WC do not block

[Hendrik]

WC is a style which is having a philosophy of no blocking but adaptively handling dynamic flow.

What do you think?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think that as usual - you're dreaming.

It's so easy to confuse theory with reality. :cool:

[Hendrik]

I think that as usual - you're dreaming.

It's so easy to confuse theory with reality. :cool:


1, I am not dreaming and that is how my WCK is no block but adaptively handling the dynamic flow. Tan sau is not side outer block for example.

2, dont anyone ever ask why is the WC Kuen kuit said, Come's accept goes return? no block.

3, there is no different between theory and reality. if one doesnt follow what the kuen kuit said and make use of the tool of WCk then one will not be able to get the benifit out of WCK.

[Niersun]

My Sifu (GM Cheung) says that even if you were to draw a straight line on a piece of paper; if you magnified it enough you will see that it actually isnt perfectly straight.

[SAAMAG]

I think I see where he's coming from. Wing chun is not force against force type system, and as such you're not going to have hard blocks like what'd you see in karate for example, but deflections an redirections at most. With his wing chun the ideal is to flow with what comes, the hand forms are moments in time (which I concur with) and the result would be him dissolving the attack while launching one of his own.

Is that what you're saying Hendrick?

[Niersun]

WC is a hard and soft style. Therefore it depends on the circumstance when you either deflect or put up a forward forced block. Ideally, you want to flow, but this isnt a kungfu movie. It depends on your opponents attack, and your position to deal with it.

[Tom Kagan]

3, there is no different between theory and reality. if one doesnt follow what the kuen kuit said and make use of the tool of WCk then one will not be able to get the benifit out of WCK.The difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than it is in theory.
Hence, Gao Gup Sao.

[duende]

Like I've been saying... a strike is a block/bridge if it's done properly with real structure to back it up.

The in/out... looping mindset is what leads to the break down of WC strategy imo.

[k gledhill]

WC is a style which is having a philosophy of no blocking but adaptively handling dynamic flow.

What do you think?


thats the first thing you ever said I can agree with...attacking in a dynamic flow. And you didnt even sing it :D:D:D

[t_niehoff]

WC is a style which is having a philosophy of no blocking but adaptively handling dynamic flow.

What do you think?

WCK doesn't have a philosophy, it has a method (faat).

That method involves first joining/riding (daap) and then closing the opponent's offense down (jeet).

If you are blocking, it means you haven't joined and haven't closed your opponent down.

[HumbleWCGuy]

WCK doesn't have a philosophy, it has a method (faat).

That method involves first joining/riding (daap) and then closing the opponent's offense down (jeet).

If you are blocking, it means you haven't joined and haven't closed your opponent down.

Your method that you claim is the standard for the whole of Wing Chun is unrealistic.

[t_niehoff]

Your method that you claim is the standard for the whole of Wing Chun is unrealistic.

WCK is WCK, just as BJJ is BJJ. Each has a method of fighting, and tools to implment its respective method. It's not my method, it is WCK's method. What is "standard" -- what most people do -- doesn't matter. BJJ's method is to control your opponent on the ground and submit him; WCK's method is to control while striking your standing opponent.

BTW, who was it that taught you WCK?

[punchdrunk]

So a BJJ guy has no other methods available to him? He has to go down to the ground and submit his opponent to win? Wing Chun never trains you to take someone down? Or throw them? Never a one hit KO?
I agree that those are the most common training scenarios for both styles but not that they are the boundries for a practitioner of either system.

[kung fu fighter]

WC is a style which is having a philosophy of no blocking but adaptively handling dynamic flow.

What do you think?

This is the essence of wing chun! how to connect to the opponent's Center of Gravity and control it as though his body was an extension of yours (Loi lau hoi sung lut sao jik chung), your intent and actions are united as one. Controlling his body is as easy as controlling your own arm. This is done to manipulate and make use of the opponent's momentum, using it against him. To me this is what simultaneous attack and defence truely mean! Not necessarily blocking and striking with two arms at the same time with techniques such as tan da!

[t_niehoff]

So a BJJ guy has no other methods available to him? He has to go down to the ground and submit his opponent to win?


BJJis a form of submission grappling. Go figure.



Wing Chun never trains you to take someone down? Or throw them? Never a one hit KO?


WCK,like MT, does have some fast take downs/sweeps/etc. but they are for taking the steam out of your opponent. WCK doesn't have groundfighting (it doesn't have the tools to fight on the ground nor does it have any training on the ground).

As far as a "one hit KO" -- it can happen. WCK's method is to control while striking, and we may get lucky with that first strike.



I agree that those are the most common training scenarios for both styles but not that they are the boundries for a practitioner of either system.

It's not that they are boundaries, it is just the nature of the arts. WCK isn't anything you want to do, nor is BJJ or boxing or whatever. Do you see boxers choking each other? Is that some "boundary"?

[t_niehoff]

This is the essence of wing chun! how to connect to the opponent's Center of Gravity and control it as through his body was an extension of yours (Loi lau hoi sung lut sao jik chung), your intent and actions are united as one. Conrtolling his body is as easy as controlling your own arm. This is done to manipulate and make use of the opponent's momentum, using it against him.


While your description is a bit flowery, I do agree (and would add that you use both leverage and momentum to control your opponent)



To me this is what simultaneous attack and defence truely mean! Not necessarily blocking and striking with two arms at the same time with techniques such as tan da!

Very, very good, Navin. Lien siu die da (incorrectly translated simul bock and strike) translates to link your defense to bring in striking. Your defense is your control of your opponent. You link that with your striking.

[Pacman]

you dont have to strike with one arm and block with one arm, you can strike and block with one arm too. there are other options as well.

its nothing to do with linking per se, the point is that defense and offense should be one movement and not two

[t_niehoff]

you dont have to strike with one arm and block with one arm, you can strike and block with one arm too. there are other options.

the point is that defense and offense should be one movement and not two

There is no "blocking".

When you control the opponent as you strike him, your offense is your defense and your defense is your offense.

[kung fu fighter]

While your description is a bit flowery, I do agree (and would add that you use both leverage and momentum to control your opponent)

Very, very good, Navin. Lien siu die da (incorrectly translated simul bock and strike) translates to link your defense to bring in striking. Your defense is your control of your opponent. You link that with your striking.

Thank you T!

If one understand how to handle momentum and leverage, one can transend the techniques of the style and be in the moment of flow!. I like to think of it as the little spark or idea that ignites one's whole perspective of how the system works, which makes everything come alive. In my opinion Chi sao is just a tool used to help one to become aware of this skill or attribute, which is invaluable in fighting.

In regards to leverage, I believe it was Archimedes who said "Give me a lever long enough, and a place on which to rest it, and I will move the world.

[Lee Chiang Po]

WC is a style which is having a philosophy of no blocking but adaptively handling dynamic flow.

What do you think?


Yes, it is.

[Pacman]

There is no "blocking".

When you control the opponent as you strike him, your offense is your defense and your defense is your offense.

:eek:

i thought you were a master of the 12 san sik

[Ultimatewingchun]

The whole premise of this thread is complete garbage. No blocking....LOFOL :eek::rolleyes::cool:

Pak, bong, tan, jut, bil, garn, lop, kan, etc.

They're all in EVERY wing chun system (as opposed to pseudo wing chun systems)...and they all are used as part of defense...

defense that's meant to control and allow for near simultaneous offense.

Even lop (as aggressive as it can be) is still a control hand that defends a line meant to be turned into offense.

Wing Chun uses blocks, parries, redirects, and avoidance - along with STRIKING...

and it's all of the above (along with footwork, angling, cutting, and strong body structure and alignment meant to create pressure) that constitutes THE CONTROL that wing chun fighters seek to have over their opponents.

[Pacman]

Very, very good, Navin.

if terrence is congratulating you on WC knowledge, you know something is wrong

[anerlich]

adaptively handling dynamic flow

I have a number of devices in my home that do that.

I call them "taps" and "hoses".

We would all like to redirect energy, or evade getting hit, but if I get in a position in a fight or sparring match where I have a choice between sticking to Wing Chun philosophy and getting hit, or blocking, I'm going to block.

My instructor witnessed a guy break his forearm on William Cheung's Bil Sao. Maybe there is a place for blocking after all.

[YungChun]

Agreed Andrew...

There isn't just one way to express VT.. There are IMO levels where the ideal is one thing, and you go down or not from there..adaptability shouldn't be a sin..it's human nature.. So long as you prevail when it counts then you shouldn't have to justify anything, it's common sense..

I was once told by a top guy from another lineage that I *can't* use a Bong sao a certain way.. I told him how I had used it (in a street encounter), that it's something that just happened, not a conscious choice but just how things worked out.. He went on to explain at great length why I was mistaken and had the wrong idea.. :rolleyes: LOL

[Niersun]

The whole premise of this thread is complete garbage. No blocking....LOFOL :eek::rolleyes::cool:

Pak, bong, tan, jut, bil, garn, lop, kan, etc.

They're all in EVERY wing chun system (as opposed to pseudo wing chun systems)...and they all are used as part of defense...

defense that's meant to control and allow for near simultaneous offense.

Even lop (as aggressive as it can be) is still a control hand that defends a line meant to be turned into offense.

Wing Chun uses blocks, parries, redirects, and avoidance - along with STRIKING...

and it's all of the above (along with footwork, angling, cutting, and strong body structure and alignment meant to create pressure) that constitutes THE CONTROL that wing chun fighters seek to have over their opponents.

Amen. This is why its so hard for TWC practitioners to train and share things with people from other lineages.

Im gonna offend some people and say that there are suspect people on here, who havent really trained WC or are just new to the art.

[t_niehoff]

My instructor witnessed a guy break his forearm on William Cheung's Bil Sao. Maybe there is a place for blocking after all.

Using that reasoning, anyone who has ever gotten away with some nonsense can be used as an example to validate it. I'm sure someone, somewhere once poked some guy on the ground in the eye to escape -- so that proves that poking the eye is a good idea!

Oh, and my TWC instructor (and training partner) saw Cheung unable to deal with Vunak's jab at Cheung's first US seminar (getting hit 3 or 4 times in the face) -- I guess that proves that TWC has no answer to the jab.

Or. maybe, just maybe, we should look at things more broadly before jumping to conclusions.

[Hendrik]

Watch this old movie which the 1970's old generation WCner express their "view on the characteristics of WCK."


Start at 0.41/2.12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJ2ZIAoN6Q




note that it is not just that pak da lap da or the chain punch, there are something else there which is formless but link all the pak da lap da close body distance strike.....etc. That is what I am talking about. If one missed that then one is not doing WCK. and in fact one's WCK is not that different compare with other Chinese Nam Kuen or Hung gar or karate....etc.

Some people in Asia, who doesnt know what this adaptive flow handling specific is but feel a different there is something "soft and sticky', they call this characteristics the female side. In fact, it is not female at all. it is real. but over the years, this part of art is fading away and become

start at 4.20/8.33

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




See for yourself wck's characteristics has become water down and fading away to just chain punch and discrete/static handling.

[Hendrik]

My instructor witnessed a guy break his forearm on William Cheung's Bil Sao. Maybe there is a place for blocking after all.


sure, try to block the MT's or Kyokushin's kick with the bil sao and see for yourself what happen.

I rather adaptively track the incoming dynamic and play with their momentum with very minimum impact.

[HumbleWCGuy]

WCK is WCK, just as BJJ is BJJ. Each has a method of fighting, and tools to implment its respective method. It's not my method, it is WCK's method. What is "standard" -- what most people do -- doesn't matter. BJJ's method is to control your opponent on the ground and submit him; WCK's method is to control while striking your standing opponent.

BTW, who was it that taught you WCK?

by the mere fact that you had to put standard in quotes is an admission that it isn't.

[t_niehoff]

by the mere fact that you had to put standard in quotes is an admission that it isn't.

I put the word "standard" in quotes because YOU used the word. By "standard" you seem to mean "the norm" for most WCK people. And as I pointed out, most people in WCK -- like you -- don't know what they are doing. And that's why they can't do it. So, they end up kickboxing and tossing in a pak sao or bil sao and calling it WCK.

[Lee Chiang Po]

The whole premise of this thread is complete garbage. No blocking....LOFOL :eek::rolleyes::cool:

Pak, bong, tan, jut, bil, garn, lop, kan, etc.

They're all in EVERY wing chun system (as opposed to pseudo wing chun systems)...and they all are used as part of defense...

defense that's meant to control and allow for near simultaneous offense.

Even lop (as aggressive as it can be) is still a control hand that defends a line meant to be turned into offense.

Wing Chun uses blocks, parries, redirects, and avoidance - along with STRIKING...

and it's all of the above (along with footwork, angling, cutting, and strong body structure and alignment meant to create pressure) that constitutes THE CONTROL that wing chun fighters seek to have over their opponents.

Victor, these are not blocks as such. They are if you want to call them blocks, but a block is just that, a block. It absorbs the impact energy and can be injurous to your arms. Admitted, there are going to be times if one fights that he is going to get hit, and times when a block is all he can muster, but it is not the way of Wing Chun at all. These blocks you mentioned are designed to simply redirect force rather than block it or absorb it. The whole idea behind this system is that it can be used by smaller and weaker persons against a stronger opponent. Nothing works 100 % of the time however, and it would be silly to assume that it would. I have been beaten up really bad, but still manage to prevail. I got beaten up because it didn't work 100% of the time, but still managed to prervail because it worked most of the time.
For what it is worth, I think T has a pretty good handle on what Wing Chun is or isn't. And I think that the two of you would argue over the finer details if you were making the very same point. Simply because you are at odds with one another. T has said that after all these years he is not really good at it, but from what he says sometimes I would bet a dollar to a donut that he is good at it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

We're splitting hairs now to the point of the ridiculous. Sure, wing chun prefers redirection, but sometimes when you use moves like tan, bil, garn, gum, kan - you have no choice but to simply block.

Because at that moment you're not in a position to do anything else. There's theory - and there's real fighting. And real fighting is never perfect or ideal.

[Hendrik]

We're splitting hairs now to the point of the ridiculous. Sure, wing chun prefers redirection, but sometimes when you use moves like tan, bil, garn, gum, kan - you have no choice but to simply block.

Because at that moment you're not in a position to do anything else. There's theory - and there's real fighting. And real fighting is never perfect or ideal.


1, there is no different between theory and real fighting.
A technology is based on a philosophy or idea or a way, then based on that philosophy the infrastructure is created with the recursive use of the basic elements.

Tan, bil, Gum..... are all basic elements which build up the non blocking infrastructure or Fatt or WCK. and Fatt is based on a philosophy of the handling adaptive dynamic flow, which what the kuen kuit said --- simply " comes accept, goes return it, thrust into the opening or void."

WCK is only do three basic in application, be it in training or fighting
comes accept ---that is the way how one handling the dynamic flow of coming type.
goes return --That is the way how one handling the dynamic flow of goes type.
trust into the opening--- That is the way how one handling the dynamic flow of opening or void.

and ofcorse one need to have the dynamic structure to implement the above application. the dynamic structure of the body conditioning needs to be able to support the dynamic flow handling.

So, WCK can be some up to this simple and the key is after entering this WCK door, one works to perfect the implementation of the WCK ideas/ Style. This is not Hong Gar, not Shao Lin, not Emei, not white crane but WCK unique.

Start at 2.0/10.1 is a good presentation of what is a dramatise of those simple idea looks like. dont look at the strike look at what before the strike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncjInEVp9Go&feature=related


2, Sometimes is not all the time and WCK cannot based on sometimes what it is but WCK needs to based on what it is most of the time.



3, Real driving is also never perfect or ideal, however, one cannot have accident everyday driving a car. otherwise, it is no longer driving a car properly.

for those who is fluent with the 3 dynamic flow handling above is a WCner.

Sitting that in YJKYM doing Tan dA, lap da, chain punch or doing SLT doesnt really means one is a WCner if one doesnt fluently spontaneously master the 3 basic above.


In my humble opinion.

[t_niehoff]

We're splitting hairs now to the point of the ridiculous. Sure, wing chun prefers redirection, but sometimes when you use moves like tan, bil, garn, gum, kan - you have no choice but to simply block.


This is the kickboxer approach to WCK -- seeing the bridge hands as parries, blocks, "redirections".

[YungChun]

This is the kickboxer approach to WCK -- seeing the bridge hands as parries, blocks, "redirections".

Well I'm not sure about Victor...

But I'll say that you may well have to block or cover... We don't/can't always choose these things..

However VT does have parries or blocks of a kind but they issue energy, occupying the line and clearing the line... How they do that depends on what the other guy does or fails to do.. In all cases it's to "clear the path" to their core break structure ..in order to continue to issue force and break structure...

[HumbleWCGuy]

I put the word "standard" in quotes because YOU used the word. By "standard" you seem to mean "the norm" for most WCK people. And as I pointed out, most people in WCK -- like you -- don't know what they are doing. And that's why they can't do it. So, they end up kickboxing and tossing in a pak sao or bil sao and calling it WCK.

That's interesting since you have abandoned your WC to kickbox. You say all this on the one hand. But I can't help but go back to your criticism of victor for not appearing as a boxer in your criticisms of his WC. Boxing for the sport of boxing looks different than boxing for mma or for martial arts. Your inability to be consistent makes a lot of us wonder.

[Hendrik]

Just to share

In my Yik Kam lineage, the following writing at the closing of the SLT is a summary of the three keys and more.

揎蓋挑疊常要用
Open Circle, Close circle, upward circle, down ward cycle always needed


劍指膀肘逞英雄
Sword finger and wing elbow presented to the hero.



See, no block. using circles and circles to summary . IE the tan, lap....etc. IE since lap and tok...etc done continously become a circle.

So at the contact one transform into the tan or lap....etc carry out the come accept, goes....etc.

Sword finger and wing elbow means long range and short range, or away from body strike and close body strike.



However one needs the dynamic structure conditioning to be able to execute the dynamic flow handling that is the reason

http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=997258&postcount=160
http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=993125&postcount=38

is needed and in details in the training of the SLT.



So, it is a complete technology started with

An idea/concept/philosphy, then infrastructure, then the basic elements which use to implement the infrastructure and the infrastructure is the reality of the idea.


IMHO,
in my understanding, if one follow this type of instruction in the kuen kuit one is doing WCK. however, if one doesnt follow this type of instruction but implementing Shao Lin or CLF or Hung Gar idea then even if one is practice the SLT set, one is not doing WCK.
This is what I understand about the Cho family art on how to differentiate between CLF based or WCK based art even one practice the same set.

[russellsherry]

hi guys i have never belived in blocking in particlar bong tan type against choy lay fut. This is never going to work wing chun should use short jab movements break into his centerline and we should use good footwork as well , i dont even belive in any guard at all you centerline is were your hands are . i belive in what sensai bob jones founder of zen do kai karate said
bloaking is bs too slow for the street regards russellsherry

[Ultimatewingchun]

Again, I don't read his posts, but from what I've seen in these last few posts quoting Niehoff:
it's clear once again that he's the fantasy fighter if he thinks that, paraphrasing... "if you're wing chun is good enough you won't ever be blocking - and all your bridging should never amount to little more than parries or redirects."

THIS IS THE TALK OF SOMEONE WHO HAS SPENT VERY-LITTLE-TO-NO TIME ACTUALLY SPARRING HARD WITH WING CHUN AGAINST SKILLED, RESISTING OPPONENTS - AND ESPECIALLY AGAINST GUYS WITH REAL GOOD BOXING OR KICKBOXING, OR EVEN GOOD KARATE SKILLS.

And as ususal - the more he talks - the more his fraudulence becomes apparent.

[anerlich]

I rather adaptively track the incoming dynamic and play with their momentum with very minimum impact.


Who wouldn't? My point is you may not always be able to do that. In theroy and your imagination, everytihng always works perfectly, in practice not necessarily.


Using that reasoning, anyone who has ever gotten away with some nonsense can be used as an example to validate it. I'm sure someone, somewhere once poked some guy on the ground in the eye to escape -- so that proves that poking the eye is a good idea!

You spout a lot of nonsense. Feeling jealous because you can't get away with it?

I'm not presenting an argument, I'm supplying a counterexample and playing devil's advocate. Take a valium or something. Jeepers creepers. :rolleyes:



Oh, and my TWC instructor (and training partner)

Your training partner? Or showing even poorer judgement, your instructor? Well, ZAP! There goes that guy's credibility.


saw Cheung unable to deal with Vunak's jab at Cheung's first US seminar (getting hit 3 or 4 times in the face) -- I guess that proves that TWC has no answer to the jab.

Oh, and I've heard of this guy in STL who raves on and on on a WC forum about BJJ and MMA and how everyone else is clueless, but whose sole achievement in that area appears to be getting his shoulder injured in a sub grappling tournament. He's a Robert Chu student and Alan Orr jockrider - so I guess his ineptitude proves that CSL WC, Robert Chu and Alan Orr have no answers either, huh?

[Lee Chiang Po]

We're splitting hairs now to the point of the ridiculous. Sure, wing chun prefers redirection, but sometimes when you use moves like tan, bil, garn, gum, kan - you have no choice but to simply block.

Because at that moment you're not in a position to do anything else. There's theory - and there's real fighting. And real fighting is never perfect or ideal.

There is a difference for certain. I think your whole viewpoint comes from trying to do WC in the style of a boxer. I am here to tell you, it just ain't going to work for you or anyone else. As you can see, you can not use the tools of Wing Chun without turning it into boxing.
I said that there would be times when a block might be the only option, but it don't always have to be that way. How well you apply something really depends upon just how well you train it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've done my wing chun in the style of wing chun for decades...until I started running into guys with very good boxing and kickboxing skills. And then I started experimenting with some boxing as a wing chun delivery system.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Oh, and my TWC instructor (and training partner) saw Cheung unable to deal with Vunak's jab at Cheung's first US seminar (getting hit 3 or 4 times in the face) -- I guess that proves that TWC has no answer to the jab."

***BEEN AROUND William Cheung since August, 1983. Never have I seen anything even closely resembling a claim like this. And I've seen a number of people from various martial art backgrounds (Robert Chu included) who thought they would "test" William Cheung in one way or another - AND FAIL. And outside of the ambush in Germany in 1986 (wherein William was surrounded by six of the perpetrator's cohorts)...outside of that incident...nothing has ever happened to William Cheung along the lines of "getting hit 3 or 4 times in the face".

Absolutely nothing. Never seen it. Never heard about it. Never read about it.

Until now - from the most questionable source on this forum.

Again: COMPLETE BULL5HIT.

[goju]

what a silly thread
a redirection is still a block

[HumbleWCGuy]

If you ask me what ain't gonna work is ignoring basic elements of strong fighting. The problem with adding boxing into Wing Chun isn't the boxing or the Wing Chun, it is the person. Victor has managed to make a nice "small guy," WC for himself by sensibly incorporating boxing into his WC. Where the problem lies is when guys like Terrence try it and then they don't know which way is up and they start making statements about how wing chun is just this or that. Wing Chun is an art with consistent themes, but many possible strategies and variations that could be applied to maximize ones physical traits. We need to totally get away from the notion that Wing Chun is... Rather, in WC we prefer to do x, y, or z. Although, we have these other methods available to us in a pinch.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If WC gets anything from boxing, I hope that it is a notion of situational fighting and strategy. This one size fits all junk is for the birds.

[Hardwork108]

WC is a style which is having a philosophy of no blocking but adaptively handling dynamic flow.

What do you think?

My Wing Chun sifu told me a long time ago that when skills, awareness, and understanding improve then one does not need to block. Personally it makes sense to me.

[Hendrik]

If you ask me what ain't gonna work is ignoring basic elements of strong fighting. The problem with adding boxing into Wing Chun isn't the boxing or the Wing Chun, it is the person. Victor has managed to make a nice "small guy," WC for himself by sensibly incorporating boxing into his WC. Where the problem lies is when guys like Terrence try it and then they don't know which way is up and they start making statements about how wing chun is just this or that. Wing Chun is an art with consistent themes, but many possible strategies and variations that could be applied to maximize ones physical traits. We need to totally get away from the notion that Wing Chun is... Rather, in WC we prefer to do x, y, or z. Although, we have these other methods available to us in a pinch.


If the tea is added to coffee than it is no longer coffee. So, what is coffee and coffee's characteristics.

If one has 80% tea and 20% coffee then it is tea coffee not coffee tea.

[Hendrik]

My Wing Chun sifu told me a long time ago that when skills, awareness, and understanding improve then one does not need to block. Personally it makes sense to me.


awareness is not the uniqueness of WCK. it help but it is not the key. the technology or Fatt is. and what is the WCK technology?


There is a different between those who drive a car with break and those who drive a car without breaking but make use of the momentum all the time.

WCK is like driving without using break.


Thus, one can talk about awareness all the time but if one has never been train in driving without using break, then, one still dont know how is it like driving without using break but just flowing.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If the tea is added to coffee than it is no longer coffee. So, what is coffee and coffee's characteristics.

If one has 80% tea and 20% coffee then it is tea coffee not coffee tea.

If the goal is to preserve history then fine. If the goal is to win fights it's hard to argue with boxing being added to WC in a sensible manner. For example, this guy gets hit in the throat about a million times. Five minutes of boxing training would tell him to drop his chin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

I don't know that the notion of dropping the chin is uniquely boxing but, it is certainly just a strong piece of fighting advice that seems to get overlooked by chi-sao crazy schools and espoused to at a boxing gym. Moreover, I can't say that something like this really waters down the Wing Chun.

[anerlich]

There is a different between those who drive a car with break and those who drive a car without breaking but make use of the momentum all the time.


P!ss poor analogy. Formula 1 drivers, the most accomplished in the world, use their breaks [sic] all the time.

And if you thought the driving analogy was bad ....


If the tea is added to coffee than it is no longer coffee. So, what is coffee and coffee's characteristics.

If one has 80% tea and 20% coffee then it is tea coffee not coffee tea.

That was utter nonsense.

[Hardwork108]

P!ss poor analogy. Formula 1 drivers, the most accomplished in the world, use their breaks [sic] all the time.

And if you thought the driving analogy was bad ....



That was utter nonsense.

I am sorry but you are way off on your "critique" here.

You should empty your glass and perhaps see what Hendrik said through a different perspective, because he hits the nail on the head with both of his statements.

IMHO, if you mix styles like most people do nowadays then you turn your Wing Chun into some kind of kickboxing, which may even work for you, but you cannot call it Wing Chun.

[HumbleWCGuy]

From my perspective, when people add boxing to WC the idea is not to import the whole of boxing into WC it is to take what you already do and start to do it a little bit better. The example of keeping the chin down is a small example of a stance improvement that tends to escape the less competitive TMA schools. If you are using your WC to fight, you will adopt a some "boxing habits"/full-contact habits. Actively seeking to incooperate boxing into your curriculum by working with and speaking to boxers helps to give one a vocabulary for these full-contact habits so that your school's students can begin to use and refine them.

[HumbleWCGuy]

They idea that WC does not block can take on several forms. For for high-mobility WC systems not blocking means to get out of the way and to only use the hands to parry. For low-mobility WC that emphasizes chi-sao it appears that the idea of attaching is preferable.

There is not enough there to be a complete fighter. If your A strategy fails what are you going to do? If these are your conceptions of WC fine, but better have another system to use or you won't make it. To fight effectively you need both these strategies, plus hard blocks plus other over-arching strategies that allow these to work.

[Hendrik]

IMHO



If the goal is to preserve history then fine.

there is no value of preserve history for some useless things.

There are too many people out there who think they can do the 3 set, and chi sau and knife and pole and fight in the way of rushing chain punch is WCK, and keeping add in different technics and at the end there is no different between them or karate or TKD or....etc. They think they have all the important things cover but they dont know WCK.




If the goal is to win fights it's hard to argue with boxing being added to WC in a sensible manner.

First one needs to know what is WCK? until then there is no arguement can be made.




For example, this guy gets hit in the throat about a million times. Five minutes of boxing training would tell him to drop his chin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc


One doesnt even have to train five minutes of boxing if the coach know his art.
and it is independent of style to cover the basic key points.




I don't know that the notion of dropping the chin is uniquely boxing but, it is certainly just a strong piece of fighting advice that seems to get overlooked by chi-sao crazy schools and espoused to at a boxing gym. Moreover, I can't say that something like this really waters down the Wing Chun.

Again, this got nothing todo with boxing or WCK or any other style.

[Hendrik]

If you are using your WC to fight, you will adopt a some "boxing habits"/full-contact habits. Actively seeking to incooperate boxing into your curriculum by working with and speaking to boxers helps to give one a vocabulary for these full-contact habits so that your school's students can begin to use and refine them.


if one have never know how to drive a car without using break. Then, they cant imagine how is it like to drive without using break.

For those who knows how to drive without using break would sometimes using shifting to lower gear for break. Thus, adding a break is advantages but they still drive in the style without using break because that is their expertise. So do WCK -- driving without break.

[Ultimatewingchun]

They idea that WC does not block can take on several forms. For for high-mobility WC systems not blocking means to get out of the way and to only use the hands to parry. For low-mobility WC that emphasizes chi-sao it appears that the idea of attaching is preferable.

There is not enough there to be a complete fighter. If your A strategy fails what are you going to do? If these are your conceptions of WC fine, but better have another system to use or you won't make it. To fight effectively you need both these strategies, plus hard blocks plus other over-arching strategies that allow these to work.

***CORRECT.

Everything is relative; meaning, what might be true in relation to one thing and set of circumstances might not be true elsewhere.

For example, your earlier comments about my "small man's wing chun that I've enhanced with boxing" (I'm paraphrasing you) is true indeed, and is especially noticeable when I'm up against someone say...5 inches taller and 40 lbs. heavier.

But when up against a guy who is say, 5'7"-5'8"...and maybe about 140-150 lbs...

then I can play a different game since I go 5'10"-170. And I've been around long enough to tell you that I have been "much more wing chun pure" on plenty of occasions when working against smaller guys - or against a guy my size or perhaps even a little bigger but who didn't have any distinguishable fighting skills.

So it's all relative to (in relation to) who you're dealing with.

But nonetheless, I honestly believe by this point in time that I've hit upon something, ie.- the advantages to be gained by adding some boxing to wing chun - that go beyond size issues...

and do apply in basically any "size" situation because the principles behind the boxing/wing chun marriage are solid and make sense.

Let me put it this way: If we were to take two guys evenly matched in both pure wing chun skills and in size - but one of them was adding boxing jabs, stiff leads, crosses, uppercuts, hooks, overhands...and boxing footwork, bobbing, weaving, ducking, etc. into the mix and the other guy wasn't - I believe that the first guy would have the advantage.

Because he would now have extra offensive and defensive weapons is his arsenal in general, and particularly so at longer ranges (ie.- non contact range). And in fact, extra "round" weaponry at any distance. (As opposed to just straight line attacks). Extra offense and extra defense.

And for me, the only real issue would then become how well that guy has integrated the two systems as seamlessly as possible so that there's no thinking involved - just one move following the other in a smart progession...

and without fretting about where it came from and what to label it.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Again, this got nothing todo with boxing or WCK or any other style.

Hendrick,
That is exactly my point, boxing is a good avenue for WCers to learn to do the things they do a little better. That was a consistent point in all of my posts concerning the matter. You are missing my point; I think.

[Hendrik]

For for high-mobility WC systems not blocking means to get out of the way and to only use the hands to parry.


not the above.
it just means driving without using break.




For low-mobility WC that emphasizes chi-sao it appears that the idea of attaching is preferable.

Those just doesnt work.





There is not enough there to be a complete fighter. If your A strategy fails what are you going to do? If these are your conceptions of WC fine, but better have another system to use or you won't make it.

To the contradiction, those who drive without using break has no problem when the break breaks down.

WCK slogan said, -- Those who has fear of get beat will get beat. that simple driving without using the breaks and zoom through everything in high speed.

If one needs security and strategy then one might as well not race.





To fight effectively you need both these strategies, plus hard blocks plus other over-arching strategies that allow these to work.

Driving without using break needs only the driving wheel, gear shift stick, and gas pedal stick. that simple and that clean, no thinking but response spontaneously on spot in every instant of the race.

[Hendrik]

Just a thought, get a copy of sifu Robert Chu's new WCK instruction DVD to see you agree with him. or perhaps can learn a new perspective from Robert's teaching.

[HumbleWCGuy]

***CORRECT.


And for me, the only real issue would then become how well that guy has integrated the two systems as seamlessly as possible so that there's no thinking involved - just one move following the other in a smart progession...

and without fretting about where it came from and what to label it.

That's my whole deal. A good portion of boxing integration is just adding things into your WC that should be there. I get concerned when people start bobbing and weaving like Joe Frazier and completely abandon WC hand movements.

One annoying thing that occurs in the marriage is too much head movement. TMAists needed to move their heads more, but it needs to be purposeful. Narrow boxing hands and non-purposeful head movement leads to head kicks and knees.

[HumbleWCGuy]

If one needs security and strategy then one might as well not race.

That is just ridiculous. The whole point of your meditations as you told me was to run fighting scenarios through your mind. Fighting Strategies are the same thing, but initially built on the advice and work of other people. You can't truly believe that you will handle all situations the same? That would not be consistent with your visualizations.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Just a thought, get a copy of sifu Robert Chu's new WCK instruction DVD to see you agree with him. or perhaps can learn a new perspective from Robert's teaching.

I doubt it since Terrence is a top exponent of his. I don't see how I could be impressed or interested.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Driving without using break needs only the driving wheel, gear shift stick, and gas pedal stick. that simple and that clean, no thinking but response spontaneously on spot in every instant of the race.

Driving without a break just means that you crash unless you can drive on only nice straight roads.

More literally, if people want to use these ridiculously narrow conceptions of Wing Chun they will be fine as long as they never have to fight a legitimate opponent, a crooked road. If someone has good "narrow WC" wc skills, they might be able to compensate for some low-level fighters but that's about it.

[Hendrik]

That is just ridiculous.


The whole point of your meditations as you told me was to run fighting scenarios through your mind.


Fighting Strategies are the same thing, but initially built on the advice and work of other people.

You can't truly believe that you will handle all situations the same? That would not be consistent with your visualizations.



My meditations got nothing to do with running fighting scenarios. In fact, meditation is to get out of one's mind.

[anerlich]

You should empty your glass and perhaps see what Hendrik said through a different perspective, because he hits the nail on the head with both of his statements.


Even Hendrik keeps telling you you don't know what you're talking about, despite your ongoing efforts to ride his jocks.

[Hendrik]

Driving without a break just means that you crash unless you can drive on only nice straight roads.

More literally, if people want to use these ridiculously narrow conceptions of Wing Chun they will be fine as long as they never have to fight a legitimate opponent, a crooked road. If someone has good "narrow WC" wc skills, they might be able to compensate for some low-level fighters but that's about it.


In ASia, where there is no nice high way and straight roads but all type of hill and valey and back road....etc, we race with taking breaks off our motocycles. that show how good one can really ride.

Water just flow and it could takes unlimited ways of flow. There is nothing narrow and nothing ridiculous. in fact trapping in the mind is the most dangerous thing that cause one blind from reality.

[HumbleWCGuy]

In ASia, where there is no nice high way and straight roads but all type of hill and valey and back road....etc, we race with taking breaks of our motocycle away.

Water just flow and it could takes unlimited ways of flow. There is nothing narrow and nothing ridiculous. in fact trapping in the mind is the most dangerous thing that cause one blind from reality.

In fighting you just get your a$$ kicked against good fighters, all analogies aside.

[Hendrik]

Hendrick,
That is exactly my point, boxing is a good avenue for WCers to learn to do the things they do a little better. That was a consistent point in all of my posts concerning the matter. You are missing my point; I think.


Anything can be a good avenue for someone to learn todo the things better.

[Hendrik]

In fighting you just get your a$$ kicked against good fighters, all analogies aside.


We are talking about WCK not about good fighters.

[anerlich]

In ASia, where there is no nice high way and straight roads but all type of hill and valey and back road....etc, we race with taking breaks off our motocycles. that show how good one can really ride.


Ah, social Darwinism at work.

[HumbleWCGuy]

We are talking about WCK not about good fighters.

WC is expected to work against good fighter correct? If not then WC is a cultural expression to be preserved by its caretakers.

[anerlich]

Just a thought, get a copy of sifu Robert Chu's new WCK instruction DVD to see you agree with him. or perhaps can learn a new perspective from Robert's teaching.

Why? Do him and T drive across St Louis at peak hour in a car without brakes? You wouldn't need a DVD, you'd need about 15 seconds of Youtube to show that. You'd maybe even get by with an animated GIF.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Anything can be a good avenue for someone to learn todo the things better.

That's not true. It would be a stretch to suggest that flower arrangement would help my sparring. However, boxers possess and practice a lot of elements of strong fighting that could help a WCer with holes in their game. Now, I have said that WCers could study other MA's and add to their game. I have never said that boxing was the only supplemental art; it's just something that gets talked about on here a lot.

I have also never said that a WCer has to supplement their art. They may feel that they have everything that they need. I personally never felt like boxing offered a lot that my WC didn't have an answer for, but I liked the boxing training partners and I liked trying to beat them at their own game.

[Hendrik]

WC is expected to work against good fighter correct? If not then WC is a cultural expression to be preserved by its caretakers.

Wck is wck. Good fighter is good fighter. Fighter compete with fighter. Wck doesn't compete with fighter. Wck is just a method based on a type of idea.

[Hendrik]

That's not true. It would be a stretch to suggest that flower arrangement would help my sparring. However, boxers possess and practice a lot of elements of strong fighting that could help a WCer with holes in their game. Now, I have said that WCers could study other MA's and add to their game. I have never said that boxing was the only supplemental art; it's just something that gets talked about on here a lot.

I have also never said that a WCer has to supplement their art. They may feel that they have everything that they need. I personally never felt like boxing offered a lot that my WC didn't have an answer for, but I liked the boxing training partners and I liked trying to beat them at their own game.


What is wck for you? Who do you learn wck from?

[Hendrik]

I doubt it since Terrence is a top exponent of his. I don't see how I could be impressed or interested.


You sure can have your opinion. But I would not make equal Terence with Robert. And also, I would not comment on something I have not seen.

[Ultimatewingchun]

If you thought trying to hold Terence Niehoff to consistency and honest discussion based upon facts and not simply self-serving rhetoric that is often little more than out-and-out bull5hit has been a problem...

wait till you get a load of Hendrik Santo. :eek:

One guy comes out of left field with charlatan arguments and credentials - and the other guy comes from a different ballfield altogether: somewhere in outer space.

LOL ;)

[shawchemical]

Wck is wck. Good fighter is good fighter. Fighter compete with fighter. Wck doesn't compete with fighter. Wck is just a method based on a type of idea.

100% on the money.

[Hendrik]

If you thought trying to hold Terence Niehoff to consistency and honest discussion based upon facts and not simply self-serving rhetoric that is often little more than out-and-out bull5hit has been a problem...

wait till you get a load of Hendrik Santo. :eek:

One guy comes out of left field with charlatan arguments and credentials - and the other guy comes from a different ballfield altogether: somewhere in outer space.

LOL ;)



Beside all kind of personal attack what have you contribute? If you are not interested in the discussion, no one force you to be here.

[Hendrik]

Hendrik,

Perhaps you can share your 4 snake spinal exercises and tests, so that others on here can get a better idea of what you you are speaking about, by experiencing it themselves.

what do you want to know? if you read my kuen kuit post or view my youtube clip, lots of things are reveal there.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wck is wck. Good fighter is good fighter. Fighter compete with fighter. Wck doesn't compete with fighter. Wck is just a method based on a type of idea.

I basically agree. There is nothing wrong with WC, some of its practitioners are flawed in teaching, understanding, and in failure to modernize the curriculum to meet the demands of the modern fighter. For example, spending time speaking in riddles in an effort to sound wise, really just wastes the time of students. Telling students to clear their minds of preconceived notions of fight strategy delays their ability to put together an effective personal style built upon a body of knowledge already amassed.

[Hardwork108]

I doubt it since Terrence is a top exponent of his. I don't see how I could be impressed or interested.

Since when is Terrence a top exponent of Wing Chun?:confused:

[duende]

P!ss poor analogy. Formula 1 drivers, the most accomplished in the world, use their breaks [sic] all the time.

And if you thought the driving analogy was bad ....


He's actually rehashing an argument from his "no structure in WC" thread. I used brakes as the analogy of structure within flow. And how if one always flowed with no breaks, that they'd be spinnning out of control everytime they had to take a corner turn.

Hendrik doesn't like being school'd on anything so in a way.... This is his late comeback respons.

Dynamic flow actually is accurate terminology, however he needs to look up the definition of what something being "dynamic" means.

As his interpretation of dynamics is mistaken.

Is WC always soft? With different degrees of softness? Or is it both hard and soft?

And isn't the ability to switch between hard and soft seamlessly an essence of flow itself??

No matter what you say to him.... He always has to be right.

On another note.... Is it me or is Hemdrick sounding like a commercial these days?
:rolleyes:

[HumbleWCGuy]

Since when is Terrence a top exponent of Wing Chun?:confused:

He is a top student of Robert if I am not mistaken. I would not refer to him as a top WC man.

[Hardwork108]

He is a top student of Robert if I am not mistaken. I would not refer to him as a top WC man.

I know Terrence studied under sifu Robert Chu for some time but I suspect that many, many others have as well.

However, IMHO opinion one must really stretch his imagination to call Terrence a Wing Chun expert. He is a cross trainer who claims WC knowledge, but be careful as the world, including this forum, is full of such people.

I would like to know if Terrence himself claims or has ever claimed expertise in Wing Chun specially in view of the fact that he does not even give weight to this art's Internals, principles and concepts (if memory serves me correctly).

[t_niehoff]

If you thought trying to hold Terence Niehoff to consistency and honest discussion based upon facts and not simply self-serving rhetoric that is often little more than out-and-out bull5hit has been a problem...

wait till you get a load of Hendrik Santo. :eek:

One guy comes out of left field with charlatan arguments and credentials - and the other guy comes from a different ballfield altogether: somewhere in outer space.

LOL ;)

Poor Victor, all he ever has to offer is ad hominem fallacious arguments and bad kickboxing.

[t_niehoff]

I know Terrence studied under sifu Robert Chu for some time but I suspect that many, many others have as well.

However, IMHO opinion one must really stretch his imagination to call Terrence a Wing Chun expert.


Robert has trained many in WCK. I'm nothing special. I've never claimed to be a WCK expert or an authority on WCK. As I have said many times before, there are no authorities in WCK.



He is a cross trainer who claims WC knowledge, but be careful as the world, including this forum, is full of such people.


Well, I do know the WCK curriculum, and I have done lots of work toward making my WCK functional. I also cross-train -- for two reasons. First, I don't think you can make your WCK functional without training/sparring with good fighters. And second, you can't have well-rounded fighting skills without cross training.

But I do agree with you about being careful.

As I have said before, this is one of my favorite posts on one of my favorite blogs -- I think it expresses my views very neatly:

http://caneprevost.wordpress.com/tag/bullsh1t-meter/ (replace bullsh1t with the correct spelling to make the link work)



I would like to know if Terrence himself claims or has ever claimed expertise in Wing Chun specially in view of the fact that he does not even give weight to this art's Internals, principles and concepts (if memory serves me correctly).

I think I've already answered all these questions many times before (do you ever read any of my posts?). There are no experts in WCK (a BJJ black belt is an expert -- and a BB has awesome fighting skills; who in WCK has that level of fighting skills with WCK?).

Internals, principles, concepts are nonsense. WCK is no more complicated than riding a bike or surfing or playing tennis. Do you need internals, principles, or concepts to do any of those?

[t_niehoff]

That's interesting since you have abandoned your WC to kickbox. You say all this on the one hand. But I can't help but go back to your criticism of victor for not appearing as a boxer in your criticisms of his WC. Boxing for the sport of boxing looks different than boxing for mma or for martial arts. Your inability to be consistent makes a lot of us wonder.

You are making things up and lying. I have not abandoned my WCK to kickbox. You make sh1t up that I never said and then argue that I'm not consistent in what I say. Can you get any more intellectually dishonest?

Who taught you WCK? Answer that question. Tell us. If you won't, that alone will tell us that you have never really learned it.

[kung fu fighter]

If you thought trying to hold Terence Niehoff to consistency and honest discussion based upon facts and not simply self-serving rhetoric that is often little more than out-and-out bull5hit has been a problem...

wait till you get a load of Hendrik Santo. :eek:

One guy comes out of left field with charlatan arguments and credentials - and the other guy comes from a different ballfield altogether: somewhere in outer space.

LOL ;)

Hendrik, thanks for the reply! here is your chance to prove Victor Wrong! especially since this is your thread.



what do you want to know?


What exactly are your 4 key exercises to unlock the snake and untangle the body/spine, that you showed Jim Roselando?

[HumbleWCGuy]

We're splitting hairs now to the point of the ridiculous. Sure, wing chun prefers redirection, but sometimes when you use moves like tan, bil, garn, gum, kan - you have no choice but to simply block.

Because at that moment you're not in a position to do anything else. There's theory - and there's real fighting. And real fighting is never perfect or ideal.
100% true! I will do you one better. I think that if a school isn't teaching hard blocks, whether they consider it proper WC or not, it is a school that is negligent.

[t_niehoff]

Humble, who taught you WCK?

[Hendrik]

here is your chance to prove Victor Wrong! especially since this is your thread.


I am not interested in prove anyone wrong.






What exactly are your 4 key exercises to unlock the snake and untangle the body/spine, that you showed Jim Roselando?


If that can be describe in a post. Sifu Jim Roselando doesnt have to fly to california to visit me and comes back to visit at least one almost every year since then.

[kung fu fighter]

If that can be describe in a post. Sifu Jim Roselando doesnt have to fly to california to visit me and comes back to visit at least one almost every year since then.

A general discription of how these 4 exercises are done and the purpose behind them would be a good start! So that people who don't know can at least get an idea of what you are speaking about, since most don't even believe this technology exists.

Does Robert's DVD have these exercises?

[Hendrik]

A general discription of how these 4 exercises are done and the purpose behind them would be a good start! So that people who don't know can at least get an idea of what you are speaking about, since most don't even believe this technology exists.

Does Robert's DVD have these exercises?


I have told you in the previous post it is not that simple and most cant figure out what is it if one has no experience of it. if they cant even figure out what is WCK that tell the story.

I careless if others believe it exist or not. In fact, it is great to keep others blind on the technology one has.




Robert's DVD is an instruction DVD of WCK in his view which is unrelated to the topic you brought up.

[Hardwork108]

Robert has trained many in WCK. I'm nothing special. I've never claimed to be a WCK expert or an authority on WCK. As I have said many times before, there are no authorities in WCK.



Well, I do know the WCK curriculum, and I have done lots of work toward making my WCK functional. I also cross-train -- for two reasons. First, I don't think you can make your WCK functional without training/sparring with good fighters. And second, you can't have well-rounded fighting skills without cross training.

But I do agree with you about being careful.

As I have said before, this is one of my favorite posts on one of my favorite blogs -- I think it expresses my views very neatly:

http://caneprevost.wordpress.com/tag/bullsh1t-meter/ (replace bullsh1t with the correct spelling to make the link work)



I think I've already answered all these questions many times before (do you ever read any of my posts?). There are no experts in WCK (a BJJ black belt is an expert -- and a BB has awesome fighting skills; who in WCK has that level of fighting skills with WCK?).

Internals, principles, concepts are nonsense. WCK is no more complicated than riding a bike or surfing or playing tennis. Do you need internals, principles, or concepts to do any of those?

HumbleWCguy,

There you have it from the horse's mouth. Terrence is not an expert in Wing Chun. Infact one could even argue that his knowledge is pretty superficial (ignorance of the art's principle's, Internals and functionality in general).

He is a cross trainer who has a passing acquaintance with the Wing Chun curriculum. And again, this forum is full of such people, and so is the world at large.

HW108

[anerlich]

A general discription of how these 4 exercises are done and the purpose behind them would be a good start! So that people who don't know can at least get an idea of what you are speaking about, since most don't even believe this technology exists.


You are wasting your time asking Hendrik to show you anything. Will never happen.

[HumbleWCGuy]

HumbleWCguy,

There you have it from the horse's mouth. Terrence is not an expert in Wing Chun. Infact one could even argue that his knowledge is pretty superficial (ignorance of the art's principle's, Internals and functionality in general).

He is a cross trainer who has a passing acquaintance with the Wing Chun curriculum. And again, this forum is full of such people, and so is the world at large.

HW108

He doesn't need to come out and say it for it to be painfully obvious.

[Yoshiyahu]

HumbleWCguy,

There you have it from the horse's mouth. Terrence is not an expert in Wing Chun. Infact one could even argue that his knowledge is pretty superficial (ignorance of the art's principle's, Internals and functionality in general).

He is a cross trainer who has a passing acquaintance with the Wing Chun curriculum. And again, this forum is full of such people, and so is the world at large.

HW108

Everyone does some cross training, this isn't really the issue. I been doing WC since I was sixteen. Im 33 now. But since then I have done some Tai Chi and a Little Baqua. I am also about to learn some Stick fighting. So I can say I have cross trained too. I have also sparred, drilled, chi sau, and did push hands with people of different backgrounds. Some from TKD some from MT, Some from Escrima, karate, etc.

But We all do some cross training here and there. When you lift weights, Do push ups, run miles, do the tread mill, run on an exercise bike, kettle bell training, jump rope or do any quasi western training methods you are cross training. Many things will make your WC stronger.

The proplem most of us have with cross trainers is those who do Ground fighting and assume their WC is better or more functional because they do ground work. True a purist ground fighter is going to be stronger on the ground than a Mixed Martial Artist. And Purist stand up fighter is going to be stronger upright than mix martial artist. If We take into account that both the purist and Mix Martial Artist have the same level of skill and years of practice. But the Mixed Martial Artist has an advantage. He can take the purist into an element that he is weak in. Unless the purist is conditioned and experience in fighting and defeating others who have tried to do so in the past. In other words if you have a purist ground fighter who is used to fighting upright figthers and has a knack or niche for getting upright fighters to the ground. The Mixed Martial Artist may definietly lose that day. Or vice Versa. If you have upright fighter who is skilled and experienced against ground fighters and keeping his opponent in his area of strength and expertise the Mixed Martial Artist will have a hard time that day as well. But every dog has its day. So no matter what, on any given day you can make a mistake and still lose. Fighting is different than training. Things don't always happen as plan. Things change on the fly. An one day the other guy might be just better than you. Or an opportunity arises to where he can take advantage of your weakness and uses it against you before you can launch your counter offensive.

Wing Chun states its superior to end a fight quickly. So if you can end fight quick before your opponent has time to implement his techinque than it doesn't matter if your a ground fighter or not. The key is to demolished him before he has a chance to dominate you or get you into uncomfortable area. Staying on defensive too long can get you into trouble. But of course in sparring, training, and playing around its fun to mixed things up with friends. So if you like to do take downs, submissions, and western wrestling for fun of it. So Be it. But a Purist doesn't want to hear the Mixed martial Artist talking about how ground fighting is superior to upright fighting because you know both areas. In fact you are actually jack of all trades but a master of None. So to the purist you lack mastery,An of course to Mixed Martial Artist the purist lacks diversity. So just leave it be. Because at the end of the day neither side will be happy with the other. Just Offer to fight the other to really prove your point. If you can't fight them then just shut up the stupid talking and go on to topics that will advance and exemplify Wing Chun Fighters!

[t_niehoff]

The proplem most of us have with cross trainers


Speak for yourself.



is those who do Ground fighting and assume their WC is better or more functional because they do ground work.


No, the WCK people I know who train the ground don't believe it makes their WCK any better (just like training on the ground won't make your boxing better) but that it makes you a better, more well-rounded fighter.



True a purist ground fighter is going to be stronger on the ground than a Mixed Martial Artist. And Purist stand up fighter is going to be stronger upright than mix martial artist.


No, they're not -- as numerous fights have demonstrated.

Why do people who don't fight, and don't train MMA or with MMAists, believe they have sound insights into fighting and/or MMA?



If We take into account that both the purist and Mix Martial Artist have the same level of skill and years of practice. But the Mixed Martial Artist has an advantage. He can take the purist into an element that he is weak in. Unless the purist is conditioned and experience in fighting and defeating others who have tried to do so in the past. In other words if you have a purist ground fighter who is used to fighting upright figthers and has a knack or niche for getting upright fighters to the ground. The Mixed Martial Artist may definietly lose that day. Or vice Versa. If you have upright fighter who is skilled and experienced against ground fighters and keeping his opponent in his area of strength and expertise the Mixed Martial Artist will have a hard time that day as well. But every dog has its day. So no matter what, on any given day you can make a mistake and still lose. Fighting is different than training. Things don't always happen as plan. Things change on the fly. An one day the other guy might be just better than you. Or an opportunity arises to where he can take advantage of your weakness and uses it against you before you can launch your counter offensive.


When fighting is your training (or the core of your training), then training isn't different than fighting. All the above is pure, hypothetical nonsense.



Wing Chun states its superior to end a fight quickly. So if you can end fight quick before your opponent has time to implement his techinque than it doesn't matter if your a ground fighter or not. The key is to demolished him before he has a chance to dominate you or get you into uncomfortable area.


Unless you completely outclass your opponent or get extremely lucky, the fight isn't going to end quickly.

Fighters don't train for when everything goes their way but for when things go very, very wrong. You've just made two of the common errors that theoretical nonfighters make: 1) you start with an unrealsitic view of fighting and 2) you assume everything is going to go your way.



Staying on defensive too long can get you into trouble. But of course in sparring, training, and playing around its fun to mixed things up with friends. So if you like to do take downs, submissions, and western wrestling for fun of it. So Be it. But a Purist doesn't want to hear the Mixed martial Artist talking about how ground fighting is superior to upright fighting because you know both areas. In fact you are actually jack of all trades but a master of None.


Theoretical nonfighters seem to love the "jack of all trades, master of none" argument (it's one of the signs of a theoretical nonfighter). Of course, if they ever ventured to actually spar with some decent MMA fighters, they'd quickly learn that a well-rounded fighter (the "jack of all trades") will easily defeat the one-dimensional fighter (the "master") -- mid level MMAfighers could easily handle world-class boxers, kickboxers, etc. that have no ground skills.



So to the purist you lack mastery,An of course to Mixed Martial Artist the purist lacks diversity. So just leave it be. Because at the end of the day neither side will be happy with the other. Just Offer to fight the other to really prove your point. If you can't fight them then just shut up the stupid talking and go on to topics that will advance and exemplify Wing Chun Fighters!

People who haven't put in lots of time sparring with GOOD fighters (MMA, boxers, MT, etc.) really don't have enough experience to have a solid basis from which to talk about fighting, even with WCK.

If you want to see the truth, go train/spar with some good MMA fighters and see for yourself. That's the only way, You either will do this or you won't.

[YungChun]

Theoretical nonfighters seem to love the "jack of all trades, master of none" argument (it's one of the signs of a theoretical nonfighter). Of course, if they ever ventured to actually spar with some decent MMA fighters, they'd quickly learn that a well-rounded fighter (the "jack of all trades") will easily defeat the one-dimensional fighter (the "master") -- mid level MMAfighers could easily handle world-class boxers, kickboxers, etc. that have no ground skills.


Not sure how TNF (theoretical non-fighters) or 1 dimensional fighters are jacks of all trades..

In any case I've met and know lots of Boxers, in some cases with many years of experience who:

1. Think that they are going to stop a take-down by a grappler with their KO power..

And

2. Think that MMA fighters have "no hands"...


So this kind of thinking is certainly not limited to TMA or TNFs..

[Niersun]

Speak for yourself.



No, the WCK people I know who train the ground don't believe it makes their WCK any better (just like training on the ground won't make your boxing better) but that it makes you a better, more well-rounded fighter.



No, they're not -- as numerous fights have demonstrated.

Why do people who don't fight, and don't train MMA or with MMAists, believe they have sound insights into fighting and/or MMA?



When fighting is your training (or the core of your training), then training isn't different than fighting. All the above is pure, hypothetical nonsense.



Unless you completely outclass your opponent or get extremely lucky, the fight isn't going to end quickly.

Fighters don't train for when everything goes their way but for when things go very, very wrong. You've just made two of the common errors that theoretical nonfighters make: 1) you start with an unrealsitic view of fighting and 2) you assume everything is going to go your way.



Theoretical nonfighters seem to love the "jack of all trades, master of none" argument (it's one of the signs of a theoretical nonfighter). Of course, if they ever ventured to actually spar with some decent MMA fighters, they'd quickly learn that a well-rounded fighter (the "jack of all trades") will easily defeat the one-dimensional fighter (the "master") -- mid level MMAfighers could easily handle world-class boxers, kickboxers, etc. that have no ground skills.



People who haven't put in lots of time sparring with GOOD fighters (MMA, boxers, MT, etc.) really don't have enough experience to have a solid basis from which to talk about fighting, even with WCK.

If you want to see the truth, go train/spar with some good MMA fighters and see for yourself. That's the only way, You either will do this or you won't.

Im going to try and rebut some of these points that i disagree with.

Most MMA fighters are high ranked BJJ, but a fighter who trains specifically on stand up is going to be better at stand up against a MMA fighter who does wrestling or BJJ and trains on some kickboxing skills, for the same reason you argued "as numerous fights have demonstrated".

Street fights always end quickly for one person. For a person who talks like a competitive fighter, you should know that most competitive (stand up) fighters go in with a game plan and train with that in mind. Unless you do wrestling or similar where you star in a certain position. Competitive fighters attempt to make the opponent fight the way they want to fight which most of the time is stand up, but you might see some guys who get taken down stay on the ground like a chump wanting the other guy to come down to the ground, instead of getting back on his feet.

MMA or not, alot of fighters in MMA prefer stand up and win a majority of there fights for standup. One dimensional fighters. You grossly over generalize.

As for sparring with MMA, i have sparred with sambo fighters. Nothing special. Just another fighter. There stand up wasnt that great. If MMA is anything to go off, im sure alot take steroids as it is a competitive sport. With steroids, theres usually something that goes undetected.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Niersun,

Let me try to save you some time, energy, and unnecessary aggravation. As a newbie here please understand a few things about the guy you're arguing with/trying to rebutt at the moment.

He's been posting here for close to 10 years and has never provided any verifiable evidence whatsoever (like a vid or two, for example...or showing up for a sparring event that he said he would ...or even touching hands even once when he did show up for an event wherein some chi sao and drills were being done)....

...he has provided no verifiable evidence whatsoever that he's any good at anything. Absolutely refuses to post even one vid of himself in action.

So keep that in mind.

Now as to who in the mma/bjj/boxing/MT world he actually trains with...or for how long...or how often he actually attends...or exactly what his skill level is....there is the same black hole of verifiable information.

And ditto for his 20+ years he says he trained in wing chun. For example, when someone he claims to have trained with in the wing chun world was asked about Terence Niehoff - it became clear from that person's answer (ie.- post on this forum)...that Niehoff couldn't have possibly spent more than 5 or 6 actual face-to-face sessions with this particular wing chun instructor.

And there's a guy who posts here under the name of JPinAZ...

Do a member search and check out JP's signature for a whole list of quotes from Niehoff's posts about chi sao...and grappling...and fighting. The inconsistencies, 180 degree reversals, and just plain ol' nonsense dribble will astound you....

So draw your own conclusions.

And one more thing: If Niehoff rebutts my present post don't make anything out of the fact that I might not respond - since I have him on the IGNORE list and don't read his posts - only when other people's posts quote him.

The guy is a bombastic, redundant, know-it-all-but-demonstrate-nothing troll.

[t_niehoff]

Not sure how TNF (theoretical non-fighters) or 1 dimensional fighters are jacks of all trades..

In any case I've met and know lots of Boxers, in some cases with many years of experience who:

1. Think that they are going to stop a take-down by a grappler with their KO power..

And

2. Think that MMA fighters have "no hands"...


So this kind of thinking is certainly not limited to TMA or TNFs..

Really, you know lots of boxers? How? Do you train at a boxing gym? Or are you just saying this to make a point.

I train at a gym that trains boxers, and I haven't heard any of them say they thought they could stop a takedown with their "KO power".

As far as MMA people having "no hands", I've head some boxing enthusiasts say that MMA people typically aren't good boxers, even though quite a few have GG and/or some pro experience. This is because they are evaluating what they see from a pure boxing-perspective -- and from that perspective they are right. But what they fail to appreciate is that a MMA fighter needs to modifiy their boxing to take into account elbows, knees, kicks, clinches, takedowns, etc.

But I have found the "jacks of all trade" argument (and people often use that exact wording) comes consistently from theoretical nonfighters -- people who aren't masters of anything.

[t_niehoff]

Im going to try and rebut some of these points that i disagree with.

Most MMA fighters are high ranked BJJ, but a fighter who trains specifically on stand up is going to be better at stand up against a MMA fighter who does wrestling or BJJ and trains on some kickboxing skills, for the same reason you argued "as numerous fights have demonstrated".


Yes, a better stand-up striker will beat an inferior-skilled opponent in stand-up IF THE FIGHT REMAINS IN STAND-UP. But, that is a very, very difficult thing to do, particularly if you haven't extensively cross-trained (so that you are a well-rounded fighter). A well-rounded fighter (someone with good stand up, clinch, and ground) will be able to better deal with and take advantage of someone with one-dimensional skills (if all you have is stand-up and your opponent is better, you're screwed; if, however, you also have good clinch and ground, you can take the fight somewhere else).



Street fights always end quickly for one person.


No, they don't -- that's a myth. You can see this for yourself on youtube.



For a person who talks like a competitive fighter, you should know that most competitive (stand up) fighters go in with a game plan and train with that in mind. Unless you do wrestling or similar where you star in a certain position. Competitive fighters attempt to make the opponent fight the way they want to fight which most of the time is stand up, but you might see some guys who get taken down stay on the ground like a chump wanting the other guy to come down to the ground, instead of getting back on his feet.


There is an old adage that says everyone has a game plan until they get hit. Or, another one is men plan and the gods laugh.



MMA or not, alot of fighters in MMA prefer stand up and win a majority of there fights for standup. One dimensional fighters. You grossly over generalize.


Successful MMA fighters today ALL extensively cross-train and are all well-rounded fighters.



As for sparring with MMA, i have sparred with sambo fighters. Nothing special. Just another fighter. There stand up wasnt that great. If MMA is anything to go off, im sure alot take steroids as it is a competitive sport. With steroids, theres usually something that goes undetected.

Were these combat sambo people or just straight sambo?

MMA is a competitive sport -- and as it is a sport, they learn and practice things that have proved, time and time again, to work in fighting.

You haven't trained MMA, yet you have all kinds of preconceptions. That's a huge problem -- forming conclusions without experience/knowledge. Before you make up your mind, go see.

[Frost]

Im going to try and rebut some of these points that i disagree with.

Most MMA fighters are high ranked BJJ, but a fighter who trains specifically on stand up is going to be better at stand up against a MMA fighter who does wrestling or BJJ and trains on some kickboxing skills, for the same reason you argued "as numerous fights have demonstrated".

Street fights always end quickly for one person. For a person who talks like a competitive fighter, you should know that most competitive (stand up) fighters go in with a game plan and train with that in mind. Unless you do wrestling or similar where you star in a certain position. Competitive fighters attempt to make the opponent fight the way they want to fight which most of the time is stand up, but you might see some guys who get taken down stay on the ground like a chump wanting the other guy to come down to the ground, instead of getting back on his feet.

MMA or not, alot of fighters in MMA prefer stand up and win a majority of there fights for standup. One dimensional fighters. You grossly over generalize.

As for sparring with MMA, i have sparred with sambo fighters. Nothing special. Just another fighter. There stand up wasnt that great. If MMA is anything to go off, im sure alot take steroids as it is a competitive sport. With steroids, theres usually something that goes undetected.

here we go the old street fights always end quickly, MMA is not the street arguement....with a new twist most fighter in MMA are stand up fighters...really thats a new ome on me considering the amount of grapplers in the UFC and the fact that all but 1 of the belts is held by a grappler:confused:

[Niersun]

Living in the NT of australia which has the highest rate of street violence in australia, i have been involved and have witnessed my fair share of street fights. A majority end very quickly FOR ONE PERSON until the police arrive.

I dont have to watch youtube, because ive lived it, experienced it, witnessed it.

If your referring to trained fighters fighting on the street such as KIMBO, etc, then thats not a real street fight, thats a setup on the street, by someone who trains to fight (thus having endurance). Street fights are drunken brawls, hitting on someone elses woman, etc. If two people train to fight and have it in public, then yes it will last longer due to the simple fact that they train to fight.

No, competitive fighters always have plans, and the winners usually execute their plans better than the other person. I can only assume that your not a competitive fighter since you stated what is a common Street Fighting phrase (commonly used by Wing Chun practitioners). Even in sparring, ive had people help me re-evaluate the situation on what i am doing wrong and what i have to do, same in a competition. Game plans can change throughout the fight.

What is training in MMA, other than TMA mixed with kickboxing? Its nothing special. Ground work, boxing. Just like any other MA school w/o forms and more focus on physical fitness. You dont need to do a cross train to know the basics of a fighter.

Being in law enforcement i train in ground work, its nothing special. Personally i prefer to strike standing up. Have you ever been on the ground surrounded by 10 or more people and kicked in the head because i have. The best place to be is always on your feet.

As for all titles being held by grapplers in the UFC, did these grapplers win their titles by tap out or TKO??? Im sure by TKO.

[Frost]

Living in the NT of australia which has the highest rate of street violence in australia, i have been involved and have witnessed my fair share of street fights. A majority end very quickly FOR ONE PERSON until the police arrive.

I dont have to watch youtube, because ive lived it, experienced it, witnessed it.

If your referring to trained fighters fighting on the street such as KIMBO, etc, then thats not a real street fight, thats a setup on the street, by someone who trains to fight (thus having endurance). Street fights are drunken brawls, hitting on someone elses woman, etc. If two people train to fight and have it in public, then yes it will last longer due to the simple fact that they train to fight.

No, competitive fighters always have plans, and the winners usually execute their plans better than the other person. I can only assume that your not a competitive fighter since you stated what is a common Street Fighting phrase (commonly used by Wing Chun practitioners). Even in sparring, ive had people help me re-evaluate the situation on what i am doing wrong and what i have to do, same in a competition. Game plans can change throughout the fight.

What is training in MMA, other than TMA mixed with kickboxing? Its nothing special. Ground work, boxing. Just like any other MA school w/o forms and more focus on physical fitness. You dont need to do a cross train to know the basics of a fighter.

Being in law enforcement i train in ground work, its nothing special. Personally i prefer to strike standing up. Have you ever been on the ground surrounded by 10 or more people and kicked in the head because i have. The best place to be is always on your feet.

As for all titles being held by grapplers in the UFC, did these grapplers win their titles by tap out or TKO??? Im sure by TKO.


Thanks for making me laugh today :)

[Niersun]

No worries, feel free to provide your constructive criticism to my points of view. Please debunk my statements with strong points of arguments.

[goju]

and here we go again

round 213,332,323,545,545,

DING ! DING!

[Frost]

and here we go again

round 213,332,323,545,545,

DING ! DING!

don't worry i am in a good mood and ill leave it to others to argue with him....hell you can do it if you like :)

[goju]

meh i have the real wing chun so why waste my time on any of you:D

[YungChun]

Really, you know lots of boxers? How? Do you train at a boxing gym? Or are you just saying this to make a point.


I visit the local Boxing gym on occasion, have met several boxers over years, know at least three personally, have taught two some VT, etc.. That hard to believe that folks could know and have known many boxers??:confused:



I train at a gym that trains boxers, and I haven't heard any of them say they thought they could stop a takedown with their "KO power".


Have you asked them? LOL

I'm not saying all Boxers think this way btw.



As far as MMA people having "no hands", I've head some boxing enthusiasts say that MMA people typically aren't good boxers, even though quite a few have GG and/or some pro experience. This is because they are evaluating what they see from a pure boxing-perspective -- and from that perspective they are right. But what they fail to appreciate is that a MMA fighter needs to modifiy their boxing to take into account elbows, knees, kicks, clinches, takedowns, etc.

No $hit.. :)

In addition to training more than one art..



But I have found the "jacks of all trade" argument (and people often use that exact wording) comes consistently from theoretical nonfighters -- people who aren't masters of anything.

Whatever.. When I think of a jack of all trades, I think of someone who has useful skills in many areas but not mastery of any skill--hence the term.

[Frost]

No worries, feel free to provide your constructive criticism to my points of view. Please debunk my statements with strong points of arguments.

ok since i am bored here we go...you said most ufc fighters prefer standup and end most of there fights there: some stats for you enjoy
UFC113 2 fights finished by subs 3 by KO or TKO
UFC112 3 wins by Subs 3 by TKO
UFC111 3 wins by subs 2 by ko or TKO
(note a good percentage of TKO fights end on the ground via strikes not standing up)

that refutes your arguement most fighters are standup guys and finish the fights there....happy with that?

most street fights end quickly and with i punch well apart from telling you to look at youtube any fly on the wall police documentry or show showing actual street fights caught on camera there really is no other way to show yuo are wrong here rather than to say what you say on this and what a good number of people on here know to be true are two different things

here is the only study i can find on street fights doesn't say how long they lasted but since close to 50% ended up with both guys on the floor we can probably guess that they lasted longer than a few seconds


By Bakari Akil II, Ph.D. [Warning: Longer than usual post]

People who have been following MMA, submission grappling and martial arts since 1994 have been aware of the increasing emphasis placed on ground fighting. Yes, a lot of the push is because ground-fighting experts are trying to convince people to become involved in their martial art or trying to attract more students to their studios. However, there is an extreme seriousness to their claims as well. People can get injured, maimed or killed if they aren’t able to defend themselves.


As a serious MMA or submission grappling fan you’ve probably either heard or read the following claims:


Ninety to Ninety-five percent of fights go to the ground; or

Most fights go to the ground

These claims have become a part of the lexicon of grappling gurus and their participating disciples, including me. However, is it true?

As a person who has been involved in some aspect of martial arts since I was nine years old, I have been apart of the tradition of accepting claims, verbatim, from martial arts professionals. Most of the advice has been wise, while other times it has landed me in situations I don’t want to talk about. So when I heard this claim coming from so many Jiu-jitsu and submission grappling experts in the mid 1990s I accepted it at face value.

However, as an academic, this statement over the last few years has begun to bother me. I began to wonder on what basis this claim can be made. Are there any studies that have been conducted to verify these assertions? Finally, I reached a standstill in my thoughts on the subject. I needed to know what was fueling the mantra that 90 to 95 percent of fights go to the ground. Is it an urban myth or is it for real?

So over a period of three months I designed an implemented an exploratory study with the expressed interest of trying to see if there was any validity in the claim that 90 to 95 percent of fights go to the ground or that most fights go to the ground. Over 300 street fights were analyzed during this study. The results were clarifying as well as totally unexpected.

For the purposes of my study, I needed actual fights between average citizens. However, it is nearly impossible to find access to enough physical fights between two people to analyze in person, especially in a timely and safe manner. Therefore an alternative method had to be chosen in order to study this question. This problem was resolved by using the readily available data uploaded and archived on the popular video sharing site, YouTube. The video sharing website provided the researcher with an abundant amount of data to analyze the question regarding how often fights end up on the ground and by what methods do fighters end up on the ground. For the purposes of this study, a content analysis was conducted where 300 fights were dissected over a two month period in order to address the question of whether 90 or 95 percent of fights go to the ground.

For a more detailed description of the abstract, literature review, hypothesis, methodology, findings and conclusions, contact bakil@mgc.edu.

Below are the research questions and the findings from the study:

Research Question

RQ1: What percentage of fights end with both fighters having gone to the ground at some point during the physical confrontation?

RQ2: What percentage of fights end with only one fighter having gone to the ground at some point during the physical confrontation?

RQ3: By what methods do fighters end up fighting off the ground? (i.e., punch, kick, takedown, push)

Findings


Although the findings cannot be generalized to the entire population; in this study both fighters ended up on the ground in 42% of the fights analyzed. This percentage increased substantially (72%) when analyzed for at least one fighter going to the ground.

So what do these numbers indicate for research questions one (RQ1) and two (RQ2)? It means that the people who have been making these claims are not far off the mark. They just have to be more specific. In other words, there is more than a good chance that if two people fight, one of them is going to end up on the ground (72% in this study). The chance that both will end up there is much less (42% in this study), but it is still substantial enough that one should focus on ground defense.

The third research question that needed to be answered is how do those fighters end up on the ground? The answer to that query is that in our study, 57% of the fighters who ended up on the ground were taken down by a throw, a trip or being pulled to the ground. Being pushed only accounted for 7% of fighters who ended up on the ground. So learning how to grapple and more specifically; how to apply and stop takedowns is vital to fighting.

The other most common way that fighters ended up on the ground was by being punched. This accounted for 35% of the total incidents where a fighter was sent to the ground. One other important point is for martial artists or others who might rely on kicking techniques. Out of 300 analyzed fights and 600 fighters, only one person fell to the ground because of a kick. However, that kick did result in a knockout of the person on the receiving end.

What happens when fighters hit the ground?

One very interesting finding from this study involved what happens to fighters once they do fall to the ground. At the following rates, the first person to hit the ground faced the following outcome. They either lost the fight (59%) or there was no discernible victor (33%), essentially a draw. Those who hit the ground second or remained standing faced different outcomes. They either won the fight (59%), nearly sixty percent, or no discernible victor could be declared (33%). This finding recurred repeatedly even if only one person went to the ground or if both people went to the ground. It even applied to situations where both fighters ended up on the ground and the person who initiated the takedown or pushed or punched someone in that direction landed on the ground first. In this study, fighters who hit the ground first were the clear victors in less than 5% of fights observed.

This indicates that in a street fight it is a major no-no to hit the ground first in any way. The findings were so one sided in this category it is highly likely that this is a major factor in determining who wins fights. Future studies should replicate these results.

Women should also be very careful to make sure that there hair is pinned up in an altercation as many takedowns involving women were due to their opponents (women) grabbing their hair (19%) and using it as a tool to control their head movement. In this study it was almost a guaranteed takedown if only one woman had control of the other woman’s hair. The other option was being pummeled. In one fight, a man’s ‘dred-locked’ hair was also used to throw him to the ground. I think further research would demonstrate that hair grabbing is not a habit related to gender, but availability.

Another finding that could support the argument that people should learn ground defense is that the first fighter to hit the ground usually lost the scramble for positional dominance. They were either quickly mounted, side mounted or had blows reigned down on them from many angles. Although the majority of the positional dominance observed would be considered crude from a trained martial artist’s perspective, it did demonstrate why ground training is necessary. Most of the combatants were at a loss of what to do when they were being controlled and subsequently pummeled.

as for MMA just being TMA with added kckboxing if this was true a lot more guys from a TMA background would be winning, fact is there is not any TMA champions in any organisation

the steriods and don't go to the ground in a real fight are typical newbie wanna be comments so excuse me if i don't touch on them other than to say steriods are tested for in sports and it may not be your choice as to when and where the fight takes place so its best to be as well rounded as possible

[Yoshiyahu]

You make some very valid points. But the reason cross trainers tend to make such a hysteria about having ground work is because sometimes you may actually be fighting someone one an one. An if it goes to the ground you will have the strength, stamina and skill to prevent from being hurt. Some people in street fights try and tackle you. Its a barbaric last resort method use to stop from getting their face peppered by your fist. So having a little ground knowledge could turn the fight in your favor. But these are rare isolated cases. In most situtations you will have to worry about a good attack from behind while your trying to get in the dominating posistion. So the ground can be dangerous. Especially in certain enviroments.

But really people who do MMA are doing so for fun and competition. They are not thinking of street fighting. They feel if they are comptent enough to fair well in the ring than they will have enough skill to fair in the streets. But sometimes the streets in different than a ring controlled fight. An non-trained or unknown assiliants in the street may do something unexpected to through your game off and get you hurt or killed.


Those who fight competitively have more skill and understanding in the ring than most people...An those who have grown up with numerous street fights have more knowledge of concrete rumble!



Living in the NT of australia which has the highest rate of street violence in australia, i have been involved and have witnessed my fair share of street fights. A majority end very quickly FOR ONE PERSON until the police arrive.

I dont have to watch youtube, because ive lived it, experienced it, witnessed it.

If your referring to trained fighters fighting on the street such as KIMBO, etc, then thats not a real street fight, thats a setup on the street, by someone who trains to fight (thus having endurance). Street fights are drunken brawls, hitting on someone elses woman, etc. If two people train to fight and have it in public, then yes it will last longer due to the simple fact that they train to fight.

No, competitive fighters always have plans, and the winners usually execute their plans better than the other person. I can only assume that your not a competitive fighter since you stated what is a common Street Fighting phrase (commonly used by Wing Chun practitioners). Even in sparring, ive had people help me re-evaluate the situation on what i am doing wrong and what i have to do, same in a competition. Game plans can change throughout the fight.

What is training in MMA, other than TMA mixed with kickboxing? Its nothing special. Ground work, boxing. Just like any other MA school w/o forms and more focus on physical fitness. You dont need to do a cross train to know the basics of a fighter.

Being in law enforcement i train in ground work, its nothing special. Personally i prefer to strike standing up. Have you ever been on the ground surrounded by 10 or more people and kicked in the head because i have. The best place to be is always on your feet.

As for all titles being held by grapplers in the UFC, did these grapplers win their titles by tap out or TKO??? Im sure by TKO.

[Knifefighter]

Being in law enforcement i train in ground work, its nothing special. Personally i prefer to strike standing up. Have you ever been on the ground surrounded by 10 or more people and kicked in the head because i have. The best place to be is always on your feet.

Not only are you a theoretical, pretend, fantasy, non-fighter. You are a liar.

You are not in law enforcement. If you were, you would know that you often have no other choice than taking a suspect to the ground in order to subdue him. Also, how many police officers go into a crowd with no backup and end up on the ground with 10+ people kicking him in the head.

[YungChun]

Not only are you a theoretical, pretend, fantasy, non-fighter. You are a liar.


So if he can prove he's an LEO then you'll stay off this board for 1 year or use "I am a moron".. in your tag, agreed?



Also, how many police officers go into a crowd with no backup and end up on the ground with 10+ people kicking him in the head.

Which is probably why most LEOs don't want to roll around in broken glass while being gang-banged by the local thugery..

Only died in the wool BJJ/Systema nut jobs are going to pull guard against a group of threats in the street..

[Hardwork108]

So if he can prove he's an LEO then you'll stay off this board for 1 year or use "I am a moron".. in your tag, agreed?
Lets all put our hands together and pray that the man is a LEO.:D

[Yoshiyahu]

You are not in law enforcement. If you were, you would know that you often have no other choice than taking a suspect to the ground in order to subdue him.

Actually I train with Police Officers my friend. Not all cases end up on the ground. But the ones that do. They don't use BJJ. The use the techniques taught in their hand book. Anyway it has a name like FOP or something i have to find out the name? an get back to you!


Also, how many police officers go into a crowd with no backup and end up on the ground with 10+ people kicking him in the head

With Police Departments being spread thin back up is not always available. Sometimes an officer at a scene may have his partner when an incident breaks out. But still they are out numbered like ten to one. Thats why officers use mace for crowds. Not tackling people to the ground. Usually they use mace for crowds and taser for over aggressively combatant. But the ground can be advoided if the perp is placed on a car hood or upagainst a wall or up against a car to be handcuffed. But sometimes it does go to the ground. My officer friend says going to ground with that heavy belt, vest and gear is no ideal at all. He tries to advoid going to ground because the heavy gear gets really hot quick which leads to fatigue faster than a T-Shirt, tennis shoe wearing perp!

[Ultimatewingchun]

OMG, there's too much sense being made on this thread! :eek: :D

[Niersun]

Yes i am a liar, i dont know **** all about Wing Chun and i am not in law enforcement. I just read a few books and act like an expert. Im a phony. You called me out. **** your good. You should be a detective.

Your knowledge of street fighting is awesome. You totally outclass me. Thats why your name is knifefighter.

I dont even know William Cheung nor do i know Keith Young. I just stumbled across their names on the internet.

Your right, poking someone in the eyes and a kick in the groin doesnt work against a skilled MMA fighter. Im a phony. Dont believe anything i ever say or write.

BJJ is the best. You should always look to submit an opponent in a fight. Submission tactics should be incorporated in Wing Chun, because thats the best way to win a fight. Always look to mount your opponent so you can ground and pound him too.

Im a big fat liar.

[Niersun]

So if he can prove he's an LEO then you'll stay off this board for 1 year or use "I am a moron".. in your tag, agreed?



Which is probably why most LEOs don't want to roll around in broken glass while being gang-banged by the local thugery..

Only died in the wool BJJ/Systema nut jobs are going to pull guard against a group of threats in the street..

Tempting as it is, i dont feel as if i need to prove myself and who i am just to satisfy these people who question me. Who are they to me. Due to my experiences, i feel as if they are the real liars.

But to make something clear: I have trained in ground tactics for my job.

The fight i spoke of where i was outnumbered happened years prior to me joining the police force.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Niersun,

Let me help you get a bit more acquainted with Dale Frank, the guy who refers to himself as Knifefighter.

He has real, verifiable skills and martial arts accomplishments, no doubt...in bjj, in dog brothers stick fighting, and in kickboxing and some MT. As for his years spent in wing chun and JKD...it's pretty clear by now that, for one reason or another, he was never taught any kind of high level wing chun.

I say it that way because he's obviously a skilled guy, so one would assume that if he had been brought to an advanced level of wing chun - he would have picked it up and done well with it.

Okay....

Now, what you also need to know is that he's a TROLL.

And loves to try and play the big fish in (what he thinks is) a little pond game, namely: this forum. (Although he's also done similar things on other forums as well).

And he's always trying to get people to run some sort of "gauntlet" for him by the way he talks to them...so now that you've said you were once a policeman - your stock in the troll's mind has probably risen a bit.

But the gauntlet tests will still be coming - to be sure.

Just take it in stride, and keep telling yourself the word TROLL whenever he starts to irritate you.

And then you'll be fine. :cool: :D

[Knifefighter]

LOL... I'm around cops all day. I train them, I train with them, and a large number of them are my friends.

This guy is no cop. Either that, or he works as a meter maid for the PD and thinks he is a cop.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Meter maid !!! :D

Ha!

Oh yeah, Niersun...I forgot to mention, he's got a pretty good sense of humor also.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/parking-ticket-geek/assets_c/2009/10/Naughty%20Meter%20Maid-thumb-236x590-27175.jpg

[Ultimatewingchun]

OMG!!! :eek:

:) ;) :cool:

"Now listen, officer, can I come over to your place to pay the ticket?"