Sooo...perhaps boxing and wing chun aren't so different after all? [Archive]

SAAMAG

05-08-2010, 12:30 AM

I was thinking about the various fists used in wing chun, and the boxing counterparts...just for ****s and giggles...here's what I came up with. I realize the punches aren't exactly the same in terms details like power generation, the precise angles, linking, and etc....but from a general standpoint I'm figuring based on the closest equivelent (the = symbol should be considered "is likened to")

Chung choi = jab / straight / cross
Wang choi = hook
Chou choi = uppercut
Joong lo choi = body shovel hook
Chaap choi = low jab / low straight to body

I realize that these punches aren't exactly the same but it at least illustrates that wing chun does indeed have the tools necessary to do the job that some people are thinking boxing should be added for.

That said...most of the stuff from average folks seems to be mostly flailing around with bad technique, bad balance, bad everything. They go into a fish-on-land mode where they're just flopping around and trading shots. Whereas the average boxer will still be trying to do what he trains to do while maintining composure and control.

So this begs to question...why isn't "wing chun boxing" more effective for the average wing chun practicitioner? I realize that many here consider their wing chun to be a step above the average person's, so that being the case--why can't the average WC man perform as well as the average boxer in terms of fists? Why are the WC punches not as natural looking, as powerful, or as precise as the boxer's?

In thinking about this, one of the things I've found about my personal iteration of wing chun over other people's that I've come across is that my punching method is more natural. Meaning that the punches are simply whipping forward, sideways, upwards, and etc, as I need them. I don't fret too much about whether my stance is perfectly angled, or whether the weight is on the balls or the heels, or whether my body is completely square facing in between exchanges. I make sure I'm balanced at all times, my feet are shoulder width, I make sure to try and use both hands at the same time--where one is attacking and the other is supporting or opening a path for the next punch.

In terms of training; hitting focus mitts using wing chun is only different from the respect that the elbow is down, and punches originate from the center or from where they were last in terms of combinations and the chin up inward with the head straight. Power of course still comes from the ground (albeit I'm more flat footed with wing chun ma). I train wing chun kuen on the heavy bag, much in the same way I train in boxing. Again taking into consideration the style's differences in punching rules and stance/structure (elbows down, vertical fist, heels, joint linking, etc etc). I also don't use boxing gloves when using wing chun styled punches on the bag, either using light MMA styled bag gloves. Wall bag is done with no gloves.

I do also train more classically, with all the boxing sets, the dummy, punching and kicking in the air, basic partner drills, weapon drills (don't have the weapon sets in their entirety yet). So since I consider myself just average WC guy, what makes mine seemingly more successful in my sparring over another average guy's? Perhaps I'm just boxing and calling it wing chun? lol (that's a joke btw).

Anyway...just a question I was thinking about to myself. I thought I'd share.

YungChun

05-08-2010, 12:53 AM

Perhaps I'm just boxing and calling it wing chun? lol

Anyway...just a question I was thinking about to myself. I thought I'd share.

Remember a while back I said you sounded like a boxer? ;)

But seriously, there are differences in the structure... You can certainly do VT boxing, but are you doing VT boxing? The answer is in your structure, and how you use that structure, the centerline, an unbroken line of force, facing, following, using his resistance, etc..

I don't think there is any secret to being more accurate, having better technique, etc.. When you fight, when you fight in competition for the first time, etc, things will degrade.. Some of these guys are still young in their training, etc.. Folks just need to keep training and hopefully training hard and training good mechanics and good "concepts"..

One of the things that gets me in some, but not all, of the fights is the lack of letting the hands go.. I see guys hesitating, not sure what to do, dropping their hands, etc.. The default in cases where you are unsure or flustered IMO should be to let their hands go and fire off some serious body power shots they must learn how to make this power... Perhaps that needs to be trained more.

But I would like to see more letting the hands go, its basic to VT IMO, to create that line of force...and do it accurately and powerfully and supported by structure.. Perhaps THAT should be the core of the training..... over and over and over, like the Thais kick those pads and trees... VT striking must be trained and really trained well and often..

I think many of the classical elements (ChiSao/Dummy) are very good and vital for training (when done correctly--power--centerline--structure) too but a more narrow focus on fewer techniques might be the way to go.. (lose the lan sao leads, lose the tok sao palm cheats) keep it down to 4-6 GOOD moves, where power hitting, and release of power is paramount along with fan sao where folks maintain control and setting up the continuous release of power..

SAAMAG

05-08-2010, 01:10 AM

Remember a while back I said you sounded like a boxer? ;)

But seriously, there are differences in the structure... I don't think there is any secret to being more accurate, having better technique, etc.. When you fight, when you fight in competition for the first time, etc, things will degrade.. Some of these guys are still young in their training, etc.. Folks just need to keep training and hopefully training hard and training good mechanics and good "concepts"..

One of the things that gets me in some, but not all, of the fights is the lack of letting the hands go..

Perhaps THAT should be the core of the training..... over and over and over, like the Thais kick those pads and trees... VT striking must be trained and really trained well and often...

...but a more narrow focus on fewer techniques might be the way to go.. (lose the lan sao leads, lose the tok sao palm cheats) keep it down to 4-6 GOOD moves, where power hitting, and release of power is paramount along with fan sao where folks maintain control and setting up the continuous release of power..

Good thoughts Jim. There are definitly differences in the structure. The similarities were to illustrate and imply that one may not need to incorporate boxing at all--but rather train wing chun in a more efficient manner.

You're right too many folks don't know what to do...and I think that's because of a lack of familiarity with the task. Like you said, repetition. Let the hands go...be natural...go to town...something gets in the way move it, move him, or use your own footwork to move around it. Get in and get out. Adjust where need be, blah blah blah.

I also like the idea of keeping to a finite number of moves, working those and focusing first and foremost on proper structure. I also would like to say that elbow control needs to be in there like Kevin always says. Where's the elbow control?! lol.

But yea good thoughts. I'm off to bed now...check back in tomorrow.

YungChun

05-08-2010, 01:17 AM

Get in and get out.

Well ideally once in we want to stay there depending on the conditions, your elbow stuff wants to stay there.. If we are to be controlling via whatever methods we have to have contact, a bridge..

The striking is our bread and butter.. A good VT man's strikes should be just as scary as a good boxer's strikes except VT scary... :D:cool:

Folks need to learn how to strike from the ground if they don't or can't..and train it over and over and over and over, et al.

Lee Chiang Po

05-09-2010, 09:44 AM

Not trying to be a butt hole, but I have great difficulty understanding the logic. I suppose that it might be because Wing Chun was the first form of fighting I had ever done, starting out at age 10 years. I did some boxing at the local boys club when in my teens, but have to admit that my boxing was a bit unorthodox. I did it with the WC flair. I got yelled at lots by coaches and such, but could not shake the WC style. Other boxers said that I was difficult to fight me because of it.
I think most WC people early on find it to be very un-natural feeling. I think that is because they have been exposed to the boxing culture early on. Learning the machanics then becomes awkward. The few people I have taught have complained early on that it was extremely awkward and hard to do for them. The elbow thing especially, and the footwork.
Most wanted to throw hooks and roundhouse punches, but these have many problems. A roundhouse usually sends a telegraph before departure, and a hook is woefully short. The longest reach is with a straight punch, and to hook one must curve the arm, which shortens it considerably. Also, you can not put your full potential behind a hook. I have found that I can throw a punch from the chamber and issue as great a force as I can from a wind up, and with far greater accuracy, and far less chance of injuring myself in the process. Not to mention also that I can throw one after another with almost blinding speed. I say almost because I am getting old.
So, I really think it might be dependent upon where you have been and what you have been doing before starting your WC training. You have to be completely convinced that it will work for you and you have to be fully committed to it. Otherwise you will have reservations and little faith in it. You will feel awkward and immediately want to jump back to doing what feels more comfortable to you, such as western boxing. Could that possibly be where you are at right now?

Frost

05-09-2010, 10:17 AM

m1k3

05-09-2010, 10:41 AM

i don't know where to begin: roundhouses are telegraphed..... straight punches reach longer than round ones...you can't throw long hooks or my personal favourite you can't put your full potential behind a hook.......:eek:

Everyone knows boxers don't throw any straight punches. Just wild roundhouse punches and hooks that don't reach. No wonder WC fighters hold the championships in almost every boxing weight class.:rolleyes:

Knifefighter

05-09-2010, 11:15 AM

Well ideally once in we want to stay there depending on the conditions, your elbow stuff wants to stay there.. If we are to be controlling via whatever methods we have to have contact, a bridge..

The striking is our bread and butter.. A good VT man's strikes should be just as scary as a good boxer's strikes except VT scary... :D:cool:

Folks need to learn how to strike from the ground if they don't or can't..and train it over and over and over and over, et al.

Striking from the ground is even further away from WC than what you see with most standing striking.

Knifefighter

05-09-2010, 11:16 AM

i don't know where to begin: roundhouses are telegraphed..... straight punches reach longer than round ones...you can't throw long hooks or my personal favourite you can't put your full potential behind a hook.......:eek:

Every time that guy posts, he pretty much demonstrates that he knows nothing about fighting.

Knifefighter

05-09-2010, 11:37 AM

In terms of training; hitting focus mitts using wing chun is only different from the respect that the elbow is down,

Boxers don't fight with the elbows up.

As far as power development, that is mostly a factor of how much body rotation you apply when you throw strikes. The more body rotation, the more power (think shotputters, discuss throwers, baseball players- both hitting and throwing, etc).

In unarmed combat, there is a trade-off between the power needed that comes from body rotation and the necessity not to overexpose oneself that comes with complete rotation.

Frost

05-09-2010, 12:05 PM

Everyone knows boxers don't throw any straight punches. Just wild roundhouse punches and hooks that don't reach. No wonder WC fighters hold the championships in almost every boxing weight class.:rolleyes:

lol true i wish people would stop commentating on things they don't have any experience in:)

Lee Chiang Po

05-09-2010, 12:59 PM

Every time that guy posts, he pretty much demonstrates that he knows nothing about fighting.

So since you are such a skilled fighter, tell me just how you are going to get full power behind a hook, seeing as how you can not get behind one to begin with. It comes from the side with nothing more then it's speed and poor leverage. The speed might multiply the force of the arm, which might weigh a few pounds in your case, but that only amounts to far less then your own physical weight. And leverage from that angle is poor at best, so please tell me just how you can get your full potential behind a hook. You can't.

Lee Chiang Po

05-09-2010, 01:04 PM

lol true i wish people would stop commentating on things they don't have any experience in:)

I never stated that boxers don't toss a straight punch now and then, but from EXPERIENCE, I can tell you that it is not the norm with the average boxer. Most everyone tries to box unless they have some other martial training. Seems natural because that is all that they grow up knowing about usually. I have had a few years of boxing. Not professional, all amature, but I have done some boxing. I have had upward of between 200 and 300 fights in my life, so I can speak with some experience here, while most of you might have had a few fights in a ring maybe. So I just might have far more experience than most of you combined. And in particular the monkey kung foo guy calling himself Dale.

m1k3

05-09-2010, 01:05 PM

So since you are such a skilled fighter, tell me just how you are going to get full power behind a hook, seeing as how you can not get behind one to begin with. It comes from the side with nothing more then it's speed and poor leverage. The speed might multiply the force of the arm, which might weigh a few pounds in your case, but that only amounts to far less then your own physical weight. And leverage from that angle is poor at best, so please tell me just how you can get your full potential behind a hook. You can't.

How about like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiqaAehf1VA

Frost

05-09-2010, 01:13 PM

I never stated that boxers don't toss a straight punch now and then, but from EXPERIENCE, I can tell you that it is not the norm with the average boxer. Most everyone tries to box unless they have some other martial training. Seems natural because that is all that they grow up knowing about usually. I have had a few years of boxing. Not professional, all amature, but I have done some boxing. I have had upward of between 200 and 300 fights in my life, so I can speak with some experience here, while most of you might have had a few fights in a ring maybe. So I just might have far more experience than most of you combined. And in particular the monkey kung foo guy calling himself Dale.

lol sorry but nothing you say makes me think you know anything about boxing, hooks are some of the hardest punches going, you transfer you whole body from the ground into the fist through a solid structure, a majority of knockouts in boxing come from hooks and uppercuts

Frost

05-09-2010, 01:14 PM

How about like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiqaAehf1VA

lol owned :)

k gledhill

05-09-2010, 01:15 PM

The system is developing good elbow positions thus making the forearms the parrying areas, IOW the acute angles of the elbows in pre-striking positions or 'not extended' strikes makes them [forearm area] act as a second set of hands, making it possible for the fist/palms to strike at the same time the correct forearm side is used to slide in or past a simultaneously deflected arm.
Further because the strikes naturally intersect along X-ed angles we create by naturally flanking we can simply strike in with lat sao chit chung to explode off arms untrained like ours and fire into openings without withdrawing the hands or hesitating to think 'hit'. Allowing us to maintain constant pressure of cycling strikes regardless of what is done to the lead arm.

Why our juts are done with the forearms underneath, the tan elbow spreads making the outside forearm push force outwards as the hand strike forwards...the jum elbow inwards, keeps the forearm inward too to use the same ideas....
While attacking each arm tan & jum will create the same force directions iow our left tan right jum striking in either rotation will create a line of force to shut down a guys left side ....

elbows control the alignment and make the hands free to parry to the line or strike, rather than the force we use go out to the hands and wrists traveling laterally , while we need the wu sao to make the strike alone....

subtle but one cant strike and defend with the same striking arm if the elbows aren't trained early on....but a guy trained in the elbow idea can do both ways as required....simultaneous as elbow training allows or coupled striking arm AND pak, jut, gaun etc...

dont understand ? you should ; )

SAAMAG

05-09-2010, 02:02 PM

Boxers don't fight with the elbows up.

As far as power development, that is mostly a factor of how much body rotation you apply when you throw strikes. The more body rotation, the more power (think shotputters, discuss throwers, baseball players- both hitting and throwing, etc).

In unarmed combat, there is a trade-off between the power needed that comes from body rotation and the necessity not to overexpose oneself that comes with complete rotation.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the text you quoted. Boxers don't fight with their elbows up...but they don't punch in vertical fists with the elbows down either (save for certain folk's method of jabbing). But that's what I'm talking about with "elbows down".

m1k3

05-09-2010, 06:04 PM

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the text you quoted. Boxers don't fight with their elbows up...but they don't punch in vertical fists with the elbows down either (save for certain folk's method of jabbing). But that's what I'm talking about with "elbows down".

Van, a good boxing jab or cross should be elbows down up to the near the end when the fist turns over. When I was learning to box, throwing a jab or a cross with the elbows up was referred to as chicken winging it, and it was not considered a good thing.

shawchemical

05-09-2010, 10:48 PM

Every time that guy posts, he pretty much demonstrates that he knows nothing about fighting.

Guess you're kindred spirits then...

Ultimatewingchun

05-09-2010, 11:03 PM

Phil Redmond

05-09-2010, 11:14 PM

. . . . Here's a hint: You're never going to throw a better hook or uppercut than what boxing does...so call it what it is: boxing - added to your wing chun.

And move on.
WC has hooks and uppercuts and so do other other Chinese martial arts.

SAAMAG

05-09-2010, 11:15 PM

Van, a good boxing jab or cross should be elbows down up to the near the end when the fist turns over. When I was learning to box, throwing a jab or a cross with the elbows up was referred to as chicken winging it, and it was not considered a good thing.

Good point...and that's a common method; but even within the boxing circles there are quite a few different methods of doing even a jab, let alone a cross. There's the rotating jab (as you've stated), a diagonal jab, the vertical jab (like a wing chun punch), the overhand jab where the hand is turned with the thumb down...etc etc. Jabs where you step, where you don't step, blah blah.

Point being different boxers do it different ways--though they're all generally the same (i.e. you'd recognize it for what it is). Coaches all have their own theories as well. But yea generally though boxers will rotate to an overhand position like karate guys will with reverse punches as you've stated. Thanks for pointing that out!

SAAMAG

05-09-2010, 11:21 PM

".. hooks are some of the hardest punches going, you transfer you whole body from the ground into the fist through a solid structure, a majority of knockouts in boxing come from hooks and uppercuts." (Frost)
.............................

***Which is exactly why, since these two types of punches are basically short range - and wing chun is basically a short range striking system...that incorporating such boxing moves into your wing chun game makes so much sense.

And I'm still trying to figure out why some wing chun folks want to look into the system to find "something like" moves like these.

Here's a hint: You're never going to throw a better hook or uppercut than what boxing does...so call it what it is: boxing - added to your wing chun.

And move on.

I'm entertaining the notion that wing chun has the same tools...but that people just don't use them properly. I mean I could be completely off base too, but its mainly just for thought provoking conversation.

If people did punch with their body and not worry so much about the "gung fu" label of it isn't it plausible they'd look like boxing more than likely anyway? A straight punch is a straight punch. A hook is a hook, and uppercut is an uppercut. The chung choi comes out straight, the wang choi comes from the side, and the chou choi comes from below using rising energy from the stance. There's really not so many ways to do these sorts of punches from an energy and vector perspective (minor nuances aside like the stuff I mentioned with the jabs).

So if you look at Phil's guys in the clips--they throw hooks--and those hooks are knocking people out. They look a lot like boxing hooks too, but I'd venture to say Phil didn't teach them boxing when the technique is right there in the 3rd set.

goju

05-09-2010, 11:30 PM

what a load of nonsense!!

ive thrown hooks hard enough on pads that ive injured by partners arms

lol where do people get this crap from?

and yes youll find hooks and upper cuts in the majority of asian ma

Ultimatewingchun

05-10-2010, 01:07 AM

No kidding, guys...

But if you really want to master throwing hooks and uppercuts - you look to western boxing, first and foremost.

And if you really want to master the best setups, combinations, angles, and footwork connected to hooks and uppercuts - you look to western boxing, first and foremost.

Duh ??? !!! :rolleyes:

Ultimatewingchun

05-10-2010, 01:12 AM

"So if you look at Phil's guys in the clips--they throw hooks--and those hooks are knocking people out. They look a lot like boxing hooks too, but I'd venture to say Phil didn't teach them boxing when the technique is right there in the 3rd set." (Vankuen)
...........................

***AND I'd also venture to say that Phil Redmond isn't teaching them boxing hooks. :D

There are some boxers who train in Keith Mazza's school (where Phil teaches out of). :cool:

Hint: Don't believe everything you read. Believe your eyes, though.

Knifefighter

05-10-2010, 07:13 AM

Good point...and that's a common method; but even within the boxing circles there are quite a few different methods of doing even a jab, let alone a cross. There's the rotating jab (as you've stated), a diagonal jab, the vertical jab (like a wing chun punch), the overhand jab where the hand is turned with the thumb down...etc etc. Jabs where you step, where you don't step, blah blah.

Notice that no matter how the jab is thrown, you won't hear boxers saying, "That wasn't boxing."

Knifefighter

05-10-2010, 07:18 AM

So if you look at Phil's guys in the clips--they throw hooks--and those hooks are knocking people out. They look a lot like boxing hooks too, but I'd venture to say Phil didn't teach them boxing when the technique is right there in the 3rd set.

LOL @ labeling the exact same punch either boxing or WC.

Even more ludicrous is trying to extrapolate a technique from a form and then saying it came from WC.

YungChun

05-10-2010, 07:30 AM

What about the VT whipping punch? It is not a hook but it's also not straight...

Any round punch Boxer's normally call hooks no? And regardless of how you throw a hook a Boxer would never say that's not Boxing right?

Knifefighter

05-10-2010, 07:49 AM

What about the VT whipping punch? It is not a hook but it's also not straight...

Point me to a clip of what you are calling the whipping punch.

Any round punch Boxer's normally call hooks no?

Hooks are not round punches. They are straight punches. A round punch would be a haymaker or bolo punch.

And regardless of how you throw a hook a Boxer would never say that's not Boxing right?

Exactly.

Dragonzbane76

05-10-2010, 07:49 AM

Also, you can not put your full potential behind a hook. I have found that I can throw a punch from the chamber and issue as great a force as I can from a wind up, and with far greater accuracy, and far less chance of injuring myself in the process.

HUH??
don't know what kinda hook your throwing, but most hooks i've seen are "full potential" and very powerful.

Wayfaring

05-10-2010, 07:52 AM

Knifefighter

05-10-2010, 08:06 AM

Not exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISgLclfX3c

Notice how that strike is differentiated from a hook. It is a casting strike and another example of a spherical punch.

YungChun

05-10-2010, 08:33 AM

Striking from the ground is even further away from WC than what you see with most standing striking.

True..

Actually I meant to make power from the ground, from their legs, from their bodies, as opposed to arm punching and without ground/body connection.

YungChun

05-10-2010, 08:38 AM

Not exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISgLclfX3c

Okay a casting punch but what's the point wrt my post?

YungChun

05-10-2010, 08:43 AM

Point me to a clip of what you are calling the whipping punch.

I'll look..

The idea as I understand it for the WP is mainly this..

Think of a plain vanilla VT vertical fist punch fired straight with forward body power..

Now think of that vertical punch as a more "sitting punch" where you turn/rotate the body from the hips and or the legs, making the original straight punch now curve.. The path can vary but may often start out more or less straight then suddenly curve and whip around.. Impact area of fist is the same.

Others may have different interpretations..

SAAMAG

05-10-2010, 08:53 AM

Hooks are not round punches. They are straight punches. A round punch would be a haymaker or bolo punch.

Good point. I was wondering when that would come up. Hooks are considered to be straight punches that come from a side angle. With the tight hooks it's very easy to see that. The longer range hooks not so much because again they're thrown differently.

But that's trying to separate straws. In general if the punch is not going from point a to point b in a straight line I think it can be safe to say it's curved. I mean it's like The difference between an "L" and a "C" or connecting plotted lines on a graph...you can do it with a curved line or two straight lines, but either way it's an indirect path.

Ironically, I was taught the hook using the term "a tight c". C's are definitely not "L's"!

chusauli

05-10-2010, 02:08 PM

True..

Actually I meant to make power from the ground, from their legs, from their bodies, as opposed to arm punching and without ground/body connection.

Personally, I would like to see more of that in WCK. :) That's rare!

Hardwork108

05-10-2010, 03:01 PM

Personally, I would like to see more of that in WCK. :) That's rare!

I second that, Sifu Chu.

Too many "Wing Chun" clips show the unrooted exponents throwing strikes that use the upper body for power generation. What makes the situation worse is that some of these people are referred to as "sifus".

IMHO, one of the first, if not the first, task of any Wing Chun student is to learn the proper stance/roots and the whole body connection/unity. Otherwise, like my sifu says, "You can train for many years, but without them (proper root/body unity) you have nothing"!

SAAMAG

05-10-2010, 05:47 PM

Personally, I would like to see more of that in WCK. :) That's rare!

I'd like to think it's not THAT rare. All the guys I train wih have proper transfer from the ground. It's most of the YouTube clips of individuals who feel that have to "show" their skills that generally have the least amount of it. Especially since the motivation for such videos is typically for self image affirmation.

Ultimatewingchun

05-10-2010, 05:55 PM

SoCo KungFu

05-10-2010, 07:05 PM

Not exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JISgLclfX3c

Interestingly, that was one of the first techniques taught in the mantis I did. With pretty much the same reasoning and finish.

As to what this has to do with the original point...

Well stuff that works, works.

Stuff that works, is fairly universal.

As such, stuff that works doesn't need a label.

People that tend to be worried about labels, are usually those least interested in fighting (and more about personal recognition). Not once in MMA have I heard anyone ask where something comes from. All they have cared about is if it works.

JPinAZ

05-10-2010, 09:23 PM

I'd like to think it's not THAT rare. All the guys I train wih have proper transfer from the ground.

I agree. Not sure why this would be considered rare - punching with the whole body should be WC punching mechanics 101. Ok, maybe 201.

101 would teach how to set up the triangles for the arm position, 201 would teach how to connect it to the rest of the body. This is something pretty much taught at the beginner level where I train..

SAAMAG

05-10-2010, 10:58 PM

Haha! I just checked out your signature link! Talk about confused...

Ultimatewingchun

05-10-2010, 11:07 PM

Haha! I just checked out your signature link! Talk about confused...

***Again, welcome back to the forum, Van...See what you missed?! :eek: :p

YungChun

05-10-2010, 11:51 PM

I agree. Not sure why this would be considered rare - punching with the whole body should be WC punching mechanics 101. Ok, maybe 201.

101 would teach how to set up the triangles for the arm position, 201 would teach how to connect it to the rest of the body. This is something pretty much taught at the beginner level where I train..

Well, when Wing Chun becomes known for "power punching" vs the "Crazy Eggbeaters" then perhaps it will not be considered rare....

There are precious few folks seen on the net properly using body linking connection into each strike..essentially powering each strike from the legs/body all synced...

Running at someone and chain punching isn't really it...

This is another one of those "everyone knows that" yet we hardly ever see it, thingies..

Phil Redmond

05-10-2010, 11:56 PM

Notice how that strike is differentiated from a hook. It is a casting strike and another example of a spherical punch.
Just like a Choy Lei Fut or Chen Tai Chi strike.

sanjuro_ronin

05-11-2010, 05:37 AM

I'd like to think it's not THAT rare. All the guys I train wih have proper transfer from the ground. It's most of the YouTube clips of individuals who feel that have to "show" their skills that generally have the least amount of it. Especially since the motivation for such videos is typically for self image affirmation.

In training "EVERYONE" has that, in fighting it tends to disappear.
Why?
Training is training and fighting is fighting, one is the path and they other the goal.
Fact is, all the rooting and transfer done in a static environment goes out the window when someone decides to put their fist through your face.

SAAMAG

05-11-2010, 08:40 AM

In training "EVERYONE" has that, in fighting it tends to disappear.
Why?
Training is training and fighting is fighting, one is the path and they other the goal.
Fact is, all the rooting and transfer done in a static environment goes out the window when someone decides to put their fist through your face.

Training includes all the forms of sparring. We all hit quite hard and tend to have to take a couple of headache pills when were done with our sparring. ;)

Thus, the guys I train with all have decent rooting/ground linking in application.

sanjuro_ronin

05-11-2010, 09:09 AM

Training includes all the forms of sparring. We all hit quite hard and tend to have to take a couple of headache pills when were done with our sparring. ;)

Thus, the guys I train with all have decent rooting/ground linking in application.

sounds like you are doing something right and that you need to work on your defense, lol

chusauli

05-11-2010, 09:28 AM

SAAMAG

05-11-2010, 11:56 AM

sounds like you are doing something right and that you need to work on your defense, lol

Always! Just that you know as well as I do...we all will take the occasional shot (or two or more).

I would suggest you not to take Aspirin...

And thanks Robert, I had heard a long time ago that taking an aspirin after a fight can lead to a higher chance of bleeding in the brain.

I use acetametaphin normally (when necessary).

t_niehoff

05-11-2010, 11:57 AM

I agree. Not sure why this would be considered rare - punching with the whole body should be WC punching mechanics 101. Ok, maybe 201.

Punching with your body is just a part of it; there are various ways of using your body, and how WCK uses it isn't how another art uses it.

101 would teach how to set up the triangles for the arm position, 201 would teach how to connect it to the rest of the body. This is something pretty much taught at the beginner level where I train..

Using imaginary things, like triangles that don't really exist, is a silly way to teach. Simply show someone how to do it and then let them practice doing it. That's how people learn new skills.

__________________
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

I visited your tag-page. I like how you begin with "this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply" but only go on to cite -- out of context -- various statements I made about chi sao.

Since you don't seem to understand what I was saying, let me put it all together for you:

Chi sao is WCK's signature exercise/drill.

It is unrealistic, in that you don't perform the exercise/drill under (realistic) fighting conditions. So, regardless of what you think it does, it can't develop realistic fighting skills. You can use it to learn and practice various WCK actions. But it won't develop fighting skills. Only fighting develops fighting skills.

Almost all these actions involve staying attached to your opponent (staying in contact, or sticking). Sticking and the actions (tan, bong, fook, etc.) associated with it are not striking actions but grappling actions, actions that use sustained contact to manipulate your opponent.

Chi sao is not some "form of grappling" or some "form of stand up grappling" -- it is grappling (you are grappling), or, to be more precise, grappling with striking thrown in. An exercise or drill, however, is not and can't be "a form of grappling." Similarly, pummeling is a drill/exercise from greco, it too is not a form of grappling or a form of stand up grappling, although it is grappling.

WCK's fighting method is to control while striking an opponent. We practice doing this in an unrealistic environment in chi sao. So while we can learn and practice doing that in chi sao, we can't develop those actions/things into fighting skills except through fighting (being able to do them in chi sao doesn't mean you can do them in fighting).

Now, go back and read my statements in light of this context and you'll see what I said was consistent with this context.

JPinAZ

05-11-2010, 07:33 PM

Punching with your body is just a part of it; there are various ways of using your body, and how WCK uses it isn't how another art uses it.

Wow, mind blowing. :rolleyes:

Using imaginary things, like triangles that don't really exist, is a silly way to teach. Simply show someone how to do it and then let them practice doing it. That's how people learn new skills.

Glad to get the inside scoup on all things silly from the WC expert such as yourself.

Are just the ideas of imaginary things, such as trianlges, the only thing silly, or are the others? Would talking about and writing articles about imaginary things, such as the 5 phases of combat, be silly too? Your sifu, and apparently recently-titled "GM", doesn't seem to think these imaginary ideas were so silly when he copied the ideas and pawned them off as his own in an article.
Hey wait, wasn't it you that thought the self-appointed titles of "GM" were silly too... ;)

I visited your tag-page. I like how you begin with "this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply" but only go on to cite -- out of context -- various statements I made about chi sao.

Since you don't seem to understand what I was saying, let me put it all together for you:

Chi sao is WCK's signature exercise/drill.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Now, go back and read my statements in light of this context and you'll see what I said was consistent with this context.

Yeah, you tried this cover up in that thread too. But I only quoted your words as they were. Reread the whole thread, and you'll see what an idiot you sound like right now.

Fact is, you don't really know what chi sau is all about anyway, so you'll never get it.

Ultimatewingchun

05-11-2010, 07:55 PM

"Are just the ideas of imaginary things, such as triangles, the only thing silly, or are there others? Would talking about and writing articles about imaginary things, such as the 5 phases of combat, be silly too? Your sifu, and apparently recently-titled 'GM', doesn't seem to think these imaginary ideas were so silly when he copied the ideas and pawned them off as his own in an article.
Hey wait, wasn't it you that thought the self-appointed titles of 'GM' were silly too..." :rolleyes: (JP)

***Humm...Very interesting, JP.

.........................................

"Yeah, you tried this cover up in that thread too. But I only quoted your words as they were. Reread the whole thread, and you'll see what an idiot you sound like right now.

Fact is, you don't really know what chi sau is all about anyway, so you'll never get it." (JP)

***SAME OL' bull5hit with this guy. :cool:

Niersun

05-12-2010, 01:34 AM

Chi sao is WCK's signature exercise/drill.

It is unrealistic, in that you don't perform the exercise/drill under (realistic) fighting conditions. So, regardless of what you think it does, it can't develop realistic fighting skills. You can use it to learn and practice various WCK actions. But it won't develop fighting skills. Only fighting develops fighting skills.

Almost all these actions involve staying attached to your opponent (staying in contact, or sticking). Sticking and the actions (tan, bong, fook, etc.) associated with it are not striking actions but grappling actions, actions that use sustained contact to manipulate your opponent.

Chi sao is not some "form of grappling" or some "form of stand up grappling" -- it is grappling (you are grappling), or, to be more precise, grappling with striking thrown in.

WCK's fighting method is to control while striking an opponent. We practice doing this in an unrealistic environment in chi sao. So while we can learn and practice doing that in chi sao, we can't develop those actions/things into fighting skills except through fighting (being able to do them in chi sao doesn't mean you can do them in fighting).

Now, go back and read my statements in light of this context and you'll see what I said was consistent with this context.

Man how long have you been studying WC for, because i am calling you out as a phony if you say you have studied for more than 1 month of WC.

Chi Sao is not grappling nor is it fighting simulation. Who ever agrees with this needs to go back and listen to there sifu better or get a new one.

Chi Sao develops contact relexes, eye coordination, footwork and most importantly chi. Which school teaches that Chi sao is grappling??? If your holding onto the arm, then your not doing Chi sao exercises properly.

Chi Sao = when i feel him do this, i will do this (sometimes when i see this, must do this), whether it be full step back, bil sao, jut sao, lop sao and pull down if he goes to kick, etc. Chi is supposed to be developed by the forward force you and your partner generate when going through the basic motion of two arm chi sao.

Chi sao described as grappling??? If you are referring to lop sao on someones arm and punching them in the head and not letting go, well thats what newbies do, because they think its fighting. Once you have put overwhelming pressure on your opponent, you should stop and start the two arm drill again.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 04:39 AM

Wow, mind blowing. :rolleyes:

No, just basic. And something you didn't mention.

Glad to get the inside scoup on all things silly from the WC expert such as yourself.

You don't need to be an expert on anything to know that referencing invisible triangles that don't exist is silly.

Are just the ideas of imaginary things, such as trianlges, the only thing silly, or are the others?

Why does anyone need to refer to imaginary lines, triangles, etc. in the first place?

Would talking about and writing articles about imaginary things, such as the 5 phases of combat, be silly too? Your sifu, and apparently recently-titled "GM", doesn't seem to think these imaginary ideas were so silly when he copied the ideas and pawned them off as his own in an article.
Hey wait, wasn't it you that thought the self-appointed titles of "GM" were silly too... ;)

Bringing up this old fish story again? Let's see -- you weren't there, don't know what you're talking about, etc. So this is how you rebut my POV? Brilliant.

And, yes, self-appointed titles are silly.

Yeah, you tried this cover up in that thread too. But I only quoted your words as they were. Reread the whole thread, and you'll see what an idiot you sound like right now.

Fact is, you don't really know what chi sau is all about anyway, so you'll never get it.

I just explained the context (which you left out in your attempt to ridicule) so why don't you point out how anything I wrote is inconsistent with this view? Oh, you can't. I see.

I'm sorry that you either aren't bright enough, don't have sufficient reading comprehension abilities, and/or just didn't bother to read what I wrote about chi sao to understand what I am saying. But I'm not surprised.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 04:45 AM

Man how long have you been studying WC for, because i am calling you out as a phony if you say you have studied for more than 1 month of WC.

OK, here we go --

Chi Sao is not grappling nor is it fighting simulation. Who ever agrees with this needs to go back and listen to there sifu better or get a new one.

Where did I say it was a fighting simulation? I'm calling you out as someone who can't read.

Chi Sao develops contact relexes, eye coordination, footwork and most importantly chi. Which school teaches that Chi sao is grappling??? If your holding onto the arm, then your not doing Chi sao exercises properly.

Ah, yes, the same old nonsense, contact reflexes, eye coordination, footwork -- and chi! LOL! You think you are developing an imaginary power! Good luck with that.

BTW, grappling doesn't just involve grasping -- although "lop", grabbing, is the extension of the open hand, or haven't you learned that yet? -- it can involve pushing, pressing, pulling, etc., anything that uses sustained contact to manipulate an opponent.

Chi Sao = when i feel him do this, i will do this (sometimes when i see this, must do this), whether it be full step back, bil sao, jut sao, lop sao and pull down if he goes to kick, etc. Chi is supposed to be developed by the forward force you and your partner generate when going through the basic motion of two arm chi sao.

Chi sao described as grappling??? If you are referring to lop sao on someones arm and punching them in the head and not letting go, well thats what newbies do, because they think its fighting. Once you have put overwhelming pressure on your opponent, you should stop and start the two arm drill again.

Go find yourself a good WCK instructor; whoever is teaching you is misleading you.

goju

05-12-2010, 04:48 AM

if you were so passionate about wing chun and you are worried its dying why didnt you ever train hard enough to go beyond the "not very good" stage?

still havent answered my question t:D

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 05:00 AM

still havent answered my question t:D

Because it was a stupid question. But that's SOP for you. I think you must either be around 13 or an adult with an IQ of around 85. So when you take low intelligence, no significant experience training with fighters, and put them on a forum, you get people like you and Victor -- guys who really don't know anything but aren't smart enough to recognize it.

Niersun

05-12-2010, 05:04 AM

Ah, yes, the same old nonsense, contact reflexes, eye coordination, footwork -- and chi! LOL! You think you are developing an imaginary power! Good luck with that.

BTW, grappling doesn't just involve grasping -- although "lop", grabbing, is the extension of the open hand, or haven't you learned that yet? -- it can involve pushing, pressing, pulling, etc., anything that uses sustained contact to manipulate an opponent.

Go find yourself a good WCK instructor; whoever is teaching you is misleading you.

I used Lop sao as an example to picture to myself what you meant by grappling.

I trained under William Cheung and my senior Keith Young. Please tell me who has trained you so i can contact them and ask them certain questions on their teachings.

Same old nonsense??? Your joking right. Wow, who would of thought Yip Man was a fake and he taught his students nonsense. Whereas you were taught by???? and was taught the true secrets of Chi Sao, which is grappling.

Sil lum Tao also develops Chi. We also call this "forward energy".

You are a fake.

k gledhill

05-12-2010, 05:11 AM

VT isnt attached grappling. :D

YungChun

05-12-2010, 05:15 AM

VT isnt attached grappling. :D

I'm sorry I couldn't hear you..... :eek:

goju

05-12-2010, 05:18 AM

Because it was a stupid question. But that's SOP for you. I think you must either be around 13 or an adult with an IQ of around 85. So when you take low intelligence, no significant experience training with fighters, and put them on a forum, you get people like you and Victor -- guys who really don't know anything but aren't smart enough to recognize it.

How is it a stupid question? It's completely logical. ( Though it's been quite apparent since ive bothered to pay attention to you that you don't seem to be well acquainted with the term.)

You criticize people's training and methods yet you claim you're not very skilled.

Therefore a self professed "not very skilled" person shouldn't be passing judgement on other martial artists nor should he be attempting to tell them how to correctly train since he isn't aware of how to do it himself or can personally give an example of it.

And to make matters worse your claims about being passionate about wing chun make no sense whatsoever unless you are an inhabitant of planet wackadoo.

People that are passionate about their art work themselves to the bone day in and day out. Hate to break it you but the results of being passionate and working hard is not ending up being "not very good"

Rather, people who are not very good end up like this from lack of motivation, laziness ,will power, and the like.

The only thing you seem to be passionate about is arguing on the internet with people and spamming the board with inane repetitive circle talking drivel that comes from the perspective of a theoretical non fighter trained in wc by another theoretical non fighter.

But yet somehow despite all this you know how to properly train and apply your art over anyone else in here?

Darn it must be annoying that a 21 year old smart @ss can run circles around a 50 year old lawyer huh? LOL

Heck you should give me your job t i think id be better at it than you:D

goju

05-12-2010, 05:22 AM

and gentlemen no no need to applaud me

my head is big enough as it is :D:p

YungChun

05-12-2010, 05:25 AM

Rather, people who are not very good end up like this from lack of motivation, laziness ,will power, and the like.

If someone is really training long and hard then there are a finite number of reasons why they might not be very good..

Sadly none of them are "healthy" reasons. :o

If T is as diligent as he claims (and I have no reason to doubt him based on his SOP) LOL

Then you have to look to physical disability, method, genetics or mindset..

There are few other possibilities. :cool:

goju

05-12-2010, 05:32 AM

If someone is really training long and hard then there are a finite number of reasons why they might not be very good..

Sadly none of them are "healthy" reasons. :o

If T is as diligent as he claims (and I have no reason to doubt him based on his SOP) LOL

Then you have to look to physical disability, method, genetics or mindset..

There are few other possibilities. :cool:

you left out hanging around on the internet for years tirelessly proving who has the real chun!

given what i just noted i tend to believe this over genetics or health issues

h ell im asthmatic, have mild epilepsy and have shoulders that pop out and AND!!! AND!!! i dealt with a crazy girlfriend from mexico for over a year you dont see me making excuses!

YungChun

05-12-2010, 05:35 AM

My guess is based on the evidence, T thinks it is.........Genetics..aka (natural ability) or superiority thereof of his training partners(natural ability).

goju

05-12-2010, 05:47 AM

sure not all of us here can be blessed with superior irish physical genetics (ahem:D)
BUT regardless of whatever excuses you me or anyone else has for not being able to do this or that doesnt matter

youre still not good therefore your claims about how people should train remain entirely moot

sure you can lend your opinion in a mannerly fashion(which everyone of us should do instead of playing internet expert) on a topic but when your hijacking every thread with

"iknowtherightwaytotrianohmanyalltheroticalstuffisn thereyouguysshoudldobalhblahblahblah" then it is really hard to not think you're a clown.

on serious note i like to read about the actual techniques and stories behind the wing chun style (thats why i do more lurking than posting) and it gets annoying when everything is derailed by this malarkey to the point where im not learning anything interesting by reading the threads anymore

of course i could regularly join in with the bickering but i might as well revert back to swinging from trees and flinging my crap at people while im at it

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 06:35 AM

goju

05-12-2010, 06:48 AM

How is it a stupid question? Apparently, you are not bright enough to figure that out -- and it seems you're not alone.

Here's a hint: do you know what "not that good" means to me? Since you have never trained with genuinely good people, you can't appreciate what good really is. Or, how difficult it is to get there.

You see, we have very different notions of what "good" is -- what you consider "good" I consider to suck. So from your very limited perspective, you wonder how anyone can't be "good" when it takes so very little to get "good." And this is why you and your kind believe that you are "good"-- because for you, what sucks is good.

I'm sorry that you don't find my posts "interesting." Different people find different things interesting. What not very bright people who suck find "interesting" is not my concern however.

never trained with genuinely good people?

really? learning from a student who studied under a instructor for the korean miltary and training at trevor whittmans gym (hes ranked as one of the top five mma coaches) isnt quality compared to where were you again?

oh thats right sparring with these random "boxers" and "guys" you never name and deluding yourself into thinking sparring is actual combat. silly me i forgot all about that:D

you are slipping t XD all your contradictory mumbo jumbo is all running into itself and making you looking foolish in the process

but please enlighten us with your expert opinion of what fighting is despite the fact youve never fought

or how to spar properly despite the fact you yourself admit you regularly get slapped around

or even better yet reccomend us to go out and test are stuff when you had all the chances in the world to meet up with your fellow wing chun brothers here and spar but you backed out

actually why are you even here!!!? for the sake of wing chun you should be out there keeping it alive!!!

GO! GO! FOR THE GOOD OF KUNG FU!

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 06:51 AM

Sure, whatever. Keep working on your GED.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 06:53 AM

Chi Sao is not grappling nor is it fighting simulation. Who ever agrees with this needs to go back and listen to there sifu better or get a new one.

Chi Sao develops contact relexes, eye coordination, footwork and most importantly chi. Which school teaches that Chi sao is grappling??? If your holding onto the arm, then your not doing Chi sao exercises properly.

And that is precisely the problem with chi sao. If it was grappling, it would actually be a realistic training tool. The way it is for most people who practice it as non-grappling is exactly what makes it an almost worthless training tool.

YungChun

05-12-2010, 06:56 AM

The way it is for most people who practice it as non-grappling is exactly what makes it an almost worthless training tool.

Please explain the intended purpose and method of what you term non grappling within the context of the training tool of ChiSao...

goju

05-12-2010, 06:57 AM

Sure, whatever. Keep working on your GED.

lol wow you actually ran out something to say?
now i KNOW i hit a nerve!

anyway im gonna go have breakfast

feel free to plot another nonsensical long winded retort while im gone old chap you have plenty of time ;)

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 07:08 AM

Please explain the intended purpose and method of what you term non grappling within the context of the training tool of ChiSao...

Chi sao that seeks to avoid certain grappling aspects of that such as over-hooks, under-hooks, over/unders, body clinches, and the other natural results of being in that range is non-grappling.

Watch almost any MMA fight during close contact range. This is what real fighting looks like. A combination of grappling, clinching, striking, and fighting for position. This is what realistic training should mimic.

Wayfaring

05-12-2010, 07:43 AM

Why does anyone need to refer to imaginary lines, triangles, etc. in the first place?

They are a concept that helps a person to be aware of the proper alignment of things within their own structure such as hip, knee, elbow as well as their alignment with respecct to an opponent.

These things are not unique to WC - they are also in BJJ. For example, in guard - 3 points of contact on an opponent = control. Less is not, which comes into play in more of your open guards. Centerline - moving an elbow across center, or moving your center so that an elbow is across center is the basis for setting up a series of attacks from guard. Sweeps - removing one of the triangle's 3 points removes the base and allows the completion of the sweep. I also use the fundamental principle of the triangle to check my base at times in unique transitionary positions. Where is my weight distribution w/r to the 3 points of the triangle that represents contact with the ground?

Concepts alone won't build skill. However, concepts are mental models that allow a person to check their fundamentals at different points to ensure that what they are building into muscle memory is fundamentally sound. A firm grasp of fundamental concepts can help you to apply them when a scenario is out of the ordinary.

This speaks to triangles and lines, but also to the overall idea of concepts and theory in skill development.

They won't work alone - need to be applied in a live environment, but if they are they are tested in this fashion they represent a way that cognitive human beings can advance their skill beyond what is available by just learning by feel or touch.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 07:44 AM

Funny, people keep throwing around the term "real fighting" and this is what it should look like, etc. REAL fighting has more to do with the intent of the fight than the pressure being exerted. Are the participants of the fighting intending to do real harm? Is there malicious intent? That's where the "REAL" comes from.

What you see in the REAL fight will vary between participants. When you're in close and see your two MMA guys fighting for position, clinching, punching, and so forth--you're seeing two guys who are trained in doing those types of movements, e.g. wrestling/MT clinches, inside boxing, and etc. Its real when they both are intending to put the other guy out in order to win. If you take two wing chun guys and put them in the same situation (i.e. a match where they're both of the same intent) then that same scenario more than likely wouldn't be as prevalant. Same goes for a karate guy and a boxer. You're not going to see the same things occurring--though its still a REAL fight.

Skills play a role of course, but skills aside--it comes down to what you're familiar with and what you're presented with.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 08:03 AM

What you see in the REAL fight will vary between participants. When you're in close and see your two MMA guys fighting for position, clinching, punching, and so forth--you're seeing two guys who are trained in doing those types of movements, e.g. wrestling/MT clinches, inside boxing, and etc. Its real when they both are intending to put the other guy out in order to win. If you take two wing chun guys and put them in the same situation (i.e. a match where they're both of the same intent) then that same scenario more than likely wouldn't be as prevalant. Same goes for a karate guy and a boxer. You're not going to see the same things occurring--though its still a REAL fight.

The reason you see two MMA guys fighting for position, clinching, punching, etc is because those are the things that are most effective for fighting. They have to use them to win.

Take the WC/karate/boxer guy from your example above and put him into a situation where he is going against someone who is skilled at fighting for position, clinching, punching, etc and the WC/karate/boxer will be at a severe disadvantage. The one dimensional fighter almost always loses. That has been shown thousands of time over the years.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 08:12 AM

The reason you see two MMA guys fighting for position, clinching, punching, etc is because those are the things that are most effective for fighting. They have to use them to win.

Take the WC/karate/boxer guy from your example above and put him into a situation where he is going against someone who is skilled at fighting for position, clinching, punching, etc and the WC/karate/boxer will be at a severe disadvantage. The one dimensional fighter almost always loses. That has been shown thousands of time over the years.

What I mean Dale, is that skill level aside -- what you see will be different based on training. When you bring in skill levels, then obviously the higher skilled person will be the victor.

JPinAZ

05-12-2010, 08:54 AM

No, just basic. And something you didn't mention.

Yeah, I didn't mention a bunch of things that are basic. BFD. I could post a whole thread on just basics, and a lot of it would still go over your head. See my signature for proof ;)
What is funny, this line of discussion all started because your sifu thought that the basics such as punching with the whole body are oh so rare these days, when they really aren't.

Bringing up this old fish story again? Let's see -- you weren't there, don't know what you're talking about, etc. So this is how you rebut my POV? Brilliant.

I was just talking about basics. Some people have them, and some have to steal them and pawn them off as their own.
So, even while you weren't there, you're saying he didn't take the info for his 5 stages/phases of combat article off a white board at another school, ask for a piece of paper and a pen, write it all down in front of a bunch of people and then later pass it off as his own ideas in an article without any credit back to its source?

And, yes, self-appointed titles are silly.

Yeah, so who appointed your sifu to "GM" then?
And, BTW, you've said all titles of master and grandmaster in MAs are silly...

Hey, and why are you replying directly to a post of mine anyway when it wasn't directed toward you? What happened to all that crying and whining you've done so many times about "wah wah wah, well, don't reply to my posts, and I won't..." and "I want nothing to do with you ___ guys, you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, wah wah wah". Guess you have no problem replying to someone you have no interest in having conversations with. You're such a hypocrite

TenTigers

05-12-2010, 09:48 AM

Chi sao that seeks to avoid certain grappling aspects of that such as over-hooks, under-hooks, over/unders, body clinches, and the other natural results of being in that range is non-grappling.

Watch almost any MMA fight during close contact range. This is what real fighting looks like. A combination of grappling, clinching, striking, and fighting for position. This is what realistic training should mimic.

so Dale, would you reccommend a form of chi-sao that combined chi-sao with pummelling?

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 09:57 AM

so Dale, would you reccommend a form of chi-sao that combined chi-sao with pummelling?

You know I always thought it was weird that swimming for underhooks was called pummeling since the definition of pummel is to hit with the fists or hands, which would mean that technically chi sao already contains pummeling.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 09:58 AM

so Dale, would you reccommend a form of chi-sao that combined chi-sao with pummelling?

I would recommend a form of chi sao that combined chi sao with all the elements that might occur there.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 10:00 AM

I would recommend a form of chi sao that combined chi sao with all the elements that might occur there.

Then that would be clinch sparring. Not chi sao.

TenTigers

05-12-2010, 10:04 AM

You know I always thought it was weird that swimming for underhooks was called pummeling since the definition of pummel is to hit with the fists or hands, which would mean that technically chi sao already contains pummeling.
yeah, I found that funny too. For awhile, before I learned what it was, I thought MMA fighters were saying that they were doing hammerfists, or something.
I like the term,"Swimming" better. It is a more apt description.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 10:11 AM

Then that would be clinch sparring. Not chi sao.

Then it would be a more effective training method... imagine that.

TenTigers

05-12-2010, 10:12 AM

Then that would be clinch sparring. Not chi sao.

I guess it depends on how it is played. If the two partners are doing it to develop sensitivity/reaction/position/root, then it could be called a type of chi-sao.
I have seen many different versions of freestyle tui-sao, all very different than classical tui-sao, yet all developing the specific qualities, so it was accepted to be called tui-sao.
In Hung Kuen, we say,"Kiu-sau," which encompasses everything from chi-sao,tui-sao type exercises, to sam-sing, and gripping exercises.
"It's just a name. Don't make a fuss about it."

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 11:11 AM

Man how long have you been studying WC for, because i am calling you out as a phony if you say you have studied for more than 1 month of WC.

Chi Sao is not grappling nor is it fighting simulation. Who ever agrees with this needs to go back and listen to there sifu better or get a new one.

Chi Sao develops contact relexes, eye coordination, footwork and most importantly chi. Which school teaches that Chi sao is grappling??? If your holding onto the arm, then your not doing Chi sao exercises properly.

Chi Sao = when i feel him do this, i will do this (sometimes when i see this, must do this), whether it be full step back, bil sao, jut sao, lop sao and pull down if he goes to kick, etc. Chi is supposed to be developed by the forward force you and your partner generate when going through the basic motion of two arm chi sao.

Chi sao described as grappling??? If you are referring to lop sao on someones arm and punching them in the head and not letting go, well thats what newbies do, because they think its fighting. Once you have put overwhelming pressure on your opponent, you should stop and start the two arm drill again.

***That's a good post, Niersun.

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 11:19 AM

They are a concept that helps a person to be aware of the proper alignment of things within their own structure such as hip, knee, elbow as well as their alignment with respecct to an opponent.

These things are not unique to WC - they are also in BJJ. For example, in guard - 3 points of contact on an opponent = control. Less is not, which comes into play in more of your open guards. Centerline - moving an elbow across center, or moving your center so that an elbow is across center is the basis for setting up a series of attacks from guard. Sweeps - removing one of the triangle's 3 points removes the base and allows the completion of the sweep. I also use the fundamental principle of the triangle to check my base at times in unique transitionary positions. Where is my weight distribution w/r to the 3 points of the triangle that represents contact with the ground?

Concepts alone won't build skill. However, concepts are mental models that allow a person to check their fundamentals at different points to ensure that what they are building into muscle memory is fundamentally sound. A firm grasp of fundamental concepts can help you to apply them when a scenario is out of the ordinary.

This speaks to triangles and lines, but also to the overall idea of concepts and theory in skill development.

They won't work alone - need to be applied in a live environment, but if they are they are tested in this fashion they represent a way that cognitive human beings can advance their skill beyond what is available by just learning by feel or touch.

***Terrific post, Wayfaring...

But you need to understand that you're talking to someone who employs cheap lawyer tricks.

He'll argue "against" concepts when it suits his "client" (in this case, himself, the Robert Chu system of wing chun, or whoever or whatever at the time)...

and he'll argue "for" concepts whenever the discussion is about the concepts he endorses, or Robert endorses, etc.)

The guy is totally disengenuous. A complete hypocrite.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 11:40 AM

Then it would be a more effective training method... imagine that.

Apples and Oranges.

It [clinch sparring] would be a compartmentalized sparring method where intensity levels, rules, and goals vary but all in all it is to practice the skills needed for fighting as they are done in fighting.

Chi sao is not that. Chi sao is a drill. The goal of which is to increase awareness of one's touch sensitivity, internal body structures, footwork, and etc. It is a reactionary drill and nothing more. It does not simulate fighting.

Sparring is sparring...drills are drills. It's as simple as that. I do agree that chi sao is far too emphasized in many wing chun systems though.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 11:44 AM

Yeah, I didn't mention a bunch of things that are basic. BFD. I could post a whole thread on just basics, and a lot of it would still go over your head. See my signature for proof ;)

If by "over my head" you mean that I won't be able to grasp your silly reasoning . . . well.

Yes, you could have added a bunch of things. And I pointed out one.

What is funny, this line of discussion all started because your sifu thought that the basics such as punching with the whole body are oh so rare these days, when they really aren't.

Yes, they are in WCK.

I was just talking about basics. Some people have them, and some have to steal them and pawn them off as their own.
So, even while you weren't there, you're saying he didn't take the info for his 5 stages/phases of combat article off a white board at another school, ask for a piece of paper and a pen, write it all down in front of a bunch of people and then later pass it off as his own ideas in an article without any credit back to its source?

Dude, try to understand this -- I don't give a rat's ass what Robert did or didn't do. Who gives a f#ck? It has nothing to do with me or my views. Personally, I think it is a fish story that has grown with each retelling, but I don't care. No one owns anything -- this stuff isn't some sort of intellectual property. No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one. Now, you hear it all over the place. Is he griping that no one is giving him credit? Grow up. Jeez. You don't hear William Cheung complaining that Garrett stole his forms, do you?

Yeah, so who appointed your sifu to "GM" then?
And, BTW, you've said all titles of master and grandmaster in MAs are silly...

WTF are you talking about? As I have said, all titles are silly. What don't you understand?

Hey, and why are you replying directly to a post of mine anyway when it wasn't directed toward you? What happened to all that crying and whining you've done so many times about "wah wah wah, well, don't reply to my posts, and I won't..." and "I want nothing to do with you ___ guys, you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, wah wah wah". Guess you have no problem replying to someone you have no interest in having conversations with. You're such a hypocrite

I know you are not very bright, but even someone as dim-witted as you should realize that if you make a tag-line quoting statements by someone out of context -- even though you asked me not to respond to it -- would result in them pointing out your folly.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 11:53 AM

No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one. Now, you hear it all over the place.

Ummm...not quite accurate there. I've been taught about structure from day one, and that's with more than one WC influence. It's been in every single form of gung fu that I've ever trained.

Nothing new.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:01 PM

They are a concept that helps a person to be aware of the proper alignment of things within their own structure such as hip, knee, elbow as well as their alignment with respecct to an opponent.

You don't need these imaginary concepts to help people be aware of their alignment or structure or whatever. You can just show them what is good alignment, structure, etc. Why do you need some imaginary concept to replace the real thing?

These things are not unique to WC - they are also in BJJ. For example, in guard - 3 points of contact on an opponent = control. Less is not, which comes into play in more of your open guards. Centerline - moving an elbow across center, or moving your center so that an elbow is across center is the basis for setting up a series of attacks from guard. Sweeps - removing one of the triangle's 3 points removes the base and allows the completion of the sweep. I also use the fundamental principle of the triangle to check my base at times in unique transitionary positions. Where is my weight distribution w/r to the 3 points of the triangle that represents contact with the ground?

It's fine to discuss reality (you need 3 points of contact to have control -- that's not a concept, it is just a fact) but you don't need, and I don't think it wise to, add layers of imaginary things to explain reality. For sweeps, for instance, it is not that you have 3 points of a triangle (a triangle, btw, isn't 3 points but a three sided shape, and when you are in base in the guard, there is no triangle) but that your weight is centered over your legs (you can have your 3 points and be leaning over your opponent in his guard -- and will be taking a flight even though your imaginary triangle still exists).

It seems many people like to abstract reality.

Concepts alone won't build skill. However, concepts are mental models that allow a person to check their fundamentals at different points to ensure that what they are building into muscle memory is fundamentally sound. A firm grasp of fundamental concepts can help you to apply them when a scenario is out of the ordinary.

No. Concepts don't help you "check your fundamentals" -- performance is what checks your fundamentals.

Concepts are preconceptions that more often than not hinder skill development.

This speaks to triangles and lines, but also to the overall idea of concepts and theory in skill development.

They won't work alone - need to be applied in a live environment, but if they are they are tested in this fashion they represent a way that cognitive human beings can advance their skill beyond what is available by just learning by feel or touch.

No, people don't need imaginary concepts, lines, triangles, etc. to develop high levels of skill. You develop skill by practice -- by doing the skill itself. People actually develop their own understanding of what is going on by doing it. It's not concept first, then skill but rather that concepts (our understanding) comes from and is limited by our skill.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:03 PM

Ummm...not quite accurate there. I've been taught about structure from day one, and that's with more than one WC influence. It's been in every single form of gung fu that I've ever trained.

Nothing new.

I said body structure and breaking structure. Show me where you have written anything, or there is any record of you discussing body structure.

sanjuro_ronin

05-12-2010, 12:09 PM

fantasy fighters like these guys that advocate concepts and principles and even triangle stepping, make me sick !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk4WQp9r7nE

:D

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:12 PM

fantasy fighters like these guys that advocate concepts and principles and even triangle stepping, make me sick !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk4WQp9r7nE

:D

I know you're being facetious, but I agree -- it's amazing to me that even some good people continue to cling to that sort of nonsense (the FMAs are like the TCMAs, replete with all sorts of theoretical nonsense, and many of the Dog Bros. "grew up" in that morass).

sanjuro_ronin

05-12-2010, 12:23 PM

I know you're being facetious, but I agree -- it's amazing to me that even some good people continue to cling to that sort of nonsense (the FMAs are like the TCMAs, replete with all sorts of theoretical nonsense, and many of the Dog Bros. "grew up" in that morass).

I asked Guru Marc that very thing, in a less disrespectful way of course, he replied that the concept is valid because people "catch on to it: very quickly and effectively.
He is right.
I had a few old school Boxing coaches and they had "weird" concepts too, look at the "peekaboo" concept or the "hold an egg in your fist" one.
Or the "windshield wiper".

heck, some people are so against old time ways of saying things that they uses new fangeled terms like "body structure".
:p

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 12:31 PM

I said body structure and breaking structure. Show me where you have written anything, or there is any record of you discussing body structure.

Would my writing about it in the past prove the validity of the statement? Nope. I said I was taught it all along. Like many of us said about his DVD...the information was nothing NEW...but VERY GOOD INFORMATION nonetheless. I understand what you're trying to get at but to think that Robert created the idea of breaking structure...is false and ludicrous when the system was fundamentally built in such a manner.

I was taught about proper structure from my step brother, and it's been a common theme amongst other WC people I've come across, and even present day with Sifu Baker (who has not seen any of Robert's DVD's). In fact that was the FIRST thing he talked about as a matter of fact. He wanted to check my structure and how I "presented it" as he put it.

Long and short...while you present some good data...lets not go overboard with the blanket statements.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:32 PM

I asked Guru Marc that very thing, in a less disrespectful way of course, he replied that the concept is valid because people "catch on to it: very quickly and effectively.
He is right.
I had a few old school Boxing coaches and they had "weird" concepts too, look at the "peekaboo" concept or the "hold an egg in your fist" one.
Or the "windshield wiper".

heck, some people are so against old time ways of saying things that they uses new fangeled terms like "body structure".
:p

Has he tried teaching without using his imaginary triangles? No. You could do it just as easily by showing "this is what you want to do".

You're mixing all kinds of things up under the banner of "concepts" -- and that's another of the big problems with the whole "concepts" dreg. For example, peek-a-boo isn't a concept but a description of a certain boxing guard (it looks like you are hiding behind your hands). Body structure isn't a concept either.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 12:35 PM

These things are not unique to WC - they are also in BJJ. For example, in guard - 3 points of contact on an opponent = control. Less is not, which comes into play in more of your open guards. Centerline - moving an elbow across center, or moving your center so that an elbow is across center is the basis for setting up a series of attacks from guard. Sweeps - removing one of the triangle's 3 points removes the base and allows the completion of the sweep. I also use the fundamental principle of the triangle to check my base at times in unique transitionary positions. Where is my weight distribution w/r to the 3 points of the triangle that represents contact with the ground?.

LOL... A person doesn't need three points of a triangle to have a good base. Nor does he need three points of contact to control someone in the guard. Centerline is just as often not applicable at all as is applicable.

In terms of BJJ, these concepts are pretty much wrong. All you do with these "concepts" is constrain yourself and limit your options in BJJ. If anything, thinking along these concepts will make you worse, rather than better.

You need to get a better understanding of the basic principles of BJJ in particular and grappling in general.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:38 PM

Would my writing about it in the past prove the validity of the statement? Nope. I understand what you're trying to get at but to think that Robert created the idea of breaking structure...is false and ludicrous when the system was fundamentally built in such a manner.

Does anyone around here have a reading comprehension beyond a third grade level? Where did I say that Robert created ANYTHING? I said, "No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one." Can your read and understand that simple sentence or is it beyond your intellectual capability? To be clear, I said NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT . . .

Breaking structure (chum) is part of the WCK faat mun. Robert didn't create it. But no one was talking about it. Get it. Talking about it.

PS -- Van, I'm sorry but I get sooo tired of dealing with people who can't read or read into what I write things I don't say. So I apologize for getting testy. Mea culpa.

I was taught about proper structure from my step brother, and it's been a common theme amongst other WC people I've come across, and even present day with Sifu Baker (who has not seen any of Robert's DVD's). In fact that was the FIRST thing he talked about as a matter of fact. He wanted to check my structure and how I "presented it" as he put it.

Dude, PAY ATTENTION -- I said BODY STRUCTURE. BODY STRUCTURE. Not structure. BODY STRUCTURE. Robert was talking about body structure in the early to mid 90s. He was on the WCML talking about it (where I first was introduced to Scott btw). He wrote articles about it. S

Long and short...while you present some good data...lets not go overboard with the blanket statements.

It is a fact.

sanjuro_ronin

05-12-2010, 12:40 PM

Has he tried teaching without using his imaginary triangles? No. You could do it just as easily by showing "this is what you want to do".

You're mixing all kinds of things up under the banner of "concepts" -- and that's another of the big problems with the whole "concepts" dreg. For example, peek-a-boo isn't a concept but a description of a certain boxing guard (it looks like you are hiding behind your hands). Body structure isn't a concept either.

That's just the thing though, a concept is just that, a concept:

con·cept
/ˈkɒnsɛpt/ Show Spelled[kon-sept] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

sanjuro_ronin

05-12-2010, 12:42 PM

You guys seem to view concepts as "holy gospels", they aren't, they are just basic guidelines.
While one doesn't NEED 3 points to be stable, like Dale mentions, it is a great place to start from.

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:46 PM

That's just the thing though, a concept is just that, a concept:

con·cept
/ˈkɒnsɛpt/ Show Spelled[kon-sept] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a general notion or idea; conception.
2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.
3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

Paul, the fighting arts are skills, not concepts. You don't need concepts to learn or develop skills. You need to be shown the skill (taught it) and then practice doing it.

You develop your OWN concepts, your own ideas, by and through your practice as you develop skill (your understanding corresponds to your skill level).

t_niehoff

05-12-2010, 12:49 PM

You guys seem to view concepts as "holy gospels", they aren't, they are just basic guidelines.
While one doesn't NEED 3 points to be stable, like Dale mentions, it is a great place to start from.

Try to understand this -- reality isn't a "concept". To stand up you need to get your ass off the ground. That isn't a concept, it is simply what you must do. Just show people what they need to do and how to do it. Then you won't have need for "guidelines."

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 12:56 PM

You guys seem to view concepts as "holy gospels", they aren't, they are just basic guidelines.
While one doesn't NEED 3 points to be stable, like Dale mentions, it is a great place to start from.

No, it isn't a good point to start from.

How about starting with the real principle of stability? The real principle is the more surface area you have against the ground and the lower your center of gravity, the more stable you are. This is much better than trying to extrapolate a shape to BJJ/grappling.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 01:02 PM

Try to understand this -- reality isn't a "concept". To stand up you need to get your ass off the ground. That isn't a concept, it is simply what you must do. Just show people what they need to do and how to do it. Then you won't have need for "guidelines."

Principles are good for newbies who have a information overload. Relying on principles, however, will definitely hinder one's advancement, because in any complex motor skill development, principles will conflict as one becomes more advanced.

sanjuro_ronin

05-12-2010, 01:07 PM

You guys are wh0ring the anti-concept line as much as some guys wh0re the pro-concept line.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 01:13 PM

You guys are wh0ring the anti-concept line as much as some guys wh0re the pro-concept line.

Concepts have their place (usually at the beginners/intermediate level) and they can help someone to understand complex situations.

However, as you can see by the BJJ example of points of contact, trying to extrapolate principles (especially from one system to another) is, at the very least, a waste of time and, many times, counterproductive.

By the time one is an advanced practitioner of anything, concepts should be the last thing on the mind of the person performing the activity.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 01:38 PM

Does anyone around here have a reading comprehension beyond a third grade level? Where did I say that Robert created ANYTHING? I said, "No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one." Can your read and understand that simple sentence or is it beyond your intellectual capability? To be clear, I said NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT . . .

Breaking structure (chum) is part of the WCK faat mun. Robert didn't create it. But no one was talking about it. Get it. Talking about it.

PS -- Van, I'm sorry but I get sooo tired of dealing with people who can't read or read into what I write things I don't say. So I apologize for getting testy. Mea culpa.

For being a lawyer (which implies a grasp on the english language and commuication) you sure don't have much grasp on the idea of conveying messages. When people communicate, they send out a message. Messages are interpreted not only on the literal but also the contextual as well as the implied.

Hence when you say "no one was talking about x before x person did" that IMPLIES that you have a belief that no one knew about it prior to that because they would have been talking about it. If that wasn't the intent of the message, then perhaps you should have worded it differently or more clearly. Don't get your panties all in a bunch because you lack communication skills.

Dude, PAY ATTENTION -- I said BODY STRUCTURE. BODY STRUCTURE. Not structure. BODY STRUCTURE. Robert was talking about body structure in the early to mid 90s. He was on the WCML talking about it (where I first was introduced to Scott btw). He wrote articles about it.
Ok. And there were many Wing Chun exponents that existed well before that time that also understood and taught the idea of BODY STUCTURE (or the shortened version: STRUCTURE) and how to use it in gung fu. Jesus...get a grip man you're losing it!

It is a fact.
What? That you're a bad laywer, a bad communicator, a bad wing chun practicioner, and a bad fighter in general (by your own admittance)? Then I agree to those facts.

P.S. Terence, it's no big deal this is all internet rhetoric anyway and I don't take any of it personally. I just give it like I receive it.

Wayfaring

05-12-2010, 01:50 PM

LOL... A person doesn't need three points of a triangle to have a good base. Nor does he need three points of contact to control someone in the guard. Centerline is just as often not applicable at all as is applicable.

You know, for a black belt you sure do a whole lot more criticizing other people than you do teaching things or explaining things that are worthwhile. I am just trying to illustrate how "concepts" at different times help me bridge a gap in training.

No, 100% of the time you don't need 3 points of a triangle to have a good base. However, at times you do need 3 contact points on the ground to maintain your base. Being "centered" however is a concept that you do need 100% of the time to maintain a good base. As well as keeping your weight low, as you mentioned. The concept of "sinking your hips" is a concept that helps you keep your weight low.

In terms of BJJ, these concepts are pretty much wrong. All you do with these "concepts" is constrain yourself and limit your options in BJJ. If anything, thinking along these concepts will make you worse, rather than better.

Whatever. I get enough live rolling in to be able to work in concepts when necessary and ignore them when it's not necessary. The coaching advice I'm getting lately is more along the lines of concepts and strategy than it is specific technique at least 50% of the time. And it doesn't seem to be making me worse.

If I had to rely upon your advice to advance in BJJ, I would be pretty much up a river without a paddle. As it's nonexistant.

You need to get a better understanding of the basic principles of BJJ in particular and grappling in general.
I'm sure I do. I don't know anyone in BJJ at any belt level that doesn't need to get a better understanding and application of fundamentals.

Although the black belts I train with don't seem to be anywhere near as big of a d0ucheb@g as you are around here.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 02:00 PM

You know, for a black belt you sure do a whole lot more criticizing other people than you do teaching things or explaining things that are worthwhile. I am just trying to illustrate how "concepts" at different times help me bridge a gap in training.

An I'm just telling you that, more than likely they were either a waste of time or counter productive.

You want me to teach you something productive? OK. Quit trying to apply WC concepts to BJJ.

No, 100% of the time you don't need 3 points of a triangle to have a good base. However, at times you do need 3 contact points on the ground to maintain your base.

And there are times when 3 points of contact (or 4, for that matter) will not maintain your base. Since there are times when any of this may apply, it pretty much makes the principle worthless.

Being "centered" however is a concept that you do need 100% of the time to maintain a good base. As well as keeping your weight low, as you mentioned. The concept of "sinking your hips" is a concept that helps you keep your weight low.

Sometimes you need to raise your hips to maintain your stability... again negating the general principle.

Although the black belts I train with don't seem to be anywhere near as big of a d0ucheb@g as you are around here.

Maybe because you aren't telling them how to apply WC concepts to BJJ training.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 02:05 PM

Hmmm kinda like when people that have little to no wing chun training trying to tell wing chun folks how to do chi sao, no?

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 02:11 PM

Hmmm kinda like when people that have little to no wing chun training trying to tell wing chun folks how to do chi sao, no?

No, it would be like a BJJ guy trying to tell you how to apply BJJ principles to WC.

BTW, is 6 to 7 years of chi sao little or no training?

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 02:13 PM

ummm...not quite accurate there. I've been taught about structure from day one, and that's with more than one wc influence. It's been in every single form of gung fu that i've ever trained.

Nothing new.

***this...

Wayfaring

05-12-2010, 02:23 PM

An I'm just telling you that, more than likely they were either a waste of time or counter productive.

You want me to teach you something productive? OK. Quit trying to apply WC concepts to BJJ.

D@mn. You must be better than Rickson then. You can take the advice that BJJ black belts give me and tell they are a waste of time or counter productive without even hearing it completely.

Tell you what, ace. Once you can tap the guys I train with, then I'll take your advice over theirs.

And I'm not trying to apply WC concepts to BJJ. I'm just saying that there are times when "concepts" apply and help you in BJJ. Like one of the most common attacks we use from guard depends on getting an elbow across centerline and there are 3 or 4 methods we use to do that. Also, one of the most common armbar escapes we use requires keeping your weight on one side of centerline so you don't get rolled.
So "centerline" is the concept used. Not the same as WC concept, but it is a concept.

And there are times when 3 points of contact (or 4, for that matter) will not maintain your base. Since there are times when any of this may apply, it pretty much makes the principle worthless.

No, there is a common rule. Then there are exceptions to the rule. That doesn't make it worthless to learn the rule. Quite obviously you kind of suck as a teacher or coach.

Sometimes you need to raise your hips to maintain your stability... again negating the general principle.

Again, so what? Are you saying that it's worthless to learn the concept of sinking your hips because when someone benches you off them you have to go to knee on stomach?

Maybe because you aren't telling them how to apply WC concepts to BJJ training.
Which I'm not doing to you either. The only "concept" I'm trying to get across to you is to stop being a d0ucheb@g. And that "concepts" have their place in people's learning patterns.

Because otherwise it's all just trial and error. And while yes you need 10,000 reps to really lock something down, if you can actually transfer what you learn in one situation to another situation, then it cuts the time down.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 02:48 PM

D@mn. You must be better than Rickson then. You can take the advice that BJJ black belts give me and tell they are a waste of time or counter productive without even hearing it completely.

Tell you what, ace. Once you can tap the guys I train with, then I'll take your advice over theirs.

And I'm not trying to apply WC concepts to BJJ. I'm just saying that there are times when "concepts" apply and help you in BJJ. Like one of the most common attacks we use from guard depends on getting an elbow across centerline and there are 3 or 4 methods we use to do that. Also, one of the most common armbar escapes we use requires keeping your weight on one side of centerline so you don't get rolled.
So "centerline" is the concept used. Not the same as WC concept, but it is a concept.

No, there is a common rule. Then there are exceptions to the rule. That doesn't make it worthless to learn the rule. Quite obviously you kind of suck as a teacher or coach.

Again, so what? Are you saying that it's worthless to learn the concept of sinking your hips because when someone benches you off them you have to go to knee on stomach?

Which I'm not doing to you either. The only "concept" I'm trying to get across to you is to stop being a d0ucheb@g. And that "concepts" have their place in people's learning patterns.

Because otherwise it's all just trial and error. And while yes you need 10,000 reps to really lock something down, if you can actually transfer what you learn in one situation to another situation, then it cuts the time down.

Wayfaring, with whom do you train BJJ and what is your belt level?

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 02:57 PM

No, it would be like a BJJ guy trying to tell you how to apply BJJ principles to WC.

BTW, is 6 to 7 years of chi sao little or no training?

Hmmm....good point. ;)

Six to seven years isn't much compared to some of the people on this board who have decades of experience in the said subject. So relatively speaking, yes. To be fair I have little to no training relative to those same individuals as well. So don't feel insulted.

Wayfaring

05-12-2010, 03:03 PM

Wayfaring, with whom do you train BJJ and what is your belt level?

I sent you a PM to take BJJ Q/A and discussion offline.

I'll discuss "concepts" online, but the thread is about similarities between boxing and wing chun.

I'll talk BJJ with you offline. And I'm just sick of hearing the unequivocal "you're wrong" all the time without any thought process into it. There is more than one way to skin a cat, not just your way.

Hardwork108

05-12-2010, 03:31 PM

BTW, is 6 to 7 years of chi sao little or no training?

In a Mc Kwoon, it would be!

Hardwork108

05-12-2010, 03:39 PM

I said, "No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one." Can your read and understand that simple sentence or is it beyond your intellectual capability? To be clear, I said NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT . . .

Well, I don't know about you but breaking an opponents structure (while maintaining yours) is the way I was taught WC.

Breaking structure (chum) is part of the WCK faat mun. Robert didn't create it. But no one was talking about it. Get it. Talking about it.
YOu mean, no one that you know?

Dude, PAY ATTENTION -- I said BODY STRUCTURE. BODY STRUCTURE. Not structure. BODY STRUCTURE. Robert was talking about body structure in the early to mid 90s. He was on the WCML talking about it (where I first was introduced to Scott btw). He wrote articles about it. S
How can you have a structure without a body?:confused:

LOL. It is all connected , if you know what I mean!:D

JPinAZ

05-12-2010, 03:48 PM

If by "over my head" you mean that I won't be able to grasp your silly reasoning . . . well.

Yes, you could have added a bunch of things. And I pointed out one.

Yeah, that's great, but why were you replying to this part of my post if you want nothing to do with me?

I could care less what basics a theroetical non-fighter like you points out to me.
I could point out something basic too, like you're an idiot, but I let that go without saying.

Dude, try to understand this -- I don't give a rat's ass what Robert did or didn't do. Who gives a f#ck? It has nothing to do with me or my views. Personally, I think it is a fish story that has grown with each retelling, but I don't care.

Wow, touchy are we? Not going to start crying again are you? ;)

It's obvious you don't give a rats ass what robert does, and apparently, neither does he. Like sifu, like student. He took the information, he pawned it off as his own, he never gave credit to where he got it. It's as simple as that.

No one owns anything -- this stuff isn't some sort of intellectual property. No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one. Now, you hear it all over the place. Is he griping that no one is giving him credit? Grow up. Jeez.

Robert isn't, and never was, the only one to talk about whole body structure, ever. It's a main key to WCK fighting body mechanics and is. and always has been, common basic knowledge. It's also a part of most other MA's and has been a focus long before Robert opened his mouth. You act like it's something he should be bowed down too. It's nothing new and no big discovery of his time. So, he was the first to say it on some message board, BFD.

But anyway, who cares what he said and when? What does that have to do with his intellectual dishonesty?

WTF are you talking about? As I have said, all titles are silly. What don't you understand?

I don't understand when you sifu was promoted to the title of "GM" and by who. If it's such a silly title, why is he being called it? It was a simple question. One you've avoided twice now..

I know you are not very bright, but even someone as dim-witted as you should realize that if you make a tag-line quoting statements by someone out of context -- even though you asked me not to respond to it -- would result in them pointing out your folly.

Blah blah blah. You have no real argument, so you resort to name calling and personal attacks. Just like the theoretical non-lawyer that you are!

Funny, for someone who wants nothing to do with me, you sure are spending a lot of time defending yourself to me regarding the quotes in my tagline. It's not my fault it exposes you for the clueless wannabe that you are. But, I don't blame you for ya wanting to backtrack on all the double talk in that thread -Good luck with that! ;)

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 04:31 PM

D@mn. You must be better than Rickson then. You can take the advice that BJJ black belts give me and tell they are a waste of time or counter productive without even hearing it completely.

Tell you what, ace. Once you can tap the guys I train with, then I'll take your advice over theirs.

And I'm not trying to apply WC concepts to BJJ. I'm just saying that there are times when "concepts" apply and help you in BJJ. Like one of the most common attacks we use from guard depends on getting an elbow across centerline and there are 3 or 4 methods we use to do that. Also, one of the most common armbar escapes we use requires keeping your weight on one side of centerline so you don't get rolled.
So "centerline" is the concept used. Not the same as WC concept, but it is a concept.

No, there is a common rule. Then there are exceptions to the rule. That doesn't make it worthless to learn the rule. Quite obviously you kind of suck as a teacher or coach.

Again, so what? Are you saying that it's worthless to learn the concept of sinking your hips because when someone benches you off them you have to go to knee on stomach?

Which I'm not doing to you either. The only "concept" I'm trying to get across to you is to stop being a d0ucheb@g. And that "concepts" have their place in people's learning patterns.

Because otherwise it's all just trial and error. And while yes you need 10,000 reps to really lock something down, if you can actually transfer what you learn in one situation to another situation, then it cuts the time down.

***You're rolling 7's on this thread, Wayfaring. :cool: ;)

Vajramusti

05-12-2010, 04:33 PM

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1013167] No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

???Don't care to get into silly arguments...but the above statement is not true.
And again we have moved away from the topic of the thread.

joy chaudhuri

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 04:49 PM

...It's obvious you don't give a rats ass what robert does, and apparently, neither does he. Like sifu, like student. He took the information, he pawned it off as his own, he never gave credit to where he got it. It's as simple as that...

But anyway, who cares what he said and when? What does that have to do with his intellectual dishonesty?

I don't understand when you sifu was promoted to the title of "GM" and by who. If it's such a silly title, why is he being called it? It was a simple question. One you've avoided twice now.

While I understand your frustration, Terence has nothing to do with anything Robert has or has not done in your eyes. If you have a problem with Robert, you should take it up with him directly.

duende

05-12-2010, 04:54 PM

Dude, try to understand this -- I don't give a rat's ass what Robert did or didn't do. Who gives a f#ck? It has nothing to do with me or my views. Personally, I think it is a fish story that has grown with each retelling, but I don't care. No one owns anything -- this stuff isn't some sort of intellectual property. No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one. Now, you hear it all over the place. Is he griping that no one is giving him credit? Grow up. Jeez. You don't hear William Cheung complaining that Garrett stole his forms, do you?

Geez... I hate rehashing the past.

But WTF do you think Chum Kiu is? It's sinking your opponents bridge! Another words destroying/collapsing your opponant's bridge/structure, so that you can create your own safe bridge to cross, and attack. Sometimes this is done in one beat.

Regardless of what you think you know, it is true... this information was on our schools chalk board when Robert came to visit. I was there.

So even if he didn't steal the info.. (which at this point, does anyone really care) How could it of been on our chalkboard if he invented it? Go figure Terence.

Our entire SLT, CK, and BG is based on Sup Ming Dim structure, and Tin Yan Dei Triangle connections. This is HFY structure. Robert has his own understandings. Who gives a fak!

And btw.... For your information, TWC's 5 stages of combat to this day do not have the same meanings nor do they use the same Chinese terminology as our HFY 5 battle arrays.

TWC's 5 stage are sequential. Our 5 battle arrays are not.

Maybe in the YKS system you previously learned, they didn't talk about breaking your opponents structure. So maybe that is where you got this hair brained notion of yours.

But you are waaay off in your understanding of WC here.

While I can certainly agree with you when you say many WC'rs don't employ the concept of Chum Kiu as well as they should. For you to say Robert invented the concept, is a joke. I seriously doubt he'd support your statements here.

Can we finally move on now?

Matrix

05-12-2010, 05:00 PM

By the time one is an advanced practitioner of anything, concepts should be the last thing on the mind of the person performing the activity.No doubt about it. If you're thinking about concepts or principles you're no being effective. The concepts or principles that are used to train the beginner should be fully intergrated into the action of the advanced practitoner.

JPinAZ

05-12-2010, 05:11 PM

Alex/Duende.

Well put. Moving on. :cool:

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 05:24 PM

...............

Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff
If by "over my head" you mean that I won't be able to grasp your silly reasoning . . . well.

Yes, you could have added a bunch of things. And I pointed out one.
............................

JP responds: Yeah, that's great, but why were you replying to this part of my post if you want nothing to do with me?

I could care less what basics a theroetical non-fighter like you points out to me.
I could point out something basic too, like you're an idiot, but I let that go without saying.
..................................

Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff
Dude, try to understand this -- I don't give a rat's ass what Robert did or didn't do. Who gives a f#ck? It has nothing to do with me or my views. Personally, I think it is a fish story that has grown with each retelling, but I don't care.

JP responds: Wow, touchy are we? Not going to start crying again are you? ;)

It's obvious you don't give a rats ass what robert does, and apparently, neither does he. Like sifu, like student. He took the information, he pawned it off as his own, he never gave credit to where he got it. It's as simple as that.
.....................................

Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff
No one owns anything -- this stuff isn't some sort of intellectual property. No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one. Now, you hear it all over the place. Is he griping that no one is giving him credit? Grow up. Jeez.

JP responds: Robert isn't, and never was, the only one to talk about whole body structure, ever. It's a main key to WCK fighting body mechanics and is. and always has been, common basic knowledge. It's also a part of most other MA's and has been a focus long before Robert opened his mouth. You act like it's something he should be bowed down too. It's nothing new and no big discovery of his time. So, he was the first to say it on some message board, BFD.

But anyway, who cares what he said and when? What does that have to do with his intellectual dishonesty?
..................................

Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff
WTF are you talking about? As I have said, all titles are silly. What don't you understand?

JP responds: I don't understand when you sifu was promoted to the title of "GM" and by who. If it's such a silly title, why is he being called it? It was a simple question. One you've avoided twice now..
..............................

Quote:
Originally Posted by t_niehoff
I know you are not very bright, but even someone as dim-witted as you should realize that if you make a tag-line quoting statements by someone out of context -- even though you asked me not to respond to it -- would result in them pointing out your folly.

JP responds: Blah blah blah. You have no real argument, so you resort to name calling and personal attacks. Just like the theoretical non-lawyer that you are!

Funny, for someone who wants nothing to do with me, you sure are spending a lot of time defending yourself to me regarding the quotes in my tagline. It's not my fault it exposes you for the clueless wannabe that you are. But, I don't blame you for ya wanting to backtrack on all the double talk in that thread -Good luck with that! ;)

***Keep exposing that two-faced liar, JP...Go ahead, I dare you! :D

YungChun

05-12-2010, 05:29 PM

No one was talking about body structure, breaking structure, etc. before Robert. No one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

???Don't care to get into silly arguments...but the above statement is not true.
And again we have moved away from the topic of the thread.

joy chaudhuri

He thinks he knows what everyone was talking about and teaching since forever ago..this shows how deluded he is beyond any doubt.

I seriously doubt even Robert would agree with this kind of BS.

I was introduced to this stuff and more when I began VT in 1990.....oye.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 05:44 PM

No doubt about it. If you're thinking about concepts or principles you're no being effective. The concepts or principles that are used to train the beginner should be fully intergrated into the action of the advanced practitoner.

I'd agree with this. At this stage in the game you should just e applyig what you know, and working to improve by working wih folks that are better. Done with school, now you should be working.

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 05:50 PM

He thinks he knows what everyone was talking about and teaching since forever ago..this shows how deluded he is beyond any doubt.

I seriously doubt even Robert would agree with this kind of BS.

I was introduced to this stuff and more when I began VT in 1990.....oye.

***AND I was introduced to it in 1975. Niehoff really needs to wake up and smell reality - because hardly anybody buys into his bull5hit anymore.

chusauli

05-12-2010, 06:14 PM

Guys,

This is all old hat.

JPinAZ, I think its time you drop the old stuff. If you need to tell me off in person or on the phone, call me directly at 626 487-1815. Let's deal with this as men, and be over it.

GG's blackboard had interesting Chinese terms for what I would describe as TWC's 5 concepts. That's all I took, terms in Chinese, which I felt was unexplained as TWC's. I did not study HFY, so I can only say this is my understanding. Again, my old article reflects my understanding only, not HFY, not TWC. This is old history and poor taste to continually bring this up.

YKS WCK's first 5 keywords sum up everything in WCK: Dop (Attach), Jeet (Intercept), Chum Sink), Biu (Dart/Rush In), Chi (Stick). I learned that decades ago, not from some blackboard in GG's garage. That is the nature of WCK anyway.

I did not create "Body Structure", but it is my term, just as "WCK' is my term. All Chinese Traditional martial arts have some form of it and it should be taught from day one. Hawkins Cheung emphasized it and called it "Structure", so did Augustine Fong. Hawkins emphasized it so much in his teaching to me that it has influenced my thinking to this day. But my teaching methodology is unique and different from Hawkins'.

But I am one of the first to create a curriculum with testing it and emphasizing it and actively promoting that facet of WCK and teach it through "Structure Tests" - that is my teaching methodology. I did not invent Yip Man WCK system, nor did I create the exercises/forms/patterns in Yip Man WCK system.

I will say the majority of WCK does not use the Body Structure as I use it, nor have the same teaching methodology as I teach it. I have always said that Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, and Ho Kam Ming have structure, but again, their way of teaching it, is not the same as in the specific exercises I teach. Anyone wanting to see the difference can easily refer to my DVD series which shows my teaching methodology.

I hope this clarifies everything. Let's move on. I'm done with this.

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 07:04 PM

"I will say the majority of WCK does not use the Body Structure as I use it. (Robert Chu)
..................................

***I understand that you have various testing methodolgies for what you call body structure, but I'm not addressing that right now.

What I'd like to know is exactly what in the body structure that you use makes a difference in actual fight application?

What's different about it that can be seen (or felt) in actual fight application?

And that presumably makes it more effective than every other wing chun system - precisely because they are not using your specific approach to body structure in fight application?

k gledhill

05-12-2010, 07:12 PM

And that is precisely the problem with chi sao. If it was grappling, it would actually be a realistic training tool. The way it is for most people who practice it as non-grappling is exactly what makes it an almost worthless training tool.

it serves a purpose, but sadly many dont/wont/cant understand what that purpose is. They turn it into feeling hands ...wrists etc..its not that it cant be understood, one has to let go of the BS and empty their cup before the idea can grow.
Its a 'hands on' drill so it can easily be used as a modification to any 'grappling/clinching' ideas...if you dont understand the purpose in the first place.....why not, might as well make some use of wasted time and effort. Terence is trying to use it for grappling, let him. Who gives a F*ck.

JPinAZ

05-12-2010, 07:28 PM

JPinAZ, I think its time you drop the old stuff. If you need to tell me off in person or on the phone, call me directly at 626 487-1815. Let's deal with this as men, and be over it.

I have no desire to tell you off anywhere. But I may call you if there are any further misunderstandings after discussion here. Now, since you decided to talk about it here, I'm a little confused. Could you please clarify some things for me so there are no more misunderstandings and we can put this behind us:

GG's blackboard had interesting Chinese terms for what I would describe as TWC's 5 concepts.

Not sure I follow you. To be clear, are you saying you thought the terms were trying to describe TWC concepts (or even came from there), or that they just seemed similar?

That's all I took, terms in Chinese, which I felt was unexplained as TWC's. I did not study HFY, so I can only say this is my understanding. Again, my old article reflects my understanding only, not HFY, not TWC.

Again, not sure I follow what you mean by "which I felt was unexplained as TWC's"? I'm not sure I follow why TWC is even part of this discussion since we are talking about terms on a HFY blackboard.

YKS WCK's first 5 keywords sum up everything in WCK: Dop (Attach), Jeet (Intercept), Chum Sink), Biu (Dart/Rush In), Chi (Stick). I learned that decades ago, not from some blackboard in GG's garage. That is the nature of WCK anyway.

I agree also that you would not get these 5 keywords from a HFY blackboard as these are not the way we view our concept of 5 battle arrays.

I did not create "Body Structure", but it is my term, just as "WCK' is my term. All Chinese Traditional martial arts have some form of it and it should be taught from day one. Hawkins Cheung emphasized it and called it "Structure", so did Augustine Fong. Hawkins emphasized it so much in his teaching to me that it has influenced my thinking to this day. But my teaching methodology is unique and different from Hawkins'.

But I am one of the first to create a curriculum with testing it and emphasizing it and actively promoting that facet of WCK and teach it through "Structure Tests" - that is my teaching methodology. I did not invent Yip Man WCK system, nor did I create the exercises/forms/patterns in Yip Man WCK system.

Maybe I am niave, or just plain spoiled, but aren't structure tests an integral part of almost all WCK curriculum? Isn't "body structure" a basic key to WCK body mechanics for power delivery and use of leverage? It is something I have been shown and focused on from almost day one in my training - first in my early Moy Yat days and continued with a different 'focus' in my HFY training. We test body structure and Tin Yan Dei connectivity every step along the way. This doesn't sound like something so rare and unique (at least to me)

I will say the majority of WCK does not use the Body Structure as I use it, nor have the same teaching methodology as I teach it. I have always said that Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, and Ho Kam Ming have structure, but again, their way of teaching it, is not the same as in the specific exercises I teach. Anyone wanting to see the difference can easily refer to my DVD series which shows my teaching methodology.

Now here I can see that you are talking about your own take on things and how you use it. But this hardly means that it (body structure) is something rare in WCK today as a whole as you implied in your earlier post.

- Jonathan

shawchemical

05-12-2010, 08:49 PM

lol true i wish people would stop commentating on things they don't have any experience in:)

Guess that means you'll need to STFU on just about every topic on offer except verbal diarrhoea.

Ultimatewingchun

05-12-2010, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Knifefighter
"And that is precisely the problem with chi sao. If it was grappling, it would actually be a realistic training tool. The way it is for most people who practice it as non-grappling is exactly what makes it an almost worthless training tool."

***NO wonder Dale Frank and Terence Niehoff are in so much agreement. Neither one of them has gotten to a level in chi sao training where they would see (and be able to use) the benefits of the training - for wing chun - and not for grappling per se. Neither one of them ever got that far.

Sure, you can use pummeling for underhooks and other things as part of your chi sao training - but that's a bonus. It's not the jist of what can be gleaned from chi sao.

Knifefighter

05-12-2010, 09:05 PM

***NO wonder Dale Frank and Terence Niehoff are in so much agreement. Neither one of them has gotten to a level in chi sao training where they would see (and be able to use) the benefits of the training - for wing chun - and not for grappling per se. Neither one of them ever got that far.

No wonder so many WC people who cling to old fashioned methods like traditional chi sao have so much trouble applying things for real.

The way most people are practicing it, it has absolutely nothing to do with fighting. Might as well practice salsa dancing.

SAAMAG

05-12-2010, 09:28 PM

No wonder so many WC people who cling to old fashioned methods like traditional chi sao have so much trouble applying things for real.

The way most people are practicing it, it has absolutely nothing to do with fighting. Might as well practice salsa dancing.

Ask and you shall receive: CHI SAO SALSA BY E-BOZ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBE3EB59o9w&feature=related)

Frost

05-13-2010, 12:33 AM

Guess that means you'll need to STFU on just about every topic on offer except verbal diarrhoea.

lol someone has his panties in a twist :)

CFT

05-13-2010, 02:36 AM

Maybe I am niave, or just plain spoiled, but aren't structure tests an integral part of almost all WCK curriculum? Isn't "body structure" a basic key to WCK body mechanics for power delivery and use of leverage? It is something I have been shown and focused on from almost day one in my training - first in my early Moy Yat days and continued with a different 'focus' in my HFY training. We test body structure and Tin Yan Dei connectivity every step along the way. This doesn't sound like something so rare and unique (at least to me)I haven't seen any online video from any Wing Chun school which shows anything like the structure tests that are in Robert Chu's articles. Plenty of chi sao demos, pseudo-sparring, isolated drills but no structure tests.

Possibly the closest are the ones of Chu Shong Ting rooting force through his arms and down to his legs, and even single leg.

I don't seem to remember seeing any structure testing in the "Mastering Kung Fu" book either.

t_niehoff

05-13-2010, 04:33 AM

t_niehoff

05-13-2010, 04:38 AM

No wonder so many WC people who cling to old fashioned methods like traditional chi sao have so much trouble applying things for real.

The way most people are practicing it, it has absolutely nothing to do with fighting. Might as well practice salsa dancing.

And so many people continue to cling to stuff like forms, chi sao, etc. because they don't have developed fighting skills and they know any other way to teach. It's just another case of the blind leading the blind.

t_niehoff

05-13-2010, 04:50 AM

Geez... I hate rehashing the past.

But WTF do you think Chum Kiu is? It's sinking your opponents bridge! Another words destroying/collapsing your opponant's bridge/structure, so that you can create your own safe bridge to cross, and attack. Sometimes this is done in one beat.

Chum kiu is not about "sinking the opponent's bridge" but using your bridge to sink (destroy the body structure of) the opponent.

Regardless of what you think you know, it is true... this information was on our schools chalk board when Robert came to visit. I was there.

That's great -- and it was also a part of YM, YKS and Gu Lao too -- before Robert ever heard of HFY. So what? Again, no one owns this info. It is basic level WCK (though I agree that many are lacking it).

So even if he didn't steal the info.. (which at this point, does anyone really care) How could it of been on our chalkboard if he invented it? Go figure Terence.

Dude, are you another one who has a third grade reading comprehension level? Where did I ever say Robert invented it? Ae you just stupid, a moron, do you just make any sh1t up you like? Point me to where I said Robert invented it.

I said that he was the first to talk about these things.

Learning to f#cking read for Christ's sake.

Our entire SLT, CK, and BG is based on Sup Ming Dim structure, and Tin Yan Dei Triangle connections. This is HFY structure. Robert has his own understandings. Who gives a fak!

Yes, yes, I'm sure HFY has lots of imaginary concepts, lines, triangles, etc.

And btw.... For your information, TWC's 5 stages of combat to this day do not have the same meanings nor do they use the same Chinese terminology as our HFY 5 battle arrays.

TWC's 5 stage are sequential. Our 5 battle arrays are not.

Where did I ever say they were the same. Jeez -- making more sh1t up.

It's difficult to communicate with you when you apparently have poor reading abilities, make sh1tup, and can't reason.

Maybe in the YKS system you previously learned, they didn't talk about breaking your opponents structure. So maybe that is where you got this hair brained notion of yours.

Moron.

But you are waaay off in your understanding of WC here.

While I can certainly agree with you when you say many WC'rs don't employ the concept of Chum Kiu as well as they should. For you to say Robert invented the concept, is a joke. I seriously doubt he'd support your statements here.

Can we finally move on now?

The only thing that is a joke is you. Now that you have established that you can't read, that you make things up, and that you don't know what you are talking about, can we finally move on?

k gledhill

05-13-2010, 05:01 AM

And so many people continue to cling to stuff like forms, chi sao, etc. because they don't have developed fighting skills and they know any other way to teach. It's just another case of the blind leading the blind.

coming from you thats funny....:D all you see is the circle of sky above your well and you think thats it....you need to climb out of the hole your in and travel more.

t_niehoff

05-13-2010, 05:07 AM

coming from you thats funny....:D all you see is the circle of sky above your well and you think thats it....you need to climb out of the hole your in and travel more.

Yes, we know, it's all about elbow, learning the "right idea", tan and jum, getting the angle, etc. Got it. And you think that I'm the one caught in a well.

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 05:49 AM

Concepts have their place (usually at the beginners/intermediate level) and they can help someone to understand complex situations.

However, as you can see by the BJJ example of points of contact, trying to extrapolate principles (especially from one system to another) is, at the very least, a waste of time and, many times, counterproductive.

By the time one is an advanced practitioner of anything, concepts should be the last thing on the mind of the person performing the activity.

Agreed and WSL, for example, would agree with this too from what I have read.
He seemed to advocate one main "concept" simple, direct, effective.

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 05:54 AM

Well, before this gets even MORE side-tracked, I think we need to get this BACK on topic:

WC and Boxing, not so different or VERY different?

k gledhill

05-13-2010, 05:58 AM

Yes, we know, it's all about elbow, learning the "right idea", tan and jum, getting the angle, etc. Got it. And you think that I'm the one caught in a well.

lawyers :D dismissing things without even understanding them. tsk tsk

t_niehoff

05-13-2010, 06:16 AM

Well, before this gets even MORE side-tracked, I think we need to get this BACK on topic:

WC and Boxing, not so different or VERY different?

Boxing is unattached (free movement) fighting, and boxing movement (including mechanics) is what works when you are unattached. WCK is for attached fighting (sustained contact), and WCK movement is what works when you are attached.

Can you use boxing movement when attached (even in chi sao)? Not to any significant extent. Can you use WCK movement when unattached? Not to any significant extent.

But when you get WCK people who don't know any better trying to "apply" their WCK in free-movement, unattached, they typically end up using boxing-type movement since this is what works on the outside. And so all - or most - of their WCK movement goes out the window (except for an occasional pak sao or bil sao).

t_niehoff

05-13-2010, 06:25 AM

Agreed and WSL, for example, would agree with this too from what I have read.
He seemed to advocate one main "concept" simple, direct, effective.

This is the sort of thing that I see as complete bullsh1t -- it sounds good but is really utterly meaningless.

Tell me, what martial art, fighting art, advocates using the complex over the simple, the indirect over direct, the ineffective over the effective?

None.

Skill in fighting, regardless of your art, is automatically simple, direct, effective. You don't need "simple, direct, effective" as some concept -- all you need to do is develop skill. The better your skill, the more simple, direct, and effective you are.

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 06:55 AM

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 06:57 AM

Hardwork108

05-13-2010, 07:15 AM

Boxing is unattached (free movement) fighting, and boxing movement (including mechanics) is what works when you are unattached. WCK is for attached fighting (sustained contact), and WCK movement is what works when you are attached.

Are you implying that Wing Chun was developed for centuries but that its developers hoped that its exponents would only be attacked in an "attached" manner, otherwise their gooses would be cooked, so to speak?

This is clueless, even by your own "high" standards!

Can you use boxing movement when attached (even in chi sao)? Not to any significant extent.

I am no boxer but I can tell you that you can use boxing techniques with a wider scope than the one imagined by you.

Can you use WCK movement when unattached? Not to any significant extent.

Of course you can and you would have been aware of that if you had even an intermediate knowledge of ths art and its scope.

But when you get WCK people who don't know any better trying to "apply" their WCK in free-movement, unattached, they typically end up using boxing-type movement since this is what works on the outside.
This is what "works" when you train Mc Wing Chun, or don't stay in a decent school for long enough.

And so all - or most - of their WCK movement goes out the window (except for an occasional pak sao or bil sao).

I am sure that this has happened to you, but then you are no Wing Chun exponent now, are you?

m1k3

05-13-2010, 07:18 AM

Bull**** is relative, you should know that by now.
Fact is, saying that KISS is meaningless is denying the fact that WAY TOO Many MA over complicate the most simple of things.
This we know.
To be honest, I think the mantra " Simple, direct, effective" is NOT SAID ENOUGH.

I have to agree with this one. There is way to much over-thinking and over-working techniques, strategies and concepts in a lot of systems. Especially if the goal is self defense. (I know I am opening a can of worms here). I think one of the things that makes boxing so effective is that the rule set is so basic. Take your average Joe, teach him a left jab and a right cross and train him for 6 months or so and he will be better than 80% of the people walking the street at striking. I think WCK can be taught in a similar manner. Pak, Lop and some basic strikes trained in a realistic manner with some moderate sparring and you can achieve the same goals.

Its when you want to get better than that 80% ceiling and start to become a good fighter that things get interesting.

Just my 2 cents, flame away. :)

Wayfaring

05-13-2010, 07:40 AM

this thread. so many arguments. so little time. :D

duende

05-13-2010, 07:48 AM

I haven't seen any online video from any Wing Chun school which shows anything like the structure tests that are in Robert Chu's articles. Plenty of chi sao demos, pseudo-sparring, isolated drills but no structure tests.

Possibly the closest are the ones of Chu Shong Ting rooting force through his arms and down to his legs, and even single leg.

I don't seem to remember seeing any structure testing in the "Mastering Kung Fu" book either.

Did you not read about our Sup Ming Dim in MKF? Or Tin Yan Dei triangles?

These are not just shapes, they have structural awareness and body mechanics that go along with them.

We call this Ying. Shape/Stucture.. it is the first of our five energy focuses. If a student can not perform Ying through testing, then they do not move forward our course progression.

Doesn't matter how experienced or well-known a WC practitioner may be.

So you see... our whole system is a structure test. That is repeatedly test with each new progression.

Robert has his own structure test... that may be a quick check reference for his group.

Great!

We have tests for checking our body mechanics and structural energy too. But ours go hand in hand with our learning. Like checking to see that our human triangle connects our heaven triangle to our earth etc...

Good training...

YungChun

05-13-2010, 07:56 AM

Are you implying that Wing Chun was developed for centuries but that its developers hoped that its exponents would only be attacked in an "attached" manner, otherwise their gooses would be cooked, so to speak?

This is clueless, even by your own "high" standards!

C'mon anyone who has read T's posts and knows VT should know how off this is..

Do I have to say it?

VT makes the bridge when it's not there..

Ok now go re-read all of T's posts and the faat (twitch)..

duende

05-13-2010, 08:02 AM

Chum kiu is not about "sinking the opponent's bridge" but using your bridge to sink (destroy the body structure of) the opponent.

WTF, do you think I just said? Who can't read now?? I even threw in the "one beat" comment for you slow people to understand more clearer.

That's great -- and it was also a part of YM, YKS and Gu Lao too -- before Robert ever heard of HFY. So what? Again, no one owns this info. It is basic level WCK (though I agree that many are lacking it).

That's great, but Robert took his terminology from us. After 10 years he finally admitted it. Do you not read your own Sifu's posts??

And it is not part of YM, YKS, and Gu Lao... you are being Intellectually dishonest here.

Come on T.. pick your battles... don't just argue just to be an A-hole!

Dude, are you another one who has a third grade reading comprehension level? Where did I ever say Robert invented it? Ae you just stupid, a moron, do you just make any sh1t up you like? Point me to where I said Robert invented it.

You said, Robert invented destroying your opponents structure did you not??? If he did this, then he would have had to invent CHUM KIU, because that is what CHUM KIU is!!!

FUK.. your so full of $hit, the whites of your eyes have turned brown!

I said that he was the first to talk about these things.

More bull$hit... Oh.. ok.. he didn't invent it, he just talked about it first?? WTF!

Learning to f#cking read for Christ's sake.

Learn WC!!

Yes, yes, I'm sure HFY has lots of imaginary concepts, lines, triangles, etc.

yes.. yes... we know how you feel about concepts and principles

Where did I ever say they were the same. Jeez -- making more sh1t up.

You didn't? Did you not just say in this thread, that YM, YKS, and Gu Lao have it too?

Do you even understand the implications of speaking out of your a$$?

This is what happens... Read you posts!

Moron.

Are you going to tell me that YKS practitioners can pass Robert's test? Wow... with their leaning back like that, and sunken chest?

If they can, than I seriously doubt the validity of the test itself.

The only thing that is a joke is you. Now that you have established that you can't read, that you make things up, and that you don't know what you are talking about, can we finally move on?

Sure... whatever you say. But go get your coffee first though. You're not doing so well this morning.

CFT

05-13-2010, 08:09 AM

Did you not read about our Sup Ming Dim in MKF? Or Tin Yan Dei triangles?

These are not just shapes, they have structural awareness and body mechanics that go along with them.

We call this Ying. Shape/Stucture.. it is the first of our five energy focuses. If a student can not perform Ying through testing, then they do not move forward our course progression.

Doesn't matter how experienced or well-known a WC practitioner may be.

So you see... our whole system is a structure test. That is repeatedly test with each new progression.

Robert has his own structure test... that may be a quick check reference for his group.

Great!

We have tests for checking our body mechanics and structural energy too. But ours go hand in hand with our learning. Like checking to see that our human triangle connects our heaven triangle to our earth etc...

Good training...It is not at all evident in the book. My overall impression of the book was:

1) Zoning of various types: height, width, depth
2) A discourse about time, space and energy
3) A fair bit of chi sao/kiu sao of various types
4) History

But no expansion on testing structure and certainly no photos to illustratate the testing.

The sup ming dim and tin-yan-dei just seem to be about defining the space relative to your own body. How can one infer structure testing from this?

YungChun

05-13-2010, 08:12 AM

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 08:19 AM

Enough talk on structure, back to boxing and WC guys.
Wanna discuss structure make a thread on it.

JPinAZ

05-13-2010, 08:23 AM

Enough talk on structure, back to boxing and WC guys.
Wanna discuss structure make a thread on it.

No offense, but structure and body mechanics play a big role in the similarities and differences between WC and boxing.

wkmark

05-13-2010, 08:24 AM

This is the sort of thing that I see as complete bullsh1t -- it sounds good but is really utterly meaningless.

Tell me, what martial art, fighting art, advocates using the complex over the simple, the indirect over direct, the ineffective over the effective?

None.

Skill in fighting, regardless of your art, is automatically simple, direct, effective. You don't need "simple, direct, effective" as some concept -- all you need to do is develop skill. The better your skill, the more simple, direct, and effective you are.

Personally I think what Sifu Wong Shun Leung mentioned in the past with regards to SIMPLE, DIRECT, and EFFECTIVE in his Ving Tsun is that too many times people over complicate fighting. They over complicate on how to hit a person. Rather than taking the shortest distance to hit someone, people have to do it by making it look good or over thinking on HOW to hit that person. It's a concept that people seem to forget over time. As for it being concept of over skill? I think you need to remember that concept before applying your skill. There are many ways to hit someone, but is it the most direct and most simple? That's a question that you should be asking yourself. I think he also base this on the fact that when people chi sao, over time, they forget about what they are trying to do in the first place. They end up over thinking about what someone's else reaction will be IF they do THIS or IF they do that.

If you don't have that concept than how are you developing your skills? It's a base for you to develop your skill. The more skills you have may not be the most simple, or direct. It may be effective nevertheless, but is it the most simple? not necessarily.

I think that is what Sifu was meaning when he had brought that up.

YungChun

05-13-2010, 08:28 AM

That reminds me of... "Hit the pillow!"... lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2HR423xFlA

Simple and direct...

wkmark

05-13-2010, 08:28 AM

Enough talk on structure, back to boxing and WC guys.
Wanna discuss structure make a thread on it.

In simple terms, boxing and WC are similar in a lot of ways. They both are trying to hit the target using the least amount of techniques and using the most direct ways of doing it.

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 08:31 AM

No offense, but structure and body mechanics play a big role in the similarities and differences between WC and boxing.

Fine, then compare one to the other.

sanjuro_ronin

05-13-2010, 08:33 AM

In simple terms, boxing and WC are similar in a lot of ways. They both are trying to hit the target using the least amount of techniques and using the most direct ways of doing it.

Common sense is not allowed in a WC discussion, vagabond ninjas have been dispatched to smack you like the bad donkey you are !!

CFT

05-13-2010, 08:36 AM

The original comment was concerning "structure" not some patented test for it.I think people were mixing up "structure", the term "body structure", the tests for body structure and a teaching curriculum.

No-one in the modern era invented either structure nor body structure. But I think Robert Chu has a pretty good claim on the English term "body structure". I think the equivalent Cantonese Chinese term would be san faat (body methods).

I'm not widely travelled, but I have trained in 2 different YM derived lineages and overt body structure testing was not part of the curriculum. People may feel that their structure is tested via chi sao, their drills, etc. But I still think that is a different type of testing.

YungChun

05-13-2010, 08:39 AM

But I still think that is a different type of testing.

It is a different type of testing...which is why I pointed out that the original comment wasn't about testing..........

And when you change the test you also change questions..

YungChun

05-13-2010, 08:46 AM

To me....

VT is about an unbroken line of power, continuous flow of that power, energy issuing, control of the opponent's balance, breaking his structure, using his energy against him, using a myriad of tools to do this, including legs, kicks, elbows, fists, open hands, hand changes w/some attachment, stance breaking/"trapping" moves, and a different kind of (dare I say it) structure...

Other than those things sure it's just like Boxing... :)

Hardwork108

05-13-2010, 08:48 AM

C'mon anyone who has read T's posts and knows VT should know how off this is..

Do I have to say it?

VT makes the bridge when it's not there..

Ok now go re-read all of T's posts and the faat (twitch)..

I believe that we have both read too many of T's posts already...:D

Sardinkahnikov

05-13-2010, 08:49 AM

Since we're talking about boxing, I figured I might aswell share this video series I found on Youtube. I really liked the way the old coach, who looks like Mickey from the Rocky movies :D, explains things.

Video on illegal moves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmtlw1N1TYQ&feature=related

There are many more. You can find them in the related video roll.

SAAMAG

05-13-2010, 08:54 AM

Boxing is unattached (free movement) fighting, and boxing movement (including mechanics) is what works when you are unattached. WCK is for attached fighting (sustained contact), and WCK movement is what works when you are attached.

Can you use boxing movement when attached (even in chi sao)? Not to any significant extent. Can you use WCK movement when unattached? Not to any significant extent.

But when you get WCK people who don't know any better trying to "apply" their WCK in free-movement, unattached, they typically end up using boxing-type movement since this is what works on the outside. And so all - or most - of their WCK movement goes out the window (except for an occasional pak sao or bil sao).

Interesting. I don't disagree with what you've said. I was just thinking that they're not so different in the grand scheme of things because they're both striking arts that use the hands (one fully and the other primarily) with similar punching methods and footwork (i.e. straights, hooks, uppercuts, shuffling steps in all directions...etc).

Furthermore, wing chun not only contains within it the same/similar core punches and footwork, but not all the WC punches in my experience come from the center with square body facing as many lineages teach them from sideward stances thereby elongating the reach.

In the end though, I concede that the two fighting systems use difference postures/stances, defences/evasions, and one contains a myriad of more footwork, I think there's enough similarities to make a case that they're not as extremely different as people think and/or that more needs to be done to wing chun to make it work on the outside.

In my wing chun, my primary goal is to hit the individual, not grapple with them. If I make contact or bridge them, I stick in order to capitalize on the wing chun training until which point I find that it is no longer doing damage or I have found myself in a less advantageous position which requires repositioning (be in going into a clinching/grappling situation, or manuvering for distance or angle to continue hitting).

Like many people have stated on here in some form or fashion previously...punch/attack first, everything else is secondary.

SAAMAG

05-13-2010, 08:56 AM

No offense, but structure and body mechanics play a big role in the similarities and differences between WC and boxing.

It plays a role in the differences. True.

But does it stop wing chun from being used on the outside? Nope. Does it discount that the punches are so close to being the same in vector and possible usage that it eliminates wing chun from being used in a like fashion? Nope.

wkmark

05-13-2010, 09:01 AM

Interesting. I don't disagree with what you've said. I was just thinking that they're not so different in the grand scheme of things because they're both striking arts that use the hands (one fully and the other primarily) with similar punching methods and footwork (i.e. straights, hooks, uppercuts, shuffling steps in all directions...etc).

Furthermore, wing chun not only contains within it the same/similar core punches and footwork, but not all the WC punches in my experience come from the center with square body facing as many lineages teach them from sideward stances thereby elongating the reach.

In the end though, I concede that the two fighting systems use difference postures/stances, defences/evasions, and one contains a myriad of more footwork, I think there's enough similarities to make a case that they're not as extremely different as people think and/or that more needs to be done to wing chun to make it work on the outside.

In my wing chun, my primary goal is to hit the individual, not grapple with them. If I make contact or bridge them, I stick in order to capitalize on the wing chun training until which point I find that it is no longer doing damage or I have found myself in a less advantageous position which requires repositioning (be in going into a clinching/grappling situation, or manuvering for distance or angle to continue hitting).

Yes, I agreed with the above. For me what i want to do is to make WC work for me. Not make ME work for WC.

YungChun

05-13-2010, 09:03 AM

It plays a role in the differences. True.

But does it stop wing chun from being used on the outside? Nope. Does it discount that the punches are so close to being the same in vector and possible usage that it eliminates wing chun from being used in a like fashion? Nope.

Because of the specialization of VT, it has to be one of the least similar as fist styles go...to WB.

Point is you can say this about any fist style.. Yes it's a "boxing" style, just with like a billion changes from Modern Western Boxing...

More similar would be comparing it to the old style bare knuckle boxing.

Point is what makes something different are the differences, not the few things they have in common...

Ultimatewingchun

05-13-2010, 09:12 AM

The original comment was concerning "structure" not some patented test for it.

***Which is why I asked Robert certain questions - not about his "tests" - but about the actual differences and alleged better efficiencies that his "body structure" wing chun provides...

the answers to which I'm still waiting for. :cool:

chusauli

05-13-2010, 10:03 AM

***Which is why I asked Robert certain questions - not about his "tests" - but about the actual differences and alleged better efficiencies that his "body structure" wing chun provides...

the answers to which I'm still waiting for. :cool:

As to not detract from the original discussion, I created a new thread that answers your questions.

chusauli

05-13-2010, 10:54 AM

I have no desire to tell you off anywhere. But I may call you if there are any further misunderstandings after discussion here. Now, since you decided to talk about it here, I'm a little confused. Could you please clarify some things for me so there are no more misunderstandings and we can put this behind us:

Great, I will try my best.

Not sure I follow you. To be clear, are you saying you thought the terms were trying to describe TWC concepts (or even came from there), or that they just seemed similar?

To me, at the time, they seemed to be TWC's 5 concepts. Of course, to me, HFY looked like a modified form of TWC, and I will explain: HFY Siu Nim Tao, looked like Advanced SLT of TWC, your Chum Kiu looks like TWC's Chum Kiu, and the 1st 3 sections of the Jong looked like TWC's first 3 sections. And then to see the "5 battle arrays" of HFY are reminicent of TWC's 5 core concepts. To me, since I learned TWC, HFY sure looked like TWC, but modified. Since I am a researcher of WCK, I would want to know about your family's origins and why it looks like TWC.

Again, not sure I follow what you mean by "which I felt was unexplained as TWC's"? I'm not sure I follow why TWC is even part of this discussion since we are talking about terms on a HFY blackboard.

TWC does not use Chinese terms, but since I am bilingual, I always wondered what they were in Chinese. To borrow Victor Parlati's overview, the TWC 5 stages are: "The Before Contact stage, the Contact Stage, The Exchange Stage, Pursuit, and Retreat. " (see http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.WilliamCheungTWCLineage) are very much like the Chinese terms, Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juie Ying, and Wui Ma, but the Chinese has more in depth meaning.

I agree also that you would not get these 5 keywords from a HFY blackboard as these are not the way we view our concept of 5 battle arrays.

Good, we are in agreement. If you think about it - YKS WCK's keyords are describing, Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juie Ying, and Wui Ma, - at least, that is what I was writing in my article. (See http://www.chusaulei.com/martial/articles/articles_selfdefense.html)

Maybe I am niave, or just plain spoiled, but aren't structure tests an integral part of almost all WCK curriculum? Isn't "body structure" a basic key to WCK body mechanics for power delivery and use of leverage? It is something I have been shown and focused on from almost day one in my training - first in my early Moy Yat days and continued with a different 'focus' in my HFY training. We test body structure and Tin Yan Dei connectivity every step along the way. This doesn't sound like something so rare and unique (at least to me)

Jonathan, I think you may be mistaken. No structure tests are in Moy Yat VT, when I learned it, or structure tests as I teach them today. Your former grandmaster did learn from me, although briefly, and may have taught some of that in your teachings. This is mere speculation about what Benny taught, since I don't know and never saw you. When Benny and I met, I showed him the difference between my structure method and tests and how it differs from Moy Yat Ving Tsun that I learned. Remember, Benny and we are from the same source originally. Benny and I had that in common. We did go through all the forms in the curriculum together.

Now here I can see that you are talking about your own take on things and how you use it. But this hardly means that it (body structure) is something rare in WCK today as a whole as you implied in your earlier post.

- Jonathan

It is rare - just look at youtube. At least that is from my perspective.

duende

05-13-2010, 12:25 PM

Robert,

First off, let me just say that I'm responding to your admissions here not to promote further conflict, but rather to use this opportunity to bring a true resolve to these long standing issues.

Guys,

GG's blackboard had interesting Chinese terms for what I would describe as TWC's 5 concepts. That's all I took, terms in Chinese,

In Traditional Kung Fu Culture, it is both dishonest and disrespectful to take information and not give proper credit to where the information came from. If you would have asked, I've no doubt that you would have been told the actual meanings to the terms.

Wouldn't that have suited your research better? Instead, unfortunately, this is where the years of bad blood began.

.... which I felt was unexplained as TWC's. I did not study HFY, so I can only say this is my understanding. Again, my old article reflects my understanding only, not HFY, not TWC. This is old history and poor taste to continually bring this up.

Exactly, you did not study HFY. And you did not truly study TWC either. (Attending seminars and having former TWC students doesn't make you an expert.)

My point is... It's one thing to believe what you want to believe. But quite another to actively spread ill-intended rumors and negative gossip year after year. HFY is not TWC.

You need to take responsibility for that too.

Just take a look at this thread, Terence is here stating the same tired old BS.

To me, at the time, they seemed to be TWC's 5 concepts. Of course, to me, HFY looked like a modified form of TWC, and I will explain: HFY Siu Nim Tao, looked like Advanced SLT of TWC, your Chum Kiu looks like TWC's Chum Kiu, and the 1st 3 sections of the Jong looked like TWC's first 3 sections. And then to see the "5 battle arrays" of HFY are reminicent of TWC's 5 core concepts. To me, since I learned TWC, HFY sure looked like TWC, but modified. Since I am a researcher of WCK, I would want to know about your family's origins and why it looks like TWC.

Fully understandable. Anyone can see that HFY and TWC are close branches on the WC family tree. But we are not the same, nor is one a modified verison of the other.

As both GM Cheung and GM Gee have never met... one has to RESPECTFULLY look elsewhere for answers. That's the hard part of research.. resisting the temptation to simply jump to conclusions, without finding real proof.

If you actually explored a bit further, you'd find that we are much more different than you think.

TWC does not use Chinese terms, but since I am bilingual, I always wondered what they were in Chinese. To borrow Victor Parlati's overview, the TWC 5 stages are: "The Before Contact stage, the Contact Stage, The Exchange Stage, Pursuit, and Retreat. " (see http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/...eungTWCLineage) are very much like the Chinese terms, Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juie Ying, and Wui Ma, but the Chinese has more in depth meaning.

Indeed, the Chinese terms has more depth in meaning. MUCH MUCH more.

For instance,

HFY Bai Jong, does not mean simply pre-contact. In fact it can occur at point of contact, as in Ying Jong. It means facing structure. Structure with reference points, leverage awareness, and height, width, and depth integrity. (Which we test! haha ;))

This notion of "pre-contact" most likely stems from the YM concept of Man Sau. We do not use Man Sau (asking hand) in HFY. We have Jong Sau... Structure Hand. And Biu Jong Sau... forward structure hand.

Our Jong Sau concept utilizes a VERY different strategy in regards to facing and structure than that found in YM's Man Sau/asking hand.

"Contact Stage, The Exchange Stage, Pursuit, and Retreat" are far from accurate descriptions of Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Jeui Ying, and Wu Ma as well. For starters... we do not retreat in HFYWC. Nor do we loop as in exchange.

Obviously I do not know TWC, and I'm sure there is much more to their 5 stages of combat, but I do know our HFY Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying (5 battle arrays).

One can draw lines of similarities but that is because we are all WC. It doesn't make them the exact same thing. And it certainly doesn't negate one's WC lineages history with another's WC history!

Ok.. said my peace.

YungChun

05-13-2010, 12:37 PM

This notion of "pre-contact" most likely stems from the YM concept of Man Sau. We do not use Man Sau (asking hand) in HFY. We have Jong Sau... Structure Hand. And Biu Jong Sau... forward structure hand.

VT has Jong Sao as well.. What's different about yours?

sihing

05-13-2010, 12:38 PM

Robert,

First off, let me just say that I'm responding to your admissions here not to promote further conflict, but rather to use this opportunity to bring a true resolve to these long standing issues.

In Traditional Kung Fu Culture, it is both dishonest and disrespectful to take information and not give proper credit to where the information came from. If you would have asked, I've no doubt that you would have been told the actual meanings to the terms.

Wouldn't that have suited your research better? Instead, unfortunately, this is where the years of bad blood began.

Exactly, you did not study HFY. And you did not truly study TWC either. (Attending seminars and having former TWC students doesn't make you an expert.)

My point is... It's one thing to believe what you want to believe. But quite another to actively spread ill-intended rumors and negative gossip year after year. HFY is not TWC.

You need to take responsibility for that too.

Just take a look at this thread, Terence is here stating the same tired old BS.

Fully understandable. Anyone can see that HFY and TWC are close branches on the WC family tree. But we are not the same, nor is one a modified verison of the other.

As both GM Cheung and GM Gee have never met... one has to RESPECTFULLY look elsewhere for answers. That's the hard part of research.. resisting the temptation to simply jump to conclusions, without finding real proof.

Indeed, the Chinese terms has more depth in meaning. MUCH MUCH more.

For instance,

HFY Bai Jong, does not mean simply pre-contact. In fact it can occur at point of contact, as in Ying Jong. It means facing structure. Structure with reference points, leverage awareness, and height, width, and depth integrity. (Which we test! haha ;))

This notion of "pre-contact" most likely stems from the YM concept of Man Sau. We do not use Man Sau (asking hand) in HFY. We have Jong Sau... Structure Hand. And Biu Jong Sau... forward structure hand.

Our Jong Sau concept utilizes a VERY different strategy in regards to facing and structure than that found in YM's Man Sau/asking hand.
"Contact Stage, The Exchange Stage, Pursuit, and Retreat" are far from accurate descriptions of Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Jeui Ying, and Wu Ma as well. We do not retreat in WC. Nor do we loop as in exchange stage for starters..

Obviously I do not know TWC, but I do know our HFY Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying (5 battle arrays)

One can draw lines of similarities but that is because we are all WC. But it doesn't make them the exact same thing. And it certainly doesn't negate one's WC lineages history with another's WC history!

Ok.. said my peace.

Hey Alex,

Just wanted to say, when you reference Yip Man lineage as a whole, you realize that there are vast differences within the line, even within the lines within the Yip family. Leung Sheung line is not Moy Yat line is not WSL line nor HKM line, core similarities exist, as well as core differences. I don't think it is wise to make those generalizations. For eg, I understand the Man sau principle, but within the principle is the structure of Jong sau and the mechanics behind it. I know some just stick their hands out there, but others have the structure behind it (which inc. ideas on facing and reference points), it's just simplifies the terms by saying Man sau, as all hands should automatically have structure/mechanics behind it, unfortunately in WC circles this is not always the case..

The fact is not all Wing Chun is the same or equal. The are surface similarities, but that is where the similarities end, on the surface. Like the ocean, there is so much more within the depths of it....

James

duende

05-13-2010, 12:44 PM

It is not at all evident in the book. My overall impression of the book was:

1) Zoning of various types: height, width, depth
2) A discourse about time, space and energy
3) A fair bit of chi sao/kiu sao of various types
4) History

But no expansion on testing structure and certainly no photos to illustratate the testing.

The sup ming dim and tin-yan-dei just seem to be about defining the space relative to your own body. How can one infer structure testing from this?

Defining space and reference points of your own body is the first step to understanding YING. Ying is leverage, stongest structure in space, full-body connection... this is the foundation of structural energy.

We constantly test the integrity of this structure throughout our learning

MKF is just a brief overview of the knowledge within HFY.

PM me if you want to know more.

Knifefighter

05-13-2010, 01:04 PM

LOL @ the whole discussion of who invented what, who gave credit to whom, which offshoot has which components, etc.'

This is what happens when you get a bunch of theoretical non-fighters together.

YungChun

05-13-2010, 02:29 PM

LOL @ the whole discussion of who invented what, who gave credit to whom, which offshoot has which components, etc.'

This is what happens when you get a bunch of theoretical non-fighters together.

LOL @ the idea that the same thing doesn't happen on BJJ boards..

Knifefighter

05-13-2010, 02:33 PM

LOL @ the idea that the same thing doesn't happen on BJJ boards..

LOL...true.

Nevermind.

chusauli

05-13-2010, 03:46 PM

Robert,

First off, let me just say that I'm responding to your admissions here not to promote further conflict, but rather to use this opportunity to bring a true resolve to these long standing issues.

Great.

In Traditional Kung Fu Culture, it is both dishonest and disrespectful to take information and not give proper credit to where the information came from. If you would have asked, I've no doubt that you would have been told the actual meanings to the terms.

Wouldn't that have suited your research better? Instead, unfortunately, this is where the years of bad blood began.

Of course, protocol. I am not that traditional, I don't care for a lot of anachronistic views. But, all is in the past. I admittedly made a mistake according to your protocol, but I was writing from my perspective, not HFY's. I have already made peace with Bun Jun Gee. I am pretty sure we can get past this, especially if we stop bringing up the past. We live in the NOW.

Exactly, you did not study HFY. And you did not truly study TWC either. (Attending seminars and having former TWC students doesn't make you an expert.)

My point is... It's one thing to believe what you want to believe. But quite another to actively spread ill-intended rumors and negative gossip year after year. HFY is not TWC.

You need to take responsibility for that too.

Just take a look at this thread, Terence is here stating the same tired old BS.

I think a lot of it was colored from previous associations and miscommunication. I do not take all of the blame, it certainly takes two sides to have a disagreement. I largely ignored the majority of stuff that was spewed here because I did not partake on this board, being involved with work and family. I think a lot of what I wrote in the past has been spun. Either way, past is past. Silly stories like GG beating me up and other things are largely made up and exaggerated. This is the nature of common men, and in WCK, there is the commonest lot of men, at times.

I do not take responsibility for Terence. He clearly states his own opinion. In the USA, people have the right to free speech. We are not in China, much less Qing dynasty China. I never said I was an expert in TWC, I make no such claims. Its not my cup of tea, but I think it is one of the better systems of WCK. I studied what I liked, and moved on.

Fully understandable. Anyone can see that HFY and TWC are close branches on the WC family tree. But we are not the same, nor is one a modified verison of the other.

As both GM Cheung and GM Gee have never met... one has to RESPECTFULLY look elsewhere for answers. That's the hard part of research.. resisting the temptation to simply jump to conclusions, without finding real proof.

If you actually explored a bit further, you'd find that we are much more different than you think.

Now that more information has come out, it is clear that HFY and TWC are closely related, yet organized differently. But again, we have no definite answer regarding the history, nor am I interested in pursuing that. That is the major issue of the past.

Indeed, the Chinese terms has more depth in meaning. MUCH MUCH more.

Dude, I speak Chinese, I fully know the implications of the characters vs. how TWC translated it. When you look at it, combat is more complicated...trying to sum it up in a few words is not enough to describe it all, so the 10 characters really is a basic level starting point.

For instance,

HFY Bai Jong, does not mean simply pre-contact. In fact it can occur at point of contact, as in Ying Jong. It means facing structure. Structure with reference points, leverage awareness, and height, width, and depth integrity. (Which we test! haha ;))

This notion of "pre-contact" most likely stems from the YM concept of Man Sau. We do not use Man Sau (asking hand) in HFY. We have Jong Sau... Structure Hand. And Biu Jong Sau... forward structure hand.

Our Jong Sau concept utilizes a VERY different strategy in regards to facing and structure than that found in YM's Man Sau/asking hand.

"Contact Stage, The Exchange Stage, Pursuit, and Retreat" are far from accurate descriptions of Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Jeui Ying, and Wu Ma as well. For starters... we do not retreat in HFYWC. Nor do we loop as in exchange.

Obviously I do not know TWC, and I'm sure there is much more to their 5 stages of combat, but I do know our HFY Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying (5 battle arrays).

One can draw lines of similarities but that is because we are all WC. It doesn't make them the exact same thing. And it certainly doesn't negate one's WC lineages history with another's WC history!

Ok.. said my peace.

As different as you would like to make them, they have many more similarities than differences and those similarities make them largely different from the rest of WCK and Yip Man WCK. Glad you said your peace. Alex, maybe we can finally move on?

duende

05-13-2010, 09:48 PM

While I said my peace, there are a few clarifications I'd like to make here.

Now that more information has come out, it is clear that HFY and TWC are closely related, yet organized differently. But again, we have no definite answer regarding the history, nor am I interested in pursuing that. That is the major issue of the past.

Not organized differently, simply different. We each have our own identity.

We employ Sup Ming Dim and TYD body mechanics they do not. This essentially means, that our two underlying usages of structure are not the same. This can be seen in everything from forms, dummy,weapons, to technique applications and footwork.

They may look like similar shapes to the novice, but are actually quite different in terms of structural energy and occupation of space fundamentals.

Dude, I speak Chinese, I fully know the implications of the characters vs. how TWC translated it. When you look at it, combat is more complicated...trying to sum it up in a few words is not enough to describe it all, so the 10 characters really is a basic level starting point.

True, but sometimes knowing Chinese is not enough either. One has to be shown the way to truly grasp the details and depth of meaning as well.

As different as you would like to make them, they have many more similarities than differences and those similarities make them largely different from the rest of WCK and Yip Man WCK. Glad you said your peace. Alex, maybe we can finally move on?

It's not about what I like or dislike. It's about recognizing and acknowledging both differences and similarities.

And to be frank, as you are admittedly neither an expert on HFY or TWC... who are you to say that they have more similarities than differences.

Yes all this stuff is in the past, and we should move forward. This board is for sharing WC knowledge and experiences with each other in good spirit.

But when presumptions and prejudices such as these are placed in the way, creating a common bridge of understanding is that much more difficult.

duende

05-13-2010, 09:56 PM

Hey Alex,

Just wanted to say, when you reference Yip Man lineage as a whole, you realize that there are vast differences within the line, even within the lines within the Yip family. Leung Sheung line is not Moy Yat line is not WSL line nor HKM line, core similarities exist, as well as core differences. I don't think it is wise to make those generalizations. For eg, I understand the Man sau principle, but within the principle is the structure of Jong sau and the mechanics behind it. I know some just stick their hands out there, but others have the structure behind it (which inc. ideas on facing and reference points), it's just simplifies the terms by saying Man sau, as all hands should automatically have structure/mechanics behind it, unfortunately in WC circles this is not always the case..

The fact is not all Wing Chun is the same or equal. The are surface similarities, but that is where the similarities end, on the surface. Like the ocean, there is so much more within the depths of it....

James

Yes, you are correct James. Trust me, I fully understand the importance of not making generalizations.... haha ;)

I was simply referring to the usage of the TERM man sau as the "asking hand" concept that typically goes with it as being Yip Man, or more accurately... not HFY. That's all.

Best,

Wayfaring

05-13-2010, 11:17 PM

I have already made peace with Bun Jun Gee. I am pretty sure we can get past this, especially if we stop bringing up the past. We live in the NOW.

Sure - most everybody is aware of that too. It's mostly students of both you two that have kept old things alive. That's good in one respect as you both seem to have really helped some people build what they identify as good wing chun. And people like to identify strongly with a teacher, lineage, etc. But then again that part of it can be bad in that it is polarizing. Best of wishes to both of you.

HumbleWCGuy

05-13-2010, 11:28 PM

IMO, traditional WC and boxing aren't that closely related. There are some passing similarities in footwork, strategy, punches and so on, but traditional WC is pretty distinct in terms of how it goes about its business.

Now, considering that I think that TWC and boxing are quite different, I believe that they compliment each other quite well. In addition, some boxing can be added into TWC as a logical extension of TWC. In addition, I think that it is necessary to teach some boxing techniques as part of being a credible martial arts instructor. For example, I would much prefer a kid to use a boxing hook over an elbow in an after school fight.

Why is "WC boxing not effective?" Which I think is asking why WC isn't as effective as it should be. Partly TWC will try to operate in rules formats that don't suit it. For example, a TWC fighter is not suited to boxing rules yet if he wants to fight, those rules will be imposed. Also, the training in a lot of schools is just not geared towards practical fighting. All the goofy threads about structure will tell you everything that you need to know about that.

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 05:05 AM

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 05:10 AM

Dragonzbane76

05-14-2010, 05:29 AM

bennyvt

05-14-2010, 05:31 AM

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2010, 05:44 AM

m1k3

05-14-2010, 05:53 AM

in theory, there are many simalrities, in practice, not so much.
Why?
The training is too different.

qft.........

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 06:41 AM

In theory, there are many simalrities, in practice, not so much.
Why?
The training is too different.

It's not just the training -- boxing and WCK have very little in common.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2010, 07:03 AM

It's not just the training -- boxing and WCK have very little in common.

Nah, in theory they both are striking arts, both use the fist, both are predominatly head hunters, both hit in combinations, both work on the inside, and if we view "dirty boxing" as opposed to "sanctioned boxing", there is hitting in the clinch, elbows, etc.

The power generation is different and footwork is different but, again in theory, there aren't that many differences.

In reality, they are night and day.

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 07:31 AM

Nah, in theory they both are striking arts,

WCK is a combination art, it is grappling and striking.

both use the fist,

Both may use the fist, but the fist isn't WCK's primary weapon (WCK makes much more use of the elbow than the fist).

both are predominatly head hunters,

That's not the art but the practitioners.

both hit in combinations,

Yet the combinations are nothing alike.

both work on the inside,

Except that one is attached and the other unattached.

and if we view "dirty boxing" as opposed to "sanctioned boxing", there is hitting in the clinch, elbows, etc.

WCK is holding (contact) and hitting. Boxing doesn't permit holding and hitting.

The power generation is different and footwork is different but, again in theory, there aren't that many differences.

Because the two arts are trying to do two very different things, it follows that much of what they do will be different.

In reality, they are night and day.

Yes, they are.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2010, 07:35 AM

WCK is holding (contact) and hitting. Boxing doesn't permit holding and hitting.
Now it doesn't, in sanctioned sport it doesn't.
In reality it does and any boxing coach will show it to you.

I think you are focusing too much on YOUR interpretation of WCK and disregarding that not everyone follows it.

Knifefighter

05-14-2010, 07:41 AM

Both may use the fist, but the fist isn't WCK's primary weapon (WCK makes much more use of the elbow than the fist).

I'm calling bullsh!t on this. Please post the video of you doing this (or anyone, for that matter) in a full contact situation.

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 07:52 AM

For those of you who gave opinions on the similarities between WCK and boxing -- which of you have actually had any serious training in boxing by a good boxing coach at a good boxing gym? Anyone? Or, are these the opinions of people who never really trained in boxing -- and so have never really learned good, sound boxing fundamentals and/or boxed in their life?

You're missing the point, as are I think some others. I'm not trying to elude to the fact that the systems are the same in general. I'm postulating that there are similar enough tools (re-read first section of original post) that wing chun should be able to achieve the same ends both in the pocket and out of the pocket as boxing would thereby negating the need to add boxing necessarily.

To think that WC can only be used in a fight while attached is naive at best and stupid at worst.

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 08:13 AM

You're missing the point, as are I think some others. I'm not trying to elude to the fact that the systems are the same in general. I'm postulating that there are similar enough tools (re-read first section of original post) that wing chun should be able to achieve the same ends both in the pocket and out of the pocket as boxing would thereby negating the need to add boxing necessarily.

To think that WC can only be used in a fight while attached is naive at best and stupid at worst.

There are very little similar tools.

Do you think training in boxing will help you play chi sao? Why or why not?

Knifefighter

05-14-2010, 08:19 AM

There are very little similar tools.

Do you think training in boxing will help you play chi sao? Why or why not?

I'm still waiting for the answer to MY question. Please provide some evidence for WC (or ANY method, for that matter) that is able to consistently use elbows as the main striking object in full contact fights.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2010, 08:25 AM

I'm still waiting for the answer to MY question. Please provide some evidence for WC (or ANY method, for that matter) that is able to consistently use elbows as the main striking object in full contact fights.

The keysi guys?
:D

goju

05-14-2010, 08:27 AM

Frost

05-14-2010, 08:34 AM

The keysi guys?
:D

lol got to love those guys..... i know the grappling coach they approached to show them how to grapple and fight on the ground when they were actually thinking about doing some MMA fighting :)

Knifefighter

05-14-2010, 08:42 AM

The keysi guys?
:D

1- I don't think they claim to use elbows as the primary weapons, although they do claim to use them.

2- I don't think there is any evidence of them actually training full contact using primarily elbows.

3- Personally, having done a lot of elbow striking over the years, I believe anyone who claims they use elbows as the major part of their standing striking has not really tested their theory out in full contact situations.

4- Anyone who actually could use elbows effectively as a primary weapon in standing striking situations could completely revolutionize the sport of MMA.

5- The evidence points to the use of elbows as being a relatively small subset of useful striking surfaces. The elbow is a devastating weapon, but it is limited due to its range capabilities, and the problems associated with being able to bring it into play in standing striking situations.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2010, 08:49 AM

1- I don't think they claim to use elbows as the primary weapons, although they do claim to use them.

2- I don't think there is any evidence of them actually training full contact using primarily elbows.

3- Personally, having done a lot of elbow striking over the years, I believe anyone who claims they use elbows as the major part of their standing striking has not really tested their theory out in full contact situations.

4- Anyone who actually could use elbows effectively as a primary weapon in standing striking situations could completely revolutionize the sport of MMA.

5- The evidence points to the use of elbows as being a relatively small subset of useful striking surfaces. The elbow is a devastating weapon, but it is limited due to its range capabilities, and the problems associated with being able to bring it into play in standing striking situations.

Oh, I agree.
elbows are great "weapons of occasion" but looking to use them as a primary weapon is not a good way to go about it.

m1k3

05-14-2010, 08:55 AM

Look at the WEC Uriah Faber fight with I think Mike Brown where he messed up his hand early in the fight and tried to use elbows as a primary striking weapon. It wasn't very successful.

wkmark

05-14-2010, 09:06 AM

WCK is a combination art, it is grappling and striking.

Both may use the fist, but the fist isn't WCK's primary weapon (WCK makes much more use of the elbow than the fist).

Could you clarify this a bit more? I am not sure I understand this fully.

goju

05-14-2010, 09:10 AM

when melchor menchor fought danny steel he used a a ton of elbows through the fight

he didnt throw them like most people do though he popped them out like a jab

cut danny up and won the match too

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 09:21 AM

There are very little similar tools.

Do you think training in boxing will help you play chi sao? Why or why not?

Again, missing the point. And you complain about others having a 3rd grade reading level?

Re-read not only the post you replied to but also the first part of the original post. Were not talking about adding boxing, were discussing the notion that it's not necessary in unattached fighting with regard to wing chun.

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 09:24 AM

I'm calling bullsh!t on this. Please post the video of you doing this (or anyone, for that matter) in a full contact situation.

Look at anyone fighting (with striking involved) in a clinch -- attached fighting. MT is a good example. Yes, fist strikes are involved, but the more significant hand weapon is the elbow (causes more damage to opponent, less possible injury to you, greater leverage in close, etc.). Isn't the elbow what causes the most deaths in the ring in MT?

Consider the WCK forms for a moment-- how many punches? How many elbows? Why so many elbows and so few punches? The forms are trying to tell you something (here are the tools you'll need). If the punch was the main weapon why is it so under-represented? Why is the elbow so over-represented?

HumbleWCGuy

05-14-2010, 09:28 AM

Terrence is correct on this one. TWC is a weird combination of of classical MT-style hands and savate-style kicking.

m1k3

05-14-2010, 09:29 AM

Terrence is correct on this one across the board.

:eek::eek::eek:
WORLD TO END TODAY! DETAILS AT 11pm!!!
:eek::eek::eek:

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 09:31 AM

Again, missing the point. And you complain about others having a 3rd grade reading level?

Re-read not only the post you replied to but also the first part of the original post. Were not talking about adding boxing, were discussing the notion that it's not necessary in unattached fighting with regard to wing chun.

Answer my question -- will boxing help you play chi sao? Why or why not?

I'll help you. It won't. Why? Because boxing movement isn't for attached fighting. You can't use boxing movement to do all the things you need to do when attached.

Now, I know chi sao isn't attached fighting, but it is a drill to practice attached skills.

What do you need to play chi sao? WCK movement (tan, bong, fook, the WCK punch, etc.) -- things that are "designed" to work while attached. This is why we practice them while attached. It makes absolutely nonsense to practice things attached to then do them while unattached.

Skills that work very well while attached, don't work so well when unattached; just like skills for detached fighting don't work very well for attached fighting.

sanjuro_ronin

05-14-2010, 09:31 AM

when melchor menchor fought danny steel he used a a ton of elbows through the fight

he didnt throw them like most people do though he popped them out like a jab

cut danny up and won the match too

I don't think he used them as his primary weapon, but he did use them very well.

JPinAZ

05-14-2010, 09:36 AM

tell me if i got this right. You read some words off a board. Didn't ask what they mean and have written articles and make generalizations. Is that what you call research. Damm you would be shot in a uni. You tend to try to make yourself come off as knowing all vt. Is this like you twc and wsl knowledge. As in you went to a few seminars. Who have you actually learnt off properly. As studied full time until finished not just a few lessons and try to get stuff you don't know. You mention yks alot. Did you study that properly. I have read yous cool and several articles and i always had the impression you had properly studied under all there systems. Is this true.

You got it exactly right. This is the problem with this guy, he hasn't studied in-depth (if at all) in neither HFY or TWC, yet he thinks he is such the WC expert he can pass judgement on both - many times. It seems you might be wondering about his qualifications to do this? me too! Well, he isn't qualified! He hasn't done the research, yet he'd want everyone to believe so. Maybe he should just stick to what he does know and stop admittedly 'making it up' about things he doesn't!

IMO, a problem with this guy is his rumor milling and gossip, and well frankly, sh!t talking that's been going on for years. He and his students talk of who stole from whom, who's lying, etc while he himself is the one that's been dishonest. They repeatedly accused TWC and HFY top members for being dishonest and either making stuff up, or copying from one or the other. This same sh!t talking has been going on for years - Who the f*ck is he?
Another example is how he said in front of over 30 eye witnesses how GM Chueng made up TWC. I've have video of him saying worse things about GM Chueng. Again, more rumors and gossip. It goes on and on

Regarding what he's actually learned, I'm sure he's learned some WC thru all this time, but how many sifus has this character gone thru and burned bridges with? One of them he went to, after burning the last bridge, told him that if he (robert) wanted to learn, he'd have to start over because he's so green. So in a huff, he Robert left yet again another sifu. I guess robert always knows better than even his sifu :rolleyes:

No wonder this guy admittedly 'makes it up'. He made up his own interpretations of direct HFY concepts and terms he admittedly copied for an article he wrote directly about them because he admittedly didn't understand a bit of it! (after over 10 years of avoiding the question) Why not jsut STFU if he doesn't know? Or actually spend the time to learn them! But then he tries coming here and pawning off that 'YKS always had that too'. Here: "YKS WCK's first 5 keywords sum up everything in WCK: Dop (Attach), Jeet (Intercept), Chum Sink), Biu (Dart/Rush In), Chi (Stick). I learned that decades ago, not from some blackboard in GG's garage. " and then "If you think about it - YKS WCK's keyords are describing, Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juie Ying, and Wui Ma"
Yeah? Then why copy HFY terms and write about them if YKS already had the same thing? And those 5 YKS terms aren't even CLOSE to the same as the HFY terms and concepts he 'borrowed' for his article. See how he twists things to discredit others and qualify himself look like the expert?

He's here today and says things are in the past, but he's been cutting others down, and pretty much calling people liars and thieves for years. More sh!t talking. And it's still going on, even in this very thread if anyone knows how to read! He (and his student) are still making insinuations regarding HFY and TWC. He says he doesn't conrtol his student, but it's the same exact story just from different mouths.
Example: "it is clear that HFY and TWC are closely related, yet organized differently. But again, we have no definite answer regarding the history" but then follows with "but I'm not interested in that" - yeah, but he still brings it up! What's clear is his not-so-subtle insinuation that they differ by organization alone and still questions their history.. Do the research brotha, or shut it!

Another example: "GG's blackboard had interesting Chinese terms for what I would describe as TWC's 5 concepts. That's all I took, terms in Chinese, which I felt was unexplained as TWC's." . Or how everything looks the same to him, and he wants to know why because he's a researcher. And then directly following it by admitting he didn't study any HFY! That started over 10 **** years ago! Did he do any further 'research'? Nope. But he sure can pass judgment real quick huh. Again, he isn't even qualified to talk about either!! I wonder about YKS too..

HE'S the one lumping both together in this thread, just as he's been doing the same sh!t every year since he's gotten a 'glimpse' of both so long ago. (I could go back just about every year and pull up examples, but I don't have time or energy). He calls it 'his opinion', but it's clear that 'his opinion' isn't based on anything more than a glimpse or any facts, just guesses. Some 'researcher' :rolleyes:

In his post to me, he wanted me to call him or meet him so we can deal with it 'like me'. Yeah? How did that go when my sifu Richard Lowenhagen, Sifu Benny Meng, and GM Gee all came to LA to meet with him face to face 'like men' about some of these very issues. They even stayed in a hotel he had his student pick out for them, so he knew they were coming. But in 3 days, he never showed. All he had was excuse after excuse. And he wants to talk about meeting 'like men'.
What about when Randy Williams wanted to 'meet' with him after he was once-again sh!t talking about his sifu.. It goes on and on.

I'm done with this. He talks about making peace, IMO, he could start apologizing publicly. Until then, I don't want to hear anything more from this character

Knifefighter

05-14-2010, 09:37 AM

Look at anyone fighting (with striking involved) in a clinch -- attached fighting. MT is a good example. Yes, fist strikes are involved, but the more significant hand weapon is the elbow (causes more damage to opponent, less possible injury to you, greater leverage in close, etc.).

MT's clinch/control techniques are nothing like WC's. MT has an efficient delivery system for striking with elbows, WC does not. Even then, elbows play a relatively minor role in terms of number of times strikes are actually landed with them in MT fights.

Consider the WCK forms for a moment-- how many punches? How many elbows? Why so many elbows and so few punches? The forms are trying to tell you something (here are the tools you'll need). If the punch was the main weapon why is it so under-represented? Why is the elbow so over-represented?

WC forms are theoretical nonsense and have almost nothing to do with fighting. All you have to do is look at them from a functional standpoint to see how far from actual fighting movements they are.

But, please feel free to prove me wrong. Go ahead post a clip of you (or anyone) using WC to efficiently deliver elbows from a WC delivery system.

goju

05-14-2010, 09:54 AM

I don't think he used them as his primary weapon, but he did use them very well.

well we could say he used them ALOT more in a fight than most people have

though steele was playing the ropeadope through out most of that fight so it could be argued they wouldnt have been as effective if he was being more agressive

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 09:58 AM

MT's clinch/control techniques are nothing like WC's. MT has an efficient delivery system for striking with elbows, WC does not. Even then, elbows play a relatively minor role in terms of number of times strikes are actually landed with them in MT fights.

MT has a better way of teaching/training than WCK and so naturally it has produced more skilled people. But, much of what you see in MT clinch is also in WCK. You can see tan sao, bong sao, tok sao, pak sao, fook sao, neck pulling hand, etc. -- the same movements -- in MT. The clinch is the clinch, and the skills you need in attached fighting are the same (just how you use them varies).

If you asked a MT fighter what his primary hand weapon was in the clinch, do you think he'd say "my fist"? I think most would say their elbow.

WC forms are theoretical nonsense and have almost nothing to do with fighting.

The forms won't develop fighting skills but they do catalogue the tools and method.

But, please feel free to prove me wrong. Go ahead post a clip of you (or anyone) using WC to efficiently deliver elbows from a WC delivery system.

I don't know what you mean by "a WC delivery system". Fighting in a clinch is going to look like fighting in a clinch.

Knifefighter

05-14-2010, 10:05 AM

Consider the WCK forms for a moment-- how many punches? How many elbows? Why so many elbows and so few punches? The forms are trying to tell you something (here are the tools you'll need). If the punch was the main weapon why is it so under-represented? Why is the elbow so over-represented?

BTW, let's assume you are right. If this is the case, it makes WC even more removed from reality than people already criticize it for...

Because this means that the WC system was developed to train the majority of time for a situation (clinch) that occurs as only a relatively small amount of time in a fight. In addition to this, it gives no tools to ensure that the opponent cannot move out of this range. And, then, it provides as its main striking tool something that is relatively hard to employ compared to other striking tools such as knees. And, finally to top things off, it provides zero tools in the one thing that is often a result of ending up in a clinch- being on the ground.

Talk about the height of inefficiency.

Knifefighter

05-14-2010, 10:14 AM

MT has a better way of teaching/training than WCK and so naturally it has produced more skilled people. But, much of what you see in MT clinch is also in WCK. You can see tan sao, bong sao, tok sao, pak sao, fook sao, neck pulling hand, etc. -- the same movements -- in MT. The clinch is the clinch, and the skills you need in attached fighting are the same (just how you use them varies).

How are WC skills in the clinch used differently?

If you asked a MT fighter what his primary hand weapon was in the clinch, do you think he'd say "my fist"? I think most would say their elbow.
I believe in your previous post you said the primary weapon of WC was the elbow. In the MT clinch, the primary weapons are the knees.

Is the primary striking weapon of WC the knees?

The forms won't develop fighting skills but they do catalogue the tools and method.

I don't know what you mean by "a WC delivery system". Fighting in a clinch is going to look like fighting in a clinch.

The catalog of tools and method of bjj, boxing, mt, wrestling and all of the other functional arts look the way they are used in reality.

Call the WC forms whatever you like... they are still completely divorced from the way they can be used in reality.

BTW, since clinch fighting is going to be clinch fighting no matter what, since WC is clinch fighting, and the forms catalog WC, which parts of the forms are underhooks, which are overhooks, which are double overs, and which are over/unders?

Ultimatewingchun

05-14-2010, 10:26 AM

You got it exactly right. This is the problem with this guy, he hasn't studied in-depth (if at all) in neither HFY or TWC, yet he thinks he is such the WC expert he can pass judgement on both - many times. It seems you might be wondering about his qualifications to do this? me too! Well, he isn't qualified! He hasn't done the research, yet he'd want everyone to believe so. Maybe he should just stick to what he does know and stop admittedly 'making it up' about things he doesn't!

IMO, a problem with this guy is his rumor milling and gossip, and well frankly, sh!t talking that's been going on for years. He and his students talk of who stole from whom, who's lying, etc while he himself is the one that's been dishonest. They repeatedly accused TWC and HFY top members for being dishonest and either making stuff up, or copying from one or the other. This same sh!t talking has been going on for years - Who the f*ck is he?
Another example is how he said in front of over 30 eye witnesses how GM Chueng made up TWC. I've have video of him saying worse things about GM Chueng. Again, more rumors and gossip. It goes on and on

Regarding what he's actually learned, I'm sure he's learned some WC thru all this time, but how many sifus has this character gone thru and burned bridges with? One of them he went to, after burning the last bridge, told him that if he (robert) wanted to learn, he'd have to start over because he's so green. So in a huff, he Robert left yet again another sifu. I guess robert always knows better than even his sifu :rolleyes:

No wonder this guy admittedly 'makes it up'. He made up his own interpretations of direct HFY concepts and terms he admittedly copied for an article he wrote directly about them because he admittedly didn't understand a bit of it! (after over 10 years of avoiding the question) Why not jsut STFU if he doesn't know? Or actually spend the time to learn them! But then he tries coming here and pawning off that 'YKS always had that too'. Here: "YKS WCK's first 5 keywords sum up everything in WCK: Dop (Attach), Jeet (Intercept), Chum Sink), Biu (Dart/Rush In), Chi (Stick). I learned that decades ago, not from some blackboard in GG's garage. " and then "If you think about it - YKS WCK's keyords are describing, Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juie Ying, and Wui Ma"
Yeah? Then why copy HFY terms and write about them if YKS already had the same thing? And those 5 YKS terms aren't even CLOSE to the same as the HFY terms and concepts he 'borrowed' for his article. See how he twists things to discredit others and qualify himself look like the expert?

He's here today and says things are in the past, but he's been cutting others down, and pretty much calling people liars and thieves for years. More sh!t talking. And it's still going on, even in this very thread if anyone knows how to read! He (and his student) are still making insinuations regarding HFY and TWC. He says he doesn't conrtol his student, but it's the same exact story just from different mouths.
Example: "it is clear that HFY and TWC are closely related, yet organized differently. But again, we have no definite answer regarding the history" but then follows with "but I'm not interested in that" - yeah, but he still brings it up! What's clear is his not-so-subtle insinuation that they differ by organization alone and still questions their history.. Do the research brotha, or shut it!

Another example: "GG's blackboard had interesting Chinese terms for what I would describe as TWC's 5 concepts. That's all I took, terms in Chinese, which I felt was unexplained as TWC's." . Or how everything looks the same to him, and he wants to know why because he's a researcher. And then directly following it by admitting he didn't study any HFY! That started over 10 **** years ago! Did he do any further 'research'? Nope. But he sure can pass judgment real quick huh. Again, he isn't even qualified to talk about either!! I wonder about YKS too..

HE'S the one lumping both together in this thread, just as he's been doing the same sh!t every year since he's gotten a 'glimpse' of both so long ago. (I could go back just about every year and pull up examples, but I don't have time or energy). He calls it 'his opinion', but it's clear that 'his opinion' isn't based on anything more than a glimpse or any facts, just guesses. Some 'researcher' :rolleyes:

In his post to me, he wanted me to call him or meet him so we can deal with it 'like me'. Yeah? How did that go when my sifu Richard Lowenhagen, Sifu Benny Meng, and GM Gee all came to LA to meet with him face to face 'like men' about some of these very issues. They even stayed in a hotel he had his student pick out for them, so he knew they were coming. But in 3 days, he never showed. All he had was excuse after excuse. And he wants to talk about meeting 'like men'.
What about when Randy Williams wanted to 'meet' with him after he was once-again sh!t talking about his sifu.. It goes on and on.

I'm done with this. He talks about making peace, IMO, he could start apologizing publicly. Until then, I don't want to hear anything more from this character

***WOW !!! :rolleyes: :(

(I'm sending you a pm, JP...)

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 10:30 AM

Answer my question -- will boxing help you play chi sao? Why or why not?

I'll help you. It won't. Why? Because boxing movement isn't for attached fighting. You can't use boxing movement to do all the things you need to do when attached.

Now, I know chi sao isn't attached fighting, but it is a drill to practice attached skills.

What do you need to play chi sao? WCK movement (tan, bong, fook, the WCK punch, etc.) -- things that are "designed" to work while attached. This is why we practice them while attached. It makes absolutely nonsense to practice things attached to then do them while unattached.

Skills that work very well while attached, don't work so well when unattached; just like skills for detached fighting don't work very well for attached fighting.

Again, we're not talking about adding boxing to wing chun, or that boxing and wing chun are the same in general.

The idea is that from an unattached range, there's basically the same elements at work and the same basic tools available in both arts. So this begs to question...why is the average practicioner of one art more efficicient than the other when the same basic punches are there; staights, hooks, uppercuts, and etc?

Yes, boxing has the more evasive body movements and wing chun stands more upright and there's a different structure as the basis for power. But is there REALLY? There's only one way to get power in a punch -- that's with support from the ground. So to me that's out as a major factor since both arts employ it. As it's been said, good structure is good structure--and by that so long as it allows you to keep your base and provide proper offense and defence, then your structure is good.

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 10:34 AM

BTW, let's assume you are right. If this is the case, it makes WC even more removed from reality than people already criticize it for...

LOL!

Because this means that the WC system was developed to train the majority of time for a situation (clinch) that occurs as only a relatively small amount of time in a fight.

Yes and no.

I don't think WCK is some "complete system" for all ranges, all stages of fighting. I think it is a very limited skill set that pertains mostly to clinch. Is this bad? You could say the same thing about boxing (it's difficult to maintain boxing range when an opponent just keeps trying to clinch).

You may be right about the clinch "occurs as only a relatively small amount of time in a fight" -- but that may be because most fighters today don't focus on the clinch and staying there (and use it mainly to go to the ground). Couture-Vera, for example, spent the majority of the time in the clinch. But that's because Randy imposed the clinch.

In addition to this, it gives no tools to ensure that the opponent cannot move out of this range.

That's not true. WCK has the neck pulling hand and various other ways of keeping our opponent close (Wang Kiu's "stick to him like gum in his hair"). But if you don't practice doing it, you certainly won't be able to.

And, then, it provides as its main striking tool something that is relatively hard to employ compared to other striking tools such as knees.

Well, as I see it, the WCK kicks -- which include knees -- are only for clinch (why we don't kick above the waist).

And, finally to top things off, it provides zero tools in the one thing that is often a result of ending up in a clinch- being on the ground.

Talk about the height of inefficiency.

Does boxing provide the tools for the one thing that often results when someone is hitting you - them clinching (grabbing you and tying up your arms)?

I certainly don't think WCK has all the answers. It's not meant to. It is just a certain strategic approach to fighting and skill set. It's what you do with it that matters. If you can impose that, and you are better than your opponent, you may prove successful. If you can take it and make it a part of a well-rounded game, so much the better IMO.

HumbleWCGuy

05-14-2010, 10:41 AM

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 10:42 AM

BTW, since clinch fighting is going to be clinch fighting no matter what, since WC is clinch fighting, and the forms catalog WC, which parts of the forms are underhooks, which are overhooks, which are double overs, and which are over/unders?

Ohh oohh let me try:

Tan = underhook
Seung tan = double under
Bong sao = overhook
Seung bong = double over
Tan / Bong = over under

??????? Yea?! ;)

There's also the man geng sao - neck pulling, doing that with both hands could be likened to the plum -- though generally wing chun doesn't trap its own hand so usually its one neck pulling with the other hand pummelling (hitting).

YungChun

05-14-2010, 10:42 AM

The idea is that from an unattached range, there's basically the same elements at work and the same basic tools available in both arts. So this begs to question...why is the average practicioner of one art more efficicient than the other when the same basic punches are there; staights, hooks, uppercuts, and etc?

Why are Boxers better at Boxing?

Because they Box..

Yes, boxing has the more evasive body movements and wing chun stands more upright and there's a different structure as the basis for power. But is there REALLY?

Yes, really you just said so..

YungChun

05-14-2010, 10:44 AM

Ohh oohh let me try:

Tan = underhook
Seung tan = double under
Bong sao = overhook
Seung bong = double over
Tan / Bong = over under

??????? Yea?! ;)

Right they're just not used that way anywhere in the classical training..:confused:

HumbleWCGuy

05-14-2010, 10:48 AM

Answer my question -- will boxing help you play chi sao? Why or why not?

I'll help you. It won't. Why? Because boxing movement isn't for attached fighting. You can't use boxing movement to do all the things you need to do when attached.

Now, I know chi sao isn't attached fighting, but it is a drill to practice attached skills.

What do you need to play chi sao? WCK movement (tan, bong, fook, the WCK punch, etc.) -- things that are "designed" to work while attached. This is why we practice them while attached. It makes absolutely nonsense to practice things attached to then do them while unattached.

Skills that work very well while attached, don't work so well when unattached; just like skills for detached fighting don't work very well for attached fighting.

I can't agree with this at all. Boxing helps out Chi Sao quite a bit. Why, because it frees a WCer up to break the rules. We agree on one thing for sure. chi sao is playing. The sooner that a WCer breaks the mold and stops playing chi sao the better they off they are.

If you look at nearly any chi sao battle between a high-level WC practitioner and his student involves the high-level practitioner setting a list of contest rules that he proceeds to break giving him the edge. Boxing is just the thing to help a WCer to move out of playing mode to fighting mode.

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 10:48 AM

Why are Boxers better at Boxing?

Because they Box..

Yes, really you just said so..

You're taking it out of context Jim! You can't quote 1/2 of an idea man!

Then WC folks who don't do well out of the pocket need to step it up. There's NO reason IMO that it can't work. The punches and footwork are there. The fact that WC guys don't bob and weave, duck, etc doesn't really matter because in a real fight you'll eat a round kick or knee to the face doing that stuff.

I just don't understand why people don't think that a [WC] punch only works from an attached position. That's just...weird.

YungChun

05-14-2010, 10:51 AM

You're taking it out of context Jim! You can't quote 1/2 of an idea man!

Then WC folks who don't do well out of the pocket need to step it up. There's NO reason IMO that it can't work. The punches and footwork are there. The fact that WC guys don't bob and weave, duck, etc doesn't really matter because in a real fight you'll eat a round kick or knee to the face doing that stuff.

I just don't understand why people don't think that a [WC] punch only works from an attached position. That's just...weird.

You always say that unless your whole post is quoted...that IS a whole idea.

And I think the simple answer I gave is completely accurate.. Why are Boxers so much better at doing what they do? Because obviously they focus on that (Boxing free-movement) and VT does not...

VT isn't Boxing..

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 10:51 AM

Again, we're not talking about adding boxing to wing chun, or that boxing and wing chun are the same in general.

The idea is that from an unattached range, there's basically the same elements at work and the same basic tools available in both arts.

No, there isn't. Tell me, where in the forms or the classical drills of WCK are these "same elements" or "same basic tools" as boxing?

So this begs to question...why is the average practicioner of one art more efficicient than the other when the same basic punches are there; staights, hooks, uppercuts, and etc?

You are looking at these things from a superficial perspective. The punch is not what you are doing just with your arm (hey, it's straight!) but what you are doing with your whole body AND how that fits into the total context. For example, the WCK punch is nothing like a boxer's "straight" except that they both move in a straight line.

Yes, boxing has the more evasive body movements and wing chun stands more upright and there's a different structure as the basis for power. But is there REALLY? There's only one way to get power in a punch -- that's with support from the ground.

Support from the ground is just a part of it -- how you use your body supported by the ground is another.

So to me that's out as a major factor since both arts employ it. As it's been said, good structure is good structure--and by that so long as it allows you to keep your base and provide proper offense and defence, then your structure is good.

Using that logic, then good boxing structure should work when attached (sticking) since "good structure is good structure". So go and try to use boxing in chi sao. Good structure, like good mechanics, is task specific.

YungChun

05-14-2010, 10:56 AM

I just don't understand why people don't think that a [WC] punch only works from an attached position. That's just...weird.

Now to this third of an idea..

I certainly don't think that.. VT has to start outside.. VT Strikes are strikes, you don't need to be attached to use them, (I think the recent debates on attached vs unattached shows many folks agree).. So it comes down to training the right mechanics, tactics and then getting out there and fighting.. Simple really..

JPinAZ

05-14-2010, 10:56 AM

***WOW !!! :rolleyes: :(

(I'm sending you a pm, JP...)

Feel free, I'll keep an eye out for it!

HumbleWCGuy

05-14-2010, 10:58 AM

Ohh oohh let me try:

Tan = underhook
Seung tan = double under
Bong sao = overhook
Seung bong = double over
Tan / Bong = over under

I would not equate those specific WC movements to MT clinch fighting (semantics that are open for debate of course). WC has a lot of "informal knowledge" that I believe MT-style technuqes fit into.

But, I certainly agree that there isn't a lot in MT clinching that doesn't exist in WC. The only thing that I can really think of off hand is that when I was coming through the ranks, we didn't have many escapes.

Entry-wise I think that WC is far more sophisticated.

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 10:59 AM

No, there isn't. Tell me, where in the forms or the classical drills of WCK are these "same elements" or "same basic tools" as boxing?

Same basic tools meaning straight punches, hook punches, uppercut type punches, as I've stated with disclaimers in the original post that you've not read yet.

You are looking at these things from a superficial perspective. The punch is not what you are doing just with your arm (hey, it's straight!) but what you are doing with your whole body AND how that fits into the total context. For example, the WCK punch is nothing like a boxer's "straight" except that they both move in a straight line.

I am looking at it from a more superficial perspective because I know full well that there are differences; the point is that those differences shouldn't/aren't deficiencies in applying a punch when you're not touching someone.

Support from the ground is just a part of it -- how you use your body supported by the ground is another.
Both arts employ it the same way--by that I mean they both use it to deliver power.

Using that logic, then good boxing structure should work when attached (sticking) since "good structure is good structure". So go and try to use boxing in chi sao. Good structure, like good mechanics, is task specific.
You misunderstand, I'm not saying that boxing structure transposes to WC fighting and vice versa -- I'm saying that structure is dynamic in nature which you obviously agree with.

SAAMAG

05-14-2010, 11:01 AM

I would not equate those specific WC movements to MT clinch fighting (semantics that are open for debate of course). WC has a lot of "informal knowledge" that I believe MT-style technuqes fit into.

But, I certainly agree that there isn't a lot in MT clinching that doesn't exist in WC. The only thing that I can really think of off hand is that when I was coming through the ranks, we didn't have many escapes.

Entry-wise I think that WC is far more sophisticated.

That was a joke. Wasn't there a smiley?

t_niehoff

05-14-2010, 11:01 AM

Ohh oohh let me try:

Tan = underhook

Here is part of your problem -- you see these things as shapes you hold rather than ACTIONS you perform.

Take when your partner has grabbed your head with both hands (MT plum) and you weave/thread a hand inside to grab his head -- that's a tan sao, you're spreading his arm with your arm.

Or, your partner has you in bicep control and you weave/thread you arm inside to take bicep control - that's a tan sao, you're spreading his arm.

This sort of ACTION (spreading) takes place all the time in the clinch.

Seung tan = double under

Again, if you stop thinking in terms of fixed shapes but instead ACTIONS, do you think you can find places in a clinch when you would weave both arms to spread? Hmmm?

Bong sao = overhook

Bong sao can be an elbow shuck. It can be a lever.

Seung bong = double over
Tan / Bong = over under

??????? Yea?! ;)

There's also the man geng sao - neck pulling, doing that with both hands could be likened to the plum -- though generally wing chun doesn't trap its own hand so usually its one neck pulling with the other hand pummelling (hitting).

Grabbing with two hands isn't "trapping your own hand".