone is better at you than grabbing, you should use it less. Thats strategy. One of my biggest pet peeves is when I show someone something, and they say, well what if I do this?(that they usually learned from someone else) - Well, there is a counter to every counter, to every response. There is no full-proof method. If someone is better at countering your best move, you need to do something else.



IMO Lop sau (the action itself) is a parrying Chop. That may lead into a grab if one wishes, but to state the action is a grab is wrong.

Thats your interpretation, and I commend you for having an interpretation of it that is different than the norm. The expressions of what we know, that come from ourselves, are far more powerful than stylistic or systemic creations. IMHO.



Liddell is correct, lop sao's greatest efficiency is when it's used more as a guiding hand than as a grab-and-pull. It can be done much faster, and it's easier to transition to something else than when using the grab-and-pull.

I'd agree its a very good guiding hand, be careful when you talk about the greatest or best though, someone will inevitably come along and prove us all wrong :) But thats the nature of good martial arts, being proven wrong is a GREAT thing, not a bad one! :D

[taojkd]

I didn't say specifically that it would become exactly like MMA, in fact I believe there is a lot of arrogance there that MMA/Judo/BJJ is the best way. I don't think its the best way, just a proven way. The person's understanding and expression of the ideas is always the best way, meaning the "best" person has the "best" way, to a point.

MMA isnt the "best way". Traditional Martial artists think like this.
ex:
WC is the best way.
FMA is the best way.

MMA just trains according to what works for each individual. (i.e the "best" person is the one who trains the hardest)


You can talk to Violent Designs about the way we do chi sao. Its basically like sparring, just starting from a very close range. Why not spar, you might ask? Well, Chi sao is designed to build your understanding and ability from that range. Sparring is designed to be a more complete method. Chi Sao in my expression of it, is designed to focus on that range. So our sparring is actually very much like our chi sao, only we have less outside-range fighting and more inside-range fighting, since we start on the inner ranges. I think the strongest point of it is that he isn't even a Wing Chun practitioner. So there aren't any imaginary rules built into it.

So your version of chi sao is like sparring.

You can talk to Violent Designs about the way we do chi sao. Its basically like sparring, just starting from a very close range.

But not really.

Chi sao is designed to build your understanding and ability from that range. Sparring is designed to be a more complete method. Chi Sao in my expression of it, is designed to focus on that range.

But actually it is. Cause chi sao without rules = sparring.

So there aren't any imaginary rules built into it.

Glad you cleared that up for us.


Liddell is correct, lop sao's greatest efficiency is when it's used more as a guiding hand than as a grab-and-pull. It can be done much faster, and it's easier to transition to something else than when using the grab-and-pull.
Unless I want to grab you. Cause i likes me my grappling :)
In which case the grap-n-pull its the most efficient for me.

[sanjuro_ronin]

MMA just trains according to what works for each individual. (i.e the "best" person is the one who trains the hardest)

You should have stopped here, you had me at "hello".

[AdrianK]

But actually it is. Cause chi sao without rules = sparring.

It's interesting that you'd come to that conclusion. I'm not saying it doesn't follow a similar structure to Chi Sao - But the intensity level, and what goes, is more similar to sparring. You could call it sparring, but the focal point of the exercise is to build skills in that mid range.

[Liddel]

As far as I know, the literal translation of lop sao is grabbing hand? Given the number of lineages, conceptually it can only be said that this is a GRAB, nothing more, and nothing less. I am NOT saying that this is the only, or best, way of interpreting lop sao. I'm simply saying that as a concept, it can only be said that Wing Chun's Lop Sao is a grab. I'm not saying it can't be more than that, or less than that, but given the diversity of the wing chun community, its the most complete explanation that can be given, on the whole.

Conceptually - literal translation - interpreting.... i guess the biggest difference between you and i would be i talk about my own specific experience and actual application rather than what a word may mean or how its understood.

Using / applying Lop Sau as a grab is IMO not a good idea, which is why KF's call about looking to people who's grabbing is better, is good advice IMO.

My intention and appllication with Lop is different to grabs in Judo, BJJ so i need not look to those systems for what im trying to achieve. My Lop is not a grab.

When posting about Kung Fu or Wing Chun speciffically i reccomend using direct experience and application rather than what you think people from a hundred years ago intended or what word its accosiated with...it'll make for a smoother ride :p
But its your call. :o

How does ones understanding and use of the term 'Wing Arm' (or insert translation here) help them get the timing structure and energy involved in using Bong Sau ?

Sometimes undersdtanding terms helps, sometimes it hinders... your explanation of Lop Here is an example of it hindering understanding of application IMHO.




There is a chopping hand, which can utilize the ideas of lop sao. But lop sao does not mean chop, or chopping hand.

Regardless of what one thinks it means, how have you been taught to USE it ?
Do you apply it like a grab ?

DREW

[AdrianK]

Conceptually - literal translation - interpreting.... i guess the biggest difference between you and i would be i talk about my own specific experience and actual application rather than what a word may mean or how its understood.

Well absolutely, your personal experience and application is far more important to your fighting abilities than a broad, sweeping definition. I meant it only that no one has any real authority in saying what is and isn't lop sao, because of the extreme differences in opinion between lineages and teachers.



Using / applying Lop Sau as a grab is IMO not a good idea, which is why KF's call about looking to people who's grabbing is better, is good advice IMO.

It really depends on what Lop Sao is to you, and what other concepts mean to you as well. Your application of Lop Sao, without a grab may be more similar to my application of a different concept.

When I personally talk about Lop Sao, I talk about the concepts behind grabbing. That doesn't mean that it is WC Lop Sao either, it is just what I use to describe a grab, and everything I know about grabbing, regardless of style. I use Pak to describe a parrying motion and not the movement itself, thats my personal expression of such.



When posting about Kung Fu or Wing Chun speciffically i reccomend using direct experience and application rather than what you think people from a hundred years ago intended or what word its accosiated with...it'll make for a smoother ride

Sure, all that matters really is your personal experiences and understanding of how to utilize your body and abilities. Whether that means you grab or you don't grab, whether you parry or not, how you define it is up to you. But when speaking to an entire community, you need to keep in mind the diverse opinions on such vague term.



How does ones understanding and use of the term 'Wing Arm' (or insert translation here) help them get the timing structure and energy involved in using Bong Sau ?

I would say that understanding the term will allow you to see that its a variable and not a set motion. It really depends on how you look at your Wing Chun, or Martial Arts, though. I use the broad, sweeping definitions to give myself room to find all of the variable ways to apply each idea. The movements themselves are templates, ideas of good ways to utilize the concepts, but I don't think they are the only ways, or the best ways for each and every person.



Regardless of what one thinks it means, how have you been taught to USE it ?
Do you apply it like a grab ?

I've had several WC Sifu, I've been taught to use it many different ways :)

I think the split here is that we're speaking in the same terms with a different understanding of each. I use Lop to describe a segment of knowledge that involves grabbing - which includes all grabs and grabbing methods, concepts, ideas that I've ever learned from various styles and such, and anything I've come up with, as well. I don't use it as a means to describe a specific technique.

I don't "Apply" Lop Sao as anything other than a method for understanding how my body works. That goes for all WC concepts. After that, in sparring or fighting, you will see the expression of what I find effective.

That is when IMHO, there is no lop sao, pak sao, or anything like that. It is simply what my body expresses naturally based on how I've trained and my understanding of things.

Do I have an understanding of a guiding hand similar to the Lop Sao technique found in many WC lineages? Absolutely. Do I grab in the traditional Lop Sao way which you find ineffective?

I know what you mean by the Lop Sao Grab you find ineffective, I honestly agree, its very weak for me. I think most of our differences come more from what I use to describe things, they get mixed in with expressions that most people have very different ideas of. :D

[Liddel]

Seems like you dont apply the idea "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" - to your explanations LOL.

With all due respect - at face value its seems you might be the type to apply a huen sau bong sau po sau then punch to the face when you could have just used. Pak Da.

This is my #1 issue with chunners - overcomplicating stuff thats good 'as is'. :p


I would say that understanding the term will allow you to see that its a variable and not a set motion

I would say experience in fighting does that for you.


I use the broad, sweeping definitions to give myself room to find all of the variable ways to apply each idea. The movements themselves are templates

Actually its quite the contrary. As i see it you;ve boxed yourself in and only grab with Lop Sau cause thats its literal translation.

I feel your POV and the way you've conveyed that - at least here in this thread is incossistent.

Perhaps im wrong :o

DREW

[AdrianK]

With all due respect - at face value its seems you might be the type to apply a huen sau bong sau po sau then punch to the face when you could have just used. Pak Da.

Its actually quite the opposite - Yes, I'm the type of person who tries to understand everything in its entirety - In Wing Chun or Martial Arts, most of what I will talk about or ponder on is almost purely academic. An understanding of the Art, Sciences, Conceptualization, variables, etc. - No one needs any of that to be a good fighter. And I understand that. And as a personal fighting philosophy, my on-going goals is to eliminate the unnecessary, the illogical.

I'd like to say how I fight and how anyone I teach fights, is to use the understanding of the concepts learned, to find the openings in balance, striking, everything, and to forget about complex performances like the one you suggest.



This is my #1 issue with chunners - overcomplicating stuff thats good 'as is'.

Agreed. There is a trend among all martial arts where people over complicate what is actually very simple, and over-simplify what is actually very complex.



I would say experience in fighting does that for you.

Experience in the doing, for every subject, will give way to real knowledge. Does that mean we shouldn't try to speak or understand what is effectively art, science and philosphy, on the deepest level possible?



Actually its quite the contrary. As i see it you;ve boxed yourself in and only grab with Lop Sau cause thats its literal translation.

Ehh, I'd say you're not really understanding what I'm saying, then.
I only "Grab" with Lop Sao because Lop Sao is a descriptive term for a grab. By saying Lop Sao I am not specifically speaking of Wing Chun Lop Sao, or any specific style's lop sao. When speaking of a specific WC Lop Sao - It is both a physical template, and concept that can be derived into any number of variations that of course, go outside of the literal definition. I would personally no longer describe them as lop sao, even if I utilize the concepts derived from. I would try to describe them with a term as fitting as possible, but thats just my opinion. I don't call a car, a fish, I don't call yellow, orange.

[Mr Punch]

Sorry, don't get around here much... here's a reply I started a couple of days ago:


I don't understand what you mean. That most wing chun is NOT natural expression. It is forcing natural reactions into unnatural expression. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing: sometimes you have force yourself into unnatural patterns of movement for the sake of a useful technique/strategy (e.g. I don't like most of the throws that involve you throwing yourself to the ground from a Russian arm drag - they seem very unnatural... but done that way the result is what I want: someone on the floor hopefully under me or set up for an arm bar). But in a lot of wing chun you force yourself to internalise these patterns... and then force yourself to change them when you use them in fighting...!!! Doesn't make sense.


Whats your point? That dodge isn't in the curriculum? Or that I didn't include dodge? If its the former, I never said WC encompassed all of our natural reactions. I believe it is far from that. If it is the latter, I named a certain few concepts, not nearly all of them.My point is that dodging and riding blows are HUGE parts of fighting, and to have a 'style' that eschews these things, that even forces you to have a fairly motionless upper body is a HUGE flaw. You can't move your whole body out the way of a full speed strike or kick, but you can by using moving your upper body. Also, despite chun having a hook and an uppercut, these are still based on the premise that your upper body is a solid unit. Which is daft.

Some lines believe that BJ is for breaking out of this box; e.g. doing the first elbow strike sequence really folding their upper body over. That might make sense. When I learnt BJ and worked with that motion I found it way more effective than the static body version. And when I applied BJ to the other sets it worked better too. Now, maybe I'd got it wrong until then (fair enough!... although in chi sao and light sparring with other chun lines I've always given better than I got so I doubt it somehow... ☺ ) ... or maybe learning the static body thing in the first place is bloody stupid.


Either way, I didn't miss anything.Point taken: no need to get touchy. Maybe I should have said 'something missing from your list'. It's a turn of phrase, and not an accusatory one.


I believe almost all styles as they are taught lend themselves to rigidity and stiffness.

It is because these styles aren't taught in the form of concepts, that they are a small but valid science, instead they are taught that with rehearsed motions - they are the ONLY valid "Science", and follow no scientific method or understanding.Boxing is rigid for absolute beginners in their first couple of weeks. As soon as they get into a ring it’d had better’ve gone. BJJ, wrestling etc, MAY be rigid for a day or two… but again it soon has to go… same with Thai, same with kickboxing, even karate as soon as they fight. So I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. I also don’t know what you’re trying to say in terms of ‘science’. To call any fighting methods ‘science’ is to show a fundamental ignorance of scientific method, and of fighting! Even just to say that they are ‘scientific’ is conceit! Are you really telling me that in some way knowledge of leverage and physics and statistical probability as to the potential reactions you’re going to get has anything to do with how you fight?! :D OK, I’m messing around putting words into your mouth: so please tell me – what are you talking about?


What you don't seem to understand is that fighting, and expressing concepts, are the same thing.Yep, you got me there too. What are you talking about? (EDIT: I started writing this reply before you started that thread on expression of concepts. I stated my opinions on that clearly enough: in practical terms, seeing ‘fighting’ as ‘expressing concepts’ is abstruse, pointless and serves no purpose in improving your fighting.)


Expressing concepts is a more specific way of saying you are utilizing what you are taught and what you teach yourself, in a natural way. Utilizing your physical and mental abilities, as well as your emotions and will.

Fighting is very expressive. In a fight where you are tested to your limits, you show exactly who you are as a person. There is no room for anything else.I get you. You’re using philosophical existential concepts to explain a physical phenomenon. The Dog Brothers’ motto ‘Greater enlightenment through harder contact’ or whatever it is would fit into this.　As would the idea that everyone should make wing chun their own. Then your interpretation of your wing chun comes out, and it doesn’t matter if it isn’t hide-bound or even system-specific but it becomes true freedom of movement. That’s what Terrence is saying. That’s what Robert Chu says. That’s what WSL said. That’s what Bruce Lee said. That’s what my sifu said. Doesn’t mean they all mean/t quite the same thing! :D Difference being in how they only learn stuff: as they use it, and testing it from the get-go in a variety of ways including full live resistance, OR as reinterpretation of the modification of the interpretation of the energy work of a completely different movement in a form! :p


Absolutely, conceptually its strengths lie beyond simply covering up. Though, its as natural a reaction as any, to lift your arms up to protect yourself. Its as natural as any to grab(lop), but the concepts behind grabbing are what empower it…

The bong, like every technique, is variable. The elbow being down is similar in structure as the elbow being up, its just a variation. Still bong sao conceptually. Thats where we all get confused is that the rehearsed motion is static. Its not, its an idea which is infinitely variable. Thats where expression comes in, how you choose to utilize that variable idea at any given moment.Now, I don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying. Lifting your arms to cover up is natural. Specifically, lifting your arms with your hands palm-in by your head and your elbows forwards or down is a natural cover up. Bong is not. From what you’re saying, the boxing cover, or even the Thai guard which is different to the boxing one, are the same as each other, are the same as the spike/shell guard, and are the same as the bong sao. You could argue the first three, but the bong sao is up when the others are down. You’re not trying to argue that up is down, are you?

Bong sao is a ****ty position. And yeah, sure, it’s a dynamic action, not a static position… and it does have its uses: but ‘covering up’ is not one of them.


Fighting isn't rehearsed, it is not an expression of a style, that we can use anything we're taught is great. The ideas need to be adaptable though, otherwise we're stuck trying to do all of these techniques we learn, trying to find the perfect situations to do them in, and everything in between that, we have no answer to.Completely agreed on that.


Grabbing as a concept, again, encompasses every variable. And AGAIN, like with bong and covering, you were upholding specifically the lop as a grab itself that covers any variable? It doesn’t. Apart from the fact that we’ve then got the argument Liddel brought up that it more often than not isn’t even a grab… you’re agreeing with him while holding that it’s THE wing chun example of a grab to rival judo/JJ’s/wrestling’s grab positioning work? Sounds like the bong sao up = down argument again to me!


Ya know, grab everything is just an idea. It has its place, but you can't always control both arms, and you can't always control just one arm. Both are valid. Grab everything is an expression of lop sao as well.If you read my original point again here, you’ll see that my grab anything isn’t talking about grabbing every part of the body and smothering every possible angle of attack: it’s talking about grabbing whatever it takes to control everything: i.e. the head or the neck. I’m talking about the clinch.

[Mr Punch]

How does that have anything to do with what I said? I said, forged in the fire of combat, lop sao would probably become something very similar, because what they have is very conceptually similar to wing chun's lop sao. The fact that you're using 'would probably become' suggests to me that you've never tried it in anything like real fighting...! I've used a 'real' 'classical' grab and pull lop sao against a guy in the street who tried to sucker punch me from behind (he was ostensibly trained in karate, a bit of boxing and something else): I caught wind of it, turned whilst ducking to some extent, 'caught' it on the outside and jerked him fist-first into a lamp-post behind me. Sprained wrist, instant capitulation (he was a drunk arse what-iffing, but was still trying to take my head off): saw him two weeks later, and his hand was still wrapped up.

I've tried using lop in FC sparring against Shooto fighters with considerable wrestling/JJ/judo experience... turns into a poor cousin of their positional hand work, BUT if you can get close enough quick enough and smoothly (non telegraphically enough) you can use their slightest repositioning as your opening. But let me tell you, those grappler boys can read a body better than most of us fools with our chi sao, and they're more likely to read what you're doing and drop you than vice versa. Why? Because they don't do chi sao: they wrestle! And that's all about reading bodies and sensitivity, but at full speed with full resistance and full strength attacking and defending... which chi sao ain't!


But then again, the concept of lop sao is up to the practitioner and who he or she has learned from.Nope, the concept of lop sao is up to the quality and experience of your opponent!


You can talk to Violent Designs about the way we do chi sao. Its basically like sparring, just starting from a very close range. Why not spar, you might ask?...If it's like sparring, then it isn't sparring!

And not only 'Why not spar?' but, why not start in a clinch trying to knee each other in the thighs, in the ghoolies, headbutt each other, elbow each other and box out each other's livers...?! :D Since, you know, that's the range you're saying chi sao is for developing to an expert degree.


... So our sparring is actually very much like our chi sao, only we have less outside-range fighting and more inside-range fighting, since we start on the inner ranges. I think the strongest point of it is that he isn't even a Wing Chun practitioner. So there aren't any imaginary rules built into it.So you do actually spar too? And there aren't any imaginary rules to it?

I would say experience in fighting does that for you.I would have to agree.


I'd like to say how I fight and how anyone I teach fights, is to use the understanding of the concepts learned, to find the openings in balance, striking, everything, and to forget about complex performances like the one you suggest... There is a trend among all martial arts where people over complicate what is actually very simple, and over-simplify what is actually very complex.You'd like to say... you haven't fought in any capacity have you? I mean, in the street, on the door, in a bar, at school, in a ring, even in FC protected sparring with a 'ref'? The way you're explaining this IT IS a complex, over-analysed performance...! And you teach, too? Have your students fought using what you've taught?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a real pop at you. It's just you seem to like to debate and discuss and like Liddel said, I think you're a little inconsistent to say the least, so I'm just trying to help you out by strengthening your argument! :D



Experience in the doing, for every subject, will give way to real knowledge. Does that mean we shouldn't try to speak or understand what is effectively art, science and philosphy, on the deepest level possible?I think you're missing some stuff at the shallow end first, mate! You can get really lost in the depths!


I only "Grab" with Lop Sao because Lop Sao is a descriptive term for a grab. ...I'll tell you a little something that was useful for me after the first five minutes of playing with grapplers: there really is NO lop, jum, gaun, jut etc discernible at all when you're trying for position or trying to create an opening (be it for underhooks, a strike, a kick or whatever) - all there is is movement. If you freeze-frame it some of it may resemble something you may think you're using, but it's all irrelevant. Principle over technique, every time.

[k gledhill]

lop is not jut

jut is in SLT/CK , a primary fighting action because it is born from an interrupted lead strike , plus if the jut misses or whatever it doesnt leave the centerline you simply strike or retract to a cycle of man/vu attcks...

Lop is in Bil Gee...we use lop as a grab, we dont want to grab normally, because it makes the grabbing hand 'dead' for that time its grabbing ...jut doesnt require grabbing and lateral turning as lop does.
Lop is to turn the opponent on their axis line running head to toe, doesnt require force , just leverage...the reasons we adopt lop are to turn the opponent if they arent turning themselves or we have had our attack line /intent stopped ...we change the course of the assault by using lop to turn and then gain a flanked side ...what happens then is up to you and your reality...shove /kick strangulation...rear naked choke...

Keep the idea in your head that VT is trying to overwhlem the other fighter with 2 free strikes in constant rotation , as soon as you grab the guys wrist [lop] you stop hitting and are now in a relatively equal position ...2 arms engaged in grab and grabbed , 2 arms free to strike....so whats the purpose of randomly grabbing with the man sao, if its just stopping the primary idea ?

primary idea is to be the attacker for longer than the other guy can attack you.

2 free hands that are trained to each have the capability of acting like 2 actions ...

simultaneous attack and defense in one arm action....add another arm and we have 2 arms capable of acting in thoughtless rotation ....

jum/tan ^ tan\jum everything else is to make a path to keep delivering tan/jum

[AdrianK]

That most wing chun is NOT natural expression. It is forcing natural reactions into unnatural expression. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing: sometimes you have force yourself into unnatural patterns of movement for the sake of a useful technique/strategy (e.g. I don't like most of the throws that involve you throwing yourself to the ground from a Russian arm drag - they seem very unnatural... but done that way the result is what I want: someone on the floor hopefully under me or set up for an arm bar). But in a lot of wing chun you force yourself to internalise these patterns... and then force yourself to change them when you use them in fighting...!!! Doesn't make sense.

Oh absolutely. I completely agree.



My point is that dodging and riding blows are HUGE parts of fighting, and to have a 'style' that eschews these things, that even forces you to have a fairly motionless upper body is a HUGE flaw. You can't move your whole body out the way of a full speed strike or kick, but you can by using moving your upper body. Also, despite chun having a hook and an uppercut, these are still based on the premise that your upper body is a solid unit. Which is daft.

Again, I completely agree that these are major parts of fighting. I dislike the idea of style for anything else except as a terms of reference for a group of ideas. The idea that you must fight as a style is ridiculous, because then as you said, things like dodging and riding(or anything else), which are highly effective, are lost on the practitioner.



Point taken: no need to get touchy. Maybe I should have said 'something missing from your list'. It's a turn of phrase, and not an accusatory one.

:D



Boxing is rigid for absolute beginners in their first couple of weeks. As soon as they get into a ring it’d had better’ve gone. BJJ, wrestling etc, MAY be rigid for a day or two… but again it soon has to go… same with Thai, same with kickboxing, even karate as soon as they fight. So I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.

With boxing, BJJ, wrestling, thai boxing - Their philosophies allow a lot of room for personal expression. In boxing, all of the top boxers own their jab, their cross, etc. - When I say almost all styles, I don't include these for the most part. I mean the many, many schools of karate and kung fu in particular, especially wing chun, that force their practitioners into a rigid, static expression. That you are forced into doing things exactly as they are taught, and that there is no other way.

I never encountered this in any of the bjj, boxing, or muay thai I've ever taken. But man, the kung fu and karate schools, even some of the jkd schools out here, I've seen this.



I also don’t know what you’re trying to say in terms of ‘science’. To call any fighting methods ‘science’ is to show a fundamental ignorance of scientific method, and of fighting! Even just to say that they are ‘scientific’ is conceit! Are you really telling me that in some way knowledge of leverage and physics and statistical probability as to the potential reactions you’re going to get has anything to do with how you fight?!

Definitively, Scientifc method is a means of understanding. Hypothosis, experimentation to determine truth or falseness.

Does it have anything to do with how you're fighting in the moment? No. Can it help you to develop your training methods and what you train and attempt to understand? Absolutely.



Now, I don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying. Lifting your arms to cover up is natural. Specifically, lifting your arms with your hands palm-in by your head and your elbows forwards or down is a natural cover up. Bong is not. From what you’re saying, the boxing cover, or even the Thai guard which is different to the boxing one, are the same as each other, are the same as the spike/shell guard, and are the same as the bong sao. You could argue the first three, but the bong sao is up when the others are down. You’re not trying to argue that up is down, are you?

I don't mean to say they are exactly the same. I believe they are fundamentally different with the same original idea in mind. It could be argued that bong sao's development started with this idea to cover up, and evolved to serve a more effective purpose.



And AGAIN, like with bong and covering, you were upholding specifically the lop as a grab itself that covers any variable? It doesn’t. Apart from the fact that we’ve then got the argument Liddel brought up that it more often than not isn’t even a grab… you’re agreeing with him while holding that it’s THE wing chun example of a grab to rival judo/JJ’s/wrestling’s grab positioning work? Sounds like the bong sao up = down argument again to me!

I didn't mean to say it was *the* wing chun example of a grab. It is in some forms of wing chun. And literally the name means grabbing hand. But in WC it is whatever the lineage says it is. I'm saying take the WC or "Style" out of the equation and saying I use it to describe the idea of a grab. Ehh, that doesn't mean I don't use the WC ideas in ways that don't "grab". In TWC, the first WC style I started out with, it wasn't a grab. But its a personal classification based on language.

The *reason* I use lop to describe my knowledge of grabbing outside of style, is just a better way for me to catalog what I've learned on that specific subject, regardless of what style it comes from. Its just a name for a very basic concept. Then the knowledge and variables supplement that very basic concept.

The WC expression specifically can be many different things depending on who you talk to. I'm not saying my idea of lop sao, is the WC way.



The fact that you're using 'would probably become' suggests to me that you've never tried it in anything like real fighting...!

I say "probably" only because it depends on the person.



but at full speed with full resistance and full strength attacking and defending... which chi sao ain't!

Chi sao should be, IMHO.



If it's like sparring, then it isn't sparring!

The reason I classify it as different from sparring is because the focus is fighting on the inside. And you'd stop and restart when that focus is lost. Only because the focus is training your inside fighting to a higher level.



And not only 'Why not spar?' but, why not start in a clinch trying to knee each other in the thighs, in the ghoolies, headbutt each other, elbow each other and box out each other's livers...?! Since, you know, that's the range you're saying chi sao is for developing to an expert degree.

Both me and him have trained (or in his case, do train) muay thai, and the clinch, knees, elbows, headbutts, inside boxing, throws, shoots, wrestling, all of that is fair game, full force and full speed.



So you do actually spar too? And there aren't any imaginary rules to it?

Absolutely. Sparring is essential to martial arts.



You'd like to say... you haven't fought in any capacity have you? I mean, in the street, on the door, in a bar, at school, in a ring, even in FC protected sparring with a 'ref'? The way you're explaining this IT IS a complex, over-analysed performance...! And you teach, too? Have your students fought using what you've taught?

Absolutely I've fought and sparred plenty. I've fought in a smokers at some local gyms too. Last one I did I blew my knee out, so I had to take a break for about a year, but I'm training right now to go back.

The reason I say "I'd like to say", is because I'm not an elite MMA fighter. I've fought, but I can't say I know just because I can beat up people on the street who, who knows what they know or don't know. There are no standards of fighting on the street. And since I've never fought(sparred, but not fought) a professional fighter and not just some dude at a smoker or amateur fight, how can I say, yes, for sure I apply everything perfectly. :D

As for teaching, I've taught some of the concepts I've learned to help give some people a different perspective, but I don't have enough time in my day to have any "students". I've helped teach some people who have their own trainers, to help them break out of the rigidity and think outside the box.