WCK is attached fighting

[t_niehoff]

If you look at Victor's post on the "WCK is not attached fighting thread", http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1007063&postcount=1, you'll see that he, characteristically, makes lots of assertions but offers no reasons to support his view.

WCK is attached fighting BECAUSE historically that is what it is. And you can see that as:

The faat (the method) tells us so. The faat is, either implicitly or explicitly, found across WCK lineages. Rene writes about it in his book on YKS WCK. It is in Gu Lao. It is in YM WCK. In a nutshell, WCK's approach is to control while striking -- and most of the time you can't control without some sort of attachment.

The kuen kuit tells us so. Almost all of the the kuit only make sense when viewed from a contact/attached perspective, from the famous Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung to the illustrative Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma. There is even the explicit Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu.

But what if you never learn the faat or kuit? What if you or your teacher are missing these aspects of the WCK curriculum? Then, I think it is very difficult to make headway since the faat is the "map" or organizing principle of WCK, and the kuit provide direction (it's a compass) to our practice (to keep us on the road as we follow the map). Without the faat and kuit, you are lost in the woods without knowing where you are going and no guidance to get there!

The WCK terminology tells us so. Who talks about "bridging the gap" or "entering" but grapplers? Boxers and kickboxers don't. What are you "bridging" to? What are you trying to "enter"? You're trying to enter into a contact/attached situation (not striking range). Why "forward pressure" if there is no contact (how can you press on something if you aren't in contact)? Fook sao (controlling hand), bik ma (pressing step), etc. We have an entire form, chum kiu (SEEK THE BRIDGE or USE THE BRIDGE TO DESTROY HIS STRUCTURE - depending on your lineage, though both are correct), that explicitly refers to having a bridge. WCK does NOT use terms like block or parry or redirect -- it talks about bridge hands. Tan, bong, fook, gaun, etc. are bridge hands. The YJKYM, or parallel stance, which is the most fundamental horse in WCK -- do you see parallel stances in boxing or kickboxing? No. Do you see it in grappling? Yes. I could go on and on.

The WCK drills tell us so. The WCK exercises are, for the most part, contact/attached drills/exercises. Chi sao is the WCK signature drill/exercise. Attached. Lop sao or rollling bong is another signature drill/exercise. Attached. Why do mainly attached drills to fight unattached? Does that make any sense? Boxers and kickboxers don't even do attached drills, let alone have attached drills as their signature drill yet develop the highest levels of noncontact fighting skills, beyond anything any WCK person has. What are you practicing when you do chi sao? Using your WCK tools while attached (in contact) to try and control your opponent while you strike him.

Application tells us so. Anyone who spends any decent amount of time fighting on the inside (remember WSL's tape, 'The Science of In-Fighting'?) will find that they NEED to control their opponent -- after all you are in range and without controlling him he is free to move. That means, you have very little time to react and he can do just about anything. By controlling him, you significantly restrict what things he can do and you slow him down.

Now, as WCK has both controlling and striking aspects, can you get away with sometimes not controlling? Sure. WCK provides a skill set and game plan for using those skills, but you can use or not use whatever you like. If your opponent is a scrub, you may get away with simply running over him with lien wan chois (straight blast) as we see in the"Rooftop fights." But, this is low-level WCK and only works against low-level opposition.

Of course, I could be wrong. But as Yip Man advises us, "Go out and see test it for yourself, I may be tricking you." If you just get some training partners, start in contact, and fight, and put in some significant time, you'll see for yourself. If you won't give yourself this experience, you can't ever know.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wing Chung became attached fighting so that instructors could bilk droves of students out of money by teaching them endless non-contact (light hitting) chi sao drills. I have a pretty narrow definition of what Wing Chun is, but to call it attached fighting is just silly. Clinching, trapping, and otherwise arresting an opponent's movement are important aspects of solid wing chun but they do not represent the whole of wing chun.

You keep asserting that one can't kickbox wing chun style yet you haven't offered up any expiation for how bridges are supposed to occur how Wing chun is supposed to work when an opponent has an answer for your attaching.

To be honest, I sense quite a bit of confusion in you about what WC is. You have vacillated back and forth on what Chi Sao is.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=939792&postcount=90

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good WC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ftHkJClhQ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=win-6R7_JrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJVV2k2pIU


I have difficulty calling that full-contact sparring. Why are they wearing all the protective gear when both guys are using much less than full power? Moreover, you can tell that Victor's partner isn't even genuinely fighting back in some instances. And why does the fighting stop and restart? That is play fighting.

But, you do see ALL kinds of outside fighting bad habits, including reaching for punches, little-to-no head movement, off-balance punching, etc. A good boxer (or good fighter) would chew these guys up. If they are going to box, they should go train at a good boxing gym and learn how.

All the "I saw a bil sao!" aside, this is precisely what I mean by "WCK kickboxing" -- kickboxing and tossing in every now and then a WCK movement. Is this what you train to do? Is this WCK's approach to fighting? Do you even need to learn and practice WCK to do THAT? Of course not. You'd be better off just going to a good kickboxing gym and learning how to kickbox well.


A lot of us have done time in mma and it has improved our WC. It seems to have just confused you. Oy! Write your definition of WC on some notebook paper and stick with it.

[t_niehoff]

Wing Chung became attached fighting so that instructors could bilk droves of students out of money by teaching them endless non-contact (light hitting) chi sao drills. I have a pretty narrow definition of what Wing Chun is, but to call it attached fighting is just silly. Clinching, trapping, and otherwise arresting an opponent's movement are important aspects of solid wing chun but they do not represent the whole of wing chun.


I never said it is the whole of WCK -- I said controlling WHILE striking.



You keep asserting that one can't kickbox wing chun style yet you haven't offered up any expiation for how bridges are supposed to occur how Wing chun is supposed to work when an opponent has an answer for your attaching.


Look at your "question" -- "how is Wing chun supposed to work when an opponent has an answer for your attaching?" That's like asking "how is GNP supposed to work when your opponent has an answer to your taking him down?" The answer is you need to be better skilled at "attaching" (or taking him down) than he is at stopping you. This is true for EVERYTHING. How is boxing supposed to work when your opponent has an answer for your punching?!!!



To be honest, I sense quite a bit of confusion in you about what WC is. You have vacillated back and forth on what Chi Sao is.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=939792&postcount=90


Everything I've said is consistent. Where is there anything in that "montage" that isn't?



You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching.


Victor wasn't "doing WCK" -- where is the WCK movement? He was doing poor boxing/kickboxing.

Ask yourself, do you NEED WCK training to do what Victor was doing? You could learn THAT at a boxing, kickboxing gym -- and learn it much, much better.



Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries.


No, it doesn't. There are no "parries" in WCK. Tan sao, bong sao, pak sao, etc.. aren't parries -- they are bridge hands (the terms themselves tell you that).



As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good WC.


Man sao, bil sao, etc. aren't parries. Fighting from the outside (your "maintaining range") isn't a hallmark of good WCK. WCK is in-fighting.



A lot of us have done time in mma and it has improved our WC. It seems to have just confused you. Oy! Write your definition of WC on some notebook paper and stick with it.

Yes, some of us have put in the time training with MMA fighters, but you aren't one of them. I can tell by the things you say.

Nor, have you, it seemed, learned the WCK curriculum.

And, it's interesting that you, like Victor, can't offer up an reasons to support your view, but only assertions.

[k gledhill]

Wrong Terence... as mentioned your chasing your ideas of what YOU can make of it. YOU can only make it function by adopting an attached idea. Its called controlling hands that will hit you if you stop sticking to them ;)
I can see what your missing from your posts. Its up to you to open doors, guys arent going to open them for you. Just because you as a teacher have a dvd series and books proclaiming otherwise still wont change the facts ;) your marketing YOUR idea, let it be, dont try to ram it down our throats, :D

sparring will show it in a few seconds...while you try to 'attach' yourself. :D its called arm chasing and can be explained hands on really quick as you get hit. Using a 'rolling bong' or a lop also shows your low level of understanding.

yes we use parries ...to displace bridges for the fractions of a second we combine our parries strikes and movement....we want to prevent the opponent from making 'attachments' .....they can use feeling against us, if we displace them and make them lose contact we can strike ..our thinking is to make relentless pressure from attacks further causing them to try to stop our hands by making 'attachments'...only we dont let them. its like letting go of a rope you hold out for someone to use all their force against , then suddenly letting go, moving it, angling away so the holder of the rope is no longer facing where they directed their force ....the drills develop this ...but you wont develop if you have only been shown square on facing stages of the drills with 2 arms extended...we dont fight with 2 arms extended as the drills.

it relies on the scientific approach to using 3 things at once to make one sound..momentum, timing, structure all come into play as we attack. So we focus on fighting resisting opponents who offer arms to stop our entry ..we dont seek to stick or control the arms for any other reason.
By attaching your self you lose the dynamics of motion, momentum and strikes that may or may not be coupled with sharp displacing energy, all in the ONE moment of the timing ...using the momentum of motion coupled with the sharp displacing ballistic force of a pak or a bong. Coupling structure of the hips generating force to coincide with the elbows we develop this ability to make explosive small movements that are very difficult to deal with.

ballistic force generated to a point of contact to remove 'attachments' open a small hole to strike into. We only need small openings.

We do use controlling actions as a last resort in Bil Gee, when we have to regain things the opponent has stopped us doing..but this is an idea that we use to 'regain' the fighting 'bubble, so to speak.

The skill of the system is being able to show this ability in close quarters without regressing to trying to hold the opponents hands.

VT is attacking with mobility and aggressiveness as you put the opponent under pressure of sustained attacking or having the ability to make counter moves that are attacking ...iow defensive actions that all incorporate an attacking action.

this is taught at the early stages in dan chi sao...and not to roll with the bong feeling energy carp.


We train to maintain our fighting distances intuitively so we can generate KO force as you come we stay in our striking distances but have to angle to a flank to avoid facing you square on as we do drills...


the system is taught in abstract methods to develop certain traits..sadly those who dont understand this try to make the abstract forms, drills, dummy, the 'way'...

[duende]

Hey Terence...

If WC is attached fighting as you propose. Then it brings up a few questions that need answering.

Can you:

1. Show us how you think this should be expressed visually? How much of straight-up clinching is in your methodolgy.

2. Explain how this system could ever have been created or developed by a woman?? As "clinch" range, is arguably the worst range for a female with inherantly weaker strength to be in.

3. Explain the body method so often seen in both YKS and YM with their leaning back
shoulders and long fully extended straight punch. Two physical traits that are serious handicaps in clinch range???

BTW... I agree with much that you have written here. But how one EXPRESSES these concepts is key.

WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system.

WC is not a body to body system. We may have effective tools for that range, but they are only for use when we've been caught off guard and our other tools have been bypassed or have otherwise failed.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system...WC is not a body to body system" (Duende)

***CORRECT.
..........................................

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good wing chun. (HumbleWCGuy)

***THANKS. And one of the most important things about keeping range is to help prevent "attachment". Some limb-to-limb contact and manipulation (and some body balance manipulation) does exist in wing chun, per se...but wing chun is first and foremost about hitting - and having both arms free to do that at all times.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Terence...

If WC is attached fighting as you propose.

Can you:

1. Show us how you think this should be expressed visually? I'm curious as to how much of straight up clinching is in your methodolgy.


What is "straight up clinching"? Contact is clinching.



2. Explain how this system could ever have been created or developed by a woman?? As "clinch" range, is arguably the worst range for a female with inherantly weaker strength to be in.


You do understand that the origin story is an allegory, right?

But to answer your question, the clinch is where you want to be if you are the smaller, weaker fighter. By getting in (contact) you take away any reach advantage, you smother any strikes. By learning to use leverage, and by breaking an opponent's structure you take away an opponent's strength. Isn't this the same in judo (clinch)?



3. Explain the body method so often seen in both YKS and YM with their leaning back
shoulders and long fully extended straight punch. Two physical traits that are serious handicaps in clinch range???


The leaning back "posture" doesn't work ANYWHERE, let alone the inside. It is, I think, an unfortunate derivation of the wan wun.



BTW... I agree with much that you have written here. But how I will say, how one expresses these concepts is key.


There are no "concepts".



WC may operate in an attached range, or range where attachment can occur. But our bridging tools, body mechanics, and energy awareness were not designed to operate in the same manner as that of a pure grappling system.


I have never said they were -- I have said that WCK's method is to control while striking. If you do "pure" grappling, your methodology and tools will, of course, differ.



WC is not a body to body system. We may have effective tools for that range, but they are only for use when we've been caught off guard and our other tools have been bypassed or have otherwise failed.

That's not entirely accurate. WCK does have body-to-body contact as part of its methodology but not in the same way or to the extent that, for instance, greco does.

[t_niehoff]

You were criticizing Victor for "Wing Chun kickboxing," but not before criticizing him for not looking like a boxer. You were dissatisfied with his head movement. and claimed that he was reaching. Wing Chun is an art that relies heavily on parries. As long as his footwork was keeping him at range his man sao was fine. Bil Sao specifically is a longer range parry that he claimed to be using. When I watched these the first time I was looking for specific things but I missed what Victor does really well which is maintain range which is a hallmark of good wing chun. (HumbleWCGuy)

***THANKS. And one of the most important things about keeping range is to help prevent "attachment". Some limb-to-limb contact and manipulation (and some body balance manipulation) does exist in wing chun, per se...but wing chun is first and foremost about hitting - and having both arms free to do that at all times.

You continue to prove that you really have no basic-level grasp of WCK.

[t_niehoff]

Wrong Terence... as mentioned your chasing your ideas of what YOU can make of it. YOU can only make it function by adopting an attached idea. Its called controlling hands that will hit you if you stop sticking to them ;)
I can see what your missing from your posts. Its up to you to open doors, guys arent going to open them for you. Just because you as a teacher have a dvd series and books proclaiming otherwise still wont change the facts ;) your marketing YOUR idea, let it be, dont try to ram it down our throats, :D

sparring will show it in a few seconds...while you try to 'attach' yourself. :D its called arm chasing and can be explained hands on really quick as you get hit. Using a 'rolling bong' or a lop also shows your low level of understanding.

yes we use parries ...to displace bridges for the fractions of a second we combine our parries strikes and movement....we want to prevent the opponent from making 'attachments' .....they can use feeling against us, if we displace them and make them lose contact we can strike ..our thinking is to make relentless pressure from attacks further causing them to try to stop our hands by making 'attachments'...only we dont let them. its like letting go of a rope you hold out for someone to use all their force against , then suddenly letting go, moving it, angling away so the holder of the rope is no longer facing where they directed their force ....the drills develop this ...but you wont develop if you have only been shown square on facing stages of the drills with 2 arms extended...we dont fight with 2 arms extended as the drills.

it relies on the scientific approach to using 3 things at once to make one sound..momentum, timing, structure all come into play as we attack. So we focus on fighting resisting opponents who offer arms to stop our entry ..we dont seek to stick or control the arms for any other reason.
By attaching your self you lose the dynamics of motion, momentum and strikes that may or may not be coupled with sharp displacing energy, all in the ONE moment of the timing ...using the momentum of motion coupled with the sharp displacing ballistic force of a pak or a bong. Coupling structure of the hips generating force to coincide with the elbows we develop this ability to make explosive small movements that are very difficult to deal with.

ballistic force generated to a point of contact to remove 'attachments' open a small hole to strike into. We only need small openings.

We do use controlling actions as a last resort in Bil Gee, when we have to regain things the opponent has stopped us doing..but this is an idea that we use to 'regain' the fighting 'bubble, so to speak.

The skill of the system is being able to show this ability in close quarters without regressing to trying to hold the opponents hands.

VT is attacking with mobility and aggressiveness as you put the opponent under pressure of sustained attacking or having the ability to make counter moves that are attacking ...iow defensive actions that all incorporate an attacking action.

this is taught at the early stages in dan chi sao...and not to roll with the bong feeling energy carp.


We train to maintain our fighting distances intuitively so we can generate KO force as you come we stay in our striking distances but have to angle to a flank to avoid facing you square on as we do drills...


the system is taught in abstract methods to develop certain traits..sadly those who dont understand this try to make the abstract forms, drills, dummy, the 'way'...

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

[k gledhill]

wow very technical rebuttal....shows your depth of knowledge...post aerosmith clip...

technical rebuttal NOT....you dont understand what Im talking about do you ?
:D enough for me.

[duende]

What is "straight up clinching"? Contact is clinching.



I think for many people here, including myself. Ussage of the term clinch inherantly implies "locking up" and fully committed body to body time frame grappling.

One can make contact, achieve control, and strike without falling into the above.




You do understand that the origin story is an allegory, right?


I was just curious to see where you stood on the matter.



But to answer your question, the clinch is where you want to be if you are the smaller, weaker fighter. By getting in (contact) you take away any reach advantage, you smother any strikes. By learning to use leverage, and by breaking an opponent's structure you take away an opponent's strength. Isn't this the same in judo (clinch)?



Yes, leverage and breaking structure are key, how ever compromising of range, as in a body to body clinch, leaves little room for an exit strategy. A strategy that must always be in consideration. Especially if you are a woman where the possibiltiy of having your structure and leverage crashed through by a stronger opponent is a real concern.




The leaning back "posture" doesn't work ANYWHERE, let alone the inside. It is, I think, an unfortunate derivation of the wan wun.



Interesting. I'm still curious to hear a full explanation for it. But so much is lost over time.

Btw, we don't lean back because it goes against our Human triangle structure principle. Leaning back effectively destroys our Heaven gate structure and imobilizes our Earth gate/footwork at the same time. But that's Tin Yan De body mechanics 101.

Not some personal interpretation or derivation of the core understanding.



There are no "concepts".



oh right... Sorry I forgot. ;)




I have never said they were -- I have said that WCK's method is to control while striking. If you do "pure" grappling, your methodology and tools will, of course, differ.


cool. Not trying to put words in your mouth. Only get clarification.



That's not entirely accurate. WCK does have body-to-body contact as part of its methodology but not in the same way or to the extent that, for instance, greco does.

Yeah, I know it does, as I said above. But it's function and placement in our over-all WC strategy is different.

[t_niehoff]

I think for many people here, including myself. Ussage of the term clinch inherantly implies "locking up" and fully committed body to body time frame grappling.


I don't have any idea what "time frame grappling" is - but clinch isn't just body locking. MT has clinch, judo has clinch, dirty boxing is clinch, etc.



One can make contact, achieve control, and strike without falling into the above.


Yes.



Yes, leverage and breaking structure are key, how ever compromising of range, as in a body to body clinch, leaves little room for an exit strategy. A strategy that must always be in consideration. Especially if you are a woman where the possibiltiy of having your structure and leverage crashed through by a stronger opponent is a real concern.


Body-to-body doesn't always need NEED an exit strategy. For example, when you have an opponent's back.



Interesting. I'm still curious to hear a full explanation for it. But so much is lost over time.

Btw, we don't lean back because it goes against our Human triangle structure principle. Leaning back effectively destroys our Heaven gate structure and imobilizes our Earth gate/footwork at the same time. But that's Tin Yan De body mechanics 101.

Not some personal interpretation or derivation of the core understanding.


Concepts are nonsense. Typically we don't lean back since in doing so we compromise our ability to maximally use our body (to lift, press, pull, hit, etc.). You don't need "concepts" when you know what is going on. Can you jump when you are leaning back? Do you need a "concept" to tell you that?

[Knifefighter]

Yes, leverage and breaking structure are key, how ever compromising of range, as in a body to body clinch, leaves little room for an exit strategy. .

There are plenty of "exit strategies" from the clinch. Any of the clinch transitions allow you to work either to obtain a better control position, set up a takedown or strike, or to get out out of the clinch completely.

The clinch actually give you more options than a more outside range.

[duende]

There are plenty of "exit strategies" from the clinch. Any of the clinch transitions allow you to work either to obtain a better control position, set up a takedown or strick, or to get out out of the clinch completely.

The clinch actually give you more options than a more outside range.

Understood. But the context of my post was based on a woman being physically dominated by a man. If say a Nun was grabbed by a soldier and physically restrained... Which is highly plausible in clinch range... My money would be on the soldier.

So with this in mind, the notion that WC was created by a woman is ridiculous. Not being sexist, just being realistic.

[t_niehoff]

Understood. But the context of my post was based on a woman being physically dominated by a man. If say a Nun was grabbed by a soldier and physically restrained... Which is highly plausible in clinch range... My money would be on the soldier.

So with this in mind, the notion that WC was created by a woman is ridiculous. Not being sexist, just being realistic.

What kind of reasoning is that? You imagine some soldier grabs nun scenario, mistakenly assume that the soldier will win (and what if the nun is much more highly skilled in the clinch than the man?), and from that conclude that WCK couldn't be created by a woman! WTF?

ALL WCK origin tales are merely legends, they are not true. At best the are allegories, trying to impart some "lesson", at worst, well, I won't go there.

[duende]

What kind of reasoning is that? You imagine some soldier grabs nun scenario, mistakenly assume that the soldier will win (and what if the nun is much more highly skilled in the clinch than the man?), and from that conclude that WCK couldn't be created by a woman! WTF?

ALL WCK origin tales are merely legends, they are not true. At best the are allegories, trying to impart some "lesson", at worst, well, I won't go there.

Haha...

Well yeah... If you take some of the posts regarding WC and "feminine energy" you so often find on this forum, and put them into the historical context in which WC was created...

I know it sounds absurd... That's my whole point.


Anyways... Don't mean to sidetrack your thread.

Laters.

[t_niehoff]

Haha...

Well yeah... If you take some of the posts regarding WC and "feminine energy" you so often find on this forum, and put them into the historical context in which WC was created...

I know it sounds absurd... That's my whole point.

Much of what you hear on this forum is absurd!

We don't know the historical context in which WCK was created, because we don't know when, where, how, etc. it was created.

FWIW, my personal view is that it simply evolved from the fighting of various persons on the Red Boats (which fits in with Hendrik's find that wing chun kuen was opera performer's fist), and that's why it contains elements of white crane, hakka, etc. And I think this was organized differently by different people on the Boats.

In the end, WCK is just a boat to take you across the river. It really doesn't matter who made the boat.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness.

Thank you, Dr. Delusional, for your diagnosis.

[k gledhill]

Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness. how many times are you going to ignore us ? :D

[Knifefighter]

Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness.

LOL... spoken by the one of the guys who are most out of touch with reality.

[Knifefighter]

Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness. how many times are you going to ignore us ? :D

And there's the other one.

[k gledhill]

out of touch yeah..im the crazy one. terence is right on the mark with his WCK obsession :D ..time will tell. I have patience....;)

this forum should be called ,"Welcome to my obsession" featuring Terence and his monotonous mantra...

its degenerated into " you know who's " obsessive mantra is hijacking any thread, it gets tedious.

[HumbleWCGuy]

LOL... spoken by the one of the guys who are most out of touch with reality.

I can see the love growing between you and Terrence daily.

[goju]

LOL... spoken by the one of the guys who are most out of touch with reality.

dude your decrepid and troll forums all day you really think you should point fingers?
:rolleyes: :p:D

[Straight Left]

It's a pity this thread has degenerated into petty name calling. T has raised issues that I think should be seriously discussed.

I've trained on and off in Wing Chun for a dozen years or so . One of my great reservations about the system has always been that when you are out of contact you are very vulnerable to a mobile and proficient striker, especially if a superior reach is involved.

In such a situation I've always felt safer in a western boxing stance.

In 90% of my Wing Chun drill/chi sao training I have been in some kind of arm to arm contact. I think given this emphasis it is likely that Wing Chun was always intended to operate at this range - to strike, contol or remove an obstruction, strike, jam or smother a strike, strike, be in someone's face but without trying to directly out muscle them etc. Simply because that is where you generally trainyour Wing Chun. Form follows function.

I've never really been happy that the training I've done had little or no emphasis on actually getting into this close and attached range. However, I had an experience recently that is pertinent to this problem and I will be happy to relate it if anyone is interested.

Mark

[HumbleWCGuy]

It's a pity this thread has degenerated into petty name calling. T has raised issues that I think should be seriously discussed.

I've trained on and off in Wing Chun for a dozen years or so . One of my great reservations about the system has always been that when you are out of contact you are very vulnerable to a mobile and proficient striker, especially if a superior reach is involved.

In such a situation I've always felt safer in a western boxing stance.

In 90% of my Wing Chun drill/chi sao training I have been in some kind of arm to arm contact. I think given this emphasis it is likely that Wing Chun was always intended to operate at this range - to strike, contol or remove an obstruction, strike, jam or smother a strike, strike, be in someone's face but without trying to directly out muscle them etc. Simply because that is where you generally trainyour Wing Chun. Form follows function.

I've never really been happy that the training I've done had little or no emphasis on actually getting into this close and attached range. However, I had an experience recently that is pertinent to this problem and I will be happy to relate it if anyone is interested.

Mark

IMO there is not a lot that needs to be discussed. If that is your training experience then I suggest that you seek to alter it. Phil Redmond has a million clips on youtube of he and his students training out of movement. I strongly suggest that you begin training your WC using that model. As far as the stance, there is nothing wrong with using a boxing stance in my opinion. That is how my lineage trains most of the time.

[YungChun]

In 90% of my Wing Chun drill/chi sao training I have been in some kind of arm to arm contact. I think given this emphasis it is likely that Wing Chun was always intended to operate at this range - to strike, contol or remove an obstruction, strike, jam or smother a strike, strike, be in someone's face but without trying to directly out muscle them etc.


Do you think this is unusual? Everyone has seen this "contact" being trained in a myriad of ways since forever...

The question or part of it being discussed is what "contact" means and if it means clinching/"attached"... Something most people do NOT see the former meaning.

[YungChun]

Chi sao isn't a form of stand-up grappling.

WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling".

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.


Everything I've said is consistent. Where is there anything in that "montage" that isn't?

Yes, of course it is.... :confused::eek:


What is "straight up clinching"? Contact is clinching.


To most, "Clinching" refers to "The Clinch" which most take to mean locking up with your opponent in a clinch... VT does not trap its own hands..... PERIOD!

VT does not lock up, nor does it clinch in the conventional sense of the term....

VT does remove obstructions, it can jam it can grab but no not clinch in the conventional sense.. All one needs to do to see that is look at the tools and moves in the forms.. VT is about CHANGE and changing momentary controls that are linked.. Change is VT!

It's easy to confuse terms in print.. What one person thinks "attach" means, what one person thinks "clinch" means may not be what others think..

Here's what VT is not:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Clinch2.jpg/538px-Clinch2.jpg

VT is about landing powerful strikes to destroy and disrupt.. Extended, yet momentary "contact" is used when needed, e.g. IF they are in (or come back into) our space preventing the former.. When they are not in that space then reaching for a limb is not what VT is about.. Reaching for a limb that is leaving the line is a major "faux pas" in this art no matter what you call it. Yes, VT controls but how it controls and which tools are used are dependent on what the opponent does and in no case does any of it involve "the clinch".

The Faat also does not refer to VT "clinching" either.. If you think it does, then your interpretation of the faat is, well, odd.. There is no clear intent in the faat of VT "Clinching"....

VT's Preferred range is the range at which you can strike your opponent with both arms and legs without taking a step...

T you fail to address any specifics of how you apply your method and you refuse to post any video of your supposed "unique" interpretation... IMO this is simply because you know that if seen no one would be buying any of it...as VT.. Or, maybe you are using the art just as some here advocate, but, we'll never know because you won't show, or tell..

[t_niehoff]

It's a pity this thread has degenerated into petty name calling. T has raised issues that I think should be seriously discussed.

I've trained on and off in Wing Chun for a dozen years or so . One of my great reservations about the system has always been that when you are out of contact you are very vulnerable to a mobile and proficient striker, especially if a superior reach is involved.

In such a situation I've always felt safer in a western boxing stance.


Mark, boxers fight unattached and so what they do -- and they are the best doing it -- reflects that. Their stance gives them cover, permits them to move in ways to avoid strikes yet strike effectively, etc. And while that is great for what they do, it isn't great for other things, like when you are attached or grappling. It is body structure appprpriate to their task, not ours in WCK.



In 90% of my Wing Chun drill/chi sao training I have been in some kind of arm to arm contact. I think given this emphasis it is likely that Wing Chun was always intended to operate at this range - to strike, contol or remove an obstruction, strike, jam or smother a strike, strike, be in someone's face but without trying to directly out muscle them etc. Simply because that is where you generally trainyour Wing Chun. Form follows function.


Exactly. Look, why have as our signature drills/exercise one that is attached (in contact) to then not fight in contact? That doesn't make good sense. Doesn't it make sense that you want to practice in contact so that you can fight in contact? And, in fact, everything in WCK points that way -- if you open your eyes to it.



I've never really been happy that the training I've done had little or no emphasis on actually getting into this close and attached range. However, I had an experience recently that is pertinent to this problem and I will be happy to relate it if anyone is interested.


Most people practicing WCK,including the grandmasters, only have some of the pieces to the puzzle (which they take as the whole enchilada) and so fill out the missing elements with their own nonsense. It's mixing the wheat with the chaffe. For example, people without the WCK faat (method) -- the WCK game -- often use a kickboxing method/game since that's the only game they know.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, of course it is.... :confused::eek:


As evidenced by your inability to point to something that wasn't consistent.



To most, "Clinching" refers to "The Clinch" which most take to mean locking up with your opponent in a clinch... VT does not trap its own hands..... PERIOD!


No, that's how YOU look at it. Chi sao IS a clinch (or more accurately, a representation of one).



VT does not lock up, nor does it clinch in the conventional sense of the term....

VT does remove obstructions, it can jam it can grab but no not clinch in the conventional sense.. All one needs to do to see that is look at the tools and moves in the forms.. VT is about CHANGE and changing momentary controls that are linked.. Change is VT!

It's easy to confuse terms in print.. What one person thinks "attach" means, what one person thinks "clinch" means may not be what others think..


Just more assertions . . . .

WCK has a method, and that method comes to us from the ancestors. I didn't make it up. The movements in the forms are ALL bridge hands -- get it, BRIDGE hands. BRIDGE. Contact. Attached.



Here's what VT is not:


Yes, those are wrestlers.



VT is about landing powerful strikes to destroy and disrupt.. Extended, yet momentary "contact" is used when needed, e.g. IF they are in (or come back into) our space preventing the former.. When they are not in that space then reaching for a limb is not what VT is about.. Reaching for a limb that is leaving the line is a major "faux pas" in this art no matter what you call it. Yes, VT controls but how it controls and which tools are used are dependent on what the opponent does and in no case does any of it involve "the clinch".


I am not talking about "reaching for a limb" or reaching for anything. You join by striking -- as the kuit tells us "see form, strike form, . . ." and "hand goes out does not come back. . ."



The Faat also does not refer to VT "clinching" either.. If you think it does, then your interpretation of the faat is, well, odd.. There is no clear intent in the faat of VT "Clinching"....


The first method of the faat is daap, ride or join. In other words, make and keep contact. Or, as the kuit tells us, "if there is no bridge, create one . . ."



VT's Preferred range is the range at which you can strike your opponent with both arms and legs without taking a step...


WCK's preferred range is where I can control my opponent while striking him.



T you fail to address any specifics of how you apply your method and you refuse to post any video of your supposed "unique" interpretation... IMO this is simply because you know that if seen no one would be buying any of it...as VT.. Or, maybe you are using the art just as some here advocate, but, we'll never know because you won't show, or tell..

I'll be happy to show you -- just come visit me. I went across the country numerous times, paid a lot of money, put in loads of hard work, etc. to learn. So, if you want to learn, make an effort.

[YungChun]

Exactly. Look, why have as our signature drills/exercise one that is attached (in contact) to then not fight in contact? That doesn't make good sense.


Because those drills are training you, not, how to remain attached but rather how to nullify the attachment....in order to strike...



Doesn't it make sense that you want to practice in contact so that you can fight in contact? And, in fact, everything in WCK points that way -- if you open your eyes to it.

It makes sense to study contact in order to deal with contact... Where "deal with" means to train to nullify the attempted attachment (control) of us..in order to attack..

At times this can mean that we are training to nullify their control with our own control and attacking actions.. But not always.. At times this can simply mean to let their error go (leave) and maintain the *pressure* of the actual striking/blasting attack..

The key is to know when you need additional control and when you don't, and it depends on the actions of the opponent, and if they are hindering (obstructing the line) or helping (leaving the line) our ability to release our attacks..

Moreover, there are the leg moves that no one addresses to assist the hands, and aid in control..

[YungChun]

No, that's how YOU look at it. Chi sao IS a clinch (or more accurately, a representation of one).

VT does not clinch using the accepted meaning of that term...



I didn't make it up. The movements in the forms are ALL bridge hands -- get it, BRIDGE hands. BRIDGE. Contact. Attached.


I agree... But in the past what you mean by "attached" has at times read as hand chasing and "clinching" by the accepted definition meaning to lock up and/or trap your own hands.. IF this is not your meaning then there is no issue.



I am not talking about "reaching for a limb" or reaching for anything. You join by striking -- as the kuit tells us "see form, strike form, . . ." and "hand goes out does not come back. . ."

Agreed... In so much as I can glean from these short comments...



The first method of the faat is daap, ride or join. In other words, make and keep contact. Or, as the kuit tells us, "if there is no bridge, create one . . ."


Agreed there is a time to stick but rarely a time to keep the hand attached in a fixed and static manner.. As I said, VT based on the faat is about change...

[YungChun]

Just wanted to emphasize this point..



I am not talking about "reaching for a limb" or reaching for anything. You join by striking

This is really what many are saying...and would seem to me to answer the question of what comes first, what is priority in VT...


You join by striking..

So the "onus" is on them...(to get in our way)

We are striking...not reaching for a limb (chasing hands), we are not seeking to trap.... This is exactly what is meant by that...

[t_niehoff]

Just wanted to emphasize this point..

--

This is really what many are saying...and would seem to me to answer the question of what comes first, what is priority in VT...


You join by striking..

So the "onus" is on them...(to get in our way)

We are striking...not reaching for a limb (chasing hands), we are not seeking to trap.... This is exactly what is meant by that...

You still don't get it. What we want to do is get an attachment as we break his structure (to daap, jeet, and chum all in one action -- that's the ideal). For example, my pak sao is a strike -- not to his arm, not to open lines, not to remove obstructions, but to join (give me an attachment, a handle) and break his structure with the same action. In other words, to control while strikiing. And from there, I stay attached while I continue to control while striking.

[YungChun]

You still don't get it.


First of all.. No blanket statements..

What in that post do you disagree with?

[t_niehoff]

VT does not clinch using the accepted meaning of that term...


The accepted meaning of clinch is to be is sustained contact with an opponent while standing. There are many ways to clinch. Judo is clinch, Greco is clinch. Dirty boxing is clinch. And WCK is a form of dirty boxing.



I agree... But in the past what you mean by "attached" has at times read as hand chasing and "clinching" by the accepted definition meaning to lock up and/or trap your own hands.. IF this is not your meaning then there is no issue.


You read into it things I do not say. A bridge is a solid connection to your opponent -- I have bridge hands when my arms/hands have a solid connection to my opponent. Why do I want a solid connection? To control him (since you can't control without one).

As far as "lock up and/or your own hands", this is your own private "concept".

Application tells me what to do, not silly "concepts".



Agreed... In so much as I can glean from these short comments...


These "short comments" are akin to "hit the ball" -- if you are playing the game, you get it, if you aren't playing the game, you won't.



Agreed there is a time to stick but rarely a time to keep the hand attached in a fixed and static manner.. As I said, VT based on the faat is about change...

No. No. No. The WCK faat isn't about "change", it is a strategic approach to fighting. Look, ground and pound is a strategic approach to fighting. You can break that approach down into strategic steps -- get in and clinch, take him down, get dominant position, maintain dominant position, deliver your weapons. It's the same with WCK, the faat gives you a break down into strategic steps of the WCK method of fighting, daap, jeet, chum, biu, chi. That's what we are trying to do when we fight. It's our game plan. Our tools are means of implementing that plan. Just like a GNPer needs some skills to clinch and take down, we need stills to daap and jeet, to join and close the opponent's down.

[HumbleWCGuy]

It sounds to me like you guys just like to go out and throw punches and hope that someone wants to play wing chun with you. WC trapping is offensive, defense, and counter. You choose the method that fits you best based on your attributes. It sounds to me like you guys think that countering and defense amounts to chasing hands. This certainly would explain why Terrence has so much trouble comprehending Victor's sparring session. If you train Chi Sao 24/7 then you never develop the timing for the defensive and counter aspects of trapping.

[m1k3]

OK, what about clinching is trapping your own hands? A clinch is not a static position but a dynamic fight for control to gain the dominate position. The person with the dominate position is the one who can strike, knee, throw, takedown or disengage.

I just don't buy that clinch fighting is trapping your own hands.

[t_niehoff]

First of all.. No blanket statements..

What in that post do you disagree with?

What you seem to keep saying is like saying that the whole point of ground and pound is to hit. But that misses the whole point -- it is a strategy or game that permits us to control while striking, not just hit. GNP is not just hitting.

And it is the same with WCK, which is similar to standing GNP. WCK has a method to permit us to control while striking, not just to hit.

[YungChun]

It sounds to me like you guys just like to go out and throw punches and hope that someone wants to play wing chun with you. WC trapping is offensive, defense, and counter. You choose the method that fits you best based on your attributes. It sounds to me like you guys think that countering and defense amounts to chasing hands. This certainly would explain why Terrence has so much trouble comprehending Victor's sparring session. If you train Chi Sao 24/7 then you never develop the timing for the defensive and counter aspects of trapping.

Outside use of entry traps is:

1.. Something Victor (and most of us) already said is unlikely against a good boxer/fighter..

2.. Not something Victor did in the clip..

3.. The lower % aspects of VT..against good fighters..

ChiSao is not generally known for training outside fighting...although I agree some attributes can crossover.

[t_niehoff]

It sounds to me like you guys just like to go out and throw punches and hope that someone wants to play wing chun with you. WC trapping is offensive, defense, and counter. You choose the method that fits you best based on your attributes. It sounds to me like you guys think that countering and defense amounts to chasing hands. This certainly would explain why Terrence has so much trouble comprehending Victor's sparring session. If you train Chi Sao 24/7 then you never develop the timing for the defensive and counter aspects of trapping.

It sounds to me like you haven't learned WCK.

There is no such thing as trapping -- WCK doesn't trap. Trapping is NOT a WCK term. It is a JKD term.

[YungChun]

What you seem to keep saying is like saying that the whole point of ground and pound is to hit. But that misses the whole point -- it is a strategy or game that permits us to control while striking, not just hit. GNP is not just hitting.

And it is the same with WCK, which is similar to standing GNP. WCK has a method to permit us to control while striking, not just to hit.

Set your phaser to a narrow beam...

Let's first just address that post please.. It clearly addresses the initial bridge to the opponent.. I would like to be clear if we agree on this point or not..


For example, my pak sao is a strike -- not to his arm {snip}

What is your pak aiming at?

[HumbleWCGuy]

It sounds to me like you haven't learned WCK.

There is no such thing as trapping -- WCK doesn't trap. Trapping is NOT a WCK term. It is a JKD term.

That's interesting because I was just thinking that what your conception of WC is limited to a couple JKD trapping movements. Your comments indicate that what you got from Robert was, JKD trapping, chi sao, a bunch of fantasy fighting advice, and some information on Chinese culture. The fact that you spend all of your time trying to supplement your WC with other arts on one hand and tell us about how to practice TWC properly on the other is really all that needs to be said. If you were not suffering from the psychological phenomenon of commitment and consistency on the most delusional level then you would not practice WC at all.

[t_niehoff]

Set your phaser to a narrow beam...

Let's first just address that post please.. It clearly addresses the initial bridge to the opponent.. I would like to be clear if we agree on this point or not..


Yes, but you need to look how that fits into the whole game plan.



What is your pak aiming at?

I'll take baby steps.

Let's say my opponent's arms are between us. I am not going to try and just hit him in the head through his arm (since he can hit me too), so I will hit his arms (daap) -- in this way, I stop his ability to hit me (jeet). But, my hit is to break (chum) his structure via his arms.

For example, look at Phils' clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOZ2iQbiL4 that's not bad and it's similar to something we do, but he is not hitting the opponent with his body structure through the bong sao. If he hit with the bong sao, he would drive his bong sao, like a punch, into his opponent's arms, trying to drive it into the body of his opponent (and if the opponent dropped his arms, he'd just get hit with an elbow). See form, hit form. Ideally, the strike will break his opponent's body structure. That's dap, jeet, chum all in one action. And it's not WCK kickboxing. It's all WCK movement, implementing the WCK faat (game plan).

Once I'm in contact, I stay in contact, trying to control my opponent while I strike him.

[t_niehoff]

That's interesting because I was just thinking that what your conception of WC is limited to a couple JKD trapping movements. Your comments indicate that what you got from Robert was, JKD trapping, chi sao, a bunch of fantasy fighting advice, and some information on Chinese culture. The fact that you spend all of your time trying to supplement your WC with other arts on one hand and tell us about how to practice TWC properly on the other is really all that needs to be said. If you were not suffering from the psychological phenomenon of commitment and consistency on the most delusional level then you would not practice WC at all.

Dude, you haven't a clue about WCK.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Outside use of entry traps is:

1.. Something Victor (and most of us) already said is unlikely against a good boxer/fighter..

2.. Not something Victor did in the clip..

You just have to have the attributes for it and exercise patience. You don't charge a guy who is a full head taller than you unless you intend to accept some damage. If you have stocky build that might be fine but Victor has a pretty slight build. What Victor was doing lays the foundation for much of counter fighting. He never established a trap per-say, but staying slightly out of range and getting down your opponents rhythm and keeping an active man sao is how it is done if you are a smaller fighter.



3.. The lower % aspects of VT..against good fighters..

That's why patience is necessary to execute such a strategy. To be a good counter fighter you almost have to commit to the idea that you will stand and look at the other guy before you will initiate the attack.



ChiSao is not generally known for training outside fighting...although I agree some attributes can crossover.
That's why Chi Sao needs a diminished role in WC.

[Frost]

Dude, you haven't a clue about WCK.

and people wonder why wing chun is in such a state lol...... can you imagine a bunch of thai coaches argueing that each other has no idea what their art is all about....or not being able to agree about its core skills and beliefs :eek:

[Dragonzbane76]

yeah i skim through the WC section and see that no one really knows what the "system" is supose to be, hell they argue about it even being a "system" itself.

[HumbleWCGuy]

The problem on this board is that there are probably only 5 or 6 regulars who even hold intstructorships in WC and three or four poster who are "WC knowledgeable." Out of that, some studied "non-contact" WC so their experience is useless.

The rest are pretty much people who have less than 3 years of WC experience gotten most of their experience as mma garage trainers, visiting local fight clubs, college mma clubs, and Youtube, or know absolutely nothing about WC.

[YungChun]

Yes, but you need to look how that fits into the whole game plan.



I'll take baby steps.

Let's say my opponent's arms are between us. I am not going to try and just hit him in the head through his arm (since he can hit me too), so I will hit his arms (daap) -- in this way, I stop his ability to hit me (jeet). But, my hit is to break (chum) his structure via his arms.

For example, look at Phils' clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOZ2iQbiL4 that's not bad and it's similar to something we do, but he is not hitting the opponent with his body structure through the bong sao. If he hit with the bong sao, he would drive his bong sao, like a punch, into his opponent's arms, trying to drive it into the body of his opponent (and if the opponent dropped his arms, he'd just get hit with an elbow). See form, hit form. Ideally, the strike will break his opponent's body structure. That's dap, jeet, chum all in one action. And it's not WCK kickboxing. It's all WCK movement, implementing the WCK faat (game plan).

Once I'm in contact, I stay in contact, trying to control my opponent while I strike him.

Phil stepped in with a kwan--wu/bong making light contact to a lead guard... The initial move would not IMO break any structure..

Add that to what you seem to have written about pak, attacking the opponent with it to his (lead?) guard-->(is that supposed to mean you did a pak/da?)

Or is that supposed to mean you did a pak on his lead and then pinned it to him? (first)...attack to core..

Is this supposed to mean you are targeting limbs to attack for entry? But that's not chasing hands?

About as clear as mud to me, sorry...

Oh well I tried..

I am convinced reading this and other things from you that I have no idea what you are talking about... Much of what you write seems erratic..one day a little of this, the next a little of that... Based on what it seems you are saying I can only say this appears to be a method I am unfamiliar with..and seems in opposition to core VT tactics.

Still, it's fun trying to find any pattern in your posts.. :)

[SAAMAG]

The problem on this board is that there are probably only 5 or 6 regulars who even hold intstructorships in WC and three or four poster who are "WC knowledgeable." Out of that, some studied "non-contact" WC so their experience is useless.

The rest are pretty much people who have less than 3 years of WC experience gotten most of their experience as mma garage trainers, visiting local fight clubs, college mma clubs, and Youtube, or know absolutely nothing about WC.

The problem I think moreso, is not so much the varying degrees of knowledge in wing chun--but the notion that one person feels that everything they do is right and everything everyone else does (if not done his way) is wrong.

T isn't the only one guilty of this--though he is the most prominant of the bunch. It doesn't exist only on this board either. It exists throughout the entire wing chun community. If your method is different...then there will be disagreements and varying perspectives. However addressing them in a healthy manner starts with one thing: respect, the other thing is omitting the ethnocentristic manner in which one views their interpretation.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Still, it's fun trying to find any pattern in your posts.. :)

Other than his droning about sparring, you won't find consistency in his posts especially concerning the particulars concerning the precise practice of WC. If you want to find consistency, I recommend you look up Narcissistic personality disorder which will explain his attempts to seem superior, and look up commitment consistency a phenomenon found in cults whereby people commit to things that they do not believe in. Check it out!

[CFT]

Is this supposed to mean you are targeting limbs to attack for entry? But that's not chasing hands?Doesn't that depend on where you are in relation to their hands/arms and where their hands/arms are in relation to their body?

I must admit I was a bit thrown by Terence's comment. I would have thought that attacks would be to the body and that any incidental bridge caused by limbs in the way must be capitalized upon, i.e. used to break the opponents structure and lead to more control, as he describes.

I suppose if you set up the situation so that these bridges occur more often than not then I guess you will be "making bridges".

[sanjuro_ronin]

I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
:rolleyes:

[SAAMAG]

I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
:rolleyes:

Ya think?!

I would like to add though that it also depends on what happens in the fight. Perhaps you never attach because you knock them out first, or perhaps you never attach because you decide that the best strategy to fight your opponent is by way of the outside, or perhaps you decide that you're better on the inside and stuffing the opponent is granting you more success.

The strategy and tactics can change throughout a fight.

[Vajramusti]

I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
:rolleyes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not revolutionary- just correct IMO...avoiding the noise.

joy chaudhuri

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ya think?!

I would like to add though that it also depends on what happens in the fight. Perhaps you never attach because you knock them out first, or perhaps you never attach because you decide that the best strategy to fight your opponent is by way of the outside, or perhaps you decide that you're better on the inside and stuffing the opponent is granting you more success.

The strategy and tactics can change throughout a fight.

Indeed, WC thread sort of make feel like this:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/punch.gif

[Ultimatewingchun]

...I don't read Niehoff's posts anymore - but when others quote him, then I might - and this one from Terence Niehoff is absolutely amazing.

The stuff in Phil Redmond's vid that Terence says is pretty good and similar to what he (terence) now does is EXACTLY the kind of thing in the past that Niehoff would RIP APART as things that would never work. Just amazing!!!

So when Jim (YungChun) wrote this, he was spot on:

"I am convinced reading this and other things from you that I have no idea what you are talking about... Much of what you write seems erratic..one day a little of this, the next a little of that..."
.............................

Now here's the quote from Niehoff:

"Let's say my opponent's arms are between us. I am not going to try and just hit him in the head through his arm (since he can hit me too), so I will hit his arms (daap) -- in this way, I stop his ability to hit me (jeet). But, my hit is to break (chum) his structure via his arms.

For example, look at Phils' clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOZ2iQbiL4 that's not bad and it's similar to something we do, but he is not hitting the opponent with his body structure through the bong sao. If he hit with the bong sao, he would drive his bong sao, like a punch, into his opponent's arms, trying to drive it into the body of his opponent (and if the opponent dropped his arms, he'd just get hit with an elbow). See form, hit form. Ideally, the strike will break his opponent's body structure. That's dap, jeet, chum all in one action. And it's not WCK kickboxing. It's all WCK movement, implementing the WCK faat (game plan).

Once I'm in contact, I stay in contact, trying to control my opponent while I strike him."
.................................

***SO I FIRST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE DISENGENUOUS NATURE OF TERENCE NIEHOFF - THE GUY IS OBVIOUSLY "WINGING IT" FROM POST-TO-POST, WEEK-BY-WEEK, MONTH-BY-MONTH, YEAR-BY-YEAR...

and is just a flame thrower who really has no foundation to what he does as a wing chun guy/martial artist - and hence the constant changes and bombastic attitudes.
.................................

And now I want to address the specifics in his above post that he says Phil is lacking - and point out the errors in his (Niehoff's) approach to how to "fix" what Phil is allegedly doing wrong.

Niehoff assumes that he can break the opponent's structure by use of his own superior "body structure" - crashing the guy's punch into his chest through use of the bong sao (again, referring to the scenario covered in Phil's TWC clip)...

in other words, if the wing chun guy had only HIT THE GUY HARD ENOUGH and had done so WITH THE PROPER BODY STRUCTURE - then the bong sao and ensuing moves would have dominated the guy and beaten him easily.

THIS IS BULL5HIT.

Because as usual, it's a half-truth...which means the other half is a lie.

I can do this kind of thing often myself, and have done so (and so can you, reader) - if you're up against someone smaller or weaker than you. Or perhaps against someone the same size as you - or even a bigger guy who doesn't know how to fight.

Now referring back to my vids: how often do you think the Niehoff approach (THAT IS, THE NIEHOFF APPROACH OF TODAY - BECAUSE TOMORROW HE MIGHT BE 180 DEGREES AWAY FROM IT)....

how often could ANYONE do that against a much bigger and stronger opponent who does know how to fight. To reiterate once again: the guy in the vid with me stands 6'3" and weighs 210...

to my 5'10"/170.

Niehoff shoud show us a vid of himself giving away 40 lbs. and 5 inches against a strong guy who knows how to fight - and doing what he says Phil Redmond should have done.

You know, one of the reasons why I started the wing chun-enigma-streetfighting thread was this very thing. Organized tournaments - as good as they are - can sometimes give the untrained eye (or the very confused and bombastic brain) a false sense of reality.

When you're in a ring, cage, whatever...against someone your size - and you happen to be stronger and better conditioned - you can get away with some things that would get you creamed against a bigger, stronger, more skillful man.

Sure, wing chun is about being aggressive once you get close, and yes that includes using your body structure to keep the pressure on...but SMART wing chun also knows when NOT to push the issue and use other approaches to defeating the opponent.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Victor,
You should read up. I mentioned many of the same things. I thought that you were clearly using your attributes to your advantage. Also, I would be interested in hearing any of your insights it to "small guy" Wing Chun. I started WC when I was 14 so I have had a chance to be the small guy and the big guy. However, I haven't been the small guy for some time.

[YungChun]

Doesn't that depend on where you are in relation to their hands/arms and where their hands/arms are in relation to their body?

Sure..

Still there is a rather large difference when:

1. Their arms are not holding the line.
2. You're target is a limb.. (distance)
3. IF you can break structure..

In my experience it is tough to break structure unless you are "energizing" their core.

To do THAT you need to be in "close range" and by that I mean generally close enough to hit their body with no step.

The default bridge mentioned in the kuit is their core IMO.

There may be some long bridge elements I am unfamiliar with... I've heard of something like this from Kenneth Cheung..

If it doesn't break structure or have the potential to do so then it is a lower % lead IMO..

[t_niehoff]

...I don't read Niehoff's posts anymore - but when others quote him, then I might - and this one from Terence Niehoff is absolutely amazing.


That makes great sense -- ignore me, unless someone else doesn't! Pure Victor at his best.



The stuff in Phil Redmond's vid that Terence says is pretty good and similar to what he (terence) now does is EXACTLY the kind of thing in the past that Niehoff would RIP APART as things that would never work. Just amazing!!!


I would not have ripped it apart although there is much in what Phil teaches that I would rip apart. BTW, I didn't say it was "pretty good", I said it's "not bad."



So when Jim (YungChun) wrote this, he was spot on:

"I am convinced reading this and other things from you that I have no idea what you are talking about... Much of what you write seems erratic..one day a little of this, the next a little of that..."
.............................


I understand that you guys just don't get it, so it is not surprising that you can't put various things I say together -- it's like I'm talking to guys who can't ride a bike and have no idea how to ride a bike. So when I say that you lean as you turn, you respond with "but you said that you turn by using the handle bars!"



***SO I FIRST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE DISENGENUOUS NATURE OF TERENCE NIEHOFF - THE GUY IS OBVIOUSLY "WINGING IT" FROM POST-TO-POST, WEEK-BY-WEEK, MONTH-BY-MONTH, YEAR-BY-YEAR...

and is just a flame thrower who really has no foundation to what he does as a wing chun guy/martial artist - and hence the constant changes and bombastic attitudes.
.................................


All I'm doing is giving an example -- Phil's bridging with his bong sao. As far as it goes, that's fine. But he's not hitting with his structure or breaking the opponent's structure with his hit. That's where from my perspective, we have a problem.



And now I want to address the specifics in his above post that he says Phil is lacking - and point out the errors in his (Niehoff's) approach to how to "fix" what Phil is allegedly doing wrong.

Niehoff assumes that he can break the opponent's structure by use of his own superior "body structure" - crashing the guy's punch into his chest through use of the bong sao (again, referring to the scenario covered in Phil's TWC clip)...

in other words, if the wing chun guy had only HIT THE GUY HARD ENOUGH and had done so WITH THE PROPER BODY STRUCTURE - then the bong sao and ensuing moves would have dominated the guy and beaten him easily.

THIS IS BULL5HIT.

Because as usual, it's a half-truth...which means the other half is a lie.

I can do this kind of thing often myself, and have done so (and so can you, reader) - if you're up against someone smaller or weaker than you. Or perhaps against someone the same size as you - or even a bigger guy who doesn't know how to fight.


No, you don't understand. You hit the opponent with your body structure. You don't have the body structure I'm talking about. So, you won't be able to do what I'm talking about.

The other thing is, while destroying our opponent's body structure on contact is an ideal, we don't always accomplish it (just like not every shoot results in a take down). That's why we follow it up by staying in contact, trying to control while striking.



Now referring back to my vids: how often do you think the Niehoff approach (THAT IS, THE NIEHOFF APPROACH OF TODAY - BECAUSE TOMORROW HE MIGHT BE 180 DEGREES AWAY FROM IT)....


Dude, I wrote an article http://www.w1ng.com/a-method-to-our-madness/ years ago on the WCK method.



how often could ANYONE do that against a much bigger and stronger opponent who does know how to fight. To reiterate once again: the guy in the vid with me stands 6'3" and weighs 210...

to my 5'10"/170.


How well you can do what I do depends on the quality of your training. In your case, you'd never be able to pull it off.



Niehoff shoud show us a vid of himself giving away 40 lbs. and 5 inches against a strong guy who knows how to fight - and doing what he says Phil Redmond should have done.


I do it every time I train. But sorry, Victor, no video! :)

[t_niehoff]

I know this may sound revolutionary but, perhaps WC can be BOTH attached and non-attached fighting, depending on how it is trained.
:rolleyes:

WCK has two aspects if you want to look at it that way -- "grappling" or control aspects and striking aspects. Sure you can just do striking and throw out the control. And maybe, just maybe, there is some tactical reason for that (like you stun the guy and just decide to throw the sink at him). But in doing so, you are eschewing a significant part of the WCK method. Particularly if you never really use those aspects.

The other issue is that the things that work well while attached, the tools, body structure, etc. aren't optimal for working while nonattached. The demands, problems, etc. in attached fighting are different than they are for detached fighting and NEED different tools, mechanics, structures, etc. Boxing and kickboxing structure, mechanics, etc. work great unattached but not as well when attached.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I did read up, HumbleGuy, and many of your comments were dead on. Was particularly impressed with this, btw:

"Other than his droning about sparring, you won't find consistency in his posts especially concerning the particulars concerning the precise practice of WC. If you want to find consistency, I recommend you look up Narcisstic personality disorder which will explain his attempts to seem superior, and look up commitment consistency...a phenomenon found in cults whereby people commit to things that they do not believe in. Check it out!"

***Oh yeah, Humble... you hit a home run with that one, alright.
................................

As for fighting a bigger, stronger man (and assuming he knows how to fight): in general what I try to do is work the "range" as you put it in an earlier post, by keeping it at a certain ("non-attached") distance in the beginnnig - because I want to see what he's about...

and start looking for ways to score punches and kicks that might either do damage on their own (because now, 5 years after those vids were made, I use a lot more boxing moves, punches, some longer range kicking and more aggession from the outside range)...

or to provide opportunities to bridge into closer range safely and go to work with wing chun hitting/checking, parrying...and yes...PRESSURE...

but as a crosstrainer...

it's here where my wing chun hat might come off again - since it could easily go to clinch or ground once you're in close, no matter who you are.

And in fact, I do agree with lots of mma thinking (and from streetfight experience) that quite often against a bigger opponent with skills - you want to take him down to the ground and go for some serious control over his "body structure"...with some combination of punches, palm strikes, elbows...maybe knees, and of course submission holds - and preferably from sort of top dominant pin down position.

As for the standup part of the fight against a bigger, stronger man: a few more things I'd like to mention: footwork, low kicks, and a good sense of non-attached distance are a must, yes...but the contact reflexes gained in chi sao and chi sao related drills help a great deal against superior size and strength...

and much of the TWC footwork also comes into play in this regard...since it entails quite a bit of work concerning evasion and not fighting force-against-force...

so as sanjuro and van have said in recent posts - it's about fighting long range and short range - and once in very close - there's no such thing as "always" going forward.

You get extremely aggressive only when the opportunity is there - or you've created the opportunity. Otherwise, and especially when you're the smaller man - you need to be cautious.

Ever see the Roberto Duran/Thomas Hearns fight?

Duran tried to fight the same exact close quarter, super aggressive brawling type fight he always did - but now up against someone with serious skills and with a tremendous reach advantage. Trouble.

I've always admired Duran - and will be very agressive also once I see/create the opportunity...but if this is all you've got in your standup - regardless of what style/system you do - forget it.

Sooner or later some big dude is going to mess you up.

[t_niehoff]

Doesn't that depend on where you are in relation to their hands/arms and where their hands/arms are in relation to their body?

I must admit I was a bit thrown by Terence's comment. I would have thought that attacks would be to the body and that any incidental bridge caused by limbs in the way must be capitalized upon, i.e. used to break the opponents structure and lead to more control, as he describes.

I suppose if you set up the situation so that these bridges occur more often than not then I guess you will be "making bridges".

Let me clear something up. Hitting an opponent's limbs (like a pak sao) is not chasing hands. Making contact with his arms is not chasing hands. Chi sao isn't chasing hands. We chase control. Control. Sometimes we can get control via the arms, sometimes not. When we play with the hands but without the objective of controlling the opponent, THEN we are chasing hands. Sticking just to stick is chasing hands. Sticking to control an opponent is chasing control.

If you step in and throw punches to his head/body, he can do that too. And boxers are much, much better at doing that. They have better tools for doing that. There's nothing wrong with it, but if that's what you want to do, then take up boxing.

But we in WCK have better tools for something else. That is getting in and controlling the opponent while striking. If his arms are in the way, we hit them to (1) stop them from being able to hit us (jeet), and (2) to break our opponent's structure. What does the kuit tell us? If there is no bridge, create one. How? By see form, hit form. So, our hand goes out (to hit) and stays out (to control). But I'm not restricted to only hitting his arms, I'll hit what gives me control.

This is all WCK 101.

[YungChun]

WCK has two aspects if you want to look at it that way -- "grappling" or control aspects and striking aspects.


IMO the real answer is that VT is both of these, not one or the other.. It all depends on the encounter..

VT, be it connected or not (what kind of contact) there is always contact, there is always a bridge, it's all dependent on what the opponent does.

Dead "beats" (moves that don't take something away) are liabilities no matter the version..

[YungChun]

Let me clear something up. Hitting an opponent's limbs (like a pak sao) is not chasing hands. Making contact with his arms is not chasing hands. Chi sao isn't chasing hands. We chase control. Control. Sometimes we can get control via the arms, sometimes not. When we play with the hands but without the objective of controlling the opponent, THEN we are chasing hands. Sticking just to stick is chasing hands. Sticking to control an opponent is chasing control.

If you step in and throw punches to his head/body, he can do that too. And boxers are much, much better at doing that. They have better tools for doing that. There's nothing wrong with it, but if that's what you want to do, then take up boxing.

But we in WCK have better tools for something else. That is getting in and controlling the opponent while striking. If his arms are in the way, we hit them to (1) stop them from being able to hit us (jeet), and (2) to break our opponent's structure. What does the kuit tell us? If there is no bridge, create one. How? By see form, hit form. So, our hand goes out (to hit) and stays out (to control). But I'm not restricted to only hitting his arms, I'll hit what gives me control.

This is all WCK 101.


Wow..

Okay 101...

So the premise as I read it is....

While we poor VT folks with limited striking capability (compared to boxers) can't afford to take chances, ala attacking the head... (because we could get hit while trying)

We VT folks must play it safer and target............wait for it...............an arm....! :eek:

Because by attacking an arm, (the fastest, most mobile, part of his body) we are safer...from getting hit..

The arm is the safe/correct target to strike....(with a pak)!!! Not the head nor the body...that's too dangerous...!

Wow!

And of course that's what "see form, hit form" means....

Here you go... Just attack his arm!!!! It's the "safer" thing to do!!! -- 101

(from the same guy who says outside entry with PakDa is low %)

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lovelesspose-550x366.jpg

Alrighty then...:D

[Frantic Planet]

Hello everyone,

I agree and disagree with Terence. I would consider my system of wing chun(jui wan) to be attached fighting. It's all about moving forward and destroying opponents structure as quickly as possible. I think thats where it works best. If your opponent is busy trying to catch his balance it's difficult for him to be hitting you, and if he does his power will be much less than normal. This has worked very well for me in a couple streetfight situations. Granted, they weren't trained fighters but they were big football player jock types. This whole stick and move and tit for tat type of sparring goes against the nature of what my system is all about.

Having said that, I think systems like TWC and HFY don't emphasize these structure destroying methods too much. They seem to me to be more concerened with mobility in footwork and keeping a little more distance. So the stick and move type sparring is more suitable for them. I could be wrong though. Obviously, there's different methods of training wing chun. Everyone is in their own reality bubble anyway. You all should really try to get along better and learn from each other... Lol... have a nice day!

[t_niehoff]

Wow..

Okay 101...

So the premise as I read it is....

While we poor VT folks with limited striking capability (compared to boxers) can't afford to take chances, ala attacking the head... (because we could get hit while trying)


Have you gone and trained with good boxers? No.

You see, boxing has many tools that WCK doesn't, not only strikes. If you don't understand that, then go spar with some good boxers and you will.

Our (WCK) method isn't to box, it isn't to fight from free-movement.



We VT folks must play it safer and target............wait for it...............an arm....! :eek:

Because by attacking an arm, (the fastest, most mobile, part of his body) we are safer...from getting hit..


No, it is to clinch or get attachment -- that's how we play it safe and avoid exchanging shots. Clinch. How do we set up a clinch? By striking him (as opposed to just reaching out to grab or something). Sometimes we hit the arm. Sometimes we don't.



The arm is the safe/correct target to strike....(with a pak)!!! Not the head nor the body...that's too dangerous...!


If you are shorter, for example, you need to step through his range to get into range to hit his body or head, but his arms (presumably they are in front of him) provide a closer target. Moreover, by hitting them, you stop them from being able to hit you. It's the same tactic as kicking his leg to stop him from being able to kick you. Some refer to the tactic as kuen siu kuen. Some learn the tactic with the turning punch or the pak da drill. And some, it seems, never figure it out.



Wow!

And of course that's what "see form, hit form" means....

Here you go... Just attack his arm!!!! It's the "safer" thing to do!!! -- 101


Yes, it is WCK 101.



(from the same guy who says outside entry with PakDa is low %)


No, I said that simultaneous blocking and striking (trying to pak da an opponent's punch, for instance) is very low %, but what I'm talking about isn't simul blocking and striking.

[duende]

Having said that, I think systems like TWC and HFY don't emphasize these structure destroying methods too much. They seem to me to be more concerened with mobility in footwork and keeping a little more distance. So the stick and move type sparring is more suitable for them. I could be wrong though. Obviously, there's different methods of training wing chun. Everyone is in their own reality bubble anyway. You all should really try to get along better and learn from each other... Lol... have a nice day!

Frantic,

I can't speak for TWC,

However in HFY our whole KIU SAU platform is designed towards destroying your opponents structure by way of contact control. Using our KIU SAU structural alignment and TIn YAN DEI body mechanics to create a strong bridge.

Yes we employ footwork that is mobile, and covers our lower gate at the same time.. But what you suggest is not only untrue, but completely ignorant of any HFY core methods whatsoever.

Read some of our posts here. We always destroy Sink/Destroy the bridge. This is our CHUM KIU. There many ways to do this, and describing them all here online is impossible. Your viewpoint here is waaaaay off target.

Do some research.

When the vast majority of the WC community was saying Chum Kiu meant only "seeking the bridge"... We were saying it meant "sink/destroy" the bridge.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Check out this Muay Thai training vid by ex-mma fighter Phil Baroni.

Amoungst other things, notice how he seeks to control range/distance - as well as including using neck tie's and knees at the simulated close range. This kind of training (and thinking)... imo, could bring a lot to the wing chun game - because with work, one can put centerline/central line principles into this as well...

along with simultaneous block and strike...good forward pressure...and yes...moves like pak, lop, garn, bong, lan, tan, bil, etc. can be put right into this at strategic moments...and strong use of wing chun body structure at the close ranges - including vertical, 45 degree angled, and horizontal wing chun type chain punching when the opportunity is there.

But from the longer ranges - check out Baroni's use of footwork, punches, push kicks off the lead leg, roundhouse kicks, and combos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftgl5wp05Ys

[YungChun]

No, it is to clinch or get attachment -- that's how we play it safe and avoid exchanging shots. Clinch. How do we set up a clinch? By striking him (as opposed to just reaching out to grab or something). Sometimes we hit the arm.


And what do you think he's going to be doing when you fire off your attack on his arm?

Depends.. I have advocated attacking the line when his arm is firing along the path.... That has a much better chance of gaining an attachment, again, IMO... But the target is still his body not his arm..

As far as actually attacking a guard arm, not my cup of tea...

[duende]

Most "guard" arms or wu sau structures you see in WC are a joke.

And even if it is strong, one should know how to crash it or neutralize it.

[YungChun]

Most "guard" arms or wu sau structures you see in WC are a joke.

And even if it is strong, one should know how to crash it or neutralize it.

I assume this was to me?

I (we) were discussing attacking his arm (non VT opponent)... If this means when the opponent is not attacking then I refer to his guarding arms.. Note picture above.. Those are the arms in question..

Otherwise not sure what you mean..

I am interested in breaking his structure on the lead.... And if some folks think that attacking a guarding arm is good, fine by me.. Keep the ideas coming...

And btw T I have sparred with a few boxers over the years.. Two of them I taught some VT to... One of the two sucks (IMO--he will no longer spar with me if I use that "grabbing $hit" lol) the others seemed pretty good..

[HumbleWCGuy]

I did read up, HumbleGuy, and many of your comments were dead on. Was particularly impressed with this, btw:

"Other than his droning about sparring, you won't find consistency in his posts especially concerning the particulars concerning the precise practice of WC. If you want to find consistency, I recommend you look up Narcisstic personality disorder which will explain his attempts to seem superior, and look up commitment consistency...a phenomenon found in cults whereby people commit to things that they do not believe in. Check it out!"

***Oh yeah, Humble... you hit a home run with that one, alright.

People think that I am kidding about Terrence suffering from a personality disorder but I am dead f-ing serious. There are a lot of people in martial arts who exaggerate their accomplishments and act as if they have a sense of entitlement. I believe that people with Narcissitic personality disorder are attracted to martial arts for some reason. I believe Dale is a sufferer as well.
http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/narcissism.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms

Besides commitment and consistency, Terrence is also searching for social proof. If he can convince others that his wing chun is good it must be. Only one problem, he is utterly clueless about Wing Chun fighting. Now if you want to spend time dissecting terminology and debating the finer points of the principles T. can provide you with some amusement in his cluelessness, but it really just isn't worth trying to discuss any particulars of fighting with him.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing20.html

[Ultimatewingchun]

Which is exactly why I put him on the IGNORE list. And if it weren't for other people quoting his posts and responding to them on threads that interest me - I'd have nothing to do with Terence or his arguments whatsoever at this point.

It's just not worth it.

And btw, I for one know you're not kidding. You're right on target.

[k gledhill]

People think that I am kidding about Terrence suffering from a personality disorder but I am dead f-ing serious. There are a lot of people in martial arts who exaggerate their accomplishments and act as if they have a sense of entitlement. I believe that people with Narcissitic personality disorder are attracted to martial arts for some reason. I believe Dale is a sufferer as well.
http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/narcissism.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms

Besides commitment and consistency, Terrence is also searching for social proof. If he can convince others that his wing chun is good it must be. Only one problem, he is utterly clueless about Wing Chun fighting. Now if you want to spend time dissecting terminology and debating the finer points of the principles T. can provide you with some amusement in his cluelessness, but it really just isn't worth trying to discuss any particulars of fighting with him.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing20.html


were right there with you....:D does WCK work in a straight jacket ?:D bet he has a 'faat' for that too. ;) rubber room would be a great place to spar all those " fighters who can really fight "...ok maybe just the nurs...er guards :D

Chief inspector Dreyfus in the pink panther comes to mind , twitch twitch, hehheh twitch ...:D

[YungChun]

were right there with you....:D does WCK work in a straight jacket ?:D bet he has a 'faat' for that too. ;) rubber room would be a great place to spar all those " fighters who can really fight "...ok maybe just the nurs...er guards :D

Chief inspector Dreyfus in the pink panther comes to mind , twitch twitch, hehheh twitch ...:D

The men in the white coats will cut him off and arrest him (jeet), "attach" the special jacket, and "join" the laces in the back so as to limit his ability to fight--all in one smooth motion... If he continues to resist they may then employ the "choking hand", (jut) to further subdue him, until they can lock him up (trap him) in his cell.. Should he try to escape and they see his form, they will of course hit form.. LOL

[k gledhill]

lmao...heheh twitch twitch "the faat" hehe twitch, you must fight ,twitch, fighters, twitch twitch ,who can really fight hehhee twitch :D:D:D:D

[anerlich]

People think that I am kidding about Terrence suffering from a personality disorder but I am dead f-ing serious. There are a lot of people in martial arts who exaggerate their accomplishments and act as if they have a sense of entitlement. I believe that people with Narcissitic personality disorder are attracted to martial arts for some reason.

I don't know.

A lot of kids are diagnosed with ADHD, where in a different time they would have been called "badly behaved little brats".

A lot of adults might be accused of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder, when in a different time they would have been called "obnoxious loudmouthed a$$holes".

To portray some people of victims of a disease is to provide their poor behaviour with undeserved legitimacy.

I don't regard Dale as deserving of such criticism. Your other target, well ...

[HumbleWCGuy]

To portray some people of victims of a disease is to provide their poor behaviour with undeserved legitimacy.


I only sought to provide explaination. There is no excuse for such behavior. For example, alcoholism might be a disease, but it is no excuse for getting drunk and running over a child. Low self-esteem (related to some biological disorder) might be the root of narcissism but it is no excuse for torturing others with delusions of grandeur.

[Ultimatewingchun]

If he's a "victim of disease"....it's because that's exactly how he wants it to be.

Andrew is quite right. Modern society is all too quick to try and rationalize 5hit behavior under the guise of "illness"...when in fact FREE WILL is in play.

Once your "problems" have been pointed out to you in unequivocal terms - and you refuse to do anything about effecting change in your behavior...

the onus is now on you.

It's called the selfishness of ignorance. Except once you've been made aware - you're no longer ignorant of your selfish behavior.

So there are no more excuses.

Doubly so when you've been made aware dozens of times, and by numerous sources.

So in other words, narcisisstic behavior disorder simply means you're a selfish, egotistical p r i c k. :D :) :p

[HumbleWCGuy]

So in other words, narcisisstic behavior disorder simply means you're a selfish, egotistical p r i c k. :D :) :p

The root of it is low self-esteem. The grandiose behavior, exagerations and so on are the defense mechanism to cope with it.

Dale isn't as bad as Terrence but he certainly exhibits a lot of the symptoms to a lesser severity.

[LSWCTN1]

I don't know.

A lot of kids are diagnosed with ADHD, where in a different time they would have been called "badly behaved little brats".

A lot of adults might be accused of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder, when in a different time they would have been called "obnoxious loudmouthed a$$holes".

To portray some people of victims of a disease is to provide their poor behaviour with undeserved legitimacy.

I don't regard Dale as deserving of such criticism. Your other target, well ...

Louis Theroux has just released an excellent tv docu-show abou this and the children in America...

[YungChun]

lmao...heheh twitch twitch "the faat" hehe twitch, you must fight ,twitch, fighters, twitch twitch ,who can really fight hehhee twitch :D:D:D:D

But, but you don't understand... (twitch) I'm fully functional...(twitch) Test me, go ahead (twitch) test my, structure...you'll see..(twitch)!

LMAO

[t_niehoff]

People think that I am kidding about Terrence suffering from a personality disorder but I am dead f-ing serious. There are a lot of people in martial arts who exaggerate their accomplishments and act as if they have a sense of entitlement.


Let's examine this.

I'm the ONLY one here on this forum who says I'm not that good. You don't say it. Victor doesn't say it. No one else has said that but me. Yet, I exaggerate my accomplishments! I admit that I train at good gyms and get beaten regularly. Do you do that? Does Victor? Hmmm. But I'm the one with an exaggerated sense of self. I see.

And I'm the one with a sense of entitlement? Yet, all you guys expect me to show you by posting videos how I make my WCK work. Hmmm. What precisely do I think that I'm "entitled" to?



I believe that people with Narcissitic personality disorder are attracted to martial arts for some reason. I believe Dale is a sufferer as well.
http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/narcissism.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms


Perhaps you should look in a mirror. And to the people who train in their little bubbles, who only spar with their students, etc. Persons with narcisstic personality disorders continually look for validation, want others to admire them, always want to look good, etc. Since I post here where I KNOW that I'm not going to get any of that since what I am saying is contrary to most here believe, since I train with good people who regularly beat me (and I admit it), etc. I hardly fit your diagnosis.

But it is interesting that your response to the people who disagree with you is to say that they are mentally ill.



Besides commitment and consistency, Terrence is also searching for social proof. If he can convince others that his wing chun is good it must be. Only one problem, he is utterly clueless about Wing Chun fighting. Now if you want to spend time dissecting terminology and debating the finer points of the principles T. can provide you with some amusement in his cluelessness, but it really just isn't worth trying to discuss any particulars of fighting with him.


All I offer is a different perspective than the "typical" one. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- as I have said before (it would help you to actually read my posts), I don't think anything can convince anyone EXCEPT by direct, personal experience. That's why I keep telling people to go see for themselves,and to not accept what they are told, to look for good evidence and use critical thinking. Yes, I know that is crazy talk to you.

I provide my perspective here since I wish that someone had told me these things 20 years ago and saved me lots of wasted time and effort. Not that it would have convinced me either, but it may have gotten me thinking, of examining things, etc. That is IMO a good start. And maybe, just maybe, some people, the serious ones, will actually seek out the direct, personal experience I'm talking about.

Yes, I know -- that's crazy talk. ;)

[m1k3]

Let's examine this.

I'm the ONLY one here on this forum who says I'm not that good. You don't say it. Victor doesn't say it. No one else has said that but me. Yet, I exaggerate my accomplishments! I admit that I train at good gyms and get beaten regularly. Do you do that? Does Victor? Hmmm. But I'm the one with an exaggerated sense of self. I see.



NOT TRUE!

I have never claimed to be anything more than a hobbyist, a mediocre submission grappler, a bjj white belt, with WC skills only at the SLT level and old.

I do admit that I train at a very good gym and yes I get beat on a regular basis also.

So T., you are not alone in your beliefs and your training methodology on this forum.

So post on brother, lead these people to light of hard sparring, cross training and a dose of reality! Amen! :D

[HumbleWCGuy]

NOT TRUE!

I have never claimed to be anything more than a hobbyist, a mediocre submission grappler, a bjj white belt, with WC skills only at the SLT level and old.

I do admit that I train at a very good gym and yes I get beat on a regular basis also.

So T., you are not alone in your beliefs and your training methodology on this forum.

So post on brother, lead these people to light of hard sparring, cross training and a dose of reality! Amen! :D

Do you use gasoline to put out fires?

[m1k3]

Do you use gasoline to put out fires?

Yeah, I LIKE fires.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Let's examine this.

I'm the ONLY one here on this forum who says I'm not that good. You don't say it. Victor doesn't say it. No one else has said that but me. Yet, I exaggerate my accomplishments! I admit that I train at good gyms and get beaten regularly. Do you do that? Does Victor? Hmmm. But I'm the one with an exaggerated sense of self. I see.

And I'm the one with a sense of entitlement? Yet, all you guys expect me to show you by posting videos how I make my WCK work. Hmmm. What precisely do I think that I'm "entitled" to?



Perhaps you should look in a mirror. And to the people who train in their little bubbles, who only spar with their students, etc. Persons with narcisstic personality disorders continually look for validation, want others to admire them, always want to look good, etc. Since I post here where I KNOW that I'm not going to get any of that since what I am saying is contrary to most here believe, since I train with good people who regularly beat me (and I admit it), etc. I hardly fit your diagnosis.

But it is interesting that your response to the people who disagree with you is to say that they are mentally ill.



All I offer is a different perspective than the "typical" one. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- as I have said before (it would help you to actually read my posts), I don't think anything can convince anyone EXCEPT by direct, personal experience. That's why I keep telling people to go see for themselves,and to not accept what they are told, to look for good evidence and use critical thinking. Yes, I know that is crazy talk to you.

I provide my perspective here since I wish that someone had told me these things 20 years ago and saved me lots of wasted time and effort. Not that it would have convinced me either, but it may have gotten me thinking, of examining things, etc. That is IMO a good start. And maybe, just maybe, some people, the serious ones, will actually seek out the direct, personal experience I'm talking about.

Yes, I know -- that's crazy talk. ;)
Your persistent fantasy that you possess special knowledge that we WCers can't get is proof positive of your mental illness.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And the "I, myself, am not really very good" routine is a cover story that goes like this:

"By saying the above numerous times, I can continue posting all kinds of bull5hit theories and bombastic junk about what good wing chun in particular and good fighting in general are all about, constantly criticize everybody else, and constantly challenge them to go visit somebody else if they want to find out about good fighting....Ah yes, it's a beautiful thing...I don't even have to ever post a single vid of myself; and in this way, aside from possibly being called out on the contradictions in my posts (which I'll just deny, evade, and subject change about like any fool lawyer can do)...

but besides that, I'll never have to risk getting exposed as a fraud or having my a55 kicked, because they've been warned that this would prove nothing, since I, myself, am not very good at any martial art. You gotta love it !!!"
.................................


***THIS IS THE WAY HE THINKS.

[t_niehoff]

And the "I, myself, am not really very good" routine is a cover story that goes like this:

+++++INSERT NONSENSE+++++

***THIS IS THE WAY HE THINKS.

If you are going to "quote" me, can you at least be accurate?

I said "I know that I am not that good." And I say that because I know it to be true since I train with some people (unlike you) who are very good. If you went to a good MMA gym -- not that you ever will -- you'd see just how poorly skilled you really are.

[m1k3]

Your persistent fantasy that you possess special knowledge that we WCers can't get is proof positive of your mental illness.

Actually this is not even close to true. He tells you over and over and over and over how to get this knowledge. Go to an MMA gym and spar with some good people. I mean how hard is that to understand. :confused:

[t_niehoff]

Your persistent fantasy that you possess special knowledge that we WCers can't get is proof positive of your mental illness.

I don't think I have any special knowledge -- it is available to anyone who puts in the work. Have you learned the WCK faat? Yes or no? Did you learn the kuen kuit? Yes or no? Those things are no different than learning the dummy form or the pole form. They are part of the curriculum of WCK. If you didn't learn them, then find someone who can teach them to you.

So when people point out where you are lacking in your WCK knowledge (curriculum), they are mentally ill? Yeah, that must be it -- anyone who would think YOU don't know must be crazy.;)

[m1k3]

And the "I, myself, am not really very good" routine is a cover story that goes like this:

"By saying the above numerous times, I can continue posting all kinds of bull5hit theories and bombastic junk about what good wing chun in particular and good fighting in general are all about, constantly criticize everybody else, and constantly challenge them to go visit somebody else if they want to find out about good fighting....Ah yes, it's a beautiful thing...I don't even have to ever post a single vid of myself; and in this way, aside from possibly being called out on the contradictions in my posts (which I'll just deny, evade, and subject change about like any fool lawyer can do)...

but besides that, I'll never have to risk getting exposed as a fraud or having my a55 kicked, because they've been warned that this would prove nothing, since I, myself, am not very good at any martial art. You gotta love it !!!"
.................................


***THIS IS THE WAY HE THINKS.

Sorry, but I have to disagree Victor. As someone who trains at an MMA gym where people compete and win in grappling and MMA events I know what he is talking about. When you roll and spar with people like this you get to know what good is, even if you aren't.

[Ultimatewingchun]

You may know what you're talking about, m1k1...I don't know, but for the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But this bombastic and arrogant guy, who's been posting here for many years - he gets no such consideration by this point in time.

Who really knows where he trains, for how long, with who, how often, etc.???

He has never given any kind of verifiable evidence of anything concerning his claims to have been doing all this "good" training.

But what should be obvious by now is that fact he can't make basically anything he's learned in wing chun (allegedly for 29 years)....work.

That's his problem.

But being the arrogant and insecure guy that he is - he thinks that the rest of us have to be in the same 5hit boat that he floats in.

We don't.

[t_niehoff]

You may know what you're talking about, m1k1...I don't know, but for the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But this bombastic and arrogant guy, who's been posting here for many years - he gets no such consideration by this point in time.

Who really knows where he trains, for how long, with who, how often, etc.???

He has never given any kind of verifiable evidence of anything concerning his claims to have been doing all this "good" training.

But what should be obvious by now is that fact he can't make basically anything he's learned in wing chun (allegedly for 29 years)....work.

That's his problem.

But being the arrogant and insecure guy that he is - he thinks that the rest of us have to be in the same 5hit boat that he floats in.

We don't.

Victor, stop worrying about me and what I can do. Worry instead about what you can do. Go to a good MMA gym and see for yourself.

Why won't you do that?

[YungChun]

It's not about anything other than:

"If any of you had the right experience you would all agree that *my way* (of VT) is the right way .." BS...

End of story...

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's not about anything other than:

"If any of you had the right experience you would all agree that *my way* (of VT) is the right way .." BS...

End of story...

As much as I agree with many thing that T says, I think that Jim has a valid point here.

[t_niehoff]

It's not about anything other than:

"If any of you had the right experience you would all agree that *my way* (of VT) is the right way .." BS...

End of story...

Not at all. WCK is like boxing or BJJ or wrestling or any other martial art, there isn't one right way. They are all individual arts, and it is up to the individual to learn how to make them work for themselves. There are many right ways, but there are many, many wrong ways too.

If you want to learn to fight on the ground, you NEED to go fight on the ground and with some good people BEFORE you start theorizing about how you would or should do things (or teaching others). Otherwise, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. It's the same with your WCK.

[YungChun]

Right so..

I am sure that Joe "MMA" who goes on Boxing boards and tells the boxers there that only Joe knows the real Boxing..because all of these Boxers that hang on that site aren't MMA champs like Joe..

Joe then proceeds to shut down every single boxing discussion with the same old you guys don't know WTF you are talking about because none of you are me, Joe MMA..

Sure cool, nice, "the faat"...Whooooohooo!

The CSL chatbot rolls on!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Only if you let it, Jim.

IGNORE is your friend.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually this is not even close to true. He tells you over and over and over and over how to get this knowledge. Go to an MMA gym and spar with some good people. I mean how hard is that to understand. :confused:

The problem is that with the exception of the crowd of people who believe in magical powers like chi and such the posters here are generally on board with the notion of sparring and attribute training. In fact, the people who are most annoyed by him are the people who, spar, fight/fought competatively (something that T. hasn't done), and understand the importance of grappling. However, the crux of every debate with Terrence degenerates into Terrence accusing WCers of not training properly.

A good example is a guy like Phil Redmond who is now nearing 70. Phil has fought in the ring and now runs his students to local fights. In addition, phil relies on the advice of some pro--boxers who also attend his class. Yet, Terrence persistently attacks Phil as a fantasy, non-fighter (poetic license here) WCer. Phil is annoyed with Terrence, like everyone else because of his personality, but Terrence in his disconnect from reality, uses the annoyance with his personality as evidence that suggest that only he and a few other enlightened minds have the ability to understand legitimate training.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Whoa, Humble....slowdown. Phil is 61. :cool: :D

Otherwise, good post !!! :p

[Wayfaring]

Whoa, Humble....slowdown. Phil is 61. :cool: :D

Slow down? Why should we? Phil doesn't seem to be.

[Pacman]

Sorry, but I have to disagree Victor. As someone who trains at an MMA gym where people compete and win in grappling and MMA events I know what he is talking about. When you roll and spar with people like this you get to know what good is, even if you aren't.

why are we assuming that the only way to train with good people is to go to an MMA gym? by the way, what is it that makes MMA so great? is it the art(s) itself? why not stop posting in this forum and train in MMA then?

[Pacman]

Not at all. WCK is like boxing or BJJ or wrestling or any other martial art, there isn't one right way. They are all individual arts, and it is up to the individual to learn how to make them work for themselves. There are many right ways, but there are many, many wrong ways too.

If you want to learn to fight on the ground, you NEED to go fight on the ground and with some good people BEFORE you start theorizing about how you would or should do things (or teaching others). Otherwise, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. It's the same with your WCK.

if you admittedly are not that good after 29 years of WC training, by your own advice (listen/train with good people) why then should we listen to any advice you have to offer?

back tothe point of this thread. hard to say if WC is or is not attached fighting. it has elements of both. the ultimate gameplan of WC though is to attach, to stick, to be able to control your opponent and get the upper hand by changing the fight from an open exchange and hit him safely

you ever hear some of the guys who are on UFC? sometimes they like to say how they just want to get in the ring and "bang", i.e. slug it out with each other toe to toe face to face. every time i attack you i expose myself. thats not what WC seeks to do.

[LSWCTN1]

ifback tothe point of this thread. hard to say if WC is or is not attached fighting. it has elements of both. the ultimate gameplan of WC though is to attach, to stick, to be able to control your opponent and get the upper hand by changing the fight from an open exchange and hit him safely


perfect...

this is what i have tried to explain in my last few posts on this thread. Pacman has summed it up in a paragraph. true economy in action ;)

[CFT]

Whaaat?!! :eek: Do my eyes deceive me?

Have 2 people in a row agreed with Terence's view that WCK is attached fighting? What is the world coming to?

[m1k3]

why are we assuming that the only way to train with good people is to go to an MMA gym? by the way, what is it that makes MMA so great? is it the art(s) itself? why not stop posting in this forum and train in MMA then?

Here, let me try again.

1. T. says he is not good because he goes to places where there are PROVEN good fighters, an MMA gym, and tests himself there. It is real easy to see where you stand on the training ladder when you spar against people who compete, especially professionally.
2. I agree because I train at such a place, I do go to an MMA gym to train.
3. What makes MMA so great is the compitition, not the arts that make it up. The competition is an excellent bullsh1t detector. If it doesn't work you will be quickly shown how and why it doesn't work.
4. I still post here because I have a soft spot in my heart for WC. I used to train it and still use some of what I learned in my training.
5. WC needs some sort of competition to keep it honest. Be it San Da or MMA or whatever. If you want to be a fighting art at some point you (the WC community) have to fight. Otherwise do your forms and drills and continue to larp happily along but don't complain that the WC people who are fighting aren't doing the REAL WC.

And finally
6. Yes T. has some sort of OCD when it comes to this and the harping gets old BUT that sill doesn't make his message any less valid.

Just my point of view.

[HumbleWCGuy]

WC needs some sort of competition to keep it honest. Be it San Da or MMA or whatever. If you want to be a fighting art at some point you (the WC community) have to fight. Otherwise do your forms and drills and continue to larp happily along but don't complain that the WC people who are fighting aren't doing the REAL WC.


I agree that WC needs a formal competition and I have mentioned that a WC rules Full-contact sport might greatly improve people's ability. Just because you trained at a larper WC school and get K.O. at your mma gym does not mean that it goes down like that for everybody. As I have said, if you went to some of schools like phil's, victors, or some of the "non-federation" WC schools talking this smack, you would be going out on your back. As I said, when I was coming through the ranks, karate champs, kickboxers, wrestlers, TKDist, and JKDers and boxers came into the kwoon proud and left humble. I am serious as a heart attack when I say that if people trained in the sloppy lazy manner that I see on youtube and various videos around the net they would have been kicked out of my instructor's school.

Terrence may not be any good but if he actually knew what he was talking about he wouldn't need to go to an mma gym to fight so-called kickboxers because he would have the ability to train his own fighters to challenge him.

There is fraud in all martial arts and intensive chi sao schools are fraudulent (sometimes unintentionally). TKD had the same problem years ago with a ridiculous number of fraudulent schools. They have all vanished as the stronger schools emerged. The same will happen with WC. If you ask me there is a lot of fraud being perpetrated in MT right now with guys being certified through seminars. If it were not for the athleticism and toughness of the people coming into those schools, that fraud would be more apparent to people with less trained eyes for that type of material. The fraud is most evident in the fighters who are trained from scratch in MT.


Also, you keep saying that you only made it to SLT. I am not sure what that means in your old school, but where I come from that is less than two or three years of experience which amounts to a white sash or beginner who has not demonstrated being able to perform all the techniques in a static environment and show few signs of credible fighting ability. What do you really know about WC? Remember that the WC curriculum is broader than the sport MT and boxing curriculum so it takes longer to teach.

[t_niehoff]

if you admittedly are not that good after 29 years of WC training, by your own advice (listen/train with good people) why then should we listen to any advice you have to offer?


Three points:

1) Do you people NOT read or just not read carefully? I never said that I was "no good", I said that "I'm not that good". There is a huge difference. I train with people who are really, really good. When you do that, it makes you humble about your own abilities (since you are getting your ass kicked regularly). And while I'm not "that good", I'm better that anyone who hasn't done the same level of quality work (sparring) -- which amounts to hundred is hours with all levels of fighters.

2) If you agree that you should not listen to people who are not "any good", then why listen to 99.9% of the people on this forum (what makes you think they are "any good")? Why listen to your sifu? Has he proved his skill sparring with good, proven people? Or does all it take is for someone to tell you they are good for you to believe them?

3) I am not asking anyone here to accept what I say as true. In fact, the point I make over and over is that we should not accept what anyone says as true, but rather put in the work to find out for yourself.



back tothe point of this thread. hard to say if WC is or is not attached fighting. it has elements of both. the ultimate gameplan of WC though is to attach, to stick, to be able to control your opponent and get the upper hand by changing the fight from an open exchange and hit him safely


Of course it has elements of both: we often need to start from the outside to get an attachment, and so WCK provides us with the tools to do that. Wrestling (grappling) -- which I think everyone would agree is attached fighting -- also often starts from noncontact and has skills to get in effectively.



you ever hear some of the guys who are on UFC? sometimes they like to say how they just want to get in the ring and "bang", i.e. slug it out with each other toe to toe face to face. every time i attack you i expose myself. thats not what WC seeks to do.

The WCK faat provides a strategy, guide, and organized way to approach fighting. It's what we are trying to do. The WCK tools are "designed" for doing that. When you try to use the tools for something other than what they were "designed" for, they don't work very well.

[m1k3]

Terrence may not be any good but if he actually knew what he was talking about he wouldn't need to go to an mma gym to fight so-called kickboxers because he would have the ability to train his own fighters to challenge him.


Here I disagree big time. Inbreeding only leads on a downward spiral. You need to compete outside of your school and outside of your art. If you want to keep it striking only that's fine but you can't remain isolated.



Also, you keep saying that you only made it to SLT. I am not sure what that means in your old school, but where I come from that is less than two or three years of experience which amounts to a white sash or beginner who has not demonstrated being able to perform all the techniques in a static environment and show few signs of credible fighting ability. What do you really know about WC? Remember that the WC curriculum is broader than the sport MT and boxing curriculum so it takes longer to teach.

I am a beginner, I agree with that. But after six months of training you aren't able to display basic fighting skills in a sparring environment then there is something wrong with your training.

If at the end of 2 years all you can do is work in a static environment with a few signs of credible fighting ability you should demand a refund.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Here I disagree big time. Inbreeding only leads on a downward spiral. You need to compete outside of your school and outside of your art. If you want to keep it striking only that's fine but you can't remain isolated.

But you just said to test youself that all you need to do is go to an mma gym. isn't that inbreeding if you just attend classes and never compete like terrence? Like yourself Perhaps?



I am a beginner, I agree with that. But after six months of training you aren't able to display basic fighting skills in a sparring environment then there is something wrong with your training.

If at the end of 2 years all you can do is work in a static environment with a few signs of credible fighting ability you should demand a refund.
It could happen faster but people usually don't commit enough effort.
Also, I leave the requirement at static techniques because I expect a lot. as a matter of developing body control for the basic kicks my students are expected to perform all kicks. Spinning and otherwise, it is a lot to ask to expect someone to hit a jump spinning kick in sparring consistently.

I probably have a much higher standard for credible fighting that what you think. Obviously, people can hit the basics in sparring or they aren't credible fighters right? It is a combination of sound fundamentals ad fighting sparring ability. The B.S. that I see coming out of these mma gyms does not cut the mustard. A good example, I watch jkd videos on the net a lot. I seriously would probably probably only give a lot of their instructors a green sash which is my second level ranking after white. Hands dropping, front heavy stances, misunderstandings about kicks, and generally sloppy.

[m1k3]

But you just said to test youself that all you need to do is go to an mma gym. isn't that inbreeding if you just attend classes and never compete like terrence? Like yourself Perhaps?


No, because the people I'm training with compete. That keeps what is being taught realistic. Not everyone in the school needs to compete but the school needs to compete.

BTW, MMA is a rule set not a style. Also I train no gi BJJ not MMA, but my school competes there as well as in MT and MMA. Hummm, notice the difference?

And last but not least, I never claimed to be a fighter, I am a hobbyist. I have said that from the beginning. Doesn't mean I don't roll with the big dogs though.



It could happen faster but people usually don't commit enough effort.
Also, I leave the requirement at static techniques because I expect a lot. as a matter of developing body control for the basic kicks my students are expected to perform all kicks. Spinning and otherwise, it is a lot to ask to expect someone to hit a jump spinning kick in sparring consistently.

I probably have a much higher standard for credible fighting that what you think. Obviously, people can hit the basics in sparring or they aren't credible fighters right? It is a combination of sound fundamentals ad fighting sparring ability. The B.S. that I see coming out of these mma gyms does not cut the mustard. A good example, I watch jkd videos on the net a lot. I seriously would probably probably only give a lot of their instructors a green sash which is my second level ranking after white. Hands dropping, front heavy stances, misunderstandings about kicks, and generally sloppy.

JKD not = MMA. There are a huge number of JKD kool aid drinkers out there also.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets keep things in perspective and simple.
Not everyone can train at a high level gym.
Doing hard contact and full contact is enough to keep most MA honest.
The issue isn't really quality of opponents, though of course that helps.
Fact is, unless one is training with the elite, then there is always someone better, the point is to get the best we can get at a given time.
The real problem is that, one ANY system just fights itself, the holes that it has, and all systems have them, tend to not show up as much as when they are tested VS other systems.
WC fighting WC develops skills to defeat WC and won't do much for the skills need to defeat BJJ, or MT or MMA or full contact water ballon fighting.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence may not be any good but if he actually knew what he was talking about he wouldn't need to go to an mma gym to fight so-called kickboxers because he would have the ability to train his own fighters to challenge him.


Your statement is idiotic.

I never said that I wasn't "any good" -- I said I'm not that good. Look -- I'm not that good at grappling on the ground either. I've been doing it for about 5 years. So, who is good? Purple belts are good. I haven't gotten there - yet. So while I'm not that good, and purple belts or above will beat me, anyone who hasn't put in the work to get to that level (purple) won't. And while purple belts are good, brown and BBs have awesome level skills. So, as I regularly get trounced by purples and above, I recognize that I'm not that good at grappling.

Do you have a purple belt or above? Then you aren't that good. Have you even trained on the ground for any length of time? Then you aren't any good.

And here's the thing you guys who won't visit a MMA gym don't understand -- you are only as good as the weakest part of your game. You can be a great, world-class boxer but if you don't have a ground game, you stink as a well-rounded fighter and you'd be regularly spanked at a MMA gym by low to intermediate level guys.

Why do I go to good MMA gyms? To become a better well-rounded fighter.

You only get better at fighting, whatever your style, BY fighting. And you are only as good as your sparring partners. So, I seek out and train (spar) with the best people I can, and with people who are BETTER than me.

While I do train with my WCK group, that alone won't make you a good, well-rounded fighter. For example, no matter how much you train WCK, you won't have any skill on the ground or in other areas. So if you care about developing a decent ground game as part of a well-rounded game, then you NEED, for example, to go train with people who are very good on the ground.

And, I don't want to train people and I don't want to teach. I don't like teaching or training others (I don't want to be a sifu). I have in the past taught and trained some in WCK to get training partners. But for me it's like root canal. I like playing the game itself (fighting).

[t_niehoff]

Lets keep things in perspective and simple.
Not everyone can train at a high level gym.


Almost anyone can -- if they want to.



Doing hard contact and full contact is enough to keep most MA honest.


You can roll, for instance, with people who aren't any good at grappling, and while that may keep you "honest" it won't make you any good.



The issue isn't really quality of opponents, though of course that helps.


No, it's CRITICAL. It is the MOST important thing. You are ONLY as good as your sparring partners. This is true of all athletics.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Almost anyone can -- if they want to.



You can roll, for instance, with people who aren't any good at grappling, and while that may keep you "honest" it won't make you any good.



No, it's CRITICAL. It is the MOST important thing. You are ONLY as good as your sparring partners. This is true of all athletics.

I disagree.
Not everyone has access to elite level fighters.
You only improve to the degree of your sparring partners, how good you are hos to do with your own limitations,physical and otherwise.
Any partner that pushes you to be better is a good partner.

[HumbleWCGuy]

No, because the people I'm training with compete. That keeps what is being taught realistic. Not everyone in the school needs to compete but the school needs to compete.

BTW, MMA is a rule set not a style. Also I train no gi BJJ not MMA, but my school competes there as well as in MT and MMA. Hummm, notice the difference?

And last but not least, I never claimed to be a fighter, I am a hobbyist. I have said that from the beginning. Doesn't mean I don't roll with the big dogs though.

BJJ isn't fighting, it is exactly that... Rolling. Unless you are learning the combatives you really need to not consider yourself a fighter even on the hobbyist level. Second, everything you are saying hinges upon the notion that WCers don't fight which is false. Second, if you don't fight yourself, then you are just being humored by the, "big dogs." You are not good or knowledgeable by association. Just let your statements stand on their own merit.



JKD not = MMA. There are a huge number of JKD kool aid drinkers out there also.
It doesn't need to be mma, it is an extensive body of training clips that represent low-levels of knowledge about striking. I can't ding a WCer for being a bad grappler. It is outside of the scope of the program.

[Wayfaring]

You only improve to the degree of your sparring partners, how good you are hos to do with your own limitations,physical and otherwise.


sanjuro - I think you have a spelling error in the above sentence. I can tell what you really intended to say is:

"how good you hos are has to do with your own limitations, physical and otherwise" :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

sanjuro - I think you have a spelling error in the above sentence. I can tell what you really intended to say is:

"how good you hos are has to do with your own limitations, physical and otherwise" :D

Yeah, I got "hos" on the brain it seems !
LOL !

[m1k3]

BJJ isn't fighting, it is exactly that... Rolling. Unless you are learning the combatives you really need to not consider yourself a fighter even on the hobbyist level. Second, everything you are saying hinges upon the notion that WCers don't fight which is false. Second, if you don't fight yourself, then you are just being humored by the, "big dogs." You are not good or knowledgeable by association. Just let your statements stand on their own merit.


It doesn't need to be mma, it is an extensive body of training clips that represent low-levels of knowledge about striking. I can't ding a WCer for being a bad grappler. It is outside of the scope of the program.

Let me try this again.

1. I am not a fighter, never said I was.

2. I am agreeing with T. when he says that if you want to be a fighter your need to fight. If you want to be a good fighter you need to fight good fighters.

3. I have never made any claims as to the validity of someone claiming to be a fighter, WC or otherwise.

4. Rolling with the big dogs does make me better by association. I get better by rolling with them because I learn how to defend when someone good is rolling with me. My goal is improve and I can see improvement when I roll SR students and can go longer before being crushed. I can also tell the difference when rolling with JR people and I see my control and positional game improving.

BTW, you were the one using JKD vids as an example of bad MMA.

[Ultimatewingchun]

...about Terence Niehoff posts, is that anybody with half a brain knows that the better the people you work/spar/roll with are - the better you get.

Does anyone dispute this?

Of course not.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Let me try this again.

1. I am not a fighter, never said I was.

2. I am agreeing with T. when he says that if you want to be a fighter your need to fight. If you want to be a good fighter you need to fight good fighters.

3. I have never made any claims as to the validity of someone claiming to be a fighter, WC or otherwise.
[QUOTE=m1k3;1009502]
4. Rolling with the big dogs does make me better by association. I get better by rolling with them because I learn how to defend when someone good is rolling with me. My goal is improve and I can see improvement when I roll SR students and can go longer before being crushed. I can also tell the difference when rolling with JR people and I see my control and positional game improving.

A friend of mine won the Arnold classic as a white belt and a blue belt. He was trained by another friend of mine who was a blue belt at the time which he earned while garage training in bjj. A white belt is just a white belt and a blue belt is just a blue belt because there is a uniform standard across bjj. You can get better faster but you aren't better than a white belt in a garage even if Saulo were training you .



BTW, you were the one using JKD vids as an example of bad MMA.
Stop whining because you are wrong.

[YungChun]

if you admittedly are not that good after 29 years of WC training, by your own advice (listen/train with good people) why then should we listen to any advice you have to offer?

back tothe point of this thread. hard to say if WC is or is not attached fighting. it has elements of both. the ultimate gameplan of WC though is to attach, to stick, to be able to control your opponent and get the upper hand by changing the fight from an open exchange and hit him safely

you ever hear some of the guys who are on UFC? sometimes they like to say how they just want to get in the ring and "bang", i.e. slug it out with each other toe to toe face to face. every time i attack you i expose myself. thats not what WC seeks to do.

He doesn't mean he sucks, he means he's not that good compared to the really good fighters he trains with.. He actually thinks he would demolish 99.9% of everyone else on this board..

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://files.sharenator.com/bad_ending_motivational_posters_yes_more-s750x600-26161-580.jpg

[YungChun]

http://files.sharenator.com/bad_ending_motivational_posters_yes_more-s750x600-26161-580.jpg

lol.......:D

[Knifefighter]

BJJ isn't fighting, it is exactly that... Rolling. Unless you are learning the combatives you really need to not consider yourself a fighter even on the hobbyist level. .
Grappling only BJJ is one component of fighting. BJJ guys who do only this for a while will have this part of fighting nailed down pretty well. Add striking in while standing and you have the second component. Add takedowns and you have the third component. Add striking while on the ground and you have the fourth component. Add weapons standing and you have the fifth component. Add weapons in clinch and you have the six components. Add weapons on the ground and you have the seventh component.

Most BJJ guys practice the first, third, and fourth components. In this respect, this makes them more well-rounded that people who only do standup striking.

[m1k3]

A friend of mine won the Arnold classic as a white belt and a blue belt. He was trained by another friend of mine who was a blue belt at the time which he earned while garage training in bjj. A white belt is just a white belt and a blue belt is just a blue belt because there is a uniform standard across bjj. You can get better faster but you aren't better than a white belt in a garage even if Saulo were training you .


Stop whining because you are wrong.

I train no-gi. That means no gi, no belt.

As for the white belt in a garage comment, was that supposed to be an insult? I have no clue what you are driving at with that. As for how good your friend is that's cool, he was obviously training with someone good and that was the point I was trying to make.

The only part of your posting on this forum that I doubt so far is that you have a friend. :D

[Knifefighter]

A friend of mine won the Arnold classic as a white belt and a blue belt. He was trained by another friend of mine who was a blue belt at the time which he earned while garage training in bjj. A white belt is just a white belt and a blue belt is just a blue belt because there is a uniform standard across bjj. You can get better faster but you aren't better than a white belt in a garage even if Saulo were training you .


Stop whining because you are wrong.
Actually, there is a huge discrepency among belts. A new blue belt will usually get killed by a seasoned 4 stripe blue belt.

Your gains are directly proportional to the level of guys you train with and spar against. The advantage to training at Saulo's vs. a garage is that Saulo will have many more talented guys that you will be training with.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I train no-gi. That means no gi, no belt.


The same principle applies.



As for the white belt in a garage comment, was that supposed to be an insult? I have no clue what you are driving at with that. As for how good your friend is that's cool, he was obviously training with someone good and that was the point I was trying to make.


The point is that you are not good by association. If you are ranked a white belt or a novice you are still a novice irrespective of who you train with. A novice garage trainer is just as bad as a novice at Saulo's gym. If you train at Saulo's you may learn more quickly but a novice is a novice is a novice.

[Knifefighter]

The same principle applies.



The point is that you are not good by association. If you are ranked a white belt or a novice you are still a novice irrespective of who you train with. A novice garage trainer is just as bad as a novice at Saulo's gym. If you train at Saulo's you may learn more quickly but a novice is a novice is a novice.

That statement makes no sense. A novice in the garage is going to still be a novice long after the guy at Saulo's is solidly moving up the ranks.

[Pacman]

i think we are on the same page then

competition is definitely the best bull**** detector. competition (capitalist markets) is what made this country what it is today.

having said that, just because you have not been able to make something work after 29 years does not mean that others cannot make it work. this is where his message becomes invalid, illogical, and irrational.

T is trying to comfort his 29 years of wasted effort with the notion that its not his fault and that no one else in the world would be able to make it work...its not just him. and if you think you have made it work, its because you didn't fight against good people.

of course he says all this with absolute certainty having never met you.



Here, let me try again.

1. T. says he is not good because he goes to places where there are PROVEN good fighters, an MMA gym, and tests himself there. It is real easy to see where you stand on the training ladder when you spar against people who compete, especially professionally.
2. I agree because I train at such a place, I do go to an MMA gym to train.
3. What makes MMA so great is the compitition, not the arts that make it up. The competition is an excellent bullsh1t detector. If it doesn't work you will be quickly shown how and why it doesn't work.
4. I still post here because I have a soft spot in my heart for WC. I used to train it and still use some of what I learned in my training.
5. WC needs some sort of competition to keep it honest. Be it San Da or MMA or whatever. If you want to be a fighting art at some point you (the WC community) have to fight. Otherwise do your forms and drills and continue to larp happily along but don't complain that the WC people who are fighting aren't doing the REAL WC.

And finally
6. Yes T. has some sort of OCD when it comes to this and the harping gets old BUT that sill doesn't make his message any less valid.

Just my point of view.

[shawchemical]

Much of what you hear on this forum is absurd!



Most of it posted under your username.

[Frost]

But you just said to test youself that all you need to do is go to an mma gym. isn't that inbreeding if you just attend classes and never compete like terrence? Like yourself Perhaps?.

probably already been said but its not inbreeding, if you attend a good gym a good number of the people there will compete...and fighters from others gyms will attend classes and come down for fight training before events. this means you are directly and indirectly being exposed to other gyms ways of training and fighters...competing and winning losing has a great effect on the gym and what is trained there by all the people attending, for example if the guys competing come back from an event and a few people lost to leg locks you will find you are now training leg lock defenses much more than in the past...this is evolution and how you become better

do you become a better fighter if you compete....of course you do i am a much better grappler than MMA guy because i have competed in grappling were as my striking competition days are long gone....but you still become alot better for having trained with good fighters than if you are just basement training with a few friends, you either raise your standards in a good gym or continue to get crushed..in a bad gym where you are top dog you will never get better...this is simply a fact of training



It could happen faster but people usually don't commit enough effort.
Also, I leave the requirement at static techniques because I expect a lot. as a matter of developing body control for the basic kicks my students are expected to perform all kicks. Spinning and otherwise, it is a lot to ask to expect someone to hit a jump spinning kick in sparring consistently.

I probably have a much higher standard for credible fighting that what you think. Obviously, people can hit the basics in sparring or they aren't credible fighters right? It is a combination of sound fundamentals ad fighting sparring ability. The B.S. that I see coming out of these mma gyms does not cut the mustard. A good example, I watch jkd videos on the net a lot. I seriously would probably probably only give a lot of their instructors a green sash which is my second level ranking after white. Hands dropping, front heavy stances, misunderstandings about kicks, and generally sloppy.

JKD is not MMA, jkd has a lot of the problems TCMA has: preocupation with learning new techniques and not sparring enough to make what they do know work...reliance on low percentage moves etc

[Frost]

I disagree.
Not everyone has access to elite level fighters.
You only improve to the degree of your sparring partners, how good you are hos to do with your own limitations,physical and otherwise.
Any partner that pushes you to be better is a good partner.

you don't have to train with elite guys...but you need to train with guys better than you otherwise its too easy to coast and not improve.

i have seen this myself: for a while i only trained at a gym that was mainly a kickboxing gym that also grappled but had no very good grapplers just people who were eager to roll but not compete. I was the best grappler their (including the coach) and i wrecked them in both grappling and MMA sparring, after months of training hard here i went back to my main gym (where everyone competes in one form or another) and got my ass kicked, they had all im proved and pushed each other on and i had stagnated, it was an important lesson for me to learn

[m1k3]

Frost, there isn't any need to argue with Humble. In another thread there was some "discussion" on why so many WC schools have mirrors on the wall while MMA gyms have pads on the walls. Like the true fighter he is Humble had this to say:


To me, the mirrors represent a difference in the level of precision that is expected between TMA striking and mma striking.

He also made some comments about a friend who was garage trained in BJJ and then went on to win a major tournament. I wonder if that was an oblique reference to his own training?

Nuff said.

[Frost]

Frost, there isn't any need to argue with Humble. In another thread there was some "discussion" on why so many WC schools have mirrors on the wall while MMA gyms have pads on the walls. Like the true fighter he is Humble had this to say:



He also made some comments about a friend who was garage trained in BJJ and then went on to win a major tournament. I wonder if that was an oblique reference to his own training?

Nuff said.

Yep I have had these arguments with him before...it’s a shame he can’t post any videos of TCMA superior striking in action oh well just guess it’s hard to show what doesn't exist:)

and i always smile at his screen name..It’s not very apt really is it

[HumbleWCGuy]

probably already been said but its not inbreeding, if you attend a good gym a good number of the people there will compete...and fighters from others gyms will attend classes and come down for fight training before events. this means you are directly and indirectly being exposed to other gyms ways of training and fighters...competing and winning losing has a great effect on the gym and what is trained there by all the people attending, for example if the guys competing come back from an event and a few people lost to leg locks you will find you are now training leg lock defenses much more than in the past...this is evolution and how you become better
I respect what you are saying. I was just trying to hold him to his own standard of what inbreeding his and pointing out that he is a victim of it by his standard. His assumption is that a school that identifies itself as a Wing Chun school conducts itself in a certain way. Anerlich's school is a good example, a school that identifies itself as WC but it is decidedly a fighting school. Phil's school fights; the school that I trained at was like that; and I continue to train people that way.




do you become a better fighter if you compete....of course you do i am a much better grappler than MMA guy because i have competed in grappling were as my striking competition days are long gone....but you still become alot better for having trained with good fighters than if you are just basement training with a few friends, you either raise your standards in a good gym or continue to get crushed..in a bad gym where you are top dog you will never get better...this is simply a fact of training

JKD is not MMA, jkd has a lot of the problems TCMA has: preocupation with learning new techniques and not sparring enough to make what they do know work...reliance on low percentage moves etc

I never asserted that JKD was mma. As I said, it is a style that has some similarities to WC that has a large body of videos on the internet. I was pointing out that a lot of their full instructors do not have credible striking skills similar to many mma schools. M-novice is just trying to take my statements out of context or intentionally misunderstand them to seem correct. He is taking a page out of T.s book.

I completely agree that TCMA has some problems, but I have to draw the line when people come to this board and make blanket statements about things that they don't know about.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Frost, there isn't any need to argue with Humble. In another thread there was some "discussion" on why so many WC schools have mirrors on the wall while MMA gyms have pads on the walls. Like the true fighter he is Humble had this to say:



He also made some comments about a friend who was garage trained in BJJ and then went on to win a major tournament. I wonder if that was an oblique reference to his own training?

Nuff said.

Nuff said, you are clueless! Thanks for letting us all know.

[m1k3]

Nuff said, you are clueless! Thanks for letting us all know.

I wasn't talking to you, now go play with your little friends while the grownups continue their discussion.
(pats him on the head and gives him a cookie before sending him on his way)

[anerlich]

I completely agree that TCMA has some problems, but I have to draw the line when people come to this board and make blanket statements about things that they don't know about.

I completely agree that MMA has some problems, but I have to draw the line when people come to this board and make blanket statements about things that they don't know about.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I completely agree that MMA has some problems, but I have to draw the line when people come to this board and make blanket statements about things that they don't know about.

Your problem is that you don't know about mma or wing chun and have no business trying to represent either.

[Knifefighter]

Your problem is that you don't know about mma or wing chun and have no business trying to represent either.

If any single person here knows of which he speaks it is he.

Your posts, however, point to the very high probability of you being the person who is clueless of both MMA and WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Your problem is that you don't know about mma or wing chun and have no business trying to represent either.

****HUMBLE...Andrew Nerlich has been doing wing chun for probably something like 25-27 years now (if not longer)...has been doing BJJ for probably something like 6 years by now...and some mma training in recent years as well.

He knows what he's talking about.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If any single person here knows of which he speaks it is he.

Your posts, however, point to the very high probability of you being the person who is clueless of both MMA and WC.

Really? Like when you make idiotic statements about Thai clinching, punching structure, and punching leverage? Please Dale please continue to regale us with your copious knowledge.

In looking at pictures of you in your younger days, without a bit of vitamin S, you would have never been even a 1/4 of the kick boxer that you have buffaloed people into believing that you are.

Dale in his roid days
http://fitech3000.tripod.com/bkpic.jpg

[HumbleWCGuy]

****HUMBLE...Andrew Nerlich has been doing wing chun for probably something like 25-27 years now (if not longer)...has been doing BJJ for probably something like 6 years by now...and some mma training in recent years as well.

He knows what he's talking about.

To be honest, I don't think that he considers himself a WC man these days. I think that he fancies himself a grappler because he gets to crying about anytime that someone gets down on the quality of mma striking.

If his change of heart was because he felt bewildered at a thai boxing class his first time then he should own up to it and accept the failure as his own shortcommings and not a failure of WC or his instructor.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Yep I have had these arguments with him before...it’s a shame he can’t post any videos of TCMA superior striking in action oh well just guess it’s hard to show what doesn't exist:)

and i always smile at his screen name..It’s not very apt really is it
It really just depends on where you trained. If you trained at a larper gym as M-novice calls them, you will have a lot of problems. If you train or have trained at a school that has a standard for fighting then you will have a different opinion. It's just that simple. Moreover, it is an obvious point that if a person spends all of their time training striking (properly) that they will be a much better striker than someone who does not.

[Ultimatewingchun]

To be honest, I don't think that he considers himself a WC man these days. I think that he fancies himself a grappler because he gets to crying about anytime that someone gets down on the quality of mma striking.

If his change of heart was because he felt bewildered at a thai boxing class his first time then he should own up to it and accept the failure as his own shortcommings and not a failure of WC or his instructor.

***WELL,this is where the rubber starts to hit the road for me, Humble. One of Andrew's wing chun instructor's, Rick Spain, was one of William Cheung's very best TWC students ever. (Andrew's first wing chun instructor also studied under William Cheung - starting from even before William started openly teaching the TWC version of wing chun).

I never met Rick, but I heard (and read) about him back in the 1980's-early 90's - including hearing William Cheung talk about Rick - who was one of two guys (Joe Moahenji being the other) who went to a full contact tournament way back in the day in Hong Kong with William Cheung and both won their divisions (Rick-middleweight...Joe-heavyweight).

And Rick also fought in MANY professional kickboxing matches as well.

You could say that he was one of the pioneers of wing chun people who got directly involved in full contact tournament fighting - and was someone who won the great majority of his matches (Andrew could give you more details about Rick's record and so forth).

And as time went along, by way of just one example, he started to stray from William Cheung's TWC by using a front stance instead of fighting out of the neutral side stance.

In recent years he's also gone very far in BJJ - and recently got a black belt in kyokushin karate.

So this guy has had a substantial wing chun background - and chose to both experiment and crosstrain - the more he faced serious contact competition.

I wonder why?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Ultimate,
I think that you might have missed my point. I am aware of Rick Spain.
I laid all the blame at Anerlich's feet. I said nothing about the quality of his instruction. It is the nature of people to blame others, even inanimate objects like a style, for their own shortcomings. I am sure that he had the opportunity for a strong WC experience I said as much before he started his crying in this thread. My problem is that he acts as if all he knows is WC being outclassed by other upright arts. I can only assume that this is his personal experience based on HIS shortcomings as I had stated.

If he took advantage of his training he may feel, out sized, "out-youthed", "out experienced," "out-physicaled," but if he felt out-classed in a match that should be considered even by objective measures, I have to lay that squarely on him.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Ultimate,
I think that you might have missed my point. I am aware of Rick Spain.
I laid all the blame at Anerlich's feet. I said nothing about the quality of his instruction. It is the nature of people to blame others, even inanimate objects like a style, for their own shortcomings. I am sure that he had the opportunity for a strong WC experience I said as much before he started his crying in this thread. My problem is that he acts as if all he knows is WC being outclassed by other upright arts. I can only assume that this is his personal experience based on HIS shortcomings as I had stated.

***WELL you've got to know Andrew a little better (never met him but we've been exchanging/reading each other's posts for about 8 years now) - and he has a very sharp wit about him, sometimes even bordering on the sarcastic (okay, at times downright sarcastic/LOL :D)...

but he's cool. And he knows his stuff.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: the more you experience using your wing chun in a serious sparring/fighting/tournament type situation - and ESPECIALLY when you're working against guys with real skills in other arts - the more you start to see EXACTLY what the limitations of wing chun really are...

as well as it's strengths.

And Andrew is one of those guys.

[Pacman]

****HUMBLE...Andrew Nerlich has been doing wing chun for probably something like 25-27 years now (if not longer)...has been doing BJJ for probably something like 6 years by now...and some mma training in recent years as well.

He knows what he's talking about.

not saying anything about andrew, i dont know who he is, but the amount of time you study something is irrelevant to your undertsanding of it. look at niehoff, 27 years

[Knifefighter]

Ultimate,
I think that you might have missed my point. I am aware of Rick Spain.
I laid all the blame at Anerlich's feet. I said nothing about the quality of his instruction. It is the nature of people to blame others, even inanimate objects like a style, for their own shortcomings. I am sure that he had the opportunity for a strong WC experience I said as much before he started his crying in this thread. My problem is that he acts as if all he knows is WC being outclassed by other upright arts. I can only assume that this is his personal experience based on HIS shortcomings as I had stated.


Considering the fact that he still trains with Rick, I'm betting Rick probably shares the same views as Anerlich.

But, hmmm, I wonder who people are going to find more credible. A guy like Anerlich who they know actually trains or some anonymous troll like you.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Considering the fact that he still trains with Rick, I'm betting Rick probably shares the same views as Anerlich.

But, hmmm, I wonder who people are going to find more credible. A guy like Anerlich who they know actually trains or some anonymous troll like you.

All that need be done it to read his posts or your posts to validate my points about each of you respectively. Whether either of you trained with Rick or God himself, a fool trained by either is still a fool. It isn't my credibility that discredits anyone, it is their own stupid comments.

[Knifefighter]

All that need be done it to read my posts to validate you points about me being a clueless troll. If I trained with God himself, a fool trained by either is still a fool. My credibility discredits myself, by my own stupid and clueless comments.

Fixed that for ya, fella.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Fixed that for ya, fella.

Tell us of the benefits of steroids in kickboxing again Dale.

[anerlich]

I laid all the blame at Anerlich's feet. I said nothing about the quality of his instruction. It is the nature of people to blame others, even inanimate objects like a style, for their own shortcomings. I am sure that he had the opportunity for a strong WC experience I said as much before he started his crying in this thread. My problem is that he acts as if all he knows is WC being outclassed by other upright arts. I can only assume that this is his personal experience based on HIS shortcomings as I had stated.

If he took advantage of his training he may feel, out sized, "out-youthed", "out experienced," "out-physicaled," but if he felt out-classed in a match that should be considered even by objective measures, I have to lay that squarely on him.


OK. The blame's squarely at my feet. I feel no different ... and the blame for what?

I give you 20 out of 10 for an imagination working overtime. I have no idea how you pull all these "conclusions" out of my posts.

LMAO.

My respect of MMA implies no disrespect of WC, which I continue to practise and teach. It's not an either/or situation.

Thanks to Vic and KF for backing me up.

For purposes of accuracy (something that seems irrelevant to HWCG, but anyway) I've been doing TWC for 21 years (after about 10 of other TCMA's), and BJJ for about 10.


Your posts, however, point to the very high probability of you being the person who is clueless of both MMA and WC.

Dude, I think that message is for yourself.


not saying anything about andrew, i dont know who he is, but the amount of time you study something is irrelevant to your undertsanding of it. look at niehoff, 27 years


This is sometimes true - though then again you can't get a deep understanding without a considerable period of immersion in the subject. And understanding one thing, say WC, doesn't mean you necessarily understand other things, like MMA or BJJ. I can point out a poster who illustrates the latter situation out to you if you haven't already connected the dots...

[m1k3]

Wow, this tread has gotten good. About the only person that Humble hasn't ****ed off or insulted is Hendrick. Oh well, give him a little time I'm sure he'll get to him.

Now back on topic about WC being attached fighting. After all the trolling I'm not sure if it was this tread or another one where people were using WC for as I called it "anti-grabbing". Being an old coot (56) I find myself playing a very defensive game for my sub-grappling. I am working allot on my hand/grip fighting and positional game rather than going for subs. I was wondering if any of you folk who cross train BJJ apply your WC skills in a similar manner?

Thx.

Mike t. (the novice :))

BTW, I have seen similar comments made over in Bullshido also.

[Frost]

I never asserted that JKD was mma. As I said, it is a style that has some similarities to WC that has a large body of videos on the internet. I was pointing out that a lot of their full instructors do not have credible striking skills similar to many mma schools. M-novice is just trying to take my statements out of context or intentionally misunderstand them to seem correct. He is taking a page out of T.s book.

I completely agree that TCMA has some problems, but I have to draw the line when people come to this board and make blanket statements about things that they don't know about.

Actually you will be hard pressed to find a competitive MMA gym that does not have a credible striking coach these days. In the past a lot of BJJ only gyms went into MMA and were successful, but the sport has evolved and those schools that still want to compete have had to evolve too, unlike TCMA schools that don’t compete or fight to stay competitive in MMA you have to evolve.

So how much knowledge do we have to have before we make statements about it? I have about 20 years TMA training 10 of those with a very well known master here in the UK, does that entitle me to make comments?

Whilst we are at it how much experience have you got in MMA t make so many comments about its lack of striking credibility etc or does your knowledge come from watching videos and clips on line and then passing judgement? (In which case you can’t moan if others do the same about TCMA

[m1k3]

Frost, I regret to inform you that you will be fined 5 points for using logic in a wing chun thread. :p

Oh, yeah, our school has MT instructors as well as BJJ instructors also. I'd be willing to bet that Humble has never set foot in an MMA school.

Humble, as for comparing me with T., Thank you!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wow, this tread has gotten good. About the only person that Humble hasn't ****ed off or insulted is Hendrick. Oh well, give him a little time I'm sure he'll get to him.

Now back on topic about WC being attached fighting. After all the trolling I'm not sure if it was this tread or another one where people were using WC for as I called it "anti-grabbing". Being an old coot (56) I find myself playing a very defensive game for my sub-grappling. I am working allot on my hand/grip fighting and positional game rather than going for subs. I was wondering if any of you folk who cross train BJJ apply your WC skills in a similar manner?

Thx.

Mike t. (the novice :))

BTW, I have seen similar comments made over in Bullshido also.

***YES. I've found that wing chun can really be useful when in the midst of hand/grip fighting and positional game when I wrestle (catch).

And btw, one of Josh Barnett's instructors (besides catch great Billy Robinson) was Erik Paulson - who also learned some catch and some wing chun...

and on Barnett's instructional: "ATTACKING THE GUARD" - he actually talks about and demos (Paulson was there - it was a Barnett seminar that was filmed - and Paulson talks a bit as well)...JOSH talks about and shows a little wing chun while on the ground.

Good stuff (the whole vid is).

[m1k3]

That's what I have found also. Since I train no-gi I sure our experiences overlap. I use a lot of bicep control the hand fighting is very similar to the 1st 3rd of sil lim tao although I'm sure that's not was what was intended for that part of the form.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Frost, I regret to inform you that you will be fined 5 points for using logic in a wing chun thread. :p

Oh, yeah, our school has MT instructors as well as BJJ instructors also. I'd be willing to bet that Humble has never set foot in an MMA school.

Humble, as for comparing me with T., Thank you!

As along as you are satisfied with being a clueless non-fighter.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Actually you will be hard pressed to find a competitive MMA gym that does not have a credible striking coach these days. In the past a lot of BJJ only gyms went into MMA and were successful, but the sport has evolved and those schools that still want to compete have had to evolve too, unlike TCMA schools that don’t compete or fight to stay competitive in MMA you have to evolve.

If you are talking about "UFC gyms" I would say that you would be mostly correct. When you take a step down from that... I am less impressed.




So how much knowledge do we have to have before we make statements about it? I have about 20 years TMA training 10 of those with a very well known master here in the UK, does that entitle me to make comments?

Whilst we are at it how much experience have you got in MMA t make so many comments about its lack of striking credibility etc or does your knowledge come from watching videos and clips on line and then passing judgement? (In which case you can’t moan if others do the same about TCMA
Your comments don't carry weight with me because of who you trained with or experience necessarily. Although I disagree with you a lot, you have made several statements that about training that make believe that actually know what you are doing. I can say the same for UltimateWingChun. If you want to believe that I just make stuff up than go ahead. You will do what you do. I will do what I do, and M-novice, T, and Dale will continue having delusions of grandeur.

[anerlich]

You need to desist with that "clueless" ad hominem stuff, man. That's Andy Schlafly of Conservapedia's standard tactic when confronted with an argument he can't refute, something that happens all the time. It doesn't do much for his rep either.

[m1k3]

You will do what you do. I will do what I do, and M-novice, T, and Dale will continue having delusions of grandeur.

LOL, I say I am a mediocre sub-grappler and a BJJ white belt and you accuse me of delusions of grandeur!:rolleyes:

gran·deur
   /ˈgrændʒər, -dʒʊər/ Show Spelled[gran-jer, -joor] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality or state of being impressive or awesome: the grandeur of the Rocky Mountains.
2.
the quality or state of being lofty or elevated in conception or treatment: the grandeur of a prose style.
3.
the quality or state of being exalted in some deliberate way: the grandeur of a royal court.
4.
an instance of something that is grand: the grandeurs of Rembrandt's paintings.


me·di·o·cre
   /ˌmidiˈoʊkər/ Show Spelled[mee-dee-oh-ker] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.

I hope your martial skills are better than your English skills. :p

[Frost]

[QUOTE=m1k3;1010273]LOL, I say I am a mediocre sub-grappler and a BJJ white belt and you accuse me of delusions of grandeur!:rolleyes:

don't put yourself down being a sub wrestler and a bjj white belt puts you streets ahead of most of the guys on here in terms of grappling experience and training against a resisting partner

although i would like to know how much experience is enough for this guy, he is on andrews case as much as yours, and hes a bjj purple and very advanced wing chun guy, hell knifes a blackbelt and MMA fighter and that apparently is still not enough expereince to be able to argue with him....that does make you wonder just how humble he really is....................

[m1k3]

Hey Frost, I'm not putting myself down, just being realistic. I realize that my humble skills on the mats still makes me a better grappler than about 80% of the people including a lot who post here.

Did you notice how Sifu Humble is now trying to make nice with you and Victor? I guess he is starting to feel isolated.

I hope you start agreeing with him soon or else you too will be joining the clueless club.:)

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think that there has been a big shift in recent years within the mma world, and you see various mma-favored arts being trained together quite often now.

Just last week I visited a very interesting place here in NYC's chinatown called Five Points Academy - as I want to move my school back to lower Manhattan and found out that they have a room they want to rent out (turned out the room was too small).

The place was pretty big, with a gym area with weights and machines, a Muay Thai training area (for classes and privates) that included a ring...and nearby a very big mat area where BJJ classes are taught.

[anerlich]

don't put yourself down being a sub wrestler and a bjj white belt

Hell no, I heard somewhere that one of those BJJ white belt dudes trained in a garage and won the Arnold classic.

[Frost]

Hell no, I heard somewhere that one of those BJJ white belt dudes trained in a garage and won the Arnold classic.

smart ar&e no wonder he has a problem with the australian wit:)

[Frost]

Hey Frost, I'm not putting myself down, just being realistic. I realize that my humble skills on the mats still makes me a better grappler than about 80% of the people including a lot who post here.

Did you notice how Sifu Humble is now trying to make nice with you and Victor? I guess he is starting to feel isolated.

I hope you start agreeing with him soon or else you too will be joining the clueless club.:)

i actually already thought i was in the club, we argued about strking in mma and training methods a while back and he said i was clueless because coming from the UK i had not seen true TCMA or good MMA...he actually stopped replying to my posts becuase i was so clueless...

[HumbleWCGuy]

Hey Frost, I'm not putting myself down, just being realistic. I realize that my humble skills on the mats still makes me a better grappler than about 80% of the people including a lot who post here.

Did you notice how Sifu Humble is now trying to make nice with you and Victor? I guess he is starting to feel isolated.

I hope you start agreeing with him soon or else you too will be joining the clueless club.:)

You could be a grappling legend, but with your current level of upright fighting knowledge and WC, your comments would be just as meaningless as they are now because you tend to be the most vocal about things that you know the least about. If you would measure your responses better, you could be a much better contributor to this board.

[t_niehoff]

You could be a grappling legend, but with your current level of upright fighting knowledge and WC, your comments would be just as meaningless as they are now because you tend to be the most vocal about things that you know the least about. If you would measure your responses better, you could be a much better contributor to this board.

Tell us who you learned WCK from.

[m1k3]

You could be a grappling legend, but with your current level of upright fighting knowledge and WC, your comments would be just as meaningless as they are now because you tend to be the most vocal about things that you know the least about. If you would measure your responses better, you could be a much better contributor to this board.

:confused::confused::confused:

Show me one post I have made critiquing WC striking? I have made a few comments about boxing because I did some boxing in the past and comparing boxing strikes to WC strikes. I never criticize anyone's striking skills other than to say sparring should be part of your training. My skills in WC are limited to Sil Lim Tao, which I still practice btw because I enjoy it. My standup game isn't bad either, it just doesn't involve striking. Lots of clinch work, throws and takedowns.

Another example of your failure at reading skillz. As is said in Bullshido: "Read more, Post less".

[m1k3]

T. I know you weren't speaking to me but I learned WC from Sifu Brian Meyer (?) TWC (something like that. If you look up TWC and Iron Palm he is the one breaking a coconut in a vid), and from Sifu Bryant Feld of Moy Yat linage. I did less than a year total. Enjoyed it but both schools ended up closing. I went from there to Bjj where I have been training the last 3 years. Not bad for an old coot of 56. :)

[goju]

speaking of bullshido this forum is starting to remind me a bit too much of it with all the constant bickering going on

and the very reason i stood on this forum was because it didnt used to have as much of this going on as the other ma forums did

[kung fu fighter]

WCK is attached fighting BECAUSE historically that is what it is. And you can see that as:

The faat (the method) tells us so. The faat is, either implicitly or explicitly, found across WCK lineages. Rene writes about it in his book on YKS WCK. It is in Gu Lao. It is in YM WCK. In a nutshell, WCK's approach is to control while striking -- and most of the time you can't control without some sort of attachment.

The kuen kuit tells us so. Almost all of the the kuit only make sense when viewed from a contact/attached perspective, from the famous Lai Lou Hui Soong, Lut Sao Jik Chung to the illustrative Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma. There is even the explicit Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu.

Who talks about "bridging the gap" or "entering" but grapplers? Boxers and kickboxers don't. What are you "bridging" to? What are you trying to "enter"? You're trying to enter into a contact/attached situation (not striking range). Why "forward pressure" if there is no contact (how can you press on something if you aren't in contact)? Fook sao (controlling hand), bik ma (pressing step), etc. We have an entire form, chum kiu (SEEK THE BRIDGE or USE THE BRIDGE TO DESTROY HIS STRUCTURE - depending on your lineage, though both are correct), that explicitly refers to having a bridge. WCK does NOT use terms like block or parry or redirect -- it talks about bridge hands. Tan, bong, fook, gaun, etc. are bridge hands. The YJKYM, or parallel stance, which is the most fundamental horse in WCK -- do you see parallel stances in boxing or kickboxing? No. Do you see it in grappling? Yes. I could go on and on.

The WCK drills tell us so. The WCK exercises are, for the most part, contact/attached drills/exercises. Chi sao is the WCK signature drill/exercise. Attached. Lop sao or rollling bong is another signature drill/exercise. Attached. Why do mainly attached drills to fight unattached? Does that make any sense? Boxers and kickboxers don't even do attached drills, let alone have attached drills as their signature drill yet develop the highest levels of noncontact fighting skills, beyond anything any WCK person has. What are you practicing when you do chi sao? Using your WCK tools while attached (in contact) to try and control your opponent while you strike him.

Anyone who spends any decent amount of time fighting on the inside (remember WSL's tape, 'The Science of In-Fighting'?) will find that they NEED to control their opponent -- after all you are in range and without controlling him he is free to move. That means, you have very little time to react and he can do just about anything. By controlling him, you significantly restrict what things he can do and you slow him down.

T, You have a valid point, but but fights don't start attached like in chi sao, how do you propose to get this attachment with an opponent who uses the feeler jab by using his footwork to stay just outside your reach, trying to provoke you into commiting foward with your counter attack in order to throw your timing and distancing off?

[Dragonzbane76]

way to wake up the dead...:cool:

[t_niehoff]

T, You have a valid point, but but fights don't start attached like in chi sao, how do you propose to get this attachment with an opponent who uses the feeler jab by using his footwork to stay just outside your reach, trying to provoke you into commiting foward with your counter attack in order to throw your timing and distancing off?

WCK method provides the tools to "get inside" the phone booth and then fight from there -- how well you can do that depends on how good your training is. The bottom line is that if you aren't already doing it (in your training), you won't be able to do it.

[Hendrik]

T, You have a valid point, but but fights don't start attached like in chi sao, how do you propose to get this attachment with an opponent who uses the feeler jab by using his footwork to stay just outside your reach, trying to provoke you into commiting foward with your counter attack in order to throw your timing and distancing off?

IMHHHHHHHHHHHHo,

Isnt it attached means " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ".
one can be very close range with body contact one can be far way without body contact. but one always let him passed and using him to seal himself off.

That is the WCK way. and WCner suppose to be good in this because WCner keeping drilling this with Chi Sao, Chi Gek, Chi Po (step) it is just the WCK way of Door opening. Chi doesnt mean stick. Chi in modern language means Control. and the WCK way of control is " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". isnt that Lay Lau Hoi Song Lat Sau Jek Choong?


In addition, Kiu as in the Kiu Sau, the Bridge is just the contact point. Most southern TCMA has a fix Kiu Sau or Bridge or contact point handling method. WCK prefer Adaptive control of the contact point based on purpose instead of shape. Thus, a Tan Sau, when the bridge is touch, It could be having a different purpose based on the situation and condition of the manupulate of the force vector to implement " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off " , it is not a Tan Kiu as in other southern art where one needs to always cross the bridge and attack. WCK doesnt need to attack directly, in fact wCK prefer to not attack directly but using your own attack to control your center line before WCner go and finished the job. Thus , that is what i mean, WCK doesnt attact the center line directly but indirectly.

So, the number one job of a WCner is to master all different variation of " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". that simple, just one goal. and ofcorse, the rest the power generation.....structures... the center line....... is to support the WCK way but not the WCK way.

So, different art play they way they are good at WCner play the way they are good at. and if we WCner doesnt master this WCK way. what are we doing?

Figthing needs a strategy which one is good at. and if one is not clear with this strategy and having all the tool needs and the drill needs what is one doing? so are you invincible if you have these all? no ofcause not. your opponent might be Oyama or Mohamad Ali or someone who doesnt know how to punch.

[t_niehoff]

IMHHHHHHHHHHHHo,

Isnt it attached means " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ".
one can be very close range with body contact one can be far way without body contact. but one always let him passed and using him to seal himself off.

That is the WCK way.


That is ONE of the tactics WCK uses. It is not the exclusive tactic (it doesn't work in every situation) for "entering".



and WCner suppose to be good in this because WCner keeping drilling this with Chi Sao, Chi Gek, Chi Po (step) it is just the WCK way of Door opening. Chi doesnt mean stick. Chi in modern language means Control. and the WCK way of control is " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". isnt that Lay Lau Hoi Song Lat Sau Jek Choong?


That is ONE way to lai lao hoi soong.



In addition, Kiu as in the Kiu Sau, the Bridge is just the contact point. Most southern TCMA has a fix Kiu Sau or Bridge or contact point handling method. WCK prefer Adaptive control of the contact point based on purpose instead of shape. Thus, a Tan Sau, when the bridge is touch, It could be having a different purpose based on the situation and condition of the manupulate of the force vector to implement " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off " , it is not a Tan Kiu as in other southern art where one needs to always cross the bridge and attack. WCK doesnt need to attack directly, in fact wCK prefer to not attack directly but using your own attack to control your center line before WCner go and finished the job. Thus , that is what i mean, WCK doesnt attact the center line directly but indirectly.


No, it depends on your what your opponent is doing.

And, I think that you really shouldn't speak as to what other TCMAs do or don't do -- my experience is that when people do that they generally speak from ignorance.



So, the number one job of a WCner is to master all different variation of " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". that simple, just one goal. and ofcorse, the rest the power generation.....structures... the center line....... is to support the WCK way but not the WCK way.


No, no, no, no, no. That tactic has limited usefulness in fighting.



So, different art play they way they are good at WCner play the way they are good at. and if we WCner doesnt master this WCK way. what are we doing?

Figthing needs a strategy which one is good at. and if one is not clear with this strategy and having all the tool needs and the drill needs what is one doing? so are you invincible if you have these all? no ofcause not. your opponent might be Oyama or Mohamad Ali or someone who doesnt know how to punch.

Your argument would carry more weight if YOU got in the ring with boxers, MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. and tried it. WCK gives us a general strategic battle plan or method and the tools (movement/actions and tactics) for carrying out that plan. In terms of "entering" to the inside, the "let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off" is just ONE of many tactics. If you get in there and try it, you'll see that I am telling you the truth. No one tactic works in all situations. Most tactics have limited usefulness, and the "key" -- you seem so fond of keys -- is learning through fighting which ones work for you and in what circumstances.

[Hendrik]

One always need to start clearly with what is WCK way even in the most simplist form.

So what is WCK in the most simplist form? it is always easy to say WCK is not this not that, this is one of the way, that is not correct....etc. But what is it? one doesnt carry ten things into a battle field. It is not a mind speculation game.

From Gary Lam to Senior Fung of Koo Lo, different ways of applying/implementing/realization of this strategy are used. isnt it tell something?

Dont tell me Gary Lam never fight MT...etc.

Again, my interest is not to argue with you but look at what is reality instead of spinning within the head.

So, instead of argue with me.
if there is only one strategy is WCK way then what is yours?


That is ONE of the tactics WCK uses. It is not the exclusive tactic (it doesn't work in every situation) for "entering".




No, no, no, no, no. That tactic has limited usefulness in fighting.



Your argument would carry more weight if YOU got in the ring with boxers, MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. and tried it. WCK gives us a general strategic battle plan or method and the tools (movement/actions and tactics) for carrying out that plan. In terms of "entering" to the inside, the "let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off" is just ONE of many tactics. If you get in there and try it, you'll see that I am telling you the truth. No one tactic works in all situations. Most tactics have limited usefulness, and the "key" -- you seem so fond of keys -- is learning through fighting which ones work for you and in what circumstances.

[Wayfaring]

From Gary Lam to Senior Fung of Koo Lo, different ways of applying/implementing/realization of this strategy are used. isnt it tell something?

Dont tell me Gary Lam never fight MT...etc.

The problem is if Gary Lam or Senior Fung got on this forum tomorrow or if someone called them and asked this, neither one of them would say that this is true:

"So, the number one job of a WCner is to master all different variation of " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". that simple, just one goal. and ofcorse, the rest the power generation.....structures... the center line....... is to support the WCK way but not the WCK way."

A more genuine way to ask this question is to call each of them and ask like a reporter "What do you feel the number one job of a WC practitioner is?"

If they both answer exactly the above, then I will agree that you have the universal observation on commonalities in WCK.

If not, then it's just one more guy trying to attach his name to someone famous to give validity to his flawed arguments.

[Wayfaring]

Again, my interest is not to argue with you but look at what is reality instead of spinning within the head.


You can't look at "what is reality" by removing it from a martial or fighting context. The moment you do that it becomes no longer reality.

[Hendrik]

instead of start with "if" ( why not review the Gary and Fung's youtube and learn what they are saying before starts with that "if")

why dont you share what is WCK way according to you ? What is the strategy, the power generation, the conditioning, the implementation....etc?





The problem is if Gary Lam or Senior Fung got on this forum tomorrow or if someone called them and asked this, neither one of them would say that this is true:

[Hendrik]

You can't look at "what is reality" by removing it from a martial or fighting context. The moment you do that it becomes no longer reality.


I share my view and encourage others to share theirs. Why dont you share your?

[kung fu fighter]

Appreciate the response guys!



WCK method provides the tools to "get inside" the phone booth and then fight from there.

T, in your opinion what are the WCK tools to "get inside" the phone booth?


the WCK way of control is " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". isnt that Lay Lau Hoi Song Lat Sau Jek Choong? So, the number one job of a WCner is to master all different variation of " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ".

I find " let his attack passed and using his strike to seal himself off/ Lay Lau Hoi Song Lat Sau Jek Choong" only works against a commited attack.

It does not address how to close in against an opponent who uses non committed feeler jabs with mobile footwork to stay just out of the wing chunner's reach to throw a chunner's timing and distancing off.



Again how do you guys propose to get this attachment (getting inside the phone booth) with an opponent who sticks and moves, and does not committ foolishly, but instead uses non committed movements to draw out your counter attack, thus catching you off timing and range/distance?

[sihing]

T, in your opinion what are the WCK tools to "get inside" the phone booth?





Thanks for the reply Hendrik,

I find " let his attack passed and using his strike to seal himself off/ Lay Lau Hoi Song Lat Sau Jek Choong" only works against a commited attack.

It does not address how to close in against an opponent who uses non committed feeler jabs with mobile footwork to stay just out of the wing chunner's reach to throw a chunner's timing and distancing off.


In my perspective, WC is mostly about when attachment is made while in a closer range, that is when it the structure, sitting, and stuff is needed. This is great when in self defence situations there is an unexpected attack upon you, in this situation that guy is not interested in "feeling you out", rather he just wants to take your head off. In comps and situations where there isn't that sort of intention, the guy is a bit smarter and knows how to keep distance, things change. To defeat a "WChunner" is easy, just stay on the outside and strike from there and then you have him, but for me its six and half of one, half dozen of the other, as it is hard for most to strike powerfully and land it from the outside, unless of course your a step above most and are a serious fighter/boxer and you have those well developed skills.

So to answer your question, to defeat that sort of thing, you need to work at in the gym, it requires your ability to perceive his actions, to time it and then work the entry, do this over and over again and you will develop a good entry against the outside fighter (technique wise you may use a low line kick to set up the hands, or angles of entry, so many factors at play here..). It is also expected that you may take one or two on the way in, hopefully you can deflect most of the force away from you so your not KO'd on the way in, that is the chances you take when you fight, as nothing is guaranteed and no one can teach 100% success.

James

[Wayfaring]

instead of start with "if" ( why not review the Gary and Fung's youtube and learn what they are saying before starts with that "if")

Instead of starting with "why not?" and lecturing others in what to review before disagreeing with you, why don't you stop making claims about Gary Lam and Fung without contacting them to ask if you can speak for them?


why dont you share what is WCK way according to you ? What is the strategy, the power generation, the conditioning, the implementation....etc?
When I do share what WCK is, why don't you listen? Why do you keep insisting this is not going on, when it is? When I share my view that you cannot remove WCK from a fighting context without losing site of it, why is your next post saying 'why don't you share your views'?

Are you unable to read and comprehend what is going on around you?

[Hendrik]

It does not address how to close in against an opponent who uses non committed feeler jabs with mobile footwork to stay just out of the wing chunner's reach to throw a chunner's timing and distancing off.

[/B]


isnt his mobile footwork a seal for himself?

[horserider]

Lol when post publish I see Mr. Henrick give answer. So no sense in my post .

[Hendrik]

Instead of starting with "why not?" and lecturing others in what to review before disagreeing with you, why don't you stop making claims about Gary Lam and Fung without contacting them to ask if you can speak for them?

When I do share what WCK is, why don't you listen? Why do you keep insisting this is not going on, when it is? When I share my view that you cannot remove WCK from a fighting context without losing site of it, why is your next post saying 'why don't you share your views'?

Are you unable to read and comprehend what is going on around you?



Perhaps I dont see your points, perhaps you dont see my points, and there is no big deal at all.


Why do you care for my approval when you share your reality?
Why do you care if others agree with you if you know what you share is a reality?

So, it is the discussion of WCK or the discussion of needing others approval, agreement....?

[horserider]

James, nice but not really as for distance. If you can hit me I can hit you. If you can kick me I can kick you. So staying away and jabbing for example is not how to defeat wing chun. Unless of course you are 7 feet then I suppose you can hit me and I cant hit you if we neither move.

otherwise yes all skills must be practiced to learn how to perform them. More real the practice greater chance of good performance under real pressure.

[Wayfaring]

T, in your opinion what are the WCK tools to "get inside" the phone booth?


Geez, you guys. There's at least one tool that just about every single person who trains in MMA or at least who trains for cage events knows instinctively about how to "get inside" the phone booth.

It's called the cage. A backstop. Your opponent running up against something.

Someone can dance around your range extremities all day long, move and stick, head movment, etc. just outside your effective range. WCK doesn't play there. It doesn't do MT leg kicks which is that range, or other long range kicks, or extended punches, etc.

Many WCK families will say just don't react to feints, and only a threat that crosses your bridge has any reality to it. Let them dance and wear themselves out.

However, the other reality is that with centerline forward pressure, you can pressure your opponent out of space if you have a backstop. That's where MMA fighters go to a clinch game, and very few strike from there or do combined clinch / strike. Right there, or just outside right there is the 'phone booth' range.

If any of you actually trained in places that had either cages, pads on the wall, or something you can back someone up against to train on you would know that.

But no, every single @#$#@!$% place you see training WCK instead of something practical like that you see mirrors on walls so all you ladies can see if your lipstick is on correctly.

[Wayfaring]

Why do you care for my approval when you share your reality?
Why do you care if others agree with you if you know what you share is a reality?

So, it is the discussion of WCK or the discussion of needing others approval, agreement....?

I have zero need for your approval. I point things out such as my previous post because there are others reading this thread. Maybe they see the illogic of right after someone sharing their view you asking 'why don't you share your view?' maybe they don't. If I point it out, maybe they will see it. If I point it out to you, maybe you will see the illogic in how you are behaving. But I doubt that. If you had strong logic, you probably would not be trying to piece together the things that you are.

[kung fu fighter]

Dont tell me Gary Lam never fight MT...etc.

According to Gary he mainly used thai boxing in these matches, not wing chun. He once told me that thai boxing is king in the ring, but on the street a wing chun guy can beat a thai boxer.


isnt his mobile footwork a seal for himself?

Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate???

[sihing]

James, nice but not really as for distance. If you can hit me I can hit you. If you can kick me I can kick you. So staying away and jabbing for example is not how to defeat wing chun. Unless of course you are 7 feet then I suppose you can hit me and I cant hit you if we neither move.

otherwise yes all skills must be practiced to learn how to perform them. More real the practice greater chance of good performance under real pressure.

Yes and No, in that yes if you can hit me I can hit you sometimes. The lead jab is the longest striking weapon, WC doesn't have a lead jab like boxing, we're more square. That doesn't mean that a WC guy can't throw a lead jab as well if there is an opening, as it's about winning the fight, not portraying a style, but again if he's a boxer and your not, your jab won't be good enough. Don't box with a boxer, don't kick with a kicker and so forth. Our forte is to get to the inside and shut them down, strike from there.

gotta run...

James

[Dragonzbane76]

He once told me that thai boxing is king in the ring, but on the street a wing chun guy can beat a thai boxer.

LOLLLzzzz:rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

Geez, you guys. There's at least one tool that just about every single person who trains in MMA or at least who trains for cage events knows instinctively about how to "get inside" the phone booth.

It's called the cage. A backstop. Your opponent running up against something.

Someone can dance around your range extremities all day long, move and stick, head movment, etc. just outside your effective range. WCK doesn't play there. It doesn't do MT leg kicks which is that range, or other long range kicks, or extended punches, etc.

Many WCK families will say just don't react to feints, and only a threat that crosses your bridge has any reality to it. Let them dance and wear themselves out.

However, the other reality is that with centerline forward pressure, you can pressure your opponent out of space if you have a backstop. That's where MMA fighters go to a clinch game, and very few strike from there or do combined clinch / strike. Right there, or just outside right there is the 'phone booth' range.

If any of you actually trained in places that had either cages, pads on the wall, or something you can back someone up against to train on you would know that.

But no, every single @#$#@!$% place you see training WCK instead of something practical like that you see mirrors on walls so all you ladies can see if your lipstick is on correctly.

Very good.

[t_niehoff]

T, in your opinion what are the WCK tools to "get inside" the phone booth?


Generally, you have to punch your way in (see form, strike form, see shadow, strike shadow. . . ). There are various ways -- tactics -- for doing that, and the tactic you use will depend on what your opponent is doing. Once you know the tactics, it comes down to timing. And timing you ONLY develop from sparring.

Of course, all of that depends on having a good WCK punch (one that can break an opponent's structure).



I find " let his attack passed and using his strike to seal himself off/ Lay Lau Hoi Song Lat Sau Jek Choong" only works against a commited attack.

It does not address how to close in against an opponent who uses non committed feeler jabs with mobile footwork to stay just out of the wing chunner's reach to throw a chunner's timing and distancing off.


You are thinking of the tactic as being "responsive" instead of proactive. Waiting is BAD, and is not WCK's method. As Sum Nung's kuit tells us, "Forcing the opponent is a must." WCK people practicing/learning by standing still (typically flat footed) in the silly WCK guard (extended arm and wu sao, chin up & hands down)) waiting for an opponent to attack them are only instilling really bad habits -- they are training to fail.



Again how do you guys propose to get this attachment (getting inside the phone booth) with an opponent who sticks and moves, and does not committ foolishly, but instead uses non committed movements to draw out your counter attack, thus catching you off timing and range/distance?

I don't "propose" anything. I DO it. "Entering" into the phone booth is a skill. Someone with the skill needs to teach it to you and/or you need to work it out from doing it. Even if I tell you do X, you won't be able to do X because there are a number of things that are prerequisites to doing X.

Before you learn how to get it, you need to develop a competent inside inside game -- you need to be able to control your opponent while striking him. By knowing (from experience) what things you need to do, not do, etc. you will get an appreciation for how to set all that up (how you want to enter and how you don't want to enter). Also, if you can't fight inside, why would you enter to the inside?

[kung fu fighter]

Generally, you have to punch your way in (see form, strike form, see shadow, strike shadow. . . ). There are various ways -- tactics -- for doing that, and the tactic you use will depend on what your opponent is doing. Once you know the tactics, it comes down to timing. And timing you ONLY develop from sparring.

Of course, all of that depends on having a good WCK punch (one that can break an opponent's structure).

You are thinking of the tactic as being "responsive" instead of proactive. Waiting is BAD, and is not WCK's method. As Sum Nung's kuit tells us, "Forcing the opponent is a must."

by forcing the opponent, Are you referring to the stalking/pressure footwork that Aaron Baum is using starting at 4:09 into this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2mxSFqckr4

And by "punching your way in", are you referring to the cutting punch to disrupt the opponent's structure?

[t_niehoff]

by forcing the opponent, Are you referring to the stalking/pressure footwork that Aaron Baum is using starting at 4:09 into this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2mxSFqckr4

And by "punching your way in", are you referring to the cutting punch to disrupt the opponent's structure?

What Aaron is doing is one way of forcing your opponent.

In my view, there is no specific "cutting punch" -- all WCK punches can suppress bridges (it's "built in" to the action/structure).

[kung fu fighter]

What Aaron is doing is one way of forcing your opponent.


What other strategies/ways do you personally use to force your opponent besides the above to get in the phone booth?

[JPinAZ]

Generally, you have to punch your way in (see form, strike form, see shadow, strike shadow. . . ). There are various ways -- tactics -- for doing that, and the tactic you use will depend on what your opponent is doing. Once you know the tactics, it comes down to timing. And timing you ONLY develop from sparring.

Of course, all of that depends on having a good WCK punch (one that can break an opponent's structure).

I'm sure you're not referring to chain punching your way in as so many bad WC videos show. So, how can you punch your way in otherwise?
What I mean is, the WC punch, with elbow down, is a shorter range attack vs. a boxer jabbing at longer range. Without the machine gun chain punch nonsense, how do you personally pull this off? (and I'm not saying it can't be done, but examples of this would go a long way)


You are thinking of the tactic as being "responsive" instead of proactive. Waiting is BAD, and is not WCK's method. As Sum Nung's kuit tells us, "Forcing the opponent is a must." WCK people practicing/learning by standing still (typically flat footed) in the silly WCK guard (extended arm and wu sao, chin up & hands down)) waiting for an opponent to attack them are only instilling really bad habits -- they are training to fail.

again, curious how you 'force the opponent' with your shorter range WC phonebooth punches against someone using longer lead jabs and mobile footwork which is out of reach of your shorter WC punch, even if you try using footwork with them?

[Hendrik]

Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate???


sealing with momentum. momentum cant be change instantly.
how to borrow the momentum is the key, otherwise it is fighting force with force and who is more physical fit will win.

[Hendrik]

I'm sure you're not referring to chain punching your way in as so many bad WC videos show. So, how can you punch your way in otherwise?
What I mean is, the WC punch, with elbow down, is a shorter range attack vs. a boxer jabbing at longer range. Without the machine gun chain punch nonsense, how do you personally pull this off? (and I'm not saying it can't be done, but examples of this would go a long way)



again, curious how you 'force the opponent' with your shorter range WC phonebooth punches against someone using longer lead jabs and mobile footwork which is out of reach of your shorter WC punch, even if you try using footwork with them?



This is the problem with the chain punch to center line or rapid fire without knowing the seal off control.

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

[kung fu fighter]

sealing with momentum. momentum cant be change instantly.
how to borrow the momentum is the key, otherwise it is fighting force with force and who is more physical fit will win.

thanks for the reply Hendrik,

How do you borrow the momentum when there is established contact with the opponent? can you give an example of how this ican be done?

Here is a clip of my good friend Troy Ross in action (the black fellow), how can you borrow his momentum when he stays on the outside using his feeler jab like in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMiAiLW0YA

[JPinAZ]

This is the problem with the chain punch to center line or rapid fire without knowing the seal off control.

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

What the he!! does that have to do with anything? I was asking T a question on something he was talking about regarding application of wing chun. That is something you know nothing about, since you don't spar or train.
And that video doesn't have one thing to do with wing chun. If you see any wing chun in that clip, you really are hopeless.

Try this - stop butting in to other people's discussions about Wing Chun and just stick to what you know - posting 10 minute clips of you droning on about nothing at your table and petting invisible dogs, posting aimless music videos, mixing all sorts of internal arts into your hodge-podge mix-breed 'wing chun', etc.

Thanks but no thanks, I think I'll just wait for T's reply..

[Hendrik]

Here is a clip of my good friend Troy Ross in action (the black fellow), how can you borrow his momentum when he stays on the outside using his feeler jab like in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMiAiLW0YA


no easy answer and talk is cheap because strategy is depending on the level of training big time. if you are not atleast in some component par with Troy in timing wise. no chance.

For borrow momentum wise, look at 1.30. 4.40

[Hendrik]

What the he!! does that have to do with anything? I was asking T a question on something he was talking about regarding application of wing chun. That is something you know nothing about, since you don't spar or train.
And that video doesn't have one thing to do with wing chun. If you see any wing chun in that clip, you really are hopeless.

Try this - stop butting in to other people's discussions about Wing Chun and just stick to what you know - posting 10 minute clips of you droning on about nothing at your table and petting invisible dogs, posting aimless music videos, mixing all sorts of internal arts into your hodge-podge mix-breed 'wing chun', etc.

Thanks but no thanks, I think I'll just wait for T's reply..


Since it is an open WCK discussion forum anyone could reply, and since I dont expect everyone to get my point, that is fine with your reply.

As for the personal attack side, thats ok. I let you be who you are.

[JPinAZ]

Since it is an open WCK discussion forum anyone could reply, and since I dont expect everyone to get my point, that is fine with your reply.

I wouldn't expect anyone to get your point


As for the personal attack side, thats ok. I let you be who you are.

You have no control over who I am so you can't 'let' me be anything.

I'm done with you, I'll wait for T's reply. Even if I don't always agree with him, at least he can talk in coherent conversation.

[Hendrik]

I wouldn't expect anyone to get your point

You are not Every one, isnt it?




You have no control over who I am so you can't 'let' me be anything.


in fact, I have no desire to control over who you are. I just accept you as who you are. You happy I am happy that way.






I'm done with you, I'll wait for T's reply. Even if I don't always agree with him, at least he can talk in coherent conversation.

That is your freedom of choice. and got nothing to do with the point I am expressing in an open WCK forum.

For me, I would not go attack on others just because I dont like or dont get their view. That is because that got nothing todo with me; and those who share doesnt deserve to be attacked because I dont know how to deal with my own mind set.

[anerlich]

But no, every single @#$#@!$% place you see training WCK instead of something practical like that you see mirrors on walls so all you ladies can see if your lipstick is on correctly.

Thanks, I LOL'ed at that :D

[RB93SAAT]

That is your freedom of choice. and got nothing to do with the point I am expressing in an open WCK forum.

For me, I would not go attack on others just because I dont like or dont get their view. That is because that got nothing todo with me; and those who share doesnt deserve to be attacked because I dont know how to deal with my own mind set.

hendrik, everything got to do with you, yes, you, only you.... hendrik blab blab blab....
addiction:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58832

recall a moment in your life that felt like dear Abby -- perhaps the first time you met a special person (Paperocksissorscrapper). since Jun 25, 2010, he has been waiting for you, forget about JPinAZ, let's focus on what do you really want for yourself.

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1274

originally posted by Paperocksissorscrapper
I love your writing but why oh why do you so often spend half your post reminding everyone that you cant understand from reading or forums and most people are just faking and so on..... you must know alot of 'poseurs.
If theres nothing to be gained in this, why write it? Just to make people feel inadiquite ? This is a form of bragging in it self. I should know I brag all the time. So what.
Just once Id like to hear you honestly ask a question that you didn't already know the answer to....just to shake things up

[YungChun]

thanks for the reply Hendrik,

How do you borrow the momentum when there is established contact with the opponent? can you give an example of how this ican be done?

Here is a clip of my good friend Troy Ross in action (the black fellow), how can you borrow his momentum when he stays on the outside using his feeler jab like in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMiAiLW0YA

His opponent did get inside... He just didn't stay there..

Different fighters with different tactics demand differing tactics.. It mainly about timing and doing one thing when the opponent expects you to do something else.. The outside free movement phase is about deception.... Any close range fighter has to deal with the same problem and when the opponent is taller it makes it tougher to do.. Bruce wrote some useful ideas about this stuff in his Tao of JKD book, at least I think they are helpful..

[kung fu fighter]

His opponent did Bruce wrote some useful ideas about this stuff in his Tao of JKD book, at least I think they are helpful..

On which pages?

[YungChun]

On which pages?

You'll need to look through the book.. I don't have it here..

He talks about different kinds of fighters, aggressive, tentative, etc..

In my experience for example it's foolish to chase tentative fighters...something you see people do often..or be predictable in general.. Tell a story with your movement and then change at the last moment...

[Hendrik]

56468]

In my experience for example it's foolish to chase tentative fighters...something you see people do often..or be predictable in general.. Tell a story with your movement and then change at the last mom.....

This is where IMHO the different type of power generation comes into play.
if there is only one type of power generation then it is pretty predictable sampling the footwork. to change the power generation type at the last moment is calling for issuing the short jin with fast acceleration and less predictable.

[YungChun]

It's like women... Most of the time you need to get them to chase you... If you seem too interested in getting inside they'll keep running away... Much easier to play less interested and let them come to you... Then almost before either of you realize what's happening, you're in... :D:cool:

[t_niehoff]

I'm done with you, I'll wait for T's reply. Even if I don't always agree with him, at least he can talk in coherent conversation.

You say the sweetest things! :)

[t_niehoff]

sealing with momentum. momentum cant be change instantly.
how to borrow the momentum is the key,


That is certainly one aspect of it.



otherwise it is fighting force with force


We ALWAYS fight force with force. But, as the kuit tells us, we should "use smart force to overcome dumb force."



and who is more physical fit will win.

Regardless of what you do, what art you train, etc. the UPPER LIMIT of your performance ability is your CONDITIONING.

[t_niehoff]

I'm sure you're not referring to chain punching your way in as so many bad WC videos show.


Correct. Chain punching really only works after you have compromised your opponent's body structure.



So, how can you punch your way in otherwise?


Two things.

First, I really don't like talking about "application". The problem with doing that is WCK "application" is like a Swiss watch, where you have these various cogs all working together to make the watch run. So when you ask about "how do you do this or that", ALL those cogs need to be in place. And so to answer your question, you need to address all those cogs.

For example, if someone were to ask "how do you control the opponent?" How can you give a simple answer? How can you put everything you train into a few short sentences? Your question is like that.

Second, you should start by appreciating why you need to punch your way in. That when you "enter" you 1) NEED to break your opponent's structure on contact (what happens if you don't) and 2) your "entry" NEEDS to force him to react defensively (otherwise he will react offensively). IOWs, your entry needs to be an attack, and one that can break his structure.



What I mean is, the WC punch, with elbow down, is a shorter range attack vs. a boxer jabbing at longer range. Without the machine gun chain punch nonsense, how do you personally pull this off? (and I'm not saying it can't be done, but examples of this would go a long way)


I don't agree with your characterization of the WCK punch vs. the jab. The arm length doesn't change -- it has more to do with the facing.

The whole "entry" business really boils down to TIMING. And, timing is dynamic. So any example I give will only work in certain, limited situations. That's why I hate talking "application". There is no one-size-fits-all entry. Just like asking "how do you control your opponent" -- it depends on the moment.

Generally speaking, however, to enter, I use the centerline (the shortest line of entry), so I need to control that line (so that my body can move in along it). There are several tactics for doing this -- Hendrik's "slip and seal" to change the c/l is one way. Another tactic is to directly control that line by striking anything on that line, like his arm, punch, etc. and then "sticking" to anything that I strike as I move my body in. IOWs, "hit and smother". There are other tactics.

WCK provides a method (strategy) for entering and the tools (actions and tactics) for implementing the strategy. The choice of tactic will depend on how his body is moving (toward you, away from you, or stationary), what his arms are doing, what things work well for you, etc.



again, curious how you 'force the opponent' with your shorter range WC phonebooth punches against someone using longer lead jabs and mobile footwork which is out of reach of your shorter WC punch, even if you try using footwork with them?

The phone booth is WCK's operative range, the inside. That's the range where I can control the opponent while I strike him. I can't do that on the outside.

To "force the opponent" means that you are the "leader", and that you are making the opponent constantly adjust to you. When you are on the outside, you do this via your body movement. For example, if I circle, you must follow me.

[kung fu fighter]

your "entry" NEEDS to force him to react defensively (otherwise he will react offensively). IOWs, your entry needs to be an attack, and one that can break his structure.

The whole "entry" business really boils down to TIMING. And, timing is dynamic. So
To "force the opponent" means that you are the "leader", and that you are making the opponent constantly adjust to you. When you are on the outside, you do this via your body movement. For example, if I circle, you must follow me.

T, I agree that it boils down to timing and being the leader to make the opponent react defensively, however i don't necessarily believe you need to force the opponent, that can leave you opened thus walking into something because the opponent can counter time you catching you coming foward. I believe 100% in TIMING and letting things unfold naturally, taking full advantage of the oppertunities when they arise then maintaining the leader timing which is mainly controlling and intercepting.





Another tactic is to directly control that line by striking anything on that line, like his arm, punch, etc. and then "sticking" to anything that I strike as I move my body in. IOWs, "hit and smother".

T, isn't striking his arm then sticking to it contradictrary, since striking it will knock it away instead of recieving it.

[t_niehoff]

T, isn't striking his arm then sticking to it contradictrary, since striking it will knock it away instead of recieving it.

I am guessing that your "receiving" pertains to lai lao hoi soong (stay/receive as he comes). This kuit refers to how we deal with pressure.

Striking his bridges won't "knock it away" since my strike is directed toward my opponent's center.

[Hendrik]

T, I agree that it boils down to timing and being the leader to make the opponent react defensively, however i don't necessarily believe you need to force the opponent, that can leave you opened thus walking into something because the opponent can counter time you catching you coming foward. I believe 100% in TIMING and letting things unfold naturally, taking full advantage of the oppertunities when they arise then maintaining the leader timing which is mainly controlling and intercepting.




Even if you have the timing, if you dont have a faster acceleration power generation engine, still there is not much could be done because you dont have advantage in execution timing after the intercepting.

[JPinAZ]

Correct. Chain punching really only works after you have compromised your opponent's body structure.

I'd agree. I personally don't like the term 'chain punching' as I feel it can lead to bad habits. I would say a 'flurry', or maybe just 'follow-up punches' would be a better term, but agreed.


Two things.

First, I really don't like talking about "application". The problem with doing that is WCK "application" is like a Swiss watch, where you have these various cogs all working together to make the watch run. So when you ask about "how do you do this or that", ALL those cogs need to be in place. And so to answer your question, you need to address all those cogs.

For example, if someone were to ask "how do you control the opponent?" How can you give a simple answer? How can you put everything you train into a few short sentences? Your question is like that.

I hear ya on talking application. But my question was really easy - if someone gave you a scenario, say a guy is throwing you a straight lead/jab right down center toward your nose, you should be able to give at least one example of how you could' punch your way in', ignoring any follow-up what-ifs/cogs.

For example, I can think of several off the top of my head. From a longer bridge, I know of several different 'techniques' from my longer range kiu sau training that deal with this attack using very little footwork and no stepping off the line of attack (noi gwa sau & loi lap sau). Several more with closer range centerline tools. And if someone asked me to do more than list the techniques, I could do that rather easily. Of course first hand demo works best, but it's not that hard to talk it.

** edit ** Or, from a very simple answer, I could bridge in with a jong structure with my right arm to the outside of say, his left straight lead. Maybe this is what you are talking about?


Second, you should start by appreciating why you need to punch your way in. That when you "enter" you 1) NEED to break your opponent's structure on contact (what happens if you don't) and 2) your "entry" NEEDS to force him to react defensively (otherwise he will react offensively). IOWs, your entry needs to be an attack, and one that can break his structure.

I can appreciate that to enter, or engage your opponent's attack, you do need to break their structure on contact and this in turn will put time on your side causing your opponent to be a step behind (that's the beauty of Centerline and good structure). And I agree this could cause the opponent to react defensively if he's anything more than a scrub

But, I still can't clearly envision what you mean by 'punching your way' in against a straight stiff lead using punches while not giving up center by running or side-stepping (which does just that).
Can you give one example or point to a clip of someone doing this?


I don't agree with your characterization of the WCK punch vs. the jab. The arm length doesn't change -- it has more to do with the facing.

Ya lost me there. You can't really be saying that a jab aimed straight at your nose (elbow 'out', arm fully extended, and let's say the facing is pretty square for argument sake) has the exact same reach as a WC chung choi/elbow down punch, also squared facing and both puncher's arm lengths being equal??
If you are going to use any structure when 'punching your way in', your elbow is going to have to be down and bent connecting the punch to your body, making it shorter than a jab. There's no way around it. Otherwise, your whole wc is for fighting in the phonebooth loses it's meaning


The whole "entry" business really boils down to TIMING. And, timing is dynamic. So any example I give will only work in certain, limited situations. That's why I hate talking "application". There is no one-size-fits-all entry. Just like asking "how do you control your opponent" -- it depends on the moment.

I agree, timing is important for all fighters. There's also a danger of timing turning into an "I have to be faster than them" mentality, cause there's always going to be someone faster, stronger, etc. But I get what you're saying

Again, I understand the talking application, but you were the one that brought it up. ;)


Generally speaking, however, to enter, I use the centerline (the shortest line of entry), so I need to control that line (so that my body can move in along it). There are several tactics for doing this -- Hendrik's "slip and seal" to change the c/l is one way. Another tactic is to directly control that line by striking anything on that line, like his arm, punch, etc. and then "sticking" to anything that I strike as I move my body in. IOWs, "hit and smother". There are other tactics.

WCK provides a method (strategy) for entering and the tools (actions and tactics) for implementing the strategy. The choice of tactic will depend on how his body is moving (toward you, away from you, or stationary), what his arms are doing, what things work well for you, etc.

How do you do the punch your way in if his fist is already on center? One rule of centerline is 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. (assuming, that since you're talking centerline below, that your own fist is on center) I know you're not suggesting you punch his punch? :eek::D

Not trying to be a d!ck either. Again, some of the beginning kiu sau training we do involves bridging the attack with a basic jong structure. Say it's a left jab, we would use the structured right arm/kiu to bridge either just to the inside of his arm or just to the outside depending on how the punch is thrown (biu jong sau on the inside, more of a kiu jong on the outside). We don't back up, side step or step off line when doing this. Is this more what you are talking about?


The phone booth is WCK's operative range, the inside. That's the range where I can control the opponent while I strike him. I can't do that on the outside.

To "force the opponent" means that you are the "leader", and that you are making the opponent constantly adjust to you. When you are on the outside, you do this via your body movement. For example, if I circle, you must follow me.

Agree for the most part.

[YungChun]

How do you do the punch your way in if his fist is already on center? One rule of centerline is 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. (assuming, that since you're talking centerline below, that your own fist is on center) I know you're not suggesting you punch his punch?

Even the smallest angle (moving the line) will take care of this problem...it's not an issue.. What is more of an issue is getting the right distance, setting it up, timing it, using the right energy and entry with follow-up..

[YungChun]

Even if you have the timing, if you dont have a faster acceleration power generation engine, still there is not much could be done because you dont have advantage in execution timing after the intercepting.

You can't always be faster... So then you have to have something else. You seem to be assuming the same start time... Free movement outside permits us to use a varied start time--we can start sooner or before.. Each has his own timing, and so we need to be out of time with his..

[JPinAZ]

Even the smallest angle (moving the line) will take care of this problem...it's not an issue.. What is more of an issue is getting the right distance, setting it up, timing it, using the right energy and entry with follow-up..

I agree. I am starting to think maybe this is what T is talking about, but since he's never really said, I was playing devil's advocate... :D

[Hendrik]

You can't always be faster... So then you have to have something else. You seem to be assuming the same start time... Free movement outside permits us to use a varied start time--we can start sooner or before.. Each has his own timing, and so we need to be out of time with his..


For me, a faster power generation which the opponent doesnt train in will put one in a better position in all situation. I dont assume the same start time, I assume under both have close ability or the opponent is in a slightly better position. what will happen.

Otherwise, both will take the strike and end up always who is more physical fit have the advantage.

as in the clip, even if one can slide in when the Troy has an open, if both use the same type of power generation it will have not much advantages.

[YungChun]

For me, a faster power generation which the opponent doesnt train in will put one in a better position in all situation. I dont assume the same start time, I assume under both have close ability or the opponent is in a slightly better position. what will happen.

Otherwise, both will take the strike and end up always who is more physical fit have the advantage.

as in the clip, even if one can slide in when the Troy has an open, if both use the same type of power generation it will have not much advantages.

Okay... But you are creating a scenario that is too balanced or even a situation of disadvantage and trying to find a sudden winning out..

The best way IMO is to 'stack the deck' using multiple tactics/tools/conditions to use as many advantages as possible.. Once you take away all of those advantages you are trying to punch your way out of a steel box...

IOW too close a match up is simply a too close to call.. A small advantage introduced at the last moment may simply be too little too late, no matter how clever it may be. Is it going to be a big enough advantage to compensate for having lost the rest?

After all there are circumstances that even the greatest generals cannot prevail under..

[Hendrik]

Okay... But you are creating a scenario that is too balanced or even a situation of disadvantage and trying to find a sudden winning out..

The best way IMO is to 'stack the deck' using multiple tactics/tools/conditions to use as many advantages as possible.. Once you take away all of those advantages you are trying to punch your way out of a steel box...

IOW too close a match up is simply a too close to call.. A small advantage introduced at the last moment may simply be too little too late, no matter how clever it may be. Is it going to be a big enough advantage to compensate for having lost the rest?

After all there are circumstances that even the greatest generals cannot prevail under..



This actually lead into the half point uniqueness of WCK. the half point hidden within the full point. Meaning after the full point executed there is still a half point ready to be evoked.

All about power generation.... advantages...etc.

[YungChun]

This actually lead into the half point uniqueness of WCK. the half point hidden within the full point. Meaning after the full point executed there is still a half point ready to be evoked.

All about power generation.... advantages...etc.

Right but in the end where are we seeing this for real? Anywhere? Or does Chun and all these clever advantages rest wholly in the theoretical?

[Hendrik]

Right but in the end where are we seeing this for real? Anywhere? Or does Chun and all these clever advantages rest wholly in the theoretical?


as in the six point half pole, half point is always reserve and ready to slide in or snap in.
What I have heard is, The advantage in the ancient time WCK is rest in the power generation not theoretical at all.

[t_niehoff]

I hear ya on talking application.


No offense, but I really don't think you do. Or you wouldn't be asking your question.

Application is what you are ALREADY doing in fighting, not what you think you will do or imagine what you will do or have been told to do, etc.



But my question was really easy - if someone gave you a scenario, say a guy is throwing you a straight lead/jab right down center toward your nose, you should be able to give at least one example of how you could' punch your way in', ignoring any follow-up what-ifs/cogs.


And my answer is that I will punch my way in.



For example, I can think of several off the top of my head. From a longer bridge, I know of several different 'techniques' from my longer range kiu sau training that deal with this attack using very little footwork and no stepping off the line of attack (noi gwa sau & loi lap sau). Several more with closer range centerline tools. And if someone asked me to do more than list the techniques, I could do that rather easily. Of course first hand demo works best, but it's not that hard to talk it.

** edit ** Or, from a very simple answer, I could bridge in with a jong structure with my right arm to the outside of say, his left straight lead. Maybe this is what you are talking about?


All of that is theoretical nonsense. That isn't application -- it is what you imagine you can do, not what you are doing. You are just giving theoretical examples, I will do this, I will do that, etc. I'm sorry but I don't think in those terms.

What I DO is punch my way in. That is WCK's method of entry.



I can appreciate that to enter, or engage your opponent's attack, you do need to break their structure on contact and this in turn will put time on your side causing your opponent to be a step behind (that's the beauty of Centerline and good structure). And I agree this could cause the opponent to react defensively if he's anything more than a scrub

But, I still can't clearly envision what you mean by 'punching your way' in against a straight stiff lead using punches while not giving up center by running or side-stepping (which does just that).
Can you give one example or point to a clip of someone doing this?


What does your punch DO? My punch destroys lines, bridges, structure, anything in its path. It opens the gate. I am not hitting with my arm but hitting WITH my entire body structure. The centerline is the fastest line of entry and I punch on the centerline to clear that line for entry. If that line is open, I come in; if that line is obstructed, my punch clears it as I come in.



Ya lost me there. You can't really be saying that a jab aimed straight at your nose (elbow 'out', arm fully extended, and let's say the facing is pretty square for argument sake) has the exact same reach as a WC chung choi/elbow down punch, also squared facing and both puncher's arm lengths being equal??


Go back and read what I said -- I said it has more to do with the facing (which you've just mentioned).



If you are going to use any structure when 'punching your way in', your elbow is going to have to be down and bent connecting the punch to your body, making it shorter than a jab. There's no way around it. Otherwise, your whole wc is for fighting in the phonebooth loses it's meaning


And what if I have a longer reach?

The length of the jab vs. the WCK punch doesn't matter.



I agree, timing is important for all fighters. There's also a danger of timing turning into an "I have to be faster than them" mentality, cause there's always going to be someone faster, stronger, etc. But I get what you're saying


I am talking about the WCK timing.



Again, I understand the talking application, but you were the one that brought it up. ;)


No, I didn't. I was talking about WCK's method for entry.



How do you do the punch your way in if his fist is already on center? One rule of centerline is 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. (assuming, that since you're talking centerline below, that your own fist is on center) I know you're not suggesting you punch his punch? :eek::D


Sayings like "2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time" are meaningless.

If his arm is in my way, I will hit it.



Not trying to be a d!ck either. Again, some of the beginning kiu sau training we do involves bridging the attack with a basic jong structure. Say it's a left jab, we would use the structured right arm/kiu to bridge either just to the inside of his arm or just to the outside depending on how the punch is thrown (biu jong sau on the inside, more of a kiu jong on the outside). We don't back up, side step or step off line when doing this. Is this more what you are talking about?


No.

[CFT]

What does your punch DO? My punch destroys lines, bridges, structure, anything in its path. It opens the gate. I am not hitting with my arm but hitting WITH my entire body structure. The centerline is the fastest line of entry and I punch on the centerline to clear that line for entry. If that line is open, I come in; if that line is obstructed, my punch clears it as I come in.Oh no Terence, you used the "G" word!

Does your punch really clear the line 100% of the time?

[JPinAZ]

No offense, but I really don't think you do. Or you wouldn't be asking your question.

Application is what you are ALREADY doing in fighting, not what you think you will do or imagine what you will do or have been told to do, etc.

And my answer is that I will punch my way in.

All of that is theoretical nonsense. That isn't application -- it is what you imagine you can do, not what you are doing. You are just giving theoretical examples, I will do this, I will do that, etc. I'm sorry but I don't think in those terms.

What I DO is punch my way in. That is WCK's method of entry.

What does your punch DO? My punch destroys lines, bridges, structure, anything in its path. It opens the gate. I am not hitting with my arm but hitting WITH my entire body structure. The centerline is the fastest line of entry and I punch on the centerline to clear that line for entry. If that line is open, I come in; if that line is obstructed, my punch clears it as I come in.

Go back and read what I said -- I said it has more to do with the facing (which you've just mentioned).

And what if I have a longer reach?

The length of the jab vs. the WCK punch doesn't matter.

I am talking about the WCK timing.

No, I didn't. I was talking about WCK's method for entry.

Sayings like "2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time" are meaningless.

If his arm is in my way, I will hit it.

No.

This is what I thought - a lot of words, but saying nothing. At least I tried :rolleyes:

Not that it's even worth the time, but don't put your bullsh!t on me - I'm not talking 'theory', I'm talking about things I use in training, sparring, etc 3-4 times a week - I'm talking what I use successfully in application. Just because you can't do this (talk application) doesn't mean others can't. Don't put your short-comings on me.

[t_niehoff]

Oh no Terence, you used the "G" word!

Does your punch really clear the line 100% of the time?

Of course not. If my punch doesn't clear, then it "sticks", becomes a bridge (tan, bong, fook, etc.) , and I go from there. But, I've gained what I wanted.

If you look at the SNT, the "points" are in a certain order for a reason.

Didn't you learn the "clashing punches"?

[JPinAZ]

Oh no Terence, you used the "G" word!

Does your punch really clear the line 100% of the time?

He destroys everything he touches, blasting away arms, bodies, and even your fist if it gets in the way. He so bad a$$ he can punch your arm and your whole body explodes on contact! His punch is probably what put the world off axis. I bet down at the gym call his fist the Big Bang Theory :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

This is what I thought - a lot of words, but saying nothing. At least I tried :rolleyes:


What you "tried" was to get me to talk on your theoretical level.



Not that it's even worth the time, but don't put your bullsh!t on me - I'm not talking 'theory', I'm talking about things I use in training, sparring, etc 3-4 times a week - I'm talking what I use successfully in application.


IOWs, this is stuff you do with your classmates who are programmed to "let you" do it. Then when it "works", you believe it is sound. But this is exactly what Bayer's guys are doing, etc.

Since you brought up the jab, go try your theory at a boxing gym and see.

What you described is a classic, fundamental error -- reaching for punches. You are using a kiu sao or "jong structure" to try to deal with his jab. Your hand thus moves away from your body, not as an attack, but to engage his hand/arm or "line". This is exactly what a boxer wants you to do. They will eat you for lunch if you do this. Go see for yourself.



Just because you can't do this (talk application) doesn't mean others can't. Don't put your short-comings on me.

You are not talking application. If you were, you'd have a different perspective and a very different set of questions.

[t_niehoff]

He destroys everything he touches, blasting away arms, bodies, and even your fist if it gets in the way. He so bad a$$ he can punch your arm and your whole body explodes on contact! His punch is probably what put the world off axis. I bet down at the gym call his fist the Big Bang Theory :rolleyes:

I am sorry that you haven't learned how to PROPERLY do a WCK punch. Or, how it sets up your entry.

[JPinAZ]

And if anyone's interested, I found a clip of T's big bad destroy-everything punch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k7c3raEXic

[CFT]

Of course not. If my punch doesn't clear, then it "sticks", becomes a bridge (tan, bong, fook, etc.) , and I go from there. But, I've gained what I wanted.

If you look at the SNT, the "points" are in a certain order for a reason.

Didn't you learn the "clashing punches"?Maybe under a different name or no name at all. What is involved exactly?

[Hendrik]

Even the smallest angle (moving the line) will take care of this problem...it's not an issue.. What is more of an issue is getting the right distance, setting it up, timing it, using the right energy and entry with follow-up..

Jim, if I may using the ancient terminology, that is what the seal off means. WCner is supposed to be train in this stuffs because it is the bread and butter or WCK. Thus, WCK doesnt go after Center line as usual White Crane or five ancestors type of southern TCMA. WCK using center line in a different way, there is an old saying say that " hitting a snake with a pole, the snake will slide up and bite one using that pole which is trying to hit it as a path way" That is the WCK way toward the center line. IMHO. That is seal off, that is comes accept goes return....etc.

[t_niehoff]

Maybe under a different name or no name at all. What is involved exactly?

The basic level drill is where partners are both in YJKYM and doing alternating jik chung chois so that each is hitting the others punching arm (clashing).

[kung fu fighter]

WCK using center line in a different way, there is an old saying say that " hitting a snake with a pole, the snake will slide up and bite one using that pole which is trying to hit it as a path way" That is the WCK way toward the center line. IMHO. That is seal off, that is comes accept goes return....etc.

WCK doesnt need to attack directly, in fact wCK prefer to not attack directly but using your own attack to control your center line before WCner go and finished the job. Thus , that is what i mean, WCK doesnt attact the center line directly but indirectly.

So, the number one job of a WCner is to master all different variation of " let his attack passed and using the his strike to seal himself off ". that simple, just one goal. and ofcorse, the rest the power generation.....structures... the center line....... is to support the WCK way but not the WCK way.




Hendrik, is this what you mean by Hua Jing ( neutralization of energy)

[LoneTiger108]

The basic level drill is where partners are both in YJKYM and doing alternating jik chung chois so that each is hitting the others punching arm (clashing).

What? :eek: You mean they aren't fighting?? :confused::eek::rolleyes:

It's funny how you're now describing interactive exercises in their basic form, as this type of thing is what I have been saying all along, albeit on the basic WCK punch thread. It's also done on the wooden man. Developed slowly from the foundation.

I guess I'm asking too much for you yo explain the distinct stages a student would need to progress through before they are actually fighting? ;)

[YungChun]

This is what I thought - a lot of words, but saying nothing. At least I tried :rolleyes:


I think T is saying quite a bit, and seemingly more than he has in the past..

What is it about what he has said that you don't like? He is quite consistent with this aspect of bridging with the punch and breaking structure with it, or attempting to.. Punching into their attack is, at least to me, basic Chun... We used to call it Crash n Bash..