Where is the WCK? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

sihing

01-25-2010, 03:23 PM

WC will never "look" like WC VS other systems, unless it is trained, from the very beginning VS other systems.
Of course the very "look" of WC is debatable.
Sure everyone would love to be Donnie Yen in Ip Man, now THAT is WC !
LOL !

Thing is, have you ever seen WC "look" like WC outside of the kwoon?

Sure it is very hard to find WC vs anything other than WC and when we do it looks very little like how WC is trained, yet the same is NOT said about other MA such as MT, boxing, Judo, South Peruvian ass thumbing.

Why is that?

Here's my take on your question Paul. WC isn't trained as a style. It doesn't tell you how to move nor what to do when this or that attack comes to you. Rather you are training specific body mechanics/structures that function in close when limb to limb contact is made (if no contact is made the hit is made). On the outside (where the two guys in the vid were functioning), you don't need the WC training, although the system does provide you with a general strategy to gain entry. In sparring you will need to learn how to enter and move around at this range. In SD you don't need to learn how to enter since the other guy is usually the aggressor, wanting to fight with you. What this means is that there is no stand off in the street. If someone calls me out and goes outside with his fists up I have a choice if I want to engage with him. If he just gets in my face or space with aggression, here I have no choice since he is the one attacking. This is where WC functions. It's not an art designed for sparring, trading blows nor comps. It's a training method. Someone comes towards me with any attack I counter, so basically we are counter fighters (not to say that we can't attack as well, we are not robots nor slaves to the system).

We train perfection in the kwoon, perfecting shapes, angles, lines of attack, positioning, energy, etc... so that it comes out somewhat correct when it's real. If you can't do it perfect in class your effectiveness will be effected since the training will help you little when you need. For e.g. fok sau can be considered a way to have something in front of you. Someone comes at you with an upper body attack, you raise your arms to meet it, the information coming in from the contact tells you things. The arms raising to meet it, this is an attack in itself, not just a deflection or way to stop the attack. Sometimes the force coming towards you is great, so you retreat while trying to maintain the closeness gained in the initial engagement (you don't want to have to regain that space, once you have it use it too your advantage). If the force is not so great you crash thru, going for his COM while attacking, taking it too him (putting him on the defensive). This is learned to be second nature thru the training, and is not meant to be learned as a technique or defense, you just react and let the training control what you do. There's no concern for how it looks, nor maintaining a principle or style, just that it is effective, and if not, you adapt enough so that you are the one in control and successful in the encounter. Maintaining structures and principles, thinking about them and performing them is done while training, you have no time for thoughts of maintain things like this in a SD situation (nor while sparring, play fighting and in comps), your intention is about defeating your opponent and getting out of it alive with little injury. Nothing is guaranteed nor promised, it's just about increasing your odds when the sh!t hits the fan on the street.

James

sihing

01-25-2010, 03:31 PM

I've been saying for years now that adding elements of boxing/kickboxing to either finish your man or for getting close enough (safely) to a more wing chun oriented approach to striking and controlling from close range...is the way to go...
and the guy in black who was wearing a TWC shirt (although I personally don't know who he is)...he could have utilized TWC many times in that vid when he was getting close and connecting - or even before he actually connected with shots...but he didn't.

Not because such moves are un-usable...but because for whatever reason he didn't use them.

I have no disagreement with people learning things that help them move and function on the outside, boxing, kickboxing, MT whatever style that suits their needs. But sparring, or lining up with someone is a different game, which is what these two guys in the vid were doing. Both guys looked pretty natural in their movements, the TWC guy wasn't trying to maintain a style or look like what he does in class (hands out, like Rashun was doing with Dale), but of course the MMA pro is just better at this since he is a pro and spends way more time doing this game than the TWC guy. Sh!t he even let the guy punch him hard in the body, without thought. I give props to the TWC guy for sparring with him, that was probably a good experience for him.

So if this type of stuff is your thing, learn the outside game and how to be funtional from there. One might as well learn JKD, if they are already a WC practitioner, as that system teaches alot about that stuff. For SD you don't need to learn it, unless you like to call people out at bars and strut your stuff:) My take is this, most people like that range of fighting, it give them the ability to throw their punches but still far enough away to run away when they are attacked. Now if you step in a bit further, you take away their ability to strike as effectively and you make them uncomfortable, most will retreat to try to gain some distance, you maintain close in range and function from there. That's that general plan for WC practitioners, at least in my understanding.

James

HumbleWCGuy

01-25-2010, 04:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiYZnw-wfRY

It's great to see WCK guys lightly sparring with nonWCK fighters -- but when I see stuff like this, it makes me wonder: how does an experience like this make them feel about their WCK training? Do they realize that they are not moving like they train to move in WCK, they are not doing what they advocate doing with their theory? I mean, if they wanted to box and move like a boxer, wouldn't it make more sense to actually train and practice that?

I real question is, "where is the spit wck that you used to practice?" My answer is that I just don't know. I would only suggest that the sifu could have trapped more.

t_niehoff

01-25-2010, 04:56 PM

WC will never "look" like WC VS other systems, unless it is trained, from the very beginning VS other systems.

Why then does boxing look likeboxing or MT look like MT even when they are not trained from the beginning against other "systems"?

Of course the very "look" of WC is debatable.
Sure everyone would love to be Donnie Yen in Ip Man, now THAT is WC !
LOL !

Thing is, have you ever seen WC "look" like WC outside of the kwoon?

What I mean by "look" like WCK is that you see the continuous expression of WCK movement-- the stuff you practice inthe forms, drills, dummy, etc.

The reason we don't see WCK movement outside the kwoon is because while people know the movements of WCK, they don't know how to use those movements in fighting.

Sure it is very hard to find WC vs anything other than WC and when we do it looks very little like how WC is trained, yet the same is NOT said about other MA such as MT, boxing, Judo, South Peruvian ass thumbing.

Why is that?

It goes back to how WCK is trained -- you don't learn/practice WCK in its fighting context, instead you learn/practice it in an unrealistic environment which doesn't provide that fighting context. Then you are given nonsensical theory by nonfighters to allegedly help you apply your WCK. Whereas the functional martial arts use a sparring plattform as a base from which to teach/learn/train so that they naturally get the context -- now their learning/training/doing is 1 to 1 to 1.

Phil Redmond

01-25-2010, 05:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiYZnw-wfRY

It's great to see WCK guys lightly sparring with nonWCK fighters -- but when I see stuff like this, it makes me wonder: how does an experience like this make them feel about their WCK training? Do they realize that they are not moving like they train to move in WCK, they are not doing what they advocate doing with their theory? I mean, if they wanted to box and move like a boxer, wouldn't it make more sense to actually train and practice that?
You're too funny Terence. Bogdan wasn't doing WCK. He just wanted to kickbox with the guy to have some fun. Jeez . . .:rolleyes:

Phil Redmond

01-25-2010, 06:00 PM

Phil Redmond

01-25-2010, 06:16 PM

People from many different disciplines participate:
http://www.torontowingchun.com/media.aspx?view=vids&vid=gakJgZGuGAA

couch

01-25-2010, 06:53 PM

James nailed it with his post. He wrote all that so I don't have to. :)

t_niehoff

01-25-2010, 07:32 PM

You're too funny Terence. Bogdan wasn't doing WCK. He just wanted to kickbox with the guy to have some fun. Jeez . . .:rolleyes:

Yes, I KNOW Bogdon wasn't doing WCK. Now you say he just wanted to kickbox with the guy. It's makes me wonder why you label your video clips as you do.

Why would you up a clip of someone NOT doing WCK, but wearing a WCK "uniform", and describe it as "Sifu Bodgon doing some light sparring . . . " (why is it relevent that he is a sifu if what he shows doesn't pertain to WCK)?

Phil Redmond

01-25-2010, 08:11 PM

Yes, I KNOW Bogdon wasn't doing WCK. Now you say he just wanted to kickbox with the guy. It's makes me wonder why you label your video clips as you do.

Why would you up a clip of someone NOT doing WCK, but wearing a WCK "uniform", and describe it as "Sifu Bodgon doing some light sparring . . . " (why is it relevent that he is a sifu if what he shows doesn't pertain to WCK)?
Because it isn't your world. :cool:
No one said he was doing WC in that clip. I do Fu Jow Pai in my WC shirt. I skip rope in my WC shirt. So what???? You just have a need to gripe about what others do. I think it gives you a feeling of superiority or something and that's sad.

Phil Redmond

01-25-2010, 08:24 PM

You say that you're not good yet you're able to critique everyone here.
And don't give me the -you don't have to be good to critique- line. Do you see me making remarks about what others do? No, because I don't really care what people do if that's what they like to do.
I'm more concerned with my and my student's development. Whether or not you like the clips I upload at least I'm putting my self out there without slamming others. You don't show a d@mn thing except your typing skills. Please post something to help the people who you think are on the wrong path. I can take a lesson. I'm not too proud. Show us something. To criticize the way you do you have to have some skills, share bro.

anerlich

01-25-2010, 09:50 PM

It's good to know we have monomaniacs like T spending their waking hours patrolling youtube, ready to expose mislabelled kickboxing clips for the good of realistic martial artists everywhere.

Are you not getting enough lately, T? Need a new hobby?

goju

01-25-2010, 09:56 PM

i used to wear a venice "muscle beach" shirt when i worked out and ive never even been to venice!:eek:

gah! im such a fraud

(runs away)

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 05:33 AM

You say that you're not good yet you're able to critique everyone here.

What makes you think that you need to be "good" to critically examine things? It is by and through criticism that we get better. We don't get better from a everything-is-wonderful POV.

FWIW, a person doesn't need to be very good to recognize things that aren't very good. All it takes is some experience training with good people. If you put in some time training with good grapplers, for example, you'd recognize crappling -- you don't need to be a BJJ BB to know that when you see it. If you put in some time training with people with good stand-up (boxers or MT fighters), you easily recognize poor stand-up.

And don't give me the -you don't have to be good to critique- line. Do you see me making remarks about what others do? No, because I don't really care what people do if that's what they like to do.

That's great, Phil. You and I have a differing POV. I don't think "it's all good", instead I think -- and the evidence bears me out -- it's mostly crap. And I, unlike you, do care.

I'm more concerned with my and my student's development.

Ah, yes, that explains why you teach and practice things like pressure point strikes with the fingers. ;)

You care far more about being a "defender of the faith" -- the faith being the dogma of TWC (Cheung).

Whether or not you like the clips I upload at least I'm putting my self out there without slamming others. You don't show a d@mn thing except your typing skills. Please post something to help the people who you think are on the wrong path. I can take a lesson. I'm not too proud. Show us something. To criticize the way you do you have to have some skills, share bro.

There are all kinds of people "putting themselves out there" by uploading clips. Is that making things better? No. What you don't grasp is POSTING CLIPS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM -- none of us, including me, should be putting up clips. None of us are good enough. The difference is I recognize that and apparently you don't. For me to put up clips would only be adding fuel to the fire, and I'd be doing the very thing that I see as a problem.

As I said before, Phil, I don't tell others to look to me for answers or as an example of how to do things -- the answers aren't to be found by looking to me or you or any of us. That you look to others for answers is part of the TCMA mindset and the basis of the problem. You expect someone to show you or tell you. It doesn't work that way. And, no one can tell you or show you. The answers don't come from another -- they only come from putting in the right kind of work. How do I know that? Because that's what the evidence shows, becasue that's how skills are learned/developed, etc.

Phil Redmond

01-26-2010, 05:51 AM

What makes you think that you need to be "good" to critically examine things? It is by and through criticism that we get better. We don't get better from a everything-is-wonderful POV.

FWIW, a person doesn't need to be very good to recognize things that aren't very good. All it takes is some experience training with good people. If you put in some time training with good grapplers, for example, you'd recognize crappling -- you don't need to be a BJJ BB to know that when you see it. If you put in some time training with people with good stand-up (boxers or MT fighters), you easily recognize poor stand-up.

That's great, Phil. You and I have a differing POV. I don't think "it's all good", instead I think -- and the evidence bears me out -- it's mostly crap. And I, unlike you, do care.

Ah, yes, that explains why you teach and practice things like pressure point strikes with the fingers. ;)

You care far more about being a "defender of the faith" -- the faith being the dogma of TWC (Cheung).

There are all kinds of people "putting themselves out there" by uploading clips. Is that making things better? No. What you don't grasp is POSTING CLIPS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM -- none of us, including me, should be putting up clips. None of us are good enough. The difference is I recognize that and apparently you don't. For me to put up clips would only be adding fuel to the fire, and I'd be doing the very thing that I see as a problem.

As I said before, Phil, I don't tell others to look to me for answers or as an example of how to do things -- the answers aren't to be found by looking to me or you or any of us. That you look to others for answers is part of the TCMA mindset and the basis of the problem. You expect someone to show you or tell you. It doesn't work that way. And, no one can tell you or show you. The answers don't come from another -- they only come from putting in the right kind of work. How do I know that? Because that's what the evidence shows, becasue that's how skills are learned/developed, etc.

When have you seen me "teaching" finger pressure point strikes? I advocate punches, elbows, kicks, knees, etc. I'm not a real fan of "finger" pressure point strikes in real fights
As to the rest of your post.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 06:05 AM

When have you seen me "teaching" finger pressure point strikes? I advocate punches, elbows, kicks, knees, etc. I'm not a real fan of "finger" pressure point strikes in real fights
As to the rest of your post.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ah, yes, "real fights."

I don't expect you to either understand or appreciate my POV.

sanjuro_ronin

01-26-2010, 06:32 AM

Bogdan, the guy in the WC shirt is one of my Canadian students. He helps Sifu Ryan Kennedy teach in Toronto. btw, They have throwdowns there periodically. I think sanjuro_ronin knows about them.

Yes, they are good guys, I think they meet up with the JKD guys quite a bit, if I am not mistaken.

sanjuro_ronin

01-26-2010, 06:36 AM

Here's my take on your question Paul. WC isn't trained as a style. It doesn't tell you how to move nor what to do when this or that attack comes to you. Rather you are training specific body mechanics/structures that function in close when limb to limb contact is made (if no contact is made the hit is made). On the outside (where the two guys in the vid were functioning), you don't need the WC training, although the system does provide you with a general strategy to gain entry. In sparring you will need to learn how to enter and move around at this range. In SD you don't need to learn how to enter since the other guy is usually the aggressor, wanting to fight with you. What this means is that there is no stand off in the street. If someone calls me out and goes outside with his fists up I have a choice if I want to engage with him. If he just gets in my face or space with aggression, here I have no choice since he is the one attacking. This is where WC functions. It's not an art designed for sparring, trading blows nor comps. It's a training method. Someone comes towards me with any attack I counter, so basically we are counter fighters (not to say that we can't attack as well, we are not robots nor slaves to the system).

We train perfection in the kwoon, perfecting shapes, angles, lines of attack, positioning, energy, etc... so that it comes out somewhat correct when it's real. If you can't do it perfect in class your effectiveness will be effected since the training will help you little when you need. For e.g. fok sau can be considered a way to have something in front of you. Someone comes at you with an upper body attack, you raise your arms to meet it, the information coming in from the contact tells you things. The arms raising to meet it, this is an attack in itself, not just a deflection or way to stop the attack. Sometimes the force coming towards you is great, so you retreat while trying to maintain the closeness gained in the initial engagement (you don't want to have to regain that space, once you have it use it too your advantage). If the force is not so great you crash thru, going for his COM while attacking, taking it too him (putting him on the defensive). This is learned to be second nature thru the training, and is not meant to be learned as a technique or defense, you just react and let the training control what you do. There's no concern for how it looks, nor maintaining a principle or style, just that it is effective, and if not, you adapt enough so that you are the one in control and successful in the encounter. Maintaining structures and principles, thinking about them and performing them is done while training, you have no time for thoughts of maintain things like this in a SD situation (nor while sparring, play fighting and in comps), your intention is about defeating your opponent and getting out of it alive with little injury. Nothing is guaranteed nor promised, it's just about increasing your odds when the sh!t hits the fan on the street.

James

Well stated James.
We've had this dicussion many times, on my WC doesn't "look" like WC typically and why other system, typically, do look they look in training and fighting.
Your view highlights one of the points.
Another one I add is that WC is not "natural", the moves and principles are not inherently natural like Boxing ( as an example).
There are pros and cons to this of course, the pro's being that one brings something different to the table.
The issue is that, because it isn't "natural" movement per say, all the more reason it needs to be trained, from the very beginning, as a more "hands-on" MA.

goju

01-26-2010, 07:47 AM

What makes you think that you need to be "good" to critically examine things?

yep you certainly do your general ignorance of various arts that you have displayed on this very board proves this point very well my boy:D

sanjuro_ronin

01-26-2010, 08:12 AM

While I don't necessarily agree that we DON'T have to be good to examine things, we have to be honest and admit that we all do just that.
We argue politics and the majority are NOT qualified to do so.
We argue climate changes, warfare and history, philosohy and even psychology and are NOT qualified.
In terms of MA, people with no experience in MMA or MT or KB like to argue and bash it, so what's the difference?

I do believe that, to make a VALID opinion one needs a certain amount of SKILL AND EXPERIENCE in USING said MA.

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 08:16 AM

.
Another one I add is that WC is not "natural", the moves and principles are not inherently natural like Boxing ( as an example).

I think WCK is very natural if you use it in its proper context -- attached fighting. For a very simple example, put an untrained person's (X) arm in contact with another person's (Y) arm and have them (Y) punch and you'll see X perform either a jum sao (sinking arm) or tan sao (spreading arm) or whatever is appropriate. It's not natural in stand-up/free-movement since that isn't its context.

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 08:25 AM

I do believe that, to make a VALID opinion one needs a certain amount of SKILL
AND EXPERIENCE in USING said MA.

Really?

So when Randy Couture looked at some videos of WCK trapping and said, "that's silly", you think his lack of ANY WCK training invalidates his opinion? You don't think, perhaps, that his experience and understanding of what really goes on in the clinch or attached fighting, what is really possible in the clinch, etc. gives him the ability to look at some martial art or technique or whatever and give a valid opinion?

By that reasoning, the only people who could valid opinions on the effectiveness of aikido, its techniques, and its training would be people who practiced aikido.

The reality is that to say how things do work in an art that you need to have good skill and experience, but you don't need that same level of skill and experience to know what sorts of things don't work.

goju

01-26-2010, 08:26 AM

Really?

So when Randy Couture looked at some videos of WCK trapping and said, "that's silly", you think his lack of ANY WCK training invalidates his opinion? You don't think, perhaps, that his experience and understanding of what really goes on in the clinch or attached fighting, what is really possible in the clinch, etc. gives him the ability to look at some martial art or technique or whatever and give a valid opinion?

By that reasoning, the only people who could valid opinions on the effectiveness of aikido, its techniques, and its training would be people who practiced aikido.

The reality is that to say how things do work in an art that you need to have good skill and experience, but you don't need that same level of skill and experience to know what sorts of things don't work.

this is a bad comparison i can find bad or silly videos of any art online

thanks for playing try again

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 08:34 AM

this is a bad comparison i can find bad or silly videos of any art online

thanks for playing try again

It's not the videos themselves -- it is what is shown in the videos (the techniques). In other words, it isn't just that the demonstration was poorly done, it was that the very "concept" behind the demonstration won't work and is silly.

If anyone wants to see what sorts of things work in fights, then simply look at fights -- you'll see for yourself. As I said in another thread, if you aren't teaching/training those things you already see occuring in sparring/fighting then you are training to fail.

sanjuro_ronin

01-26-2010, 08:36 AM

Really?

So when Randy Couture looked at some videos of WCK trapping and said, "that's silly", you think his lack of ANY WCK training invalidates his opinion? You don't think, perhaps, that his experience and understanding of what really goes on in the clinch or attached fighting, what is really possible in the clinch, etc. gives him the ability to look at some martial art or technique or whatever and give a valid opinion?

By that reasoning, the only people who could valid opinions on the effectiveness of aikido, its techniques, and its training would be people who practiced aikido.

The reality is that to say how things do work in an art that you need to have good skill and experience, but you don't need that same level of skill and experience to know what sorts of things don't work.

I am sure that when BJJ came out and people saw "guard pulling" and shoots THEY said to themselves, "That's silly !".

HumbleWCGuy

01-26-2010, 08:41 AM

Because it isn't your world. :cool:
No one said he was doing WC in that clip. I do Fu Jow Pai in my WC shirt. I skip rope in my WC shirt. So what???? You just have a need to gripe about what others do. I think it gives you a feeling of superiority or something and that's sad.

EXACTLY!! Without context, why is this clip even worth talking about?

goju

01-26-2010, 08:48 AM

It's not the videos themselves -- it is what is shown in the videos (the techniques). In other words, it isn't just that the demonstration was poorly done, it was that the very "concept" behind the demonstration won't work and is silly.

If anyone wants to see what sorts of things work in fights, then simply look at fights -- you'll see for yourself. As I said in another thread, if you aren't teaching/training those things you already see occuring in sparring/fighting then you are training to fail.
and you know this how? were you there with randy watching the vid and do you know exactly what he saw and who was demonstrating ?

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 09:13 AM

I am sure that when BJJ came out and people saw "guard pulling" and shoots THEY said to themselves, "That's silly !".

Except you can see "guard pulling" and shoots WORKING in fighting -- you don't need to be skillful to see that for yourself. Of course, there are still people who think those things are silly -- and they keep their heads buried in the sand.

There is all kinds of nonsense that we all KNOW, unless we are deluded, simply won't work. Do I really need to study Dillman's one-touch knockout method to know it won't work? How can we know that without studying his method or being particularly skillful?

If anyone (1) takes off their dogmatic blinders and (2) does a sufficient amount of hard sparring, they can easily get a very good idea of what things simply have no to little chance of working. They don't have to be good to know.

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 09:34 AM

EXACTLY!! Without context, why is this clip even worth talking about?

OK, try to follow this --

We have a tape put up on youtube under the heading "Wing Chun Toronto_6", which suggests that you are about to see something pertaining to WCK, right?

The description of the video is "Sifu Bogdan (in black), light sparring with pro MMA fighter." The mention of "sifu" and the fact he is wearing a WCK logo (together with the heading of the tape) all suggest we are being shown a WCK sifu/fighter versus a pro MMA fighter.

I think most people would expect in that case to see a WCK sifu using WCK in his sparring, particularly when the WCK connnection is highlighted (the name ofthe clip,the sifu title, the WCK logo, etc.).

And nothing is mentioned -- until a user comment is made about "that not being WCK" (gee, I guess I'mnot the only one) -- about Bogdon not using WCK or simply kickboxing.

Granted, I had concluded that this video was meant to be some example of WCK in action. It hadn't occurred to me that someone would label the tape as WCK, describe it as a WCK sifu sparring, but really only mean (or so they say) to be a tape of someone kickboxing. I guess I missed the significance of labeling the tape "wing chun" and mentioning that the person sparring is a WCK sifu when those details have absolutely no bearing on the tape.

goju

01-26-2010, 09:47 AM

Except you can see "guard pulling" and shoots WORKING in fighting -- you don't need to be skillful to see that for yourself. Of course, there are still people who think those things are silly -- and they keep their heads buried in the sand.

There is all kinds of nonsense that we all KNOW, unless we are deluded, simply won't work. Do I really need to study Dillman's one-touch knockout method to know it won't work? How can we know that without studying his method or being particularly skillful?

If anyone (1) takes off their dogmatic blinders and (2) does a sufficient amount of hard sparring, they can easily get a very good idea of what things simply have no to little chance of working. They don't have to be good to know.

again your using absolutely rediculous examples to excuse your constant ignorance on various martial art styles you might as well start talking about sanjuros ethiopian sumo next

bawang

01-26-2010, 09:55 AM

when i asked my friends they all said wing chun is dirty fighting + speed and the butterfly knife was the main focus not fists

that makes sense if u try to fight against western boxing which is just as old and advanced plus todays modern training and understanding of biomechanis nutrition and max body performance

western boxing has been around for a few hundred years and if u think somehow they are inferior to 120 pound chinese fishermen boxing created on the remote borders of china, which nobody outside fosan even heard of until 40 years ago, then cool

JPinAZ

01-26-2010, 11:03 AM

OK, try to follow this --

We have a tape put up on youtube under the heading "Wing Chun Toronto_6", which suggests that you are about to see something pertaining to WCK, right?

The description of the video is "Sifu Bogdan (in black), light sparring with pro MMA fighter." The mention of "sifu" and the fact he is wearing a WCK logo (together with the heading of the tape) all suggest we are being shown a WCK sifu/fighter versus a pro MMA fighter.

I think most people would expect in that case to see a WCK sifu using WCK in his sparring, particularly when the WCK connnection is highlighted (the name ofthe clip,the sifu title, the WCK logo, etc.).

And nothing is mentioned -- until a user comment is made about "that not being WCK" (gee, I guess I'mnot the only one) -- about Bogdon not using WCK or simply kickboxing.

Granted, I had concluded that this video was meant to be some example of WCK in action. It hadn't occurred to me that someone would label the tape as WCK, describe it as a WCK sifu sparring, but really only mean (or so they say) to be a tape of someone kickboxing. I guess I missed the significance of labeling the tape "wing chun" and mentioning that the person sparring is a WCK sifu when those details have absolutely no bearing on the tape.

You're so full of it. No matter what the video is titled, you'd find an issue with it. You have a personal issue with Phil, and it's obvious every time you post here saying things like he doesn't know how to teach, his videos are crapp, what he does won't work, etc. So, you constantly troll his videos and try to knock what he and everyone he's associated with are doing. Same goes for how you act towards just about everyone else here.
I'd like to see you prove that phil and his guys don't know what they are doing and can't fight - personally. I'd love to see T in action cleaning up the WC world physically. Tape it too! Now that would be a great video!! :eek:
I'll personally buy the plane ticket.

And here you are, making such a big deal out of nothing. You really are sad.
Bogdon wanted to do some light sparring as a kickboxer with a pro. I'm sure he didn't stop to say "wait, I should change my shirt. I wouldn't want to have this video show up on a WC youtube channel and have people, and most importantly, the Great T, think this is how I do WC!!"
Followed with "Oh krap, forget the experience of sparring as a kickboxer with a pro altogether- I should only be doing WCK on tape since I hold a 'sifu' title!!". :rolleyes:

So, Phil labeled it WC - who friggin cares! (well, besides you). Here we have a video of a guy light sparring with 'someone good' as you say we should all do, and you still find faults - with t-shirts and labels!
I know you're going to whine like a little girl, but I'm going to say it - you're a friggin idiot.

t_niehoff

01-26-2010, 01:21 PM

You're so full of it. No matter what the video is titled, you'd find an issue with it. You have a personal issue with Phil, and it's obvious every time you post here saying things like he doesn't know how to teach, his videos are crapp, what he does won't work, etc. So, you constantly troll his videos and try to knock what he and everyone he's associated with are doing. Same goes for how you act towards just about everyone else here.
I'd like to see you prove that phil and his guys don't know what they are doing and can't fight - personally. I'd love to see T in action cleaning up the WC world physically. Tape it too! Now that would be a great video!! :eek:
I'll personally buy the plane ticket.

Speaking of personal issues . . .

And here you are, making such a big deal out of nothing. You really are sad.
Bogdon wanted to do some light sparring as a kickboxer with a pro. I'm sure he didn't stop to say "wait, I should change my shirt. I wouldn't want to have this video show up on a WC youtube channel and have people, and most importantly, the Great T, think this is how I do WC!!"
Followed with "Oh krap, forget the experience of sparring as a kickboxer with a pro altogether- I should only be doing WCK on tape since I hold a 'sifu' title!!". :rolleyes:

As I said, that's great -- but the description of the tape doesn't say THAT nor does it suggest THAT. It all suggests something else. Just like Phil's tape labeled "training with boxers". It's not a big deal, but I don't think it is being honest.

So, Phil labeled it WC - who friggin cares! (well, besides you). Here we have a video of a guy light sparring with 'someone good' as you say we should all do, and you still find faults - with t-shirts and labels!
I know you're going to whine like a little girl, but I'm going to say it - you're a friggin idiot.

Phil put the tape up (and he labels it, right?) and it looked like he was posting it as an example of WCK. That's why I brought it up. I searched the latest WCK clips for some laughs and that came up on the search. I thought he was using it as an example of WCK because of how the clip was labeled and described (by him) --and it came up on a search for wing chun clips. Now he says that it wasn't an example of WCK. OK, fine. So I said that his labeling and description was misleading -- that it could give people the wrong impression. You'll notice the other commentators or other people on the forum, including you, didin't say "hey, I don't think that's meant to be a WCK clip".

Why does this matter? Well, it matters if you want your viewers to know what they are viewing, that it isn't meant to be WCK for example.

anerlich

01-26-2010, 01:46 PM

I don't expect you to either understand or appreciate my POV.

Your POV is understood, though better expressed by your predecessors and betters in the MA's you advocate.

The sledgehammer finesse with which you persist on incessantly ramming it home, your dogged persistence in making mountains out of molehills and your poorly disguised attacks on forum members like Phil are (some of) the reasons your presence here is, um, underappreciated.

If the training methods you advocate work, they should work for you. All evidence is that you have so far failed in managing to demonstrate any competence in fighting whatsoever, thus making your arguments questionable. That's why you are continually challenged to put up or shut up. I vote for the second option (shutting up), but that seems unlikely.

Wayfaring

01-26-2010, 01:49 PM

I think I'm completely missing something here. What is exactly wrong with the clip? Did the "goat stance police" write him a ticket or something? Aren't people supposed to put gloves on and spar?

anerlich

01-26-2010, 01:54 PM

I am sure that when BJJ came out and people saw "guard pulling" and shoots THEY said to themselves, "That's silly !".

Guard pulling is pretty silly except in BJJ competition.

JPinAZ

01-26-2010, 02:25 PM

I think I'm completely missing something here. What is exactly wrong with the clip? Did the "goat stance police" write him a ticket or something? Aren't people supposed to put gloves on and spar?

Haha, exactly.
T's just but-hurt because he was looking for WC on the internet, found a clip with WC in the title, saw a 'sifu' in a WC shirt sparring with a pro, got excited, but was let down when the sifu wasn't using what he was expecting to see as wc. So he came here to whine and cry about it. Great forum :rolleyes:

Knifefighter

01-26-2010, 04:06 PM

Guard pulling is pretty silly except in BJJ competition.

Not necessarily. Two guys I train with snapped people's arms in confrontations. Neither was the aggressor, but one of them was charged with aggravated assault. The guy who was charged took down a guy who tried to punch him and snapped his arm with an arm bar from the mount.

The other guy pulled guard and threw on an arm bar. The guy who who got his arm snapped was arrested because all the witness saw him as the aggressor on top on the ground.

I've pulled guard many a time in stick fights to disarm sticks and once using the shock knife.

HumbleWCGuy

01-26-2010, 04:09 PM

Phil Redmond

01-26-2010, 08:24 PM

I changed the name of the clip to:
Light Kickboxing in Toronto Wing Chun school. I wouldn't want to mislead you.

Are you the Wing Chun savior who came down from Wing Chun heaven to be Jongnified on a wooden dummy and forgive us of our Wing Chun inadequacies? :rolleyes:

(No offense intended to any religion)

anerlich

01-26-2010, 08:31 PM

Not necessarily. Two guys I train with snapped people's arms in confrontations. Neither was the aggressor, but one of them was charged with aggravated assault. The guy who was charged took down a guy who tried to punch him and snapped his arm with an arm bar from the mount.

The other guy pulled guard and threw on an arm bar. The guy who who got his arm snapped was arrested because all the witness saw him as the aggressor on top on the ground.

I've pulled guard many a time in stick fights to disarm sticks and once using the shock knife.

Yeah, fair enough. John Will actually told us a few stories of guys that had pulled guard in melees and ended up less damaged than the others because they had a body between them and people that were trying to kick or hit them. And JBW made the "perceived aggressor" argument as well.

Unlike some, apparently, I'm happy to be corrected by those with more experience.

anerlich

01-26-2010, 08:32 PM

Are you the Wing Chun savior who came down from Wing Chun heaven to be Jongnified on a wooden dummy and forgive us of our Wing Chun inadequacies?

No, he was the dummy, just got confused about his place in the proceedings.

bennyvt

01-27-2010, 03:26 AM

hey t why don't you dob him in to the police. Your just ****ed phil challenged you and you ran like a little *****

YungChun

01-27-2010, 03:44 AM

The difference is I recognize that and apparently you don't. For me to put up clips would only be adding fuel to the fire, and I'd be doing the very thing that I see as a problem.

This smells a little..

Sorry but you are elevating yourself above everyone else by stating only you train correctly, fight the right people and also use a system, art, style, etc, that you did not make up----so you must have gotten it from *someone else*..(first contradiction)

Having elevated yourself by your own apparently very unique Wing Chun Chuan experience it would be only fair and for the good of the suffering WCK community to share your apparently extraordinary adaption of the art. To do any less could only serve to keep the art and it's practitioners in it's present state of mediocrity..

Given that you care so much, what does this say about your ability to contribute? If you do care so much and clearly have this unique level of experience, then to withhold such information would completely contradict your stated position on the matter... (second contradiction) Unless you have nothing to contribute in a practical sense and then that would seem to suggest that your unique experience actually means naught.

Odd.

See you don't have to be "good enough" or "good" just better than everyone else here--as you have intimated--to contribute.

So show us how much you really care and contribute instead of just shooting down everyone and everything that is not *what you do*...whatever that is.

weakstudent

01-27-2010, 05:28 AM

just for the record i thought i was going to see wing chun too. but like i said i enjoyed the clip

t_niehoff

01-27-2010, 06:07 AM

This smells a little..

Sorry but you are elevating yourself above everyone else by stating only you train correctly, fight the right people and also use a system, art, style, etc, that you did not make up----so you must have gotten it from *someone else*..(first contradiction)

I'm hardly the only one who trains "correctly" -- just about everyone seems to have figured it out. Only the die-hard TMA people don't seem to get it.

If you read my posts, I repeatedly say don't listen to me because of my authority (I don't claim any), listen to what the good fighters and fight trainers say to do. And, go train with them.

Does that "smell a little"?

I am not the only person in WCK who does or has done this. But it is an easy thing to tell who has just by what they say.

Having elevated yourself by your own apparently very unique Wing Chun Chuan experience it would be only fair and for the good of the suffering WCK community to share your apparently extraordinary adaption of the art. To do any less could only serve to keep the art and it's practitioners in it's present state of mediocrity..

Given that you care so much, what does this say about your ability to contribute? If you do care so much and clearly have this unique level of experience, then to withhold such information would completely contradict your stated position on the matter... (second contradiction) Unless you have nothing to contribute in a practical sense and then that would seem to suggest that your unique experience actually means naught.

The TMA mindset is that you can "get it" from another person. You can't. It doesn't work that way. You "get it" by and through the work YOU do. It's like any other sport or athletic activity: you learn and getting better at riding a bike or surfing or any other skill by doing it, and no one can show you how to do it. You just learn the fundamentals, and then put those to work. You learn to box by boxing.

Odd.

See you don't have to be "good enough" or "good" just better than everyone else here--as you have intimated--to contribute.

So show us how much you really care and contribute instead of just shooting down everyone and everything that is not *what you do*...whatever that is.

It's not a question of being better (more skillful) than anyone else (that's not even an issue) -- it pertains to what really happens in fighting. That's why I keep saying that you don't need to be particularly skillful to know what things will work and what things won't work. It's not a skill issue, it's an experience issue. My point is that much of what is said here isn't based on experience -- remember my post about "if you aren't teaching and practcing those things you consistently see in sparring you are teaching and training to fail"? -- but theory, belief, dogma, etc.

No one can give you good experience. You need to earn that yourself.

Phil Redmond

01-27-2010, 06:18 AM

Terence, your posts suggest that you have the answers. You say you care but you don't share. I find this very disingenuous.

t_niehoff

01-27-2010, 07:33 AM

Terence, your posts suggest that you have the answers. You say you care but you don't share. I find this very disingenuous.

Phil, it doesn't matter if I have the answers or not. No one -- even someone that has worked out the answers for himself -- can give them to you or to another person. You don't "get" WCK from your sifu. The answers always need to be worked out by the individual himself. WCK, like boxing, is a personal art. And that's why I keep telling people to go train with good, proven fighters: that's the only way to work out the answers for yourself. You learn to box by boxing.

anerlich

01-27-2010, 02:04 PM

If you read my posts, I repeatedly say don't listen to me because of my authority (I don't claim any),

If you are so concerned about this, why not forgo posting and avoid the possibility of someone making the mistake of listening to you? That would be the charitable thing to do on a large number of levels.

Phil Redmond

01-27-2010, 11:12 PM

Phil, it doesn't matter if I have the answers or not. No one -- even someone that has worked out the answers for himself -- can give them to you or to another person. You don't "get" WCK from your sifu. The answers always need to be worked out by the individual himself. WCK, like boxing, is a personal art. And that's why I keep telling people to go train with good, proven fighters: that's the only way to work out the answers for yourself. You learn to box by boxing.
I think most people know that. Look at it this way. I'm NOT going to change what has worked for me against "skilled" opponents in the ring because of your uninformed opinions. I can name drop but why should I since you won't even post a clip.
Don't make a judgment based on short video clips that you don't understand. You are the type of person that has to feel to believe. btw, how much to you weigh?

YungChun

01-27-2010, 11:32 PM

how much to you weigh?

I bet $10 he won't tell you..

But... I'll also bet he's <150.... :D

YungChun

01-28-2010, 12:00 AM

It's not a question of being better (more skillful) than anyone else (that's not even an issue) -- it pertains to what really happens in fighting. That's why I keep saying that you don't need to be particularly skillful to know what things will work and what things won't work.

If something doesn't work for you when fighting does that mean that thing can't work for someone else in fighting?

If something doesn't work for you when fighting today does that mean that thing can't work for you in the future?

If something doesn't work for you when fighting does that mean that thing is invalid?

How do you determine (in VT) what is valid and what is not? You do make those statements..

Is your EXPERIENCE then a template to use on someone else?

According to your own logic it is not and can't be.

Yet you pontificate on what is and what is not valid for others *regardless* of their experience...based on your own.

If your experience is a valid template for others to be judged then you must have something to teach... Otherwise you can't apply your template on others because each is person is unique and can only have his own.

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

Those with knowledge of really applying any art can serve to guide... It's done in all 'real' fighting arts..

Guide or get off.

Phil Redmond

01-28-2010, 12:19 AM

YungChun

01-28-2010, 12:23 AM

Thanks for your post. You said politely what I really want to say on a street level. I have martial arts brothers/sisters from different linegages and students who are members here so with regards to Terence I'll try to adhere to proper martial arts Mo Duk.

Thanks..

Ain't Mo Duk a beech? LOL

t_niehoff

01-28-2010, 05:24 AM

I think most people know that. Look at it this way. I'm NOT going to change what has worked for me against "skilled" opponents in the ring because of your uninformed opinions. I can name drop but why should I since you won't even post a clip.
Don't make a judgment based on short video clips that you don't understand. You are the type of person that has to feel to believe. btw, how much to you weigh?

I think you have inadvertently hit on something. You SAY these things work against skilled opponents yet -- and lots of peopel SAY the same thing -- and although you put up tons of clips, you never put up one showing what you practice working against skilled opponents.

I really think what is going on is you believe it works in spite of the evidence that it doesn't -- and that is why you have no clips of it working. This is the same thing that is going on when you claim simul blocks and striking "works" (even though I and Dale and others pointed out they are very low percentage) and that you do it all the time. When it was pointed out to you that your own clips of your guys fighting show that not to be the case (only one example in all your clips), you continue to believe your dogma and not your eyes.

But, of course, you and your students can do what even world-class athletes can't. I understand.

Aa far as my putting up clips, as I said, I see that as a major part of the problem -- we should not be putting outselves out there as authorities. If people want to see what things can and do work, the evidence is already out there in abundance, just watch MMA.

And I normally weigh in the 170s.

t_niehoff

01-28-2010, 05:25 AM

t_niehoff

01-28-2010, 05:42 AM

If something doesn't work for you when fighting does that mean that thing can't work for someone else in fighting?

If something doesn't work for you when fighting today does that mean that thing can't work for you in the future?

If something doesn't work for you when fighting does that mean that thing is invalid?

How do you determine (in VT) what is valid and what is not? You do make those statements..

Is your EXPERIENCE then a template to use on someone else?

According to your own logic it is not and can't be.

Yet you pontificate on what is and what is not valid for others *regardless* of their experience...based on your own.

It's a very easy thing to see what sorts of things CONSISTENTLY "work" (not just are lucky breaks) and what doesn't in the real world -- just look at fighting and you see those things for yourself. Sure not everyone can do what others can do, there are individual differences, but those occur in a range of possibilites everyone operates in. While I can't do many things, I can see that they are possiblle since others are consistently doing them.

You ask "Is your EXPERIENCE then a template to use on someone else?" And the answer is OF COURSE. YYou, yourself, do it all the time. If I told you I could levitate and fly around the room would you believe me or would you consider me to be delusional since your experience tells you such things are impossible? Wheny ou go to the doctor, do you think she uses her experience as a template to use on somebody else? Of course. And if someone tells me they can defeat skilled grapplers on the ground by using biting, finger pokes, etc. do I use my experience grappling with very good grapplers to know that is bunk? Of course.

If your experience is a valid template for others to be judged then you must have something to teach... Otherwise you can't apply your template on others because each is person is unique and can only have his own.

Your reasoning isn't sound. You can have good, sufficient experience to know whether something works or doesn't work and still not be skillful yourself -- experience alone doesn't confer skill. An advanced white belt will know, for example, that biting and gouging won't work to defeat a skilled grappler yet he isn't very good.

And, I never said, that I am not qualified to teach WCK or that Phil isn't qualified to teach WCK. Anyone who knows the curriculum of WCK can teach it. But learning to use it is personal.

Those with knowledge of really applying any art can serve to guide... It's done in all 'real' fighting arts..

Guide or get off.

And I am providing guidance, you just don't like the message.

JPinAZ

01-28-2010, 10:17 AM

And, I never said, that I am not qualified to teach WCK or that Phil isn't qualified to teach WCK. Anyone who knows the curriculum of WCK can teach it. But learning to use it is personal.

Sure, you don't say Phil isn't qualified, but you imply it every time you post. I'm not going to go pull up the countless post where you say he and his guys train unrealisticly, use unrealistic finger strikes, entry technique, etc. But you want us to believe you aren't saying he isn't qualified??

Just looking a few posts back, are these the things you say to someone that you believe is qualified to teach WC?

really think what is going on is you believe it works in spite of the evidence that it doesn't -- and that is why you have no clips of it working. This is the same thing that is going on when you claim simul blocks and striking "works" (even though I and Dale and others pointed out they are very low percentage) and that you do it all the time. When it was pointed out to you that your own clips of your guys fighting show that not to be the case (only one example in all your clips), you continue to believe your dogma and not your eyes.

But, of course, you and your students can do what even world-class athletes can't. I understand.

BTW, when do you want me to book your ticket to visit Phil? ;)

t_niehoff

01-28-2010, 12:28 PM

Sure, you don't say Phil isn't qualified, but you imply it every time you post. I'm not going to go pull up the countless post where you say he and his guys train unrealisticly, use unrealistic finger strikes, entry technique, etc. But you want us to believe you aren't saying he isn't qualified??

Phil knows the WCK curriculum. It's in the forms, the dummy, the drills, the kuit, etc. We all - more or less - have that. Having the curriclum and being qualified to teach the curriculum doesn't mean we can use it or know how to use it ( if we can't use it, then we don't know). That's the problem with TMAs: the curriculum is separate and distinct from application.

Let's use one of your examples. Bil sao is in the WCK curriculum. We all know that tool. But it isn't a finger strike, you can't use the tool that way. Striking with the fingers is nonsense, it won't do anything but get your fingers broken. But you or Phil or anyone can easily prove me wrong by showing everyone that you can do that in fighting successfully. Yet, we never see any evidence produced showing that -- and the reason is because it doesn't work.

This example illustrates the larger problem: When we listen to people who can't do it (finger strike in fighting, for example) tell us that's what we should be doing, tell us the theory of why it is good, etc. and when we buy into that, we are training to fail. You can't learn to apply the WCK tools by listening to people who can't apply them. It's better to disregard what they are saying - because it is nonsense - and just go see for yourself.

Just looking a few posts back, are these the things you say to someone that you believe is qualified to teach WC?

One of my WCK friends was told by his sifu (who I think is one of the rare, good ones) that - to paraphrase- "I can teach you the method but I can't teach you to use it, it is up to you to learn to use it."

And, he's right. We can't learn to fight with our WCK from our sifu (even if they can) because we learn to fight by fighting -- it is your sparring partners that teach you how to apply your WCK, not your sifu (unless he's your sparring partner).

If anyone knows the WCK curriculum, they are qualified to teach it.

BTW, when do you want me to book your ticket to visit Phil? ;)

You should book Phil to here instead. And, btw, I'm still waiting for you to pay me a visit. Too bad you had to cancel. :)

JPinAZ

01-28-2010, 12:59 PM

anerlich

01-28-2010, 01:17 PM

Mo duk is more TCMA bullsh1t.

As apparently, are respect, politeness and knowing when to shut up, in your case.

t_niehoff

01-28-2010, 01:36 PM

So, you say a teacher is qualified to teach if they know the curriculum, but they don't have to be able to perform, or as you say "can't do it" themselves?? Seriously? I feel sorry for your students. And now it makes perfect sense why you admit your skill is low.

Feel sorry for yourself -- your teacher can't fight worth beans. You think your grandmaster or any of them can?

Put any of them in against even a low level MT fighter and they would be destroyed. They couldn't make the simplest things work. How do I know? Because if they are not already doing it, they won't be able to do it.

Stop deceiving yourself. Stop believing the myths.

So now you don't have the time in your busy schedule of posting on forums to go visit Phil and prove him wrong and show him how to do it right? Won't cost you a cent either, all you have to do is get on a plane big guy.. but now he has to come to you? :rolleyes:

As for me visiting you, it was only because I might have had work there, which didn't happen. I'm not going to go out of my way for a nobody like you, but if I had the chance... I hope we do meet one day, it'll be nice to see you run your hands instead of your mouth for once ;)

As I said before, why is it always the deluded people who roll their eyes?

I see, you're not going out of your way . . . but I should go out of my way. Right. OK.

JPinAZ

01-28-2010, 02:28 PM

haha, wow, that's what you come up with? Too funny - empty words from a nobody. Always trying to divert from the real truth - you're full of BS. I called you on it, so you talk about who I train with. Proved once again what an idiot you are.
Speaking of teachers, I have some clips I am sure your teacher wouldn't want getting out and around, so let it go, you're acting like a child.

And, we all know you're not meeting anybody, so shut it. Go sit on the sidelines while the the rest of the world trains, just like you have your whole life.

YungChun

01-28-2010, 05:05 PM

It's a very easy thing to see what sorts of things CONSISTENTLY "work" (not just are lucky breaks) and what doesn't in the real world -- just look at fighting and you see those things for yourself. Sure not everyone can do what others can do, there are individual differences, but those occur in a range of possibilites everyone operates in. While I can't do many things, I can see that they are possiblle since others are consistently doing them.

So let's see some examples.. Not of BJJ, boxing, not of Muay Thai, not of X, but let's see the WCK "working" the way you say it should...

We can observe all kinds of things, that have nothing to do with the subject here.. You say WCK is done a certain way, a way that somehow you know no-one else here does it.. So show it.. Show it yourself, or show someone else using WCK in the context you speak of.. You don't post any clips AT ALL.. You just shoot everyone else down..... Since you can't post anything relevant, meaning that you find valid I must assume whatever that 'thing' is you have is just a theory..

You ask "Is your EXPERIENCE then a template to use on someone else?" And the answer is OF COURSE. You, yourself, do it all the time.

No, I don't.. I don't tell anyone they can't fight.. I don't tell anyone they can't do X.. I don't make all kinds of assumptions of what people mean by "It works"...

What I do, do, is apply the template of the system, art, method that I know as WCK on what I see.. If there is a major mismatch then IMO what is being done is not WCK, not what I know as WCK... I can also illustrate why it isn't.. In most cases what I see is overly complex, doesn't adhere to the most basic elements of the system, or outright goes against them.. I can explain why not and also explain what does.

Your reasoning isn't sound. You can have good, sufficient experience to know whether something works or doesn't work and still not be skillful yourself -- experience alone doesn't confer skill.

BS.

It's what coaches do all day.. No they can't make a student perform but they can tell them what they are doing wrong and also tell them/show them how to do it right, how to train it right and how to apply it right. Any coach of any art can do this... Yet for some reason you can't...and also make the fantastic claim no one does and can't.. You say you can only say what is wrong but not what is right, that sir is a giant load of horse poop.

As far as control, you "control" when you need to and don't when you don't need to (assuming erroneously as you do that impacting is not a form of control).. There is a time and place for each element in the system, however, that doesn't mean all elements are used all the time... Pretty simple really... On the surface it would seem any experienced fighter would understand that.

Phil Redmond

01-28-2010, 05:26 PM

Mo duk is more TCMA bullsh1t.
Mo Duk is simple a Chinese martial term for respect. So you say the respect is BS?

Phil Redmond

01-28-2010, 05:33 PM

. . .
Let's use one of your examples. Bil sao is in the WCK curriculum. We all know that tool. But it isn't a finger strike, you can't use the tool that way. Striking with the fingers is nonsense, it won't do anything but get your fingers broken. .
Biu Sao and Biu Jee are two separate things. But of course you knew that. And I know you read my post where I said that I don't "advocate" finger strikes.

Phil Redmond

01-28-2010, 05:41 PM

I think you have inadvertently hit on something. You SAY these things work against skilled opponents yet -- and lots of peopel SAY the same thing -- and although you put up tons of clips, you never put up one showing what you practice working against skilled opponents.

I really think what is going on is you believe it works in spite of the evidence that it doesn't -- and that is why you have no clips of it working. This is the same thing that is going on when you claim simul blocks and striking "works" (even though I and Dale and others pointed out they are very low percentage) and that you do it all the time. When it was pointed out to you that your own clips of your guys fighting show that not to be the case (only one example in all your clips), you continue to believe your dogma and not your eyes.

But, of course, you and your students can do what even world-class athletes can't. I understand.

Aa far as my putting up clips, as I said, I see that as a major part of the problem -- we should not be putting outselves out there as authorities. If people want to see what things can and do work, the evidence is already out there in abundance, just watch MMA.

And I normally weigh in the 170s.

This is one of your more hypocritical posts. You ask for clips but won't post one yourself. I will say this. If we ever meet I WILL make a believer out of you. No brag, just fact. I still have a enough fight in me to show you a few things. I can still take a good punch or kick. ;)

YungChun

01-28-2010, 05:45 PM

This is one of your more hypocritical posts. You ask for clips but won't post one yourself. I will say this. If we ever meet I WILL make a believer out of you. No brag, just fact. I still have a enough fight in me to show you a few things. I can still take a good punch or kick. ;)

In any such situation I am certain he would want to go to the ground.......

Just a guess.

Also guessing that if you did kick his butt it wouldn't change his position on the matter.

goju

01-28-2010, 07:59 PM

honestly i wouldnt be suprised it terrence is an alter of knife fighter :rolleyes:

Phil Redmond

01-28-2010, 08:12 PM

. . . .Also guessing that if you did kick his butt it wouldn't change his position on the matter.
But it would be so satisfying, especially since I'm 62 years old. If he beat me he'd know he was in a fight and he would see some WC. He keeps talking about fighting skilled fighters. Yeah, I know it was in the late 80's but I had fight with a pro kickboxer bent on wrecking me. I won that fight. It's not like I haven't competed against skilled people. No there are no videos but many people from back in the day know me for my fights. I also fought in the Fu Jow Pai full contact events that allowed knees, elbows, and no more than 2 or 3 strikes to an opponent on the ground. This was before MMA. What ever he sees in my clips I can do and so can lots of other people. If he come to the East coast I'm like him to see how we train. I'll even introduce him to the pro-boxer that trains and "spars" with us.

YungChun

01-28-2010, 08:18 PM

But it would be so satisfying, especially since I'm 62 years old. If he beat me he'd know he was in a fight and he would see some WC. He keeps talking about fighting skilled fighters. Yeah, I know it was in the late 80's but I had fight with a pro kickboxer bent on wrecking me. I won that fight. It's not like I haven't competed against skilled people. No there are no videos but many people from back in the day know me for my fights. I also fought in the Fu Jow Pai full contact events that allowed knees, elbows, and no more than 2 or 3 strikes to an opponent on the ground. This was before MMA. What ever he sees in my clips I can do and so can lots of other people. If he come to the East coast I'm like him to see how we train. I'll even introduce him to the pro-boxer that trains and "spars" with us.

I'm sure if he was there he would be, oh, so, polite... :D

Phil Redmond

01-28-2010, 11:15 PM

Unlike Terence I don't trash other people's Wing Chun. The reason why I don't is because when I was fighting and winning I wasn't using TWC. I was using the more "mainstream" YMWC. I only used TWC in my last few fights including the one against the pro kickboxer. My point is that is you train something well you can apply it. Terence talks about low percentage techniques and I agree with him. It would be a low percentage of people who can do Jackie Chan or Tony Jaa stunts. The same would go for Olympian gymnasts or famous guitarists. But the people who diligently train for these activities can do them. It would be a low percentage for me not to do simultaneous blocks/attacks because of my training. Of course my opponent's and my positioning won't allow me to do it all the time but I know I'm capable of a larger percentage of simultaneous blocks/strikes because I was trained that way under pressure of getting hit hard. I was introduced to being able to deal with random HARD attacks at Sifu Duncan Leung's school on Great Jones St. in NYC back in the 70's. There has to be someone on this forum who either knows or has heard of how realistic Duncan's school was. I'm drilling the NYC class to be able to compete right now. In fact we will be having some more full contact sparring in Spanish Harlem in April. There will also be even more amateur MMA fights in NJ. At the present MMA fights aren't legal in NY. That might change soon.
If anyone is interested in competing in MMA in NJ area let me know. Maybe Terence would agree to something like that so that he can show me how WCK doesn't work. I'm always a student and would appreciate his instruction.

t_niehoff

01-29-2010, 05:41 AM

Unlike Terence I don't trash other people's Wing Chun.

Unlike Terence you don't seem to have critical thinking skills.

The reason why I don't is because when I was fighting and winning I wasn't using TWC. I was using the more "mainstream" YMWC. I only used TWC in my last few fights including the one against the pro kickboxer.

You were kickboxing, not doing WCK.

My point is that is you train something well you can apply it.

This is the sort of thing that tells me you are lost in fatnasy. That's simply not true. If it were, you'd see all kinds of things working in MMA, and you don't. It's not a matter of practice -- if what you are practicing isn't something that can work, no amount of practice will make it work. You can practice doding a bullet all you want, but you won't be able to apply it!

Terence talks about low percentage techniques and I agree with him. It would be a low percentage of people who can do Jackie Chan or Tony Jaa stunts. The same would go for Olympian gymnasts or famous guitarists. But the people who diligently train for these activities can do them.

Seriously, Phil, you don't even understand what a low percentage technique or move is. How can you practice MAs for 40 years and not?

A low percentage move or technique is one that NO MATTER HOW WELL TRAINED YOU ARE you won't be successful using except rarely. And that's typically because the timing is so difficult or it is so easily countered or etc.

It would be a low percentage for me not to do simultaneous blocks/attacks because of my training. Of course my opponent's and my positioning won't allow me to do it all the time but I know I'm capable of a larger percentage of simultaneous blocks/strikes because I was trained that way under pressure of getting hit hard.

If simul blocking and striking was high percentage, then you'd see it occurring in sparring quite often -- that's the definition of high percentage. The mere fact that you don't see it every "fighting" clip you've posted proves it is a low percentage move. Even when Rashun was fooling around with -- so the pressure was low -- he couldn't do it agaisnt Dale's strikes. If he can't do it when the pressure is low, do you think the ability will suddenly come to him when someone is trying to take his head off? '

I was introduced to being able to deal with random HARD attacks at Sifu Duncan Leung's school on Great Jones St. in NYC back in the 70's. There has to be someone on this forum who either knows or has heard of how realistic Duncan's school was. I'm drilling the NYC class to be able to compete right now. In fact we will be having some more full contact sparring in Spanish Harlem in April. There will also be even more amateur MMA fights in NJ. At the present MMA fights aren't legal in NY. That might change soon.
If anyone is interested in competing in MMA in NJ area let me know.

Why is it - WHY IS IT - that you SAY you can do this or that, and that I'm simply wrong, yet you can't show anyone that you can do it? I mean, Phil, you've posted a hundred videos to youtube -- yet not one shows anyone, not you or any of your students,able to do the things you say you can do or that you train to do in fighting. What we see is your guys NOT blocking and striking at the same time, NOT doing the entry technique, NOT using finger strikes, NOT moving to the blindside, NOT controlling the elbow, NOT facing the point of contact, NOT using the techniques you learn and train. Your own videos prove my point.

Maybe Terence would agree to something like that so that he can show me how WCK doesn't work. I'm always a student and would appreciate his instruction.

As I have said, your own videos prove that what you teach and train doesn't work -- you see it NOT working in the videos. You can't -- and won't -- see it when it is right before your eyes.

If you want good instruction, go to a good MMA gym and join.

Frost

01-29-2010, 07:21 AM

Unlike Terence you don't seem to have critical thinking skills.

You were kickboxing, not doing WCK.

This is the sort of thing that tells me you are lost in fatnasy. That's simply not true. If it were, you'd see all kinds of things working in MMA, and you don't. It's not a matter of practice -- if what you are practicing isn't something that can work, no amount of practice will make it work. You can practice doding a bullet all you want, but you won't be able to apply it!

Seriously, Phil, you don't even understand what a low percentage technique or move is. How can you practice MAs for 40 years and not?

A low percentage move or technique is one that NO MATTER HOW WELL TRAINED YOU ARE you won't be successful using except rarely. And that's typically because the timing is so difficult or it is so easily countered or etc.

If simul blocking and striking was high percentage, then you'd see it occurring in sparring quite often -- that's the definition of high percentage. The mere fact that you don't see it every "fighting" clip you've posted proves it is a low percentage move. Even when Rashun was fooling around with -- so the pressure was low -- he couldn't do it agaisnt Dale's strikes. If he can't do it when the pressure is low, do you think the ability will suddenly come to him when someone is trying to take his head off? '

Why is it - WHY IS IT - that you SAY you can do this or that, and that I'm simply wrong, yet you can't show anyone that you can do it? I mean, Phil, you've posted a hundred videos to youtube -- yet not one shows anyone, not you or any of your students,able to do the things you say you can do or that you train to do in fighting. What we see is your guys NOT blocking and striking at the same time, NOT doing the entry technique, NOT using finger strikes, NOT moving to the blindside, NOT controlling the elbow, NOT facing the point of contact, NOT using the techniques you learn and train. Your own videos prove my point.

As I have said, your own videos prove that what you teach and train doesn't work -- you see it NOT working in the videos. You can't -- and won't -- see it when it is right before your eyes.

If you want good instruction, go to a good MMA gym and join.

ok so I have not checked out Phil’s clips (at work I can’t view them at the moment), question for those of you who have, is Terrance right or wrong, do his videos show him and his students pulling of fighting blocking and striking at the same time, the entry technique, finger strikes, moving to the blindside, controlling the elbow, facing the point of contact?

If they do show these things working in sparring then Terrance is wrong and they are not low percentage moves, if they don't show them then he is right.... can a more knowledgeable wing chun guy tell me it those things are present in the videos?

t_niehoff

01-29-2010, 07:27 AM

ok so I have not checked out Phil’s clips (at work I can’t view them at the moment), question for those of you who have, is Terrance right or wrong, do his videos show him and his students pulling of fighting blocking and striking at the same time, the entry technique, finger strikes, moving to the blindside, controlling the elbow, facing the point of contact?

If they do show these things working in sparring then Terrance is wrong and they are not low percentage moves, if they don't show them then he is right.... can a more knowledgeable wing chun guy tell me it those things are present in the videos?

Here's Phil's channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u

go see for youself -- look at his guys fighting (like the lei tei fights), look at Rashun's clip with Dale, etc.

What you will get are excuses as to why you don't see these things -- there is always an excuse. But the reason for the excuses is they don't consistently work.

Frost

01-29-2010, 07:34 AM

Here's Phil's channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u

go see for youself -- look at his guys fighting (like the lei tei fights), look at Rashun's clip with Dale, etc.

What you will get are excuses as to why you don't see these things -- there is always an excuse. But the reason for the excuses is they don't consistently work.

thanks i'll check it out at home, although i have to say i agree with you in that i have not seen what you talked about in any MMA or clips on youtube, but i'll wait until viewing phils before making judgement

sanjuro_ronin

01-29-2010, 07:43 AM

Frost

01-29-2010, 07:56 AM

Context,
You won't see them done in the fashion they are demoed, no.
But you don't usually see the "picture perfect" demo moves done that way in a fight anyways, so looking for "that look" is a waste of time.

Ok i understand i should not see the picture perfect demo, but it should look like the demo shouldn't it, same body mechanics same basic movement if not as crisp
'

if i show someone the clinch, fighting for underhooks, escaping the plum etc it will still look simliar in a fight, maybe not as sharp but the same mechanics/body structure will be there will they not?

If i demo how to slip a cross and thow body and head hooks i return you will see th same technique in a fight, maybe not as clean but you will see it, just as you will see the mount and mount escapes drilled in class and used in a fight correct?

sanjuro_ronin

01-29-2010, 08:23 AM

Ok i understand i should not see the picture perfect demo, but it should look like the demo shouldn't it, same body mechanics same basic movement if not as crisp
'

if i show someone the clinch, fighting for underhooks, escaping the plum etc it will still look simliar in a fight, maybe not as sharp but the same mechanics/body structure will be there will they not?

If i demo how to slip a cross and thow body and head hooks i return you will see th same technique in a fight, maybe not as clean but you will see it, just as you will see the mount and mount escapes drilled in class and used in a fight correct?

I tend to agree, when it comes to technique based systems.
When it comes to "principle" or "concept" based systems I have found that it doesn't matter what it "looks like" as long as the principle is their.
EX:
The typical simulteanous "block" and strike that we see demoed will rarely be seen, but the concept of it is seen, as an example in boxing, when a fighter slips a jab and counters with a lead to the body or a lead hook, the rear hand parry is "simultaneous" to the hook.
The concept is there, if not the look.

Frost

01-29-2010, 08:28 AM

I tend to agree, when it comes to technique based systems.
When it comes to "principle" or "concept" based systems I have found that it doesn't matter what it "looks like" as long as the principle is their.
EX:
The typical simulteanous "block" and strike that we see demoed will rarely be seen, but the concept of it is seen, as an example in boxing, when a fighter slips a jab and counters with a lead to the body or a lead hook, the rear hand parry is "simultaneous" to the hook.
The concept is there, if not the look.

but surely it woule be to demonstrate the principles using techniques that actually work in a real situation?n would it not confuse the students less if you said here is the principle, and here is the principle in action, rather than here is the principle, here is the principle being demo'd... but wait you won't see it like this in a fight built here is an instance of it being used differently in a fight?

sanjuro_ronin

01-29-2010, 08:40 AM

but surely it woule be to demonstrate the principles using techniques that actually work in a real situation?n would it not confuse the students less if you said here is the principle, and here is the principle in action, rather than here is the principle, here is the principle being demo'd... but wait you won't see it like this in a fight built here is an instance of it being used differently in a fight?

First off, don't call me Surely.
Second, yes I agree and it is one of the many issues I have with MANY MA and not just WC.

Frost

01-29-2010, 08:49 AM

First off, don't call me Surely.
Second, yes I agree and it is one of the many issues I have with MANY MA and not just WC.

was thinking airplane as i typed that :)

fair enough no arguements from me

sanjuro_ronin

01-29-2010, 09:06 AM

was thinking airplane as i typed that :)

fair enough no arguements from me

I have discussed a fair amount of times, the pros and cons of doing a MA that is "unique" in its look and what it brings to the table.
The fact that one brings something "different" and "uncommon" to a fight is not a bad thing, it is a very big plus, IF we can use it in a fight.
Now, VS scrubs almost anything will work, so it is irrelevant what anyone can pull off VS an untrained person.
We need to focus on what can be done VS a skilled and trained fighter.
In the end, only results matter.

Edmund

01-29-2010, 09:44 PM

This is the sort of thing that tells me you are lost in fatnasy. That's simply not true. If it were, you'd see all kinds of things working in MMA, and you don't. It's not a matter of practice -- if what you are practicing isn't something that can work, no amount of practice will make it work. You can practice doding a bullet all you want, but you won't be able to apply it!

http://www.mma-core.com/gifs/_Lyoto_Machida_Knocks_Down_Rashad_Evans_UFC_98?gid =10000746

This was posted the last time you claimed that simultaneous stuff was impossible.

Machida uses the same move every time he fights.

YungChun

01-29-2010, 10:42 PM

Now, VS scrubs almost anything will work, so it is irrelevant what anyone can pull off VS an untrained person.
We need to focus on what can be done VS a skilled and trained fighter.
In the end, only results matter.

I think we underplay this... What is a scrub..?

T mocks results against drunks..and such...

Most folks who do this stuff are not looking to be Olympic level fighters...

The guy you see as a "scrub" may be a serious threat to someone else, a small woman, being the most obvious..a small man another and as we see in the real world sometimes even a threat to a big strong man or cop..

Alone on a deserted, dimly lit street, everyone is a real threat.

Not all students are going to be able to or willing to take their training to the level some folks talk about here.. That's just reality..

IOW, it's no small thing for some run of the mill, ordinary type folks to dispatch a "scrub" or any threat in the street especially when scared out of their wits.

The limitations of a smaller person, a mother of three, an older person, or just someone who is not game for hard core training, street fighting or full contact sport fighting must also be considered.

SAAMAG

01-29-2010, 11:10 PM

http://www.mma-core.com/gifs/_Lyoto_Machida_Knocks_Down_Rashad_Evans_UFC_98?gid =10000746

This was posted the last time you claimed that simultaneous stuff was impossible.

Machida uses the same move every time he fights.

That's a good clip of what I would call a high percentage move...I suppose the most appropriate wing chun descriptor would be a pak-da, no?

Its funny, when I use wing chun in sparring, it works quite well most of the time. Though a majority of the time its pak da's against straight attacks, and tan-da's or something similar with more curved and hooking attacks. I always wonder why people say these aren't high percentage or aren't commonly seen. Trapping...in the complex ways we see in demo's simply won't occur against an even remotely aware person. That's idealistic, not realistic.

One thing though that I would mention, is that wing chun is great under certain conditions and specific ranges of combat...not in all scenarios or conditions. Using it where its useful and ditching it where its not is key.

Phil Redmond

01-30-2010, 03:13 AM

. . . . . . . .You were kickboxing, not doing WCK.

This is the sort of thing that tells me you are lost in fatnasy. That's simply not true. If it were, you'd see all kinds of things working in MMA, and you don't. It's not a matter of practice -- if what you are practicing isn't something that can work, no amount of practice will make it work. You can practice doding a bullet all you want, but you won't be able to apply it!

Seriously, Phil, you don't even understand what a low percentage technique or move is. How can you practice MAs for 40 years and not?

A low percentage move or technique is one that NO MATTER HOW WELL TRAINED YOU ARE you won't be successful using except rarely. And that's typically because the timing is so difficult or it is so easily countered or etc.

If simul blocking and striking was high percentage, then you'd see it occurring in sparring quite often -- that's the definition of high percentage. The mere fact that you don't see it every "fighting" clip you've posted proves it is a low percentage move. Even when Rashun was fooling around with -- so the pressure was low -- he couldn't do it agaisnt Dale's strikes. If he can't do it when the pressure is low, do you think the ability will suddenly come to him when someone is trying to take his head off? '

Why is it - WHY IS IT - that you SAY you can do this or that, and that I'm simply wrong, yet you can't show anyone that you can do it? I mean, Phil, you've posted a hundred videos to youtube -- yet not one shows anyone, not you or any of your students,able to do the things you say you can do or that you train to do in fighting. What we see is your guys NOT blocking and striking at the same time, NOT doing the entry technique, NOT using finger strikes, NOT moving to the blindside, NOT controlling the elbow, NOT facing the point of contact, NOT using the techniques you learn and train. Your own videos prove my point.

As I have said, your own videos prove that what you teach and train doesn't work -- you see it NOT working in the videos. You can't -- and won't -- see it when it is right before your eyes.
If you want good instruction, go to a good MMA gym and join.

I used WCK in kickboxing events. At least I've posted clips off people testing their WCK in full contact. They're not perfect but they are trying against resisting opponents from other disciplines so what you say doesn't affect how we train. This is getting old and again without meeting me in person you've made another assumption base on some shorts clips. I'm not wasting my time with you unless you say you're heading East.
(I don't have to funds to travel like I think a Lawyer should. );)

t_niehoff

01-30-2010, 05:10 AM

I think we underplay this... What is a scrub..?

T mocks results against drunks..and such...

Most folks who do this stuff are not looking to be Olympic level fighters...

The guy you see as a "scrub" may be a serious threat to someone else, a small woman, being the most obvious..a small man another and as we see in the real world sometimes even a threat to a big strong man or cop..

Alone on a deserted, dimly lit street, everyone is a real threat.

Not all students are going to be able to or willing to take their training to the level some folks talk about here.. That's just reality..

IOW, it's no small thing for some run of the mill, ordinary type folks to dispatch a "scrub" or any threat in the street especially when scared out of their wits.

The limitations of a smaller person, a mother of three, an older person, or just someone who is not game for hard core training, street fighting or full contact sport fighting must also be considered.

A scrub is an unskilled or very-low level, unconditioned fighter. We all start out as scrubs. Some people never move beyond that stage.

You don't need to be olympic athletes -- this is just another excuse people use to not train. And, it is based on the incorrect premise that there is some "other way" of fighting for people who don't want to or can't put in the hard work in training like a fighter. The truth is that to develop solid, fundamental fighting skills ANYONE has to do what all fighters do, and if you don't want to or can't pay that price, and do that work, you can't develop the skill. It's the same with any sport or athletic activity.

t_niehoff

01-30-2010, 05:16 AM

http://www.mma-core.com/gifs/_Lyoto_Machida_Knocks_Down_Rashad_Evans_UFC_98?gid =10000746

This was posted the last time you claimed that simultaneous stuff was impossible.

Machida uses the same move every time he fights.

That's not a simultaneous block and strike. Are you blind? If you block with one action then when you've completed that action, begin to strike, how can you call that simultaneous blocking and striking? (unless you are redefining the word "simultaneous" to mean after)-- that is an example of blocking (actually, of batting a punch away) THEN striking. Yes, people do THAT all the time.

t_niehoff

01-30-2010, 05:23 AM

I tend to agree, when it comes to technique based systems.
When it comes to "principle" or "concept" based systems I have found that it doesn't matter what it "looks like" as long as the principle is their.
EX:
The typical simulteanous "block" and strike that we see demoed will rarely be seen, but the concept of it is seen, as an example in boxing, when a fighter slips a jab and counters with a lead to the body or a lead hook, the rear hand parry is "simultaneous" to the hook.
The concept is there, if not the look.

The problem with all that is the concept/principle IS the movement, they are not two different things. If you don't see WCK movement, you don't see WCK concepts in action. That's why the whole "concept-based" premise is nonsense. There is no such thing -- that notion was created by the theoretical nonfighters. Did you ever wonder why there isn't concept-based tennis or concept-based swimming or concept-based cycling? If we talked about sport or athletic activities that way, we'd immediately recognize how silly that is.

t_niehoff

01-30-2010, 05:56 AM

I used WCK in kickboxing events.

No, what you did was kickboxing while occassionally (rarely) throwing in a WCK technique.

At least I've posted clips off people testing their WCK in full contact. They're not perfect but they are trying against resisting opponents from other disciplines so what you say doesn't affect how we train.

Phil, you just don't get it. It's not that they "aren't perfect" -- who the f##k is? BJJ fighters aren't perfect, boxers aren't perfect, MMA fighters aren't perfect. BUT you can see them doing the things they train to do in their fighting as opposed to what you guys are doing -- which is NOT doing what you train (and say) to do.

Fundamental skills (in any sport or fighting art) are by definition high-percentage. That's because what makes them fundamental skills is that without them you can't play the game. So, whenever you play the game, you will see those skills. High percentage. If the things you teach/train were fundamental WCK skills, they would be high percentage, and you would see them whenever your guys fought -- you couldn't help but see them. But you don't see them in your fighting (playing the game). That OUGHT to tell you something.

The reason it isn't telling you anything is because you've closed off your critical thinking, and so your ability to see things objectively, with your TWC dogma. You are a true believer and to such an extent that you can't see reality when it is right before your eyes.

This is getting old and again without meeting me in person you've made another assumption base on some shorts clips. I'm not wasting my time with you unless you say you're heading East.
(I don't have to funds to travel like I think a Lawyer should. );)

The fact that you and your students can't do the things you teach and train to do in fighting should be all the evidence you need. If that doesn't get through to you, how will me visiting you make you see reality? Would my presence suddenly make you realize, "gosh, he's right, we really don't ever do these things?"

Edmund

01-30-2010, 06:16 AM

That's not a simultaneous block and strike. Are you blind? If you block with one action then when you've completed that action, begin to strike, how can you call that simultaneous blocking and striking? (unless you are redefining the word "simultaneous" to mean after)-- that is an example of blocking THEN striking. Yes, people do THAT all the time.

You truly believe it's not simultaneous? You are one aspergian nutcase.

Honestly WTF? It was not one action after another.

Phil Redmond

01-30-2010, 09:35 AM

No, what you did was kickboxing while occassionally (rarely) throwing in a WCK technique. . . . .
This sentence really proves how you make assumptions without first hand evidence. You were not at my fights yet you know how I fought. :rolleyes:

The reason it isn't telling you anything is because you've closed off your critical thinking, and so your ability to see things objectively, with your TWC dogma. You are a true believer and to such an extent that you can't see reality when it is right before your eyes. . . . .
Did you read the post where I said in most of my fights I DIDN'T use TWC?
As far as dogma goes, I'm a martial artist before I'm a WC practitioner. WCK is simply one of the tools in my tool box.

The fact that you and your students can't do the things you teach and train to do in fighting should be all the evidence you need. . .

The clips of our guys in their first Le Tai fights prove you wrong. But of course since you don't know how we trained them first hand you probably won't see how they did there best to apply WCK pricinples. The bong sao round punch is one good example. There are many others

Phil Redmond

01-30-2010, 10:09 AM

. . . . . . . . . The fact that you and your students can't do the things you teach and train to do in fighting should be all the evidence you need. If that doesn't get through to you, how will me visiting you make you see reality? Would my presence suddenly make you realize, "gosh, he's right, we really don't ever do these things?"

You wrote; " Phil, you just don't get it. It's not that they "aren't perfect" -- who the f##k is? BJJ fighters aren't perfect, boxers aren't perfect, MMA fighters aren't perfect. BUT you can see them doing the things they train to do in their fighting as opposed to what you guys are doing -- which is NOT doing what you train (and say) to do."

Well I see them doing the best they can to use what they were taught against resisting opponents. After all it was their first fight outside of the school.
Lei Ta training 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7NCvZYiDQw&feature=related

Lei Tai training 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZDkPpWYYoI

Lei Tai training 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyQH4M550M0&feature=related

Here they tried what they learned in class:.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1bSkRY3iWI

Fight highlights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFOJkZa1ic&feature=related

But of course you'll see what you want to see and we all know that here.
I don't believe I'm still replying to your dogma. :rolleyes:

weakstudent

01-30-2010, 12:18 PM

maybe his students aren't good enough to do those things all the time, yet i guess thats why they are learning. my question to T is what do you mean by skilled sparring partners ? just need an example, i spar with a guy named sean obasi wing chun brother, fights mma we go light but **** he strong agressive and is learning bjj so he is always taking me down. he has a couple of videos on youtube check them out. my wing chun really sucks but im a beginner, hahaha but i see your point about about being able to apply it. so far pak sau, bong sau straight blast is the technigues that i notice come out as of right now. and we all have to remember our wing chun will look nothing like our Sifu's wing chun

by the way i love the back and forth, keep it up im learning a lots

weakstudent

01-30-2010, 12:40 PM

hey just finished reading the rest, a scrub well that would be me, unconditioned hahahaha i get winded after a min. but im working on it., to many bluts in my youth, but for real lets talk about wing chun things like helping beginners out like me, i am a believer of every little bit helps.

weakstudent

01-30-2010, 12:43 PM

That's not a simultaneous block and strike. Are you blind? If you block with one action then when you've completed that action, begin to strike, how can you call that simultaneous blocking and striking? (unless you are redefining the word "simultaneous" to mean after)-- that is an example of blocking (actually, of batting a punch away) THEN striking. Yes, people do THAT all the time.

i have to agree it looks more like a one two combo,

Knifefighter

01-30-2010, 01:16 PM

You truly believe it's not simultaneous? You are one aspergian nutcase.

Honestly WTF? It was not one action after another.

It sure was one action after another... a stop hit with the front hand followed by a cross with the rear hand.

Edmund

01-30-2010, 04:32 PM

It sure was one action after another... a stop hit with the front hand followed by a cross with the rear hand.

Known forum trolls having a lovefest.
Keep hugging yourselves while bashing Phil.

It would be described in WC terms as Pak da: Something Terence previously claimed could NEVER work against a quality opponent from his infinite experience at sucking at MMA.

wtxs

01-30-2010, 04:45 PM

I'm putting my neck on the chopping block here, so make sure your cleaver is razor sharp, I'm a weeniiieee when comes to pain.:D

The bottom line is, no martial has any simultaneous technique as others had pointed out. It denoted something which had to be existing or occurring exactly at the same time, simultaneously block/hit can't happen unless both limbs involved are physically jointed.

The term is loosely used to define the relationship of how we channel what we know through our limbs in the shortest amount of time as possible.

Phil Redmond

01-30-2010, 06:22 PM

This is the clip I meant to show:

Here they tried what they learned in class:.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1bSkRY3iWI

m1k3

01-30-2010, 08:11 PM

A scrub is an unskilled or very-low level, unconditioned fighter. We all start out as scrubs. Some people never move beyond that stage.

You don't need to be olympic athletes -- this is just another excuse people use to not train. And, it is based on the incorrect premise that there is some "other way" of fighting for people who don't want to or can't put in the hard work in training like a fighter. The truth is that to develop solid, fundamental fighting skills ANYONE has to do what all fighters do, and if you don't want to or can't pay that price, and do that work, you can't develop the skill. It's the same with any sport or athletic activity.

Are you serious? Anyone who doesn’t train at a level that you deem appropriate isn’t training? Hubris! Maybe everyone doesn’t want solid, fundamental fighting skills. Maybe they are satisfied with what you consider to be subpar skills. Who are you to judge? Usually I agree with your posts about training and aliveness but I feel you crossed a line here. There are people who train simply to have some basic skills that will give them an advantage in the situations that occur in their normal day to day lives. It is hard to convince others of the validity of your argument when you take them to them to the extreme. Not everything is black and white, there are quite often shades of gray in the whys and wherefores of peoples training and their goals in said training.

anerlich

01-30-2010, 09:31 PM

It sure was one action after another... a stop hit with the front hand followed by a cross with the rear hand.

It wasn't a stop hit, unless you also call a pak sau "stop-hitting" the elbow. He used the front hand to redirect Evans' punch so he could hit.

The way I've been taught, there is no simultaneous block and strike in WC, really. You have to intercept the incoming before you can counter. Redirect, then step in and strike once the path is clear.

I'm not a fan of using guys like Machida as examples of WC because they are NOT doing WC and probably wouldn't know WC if they saw it.

The problem with T's arguments is that he claims to do all the stuff he advocates but also admits he still sucks. He can't make it work for him, but still has the ego to assume he can suturation-browbeat others on how to do it. A classic example of those who can't do, try to teach, and those who can't teach either turn into obnoxious bores.

t_niehoff

01-31-2010, 04:51 AM

Are you serious? Anyone who doesn’t train at a level that you deem appropriate isn’t training? Hubris! Maybe everyone doesn’t want solid, fundamental fighting skills. Maybe they are satisfied with what you consider to be subpar skills. Who are you to judge? Usually I agree with your posts about training and aliveness but I feel you crossed a line here. There are people who train simply to have some basic skills that will give them an advantage in the situations that occur in their normal day to day lives. It is hard to convince others of the validity of your argument when you take them to them to the extreme. Not everything is black and white, there are quite often shades of gray in the whys and wherefores of peoples training and their goals in said training.

I think you misunderstood me. t's not about training at a LEVEL I deem appropriate, it is about how we all need to train in a certain WAY to develop skill. All fighters, regardless of their art, train in the same way -- they use the same process. Even if all you want is some low level skill, you need to use that same process. To put it another way, we all learn to surf, ride a bike, etc. the same way. You learn any skill by doing - practicing - that particular skill. Fighting is no exception. There isn't some "other way" which avoids the hard work of training like a fighter of developing fighting skill. How good you get will depend on a number of things, the amount and quality of your training (sparring), talent, experience, etc.

t_niehoff

01-31-2010, 05:01 AM

It wasn't a stop hit, unless you also call a pak sau "stop-hitting" the elbow. He used the front hand to redirect Evans' punch so he could hit.

The way I've been taught, there is no simultaneous block and strike in WC, really. You have to intercept the incoming before you can counter. Redirect, then step in and strike once the path is clear.

I'm not a fan of using guys like Machida as examples of WC because they are NOT doing WC and probably wouldn't know WC if they saw it.

All correct.

The problem with T's arguments is that he claims to do all the stuff he advocates but also admits he still sucks. He can't make it work for him, but still has the ego to assume he can suturation-browbeat others on how to do it. A classic example of those who can't do, try to teach, and those who can't teach either turn into obnoxious bores.

I don't admit I suck, I admit that I'm not that good. And isn't it interesting that I seem to be the only one on the forum who says it? Yeah, I'm the one with the ego, yet I'm the only one who says I'm not that good. I know what I can do - and that I'm not THAT good - because I am out there doing it, and getting mugged every time I train. Apparently, all the rest of you believe you are WCK studs who can beat low-level MMA fighters. Or, do you define "good" as being able to push around your scrub students?

My "problem" is that I'm HONEST, both with myself and with others.

t_niehoff

01-31-2010, 05:12 AM

t_niehoff

01-31-2010, 05:25 AM

YungChun

01-31-2010, 05:46 AM

The way I've been taught, there is no simultaneous block and strike in WC, really. You have to intercept the incoming before you can counter. Redirect, then step in and strike once the path is clear.

Okay wow Terence agreed with this... HTB..

Can you elaborate, give an example of what you mean here please..

YungChun

01-31-2010, 05:47 AM

I don't admit I suck, I admit that I'm not that good. And isn't it interesting that I seem to be the only one on the forum who says it?

Well you say it for us most of the time.. LOL No need to.. :D

m1k3

01-31-2010, 07:13 AM

I think you misunderstood me. t's not about training at a LEVEL I deem appropriate, it is about how we all need to train in a certain WAY to develop skill. All fighters, regardless of their art, train in the same way -- they use the same process. Even if all you want is some low level skill, you need to use that same process. To put it another way, we all learn to surf, ride a bike, etc. the same way. You learn any skill by doing - practicing - that particular skill. Fighting is no exception. There isn't some "other way" which avoids the hard work of training like a fighter of developing fighting skill. How good you get will depend on a number of things, the amount and quality of your training (sparring), talent, experience, etc.

Now that you have put it this way I agree with what you are saying. However I think you would accomplish more by making you training focused posts less confrontational. Aliveness must be brought into any art if it is to be functional, whatever the level but claiming that any training that people do is useless if it isn't viewed through the alivenss paradigm is not only going to strike an emotional nerve with them hindering their ability to judge your message on its merits, it is also wrong.

The training methods you disdain can develop attributes, if not skills, that are valuable to the trainee even if it is only an increase in self confidence. Predatory people (bullies) prey on weakness and even an increase in self confidence and physical conditioning that comes from training could remove them from being a potential target.

BTW, I like your reference to "caveman" chun. It fits with my attitude on how wing chun should be trained and used.

In addition, I too suck, but I get lots out of my training.:D

k gledhill

01-31-2010, 08:50 AM

YungChun

01-31-2010, 09:05 AM

Thing is, have you ever seen WC "look" like WC outside of the kwoon?

Sure it is very hard to find WC vs anything other than WC and when we do it looks very little like how WC is trained, yet the same is NOT said about other MA such as MT, boxing, Judo, South Peruvian ass thumbing.

Disagree.

South Peruvian ass thumbing looks nothing like it does in training under high pressure....everyone knows that.. :)

But..

This is a serious question, and one some folks I know won't even discuss.. YIKES. :rolleyes::(:confused:

First off if say training is ChiSao.. If you turn up the intensity for example of plain old ChiSao you will begin to see the same thing (F-ups, gross motor) you see in fighting.

That tells a lot IMO.

Bottom line to me is that the pressure needs to be upped in the regular training.. IME if you do that, increase the intensity of training little by little as you go, transition to high intensity free form fighting goes smoother..

Matrix

01-31-2010, 09:43 AM

I've been away from the forum for almost one year, and nothing has changed. Good to see that I haven't missed much. :)

Bill

Phil Redmond

01-31-2010, 11:40 AM

I've been away from the forum for almost one year, and nothing has changed. Good to see that I haven't missed much. :)

Bill
The is the best post so far on this thread. Why that I've continued with this thread for so long is baffling me. :confused:

Ultimatewingchun

01-31-2010, 01:36 PM

If you admit that (after all these years in wing chun) "you're not that good," Terence...

that means you suck.

And the faster people around here get this picture, the faster they will stop taking Niehoff's posts about "what's good, what's not good, what is real training and what isn't"...seriously.

The guy sucks.

Ignore him.

This is not even meant to be funny. I'm dead serious - ignore his posts, because to respond to them is to waste your time.

anerlich

01-31-2010, 02:01 PM

I don't admit I suck, I admit that I'm not that good.

Then the fact that you can't make the training methods you advocate work for you, and therefore they are questionable, still applies.

So, you're the only one that's prepared to state you're nothing special? The admission is unnecessary, as your posts make it obvious to all.

I reckon you suck, anyways.

Matrix

01-31-2010, 03:16 PM

If you admit that (after all these years in wing chun) "you're not that good," Terence...

that means you suck.
Hey Victor,
I think the "I'm not so good" mantra is meant to deflect demands for T to post a clip of himself. It reminds me of the Wizard of OZ.... "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." ;)

I think Terence is a skilled fighter. He wants to change the way people think about their training, but does not want to show himself as an example. I just think it's a feeble attempt at false-modesty.

Terence. You're better than average, in fact better than most. In your heart, you believe that don't you? I believe, that you think that way. Your posts to the contrary are a smoke screen. The reason I say this is the conviction with which you post your POV. Someone who is uncertain of themselves would not speak the way you speak.

I know the truth will come out one day.

Matrix

01-31-2010, 03:22 PM

The is the best post so far on this thread. Why that I've continued with this thread for so long is baffling me. :confused:
Phil,
It's good to see that you're still fightling the good fight.

Bill

Edmund

01-31-2010, 06:06 PM

The pak sao type action you are talking about BEGINS (and is competed) before he punches -- a 1-2 timing.

No. And it's contradicting the idea of beats that you raised yourself.

Beats are in relation to the opponent's action.
e.g. Rashad probably stepped in to throw 2 punches. That would a 1-2 timing.

If it was only intended as a single jab it would have been a single beat.

He was hit before his punch retracted and as his jab was deflected. Because it was timed together.

The whole term Pak da implies a simultaneous double action because it's stuck 2 different terms together to form the word.

Pak da: both hands move together - one helping out the other.
Pak sao then punch: A 1-2 timing. complete one action then follow with another.

anerlich

01-31-2010, 07:17 PM

anerlich

01-31-2010, 07:20 PM

Someone who is uncertain of themselves would not speak the way you speak.

But that's exactly the problem T chastises the TNF's he sees on his eyelids in bed at night about. Total belief in self and one's own methods without the evidence to back it up.

Matrix

01-31-2010, 08:45 PM

Total belief in self and one's own methods without the evidence to back it up.Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You may be right, he may be delusional, but I think he's playing coy.

In a way, it really doesn't matter much. I think in his heart of hearts he believes that he's better than anyone on this forum, or at least 99% of the people here. And who knows, he just me be. This "I'm not that good" stuff is just blowing smoke.

MarkJ

01-31-2010, 10:10 PM

anerlich

01-31-2010, 10:14 PM

Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well yeah, but if it hasn't been produced despite numerous requests, demands and dares, I would have to conclude that it most probably doesn't. What's the upside in hiding it under the proverbial bushel?

Dale is like T in a lot of ways (and fortunately, unlike him in many others, like actually having the abilities to back up his mouth/fingers), but he actually has the evidence and so he's treated with respect, even if it is grudging from some.

This "I'm not that good" stuff is just blowing smoke.

IMO it's ALL blowing smoke.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 05:21 AM

After reading through this thread I could not add anything more to what you said above and agree with you 100%

Ignore him

Good training to all

From the guy who claims he is learning how to "easily deal" with MMA fighters. That sums up where you are coming from.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 05:50 AM

Then the fact that you can't make the training methods you advocate work for you, and therefore they are questionable, still applies.

Not at all. It seems the reasoning ability of people on this forum is not very good -- I wonder if tist comes from atrophy through their WCK training (brainwashing).

I've said this many times, to learn how to effectively train, we should look to good, proven fighters and fight trainers. Listen to THEM. I'm not saying listen to me becasue I am so good or I am a master or I am a sifu or whatever -- I am saying look to the really good, proven fighters and fight trainers.

And when we do that, we see, regardless of their style, that they all use the same process for developing fighitng skill. We know that works by THEIR results. We also know that people who don't do that don't produce their level of results (where are all the TCMA-only-trained fighters?).

This process of skill development, btw, is also what all good athletes use. It has been studies and validated by sport scientists, by psycho-motor skill development research, etc.

So, we know what works, why it works, etc.

The validity of this does not depend on me or my skill level. It doesn't depend on ANY one person or one person's skill level. The significance of it depends on the results achieved across populations.

Some of you just want to make this a personal argument, a my-skill vs your-skill discussion. That's not what it is about. All that does is distract people from seeing all the above. And, quite frankly, that is precisely what I think some of you want to do. You want to distract people from the real issue. Don't look at results across populatuions, don't examine our teaching and training methods in light of what we now know about how to effectively train,etc.

Well, I'm simply not going to get drawn into that.

The other thing is that I think it stupid and egotistical to hold yourself out as a personal authority of how to do something when you are not simply awesome. That's why I don't put up videos of myself. I know that I'm not that good. That doesn't mean I suck or I'm terrible, it means I don't think I am good enough to warrant telling others to look to me (personally) for how things should be done.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 07:26 AM

Hey Victor,
I think the "I'm not so good" mantra is meant to deflect demands for T to post a clip of himself. It reminds me of the Wizard of OZ.... "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." ;)

I think Terence is a skilled fighter. He wants to change the way people think about their training, but does not want to show himself as an example. I just think it's a feeble attempt at false-modesty.

Terence. You're better than average, in fact better than most. In your heart, you believe that don't you? I believe, that you think that way. Your posts to the contrary are a smoke screen. The reason I say this is the conviction with which you post your POV. Someone who is uncertain of themselves would not speak the way you speak.

I know the truth will come out one day.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my abilites.

You don't need to be good to see what I am talking about -- all it takes is to stop being brainwashed and to get some significant experience. For example, I KNOW without any doubt that to be a well-rounded fighter you need to learn and develop a decent ground game, and that without a ground game you can't be much of a fighter. That isn't because I am a great fighter or because I am an authority but because I SEE from both watching what good fighters do (and listening to them) and from training with them how important the ground is. The validity of that doesn't depend on my skill level, it doesn't rest with me or what I can do -- the proof exists apart from me.

Now, let me ask you -- what does it take to convince you that this view is true? Do you listen to what proven, good fighters say and, more importantly, do? Do you go train with good fighters and see this for yourself?

Or, do you think seeing videos of me is what it will take? ;) You see, the validity of this has nothing to do with me, and doesn't rest with me. Even if I posted videos of my training, showing me sparring and going to the ground, would that change everyone's mind (gee, if Niehoff spars and goes to the ground, it must be true!) when the fact that every single proven fighter does the same things hasn't changed their mind (since they apparently ignore all that evidence)?

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 07:35 AM

No. And it's contradicting the idea of beats that you raised yourself.

Beats are in relation to the opponent's action.
e.g. Rashad probably stepped in to throw 2 punches. That would a 1-2 timing.

If it was only intended as a single jab it would have been a single beat.

He was hit before his punch retracted and as his jab was deflected. Because it was timed together.

The whole term Pak da implies a simultaneous double action because it's stuck 2 different terms together to form the word.

Pak da: both hands move together - one helping out the other.
Pak sao then punch: A 1-2 timing. complete one action then follow with another.

No, timing (beats) applies to both individuals. A pak da (a pak sao and strike) can be performed with a 1-2 timing or a 1 beat timing. If performed with a 1-2 timing, that is not a simutaneousl block and hit since you are doing one action then the other -- or, do you believe that a boxer's 1-2 (jab, cross) is a simul double strike? Don't you think a boxer might throw a 1-2 between an opponent's actions? The 1 beat timing is what makes it simultaneous -- it occurs AT THE SAME TIME (the definition of simultaneous). When the pak sao and strike, or two strikes, occur at the same time, then it is an example of simultaneous action.

HumbleWCGuy

02-01-2010, 07:55 AM

After reading through this thread I could not add anything more to what you said above and agree with you 100%

Ignore him

Good training to all

I have said the same thing for a while. Niehoff has latched on to some decent training advice that I am sure has helped him a great deal. Unfortunately, he only understands the training methods and their relationship to low-level mma striking and not to the overall context of sophisticated arts that have a higher ceiling of effectiveness.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 08:11 AM

I have said the same thing for a while.

Yes, you have. So has Victor. And this guy who thinks his grandmaster is teaching him how to "easily handle" MMA fighters. Anyone see a pattern? What a great club.

What's interesting is that I don't say "don't listen" to people like you, Victor or "Sifu" Mark -- just the opposite, I think everyone should listen to what you guys have to say. Most of it is total nonsense, of course, but I don't try to stifle you guys or tell others what they should or should not listen to. I want you to share your views. Because most of your views are unsound, they lack suporting evidence and are based on or supported by poor reasoning. So when you share your views, they are easily shown for what they are. You guys, on the other hand, just say "don't listen to him" or resort to personal attacks. And, once again, I think that's great too since it shows how bankrupt your views are -- that's the best you can offer to support it.

Niehoff has latched on to some decent training advice that I am sure has helped him a great deal. Unfortunately, he only understand the training methods and their relationship to the overall context of fighting.

I couldn't agree more.

CFT

02-01-2010, 08:12 AM

No, timing (beats) applies to both individuals. A pak da (a pak sao and strike) can be performed with a 1-2 timing or a 1 beat timing. If performed with a 1-2 timing, that is not a simutaneousl block and hit since you are doing one action then the other -- or, do you believe that a boxer's 1-2 (jab, cross) is a simul double strike? Don't you think a boxer might throw a 1-2 between an opponent's actions? The 1 beat timing is what makes it simultaneous -- it occurs AT THE SAME TIME (the definition of simultaneous). When the pak sao and strike, or two strikes, occur at the same time, then it is an example of simultaneous action.I agree with you generally about the 1-2 vs. 1 beat thing. I think one of Alan Orr's youtube vids has a very good clip of pak-da:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFdKq867y8

Very different to the usual pak-a-punch-out-of-the-air and punch.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 08:25 AM

I agree with you generally about the 1-2 vs. 1 beat thing. I think one of Alan Orr's youtube vids has a very good clip of pak-da:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFdKq867y8

Very different to the usual pak-a-punch-out-of-the-air and punch.

You've hit on one of the problems with the simul block and hit issue -- it occurs since most people in WCK are trying to apply that tactic on the outside, from noncontact. WCK is an attached fighting method, and the tools of WCK, the movement and tactics, are most appropriate in attached fighitng and aren't effective in non-contact (except for the few things used to obtain contact). Using that tactic in non-contact, free-movment fighting is a very low-percentage and high risk move. But the tactic is sound when applied in contact, during attached fighting.

YungChun

02-01-2010, 08:32 AM

sanjuro_ronin

02-01-2010, 08:32 AM

I think we underplay this... What is a scrub..?

T mocks results against drunks..and such...

Most folks who do this stuff are not looking to be Olympic level fighters...

The guy you see as a "scrub" may be a serious threat to someone else, a small woman, being the most obvious..a small man another and as we see in the real world sometimes even a threat to a big strong man or cop..

Alone on a deserted, dimly lit street, everyone is a real threat.

Not all students are going to be able to or willing to take their training to the level some folks talk about here.. That's just reality..

IOW, it's no small thing for some run of the mill, ordinary type folks to dispatch a "scrub" or any threat in the street especially when scared out of their wits.

The limitations of a smaller person, a mother of three, an older person, or just someone who is not game for hard core training, street fighting or full contact sport fighting must also be considered.

A trained fighter is a person that not only fights and know how to fight, but can take a punch, can counter, can make you pay for your mistakes, is a serious danger all the time, in a nutshell, he is all the things a "scrub are" at their BEST and THEN SOME.
You train to fight someone that CAN fight, it gives you a far better edge than training to fight someone this a POTENTIALLY a danger IF it is under CERTAIN LIMITED circumstnnces.
It is NOT that a "scrub" isn't dangerous, not thatis not it because everyone is potentially dangerous.
It is that training with the idea of greatest danger make far more sense than training for the idea of least danger.
A trained fighter has all the POTENTIAL danger of a scrub PLUS all the REAL danger of someone that can seriously hurt you and that you may not be able to stop with "luck".

YungChun

02-01-2010, 08:39 AM

sanjuro_ronin

02-01-2010, 08:42 AM

Of course..

The point is there are various levels of training and levels of intensity that different folks can and will do...

Training choices...and ways to increase the odds of dealing with that threat..

There isn't one level of intensity correct for all students nor only one level of achievement valid for all.

Dealing with a dangerous scrub, often touted here as meaningless, is not.

Agreed.
Though I don't think anyone views a scub as meaningless, it's just that training to deal with a good fighter allows you ro deal with scubs AND good fighters, whereas training to deal with scrubs allows you to deal with scrubs and get beat up by good fighters.
:D

Every person is potentially dangerous, the degree of potential is the issue and training to deal with a high degree is better than a low degree, that's all.

Frost

02-01-2010, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by YungChun

The limitations of a smaller person, a mother of three, an older person, or just someone who is not game for hard core training, street fighting or full contact sport fighting must also be considered.

Ok so how should these people train then? How would you train someone who can only attend class twice a week, weighs 50 pounds less than everyone else does not like to get or spar hit but is looking for self defence?

I would argue that a decent person would tell this person that their goals are not reachable without training hard and some contact sparring, that they need to learn sparring if self defence is their goal, and if they are not prepared to spar then they will not be able to defend themselves 9 times out of ten and should probably not take up training.

Now if they are not looking for self defence but only to have fun and exercise i can understand them being taught everything in a system but what iff the smaller weaker older person is able to spar and is looking for self defence but can only train a couple of times a week how would you train them?

would you have them do endless forms, endless sticky hand drills and ancient weapons, or would you teach them to spar, hit pads learn to grapple and ground fight on the basis that when facing a guy 5 inches bigger and 50 pounds heavier their is a chance he will get his hands on you and take you down to the ground? Especially if you are a small female and he is intent on harming you?

Frost

02-01-2010, 08:46 AM

Agreed.
Every person is potentially dangerous, the degree of potential is the issue and training to deal with a high degree is better than a low degree, that's all.

very true if you can handle a decent pro fighter or at least life with them then fighting an agressive but untrained fighter is not that hard, but doing it the other way around is a real wake up call :)

YungChun

02-01-2010, 08:47 AM

Ok so how should these people train then? How would you train someone who can only attend class twice a week, weighs 50 pounds less than everyone else does not like to get or spar hit but is looking for self defence?

I would argue that a decent person would tell this person that their goals are not reachable without training hard and some contact sparring, that they need to learn sparring if self defence is their goal, and if they are not prepared to spar then they will not be able to defend themselves 9 times out of ten and should probably not take up training.

Now if they are not looking for self defence but only to have fun and exercise i can understand them being taught everything in a system but what iff the smaller weaker older person is able to spar and is looking for self defence but can only train a couple of times a week how would you train them?

would you have them do endless forms, endless sticky hand drills and ancient weapons, or would you teach them to spar, hit pads learn to grapple and ground fight on the basis that when facing a guy 5 inches bigger and 50 pounds heavier their is a chance he will get his hands on you and take you down to the ground? Especially if you are a small female and he is intent on harming you?

All I'm saying is that each person will have their limit of intensity... Even at my local boxing gym, they let each student go as hard as is comfortable for them...

sanjuro_ronin

02-01-2010, 08:47 AM

sanjuro_ronin

02-01-2010, 08:50 AM

very true if you can handle a decent pro fighter or at least life with them then fighting an agressive but untrained fighter is not that hard, but doing it the other way around is a real wake up call :)

Every bouncer will tell you stories how a scrub got in a sucker punch or got in a sneeky shot and then got his ass kicked, I know, I've seen it happen and been IN IT too.
The difference is that if it had been a good fighter instead of a scrub, it would have been all she wrote.
On another point and one that is more vital, I have seen many a scrub get taken out with one shot or two, I myself have take out a few in my time.
You don't get that "easy" a break with a good fighter, they can take a shot and keep on coming.
Something more vital to consider when training for self-protection.

Frost

02-01-2010, 08:57 AM

Here is something to think about.
IF you can only workout a few times a week, lets say only 2 or 3 and not sure when you will be back.
Do you make those very easy going and low intensity?
Or do you make every single minute count?

I’d make every second count integrate pad work with leaning proper form and mechanics then test it out in sparring, you get technique, fitness and fighting skills all in one session.

When people say MMA fighters spent hours each day training to get good in stand up clinch and ground I sometimes wonder who they have watched train, I know guys that have fought amateur and pro only training a few nights a week, but making that training count. Sparring, hitting the pads, doing forms, weapons, breathing routines etc all take time if you want to learn to defend yourself which of the above do you drop?

sanjuro_ronin

02-01-2010, 09:09 AM

I’d make every second count integrate pad work with leaning proper form and mechanics then test it out in sparring, you get technique, fitness and fighting skills all in one session.

When people say MMA fighters spent hours each day training to get good in stand up clinch and ground I sometimes wonder who they have watched train, I know guys that have fought amateur and pro only training a few nights a week, but making that training count. Sparring, hitting the pads, doing forms, weapons, breathing routines etc all take time if you want to learn to defend yourself which of the above do you drop?

Well said.
The Ma were orginally done to make a "fighting machine" in as quick a time as possible.
Sure it takes YEARS to master a system, a life time really, but to be proficient in self-protection shouldn't take years.
That is why orginally TMA ( TCMA, TJMA, etc) all focused on physical conditioning ( strength, speed and agility) and on fighting.

m1k3

02-01-2010, 09:28 AM

Well said.
The Ma were orginally done to make a "fighting machine" in as quick a time as possible.
Sure it takes YEARS to master a system, a life time really, but to be proficient in self-protection shouldn't take years.
That is why orginally TMA ( TCMA, TJMA, etc) all focused on physical conditioning ( strength, speed and agility) and on fighting.

I think there is a part of training for self defense that is on even footing with training to fight but doesn't get as much press. I will also say it is not something taught a lot at your traditional MA schools either.

It has to do with what you can do to avoid putting yourself in situations where you will need to fight. It is simple stuff that a lot of people don't pay attention to. Things like avoiding places with large amounts of testosterone and alcohol. Don't walk down the deserted alley way by yourself. Pay attention to your surroundings. If you are going out drinking or clubbing go out with a group and stick together. Avoid doing stupid stuff that makes you a target.

Now if you spent more time training you would have less time for putting yourself in potentially dangerous situations.

That having been said if you are going to train to fight, do it right and avoid the fantasy fu schools.

sanjuro_ronin

02-01-2010, 09:32 AM

Common sense awareness is, regrettably, not that common.

duende

02-01-2010, 09:38 AM

Simultaneous strike and Defense.

1. The notion of Simultaneouss in Eastern thought is more accurately interpreted by a grander scale of perspective.

For instance... think of a handful of rocks being dropped to the ground. They all hit at different times in the micro-cosmic few, but the overall macro-cosmic event would still be considered one beat.

2. Simultaneous Attack And Defenseis also a facing tool... IE to prevent long arm/ short arm.. or creating a self-inflicted "live" side/ "dead" side scenario.

3. Simultaneous Attack and Defense is also a range tool, and is part of knowing the timeframe is safest to strike. Meaning a safety belt of a bridge has already been established.

Therefore in application... yes. The bridge, block, or covering of space comes first, before the strike. But this is a very small window, and in terms of strategy and timing the strike and the block are related. Hence the term... simultaneous strike and defense.

It is not just blindly hit and block at the exact same time.

Getting caught up in terminology in this case, has lead to a misunderstanding of the meanings behind the terms.

Safety belt (bridge or time on your side) first.. then strike.

On another note:

We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually.

What we do teach is the importance of knowing the differences between MMA timeframes, strategies, and body mechanics, and those that function within WC.

As a disregard for these understandings, and the mixing up of the two can lead to WC tools and strategies being used at the wrong time and failing.

This is not to say that they can't be used together. Just one has to know how to mix them with out compromising the effectiveness of either.

This is why we refer to MMA as being "outside the box" and WC as being "inside the box", but yet both being two sides of the same coin. There's much more to it obviously, but that's a whole other thread.

Good training to all.

m1k3

02-01-2010, 09:57 AM

What we do teach is the importance of knowing the differences between MMA timeframes, strategies, and body mechanics, and those that function within WC.

Good training to all.

I don't understand what the difference is between an MMA timeframe vs a WC timeframe. I don't even know what an MMA timeframe is. Could you please explain? THX.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 11:24 AM

Simultaneous strike and Defense.

1. The notion of Simultaneouss in Eastern thought is more accurately interpreted by a grander scale of perspective.

That is a dodge.

Look, "simultaneous" is an english word, and has a precise meaning -- to occur at the same time. If you had some "eastern idea" that means something else, then you wouldn't use that english word to express that idea.

And, btw, lien siu die da, literally "ink defense to bring in offense,"does not mean simultaneously blocking and striking.

For instance... think of a handful of rocks being dropped to the ground. They all hit at different times in the micro-cosmic few, but the overall macro-cosmic event would still be considered one beat.

Hmmm, let's see if I can express that in english . . . you simultaneously drop a handful of rocks, yet they hit the ground at different times (apparently defying the laws of gravity!).

2. Simultaneous Attack And Defenseis also a facing tool... IE to prevent long arm/ short arm.. or creating a self-inflicted "live" side/ "dead" side scenario.

No, it's not. You can face squarely or obliguely and still simul block and strike.

3. Simultaneous Attack and Defense is also a range tool, and is part of knowing the timeframe is safest to strike. Meaning a safety belt of a bridge has already been established.

All tools (movement, tactics, etc.) have ranges and/or situations where they are most effectively applied. And, I agree that what we are talking about is a attached fighting tactic. But the tactic itself doesn't show you that -- fighting shows you that.

Therefore in application... yes. The bridge, block, or covering of space comes first, before the strike. But this is a very small window, and in terms of strategy and timing the strike and the block are related. Hence the term... simultaneous strike and defense.

As I said, what is being called a simul block and strike, like a pak da or tan da, can have two different timings, a 1-2 timing like you describe above or a single beat timing.

It is not just blindly hit and block at the exact same time.

Getting caught up in terminology in this case, has lead to a misunderstanding of the meanings behind the terms.

Safety belt (bridge or time on your side) first.. then strike.

WCK's method is to control while striking -- so you can control then strike, control and strike at the same time, etc. This is not about getting "caught up in terminology" Our words express our ideas, and some of us here are talking about very different things.

On another note:

We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually.

Then perhaps you should explain that to "sifu" Mark. Apparently, he hasn't learned that (since those were his words).

What we do teach is the importance of knowing the differences between MMA timeframes, strategies, and body mechanics, and those that function within WC.

As a disregard for these understandings, and the mixing up of the two can lead to WC tools and strategies being used at the wrong time and failing.

This is not to say that they can't be used together. Just one has to know how to mix them with out compromising the effectiveness of either.

Why make things so complicated?

If you understand that WCK is a certain, specific approach to fighting (not MMAs approach) and provides a skill set that pertains mainly to attached fighting (to control while striking), then all of the above falls into place on its own.

This is why we refer to MMA as being "outside the box" and WC as being "inside the box", but yet both being two sides of the same coin. There's much more to it obviously, but that's a whole other thread.

Good training to all.

Funny, but when I fight on the ground, I don't confuse what I am doing with my WCK, or inappropriately use WCK. Nor do I need to refer to stand-up as being "outside the box" of BJJ.

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 11:38 AM

That's right....

So ya'll fellas, make sure you get attached before you start fighting...

Some ways to get attached..

Ask out your opponent for a candle light dinner...

Tell them you care and ask them more about their family...

Give them that look, and tell them their special.....

Ask them to go steady...

BJJ is for the ground, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

WCK is for attached stand-up (clinch) fighting, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

In each case, the "getting there" is not the major aspect of the training, the fighting once you "get there" is.

duende

02-01-2010, 12:11 PM

I don't understand what the difference is between an MMA timeframe vs a WC timeframe. I don't even know what an MMA timeframe is. Could you please explain? THX.

MMA timeframes contains ranges based kicking, striking, cinching, ground grappling, etc.. The way they employ the techniques involved in these ranges rely on different COG focus and angles of facing.

WC timeframes, rely on primary body mechanics, rootings, body karma, body methods, structure, whatever you want to call it being maintained foremost. This is echo'd throughout ranges of engagement.

duende

02-01-2010, 12:42 PM

That is a dodge.

Look, "simultaneous" is an english word, and has a precise meaning -- to occur at the same time. If you had some "eastern idea" that means something else, then you wouldn't use that english word to express that idea.

And, btw, lien siu die da, literally "ink defense to bring in offense,"does not mean simultaneously blocking and striking.

Hmmm, let's see if I can express that in english . . . you simultaneously drop a handful of rocks, yet they hit the ground at different times (apparently defying the laws of gravity!).

Are you studying a Chinese MA or a personal English interpretation? While, sure I could have detailed my analogy better, I thought the point was obvious. If you toss up different sizes and weights of rocks up in the air, they will all land at different times.

If we are discussing the concepts of an Eastern art, then we should consider their POV on aspects within the concepts being discussed. One only has to listen to 10 seconds of Cantonese Opera to hear that what constitutes "1 beat" is not the same as in western traditions.

No, it's not. You can face squarely or obliguely and still simul block and strike.

Sure, but is your block collapesed? Does it compromise your footwork? Is your strike over-extended? These are some a few points of reference to consider.

All tools (movement, tactics, etc.) have ranges and/or situations where they are most effectively applied. And, I agree that what we are talking about is a attached fighting tactic. But the tactic itself doesn't show you that -- fighting shows you that.

In good WC form equals function. Or at least it should!! That's why many people here talk so much about body mechanics etc. It's the not the techniques that matter, as it is the structure, facing, and implementation of energy.

The focus here, is that one develops these body mechanics, so that they come into play first. Strategy, techniques, etc... are built upon these initial foundations. jumping into a ring, without these mechanics developed, tested, and ready to go... is a set-back imo.

As I said, what is being called a simul block and strike, like a pak da or tan da, can have two different timings, a 1-2 timing like you describe above or a single beat timing.

Maybe we are in agreement here. Just different points of reference in regards to time. I would not refer to a Tan Da technique as being 2-beats. I would say the Tan covers the space before the strike, but we are talking milliseconds here.

WCK's method is to control while striking -- so you can control then strike, control and strike at the same time, etc. This is not about getting "caught up in terminology" Our words express our ideas, and some of us here are talking about very different things.

Agreed, but sometimes words aren't enough in transferring understandings. Neither are videos btw.

Then perhaps you should explain that to "sifu" Mark. Apparently, he hasn't learned that (since those were his words).

I'm not about to speak for anyone. Especially out of context. I can only speak for myself. Even when I use the word "we" ;) :D

Why make things so complicated?

If you understand that WCK is a certain, specific approach to fighting (not MMAs approach) and provides a skill set that pertains mainly to attached fighting (to control while striking), then all of the above falls into place on its own.

You would think.. but in actually you often see a tan being expressed with no function, only form. Add this to MMA techniques, and..... Whammo... lot's of technique! But solid WC body mechanics?? Maybe not.

Funny, but when I fight on the ground, I don't confuse what I am doing with my WCK, or inappropriately use WCK. Nor do I need to refer to stand-up as being "outside the box" of BJJ.

Sure, but perhaps you're employing the WC principles though your body mechanics without even thinking about it. Ever thought of that?

The WC principles here are in understanding how you go to the ground. Meaning that important time of "falling". That's where the classic mistake occurs imo. In that switch between stand-up emphasis, and ground work emphasis.

Ground fighting has even greater live side/dead side focus.... it has centerline awareness. It even has TYD body mechanics. So I don't think everything you learned in WC goes out the window once you hit the floor.

LAters

t_niehoff

02-01-2010, 01:58 PM

Are you studying a Chinese MA or a personal English interpretation? While, sure I could have detailed my analogy better, I thought the point was obvious. If you toss up different sizes and weights of rocks up in the air, they will all land at different times.

If you have some "eastern concept" that doesn't mean "at the same time", then why would you use the word "simultaneous" to refer to that concept?

And, again, you may want to review your understanding of physics.

If we are discussing the concepts of an Eastern art, then we should consider their POV on aspects within the concepts being discussed. One only has to listen to 10 seconds of Cantonese Opera to hear that what constitutes "1 beat" is not the same as in western traditions.

Why don't you provide a citation to support your claim that a "1 beat" in chinese music is different than a "1 beat" in western music?

Sure, but is your block collapesed? Does it compromise your footwork? Is your strike over-extended? These are some a few points of reference to consider.

That can happen regardless of the facing.

In good WC form equals function. Or at least it should!! That's why many people here talk so much about body mechanics etc. It's the not the techniques that matter, as it is the structure, facing, and implementation of energy.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of technique. The "technique" is the body mechanics, the structure, the facing. Your rear cross in boxing, for example, involves body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. Techniques matter since they are your tools. Body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. don't matter or exist outside of your tools.

"Implementation of energy" is nonsense verbage.

The focus here, is that one develops these body mechanics, so that they come into play first. Strategy, techniques, etc... are built upon these initial foundations. jumping into a ring, without these mechanics developed, tested, and ready to go... is a set-back imo.

It doesn't work that way -- everything is holistic, you can't have one part or develop only one part and then put them together. Going back to the rear cross example, you don't develop the body mechanics first, then add the facing, then add the structure, etc., you develop all of that at the same time and you do that by using the tool/technique itself. In fact, you can't develop the body mechanics, the facing, the structure for the cross without doing the technique! It's the same with WCK.

Maybe we are in agreement here. Just different points of reference in regards to time. I would not refer to a Tan Da technique as being 2-beats. I would say the Tan covers the space before the strike, but we are talking milliseconds here.

Tan doesn't "cover the space", it is a spreading action (tan means "to spread"). The spreading action can do a number of things to an opponent depending on the situation (how you are connected to him).

Agreed, but sometimes words aren't enough in transferring understandings. Neither are videos btw.

I don't disagree.

I'm not about to speak for anyone. Especially out of context. I can only speak for myself. Even when I use the word "we" ;) :D

I see. So when you wrote "We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually." you were speaking only for yourself?

You would think.. but in actually you often see a tan being expressed with no function, only form. Add this to MMA techniques, and..... Whammo... lot's of technique! But solid WC body mechanics?? Maybe not.

Again, you over-complicate things. There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.

Sure, but perhaps you're employing the WC principles though your body mechanics without even thinking about it. Ever thought of that?

No, because you can't. You can't use WCK principles without using the WCK tools. The tools are the principles in action.

The WC principles here are in understanding how you go to the ground. Meaning that important time of "falling". That's where the classic mistake occurs imo. In that switch between stand-up emphasis, and ground work emphasis.

Ground fighting has even greater live side/dead side focus.... it has centerline awareness. It even has TYD body mechanics. So I don't think everything you learned in WC goes out the window once you hit the floor.

LAters

We can find similarieties in anything. And since groundfighting (attached fighting on the ground) and standing attached(clinch) fighting both involve contact, they will share some similarities. But there are numerous and very significant differences between the two that make them quite distinct. So much so, that being skilled in WCK doesn't give a person any advantage in developing their ground game (it isn't like WCK people earn their belts faster). That should tell you something.

anerlich

02-01-2010, 02:09 PM

Not at all. It seems the reasoning ability of people on this forum is not very good -- I wonder if tist comes from atrophy through their WCK training (brainwashing).

I've said this many times, to learn how to effectively train, we should look to good, proven fighters and fight trainers. Listen to THEM. I'm not saying listen to me becasue I am so good or I am a master or I am a sifu or whatever -- I am saying look to the really good, proven fighters and fight trainers.

Your reasoning ability is flawed. While your arguments might hold some merit (since you are parrotting people more skilled and intelligent than you), you fail to see that it is your own advocacy of them, as someone who is by your own admission at best marginally successful in making them work, that keeps putting sugar in your gas tank. No wonder you're getting nowhere.

I wonder if tist comes from atrophy through their WCK training (brainwashing).

Possibly. You, as a possible example of a victim of such an affliction, seem to have developed a form of OCD, obsessively channelling Matt Thornton.

anerlich

02-01-2010, 02:38 PM

I think there is a part of training for self defense that is on even footing with training to fight but doesn't get as much press. I will also say it is not something taught a lot at your traditional MA schools either.

Agreed. Self defense is more about the stuff you mentioned than martial skill.

"Strong on Defense" covers that stuff very well for people that want to avoid escape and survive with fighting as a last resort.

But this thread isn't about that, it's about the heinous misnaming of youtube clips and the neverending borefest on training methods. So stop trying to distract.

duende

02-01-2010, 02:54 PM

And, again, you may want to review your understanding of physics.

Don't believe me? Go outside and try it.

Why don't you provide a citation to support your claim that a "1 beat" in chinese music is different than a "1 beat" in western music?

I already provided proof. Turn your radio on, maybe there's Chinese station in your area.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of technique. The "technique" is the body mechanics, the structure, the facing. Your rear cross in boxing, for example, involves body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. Techniques matter since they are your tools. Body mechanics, structure, facing, etc. don't matter or exist outside of your tools.

Then by your reasoning, all techniques are the same... just shapes. The foundational support behind the techniques don't matter.

Not much power behind your punch? This may be why.

"Implementation of energy" is nonsense verbage.

Ever thought about the importance of controlling your own COG while striking? Might want to give it some consideration.

It doesn't work that way -- everything is holistic, you can't have one part or develop only one part and then put them together. Going back to the rear cross example, you don't develop the body mechanics first, then add the facing, then add the structure, etc., you develop all of that at the same time and you do that by using the tool/technique itself. In fact, you can't develop the body mechanics, the facing, the structure for the cross without doing the technique! It's the same with WCK.

Everything is holistic. Proper techniques are extensions of proper foundational body mechanics. Unless you're prone to believing in safe top heavy building.

Tan doesn't "cover the space", it is a spreading action (tan means "to spread"). The spreading action can do a number of things to an opponent depending on the situation (how you are connected to him).

And this is why it doesn't work for you. All the techniques in WC should cover space. Punch or block, they should cover earth, human, or heaven gates.

I see. So when you wrote "We don't advocate teaching that would mislead our students into thinking that MMA fighters can be "easily handled". On the contrary actually." you were speaking only for yourself?

Obviously you rely heavily on assumptions to prove your arguments. I just didn't want to use someone's words out of context.

Again, you over-complicate things. There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.

So you put form over function. That is clear.

No, because you can't. You can't use WCK principles without using the WCK tools. The tools are the principles in action.

The tools are simply shapes. The body mechanics and structure beneath these tools is where the jewels of WC lay.

We can find similarieties in anything. And since groundfighting (attached fighting on the ground) and standing attached(clinch) fighting both involve contact, they will share some similarities. But there are numerous and very significant differences between the two that make them quite distinct. So much so, that being skilled in WCK doesn't give a person any advantage in developing their ground game (it isn't like WCK people earn their belts faster). That should tell you something.

I'm not talking about earning belts. You are. I was merely expressing some of the similarities that transfer from one art to another. Similarities based on proof of concept.

Wayfaring

02-01-2010, 04:10 PM

BJJ is for the ground, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

WCK is for attached stand-up (clinch) fighting, and it provides ways of getting the fight there.

In each case, the "getting there" is not the major aspect of the training, the fighting once you "get there" is.

Oh, but I disagree. "Getting there" in either case can be among the most important things that you train.

Wayfaring

02-01-2010, 04:15 PM

Ground fighting has even greater live side/dead side focus.... it has centerline awareness. It even has TYD body mechanics. So I don't think everything you learned in WC goes out the window once you hit the floor.

I have found this to be true as well.

Edmund

02-01-2010, 07:00 PM

OK that makes sense, I see what you're getting at now. Good description.

Thanks, Andrew

No, timing (beats) applies to both individuals. A pak da (a pak sao and strike) can be performed with a 1-2 timing or a 1 beat timing.

You claimed in your previous post a pak da was not a 1 beat timing!
Now you say it can be.

Talk about squirming one way then another.
You've previously said pak sao would never work against a jab and other brilliant advice as well.

Given your awesome array of experiences, you ALWAYS argue that you tried it all before against real MMA fighters. Therefore whatever anyone else suggests can't be good.

Since someone like say Phil has actually competed in kickboxing and you haven't, maybe you should drop the false humility.

You may consider yourself no good but you never give anyone else any props either. It's just a testament to how disagreeable you are.

When the pak sao and strike, or two strikes, occur at the same time, then it is an example of simultaneous action.

No. At the same beat. With one action assisting the other. Motion or an action is more than an instant. Both arms in motion at the same time is a simultaneous action!

You're talking about simultaneous *impact*.

No one claimed their fist is going to land at the same instant as their pak sao contacts.

Phil Redmond

02-01-2010, 08:04 PM

If no air resistance is present, the rate of descent depends only on how far the object has fallen, no matter how heavy the object is. This means that two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height. This statement follows from the law of conservation of energy and has been demonstrated experimentally by dropping a feather and a lead ball in an airless tube.
So if you drop ANY object regardless of weight to the ground for example. They WILL hit the ground at the same time. We did this test in 7th grade science. ;)

duende

02-01-2010, 08:30 PM

Phil Redmond

02-01-2010, 08:32 PM

YungChun

02-01-2010, 10:25 PM

Many moves in WCK can be used on the outside (no pre-contact) and from inside (with contact)... The inside is normally higher % and the outside moves are generally lower %... This is so simply because without contact you have more of a timing problem, using only the eyes to judge with..

A pak da rarely happens at EXACTLY the same time although it can..(in theory) ;)

There is also more than just one beat timing and two beat timing.. There can be 1 and 1/4, 1 and 1/2, etc... If you pak/da and the da is coming a 10th of a second after the pak then it's close enough to be called "simultaneous" but it isn't.. The obstacle has to be removed before the da can move on to the target..

And for the record, most folks will have a very tough time doing pak/da successfully against a snappy jab done by a good boxer...who is fresh....if you reach for it, he will simply angle and do a double jab and hit you with the second one, or some variation on that theme.

Frost

02-02-2010, 01:52 AM

I think there is a part of training for self defense that is on even footing with training to fight but doesn't get as much press. I will also say it is not something taught a lot at your traditional MA schools either.

It has to do with what you can do to avoid putting yourself in situations where you will need to fight. It is simple stuff that a lot of people don't pay attention to. Things like avoiding places with large amounts of testosterone and alcohol. Don't walk down the deserted alley way by yourself. Pay attention to your surroundings. If you are going out drinking or clubbing go out with a group and stick together. Avoid doing stupid stuff that makes you a target.

Now if you spent more time training you would have less time for putting yourself in potentially dangerous situations.

That having been said if you are going to train to fight, do it right and avoid the fantasy fu schools.

Very well put, my grappling and MMA coach is one of the few guys in the UK that is able to teach Geoff Thompsons self defence system and when he does teach this most of the class is about avoiding such places and situations, about using verbal skills to que yourself into the right mind set (and if that does not work hit them hard fast and put them down)

INicba

02-02-2010, 05:00 AM

Yeah... I realized I didn't describe my analogy thoroughly enough. If you toss up in the air different weight stones they will land at different times. This is because the lighter rocks will travel higher into the air than the heavier rocks.

Anyways. My pos wasn't about physics or gravity really. It was about rocks landing as a scattered mass... And that event representing a moment in time. Not a simultaneously exact instance. But a grouped moment nonetheless.

Acctualy, you were correct the first time. As Phill has said, objects fall to the ground (regardless of their weight and size) at the same time only when there is no air resistance (in a vacuum).

You can try this out by dropping a feather and a bowling ball in our atmospehere. The bigger the diffrences in weight, object size and distance travelled the bigger the diffrence in hitting the ground when dropped simultaneously. But, that is not true in vacuum; there you can drop a feather and a truck and they'll fall at the same time.

You guys are probably confused because of the well known storry of Galileo Galiei dropping two very diffrent weights from the top of the Leaning tower of Pisa. He probably never did that experiment, taking into account the things we know today.
----------------------------------------
My WCK instructor encouraged simultaneous attack and defence, but I would agree that in reality it is low percentage. At least in as the idea most of you are discussing. You can make it a bit higher percentage by dedicating decades of your life training for that goal, but I don't think thats very practical nor necesery. I think the focus should be on developing fighting relevant atributes, not chasing some ideas of what your think you should be doing. Meaning that feats such as a succsesfully landed simultaneous attack and defence come from superior fighting atributes, not from excepting the concept as your own.

I like Niehoffs despriton of WCK being about controling the opponent while hitting him. With control, in this context, being the ability to prevent the oponent from attacking you. Not the ability to immobilize the opponent or to move him arround at will. Of course, when controling you shouldn't be chasing hands. In WCK you should chase the center. But you should chase the center while not being hit. Again the same idea but diffrent wording. In this sense, WCK is about simultaneous attack and defence. But this doesnt mean that everytime you prevent the opponent from landing the blow you MUST hit him. It just means that when you hit him you should be aiming at preventing him of hitting you at the same time with postioning and angling. Not just trading punches.

Knifefighter

02-02-2010, 07:19 AM

I like Niehoffs despriton of WCK being about controling the opponent while hitting him. With control, in this context, being the ability to prevent the oponent from attacking you. Not the ability to immobilize the opponent or to move him arround at will.

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight. When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

INicba

02-02-2010, 11:04 AM

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight.

You can't realy say that controling while hitting is an ineffective way to fight, per se. Maybe you mean that it's to hard to do to be realisticly applicable? Or that the WCK clinching skillset threw which a WC practitioner is trying to control while hitting is too incomplete to be effective in fighting in general?

When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

It might be we're not talking about the same thing. Can you give me an example of what you mean here?

The control I speak of is achieved by redirecting and moving your body in such a way that you don't get hit. It isn't something you do and then you can't be hit in that position and you are then suddenly free to do damage. It's more a form of dynamic adaptability not a static position. It's something you should strive at.

While the control I speak of is applied to clinching, grapling and in-fighting I will give you a crude example to explain what I mean: -When I did boxing I was thought slipping punches. It isn't something that'll work everytime but again, something to strive at in contrast to just exchanging blows. You can slip a straight cross punch while checking it with your right hand when you are moving in at the same time to counteratack with a left jab of your own. This is a crude example in which you are in control while hitting by my definition.

SAAMAG

02-02-2010, 02:58 PM

Known forum trolls having a lovefest.
Keep hugging yourselves while bashing Phil.

It would be described in WC terms as Pak da: Something Terence previously claimed could NEVER work against a quality opponent from his infinite experience at sucking at MMA.

Wow...this thread is on fire. I'd agree with Ed moreso. It's close call really. If you look even remotely close, he sees the punch coming well before execution, starts the slapping motion to redirect the punch and right as his pak touches the arm, his punch starts to fire. The redirection continues and the punch connects. The punch and slap don't have to make contact at the exact same time to be considered pak-da--just that the motions work together at the same time to achieve the end result of hitting without getting hit.

Remember that while the training will have the hit and slap occur ideally at the same time, rarely does it happen that way because people never perform as ideally as they do in training against people who aren't "truly" trying to hit you. Such is the case here.

I don't wanna know how one could misinterprete an open hand slap with an intercepting punch.

anerlich

02-02-2010, 03:27 PM

SAAMAG

02-02-2010, 03:50 PM

But moreso onto the point...

the idea of simultaneous attack and defense is not so uncommon as some people think. The thing is that it's not something that is applicable in ALL scenarios, just like many other tactics.

You base your strategy and tactics on the strengths and weakness of your opponent, your environment, and so forth. That's why you can't simply have one system or strategy for all situations.

And THAT's why you don't see the WCK in all fighting clips. You wouldn't see it if I ever made any fighting clips either. It's because as a person flows from one range to the next, there are tactics and moves that have been proven to work better and more often than others. Individuals who wanted or needed to get good at one particular range or type of fighting would focus on those ranges of areas of combat, hence the development of specialized styles. All are part of and belong in combat, and none should be excluded or idolized.

Edmund

02-02-2010, 11:05 PM

A pak da rarely happens at EXACTLY the same time although it can..(in theory) ;)

There is also more than just one beat timing and two beat timing.. There can be 1 and 1/4, 1 and 1/2, etc... If you pak/da and the da is coming a 10th of a second after the pak then it's close enough to be called "simultaneous" but it isn't.. The obstacle has to be removed before the da can move on to the target..

You seem to have a similar definition that simultaneous = instantaneous.

Simultaneous doesn't mean in the same instant.
If both hands are performing actions together, they're simultaneous.

For pak da both hands are in motion, therefore it's a simultaneous attack and defence.

e.g. Simultaneous applause isn't everyone clapping their hands exactly in time with each other. It's just people all clapping.

YungChun

02-02-2010, 11:15 PM

You seem to have a similar definition that simultaneous = instantaneous.

Simultaneous doesn't mean in the same instant.
If both hands are performing actions together, they're simultaneous.

For pak da both hands are in motion, therefore it's a simultaneous attack and defence.

e.g. Simultaneous applause isn't everyone clapping their hands exactly in time with each other. It's just people all clapping.

If the point of your post was to redefine the meaning of the term I would say you haven't.. At least not according to my friend Merriam..

Main Entry: si·mul·ta·neous
Pronunciation: \ˌsī-məl-ˈtā-nē-əs, -nyəs also ˌsi-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin simul at the same time + English -taneous (as in instantaneous) — more at same
Date: circa 1660

1 : existing or occurring at the same time : exactly coincident
2 : satisfied by the same values of the variables <simultaneous equations>
synonyms see contemporary

— si·mul·ta·ne·i·ty \-tə-ˈnē-ə-tē, -ˈnā-\ noun

— si·mul·ta·neous·ly \-ˈtā-nē-əs-lē, -nyəs-\ adverb

— si·mul·ta·neous·ness noun

YungChun

02-02-2010, 11:41 PM

controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight.

If you don't know how to do it, it is.. Folks do it instinctively, many arts train it.

When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

If you don't understand WCK mechanics and techniques then sure. Moreover, there is a time for hitting and a time for finishing.. A boxer's jab is not nearly as powerful as some other punches, but the jab is a vital tool.

WCK mechanics are designed to offer power and control.. The structure and mechanics used--facing--using both hands/arms as one, etc, allow for this...

The mechanics of the striking is quite powerful and some strikes can generate more power than others.. The linear nature of the art, the basic striking in the system puts the entire body behind each shot.. I can generate more power than my fists can withstand by doing so... which is why we also have open hands, more than one kind of strike, elbows, kicks, etc..

A good understanding of the mechanics and tools would help....

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

Of course you think so..

The ground also has a habit of allowing folks to brace their heads on the ground, supported by the ground..

Standing, the striker can and will cause a more pronounced whiplash effect on his standing opponent's head, more easily than on the ground..

The standing striker can generate more power from the legs/body than when on the ground.

You prefer the ground..fine... Some prefer to stand...

Edmund

02-03-2010, 12:17 AM

If the point of your post was to redefine the meaning of the term I would say you haven't.. At least not according to my friend Merriam..

I'm just using the word correctly. See simultaneous applause example.
Is everyone's claps exactly coincident?

YungChun

02-03-2010, 12:18 AM

I'm just using the word correctly. See simultaneous applause example.
Is everyone's claps exactly coincident?

I cited the dictionary... LMAO..!

Why not argue with Merriam?

t_niehoff

02-03-2010, 04:59 AM

Here's the problem with controlling and hitting at the same time while in a standing position. Other than a few exceptions, such as the MT plum or being able to hold your opponent's clothing, controlling and hitting at the same time is generally an relatively ineffective way to fight. When you control, you lose power in your hits. When you hit, you lose your ability to control.

The best place to both control and hit is on the ground.

I guess you're not a fan of dirty (clinch) boxing.

I do agree that you can generally strike with more power when not controlling (when standing). However, there is a trade-off: by not controlling, you are not as safe. And, as I see it, the WCK method (fighting strategy) puts safety first (prevent his offense) -- something I don't see, btw, in most WCK "application demos" (which typically assumes your opponent will just let you hit him and not do anything in return).

Whether you seek out the clinch or find yourself there, you need a strategy and skill set for dealing with it. Control, and the fight for it, is a HUGE part of the clinch. In the clinch range, if you don't have control, your opponenent will. IME in the clinch, you can really only do three things: fight out of it (back to free-movement), control and strike, or control and take your opponent down. WCK provides a base method for doing all this. It certainly isn't exhaustive (neither is MT or greco or judo), but does provide a framework that can be useful in itself or used as a base to build from (which is what YKS did by incorporating some of Fung Sui Ching's weng chun into his method).

And I agree with your assessment about the ground, and I think GNP is a natural extension of a clinch-and-pound strategy.

t_niehoff

02-03-2010, 05:06 AM

Wow...this thread is on fire. I'd agree with Ed moreso. It's close call really. If you look even remotely close, he sees the punch coming well before execution, starts the slapping motion to redirect the punch and right as his pak touches the arm, his punch starts to fire. The redirection continues and the punch connects. The punch and slap don't have to make contact at the exact same time to be considered pak-da--just that the motions work together at the same time to achieve the end result of hitting without getting hit.

Remember that while the training will have the hit and slap occur ideally at the same time, rarely does it happen that way because people never perform as ideally as they do in training against people who aren't "truly" trying to hit you. Such is the case here.

I don't wanna know how one could misinterprete an open hand slap with an intercepting punch.

It's not a close call. In boxing they call what Machida did batting away punches-- you bat away his punch THEN fire one back (a 1-2 timing). Look at Machida's rotation (his shoulders), that tells you the timing.

t_niehoff

02-03-2010, 05:48 AM

Don't believe me? Go outside and try it.

I don't need to try it -- I did those experiments my first year in collge as a physics major. All objects, neglecting for the moment air resistance, fall at the same rate.

With objects like rocks, air resistance won't be significant.

I already provided proof. Turn your radio on, maybe there's Chinese station in your area.

No, you didn't supply proof -- you supplied an assertion. And then you refused to provide any evidence of your assertion.

Then by your reasoning, all techniques are the same... just shapes. The foundational support behind the techniques don't matter.

Not much power behind your punch? This may be why.

I am not talking about "shapes" -- I am talking about actions, movement. Techniques are actions/movements to achieve a desired objective. The foundational support you talk about is an aspect of the technique, not a thing in itself (and can't be separated from the technique).

Why the barb about me lacking power? Do boxers lack power too? You don't ehar them talking about all your segmented, theoretical aspects.

Ever thought about the importance of controlling your own COG while striking? Might want to give it some consideration.

You can only learn to do that by and trhough punching. It's like trying to learn to control you COG in bike riding by not riding the bike -- you are only fooling yoruself. You learn balance in bike riding by and through riding. Similarly, you learn to "control your COG" (more verbal nonsense, btw) in punching by punching.

Everything is holistic. Proper techniques are extensions of proper foundational body mechanics. Unless you're prone to believing in safe top heavy building.

If everything is holistic, then you can't learn or develop them segmented.

And this is why it doesn't work for you. All the techniques in WC should cover space. Punch or block, they should cover earth, human, or heaven gates.

WCK works just fine for me, thank you. The WCK movement/techniques are actions, they are doing something to your opponent -- not "covering space". If I pull you, for example, I am not "covering space", if I strike you, I am not "covering space." The gate theory is more nonsense.

Obviously you rely heavily on assumptions to prove your arguments. I just didn't want to use someone's words out of context.

No assumption. Why is it you can't simply say that you disagree with what "Sifu" Mark said?

So you put form over function. That is clear.

I said, 'There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.' How is that putting form over function?

Look, would a boxing coach say "your cross is being expressed with no function only form"? Who talks like that?

The tools are simply shapes. The body mechanics and structure beneath these tools is where the jewels of WC lay.

You seem to be thinking in terms of WCK being a shape + body mechanics + facing + etc. There are no "shapes". The shapes you see are snapsots frozen in time (and used to help beginners learn the actions). There are only ACTIONS. And the actions are used to achieved desired objectives (which make them techniques) -- or, to put it another way, there aren't shapes but ways of performing specific tasks. Tan sao, for example, is a way of performing a specific task. There is no "universal" WCK body mechanics but rather mechanics appropriate for whatever task you are performing. The mechanics will change with the task.

I'm not talking about earning belts. You are. I was merely expressing some of the similarities that transfer from one art to another. Similarities based on proof of concept.

Similarities in concept mean nothing since concepts are only ideas (and not skills). The point is that skill in WCK doesn't help you one lick in developing skill in BJJ -- if that were the case, then we would expect WCK people to progress faster (earn belts in BJJ faster) than others. That is not the case. So the evidence shows that any "similarity in concept" has no impact in our development or transfer of skill.

Concepts are, for the most part, nonsense. Our skill doesn't come from concepts, it comes from practicing (performing) that skill.

Knifefighter

02-03-2010, 07:31 AM

If you don't know how to do it, it is.. Folks do it instinctively, many arts train it.
They might train it, but they can't apply it.

WCK mechanics are designed to offer power and control.. The structure and mechanics used--facing--using both hands/arms as one, etc, allow for this...

The mechanics of the striking is quite powerful and some strikes can generate more power than others.. The linear nature of the art, the basic striking in the system puts the entire body behind each shot.. I can generate more power than my fists can withstand by doing so... which is why we also have open hands, more than one kind of strike, elbows, kicks, etc..

A good understanding of the mechanics and tools would help....

It might be designed to do that, but the reality plays out differently.

Of course, as always, you can prove me wrong by pointing me to some clips of WC people doing what you say they can do in this realm.

Knifefighter

02-03-2010, 07:36 AM

I guess you're not a fan of dirty (clinch) boxing.

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

Frost

02-03-2010, 07:49 AM

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

Are you arguing that hitting of tie ups and controls like underhooks, over hooks negate power due to the fact you can’t generate enough force because you are holding onto someone? where as with the Thai Plum you are controlling them but can still generate force because you can drop your hips back when kneeing etc? Am I right in thinking that’s what you are talking about?

m1k3

02-03-2010, 07:54 AM

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

Jens 'Little Evil' Pulver :D

Knifefighter

02-03-2010, 07:55 AM

Are you arguing that hitting of tie ups and controls like underhooks, over hooks negate power due to the fact you can’t generate enough force because you are holding onto someone? where as with the Thai Plum you are controlling them but can still generate force because you can drop your hips back when kneeing etc? Am I right in thinking that’s what you are talking about?

That would be one of the principles I am referring to.

Then there's the whole idea of what many WC think of as control & hitting, such as the crossed up arms followed by the silly little backfist you see in almost all chi sao demos.

Frost

02-03-2010, 08:00 AM

Jens 'Little Evil' Pulver :D

If I am right with what I think Dale is referring to then he might be spot on, yes people can do the control and hit thing, but how much power do they generate whilst doing it? How many fights have we seen guys caught up against the cage swapping controlling position and hitting each other not doing any real damage until someone gets the plumb and starts unloading knees? It’s more like an attrition move to wear the opponent down and a point scoring thing than anything else

Frost

02-03-2010, 08:03 AM

That would be one of the principles I am referring to.

Then there's the whole idea of what many WC think of as control & hitting, such as the crossed up arms followed by the silly little backfist you see in almost all chi sao demos.

intersting i can see your line if thinking. My MMA coach when teaching the clinch for MMA keeps it very simple thai plum to hit off and body lock etc to throw takedown, the rest underhooks/overhooks are defenses grappling moves not positions to hit off. Not that you can;t hit off them but they are more controlling setting up the take down moves

m1k3

02-03-2010, 08:07 AM

Dragonzbane76

02-03-2010, 08:09 AM

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

seen randy couture do it many a times. Also Matt Hamil and a few others do it well.

Frost

02-03-2010, 08:09 AM

Actually I see dirty boxing or clinch fighting as more of a setup to a takedown rather than a war of attrition. It adds a whole new dimension to grip/hand fighting. I agree that the odds of getting a finishing punch are very low.

not disagreeing with you i love the clinch and takedowns from there, but what you are talking about, ie dirty boxing to set up take downs is different from attached hitting to hurt your opponent, which is what knife seems to be saying is ineffective

Knifefighter

02-03-2010, 08:11 AM

Jens 'Little Evil' Pulver :D

I think that you will generally see Pulver control and strike with power under two conditions... the plum tie with knees and a behind the neck tie-up control with one hand while striking with the other. Both of these would be valid scenarios for controlling and striking with power. Notice how, with each of these, the control is at the neck, rather than the arms.

Knifefighter

02-03-2010, 08:13 AM

seen randy couture do it many a times. Also Matt Hamil and a few others do it well.

Can you point to a specific clip of what you are talking about?

Frost

02-03-2010, 08:14 AM

seen randy couture do it many a times. Also Matt Hamil and a few others do it well.

but how much damage did they do, or was it a more controlling position to wear them down and set up the take down.

I think Knifes point is that it is difficult to hit hard whilst clinching unless you have room to really use the hips (like in the plum).

Also i tend to only see it working best when you have the guy pineed up against a cage, not in the middle of the ring, so training it without the cage/wall to pin the guy (as in wing chun) might be pointless

m1k3

02-03-2010, 08:20 AM

I think that you will generally see Pulver control and strike with power under two conditions... the plum tie with knees and a behind the neck tie-up control with one hand while striking with the other. Both of these would be valid scenarios for controlling and striking with power. Notice how, with each of these, the control is at the neck, rather than the arms.

I agree 100%. WC arm trapping as shown by a lot of people is not practical, but I have seen WC examples of neck control and punching which I would consider effective.

sanjuro_ronin

02-03-2010, 08:22 AM

Happens all the time in hockey fights.
:D

Knifefighter

02-03-2010, 08:25 AM

Happens all the time in hockey fights.
:D

Exactly... being able to grab clothing is a scenario where controlling and punching can be used effectively.

m1k3

02-03-2010, 08:32 AM

So, they should start wearing bulking loose sweaters as part of the WC uniform? Or maybe hoodies, I'd be willing to bet their are some interesting things you can do with a hoodie in a fight.

Frost

02-03-2010, 08:34 AM

So, they should start wearing bulking loose sweaters as part of the WC uniform? Or maybe hoodies, I'd be willing to bet their are some interesting things you can do with a hoodie in a fight.

with a hoodie..or to a hoodie? (UK guys only to reply to this lol)

CFT

02-03-2010, 08:35 AM

Also i tend to only see it working best when you have the guy pineed up against a cage, not in the middle of the ring, so training it without the cage/wall to pin the guy (as in wing chun) might be pointlessTaking away "degrees of freedom" ... which reinforces knifefighter's point that control is best achieved on the ground.

sanjuro_ronin

02-03-2010, 08:37 AM

Exactly... being able to grab clothing is a scenario where controlling and punching can be used effectively.

Seems to work for them, though it loses a bit in the translation when the skates are removed.
I have gone up against too many provincial (state) hockey players while bouncing that tried that crap and paid the price for it.
Context I guess, as with all things.

Frost

02-03-2010, 08:48 AM

Taking away "degrees of freedom" ... which reinforces knifefighter's point that control is best achieved on the ground.

Well put and yes it does doesn't it

INicba

02-03-2010, 09:48 AM

Not really. It's great in theory, but I don't think it plays out too well in practice.

Who would you consider a good example of this in MMA?

I think that is the main problem with WCK. It may very well be it's just me who's incompetent and that a guy after about two decades of very hardcore training may apply WCK to a degree, against a fully resistent competant opponent.

Saying that, I still think WCK is worth exploring and it has a lot to offer if trained under a good instructor and with a critical mindset. Training with uncooperative people from diffrent backgrounds is allways a good refrence to see if something is helping you out in your MA journey or is acctualy hindering your effectivness.

SAAMAG

02-03-2010, 10:40 AM

It's not a close call. In boxing they call what Machida did batting away punches-- you bat away his punch THEN fire one back (a 1-2 timing). Look at Machida's rotation (his shoulders), that tells you the timing.

I know what you're saying, I'm looking at his entire body though. Like I was saying before, humans are fallible and so the timing will not be perfect in all cases.

IMO that is just as much a pak-da as it is a [1-2] parry and punch because the moves are overlapping. So depending on one's affinity for boxing or wing chun this can be considered simultaneous action because they're happening at the same time, or it can be considered a parry and punch because of the shoulders.

I've experienced in wing chun where pak-da's happen exactly this way. I've experienced in boxing during jab drills where the batting and the punch are done exactly this way.

You're right that in boxing and similar arts it goes down with a 1-2 beat and with wing chun is goes down in 1 beat--but in this example [to me] its in between. Not something really worth 3 pages of arguing about ya know?

Bottom line is that it works...regardless of what you want to call it or whether it was done textbook flawlessly.

Edmund

02-03-2010, 04:33 PM

You're right that in boxing and similar arts it goes down with a 1-2 beat and with wing chun is goes down in 1 beat--but in this example [to me] its in between. Not something really worth 3 pages of arguing about ya know?

Bottom line is that it works...regardless of what you want to call it or whether it was done textbook flawlessly.

Exactly.

Rather that trying to actually acknowledge the technique which is shown to work and straight out of WC 101 basics, Terence grabs the dictionary and a stopwatch...

Someone call a waahmbulance, we have a victim with a severe case of mouth froth.

anerlich

02-03-2010, 10:00 PM

duende

02-04-2010, 12:56 AM

I don't need to try it -- I did those experiments my first year in collge as a physics major. All objects, neglecting for the moment air resistance, fall at the same rate.

With objects like rocks, air resistance won't be significant.

Air resistance? Really... is that how your brain works. Ha ha... Ok.

I was referring to energy. And the effect equal amounts of energy has on objects of greater and lesser mass.

In this case the energy is the tossing up in the air. And the objects of greater and lesser masses are the different sized rocks.

No, you didn't supply proof -- you supplied an assertion. And then you refused to provide any evidence of your assertion.

No... I provided an educated insight into Eastern Music. One that is based both on academic and real world experiences. If you want references, I can certainly provide them for you, but you really should take my word for it.

I am not talking about "shapes" -- I am talking about actions, movement. Techniques are actions/movements to achieve a desired objective. The foundational support you talk about is an aspect of the technique, not a thing in itself (and can't be separated from the technique).

There are inherent fundamental body mechanics that transcend across techniques. Body mechanics that link a punch to a sprawl and so forth, but obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Why the barb about me lacking power? Do boxers lack power too? You don't ehar them talking about all your segmented, theoretical aspects.

It was just a suggestion for your consideration. :)

Having good body mechanics transcend across styles. Nothing about what I'm saying is segmented or theoretical.

Some boxers punch like they're swinging a bat at you. Some punch like they're taking the bat and ramming it into your face like a 2x4.

Different body mechanics for generating power, different physic being applied, and different COG control potential. Hmmmmm... go figure.

You can only learn to do that by and trhough punching. It's like trying to learn to control you COG in bike riding by not riding the bike -- you are only fooling yoruself. You learn balance in bike riding by and through riding. Similarly, you learn to "control your COG" (more verbal nonsense, btw) in punching by punching.

I'm less and less inclined to believe that you have any idea about the usefulness of structure and proper body mechanics, and their benefits in generating power..

If everything is holistic, then you can't learn or develop them segmented.

One step up after the other. Same mountain.

WCK works just fine for me, thank you. The WCK movement/techniques are actions, they are doing something to your opponent -- not "covering space". If I pull you, for example, I am not "covering space", if I strike you, I am not "covering space." The gate theory is more nonsense.

Didn't you just admit that your skill was poor?

As far as your saying that YOU don't cover space when YOU strike or pull... That's no surprise.

I guess someone should tell you that Thai Boxers cover space and use a variation of gate theory too. :p

No assumption. Why is it you can't simply say that you disagree with what "Sifu" Mark said?

Because I didn't know where you were quoting him from, and I don't care to use his or anyone's words out of context.

Plus, I already gave my opinion on the matter pages ago.

I said, 'There is no "tan being expressed with no function, only form" but simply someone using that action inappropriately.' How is that putting form over function?

Look, would a boxing coach say "your cross is being expressed with no function only form"? Who talks like that?

YOU DO. Your saying that a technique is meant to express a given form. Use technique A_3.176 to achieve "desired objective" D_4.762.

I'm saying that if there is no solid body mechanics behind your techniques, then all you got is bunch of hand movements (shapes) without real support and leverage. Which in WC translates into alot of patty cake and slap happy nonsense.

You seem to be thinking in terms of WCK being a shape + body mechanics + facing + etc. There are no "shapes". The shapes you see are snapsots frozen in time (and used to help beginners learn the actions). There are only ACTIONS. And the actions are used to achieved desired objectives (which make them techniques) -- or, to put it another way, there aren't shapes but ways of performing specific tasks. Tan sao, for example, is a way of performing a specific task. There is no "universal" WCK body mechanics but rather mechanics appropriate for whatever task you are performing. The mechanics will change with the task.

I'll leave you with this one. I'm not even going to try to help you here. But I will say, that I'm not talking about snapshots in time. I'm talking about ENERGY.

Similarities in concept mean nothing since concepts are only ideas (and not skills). The point is that skill in WCK doesn't help you one lick in developing skill in BJJ -- if that were the case, then we would expect WCK people to progress faster (earn belts in BJJ faster) than others. That is not the case. So the evidence shows that any "similarity in concept" has no impact in our development or transfer of skill.

Maybe for you.. not so for the other posters here who have attested otherwise.

Concepts are, for the most part, nonsense. Our skill doesn't come from concepts, it comes from practicing (performing) that skill.

So you are saying the notion of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting of COG for power generation, covering of space... and so on. All these focuses of concept... you're saying these are all nonsense!

Do you not think it's helpful to know what to practice and how to practice? Or is that all nonsense too?

Anyways... I think I've said all I can say on this thread.

You all take care... I'm out of here.

t_niehoff

02-04-2010, 06:05 AM

Air resistance? Really... is that how your brain works. Ha ha... Ok.

Yeah, ha, ha. My brain works like someone trained in physics. And yours?

I was referring to energy. And the effect equal amounts of energy has on objects of greater and lesser mass.

In this case the energy is the tossing up in the air. And the objects of greater and lesser masses are the different sized rocks.

Energy? BTW, nice attempt ata dodge -- you ORIGINALLY said (and this is what I responded to): "think of a handful of rocks being dropped to the ground. They all hit at different times in the micro-cosmic few, but the overall macro-cosmic event would still be considered one beat."

Now, you change it to throwing them up in the air.

That's called being intellectually dishonest.

No... I provided an educated insight into Eastern Music. One that is based both on academic and real world experiences. If you want references, I can certainly provide them for you, but you really should take my word for it.

No, you provided an assertion that you can't seem to support.

There are inherent fundamental body mechanics that transcend across techniques. Body mechanics that link a punch to a sprawl and so forth, but obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I don't know what you are talking about since you are talking about nonsense. Body mechanics are what you are doing with your body -- when you do two different things, you are using your body in two different ways. You are not using your body the same in punching as you do in sprawling. You don't even use your body the same when you throw different types of punches.

It was just a suggestion for your consideration. :)

Having good body mechanics transcend across styles. Nothing about what I'm saying is segmented or theoretical.

Sure, everyone stresses good mechanics but that doesn't mean that all the mechanics are the same. A boxer doesn't move like a wrestler -- as they aredoing different things, they need to use their body differently. This is what you don't seem to appreciate: the mechanics is task-dependent.

Some boxers punch like they're swinging a bat at you. Some punch like they're taking the bat and ramming it into your face like a 2x4.

No, they don't.

Different body mechanics for generating power, different physic being applied, and different COG control potential. Hmmmmm... go figure.

You are making sh1t up -- go figure.

I'm less and less inclined to believe that you have any idea about the usefulness of structure and proper body mechanics, and their benefits in generating power..

I really don't care what you believe. What makes body mechanics "proper" is that they are effective for performing a particular task, and as the task changes, so will how we need to use our body to perform that task.

One step up after the other. Same mountain.

No, sorry, but not all paths lead up the mountain -- or develop skill.

Didn't you just admit that your skill was poor?

No, I never said that -- I said that I'm not all that good. That doesn't mean I'm not heads above many of you and your sifus. ;) But this isn't a qustion of personal skill.

As far as your saying that YOU don't cover space when YOU strike or pull... That's no surprise.

I guess someone should tell you that Thai Boxers cover space and use a variation of gate theory too. :p

No, they don't. You're making sh1t up again.

YOU DO. Your saying that a technique is meant to express a given form. Use technique A_3.176 to achieve "desired objective" D_4.762.

Gosh, what do YOU use a hammer for? Hmm, to hammer something? The WCK tools, just like the tools of other martrial arts, are physical actions (tools) used to perform a specific task.

I'm saying that if there is no solid body mechanics behind your techniques, then all you got is bunch of hand movements (shapes) without real support and leverage. Which in WC translates into alot of patty cake and slap happy nonsense.

Of course you need to have your body and hands working together or what you are doing won't work, but this is true in all athletics -- it's true in boxing, wrestling, tennis, golf, and WCK. BUT, how we use our body varies with the task. There isn't some "universal" body mechanic for WCK, just like there isn't one for boxing or wrestling.

I'll leave you with this one. I'm not even going to try to help you here. But I will say, that I'm not talking about snapshots in time. I'm talking about ENERGY.

"Energy" is more nonsense. You're not seeing the forrest for the trees. Development of skill BEGINS with the task. Skill is your ability to successfully perform a task with max certainty and min time/effort. All kinds of things go into performing that task, mechanics, alignment, strength, etc.

Maybe for you.. not so for the other posters here who have attested otherwise.

The evidence exists apart from us. Where are all the WCK people who have advanced in BJJ faster than their classmates who didn't previously practice WCK? Once again, you're making sh1t up.

So you are saying the notion of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting of COG for power generation, covering of space... and so on. All these focuses of concept... you're saying these are all nonsense!

Yup. The whole intellectual artiface is nonsense for the most part. You don't need it and it just gets in the way. You don't develop physical skill by intellectual m@sterbation, you develop it by learning the skill and then practicing the skill. Boxers, MT fighters, wrestlers, etc. all seem to do very well without all that nonsense.

Do you not think it's helpful to know what to practice and how to practice? Or is that all nonsense too?

Sure it is. Can you learn and develop the skill of riding a bike without talking about "concepts" of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting your COG, etc.? Perhaps all it takes is for someone to SHOW you the fundamental skills, and then have you practice?

And, while we're on the subject, how can people who can't do it -- who don't have significantly developed fighting skills -- know the "concepts" of that skill? Isn't that just a case of the blind leading the blind?

duende

02-04-2010, 04:06 PM

anerlich

02-04-2010, 08:02 PM

That would be one of the principles I am referring to.

Dale, you used the P word! Terence will be on your case ... watch out!

At least you didn't say "concepts".

Wayfaring

02-04-2010, 08:25 PM

All this silly internet posturing and arguments such as asking me to show some WC'ers that learned BJJ faster than those who have no WC training, that's the only nonsense here.

I agree that the conclusion is a leap - if there are concepts that cross over it doesn't logically follow people will pick it up faster or progress in belts faster. IMO it's still paying the same dues on the mat in a live environment that you just don't get away from, regardless of any similarity in concepts. Now I've seen wrestlers, not HS, but D2 competitive and above that have tons more live match experience than anyone starting grappling, and they have a head start due to that. But I train with an Olympic alternate freestyle guy who is an amateur local MMA 170 title holder who is paying dues the same way, standup and ground off his back. Dude is one of the strongest people I've ever met. Takedowns are complete insanity - you never see them coming. Still learning fundamentals / subs off his back and developing a guard.

There just aren't any shortcuts.

YungChun

02-04-2010, 08:42 PM

So you are saying the notion of core body mechanics, structural alignment, rooting of COG for power generation, covering of space... and so on. All these focuses of concept... you're saying these are all nonsense!

No, he' saying exactly what he said, he's a lawyer... Just read what he says and he means just that...

"Concepts are, for the most part, nonsense."

Means anything he couldn't make work given his understanding of it and skills are most likely theoretical non-fighting dreams of the netherworld.

"Our skill doesn't come from concepts, it comes from practicing (performing) that skill."

He means that when you fight these things called "concepts" (I think they are purple goblins) will not jump out of the air and fight for you or make you fight.. Implying that you have to fight to learn how to do that.. Shocking isn't it?

He ignores that the concepts are what drive the training, the tactics and the method. The same one (method) btw that he claims to use, but "correctly".. Which btw we don't need to see because we can simply look to good tennis and chess players to understand the best way to apply WCK.. :D LOL

t_niehoff

02-05-2010, 06:02 AM

Terence,

I acknowledged not giving enough details in my "rock dropping" analogy way back in my first response to you. Since then, everyone else here seems to have grasped what I meant except you.

So either you have literacy issues or it is you who is being intellectually dishonest here.

It was a poor analogy. Just admit it and move on.

But that's all irrelevant, the point here is that YOU think that WC is merely a collection of techniques.

No, just like boxing, BJJ, wrestling, etc. aren't "merely collections of techniques". WCK is an approach to fighting that has a specific skill set.

What you remain ignorant of is that we all have the same human body, same skeletal framework, and therefore same points of leverage within that frame. Same muscle banding, contraction, coiling, and flexibility not to mention the same tendon elasticity and so forth....

Yes, yers, yes, yes, yes, BUT -- WE USE THOSE THINGS DIFFERENTLY TO PERFOM DIFFERENT TASKS.

Ultimately these are the real tools of WCKF. NOT technique A, B, C, D, and so on.

What you are saying is that you body is the real tools of WCK. Yeah, and that's true of every single MA. But they use their body differently to perform different tasks. How you use your body is the mechanics.

However, you are so caught up in the techniques themselves, that you fail to see the bigger picture. That there exist consistent underlying core WC body mechanics behind all the varying techniques.

WCK, like any martial art, has certain body mechanics associated with it. That's because WCK, like any martial art, has certain specific skills that are necessary in implementing its approach to fighting. However, there is not "one"core mechanic, but many core mechanics. When you perform different tasks, you use different skills, and so different body mechanics.

Therefore, when techniques are expressed properly, they are the proof-of-concept.

No, different techniques do different things, and so you must use your body differently to do different things. You don't, for example, use your body the same way to lift as to press, or to punch and to pull. Geez, this is simply common sense.

But as you can't see this correlation in your own personal expression. Due to never having experienced it in your training, or simply failing to comprehend it... You again choose to remain contentious and ignorant.

No, rather you have been told this nonsense and have accepted it uncritically.

All this silly internet posturing and arguments such as asking me to show some WC'ers that learned BJJ faster than those who have no WC training, that's the only nonsense here.

No, that would be evidence to support your claim.

The same futile arguments can be reversed and thrown back at you.... How about you show me some BJJ'ers that learned BJJ faster than those BJJ'ers with prior WC training?

My point is that it makes no difference -- that prior experience in WCK will in no way affect your BJJ development. Why? Because it has nothing to do with "concepts" but skills, and WCK skills are not BJJ skills.

t_niehoff

02-05-2010, 06:14 AM

No, he' saying exactly what he said, he's a lawyer... Just read what he says and he means just that...

"Concepts are, for the most part, nonsense."

Means anything he couldn't make work given his understanding of it and skills are most likely theoretical non-fighting dreams of the netherworld.

"Our skill doesn't come from concepts, it comes from practicing (performing) that skill."

He means that when you fight these things called "concepts" (I think they are purple goblins) will not jump out of the air and fight for you or make you fight.. Implying that you have to fight to learn how to do that.. Shocking isn't it?

He ignores that the concepts are what drive the training, the tactics and the method. The same one (method) btw that he claims to use, but "correctly".. Which btw we don't need to see because we can simply look to good tennis and chess players to understand the best way to apply WCK.. :D LOL

We can look at how people REALLY learn and develop skills, and see that "concepts" don't drive or significantly impact it. The whole "concepts"-thingy is driven by theoretical nonfighters who want to believe that they -- without much skill -- really know and understand WCK. They see WCK from a completely "intellectual" POV. You see that reflected in their speech, when they talk about "knowing WCK" and so forth. Do people say they "know boxing" or "know MT" or "know basketball"? No.

It's not about concepts, it is about SKILLS. The method of WCK, it's strategic approach, is not a theory or concept, but what it is we are trying to do. The WCK skill set, our tools, are what we use in doing that.

When people talk about "concepts" what they are talking about for the most part are the preconceptions of nonfighters about how things should be done. The blind leading the bilind.

Knifefighter

02-05-2010, 07:46 AM

It's not about concepts, it is about SKILLS. The method of WCK, it's strategic approach, is not a theory or concept, but what it is we are trying to do. The WCK skill set, our tools, are what we use in doing that.

When people talk about "concepts" what they are talking about for the most part are the preconceptions of nonfighters about how things should be done. The blind leading the bilind.

I disagree. While the theoretical fantasy fu non-fighters definitely concentrate too much on concepts, concepts can be a good tool to make one more effective. A good example of this is leg locks. People often get confused when doing leg locks because they don't understand the concept of isolating the opponent's leg between your legs. Once they understand this, their application of the skill improves.

SAAMAG

02-05-2010, 10:10 AM

I disagree. While the theoretical fantasy fu non-fighters definitely concentrate too much on concepts, concepts can be a good tool to make one more effective. A good example of this is leg locks. People often get confused when doing leg locks because they don't understand the concept of isolating the opponent's leg between your legs. Once they understand this, their application of the skill improves.

Yep. It's the difference between someone going through the motions without truly understanding it and getting extremely good at the application of the motions because they do understand it [the concept].

That's why you see people throwing certain punches and strikes from the wrong range, or with the wrong setup too. They know the mechanics, just not the concept of the attack.

At the same time, I'd say that its not a driving force but rather an essential component to obtain "mastery" of the said move.

YungChun

02-05-2010, 09:05 PM

concepts can be a good tool to make one more effective. A good example of this is leg locks. People often get confused when doing leg locks because they don't understand the concept of isolating the opponent's leg between your legs. Once they understand this, their application of the skill improves.
BINGO!

The "concepts" are a guide for how to train.. The Finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself..

anerlich

02-05-2010, 09:08 PM

I agree that the conclusion is a leap - if there are concepts that cross over it doesn't logically follow people will pick it up faster or progress in belts faster. IMO it's still paying the same dues on the mat in a live environment that you just don't get away from, regardless of any similarity in concepts. Now I've seen wrestlers, not HS, but D2 competitive and above that have tons more live match experience than anyone starting grappling, and they have a head start due to that. But I train with an Olympic alternate freestyle guy who is an amateur local MMA 170 title holder who is paying dues the same way, standup and ground off his back. Dude is one of the strongest people I've ever met. Takedowns are complete insanity - you never see them coming. Still learning fundamentals / subs off his back and developing a guard.

I agree that WC skills don't necessarily help you learn BJJ, or another art, faster. I would say, however, that the attitude, confidence and determination you learned in progressing in one martial art may translate well to learning another. You may also get better at learning how to learn.

anerlich

02-05-2010, 09:11 PM

No, I never said that -- I said that I'm not all that good. That doesn't mean I'm not heads above many of you and your sifus.

As long as you refuse to travel to demonstrate your skills, and refuse to compare with those who have been interested that live in your area, I guess you can continue to indulge in that unlikely fantasy.

t_niehoff

02-06-2010, 06:37 AM

As long as you refuse to travel to demonstrate your skills, and refuse to compare with those who have been interested that live in your area, I guess you can continue to indulge in that unlikely fantasy.

What are you talking about? Why should I travel around the country/world proving what level of skill I have? Because I say that if you don't train like a fighter you can't have much fighting skill?

It's no fantasy. The fantasy is the belief that these sifu and masters and grandmasters that never fight (certainly not with anyone good) and don't train like fighters have "great" skill. I readily admit that I'm not that good -- but that doesn't mean they are any good.

And, btw, the only person I have "refused" to meet with was Clarence -- after he had refused my invitation to come train with us on the ground that he had to pay a $10 visitor's fee to the YMCA where we were training. I know much, much more about that guy and his group than you.

t_niehoff

02-06-2010, 06:48 AM

I disagree. While the theoretical fantasy fu non-fighters definitely concentrate too much on concepts, concepts can be a good tool to make one more effective. A good example of this is leg locks. People often get confused when doing leg locks because they don't understand the concept of isolating the opponent's leg between your legs. Once they understand this, their application of the skill improves.

As I see it, isolating the leg is part of the SKILL (of leg locking) -- it's what you need to do to get a leg lock (like holding onto the leg -- is that a concept too?). It's easy to recognize what is part of a skill -- if you don't do X, will it make the performance of the skill less likely. The key thing here is the doing. "Keep your eyes on the ball" is that a "concept" or simply WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO CATCH THE BALL? "Turn the steering wheel in the direction you want to turn". Concept? Or, WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO STEER A BIKE/CAR? In my view, these things aren't concepts but part of the performance (a step a series of steps in the performance) of the skill itself. They are actions, not ideas.

Compare that to "the centerline". Or to "the four gates". These things aren't things you need to or even can do (they are not actions), they are "concepts".

anerlich

02-06-2010, 05:22 PM

What are you talking about?

Your inability to back up your mouth.

I know much, much more about that guy and his group than you.

Lucky you. SFW?

anerlich

02-06-2010, 06:14 PM

Compare that to "the centerline".

Interestingly, John Will (www.bjj.com.au) has a page in his "Advanced BJJ; The BJJ Guard" book entitled "Centreline Principle".

Of course, he's just as clueless on fighting as everyone else except T and should be ridiculed accordingly.

HumbleWCGuy

02-06-2010, 06:31 PM

Interestingly, John Will (www.bjj.com.au) has a page in his "Advanced BJJ; The BJJ Guard" book entitled "Centreline Principle".

Of course, he's just as clueless on fighting as everyone else except T and should be ridiculed accordingly.

I like this quote in your signature.

"Once you reject experience, and begin looking for the mysterious, then you are caught!" - Krishnamurti

The problem being that you have no real experience to rely upon. Evidenced by the laughable nature of your comments.

Matrix

02-06-2010, 08:19 PM

Or, do you think seeing videos of me is what it will take? ;) You see, the validity of this has nothing to do with me, and doesn't rest with me. Even if I posted videos of my training, showing me sparring and going to the ground, would that change everyone's mind (gee, if Niehoff spars and goes to the ground, it must be true!) when the fact that every single proven fighter does the same things hasn't changed their mind (since they apparently ignore all that evidence)?Sorry T. You're confusing me with someone else. No videos required. Like I said. I think you've got some skills. Somehow, someway that may be proven true or false. Time will tell.

anerlich

02-06-2010, 10:13 PM

The problem being that you have no real experience to rely upon. Evidenced by the laughable nature of your comments.

Look who's talking, Mr Upright Specialist..

Wayfaring

02-06-2010, 10:28 PM

I agree that WC skills don't necessarily help you learn BJJ, or another art, faster. I would say, however, that the attitude, confidence and determination you learned in progressing in one martial art may translate well to learning another. You may also get better at learning how to learn.

Sure. The thing is with WC skills there are some things that can translate - ex: chi sau to grip fighting, centerline, staying contained inside a box instead of getting stretched out, knee elbow connection and frame support, elbow down instead of flying.

The problem I found is that there's a whole other set of fundamentals in BJJ / ground fighting I had to learn first. Without those I was just as likely to do the exact wrong thing as opposed to the right thing.

I think the whole focus on "progressing fast" in either art gets in your way. Stay relaxed and have some fun - it all will settle out eventually. Rolling is good for your health, WCK is good for your health - it's just some good all round fun.

Wayfaring

02-06-2010, 10:31 PM

Interestingly, John Will (www.bjj.com.au) has a page in his "Advanced BJJ; The BJJ Guard" book entitled "Centreline Principle".

Sure - not surprising - angling off centerline for offense and staying on centerline for defense is a major fundamental of the guard.

t_niehoff

02-07-2010, 05:42 AM

Interestingly, John Will (www.bjj.com.au) has a page in his "Advanced BJJ; The BJJ Guard" book entitled "Centreline Principle".

Of course, he's just as clueless on fighting as everyone else except T and should be ridiculed accordingly.

On of the problems is that people -- and often very good people like Will -- use the terms "principles" and "concepts" often when they are talking about things like strategies, tactics, technical details, etc. And that just confuses things. So, without knowing what Will's "centerline principle"is (care to share?), I don't know if that is the case here.

The other thing is that often it seems that people like to attach the terms "concept" and "principle" to things to make them sound more important. When I hear the C or P words, this usually pops into my mind:

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

I think that when we set aside what we want to be true and look at how we humans really learn and develop physical/athletic skills, we see that concepts and principles really play a very minor role, and that more often than not they are simply unnecessary. And anything unnecessary -- excess baggage as it were -- tends to be more of a burden than a help. In this instance, how is it that all the world's BJJ fighters, including the world champs, the ADCC champs, etc. ever learn and develop their guard games without Mr. Wlll's "centerline principle"? Or has Mr. Will's students, armed now with his"centerline principle", taken the sub grappling world by storm or develop that much faster? If these things aren't the case, then I guess people don't really NEED his "principle", do they?

t_niehoff

02-07-2010, 05:49 AM

Sure - not surprising - angling off centerline for offense and staying on centerline for defense is a major fundamental of the guard.

This illustrates my poiint: it's like saying keeping your hands up for protection and to have them in position to punch is a major fundamental of boxing. So should we call that the "hands up principle"? There things are simply technical details.

Wayfaring

02-07-2010, 10:41 AM

I think that when we set aside what we want to be true and look at how we humans really learn and develop physical/athletic skills, we see that concepts and principles really play a very minor role, and that more often than not they are simply unnecessary. And anything unnecessary -- excess baggage as it were -- tends to be more of a burden than a help. In this instance, how is it that all the world's BJJ fighters, including the world champs, the ADCC champs, etc. ever learn and develop their guard games without Mr. Wlll's "centerline principle"? Or has Mr. Will's students, armed now with his"centerline principle", taken the sub grappling world by storm or develop that much faster? If these things aren't the case, then I guess people don't really NEED his "principle", do they?

I think you need both at different times. All "principle / conceptto" and you never develop the skills. Sometimes in developing the skills, the "principle/concept" is what is necessary to connect the dots.

YungChun

02-07-2010, 10:43 AM

For crying out loud.. It's a teaching/learning tool, to aid students in learning and training how to apply something.. Teaching aides are used all over the place in all things taught.. Let it go....

anerlich

02-07-2010, 01:23 PM

Sure - not surprising - angling off centerline for offense and staying on centerline for defense is a major fundamental of the guard.

Well, exactly. And it's not "John Will's principle", it was a heading on a page in a book. It's not patented, and not sold as some penetrating insight or some cornerstone of a "system". Arguably it's pretty obvious if you've done much wrestling from the guard, but of some use if you haven't. And arguably it's pretty hard NOT to do if you are going to avoid getting your guard passed. A teaching aid, as Yung Chun said.

In this instance, how is it that all the world's BJJ fighters, including the world champs, the ADCC champs, etc. ever learn and develop their guard games without Mr. Wlll's "centerline principle"?

That's it, they all have, even if they've never met John or read his book. He probably got it off the Machados who got it off Carlos Snr and Helio who got it off Maeda in any case. Even if it was never called the "centerline principle" or even articulated.

He also has similar headings like "control the arms" and "use all four weapons (or five if you include the head)". Are these "principles", "concepts", something all guard players need to do to get good, or perhaps all three?

Not worth making a big deal of, or for T to start frothing at the mouth about. Talk about hook, line and sinker ...:D

t_niehoff

02-07-2010, 03:50 PM

Well, exactly. And it's not "John Will's principle", it was a heading on a page in a book. It's not patented, and not sold as some penetrating insight or some cornerstone of a "system". Arguably it's pretty obvious if you've done much wrestling from the guard, but of some use if you haven't. And arguably it's pretty hard NOT to do if you are going to avoid getting your guard passed. A teaching aid, as Yung Chun said.

It's NOT a teaching aid, and it's not a concept or principle. As you point out, it is something that is obvious IF YOU DO THE SKILL ITSELF. And, if you don't do the skill itself, reading about it won't help you a bit. It's sort of like saying don't inhale while your head is submerged when swimming. Is that a wonderful teaching aid too?

That's it, they all have, even if they've never met John or read his book. He probably got it off the Machados who got it off Carlos Snr and Helio who got it off Maeda in any case. Even if it was never called the "centerline principle" or even articulated.

He also has similar headings like "control the arms" and "use all four weapons (or five if you include the head)". Are these "principles", "concepts", something all guard players need to do to get good, or perhaps all three?

And if he wrote a book about baseball he might use headings like "watch the ball" or "use the sweet spot of the bat" and even "don't look into the sun when fielding." Are these principles or concepts, something all good baseball players need to get good? LOL! Maybe he even learned them from Abner Doubleday himself! Or, maybe just from playing the game.

You people and your beloved "concepts."

anerlich

02-07-2010, 10:16 PM

I take it T's not going to read the book then.:p

Let it go

He can't. Without this forum and his monomania, he is nothing.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PO8drsvSKr0/RpKpNuRHfhI/AAAAAAAAAm4/Wa_zf6fwp5I/s320/Sex%2BPistols%2B-%2BFlogging%2BA%2BDead%2BHorse.jpg

t_niehoff

02-08-2010, 05:27 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svxB1QL1eQs

:)

YungChun

02-08-2010, 10:44 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HT94t-a5k LOL

A concept is simply a cognitive unit of meaning...

anerlich

02-13-2010, 12:00 AM

Or has Mr. Will's students, armed now with his"centerline principle", taken the sub grappling world by storm or develop that much faster? If these things aren't the case, then I guess people don't really NEED his "principle", do they?

This deserves a refutation.

Among his students are:

Elvis Sinosic - UFC Fighter, about to fight in UFC 110
Anthony Perosh - UFC Fighter, 4 time AUS BJJ black belt champion
George Sotiropoulos - UFC Fighter & Ultimate Fighter contestant, also UFC 110
Brian Johnson - NAGA Champion
Stacey Cartwright - Abu Dhabi Winner
Maryanne Mullahy - Mundials Gold Medallist
Melissa Will - Panams Gold Medallist
Steven Perceval - BJJ Black belt - CFC head referee
Frank Monea - Martial Arts Hall of Fame - 1999

I can think of two other black belt gold medallists in Brazil and a current Australian MMA title holder as well.

By storm? Perhaps not exactly, but certainly none too shabby, especially for a coach whose main focus is not training competition fighters.

Still waiting to see what you and your students can do in the competitive scene, T, you having the inside dope on super duper concept-free training methods, and all, you'd surely be able to at least do a bit better than getting your shoulder tweaked in a sub grappling comp ... got a feeling I'll be waiting a LOOONG time ...

Phil Redmond

02-13-2010, 12:53 AM

. . . . .My point is that it makes no difference -- that prior experience in WCK will in no way affect your BJJ development. Why? Because it has nothing to do with "concepts" but skills, and WCK skills are not BJJ skills.

That is about the dumbest thing a college educated man with a law degree could ever say. I don't remember the specifics but Rahsun escaped from something Dale did to him on the ground. Dale asked if Rah had done JJ because what Rah did was an "advanced" movement according to Dale. Rah said no I don't know BJJ. I just used WC principles.
I used to race on a Velodrome but during the off season I'd speed skate like most Track Cyclists did. So obviously speed speed skating "affected" my cycling development.
Concepts, heuristics, and skill run hand in hand. Teachers use the concept and skills idea for math. Perceptual motor skills involve thought/concept, interpretation and movement.

Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive — more at conceive Date: 1556
1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

You have to conceive a skill in order to perform it. Yes BJJ and WCK are different but skills (in movement), can be transposed.
Do you just spout off things just because? It's becoming very obvious to me now that you are NOT a fighter. In fact you are the theorist that you claim everyone else is. You can have the last idiotic word. I'm done replying to your BS.

t_niehoff

02-13-2010, 06:03 AM

That is about the dumbest thing a college educated man with a law degree could ever say. I don't remember the specifics but Rahsun escaped from something Dale did to him on the ground. Dale asked if Rah had done JJ because what Rah did was an "advanced" movement according to Dale. Rah said no I don't know BJJ. I just used WC principles.
I used to race on a Velodrome but during the off season I'd speed skate like most Track Cyclists did. So obviously speed speed skating "affected" my cycling development.
Concepts, heuristics, and skill run hand in hand. Teachers use the concept and skills idea for math. Perceptual motor skills involve thought/concept, interpretation and movement.

Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of concipere to conceive — more at conceive Date: 1556
1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

You have to conceive a skill in order to perform it. Yes BJJ and WCK are different but skills (in movement), can be transposed.
Do you just spout off things just because? It's becoming very obvious to me now that you are NOT a fighter. In fact you are the theorist that you claim everyone else is. You can have the last idiotic word. I'm done replying to your BS.

Your thinking is confused.

You don't need to "conceive of a skill in order to perform it". What you need is to perceive an objective/task to perform, then be shown how to perform that task in a way that maximizes success with minimum time/effort, and then to practice that. And, much of what goes into a physical skill isn't conscious but is unconscious (processes,etc. we are not even aware of).

Concepts/heuristics don't go hand-in-hand with skill, as you can have skill without the use of heuristics. People do that all the time. I'm not saying that they may be not useful for beginners sometimes, just that they aren't necessary.

While good heuritics may be useful to beginners, poor ones are harmful. Good ones are based on successful performance of the skill -- and in WCK circles, that seems a very rare commodity.

Your analogy to math is misplaced. Math is an entirely intellectual pursuit. We are concerned with learning and developing a physical skill.

Physical skill in one task can transfer in some degree to another task depending on how similar the two tasks are. That's called positive transference and is recognized in psycho-motor development. They also recognize negative transference where the practice of one skill impedes the development of another skill.

Whether I am a fighter or not isn't important -- as I have repeatedly said, don't take my word for it, go train with and listen to what good, proven fighters say and do. You can only learn and appreciate these things by doing them yourself.

k gledhill

02-13-2010, 07:29 AM

Anyone ever see the film or read the book " Man in a glass booth" ? ..an accused man is placed in a secure glass booth for his own safety during a court case...long and the short he's guilty, but at the end of the case when he is allowed to say something , starts to rant on about things he truly believes, only nobody wants to hear it ...so they switch the sound off to the speakers from his booth and leave him babbling on silently in the glass booth ....only nobody is listening anymore because he has revealed himself as guilty.

wish we had that switch here :D

good book/film :D

t_niehoff

02-13-2010, 07:41 AM

In regione caecorum rex est luscus.

Matrix

02-13-2010, 08:01 AM

My point is that it makes no difference -- that prior experience in WCK will in no way affect your BJJ development. Why? Because it has nothing to do with "concepts" but skills, and WCK skills are not BJJ skills.Terrence, I'm going to disagree with you here, but for a different reason than Phil. I think that any previous experience will affect new skill development. BJJ training will affect your WC, and vice versa.

WC training develops skills, it's not only concepts, but I'm sure you already know that. I think you say things like this to inflame the discussion. It's a nice tactic if you want to stir the pot. ;)

anerlich

02-13-2010, 07:52 PM

wish we had that switch here

You do, Kev. It's called the ignore list. This comes up instead of the hot air:

This message is hidden because t_niehoff is on your ignore list.

anerlich

02-14-2010, 04:01 PM

My point is that it makes no difference -- that prior experience in WCK will in no way affect your BJJ development.

It would be interesting to hear what Tim Cartmell and Andreas Hoffman, both of whom are long time TCMA guys and BJJ black belts, have to say about this.

Imagine listening to guys that have actually achieved something besides keyboard warriorship...

YungChun

02-14-2010, 06:15 PM

Terrence, I'm going to disagree with you here...{snip} I think that any previous experience will affect new skill development.

Agreed.

There are all kinds of attributes/awareness that cross over depending on how you train.. This was noted by some of T's fighting brothers in the UK.....

WCK is very much about good positional awareness.

Doesn't mean you have a part by part match of course, just a crossover in some attributes..

t_niehoff

02-15-2010, 06:13 AM

It would be interesting to hear what Tim Cartmell and Andreas Hoffman, both of whom are long time TCMA guys and BJJ black belts, have to say about this.

Imagine listening to guys that have actually achieved something besides keyboard warriorship...

Instead of relying on subjective impressions, why not look at objective evidence -- and see if persons previously trained in WCK tend to earn their belts (blue to black) faster than non-WCK trained people in BJJ? That would mean, of course, that we might not hear what we want to hear -- and that's always so much more pleasant and comforting. How long did it take Andreas and Cartmell to earn their BBs?

Imagine actually considering objective evidence . . .

t_niehoff

02-15-2010, 06:40 AM

Terrence, I'm going to disagree with you here, but for a different reason than Phil. I think that any previous experience will affect new skill development. BJJ training will affect your WC, and vice versa.

You might want to do a bit of research into "negative transfer of skill" to learn about how learning one skill makes learning the second skill more difficult -- which often happens when a stimulus common to both skills requires a different response.

The other aspect is that instead of arguing why WCK will make learning BJJ easier (a conclusion that some want to be true), it is preferable to look at what the evidence shows and draw our conclusions from that. And I don't see WCK people picking up BJJ faster than others.

WC training develops skills, it's not only concepts, but I'm sure you already know that. I think you say things like this to inflame the discussion. It's a nice tactic if you want to stir the pot. ;)

Ah, you know me -- I'm all for stirring the pot!

But I do think that the whole "concepts" dreg is grossly over-rated, leading to the nonsensical "WCK is a conceptual MA" or is "conceptually-based". Are there principles and concepts inherent in WCK? Of course. The problem is that you can't start with concepts, you need to start with the skills. And only through working out how to successfully apply (fight with) the skills can you come to learn/understand the concepts.

The key thing here is realizing that our understanding (and concepts are ideas) comes from our skill -- that our understanding is skill-dependent. A white belt in BJJ doesn't understand the concepts of BJJ likea blue belt or a black belt. Someone who can't ride a bike doesn't understand the concepts of bike riding. In athletics, you only understand what you can DO. Understanding (concepts) doesn't precede skill but skill precedes understanding.

When people who can't successfully apply (fight with) the skills start telling us what the concepts are, then we have the blind leading the blind. It's like someone who can't ride a bike telling us the concepts of bike riding or a poor golfer telling us the concepts of golf.