TWCNYC clips

[Phil Redmond]

Here's some of the training we do at 64 E. 4th St. 4th Fl. NYC on Saturdays from 3:30 to 5:30pm. (cheap plug, eh??)
Lop sao drills (http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr)

[k gledhill]

I know those banners ! ;) I've had those for years, a student of mine went to HK and had them made translates into ...Ving Tsun, Gee Hong or "The Best VT" or "Vt is the best" or VT the Hero....:D

[Phil Redmond]

I know those banners ! ;) I've had those for years, a student of mine went to HK and had them made translates into ...Ving Tsun, Gee Hong or "The Best VT" or "Vt is the best" or VT the Hero....:D
Thanks for the translation of the 1st two characters.

[Ultimatewingchun]

You're right, Phil, cheap plug. :p

Whaaa? (You say)

Ummm, well, I forgot to mention that 1993 just called and he wants his drills back.

Oh, and btw, late 2009 is on the phone as we speak and he says you should 86 the drills for awhile and show the folks some vids of those "full contact tournaments that we've been winning."

And then maybe you won't be open to the kinds of posts you're getting here on this thread.

Maybe. :D

Honestly, Phil, that's what he said !!! :cool:

[Phil Redmond]

Thanks for the support Vic. You can see some of the clips of the recent Spanish Harlem fights on Rahsun's youtube page. We had three fighters enter and got one gold and two silver medals. It was their first fights so there are lots of things they need to work on. There will be lots more since I've hooked up with the instructors at the Harlem school. Others are welcome to participate. Also, there are some Lei Tai fights on my website and I have more of Sifu Mazza's students and Sifu Shannon Moore's student's fights. We are looking for more WC people who want to compete. Just shoot me an email.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"You can see some of the clips of the recent Spanish Harlem fights on Rahsun's youtube page." (Phil)

***YOU mean like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9-KSC1fPQ

[Phil Redmond]

"You can see some of the clips of the recent Spanish Harlem fights on Rahsun's youtube page." (Phil)

***YOU mean like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9-KSC1fPQ
Yes, that is one of the fights.
And an older one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aue6bIplPwI

[Phil Redmond]

. . .Ummm, well, I forgot to mention that 1993 just called and he wants his drills back.
Those drills are older than both of us. ;)


Oh, and btw, late 2009 is on the phone as we speak and he says you should 86 the drills for awhile and show the folks some vids of those "full contact tournaments that we've been winning." . . . .
I'll never abandon drilling basics.

[Sihing73]

Those drills are older than both of us. ;)


I'll never abandon drilling basics.

I don't know Phil, you're pretty old and so is Vic ;)

Basics is the key to a good foundation and also is what wins most fights!!! ;)

[AdrianK]

Ah, I remember those drills from my days in TWC. I like bong sao lop sao, its a decent enough drill.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ah, yeah, drilling the basics is always important. I and my studnets do SLT and several of the most important TWC "drills" virtually every class. But that was not my point. :rolleyes: :cool:

The point was that showing the fights (ie.- the results of drilling the basics, amoungst other things)....is infinitely more interesting and informative to the readers/viewers on a forum like this than simply posting vids of drills and classroom whiteboard material.

And so I thought it might be a good idea to point toward the matches rather than the drills; and speaking of the drills once again: Great stuff, been doing them for years, including all the "secret" ones (cough, cough)...

but if you watch the fight(s) posted you see much more than what's covered in the drills - because the drills are partial and the matches are much closer to all out fighting.

And you also see what the limitations of what's covered within the drills might be - and are.

[JPinAZ]

....The point was that showing the fights (ie.- the results of drilling the basics, amoungst other things)....is infinitely more interesting and informative to the readers/viewers on a forum like this than simply posting vids of drills and classroom whiteboard material....

Not sure you can speak for all the readers/viewers here..
While I would agree, seeing clips of WC in 'action' or fighting is great (and I wish there were more of them on the net), seeing how others train is also pretty interesting to me (just as much so). And, I would guess I'm not the only one that feels that way. I'm happy to see Phil's clips, regardless what they show!

Curious Vic, and I mean no slight, but what do you call your vids of your defense against boxers' hooks, or your chi sau clips? I hope that's not what you'd call showing the 'results' or fights? ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

So if I didn't put my two cents in here on this thread we would have seen little more than Phil with a felt pen and a whiteboard and Rahsun demoing against some punches followed by a spinning backfist.

And now you get that AND some actual full contact matches to watch. You should thank me, JP....:D

Or perhaps you're enamoured by the TWC drill vids because you're ready to finally come over to the DARK SIDE ???!!! :eek:

(TWC).....:cool:

[JPinAZ]

So if I didn't put my two cents in here on this thread we would seen little more than Phil with a felt pen and a whiteboard and Rahsun demoing against some punches followed by a spinning backfist.

And now you get that AND some actual full contact matches to watch. You should thank me, JP....:D

Or perhaps you're enamoured by the TWC drill vids because you're ready to finally come over to the DARK SIDE ???!!! :eek:

(TWC).....:cool:

ha, WC is about fighting - it's all the dark side :D

[Phil Redmond]

Ok, the drills I show are not made to impress people. Demos are one thing but stopping random full power attacks are something different. I post these clips for people who are willing to explore WC options outside their respective lineages in order to prevail. Through the last 39 years of doing WC I've learned that "usually" the fighters will experiment regardless of style but the non-fighters will make comments based on no full contact experience.
I'm not saying that what I do is better than what others do but I refuse to post a clip of a WC tech that can't be applied or that I can't apply against someone bent on wrecking you. I watch other WC people online and see good stuff outside "my" lineage and I can learn from that. There are some really **** good WC people out there. So for those opened minded WC people and others I'm at 64 E. 4th St on Saturdays. I don't care if you want to come by to talk and exchange or if you want attempt to knock my head off. ****, it's just a head. Ya see at my age I can say “..well I used to be able to stop that..”
But if I can stop it then we should discuss how I was able to.
So PLEASE feel free to stop by to “exchange” spar, chi sao, or whatever. I’ll never get better without training with better people. I know of a few venues in NY/NJ where you can test your WC full contact. So again, feel free to contact me.
I did this really fast so excuse any typpppooooooosssss…..lol

[Phil Redmond]

I'll be in NYC this weekend to teach the Sat class and to celebrate my birthday on Sunday. I can be reached at sifu@wckwoon.com ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'll be in NYC this weekend to teach the Sat class and to celebrate my birthday on Sunday. I can be reached at sifu@wckwoon.com ;)

Allow me to wish you a HBday, you old **** !!
http://www.mycommentstop.com/Site_Comments/Birthday_Category/Sexy_Birthday_Comments/images/bikiniparty.gif

[Phil Redmond]

Allow me to wish you a HBday, you old **** !!
http://www.mycommentstop.com/Site_Comments/Birthday_Category/Sexy_Birthday_Comments/images/bikiniparty.gif
You are da'man Sanjuro. Thx :D

[Phil Redmond]

http://www.youtube.com/user/wckwoon

[Phil Redmond]

Sat. class Aug. 7.2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kD2AdUEm3E

[JPinAZ]

Some of the ideas in this clip are similar to how we use fook in HFY as well (elbow-in position and distance from body, proper fook shape not flat with the floor, fwd energy).
Cool clip, thanks for sharing!

[shawchemical]

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;972839]
So PLEASE feel free to stop by to “exchange” spar, chi sao, or whatever. I’ll never get better without training with better people. /QUOTE]

Sorry for any previous things I've said.

I respect this sentiment highly.

I hope I can come to NYC sometime.

[Phil Redmond]

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;972839]
So PLEASE feel free to stop by to “exchange” spar, chi sao, or whatever. I’ll never get better without training with better people. /QUOTE]

Sorry for any previous things I've said.

I respect this sentiment highly.

I hope I can come to NYC sometime.
Np, though we may get carried away of MA forums, most martial artists are cool people when you meet them in person.

[tigershorty]

nice vid, phil. keep posting em

[Phil Redmond]

Thx, I have lots more

[Phil Redmond]

Chi sao class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJpXq3fK_ic

[Phil Redmond]

one more on chi sao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOvWo1dPfV0

[Phil Redmond]

Gan Sao from Chi Sao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9GqVmWV6sw

Wing Chun entry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHQwsQxnZHk

Jab Defense 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSRNiymInkQ

Wing Chun Kick training 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37U0k-n5ou0:

[shawchemical]

Chi sao class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJpXq3fK_ic

I can't for the life of me work out why you'd choose to use the wrong hand at the start, and why you continue to attempt to hold with the fuk sao. It appears that you use too much wrist at that point, for it is not the wrist which prevents the pak sao from being successful, but the solidness of the elbow position. As far as we are taught, the wrist should be loose but pointed towards the man, so that if there is no impediment to its passage, it punches the man, and just touching the man's arm to allow for greater surface area contact not to hold that mans arm in contact, but to be able to sense the movement and be able to react.

[Phil Redmond]

I can't for the life of me work out why you'd choose to use the wrong hand at the start, and why you continue to attempt to hold with the fuk sao. It appears that you use too much wrist at that point, for it is not the wrist which prevents the pak sao from being successful, but the solidness of the elbow position. As far as we are taught, the wrist should be loose but pointed towards the man, so that if there is no impediment to its passage, it punches the man, and just touching the man's arm to allow for greater surface area contact not to hold that mans arm in contact, but to be able to sense the movement and be able to react.
The character wing in wing chun has a radical (a combination of characters). Weng doesn't have that combination. One side of Wing means to speak. The other half of the character means forever. There are many characters in Chinese that are combined. Fuhk/fook means to control or subdue. Have you ever heard of the Hung Ga form called Gung Ji Fook Fu Kuen? Well, it means Gung character taming (subduing) the Tiger Fist. The character fuhk depicts a man "controlling" a dog. Fuhk is patterned after a canine's paw. Google begging dogs pictures and you see that dogs/foxes/ wolves have their paws pointing downwards like I showed in the picture not to the left or right. Yes, I use the wrist. How else can I "control". Now I know where you're coming from because for 13 years I probably did the fuhk like you think it should be done. But enough with stories about dog's paws. I GUARANTEE that if you try the fuhk like I demonstrated in the chi sao clip you will see the difference. Or better yet. I'm at 64 E. 4th St. 4th Floor ever Sat. from 3:30 - 5:30 pm. I'll allow you to try the pak from the position I used in the clip on me. We can video your attempt and post it on youtube. (please excuse typos. I'm still getting used the the touch keypad on my iphone)

[Phil Redmond]

Wing Chun Lau Sao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCjLU06s-IE


Wing Chun thrusting arm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhZ6Iop1Y4


Uppercut Round Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sR0G6wn7Yg


Wing Chun shoot defense (I'll accept any input from the grapplers on the forum since that's not my forte). I'm not too old to learn. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J3lN2-nB48


Wing Chun pad drills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qspPKWToW60

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wing Chun Lau Sao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCjLU06s-IE


Wing Chun thrusting arm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhZ6Iop1Y4


Uppercut Round Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sR0G6wn7Yg


Wing Chun shoot defense (I'll accept any input from the grapplers on the forum since that's not my forte). I'm not too old to learn. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J3lN2-nB48


Wing Chun pad drills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qspPKWToW60

Nice videos Phil. I can tell you what at the grapplers will say about the shoot defense. Do it against a good wrestling double legs and shoots rather than a tackle. The the same principles apply, but you have to be a bit more proficient to stop a good wrestling shoot because they can get to your legs more easily.

[Phil Redmond]

Nice videos Phil. I can tell you what at the grapplers will say about the shoot defense. Do it against a good wrestling double legs and shoots rather than a tackle. The the same principles apply, but you have to be a bit more proficient to stop a good wrestling shoot because they can get to your legs more easily.
Thanks, I need to find a guy that's good at the shot to really test what I'm doing. There are at least 4 grapplers at Keith Mazza's school that I know of. I need to work with them and other good grapplers.

[Sihing73]

Thanks, I need to find a guy that's good at the shot to really test what I'm doing. There are at least 4 grapplers at Keith Mazza's school that I know of. I need to work with them and other good grapplers.

Hi Phil,

I am a pretty good SHOT and I am sure some of my red-neck neighbors are pretty good shots too. Let us know and we can come up and work with you.

Although, you do know that Boxers had some difficulty dealing with the SHOT too................................right. :D

Oh wait a minute my bad; I forgot you were a Marine :o I'll bet you meant shoot I am afriad I can't help you with that one, never did get into rolling around on the ground with sweaty guys. Now if you have some femailes to roll with I am game for that :D

[Phil Redmond]

Hi Phil,

I am a pretty good SHOT and I am sure some of my red-neck neighbors are pretty good shots too. Let us know and we can come up and work with you.

Although, you do know that Boxers had some difficulty dealing with the SHOT too................................right. :D

Oh wait a minute my bad; I forgot you were a Marine :o I'll bet you meant shoot I am afriad I can't help you with that one, never did get into rolling around on the ground with sweaty guys. Now if you have some femailes to roll with I am game for that :D

I know you've heard the expression that children shouldn't talk when grownups are talking.
Well, soldiers shouldn't correct Marines when they know what they're talking about.
I've been talking to the wrestlers and grapplers at the Mt. Laurel school. I learned the term "shot" from them. Also all Marines are rifleman. Every Marine has to qualify with a rifle each year. Does the Army do that ? ;)
Notice that none of the real grapplers said anything. It had to be some non-grappling Wing Chun guy . . You're still my bro though. :)
Here are some links to "shot" training.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f12/please-help-me-learn-wrestling-shot-442290/index2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaObOYI0lcs

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xby2ly_wrestling-shot_sport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21DVZ40yKUc

[Sihing73]

Well, soldiers shouldn't correct Marines when they know what they're talking about.
Also all Marines are rifleman. Every Marine has to qualify with a rifle each year. Does the Army do that ? ;)
It had to be some non-grappling Wing Chun guy . . You're still my bro though. :)


Hi Phil,

Do Marines ever know what they are talking about :confused:
Yes, the Army has to qualify with weapons every year as well.
Oh, why do Marines have to go through Army Airborne Training when they go through their own first? And some still don't make it :p
Guilty as charged, I told you; unless it is rolling with some hottie (female just so there is no mistake :D) I prefer not to roll around on the ground.

You know you're my bro as well and I do respect you and yours for getting out and mixxing it up...................better to leave us theoretical non-fighters to our fantasy of being invincible :D

Although...........some of us win not because of superior skill but because we are too stubborn or too stupid to stop. I've been told it may be a mixture of both in my case........even my boss at work says that :(

[shawchemical]

The character wing in wing chun has a radical (a combination of characters). Weng doesn't have that combination. One side of Wing means to speak. The other half of the character means forever. There are many characters in Chinese that are combined. Fuhk/fook means to control or subdue. Have you ever heard of the Hung Ga form called Gung Ji Fook Fu Kuen? Well, it means Gung character taming (subduing) the Tiger Fist. The character fuhk depicts a man "controlling" a dog. Fuhk is patterned after a canine's paw. Google begging dogs pictures and you see that dogs/foxes/ wolves have their paws pointing downwards like I showed in the picture not to the left or right. Yes, I use the wrist. How else can I "control". Now I know where you're coming from because for 13 years I probably did the fuhk like you think it should be done. But enough with stories about dog's paws. I GUARANTEE that if you try the fuhk like I demonstrated in the chi sao clip you will see the difference. Or better yet. I'm at 64 E. 4th St. 4th Floor ever Sat. from 3:30 - 5:30 pm. I'll allow you to try the pak from the position I used in the clip on me. We can video your attempt and post it on youtube. (please excuse typos. I'm still getting used the the touch keypad on my iphone)

Its not the angle of the arm that I am confused by, it is the apparent "holding" using the fuk. The only result of that will be using the wrists, and slowing the punch. YOu can control the position via use of the elbow alone, as you only need to control the man because you couldn't punch him in the face.

thanks for the reply though.

I'm on the other side of the world, otherwise I'd come round to chat.

[Dave McKinnon]

Phil

It is not so much that your techniques are bad it is that the "wrestler" has terrible technique, no explosiveness to his entry and lacks any real setup.

But I like your video's so keep them up.

Dave

[k gledhill]

I can't for the life of me work out why you'd choose to use the wrong hand at the start, and why you continue to attempt to hold with the fuk sao. It appears that you use too much wrist at that point, for it is not the wrist which prevents the pak sao from being successful, but the solidness of the elbow position. As far as we are taught, the wrist should be loose but pointed towards the man, so that if there is no impediment to its passage, it punches the man, and just touching the man's arm to allow for greater surface area contact not to hold that mans arm in contact, but to be able to sense the movement and be able to react.


To us the 'fuk/fok' in drills is a jum sao punch waiting to 'lat sao chit chung' in the drill iow we make a fist and punch as the partner offers a gap or we sense their elbow is bad, arm moving off-line, etc...mutual work,iowwe will deliberately and often remove the tan sao or jum for each other to develop striking into sudden gaps....if the partner hesitates it shows he/she is not striking with forwards energy in cycles , jum/tan strike . iow the strikes become the 'constant forward cycling ' enrgy, not random forward pressure to FEEEEEl :D making the fighters learn when someone is fighting their hands and not aiming at them.., Like putting blanks in a revolver and aiming at a target 2 feet away and seeing they anticipate the bang on the blank and pull the alignment of the front sight and rear sight of the bulls eye, even when you let them take a clear shot...they , hesitate, then click as they realign etc...after a while they stay on target regardless and keep firing, facing , shifting seeking cover as the fire 'strategically' 2 guns recycling along the line.

not trying to make sensing the primary but a by-product of the punching alignment drills, etc......each cycle of the rotation is a tan striking elbow spreads, versus the jum inward elbow strike....the wrists are relaxed creating the 'woman hands' of VT :D:D the elbows of the the fok in SLT are a jum ELBOWS in training along with Tan ELBOWS....



the SLT makes us do the fok several times making the elbow push out with a relaxed wrist flopping down ,because its not involved in the alignment. Only th wrist JOINT and the elbow joint, one behind the other, as the wrists x's the c line striking out.

all punching, exchanging punches with partners in facing attacking/countering drills that progress from simple lok sao/poon sao .

Its subtle but changes the drill from feeling to striking attacks in constant rotation using the stances to back up the force exchange , stepping , pushing, while punching...intense.

Then back off and sparr using the 'contact' moment as the reason for having such strong stances and bridge angles...when you fight you cant correct the mistakes in time against someone who is fighting ....mistakes. If the stance is weak it will show upon sparring, same with chasing my hands on the c line or striking to the face, chi sao is striking , so the habits of aligned interception occur naturally with angling and facign WHILE striking as the drills also make you do...no difference from strategy only the use of 2 extended arms like the drill stops and they rotate as tut sao /wash hands. Creating a sweeping of the channel created in front of your torso by the forearms.

brilliant and functions.


I used to think the fok was a feely controlly thing too..


BTW Phil Sifu, the dummy is great thanks, maybe one day we can meet up, I train in NJ Sat so wont work. And my computer runs so slow I cant see the 'you tubes' in any real time , so cant see what your doing.
thanks

[HumbleWCGuy]

Uppercut Round Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sR0G6wn7Yg

I found this video interesting. We don't use the jum to block really. It is pretty much a grappling maneuver for us. That's different for me although, I think that you use in in a credible way. We prefer to just catch uppercuts with a lan.

The most interesting part about it is that you told your students to hurt the opponent with your block. I have never heard a WC guy say that. I tell my students to make all their WC hands techniques like whipping branches so blocks do hurt beginners. It killed me at first.

[Phil Redmond]

There are so many Wing Chun schools in the NYC Tri State area. I wish more WC schools would compete in full contact events. Unfortunately some people think WC isn't for competition. I beg to differ. You'll NEVER know if what you do works for real unless you test it against (coining a Terence-ism), resisting opponents. The WC people from Philadelphia travel to fight in NY. Where are the WC guys in NYC who are willing to test what they do?

[shawchemical]

This is great fuk sao position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr59XqhFgr4&feature=player_embedded

[Phil Redmond]

This is great fuk sao position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr59XqhFgr4&feature=player_embedded
No offense to the guy in the video but I guess you didn't study the video I made. Fook means to "control". Not flop around. I used to chi sao that way until I had people pak da me in the face over and over. I learned a method to stop that. I'm not not going to change now because of some video clip. It is a nice clip though.

[HumbleWCGuy]

No offense to the guy in the video but I guess you didn't study the video I made. Fook means to "control". Not flop around. I used to chi sao that way until I had people pak da me in the face over and over. I learned a method to stop that. I'm not not going to change now because of some video clip. It is a nice clip though.

I actually noticed that you aren't a member of the floppy wrist and fingers contingent of WC. I will never understand that.

[Phil Redmond]

I actually noticed that you aren't a member of the floppy wrist and fingers contingent of WC. I will never understand that.

Well, I'm not perfect ......:D

[shawchemical]

No offense to the guy in the video but I guess you didn't study the video I made. Fook means to "control". Not flop around. I used to chi sao that way until I had people pak da me in the face over and over. I learned a method to stop that. I'm not not going to change now because of some video clip. It is a nice clip though.

You simply misunderstand control. That is all. People can only successfully pak da if the elbow is out of position. The wrist holding the man's arm simply makes it easier to have the opponent pak da successfully.

The fuk sao is not flopping around, but constantly directed towards the man, as it will immediately punch if nothing gets in its way.

[HumbleWCGuy]

You simply misunderstand control. That is all. People can only successfully pak da if the elbow is out of position. The wrist holding the man's arm simply makes it easier to have the opponent pak da successfully.

The fuk sao is not flopping around, but constantly directed towards the man, as it will immediately punch if nothing gets in its way.

By my calculation in position out of position is irrelevant. Flop = Slop. Seriously, rhyming aside, fighting and training need to be very similar.

[shawchemical]

By my calculation in position out of position is irrelevant. Flop = Slop. Seriously, rhyming aside, fighting and training need to be very similar.

Then you're wrong.

Tension in the wrist/hand is always bad unless you are actively punching. This leads to no elbow strength and loss of positional control. The elbow is not sloppy, nor is it floppy.

We aim to be relaxed in fighting, yet have good position and control. Position is the only relevant thing.

This is NOT me in the clip.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Then you're wrong.

Tension in the wrist/hand is always bad unless you are actively punching. This leads to no elbow strength and loss of positional control. The elbow is not sloppy, nor is it floppy.

We aim to be relaxed in fighting, yet have good position and control. Position is the only relevant thing.

This is NOT me in the clip.

You need to execute your blocks the same way as your punches or you are going to end up hurting yourself. Also, where have you seen someone with good control in a realistic setting controlling anything with a floppy wrist and fingers? The only way that that stuff works is if you can find someone to do what I call play Wing Chun.

[shawchemical]

You need to execute your blocks the same way as your punches or you are going to end up hurting yourself. Also, where have you seen someone with good control in a realistic setting controlling anything with a floppy wrist and fingers? The only way that that stuff works is if you can find someone to do what I call play Wing Chun.

It is the same way as the punch. The elbow gives the control, not the wrist. Which is why the fuk sao should be done like this.
The more you try to use the wrist, the less you will be going forward, and the more leverage a man will have against you, and the easier it is to control the opponents elbow.

The goal is not to grab the man's wrist but to hit him, the elbow is what provides that control, not the wrist.

[Phil Redmond]

It is the same way as the punch. The elbow gives the control, not the wrist. Which is why the fuk sao should be done like this.
The more you try to use the wrist, the less you will be going forward, and the more leverage a man will have against you, and the easier it is to control the opponents elbow.

The goal is not to grab the man's wrist but to hit him, the elbow is what provides that control, not the wrist.
I've learned to test something before I advocate it. I used to teach in NYC parks in the hood where street fighters will try you. My student Rahsun still does it. I do not claim to know all there is about WC but if I say something will work it's because I can do it. Now, I understand that my making that claim proves nothing but I'm easily found. It's not like I'm teaching on some secret mountain. I've been hit pretty hard and survived. I can still take a good punch or kick. Actually, it's good to see where your weaknesses are ....:)

[LadySnow]

very nice clips Sifu Phil

I've watched many clips on youtube of you Sifu, wow you move just like him.
distinct way different to other WC/VT lines.
keep the clips coming. love to watch

[HumbleWCGuy]

I've learned to test something before I advocate it. I used to teach in NYC parks in the hood where street fighters will try you. My student Rahsun still does it. I do not claim to know all there is about WC but if I say something will work it's because I can do it. Now, I understand that my making that claim proves nothing but I'm easily found. It's not like I'm teaching on some secret mountain. I've been hit pretty hard and survived. I can still take a good punch or kick. Actually, it's good to see where your weaknesses are ....:)

Well said. I disagree with some of the things that you do mostly on the grounds that any sane person thinks that his own way is the best. Why would anyone do something that isn't "the best?" Right? However, I can't discount that your methods have served you well and worked for a lot of others. I am left to conclude that your Wing Chun is solid. It's probably better just to try and understand your position than worrying about discrediting it.

[t_niehoff]

I've learned to test something before I advocate it.


How do you "test" it?



I used to teach in NYC parks in the hood where street fighters will try you.


Those pesky "street fighters".



My student Rahsun still does it. I do not claim to know all there is about WC but if I say something will work it's because I can do it.


Do it against whom? Your students? Some scrubs?

Will you agree with me that being able to do something against someone with very little skill doesn't prove the soundness of what you do?

Will you also agree with me that being able to do something inconsistently or on rare occasions doesn't prove the soundness of what you do?

So, then will you agree with me that the soundness of whatever we do can only be shown by being able to do it consistently against decently skilled fighters?



Now, I understand that my making that claim proves nothing but I'm easily found. It's not like I'm teaching on some secret mountain.


So why do we have to come seek you out to validate your claims when you voluntarily make and upload lots of videos? Why put up videos showing how to do something but then say that if you want to see it really work, you must come and find you?



I've been hit pretty hard and survived. I can still take a good punch or kick. Actually, it's good to see where your weaknesses are ....:)

Even if one of those weaknesses is common sense?

[m1k3]

Phil, just a few comments from a grappler on your shoot defense.

First, a decent grappler isn't going to reach for your legs like that. Just like WC the elbows are kept close to the body. He is going to hit you with his body and then wrap the legs. In the example it is more like an arm tackle in football, it might work but its not the correct way to do it.

Second, the person doing the shoot is bending at the waist. As a grappler that is a terrible thing to do. You bend your legs to change levels not your waist. His contact point on the takedown should be the chest not the shoulder. Although I find that I have the tendency to duck and use the shoulder at the end of the takedown.

Third, on the shoot you drive through or through and up putting him on his back or picking him up to finish with a throw or slam. He stopped way to soon in his shoot. You aren't bending and reaching, you are throwing your whole body at the person you want to take down.

Your defense of blocking the reaching arm won't work very well with someone who knows how to shoot because there shouldn't be a reaching arm.

You throw in setups, under and over hooks, hip throws, headlock throws, sacrifice throws and leg dives into the mix and the process gets even more complicated.

In your practice the guy doing the shoot should set up using one or more jabs or WC punches. This sets the distance, if you can't reach them you shouldn't shoot, and is a distraction on what is to follow. If you know the shoot is the only thing he is going to do its easy to be ready but if you have to watch for jabs and a shoot it will be more realistic and harder to be set up to defend.

Just adding some of that in will improve the drill.

[m1k3]

Phil, one other thing. Just like TWC wants to move to the blind side to get an advantageous position a good grappler will try to do the same thing. As a set up I may grab an arm, pull, step to the side and then shoot. Or grab an arm, pull and hold, then let go. As you pull the arm back I'm following it in with a shoot.

Hope this helps.:)

[Ultimatewingchun]

phil, just a few comments from a grappler on your shoot defense.

First, a decent grappler isn't going to reach for your legs like that. Just like wc the elbows are kept close to the body. He is going to hit you with his body and then wrap the legs. In the example it is more like an arm tackle in football, it might work but its not the correct way to do it.

Second, the person doing the shoot is bending at the waist. As a grappler that is a terrible thing to do. You bend your legs to change levels not your waist. His contact point on the takedown should be the chest not the shoulder. Although i find that i have the tendency to duck and use the shoulder at the end of the takedown.

Third, on the shoot you drive through or through and up putting him on his back or picking him up to finish with a throw or slam. He stopped way to soon in his shoot. You aren't bending and reaching, you are throwing your whole body at the person you want to take down.

Your defense of blocking the reaching arm won't work very well with someone who knows how to shoot because there shouldn't be a reaching arm.

You throw in setups, under and over hooks, hip throws, headlock throws, sacrifice throws and leg dives into the mix and the process gets even more complicated.

In your practice the guy doing the shoot should set up using one or more jabs or wc punches. This sets the distance, if you can't reach them you shouldn't shoot, and is a distraction on what is to follow. If you know the shoot is the only thing he is going to do its easy to be ready but if you have to watch for jabs and a shoot it will be more realistic and harder to be set up to defend.

Just adding some of that in will improve the drill.

***This...

[monji112000]

I know you've heard the expression that children shouldn't talk when grownups are talking.
Well, soldiers shouldn't correct Marines when they know what they're talking about.
I've been talking to the wrestlers and grapplers at the Mt. Laurel school. I learned the term "shot" from them. Also all Marines are rifleman. Every Marine has to qualify with a rifle each year. Does the Army do that ? ;)
Notice that none of the real grapplers said anything. It had to be some non-grappling Wing Chun guy . . You're still my bro though. :)
Here are some links to "shot" training.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f12/please-help-me-learn-wrestling-shot-442290/index2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaObOYI0lcs

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xby2ly_wrestling-shot_sport

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21DVZ40yKUc

Phil,

Your missing the distance, timing, and setup a average wrestler will have. You are assuming your going to see it coming a mile a way and be able to react .

some examples of real shooting wrestlers with good simple setups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-BAya2rOuU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo_cOf9YhIQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAM2T-n8Uj0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGDKed0c3WE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z-XYTbyBNg


I showed two distinct styles of double legs with setups (wrestling and Judo). For most cases you must realize that you are going to be up against two main enemies 1) distance 2) timing
The reason why people use the sprawl so much is that depending on the it can cover allot of ground..

Since you are not a competent wrestler , it will be hard to work on defenses to a this attack.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Rule of thumb:
You wanna test a given skill versus something you do it VS those that do that something the best.

In this case, if you want to test your takedown defense you do it with those that do takedowns the best.
This doesn't mean you need to stop what you are doing and take up wrestling, but it does mean that you need to expose yourself to the best wrestlers you can to see what ACTUALLY does work and how to adapt it to your chosen MA.

[Knifefighter]

Thanks, I need to find a guy that's good at the shot to really test what I'm doing. There are at least 4 grapplers at Keith Mazza's school that I know of. I need to work with them and other good grapplers.

Actually, I think you are on the right track. Yeah, maybe you could work against some better takedown guys, but I see some good stuff in what you are doing.

The stuff you were doing from underneath the mount is another story altogether, though. You will get annihilated trying to do what you were showing from there.

[Phil Redmond]

Actually, I think you are on the right track. Yeah, maybe you could work against some better takedown guys, but I see some good stuff in what you are doing.

The stuff you were doing from underneath the mount is another story altogether, though. You will get annihilated trying to do what you were showing from there.
Thanks Dale.

[Phil Redmond]

How do you "test" it?



Those pesky "street fighters".



Do it against whom? Your students? Some scrubs? . . . . . .

Terence, what is a scrub to you? Anyone who doesn't do MMA?
So you mean to say that there are no good street fighters out there and all MMA guys can beat any one in the street who doesn't train at an MMA gym. :rolleyes:
There are many people out there who can deal a solid punch. I would just love to see something of your training so we could all critique it.

[shawchemical]

Terence, what is a scrub to you? Anyone who doesn't do MMA?
So you mean to say that there are no good street fighters out there and all MMA guys can beat any one in the street who doesn't train at an MMA gym. :rolleyes:
There are many people out there who can deal a solid punch. I would just love to see something of your training so we could all critique it.

That;'ll never happen.

He wouldn't be able to criticise anyone else because he'd be laughed out of town more than he is now.

Just training at an MMA gym doesn't make you a good fighter.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

Your missing the distance, timing, and setup a average wrestler will have. You are assuming your going to see it coming a mile a way and be able to react .

some examples of real shooting wrestlers with good simple setups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-BAya2rOuU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo_cOf9YhIQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAM2T-n8Uj0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGDKed0c3WE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z-XYTbyBNg


I showed two distinct styles of double legs with setups (wrestling and Judo). For most cases you must realize that you are going to be up against two main enemies 1) distance 2) timing
The reason why people use the sprawl so much is that depending on the it can cover allot of ground..

Since you are not a competent wrestler , it will be hard to work on defenses to a this attack.

Good stuff. I will be doing some grappling.

[Phil Redmond]

Terence, it's sad that you have a Law Degree which requires some verbal eloquence, and are still not able to discuss something without resorting to personal attacks. Other people with grappling experience gave me constructive criticisms like real martial artists. You really show your lack of character with your grammar school playground rants and insults. The guys I know who can really fight don't talk that way to each other. There is a respect among warriors. That's something you need to think about.

[Frost]

Wing Chun Lau Sao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCjLU06s-IE


Wing Chun thrusting arm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxhZ6Iop1Y4


Uppercut Round Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sR0G6wn7Yg


Wing Chun shoot defense (I'll accept any input from the grapplers on the forum since that's not my forte). I'm not too old to learn. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J3lN2-nB48


Wing Chun pad drills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qspPKWToW60

some comments on the grappling shot, first of getting off line and your arms under his is a good idea and can work especially in MMA where the shot tends to be higher than in grappling and i like how you lower your body to defend the shot and dont stay at one level,. Against a high level shot lowering your level using your arms like forklifts (double underhooks) to lift him up and turning off can be a very good defence

Points to work on, as already stated a good shot, even a high level one where the knee does not touch the floor will have the wrestlers hips under the head the arms in close and momentum driving into you, they normally do not reach around you until there forearms/upper body make contact with the legs, they never bend over and the momentum continues through you.

If you can find someone who can shoot properly you should have a ball :)

As for the mount defence well no offence but people dont attack like that and trying to reach and block will get your head taken off, as with the above get a guy who knows what he is doing to play with you there and you will probably find its fun too

[Dragonzbane76]

Points to work on, as already stated a good shot, even a high level one where the knee does not touch the floor will have the wrestlers hips under the head the arms in close and momentum driving into you, they normally do not reach around you until there forearms/upper body make contact with the legs, they never bend over and the momentum continues through you.

good points frost. Another point, a true wrestler will doggedly follow with the shot. "peg legging" on knees to keep coming. dependent upon how high the shot and the intentions, the point frost brought up about not reaching around until upper body and forearms make contact is very correct. Most people that teach defense on the shot with traditional background tend to forget that there is a lot of momentum coming forwards and it is lightning fast. The basics of wrestling from day one is the shot. The first drills you learn in wrestling are the shot. so a moderate wrestler is pretty good with the shot to say the least.

The full mount def. you demo. the outward blocks, probably not a good idea. From exp. I would say to shoot your hands up toward the should they are striking from when you see the exchange coming. Not a good idea to be taking those anyhow and the #1 thing on your mind should be to get out of the full mount, because blocking with your hands from that position, it's just a matter of time before you catch one. I would honestly try and maintain wrist control on one hand and either try outside sweeps on legs with other hand or bucking for opportunity.

[t_niehoff]

Terence, it's sad that you have a Law Degree which requires some verbal eloquence, and are still not able to discuss something without resorting to personal attacks. Other people with grappling experience gave me constructive criticisms like real martial artists. You really show your lack of character with your grammar school playground rants and insults. The guys I know who can really fight don't talk that way to each other. There is a respect among warriors. That's something you need to think about.

I'm sorry, Phil, but where did I make any personal attacks against you in my post? Please cite them. They aren't there.

You said in your post that you "test" these things before you teach them (and you know they work because you can do them -- remember?). I asked how you test it, against whom, etc.? Do you think these are personal attacks? Don't you think these are critically important questions?

You teach your shoot defense -- can you do that? Are you making that work? Really?

It doesn't matter what constructive criticism you get or information you get (like by watching videos) -- if you don't go train with competently skilled people, none of that will make any difference. You are only as good as your training partners. If you train defending the shoot against people unskilled at shooting in and taking you down, you will forever suck no matter how much training you do. That's the best constructive criticism you can get. If you had been training with competently skilled wrestlers in the first place, you wouldn't NEED any of that other constructive criticism -- you'd already know better.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Interestingly, it's a well known fact that Phil has done some full-contact upright. He has trained guys to fight full-contact. He has provided at least two videos of his students fighting. Yet T. claims that he has only tested his stuff against street fighters. LOL...

Phil was upfront about his need for assistance with the grappling so to resort to disparaging his many years of training because he posted some grappling that he knew needed work is beyond me.

I am not quite sure why a guy like T. disparages street fighters so. Why would someone who likely has no chin be so quick to dismiss a big ol' guy with a little boxing experience who would put him down for the count?

[t_niehoff]

Interestingly, it's a well known fact that Phil has done some full-contact upright.


Yeah, he did some full-contact stuff in the 70s. do you remember what that was like? I do.



He has trained guys to fight full-contact. He has provided at least two videos of his students fighting.


Yes, I've seen videos of his students at those Manup thingies and some other comps.



Yet T. claims that he has only tested his stuff against street fighters. LOL...


No I didn't. Why are you lying? Show me where I said that.

Phil said he only taught what worked and he knew it worked because he tested it. I ASKED how he tested it, against whom, etc. For example, how did he test his shoot defense, against whom did he test it, etc.?



Phil was upfront about his need for assistance with the grappling so to resort to disparaging his many years of training because he posted some grappling that he knew needed work is beyond me.


And do you know what the answer to that is? Go train with some competent grapplers. And don't teach what you aren't skilled at.



I am not quite sure why a guy like T. disparages street fighters so. Why would someone who likely has no chin be so quick to dismiss a big ol' guy with a little boxing experience who would put him down for the count?

I don't disparage "street fighters" since there is really no such thing except in the imaginations of TMAists who believe in them like the bogeyman.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Yeah, he did some full-contact stuff in the 70s. do you remember what that was like? I do.



Yes, I've seen videos of his students at those Manup thingies and some other comps.



No I didn't. Why are you lying? Show me where I said that.

Phil said he only taught what worked and he knew it worked because he tested it. I ASKED how he tested it, against whom, etc. For example, how did he test his shoot defense, against whom did he test it, etc.?



And do you know what the answer to that is? Go train with some competent grapplers. And don't teach what you aren't skilled at.



I don't disparage "street fighters" since there is really no such thing except in the imaginations of TMAists who believe in them like the bogeyman.
It sounds to me like you already now who he tested his stuff against and that his students are currently testing it so your questioning of whom he has tested his martial arts on is irrelevant.

Also, so what if phil tested his stuff on 70's martial artists? He fought who was available at the time and evolved more after that. That's the nature of things. Moreover, he trains guys who fight now.

[t_niehoff]

It sounds to me like you already now who he tested his stuff against and that his students are currently testing it so your questioning of whom he has tested his martial arts on is irrelevant.


It sounds like that to you because you make up sh1t in your bizarre mind.

I have my suspicions, but my question is valid even if I did know.



Also, so what if phil tested his stuff on 70's martial artists? He fought who was available at the time and evolved more after that.
That's the nature of things. Moreover, he trains guys who fight now.

How do you know that he "evolved"? More making sh1t up?

So what if he trains a few guys who fight other kung fu and karate people? So do the karate people!

[HumbleWCGuy]

It sounds like that to you because you make up sh1t in your bizarre mind.

I have my suspicions, but my question is valid even if I did know.



How do you know that he "evolved"? More making sh1t up?

So what if he trains a few guys who fight other kung fu and karate people? So do the karate people!
Your pretending to not cast disparagement Phil is making "sh1t" up.

[Phil Redmond]

Yeah, he did some full-contact stuff in the 70s. do you remember what that was like? I do. . . . .

Actually it was from the 80's on. Full contact in the 70's didn't allow knees, elbows and striking an opponent from the ground. You can check the date that Jonas Nunez was a pro fighter. I fought him. That's movie director Warrington Hudlin with Bruce Leroy (The Last Dragon), in the background.

[Phil Redmond]

I'm sorry, Phil, but where did I make any personal attacks against you in my post? Please cite them. They aren't there. . . .
I was referring to other posts you've made. Not one in particular.

[Kansuke]

good points frost. Another point, a true wrestler will doggedly follow with the shot. "peg legging" on knees to keep coming.



That's a little categorical, as it would depend on a number of variables.

[HumbleWCGuy]

It sounds like that to you because you make up sh1t in your bizarre mind.

I have my suspicions, but my question is valid even if I did know.



How do you know that he "evolved"? More making sh1t up?

So what if he trains a few guys who fight other kung fu and karate people? So do the karate people!

Training guys who currently compete decently means that he must have evolved. To assume that he hasn't is making stuff up if you ask me.

[Dragonzbane76]

That's a little categorical, as it would depend on a number of variables.

it would but I was just stating that in "general" terms the mentality is such.

[Frost]

It sounds to me like you already now who he tested his stuff against and that his students are currently testing it so your questioning of whom he has tested his martial arts on is irrelevant.

Also, so what if phil tested his stuff on 70's martial artists? He fought who was available at the time and evolved more after that. That's the nature of things. Moreover, he trains guys who fight now.

this is correct, you are the one T saying people need to compete and train with fighters, phil has done this and is doing this, so his guys arent fighting pro level but they are fighting and thats a very good start. ANd Phil DID ask for feedback from grapplers on what he is teaching as he admits he doesn't know grappling, that is a very refreshing attitude

[Frost]

it would but I was just stating that in "general" terms the mentality is such.

true especially where strikes are concerned, once commited to a takedown people tend to be loathed to give it up, it is true all the time no but unless you are testing and feeling the opponent out the intent is usually to go through the other guy and finish the move,

[t_niehoff]

Training guys who currently compete decently means that he must have evolved. To assume that he hasn't is making stuff up if you ask me.

Just because people fight today doesn't mean they have "evolved." As I said, karate people continue to fight. They had kung fu/karate "tournaments" in the 70s and 80s. How is that not just more of the same?

Where is there any evidence that these guys have evolved?

The only significant evolution in MAs -- in fact the "game changer" -- was MMA, and the appreciation that if you are not a well-rounded fighter, competent in stand up, clinch, and ground, then you will have a huge hole in your game that can be rather easily exploited. This led to fighters cross-training with competently skilled people and seeking out instruction from skilled people in other disciplines.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Just because people fight today doesn't mean they have "evolved." As I said, karate people continue to fight. They had kung fu/karate "tournaments" in the 70s and 80s. How is that not just more of the same?

Where is there any evidence that these guys have evolved?

The only significant evolution in MAs -- in fact the "game changer" -- was MMA, and the appreciation that if you are not a well-rounded fighter, competent in stand up, clinch, and ground, then you will have a huge hole in your game that can be rather easily exploited. This led to fighters cross-training with competently skilled people and seeking out instruction from skilled people in other disciplines.

You have to start somewhere. Also, from my perspective, If I learn upright, I want a specialist. If I learn ground, I want a specialist. Generic mma is fine, but the people who seem to be doing the best in mma have a specialty to build their game around. So what is wrong with just teaching one?

Also, mma schools aren't everything. What about weapon's training, weapon's defense, awareness training, philosophy, and "foul" tactics as you call them.

[m1k3]

true especially where strikes are concerned, once commited to a takedown people tend to be loathed to give it up, it is true all the time no but unless you are testing and feeling the opponent out the intent is usually to go through the other guy and finish the move,

I think this especially true of folks with a wrestling background. The "finish the take down" mentality is really drilled into you. That and the alternative to not finishing the take down is to be stuffed (bad from a wrestling point of view) or be reversed (even worse to a wrestler). In wrestling there really isn't a good way to disengage after you committed to the shoot. It's not like you can pull guard or something. :)

[m1k3]

BTW, Phil, good start. Keep it up and get some grapplers involved. You don't have to be good at take downs to defend them but you need some people who can do them to work against.

Also, why were you even talking to that doggie? :D

I feel old school today so:

Gung Ho!

PS, the Mark Hatmaker (sp?) book on take downs and his one on clinch fighting are both pretty good.

[t_niehoff]

You have to start somewhere. Also, from my perspective, If I learn upright, I want a specialist.


If you want to learn anything, then you should go to a competent person to learn it. That also entails training with competent people.

That poses the important question: how do you know whether someone is competent?



If I learn ground, I want a specialist. Generic mma is fine, but the people who seem to be doing the best in mma have a specialty to build their game around. So what is wrong with just teaching one?


I don't know what "generic" MMA is. Good MMA gyms have various classes, BJJ, wrestling, boxing, MT, taught by competent people in those disciplines, and then they have MMA sparring where you put it all together under the guidance of a good coach.



Also, mma schools aren't everything. What about weapon's training, weapon's defense, awareness training, philosophy, and "foul" tactics as you call them.

Foul tactics are a part of any sport. Only people who haven't significantly trained in sport fighting believe otherwise.

You are changing the subject. But, IMO, most "awareness training", like most RBSD, is theoretical nonsense. Same for most weapon training. Regardless of what you do, sport-type training is what builds significant skill.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If you want to learn anything, then you should go to a competent person to learn it. That also entails training with competent people.

That poses the important question: how do you know whether someone is competent?


I can certainly say that competence is more than how many fighers that someone runs to smokers per year as you seam to believe. With this current mma craze, their is an infinite supply of meat heads willing to jump in the ring, training or no training.


Quick note on awareness training... So you don't advocate that a person scan a potential assailant for weapons, consider environmental weapons, think about avoiding a sliding door van? That's all bunk? Awareness is a women's number one defense against men. But a sport school that trains weight classes and sex divisions ignores that.

[m1k3]

You are changing the subject. But, IMO, most "awareness training", like most RBSD, is theoretical nonsense. Same for most weapon training. Regardless of what you do, sport-type training is what builds significant skill.

Sorry to disagree T but you are wrong here. Awareness training is essentially "street smarts 101" for those folks who either didn't need it growing up or failed to develop it for some reason. The military term is situational awareness, it can be taught and drilled. For a lot of people this is way more important than any fighting class they could ever take. It's a lot easier to not put yourself in harms way than to fight your way out of it.

As for the weapons training, you're probably right. However there is some good stuff out there. Dog brothers for example and the bayonet training I had in the Marines.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Sorry to disagree T but you are wrong here. Awareness training is essentially "street smarts 101" for those folks who either didn't need it growing up or failed to develop it for some reason. The military term is situational awareness, it can be taught and drilled. For a lot of people this is way more important than any fighting class they could ever take. It's a lot easier to not put yourself in harms way than to fight your way out of it.

As for the weapons training, you're probably right. However there is some good stuff out there. Dog brothers for example and the bayonet training I had in the Marines.

Thanks mike. I am not down on mma so much as people who blindly follow and don't recognize that there is more out there.

[Kansuke]

I think this especially true of folks with a wrestling background. The "finish the take down" mentality is really drilled into you. That and the alternative to not finishing the take down is to be stuffed (bad from a wrestling point of view) or be reversed (even worse to a wrestler). In wrestling there really isn't a good way to disengage after you committed to the shot. It's not like you can pull guard or something. :)


That's not exactly true. You should aggressively follow through with at shot even if you don't get full penetration, but persisting forward if you are in bad position will only set you up for a counter. Further, it is not uncommon for a first shot to be expected to not succeed in itself but to set up something else two or three reactions from there that will involve switching off rather than even attempting to finish the initial shot. Hell, many shots are false shots intended to elicit a reaction from the opponent you can then take advantage of. Even if you are not intending anything but a straight shot and get caught there are many ways to "disengage" from that; switching off from, say, a double to a single or a high crotch, coming up to a tie position, or tying up your opponent's hands and working back out of it, expecting a counter of some sort from him and being prepared to respond to that. There are just too many variables to make blanket statements.

[t_niehoff]

I can certainly say that competence is more than how many fighers that someone runs to smokers per year as you seam to believe. With this current mma craze, their is an infinite supply of meat heads willing to jump in the ring, training or no training.

Yeah, there are a lot of meatheads. And there are a lot of TMAists teaching "how to fight" or "how to use their TMA in fighting" that have little to no skill.

But the question remains: how can we know whether someone has competent skills?

The answer is by their demonstrated ability to hold their own USING WHAT THEY TRAIN with KNOWN competently skilled fighters.

The other aspect is to look at the fundamentals that they teach and compare that to what the "best" are doing/teaching. For example, compare Phil's takedown defense to what good wrestlers teach.

[t_niehoff]

Sorry to disagree T but you are wrong here. Awareness training is essentially "street smarts 101" for those folks who either didn't need it growing up or failed to develop it for some reason. The military term is situational awareness, it can be taught and drilled. For a lot of people this is way more important than any fighting class they could ever take. It's a lot easier to not put yourself in harms way than to fight your way out of it.
.

I think you need to reread what I wrote. I said "most" awareness/RBSD training. Sure it can be taught and drilled. But what most people are teaching is utter nonsense directed at clueless people.



As for the weapons training, you're probably right. However there is some good stuff out there. Dog brothers for example and the bayonet training I had in the Marines.

Of course there is.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Yeah, there are a lot of meatheads. And there are a lot of TMAists teaching "how to fight" or "how to use their TMA in fighting" that have little to no skill.

But the question remains: how can we know whether someone has competent skills?

The answer is by their demonstrated ability to hold their own with KNOWN competently skilled fighters.
.

That's not quite right. There are lots of good teachers who didn't have the athletic ability or were too injury-prone to soar the heights of full-contact fighting. For the upright game, I can just watch people teach, talk with them, and tell you if they suck or not. I don't need to see a record or necessarily even spar.

There is a lot of implicit knowledge that people gain from hard sparring. If they can make that explicit, they are usually really good teachers. Also, detail orientation is super important.

I should add that I have big red flags for instructors is his/her ability to show people how to not hurt themselves. This is especially true with kicking.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I think you need to reread what I wrote. I said "most" awareness/RBSD training. Sure it can be taught and drilled. But what most people are teaching is utter nonsense directed at clueless people.


That doesn't discount it's importance. And it is certainly a strong reason why people may choose something over an mma school.

[t_niehoff]

That's not quite right. There are lots of good teachers who didn't have the athletic ability or were too injury-prone to soar the heights of full-contact fighting. For the upright game, I can just watch people teach, talk with them, and tell you if they suck or not. I don't need to see a record or necessarily even spar.


How can someone teach a skill that they cannot competently do?

And, how can someone who is incompetent make a personal determination as to the competence of another? Isn't this why bullsh1t flourishes?



There is a lot of implicit knowledge that people gain from hard sparring. If they can make that explicit, they are usually really good teachers. Also, detail orientation is super important.


That sort of thing is grossly over-emphasized. My experience is that most detail-oriented "teachers" are full of sh1t. That's not how we learn skills. The best teacher is performance.



I should add that I have big red flags for instructors is his/her ability to show people how to not hurt themselves. This is especially true with kicking.

It's really easy to find competent instructors.

[m1k3]

How can someone teach a skill that they cannot competently do?

1. He didn't say that, he said
There are lots of good teachers who didn't have the athletic ability or were too injury-prone to soar the heights of full-contact fighting.. Big difference. There are lots of boxing trainers who are very good at what they do who were not top level competitors.


And, how can someone who is incompetent make a personal determination as to the competence of another? Isn't this why bullsh1t flourishes?


Again, not quite true. I suck at boxing, but I am a big boxing fan. I can look at 2 boxers and to a pretty good degree have a good idea of how good they are. Neither Cus D'amato nor Teddy Atlas were renowned boxers. In fact Cus never competed at all and Teddy never got beyond the amateur ranks. But they were very good a training top level boxers.

Another example is people who score the Olympics. You don't have to be a gymnast to score gymnastics.

I think you are painting with overly broad strokes.

[HumbleWCGuy]

How can someone teach a skill that they cannot competently do?

And, how can someone who is incompetent make a personal determination as to the competence of another? Isn't this why bullsh1t flourishes?

There is a limit. It takes a physicist to teach another, but it doesn't take a world renowned physicist to necessarily teach another world-renounced physicist. There is some truth to the saying, "those who can.. Do and those who can't teach..."
Decent amateurs and low-level pros are more than qualified to teach top professionals.

We see this in all sports. Football, baseball, basketball, boxing, and the list continues.



That sort of thing is grossly over-emphasized. My experience is that most detail-oriented "teachers" are full of sh1t. That's not how we learn skills. The best teacher is performance.

It's really easy to find competent instructors.
Forcing people to perform is a given. But, a good instructor doesn't let small mistakes linger. It's pretty easy to go out and win a smoker on just brut force, fitness, and not much technique. If a fighter wins with sloppy techniques, it could be said that he "preformed" but did he? If guys are going out and hurting themselves in fights and having to withdraw, don't put their hands up, don't have answers for certain techniques, can't put punches and kicks together in a meaningful way that doesn't smack of PKA, I have a hard time buying that they are receiving quality instruction whether they won a fight or not.

[t_niehoff]

There is a limit. It takes a physicist to teach another, but it doesn't take a world renowned physicist to necessarily teach another world-renounced physicist. There is some truth to the saying, "those who can.. Do and those who can't teach..."
Decent amateurs and low-level pros are more than qualified to teach top professionals.


Of course they are -- I wasn't talking about world-class level. I was talking about merely being competent.

What did I ask you?

"How can someone teach a skill that they cannot competently do? "

Nothing about being an expert, merely competent.



We see this in all sports. Football, baseball, basketball, boxing, and the list continues.


Yes, you see loads of COMPETENT people, people who can really perform the skill they are teaching against other competent players coaching.



Forcing people to perform is a given.


It's not a question of forcing anyone to do anything. People play sports because they want to and enjoy it, you don't need to force them.



But, a good instructor doesn't let small mistakes linger. It's pretty easy to go out and win a smoker on just brut force, fitness, and not much technique. If a fighter wins with sloppy techniques, it could be said that he "preformed" but did he?


I agree with you that fighting with poorly skilled, poorly conditioned people means very little. That's why I think they are mostly a waste of time.

But you misunderstand what I mean by performance -- I mean do what he trains to do as he trains to do it.



If guys are going out and hurting themselves in fights and having to withdraw, don't put their hands up, don't have answers for certain techniques, can't put punches and kicks together in a meaningful way that doesn't smack of PKA, I have a hard time buying that they are receiving quality instruction whether they won a fight or not.

The first question is whether you are doing what you train to do as you train to do it. If not, then you are training to do X and doing Y -- and this means your training sucks.

The second question is at what level (against what level of opponents) can you do what you train to do as you train to do it.

[t_niehoff]

1. He didn't say that, he said . Big difference. There are lots of boxing trainers who are very good at what they do who were not top level competitors.


I never said anything about being "top level competitors." I said "How can someone teach a skill that they cannot competently do? "



Again, not quite true. I suck at boxing, but I am a big boxing fan. I can look at 2 boxers and to a pretty good degree have a good idea of how good they are.


OK, that's a good exception. You can do that to some degree because you were educated by watching loads of competent boxers. However, if you don't box yourself, there will be lots of things you don't see or appreciate that someone who is competent would.



Neither Cus D'amato nor Teddy Atlas were renowned boxers. In fact Cus never competed at all and Teddy never got beyond the amateur ranks. But they were very good a training top level boxers.


But both were competent boxers (Cus trained as a boxer). I never said you had to be "renowned" -- but that you had to be competent.



Another example is people who score the Olympics. You don't have to be a gymnast to score gymnastics.

I think you are painting with overly broad strokes.

You don't have to be a dog to judge a dog show either. You can be taught what to look for to judge artistic merit.

[HumbleWCGuy]

T.
Enough with the Socratic method. Tell us your definition of competence.

[bennyvt]

Hey T. How many competition fights did your teacher have against anyone good. Must have had a good record to teach you so well. Maybe you could post some clips of him even being competent so we might be able to see your point.

[Ultimatewingchun]

There's no point.

Just a loser trying to act like a winner.

You guys still haven't figured that out yet?

[t_niehoff]

T.
Enough with the Socratic method. Tell us your definition of competence.

In terms of applying WCK -- fighting with WCK -- competence means that you have competent fighting skill using WCK movement. In other words, that you are able at a minimum to consistently and successfully do in fighting (100%) what you train to do (use WCK movement) as you train to do it against unskilled people. That is at a minimum. You should also be able to hold your own against other competent fighters.

[t_niehoff]

Hey T. How many competition fights did your teacher have against anyone good. Must have had a good record to teach you so well. Maybe you could post some clips of him even being competent so we might be able to see your point.

What does that matter?

In TCMAs, the "art" is split into the curriculum (the forms, drills, kuit, etc.) and application (fighting). Our sifus typically only teach us the curriculum of WCK -- after all, that's all most of them know. You learn application from your training/sparring partners, not from your sifu. IOWs, you learn to box by boxing.

[m1k3]

What does that matter?

In TCMAs, the "art" is split into the curriculum (the forms, drills, kuit, etc.) and application (fighting). Our sifus typically only teach us the curriculum of WCK -- after all, that's all most of them know. You learn application from your training/sparring partners, not from your sifu. IOWs, you learn to box by boxing.

This implies that you can be a good instructor, in depth knowledge of the curriculum, without being a competent fighter. :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

This implies that you can be a good instructor, in depth knowledge of the curriculum, without being a competent fighter. :rolleyes:

That's right.

In the functional/sport combative arts, the curriculum and application are joined -- for example, you learn how to pass the guard. That's NOT how the TCMAs are taught. That's why you can learn the curriculum of a TCMA and not be able to fight worth beans.

You have to remember, this was a way for illiterate peoples to have a "living textbook" they could refer to since they couldn't refer to books or DVDs.

Imagine if you took western boxing and created forms that contain boxing movement (the various punches, footwork, evasions, etc.), then you did various unrealsitic drills, let's say san sao, to teach various tactics, etc. For example, knucklehead #1 steps in with a slow swing, and knucklehead #2 responds with a duck and uppercut followed by a overhand. And you drill this over and over. That's what I am talking about. You could teach the boxing curriculum (here are all the pieces of the puzzle) but never put it together.

As you know, you put it together by boxing/sparring. IOWs, you learn to box (to apply your boxing movement) by boxing.

Knowing the curriculum of boxing and being a competent boxer are two very different things.

[Knifefighter]

As you know, you put it together by boxing/sparring. IOWs, you learn to box (to apply your boxing movement) by boxing.

Yep, and your boxing ability will always be determined by the level of guys you box against.

[m1k3]

That's right.

In the functional/sport combative arts, the curriculum and application are joined -- for example, you learn how to pass the guard. That's NOT how the TCMAs are taught. That's why you can learn the curriculum of a TCMA and not be able to fight worth beans.

You have to remember, this was a way for illiterate peoples to have a "living textbook" they could refer to since they couldn't refer to books or DVDs.

Imagine if you took western boxing and created forms that contain boxing movement (the various punches, footwork, evasions, etc.), then you did various unrealsitic drills, let's say san sao, to teach various tactics, etc. For example, knucklehead #1 steps in with a slow swing, and knucklehead #2 responds with a duck and uppercut followed by a overhand. And you drill this over and over. That's what I am talking about. You could teach the boxing curriculum (here are all the pieces of the puzzle) but never put it together.

As you know, you put it together by boxing/sparring. IOWs, you learn to box (to apply your boxing movement) by boxing.

Knowing the curriculum of boxing and being a competent boxer are two very different things.

Good post. That explanation makes perfect sense. My background is BJJ and wrestling so the concept of separating the curriculum and the application never occurred to me. We do both every class, to me that was just the way an MA should be taught.

Thanks.

[Wayfaring]

What does that matter?

In TCMAs, the "art" is split into the curriculum (the forms, drills, kuit, etc.) and application (fighting). Our sifus typically only teach us the curriculum of WCK -- after all, that's all most of them know. You learn application from your training/sparring partners, not from your sifu. IOWs, you learn to box by boxing.

One way that it matters is that your argument here all along has been that all of the commonly referred to grandmasters (you call them grandmothers) are worthless as instructors because they can't fight.

So either it applies across the board to sifus including Robert, or it applies to none of them at all.

It's illogical or intellectually dishonest to say that standard applies to all except for Robert but with Robert he can just teach curriculum and say "let application be your sifu" and that is a pass.

Pretty much all the WCK sifus I've met say that you really learn your WCK from your sihing, because that's who you spar with continually and you bring each other's skill level up. That is not substantially different than "let application be your sifu". It's just stated in a different way.

So now are you changing your argument to be "learn the curriculum of WCK from the WCK masters, but apply it by testing it out in a MMA / realistic environment?"

[t_niehoff]

One way that it matters is that your argument here all along has been that all of the commonly referred to grandmasters (you call them grandmothers) are worthless as instructors because they can't fight.


No. I've always said they could teach you the curriculum but not how to use it. They cannot teach you to apply your WCK (to fight) since they have no fighting skill -- and that we shouldn't listen to them tell us how to fight since they cannot do it themselves. Do you listen to a poor golfer tell you how to PLAY golf?

BTW, I call them "grandmothers" to highlight that so many people idolize these guys all out of proportion and have deep, unhealthy connections to them.



So either it applies across the board to sifus including Robert, or it applies to none of them at all.

It's illogical or intellectually dishonest to say that standard applies to all except for Robert but with Robert he can just teach curriculum and say "let application be your sifu" and that is a pass.


Of course it applies to Robert. It applies to everyone. Robert's "let application be your sifu" means to learn to box by boxing -- to let the boxing itself (your getting in the ring and sparring) be your teacher. Robert told me he could teach me the method but that it was up to me to learn how use it. That's all any TCMA instructor can do. He told me that if I wanted to develop skill to go out and train with fighters.



Pretty much all the WCK sifus I've met say that you really learn your WCK from your sihing, because that's who you spar with continually and you bring each other's skill level up. That is not substantially different than "let application be your sifu". It's just stated in a different way.


No, training with poor fighters won't develop your skill significantly (although it is better than nothing). This is Victor rolling with his students and trying to develop his grappling skills. Blind leading the blind. You are only as good as your training partners, so if you want to get better you need to seek out people better than yourself.



So now are you changing your argument to be "learn the curriculum of WCK from the WCK masters, but apply it by testing it out in a MMA / realistic environment?"

How can we learn the WCK curriculum EXCEPT through LEGITIMATE WCK sources? But learning the curriculum and using it, putting it together and making it functional, is something else. How can someone who hasn't done that help you do it?

[Ultimatewingchun]

One way that it matters is that your argument here all along has been that all of the commonly referred to grandmasters (you call them grandmothers) are worthless as instructors because they can't fight.

So either it applies across the board to sifus including Robert, or it applies to none of them at all.

It's illogical or intellectually dishonest to say that standard applies to all except for Robert but with Robert he can just teach curriculum and say "let application be your sifu" and that is a pass.

Pretty much all the WCK sifus I've met say that you really learn your WCK from your sihing, because that's who you spar with continually and you bring each other's skill level up. That is not substantially different than "let application be your sifu". It's just stated in a different way.

So now are you changing your argument to be "learn the curriculum of WCK from the WCK masters, but apply it by testing it out in a MMA / realistic environment?"

***AWESOME POST, Wayfaring...

Except for the last sentence. Because by putting it as a question you invite him to respond
in an intellectually honest manner.

AND THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

You've put him in a corner that he can't get out of without lying. The point about Robert Chu is something Terence Niehoff will never be able to get by. Not as long as he continues to say, and I'm quoting a post he made about one year ago: "Wing Chun is my primary art."

[Phil Redmond]

I posted Ishaq Sloans fight links on the Manup Standup thread.

[t_niehoff]

***AWESOME POST, Wayfaring...

Except for the last sentence. Because by putting it as a question you invite him to respond
in an intellectually honest manner.

AND THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.


I'm ALWAYS honest, intellectually and otherwise -- with myself and with others.



You've put him in a corner that he can't get out of without lying.


I seem to have answered it rather easily without lying.



The point about Robert Chu is something Terence Niehoff will never be ale to get by. Not as long as he continues to say, and I'm quoting a post he made about one year ago: "Wing Chun is my primary art."

WCK is my primary art.

I don't want to "get by" Robert. I have repeatedly said that he helped me make my WCK functional. He taught me those aspects of the WCK curriclum that I was lacking -- things like body structure, the faat mun, etc. You can't put the pieces of a puzzle together if you are lacking critical pieces. AND he taught me how to "let application be my sifu": how to go about putting the puzzle together for myself.

[t_niehoff]

I posted Ishaq Sloans fight links on the Manup Standup thread.

You mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i175o2sIJWI

Here are beginning level kickboxers (4-6 months training):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9_vjR2ZiA

Isn't it amazing what good teaching/training can do is such a short time?

[Phil Redmond]

You mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i175o2sIJWI

Here are beginning level kickboxers (4-6 months training):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9_vjR2ZiA

Isn't it amazing what good teaching/training can do is such a short time?
I get your point but It depends more on how you train not how long.
Ishaq wasn't training for full contact due to his scooter commitments. Recently he's decided he wants to fight so he'll commit to training for fighting.

[bennyvt]

So you are saying Robert can't fight he just teaches the cirriculum. OK I get you.

But what about the people that have actually fought using VT. They can show the the way they did it for those circumstances. Not that it will make you be able to do it but a good coach is like a cheat book. Instead of you doing the same things hundred times and not working they can say, "try it this way, at this angle etc."
Barry always said the main thing about VT is trying it against other styles and making it work for you. In the old days you got to fight everyone, there was alot more emphasis on free fighting within the class. As challenges don't happen any more I try and spar with the best guys I can. They are not UFC level but the best I can get.

[t_niehoff]

So you are saying Robert can't fight he just teaches the cirriculum. OK I get you.


I'm not saying that Robert can't fight and can't use his WCK. Robert has put in some significant work. The first time I met Robert (when I visited him) we sparred and he threw me around like a rag doll.

What I am saying is that your sifu CAN'T teach you to fight or to use your art. You only learn how to do that BY DOING IT yourself. You learn to box or to surf or to swim or to ride a bike by doing it yourself. Robert told me that he could give me the pieces to the puzzle, but only I could put them together for myself.

I mention this because some in WCK believe that there is some theoretical framework (concepts) - or knowledge - that if you learn, will put it together for you. But it doesn't work that way. That stuff only gets in the way. You learn to ride a bike by riding the bike -- you learn how to coordinate all the pieces, steering, peddling, shifting your weight, braking, etc. by doing it. It's not about knowledge -- who is the more "knowledgeable bike rider"? -- but about skill. About developing a game. And only you can do that for yourself.



But what about the people that have actually fought using VT. They can show the the way they did it for those circumstances. Not that it will make you be able to do it but a good coach is like a cheat book. Instead of you doing the same things hundred times and not working they can say, "try it this way, at this angle etc."
Barry always said the main thing about VT is trying it against other styles and making it work for you. In the old days you got to fight everyone, there was alot more emphasis on free fighting within the class. As challenges don't happen any more I try and spar with the best guys I can. They are not UFC level but the best I can get.

It's fine to use them as a starting-model PROVIDING they can do what they are teaching against decently skilled fighters -- and not just against scrubs or their students/classmates, etc. The problem with being taught this-is-how-to-use-your-WCK by most WCK "fighters" is that (1) they are very poorly skilled fighters (regardless of the "legends" or that they had some "full-contact" matches) so what they are teaching is not necessarily sound and (2) much of what they teach is pure theoretical nonsense (stuff they aren't doing).

If someone wants to teach "application" then my view is that they should FIRST show that they can really do what they are teaching successfully and consistently, against someone with decent skills. For example, if you teach this-is-how-to-deal-with-a-jab, can you REALLY pull that off consistently and successfully against a decent boxer? If they can't do that or are unwilling to do that, then you know that what they are teaching is nonsense.

Sport fighters, in contrast, teach what they are doing, what is working for them consistently, in fighting in the gym, in competition, or both.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I get your point but It depends more on how you train not how long.
Ishaq wasn't training for full contact due to his scooter commitments. Recently he's decided he wants to fight so he'll commit to training for fighting.

Those kids looked pretty sharp considering their level of experience. When I start out just teaching kickboxing, everybody gets to looking just like that. However, all they do is train for the ring. If you are teaching something that isn't pure sport, you have to break off from "ring kickboxing" and teach people how to defend against knives, guns, and work weapons. If all I do is focus on kickboxing then everybody looks sharp. Kids, especially, have a decent drop off when you shift gears.


Phil, it is worth noting that the MT clip was pretty heavily edited. Your guys fight pretty much shows the whole thing.

[Knifefighter]

If you are teaching something that isn't pure sport, you have to break off from "ring kickboxing" and teach people how to defend against knives, guns, and work weapons.

Are you LARPing or going full contact with weapons?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Are you LARPing or going full contact with weapons?

I have gone full contact to the body. I never had the equipment for the head in the past. It is something that I want to get into more. I would be happy to hear your input on the matter. My initial weapons training was somewhat LARPy, but I don't want to continue that trend. All the basics are there, but you have to put it in to action.

Right now I mostly have kids. What do you recommend for them?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Dale, any suggestions on how to train bladed weapons more realistically or some different things that you have tried?

[Phil Redmond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXzSP4instE

[Phil Redmond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COgPNuFo31I